Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
From Colin Partridge <[email protected]>
To Julia White <[email protected]>
CC Young, John <[email protected]>
Subject Re: Old Correspondence re Le Creux Site
Date Mon, 11 Apr 2016 12:09:33 +0000
Dear Julia, Further to my earlier email this morning, I comment as follows on your seven requests:- 1. Neither the Client or I have copies of your reply to Bruce Adams' email to you of 6.1.2015. 2. ATTACHED - copy of B&DCC's letter of 10.12.2009. 3. Neither the Client or I have copies of your reply to the B&DCC of 14.12.2009. 4. ATTACHED - copy of Bruce Adams' letter to me of 31.3.2015. 5. Minutes of B&DCC meetings accessible on States of Alderney website. 6. I was not party to the Guernsey FSA's advice to Bruce Adams of 6/7.1.2015. 7. ATTACHED - copy of my letter to Bruce Adams of 9.2.2015. This refers in the last para. to my inclusion of the "original submission drawings of October 2009" at his specific request; this was the morning of the February B&DCC meeting. From the itemised minutes for that meeting, it was not listed but may have been discussed under the confidential annexure (8.2). In Bruce Adams' letter of 31.3.2015 (attached), you will see in para.2 that he refers to the application having been discussed at the B&DCC meeting of 3rd March - again, reference to the minutes for that meeting again shows no itemised listing, but it may have been included in the confidential annexure (14.2) on this occasion. Incidentally, if you refer to my email to you immediately after submitting my above letter with drawings to Bruce Adams on the morning of 9.2.2015, you will see that I reported my several unsuccessful attempts to arrange a meeting with him until that of 22nd January, at which he said he would discuss the matter with the Chairman. He eventually telephoned me on 7th February to say he had met with the Chairman on 28th, and that the latter was minded to grant a permit for the application, with conditions. Whether such a proposition was ever put forward or discussed at subsequent B&DCC meetings is not recorded in the published minutes. Kind regards - Colin On 7 April 2016 at 16:37, Julia White <[email protected]> wrote:
I think it may be my move from Carey Olsen that has made it difficult for me to find certain
correspondence Colin has referred me to. Would you have any copy of:
1. My reply to Bruce Adam’s email to me of 6 January 2015
2. The BDCC’s letter of 10 December 2009.
3. My reply to them of 14 December 2009
4. Bruce Adams’ letter of 31 March – not sure if it is 2015, or 2014
5. The minutes of the BDCC meeting of 9 February 2015 re this site
6. The response of the Guernsey Fire Safety Advisor who visited Bruce Adams on 6th
and
7th
January 2015
7. Confirmation that, in 2015, Bruce Adams had a copy of the plan that was put in with the
2009 application to develop this site, which shows the location of the site and the access to it.
Julia White Advocate For and on behalf of Advocates & Notaries Public 10 New Street, St Peter Port, Guernsey GY1 2PF Tel: +44 (0) 1481 724124 e-mail: [email protected] http://www.guernseylegal.com/peopleabtguernse.html#
our rer: JBr/RS STHTES oF ALTIERI{EYStates Of{ice. P.O. Box 1, Alderney, Channel lslands GY9 3AA
Mr S Bohan
1Oth December 2009
Dear Mr Bohan
Appllcation N" C{044 - New dw.ellinq at Le Greux
The above application was considered by the Building and Development ControlCommittee at its meeting of 7h December 2009.
The Committee deferred making a decision on the application, pending receipt of thefollowing information: -
D Written details of your legal rights re the proposed access to the site. Thisshould h a verification of the right itself and what size of vehicles theright permits. As the B&DCC cannot determine civil mattem, this will needto be verified either through a statement from all relevant landowners or acourt judgement which determines ufiat the right is.
iD Verification from emergency services / oil delivery service / SWD refusecollection, that the proposed access is acceptable for their vehicles,based on your accurate plans showing the layout and access widths.
ii} Details of how you propose to service the land with respect to all mainsservices.
The Committee did not consider fully the planning aspeds of the application, but didcomment that a single storey dwelling (subject to provision of access) would be moresuitable for this location.
I advised Mr Tony Bohan of the above verbally during his visit to the office onTuesday 8e Deenrbsr 20Og when he mads enquirbs about the qld&tne of theB&DCC meeting. I assume that he is acting as your agent for this application.Please advise if this is not the case.
I look forward to receiving the above information, to enable the Committee to furtherconsider that application at its meeting of 22N January 2009.
Letters of objection y*ere received, copies of which are enclosed. ln the meantirne, ifyou wish to discuss any of the above, please feel free to contact rne.
Yours sincer
J B TurnStates Engineer
Telephone: 01481 822811 Fax: 01481 82?436 E-Mail: [email protected]
STATES OFALDERNEYStates Office. P.O. Box 1001, Aiderney, Channel Islands GY9 3AA
Mr C PartridgeSt Anne's HouseVictoria StreetALDERNEYGYg 3UF
Tuesday 31't March 2015
Dear Colin
Re: Proposed New Dwelling, Parcel no. AY 2137, Le Greux, Alderney:
Your client, Mr Simon Bohan
Thank you for your letter of 9th February and I apologise for the delay in replying.
Unfortunately there has been some time taken researching into current standards for access
road widths and other vehicular access requirements so that I can properly reply to you.
From our meeting following your letter and a separate brief discussion with Mr A Bohan (i.e.
Tony Bohan, father of your client, Mr Simon Bohan), I confirm that the matter relating to the
access road serving the above plot on which your client intends to construct a new dwelling
was discussed at the Building and Development Control Committee (BDCC) meeting held on
3'd March 2015. Your letter, together with the attached plan, that shows a section of the
access road only, was included for discussion at that meeting.
As discussed with you and related briefly to Tony, the BDCC was unable to approve
progression of the application. This is because there remain a number of unanswered
questions in relation to the access road and I write to explain the BDCC decision and confirm
the details behind that decision. I should also require confirmation that your client has a right
of way along the access road from the Longis Road to the site of the proposed dwelling.
Firstly, it is noted that your client submitted a previous planning application for the plot in
2008 and that the application was deferred by the States of Alderney pending adequate
access arrangements. lt is also noted that the States of Alderney subsequently invited your
client to submit a planning application in 2009 that would be subject to suitable access
arrangements.
It is noted lhat the access road is unmade (and is therefore a track, as you rightly describe)
which is unlikely to be suitable for continual vehicular use or importantly for safe access by
emergency or service vehicles. I also note the access has been subject to a land ownership
legal dispute regarding the road boundaries. From your letter I see you have been involved
in surveying those boundaries on behalf of the Court that determined the dispute, and that
the plan attached to your letter is now the definitive plan relating to a portion of the access.
Page 1 of 3
Telephone: 01481 822811 Fax: 01481 824528 E-Mail: [email protected]
I understand the plan you produced is agreed by all the landowners and therefore the
boundaries of the access road are no longer in dispute. I should be grateful if you would
clarify that point and also provide details of the remainder of the access road leading up to
the property, including a dimensioned plan showing:
o the width at regular intervalso the total length. ahy radii relating to manoeuvring points (e.g. sharp bends or turning areas)
ln that regard, on 6th January 20151asked your client's advocate, Julia White, by email for a
plan showing the location of the proposed building together with the full access route and
associated dimensions (see copy attached) to which I do not seem to have received a reply'
As indicated in that email and included in our discussions, the access information is required
to establish if there is sufficient room for the access route to safely accommodate emergency
vehicles, e.g. a fire tender or ambulance. Furthermore, the access needs to also safely
accommodate service vehicles, e.g. for refuse collection. ln this regard, the minimum width
for a service road is 14ft (a.3m) and it is noted that, from your letter and plan, the existing
track width is initially less than 14ft from the Longis Road junction to your plan point C4
where it is nominally 1Oft 6ins (3.2m) at its narrowest (your plan point C1). This therefore
meant the Committee considered that the track is not suitable for access for emergency or
service vehicles notwithstanding that also the construction is unmade.
Subject to confirmation from you as to the full extent of the access, if it is long, i.e. longer
than 200ft (61m) and it is single width only, i.e. minimum 14ft (a.3m) it is likely to require a
means for vehicles to pass in opposite directions, i.e. passing places/ laybys may be
necessary.
Finally, it is noted from your plan that the access road has poor visibility splays at the
junction with the busy Longis Road. ln particular, the acute angle of the junction means that,
on emerging from the track and turning left into Longis Road, the vision is non-existent. The
Committee therefore cannot consider the application further until this matter is also
addressed.
So in summary, for the application to be considered further, the following information is
required by the BDCC Committee in order to confirm that adequate and safe vehicular
access to the proposed property along its full length from the Longis Road for emergency
and service vehicles will be provided, including adequate provision for such vehicles to be
able to manoeuvre and pass:
1) Confirmation that no issues exist relating to rights of way along the full length of the
access road.
2) A detailed plan showing the dimensions for the full extent of the access road.
3) Th6 access road construction details.
4) Confirmation that no boundary or other land disputes exist along the full length of the
access road that would prevent the property from being accessible.
5) Adequate width for vehicular access is provided along the full length of the access
road, i.e. no less than 14ft (4.3m).
Page 2 of 3
6) lf the access road is longer than 200ft (61m) details of adequate vehicle passing
laybys,
7) Adequate vision splays are provided for safe entry and egress at the junction of the
access road and the Longis Road.
Yours sin
Bruce Adams
States EngineerFor and on behalf of The States of Alderney
Page 3 of 3
St.Anne's House,Victoria Street,Aldemey GY9 3UF.
9s February 2015
Dear Mr.Adams,
COPY LETTERBruce Adams,States Engineer,States ofAlderney,Island HaIl,Alderney GY9 3AA.
Re: PROPOSED NEW DWELLING, PARCEL NO. AY 2137, LE CREUX.
I refer to our recent discussions and, in particular, your last telephone call following your meetingwith the Chairman of the Building & Development Control Committee in connection with theabove application by my Client, Mr.Simon Bohan (reference no. C1044), when you advised me thatit was your intention to raise the matter under any other business at the Committee's forthcomingmeeting.
I write now with regard to the Committee's letter of 10th December 2009, in which they soughtspecific information concerning the right of way giving access to the site. Reference was also made
in our discussions to the recent letter of th December 2014 addressed to you by the Applicant'sAdvocate, in which you were advised that arecent judgment in the Alderney Court had established
the Applicant's right of way giving access from his site to Longis Road.
As part of that Court action, I was engaged as an expert witness on behalf of both parties to draw upan accurate survey ofthis section ofthe existing track in order to show the present situation on theground in relation to the Land Registry records and the Ordnance Survey title plans.
In the Court's judgment of May 2014, the Jurats did not specifr the width of the right of way at itsjunction with Longis Road, but ordered that:
the Southern edge of the Track is the Boundary of AY I374 as indicated by the doned line onthe Plan attached to Colin Partridge's statement. The northern edge of the boundary [of thetrack] is the base of the lower rubble stone wall lcnown a/ [sic] the Rockery, as marked by asolid line on the Plan mentioned above.
For the Committee's information, I now attach a copy of my Plan dated December 2013 at 1:100scale as referred to in the Court's judgment, on which I mark the southern edge of the track as adotted red line with the northern edge as a solid red line. On this basis, the right of way over thissection of the track is nominally 3,2m QAfr.6in) at its narrowest at the coordinate point Cl. For theremainder of the right of way extending from the coordinate point C4, the track measures aminimum of 4,265m (14ft) in width. Further, in the same judgment, the Defendants in the case wereordered to restore the southern edge of the track and to continue to permit the Plaintffi to exercisetheir rights of way over the said track.
For further information, I confirm having left with you previously copies of my original submissiondrawings of October 2009 showing the location of the site. I trust this will enable you to clarifr thecurrent legal situation in bringing the matter before the Building & Development ControlCommittee at their forthcoming meeting.
Enels.cc. S.Bohan & Advocate J.White
