Wednesday, 6 November 2013

The Pav, the blog, the comments and a midweek ramble.

First of all the comments on the previous post have gone past the 200 mark and have ceased to work properly, I did knock of anonymous comment for a while yesterday but this didn’t help much in terms of limiting them.

Superham seems to have gone critical at some point, although apart from criticising all and sundry it is a bit difficult to tell where he is coming from, possibly he has bought shares in J C Wetherspoon, more likely though he has just been overdoing the old kryptonite.

The Gazette says a building has collapsed into Ramsgate High Street see http://www.thanetgazette.co.uk/BREAKING-Building-collapse-Ramsgate-High-Street/story-20040280-detail/story.html I wonder if this is anything to do with the dodgy demolition highlighted by Ian Driver on his blog over the last few days see:


I am at work so haven’t been out to have a look, I guess it was Superham will soon be saying that everything is ok and buildings landing in the road is something we should all expect and we shouldn’t use roads, park cranes on the beach, or whatever.


‘nuff of that and on with the ramble in a min.

A few fireworks last night and I managed to burn my thumb relighting one my children’s sparklers, we had new ones which were inclined to go out when making patterns of light in the air. I’ve never known sparklers to go out, I guess the safety elf has insisted they are less powerful, all I can say is relighting a half burnt one is dangerous.

I am a bit of a fierce bad rabbit today, not because of the blister on my thumb but because I am appraising early editions of Beatrix Potter books, the basic rule of thumb here is if the pages on the back of the pictures are blank, in most cases this means that about a third of the book is blank pages, then they are probably worth looking up.

The publisher being Warne & Co and not Warne & Co Ltd is often a good sign, but basically they are very difficult books to appraise.

The council seem to have produced new plans for Port Ramsgate, this seems to be without any ferry operator in place. I am sure everyone will be discussing this soon, it looks like a TDC officer has been overdoing the Paintshop providing a choice between some weevils but not really a waterfront leisure option. 




I think I am beginning to work this one out; sites A B & C are the roofs or the sunken version of the Royal Sands, sic Cardy’s Condoms. 



   Anyway at the moment Mrs Tiggy-Winkle is prickly enough for me and I wonder if the council’s plan B may be filling in Ramsgate harbour and building luxury condominiums – gosh I was surprised I could spell that – on it.  

I haven't managed to find this document on the council website yet but here are some associated links from there

http://democracy.thanet.gov.uk/documents/s33640/Annex%201%20-%20Ramsgate%20Maritime%20Plan.html?CT=2

I have now made my third visit to the Turner and Constable Sketching from Nature exhibition at The Turner Contemporary and despite having the book produced for the exhibition and the list of works, I am still having difficulties with this one.

Part of the problem is that 75 landscapes are difficult to take in at a go and part of it is because the book has used different numbers for the pictures to the numbers used by the gallery.

I wonder if anyone else has visited the exhibition and what they think about it.

One wonders what book critics would say if someone published The Tale of Two Bad Mice with all the pictures shuffled and yet none of the reviews of this exhibition seem to noticed this aspect, perhaps they didn’t shell out for the accompanying book.   


218 comments:

  1. The building is adjacent to the original one Ian Driver complained about the other day, although it appears that it is also owned by the same property developer.

    When I complained to the TDC planning enforcement officer, he said originally that no offence had taken place because no demolition had happened. Yet again, TDC are shown as being a 'can't do anything about it' council. Just watch the space be declared as empty and Pather apply again to build a load of flats on it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So Turner, if no demolition had taken place, and thus no offence,

      1. what are you whining about..
      2. What grounds did you expect TDC to act on..
      3. If, as you claim " The buildings clearly were unstable, but this is obviously not the way to conduct any sensible demolition", what did you expect TDC to do, prevent their demolition? So you would have supported a course of action that lead to unsafe buildings being left standing as a potential hazard...

      What is you "thinking" behind your comments boy?

      Delete
    2. Troll, clearly the buildings needed attention - the process is that the developer agrees planning permission with TDC for demolition. They didn't. And hence we get an illegally demolised building with knock-on effects to neighbours and the public.

      Not that you really care, sitting over there in Arizona. Maybe you ought to call the maid to get you your medicine now.

      Delete
    3. Then what are you whining about boy, dangerous buildings were taken down before they fell down and hurt someone.

      Planning permission was secured in 2005, hence it is hjghly probably that the consent was still in force. Did you not know that Oh dear, you are REALLY ignorant aren't you boy. As there are no knock effects for the neighbours and public (apart from a dangerous building being prevented from hurting said neighbours and the public) you really don't seem to be sure what you're whining about boy..

      Delete
    4. How do you know that planning permission was secured in 2005? Why should anyone believe you rather than the TDC officers you seem to think are right on so many other controversial planning issues in the district?

      You don't know, of course. Go back to your dreams, Arizona fool.

      Delete
    5. Called public record my boy, you alluded to it earlier, but clearly have no idea what it means ;)

      Simple my boy, the developer claims to have permission, TDC claims they haven't that is called a dispute ;) I have no idea whether the permission they claim to have is valid, anymore than you know that they don;t have it at all. Difference is,I'm not claimed to ;)

      Delete
    6. Then look at the UK planning portal Hamilton I'll give you a clue it was March this year

      Delete
  2. Yes I imagine a good laugh would be a blog debate between Hammy and Sister Assumpta.

    I don't know if Superham includes police on his list of usual suspects. I doubt they would be indifferent to a licence application for a JDW pub on the beach. Thorley are no slouches but they don't seem interested do they ?

    I think that Emma Irvine's plan would be better for Thanet.

    But it seems to be a decision that will be made by the market which we can but hope is not being skewed.

    I don't know that Superham exhibits any appreciation of evidence and history. His crystal ball act, predicting all would be well at Pleasurama site, stands as exposed now as the cliff face footings. But he continues unabashed. I don't doubt that on the subject of "Rubble in the road" his sentiment is pity it didn't land on the usual suspects and the nimbys.

    Who are the "Usual suspects" ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Seeing the pile of rubble in the road McGonigal / TDC are lucky nobody was killed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Any idea what the 'new breakwater' outside the entrance to the old harbour is good for? [Maybe stopping sand build up?]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At a rough guess Gerald it would extend the sandy beach that has formed against the inner end of the eastern harbour arm, hopefully if the council intends to do all this work in the harbour the will get a professional survey done predicting the effect the silting problem.

      My understanding is that this wasn’t done when Port Ramsgate was constructed.

      Delete
    2. I had the feeling that it would either:

      (a) stop sand from coastal drift washing into the inner harbour through the outer wall (which I believe isn't sand tight) or

      (b) would end up with entrance to the inner harbour silting up completely.

      A professional survey would indeed be very wise ..

      Delete
  5. I didn't join in with the debate too much because to be honest the whole thing is of only limited interest to me, but good to see several new names posting + the return of a couple of old ones. I'm sure this is because it more or less stayed on topic, with only the occasional talking to the speaking clock!

    ReplyDelete
  6. During the summer, if you can cast your minds back that far, there were a couple of occasions when Michael and others commented on sunny weekends that the beaches in Broadstairs and Margate were far busier than Ramsgate sands. In the discussion on the Pavilion, Michael has again highlighted the lack of leisure facilities, particularly for children. If visitors are to be attracted to resorts there needs to be something for the children, especially on non beach weather days.

    Bearing this in mind, is either a pub or a market the best use for the Pavilion or, in the absence of bygone attractions like Merrie England or Pleasurama, would something more leisure orientated be the answer. It is a pretty big floor space so could even support a variety of attractions.

    Merely throw this in for thought and discussion before Mr, Turner, with his unique charm, tells me to butt out and go back to Broadstairs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't see why it has to all rest on this, as Ramsgate seafront is a big area.

      Why not build an open air swimming pool again instead? Ramsgate, Margate, Broadstairs and even Pegwell Bay all had them at one time, yet now there's none.

      Delete
    2. I thought that was quite a sensible suggestion, as it happens William.

      Delete
    3. Maybe a swimming pool would be a good use for part of the reclaimed land that makes up the harbour site. It would get plenty of sun out there - and have lots of room for car parking :-).

      Delete
    4. Speaking as someone who used the old Marina Pool, the snag was that it was shaded by the cliff in the afternoon which as it was unheated made it a tad chilly.

      Delete
    5. Peter, sadly much of Ramsgate seafront is currently blighted by the abandoned development on the old Pleasurama site leaving the Pavilion the only other current option. I do agree with you though about the open air swimming pools, but I do not recall one ever being in Broadstairs. There were a couple of shallow tidal pools, now down to one, off the clock tower headland and in the distant past, a private open air pool at the foot of the cliffs beyond Stone Gap approached via a tunnel from the McAlpine residence. What remains of that now looks like a scene from the first Planet of the Apes movie.

      Joe, thanks for your comment, only a shame there appears to be no leisure orientated organisation in the contenders for the Pavilion. Mind you, if you ever get the Pleasurama site back again, that could be used for a range of facilities where fairground, water world, skating rink or simply gardens with children's play area and shelters are possible options. Probably more beneficial to Ramsgate than luxury flats occupied by overpaid footballers and their WAGS.

      Delete
    6. I agree. All I've ever said about the Pavilion is that all options should be properly and publicly considered.

      Delete
    7. That said, I'm guessing a leisure development would require a lot of cash plus would probably not be economically viable. But it would be nice if there were more ideas on the table.

      Delete
    8. Just to put this into perspective before superham arrives, during discussions at TDC in the Task & Finish Committee after the discussion about "the only game in town" most of the councillors present agreed that should SFP pull out or get thrown out then all other options for the site would get explored with the people of Ramsgate.
      Other than the current discussions concerning changes to the current agreement being discussed behind closed doors the current discussions centre around the deadline of the 28th Feb 2014 when the development agreement ceases.
      What is needed is a wish list of ideas for the site so that on the 28th people are up to speed and ready to act.

      Delete
    9. "Joe, thanks for your comment, only a shame there appears to be no leisure orientated organisation in the contenders for the Pavilion. Mind you, if you ever get the Pleasurama site back again, that could be used for a range of facilities where fairground, water world, skating rink or simply gardens with children's play area and shelters are possible options. Probably more beneficial to Ramsgate than luxury flats occupied by overpaid footballers and their WAGS."

      William totally agree its not always about the money. Look at what happened in Ramsgate High Street today when illegal demolition occurs, and they say Panther own stuff in Broadie as well.

      Delete
    10. In Broadie, if they tried it, you would probably have the mayor making a citizen's arrest rather than just shouting on a blog site, but then it is a much smaller place to keep an eye on.

      Delete
    11. William, I went into the site when the workmen were there. I'd challenge anyone to do a citizens arrest on those large builders! Shouting on a blog site when there is no local media to speak of was about the only thing that could be done, other than complain to TDC.

      Delete
    12. Developer walks away from £5 million hotel development

      Presumably that was a developer with a confirmed availability of £5 million.

      TDC will have to consult with police, PCC and Ramsgate Town Council re a pub on the beach. This is because of the law and the terms of the lease.

      To sweeten a deal is not as simple as an undertaking to extend the lease. It has to address the matter of not unreasonably refusing licences. So there is not as yet any basis for a cllr to opine "This is the only game in town".

      Ramsgate will end up with a beach area occupied by all day drinkers and as avoided by families as Winterstoke of an evening.

      Delete
    13. Joe, that was a light hearted comment about citizens arrest, but it is much easier with a small town centre and the council offices smack in the middle off it to keep an eye on things. Several unsightly empty units have been quickly sorted because of prompt action by the council.

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. William, The Castle Keep Hotel (demolished in the late '90s) had a large outdoors swimming pool at least until the mid 70s. In Nick Evans' "Broadstairs Heydays and Nowadays" book (published 2007) there's a photo of a couple of bikini-clad beauties posing in it from 1975.

    Anyway, if it's indoor recreation on rainy days that attracts crowds these days, what exactly do they do in Broadstairs? All visit Bleak House perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that was for residents only, Peter. Indoors during the season there are often activities in the Pavilion, there is an amusement arcade, Bleak House, Dickens House and Crampton Tower for visits, the latter with model railways, a covered area with seating and refreshments at the end of the jetty and, of course, Morellis. Then there are also regular events under canvas in the Victoria Gardens as well as visiting fairs.

      Delete
  9. There was a small, fresh water pool up on the cliff by the Grand, where Alcatraz is now, which used to cost sixpence a dip, if I remember rightly. Oh dear, I am showing my age now!

    ReplyDelete
  10. William, your comment regarding the (now) "Planet of The Apes" site is interesting. I always wondered what that was. Here's what it looks like now, but does anyone have a photo of it intact (Michael?)...

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EHIu5aOLbjI/UASD9VH0BiI/AAAAAAAABfA/1irhm7zSwU0/s1600/117.JPG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No idea, Peter, but something Michael might know. Think it fell into disrepair during WWII and the sea did the rest.

      Delete
  11. My God, this blog has deteriorated. It used to host a wide range of views from a large number of people. Now, it's just irrelevant banter between a dwindling band of old farts. But I guess that's what the old farts wanted all along, and that's why they attacked anyone who introduced a few more colourful viewpoints. I'll let you into the secret of a good discussion board(Epps Checksfield etc.); you don't have to respond to everything that's written.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually I thought it had greatly improved over the past 24 hours or so, but why not comment on what Michael has written if that's the direction you believe the blog should go?

      Love and kisses,

      Peter C. X

      Delete
    2. Seems to me that in addition to William and Peter, there are Gerald, Joe and Barry as well as some anonymous comments. It is always you Garbutt that comes up with the off topic rubbish. Do you not have a view on the Pavilion or anything else remotely connected with the general thread. As a point of interest, several of these old farts as you call them, are in a lot better physical shape than you.

      Delete
    3. We've even had Christine and Louise posting on here again... all we need now is the return of Chris Wells then we can really party! ; )

      Delete
  12. I'm surprised that Ian Driver hasn't blogged about the collapsed building yet (hope he wasn't too close to it when it fell down!).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He has, Peter, and escalated it to industrial homicide by the looks of things.

      Delete
    2. It almost was! Very fortunate (for once) that Ramsgate High Street isn't as busy as it used to be, otherwise we could've been pulling bodies out of there.

      Delete
    3. Peter I spoke with Lovetts opposite the site they turned up at 8am unloaded the digger in the narrow high Street and drove it into the site. Within an short period, and despite being served a cease notice the day before, they had pushed the buikding into the high street. The only sop to H&E was 2 men with tape blocking the high street. I understand the council turned up but could only watch it come down into the street

      Delete
    4. Hopefully legal action will be taken against them...

      Delete
    5. I wouldn't suggest anyone take any bets on successful prosecutions of anyone at Panther.

      This is as much, or possibly more, the fault of TDC - who were in a position to do something about this weeks ago - as the workmen at the site. The buildings clearly were unstable, but this is obviously not the way to conduct any sensible demolition.

      Delete
    6. In fact, the cowardly way that TDC refused permission for demolition whilst given some kind of offical/unofficial nod-and-a-wink to the developer to get on with it precipitated in unsupervised work which they (TDC) claimed was nothing to do with them. Characteristic really, for TDC really is the epitome of the 'can't do anything about it' council.

      Delete
    7. Due respects, Joe, but here we go again jumping to unproven conclusions. How do you know TDC gave a nod and a wink to a demolition that they had not given consent for, other than the roof. Surely that is just assumption and I do feel this constant stream of accusations against the district council, whilst serving someone's political aspirations, does not build the right relationship between council and interest groups to get things done. It all rather smacks of them and us, but, it should be remembered, the them were elected.

      Delete
    8. Oh turner my boy, you do like to make accusations which I very much doubt you can substantiate don't you. Oh and if (as you claim) TDC said they couldn't act before nothing had been demolished, as no offence had taken place, on what grounds did you expect them to act, because you asked them nicely?

      Delete
    9. Joe as I said earlier in this thread an enforcement notice was served the day before to the foreman on the site.
      Assuming the quote is accurate the owner of the Company believes planning rules do not apply to him ""Many thousands of people wait and wait and wait for planning permissions in months and years of agonising frustration whilst the councillors and bureaucrats live the high life, in easy jobs with generous pensions, partly paid for when they collect their share of the scavenging rights now called parking revenues (charges and fines)"
      There is business morals and there is ethics. Councils do not stand a chance when the law is ridden roughshod over. The Health and Safety issues were ignored and it is fortunate no one was hurt.

      Delete
    10. I agree Peter I doubt this will come to court the foreman already said to the gazette the site will be sold so I suspect Panther (VAT) will cease to exist

      Delete
    11. Having watched the aggravation developers have to put up with from whining nimbys making all sorts of laughable claims and accusations about both the developers themselves, and the developments they try to build, that would doubtless improve Thanet in particular, and having to deal with media whores such as Driver, one can only but feel for the likes of Panther, when they are delayed for year after year by pointless hand wringing and bullshit.

      They join a long long list of other developers and investors attacked in Thanet, by those with nothing to offer.

      Delete
    12. William, I went and spoke to the foreman. He said he had permission for the work. The owners of the site have been reported in the press as saying that they had permission to demolish the site. If you read the local media, you might know that.

      John Hamilton, as I said before it is Mr Turner to you. And I'm not your boy.

      Delete
    13. Thanet said they didn't, the developer said they did. What's the matter, your internet as slow as your intelligence over in Arizona is it?

      Delete
    14. Then it would appear that the claims of both could be equally valid, meaning your conclusion that they haven;t got planning permission is simply unsubstantiated bullshit, as is normal with your posts boy.

      Delete
    15. Really. So the fact that the council have issued an enforcement notice is not, to you, evidence that the council think the work has been done without planning permission? And the fact that the owners are in the media saying that they do? How is that not a contradiction, troll?

      Delete
    16. And the developer is CLAIMING that they have valid permission, and "the council THINK the work has been done without planning permission:. Are you making the point that TDC are correct, and that they have once again acted correctly, and that that will subsequently prove to be the case?

      HAHAHAHAHA Of COURSE it's a contradiction you utter fool, now, where is your proof they didn't have permission...

      Delete
    17. TDC planning spoke to the gazette, which if you have the local paper you would know, and they they were given planning permission in 2005 to demolish some of the struchures. TDC state they did nothing and that planning permission lapsed. They were told they had to reapply which they didn't do. Two weeks ago when people complained at the noise on the site planning met with the foreman and it was decided and agreed that a limited permission would be given for the removal of the lean to roof at the rear of the property as it was in a dangerous state. They then proceed yesterday to demolish the building into the street without permission and without sanction from anyone and without a risk assessment being made.
      Now. Panther let the planning lapse back in 2005 no whining Nimbys involved and as several residents have said Panther have let the properties deteriorate, Panther have acted in a dangerous way with the demolition. Maybe people should stop with their axe grinding and assuming all ills in the world are down to NIMBYISM.
      The Council have a system in place which provides checks and balances it is totally irresponsible for any party to ignore those checks & Balances which the owners of Panther seem to think exist for others and not them.

      Delete
    18. Personnel within planning get changed as frequently as a whore's nickers, key information does not get passed on as those higher up will dump their mistakes on juniors. For ten years various planning employees have procrastinated and contradicted themselves on my mother and disabled partner's situation, and served four enforcements which were considered unsafe and quashed. I pity anyone that gets mired in TDC Planning

      Delete
    19. I have said before I don't waste money of local papers James, keep up ;)

      I think you'll find that Panther claimed the permission was activated James, and as such, your points above merely become yet more unsupportable bullshit James,

      Can you prove that Panther had no risk assesment? Didn't I read that they taped the road when they flattened the building? Seems that would be following a plan ;)

      Where is your evidence that Panther have ignored anything?

      Whenever I see whinging bullshitting posts such as yours James, the words pointless bureaucratic pedant spring to mind.

      Delete
    20. "and served four enforcements which were considered unsafe and quashed"

      Seems Panther could be right, and Driver and his minion proved to be bullshitting (again)

      Delete
    21. God hammy you really have a problem with living so far away.
      I didnt say planning lapsed TDC did in an interview with the gazette last week. Please learn to read.
      TDC stated yesterday to the Gazette again that Panther have been reported to KCC for an unauthorised road closure and the police have confirmed they were not approached to direct traffic in the high street area. Find it funny that an assessment would have been done without involving either of them but hey TDC have reported the incident to HSE so something is likely to occur. again that was in a statement to Gazette by TDC. But then maybe you ought to go online as its too far for you to go and buy a copy. Just in case you can get someone to post you a copy it comes out on Friday

      Delete
    22. Your bullshit would be obvious from the moon James.

      Where do I say that YOU said it had lapsed James? So when you say there was no risk assesment, you would appear to be bullshitting, as it would seem that closing the road, illegal or otherwise, was following a plan, unless you have PROOF to the contrary which of course you don't.. ;)

      Why would a risk assesment involve anyone else other than those carrying out the work? Seems you have no clue where building is concerned, or when it's being planned.

      Then as the HSE don;t deal with planning permission, it;s existance or otherwise will be of no consequence to the HSE then.

      Once again James, never bought the Gazette, never will. waste of money. You must have missed this part,

      "I have said before I don't waste money of local papers James, keep up ;) "

      Delete
    23. Planning permission is a matter of public record, troll. Hence we know for certain that planning was applied for demolition of those buildings by Panther and not given.

      Delete
    24. *sigh* which was granted in 2005, which if it has been activated (as I believe Panther are claiming) will still be in force. I believe TDC are claiming the consent was not activated.

      As for "Hence we know for certain that planning was applied for demolition of those buildings by Panther and not given" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oh dear boy, you humiliate yourself with each post you make boy!

      I will add the planning process to the list of subjects on which you have been proved UTTERLY clueless boy.

      Delete
    25. Where did you read Panther said anything "I think you'll find that Panther claimed the permission was activated James, and as such, your points above merely become yet more unsupportable bullshit James,
      HSE deal with breaches of Health and safety and have been reported by TDC for say nothing to do with planning permission. Stop trying to muddy the waters eh!!

      "Why would a risk assesment involve anyone else other than those carrying out the work" because as you pointed out they blocked off the street with some red tape and the JCB pushed the building across the road. Now are you saying the buildings, pedestrians and the office workers opposite were in no danger from a 3 storey building being pushed over into the street considering the building was taller than the road is wide at that point.
      You really show you have no idea try google street view to have a real look,
      BTW the gazette have interviews online should you really care what people think. As you will not bother looking as you don't care about anyone other than yourself lets just wait for it to go to court assuming Panther (VAT) dont get dissolved 1st

      Delete
    26. From the statement from the owner of Panther my boy, please do try and keep up ;)

      I leave you to try to muddy waters with your endless stream of bullshit James.

      Well, James, considering that (illegally or not) the road was taped and closed, and demonstrably, that prevented anyone being hurt, it would seem that the risk management plan was a 100% success, unless of course you can PROVE otherwise...

      I'm sure they do, but reading the comments of passers by, the usual suspects, and ill onformed proven bullshitters such as yourself really doesn't move any issue on at any point. I prefer facts, I leave the bullshit, and incorrect guesswork, and innuendo to those well practised in such subjects, such as yourself.

      Delete
    27. Which statement from the owners? When? what name did they give? Do you have any proof perhaps

      Delete
    28. Tell you what, I will provide as much proof as you ever have for any of your bullshit James, you go off and do some of your famously piss poor "investigation" and report back to me later ;)

      Delete
    29. A Thanet council spokesman said: "Building control and planning enforcement officers were called out to 79-85 High Street, Ramsgate this morning following reports that an unauthorised demolition was taking place.

      "It is a criminal offence for any person to carry out the demolition of buildings within conservation areas without valid planning permission.

      "The council are actively continuing with enforcement proceedings and are seeking legal advice on whether there are grounds for prosecution.

      "We have reported the method of demolition to the Health and Safety Executive and the unauthorised closure of the road to Kent Highways Services."

      Seems barry's statements are true and Panther haven't commented on here at all so superham can you post a reference to where you got your facts

      Delete
    30. Whatever happened, or didn't happen in 2005, planning permission was applied for in 2013 for demolition and denied.

      Delete
    31. "Tell you what, I will provide as much proof as you ever have for any of your bullshit James, you go off and do some of your famously piss poor "investigation" and report back to me later"

      So that is a no then Superham. no proof just make it up as you go like driving a 40ft articulated lorry. Sorry where did you say you live again Biggin Hill was it. why don't you go and annoy them instead.
      Barry seems to get proved right yet again.
      Pictures in Gazette from the actual event look scary,

      Delete
    32. Very interesting, Anon 3:05, which all tends to discredit the earlier unfounded allegation that the demolition was carried out with a nod and a wink from TDC. I say again, how do you ever hope to get council co0operation if you constantly make false allegations against them?

      Delete
    33. William I do not remember making "unfounded allegations " I would suggest you look again at the posts and get the correct person. I also not superham makes an statement about Panther without proof and you seem to ignore that. How about being fair to both sides. Or are you with superham's side

      Delete
    34. That was me that said there was a nod-and-a-wink. The foreman told me that, and frankly I believed him. Either way, TDC were told that a building was being demolished and did almost nothing until, y'know, it was actually demolished.

      Delete
    35. According to Panther Securities website, 81-85 high st ramsgate is a freehold site with planning consent for 20 flats

      Delete
    36. And here is the planning permission denial of June 2013 for demolishing buildings at 79-85 High Street, Ramsgate.

      Delete
    37. And here is denial of permission to erect 25 flats at 79-85 High Street, Ramsgate.

      No permission to build, no permission to demolish.

      Delete
    38. seems planning refused March 2013 for flats and site owned 2005 when planning permission was requested for some structures to be demolished, which was granted and subsequently lapsed due to no action taken by Panther. Now depending which site you look at planning lasts for 3 or 5 years but lapses thereafter. Seems Joe and Ian Driver have a valid point about taking the Law into their own hands by Panther

      Delete
    39. Kent Police do a very good Most Wanted bit on their website. We need some sort of TDC blacklist for dodgy builders. It's too easy to try the old whoops the digger slipped trick and let's issue repeated plans or brown envelopes.

      Delete
  13. Michael,

    Good to see your commentators discussing the Pav and a building demolition in the High St, which went a bit awry, whilst you are publishing proposals for the future of Port Ramsgate. Your sunken Pleasurama sites A,B & C are in fact four berths for container ships to offload cargo with land side development sites to support the operation.

    With the new link road and the port tunnel this is a far more viable proposal for cargo movement through the town than landing it at Manston.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. My mistake, when you said 'pleasurama site' you didn't mean it literally. But you're right, these plans seem to suggest Ramsgate port will be a container port. How likely is that?

      Delete
    3. Readit, sea freight and air freight are entirely different things and it is possible to have both. Air freight is a particularly good and quick way of moving relief or aid supplies and planes can access landlocked areas much quicker than the combination of sea and road movement. Really do not see the issue as a competitive situation between Manston and the port of Ramsgate.

      Delete
    4. Air and sea freight really are 2 totally separate markets, both of which could certainly be tapped with existing facilities in Thanet, if the whiners will shut up for a little while. I wonder what the objection will be to container ships...

      Delete
    5. It is possible to have both. But is it possible to have a viable container port in Ramsgate when there are already plans to extend the facilites in Dover and on the day when they're opening a massive container port elsewhere on the Thames.

      It isn't a bad idea, it is a stark ravingly bonkers idea.

      Delete
    6. Demonstrably, as both already exist my boy ;)

      There is more than 1 container market Turner, they don;t all need to be Flexistowe sized. Clearly another subject you need to learn ;)

      What is your better idea boy?

      Delete
    7. I'm not your boy. How do you know how big a container port has to be to be viable? Where are all these micro-sized viable container ports?

      Delete
    8. Did I say I knew how big a container port had to be to be viable boy? There are a good many smaller container ships using smaller container facilities (micro sized, oh dear, grow up there's a good boy ;) ) as they are cheaper, and more accessible. They feed the larger ports such as Felixstowe, Rotterdam etc.

      I would say I'm surprised that you didn't know that, but I'm getting used to you simply throwing inaccurate posts around, and hoping people will lend them the credibility they clearly don't deserve.

      Delete
    9. I'm not your boy. Where is there a small container port. Name one.

      Delete
    10. Ipswich, Goole, Barry, will 3 do straight off the top of my head boy?

      Delete
    11. Yeah, Ipswich. That sounds exactly like Ramsgate port: http://www.abports.co.uk/Marine/Short_Sea_Ports/Ipswich/

      You don't know what you are talking about.

      Delete
    12. That is what's called a smaller feeder port my boy, exactly as is being proposed for Ramsgate. If it was exactly the same as Ramsgate, it would be in Kent and called Ramsgate, silly boy.

      Seems ports can be added to the list of subjects on which your ignorance is only surpassed by your willingness to demonstrate your ignorance.

      Delete
    13. Ipswich has 2500m of quay and 16,000 sq m of storage space. How much does Ramsgate port have?

      And Ipswich is hardly doing well, with repeated cuts of ro-ro services and redundancies.

      You haven't a clue. Not local, no idea, nothing to contribute in any way to any issue of local interest.

      Delete
    14. Well just a quick calculation, from the pictures published above, approximately 30,000ms storage space and about 500m of quay (not including the ferry docks), seems like quite a nice sized area available, good of you to help me confirm that Ramsgate is indeed a viable small container port.

      Was anyone talking about ro-ro? You know there are different types of container shipping right? You are also aware that Ipswich in a fair way inland, and Ramsgate is at the seaside (where your parents take you on holiday ;) ) somewhat closer to the large European ports, such as Rotterdam...

      You really REALLY are totally clueless aren't you my boy :)

      Delete
    15. Ro-ro is in the plan and in the photos above. Of course you've not actually looked at either.

      Delete
    16. Where on the pictures of the proposed container facility does it show ro-ro container operatoin boy..

      Delete
    17. Oh let's see. Yes, the one that lists RO-RO berth 1 2 and 3. And a major section of their report.

      Delete
    18. OHHHHHHH you mean the ro-ro berths that appear in the "existing" pictures, but are replaced with alongside quays in the "proposed" picture HAHAHAHAHAHA Oh dear dear dear my boy, you seem to be unable to understand issues even when you have a full colour picture!

      Delete
    19. "the port's strategy will include the development of ro-ro businesses with an expanded focus on the commodity supply chains (ie the links between shippers and receivers in the UK and Continent), as well as the ferry lines which form an important part of those links."

      Troll. Set and match.

      Delete
    20. "Where on the pictures of the proposed container facility does it show ro-ro container operatoin boy.."

      Hmmm now where is that in the plan my boy, and why do you think (get a grown up to help you ;) ) a port at the seaside near the major container ports, would fare better than one 12 miles in land...

