Loading document...
Planning Application 24/91021/B
Appeal against the erection of stables and agricultural building, creation of hardstanding (part retrospective) and creation of pond (retrospective)
Field 434087 Douglas Road Ballasalla Isle of Man IM9 2AN
Submission of Redacted 7 Meadow Court Ballasalla
Dated 11th March 2025
Field 434087, Douglas Road, Ballasalla
The Report confirms that the site is “...within the housing estates surrounding the site”. This statement does not equate with the many wrongful references to ‘open’, ‘countryside’ and ‘rural’ within the Report and Recommendation document.
... ‘the field in question being zoned as “Not for Development” on the Area Plan for the South...’
Approaching from the airport, the road signs for Ballasalla are sited prior to the first house on the left thus making field 434087 within the built environs of Ballasalla. This field is surrounded on three sides by development.
Field 434087 which is 4.46 acres divided into paddocks, cannot be considered to be either “rural” or “countryside”, yet there are a number of statements regarding “countryside” which are therefore incorrect and should not have been proposed when considering PA 24/91021/B.
There are several Policies that refer to the “countryside” which have no relevance to the site of PA 24/91021/B, a small urban field.
is mentioned four times with regard to equestrian activities. There is also the statement: “...equestrian activities are becoming increasingly popular and may have adverse impact on the character and appearance of the countryside”. The popularity of equestrian activities is totally irrelevant when PA 24/91021/B is considered.
is mentioned twice. “As identified within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, equestrian activities can only be situated within open, rural countryside...” (This sentence alone precludes any equestrian activities (exercising) on the 4.46 urban acres of Field 434087)
6.2.4. continues: “...as such the general principle of equestrian is acceptable. Whilst this is the case...” What wrongful, misleading statements by the case officer.
6.2.4. ends “...and whether there are any other impacts from the proposal”. The impact upon neighbouring properties is considerable but not considered in the Report.
6.3.1. Use of land. “...The proposed equestrian use of the land in this instance would provide suitable grazing area...” The use of the land does not change its suitability or grazing area!
6.4.1. Need. “...the applicants state they have one horse and three ponies...” In PA 24/91021/B, the applicant is stated as being “Brigitte’s Sanctuary”. Brigitte’s Sanctuary has one horse (presently in Field 434087) and does not own any ponies. The statement regarding the ponies is incorrect.
6.4.3. It had been brought to the attention of the case officer that there are objections (including those of the Malew Commissioners) regarding ‘overdevelopment’ in terms of the proposed animals on the land. Although the applicants have clearly stated that Field 434087 is 4.46 acres (a very precise number) the case officer, when considering the matter of ‘overdevelopment’, wrongfully decided to ‘note’ the area of land as being “approximately 6 acres” (the increase in acreage allowing for the ponies)
6.4.4. “...it is considered that the need for a stable of the size sought has been acceptably demonstrated in this case”. What a wrongful and misleading statement when there is no need. The applicant has stated that the ponies are stabled off site (maybe for several years as is suggested by PA22/01433/B, which was withdrawn) and has given no reason as to the need or necessity to remove them from those stables.
6.5.2. Again, the case officer refers to Field 434087 as ‘countryside’ and that views of the stable block from outside the site would only be fleeting and not be seen as unduly intrusive. Not a word that the proposed development would be very intrusive 24/7 (and for many years) to the residents of 7 Meadow Court and The Willows.
6.6.2. Reference is again made to ‘countryside’ and ‘existing stables’. This is utter nonsense as there are no ‘existing stables’. There was a barn that could have been used for stabling but was allowed to deteriorate and it collapsed within the last two years.
6.7.1. Sod hedge. Another two references to ‘the countryside’ and the statement: “...they might be noticeable outside the site...” Not a word as to whether they would be seen from within the site.
Nowhere, in this Report and Recommendations, is there one word regarding the hawthorn trees or the midden. The fact that hawthorn trees can grow to a considerable height and would need regular pruning was brought to the attention of the Planning Officer in previous submissions, but totally ignored.
There is no reference to the proposed ‘midden’, which has the appearance of the case officer not knowing what a ‘midden’ is; or that she knows that a midden should not be sited within yards of residential properties. No ‘conditions’ regarding its construction
or how its contents should be dispersed. The contents being horse manure and dirty bedding, which will heat up and make a lovely warm home for rats which breed more successfully than rabbits. Horseflies will also be attracted and the smell will be quite appalling.
6.8.2. Highway Services. The access track was not altered during the late Brigitte's life-time but considerable work was carried out within months of her death. All foliage, which had been encouraged to grow by Miss Simcocks, and which obscured the track, was cleared away. The original concrete post and wire fence (on The Willows side of the track), delineating the boundary of Meadow Court, disappeared and new wooden fencing erected. The soil base of the track was covered with hardcore/gravel; giving it the appearance of a well-used established access which had planning consent.
Statement: “...the proposed development is also deemed to be appropriate in the context of the site’s rural location”. Not only is the case officer continuing to consider that 4.46 acre Field 434087 is ‘rural’ and appropriate for development (when it has been designated as ‘not for development in the Area Plan). There is absolutely no consideration as to the loss of amenity which neighbouring properties will suffer for many years to come.
