U177

Summary

A request was made for details on the extent of highway U177 in Port St Mary, internal correspondence regarding a retaining wall, and the Department's maintenance policy. The Department disclosed all information, including maps and emails debating ownership boundaries and the application of the Highways Act 1986.

Key Facts

• The Department of Infrastructure confirmed that ownership of a retaining wall generally belongs to the owner of the land it supports, unless proven otherwise under the Highways Act 1986.
• Internal correspondence reveals a dispute over whether the adopted highway U177 extends behind the property known as 'The Albert' or terminates at the gate post of 'Baie Fionn'.
• Deeds searches were undertaken but made no mention of the land supported by the buttressed retaining wall.
• The Department provided revised maps (Rev 2) to clarify the determination of ownership boundaries.
• The request was fulfilled with 106 pages of documents, including internal emails between structural engineers and asset managers.

Data Disclosed

• 2022-08-05
• 2022-08-25
• 28th July
• 15th August
• 106
• 5
• U177
• Highways Act 1986
• 1960's

Original Request

Please provide detail as to the extent of the adopted highway on what is referred to a the U177 in Port St Mary. Please provide copies of any internal correspondence relating to the retaining wall associated with the same lane. Please confirm what the departments policy is regarding the maintenance of retaining walls abutting the public highway.

Data Tables (46)

Full Response Text

Appendix 1

Appendix 2 1 From: Sent: 08 August 2022 14:10 To: Creer, Tom Subject: Draft Response for your thoughts? Attachments: Map and Photos Rev 2.pdf Hello    Thanks for your email.  Do you have any record of what was said previously by the Department’s structural engineer? Deeds searches have  been undertaken which make no mention to the land supported by the buttressed retaining wall or the retaining  wall.  I did not mean to insult anyone by my comments and I was not aware what was said previously, however I have  made my determination of ownership based on the map linked in my previous email. I have emailed Highway  Records who in charge of updating the map to confirm whether it is up to date and correct and I will get back to you  in due course.   Whilst I was attending the site on Thursday 28th July,   showed me correspondence from   –  Former Asset Engineer, who had the same stance as I do so I am not sure how this is contradictory or distressing as   seems to have been aware of Highways stance for some time.  Yes, the map shows adopted lane U177 running behind the Albert’s boundary meaning it is in part a highway  retaining wall, however the section of retaining wall which is buttressed by the steel frames is beyond where the  Department of Infrastructure, Highway Services Division’s ownership terminates. The ownership terminates at the  far gate post of Baie Fionn and thus provides vehicular access into the rear of Baie Fionn. I did not say it was at a  clear boundary in my previous email. Please find attached revision 2 of the document I sent you previously which  should display more clearly how I have determination of ownership of the retaining wall.   The quote taken from the Highways Act 1986 basically states whoever owns the land supported by a retaining wall  shall be deemed to be the owner of the retaining wall, unless the contrary is proved. This is the stance we take on all  retaining wall queries but allows for both parties to dispute ownership legally or otherwise.  Overall, I am not saying the wall is the responsibility of the owner of The Albert but the responsibility of whoever  owns the land supported by the retaining wall which is currently unknown after undertaking initial searches.  I have copied Tom Creer, Senior Asset Engineer and Graham Smith, Structures Maintenance Manager who may wish  to advise further or meet on site. It appears Mr McCusker is away until Monday 15th August.  Kind regards         Structures Asset Management  Highway Services  Department of Infrastructure  Ellerslie Depot  Crosby  Redacted Reda t d Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Red t 2   From:   <

Sent: 05 August 2022 21:08  To: McCusker, Aidan Aidan.McCusker@gov.im;   <

Cc:   < ; Moorhouse, Jason Jason.Moorhouse@gov.im;    Subject: Fwd: Retaining Wall  Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please take care before opening any attachments or  following any links.   Hi

