The Del Saved

One for former Cdo gunners.

Albertous Junior has just sent me a link to the Plymouth Herald stating the Citadel will stay open and the home to 29 until at least 2035. Stonehouse will also be retained until at least 2029.
 

I fail to understand why the MOD disposes of historic sites. SLAM replacements are horrible. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a good thing said about them. As the MP in the article suggests, a modiucum of investment would enable historic buildings to continue to serve.

Another thing I don’t understand is why the MOD forecasts future closures that are (in this case), thirteen years in the future. Who can know what the MOD’s needs will be in 13 years’ time, in respect of barracks? You can buy weapons systems, ammo and technical gear on a UOR, but barracks, not so much. So what if (say), the heating system has a life of 13 more years? Replace it then. Maybe it’s too difficult to adapt the buildings for handicapped access? Do what you can sensibly do to give access to some areas, and then say “this site is not fully compliant, but such is the nature of historic buildings”. Does a person in a wheelchair really need to get to the 3rd floor of an accomodation block anyway?

I don’t know the specific reasons for the intended closures (even if they’re pushed out a bit), and maybe I’m way off with my suggestions, but I strongly object to disposal of history.
 
Last edited:

I fail to understand why the MOD disposes of historic sites. SLAM replacements are horrible. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a good thing said about them. As the MP in the article suggests, a modiucum of investment would enable historic buildings to continue to serve.

Another thing I don’t understand is why the MOD forecasts future closures that are (in this case), thirteen years in the future. Who can know what the MOD’s needs will be in 13 years’ time, in respect of barracks? You can buy weapons systems, ammo and technical gear on a UOR, but barracks, not so much. So what if (say), the heating system has a life of 13 more years? Replace it then. Maybe it’s too difficult to adapt the buildings for handicapped access? Do what you can sensibly do to give access to some areas, and then say “this site is not fully compliant, but such is the nature of historic buildings”. Does a person in a wheelchair really need to get to the 3rd floor of an accomodation block anyway?

I don’t know the specific reasons for the intended closures (even if they’re pushed out a bit), and maybe I’m way off with my suggestions, but I strongly object to disposal of history.
Last time it was "certainly closing" (around 2017) the reason was cost to maintain/upkeep and a desire to reduce the estate footprint. As I was involved on the periphery with some of the teams involved in looking after both sites. Bit like how South Yard is now largely a council business and industry estate.

Stonehouse is a bit of a nightmare to maintain and the Citadel ain't much better. I've no issues at all with sustaining history and keeping it going. We just have to be pragmatic and sensible in also offering value for money.

Funny enough, I remember having a similar conersation, close to that time with Super Matelot about other aspects like the historic buildings in South Yard and the sell off.
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top