Planning

[NoTail]

Do the planning meeting people need permission to do their planning?

[Happier diner]

Just now, NoTail said:

Do the planning meeting people need permission to do their planning?

Not if they plan ahead.

[ian rush]

9 hours ago, CallMeCurious said:

Needs automation. Don't know what % are for trivial things like satellite dishes, sheds etc. but surely that doesn't need any human intervention unless there is an objection. Same with posting the required planning notice for 30(?) days, take a photo (unique QR code on the notice and phones GPS verify location corresponds to the application) and receipt of the valid proof starts the 30 day timer.

If at any point there is an objection made in the right timeframe the basics such as location of objector (i.e address/postcode) being relevant could all be established before any human need get involved in the process. It is not rocket science, it's a process and 90% of it can be automated.

Alternatively, review the neccessity of approving things like sheds and satelite dishes or solar panels etc. if there is no adjacent property within line of sight or it's more than 10m from a boundary. 

Or do both simplify and automate.    

You’re talking shite as most of the trivial stuff you spew about is within permitted development.

[HiVibes]

20 minutes ago, ian rush said:

You’re talking shite as most of the trivial stuff you spew about is within permitted development.

Erm, no one gets satelite dishes anymore so who cares, and sheds are the new conservatory, stop living in the 90's

Edited May 4, 2023 by HiVibes

[ian rush]

53 minutes ago, HiVibes said:

Erm, no one gets satelite dishes anymore so who cares, and sheds are the new conservatory, stop living in the 90's

1990s or not, I’m right. 

If you can stop missing the point and want to educate yourself, have a look at the link below. Don’t worry your wee head about the words. Just go to the picture of the house…

https://www.gov.im/categories/planning-and-building-control/information-for-applicants/levels-of-development-which-can-be-done-without-planning-approval/

 

[Andy Onchan]

19 hours ago, Ativa said:

WTF has how much money they have got to do with planning?

That is the most slippery of slippery slopes if you start linking the two, and I would imagine that 90 percent of the population would rightly be up in arms if anyone tried to make one dependant on the other.

I'm not referring to deposits for small housing developments as most are already pre-sold with new residents/purchasers paying deposits themselves. It's major commercial type developments covering certain criteria, whether that's the size of the development or some other basis say rateable value. If not then you should expect to see more unfinished and undeveloped sites. What is the alternative?

[manxchester]

I saw today that planning permission to convert Bleak House into apartments has been turned down. Whatever the reason ( and it looked a valid one) surely the planning department should try as hard as possible to get this through (ie. liaising with applicants advising of changes that need making and letting them make those changes) rather than it just getting turned down. The building is an absolute eyesore and has been for years.

[offshoremanxman]

11 minutes ago, manxchester said:

I saw today that planning permission to convert Bleak House into apartments has been turned down. Whatever the reason ( and it looked a valid one) surely the planning department should try as hard as possible to get this through (ie. liaising with applicants advising of changes that need making and letting them make those changes) rather than it just getting turned down. The building is an absolute eyesore and has been for years.

Well we can’t have people thinking they can do up absolute shitholes can we? 

[Non-Believer]

1 hour ago, manxchester said:

I saw today that planning permission to convert Bleak House into apartments has been turned down. Whatever the reason ( and it looked a valid one) surely the planning department should try as hard as possible to get this through (ie. liaising with applicants advising of changes that need making and letting them make those changes) rather than it just getting turned down. The building is an absolute eyesore and has been for years.

It seems a remarkable decision, given that the other "half" of the block, Ellan Court, has been apartments for 30 years+. But perhaps Bleak House is just too far gone though, also considering the as yet unrepaid work that RTC had to undertake some years back just to stabilise the front of the building. I dread to think what it's actually like inside, it must be pigeon and vermin central plus weather and water ingress.

[offshoremanxman]

31 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

It seems a remarkable decision, given that the other "half" of the block, Ellan Court, has been apartments for 30 years+. But perhaps Bleak House is just too far gone though.

Yes because it’s not like they got approval next door for Cell Block H or anything. The ugliest apartment block in the Western Hemisphere. 

Edited May 5, 2023 by offshoremanxman

[Happier diner]

On 5/4/2023 at 10:53 PM, HiVibes said:

Erm, no one gets satelite dishes anymore so who cares, and sheds are the new conservatory, stop living in the 90's

 

[Ativa]

1 minute ago, Happier diner said:

 

Installation of new ones is falling through the floor.  There is hardly any reason to have one now if you have decent internet.

[Ativa]

8 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

Yes because it’s not like they got approval next door for Cell Block H or anything. The ugliest apartment block in the Western Hemisphere. 

 

8 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

It seems a remarkable decision, given that the other "half" of the block, Ellan Court, has been apartments for 30 years+. But perhaps Bleak House is just too far gone though, also considering the as yet unrepaid work that RTC had to undertake some years back just to stabilise the front of the building. I dread to think what it's actually like inside, it must be pigeon and vermin central plus weather and water ingress.

 

10 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

Well we can’t have people thinking they can do up absolute shitholes can we? 

Maybe try reading why it was turned down before posting rubbish.  It’s nothing to do with not being able to do places up or condition of the building.

”R 1. The proposed development would represent an unacceptable risk for on-site flooding for future occupants of the three apartments proposed for the basement and is, therefore, contrary to Environment Policy 13 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
R 2. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that appropriate mitigation measures could be implemented on site to safeguard the occupants of the basement apartments from future flood occurrence as required by Environment Policy 10 of the Strategic Plan.”

 

[Non-Believer]

10 minutes ago, Ativa said:

 

 

Maybe try reading why it was turned down before posting rubbish.  It’s nothing to do with not being able to do places up or condition of the building.

”R 1. The proposed development would represent an unacceptable risk for on-site flooding for future occupants of the three apartments proposed for the basement and is, therefore, contrary to Environment Policy 13 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
R 2. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that appropriate mitigation measures could be implemented on site to safeguard the occupants of the basement apartments from future flood occurrence as required by Environment Policy 10 of the Strategic Plan.”

 

The poster I replied to hadn't supplied any link to reference to and as such I replied to his/her posted opinion.

But clearly planning is now taking into account potential rising sea levels if what you've posted is correct, which doesn't auger well for the future redevelopment of any other similar seafront properties either.

[Ativa]

9 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

The poster I replied to hadn't supplied any link to reference to and as such I replied to his/her posted opinion.

But clearly planning is now taking into account potential rising sea levels if what you've posted is correct, which doesn't auger well for the future redevelopment of any other similar seafront properties either.

It’s just a poorly put together application.  It has nothing to do with what will happen for other properties, there are rules and regs to follow, that’s all.

You appear to have completely missed the point of the post you replied to, which even said “Whateverthe reason ( and it looked a valid one)”