Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
So, Chris, how would money spent by visitors be ploughed back into Western Heights?
Would shop-owners and restaurant/hotel owners pay a tax or a voluntary contribution for the Western Heights preservation?
You are talking big-time, with great horizons of visitors non-stop, but the fact is in the detail. There is no fact and no detail to support your idea that more visitors will somehow bring in money for repair works on Western Heights.
Whatever a shop owner earns, will inevitably go in their own pocket. Otherwise you would have to introduce an utopia based on communism.
Howard has already stated that a war memorial would not be pay-to-visit.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I have just been reading through this thread having missed it before. As usual Alexander you just do not 'get it' - so many people have patiently tried to explain to you how it works but you stubbornly stick to your own misconceptions as above and ask silly questions having ignored what has been said. Put simply some compromising over development at the Western Heights can help boost Dover's regeneration and help with conserving and protecting the site. The alternative is more of what we have now, despite the hard work and dedication of WHPS more decay and destruction.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,897
Barry
That is why I have given up even reading Alexander's rambling posts, he seems determined not to understand what he is told.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Thansk BarryW
Been nice knowing you :)
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
let's play nicely
there are a number of misinformed, or just viewpoints
lets just accept we have a lovely forum
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Barry W I endorse your thoughts, and the way they are expressed , about the proposed development
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Thanks you as well Keith if you feel left out
Been nice knowing you :)
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
paul scotchie
your not playing nicely again
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
I think we can declare this thread fizzled out.
Two left standing: Paul and Keith.
One left lying along the side of the road while a few late-comers in passing by put the boot in
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Let's hope we don't get more threads like this one then (starts off very good, interesting and about DOVER, then goes down-hill with silly, inane comments) or there won't be a worthwhile Forum anymore.
Roger
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Roger, there have been many silly and inane views on this thread!
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,897
How true!!!!!!!!!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 685- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 85
Re Western Heights and Farthingloe - From CGI own Financial Statements that are in the public domain:
In considering the Company's ability to continue operations for the foreseeable future, the Directors have considered the Company's forecast operating cashflow for the period up to the end of May 2012 and the cashflow associated with the Company's properties over periods appropriate to the development in each case.
In the view of the Directors the Company requires continued financial support in order to continue as a going concern. These interim financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis in view of the continued support being received from the Company's lending bank Israel Discount Bank and from its shareholders.
The support received from Israel Discount Bank takes the form of facilities available subject to both specific and general conditions. The current facility was made available on 7 December 2010 in the amount of £34.5 million.
Of this facility the loan element of £31.4 million is fully drawn and the overdraft facility is to be utilised as follows:
· £115,000 to satisfy the Section 106 Agreement at Manston thereby allowing full planning permission to be granted. The property valuation detailed in Note 5 stated that the granting of full planning permission will increase the value of the Manston property by £720,000.
· £1,585,000 towards the cost of obtaining a master plan covering Western Heights and Farthingloe. This master plan will illustrate that the sites are suitable for residential development and in line with a valuation prepared by Drivers Jonas Deloitte in October 2010, prior to the granting of planning permission this will increase the value of these properties to approximately £16.97 million from their current stock value of £12.43 million.
· £1,400,000 to fund the banks future interest costs.
The facility is repayable on demand however the bank have confirmed that, subject to no breach of covenants, it is their present intention to continue to make this facility available until at least 30 November 2011.
The property valuations on Western Heights and Farthingloe further show that the granting of planning permission for private residential development on those sites will result in an increase in the value of the land concerned to a figure of up to £35.8 million. The Directors consider that the facility provided to prepare the master plan will be sufficient to allow the Company to deal with all matters in relation to the relevant planning applications.
IBD have indicated that should sufficient progress have been achieved with regard to planning permission at both Dover and Manston by 30 November 2011 they will give favourable consideration to an extension of the existing facility to at least 31 May 2012 subject to continuing compliance with the conditions associated with the facility. The Directors are confident in achieving such progress.
The Directors have reviewed the relevant aspects of the Company's forecasts and the potential position regarding the Company's properties for the period to 31 May 2012 and consider there should be no breaches of the covenants concerned. The Directors believe that the Company will meet all of the specific and general conditions associated with the facility going forward.
Since the year ended 30 November 2010 the Company's shareholders have invested further funds totalling £120,000 by way of private placements.
a) Planning permission
The assumption that the Company can continue operating as a going concern requires the eventual granting of planning permission on all of the Company's properties.
With regard to Dover it is assumed that sufficient progress will be achieved in relation to planning applications during the annual period to 30 November 2011 so as to increase the value of the properties and to allow both the Company's lending bank and its shareholders to consider favourably the provision of further support to the Company.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
Fascinating, a report that shows the company are not only prepared to invest a considerable amount into Dover but are also confident that Dover will grow to provide a healthy return on their investment. It is certainly not news to anyone who cares to think about it, that private investors expect to make a profit on their investment, how else will they keep going.
The good news for Dover is that they are sticking with it which means Dover can see investments into the town that have been very hard to find in the past and could lead the way to others becoming interested in investing in the town. Of course the trick will be to get the right kind of development that will enhance both our economy and our heritage. This would be the point to all the negotiations between the developers and various local bodies.
That Dover has the interest of a company prepared to risk indebtedness on our town shows a commitment that we desperately need and we should avoid being seen as unwilling to consider any change at all or risk losing out on any future hopes of further improvement.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Agreed Chris, these guys have put their balls on the line. Of course they want a profit out of it; but so do we. We should work with them to ensure as many people are happy with the outcome as possible. And, as PaulW has rightly mentioned, we need to attack the quangos who have the power to block decent developments.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
So DPPT failed, now they are trying it out on the Green Belt of Western Heights.
Heard it all before! 1%, was it not!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
lost me and i suspect many others alex, two different issues and two different sets of individuals.
no involvement from neil here.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
No idea who 'they' are Alexender ????
Not quite sure your point Lorraine - a lot of money has already been invested in the 'plans' so it is good to see some serious attempts to get some money invested in Dover
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Chris and Peter are two notable campaigners of DPPT.
Now they are campaigning for the cement development of our Green Belt Western Heights.
Neil has also expressed his support for the cementing up of Western Heights.
These development projects are always arm-twisted onto us, never through any public consultation.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
alex,i spell that word like this,CONsultation.