Rushen Parish Commissioners Response

Barrantree Skeerey Rosien Rashen Parish Commissioners Clerk/Cleragh: Mrs. Gillian Kelly NEWLANDS · BALLAGAWNE ROAD · COLBY · RUSHEN · IM9 4AX THALLOO NOA · RAAD BALLEY GAWNE · ROSIEN · IM9 4AX Telephone/Fax: (01624) 834501 email: [email protected] www.rushen-commissioners.com

3rd December 2012.

Ms J Callow Secretary to the Planning Committee Office of Planning Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas.

Dear Ms Callow

Rushen Parish Commissioners have considered the following Planning Applications and their views are:-

a) 12/1365. 4 Grenea Cottages, Shore Road. Patricia Linnane. Erection of a two storey extension to side elevation, single storey extension to the rear elevation, removal of rear workshop and widening of vehicular access. No objections.

b) 12/1493. Sunnymount, The Level. RETROSPECTIVE. Mr D Parkes. Erection of decking to cover a previously paved area or raised ground to the rear of the property.

Rushen Parish Commissioners are not objecting to this application as such. However, they feel that some observations need to be made as they had a site visit on 22nd November.

The site plans were inaccurate as the area marked roughly in pen was not an accurate diagram as to the positioning and extent of the decked area; the plan showed a proposed extension which is not there. The plans have not been helpful. The owner said that there were two patios there before but the Commissioners had no way of knowing where they had been as the whole area was now decked over. The plans do not show any ‘before’ patios.

As the decking and retaining wall were already completely constructed when the Commissioners went for the site visit it was difficult to ascertain the height of the land underneath and whether the decking is only a few inches above the level or quite a bit higher. Part of it is above the level of the adjoining wall between the garden and the neighbouring agricultural field. The floor area was not as large as had been thought by looking at the plans and looking at it from the road.

At present this construction gives the appearance of a third development on this plot – Sunnymount was the original dwelling on this and a few years ago a second dwelling was built on the roadside, with a shared driveway. It is presumed that this decking and the

retaining walls could ‘weather’ with age and become less intrusive in the landscape. Perhaps a condition could be put on with regard to it not being painted or other intrusive constructions/items being put there?

Some of the neighbours have been concerned about these plans with regard to overlooking into the rear windows and gardens of their properties and also regarding drainage. At the site visit the Commissioners noted that the rear windows and gardens seemed to be sufficiently far enough away not to be a major problem but no doubt the neighbours will include their concerns and pertinent measurements and photographs in their submissions. It has to be pointed out that this land is rising land and there would have been the opportunity for some overlooking previously – however, as the height of the land compared to the new decking is not known, the Commissioners cannot make a judgement on whether there is a new problem, only the neighbours can do that. One of their photographs shows the decking before the sides were planked over and the former height of the land can be seen.

The new retaining wall has piping through it for drainage but the Commissioners do not know if there are any drainage problems or not. There didn’t seem to be any disturbance of the field drains.

Rushen Commissioners are concerned that this is a retrospective application and that Mr Parkes did not stop the construction when the Planning Enforcement Officer advised him to do so – he carried on and completely finished it before putting in his application and this has made it impossible to gain a true picture of the previously existing site.

I trust the above will be helpful to the Planning Officers/Planning Committee. Yours sincerely Gillian Kelly (Mrs)

Clerk