• Minutes for the 19 October 2016 Meeting

    November 29th, 2016 by Stan Pilling in General News ·Meeting Minutes

                                      RUSHEN PARISH COMMISSIONERS

    Meeting held 7pm Wednesday 19th October 2016, Ballafesson Hall.


    Present: Mr P Vernon (Chairman), Mr P Gunn (Vice-Chairman), Mr D Radcliffe,

    Mr S Pilling, Mr J Young.

    1. MINUTES The Minutes of the Meeting held Wednesday 19th September 2016, having previously been circulated, were taken as read, agreed a true record. Mr Radcliffe proposed, Mr Young seconded and all agreed that these should be approved for signing.
    3. a) DoI/Local Authority Issues:-
    4. i) Transfer of function from DOI to Local Authorities; Waste Management and other such topics:-
    5. ii) Political WWG. No meeting held.

    Officer Waste Working Group – meeting to be held Tuesday 20th Sep:- Notification of cancellation was received too late for some people who went to Nobles Park pavilion only to find that it wasn’t on.

    iii) All Island Clerks Forum.  The Clerk had attended the meeting held at 10am on 6th October at Port St Mary Commissioners Office. The first topic had been with regard to the Public Services Commission pay negotiations and Whitley Council workers. This did not involve many of the Local Authorities as they didn’t employ manual workers but it would involve Amenity Site workers and therefore the Local Authorities who contributed to the running costs of the sites. Local Authority training and the Local Government handbook, of which an updated version was being complied, were briefly discussed. Retention of records was also mentioned but only really as regards Freedom of Information.


    No Working Group Meetings held – possibly because the Combined Waiting List was now up and running, with application forms being able to be received by all the Local Authorities in the south, with the exception of Port St Mary who were to remain handling their own list. When received by LAs they would then be passed on to Port Erin or Castletown who would process them. Access to the information on the lists would still be available to the Clerks and Members could have input at the end of the process.

    1. v) Members’ Declaration of Interests Record Book.
    2. b) Ballakilley Land

    Rushen Recreational Area.

    1. i) Agreement for Southern Nomads. –

    As the Chairman, Mr Vernon, had now returned all aspects of this were discussed. Reported in Private Session.

    ii)) BMX Track/Skate park . email from Jimmy Cubbon 23/9, fwd 4/10 asking for a brief update on the BMX track/skate park plans and the timeframes for the Ballakilley Development. Also asking if RPC Members had seen the concrete skate park which Braddan had built.

    It was agreed that Mr Cubbon should be invited to come and look at the area marked out on the field to see if there was sufficient space. Mr Vernon would contact him and would take him round the field to discuss this.

    Also – email from Giles Crellin, Youth Officer (fwd 4/10) asking to meet and wondering if any progress had been made on the possible collaboration between commissioners. “The Rushen Youth Club has been tasked to develop a new offering and I wonder if it would make sense for us to meet to also explore opportunities here as well. In particular the club needs a facelift and an improved reputation and so we will be working on this over the year and we hope to involve the wider community.” This was noted.

    iii) Rushen Burial Ground Authority

    Received – the cheque for £5 being the price RPC had sold the land to the Rushen Burial Ground Authority for the extension to the Burial Ground and the car park for the Church. The RBGA had settled the Advocates’ invoice for the sale of the land to them.

    1. iv) Church Field There had been problems with actions by the Contractor and Sub-Contractor and others which had been resolved in part.
    2. v) Ballakilley residential estate

    The Clerk had spoken to Mr Humphrey who had just returned from holiday.

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

    Jones Services Ltd. Refuse collections . No problems.

    Cronk Mooar Farm, Shore Road. Lockable bin

    1. i) Road Sweeping – As the leaves were now falling the Clerk to arrange for some road sweeping to be carried out.
    2. ii) Hedges – the fourth and final stage of hedge cutting had now been completed.
    3. iv) Pavement from Ballachurry to Ballakillowey roundabout.

    The Clerk had spoken to the contractor who cuts the hedges and had asked for a price for digging out the hedge bottom.

    1. v) Ballakillowey white line pavement. Mr Radcliffe was to contact Stephen Maddrell to see if he could carry out this work as soon as possible.   Mr Young declared an interest and took no part in the discussion as he was using the services of Mr Maddrell for contractual work on his house.
    2. d) Bring Banks nothing further
    3. e) Lighting: lighting at Fairy Hill. Mr Radcliffe had eventually been able to speak to someone in DSC and had been told that Rushen Commissioners would have to pay for any extra lighting. Mr Radcliffe was to speak to neighbours of the house in question to see if they thought that extra lighting was really needed. A new light would cost between £2,000 – £3,000 depending upon any trenching work required.
    4. f) Traffic & DoI Highways.

    Shore Road       The Clerk had attended the meeting on Tuesday 20th September. Everything that Ms Hawley had said in her letter with regard to Shore Road still stood. The road is not the problem it is driver behaviour. There would be chevrons put in during the next few weeks but Highways were short of men. Mrs Hawley asked if Port Erin or Port St Mary had men who could help to put them up.                                                                                                                                     The Clerk had asked for up to date accident statistics and was told that she should ask the Police as that is where Highways gets them from and they would be up to date. The Clerk had asked for them but not received any.

    A copy of the plan showing the investigation into the road surfaces on Shore Road had been provided at the meeting.

    Mr Young had sent an email to the other Board Members saying he had received complaints about the stretch of road past the Shore Hotel to Grenea Cottages. Some of the residents had difficulty in getting out of their drives or their layby opposite, especially during the dark. Vehicles were going fast and residents were finding it very difficult pulling out of their drives and layby opposite especially during winter when it is dark. They were becoming increasingly concerned regarding more and more accidents occurring on this stretch of road.                                                                                                                                                 Mr Young was of the opinion that it was inappropriate that there is no speed limit there. He suggested a limit from the northern corner of the 30 zone at the Shore Hotel and it should be 50mph. As the road ahead is notorious this can only help reduce speed coming towards the South and hopefully reduce the number of accidents.

    It was noted that there had been another accident – more holes in the wall.

    Mr Young was to contact the resident and suggest that he and his neighbours write to RPC.

    Glen Chass turning circle – the road had been jet-patched but, with regard to putting the DYLs (double yellow lines) in on all 3 sides, this would have to be advertised as, although an old photograph showed these were there it seemed that there was no official paperwork to verify this.

    1. g) Police Neighbourhood Watch for the Ballafesson area –

    email rec. (fwd 6/10) re Sgt Shimmin wanting to attend a meeting so that he and/or an Inspector could introduce themselves to any new board members with a quick 20-30 minute chat.   Possibly at the start of a meeting? They would like a list of dates which may suit.

    Mr Young re-iterated his concerns about the delay in setting up the Neighbourhood Watch scheme and the lack of leaflets and other information. He also recounted a situation which had happened in the Fairy Hill area. Mr Vernon would be attending the next Police Meeting which would be held on 22nd November and he would bring both this matters up for discussion and explanation.

    1. h) Dog bins; fouling; Litter bins; Beach Cleans;

    Stickers for dog and litter bins. The Clerk had not ordered these yet.

    1. i) Playing field, Howe Car Park. The hedge in the car park had been cut.

    Part of the wall at the entrance had been damaged. This had been done by a DOI vehicle. A letter had been received from Zurich Insurance, the IOM Government’s insurers, stating that the IOM Government accepted liability and that RPC should get 2 estimates and send these and photographs to Zurich.

    The Clerk had emailed Members to say that the wall had been damaged a couple of times before and that there had been complaints that it was too narrow. She asked if it should be widened by three or four foot to take that into account. There had been differing opinions.   The Chairman had said to go ahead and widen it and get estimates. After discussion it was agreed to widen it by 3ft.

    1. j) Web Site Mr Pilling was keeping this up to date.
    2. k) Southern Civic Amenity Site  (Southern Recycling Centre)

    Mr Pilling said that there was nothing new to report. They had talked about the layout and the traffic flow.

    1. l) Municipal Association

    Mr Gunn, Mr Pilling and Mrs Kelly had attended the Planning meeting which the MA had organised. This had been a useful exercise and there was to be a further meeting in a few months’ time.

    Mr Gunn reported on the last MA meeting. Mr Michael Gallagher, former Director of Planning, had attended and given an informative talk.

    The next meeting would be on 17th November and the Chief Constable, Mr Gary Roberts, would be giving a talk.

    1. m) Southern Swimming Pool Authority

    Mr Radcliffe said there was little to report other than that they were going to convert the lighting to LEDs, which would save on electricity costs.

    1. n) Marashen Crescent Elderly Persons Housing Authority

    Mr Radcliffe said that the last meeting couldn’t be held as they weren’t quorate.