      So to summarise, your claims, and the result;

      New Ramsgate sands stations to be built - Turner humiliated
      Port not suited to container operation - proved wrong, with evidence
      Claimed that greight terminal would be built at port - proved wrong, with evidence
      Claimed that container lorries could not access Ramsgate station, - proved wrong, with evidence


      Yes boy, game set and match, you, once again, lose, and are once again shown up as a clueless bullshitter. Once again facts and proof are my friends, and a bullshitters cumuppance boy :)

      Delete
    21. BTW superham without a proper dredger it will not work even the ferry used to get stuck inside the harbour

      Delete
    22. *sigh* So contracting a dredging company would seem to be a plan then!

      Delete
    23. ah but Ramsgate port did have a dredger at the time and it still went aground lol but you are such an idiot next you will be saying in the "dim and distant past you piloted a ferry.

      Delete
    24. seems anons know you as well. I watched the ferry stuck in the harbour they had to wait until tide rose to be refloated. Not a good idea if you want to attract container freight

      Delete
    25. If you look above, I never seriously suggested that Ramsgate Sands station could/would be rebuilt. I actually suggested perhaps they would need to build it at Manston.

      No, you provided no evidence that the container port would be viable. In fact, quite the reverse, Ramsgate being smaller than the examples you posted.
      And I said there was no space to build a rail terminal at any of the existing Thanet rail stations, because there isn't.

      No evidence provided, troll.

      The only evidence anyone needs is that you are unable to read a report and the photos in a post that you are commenting upon. Because you are a troll.

      Delete
    26. Well, if I had a £1 for every time the words troll or Arizona are used in the debate above I might well take myself out for a good dinner tonight. As it is, and looking on like an independent umpire, Hammy appears to have wiped the floor with Turner and James.

      Richard

      Delete
    27. Another sockpuppet, Arizona boy? You must try harder.

      Delete
    28. hamilton stop pretending to be someone else

      Delete
    29. Who are you pretending to be 4;26. I wrote the comment at 4:12 and I ain't Hamilton, in fact, I doubt if he is up yet in Arizona!

      Delete
    30. no you didnt I did

      Delete
    31. Better see a shrink, 5:54, you have a problem.

      Delete
    32. I did don't you remember my visit. I think you need to visit specsavers

      Delete
    33. Yes, you are right, 6:04, I remember you visiting my consulting rooms and, as I advised you then, your dementia has gone too far to be stopped now, but if you keep taking the tablets at least you will not be awake to annoy anyone.

      Delete
    34. That's not what you told me then. where are the lawyers when you need them

      Delete
    35. That you had to ask about Ramsgate Sands at all is hilarious, and really did mark you down for the cretin you then proved yourself to be :)

      Smaller that Ipswich? Really? You know that 30,000sm is bigger than 16,000sm right? Oh dear, I see even basic maths is a challenge for you.

      Who mentioned a freight terminal boy? I believe the suggestion was a "rail freight interchange facility" for which there is ample room should one be required, and that's not even going down the road of Manston Parkway.

      Seems you enjoy me wiping the floor with you boy.

      Delete
    36. Did the membership of C2 Tactical cost you much Hamilton?

      Delete
  14. This is an interesting phrase in the maritime plan: "The port's market position is also considerably enhanced by the availability of development land owned by us, with potential for port-centric logistic uses – including, for the rapidly expanding order fulfilment services sector – and a strategic rail freight interchange facility linking directly to the high speed and national rail network also enhances the commercial port's attractiveness to supply chain users who typically have a requirement for land and excellent inland distribution connections"

    So where would this strategic rail frieght interchange facility be? Is this the Manston station? Or are they implying that they want to reopen a Ramsgate Sands/harbour station a century after it closed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe I think one of the problems is that there isn’t and is unlikely to be a direct rail freight interchange at Port Ramsgate.

      Delete
    2. "Or are they implying that they want to reopen a Ramsgate Sands/harbour station a century after it closed?"

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      "one of the problems is that there isn’t and is unlikely to be a direct rail freight interchange at Port Ramsgate"

      We aren't talking Felixstowe here! It would be perfectly possible to "shunt" containers from the port to a railhead located anywhere in Thanet with very very little outlay, or even simply take the traffic straight to road.

      Delete
    3. Well I can't think of any of the 7 stations in Thanet which could easily be adapted to have a rail freight interchange. Can you imagine how big that would have to be? And anyway, they're not talking about at an existing rail station site that they don't own, but the port site, which they do.

      Of course, I bow to your long distance vision which means that you see local issues much more clearly from your armchair in Arizona, John Hamilton.

      Delete
    4. Hmmm, nope, I have looked right through my very short post, and cannot see the word "station" in it anywhere. Once again my boy, we aren't talking Felixstowe here, and a freight train can be assembled in a single siding ;) Where does it mention a port side rail terminal, or even mention building such a terminal in the port? Oh dear boy, seems you are getting it very very wrong all over again :)

      You really do seem to enjoy humiliating yourself with your stunningly inaccurate posts my boy.

      Delete
    5. It doesn't say station, it says strategic rail freight interchange facility on 'land owned by us'. The quote above is from the document.

      Pray tell me exactly, based on your extensive knowledge of rail freight interchange facilities and your broad knowledge of Ramsgate station how exactly you could get large shipping containers down the road and onto trains there. Because I don't think it is possible.

