108 replies to this topic

[Roger H]

tafski, on 30 August 2011 - 07:10 PM, said:

And you call your  self  a proffesional making statements like  this

tafski

Your point being..............?

Roger

[centurion]

I detect a degree of unwonted venom and bile. For all those British posters - it isn't our country and we can't demand that things are frozen for ever.

[RoyEvans]

tafski, on 30 August 2011 - 07:10 PM, said:

And you call your  self  a proffesional making statements like  this

tafski

tafski

To whom are you addressing this and what is your issue?

Roy

[usa2uk]

(Hugh), on 25 August 2011 - 06:23 PM, said:

The case against this development is still alive, but the problem is as follows:-

Thanks Hugh.

So even though the appeal has been lodged, and still waiting to be determined, building works can proceed?

So the house will be completed, people will move in, and the decision will come through.  

And then what?  The govn't makes the residents move out and the house demolished?

I think I just saw a pig flying....

It is a terrible shame.

[usa2uk]

chrislock, on 28 August 2011 - 12:57 PM, said:

Chris,

Your two posts have left me completely gob-smacked.

I would never in a million years have thought this type of behaviour took place.  

I guess that I naively thought that everyone would have the common decency, courtesy, and respect for the fallen.

Wow

[chrislock]

This situation has existed for a long time now but most forum members who visit miss this. But if you permanantly live and work over here however and most importantly, intigrate and even more importantly, learn the language, thus ensuring you are privy to local and official conversations that the English speaking comunity without doubt rarely hear, you suddenly realise what you thought was the case was in fact definately not!

Our Belgian and especially our Flemish friends and forum members will mostly be aware of this dreadful situation which all to commonly takes place over here. On many occasions the dead are not deliberately destroyed but they are simply obiterated by persons who simply do not care or even think of the fallen, or that their interests simply do match ours! It becomes old hat!!

Up to a few years ago I was attending many many burials of the fallen but since 2009, hardly any. This speaks for itself as the Memorials confirm how many are still out there waiting to come in. The Salient has become one vast building plot with buildings and new roads going up everywhere. The fallen MUST have been discovered in many of these new build schemes but none have been reported. This is so sad but at the same time, very normal for this part of the world today.

[Andrew P]

That's sad to read Chris. The Five Australian soldiers buried at Buttes Cemetery Polygon Wood a few years ago must be the lucky exception to this rule. I'm sure the families of the three that were positively identified will always be hugely grateful to Johan and the other Belgians involved with their recovery.

Regards
Andrew

[chrislock]

Without doubt!  

[David Faulder]

usa2uk, on 30 August 2011 - 08:50 PM, said:

>><<
And then what?  The govn't makes the residents move out and the house demolished?
>><<

This happens in England - sometimes with tragic consequences.

David

[Chris_Baker]

chrislock, on 30 August 2011 - 09:55 PM, said:

The fallen MUST have been discovered in many of these new build schemes but none have been reported. This is so sad but at the same time, very normal for this part of the world today.

It renders the forthcoming glut of Centennial projects and events in Flanders rather hollow, does it not?

[Bert Heyvaert]

In Belgium, only houses that have been built without any form of building permit on sites that are officially agriculture ground or nature preserves have been demolished in the past.

This is actually a handy tool, supplied by the province of Western Flanders. It's an online GIS-program that shows the planning destination of pretty much the entire region of Ypres. It can be a bit tricky to navigate as it's dutch-only. A close look shows that the area on the opposite of the road in front of Hill 60, all the way up to the railway bridge is potential building ground. In the north it shows the vast area that is designated to become industrial terrain in Boezinge
http://www.giswest.b...t_index_89.html

regards,

Bert

[usa2uk]

Bert Heyvaert, on 31 August 2011 - 09:35 AM, said:

A close look shows that the area on the opposite of the road in front of Hill 60, all the way up to the railway bridge is potential building ground. In the north it shows the vast area that is designated to become industrial terrain in Boezinge

regards,

Bert

Surely there has got to be some will in the govn't to stop this?  

I think Centurion said about us wanting to "freeze" the land in the Salient?  Well why not?  They do it right here at home in England - it's called Greenbelt

For my sins, I worked many a year in the Planning Dept of Guildford Borough Council, a town surrounded by Greenbelt.  The Council had a policy that said very simply and plainly:  no new development in the Greenbelt.  Full stop / end of.  

Surely the Salient could be afforded the same sort of protection?  

I can imagine a tour of Hill 60 in 10 years time:  

Tour Guide:  "That small mound in the middle of those houses there is what's left of Hill 60."

Tourist:  "Is that the battlefield?"

Tour Guide:  "No, the rest of the battlefield in under this little hamlet."

Sorry.... I am ranting.... I do apologise to the forum.  Please ignore me!  I just can't seem to get my head around this whole situation.

I think I may stop reading this thread....



Over and out

[SteveMarsdin]

Good evening,

Whilst agreeing with most of what David Faulder says in this and other threads on this subject, concerning the need for a process that encourages developers to handover relics (which in reality means one that doesn't unduly hold up the development) I can't support any notion of protecting large tracts of West Flanders as, in effect, a museum to the events of nearly 100 years ago.The Belgians must be left to get on with their lives as they decide. Every single one of those "missing" are commemorated and remembered somewhere.

[towisuk]

last line from above post....

"Belgians must be left to get on with their lives as they decide. Every single one of those "missing" are commemorated and remembered somewhere."

That's ok then.....concrete and marble memorials mean more than the actual remains of the men who died fighting to protect Belgium...!
I'm sorry, but that is one hell of a skewed point of view!!
The remains now being used as aggregate for concrete, were actual "human beings", with families, wife's and children, who were left to mourn a generation lost in the fields of France and Flanders.
I sometimes despair at the lack of understanding about what the war was about. It was NOT about....cap badges, not regimental insignia, not collections of medals, not battlefield tactics, not the collectors of WW1 memorabilia 90 years on, It was about young men fighting and dying in Foreign fields miles from home, in a lot of cases at the other side of the world.
Does no one understand the phrase "debt of honour" ????? or is that old fashioned.....

regards
Tom

[Liz in Eastbourne]

towisuk, on 01 September 2011 - 05:07 AM, said:

I sometimes despair at the lack of understanding about what the war was about. It was NOT about....cap badges, not regimental insignia, not collections of medals, not battlefield tactics, not the collectors of WW1 memorabilia 90 years on, It was about young men fighting and dying in Foreign fields miles from home, in a lot of cases at the other side of the world.
Does no one understand the phrase "debt of honour" ????? or is that old fashioned.....

Even if we agree on this, it won't guarantee agreement on the importance of bones and battlefields. I suspect our individual feelings on this go back into our own personal histories and feelings about death.  I would not be at all moved by the discovery of the bones of my great-uncle, commemorated on the Menin Gate, but I would be very excited indeed if someone were to discover a box of his letters, to enable his story to be better told.  I  feel they would contain him far more than his long-dead bones do, and his widow, family and friends cannot be helped by a ceremony at this date.

I don't know Hill 60 so haven't participated in this discussion, but I am irked by the way in which those who do feel strongly about preserving sites attribute lack of feeling and understanding to those who think it is not necessarily a sign of forgetting to let those sites return to normal use.  I was very amused by the spoof ad from the Wipers Times posted by Martin at  #12.  It suggests to me that many of the men themselves would have been philosophical about this.

Liz

[towisuk]

Hi Liz, for me it's not about "preserving sites" as you put it, it is about respect for the remains of people who gave their lives!
All I want is for proper archeological surveys to be conducted prior to construction and any remains found given the proper burial they deserve.
I wonder what would happen if developers went into local cemeteries in this country, bulldozed the remains, and used them for aggregate for some debvelopemnt......Ah!!but that's ok we have auntie Mildreds letters in a box in the attic..!!!!
The stories we have heard about what is happening to remains when they are uncovered is just sheer disrespect!..I bet you didn't agree with the recent riots in London...again the sign of no respect for others.....
And as for family and friends not helped by ceremony all these years later....can I just point to the Rememberance carried out each year
at the Cenotaph.....

Tom

[SteveMarsdin]

Good morning Tom,

As I intimated in my opening sentence, I would welcome a streamlined process that allowed development whilst striving to protect the remains/relics found; I can't find the exact thread but David Faulder highlighted the keypoints that such a scheme would have. What I am against  is treating a large tract of West Flanders as untouchable "greenbelt" because of what happened nearly 100 years ago, despite it been cultivated/worked on through most of the intervening years. When Churchill suggested leaving Ypres in ruins after WW1, as a memorial, he was soon reminded that life must go on for the Belgian people.

You said "I sometimes despair at the lack of understanding about what the war was about": one of those things it was about was respecting the sovereignty of Belgium.

[Liz in Eastbourne]

towisuk, on 01 September 2011 - 08:16 AM, said:

And as for family and friends not helped by ceremony all these years later....can I just point to the Rememberance carried out each year
at the Cenotaph.....

Just to clarify, I did not mean that no ceremonies these days have any meaning.  I do believe that the funeral is principally to help and console the survivors - I mean the actual survivors, who knew the dead person. As Steve says, there are many other memorials and ways of showing respect for the dead of WW1.  I am also not advocating the disregard of cemeteries or memorials, nor of sites, within reason:  I agree with the approach Steve has referred to above.

As it happens, several of my close family members and friends have no place of burial (cremated and scattered, lost in a freak beach-wave accident  etc) and I still say I would sooner have their letters than their dead bodies buried with a gravestone. You are just confirming, Tom,  in this and several other points that  it would not be appropriate for me to reply to on this thread, that these are matters we have very different personal views on.  Yet I've spent a lot of time uncovering the stories of men who died, and I don't think you can level an accusation of lack of respect against me (or others with views different from yours).  So I think you should tone down your comments.

As regards Hill 60, there may well be things that should have been done differently, as I said I have no knowledge of the specific case.

Liz

[David Faulder]

SteveMarsdin, on 01 September 2011 - 09:01 AM, said:

>><<
I can't find the exact thread but David Faulder highlighted the keypoints that such a scheme would have. >><<

Recovery of Found Remains - Great War Forum ?

David

[PhilH]

Quote

I sometimes despair at the lack of understanding about what the war was about.

But isn't that the point that many on here are totally ignoring? Was the war not about giving people and countrys the right to control their country in their way without interference from outsiders? What gives us, as the ousiders, the right to tell them what they should do?

Yes, it's sad if such sites are built on but can we really expect a small country to freeze the use of large tracts of land because folk died on it in a war that's virtually outside of living memory?

[towisuk]

Liz in Eastbourne, on 01 September 2011 - 09:44 AM, said:

Just to clarify, I did not mean that no ceremonies these days have any meaning.  I do believe that the funeral is principally to help and console the survivors - I mean the actual survivors, who knew the dead person. As Steve says, there are many other memorials and ways of showing respect for the dead of WW1.  I am also not advocating the disregard of cemeteries or memorials, nor of sites, within reason:  I agree with the approach Steve has referred to above.

As it happens, several of my close family members and friends have no place of burial (cremated and scattered, lost in a freak beach-wave accident  etc) and I still say I would sooner have their letters than their dead bodies buried with a gravestone. You are just confirming, Tom,  in this and several other points that  it would not be appropriate for me to reply to on this thread, that these are matters we have very different personal views on.  Yet I've spent a lot of time uncovering the stories of men who died, and I don't think you can level an accusation of lack of respect against me (or others with views different from yours).  So I think you should tone down your comments.
So I think you should tone down your comments.

As regards Hill 60, there may well be things that should have been done differently, as I said I have no knowledge of the specific case.

Liz

With all due respect Liz, (there's that word again..respect) everyone has their own opinions, that is why we have a forum for discussion, some of us are more passionate than others about aspects of certain topics, and what they see as the REAL values in life....this is one of mine.
Tom

[TRAJAN]

towisuk, on 01 September 2011 - 08:16 AM, said:

Hi Liz, for me it's not about "preserving sites" as you put it, it is about respect for the remains of people who gave their lives! All I want is for proper archeological surveys to be conducted prior to construction and any remains found given the proper burial they deserve.Tom

This is much more to the point. I am not familiar with Belgian law regarding new developments, but in many countries (including England) there is a usually a local or national planning requirement that a site be surveyed by an archaeologist and if necesary excavated before any development takes place there. Oh, of course, developers often winge that this adds to the overall cost. But my experiences when working as an archaeologist in the UK in the 1960's-1980's is that the initial survey and if necessary excavation rarely added up to more than 2% (5% at most) of the actual development costs. A quantity surveyor would allow for a percentage equal to that under the 'general overheads', or 'over-runs', or 'wastage' heading. It  seems to me that what needs to be done (when 'poor, tiny little Belgium' finally gets a government - over one year now?!) is for a brave enough Belgian legislator to take this one on and at the very least make all 'battlefield' sites areas that require proper survey and excavation before any development takes place there.

Trajan

[(Hugh)]

usa2uk, on 30 August 2011 - 08:50 PM, said:

Thanks Hugh.

So even though the appeal has been lodged, and still waiting to be determined, building works can proceed?

So the house will be completed, people will move in, and the decision will come through.  

And then what?  The govn't makes the residents move out and the house demolished?

I think I just saw a pig flying....

It is a terrible shame.

Just to clear up a couple of things:-

The case before the Raad (court) in Brussels is a further step in an appeals process, in which I don't think any costs are awarded to either side at the eventual conclusion.

Before the courts process 'froze', the last hearing was about a 'schorsing', a temporary ban on any building work starting. Ieper Council had rejected the report of their archeological advisors that an investigation was justified. We wished to reopen that decision.

The builders have gone ahead in the absence of a schorsing verdict as they hold a currently valid permit in force from Ieper Council.

Our understanding is that the court can order the house removed if there was a specific breach of planning law.

We have submitted papers to the court for a future hearing in which we feel we demonstrate that the house is far taller and greater in volume than the law specific to that ground allows.

A previous report from the Provincial Planning Officer advised the Province of West Flanders that the house was substantially larger than could be allowed and thus the permit should be rescinded.

If you're really interested in this case, here is the aforementioned recommendation. English readers will need Google Translate.......

Artikel 4.4.1 van de codex voorziet de mogelijkheid beperkte afwijkingen toe te staan van de voorschriften van een verkavelingsvergunning, enkel wat de perceelsafmetingen, de afmetingen en de plaatsing van de bouwwerken, alsmede de voorschriften in verband met hun uiterlijk betreft.
Een afwijking van meer dan 40% inzake volume voor het hoofdgebouw kan onmogelijk als beperkt worden beschouwd. Hetzelfde dient gesteld over de afwijking inzake oppervlakte van het bijgebouw dat 50% groter wordt geconcipieerd dan toegelaten. Ruimtelijk is de afwijking evenmin aangewezen gezien de commotie en de bijzondere ligging van het perceel zoals boven beschreven. De afwijking is tevens niet gestoeld op enige noodzakelijkheid of onderbouwde motivatie. .
Besloten kan worden dat het ontwerp in belangrijke mate afwijkt van de verkavelingsvoorschriften en het niet mogelijk is deze afwijking toe te staan.
De visuele relatie tussen de heuvel, Hill 60, aan de overzijde van de straat, en het gedenkteken voor twee Franse verzetstrijders, een beschermd monument, enerzijds en de Ieperboog met onder meer een begraafplaats en de stadkern van Ieper anderzijds werd reeds door vroegere woningen deels teniet gedaan. Er blijven slechts twee strategisch gelegen percelen onbebouwd, vlakbij het monument en de bijzondere omgeving bovendien, waarbij nu dus een van beide, het middelste lot van de drie, ook zou bebouwd gaan worden.
Op twee adviesaanvragen werd door de gewestelijke agentschappen niet tijdig inhoudelijk gereageerd. Op 07.12.09 besliste de gemeenteraad tot het verwerven en vrijwaren van het linkse perceel 488x, waarbij de eigenaar in ruil het middelste lot 488v toegewezen kreeg, door de stad aangekocht. Op 15.12.09 werd logischerwijs door het schepencollege een vergunning verleend voor een woning en berging op dit perceel, weliswaar met de belangrijke voorwaarde dat de dorpel max. 40cm boven het koppeil van de weg mag komen.
Samenvattend kan gesteld worden dat de afwijkingen geenszins als beperkt kunnen worden beschouwd en dus niet kunnen worden toegestaan, en de voorgestelde afwijkingen bovendien ruimtelijk niet aanvaardbaar zijn. Toegevoegd kan worden dat het jammer is dat dit perceel blijkbaar niet gevrijwaard kan worden van bebouwing middels een verwerving door de overheid. Jammer gezien de onmiskenbaar historische, toeristische, symbolische en andere waarden van de omgeving en de bijzondere relatie tussen Hill 60 en Ieper, die het lokale belang verre overstijgen.
Het is aangewezen de voorgestelde afwijkingen van de verkavelingsvoorschriften niet toe te staan en de vergunning om deze reden te weigeren.

[(Hugh)]

We did of course try different approaches to apply international pressure, but they came to nothing. The internet lets us see one attempt coming to nothing.  


www.wargravesheritage.org.uk/minutes/WH260710.doc

[towisuk]

Hi Hugh, many thanks for updating us on the objections and procedures to the case against the building of the house on Hill 60.
Also a very interesting link to the minutes of the "All Party War Heritage Group" who met in the House of Lords in June 2010....I didn't realise these were available on the net, but it does make very interesting reading.

The minutes of the meeting include a discussion on the proposed build at Hill 60, The "Save Hill 60" campaign was mentioned, what I found rather alarming was the comments to the Group by someone who we all know from his TV programmes. Rather than try to emphasise the strong feeling against the new developement his comment seemed to lead the committee to believe (in my opinion), that there was no acceptance for the campaigns aims in the region..??? And how is he an expert on "local sensitivities"? is he a local resident, as many of the people against this desecration of a sensitive area are...???

Also The same persons comment that steps were being taken to ensure further study of the Hill 60 battlefield would result.....why should it,
what study, and by whom??? and how does the building of a house on a sensitive site lead to that???

The very thing that whoever it is wants to study, is being torn apart bit by bit by the developers.......!!!

I urge all forum members to read these minutes to see how "anti house" views were represented in a very influential meeting....it's no wonder there is no action being taken at a "Higher Level" when comments are made of this nature in Group meetings, that I feel, do not truly represent the views of all interested parties.


regards
Tom