lard Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 I usually take my new from Manx Radio, manxradio.com, iomtoday.co.im (IoM Newaspapers) but was interested to read this on Manx.net about Derbyhaven: Derbyhaven: More Shocks! Weren't there a number of (Identical) petitions to Tynwald this year about all this? I don't think Tynwald will consider the petitions because it is not as if the matter has exhausted all other avenues of action, but it shows the feeling some people have. Edited to add the following link to the Derbyhaven action website: Derbyhaven.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illiam Dhone Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 Seems that all property developers here know all the tricks. Constant pressure, constant changing of plans..and finally something that they want but none of us do! The planning system fails us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 FFS you lot, the man is a multi-millionnaire, he didn't get there by being nice and honest. Derbyhaven????? he is losing the plot IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobe Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 It seems unbelievable that the Golf Links Hotel can't make it self pay, and has apparently lost upto £200,000 per year. With the popularity of Golfing Holidays, and the gorgeous scenery on the course, it can only be mismangement surely. That and incompetance, I spent a weekend there last year, had a great time, and despite enjoying a three course meal, and drinking copious amounts of alcohol, we were only asked to pay for the room. I considered pointing out the error, but then I remembered who owned it, and thought, some you win. Time Share apartments my arse. The dealings over the mansion house/housing estate are farcical, and I applaud the derbyhaven residents for standing upto be counted. One does have the sinking feeling however, that they are on a hiding to nothing. All power to the residents, and fingers crossed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 No wonder it's skint when people steal food and drink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illiam Dhone Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 FFS you lot, the man is a multi-millionnaire Is there any real evidence of any succesful business anywhere? There is a difference between acting as if and being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 (1) property developers here know all the tricks. Constant pressure, constant changing of plans(2)..and finally something that they want but none of us do! (3) The planning system fails us all.. (1) Most judgements and tribunerals have rights to appeal against the initial decision. In 'people' cases the event has usually occured in the past so the scope for introducing new evidence is unlikely, although it does happen. A judgement can be appealed by either party. In 'planning' cases the event is yet to happen so the information can be changed prior to a resubmission (as opposed to an appeal). If he Planning Department say no and specify that the development is too densly packed there are no tricks involved by undesifying* the plans for the reapplication. (*made up word) (2) We who already have homes? or we 'anyone in the world who isn't a developer' ? Bear in mind that new houses are selling. A few new apartments have struggled but the market is still moving. There are also long lists of people seeking public sector and first time buyer houses. The recent personal tax changes and the 'Freedom to Flourish' exercise are also likely to create demand for new housing stock, so there are local who want to see more houses built and the market is being stimulated to create demand for higher value private housing. Saying 'none of us' and 'we' are generic terms that don't accurately reflect the subject. (3) The planning system works by guidelines and has many good points as well as some failures. The all Island Strategic plan was published in draft form in 2001. The failure to draw up the final version in a timely fashion is a failure by the responsible people as this will form part of up to date guidelines for the Planners to reference. The Government identified a need for 500 new properties per annum years ago which hasn't been realised. They have failed to meet their own predicted requirements. The Government and commisioners etc. designate which areas are of 'scenic or natural' beauty and which areas are not suitable for development, they are failing to protect the land. The Government also define the planning and appeal process. If planning permit unlawful development we residents can appeal, if planning deny lawful developments the deevelopers can appeal. Developers develop, just as supermarket shelf stackers stack supermarket shelves. As simple as it sounds, the Government has to be more transparent with what the Island needs, how it is going to be achieved and where it can be achieved, then make sure that the rules are respected. (The last paragraph could be applied to planning, transport, road safety, education, grant schemes, etc., etc., etc...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lard Posted July 16, 2006 Author Share Posted July 16, 2006 Removed because my post went off topic and the above is good. My post will save for another time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 (1) property developers here know all the tricks. Constant pressure, constant changing of plans(2)..and finally something that they want but none of us do! (3) The planning system fails us all.. (1) Most judgements and tribunerals have rights to appeal against the initial decision. In 'people' cases the event has usually occured in the past so the scope for introducing new evidence is unlikely, although it does happen. A judgement can be appealed by either party. In 'planning' cases the event is yet to happen so the information can be changed prior to a resubmission (as opposed to an appeal). If he Planning Department say no and specify that the development is too densly packed there are no tricks involved by undesifying* the plans for the reapplication. (*made up word) (2) We who already have homes? or we 'anyone in the world who isn't a developer' ? Bear in mind that new houses are selling. A few new apartments have struggled but the market is still moving. There are also long lists of people seeking public sector and first time buyer houses. The recent personal tax changes and the 'Freedom to Flourish' exercise are also likely to create demand for new housing stock, so there are local who want to see more houses built and the market is being stimulated to create demand for higher value private housing. Saying 'none of us' and 'we' are generic terms that don't accurately reflect the subject. (3) The planning system works by guidelines and has many good points as well as some failures. The all Island Strategic plan was published in draft form in 2001. The failure to draw up the final version in a timely fashion is a failure by the responsible people as this will form part of up to date guidelines for the Planners to reference. The Government identified a need for 500 new properties per annum years ago which hasn't been realised. They have failed to meet their own predicted requirements. The Government and commisioners etc. designate which areas are of 'scenic or natural' beauty and which areas are not suitable for development, they are failing to protect the land. The Government also define the planning and appeal process. If planning permit unlawful development we residents can appeal, if planning deny lawful developments the deevelopers can appeal. Developers develop, just as supermarket shelf stackers stack supermarket shelves. As simple as it sounds, the Government has to be more transparent with what the Island needs, how it is going to be achieved and where it can be achieved, then make sure that the rules are respected. (The last paragraph could be applied to planning, transport, road safety, education, grant schemes, etc., etc., etc...) Very well put. One thing that some people don't realise is that over here the planning system has third party rights of appeal (i.e. anyone with sufficient interest in a planning application can appeal against its approval or refusal). In the UK third parties don't have any right of appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lard Posted July 16, 2006 Author Share Posted July 16, 2006 The matter is being discussed on Manx Radio Sunday Opinion just now. Very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Just Mount Murray all over again, just a different wealthy 'chancer'. Embarrasing really that the Gov and departments allow these people to walk all over them !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 RAAAAAA! That capitalist twot Lacey spilt the hotel into about 20 companies, ofc it would be losing money somewhere. None of these scammers companies ever make any money, they would have to pay tax then wouldn't they. While I am on about stuff like this, if the scroats that own the Court House cannot afford to look after it, then why dont the government slap a compulsory purchase order on it and sell it to someone who could look after it? I am quite sure that people would volunteer to help clear it up & make something of it....the alternative, more luxury appts, or a poxy office or 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illiam Dhone Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 As simple as it sounds, the Government has to be more transparent with what the Island needs, how it is going to be achieved and where it can be achieved, then make sure that the rules are respected. That is my point really - no one can fault your description of the 'form', but the 'substance' is often that things are got around by those with money and clout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 the 'substance' is often that things are got around by those with money and clout. Because they have money? or because they have the drive to be sucessful in their aims? When this is all over another situation will arise in another location and once again a residents comittee will be formed to voice their discontent. Just as has happened numerous times before. Now if there was an 'All Island' residents comittee that shared information and fought for and with each other then those with the wealth might not have so much clout against better organised and supported causes. Then again, the Government could simply extract hands from orifices* and put them to use drawing up a proper All Island Plan. * pockets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copycat Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Manx Independant reports that the planning appeal by the residents of Derbyhaven has been put back until June 19. But it doesn't say why. Does someone who knows please post up the reason - thks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.