Neighbour Objection Letter

Rocklands Bradda East Port Erin IM9 6QB

Secretary, Planning Committee, DoLGE Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas IM1 2SF

23 June 2004

Dear Sirs

Planning Application 04/1109 - Rose Bank Bradda East Port Erin

We write in connection with the above planning application and the associated 02/2517.

02/2517 was a new build - an inappropriately extended, oversized and shaped dwelling for the area, allegedly a Replacement Dwelling of a Manx cottage. We were not made aware that the new build was so massive nor that the proposed development would in fact involve the felling and physical damage to the roots and branches of any tree.

Notwithstanding, the design should have incorporated an internal boiler system. The site of this proposed external boiler shed greatly affects our property and enjoyment of our garden particularly with regard to noise and fumes and unsightly proposed tin flue stack on top of the proposed shed (for which incidentally the plans do not specify a height) surely designed to specifically take fumes from his area – and then into ours!

The original building had a chimney breast and the new build should incorporate a flue (similar to the adjoining Maynrys formerly Glonney Cottage) within a chimney.

Further, the proposed retaining wall is already built. It was excavated and built in February/early March 2004 resulting in severe damage to the root ball of a tree which subsequently suffered extreme butchering which shocked the tree into developing later than other sycamore trees in the area and now will surely die. A retrospective felling licence was obtained after Paragraph 11(b) in 02/2517 and after excavating and permanently damaging the roots. Both applications are thus untrue and inaccurate.

Paragraph 16 in 04/1109 is misleading insofar that the tree has been all but obliterated by excavations and near total lopping and felling already. There is no doubt that the new dwelling could not have progressed without severely affecting this tree to the point of its destruction. The tree was hacked and undermined beyond saving and this external boiler site could not have progressed either if the tree and branches were still there.

Accordingly, we aver that the proposed site and nature of the application 04/1109 is unneighbourly and inappropriate. Both applications have over-elevated positions.

Yours faithfully

TP Woodrow

TP Woodrow