Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Alexander - the plans have been building up for about 2 years and WHPS have been speaking to them for a long time with building their knowledge of their landholdings and history and what MIGHT be acceptable
They have had public meetings in Dover and have a website for people to submit their ideas. They have met with DDC, EH, Dover Society, DTC, Home Office, residents, etc
When they have plans 'finalised' they will go for full planning etc that will have to have public consultation
WHPS are always after input to help built their views for what the people want - there are exteme views in various directions and we will be listening to them all.
I can't see Chris, Peter and Neil campaigning - I see people giving their view for what they things is appropriate as DDC residents, councillors and businesses....
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Paul, I was only noting that some campaigners have different pots cooking at the same time, which in itself is a fair comment, nothing directed at WHPS.
Don't forget the public consultation about Whitfield: DDC made it: do you want 6,000 houses or 6,000. 'cause you're getting 6,000 either way!
Not to forget DTIZ, someone - if I recall rightly - stated last year on the Forum that in Feb. 2012 Burlington House was coming down. I might have got the year wrong, but I think that was the date.
We still don't know if we want a big green lawn there, shopping lanes or a car-park to visit the Castle and Western Heights.
DDC bulldozed down the former Britannia restaurant, promising all sorts of things. All we have there is a desolate mess surrounded by wooden ply-wood.
Now there was me thinking that DTIZ was the area for future development in Dover!
Has it occurred to you, Paul, that once W. H. were cemented up with houses, visitors and local people alike would have no cause to go there?
As for this developer who wants to become rich on W. H. and Farthingloe, and wants to cement up Manston (airport?), I bet they don't like the idea of a White Horse project at Farthingloe, do they? Well no, a White Horse standing in a green area called Farthingloe would stop developers, which might explain why that project is not wanted by developers?
I suppose the next up for the chop will be Pencester Gardens and Connaught Park.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
PETER;
The problem i have with your comments is the doing away with voices to allow developement anywhere
thats not a good step forward, the views of locals should always be sought out
and given teeth to object
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
"We need to attack the quangos who have the power to block decent developments".
So in other words local people don't count anyway, and the organisations that can preserve our Green Heritage by LAW are "quangos" who need to be attacked and silenced!
This is Tyranny! That is how Dictatorship starts!
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
I do have some sympathy with that view alexander
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Those quangos do not represent local people and do not take local views into zccount. I could equally have written: "We need to attack the quangos who have the power to approve such developments". The point is the same.
You seem to think that we who would consider development on the heights to be all in favour of covering it in concrete. What rubbish.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 685- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 85
So CGI just want to make a quick buck by turning historic and virgin sites adjacent to the A20 - the fast road to London or Folkestone West and the High Speed train - will regenerate Dover - who is kidding who - SEE BELOW
I am amazed that Dovorians who say that they care about our town are happy to see Dover's heritage and green field sites devastated in order to turn us into a dormitory town.
Then it is NOT sustainable development - it is GREED
PRIORY LAND LIMITED is a subsidiary of China Gateway International - this is from the web-site:
06.08.2010:
Dover Hits Headlines
The regeneration of Dover was the subject of a major article in the 5th August edition of the Evening Standard.
Leading property journalist David Spittles had visited Dover recently and was overwhelmed by the progress being made in the town. David recognised the huge potential for the local housing market through its appeal to London commuters, who can now live by the coast and yet be in London in 66 minutes on the new High Speed Rail Link.
Western Heights and Farthingloe Village, in which Priory own a 51% stake, were highlighted as the prime locations in the area.
Priory Land Planning Director Paul Uttley commented "for someone of David Spittles experience and reputation to identify the unique opportunities that exist in Dover, serves as confirmation that our early entry into the area was well timed and totally justified, it would appear that a lot of developers have missed this particular boat'.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
wonder what will happen to dover over the next 25 years
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
"I bet they don't like the idea of a White Horse project at Farthingloe, do they? Well no, a White Horse standing in a green area called Farthingloe would stop developers, which might explain why that project is not wanted by developers?"
Do your research and you will find that the White Horse is on the land the developer same owns and they are also backing it.....
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
Just to add to that, all the objections I have heard, and passed on, to the White Horse proposal have been from locals.
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
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
chris p;
passed on, how many taken on board and agreed with
how many not.
and it's good locals are taking an interest isn't it?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Post #279. DPPT has far from failed. Alex do not crow over what you do not know. Also, I do object to being misquoted, I have not expressed support for concreting the heights. I said that plans deserve consideration. Some object to any plans whatsoever, some like some aspects of what is currently in the public domain object to other parts, some support the plan, as it stands and is available to us, in its entirety. I think that some of what CGI propose is ok, some will not work so well for Dover and some is workable but not necessarily in keeping with the Heritage of the area. I anticipate that the plans will undergo modification due to some of the representations put forward by local people. The proposed developments by CGI are not directly related to what DPPT is doing and the view that I have in favour of considering what has been proposed by CGI is a personal one.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
interesting post from lorraine about the evening standard article, it doesn't mention which progress though.
i assume that it is over 2 years old so the d.t.i.z was not going forward at that time.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 750- Registered: 12 Apr 2012
- Posts: 72
This Forum is indeed an education - I am learning much!
I haven't posted for a while, so just to remind all that my view remains unchanged and unaltered and am getting quite a lot of support.
I will therefore look to the words of Brian Philp who as we all know had battle with the council and the builders, regarding the Dover Painted House in order for the excavation to continue...............
"Countries that destroy their past deserve no future".
I await sight of updated plans from CGI.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
Dover does indeed have a very long and rich history. The builders of the Bronze age boat probably looked on in despair as the Romans built over their farms and fishing grounds. Pre-Christians the world over were devastated when their sacred sites were demolished to build churches and wars were fought when some of those churches were replaced with mosques. For much of the worlds history a new town or city would simply flatten the old then build the new on top.
Today we are far more aware of the need to be aware of our heritage and hence we negotiate over developments in historical areas. Where there is substantial structures to preserve then they should be but where the remains consist of subterranean traces of walls or long disused and possibly dangerous tunnels etc then there are other ways of remembering them.
I am not in favour of building over all our history but I am prepared to consider beneficial changes and developments that meet the needs of the next generation. Just because I have somewhere to live does not mean I want to deny the same to others. Romans, Normans, French, Cavaliers and Roundheads have fought battles all over this country, if we preserve everywhere what will anyone do for tomorrow?
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 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
"The builders of the Bronze age boat probably looked on in despair as the Romans built over their farms and fishing grounds."
I think they were all dead by then Chris.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
phil
i have it on good authority that the romans sent an advance party a millenium before the main invasion force arrived.
better safe than sorry was their motto.
Guest 750- Registered: 12 Apr 2012
- Posts: 72
Whilst we have the knowledge and the know how to preserve then we must, however, it is a matter of acknowledging the areas. If Dover so very badly needs housing and cannot reinvest in more important matters such as regenerating Dover Town then there are brown areas that can be used, although I do not believe that Dover needs more housing when it has been unable to deal with the current number of empty propertys within the district.
Building on the Heights damages not only the historical importance but also the ecological importance, this is an area that is synoymous with history for a millennia, the supplication of the english crown, the making of Lord Wardens, the sacifices of villagers - all going to disappear under executive housing, with executive price tags?
The frailty of the ecosystem is such that it will all go, and building houses will then lead to other developments that willnot take anything into consideration in order to preserve anything.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Re #287:
Priory Land Ltd is nothing to do with CGI and is a totally separate company - it was actually Dover Gateway Ltd that was going to be a separate joint venture between the two companies that fell through and CGI are now going it alone.
Been nice knowing you :)
Been nice knowing you :)