Inspector's Report

Report on a Planning Appeal by the Written Procedure

Site Inspection: Monday 18 August 2025 Appeal made by Mr Trevor McCullough against the refusal of a planning application for approval for the erection of a new dwelling and associated parking and landscaping on land at the rear of 25 Falcon Cliff Court, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM2 4AH. _________________________________________________________ Note This report is issued to replace that dated 15 September 2025 in order to correct a typographical error in paragraph 60. Site and Surroundings

• 1. The application site lies to the south east of No 25 Falcon Cliff Court, which is at the end of a terrace of three-storey properties with access from the Falcon Cliff Court cul-de sac. The rear gardens of Nos 19-23 within the terrace extend up to about 24m to the south east, above Palace Road. The appeal site is in separate ownership from No 25 which accordingly has a shorter rear garden but an area of side garden surmounted in part by a first-floor side balcony extending from the first floor of the house.
• 2. The rear gardens and the appeal site itself are around 3-4m above the level of Palace Road. The highway boundary is marked by a low stone wall with thick vegetation, including some trees, on the bank above. Palace Road is a one-way street with parallel parking on either side. There are mature trees and shrubs along both sides of the Road. The relatively elevated position of the appeal site affords views over Douglas Bay.
• 3. To the south west of the appeal site, Palace Road is fronted, on its north west side, by substantial Victorian dwellings but with a range of modern additions to the original street scene. To the north east, on the opposite side of Palace Road, there is a group of buildings which includes the Registered Falcon Cliff Hotel, also of Victorian origin.

Proposed Development

• 4. The proposed two-storey, flat-roofed dwelling would be approximately 13m wide, 7.1m deep and 5.2m high and set some 3m down into the sloping ground to face Palace Road, such that the side elevations would be windowless. The building would rise about 2.4m above the level of the garden of No 25 Falcon Cliff Court and would be about 10m away from its back wall.
• 5. There would be on-site be parking for four vehicles, including two in an integral double garage and two on a forecourt enclosed by retaining walls at the sides with a new vehicle entrance from Palace Road. There would be

• space within the forecourt to turn cars. The entrance would provide a 2.4m by 60m visibility splay in the direction of the one-way traffic.
• 6. The proposed front elevation would have three sets of single- and doublepanelled full height windows. The dwelling would be finished with a combination of white-painted render, stone panels and timber cladding, the latter applied to the rear elevation above the garden level of No 25 Falcon Cliff Court. The window and door frames would be dark grey.

Planning Policy

• 7. The site is in an area of mixed use according to the adopted Area Plan for the East (APE).
• 8. The adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP) contains the following policies of relevance to this appeal.
• 9. General Policy 2 (GP2) includes the requirements that new development that accords with the APE: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; and (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways.
• 10. Environment Policy 42 (EP42) states that new development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity of the immediate locality, in terms of buildings and landscape features, and resists inappropriate backland development and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area.
• 11. Transport Policy 4 (TP4) states that existing highways must be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by new development in a safe and appropriate manner. TP7 requires new development to make off-street parking provision in accordance with current adopted standards.

Planning History

• 12. A previous proposal (16/00034/B) for a dwelling on the same site was dismissed at appeal in 2016 on grounds of scale and form and impact on amenity, with the dwelling 8.5m from the neighbouring house. An application in principle (00/01255/A) for three apartments and parking was refused on review in 2002.

The Case for the Appellant – Mr T McCullough The material points are: Street Scene

• 13. The first reason for refusal concerns the street scene. It is disputed that this part of Palace Road benefits from a handsome and attractive street scene, as suggested by the Planning Authority. That suggestion is at the crux of the refusal but it is inaccurate and misleading. Accordingly, the further suggestion that the proposed dwelling would be harmful must also be inaccurate and, ultimately, not a valid reason to dismiss the appeal.
• 14. The street scene is certainly not characterised by attractive Victoriana as also suggested. There are a large number of modern buildings and many to the south west are a pastiche of Victorian architecture and none achieve the level of finesse exhibited by the original buildings. Other modern buildings surrounding the appeal site make no reference to Victoriana. The appeal site sits firmly within this context.
• 15. The proposed dwelling would have no impact on the Registered Falcon Cliff Hotel, as viewed from Palace Road, as there is little visual connection between the two and they would not generally be viewed together.

Amenity

• 16. The second reason for refusal concerns residential amenity. It is also disputed that the erection of the proposed dwelling, as designed, would adversely affect the enjoyment by neighbours of their dwellings and gardens, as contended.
• 17. The height of the proposed building would be set at 2.4m above the neighbouring garden level, where the timber cladding finish is intended to replicate a garden boundary fence. Notably, the owner of the appeal site could erect a 2m fence in the same position under permitted development legislation in any event.
• 18. There is only ancillary accommodation on the ground floor of the stepped houses in the existing terrace, with the main level of primary habitable accommodation on the first floor, at the same level as the side balcony, which would maintain views over the flat roof of the proposed building.

Comments on Rebuttals Officer Report and Statement

• 19. It is factually incorrect to imply that the appeal site is within the curtilage of 25 Falcon Cliff Court whereas it is in separate ownership.
• 20. Unlike previous rejected schemes, the present proposals would maintain the green corridor along Palace Road. The officer statement erroneously

• suggests that the green bank would be removed, whereas only a section of it would be taken to create the entrance with the stone wall and green bank otherwise continued. This error gives a false impression of the visual impact the proposed development, particularly from the most relevant view to those travelling north easterly up Palace Road.
• 21. Finally, the statement suggests that the first-floor terrace and living accommodation at No 25 Falcon Cliff Court would overlook the roof of the proposed dwelling. However, this would have no material impact on the outlook from that accommodation, which would continue to have uninterrupted views towards the sea. Moreover, even when the sun is at its lowest angle of 15 degrees, the entire face of the existing dwelling would still be naturally illuminated.

25 Falcon Cliff Court

• 22. The statement by the owner of No 25 confirms that the appeal site was excluded from their purchase of the house, so it does not comprise part of their garden.
• 23. It is suggested that allowing the appeal would set a precedent but the parameters that would allow this development are specific and unique to the site.

• 23 Falcon Cliff Court
• 24. The Applicant is unaware of the alleged stipulation that fences between properties should be no more than 1.5m high, given permitted development rights are for a 2m fence.
• 25. It is clearly incorrect that the occupants of neighbouring 25 Falcon Cliff Court would look out at a wall from their first-floor level, which is higher than the proposed roof.
• 26. The Appellant cannot comment on the veracity or legality of any alleged right of way across the appeal site but the appeal proposals would not preclude this at some future time. This matter should in no way form a basis for objection.
• 27. Finally, the Applicant cannot comment on the representation that the new owners of neighbouring Fernleigh House would not be aware of the appeal proposal, other than suggesting that the application would be disclosed in the statutory searches.

Conclusion

• 28. This proposal represents an opportunity to create a modern, new-build, dwelling, capable of being fully serviced by renewable energies, on land zoned and favoured for development, when feasible, in order to make best use of existing infrastructure and reduce pressure to zone additional development land.

• 29. For the reasons outlined, it is considered that the proposals could be implemented without detriment to the local area, whilst the design has been carefully considered to avoid adverse impact on the neighbouring properties.
• 30. Consequently, it is considered that the proposed development would create an overall benefit, and it is therefore requested that this appeal be allowed, and the original refusal is overturned.

The Case for the Planning Authority Issues

• 31. The issues to consider are:

• i. principle of development,
• ii. visual impact on the street scene,
• iii. impact upon neighbouring amenity by way of overlooking, loss of light and overbearing impact, and
• iv. highway safety at the proposed access.

Principle of Development

• 32. The principle of a new dwelling within this designated mixed-use area is established.

Visual Impact on the Street Scene

• 33. The street scene is attractive in both its built and natural form. The presence of the Registered Hotel opposite adds a certain degree of grandeur to the area, while the number and maturity of trees lining the highway provides a leafy and green corridor that underpins its attractive character.
• 34. The loss of some trees at the southern corner of the site is unfortunate but even more oppressive would be the clear views of the three-storey terrace of Falcon Cliff Terrace which would become much more prominent within the street scene due to the excavation removing the green roadside bank. This effect was noted in the dismissal of the dwelling application in 2016 where the bank and the stone wall beneath it were regarded as features that make a valuable contribution to the character of this stretch of Palace Road, such that their loss would cause significant harm to the street scene.
• 35. With this in mind, the removal of a section of walling and the creation of a frontage parking area in the present case would significantly alter the appearance of the area, setting a dangerous precedent.
• 36. It is considered that the uncompromisingly modern design of the proposed dwelling, its insertion into the steep slope and the destruction of part the green roadside bank would fail to satisfy the requirements of GP2 of the

IMSP that development should respect the site and surrounding street scene. It would also conflict with the aim of EP42 to avoid the loss of open spaces that contribute to visual amenity and sense of place.

Impact on Neighbouring Amenity

• 37. The proposed dwelling would be about 10m from the rear of No 25 Falcon Cliff Court and would rise some 2.4 m above the present ground level of the appeal site. It is considered that this would adversely affect the enjoyment of No 25 and its garden and side balcony, contrary to GP2(g) of the IMSP regarding local amenity and character.

Highway Safety and Access

• 38. It is accepted, on the advice of the Highway Authority, that the parking, turning and access arrangements, with the vision splay proposed, would satisfy the requirements of TP4 and TP7 as well as GP2(h-i) of the IMSP with respect to access, highway safety and parking.

Conclusions

• 39. It is considered that the greater weight should be given to the unfavourable conclusion regarding the adverse visual impact on the street scene in Palace Road, and the adverse impact on the amenity currently enjoyed by nearby residents.
• 40. It is therefore recommended that this appeal be dismissed and the refusal upheld.

Other Representations

• 41. Douglas Corporation has no objection subject to the provision of storage for waste and recycling.
• 42. DOI Highway Services have no objection, commenting that the entrance and vision splay would be adequate for the urban location of the site and parking turning arrangements would be acceptable, such that the development would not raise any highway safety or efficiency issues, if completed as proposed.
• 43. The Owners of 25 Falcon Cliff Court object as follows:

• a) They are in the midst of dealing with subsidence causing severe structural damage to the house affecting all three floors. The subsidence has also severely affected No 23 adjacent. Removing the ground near these sinking houses could have an adverse effect on both properties. They are also concerned that proposals for foul and storm water sewers to cross the appeal site would be impeded.

• b) The proposals would have detrimental impacts on Palace Road, Nos 1925 Falcon Cliff Court and on adjacent Fernleigh House, a scenic building often lit at night.
• c) The main ground floor bedroom has a window towards the garden that would face the back wall of the proposed house, whilst the first floor living room and balcony and the second-floor bedroom would also face the proposed dwelling.
• d) Building a two-story dwelling virtually in the back yard of No 25 would be a breach in the uniformity of the estate and create a precedent.
• e) The refusal is supported and should be upheld.

44. The Occupant of 23 Falcon Cliff Court objects as follows:

• a) Appearance of the Palace Road Street Frontage

In 2005 an application for a garage to the rear of 23 Falcon Cliff Court fronting Palace Road was refused on the single ground of adverse impact on the appearance of Palace Road. This equally applies to this appeal. To allow it would encourage similar applications along this frontage.

• b) Environmental Effect on the Existing Houses of Falcon Cliff Court

The owners of No 25 use their rear terrace to relax and entertain. The habitable ground floor rooms 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. Planning guidelines generally stipulate that fences and walls between neighbouring residential properties should be no more than 1.5m high. The proposed house wall will be 2.4m above ground level, completely obscuring visibility and enclosing the occupants of No 25. The first-floor rear lounge window would look out across this alley onto a dull, flat roof as their near horizon. The effect on the amenity of No 25 Falcon Cliff Court would be disastrous. The effect on No 23. would be similar, where the southern view from the garden would also be of a 2.4m house wall. From its first-floor lounge the outlook would be immediately onto the side wall and roof of the proposed house.

• c) Public Footpath between Falcon Cliff Court and Palace Road

A plan provided by the Highways Department shows a public footpath between Falcon Cliff Court and Palace Road, running along the north side of a retaining wall between Fernleigh House and No 25. The appeal proposal is incorrect in making no provision for this.

• d) Public Sewer Damage

Movement and damage to sewerage 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 their reconstruction if required.

• e) Fernleigh House.

Fernleigh House, adjacent to the southern side No 25 Falcon Cliff Court, has recently changed ownership and the new owners may not be aware of this proposal. The appeal site is retained at some 3m higher than the forecourt of Fernleigh House. With an excess building height of 2.4m, the proposed dwelling would dominate Fernleigh House, where former owners have objected to previous applications on the present appeal site for that reason.

Assessment by the Inspector Planning Issues

• 45. I consider the main issues in this appeal to be, first, the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area of Falcon Cliff Court and the Palace Road street scene, including the setting of the Registered Falcon Cliff Hotel and, second, its effect on residential amenity at the neighbouring dwellings, Nos 25 and 23 Falcon Cliff Court.

Character and Appearance Street Scene

• 46. I agree with the Planning Authority that the section of Palace Road that rises past the appeal site exhibits an attractive character and appearance in its built and natural form, enhanced by the softening effect of the mature frontage vegetation along both sides of the Road.
• 47. However, from inspection, I prefer the analysis of the Appellant to the extent that, despite its clear and still valued Victorian origins, the street scene of Palace Road in the vicinity of the appeal site now comprises a varied mix of Victorian and overtly modern buildings, albeit avoiding any judgement of my own on their design and quality.
• 48. In this context, the modern, rectilinear lines and clear-cut finishes of the proposed dwelling would not appear out of place, in my judgement. Indeed, it seems to me that, being relatively well separated spatially in both elevation and distance from Fernleigh House adjacent on Palace Road and the nearest terrace of Falcon Cliff Court above, the proposed dwelling would make an acceptable individual design statement within the street scene.

• 49. At the same time, the broad appearance and character of this part of Palace Road would not be much interrupted, other than in frontal views of the appeal site. That is because the width of the entrance would be limited to that necessary for vehicle access and the low boundary wall and vegetated bank would be maintained as far as possible. The trees to be lost do not appear to be of a size or type of particular value and the site would be further landscaped as part of the development. Neither does the site appear presently to serve as an open space of particular value.

Views from Neighbouring Property

• 50. From above, the rear elevation of the house would present the appearance of a 2.4m high timber garden fence bounding the bottom of the rear and side garden at No 25 Falcon Cliff Court, whilst the view from Nos 23 next door along to No 19 would be comparatively distant and oblique. Moreover, views towards the sea over the proposed dwelling would be largely maintained from the primary living accommodation on the first floor. Ground floor views would be more affected but the upper 2.4m of the new dwelling would be seen across relatively spacious gardens and there is no planning entitlement to a view in any case.

Setting of Registered Falcon Cliff Hotel

• 51. Although not addressed in terms within the written representations, it is necessary to consider whether the proposed development would harm the setting of the Registered Falcon Cliff Hotel, owing to its designated heritage value. In this case however, I agree with the Appellant that the proposed dwelling would not be directly related visually to the Hotel, being separated by distance and the intervening Road and thus avoiding any significant harm to the setting of the Registered heritage asset.

Overall Consideration of Character and Appearance

• 52. For the above reasons, I consider that the proposed development would respect the character of the site and surrounding townscape and street scene of Falcon Cliff Court and Palace Road in siting, layout, scale, design, landscaping and spaces around buildings, also avoiding harm to the setting of the Registered Falcon Cliff Hotel.
• 53. The development would accordingly be compliant with the relevant provisions of GP2(b)-(c) and EP42 of the IMSP.

Previous Appeal

• 54. I recognise that a proposal (16/00034/B), in many ways similar to that now in dispute, was rejected at appeal in 2016, largely with respect to the Palace Road street scene. However, there were certain differences. In particular the frontage would apparently have been more open. The previous Inspector gave greater weight to the Victorian character of Fernleigh House and other frontage properties along Palace Road. Now, some nine years later, it is for me to make a fresh assessment, noting the

degree to which the original Victorian character of the area has been eroded by a variety of modern additions and alterations resulting in a mix of architectural styles in the street scene. Overall, I do not see the 2016 case as directly comparable and assess the present appeal on current individual merit.

