AP250018 2491049B Owner of 23 Falcon Cliff Court Appeal Statement

redacted

Cabinet Office Government Office 23 Falcon Cliff Court Douglas Douglas , IM2 4AH Isle of Man IM1 3PN Email: Ref. NETW/AP25/0018 25th June 2025

redacted

AP25/0018 Land Abutting Palace Road, Rear of 25 Falcon Cliff Court, Douglas.

To the Appeal Inspector for AP25/0018 in support of the refusal of planning permission for application 25/90149/B.

• 1. The appearance of Palace Road Frontage.

In 2005 an application for planning permission , 05/00849/B, was made for a garage to the rear of 23 Falcon Cliff Court (F.C.C.) fronting and emerging onto Palace Road. The application was refused on the single grounds that the proposal would adversely affect the appearance of Palace Road. This sole grounds 0f refusal set a precedent for development along this frontage of Palace Road, a precedent which equally applies to this application 25/90149 , and this single reason should equally be sufficient to refuse this application. If this precedent were changed and permission were granted it would encourage similar applications along this frontage seeking development approval.

• 2. The Environmental Effect on the Existing Houses of Falcon Cliff Court. The owners of 25 F.C.C. use their rear terrace to relax and entertain. The rooms at ground floor immediately behind the terrace and the rear wall of the proposed house are habitable rooms and presently enjoy light , air and a grassed garden outlook. The proposal would create a dark sterile alley between the rear of the existing house and the back wall of the proposed house with the loss of their present amenities. Planning guidelines generally stipulate that fences and walls between neighbouring residential properties should be no more than 1.5m high . This proposed house wall will be 2.4m above ground level, completely obscuring visibility and walling -in the occupants of 25 F.C.C. From the rear lounge window of 25 F.C.C.at first floor level , where previously the occupants looked out on grassed garden , with the proposal they would now look out across the created alley onto a dull flat roof their near horizon being the outline of the proposed building roof. The effect on the amenities of the occupants of 25 F.C.C.would be disasterous. The effect on 23 F.C.C. would be similar. The south view from the garden would be of a 2.4m high fence or house wall instead of the present grassed garden. From the first floor lounge the outlook would be immediately onto the side wall and roof of the proposed house where previously there was grassed garden.
• 3. Public Footpath between Falcon Cliff Court and Palace Road.

The attached plan ,provided by the Highway Dept., shows the Public Footpath between F.C.C. and Palace Road ,shown as a blue line. The footpath runs along the north side of a retaining wall between Fernleigh House and 25 F.C.C and is on the property of 25 F.C.C. The deeds of 25 F.C.C. show the retaining wall was probably constructed at the time of the F.C.C. estate in the 1960’s , but its construction allowed no means for users of the footpath to descend to the lower level of Palace Road and exit to Palace Road. Instead users were diverted through a gate in the south west

side of the F.C.C. hammerhead, down the embankment to the rear of Fernleigh, and passed through Fernleigh grounds at the lower side of the retaining wall and out to Palace Road. The Applicant, when the owner of the whole of the plot of 25 F.C.C., renewed the fencing at the back of the F.C.C. hammerhead and removed the gate , barring the way to users of this diversion. Footpath users have been deprived of a diversion and also have no means of access to Palace Road on the original footpath line as shown on the attached plan. The footpath is incomplete in its function to allow descent and access to Palace Road. The footpath is required to be maintained by law. The application makes no provision for this as it should by indicating the works to maintain the footpath on the Application drawings, resulting in the application not complying with the law .

Douglas Corporation, as the enforcing authority should examine the proposal and require it to show works to maintain the footpath, such as – constructing a staircase between the existing retaining wall and the intended south retaining wall to allow passage between the levels of F.C.C. and the footpath level of Palace Road.

• 4. Public Sewer Damage.

The owners of 25 F.C.C. have briefly mentioned the possibility of damage to the public foul , storm sewers and manholes which run parallel to the south west retaining wall of the proposal and within a metre of the wall. All vertical cantilever walls deflect (move horizontally) and with the inverts of the sewers above the basement level, movement and damage to the sewers and manhole must be considered as a very high probability. In the event that permission were granted an Insurance bond should be lodged with the Drainage Authority for the reconstruction of these sewers and manholes.

• 5. Fernleigh House.

Fernleigh House adjacent to 25 F.C.C. on the south side has not recently been occupied. It has recently changed ownership , and is probably unaware of this application, explaining its non response to the application. The garden level of 25 F.C.C. is approx.. 3m higher in level than the forecourt level of Fernleigh House and held up by a retaining wall. With a building height of 2.4m additional above the garden level of 25 F.C.C. the proposal will overbear Fernleigh House. Previous owners have objected to previous applications on this plot because of their overbearing nature.

redacted C.ENG., M.I.C.E.