Roger Mexico Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 4 hours ago, CallMeCurious said: [...] Presumably access isn't just for customers in cars but staff, delivery vehicles and fire engines etc. The last thing we need is people not being able to use medical facilities because adequate access and parking provision has not been made at a brand new site. But access using the existing roads must have been thought acceptable at the time the original plans were passed otherwise the emergency services etc would have objected. The DHSC objections only happened after building was well under way. As for parking there is quite a lot on the new site, if anything the requirement for a new access road will reduce the number of spaces. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 4 minutes ago, Avacado said: At the same time I believe the Braddan commissioners are trying to apply planning restrictions on Strang Stores to try to close the building down to try to optimize the yield on their crazy rents on their own site across the road. So what goes around comes around. Maybe the DHSC is using the very same sad tactics that Braddan itself uses on others in this instance? How can a long established local shop for local people, encroach upon Braddan Commissioners? It’s like Manx Care objecting to Strang Stores selling items which the hospital shop stock, like newspapers and confectionery. I don’t doubt what you are saying, I just find it crazy and bullying behaviour. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 How many other times have we seen Govt or Local Govt operations trying to force out private enterprise? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 I don't know anything about Strang Stores (except where it is) but if it's being leased commercially on a full repairing basis and that isn't being done by the tenant, the landlord is perfectly entitled to insist on any necessary work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Avacado said: It’s the default position in local authorities. It's the default position in various Central Govt depts too as public servants try to justify and defend their jobs. Edited January 6 by Non-Believer Typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passing Time Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 10 minutes ago, Stu Peters said: I don't know anything about Strang Stores (except where it is) but if it's being leased commercially on a full repairing basis and that isn't being done by the tenant, the landlord is perfectly entitled to insist on any necessary work. And if it’s not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 (edited) Who owns the building housing the business of Strang Stores? Braddan Commissioners or do Strang Stores own the building? Edited January 7 by 2112 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 This is an extract from a document on the gov. planning website relating to this application. The name of the writer is redacted: "The original planning approval was granted on the basis that the main access to the development would be through Nobles Hospital via Braddan Road. It was acknowledged that a second access point would exist at Ballaoates Road (via an existing entrance point) but the application was clear that the main access would be through the main Nobles Hospital site. As part of this proposal the Minister for the Department of Health and Social Care at the time, Howard Quayle, provided written support as part of the application. We refer you to his letter dated 1 August 2016 whereby it was confirmed that “access to the site will be via the hospital grounds”. There was no objections raised by the Department as to use of the hospital road network. This new application significantly changes the proposal by creating a single access point at Balloates Road resulting in all traffic using the development now being funnelled through Ballaoates Road. We understand this application, although submitted by Braddan Commissioners, appears to have come about following an inspection of the site by current Minister for the Department of Health and Social Care Lawrie Hooper on 3 December 2021 at which he alluded to the need for alternative access at Ballaoates Road to reduce the volume of traffic going through the hospital grounds. Noting the acknowledgement that the development will have a significant impact on the level of traffic around the hospital grounds, it is disappointing that i) this acknowledgement has come after the original planning application was submitted and approved, ii) at such time when the development was well in progress iii) without any clear evidence of what impact the development will have on the level of traffic through the hospital grounds (as the development is not yet operational) and iv) there does not appear to be an acknowledgement of the impact of this change will have to the Ballaoates Road area and safety of local residents, pedestrians and other road users." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 16 hours ago, Avacado said: Apparently they are claiming it’s in a poor state of repair and that orders should be applied to make good requiring huge expenditure. Basically trying to bully a trader out of a property into their premium rate rental scenarios. So whatever the DHSC are now imposing on Braddan Commissioners in terms of access is no worse than what they try to do to others. Have you been in , it is in a terrible state and the whole building looks like it’s about to fall down ! The sausage baps etc smell good but I’m not entirely convinced that they’re cooked in premises that meet required standards. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 It’s big innit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 21 minutes ago, Amadeus said: It’s big innit It should be big for £7M+. A big round of applause is due for all the Braddan ratepayers who will be carrying this for years to come on their Rate Demands. Has any information been made available yet about the proposed running costs? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarndyce Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 1 hour ago, Two-lane said: "As part of this proposal the Minister for the Department of Health and Social Care at the time, Howard Quayle, provided written support as part of the application." 1 hour ago, Two-lane said: "this application, although submitted by Braddan Commissioners, appears to have come about following an inspection of the site by current Minister for the Department of Health and Social Care Lawrie Hooper on 3 December 2021 at which he alluded to the need for alternative access at Ballaoates Road to reduce the volume of traffic going through the hospital grounds." Howard says yes; Lawrie says no. I wonder if either of them discussed their responses with anyone operational at the hospital before giving (or not giving) their permission? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyDave Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 7 minutes ago, Jarndyce said: Howard says yes; Lawrie says no. I wonder if either of them discussed their responses with anyone operational at the hospital before giving (or not giving) their permission? Both will have just taken advice from the relevant people at the time. Suggesting that it’s their own opinion is a bit silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 2 minutes ago, Jarndyce said: Howard says yes; Lawrie says no. I wonder if either of them discussed their responses with anyone operational at the hospital before giving (or not giving) their permission? Both Howard and Hooper are or were merely local politicians. In technical areas such as this, I would expect them to go along with whatever the traffic experts said in their "three-letter-acronym with numbers" report. There are endless rules and regulation involved in road design. There are a few of those documents in the planning applications for this site. Therefore I am surprised that Hooper, who I understand it is an accountant, decided that the road experts were wrong - and from the letter I quoted above, that seems to be the case. 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.