Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#59 - two sides to every story.....
Been nice knowing you :)
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
keep up the fight sheila#
keep us informed
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 652- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 595
Flying the banner yesterday (Wednesday) the pharmacy opening soon, is this not jumping the gun.
Guest 652- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 595
This pharmacy is opening its doors sooner that we think, blatent dis-regard for planning regs, planning recommendations do not go in until early Dec, and perhaps not then maybe even January, and then it still has to go to committee. Even now if he gets planning approval, he should be made an example of, made to close and go through the same channels again, like everyone else
Guest 782- Registered: 4 Oct 2012
- Posts: 357
Don't really understand the problem here. I am very happy to be wrong, but I thought that there was no need for planning permission for a temporary structure. Clearly a portakabin, this must be a temporary structure, pending the permenant construction of the building next door.
There are simply loads of people who do stuff without planning permission, but as it takes so long to get permission with times going way over statutory limits; I have a lot of sympathy with anyone who needs to get on with their life/business.
On this particular application shouldn't people be congratulating the Drs for investing so significantly in Folkestone Road and providing what actually looks like a top class facility - instead of bellyaching about it?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
2 issues here as i see it.
the current pharmacy went by the book when opening there about a year ago, they will be put out of business by someone flouting the rules.
looking at the comments on this thread and stuff that i have heard the applicant has a track record of putting himself first and patients far behind.
Guest 782- Registered: 4 Oct 2012
- Posts: 357
As I understood it, the surgery was always going to have a pharmacy. If someone else chose to open up another one and they get put out of business then perhaps their due dilligence wasn't quite right?
As for your last paragraph, not being a patient I could not possibly know - other than I have friends who are and do not share that view. I remain convinced that a spanky new surgery is better than what was there.
Moving on if Churchgate manage to sort out the Westmount site and the Dover Priory Goods Yard site, then together with the new surgery, Folkestone Road will be on the map again and ready for the Farthingloe development. Got to be good.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 64....insider trading...?............he might belong to a `club`................
# 66....spot on.......
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
posted on this thread several times that i thought the pharmacy was in the original planning application too simon, can only presume it was rejected/altered whatever, a new one has not got very far yet.
i must add that i have no axe to grind as my surgery is the other side of town and will remain so.
i don't use the pharmacy nearby in folkestone road because i have had excellent service from the one in pencester road for 10 years so i remain loyal to them.
the planned opening hours of the proposed one are far in excess of the official one, so we know who will be the loser.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
I'm with Simon on this one. Why do planning processes have to take so long in this day and age? Local government should be the servant of the people, not their master. Sheila's 64 says it all. Councillors, wake up and smell the coffee, stop hiding behind time-honoured procedures from the horse and cart age and get off the back of business.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i think we would all agree about the length of time planning procedures take but surely that should be looked at, but the issue here is about one case that is subject to current rules.
the rules we currently have are being flouted in such a way that another small business that played the game is seriously threatened.
Guest 782- Registered: 4 Oct 2012
- Posts: 357
If that is the case Howard then fine, let the powers that be deal with it. However they must be consistent with their enforcement actions and I for one would say that they are not anywhere close to being consistent.
Don't scapegoat someone doing some good stuff. Make the process fit for purpose, timely and sensible. This really isn't worth getting hot under the collar over, the new building will get consent and the portakabin will be removed.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
we will have to agree to differ on what is "good stuff" simon, good to see you posting here though.
Guest 782- Registered: 4 Oct 2012
- Posts: 357
I guess if we all agreed there would be no point in discussion! I like a good old discussion, so long as it is not taken personally!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
seems like you are fitting in very well simon, good point about the personal stuff.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Peter at #70 hits the nail on the head, get govt at all levels out of the way and we'll all prosper.
I've not really been aware of personal abuse tbh Howard, people have strong opinions about how things should be done, forums are an ideal place to express them.
My particular gripe is with DDC and their dithering, I have no individual issues. The more I read the forum and threads like this it reinforces my view. It seems 1 or 2 within DDC are upset about that, the solution is in their hands.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
Obviously some planning issues have to undergo scrutiny and go before the committee but surely the majority of plans could be decided by a quick visit by a planning officer to the site with a decision letter arriving within a few days.
I suppose the real question that needs the definitive answer is why do planning decisions take so long. Is it that the department is absolutely inundated with plans or is it that they are putting it politely less than efficient. I suspect it is the latter and more than likely a case of 'we have always done it this way'.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Jan, if the chemist was an isolated case this wouldn't be discussed.
As my "MFI" thread shows, if you are being polite you'd say DDC dither, if you're being blunt they are incompetent.
Its noticable that the DDC members that are regulars on here have been very quiet, might just be coincidence.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Probably 99% of them go straight through quick enough, it is just the 1% that people see and moan about.
How can people possibly comment when they don't know the full story, who says that the submission in this case isn't cr*p and it is all their fault that it is in the situation that it is? Why is it always DDC's fault when no-one knows the facts?
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
How can DDC be 'dithering' ? They need to have someone interesting in building there for anything to happen, if there is no-one interested nothing will get built !!! DDC aren't the ones building anything....
Been nice knowing you :)