Author Topic: Little Eye On The Provinces  (Read 376962 times)

Steph

  • Fast. Fast and bulbous. But fluffy.
Mae angen arnaf i byw, a fe fydda'i

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Little Eye On The Provinces
« Reply #3326 on: 27 February, 2024, 08:34:49 am »
A company incorporated in November. With one Director who is also a Director of two other companies, also incorporated last Autumn.
It is simpler than it looks.

barakta

  • Bastard lovechild of Yomiko Readman and Johnny 5
Re: Little Eye On The Provinces
« Reply #3327 on: 27 February, 2024, 04:48:15 pm »
I doubt anyone is going to get their money back.

Problem is, it's very hard to avoid this kind of grifting.

rogerzilla

  • When n+1 gets out of hand
Re: Little Eye On The Provinces
« Reply #3328 on: 27 February, 2024, 05:02:30 pm »
Normally happens at Christmas, when an amazing North Pole experience with Santa's grotto turns out to be a muddy marquee with a few fairy lights, one depressed reindeer, and a Santa that smells of vodka and gives you a "My Lidl Pony" or "Fuzz Lightyear" worth 99p.
Hard work sometimes pays off in the end, but laziness ALWAYS pays off NOW.

Steph

  • Fast. Fast and bulbous. But fluffy.
Re: Little Eye On The Provinces
« Reply #3329 on: 27 February, 2024, 05:24:13 pm »
Normally happens at Christmas, when an amazing North Pole experience with Santa's grotto turns out to be a muddy marquee with a few fairy lights, one depressed reindeer, and a Santa that smells of vodka and gives you a "My Lidl Pony" or "Fuzz Lightyear" worth 99p.

My first thought was indeed various 'Winter Wonderlands'
Mae angen arnaf i byw, a fe fydda'i

Kim

  • Timelord
    • Fediverse
Re: Little Eye On The Provinces
« Reply #3330 on: 28 February, 2024, 01:29:59 am »
Normally happens at Christmas, when an amazing North Pole experience with Santa's grotto turns out to be a muddy marquee with a few fairy lights, one depressed reindeer, and a Santa that smells of vodka and gives you a "My Lidl Pony" or "Fuzz Lightyear" worth 99p.

Somewhere, in the murky depths of the Dover District Council website, behind a locked door with a sign saying "beware of the leopard", is a planning consultation pertaining to the hair-brained scheme to enhance Betteshanger Country Park's[1] shareholder value with the addition of a posh hotel and sharknado pool[2].  Naturally, this attracts all sorts of comments from the usual suspects, chiefly hippies with concerns about turtle doves, locals afraid that traffic will give their house prices cancer, investors who think it's a valuable addition to the sporting repertoire of the south-east of England, and random gammons spouting off about anything tangentially relevant.  I don't recommend you read it, it's endless and mostly dull.

But there is a splendid rant in there about someone being sworn at by a man in a Santa hat while trying to use one of the footpaths...


[1] Venue for the 2024 Wacky Races, International Edition - hence my interest in whether someone was going to dig up the track in August.
[2] https://www.betteshanger-park.co.uk/the-seahive/


sam

Re: Little Eye On The Provinces
« Reply #3331 on: 28 February, 2024, 06:10:26 am »
[Press conference mode]



house prices cancer

Walker from the Mercury. Are you saying there's actual house price cancer? Can you elaborate for our readers?

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Little Eye On The Provinces
« Reply #3332 on: 28 February, 2024, 07:14:33 am »
Normally happens at Christmas, when an amazing North Pole experience with Santa's grotto turns out to be a muddy marquee with a few fairy lights, one depressed reindeer, and a Santa that smells of vodka and gives you a "My Lidl Pony" or "Fuzz Lightyear" worth 99p.

Somewhere, in the murky depths of the Dover District Council website, behind a locked door with a sign saying "beware of the leopard", is a planning consultation pertaining to the hair-brained scheme to enhance Betteshanger Country Park's[1] shareholder value with the addition of a posh hotel and sharknado pool[2].  Naturally, this attracts all sorts of comments from the usual suspects, chiefly hippies with concerns about turtle doves, locals afraid that traffic will give their house prices cancer, investors who think it's a valuable addition to the sporting repertoire of the south-east of England, and random gammons spouting off about anything tangentially relevant.  I don't recommend you read it, it's endless and mostly dull.

But there is a splendid rant in there about someone being sworn at by a man in a Santa hat while trying to use one of the footpaths...


[1] Venue for the 2024 Wacky Races, International Edition - hence my interest in whether someone was going to dig up the track in August.
[2] https://www.betteshanger-park.co.uk/the-seahive/


A Smurf Lagoon sounds interesting.
It is simpler than it looks.

Beardy

  • Shedist
Re: Little Eye On The Provinces
« Reply #3333 on: 28 February, 2024, 10:36:37 am »
I have to say that the ‘Seahive’ sounds like delivery bloat to get the hotel and spa plans through. The more expensive and less profitable ‘community slanted’ seahive will quietly die once the foundations for the hotel are safely in place.
For every complex problem in the world, there is a simple and easily understood solution that’s wrong.

Steph

  • Fast. Fast and bulbous. But fluffy.
Re: Little Eye On The Provinces
« Reply #3334 on: 28 February, 2024, 11:04:20 am »
I have to say that the ‘Seahive’ sounds like delivery bloat to get the hotel and spa plans through. The more expensive and less profitable ‘community slanted’ seahive will quietly die once the foundations for the hotel are safely in place.
I lived very near there for 14 years. It is a depressed area that used to be Kent's coalmining region. There is no way it is the sort of area for a 'luxury hotel'

Meanwhile, Eleanor Morton's take on Wonkyland

https://twitter.com/EleanorMorton/status/1762776707373695479
Mae angen arnaf i byw, a fe fydda'i

Kim

  • Timelord
    • Fediverse
Re: Little Eye On The Provinces
« Reply #3335 on: 28 February, 2024, 11:37:34 am »
I have to say that the ‘Seahive’ sounds like delivery bloat to get the hotel and spa plans through. The more expensive and less profitable ‘community slanted’ seahive will quietly die once the foundations for the hotel are safely in place.
I lived very near there for 14 years. It is a depressed area that used to be Kent's coalmining region. There is no way it is the sort of area for a 'luxury hotel'

Unless you happen to own a nearby golf course...

The whole thing, like everything else in the BRITISH economy, is a property scam.  But the planning process is being sufficiently slow that there's no danger of spades in the ground by August, so as far as we're concerned it just means they're surprisingly keen to accommodate us to fulfil their 'grassroots sport' tickybox.

Re: Little Eye On The Provinces
« Reply #3336 on: 28 February, 2024, 12:23:42 pm »
It was quite depressing going to the developer's exhibition about a proposed 750 house estate going up on edge of our village. People were seemingly more interested in choosing which of the three proposed football field/sports pavilion layouts they wanted than worrying about the impact of a big estate with a Sainsbury's going up onto the B road next to us that's a nightmare for traffic in the morning, on a flood plain, with no improvement for services like the Doctor, School etc. factored in.

Regulator

  • That's Councillor Regulator to you...
Re: Little Eye On The Provinces
« Reply #3337 on: 28 February, 2024, 02:04:25 pm »
It was quite depressing going to the developer's exhibition about a proposed 750 house estate going up on edge of our village. People were seemingly more interested in choosing which of the three proposed football field/sports pavilion layouts they wanted than worrying about the impact of a big estate with a Sainsbury's going up onto the B road next to us that's a nightmare for traffic in the morning, on a flood plain, with no improvement for services like the Doctor, School etc. factored in.


Welcome to the life of a Chair of a planning committee...

I can't believe how the public tends to focus on side issues rather than the fundamentals when it comes to planning matters.
Quote from: clarion
I completely agree with Reg.

Green Party Councillor

Kim

  • Timelord
    • Fediverse
Re: Little Eye On The Provinces
« Reply #3338 on: 28 February, 2024, 02:15:19 pm »
I can't believe how the public tends to focus on side issues rather than the fundamentals when it comes to planning matters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality applies.


ETA: Is it sad that I recognised the bicycle shed in the photo?

Regulator

  • That's Councillor Regulator to you...
Re: Little Eye On The Provinces
« Reply #3339 on: 28 February, 2024, 04:21:32 pm »
I can't believe how the public tends to focus on side issues rather than the fundamentals when it comes to planning matters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality applies.


ETA: Is it sad that I recognised the bicycle shed in the photo?



You've snogged behind it?  Or was it a crafty fag?
Quote from: clarion
I completely agree with Reg.

Green Party Councillor

rogerzilla

  • When n+1 gets out of hand
Re: Little Eye On The Provinces
« Reply #3340 on: 28 February, 2024, 04:27:50 pm »
Slept in it on a 400?
Hard work sometimes pays off in the end, but laziness ALWAYS pays off NOW.

Cudzoziemiec

  • Ride adventurously and stop for a brew.
Re: Little Eye On The Provinces
« Reply #3341 on: 28 February, 2024, 04:44:06 pm »
Are developers (in general, not just MattH's example) making use of this effect? Like a supermarket having a dozen varieties of baked beans to create an illusion of choice (and control), so developers might be offering choice of sports pavilions, bike sheds, and so on, in order to distract the public from criticising the main development. Or maybe they are themselves caught up in the trivialities?
Riding a concrete path through the nebulous and chaotic future.

Steph

  • Fast. Fast and bulbous. But fluffy.
Re: Little Eye On The Provinces
« Reply #3342 on: 28 February, 2024, 05:09:00 pm »
I have to say that the ‘Seahive’ sounds like delivery bloat to get the hotel and spa plans through. The more expensive and less profitable ‘community slanted’ seahive will quietly die once the foundations for the hotel are safely in place.
I lived very near there for 14 years. It is a depressed area that used to be Kent's coalmining region. There is no way it is the sort of area for a 'luxury hotel'

Unless you happen to own a nearby golf course...

The whole thing, like everything else in the BRITISH economy, is a property scam.  But the planning process is being sufficiently slow that there's no danger of spades in the ground by August, so as far as we're concerned it just means they're surprisingly keen to accommodate us to fulfil their 'grassroots sport' tickybox.

Betteshanger...

I lived in Aylesham, whose railway station remains an entertaining place, offering regular glimpses of people returning to London and further afield, shortly after discovering that Aylesham is not Aylsham. Yes, really.

Aylesham is the largest of the pit villages around Snowdown colliery. Betteshanger is a smaller village by far, and the Park in question is simply the site of the old 'pit heap' of colliery waste. The villages are in Dover District, but are neglected by the Council. When the 'White Cliffs Experience' ( :facepalm:) opened, it was the only cinema in Dover. Dover district residents got free entry to the 'attraction, all except those from Aylesham.

Aylesham sits at the boundary of Dover and Canterbury districts. Those in Canterbury postcodes were granted free entry to the Cathedral, except for---you guessed it.

When snow hits the area, which is a relatively frequent event, the road past Aylesham to Wingham is cleared. The little village of Adisham nearby is cleared.

Yup; you have guessed it again.

There was a public sonsultation I attended about the development of the village, in which the presenter referred to Fatfield, a declining village on the edge of Washington, Tyne and Wear, as an example of how a place could lose its life. She was most unhappy when I spoke up and explained that I had lived very close to Fatfield, that it had been killed by planners as a deliberate act to create a riverside park, and that I had spoken up against the road closures that destroyed the place and were later ruled to be a mistake but 'too expensive to fix now'

I spoke up about the planned massive expansion of the village as a dorm for Canterbury, as there was only a plan to build more houses and no additional community amenities. The council then closed Aylesham's school, throwing all the equipment and furniture into skips, so that they could build more industrial units on the land.

Oops. The land had originally been bequeathed to the council with a caveat that the land could only ever be used for educational purposes. The extra housing has now been built, but nothing in the way of extra infrastructure. If you look at the NW side on Google maos, you will see the primary school in a swathe of open land. That's why it is so unbuilt.

So, in short, ANYTHING
Mae angen arnaf i byw, a fe fydda'i

Re: Little Eye On The Provinces
« Reply #3343 on: 28 February, 2024, 05:26:32 pm »
I've seen developers use a tactic where they promise the earth to get outline planning, then gradually reduce everything. Council threatens to not grant next stage of planning, developer says "We'll sue for our costs and loss of future profits". Council caves, because they can't afford legal expenses, let alone potential payouts.

Much of it seems to come down to very naive contracts being drawn up. Too much wriggle room, too many caveats. Developers employ good lawyers to draw up contracts, councils employ  . . . well, often they ignore advice of internal 'experts'.

It is worth remembering that planning committees are composed of people with no knowledge or expertise in development, civil engineering or, frequently, the law.
<i>Marmite slave</i>

Kim

  • Timelord
    • Fediverse
Re: Little Eye On The Provinces
« Reply #3344 on: 28 February, 2024, 05:32:08 pm »
Steph neatly sums up the incongruity of Betteshanger Park (which isn't really in Betteshanger at all, it just sounds better than 'Fowlmead').  Someone accidentally built the UK's best cycle racing circuit on a spoil heap, and it goes chronically under-utilised because it's in a neglected corner of Kent and nobody in this country really cares about cycling anyway - least of all the series of developers who've been squabbling over it for the last few years (the most recent of which has poured money into a cafe and museum that are all very nice but seem unlikely to ever be a profitable endeavour).

rogerzilla

  • When n+1 gets out of hand
Re: Little Eye On The Provinces
« Reply #3345 on: 28 February, 2024, 05:36:01 pm »
A tactic around here is to apply for permission for a traveller site in an area where no-one wants any development.  Cue uproar from locals.  Developer withdraws application and resubmits one for houses, which goes through with little protest as people would rather have anything that keeps the travellers out.  Ker-ching.
Hard work sometimes pays off in the end, but laziness ALWAYS pays off NOW.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Little Eye On The Provinces
« Reply #3346 on: 28 February, 2024, 06:18:25 pm »
Are developers (in general, not just MattH's example) making use of this effect? Like a supermarket having a dozen varieties of baked beans to create an illusion of choice (and control), so developers might be offering choice of sports pavilions, bike sheds, and so on, in order to distract the public from criticising the main development. Or maybe they are themselves caught up in the trivialities?

There's very little in the Planning process that the public can influence. They can make representations that might affect the Local Plan, but after that they can only object to applications on material planning considerations. Applications that follow Planning Guidance and agree with the Local Plan will most likely get through.

They can, of course, threaten not to vote for Cllrs, but as Mr C says, there's precious little money in Councils' coffers for anything, let alone fighting developers.
It is simpler than it looks.

Steph

  • Fast. Fast and bulbous. But fluffy.
Re: Little Eye On The Provinces
« Reply #3347 on: 29 February, 2024, 08:34:04 am »
Mae angen arnaf i byw, a fe fydda'i

rogerzilla

  • When n+1 gets out of hand
Re: Little Eye On The Provinces
« Reply #3348 on: 29 February, 2024, 08:36:44 am »
The photo of the lady with green hair from the Wonka experience has gone viral.
Hard work sometimes pays off in the end, but laziness ALWAYS pays off NOW.

Steph

  • Fast. Fast and bulbous. But fluffy.
Re: Little Eye On The Provinces
« Reply #3349 on: 29 February, 2024, 09:24:41 am »
There are now loads of videos online. I actually can't believe how utterly shite it was!
Mae angen arnaf i byw, a fe fydda'i