Loading document...
Mr C Balmer Principal Planner DEFA Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas Isle of Man IM1 2SF
Dear Mr Balmer
I thank you for your letter of 13 August 2018 together with enclosure from DoI Highway Services.
I do, however, confess to some difficulty in formulating a response in view of the errors contained in the Highway Services memo which unfortunately seem to repeat those which, in large part, led to the exchanges of correspondence in 2012 & 2014.
For example, paragraphs 3 & 8 of the Highway Services memo reveal a basic misunderstanding of the topography here & I can only assume a site visit has not been made. The comments that ‘the private lane provides vehicular access to the rear of several properties in the vicinity which also have vehicular & pedestrian access to the property frontages’ (Paragraph 3) & ‘It should be noted that the existing properties that have rear access off the private lane all have frontage access in the event of an emergency’ (Paragraph 8) are both imprecise & incorrect.
It is necessary to divide the properties along the lane to those on the ‘land-side’ & those on the ‘sea-side’ of the lane. Those properties on the ‘land-side’ have pedestrian but not vehicular access rights whilst those on the ‘sea-side’ have rights to both pedestrian & vehicular access.
The properties on the ‘sea-side’ of the lane (Pinfold Croft, Chisnall, Cronk Marrey, Aysgarth, Grenaby, Vienna Woods, together with Ballacollister Farmhouse & the application site) rely solely on the lane for both pedestrian & vehicular access to their properties. Contrary to what is stated there is no frontage access to the six properties mentioned with rear access to the lane.
Furthermore, the suggestion (Paragraph 3) that ‘this part of the lane serves one existing dwelling which also appears to have a second access off Ballacollister Road’ is also wrong. As indicated in the previous paragraph Ballacollister Farmhouse relies on the lane for both pedestrian & vehicular access.
Turning to the width of the lane I can only refer you to my letter to your predecessor dated 19 July 2012 in which I advised that the then Highways Division had confirmed to me in writing their willingness to adopt the lane as a ‘highway maintainable at public expense’. Presumably they would not have done so had access for emergency & refuse vehicles or other factors been seen as a problem.
As it is refuse vehicles have always used the lane as have oil tanker vehicles collecting from or delivering to the various properties along the lane including the last property, Ballacollister Farmhouse, as necessary without apparent problem. It is, therefore, difficult to see why access to the application site would cause a problem when existing usage has not.
I would also refer you to the planning application itself when I advised that it would be the intention to create a turning point at the entrance to the field site. I would suggest that this would overcome the comment (Paragraph 3) that ‘there would be limited visibility to the right which is below current visibility standards’.
I had hoped that the exchanges of letters between myself & Planning in July 2012 & subsequently in August & October 2014 which detailed the errors made by Highways in their assessment of earlier planning applications had enabled the Highways reservations to be allayed. Indeed, this seemed to be confirmed by the 2016 response to PA 16/00687/A which advised that the DoI did not oppose that Planning Application.
It is, therefore, particularly disappointing that it has been necessary to revisit ‘old ground’ when much of the above is dealt with in correspondence which presumably is on file at Highway Services.
If I can provide further information please do not hesitate to contact me & if you feel a site visit would assist I will be delighted to accompany you.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
