Martello Tower 4, Folkestone

[John]

Ordnance Land at Martello Tower No.4, Folkestone. I haven't seen this one for a while, last time I looked it was apparently abandoned?

[John]

HORACE COPPING & Co. LTD.
Central Offices,
Cheriton Road,
Folkestone
20th December, 1954.

The Ministry of Works,
Ancient Monuments Division,
London.

Dear Sirs,

Martello Tower, West Leas, Folkestone.

We have been informed by the owner of the Martello Tower, West Leas, Folkestone, that the building is scheduled as an ancient monument.  We have received a complaint from the Town Clerk (Folkestone Corporation) and the Police that the building is becoming a nuisance.

Although we have erected a barbed wire and chestnut fence across the entrance to the bridge they are persistently being destroyed and persons are entering the building and using the same as a public convenience, etc.  The Public Authorities are disturbed that it may become a source of spreading infection and disease and the Borough Engineer agrees with us that the only way to stop this is to dismantle the bridge.

Would you be good enough to let us have permission to do this work.

Yours faithfully,

HORACE COPPING & CO. LTD.

(Signed) Illegible
Director.

[John]

Response from the Ministry of Works to the above letter.

13th January 1955

Dear Sirs,

Martello Tower

Thank you for your letter of 20th December.  On historical grounds there would be no objection to the demolition of the bridge as it is not original, but it would be a pity to deny serious minded people access to the Tower because of the irresponsible behaviour of hooligans, although of course the owner is not obliged to admit members of the public.  I would therefore suggest, as an alternative to your proposal, that consideration be given to fitting a stout door to the Tower so that reputable persons may be able to examine the building on application to you.

I shall be glad to receive your comments on this suggestion.

Yours faithfully,

D. McGALLION

[John]

IRON AND STEEL BOARD
NORFOLK HOUSE
ST. JAMES's SQUARE
LONDON S.W.1

OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN

28th January, 1955.

My Dear Emmerson,

Martello Tower No.4, The Leas - Folkestone

I am sorry to trouble you on a personal matter, but it would be of great assistance to me if you would be kind enough to ask someone in the Department to look into the matter and let me know the position.

The above property belongs to my mother-in-law who has just been widowed.  Apparently it was purchased by her husband and herself before the war from the Radnor Estates and their intention at that time was to demolish the tower and build a house on the land.  The intervention of the war and other circumstances prevented this and during the war the tower was requisitioned and occupied by the Observer Corps.  It has since been de-requisitioned and my mother-in-law has received various inquiries from intending purchasers and she would in fact like to sell.

There appears, however, to be some suggestion that it has been scheduled as an ancient monument and therefore cannot be demolished, and that of course effectively operates to prevent any sale.  In the meantime my mother-in-law is inundated with complaints from the local authority regarding the misuse of the tower by certain elements of the local population and of the possible danger of accident.  She has taken a number of steps to put up fences, notice boards etc., all of which are constantly pulled down and the police appear to be able to do nothing about it.

She is therefore in the unfortunate position of being prevented from selling the property and being constantly called upon to spend money in protecting it.

I cannot myself understand why the edifice should be by any stretch of imagination regarded as an ancient monument and I would be very grateful if this could be examined in the Department with a view to having the scheduling withdrawn if in fact it has ever taken place.

(Signed) Illegible


Sir Harold Emmerson, K.C.B., K.C.V.O.,
Permanent Secretary,
Ministry of Works,
Lambeth Bridge House, S.E.1.

[John]

Yes, there is actually a Martello Tower under this lot 

[John]

Partial report on an inspection visit to Martello No.4 in June 1955..

The Leas - Martello Tower, Folkestone

I visited Folkestone in the company of Mr. Jones, A.I.A.M., and Mr. Church S/Wks. (S.E.District) on Friday, 24 June, 1955.  We called at the offices of Messrs. Horace Coping & Co. Ltd., who are the agents for Mrs. Ely.  Mr. Sidney Copping, who is in charge of this case was present and the opportunity was taken to explain to him the meaning of the terms Scheduling, Guardianship and Listing.

Mr. Copping was unable to accompany us to the site, as he had a further engagement to fulfil.  He did inform us that access to the tower was possible, being merely a matter of climbing through a window and pushing a wooden barrier down.  This statement proved to be wishful thinking.  After much exertion an entrance was effected after we had managed to borrow an extension ladder from a painter who happened to be working a little way from the site.

Approach
The Tower is approached by vehicular traffic down a gravel track (called Cliff Road) which leads off Dixwell Road to the N.E. of the site.  Pedestrians can also approach from S.W. and S.E. along the promenade at the top of the cliffs.

Description
The tower is of brick construction with granite parapet.  The overall height is approximately 31'0" from the foot (i.e. bottom of the ditch) and it is surrounded by a dry defensive ditch, which measures 38'0" (approx) from the tower to the outer retaining wall.  This retaining wall is constructed of Kentish ragstone, squared and coursed with some galletting in the joints; it is some 16'0" in height.  Access to the tower is over a lattice-girder bridge, which is now sealed off with barbed wire.  To the North and East the ground slopes gently down from the berm, whilst to the West and South the descent is steeper.

The interior of the tower is divided into three levels, basement, principal floor and roof.  The basement is roofed with a brick vault over ¾ of its area, the remaining quarter having the underside of the wooden joists of the principal floor to act as ceiling.  Access to the basement is by ladder.  The principal floor has a brick vaulted roof springing from the central pier (brick).  There are two other openings besides the entrance door.  The floor is a timber joisted and boarded one.

