British bunker destroyed at Poperinge

[Seadog]

Peter your expertise and input to this subject is greatly appreciated. I know that you will keep us up-to-date with any further news on this particular matter. The trouble is as I am sure you will agree is that the problem goes deeper than just one instance as is made abundantly clear with the posts here detailing the destruction of these structures. Bring this whole subject into the open using every method available to place the facts in front of the public. May I suggest that the local press be contacted and an article published .as soon as possible for it is no good to pay lip-service to the 100^th commemorations whilst under our noses the very things that provide a direct link with those troubled times are destroyed.

Regards

Norman

[jay dubaya]

Just been reading a translated article on a Dutch news website which claims many businesses are laying lawns and not industry. It gave the impression that this is not what the economy needs. With this kind of attitude and funds to pay fines it will be just as much a struggle to keep these structures as our forebears struggled to raise them to the ground in the first place. Will post a link later - On the boat now and will loose signal shortly

[Seadog]

I have received an email from Dominiek of the IFF which he has requested remains private. With due respect to this gentleman I have agreed as in my view its contents do not move us further on in this issue. However I informed him that I will publish my response so here it is.

I will of course respect your request that this particular email is not made public. However there are far too many examples of the destruction of those very structures which define the role of West Flanders and Ypres in the Great War that in my opinion there is something going seriously wrong here and the whole subject needs debating by those with an interest and the people who are responsible for protecting the structures need to get their act together if they are sincere in preserving such icons for the future. Any further responses will be published on the GWF to further this aim including this response from me.

Regards

Norman

[mebu]

For those who like hearing of such matters: I am advised that Manchester Hill, St Quentin, where 16th Manchesters held out and Elstob won VC, has recently had all traces obliterated. Also, the German bunkers at Joncourt, where Wilfrid Owen won MC, demolished.

A relentless tide.

Peter

[Michelle Young]

Norman

Just to make an observation, maybe the farmers don't want these massive structures on their land? What you see as something that must be preserved at all cost might be a majorinconvenience to them?

Michelle

[mebu]

Michelle, yes it is a problem. Many farmers see things differently to us, one man's heritage site is another man's obstacle. In this case it is likely that the farmer just did not want this on his land anymore. It has been used to house cattle for quite a while, but things change....

I cannot imagine many Brits have visited this at Ebro Farm, or knew of its existance, and the farmer foresees hordes coming over in the next few years .Many farmers will not welcome the expected surge in visitors trampling their land.

Every country has a balancing act between history/heritage and the developments in agriculture and infrastructure.

The Belgians have made laws protecting vestiges not just of WW1 but many other aspects of their history. So have the British, and still things disappear.

I have seen many such things in Belgium and France demolished, it is a relentless tide. Hopefully things may be slowing down and at least the "famous" vestiges will be preserved.

Peter

[mebu]

PS one thing I forgot to mention....came up in discussion with French farmer at Cambrai area....farmers are scared of visitors nowadays.

Scenario is visitor sees something in field, wants to look. Leaves gate open. Or, visitor crosses field, slips in mud, sues farmer for negligence.

Peter

[Seadog]

Norman

Just to make an observation, maybe the farmers don't want these massive structures on their land? What you see as something that must be preserved at all cost might be a majorinconvenience to them?

Michelle

So Michelle I presume that you are quite happy if these structures are destroyed irrespective of this quote from post 48 indicating as I read it that these structures will be at the least subject to what is described as “certain rules” which may include, and here I am guessing because right know none of us are aware of the detailed legislation, protection from demolition without official sanction.

“Some of these relicts have been declared officially “monuments” making them subject to special regulations regarding alterings, including consideral subventions for restoration. However, all structures, even the vast majority that is not declared an official monument, are subject to specific rules”.

Norman

[Seadog]

Given that according to the information available (P48) from Dominiek at the IFF;

Some of these relicts have been declared officially “monuments” making them subject to special regulations regarding alterings, including consideral subventions for restoration. However, all structures, even the vast majority that is not declared an official monument, are subject to specific rules.

How come the structures referred to in this thread have been destroyed?, I am grateful to Dominiek for supplying the information but do any of our Belgian members know precisely just what the legislation provides in respect of protection afforded to these structures and what penalties are available for those who contravene such legislation. For whatever protection is granted something is clearly not working if the following demolitions have occurred according the posts (P1 etc).

2013 WW1 British Bunker near Poperinghe (P1)

WW1 German Bunker at Geluveld (P6)

German WW2 Bunker near Ypres railway station (P16)

WW1 structures at Wittepoort farm, near Birr crossroads, and Tuff's farm, Pilkem ridge, in addition to German ones. (P18)

In 2009 two bunkers were demolished near Wieltje (between Sint-Jan and Sint-Juliaan), in the Verlorenhoekstraat. They were visible from the A19 motorway. (P50)

Norman

[chrislock]

Norman.

The German WW2 bunker is on local authority owned land and has yet to be destroyed. It is now engulfed by road and landscaping works but is somehow still there!

This is the very concrete bunker which was enhanced by sand bagging and contained the anti tank gun which knocked out the Polish Stuart tank as it crossed the canal bridge. Return fire splash marks are very much in evidence. The bunker was then over-ran by Polish infantry of the 9th Battation.

*This information with war diary map is revealed in "Ze zijn daar". *A full report of this action may be seen within another thread placed today. The Sept 6th 1944 liberation of Ypres.

I have no other information on your other mentioned bunkers.

[Seadog]

That is some history Chris, you do say that it is being destroyed so is this being contemplated by the town authorities? My main question was whether any member can post the actual legal position of such structures including of course those from WW1 and just what protection they have in particular from being demolished at the whim of the landowner. I believe that it is important that we have the facts as there are somewhat contradictory opinions as to this point on this thread. Can I add just one more question directed at our Belgian members and that is, just what happened after the news of the demolition of those structures listed above was in the hands of the authorities?.

Regards

Norman

[Michelle Young]

No Norman, I'm not that happy with vestiges of the war being destroyed; not just in the Salient or the Somme, but I don't live over there, it isn't my country and I don't make the rules. Lets hope some do get preserved.

Regards the question about what happened after the news, well probably the vast majority of people in France and Belgium don't give a flying fig about what happens.Not everyone is interested in what happened in their back yard nearly 100 years ago

Michelle

[chrislock]

Norman.

I agree with Michelle's post entirely.

Best wishes

Chris

[Seadog]

Michelle let me reiterate the thrust of my statements so that there can be no misunderstanding, if there is a law forbidding the destruction of listed structures which may include those from WW1 as indicated in the email from IFF, then the destruction of same is illegal and whether the farmer likes it or not if that is the law and it is the citizens duty to abide by it and uphold it. As regards what happened after the structures described here were demolished my question is directed at the official response and any sanctions taken against the perpetrator(s) I trust this clarifies the matter.

Norman

[Seadog]

I would be good to remind ourselves of the courage shown during 1917 when the “pillbox fighting” was at its height and the actions which merited the award of the Victoria Cross, Britain’s highest award for gallantry in the face of the enemy. Another reason if it were needed as to why these places are tangible reminders of the conflict.

Chosen at random:

Thomas Holmes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_William_Holmes

Christopher O`Kelly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_O%27Kelly

There are of course many others including those who received awards other that the VC.

Norman

[roel22]

Thanks Norman, makes you feel humble reading these stories.

Roel

[chrislock]

Indeed!!

[towisuk]

Amazing! we worry about bunkers being destroyed and yet soldiers bodies are being disposed of as aggregate for building concrete......

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=160637&page=2&hl=%2Bsoldiers+%2Bremains+%2Bdestroyed#entry1557734

Talk about getting our priorities wrong!!

regards

Tom

[Seadog]

I understand your point but I can assure you that I personally have not got my priorities wrong in any sense. I cannot understand why you would quote as an example of your assertion a thread which was actually locked in 2011, it would of course been just as easy to quote the Beaucamps-Ligny topic which many members have supported and worked towards what we all hope will be a successful conclusion. I believe that your post deserved a response but hopefully this will not divert attention away from the topic of this thread which I repeat in my case is concerned with understanding just what legal protection if any is granted to the WW1 structures at present surviving in Belgium and in particular in the area of West Flanders.

Norman

[mebu]

Norman, you have got the bit between your teeth on this one haven't you?

Below is translation of current Flemish position regarding all structures, including ex military, in the region. Peter

“For protecting built heritage, there are two juridical instruments. First, and most stringent, there is the listing of buildings or ensembles as “monuments” or “heritage ensembles” (stads-en dorpsgezichten), which is provided in Belgian law since the 1930s. Listed buildings are subject of several restrictions but – on the other hand – can also be subject of public funding for maintenance and restoration works.

The second ‘tool’ dates from 2009 and is very specific for Flanders: buildings and ensembles that figure on the scientific Inventory of built heritage in Flanders, can periodically be added to the “juridical inventory” (vastgestelde Inventaris). This gives 4 legal consequences to these buildings:

1. demolition becomes more difficult (although still possible),
2. a change of use that conflicts with the urban destination of the area becomes more easy,
3. exceptions on energy efficiency standards are possible,
4. and - in the case of affordable housing – the housing societies are not obliged to demolish and built anew if the renovation of the existing buildings costs more than 80% of a new building.

In the process of obtaining a demolition permit for a structure on the “juridical list”, the local authorities will ask our agency (Heritage Flanders) for advice. Depending on how ‘intact’ the heritage values of the structure are at the moment of the request (which may date several years after the moment a structure was added to the list), we will advise whether to grant the demolition or not. The local authorities can choose to follow our advice … or not! Is they deviate from our advice, they will need to motivate this.

If the owner demolishes a structure on the list without a permit, this is an unlawful act, which can be prosecuted by the government. Anyone can report such a violation to our agency or to the local authorities.”

[Seadog]

Thanks Peter that most certainly goes a long way to help my understanding of the status of those structures contained on the list for which this is a link:

Schedule of structures

https://inventaris.onroerenderfgoed.be/woi/relicten?hoofdklasse=7&oorlog=WOI

I note that those in Flanders contained on the list described as the “juridical inventory” (vastgestelde Inventaris) enjoy an enhanced level of protection in the case of a formal request for demolition in that “Heritage Flanders” are empowered to offer advice in such cases as to whether the demolition should proceed with the proviso that the authorities may accept or reject such advice. I also note that if the owner demolishes a structure on the list without a permit, this is an unlawful act, which can be prosecuted by the government and that anyone can report such a violation to our agency or to the local authorities.

Bearing the above in mind may I ask whether you can confirm that the list we are looking at for those structures in Flanders is the “juridical inventory” and these are therefore subject to the additional conditions as noted above? Finally and this can of course only be an opinion, given that the list is freely available and I presume that the landowners on whose land the structures so listed are situated are aware of this, why is it that given these facts the structures can be demolished with impunity and what can be done to improve the situation for the future.

Norman

[WhiteStarLine]

Norman, great to see you taking this up and such a shame to see these being removed, whether it is legal or not.

[Seadog]

It is a situation which has been brought to a head by the posts here reporting the demolition of WW1 structures by the landowners apparently in complete defiance of the legal protection afforded to the structures as already detailed by Mebu. I believe that we have established that protection is afforded to the structures as listed and in the case of West Flanders this is enhanced by the advice available form Heritage Flanders in the case of a demolition application. What I would very much like to understand is why given this protection from demolition and the fact that landowners can be prosecuted for such acts, why these structures are still at risk. It could be that the penalties for contravention of the Law are so paltry as to provide little deterrent and/or any reluctance of the authorities responsible to formally prosecute those who have breached the Law appertaining to demolition.

Norman

[Mick D]

Norman.

The German WW2 bunker is on local authority owned land and has yet to be destroyed. It is now engulfed by road and landscaping works but is somehow still there!

This is the very concrete bunker which was enhanced by sand bagging and contained the anti tank gun which knocked out the Polish Stuart tank as it crossed the canal bridge. Return fire splash marks are very much in evidence. The bunker was then over-ran by Polish infantry of the 9th Battation.

*This information with war diary map is revealed in "Ze zijn daar". *A full report of this action may be seen within another thread placed today. The Sept 6th 1944 liberation of Ypres.

I have no other information on your other mentioned bunkers.

any photographs of this bunker ?

Mick

[chrislock]

Several. Go www.lestweforgettours.com and click on the company facebook blog link. Scroll down and you will locate several! ;-)