Kathy, regarding #357, if we disregard the emotive prose, and despite the probability that the questions have already been answered and I have missed them (my bad if that's the case!) is there any truth in any of the accusations against the Express? Such as ignoring, or not publishing, significant facts. I think it is probably the case that local press quite rightly supports various "causes" and that seems legit, so this isn't (for once, from me!) a journo-bashing post, I am just interested.
Guest 659- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 331
Letters both for an against the development have been published. Unfortunately I sometimes have to cut parts from certain letters that could constitute libel.
Many of the articles I have written have been positive however I also published an article regarding CGI financial losses. Whether positive or negative I try and make sure the article has balance and I include the facts.
What I can't include are accusations that are not solidly backed up, whether that is about developers or individuals.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
kathy;
im not here to question the merits of your paper, but in reply to lorrain's accussations against your paper, is there any truth in what she says?
BERN;
I agree on local papers backing particular schemes until they get into the political ballgame.
its another story then thus one of the many reasons why I and conservative members stopped buying the paper
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 659- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 331
Lorraine has views about the hospital campaign. Other have different views. We supported, and still do, a hospital for Dover. Lorraine certainly stood up for that cause and was at many of the public meetings. However there was disagreement between different parties calling for the new hospital which I think a lot of people on this forum are aware of. It was not our job to present a she said he said article. We backed the hospital demonstrations because they were backed by hundreds of people in the district and they are the people we serve as a newspaper.
Keith, facts are not kept under wraps. We report what we find out. The consultation showed more people in support than against, fact. If it had showed more against we would have reported that.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
kathy;
On the hospital issue i don't disagree
and if your saying on the western heights you gave lorraine space/time
fair enough'
thats for lorrain to discuss post otherwise if she feels the need
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 659- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 331
Lorraine is as welcome as anyone else to send her letters in. They are printed the same way as anyone else's. If there are parts that could cause legal problems they are removed, if not then it goes in whole with just grammar editing if needed.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Kathy'
thankyou for your reply I will leave it to lorraine to dispute or not your posts
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 685- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 85
Dear Kathy
So I, like others are most welcome to send our views into the DXpress - but will they be published, certainly not my views ... not one over the Community Hospital was ever published ... neither 'official' letters/press releases from the PPIF or coverage of the public hearings, where the decisions were made, and held in Maidstone.
Xpress has long since ceased to be the 'Forum of Discussion' hence, I for one no longer submit and, I guess others feel the same. This is, I suspect, a major contributory factor in the success of Paul Boland's Dover Forum. On this point, most if not all contributors to the Forum DON'T make statements that 'constitute liable.'
As for Western Heights, the DXpress coverage has been biased towards CGI ... For instance, concerning housing, Joe Public has been sold the line that the houses will be Executive style and that the occupants will help Dover to regenerate itself.
i. The occupants, if they are affluent and work in London, will do as the CGI have suggested elsewhere ... they will get in their cars and either drive to Folkestone West or Ashford and catch the train.
ii. According to the DXpress of 22.03.2012 the proposal to develop Manley House site, Whitfield, was deferred, as there is a 30% affordable housing condition (S106). This logically is also applicable to Western Height ... unless of course, the 30% affordable homes will all be built a Farthingloe, thus defeating the objective of mixed development.
iii. Next, the site is a National monument - I have quoted the English Heritage reasons given for this above but, to date, it has not been stated in the DXpress.
iv. Once a house is built at Western Heights it sets precedence and there will no stopping further developments. This was the main reason given back in 1992 - when I took a proposed housing/hotel/leisure facility to a Local Planning Inquiry - and won ... In those days, such achievements were published in the DXpress!
To appreciate the enormity of this, one only has to look at Farthingloe ... the Tunnel workers camp was given temporary planning permission, this we were assured through your paper - DXpress. Indeed, Dover District Council also assured us, but then someone wanted to develop what was a protected area and the fact that the workers camp had been on the site negated the planning protection! We are now to expect some 797 houses 30% of 797 = 239.1 affordable.
v. Finally, it is of interest that Mr DXpress - Terry Sutton - states in his book, written with Derek Leach, Our Town Dover page 11:
'One scheme that never made progress, revealed in 1969, was for the development of part of Western Heights with homes, and hotel and leisure facilities. Fortunately, the plans were rejected.'
Lorraine
I think I must be rather out of the loop, as I don't really understand the grievance.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
"iv. Once a house is built at Western Heights it sets precedence and there will no stopping further developments. This was the main reason given back in 1992 - when I took a proposed housing/hotel/leisure facility to a Local Planning Inquiry - and won ... In those days, such achievements were published in the DXpress!"