We have attached our submissions of 1st October 2024 and 17th December 2024 together with the short verbal statement given at the Planning Committee’s public meeting of 13th January 2025, to ensure that they are available for the consideration of the Inspector and the Minister. We were allowed only three minutes for our verbal statement, despite the fact that the Planning Officer, in her report, summed up our objections in just one line; and the members of the Planning Committee had obviously not been furnished with our submissions. The Planning Committee did not give us the opportunity to bring to their attention the very serious objections by residents in neighbouring properties, just yards away from the proposals within PA24/91021/B
As previously stated: nowhere in her Report and Recommendations does the case officer mention the midden. A midden is required if ponies/horses are stabled. When the stables are ‘mucked out’, the dung and dirty bedding are placed in the midden. The heap of excrement and bedding will grow daily and begin to heat up. This makes a lovely warm home for rats which can breed more quickly than rabbits. The odour emanating from the midden will be obnoxious, cannot be mitigated, and is to be sited just yards from our home.
Redacted suffers from clots on her lungs and enjoys the fresh air when being out in our garden. Since 2019, she has spent time in Noble’s Hospital and has regular appointments in clinics. Anne has been to The Royal Hallamshire Hospital in Sheffield three times, has regular telephone consultations, the last being on 17th February 2025, when it was suggested that she visit them again this coming Summer. In 2020 Anne spent twelve nights at Papworth Hospital in Cambridge where she had its specialist treatment ‘Balloon Pulmonary Angioplasty’ for both lungs. Proof of the foregoing can be made available.
To be denied access to one’s own garden because of obnoxious smells, or being bitten by horse-flies, just to accommodate ponies being moved from their present stabling is totally unjustifiable. It should also be noted that since 2000, when Field 434087 was bought by the late Brigitte Simcocks, only horses (no ponies) have been pastured in this field and were never ridden or exercised.
The Planning Officer has stated that: “... the site lies within an area zoned as ‘Predominantly Residential’ with the field in question being zoned as ‘Not for Development’ on the area Plan for the South...”. She has also written that the site is “...within the housing estates surrounding the site”.
It is quite obvious that the site is not in the ‘Countryside’ yet the Planning Officer continually refers to ‘development in the Countryside’ and various Policies concerning the countryside which have no relevance when considering PA24/91021/B.
In the ‘countryside’, where a dwelling has some land attached, these would usually be farms or smallholdings. It is reasonable to site stables near to such dwelling. It is not reasonable to site stables and midden next to dwellings in an urban residential area.
In stating that Field 434087 is 6 acres in “rural countryside” the case officer has prevented proper consideration by the Planning Committee; the Planning Committee having relied on the Planning Officer’s ‘Report and Recommendations’. There is little regard to the loss of amenity and the imposition of stables/barn/midden upon the neighbouring residents.
We were not given the opportunity, at the Planning Committee’s meeting of 13/01/25, to expand upon our verbal submission of just three minutes, and our objections had been reduced to one line in the ‘Report and Recommendations’
The Case Officer has repeatedly referred to Field 434087 as being Rural and in the Countryside, when referring to Policies that would support ‘development in the countryside’ that have no bearing on this urban field. This is wrongful, misleading, and totally unprofessional especially as she has acknowledged in 1.2 of her report that the site is “within the housing estates surrounding the site” The site is clearly urban.
The Case Officer has exceeded her remit when she proposes, without basis, that Field 434087 is approximately 6 acres when the applicants have stated that it is 4.46 acres. Having made wrongful and incorrect statements throughout her Report and Recommendations, the Planning Officer then recommends that PA 24/91021/B be ‘permitted’ which the Planning Committee accept.
It is obvious that the site of PA 24/91021/B is urban, 4.46 acres, surrounded by residential development, ‘Not for Development’ in the Area Plan, and ‘predominately residential’. Clearly not Rural or in the Countryside.
In paragraph 6.2.4. “...equestrian activities can only be situated within open, rural countryside, as such the general principle of equestrian is acceptable”. This sentence alone precludes any equestrian activities on the 4.46 urban acres of Field 434087.
At the Planning Committee’s Meeting on 13th January 2025, the case officer admitted that she had made mistakes in her Report and Recommendations. This document is littered with misleading statements which support her recommendations. The residents of neighbouring properties, who would be obliged to put up with the proposed development 24/7, have little consideration.
The Report is only concerned with ‘open’, ‘rural’ and ‘countryside’ all of which are irrelevant in the context of the 4.46 acres of ‘urban’ Field 434087. On the Case Officer’s own statements and findings, the Recommendation should have been to Refuse PA 24/91021/B
We humbly request that the Planning Inspector considers all our submissions, recommends Refusal of AP25/0005 and the Planning Committee’s decision to Approve PA 24/91021/B be overturned.
We shall appear at the Planning Inquiry
Attachments: Submission dated 1st October 2024 Paragraphs 10 & 11 of Brigitte Simcock’s Will dated 19/8/2021 Inspector’s report of PA 98/0995 concerning paragraph 37 Matters relating to the development of Airport Garage SAP 80/01, paragraph 5.3 Also SAP 80/01 paragraph 5.2
Submission dated 17th December 2024 Submission dated 1st October 2024 with 4 attachments Traffic Survey of 2010 Photograph of track from hard-standing towards pond area – no planning approval and no request for retrospective planning approval
Verbal submission to Planning Committee 13th January 2025
| Matters which | Redacted | Redacted |
| with | to bring to the attention of the Planning Committee: |
We note that these proceedings are being ‘minuted’. Presumably the Committee members have read, or will read, our submissions?
The Planning Officer refers to the Kirk Michael Commissioners (not Malew Commissioners) as being the Parish Commissioners concerned with this planning application. For an experienced Planning Officer to make such an elementary mistake immediately raises doubt in the veracity and accuracy of her recommendations.
Within the Planning Officer’s recommendation, she states that: “there is a question on whether the proposal is an overdevelopment”; she then states that the field acreage is six acres and refers to four horses, sheep and geese. However, in the planning application the applicant has made it quite clear that the acreage is 4.46. This area of pasture land is substantially reduced by the existing hardstanding, (the proposed buildings), the track to the pond, the existing pond, Brigitte Simcock’s grave and also the burial sites of two horses; leaving perhaps four acres of pasture.
The Planning Officer has stated that the field is ‘urban’ pasture. Eight sheep would need two acres, geese one acre and the first horse 1.5 acres adding up to 4.5 acres. One can only presume that the Planning Officer’s ‘6’ acres is to find pasture for another three horses. These three horses/ponies have no entitlement to stabling or pasture in field 434087. Such over-intensification of this land, as proposed, is blatantly obvious.
The Planning Officer has not demonstrated either the ‘need’ for the proposed development nor to change the use of field 434087 from agricultural to equestrian. Several Government policies that would prohibit such development have been ignored.
We bring to the attention of the Planning Committee, a planning application 24/00896/B lodged in August 2024 for the redevelopment of the Airport Garage on the primary route between Douglas, the Airport and the South of the Island. This busy garage is directly opposite the access/egress to field 434087 (this access does not have planning approval nor does it comply with safety and planning policies). This would be confirmed by a site visit. Any planning approval would create extra traffic, stopping on a primary route, to turn into field 434087 which is contrary to previous government decisions.
We object to Planning Application 24/91021/B and the recommendations of the Planning Officer. This application should be refused by the Planning Committee.
Proposed: Erection of stables and agricultural building, creation of hardstanding (part retrospective) and creation of pond (retrospective)
Field 4434087 Douglas Road Ballasalla Isle of Man IM9 2AN
Redacted
7 Meadow Court Ballasalla
Dated: 17th December 2024
17th December 2024
Officers and Members of the Planning Department Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas
We have attached a copy of our submission dated 1st October 2024 as much of its contents are relevant to the ‘new plans’ submitted by Cornerstone.
It is a policy of the Planning Department that consideration be given as to whether the proposed planning application for stables and barn are needed.
The veracity of the statements regarding three ponies is obviously questionable. We have already stated that these ponies were never pastured in Field 434087; never owned, or the responsibility, of the late Miss Brigitte Simcocks, the benefactor of ‘Brigitte’s Sanctuary’. It is our contention that these ponies are in the ownership of third parties and most certainly do not come under the ethos of requiring ‘sanctuary’. Cornerstone states that: “there are a significant number of animals to be cared for until their death this includes 4 horses, a small flock of sheep”. We do not believe that one horse and eight sheep can be considered ‘a significant number of animals’.
As two out of ten sheep have died in the last three months, it is likely that within a year or so that there will be none of Miss Simcocks’ sheep still alive. Her remaining horse ‘Dobbin’ (the only horse) may still want care.
It is noted that the revised planning application shows a smaller barn, reduced number of bales of hay and the storage of tractor and implements is no longer required. Why did the applicant want the larger barn when it is obviously not needed. The fact that there is now a considerable reduction in the size of the barn and the number of stables, smacks of opportunism. The credibility of statements made by Cornerstone are questionable. To also propose an area for ‘downers’ to receive care is nonsense, in our experience once a sheep goes ‘down’ it does not get up again.
A brief history. The farmer, who owned the field until 2000, rarely accessed the field. In early summer he cut for silage and in late summer grazed calves for perhaps one month. The farmer never used the access in winter months. After 2000 when Miss Simcocks bought the field, she encouraged plants and foliage to grow along the length of the access track, placed red and white ribbons across the entrance and put a notice on the gate that this was private land. Brigitte Simcocks rarely used a vehicle to access the field but carried buckets of animal feed from her home near the Ballasalla ford. The late Miss Simcocks chose to be buried in the field with her dead horses, expecting to have peace, quiet and privacy.
The fact that works requiring retrospective planning had been completed just seven months after the death of Miss Simcocks show that the Trustee(s) worked with considerable speed to effect alterations without submitting planning applications as required within planning rules and regulations. These matters include:
In addition, the removal of a concrete post and wire fence; removal of plants; the widening and laying of a hard surface on land not even owned by the applicant.
It is quite obvious that had Cornerstone been properly advised by the Trustee(s), prior to all work being carried out; then Cornerstone, a reputable professional firm, would have had to insist upon the necessary planning applications. It is presumed that Cornerstone would not have seen the green field and the access track prior to the extensive work being carried out.
It is likely that the Trustee(s) think that receiving planning approval is easier with retrospective consideration. People should be deterred from completing works without planning approval. All work that requires ‘retrospective’ planning should be removed and the field returned to its ‘green field’ status – the stated aim of Brigitte’s Sanctuary.
