Sandgate Says No!

Do sign the petition

David Cowell — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 08:00:44 +0000

You may have someone knock on your door soon and ask if you would sign a petition recording your objection to the building of five houses and a road on the escarpment.

We are told that local opinion has much more influence than others. I don’t know if that is true but let’s assume it is and all put a big effort into signing the petition.

It says:

We oppose the proposed development Y11/0137/SH for:

“Outline application for the erection of 5 detached houses, including details of layout, scale, landscaping and access, together with the change of use and conversion of Martello towers 6 and 7 to residential holiday lets, conversion of underground water tank and associated road access parking and landscaping.”

We wish to see the conservation and preservation of the listed Martello Towers 6 & 7, but feel the proposed enabling development of five houses and linking roads is an unacceptable price to pay without all other options for their conservation being explored.

Thank you

David

ps if you would like to get your friends and neighbours to sign please email me and I’ll get some forms to you.

Press release – Sandgate Escarpment

David Cowell — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:59:38 +0000

The intentions of developer John Forge with regard to the Sandgate Escarpment have now been made clear by the
submission of a planning application that will involve the redirecting of footpaths, building of five houses and a road and adding garages to ‘authentically’ restore the two Martello Towers. Add to this the removal of all trees
between the two Martello Towers to create a ‘site line’ and one can understand why it is considered a step too far.

David Cowell, one of the residents who is opposed to the plan said “I think John Forge’s objective, to stabilise the two Towers is commendable although some would argue that with walls made of brick throughout and up to six metres thick, the likelihood of them falling down in the next few hundred years is slight” he continued “what we are opposed to is the building of houses and the road and the destruction of the woodlands”.

“The people of Sandgate have a history of rallying round to protect their threatened buildings. In 1983 a Trust was formed to protect the Old Fire Station. A present day equivalent of £45,000 was successfully raised. Similarly a Trust prevented Shepway District Council selling off the Chichester Hall. As a private owner, John Forge cannot
access the international funds available for such a project but a charitable trust could and we have the expertise in this area to achieve our goals. The Towers could become hire and educational facilities and on going maintenance
costs could be generated in this way. The two hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo in 2015 would be a
great focal point. The community would be delighted to use John’s recognised expertise in conservation matters without the need to decimate a much loved and utilised open space”.

David Cowell continued by saying that he had submitted a Village Green status application to Kent County Council. “It is only right that Sandgate’s claim to the space following decades of use for recreational activities should be tested” and added “and despite the architects previous claims, this would not prevent the towers being restored”

One of a dozen reasons why the enabling development must fail

David Cowell — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:57:11 +0000

This is the objection that I have sent to Shepway District Council:

Response to Outline Planning Application Y11/0137/SH

from

David Cowell

4th July 2011

The valuable “lungs” of Enbrook Park and woodland north of Undercliff provide green edges, backdrops and leisure opportunities for people in a town in which there is almost no planting. The woodland especially, having only low level management, allows natural ecology to take its course with little disturbance. These two open spaces, one managed and the other more “wild” complement each other and add to the local diversity of open space.

The Sandgate Conservation Area Appraisal 2009

This outline planning application to develop the Sandgate Escarpment fails to satisfy many aspects of Planning and Common law particularly in the areas of:

Enabling development
Need for a public benefit to divert public rights of way
Creation of a dangerous access road
Geophysics and instability caused by deforestation
Concern regarding possible breach of guidelines in the selling of the land and Towers (may be subject to a Parliamentary Ombudsman investigation)
Infringement of Tree Preservation Orders
Conservation area infringement
Destruction of natural habitats and threat to wildlife

I am sure that all these areas will be considered by the Planning Authorities and will be covered by interested parties concerned about the development and its decimation of woodland. If presentation is not made then those issues should be raised and addressed by a responsible authority. I would like to focus on just one, namely the enabling development.

