Residents object to Derbyhaven development.

[John Wright 6,383]

35 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

Any explanation why or just a "seasonal" decision

No. Don’t know.

[Will Halsall 361]

For what it's worth, I ran the restaurant (No19) at Castletown Golf Links from 1/4/16 until the end of August 19, and I can say with some experience that it is very difficult to operate a catering business in that area. The views maybe superb from both Castletown Golf Links and Bar 26 but apart from the "Blue Rinse Brigade" over weekday lunches, it is extremely difficult to entice people out there. Unlike Castletown it isn't served by Public Transport, which means drinking is out of the question, and the competition from Sidings/Tap Room/George/Leonardo's/Union/Gluey/Tuscany/Secret Pizza/Mustang Sally and even the Whitey, further exacerbates the ability to trade out there. I left because the owners of the Golf Links presented me with a new contract in April that I believed to be commercially unworkable, therefore I gave my 3 months notice. We tried opening in the evenings but that was an absolute disaster, and there aren't enough golfers playing throughout the week to rely on either, and because they all have vehicles, the bar does poorly - the Sunday Carvery was fairly successful though.

I was fortunate enough to have been privy to several Derbyhaven Residents Association meetings that we hosted, and I have to say I am bemused at best about their objections, and I am unimpressed with the protagonists rationale and attitude to what is actually a realistic planning application from Fort Island Developments. I recommend anyone with any interest in this development to read the following judgement: https://www.judgments.im/content/J1462.htm

It's also very interesting reading to look at the objections/objectors for other very recent domestic planning applications - I personally find some of the NIMBYistic attitudes culturally unacceptable at best. 

This was passed around at the last DRA meeting a couple of months ago when the main agitators were comparing Langness/Derbyhaven to the Calf of Man.

 

[WTF 5,424]

2 hours ago, Neil Down said:

Any explanation why or just a "seasonal" decision

more a 'financial' decision i would suspect .................  with not much choice in the matter.

Edited September 26, 2019 by WTF

[Gizo 1,878]

Swiss chalet closed too now. 

[finlo 4,110]

4 minutes ago, Gizo said:

Swiss chalet closed too now. 

I thought that closed about 15 years ago!

[Gizo 1,878]

1 minute ago, finlo said:

I thought that closed about 15 years ago!

Reopened pre TT. Barely done a summer. 

[Neil Down 7,145]

16 minutes ago, Gizo said:

Reopened pre TT. Barely done a summer. 

If that’s the one owned by the Tan Rogan gang then pretty sure it’s down to staff problems

[CharlieBrown 717]

25 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

If that’s the one owned by the Tan Rogan gang then pretty sure it’s down to staff problems

Tanroagan you dick, they ran it years ago and closed it due to staff problems, years ago...

[Uhtred 8,616]

21 hours ago, Will Halsall said:

For what it's worth, I ran the restaurant (No19) at Castletown Golf Links from 1/4/16 until the end of August 19, and I can say with some experience that it is very difficult to operate a catering business in that area. The views maybe superb from both Castletown Golf Links and Bar 26 but apart from the "Blue Rinse Brigade" over weekday lunches, it is extremely difficult to entice people out there. Unlike Castletown it isn't served by Public Transport, which means drinking is out of the question, and the competition from Sidings/Tap Room/George/Leonardo's/Union/Gluey/Tuscany/Secret Pizza/Mustang Sally and even the Whitey, further exacerbates the ability to trade out there. I left because the owners of the Golf Links presented me with a new contract in April that I believed to be commercially unworkable, therefore I gave my 3 months notice. We tried opening in the evenings but that was an absolute disaster, and there aren't enough golfers playing throughout the week to rely on either, and because they all have vehicles, the bar does poorly - the Sunday Carvery was fairly successful though.

I was fortunate enough to have been privy to several Derbyhaven Residents Association meetings that we hosted, and I have to say I am bemused at best about their objections, and I am unimpressed with the protagonists rationale and attitude to what is actually a realistic planning application from Fort Island Developments. I recommend anyone with any interest in this development to read the following judgement: https://www.judgments.im/content/J1462.htm

It's also very interesting reading to look at the objections/objectors for other very recent domestic planning applications - I personally find some of the NIMBYistic attitudes culturally unacceptable at best. 

This was passed around at the last DRA meeting a couple of months ago when the main agitators were comparing Langness/Derbyhaven to the Calf of Man.

 

I think this reinforces what many have long suspected about the residents of that particular area.

[WTF 5,424]

9 hours ago, CharlieBrown said:

Tanroagan you dick, they ran it years ago and closed it due to staff problems, years ago...

well staff may be one issue,  i ate there in the summer and the food was IMHO good,  but the decor ( lack of it ) ,  sticky tables and general dullness inside were the issues for me,  the food said go back,  the venue/ambience said no.

[asitis 4,875]

I am not a resident of Derbyhaven but from a point of view of how we treat developers, is it correct that we allow a developer to purchase an iconic site, both in terms of wildlife and also scenery, which the developer knows there is no permission to develop the site in the manner they want to, which due to the nature of the site will likely make huge profits !

The said developer then sits on the rotting carcass of the site waiting for planning and or government to cave in  to their demands!

I have understanding for Will where the development would have provided a bigger audience for the golf club cafe ( I go once a week btw) , but the basis under which this has been approached by the developer is wrong on many levels but unsurprising given their lust to cover the island in concrete!

 

[GD4ELI 2,649]

No-one else was interested, so good luck to the developer. The plans don't encroach further on the land, if a small hotel is viable then that's a plus.

[Will Halsall 361]

1 hour ago, asitis said:

I am not a resident of Derbyhaven but from a point of view of how we treat developers, is it correct that we allow a developer to purchase an iconic site, both in terms of wildlife and also scenery, which the developer knows there is no permission to develop the site in the manner they want to, which due to the nature of the site will likely make huge profits !

The said developer then sits on the rotting carcass of the site waiting for planning and or government to cave in  to their demands!

I have understanding for Will where the development would have provided a bigger audience for the golf club cafe ( I go once a week btw) , but the basis under which this has been approached by the developer is wrong on many levels but unsurprising given their lust to cover the island in concrete!

 

asitis, it's a shame you didn't introduce yourself when I was there, it would have been a pleasure to have discussed this in person.

I strongly suggest anyone with an interest in the site and the litigious potential of DRS have a good read of this before they assume that Dandara/FID are stifling the development of the hotel: https://www.judgments.im/content/J1462.htm     

In a nutshell, for some bizarre reason the DoI inserted LP21 into the Area Plan South - "New or replacement buildings on Langness should not be permitted except for, uses ancillary to the operation and use of the golf course or, in the case of the former Golf Links Hotel site, for hotel accommodation" - even though the Department considered that this site was adequately provided for in planning terms through the "Tourism Proposal 1" and "Landscape Proposal 22". 

Deemster Corlett Conclusion

44. I therefore make the order sought by the Claimants. The quashing of LP21 will leave this part of the Isle of Man (much of which is an area of special scientific interest (ASSI) under the Wildlife Act 1990) with the protection of LP22 and TP1 and indeed the various general policies for the protection of the environment, public access and heritage sites set out in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. The belated attempts by Mr Vermeulen, LGC Ltd and the DRS to persuade the Court to widen the relief properly to be granted as a consequence of the quashing of LP21 are rejected.

 

Last year there was a planning application for Skeddan Veg in Derbyhaven - The inspectors report is very interesting reading, particularly the "other objections". I am sure that if FID hadn't had continuous fences put in front of them by DRS, the site would be well under development by now. Some of the objections that I have heard are in my opinion just ludicrous, and from a commercial sense a stand alone hotel would be very difficult to run successfully, particularly now that MM is up running again, Premier Inn has arrived and Travel Lodge will soon be here too. 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2019 by Will Halsall

[Andy Onchan 3,410]

On 9/26/2019 at 9:49 AM, Grounds Keeper Willy said:

That being nobody. As nobody would be insane enough to develop a hotel out there in an Island where there is zero chance of filling it with enough tourists as our visitor strategy and proposition is rubbish. The guy doing the Mount Murray is going to lose his shirt on that as it’s a crazy project. The only sensible way of getting your money back there is apartments anything other than that you’re wasting your time as we don’t have a tourist economy and we don’t have many business visitors either. 

