Jump to content

Stop the felling of the St Marks Elms


Amadeus
 Share

Recommended Posts

30,100 have signed the Save the St Marks Elms. I wonder what the total will be by the time of HOK sitting on Tuesday. Be prepared for much grandstanding, showboating and general one upmanship in persuit of a vote. I wonder what HRH The Chief Ministers view on the subject is? He has said nothing so far whereas normally he issues pronouncements like a banana republic dictator. Besides he is in charge of the rabble in COMIN. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irregardless of the current legal/planning position , there is obviously a great public opposition to the proposal for the removal of these trees even discounting the propensity for some to sign anything in online petitions?

These arboreal corridors are an unique and unusual feature, even the short tunnel south of the 'Devils Elbow' is a feature to be admired. We Humans like to see Nature take it's precedence over Human intervention!

I frequently drive this stretch of road and am well aware of the entrances and the circumspect required the DoI point to 'near misses' but not to who's fault it was, the Defa say that some of the trees are in poor condition but not that they are a danger.

The cynic in me sees this as the  usual excuse to get rid of trees or declare a building no longer 'fit for purpose' in order to get their own way and a planning approval to the advantage of the applicants!!!

Is it possible that  Boot, with the conivance of the DoI and his own DEFA could launch some some late appeal on the grounds of 'mis-information' from these contributors???? If there is legroom within the legislation for this, that should be the course of action from the Barron.

I do not know if this an Mone/Barrowman application but it is well known that they wished sell up and move off the Island, is this an attempt to enhance their property value/appeal and was there connivance within Govt circles to 'keep them Happy'?

I'm sure that DEFA are studying hard to find a means to appeal this decision and that ynwald will look very closely at was has happened because of their decision

Alternatively, even millionaires have been known to change their minds in the face of public opposition, maybe that could prevail here???

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Trackman said:

I note that the Petition with a lot of support is to save the trees, though I am not sure what the exact purpose of today's demonstration is, but it highly likely that anyone at the demonstration has signed the petition. How will this work? The felling of the trees has been approved through a lawful process. The lawful process was arrived at through democratic means, ie approved by Tynwald, and operated by a Department of the Government. The process has been completed. For the petition (and possibly the demonstration) to be successful then the democratic process must give way to mob rule, or a form of anarchy and indeed bullying. The imperative for the protest now must surely to prevent any more of this or it will be government by the mass protest aided by our spineless politicians.

The forthcoming general election and local elections to some degree give everyone the chance to offer their vote to candidates that will commit to overhauling the whole planning process, eg the planning rules, the green areas zoned for development, the lack of brownfield development, etc. No commitment - no vote. Unless of course this is another 15 minute social media wonder where everyone gets wound up then forgets about it when the next social media headline hits. Or maybe this time the candidates for MHK will be hit hard with the thought there might be up to 28,000 votes on the line. Who knows but it will be interesting to see if this surge of voter energy will play out right through to the election on the topic of the countryside and its plundering.

The planning process is good enough (or at least not so bad that Beamans need to be paid to look at it).

Likewise, the applicants are blameless. They applied using the process available and it's very unfortunate that their affairs have been aired in public in the misguided belief that they are part of the problem.

However, the whole point of putting a politician into the approvals process is so that they can look at a proposal through the eyes of the electorate. In this case, Perkins should have been able to understand the concern the proposal would have aroused and blocked it. He either didn't care because it's not floods in Laxey, or he's out of touch, which seems to be the case given his insistence on defending the decision.

Oh - and a PS: What a candidate puts on their manifesto is utterly meaningless. Ditto the "passion" they have for their plans. To get policy onto the books, the candidate either has to become the Chief Minister and tell Council what the programme for government looks like, or they have to rally a majority of members to support their pet projects, which, if there is any risk attached, won't happen.

So when candidates come to your door and make promises, just remember they probably won't be able to make them happen through no fault of their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Viddy well said:

Likewise, the applicants are blameless. They applied using the process available and it's very unfortunate that their affairs have been aired in public in the misguided belief that they are part of the problem.

 

Very probably, but if it can be shown they have misled, or information they have provided has misled/swayed the decision, then that should be looked at. I refer to the statements about RTC and or near miss RTC where there is no anecdotal evidence to support those assertions. The safety aspect seems to have been a major driver in support of the decision and you might have assumed that the lack of anecdotal evidence would have been one thing the committee would have researched, if as it appears the consent has relied on that premise.

Edited by asitis
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, asitis said:

Very probably, but if it can be shown they have misled, or information they have provided has misled/swayed the decision, then that should be looked at. I refer to the statements about RTC and or near miss RTC where there is no anecdotal evidence to support those assertions. The safety aspect seems to have been a major driver in support of the decision and you might have assumed that the lack of anecdotal evidence would have been one thing the committee would have researched, if as it appears the consent has relied on that premise.

There is anecdotal evidence. It’s set out in the application. It’s a working farm. Not just cars going in and out. There’s a yard on the other side of the road.  The existing entrance marks a break in the tree tunnel. It’s scrubby pines and Hawthorn. 

The tree tunnel is also man planted, don’t forget. It’s not natural. 100 years ago someone planted that hedge.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2021 at 8:45 AM, John Wright said:

No win no fee has been a disaster for people wanting to sue.  It’s been a boom for ATE insurers who sell policies that protect no win no fee litigants from adverse cost orders if they lose.

It actually reduces access to justice in the over regulated, small markup if you win, English, no win no fee legal market. It’s not UK wide, just England.

if you get a 10% markup ( that’s common, not 100% or a cut of the damages ) if you win that has to cover all your losing cases. So you’ve got to win 9 to afford to lose 1. So, under legal aid it’s 50%+1 to justify proceeding. So many fewer cases get taken on. You only do the ones you can win. It leaves those with weaker, but still winnable, cases by the way side and means there’s nothing in representing someone to mitigate.

Then there’s the question of how you fund out of pocket expenses. Medical, engineering, surveyors, etc. Who pays for them? If they only get paid in winning cases you risk them over egging their independent reports.

Then there’s the horrendous side litigation about costs. That’s a spin off. Nearly 10% of all hearings nowadays are about the validity of conditional fee agreements, the amount of uplift allowed, whether the adverse costs cover is voided by lawyers giving over optimistic estimates of the merits when they take out the cost protection cover.

And having an interest in the outcome gives a lawyer a direct conflict with the interests of his client.

There’s lots wrong with our courts and legal system. But it’s a paragon by comparison to England. No win no fee isn’t in the interests of anyone. Even an unregulated system like in USA where 50% of damages might get swallowed up. Who pays, well, we all pay, by higher insurance premiums, Doctors not taking on patients without checking litigation history. Obs & Gynae insurance almost impossible, making that care out of reach.

Thanks for that. I always did wonder, and now I know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A local couple on the wireless this morning saying that what they need are mirrors and traffic calming measures in that road and that at night cars are doing 100mph while overtaking. 

Edited by Roxanne
Spells
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roxanne said:

A local couple on the wireless this morning saying that what they need are mirrors and traffic calming measures in that road and that at night cars are doing 100mph while overtaking. 

Those cars overtaking at 100 mph must be quite something.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just remember this  when they now try to push anything climate change.

Just ignore them, the  power grab and tax increases.

The island makes not the slightest bit of difference to world climate.

This, the Rover's benches, the mystery prom spiral etc etc aren't just seemingly

local stupidity but probably demoralizing tactics to chip away at identity bit by bit,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John Wright said:

There is anecdotal evidence. It’s set out in the application. It’s a working farm. Not just cars going in and out. There’s a yard on the other side of the road.  The existing entrance marks a break in the tree tunnel. It’s scrubby pines and Hawthorn. 

The tree tunnel is also man planted, don’t forget. It’s not natural. 100 years ago someone planted that hedge.

None of that is anecdotal evidence of RTC's or near RTC's !

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, asitis said:

None of that is anecdotal evidence of RTC's or near RTC's !

It’s anecdotal, and it’s evidence. Have you any evidence there have been none?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Lagman said:

Just remember this  when they now try to push anything climate change.

Just ignore them, the  power grab and tax increases.

The island makes not the slightest bit of difference to world climate.

This, the Rover's benches, the mystery prom spiral etc etc aren't just seemingly

local stupidity but probably demoralizing tactics to chip away at identity bit by bit,

 

Climate change and the environment have been a cash cow for years for governments.

As for identity, I dread to think what identity the Douglas Promenade is being used to foist upon us.

  • Like 1
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...