howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
such a serious issue dragged down to insults and sound bites.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
i know howard,but people wont listen to reason.and thats all im saying on the matter.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Quite right, Howard. Hopefully post 116 will be answered, as it is technically very important.
Guest 868- Registered: 25 Jan 2013
- Posts: 490
#104 - "I remain fully opposed to any development on Western Heights and Farthingloe that does not correspond to the status respectively of Scheduled Ancient Monument and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. "
Does that mean you will oppose the restoring of the burnt out shell of Victoria Hall, or any infrastructure to create a museum, or residents wanting to build conservatories, or the prison building any new buildings, or anything wanting to move into the Sourth Front Barracks ?
All of these sites come under the area defined by the Scheduled Ancient Monument....
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Paul:
Restoring burnt out or derelict SAM buildings is quite welcome, provided the restoration is in line with the original architecture, at least as reasonably as possible.
Creating a museum or visitors centre is fine, and would be in line with the SAM status, providing the building fits in the typical landscape of that specific SAM site. An already existing building could function as visitors centre.
The Western Heights group had also suggested this, along with the possibility of a community centre sharing facilities with a visitors centre.
The prison and any extensions would be a matter for other entities, as it does not come under the CGI planning project.
Residents wanting to build garages or conservatories again is unrelated to the CGI project, and permission would probably be denied, as such structures would interfere with the SAM outline.
If South Front Barracks is part of the SAM, I doubt any business could move in there.
Guest 868- Registered: 25 Jan 2013
- Posts: 490
Ah so you do want CGI to develop and restore Victoria Hall then? You aren't totally opposed to their plans for the Heights then?
I hope you are letting CGI and DDC know that you are happy for the proposals to convert Victoria Hall provided they are in keeping with the original architecture ?
Can't be one rule for some, one rule for another.....
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
paulwells
digging below the surface,,,,,,
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
That part is perfectly fine, Paul, but not the planning projects for Farthingloe or for other parts of the WH (houses, hotel, conference centre).
Because CGI made one complex application, it is not possible to accept only one part, so it could only have been objected to in its entirety. Which is what I did.
Guest 868- Registered: 25 Jan 2013
- Posts: 490
Yes it certainly is possible to oppose one part of an application and agree with another, just in the same way DDC could permit one part of an application and not another....
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
this thread has gone full circle so many times the rest of us are getting dizzy, i notice that nobody new proffers a view.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Alexander;
Just for a full view, now we see you accept some building, the present position cant be sustained, and a lot of investment required, if you agree with this can you give me your ideas on how all this can be done
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
No, Paul. You yourself wrote that CGI made the Farthingloe part of their application (in its entirety) a condition for all the rest of the planning project.
Guest 868- Registered: 25 Jan 2013
- Posts: 490
No I didn't Alexander, I said without Farthingloe being agreed there won't be sufficient money available to create £5million heritage pot, CGi won't make enough profit out of the Heights alone.....
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Certainly some investment is required, Keith.
It's still too early to say whether it will be forth-coming.
Guest 868- Registered: 25 Jan 2013
- Posts: 490
Ah yes the port tolls......................................
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
alex,ddc only aprove plans submitted or not.its down to cgi to refine the application.and the conferance center would be in the hotel presuably and not a seperate building presunably.
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
Groundhog day - again
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
woof,woof sesions more like it ray.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Still no answer to post 116, Brian.
Does DDC officially classify Farthingloe as brownfield?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Paul, if I get any news through, I'll contact you personally.