Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#41
Roger, that is unfair!
Chris, there are forward thinking ideas I approve of.
The difference in my way of thinking does not mean it is backwards, contrary to Roger's judgment. One of the reasons I gave about the WW memorial is that, if placed on Western Heights, it would generate a lot of traffic to that area, ruining the green and quiet aspect it currently enjoys in its protected statuses.
There is no indication on the part of those who support the plan as to where a car park would be, and whether it would be at all possible for cars to transit up W.H. to access the proposed memorial.
One would assume that, in accordance with standing regulations on development, some of which I mentioned recently on the other Western Heights thread, there would be an assessment on the impact of traffic in that area - as well as Farthingloe - if the proposed houses, hotel and conference centre went ahead.
Now add to that a WW memorial designed to attract many visitors!
My issue on the traffic aspect in protected areas is not a sign of backwards thinking (Roger). Perhaps rather forward thinking before any planning and signing is done.
The standing planning regulations do not actually permit an increase of buildings in rural or green or protected areas if this generates traffic to the town centres, with particular reference to car traffic.
I tried to point this out recently on the other thread.
Roger, do these regulations on planning and development actually figure in your ideas? Or are they just my imagination?
Are you actually aware that increased car traffic in green areas owing to new planning is not wanted in the development regulations?
I have also stated in the other thread, which is closely related to this one, that "regeneration" as a term to describe the undoing of green protected areas, a term used by DDC in their core strategy and by CGI, is, in my view, extremely wrong.
I do not consider this as regeneration, but urbanisation, and an increase of traffic in quiet and protected areas. The proposed WW memorial comes under this same category, a plan that would change the Western Heights and increase car-traffic to the area.
Now if we suppose such WW memorial were to be open to visitors who park their vehicles in a distant car park (there is no near-by one), and then walk there, and to visitors who came by train, bus or ferry/cruise ship to Dover, then, the question I ask is: would these visitors be happy to walk along a road that is inundated by the increased traffic generated by the urban developments (houses, hotel, conference centre)? Would they be walking along Snargate Street, with the port traffic we all know of there, and then up a bendy road (South Military Road) with more traffic as people come and go to hundreds of new houses and to a hotel.
So, have you actually thought out what you are offering to the public, and whether you are not over-stretching it all, and trying to follow up on different and conflicting plans all based in the same areas (Western Heights and Farthingloe), without any regard to the consequences deriving from increased car traffic along a narrow hill road with many bends?
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#42
Like any development that comes before the Planning Committee, there will be a traffic impact study and Kent Highways will give a professional view. If it doesn't meet with their approval, it may not go ahead.
No one is saying a blanket yes to any development up on the Heights.
Roger
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#43
We have already spoken of how a memorial fits into the grand scheme of things for dover and integrated transport systems and park and ride!
Been nice knowing you :)