Jump to content

Glen Truan Holiday Development


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 299
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

For those who don't know the site of what was proposed and rejected: There are only three or four properties within half a mile of the area and none (apart from the Glen Truan farmhouse) that overlook

Think Groudle. 

Just stop and look at the facts. Mr Morphet is a lifelong smart businessman in the leisure sector. He chose to make his UK base the Isle of Man (yes, for tax purposes) and bought Bishopscourt for I th

Posted Images

On 29/09/2017 at 10:34 AM, Andy Onchan said:

Well, by making that statement he's clear on where his interests lie. It's the correct line to take, IMESHO.

Forgetting that one of his constituents is the applicant - time to stand up and be counted. From an economic perspective there are good arguments for approving this development which will provide jobs, facilities and much needed holiday accommodation in the north which is already experiencing the largest growth in self catering accommodation on the island.  He isn't elected to vote the way his constituents want, he's been elected to contribute towards the prosperity of the island and protecting delivery of services and quality of life for the whole population, we're talking about an Island of around 85,000 residents not just the 300-400 who live in Bride.  

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grianane said:

Forgetting that one of his constituents is the applicant - time to stand up and be counted. From an economic perspective there are good arguments for approving this development which will provide jobs, facilities and much needed holiday accommodation in the north which is already experiencing the largest growth in self catering accommodation on the island.  He isn't elected to vote the way his constituents want, he's been elected to contribute towards the prosperity of the island and protecting delivery of services and quality of life for the whole population, we're talking about an Island of around 85,000 residents not just the 300-400 who live in Bride.  

As I said in a later post, if I understand the application and accompanying submissions correctly the area is not zoned for any development. And I would object to the fact that should an application be made for financial assistance (which I think I heard Mr. Morphet say he was going to do in one of Paul Moulten's interviews), then the taxpayer should not be funding the construction or development of those units that will be sold off. 

I'm not against the development in principle but it seems to me that there are some issues that will affect national planning & funding development that need to be clarified (as in the above), not least how IOMG/Planning will monitor and enforce the residence issue. 

I'd also disagree with your assertion that Mr. Baker's position is solely and exclusively a national position. If that was the case, then why wasn't I given the opportunity to say yea or nay from Onchan. He has a responsibility to his constituents. The question is which residents? Only he can make that judgement. 

Seems to me the development could end up being a mixed bag of a Centre Parcs, Butlins and a temporary retirement village. Just seems like a weird mix.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grianane said:

Forgetting that one of his constituents is the applicant - time to stand up and be counted. From an economic perspective there are good arguments for approving this development which will provide jobs, facilities and much needed holiday accommodation in the north which is already experiencing the largest growth in self catering accommodation on the island.  He isn't elected to vote the way his constituents want, he's been elected to contribute towards the prosperity of the island and protecting delivery of services and quality of life for the whole population, we're talking about an Island of around 85,000 residents not just the 300-400 who live in Bride.  

The economic arguments are far from clear - what will be the effect of the development to the IOM Biosphere Reserve status and eco-tourism - how will it affect local self-catering holiday lets which across the whole island only had an occupancy rate of 46% during 2016 - the residents will be paying no rates etc etc

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 8 months later...
2 minutes ago, 2112 said:

According to the Manx Governments Mouthpiece Manx Radio, looks like this development will be refused. Another successful triumph for DED, and it’s ambitious aims of HNWIs moving to the island and establishing a business here. 

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/planning-authority-to-refuse-glen-truan-application/

Yes Freedom to Flourish comes to mind.

Don’t go bringing your money making, employment generating, ideas here. They’re not wanted. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

They'll be absolutely bonkers to refuse this. The decision will be all about who opposes it rather than any rational argument. Planning on the IOM has long been a corrupt process. If I was thinking of investing in tourism on the Island I'd tell them to stuff it and I'd take my money and ideas elsewhere.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

"It concluded the plans failed to meet their requirement of overriding national need."

 

Who makes up this shit?

So businesses should only set up where there is an "overriding national need"??

Provided it was purely funded from private sector, what is the issue?!! Let them invest their money, make a go of it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In all fairness, whether or not people like or dislike the developer, or the HNWI, one thing you can’t deny is he is successful at what he does - TOURISM! Better Quality tourist facilities and static lodges - which in turn, will bring in ‘second homers’, which more often results in the holiday home bring jettisoned, as the owner buys a permanent home on the island. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

Who makes up this shit?

So businesses should only set up where there is an "overriding national need"??

Provided it was purely funded from private sector, what is the issue?!! Let them invest their money, make a go of it. 

Probably DED policy. However, if someone were to pitch this proposal for a slice of the £50m DEAD Fund, and there successful, then I’m sure PP will be granted.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

"It concluded the plans failed to meet their requirement of overriding national need."

The overriding national need at the present time is for investment - massive investment. 

 

Ah well :(

 

It is literally an insane reason to turn down a business idea especially when our tourist industry is on its arse. We have an overriding national need to grow our tourist industry and we’ve just spent £124M buying a ferry company but we don't apparently want to build any tourist resorts to attract people over. This is the most pathetic, useless, short sighted decision we’ve made in years. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...