Sunday, 15 January 2012

Planning Committee 18th Jan (Preview)

Before hitting the preview itself, there are some changes to a couple of Committees. Cllrs Hart and Poole have been replaced by Cllrs Matterface and Alexandrou on Planning and Cllr Johnston is replaced by Cllr W Scobie on Governance and Audit. Cllr Shirley Tomlinson continues to sit in for Cllr Goodwin on Planning.
                 -------------------------------------------------

Some big ticket items on the Planning agenda for this coming Wednesday. But first, a site visit in Beacon Road to deal with. There was some debate about it so this one could go either way. The recommendation was to approve.

Richborough Power Station’s possible demolition comes up next. The impact on the environment through deposits within the towers is a key consideration here. Dover District Council is looking into this one but only on the point of Highways. Luke Edwards of Thanet Waves has blogged about this. Recommendation to approve subject to safeguarding conditions.

Western Esplanade, Broadstairs follows, with plans for a three storey building of 5 flats. It comes before Planning because it comes onto previously undeveloped land. The biggest concern seems to be one of the access from Waldron Road but KCC raised no objection on that. An ambitious application, its up for approval.

A couple of applications in near-neighbouring sites at Ryder Avenue, Westgate, then we are onto the refusals starting with the Barrett site on Tivoli Road, Margate. Brought to Planning by Cllr Lodge-Pritchard, the proposal is for it to be used by Pilgrims Hospice for retail and storage. In theory a great idea, problem is that it’s a warehouse in an industrial area… Its just not suitable.

Chambers Wall Farm, St Nicholas-on-Wade is the next one, brought up by Cllr Mike Roberts. I don’t know the area (readers got any opinions?) so I'm running off the report, it’s a proposed conversion of the barn but due to the flood risk and seeming to be unsuitable for the area, the Officer reckons refusal.

At this point a motion is planned to boot out the public and press because the Westwood Estate is up last with proposed changes to the Section 106 Agreement and that includes some exempt info. As we know the economic downturn has hit everyone hard and the Council has already been approached with a plan to amend the planning consent for this area with regard to the scheduling of construction which I recall came before Planning a couple of months ago. This one is more about the financial contributions and sizing of the buildings themselves, so well worth a read of the agenda papers on that item.

16 comments:

Will Scobie said...

I do love a good bit of Governance and Audit. I don't understand much so far but hopefully at some point it will sink in!

Anonymous said...

Off thread I know, James, but as few people seem interested in your comments on Council Committees...

I really am disappointed by your behaviour over Worrow. I thought you were being more even-handed than most, but you are clearly just playing the same game as your Tory Party colleagues and masters, aren't you?

You called time on the long-running thread on this blog, which was fair. You deleted some anti-Tory comments in the process, which was not, but hey. You then allowed further comments that were hostile to Worrow and ignored requests - most from me - to be honourable and delete them - yourself having called time.

You have watched the campaign being mounted and maintained by your odious colleague, Moores, and have done nothing. You now comment on Moores's scandal-sheet that you have thought of complaining about Worrow. I presume this chimes with the comments by the likes of "Tim Clarke" - or it may have been "Tom Clarke".

So you think Worrow's posts about LGBT issues are legitimate cause for complaint, but Moores's continuous jibes, pathetic, childish jokes and provocation of Worrow are "fair game"?

The Tory Party locally has behaved disgracefully, with not even a veiled acknowledgement that Goodwin's original remark on Facebook was at least out of order and at worst homophobic. As several have commented, you are silent about the perpetrator but hostile towards the victim. That shows the Tory Party to be the "nasty party" that it has always been.

I had thought better of you. Clearly I have been mistaken.

Anonymous said...

08;58 a Worrow fan obviously or Worrow himself, James you carry on as you are, a good fair voice, It seems Worrow can attack moores see latest Blog but Moores is not allowed to voice his opinion on Worrow a view I am sure shared by many especially those who voted for him as their Conservative
Member in Birchington South, with his new role Labour have secured another vote, sorry 08:58 your comments defy reason.

Tom Clarke said...

10:13, as one who have frequently crossed pens (or keyboards I suppose) with 8:58 on many occasions, let me assure you, he does not do reason.

He is someone with a pathological hatred of the Tory party who seeks to see homophobia or racism in every comment. Matters not to him that most of Worrow's posts on diversity issues have been subsequently withdrawn. Worrow is the voice of reason in his book and the rest of us, and Simon Moores in particular, are nasty to the core.

Take my advice and don't rise to the bait for he will select from your comment something out of context and use it against you. It delights his insidious little mind so why give him that pleasure.

Anonymous said...

Tom Clarke, your capacity for insulting outbursts and inaccurate analysis has become almost legendary of late, but thank you for adding to the pile of evidence.

If you or others taking your line even half-commented on the provocation and continuing anti-Worrow jibes etc etc emanating from Moores, you may demonstrate an ounce of integrity and achieve an ounce of credibility. You have neither, since you have focussed only on Worrow's actions.

I do not know Worrow - to address 10.13 Anon, who plays the usual rather boring card on the identity issue - and I agree he has managed his "campaign" in a questionable manner. I do not see him as any sort of voice of reason - to use your language - nor do I believe he is equipped or empowered to act for the LGBT community.

But to ignore the antics and behaviour of those in the Tory Party he has scorned is, even for you, amazing.

As I have said before, the "Nasty Party" is alive and well in North Thanet at least. And before you go off on one again, I have not accused Moores or the Tory Party of being homophobic or racist - my criticism is rather wider than that. You know that, but of course spin and misinformation and plain untruths are much better tools for you, aren't they?

Anonymous said...

Tom Clarke, your capacity for insulting outbursts and inaccurate analysis has become almost legendary of late, but thank you for adding to the pile of evidence.

If you or others taking your line even half-commented on the provocation and continuing anti-Worrow jibes etc etc emanating from Moores, you may demonstrate an ounce of integrity and achieve an ounce of credibility. You have neither, since you have focussed only on Worrow's actions.

I do not know Worrow - to address 10.13 Anon, who plays the usual rather boring card on the identity issue - and I agree he has managed his "campaign" in a questionable manner. I do not see him as any sort of voice of reason - to use your language - nor do I believe he is equipped or empowered to act for the LGBT community.

But to ignore the antics and behaviour of those in the Tory Party he has scorned is, even for you, amazing.

As I have said before, the "Nasty Party" is alive and well in North Thanet at least. And before you go off on one again, I have not accused Moores or the Tory Party of being homophobic or racist - my criticism is rather wider than that. You know that, but of course spin and misinformation and plain untruths are much better tools for you, aren't they?

Peter Checksfield said...

What's happened to the gay vicar?

Tom Clarke said...

See 13:29 was so shaking with rage that he hit the button twice. Must remember not to share a lift with him. Could be there all day.

Peter Checksfield said...

Tom and anon (shall we call you Jerry?), please take it outside. You're getting nearly as annoying as JW now.

James Maskell said...

Wow, Anon 8:58, I bet that makes you feel a whole lot better. Good for you!

Anonymous said...

James, I find that pointing out double-standards, hypocrisy, and deceitfulness is always a fulfilling activity. And there's so much material in the NTCA upon which to draw.

Anonymous said...

And if I'm Jerry, perhaps we should call you Stringfellow, Peter.

Peter Checksfield said...

Whatever.

Tom Clarke said...

10:21 Perhaps in future you could sign in as Jerry so that we know you from all the other anons! Not that your style is not unique, but we all have our impersonators from time to time.

Anonymous said...

Tom Clarke, if you are going to follow Checksfield's lead that closely, beware - he'll have you stripping off so he can take piccies of you.

Peter Checksfield said...

I might need to do that, as it looks like I'll have to include some males on my site unless I want to get in trouble with the DBW's!