#21
Hear hear Marek.
The council don't have the luxury to be complacent nor defensive about Dover. They should be ashamed of themselves.
The council's lack of achievement in delivering, managing and developing a so-called 'world class town' is an absolute outrage for our potentially thriving and highly significant town (in terms of global recognition and Britain's global reach).
Too busy scoring cheap political points in the cosy Whitfield bubble while pretending they are proper politicians. And who'd seriously want to be one of those?!
A dreadful state of affairs.
Regards all,
Andy
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#22
I will not for one moment suggest that the Council is completely innocent of all the charges made against it but often they are the fall guys for others. I would certainly agree that the Planning Department could be more effective, as all businessmen would vouch....
Many of the delays regarding the DTIZ are due to third parties and complex negotiations. I remember about 20 years ago, when I was a DDC member, when the land acquisition excercise for the DTIZ was started, we were then told what a complex project it would be. There is, or was, a complex web of leases and underleases that needed to be undone. There was no real expectation that the project would be completed within the timescales we are experiencing. There has been complex negotiations ove the bus depot for instance and not to mention the difficulties the developers had in getting retail interest (and not to mention the failed attemps to get leisure interests involved).
Other delays arise over funding and the involvement of Government agencies. A great deal of work and time has to go into putting together a case and project to attract funding. They lack all sense of urgency that we all feel towards wanting progress.
The point here though is that there is a massive amount going on in Dover and the main role of DDC is in respect of Planning and facilitation. All this is time consuming and it gets worse with all the extra beaurocratic processes placed in the way by Government.
There are things that the Council are unable to change. It cannot change the demographics (not instantly anyway) and it is that which mitigates against many retailers locating in Dover, along with our 180 degree catchment. If we can reverse the population decline with the new house building that would be a start but we are talking about decades for that to have impact. Clearly we also need to attract more and better paid jobs to Dover and what will help with that is the fast rail link and the new business park. The dualling of the A2 would be a boost too.... The marina development by the Harbour Board will also help with the associated regeneration proposals but once again the regeneration element will depend on Government agencies for the cash.
Yes the Council make a good target to swipe at and they have broad enough shoulders to take it but remember it is not all their fault. There are some very good people, with some real vision, on DDC who work hard and often against the odds to progress things.
On the positive side, I am told by the Chamber of Commerce office that there will be road closures in July to allow for demolition..... It is happening.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#23
i was looking at another news item from hastings this morning.
they have the usual coastal town problems that we have, the difference is that their council try do something about it.
their grotty buildings policy, is putting the fear of god up landlords who are content to fill an old house with junkies and p*** heads and let the benefits people fill their coffers.
another slum landlord was told the CPO was underway, lo and behold a team of decoraters are working around the clock to meet the deadline.
all we seem to get from some of ours is photo opportunities with wide grins and new hats.
i feel sure that some are working hard behind the scenes and do not seek publicity, but others are just in the job for the limelight.
#24
Marek - thank you.
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
#25
I do hope you are not referring to me Howard .I dont recall the last time I wore a Hat for a photo.I maybe seen wearing one at a funeral or indeed at At ST Georges Day parade.A lot of work goes into getting Landlords to comply with rules and regulations.You must be a very difficult chap to please ,snipe snipe .I know who feeds you information Howard.Perhaps you would like to attend a few meetings and read a few of our agendas.Barry is correct you have no idea how hard our Leader works Its not 9.00am to 5.00pm Come on old chap smile a little I will even lend you a hat.
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
#26
I walked through Kearsney Abbey today how lucky we are
#27
Snipe snipe might = challenge challenge in some languages. A few good points have been made - other coastal towns have improved immeasurably in the past 30 years, but there are witnesses to say that Dover has been on a downward trend in that time........perhaps we might be permitted to question that without being labelled depressive or difficult?
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
#28
That's the way to deal with it Howard but not in Dover as we have been told that a CPO is much more complicated than we think and all sorts of problems have to be sorted out first.
Barry are you seriously saying, unless I have read your posting incorrectly, that the re-generation plans have been going on for 20 years because of complications over leases and funding. If I remember rightly the DDC had the head lease on the multi-storey car park with the old Rank City Wall having an interest somewhere. Certainly the sub-underlease that I signed was between the DDC and Rank City Wall no other parties had an interest at that time.
The fact is other Councils seem to be able to get things done reasonably quick why can't Dover?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#29
dave
i do hope that you are not expecting an answer from our betters.
whether town or district, they go into their shells when attacked.
i tried to find out the attendance of town councillors for over a year.
then a prominent town councillor comes on here and asks why none of us ever ask who attends meetings.
when the red brigade were in power we were told by the blue people that the reds were told what to say on here and in public that the blue crowd had no whip system.
now they are in power the few blue councillors that still come on here say that they have to be careful what they say.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
#30
Well Howard if that isn't an attempt to stifle democracy then I don't know what is.
I'm afraid they wouldn't tell me to be careful what I said, if I had something to say I'd say it.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#31
Dave. In 1983-1985 I was on the Land Committtee of DDC and it was then that the process was started to tidy up a whole web of leases and under leases and to accumulate land holdings ready for development. The multi-story was just part of the problem and not necessarily the major one, though there were, I remember, some complications and it was not quite as easy as you suggest. It was a long time ago now. I did a walk through at the time with other members of the committee discussing it with officers. My keenest memory of it was feeling quite dis-spirited at the time about how long the timeframe was. I asked questions about the process trying to see how it might be speeded up, being young and impatient!!!!
I have to say that we did not characterise it as 'regeneration' at that time more as a development opportunity.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#32
howard what you were told was and as far as I know true. They have to be careful, much more so in my day, because of some of the utterly ridiculous restrictions placed upon them. If only MP's had to adhere to the standards they have set for local councillors, Parliament would be a lot 'cleaner' and quieter! lol...
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#33
i take the point about MP's having more leeway than councils.
i accept that local councils have pressure put on them by central government.
however, all we see on here are picture pages full of time servers that have nothing to say about important local issues, other than what a great night they had.
this is not meant to be a criticism of this website/magazine, that is what it is here for.
our elected representatives should be too busy for the frivolities.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#34
Thats ridiculous howard.
You get a very small number of our Councillors on here besides they are all entitled to R&R.
#35
Being entitled to R&R is nothing to do with accountability!!!!! I am not clear why you felt the need to point out what we all know - that people need time off. This thread isn't about that. It's about how people use the time they have at work.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#36
Are you addressing me or howard bern? I merely answered a totally pointless and frankly silly comment from howard.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
#37
Barry I remember you when you were young and impatient but there was nothing wrong with that as you had a genuine desire to get the old town back on its feet, as it was pretty dire in 1982. Pity you didn't continue and you can take that as a compliment.
My point about the multi-storey is that there was only two parties involved one of them being the DDC so why wasn't the matter resolved and the whole place demolished in the early 90's when the DDC refused to renew our lease.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#38
Dave - the multi-story was at the time needed as the main parking for the WCE. It was envisaged that it would eventually probably be pulled down as part of the eventual redevelopment as will now happen. I do remember that even then it was not up to the standard of modern multi-story car parks and the taxi offfice was part of the 'security' measures because of a vandalism problem. So you have a point about its uselesness.
It was the right decision because it can now be redeveloped as part of the much larger project. At the time of course the re-development that is now the DTIZ had no clear definition by way of what land holdings would be included, it was an asperation towards which we were starting to work. The more land that could be gathered for the project the better and we had only a rough idea of the total redevelopment area.
I suspect the refusal to renew was something to do with bringing leases into line for the development but I cannot be sure about that - it was a long time ago and after I left that committee.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#39
By the way Dave, thanks for the compliment!!!
I would have liked to continued but business made it difficult to commit the time that it deserves. I also owed something to my young family to start earning some proper money.
#40
I repeat - this isn't about peoples down time and off duty time - it's about how they use their time when they are at work...............and that's directed at anyone at all!!!
