Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
#21
Thanks Howard for stating that comment so clearly .
Unregistered User
#22
Vic, the Localism Bill gives supremacy to the LDF.
YOU ARE WRONG.
As for the decision taken, it had nothing to do with a planning application but putting into agreement what the bottom line infrastructure the public wanted if housing is to take place.
The infrastructure was schools, library,medical centre, community halls, green spaces & sports areas plus many more agreeements. It also included the phasing of development so you did not have multi builds taking place without infrastructure being delivered. Cemented into the agreement was the new Bus Rapid Transit system that linked Whitfield/Business Park/Connaught/ Town Centre/Priory Station on a dedicated fast link.
The public were consulted & the above was a short version of their wishes.
These are now enshrined as requirements on developers.
Without this SPD [special planning document] being in place developers can ride rough shod over public wishes when submitting their applications. Two applicantions are already in train & not to have had this document in place would have "sold out" the people of Whitfield whether you accept housing or not.
As ever JHG knows a little but understands not a lot.
Watty
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#23
Thank you for pointing that out to me, but I did know that .
Am I right in thinking that the parish could still hold a referendum if they called for one,and that referendum if held up would be by law upheld.? Thank you.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#24
PAULW
How sad it is that you have to attack our forumite john in such a way.
im sure that john together with the people of whitfield are well versed in the whitfield developement.
SUE;
It would only be right to have one of the locals on that committee and it will be interesting to see just what the real viewpoint is of locals in whitfield.
the May election will be the one that will test the water in that area.
for the blues david hannant will be fighting an uphill battle against the wishes
of the very people he wants to vote for him, and with that his new parties clear view in the happinness to build the 5,000 houses.
for the yellows; clive meridith always around campaigning on this issue and others around whitfield, certainly well known around whitfield
and then theres the also ran our vic
campaigning as ever in a negative fashion, byut will pick up some stray votes
and could affect the outcome of the result purely because it was so close last time
and both lib dems and tories are so unpopular at the moment so that may well have an effect.
labour party not got a local geezer so they unlikely to do much but will still beat vic
k
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#25
vic
who are you answering in post 23?
also i very much doubt whether a local referendum would have any legal authority.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#26
i think vic should hold a public meeting in whitfield to guage the views of the locals rather than running off and creating another bill for us all to pay.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#27
It was Mr Watkins and I think you will find it has but that is why I am asking .But I will find out anyway later.Still all to play for in May Keith,just wait and see my old mate.
Unregistered User
#28
Vic, the parish could hold a Parish Poll. But other than express a view it has NO validity in law against a national agreed planning policy.
Neighbour Plans under the new Localism Bill have to act in accordance with the LDF, they cannot displace the LDF.
The decision on Whitfield housing was taken & confirmed by law at least two years ago.
The issue now is about getting the "BEST DEAL" for the people of Whitfield.
That is why the passing of the SPD was important before plannning applications can be considered.
I am sorry to labour the processes, but unless youi understand the processes it is difficult to thwart them , I know that is your objective.
The decision on Wednesday was the end of that process which had been going on for more than a year. That was the consultation being concluded & the public's points on infrastructure, layout, design, listed building & ancient woodland protection being cemented. Points that have been made on this Forum previously. Ancient Woodland protection , in particular by Andrew Stucken.
That was not ignoring the public it was the result of public views.
Local people were invited to the LDF group & it was open to every cllr.
Needless to say the Labour Group did not attend other than a fleeting sign in & leave act by Ben Bano. He had a far more important meeting of the Labour group to attend a couple of rooms down. So much for their concernfor the people of Whitfield! Indeed their ammendment to Wednesday decision was meant to overturn the total District growth agenda, now that'was classic stupidity.
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#29
cannot argue with any of the point made above, what remains unanswered is why clive and roger voted for a delay then two days later vote the opposite way.
this has been noticed by the fourth estate and no doubt they will labour the point.
Unregistered User
#30
Because the paper that went to the Cabinet was updated & provided the certainty that was missing at Scrutiny. They only recommend, Cabinet make the substantive decision that goes to Council. We "upped the anti" on all the points made by the people to strenghten the agreements.
The Cabinet decision was far more comprehensive & detailed. It removed any doubts about what was required.
Watty
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#31
Even MP Elphicke wrote in a public letter last year that a lot can be done to hold back the bull-dozers in Whitfield, so if he says so, then Paul W's assertions that nothing can be done about it can be quite legitimately contradicted.
I am sure that a parish poll in Whitfield would not cost much, the area being much smaller than Dover, and would be a good basis to stop the urbanisation scheme.
The localism bill, however, which is still not clear, envisages a kind of referendum that is new, and that is legally binding, and goes beyond the parish poll, so a lot can be looked into in this respect.
I am sure that Vic and many others will know how to bring an end to the urbanisation plans in Whitfield!
PaulW's "you can't do anything about it" is just to make people believe they can't, and give up on it. A lot can be done about it, and the campaign to do so should go ahead full-steam: by way of the May elections, a parish poll, a localism bill referendum. Every means feasible under the law!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#32
forget it alex, best to spend energy elsewhere on topics that are still live.
populist politicians will always tell people what they want to hear.
as for a legally binding referendum - not possible, they are just used as tool to gauge public opinion.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#33
Sue
Word on the grapevine from a friendly MP of mine is that River is the next target for development. You heard it first on the DF
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
#34
Yes Marek fully aware .A campaign was mounted just before Christmas about 100 responded however Christmas was not a good time for responses .
I shall be on the door step stating my support to save over development .The infrastructure is not good with the Industrail estate in Coombe Valley and the school is over subscribed .Indeed some parents cannot get their children into the school.
Im ever watchfu
The Alkham Valley is used as a rat run and development at Whitfield will not help unless people use the route into Dover via Jubillee Way .l .
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#35
Howard, I am surprised!
You ought to explain this. I found this thread yesterday, posted by you, and was completely surprised by the unclear explanations given in it. I was wondering what it was about. It seems to be a topic on an extraordinary Council meeting, I assume DDC, about the urban projects in Whitfield.
Now you tell me to forget the topic. Please explain how Howard, or have I totally misunderstood this thread. What was this extraordinary meeting about?
What was the topic about, and what were John and Vic talking about on it, and PaulW.
Again, this needs explaining to me. And if it is about Whitfield urbanisation planning, please let me know why others can digress on the topic, and I, a Doovorian and forum member, cannot.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#36
At this time all I can say is my own views and that of the public I have had words with,so I will get to more as time goes along.
Guest 662- Registered: 18 Mar 2008
- Posts: 325
#37
"The Supplementary Planning Document which was the item under discussion on Wednesday night which was passed gives greater protection to the village of Whitfield .Without this document the planning guidelines would not be so strict ."
I agree that it gives us more protection, but that protection would not be required if Whitfield hadn't been sold down the River two years ago would it?
So now thats over we can wait for the planning application that covers Singledge Lane to be filed.
It's unusual but I am with Vic on this one, if it's not yet built it can still be fought!
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#38
Thank you Sheli,I was talking to Gorden this morning about it all, and he was the best talker on the night,i told him that I support the reds stand on all this.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#39
Sheli, keep it up! If they get away with this Whitfield, Deal and Sholden business by saying that "we cannot do anything about it", when they haven't even started building one brick, then, as you say, they will be building up every village in the District, and telling us that we cannot do anything about it.
Fight on, and STOP IT! Stop the mad plans to urbanise our Garden of England! Tell 'em we don't want their tens of thousands of houses here, 'cause we don't need 'em. We can build houses when WE need them!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#40
cannot really answer your questions alex, i was not at the meeting.
i can only read posts on here from those that were present.
what i do know is that the development is done and dusted and only being used as an issue by publicity seeking politicians.
