Neighbour - Rebuttal

Cabinet Office Government Office Douglas Douglas , IM2 4AH Isle of Man IM1 3PN Ref. NETW/AP25/0018 22nd July 2025 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. I make the following statement of rebuttal, refuting the arguments made by The Applicant in their case statement.

• 1. Rebuttal of Clause 2.05 of the Applicants statement, Photos 7-10 show that the application would have no impact on The Falcon Cliff Hotel.

The refusal of application 05/00849/B set a precedent causing a green planted frontage around the east side of Palace Road approaching and opposite the The Falcon Cliff Hotel. The green planting provides a uniformity of colour and nature contrasting to the regal outline of the Falcon Cliff Hotel. The granting of planning permission for this proposal would reverse the above precedent and allow miscellaneous applications for development of random buildings, garages, etc. with entrances onto Palace Road, around from the position of the proposal to the Victoria Road junction, removing this contrasting green background diminishing the appearance of the Falcon Cliff Hotel.

• 2. Rebuttal of the statement given in Clauses 1.03 , 2.06, 2.08, 4.03, by The Applicant “ so as not to adversely affect neighbouring properties” etc.

• i) As in the statement of 23 Falcon Cliff Court (F.C.C.) , the ground floor rooms of 25 F.C.C. are habitable rooms , the garden of 25 F.C.C. would be transformed into a sterile space, ruining the amenities of the users.
• ii) For 23 F.C.C. as already stated, the benefits of the garden would be severely diminished. The boundary between 23 and 25 would be a dangerous pit constructed along the boundary between the two, the danger due to the drop in level between 23’s garden and the forecourt of the proposal, some (3m level change + 2m high fence.) a 5m immediate drop. This is a permanent blight on the use of the garden of 23 F.C.C. Young children could not be allowed to use the garden lest they inquisitively climb the boundary fence and fall to the lower forecourt of 25 F.C.C. with terrible consequences. The wooden fence proposed on top of this boundary wall is shown in the proposed elevation as similar to the existing wooden fence along the boundary erected in the past by the Applicant , part of which now lies fallen unmaintained and dilapidated. A wooden fence is not

• suitable material in this location where a safety barrier is appropriate. Maintenance of the fence would be from the 23 F.C.C. side else by scaffolding erected from the forecourt of the proposal. The cost and frequency of repairs would be at the behest of the owner of the proposal which may not be forthcoming resulting in dilapidation and probably no safety barrier.
• iii) FERNLEIGH HOUSE, the southerly neighbour to the proposal, is a large scenic house with floodlights in the forecourt to light the front elevation at night to form part of the Douglas Bay panorama. The proposal will be visible in the illumination and seen as overbearing Fernleigh House.

The proposed building is shown in a photo in the proposal documents from Palace Road but its apparent size is diminished by distance perspective. The proposal If viewed from the entrance porch of Fernleigh House will occupy a larger part of the viewers vision and overbear Fernleigh House. Photo 8, showing the level of the veranda of 25 F.C.C. and extended to the right , gives an indication of the roof level of the proposal. A similar view taken slightly to the right including the Fernleigh House forecourt level and the proposed building would give a clearer impression of the overbearing impact of the proposal on Fernleigh House.