General:
Last year we listed some of the achievements that we had encompassed in our over 21 years of existence – and also the very real dangers that we still faced. Much of these largely flow from the Governments repeated failure to honour promises and respect the needs of the people. This attitude has been encouraged by the almost supine approvals of the many unwise development proposals laid before them. This attitude has received a seismic shock from the several successes or partial successes that the Association has been able to achieve in the last 12 months – most notably the appointment of a Select Committee for Poacher's Pocket and the refusal of the Crossag Road Development (now subject to further painful litigation).
In these successes it is right that we mention the very strong help that we have received from our MHK, who has been active on our behalf at the official level.
It is as a consequence of these combined efforts and the set back of the Crossag Farm Plan that we believe that the renewed Southern Sector Area Plan has been given an extra priority. This revised plan will be critical to the future developments surrounding Ballasalla and it is vital that we are strongly represented.
We also have to understand that some of our Officers have been in their functions a long while and even those still young and vibrant need relief. It is now over 22 years since our foundation – and we were founded to protect and foster our Village ambience, amenities and values. Our successes have been many, but too few of them have been either permanent or absolute. Indeed, the “Developers” always come back and the Government regularly breaks its promises. Unhappily, being on the Douglas side of the Airport, we are a particular target for exploitation.
At no time have we been a more desired area for development. At no time have we more needed to be STRONG. This is particularly the case at this juncture when we are engaged in the discussion of a new Area Plan. It is just this issue: the betrayal of the promises made to Ballasalla in 1991 when the earlier Area Plan was agreed and, indeed, a Village Plan was promised BEFORE any major new development took place, which we must reinforce.
In 1991 after a several day Public Hearing before Deemster Luft, a basic Area plan was agreed, with written promises for a subsequent Village Plans for Ballasalla, St Marks and Derbyhaven. This written agreement (7/91) was passed by the Council of Ministers, but never even placed before Tynwald, for reasons which have not been properly explained - though seemingly in deference to the interests of a small unrepresentative clique close to the then decision makers.
As a consequence, the Planners now say that 7/91 no longer has force and that we automatically revert, to the earlier, but never publicly discussed and loosely drawn overall 1982 Island plan. This is ridiculous, as the 1982 plan was never supposed to be other than a loose overview - and it was always intended to be subsumed into subsequent fuller and more specific area plans as, for example, 7/91. Indeed, plans for many other areas, even some subsequent to 7/91, have been progressed to become law – and fortunately the Planning Inspector for the recent Crossag Farm Inquiry agreed with us.
We have in the meanwhile had imposed on us (for indeed most of our suggestions were ignored) an all Island Strategic Plan. The major defect of this plan is that it provided the excuse to try to avoid, or postpone, the most important and expensive infrastructure requirements. Nor can we draw great comfort from the fact that “The Issues and Options” for the new Southern Area Plan has been issued. For many of us, it is already too late. It is not much good discussing something when the potential best solutions have already been destroyed or built over! Nor does this proposed Area Plan do anything for our main objective, which has always been the need for a proper Village Plan. To us this is an even more important principle than “protection of the countryside”. After all the Village is where we, the people, live. Every Village, even more so than towns, should have a “Park” or a “Green” in its Centre; where mothers can wheel their prams and the children play in safety. Feigh Keign is good, but not fully appropriate, either in location nor potential amenity, to meet the complete needs of our Village, particularly an expanded one. After all, our need is sharper than almost every other town or village. Almost all others have a seashore, coast or similar – the one area that “Developers cannot acquire. We do not have a nearby seashore and are now boxed in by the Airport, Industrial Estate and private farmland - and thus have no obvious outlet for parks and play areas. Many people pick up their children and take them by car to Poulson Park or Port Erin Beach.
From the general to the particular
Poachers Pocket
Over the years there have been many different development proposals for this site. Previously, all the Planning applications have rightly been refused. The 6 year tortuous path of the present approval clearly demonstrates the current failures to honour previous “land designation” and promises. We quote below the decision of one previous Appeal Inspector in his refusal for development on the Poachers Pocket.
“The site comprised part of an open green area that was an attractive, natural part of the physical and visual context of the Silverburn River that was consistent with zoning the land as part of the residential area, rather than for residential development.” - “It was of amenity value to the Village”.
That the Planners should nevertheless now allow such a last green space in the Village Centre to be built over is not just abhorrent, it is criminal, and restricts the potential of other development on the periphery of the Village. That this crime should have been compounded by ignoring so many of the Planning Inspector's “Conditions” is incredible. Virtually none of the many “Conditions” were truly observed. Nearly every major tree on a once heavily wooded site has either already been felled or sentenced to death as a consequence of the earth movements, despite assurances during “Planning” of a maximum 3 tree loss. That this is, furthermore, a fundamental breach of the International Agreement on Bats, to which our Government is a signature, speaks volumes as to the barrenness of the Government promise.
