Letter from a Reader about Western Heights.
- 27 July 2012 01:30184841Chris, NO-ONE has mentioned knocking down EVERY bit of history that has graffiti sprayed over it! The mention was of an awful set of cement mess above Farthingloe with very serious hate words written on it, in fact so serious, I'd advise the Police to have a ook and ORDER that these words be painted over, at the very least.
This was the perspective of my mention, NOTHING else. I did NOT advocate knocking down every bit of history with graffiti scribbled on it.
I assume the Police are not aware of what is written in the cement mess above Farthingloe, and possibly many other people are not aware either.
Perhaps, as councillor, you could ask someone to take a look?Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 27 July 2012 08:39184866Feel free to contact whoever you want when you technically trespassed on private land to see the graffiti - although you can access it, it isn't public land.....
You should see some of the graffiti in and around the Western Heights plenty of other offensive stuff if you know where to lookBeen nice knowing you :) - 27 July 2012 09:20184879Greetings.
Well, I told myself I wasn't going to contribute to this thread because there seems to be so much going on here, so many differing views and so much misinformation flying about.
But as those that recognise my name will guess, the subject of developing the Western Heights for housing or business is one that is close to my heart.
For those that don't recognise it, and in the spirit of this particular thread where nearly everyone seems to think it necessary to outline their previous and current accomplishments (said somewhat tongue-in-cheek), let me tell you about me.
My name is Jeff Howe and I became interested in the Western Heights in about 1991. In about 1998 I started a website all about the Heights called 'Western Heights Today' and this generated an awful lot of interest in the history of the Heights. This was the first major website dedicated to making all the history and current happenings available to the wider world. The bones of it still rest on this server, although I have neither the time nor the inclination to actively maintain it: http://jeffhowe.tripod.com/Mainpage.htm
I remember in the spring of the year 2000, I was invited to a meeting in what was then the Town Council offices in Castle Street, along with a handful of likeminded people (who remembers Ken Scott?)(none of whom I believe contributes to this esteemed forum), to discuss a real and physical course of action to try to do something with the Heights rather than to let it all rot.
The Western Heights Preservation Society was born. The seeds of that very small body with if I recall correctly, about 6 people on the committee has turned into the proactive society that tends for the Redoubt today, and a very good job they do too, with little assistance from English Heritage and no money.
OK, that's me !
I really don't need to go on about the current state of the defences as I'm sure we're all well aware of the appalling condition they're in.
Ten years ago say, I would have been spitting fire at the thought of an hotel being built on the Heights, indeed there have been a couple of proposals since I got interested in 1991. And houses being built on the old parade grounds ?! Let me cable-tie myself to the digger bucket that dares to upturn the first sod !
But you know, times change and things move on. We all change too. I still think it would be a great shame if anything new were to be built on the Heights, anywhere, period, as they say.
BUT.
Let's imagine that some houses were to be built on the old parade grounds adjacent to the Citadel (at the erroneously named Braddon), and that these houses were built to a design that meant that their rooflines were the same as the existing ugly, concrete houses already there. Let us also imagine that the burnt out Regimental Institute nearby was also enlarged some and made into charming flats, and that its roofline was kept to a minimum height. And that these buildings were in-keeping with the surroundings because of the vigilance of EH.
Let us also picture by way of some contractual obligation let's say, £25M bequeathed to the future of the Drop Redoubt with a built in maintenance caveat which made it possible to walk across the radio-controlled bridge, electrically open the gates of the fort and flick a switch so the whole thing was lit up inside ready to take visitors at a moment's notice.
Then I would say YES ! Let's do it !
Now this is a little bit of a dream, obviously. But with CGI it could be that we are closer than we've ever been before to actually having something positive done to secure the long-term prospects for the Drop Redoubt, and maybe some other part of the Heights. This is the way I read it.
Yes it's a SAM (Scheduled Ancient Monument) and no, in an ideal world NOTHING should be built there. In the 20+ years I've been 'tinkering' with the Heights a big load of £0M has been spent on the infrastructure, and I'm not talking about the good work the WHPS and the WCCP do. I'm talking about the brick walls, the ditches, the lime mortar, the actual structures. The only way anything is ever going to happen to secure this series of fortifications which are internationally important is to bite the bullet and take a middle road.
Having said that, we need detailed plans and detailed proposals and detailed schematics of any building proposals so that an informed decision can be made.
And in that vane, let us go forward together (!) and at least see where this journey with the various interested parties and the developers ends up and see if something can be worked out.
It is way too early for extreme views.
A blanket NO to development on the Heights is as irresponsible in my opinion as a blanket YES !
Thank you for your attention. - 27 July 2012 09:33184881welcome to the forum jeff, a very informative first post.
- 27 July 2012 10:09184887A very good post indeed and welcome.
- Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,894
27 July 2012 11:39184918An excellent post Jeff and thank you for such an open minded and common sense approach to the tricky Western Heights situation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
------------------------------------------------------------------- - 27 July 2012 12:50184926Very intersting post Jeff and great to have your experience to add to the discussion.
I must say though - as a WHPS man who I am sure like the rest of your hard working collegues, tries to work in harmony with English Heritage, I was a little surprised to read your different attitude to English Heritage on the importance of maintaining the openness of the interior... - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
27 July 2012 16:21184934welcome jeff
a very valued contributionALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 27 July 2012 18:28184972Welcome indeed Jeff - what an intelligent approach and one that has been echoed by many people.
Don't say a blanket NO
Don't say a blanket YES
Roger - Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
27 July 2012 18:30184975first of wellcome jeff,and a posative post toboot.
roger,to warm for a blanket,but a nice fan would do. - 27 July 2012 18:44184986Sleep peacefully Brian - with or without a blanket.
Roger - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
27 July 2012 18:46184989not a long sleep you dont mean roger???????? lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
27 July 2012 18:46184990thankyou roger,night night. - 28 July 2012 00:14185011Hi Jeff.
Good post, but the answer is a blanket no from me.
No housing on Western Heights, no housing on Farthingloe.
If you look at it, Jeff, it wouldn't make sense, either. This is the case:
Suppose you need so and so much money to repair so and so much on Western Heights. So you spend the money on repairing/maintaining the Napoleonic defences as far as the money goes. That's fine.
But does it make sense to spend so much more money on building houses there, in order to repair or maintain the historical defences? No, it evidently doesn't!
By building houses there, society would be spending a lot more money. and for something totally unrelated to Napoleonic defences..
It's as if I urgently need £5 to buy milk bread and sugar. Suppose I do not have the £5. So, rather then obtain £5, I go and buy a computer, which quite obviously I couldn't afford either, and which I don't need, as I already have one.
I convince myself that in this way, by spending £400 on a computer, I can also afford the £5 for the milk, coffee and sugar. NO, doesn't make sense!
We don't need more houses on Western Heights, we're not short of houses in Dover, and DDC already plan to build 6,000 of them in Whitfield; we haven't got money to repair Napoleonic defences, and yet we should build 700 houses on W.H. and at Farthingloe, so as to repair the defences...
No, doesn't make sense to me either!Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 28 July 2012 00:42185013It's like building a house in Canterbury to repair a wall in Dover: costs so much more than just repairing the wall, and is totally unrelated....Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 28 July 2012 00:54185014You have the bizarrest logic going Alexander !Been nice knowing you :)
- 28 July 2012 00:59185015Suggest you pick a reason for opposing the development and stick to it Alexander - you don't want them to build on some greenery. Stick to that and you will get more respect from people, rather than clutching at straws with left-field arguments you don't really understand.....Been nice knowing you :)
- Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
28 July 2012 07:39185019there are a few points here that may be helpful to alexander(but from previous attempts i suspect wont be lol)
1; with regard to the devrelopement at the western heights if im reading the posts
correctly, we now have 2 posters who completely oppose any develepment on
the heights(which is there right) but with this there is a struggle as to where the
dosh will come from for the upkeep of the heights, which will not be small beer
2; There are a few posters who live on the heights that have concerns on
building on the heights, but prefer the approach of all working together
to try to get the best deal possible(even if this means building on the heights)
3; We then have A vast majority of posters taking the view of suck it and see
look at all the plans, and neither be for or aganst until all the information
is available, but with a a clear view that support for any proposal will only
come if it's in the best interests of the future of the western heights.
So if this is correct whilst i respect all those views coming forward and reserve my judement until we know exactly what is to happen
im firmly in camp 3(or view 3)ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 28 July 2012 08:03185026Afraid you lost me Alexander - but you did get the grey matter whiring which helped me to understand a basic principle that I think has been overlooked in this argument.
The principal that those who do not want to say a' blanket no' are working on is that limited harm is acceptable providing the benefits outweigh the harm right?
Herein lies the problem. The developer wants to make profit by building houses and in return wants to give some of that profit to the Western Heights for its improvement. The principal sounds good but this is where it falls apart.
In PERCENTAGE terms - house building is not that profitable. Yes home builders make a lot of money but the nett profit is not 100% or 50% but much less - before you factor in giving some of it away in return for the permission in the first place.
This means that the developer can only give a SMALL PERCENTAGE of their overall spend out on 'sweetners' or they will make no money at all. And so on a financial basis alone it is GAURANTEED that the harm to the area will far outweigh the good because much more has to be spent doing harm to make the money to do good. No amount of revisions and tweeks will change this so the answer HAS to be a 'BLANKET NO'
Incidentally, DDC planning department have already said a blanket no! As soon as they adopted the current LDF which excluded these areas from development they said NO - as highlighted by CPRE's objection to the proposal. - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
28 July 2012 08:09185028mike
whilst i appreciate the view of a blanket no(but at this time couldnt support it without an alternative)
there needs to be a lot of thought if total rejection is the aim of the day.
because the altenative is just as worrying.
i have attempted to tease out what the alternative would be, but to date still trying on that score.ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS