Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Thanks Barry - goes to show there isn't any truth in John's spin.
Roger
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
They said the same on the Folkestone rd play area,you will get a new one ,but it never came and the £100.000+_ put by for it went in that big black hole at D,D,C and never to be seen again.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
who are they vic?
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
The D.D.C. Howard this old news now mate,we have had it on the forum many times before,it happen when I was a Town cllr for your ward,I and other cllr were asking the D,D,C, time and time again where did the cash go?aske Roger he was with us at the time.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Did you ask why it (the play equipment) had to be taken away Vic ? I've said on here many times why, so don't need to keep repeating it every few months.
When I was accused earlier about lying, I wrote trying to determine the truth, not spin a story and that truth is above.
Roger
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
No I asked what happen to the funds that were put why for the new one,over the last 5years we have been asking that,but still no good answers back.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Because there was never an alterrnative site and as far as I am aware, there still isn't, the money couldn't just lay there for any amount of years, so it was used up; I don't know specifically for what, but it went to good use.
Any monies that may come forward, will come from section 106 money.
Roger
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
It was put there by the the company that done the development of Folkestone rd,for a new play area,and should not have been used up for other things ,you say you do not know what,then you go on to say it was for a good use,you just told us all ,you did not know where it went.And there are alterrnative sites it could have gone,but even if there was not, that funding should have stayed till there was.
And not gone in the black hole at D.D.C.And as a District Cllr of the ward and there at that time you should have keep your eye on the ball that it did stay there. Sorry mate again this does not look good to the voter in your ward.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i thought the money was used on the elms vale play area.
there was a lot of disagreement at the time over where the priory play area would be sited, inevitable that the money would be used somewhere else.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Sorry Vic, you are wrong; that money did not come from section 106 money at all. I take offence at you calling me a useless councillor; I have no control over that money, but I do know it wasn't wasted; it may well have been spent on another play area's equipment.
Money of that substance cannot lay idle waiting for people to make up their minds - it doesn't work like that.
Roger
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Sorry Vic, you are wrong; that money did not come from section 106 money at all. I take offence at you calling me a useless councillor; I have no control over that money, but I do know it wasn't wasted; it may well have been spent on another play area's equipment.
Money of that substance cannot lay idle waiting for people to make up their minds - it doesn't work like that.
Roger
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Roger, I did not call you a useless cllr in fact a few posts before that I said that you was a good one,please do not read into things that are not there mate.But you I am right about that funding so lets just end it now before it gets out of hand.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
VIC
You are aware monies were set asided for a play area in priory, sites were found and then again once rogers lot took over asked roger to look at the sites again as some were more approving tody than years ago, this to my knowledge didnt happen.
further i was happy to discuss anytime with roger the sites, or ideas he may have had, this to was never taken up.
the money was in the DDC budget to be spent in priory, but instead it went into the general coffers of DDC so cannot agree it went to a good cause.
although the play areas are an issue within themselves, the priory play area is one that should be high on the agenda of all political parties priory has lost out so many times it's payback time.
just on the 106 agreement we bneed to grasp what was said at the time
firstly develpers were asked to allow community use within a play area they were to provide all rejected this.
some stated they would provide monies(top was £20,000)which wouuldnt pay for much and would have to be another site in ward.
the 106 agreement also put off developers who didnt want to eat into there profits.
so not only did priory not get a play area, it also didnt get the developement, and didnt a say on where the coffers should be spent in priory
hopoefully this can be looked at again
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Yes I agree with you there Keith.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Then you are both wrong on many counts.
This has been aired until it is pointless keep going over the same old thing.
Keith is blaming the Conservatives for the fact that there is not a play area in the Priory part of the Maxton, Elmsvale and Priory Ward; this is rubbish. The reason there isn't any play area equipment is because there had not been any investment in the equipment in the ten years or so they (Labour) were in power.
In fact they had done a plan to remove the play equipment before the 2003 election but didn't want to remove it before because it would have lost them votes - you can't organise such a project in a just a few weeks, so it was planned under Labour, but the Conservatives were blamed, but blameless.
Every single plot of un-built land was looked at - has been looked at several times, but to satisfy the most people, Clarendon was, is, still viewed as being the best location.
It didn't need Keith and I to look at all the sites (although I didn't object to it), officers at DDC did the looking and investigated ownership etc.
Spare bits of land will always fetch so much more money if used for housing than a play area, so a play area was never on the cards for some of the sites.
Section 106 money is an accepted cost to any developer, so it doesn't put them off of building.
Which development did it not get Keith ?
Keith is right that DDC money was allocated for it, but because no practical alternate sites were found, the money was spent elsewhere - if it helps keep council tax down or pay for a project somewhere, that IS a good cause.
The Disability Discrimination Act has changed since Clarendon Play-Area had its equipment removed; the regulations may now mean that you couldn't have a play area there even if you wanted one and had the money - I have no idea, but will see if I can find out.
Roger
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
7years to late for that Roger,sorry mate but the facts were there for all to see.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
The facts are there - Roger just gave you them Vic.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
ROGER;
I feel you are getting me wrong and need to challenge some of your posting.
with regard to 106 agreement developers at the westmount site had been put off when told they would have to make a contribution under the 106 agreement.
with regard to the politics, it does no justice to play party politics with the issue, we are where we are and need to deal with the facts and not lay blame.
with regard to the sites these have moved on and views have changed around the area from that of those years ago but no one ghas run with the idea.
even though i have raised the issue many times on here.
I'm no longer in the political ball game and although support one party i have on here highlighted issues around this area(street lighting) to you roger, had i wanted to make political points i could have easily have done, but didnt i gave you the case work.
wd are where we are,and sites are around, but more importantly iv not heard any campaign from politicians to have a play area in priory for some time.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Unregistered User
Keith don't keep quoting you are not in the political game. With very few exceptions you don't post on this Forum without a political comment. As you said you are inherently Labour. Just because you fell out with the local Labour heirachy has not changed your behaviour,inate disruptive political nature & desire to produce disinformative spin.
Don't try to con the public. It's just not credible.
Watty
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
paulw
you only have to say it once lol
yep no one has any doubt and i dont hide the fact that im a labour supporter never have done.
but what im not is a spokesperson for the labour party
nor will i ever be
what we cant have on the forum which was a problem years ago is a one sided tory forum.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS