Ativa Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 Has anyone been down there since this photo was taken at lunchtime? Photo credit “Mandy May” on facebook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 1 minute ago, Ativa said: Has anyone been down there since this photo was taken at lunchtime? Photo credit “Mandy May” on facebook If you go onto the sheds website you can register to get access to their webcam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passing Time Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 2 minutes ago, Ativa said: Has anyone been down there since this photo was taken at lunchtime? Photo credit “Mandy May” on facebook One man and his brush - enthusiastic or what... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Lamb Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 4 minutes ago, Passing Time said: One man and his brush - enthusiastic or what... Silly Cnut 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 Residents are concerned! https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/laxey-landslide-could-lead-to-legal-action/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 36 minutes ago, Banker said: Residents are concerned! https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/laxey-landslide-could-lead-to-legal-action/ "Could" 😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x-in-man Posted March 23, 2023 Author Share Posted March 23, 2023 51 minutes ago, Passing Time said: One man and his brush - enthusiastic or what... Probably DoI worker on overtime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeCurious Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 17 minutes ago, x-in-man said: Probably DoI worker on overtime. And danger money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hedgehog Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 1 hour ago, x-in-man said: Probably DoI worker on overtime. It was funny yesterday watching one man in his roadsweeper by the Termy on Douglas prom sweeping up seaweed as waves crashed over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 Is this an approximation of the Readers Digest version of events: 1. There was a building at the end of the prom. There was a landslip behind it. The building was abandoned. 2. There was a planning application for four houses. It was rejected by Planning - slope stability was mentioned. 3, There was an appeal. The Independent Inspector rejected the appeal - slope stability was mentioned. 3. The appeal was appealed. The Minister (Geoffrey Boot) approved the application - saying that at some time in the far past a planning application had been approved and therefore everything is ok and the current state of the slope is irrelevant (actually, that is just my interpretation of his words). 4. Someone decided to go ahead with the project and got a digger on site - possibly with the intention of cutting back the lower face with the intention of building a retaining wall. 5. There was a landslip. Well, that is just supposition. Note that when Ministers get something right they are very keen for their name to be highlighted in the press, stating that they were personally the only ones who could have made it happen. But when something goes wrong it suddenly becomes the responsibility of the unnamed Minister. The question is - if someone gets sued I assume it would never be The Minister (Boot) but instead The Government - who, as we all know, have an unlimited amount of tax-payer's money to spend on legal services to protect themselves against the tax-payer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 Just now, Two-lane said: Is this an approximation of the Readers Digest version of events: 1. There was a building at the end of the prom. There was a landslip behind it. The building was abandoned. 2. There was a planning application for four houses. It was rejected by Planning - slope stability was mentioned. 3, There was an appeal. The Independent Inspector rejected the appeal - slope stability was mentioned. 3. The appeal was appealed. The Minister (Geoffrey Boot) approved the application - saying that at some time in the far past a planning application had been approved and therefore everything is ok and the current state of the slope is irrelevant (actually, that is just my interpretation of his words). 4. Someone decided to go ahead with the project and got a digger on site - possibly with the intention of cutting back the lower face with the intention of building a retaining wall. 5. There was a landslip. Well, that is just supposition. Note that when Ministers get something right they are very keen for their name to be highlighted in the press, stating that they were personally the only ones who could have made it happen. But when something goes wrong it suddenly becomes the responsibility of the unnamed Minister. The question is - if someone gets sued I assume it would never be The Minister (Boot) but instead The Government - who, as we all know, have an unlimited amount of tax-payer's money to spend on legal services to protect themselves against the tax-payer. I doubt very much you can sue the government for granting planning permission Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 Was the former ministers relationship with the applicant revealed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 21 minutes ago, Two-lane said: Is this an approximation of the Readers Digest version of events: 1. There was a building at the end of the prom. There was a landslip behind it. The building was abandoned. 2. There was a planning application for four houses. It was rejected by Planning - slope stability was mentioned. 3, There was an appeal. The Independent Inspector rejected the appeal - slope stability was mentioned. 3. The appeal was appealed. The Minister (Geoffrey Boot) approved the application - saying that at some time in the far past a planning application had been approved and therefore everything is ok and the current state of the slope is irrelevant (actually, that is just my interpretation of his words). 4. Someone decided to go ahead with the project and got a digger on site - possibly with the intention of cutting back the lower face with the intention of building a retaining wall. 5. There was a landslip. Well, that is just supposition. Note that when Ministers get something right they are very keen for their name to be highlighted in the press, stating that they were personally the only ones who could have made it happen. But when something goes wrong it suddenly becomes the responsibility of the unnamed Minister. The question is - if someone gets sued I assume it would never be The Minister (Boot) but instead The Government - who, as we all know, have an unlimited amount of tax-payer's money to spend on legal services to protect themselves against the tax-payer. 1, 2 , 3 , 3, 4, 5, ??? shouldn't it be 1 to 6 ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omobono Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 Just had Daffers on the TV look north slagging everyone off with apparently no one in government wanting to help , don't see what they can do except have a full H and S investigation , and see what the conditions relating to planning consent were , just hope everyone is insured as it looks like a costly time for someone , it will be the usual lessons have been learned ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted March 23, 2023 Share Posted March 23, 2023 34 minutes ago, Omobono said: Just had Daffers on the TV look north slagging everyone off with apparently no one in government wanting to help , don't see what they can do except have a full H and S investigation , and see what the conditions relating to planning consent were , just hope everyone is insured as it looks like a costly time for someone , it will be the usual lessons have been learned ! Probably more a tort matter between neighbours than a planning matter. Slope stability may be a consideration for planning but ultimately it's for the owner/contractor to undertake the works safely and without impact to the neighboring property. 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.