Albert Tatlock Posted April 22 Share Posted April 22 8 hours ago, TheTeapot said: It should never have been listed. Anti progress nutjobs on this island and in 'important' jobs. It is hard not to think that the planning department is actually corrupt. Watch as the insane glass and steel structure in a conservation zone gets planning for the Peggy. This. It's bollox, we'll end up with a lot of rotting properties that no one in their right mind will go near. They might list these properties but most of them will serve no function and end up falling over in 30 years. It's an addiction to Victorian and Edwardian times that serves no purpose. The planning committee seems to consist of people that holidayed here in the 50s or run Manx nostalgia on Facebook. Maybe keep or rebuild the facia, but so many of these places were noddy built in the first instance and need getting rid of and made fit for purpose. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted April 22 Share Posted April 22 24 minutes ago, Shake me up Judy said: First time buyers ? no, these are the 2nd rung up the ladder , 3rd for some building firms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted April 22 Share Posted April 22 I watched them dropping the much-contested warehouse on the Curran site. It was rotten to the core, floors, joists, crumbling mortar and stone. Nothing could have been done with that and how it ever got registered in the first instance was a piss-take, something to do with "Manchester Trusses" in the roof if my memory serves me. If they wanted one for posterity they should have taken it out and put it in the Peggy. These planning people are just trying to justify their positions and spouting "carbon release" is just the new excuse for doing it. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted April 22 Share Posted April 22 If it is so unsafe, I hope whoever is paying for the building support is going to leave it in place or the quay will have to be closed ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred the shred Posted April 22 Share Posted April 22 Perhaps that is the solution, remove the building support and see those walls come tumbling down . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted April 22 Share Posted April 22 3 minutes ago, Fred the shred said: Perhaps that is the solution, remove the building support and see those walls come tumbling down . They won't do that - the walls might stay up. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeCurious Posted April 22 Share Posted April 22 Meanwhile on the gateway to the Isle of Man we get more Lego buildings with red brick to make one of them look 'Victorian'. Don't see any sign of the bus shelter there either. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted April 22 Share Posted April 22 1 hour ago, Non-Believer said: These planning people are just trying to justify their positions and spouting "carbon release" is just the new excuse for doing it. I think that they are intimidated by the likes of Charles Guard and Peter Kelly, and scared that they will be held responsible for allowing it to be demolished, losing all that valuable history and heritage! Shouldn't be in the job, some things you need balls for! 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted April 23 Share Posted April 23 2 hours ago, Max Power said: I think that they are intimidated by the likes of Charles Guard and Peter Kelly, and scared that they will be held responsible for allowing it to be demolished, losing all that valuable history and heritage! Shouldn't be in the job, some things you need balls for! These buildings are/were working warehouse and storage buildings from another time. There's nothing "architectural" about them, they were put up using the cheapest means and materials available at the time to do a job. They're not Baillie-Scott or Wren (and look at the treatment that's been meted out to our Baillie-Scott examples in the past), they have served their purpose, not been adequately maintained (and even that's not enforced in respect of our registered heritage) and need to be let go. I wonder if Spring Valley Business Park will be considered for registration in 200 years time? 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted April 23 Share Posted April 23 8 hours ago, Roger Mexico said: They won't do that - the walls might stay up. probably for now , a cynic might say they were put up to make the place look worse than it is , maybe the government friendly surveyor that claimed the place is structurally sound would like to move their family in and prove it ?? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Flint Posted April 23 Share Posted April 23 14 hours ago, asitis said: Here's a view of Singapore if the IOM Government were in charge ! 😃 and yes it is Singapore Haven't we just signed some digital AI thing with them? 12 hours ago, Max Power said: I think that they are intimidated by the likes of Charles Guard and Peter Kelly, and scared that they will be held responsible for allowing it to be demolished, losing all that valuable history and heritage! Shouldn't be in the job, some things you need balls for! I don't think Charles is the problem.he had a proper go at the state of the place a while back. In one of the islands main hospitality areas, the building as it was no longer served any purpose as it is. The area had moved on, so to speak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted April 23 Share Posted April 23 5 hours ago, WTF said: the government friendly surveyor that claimed the place is structurally sound If the building is sound, why are there structural supports in place? What was the process for getting a road closure order in place so that the support beams could be installed? Who approved that and why? Is it just on the say-so of the building owner? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted April 23 Share Posted April 23 6 hours ago, WTF said: probably for now , a cynic might say they were put up to make the place look worse than it is , maybe the government friendly surveyor that claimed the place is structurally sound would like to move their family in and prove it ?? Or park his merc under it as they take the supports down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted April 23 Share Posted April 23 1 hour ago, Two-lane said: If the building is sound, why are there structural supports in place? see my post prior to this one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josem Posted April 23 Share Posted April 23 2 hours ago, Two-lane said: Who approved that and why? Is it just on the say-so of the building owner? I'm not familiar with the authorisation process, but the road closure order is here: https://one.network/?tmi=GB22237579 and https://one.network/?tm=GB127774360 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.