Some things noted at tonights meeting

[Frankie100]

The owners of the nursery school was shown by me before the meeting that people will still be able to walk from Hartsdown Park to Tivoli Park, that the nursery area (that HE walks the children through, despite being overgrown and possible dangerous) would be landscaped and therefore nicer and safer and that Tivoli Park would lose the football pitch and have trees planted to improve it

 

However at the meeting he still claimed that there would be a fence running from the five a sides to Tivoli Park Road, that the fence around the artifical pitch would be 18ft tall and look like a prison.

 

Also he and his wife were in favour of the club and were only SPOKESMEN for the anti campaign.

 

Needless to say I feel I could not trust the pair of them to sent Thomas to their nursery school.....God knows what might happen!!!!

[Cookie]

I was particularly impressed with the one resident who clearly told this man that he was NOT speaking on behalf of ALL the residents,this resident being one of them.This particular resident was quite happy to see the artificial pitch remain in the place shown on the up-to-date plans (which has already been approved by council).

Edited February 24, 2011 by Cookie

[Cookie]

This same owner who is "supposedly" speaking on behalf of 550 residents (but not all as we have found out) & who has "sparked" the dilemma we find ourselves in at this time,was concerned about the loss of green space in Hartsdown Park re:artificial pitch YET he was more than happy to see the artificial pitch built in Tivoli park (as in the previous plans) & without oppositon.Surely that too is green space is it not. Smacks of contradiction in my book. If its "green space" he is concerned about then any build on ANY park should be opposed by him if he is to be be consistent.

 

Withiout this "spark" that he has ignited I'm sure there would have been no meeting last night & no intervention by Mr Moores & that the build would have commenced on time as planned & as per schedule.

 

He DID,on the other hand praise the club (on numerous occasions) on what it has achieved thus far ie:learning Zone & other benefits to the community brought about by the club over the past few years.

 

I hope now that after hearing the facts that the pitch is so wary off is only going to cover 100m/yds x 60m/yds & not the whole part of the park that his concerns were about in the first place,he will now go back to each & every one of those those opposed to this & explain it to them & in turn drop the opposition to this project.

 

His assumption that proper consultation with residents was not called for was also shown to have occured in the past, a point that Mr Moores also found out on the night. Mr Moores should have noted this before playing that card on this occasion.

 

Full consultation (with leaflets through each residents door) was proven to be factual on the night & HAD taken place previously as per planning consent requirements,hence the councils consent.

 

Mr Moores is sadly STILL hanging on this & using it to block our progression,that proper consultations have not been carried out DESPITE the evidence shown that this HAS in fact already been proved to have been done.

Edited February 24, 2011 by Cookie

[marksandwell]

One other thing i picked up on apart from not realising that Hartsdown is a "Specific Beauty Spot" must be a jewel in the tourist brouchers!!!

Did Iris say that The Nusery Owner had at some time applied for a bit of the land for something to do with the nusery, or did I miss hear that, cause surely if that is the case some would argue he has a "vested interest"...

 

Well done to all of turned out, to Supporters, MISA and Directors of MFC, Well put together argument with some cracking points, especially on benefits to kids & community.

Edited February 24, 2011 by marksandwell

[Cookie]

At the close of the meeting Keith Piper stated he had (yesterday) "submitted an application for an "amendment" to to the council & that Mr.Moores would probably get this in the morning & hopefully act on it. Mr Moores only reply was (something on these lines - cant recall the actual words) "dont forget the fee" . Sums up the council dosent it. Money first! Grab! grab! grab!

Oh and KP also said the club would not be going for a full planning assessment again & that another £100.000 would not be put into Councils pockets by the club AGAIN for (in my opinion) stalling yet again despite the hard work, legal requirements & compliance having been submitted to the council by the club over the past years to get to this point.

Edited February 24, 2011 by Cookie

[GEEBEE]

Did any of the kent league side turn up and speak .i bet they didnt, mind you if they were behind a pc they would.

[Cookie]

The ONLY problem I can see is the 25 year (or more) lease required by the club. This seems to be the only REAL sticking point we have as I see it .

As we already HAVE consent by the council to begin works I assume we have been given some sort of lease i.e 1/5/10 year ??? Can someone with more "in the know" tell me/us if this is so please?.

Maybe Wellsie perhaps could enlighten me/us on this please?

Edited February 24, 2011 by Cookie

[Coffin Ender]

Not at the meeting as I was working. However, the important detail is that, according to the website, we have more than the 1,300 signatures - remarkable given that the club only started looking for names a week ago. The strength of support shown for the development should dampen the ardour of politicians thinking they had found a bandwagon to jump on. I now expect some kind of compromise to be hammered out.

[Cookie]

Sorry but this is a thread for things coming out of the meeting & I keep recalling them so heres another:

 

Mr Moores said that the hotel,after losing a floor or two would now be different in materialistic terms & the shape changed,in particular the roof.

 

In reply,our architect,to assure him & the public that were in attendance (on several occasions during the evening might I add), as Mr Moores has obviously been mis-informed or is guessing & trying to use this as yet another way of having this go through another full planning application again, that this was not the case & that after those floors, having been omitted the design shape & materials would still be the same only on a smaller/lower scale.Therefore it is NOT a materialistic change that has come about.Just a reduction in size,a factor the Council were pleased to see prior to that design change having been carried out. In fact the council "suggested" this as a further way to minimise any effect on the area & the residents.

When a member of the public later put the question to Mr Moores that one or other are obviously not very good at their job taking into account both explanations Mr Moores did seem to back down slighlty in his reply, without wanting to seemingly lose face I presume. I know who I would trust on this & it would be the Architect.

[Cookie]

Not at the meeting as I was working. However, the important detail is that, according to the website, we have more than the 1,300 signatures - remarkable given that the club only started looking for names a week ago. The strength of support shown for the development should dampen the ardour of politicians thinking they had found a bandwagon to jump on. I now expect some kind of compromise to be hammered out.

 

1706 be precise CE. All handed over to Mr Moores.All with addresses included & still more to come.

I agree a monumental effort after only a week or so. I believe it took the opposition a lot lot longer to attain their 550 signatures.

There will be further collectionS of signatures on the streets of Margate in the coming week or so.

Edited February 24, 2011 by Cookie

[Wellsie]

My pleasure Mr Cooke.

 

The issue of "asset disposal" comes into play when a lease of longer than 25 years is applied for. This is seperate and in addition to any planning consent granted and is designed to protect the use of publically owned land and buildings, which is not unreasonable, if frustrating right now!

 

The club / developers have full planning consent for the 3G pitch in Hartsdown Park, the North Stand and the larger hotel. If the requirement is for a lease of greater than 25 years then the council is bound to conduct public consultation, a situation the club / developers have been aware of. It could be that the developers opt for a lease of less than 25 years with the 3G in which case that can go ahead straight away. The situation with the hotel - a different situation despite (particularly Moores) seemingly trying to link the two - is more complicated and that's where the need by the club / developers is to have an amendment to existing planning consent granted rather than a full application; the cost and timing of which is simply too prohibitive.

 

On another point, reading the A4 paper left by the petition organisers, it contains some significant innaccuracies, so you do wonder how many of the 550 signatures on their petition have been obbtained based on a mis-represented basis.

 

And I remain surprised that SImon Moores feels able to comment on a specific planning application on a public blog, despite his public office. Strange one for me that, but then I don't really understand how non-decision-making politicians can and can't behave.

 

 

[Coffin Ender]

1,706 - wow. Well done those who pounded the streets. Democracy is often not about the quality of the arguments (not that I'm saying we have bad arguments) but about the size of the support and that does put us in a strong position. Shame they don't all come to home games though!

[faithfulblue]

Sorry but this is a thread for things coming out of the meeting & I keep recalling them so heres another:

 

Mr Moores said that the hotel,after losing a floor or two would now be different in materialistic terms & the shape changed,in particular the roof.

 

In reply,our architect,to assure him & the public that were in attendance (on several occasions during the evening might I add), as Mr Moores has obviously been mis-informed or is guessing & trying to use this as yet another way of having this go through another full planning application again, that this was not the case & that after those floors, having been omitted the design shape & materials would still be the same only on a smaller/lower scale.Therefore it is NOT a materialistic change that has come about.Just a reduction in size,a factor the Council were pleased to see prior to that design change having been carried out. In fact the council "suggested" this as a further way to minimise any effect on the area & the residents.

When a member of the public later put the question to Mr Moores that one or other are obviously not very good at their job taking into account both explanations Mr Moores did seem to back down slighlty in his reply, without wanting to seemingly lose face I presume. I know who I would trust on this & it would be the Architect.

 

 

Was this the point where he shaked his head four times & throw his pen down on the desk!!!

[Cookie]

In reply to Coffin Enders last comment.They woul'd Im sure (just like the old days were we to be given the chance to succeed as we once had. To progress once again & to put the name of Margate on the map in C.A.P.I.T.A.L.S.

3-4000 once came through these gates & the majority of them I'm sure are STILL here in Margate awaiting this project to succeed & for them to be lured back once again.(Not everyone comes to games through thick & thin sadly).

Edited February 24, 2011 by Cookie

[dannyriding]

The ONLY problem I can see is the 25 year (or more) lease required by the club. This seems to be the only REAL sticking point we have as I see it .

As we already HAVE consent by the council to begin works I assume we have been given some sort of lease i.e 1/5/10 year ??? Can someone with more "in the know" tell me/us if this is so please?.

Maybe Wellsie perhaps could enlighten me/us on this please?

 

 

Mr Sherrin is a customer of mine and before we all sat down for the meeting both he and his partner (jayne) talked to me ref: the meeting. Shaun said he was concerned for the welfare of the childrens home as he had received threats (anonymous) because of their petition. They both seem to be a bit taken aback by the amount of people that had turned out in support of the project and were'nt prepared for the way that the meeting was presented, One of the "ladies" with Jayne stated that the only person to profit from this would be Mr Piper and why did we need Another hotel anyway (obviously she has noted that we live in deprived area..... not) this was the same woman that had SIX kids and not one had been invited by Ursuline Academy to MFC. I might sound on this thread to be a bit bemused/dumbfounded but last night proved to me the short sightedness of people in this area that can bemoan Manston/MFC etc etc and stop genuine companies/people investing in the IOT. Jaynes answer to the fact that the hotel would provide 15 (fifteen) jobs in the area was pppffff whats that compared to Sainsburys at Westwood Cross (the main reason Margate / Ramsgate town centres are dying). Somehow the only person at the meeting that I was worried about was Mr moore who seems a tad out of touch with what the reason for being there was all about and didnt do his homework on the subject whatsoever..... and so for that reason Mr Moore ...... YOUR FIRED .

Edited February 24, 2011 by dannyriding

[Cookie]

I'm concerned here that Mr Moores, having been shown up somewhat with his false assumptions, will want to save face in some way & will dig his heels in.

I sincerely hope he is not the person I' m believing him to be & acts according without bias and be fair to the club when going back to report to the planning commitee members.

I'm sure underneath he is a decent (ish) sort of guy but he needs to walk in politics before he can run.He has a chance here to both keep his position in politics locally & to progress within politics in the wider world,if that is as I am thinking, his ultimate aim in life..

 

To Mr Moores

You have made a name for yourself now, that part of your quest has been achieved.

Now to act fairly to the majority vote in,as you say a democratic way. Both sides have had their say, the true facts have been given. Please take note & please whatever you do do not make a wrong decision here. If you do it may not only be the end of the heart of the community but the end of some small childs dreams not to mention mine.

Edited February 24, 2011 by Cookie

[Frankie100]

The woman whose six kids were not invited by the school should take that up with the school not the club.

 

 

As far as I am aware the club do not invite the children but the school do. Maybe they are not selected as they have failed in some way AT THE SCHOOL.

 

Mrs Sherrin's concern that the lose of parkland would deny all the children without gardens a place to play points out her lack of looking at the plans. Before the meeting she also told me that the plans were only part 1 of a total of a FIVE part plan to cover the whole of Hartsdown Park AND Tivoli Park.

 

WHERE THE HELL DID SHE GET THAT ONE?????????

 

Looks like a case of what you dont know just make up the most outrageous story to jusify opposition

 

 

[I am Spartacus]

. Somehow the only person at the meeting that I was worried about was Mr moore who seems a tad out of touch with what the reason for being there was all about and didnt do his homework on the subject whatsoever..... and so for that reason Mr Moore ...... YOUR FIRED .

 

 

Well come May he wont be having my vote this time.

[Coffin Ender]

I'm concerned here that Mr Moores having been shown up somewhat with his lack of knowledge & assumptions, will want to save face in some way & will dig his heels in. I sincerely hope he is not the person I' m believing him to be & acts according without bias & be fair to the club when going back to report to the planning commitee members.

I'm sure underneath he is a deecent (ish) sort of guy but he needs to walk in politics before he can run.He has a chance here to both keep his position in politics locally & to progress within politics in the wider world,if that is as I am thinking, is his ultirmate aim.

 

That's why we need to strike a deal with the council that will allow them to save face. Then we can all move on.

[Cookie]

I'll go with that CE but I thought we had already done that. i.e Losing a couple of floors on the Hotel for one.

The club have gone to extreme lengths to appease the council & rectify any errors made.They have gone to the ends of the earth to apply legally & to make many adjustments to satisfy the council & the residents.They can't have done more.

What they cannot do anymore is to pay to the council another £100,000 for a full planning application when in reality terms & by the regulations put down for planning,one is not required.

Edited February 24, 2011 by Cookie