Boo Gay'n Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Here’s another story featuring wee Mr Whataperson, known fondly as Spuan Juan. When he’s not a boozin’ he’s a plottin’. The story has been a constant topic in the shipping sector for the last couple of weeks because it involves one of our own, Hamish Ross. Most of you will know the old Liverpool Uni Marine Research Station in Port Erin. Hamish has been working for a couple of years on a fantastic plan to bring the building back to life, with a variety of uses which will be a boost for the economy of the South, if not the Island. It got to planning permission stage, and bar one or two quibbles about a car park, all looked well. Until, Spuan Juan, so the story goes, got the whole thing blocked in the Council of Ministers. Nobody can work out why, Hamish is furious and we lose a fantastic business venture. What is going on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) Who needs manxyleaks? Edited July 12, 2014 by woolley 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey boy Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Bit vague isn't it yessir? What are the variety of uses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Monkeyboy the plan has been widely reported, you could Google. Do you know Juan' s reasons Boo Gay'n? I thought the Rushen MHKs were all behind the scheme, can we assume the other to switched or were they outvoted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alibaba Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 I thought PE commissioners were against it. As Declan pointed out in the democracy thread they're against everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossils Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 I thought PE commissioners were against it. As Declan pointed out in the democracy thread they're against everything. that doesn't involve organised golfing holidays. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Gay'n Posted July 12, 2014 Author Share Posted July 12, 2014 Monkeyboy the plan has been widely reported, you could Google. Do you know Juan' s reasons Boo Gay'n? I thought the Rushen MHKs were all behind the scheme, can we assume the other to switched or were they outvoted? No idea Declan, I'm only saying what the skeet is. Who knows what goes on the Council chamber! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craggy_steve Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Monkeyboy the plan has been widely reported, you could Google. Do you know Juan' s reasons Boo Gay'n? I thought the Rushen MHKs were all behind the scheme, can we assume the other to switched or were they outvoted? No idea Declan, I'm only saying what the skeet is. Who knows what goes on the Council chamber! Change of heart due to the unpopular parking proposals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alibaba Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 There's a huge amount of wasteland out at the end there, populated by a pair of geese and some seagulls. I don't see what the problem with sticking a car park there is. Someone wants to do something useful with the building, rather than just turn it into 'luxury' flats like the rest of Port Erin. Let them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizo Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Not seen the actual plans but what i've read the parking was an issue, must admit tearing up the green land out there for some car parking does piss me off. When the land upto seagull island is complete waste land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alibaba Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Oh right, were they planning on ripping up the grass out front for the car park? They shouldn't do that. There is a massive bit off to the seaward side for a car park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizo Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Oh right, were they planning on ripping up the grass out front for the car park? They shouldn't do that. There is a massive bit off to the seaward side for a car park. As i said not seen the plans, but was reading about the car parking issues in an article on IOMtoday, just tried using the search function to find said article but if you can find it your a better man than me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizo Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Alibaba, found this http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/business/port-erin-commissioner-against-sea-breezes-plan-1-6672192 one of the comments by Norbury explains the car parking issue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alibaba Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Right. Ok, thanks. I I agree with him then, there is no need to rip up the grassy area and shelter. Can they not just refuse tat little bit of the plan and say go ahead with the rest then ta? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Right. Ok, thanks. I I agree with him then, there is no need to rip up the grassy area and shelter. Can they not just refuse tat little bit of the plan and say go ahead with the rest then ta? >Can they not just refuse tat little bit of the plan and say go ahead with the rest then ta? The developers (Sea Breezes Properties Ltd) "haven't demonstrated sufficient car parking provision to be laid out in a visually acceptable manner at this prominent and sensitive location. Accordingly the scheme with the aims for the site set out in the Area Plan for the south 2012". So says Alan Langton the planning inspector. http://www.gov.im/planningapplication/services/planning/planningapplicationdetails.iom?ApplicationReferenceNumber=13/00459/A Cheeky b@stards are trying to use existing parking for their hotel customers/staff; so the general public won't be able to park there on account of it always being full. Currently it's an excellent place for vermin hunting by the way! In other words the developer is trying to maximise the space for building rather than provision for car parking (an obvious necessity for a hotel/restaurant). They could provide underground parking, but that would increase costs and reduce returns which is why the developer is reticent to exercise that option. They'll probably come back with a revised plan (or plans) until it's passed. Once the plans are accepted and the facility built, the developer can then sell on and let someone else sort out the problems. So best to get the problems addressed before building works commence. In my view, the planners have got this one right. TBT. 1 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.