NoTailT Posted December 20, 2022 Share Posted December 20, 2022 45 minutes ago, Asthehills said: I don’t see how it’s made any difference one way or another? Care to elaborate? It's called political will. Where there's a means there's a way. When you have your mouthpiece who spends most of their recent Island life berating everything the Isle of Man Government does where do you expect political will to try and overcome such issues? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted December 21, 2022 Share Posted December 21, 2022 (edited) 14 hours ago, NoTailT said: I was thinking that but opted to say I'd forgotten save myself looking like an idiot. I only remember it because the Douglas Motorboat & Sailing Club had it for a few years and spent ages refurbishing it, opening up the rooms and making the floors level. I think the back part was about half a storey different from the front. Because my father was a member I used to get dragged down with him to help. Edited December 21, 2022 by The Old Git Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 Anyone seen or heard any updates on this eyesore? I know @Chris Thomas promised an update. It's still there in it's embarrassing and sorry state. Should it not be the case that if planning is refused because the proposal doesn't meet the requirements of some dreamers that believe it should be restored to some former glory, but then none of the dreamers comes along to do such a thing, that planning should be granted to the original developer and their plan. This being on the basis that anything is better than nothing. Or should we just let places like the cosy nook and the Newsoms rot away for ever? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nellie Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 1 hour ago, Happier diner said: Anyone seen or heard any updates on this eyesore? I know @Chris Thomas promised an update. It's still there in it's embarrassing and sorry state. Should it not be the case that if planning is refused because the proposal doesn't meet the requirements of some dreamers that believe it should be restored to some former glory, but then none of the dreamers comes along to do such a thing, that planning should be granted to the original developer and their plan. This being on the basis that anything is better than nothing. Or should we just let places like the cosy nook and the Newsoms rot away for ever? https://services.gov.im/planningapplication/services/planning/planningapplicationdetails.iom?ApplicationReferenceNumber=22%2F00148%2FCON Appeal in Progress Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted June 14 Share Posted June 14 (edited) \oops, \newsons was not particularly pretty. \\\\\\\\\its only feature was the top floor hoist . That could be replicated in a new design. The area has been modernised, not any reason this could not be so? Politics, agrivation? Who knows? Edited June 14 by Kopek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 5 hours ago, Nellie said: https://services.gov.im/planningapplication/services/planning/planningapplicationdetails.iom?ApplicationReferenceNumber=22%2F00148%2FCON Appeal in Progress Thanks, however doesn’t give details on when the appeal hearing will actually be to hopefully get this eyesore removed 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nellie Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 4 hours ago, Banker said: Thanks, however doesn’t give details on when the appeal hearing will actually be to hopefully get this eyesore removed You're right, there is no indication of when the appeal will be heard, but there are dozens of documents to support the appeal. Masker, Guard and the other luddites have found an engineer who says the old warehouse, or whatever it is, can be saved. The owner's engineers say it can't. It seems to have become a bit of a test case for how much these people can interfere and frustrate other people's business and investment plans, and economic progress, in general. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 11 hours ago, Happier diner said: Should it not be the case that if planning is refused because the proposal doesn't meet the requirements of some dreamers that believe it should be restored to some former glory, but then none of the dreamers comes along to do such a thing, that planning should be granted to the original developer and their plan. This being on the basis that anything is better than nothing. Or should we just let places like the cosy nook and the Newsoms rot away for ever? That's exactly what shouldn't be done, because if developers know that planners have to give them whatever they want if the site looks bad enough, it will encourage them to litter the place with complete messes - with no guarantee that what they then build looks any better. That's if anything gets built anyway - some of the worst eyesores (bus station site, 'town square' for example) have had planning permission for years or even decades without any improvement. Alternatively introduce a law that parent are obliged to give their children whatever they want if they throw a big enough tantrum in public. If you're going to reward bad behaviour, you might as well be consistent. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted June 15 Share Posted June 15 7 hours ago, Roger Mexico said: That's exactly what shouldn't be done, because if developers know that planners have to give them whatever they want if the site looks bad enough, it will encourage them to litter the place with complete messes - with no guarantee that what they then build looks any better. That's if anything gets built anyway - some of the worst eyesores (bus station site, 'town square' for example) have had planning permission for years or even decades without any improvement. Alternatively introduce a law that parent are obliged to give their children whatever they want if they throw a big enough tantrum in public. If you're going to reward bad behaviour, you might as well be consistent. I never even insinuated that the developers had purposefully run down either building. I don't disagree with your point but you seem to have gone off at a tangent. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 Anyone heard anything on appeal date? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nellie Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 10 minutes ago, Banker said: Anyone heard anything on appeal date? Nothing on the planning website except an ever increasing pile of documents and 'evidence'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 12 minutes ago, Banker said: Anyone heard anything on appeal date? An appealing date is Feb 29th. Had that been my birthday... I'd be well under 20. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted September 22 Share Posted September 22 Just heard on Mannin line that appeal is being heard next week no doubt the NMM will be on to say it will never happen! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piebaps Posted September 22 Share Posted September 22 WTF is NMM? Its bad enough with 2112 and their foolishness without more starting. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted September 22 Share Posted September 22 31 minutes ago, piebaps said: WTF is NMM? Its bad enough with 2112 and their foolishness without more starting. Sorry Nations moaning mouthpiece aka 2112😀 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.