Reginald Barrington
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,233
Only 10 responses thus far but only 1 in support (from the developer!)
Arte et Marte
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Been following it myself Reg and am intrigued by the comments. I thought Cllr Jones gave a detailed comment but Mr Digges seemed to respond in a positive way. I rather liked the response from the new Town Councillor who doesn't live on the manor but has been very active in attending meetings at the Triangles Centre and very importantly listening to people.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Only 2 local residents have posted so far with 6 councillors giving their views, all of them against the application.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Just received this and the words "Soviet" or "Eastern bloc" appear in most of the comments thus far.
Re Planning Application DOV/17/01523 Outline application for the erection of up to 188 dwellings Former Buckland Hospital Site, Coombe Valley Rd.
The Dover Society wish to make the following comments in respect of this application.
We have great concern as to the density of this development, that fails to reflect the low density, mainly 2 storey properties, within the area. The site adjoins a Local Nature Reserve and such a high-rise building would do nothing to enhance the visible amenity to existing residents.
Looking at the applicants Planning Statement would indicate they were possibly unaware of the topography of the site and therefore assumed it was a totally flat area suitable for development. Therefore, only by creating such tall buildings would they recoup their purchase price of the land as indicated in the Planning Statement 6.5” Furthermore, the site constraints-brownfield construction costs, sloping site and location behind a car park- mean that value as a traditional housing site would be very low and not cost effective to develop. The Viability Assessment shows that there is not enough value in the site to provide affordable housing even with the current flatted proposals”.
The density and restricted community land space would create a site to attract anti-social activities that similar type high rise building attract within urban cities.
With the location having very little natural light will result in lighting being required all day affecting environmental sustainability.
The community engagement seems to have been very restricted and should have included town areas to the east (Buckland Ward) as the view from this area of Dover will be greatly affected with such a high-rise building. Perhaps an example of the restricted consultation being a tick-box exercise.
This application is for “outline”. The detailed design of the development not being shown, however, based on the designs shown in the local press we consider, if progressed to full application, this style is more akin to a 1970’s soviet design and gives no consideration to the green infrastructure that is part of the visual scene of Dover.
It is well documented in The Green Infrastructure Plan that Coombe Valley Road is a major flood risk area. Indeed, during heavy rain overflowing sewerage has been known. Such a vast development would create a higher flood risk, as such if planning consent was given the Developer should bear the full costs of any remedial work to solve the flood risk in Coombe Valley Road.
Traffic problems already exist in Coombe Valley Road that is the only route to the local hospital. Any road improvements, including a suitable railway bridge, should be delivered prior to any site construction and costs being borne by the Developer.
In conclusion The Dover Society consider the development ill conceived in delivering a high-rise building not suitable to the area, Nationally there is a move away from such developments and the application is what was the norm forty years ago. Dover needs to move forward with “quality” developments. Therefore, we OBJECT to this application.
Yours sincerely
P G Sherratt
Chairman Planning Commitee
Reginald Barrington- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,233
This opening in the design and access statement made me laugh, sounds as if our town council wrote it!
"We consider the pivotal requirements for redevelopment of the site to be as follows:
• a form of development that allows for the movement of vehicles and pedestrians within the site;
• a form of development which helps to counteract the poor environment formed by the recently developed hospital car park;
• a selection of dwelling types that are appropriate for the difficult typography;
• a scheme that makes a positive contribution to the regeneration of this area for both new and existing residents.
I love that they are using the site topography as a reason for the need to build a 9 storey block of flats, have they not looked around dover?
Arte et Marte
Paul M- Registered: 1 Feb 2016
- Posts: 393
It's just a copy and paste from every other development opportunity they've registered an interest in. It's just bullshit of course but lots of people just go along with it.
Guest 1535- Registered: 27 May 2015
- Posts: 399
I would not touch a property build on old grounds of a hospital, where was the morgue sited??just too spooky
Should be a big playground and grounds for residents and others..due respect.
If only everyone could be kind and honest what a better world we would be in.
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Old Mortuary was situated where the new car park is located.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Now that the Express has finally caught up with the planning application social media is awash with indignant residents accusing the developer of all sorts. Rather pointless as those comments won't be taken into account by the planners when they reach a decision, so far only two comments from local residents or three if you count a councillor living locally, all the rest are from councillors and consultees.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
"Document unavailable at this time" - maybe they didn't like you drawing attention to whatever it was, Howard.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Swathes of stuff to wade through and I noticed this as I scratched the surface.
1.5 The applicant previously submitted a viability assessment via their architect, Beanland Associates Architects, and this was reviewed by Dixon Seale Partnership. Where possible we have followed the methodology previously applied and used inputs that were previously agreed.
1.6 The Gross Development Value for the scheme is £33,600,000 (rounded) including the residential sales income and ground rent investment value.
1.7 The Argus appraisal for the proposed development calculates a residual land value for the proposed development of -£11,200,000 (rounded). i.e. a negative land value.
1.8 The Benchmark Land Value of the existing property had previously been suggested as between £415,000 and £800,000 by Dixon Searle Partnership. We have taken the approximate midpoint and used a benchmark land value of £600,000. We have compared this benchmark with the residual land value.
1.9 The residual land value is therefore showing a shortfall of some £11,800,000.
1.10 We would therefore conclude that the proposed scheme cannot sustain any contribution towards affordable housing or S.106 contributions.
ray hutstone likes this
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Just to put matters into perspective Ray this time last year the developers in their statement of community involvement promised a play area, additional public spaces and a footpath to the nature reserve at the rear of the site.
ray hutstone likes this
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
Interesting. Thanks, Howard.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,860
Don't get on about play areas lol
To save priory being given one
They will next may dismantle the priory ward
That's one way of avoiding it
howard mcsweeney1 likes this
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
A surprising lack of interest shown in the amended plan, 6 councillors, the town council and various individuals stated their opposition to the plan a year ago, now it has come back worse 1 councillor, 1 resident and some bloke from outside poking his nose in and that is it. Watch the complaints after the monstrosity is built.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,808
I guess the protesters have realised they are probably wasting their time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 3150- Registered: 9 Mar 2019
- Posts: 1
I think the development will be good for our area
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,019
I think it will be awfull.Not in keeping .They could have built something more in keeping .
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,696
Still an opportunity to comment on this application
Currently 9 recent/updated objections and 3 in favour plus significant requests from planning consultees for planning conditions if approved
"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