Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
The meeting today on Western Heights went very well, as it has previously too.
Among the topics discussed: Dover Forum.
Many members of the group are readers of the Forum, and there was a great outcry after the meeting against the posting of ward councillor Roger Walkden on the issue of children playing along Folkestone Road.
It came as a total grand-slam, that comment, and undoubtedly back-fired.
People have been telling me over the past few days that they pass along Folkestone Road and know that children are playing in the area, right next to the traffic, and were astounded by Roger's comment.
This Forum has many more readers than one might think, and the Farthingloe urbanisation plans are dawning on more and more residents around here with regards to unsustainable traffic and pollution.
Another topic discussed is the general awareness of the false propaganda that has been spread against us, claiming that we are campaigning for the destruction of Western Heights as a Scheduled National Monument.
People are not accepting these claims, and in fact today we discussed ways of making good use of some premises in the area connected to Braddon.
One point made is that DDC have abandoned areas on the Heights which they are own and have left them to become derelict.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#1259, Paul, it just occurred to me that the DR and other heritage buildings on the Heights could become a further IWM site. They already have several sites, London, Duxford, Manchester, HMS Belfast, none of those is as immediately relevant to our military heritage as Dover.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
People need to realise that WHPS don't actually own anything. Re the Drop Redoubt we only borrow it from EH and if we 'upset' people the door will be sealed up, the public will be denied access and we will be back to square one.
Getting people up there and seeing the heritage and learning about it are just as important, if not more than a petition. Getting people up there is leverage toward proving there is a demand for seeing the heritage and spreading knowledge as widely as possible, people currently travel from all over the country just to see the Drop Redoubt
At the moment the plans aren't 'there' and we, like the Dover Society, are not going to oppose or support anything until the full details are available - the heritage deserves to have all options properly considered rather than slamming the door on them.
Who is to say the final outcome isn't going to be beneficial to all - part of the CGI plan is to restore the burnt out sell Victorian Hall - what resident up there doesn't want that? What about the old shed which are an just a regular 'officlal' dump for settees, who doesn't want that improved?
Been nice knowing you :)
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,707
Well put Paul
Peter the IWM idea would seem to be worth exploring along with continuing the dialogue with EH
"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
#1259 - my immediate aim (can't say it is a WHPS aim until I meet with the committee) is to be able to jump on the recent comments by English Heritage in the local press about "working with their partners" and the potential for the Heights to be "as big as Dover Castle" and see what they really want/mean.
We need to leave all options open and investigate them all, no alienate anyone, and work towards the future. I really don't care about the past (so to say). 1993 has been and passed and so would a lot of the people behind what may or may not have been said. I don't care what Dover Corporation, DDC or EH SHOULD have done in the past. We need to be forward thinking and sometimes it needs some vision and compromise......
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 685- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 85
Alexander # 1261. Glad the meeting went well this evening and that the postings on Dover Forum were discussed. I was unable to attend due to family commitments.
I know Braddonites, have expressed concern about the false propaganda that they and those who are against the CGI proposals have to endure.
Also pleased that the children who play along Folkestone Road, was discussed, especially after the attitude expressed by Cllr. Walkden. My blood still curdles at what he had to say.
Concern over people entering false submissions using the DDC electronic form has also been expressed and I have brought that up with DDC Planning.
As you will see above, there has been talk on the Forum about the way forward for Western Heights. At the meeting, was the idea further progressed about setting up a group specifically with that in mind?
Lorraine
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Lorraine, some very good proposals were made at the meeting in connection to Braddon. The group has plans to proceed as a community group and make their proposals on the future of the Braddon Community, and although you could not be present, the support you have given is greatly appreciated.
I'm not going to make public any confidential information, as this is for the Western Heights group to do as a community, but I will email you and reveal some points that were put forward and discussed.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
There was also mention of a Radio Kent broadcast due to go over air Tuesday morning on the issue.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Nice to be transparent to the public eh Alexander ?? Bit like one of Vic's "I have nothing to say" postings !!
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Paul, another point discussed was something I brought up somewhere at the start of this topic, possibly on this thread or a related thread, and at the time it was addressed to you, as I hoped to make you aware of something you may have overlooked from the start.
Anyway, it was brought up today at the meeting by other members, and you were also mentioned. It is believed that any promise made by developers to repair/upgrade elements of the Heights would result in broken promises, and possibly law-suits, with lawyers getting the money at the end, and not Western Heights.
Covenants are not binding under English Law.
I may go one day and search for my original piece, and indicate it's location, if it's on this thread.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
Think you will find that covenants regarding property, its usage and land are binding under English Law a deed of covenant is certainly binding. Restrictive covenants which restrain trade are not binding.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Alexander your original comment on children playing along the Folkstone Road is what I repudiated; they do not play "in" the road.
"Not good for the many children playing all day along Folkestone Road".
You are now saying they play around it and close to it and yes I would agree with that, in fact that is what I did say.
I am trying to get the authorities to get those kids into school.
You have gone to a meeting and twisted what I said, for the benefit of your own argument - there are a number of instances on this thread where you have done this.
Roger
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Ah, but you will find, for instance, that Shepherd Neame sold the Hare & Hounds at Maxton subject to a binding covenant prohibiting its future use as a public house. Such a covenant can only be overturned by the High Court.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#1270 - I have answered your point before which is why guarantees would be needed to build into any agreements and funding up front before the first sod is turned.,,
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 685- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 85
Covenants are interesting things (#1271 & #1273) and as I am of the understanding should be dealt with in the High Court. However, sometime ago there was, what appeared to me, a breach of a covenant over the erection of a building on a designated AONB protected site.
I brought this and other aspects of the development with DDC, and the matter was 'investigated.' The 'independent investigator' showed me some photographs that could have been taken else where in Dover, that 'proved' that the covenant etc. no longer had value and as for the AONB status, he made it clear that this had no value in law.
I complained and received a three-page letter, from DDC, threatening me with legal action! I will add that at the time, I was seriously ill and by the time I was well enough to pursue the matter, it was too late.
Returning to Alexander's and my postings about the possibility of setting up a group, led by the folks who live at Braddon and supported by others who live in Dover- all of whom want to see Western Heights taken off the AT Risk Register and prepared to put our heads above the parapet, (#1266, #1267)'.
It looks as if the idea is gaining momentum!!!
Lorraine
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,894
The bungalow we bought up in Suffolk had an old deed of covenant regarding trading on it which was removed for us by our solicitor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Whilst we are on unsubstantiated speculation, I thought it best be know that the ultimate plans are to turn the Drop Redoubt into a lap dancing club, CGI are going to use the Western Heights tunnels as an secret underground factory of middle-eastern workers and Farthingloe will become the largest gypsy camp in the world.....
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#1275 - good luck with the new group, shame no-one has officially approached the Western Heights Preservation Society that has put 12+ years into raising the profile of the Western Heights and is already working with various bodies to try and working towards the long term preservation of the heritage.
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 685- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 85
Paul #1278
We have made it clear that we are happy to work with the Preservation Society. Indeed, I first approached them when they were first set up - and was told that my skills were not wanted. Lately, Lara gave an excellent overview of the way forward on this Forum - and it was ignored.
The Preservation Society have undertaken 12 years of hard work and before that I, and others, also undertook a lot of very hard work, including the removal of disused cars from the Grand Shaft and having the said building renovated.
This, as the Forum spokesman for the WHPS, you have dismissed and further, thrown your weight behind CGI. Yet we told you repeatedly, that their promises were primarily 'ifs' and 'maybes'.
I have suggested that we put pressure on EH to pull their finger out - saying that they need all their resources to sort out the Stonehenge bottleneck is not a valid excuse. In addition, DDC - they may plead poverty but if something comes up that they see as a good idea they will quickly find the money to pay expensive consultants to produce a report that backs their views.
Albeit, you reject this, saying that you mustn't effectively, bite the hand that feeds you.
They don't feed you, the WHPS are volunteers who in their own time do a damn good job, over which EH and DDC are using you.
From my perspective, you want to keep that status quo and let the WH slide further down the 'AT Risk' register, then it is time that others take over the job of chasing those whose ultimate responsibility WH is.
Lorraine
The level of misinformation. Innuendo and outright untruths being leveled at Paul is unacceptable IMHO. It does nothing but diminish the posters who submit it.
