Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#41
O.K. After reading both what Mr Perkins and Mr Watkins has said,I think this can wait till after the Gen /Election,I have no plans to bring this up at any meetings I go to, unless I am asked about it at a meeting.But this will come back again after the election because of the local ones next year, and I am going to put up candidates in that ward and others wards aswell,but for now we can let it rest.Thank you both for your views on it. Vic Matcham.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#42
shrewd move victor, the issue is vote loser for politicos, hence the posturing on the subject.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
#43
PAULW
I have no sway in the future., just a view.
I dont care who gets the site, RED BLUE, YELLOW, GREEN, only that the youth get a play area.
Lets be clear, the community has a voice, and certainly can (and do) speak up for themselves, if you think paulw any diffrent then you are putting down the volunteers and locals, and thats so sad.
When the priory forum met I like those all those around the table(including ROGER) had a voice, and a democratic decision taken.
So the only losers in your political games paulw are the kids.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#44
i posted a long while ago on here that the council leader, cabinet portfolio holder, all town and district councillors in that ward and the priory forum got together, left egos outside the door and worked to find a solution.
a resounding silence ensued.
enough said.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#45
Howard That is what we done at the time,I was working with the other Cllrs of the ward at that time Keith mum was one of them,the only ones that done nothing at all was Davids ones they did not even come up to the ward on the day of the big flood.and even today they do not come up into the ward,yet none of you voted me back in, so I could not carry on with the work I was doing .Roger also has worked for the ward over the years.So next year please vote for the person not the party, but at this time it is only Roger and the reds doing anything in the ward.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#46
nearly agree vic, all i can see is roger and sheila that are in any way active in the ward.
all the rest are an irrelevance, just an item on an expense account.
#47
The Leader of DDC has made a firm offer to getting a solution on here, and the only replies to positive news are the usual negative political rubbish. That's very disappointing becasue it menas some still don't get what this is about, so let me spell it out for you all: KIDS.
Keith/Roger, please sort out which site and let Watty know. It'll be a start.
Sue mentioned play things for Kearsney. Can they be put on hold and used to put back what was taken away from Priory? If not, why not? Why can't Kearsney wait (it's in my backyard so don't start throwing stones), there's loads to do there already?
We have a great opportunity here, let's put the past behind and move forward as a united cross-party and interest team, working for the good of the kids in our community. How good will we feel once we've delivered for them?
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
#48
Sid ,
When I was the portfolio Holder I tried very hard to secure a playarea for Clarendon I was met with opposition all the way in fact I was not invited to any Priory Forum Meetings however the past is past .The Leader has always been supportive of the play area .
Kearsney the equipment has been designed for that area with public consultation .River and Temple Ewell Parish councils had an imput .
May I just say It was me who raised the question at Full Council last year to enquire of progress on this issuie .
There is nothing to stop a parent ,Town Councillor asking a question at Full Council ..
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#49
fair enough, anyone can ask a question, are they likely to be fobbed off or given a thorough resume of the situation?
#50
Sue/Howard, please don't divert us off down a blind alley. Is it too much to ask that we gwet some offers of "solution finding" rather than the usual rubbish please? Thanks. Remeber, we're doing this for the KIDS. (jeez, how many times..... ). Thanks everyone. Positive contributions welcomed.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#51
sid
if you look at post 44 you will see i hve suggested something constructive on the matter, hve you??
Guest 656- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 2,262
#52
I took a stroll in Connaught Park yesterday afternoon with Fifi and saw all the happy kids having a great time in the newly equipped playpark. Was lovely to see them all having such fun and to see all their happy faces. Surely all the kids in Dover should have these fun facilities as near as possible to their homes, is it really asking too much?
#53
Howard, read and re-read #44 and only saw a "I did this and nothing happened" message. Not decrying your efforts mate, but looking for someone to say, "Here is the place for the play area equipment, when can it be installed"?
That to be followed by, "DDC has checked the location, given it the thumbs up, and the kit will be in place by such and such a date".
Just imagine how good we will all feel and how happy the kids will be.
What have I done? Nothing, but stood on the touchline shouting.
ColetteB,
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#54
sid
the only answer is for the people closely involved and those with the purse strings to talk.
sadly your hope for the equipment to be in place is unlikely to happen as there is no funding now, unlikely to be any for the foreseeable future.
you mention the location, we agree that it should be on the old site, seems sensible.
that site could then be earmarked until such a time that dosh becomes available.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
#55
Well here i go;
I';m not going to lay blame anywhere, like Sid says its time to fink of the kids.
But i must clear up one point, the priory forum doesnt/didnt decide where a site does/doesnt go, if you think otherwise you have popped out iof the real world again.
so lets look at some sites, but like Howard says its no good giving false hope if its just 106 planning agreement dosh, its either going to be years down the road, or can guarentee it coming here. in priory.
SO TO SITE NUMBER ONE
Area by vale view primary school, whilst Roger is correct its not the best area, never the less its a suggested site, the only reason that one didnt gedt off the ground last time was because the head teacher at the school objected, nowet to do with me or the priory forum, i was hopeful this was a site that we could have gone for.
so i'm sorry to relay the FACTS again it was the HEADTEACHER at the time who scuppered this one hes since moved on
(and thats a story in itself ) and the new head(not so new now) is happy to talk on it.
SO TO SITE TWO;
Put back new equipmrent in exactly the same place as it was taken out
not ideal, and on a steep hill so now realy good for kids/adults with prams etc to get to, but it should be looked at. and the cost of levelling the land would have to be found.
SO TO SITE THREE;
On the old swings space at bottom of banks where yuounger childrens swings were, again theres the cost of levelling land, to allow fuller use.
but should be looked at.
SITE FOUR;
The old wstmount site, its been empty and an eyesore for so long, look at getting some land in there, dont wait for someone to develope, have a bit of forward thinking on how the trennis courts in there could be used or other parts of the land
SITE FIVE;
SITE between glen grove and val;e view school where path is
lots of grass land there
well worth a look at
S please don't just rubbish all the above
constructive replies yep. and alternatives as well.
and priory deserves more than just a hoped for 106 money which could be £500 or less
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
#56
Well here i go;
I';m not going to lay blame anywhere, like Sid says its time to fink of the kids.
But i must clear up one point, the priory forum doesnt/didnt decide where a site does/doesnt go, if you think otherwise you have popped out iof the real world again.
so lets look at some sites, but like Howard says its no good giving false hope if its just 106 planning agreement dosh, its either going to be years down the road, or can guarentee it coming here. in priory.
SO TO SITE NUMBER ONE
Area by vale view primary school, whilst Roger is correct its not the best area, never the less its a suggested site, the only reason that one didnt gedt off the ground last time was because the head teacher at the school objected, nowet to do with me or the priory forum, i was hopeful this was a site that we could have gone for.
so i'm sorry to relay the FACTS again it was the HEADTEACHER at the time who scuppered this one hes since moved on
(and thats a story in itself ) and the new head(not so new now) is happy to talk on it.
SO TO SITE TWO;
Put back new equipmrent in exactly the same place as it was taken out
not ideal, and on a steep hill so now realy good for kids/adults with prams etc to get to, but it should be looked at. and the cost of levelling the land would have to be found.
SO TO SITE THREE;
On the old swings space at bottom of banks where yuounger childrens swings were, again theres the cost of levelling land, to allow fuller use.
but should be looked at.
SITE FOUR;
The old wstmount site, its been empty and an eyesore for so long, look at getting some land in there, dont wait for someone to develope, have a bit of forward thinking on how the trennis courts in there could be used or other parts of the land
SITE FIVE;
SITE between glen grove and val;e view school where path is
lots of grass land there
well worth a look at
S please don't just rubbish all the above
constructive replies yep. and alternatives as well.
and priory deserves more than just a hoped for 106 money which could be £500 or less
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
#57
Yes Keith I visited those sites and the facts you have stated are correct .I tried to push for the old site where the equipment was removed but was told it would cost for the levelling to be done .
It has been siix months since I asked the question so unless Roger ,Viv or Marion ask I will on behalf of all those children .
Elms Vale was done as Paul stated at least it was some where for children to go .Probably the same distance to walk as from the Ridgeway River to Kearsney Abbey where i took my children ,.
a good walk lots of running around then home to sleep .The children not me .
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#58
interesting post from keith, i never knew that there were tennis courts on the westmount site.
the site on the heights does entail climbing but i think that the young mums are used to pushing baby buggies uphill around here.
walking up with a child will not put them off.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#59
i am sure a playpark any where up claraden/folkestone road would suffice where ever its put.it seems be a case of nit picking just for the hell of it.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#60
Site number one - Vale View School:
It is a possibility, now that there is a change of heart from the new Head and KCC, but not ideal for those living on the other side around the Clarendon Road/Place/Street areas, or Malvern Road, Belgrave Road. There is also crossing the main road, but there are safe crossing areas.
Site number two - Clarendon play area; to my mind, the best location and most of the ground-work - steps and/or a slope up to it could be done by the Community pay-back team. I would add that I have already put this argument (about using the Community pay-back team) to DDC, but it didn't receive a great amount of enthusiasm.
Site number three - I don't know where you mean on this one Keith
Site number four - The Westmount site is in private hands and planning permission has already been given and section 106 money agreed.
Site number five - too close to Vale View school area, so same arguments apply.
There have been other sites looked at and dismissed for various reasons, so in my mind, the best site is still Clarendon and although it is not level (or ideal) and access with a pram or for disabled people it is still the best site available.
Roger