Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
At least the fence they are building looks tough enough to last 25 years or so!
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
The point about the archaeologists makes me wonder why they have been active on the other cleared sites while they've had plenty of time.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
It would need someone to pay them !!
Time Team anyone??
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 684- Registered: 26 Feb 2009
- Posts: 635
Word is that in the ruins of the MFI building they've found a stone tablet inscribed with 'Regeneration Coming Soon..." in Latin, thought to have been left there by an obscure Roman quango called 'Seeda-us Brewerius Pissupius Wrex Inertia'.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Thanks for all the replies, almost a week on it seems we're none the wiser, somebody has approved the spending of a great deal of our money but nobody knows what for - very puzzling.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
David
Surely you didn't expect an answer from our esteemed local leaders. How rash!
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Unregistered User
I think I told you housing on that corner were part of the original plans & we don't expect much to change in any new planning application. But it will be part of the bigger project currently being part together.
Watty
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Not a new and bigger project again,Mr Watkins please how many more times are the public of Dover going to be told this,only to see five years down the road no change,sorry but it does not wash anymore.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Round and round and round this goes !!
DDC can only facilitate any developments, and unless there is someone there with a load of £££££££ nothing can happen !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They don't have the money to spend on building shops, and that isn't what I want my Council Tax spent on, that is for the deveopers to do....
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Thats right Paul but it is them that is saying it all.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
What else do you expect them to do - not try and do anything ??!!
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
The point I made in the opening bars of this thread was that while the politicians on the council are doing their level best to make things happen, there are certain council employees who seem hell bent on frustrating progress. I think the DDC leadership is now more aware of what is being done in their name - however Scotchie is right, the council does not have the financial clout to make developments happen, it can only encourage the money to come in. But if the bureaucrats are obstructive it will not happen.
Just as well the fence round the old MFI building is being built to last.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Sorry if this is becoming an obsession but I stare at this site everyday. The council has gone to considerable expense to clear a site for what reason? I will update this thread regularly as an example of the council wasting our money.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i thought the demolition was paid for out of the seeda dosh and the land purchased the same way david.
pretty sure that there was no council taxpayers money involved, will be prepared to be corrected though.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
David - land purchased are all part of the overall strategy for the site and I believe there is a standing outline planning permission on the site for flats which aren't dependant on the rest of the project.
Surely a clear site available for development is more appealing to developers than an asbestos ridden derelict site which they would need to deal with first ??
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Exactly Paul
Roger
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Howard and Paul are both right. DDC has invested nothing in that particular site yet bar the officer time necessary to supervise the process. As the funding came mostly from SEEDA and as that irrelevant body is defunct as of 6 April, it was a case of 'use it or lose it'.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Well this is confusing because on page 1, Cllr Watkins writes
That corner is part of the St. James [DTIZ] Project & is in the process of being purchased from LIDL by DDC.
Lets not forget that SEEDA is/was totally taxpayers money, my point being that it is not being used correctly.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
David I do not understand why you think it is a waste of taxpayers' money and why you think the funds are not being used correctly. Do you think they should have left the addict-infested building standing?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Peter
If the site was going to be developed immediately then fair enough, but I'm interested to know how much was spent and over what period of time the money is being tied up for. Only then can we decide if it is money well spent but you've probably guessed I have my doubts.
The smackheads is a separate issue, it would need another thread to discuss the solution to them, well it wouldn't actually, just one post - euthanasia.