Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Sounds good Chris
Alexander - for your own cause's good please speak to your compaign co-ordinator about what you are doing, saying and posting.
As I have said several times, it is excellent that there is a total opposition as it can only help the final decision (whatever that may be) but it need to be factual. Your continual mis-statement of what people are saying, accusations of cover-ups, factual inaccuracies, speculation, etc, are really not doing any favours and can you imagine what will happen if you try and take them through a court of law ???????
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 750- Registered: 12 Apr 2012
- Posts: 72
Paul,
I will look into it properly but led to believe that the former officers mess/social club is a listed building, which is one of the reasons that CGI need to convert the building using the original facade and following the buildings footprint.
Can I also emphasise that all the Braddon residents objecting are working on facts only! And to say that this is not a small development, 85 new dwellings are being proposed for two areas, this is more housing than is currently on Braddon in its entirety.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,888
Speculation on what might happen sadly diverts the mind from what is the issue at the present time, this is referring to #759
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Sadly not Lara, any developer would do this as it increases their chances of permission being given by reusing a building and/or keeping within it's footprint
Happy what I have heard from you Lara, but Alexander's libellous comments about WHPS campaigning are 100% incorrect as they have yet to draw their conclusions, people "selling the White Cliffs's" when CGI own nearly all the land, DDC coverups simply are not true !!!!
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 750- Registered: 12 Apr 2012
- Posts: 72
Thanks for the clarification Paul. Hope today went well.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Paul, the campaign group, or whatever you want to define it as, is composed of independent people, some, or many, of us have been already err (if the word is alright with you) campaigning... or expressing, if I may, our own individual views on the plans to build buildings on W.H. and at Farthingloe.
I was doing so before taking part in the group's meetings, and what is written in my article is not in relation to the group, but to my own perception.
As for another point you made, different people in the group have given themselves different tasks, one of mine was to determine what support there is in Western Dover for the cause (our cause). Which doesn't mean that only I among the original group have this task (more people are joining in the meetings), So it is expanding.
So if I support something Lorraine has had published in the local paper, you try to play me and Lorraine off against Lara!
It so happens we are not a robotic organisation responding to input from supporters of the development proposals, who claim to be undecided.
Paul, you have openly supported the development plans so much, and so completely, and insistently, that your term of the word libelous is becoming in itself libelous.
Are you sure you are being taken seriously?
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,888
"Are you sure you are being taken seriously?"
A lot more seriously than you Alexander with your slanted perception of what has been said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
The only thing I have supported so far is for people to read all the planning information and consider what is available. Everything else earlier on this thread is THEORY. Now the information is available I am trying to draw my own conclusions and want to help with the FACTS so that everyone else can have their own balanced view..
So far I cannot see anyone campaigning for anything other than the anti-development groups and CGIs contacts with the newspapers.
You are the one trying to defame the name of a charitable group with your blog and you continue refuse to remove your litigous comments......
Been nice knowing you :)
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
ALEXANDER;
For helpfulness you would be well advised to remove libel statements it will do your cause no good at all.
with regard to the western heights one of the claims made by supporters of developement is to do nothing(as i think you propose) woud see the western heights deterioate.
am i correct? or do you have ideas/alternatives?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, I've just read through a documentation on the plans of development.
Extremely interesting. I'm going to bed now.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
I take that as a no then alexander??
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
One down Alexander, 125 more to go.... well done
Been nice knowing you :)
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
I do find it difficult when you have passion from alexander(whatever you feel he has p;assion) and trying to get a balanced view between the pro's and con's of the proposals.
obviously there are some strong views on the subject, and not everyone is able to
contribute in a way that gets the message across, and often go off song lol
i can fully appreciate the need to do something at the western heights but not fully convinced the present proposals to be good but in time hopefully they will iron themselves out.
we obviously cannot do nothing, future generations would not thank us.
but its what you do, whilst not taking away green space, and building for the sake of building.
this debate will go on and im sure lots of differing views, but it is great that this forum allows them
although we may get frustrated the right for people to post whether you agree or not has to be top of the agenda
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
Keith, passion is all very well but, as you well know, planning is decided on facts. It has been pointed out far too many times, that Alex is doing himself no favours at all by constantly mixing planning applications with proposals, going off on muddled historical rants or by making accusations against a companies financial dealings. None of this has any bearing on the planning process and by continuing in this way, against all the advice given, he is only working against his own case.
There are plans on the table and, if people are really that concerned, these are what need to be commented on.
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 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
definitely wouldn't like to be on the planning comittee for this one, difficult enough taking in the proposals fully - then to take flak from the public that are against it.
incidentally someone from mount road of all places raised the point that he couldn't see any provision for a school on the proposals.
Guest 750- Registered: 12 Apr 2012
- Posts: 72
May I again extend a courteous invitation to all on the Forum to attend the next meeting of the Braddon Residents which is generously being 'hosted' at the visitor centre outside of the Removal Centre.
This meeting again start at 6pm and we will be discussing the various objections that residents have with the planning proposals. It would be good to have members of the Forum who have differentiating views to be there for discussion as it would be interesting to have all pov's on this development now that we have the full evidence in from of us all.
At the moment I am looking at the style of housing and placement of these and how it encroaches on the current residents.
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
What date is the meeting Lara? Thanks.
Guest 750- Registered: 12 Apr 2012
- Posts: 72
Apologies Phil, this Thursday (21st) June.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Chris, your statements in post 774 are legally wrong. I take it you are a councillor, and a supporter of the CGI development schemes.
You have made a public statement that not only is false, such as the wording "muddled historical rants", but misleading towards the public.
You are blatantly trying to give misleading information to the public during a public consultation, it verges on to intimidation, and you would be well advised to be careful not to continue in this fashion, as it could lead to an official complaint if other people wish to make one.
Personally I won't, as I am not prone to intimidation.
