Two-lane Posted December 19, 2022 Share Posted December 19, 2022 1 hour ago, Ringy Rose said: Kelproperties said that the building was falling down and needed the supports- that's why the road along the quay is still shut to traffic. The supposedly essential supports don't seem to be touching the building. How did they get a road closure order if the building is not in danger of falling down. That is not a sarcastic comment - surely the gov. inspected the property to take a view on the likelihood of a collapse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted December 19, 2022 Share Posted December 19, 2022 1 minute ago, Two-lane said: How did they get a road closure order if the building is not in danger of falling down. That is not a sarcastic comment - surely the gov. inspected the property to take a view on the likelihood of a collapse? I reckon the DOI would not be prepared to take the risk so probably just took their word for it. It looks seriously perilous to me but I'm no structural engineer. It would be interesting to find out though I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted December 19, 2022 Share Posted December 19, 2022 1 hour ago, Happier diner said: That's a bit of a circular arguement. It goes around but leaves the reader not knowing your view. My view is conflicted. I think the building should be demolished, but I also think that Kelproperties shouldn't be rewarded for their bullshit. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted December 19, 2022 Share Posted December 19, 2022 1 hour ago, Two-lane said: How did they get a road closure order if the building is not in danger of falling down. That is not a sarcastic comment - surely the gov. inspected the property to take a view on the likelihood of a collapse? I assume they took what the owner said at face value, as nobody would want to take the risk of getting that one wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted December 19, 2022 Share Posted December 19, 2022 39 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said: My view is conflicted. I think the building should be demolished, but I also think that Kelproperties shouldn't be rewarded for their bullshit. Fair enough. I get that. As it stands though they own it so we are kind of stuck with them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted December 19, 2022 Share Posted December 19, 2022 1 hour ago, Ringy Rose said: My view is conflicted. I think the building should be demolished, but I also think that Kelproperties shouldn't be rewarded for their bullshit. That's not a conflict, it's a dilemma. 🙂 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steady Eddie Posted December 19, 2022 Share Posted December 19, 2022 2 hours ago, Ringy Rose said: I assume they took what the owner said at face value, as nobody would want to take the risk of getting that one wrong. Kel properties are sat on about a £3M investment to buy the whole site from what I can see. It’s easily going to be another £3M to develop. It sends out a really bad message to anyone else who wants to invest in the IOM if it is blocked. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asthehills Posted December 19, 2022 Share Posted December 19, 2022 5 minutes ago, Steady Eddie said: Kel properties are sat on about a £3M investment to buy the whole site from what I can see. It’s easily going to be another £3M to develop. It sends out a really bad message to anyone else who wants to invest in the IOM if it is blocked. That is what we do though. As an island and a population we consistently get grumpy about people who have money to invest, or people who try to improve the place. Then we complain it’s rubbish that the place is scruffy and there is nothing to do 🤷♂️ People are currently complaining about government making money available to incentivise firms to develop brownfield sites while at the same time complaint that we have unoccupied brownfield sites!! For the island to move forward we need a massive shift away from people assuming everything is corrupt and will turn out to be shot towards people thinking people are actually trying to improve the place. We need to accept that for people to do that they need to make a profit, and stop demonising them for doing so. It’s embarrassing 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted December 20, 2022 Share Posted December 20, 2022 15 hours ago, Steady Eddie said: It sends out a really bad message to anyone else who wants to invest in the IOM if it is blocked. Letting a developer deliberately fail to maintain a registered building in order to secure a demolition order also sends out a really bad message. As I said above, I'm conflicted (it's a dilemma!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted December 20, 2022 Share Posted December 20, 2022 15 hours ago, Asthehills said: That is what we do though. As an island and a population we consistently get grumpy about people who have money to invest, or people who try to improve the place. Then we complain it’s rubbish that the place is scruffy and there is nothing to do 🤷♂️ People are currently complaining about government making money available to incentivise firms to develop brownfield sites while at the same time complaint that we have unoccupied brownfield sites!! For the island to move forward we need a massive shift away from people assuming everything is corrupt and will turn out to be shot towards people thinking people are actually trying to improve the place. We need to accept that for people to do that they need to make a profit, and stop demonising them for doing so. It’s embarrassing +1 It's an ignorant and pathetic mindset, if there's no money to be made why on earth would anyone invest in anything other than a hobby? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
english zloty Posted December 20, 2022 Share Posted December 20, 2022 19 hours ago, Two-lane said: How did they get a road closure order if the building is not in danger of falling down. That is not a sarcastic comment - surely the gov. inspected the property to take a view on the likelihood of a collapse? I might be wrong but I think the ‘state of the building’ is down to Douglas Council. They have their own building control and district surveyor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted December 20, 2022 Share Posted December 20, 2022 1 hour ago, Ringy Rose said: Letting a developer deliberately fail to maintain a registered building in order to secure a demolition order also sends out a really bad message. As I said above, I'm conflicted (it's a dilemma!) That's a bit of a not quite true statement. It was already in a bad state before they took it. They are not deliberately running it down, they wouldn't stay in business long if they started repairing buildings that they have bought with a view to demolishing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted December 20, 2022 Share Posted December 20, 2022 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Happier diner said: They are not deliberately running it down, they wouldn't stay in business long if they started repairing buildings that they have bought with a view to demolishing They bought it knowing it was a protected building and it's easier to show something is "unsafe" than trying to get that protection removed. Developers in the UK do it all the time, either the roof gets a "leak" or something spontaneously combusts. I'm quite happy to agree that this particular building shouldn't be registered, but it is, and it is telling that Kelproperties have gone down the "disrepair" route rather than seeking to have the protected status removed. Edited December 20, 2022 by Ringy Rose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted December 20, 2022 Share Posted December 20, 2022 2 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said: They bought it knowing it was a protected building and it's easier to show something is "unsafe" than trying to get that protection removed. Developers in the UK do it all the time, either the roof gets a "leak" or something spontaneously combusts. I'm quite happy to agree that this particular building shouldn't be registered, but it is, and it is telling that Kelproperties have gone down the "disrepair" route rather than seeking to have the protected status removed. Was it a protected building before they bought it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted December 20, 2022 Share Posted December 20, 2022 3 minutes ago, Happier diner said: Was it a protected building before they bought it? It's been on the register since April 2018, but when they bought it isn't public information, so I don't know. They've also had the thick end of five years to challenge the protected status, and haven't done. 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.