SOC 43 Ballaquane Park SOC

From: To: CO, Planning Appeals Subject: Appeal ref AP25/0034 Date: 19 October 2025 17:02:00 Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please take care before opening any attachments or following any links. Planning Appeal ref AP25/0034

My wife and I are owners/occupiers of 43 Ballaquane Park, Peel and wish to object to the above application for the erection of telegraph poles in our vicinity.

Ballaquane Park is an estate of bungalows with all services underground and as such, the proposed huge thick poles would be considerably higher than the properties. This would be unsightly and destroy the character of what can only be described as a small neat and tidy estate, with well maintained properties and the possibility of reduced property values. We note that similar applications in Andreas, Castletown and other areas, were rejected due to being contrary to General Policy 2 (b & c) of the strategic plan 2016, and would submit that this application, in the interests of consistency, should be refused for the same reasons.

Approximately 2 years ago, the proposal of these telegraph poles was put to the residents, a result of which a public meeting was held, attended by Manx Telecom representatives and was rejected by those attending. Following that, each resident in Ballaquane Park was asked to vote and, again, the resounding answer was no, we didn't want them.

The nearby Ballawattleworth estate and Close Corlett, and even the older Close Quane (some new ductwork was required here and was installed) developments all have underground fibre connections. The inference from Manx Telecom that they have no funds for ductwork in our estate seems to go against the government policy of upgrading all properties to fibre, funding was also provided. Our services are underground and should stay that way.

We also wonder why Manx Telecom have made a second application for this small estate (ref. 25/90400/B ) for a further 5 poles, making a total of 8. Is it we wonder in the hope of getting at least one application approved, or because two smaller applications “sound better” than a larger one for eight.

Thank you for considering our views.

Regards,