asitis Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 I was about to ask WTF is a micro forest ? Is that the latest de rigueur excuse to justify covering land in concrete ? Last year it was bypass !! How times change. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hedgehog Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 On 12/8/2021 at 9:50 AM, Non-Believer said: Judging from the proposed design of the building in this picture from the 3FM News site article today, it looks as though the developers "lack confidence" that the land won't flood in the future...? Is that the proposed Riverside pub? I quite like the look of that. Not as much as the midges will though I suspect 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhumsaa Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 On 12/9/2021 at 6:06 PM, doc.fixit said: Don't forget the micro forest. that's a different development? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramseyboi Posted December 12, 2021 Share Posted December 12, 2021 14 minutes ago, Rhumsaa said: that's a different development? Yes it is. The two things are on separate sites Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 I see the planning application has been reduced to include 138 houses because of concerns about the flooding ! I wonder how many they actually want to build, it always gets reduced by a few then it looks better at the planning application amendment ! 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 2 minutes ago, asitis said: I see the planning application has been reduced to include 138 houses because of concerns about the flooding ! I wonder how many they actually want to build, it always gets reduced by a few then it looks better at the planning application amendment ! How is 138 wet ones preferable to 160 odd? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 31 minutes ago, asitis said: I see the planning application has been reduced to include 138 houses because of concerns about the flooding ! I wonder how many they actually want to build, it always gets reduced by a few then it looks better at the planning application amendment ! Each house will need more space for the outriggers.... 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted December 28, 2021 Share Posted December 28, 2021 Come on folks, Dandara have backed down? Isn;t that enough to cut them some leeway? OK, it may be on acceptance of Planning recos but they have changed their ;as much as we can get' attitude! At least on this as piece of land. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted December 28, 2021 Share Posted December 28, 2021 4 hours ago, Kopek said: Come on folks, Dandara have backed down? Isn;t that enough to cut them some leeway? OK, it may be on acceptance of Planning recos but they have changed their ;as much as we can get' attitude! At least on this as piece of land. Backed down my ass, they have reduced their application to try and get it approved to a level which they wanted in the first instance. Usual tactic ask for more than you want then get what you want whilst appearing to capitulate. Nothing more. 4 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hissingsid Posted December 28, 2021 Share Posted December 28, 2021 This is the accepted, usual tactic…ask for more than you want then when you get knocked back gracefully try to accommodate by cutting back to the figure you wanted in the first place. This is how all businesses work. Backed down..do me a favour. 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted December 28, 2021 Share Posted December 28, 2021 Developers are a ruthless business who care not one jot for any philanthropy or biodiversity or wildlife or anything else. They will of course pay lip service to those things to get their permissions to build on green fields. The IOM Government have proven to be very compliant with their wishes, as acre after acre of green belt disappears under concrete. All that matters is shareholders profits and bottom line. It is time the Government learned that development needs to be controlled by them, as a partnership for the good of the island, and not just for the good of developers bottom line. 3 3 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.