After the euphoria of yesterdays news on the rejection by an independent inspector of DOLGE’s plans for the Crossag Development which also had a bearing on the departments attempt to totally demolish and rebuild Clagh Vane, it is felt that a more detailed statement is required.

Firstly it must be pointed out that the Associations first concerns with the development were that the whole thing was premature, the density and total number of houses were to high and the lack of consultation and thought that had gone into the whole plan.

This was in general backed up by the inspector in short he felt that there was a need for a by-pass, a school capable of coping with the increased population and youth and general village facilities.

All of which we indorse, otherwise in our opinion you are attempting to fill a pint pot with 2 pints. All of these points where put forward by ourselves and the commissioners at the inquiry. There have been statements made on both sides since the decision some correct and some otherwise, firstly as a tenant of Clagh Vane I personally would like to state they are not substandard, they are not perfect, but the department have to except some responsibility for this as other than very minor maintenance nothing as been done for a period of years, this was backed up to certain extent by the statement by the minister who stated little has been done for 2 years because we expected to be pulling them down! Our Chief Minister stated on Manx Radio that a number do not have insulation, We had our roofs insulated to EU standard last summer by a company from Scotland on contract to the department. As for the surveys as is a matter of public record I personally stated at the inquiry that I was present during survey of 4 houses and at no time did the ‘surveyors’ enter the premises. If a decision to demolish can be made on an external visual survey only maybe everyone with a house should start to worry.

On the development it self as stated we were concerned on the size visually and its effect on traffic and the village it self.

Here I wish to state on a personal note although, I believe the Association agree, had we been presented with a smaller number of properties and if the public sector house built had been made available to residents of Clagh Vane as an option not compulsory, there by leaving Clagh Vane as it is, number wise, not only would it not of cost Government £40 million, it could also have reduced the housing waiting list, making some money available for the upgrade of the Clagh Vane homes, and as for the School this is not the only location that has been put forward for the school. Unfortunately this still does not answer the need for a by-pass and other facilities.

So hopefully planning can be decided not only the fact that there is a piece of empty land, but also consideration weither the surrounding area village, town whatever can cope and blend with the development.

As for the statement by the Chief Minister and the DOLGE minister that this is a sad day for the people of the Isle of Man, this is not so this was a day when the people of the Isle of Man, as that is what the people of Ballasalla are, spoke out and said don’t push us into something we do not want, go away and next time think and ask what do the people want.

 

The independent inspector's reasons for refusal were:

This proposal was not solely for the needs of Ballasalla; there was no promise that all Clagh Vane residents woul
d be accommodated in the
new housing.

Providing housing above the needs of the village of Ballasalla would be contrary to the spirit of the adopted spatial policy.

The by-pass should be under construction before any dwellings are occupied on the site, so the government shows a commitment to the residents of Ballasalla on the provision of promised infrastructure.

There would be more unacceptable adverse impacts on Ballasalla than could be overcome through any revised proposals.

His recommendation to refuse the application was made because it was premature, pending the southern area plan which would include commitments to the provision of primary education and
road proposals.