Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,018
I have been looking back over the posts on this application and I'm glad it's on record I did not vote for an increase on numbers for this site.The members who did voted against officers advice.I to wonder how much it cost.I wonder why I hardly ever substituted on Planning.once again one of my favourite quotations it will come back to haunt you.
having posted this I cannot see me getting any honours in the future.I rather like the idea of Dame Sylvia
Guest 1997- Registered: 3 Mar 2017
- Posts: 148
The planning committee members who rejected their officers advice are a matter of record and are named in the original high court decision in favour of CPRE.
To quote from today's press summary - "A decision-maker must not only ask himself the right question, but must take reasonable steps to acquaint himself with the relevant information to
enable him to answer it correctly."
Regardless of whether you support the proposed development or not (and I admit that I have always strongly opposed it), this whole episode has been an expensive farce. I hope those councillors involved will have the humility to reflect upon their decision and hopefully learn some lessons.
howard mcsweeney1 and Jan Higgins like this
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,018
Yes they should.
Captain Haddock
- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 7,936
And DDC's visits to the High Court have cost how much? Unfortunately it's in no-one's interest to ask the question as BOTH sides are represented on the planning committee!
"Shall we go, you and I, while we can? Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds"
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,018
Pray do tell .Its a mystery to me
Guest 1997- Registered: 3 Mar 2017
- Posts: 148
The question of costs should surely be asked as a matter of public interest. At least then voters can make a more informed decision as to whether the councillors in question are worthy of re-election.
Captain Haddock- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 7,936
Stuart Honey wrote:The question of costs should surely be asked as a matter of public interest. At least then voters can make a more informed decision as to whether the councillors in question are worthy of re-election.
Absolutely. On would hope that District Councillors might be informed of the sum in the near future, otherwise one of them might feel inclined to ask a question at the next Full Council Meeting which is on 31 Jan (for which questions must be submitted before 18/01). Just saying.
Guest 1997 and Jan Higgins like this
"Shall we go, you and I, while we can? Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds"
Gary39- Registered: 7 Jul 2017
- Posts: 448
If Eurotunnel were meant to return the land to it natural beauty could of fooled me with it terraces and green. Do not see any woodlands or farming on it..
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Guest 1997- Registered: 3 Mar 2017
- Posts: 148
#407 Thank you, Captain. May I ask whether you intend to raise the issue of costs or should I approach my local district councillor?
# 408 The proportion of the total development site that was once occupied by Eurotunnel Developments Ltd is relatively small. The total was not designated an AONB without good reason.
# 409 This whole project has been about profit for CGI (and their Israeli bank backers) from the outset. The way CPRE have been denigrated has been an absolute disgrace. Yet more guff was spouted tonight about the young of Dover being deprived of their housing opportunities. Does he really think the people of Dover are that stupid?
Captain Haddock- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 7,936
Stuart Honey wrote:#407 Thank you, Captain. May I ask whether you intend to raise the issue of costs or should I approach my local district councillor?
I have been VERY reliably informed tonight that it takes a few months for costs to be billed. I said I shall mark my diary accordingly! (Though to be honest I actually thought the development would be a good idea)
"Shall we go, you and I, while we can? Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds"
Guest 1997- Registered: 3 Mar 2017
- Posts: 148
I've a strange feeling that we have not heard the end of this saga yet but I thought some might be interested in what I have gleaned subject to a Freedom of Information request to DDC. This subject was also raised at the full council meeting on January 31st. Assuming that he was present, perhaps our fishy friend might deign to update us on what was discussed. The facts are, however, as follows.
The total cost to the taxpayer as it currently stands is £249,000. Additionally, over 500 hours of "legal officer" time has been spent within the council offices on the case. Even at a ludicrously conservative estimate of £50 per hour, this adds a further £25,000 or so to the total bill. This council has apparently "recovered" £88,000 of these costs from the landowner/developer - China Gateway International.
I have no personal axe to grind here against anyone involved but will admit that I'm a Maxton resident and was against the project from the outset. However, that doesn't prevent me from asking perfectly legitimate questions which (I hope) will concern many other local taxpayers.
1. Why has DDC pursued such a costly legal case in favour of a remote developer and against the initial recommendations of their own professional officers? I have done some extensive research on CGI which I've referred to in other posts. I won't repeat it here but their altruistic credentials for the people of Dover strike me as very questionable. Will DDC be happy with the current recovery of less than one third of the money funded from our taxes?
2. My FOI request also contained a question regarding estimates of further costs to DDC and hence the local taxpayer. The answer to this was that the Council holds no further information on future estimated costs. This response begs many possible questions as to whether CGI will re-apply for permission (as many will suspect) and how DDC might react in such a case.
3. Anyone who takes the trouble to read both the judgments in favour of CPRE will understand that, behind the legal phrasing, there is a more than a doubt raised about how councillors arrived at their original conclusion to vote against the decision of their own officers and possibly even their suitability to the job they were elected for. I've read various comments on this subject, not the least of which implied that the judgment was a result of a failure in minute taking! I think people should be aware of this and bear it in mind for future elections.
There is a great deal more which could be added on this subject but I am trying to concentrate on facts. make of them as you will but I don't think fiasco is a misused term in this instance.
Guest 2478 and howard mcsweeney1 like this
Guest 2525- Registered: 19 Mar 2018
- Posts: 11
Defiantly will not be the end of the planning saga as cgp only owns half the site the rest is owned by a maureen seymour-prosser through a web of hidden companies who helped finance cgp at the start to rip millions from the isreal discount bank ... the only reason cgp exists now is for the bank to recoup what it can after all the shady dealings by the original directors and backers who were and still are in councils pockets ... but this is only the tip of how all this panned out ...
Guest 1997 and Captain Haddock like this
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Guest 2525 likes this
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,018
Oh dear oh dear
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,696
Love the complete lack of any evidence from Humbert other than that Maureen Seymour-Prosser owns half the site.
The companies cannot be hidden otherwise how would Humbert know about them?
The hearsay accusations of fraud are wonderful especially when one hides behind a single name and the keyboard
Guest 2525 likes this
"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
Guest 2525- Registered: 19 Mar 2018
- Posts: 11
All will come out in the wash Ross
Guest 2525- Registered: 19 Mar 2018
- Posts: 11
All in a matter of time sorry Ross so in the mean time let Google be your friend ... half this land is owned through internal trading at cgp ... try find the loan the property was bought with for a start.... the law will take care of it eventually
Guest 2418 likes this
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,696
If you have done the research why not offer the rest of us the links?
I looked into this many years ago when it first started and I opposed the initial applications - especially those on the Western Heights - I was as concerned then as I am now about the corporate shareholding structure; but whilst it appears to be deliberately over complicated and raised questions as to why it wasn't in and of itself sufficient to bandy around accusations of criminality.
Guest 2525 likes this
"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
Guest 2525- Registered: 19 Mar 2018
- Posts: 11
Cgp borrowed the money from a company owned by one of the directors at the time then the half of the land was bought with the profits from that loan through another company ... if my user name does not set alarm bells ringing then I suppose no one looking into it all has any idea .... it all starts with manston
Guest 1997 likes this