A proposed sea wall for the island’s capital would’ve had a ’permanent and detrimental impact’ on Douglas’ promenades.

The Department of Infrastructure’s application (19/00755/B) was supported by the principal planner but was ultimately rejected by the planning committee.

In making its decision, the committee said the impact of the proppsed wall would outweigh its benefits.

If the application had been approved, the DoI would’ve built a 500m-long 1.2m-high wall on top of the existing sea wall in an effort to reduce coastal overtopping.

The DoI said that the new wall would blend into the existing sea wall and would include plinths and motifs in the final design. And it would include viewing areas for wheelchair users and children.

During the committee hearing into the application, the issue of a temporary structure to protect the promenade from flooding was raised, however DoI engineer Aidan McCusker told members this was impractical.

Minutes from the committee meeting show that members raised concerns that a 1.2m wall all along the promenade ’would give the impression of "Fortress Prom"’.

The minutes added: ’The members were concerned that other solutions may not have been fully explored and that the solution proposed may be driven too much by cost and that a solid concrete physical barrier may not be the best way forward.’

Principal planner Stephen Butler told members that the key decision they had to make was whether the proposal was ’acceptable’.

He said that if there ’was no negative impact, then there was no requirement to demonstrate need’ for the wall.

A report by engineers and environmental consultants JBA was also referenced in the committee. In 2014, the report had said that Douglas needed a 1.8m high wall and so the proposed wall ’would not deliver the level of protection that was recommended’.

The minutes of the committee added: ’It was noted that it would never be possible to stop overtopping on the prom as it was reclaimed land, and the original sea wall is at the back of WH Smith.

’It was also noted that the sunken gardens were intended to act as defence by accommodating and preventing the spread of flood waters.’

A majority of committee members voted to reject the proposal and in turn reject Mr Butler’s recommendation.

The decision notice said: ’The planning committee is not satisfied that the permanent and detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area and on the public view of the sea are outweighed by the benefit of the proposed wall in relation to reducing the risk of flooding.’

It added: ’The level of protection which would be afforded by the wall is lower than that recommended in the applicant’s technical report and that the risk relates to intermittent events at certain times of the year.’

A DoI spokesman has confirmed the department is considering its response to the rejection.