The post you are reporting:
Several points have been brought up since my posting of yesterday, all of which I will attempt to answer.
First Jan Higgins #1573, who states that what 'happened in the past is really not pertinent to this discussion what is likely to happen in the future is.' This, statement, as I am sure you are aware is one favoured by potential dictators following revolutions.
In fact, it was also a statement made by a number of DDC's councillors as piles were being rammed through the unique, north of the Alps, Roman remains to build the White Cliffs Animatronics Experience. Barry Williams, I am sure, will remember the counter statement issued by DDC in order to try and abate national disgust at DDC's actions - to remind you Barry, it was printed on posters everywhere.
Neil Wiggins #1552 rightly states that 'EH have left the heights largely abandoned and allowed them to decay with ONLY WHPS doing anything significant to arrest the decline. I think I'd feel abandoned by the landlord as well.
On 12 July 2012 - 7:47am #1121 I pointed out that I saw a way forward from EH press release when they said:
'We believe that the Western Heights has enormous potential to contribute to the local economy and have pledged to work with Dover District Council and other partners in harnessing this potential which is one of the council's key objectives.'
Now we should, as a town, hold them to it ... even old ladies like myself can do our bit!
Although I received support from Howard, Lara, Mike Green and Keith Sansum my proposal was quickly countered by Paul Wells (aka Scotchie), Chris Precious and Jan Higgins. Indeed, Paul Wells went on to say that the WHPS had a positive relationship with EH, that they did not wish to undermine and subsequently made it clear what he thought of my stance - he was not positive in his claims.
A good chance MISSED of people who care for the WHOLE of Western Heights as a National Ancient Monument to pull together and force the landlords (EH) to do what was agreed prior to the setting up of the WHPS by EH.
Brian Dixon #1575 asks why there should be a legal review on DDC.
In accordance the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and planning legislation, this application should be determined in accordance with the provisions of the adopted development plan. DDC's Council's adopted Core Strategy (February 2010) that should therefore form the basis of the decision on the application.
The application site is neither allocated for development in the Core Strategy as a strategic site nor is it identified in the Core Strategy as a location where there is potential for urban expansion. It is not a site that is recognised in the Core Strategy as having any role to play in meeting the growth strategy of the Core Strategy. In fact, the sites were considered through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment process and were rejected primarily because of their environmental impact.
In consequence, the amended Proposals Map places the application site entirely outside of the urban confines, in the countryside. Thus, the proposal does not comply with policies CP2, CP6, DM1, DM11, DM15, DM16 and DM17 and contradicts Policy DM5 in relation to the provision of affordable housing.
Does that answer your question Brian?
Lorraine