Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,022
11 October 2009
13:4230191Long since gone Bern .I note Barry W very quiet he was part of the decision making I believe .In those days he represented the old Barton Ward .By the time I arrived the first phase was up and running .
Before the new build it was truly a shambles Tec Services in Wood Street ,Housing in Maidstone House Maison diue Road ,Planning at Temple Ewell .Other Services at New Bridge House just off the seafront .I suppose it could have gone in Burlington House but Customs was already there .
Guest 673- Registered: 16 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,388
11 October 2009
15:0630195The layout Sue describes would be ideal today with modern communications technology, obviously unavailable back then.
Distributed services linked by a computer network, with video screens and audio links enabling anybody anywhere to see and talk to anybody else as though they were in the same room would replicate the old fashioned layout where they all had to be in the same building.
Many of the disused buildings around town could be put back into use and people would be able to walk straight in off the street to talk to the person they need to see.
Guest 684- Registered: 26 Feb 2009
- Posts: 635
12 October 2009
08:1530234Sorry, Sue - my inarticulate outburst wasn't directed at you. I was just having a cynical moment. I did indeed live in River throughout my childhood and teenage years and yes, I do have more than two braincells to rub together.
I will respond in a more measured and articulate way next time!
All the best, Andy.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
12 October 2009
09:2530239I have just been catching up with this one, thanks Sue....
Yes essentially I was on DDC as a very new member when the decisions were made to build and consolidate in Whitfield. To do so in Dover would have been far too expensive and would have been unafffordable. The Whitfield option was a cheap one and included huge savings in running expenses. I should also point out that DDC is a District Council serving Deal and Sandwich along with rural areas and really needed offices in a location easily accessible and the present site met that criteria.
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,022
12 October 2009
09:4130240Thanks Barry .You have answered the questions .I think sometimes people forget we are a District Council.With the new by passes etc Whitfield is very easy to get to .We also have to apease the towms Deal,Sandwich and of course that very large vilage of Aylesham soon to be even larger .A lot of thought does go into these decisions but I suppose if you are not a councillor with the relevant facts it is hard to understand .
Thanks again
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
12 October 2009
09:5030243Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
12 October 2009
09:5630245Sue
" but I suppose if you are not a councillor with the relevant facts it is hard to understand ".
I would love to know your educational qualifications and background that allows you the temerity to make statements like the one above. You are obviously of the opinion that 'we' the public are thicko's.
apease is spelt appease
vilage is spelt village
towms is spelt towns
"but I suppose if you are a councillor there's no need for one to be able to spell words correctly."
C'mon Bern there is bus leaving for Patronisingville via Claredon....hop aboard.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,022
12 October 2009
10:5430250Marek ,
Thanks very much for pointing out my typo mistakes .Im not a trained typist and sometimes i hit the wrong key .My fingers are not as nimble these days .I have tried to spell check and usually the whole posting goes off screen .
You are being very silly re the Patronising bus .If all the public were informed of every detail of council discussions you too perhaps would make mistakes .
Are you going to correct Brian,Keith and Vic .
I have to wear glasses but im unable to type wearing them .
Im not sitting in a cosy little office but looking in at the forum in between jobs .
In case Bern picks up on it I will not tell you my work load today .No all the public are thickos and a lot of people have better qualifications than I have .
Information on Council agendas and minutes are in the library
.
Not many people are waiting to become councillors as the public in general expect 24/7
Grandmothers qoute " Judge not that ye yourself may also be Judged "Paul wonders why we donot post ??
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
12 October 2009
12:1330252how does it benefit the people of deal
and sandwich to have the main office at whitfield rather than the town centre?
there is no railway station there and a very sparse bus service other than to dover town.
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,022
12 October 2009
12:3930254Howard if we are speaking of the general public making enquiries there is the Gateway in the town centre of Dover and Sandwich and Deal have there own area offices .
In the main the people who use the DDC offices are staff ,councillors ,contactors and people attending meetings .A lot of people use cars .There is a bus service from Aylesham,Eythorne also Sandwich which stop near the council offices .It is quicker for Temple well ,Lydden .River and Whitfield people to get to Whitfieldthan Dover .
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
12 October 2009
13:0030256There are also the small p political issues. A feeling from Deal that the council might be favouring Dover (or visa versa) is always a problem.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
12 October 2009
13:2330257Instead it feels, as Dovorians, as if the council favours the other towns. Without being too pedantic surely the giveaway is in the name 'Dover District'.
Howard makes a very good point in terms of conectivity, the bottom line is the cash. So let's be clear then; we went for the cheap option. Excellent well done again DDC!
The sad twist is Sue that the general public do understand, as that is all you essentially are and should be for that fact. The sad truth is that we are not being fairly represented and the real powers that be are just steering you, our councillors with information that is perhaps above your understanding, further dilluting the democratic process. You only have to look at what happens when you don't toe the line!
It reminds me of the rather arrogant way in which Mr Aziz dealt with Roger's by proxy question (a good one at that) at the London Road meeting. Laughing and saying that perhaps he should address the issue himself as a councillor. I would think, knowing Roger, that he would have already tried.
Are you making your decisions? Or just scapegoats, there for the illusion of democracy?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
12 October 2009
13:4130258I think you underestimate most councillors, DT1. Sometimes the officers do get away with blue murder in which case you would have a point but, as a rule, it is the Councillors that set the policy.
The Whitfield offices were built based on policy decisions by members and a lot of 'old guard' officers were not in favour as their little empires tucked away in different corners of the District would be shaken up and in many cases reduced.
