howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
seems to be coming up at the next planning meeting, had a brief glance at the details but couldn't immediately see any changes from the original.
http://planning.dover.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=constraints&keyVal=DCAPR_219616Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#2
that will upset alex and a few others.but lets hope something construtive will happen.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#3
Shall we get this thread down before it gets unconstructive.....
Been nice knowing you :)
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
#4
I'll think you'll find a major reduction in housing on Heights in response to some public comments.
Watty
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#5
Personally (before people quoting me as being a representive of any group) - from an initial brief view I think the revised plans are much more suitable to the existing residents, more sensitive to the skyline, but still open up funding opportunities and security to the heritage,
Looks like I will have a busy week as I will actually be reading and digesting all of the information available before I can truly comment on it as a whole....
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#6
The proposed £5m fund towards the heritage match funded towards lottery funds would certainly kick start a self-funding heritage attraction.
Been nice knowing you :)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#7
ddc have changed the way planning applications can be read, before i got a list for the week every sunday tea time. now i get told that a list is available if i sign in. have tried to register for the purposes of signing in but the system keeps crashing so that i know there are 196 comments but cannot read what they are.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#8
You don't need to log in you just click on the Public Comments tab
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#9
From the Telegraph...
" People planning
SIR - We all want the planning system to be fair and efficient. However we are concerned that the Growth and Infrastructure Bill undermines local accountability by centralising powers in the hands of the Secretary of State.
Planning has to be about delivery, but it is also about people and their voice in decisions. For more than 60 years we have enjoyed local democratic accountability in planning which ensures the system's legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Centralising power will corrode public trust.
We ask the Government to delete Clauses 1 and 23 of the Bill, which allow developers to bypass local authority decision making. The planning system is not the cause of poor economic performance but provides a vital way of deciding between competing objectives in the public interest. "
Signed by 24 interested parties...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/9746363/Marriage-is-more-than-just-a-public-expression-of-love.htmlIgnorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#10
hopefully this thread will concentrate on the real issue this time and not descend into the playground bullying that caused the original thread to be closed.
the signs are good.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#11
Just had this through as a validated planning application.
Should be very interesting reading and perhaps receive much more positive views; I do appreciate that you can't please all of the people all of the time.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#12
when you say validated roger, does that mean that the planning department have given it their seal of approval?
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#13
I believe "Validated" means that it valid and complete application and can be passed through the planning channels for people to comment on etc etc, so definately not approved !
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
#14
Let us hope that nimbyism doesn't triumph again. Yes, the development isn't to everyone's taste and yes, suspicions are aroused when a development such as this comes around from a company/individual not renowned for philanthropy, but I do believe Dover needs to encourage development and be a little more accepting of change. I have to say that the planning department at DDC have a rather chequered history in recent times, but surely - putting naive optimism to one side for a moment - we have to trust DDC to ensure that any planning permission that may be given falls in line with the history and environment of the area.
True friends stab you in the front.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#15
scotchie is wading through it at present so will be interested on his interpretation on how it will affect our countryside and heritage.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#16
Scotchie's post number 13 is correct.
Roger
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#17
Well there are another 56 or so documents available on the DDC planning portal to work through so I have some busy xmas reading to do, but to start with some comments.
A £5 million pot to the heritage could open the potential of Heritage Lottery Funding and you could possibly see that topped up by maybe another £20million. Either way it is a reasonable sum to be able to make a difference and create a self funding tourist attraction
The housing removed around Heights Terrace should certainly please the residents, the conversion of the fire damaged Victoria Hall and some development along the ridge where the sheds are is rather minimal now.
The artists impressions of the Hotel show that it doesn't intrude the views and if you don't know it was there you'd probably have trouble seeing it. The site there is huge but I'll need to look at the plans in details.
Again all this is with my non-WHPS hat on as is a committee decision on what the views are but I will add that we are having (very very early) discussions with people with regards the Heights and Fort Burgoyne around possible heritage skills training, which could potentially create jobs at the same time as looking after the heritage. In conjunction with the above it could make a big difference
Above all we need to remember we are only guardians of our heritage, we need to make sure we do the right thing so it is still there in hundreds of years to come. How we get there may need some out of the box thinking and some compromise....
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#18
Here Here Paul.
Some brave decisions too.
Roger
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#19
From Alexander on the other thread:
"Paul, to paraphrase texts like that has already led to a dispute when you asked me to amend an article on my blog.
I was and am fully aware that I do not want the CGI planning proposal going ahead, I am aware that many people do not want these new developments on our protected areas.
Subsequently I don't need to read hundreds or thousands of pages on it."
No point in going over the same grounds as we know where that ended up, but I find it extremely worrying that someone wanting to campaign against a development isn't willing to read the application documentation in full so they can fully understand the pros and cons of the proposals....
Been nice knowing you :)
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#20
Im willing to look at documents/listen to locals and comment here on
now lets see how things develope(or not as the case may be lol)
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS