• Minutes for the 23 November Meeting

    January 5th, 2017 by Stan Pilling in General News ·Meeting Minutes

                                      RUSHEN PARISH COMMISSIONERS

    Meeting held 7pm Wednesday 23rd November 2016, Ballafesson Hall.


    Mr Humphrey and Mr Thomas of Dandara attended at 7.20 and left at 7.50pm. Reported in Private Session Minutes.

    Present: Mr P Vernon, (Chairman), Mr P Gunn (Vice-Chairman), Mr Radcliffe, Mr Young. Mr Pilling arrived at 7.30pm.

    1. MINUTES The Minutes of the Meeting held Wednesday 19th October 2016, having previously been circulated, were taken as read. Mr Radcliffe proposed, Mr Vernon seconded, that they were a true record and they were therefore approved by the Board 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. Meeting held Tuesday 8th Received a report from the Clerk of PSM and also Mr Bob Pilling from Malew Commissioners who attended as representatives. There was concern that, due to Douglas Corporation and a few other Local Authorities challenging the introduction of the Availability Fee, the new Minister seemed to be backtracking on the fees for 2016/17. Department Officers were to contact individual LAs.

    Officer Waste Working Group – This was to be held on 25th November and information had been received from Stephanie Gray emailed to Members of 17th November. The Clerk would attend and she was requested to query the changes mentioned, the decisions made and the intentions of the Waste Management Division. Also to point out that Local Authorities need to do their Estimates for 2017/18 in December and needed accurate information regarding charging.                                                                                                                                           The possibility of having more bring banks was to be mentioned.

    iii) All Island Clerks Forum.

    2. v) Members’ Declaration of Interests Record Book. No new entries.
    3. b) Ballakilley Land

    Rushen Recreational Area.

    Boundary path. The Chairman and Members felt that there had been enough delay in progressing making this field into public open space and recreational area and Southern Nomads seemed to be no nearer to progressing the rugby pitches and car parking. A general discussion took place with regard to the placement of the path and the construction of it including membrane and woodchip, road-planings or concrete. The entrance would require Planning Approval and was suggested as a barrier rather than a gate. Members were to think about this before the December Meeting.

    1. i) Agreement for Southern Nomads. – discussed and minuted in Private Session.
    2. ii) BMX Track/Skate park . Mr Vernon had not yet met with Mr Cubbon.

    iii) Rushen Burial Ground Authority

    1. iv) Church Field the work was well underway with the car parking having block paviour rather than tarmac as shown in the planning application. They seemed to be going to use only half of the burial ground land which they had purchased.

    The Clerk had received no reply from Guy Thompson to her email of 7th October nor of 6th November. However, the Chairman had, in the past few days received a letter from him. None of the requested documents or information had been received from anyone to do with the RBGA.

    1. v) Ballakilley residential estate

    David Humphrey and David Thomas from Dandara had attended at the start of the meeting and answered various questions. Reported in Private Session.

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

    Jones Services Ltd. Refuse collections . No problems.

    1. i) Road Sweeping – Jones Services had swept several roads and also a couple of pavements.
    2. ii) Hedges – all completed for the year.
    3. iv) Pavement from Ballachurry to Ballakillowey roundabout.

    The Clerk had asked again regarding this but nothing received yet.

    1. v) Ballakillowey white line pavement. The bottom of the hedge had been dug out with minimal impact other than widening the ‘white line pavement’. There had been a phone call from one of the owners complaining that large parts of his hedge had been taken without permission. They hadn’t. It had not been RPC who had this work carried out and it was presumed to be DOI.
    2. d) Bring Banks nothing further. The Clerk was to ask Port Erin Commissioners if they received any income from the recycling from their own small bring banks.
    3. e) Lighting:

    Utilities had been in touch to say that that RN104 at Viking Hill needed replacing – the fitting had been removed and the column was corroded. Costings were emailed to members and it was agreed that a replacement column with a 27w Ampera fitting be erected – estimated cost£2,250 + vat. This was agreed to go ahead.                                                                                                     With regard to painting columns, Members were of the opinion that galvanised columns should not be painted as this would lead to them always having to be repainted. RPC were therefore adopting the policy for future columns that they should not be painted.

    1. f) Traffic & DoI Highways.

    Shore Road – accident information had been received from the Police. No letters had been received from the residents of the Grenea Cottages yet but Mr Young would speak with them again.                                                                                                                                                     Glen Chass turning circle – no double yellow lines yet .

    1. g) Police Neighbourhood Watch for the Ballafesson area and other problems, Mr Vernon had attended the Police Meeting on Tuesday 22nd and made a point of bringing up the concerns regarding Neighbourhood Watch at Ballafesson which Mr Young had been trying to introduce since September 2015.
    2. h) Dog bins; fouling; Litter bins; Beach Cleans;

    Stickers for dog and litter bins. The Clerk said that she didn’t think the stickers should say ‘all waste accepted’ as had been suggested. The dog bins are quite small and if someone puts in e.g. a pizza box or the polystyrene fast food containers the bins may be full which may cause people not to be able to use them – with resultant consequences.

    1. i) Playing field, Howe Car Park.

    The wall at the car park had been damaged by a DOI vehicle. On the instructions of their insurer – Zurich – the Clerk had obtained 2 quotes for them.

    1. j) Web Site Mr Young had been investigating the web site, emails, etc and gave a report to the meeting. Mr Vernon expressed the appreciation of the Board for all the work Mr Young had done on this and felt that this was the way forward. He said that the Board would look at his suggestions soon.
    2. k) Southern Civic Amenity Site  (Southern Recycling Centre) Report from Mr Pilling:

    Mr Pilling, along with Mr Grace from Port St Mary Commissioners, had prepared a draft Report for the SCAS Board to look at. The Clerk had received this but not the Members and she was to forward it to them.   The SCASB had set up a steering committee to look into a proper plan to take the Amenity Site into the future and the Report was part of this.

    1. l) Municipal Association

    Training event to be held 17th January.   This was noted at present and Members would confirm later if they wished to attend.

    1. m) Southern Swimming Pool Authority

    Mr Radcliffe said there was nothing new to report and there was no progress regarding having a joint swimming pool with King Williams College.

    1. n) Marashen Crescent Elderly Persons Housing Authority

    Mr Radcliffe had attended the last meeting and mentioned the waiting list. The Board had some concerns about how the waiting list had shortened due to the new criteria for applications. The list had been opened out to all Island and there had been a few applicants from outside the area.

    1. o) Southern Healthcare Committee nothing at present.
    2. p) Rushen Ambulance   nothing at present.
    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.   Nothing from MNH.  

    1. q) Risk Assessment  Health and Safety.
    2. r) Grass Cutting : now completed for the year.
    3. s) Meayll Book.
    4. t) World War 1 Commemorations 2014-2018.  Remembrance Sunday 13th The Chairman laid a wreath at Rushen War Memorial and also the National War Memorial at St Johns, after attending the Service as Chairman. The Chain of Office had been updated with new engraved bars.
    5. u) Port Erin Commissioners – boundary extension proposed by them to take part of Ballakilley residential development.  Private Session.
    6. v) Notice Board. The smaller one to be ordered.
    7. w) Flooding and Wave Overtopping and Shore Road.

    Mr Radcliffe had been down to the area and reported that no warning signs had been erected.

    8.x) Roads in poor condition. Nothing further.

    1. y) Parking at Rushen School.   No reply had been received to the letter.
    2. aa) Derelict Properties. Nothing further.
    3. ab) Litter Mr Radcliffe’s letter to the newly elected MHKs had been sent out to all MHKs and MLCs. Some feedback had been received. Rob Callister, MHK was to ask a question in House of Keys on 23rd November:– ‘How many people have been prosecuted for litter offences since 2010’.     The letter had also been sent to the Southern Chronicle for inclusion in their Christmas edition. It had also been in the ‘Letters’ page of IOM Newspapers – unfortunately with the Clerk’s name at the bottom instead of Mr Radcliffe, the author of it.

    The Clerk had forwarded the replies.

    The letter was as follows:- (sent to all MHKs and MLCs)

    “4th November 2016

    Re; Litter 

     Rushen Commissioners have long been concerned by the prevalence of litter being casually discarded by members of the public all around the Island. Despite this being an offence, there seems to be little appetite to either punish offenders or address the problem in any meaningful way. Indeed there seems to be a general acceptance that it is something that is now a part of everyday life that shouldn’t really concern anyone too much.

    Organisers of public events are obliged to clear up after the general public. Spectators (probably more locals than visitors) at events such as the TT routinely leave their litter where they choose to stand whether it be on private farm land, hedges or pavements.

    Beach Buddies are rightly praised and supported in their efforts to keep our beaches clean. The recent acknowledgement by UNESCO of the work of Beach Buddies is a very positive move which has been achieved in part as a result of support provided by Government departments and personnel. It seems curious that there is general support for efforts to keep our beaches clear of litter whereas there is little Government input promoting responsible behaviour in keeping the rest of the Island tidy. A proportion of litter dropped on the Island, particularly plastic is likely to end up on our beaches either to be picked up by Beach Buddies or swept out to sea to become part of the massive marine pollution problem. Road sweepers clear the roads but little is done to clear hedges or the areas beyond.

    You will no doubt be aware of the concept of the “nudge” effect to encourage people to modify their behaviour in favourable ways. The use of some radio advertising during the races would be a start in sending out some message to those incapable of disposing of litter responsibly. It would also give visitors the impression we are trying to address the problem. Presently there is no message from the Manx Government in this regard. Consider the number of visitors coming from the Continent – places like Germany, Austria, Switzerland where one rarely sees litter. What must they think of us and the mess we leave behind? There are hundreds of littering offences committed every day and yet no one is apprehended or prosecuted. Why is this? Littering needs to become as socially unacceptable as drink driving.

    Education is also important. A substantial proportion of litter is actually a valuable resource, particularly aluminium cans, and increasingly plastic, both of which must form a sizeable proportion of street litter. However there are relatively few litter collection areas where materials can be separated at source. It is all just “litter” and consequently viewed as being of zero value. As a starting point, could we suggest that these type of bins should be installed in public places such as the Airport, Sea Terminal, schools and the Isle of Man College. Information regarding the problems of litter, i.e. plastic in the marine food chain or just the waste of resources, needs to be disseminated not only to young people but the entire population of the island.

    It is plastic litter which presents the greatest problem and which really needs to be addressed. The Island is justly proud of its recently acquired UNESCO Biosphere status. Receiving this award is not the end of the story. The Island should build on it.

    As a starting point the Isle of Man Government needs to bring in a charge for carrier bags as soon as possible to bring it in line with the rest of the British Isles, followed by a complete ban – the Republic of Ireland managed to implement this over a decade ago without causing a revolution!

    Looking further ahead, legislation could be enacted to prevent take away shops using plastic packaging, or the return of soft drinks bottles with a deposit on them – it isn’t that long ago since ‘pop’ was produced and bottled locally or since people were happy to drink tap water for virtually nothing rather than stale, expensive polluted stuff imported in yet more plastic bottles. Likewise, local milk is now only available in glass bottles from one single producer. The IoM Creamery uses plastic non-reusable items. All these issues and many more will have to be dealt with at some stage by the Isle of Man and the wider world as clearly we cannot go on following the path of endless waste indefinitely. The question is how long can things be left to go on as they are?

    The foregoing are only a few small examples of pointless waste and the problems created by them. They have been introduced incrementally over decades and naturally cannot be turned around overnight, but only gradually by persuasion and getting people and businesses to accept that change is needed.

    It has been said many times that the Isle of Man voted for change in the recent general election. We sincerely hope that this new House of Keys will make changes – for the better, and have the confidence and vision to take some of the steps required to lead us on a different path.

    Yours sincerely. Gillian Kelly (Mrs) Clerk

    This letter was prepared on behalf of Rushen Parish Commissioners by Mr David Radcliffe who has been a Member of the Board since 2008.”

    1. ac) Seagull problem, Honna Road.

    Mr Radcliffe had spoken to the person who had pointed out the problem. However, it seemed that it was not only the people who had been identified as feeding the birds but others on the estate were also doing so. Mr Radcliffe requested that DSC be asked to send a letter to all of their tenants asking them not to feed the birds and pointing out that the houses had just been painted. It was agreed that the Clerk should do so.

    ad Letter from Mr Nixon, owner of The Coote, 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 – Oct. meeting. He had now sent a copy of a further letter to Planning asking for a reply and pointing out that the use of the field as a yard for builders’ materials was ”an unwarranted intrusion and despoliation of the countryside which depreciates the market and/or rental value of The Coote. Other members of the public have also expressed their concerns as to the use of the field.”   This was noted.


    This can be read at the Office by contacting the Clerk on 834501.

    2. a) Rushen Parish Church’s War Memorial.

    An email had been received from Juan Watterson MHK & SHK 31/10 :- “I wrote to your Commissioners a while ago (over a year) about this project and it was indicated that RPC may be willing to contribute to the cost. If you can advise if this is possible and how much, I can work with Harry to raise the rest.”                                                                                                                                                         Also on the email was one from Harry Dawson who said that he had visited Jason Cubbon and agreed that the total cost will not exceed £1,500. He would work up some sketches for approval of the PCC and DAC before they proceed to Faculty Application. (then he gave the names) .                                                                                                                                                Mr Watterson had subsequently sent a letter:- “I am writing to you following correspondence with Harry Dawson of Cregneash as well as Jack Ronan about some men whose names are missing off Rushen Parish Church’s War Memorial. As you will appreciate these was memorials were erected by public subscription after the world wars. The Church agrees to maintain them, but not to fund additions. The three names are: Sapper E T Cain, Seaman J J Quine, Seaman W H Watterson (Harry’s Uncle). The overall cost of the project, mainly the faculty application and the masonry work from Jason Cubbon will be around £2,000. Whilst I know Harry is happy to contribute, and I am happy to try and assist in a public subscription appeal, I would be grateful to know if the Commissioners would be willing to assist. If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact Harry or I directly.”

    This was discussed and it was agreed that a contribution of £200 would be given. Mr Pilling said that this should be subject to them making the necessary checks and that the names mentioned had been from the Parish. It was presumed that the Commissioners of Port Erin and Port St Mary would be making a similar contribution as they were also part of the Parish of Rushen.


    2. a) 16/001247. Auckland, Ballagale Close. Mrs Ann De Martin. Erection of a single storey conservatory at the rear of existing dwelling. No objections.
    3. b) 16/01254. Awinside, Surby Road, Surby. Robin Boyle and Simone Harrington-Palmer. Erection of two summerhouses. These are two garden sheds, situated at the front of the house at the roadside. “The combined size of the two buildings is within the size specification in the Permitted Development order; however, as there is no rear garden to the property the buildings have to be located in the front garden, adjacent to the road, hence the reason for this Planning Application. Also, the orientation of the property is such that the sitting area adjacent to the house does not receive sunshine in the afternoon, whereas the area of the garden where the summer houses are to be located receives sun during the afternoon and evening.”.   The plan showed a ‘summerhouse’ and a ‘store’ – both buildings the same – sheds – plain wood to the roadside and door and window to the garden side. This was noted although there were no objections from the Board.
    4. c) 16/01160. Kilravock, Shore Road, Bay ny Carrickey. Mr David Corrin. Demolition of existing and erection of replacement dwelling. AMENDED PLANS. No objections.


    1. a) 16/01044/C. Shore Hotel, Shore Road, Bay ny Carrickey. Rodeo Bull Ltd. Change of use for the attic from residential to tourist accommodation. Usual condition. Decision – Senior Planning Officer. Issued 1st November 2016.
    2. b) 16/01072/B. Glendown Farm, Truggan Road. Glendown Ltd. Replacement roof to milking parlour. Decision – Senior Planning Officer. Issued 4th November 2016.
    3. c) 16/01056/B Field 414114 Howe Road. Glendown Farm Ltd. Removal of a sod hedge. Decision – Senior Planning Officer. Issued 18th November 2016.


    2. a) 15/07046/DEX. Cronk Geayee, Ballagawne Road. Mr & Mrs John Edwin. Erection of two storey extension in place of existing attached garage and new roof to form first floor living area, internal alterations.   Issued 18th October 2016.
    3. b) 15/07185/DEX. Upper Scard Farm, Ballakillowey Road. Mr David Curry. Demolition of sunroom to south elevation and erection of replacement two storey extension. Issued 7th November 2016.
    4. c) 16/07082/DOM. Plot 155, Carnane Lane, Ballakilley. Dandara Homes Ltd. 4 bedroom detached dwelling (Cedar Special), with parking facilities.
    5. PLANNING APPEALS       none.


    1. a) 16/01170/LAW. Maynrys, St Mary’s Road. Mr & Mrs D Faulkner. Application to make lawful use of land as a garden. “Please note that in considering the above mentioned application the Department has determined that sufficient evidence has been provided to justify the issue of a Certificate of Lawfulness. There is no appeal against the issue of this certificate, however should later contradictory evidence be established, the Department retains power to revoke its issue in accordance with section 24(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999.” This was noted.
    3. a) Mr Young asked if the Clerk could send out a bullet list regarding actions to be taken.
    4. b) Christmas Meal. Mr Vernon had organised this for 13th January at the Shore Hotel.
    5. DATE OF NEXT MEETING   Wednesday 21st December.

    As there was no further business for the Public Session the meeting went into Private Session at 9.15pm.