Guest 664- Registered: 23 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,039
10 December 2008
20:3410763#1
When I added my comments to the online LDF consultation in the spring, what representations that had been made were almost 100% against the council's plans.
Their response: to nearly quadruple the number of homes planned for Whitfield.
It is clear that:
(1) DDC are hell bent on bulldozing through (literally) their plans to concrete over White Cliffs Country in utter contempt
of public opinion
(2) They are fixated on, and blinded by, financial inducements from Growth Point Status and inducements from green field hungry developers.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
10 December 2008
20:3910765#2
interesting post andrew.
2 questions here
a) where do you think the homes should be built?
b) if there are financial inducements from growth point status and green field developments, is the money not a good thing for our area? there seems to be a lot of projects that could do with funding.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
10 December 2008
20:4110767#3
My understanding is a number of houses has been decided but not where they will go.
Its good that the Whitfield action group is active and it would be political suicide for Mr Watkins to go against the wishes of the population of whitfield wouldnt it?
interested if paul maybe could comment on this issue?
before building all these homes there needs to be better infrastructure in place.
Look at the amount of buildings springing up and then finding it hard to sell/rent them
look at folkestone road.
lets hear it from paul
Guest 664- Registered: 23 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,039
10 December 2008
21:2210772#4
Howard, first I dispute that we need as many homes as stated. I would however be interested to learn how much money was involved, and in what relation so the council's normal income that stood.
As I've stated on here before, the town should take priority. Let's see Buckland Mill developed first, for example. Building all these houses just to get the grants available cannot be the right reason.
And what price countryside, fresh air, space and a feeling of relaxation and well- being?
Contemptible concepts in the work-money anthill that is 21st century England, it seems.
I am absolutely not against controlled development, even a limited amount at Whitfield, but the thinking involved is hopelessly short term and not holistic enough.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
10 December 2008
21:4310773#5
i agree that we do not need all these extra homes andrew.
the fact is that the government has decreed that we do.
moving on you have mentioned financial inducements, but we do not know how much money is involved.
finally, forget about buckland mill, that comes under SEEDA, a quango that spends money like water, has flash ads outside properties, but actually does nothing.
did not the main man there hit the headlines a while back for working one day a week and claiming a small fortune for his bus fares to the office.?
Guest 664- Registered: 23 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,039
10 December 2008
21:5810774#6
I understand what you are saying, Howard, about central government policy.
It does seem like madness, does it not, to talk of the reckless expansion of Whitfield New Town when existing sites remain undeveloped and new houses unsold.
Guest 643- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,321
10 December 2008
22:2010776#7
Andrew I do agree with all that you've written and I have to ask also if provision will be made to ensure that the mains services, ie drains, sewerage, electricity, gas etc are adequate.
When the Buckland estate was built it put loads more strain on the pipework for sewers and waste water. I am told that this is the reason why we get the awful stench, particularly in the summer months. I have friends who live at The Linces and they tell me that when they complained to the council about the appalling smell they had to endure they were told that if they wanted anything done about it they must pay for the work! How they live with it I do not know, the smell gets into the house and is overpowering sometimes. Surely this should come out of council tax money? If all these houses are to be built are we going to see this happening more and more?
Another thing that concerns me is this. If these houses are built and then sold/occupied, do we have enough schools for the extra children? Are there enough jobs, doctors, facilities? I don't think so - do you?
There's always a little truth behind every "Just kidding", a little emotion behind every "I don't care" and a little pain behind every "I'm ok".
Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
10 December 2008
23:5110778#8
It is not just on Buckland estate it smells,if you visit the post office on Buckland Ave or the Doctors surgery at certain times and not just the summer months Jacqui.
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
11 December 2008
00:0810779#9
this seems rather a serious matter.
first i have heard about it.
surely this matter should be in the public domain, not just on here.
it sounds like a public health risk.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
11 December 2008
01:0510788#10
During the 'consultations' on the LDF, whenever infrastructure was raised the 'facilitators' would always respond that it "would follow the housing". The increased number of houses brings grant money earmarked for the seafront, Dover Castle and, possibly, a cable car'. All part of the 'big picture'. Who is painting this picture?
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
11 December 2008
08:4810801#11
And have they had art classes.....?
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
11 December 2008
10:2510810#12
as i said in my earlier posting
11 December 2008
10:2910812#13
There's so much dereliction (Buckland Mill for starters) and so many empty spaces and buildings in the town that quality housing development there should take precedence over Whitfield (which should expand too, but in a smaller, less-rapacious manner).
