Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
I find it perverse that despite not one poster coming out in favour of the CGI bid, some posters seem to have fallen into the trap of "if you are not on my side unequivocally then you must be against me and therefore in favour of the proposal". This does both them and their argument a disservice.
"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
"This, as the Forum spokesman for the WHPS, you have dismissed and further, thrown your weight behind CGI."
That is a bizarre comment as I have said (PERSONALLY as I am not speaking as WHPS) for a long time that I cannot support the plans of CGI for the Heights as there are huge gaps with regards guarantees for the safeguarding of the heritage. And until more details are provided I cannot oppose or support anything
Also my only interest here is the long term preservation of the Heritage and not using it as a platform to blow my own trumpet........
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
EH and DDC are the primary stakeholders here. It is far more progressive to attempt to enter into a constructive dialogue with these bodies and negotiate and discuss a future direction than railing off angry accusatory letters and petitions. All this will do is close doors that need to remain open if there is to be any future for the Heights. This does not mean one has to accept carte-blanche whatever proposals are fed down, but approaches and discussions have to be made in a sensible, mature and reasonable manner.
At no point has Paul stated he is pro-CGI, that has been made clear again and again. There are simply not enough guarantees from CGI about securing investment in the heritage to responsibly assume that stance from a heritage angle. Recognising latent potential in their proposals for heritage preservation does not necessarily make for a pro-stance; but not being in the anti-category does not consequently make for a pro-position. The whole issue is not black and white.
Guest 685- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 85
Phil (#1283)
With the state of Western Heights - A NATIONAL Ancient Monument - is in, there is no time to quibble and squabble and say lets negotiate with the stakeholders.
The Stake Holders have let us down with regards to Western Heights. Not only this time but almost continually since pressure eased on them back in the late 1990s.
Therefore, the pressure should be put on them again and now is the best time to start.
Lorraine
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,888
Well said Sarah
I have lost count of the number of times Paul has said his postings are HIS view and NOT that of WHPS but the objectors to any possible change prefer to ignore that fact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Some history/future (with a small WHPS hat on):
The Western Heights Preservation Society was founded in 2000 with the aims of promoting and preserving the heritage of the Western Heights and at that time had no base and was a small group carrying occasional walks and mostly little picks and weedcutting etc
During that time it has secured access to and been able open regularly the Drop Redoubt from EH and Grand Shaft from DDC, and proved to be one of the larger events in the Dover calendar drawing thousands of people from all over the country. A huge achievement more recently has been to do "Schedule Monument Consent" works which is no mean feat on a properly WHPS have no ownership of.
More recently WHPS have been approached by EH to look at a more longer term management agreement which would give more autonomy to what they can do and also act as leverage to open up funding opportunities.
All rather positive steps in the right direction and certainly not bridges to burn, as it has taken a long time to be able to be talked to 'on a level' rather than just a keen group of amateurs in it for short term.
Negotiation rather than alienation......
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
WHPS do a great job too Paul and deserve a lot more respect and thanks than some seem to willing to provide who claim, from a seated position, to want the same objective.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Roger, indeed no!
I did not bring the topic up at the meeting about children playing along Folkestone Road.
On leaving the meeting, a crowd of people surrounded me, who had also just come out of the venue, and bitterly complained about your post on the Forum in regards to that topic.
Also over the past days, I have been addressed on what you wrote about Folkestone Road and the children (not) playing there, and told that it was incredible you made such a statement. I haven't in any circumstance brought the issue up at any meeting or to any individual, but others have come forward and spoken to me about it.
In fact, yesterday, your comment on the Forum was identified as being the policy of DDC (not my words and not of my instigation).
People are reading the Forum, and as I gathered, the word has spread about your statement, as people simply will not accept it.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
sounds to me like people are looking in and not fully reading all that is said then alex.
the end result is a game of chinese whispers, rogers comments were just in passing not a definitive statement about the behaviour of children in the folkestone road.
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
Can I kindly request that all discussions about children playing in Folkestone Road be placed in their own thread. They have no place here and are a distraction from the main topic.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
The view of the Western Heights group based at Braddon is that the area has been proposed for urban development and inundation through traffic. This is considered detrimental.
This group is looking at consolidating the community aspect of the area as residents, and doing this in conjunction with a visitors centre for Western Heights, therefore with reciprocal interests to enhance the community, and to preserve the area for visitors.
The group is intent on establishing contact with DDC for a creative future for the area, but are opposed to speculative solutions.
It was made known that CGI purchased the land they own on W.H. for £250,000, and got about half of this sum back through the sale of a bungalow.
If CGI are intent on making massive financial gains, it is NOT our duty to support them in doing so, as the interests of the local residents, the wider residents of Dover, and the visitors to the Heights, are paramount in preserving Western Heights.
Some very good proposals were brought up yesterday how to go about this.
Personally I am sure that English Heritage will be pleased to work and cooperate with the local community living on the Heights, as their views, and those of others who live in Dover (I live at the base of Western Heights) are in accordance with our views on preserving this area of our common Heritage.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Phil, that topic about Folekstone Road is in relation to Farthingloe and the CGI plans, and whether you like it or not, Farthingloe is not separate from the topic.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
wow;
been away and the topic has taken off, now let me update a few of my views as some have been misquoting me.
1; I did agree that i have seen children playing in and around on the folkestone
= road, but did add that this will distract from the original post if not careful
i also added it was not a regular event but i have seen it
2; certainly lorraine i will contact english heritage and i do hope they will join with
paul scotchie and any interested groups in forming proposals for the future
3; i have not lorraine, seen at any point scotchie's postings on support for any
part of the proposals, and you do yourself an injustice in suggesting this
4; the hospital fiasco i have mentioned before(not related to this thread)was not
as suggested, won by anyone, in fact many groups couldnt agree leaving
the trust an easy way out.
5; its great to see town and pier wards braddon setting up a community group
this will help the area
6; alexander; its rather sad that as a new group you propose already not to
spread the word and go into secret!!
7; once the proposals comre before DDC people can oppose/support any
developement suggested
just a few thoughts,,,,,,,
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 685- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 85
Paul #1286
The National Ancient Monument of Western Heights is on the At Risk register.
There is a move to build houses and an out of keeping hotel on this designated Ancient Monument.
There is the Arthurian Farthingloe Valley - with AONB designation that a potential ribbon development is likely to take place.
You feel strongly that negotiation rather than alienation continues to be the way forward. This, of course, begs the response that perhaps a different tactic is now called for - but I won't, as I know that it likely to bring a diatribe of personal attacks.
Suffice to say that I care for my town - the place where I live. I have had numerous article and two books published on the subject that proves my point. Along with my husband, we collect rubbish that people drop in an effort to try to give the town good appearance ... in other words, we too do our bit like you.
I have suggested a way forward with regards to Western Heights, but and you have rejected it - with no attempt at negotiation - just the proverbial door slammed in the face and then Paul say that you don't want to alienate?!!!
Lorraine
I have got a 10 m swimming cirtificate
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
i can swim in the deep end (well in a fashion lol)
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
I once helped someone across a road and my Mum thinks Im quite nice
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
And I have CCF certificates to prove that I am a marksman at both .22 and .303 calibre, scoring 150/150 at both. So beware!
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, thanks for your expressed support for the Braddon community group.
The folk there will be pleased to know of your support, and are looking forward to reciprocal discussions with DDC on the future of the Heights.
The reason why I haven't written here the whole context of the meeting, is because the Western Heights residents are working out ways and proposals that will bring together many families in the area on a common approach, so as to present their proposals to the wider community of Dover.
The intention is to preserve Western Heights and make it attractive for all of us, and for visitors, to enjoy and cherish. So let us leave some time for the Community to present these proposals. Meanwhile, they are in contact with DDC in an ongoing dialogue, so we must also allow for this dialogue to come to a conclusion.
It's important to stress, that the Western Heights group is engaged in their and our common interests, and not in the interests of CGI.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#1294 - "I have suggested a way forward with regards to Western Heights, but and you have rejected it - with no attempt at negotiation - just the proverbial door slammed in the face and then Paul say that you don't want to alienate?!!! "
I'm willing to listen to all views (other than self promotion - we know who you are and what you have 'done'!) but personally I don't believe protests, petitions, scaremongering and speculation are the way to go about it. I'd rather build on existing bases and work with people rather than fight them.
Just because I am not pro your methods does not mean I don't care for the Heights and am backing CGI.....
Been nice knowing you :)