• Minutes for the June 2016 Meeting

    August 1st, 2016 by Stan Pilling in General News ·Meeting Minutes

    RUSHEN PARISH COMMISSIONERS

    Meeting 7pm Wednesday 15th June 2016, Ballafesson Hall.

    MINUTES

    Present: Mr P Vernon (Chairman), Mr P Gunn (Vice-Chairman). Mr S Pilling, Mr D Radcliffe,                 Mr J Young.

    1. MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting held Wednesday 4th May 2016, having previously been circulated, were taken as read and agreed a true record.
    2. MATTERS ARISING.
    3. a) DoI/Local Authority Issues:-
    4. i) Department of Infrastructure: Alternative Means of Service Delivery, Municipal Waste Management and other such topics:-

    Transfer of Functions to Local Authorities from the Department of Infrastructure, also now called ‘Local Authority Transition’:

    Regional Update Meetings:- Invitation from Minister Gawne to attend the latest meeting and to join the Minister and Chris Thomas MHK, Member with responsibility for Housing and the Local Government Unit. They will provide an update on progress with the Housing, Waste and Governance work-streams, together with giving some consideration to possible future work-streams.   The southern one to be held at CRHS at 7pm on 29th June. (also Laxey 16th, Peel 27th, Ramsey 28th) “I continue to be encouraged by your support for the principle of providing local services at a local level and look forward to meeting with you once again to discuss this important area of work.”

    The letter also said: “It is now a little over a year since we reached agreement about the transfer of some highways functions and our discussions progressed to the potential for delivering more services at a local level and modernising the relationship between national and local government. In this time our meetings have, I believe, been generally positive and productive and I feel we have made a lot of progress in creating a better, more modern working relationship between my Department and local authorities.”

    All Members indicated that they would attend the Meeting. It was agreed that it was important to listen carefully to what was said by the Minister as he may be proposing that other functions become the responsibility of Local Authorities such as the maintenance of Public Rights of Way which would be a heavy burden on rural authorities but would hardly affect village and town authorities, similar to the financial impact of hedge cutting on mainly the rural authorities.

    (Gullies – the dispute with DOI re number of gullies & cost of cleaning the extra ones is dealt with in    2 c) iii )

    New Local Authority Members – had been invited to an informal ‘drop-in’ session at the Sea Terminal Building – Monday 13th June between 3 and 7pm. This was to provide information to new members in relation to the transition programme, an opportunity for them to meet the political leads and key officers if possible, provide an environment for newly appointed members to ask questions about the transition on a one to one basis; to find out what new members feel their training needs were.

    Mr Young had been unable to attend the drop in session. However, much of the information available at it had been emailed to the Clerk who had forwarded it to Mr Young and also all the other Members for their information.

    Waste charges at the EfW. Letter from Minister Gawne.   This was with regard to the confusion with the new charging regime and pointing out that the WWG meeting “made it clear that the new regime was intended to start from April 2016 and that what was being discussed was the method of allocation of the availability fee”.   “…the total amount to be recovered by the Department from domestic waste remains unchanged at an average of £79.50/tonne.   …my officers will be writing to you to let you know the availability fee applicable to your authority and requesting that you reply letting them know your preferred billing arrangement. I would ask that you respond to that letter within two weeks of receiving it otherwise the officers will have to raise monthly invoices. Again, I apologise for the confusion and thank you for your continued support for this process.”

    Douglas Corporation disagreed with the charging of the ‘availability fee’ for the EfW. They wrote to the Minister questioning the legality. The Minister replied refuting this.

    Waste charges – The Clerk had asked for some clarification from John Quayle, Business and Contacts Manager for DOI who deals with finance re waste. RPC hadn’t received the invoice so didn’t know just what amount would be on it.                                                                                              He wrote on 10th May:- “I write with reference to the changed mechanism for domestic waste charges at the Energy from Waste Plant from 1st April 2016.                                                           The previous domestic rate has been replaced with two elements; a £20.75 per tonne Gate fee and an Availability fee.                                                                                                                             The availability fee for 2016/17 is based on 2015/16 tonnages and your authority’s charge is £30,528.65. I can confirm waste tipping invoices for the EfW Plant will continue to be processed in the normal way and I write to ask how you wish to be invoiced for the Availability element of the charge.   If you wish, one twelfth of the Availability fee can be added to the monthly invoice or alternatively you can be invoiced annually or quarterly.”

    The Clerk had indicated that RPC would prefer to be invoiced monthly and the invoice had been received that day for April and May.

    Waste Working Groups

    Political WWG. As Brian Rae was no longer a Commissioner a replacement representative needed to be nominated. Bob Pilling (Malew) would still be on but another representative for the south was required. The next meeting of the PWWG was to be held on 6th July. There was no Member of RPC able to attend day time meetings but it was thought that there maybe someone with experience from Port Erin or Port St Mary Commissioners who could take Mr Rae’s place.

    Officer Waste Working Group –   Mr Powell, Clerk to Malew Commissioners had attended the first meeting on 25th May as the representative for the south . Although Mr Roberts, Clerk to Port Erin Commissioners had not been nominated as the representative he had attended the meeting and taken part.   The Clerk had contacted Ms Gray with regard to this.  As a result all Clerks would be invited to attend future meetings. The Clerk was to attend.

    Draft Notes & Terms of Reference had been received and the Clerk had copied these to all Members.

    The Clerk to Peel had made good points in 2..4 with regard to the waste policies which were proposed for discussion. He proposed that there should be an exclusion of policies for review or development from the OWWG TOR. Residents can ask their Local Authorities about their waste collection. This was supported by all the LAs on the OWWG.

    The Clerk to Port Erin in 2.8 proposed that DOI provide the data for a year on all LAs on their vehicles, gross and net weight of refuse going to the EfW. This was so that LAs could empty the bins of another LA ‘if they are on their route to the EfW, to save unnecessary journeys’. The Clerk reminded Members that he had already asked RPC a year or more previously whether Port Erin could collect some of RPC’s bins. The Clerk has said that there was no need at the moment as their refuse contractor was dealing with all of the waste in Rushen. It was agreed by the Officers at that meeting that the data could be shared subject to all LAs agreement that it could be. ‘LAs would need to determine what % of a vehicles capacity is taken up by commercial waste and what is ‘unused capacity’.

    This proposal was discussed by the Board who said that there was absolutely no need for this to be done or for Waste Management to be involved. If Local Authorities felt that they could work with their neighbours on this or anything else all they needed to do was get in touch with them. All the southern Clerks talked to each other on a regular basis.   A letter to be sent to Ms Gray stating that RPC would not agree with their data being shared.

    From the OWWG meeting: – they requested information on waste collection and contingency waste capacity (by 1st July). DOI in conjunction with SUEZ (was SITA) were reviewing the emergency plan for the EfW.   There were multiple scenarios to be considered some of which would impact to differing degrees on LAs. Operational considerations included: access to reception hall, pit full or empty, baler accessible/ not accessible, crane operational/not operational. If there was access to the Reception Hall and the pit was empty then LAs could continue to deliver for up to 3 weeks. However, if the pit was full the LAs may be advised to tip to the hall floor and the waste baled. If there was no access to the facility then the contingency site would need to be activated. This may require no deliveries of waste for up to 48/72 hours.

    DOI/Waste Management wanted to know what options were available to LAs in terms of managing their waste collection services e.g.                                                                                                                                     a) no collections from householders: issues? Impact weekly/AWC, response of householders   b) no deliveries from CA sites: Issues?                                                                                      c) store in RCVs: issues? capacity?                                                                                               d) utilise CA sites as drop off points for general waste: issues?

    LAs were asked to consider their options re waste collection if they are unable to deliver waste for up to 72 hours, advise the DOI of their contingency provisions and identify any issues or other options. Feedback is requested to Stephanie Gray by 1st July.

    This was discussed and Members expressed their surprise that there wasn’t already a contingency plan in existence. The Clerk to point this out. There was concern at the suggestion that refuse could be stored in the refuse wagons. There would be a danger of combustion and RPC would not agree with neither would their Contractor. As refuse is collected fortnightly in Rushen this would mean that half the Parish would have capacity left before collection. Collections could be delayed for a few days and ‘caught up’ later. Mr Jones had said that he wouldn’t be able to tip the refuse anywhere else as there were no licensed sites for taking such household refuse. If it was to be a long term shut down then this would be a more serious problem.

    The ‘availability fee’ was discussed and the Clerk was instructed to ask what calculations would be used to reimburse a portion of the fee should the EfW not be ‘available’

    ii) All Island Clerks Forum.  The next meeting would be held on Thursday 30th The Clerk to attend.

    iii) HOUSING WORKING GROUPS – Nothing much seemed to be happening.

    Officers group meeting . No further meetings had been held.

    The Political Members’ Housing Working Group Meeting. no further meetings had been held.

    1. iv) FUNCTIONS TAKEN ON BY RPC: (roads, hedge and gullies appear in Minutes at ‘Jones Services – c i).’ (122 extra gullies)

    Pavement from Ballachurry to Ballakillowey roundabout. Mr Vernon had been to see Mr Clucas about cutting back his hedge, which would be done very soon.

    Other items reported to DOI. nothing had been done.

    1. v) Members’ Declaration of Interests. Attendance Allowance. Nothing further.
    2. b) Ballakilley Land

    Rushen Recreational Area.

    1. i) Agreement for Southern Nomads. – Nomads had informed RPC that the RFU would not accept the Agreement, a draft of which they had had for a year and a half and which was based on the Agreement which Ramsey RC had with Ramsey Town Commissioners. The RFU said that Nomads would have to have a Lease for them to give grants or loans to Nomads. RPC had said that they couldn’t have a Lease as that would mean RPC would no longer have control over the land and to be able to ensure that it remained Public Open Space as defined by the Strategic Plan, the Southern Area Plan and the planning conditions for the Ballakilley residential Development.

    The Chairman and Mr Radcliffe called a meeting on 29th May:- This is reported in Private Session.

    On 3rd June Mr Vernon and Mr Gunn together with the Clerk met with Mr Seed, Mr Parkes and Mr Kelly of Southern Nomads. Nomads had asked for this to see if a compromise could be made on the wording of their previous draft lease which would make it acceptable. A draft of that had been expected in time for the meeting but had not been received.

    1. ii) Rushen Burial Ground Authoritythe Clerk had asked Corlett Bolton if there was any further development regarding the ‘sale’ and she had subsequently been sent a copy of a letter which Rev. Heaton had sent to them on 17th April asking for changes to some clauses. These changes were discussed at the interim meeting held on 3rd June and it was agreed that :-

    Clause 14 (to be offered back to the Vendor for £5 is no longer required for burials). It was agreed that this clause may be omitted;

    Clauses 15 and 16 (purchaser agrees and forever maintain a good and sufficient concrete post and wire stock proof fencing…..) Rev. Heaton stated that this is required by planning approval and therefore a legal requirement. RPC however did not agree with his statement and required that the clause remain as they needed to be sure that this legal status remains.

    With regard to Rev. Heaton’s request for a clause that allows for a permanent right of way on the adjoining land in order that the said hedge can be properly maintained ..   RPC agreed with this clause, with the exception that it is for the maintenance of the fence not the hedge as the hedge would be inside the boundary made by the fence.

    The Agreement for Sale and Form 3 transfer had been received. This was to be signed, under Seal, by the Chairman and Clerk. However, the attached plan did not show the correct dimensions as given to the Advocates by way of the accurately plotted and measured plan drawn up by Mr Guy Thompson, Architect for the RBGA, and which had been given to the Advocates a few weeks previously.  The Clerk was to have this matter corrected and then they could be signed.

    iii) Church Field & Barracks Field – access, grass. Mr Kelly had now vacated the Church Field and had topped it, paying particular attention to the area along the churchyard boundary wall which had lots of weeds on it. A decision would be made shortly regarding the grass on the Barracks Field, dependent upon Nomads

    1. iv) Trees – the area of RPC’s land where Dandara had planted rows of trees and fenced off from the remainder of the field was now affected by weeds, docks, thistles, etc. The Clerk was to contact Mr Booth for his advice on whether, if they were sprayed, this would affect the trees.
    2. v) BMX Track. The Clerk had written to the Commissioners of both Port Erin and Port St Mary updating them on the problems which Nomads were having with the RFU and stating that RPC feel that it is well overdue to arrange a meeting. She had asked them for suggested dates. PSM were happy for RPC Members to suggest some dates and they would go along with that; Port Erin were waiting until their next meeting before they would give any dates. The Chairman, meanwhile, would draw up an agenda for the meeting.

    An email had been received from Kristian Edwards from ISB Skateboarding who was asking about progress. The Clerk had replied.

    1. c) Waste Management, Refuse Collection, Roads, Gullies and Hedges .

    Jones Services Ltd. Refuse collections – no problems at present.

