Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#281
Not to me it doesn't - that's why I asked.
Roger
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#282
Anyway back to the thread
As you are running the council roger you will voting against the application on thursday?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#283
Why do you say such a silly thing - running the Council indeed.
Being on the Planning Committee I cannot engage in predetermination and so will wait for the latest information at the Committee on Thursday evening.
Roger
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#284
Where the Officers will ``direct ``you all to where they want you all to be.......
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
#285
And there you see the quality & insight of two ex councillors who would cost the council tax payers £10,000's in defending judical review cases for a councillor stating they intend to vote for/against an application in advance of a committee meeting.
Whichever side of the arguement you are on , the applicant should expect an application to be heard fairly, if not it gives you grounds for challenge to invalidate the decision.
Watty
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#286
Thanks Paul.
Both Reg and Keith know better, but still they ask stupid/silly questions.
By the way Reg - as you no doubt know, the planning officers make a recommendation, they do NOT direct us; we committee members make the decisions.
Roger
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#287
They would say that would they not.............try sitting through several of the planning meetings and make up your own mind...
it is a no `brainer`
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#288
Any councillor (never mind their political leanings) who is unable to make up their "own mind" on any subject is not fit to be a councillor as they must be brainless sheep.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#289
Good point Jan, if the cap fits, Reg!
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#290
# 288......agree......
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#291
Jan
(and others) you would do well to justwatch some of the meetings you would then see.
Now back to the issue, the planning dept ha held back dover for some time, and chooses(officers choose_)when to support an application.
Roger has indicated on here views on the application so maybe he should be challenged?
Now, on the wider issue of officer control(Peter honestly we may agree a bit here)
It Is fully understandable that officers will fill the vacuum left by absent cllrs, and do all they can to run the council,
Cllrs make small dents now and again, but because they are not often at the council offices the officers know they can do as they wish(and do)
There does appear to be conflict between peter's view and that of Roger on officer control
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#292
Keith, I have better things to do what time I have left on this earth than watch a bunch of councillors listening to a load of old waffle and then doing what they are told as you seem to believe. I play games on the computer much more sensible and enjoyable for time wasting plus keeps my brain working by thinking things to a fairly logical conclusion.
I will add I fail to see any problem with Roger's posts on the application.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judith Roberts- Registered: 15 May 2012
- Posts: 637
#293
Knocking down 139-141 sounds like a very good idea to me. That really is a grotty bit of Folkestone Rd.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#294
Thank You Jan.
I couldn't pssibly comment Judith.
I am always careful how I word a posting on here if it applies to an active planning application and have made sure I have not decided which way to vote prior to the meeting.
We are allowed to lean towards or against an applicatipn and can ask questions about it prior to the committee meeting.
I know Keith is mischief-making, so will ignore his comment on post number 291.
Roger
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#295
Just to let you know that the 2 planning applications relating to the portacabin and demolishing of 139/141 Folkestone Road were on the Agenda for last Thursday's Planning Committee.
Although there were many objectors to both applications, the arguments weren't strong enough and so both went through.
The big shame about this is that Halls the newsagents, will be adversely affected I am sure and so will the new chemist, but that is not a planning issue.
The odd thing (to my mind) was that the Town Council had objected to the (temporary) portacabin pharmacy, but had no objections to the demolishing and erection of the new pharmacy and retail outlet that will be created.
If people could vote with just their heart (many do of course), I'm sure that many applications would not get approved, but it doesn't make for good planning decisions.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#296
confused now roger, are you saying that dtc nodded through the new pharmacy?
Guest 782- Registered: 4 Oct 2012
- Posts: 357
#297
I agree it could be a problem for Halls, but the pharmacist knew the surgery was going to have a pharmacy, so no sympathy there. Overall, this is good news for the area. Once it is finished that is!
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#298
On the agenda Howard, the Town Council objected to the portacabin, but no objections for the for the shop and pharmacy, so I guess you could say they were happy about the shop etc. but not the temp. pharmacy.
As you say Simon, overall good news for the local people - when it's all done.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#299
Priory ward done again
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 652- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 595
#300
Sad it went through, cant make it out how one man can break so many rules and get it passed, but good news now for everybody else, you can save yourself a mint, no need to bother with putting plans in, please yourself do as you like, I wont bother in future, and if they try to make an example, I will put planning applications to them that did as they liked and got away with them, even after enforcement order, and Roger knows what property that was, just make up a sob story.
How come the PCT could grant a licence for him to run a pharmacy with nowhere to run it from, even though he had put in planning application, at time not passed, also how could he run the pharmacy from the portacabin, when DDC hadnt granted a licence for a pharmacy to run from that site, this ought to be taken up at central goverment, no wonder this country is going to the dogs