The fact is that it would have cost one hell of a lot more money to consolidate offices in Dover, as well as causing political problems. It was the best and right solution enabling purpose built energy efficient (in early 1980's terms) offices built over a phased period, paid for from the capital receipts received from selling the old offices. There was no net cost to the taxpayers in capital terms and a huge reduction in running costs. These savings were well worth having. That combined with area offices in the towns to serve the public was without a doubt the best solution, not only in cost terms but also in efficiency.
If we had spent double, CPO'ing land and building in Dover (or Deal), there would have been a public outcry about cost and would have been a crazy solution. Think about it, there would have been the added cost of land purchase, the extra cost inherant in town centre land and building, higher rates (yes Councils pay them), higher building costs and would be less accessible from other parts of the District.
What projects would have had to be shelved to pay for it. The pedestrianisation, for instance, (cost c. £5m) or the Town Hall repairs (£1m), the WCE at £14m perhaps leaving that site barren to this day, no new library, no cinema, no new museum and where would the Bronze Age Boat be? Perhaps the refurbishment of the Sports Centre we did at that time would not have happened. Thats just some of the capital expenditure items that followed within the next 5/6 years thanks, in part, to this cost efficient decision.
Money can only be spent once.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
12 October 2009
18:1830279Unfortunately the examples you use don't fill me with confidence to consider them 'wise investment'. Instead they just comfirm my belief that we are always given half-cocked schemes that do little to build capacity for the future of the town and just try to answer some of the problems of that present time. I would see some of the examples you list as reason for outcry, again just facilitating the lowest common denominator.
The pedestrianisation: possible one of the most poorly conceived anywhere. Disjointed by a road, leading from nowhere to nowhere. Paving blocks do not make it pedestrainised, the usage does; which in this case is of high traffic volume due to no other access to the high street for loading or other.
WCE: good while it lasted and providing a good museum, however not perfectly suited to being a library, more of an after thought to justify it's existence. It would be fair to say it would be just as suited to being a....ummm... a District council office! As for the Cinema a lovely little place that I love, but far from a Cinema experience (I've seen bigger TVs).
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
12 October 2009
18:5130280DT1 - before 1985 the 'pedestrianisation' consisted of concrete blocks put down onto the road tarmac to restrict traffic access and it was like that for several years prior to 1983. Make no mistake the pedestrianisation works were a huge step forward. It is easy for you to critisise it but I spent a long time with traffic engineers at a meeting in the late 80's trying different traffic schemes, with maps and models (as TS Chairman), to work out how to further restrict access, with the bit between Pencester and the old Woolies site the main concern. What we have now is the best and most practical solution as could be found at the time. The bus routes would have had to be changed, for one thing to make that one better. Access to the telephone exchange is another issue as well. It was a far more difficult development than you might imagine. I learnt a lot from that about what has to go into such schemes.
I am not going to go into the various other items one by one, these have been discussed ad-nausium in the past.
It is the easiest thing in the world to make the various critisisms you have made without having to produce workable solutions. The fact is that everyone, literally everyone, knows how to do it better than those who actually do the job. Its a fact of life and always will be whoever make the decisions. I remember when I did the same as you before I got first elected in 1983!
If you were in the same position, with the same facts at your disposal, chances are you would have come up with exactly the same solutions and it might now be me now making the same critisisms you are, if I was not actually involved.....such is life.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
12 October 2009
20:2530284I have already told you why that building was put there,that kind of buiding needed lots of land around it e,t,c, it is more then you think and see.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
12 October 2009
21:2730297I know what is there thanks Vic. You don't need to sign the official secrets act, you can tell by the soulessness of the place that it isn't a function follows form sort of place.
Barry (and I'm always sorry, I like you!) I am more than aware of traffic engineering constraints, you came up with the best scheme; with that budget; at that time; but urban planning this is not. Sorry, but I have worked with traffic engineers before too, on bigger things than this. I'm not saying that you are wrong or made the wrong decision(whatever wrong means), or that with the same information I would have made a different decision. I am saying that it does not work particularly well, especially now.
I would make the argument that, when faced with a professional, many councillors would and should agree with the 'professional' advice. However when questioned "is that advice any good?" (and in terms of our infamous planning department) I would have to think again.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
12 October 2009
21:4330299DT1
MAKE no mistake councils (Dover included) IS and always has been officer led.
Something i have complained about for many a year.
But you cant blame the officers who sit there 0900 to 1700 whilst cllrs may go there once or twice a week for a few hours(cabinet members maybe a little longer)
So officers fill the vacuum.
Real problem here, dont forget cllrs allowances kcc cllr £12,000
DDC cllr £4,000(cabinet nearly £8000)
so they are part time.
And if you go to full time cllrs
1; will you get the right type of cllr? or one that does it solely for the dosh?
2; Can the tax payer afford full time cllrs, would you want them?
3; Whats the answer to these problems?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
12 October 2009
21:5830306you have raised some good points there keith, but can we get back to the original issue here?
the main problem we have is with this section 215.
hastings and doncaster councillors and officers have dealt with the problem.
we have not.
why is this?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
12 October 2009
22:0630308DT1 - Councillors in my time challenged the officers all the time. In fact the meeting I referred to was because I challenged them and it resulted in a long meeting to justify the draft proposals. We did, however, refine it and improve it a little but were not able to resolve all the issues.
Incidentally, budget was not an issue. All the issues were around the practicalities of traffic flow and the servicing requirments for the properties. Things do change, the use of buildings changes over time and traffic flows can change as a result of extraneous factors. Therefore such matters do need re-visiting, and challenging, on a regular basis.
Keith - I disagree with you totally. I dont know about the period you lot were in control, (well, I suspect I do know but wont go into that right now!) but when I was TS Chairman, I and my group set the policy and the officers had to follow that policy. Problems had to be addressed in line with those policy priorities. There was no way we were officer led and I am willing to bet, now with Paul Watkins as Leader, it is the same now.
