Happier diner Posted April 7, 2023 Share Posted April 7, 2023 Just now, Non-Believer said: Geoffrey Boot, O Troll. WTF has he got to do with it. Is this one of your bizarre and senseless , libellous accusations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxanne Posted April 7, 2023 Share Posted April 7, 2023 Gawd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted April 7, 2023 Share Posted April 7, 2023 32 minutes ago, Two-lane said: "The DOI and Manx Utilities both say there is ‘no risk’ to the highway on Old Laxey Hill." At the moment one point on Old Laxey Hill is slightly less than the width of a house from a rather large drop. Yes, but it’s on rock. What slipped was an earth slope covering the rock face. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted April 7, 2023 Share Posted April 7, 2023 8 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: Government, via a certain unqualified Minister, gave authority for this to go ahead. No authority, no go ahead, no landslide. They are as culpable as any other party. Standard and predictable Govt spiel. Obviously not seen the letter of legal opinion that’s been mangled in IoM Newspapers. But the legal principles seem sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted April 7, 2023 Share Posted April 7, 2023 12 minutes ago, John Wright said: Obviously not seen the letter of legal opinion that’s been mangled in IoM Newspapers. But the legal principles seem sound. You're right John, I haven't...mangled? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted April 7, 2023 Share Posted April 7, 2023 42 minutes ago, John Wright said: Yes, but it’s on rock. What slipped was an earth slope covering the rock face. Well, I'm not going to argue with a lawyer. It seems to me that the narrowest point is a little further up the hill. There may be rock there, but there isn't that much of it. There was a house on that bare patch of land! https://www.google.es/maps/@54.2229747,-4.3961238,3a,75y,74.25h,67.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbpiVWr-o6Shh0jRptUjJ-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted April 7, 2023 Share Posted April 7, 2023 28 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: You're right John, I haven't...mangled? I’m sure you haven’t. Neither have I ( which is what I meant - and which you knew - it was a statement, not a question ). Mangled: to spoil, injure, or make incoherent especially through ineptitude. a story mangled beyond recognition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted April 7, 2023 Share Posted April 7, 2023 58 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: Geoffrey Boot, O Troll. As I read the application it was approved on recommendation of the planning officer, unless you have different information. Not my area of expertise, but it seems that the old building was considered an eyesore in a conservation area and the consent had conditions on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted April 7, 2023 Share Posted April 7, 2023 (edited) Giving planning permission to something doesn’t make you liable when a contractor makes a complete bollocks of it. Geoffrey Boot is about 40 IQ points short of being a cretin but I don’t think we can blame him for this one. Edited April 7, 2023 by Ringy Rose 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeCurious Posted April 7, 2023 Share Posted April 7, 2023 14 hours ago, Gladys said: Garff say only IOMG has the resources to deal with it, but DOI says 'no interest' in stabilising the cliff. Not sure what that means, is it because they CBA, or they have no legal power to undertake the works? ETA or do they mean the contractor and landowner have no interest without legal action? It is not a clear paragraph, probably due to inexpert paraphrasing of the letter. It is going to be a right muddle between the landowner, contractors and householders. You would hope they would sit down together and agree a plan, but that kind of pragmatism doesn't happen when large sums and insurers are involved. And lawyers.... a profession that thrives on discord and the only guarenteed winners in any legal battle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted April 7, 2023 Share Posted April 7, 2023 5 hours ago, Gladys said: As I read the application it was approved on recommendation of the planning officer, unless you have different information. Not my area of expertise, but it seems that the old building was considered an eyesore in a conservation area and the consent had conditions on it. No the Planning Officer in her Decision recommended that the application be refused. This was appealed against and the Inspector in his Report came to the same conclusion. This was overturned by Boot, cherry-picking bits of the Report to justify himself. There's a sub-plot here as well. Boot's decision was made in 2018 and and the permission nearly lapsed four years later and the developer hurriedly started digging a few token trenches so the building could be deemed to have started. This was a year ago, so it probably didn't have anything to do with the collapse, but it does suggest a certain lack of planning. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted April 7, 2023 Share Posted April 7, 2023 6 hours ago, Gladys said: As I read the application it was approved on recommendation of the planning officer, unless you have different information. Not my area of expertise, but it seems that the old building was considered an eyesore in a conservation area and the consent had conditions on it. 1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said: No the Planning Officer in her Decision recommended that the application be refused. This was appealed against and the Inspector in his Report came to the same conclusion. This was overturned by Boot, cherry-picking bits of the Report to justify himself. There's a sub-plot here as well. Boot's decision was made in 2018 and and the permission nearly lapsed four years later and the developer hurriedly started digging a few token trenches so the building could be deemed to have started. This was a year ago, so it probably didn't have anything to do with the collapse, but it does suggest a certain lack of planning. Perhaps Gladys is referring to the demolition application which wasn’t made until 2021 and was made at officer level. https://services.gov.im/planningapplication/services/planning/planningapplicationdetails.iom?ApplicationReferenceNumber=21%2F01579%2FCON&fbclid=IwAR0JUFvIya9MnEOQYlV2GMv11r75GdMEBHf7V27gajSh6JSGyojCPOzZ4T4 clearly they had to get permission to demolish before they could start the development. Demolition conditions were only met in early March 2022 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted April 8, 2023 Share Posted April 8, 2023 10 hours ago, Roger Mexico said: No the Planning Officer in her Decision recommended that the application be refused. This was appealed against and the Inspector in his Report came to the same conclusion. This was overturned by Boot, cherry-picking bits of the Report to justify himself. There's a sub-plot here as well. Boot's decision was made in 2018 and and the permission nearly lapsed four years later and the developer hurriedly started digging a few token trenches so the building could be deemed to have started. This was a year ago, so it probably didn't have anything to do with the collapse, but it does suggest a certain lack of planning. "It'll cost me a fortune to let that planning permission lapse" Didn't quite work out for the developer on this occasion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted May 9, 2023 Share Posted May 9, 2023 Anyone heard anything about this issue, down Laxey today & obviously no changes from last month so assume houses are still evacuated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted May 9, 2023 Share Posted May 9, 2023 5 hours ago, Banker said: Anyone heard anything about this issue, down Laxey today & obviously no changes from last month so assume houses are still evacuated I was speaking to a commissioner, it's down to the developer to make the cliff face safe. However, nothing has happened yet and the developer is from the UK. Don't expect anything soon - I'd probably do a runner too. 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.