Redacted Thie Vargr Laureston Grove Douglas IM2 4BG 2^{\text {nd }} September 2020

Department of Infrastructure Planning & Building Control Department Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Planning Application 20/000876/B

As an interested party to the above application for 7 Laurenton Grove by virtue of residing at number 6 , I make the following comments in objection to the application.

1. There appears to be no real requirement for the parking facility on the driveway. There are no problems with parking on the Grove, all of the houses park their vehicles directly outside their properties, there is plenty of space for visitors to park and indeed the owners of number 5 often have four vehicles at the property and no problem in parking them. There is ample space for workmen to park vans alongside residents parking and for the refuse truck and recycling wagon to come to the top of the Grove to service Thie Ain and Ivydene, the two properties situated there.

2. I have owned and resided in my property for over 12 months and witnessed some busy periods when there are events on at Nobles Park and the Grandstand. The road does have a few more vehicles in it as people use the areas around Nobles Park to leave their cars whilst they are at the event but there have been no issue with residents of the Grove parking their cars during these times.

3. My property is lower than number 7 by a metre or so and any water emanation flows in my direction. The addition of a car(s) on the front garden area would exacerbate the issue with the weight of the car(s) on the garden.

4. From the plans, it appears there are no changes to be made to the existing garden. Is there a plan to add a sufficient soak away in place on the property in order to negate stagnant water and the flow of water downwards and into my garden. This is already an issue with the existing front wall already a compromised structure - most likely due to the lack of sufficient soak away in situ ensuring water comes through cracks in the wall ensuring my garden is constantly water logged. In addition, the potential for petrol and oil leaks in the area would also adversely affect my property with the run off of any such fluid being washed down into my garden.

5. Aesthetics - Part of the charm of the terraces are the walled and secure front and back gardens. The walls to the front elevation are pretty and decorative thus adding to the character of the properties. This was part of the attraction for me when purchasing. The fact that there were proper gardens on the Grove and not car parks was extremely appealing.

6. Currently my view from my living room window is my own garden and the rather lovely roses and flowers in the garden of number 7. Should the application be approved, I would be faced with the side of a large ugly SUV vehicle sat a metre or so higher than my own garden and a little over a metre from my living room window. This would also remove light from my living room and adversely affect my health and wellbeing with fumes from the vehicle/s next to my windows which are open year round.

7. It is accepted the two end properties on the Grove - numbers 1 and 8 - have drive ways, and that, I would suggest is more to do with the size of the plot that was remaining when the properties were built around 1947 than a modern addition although they have been maintained as driveways and still retain the wall on the front elevation. Number 8 has 2 vehicles and often has visitors. One car is parked on the driveway with the other on the road and their visitors also park on the road. There have been no access issues to and from vehicles at numbers 7,6 , and 5 when this occurs.

8. I do not think the space on the garden is large enough for two cars. There is only one car for the household currently. Two cars would make it extremely difficult to ingress and egress from the parking area safely without bumping vehicles already parked on the road plus it would mean unnecessary vehicle movements adding to carbon footprint and goes against the Isle of Man Governments commitment to zero emissions. I also think there would be issues with one car on the proposed parking area. The angle would need to be nearly 90^{\circ} to exit the alleged parking area and around parked vehicles to enter the road.

9. Sight line - I would argue rather firmly that the line from number 7 towards Thie Ain and Ivydene is incorrect. There is not a straight line of sight as shown on the plan enclosed with the Supporting Documents. There is an abundance of trees and foliage all year round at the corner of number 8 and it is impossible to see up the pathway to the two houses and the pedestrian cut through from the other side of the Grove which is used constantly by adults, school children, children on bikes and scooters etc. and those walking dogs. It is noted that this has a safety impact on us all, not just the applicant of the proposed request.

10. Allowing this application would set a precedent for the granting of applications from the 7 other houses on the Grove. This would completely ruin the locale and the current aesthetically pleasing look of the Grove and cause a safety issue with cars exiting driveways and the angles at which they would require to do this alongside the pedestrian aspect.

In conclusion, I object to planning application 20/000876/B for the aforementioned reasons.

Yours faithfully Redacted