This started many years ago with Knights Templar and Citadel Terrace - should they be knocked down ??
"v. Finally, it is of interest that Mr DXpress - Terry Sutton - states in his book, written with Derek Leach, Our Town Dover page 11:
'One scheme that never made progress, revealed in 1969, was for the development of part of Western Heights with homes, and hotel and leisure facilities. Fortunately, the plans were rejected.' "
This view was 12 years ago - my own opinion has changed just as the world changes....
Everyone has had their opportunity to give their views - various groups and bodied have met with CGI, there have been public exhibitions, their website and there will still be time to submit views when it goes to planning.
Positive and negative feedback has been given by various parties to help guide CGI towards a more 'reasonable' plan. We are all to see what the final application will be so it until they are available we cannot say a final yay or nay to them......
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 659- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 331
You are welcome to send your views Lorraine. By this I mean a letter to us not a copy in of a series of emails which also contains correspondence from others who may not be aware their conversation is being sent to the local papers. You have had letters published and I am happy to continue to do so providing it is a letter written by you, sent to us and is legally sound.
The housing project by CGI is stated by them as executive housing. That being the case why wouldn't I describe it as such?
Obviously if you no longer submit to us I can't print anything but, at the risk of repeating myself, you are welcome to do so.
That is the last I am going to say publicly on the matter. If you wish to call me you are welcome to do so
Guest 685- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 85
Apologies Kathy ... as for the Forum of Discussion, congratulations must go to Paul Boland on giving a chance to air ones views even if they run counter to the main stream.
His site also gives one chance to clarify points. It would appear from a respondent above that pointing out precedence in planning, i.e. Farthingloe was lost. To briefly reiterate - because temporary planning permission was given for the workers camp - this set a precedence, the same way as will happen if planning permission is given for new housing on Western Heights.
Concerning the National importance of Western Heights, as I pointed out above it is scheduled under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 ( a little after the building of the Knights Templar Church, the Fortifications and indeed the present village of Braddon. the reason for the designation is:
The fortifications at Western Heights survive well as a series of earthworks, brick, and masonry structures, which will retain archaeological evidence relating to the adaptation and development of their defences over more than 150 years. The remains represent the largest, most elaborate and impressive surviving example of early 19th century fortification in England. Together with other contemporary defensive works at Archcliffe Fort, Fort Burgoyne and Dover Castle, Western Heights provides an insight into the continuing military importance of Dover during the 19th and 20th centuries. In addition, the Roman lighthouse, the medieval chapel and the field terracing will retain archaeological remains relating to the earlier occupation of the headland. The use of parts of the monument for recreational activities and the provision of history and nature trails give it importance as a public amenity and a valuable educational resource.
Lorraine
Guest 750- Registered: 12 Apr 2012
- Posts: 72
Would just like to quickly add that the Ancient Scheduled Monument status was agreed after the housing that is currently on the Heights was built and I am sure that if this had been there prior to these being built then the Western Heights would look very different - ie no housing and that there was difficulty buiklding these houses whcih are of basic prefab construction due to how the land lies up there, many are situated so that they avoid the underground fortifications and tunnels.
As part of the group that has close links to Braddon, that sent feedback to CGI following the public consultations, and I am sure that I do not need to remind anyone of the stance I have - I have spoken to many of the residents and am suprised that the response is as high as stated, I know that I cannot obviously argue with known statistics but many of the residents are not as happy as you may think, and I believe that many are agreeing to housing purely on the assumption that the land will be 'tidied' up by the present land owners who currently have done very little to look after the area.
Lara
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i thought only about a hundred people responded to the consultation.
Guest 750- Registered: 12 Apr 2012
- Posts: 72
CGI hand delivered the feedback forms to all those living in Braddon, but were keen to say that also the people of Dover were asked to comment - therefore if a percentage of those that fedback do not know of the historical significance of the area, OR, just commented on the hotel scheme and a large percentage of Braddon did not respond - then maybe the results are not that cut and dried.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
I am surprised that with probably 70+ properties on the Heights that they didn't all complain in force and majorly skew the results into something very negative if they were all against developments ??
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
If anyone is unaware of the results of the CGI survey, just under 100 responses were received according to Kent News. This includes online and in person at roadshows.
63% Positive
22% Negative
15% No stance/undecided.
I responded and sent detailed questions , I am really suprised at the response rate , thanks for the breakdown Phil
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
this begs the question why do people reply that they don't know?
there are actually people who vote on premium rate phone lines that say they don't know.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
They only do that from work, Howard.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson