Now You See It - Magnificent - Soon You Won't:-(

[mojomonkey]

I'll accept that about the tree but the rest of the land really is just scrubland with some weeds growing on it. I'd seriously doubt that they contribute anything in terms of carbon dioxide processing. In my opinion it certainly doesn't add anything to the visual environment of the surrounding area. I presume that it must have had something built on it the past anyway, can anyone shed any light on that?

 

I'd rather see sites like this used than untouched green fields out in the countryside. I know people don't like change but you have to accept that people need homes.

[=^..^=]

They wil contribute next to nothing in regards to CO2 processing, and they won't house people but what they do is to be trees !

 

That site used to have CSL-DELTA the computer firm on it and that was part of the car park. For as long as I can remember the trees have been there but how long have they been there ? 50 years ? Maybe more. They are mature trees.

 

Dandara have plenty of places to build and plenty of places that don't involve cutting trees down.

 

I go past those trees a lot - and to be honest that corner would not be the same without them.

 

With a building there it would be just another street in the middle of no-wheresville.

 

Get some seats and put them under the trees - the view wouldn't be great (you could sit and ponder when the armoury was last used for its designated purpose) but it would be pretty much the same as the seats at the end of Athol Street.

 

Buildings come and go but trees take time to grow and mature.

[Gladys]

I don't think the site has been empty for that long, I have a vague recollection of Keig's being somewhere there.

 

Either way what was there before shouldn't colour our view of what should be there now.

 

I am with Mojo on this one (and other objections to building on apparent wasteland in already built up areas) and would rather see this being developed rather than an ever increasing creep into the real countryside.

 

There is derelict building upon building in Douglas that would benefit from a bit of development and that should be encouraged. But demolition and re-build has got to be more expensive for a developer than building on green field, so it is down to the govt. to come up with a plan which encourages brown field development.

 

Otherwise, in the long term, we can look forward to a decaying central Douglas with no easily acccessible green areas.

[Frances]

I remember Keigs on the site with a small car park at the sharp end of the plot - access won't be fun for 52 flats though assuming 1.5 car parking spaces per dwelling I just can't see how they could fit on the site unless multilevel carpark

[Bombay Bad Boy]

You are joking? nasty pokey little holes, if you think about it, they are pulling these types of hovels down all over the UK, yet the Isle Of Man thinks creating Ghettos is a good idea? strange, very strange.

Surely you mean "First-time buyer homes"

 

Seeing as land with residential planning permission goes at around £1m/acre, where else are they going to build but upwards?

 

Chavsberg don't do flatmates, but even if they did, you wouldn't fit many in places like this

[Celt]

You'll most probably find that Horitage Homes are applying for 52 flats expecting to be told that it's not acceptable but a lesser sum is. Going by their track record anyway.

 

Going to be fun watching them build at a major junction though

[catchy]

ripe for development there but keep the tree

[Speckled Frost]

Surely the answer is to build more treehouses.

 

Keep the trees, yet build more homes. Everyone's a winner

[Ripsaw]

Surely you mean "First-time buyer homes"

The smilie suggests a tongue in cheek comment, but just to clarify a point regarding design of First Time buyer Houses and Public Sector Houses.

 

DoLGE issues a 'rule book' of not inconsiderable weight that suppliments the standards that develops are already obliged to comply with. It insists on materials and construction methods etc. that exceed acceptable practice for private development, which add to the construction costs.

 

In the case of some new developments, (the one starting near me on Johnny Waterson Lane is such an example) the Government actually designed the properties and site layout, not the developers.

 

If First time buyers houses are 'small' and 'pokey' then there are as such with the full blessing of the Isle of Man Government.

 

Like it or hate it, developers will always build to the minimum permitted standard at the maximum permitted density in order to maximise profits. This practice is not exclusive to developers, it is business practice.

 

Buy a bag of chips if you want to see another example of capitalism in work.

 

I hate the way that housing has been priced in the recent years and the way that a building ammounts to nothing more than a number in the profit column, but until people come before profits that is how it will remain and those of us with children will contine to worry about future trends in many aspects of which housing is only one.

 

 

 

Sorry for wandering a bit, carry on...

[thebees]

My first house was tiny, but it had character and was practicle and served a purpose. These one roomed things they are throwing up atm have nothing about them, they will become ghettos. Look at the flats on the prom, they are minky, they have stains all down the front and are mostly owned by property investors and investment companies. The first time buyers houses in Anaghcoar are quite pleasant, and practicle. A pile of bedsits on a busy road isnt pleasant nor is it practicle.

 

The property situation over here has been dire for quite some time, building more FTB houses is good but it is not enough, what they need to do (oh how I love that expression) is hike up tax on rental income, restrict ownership to owner/occupier and compulsory purchase houses that are left vacant for 12 months. Bee MHK....

[Ripsaw]

The Plot in case is Private build as per post above, the developer will build the number of units at a density that Government permit and sell at a price that the buying public will pay.

 

If there isn't a Rental market, Buy to Let companies wouldn't buy them, if there wasn't the demand for accommodation or the price was too high then neither would individuals.

 

In both instances this would have consequences for the retail price and the size/quality of the properties and future development. Government have contributed towards 'panic' buying in a number of ways and the developers have benefited and continue to do so.

 

First time buyer grants are the pathetic method that Government chose to address the situation and that is a cost borne by all us who pay into the tax kitty. Worst is that they are a cost that is by no means a temporary measure.

[matty]

My first house was tiny, but it had character and was practicle and served a purpose. These one roomed things they are throwing up atm have nothing about them, they will become ghettos. Look at the flats on the prom, they are minky, they have stains all down the front and are mostly owned by property investors and investment companies. The first time buyers houses in Anaghcoar are quite pleasant, and practicle. A pile of bedsits on a busy road isnt pleasant nor is it practicle.

 

The property situation over here has been dire for quite some time, building more FTB houses is good but it is not enough, what they need to do (oh how I love that expression) is hike up tax on rental income, restrict ownership to owner/occupier and compulsory purchase houses that are left vacant for 12 months. Bee MHK....

 

 

With you on this one, would like to try and buy a house to get on the "ladder", but am also aware that prices of property can also go down - doin't want to buy a house that will be worth half of what I'm paying for it in 5 years time.

 

I think (as also stated on this thread) that anyone who owns more than one property should be taxed more than enough on any poerperty they are not living in, to make it more financially viable for them to sell the property to bring the house prices down to a more realistic level here.

 

I'm totally disgusted that people can be in a financial position over here to own more homes than they can actually live in - there is absolutely no excusable logic for being in a position to own more than one home.

 

If you can afford more than one home, then I think it would be a great idea to pay at least 20% of the mortgageable value of the "second" home per year into a housing fund for the locals who aren't in a position to buy their own.