Comment 3 4 Chapel Court

From: Ken Jones <[email protected]> Sent: 06 August 2018 10:19 To: Stewart, Helen Subject: RE: Field 434022, application 18/00710/C

4 Chapel Court, Derbyhaven. IM9 1UD.

Ms Glover is handling the completion of the signed letter. Many thanks again from us all. Best wishes.

From: Stewart, Helen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 06 August 2018 09:58 To: 'Ken Jones' Subject: RE: Field 434022, application 18/00710/C

Dear Mr Jones,

Thank you for your email. Can you please confirm your full postal address by return?

Kind regards, Helen

From: Ken Jones [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 03 August 2018 16:54 To: Stewart, Helen Cc: 'Sally Glover'; 'George Thompson' Subject: Field 434022, application 18/00710/C

This is a collective email from No’s 4, 5 and 6 Chapel Court, Derbyhaven. This will be rewritten into a formal letter, signed by all three.

We collectively strongly object to any time extension or any other proposed application in any form on Field 434022 based on the following reasons:

General

1. Promises had been made concerning remedial actions as indicated in our complaints, many of which were repeatedly broken.
2. Despite a specific ban, made face-to-face to Mr Douglas by your environmental officer, bonfires were repeatedly lit (eight in July alone), several whilst Mr Douglas was on site
3. Builders other than those involved with the allowed permission (Derbyhaven House), and neighbours, have been allowed and possibly encouraged, to deposit very substantial quantities of rubbish (for example four disused fuel tanks), when specifically disallowed in bye laws
4. The cut-off dates applying to planning permissions seem to have little relevance. A date is given for a specific action, the date is overshot, followed by a secondary retrospective application for a further extension, despite third parties objections. It appears the field can be used as a builder’s compound for even those not involved in the work, into infinity. The only guarantee we have is a certainty that once March 2019 is approached the date will be extended yet again; and again; and again...
5. We as neighbours, entirely innocent bystanders, have had to tolerate provocative behaviour, broken promise after broken promise, year after year, only to see further extensions of the problems that have blighted our houses for now well over two years.</[email protected]>

1. The dumping of containers so close to number 5 was an unnecessary act, especially when there were many other less confrontational positions that could have been chosen. We now understand this positioning was subject to at least a direction in planning. We immediately pointed out at the time that number 5 had suffered from a loss of light, but the containers were dropped without warning which then prevented the production of the necessary evidence to prove the case. Nuisance or prevention of house owners to pursue their rights?

In earlier emails you suggested determination of the latest application will be judged on who is either advantaged or disadvantaged by this retrospective application, as determined in accordance with the Policies set down in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. We have also noted that ‘impact of the development on the value of their property’ in the new Operational Policy documents July 2018.

Disadvantages

1. Financial loss on the value of the property cannot be considered, but that definition does not include loss of rental income since our houses are unsalable unless at a significant discount. Estate agents have indicated a proposed rent would need to be reduced by at least £150/month.
2. There is a statutory duty, pre or at point of sale, to state if there are, or have been, any disputes and/or pertinent information concerning neighbours; If so this must be revealed. This dispute will have to be reported in all its detail. How is this regarded? A nuisance or financial loss?
3. Noise disturbance from machinery, vehicles, diggers, dust, soot from bonfires; work starting at 7am on a Sunday; and during the many periods of high wind the continuous banging of the container doors carelessly left open and unlocked throughout long periods of the night, seven days a week.
4. Stress from the above, in addition to spending large amounts of time compiling complaint after complaint, monitoring the site for non-compliance and safety issues, seeking relevant regulations, lawyer contact, environmental officers, MHK’s etc

Advantages

None

A signed letter by all three occupants of numbers 4, 5 and 6 will follow in the mail We assume this documents has met the time-line for consideration whilst planning permission is considered. ☐ Virus-free. www.avast.com

Isle of Man. Giving you freedom to flourish

WARNING: This email message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. You must not copy or deliver it to any other person or use the contents in any unauthorised manner without the express permission of the sender. If you are not the intended addressee of this e-mail, please delete it and notify the sender as soon as possible.

No employee or agent is authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of any of the Departments or Statutory Boards of the Isle of Man Government with any party by e-mail without express written confirmation by a Manager of the relevant Department or Statutory Board.

