howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
chanced upon this piece of land earlier while nosing around capel and it occurred to me it would look better with a housing development on. i have no idea who owns the land or what their plans are, but land adjacent is clearly agricultural and being worked on while this similar sized parcel is just scrub with no apparent purpose.
i am a great defender of our green belt and places like connaught park, pencester gardens, bushy ruff and the like should be sacrosanct together with small villages with nice views surrounding.but i would have absolutely no objection to to an industrial estate or housing development here though.
Guest 868- Registered: 25 Jan 2013
- Posts: 490
#2
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#3
not so sure it is the same site paul, this is across the road from the "battle of britain" site where i thought the disputed access land was.
Guest 868- Registered: 25 Jan 2013
- Posts: 490
#4
Opposite side of the main road to the Memorial or same side ?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#5
opposite side of the road to the memorial site.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#6
most definitely a brown field site in malvern road but nobody seems to want to build on it.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#7
I believe there's planning permission granted for that bit Howard - I'll check it out, it may have expired by now.
Roger
Guest 868- Registered: 25 Jan 2013
- Posts: 490
#8
Probably this:
Reference
11/00066
Alternative Reference
Not Available
Application Received
Tue 25 Jan 2011
Address
Land adjoining 1 Malvern Road, Dover
Proposal
Renewal of planning permission DOV/07/01425 for the erection of detached building incorporating four dwellings and six flats, alterations to existing vehicular access and associated car parking and refuse facilities
Status
Decided
Guest 868- Registered: 25 Jan 2013
- Posts: 490
#9
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#10
interesting stuff with very detailed plans but looks like nothing will come of it. would have been about 2 years ago that i saw an earth moving vehicle on site and a new sign about hard hats etc.
Guest 868- Registered: 25 Jan 2013
- Posts: 490
#11
Plan is 2007, renewal 2011, I am sure they will do something when the housing market picks up
Karlos- Location: Dover
- Registered: 1 Oct 2012
- Posts: 2,599
#12
Are the any plans for the Westmount site?
Or is it the same situation as the above?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#13
someone has applied for planning permission, just going through the usual procedures i believe.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#14
Thanks Paul for putting that up.
There is an application for Westmount being worked on and will be coming to the Planning Committee (hopefully) quite soon.
In front of that plot is another (smaller) one that is owned by J.C. Decaux (it's their advertising board) and I've been trying for some time to get this allocated as a play area, but sadly this will not be the case as it doesn't tick all the boxes for safety and noise issues.
The search continues.
Roger
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#15
Health and safety and environmental concerns give lazy council officials an easy 'out' from making a proper decision. They need to be ordered to produce a costed list of mitigation strategies to allow it to go ahead.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#16
This was part of the reason given Peter:
" I did carry out a site assessment of the above location with my colleague Des Connolly (Crime Prevention Design Adviser).
Unfortunately we have concluded that this space is not suitable for a children's play area for some of the following reasons:-
1) A minimum buffer zone of 20 meters between the activity zone and the boundary of the nearest property is recommended by Fields in Trust (formerly National Playing Fields Association). The boundary of the above space is occupied by properties on both sides and clearly does not meet this requirement. This is a significantly important factor to consider when seeking a new location for a children's play area. From my experience, play areas located too close to properties such as this location have significant repercussions and end up with problems such as anti social behaviour including damage to nearby properties, noise disturbances and intrusion of privacy. Examples of this occurred in play areas previously located at Burch Avenue in Sandwich, Leviers Road and Marlborough Road in Deal.
2) It is highly likely that noise issues and anti-social behaviour will develop in this site as a result of a new play area. By way of this email I have asked Des Connolly to contact you directly with his concerns on this site in terms of Crime Prevention Design.
3) A play area requires two entry/exit points to fully consider child protection and safety. This allows for escape in the event of possible confrontational events such as child bullying. Unfortunately this space does not allow for two adequately spaced out entry/exit points given that the front opens on to a very busy road while three other boundaries are bordered by private properties.
The Review of Play Area Provision 2012-2026 does acknowlege the difficulty in trying to find a suitable location for a play area in the Elms Vale & Priory ward. Several site options have been explored but the steep topograpghy and density of houses has meant that it has not been possible to find a suitable site for the provision of a new play area. However the document does state that opportunities through planning applications in this area will be pursued and as I understand it both from Roger's recent email to you and from planning colleagues that new proposals are being worked on."
I followed that with:
"I must be honest, I am disappointed (for the kids round here), but not totally surprised.
1) A 20 metre buffer-zone (over 60 feet) seems an extra-ordinary distance to stipulate for a small play area; I know children's laughter can carry and can upset some people, but surely conditions could be placed as to the hours of play ?
2) I look forward to Des's response.
3) I can appreciate what you say about exits, but within this particular area, and with a see-through steel-wire lockable gates, I would be surprised if any problems were to occur.
Kind Regards
Roger."
This was followed by:
"Hello Cllr Walkden,
I understand your disappointment and I truly want to find a reasonably suitable open space for a children's play area in this ward but I am very certain the above open space is not acceptable and would create more community problems than providing a fun open space for children to enjoy. The distance of 20m is really not that far when you are the resident living next door to a children's play area. Historically I have had to work with such like residents that suffer from noise, anti social behaviour, abusive language, damage to property and in some circumstances children sitting on equipment looking through windows! I am not suggesting this would all happen in this proposed location but there is certainly a high risk that two or more of these type problems would be an issue and the end result could lead to possible closure of the site. No doubt my colleague Des Connolly can provide more expertise on this matter.
Although locking up play areas is practiced in some areas, forcing conditions on hours of play incurs additional costs and can potentially lead to damaged fences boundaries where children try to get in anyway - we have seen examples of this in William Pitt Play Area, Deal. That said it is an option but not preferred when you are searching for a new open space to accommodate a children's play space.
Opportunities through planning applications in this area is the most sensible and only way forward in trying to provide a new play area in this ward."
I accept that this site will not provide a play area and that the Westmount site should provide funding, but in the meantime, the search for a site goes on.
Roger
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
#17
We've got a similar problem looking for a play area in Lydden, which is surprisingly built up for a rural location - most of the open space around is army training grounds or nature reserve.
The Review of Play Area Provision 2012-2026 decided Lydden had sufficient provision with the play area in the school - ignoring that it is obviously reserved for school use during school hours and locked up behind recently upgraded security fencing (Ofsted requirement) outside school hours. No-one thought to inform or ask the school or locals, all done remotely.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#18
Who are the 'children' for whom play provision is sought?
It looks as though it may be from eight to eighteen. This seems an unnecessarily broad age range.
If a play area was set aside for twelve and under many of the restrictions could be done away with. Can it be that at present all the local children have to play far from home and out of sight?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
#19
Tom, get with it! Current trend is for mixed child and adult equipment, age range toddlers to pensioners!
e.g.
http://playquestadventureplay.co.uk/Outdoor_Gym_Exercise_Equipment_playground_equipment.htmlGuest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#20
I did write "eight to eighty" at first.
Still...are we talking about swings 'n' roundabouts, or football and basketball? Or skate bowls and jungle-gyms?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Find me on Facebook Dover History Pages Group or Flickr
