Appendix G Residents Petition Response

Appendix G

Response to Petition by the Residents of Tower Road

PA 08/00907/B The Arches, Tower Road, Port Erin

In response to a letter dated 22nd August 2008 from the Residents of Tower Road, Port Erin to the Secretary of the Planning Committee in respect of the above I would comment as follows:

For clarity I will use the same numbers as those in the residents' letter

1. It is largely as a result of the improvements to the structure that there have been the various applications, and many of the changes are the result of the structural work required. For example, the removal of the mullion to the kitchen window, the removal of the external staircase and the change to the shape of the window beneath the kitchen to name but three.

1. The Planning Committee approved the earlier application (PA 07/01918/B) and therefore I consider the concerns of the other residents unfounded. The main reason for the current application is to correct alleged inaccuracies so as to avoid any legal challenge, all as agreed between the parties at the appeal hearing, and there are only minor differences in the two schemes.

1. Whilst the detail has changed, the scope (and magnitude) is essentially the same as the first three applications, none of which drew any objections.

Mr & Mrs Routledge have always been happy to extend an invitation to the Planning Committee to view the site, and indeed had previously extended similar invitations to the Port Erin Commissioners and Mrs Brewis' representative, along with other neighbours. The Planning Committee have subsequently visited the site.

Our ref: 928/1/JMC

Tower Road Residents' Petition

November 2008

Page 2 of 11

1. Before any applications were submitted Mr & Mrs Routledge approached both their immediate neighbours and, as both are elderly ladies, they involved advisers - Mrs King, her son and Mrs Brewis a professional adviser. From the outset no objections were made. Subsequently as the work proceeded they gave them their phone number, and the phone numbers of the foremen, so that if there was a problem they had someone to contact.

In respect of the building work we accept that given the narrow access, residents have been inconvenienced but we have endeavoured to manage the site to minimise the disruption and have liaised with the neighbours in an effort to work around their requirements. For example, at Mrs Brewis's request, when she had a series of injections and required to recuperate in peace at home, work on site was stopped.

With regard to the alleged damage to neighbouring properties, as no names are mentioned, we can only speculate, but the only damage we are aware of is to Mrs King's wall and her insurers accepted that this was historical and not as a result of the building works to The Arches. At all times we have been at pains to obtain the necessary permit for any oversized vehicles.

With regards to the effects the proposals have had on the neighbours, it is pertinent to note that it is only Mrs Brewis who has objected in the past (about a perceived invasion of her privacy).

The landing adjacent to Mrs King's window has not been altered, only the steps repositioned and the new structure has been fully designed by a structural engineer and is independent of her property.

With regard to Mrs Brewis's concerns, the terrace with the artificial lawn was largely pre-existing and the extended living room does not overlook the windows of her

Our ref: 928/1/JMC

Tower Road Residents' Petition

November 2008

Page 3 of 11

property. It is in the nature of a sloping site that there is an element of overlooking, and if anything, Mrs Brewis overlooks The Arches rather than vice versa.

1. As noted, Mr& Mrs Routledge invited the Commissioners to attend the site and are unaware as to why their attitude should change so vehemently. Applications 1,2 and 3 were approved without objections. Application 5 drew the comments as listed but with no obvious reasoning given that the scheme is similar in scope to the earlier ones that gained approval.

See also letters from Marshall Cryer Architects, 19 October 2007 to Port Erin Commissioners and 05 December 2007 to the Planning Committee, copies enclosed, explaining the background to this earlier application.

We have not attempted to exploit the planning system, but have tried to explain that the additional structural work that was found to be necessary, has resulted in many of the changes, which are largely of design rather than extent. The fact is that elements of the application are retrospective and this is a result of us having to complete work hopefully to shorten the building period and disruption in the area.

1. While I will not comment on the interpretation of the general policies contained in the Strategic Plan and do not agree with the Residents' interpretation I would point out that any number of the objections relate to elements of the design which already have planning approval eg the pillars to the pool and the enclosure itself. In addition I do not understand the comment that it now "abuts too closely to the two neighbouring properties" as the house has not been extended towards either Brackenbank or Gorse Bank (in fact an earlier flat-roofed extension built off the party wall with Mrs King has been demolished).

With regard to (b) we have kept the open areas that were pre-existing and have tried to

Our ref: 928/1/JMC

Tower Road Residents' Petition

November 2008

Page 4 of 11

enhance them with artificial turf etc.

With regard to item (c) I consider that when complete The Arches will complement the area which, after all, is predominantly residential with any number of differing building types extant. The planting that has been undertaken has already started to mature and soften the structure.

With regard to the residents' concerns in respect of the planning process and the performance of the Planning Committee it is not for me to comment. Suffice to say we have been at pains to be as open as possible. We have highlighted even the most minor of items, eg changes in railings, plaster banding around the windows and alterations to glazing to the front doors and this is now being held against us.

The comments regarding overall acceptance of the development are hearsay and, if even partially correct, no doubt influenced by the fact that The Arches continues to be a building site shrouded in scaffolding etc.

With regards to the suggested condition and the complaints of the neighbours I would advise that:

(a) the contractor rented land from the farmer and broke down the loads as best as he could

(b) for the majority of the time, while work was proceeding, there were no yellow lines on the road. However, Mr & Mrs Routledge posted signs to remind The Arches personnel not to park adjacent to the junction (and even dismissed a plasterer who insisted on ignoring them) and made every effort to try to get independent tradesmen to respect the neighbours. They investigated a minibus but this does not work as tradesmen require to access their tools etc.

(c) As other residents will no doubt learn in due course a crane is necessary to access restricted sites on Tower Road. For information, since January 2007 we have had a

Our ref: 928/1/JMC Tower Road Residents' Petition November 2008 Page 5 of 11

crane on thirteen occasions and each time we have liaised with the neighbours to endeavour minimum disruption.

While it was Mrs Brewis's prerogative to object against the earlier application, and Mr Maddrell's to object to the current application, this application is solely as a result of Mrs Brewis taking the previous scheme to appeal. The committee approved the earlier application and I feel that as nothing has changed they are being entirely consistent in approving the current proposals.

John Cryer Marshall Cryer Architects

November 2008