-
Minutes of May 2010 AGM
RUSHEN PARISH COMMISSIONERS
Annual General Meeting held 7 30pm Wednesday 19th May 2010 at Ballafesson Hall.
MINUTES
Present: Mr P Gunn (retiring Chairman), Mr D Radcliffe (retiring Vice-chairman)
Mr P Vernon, Mr D Cain, Mr A Tinkler (for part of the meeting).
1. MINUTES
The Minutes of the Meeting held Wednesday 21st April 2010, having previously been circulated, were taken as read and agreed a true record.
2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR MUNICIPAL YEAR 2010/11.
Mr Gunn thanked all the Members and the Clerk for all their help throughout his year in Office.
The election for the new Chairman and Vice-Chairman then took place.
CHAIRMAN
Mr David Radcliffe was proposed by Mr Tinkler and seconded by Mr Vernon.
He agreed to take Office.
VICE-CHAIRMAN
Mr Derek Cain was proposed by Mr Vernon and seconded by Mr Tinkler.
He agreed to take Office.
3. ELECTION TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMITTEES.
i) Southern Civic Amenity Site Board – due for election for a 3 year period.
Mr Cain was proposed by Mr Vernon. Mr Cain said he would not mind standing down if the Board felt that a new face was required. However, he was seconded by Mr Gunn and he agreed to take the position.
ii) Southern Swimming Pool Board – due for election for 3 year period.
Mr Radcliffe, who had been on the Board for two years, was proposed by Mr Cain and seconded by Mr Tinkler.
iii) Marashen Crescent Elderly Persons Housing Board – due for election for a 3 year period.
Mr Radcliffe was proposed by Mr Vernon and seconded by Mr Gunn.
iv) Municipal Association – Annual.
Mr Gunn was proposed by Mr Vernon and seconded by Mr Cain. The Clerk reminded Members that, if the representative could not attend then the Association thought it very important that a substitute did so.
v) Southern Healthcare Committee – Annual.
Mr Tinkler, the present representative, said that he was Secretary and Vice-Chairman and he thought that it would be acceptable for Rushen to have a representative other than him.
Mr Vernon was proposed by Mr Cain and seconded by Mr Gunn.
The Clerk was to write to Mr Tinkler, in his capacity as Secretary to the Committee, to inform them that Mr Vernon had been nominated as Rushen Parish Commissioners’ representative.
vi) Rushen Ambulance Committee – Annual
Mr Vernon indicated that he would be willing to step down. Mr Tinkler indicated he would be willing to stand and he was proposed by Mr Vernon and seconded by Mr Cain.
vii) Golden Jubilee Trust –
Mr Radcliffe was to remain as the representative – proposed by Mr Cain and seconded by Mr Vernon.
4. MATTERS ARISING:
a) Southern Area Plan.
Nothing further at present.
i) DoLGE/Local Authority Issues:-
ii) Corporate Governance Principles and Code of Conduct.
Record of Members’ Interests – Members were in the process of completing their entries.
iii) Court Training for Clerks – The Clerk had attended the full day session that day (19th May). She reported that she had found it interesting although much of it was about dog fouling. She did, however, gain enough information for her to feel fairly confident in preparing the paperwork for a High Hedges Case if needed, also possibly prosecuting or being a witness in a case.
d) Waste Management and Refuse Collection
Bad Debtors – Mr Tinkler had not been to see these people yet.
Port Erin Commissioners – combined refuse meetings. These were now being held between Port Erin, Port St Mary and Malew only.
John Wrigley – Waste Manager. He was to be invited to attend the June meeting.
Refuse Collection
Sound Café – The Clerk was to visit the Sound Café and check on the situation.
Bins wrecked – The Clerk had received a report from the organisers of the Rally that a car had gone off the road and wrecked two bins on Balnahowe Road. They said to send the bill to them for the replacements.
e) Lighting/MEA
Ballakillowey roundabout/Ballagawne Road scheme. Nothing further on this yet.
g) Carrick Bay View
Carrick Bay View ‘purchase’ – nothing further.
i) Hedges
High Hedges:-
Dragonscroft Honna Road/Tynewydd, Mill Road.
Members would now wait for the outcome of the meeting.
j) Traffic matters – Department of Transport and other DoT matters.
Re: Traffic meetings:-
Ballachurry Corner
Rushen School -
Plantation Hill. – letter from Mr & Mrs Gooberman – regarding the speed survey which was taking place on Howe Road – they said that the sensors had been placed in the wrong place.
Civic Amenity Site.
Ballakilpheric -
The Level
Glen Chass – sharp corner & turning circle.
Mr Cain had offered to put some large stones at the side of the road which may discourage drivers from trying to negotiate the corner. It was thought not advisable to do so.
These matters would all be dealt with at the next Traffic Meeting which would be on 26th May and which the Clerk and Mr Vernon would be attending.
Other DoT matters:-
Glen Chass Road – narrow corner. Nothing from Jim Davidson.
Ballakillowey roundabout – nothing further.
k) Police
Mr Radcliffe and the Clerk had attended the Police Meeting on 29th April at Castletown Commissioners Office. Mr Radcliffe had spoken to one of the Fairy Hill residents who had given him more information which he given at the meeting. Inspector Musson said that there had been no incident – except that two cars had been damaged at Ballafesson. The Police were asked if they could go and reassure the people in the area as there were concerns about what might have been going on. They agreed to send an Officer and Mr Radcliffe reported that they had done so and they also offered to hold a Community meeting between the Police, RPC and the residents.
There had been no reported crimes in Rushen during the previous month.
The next meeting would be on 27th May at Port Erin Police Station.
l) Litter, beach cleans, dog fouling, etc.
Colby Football Club – some of the younger players carried out the beach clean on Bank Holiday Monday. Mr Kelly did not have time to take it to the Amenity Site so Mr Radcliffe had done so. There were two trailers and a van full of rubbish.
It was agreed to give a donation of £200 to the Club, with a letter of thanks.
Chasms Car Park – The Clerk had asked Colas if they stocked a smaller litter bin which would fit on a pole rather than put one of the larger ones there which would have to be set into concrete. She had not received any information yet. She had been to check the bin prior to collection and reported that it was full with dog bags and litter. The new large bin was to be put in and the dog bin monitored or the dog waste could be put in the litter bin.
Ballafesson Road – Mr Radcliffe said that there was sometimes a problem with litter on Ballafesson Road where the school children gather to catch the bus in the mornings. The hedge alongside had been found to be full of litter when it had been cut. The possibility of putting a litter bin there was to be investigated.
Complaint from Mr W. Collister, Cregneash, re the amount of litter and dog bags overflowing from the litter bin at the DoT Car Park in Cregneash. There were two there which the DoT had installed some years ago and which they subsequently said they weren’t emptying any more (the same as the Sloc picnic area) and the local authority had to do so. They were emptied once a fortnight on the normal collection. The Clerk had been to check them and found that the inside of one of the bins was missing and the cover was tucked behind the grit bin. She had put a new liner in it by using one from the new bins which had been purchased and would have to order another liner to replace it.
Mr Collister had also complained about one of the wooden bollards at the entrance to the car park which could not be seen in the dark and which someone who was visiting him fell over.
m) Ballafesson Playing Field, Car Park, The Howe:-
The Clerk reported that no other local authorities in the south seemed to be ordering safety matting at the moment so what and how to order was to be investigated further.
n) Web Site
Mr Vernon had not yet been able to contact Mr Thornley but had the matter in hand.
o) Southern Civic Amenity Site
Mr Cain said there was nothing to report.
p) Southern Swimming Pool
q) Municipal Association.
Mr Gunn said that he had not been able to attend the last meeting.
The AGM would be held on Thursday 27th May at Station, Port St Mary. Mr Gunn and Mr Radcliffe were to attend.
r) Allotments
Mr Radcliffe confirmed that there had not been any meetings of the Committee held yet. He had received a letter from the Deputy Clerk of Port St Mary Commissioners informing him that the new independent representative would be Mr Mizen.
s) Southern Healthcare Committee
Mr Tinkler had not been able to attend the last meeting but he reported that the Committee had agreed to fund an automated check-in system at the Castletown Surgery and also a sensory unit at Cushag House at the Four Roads.
t) Marashen Crescent
Mr Radcliffe reported that the tender documents had been sent out for Phase 3. Work was due to start in August.
u) Rushen Ambulance
Mr Vernon said there was nothing to report.
v) MNH
w) Risk Assessment
Letter from Mr Edwin, Bride. His Company – edwin-mcgrath consulting – were offering their services.
The Clerk was to contact Arbory Commissioners to find out who they would now be dealing with regarding their Risk Assessment.
x) Land in front of Hillcrest, Cregneash.
Mr Cain said he had spoken with David Cooil regarding cutting this and he would do it the following week.
y) Golden Jubilee Trust
Mr Radcliffe said the May Event at Ard Whallan had been called off as there had only been two teams.
z) Chain of Office and Board for hall with list of all past Chairmen.
Chain of Office – Mr Gunn had collected the chain from the jewellers and reported that the valuation would be sent in the post.
Past Chairmen. It was agreed that this would be a good project for students and Castle Rushen High School were to be asked if they would be interested in this. The Clerk was to contact Catherine Edds to see if this would be viable. The Clerk would have to make a list of Chairman who were already known from the Minute books available so that the students would have something to work from. She said that the Minute Books could not be taken out of the Office so any references to them would have to take place there.
aa) Ballakilley Working Party
Notification from Port Erin Commissioners re their representatives on BKWP: Mr D. Corkish and Mr J Unsworth.
ab) Addresses in Rushen. Nothing at present.
Ac) Unsightly Buildings and Land.
The Clerk said that part of the training session she had attended that day mentioned prosecutions regarding unsightly buildings – Mr Howie of Environmental Health had given a talk regarding that.
ad) Insurance,
The Clerk was to contact Mr John Faragher of Kestral Insurance to obtain a quote for the Insurance.
ae) Sloc Sites
This was in hand.
af) Parish Walk
The Clerk had written to the organisers to say that RPC would put two bins on the road up to the Sloc.
ag) Mount Gawne Road – construction vehicles
email from Mr Surgenor – copied to Members on 5th May – re a letter he received from Mr Holtby re a new planning application for Motorlands and also about construction traffic in general.
This was noted.
It was also noted that the new planning application had now been received and would be dealt with under ‘Planning Applications’.
ah) Children in Song Concert
The Clerk had written to Mrs Richardson suggesting Mr Gunn read out the poem and asking for more information – no reply received yet. She was to try to contact her again.
ai) Shore Road – access to beach.
Letter received from Harbours (Capt. Brew, Director of Harbours)– ‘Access to the foreshore from Shore Road, Bay ny Carrickey is a matter for my colleagues in the Highways Division and I will forward your letter to Richard Pearson, Director of Highways for his attention.’
Letter from Highways – acknowledging receipt.
Nothing had yet been done – access remained blocked. The Clerk was to send an email to Mr Pearson.
Aj) Agricultural Rating.
The Clerk had written to ask for the criteria re rating agricultural dwellings. Nothing had been received yet.
RESPONSIBLE FINANCIAL OFFICER’S REPORT:
The Minutes containing all this information can be read at the Office of the Commisioners by contacting the Clerk.
10. CORRESPONDENCE
a) Rates Statement 09/10.
Rates – £81,426.45 including arrears recovered of £856.25 –less allowances/exemptions, discount, defaults of £5,960.98. Total collectable £75,465.47; collection charge £1,331.98 – which makes a total paid to RPC of £74,133.49.
Refuse charge – £3,815.45 less allowances/exemptions, discounts, defaults of £293.79; collection charge – £70.43 which makes a total paid for this £3,451.23.
Total of both as paid to RPC was £77,584.72.
Mr Tinkler asked if RPC could have a list of defaulters and the Clerk said she would email Mr Grubb of the Rates Section of Treasury and ask.
The Clerk said rates arrears had been discussed briefly at the training seminar she had attended that day. Those present were told that the training was nothing to do with rates but the question had been asked as to why Local Authorities could not pursue these bad debts themselves. Most people there thought that Treasury collects rates on behalf of the local authorities. They were all told that only Treasury can prosecute bad debtors and the rates are gathered in their name and by them.
b) Consultation – Recommended amendments to Election Rules
All Members had been given a copy.
This was noted.
c) Consultation – Tynwald Hill draft Bill.
This had been received by email and forwarded to all Members.
The Bill was noted.
d) Damage to Uplands
Email from Lezayre Commissioners and forwarded to all Members. Lezayre Commissioners and also Maughold Commissioners were very concerned about damage to the uplands by motor bikes and four wheel drive vehicles.
RPC had shared these concerns for some time. The Clerk was to write to the former DAFF and DoT (who were now combined into Dept. of Infrastructure) expressing those concerns.
e) Marine Update from Fiona Gell. Received by email and forwarded to Members.
News and forthcoming events. ‘Will be emailing soon with an update on the Manx Marine Nature Reserve Project’.
Mr Vernon had attended one of the meetings but it was not relevant to his concerns.
f) Tynwald Garden Party.
Invitation for representative to attend on Sunday 4th July at The Nunnery. RSVP by 15th May.
DR has agreed to go.
g) Civic Sunday – Port St Mary Commissioners.
Invitation to attend – 3pm Sunday 23rd May at PSM Methodist Church, Queens Place, Queens Road. ‘The Chairman would be pleased if Chains of Office are worn.’ RSVP.
Mr Radcliffe indicated that he and his wife may attend.
h) Road Transport Licensing Committee
Applications, decisions and notices. Noted,
i) Children’s Week – Sat 17th to Friday 23rd July.
Letter explaining what this entailed – received by email and forwarded to Members.
This was noted.
j) Island in Bloom
Letter from IOM Tourism, DED, that they will no longer be holding and co-ordinating the annual Island in Bloom competition due to budget constraints.
This was noted.
k) Southern Befrienders.
They were, once again, holding a May Fair on Bank Holiday Monday at Ballachurry Orchard.and asked if RPC could provide wheelie bins for the rubbish, as they did the previous year.
The Clerk would organise this.
l) IOM Fire and Rescue Service.
Letter re the presentation on the effectiveness of sprinkler systems which they gave on 8th October. Following the article ion IOM Examiner by Port Erin Commissioners stating that they do not support the installation of sprinkler systems the IOM F&R Service would like to give a presentation on the demonstration and effectiveness of sprinkler systems and to dispel the myths surrounding Sprinkler Systems. They would also like to take the opportunity to discuss the provision of smoke detectors and fire stopping between and within our premises. Contact Divisional Officer Jeff Looker or Asst. John Murtach to arrange a presentation.
It was agreed that this was only relevant to new-build properties so RPC would not take up the offer of a meeting.
11. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
a) 10/0582. Cronk Queena, Balnahowe. W J C Kelly. Two new windows.
No objections.
b) 10/0618. Motorlands Garage Site. Shore Road. Bonville Finance Ltd.
Erection of 7 apartments and associated garaging/parking.
The Clerk had brought along the previous plans so that they could be compared to the new ones.
Members felt that these plans were essentially the same design as the previous one. The proposed building was still too large and the design unsympathetic and intrusive.
c) 10/0684. Cregville, Cregneash Road, Cregneash. Mr D Boyles & Ms S Shimmin.
Demolition of small outbuilding and store. Erection of a single storey extension to the side and rear of a private dwelling. Creation of a new pedestrian access.
Members considered the plans and noted that the applicants had gone to considerable lengths to consult with Manx National Heritage. No objections.
12. PLANNING APPROVALS
a) 10/0249. Part field 414140, Glendown Farm, Truggan Road. Mr Derek Cain.
Erection of a detached agricultural workers dwelling.
Conditions include 3. The dwelling may be occupied only by a person engaged or last engaged solely in agriculture; or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependents.
4. The roof(s) must be finished in natural slate or a high quality imitation slate which must be approved by the Planning Authority PRIOR to the commencement of works.
Decision – Planning Committee. Issued – 30th April 2010.
b) 10/0437. 2 Carrick Bay View, Ballagawne Road, Colby. Dr & Mrs Ogilivy. Alterations to dwelling house including erection of an attached replacement garage.
Decision – Senior Planning Officer. Issued – 17th May 2010.
13. PLANNING REFUSALS
a) 09/0806. Majolica, Ballagawne Road, Colby. Mr & Mrs J Brewis. Approval in principle to erect a dwelling in rear of garden of Majolica.
Reasons for refusal: 1. Whilst the area is designated for residential development it is considered that the introduction of a new dwelling as proposed would be detrimental to the outlook of Woodlands and to the outlook, privacy and amenities of Majolica and to the character and setting of both properties, contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2 and environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan.
Decision – Senior Planning Officer. Issued - 26th April 2010.
14. PLANNING APPEALS
a) 09/1570/B 2 Grenea Cottages, Shore Road. Mr & Mrs S Perren. External alterations, rear roof terrace and replacement of existing roof profile to dwelling house.
‘Hon. John Shimmin, MHK,, who has been appointed under Section 8(6) of the above Order to act as deputy to the Minister for Infrastructure in relation to planning appeals, has considered the report, concurs with the appointed person’s conclusions, and accepts the recommendation that the appeal should be allowed. Accordingly, he has directed that the approval of the application under Article 6 of the Town and country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005 should be reversed, and that the application should be refused for the reasons set out in paragraph 24 of the Inspector’s report.’.
Assessment and Conclusions
13. The main issue in this case is the visual impact of the proposed development and whether the design of the altered building would be acceptable in its setting.
14. The appeal property is quite prominently located next to a main road and is part of a small group of houses which are similar in scale and broadly similar in design despite having been altered in various ways. The finishing materials – slate roofs and rough-rendered pale-coloured walls – also have a degree of harmony. However, these houses are undistinguished in appearance and the large front bay and flat-roofed projections at the appeal property look incongruous.
15. The proposed alterations would also look incongruous, probably more so to many people that the existing building. As it is apparent from the photomontage, the shape of the upper part of the proposed alterations, the zinc covering on the top floor and other design elements such as the proportion of window to wall would contrast with the neighbouring buildings. Whether this contrast would be regarded by passers-by as acceptable or unacceptable would be largely a matter of individual opinion.
16. General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan sets out various criteria, subject to which development will normally be permitted. One criterion (sub-paragraph (b) is that development ‘respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them.’ I do not consider that the scale, form or design of this proposal respects the surroundings. On the other hand, it can reasonably be argued that previous alterations (which have either received planning approval or have not been enforced against) have made the existing building so poorly proportioned and out of keeping with its surroundings that the current proposal would be an improvement. Looked at in that light, the policy conflict is not necessarily decisive.
17. The fact that the area is designated as having “high landscape or coastal value and scenic significance” is a material consideration, but is not in my judgement of major importance. I say this because the policies attached to this designation are mainly aimed at maintaining the character of settlements, protecting undeveloped areas, or protecting coastal views. In these respects the proposal would not have a major effect, and the appeal site is not within a settlement.
18. I am inclined to agree with the comment in Parish Commissioners’ written statement that if the development were carried out, many people would ask: “How on earth did that get planning permission?” Some people would see the altered building as a jarring feature in the scene. Others would see the modern design and finishing materials as an interesting contrast with the adjacent more conventional old buildings, and there are valid arguments in favour of the proposal. It is evident that the planning authority has made a carefully considered judgement which is not based on the view of only a single officer. The site is not part of a conservation area. There are no objections from immediate neighbours and there is no suggestion that the development would harm the amenities of the neighbouring dwellings.
19. The fact that consent was granted in the past for a different scheme (referred to in paragraph 4.7 and 5.3 of the written statement for the applicants) has little relevance and does not set a precedent as is suggested for the applicants. The previous scheme would apparently not have involved making the building as high or as bulky at second floor level as is now proposed.
20. There is no reason to disagree with the statement by the applicants’ architect that the proposal would “add interest to the streetscape”. But the claim that “visual impact from the road would be) reduced by removal of the large expanse of glazing at first floor level and exposing the original wall of the cottage” is selective. The proposal as a whole would certainly not “reduce” the visual impact of the building when looked at from the road.
21. As was explained in the letter from the Development Control Manager of 10 December 2009 (explaining the planning authority’s decision to the Parish Commissioners – item No 5 in the case file), he authority’s decision was finely balanced. The same still applies.
22. On balance, I think the altered building would be so out of keeping with its setting as to go beyond the threshold of acceptability, having regard to the policy aspects mentioned above. That said, I do not find the planning authority’s decision to be unsound; and if developments using modern materials and design feature are to happen in the Island this might be a good place as any for such development, because of the poor appearance of the appeal property and the undistinguished design of the neighbouring buildings.
23. The decision on this case may depend partly on personal taste and my recommendation is made tentatively, on the basis that you may well have a differed view and would wish to confirm the planning authority’s decision to grant approval. If you decide to do so, it would be appropriate to impose the two standard conditions to the planning authority’s original decision.
Recommendation
24. Subject to the comments in paragraph 23 above, I recommend that the appeal be allowed and that planning approval be refused on the grounds that the scale and design of the proposal would not respect, and would be out of keeping with, its setting and surroundings, contrary to General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.
Graham Self MA MSc FRTP1. Inspector.’
Mrs Perren had telephoned the Clerk to ask for a site meeting between her and her architect to discuss what would be acceptable to the Commissioners. The Clerk did not think that this would be appropriate and contacted the Chairman. He said that RPC only expressed an opinion on what was applied for. They consider what is put before them and it is not for them to suggest anything. The Clerk contacted Mrs Perren with these comments.
15 COMPLETION CERTIFICATES
a) 01/7468. Lynhurst, Howe Road. Mr R Best. Side extension. Issued 5th May 2010.
16. OTHER PLANNING MATTERS
a) 09/2108. Nooklands and former Motorlands Garage, Shore Road. Bonville Finance Ltd. Erection of a block of fourteen apartments and caretakers flat, associated garaging and parking.
This had now been withdrawn.
A new plan had been submitted – see Planning Applications.
b) Ballaman, Balnahowe. Erection of helicopter shed and pad.
Complaints re possible too much stone/soil being excavated. Emails to and from S Olsen, Planning Enforcement Officer. Mr Cain had asked the Clerk to make enquiries regarding this matter as a resident had made his concerns known to him.
17 ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Surby Road – opposite Thie ny Chibbyr
Mr Ingram had emailed the Clerk to point out that part of the wall across the road was falling down – stones in road and he was worried they may cause an accident.
18. DATE OF NEXT MEETING Wednesday 16th June.
As there was no further business for the public part of the meeting it closed at 10 05pm.