Neighbouring Residential Amenity

• 55. As noted above in connection with the previous issue, the appearance of the proposed dwelling in the outlook from No 25 Falcon Cliff Court and its neighbours would resemble a rather high, but not untypical, timber garden boundary fence. This would be some 10m from the back wall of No 25 and viewed from its relatively spacious rear and side garden.
• 56. In view of that separation distance, I do not consider that the new building would appear unduly overbearing nor that southern sun would be shaded unacceptably within the garden or that natural light reaching the rear elevation of the terrace would be affected significantly.
• 57. Neither, to my mind, is there any question of the privacy or peace of the terrace being disturbed by the occupation of the proposed house, set at the lower level with its windows and doors facing only away towards Palace Road.
• 58. Moreover, I do not consider that existing open views towards the sea from the main first-floor rooms of the terrace and side balcony of No 25 would be much impeded by the presence of the proposed flat-roofed dwelling in front.
• 59. I consider that Fernleigh House is also well enough separated spatially to obviate adverse effects on its amenity.
• 60. Notwithstanding the understandable and strongly expressed reservations of neighbours, I am satisfied that the proposed development would not harm significantly the amenity of any other property or the area generally. It follows that the appeal proposal does not amount to inappropriate backland development.
• 61. I note that the Inspector who assessed the 2016 application reached a similar conclusion and that, in that case, there was a lesser separation distance of 8.5m.
• 62. In respect of neighbouring residential amenity, I consider the appeal proposal to be in accordance with GP2(g) and EP42 of the IMSP.

Other Matters Highways

• 63. The Highway and Planning Authorities consider that, subject to a condition to comply with the approved drawings, the proposed off-street parking and

turning, access and vision splay arrangements would be acceptable in terms of road safety and parking standards as protected by TP4, TP7 and GP(h-i) of the IMSP and I see no reason to disagree.

Subsidence and Sewerage

• 64. Asserted third party concerns regarding ground subsidence affecting Nos 23-25 Falcon Cliff Court and potential impact on sewerage are unsubstantiated but, more importantly, are not for planning but for separate public health legislation and building regulations in particular.

Public Footpath

• 65. There is no clear evidence that a public footpath should be established via the appeal site but equally it does not appear that this would necessarily be impeded by the development if required in the future. This matter does not affect my consideration of the appeal.

Property Ownership

• 66. The previous matter highlights the general need to ascertain any constraints upon land or property before purchase. In a similar vein it is only for the prospective owners of neighbouring Fernleigh House to arrange for appropriate enquiries and searches and not a matter for this appeal.
• 67. Also, I understand the disappointment of the owners of No 25 Falcon Cliff Court that the appeal site, which seems to them to be part of their garden, was sold separately at the time they acquired No 25. But I must now assess the present proposals in the circumstances now prevailing and on their strict planning merits.

Precedent

• 68. Once found acceptable, the proposed development would not set any unacceptable planning precedent because each case is judged on its individual merits.

Planning Benefit

• 69. Finally, the proposed development would make efficient use of a site found suitable for housing in a designated urban mixed-use area. This is a material planning benefit carrying a degree weight in favour of the appeal.

Planning Conditions

• 70. If the approval sought in the appeal is granted, this should be subject to the conditions suggested without prejudice by the Planning Authority. Recommended Conditions 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 require the advance submission of details of finishing materials, site and floor levels, landscaping, cycle parking and drainage to ensure compliance with policy

• aims regarding visual and residential amenity, proper drainage and the provision cycle storage in the interests of transport sustainability.
• 71. Recommended Conditions 5, 9 and 10 require access and parking arrangements as proposed to ensure highway safety and limit the expansion or alteration of the built development without express permission, in the further interest of local amenity.
• 72. I recommend a further Condition 11 should be added requiring storage for waste and recycling, as reasonably requested by Douglas Corporation.

Conclusions

• 73. I conclude that, with those planning conditions in place, the proposed development would be acceptable in all respects and that therefore this appeal should be allowed. The small planning benefit I have identified further supports that view.

Recommendation

• 74. I recommend that the appeal be allowed, and planning approval granted for the erection of a new dwelling and associated parking and landscaping on land at the rear of 25 Falcon Cliff Court, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM2 4AH, as shown on the drawings listed and subject to the conditions and reason for approval set out in the Appendix to this Report.
• 75. If accepted, this recommendation will have the effect of overturning the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application.

B J Sims

Brian J Sims BSc (Hons) CEng MICE MRTPI Independent Inspector

16 October 2025

Appendix

Schedule of Recommended Planning Conditions Reason for Approval List of Approved Drawings

Conditions

• 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• 2. No work shall be carried out on in relation to the construction of any of the external surfaces of the dwelling hereby permitted unless details of the materials, colour and finish to be used for all external walls and roofs have been first submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. The development hereby permitted shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the use of materials appropriate to the development in order to safeguard the visual amenity of the area, in accordance with policy GP2 in the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).

• 3. No work shall be carried out in relation to the construction of the dwelling hereby permitted until details of existing and proposed site levels and finished floor levels in relation to the surrounding area have been submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. The development hereby permitted shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the use of materials appropriate to the development in order to safeguard the visual amenity of the area, in accordance with policy GP2 in the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).

• 4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of a landscape scheme for the sites shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. All planting, seeding, and earth works comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and season (November - March) following the substantial completion of the development whichever is the sooner, and any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. Thereafter, all soft and hard landscape works shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development, and to safeguard the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.

5. The access arrangements, vehicle parking spaces and turning area, as shownon approved Drawing No 313/020 shall be provided prior to the first occupationof the dwelling and shall thereafter be retained and made available for vehicleaccess, parking and turning at all times.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient on-site parking is provided to serve the development in order to avoid unnecessary on-street parking as per the requirements of the Manual for Manx Roads and Transport Policy 7 of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).

6. Prior to the commencement of the development, hereby permitted, details ofthe arrangements for the secure parking of cycles, at the ratio of 1 space perbedroom, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. Thecycle parking arrangements shall be installed prior to the first occupation ofthe dwelling and shall subsequently be retained and maintained for the lifetimeof the development.

Reason: To ensure that on-site secure cycle storage facilities are provided to the required standard for new residential premises in line with Manual for Manx Roads Standards, and to help meet the Isle of Man Governments net zero climate objectives.

7. There must be no discharge of surface water (directly or indirectly) from theproposed development onto the public highway.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads.

8. No development shall commence until details of foul and surface waterdrainage to serve the development hereby approved have been submitted to andapproved in writing by DEFA Planning. The approved drainage scheme shall beinstalled prior to the development being first occupied and shall thereafter beretained and maintained at all times.

Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately drained and does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.

9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (PermittedDevelopment) Order 2025 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Orderwith or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration ofthe dwelling, including the installation or replacement of any windows or doors,hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall becarried out without the prior written approval of the Department.

Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenity of the surrounding area.

10. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (PermittedDevelopment) Order 2025 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Orderwith or without modification), no garages or other free standing buildings shallbe erected or enclosure, swimming or other pool, container for domestic heating

purposes for storage of oil of liquid petroleum gas, or the erection of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure, within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, without the prior written approval of the Department.

Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenity of the surrounding area.

• 11. Prior to the commencement of the development, hereby permitted, details of the arrangements for the storage of waste and recycling shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. The approved waste and recycling storage facilities shall be installed prior to the first occupation of the dwelling and shall subsequently be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To ensure appropriate storage of waste and materials for recycling prior to collection.

Reason for Approval

The proposed development would satisfy the requirements of General Policy 2, Environment Policy 42, and Transport Policies 4 and 7 of the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in that it would respect the site and surrounding street scene and avoid harm to neighbouring residential amenity, highway safety and all other material planning interests, whilst also providing a degree of planning benefit by way of efficient use of the land within a designated mixed-use urban area.

List of Approved drawings

• Drg No 313/001 - Location
• Drg No 313/002 - Existing Site Plan

• Drg No 313/020 – Proposed Site Plan
• Drg No 313/021 – Plans and Elevations All dated 4 February 2025

• End of Appendix -