SPMC&E Objection Letter

Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment

06/00729/B

Installation of uPVC windows and doors to front porch and basement to match existing and erection of a replacement entrance gate, Knock Rushen House Scarlett

CASTLETOWN

06/00711/B

Alterations and erection of a two storey extension to side elevation, Glion Charn Minorca Vale

LAXEY

06/00724/C

Change of use of part of field 134401 to residential curtilage, Garey House Glen Tramman

LEZAYRE

06/00732/B

Erection of a bridge access to replace existing, Glen Auldyn Lodge Glen Auldyn

LEZAYRE

06/00727/B

Erection of a first floor extension, High Ridge Slieau Lewaigue Lewaigue

MAUGHOLD

FOUNDED 1938 REGD. CHARITY (IOM) No.391 PATRON: HIS EXCELLENCY THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR CHAIRMAN CHARLES FLYNN 31, FIRST AVENUE DOUGLAS HON. SECRETARY MRS. M.B. CRELLIN CRONK ny GREINEY, GLASHEN CLOSE, BALLASALLA, MALEW

ON PLANNING ISSUES PLEASE REPLY TO: S.P.M.C.& E c/o Glebe Cottage, Maughold, (via Ramsey) IM7 1AS Phone 815748 Email: [email protected]

Secretary to the Planning Committee, Department of Planning & the Environment, Murray House, DOUGLAS

Dear Ms. Callow, SPMC&E VIEWS ON APPLICATIONS from WEEKLY LIST 2006/18-- List dated 11/05/06 As sent Date of this response --12/05/06

Sheet 1

Knock Rushen House – an important early Manx mansion – was spoilt years ago by the installation of unsuitable uPVC windows. The one now proposed for the Porch will stand out as being better than the others! Not so sure about the new gates. Hansom metal ones (wrought iron?) are to be replaced by a quirky timber creation involving a mock ship’s-wheel. Rather gimmicky for such a prestigious house.

The cottage at the very top of this narrow cul-de-sac, way down below the main road. It is a tight fit among the contours but quite spacious in relation to other dwellings. No objection.

With the dreadful decline in farming now manifesting itself, we ought to be pleased when someone is prepared to take over the stewardship of former agricultural land and maintain it as garden, orchard or similar. We feel regret that this entrepreneur has been charged £53 for doing good. Planning Applications for such changes of use as this should not be pursued. They could be held as being “not material”.

A straight replacement – surely this should be P.D. and not charged for? The Department should not be hounding residents just in the quest for Planning Fees.