RAAUE: S’preevaadjagh yn chaghteraght post-l shoh chammah’s coadany erbee currit marish as ta shoh coadit ec y leigh. Cha nhegin diu coipal ny cur eh da pelagh erbee elley ny ymmydey yn chooid t’ayn er aght erbee dyn kied leayr veih’n choyrtagh. Mannagh nee shiu yn enmyssagh klarit jeh’n phost-l shoh, doll-shiu magh eh, my sailliu, as cur-shiu fys da’n choyrtagh cha leah as oddys shiu.

Cha nei kied currit da failleydagh ny jantagh erbee conaant y yannoo rish pelagh ny possan erbee iesh post-l er son Rheynn ny Boayrd Slattyssagh erbee jeh Reiltys Ellan Vannin dyn co-niartaghey scruit leayr veih Reireyder y Rheynn ny Boayrd Slattyssagh t’eh bentyn rish.

Ms Paula Faragher DEFA Murray House Douglas, Isle of Man IM1 25F

4, 5 & 6 Chapel Court Derbyhaven Isle of Man IM9 1UD6

3rd August 2018

Field 434022, Application 18/00710/C

This is the formal signed letter to confirm the collective email from No’s 4, 5 and 6 Chapel Court, Derbyhaven:

We collectively strongly object to any time extension or any other proposed application in any form on Field 434022 based on the following reasons:

General

1. Promises had been made concerning remedial actions as indicated in our complaints, many of which were repeatedly broken.
2. Despite a specific ban, made face-to-face to Mr Douglas by your environmental officer, bonfires were repeatedly lit (eight in July alone), several whilst Mr Douglas was on site
3. Builders other than those involved with the allowed permission (Derbyhaven House), and neighbours, have been allowed and possibly encouraged, to deposit very substantial quantities of rubbish (for example four disused fuel tanks), when specifically disallowed in bye laws
4. The cut-off dates applying to planning permissions seem to have little relevance. A date is given for a specific action, the date is overshot, followed by a secondary retrospective application for a further extension, despite third parties objections. It appears the field can be used as a builder’s compound for even those not involved in the work, into infinity. The only guarantee we have is a certainty that once March 2019 is approached the date will be extended yet again; and again; and again...
5. We as neighbours, entirely innocent bystanders, have had to tolerate provocative behaviour, broken promise after broken promise, year after year, only to see further extensions of the problems that have blighted our houses for now well over two years.
6. The dumping of containers so close to number 5 was an unnecessary act, especially when there were many other less confrontational positions that could have been chosen. We now understand this positioning was subject to at least a direction in planning. We immediately pointed out at the time that number 5 had suffered from a loss of light, but the containers were dropped without warning which then prevented the production of the necessary evidence to prove the case. Nuisance or prevention of house owners to pursue their rights?

In earlier emails you suggested determination of the latest application will be judged on who is either advantaged or disadvantaged by this retrospective application, as determined in accordance with the Policies set down in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. We have also noted that ‘impact of the development on the value of their property’ in the new Operational Policy documents July 2018.

Disadvantages

1. Financial loss on the value of the property cannot be considered, but that definition does not include loss of rental income since our houses are unsalable unless at a significant discount.

Estate agents have indicated a proposed rent would need to be reduced by at least £150/month.

1. There is a statutory duty, pre or at point of sale, to state if there are, or have been, any disputes and/or pertinent information concerning neighbours; If so this must be revealed. This dispute will have to be reported in all its detail. How is this regarded? A nuisance or financial loss?

1. Noise disturbance from machinery, vehicles, diggers, dust, soot from bonfires; work starting at 7am on a Sunday; and during the many periods of high wind the continuous banging of the container doors carelessly left open and unlocked throughout long periods of the night, seven days a week.

1. Stress from the above, in addition to spending large amounts of time compiling complaint after complaint, monitoring the site for non-compliance and safety issues, seeking relevant regulations, lawyer contact, environmental officers, MHK’s etc

Advantages None We assume this document has met the time-line for consideration whilst planning permission is considered. Yours sincerely Dr K Jones (No 4) Ms S Glover (No 5) Mr G A Thompson