Jump to content

Residents object to Derbyhaven development.


Max Power
 Share

Recommended Posts

"A significant proportion of the hotel guests will be disappointed with the accommodation offering given that only 28% of the rooms have unobstructed sea views. "

"The Planning Application should be refused due to an over-development of the site that is particularly biased in favour of the residential apartments to the detriment of the proposed hotel. The concept punted by the Applicant that the residential component will enable the hotel development is flawed. "
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Donald Trumps said:

"A significant proportion of the hotel guests will be disappointed with the accommodation offering given that only 28% of the rooms have unobstructed sea views. "

"The Planning Application should be refused due to an over-development of the site that is particularly biased in favour of the residential apartments to the detriment of the proposed hotel. The concept punted by the Applicant that the residential component will enable the hotel development is flawed. "
 

How so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are a number of salient points, I am not a tree hugger, but I do think that times are a changing in respect of how we treat the planet and indeed the environment in which we live. To compare what is proposed with the footprint of the old is allowing what was acceptable in years gone by to be applied to what we now accept as conservation and preservation , which is a false concept in my view. To overlay the old with an outline of the new is to repeat what we now know were mistakes of the past in respect of the Islands natural beauty and fauna and flora.

Secondly the proposed apartments in this location will not be for the man in the street, they will be top end stuff for HNWI designed for maximum profit and the profit margin hugely enhanced by their location ! If there was a demand for housing in this area it will only be from the well heeled so it is a false argument to suggest it is in need of development !

If government allow this it will be another illustration of the "tail wagging the dog ", Dandara land banked the land knowing full well what the permissions were that existed on site, the site was never cleared it was left to become an eyesore, a strategic eyesore !

There is room for development, I believe the golf course owner wanted to do so.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Max Power said:

How so?

Ask them


I'd say from a financial view it is undoubtedly the sale of the residential luxury apartments that makes the hotel at all viable

However, as the Antiquarian society said there just isn't the utility space on the site for 40 apartments

& MNH have said they don't want them using their site on St Michael's Isle, or whatever it's called

You would expect luxury residential units to have more space than the hotel rooms, but it looks less on the plan above

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Donald Trumps said:

Ask them


I'd say from a financial view it is undoubtedly the sale of the residential luxury apartments that makes the hotel at all viable

However, as the Antiquarian society said there just isn't the utility space on the site for 40 apartments

& MNH have said they don't want them using their site on St Michael's Isle, or whatever it's called

You would expect luxury residential units to have more space than the hotel rooms, but it looks less on the plan above

You are starting to spout the same crap as the real Donald T would.

 Give it a rest. If they need to build residential apartments in order to have a nice new hotel, then WTF is the problem ?

FFS. This is exactly why people take the piss out of us Manx, as in the fabled "Manx crab" shite. Get the thing built, improve the area, let people buy nice apartments and let visitors stay in new accommodation for a change.

Why all this belly aching about footprints etc;? The area now is a 4king mess. Only building new will correct that.

 Absolutely stunned by the wimpy NIMBYs. Get a grip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Donald Trumps said:

Ask them


I'd say from a financial view it is undoubtedly the sale of the residential luxury apartments that makes the hotel at all viable

However, as the Antiquarian society said there just isn't the utility space on the site for 40 apartments

& MNH have said they don't want them using their site on St Michael's Isle, or whatever it's called

You would expect luxury residential units to have more space than the hotel rooms, but it looks less on the plan above

I think that you are actually contradicting yourself there Donald - you are complaining that they would be 'Luxury residential units for HNWI'S' and also complaining that they are too small for that use?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, dilligaf said:

You are starting to spout the same crap as the real Donald T would.

 Give it a rest. If they need to build residential apartments in order to have a nice new hotel, then WTF is the problem ?

FFS. This is exactly why people take the piss out of us Manx, as in the fabled "Manx crab" shite. Get the thing built, improve the area, let people buy nice apartments and let visitors stay in new accommodation for a change.

Why all this belly aching about footprints etc;? The area now is a 4king mess. Only building new will correct that.

 Absolutely stunned by the wimpy NIMBYs. Get a grip.

My crap would never be as crappy as your crap, craphead

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Donald Trumps said:

I'm not complaining, tho' I'd be against permitting permanent residences in this area

They do look small, but it is the Antiquarian Society suggesting that there is insufficient amenity area for permanent residents

Speaking as a life member of the Antiquarian Society - I'll say nothing :) .

Apartments don't have to be big massive places. The Golf Links apartments would be bought in the main by the 50+ community who don't have kids at home although there are always visitors. To say that there's insufficient amenity room is pure bollocks.

I would expect prices of 600k+, maybe 850k+ for a south-facing / sunny 2 bedroom. Would be tempted myself...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Donald Trumps said:

Well, that's what Dandara will be hoping for

I agree with The Antiquarians, the developers are asking a lot of this smallish site

Go look at the plans. Basement parking and services. Pool, spa, hotel facilities and rooms on the ground floor. Apartments on 3 floors ranging between 112sq m and 200+ sq m. One two floor. 4 on the partial 4th floor. Not taller than existing tower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John Wright said:

Go look at the plans. Basement parking and services. Pool, spa, hotel facilities and rooms on the ground floor. Apartments on 3 floors ranging between 112sq m and 200+ sq m. One two floor. 4 on the partial 4th floor. Not taller than existing tower.

Presumably they did

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, John Wright said:

Not taller than existing tower.

An interesting acceptability test. Perhaps Dandara should also plan a housing estate for the lighthouse site on a similar basis. 

This stinks. The current plans are obviously not going to be passed, but presumably are intended to lead weak minded planners or politicians towards granting a smaller residential development. There should be no forgiveness for any that do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Yibble said:

An interesting acceptability test. Perhaps Dandara should also plan a housing estate for the lighthouse site on a similar basis. 

This stinks. The current plans are obviously not going to be passed, but presumably are intended to lead weak minded planners or politicians towards granting a smaller residential development. There should be no forgiveness for any that do.

Surely for a replacement building, which this is, things like comparative footprint, mass, height, are very relevant.

i was merely pointing out it isn’t planned as a slab sided cube, but it’s got different levels, just like the existing building, and that the top floor, which is divided in two smaller parts, is no higher than what is already there.

I think it’s a great idea. Replacing a building that was never iconic, ensuring the existing building doesn’t sit there slowly rotting, an eyesore, for 20 more years.

Whether the actual design submitted is perfect, or can be improved, is a matter of economics, taste, and planning.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...