Fossils Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 http://www.iomtoday....-plan-1-5432078 Despite the massive concerns expressed by local residents, and the vociferous objections from the elected representatives for the area, the Ballakilley site has been approved for housing. This confirms to me that this whole consultative process was pointless and farcical. In future simply ignore the wishes of the residents and save hundreds of thousands of pounds. That should help your budget Mr Teare. I wonder which developer already had the deal set up will get the site? 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbon selector Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Minister David Cretney said words to the effect that he was supporting the plan but wouldn't want any harm to the area because his Grandfather lived up Surby? WTF that had to do with it I don't know. (I'll find his irrelevant words when they come on Hansard.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Appalling. I can't believe this went through. I heard Phil Gawne on the radio saying that for 17 years all the elected bods, both Local Comms. and MHKs for the area have agreed that this piece of land should, if developed, be recreational NOT residential. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 What is not clear is, who now owns the land? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 CAnnot remember the name, but it was left in trust to be used for sport and recreational purposes, which is want the area needs. Not another 3000 shit makers to clog up the sewage system. Tynwald is obviously an ill informed public forum that should be shut down. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Unless we know who owns it and their opinion of what it should be used for, the fact it has been zoned for housing is only part of the picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manxman16 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) I believe the land is part of the Clucas Estate from Andreas (Not Stan Clucas from Ballafesson) and, that a local large developer over here had "purchased the option / made a donation to the Estate" to have '1st refusal' on the land, allegedly, if i recall that correctly from the meeting a couple of years back at Rushen Primary School.Seems the whole process was a complete waste of time and proves the system is 'flawed'! How can 'they' approve a scheme that is so clearly not wanted by the local people and the last 17 years of Local Commissioners and elected MHK's. Cambon is correct in saying the land was left to the local Community in the will of the Land Owner at the time as he wanted it to be used for Recreational Use and not housing. Kirk Michael recently managed to have their expansion stopped due to public (& Local and Parliamentary) input - surely the the number of people objecting to the Southern Plan must be able to do the same....? Shocking...Appalling... don't even come close. As stated earlier there is a number of people involved with this verdict who appear to be ill-informed. At least the elected MHK's for Rushen fought strongly against it. But then again, history shows that money does talk on this Island - if they agree to take on the much hated and un-supported 'Bendy Buses', what chance have we got of stopping this. Farce! Edited February 22, 2013 by Manxman16 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Interesting that the original plan put before the inquiry is different to the plan now in circulation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Interesting that the original plan put before the inquiry is different to the plan now in circulation. Not that interesting, local plans evolve through a long route of consultation, inquiry and political decision. That's the process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smelly Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Well they do say power corrupts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Interesting that the original plan put before the inquiry is different to the plan now in circulation. Not that interesting, local plans evolve through a long route of consultation, inquiry and political decision. That's the process. & then the achievements of the consultation process are entirely ignored Planning appeals officer then approves something entirely different Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 & then the achievements of the consultation process are entirely ignored Planning appeals officer then approves something entirely different Sorry, I don't follow what you mean, what have planning appeals got to do with the area plan adoption? The Minister has the final decision on planning appeals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Mr Cretney did not mention in Tynwald that he'd had the final say on the matter Did he not allude to an idea that he was against it because his grandfather come from Surby? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 The final decision on the area plan is political, hence why it was approved by Tynwald. As much as they try to pretend it has nothing to do with them the decision is entirely theirs, bunch of spineless sods the lot of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Have to say I was astonished - at the time - that Tynwald approved a proposal that was opposed by all the Rushen MHKs, PE, PSM + Rushen Commissioners, and the majority of the local population However, they then moved on to approve the student fees proposals which were frankly daft & had produced the biggest Tynwald post-bag in recent memory - with even the Bishop voting in favour I'm now further convinced that they put something in the air-conditioning to bend them all to CoMins will 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.