Thanks for your email. I’ve offered to assist my inlaws in the matter as your email is entirely contradictory to previous comment from the Department following a site visit from one of the Departments structural engineers who stated that they were satisfied that the structure was at least in part, a highway retaining wall and they were seeking copies of the deeds from adjacent properties to confirm the position of the highway from the Attorney Generals Office.
They have taken this delay in good faith and your change in position without notice is frankly insulting - Indeed the map you have supplied as evidence to Support your position, clearly shows the adopted lane U177 to run part way along the rear of the Albert encompassing the retaining wall as is the case on www.gov.im/maps and does not stop at a clean line on a property boundary as you suggest. The line across the lane on the map reflects the termination point on the o/s maps from the 1960’s, itself forming part of the historic lane formed by the Port St Mary Development corporation in which existed onto Queens Road which you will no doubt have seen. If you have not the the public record office have the map in their archives. I would appreciate if you would share exactly how you have determined the extent of the highway now, other than choosing an arbitrary point to suit this latest position and selectively quoting sections of the highways act. Clearly the contradictory positions being taken by the Department on what appear to be little more than a whim and change of staff are now causing a great deal of distress the family and I hope that you will be able to provide clear documentary evidence to support the position that you have taken against the previous advice. Re da cte d Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redact d Redacted Redacted Reda cted 3 I would respectfully request that someone meets me on site with supporting documentation at your earliest opportunity, in the first instance It may be beneficial if Aidan McCusker could give me a call early next week, he should have my number to hand.
Best wishes

On Fri Aug 05 2022 15:08:42 GMT+0100 (BST) <

wrote: ---------- Original Message ---------- Good Afternoon

I have copied into this email as I spoke to her briefly regarding ownership of the wall. I was contacted by a colleague of mine who said you are looking to develop the back area of the pub where steel support frames were previously positioned by Port St Mary Commissioners as a temporary measure to support a failing retaining wall on the boundary of your land. The retaining wall supports a parcel of land with no apparent owner and I was asked whether it was the responsibility of the Department of Infrastructure, Highway Services Division as there appears to be a highway behind the wall.
After some investigation, the Department of Infrastructure does not own the land in question as the highway does not run behind the failed section of wall. This is based on the highway ownership map which can be found online at the following website https://manngis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8382a21e92da426885e383f926d66f02 and from the Highways Act 1986 which sets out, “a wall, not forming part of a permanent building, which serves, or is intended to serve, as a support for earth or other material on one side only, and the owner or occupier of the land supported or intended to be supported by a retaining wall shall be deemed to be the owner or occupier of the land on which the wall is, unless the contrary is proved”. I have attached a snip from the map and added photographs taken from my site visit with their location and direction identified on the map. The highway U177 stops perpendicular to the access into rear of Baie Fionn as shown on the map. As mentioned whilst discussing your proposed development on site, a structural engineer may be able to advise whether or not the wall can be buttressed by the proposed development whilst removing the props one at a time. It was nice to meet you and hope you get to the bottom of the ownership problem soon. Kind regards

Highway Services Department of Infrastructure Ellerslie Depot Crosby Redacted Redacted Redacted Re dac Redacted Red acte d Redac Redacted 1 From: Creer, Tom Sent: 11 August 2022 13:31 To: ; Subject: FW: Retaining Wall between Queens Rd & Athol Street FYI  –   & I will investigate further as it relates to highway determination. Will keep you in the loop so you are  aware for any implications on structures.  Tom  From: [mailto: ] Sent: 11 August 2022 13:04 To: Creer, Tom;

Cc: ; Moorhouse, Jason Subject: Retaining Wall between Queens Rd & Athol Street Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please take care before opening any attachments or  following any links.   Hi Tom, I thought that I would just drop you a quick line regarding Port St Mary before I disappear off the Island. As you are aware made reference to comments made in correspondence by