    1. i) Road Sweeping – Now that the weeds had been sprayed the roads and gutters were to be swept – the Clerk to arrange for this once the weeds had died down sufficiently.
    2. ii) Hedges – the cutting of some of the hedges was to be started at the end of that week. These would be done for safety reasons. This would include the hedge at Ballachurry which, if left any longer, would cause people to have to walk in the road. The hedge at Garthcote, on the corner of Ballakillowey Road around to the bus shelter , was coming out over the pavement and also causing problems for pedestrians. It was agreed that this should be cut as a matter of urgency.   The hedge at Greenacres also had some areas which were growing out over the pavement and this was to have a light cut to deal with the problem.   Ballakillowey Road had not been cut until July in 2015 and there had been complaints that it should be done sooner as the overgrowth was causing safety problems for vehicles and pedestrian. This was to be cut with this group of hedges rather than left.

    iii) Gullies – The Clerk had sent an invoice to DOI for the extra 122 gullies which did not appear on any of the information given when the Agreement to take over these functions was discussed, agreed and signed. She had also pointed out that none of the gullies were handed over having been cleared. The Clerk suggested that now all of them had been cleaned by RPC they may now consider in the future just having the number in the contract clearing in a year so that they would not have to invoice DOI then. However the current extras would have to be paid for.                                                                                                                                        A reply had been received from Bill Corlett, DOI, which said that he did not intend forwarding the invoice for payment. These emails back and forth had been forwarded to all Members so that they were very aware of his views. He had suggested applying to the LGU for them to pay for the ‘overspend’. The Clerk said that she did not agree with his suggestion of ‘ a way around it’ by going cap in hand to the LGU because ‘RPC had overspent’. In fact, RPC had done everything correctly and taken out a Contract using the figures given for the gullies . The fault lay with the gross mis-representation of numbers by DOI not an ‘estimate’ as suggested.

    The Clerk was to write to the Minster with regard to this.

    1. d) Bring Banks possible positioning of recycling bins at the layby on Ballakillowey.     The Clerk had contacted Steve Taggart about this and he said that DOI were not looking to put any more out. The Clerk had asked for more information re costs of recycling and he had sent some figures which he thought RPC would have had from the WWG. Fwd 9/6. It transpired that Arbory Commissioners hadn’t had them either so it was quite possible that all those whose Clerks weren’t allowed to attend had not received them either. The figures and graph were found interesting.
    2. e) Lighting: no problems had been reported to the Clerk. Mr Radcliffe said that a resident of Fairy Hill had complained there was no lighting outside her house. He would let the Clerk know of the address and then she could contact DSC to ask them to review the lighting on their estate.
    3. f) Traffic & DoI Highways. .

    Traffic Meeting – the next meeting would be on 21st June.  The running circle at Glen Chass and road safety at Rushen School would be on the agenda

    1. g) Police Next meeting 28th The 17 broken windows at Greenacres should be mentioned.  Mr Vernon to attend.
    2. h) Dog bins; fouling; Litter bins; Beach Cleans;

    Requests for dog bins – only 3 out of the 5 ordered had been delivered by Colas and Mr Radcliffe was storing them.

    Email received from ‘Advancedscape’ a UK company. They attached a catalogue which covered litter and dog bins, seats (including some made from recycled materials), various recycling bins, etc. This was noted for future reference.

    Picnic area – litter bins:- On Friday evening (3rd June) the Clerk had been to have a look at the picnic site at the Sloc. She reported that the top litter bin had been full and overflowing and there was rubbish scattered all around it. She had picked it up and took it home to put in her bin. The type of rubbish made her suspect that it wasn’t picnic rubbish’ but from a camper van. The other bin on the low site of the site had very little in it. It was agreed that this sort of rubbish shouldn’t be put in the bins. The Clerk had checked with Jones Services regarding emptying these as he used to do them every week in Summer. She reported that he now emptied them three times in a fortnight and that they were usually not full.

    Also – The Clerk had received an email from a resident pointing out that several areas of the verge just above the picnic area seemed to have had something emptied on them as big patches of grass had died. They thought someone may have been emptying chemicals from a mobile home but this couldn’t be verified. It was thought that the grass would soon grow over these areas.

    1. i) Playing field, Howe Car Park. Mr Radcliffe had the catalogue to order the swings and it was agreed that, rather than a large and small swing there should be two similar sized ones.
    2. j) Web Site Mr Young was to look into the possible benefits or otherwise of having a FaceBook presence.
    3. k) Southern Civic Amenity Site  (Southern Recycling Centre) (new representative -Mr Pilling ). Mr Pilling had attended the AGM but was not able to attend the first meeting as he was off-Island. The next meeting would be on the Thursday evening and he would attend.
    4. l) Municipal Association

    The AGM had been held on 26th May at Douglas Golf Club, attended by Mr Gunn, Mr Vernon and Mrs Kelly the Clerk. They reported that it had been an enjoyable event.

    Mr Gunn had attended the meeting on 19th May and there had been concern about the Richmond Hill Committee, which monitored the Energy from Waste Plant. Mr Craine and Mr Jessup were on this Committee for the Municipal Association. There had been no recent meetings due to funding issues at DEFA re office staff. The MA had urged all Local Authorities to write to Minister Ronan to ask him to ensure that this important Committee was fully serviced and supported so that it could carry on meeting.

