Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Alexander - you obviously don't understand economics of a thriving tourist destination, nor the management of chalk grassland !!!
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
We're in the news papers now!
Dover Mercury have printed a big article with photo of us campaigning to save Western Heights and Farthingloe.
Having just finished work, apart from a break between 5 and 6 pm, I read a message from Lorraine with the happy tidings, so tomorrow it will be off to the news agents to get a copy of the D, Mercury.
The campaign must go on, we have to save Dover's Green Land for us and our future generations.
Port and Town of Dover, no thank you to suburb of London
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Excellant postings from Scotchie and Chris, which I absolutely agree with.
Those horses will still be grazing up there and all the actual scheduled ancient monuments will be preserved and refurbished.
We know EH say many things they don't follow-through with and funding the Western Heights is one of them - if they won't support this development, they won't support funding either, so therefore whatever pressure is applied to them, they just won't listen and so they too are condemning the Heights to a slow death.
I find their blindness astounding; we're not talking about destroying, we're talking about preserving and enhancing.
Roger
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
You are not campaigning to save the Western Heights Alexander, you are campaigning to destroy them - slowly I know, but destroy them you will, if you have your way.
Roger
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
How about some answers to #1126 ?
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 685- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 85
Cllr Roger Walkden my posting #1121 recommended the way forward was working together to restore our National Ancient Monument by getting EH to pull their fingers out - and for two brief moments, I thought wow! This was going to happen.
Sadly we are told by you (# 1144) that those who are campaigning against the CGI proposal - amended, so the DXpress says, to sell the hotel planning permission on - are campaigning to destroy them (Western Heights and the Farthingloe Valley).
How you came to that conclusion, is beyond my ken... same logic I suppose that applied to the £20million Community Hospital that I secured but local politicians ensured that we did not get.
Cllr. Walkden - Roger ... I trust that DDC does not take that attitude with regards to our, CPRE and EH submitted objections?
Further, may I suggest that you read carefully the posting made by Lara, Alexander and I and you will find that what we say is not what you say.
I particularly recommend Lara's posting of 11 July 2012 - #1109.
In my opinion an excellent over view of a possible marketing strategy of the Heights. OK, like me Lara is a local yokel and not a sycophant, therefore beneath DDC and DTC's contempt - BUT...
Finally, regarding the proposed hotel and conference centre, Planning Inspector Stoddart in 1993, in rejecting a proposed housing and hotel development on Western Heights, said:
I am surprised by the allocation of the site of the former Grand Shaft Barracks for housing/possible hotel use. I do not see how such a plan, with its related access and servicing, could possibly suitable within the Ancient Monument.
Lorraine
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Memorial/Major Tourist attraction as per #1126 ??
Been nice knowing you :)
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,707
It strikes me reading this thread that both "sides" want to preserve and restore the fortifications on the heights, but have radically different views about how to go about raising the finance to achieve this.
To date EH appear to have singularly failed to deliver on their promises with regard to the heights and nothing in their behaviour and actions says to me that they will improve in the future.
The CGI proposals are just that, proposals, and there is no guarantee of long term funding being made available, however the section 106 monies associated with any successful application can be used on the WH exclusively whilst the 2 parts of the application are joined. If they are separated then this is not possible.
I have like a number of you ploughed through the CGI planning documents and most certainly have reservations about the proposals for the Heights.
Notwithstanding this we all need to start working together to find a positive long term solution that:
a) secures a sound long term funding source for the preservation and restoration of the heights
b) provides a way to sustainably deliver new housing in Dover that creates room for the housing needs of the current and future generations of local children and capacity for incomers
c) designates areas for long term preservation as green spaces
d) designates areas to be zoned for industrial and commercial use coupled with a clear strategy and plan to attract new business to the District
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Roger, your post 1144 is worrying.
On this the Forum I have many times supported the idea of maintaining the Scheduled National Monument constructions, and the green beauty of the Heights, as well as preserving the area from unacceptable levels of traffic that would ensue from the building of urban structures.
And this campaign is as much for Farthingloe as for Western Heights
By stating that I am campaigning to destroy the Western Heights, you are implying that anyone who does not accept the building of houses and other urban infrastructure (hotel/conference centre) in these two areas, is in favour of destroying Western Heights.
And this no matter how much they may have expressed support for the idea of maintaining these two areas.
This is unfair.
SWWood- Location: Dover
- Registered: 30 May 2012
- Posts: 261
Alexander,
Post #207: "I do not think we should be spending money on repairing old walls of moats, but should rather remove the bricks altogether from areas where they are crumbling down, and leave the bear chalk."
Post #236: "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."
These do not seem to be the words of someone supporting "the idea of maintaining the Scheduled National Monument constructions".
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Well Stuart, good to see you are following the thread in its entirety.
There is no short-coming in my postings you quoted, they seem reasonable opinions, but you will no doubt agree - having followed the whole thread - there are plenty of other posts I made that present feasible ideas on actually repairing/maintaining the Napoleonic defences,
This particular phrase:
"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" might actually be a fact, depending on what the costs would be to go on periodically repairing the WHOLE former military complex.
Tourism may not bring back the invested money.
But this is why I asked on this thread on several occasions for an estimate on what these costs of repair would be.
Until the public know this, it is hard to expect people to simply agree to maintaining the WHOLE complex of former defences.
This is why it's not possible to merely campaign for the maintenance of W.H masonry structures without giving people a clue - and preferably an estimate done by professional experts - on how much this would cost us.
Do CGI propose to finance the repairs and maintenance of ALL the W.H. former defences? And if so, over which period of time?
To date, I have never received a reply to these questions.
Ray did mention a figure of £20 million, but it was only a mention, nothing precise.
It is about time that DDC councillors who are in favour of W.H. masonry maintenance, gave the Public a responsible reply to this obvious question.
I am surprised that to date, no-one has.
What does Councillor Roger Walkden think of this?
Has Roger any estimate to go by?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Roger, are you suggesting that the CGI proposals would suffice to maintain Western Heights - all of the Scheduled National Monument?
And over which period of time?
It seems you have been implying this, so perhaps a full answer would be quite appreciated.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Alexander - sadly your attempts to wind me up with your purposely selective memory is only serving to make youself look stupid....... Everyone else can see and remember my posts so why can't you ??
I have given you costs of past works, given you an estimate for the Redoubt Redoubt, told what could be done with smaller amounts, how it would be an ongoing self funding process, how starting in one area would snowball to others, that CGI wouldn't do the work and it would need to be fully assessed to get a proper idea that is a costly exercise that we don't have.....
This is why I have told you that although I could agree in principle with some of the proposals, until CGI can produce guarantees and detailed proposals and/or details of £££ that would be available I cannot support it fully.....
Really you can spend unlimited money up there as the Heights is a whole complex of 250+ acres of heritage/landscape, so it is really a matter of starting with the £££ available and work backwards to what can be done with that sum and how it can produce a tourist attraction that will fund itself into the future.
Been nice knowing you :)
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,707
Thanks Paul - couldnt be more clear
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Unfortunately CGI cannot produce the full details until English Heritage specify what they 'would want' so that it could be costed, but EH aren't that forthcoming with information and guidance, although they are meant to be guardians of our heritage and help people to look after it.....
Been nice knowing you :)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Bit confused about the reluctance to answer my question:
"- OR if 'someone' came along and wanted to restore the Heights to their former glory, clear the trees, make the moats accessible, turn them into a visitor attraction with hundreds of thousands of visitors, with road improvements and associated infrastructure"
If someone wants to do something that will ONLY benefit the heritage and give it the full respect it deserves, will there be an 'anti-tourist-attraction' petition ???????
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
From:
www.homesandproperty.co.uk August 2010
"More than 6,000 new homes are in the planning pipeline. The two key sites are the 25-acre Western Heights, an elevated strip of land with some of Britain's most impressive coastal fortifications, and the 275-acre Farthingloe Village, a new settlement that will include a country park."
"Smart apartments with spectacular sea views are coming soon."
(White Cliffs of Dover up for sale!!!! ndr)
"Our target market is people who currently live and work in London," says Kevin Dougall of developer Priory Land. "Dover Priory train station is a 10-minute walk and the views across the Channel are breathtaking."
"The first phase of 400 new homes is due next year. Prices will start from £225,000 for a two-bedroom apartment and £325,000 for a four-bedroom house. Farthingloe Village sits at the end of a heritage trail being created by the local council. The housing will be grouped around a village green and neighbourhood shops. Prices will range from £175,000 to £400,000. For more information, call xxxxxxxx"
Note the phrase:
"Our target market is people who currently live and work in London,", and compare the prices of houses as envisaged in 2010.
Looks like a category, to me (personally)
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
More up to date news from Alexander..... Priory Land are nothing to do with the current proposals as we have already discussed !!
How about an answer to my question ??????
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
From:
Dover District Council
Local Development Framework Core Strategy
Preferred Option Consultation
"Ambitious for the Future, Sensitive to the Past "
"Economically, Dover District does not share the general prosperity of the rest of the
south east region. Nevertheless, the district has bright economic prospects over the
next few years, which could lead to around 4,000 new jobs."
"A major part of the recommended proposal is for 10,000 additional homes to be
provided on greenfield sites. Even with the new homes there would still be too few
people in the district of working age to fill all the new jobs."
"Employment
Participants believe that any future expansion of the Pfizer plant is more likely to
benefit Thanet residents than those living in Dover District."
"Demographics
Given current high levels of employment and relatively low unemployment levels in Dover and Kent, participants questioned the house building programme. There was some discussion and confusion surrounding the figures presented and some concern that incomers moving to the best houses would also have the pick of the best jobs, resulting in yet more difficulties for existing residents in securing employment."
The core strategy is based on wrong predictions.
Pfizer is not expanding, but closing, and the promised 4,00 new jobs seem to a mirage gone wrong!
