|
Castle Grounds
Re-Vamp
Some recent discussions in the Visitors Book have
centred on the major revamp of one of the town's icons - the
Castle and its gardens. I thought it would be useful to include a
few recent photos and diagrams in order to show current progress and
to illustrate some of the concerns that have been expressed. As a result, we have this short Chat Supplement.
Most of our readers will know that the renovation
work is being financed on the back of Lottery Fund grants
amounting to £2,063,000 and a contribution of £494,218
from Canterbury City Council (but see Neil Baker's message below
this article). They will also be aware that the road system
surrounding the grounds has been reorganised to provide
additional on-street parking.
The scheme has taken almost 6 years to come to
fruition - with initial ideas for a Lottery Fund bid being
proposed way back in 2003. A
couple of exhibitions have been held since then and the latest details of the proposal can be viewed in a press
release at the following link.
http://www.canterbury.gov.uk/buildpage.php?id=3319
The council document provides a list of main changes
and a link to a very basic map/plan of the Castle grounds (in PDF format). Unless
otherwise stated, the photos featured below were taken by me during the morning
of Wednesday 22 April 2009.
Work In Progress
Evidence of the scale of the work can be seen from
some distance. Take a look at these somewhat dramatic views from Tower
Parade and Harbour Street...
Photo 1A: The scene from Tower
Parade
Photo 1B: Scene from Harbour Street
On the skyline, you will spot a very
large structure of warehouse proportions. This is the Castle
building - completely encased by scaffolding and protective
plastic wrapping. A more detailed view can be gained from nearby vantage
points... such as the Castle bowling green....
Photo 2: View from the Castle
Bowling Green
|
Photo 3: North Wall of
Castle from Tower Hill
|
...... and Tower Hill. The shot on the left shows the north side of the
plastic encasement.
|
| The scene on the right captures the east face of the
Castle (overlooking what used to be the rose garden -
formerly the open air dance "floor" and skating
rink). |
Photo 4: East Wall from
Tower Hill
|
For the time being, the grounds have become a building
site. The shot below shows
the lower terrace from Tower Parade - with the familiar statue a
somewhat forlorn figure amidst the carnage on the left.
Photo 5: The Lower Lawn Terrace
from Tower Hill (looking south)
Looking from that lawn terrace towards the famous west
wall of the Castle, there is more evidence of the scale of the
revamp....
Photo 6: The famous west wall of
the Castle from Tower Hill (looking SE)
Perhaps the saddest scene of all is the
old rose garden. This was once surrounded by shrubs and trees on
the east side of the Castle. For the time being, it now resembles an open, badly
tended allotment.
Photo 7: The Old Rose Garden
pictured looking south from Tower Hill
Of course, you cannot make an omelette without
breaking eggs and things will obviously improve as the work
continues towards the frying pan stage.
Whether the finished omelette will be greeted with plaudits or criticism
will depend, to some extent, on individual taste.
A summary of main changes (to the buildings and
grounds) appears on the council web site and I don't object to any particular item.... in principle.
In fact, some could be very good if implemented well. However, for me,
recent problems
revolve around a lack of
communication and detailed information. The web
site version of the Castle plan is scrappy in my opinion - with poor methods used to identify
changes, some unreadable text and poor/non-existent explanations.
(I feel sorry for the guy who originally prepared the diagram because it
looks to me as if it started as a reasonable "artistic"
overview on an A0 sheet but it is now being used out of context as
a detailed document in A4 size).
The web information is also sadly lacking in other ways. There are no artist's impressions of garden views, no drawings of
the various facilities, no plans of the interior of the building
and, perhaps most important of all, no artist's impressions of the
fascias of the Castle itself. Without these details, it is hard to
express an opinion on the proposals. If, at this point, you
think that I am being picky, awkward... or that I am expecting too
much..... just compare the situation with
the amount of web coverage being lavished on Canterbury's Marlowe
theatre project!
A classic example of inadequate information cropped up a while back when I
spotted a comment that there would be a viewing platform on the
Castle roof. I think it would be great to provide the public with
views across the bay.... but what is meant by a "viewing
platform"?
Is it merely a reinforced roof that will be unseen from ground
level... or a railway platform relocated from Waterloo and visible
from Seasalter? While things
remain this vague, how can anyone sign up to it?
Looking through the various press releases over
the last 6 years, there is also a lack of consistency in the list
of improvements and the way that things are described. Is this
because changes have been made as the project has progressed or
merely that someone has described it differently on each
occasion?
Lack of information may also have led to some
unnecessary furore around town. One example was an argument that raged
when it was "learned" that "150 trees and shrubs"
would be removed. Later, I heard that this included just 15
mature specimen trees and that these were diseased. Everyone
gets themselves into a pickle occasionally.... but it is not a
good idea to cook the pickle yourself through inadequate or late
publicity and then paddle about in it somewhat aimlessly when complaints arrive.
Based on the current scenes at the
Castle, my own view is that someone may have been a bit heavy handed with the removal of
shrubs.... but that is a subjective view and I wouldn't push
it. From the CCC plan, I would also question whether
the proposed "events area" on the lower terraced lawn is
adequate. However, we will just have to wait and see.
Another communication issue concerns the proposed
new trial road system around the outside of the grounds. Only part
of the system is shown on the PDF plan mentioned above. Furthermore,
there appears to be some confusion as to how long the trial
will last. Some people seem to be saying "18 months" (in
accordance with a council press release on 2/3/09) whilst others believe it to be "6 months".
If we had had a full diagram and explanation of the traffic
arrangements at the outset, some of us would have dismissed it in
5 minutes flat! Unfortunately, it has now been implemented... so let's
take a look at the problem separately - starting with a fuller
description.
The One Way Road
System
Description
As I have mentioned already, the plan
provided at the CCC web site (see the web link quoted above) does not show the
full scope of the traffic changes. In fact, it misses off sections that some
people
might find quite contentious. Unbelievable? Well, think about it.
They only had to scan one of their existing road maps and stick a
dozen arrows on it. Moreover, they had six years in which to
do it.
Anyway, to enable us to
discuss the matter properly, I have
constructed a broader map below.
Plan of the New Road System
Central to the scheme is a new "one way" system up Tower
Hill from the Castle Gatehouse to the junction with
Park Avenue (see the red arrows on the plan). This enables thirty "on street" parking spaces to be provided on the
"sea side"
of the roadway. As we know, Tower Hill has hitherto been two-way
with no parking permitted.
The parking spaces appear to be crucial to the
scheme as they are supposed to provide access to the Castle and Tower
Hill tea gardens! (NB Lottery Heritage cash cannot be used to
provide a car park and, presumably, more "on-street parking" is
seen as an answer at a time when most of us would like to see a
whole lot less of it). To "improve safety", three new pedestrian
crossing points are proposed (shown in orange). These align
(approximately) with the main entrances to the Castle grounds.
The one-way system has two access points - the
"one way" slip road (at
location "1" on the plan)
and the T-junction (at location "2"). The
green arrow covers an area that confuses me completely. Logically this
ought to be one-way but, at the time of writing, road markings
suggest that there may be a remaining 30-40 yard
section of two way traffic between the Castle Gatehouse and the
T-Junction at location "2". Other
people may be as confused as me... so please watch for the latest road signs and be
guided by those. (As a further warning, see Chris
Siminson's message below this article).
All other roads remain two-way (see the blue
arrows). Roads shaded yellow carry a weight restriction to banish
heavy vehicles from the area unless they require access to
properties in those roads. Seafront traffic travelling west along Marine Parade is now diverted
into Park Avenue to join
Tankerton Road at a T-junction.
We can now discuss some of the issues and provide photographs to demonstrate the problems.
An
Unnecessary System?
In the grand scheme of Whitstable's parking
problems, the provision of 30 on-street parking spaces is a drop
in the ocean. Furthermore, such spaces are likely to be occupied
by visiting beach users long before anyone arrives to visit the
Castle or its grounds... unless someone has a cunning plan to
reserve them! The photos below were taken on a
weekday morning in April with the Castle grounds closed for the
revamp. Just one of the new car park spaces was available... but
only because
a car had just pulled away! So, what are the chances of a parking
spot when visiting the Castle garden on a sunny weekend afternoon in summer?
Even if a space is free, I wonder how
many people will want to try a "parallel park" with a
queue of one way traffic building up behind.
If you accept that the parking bays are pointless, there is no
case for a one way system. So why have we got one?
That's a general view. Now let's look at some more
detailed concerns - starting at the bottom of Tower Hill and
working our way up....
Entrance to
the One-Way System
For me, the system is peppered with safety
concerns and they start when drivers first enter the "one way"
arrangement. Here is the set up....
Photo 8: The start of the new
one-way system - pictured from Tower Parade
As I said earlier, there are two entrance points
to the system at
the base of Tower Hill. Entrance 1 is a
potentially fast slip road that a "one way"
arrangement may make even faster. (It merely
carries a "Give Way" restriction at the
bend). Entrance 2
is a slower 90 degree turn from Tankerton Road. A new pedestrian crossing (shown in
orange) is proposed in
front of the gatehouse .
Let's consider the slip road first. This is the
view that drivers get as they approach.....
Photo 9: A drivers view when
approaching via the slip road
They need to check for traffic approaching
from the right.... at the very time that they encounter the sharp
bend and new pedestrian crossing
(marked in orange) to the left. In the meantime, pedestrians making
for the gatehouse have to look right.... AND THEN behind them! After negotiating that blind bend, a driver is confronted with this....
Photo 10: The first bend at Tower
Hill following the revamp of the road system
... an immediate narrowing of the carriageway
followed by
parked cars. The road then curves even further to the left before
sweeping around the right hand bend at the Tower Hill Tea
Garden.
If local authorities insist on a "one way" system
with on-street parking, why on earth haven't they closed off the slip road
(ie Entrance 1)
and forced cars to use the 90 degree junction (Entrance 2). This
would remove
one nasty bend from the equation and ensure that traffic reduces speed.
It would also provide drivers with a much clearer view of some of the
hazards ahead. Compare the photo below (taken from the T-junction)
with the nightmare "slip road view" at Photo 9 above.
Photo 11: The clearer view for a
driver approaching from the T-junction
In fact, it could be argued that the slip road
should have been shut years ago.
As mentioned earlier, photo 11 shows
a "keep left" bollard and a
"give way" road marking in the foreground. This seems to
suggest that a short stretch of two way traffic remains from the
T-junction to the Castle Gatehouse". I have no idea
whether this will change as roadworks progress. In fact, the
council's web site plan of the Castle omits this section of road
altogether! So, take care and watch for the latest road signs. One
confused driver has already been seen passing on the wrong side of
that bollard in the belief that Tower Hill is now wholly
"one-way" - see Chris Siminson's message below this article.
If this 30 yard section is to remain
"two-way", the only obvious reason is to
allow the triangular island on the left to act as a turning point
for vehicles. The "turnaround" would operate as shown in
the photo below.... BUT why would anyone permit such antics when the whole
location is beginning to look like a safety nightmare?
Is this the situation or intention...
with the dotted route designed for U-Turns?
If so.... why?
More Safety
Concerns on the Hill?
Although the road is steep and winding, the
old two way
traffic never seemed to pose a serious safety issue on Tower Hill
itself. The total parking ban kept the road clear and the
two way system encouraged drivers to keep well within "double
white lines". Compare that to the scene last Wednesday after the introduction of the new system.....
Photo 12: The approach to Tower
Hill's second bend - with parked cars to the left
In high summer, I suspect that pedestrians will be
squeezing between those parked cars. As a car driver, just how
quickly would you spot a child running out from one of the gaps? Furthermore, the proposed new crossing between the
Castle Grounds and the Tower Hill tea gardens will lie just beyond that
right hand bend. This is what the bend looks like in close up.....
Photo 13: A closer view of the
second bend
And it could get worse ....because the Castle
garden plan suggests that four new trees will be planted on
that grass
verge to the right - further limiting a driver's view of
pedestrians waiting to cross.
Safe? I'll leave it for you to decide.
Unsuitable
Park Avenue?
The one way system terminates
at the junction with Park Avenue.... but you won't see it on the
council's web site plan of the castle as the diagram doesn't stretch that far!!!! The photo below shows the
set up looking east towards Marine Parade from the new one way
section...
Photo 14: End of the Tower Hill
one-way - at the junction with Park Avenue
Seafront traffic travelling along Marine Parade
from the opposite direction is now diverted into Park Avenue
(see the blue arrow). Meanwhile, traffic is still allowed to
emerge from Park Avenue (white arrow). We may also have cars attempting to turn right
(green arrow) from the one way system in order to circle the Castle
grounds while waiting for a parking spot to become vacant on Tower Hill.
As yet, there seems to be no restriction on that right turn.
As we know, Park Avenue is a small and relatively
narrow residential road that meets the main Tankerton Road at a
T-Junction (see Photo 15 below).
Photo 15: Park Avenue /
Tankerton Road T-Junction (Sunday 26
April 7.45 am)
- narrow and obscured by fence, wall and shrubs... but it
will now handle
westbound seafront traffic in high season!!
This is where seafront traffic will now attempt to
merge back into the main flow of "through" traffic... with a bus stop
almost opposite. It could become quite busy and congested in summer
months unless locals avoid the area like the plague. In fact, one can imagine tail backs stretching back onto
Marine Parade whereupon other drivers will try
to skip the chaos by using another equally unsuitable
thoroughfare - Cliff Road.
Quite unbelievably, Park Avenue remains
unaltered.... with two
way traffic and parking permitted on its eastern side. Thus, to add to the possibility of chaos as
seafront traffic attempts to turn right into Tankerton Road, we
have the problem of some cars approaching along Park Avenue
from the other direction.
Park Avenue isn't even a straightforward road. It
contains a slight bend and provides access to Tankerton Mews, the
private car park of at least one block of apartments and the rear
entrance to some of the houses in Tankerton Road. Take a look at the photos below. Does
anyone believe that this road is fit for the purpose?
Photo 15 (Above): Residential Park Avenue
- viewed from Marine Parade
Photo 16 (Below): Park Avenue from Tankerton Road. (Sun 26
April 7.45 am)
Of course, Park Avenue could be made one-way.
There could also be a total parking ban on both sides. However,
the latter may upset local residents... and who could blame them
for their reaction. It would also be something of a farce as it
would remove old parking spaces from a hitherto safe and
quiet road in order to provide the new parking spaces in a more
dangerous spot on busy Tower Hill!!!! The net gain in parking
capacity would then be reduced to very little.
Make up your own
mind!
My own view of the road scheme is that it is totally
unnecessary, pointless, ill thought through, a traffic jam waiting
to happen, a waste of money and a safety hazard.
But, apart from that, it's okay.
Of course we're pleased that some funds are being spent on the Castle
and we are grateful for all the hard work involved in securing
grants. However, I do wonder if people in charge of
these projects become so obsessed that they overrate the
importance of their "baby". Suddenly, the Castle becomes
the centre of the universe..... Someone thinks it needs a bit of
extra parking..... Reality disappears.... And the entire
traffic system is revamped to create something that isn't
going to work..
It's a nonsense... but that's just my view. I am sure our readers will make up their own
minds.
(Article 23 April
2004)
Comments on Castle Project
Messages received on the subject of the Castle are
set out below....
| Re: Castle Garden
Renovations
Having lived on Tower Parade for over twenty years
(1980 - 2000), I visited the Castle and its Gardens on
innumerable occasions for May Day Festivities and other
events. (I'll always remember the Dr Who exhibition, but
can't recall when it was exactly).
I always thought the Castle facade would make a
wonderful backdrop for Shakespearean drama, as there was
an almost natural stage in front. What there wasn't, was
room for an audience of any size, as those entertainments
held on the lawn in front could only be seen by a limited
number of people very squashed together.
I also loved the gardens so thought perhaps to tear
apart the shrubs and flowerbeds to provide audience space
was probably a step too far. Was there any consultation
about the garden plans? I don't remember seeing anything
in the local papers or council magazines.
As the whole area is now being razed to remodel the
gardens I would have suggested an open air performance and
audience space. I can just see 'Hamlet' or 'Romeo
and Juliet', even 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' taking place
there ... "Ill met by moonlight, proud Titania".
No, alas, just my dream.
Angela Johnson
One-time Lindley Player and present member of Herne Bay
Little Theatre.
Whitstable |
| Our Reply: Thank
you, Angela.
One of the problems is that the whole project has
dragged on for almost 6 years - presumably because the
procedure for the lottery fund grant application has beeen
a
protracted and tortuous business. (In that time, some
young Natives may well have been.... born.... learned to talk...
learned to walk... completed potty training.... and
now approach the end of their first year at school!!!!).
According to old press releases
on the Canterbury City Web Site, there have been a couple
of "exhibitions" over the years. In 2003, there
was an exhibition at "The Woolwich in the High
Street" and another at the Castle in August 2006 when
the final designs were formulated. (Note: I presume
that "The Woolwich" was the building society in
Whitstable and not a pub in Canterbury. What a way to
describe an address in an official press release!)
The problem is that it is so long
ago that a lot of people have forgotten about it or didn't
believe that it would ever happen! There was therefore a
very real need for detailed information to be made
available in more recent times. In the absence of a proper
explanation, I find it hard to express an opinion on so
many key aspects .
I totally agree with you about an
open air theatre/events area. May Day has always been less
than satisfactory for me because of the limitations of the
location. The main May Day events took place on the top
lawn with the crowds standing on the banks looking up.
This limited the view and restricted the audience to a
relatively small number of people. The lower lawn was
simply too cluttered with flower beds for use as a
"stage".
It would be ideal if the lower
lawn could now opened up as a grass area with banks
sloping down to it to form a natural amphitheatre. It may
be that something like this is planned. If you look
closely at the official plan of the new design, there is a
section of that lower lawn that may be labelled
"events area" but the text is almost unreadable
and the area looks far too small.
If I had a criticism of the old gardens it would be
that there was far too little lawn and far too much tarmac
and concrete by way of pathways. |
| Re: Tower Hill Road
System
Hi Dave and All
From my recent comments on the road situation regarding
the Castle area, you may recall that I use this route to
get to Marine Parade on a regular basis - so I am fairly
aware of the hazards it now presents.
One other factor to take into account is that, in theory,
if you take route 1 on your map you can
still turn right opposite the Castle gate to get back onto
Tankerton Road (a lot of delivery drivers use this
"roundabout").
As you clearly pointed out, families are (and in
increasing numbers in the future will be) crossing the
road where the new pedestrian crossing is planned, to get
to the gate entrance.
Earlier this week I was using route 1 to get
to Marine Parade, taking care to avoid pedestrians
crossing the road to the Castle gate, when I was almost
wiped out by a boy racer who used route 2
after coming down the hill from Tankerton road but decided
to enter Tower Hill on the wrong side of the keep left
bollard at some considerable speed.
I really fear that at some stage, especially as we
approach the season when we get many more visitors to the
town, there will be some serious accidents in this area. I
personally cannot recall ever seeing a more ill conceived
and worse thought out plan in terms of road and parking
layouts in Whitstable.
Best regards
Chris Siminson
Whitstable
|
| Our Reply:
Thanks, Chris.
I wonder if Local Authorities undertake any form of impact analysis when they
introduce these road schemes.... ie "If we do
this... what will drivers do..... and what will
result". I raise the question because, a while
back, a traffic calming measure was introduced on a main
route near my home. Now, cars use my narrow, residential
road as a race track to avoid the traffic holdups on the
main route.
I am a bit concerned by your description of...
- vans circling the triangle
between routes 1 and 2 and
- the line taken by the boy
racer
Until now, I have assumed that route 2 is wholly one-way but,
as you say, there is still a keep left bollard and
"give way" marking there (see Photo 11 above).
Surely, the council hasn't left a 30 yard stretch of two
way traffic between the Castle Gatehouse and the
T-junction in order to allow people to do a U-Turn? I defy anyone to be that
perverse..... but, just to be on the safe side, I have
amended the map and accompanying text. Your boy racer may
be a nutter but I bet he isn't the only one who will be
confused by this mess.
Incidentally, I took so many
photos on Wednesday that my memory card ran out before I
could get shot of the T-junction that will feed westbound
seafront traffic into Tankerton Road via a right hand turn
out of Park Avenue. I have now added some shots. That
junction is going to be an absolute gem in
July/August!!! |
| Re: Tower Hill Road
System
I use Tower Hill every day to go home from work. I have
twice met a car coming the other way - fortunately at the
top, otherwise there could have been a nasty
accident.
How long before there is one?
Maureen Cafferty
Whitstable
|
| Our Reply: Thanks,
Maureen. I hope people will come forward with their
comments on the system... otherwise we are going to be
stuck with it!
If it didn't have a serious side, I could quite
enjoy watching some of our "trilby hats" trying
to "parallel park" their cars in those new
parking spaces on Tower Hill. It's not a manoeuvre that
many drivers have mastered while wearing a trilby - particularly now that most
cars have high backs with poor rear visibility. Add the
sloping and curved roadway to the equation and I can see a
lot wailing and gnashing of teeth under the brims of those
'ats.... followed by a very
long traffic jam. Mind you, I daresay that they will go in
forwards and bounce into pedestrians on the pavement. |
| Re: Castle Project
Funds
As far as I'm aware, the city council's £494,218
contribution is in kind, as opposed to actual cash. It
does make a bit of a difference when the overall value of
the project is considered.
