Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
You are right, Paul W, I read in one of the local papers after the representations were sent in that the Department for Transport sent someone to Western Docks to look into the possibility of a rail connection. Possibly after my representation.
Which makes what Roger, I and others are saying more plausible.
Perhaps there may be a strategy to develop a future increase of port traffic so that it goes by rail rather than build a lorry terminal at T2.
To the best of my knowledge, DHB's original T2 plan made no provision for rail transport, but only for lorries and cars.
The subsequent idea of a rail connection may actually be the reason why DHB's privatisation proposal has not gone through for all we know.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Hi Neil. We must have posted at the same time.
You're right, the DHB master plan needs redesigning. My guess is that the Transport Department realised this and did not let the privatisation proposal go through.
In my representation I drew their attention to Britain's carbon laws, and this probably in itself put the DHB master plan off course, as be law, it is not practical.
They said they wanted to increase freight by lorry by 100% in 30 years, with no reference to rail, and I then came along with the carbon laws and the rail link idea.
Guest 732- Registered: 8 Nov 2011
- Posts: 128
Peter thank you see you soon.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Have added Neil's posts there to our frontpage. Makes a striking addition to the frontpage.
Many thanks Neil for keeping us informed. Always welcome.
Guest 720- Registered: 20 Jul 2011
- Posts: 114
What an excellent idea, the people of Dover (and beyond) having control of the port - and all for just £10. It's given me an idea. I hereby launch Dover District People's Trust - we take control of the whole district and run all the council services much more cheaply and much more efficiently. And they will be answerable to the people of the district for a change! And while I'm at it, let's launch the Dover Castle People's Trust, too. I'm sure we can do a much better job than English Heritage. Just send me £10 for each one you want to belong to, and everything will be fine. Oh, and I almost forgot, how about the Dover Forum People's Trust - I'm sure we could do that much better oiurselves ... that's another tenner please.
Jim, I didn't realise all those other organisations were being shafted and about to b e sold off to the highest foreign bidder and therefore in need of some local action to make them more advantageous to Dover.............
Guest 732- Registered: 8 Nov 2011
- Posts: 128
Jim please read,
Monies raised through the issue of membership shares will be used for the production of certificates, postage, etc. and to fund ongoing administrative expenses as the bid to gain ownership of the port proceeds. In case the Government decides to allow a private equity sale of the port as proposed by the Dover Harbour Board and our bid is not accepted, any remaining funds from membership applications will be used to benefit local Dovorian charities and causes.
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
Saw Meridian News van outside Harbour House at lunchtime, Bob was on Radio Kent this morning the PR machine is in overdrive.
Audere est facere.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Rail would make an interesting addition, more from the side of the cruise business I would imagine, but it is NEVER going to take huge amount of freight and never did in it's hey-day !!
Been nice knowing you :)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
things are warming up nicely martin, thanks for the tip off will tune in at 6 p.m.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
mr goldfield put his case earlier, a bit unfair to put a whoopee cushion on his chair though.
Whoopee cushion, or genuine hot air.......?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Jim, I have an objection to make: My mum and I joined English Heritage last month, so you won't be getting a tenner from me if I want to go to Church at the Castle
But your views on DDC are not too far-fetched, as the new Localism Bill does leave ample space for us to march out with a proposal or another to present to the Council, although, to be honest, I still have to read thoroughly the Bill.
Paul, never say never unless you can ever prove it!
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Indeed Alex.
What Localism Bill does not allow is existing Core Strategies to be overturned.They have already been thru. a Regional Plan examination, then followed up by an independent inspector decision That was why the Sholden call in was rejected.
The Neighbour Plan determines which sites can be developed providing the numbers of houses identified & agreed by the Secretary of State are met.
For instance a village could decide where those sites are to bedeveloped , particularly if there are more sites identified than houses allocated in the Site Allocation process. That's the local decision under the Neighbourhood Plan process.
In effect they can pick the sites so long as they are deveoped in the designated time period. Failure to agree this mean the decision comes back to the District Council.
Hope this makes sense.
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
sank in eventually paul, interesting points raised.
getting back to the port ownership issue this looks like running on forever which could have serious consequences with potential investors deterred from putting dosh into the area with such uncertainty around.
alex and roger have made a good point about the rail thing, calais seem to be pulling ahead with their plans for a railhead leaving us standing.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
It does, Paul, as I read more or less that same message, in general terms, in the Localism Bill regards planning. I was hoping to find a clausus that says: a yes or no vote can stop an urban project of mass building.
Alas, I came across something along the lines of your explanation, and gave up for the day.
I will be back though!
Guest 705- Registered: 23 Sep 2010
- Posts: 661
Yes I also read the same message again in general terms but concerning the Bill as a whole. I took it that if an issue had sufficient gravity,planning or whatever, could warrant a substantial point scoring with a yes or no vote. After all the DPPT recent referendum result was a disapproval of DHB and their methods which I think is fair to assume included all their planning aspirations. ( DHB are a statutory planning authority.) I realise that the vote alone will not stop them dead-but it must mean something otherwise what is the point of the Bill?
Never give up...
What would dissuade people from buying their share? I don't follow!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
It seems that the Bill does allow a vote on a local issue, be it Whitfield urban centre to say "we want it" or "we don't want it", be it DHB privatisation proposal to say "yes" or "no".
But that the vote IS NOT BINDING.
This made the Bill seem to me somewhat wanting.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
well spotted alex, it is all about smoke and mirrors.
rest assured that top down government reigns supreme except when they cut funding and blame local authorities when services fail.
