The inquiry into whether Port Erin’s boundary should be extended to include all of Ballailley housing estate - which straddles Port Erin and Rushen parish - has taken place.

Port Erin Commissioners applied for the extension because a boundary running through the development creates an unfair situation, the board says.

The public inquiry was chaired by former lawyer Geoff Karran.

After hearing from all sides, he will now come up with a recommendation for the Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture.

Ultimately, a decision on the matter will be made by Tynwald.

Port Erin’s case concentrated on differing waste collections, byelaws, grass cutting and street light timings, contractors and workers performing different tasks at different frequencies across the same development.

land grab

Port Erin Commissioners’ clerk Jason Roberts said: ’Port Erin Commissioners have not lobbied for support from residents of either authority. Rushen Parish Commissioners’ newsletter, autumn 2018 has on its front page: "Ballakilley Land Grab".

’Land grab means "an act of seizing land in an opportunistic or unlawful manner". This is neither, as Rushen Parish Commissioners has been aware of this boundary extension application since 2014.’

He denied Rushen’s assertion that the move by Port Erin was an attempt to increase their rates income at the expense of Rushen Parish.

He said: ’Port Erin is in a healthy financial position and sets its rates accordingly ... the development is an overspill of Port Erin.’

A four-bedroom on the Port Erin side of the estate would be paying £577 in local authority rates a year while an identical home on the Rushen side would be paying £257.

Mr Roberts said: ’This disparity on the same estate is grossly unfair.’

Another example is peddlers’ licences. Port Erin Commissioners did not issue a licence for an ice cream van yet Rushen Parish Commissioners did. Just one part of the estate is, therefore, served by an ice cream van.

Refuse collection is ’considerably different’ within the two authorities, Mr Roberts said.

Rushen commissioner Peter Gunn said: ’Residents who have moved into the new Ballakilley development in Rushen would see their rates more than doubled if the Port Erin move succeeds.

’Unfortunately, the rate money from Port Erin’s three previous boundary extensions ... appears to have been spent instead on expanding Port Erin’s administration functions rather than improving services.’

This was denied by Port Erin Commissioners.

Mr Roberts said: ’The rates will not double. Port Erin’s administration costs are 82% of what they were in 2010 before factoring in inflation.’

This application is the last green field between the existing settlements on this edge of Port Erin.

There was ’no intention whatsoever’ to encompass existing buildings at Four Roads.

The draft order is for the rate increase to be smoothed over five years which would see properties on the current Rushen parish side of the estate have an annual increase of between £22.50 and £91.86 per annum over five years.

Rushen Commissioners’ clerk, Phil Gawne, denied that the authority has been ’inflammatory’ and said the board was defending the ’parish boundary from yet another attempt to take some of the parish’s lucrative developed land.’

He said Port Erin failed in all of the criteria for the consideration of local government boundary extensions. The authority also had an ’erroneous reliance on, and arguably misrepresentation of, planning policy and comments of planners’.

He added: ’It is, Port Erin claims, unfair that their ratepayers pay more than double the rates of Rushen ratepayers.

administration

’We agree but suggest that this unfairness is something that Port Erin might address by looking for example at why their administration costs ... appear to be over 12 and a half times greater than those of Rushen’s despite Port Erin having just over double the population of Rushen.’

Mr Roberts said authorities provided the services the board wished to deliver.

’Each local authority board can make that choice.’

Mr Gawne added: ’So, Port Erin Commissioners are effectively saying that it is within their gift to substantially reduce their rates and the perceived unfairness between the two authorities, but they choose not to.

’Instead they are relying on the department and Tynwald to do the hard work and force the residents of the smaller, less bureaucratic authority to move to the larger authority against their wishes.’

He added Rushen realised its ratepayers had ’to a certain extent enjoyed the benefits of their larger municipal neighbours and have for some years now started contributing to services provided by Port Erin, Castletown and Douglas Borough Council ... budgets have been set aside to offer increased contributions to (some) service providers’.

Rushen had also taken over the maintenance of more than 11 miles of rural footpaths in the parish ’as the government acknowledged it no longer had sufficient resource to maintain this precious rural asset’.

Mr Gawne pointed out that Rushen absorbed the significant waste disposal cost of Rushen School, Southlands residential home and the doctors’ surgery within its overall waste disposal budget.

While Rushen’s administration and finance costs are only 7.9% of those of Port Erin’s, Rushen has recently agreed to enter into discussions with Arbory Parish Commissioners about introducing a less expensive joint administration.

Rushen’s administration costs this year were budgeted to be £19,741 or 8.5% of total expenditure. Port Erin’s administration cost was £249,676, very close to 20% of total expenditure.

Mr Gawne said that Rushen had committed to spend £50,000 to develop a first phase recreational scheme on the Ballakilley land.

He said Port Erin could not have met the recommended public open space in the Southern Area Plan without this land.

’If successful, Port Erin ... will gain rates income of at least £34,000 a year and Rushen will lose rates income of around £16,000 a year,’ Mr Gawne said.

’Rushen will have an increased expenditure of around £10,000 taking into account maintenance and finance costs.

’This £60,000 reversal in fortunes for the two authorities is in Rushen’s view the real unfairness which Port Erin’s proposal will bring about.’

gap

There is no green gap between the Ballakilley development and Port Erin, Rushen’s part of the Four Roads or Port St Mary.

Mr Gawne said Port Erin’s reliance on planning relating to the Southern Area Plan and permission for Ballakilley was erroneous.

’The language used by planners here is influenced by planning legislation and policy and cannot be relied on to influence decisions on administrative boundaries,’ he said.

Rushen did not share Port Erin’s concern about differing waste solutions, byelaws, grass cutting and street light timing.

’We are content to work with Port Erin to minimise any real concerns they have,’ Mr Gawne said.

Port Erin defined land grab as meaning "an act of seizing land in an opportunistic manner."

’If this is not opportunistic then Rushen fails to see what it is,’ he said.

’The fact the Ballakilley estate was one development, one planning application and developed by one developer, but built within two local authorities’ districts, does not mean that its residents automatically become part of any one community.’

He added: ’If Port Erin’s application is successful, Rushen will lose its only significant residential development site and will have to wait for more than a decade, and a new area plan, before any further residential expansion in the parish may proceed.

’For the next 10 to 20 years there will only be the possibility of three new properties being built in the very large area of the parish district of Rushen.’

The lost income ’will jeopardise the commissioners’ ability to fully develop the sporting and recreation facilities which are so desperately needed and so sorely lacking in the area.’

There is ’considerable unfairness ... in shifting the goal posts’ after residents made ’conscious choices to move to Rushen to avoid the extra rates burden which some residents have stated will put significant pressure on their finances.’