    1. m) Southern Swimming Pool Authority Mr Radcliffe said that there was nothing to report except that talks regarding the possibility of a new pool were ongoing. The new representative for Port St Mary was Mr I Skelly.
    2. n) Marashen Crescent Elderly Persons Housing Authority Mr Radcliffe said that there was nothing to report. The new representative for Arbory, replacing Mr Rae, was Mrs Jane Glover.
    3. o) Southern Healthcare Committee Mr Pilling said that the meeting would be on the same night as the Amenity Site meeting.                                                                                                         Email from Juan Watterson MHK as Chairman. The AGM to be on 16th June at Southlands Day Centre at 7pm.   They would be looking for a new Secretary and Treasurer
    4. p) Rushen Ambulance  A reply had been received from Mr Benson, Chairman:

    “.. You are correct in that it is a couple of years since we have held an AGM although I can assure you that our Annual Accounts have been submitted to the Registry as required.           We are now a very different, and much smaller organisation membership wise, to that which was set up back in 1971. Our primary role is to acting as volunteer First Responders for the IOMN Ambulance Service and we are exceedingly proud that we are the only such group on the Isle of Man which provides 24/7/365 cover for the south of the Island with just six regular volunteers. We are all, bar one, in full time employment and the pressure on our time is significant which, given the fact that each member averages over 1500 hours each per annum on call, I am sure you will understand. It is for this reason that administrative matters have tended to have behind although the three main officers of the charity are in very regular contact. Whilst I accept that it is far from ideal, I hope the Board understand that our priority has been having members on call to deal with emergencies in the community rather than having to give up additional evenings to attend meetings.                                                                  I can confirm that we will be holding an AGM this year (September 5th) and we would welcome a representative from Rushen Parish Commissioners to join us on the Committee again. As with most organisations these days it is the same few officers who do the bulk of the ‘behind the scenes’ work so we are particularly interested in finding someone who can take the lead with respect to our PR and fund raising. Despite the fact that our members are attending on average between 8 – 12 emergency calls per week , our profile is certainly not as high as when we were actually transporting patients into hospital.                                                          I thought you may also be interested in knowing that in addition to our First Response role, we also still provide First Aid/Ambulance cover at various community events in the south of the island and out Public Access Defibrillator Scheme is slowly growing.                                       In summary therefore I want to assure you that Rushen Emergency Ambulance is alive and well and in our opinion, is making a significant difference within the community.”

    Members noted with interest the change in the responsibilities and duties which the Rushen Ambulance Members now carry out and in particular the number of emergency call outs the First Responders dealt with. The AGM would be on 5th September and it was hoped that Mr Pilling would be able to attend.

    1. p) Manx National Heritage  
    2. i) Cregneash – Demolition of the steel barn at Church Farm.   This had now been completely demolished and the land levelled.
    3. ii)   Meayll Hill – dog fouling (dogs and trial bikes).
    4. iv) The Sound. – dog fouling.

    A letter from the Chairman has been emailed to Mr Southworth, Director of Manx National Heritage on both of these subjects– as follows:- ( Mr Southworth’s Secretary had acknowledged receipt).

    Mr E Southworth                                                                               1st June 2016                                               Director                                                                                                                                           Manx National Heritage                                                                                                                        The Museum                                                                                                                                Douglas.

    Dear Mr Southworth

    I write on two subjects:- Dog fouling at the Sound and Trial bikes on Meayll Hill.                                                                          

    Dog Fouling:   A lady has contacted our Clerk complaining about ‘all of the dog fouling at the Sound.’ She said that the litter bin wasn’t large enough and there were also ‘bags of it about’ She asked for Rushen Parish Commissioners to put proper dog bins there. The Clerk explained to her that MNH are responsible for this land, the bins are theirs and also that the tenants of the Café are responsible for emptying them. RPC provide four wheelie bins for this rubbish, which they collect via their Contractor. The Clerk advised her that she should contact MNH with regard to this. She did so and reported back that eventually she was put through to Lyndsey Clague who said she would deal with it. The bin in question is on the path leading to The Parade where people seem to take their dogs. My Board discussed this matter at their latest meeting and it was agreed to write to MNH suggesting that they should erect a dog bin to help deal with the problem. If this is positioned at the turning circle then Rushen Commissioners could arrange for our refuse collector to empty with no charge..

    Dog bins can be purchased from Colas Ltd, Balthane, Ballasalla. The bins which Rushen have in various places have a flat, easy to open lid but as the Sound is a very windy place Colas may be able to provide a dog bin with a curved edged lid which may be more secure.

    There have been several more complaints about dog fouling on Meayll Hill.  We have done out best by putting a dog bin near the roadside but it seems our suggestions to MNH to put a dog bin and sign on top of the hill have come to nothing and the complaints keep being made.

    Trial bikes, Meayll Hill. There have been several complaints over recent years with regard to trial bikes on the hill. It would seem that there are several using it every weekend and some evenings. I parked at the top of the hill a fortnight ago and there were vans and several trial bikes there which were obviously going to ride around the hill. It seemed organised, not random. They will be damaging the land and causing ruts. As much of Meayll Hill is the responsibility of Manx National Heritage we suggest that they erect signs stating that such bikes and four wheel drive vehicles are prohibited. We realise that not all of the land on the hill is in the ownership or responsibility of MNH but it is an ancient site which needs protecting and my fellow Board Members have stated that MNH need to look after the land which is entrusted to them.                                                                                                                     I look forward to your early reply. Peter Vernon   Chairman of Rushen Parish Commissioners.

     

    1. q) Risk Assessment  Health and Safety.  Mr Edwin had been seriously ill so nothing had been heard from him yet.
    2. r) Grass Cutting : the various areas were being cut. The Clerk had also instructed Mr Booth to cut the ditch at Ballakillowey Estate next to the entrance to Hill Park. The previous year the DOI had denied any responsibility – although a resident had seen and spoken with their men when they were cutting it. It was agreed last year that RPC would cut it if it became apparent that DOI were washing their hands of it.

    Weed spraying – Most of this had been done and seemed to have worked better than last year – possibly because it had been done a bit earlier. There had been a couple of phone calls from resident asking when the weeds would be dealt with and they had been assured that it had been done or would be within the next few days, depending upon the wind conditions.  Once they had died back the sweeper would be in action.

    1. s) Meayll Book.
    2. t) World War 1 Commemorations 2014-2018.

    Mr Pilling reminded Members that the British Legion were holding a Vigil of the Somme at St Johns and the Port Erin Branch would be holding a Service at the Methodist Church to commemorate both the Somme and Jutland.

    1. u) Port Erin Commissioners – boundary extension proposed by them to take part of Ballakilley residential development.

    Nothing further.

    1. v) Notice Board. other notice boards in the Parish. Mr Pilling proposed that another Notice Board similar to that which was at Ballafesson should be ordered. This could be placed at either the Howe Car Park or Croit-e-Caley Green, both of which were owned by Rushen Parish Commissioners.
    2. w) Flooding and Wave Overtopping and Shore Road.

    No reply had been received from Mr N Black, Chief Executive of DOI to RPC’s letter of 14th March. It was agreed to wait another month for a reply.

     

    1. x) Roads in poor condition.

    Honna Road ,Surby Road, Glen Chass Road and others.     Sloc Road.

    The Clerk had written to the Director of Highways:-

    1st June 2016.

    Mr J Robinson                                                                                                                                 Director of Highways                                                                                                                              Department of Infrastructure                                                                                                                              Sea Terminal Building                                                                                                                 Douglas.

    Dear Mr Robinson

    re: Roads in Rushen and the South.

    Rushen Parish Commissioners are becoming increasingly concerned with regard to the very poor state of the roads in the South of the Island and in particular, Rushen. They have reported to the DOI the poor condition of Honna Road, Surby Road, Glen Chass down to Fistard. These require repairs and resurfacing sooner rather than later. The request has been acknowledged but no notification has been received on whether anything will be done.

    Of particular and urgent concern is the main road through from Colby to the Ballakillowey roundabout. Despite the DOI not considering this road to be a ‘strategic route’ it is in fact an extremely busy one.   The road is in such poor condition, and has been for several years, that it must be causing a lot of damage to vehicles. However, the main concern must be road safety. There are a lot of potholes and other damage to the road which vehicles are swerving to avoid and thus being a danger to other road users. A vehicle driver has some protection from injury but if someone on a motor bike or a bicycle hits these they are bound to be injured, possibly very seriously. The Commissioners know that the renewal of this road will be complicated, involved and expensive but it really must be done. There are more and more vehicles using this road due to the new estates having to use it as access.

    The Department of Infrastructure must have a duty of care to all road users and a liability should there be an accident. It must, therefore, be incumbent upon them to ensure that the roads, especially the well used ones, are in as good a condition as possible and the busiest roads must be prioritised.

