Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
"Peeing on your bonfire" - nothing offensive meant with that, just trying to give a bit of a reality check.
If anyone thinks what WHPS has done in the last 12 years has been a walk in the park, and a new group can swan in, just jump up and down, and expect DDC/EH to roll over and throw money at them, is clearly deluded !!
If people really think it is that easy then they should come along on 8th August and let us know what we are doing wrong.....
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 764- Registered: 27 Jul 2012
- Posts: 82
To be fair, any sort of maintenance work on the Heights if done properly is a MASSIVE undertaking and the WHPS and WCCP each do a fantastic job.
Anyone with even a slight interest should come to the meeting as I'm sure there'll be a projector showing lots of before and after pictures !
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
There will be plenty of pictures of before's and after's and our amazing volunteers (WCCP and WHPS), without whom we would be still be doing tiny open weekend with a small display and a couple of walks.
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Paul, there hasn't been a discussion on this thread indicating anything WHPS has done wrong, but rather how to save the Heights.
If you believe WHPS have been dedicating themselves to preserve Western Heights but feel abandoned by English Heritage, whose work is dedicated to preserving and presenting England's Heritage, do you not see a contradiction?
English Heritage cannot be drawn into political discussions on how to attract massive sums of money into local shops by attracting families from London to live in rural designated areas such a Scheduled National Monument.
They cannot be drawn into the ambitions of some local DDC councillors who openly profess this aim and intention.
If you were to say to E.H. you had enough and might pack up, what do you imagine they would reply?
Would they not reply that they will continue to work with people who are willing to preserve the Heights?
There are plenty of people in Dover who wish to save the Heights, including Farthingloe, from urban settlements and speculation, and who are willing to to realise that there is work that needs doing on the Scheduled Ancient Monument that needs the guidance of expert workers with paid workers under their direction.
But perhaps, by giving the impression of being possibly in favour of the CGI proposals, such as Jeff is, even AFTER English Heritage have made public their representation to DDC Planning, in which they oppose the planning application, WHPS might be seen as challenging English Heritage.
They might consider some statements released by prominent WHPS members as being politically aligned to councillors following an agenda of migration to rural areas.
Surely English Heritage are aware of the DDC core strategy that aims to build 9,500 houses in the Dover area, mainly on farm and woodland, over the coming 25 years.
Certainly English Heritage cannot agree that Western Heights, a nature reserve partly owned by English Heritage, should be added to this core strategy, which, as Protect Kent have pointed out, is not even part of that core strategy.
Have you actually read the DDC core strategy, Paul?
Western Heights and Farthingloe are not mentioned in it, they have been added later in the DDC corporate plan 2012-2016, after some DDC members have had extensive talks with China Gateway International (also under their previous name of China Gateway), and all this indicates to a makeshift planning policy that DDC Planning are building up as they go along.
Are you defying English Heritage, Paul?
Guest 764- Registered: 27 Jul 2012
- Posts: 82
I think the point is that EH are in the 'Blanket No' camp until there are incredibly specific, detailed, micro-plans of what would actually be built. The current development proposal does not include this detail.
This is certainly my understanding.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#1544 - "Are you defying English Heritage, Paul? "
Not really sure your disrespect of WHPS and their work alongside EH for the last 12 years deserves an answers. WHPS certainly isn't going to have "enough and might pack up" despite what you think. However EH certainly are not the 'gods' you make them out to be, and if what they say or do is considered wrong, then they should be challenged.
How about getting out from behind your keyboard, coming to our meeting next week, and telling our volunteers including the amazing girls who did the Grand Shaft climb earlier in the year, that they don't care and show move aside to listen to your sadly blinkered views ???????
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
#1544 "They might consider some statements released by prominent WHPS members as being politically aligned to councillors following an agenda of migration to rural areas."
Specific examples please.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Sadly he won't have an examples Phil as there are no statements from WHPS on this forum at all. My views, your views, Jeff's views are all PERSONAL OPINIONS, and these 'statements' are just in his head and no-one else can see them....
And if Alexander does his homework he will find that although Jeff was a founder member he hasn't had a committee member for several years (and if I check probably hasn't paid his subs as a member
)
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#1545 "I think the point is that EH are in the 'Blanket No' camp until there are incredibly specific, detailed, micro-plans of what would actually be built. The current development proposal does not include this detail."
That is how EH roll - I wouldn't expect them to do anything other than oppose the plans as they stand and until there is microscopic details you don't know which side of the fence they will fall.
This is how things like turning Oxford Prison into a hotel, or Golden Hill Fort on the Isles of Wight into apartments, or many over conversion/restorations are allowed. EH just laugh at anything less than extremely detailed professional produced plans with minute details!
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 761- Registered: 10 Jul 2012
- Posts: 115
So Paul - if I want to find out what WHPS's view is on something, who CAN I ask? Is it Mandy who was on Radio Kent?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Paul, perhaps Jeff hasn't bothered paying his contribution as a member of WHPS, but I have paid my full contribution as a member of English Heritage, and for my mum as well.
Is Jeff's statement: "I think the point is that EH are in the 'Blanket No' camp until there are incredibly specific, detailed, micro-plans of what would actually be built" an attempt on the part of WHPS to speak on behalf of English Heritage?
Are WHPS members now saying that English Heritage may in fact be in favour of building houses on the Scheduled Ancient Monument?
As Mike asks, so too do I, what IS the WHPS view, do they have any official view?
Until now I see their prominent spokespersons challenging English Heritage and even purporting to be speaking for them!
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Alex #1544,
Long term core strategies are subject to review, change, modification on a fairly regular basis and a corporate plan is a perfectly acceptable tool to use to make such a modification. In Port Masterplanning I would expect to conduct a significant review every 5 to 7 years with such significant reviews involving a rework/rewrite of major portions of a 30 year masterplan. Whether such a rewrite/rework was introduced directly into the plan, which would then become the Masterplan v2.0, or was implemented by way of a new 5 year corporate plan would not make a material difference. I should imagine that the relationship between core strategy and corporate plan is similar in local government.
In the simple then, DDC core strategy is erm well a long term strategy, a guiding document, subject to change/modification because it is so long term that it cannot take account of changes in physical and economic circumstance which occur between the date of publication and present date. A corporate plan is erm well a medium term plan developed for implementation as a modification to the strategy that takes account of more recent physical/economic changes.
If EH had done their job properly and if they had kept to the commitments that they made with regard to the heights, then CGI proposals would not have gained any traction whatsoever.
EH deserve to be defied and held to account for what they have not done over the last 20 years up on the heights. As a member of EH yourself Alex you have a level of responsibility to keep them to their word, it is past time that the membership of EH held their organisation to account and agitated for EH to live up to its obligations instead of condeming the heights to death by a thousand cuts.
There is no contradiction between WHPS' dedication to preserving the heights and their feeling of abandonment by EH. EH have left the heights largely abandoned and allowed them to decay with ONLY WHPS doing anything significant to arrest the decline. I think I'd feel abandoned by the landlord as well.
Instead of having a go at Paul or the WHPS, who do not deserve it, have a go at the organisations which have failed the heights for 20 years. Demand that they present costed plans and a timetable for restoring all the damage that they have allowed to happen and commit to open the Drop Redoubt as a permanent visitor attraction and re-open all of the moats to the public within 24 months.
At least the CGI plans offer something. EH and the CPRE offer nothing but decay and ruin for the area and EH, of whom much is made as heroes of the piece riding to the rescue, are the body directly responsible for the decay and the fact that this SAM is on the 'at risk' register.
In my book, EH are the villains of this piece, not CGI and certainly not the WHPS.
Well said Neil ,
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Well said Neil.
Alexander - if you READ the planning application 12/00440 on the DDC Planning Website you will see a comment on there from WHPS saying OBJECTS !!!!!!!!!!!! Come along to the meeting next week and here the reasoning..... likewise Mike, please come along.
Jeff is only saying PERSONALLY that he thinks that is the way EH works and please stop trying out make out things to be official statements from anyone!!!
How about a straight honest answer from you Alexander, though you will probably avoid it:
Are you in this for your 15 minutes of fame and picture in the paper, and a bit of anti-establishment shouting alongside Lorraine
OR
Are you in it for the long term, put hours of your free time into it every week, get your hands dirty helping out and still be there in another 10/20 years trying to do the right thing ??
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 764- Registered: 27 Jul 2012
- Posts: 82
Thanks Neil, some excellent clarification.
#1551: "Is Jeff's statement.../... an attempt on the part of WHPS to speak on behalf of English Heritage?"
Hi Alexander. What I have written here and will continue to write here is my own personal opinion - albeit with a leg up, so to speak from being a Founder member of WHPS and having had contact w/ EH about the Heights and other historical based interests - and from being a WCCP past warden and volunteer.
As Paul says my sub isn't paid up (oops!), so I have no voice within the Society. But what I do have, and that which we all have here is a personal voice to say how we think the Heights issue should go forward. And that's what I write.
In short - a massive jump to a conclusion. No offense taken, matey but needed clearing up.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
excellently worded jeff, incidentally if you are skint i can put you in touch with blue barry.
not only will your subs be paid but there will be enough left over for a decent pension.
for a fee of course.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
That's ok Howard - I will deduct it from his 'new book' royalties pocket money
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 764- Registered: 27 Jul 2012
- Posts: 82
Thanks Howard
Paul-aka-Whatever... 'book royalties".... new can of worms for YKW !
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Jeff, you have spoken as if on behalf of English Heritage, and yet they have clearly stated the opposite of what you attribute to them, in no uncertain terms, with regards to Western Heights.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,658
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------