Newson's on the Quay

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, Karellen said:

Something needs to be happen to the site, and soon.   The structural supports which are blocking half of the road (walkway?) are a proper eyesore

You had better get used to it, I'll bet its going to be like this for years.

[jackwhite]

I think there needs to be reform in many things from top to bottom.

We're stifling investment (not entirely sure I agree with this particular development) regardless of this particular situation. Things here are overly complex, needlessly so, and it just puts people off. It's also developed a culture of a small group of individuals trying to freeze everyone and anyone else out. I know of some businesses who are actively sabotaging efforts of others for no reason at all, other than malice. Telling people who they approach for assistance in various things that if they work with these people, they will not only stop using them but will also actively persuade their numerous friends in the industry to do likewise. 

It's little wonder we don't see the type and speed of innovation we see in the U.K and certain parts of Ireland (some of it is even further in the past than here). 

Personally feel a little fatigue of the whole thing and does make me wonder, long term, whether this is somewhere I wish to remain. 

[Happier diner]

9 minutes ago, jackwhite said:

I think there needs to be reform in many things from top to bottom.

We're stifling investment (not entirely sure I agree with this particular development) regardless of this particular situation. Things here are overly complex, needlessly so, and it just puts people off. It's also developed a culture of a small group of individuals trying to freeze everyone and anyone else out. I know of some businesses who are actively sabotaging efforts of others for no reason at all, other than malice. Telling people who they approach for assistance in various things that if they work with these people, they will not only stop using them but will also actively persuade their numerous friends in the industry to do likewise. 

It's little wonder we don't see the type and speed of innovation we see in the U.K and certain parts of Ireland (some of it is even further in the past than here). 

Personally feel a little fatigue of the whole thing and does make me wonder, long term, whether this is somewhere I wish to remain. 

Don't worry. I am sure @Chris Thomaswill get it sorted. 

[quilp]

I see what you did there ☺️

[2112]

@jackwhiteits not just your example it’s been going on since time immorial, the Manx Mafia. Some get all the right contracts, the right business, the right contacts, the right opportunities etc. Then you have the pressure groups, the trade unions (who are only interested in one thing, and not always for their membership, and other vested interests (some are totally against change and inflexible). 
 

Change has to come from within and gradual, and parties accepting it. Can’t see that sadly with some local entrenched views. 

[2112]

3 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Don't worry. I am sure @Chris Thomaswill get it sorted. 

I’m sorry, I really doubt it. He will probably set up another committee to debate the issues. 

[Happier diner]

3 minutes ago, 2112 said:

I’m sorry, I really doubt it. He will probably set up another committee to debate the issues. 

FTR - I was being sarcastic

[2112]

1 minute ago, Happier diner said:

FTR - I was being sarcastic

I know. I wasn’t. 

[Passing Time]

9 minutes ago, 2112 said:

@jackwhiteits not just your example it’s been going on since time immorial, the Manx Mafia. Some get all the right contracts, the right business, the right contacts, the right opportunities etc. Then you have the pressure groups, the trade unions (who are only interested in one thing, and not always for their membership, and other vested interests (some are totally against change and inflexible). 
 

Change has to come from within and gradual, and parties accepting it. Can’t see that sadly with some local entrenched views. 

there's the problem right there...

[2112]

I have just looked at Kelproperties website, a large portfolio of properties and industrial/commercial developments both on the island and in the UK, as well as in South Africa. I doubt somehow that even some of the properties at the new North Quay development will be classed as affordable even for FTB. If it were made as a precondition of planning that a % of the apartments be FTB, I could envisage the scheme getting knocked on the head, due to the figures not adding up. What does make me laugh is the idea that they really want to save North Quay. Really? A property developer with a heart, and social conscience? There are parts of Douglas which are derelict land banks  and owned by large companies, especially by Tesco. These have been allowed to fester for years. 

[jackwhite]

4 minutes ago, 2112 said:

I have just looked at Kelproperties website, a large portfolio of properties and industrial/commercial developments both on the island and in the UK, as well as in South Africa. I doubt somehow that even some of the properties at the new North Quay development will be classed as affordable even for FTB. If it were made as a precondition of planning that a % of the apartments be FTB, I could envisage the scheme getting knocked on the head, due to the figures not adding up. What does make me laugh is the idea that they really want to save North Quay. Really? A property developer with a heart, and social conscience? There are parts of Douglas which are derelict land banks  and owned by large companies, especially by Tesco. These have been allowed to fester for years. 

It's one of the main reasons I have with this. 

These guys are not some standard person who's having an issue, they have millions of pounds worth of property under their banner, with others under development. 

Between that and Josem's (not sure I should say his name, as it will be like Candyman and he'll appear anytime we get to a certain number) clear connection, which he won't actually disclose, I just find the whole thing doesn't sit comfortably with me.

[Nellie]

3 hours ago, Karellen said:

Something needs to be happen to the site, and soon.   The structural supports which are blocking half of the road (walkway?) are a proper eyesore

I suspect that it is part of the developers strategy to have those supports, with associated disruption and eyesore, to reinforce the engineering view that the stone wall is unsafe and does not have a future. This sends out a message that 'if we don't get planning permission it's going to look like this for a long time.' 

Personally, I don't have a problem with that. 

[Declan]

5 hours ago, 2112 said:

The NPM is running this story this morning commenting how the current owner of the site, Kelproperties have launched a petition to speed up a decision and ge planning permission for the site. For the life of me I can’t understand why they are using Michael Josem of the Taxpayers Alliance? Have Keloroperties got something to hide that they launch a private petition, almost require special and preferential treatment, under the guise of being a ‘business’ run by a ‘businessman’, who we know that IOMG go weak at the knees for developers. I’m curious as to why a development company would require the services of a ‘spokesman’ from a ‘pressure group’.? 

Aren't Keloproperties thought to be the main funders of Taxpayers' Alliance?

It was situations like this that led to questions about the Taxpayer's Alliance's funding during Josem's election campaign.  Fortunately, he wasn't elected and can be treated as just a political lobbiest with services available to highest bidder.

[Happier diner]

4 minutes ago, Nellie said:

I suspect that it is part of the developers strategy to have those supports, with associated disruption and eyesore, to reinforce the engineering view that the stone wall is unsafe and does not have a future. This sends out a message that 'if we don't get planning permission it's going to look like this for a long time.' 

Personally, I don't have a problem with that. 

That's not correct. They were instructed to put up the supports.

The building is clearly unsafe and to repair it would not be cost effective.

[Nellie]

4 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

That's not correct. They were instructed to put up the supports.

The building is clearly unsafe and to repair it would not be cost effective.

Were they told by their own engineering consultants?

In any event, it certainly helps their cause, both to reinforce that engineering advice, and to create an eyesore which no-one wants to see there for longer than necessary.