Guest 1831- Registered: 1 Sep 2016
- Posts: 395
DWDR update - The Dover Harbour Board will be presenting their view.
together with -
Goodwin Sands SOS presentation
Wednesday 20th September
Dover Town Council Offices 6pm
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
I read elsewhere that the venue was the Town Hall, don't see a problem though if everyone follows the hordes.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
one cant be in two [2 ] places at the same time,unless your a master of time travel.
Button- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 2,900
Or David Gates or Kojak.
(Not my real name.)
Guest 1831- Registered: 1 Sep 2016
- Posts: 395
It is at Dover Town Council.
6pm.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,571
definatly 6pm town council offices
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Weird Granny Slater- Location: Dover
- Registered: 7 Jun 2017
- Posts: 2,844
Excellent article, and the magazine looks to be a good source of information on environmental bust-ups generally.
'Pass the cow dung, my dropsy's killing me' - Heraclitus
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
DHB are looking like a bunch of amateurs when experts look at the case they have presented to the MMO and the public. Right from the start the MOD when notified of the potential dredge referred to the Military Remains Act which has been in force for 30 years. Royal Haskoning provided a report that was a mire of technical terms which few understood and did not even mention about the MOD having a say in the matter. The half a billion quid figure seems to have been plucked out of thin air and the crude attempt to turn our wrath on people who live in Deal backfired badly.
Guest 2025 likes this
Guest 1831- Registered: 1 Sep 2016
- Posts: 395
Dover Town Council have voted 7 - 3 in favour of officially objecting to the dredging of the
Goodwin Sands.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The meeting was very well attended by the general public.
Dover Harbour Board came off very badly as a whole. They are swimming around with poor facts and arguments. Gordan Cowan was very objective and concise. Saying it rests uneasily with him, having the Dover Harbour Board threatening the people and District of Dover by not completing the Western Docks project. He spoke up for the People of Dover in a very thoughtful and knowledgeable manner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dover Harbour Board have no investors for this project. It is ill-conceived, and we will lose the wonderful Granville Docks, and a lovely Pier because of this concrete nightmare of a Lorry Park, which is unfolding.
Guest 2025 likes this
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
With all due respect to Gordon he suddenly jumped ship and supported the DWDR and demolition of the Prince of Wales Pier in the cause of "progress". In fairness there was no personal gain to be had in being supportive of DHB unlike his Holiness the Mayor.
The completion of the project ie all sorts of goodies on the seafront to please were always a pipe dream that most pragmatists saw through.
Guest 2025 likes this
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,571
I think most cllrs(not the 3) felt better had more info from DHB may well have persuaded them, but in a packed public gallery and questions also from the public most cllrs voted due to the lack of info.
I was disappointed with DHB and even raised the issue on there P/R stunt which in reality did little to bring communities together something in there presentation they stated they favoured.
I also had to ask for clarity when a Cllr stated Deal town council didn't vote on the issue
the real answer was they are considering what to do next week.
This misinformation does little for either side,
But through asking I managed to get that clarity.
I did ask for a recorded vote which was agreed
I was disturbed at the end the comment made by the acting chair Roger walkden when when he said sadly the vote is carried.
As a chair of any committee you cannot and must not take sides.
Guest 2025 and Jan Higgins like this
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Captain Haddock- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 7,476
The Goodwin Sands debacle is a McGuffin and almost irrelevant to the main plot.
What has NOT been made clear is the necessity and indeed urgency of the T2 development which is becoming a bit like Dover's version of the Garden Bridge farce in London.
Seriousy.
IF T2 is going to be built then let's get on with it with dredging from the Goodwins EVEN IF we believe it is not the best outcome, in the realisation that things have progressed too far to pull out OR DHB should just pull the plug on the project and rename the piling the Ozymandis Breakwater as a national warning about hubris.
As I said at a meeting in Deal the other day 'if DHB were a private company and I was a shareholder I would be looking to the board to resign'.
They might be OK at running a load of waterside toll-booths but are proving somewhat useless at convincing anyone in the construction industry that they are capable of medium sized project delivery.
There has been far too much secrecy hidden behind a screen of 'commercial confidentiality'. Trust Port status has allowed them to go their own way without scrutiny from shareholders as in a private company or directions from Government to 'work for the public good' as in a nationalised industry.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - indeed.
(Bugger. There goes the long time berth-holder discount.
)
Jan Higgins, Guest 1997 and Guest 1831 like this
'If no one went no faster than what I do there'd be a sight less trouble in this world'
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,681
Couldn't agree more dear Cap'n.
DHB have behaved appallingly as always and have yet again tried to bully people into supporting them rather than convincing people with facts etc. Waggot has again ignored the advice and counsel of his independent board members and decided to press ahead with plan A long after any sensible party would have accepted this was causing a PR shit storm and gone to Plan B namely getting the necessary sand and gravel from the licensed dredging site off of Harwich. If this had been done some time ago the financial impact would have been minimised and there would be no talk of bits of the project being omitted...
Waggot has desperately tried and to a great extent succeeded in gagging his independent directors thus preventing the sort of open honest discussion that was needed in order to truly win hearts and minds.
Jan Higgins, Guest 1997 and Guest 1831 like this
"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 1997- Registered: 3 Mar 2017
- Posts: 148
Two excellent posts above both of which hit the nail right on the head.
Jan Higgins likes this
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,981
The pier has gone the dock filled in the old Hoverport pad gone time to get on and get the project completed.Some times decisions have to be made tough ones and progress has to be made .All this delay has not helped.i recall many many years ago going along with Mr Bill Fawcus giving a radio interview re the original plans for Western Docks . All these years later work has commenced and still the anti DHB brigade try to halt progress .Yes it's sad the pier has gone but there's always change ..Why does Dover always hold back .i personally think the sea front is kept very well yet people knock DHB.There are plans for better connections with the town yet again some one will try to stop this .
Button- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 2,900
Mr Honey: I view both posts as requiring more information before one can take a view of their excellence.
Captain Haddock links an undetailed 'necessity and indeed urgency of the T2 development' to London's Garden Bridge, which I assume was an additional river crossing that was neither necessary nor urgent.
Mr Miller (who states - not opines - that the CEO ignored advice and counsel of multiple Board members) states - not opines - that choosing to source infill from an alternative marine site that is more distant than the Goodwins, would, had it been done some time ago, minimised the financial impact; however, he neither explains how, nor does he comment on the environmental cost/difference of that alternative.
Let's be clear and dispassionate here; there are financial and other differences between the Goodwins and non-Goodwins options. There is an independent regulator, the MMO, that rules on the better option from the perspective of the State/society/environment, whatever you want to call it; that ruling is awaited. Multiple previous rulings have identified the Goodwins option as the better/least bad option from that perspective.
In my view this is not about DHB (after all, the Goodwins have been used by at least 1 other developer); rather, it is about in what circumstances (if any) the Goodwins can be used as a source of infill. I further suggest that it will be interesting to see, if the regulator rules in favour of the non-Goodwins option, what it identifies as having changed.
SWWood and Chris like this
(Not my real name.)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Keith Sansum1 wrote:I think most cllrs(not the 3) felt better had more info from DHB may well have persuaded them, but in a packed public gallery and questions also from the public most cllrs voted due to the lack of info.
I was disappointed with DHB and even raised the issue on there P/R stunt which in reality did little to bring communities together something in there presentation they stated they favoured.
I also had to ask for clarity when a Cllr stated Deal town council didn't vote on the issue
the real answer was they are considering what to do next week.
This misinformation does little for either side,
But through asking I managed to get that clarity.
I did ask for a recorded vote which was agreed
I was disturbed at the end the comment made by the acting chair Roger walkden when when he said sadly the vote is carried.
As a chair of any committee you cannot and must not take sides.
Bit late in the day but just noticed those last few lines but I see the Mayor didn't take part, no doubt because of conflict of interest which he forgot about when spouting about the benefits of DWDR at a planning meeting. His deputy clearly has no respect for the position and the neutrality that goes with it. Ten members voted, so did the rest simply not turn up?
Guest 2025 and Jan Higgins like this
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,571
The only other missing vote was pam brivio who abstained
I'm afraid I try to avoid voting that ever
your correct howard on the mayor who stated he had contracts with DHB and left the meeting for this item and Cllr Roger Walkden chaired that item
the rest I have reported
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Deal Town Council have voted 14 to 1 against the dredging, from another source Dover Town Council voted 9 to 3 against.