howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
all rather surprising, only seems a few weeks ago that the planning committee gave it the thumbs down - now they have changed their minds.
http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/Villagers-dismayed-plan-460-homes-Sholden/story-14145753-detail/story.htmlGuest 687- Registered: 2 Jun 2009
- Posts: 513
Of those objecting I wonder how many live in home that would have been a green field site 30 years ago.
When Whitfield Parish councillors raised objections to development in Whitfield I pointed out to them only one of them lived in a home more than 30 years old.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
They may have permission, but there will still need to be the financial climate and demand for them before anything happens.....
Good point Ken, one I have often thought myself as everyone's houses were on green fields at some point in the past!
Been nice knowing you :)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
not with standing the comments above, i would like to know what changed in such a short period of time to make the planning committe change their minds.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
The quiet promise of something beneficial to the community is a possibility. I remember when a developer wanted to develop the land of a burnt out building in Tilmanstone, the developer promised a new very posh club house for the cricket team.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
doesn't seem to be any sweeteners on offer here, judging by the fact that the developers have been so pushy on this one suggests that work is planned to start soon.
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Need to take into account that these developments are part of a 20 year housing supply for Deal.
Planning inspector defined the sites in the Local Plan. Only access & environment were reasons not to grant permission.
To refuse without logical reason would have cost[you] the taxpayer at Inquiry.
No objections from Highways,Environment agencies/groupings etc.
Not liking development on your door step is not a valid reason.
Delay rather than resolution is unacceptable [cop out][. Nobody proposed refusal.
Sec106/CIL [goodies] have still to be agreed. Finance available, just deciding what is good for the neighbourhood. Time to do best for community.
Watty
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Like Whitfield people like scaremongering that suddenly over a weekend the hundreds and thousands of houses are going to appear !!
Been nice knowing you :)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
still doesn't answer the question about the sudden change of mind from the planning gurus.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Can't answer your question, Howard, but it's amazing how a few people decide their view must prevail over that of a whole community.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
that is how i see it alex, the local councillors and village folk seem united in their efforts to stop the development.
we have a very large brownfield site close to where we live, why not build there?
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
"The authority's planning committee voted through the proposal by the narrowest of margins, with committee chairman Councillor Bernard Butcher using his chairman's vote to decide the outcome"
So people cannot be united against it if it is 50/50
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
re - "we have a very large brownfield site close to where we live, why not build there?"
As Paul says it is a 20 year plan so there will need to be various sites all over the District
Been nice knowing you :)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i fail to see your logic paul.
the planning committee has no connection with the burghers of sholden
.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Paul, the planning committee might be almost 50/50, but the community is 100% against the project.
Adding to that, there are so many empty houses in the district, it makes me wonder if the planning committee - that half of it - are applying invisible criteria in their decision, something only they can consider logical, but unknown to the average peasant!
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,707
How can we do this simply
The land was identified by a Planning Inspector
The land is part of a 20 year plan
The only ALLOWABLE objections to granting consent are access (Highways) and Environment (EA etc.)
Neither of the allowable objections were raised
Therefore consent must be granted
Of course consent could have been withheld, the developer would request a planning inquiry, the council would lose and have to pay the costs and grant consent.
Seems like the committee did what they had to do, now let them sort out Section 106 funds with the developer so the local community gets something in return
Yes there are empty properties and brownfield sites in the district, if these are included in the Local Plan then if a developer shows interest (Buckland Mill for example) they will be built on/reused
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Ross, the article about Environment, well I used that among others in my representation to DDC last year concerning Whitfield.
I pointed out that the traffic streaming down Barton Road, passing most of Dover's schools, and on into the town, could double, as too the return traffic up London Road.
A good argument and acceptable under the envisaged rules (Environment). But it didn't seem to bother the Planning Department. One could ask why, the reply might be that if one has a point, they'll ignore it.
Destined to lose all the way round here. Pollution, Environment, all balderdash for the Planning Department!
Growth points status means money, money money....
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
The two Sholden applications were deferred in September and October by the Planning Committee because a number of things were felt to need further clarification on, including a traffic survey, flooding, community benefits etc.
Five independant traffic surveys were carried out by professional bodies and each one said the increase in traffic can be handled O.K.
New flood mitigation measures have been set in place, so are now not a problem - this has been agreed by the environment agency who are always sticklers on flood-risk.
The local community will benefit by an extra £200,00
Some members of the Planning Committee just didn't want either development whatever safeguards would have been put in place, but none of their objections were justified on planning grounds.
Roger
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Roger, the more relevant point is that none of committee voted for refusal but proposed further deferral.
Stalling tactics to try to appease the public but lack of bottle to propose a refusal.
I don't think the public will be fooled.
Not even good acting, pretty hammy indignation.
Expect more of the same from others.
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
paul
i believe the deferral was for a year or more yet this came up very soon afterwards.
incidentally according to an informant of mine you are right about the hammy indignation, classic posturing for the benefit of sholden residents.