Luxury Apartments Coming Soon To Onchan Village Centre

[ans]

From the "Urban Dictionary"

 

teh: "An expression used by idiots to helpfully identify themselves to other idiots."

 

Curiously, Mission has used it 130 times...

[Charles Flynn]

Is there a link to view applications on-line?

 

I am not aware of one.

 

You will need to go to the Commissioners Office or to DOLGE, at Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas

 

These views have been submitted by the Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside & Environment on this application www.spmce.com

 

 

06/02245/B Construction of 257 dwellings comprising 2, 3, 4 & 5 bed properties and apartments with associated infrastructure, landscaping and new access of Douglas Road and Abbots Way, Land Between Douglas Road And Crossag Road Ballasalla MALEW

This proposal seems to have had a long gestation period? The land is all zoned, in the sense that it is notated as “Residential” in Fig.2 of the SOUTHERN SECTOR PLAN Circ.7/91. However a caveat is specified in Policy S/RES/P2 (on page 23) to the effect that no additional development will be permitted in, inter-alia, Ballasalla, until a local planning STUDY has been undertaken.

Some few years ago we were notified that a particular new member of staff had been taken on to undertake this Study and our views were sought. Nothing further has been heard.

Unless the vast amount of paper accompanying this application can be said to constitute this Study, the Society must STRONGLY OBJECT to the release of this land as being PREMATURE.

 

 

Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside & Environment

FOUNDED 1938 REGD. CHARITY (IOM) No.391

[Manxman27]

From iomonline.co.im Latest Planning Applications

[Charles Flynn]

The detailed plans still have to viewed at the office but of course you can get brief details from this website or the SPMCE comments at www.spmce.com

[copycat]

but thius thread is abvout ONCHAN who cares a wot about Ballasalla and empty fields more concern about mature trees coming down just so a developer can do aqn extension.

[Lonan3]

but thius thread is abvout ONCHAN who cares a wot about Ballasalla and empty fields more concern about mature trees coming down just so a developer can do aqn extension.

Why don't you just piss off? Go and hug a tree or something.

[Charles Flynn]

Trolls permitting we do Onchan as well at The Soc Preservation of Manx Countryside & Environment e.g.

 

 

07/00027/B Conversion and extension to building to create 15 luxury apartments with associated car parking / garaging and erection of a gate lodge, Coutts House Summerhill Road ONCHAN

There is a basic consideration here which has to be faced: is it more important to preserve jobs/employment in Onchan or is the need for flats such as to override this? It is noticeable that the applicants seem to have already settled this argument by proceeding with the development. This is very wrong..

Having raised the issue, I have to admit that the Society doesn’t have the answer to this basic question and must leave it to the Planning Committee but we do STRONGLY FEEL that this must be properly debated.

On the details submitted, it seems to be yet another blatant attempt to squash-in every possible dwellings and the extensions, garages, gate-house etc. will all have an effect on the TREES to which the Society OBJECTS. Also the idea of fronting Governor’s Road with the rear elevations (roofs mostly) of garages, seems distasteful. There is no ‘Section’ drawing, as far as we can see, which properly indicated how much of this handsome building will remain visible from the road. The low roof will be a great temptation to vandals.

The Society is UNCONVINCED by this application.

[mojomonkey]

Trolls permitting we do Onchan as well at The Soc Preservation of Manx Countryside & Environment e.g.

 

 

07/00027/B Conversion and extension to building to create 15 luxury apartments with associated car parking / garaging and erection of a gate lodge, Coutts House Summerhill Road ONCHAN

There is a basic consideration here which has to be faced: is it more important to preserve jobs/employment in Onchan or is the need for flats such as to override this? It is noticeable that the applicants seem to have already settled this argument by proceeding with the development. This is very wrong..

Having raised the issue, I have to admit that the Society doesn’t have the answer to this basic question and must leave it to the Planning Committee but we do STRONGLY FEEL that this must be properly debated.

On the details submitted, it seems to be yet another blatant attempt to squash-in every possible dwellings and the extensions, garages, gate-house etc. will all have an effect on the TREES to which the Society OBJECTS. Also the idea of fronting Governor’s Road with the rear elevations (roofs mostly) of garages, seems distasteful. There is no ‘Section’ drawing, as far as we can see, which properly indicated how much of this handsome building will remain visible from the road. The low roof will be a great temptation to vandals.

The Society is UNCONVINCED by this application.

 

Let me know when your ivory towers are finished.

[Charles Flynn]

Sorry Mojo. I know it looks a bit like that but I don't write this stuff from SPMCE. Our planning officer, Mr Bleasdale, does!!

It is then agreed with a committee who usually accepts it. At least it gets some attention! There are views expressed on something like 20 applications weekly which does take quite a bit of time from volunteers. Mr Bleasdale is retired and has over 40 years experience of this work.

 

Over the years I have found planners have a view on most things. If I had written it I would not have expressed the opinions which are debateable but just kept to the planning matters. But everyone is entitled to write as they wish within the law.

There is no doubt that political/commercial views do have a role to play in decisions.

 

I have put this on here to see if people on the Forum have any particular view on this, whether they agree with our submission. I am finding great difficulty in obtaining this because no one is really interested in planning matters until it is on their doorstep. Then once the threat is over they go to sleep again. So usually it is left to the SPMCE , through our Planning sub-committee,to make comments week after week with very little input from the general public. Some 50 or so applications are looked at. If we want our island to be destroyed we are really going the right way about it.

 

Of course when you make comments on planning applications you always run the risk of upsetting someone. Everyone has an axe to grind so it is not for the faint-hearted. If you don't like our views you are very welcome to express your own!

At least this would help the Planning Committee of Government to come to decisions which have real support from the people.

 

I am always amazed at planning appeals. They are usually attended by a small group with a particular point of view because they have the time to attend. Working people, young people are completely absent and unaware of the decisions made for them. There must be a better way of doing this.

 

If anyone is interested in doing volunary work on planning I would be delighted to talk to them. Please pm me.

[TerryMcCann]

but thius thread is abvout ONCHAN who cares a wot about Ballasalla and empty fields more concern about mature trees coming down just so a developer can do aqn extension.

Why don't you just piss off? Go and hug a tree or something.

 

I'd much rather he hugged a dictionary. All that was missing was the obligatory 'teh'

[mojomonkey]

Sorry Mojo. I know it looks a bit like that but I don't write this stuff from SPMCE. Our planning officer, Mr Bleasdale, does!!

It is then agreed with a committee who usually accepts it. At least it gets some attention! There are views expressed on something like 20 applications weekly which does take quite a bit of time from volunteers. Mr Bleasdale is retired and has over 40 years experience of this work.

 

Over the years I have found planners have a view on most things. If I had written it I would not have expressed the opinions which are debateable but just kept to the planning matters. But everyone is entitled to write as they wish within the law.

There is no doubt that political/commercial views do have a role to play in decisions.

 

I have put this on here to see if people on the Forum have any particular view on this, whether they agree with our submission. I am finding great difficulty in obtaining this because no one is really interested in planning matters until it is on their doorstep. Then once the threat is over they go to sleep again. So usually it is left to the SPMCE , through our Planning sub-committee,to make comments week after week with very little input from the general public. Some 50 or so applications are looked at. If we want our island to be destroyed we are really going the right way about it.

 

Of course when you make comments on planning applications you always run the risk of upsetting someone. Everyone has an axe to grind so it is not for the faint-hearted. If you don't like our views you are very welcome to express your own!

At least this would help the Planning Committee of Government to come to decisions which have real support from the people.

 

I am always amazed at planning appeals. They are usually attended by a small group with a particular point of view because they have the time to attend. Working people, young people are completely absent and unaware of the decisions made for them. There must be a better way of doing this.

 

If anyone is interested in doing volunary work on planning I would be delighted to talk to them. Please pm me.

 

 

I'm not knocking anyone who wants to get involved in the planning process and would actively encourage them. I just think it would be much better if SPMCE's comments were less "holier than thou". I’ve read numerous comments and many of them discuss issues that are simply not material planning considerations.

 

I agree with your comments about planning appeals.

[Declan]

Charles, what's this organisation you are talking about. They appear rather sinister. The tone in the piece you've quoted, is quite nasty, as if although unelected and self-appointed, they feel their pronouncements should be taken as the voice of the Manx people.

[thesultanofsheight]

I have to admit that the Society doesn’t have the answer to this basic question and must leave it to the Planning Committee but we do STRONGLY FEEL that this must be properly debated.

 

Also the idea of fronting Governor’s Road with the rear elevations (roofs mostly) of garages, seems distasteful. There is no ‘Section’ drawing, as far as we can see, which properly indicated how much of this handsome building will remain visible from the road. The low roof will be a great temptation to vandals.

 

The Society is UNCONVINCED by this application.

 

Seems to me that someone has his head up his arse (not you I accept Charles) if they think this sort of holier than thou attitude might actually be successful in changing anything. What sort of total wally believes he speaks exclusively for "society"?

 

I can't actually think of a better use of this site - of all the apartment developments proposed this would seem to be the most appropriate use of an existing site and the most sympathetic change of use. Onchan is dead in terms of businesses. It is now a commuter village which is empty between 9 and 5. No new businesses are going to go there as are not even any shops there any more - I see even Robinsons and the Chemist have now closed.

 

If you were a banking / finance business such as Coutts what are you going to do to eat or entertain clients - nip out and buy a sandwich on Corkills forecourt. Not very business like!

 

A new apartment complex would appear to be best use of the site in this instance.

[Charles Flynn]

I am sorry to hear this. The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside & Environments. Peter Kelly is the President. I am the Chairman.

 

The comments are those of our Planning Officer, Ian Bleasdale.

 

I agree they are too political but that is his style. I have told him this on numerous occasions. In no way do we feel we are speaking for the IOM.

 

I shall bring this to his attention and ask him to refrain from expressing his own opinions on behalf of others.

[thesultanofsheight]

I am sorry to hear this.

 

I'm all for political lobbying and opposing new developments as there are far too many apartment blocks - they're popping up like mushrooms.

 

But any objection has to be credible otherwise its a waste of effort given the legal and planning advisers these developers employ. I can just see them laughing out loud around a table at that one, which makes a mockery of other more reasonable objections others may choose to make.