Vehicle access has been infrequently used until 2022, after Miss Simcock’s death in January that year. The Trustee(s) of ‘Brigitte’s Sanctuary’ have wrongfully, and without permission, removed the concrete post and wire fencing which ran along the South side of the track and widened the track as much as possible, covering it with a layer similar to that of the ‘hard-standing’. Cornerstone has included photographs of the work that has been carried out. This work is neither in accordance with the wishes of the benefactor of ‘Brigitte’s Sanctuary’, nor the rules and regulations of planning. We do not know of any planning approval for the present access/egress to the field. Within PA 24/91201/B there are no specific details for planning approval of the access track. It would seem that Cornerstone has, incorrectly, assumed that planning approval is not required or that in seeking planning permission for this development could lead to some difficult questions being asked. Why open up a can of worms. PA
2
24/91021/B does not refer, in any way, to the suitability of this track to access new buildings; and does not fulfil planning requirements. For an access/egress on to a 30mph road, the 'splays', are required to be not less than 2.4 metres in depth and 43 metres in length. It is quite obvious that the proposed access does not comply with these criteria. PA24/91021/B should be refused without hesitation.
This planning application should have been submitted based on the situation as at the time of Miss Simcock's death and prior to extensive work being carried out. A narrower, soil-based track, leading to a small field containing one horse, a few sheep and geese. Not as at the present time when the appearance is of commercialisation. It is of interest to note that there is a planning application PA 24/0086/B for 'widening the entrance and new surface' in Ramsey.
Upon checking various deeds, including our own, it is quite apparent that the late Miss Simcocks never owned this narrow track from the main road to Field 434087. The post and wire fence, wrongfully removed by Brigitte's Sanctuary, delineated the boundary of the Meadow Court development.
We are also concerned that the track slopes down to the main road and that the new hard surface could become slippery with ice/snow in bad weather causing a vehicle to slide into traffic on the main road.
The photographs, supplied by Cornerstone, of the main road as seen from the access track are deliberately deceptive. For the driver of a vehicle, egressing from the track, to have proper visibility of the traffic on the main road, several feet of their vehicle would protrude into the roadway before they had complete visibility. Drivers on the main road would be unaware of a vehicle exiting the track until it was already in the roadway.
Cornerstone has also not taken into account that when vehicles travelling from the direction of the airport indicate to turn right into the garage, that traffic behind these vehicles would move to the nearside when seeking to continue towards Douglas or turning into Meadow Court. A vehicle exiting the access track could well cause a traffic accident.
Regarding the revised plan submitted by Cornerstone, there is now depicted a 'midden'. There is no explanation as to where the midden contents would be spread. No doubt it would be convenient and handy to spread it adjacent to 7 Meadow Court. It does rain in the Isle of Man and a fair quantity would water the midden causing considerable effluent. There is no mention of a soakaway for the midden and, if there were, it would obviously be in the direction of 7 Meadow Court, which is downhill of the midden. With 'climate change' there is a real possibility of more than usual rain falling and the 'soakaways' overflowing with liquid manure necessitating mains drainage for which there is no provision.
There is no mention of the need for electricity and lighting and as to how this will be provided (including the electric fence). Regardless of any screening, in hot weather the manure in the midden would 'pong' and the smell blown directly to 7 Meadow
Court. There is no mention regarding pruning or restricting the height of the hawthorns and nobody to oversee that this work is carried out.
It is stated that the applicant will now store ‘equipment’ off site. The equipment specifically mentioned in their initial planning application was never stored on site. However, there would be no overseeing as to its use or siting in the future.
The number of hay bales suggested for storing on site for one horse and eight sheep is not good farming practice. Horses require good quality fresh hay. Quality and taste are reduced over time. Poor quality hay can cause illness.
4.2 The applicant has stated: “The duck (sic) pond has been positioned in the centre of the site in order to give adequate separation from the surrounding properties”. If that is adequate separation from surrounding properties, then the siting of barn and stable block adjacent to 7 Meadow Court is totally inadequate separation.
7.0 Planning policy and consideration – Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 General: “where new agricultural buildings are proposed next to, or close to, existing residential properties, care must be taken to ensure that there is no unacceptable adverse impact through any activity”. For some thirty years we have enjoyed mainly peace and quiet with an outlook of a green field. The proposed development would obviously produce – noise, smell, effluent, flies and block our view to the South. Clearly, the separation is totally inadequate.
Policy 2 G: “Does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality”. We have shown that local residents would be seriously adversely affected.
Policy 2 I: “Does not have an unacceptable affect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways”. Any increased number of vehicles accessing or egressing the track increases the likelihood of accidents on this principal traffic route.
Policy 2 M: “Provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users” We have shown that the egress onto the main road is unsafe.
Environmental Policy 15
...“general policy against development in the countryside”...
8.0 Conclusion: Cornerstone stated that the buildings are essential for the care and maintenance of the animals on the land (1 horse, dwindling number of sheep, down
from 10 to 8 in last three months) and have been sited close to the existing building groups (hardly ‘adequate separation’)
The Isle of Man Planning Scheme Development Order 1982 identifies Douglas Road as ‘a principal traffic route which is subject to a 30mph speed limit’. Existing order prohibiting vehicles from stopping on the carriageway for any reason including loading and unloading or picking up or setting down of passengers other than by bus.
An automated traffic survey carried out by officers of the Highways Division over one week in September 2010 is shown as an attachment
A further study was carried out in October 2024 but, as yet, the results are not known. These traffic counters will not have taken into account; traffic to and from the busy Balthane Estate and the Airport Garage, where there is an extensive deli and large convenience store.
Passenger figures for the airport - Year 2009 - 353,700 Year 2019 - 418,400 Year 2023 - 520,423
These show an increasing trend in the number of passengers year on year thus suggesting a similar increase in traffic on Douglas Road.
When the new bypass is opened, it will actually channel traffic going South into Douglas Road
The following are extracts from our submission of 1st October 2024, pages 4 & 5: “the care of animals in the stable block would create multiple daily visits to the buildings. There must also be concern regarding the perceived increased traffic through the access to the field, which has limited visibility, and is directly opposite a busy garage sited on the main road from Douglas to the airport and the South of the Island.
In 1998 there was a planning application No: PA.98/0995 for access on to Douglas Road from the Balthane plot of land immediately to the north and adjacent to the Airport Garage. This planning application was refused on the grounds of traffic and sight lines. The Planning Inspector stated in his report at paragraph 37: “So far as the access from Douglas Road is concerned, this is a principal traffic route which should be safeguarded under the provisions of Part 3 Article (2)(d) of the written statement accompanying the 1982 Development Order. Whilst the Order does not prohibit the creation of new access points under sub-section (iii) it seeks to avoid them under sub-section (ii)”. Also, in refusing PA. 24/91021/B planning permission: “turning traffic on a busy piece of road would be avoided and the possibility of accidents would be reduced” See attachments.
Since 1998, there have been large developments to the north and south of Ballasalla. To the south, in Castletown, there have been residential developments at Knock Rushen, School Hill, and recently on the land between The Viking Hotel and Ocean
Ford together with developments in Port Erin and Port St Mary. To the north of Douglas Road is the new large residential estate of Ryart Mie. The traffic to/from Ronaldsway Airport going north passes along Douglas Road and has increased very significantly in the last 26 years.
There is now a planning application No: 24/00896/B to develop Airport Garage and expand the site and create two new retail units, two light industrial units and deli. Forecourt services would be expanded to include\; car wash, valeting services and electric charging points. Airport Garage is open from 6am until 10pm and is the only garage between Douglas and Castletown. In its application Mannin Retail says “the Airport Garage SPAR is one of the busiest on Island with trade expected to rise considerably due to new housing developments nearby.
When a planning application for the two houses “The Willows” and “The Oaks” (which have their joint access situated adjacent to that of PA.24/91021/B) there was a problem with “sight lines” which was solved with big splays on to the road. However, this is not possible with PA.24/91021/B as both side of the ‘access’ have fences which preclude any ‘splays’.
The Malew Commissioners were so concerned about traffic at the Balthane corner and a proposed development between ‘West Wind’ and the Airport Garage on Douglas Road, Ballasalla, that they employed Mr Bryan Hall to advise them on the Southern Arca Plan. Within Mr Hall’s submission – document ‘Proof of Evidence’ reference SAP 80/01 he states in 5.3: “I have shown that a ‘minor’ access through Site 3 to Douglas Road will be contrary to Department of Transport Policy and detrimental the free and safe flow of traffic on Douglas Road and that a major access will have restricted visibility of oncoming traffic from the north and be detrimental to the safe operation of that road”. See attachments.
It is quite clear that Planning Inspectors and government officials state the Douglas Road, Ballasalla is a principal traffic route which should be safeguarded. When there have been traffic accidents near the proposed access/egress point, it would be unacceptable to approve PA 24/91021/B
It would seem that had Cornerstone, a professional firm, been properly advised by the applicant/Trustee prior to the work now requiring retrospective planning being carried out, would have insisted upon the necessary planning permissions. Proposals concerning the access would then have been decided upon prior to any consideration of a planning application for stables and barn. It is quite obvious that the applicant ignored planning laws and regulations by carrying out numerous unlawful alterations to the field and the access. Under the circumstances, planning approval should not be given.
There is no need for this development. One horse and a few old sheep. All retrospective planning areas should be refused planning permission The access/egress is unsafe and could cause a traffic accident
The egress is on to a principal traffic route, with ‘splays’ not complying with legal requirements and should not be allowed.
The applicant does not own and had no right to alter the access, and it should be returned to its state as at the time of the late Brigitte’s death.
The applicant/Trustee has ignored planning laws, regulations, and the wishes of the benefactor of Brigitte’s Sanctuary, the late Miss Brigitte Simcocks.
Any development would be prejudicial to the peaceful amenity enjoyed by the present and future residents of 7 Meadow Court.
Nearby residents of Meadow Court and The Willows should not have to put up with the nuisance of – noise, smell, effluent, flies and any commercial activities taking place in Field 434087.
It would seem that the interests of the applicant/Trustee come before that of Brigitte’s Sanctuary.
The original and revised plans of PA 24/91021/B have no merit and should be categorically refused.
24/91021/B
| Police Issue | TMLG Meeting | Road Safety | None |
| ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Survey Location: Ballasalla Site 6 (Sycamore Corner) Survey Duration: 20th – 27th September 2010 Originator: Derek Sewell Region for Survey: General
| Northbound | Southbound | |
|---|---|---|
| Total Vehicles | 35011 | 35151 |
| Vehicles Per Day | 5345 | 5362 |
| Peak Hour | 4-5pm | 3-6pm |
| No. During Peak | 529(490) | 492(438) |
| Northbound | Southbound | |
|---|---|---|
| 85% tile | 33mpn | 34mpn |
| No. Speeding | 13380 | 16758 |
| % Speeding | 38% | 45% |
| Mean Speed | 29mph | 29mph |
| Maximum Speed | 55mph | 55mph |
| Time of Max Speed | Multiple | Multiple |
| Class > 10mph of Limit | 1,2,4 | 1,2,4 |
| Northbound | Southbound | |
|---|---|---|
| Motorcycles | Class 1 | 423 |
| Short Vehicles | Class 2 | 32146 |
| Short Vehicle With Trailer | Class 3 | 185 |
| Bus or Truck (2 Axle rigid) | Class 4 | 2034 |
| Bus or Truck (3 Axle Rigid) | Class 5 | 93 |
| Four Axle Rigid | Class 6 | 73 |
| Artic 2 Axle + 2/3 Axle Trailer | Class 7,8&9 | 60 |
Comments:
Proposed: Erection of stables and agricultural building, creation of hardstanding (part retrospective) and creation of pond (retrospective)
Field 434087 Douglas Road Ballasalla Isle of Man Im9 2AN
7 Meadow Court Ballasalla
1st October 2024
1st October 2024
Officers and Members of the Planning Department Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas
It is stated by Cornerstone Architects that the Brigittes Sanctuary “was created by the trustees of the estate of Miss Joanne Brigitte Simcocks. Under the terms of the Trust there are a number of animals to be cared for until their death this includes four horses, a small flock of sheep and a gaggle of geese”. It would be helpful to all parties concerned if the text of the Brigittes Sanctuary document were made available. Within her will, Miss Simcocks carefully specified the animals which were to be ‘cared for’. There is no mention in her will that she wished ‘Brigittes Sanctuary’ to be established and, at present, it is not a registered Trust.
We attach a copy of items 10 and 11 (which are quite specific) within Miss Simcocks’s will. There is no mention that her horses, sheep and geese must be kept in this particular field, only that they must be properly cared for until their deaths (or 21 years) which-ever comes first. Furthermore, Miss Simcocks specified the animals and birds in her possession: her horses, her cat, her hens, geese and sheep. Had she possessed ‘ponies’ these would also have been specified, so why are the Trustees seeking to have stabling for these ‘working’ ponies which are being used by third parties? We question the veracity of the statements regarding these ponies and the need for stabling in this field.
At the time of Miss Simcocks death there were 14 old sheep which were past producing lambs. Their numbers have dwindled to eight with some having difficulty walking. Regarding the geese, there were in excess of 40 at the time of Miss Simcocks death. However, there were no goslings in the last year and their numbers have dwindled to some 33.
After Miss Simcocks bought the field in 2000, she created paddocks and brought in three horses which she had ‘rescued’ from slaughter in Spain (where she had been working). During Miss Simcocks’s lifetime, two of these old horses died and were buried in the field; The third horse (Pablo) died after the death of Miss Simcocks, but as we were away at the time, we do not know what happened to his body. When these horses died they were not replaced in the field with other horses.
After Miss Simcocks’s death, the horse (which is presently in the field and we have named ‘Dobbin’ for ease of reference) appeared together with a grey horse. The grey horse soon became very lame, taken away and not seen again. Ergo, Miss Simcocks possessed three horses at her death of which two have since died leaving just one horse (Dobbin). Within the Cornerstone submission there is reference to four horses being pastured on the land. There not four horses and to build four stables for one horse is unrealistic.
Miss Simcocks lived near the ford in Ballasalla. Her property there consisted of a bungalow, stabling for two or three horses and a tiny paddock with midden. As ‘Dobbin’ and the grey horse were presumably stabled there at the time of Miss Simcock’s death, the three ponies mentioned in the submission could not have been in her possession.
In her will, Miss Simcocks refers to ‘horses’. Ponies are not horses. Had Miss Simcocks possessed ‘ponies’ when she made her will (dated 19th August 2021) she would have expressed her wish that her ponies were to be cared for until their death. There is no mention of ‘ponies’ in her will. It is inconceivable that a terminally ill woman would, in the few months before her death, suddenly take on the responsibility of three fit, healthy, working ponies when she had nowhere to keep them.
Cornerstone had repeatedly referred to four horses. To substantiate their assertion that there are four horses it would seem that Cornerstone has introduced three ponies to bolster this planning application for a large stable block to accommodate four animals when in fact there is only one horse. Four stables and tack room would make a great basis for a commercial livery stable, together with a large agricultural building which would also have a commercial use.
We would also point out that Miss Simcocks rescued old animals to give them a little more life (presumably the basis for the creation of the ‘sanctuary’). Of the three ponies itemised in the Cornerstone submission, one is: “out on loan to a 3rd party for carriage driving”. Clearly not in need of ‘rescue’ and the other two ponies apparently need a ‘tack room’. Rescued and retired ponies do not need harness except for perhaps a halter and lead rein. We again question the veracity of the statements regarding these ponies and the need for stabling within the ‘sanctuary’. These ponies were never pastured in the field during Miss Simcocks lifetime. This leaves just the one horse, presently in the field, which spent last winter outside and unrugged. As the expressed wishes of Miss Simcocks does not extend to ponies, Brigittes Sanctuary would be outside its remit to stable these three ponies.
It would appear that the animals are being allowed to die and are not being replaced which, we have been advised, is in accordance with the wishes of the late Miss Simcocks. Based on the number of animals that have died since Miss Simcocks death, and taking into consideration the dwindling numbers and lifespan of sheep and geese, that shortly there will be no animals in the field. We would also point out that none of the animals that have been pastured in this field were stabled or in-wintered by Miss Simcocks.
As regards to stabling, Miss Simcocks had a barn/stable block erected at the top of the field. Although, to our knowledge was never used by Miss Simcocks, this building has recently been allowed to fall into disrepair and is now unusable. Had the building been properly maintained, this would have provided stabling and adequate storage space for a field of 4.46 acres.
Since Miss Simcocks did not use the barn she had in the field and it is hard for the present Trustees to justify the need, or cost, for the erection of a building to house a large tractor (which we believe Miss Simcocks did not own) together with other equipment and 50-60 large round bales of hay bearing mind the dwindling number of livestock and one small field. 50-60 bales is equivalent to some 480 smaller oblong bales which are easier to handle. There is no mention regarding bedding that would be required for horses/ponies that are stabled, or its disposal after ‘mucking out’.
We have lived at 7 Meadow Court for over thirty years and other than the horsebox we are not aware that Miss Simcocks owned any farm equipment. She employed men who had their own equipment to shear the sheep or to ‘top’ the grass. We question that the late Brigitte Simcocks owned any farm equipment or machinery mentioned in the Cornerstone submission, therefore one has to presume that the farm equipment is owned by a third party which, in all reality, would suggest the proposed barn being used for an agricultural contracting business.
It is also stated in the Cornerstone submission that there is: “a long term commitment to maintain the green space into the future”. ‘Green space’ is not maintained by building on it and bringing in lots of commercial machinery and equipment. Furthermore, it is stated that the buildings: “have been sited close to the existing building groups”. The proposed buildings are much too near our home and on an upward slope. Within the Cornerstone submission there are several proposals for the siting of the buildings with concerns expressed regarding the impact upon ‘Barrule’ and the Willows. No mention is made of our home (Ruloe, 7 Meadow Court) which is the most adversely affected property in this submission. This omission is a clear indication that the proposed scheme is seriously flawed.
In the photo showing “existing machinery and equipment” (actually, it has the appearance of unusable and discarded “equipment”?), our bungalow can be clearly seen in the background. In relation to the horsebox, which is also visible, it is obvious that our home is smaller and lower than the proposed buildings which will loom over us and create a visual obstruction to our main view. Cornerstone and the Sanctuary Trustees have been very economical concerning the actual need for the proposed buildings and ignore the serious impact which their erection and use would have on our home.
There are no statements regarding the pruning/maintenance of the proposed blackthorn/hawthorn (these are trees which can grow to a considerable height). No statement regarding the provision/siting of a ‘midden’ and its disposal or to the disposal of animals when they die. When there are no live animals left, what will happen to the buildings: will they be removed from the field, left to rot or used commercially? This certainly does not equate with the sentiment of “a long-term commitment to maintain the green space into the future”.
Had Miss Simcocks wished to have stabling on the field then this could have been created within the building which she had had built near the top wall or make her own planning application anytime in the twenty years before her death. It would seem contrary to her wishes that the Trustees are now proposing to build a large agricultural building and a stable block at considerable expense which, (depending upon the lifespan of Miss Simcocks’s remaining animals), will in all probability be used only for a short time. A complete waste of money, and to create buildings in this field would not be in accordance with their own objective of a long-term commitment to maintain the green space in the future. Miss Simcocks would be horrified to see that the access has been laid with hardcore when she had encouraged weeds to grow along its length.
Meadow Court is a quiet residential estate. The use of the proposed buildings would involve multiple daily comings and goings – revving of engines, bright lights at night, general noise, smell of the midden (especially when it is dispersed). None of these matters are in accordance with Miss Simcocks expressed wishes.
It is quite explicit in the Cornerstone submission that there will be considerable coming and going to the barn with the housing of machinery and the delivery of large quantities of food stuffs. Also, the care of animals in the stable block would create multiple daily visits to the buildings. There must also be concern regarding the perceived increased traffic through the access to the field, which has limited visibility, and is directly opposite a busy garage sited on the main road from Douglas to the airport and the South of the Island.
In 1998 there was a planning application No: PA.98/0995 for access on to Douglas Road from the Balthane plot of land immediately to the north and adjacent to the Airport Garage. This planning application was refused on the grounds of traffic and sight lines. The Planning Inspector stated in his report at paragraph 37: “So far as the access from Douglas Road is concerned, this is a principal traffic route which should be safeguarded under the provisions of Part 3 Article (2)(d) of the written statement accompanying the 1982 Development Order. Whilst the Order does not prohibit the creation of new access points under sub-section (iii) it seeks to avoid them under sub-section (ii)”. Also, in refusing PA. 24/91201/B planning permission: “turning traffic on a busy piece of road would be avoided and the possibility of accidents would be reduced”. See attachments.
Since 1998, there have been large developments to the north and south of Ballasalla. To the south, in Castletown, there have been residential developments at Knock Rushen, School Hill, and recently on the land between The Viking Hotel and Ocean Ford together with developments in Port Erin and Port St Mary. To the north of Douglas Road is the new large residential estate of Ryart Mie. The traffic to/from Ronaldsway Airport going north passes along Douglas Road and has increased very significantly in the last 26 years.
There is now a planning application No: 24/00896/B to develop Airport Garage and expand the site and create two new retail units, two light industrial units and deli. Forecourt services would be expanded to include: car wash, valeting services and electric charging points. Airport Garage is open from 6am until 10pm and is the only
garage between Douglas and Castletown. In its application Mannin Retail says “the Airport Garage SPAR is one of the busiest on Island with trade expected to rise considerably due to new housing developments nearby”.
