Laxey has swapped one eyesore sight / site for another.

For years the public and the commissioners wanted the former Cliffside and Far End Café to be demolished.

In 2022 they got their wishes.

But Cinderella had a trick up her sleeve.

After demolition a couple of trenches were cut and she declared work started on a previously granted planning consent (PA17/0000/6) for the erection of three dwellings in a terrace and a fourth at right angles to them, gable end on to the sea and public footpath.

All was subject to a condition for a scheme to safeguard the cliff face being submitted and approved. The scheme involving drilling into the known unstable cliff face was not subject to public consultation.

Along came the wicked godfather – and down came the cliff face, leaving the owners of properties at the top in misery and the café near the bottom commemorating the nearby road closure by putting tables out on the road to attract custom.

But who are the real ‘culprits’ in this sorry state of affairs?

With only a slight reservation as to the state of the cliff side behind, in 2017 Garff Commissioners supported the earlier application so they could get rid of the eyesore.

The application was refused but the applicant took the decision to appeal.

The appeal inspector recommended refusal of the application largely on the grounds that no satisfactory scheme had been put forward to counteract concerns over possible landslip.

I was one of two parties who had put forward such concerns and submitted photos showing not so much landslip but overtopping of the whole buildings by the sea.

However under planning legislation the minister for the Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture can overrule a planning inspector’s recommendation.

Former Minister Boot chose to boot it out stating: ‘The minister notes that the application drawings expressly state that there will be the construction of a retaining wall along the rear wall of the line of dwellings. Whilst the minister accepts that no detailed drawings of the wall itself have been submitted with the proposed development, the minster’s experience in planning matters is such that he can reasonably visualise what appearance such a retaining wall may take.’

A previous report on an earlier application at the same site indicated the retaining wall would have to be as high as the cliff itself.

Did the minister check this out?

Did he know how a retaining wall would be constructed? No.

He only thought it would be not so high as the proposed development and therefore appropriate in the conservation area.

So by my reckoning, at the end of the day, while Garff Commissioners may express concerns about the safety of properties on Old Laxey Hill, they ought to apologise to the owners of the properties above for not listening to residents’ concerns over the safety of the cliff face in the first place.

However, following a public consultation, it is the government who chose to ignore substantial public opinion that inspector’s should make the planning decision on appeal (as they mostly do in the UK) not lay person ministers with their own unproven experience.

If the Chief Minister wants substantial change to planning he should start by removing this anachronism and give the Inspectors the right of decision at appeal. As, in this case, the minister overruled the inspector and Tynwald approved the planning statues allowing this, it is the government who should take the blame and pay out to resolve Laxey’s massive scar.

Attached are three photos, one showing the far end in 2005 before the first landslip, one in 2015 when getting a drenching from incoming tide and one showing the current situation.

Patricia Newton

South Cape

Laxey

Share your views with our readers.

Write to: Opinions, Isle of Man Examiner and Manx Independent, 18 Finch Road, Douglas, IM1 2PT or email:

Don’t forget to include your name, FULL home address and a daytime phone number even if you want to be anonymous in print.

Obviously, we need to be able to verify the identity of everyone whose letter we publish.

We don’t print phone numbers or full addresses and respect anonymity if the author requests it.

This letter was first published in today’s Manx Independent