Guest 750- Registered: 12 Apr 2012
- Posts: 72
Jan - #595 I must just say that you use the term NIMBYism far too much - I can assure you that in a majority of cases of the people that attended the meeting last night that is not the view the concern is the ruination of an Ancient Scheduled Monument. NIMBY refers to an objection that is happening in the vicinity of one's property but happy for the development to happen elsewhere, we don't want this development anywhere, including Farthingloe, and I would challenge anyone who found out that houses and apartments were going to spring up in an area, that has not been allowed to be developed on for many years because of the Ancient Scheduled Monument status, and after at least 10 years of successfully stopping any developments from going ahead, to not have a feeling of 'NIMBYism' and I use that in a positive sense.
Howard #596 - The Village is not insular, there are of course some people who do not know WHPS, as they are new to the area or possibly not as passionate of the visible archaeology but there are many that do and recognise the work that they do - however, from the area above the Knights Templar Church the correlation between the Grand Shaft area and Drop Redoubt area becomes blurred, not many people venture up there.
The Open Days do not really take in what the Village can offer - for example, can we not run boot fairs/antique fairs/craft fairs/ sports days/medieval fairs on the football pitch to run in conjunction with the open days, with profits being given to WHPS? Have a costume guide near the KT Church, bring the two areas together more and make visitors realise that the whole area is an Ancient Scheduled Monument.
There were 25 people at the meeting from all over the Village and I had many apologies, we will be reforming the Western Heights Residents Association as many wanted an official forum to voice concerns.
I think that this 'late' outburst of feelings is partly due to the fact as I mentioned before that all previous attempts to develop the Western Heights have failed and possibly this development was not taken seriously, many believed that the 'public consultation' was not done properly, and as this site is not outlined in the Councils Core Strategy is therefore contrary to the Local Plan.
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
Alex,
I find it disturbing that you have appeared to appoint yourself spokesman for WHPS at the meeting. At no point have we issued an official statement as per our position, and even if we had, as you are not a member it is not your place to state it.
You appear to have drawn your ill-informed opinion to fit your own agenda using Paul's postings on this forum. He has continually stated his postings are his opinion, and not that of WHPS. You have been told this many times yet you continually either fail or refuse to understand this.
Now, as you claim to care so much about the heights, why not come to our next workday? You can actually do some physical good that way as opposed to misrepresenting a group you do not belong to both at meetings and online. Find out who we are and what we do, you might be pleasantly surprised.
Guest 750- Registered: 12 Apr 2012
- Posts: 72
Phil - can I just add that Chris who cameup to represent WHPS was brilliant, he gave accurate information and listened well to all views.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Lara - we are all for suggestions on how to enhance the events so yes please submit something to the Committee and it can be considered how it could work in associated
Alexander - please if you are going to 'campaign' on behalf of the people of Dover stick to FACTS. Do not try damage the name of the Western Heights Preservation Society who have put thousands of hours in to look after the Heights and raise their profile.
You will get a lot further with people if you do your research, listen to all the views, see the bigger picture and then make a balanced opinion....
Been nice knowing you :)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
we are waiting for lorraine now to give her take on the plans, could be some time judging by the amount of reading to be done.
Guest 750- Registered: 12 Apr 2012
- Posts: 72
Roger, I would very much like you to let me know exactly 'what is on the table' then so that I am fully informed and can relay these thoughts back to the residents who in one case remarked 'so one area of the Western Heights is being sacrificed for the good of another area when in fact the Western Heights should be seen as a whole'
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
Can I just correct one point. Various planning permissions have previously been granted for developments of a variety of sorts for Farthingloe. Most have not gone ahead because of funding issues. The Western Heights themselves were once prepared for council housing.
The reason there are so many pages in the CGI submission is because they will be taking into account archeological and wildlife issues.
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 750- Registered: 12 Apr 2012
- Posts: 72
Thank you for correcting me Chris, I do like to have the facts, still does not get away from the fact that due to 'funding' reasons or successful objections by the Western Heights Residents Association and others - especially since the area became an Ancient Scheduled Monument - that there have been no further developments.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
"so one area of the Western Heights is being sacrificed for the good of another area when in fact the Western Heights should be seen as a whole"
My own view is that I *may* consider the loss of a small area if it is beneficial to the Heights as a whole and will help secure the heritage for another 200 years.
The 'loss' has to be as minimal as possible but also the development as a whole has to provide enough funding (or enough funding to kick-start) to really make a big difference to be able to undo some of the decay that the Heights have suffered over the last 50 years and get the recognition that they really deserve.
It is as a very fine balancing act and a line that I still wobble along !! As much as I would like the Heights to be preserved 'as is', in the real world the millions of pounds that are required aren't going to be given to us no matter how much we jump up and down
. A "possible" lifeline is on the table at the moment and we need to all carefully consider the pros and cons and make a decision that we hope people in 100 years say was the right decision.
I have a lot of reading to do over the weekend before I can truely decide in what direction or directions I will be fighting.....
Been nice knowing you :)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
609 posts and the real debate has not yet started.
no doubt scotchie, lara, alex, lorraine and others will be burning the midnight oil trawling through the documents to see the benefits and drawbacks of the proposals.
as far as i know the only other place this is being debated is the dover society though i cannot find anything on their website.
the next meeting to be held in the church hall is not given but going by the previous ones must be due in the next week or so.
i don't know what clout they have but would be interested to hear what the general view of their members is.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Like WHPS, the Dover Society were awaiting the details from CGI now they have a lot of information to digest before they will will give their official comment. They have mentioned that they will meet as a committee before opening it up to a wider audience
They are now on their summer break from meetings and will reconvene (I believe) in September for their monthly meetings
Been nice knowing you :)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
surely there is a chance that the plans could be rubber stamped through before the autumn?
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
I am sure the Dover Society will ballot their members, in a similar way to WHPS would. I think this has a long way to run and won't be signed off that quickly - too many hurdles and stakeholders to deal with, people like English Heritage don't do anything quickly !!
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Doubtful Howard. Rubber-stamped is the wrong phrase anyway - nothing is rubber-stamped. It will go through the due process and brought before the Planning Committee for discussion and decision-making.
Roger
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Having returned from la Grande Nation where I paid my tobacco tax, and witnessed delays on the crossings owing to high winds, I got home late tonight.
We had to wait 1 hour 30 minutes on the Pride of Burgundy in the harbour while the Pride of Canterbury was waiting to clear berth 9. All grievances were forgotten and the crew forgiven when the P/O courtesy bus suddenly drove on the ship to the relief of the foot passengers.
My basic review of the situation is as follows:
There seem to be new planning permission laws that allow local councils more powers in planning, But even then, these regulations are so complex and occupy so many pages, I can't find it easy to sift through them; add to that the thousands of CGI pages now online.
The CGI representative specifically said thousands, not hundreds.
My opinion is, if DDC can manage to revoke the present protection statuses (they are more than one) on Farthigloe and W.H., they will open up a precedent to continue planning and building in those two areas in future times; thus the planning projects as at present proposed could easily be added to, albeit through new developers, regardless what CGI might say now, even if in bona fida.
As a logical consequence, and following the logic that, if you can conquer the Roman Empire, you can conquer the whole world, the next thing would be, that DDC could one day revoke any protection status anywhere in Dover, and build along Eastern Heights from the Castle area all the way to St. Margret's lighthouse!
And build flats in Connaught Park, and a hotel in Pencester Gardens.
This is my real concern, that once we open the door to Pandora, it will never stop till the bitter end!
And if other councils in England and Wales follow the example of DDC on Western Heights and Farthingloe, some might do similar things in other parts of our country, revoking the protection status of areas in favour of planning.
So we might one day find flats along Hadrian's Wall and a conference centre inside the circle of Stone Henge.
I reiterate that, what we are doing now at Braddon, defending protected areas, is the decisive battle for saving England and Wales (which have a common law) from losing our common natural and historical Heritage, which otherwise will be certainly sacrificed to speculators and developers from Dover to Cornwall and from Kent to Cumbria.
If, however, we succeed in blocking the planned revoking of the protected status of our western areas of Dover, then this will serve as a precedent to block future plans to desecrate England's Heritage in other areas too.
If anyone on this Forum sees the light in this, then come over and support us!
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
If you don't even consider what is on offer in the plans Alexander, you cannot say you are making a fair judgement; if your (and others) eyes are closed to anything, you are not doing the Heights etc. any real favours at all.
Read, consider and decide.
Roger
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
If we sit back and read thousands of pages, it will be too late.
By then, DDC will have approved the plans.
Roger, some of us on the Forum have clearly stated that we oppose any urban projects on Western Heights and at Farthingloe, and this decision is not up for reconsideration.
Now is the time to act. Today I have to contact the members, our plans are already decided, that is, those with whom I spoke. There will be no turning back!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
what did the plans amount to in your opinion alex?
how much green belt land would be lost?
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
A very sad approach Alexander - how can anyone make an informed decision if they are not willing to read the proposals in full ?????
I am sat here at the moment having downloaded the 120 documents from the DDC website overnight last night and I am filtering through them. There is a lot that I can put to one side as they are statutory requirements but don't really affect the overall decision. There is a lot of repetition which also takes away a lot of reading and some of the background information shouldn't be needed by someone who know the area reasonably well.
I am about 1/2 way through my initial reading just this afternoon and I have skim read most of it and made notes on what I need to go back on and read again in detail
It is a huge project not seen in Dover for a long time so it deserves proper consideration and time invested in understanding it.....
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
Unfortunately Alex, your way will turn back the clock on Dover and recovery will be stifled for the next 50 years. Preparing to oppose without reading and studying what is offered really does come across as the worst form of nimbyism, a "don't care what it is I don't want it" attitude. Comparing chalk cut tunnels to Stonehenge is like trying to compare a caravan with the O2 dome.
Building regularly takes place on historical sites and it is pure luck if the area gets properly studied first. The tunnels are well recorded, documented and even filmed. You should be more concerned with the DTIZ site on which every trench dug for the survey was recorded in the archeological report as containing finds worthy of further study.
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