    It is very much understood that the Government has severe budgetary constraints so it is therefore very puzzling as to why the DOI have spent so much money on tarmacking and ditching a long stretch of the Sloc Road and is in the process of doing the same on the Corlea Road. Neither of these roads were in poor condition and, in any case, are not busy, well used roads. Why has hundreds of thousands of pounds been spent on these? They don’t seem to have been on any list for roads to be urgently resurfaced and there seems to be no reason why these were prioritised.

    In the past many Government Departments seemed to be determined to use all of their budget before year end and it was commonly believed that lots of unnecessary items were bought or work carried out which was not required just so that they didn’t have to hand back to Treasury the ‘unspent’ portion. Is this still the case? Was that why the unnecessary tarmacking was done on the Sloc i.e. spending the remainder of the 15/16 budget?

    The Members of Rushen Parish Commissioners would very much appreciate it if you could let them know when the roads in Rushen which they have indicated as needing resurfacing will be done and also what is the timescale for the repair and resurfacing of the main road through Colby – which must be prioritised. There have been surveys carried out on this road so the DOI must be aware of what needs to be done and must have a cost for this work.

    They look forward to your reply with hope that you are able to answer all of their questions. questions.

    Yours sincerely Gillian Kelly (Mrs)   Clerk.

    The Clerk reported that there had been no acknowledgement nor reply received yet.

    1. y) Parking at Rushen School. The Clerk had written to Prof Barr CEO of Department of Education and Children.   No acknowledgement yet.   She had put this on the agenda for the Traffic Meeting.
    2. z) Planning Lists. (asking for them to be put in the papers again) No reply to RPC’s letter.   As it would seem that they were too busy to reply, possibly due to the Director leaving suddenly, this was to be taken off the agenda.
    3. aa) Derelict Properties. The Clerk asked for instructions as to who in Government she should write on this.   She was instructed to write to the Treasury Minister, Mr Teare.
    4. ab) Litter Mr Radcliffe’s letter to all MHKs. Mr Radcliffe would draft this and sent it to the Clerk.

    Mr Gunn reported that Beachbuddies had put a large bin at Fleshwick – the type which they have put at various other beaches for people may collect rubbish of the beach to put it in.

     

    RESPONSIBLE FINANCE OFFICER’S REPORT.

    This may be read at the Commissioners’ Office by contacting the Clerk on 834501.

    1. CORRESPONDENCE
    2. a) Rushen Heritage Trust. Invitation to attend the opening of their latest exhibition – “Happy Days of Southern Tourism” on 27th Noted.
    3. b) Tynwald Day Ceremony – 5th Invitation received for Chairman and guest for seating on the Grandstand. The Chairman or Vice Chairman couldn’t attend but Mr Pilling indicated that he would be pleased to represent RPC. This had been confirmed with the Tynwald administration secretary.
    4. c) Civic Services:-

    Douglas Borough Coucil’s Civic Sunday. 12th June. St Georges Church.  Invitation for Chairmen, Commissioners and Clerks to attend at St George’s Church. Parade should assemble at 9.50am. RPC had not attended.

    Onchan District Commissioners. Sunday 10th July, St Peter’s Church at 3pm. Mr Vernon said that he would be unable to attend.

    1. d) Mona’s Queen Anchor Memorial Service. 29th Invitation from Port St Mary Commissioners for Chairman & Guest to attend. Chairman and Vice-Chairman had been unable to attend.
    2. e) Service of Thanksgiving to mark the 90th Birthday of Her Majesty the Queen. Invitation for Chairman and Guest to attend a Service of Thanks giving to mark the 90th Birthday of Her Majesty The Queen at Cathedral Isle of Man, Peel on Sunday 12th June at 3pm. Congregation to be seated by 2.45pm. Noted.
    3. f) Road closure Order. B47 Surby Road.   Temporary Closure. From junction of Surby Road with Garth Avenue, up to the property ‘Glen View’. 9am on 20th June until 4pm on     24th For drainage work. Access to properties will be maintained. Alternative route will be via Garth Avenue, Cronk Hunna and Surby Road.

    Mr Vernon had been to speak to the men who were working on the drains. They had told him that they were going to stop the run-off water going into the sewers as the debris was getting into the pumping station at Gansey Point and damaging it and also the amount of water coming down meant that they were pumping three times as much water as they should.

