Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
What advert is that meant to be Lorraine ???? I'm failing to see anything relevant ??
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/Western-Heights.html Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 761- Registered: 10 Jul 2012
- Posts: 115
I have not looked in for a few days - wow a lot has been happening!
I wanted to say a big well done to all those involved in the open weekend - shame about the weather on Saturday but on Sunday I got about 20 of my friends and family together to all come and they thoroughly enjoyed it. Some have lived in Dover for their whole lives and were not aware of what is up there.
Well done on pricing too - such a refreshing change for families to not get the usual £4 for Adults - £3.95 for children!
In answer to a previous question - I have long held that the Heights should be a proper tourist attraction like the castle is. The great thing is that most of it is underground - if it was thoughtfully used and the moats cleared with a walking route established through them you could have 1000's of visitors in the area working their way around with various stops on the way. All this with minimal impact on the landscape and local residents. The biggest problem I could foresee would be traffic. If it was blue badge parking and coaches only with an efficient shuttle service for everyone else it could work. A cable car would be even better - inviting people to ride it and travel around all of Dovers offerings but that, of course, is a whole different story!
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Thanks Mike
A refreshing view Mike and similar to WHPS aims for a decent tourist attraction that saves the heritage and help the regeneration of Dover!! The moats are actually (partly) designed to 'sally' people around without being seen so they can do the same with tourists
Are you a Heights resident Mike?
Been nice knowing you :)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i have lost count of the times i have spoken to life long residents who are unaware of the fortifications and grand shaft.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Very strange Howard how people don't know such an important part of their town's history - similar to the number that don't know about Fort Burgoyne, the Dover Turret, the amazing Roman archaeology, etc, etc !!
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 761- Registered: 10 Jul 2012
- Posts: 115
And to think at one point they were going to fill this with rubble!!!
You are right Paul, what needs to be recognized is that regeneration does not come from housing - Dover has so many assets like this that are not being used and even Dovers' own residents know little or nothing about. Many of Dovers residents have to travel out of Dover to Folkestone, Canterbury, Westwood etc for shopping and entertainment because Dover has so little to offer. More housing just means more people to head off to other towns but if Dover town and surrounding heritage was somewhere people WANT to visit and stay - that is where the regeneration comes from. And once Dover becomes desirable then people may want to move here and new housing does start to become important - but not to the detriment of the REAL assets.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
How do you feel about a Hotel and Memorial Mike?
To me it would be a good use of land that currently is wasted and would provide a permanent presence that will add to the security of the site....
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 761- Registered: 10 Jul 2012
- Posts: 115
Think I would take a similar line to you on the hotel - potentially, with a carefully designed building that complements the landscape and existing buildings, the benefits could outway the detriments, but if its a case of knock down burlington house and build a new big ugly box on this site I dont think anyone who isnt making money out of it would want it. Without a definite design and access plan the jury is out...
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
it would be in the interests of the developer to construct a hotel/conference centre that fitted in and did not damage the landscape and environment.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Certainly Mike and that is something I would fight for - I'm not sure I like the current design, but I am sure it could be made to fit into the location
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 685- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 85
One way of ensuring that the CGI proposal is given approval is for DDC, when sifting through and classed submissions as: against, neutral and for the proposal, is to put some in the wrong 'box', so to speak.
For instance, I think that no one is in any doubt that we object ... but DDC have classed us as 'neutral'.
Lorraine
Guest 761- Registered: 10 Jul 2012
- Posts: 115
Probably best to do it online then because you get to tick your own box!
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I understand all that you have written about preserving and conserving the historical content of the Heights Lorraine, but all you want to do is sentence everything there to a long, slow death. The development would actually preserve an conserve the Heights and the buildings there.
I'm not saying yes to the development, I am saying yes to having open eyes and an open mind; Alexander has stated quite clearly, he is against any development up there - zero, none, zilch.
Roger
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
the debate for and against will carry on for months,if not years.the longer it carrys on the less chance things for the best will slowly dissapear.then nothing will happen,back to square one,quedos.
Guest 685- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 85
Yes, to object on line could be seen as the safe way of ensuring that correct views are accredited by DDC when putting together what Joe Public thinks about a particular proposal.
However, they can treat such submissions as they have, in the past, treated petitions - anyone can sign one way or another without having much thought at to what it is all about.
For instance, the proposed hotel and the NOT YET proposed memorial that Paul keeps banging his drum and came heavy onto Mike about.
Did he say that a similar proposal was slated by the Planning Inspectorate back in 1993 who gave reasons that still hold today - NO.
Did he say that English Heritage, for much the same reasons have rejected in the present submission - NO.
But it would be easy just to put on line, without any more thought, that one was for them.
Whether, our objection presented on line or by traditional means, there is no doubt that the CGI proposal is against the spirit of both LOCAL and NATIONAL planning legislation on many counts.
Most importantly, it is of a significant scale that it should have seen included in DDC's Local Development Framework Core Strategy (LDF) as a 'strategic site'. The Government's National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stresses that planning decisions should be made in accordance with the LDF/Local Plan. As neither site was identified in the LDF for development, if given permission, this will contravene statutory policies.
Sadly, DDC initially chose to negate our arguments by saying they are neutral. Luckily, as far as we are concerned, it was spotted and I have been assured by Planning Officer, Mike Dawson, that our views will be taken into account - not that the councillors who will make the final decision will take any notice.
Still, our views are on public record and, hopefully, in the right category. This will be needed at a later date, when questions are asked as to why DDC gave permission to desecrate a National Ancient Monument and ruin an AONB valley just to provide a ribbon development for people working in London and an unsympathetic hotel/conference centre that Dover didn't need.
They will be needed in the same way as I can provide hard evidence that:
- I successfully won a £20m Community Hospital for Dover;
- Dover Town Council (DTC) were slated by the Audit Commission for lack of transparency with regards to the War Memorial Project;
- I have researched and had published nearly 400 articles on Dover's history plus two books
- I was nominated but publicly DENIED, by DTC, a Civic Award for my work on the Community Hospital and Dover's History.
Lorraine
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
"For instance, the proposed hotel and the NOT YET proposed memorial that Paul keeps banging his drum and came heavy onto Mike about. "
Came heavy onto???? Simply asking a question of someone that was giving sensible reason answers !!!!!!!!!!!
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
Dame Vera Lynn and Lord Boyce have both been "nominated" for awards and neither has been successful.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Roger, I have clearly stated being against any urban development on Western Heights and at Farthingloe, and being in favour of Mike's intelligent ideas for maintaining the Napoleonic sites and opening these to visitors.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ Alexander, you still can't answer that question !!
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Mike has answered that question, he has given very down-to-Earth outlines as to how to promote and preserve Western Heights masonry structures.
It would be good to see Mike proposed as a coordinator to manage the Napoleonic structures.
