Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
It's much more complicated than that Howard. My problem (as chair of DPPTL) is the lack of transparency with which DHB conducts its affairs. It's all smoke and mirrors, punctuated with perhaps this and potentially that. When trying to formulate DPPTL's comment on the planning application I noticed that the section in which the applicant discloses whether pre-application advice has been received from DDC was marked Yes but the box where the applicant should disclose the content of such advice was filled with 'contained in minutes of meeting of which all participants received a copy' ( I paraphrase). So I emailed Development Control at DDC asking for a copy of said minutes. In their reply they said that they could not release copies of DHB minutes and I should approach DHB instead. Now uncle Tim and I are not the best of bosom pals but I shall still pursue that avenue.
Wish me luck.
However, I'm struck by the sheer hysteria of some of the opposition to DHB 's plans. How many people have actually studied them in detail?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
What is there to study Peter? The original drawings showed us losing a small section of beach and an obstructed view from the pier for roughly the first third of its length, annoying but we can live with that. We then get this application to remove the furniture and lower part of it and when this is queried a couple of fairly vague press releases about the possibility of access to the pier and another possibility about an exciting waterfront development. The process should be started over again in my view with clear plans that offer a proper public consultation.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
The issue of public consultation is a big one. They claim in the planning application that 'extensive' public consultation has taken place. My position is that the level of consultation barely reached that required by MTP2, the government guidance intended to guide the future conduct of trust ports.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 1348- Registered: 20 Sep 2014
- Posts: 276
I remember plans for redevelopment about 10 years ago, as they were going to close de'bradlie wharf and put a hotel and shops in the hoverport and old wellington docks. So here we are now getting to what DHB really want. We are going to end up with no seafront as it gets chopped up and used for ferries and cargo.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Objections being added every day showing that many Dovorians are outraged by the plans, final date to air your views is tomorrow.
http://planning.dover.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=DCAPR_226992Guest 1391- Registered: 1 Nov 2014
- Posts: 199
One of the problems once an objection has been lodged is when it comes before the planning committee ( which it will do as there are so many objections) is that only person can speak. So when objectors are notified of the hearing will depend who is first to apply to speak and then is only for three minutes.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,982
Howard,all objections are considered however as Pam states one person can speak a Ward Councillor can also speak,I assume that would be the member for Aycliffe.
Guest 977- Registered: 27 Jun 2013
- Posts: 1,031
When I spoke at a planning meeting (Sue and Pam were both on the committee so should remember) the chairman allowed more than one speaker against a particular application - just happened that one of them was an MP though I'm sure that had no bearing!
Whoever speaks it is important they stick to the facts of the case and don't just push the emotional attachment of thousands of residents to the pier - the change from T2 to DWDR is purely a temporary measure to comply with the time limit set for the development permission, the decision not to require an Environmental Impact Assessment for the change was taken by an officer with no consultation or reference to the planning committee, there is no guarantee that the removed heritage items will be replaced or where and to place them out of context would lose their value anyway, the various DDC policies that this plan would go against etc, etc.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,658
If I have understood this correctly it means that even if almost every person in the town objected only one person could stand up to give their reasons and every other objector has to hope all the facts have been covered by that person. I would not expect all objectors to speak and many would not want to but surely more than one person should be allowed to speak.
Seems democracy has been completely lost on the planning committee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
I have posted the following objection:
I comment on this application in my capacity as Chairman of Dover Peoples' Port Trust Limited (DPPTL), a community organisation with over 1000 paid-up members living or working in the Dover District, and which exists both to campaign for meaningful community involvement in the governance of the Dover Harbour Board (DHB) and to hold DHB to account in respect of its strategic direction and its day-to-day activities insofar as they impact the town of Dover and its citizens.
There are several disturbing aspects both to the present application and to the events leading up to its submission.
Firstly, there are what we consider to be two defects in the application itself.
The declaration in section 6 that pre-application advice was sought from DDC officers in a meeting on 22/4/15 is followed not by disclosure of the content of such advice but a reference to the minutes of that meeting. DDC has refused to allow me to view these minutes or to provide me with the gist of the advice given and we therefore contend that this application is incomplete and that its validation by DDC officers was wrong. No decision should therefore be taken on this application until the applicant provides this information or other steps are taken to place it in the public domain.
In section 7 the applicant claims that : 'There has been extensive consultation about the entire scheme which was subject to EIA prior to be consented (sic) by the Dover Harbour Revision Order 2012.' Here we take issue with both the description of the consultation and the form which it took. We believe that the consultation amounted to the bare minimum laid down in MTP2, the DfT's document laying down rules for the governance and conduct of trust ports and can hardly be described as extensive. Furthermore, the consultation which took place was on the forerunner of the scheme contained in the 2012 HRO, the provision of a second ferry terminal (T2), and not on the construction of a non-RoRo freight dock. We therefore consider the applicant's assertion in section 7 to be at best misleading.
Aside from the contents of the application itself, there are other aspects which give us cause for concern.
Notwithstanding the subsequent confirmation by the Marine Maritime Organisation (MMO) (itself questionable due to the radical differences in the nature, size, location, frequency and volume of ship movements under the two schemes) that the existing EIA was adequate, it would appear that the DDC decision not to require a fresh Environmental Impact Assessment for the amended scheme was taken by officers with no public consultation or formal reference to the planning committee. We do not believe that decisions affecting a matter of such gravity should be delegated to employees of the Council or taken behind closed doors without their implications first being considered at the highest level and subjected to scrutiny.
The design and Access and Heritage Statement prepared by Royal HaskoningDHV states:
'Prince of Wales Pier Furniture
The pier furniture which is included in the listing of the Grade II Pier will be appropriately stored in a secure facility and re-located where appropriate or within a similar maritime setting within the Western Docks following completion of the DWDR development. This mitigation measure was recommended within the Historic Environment Chapter of the Dover Terminal 2 Environmental Impact Assessment (Maritime Archaeology Ltd, 2008).
It is considered that the removal of the furniture prior to further works along the pier structure will be of benefit to the long term survival of these architecturally and historically important assets.'
We believe that these statements are far too vague, giving ample scope for backsliding, and that in a scheme of this importance and complexity the fine details of where these heritage items are to be re-located ought already to have been decided. These details should therefore have been included in this application and, in order to safeguard these assets, no decision ought to be taken on this application until such detailed plans are provided by the applicant.
In the same document, lip service is paid to adherence to DDC's Heritage Strategy and Dover District Core Strategy of 2010. In paragraph 2.7.2 of the document, reference is made to the T2 development being recognised within the Core Strategy as being one of four development opportunities central to its success. But this application is not in respect of the T2 development but the DWDR scheme, which has not been considered in the context of the Core Strategy and has not been the subject of public consultation.
In the following email text a council officer admits that the proposal description in the application is vague: 'Dear Mr Garstin, Thank you for your email. At this point, there are no notes on the LBC file as no site visit or meeting has yet to take place. However, outline permission for the overall development, including the works at the pier, formed part of the Harbour Development Order which was an Act of Parliament so our role in heritage is to make sure that the changes which do take place, are not unduly harmful to the listed pier. The proposal description is, unfortunately, rather vague and does not give the full picture. The pier, when the Hovercraft dock was built in the 70's was partially covered by the dock and the concrete section of the pier at the landward end, was added at that time. It is this area which will be most affected by the proposal. The removal of the listed furniture is to prevent damage during the process and will be replaced once the pier re-opens to the public following the works.'
Obviously DHB has managed to convince DDC that the heritage assets will be replaced and the pier re-opened following the works. However there is no detail on this aspect of the application and we believe therefore that the granting of consent by the planning committee to the proposal would create a serious risk of the permanent loss of this historic structure which is dear to thousands of Dovorians. DDC may be convinced but DPPTL is not and neither, we suspect, are the community. I shall not go into the detail of how the pier is held in such esteem by the community as that is obvious from the many comments already received from citizens on DDC's planning website and by the outpourings of anger in the press and on social media. However, given the town's feeling and its distrust of the applicant, the Planning Committee should use their power to delay this consent until the additional detail is provided, to demand binding undertakings from DHB as to the timescale for re-opening the pier and reinstating its furniture, and to stop the application in its tracks if such detail and undertakings are not forthcoming.
DPPTL and its members want the best for Dover, and we shall support the DHB wholeheartedly in trying to provide it. But we don't think this proposal as it stands bears out DHB's mantra that it has the community at its heart. In particular DHB's announcement that the pier will close in early September merely demonstrates its disregard for the community, Dover's heritage maritime assets (of which it is merely the custodian, not the proprietor), and its arrogance in taking the consent of the planning committee for granted.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Excellent and well thought out post Peter.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,658
I love your last sentence well done Peter, that is an objection which should not be ignored.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 1348- Registered: 20 Sep 2014
- Posts: 276
nice objection only thing I spotted was "Obviously DHB has managed to convince DHB that the heritage assets will be replaced " should that not be they managed to convince DDC?
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Ah yes will correct! Thanks.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 1416- Registered: 20 Nov 2014
- Posts: 77
Thank you, Peter, for such a well considered objection, you have REALLY captured the feeling of the town for this truly ill-conceived venture by DHB. If this redevelopment is allowed to go through, rather than helping regeneration of Dover it will blight the Western area of Dover Harbor for possibly another two or three generations. Please keep up the good fight, Dover needs more people like you to hold both the DDC and the DHB to account.
A clear conscience is the sure sign of a bad memory.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
There's more to come, Nicola.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Looking at the expiry date here and no date yet set for when it comes up at committee. add to that DHB starting work in September and the impression given is that DHB have been given the green light and it is just a matter of tidying up the paperwork. Hopefully I am wrong.
http://planning.dover.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=dates&keyVal=DCAPR_226992Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
This must go to committee. If DHB attempt to close the pier and start work before consent I shall seek further legal advice.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Terry Nunn- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,294
If anyone wants to start a picket line across the entrance I'll join them!
Terry
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?