    1. o) Southern Healthcare Committee  Nothing further as no more meetings had been held.
    2. p) Rushen Ambulance   Nothing further.
    3. p) Manx National Heritage  
    4. i)   Meayll Hill – dog fouling (dogs and trial bikes).                                                                                 ii) The Sound. – dog fouling.   Suggested dog bin.

    Dog fouling and Trial bikes on Meayll Hill.    RPC’s Chairman had sent a reply to Mr Southworth’s letter wherein he had replied to RPC’s concerns about reported dog fouling and trial bikes:- No reply received yet, only acknowledgement. No indication whether they had put a dog bin there or not.

    1. q) Risk Assessment  Health and Safety documents received from John Edwin which the Clerk had forwarded to Mr Vernon. Mr Vernon and the Clerk had looked through the document and there were a couple of alterations and additions to bring it up to date. One of these was that part of the ‘Church Field’ at Ballakilley had now been sold to Rushen Burial Ground Authority as was no longer the responsibility of RPC.
    2. r) Grass Cutting : This had been carried out as usual. Due to the mild weather the grass was still growing well.

    Weeds – this has been carried out again and was all completed.

    1. s) Meayll Book.
    2. t) World War 1 Commemorations 2014-2018.  Remembrance Sunday would be on 13th November this year. Mr Vernon would be laying the wreath at Rushen War Memorial. The Chain of Office was to be updated, hopefully in time for Mr Vernon to wear it as such.
    3. u) Port Erin Commissioners – boundary extension proposed by them to take part of Ballakilley residential development. Reported in Private Session.


    1. v) Notice Board.

    The Manager of Southlands had forwarded the email to Mike Harrington of DHSC and he had sent a copy of a draft Licence which RPC would have to sign after giving details of the board.

    1. w) Flooding and Wave Overtopping and Shore Road.  The Clerk had been contacted by Mrs McIntosh on Thursday who informed her that the digger, which had been moving the large rocks back into position, had now left the beach but hadn’t moved the stones in some places and there were no new large ones. Also – the ‘two elderly men’ are still there putting concrete into cracks.                                                                                                                                                The Clerk didn’t know if DOI had put signs up pointing out the danger regarding lack of access/egress for people who may not be able to climb the large stones. This had been discussed at the September meeting.

    Mr Radcliffe said that he would go down and check what was going on and if the signs had been put up.

    1. x) Roads in poor condition. Nothing further.
    2. y) Parking at Rushen School.  No reply had been received from the Director of Education regarding RPC’s letter. The Clerk had been informed that ‘a letter would be on the way’.
    3. aa) Derelict Properties. Nothing further.
    4. ab) Litter Mr Radcliffe’s letter to the new MHKs. Mr Radcliffe had completed this and emailed it to all Members for discussion. No changes were suggested at the meeting.   The Clerk to get a list of the newly elected MHKs and their addresses.



    This can be read at the Office of Rushen Parish Commissioners by contacting the Clerk.


    2. a) 3rd Supplemental List 2016. Another new dwelling on Carnane Lane, Ballakilley.
    3. b) Farewell Service for Right Revd. Robert Paterson.

    Invitation for the Chairman & Guest to attend the farewell service for the Lord Bishop of Sodor and Mann on Sunday 30th October 2016, in the presence of The Hon. Steve Rodan, President of Tynwald. The Service commences at 4pm in the ancient cathedral on St Patrick’s Isle followed by procession to the new Cathedral. ‘If you do not wish to take part in the procession please be seated in the new Cathedral by 4.20pm. Afternoon tea follows.’.   RSVP by 116th October. Neither Mr Vernon, Chairman nor Mr Gunn, Vice Chairman were able to attend and the Clerk would send their apologies.

    1. d) Letter from Mr Nixon, owner of The Coot, Ballnahowe.

    Mr Nixon had sent a copy of a letter which he sent to Planning and Building Control. “I wish to draw your attention to the use of field grid reference SC 1910 6820 at Ballnahowe, Rushen as a compound for the storage or accommodation of quantities of various building materials, hardcore etc to the extent that it resembles a builders yard, a situation that has continued now for a number of years and would seem in danger of becoming a permanent use. Can you please advise if your department considers:-   a) whether or not this is an appropriate use of an agricultural field in this location; b) whether or not it constitutes or is in danger of constituting a change of use for the field and c) whether or not any application for change of use has been made for the field, and if not whether such an application should be called for.”

    This was noted.

    1. e) Seagull problem, Honna Road.

