howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
alex has made the point about the link between our honourable member and the core strategy of ddc and rightly so - an m.p. has no impact on this at all and lending his support to the whitfield action group was rather pointless as the issue of extra housing there was already cut and dried.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Howard
looks like we disagree to lol
The Mp has great influence on decisions sometimes before they even reach the local councils.
working together at whatever level is required
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
not in this case keith it was all done and dusted, there were councillors out in sholden(if my memory serves me correct) making a lot of noise about stopping development there when they knew that it was too late to stop it.
i think charlie was involved in that too, though i am quite happy to be corrected if i am not 100% right.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
The extra house building across the District was decided by??????
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
norman tebbit.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, to give a plain answer to your above question, the extra house building across the District was decided by the DDC Council of councillers. Under the core strategy.
As you followed the Western Heights thread, you will have noticed that one argument put forward by the opponents of new houses at Farthingloe and on Western Heights was based on the fact that these two areas are not included in the core strategy, but were added in a later Corporate Plan 2012-2016.
District councils do have by law and constitution precise powers to decide in local affairs, and of-course they are elected representatives of the district community.
This is why I made the link with DPPT and its board, as there appears to me a conflict of powers in its proposed constitution.
But that has been hammered out now, so lets wait and see what becometh of tonight's meeting at the Parish centre.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
quite right alex there was cross party agreement in order for the district to gain growth point status.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Soz i thought councils were told by some one else on how many houses they had to build (no choice given to councils)
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, an interesting text for you to read would be the public consultation process of DDC leading up to the core strategy, a process which, if I'm not mistaken, took place around 2008.
You will find it somewhere on the DDC website. It's quite long and substantial, but in a nutshell it explains why the Council decided to adopt a core strategy envisaging the building of so many houses. One reason given was a presumed Pfizer expansion, and another was the supposed imminent creation of 4,000 jobs in the Dover area.
It doesn't exactly explain what jobs these would be, whether job-agency employment at salad factories or 3 month shifts at the Fancy Box, but at least you will find that the ultimate decision came from the Council.
Then there is the complicated thing about Growth Point Status, of which there is an article on Chris' other forum (see drop box), which, even though it says "Alexander", wasn't written by me, only commented on
Now back to the Port...
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
maybe also in response to a bigger body(prescott at the time) telling them they had to build
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
thinking back keith, lord john allocated a lower number of new homes than ddc decided to go ahead with.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
howard
my point was, its not local councils deciding as alexanders believes
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
they did in this case keith though i take your general point.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
at last i think im getting through,,,,,,
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, at this point we'd have to ask Roger or Paul W for some input.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
why?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
You are correct legislatively Alex.
Watty
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
paulw
whats your view on the peoples port proposal?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
389, Alex, there is a word in this post which destroys your argument: imminent. The core strategy is a 30 year vision, there is nothing imminent about it.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Round and round and round you all go.
