yorik Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 22 minutes ago, Mercenary said: I doubt both of these - DOI have little influence as no real change to the roads & doesn't seem something planning would typically get involved with, whereas DHSC need to license the Nursery & access road. Raised at requisition meeting. Requirement under the planning approval before nursery would be granted its licence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 3 minutes ago, yorik said: Raised at requisition meeting. Requirement under the planning approval before nursery would be granted its licence License from DHSC or DEFA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 17 minutes ago, Mercenary said: DEFA ? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred the shred Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 What have DEFA got to do with roads ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 54 minutes ago, Mercenary said: License from DHSC or DEFA? Nursery has to be licenced by DHSC and they are refusing to do so because of the lack of a pedestrian crossing as specified in the original planning (a DEFA matter). I discussed this earlier in the topic with links and swearing. Of course once even this completely unnecessary and unplanned crossing is installed, there's no reason why the DHSC won't still refuse permission out of sheer spite, given that that appears to be their only motivation so far. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 8 hours ago, Fred the shred said: What have DEFA got to do with roads ? The state of the main road in PSM means they are classing it as agricultural land now and are paying DOI grants so it can be "set aside" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 1 hour ago, Blade Runner said: The state of the main road in PSM means they are classing it as agricultural land now and are paying DOI grants so it can be "set aside" Michelle Haywood is planting stuff in the potholes. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 3 hours ago, Blade Runner said: The state of the main road in PSM means they are classing it as agricultural land now and are paying DOI grants so it can be "set aside" Recently been on some of the roads in Uk and you could plant crops in some of the holes never mind daffodils ! 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 12 hours ago, John Wright said: ? 11 hours ago, Roger Mexico said: Nursery has to be licenced by DHSC and they are refusing to do so because of the lack of a pedestrian crossing as specified in the original planning (a DEFA matter). I discussed this earlier in the topic with links and swearing. Of course once even this completely unnecessary and unplanned crossing is installed, there's no reason why the DHSC won't still refuse permission out of sheer spite, given that that appears to be their only motivation so far. That's really my point, it all comes back to DHSC (and presumably Hooper), holding back the licence for the nursery. Saying this is because they haven't met the planning conditions relating to the road is a distraction and trying to provide cover - neither DOI or DEFA (planning) have undertaken any kind of intervention and I find it hard to believe that DOI would insist on the temporary traffic lights. It feels pretty petty on DHSC's behalf, and whilst I understand there are genuine concerns around the access, these are not unmanageable and Braddan have acted in good faith as DHSC supported the original planning application. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarndyce Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 14 minutes ago, Mercenary said: Braddan have acted in good faith as DHSC supported the original planning application. I suspect that things are not quite as straightforward as this sounds - see further up the thread (especially Roger’s posts and links). As for Braddan acting in “good faith”… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 Where will people park to use the crossing??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 7 minutes ago, Kopek said: Where will people park to use the crossing??? They won't unless they happen to live at the Strang. I suppose there is a bus stop somewhere along that road though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 17 minutes ago, The Phantom said: They won't unless they happen to live at the Strang. I suppose there is a bus stop somewhere along that road though. a stones throw from the lights 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred the shred Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 It is not spite sheer or otherwise if you were a patient that had to park in the hospital main car park and then make your way in a wheelchair or on sticks to the hospital buildings which have very busy clinics down a narrow road with no pavement. There are about eight parking spaces outside the clinic but the chance of finding one empty is like getting a Tesco delivery or winning the lottery. The DATU clinic and other clinics are busy and when I go it is mostly elderly people using it. The Hospital Trust has a duty to their patients and Laurie Hooper is right in putting patient safety first. The fault lies fairly and squarely with Braddan Commissioners who built without any thought as to providing a proper entry and exit . 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 1 minute ago, Fred the shred said: The fault lies fairly and squarely with Braddan Commissioners who built without any thought as to providing a proper entry and exit . Does the Planning Department have a responsibility when approving the plans? 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.