. wrote to in 2013 on the matter and stated that "there does not seem to have been a road all the way through behind the Albert". This is fundamentally incorrect as there was always a through lane, as set out by the Port St Mary Estate Co, in much the same way as Clifton Road / Clifton Road North were set out. The issue lies in how much of this road was subsequently adopted as a public highway by the Departments forerunners. I have attached an excerpt from the development map below and there are many people that would be willing to offer affidavits of the same that the lane did, in living memory loop round and exit onto Queens Road. Redacted Redacted Red t Red t Redacted Redacted Redacted Redact Redacted Re da Redact ed Re da Redacted 2 Much of the land owned by the Port St Mary Estate Co, which went into liquidation in 1911, was subsequently acquired by the Commissioners under the Port St Mary Estate Act 1936. I strongly believe that the lane fell under the control of the Commissioners at this time which would support it being adopted and the 1982 map being erroneous, or failing that ownership likely fell back into the ownership of Treasury by virtue of being Bona Vacantiae when it was liquidated in 1911, unfortunately there is no plan appended to the act, however you may have better resources than me to clarify.
In his 2013 Correspondence, also asserted that the key map was the transfer of Highways plan 1982, I am fully aware from my own dealings that these plans and the subsequent electronic definatives are unreliable, the Port St Mary plan being coloured in with what appears to be a broad felt tip pen. You will note that the lane in question extends in the opposite direction beyond its actual termination point so the accuracy can certainly not be noted as definitive. I strongly believe that this is simply a human error when colouring in the map. Re da 3 My reason for this belief is that the roads did not exist in the 1860's, so what I would promote as being the best records would be the maps of 1968 which were provided through the Government valuers office some time ago. These certainly suggests that the highway extended to the boundary of what is now the courtyard and parallel with existing access into the Albert from Athol Street.
4 5 There remains a belief locally that the whole lane is a highway, indeed only this morning I noted that there is a temporary gate in place with signage which suggests that the debate continues, certainly the adopted public sewers run through this area and public access continues up to the recently erected gate which is in line with the first registration of the Courtyard. The key issue at this time is clearly the determination of where the Highway ceases, thereafter the structure itself comes into play.
6 There is no doubt that some of the retaining wall does fulfill a highway function, and it was accepted in a 2013 email that the Department could contribute despite wider efforts to avoid responsibility.
The remainder fulfils a supporting function to the lane regardless of designation. It appears to be agreed by the responsibility for the maintenance of retaining walls which support property adjacent to the highway generally lies with the owner of the property who derives benefit from the support. In the event of a failure, were the retaining ironwork is removed, I do not think that there would be any doubt who has been benefitting from the retaining wall in the long term and it will certainly not be the Albert. My personal opinion is that this matter is a result of some shoddy historic record keeping before both our times and subsequent desire to promote what is the easiest route for highways.
I would really appreciate it if you could undertake your own investigations and at the very least, if you do not agree with my belief, let me know who you have come to the conclusion based on more than some felt tip lines from the 80's as the temporary bracing put in by a third party is blighting the use of the Business and Family home.
Best wishes

Redacted Reda cted 1 From: Sent: 05 August 2022 15:52 To: Subject: FW: Retaining Wall Attachments: Map and Photos.pdf Good Afternoon    I tried to copy you in to the previous email however it didn’t send. Please see below.  Many thanks    From:     Sent: 05 August 2022 15:09  To:    Cc:    Subject: Retaining Wall   Good Afternoon    I have copied   into this email as I spoke to her briefly regarding ownership of the wall.  I was contacted by a colleague of mine who said you are looking to develop the back area of the pub where steel  support frames were previously positioned by Port St Mary Commissioners as a temporary measure to support a  failing retaining wall on the boundary of your land. The retaining wall supports a parcel of land with no apparent  owner and I was asked whether it was the responsibility of the Department of Infrastructure, Highway Services  Division as there appears to be a highway behind the wall.   After some investigation, the Department of Infrastructure does not own the land in question as the highway does  not run behind the failed section of wall. This is based on the highway ownership map which can be found online at  the following website  https://manngis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8382a21e92da426885e383f926d66f02 and  from the Highways Act 1986 which sets out, “a wall, not forming part of a permanent building, which serves, or is  intended to serve, as a support for earth or other material on one side only, and the owner or occupier of the land  supported or intended to be supported by a retaining wall shall be deemed to be the owner or occupier of the land  on which the wall is, unless the contrary is proved”.  I have attached a snip from the map and added photographs taken from my site visit with their location and  direction identified on the map. The highway U177 stops perpendicular to the access into rear of Baie Fionn as  shown on the map.  As mentioned whilst discussing your proposed development on site, a structural engineer may be able to advise  whether or not the wall can be buttressed by the proposed development whilst removing the props one at a time.  It was nice to meet you and hope you get to the bottom of the ownership problem soon.  Kind regards      Redacted Redacted Redact d Red t Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Re d Redacted Red acte d 1 From: Brew, Christian Sent: 22 April 2022 09:38 To: Cc: Subject: Land ownership behind the Albert Hotel, Port St Mary Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi     Would you be able to do a quick Land Registry search for me?  We have a large failed retaining wall to the back of the Albert Hotel in Port St Mary and we’re trying to determine  the owner of the land above. Our Highways maps show our responsibility ends just before you reach the retained  section however on site the lane

[Response truncated — full text is 64,657 characters]