Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#61
cor blimey alex you do have in your bonnet or is it as paul says lorainne has a bee in it.and besides just because the building of houses in the ddc area dosent mean they are for eastern europeans or from the other european countrys either.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#62
I think Alexander has shown he doesn't read posts(or chooses to read bits)
In the first post I put exactly where the proposed 14,000 homes were looking to go, neither for nor against
just for a discussion.
Never expected it to end up as a discussion on UKIP's immigration pollicy
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#63
But because of Labour's open-door policy on immigration (yes I know that the Conservatives have not been very effective at changing it), there is an enormous strain on virtually every aspect of (Government) services, from housing to medical services and from education to benefits, so immigration is an important issue that hasn't been addressed properly because almost every time someone mentions it, they are accused of racism.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#64
Sorry roger your not getting away with that,
All govts have not grasped the nettle on this one,
Both major parties are to blame
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#65
That's exactly what I said Keith - read it again.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#66
not quite roger you indicate the blame on labourthen go on to say maybe the tories are tinkering with it
when in reality both main parties failed
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#67
Labour were in power for 13 years, the Conservatives have been there for nearly two years. Labour have always had an open door policy on immigration.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#68
Roger
you may not agree with Reg
But your doing just the same as what your saying he did from his side
never mind thats politics i suppose
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#69
back to the tread title,alex reckons that all the new builds will go to the bulgarians and romainians next year,but personnly i cant see how or why.
Guest 687- Registered: 2 Jun 2009
- Posts: 513
#70
Dover once had a population of some 40;000 crammed in to what is virtually the core of the Town (including 35 milliners) and appears to have been very wealthy. What is proposed now is a very similar population on a much larger area and I would like to think history could repeat itself.
I will confess I chose to move to Dover and have never regretted it and although I work for a Dover company 95% of my income is earned in Europe(EC and others) so perhaps my view is biased. It would be interesting to see how many posters were actually born in Dover.
Guest 767- Registered: 30 Aug 2012
- Posts: 458
#71
I was! A Dover Shark born and bred!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#72
"alex reckons that all the new builds will go to the bulgarians and romainians next year, but personnly i cant see how or why"
This phrase does not appear in my posts, Brian. Neither have I mentioned UKIP on the thread, Keith.
Once again, the core strategy lacks an assessment on immigration to Dover District, including immigration potential projected in the future. Immigration is substantially affecting both housing and employment in Dover District.
Whether one is in favour of unrestricted immigration or campaigns against it, is not really part of the point I'm making, but simply the idea that it is not assessed in the core strategy, which I feel means the core strategy needs to be re-examined.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#73
as dose yours alex.
Guest 868- Registered: 25 Jan 2013
- Posts: 490
#74
Alexander D wrote:"alex reckons that all the new builds will go to the bulgarians and romainians next year, but personnly i cant see how or why"
This phrase does not appear in my posts, Brian. Neither have I mentioned UKIP on the thread, Keith.
Once again, the core strategy lacks an assessment on immigration to Dover District, including immigration potential projected in the future. Immigration is substantially affecting both housing and employment in Dover District.
Whether one is in favour of unrestricted immigration or campaigns against it, is not really part of the point I'm making, but simply the idea that it is not assessed in the core strategy, which I feel means the core strategy needs to be re-examined.
They might revise the core strategy and include the Heights and Farthingloe, then your arguments about it not being allowed as it is not on it will be stuffed
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#75
keith started this thread on the subject of the possibility of housing development to give the district growth point status, there is a seperate thread available for the interminable and circular cgi discussion.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#76
alex,thats how your posts read,lock,stock and barrel.
howard,thanks for the reminder.
Guest 868- Registered: 25 Jan 2013
- Posts: 490
#77
howard mcsweeney1 wrote:keith started this thread on the subject of the possibility of housing development to give the district growth point status, there is a seperate thread available for the interminable and circular cgi discussion.
Same could be said about the endless political threads
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
#78
From Dover's core strategy on housing -
"Housing allocations are expressed in terms of the number of new homes to be provided. The Strategy seeks to allocate land for up to 14,000 homes and to deliver a minimum of 10,100 of these by 2026 as required by the South East Plan. Of the 14,000 homes, land for 7,750 is allocated through the strategic allocations and the saved Local Plan provisions for Aylesham. Land to accommodate the balance will be allocated through the Site Allocations Document. "
So there's 3,900 more homes allowed for than are required, and that could be available for any increased need due to immigration.
The 170 or so pages of the South East Plan dealing with land allocation can be found in section B here -
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100528142817/http:/www.gos.gov.uk/gose/planning/regionalPlanning/815640/
As far as I'm aware it's not available on Sky News
Guest 687- Registered: 2 Jun 2009
- Posts: 513
#79
I always believed that with the lower house prices in the district and the easy access to London we would attract those wishing to relocate to the coast, but I'm not aware of any evidence to support this, which is a pity. Perhaps we should promote ourselves as a commuter town, but then the defunct estate agent Paul Brown to his credit did try this.
Guest 664- Registered: 23 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,039
#80
As one caller to a phone in last night put it, "when is the penny going to drop that we cannot just keep urbanizing the rural areas?"
The English fetish for suburbs consistently overlooks the fact that they come at the cost of countryside, lost until the weeds of doomsday reclaim it.
Walk around Dover and you will see plenty of spots for brownfield development. It is preposterous to let greedy, lazy developers build on prime agricultural land when opportunities to revive Dover town and provide extra housing at the same time are being overlooked. How about a bit of imagination!?
If the figures are really just wishful thinking and window dressing to get grants, I'll forgive, and I won't tell.