Guest 685- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 85
Alexander, you have made some excellent points, but sadly, as usual they are seen as tin cans, to be knocked down for a laugh.
Paul-aka-whatever, has made it clear that the WHPS are the clique who are in 'negotiations' with EH and anyone who tries to put forward an alternative strategy to save Dover's National Ancient Monument that is on the 'AT Risk' list, is to be vilified.
As for our councillors and ex-councillors - it would appear from recent postings - they are only interested in taking pot shots at locals who dare to voice other opinions that those that their whips tell them to believe.
When it comes to the Farthingloe Valley, again we get the same negative vibes from those who have saintly pretensions.
In 1994, Eurotunnel Developments Ltd applied for outline planning permission to construct 19,510-square metres of Business Units on what had been the Channel Tunnel Workers Camp site at Farthingloe - for which three-year temporary planning permission was given.
In January 2006, CGP - the previous name for CGI - applied for Full Planning Permission for the same proposal on the same development site. This was granted on 21 April 2006 with the proviso that the development should begin within three years.
Not long after, a short hard-core roadway was laid but nothing else has been done since. However it this hard-core roadway that, it would appear, justifies CGI having permanent planning permission for developing 19,510-square metres of the site for industrial purposes. At the time of writing, this, we have been told, is being looked into by DDC Planning Department.
It is this hardcore road way with the tenuous permission for a 19,510-square metres industrial complex, which CGI are using to justify their massive proposed development that will be the start of a ribbon development along this beautiful Arthurian AONB designated valley.
This violates LPF DM 16, which states that development that would harm the character of the landscape, as identified through the process of landscape character assessment will only be permitted if - It is in accordance with allocations made in Development Plan Documents
As stated many times, this development along with those planned for Western Heights, are NOT in the Approved LDF and by the:
- sheer size of the proposed development,
- its failure to meet a large number of sustainable objectives,
- its failure to incorporate 'any necessary avoidance and mitigation measures'
-its failure to be 'sited to avoid or reduce the harm and/or incorporate design measures to mitigate the impacts to an acceptable level'
It FAILS on every aspect of LDF DM16.
Lorraine
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
lorraine,is that a large chip on your shoulder.?
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
lorraine;
i have asked alexander a number of times(without reply)as others have.
if no develpment takes place, how would you propose to pay for any works for the millions needed for the upkeep of the western heights?
your comments with regard cllrs/ex cllrs do you a dis service, i hope that all those that have a view both pro and anti the western heights future and how this comes about can go in the melting pot, and object/support when proposals come forward
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Guys can we keep this thread as friendly as possible despite the differences. Its being read far and wide as we know, so lets keep it good and fair to all. I had a complaint from a member of the public last night about the 'smart arse' one liners of yesterday evening...so lets leave those out and make only appropriate comment or indeed make no comment at all as the case may be..
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#1321 - "Paul-aka-whatever, has made it clear that the WHPS are the clique who are in 'negotiations' with EH and anyone who tries to put forward an alternative strategy to save Dover's National Ancient Monument that is on the 'AT Risk' list, is to be vilified."
Clique !!!!!!! A charitable group of people of all backgrounds, of all aages from all over Kent that work tirelessly to help look after our Heritage.....
Been nice knowing you :)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
got in before me paul, far too important a subject to get bogged down with personal stuff.
after reading as much of this as possible and taking into account the misgivings of the dover society, the inevitable appeals against the plans from the public as well as english heritage i cannot see this getting past the planning committee in its present form.
there doesn't appear to be guarantees of money going towards renovation and maintenance of the fortifications.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
That is the upshot at present Howard, without any backing at all from EH it is unlikely to go anywhere until CGI are able to produce details that they want to see, and even then they may or may not succeed even in a revised form. Any decisions are a long way off...
The Heights have been neglected for the last 50 years and I am currently carrying on 'as is' as if CGI or the Memorial doesn't exist. Negotiations will continue with stakeholders and WHPS will continue to work on a long term strategy for the Heights.
I'd rather any new group stick to 'new' stuff rather than try to muddy the waters and step on the toes of WCCP/WHPS with the potential of damaging their hard work over the last decades. What both groups have done is only through a heck of a lot of hard work, determination and little funds, and to think a new group can just jump up and down and get loads of free money is living on cloud cuckoo-land !!
Been nice knowing you :)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
c.g.i will be following this thread paul. hopefully they will amend their planning application.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Yes CGI do look in regularly but as I said CGI can't provide the detail that EH would want to see, but EH aren't (EVER) forthcoming with guidance. Vicious circle....
Been nice knowing you :)
Can I post my absolute disgust at some of the comments I have read in this forum! As I look out of my window from heights terrace i can see alot of green land by Dover Castle maybe we should submit plans to preserve the castle ......... No didnt think so. As a Dover resident for all of my life i still have no idea where the entrance to the drop redout is I no where you end up but not where you start and this I feel is where the problen lies. Since moving up here all my visistors have commented that they did not know any of this was up here and why would they as the only tourist sign to suggest what is up here advertises the immagration centre . Maybe better advertising is needed as if local residents of dover dont even know what history is up here how do we expect tourists! Maybe if more tourists paid to use the drop redout then cgi wont need to buy dovers votes
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
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
It's hard to respond to Keith's question without going into repetitions.
To make one point already mentioned, the fact that 12% of those signing the petition who I spoke with were from Australia, Canada and Belgium, doesn't exclude that the others were Dovorians and some from other parts of Britain (88%).
And it proves that the DDC corporate plan 2012-16, proclaiming the attraction of tourism to Farthingloe and W.H. through the development of settlements, does not stand up to proven reality (the petition).
Tourists quite clearly do not come to Dover to see new houses developed on the Heights, Keith.
If we can't even agree on these elementary bases, without you then implying that now we are a minority, and that DDC Planning will be deciding on a majority opinion "in favour" of CGI development, and that all people who signed were Canadians anyway, then it is pointless continuing the discussion, Keith.
It's all being turned upside down,
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, you write, and not for the first time since the CGI planning application has been submitted:
"we do have to wait for the proposals to come forward"
The proposal has been put forward, it is the CGI proposal, and on this proposal the public debate has been ongoing. I believe the official public debate has just expired, or is about to in a day or so.
I also find it hard to believe that Paul Scotchie is "neither for or against" the CGI planning application, as he has supported it to the hilt from the very start.
And it's hard to believe that Paul "is waiting to see" what offers are made, as these have been made in the CGI planning application.
Obviously Paul means that he's waiting for it to be approved, so as to then see what other offers are made.
Also, any decision of a supposed WHPS committee to NOT oppose the CGI planning application before the closing date of the public consultation period in which to make representations to DDC, equates to being in favour of the CGI proposal.
This is definitely the case of WHPS, who are fully aware of the planning application and have followed it, also being present at some of the meetings on Western Heights.
It is on these grounds that the Western Heights group are rightfully to be considered as wanting to preserve Western Heights, and being to a large extent in accord with English Heritage, except the idea of building a hotel, should receive due recognition from DDC as a discussions partner, as a community that wishes to preserve the Heights, including Farthingloe.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,707
I really do not believe some of the posts on here.
The mixture of self promotional, self congratulatory and vitriolic (almost libellous?) commentary from a small number of posters beggars belief, discredits the perfectly reasonable and understandable position taken by the OP and also of those who genuinely appear (and have stated as such) to have an open mind on the proposals from CGI.
It is time to leave this thread....
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 750- Registered: 12 Apr 2012
- Posts: 72
Well it does seem that it is not a good idea to saty away from the forum for too long as the posts are really going round in circles, yet again. So as the person that started this thread may I say a few things, firstly to correct a few things - the Braddonites as the residents are being called are not NIMBYs - the campaign has always included the Farthingloe side of the development so to use this term or to infer this in derogatory terms is to not be respectful of the people who are in the literal middle of this. Secondly, until evidence comes about the plans have been changed or alter to reflect EH decision we campaign on. So intil that happens can I ask for a change in direction of the thread - to all work together to come up with strategic and relevant ideas to gain funding etc for the heights as a whole? To ask for a scoping document for available funding, assistance and ideas? To not expect monies to land in laps but to work towards definitie ideas and collaborations. The current feelings on this thread are not positive and re not making best use of the skils that each and every individual has - so can I ask Councillors, organisations independant business persons reading this - lests have a working party to address this instead of waiting for finance that may or may not materialise.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
to all those interested;
on the issue of the thread itself, im certain that every poster on this forum who has contributed to the thread has there heart set on whats best for the heights.
now, how we get there is a different matter and where some of the confusion comes in.
i realy do have have disagree(again)with alexanders comments on paul(scotchie)paul from what i read has never said he is for or against the proposals but like myself he has asked direct questions of alexander(which to date still remain unanswered) on where the dosh will come from if we are to see no developement and the heights to remain a place to be proud of.
because a person disagrees with a view does not mean they support a proposal which is the way alexander appears to view paul scotchie at the moment.
hoprefully all the groups(and e h being one of them)can work together for the best for the western heights
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Excellent post, Lara.
I have already suggest contacting the Imperial War Museum. Another possible source of advice and knowledge might be the Musee de la Guerre in Calais.
Such organisations have experience in raising the funds necessary to preserve and defend heritage assets and their knowledge could be invaluable.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 750- Registered: 12 Apr 2012
- Posts: 72
Thanks Peter an excellent start - so does anyone else have fund raising experience? Paul who has been approached by WHPS that can be revisited? EH clearly read posts, let's have meeting to discuss expectations, Chris P let's meet and put a scoping document together - how are we fixed for utilising the football field for events? Anyone else have contacts?
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
lara
you make some interesting points, would be interesting to know if paul scotchie has already crossed these bridges??
or what he has done so far to save duplication
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
I think we need to start getting Charlie wound up with some fresh Duracells now that the House is about to go on annual leave!
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson