Objection Letter from John Kerruish

John F. Kerruish BA(Hons), 32, Douglas Street, Peel, Isle of Man, IM5 1BB.

Telephone / Answering Machine : 01624-843523 e-mail: [email protected] Mobile: 07624-241163

23rd July 2007

Secretary to Planning Committee, Planning Application Objection, Department of Local Government and the Environment, Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man IM1 2SF.

23 July 2007

RECEIVED ON 25 JUL 2007 Office of Local Government IM5 1BB

Notice Of My Expression Of Objection Concerning Planning Application 07/01211/B By Fiona Wade, In Respect Of 30 Douglas Street, Peel, Iom, Im5 1Bb

Specific Objection To Proposed Works If Inner Terrace Is Built Level Or Above My Garage Base Foundation Plinth (See Item 3 Below)

Reference Numbers 07/01211/B (Comment deadline 26th July 07) (WITHIN THE PEEL CONSERVATION AREA)

Dear Madame / Sir,

I am replying in detail, because I am the owner of the adjacent property on one side, that is, the next door neighbour.

I will number my points as follows :

1) In the creation of two terraces, the applicant refers to the “second terrace”. There is confusion, because his drawing does not specify which of the two terraces is the second, or which is the first. I am assuming, from the longitudinal section aa drawing, that the second terrace proposed is the one nearer the Boilley Spittall Lane, because this is the one which appears to be drawn level to the road level of the lane. However, the applicant writes that the height of it shall be, quote “level with next doors garden and road level”. I do not understand the relevance of this comment, since this terrace is not adjacent to anything that might be described as my garden. Also, the Boilley Spittall Lane has a downward hill slope, and 30 Douglas Street, is on the downward side of the slope relative to my property, 32 Douglas Street. So a height equal to what he claims is my garden, would be above the road height, measured where the road meets his property.

2) In connection with previous applications for 32 Douglas Street, namely 07/00747/C, 07/00748/C, 07/00749/C, 07/00750/, I have already complained about the placement of rubble in the area of these two proposed terraces and

beyond that area.

Quote from my letter of 6th May 2007:

“In early April 2005, I complained to you concerning the felling & removal of the orchard trees at 30 Douglas Street, the placement of rubble over the orchard, and also the erection of an external wooden staircase at 30 Douglas Street, all of which were carried out without planning permission or tree felling licence. Mr. Steve Olsen acknowledged my complaints with a letter ref SO/05/00088/COMP of 22 April 2005 and 05/01050/R of the 21st June 2005. (Copies appended). Mr. Olsen made a site visit to 30 Douglas Street, and also made a site visit to my house on the tit-for-tat response from Brian Wade, who tried to make a case that my house extension had been built without planning permission, a claim which proved to be without foundation.

Retrospective permission for the external staircase was subsequently obtained. I had no objection to the staircase, I merely objected to the fact that such works were carried out without prior planning permission.

Mr. Olsen’s letter, SO/05/00088/COMP of the 22 April 2005, advised me that my complaint concerning the removal of trees and placement of rubble would be logged for investigation and that I would be advised in due course. He did carry out a site visit. But I can report that I have not been further advised about this, subsequent to his site visit, even though the letter had stated I would be so advised. No further communication on the matter from Mr Olsen was received by me.

Furthermore, I can report that since then, rubble has continued unabated to be piled up, old plaster, slates, sandstone, engineering bricks, concrete, stones, and rubbish of all sorts.

...End of quote.

Once again, this is largely a retrospective application, because the rubble of the terraces has already been laid.

3) I object to the height of the inner terrace (WHETHER IT IS REFERRED TO AS FIRST OR SECOND) being equal or above the height of the foundation plinth of my garage, because surface rainwater from the terrace will likely run off, through the porous mortar of the party wall and onto the garage plinth, causing a water problem in the garage, where machines and tools requiring a dry environment are kept. In a moist atmosphere, they would become corroded and unserviceable.

4) Also, he is referring to a working height equal to the height of my garden. There is a small strip of ground only ONE METRE deep, along the entrance apron to the rear of my garage, reached by climbing a staircase. (see the attached photograph). There are two small shrubs planted there, a fuschia and a variegated ivy. To describe this as a garden, is stretching reality. The original garden is some six feet (2 m) below this level, at the bottom of the staircase. It has been concreted to make a hard surface. The boundary wall originally was around nine foot high.

The placement of rubble, which has already been carried out, means that the party wall viewed from the applicant's side, is now only two to three feet in height, adjacent to the strip of ground referred to above. The rubble also in places is already above the height of the garage plinth and of this strip of ground. I strongly object to this having already been carried out.

Enclosure attached : Photograph of staircase at 32 Douglas Street

Yours truly,

John F. Kerruish