**Document:** Appellant's Statement of Case
**Application:** AP26/0008 — Appeal against the approval for replacement of existing dwellinghouse with two semi-detached dwellinghouses
**Decision:** Not Available
**Decision Date:**
**Parish:** Lezayre
**Document Type:** appeal / appeal_statement
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/130516-lezayre-east-view-sulby-replacement/documents/1593306

---

# Appellant's Statement of Case

Appeal against the approval for the replacement of existing dwellinghouse with two semi-detached dwellinghouses

Planning Ref: 25/90974/B East View, Sulby Bridge, Sulby, Isle of Man. IM7 2EU

Since the very first proposal was submitted to build two dwellings on this site, we have been very clear that this is nothing short of over-development of the existing site. This is continually demonstrated by the fact that one of the two dwellings has been rotated 90 degrees in order for it to be squeezed in to the available space. The result of this being unacceptable to Number 6 Carrick Park (our property), as the north facing property will overlook our property, at great expense to our privacy!

There had also been an earlier suggestion that this should be considered acceptable because it mirrors the layout of “Riverside”, the property that lies to the north of number 6 Carrick Park (our property), alongside the river. Riverside is a single storey property and does not therefore overlook No.6 Carrick Park. This is therefore neither comparable or relevant as a comparison.

An earlier version of this proposal was rejected following a site visit by an independent UK inspector because any first-floor windows (in the North facing property) would be considered both a perceived and actual invasion of our privacy. This latest proposal should therefore never have been permitted due to the reappearance of a first-floor window. It is irrelevant that it should be a bathroom window! The very fact it is now there is a clear contradiction of a previous reason for the rejection of this development.

In our previous objection we wrote;

“There also seems to be an assumption that there will be ample parking. What happens when any occupants who may have young children initially; those children will one day reach driving age, their cars will be parked (unseen) on the road over the brow of the hill if you are approaching from the Sulby Bridge direction with cars having to cross the central line to get passed – an accident waiting to happen!”

I mention this again, specifically, because over the Christmas period there happened to be a car broken down immediately before the Sulby Bridge, adjacent to our rear garden, No.6 Carrick Park. The car sat there for 3 or 4 days, exactly where any visiting vehicles or overflowing family vehicles might be expected to park. The car (broken down) was blocking the left-hand lane approaching Sulby Bridge travelling away from the Ginger Hall, resulting in passing vehicles having to cross the white line on to the other side of the carriageway and unsighted to oncoming vehicles over the brow of the hill on Sulby Bridge. It was extremely fortunate that there was not a collision, but actual evidence that it would only be a matter of time; if not further

actual evidence that two properties squeezed onto this site would be overdevelopment.

This proposal should never have been permitted due to the northern elevation seeing a return of a first-floor window and whether opaque or not will clearly be overlooking No. 6 Carrick Park, and therefore a direct invasion of our privacy both actual and perceived. And the very reason a previous proposal was rejected!

The planting of a few trees/shrubs to replace what already exists and create some element of screening is in no way sufficient. Trees can take 10 years to grow to a height that might be considered acceptable to providing some form of screening and I would expect as a minimum that as the owners to No.6 (and the property directly affected by this proposal), we should have been offered sufficient reparatory screening.

regarding not being made aware of the decision meeting (26th January) ahead of time as the letter confirming the date of the meeting was emailed to me on the same date of the decision itself, the 26th January! This took away my right to potentially attend the meeting in person and verbally present our concerns regarding this proposal.

27/03/2026

---

*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/130516-lezayre-east-view-sulby-replacement/documents/1593306*