108 replies to this topic

[Bert Heyvaert]

(Hugh), on 09 September 2011 - 12:57 AM, said:

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

An eyeopener Hugh, thanks for that!

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

Sorting through a couple of folders of photos today and I came across this. Taken from beside the Australian Tunnelers Memorial at Hill 60 looking back towards St Martin's Cathedral in the centre of Ypres - the spire is on the horizon, just left of centre. Reminds me why the place was so hotly fought over. Nice view isnt it wasnt it.

 Australian Tunneling Company Hill 60 b (5).JPG   26.91K   12 downloads

Tom

[Terry_Reeves]

Perhaps someone would like to comment on the other houses on Zwarteleenstraat and the development just beyond it which are post WW1. I haven't seen anyone complain about these, and, of course, they are all built  on the battlefield. It seems to me that a very narrow view is being taken of this, as per the photograph above.

TR

[Terry_Reeves]

Tom

I know nothing of planning regulations in Belgium, my point is that development of this area has taken place over many years after WW1 and there appears to have been no objections, so why is it that the building of one dwelling house in 2011 causes so much of a problem?  The area beyond that, was also part of the battlefield but apparently no objections have been raised, which rather negates the argument about the possibility of human remains as a reason for refusing planning permission. It also substantially weakens the argument for the view towards Ypres. As I said, a narrow view point is being taken.

TR

[chrislock]

Tom Tulloch-Marshall, on 11 September 2011 - 01:09 PM, said:

Sorting through a couple of folders of photos today and I came across this. Taken from beside the Australian Tunnelers Memorial at Hill 60 looking back towards St Martin's Cathedral in the centre of Ypres - the spire is on the horizon, just left of centre. Reminds me why the place was so hotly fought over. Nice view isnt it wasnt it.

Australian Tunneling Company Hill 60 b (5).JPG

Tom

Nice View? it still is!

The view you have poted is very much still there. If you are stood within the Australian Memorial enclosure the view is exactly what you have posted as the house is to the right of your pic. The view from the top of the hill has been compromised only.

Enjoy the view.

Chris

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

chrislock, on 11 September 2011 - 05:04 PM, said:

... The view you have poted is very much still there. If you are stood within the Australian Memorial enclosure ...

As I recall (I’m afraid I didn’t take measurements and make notes), the photo was taken adjacent to the gated entrance to the main part of the Hill 60 site, east of the tunnelling memorial, - checking Google Street View though the area doesn’t seem have been covered yet, so I cant link to it and match it more precisely. I’m sorry if that is inconvenient (the position, not Street View).

The current building on Zwarteleenstraat is not an isolated case as far as “objecting” to construction encroaching towards or radically altering the vista of memorials, CWGC cemeteries, etc, is concerned, and trying to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

Tom

[RoyEvans]

I have removed two posts on this topic as being in breach of the following forum rule;

"Discussions and posts on modern-day politics or religion will not be tolerated in any area of the forum."

Roy

[chrislock]

Tom.

The photo you posted was taken within the Memorial enclosure as can be seen by the railings. That view is still very much there today even though the house in question is now almost complete! I am on this site almost daily. It is the view from the hill which has been compromised and not the view you post.

Chris

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

RoyEvans, on 11 September 2011 - 09:15 PM, said:

I have removed two posts on this topic as being in breach of the following forum rule;
"Discussions and posts on modern-day politics or religion will not be tolerated in any area of the forum."
Roy

Roy - Neither of them were mine, but in removing them, yet leaving the reply to one of them, the string now reads as if that reply is addressed at me (there being more than one "Tom" on GWF).

Please don’t bother removing or altering any of it because it doesn’t bother me at all, but maybe it’s a point which you and other mods should be more aware of – by selectively removing posts you can alter the structure and continuity of the topic concerned.

Keep calm and carry on.
Tom

[towisuk]

RoyEvans, on 11 September 2011 - 09:15 PM, said:

I have removed two posts on this topic as being in breach of the following forum rule;

"Discussions and posts on modern-day politics or religion will not be tolerated in any area of the forum."

Roy

Sorry Roy, I just wanted to ask the question of how the recommendations of the planners employed to do a job, can be overuled by others without the same qualifications....and why?  This is all about the permission to build this dwelling, it's very difficult to have a discussion when one cannot refer to the crux of the matter...
So I see no point in continuing this topic
But I shall be watching what happens around Hill 60 in the future...


regards
Tom

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

chrislock, on 11 September 2011 - 09:33 PM, said:

Tom. The photo you posted was taken within the Memorial enclosure as can be seen by the railings. That view is still very much there today even though the house in question is now almost complete! I am on this site almost daily. It is the view from the hill which has been compromised and not the view you post.
Chris

Chris – Hill 60 is on the southerly side of the Zwarteleenstraat. Ypres is to the north. The new house is on the northern side of the Zwarteleenstraat across the road from, and north of, Hill 60.

I do realise that you are trying to make some clever point that if you stand in the exact spot from which the photo was taken (which to the foot I cannot place without being there) then you can get a line of sight on the spire of St Martins.

To claim that the house hasn’t drastically altered the view from Hill 60 (or more specifically the area of the tunnelling memorial) is, I’ll be charitable, naïve.

Tom

[chrislock]

Tom.

You posted a photo along with text informing all that this view is no longer available. Your photo was taken from within the Australian Tunnelers Memorial enclosure as proven by the memorial railings. The view from that position today is exactly what your photo offers. The actual house is off to your right.

By the way, it is not a clever point I wish to make but simply a factual point so to remove any confusion from your post for forum members who have not visited Hill 60, the errors of your accompanying text need to be corrected.

It is the view from the top of Hill 6O that has been compromised and not from the site of ANZAC shaft which you post.

Enjoy the view, it is still very much there as your photo depicts!

[Bert Heyvaert]

towisuk, on 11 September 2011 - 09:38 PM, said:

Sorry Roy, I just wanted to ask the question of how the recommendations of the planners employed to do a job, can be overuled by others without the same qualifications....and why?  This is all about the permission to build this dwelling, it's very difficult to have a discussion when one cannot refer to the crux of the matter...
So I see no point in continuing this topic
But I shall be watching what happens around Hill 60 in the future...


regards
Tom

Tom, to answer your question directly: The recommendations of the planners are an advice, given to people who are elected and appointed to take the final responsability on whether a permission is granted or not.
One could say, I suppose, that planners only have planning issues to consider while the ones who are making the final decision might have other things to consider as well...

[(Hugh)]

Photos, last year and this.

Attached Files

•  Copy of View from Hill 60.JPG   48.79K   0 downloads
•  Copy of View from Hill 60 2.JPG   43.8K   0 downloads

[(Hugh)]

The issue of the view from the Tunnelers monument has been raised.  


What is important to consider here is that there is no 'Beplantingsplan'  (Groenplan) issued with this building permit. A Grienplan was requested by Adviescommissie Stedenschoon, advising Ieper Council, but it is nowhere to be found in the building permit.

A Groenplan is an instruction about maximum heights of hedges, walls and fences around a building, and also instructions about the height of trees and shrubs within. This would normally be included if a biulding and its plot of land is in an area of any scenic interest to the public.

.

Attached Files

•  P9120010.JPG   77.5K   0 downloads

[(Hugh)]

Here is a simulation prepared last year to show the boundaries of the plot, with a fence scaled at 1 metre. The house is to the right hand side of the plot, and hence the garden extends leftwards.

Given the amount of visitors who might stare across the garden each day, it is logical to assume that, for privacy, a higher fence or screening shrubs and trees will be planted as NO HEIGHT LIMIT has been enforced.

Attached Files

•  fence without background.jpg   79.71K   0 downloads

[(Hugh)]

Finally for today, referring to the first photo I posted, you can see a 60m gap left across two unbuilt parcels of land. Students of this saga will remember that there have been building permit applications on both of these plots.

When the first planning application was received on the left hand plot, a report was commissioned by the council on the effect of building there. As building on either plot cuts the view to 30 metres,  it might be considered that the same conclusions would have been reported on an application to develop the other plot. However in this latter case, no environmental impact report was commissioned.

Here are highlights of the report. English only readers might copy and paste this into Google Translate or similar.

"Het perceel maakt essentieel deel uit van de zowel historische als landschappelijk uitzonderlijke site  Hill 60, één van de absolute toprelicten en landschappelijke getuigenissen van het oorlogsverhaal rond Ieper. De waarde en betekenis van et perceel worden tevens erkenden ondersteund door alle instanties (IFFM, Provincie, Gewest) die betrokken zijn bij de bescherming, inrichting en ontsluiting van het oorlogslandschap in de Ieperboog.

...de overtuiging dat landschappelijke ontwikkeling en ontsluiting en de historische duiding en interpretatie van het oorlogsgebeuren op en rondom Hill 60 op een totale en onomkeerbare wijze gehypothekeerd zal worden door een private woning.

In het kader van de zich ontwikkelende projecten rondom de 100-jarige herdenkingen, kan en mag niet aanvaard worden dat een essentieel sluitstuk binnen het oorlogsverhaal van de Ieperboog verloren gaat.

Het vrijwaren van een panoramisch uitzicht is essentieel voor het begrip en de duiding van de site.

Om een toekomstige afscherming en banalisering van dit uitzicht te voorkomen moet dit perceel dan ook strikt bouwvrij blijven.

Indien verwerving mogelijk is, kan op dit perceel de loopgravenstructuur aansluitend op Hill 60 suggestief ingericht worden.

De kans om hier, mits verwerving, inrichting, beheer en verantwoorde ontsluiting van een compleet oorlogslandschap op en om de beruchte helling in te richten, is uniek in de hele Ieperboog.

CONCLUSIE: het toekennen van een bouwvergunning op dit perceel betekent een onaanvaardbare verstoring en schending van de goede ruimtelijke ordening binnen deze omgeving. Het perceel maakt deel uit van een uitzonderlijke landschappelijke getuigenis van de Eerste Wereldoorlog binnen het Ieperse front, de Ieperboog, en moet aldus voor de toekomstige generaties als open en authentiek oorlogslandschap behouden blijven."

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

chrislock, on 12 September 2011 - 07:09 AM, said:

........ It is the view from the top of Hill 6O that has been compromised and not from the site of ANZAC shaft which you post. ...

See post # 90.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Tom

[chrislock]

Thank you for the explanation and your time Hugh. Much appreciated however, as we can only deal with facts, I believe it is best to await and see what the owners actually do with their garden surround rather than assume what they will do and won't do.
Dont't you think so?

And lastly for Tom: please see post 87!

[brucehubbard]

I cannot comment upon the planning process in Belgium, but I do have experience of how it works, currently, in Britain. Bear in mind also that there is legislation before Parliament at this moment which may radically affect the process.
Anyone in the UK can submit a planning apllication. It doesn't matter if they own the land or not. I could apply to build something on your back garden (but wouldn't expect to get permission!)
Once an application is received, local Councillors receive details, as do any affected Parish or Town Councils, and a relatively small number of local residents with properties near to the location of the proposal.
The application is then looked at by the Planning Officers, who make a recommendation to the Planning Committee. The vast majority are non-contentious. It is unlikely that there would be any problems if you applied to put on a porch to your home. However, if there is likely to be some adverse comment, the ward councillors can request that the application be seen by the full Planning Committee. They can also request a site visit by the Visiting Sub-Committee. In most local authorities (including that upon which I sit) a petition by 25 residents, supported by a ward councillor, gains the right by a representative to address the full Committee for five minutes.
The decision is ultimately in the hands of the Planning Committee. They have to be mindful of Planning Law. It is not good enough to turn down an application on the grounds that"we don't want this here" or that "we have already got enough fast-food take=aways" without being able to quote Planning Law. However, there are regularly occasions when the Committee will turn down an application, against the advice of the Planning officers. Such a decision has to be mindful of the fact that there is currently an appeal process, with the costs applied to whoever loses the appeal, and most Local Authorities are aware that if they lose such an appeal it will cost them about £80,000. When Local Govt. is facing huge reduction in the rate Support Grant from Central Govt., this has the effect of solidifying thought.
The members of the Planning Committee are all elected Councillors, whereas the Planning Officers are not elected. Although there is always the possibility of an accusation of Nimbyism. elected councillors have to be aware of the opinions of those who elected them. There is also the constant contrast between the wishes of the authority as a whole and those who will be directly affected by a submitted plan.
I don't know if this advances the debate on this particular issue, but thought it might help if we were clear about how we do things in the UK.

Bruce

[britman]

Reading all these posts.

I think talking about the UK planning process is irrelevant.  What one Country does can be completely different than any other Countries.

Looking at Hugh's recent photos, in my opinion it doesn't make Hill 60 any less important than before. Though I would not want to build there.

Should remains discovered be removed for further investigation and reburial or repatriation? Probably.  Does skulduggery exist with some builders covering up what they've found? Probably been going on for years and years, part of the norm for the area I suspect.

[johnreed]

Here is the translation to Post 92


"The plot is an essential part of both historical and scenic exceptional site Hill 60, one of the absolute toprelicten and scenic testimonies of the war story of Ypres. The value and significance of et plot also acknowledged support from all agencies (IFFM, Province , region) involved in the protection, creation and enhancement of the landscape of war in the Ypres Salient.

... the belief that landscape development and opening up and the historical interpretation and interpretation of the war in and around Hill 60 on a total and irreversible manner will be mortgaged by a private dwelling.

As part of the developing projects around the 100-year commemorations, can not and should not be accepted that an essential keystone in the war story of the Ypres Salient lost.

Safeguard a panoramic view is essential for the understanding and interpretation of the site.

To a future screening and trivializing this view to avoid this plot than strictly construction free.

If acquisition is possible, this plot structure adjacent to the trenches on Hill 60 suggestive furnished.

The chance to be here, if the acquisition, design, management and responsible disclosure of a complete landscape of war and the notorious inclination to set up is unique in the Ypres Salient.

CONCLUSION: granting planning permission on this plot represents an unacceptable disturbance and breach of good planning in this area. The plot is part of an exceptional landscape testimony of the First World War in the Ypres front, the Ypres Salient, and must for future generations as open and authentic war landscape are preserved. "

John

[towisuk]

Many thanks for that translation John, so there we have it...............

"CONCLUSION: granting planning permission on this plot represents an unacceptable disturbance and breach of good planning in this area. The plot is part of an exceptional landscape testimony of the First World War in the Ypres front, the Ypres Salient, and must for future generations as open and authentic war landscape are preserved. "

Why was this reports recommendations ignored?, and by whom?, and why?, something doth smell fishy in the state of Flanders......

regards
Tom

[Chris_Baker]

A couple of days ago. The new occupiers are building a model Hill 60, to be known as Hill 6, in the garden.

 IMGP1347_sml.jpg   93.12K   87 downloads

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

Chris_Baker, on 08 October 2011 - 07:12 PM, said:

A couple of days ago. The new occupiers are building a model Hill 60, to be known as Hill 6, in the garden.

An interesting development Chris – thanks for reporting it.

Details of this new work should probably be passed to these specialists in order that they can pick up on the work of their forebears and get the appropriate explosives laid. The outcome may avoid any further concern about the building itself  

Tom