News:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Hoo Fort  (Read 23233 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cliveh

  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Appreciation 154
    • Kent's Historical Sites
Re: Hoo Fort
« Reply #22 on: January 31, 2013, 14:54:38 »
Great plans kyn - thanks for posting them!

cliveh

Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7405
  • Appreciation 419
    • Sheppey History
Re: Hoo Fort
« Reply #21 on: January 31, 2013, 14:10:46 »



Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7405
  • Appreciation 419
    • Sheppey History
Re: Hoo Fort
« Reply #20 on: January 31, 2013, 11:27:42 »


One thing that Darnet and Hoo Forts have that I haven't noticed on plans of other forts is that they have speaking tubes, these run through the wall from the lighting passages to the main corridor.

Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7405
  • Appreciation 419
    • Sheppey History
Re: Hoo Fort
« Reply #19 on: November 23, 2012, 11:12:51 »
ARMY—THE FORTIFICATIONS AT CHATHAM.—QUESTION.

HC Deb 09 March 1868 vol 190 cc1221-31221

COLONEL SYKES said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, What truth there is in a recent statement in the public prints that one of the projected Fortifications at Chatham had sunk into the mud, or that the foundations had given way, and that some of the new Fortifications elsewhere had shown signs of instability; and, whether, considering the opinion expressed by the distinguished civil engineer Mr. Thomas Hawksley, on the 26th of August, 1866, that— Many endeavours had been made and much money, reckoned by millions, had been expended, I will not say wastefully or unworthily, but certainly uselessly, in endeavours to secure our coasts against the attacks of a foreign enemy. And whether, considering the statement under the head "Naval and Military Intelligence," in The Times of November 3, 1866, that— We have certainly as a rule been unfortunate in our military engineering, and especially in carrying out the plans for the defence of our coast line; that some forts have been built on swampy land, so unstable and treacherous that keep and magazine have cracked through, and their earthen ramparts have slid from their base. To ask, therefore, whether, considering the above public statements, before a further application for money is made to the House, the Secretary of State for War will lay upon the table a Report in detail of the present condition of the Fortifications enumerated in the Parliamentary Return, No. 157, of March, 1867; and in default of such Report, whether he will advise Her Majesty to appoint a Commission of Military and Civil Engineers and Members of the House, to examine and report on the present condition of the Fortifications, and whether any of them can be dispensed with?

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, in answer to the first part of the Question of the hon. and gallant Member, he had to state that two forts at Chatham on marshy ground had subsided, but nothing had occurred to prevent their completion. In reply to the other portion of the Question, whether some of the new fortifications elsewhere had shown signs of instability, he also had to state that he had made close inquiries, and he found that in the case of one fort only the retaining wall had shown some signs of weakness, but the damage was not so dangerous as to prevent its being repaired. The remainder of the hon. and gallant Member's Question seemed to be in the nature of an argument and not of an inquiry, and he (Sir John Pakington) thought it inconvenient that an hon. Gentleman in asking a Question should introduce long recitals containing very severe attacks on public Departments, and proceeding from parties who expressed opinions without being subject to any responsibility. He was quite aware that opinions expressed by Mr. Hawksley were entitled to respect; but he could not accept that gentleman's authority as conclusive when compared with that of military men of the highest standing, on whose advice the Government of Lord Palmerston deter- mined to carry out these fortifications. And in like manner he might say with respect to the extract from The Times, that it went very far beyond the facts. It was true that the magazine of a fort erected to protect the approach to the Medway had, from the nature of the soil, in some degree settled, but nothing had occurred which might not be repaired. He had no objection to lay on the table a Report on the present condition of the fortifications, as the extracts quoted by the hon. and gallant Member were calculated to create anxiety in the public mind.

Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7405
  • Appreciation 419
    • Sheppey History
Re: Hoo Fort
« Reply #18 on: August 21, 2012, 12:43:01 »
Just another random shot...

Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7405
  • Appreciation 419
    • Sheppey History
Re: Hoo Fort
« Reply #17 on: July 29, 2012, 14:04:19 »
Looking from the Strand

Offline swiftone

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 282
  • Appreciation 21
Re: Hoo Fort
« Reply #16 on: April 27, 2012, 14:23:23 »
I have visited both forts many times but these days we avoid Hoo fort due to it being in private ownership.
Much of the island is a dumping ground for slurry from the dredgers which are usually moored alongside the island opposite Gillingham Pier.

They are pretty busy dredging at the moment. I suppose this is O.K. as long as it does not impact on the fort.

From the planning applications of Medway Council. I don't quite know what the expansion of the jetty entails nor whether the rail track is compromised.

Application Number:   MC/11/1882
Application registered   Consultation period   Awaiting decision   Decided
Registration Date:   05 / 07 / 2011
Ward Name:   Peninsula
Sub Area:   Not available
Conservation Area:   Not available
Location:   HOO ISLAND MEDWAY
Statutory Class:   Not available
Proposal:   Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 - request for a screening opinion for proposed import of non-hazardous dredging material and inert engineering material; recovery and recycling of imported material; export of processed material and the temporary expansion of the existing jetty facility
Case Officer:   Mary Smith
Decision:   EIA Required
Obligation Status:   Not available
Appeal Received Date:   This case has no appeals against it

gavinparson

  • Guest
Re: Hoo Fort
« Reply #15 on: April 24, 2012, 21:28:12 »
I have visited both forts many times but these days we avoid Hoo fort due to it being in private ownership.
Much of the island is a dumping ground for slurry from the dredgers which are usually moored alongside the island opposite Gillingham Pier.

The last time I visited Hoo fort it was in much better condition than Darnet. There were still remains of wrought iron brackets on the walls surrounding the central open area, perhaps to support a canopy?
At that time you could still see the remains of toilets and slate shelved storage rooms.

I know someone who spent his childhood on Hoo Island as his father was a storeman there and they had a house on the island. He used to have a boat pick him up and take him to school every day.


Offline LenP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 333
  • Appreciation 23
Re: Hoo Fort
« Reply #14 on: April 24, 2012, 00:01:11 »
Perhaps not....

What's going on on the land adjacent to the fort?

http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=sk0qt2h1dh7x&lvl=16&dir=0&sty=b&eo=0&form=LMLTCC

medforts

  • Guest
Re: Hoo Fort
« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2011, 18:51:26 »
Its co owned by Peel Ports and Thames Water.

Offline kyn

  • Administrator
  • Established Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7405
  • Appreciation 419
    • Sheppey History
Re: Hoo Fort
« Reply #12 on: July 26, 2011, 21:06:45 »
A recent picture taken by Keith Gulvin

merc

  • Guest
Re: Hoo Fort
« Reply #11 on: December 26, 2010, 15:31:01 »
Monday, December 17, 1906

At Rochester Quarter Sessions on Saturday, nine Chatham men, were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment for having broken into Hoo Fort, and stealing large quantities of brass, copper, and other metals. Some of the men had made various visits to the fort, and were bold enough to go even in broad daylight. The fort is Army property, but the Army authorities did not visit the fort more than once in three months. The men were caught owing to their having taken a man's boat from near Chatham. This man secured another boat and upon rowing down the river saw one of the men's faces at a window in the fort. He gave information, and the police found that ironwork on the doors of the fort had been broken off and the fort much damaged.

From the Times.

mattweirdo

  • Guest
Re: Hoo Fort
« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2010, 15:19:30 »
I think that model was at Fort Amherst it may be still ? but it was a long time ago.

Solarp

  • Guest
Re: Hoo Fort
« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2010, 02:15:49 »
Do you still have the model?  :)

Excellent to see some older photos of the place, its pretty much undisturbed to this date except for the inevitable plant growth

Chezzz

  • Guest
Re: Hoo Fort
« Reply #8 on: May 18, 2010, 08:18:37 »
Hi, found some more pics, this time of the sea forts hoo & darnet, not sure which is which hence the new topic but i remember when we visited them (many moons ago) one was very flooded & overgrown and the other had been cleaned up a little and i believe was being used for live roll playing games. Some of the pics are of a model my dad made.


















 

BloQcs design by Bloc
SMF 2.0.11 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines