Martyn Webster- Registered: 18 Nov 2017
- Posts: 56
#1
The DDC Planning Committee will tomorrow,Thursday 25th February at 5.30 p.m.,decide upon an application to demolish the old Whitfield Chapel (on Chapel Road) which dates from 1867,and replace it with three houses.The fate of the burial ground and interior memorial to First World War heroes is thus at stake.Original proposals were amended in the light of objections.However they do not go far enough.There is still opposition from many local residents,as well as the Whitfield Parish Council and the Dover Society.The planning report recommends approval subject to a number of conditions.Among these is the fate of the burial ground and the interior memorial tablet.The report suggests that maintenance and upkeep of the burial ground will be in the hands of the dwelling occupiers bearing in mind that the last grave,in a site which is well over 200 years old ,dates from 1977.Will the occupiers be so keen to regularly hack down the vegetation?How will this be enforceable? Who would want to live in a house with an overgrown graveyard at the bottom of its garden?This will be a very interesting debate,viewable online.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#2
Another piece of history to be lost
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 2547- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
#3
The Quinn estates proposal at Sholden is on the same agenda, I believe. It should be an interesting meeting.
Guest 3925- Registered: 28 Nov 2020
- Posts: 541
#4
I'll see if I can get online to watch, it will be an interesting meeting indeed, especially given the majority of comments about Whitfield hall are objections I believe.
The Gov- Registered: 24 May 2020
- Posts: 151
#5
Does anybody have the link please?
Arthur- Registered: 18 Nov 2020
- Posts: 455
#6
The Gov- Registered: 24 May 2020
- Posts: 151
#7
Andy B
- Location: dover
- Registered: 10 Nov 2012
- Posts: 1,829
#8
This is terrible,sort of thing that Ray Crosby the property developer from Coronation st would have done.
Guest 3925- Registered: 28 Nov 2020
- Posts: 541
#9
Keith Sansum1 wrote:Another piece of history to be lost
Unfortunately, yes
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
#10
Yes
Martyn Webster- Registered: 18 Nov 2017
- Posts: 56
#11
The application was approved this evening subject to conditions.The proceedings were viewable online.Amongst others the conditions address the fate,upkeep and maintenance of the burial ground and the memorial plaque.While there was good attention to detail some of the information imparted was not altogether fully informed.It was accepted that the Whitfield Parish Hall would be a good place to reinstall the tablet.As to the burial ground,it was proposed to plant six trees within the site to replace those removed from the Forge Lane frontage.It did not seem to be appreciated that the site is relatively small- where are such trees to be put without disturbing the remains of those buried there?Other remisses were that the plans did not show the actual measurements of the buildings to be put up,nor was it clear what barrier there would be between the burial ground and the back gardens of the houses.How can the future residents of the houses be forced to maintain the burial ground as is proposed?What precautions will there be to ensure the security of the burial ground against misuse such as has happened at Cowgate?The vote by the way,after one hour's discussion,of the ten councillors seemed to follow party lines,six (C) for and four (L) against.And thus it was decided...
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
#12
Planning should be non political.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#13
I wish for the day all councils will be non political but doubt that will ever come
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
#14
The application for houses outside the village confines of ST Margaret’s was refused.a couple of Conservatives either abstained or agreed with the Labours decision.You cannot just keep building outside village confines or in an AONB.
Guest 2547 likes this
Guest 2547- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
#15
I agree entirely, Sue. The problem with DDC is that it has a history of politically influenced planning decisions, at times with disastrous effect.
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
#16
I always sat away from political groups at Planning .The Council Chamber is large enough for that .I read my agenda went to the meeting listened to the Officers also to various Councillors then made my mind up.
Karlos- Location: Dover
- Registered: 1 Oct 2012
- Posts: 2,599
#17
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#18
Sadly Sue
Both political parties vote down political lines most of the time
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 2547- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
#19
Keith Sansum1 wrote:Sadly Sue
Both political parties vote down political lines most of the time
Indeed but when there are developers who openly boast about their ability to influence the council and an MP who is equally happy to take money from them, it reaches a much higher level of political influence.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#20
As I said parish council are no good no power to stop anything in their own parish most of the public wanted it to stay but D,DC can over rule them over anything.and most of the D.D.C. are outsiders