When a planning application for the two houses “The Willows” and “The Oaks” (which have their joint access situated adjacent to that of PA.24/91021.B) there was a problem with “sight lines” which was solved with big splays on to the road. However, this is not possible with PA.24/91021/B as both side of the ‘access’ have fences which preclude any ‘splays’.
The Malew Commissioners were so concerned about traffic at the Balthane corner and a proposed development between ‘West Wind’ and the Airport Garage on Douglas Road, Ballasalla, that they employed Mr Bryan Hall to advise them on the Southern Area Plan. Within Mr Hall’s submission – document ‘Proof of Evidence’, reference SAP 80/01 he states in 5.3: “I have shown that a ‘minor’ access through Site 3 to Douglas Road will be contrary to Department of Transport Policy and detrimental the free and safe flow of traffic on Douglas Road and that a major access will have restricted visibility of oncoming traffic from the north and be detrimental to the safe operation of that road”. See attachments.
It is quite clear that Planning Inspectors and government officials state that Douglas Road, Ballasalla is a principal traffic route which should be safeguarded. When there have been traffic accidents near the proposed access/egress point, it would be unacceptable to approve PA 24/91021/B.
However, we would not object to a replacement stable being built on the site of Miss Simcocks’s collapsed building but our objections to any form of agricultural building remain.
Attached: Copy of paragraphs 10 & 11 of Miss Simcocks’s Will dated 19.8.2021 Inspector’s report of PA 98/0995 concerning paragraph 37 Matters relating to the development of Airport Garage SAP 80/01, paragraph 5.3
I LEAVE DEVISE BEQUEATH and APPOINT my dwelling house and surrounding gardens situate at and known as Abbey Mill Lodge, Bridge Road, Ballasalla, Isle of Man, IM9 3DA including all of its contents and all of my personal chattels as defined by Section 64 (1) Administration of Estates Act 1990, not otherwise specifically disposed of in this my Will unto my Trustees upon TRUST with POWER to sell call in and convert the same into money at such time and in such manner as my Trustees shall think fit (with power to postpone the sale calling in and conversion of my dwelling house and surrounding gardens or any part thereof as my Trustees shall in their absolute discretion think fit without being liable for loss) upon trust to invest the same and to use the income thereof for the purposes of paying and applying same for the care, upkeep, maintenance, shelter and wellbeing of all of my horses and other animals (including my cat, my hens, geese and sheep) that I own or that are in my possession as at the date of my death to be held on trust for as long as my horses or other animals any one of them shall live or for a period of 21 (twenty one years) from the date of my death whichever happens first and thereafter the remainder of the all capital and income of the said sum shall fall into and be part of my residuary estate as defined in Clause 11 of this my will.
I LEAVE DEVISE BEQUEATH and APPOINT the whole of my estates both real and personal not hereby or by any Codicil hereto otherwise disposed of whatsoever kind and description and wheresoever situate of or to which I may be possessed or entitled or over which I may have any general power of appointment or disposition by Will at the time of my death to my Trustees UPON TRUST to sell call in and convert the same into money at such time and in such manner as my Trustees shall think fit (with power to postpone the sale calling in and conversion of my estate or any part thereof as my Trustees shall in their absolute discretion think fit without being liable for loss) and with and out of the proceeds and out of my ready monies to pay my funeral and testamentary expenses and just debts and to stand possessed of the balance then remaining (hereinafter called "my Residuary Estate") upon the trusts hereinafter appearing.
JR Mockup Inspector
7
The plans include adding two retail units and two light industrial units, as well as the relocation of the existing forecourt canopy and pumps.
A supporting document says: "Due to its proximity to the vast Balthane Industrial Estate, the Freeport and the extensive construction works taking place in the area, the shop does well from passing trade and indeed for its size is one of the busiest Spar shops on the island.
"Trade is expected to rise considerably as the new build housing and additional industrial units become occupied."
Mannin Retail said it is looking to expand its convenience food offering together with incorporating other facilities such as a deli with small sit in area, a local butchers and post office collection point.
5.1 My Evidence addresses the concerns of the Malew Parish Commissioners about the impact on highway safety of introducing a second permanent point of access into the Balthane Industrial Estate through Site 3 and the impact that it would have on providing alternative means of access to the existing development both within the Estate and the Freeport.
5.2 I have described Douglas Road, its status and the measures which have been introduced by officers of the Department of Transport in order to ensure that its free flow of traffic is ensured, together with the existing highway network within the Industrial Estate.
5.3 I have shown that a ‘minor’ access through Site 3 to Douglas Road will be contrary to Department of Transport Policy and detrimental to the free and safe flow of traffic on Douglas Road and that a ‘major’ access will have restricted visibility of oncoming traffic from the north and hence be detrimental to the safe operation of that road.
5.4 I have shown that access through Site 3 will only provide alternative means of access to development fronting the partly built access road, part of the private, western cul-de-sac and the section of Balthane Road between this cul-de-sac and Douglas Road, and that the section of Balthane Road to the east of this cul-de-sac together with Park Way will remain a cul-de-sac with a single point of access.
5.5 I have shown that Park Way can be connected with the access roads within the Freeport in order to provide a through route and hence alternative means of access to development both within the Industrial Estate and the Freeport, both of which are presently accessed by way of culs-de-sac.
5.6 I have shown that this alternative will eliminate the need to construct a new junction to Douglas Road which will not conform with Department of Transport
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
