**Document:** SPMCE Planning Views Sheet 1-2 **Application:** 07/02302/B — Alterations to windows **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2008-02-21 **Parish:** Lezayre **Document Type:** consultation / consultation_response **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/83549-lezayre-loughen-e-yeigh-windows/documents/1230809 --- # SPMCE Planning Views Sheet 1-2 ## Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside & Environment [Table omitted in markdown export] FOUNDED 1938 PATRON CHAIRMAN HON. SECRETARY REGD. CHARITY (IOM) No.391 HIS EXCELLENCY THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR CHARLES FLYNN 31, FIRST AVENUE DOUGLAS MRS. M.B. CRELLIN CRONK ny GREINNEY GLASHEN CLOSE, BALLASALLA, MALEW WEBSITE> www.apmce.com On PLANNING issues please reply to> S.P.M.C.&E c/o Glebe Cottage, Maughold, IM7 1AS Phone 815748 Email: iankbleasdale@manx.net Secretary to the Planning Committee, Department of Planning & the Environment, Murray House, DOUGLAS Dear Ms. Callow, SPMC&E VIEWS ON APPLICATIONS from WEEKLY LIST 2007/51-- List dated 27/12/07 SHEET 1 AS SENT Date of this response 02/01/08 A paucity of information on what is being replaced – no ‘as existing’ drawings or even a photograph. What we are to get is the usual country mansion; this time a poorly designed (internally) 6 bedroom extravaganza. Thus (large) new houses in the countryside proliferate. This is not what the Society was set up to encourage! Needless to say, we are DISPLEASED. [Table omitted in markdown export] Curved heads! Good to see someone doing the right thing. Would that other hotels along Douglas Promenade had used quality sash windows. [Table omitted in markdown export] Assuming, and I have not checked – that this land really is all zoned – then granting A-i-P will do no harm. However certain considerations spring to mind. If the industrial land is to be successfully developed, it will need to be done first because, once dwellings surround it, the inhabitants will object so strongly, that industry won’t get a look-in. The developers rather casual approach won’t work. Flood prevention measures need serious investigation and design. We were surprised to learn (from the recent application for tipping off Bride Road) that soil is to be carted off-site from Phase 1 of the present, easterly, development. One would have thought that all possible material would be required for flood banks and bunds? The question of a new river crossing was left hanging somewhat in the Development Brief and this is the LAST CHANCE for any change of mind on this, VERY IMPORTANT, issue. [Table omitted in markdown export] The contrasted spelling of this and it’s accompanying application, well illustrates the difficulty of operating an address-based data-base of Planning Applications! We have no objections to the development itself but isn’t this the same site where an eco-friendly new house in the countryside was recently approved and which subsequently set off some controversy? 2 pretty cottages on an important frontage. The sun-lounge alterations at the rear are clearly an improvement on the present but we cannot with conviction applaud the new porches. The one porch (canopy) which exists is as pretty as the cottage and it will be rather sad to see it go. (I'd be happy to buy it!) Nevertheless, one can appreciate the benefits of enclosed porches in this exposed situation. This new application may well be about the 10th. on the same site for essentially the same thing. (However diversely titled!) This one seeks support from the Strategic Plan but the Appeal on the last one was under the aegis of the same policy document but didn't prevent the Inspector from roundly rejecting the Appeal. Specific mention is made of Polices 10 & 13. 10 relates to Coastal development and 13 to flood risk. Perhaps they mean HOUSING Policies 10 & 13? 10 relates to agricultural dwellings but there seems to be no discernable agricultural case for this new dwelling within the present submission. Housing Policy 13 is more apposite. One must appreciate though, that if this building is reasonably intact and has possibly the look of a cottage, this is largely because of recent, modern work carried out without permission and therefore illegal. At the last appeal, much was made of the applicants need to reside near her horses. This is not mentioned now but were it to be raised, it ought to be pointed out (so we are told) that since her return to the Island, she seems to have lived, by her own choice, in several houses remarkably remote from where her horses were kept. It is also apposite that the applicant's family is such that it will be unlikely to be able to reside in a minute, 2 bedroom, dwelling for long, and applications for extensions will be most likely. The Society sticks with its long-standing policy, as regards this site and VERY STRONGLY OBJECTS. Were an approval to be given now, it would be highly unfair and in-equitable in relation to the several previous applicants. Copied to file ...102... Plotted on Map...Z28... Check pigeon-hole. yes.. Yours sincerely, For & on behalf of the S.P.M.C.& E. Ian K. Bleasdale MRICS.,DipTP.,DipLI. Honorary PlanningOfficer. [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] --- *Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).* *Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/83549-lezayre-loughen-e-yeigh-windows/documents/1230809*