A local authority’s land grab proposal has been criticised in a public consultation.

There were 80 responses to a survey asking for feedback into a proposal by Port Erin to extend its boundary to include all of the Ballakilley housing estate from Rushen parish.

Of the 80, 57 (71.25%) objected to the Port Erin’s proposal and 19 (23.75%) were in favour.

Four people (5%) neither objected or support the plan.

Port Erin Commissioners argue the extension will overcome an ’iniquitous’ situation, in which more houses - 90 when plans were first drawn up - are in Port Erin, but pay considerably higher rates than the 66 houses on the Rushen parish side of the boundary.

Rushen Parish Commissioners oppose the move, saying Port Erin is land grabbing to generate more income.

A public inquiry will take place at Castletown Civic Centre in the week beginning Monday January 21, and will be chaired by former lawyer Geoff Karran.

Clerk to Rushen Commissioners Phil Gawne has written to all Ballakilley residents on his parish’s side of the estate to point out that if Port Erin is successful, their rates will increase by an average of almost £250.

Gillian Kelly and her husband were the last people to farm Ballakilley as a tenanted farm. In her response to the consultation, she pointed out that all of the area was originally within the boundary of Rushen, with the exception of a field where Milner Park was built.

One Ballakilley resident wrote that they had bought their home as it is in Rushen. ’Had I been aware that two years later the cost of local authority land tax was going to double then I would not have purchased it,’ they said.

Another couple who live on the Rushen side of the estate wrote: ’This is nothing more than a money grab by Port Erin.

’And it is no more logical than if Rushen had demanded the Port Erin side of the estate be taken over by them. The whole issue of rates needs addressing island-wide and not by minor piecemeal boundary changes like this one.’

A fourth respondent said: ’Frankly, this boundary issue should have been resolved before people had moved in and budgeted large expenses such as rates. Do we wish to be part of Port Erin, categorically NO!’

But one of those who wrote in support of the proposal said that Rushen residents were enjoying the benefits of Port Erin, such as the beach, without paying for them.

’The boundary extension should be approved so that charging for services in an area is the same for everyone.’

One respondent said it was a ’ridiculous scenario’ that residents of an estate could pay differing rates but it could be argued the whole estate go to Rushen who provide services at a lower cost to ratepayers.