Enabling development:

An enabling development is a device used to secure the future of a significant place when normal planning rules would not allow a development to take place. This device has to be used wisely and even English Heritage are concerned that they can ‘destroy more than they save’.1 Page 4 Introduction The justification for allowing the enabling development lies in the over-riding public benefit to be derived from the implementation of the principal proposal which otherwise would have little prospect of being carried out.
Seven tests are applied ibid Page 5 The Policy and English Heritage makes it clear ibid Page 5 The Policy that if any are not met then the application should fail. I believe the application should fail on the following five tests:

Test: it will not materially harm the heritage values of the place or its setting;

I believe the turning of the Martello Towers into holiday lets with their attendant car ports and access road essentially destroys their heritage value reducing them to the significance level of other Towers in the area that have been turned into domiciles and that have not enjoyed public funding (see English Heritage quote on page 4 paragrah 4).

English Heritage also say:

“It may be relevant to consider whether the place has deteriorated so much that repair would involve such substantial reconstruction that its authenticity would be lost. If so, the justification for enabling development to rescue it is removed.”

At our meeting with the Developer, his agent and architect and English Heritage on 18th August 2010, Peter Kendall of English Heritage is minuted as describing the “advanced state of decay” of the Martellos and the architect noted that the interiors had been “severely mutilated” by the military.

This enabling development should fail because of this admitted advanced state of decay, the severely mutiliated interiors and the proposed addition of a swimming pool, car parking and road all call into question the heritage values of the Towers.

Test: it will secure the long term future of the place and, where applicable, its continued use for a sympathetic purpose;

From personal knowledge of holiday letting in Sandgate I know that the likely income from these proposed lets will not meet expectations and the cost of the scheme will be considerably higher. This means that an already admitted negative disparity between income and costs will be further exascerbated and the intention will fail.

Test: sufficient subsidy is not available from any other source;

Sandgate residents have a history of rallying to protect their historic buildings. In 1983 a Trust was formed to save the Old Fire Station from inevitable development. A present day equivalent of £45,000 was raised. In 1990 another Trust was formed to stop Shepway District Council selling the Chichester Hall. Both these Trust continue to successfully protect and maintain these buildings and efforts are being expended to integrate the activities of all the local charites. The community includes a number of professional fund raisers and their expertise has already been put to good use to produce the money needed to research and publish the Sandgate Parish Plan. A Charitable Trust would have access to local, national and international funds and be totally consistent with the present Government’s Big Society and the Quirk Review on community management and ownership of public assets produced during the previous Government and reflected in the coalition Government’s Localism Bill aspirations.

These facts are known to the Developer’s architect Roger Joyce in his role as Chairman of the Sandgate Society and English Heritage in its guidance notes says that it is encumbent on the developer to “explore a range of alternative development strategies” and continues “It must also be demonstrated that sufficient funds are not realistically available from any other source, particularly grant aid”.

A question to be asked of the developer is what discussions took place with interested community parties to find an alternative funding method. Minuted evidence should be produced and it is not sufficient for the Developer to state that English Heritage are not able to fund the restoration there are many other sources. 2015 is the 200th anniversary of the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo and would be a perfect focal point for an international fundraising initiative.

Test: it is demonstrated that the amount of enabling development is the minimum necessary to secure the future of the place, and that its form minimises harm to other public interests;

As already disclosed by the Developer in the submitted costings, the scheme is not self financing and, therefore, must fail.

Test: the public benefit of securing the future of the significant place through such enabling development decisively outweighs the disbenefits of breaching other public policies.

It is apparent that this scheme must fail as more than two thirds of the tests drawn up by English Heritage are not satisfied. The public benefit of an enabling development are a key consideration and English Heritage say “Significant places are a finite and irreplaceable resource. Sustaining them is thus a high priority, but the disbenefits must be proportionate to the heritage values of the place” and they continue “Participation can take many forms, but it should involve an attempt to understand local perceptions of the values attached to the place – which may well differ from the national, expert assessment – and the relative importance of particular issues that enabling development may generate.”

The English Heritage experts may place a high priority on the Towers, but the local people place a higher priority on the woods. Part of the high priority attached to Towers 6 and 7 by English Heritage is because they have moats, but this does not make them unique – derelict Towers 4 and 5 are also moated.

English Heritage also say “Whilst option appraisal must be wide-ranging, it must also be realistic. Uses that would be so damaging to a place that they would effectively destroy its interest, or those that perfectly fit the form of the building but for which no market is either present or likely, must be discarded at the initial stage. Imagination, and indeed consideration of the potential to create a market, is essential, but a degree of realism is necessary from the outset from both owners and planning authorities”.

In conclusion I am not against the renovation of the Towers per se but I am opposed to the cynical use of an enabling development when I know that no other funding methods were investigated although alternatives are available. It would be wrong to view this as a historical rescue; it is a bog standard development except the risk and cost is borne by the community not the developer. I will let English Heritage have the last word:

“Enabling development is often seen as being an alternative to public funding; but arguably, it is more akin to a type of public funding. The idea of the community losing one asset to acquire a greater one is analogous to that of individuals paying taxes to acquire the right to public goods and services – including the conservation of the historic environment. The essential difference is that the community pays in kind which is converted to cash, rather than cash itself. On this premise alone, enabling development should be subject to the same degree of financial scrutiny, transparency and accountability as cash grants from public funds, or indeed all financial and quasi-financial decisions made by public authorities. The exercise of due diligence is essential”

Notes:
1. All quotes from: English Heritage Enabling development and the conservation of significant places POLICY AND GUIDANCE June 2008

The price of democracy………..

David Cowell — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:00:29 +0000

I am told on good authority that Shepway District Council may be of a mind to allow the development of the escarpment because the cost of an appeal is so high. Let me make it clear, if the developer does not address the five area he fails English Heritage’s own tests and still gets planning permission then I will call for a judicial review.

Call me cynical but……….

David Cowell — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:57:56 +0000

I am sure that John Forge has done excellent work at Westenhanger but give me a few million pounds of public money and let me live in a castle and only have to open to the public (who funded the project) one Tuesday a week between April and September and I’d do excellent work too.

In the same way that the public purse funded his Westenhanger project so the gentleman wants the public purse to fund his Martello Tower aspirations. And do not be deceived, an enabling development is us giving up our rights and there has to be a very public benefit; there is none, only a very private benefit.

The fact is that under normal circumstances the escarpment would not be allowed to be developed on and the planning applied for does not stand English heritages own tests of enabling developments.

….and here’s the truth about another inaccurate statement by the developer

David Cowell — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:01:07 +0000

At the Sandgate Parish Planning meeting where the escarpment development was voted against, John Forge the developer said that Sandgate had declined his offer of some of the land and Tower number 6. I have also been told that this has also been mentioned on other occasions.

I would like to put the record straight so there is no confusion:

1. I met with John Forge at Westenhanger on 15th February, 2010. At this meeting the developer stressed that his motive was historical renovation but, if the Sandgate community wanted to purchase the land and/or tower number 6 (which he had purchased in 2004/2005 for £80,000) they could do so for:

Martello tower number 6 only: £ 500,000
All towers and land: £1,400,000

The very kind offer was declined because, after consultation with others, the general mood was why buy what is ours.

2. On the 18th August 2010 a number of us met with the developer, his agent/architect and English Heritage. At this meeting it was agreed by Roger Joyce (agent/architect) for the minutes that:

John has asked us to confirm in the application his undertaking to work with the Community, with some kind of an agreement drawn up (we will ask EH to advise) that secures a partnering agreement that best secures the certainty of outcome that EH seek, but that will also give the community use of Tower 6 and access to the (undeveloped) land

Needless to say there was no mention of this promise in their planning application. Gullible, me?

Both these events were minuted.

So now you know the truth.

