Guest 4218- Registered: 17 Apr 2021
- Posts: 48
Hi Sue, so the former Cllr Peter Wallace (the man on the photograph) who was a member of DDC'S Planning Committee that granted planning for the carwash in question, is not the same Peter Wallace who currently holds the position of Development Management Team Leader at DDC? If so, then I stand corrected and owe an apology to the Team Leader P. Wallace.
The fact remains though, the Peter Wallace on the photo is the former member of DDC's Planning Committee who granted planning for the car wash, and knowingly broke his own planning condition he put in place, and I quote, "In the interest of highways and public safety". That's total hypocrisy to me.
Do good and throw it in the sea...
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
Yes that is former Councillor Wallace .
Guest 4218 likes this
Button
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 3,053
The correct quote of Condition 5 is "The provision of the access/egress and circulation arrangements as shown on the drawings hereby approved shall be provided within 1 month of the date of this permission and retained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety." Although it applies to the planning applicant, and not to site customers, it stops short of explicitly requiring the former to regulate the latter.
https://publicaccess.dover.gov.uk/online-applications/files/5DF5EDF28D72BA7AC0AB1EADD76A444E/pdf/14_00505-SITE_LAYOUT_AND_LOCATION_PLAN-257961.pdf.
(Not my real name.)
Reginald Barrington
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,256
Although it applies to the planning applicant, and not to site customers, it stops short of explicitly requiring the former to regulate the latter.
Strange?
Arte et Marte
Button- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 3,053
Dunno really - I guess there's a fine dividing line between me telling you what to do on my property and me telling you how to enter it. In my opinion, it was of marginal benefit anyway - cars approaching from Townwall Street were inevitably going to have to cross traffic coming the other way whichever "entrance" they used (it's called turning right!).
(Not my real name.)
Guest 4218- Registered: 17 Apr 2021
- Posts: 48
Button wrote:The correct quote of Condition 5 is "The provision of the access/egress and circulation arrangements as shown on the drawings hereby approved shall be provided within 1 month of the date of this permission and retained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety." Although it applies to the planning applicant, and not to site customers, it stops short of explicitly requiring the former to regulate the latter.
Hi Button, don’t know if you are aware, Condition 5 was specifically suggested to be added by Kent Highways, who initially objected to the original planning application for the car wash on the site.
I wrote to Kent Highways last year to clarify this condition and they confirmed that it is their expectation that Condition 5 is enforced, if not adhered to. The bottom line of this condition is that
the circulation arrangements, once put in place, must be
retained thereafter.
I know Kent Highways wrote to DDC Planning Enforcement on at least 3 occasions asking them why they were not enforcing this planning condition,
when it requires provision and retention of the approved access and circulation. DDC’s response was that they were going to contact the owner/operator to resolve the issue.
Even Jim McEwen, DDC’s Enforcement officer, admitted that Ramyar car wash operation is in breach of planning unless "the access/egress is laid out in accordance with the condition 5 and the circulation is achieved and retained". DDC Planning themselves recognise that, if Condition 5 is not adhered to, it endangers public and highways. Yet to date they have done nothing to enforce it, putting the highways users and pedestrians at risk daily.
Do good and throw it in the sea...
Button- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 3,053
Weird, especially given its history as a petrol station - you'd think pedestrians would be used to them by now!
(Not my real name.)
Guest 4218- Registered: 17 Apr 2021
- Posts: 48
Another day at the Ramyar car wash, another near-miss!
Watch the silver grey car by the yellow sign as it exits the site via ingress onto the oncoming traffic (instead of egress). A pedestrian dog walker is forced from the pavement into Maison Dieu Road to avoid the silver grey car. This is just one of many that unfortunately I witness on a daily basis, as dozens of cars exit or enter the site either across the public footpath or via ingress instead of egress and vice versa (including the carwash operators themselves).
How many more near misses before a hit?
Do good and throw it in the sea...
Reginald Barrington- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,256
That would have been the dog walkers own stupidity had they been hit, entry or exit would have made no difference to the situation!
Jan Higgins and Button like this
Arte et Marte
Button- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 3,053
Reginald Barrington wrote:That would have been the dog walkers own stupidity had they been hit, entry or exit would have made no difference to the situation!
It reminded me of
Jan Higgins likes this
(Not my real name.)
Guest 4218- Registered: 17 Apr 2021
- Posts: 48
Button wrote:It reminded me of
Button, you are so wrong and ill-informed of the reality of the situation. But I'm glad you find it amusing.
I hope and pray that when (not if) an major accident does take place at Ramyar car wash none of your nearest and dearest are involved.
Button likes this
Do good and throw it in the sea...
Guest 4218- Registered: 17 Apr 2021
- Posts: 48
Reginald Barrington wrote:That would have been the dog walkers own stupidity had they been hit, entry or exit would have made no difference to the situation!
Sorry, Reginald, but I beg to disagree, there are very specific reasons why Kent Highways insisted on this particular circulation layout in the interests of public safety. There is a large ENTRY sign across the ingress, so depending on which direction you are walking from, you are instinctively drawn to look to your right (or your left) towards the Maison Dieu traffic, and concentrate on any vehicles entering the site from the road, not exiting the site.
What’s even more concerning is that the carwash employees appear to be deliberately directing customers’ cars on to or from the site from incorrect entry/exit points, including across the pavement, because it just suits them better like that (and let’s be reminded that any vehicle crossing a public footpath is breaking the Highways Code, which is still a criminal offence!)
Oh, and by the way, as I’m sure you know, changes to The Highway Code came into force today – pedestrians remain King, and are given an even higher priority. More responsibility put on drivers of larger vehicles (HGVs and pickup trucks zoom on to and off the Ramyar site incorrectly, breaking The Highway Code pretty much daily, sadly!)
It’s the car wash operator’s RESPONSIBILITY and a MAJOR CONDITION of his business operating from this site to make customers' vehicles enter through the ingress and leave via the egress. Vehicles entering and leaving the site in any other way is an unarguable breach of planning & a danger to highway safety.
Do good and throw it in the sea...
Button- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 3,053
JulieS wrote:Button, you are so wrong and ill-informed of the reality of the situation. But I'm glad you find it amusing.
I hope and pray that when (not if) an major accident does take place at Ramyar car wash none of your nearest and dearest are involved.
They're fully paid-up members of the Tufty Squirrel club thanks, and always look both ways, both with regard to this site and the countless others.
Jan Higgins likes this
(Not my real name.)
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,873
This thread is now past being taken seriously.
I am sure that this car washing business would have been stopped ages ago if it was anywhere near as bad as the complainer seems to believe. Our planning department and council legal team as well as the police although no where near perfect are not stupid.
I strongly suspect that even if this business was to be closed nothing would be acceptable but a completely empty space.
Andy B and Brian Dixon like this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Reginald Barrington- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,256
"Although it applies to the planning applicant, and not to site customers, it stops short of explicitly requiring the former to regulate the latter."
Not a very major condition if customers do not have to adhere to it and if the applicant does not have to enforce it, regardless of what Kent highways wanted.
Any pedestrian who walks out in front of a car (which in your example was parked on the 'in' sign) without looking frankly deserves to be run over. I sympathize with your plight but this aspect of the planning transgressions is not as significant as you seem to think, the onus has always been on the driver to not run people over or cause accidents, as for the highway code changes it is just asking for someone to be killed!
Button likes this
Arte et Marte
Guest 3925- Registered: 28 Nov 2020
- Posts: 541
Clearly the owners of this house have a concern about the operation of the car wash, but I'm afraid that I have no idea why this forum would be the place to resolve the situation?
I'm no legal expert, but there are two entrances, both with dropped kerbs (so to me as a pedestrian I'd have to be aware that vehicles would go over the footpath?) and if I was the driver, I would think it's my responsibility to take care?
We can all empathise, but none of us, with the best will in the world, can help with this matter.
I'm not a scientist either so have no idea about the chemicals used or the planning rules and regs, but I must say that it looks a much cleaner setup than the hand car wash I use on London Road and have done for years, which does a great job
I can't get excited about the slow moving vehicles coming off this site as I'd be more concerned with the lorries that jump the lights at high speed on the Townwall Street junction, risking hitting both cars and pedestrians, and there was a serious accident involving a car only a few weeks ago!
I'll stick to posting beautiful photos of Dover....
Button and Jan Higgins like this
Andy B
- Location: dover
- Registered: 10 Nov 2012
- Posts: 1,817
As mentioned in previous posts,it was once a petrol station,possibly from the 50s or 60s maybe earlier and continued as one until the late 70s,early 80s,later became Kennings car hire depot up till around 2000ish.As far as i know that piece of land has always been involved in vehicle use of some sort.
Guest 4218- Registered: 17 Apr 2021
- Posts: 48
Jan Higgins wrote:This thread is now past being taken seriously.
I am sure that this car washing business would have been stopped ages ago if it was anywhere near as bad as the complainer seems to believe. Our planning department and council legal team as well as the police although no where near perfect are not stupid.
I strongly suspect that even if this business was to be closed nothing would be acceptable but a completely empty space.
Jan, why don’t you watch this video and remember the level of abuse I’ve had to endure in the last 2 years from the car wash operator, then tell me honestly if this was imposed on you right underneath your windows 7 days a week 10 hours a day by DDC & the car wash operator, you could live with this without distress, when you know that DDC has the power to stop this immediately, but refuses to do so. You are deliberately trying to portray me as a winging nimby (for whatever personal agenda you clearly have), when the truth is, if this was under
YOUR windows you would be as upset as we are.
As Nicky Barley said, there’s a lot of you on here that seem to be willing to support every failing of DDC, no matter what it does to the residents of Dover.
DDC’s lack of enforcement in this case is INTENTIONAL and MALICIOUS. Why don’t you ask your friends on DDC council and their planning officers why they refuse to enforce these planning conditions? And get it writing why they refuse to enforce them, because the breaches are unarguable, so it would be very interesting to hear their answers why they would not enforce their own planning conditions. Then publish their reasons on here for all to see. Maybe that would once and for all answer everyone’s questions.
You must always remember they set these planning conditions for a reason to safeguard the adjacent residents. When you set planning conditions to safeguard residents, then refuse to enforce them, it makes the whole point of creating conditions of planning pointless and the fake façade of safeguarding residential amenity a joke.
Do good and throw it in the sea...
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,873
I have watched the many videos and have just wasted yet another 6mins watching three cars being washed. I have ploughed through your numerous longwinded posts which are now simply repeating what has already been said.
This group is not going to change anything, or maybe we are the only place that now puts up with your endless rants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 1416- Registered: 20 Nov 2014
- Posts: 77
WELCOME TO THE FASCIST STATE OF DOVER!!!!
You really like to shut people up, don't you, JAN!!!
Point is Jan you didn't answer @JulieS's question, COULD YOU LIVE WITH THIS OUTSIDE YOUR WINDOWS 10 HOURS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK !!!???? If the answer is yes, give us your address, we'll arrange for Ramyar carwash to move round next to you
See how you like that
A clear conscience is the sure sign of a bad memory.
