Loading document...
16^{\text {th }} July 2015. Mrs Marie Collins Senior Secretary Office of Planning Murray House. Dear Mrs Collins Rushen Parish Commissioners have considered the following planning applications and their views are:-
It is noted that there are no measurements on these plans for either the burial ground extension nor for the car park.
Whilst RPC would have preferred a wall as the boundary they understand that a stone wall would be prohibitively expensive and that Planning would not permit a block wall, even though the existing wall is blocks for more than half its extent. As Rushen Commissioners are the owners of the land and are selling it to the RBGA for a nominal amount, the boundary was discussed at length with them. RPC reluctantly agreed with the boundary being just a fence and hedge but insisted that the RBGA ensure that the boundary fence must be concrete posts, concreted into the ground and it must be stockproof i.e. wire and pig-wire to keep out any stock or, especially, dogs. They also felt that the hedge should be a mixture of thom and other suitable shrubs. They note that the RBGA have kept the hedge as being beech. The beech hedge must be kept cut and not allowed to grow tall with resultant gaps at the bottom. This is to try to keep out dogs and other livestock and to form a barrier. The remainder of the field will, eventually, be public open space. The Planning Committee may have specific views on burial grounds. b) 15/00682. Robin Hill Farm, Cronk Y Dhooney, Ballakilpheric. Progeny Ltd. Replacement of redundant agricultural shed with a new dwelling, garden and garage.
No objections. c) 15/00622. Kimmeragh, Ballafesson Road. Mr & Mrs D Fisher. Demolition of existing and erection of an extension to rear elevation of dwelling. AMENDED PLANS.
No objections.
d) 15/00739. Motorlands and Nooklands, Shore Road, Bay ny Carrickey, Hartford Homes Ltd. Demolition of existing and erection of 3 detached properties and integral garage. (variation to previously approved PA13/00485/REM). It had been approved for 3 new dwellings.
The former approval suggested that this was an opportunity for developers to design and build three distinctively different houses. This does not seem to have been addressed.
RPC do not think that the cedar cladding is suitable for properties in this very exposed area where the sea spray and winds and sometimes large waves would very quickly weather the wood and make it unattractive and neglected looking.
There is great concern regarding construction traffic. The garage to the rear of the plot is being retained for storage, etc and the entrance to this is on Mount Gawne Road. This would mean that some construction traffic would be using and parking in Mount Gawne Road. When Seascape was built on Mount Gawne Road the construction traffic - many wagons and large vans, obstructed a long stretch of the road for months, making access very difficult for passing drivers but especially for the residents of the houses on the road who had great difficulty in accessing their driveways. A condition should be put on this application that each plot should be built individually so that construction traffic can be kept on site.
The Commissioners are very supportive of this site being developed as it is an eyesore at present and suitably designed houses could only be an improvement.
Yours sincerely
Gillian Kelly
Gillian Kelly (Mrs)
Clerk
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