Neil Baker
Whitstable
|
| Our Reply: Many
thanks, Neil. It certainly would make a difference.
The council's press statement is as
follows....
"Whitstable castle and the
surrounding public park received a Heritage Lottery Fund and
Big Lottery Fund grant award of £2,063,000 in June 2008.
This money, together with a contribution of £494,218 plus
staff time and expertise from Canterbury City Council will
enable the Castle building and park to be made accessible
and welcoming to visitors......."
I took this to mean that it was
"£494,218"..... "plus staff time".
Having read it again, I suppose it could be read as
""£494,218 plus" staff time and
expertise!!!!! On the other hand, perhaps they meant "£494,218 including
staff time"... but failed to find the right words in
the CCC "English to Plain (Politically Correct) English" dictionary.
It is difficult to tell. So, is this yet
another communication issue? One hopes that the National
Lottery people received a somewhat more detailed
explanation.
If the figure is primarily staff time, it would
be incredible. If the average cost of employing a member of
staff is a very generous £50,000 pa (ie salary plus other
costs such as office accommodation, national insurance and personnel services
etc etc), it would amount to an average of 1.6 posts being
wholly dedicated to the project for 6 years!!!! At that rate,
we should have insisted on them producing a full map of the
proposed traffic system!!!!
I must admit that I am becoming
increasingly suspicious about art, culture and heritage
grants being awarded to local authorities in general. In my view,
any grants
should supplement normal LA capital expenditure. Thus, in the case
of a building renovation, an authority should contribute
what it would have spent on improvements in normal
circumstances and the grant should enhance the outcome.
Otherwise, an unscrupulous council could manipulate the
grant system in order to offload its
costs and responsibilities... whilst finishing in a lofty but
unwarranted position in LA performance
league tables. In such circumstances, it would almost be worth a
council employing someone to seek out sugar daddies (such as
the National Lottery) and to spend his/her entire life preparing
grant applications as an alternative source of council
income!!!!
I am beginning to wonder if I am a very
naive "nim-nom" member of the public who could
never be a politician!!!!
I also worry about a Trust being set up
under the conditions of the Lottery grant. I mean no
disrespect to the newly-formed Castle Trust which may prove
to be brilliant. However, does public control over a public
asset become even more remote in this situation. What
happens if a trust introduces unpopular measures. (For
example, say it evicted May Day because Morris Dancers were
damaging the earth's crust or crowds were Victorianising the
Georgian gardens?!). What recourse would be open to us?
Finally, I find myself musing over other finance
matters. My understanding is that there are no plans for the
Castle to receive cash from the council in future. This
suggests that CCC are very sure that it will all work in terms of bean
counting.... because no-one would be daft enough to hand
over a public asset without first checking that the project
is viable and that commercial usage of the building meets
with the wishes of local people.
So, is there a business
plan? What are the estimated
running costs, anticipated commercial operations and
expected incomes? Is it going to be as
"self funding" as the "self funding"
Horsebridge Arts Centre... or is it actually going to be "self
funding"? What happens if it gets into a financial
mess?
In fact, some form of business plan would
have been needed from the very outset as renovation of
the castle building and re-design of the gardens need to
produce facilities that mirror and support the proposed commercial
functions. After all, we don't want another Horsebridge Arts Centre farce in which
we hear complaints that rooms are unfit for purpose shortly after the building is opened.
As a nim-nom, I don't understand these
things. However, I doubt that I am the only nim-nom in these
parts and it would be interesting to get some answers. |
|
The Castle Revamp
Wouldn't it be amazing if the castle had an
ice-rink in its grounds over the Christmas holidays? It would be a
magical setting for the children - something to help us all get
through the long winter.
Ian Shearer
Canterbury
|
| Our Reply:
Thanks, Ian. It would certainly be
spectacular. As your comment has wider discussion
interest, I have added it to our Visitors Book (entry
dated 19/5/09) and added a lengthy comment.
|
Comments...
|
Want to Comment?
If you wish to comment on any item on this page,
please ...
click here
We will insert your views immediately below the
relevant article. |
|
