Guest 975- Registered: 19 Jun 2013
- Posts: 28
This scheme has my complete backing!
Dover needs houses and more tourist attractions to bring people back here and ultimately bring money into the town. Opposing regeneration will just allow Dover to fall further into depression.
I agree with the gentleman that mentioned the area was an old industrial area, for how many years was this area used for the Channel Tunnel development, its seems we have short memories. I would expect that there was a large amount of "disruption" then, but look how Folkestone has benefited from the Tunnel.
Every time someone throws Dover a lifeline, the sleepy people of Dover disagree with change! Regeneration should be embraced and encourage by everyone that wants to be proud of Dover again! An ambitious town will breed ambitious people, otherwise Dover will continue to decline.
Andrew
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
welcome andrew, whatever is offered to dover many will still gripe - a prime example is the planned multiplex cinema.
Guest 975- Registered: 19 Jun 2013
- Posts: 28
Hello Howard
Great point! How many people from Dover, Folkestone, Deal and even Canterbury go to Ashford or Westwood Cross to watch a film at a multiplex cinema! Also the amount of businesses that surround such a development. This would creat hundreds of jobs for Dover but it would mean changing and no one likes change in Dover.
Most people seem to prefer watching more and more companies close.
Andrew
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,802
Andrew Garrett wrote:
Every time someone throws Dover a lifeline, the sleepy people of Dover disagree with change! Regeneration should be embraced and encourage by everyone that wants to be proud of Dover again! An ambitious town will breed ambitious people, otherwise Dover will continue to decline.
Welcome Andrew #41 an excellent post, the first sentence in your last paragraph just about sums up what happens all to often.
Financially Dover will stagnate if the population does not grow, where they work does not really matter although it would be preferable if it was in this area.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 975- Registered: 19 Jun 2013
- Posts: 28
Thanks Jan.
Folkestone is a prime example of making the most of the High speed rail link. I live in Dover and use to commute to London, just over an hour is good. Obviously if the line was better between Ashford and Dover then the service could be improved further.
The problem is that there is nowhere to spend money in Dover to get money coming into the town. The town need a reason for people to actually go into the town. Busiest passenger ferry port in Europe and quite easily one of the most depressed towns.
Why are people in Dover so opposed to change?!
Andrew
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
Jan
you're presumably pensioned up so earning a living wouldn't mater to you
But others need local jobs we cannot all work up the council .
The area at the front of the town should be for business and tourism attractions
the housing can go at the back
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
that's where its going kieth.at the back of every where.
besides that the hotel and conference center would give work to locals.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Andrew is a welcome new member I must say
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
we shall have to await further comments from andrew richardson as he was actually at the meeting, most of us weren't.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
Brian
You go into any hotel in town and you will fined the locals you speak of are eastern Europeans
Guest 975- Registered: 19 Jun 2013
- Posts: 28
There is lots of information and drawings on the DDC planning portal, it gives you a good idea of the scheme.
I think thats a pretty narrow minded comment Keith, I think you'll probably find most of them live locally and contribute to the local enconomy. Maybe you should ask them next time you're in a local hotel.
Andrew
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
kieth,if they live in dover then they are locals,dispite where they came from in the first place.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
Andrew
When you talk about contributing to the local economy you mean they give the employers more profits
The service industries and the construction industries, love having all the cheap no talkback east European labour,
It gives the greedy even more, lowering wages at the bottom for the British workers
One day you may be competing with east European construction companies for the same contracts, and you could find yourself on the scrapheap like all the smaller companies.
What goes around comes around .
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,802
Keith Bibby wrote:Jan
you're presumably pensioned up so earning a living wouldn't mater to you
But others need local jobs we cannot all work up the council .
It might not matter to me but it does to the younger members of my family, local jobs are preferable but in this day and age people are prepared to travel out of their home town to work as they have done for the last thirty years.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,860
Jan H
Again I agree with you,
And it was wrong for others to say it doesn't matter to you
of course it does you live here, and as you say you have family to.
I know people that travel to work miles away, not on the best of wages either, but more important to be working.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 944- Registered: 16 May 2013
- Posts: 57
Hello all, it seems this has kicked off quite a debate. I could say a lot more, but for the moment I'll respond to just a couple of points:
A few people have commented that (Great) Farthingloe is a 'former industrial site'. Technically yes, and I'm not against seeing some reasonable development here, although it was supposed to be employment land not residential. The problem with building up to 521 houses there is not so much the impact on the site itself, but the impact on the entire valley, as these wil be visible right up to the Hougham turnoff and will effectively urbanise this bit of countryside for ever. The fact that the committee treated this impact so lightly (and believe me they did) is the really worrying bit. I was at the meeting and heard them. I'd applied to speak but it was awarded on first come first served so didn't get to.
Also, several people have accussed me of nimbyism and of backing similar schemes when I was a councillor and on the committee. Nimby is a cheap insult designed to stop local people having a legitimate say in things that affect the place they call home. I've never accused anybody of it and it doesn't add anything to the debate. It is only applicable in cases of hypocrisy, where someone supports something elsewhere then objects to it on their doorstep. In my time on the Planning Committee I faced some difficult decisions and I'm sure I didn't always make the right ones, but I always tried to make the right decisions and I never treated protections like AONB and Conservation Areas lightly. You need an exceptional case to set these things aside and that wasn't made the other night. I repeat, I'm not against the concept of any developement at Great Farthingloe, but this decision is putting the interests of the developer and their profits above all other considerations. It mirrors the attitudes coming out of central government, which I've been unhappy about for quite a while, and so I decided I no longer wanted to be associated with the Conservative Party.
Best wishes to everyone who's taken the time to post a response so far.
Andrew Richardson
Guest 750- Registered: 12 Apr 2012
- Posts: 72
Just like to say that I am still reading all posts with interest, and of course I too was at the planning meet, where I was very lucky to meet with Andrew Richardson and others opposed to the development, for those who know my views be assured nothing changes, and also was interested to find out that this Council chooses to ignore the great accolades of having two areas in the Dover District that for their sheer beauty and historic value been granted the titles of ANOB and SAM become the first council to build on previously protected land.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,860
Andrew,
Your views im sure are most welcome on this open forum.
I'v never been a great fan of the planning dept as you may recall.
I do have sympathy with your plight, even though I may not fully support your views.
Sadly this is not the first govt to want to centralise things, rather than making decisions as local as possible, as was the big cheer when your ex leader came into office, sadly he has gone the same way as other govts.
But this is a healthy debate, and im sure one that will go on and on
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
andrew
re; 56
this is just the latest thread on the subject, i won't refer you to the others as you would probably need to spend the rest of your life reading through them.
needless to say this has been the most contentious issue since i moved here and there is nobody that doesn't have an opinion on the subject, regardless of whether they have actually read up on it.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
This debate is destined to become quite a non-debate:
In only two hours, five people gathered 500 signatures in two streets in Dover town to oppose the CGI planning application in its entirety. Kent Highways gave permission for only 2 hours in two streets.
Then it was stated that "if you shove a piece of paper under the nose of a passer-by they will sign anything to get away".
Anyway, CGI simply made a new planning application almost identical, but not EXACTLY, but enough to make the 500 signatures become legally irrelevant as "they do not refer to the new planning application".
Democracy, the will of the people, simply does not and will not count, it will be turned upside down and trodden out.
Any excuse and any ploy will be deemed valid, SO WHY BOTHER GETTING ANNOYED AND STRESSED UP?
They will do what they want full stop!