Newson's on the Quay

[MadAsHell]

6 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

If true then we're now getting a very different story.

Indeed, notice to register sent on 10.11.2017

https://www.gov.im/media/1360386/newsons-proposal.pdf

[Asthehills]

36 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

If true then we're now getting a very different story.

It’s been public knowledge and was in the press articles earlier this year want it?

Obviously they didn’t but a listed building and then expect to pull it down without a battle

Edited December 20, 2022 by Asthehills

[Max Power]

26 minutes ago, MadAsHell said:

Indeed, notice to register sent on 10.11.2017

https://www.gov.im/media/1360386/newsons-proposal.pdf

So the order was slapped on after purchase on 30/06/16 and plans were being drawn up.

[NoTailT]

Just now, Max Power said:

So the order was slapped on after purchase on 30/06/16 and plans were being drawn up.

Is there a consultation period or otherwise prior to an order? Assuming the process started earlier than the actual order date.

For a building lay idle and vacant for so long, smells fishy to me.

[Max Power]

Just now, NoTailT said:

Is there a consultation period or otherwise prior to an order? Assuming the process started earlier than the actual order date.

For a building lay idle and vacant for so long, smells fishy to me.

If it was purchased in June 2016, work was not going to start a week later. I believe that plans were being prepared during the the time between the purchase and the preservation order notice in November 2017. These plans were well advanced but were put on hold because of this notice, which to me is crooked as hell as the planners knew of the purchase and an outline of the plans. They simply thought it easier to slap a preservation order on the building than go through the lawful planning process!  

[NoTailT]

14 minutes ago, Max Power said:

If it was purchased in June 2016, work was not going to start a week later. I believe that plans were being prepared during the the time between the purchase and the preservation order notice in November 2017. These plans were well advanced but were put on hold because of this notice, which to me is crooked as hell as the planners knew of the purchase and an outline of the plans. They simply thought it easier to slap a preservation order on the building than go through the lawful planning process!  

Sounds like that.

Didn't similar happen at the pub at the bottom of Douglas Head road, forgot the name of it?

[The Old Git]

Trafalgar

[NoTailT]

13 minutes ago, The Old Git said:

Trafalgar

I was thinking that but opted to say I'd forgotten save myself looking like an idiot.

[Happier diner]

57 minutes ago, Max Power said:

If it was purchased in June 2016, work was not going to start a week later. I believe that plans were being prepared during the the time between the purchase and the preservation order notice in November 2017. These plans were well advanced but were put on hold because of this notice, which to me is crooked as hell as the planners knew of the purchase and an outline of the plans. They simply thought it easier to slap a preservation order on the building than go through the lawful planning process!  

That's exactly as I see it too. Cowardly and underhand approach. Makes them no better, or even worse, than the developers. 

[Ringy Rose]

1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said:

If true then we're now getting a very different story.

Absolutely.

If it was such a valuable asset, I'm surprised nobody bothered to do it until 2018. I also wouldn't really object to the preservation order going, it's not like Newson's treated it with love.

Although it does still have a preservation order on it, and those shouldn't necessarily be based purely on whether a developer agrees, as no developer ever would agree.

[Two-lane]

There must be a precedence - somewhere, sometime, someone who had owned a building for some time and was then given a preservation order and had enough money to go to court.

In this case, in my idealistic way of thinking, if the building is of significance the gov. should have made it listed several decades ago. That would have ensured that bits and pieces that have fallen off in the intervening time would have been saved.

So, if I were ruler of the universe, I would say that the gov. is out of time for listing the building. Was there anything in the appeal documents that justified the delay in listing the building? (Don't suggest that I read the docs. - that just isn't going to happen. I leave that kind of thing to people who use footnotes).

 

[NoTailT]

I still stand by that appointing Josem as 'representative' was one of Kel's biggest mistakes.

[Asthehills]

16 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

I still stand by that appointing Josem as 'representative' was one of Kel's biggest mistakes.

I don’t see how it’s made any difference one way or another? Care to elaborate?

[Boris Johnson]

3 hours ago, Steady Eddie said:

Yes it pulls everything in from a registry feed. It’s good for knowing when something was last sold and at what price. 

And  what actual  use  does that provide  you with other than  being an "Informed Crab"  FFS

[Steady Eddie]

38 minutes ago, Boris Johnson said:

And  what actual  use  does that provide  you with other than  being an "Informed Crab"  FFS

I’d have thought it was obvious if you’re buying a house or a commercial property you can see what the current owner bought it for. Handy for negotiation and in this situation handy to know what Kel paid for the 3 or 4 buildings they’re now sat on.