There’s no deal to be done with our open spaces

David Cowell — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:47:34 +0000

I hear from a few sources that there may be a deal on offer to allow the enabling development on the escarpment to happen. A piece of woodland to the west is owned by Shepway District Council and I suspect that it will be offered to Sandgate provided we agree to allow the building of 5 house, decimation of the trees and the turning of the two Martello Towers into ‘historically accurate’ holiday lets with ‘historically accurate’ car parking ports.

The enabling development fails five of the seven tests established by English Heritage and therefore the land is protected against development.

We will have the western woodland as well as but not instead of our rights over the escarpment.

A veritable mystery

David Cowell — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:36:16 +0000

1st February, 2011: BBC News, Cairo “From what I saw I would guess there were at least 200,000 people out in Cairo”

1st February, 2011: London a spokesman for David Cameron says “We have said that it is important for the Egyptian government to listen to the aspirations of its people”

26th March 2011, London 500,000 people march in opposition to the Tory cuts.

27th March, 2011: Business secretary Vince Cable says huge turnout at TUC march will not knock government’s cuts strategy off course…

Egypt’s population is 79,993,000; England’s population is 51,482,105.

So tell me why, in one case, is it a significant minority and in the other it is an insignificant minority?

………effectively prevent the restoration of the Towers? I don’t think so

David Cowell — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:46:23 +0000

Regarding Roger’s claim that if the escarpment was registered as a village green it would “……….effectively prevent the restoration of the Towers, and will ensure they stay on the ‘Heritage at Risk’ Register, and thus dangerous and inaccessible to the public. Registration as a village Green does nothing to the ownership of the land, it simply confirms the residents’ rights to continue to have access over it.”

I have taken advice on this matter and have been told that “If there are buildings then the land on which they stand would not be included in the registration of the land as a green. Generally facilities can be improved provided it is done “ with a view to the better enjoyment of the green”.

Onwards and upwards

David

This article from Roger Joyce appeared in All Day Breakfast

David Cowell — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:03:32 +0000

Martello Towers 6 & 7 and The Escarpment Path ‘managing change’

Readers may have seen in the KM last week, that English Hertitage have published their ‘Heritage at Risk’ Register. Because we are lucky in one sense here in Shepway to have a concentration of Napoleonic Defence Structures, (including the Royal Military Canal and the walls and defences at Seabrook) from the East Cliff, to Dymchurch – with a very highly clustered collection in and around Sandgate – this brings with it a debate as to how we are to work with EH to get these structures off the Register……

Of the 5 Towers listed, 4 are in Sandgate. No’s 5,in the Girls’ School, 6 & 7 on land in the ownership of the Forge family, and 9 on Sandy Lane in Seabrook, just off Shorncliffe Barracks. Proposals by the Forge family to restore their Towers by way of funding derived from an enabling development of 5 houses on Military Hill, have, not surprisingly, provoked some controversy! Some don’t want the Towers touched, others are concerned they may lose the ‘right to roam’ aong the escarpment paths and through the woodland.

Recently, a proposal was put forward to register the land under section 15 of the Commons Act 2006, as ‘a village green’. If all the land in the ownership of the Forges was included in this proposal, and if the KCC were minded to register the land as a ‘village green’, no development would be possible on the land. if this were to happen, the small number of people who it appears are intent on stopping any form of develop will effectively prevent the restoration of the Towers, and will ensure they stay on the ‘Heritage at Risk’ Register, and thus dangerous and inaccessible to the public. Registration as a village Green does nothing to the ownership of the land, it simply confirms the residents’ rights to continue to have access over it.

What has not emerged, because there is no dialogue between the parties, is that the landowner can dedicate land that is surplus to his requirements, under section 15(8) of the same Act, to the Community, thus ensuring that the Community actually own the land and can manage it for their own recreational enjoyment. John Forge has no intention of preventing access to the land : indeed when the Towers are returned to their original condition, he will encourage access to them, as he does at Westenhanger Castle – by choice, not obligation from any party.. Of the 13 acres in his ownership, a little over one acre is required for the enabling development that will release the funds for all the other work to be done – the Towers, access to them, footpath improvements and woodland management. He is prepared to discuss disposal of large tracts of the remaining land to the community. Part of this acre ( – 2 former gardens each about 60sq m), has not been in public enjoyment, as it was offered by the Defence Estates for use as private gardens. A small pocket of land here still remains in private ownership, by a Sandgate resident.

We urge the people of Sandgate to think carefully about what is at stake here. Pride in, and careful stewardship of, our Military Heritage, and environment, its enhanced enjoyment and use, setting, easy and enjoyable access across the escarpment, with enhanced use of the woods. Possibly even an exchange of land that could become a Community assett. As against that will be – yes assured continued access to woodland which, it can be claimed has (at least in part) been enjoyed for 20 years, and no change but with a deteriorating assett of Historic Monuments , paths and woodland, all of them ‘enjoying’ gradual decay….

If change is to happen, it is about managing that change.

Roger Joyce, Architect

Here is my reply which exceeds the 3000 characters maximum allowed by the publication:

As often happens in these circumstances, Roger Joyce has been economical with the truth in his article “Martello Towers 6 & 7 and The Escarpment Path ‘managing change’” and I would like to take the opportunity to explain why.

Firstly I think it is important that we both declare our positions. I am a Sandgate resident with no vested interest in the escarpment other than to protect them, us and the wildlife from inappropriate developments. Roger is an architect paid by John Forge to design a development and carry out public relations exercises to maximise the chances of its planning success. He has done so on many developments in Sandgate some of which have not and do not receive the support of the community, but we have all got to earn a living I guess

I’ll take each section at a time:

“……….the small number of people who it appears are intent on stopping any form of develop will effectively prevent the restoration of the Towers, and will ensure they stay on the ‘Heritage at Risk’ Register, and thus dangerous and inaccessible to the public”

For an application for the land to be registered as a village green a ‘significant’ number of local people have to give evidence to show usage for twenty years or more. Rest assured that a ‘significant’ number have and continue to provide that evidence making Roger’s clam of a ‘small’ number risible.

They have been inaccessible to the public for years and the towers will be converted to holiday lets and the locals will probably be allowed token entry a couple of days a year.

“What has not emerged, because there is no dialogue between the parties, is that the landowner can dedicate land that is surplus to his requirements, under section 15(8) of the same Act, to the Community, thus ensuring that the Community actually own the land and can manage it for their own recreational enjoyment.”

I take issue with the lie that “no dialogue has occurred”. On Wednesday 3rd February this year a site meeting took place on the escarpment with John Forge, Roger Joyce, representatives from Kent County Council, myself and a few other local residents. On Monday 15th February I met with John Forge at Westenhanger Castle and we discussed six options that I had suggested that could be available one of which was whether he would allow the Sandgate community to buy the two towers and the land. The amount he wanted was twenty times the paltry sum he paid the Ministry of Defence for the land and towers (tax payers money of course) in 1993/4. On 21st May I emailed Roger and suggested that the developer might like to give tower number 6 and the rest of the land to the Sandgate community under a Section 106 Agreement. I am still waiting for their thoughts but encouraged that this might now be an option.

“Of the 13 acres in his ownership, a little over one acre is required for the enabling development that will release the funds for all the other work to be done – the Towers, access to them, footpath improvements and woodland management.”

“Access to them” is euphemistically called ‘a track’ that will run along the north edge of the land to allow access to both towers. It is more than likely that this will have to be wide enough to allow access by emergency vehicles so it is, for all intent and purpose, a road. “Footpath improvements” means footpath diversion to stop anyone walking around tower number 6 – a private benefit. “Woodland management” – John Forge has had the land since 2004, perhaps he can tell us, as a responsible, caring land owner, what woodland management he has carried out in the last six years?

Sandgate is thought to be an easy target by developers who have no interest in the community other than to swell their own bank balances. The escarpment serves a multitude of important purposes and, if this development is allowed to happen, the consequences will become more evident as the years roll by; please do not be fooled by the rhetoric.