Have you read the Planning and the Economy Consultation document? Even to a layperson such as myself it appears to be very poorly drafted. It contains too many ambiguous statements and little real detail. It was, therefore, pleasing to read the response from The Committee of the Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society in The Examiner.

They point out that the phrase ‘social and environmental sustainability’ is unclear and go on to query how the quality of a design is to be measured. Furthermore, there are no references to protection of the countryside and natural environment etc. The society also query the housing of ‘high net-worth individuals.’ And so on.

The impression is that it’s carte blanche for any form of development, with few quantifiable controls. How do we weigh up supposed economic benefits against countryside desecration?

It’s doubtful that this is the brainchild of any DED members. It appears to be another copy and paste job. They are so predictable.

It seems to me that the property guide in this week’s paper contains absolutely no references to homeless billionaires on a hopelessly futile search for suitable dwellings. Where are the facts and figures? You don’t suppose certain building companies might benefit from this do you? We have our Heritage to consider after all.



  1. This so called consultation entitled “Planning and the Economy” is a joke. Minister Cretney, in referring to the Planning Policy statement (February Tynwald) stated:-

    “I expect applicants, members of the public, Government Departments, planning officers, the Planning Committee and planning appeal inspectors to take account of the contents of the draft planning policy statement and this speech with immediate effect when determining planning applications and appeals.”

    This was clearly an instruction to comply wit the proposals, so why consult the public?

    Part 1.3(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 states:

    “Every Planning Policy Statement shall be in general conformity with the development plan; and in case of any inconsistency between the Planning Policy Statement and the provisions of the plan, those provisions prevail.”

    I suggest that this PPS is not in general conformity!

    • It seems that we are adopting UK measures yet again. How was this introduced into our legislative system? Endorsed by unknown advisors? We are given a document with vague and ambiguous contents and then we are instructed to accept something which hasn’t reached Tynwald floor?

      Does this sound like democracy?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s