Wednesday, 17 September 2008

Planning Again!

Well is it really 4 weeks since the China gateway landed on our laps.?

I see elsewhere that comment has been made on the way I voted on that issue. I can only say that I listened to the debate, and formed a view, much as I will at 'Full Council'.

It is nice to get back to the basics of planning, which is the decisions that are more important to individuals than one issue groups.


Michael Child said...

Ken. The problem with the China Gateway plans is that to make them conform to the Southern Water discharge constraints the layout of the site would have to be changed so much as to require a new planning application.

Like the Pleasurama plans from the same architect that were passed even though they were unbuildable, these plans are not plans for something that could possibly be built, so the question is why did they come forward with recommendation to approve?

Rear view mirror said...

Micheal, are you saying then that if the plans conformed to the discharge constraints, you would support planning application in principle?

Michael Child said...

RVM As an ex engineer when someone knowingly produces a design for something that can’t be made I am suspicious of their motives.

When I first got involved with this scheme my concern was to find out how essential the drinking water aquifer is, when Southern Water stated that it is essential both for us and local agriculture I came to the conclusion that concreting over a large part of it is a bad idea.

You obviously make your living from driving and the developer reckons there will about an extra 2,000 HGV movements a day on Thanet’s roads rising to 5,000 a day when phases 2 & 3 are built, with the developer trying to buy up land for phases 4 & 5 plus all the extra car traffic caused by people getting to work there, it could be somewhat problematic for you too.

You may say I started out thinking it would bring much needed employment and slowly am coming to the conclusion that it is a crackpot scheme, badly designed.

Rick said...

Rear View Mirror

In nature a specific response (such as the body healing injury) sponsors a general stress response.

IE If one thing is wrong be cautious and check before assuming everything else is right.

It can sometimes appear that a person who starts with a single technical question, who then finds more technical questions, is "Against things"

The tests are:

(1) That the questioner acts in accordance with the laws of nature (IE is he wise in broadening his questioning .. answer yes)

(2) Are his questions valid? And I have not seen Michael raise a red herring yet. His points have importance for all of Thanet and its health with regard to CGP. And his points about Pleasurama were about heading off a possible catastrophe.

I think he deserves a Thanet citizen of the year award. (NOT Book tokens though .... ?)

Rick said...

And as I pointed out on ECR the whole Electricity Board site at St Peters was put into commission with flawed surface water drainage in 1976. Pointed out to the board by a visiting commercial tyre fitter (aka me)

John Worrow said...

Ken, I had a leaflet come though my door today that full of half truths and total nonsense

Rear view mirror said...

Thanks Rick, I asked Micheal a very straight forward question, that he answered in a straight forward manner.

Your ramblings were not required for me to understand Micheal's response.

Rick said...

You asked an ill conceived question and you got a response.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

As the Chair of Planning, Ken, do you really think it is wise to place such a provocative post? You can see what you are whipping up with contributions of the kind John Worrow has offerred. With all the suspicion about dodgy deals and the behaviour of your local Tory leadership, and a police investigation apparently still under way, the whole issue is especially sensitive.

John Worrow said...

To: 18 September 2008 00:05
Unknown person

I told my friend Ken that a leaflet (that may have even been about pizza for all you know) came through my door full of half truths and nonsense.

Then a person that does not even have the bottle to say who they are goes into one repeating my name more times than my girlfriend does when we make love.

I won't even begin to take someone seriously that is so quick to make a judgement and won't even put their name to their comments.

Anonymous said...

I agree John, if they really felt as strongly about the subject they would not take such a cowardly approach. But of course this not really about the Gatway at all and more to do with an attitude towards the Chinese.

David Walton

Ken Gregory said...

Anon 07 12. Why do you think this thread is provocative ? It is not necessary for a planning application to be large to make it important. Every application that has a person who is 'concerned' is important. If not to them but also to the applicant.

We would be a bloo*y poor committee if we judged the interest we showed an application because of its size. Size is not important as they say

Anonymous said...

You avoid the points by raising the old 'anon' chestnut, Parish Cllr Worrow.

John Worrow said...

No, I just avoid taking the bait from those that hide behind being anonymous. If you wish to use your name I will he happy to anwswer any question you put to me.

Anonymous said...

To gutter spipe 20:19

The post from the anonymous gutter snipe above proves both John Worrow and David Walton's case for them.

Charles Goddard

Anonymous said...

So it's right wing to want to bring jobs to people who don't have them, rather than to protect the rural idyll of the gentille middle classes of Acol, Monkton, Minster and Birchington? This is politics turned on its head.

Any socialist who doesn't support this application should hang their head in shame. I never thought I would hear myself say "Go for it you Tory boys and girls".

Anonymous said...

Anon 09.37, you are missing the point completely which is... when points are made with which the political right disagree, they are incapable of airing their disagreement without recourse to insults, offensive language, and personal accusation and invective.

Tory Mr Worrow's disclosures about his sexual activities introduce a new "twist".

That's it. Nothing about the specifics of Gateway.

You are responding to something that has not even been said.

Anonymous said...

I prefer the term 'love making' to that used by those trying to score cheap political points against Mr Worrow who is just a parish volunteer and does not have a political bone in his body.

Ken Gregory said...

I think I have tried to be laid back about some of that which has been posted , but we are getting into the realms of personal abuse. Sorry, but that is not 'Real' politics should be about. (my view).

therefore I will be watching and deleting any comments that I feel abusive, as of now.

Anonymous said...

Actaully, Ken, it's a bit more than 4 weeks since China Gateway landed in your lap as the application is date - stamped April and objections have been landing on the council desks since then. That makes it more like 5 months to me. But then as there never was a real planning site visit only 'a pre-planning submission site visit to have a decko at things' perhaps your time-scale is a bit different after all. Did the full planning committee ever got a 'post-planning submission proper site visit' after all when they could all see the extent of Phase 1 rather than the 'it finishes over there' vague hand pointing into field. Perhaps if you'd walked down the about to have to be diverted public footpath , your fellow committee members might have realised the true extent.