    An email had been received from a resident of Honna Road who was concerned about two elderly residents who were “feeding the birds day in and day out. Over the years these birds, mainly seagulls and jackdaws, have become incredibly aggressive and extremely messy”. The resident had spoken in a friendly manner to the ladies but they were still feeding the birds.    This was discussed and not all Members felt that it was something which RPC should deal with. However, Mr Radcliffe was to go and see the ladies who were feeding the birds.



    2. a) 16/01001. Lyndene, Ballakilpheric Road, Colby. Mr & Mrs D Mikan. Proposed extensions to provide additional living accommodation comprising new single storey sun room and new study. AMENDMENTS These were noted.
    3. b) 16/01072. Glendown Farm, Truggan Road. Mr Derek Cain. Replace slate roof for a modern fibre cement roof with roof lights. This came in the day after our last meeting so I emailed Derek to tell him. No objections
    4. c) 16/01150. Upper Scard, Ballakillowey. Mr D Curry. Demolition of timber store/stables; proposed replacement store/stables. No objections
    5. d) 16/01160. Kilravock, Shore Road, Bay ny Carrickey. Mr David Corrin. Demolition of existing and erection of replacement dwelling. No objections
    6. e) 16/01170. Maynrys, St Mary’s Road. Mr & Mrs Faulkner. Application to make lawful use of land as a garden. No objections.


    2. a) 16/00788/B. Croit e Caley Methodist Church, Croit e Caley. Architectural Outsourcing Services. Conversion of existing chapel into a dwelling and creation of additional parking and vehicular access.                                                                        Conditions include:-                                                                                                                                     2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any revoking Order and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modifications) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling hereby approved shall be carried out, no windows shall be replaced and no additional roof-lights shall be installed or inserted on the dwelling hereby approved, no roof-mounted solar panels or satellite dishes shall be installed on the dwelling hereby approve, and no sheds or summerhouses or greenhouses or polytunnels or fences or walls or gates or standalone solar panels or domestic fuel tanks shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby approved, without prior written approval of the Department. Reason: The approved development works till if implemented take place on/in an ecclesiastical building and the retention of as much of the character of this building is important to control in the public interest. The assessment has shown that the works approved are already in balance as to their acceptability and so any further alteration to the dwelling or within its curtilage should be properly considered and managed through the planning process.                                                                                                 Decision – Senior Planning Officer. Issued 12th October 2016.


    1. PLANNING REFUSALS   none.
    3. a) 13/07459/DOM. Plot 149, land at Ballakilley, Church Road. Heritage Homes. Erection of 5 bed detached dwelling ‘Silverdale 2014’ house type. Issued 11th October 2016.
    6. a) 14/00632. Field 414526 Ballaman, Ballnahowe Road. (The Clerk had given members a copy of these) Cheeseden Investments Limited

    Rushen Parish Commissioners’ Submission:-                                 6th October 2016.

    Ms J Callow, Secretary to the Planning Committee                                                                                                   Dear Ms Callow

    Please find the submission of Rushen Parish Commissioners with regard to the following planning application in the Parish District of Rushen:-

    Planning Application:- 14/00632. Field 414526 Ballaman, Ballnahowe Road, Rushen.                                  Applicant:- Cheeseden Investments Ltd.                                                                                       Proposal:- Erection of 3 10kw wind turbines.

    Rushen Parish Commissioners originally met on 18th June 2014 to discuss the planning application for the erection of 3 wind turbines at Ballaman. They submitted their views to the Planning Authority.

    In September 2016 additional information regarding the planning application was received and this was considered at their meeting on 19th September 2016. Part of the additional information was a report from Rushen EcoEnergy and in order to seek more clarification the Commissioners invited Mr Georgiou to come along to their meeting to explain further with regard to the turbines and other aspects of the additional information.

    The original views of Rushen Parish Commissioners, given in June 2014, are as follows:-

    The proposal would seem to be contrary to sound planning principles as set out in the Southern Area Plan. The site is an area of high landscape value with dramatic coastal scenery and is close to the coastal footpath leading from Port Erin to the South which is much enjoyed by residents and visitors alike. The present use of the proposed site of the turbines would appear to be in an agricultural field.   The importance of an open and expansive coastal landscape with dramatic uninterrupted views was recognised in the Southern Area Plan and the location for the proposed works in a prominent position overlooking Port Erin Bay is inappropriate and will detract from the existing backdrop to the Village, bay and surrounding area.

    Visual impact: this development is on the hillside above the Village of Port Erin and is very visible from most of Port Erin and from parts of Rushen. The site is already substantially developed with the main house and outbuildings, several cottages, a helicopter hangar and pad and two entrances of a design inappropriate for a rural lane. The present development already dominates the landscape and three wind turbines would exacerbate the situation. Being on the hillside they will have a disproportionate impact on the views of the countryside which surrounds the village. Port Erin relies on tourism for income with part of this being the consequence of unspoilt views of countryside and coastal scenery.

    These turbines will be of no benefit to the people of the area or the Island – they will not be producing energy for the Island but are only for a private power supply. Had they been for the benefit of the Island there may have been an argument for approving wind turbines – but not in this location. As they are purely to reduce a private person’s energy costs then there is really no good reason to permit them, taking into consideration the principles set out in the Southern Area Plan.

    The erection of these turbines would set a precedent for other parts of the Island but, of more concern they would set a precedent for this site. The report from Rushen Eco Energy which is part of the application states:-   “…….The site usage is very high so it wouldn’t supply all the power but would knock a £6,000 hole in the bill. Multiple turbines may also be considered possible after a single one has proven the principle/ Multiple small turbines are likely to be more acceptable than a single large one at this location above the town.” This would seem to be stating that there could be more in the future. Once the first ones were erected it would be difficult to object to more.

    The additional information received in September 2016 is the cause of some concern and it seems that some consideration may have been given to these turbines being located at Sound Farm. Although there is no indication on the plans and drawings of this it would seem that there have been investigations carried out regarding the numbers of birds which may be affected and Manx National Heritage have given views on this. It is presumed, therefore, that wind turbines may be located in that area under a future amendment. This would be unacceptable in this area of High Scenic Significance and it is more than likely that Manx National Heritage, who has in the past objected to communications poles, antenna and other such constructions, would strongly object to wind turbines.

    Mr Georgiou explained to the Board that the owner of Ballaman has taken great steps to ensure that his property will use as little energy as possible and the wind turbines are just another source of providing energy. Considerable reduction in energy use is, of course, to be applauded but wind turbines in this particular area are not aesthetically acceptable. Perhaps there are alternative ways of saving energy.

    Concerns are also raised with regard to aircraft safety. Helicopters fly almost daily back and forward to Ballaman and this is near the flight path for other aircraft. It is an area affected by mist and fog. Consideration by the Office of Planning has been delayed for two years because of concerns regarding the safety of aircraft flying in this vicinity and the Commissioners do not see any new information included in the additional documents which would allay their fears regarding this.

    Mr Nigel Taylor, Surby Mooar, has made his submission to the Office of Planning and, having read through this, Rushen Parish Commissioners agree with and support his views.

    It is also mentioned in the additional information that a pole has been erected since May in the position where it is intended that the turbines would be erected and that there have been no complaints or observations regarding it. This is not surprising as it has been presumed that it is just a marker and bears no resemblance to how the three turbines would appear should they be erected.

    Rushen Parish Commissioners are opposed to this application and they very strongly recommend that this application for three wind turbines be REFUSED.

    Submitted on behalf of Rushen Parish Commissioners. Gillian Kelly (Mrs)   Clerk to Rushen Parish Commissioners.

    1. b) 15/01389 and 15/01390/CON. Ballagawne Gatekeepers Cottage, Mount Gawne Road. Department of Infrastructure. Alterations to form a dwelling including repair and renewal of roof, construction of new floor, alterations to internal layout, installation of French doors, replacement windows and doors, external decoration and creation of new vehicular access and driveway.

    Received – a copy of a letter which Planning had written to Mr Costain, Moorhouse Farms Ltd with regard to him not being regarded as having party status. He had been told that his views cannot be taken into consideration as he doesn’t have party status “to clarify, your tenancy of the land adjoining the site is acknowledged but you do not ‘reside’ in that land. Also the concerns you have raised do not constitute material planning considerations. Unfortunately there is no appeal process to the determination of party status. If you continue to feel strongly on this matter you may approach other parties who do have powers to appeal, namely DOI Highways, the Local Authority or the Manx Museum, to ask if they are prepared to champion your cause in this matter. Should you wish to do so please be aware that the timeline for submitting an appeal is September 28th.”

    2. DATE OF NEXT MEETING   Wednesday 16th November 2016.                                         As there was no further business for the public session the meeting went into private session at 10.45pm.