The Royal Engineers Journal
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Military Sites Are Part of Urban Monuments Which Are Also All
REPAIR Thematic Network BASELINE STUDY BASELINE STUDY INTRODUCTION The withdrawal of the military presence from an urban area can happen suddenly, leading to extremely adverse socio-economic circumstances. This notably concerns small and medium sized urban areas where historically the military presence has dominated economic activity, providing much direct and indirect employment. These former military sites have excellent potential to act as the catalyst for urban socio-economic regeneration. Many of these sites consist of historic buildings, which may be considered critical assets. The challenge is to transform these abandoned military heritage sites into thriving sources of economic activity, employment and social cohesion. Our project will transfer identified good practice in the socio-economic re-use of military heritage sites and mainstreaming it to enable new regional development projects in other areas. Partner cities in the REPAIR Thematic Network share a common characteristic. The “sense of place” and identity has been shaped by significant presence of large swathes of military heritage buildings and sites, which military authorities have abandoned. The partners also share the major challenge of how to deliver the successful socio-economic and sustainable re-use of this abandoned military heritage so that it not only achieves economic competitiveness, in line with “Lisbon” and “Gothenburg” goals. The sites within the partner cities are a mixture of military installations from medieval to modern built heritage. The latter systems have witnessed recent de-militarisation. De- militarisation in the late twentieth century left a significant social and economic vacuum caused because the local economies were often dependent on military presence with the effect of mini “command” economies. -
Medway Heritage Asset Review 2017 Final Draft: November 2017
Medway Heritage Asset Review 2017 Final Draft: November 2017 Executive Summary The Medway Heritage Asset Review intends to provide a comprehensive overview of the heritage assets in Medway in order to inform the development of a Heritage Strategy to support the emerging Medway Local Plan 2015. Medway benefits from a rich heritage spanning millennia, underpinning the local distinctiveness and creating a unique and special character that can be readily interpreted through the historic environment. The main report is broken down into sections, initially looking at the topography of Medway and how this influenced human settlement in the area, then looking at the development of the key settlements in Medway; taking into consideration the key drivers for their establishment and identifying existing heritage assets. Furthermore, the main influences to development in the area are also considered; including Chatham Dockyard and the military, the brick, cement and lime industry, agriculture, maritime and religion. Through investigating Medway’s history both geographically and thematically, the significance of heritage assets and the importance of historic landscapes can be readily identified; enabling a better understanding and providing opportunities to enhance their enjoyment. Non-designated heritage assets are also identified using a broad range of sources; providing a deeper knowledge of what shapes the distinct local character experienced in Medway and the how this identity is of great importance to the local community. The report concludes with suggestions for additional areas of research and identifies themes to be considered to inform the development of a coherent and robust Heritage Strategy that will help enhance, understand and celebrate Medway’s heritage for years to come. -
And Heritage. Model Management Framework Contents
ASCEND Model Management Framework ASCEND Achieving the Socio-Economic Re-use of Former Military Land and Heritage. Model Management Framework Contents. Introduction Foreword by E.U. Commissioner for Regional Policy, Danuta Hübner2 Foreword by Richard Ashworth, MEP for South East England 3 Background Descriptions Medway 4 New Dutch Waterline 6 Cartagena 8 Rostock 10 Venice 12 Charente-Maritime 14 Karlskrona 16 Thessaloniki 18 Process Model 20 Case Studies Medway: Planning for a Sustainable Heritage Environment 32 Developing a Mixed-Use Site 37 Volunteer Management and Engagement 39 Hosting Events in Former Military Heritage 46 The Conversion of HMS Pembroke to University Facilities 50 New Dutch Waterline: Fort Voordorp: Private Investment in Public Hire 55 Fort Vechten: The Development of Market Activities 59 Fort de Bilt: an Anti-Discrimination Exhibition Centre 63 Cartagena: The Spanish Civil War Air Raid Shelters 67 The Development of Large-Scale Barracks Facilities into a “City of Culture” 73 Navidad Fortess, and the Establishment of Cartagena: Port of Cultures 79 The Development of Alcalá de Henares University from the Former Military Facilities 85 Conversion of the Former Military Hospital to the Polytechnic University of Cartagena 90 Rostock: The Establishment of the Heinkel Commission 94 The Conversion of the Former Barracks to University Facilities 102 Venice: Strategies for the Defence System 107 Pact between the Volunteer Association and the Municipality 114 The System Development Model of the Defence System 119 Thetis - A Private -
Chapter 19 Contractors
CHAPTER 19 CONTRACTORS Introduction The Navy Board obtained its supplies for the Yards by inviting tenders and then contracting with firms to provide given quantities of stores at agreed prices. Warrants were issued to individual contractors nominating them as suppliers of the Navy Board. This system of obtaining supplies by advertising for tenders in the Press and awarding the contracts to the lowest bidder who had to provide guarantees by bonds and sureties continued until1869 when a separate Contract and Purchase Department was established for naval, victualling and medical stores. In 1912 the work of this Department was extended to deal with shipbuilding contracts. Contracts pre-1870 Before the end of the 17th century, the Navy Board had a number of standing contracts for a great variety of services: braziers' work, painting, block making, plumbing, etc. Often these contracts required the contractor to have a workshop near or in the Yard. The terms of the contract were usually to supply a particular Dockyard with the items required '... for one year certain' with six months' notice on either side. The Yard could indent on the contractor for supplies without delay and the latter was expected to maintain a reasonable stock. Sir Ambrose Crowley, a contractor for ironwork at the end of the 17th century, complained that at the termination of a standing contract he was left with anchors too large except for use in the Navy. The Resident Commissioner could make limited local purchases 1 of stores. In general a copy of the contract between the Navy Board and the Contractor would be sent by the Clerk of the Acts to the Yard for guidance and receipt of stores. -
Download Archaeological and Built Heritage Impact
[project name] Headland Archaeology [project code/job] MIPR INNOVATION PARK MEDWAY, ROCHESTER, KENT Archaeological and Built Heritage Impact Assessment for Medway Council (MC) and Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (TMBC) 30th August 2018 - 0 - Innovation Park Medway, Rochester Headland Archaeology MIPR INNOVATION PARK MEDWAY, ROCHESTER Archaeological and Built Heritage Impact Assessment for Medway Council (MC) and Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (TMBC) 30th August 2018 HA Job no.: MIPR/01 HAS no.: 1308 NGR: 574482 164504 Medway Council & Tonbridge Councils: and Malling District Council Project Manager: Mike Kimber Author: Jen Richards Fieldwork: Jen Richards & Beth Doyle Graphics: Jen Richards Approved by: Mike Kimber - i - Innovation Park Medway, Rochester Headland Archaeology MIPR CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Planning Background ............................................................................................. 2 1.2 Site Description ...................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Consultation ........................................................................................................... 3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................ 3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... -
Boundaries and Physical Characteristics of the District .3 Historical Perspective
The Defence of Kent Project DISCOVERING AND RECORDING KENT’s 20TH CENTURY MILITARY AND CIVIL DEFENCES MEDWAY DISTRICT _____________________________ The findings MEDWAY MILITARY RESEARCH GROUP February 2008 Medway Military Research Group (2006) Mark Gibson Edmund Gulvin Keith Gulvin Gerd Hoad HOME GUARD SPIGOT MORTAR 1940 Contents INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 BOUNDARIES AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DISTRICT .3 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE.................................................................................4 SURVEY SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES.....................................................................6 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................8 SUMMARY OF SOURCES......................................................................................11 SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL FINDINGS...........................................................15 SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED SITES.....................................................................29 HISTORICAL FINDINGS & ASSESSMENT OF SURVIVING KEY SITES ...32 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................39 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................40 Annexe 1 - Detailed Sources......................................................................................41 Annex 2 - Listing Applications, -
Fort Amherst Guide Book
FORT AMHERST VISITOR GUIDE Discover Britain’s biggest and best preserved Napoleonic fort BRITAIN’S HISTORY REDISCOVERED fortamherst.com 1 FORT AMHERST: WHY IS IT HERE? Fort Amherst’s main purpose was to defend Chatham Dockyard from a landward attack by an invading army. With nearly two miles of ramparts, Welcome to gun positions, barracks and underground works, it was a formidable obstacle. Its secondary role Fort Amherst was to protect the approach to London against an invading army by providing a strong point behind DEFENDING MEDWAY WITH PRIDE the enemy’s line of attack. It may be hard to believe now, but for its time, it boasted some of the best defence technology in the world. Rochester from Chatham 1832. Watercolour by Joseph Milford William Turner 2 3 BRITAIN’S BIGGEST AND BEST PRESERVED NAPOLEONIC FORT GLOSSARY Soldiers at Fort Amherst spoke these words; some are still heard today! How many do you know? If you see a word in red, you will find it listed here. • Armoury: a place where weapons are kept. • Loopholes: narrow holes through which soldiers could look for enemies, or fire their • Artillery: large guns, mounted on carriages weapons. or sledges. Also the name for the part of the army that uses those guns. • Magazine: gunpowder store. • Battery: two or more big guns, used by the • Musket: a smooth bore gun with military, in the same place. Also the name of a long barrel, fired using a flintlock mechanism. the part of the army that uses those guns. • Ordnance: military material, for example • Calibre: the width of the inside weapons, ammunition, vehicles and of a gun’s barrel. -
Fort Borstal, Hill Road, Borstal Rochester Proposal
