Jump to content

Barber blocks swimming pool


hissingsid
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Harry Lamb said:

If they want to build it at no cost to the taxpayer, it seems outrageous that the board of a loss-making public pool can successfully interfere. Your opinion as to the need is irrelevant - no one has asked you to pay, or to use it. The stuff about impact on the area is laughable: it's next to the camp, for God's sake, and opposite a Dandara estate, where a slaughterhouse would raise the tone.

What Dandara estate?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

Now they can put 50 houses up no problem so planning considerations certainly do change. 

More whataboutery.

6 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

So your inverse snobbery about KWC does not apply. It was intended to be built by a charity to cover costs and make a bit of a profit.

It was intended to replace KWC's existing swimming pool and KWC pupils would have had first dibs. The rest is waffle.

The planning documents also show just how massively out of keeping with the local area the proposal was- which is why it got rejected.

Let's see if they try and develop it somewhere else, where it would meet planning considerations. Bet you they don't.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

The nearby registered buildings being presumably the college upon whose land this was to built? She's off her head.

If they're looking to prevent an "adverse effect" on the college buildings then they're several decades too late. The hotch potch of poorly built flat roofed extensions and other buildings on the approach has done a good job of that for donkey's years.

Edited by A fool and his money.....
Poor grammar due to state school education.
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

I think he means Shaven Haven Homes 

4 minutes ago, forestboy said:

The Meadows development by Haven Homes Ltd  off Victoria Road. 

I thought so. It's really quite horrible in there. Might actually be worse than the hideousness of Reayrt Mie.

3 minutes ago, A fool and his money..... said:

And they're looking to prevent an "adverse effect" on the college buildings then they're several decades too late. The hotch potch of poorly built flat roofed extensions and other buildings on the approach has done a good job of that for donkey's years.

I'm glad someone has mentioned this. There is a host of junk on that site. 

Edited by TheTeapot
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

I thought so. It's really quite horrible in there.

Up to £400Ks worth of horrible as you go through. It’s amazing they got planning permission for that on the approach to Ronaldsway as for years they blocked any form of development even if it was a conservatory or an extra bedroom anywhere near the approach. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

Yes just like Newsons. To protect a building that’s been falling down for almost a century as it’s of such cultural significance. 

Newson's was recommended for rejection because, and I quote, "the application fails to demonstrate that any meaningful repair or maintenance has been undertaken by the owner since 2016. Any argument for the loss of the building due to its condition must be mindful of this evidence."

So you can't deliberately let a building fall into disrepair and you can't build a 36ft-high building right between a registered building and a housing estate. Whatever is the world coming to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

Newson's was recommended for rejection because, and I quote, "the application fails to demonstrate that any meaningful repair or maintenance has been undertaken by the owner since 2016. Any argument for the loss of the building due to its condition must be mindful of this evidence."

So you can't deliberately let a building fall into disrepair and you can't build a 36ft-high building right between a registered building and a housing estate. Whatever is the world coming to.

The building has been in disrepair since about 1920. One of the buildings isn’t even a building as the 1920 picture shows. How are the current owners who have owned it for about 3 years to blame for the disrepair of a unit part of which disappeared around 100 years ago?

E96BFCD6-D62A-4ED0-A958-31EBEFBD5157.jpeg

Edited by offshoremanxman
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ringy Rose said:

Newson's was recommended for rejection because, and I quote, "the application fails to demonstrate that any meaningful repair or maintenance has been undertaken by the owner since 2016. Any argument for the loss of the building due to its condition must be mindful of this evidence."

So you can't deliberately let a building fall into disrepair and you can't build a 36ft-high building right between a registered building and a housing estate. Whatever is the world coming to.

Probably why DFE , DBC & chief minister are supporting appeal then! Let’s see barber overturn that one

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

Up to £400Ks worth of horrible as you go through. It’s amazing they got planning permission for that on the approach to Ronaldsway as for years they blocked any form of development even if it was a conservatory or an extra bedroom anywhere near the approach. 

Wonder if Hartford will get planning for their proposed development just up the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Banker said:

Probably why DFE , DBC & chief minister are supporting appeal then! Let’s see barber overturn that one

If an independent planning inspector recommends the appeal be upheld then I wouldn't have a problem.

I think people should try and read the planning report for the KWC pool, rather than a press release from the losing party.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Wonder if Hartford will get planning for their proposed development just up the road.

I’m sure they will. I bet Ocean Ford are holding out on the old airport garage site too. That carpark at the back is massive. It would make a great Tescos Local. Which makes this whole situation around this swimming pool look ridiculous. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

I’m sure they will. I bet Ocean Ford are holding out on the old airport garage site too. That carpark at the back is massive. It would make a great Tescos Local. Which makes this whole situation around this swimming pool look ridiculous. 

A few years ago there was an attempt to get a Tesco Metro at Callows Yard. Can't say I was a fan of that proposal, parking would obviously have been a challenge, but the main reason it got turned down was licensing. Castletown had 'too many alcohol licences already' apparently. Since then there have been 4 alcohol licences issued in Castletown (3 active), and if the Bushy's thing happens there will be another one. Things like this make me extremely suspicious of the true motivations behind some of these decisions.

  • Thanks 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

×
×
  • Create New...