Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
How baffling is that last post??
so having alexander now agree housing may well pay for works in and around the w heights, what is alexanders alternative?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, it is one of the points that has been put forward by those in favour of the CGI proposals. Our point is, if it did function like that, it would mean continuous housing development to maintain the W.H. ex-military defences, which are vast.
It would become a precedent.
Perhaps this is not clear to those who do support the CGI idea, that by agreeing to it, the death-toll would ring for Western Heights and Farthigloe as green areas, and possibly even beyond, all the way to Folkestone.
The result could be, whenever a town needs money for something, be it for Napoleonic defencs or anything, for that matter, just build hundreds of houses. It could be the death-toll to good old Dover if this gets through.
We would become a city, with hundreds of thousands of inhabitants, and our sea views and cliff walks and nature trails would gradually fade out into cemented roads lined with houses.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
and the alternative??
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
The alternative, Keith, is to keep our green country lanes and trails, keep the Dexter cattle, keep the ponies, keep the open green spaces for adults and children to enjoy, for us Dovorians and for the many visitors who love our area.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
It's fair to say that all those both in favour of some developent, or opposed to any form of development, both agree that a lot of dosh is needed to keep the w heights even at a basic level.
And to do nothing will see the area deterioate
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
The natural part won't deteriorate, Keith, especially with the Dexter cattle and ponies about, and a bit of lawn-mowing now and then.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
The only reason that the heights are a Scheduled Ancient Monument is because of the man made bits. I hope that you are not advocating the destruction of such an important National and International Heritage site, albeit a destruction that'll take place agonisingly slowly over the next couple of decades.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Alexander;
both pro and anti(except you from my understanding of your posts)
all agree a lot of dosh is required for the upkeep of the western heights,
a few dexter cows, and a bit of grass cutting won't do it.
thats all your suggestions then alexander?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Why sacrifice Farthingloe, Keith?
And why sacrifice the green and quiet of Western Heights too?
The constant traffic connected to ever more settlements would ruin whatever green areas were left of Western Heights and the beautiful mature areas between Dover and Capel Ferne.
Can we place our woodland, farmland and coastal views all in the pot for a set of antiquated military defences that stretch miles and miles, mostly below ground level?
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Heavens to Betsy - you are advocating the destruction of a Scheduled Ancient Monument
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Nope! Are CGI not advocating the destruction of Farthingloe as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty?
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
But you are advocating exactly that Alexander. No developmenmt, means no investment; no investment means no conserving or refurbishing the scheduled Ancient Monuments and so no refurbishing of them, mean they will deteriorate and eventually be a pile of rubble and then become a woodland.
If you compromise and negotiate, then everything of value can be saved - even Farthingloe can become a place of value with houses, Country Park and walks and a pub/restaurant etc.
Before these classifications were "invented" , places like Maxton and Elmvale were open countryside and would probably have had the same classification; we're comfortable with them now - aren't we ?
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
roger;/niel
not sure how else to explain it to alexander
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 685- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 85
It is noticeable that when politicians and ex-politicians who have their say on the Forum they prefer to attack than listen to what folk have to say - in other words behave like bullies - something that particular the folk from Whitfield and Deal/Sholden complained of during out two hours of petition signing on Saturday (#1059).
As Alexander is trying to point out (#1060 ++), but there is a deliberate failure to comprehend, besides the destruction of part of the Scheduled Ancient Monument which CGI propose there will also be environmental destruction.
The WCCP since 1989 has progressively improved the access and management of Western Heights and benefiting nature conservation by setting up the Western Heights Nature Reserve (WHNR). This is an internationally rare habitat and include in their list of fauna and flora:
30 species of British butterfly including the largest blue butterfly colony in Kent
Kidney Vetch - needed by the blue butterfly to survive.
More than 5,000 different types of orchids including the rare Common Spotted Orchid
In places as many as 30-40 different wild flowers for each square metre can be found.
Earliest forms of cabbage, chiff-chaffs, peregrine falcons other indigenous birds and many varieties of bugs and beetles lower down the ecological chain.
Due to the high summer temperatures of the areas outlined in the development, there is a nationally unique abundance of reptiles such as adders, lizards and slow worms. Finally, the areas contain sub-optimal habitats that can act as buffer areas that link to the wider East Kent Green Infrastructure network, providing migration corridors, which is particularly important due to increased pressures from climate change.
LDF-CP7 clearly states that the integrity of the existing network of Green Infrastructure will be protected and enhanced through the lifetime of the Core Strategy. In Fig 6.1 p40 of DDC's LDF's Green Infrastructure (LDF-GI) report, as one would expect both Farthingloe and Western Heights - that are within the Kent Downs AONB, are GI - covered.
The Kent Downs AONB is a nationally important landscape, legally protected to maintain its special character for now and for future generations. LDF-DM 25 states that Proposals for development that would result in the loss of open space will not be permitted unless the site has no overriding visual amenity interest, environmental role, cultural importance or nature conservation value. Both the Farthingloe and Western Heights sites boast all of these attributes. Further, the proposed developments would violate LDF-DM16, as it would be detrimental to the character of the landscape of both areas.
Finally, the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts (NPPF Section 9). The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. By CGI's own admission to their shareholders in their earlier statements, CGI's final intention is a large-scale ribbon development along the Farthingloe valley and to purge Western Heights of its green infrastructure.
Lorraine
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
"By CGI's own admission to their shareholders in their earlier statements, CGI's final intention is a large-scale ribbon development along the Farthingloe valley and to purge Western Heights of its green infrastructure. "
Sounds rather libelous - wheres the evidence ?
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Alexander - the nature only thrives through a huge amount of cost and effort from tens of thousands of volunteer hours over the year - it isn't a cheap and easy thing to do.!! It isn't simply sticking a few cows up there...
The Heights is only a nature reserve because of the rare chalk grassland where the rare orchids etc thrive on the outer ramparts of the defences. The trees are encroaching on the grassland especially the self seeding sycamore that is devastating both the heritage and slowly taking over the grassland. Even if you don't care about the Heritage, huge investment is needed in the nature as despite the efforts of volunteers it is a task that is being slowly lost
If you really care about the nature how are you helping - do you volunteer with WCCP or WHPS ??
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
There is a huge difference between "final intention" and actual planning applications. Most of the species mentioned do very well over a large area that will be untouched by the proposed development, my own garden houses slow-worms, the local school sees adders in its grounds and falcons fly all along the back gardens of Aycliffe.
Mention of "climate change" will not win any support on this forum as most prefer to believe it does not exist (or is all a plot to get more tax money).
A great part of the appeal of the site to the developer is the surviving heritage, such as the Drop Redoubt and the surviving moats, and so they have included preservation work.
Having untouched green areas in an urban environment will not bring in any revenue or provide future homes and jobs for the people of Dover. Without them Dover will continue its sad decline until it becomes a small housing estate serving the port and its expanded car parks.
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
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
I hope that in all of this some advice can be given/taken
certainly over a number of threads i have asked both pro and anti developement geezers a number of questions.
Whilst i may not agree with some of the pro developement geezers, the 2 anti geezers iv asked what would be the alternative if there was no develpement, having got agreement from both sides that to do nothing would see the western heights deterioate.
the only reply being, put dexters on the land, and cut the grass now and again.
Good ideas, but i was realy looking for a more substantial reply.
I like to get a full pitutre and that im finding difficult as those who totaly oppose any developement(and im not saying they are wrong in this view) don't give what happens next should they win the debate.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
there is a big difference between climate change and man made climate change.
the latter depends on which particular scientist is about to have a book published.
Guest 685- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 85
PRESS RELEASE
ENGLISH HERITAGE PRESS STATEMENT - For immediate release 9 JULY 2012
ENGLISH HERITAGE RESPONSE TO PLANS BY CHINA GATEWAY INTERNATIONAL (CGI) FOR MAJOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CENTRAL AREA OF THE WESTERN HEIGHTS
Dr Andy Brown, English Heritage Planning Director for the South East said:
"We believe that the Western Heights has enormous potential to contribute to the local economy and have pledged to work with Dover District Council and other partners in harnessing this potential which is one of the council's key objectives.
However, we are recommending refusal of planning permission for this damaging scheme for houses in the interior of the Western Heights. The openness of the interior is an essential part of the Heights and we cannot support its infilling as proposed.
If permission were granted, the prospects of appreciating one of England's greatest historic places would have been cashed in for an unnecessary 94 houses, the location of which is driven only by the land ownership and not by any strategic thought on the part of the applicant China Gateway International for its destructive consequences."
Notes to Editors:
Dr Andy Brown is available for interview this afternoon and tomorrow morning to discuss our opposition to these proposals.