If any visitor development does go ahead then I reckon self-catering would be the best option (rather than a hotel) with a restaurant/bar. 

[Will Halsall 361]

On 9/27/2019 at 11:24 AM, asitis said:

I am not a resident of Derbyhaven but from a point of view of how we treat developers, is it correct that we allow a developer to purchase an iconic site, both in terms of wildlife and also scenery, which the developer knows there is no permission to develop the site in the manner they want to, which due to the nature of the site will likely make huge profits !

The said developer then sits on the rotting carcass of the site waiting for planning and or government to cave in  to their demands!

I have understanding for Will where the development would have provided a bigger audience for the golf club cafe ( I go once a week btw) , but the basis under which this has been approached by the developer is wrong on many levels but unsurprising given their lust to cover the island in concrete!

 

Hi asitis,

Rather than clog up the Nosy Cook thread, I thought it prudent to discuss the Golf Links Hotel on the correct one.

I thoroughly understand the suspicion and doubt you have regarding your above points, along with your comments on the other thread but I wonder how many people are actually aware of the real facts. 

History: The Golf Course and the Hotel were both for sale at the same time (when a court judgement forced Ferguson-Lacey to sell in 2011ish), Vermeulen bought the course but not the hotel, the hotel was bought by Heritage (Dandara) a few months later. The hotel had approximately 56 bedrooms when it closed in 2007 and started to dilapidate very quickly but the bar area stayed open for golfers until 2012 from memory. It is worth noting that Lacey wanted some residential properties built in the late 2000's on the golf course in Derbyhaven, directly behind the new golf course owners gaff - I will leave the readers to make their own mind up on the rationale for the speedy Golf Links transaction. 

Before anyone simply judges Dandara's application as an opportunity to make a quick buck, I recommend that anyone who has an interest in this iconic hotel looks closely to the Comments and Feasibility Study on the Planning Departments website https://services.gov.im/planningapplication/services/planning/search.iom quoting ref. 17/01265/B, and also (as I have previously mentioned) at the court judgement in favour of Heritage Homes in 2013 against LGC Ltd and DRA:  https://www.judgments.im/content/J1462.htm

I personally believe that Dandara have submitted a very sympathetic planning proposal based on a similar foot print to the existing hotel (using Manx stone cladding for example), with a new boutique hotel with 40 executive style bedrooms. As expressed in the Feasibility Study, a stand alone hotel will not be financially commercially viable and will need to be subsidised by apartments, and I feel that the additional 40 apartments are equally sympathetic to the area - rumour had it that Lacey was looking at something similar with Duke of York having a luxury suite. 

When you take into consideration that three separate family members object to the development and all have interested status through ownership of the Golf Course, the complaints become somewhat interesting, focusing on how wedding events and general traffic at the new proposed hotel will impact the golfers - well when the hotel was in its prime it didn't impact the golfers, I had my wedding there 32 years ago on a Saturday and it wasn't a problem. Further, the above are complaining about proposed hotel sewage using the pumping station which is ironic, as the present Golf Links Clubhouse and Restaurant sewage goes directly into the old pump house - the links don't have their own septic tank. Then we have the unsightly timber uprights and soil mounds that the Golf Links owners have placed on the road and around the hotel, these are totally unsuited to this ASSI - have they been deliberately located to antagonise Dandara? In my opinion Dandara are holding the moral high ground, more so after the Links revoked the golf membership of a Dandara executive - how pathetic!

The complaints are petty in my opinion from both the Links owners and certain members of DRA, who last year compared that area to the Calf of Man. Finally, the same family members complain (see the comments from a family member in the planning section) about the islands Dark Skies policy, yet they have a planning application for an illuminated statue for goodness sake: http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=54103&headline=Geese sculpture plan for Fort Island road&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2020&cat=Planning

I wonder what the reaction would be in Derbyhaven if the Links owned the site?