    1. f) Communications Commission – Sure (Isle of Man) Ltd. Application for Code Powers Public Notice, Preliminary View and Invitation to submit comments. Fwd 26/5.   Noted.
    2. g) Christmas Tree Orders. DEFA, Forestry . “Due to policies replanting and management of the sites the availability for sale of suitably formed trees is reducing. As a result the Department has taken the unfortunate but necessary decision to cease supply of all but a limited number of trees to local authorities; this is to endeavour to ensure sustainability of supply going forward. “whilst the Department aims to continue to supply the largest of the trees to a reduced number of organisations on the Island and thus avoid the need for importing it hopes that this change will be positive for the economy in opening up a market for local growers…….. I wanted to write to you to assure you that the Department is committed to the continual supply of Christmas trees to your organisation. You need not do anything at this time, the Department will send out order reminders in due course, however, as previous there will be no tree availability below 14ft.”   Jason Bolt, Senior Forestry and Amenity Manager.   Noted.
    3. h) Clean A Way (Isle of Man) Ltd. They were offering refuse collection services. Their refuse collection vehicles all have calibrated Bin Weigh Systems on board.   Noted.

    PLANNING MATTERS

    1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
    2. a) 16/00517. 3 The Chase, Ballakillowey. Mr & Mrs D Reeday. Construction of new flat roof dormer to southwest elevation and installation of window to northwest elevation.             No objections.
    3. b) 16/00216. Vacant Land at Bradda View, Ballakillowey. Hartford Homes. Erection of 12 detached dwellings with integral garages incorporating amendments to approved PA 13/91367. These show change of type on Plot 6 (readvertised)   Also rec. additional drawings showing protected area for the trees. (not advertised) There were no objections to this

    Mrs Faragher, 7 Ballakeyll had sent a copy of a letter which she had sent to the Planning Department with regard to these.

    1. c) 16/00567. Fern Cottage, Howe Road. Dr & Mrs J McDonald. Erection of en-suite onto extra bedroom at rear of property; introduction of window to same bedroom. No objections.
    2. d) 16/00607. Kimmeragh, Ballafesson Road. Mr & Mrs D Fisher. Proposed re-location of road access.   No objections.
    3. PLANNING APPROVALS
    4. a) 16/00396/B. Kimmeragh, Ballafesson Road. Mr & Mrs D Fisher. Erection of a spiral staircase to rear election of dwelling. Decision – Senior Planning Officer. Issued 18th May 2016.
    5. b) 16/00295/B. 9 Bradda View, Ballakillowey. Mr & Mrs Rainey. Alterations and erection of ground and first floor extensions to dwelling.   . Decision – Senior Planning Officer. Issued 24th May 2016.
    6. c) 15/00357/B. Pineview, The Level. Alterations to existing dwelling and extension to create additional dwelling and associated landscaping with extension to the residential curtilage.   Received – copy of a letter from Planning to the Architect:- “…….. I can advise you that the authority delegated by the Department, the Interim Director of Planning and Building Control determined that the information contained within your letter, as it related to the trees identified as T12, T8, T9, T11 and T10 and their retention, would satisfy the requirements of Condition 2 of the above approval. The Interim Director of Planning and Building Control further determined that the details set out in Drawing Number 013002­_213 would satisfy the requirements of Condition 3 of the above approval.” Dated 8th June 2016.

     

    1. PLANNING REFUSALS   none
    2. COMPLETION CERTIFICATES   .
    3. a) 14/07396/DEX. Meadowfield House, Croit-e-Caley. Mr M Beech. Alterations and extensions to include additional garden store to ground level and erection of first floor gym above existing garage.   Dated 26th May 2016.
    4. REGULARISATION CERTIFICATE (this had been sent to Port St Mary Commissioners who had forwarded it).

    16/07198/REG. Rose Cottage, Glen Chass. Mr & Mrs P Eckersley.    1) Installation of concrete lintels in opening of conservatory to kitchen 2) installation of Megaflo Heatrae Sadia 3) installation of external firebird boiler ‘S’ range.   “The above mentioned work has been inspected, and after taking all reasonable steps I confirm tht the building work satisfies any applicable requirements of Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations 2014. This Certificate shall be evidence (but not conclusive evidence) that any applicable requirement of the Regulations have been complied with. Signed R M Edwards, Building Control Officer” 28th April 2016.

    1. PLANNING APPEALS
    2. a) 15/01135/B. Broomfield Cottage, Qualtrough Lane, Ballafesson. Mr & Mrs J Young. Appeal against Approval for alterations, erection of extension and car port to dwelling and erection of boundary wall with pedestrian access.   Rebuttal Statements received by Planning Appeals Administrator . Copies received by RPC.

    Mr Young declared an interest and took no part in the discussion.

    1. OTHER PLANNING MATTERS none.
    2. ANY OTHER BUSINESS.      None.
    3. DATE OF NEXT MEETING  20th July 2016.

    As there was no further public business the meeting went into private session at 10.15pm.