Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#41
If you do have to have hoardings then be creative in the decorating
look at what you can do with empty shop windows(apart from and until you do)
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 904- Registered: 21 Mar 2013
- Posts: 312
#42
Peter Garstin wrote:The elephant in the room here is that we are wasting precious energy bickering over the artwork when the real issue is the hoardings themselves. Get rid of the hoardings and the art disagreements go with them.
Not really Peter, because if the hoardings are removed, we are left with derelict sites behind.
DDC are responsible for these sites - they could garner so much publicity and goodwill if they were to just clear and level the sites properly and turn them over to free parking (until such time that they are built upon). How much good would that do, encouraging people to come to Dover to shop! Just think of the fantastic publicity that would generate.
I guess that requires too much imagination though, something that is sorely missing from successive councils.
Guest 904- Registered: 21 Mar 2013
- Posts: 312
#43
And I know what some will reply, "there's nothing here for people to shop for". Well, you'd be wrong on two counts - we have a multitude of existing independent traders, as well as chain stores that need footfall to prosper. Increase the footfall and the town will become more attractive to firms such as Wilkinsons, Primark etc. Once we attract these type of businesses, others will follow, footfall will increase and more firms will look at the figures and move here.
But that will require an equal commitment from the people of Dover and a lot less apathy...
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#44
Paul, you missed my point. I am referring to the slow pace of development of the derelict sites. I'm not proposing taking down the hoardings with the sites behind being in the state they are.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 904- Registered: 21 Mar 2013
- Posts: 312
#45
Now that is a completely different case Peter, one which rests with the navel gazers up at Whitfield...
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
#46
Mr Isles Are you considering standing in the District Councl elections 2015 ?
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#47
Look out Paul, the chairman is about to justify herself and DDC.
Guest 904- Registered: 21 Mar 2013
- Posts: 312
#48
A distinct possibility exists Sue...
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#49
quite a thought paul, you could be our first independent pit bull councillor.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#50
Mrs Nicholas, perhaps as chairman of DDC you can keep us informed of what is happening to the buildings in question?
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
#51
Not in my domain David .Im Civic not political.In former days I was very fiery .Simon will tell you how we fought to retain River Rec.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#52
Not political?
My understanding is you represent the Conservative party who happen to control the council.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#53
It's not fair to hound the Chairman. Councils cannot make these things happen, only the people with the money can do that. But councils can get in the way. Thankfully DDC is better than many, at least since the dark days when the McArthur Glen application was rejected.
The problem is that our politicians create the impression that they are in control, which they reinforce by claiming credit for things that have happened when they are seeking re-election.
But it's an illusion. They didn't really achieve those results, the men with the money did. Therefore it's not fair to blame DDC for failing to bring about the DTIZ et al, because they don't have the capacity to do it. They do, however, have the ability to process planning applications with greater dispatch than they actually do; while the politicians on the council generally have a can-do attitude, the officers seem always to be looking for obstacles.
Councillors always tell me that DDC isn't officer-led. To paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies: 'They would, wouldn't they?' With the labyrinth of legislation that hog-ties us all nowadays, which councillors can never hope to master, it could never be otherwise.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#54
Peter, the Chairman has willingly joined this thread, once you lift your head over the parapet.........
The rest of what you say is spot on, she goes on to claim she is not political which is risible.
Councillors blame officers and vice versa, its the main reason nothing ever happens
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
#55
I dont mind the banter.Too hot for the garden.
Guest 904- Registered: 21 Mar 2013
- Posts: 312
#56
Peter Garstin wrote:Therefore it's not fair to blame DDC for failing to bring about the DTIZ et al, because they don't have the capacity to do it. They do, however, have the ability to process planning applications with greater dispatch than they actually do;
I understand that DDC cannot force anyone to invest Peter, or create opportunities where none exist - indeed, I would be aghast if they did.
What they can do though, is facilitate and make the best of what they own, to encourage that investment and opportunity by taking a proactive role and communicating their intentions to those they represent.
Rather than letting land that they own in a highly visible area of Dover (St. James in this case) fester and deteriorate, they could come up with short term uses that will at least make the town look like it is welcoming to investment. If investors see that DDC is taking steps to make the most of Dover, they will feel more comfortable in dealing with them.
For example, why not prepare the ground, converting it to meadow grassland? Or, as I've said, level and clear the ground properly for car parking, or better still, freight parking.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#57
had a thought earlier, if jimmy godden is looking down he may not be happy with what is done to his property.
Guest 904- Registered: 21 Mar 2013
- Posts: 312
#58
Because everyone is happy about the way he treated it whilst he was still alive?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#59
i think you're being a bit harsh there paul, jg just had a different taste in decor.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#60
Peter
We have agreed before that councils are officer led, as cllrs in the main are either unwilling, or just happy to take the advice given to them without question.
On the question of Sue, she is a conservative councillor, that cannot change, but she does hold a role that some attempt to keep politics out of.
That said Sue is part of the Conservative administration.
Over the years(before sue reached the dizzy heights of chair of DDC we did often join together on many issues supporting each other. Transport is one of them, where we both went outside of our own parties wishes, joining together for the best for Dover.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
