Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Paul, you said it would serve to attract visitors to shop in Dover. and so-by bring in revenues to shops and restaurants.
Also, a hotel is a commercial building!
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Yes but a war memorial is not.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 750- Registered: 12 Apr 2012
- Posts: 72
Paul, will of course welcome a re from WHPs and any other organisation or individual who has an interest.
I won't be leafleting or canvassing until I have the full details as I like to be in control with the full facts, however my views/concerns/feelings remain the same.
I wonder if anyone could help me out with a venue for this meeting, otherwise it will be in my mums front room at Citadel Heights.
I have left my contact details and welcome any queries.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Just to elaborate now I am at PC rather than on a phone....
Alexander - on this thread and the People's Port thread despite being told you continually spout suggestions, theories, ideas and possibilities as FACTS and I am sure that you are doing the same outside of this forum and misleading the public.
Until a planning application is in place with final property numbers, the impact the properties have on the heritage, the money on offer for the heritage and how this could be used to match fund against lottery grants etc, no-one can have a true opinion, WHPS, Dover Society, or myself. I don't know own opinion yet as I need all of the information to be able to fairly weigh it up.
However the overwhelming view I have heard, that supports my own view, is that people want to CONSIDER what is available and not a straight NO against everything like youself.
Your idea of leaving it as it, 'asking for money' and not wanting people to go up there simply won't work!! EH, DDC, lottery, whatever won't give any money if it doesn't get people visiting the Heights be it for heritage or nature.
...waiting keenly to see the new designs and the final planning application and then we can decide where to go from there...
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Lara - it might be worth asking Dover Discovery Centre as their room hire is very good mid week, think only about £10 for an hour.
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Paul. people do visit the Heights area. because of the green beauty to be enjoyed, and the peaceful atmosphere.
This would all end if an urbanisation scheme set in.
The same applies to Farthingloe.
Whether you agree or not, there are many who say outright no to any urbanisation in these two adjacent areas.
Meanwhile, no-one is stopping you from consulting the development plans and making up your mind.
However, as I've written recently, so many people around here have no idea of any development plan on W.H. and Farthingloe, and are adamant that no such development should go ahead.
It is a fact that you want to build around 800 houses on the W.H. and in Farthingloe, a hotel and a WW memorial designed to attract masses. You have stated this yourself many times.
These are facts.
Now you are telling me that I am inventing all this!
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
No Alexander - as I have stated several times - in the ideal world I (and probably many others) wouldn't want to have to have the houses up there and Farthingloe, there will be millions of pound of free money for the heritage, there would be lots of volunteers willing to work all over the Heights for nothing, the fortifications would not have been demolished, it can be restored back to how it should be, etc, etc, etc
Back in the real work, there is no free money, there aren't that many people that want to get out there to get their hand dirty, the people of the town are generally apathetic about what happens, the heritage is falling down around us, WCCP struggles for funding to manage the chalk grassland around the Heights
Now there is a scheme that I am willing to listen too, there are still a lot of details to be made clear, I still have yet to make a decision on whether the compromise is right for the long term. Here is an opportunity to provide the match funding that would be needed for a lottery fund to really make a difference......
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Paul, I fully understand your view, and although I remain ready to campaign as outlined above should Lara and Lorraine require my services, even then, I still support your enthusiasm for Western Heights preservation of Napoleonic defences.
Perhaps one day there will be money for maintenance, while leaving the Green intact on the Heights and at Farthingloe,, but right now the Country is in dire straits, so we will have to be patient.
Monsieur Hollande seems to be on a diametrical collision path with Dave over Europe, so this might lead to the MoD taking care of Western Heights.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
[
I don't know how to make an url live on the Forum, but the above might be helpful if you copy and paste it on Google.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Guest 685- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 85
Alexander, your support is most welcome and appreciated and like you, I too support the preservation of the Napoleonic and OTHER defences on the Heights, but to allow cavalier development ... NO
This appears to be endorsed by Dover District Council's Local Development Framework (LDF) and the chapter on Green Infrastructure (GI). The report recognises that Western Heights and Farthingloe play an important part in Dover's GI as they are at the southern tip of the North Downs.
Further, DDC states that one of their GI Projects is to recreate the rolling landscape associated with Historic Dover, and on the accompanying map (Fig 6.1), a solid green line enclosed these areas, adding that:
'They are of ecological value ... containing sub optimal habitats that can act as buffer areas that link to the wider East Kent GI Network and provide migration corridors, particularly with increased pressures from climate change.'
Earlier in the report (5.7), it says that:
'The level of development planned for Dover is likely to exacerbate recreational pressure on the White Cliffs, which is a designated site, as well as Kearsney Abbey and Russell Gardens. Sites that may help to relieve this pressure include Connaught Park, Pencester Gardens and Samphire Hoe. A further opportunity is to encourage and improve access to GI to the west of Dover, including WESTERN HEIGHTS ...'
The report also discusses unmanaged growth (cavalier housing development) saying that such developments may also put pressure on Local Wildlife Sites at Old Park Hill, Connaught
Barracks, Gorse Hill, WESTERN HEIGHTS, Long Hill and Buckland Valley. (As advised by KWT)
In fact, DDC gives the unmistakable impression that they are proud of their Green Infrastructure strategy, which raises the point:
Why is there such an overwhelming need by some to violate this worthy strategy by implicitly endorsing the proposed CGI developments and by continually wailing, 'wait and see what they really are?'
Lorraine
Because without knowing what they are in reality a value judgement cant be made by anyone who is not wholly opposed to any development in the heights at any cost
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
I'd imagine that the Danes Court area was at some point green field - nice bit of countryside besides various cemeteries, protruding into an untouched bit of the landscape ??
So is my house, and so was the Folkestone Road area when the Heights were built.......
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
And as I have said before, if Dover Castle had not been built and the site was still a greenfield one, there would be no chance of getting planning permission for it now.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Perfect point Peter !!
Bet they weren't impressed when Castle Street carved through the area to leave all the businesses on St James's Street 'off the main route', or Buckland Estate was built, etc, etc...
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
I have learned more from a few posts from Lorraine than 20,000 posts from others on this topic.
Paul and Peter, in the days when the Danes were built to a housing estate, and indeed when Dover Castle was built, those areas were not designated as protected under Heritage laws!
Since then, Heritage and Green Area laws have been introduced, and it seems quite clear to me now, the way you are both presenting your point, that the Law on preservation areas and development areas mean absolutely nothing!
Your arguments are something like saying: 200 years ago there were no pensions for people when they retire, so why have pensions now?
I mean: before the 17th century, there was no law in England or anywhere in Britain obliging carts and horses to travel to the left of a carriage way.
In 16something, Parliament made the law requiring traffic regulation, as roads in London were becoming congested through hap-hazard traffic.
Why not say: once upon a time there was no traffic regulation, so why not abolish it now?
Contrary to when Dover Castle was built, we DO have laws and regulations on protected areas, otherwise speculating developers would have cemented up every green park in Kent.
I have come to the conclusion that whatever Lorraine and Lara decide on this topic, is worthy to be made clear to the general public, when they see fit.
The Forum has certainly provided insight, but this issue needs to get out to the general Dover public, who is largely unaware of what is brewing up in planning schemes on Farthingloe Farm and the Western Heights.
Although I've got some work contracts over the coming months, I will definitely find time to deliver the message from letter box to letter box should this be Lara and Lorraine's decision.
Guest 685- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 85
Thank you again Alexander for your support and worthy comments.
For a democracy to work requires persons participating to be 'informed'. If they choose to dismiss the information as a waste of their time/ not of interest or against their beliefs/ideals and so on, that is their prerogative ... although this will inevitably lead to autocracy.
Further, it is easier, and cheaper, for the media to tell us what to think - they receive, by e-mail, nicely presented publicity material supporting various causes - such as the CGI proposed development of Western Heights and Farthingloe. The PR lists the attributes while avoids or dismisses anything seen as counter to their proposals. For the media, often under pressure and short of staff, it is easier for them to reiterate rather than question.
Albeit, the as far as we are concerned - the final recipients - it is up to us to question.
Some, like Lara and I, in the case of the CGI proposals, were already clued up on certain aspects and since have asked questions from this informed base ... Indeed, Lara has had a number of discussions with a representative of CGI while I have been going through documents, such as the Dover District Council's Local Development Framework (LDF) as mentioned above. From this, we have come to a conclusion.
We then had a choice, do we keep our informed decision and the criteria from which we drew our conclusion to ourselves or do we tell others?
To deliberately suppress information is a feature of an autocracy.
Therefore, not to pass on our reasoning would be as wrong as those in positions of power and influence who ARE taking that line - in other words, we would be as guilty as they of being autocratic.
Heady stuff for a Sunday morning, but important if we are going to save Western heights and Farthingloe from a development that with not only desecrate a National Monument, permanently reduce our Green Infrastructure but will add significantly to the town's loss of identity.
Lorraine
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
From lorrains comments it would appear some who are in favour of some form of developement have something to hide and surpress information.
although this had been denied many times by both representertives of the local media and individuals, im sure they will add further?
for me, to get a balanced view you have to read between the lines of ALL the postings.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Who are they Keith ? I would like to go back and read the posts and see if I have missed anything
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
sarah
i presume lorraine means those in favour of some kind of developement
but realy thats for lorraine to answer
dont want to deflect the debate to much away from the original title
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS