35558

==== PAGE 1 ====

5 Chapel Court Derbyhaven Isle of Man ~CEIVEDO ~ 'tV 25 FEB ""'" i..J 23'd February 2015 Department of Planning, Infrastructure and Building Control Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas Dear Sir Application No 15/00126/8 I am advised a historical restrictive covenant applies preventing me from objecting to development of the field at the rear of my property. Consequently I am writing to notify you of concerns you may wish to consider as part of the planning application. These concerns are to provide you with information that you may deem to be relevant to the application. It does not constitute an objection within the meaning of the covenant. I would like to start by saying when I bought my property, planning permission had already been granted for the proposed house. However the landscaping of the grounds, as per the plan, did not include a tennis court. The current area now designated for the tennis court was shown as a 'wild garden'; in other words left untended and allowed to run wild with my fence as its backdrop. If the tennis court plan had been extant at the time of purchase, or actually in place, the closeness of such a tall tennis court enclosure, running alongside my boundary fence would have been so obtrusive I most certainly would not have bought the house, even at a substantially reduced price, It is obvious from the plans that if granted the proposal will eliminate a very substantial amount of light on both floors of my house. In contrast I will be pleased, however, when the excavated mounts of earth and waste that have existed on this plot for several months are removed. The mess has caused much concern. I have called the commissioners to draw their attention to this fact, although nothing has yet been done. 1 have two major concerns. The first is drainage. Since moving-in an issue became evident. The rear of my property has poor drainage, a problem that led to a damp patch in the house. I was advised this was caused by ineffective soakaways. This was resolved but I was simultaneously advised the system now in place is only just adequate. Any disturbance of the status quo will almost certainly cause further problems. It is notable no drainage of the tennis court area is mentioned in the plans, and it seems reasonable to draw to your attention that suitable drainage needs to be added to the plans. If the building of the tennis court is allowed to go ahead without suitable drainage, and a reoccurrence of my damp occurs, I anticipate the owner of the tennis court will be required to rectify any damage at their expense. Ideally of course it would make more sense that the drainage is dealt with as a major issue as part of the planning process and suitable measures defined. My final concern is the closeness of the proposed court to the rear of my property. The fence and hedging will certainly make me feel like I am in a prison but more importantly will affect my right to light. The proposal I feel is far too close to the back of all our properties and I would request that the tennis court is moved a lot further away or to another area on the plot.

==== PAGE 2 ====

, I do feel that the applicant should consider the neighbours and the effects such plans will have on their outlook and property value, particularly when they are unable to object, a fact the applicant is fully aware of and is perhaps taking full advantage of that situation. A final consideration is that of lighting. The plans do not show any provision for any form of external lighting. Does this Indicate the court is only to be used when there is sufficient natural light; and should planning permission reflect that? It is not unknown for keen players to illuminate playing areas with car headlights. To prevent this it might be appropriate to then restrict the hours when tennis or other games can be played to those when natural light is available. I would be grateful if my concerns could be considered before any plans are passed. Yours sincerely Sarah Glover