Canute fund grows
- 30 May 2010 23:3954201I see from the local paper that DDC, in their infinite wisdom, have put another £25,000 of our money to ensure that 'development and privatisation of the Port of Dover does not scupper plans for town regeneration (sic) or hit promises for a shareholding community trust'.
Apparently £25,000 was already agreed in February and the council has already spent £45,111 on legal advice.
Whilst the community trust and share-dividend arrangements are indeed part of the opening gambits in the DHB application, does anyone really believe, that with what Board Members describe (off the record) as the inevitable privatisation of the Harbour Board, HMG will be minded to give one penny piece to the good burghers of Dover?
As for scuppering any plans for regeneration, the denizens of Fort Whitfield seem quite capable of doing this themselves, if past performance means anything, without any outside assistance. - 31 May 2010 08:5454212But Bob, if DDC did not excert itself to secure a good deal from this for Dover we would be attacking it for being negligent....
We at least have an ally in Parliament now who is numerate and relatively influential to add to DDC efforts to get a deal. - Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
31 May 2010 09:0054214where and when would this happen,sometimes the left hand dosent know what the right hands doing,and its not allways joined up as it should be. - 31 May 2010 12:4654243Barry, yes I expect DDC to get the best deal for Dover obviously, (although considering the present make up of the Council of self-aggrandising intellectual pygmies I doubt whether they would be capable of working out the best deal on washing powder in Tesco).
Are there no Council Staff at Fort Whitfield capable of giving legal advice?
What sort of difficult questions are raised at this stage of the game that it requires the best part of £50,000 to get an answer?
Is it not a case that DDC is well out of its depth on this one and the usual suspects are running around like headless chickens and spending my money to cover their arses?
I'm sorely tempted to get a FOI request on this one! - 31 May 2010 13:1954250"Best deal" is relative anyway, isn't it? Bes t for whom, and using what measure?
Bob - go for it!!!!
- 31 May 2010 13:3554253i would have thought that the council would have its own in house legal people.
- 31 May 2010 13:5854257Precisely Howard! Anyway I've just e-mailed the Planning Department at the Fort with the following so I'll keep you posted.
'Dear Sir,
I see from the local paper that DDC, in their infinite wisdom, have
put another £25,000 of our money to ensure that 'development and
privatisation of the Port of Dover does not scupper plans for town
regeneration (sic) or hit promises for a shareholding community
trust'.
Apparently £25,000 was already agreed in February and the council has
already spent £45,111 on legal advice.
I would have thought that the experts in your department with their
knowledge of the minutiae of planning regulations would have been the
ideal chaps (and chapesses) to answer any questions from the council
without recourse to hiring 'legal advice'.
Were you approached? What is the level of legal expertise in your
office relating to planning? If so what were the questions that were
too hard for you to give an answer to?
I would be grateful for a reply soonest so that I can promulgate your
answer to other concerned Council Tax payers and to save me the hassle
of recourse to FOI.
Thanks
Bob Frost
p.s. Any update on the e-mail I sent to Darran Solley (Senior
Horticultural Officer) the other week about siting of the new cemetery
for Dover. He replied that he had noted my comments (which was nice),
but I had actually asked a couple of questions to which I am still
awaiting a reply.' - 31 May 2010 14:0554258Nice, Bob.
- 31 May 2010 14:0754259you can expect a reply the minute that someone finds out what promulgate means bob.
- 31 May 2010 16:2954281They'll be too busy chasing their tails trying to find out who approved a gate on the prom!
- 31 May 2010 20:4854323Bob - the Council does have its own legal people but I expect that they would need specialist advice. That was the case 15 years ago or more.
- 31 May 2010 21:0454328Dear Barry W,
Why do you not try removing your cranium from your rectum and returning to the real world!!
After all we have been through with the DITZ can you seriously have any faith in a collective group of baffoons who alledgedly represent the interests of the people of Dover.
Lets face it they do not have the brains to organise a master plan for the town.
I have lived here for 22 years and despite the thousands of pounds spent on so called consultations, not one new brick has been laid of there now defunct master plans. It really is quiet outragous that we are now embarking on another consultation. One seriously pissed off council tax payer!!
P.S. Dont pin our hopes on our brand new MP as you will find out he will be as competant as our last MP and he was down right useless. - 31 May 2010 21:0854329Almost a good posting Jimmy, shame about the unnecessery personal onslaught to our Barry.
- Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
31 May 2010 21:1754335i dont know sid,at least someones straight talking here.i think its called shooting from the hip. - 31 May 2010 21:3654337Barry, I am well aware that there are Legal Officers which leaves my question 'what were the questions that needed almost £50,000 of legal advice'?.
These people are supposed to be working for me/us. I/we should be told what our money is being spent upon.
I am not dealing with some Government Department where quite rightly they operate on a need to know basis,
I am dealing with a District Council who are singularly incapable of fulfilling their core responsibilities clearing ice off pavements, providing toilets, taking away my household rubbish and the other urban housekeeping stuff that they should be doing and which I pay them for with my Council Tax, and instead spend their time on jollies to research and committees to discuss grandiose and ill thought out schemes beyond their remit and collective capability. - 1 June 2010 16:0354478Back to the plot.
It would appear that someone has called the Senior Horticultural Office out of the hibiscus to look at his e-mail in box and he has just sent me the following reply
'Dear Mr Frost,
I have been forwarded an e-mail submitted by yourself with reference to 'Request to Planning and Building Control'. You have made a comment on the bottom of this e-mail that I have not replied to your previous e-mail, a copy of which I have attached below.
I have acknowledged receipt of your comments on a previous occasion.
The sites you kindly suggested are deemed unsuitable for cemetery provision.
If you wish to discuss the matter further please contact me directly on 01304 872436.'
I was hoping to 'phone him to sort things out but unfortunately some idiot left the 'phone off the charger so I can't this afternoon. so I've had to resort to e-mail:-
'Hi Darren,
Sorry to be pedantic BUT my comment did NOT claim that you had not replied to my previous e-mail, I even said it was nice of you to do so!
I quote:-
p.s. Any update on the e-mail I sent to Darran Solley (Senior
Horticultural Officer) the other week about siting of the new cemetery
for Dover. He replied that he had noted my comments (which was nice),
but I had actually asked a couple of questions to which I am still
awaiting a reply.
What you had NOT done was answer my question as to why the sites had not been considered.
You have now informed me that they are deemed unsuitable with the implication that they had been considered (otherwise no-one could have 'deemed' them).
Might I presume that this was due to possible pollution of aquifers by decomposition of cadavers? Or were there other reasons?'
Will keep you all posted.
- 1 June 2010 16:1654479Jimmy
Not entirely convinced of the need for insults. Your comments are valid but cheapened by unpleasant personal comments.True friends stab you in the front. - 1 June 2010 18:1854487Sid Perkins,
I try my best but nobody is perfect!!
- 1 June 2010 18:4254490jiimy
a bit unfair about our new honourable member, no-one knows at this stage how effective he will be.
he has to be given a chance. - 2 June 2010 10:2954554Well there you go. Nothing to do with aquifers. I've just got a reply from Darren, a man who would appear to be wasted in horticulture. I think I shall have to let this one go!
'The DTIZ site is an allocated town centre employment site that needs to be considered as part of the much wider regeneration of Dover. The use of this land, which is adjacent to an often heavily congested road which has air quality issues, is not an appropriate location for a cemetery which is intended to be a place of rest, peace and reflection. Allied to this part of this site is at risk from flooding and I suspect this area has a high water table and as such there would be an objection from the EA.
We have not considered this area of land for a cemetery as it is an extremely important town centre employment site and it is located on one of the main through routes into and out of Dover. Building a cemetery on this site would not meet the District Council's aspirations of regenerating and transforming Dover and would not be a positive way of improving the town's international profile.
In terms of Betteshanger, again this is an area of land that has been identified and protected for employment use. Notwithstanding this, providing a cemetery in this part of the District would not meet the needs of those residents who live in Dover.
To conclude, both of these sites are totally inappropriate for a cemetery and would not be consistent with the District Council's Adopted Core Strategy.
If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me'