Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I believe there would have been a move to refuse, Paul and because of this and the reasons stated above, the deferral was moved; when those reasons for deferral had been resolved, it was passed - as it should have been.
I do agree that there was (or seemed to be) a certain amount of posturing for political reasons.
Roger
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
I thought that was funny: all the existing houses were built on green land. So why not build more on green land?
Especially when we don't need them.
It was a poor joke, I suppose
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Don't forget it is a 20 year plan, there is only a limited about of brown field...
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Paul, where are the people supposed to come from to live here? Haven't they got green land in their own counties to build on.
Dover, Canterbury, and other Kentish districts all seem to be up for grabs for building thousands of houses on farmland. We've got so many empty houses as it is.
Can't they build these houses in their own counties?
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
alex,in all of the empty houses around the area.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
good point brian, i read recently that the same problem of empty properties that we have here is nationwide.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Nobody will know this better than the developers.... if they don't see a demand then they won't go ahead with building them.....
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
As you say Paul, it is a 20 year plan, so the young teenagers of Deal/Sholden/Mongeham today (and perhaps even younger ones), will need somewhere to live when they get married or leave their parents home.
These are not for new people to the area, but the children of existing ones.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
if members click on the link from the first post again they will see comments added by dealites since.
some interesting views.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
According to rumours, DDC will pocket $8.500 for each new home built in the Deal area.
No doubt the same applies for Whitfield.
This seems to be one reason why the planning projects for Dover District are in place, to bring in these revenues to DDC. I thought as much.
I also wonder how Roger can say that the intnded homes are not for new people. How do you know this, Roger?
If there are thousands of new homes built, most of them NOT affordable, then they cannot be for us locals, but for a wealthier class from London, methinks.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Let's be realistic, Roger, London has already taken over large areas of western Kent, including our beloved Greenwich. With millions of inhabitants, tens of thousands will come flocking over to East Kent, taking advantage of mass enforced settlement projects for the wealthy, hence hardly any affordable homes in the DDC projects for poorer Kentish peasants.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
a couple of points here, firstly the issue of growth point status which is important - the problem is that the money is given for new buils when it would be better if it was also given for houses brought back into use that have been left to rot.
nothing the council can do about that, the issue of affordable homes is different.
my understanding is that a proportion of the development would encompass that but the new consent does not have that.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
No-one is 'pocketing' the New Homes Bonus, it is money that is spent on the District for the benefit of the people in the District,
Should Dover just sit back and not prepare for the future whilst other areas reap the benefits and Dover falls more and more behind?
Been nice knowing you :)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
alex
greenwich is in south east london not west kent unless they move it after the war.
also
where will all these incomers live if there is no affordable houses in places like whitfield and sholden?
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
interesting another £200,000 being mentioned again
you recall this was offered to priory when play area taken away
since then got no play area and the £200,000 disappeared
good luck sholden
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Paul, I certainly did not imply that anyone would pocket the money. I've never accused DDC of being dishonest.
The money would go towards the budget.
But there are so many counter arguments as to the disadvantages of so many - I mean 6,000 - new homes in Whitfield, and 500 in Sholden. Surely the population of Dover and Whitfield does not justify sooo many new houses within one generation.
That could amount to 30,000 people. Possibly more, if some house-owners start renting out rooms individually to get their expenses back.
What has lacked on this topic in the past is any open discussion on all the possible disadvantages. The councillors in favour of the project brush away any suggestion of negative effects.
Where will all these people work, in which factories, on which frams, in which offices or banks? Don't we already have a jobcentre full of people signing on all times of the day?
What about pollution, with thousands more cars coming and going through Dover on the daily shop, or whatever?
This lack of PROPER consultation and discussion is what I consider undemocratic. The argumentations given by the councillors to explain away the project are all monosylabic versions of a fairy-tale.
Whitfield-Sholden, Canterbury and in various other districts of Kent it's the same. The people are against these projects.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Hpward, a part of western Kent was taken by London, in two phases, including Greenwich and Sidcup.
Croydon used to belong to Surrey.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
Bromley and Beckenham were in Kent, Mitcham was in Surrey, cows and sheep used to graze in London.
Places have to change and grow with time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Succinctly put! Nice one.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Like I said above, if they are needed they will be built, if they are not then they won't. Simples....
Been nice knowing you :)