The response to an appeal to the Chief Minister for an ‘urgent review’ of a development in Port St Mary was ‘doubly insulting’ said commissioner Alec Merchant.
The board wrote to Chief Minister Allan Bell requesting the review of the controversial development of two houses at the Underway. The plan, approved at appeal in 2011, includes the condition that parking for two cars be built on the foreshore first; work on the parking area began in October.
Commissioners requested the review because there was ‘considerable disquiet’ about the development, wrote’ chairman Bernadette McCabe, as residents ‘do not want to see our beach used as a car park’.
The authority questioned the title which the developers hold for the foreshore and they pointed out the car parking appears to have been constructed with neither building regulations approval nor a road opening notice being granted.
Mr Bell passed the letter to Michael Gallagher, Director of Planning at the Department of Environment, Fisheries and Agriculture.
Mr Gallagher replied to the authority: ‘In recent months the department have repeatedly provided advice and indicated the department’s position’.
The final decision about the plan – which was made following the recommendation of an independent inspector – ‘underwent significant external scrutiny and was not just made by planning officers’.
Once approval is in place ‘DEFA does not have the vires to reconsider or change the planning decision, even if new information is available or circumstances may have changed. At present . . . no breach of planning control has taken place.’
Issues about land ownership ‘are not a planning matter’. A car park is not within Building Regulations (BR), so does not require BR approval. The officers are ‘acutely aware’ of cliff stability, protection of the road and property and flood risk.
Port St Mary commissioner Alec Merchant said last week Mr Gallagher’s letter contained nothing new. He said: ‘One of the reasons we wrote to the Chief Minister is because we were not satisfied with the response [from planning]. Building regulations of 2007 and 2014 say the same thing. Mr Gallagher is using the word “building” as a noun rather than a verb (to mean the act of construction), and that is clearly not the case (how it is used in the act).
‘It is insulting a government department should brush the commissioners off with a simple statement. To send back the same response is double the insult.
‘This demonstrates a disconnect between the public and government, it’s very frustrating to represent the interests of local people and we are getting the door shut in our faces repeatedly.
‘If I was Mr Bell, I would want someone to look at the building regulations because very clearly there can be different interpretations.’
As the new parking bays are by a public highway, it is ‘reckless’ not to apply building regulations, he said.
Also, he added, as BR have not been not applied, it is technically ‘an illegal construction.’
He said: ‘The commissioners believe there is documentary evidence to suggest a different history of ownership than that claimed and the relevant departments should make themselves familiar with this. I hope some careful thought and attention will be given to these matters.’
The commissioners will consult further with government.