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
(1 votes, average: 4 out of 5)
Loading ...
In the new century as the 
But should it rain, 
