AP250018 2491049B Wilson Consulting on Behalf of the Applicant Appeal Rebuttal S

PLANNING APPEAL REFERENCE: AP25/0018 Land abutting Palace Road, rear of 25 Falcon Cliff Court, Douglas, Isle of Man REBUTTAL STATEMENT on behalf of the Applicant

• 1.00 Introduction
• 1.01 A number of Statements of Case were submitted in response to the request for the same by The Cabinet Office in relation to the above-noted Appeal, one from the Planning Officer, and one each from the occupants of 25 Falcon Cliff Court and 23 Falcon Cliff Court.
• 1.02 The Planning Officer’s Statement appears to be a re-issue of the Report submitted in relation to the original Planning Application and the submissions from the adjacent properties are new submissions.
• 1.03 We have only responded below to what we consider salient points, whether that is because they are factually incorrect or a matter of opinion with which we disagree, and we have not repeated the same statement where a point made in a subsequent statement is simply a repeat of one made in a preceding statement, for the sake of brevity.

• 2.00 Planning Officer’s statement
• 2.01 It is factually incorrect to state that the Application Site is within the curtilage of 25 Falcon Cliff Court; it is not as it is owned by a different, unrelated, party.
• 2.02 The statement refers to a ‘green corridor’ along Palace Road and it is considered that the proposals, unlike previous proposals on the Application Site, would maintain that green corridor, as illustrated in one of the two CGIs submitted with the original Planning Application, and replicated below for ease of reference.

• 2.03 Based on the comments made on previous Planning Applications, the retention and enhancement of the existing bank was a key element in the design of the proposed dwelling and the desire to allow it to sit comfortably in context.
• 2.04 The Planning Officer’s statement assesses the proposals under four headings and confirms that the Principle of the development as proposed is acceptable and that Highway Safety is not affected by the proposals, citing only that the visual impact and impact on the neighbours are not deemed acceptable.
• 2.05 However, the statement erroneously suggests that the grassy bank is to be removed, whereas only a section of that bank is to be removed to create an entrance, in which both the existing stone wall and grassy bank/planting are to be continued (again as illustrated on the above CGI photomontage), and this error gives a false impression of what visual impact the proposals would have, particularly from what is considered to be the most relevant viewpoint, travelling up Palace Road.
• 2.06 Finally, the statement suggests that there is an unacceptable impact on the occupants of 25 Falcon Cliff Court because the First Floor terrace and living accommodation would overlook the roof of the proposed dwelling; however, it is not considered that has any material impact on the outlook of that accommodation which would continue to have uninterrupted views towards the sea (even though a view is not a statutory right).
• 2.07 With regard to sunlight, even when the sun is at its lowest angle of 15 degrees at the Winter Solstice, the entire face of the existing dwelling, down to ground level, will continue to benefit from the same as the sun would need to be lower than 13.5 degrees for that not to occur.

• 3.00 25 Falcon Cliff Court
• 3.01 The statement by the owner confirms that the Application Site was excluded from the sale of the house at the time of purchase, but it must clearly have been within the gift of the now owner (purchaser at the time) to withdraw from the purchase if they were not happy with that; certainly, acknowledging that the land was excluded from the sale means that their statement in the final bullet point – ‘it’s our garden’ – is not correct.
• 3.02 The statement also suggests that allowing the proposals would set a precedent but that is also incorrect as the parameters that would allow this site to be developed are specific and unique to the Application Site; for example, the rear boundaries of the remaining properties in the terrace abut a two-way road, not a one-way road as the Application Site, which is integral to Highways accepting that the proposed vehicular access and parking arrangements are acceptable.
• 3.03 Other rebuttable points have already been dealt with within the response to the Planning Officer’s Statement, so will not be repeated here, for the sake of brevity as noted above.

• 4.00 23 Falcon Cliff Court
• 4.01 We do not believe that there are Planning guidelines ‘generally stipulating’ that fences between neighbouring properties should be no more than 1.5m high, as suggested within the statement, particularly as Permitted Development legislation allows fences up to 2.0m high subject to certain criteria.

• 4.02 Whilst it is a repeated statement from one of the above to some extent, we wanted to address the suggestion that the occupants of 25 Falcon Cliff Court (the neighbours, not this property) would look at a wall from First Floor level as it is clearly incorrect; the First Floor finished floor level sits higher than the roof of the proposed dwelling, so that is not possible.
• 4.03 Reference is made to there being an alternative public right of way from Falcon Cliff Terrace down to Palace Road, via the neighbouring property. We cannot comment on the veracity or legality of any such right of way, one that has never been installed, but would note that, irrespective of legal standing or enforceability, if the proposals would not preclude that at some stage in the future then it should in no way form a basis for objection.
• 4.04 We are not aware that all vertical cantilever walls deflect but, in any event, all construction works would need to be undertaken in accordance with all relevant statutes at the time of construction.
• 4.05 Finally, representation is made that the new owners of Fernleigh House would not be aware of the Planning Application; we cannot comment on that other than suggesting that the Planning Application would have been disclosed in the Searches undertaken on behalf of the new owner at the time of purchase.

• 5.00 Conclusion
• 5.01 We do not consider that there is anything in the submitted Statements of Case that would lead us to revise our previous conclusion, reiterated below.
• 5.02 It is considered that the proposals represent an opportunity to create a modern dwelling, capable of being fully serviced by renewable energies as a newbuild house, on land that is zoned for development.
• 5.03 Where it is feasible and without detriment to the surrounding area, as it is considered to be in this case, land that is zoned for development, especially within settlement boundaries, should be developed; that is undoubtedly the best way of utilising existing resources and infrastructure and will, ultimately, reduce pressure to zone additional land for development.
• 5.04 For the reasons outlined in the original documentation and previous Statement of Case, it is considered that the proposals could be implemented without detriment to the local area; it is disputed that the existing context is a handsome and attractive streetscene and, rather, averred that the proposals have been carefully considered and designed so as not to adversely impact on the neighbouring properties.
• 5.05 Consequently, it is considered that the proposals would create an overall benefit, and we would therefore request that the Appeal is allowed, and the original refusal is overturned.

John Wilson BSc, DipArch, RIBA | 21st July 2025