fredtosser 55 Posted July 18 3 out of 5 Malew members resigned this week. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Derek Flint 1,624 Posted July 18 3 minutes ago, fredtosser said: 3 out of 5 Malew members resigned this week. and will anyone notice? 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shake me up Judy 3,820 Posted July 18 The dead hand of the major landowners in the parishes, the farmers, has always been on any local authority and rate reform. 2 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roger Mexico 4,628 Posted July 18 2 hours ago, P.K. said: That would be fine if those dispersed villages were similar. But they're not. Case in point just think about how the PSM upper prom looks. There are a few out of place maisonettes at the Balqueen end I grant you. Compare that to just how awful PE looks in comparison. I know there is a reason for that but they're like chalk and cheese and barely a mile apart.... That's not really an argument either way though. Because local authorities have very little power over any planning issues at all - at most they can make a fuss, but they don't even have enough money to oppose the deeper pockets of the the developers. The reason why so much development has occurred over the last forty plus years in Port Erin is that there was a lot of flat or gently sloping land in the area that could be used for new-build. There isn't in Port St Mary, so there's only been a bit of replacement and infill. In neither case have the Commissioners had any control over the process - the power is all with central government. Similarly the number of derelict sites left after demolition are due to it being cheaper to maintain such a site, when waiting for the most financially beneficial time to develop, than it is to maintain an empty, decaying building. That is based on the way that planning operates. Of course if the building is meant to be preserved in some way, fires have been known to break out (those pesky kids!) after which demolition becomes allowed. If you have a developer-friendly system they will do what they want. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
forestboy 590 Posted July 18 2 hours ago, fredtosser said: 3 out of 5 Malew members resigned this week. Do we know their reasons? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
P.K. 3,836 Posted July 18 2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said: That's not really an argument either way though. Because local authorities have very little power over any planning issues at all - at most they can make a fuss, but they don't even have enough money to oppose the deeper pockets of the the developers. The reason why so much development has occurred over the last forty plus years in Port Erin is that there was a lot of flat or gently sloping land in the area that could be used for new-build. There isn't in Port St Mary, so there's only been a bit of replacement and infill. In neither case have the Commissioners had any control over the process - the power is all with central government. Similarly the number of derelict sites left after demolition are due to it being cheaper to maintain such a site, when waiting for the most financially beneficial time to develop, than it is to maintain an empty, decaying building. That is based on the way that planning operates. Of course if the building is meant to be preserved in some way, fires have been known to break out (those pesky kids!) after which demolition becomes allowed. If you have a developer-friendly system they will do what they want. I thought the reason was because PE prom previously had lots of larger hotel units that could be replacedather than housing. That's how I remwmber it anyway. But it does look grim compared to PSM. I thought the rates were based on services and civic amenities as provided by the LA. And frankly anyone who thinks PE, PSM and the Ballakilley estate aren't sharing these amenities is in cloud cuckoo land..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
James Hampton 146 Posted July 19 With regards the PE / Rushen boundary dispute, does anyone know what the homeowners were told before they purchased (was a change forecast)? And does anyone know whether they’ve been consulted as part of the process so far? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Non-Believer 7,576 Posted July 19 3 minutes ago, James Hampton said: With regards the PE / Rushen boundary dispute, does anyone know what the homeowners were told before they purchased (was a change forecast)? And does anyone know whether they’ve been consulted as part of the process so far? I think they've been offered a "period of grace" of a few years in recognition of their rates going to rise significantly when the transfer happens? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thesultanofsheight 7,138 Posted July 19 (edited) On 7/18/2019 at 11:06 AM, fredtosser said: 3 out of 5 Malew members resigned this week. Well who would be wanting to deal with Phil Gawne in future on anything. It would be better to leave. He’ll now be a ‘Super Clerk’ able to up his hours to 15 a week when it goes through. Edited July 19 by thesultanofsheight Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roger Mexico 4,628 Posted July 19 21 minutes ago, James Hampton said: With regards the PE / Rushen boundary dispute, does anyone know what the homeowners were told before they purchased (was a change forecast)? And does anyone know whether they’ve been consulted as part of the process so far? Everyone was consulted - there was a formal consultation and a public enquiry. And Port Erin seem to have started the process to extend the boundary back in 2015 at least. And that letter mentions that discussions were going on when planning permission was being sought, so none of this should come as a surprise to anyone. After all the part of the estate built first was in Port Erin. It's just that the DoI has been so slow get the thing processed that the new residents have been able to move in and pay cheaper rates. That said the boundaries are a bit odd around Four Roads, because the ancient rivalry between Port Erin and Port St Mary means they have always scrapped over who gets what. Both the School and the Southern Group Practice are actually in Rushen (though the SGP car park and School playing fields are in PSM). Presumably as a compromise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
foxdaleliberationfront 120 Posted July 19 Has anyone asked the residents of the estate what they want? Maybe they should be allowed to set up their own 'local authority'! That would be just as sensible as any other option on the table Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Neil Down 5,177 Posted July 19 53 minutes ago, foxdaleliberationfront said: Has anyone asked the residents of the estate what they want? Maybe they should be allowed to set up their own 'local authority'! That would be just as sensible as any other option on the table That may be so in Foxdull but nowhere else... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Uhtred 6,523 Posted July 19 On 7/18/2019 at 1:44 PM, forestboy said: Do we know their reasons? Yes. They suddenly realised they were Malew Commissioners. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
James Hampton 146 Posted July 19 3 hours ago, Roger Mexico said: Everyone was consulted - there was a formal consultation and a public enquiry. And Port Erin seem to have started the process to extend the boundary back in 2015 at least... Thank you Roger. Sounds like the logical thing to do might have been to withhold planning permission until the LA situation was resolved. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
woolley 15,788 Posted July 19 5 minutes ago, James Hampton said: Thank you Roger. Sounds like the logical thing to do might have been to withhold planning permission until the LA situation was resolved. You can't do that. This is the Isle of Man - Where You Can! 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
