Loading document...
Mr and Mrs Sadler Ballayolgane Farm Agneash Garff IM4 7NR
Planning and Building Control Department Murray House Mt Havelock Douglas. 14/12/2017
Dear Sir
Please find enclosed, information to support our objection to Planning Application 17/01219/B at the Haven, Agneash, Garff.
We claim a strong interest in this matter, being the owners of Field 614837 which immediately borders onto the planning site at a point where there are severe drainage problems.
The site immediately abuts the Snaefell Mines Road which is our only lifeline to Laxey from our farm.
Yours Faithfully
Robin and Margaret Sadler
Robin Sadler Margaret Sadler
Mr and Mrs Sadler
Ballayolgane Farm
Agneash
Garff
IM4 7NR
Building and Planning Control Department
Murray House,
Mount Havelock
Douglas
14/12/2017
Ref: Planning Application 17/01219/B
Proposed alteration to existing garaging at the Haven, Agneash
Dear Sirs
We live at Ballayolgane Farm, which lies a quarter of a mile west of the planning site on the Snaefell Mines Road (as indicated on the planning application as a single track lane cul de sac).
This is an important access road for farmers tending their sheep on two different sections of mountain land and for us at our farm. It is also a necessary access road for the department of infrastructure who own the road, and for DEFA, the MUA and Manx Telecom. In addition, the telephone line services Ballayolgane, and extends further to Ballawill which lies on the hill above Agneash. The MUA also need access to their transformers just beyond the site of the application, plus access to their important H.T line up to Snaefell summit. To call this a cul de sac, rather demeans and plays down its significance. Apart from the above, it is used by us several times a day domestically and for business purposes as well as by numerous walkers, dog walkers, runners, motorcycles, mountain bikes etc.
The proposed development is squeezed into a strip of land into which it does not fit. There is a proposed balcony protruding towards the road at a appoint where heavy lorries, even now have difficulty in squeezing past the site. We feel that the proposed development represents overuse of the site.
We at Ballayolgane Farm, own field 614837 which at its Eastern end, borders directly onto the development site. The plan does not show accurately how the development relates to the boundary of field 614837. It would in fact encroach up to 1 metre over the boundary and, would require the removal of two mature trees in order to fit it in. The two trees, one a Sorbus Aucuparia (Mountain Ash), and the other a Ligustrum, both produce flowers in the summer, and to us, their owners represent a valuable ecological asset. These trees are not shown on the plan, and since we own these trees, we will do everything we can to preserve them. We have already established a group of more Mountain Ash to enhance the habitat. The necessary groundwork to prepare the site would definitely harm these trees. Whilst we appreciate that the planning department does not get involved in boundary disputes, allowing this work to proceed would create a boundary dispute which at present does not exist.
We are very concerned about the effect this development would have on the water supply to our farm, which comes from the MUA hydrant in the road outside Le Petite Colline. Our water is piped along a private line, which runs under the road below the concrete ramp and up into the corner of field 614837 and across the field to our farm. Should this line be damaged during building operations we would be left with no alternative supply. Since this pipe is privately owned, and beyond the responsibility of the MUA, we would be faced with the possibility of having to pursue claims for repairs from the owners of the Haven, or the building firm, which would be protracted and expensive. Should the project be approved, we wonder whether the planning committee could include a clause to the effect that reinstatement of any damage be made a condition? I think we already know the answer!
Another problem involved in this proposal is the presence of a rather rudimentary tail drain which has been piped through onto our land by a previous owner without our permission. This has only just become apparent, possibly caused by the overflow of the sceptic tank higher up, which serves the Haven and which is proposed on the plan to serve the new development as well. Whatever the cause, the present situation is obviously unacceptable. The bottom corner of the field is now a pool of foul effluent, creating an unpleasant smell which has been noticed and commented upon by passing neighbours who regularly walk along the road to Snaefell mine.
The offending tail drain will obviously have to be removed from our land, but where will it go? From the submitted plan it can only go under the existing lower garden and percolate down to the back of the new development. We would be very interested to know of their solution to this problem because it certainly will not involve any draining into field 614837, which is an agricultural field on which we will not tolerate any contamination. It would require some very sophisticated sanitary engineering within their boundary to solve it.
A further consideration is the organisation of building operations in such a tight space without blocking the road for a considerable length of time. Consider the problem of removing builders rubble, delivering concrete, storing building materials, finding car parking spaces for building workers and places for lorries to turn. They will certainly not be allowed to turn on our farmyard if they have anything to do with the project. They will have to reverse out onto Agneash Cronk.
There is no mention of the source of a new water supply, except that the proposal requires a new or amended water supply. Where will it come from, and will it affect our connection to the water supply if excavation is required?
Gribbin
What provisions would be made for access to the Snaefell Mines Road if we needed help in an emergency and the road was blocked? We are both in our seventies, are both described as medically at risk, and we feel threatened by this project.
We try not to be negative about change, but we do feel that this is a purely speculative project that will lead to further requests, variations and modifications if granted. We feel that it is ill conceived, inaccurately planned and will create problems not only for us but for the proposer if it is approved.
We object to this application in the strongest terms.
Yours Faithfully
Robin and Margaret Sadler
Robin Sadler
Margaret Sadler
No Response? Access issues are particularly relevant here.
Plans do not clearly show existing relationships with neighbouring properties and land boundaries
The plan does not accurately show all existing trees as stipulated, particularly two trees which belong to us and would be destroyed by this development. These two trees delineate the boundary line.
15 (c) Water, has the developer consulted with the M.U.A. (water authority) about this? Are they aware of other connections to the water hydrant outside “La Petite Colline”?
16 (a) The existing system discharges water out onto the public highway.
(b) The existing foul sewerage system overflows into field 614637 without our permission and is already a problem described previously.
(c) Has this been satisfactorily demonstrated?
17 (a) and (b) Where is the accurate drawing showing existing trees including those belonging to our field? Why are our trees which would be destroyed by this development not shown?
18 Answer should be yes. The ditch on the right side of the road beyond the site is blocked by the existing concrete ramp projecting from the garage.
To SHAEGELL MINES R BALLATOLGAME FARM LOCATION MAP FIELD 614837 SHAEGELL MINES 8038 TRANSGORTHED M.T. ELECTRICITY LINE TO SHAEGELL SUMMIT THE HAUGU SITE AGNEASU. CRONK
VIEW FROM OUR FIELD (NO 614837). SHOWING THE TWO MATURE TRIES WHICH DEFINITELY THE BOUNDARY LINE
P.TU
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
