Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Hi Chris!
Were you able at the meeting to express whether the constituents in your ward are generally for or against the planned developments on Western Heights and Farthingloe.
What is the stance of the public in your ward?
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
Town and Pier ward almost comes in three parts, Aycliffe is broadly in favour, the York Street/Adrian Street area is mixed and the Western Heights area can be divided into Citadel against with Knights Templar in favour.
All the letters of objection (and comments of support) are forwarded to DDC. DDC have a policy of only putting plans to committee if there are three or more objections (and they recently suggested changing this to ten or more) which there are for this. It should be noted that DDC only count DTC comments as one, there is no automatic consideration on the fact that DTC is an elected body just as they are. Anyone wishing to speak will be allowed only three minutes exactly, and they will be timed to the second so no wasting time introducing yourselves or providing background details. Be aware that DDC do limit the number of speakers for and against.
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 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
To add some interesting debate to the subject here, have DDC made an assessment of water reserves in East Kent to cater for the many thousands of new houses they want to build in Whitfield, Guston and at Farthingloe/W.H.?
Taking into consideration that other Kentish districts have similar development projects for new urban areas that by far exceed the needs of the local population for housing, have DDC given thought to the future demands on water reserves?
Would be interesting to hear from other members on this.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Take it you have read the documentation ???
12_00440-ES_PART_3_-_REPORTS___ANALYSIS_CHAPTER_8_FLOOD_RISK___WATER_RESOURCES_8._WATER-207547
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
I didn't print off the thousands of CGI sheets, Paul, as it would have cost us a tree.
So I do my research on the matter online.
But in time of drought, Kent is hard hit, and has still not recovered from the Winter drought of this year.
Seems to me a good point to include in a representation, for anyone interested.
I doubt DDC or CGI have made a drought assessment in their development plans.
DTC have had to cut out all basket flowers this year, and there is still a hose-pipe ban in Kent.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Me neither - that's why computers have screens
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
The water impact assessment runs to 33 pages but here is the relevant paragraph:
8.104 Following the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures the Proposed Development will not result in any significant residual effects on water quality, increased surface water run-off and water demand.
If you want chapter and verse you will have to read the entire document, as I did:
http://planning.dover.gov.uk/online-applications/files/D49173F0DD445BAC4391B976A3CEADE3/pdf/12_00440-ES_PART_3_-_REPORTS___ANALYSIS_CHAPTER_8_FLOOD_RISK___WATER_RESOURCES_8._WATER-207547.pdfI'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,888
We would have no water shortages if all new properties were required to collect and use what I believe is called grey water for everything that does not need drinking water.
Sorry for going off topic but there are so many money saving things that builders should do for relatively little extra cost on new houses like solar panels.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
The meeting today went well, and the Dover Express were present.
Protect Kent were present, as last week, as well as the WHPS representative, who is a quiet bloke taking note of all that is said.
The protect Kent spokesman stressed the importance that this is a Dover topic, not just limited locally to Western Heights, and the importance of more people becoming involved all over Dover.
A number of people mentioned the Israel Discount Bank, who gave a loan to CGI.
I explained that Western Heights is not the West Bank, and that we don't need settlements on the White Cliffs of Dover.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
I am sure I mentioned that, if the Isreali Bank took over from CGI, nobody is better at putting developments in a historic setting against great opposition.
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 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Who is applying and how they are funded as no relevance to the planning applications - if it was me doing exactly the same, with millions in the bank, not wanting to make a profile, but planning on doing exactly the same as CGI you would still say NO ??
If so, i cannot see how you can use it as part of your opposition.....
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
It has relevance, Paul.
CGI are not a developer, but have taken out a loan in order to purchase land, apply for planning permission and then sell the land for huge profits, to repay their loan and still keep a profit.
So they are representing their own financial interests, not the interests of the local people. They are bound to their loan debt, and will try to maximise their own profits.
CGI are essentially speculators.
They took out their loan before the 2008 banking crisis, before the development bubble burst. Ireland and Spain are full of failed construction sites, and it is surprising that CGI's development plans are still on the table (they have been discussed for years, DDC has been talking with the CGI representatives for years).
CGI are trying to add their development proposal to the DDC core strategy, and yet the financial bubble burst in 2008. They are speculators, Paul!
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
If it isn't financial viable they won't be able to sell it, so someone else won't be able to develop it, so nothing changes and there is nothing to worry about !!
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Paul, any land that receives development permission for hundreds of houses increases in value by hundreds of times!
On Farthingloe that would be about 700 houses, on W.H. about 85 houses plus a hotel and conference centre.
Someone today at the meeting mentioned again that land was sold years back by the Prison for a few hundred thousand pounds.
CGI is out to make profits by getting planning permissions on Green Land, in Dover District and in Thannet District. Once they achieved this, the land they own in these two districts would be worth much more than their present £31 million debt to the Israel Discount Bank, without any houses or other buildings on it.
Then they would sell to developers.
DDC, in order to try to get the CGI request associated to the original core strategy, added a Corporate Plan 2012-2016 for Western Heights and Farthingloe to their DDC Website. It states:
"To make land available at Western Heights/Great Farthingloe Farm to enable progress towards the comprehensive proposals for regeneration, linked to the Town Centre, and maximise the tourism potential of this area, enabled and facilitated through a Planning Performance Agreement."
It appears evident that this text has been inserted in order to accommodate the CGI planning proposals even before they were presented to the Local Planning Authority.
This, Paul, as far as I am concerned, is a basis for a public enquiry.
There are people looking into all this with detail. People in DDC Planning, somewhere in some office, have been talking with CGI for years.
It was all stated at today's meeting.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
It also transpired that in 1963, DDC was fined £100,000 for attempting a court case to build on Western Heights. The then responsible DDC person immediately disappeared to Australia. The Dover rate payers had to foot the bill!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
However, before any court case starts, there can be a public enquiry, which is free of cost. We have been briefed on what democratic and legal rights we have!
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Alexander, DDC were not in being in 1963. It would have been Dover Borough Council, the same people who dealt with Burlington House.
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
when did the dover corporation start and finish, they dealt with brook house i believe?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
My sincere apologies to DDC.
Perhaps the word DBC was said, it certainly wasn't intentional on my part to give the wrong information.
At the meeting, I also discussed with various groups of people the idea of job creation. We all agree that people moving to Dover to buy a house do not create jobs.
One person reckoned that people from London might buy a second house on W.H./Farthingloe, and visit on the weekend, which would increase even more the idea of traffic and travel to and from these Green areas.
There is also general agreement that tourism to the Western Cliffs area of Dover will not be attracted by new housing, but rather deterred.
So we have been looking in detail at the DDC ideas of generation.
Once again my apologies for the above misunderstanding.
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
!974 Howard