Guest 685- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 85
It is sad if there really is only a small number against the China Gateway proposal - especially as once ANY development is allowed within the conservation area on Western Heights it will set a precedent that will be very difficult to stop.
This is a hard fact and our councillors know this. However, as far as they are concerned, the development, if utilized will provide council tax ... that like most of our council tax will be disproportionately distributed AGAINST Dover through out the district.
So all in all, the development will lead to the loss of what should be a national heritage site but providing money to buy what ... short-
term unsustainable sweeteners.
Lorraine
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
lorraine raises the point about council tax but at present only about 11% of the bills we pay goes to d.d.c.
i am ready to be corrected but i believe that most of their income emanates from central government in the form of grants.
one of these is for growth point status which i believe any development would come under.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
So Lorraine - what have you done for the last 20 years to help the Western Heights? What would you do to help ensure the heritage is still there in another 200 years? Sheduled monument status may actually be helping the deterioration by making restoration more difficult and costly
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Thanks Alexander for a straight answer (finally) to a straight question - you want to protect the heritage by letting it fall down and get overwhelmed with trees
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 685- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 85
Paul, what have I done for the last twenty years to help Western Heights?
If I was list - and I am not in the game of self-congratulations, then it would take up a whole page on the web site. Suffice to say that one can do a lot for ones town without continually harking on about it.
The continual point that I do keep on making is that the Western Heights is, at the moment, protected, once that protection is violated, then we will lose it ... much the same as we lost the £20m Community Hospital - which, incidentally I won through the legal system. Are we now going to lose Western Heights in order for what?
Yesterday was the London Marathon; thousands of caring souls ran to raise money for various charities. What has grabbed the headlines - a woman has died after taking part. Next, there will be calls to ban the Marathon, water it down whatever.
Even if the 'treasured' parts of Western Heights are 'supposedly' saved, such as the Drop Redoubt, once the first fatal accident happens there, there will be calls to fill it in - possibly with the towns rubbish as was envisaged years ago. This will be 'sold' as positive way out of an expensive 'millstone' around taxpayers' necks.
Wake Up
Lorraine
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Lorraine, the problem as I see it is that the heritage assets on the Heights need positive action to preserve them. 200-year old walls and buildings need hugely expensive skilled maintenance in order to keep them from decaying and collapsing. The money is not there to arrest the decline; while WHPS does sterling work on certain of the sites, there is not enough money or manpower to stop much of the area becoming a hard hat zone.
The only way is as Paul describes. Personally I find much of the Heights depressing as it has been allowed to become derelict. Dereliction is not conservation, it is neglect on an industrial scale through the heritage policy of successive governments.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
So your overall view is to actually discourage people going up there in case someone dies ??!!!! And I thought some of Alexander's arguments were dodgy !!
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
One last posting as I think everything I need to say at this stage has been said.
Any above views stated above are my own personal views and not related to the Western Heights Preservation Society.
Similar to the Dover Society, WHPS has had several meetings with the developer to give some views to their initial idea, but until final plans are in place they are not in a position to oppose or support any plans, but in principle may be prepared to accept some elements of development if it is in keeping with the area and can bring long term benefits to the heritage.
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
227, no Paul you misunderstand me. I am merely expressing pessimism as to what will eventually happen to the heights if we don't harness the power of carefully selected commercial developments to provide pump-priming finance for some serious conservation work. Having said that I would not wish the Heights to get the same sort of treatment as the Cutty Sark has recently received. According to one journalist, it looks as if it has crash landed on a large greenhouse.
Actually I think as many people as possible should be encouraged to go up there and wander around. The sheer scale of what needs to be done might then sink in.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Sorry Peter my comment was relating to #225 not your posting, I agree totally with #226
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 685- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 85
I am sorry Paul that you found it necessary to try to take personal pot shots at me before pulling your plug on the Western Heights discussion.
As the discussion is now over, I will keep what I have to say short. A number of stringent planning regulations for good reasons cover the Western Heights.
Sadly, the money that should have been ploughed into turning the Heights into a major tourist attraction was used elsewhere.
This, in my opinion, does not mean that Dover should throw in the towel and accept a development over which our decedents will NOT thank us.
Lorraine
PS Up until being diagnosed with a vicious cancer, I was actively involved in Western Heights as a warden. During my recovery, I offered, more than once, to use to my skills as a local historian to help with publicising the Heights but apparently, there is no shortage of volunteers with my skills
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,888
Peter
Very well put on both your posts.
I feel it is a great shame this historical site has been allowed to decay so badly over the years, those who were responsible in the past should hang their heads in shame.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 722- Registered: 23 Aug 2011
- Posts: 97
I think the developement idea is the only way to go. No money will ever be available for saving this great fortress from public funds. There are always other things to spend it on in Dover. It will only fall into further decay if left. I find it appalling even to talk about filling it in !!!
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Discussions are certainly not over so I would like to hear MORE from other people, but I have just said all I need at this time until there are more details are published by the developers to be able comment on. Everyone else is welcome to comment
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 730- Registered: 5 Nov 2011
- Posts: 221
I've answered yes on the other thread as I would consider development, but I shall qualify it here, as this is an area of Dover that I'm not very familiar with. Last time I went up there was years ago for a very interesting tour round the Drop Redoubt and I wonder how many other Dover residents go up there or are aware of the development plans. I'm going to take a walk up there one day soon and see what all the fuss is about.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
In my opinion - which can be made substantial or not based on scientific facts - the moat walls are not in danger of collapsing, as they are of chalk, the reason being, the moats were cut into the chalk ground.
The brick work covering the chalk might - and indeed will - crumble in some areas, but this does not mean the chalk itself is falling away. Where the bricks come down (and I mean in those specific locations of the walls where this happens) it would be better to remove them altogether and leave the bare chalk. To keep coming back and pointing the brick work is far too expensive, we cannot afford it.
Should it so happen that even a section of chalk wall of the moats might be in risk of giving way, then one would have to consider partially filling that section of moat with with a layer of earth, but I am not too sure if there is any evidence that the actual chalk is crumbling away.
The Western Heights defences are mainly underground, so they are unlikely to "collapse".
But to go on repairing the whole former military complex is far too expensive, unjustified, and would not bring in any financial return from tourism.
Like it or not, by far the vast majority of people visiting Dover are attracted by the Castle, not the Napoleonic defences.
With hundreds of empty houses in Dover for sale or for rent, and rampant unemployment, how can we devise a credible plan to build hundreds more houses on Western Heights in order to keep going on repairing an underground and - to many - somewhat boring and out-of-date defence system, which every 10 years would need general repairs at continual massive expense?
Many of our local young people want work and a salary, we need factories and farms in the district of Dover, and fair employment chances, not hundreds and thousands of new houses for settlers to come over here and settle.
DDC has conjectured a plan to bring in money to local shops through mass settlement, and has abandoned or turned down any alternative planning to help the local people in general.
Paul Scotchie has clearly gone along with this plan, to build up the green areas of Dover with more housing so as to attract people into Dover's shops.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
As haven't gone along with any plan - I am happy enough to conclude my own views from what ideas are being laid out.
Until final plans are in place I won't know my real position - I may end up fighting or opposing any of the bodies be it ddc eh developers etc!!
Been nice knowing you :)
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Some interesting views, it's a shame some posters(some who have said they have no interrest in posting anymore because of the back biting etc) allow themselves to enter into personal jibes at other posters.
there are clearly divisions on the issue, and it's healthy the forum discusses the pro's and con's.
I listen to voices of dissent, and maybe there is something in this argument of building on green land.
and do we need another large hotel?
do we need more houses built on green land?
Of course though to stand still is also not an option, so finance needs to be found from somewhere, to stop the area going into further decay.
i'm sounding a bit like a lib dem lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
wash your mouth out brian lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
