12 October 2009
08:5930235#1
Much has and is being said about the state of Dover and part of the problem has been the lack of finance that the Council is able to spend (generate??).
A couple of years ago a fine pair of Victorian Semi detached houses was converted into one bed flats. This lost a property that families are crying out for. After a lenghty time the eight flats were let but 75% are to people on "Social".
Of course many need help in housing but what has this particular example done.
a) The rent is paid by the Council/Government
b) No rates are paid to the Council
This seems a double whamy that the Council give money away and at the same time receive nothing whilst the property developer loses nothing with rent paid to him by the council.
To me this is barmy and with it reported that the housing stock for families in Dover is scarce should so many one bed flats be developed.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
12 October 2009
09:1230236#2
Pat Again sorry to say this has all been said before over Folkstone Rd and other parts of the Town,I was at a meeting with the Distict planning some years ago ,and I was told I had only 3mins to put my case to them,I done that and what you put in your post was part of it,as a cllr then I also wrote letters to them,and also I was in the local papers about just that,but again it went ahead.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
12 October 2009
17:1630263#3
I couldn't agree more Pat and Vic is right, he used to speak at every planning committee meeting where Folkestone Road flat conversions were being voted on.
All those lovely old Victorian family homes converted into tiny little boxes where decent people would not want to live, so they put miscreants of all sorts in there and they in turn have their rent paid by the Social, so as you say, no benefit to anyone apart from the developer.
I did get repremanded for saying we are "social engineering" by allowing all these tiny flats and bed-sits; the more that are converted, the more families move out and so it multiplies until there are no family homes or families left, just tiny flats with non-productive people in them.
I expect I will get grumbled at for sayinmg this and yes I know that everyone deserves a home (?), but why concentrate them all in one place ?
Roger
12 October 2009
17:2030265#4
We live in a lovely big 4 storey Victorian semi and it suits us beautifully, with 4 children and a few hobbies, plus the need for 2 offices/studies for Him and Me. It is such a shame to mess about with some of the gorgeous houses - and it may be snobbery, but if a house isn't best suited to flats why ruin it? There are lots of other places much better suited to conversion. And, yes, everyone is entitled to a home - must have a home - but let's make a few rules as well, before letting people have good accommodation: if I am paying soemones rent I want to know they will look after the property.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
12 October 2009
20:2930286#5
Thank you for your support on this one Roger,but again it is to late now they are there and that is it.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
12 October 2009
20:4230289#6
it is clear that a lot of the folkestone road houses are too big for the modern family to up keep.
having said that, why does it have to go completely the other way?
surely a stylish conversion of these properties into 2 self contained flats would attract young couples that are starting out or starting a family.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
12 October 2009
21:0530290#7
Howard.I have just said it is to late now once planning said yes to the flats they could not stop it now even if they wanted to it would end up with the council being taken to court. If only I had the support of your ward when I was a cllr there, it all might and I say might just had worked out O.K. or better then it is today but I did not .I did try again as you know,and again turn down by the voters and this was the ward I was born in and lived for over 30years.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
12 October 2009
21:1230291#8
VIC
Yes we was like a double act at planning.
Every sensible person could see the damage being done to completely change the face of the Folkestone road.
Sadly those of us who warned what would happen should the planning dept not change its ways, have been found to be correct.
And I take no joy in saying that.
This was one issue that had cross party support,
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
12 October 2009
21:2230295#9
Keith,again you are right,and thank you also for your support.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
12 October 2009
21:3330298#10
No VIC I thank you and Roger
I do think the planning dept needs to take a long hard look at itself and instead of finding reasons why it cant do things find reasons why it can!!!!!!
I won 't mention the mess the planning dept on the Rec ground on old Folk Road Aycliffe with still no resu;lts.
Let me tell you another;
MOTORCROSS which i chaired for some time when it started it obvious needed a track which volunteers built themselves.
but before they got to this stage they produced a planning application which was down for refusal by the officers, because of noise.
the nearest house is some distance away.
no one had objected, just planning officers being planning officers!!!
This project teaches youth how to take a motorbike apart(and put it back together lol) and to ride safely, with qualified staff plus classroom work.
Its very well recieved.
I arranged a meeting with the planning officers the project and myself and explained the benefits of the project.
After the meeting the planning officer changed his report to a 3 year review
(wouldnt except defeat)!!!
And now about 6/7 years later its getting bigger and better.
But it could have just gone down the usual refusal route, and had i not got involved there may not have been a motorcross today and that would have been wrong.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
12 October 2009
22:4230319#11
i thought that new planning rules had come in, whereby they gave advice as to why something had been rejected and gave sensible advice to the applicant, that led to things being passed?
not free, of course, but may save dosh and anguish in the long run.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
12 October 2009
23:0030320#12
If they had heard of Le Corbusier the could quantify their stupidity. However they cannot!
14 October 2009
12:1430447#13
Many thanks to all who have posted.
Folkestone Road has been a major issue and it is pleasing to see how it is improving.
It is said over 800 properties are empty in Dover although it may be that some are occupied but no rates being paid. I understand "The empty properties" statistics are compiled from rates payments and in a nearby Kent Council it was established that a fair percentage of "empty" properties when visited were in fact "multi" occupied and not paying rates.
With the need for family homes the Council should concentrate on oposing one-bed flats and seek to get some of the empty houses for families. The track record for the one bed flats is that people living in them have scant regard to gardens etc and create a further eyesore as the owners are too greedy taking the rents and do not bother with the external cleanliness which the council are not interested in as the mess (often dumped white goods etc) is on private land.
If many of these properties were forced to tidy up gardens etc then our wonderful town would soon regain some of its past attractiveness. It is again the question of how many have pride.