MC/17/1741 Date Received: 16 May, 2017 Location: Fort Borstal, Hill Road, Borstal Rochester Proposal: Use of existing buildings and yard for stabling of horses; sand school and manure pit outside the confines of the Fort; upper grassland to be used as grazing and disused drainage holding tank to be converted to lunging ring Applicant: Mr & Mrs Swan Agent: MKA Architects LTD Rosewood House High Street Hadlow TN11 0EF Ward Rochester West Case Officer Hannah Gunner Contact Number 01634 331700 _________________________________________________________________ Recommendation of Officers to the Planning Committee, to be considered and determined by the Planning Committee at a meeting to be held on 25 October 2017. Recommendation - Approval with Conditions 1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). 2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2028/04/A, 2028/06/-, 2028/07/- (received 16 May 2017); 2028/00/C, 2028/01/D, 2028/05/D, 2028/08/D (13 Sept 2017). Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 3 The number of horses stabled on the premises hereby approved shall not exceed 24, consisting of 18 horses within the casements and 6 horses with the officer units. Reason: To ensure that over intensification of the site does not occur which could be detrimental to the fabric of the building. This will help to preserve the building in compliance with Policy BNE20. -
The Development of New Tavern Fort at Gravesend in the Industrial Age
Archaeologia Cantiana Vol. 133 2013 NEW FOR OLD: THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW TAVERN FORT AT GRAVESEND IN THE INDUSTRIAL AGE VICTOR SMITH An overview of the history of the artillery defences at Gravesend from Tudor times appeared in this journal for 1974.1 This paper concentrates on the comparatively rapid development which took place in the second half of the nineteenth century and early twentieth. The Industrial Revolution led to a succession of major improvements to the instruments of war, providing the catalyst for a military technological revolution in the mid nineteenth century. As exemplified by developments at New Tavern Fort this fund- amentally affected Britain’s coastal fortifications, with each innovation in the means of attack requiring new defensive countermeasures. Despite the alliance in the Crimean War from 1854-6, there remained a long-standing mistrust of France and a sense that she was evolving a geopolitical agenda unfavourable to Britain. The building of a new channel port at Cherbourg was seen as a provocation and a convenient base from which to challenge the Royal Navy’s superiority in home waters. With other French harbours recently enlarged, it was also regarded as a place from which potentially to launch an attack on Britain itself, whether on her ports and naval bases on the Channel coast or those in the Thames and Medway.2 Moreover, the modernisation of the French fleet with steam ironclads armed with the new and more powerful rifled guns (famously symbolised by the Gloire which was launched in 1859) seemed calculated to outclass Britain’s wooden wall navy and her coastal defences, both armed with obsolescent smooth bore ordnance. -
UXO Desk Study & Risk Assessment
Lower Thames Crossing – UXO Desk Study & Risk Assessment Drafted by Checked by Authorised by Lower Thames Crossing Document Title UXO Desk Study & Risk Assessment Document Ref. HE540039-ZET-GEN-GEN-REP-GEO-00001 Revision 3 Project Location Lower Thames Crossing Client Arcadis Date 31st August 2018 This report has been prepared in relation to the specific requirement of the contract or commission. The report should not be used by third parties without prior consultation with Zetica Ltd. The copyright for this report remains with Zetica Ltd. No part of this report may be reproduced, published or amended without prior written consent from Zetica Ltd. The report refers to the conditions of the Site at the time of investigation/ reporting. Zetica Ltd cannot accept liability for subsequent changes of Site conditions. Zetica Ltd may have relied on externally provided information. Zetica Ltd cannot be held responsible for the accuracy of such information or data supplied. The report has been written utilising relevant guidance and legislation in use at the time of report compilation. Subsequent improvement in techniques, changes in legislation or in site conditions may render parts of this report obsolete. If the report is utilised after such changes have occurred or at a time in excess of 1 year of the issue date, it would be prudent to contact Zetica Ltd to reassess the report under a new contract. HE540039-ZET-GEN-GEN-REP-GEO-00001 i Lower Thames Crossing UXO DESK STUDY & RISK ASSESSMENT Lower Thames Crossing EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Zetica Ltd was commissioned by Arcadis, in association with CH2M and COWI and on behalf of Highways England, to carry out an Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Desk Study and Risk Assessment for an area of approximately 76 square kilometres (km) centred on an approximately 31km route between Great Warley in the Brentwood Borough of Essex and Cobham in Kent (the ‘Site’). -
Strategic Land Availability Assessment (SLAA)
Strategic Land Availability Assessment (SLAA) July 2018 Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 4 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 5 2. Background ...................................................................................................................... 8 Medway SLAA 2015 ........................................................................................................................ 8 Medway SLAA 2017 ........................................................................................................................ 8 Medway SLAA 2018 ........................................................................................................................ 9 3. SLAA Process .................................................................................................................. 12 Stage 1. - Site Identification .................................................................................................... 12 Assessment Area ........................................................................................................................... 12 Site Size ......................................................................................................................................... 12 Desktop Review ............................................................................................................................