There is also a litany of other broken promises in the final approvals e.g. The raising of the soil levels and thus the building heights of the bungalows and the consequent increased “overlooking” of the Silverburn Estate; when this is coupled with the potential flooding issue, the failure to produce the promised landscape scheme (what was actually produced was out of date, improperly sited and made rapidly irrelevant by the Developer's change of plans, destruction of trees either, by design or ignorance). All has meant that we had to oppose this development vigorously; and why we further had to challenge the potential flooding issue under the Land Drainage Act for the only occasion that such a legal procedure has been used in the Act’s 72 year history. This issue when it had to be approved by Tynwald was lost by only one single vote.
Ironically, if that vote were repeated today, we would win handsomely.
The situation has thereafter been exacerbated by the disregard, twisting or ignoring of the Inspectors “Conditions”- conditions that he had specifically set to be met before the development could proceed. So flawed was the situation, that Government asked us to take out a Petition of Doleance in order that they could obtain legal clarity on what they recognised was a wrong decision and they undertook that, if we took such legal action, then they would not defend it. We proceeded accordingly, but the Court unhappily deferred the “Hearing” 3 times over a period of 6 weeks by insisting on involving the Developer. The Developer, simply by never turning up to the repeatedly deferred hearings was not only able to prolong the process, but, in the meanwhile, proceed apace to develop the site in all sorts of destructive ways and, by so doing, virtually ensuring the long term death of nearly every tree on it. Thus, though our costs were mounting, there was no longer a viable way for us actually to stop the Development even when engaging extensive costs, liabilities or damages - even in the probable event of final favourable judgement. The “Petition” thus was now only serving Government’s internal interest of confirming the illegality of their procedures. Thus with nothing left for us to gain, but perhaps moral victory – and that at substantial mounting cost and possible counter suit, the Petition was withdrawn.
What this does underline is the need for us to study quite urgently a need to “Incorporate” ourselves. Such a step would increase our ability to pursue legal steps without endangering individuals.
In the meanwhile, the site has been massacred out of all recognition to both the original and even in comparison to the Inspector approved plans. Furthermore, it would seem that the site and the construction levels of the houses has been raised beyond any agreed plan. All this without a sliver of consultation with interested parties. The Planners and the DoT have tried to justify this in mystifying ways which we could not reconcile. Accordingly, we felt it proper to instruct a drainage expert to come over and examine both the works and the so-called approvals of the land level changes. It is the view of our experts, both legal and technical, that there is no proper technical or appropriate planning procedure which can possibly have supported what has actually been done or could have supported the permissions granted. New representations were made.
The sad and depressing fact is that it is doubtful that any action will do more than ameliorate an unacceptable situation - a situation which has shown the DoT, The Forestry Board and Planners to be deficient in their responsibilities. Consequently : Our fight is not yet finished! This goes further than the case itself. We would also like future justice assured. The Planning System needs “root and branch” overhaul. We are pressing for improvements in the system for the very least and we hope that this can be achieved as a result of the recommendations of the Select Committee. As a result of the recommendations of this Committee improvements to the system might be made – but it does not help our situation.
Since this time the applicants have sold on the “Development” and further infractions have been committed. Namely the reapplication for a two storey house with balconies AND, more recently, two houses not only “two storey”, but, additional to the maximum number of houses agreed!!
The fight continues.
Crossag Farm
Once again we have seen Government’s behaviour at its worst.
The written case in advance of the Inquiry was slim - ours was copious (over 100 pages) and with 20 copies supplied weeks in advance - as is custom.
At the Hearing they suddenly produced one single copy of 150 odd pages of new expert evidence, supported by several overseas witnesses and marshalled by an overseas lawyer and other overseas experts - Most of these witnesses were new to the process and introduced essentially in reply to our advance evidence and presumably in the hope that the Inquiry could be confined to a decision based on paper submissions. We protested and asked for an adjournment, but after private discussion, we were persuaded to try to continue to represent our case.
When on the second day they declared that the Strategic Plan had been passed by Tynwald the evening before and that the rules had therefore been changed - we did walk out - as quite properly also did the Commissioner’s Clerk, pending new instructions from his Board and appropriate new legal advice.
The rescheduled Meeting took place in October with the eventual satisfactory refusal of the proposals.
We are not totally against any development on Crossag Farm. What we are against is this development going ahead when certain important aspects have not yet been properly treated:
The Government have not yet honoured their promise of a Village Plan, nor do they have the remotest current intention of doing so. They do not accept that such a Village Plan would be a sensible and vital preliminary.
They have only vague and unspecified plans for a By-pass and traffic amelioration and we cannot accept their promises with confidence, since they still try to deny that there is a problem.
They have not in place, nor any apparent intention for, any financed plans for play amenities, a Park or proper “Green Amenity Lungs”.
We are not satisfied over the need for the destruction of the houses on the Clagh Vane Crescentwhich are both repairable, their retention desirable and would be much sought after as first time buyer units. (Indeed we are happy to report that a recent advice says that because of the Crossag refusal, they will instead now improve and insulate the houses on the Crescent).
We are very unhappy with the lack of support facilities from:
considerations of the disabled;
the lack of footpaths or social amenities for the young etc;
the increased distance to the shops etc., particularly for the disabled;
the lack of proper priority for the “First time Buyers”;
the inappropriate position and size of the school;
the over intensive development which goes considerably beyond what was agreed as appropriate in 7/91, which has been the only public discussion so far.
We also have severe reservations as to other factors, such as:
in contradiction to their stated objectives, the priority given towards the private ahead of the social housing;
the intention to move people further away from the Village - particularly without facilities for the disabled;
the failure of Government to secure their own access to their land at time of purchase and their consequent enforced subordinate relationship with the Developer;
the lack of usable green play areas and social facilities.
But most of all we are completely unconvinced by the plans to treat the consequent extra traffic. Their plans vary between denial of there being a problem, to less than absolute promises for the future bypass.
How is it possible to expect a village, already burdened by huge and fast increasing traffic concerns, which will be worsened by the proposed Airport expansion, to now engage on an increase in their housing and thus population of some 45% without proper regard to the increase of amenities.
No other town or Village in the Island could be expected to accept such a sudden growth - and yet nearly all are probably better placed to do so. As mentioned, other Towns and Villages have either existing Parks or green lungs and most have foreshores. Before the Airport and Balthane, Ballasalla had an outlet to the sea at Derbyhaven. Today it is hemmed in by Industrial Estates, Airport and private farmland. We cannot accept such intense development without first finding a solution to the need for recreational and green spaces. If we do not, there will obviously be adverse social consequences. - and anyway the pleasant ambience of the Village would be finished.
Airport Development
We remain deeply concerned with what was planned and has now been agreed.
We recognise the need to extend the Runway to meet the Civil Aviation Authority Rulings on the length of and the Runway Escape Safety Areas. We also appreciate the importance of the Airport in maintaining communication links and the reality of projected increased Passenger figures rising to 1.5 million. However, we have concerns over the quality of life for residents of Derbyhaven and Ballasalla and the destruction of the internationally recognised “Marine Environment”, the major traffic problems which will exacerbate our existing suffering, (particularly during the 4 year period of construction) and the long term noise problems, plus the further burial of ancient artefacts. We do not feel enough effort to ameliorate these problems has been made.
The people of Derbyhaven are to be particularly pitied in the 4 year night and day construction of the extension into the sea.
Refuse Collection & Incineration
We support the Malew Commissioners attempts to widen the effort to recycle and reuse.
We deplore the fact that Central Government in their fascination with incineration has consistently taken steps to undermine the stated and agreed priorities of “Reduce, Recycle and Reuse”. There are so many fundamental contradictions between the Government’s stated position and their actions.
In their attempt to make the incinerator in someway viable, they have engaged in a massive subsidy of its operations which in turn hugely undermines the stated priorities of “Reduce, recycle and reuse”. We believe that sooner or later the Government will be forced to withdraw part or all of the subsidy with consequent heavy new additions to the local rates.
Local Government Reform
We are strong believers in the view that the best Government is that which is closest to the people and we oppose attempts to centralise. However, there is an increased trend for central control of all aspects of Government, even though, in all natural tests, it has proved the less efficient. We know that the urge to make these largely undesirable changes in the administrative will to increase their self importance and that the battle is merely deferred.
Member Communication
We produced the first copy of the “Village Guardian”. This was well received.
The Website www.badra.org continues to be well supported.
These innovations involve much work and those concerned deserve our congratulations and support.
Finance and Subscriptions
By tradition we have been conservative in setting subscriptions and their collection. The policy has been to encourage the widest possible membership by setting only a nominal rate, but at the same time, to encourage additional donations from all those who can so afford to do so .
WE GIVE SPECIAL THANKS TO ALL THOSE WHO HAVE GENEROUSLY GIVEN US DONATIONS – SOME MOST GENEREOUSLY INDEED. IT IS DUE TO THEIR GENEROSITY THAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO REPRESENT YOUR INTERESTS SO STRONGLY AND HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GENERATE OUR RECENT SUCCESSES.