howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#2
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#3
just shows howard
it's okay to build whereever you want unless your in osborne or pickles consttuencies.
the planning minister recently said it was now down to local councils if they want to build houses.
they no longer need to if they dont want to.
does this mean mr watkins will shelve the whitfield developement?
no longer can he blame the last govt
his own govt has now given him permission to withdraw from building
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#4
Building those houses gives Dover "Growth Point Status" which means we have access to greater sums of money so Dover can move foward. If we didn't have this status, we would just stagnate (some might argue that we have already - especially in the Town).
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#5
roger;
i fully understnd your view
but part of your leaders excuse for building was he was forced to by the previous govt stating so many houses must be built.
he can no longer hide behind this.
also the minister was in favour of using up brown field sites first
which will i'm sure be of intrest to the anti build in whitfield group
think we might see some interesting campaigning start in whitfield
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#6
There was no "excuse" as you put it Keith. I explained it as it is.
The development at Whitfield will go ahead as there is no legal reason why it shouldn't
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#7
roger;
thats an interesting comment
i suspect there will be some posters on here who oppose such developement more so in whitfield that will contribute.
mr watkins part argument was it was partly prescotts fault for forcing councils to build., this is no longer able to be used.
the other 2 faced stuff is tory osbourne/pickles happy to build eveywhere but
not in my backyard!!!!!
interesting no comment on green/brwownfield sites
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#8
Unfortunately this is "old news" virtually every minister involved in the regulation of planning has at some point or other objected to developments in their own constituency whilst approving developments in other areas.
This is NOT a party political issue but the exercise of personal frailties.
With regard to the Tories taking donations from major construction companies - so what - tell me something new. All parties reflect the interests of their donors to a greater or lesser extent, why would you donate if they didnt?
The biggest worry is not the smokescreens the press are creating above (lazy journalism to fill pages again) but the fact that we are in danger of devolving the power to decide to unelected council officers rather than locally elected and accountable representatives. This is especially true in councils like ours that are officer driven.
"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 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#9
The principle of development has been agreed at Whitfield and planning permission for phase 1 and 1a have been passed.
The Supplementary Planning Document has been agreed at Full Council and each phase will be coming to the Planning Committee for approval (or otherwise).
I've already said about growth point and the benefits; I can't answer for George or Eric's view on nimbyism.
I think it is always preferable to use up the brownfield sites, but all those put together won't make that much difference, especially not to Whitfield; they'll be viewed as windfall sites.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#10
two different issues here roger, the whitfield development want through all the correct planning stages and as you say it gave dover "growth point" status.
the new rules or lack of them will mean that greenfield sites will be at threat from development.
easy to see why companies were so eager to donate to party funds.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#11
howard;
im sure the action group in whitfield will take issue on this latest developement.
but that aside have to agree with ross on local councils
being officer led is ok to a point but tends to take away the role of the cllr, and becomes a point where you say, do we realy need cllrs?
that said, if we are to have cllrs being more decision makers and running councils then we have to decide if we nee themto spend more time in the offices, or making these decisions.
we cannot expect this with the present set up of many cllrs that work for a living and have to fit in the cllr bit when they can(quite understandable) but with this of course we shouldn't then complain that officers fill the vacuum, in an officers position im sure we would all do the same.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#12
The officers at DDC are the professionals; the Conservative Councillors set the policy and the officers carry out that policy - whatever the subject.
If it was the other way round, what would be the point of having any Councillors of any colour ?
I do not believe that makes DDC officer-led - not under a Conservative administration.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#13
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#14
ross;
you are correct dover district council is officer led and whilst roger attempts to put up smoke screens under his beloved conservative partym, it has always been the case the councils are officer led,under all administrations.
t is
im honest enough to say so.
cllrs should hear what officers realy think of them and how they laugh at how much they get away and how nieve most cllrs are to it all.
roger;
i think you are correct, and peoples are starting to question, what is the need for cllrs?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#15
agree keith any council officer worth his or her salt will know how to control the elected representative.
if the councillor starts asking too many questions just blind them with science and legal jargon.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#16
howard,its bullcrap that baffells brains.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#17
If building development goes on in Britain like the Tories and the last government also wanted, it will become like in America: the towns will be empty, and identity kit hyper-markets will be going up everywhere in the country-side.
The Tories seem to want to put growth above everything, sacrificing the quality of life of Olde England.
The LibDems seem to be changing policies drastically of late, they might even make a come-back. If they could gather the conservationist groups to counter mass-building development in the country-green areas, they might even sent the Tories packing.
I'm becoming more enthusiastic with the fight-back of LibDem policies. The Tories seem more and more immersed in cloud cucku land, as their planning and development schemes prove: totally out of reality!
Whitfield is a striking example.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#18
spot on brian, i have seen it in action.
alex
i am wondering what your current political leanings are, you were u.k.i.p then said that it was wrong to help the yellows gain at the expense of the blues.
you now seem to be totally against flashman's party and enthuiastic about nick and company.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#19
I'm positively sure I said it was wrong to let Labour gain at the expense of the Blues.
The LibDems are evidently reviewing policy, and if they prove to be realistic on a number of other important issues too, and stand up and fight for social-friendly themes, they might well have a revival.
As for UKIP, I'll be contacting them soon, at the Devon office, as they have contacted me to remain in the Party.
I've got to inform them of my proposed and stated policies, to ensure there is no conflict of interest.
If there is no such conflict, then it could prove fruitful to UKIP, which is a registered party that stands at elections, for me to be a member.
#20
What about Dover Harbour Village? and the amalgamation of the Port to the village........
...........i.e. the peoples port and the community?
We are not forgetting and we are waiting............
Anything happening?.............planners/developers/regeneration