The is reached up a winding stone staircase built into the thickness of the outer wall on the South side.  The extra thickness for the stairs being gained by the circular plan of the interior slightly off-centre (i.e. in this case making the outer wall on south side thicker than the continuation of the wall on the N. side).  The roof level consists of the parapet and raised firing step, lower walk-way and central gun mounting platform.  There are also ventilation holes and recess for hoist.

[John]

1. Mr. Gilyard Beer
2. A.S.22

At our interview with Mr. Copping I found that for an estate agent administering property containing an ancient monument he was remarkably ignorant of the the law relating to such monuments.  I attempted to enlighten him, but was unable to find out what the real attitude of his client was.  While their official view is that the tower is dangerous, and a nuisance by reason of youths breaking in, I am certain this view is coloured by the fact that the tower stands on a very desirable plot of building land.  We saw no sign that the tower was becoming dangerous, while the difficulty which we experienced in breaking in, even with the aid of a ladder, makes me reluctant to believe the tales of youths breaking in.  In any case I feel that this aspect of the matter could be dealt with by our agreeing to the removal of the bridge, which is not original.

There was no indication that the owner would be very anxious to give us guardianship of the monument.

There are two courses open to us:-

(i) To seek guardianship.  While I agree that a good Martello Tower would be a suitable monument to have in our charge as a specimen of coastal defence methods of this period, I feel that we should make sure that there are no better specimens elsewhere along the coast.  It is true that this one stands in an excellent position, both for attracting visitors, and for illustrating, in its relationship to neighbouring towers and to Sandgate Castle which it overlooks, the strategic significance of this type of defence.  I have, however, seen another of these towers which is in a more complete state (Tower No.60, Pevensey Bay) which retains a William IV gun and gun carriage, and which in itself, although not in its position, would be a better candidate for guardianship.  There may be other even better specimens.

(ii) To raise no objections to a proposal to demolish it.  This could have certain merits, for while the owner may be ready enough to say that she will demolish, I cannot think that she has yet considered the economics of demolition, or that when she does consider them her eagerness to demolish will remain unabated.  In other words, if we agreed to demolition we shall probably save ourselves much trouble, and the building will probably still be standing when the time comes for me to retire from the Inspectorate! (My note - he was so right   )

(Signed) T.L.Jones
A.I.A.M.
15.7.55

[John]

Reference AM 6/203618

Mr. Digney

I visited Folkestone on Friday 30th October with Mr. A.J. Taylor when we discussed the threat to Martello Tower No.4 on The Leas at Folkestone with the Town Clerk (Mr. Scragg) the Deputy Town Clerk (Mr. Salt) and the Borough Engineer.

It was immediately clear that although the officials were sympathetic with our job of trying to preserve the Tower they have no hope at all of ever persuading the Council to find the £10,000 which appeared to be necessary to buy the siting - or even the major portion of it.  However, we discussed the question fully with them, tried to indicate the extent of our interest and, without making any commitments, to say what we thought the Ministry might be prepared to do.

The Local Authority had already made some enquiries and were able to tell us that when the original sale was made by the Radnor Estates to the present owner a Restrictive Covenant was included in the deed.  By this restriction the plot of land was to be used for the erection of two houses only.  If this were in fact the case, and if the covenant were enforced, then it is quite clear that the assessed value of the land which we had been given as £10,000 - £12,500 would be very much less than this figure and probably about £2,000.  The Council undertook to make further enquiries and I received telephone calls from then on Monday 2nd November reporting the developments.

Mr. Salt told me that he had been in touch with both the owner's London agents (Richard Ellis & Son) who had given us the notice of intention to demolish, and with the local agent (Messrs. Horrace Copping & Co. Ltd)  The local agents were fully aware of the restrictive covenant and had advised the owner that the value of the site was only about £2,000; they suggested that the London agents were giving rise to false hopes in the owner.

At this stage I phoned Mr. Sweeting (Senior Estates Surveyor D.L.A.).  Although it had not been brought out fully in the report he gave us, D.L.A. were quite aware of the restrictive covenants and had considered their possible effect before arriving at the assessment which they made.  Mr. Sweeting pointed out that the Radnor Estates could issue a waiver of a covenant (presumably for a suitable consideration) and the District Estate Surveyor had been told that the Estate Company would probably not seek to enforce them if they were pressed.  These views given to D.E.S. were contrary to the report I received from the Deputy Town Clerk but Mr. Sweeting did not feel that this gave him sufficient grounds to make another approach to the Radnor Estates.  I subsequently spoke again to the Deputy Town Clerk.  He promised to try to seek confirmation from the Radnor Estates that they intend to enforce the restrictive covenant.  Their intentions are the crux of the case at this moment.

Mr. Salt told me that he had also spoken again to the London agents who appeared to be satisfied that they had inspired some interest and action in the development of this site, and whom he thought were now looking forward to any sort of deal which would dispose of the site - with benefit to the owner.

All now depends on the real value of the site.  If it can be established that we should consider the lower figure, and if there are some hopes of acquiring it on this basis (possibly purchased by the Local Authority) we must try to ensure in time that the agents are prepared to extend the notice of demolition, which at present expires on the 28th November.

The immediate action in Folkestone is that there is to be a Council meeting tomorrow, Wednesday 4th November, at which the officials hope to be able to persuade the Council to defer this question.  Decisions could then be taken at a Committee Meeting say in a week's time.

(Signed) O.M. Davies

O.M. DAVIES
A.S.22
3rd November, 1959

[John]

A few newspaper cuttings regarding the proposed demolition of Martello No.4..