Loading document...
The Secretary, Planning Committee Department of Local Government And the Environment Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas IM1 2SF
11th January 2006
Dear Mr Callow
Re: Planning Application No 05/92362/B
I am the owner of Ravenscliffe House which is the adjacent property to the North of No.1 Ravenscliffe Mews, Fort Anne Road, Douglas to which the above application has been made. Ravenscliffe Mews are the original stables and Gate House at the entrance of Ravenscliffe House.
Having reviewed the plans for the above application made by the Glazing Company acting as Agent on behalf of Mr Taylor who is the owner of No 1 Ravenscliffe Mews, I wish to make an objection to the proposed application and request that it be declined on the following grounds:
A. Too close to the shared boundary wall. B. The close proximity of the proposed structure to the shared boundary wall will inevitably cause restricted accessibility to this wall, particularly in respect of any future maintenance requirements from the applicant’s side of the property. C. The applicant has an ongoing duty to maintain their share of the boundary wall without total reliance on accessibility from the adjacent owners land. The proposed new structure would seriously limit the accessibility by the owner to maintain the shared boundary wall.
imposed under 25 years ago when the properties were sold from Ravenscliffe House. The intention of the covenant is to protect the interests of Ravenscliffe House (a listed building built in 1849) and to retain privacy to the house and surrounding gardens from being overlooked.
It is my concern that if planning was permitted to erect the conservatory, that the owner may continue with his current “decking” ideas to raise the floor level and this should not be permitted under any circumstances.
A). Breach the existing covenant in terms of:
i). Altering the exterior look of the property.
ii). Permitting Ravenscliffe House to be overlooked as the plans clearly show that windows are intended to be seen above the shared boundary wall.
As a neighbour, I was only aware of the intended application from the Government planning advertisements which appeared in the Isle of man Courier News Paper December 22nd 2005.
8). The proposed structure does not offer any benefit to the look or enhancement to the property, but only serves as a benefit to the applicant in providing additional living space in what was is traditional stable / gate house building.
In awareness and in support of the above arguments, I request that the planning application be declined.
Mr David R. Quayle
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
