howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#2
Another triumph for the nimbies.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#3
I was very saddened when this was refused. All they wanted was 3 (temporary) 2-day race days through the summer and one of those was a World Cup rally Championship. There wouldn't have been more race days, just that 3 of them would have been 2-day events.
I was on the committee that evening and felt that this puts out to those who can and often do, bring many people to Dover, the absolute wrong message.
Good job MacLaren didn't come here, they wouldn't have lasted very long would they ? I did inquire how long the race circuit had been there and was advised since around 1928.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#4
the more i think about this the more ludicrous the decision seems, a tiny number of people slightly inconvenienced for 3 weekends in the summer can turn away a world cup event.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#5
Why people buy a property in an area where there is a potential noise problem beats me, much like those who did not want Manston to thrive. Why the Planning Department were against this beats me but then so were the majority of councillors or the plans would have been passed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#6
i have some sympathy for manston residents over night flights although, as said, they knew the possibility of this when they moved there.
in the case highlighted here it is just the odd inconvenience, nothing like those who live around major sporting venues.
the officers recommended rejecting the application commenting that the applicants had not put forward the economic case, but surely that would have been self evident?
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#7
Maybe if the economic case was put, that planers would need to be sacked because of lack of business rates revenue ,we may have got a different outcome
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
#8
I really do despair at times, a crass decision, more big events should be actively encouraged to the district, work with the organisers who want to bring people into the area.
Audere est facere.
Judith Roberts- Registered: 15 May 2012
- Posts: 637
#9
This is really bad news as other have said. The planning committee should be able to see the bigger picture. It seems to me that politicians at all levels take far too much notice of a vociferous minority, seemingly unaware that most of us are too apathetic to write in favour of something of general benefit but will always write against something that adversely affects us personally. It is human nature and they should be able to see past that and make objective decisions.
Guest 1230- Registered: 15 Mar 2014
- Posts: 18
#10
Just another case of small minded people saying rules are rules and scared to see the bigger picture, it's this type of narrow minded thinking that will keep Dover in the doldrums.
I'd like to agree with you but then we would both be wrong!!
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#11
DDC planning members voted to refuse permission last week, in line with officer recommendations.
What more needs to be said, there really is little point is this inept and ineffective council.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#12
Roger, who were the planning members that voted against?
It's only fair we get to see who these people the come election time
Guest 1230- Registered: 15 Mar 2014
- Posts: 18
#13
In my opinion they show a complete lack of spherical objects
I'd like to agree with you but then we would both be wrong!!
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#14
http://moderngov.dover.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=136&MId=1486&Ver=4
My word, can you believe that our MP wrote a letter objecting because of litter.
For heavens sake man, your job is to bring prosperity to the area not stop it because of a few crisp packets.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#15
environmental hazard,under the livestock provision.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#16
It seems that lydden's plans for expansion include 24 new full time jobs. Who needs a recession when you've got an MP and council like ours?
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#17
Come on roger and watty, you tell us how much you're doing to regenerate but you block an opportunity to bring employment to the area because of officer advice.
What was this advice that prompted you to act in such a spineless way?
If I were you I'd start covering my own backside and fighting back against these faceless officers, after all they're going to cost you lot your own jobs.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#18
It's not all the Councillors or even the majority of them that voted against this, but the majority of the Planning Committee.
I do think this decision puts out exactly the wrong message about Dover.
I don't think it is right that I name those who voted against it, but I do believe very strongly that they were wrong, but that is their democratic right.
To me it is the same as those in Thanet who voted against night-flights for Manston - now look at Manston.
I appreciate we cannot give applicants or developers "carte blanche" , but we MUST be more open-minded and forward thinking, as has been said above, see the bigger picture.
Roger
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#19
Just seen your latest posting David; I voted and spoke for the application, not against it.
I did see the bigger picture and the potential dangers and the message this decision sends out - not just to Lydden applicants, but to others.
Roger
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#20
A revised application has been submitted. I have made an official comment of support and I suggest that everyone else does too. You will find the application
here. If you haven't already done so, you will have to register before making a comment. Please do it as we need to outweigh the nimbies and make the economic case for having a thriving event venue such as this in our district.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson