Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Alexander- #1194 - I have said all along that the idea to get the Heights up to a level for public access all year round, it would have to be linked into some sort if integrated transport system, but cars are inevitable.
However you can't expect to save the Heritage and the Nature without getting the footfall that will justify any applications for funding, be it from a developer or English Heritage or Heritage Lottery Fund.
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Re
"There is a shortage of play areas around that area, and it is of note that in the CGI did NOT feel the necessity to incorporate a play area in their Farthingloe development. Although they do expect children to live on that estate go to local schools - for which they do NOT propose to provide money for extra places - #1024, #1177 and #1184. "
I can see documents
12_00440-11792-PA-016_REV_B_FL_PARAMETER_PLAN_-_PLAY_SPACES.PDF-207594
12_00440-11792-PA-011_REV_B_WH_PARAMETER_PLAN_-_PLAY_SPACES.PDF-207599
and specifically
12_00440-DAS_-_11792-PD-012_DAS-APPX_2_PLAY_STRATEGY__CAPITA_047977_R100_.PDF-207606
That all refer to proposed play areas on both the Heights and Farthingloe...
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
Paul, you could add that a lot of the local schools, especially primaries, are currently under-subscribed so there are places available.
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 685- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 85
It doesn't matter what we say Paul, or what hard evidence we provide; you will never accept it - that is yours and the Western Heights Preservation Society's loss.
By the way, over the weekend some of the WHPS were saying that the Dover Society had come down firmly in favour of the CGI proposal - I sent copies of the covering letter and submission that the DSociety Executive sent to members. The impression those gave was NOT the same as they had been told!
Lorraine
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
details and nit picking,the hills and woods around the two sites are quite addiqute.
Guest 750- Registered: 12 Apr 2012
- Posts: 72
Paul apologies not read Forum for a while as I have a new job, however in answer to your question re hotel, conference centre and memorial; you already have an indication on how I presonally feel about the memorial - fantastic idea however I am sure there is a 21C solution to recording the names rather than the current design which I feels does not befit the area, and as to the hotel/con centre, we do have adequate facilities in Dover, and as far as I am concerned no housing = no hotel its the same principle, there should be no building on the Heights and EH should also be against that proposal.
Guest 750- Registered: 12 Apr 2012
- Posts: 72
I will also quickly add that the Community on the Heights do not want the proposed development, currently ALL the residents along Heights Terrace are against this and I have written evidence for that, and I am sure that once Knights Templars see what a Hotel and Conference Centre will do to the area and the disruption it will cause with additional vehicles and people and all that goes on with Hotels, they will start to see how the Heights is becoming just another DDC white elephant, with the possibility of another failed project that will overun in budget and never be used to full capacity.
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Lara DDC are not building, financing or in anyway commercially involved in the hotel other than making the land available for a private sector initiative.
I'm not sure where you have obtained this false information.
Watty
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
How about a major tourist attraction Lara ?
Lorraine #1204 - maybe some unofficial views from volunteers but the committee are yet to publish their comments. In the same way your views aren't indicative of those of the Dover Society....
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
"It doesn't matter what we say Paul, or what hard evidence we provide; you will never accept it - that is yours and the Western Heights Preservation Society's loss."
No loss to anyone Lorraine, merely pointing out FACTS and the fact is there is a lot of information in the CGI plans about play areas when you said CGI didn't take them into consideration. I am all for looking at the FACTS and making an informed balanced decision.
As I have said the plans are severely lacking in the area of guarantees for the protection of the heritage, something that CGI can't do until EH given any guidance but they are not playing game, so is a visious circle. Until these are in place it is difficult to fully support or oppose the plans, only comment in principle....
Been nice knowing you :)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
will be interesting to read what the "dover society" has to say, hopefully they will give a clear opinion on the proposed development rather than their fudge on the port ownership issue.
Guest 685- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 85
Cllr Watkins!
#1208 Fascinating - so DDC are going to make land available for a hotel , I note that in their submission, English Heritage say:
'The applicant (CGI) points to the benefits of conserving and making accessible parts of the Drop Redoubt, and to the wider public benefits of employment creation and the predicted knock-on effects of the hotel. English Heritage is mindful of the acute need in the short term for job creation, and supports the hotel proposals in principle. The Council may consider that the employment promised by the applicant constitutes a substantial public benefit.
However, since the development scheme would cause substantial harm to another part of the designated heritage asset such that English Heritage advises against the granting of planning permission, it would be inconsistent for English Heritage to accept the financial contribution it would yield. The putative benefits to the Drop Redoubt cannot, therefore, be weighed in the balance.'
Lorraine
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Roger, I did not write in any instance of children playing IN Folkestone Road.
The wording is, about 3 times: along Folkestone Road, and in case: ON Folkestone Road.
The evident point I'm making, is that these children are exposed to intense traffic-related pollution, and would be even more exposed to traffic pollution due to increased traffic caused by urban development on Farthingloe.
Residents in general along Folkestone Road and in neighbouring streets would also suffer from the increased effects of traffic stemming from a Farthingloe settlement.
I do not use a car, and am constantly exposed to pollution along Folkestone Road when walking there to and from town.
In general, I still have not seen any CGI plan indicating the proposed road connection to the proposed Farthingloe settlement, and have not seen a CGI assessment of road traffic ensuing from their plans. For example, how many more cars would be transiting through Dover, and along which roads.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Why not petition to have Folkestone Road pedestrianised !!!
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
How about the 795 page Transport Assessment report:
12_00440-TRANSPORT_ASSESSMENT_DOVER_FWH_TRANSPORT_ASSESSMENT_FINAL_COMPLETE-207492
Have you actually read any of the documentation ?????
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
I will add for now that I find the comments on certain Facebook groups to discredit the Western Heights Preservation Society and it's committee rather out of order, with comments and assumptions being made when the Society has yet to give any opinions on the development plans.
As I have mentioned on here many-a-time I am only commenting on here personally and there is a committee of eleven people all with an equal voice from whom a decision will come.
I PERSONALLY am currently not either for or against the developments plans as there is a lack of information about the heritage and when it is is available then I will draw my own conclusions (and so will the committee).
What I am trying to do on this thread is ensure that the FACTS from ALL PARTIES are available, and not speculation, heresay or complete falacy.....
Been nice knowing you :)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
ah yes the usual problem of facebook allowing people to throw around accusations and disinformation without any moderation being applied.
don't get me wrong there are some good parts to it but i rarely post anything on there for the reason of being chased around by halfwits with their own agenda.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
1215
Nope! It wasn't my job to do so, this exploit was left for others to do.
I said from the start that I opposed the whole project.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
And that's presumably because you don't want to preserve the buildings on the W.H.
On your point of pollution along the Folkestone Road, it is no where near any kind of pollution danger levels; Townwall Street, which has hundreds of lorries every day, is not a danger area either - it is monitored of course, as are two other areas in Town, but not dangerous.
The Kent Health Protection Agency told us this years ago; many from the Forum were present at that meeting.
Roger
Guest 685- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 85
The Leader of Dover District Council, Cllr Paul Watkins, in posting #1208, states that DDC is not commercially involved in the proposed hotel on WH, which as I point out in my posting #1212 English Heritage advises against the granting of planning permission - a quote direct from their submission on the CGI application.
While Councillor Roger Walkden, in his posting #1219 argues that those who are opposed to the CGI proposals don't want to preserve the buildings on the W.H - I take it that this statement includes English Heritage, in which case I draw his attention to my posting of
#1124 and #1199.
I also bring to the attention of both councillors and anyone else who will be involved in the final decision of the planning process, that NPPF para 17 p6 states that Local Authorities should conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations.
This was reiterated from the 2010 Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5) (published in 2010), which goes on to say that 'Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting' (HE9.1).
The requirement of both is that, 'When considering applications for development that affect the setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities should treat favourably applications that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset.' (PPS 5 HE10.1).
As they will be aware, proposed development fails on all counts.
Further, at no place within CGI's numerous documents and verbiage do they justify or show that their proposed development in the beautiful AONB Arthurian Farthingloe Valley, is of public interest.
NPPF p27 para 116 indicates that planning applications for major development in such areas must have exceptional circumstances and it must be demonstrated that they are in the public interest.
While para 3.60 of the LDF states that Dover's wildlife and green space resource, which is especially rich in chalk grassland, needs to be protected and strengthened through the green infrastructure network.
Lorraine
P.S.
This advert was stumbled across yesterday:
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/Western-Heights.html
Any comments?