howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
welcome to the forum karen. interesting piece about aycliffe but disagree with you about the tidiness of the folkestone road.new businesses will not help if the current hard core of residents are allowed to get away with what they want.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Brian may help here, but in my drinking days when king lear was open there was a second pub in aycliffe
of course over the years i have run projects in aycliffe but sadly again the planning dept let us down but like howard says priory ward has a problem and part of the problem is decisions made by the officers in planning
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i remember well the work of gordon and yourself in aycliffe keith with vandalism drastically reduced because of football.
i also remember the intransigence of planning over changing rooms/toilets.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
the only other pub that was allmost in aycliffe was before its demise and demolition was the archcliffe pub.it mostly seved the 7 star flats,and was where the bridge to p&o building.
karen wellcome to the mad house.still have newsagents/postoffice and a full school.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
thankyou brian
and welcome karen
yes howard once again the planning dept rather than being a forward looking council, and bearing in mind as volunteers we were doing the job that the council and other agencies should have been doing anyway we remain disappointed
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 652- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 595
Roger can you answer a question on your post 302.
Retrospective planning, how did these two planning applications go through on retrospective planning, they were put in on a normal planning application, with so much notice given to the public to object to if the need arised, I always understood that retrospective planning was delpt with by building control, and was not put before the public as the plans were of minor detail, (ie) so long as the plans does not exceed a certain size, I believe 1 or 2 metres, did not interfere with the drainage etc, or am I mis-informed.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
who knows shiela how this dept works
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
It was only the Portacabin that was retrospective Sheila.
I believe you are mis-informed Sheila; planning and building control are different issues and different departments.
Retrospective means just that, that the object of the application has been actioned before planning permission has been granted - not refused, but granted. That is why this retrospective application had not broken any rules, because permission had not been granted or refused.
If permission had not been granted, then he would have (broken the rules) and enforcement would have followed to have it removed.
Keith - going back on one of your comments, it is only when an application is dealt with fully by the Planning Officers and decided by them under "delegated powers" that you can rightly say that the officers decide, other than that, the Planning Committee members decide.
I am sure that the planning department have an idea of your view of them, but I doubt that they know that you and Reg think that only rich people get permission - that amounts to saying they takes bribes and if that is what you mean, why not come out and say so ?
I am happy to send your's and Reg's comments about Rich people to the legal team at DDC to see what their view is. Libel can be very expensive.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
like reg says a large can of worms there roger
of course it's your choice
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Thank You for giving me permission Keith.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
you don't need my permission roger
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Even if the planning regulations have been violated, the breach is capable of legal remedy in one of two ways. Firstly, by submission of a valid planning application which is later passed. Secondly by dismantling the development and restoring the site, which is also the only legal remedy if the application is refused.
As I understand the law, temporary structures erected during the construction phase of a development are exempt provided they are removed on completion.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 328 ....carry on Roger if your tin opener does`nt work I`ll give you another one.....
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
So, peter as it stands your happy with the way the planning dept doesnt operate??
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
No, it's too slow, too bureaucratic, and they follow policy to the letter even where discretion is allowed. I think Cllr Kenton needs to take that department by the scruff of the neck and shake it very hard indeed. Planning departments need to have a 'can do' approach and I don't see that in Dover. The law lays down maximum time limits for the decision on an application but the council interprets that as a target date. There is no reason on earth why simple applications, provided they are in order, should not be approved within 24 hours after the statutory time for objections has elapsed.
Councillors and council officers are the servants of the people, not their masters, and they should remember that every minute of every day.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Amen to that last line Peter, I'm sick of these people, at every level, making poor decisions and wasting our money.
Criticise them and they cry like babies, this forum is evidence of that.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
But David, many of them on both sides of the political divide are excellent community workers and do their best against overwhelming odds, both officers and councillors. We can't tar them all with the same brush. So credit where credit is due, the good ones know who they are, and they know that I know who they are.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
As you all know I only wish to see the back of the planning Dept at Dover,it has held up Dover many many times,but I do not agree that any of them would take a backhander on any plans and to say they are for the rich only again is wrong, So please keep the post above that kind of thinking,and by saying it is not helping. Thank you.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
not seen much evidence of that david, the few that come on here take your attacks on the chin without complaint, roger took umbrage because of a couple of your highly personal comments.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
No suggestion of corruption from me, just inefficiency, timewasting and pettifogging jobsworthism. All the allegations of maladministration or possible conflicts of interest I have heard were before we came to the Dover area (2002), for example the McArthur Glen application.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson