**Document:** AP250027 2590285B Bba Rebuttal Statement on Behalf of the Applicant
**Application:** AP25/0027 — Appeal against the approval for the installation of two boreholes
**Decision:** Appeal dismissed - PA APPROVED
**Decision Date:** 2025-12-19
**Parish:** Michael
**Document Type:** appeal / appeal_submission
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/88432-michael-bishopscourt-mansion-house-appeal-against-approval/documents/1142265

---

# AP250027 2590285B Bba Rebuttal Statement on Behalf of the Applicant

________________________________________________________________

BISHOPSCOURT, KIRK MICHAEL, ISLE OF MAN REBUTTAL TO THE STATEMENT OF CASE BY THE APPELANT PLANNING PERMISSION 25/90285/B, ON APPEAL INSTALLATION OF TWO BOREHOLES, BISHOPSCOURT MANSION, BISHOPSCOURT, KIRK MICHAEL, ISLE OF MAN ________________________________________________________________

CONTENTS

- SECTION Nr. 1 INTRODUCTION
- SECTION Nr. 2 REBUTTAL STATEMENT
- SECTION Nr. 3 CONCLUSION APPENDIX A PHOTOGRAPH OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY

## ________________________________________________________________

Bell Burton Associates 2, Myrtle Street Douglas

Isle of Man

IM1 1ED Tel: 01624 624124 E-mail: b.butler@bellburton.co.im

06 September 2025

- 1.1 This document sets out the response to the Statement of Case submitted by the owner and/or occupier of Garden Cottage Bishopscourt, Kirk Michael, IM6 2EY (“the Appellant”), in relation to the Planning Approval granted for the installation of two boreholes at Bishopscourt Mansion, Bishopscourt, Kirk Michael, Isle of Man, IM6 2 EZ for the owner of Bishopscourt (“the Applicant”).

Note that although the Appellant continues to write on behalf of the owner and/or occupier of The Lindens, that party does not appear to have officially

joined this appeal.

- 1.2 This Rebuttal Document should be read in conjunction with the Statement of Case in Support of the Planning Permission Granted, prepared by this Practice and dated 21 August 2025; the Statement of Case prepared by the Planning Officer and Senior Registered Building Officer, Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, dated 12 August 2025; the planning application documents prepared by Adam Architecture; the Planning Officer’s Corrected Report and Recommendations, dated 17 June 2025; the Corrected Decision Notice, dated 14 July 2025; and all other documents referenced herein.
- 1.3 We note the Statement of Case prepared by the Planning Officer, also Senior Registered Buildings Officer, Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture dated 12 August 2025 summarising the approval decision as:

“It is judged that the application complies with environment policy 1, strategic policy 4, general policies 2 and 3, and energy policy 4, as the proposed works would protect the setting of the registered building, would not harm the wider environment, are sited so as to respect the site and its surroundings, and would have due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption. The application is therefore judged to be acceptable.”

We also note that the Officer has stated that, of the five points raised by the Appellant, it is their opinion that:

- Issue 1 – Noise, Disruption, and Quality of Life, refers to other granted planning permissions and Permitted Development and “should not …warrant refusal of this application.”
- Issue 2 – Impact on Property Value and Structural Integrity, the Officer notes that the Appellant’s own Structural Report states that the Boreholes would not impact the structural integrity of the buildings and as such is not a “matter to warrant refusal of the application.”

- Issue 3 – Historical Significance, the Officer notes that the Appellant’s building is not Registered Buildings and states that the application meets the “tests of General Policy 2 and respect the site and its surroundings.”
- Issue 4 – Reasons for Two Boreholes, the Officer has stated that “the provision of boreholes to assist in the water needs of the estate would comply with the various climate change and renewable energy targets within the Government’s Climate Change Act and like-minded plans/objectives.”
- Issue 5 – Environmental Concerns, the Officer notes that the Ecosystems Policy Team were consulted on this application and had no concerns and it was “judged that any environmental concerns were sufficient to warrant refusal of the application” with regards to the loss of trees, the Officer noted that “no trees have been proposed to be lost as a result of this application.”

- 1.4 We concur entirely with the observations of the Planning Officer/Senior Registered Buildings Officer and respectfully endorse their recommendation for approval.

- 2.1 The points raised in the Statement of Case are addressed in detail below, with the intention of clarifying the rationale for the original planning decision and demonstrating that the objections presented do not constitute valid grounds for overturning the permission granted.
- 2.2 Rebuttal of Statement of Case

- 2.2.1 – We note that the Appellants have stated that the third property is owned by the new owner of Bishopscourt and therefore not directly affected by the development. The Coachman’s Cottage along with the Kitchen Garden and the Kitchen Garden Walls are owned by the Applicant, and as per our own Statement of Case, the Applicant would not engage in any development that would detrimentally affect their own property. The restoration of Bishopscourt demonstrates the Applicants commitment to preserving and restoring historically significant buildings to their former glory, the Coachman’s Cottage will be the building closest to the proposed borehole and therefore the building most likely to be affected if there was any impact on the buildings, which the Appellants own Structural Engineer has noted “We do not envisage the borehole and tank installation will have any significant adverse effect on the structure of your property.” The fact that the property is owned by the applicant does not reduce or alter the impact of the proposed works on this property, so it is incorrect to say that because it is in the same ownership, it will not be directly affected by the development.
- 2.2.2 – Works have been carried out under permitted development rights to establish a temporary site compound within the Applicant’s disused Kitchen Garden. Following a complaint to the Planning Department, this temporary site compound was investigated by Planning Enforcement who determined that the works were Permitted Development, and no breech of Planning had occurred. This compound is intended solely to support the ongoing restoration of the Bishopscourt palace complex. Upon completion of those works, the Kitchen Garden will also be restored to a fully working Soil Association Certified Kitchen Garden, which will significantly enhance the area both from a visual and ecological perspective. Contrary to the Appellant’s assertion, the owners and/or occupiers of The Garden Cottage and The Lindens were informed in advance that this work would be taking place. In any case, this temporary compound is unrelated to the current application, and all the references to it under the heading “Statement of Case” should not be treated as material considerations in the determination of this proposal.
- 2.2.3 – The Appellant states that the Planning Department did not consider her objection before granting permission. The Planning Officers Corrected Report and Recommendations dated 17.06.2025 sections 6.3, 6.4 and 7.5 refer to the objections raised by the Appellants and note only “historic significance, justification for the boreholes and environmental concerns are judged to material planning considerations”, judging the reduction to quality of

- life that are currently being experienced because of a temporary site compound as not a material planning consideration. Clearly, the Planning Department did consider the objections raised by the Appellant.
- 2.2.4 – The Appellant also states “This proposal offer no tangible benefits to the local quiet community, instead it proposes potential risk to ground movement, damage to the roots of nearby mature trees and inconvenience to residents” and “We are concerned to the potential of contamination of groundwater and disturbance to local wildlife habitats, including the many Bats as there are many boxes in and around the area.” The Appellant does not provide evidence to support these claims.

There is no requirement in Planning Policy to require a development to provide benefits to a community, only that the impact of a development is acceptable.

Our rebuttal regarding potential ground movement is fully set out in our Statement of Case. We would emphasise that the Appellant’s own Structural Engineer has confirmed: “We do not envisage the borehole and tank installation will have any significant adverse effect on the structure of your

property.”

Furthermore, the proposed boreholes, which will be 150mm in diameter and 60m deep, will have no impact on the roots of nearby mature trees. In any case, there are no mature trees in the vicinity.

The works at Bishopscourt take the health and wellbeing of bats into account. The bat boxes in the area include some damaged boxes in Bishopscourt Glen and many new bat boxes installed at Bishopscourt by the present owners. Although not yet in the public domain, the Kitchen Garden plans incorporate extensive plantings which will be helpful to Bishopscourt’s bat population.

- 2.3 Rebuttal of Proof of Evidence

- 2.3.1 – All of the evidence presented under the Proof of Evidence concerns the formation of the temporary site compound. We respectfully submit that we agree with the Planning Officer’s assessment that the alleged nuisance said to arise from the temporary site compound, established pursuant to Permitted Development rights, does not constitute a material planning consideration in the determination of the application under appeal. It follows that all objections predicated upon this matter should properly be afforded no weight and should be disregarded in their entirety.

- 2.3.2 – We must stress that, despite the statement made, the Public Right of Way has not been blocked. It remains open and accessible to the public. Please see photograph in Appendix A.
- 2.3.3 – The Statement “No Planning Consent was sought or considered by the Planning Department until Mrs Cannell’s son emailed to query the activities that were going on in the Kitchen Garden. The Department conceded that they had not given Permission for a change of use BUT had they have been they would most likely have agreed to the change on a Temporary basis of 1/2 years” is also incorrect. Planning Enforcement investigated the works and determined that the works were Permitted Development and that no breech of Planning had occurred. Permission is not required for this work.

- 2.4 Rebuttal of Curtins Structural Engineers Survey and Report on Garden Cottage, Bishopscourt

- 2.4.1 – The report refers to vibration only in its conclusion, and even then solely based on a statement made to the Structural Engineer by the Appellant. It does not record any vibration as having been witnessed by the Structural Engineer. Furthermore, the Curtins Report, commissioned by the Appellant, clearly and unequivocally states:

“Cracking which we have observed in the walls and ceilings is not of structural concern, as it is present between plasterboard finishes of walls / ceiling and at the junction of timber wall plate with stone wall.

Whilst it is possible that ground vibration has resulted in racks, the magnitude of cracks is small and their location is in a position where normal shrinkage and ageing of finishes is expected to arise with the likelihood of cracking. Any adverse effects of ground vibration do not appear to have affected the external wall structure of Garden Cottage.”

We must emphasise that the Report makes repeated reference to works wholly unconnected to this application. These references are irrelevant, do not amount to material planning considerations, and must be disregarded in their entirety when determining this appeal.

- 2.4.2 – The Appellant relies on the Curtins Report, which notes that “it is normal for the Developer/Builder to undertake a condition survey of adjacent properties.” However, this is of no material relevance in the present case. As evidenced within our Statement of Case, boreholes have already been sunk immediately adjacent to other properties without any adverse impact whatsoever. The suggestion that such surveys are necessary is therefore unsubstantiated and falls wholly outside the scope of a planning consideration.

- However, it is worth pointing out, that as two independent structural engineer reports have been prepared ahead of works proposed in the Planning Application under discussion, the condition of the Appellant’s property has already been assessed not once, but twice.
- 2.4.3 – The Curtins Report considers the application to install the two boreholes and notes:

“We do not envisage the borehole and tank installation will have any significant adverse effect on the structure of your property”; and

“It would be reasonable for the planning application submission to include a risk assessment which consider how the proposed works could affect your property and for the applicant to undertake a condition survey of your property prior to borehole and tank installation.”

Whilst we agree with the first statement regarding the absence of significant structural impact on the property, we reject the second statement. The requirement for a risk assessment and condition survey is not a matter material to the determination of a planning application. Such considerations

fall outside the scope of the planning process and are more appropriately

addressed, if necessary, which we do not believe they are, through other mechanisms.

- 2.5 Rebuttal of the Final Point

- 2.5.1 – The Appellant states that the title is misleading; the application is very clear, Drawing 6296 1004 (B) - Landscape Masterplan Bore-hole A shows the location of the borehole and subterranean tank and drawing 6099-EXT009 – Kitchen Garden Subterranean Borehole Water Storage Tank, Booster Station and Water Filtration details the subterranean tank.
- 2.5.2 – The Appellants also state that the subterranean tanks “have, in effect, already been approved by the Planning Department as part of their original application, which, as described by Curtins Engineers, are lacking in detail.” However, as noted above, the application is very clear, and nowhere in the Curtins Report is it stated that the application is lacking in detail.

- 2.6 Video Evidence

2.6.1 The Appellants have submitted a video with sound, purporting to demonstrate disturbance arising from the formation of the site compound. We would reiterate that the formation of this compound is not material to the planning application. In any event, it appears that the noise captured in the video is not related to construction activity but is instead attributable to a petrol leaf blower used in the maintenance of the gardens at Bishopscourt.

#### SECTION Nr. 3 CONCLUSION __________________________________________________________________________

- 3.1 We respectfully submit that the alleged nuisance said to arise from the temporary site compound, established pursuant to Permitted Development rights, does not constitute a material planning consideration in the determination of the application under appeal. It follows that all objections predicated upon this matter should properly be afforded no weight and should be disregarded in their entirety.
- 3.2 We do not accept that the reasons put forward by the Appellant, either in her objection or her Statement of Case, provide sufficient justification to overturn the decision to grant planning permission for the two boreholes at Bishopscourt.
- 3.3 The proposal is supported by the Planning and Building Control Directorate. The points raised in the Appellant’s Statement of Case have already been reviewed and dismissed by the Planning Officer, who also holds the position of Senior Registered Buildings Officer.
- 3.4 The works undertaken to form a construction compound were investigated by Planning Enforcement and determined to constitute Permitted Development; the case was subsequently closed. In any event, the formation of the compound is not material to the current application.
- 3.5 Neither the Appellant’s Engineer, Curtins, nor the Applicant’s Engineer, BB Consulting Engineers, support the Appellant’s assertion that the compound works caused damage to the Appellant’s property. This matter is also not relevant to the determination of this appeal.
- 3.6 The Appellant’s own engineer has confirmed that the drilling of the boreholes will not have any detrimental impact on the Appellant’s property. There is no technical evidence to support the Appellant’s claim that the proposed works would cause structural damage to their or to any other property.
- 3.7 The application fully accords with all relevant Isle of Man Government Planning Policies, including those cited in the Planning Officer/Senior Registered Buildings Officer’s report, as well as the additional policies referenced in our Statement of Case.
- 3.8 No Statutory Consultees raised any objection to the application.
- 3.9 For these reasons, we respectfully request that the appeal be dismissed and that the decision to grant planning permission for the installation of two boreholes at Bishopscourt be upheld.

### Appendix A – Photograph of the works around the Public Right of Way which remains open

![map or plan from page 9](https://images.planningportal.im/2025/08/6799972.jpg)

---

*Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).*
*Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/88432-michael-bishopscourt-mansion-house-appeal-against-approval/documents/1142265*