Quality residential opportunities in the town itself should be a key component of the feted Dover regeneration programme. We need an enlightened approach.
11 December 2008
17:0910826#14
Then We're doomed!!!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
11 December 2008
20:3710841#15
all very sad about buckland mill, i would like the exterior to be retained with warehouse type flats internally.
add to that landscaping of the river with gardens around it, the appeal would be to the bohemian types that go for that sort of thing.
would it not be better if money given to seeda, seera and any other organisation like them, would be given direct to elected authorities like the county and district councils.?
12 December 2008
07:5110861#16
That sounds lovely Howard, and I am sure it would atrtract people to live there.
Guest 664- Registered: 23 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,039
12 December 2008
20:3310911#17
My concern is that the enormous expansion of Whitfield (completely against the wishes of the people there) is being driven by cash incentives. It seems the wrong way round - build houses because they are needed and enhance the area. Don't just slap them down on the countryside willy-nilly for the sake of it because of a few grants which will soon be spent anyway. Smacks of the shopkeeper mentality to me.
Moreover if this plan does come off, where would the next round of expansion have left to go?
Space is not a finite resource, but a precious one to be prized and looked after. I thought we realised now that the traditional low-density, suburbanist, land-squandering English approach to development is passé and that we need a smarter, more frugal approach to using land.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
12 December 2008
21:3810912#18
Andrew
I noticed that those making(or helping)to make these decisons have not posted.
As I say not all the building is to happen in whitfield, but thats for others to explain.(mr watkins)
but those groups opposing the large building should continue
Unregistered User
14 December 2008
10:0410943#19
Andrew you might get answers to your questions more readily if you were less aggressive & accusatory.The local plan [LDF] is based on economic & demographic predictions for the District. These assumptions are not work undertaken by DDC planners or members but completed by economic planning experts from the independent sector & demographers from KCC. They are factors that they believe will manifest in Dover District in the next twenty years. Housing supply although controversial forms only a small part of the total picture.Currently according to the statistics Dover's workforce is made of 2/3 inward bound workers from outside our area to 1/3 local. Not a very good sitiuation from either the environment [pollution thru. journeys] or our local economy , whereby the income derived from our area is being spent elsewhere. This might then manifest in the type of retail/leisure options Dover has or has not.If we had gone for the lowest option of housing supply the statistics identified that 10-15% of our local workforce would have disappeared thru age over 20 years & not been replaced locally.
Four housing options were put forward for consideration 6100, 8100, 10000,14000.The lowest two would have left us with deficits in our current workforce [not even addressing 2/3 -1/3 inward labour imbalance]. Option 3, 10000 property units started picking up the new growth opportunities indentified in an independent business development report. Option 4 had a more positive impact but was still behind the requisite number for housing growth of 20000 plus [which we declined to look at or accept]I hope that gives you an insight into the analysis.If we now go the process.
DDC set up an advisory group to provide recommendations for the LDF, dealing with all the aspects of the local plan. This group were not only elected members[cross party] & DDC officers but local people & groups who represented a wider view of the District. A member of Parish Councils, one representing Town Councils, two members of the local strategic partnership[voluntary groups, churches & business] & others completed the group. They have met for nearly four years to arrive at a recommendation that will go to DDC on Wednesday.Without discension they all ageed that growth was the only way forward & growth on a scale that dealt with the communities aspirations. The overwhelming results to consultation was growth & "get on with it".So now we come to the land allocation for growth. This obviously is the contentious part of the process.Frankly this is one that no can one win. Someone has to have growth. You can spread it across the District & lose critical mass in obtaining full infrastructure support or concentrate in larger groupings & deliver a development that delivers a comprehensive infrastructure package. There are obviously brown field sites that will take up over 50% of land allocation requirements. They include the Buckland Mill site , Connaught Barracks , potential release of hospital land at Coombe Valley,site at Barwick Rd. & more. Andy Stevens has also identified other urban Dover opportunities for change in designation with which I concur.So the green field take is probably about 40% which includes 1000+ units at Aylesham , roughly 700 in Deal & other sites throughout the villages complementing the totals.Then we arrive at Whitfield where the identified allocations could be approx. 2000 to the East , joining up with A256 roundabout & approx. 4000 to the West. I have run out of posting space. So will cut off here. I will continue if requested.
14 December 2008
10:3710945#20
I hear what you say PW, but it might appear that, whatever the manner in which they are asked, some questions are never answered. But I appreciate this reponse.