      Delete
    6. Do it doesn't boy *sigh*

      ""The port's market position is also considerably enhanced by the availability of development land owned by us, with potential for port-centric logistic uses – including, for the rapidly expanding order fulfilment services sector – and a strategic rail freight interchange facility linking directly to the high speed and national rail network"

      As you can see (perhaps get a grown up to help you ;) ) 2 separate facilities, neither does it say the development land is located in the port ;)

      Where did I say Ramsgate station? However, access to any part of the Ramsgate station site with a 13m tri-axle 44 tonner would be absolutely no issue what so ever, and as we have established, what you "think" has little if any practical value.

      You really need to try to understand issues before you try to post about them, mind you, even simply understanding posts made might help first off boy ;)

      Delete
    7. I'm not your boy. Come over here and say that to my face, John Hamilton. Of course you can't, being snug thousands of miles away in your condo in Arizona.

      You're talking shite. You've not been to Ramsgate station, or in fact anywhere in Ramsgate for years.

      Delete
    8. Come and explain (with crayons maybe?) How large lorries can access Ramsgate station if they needed to? Nah thanks mate, I really don;t have the patience to educate foot stampy peons such as you on the reall easy and simple basics, of which you have proven 100% ignorant.

      I'm sorry that you are having your arse handed to you, but you really should limit yourself to posting about subject of which you have at least a basic understanding.

      Tell me, what exposure have you had to containers, lorries, intermodel freight transport, ports, ships (apart from when mummy gives them to you to play with in the bath) or any kind of freight operation, or indeed building, porperty, the law, demolition or planning process boy..

      Delete
    9. You don't have the patience to explain how the impossible is possible. Unsurprising.

      Delete
    10. Oh poor boy, are you really going to humiliate yourself all over again, and contend that a lorry cannot get into any part of the Ramsgate Rail Site/Station

      Delete
    11. So the answer to;

      "Tell me, what exposure have you had to containers, lorries, intermodel freight transport, ports, ships (apart from when mummy gives them to you to play with in the bath) or any kind of freight operation, or indeed building, porperty, the law, demolition or planning process boy.."

      is none then boy :) glad we got that bottomed out :)

      Delete
    12. It isn't just turning space in the station, though, is it troll. You need all the infrastructure necessary to get containers onto the trains - hence the notion of a 'strategic rail freight interchange facility'.

      But don't let facts get in the way of your trolling.

      Delete
    13. So you are now at least admitting that when you said

      "Pray tell me exactly, based on your extensive knowledge of rail freight interchange facilities and your broad knowledge of Ramsgate station how exactly you could get large shipping containers down the road and onto trains there"

      it was simply complete bullshit on your part, glad we got that bottomed out.

      Now let me educate you further my boy, Does it say anywhere, or have I said "existing intermodel facility"

      Come on boy, you might learn something, and not get humiliated quite so quickly/easily when you try to bullshit next time.

      Tell me, what exposure have you had to containers, lorries, intermodel freight transport, ports, ships (apart from when mummy gives them to you to play with in the bath) or any kind of freight operation, or indeed building, porperty, the law, demolition or planning process boy.

      Delete
    14. You have no idea what I know about rail interchange facilities, troll. As it happens, I used to live very near to one.

      Delete
    15. You know it really is impossible sparring with Hamilton as he doesnt live here so doesn't know the roads. I do and 40foot artics would arrive at the port get stored? until being transported to the Rail Freight depot by road. Ok then Ramsgate station from the port takes you up the approach road (ok so far) to the roundabout turn right (ok) along Canterbury road East and the next roundabout where you bear left up Nethercourt hill (ok) at the next roundabout outside the pub and the church there are 2 choices depending on where the entrance to the rail freight will be. You could use the marshalling yard entrance in Newington road but turning left at the roundabout would be a nightmare for an artic or you could have the entrance in Best street however that would mean increased traffic in St Laurence high street outside the school and then turning left into Best street which even the buses find difficult traveling down due to the cars parked both sides.
      Its doubtful this would work however a new yard might near to the Lord of the Manor roundabout however currently there are plans to develop that for housing and where does the investment come from

      Delete
    16. Freight train facilities are big, because freight trains are big. Funny that.

      Delete
    17. ;"You used to live near to one, hang on, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA When I was a kid, i used to live almost next to Biggin Hill, does that mean I could be a fighter pilot HAHAHAHAHAHA, you make me laugh boy!

      Thank you for proving that it's perfectly possible for full 44tonners to access the station 2:11 (even though I have never suggested that that would be where the terminal would be, but that's by the by) from a number of different directions. The left in St Lawrence into Newington Road is easy, no problem with that at all, and if a freight facility was to be built, altering the roads to suit would clearly not be an issue. I was going to post a nice picture from google earth to humiliate the runt Turner, but no need now, thanks.

      "Freight train facilities are big"

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA are you 8 years old turner! To load a freight train, you need a gantry crane, little bigger than the container itself, no more, no less. The best bit is, that you have proved to be UTTERLY clueless, yet you keep trying to defend your position when it has been proved you have not the 1st clue what you're talking about boy.

      Delete
    18. "The left in St Lawrence into Newington Road is easy, no problem with that at all," You really have no idea have you Superham.
      So when did you drive a 40ft artic idiot.
      I've watched them when they take a wrong turn there especially between 4 & 6pm which passes for rush hour here in Ramsgate.
      Every time you post Superham you prove you do not live here

      Delete
    19. Oh dear 2:42, back in the dim and distant past, I have taken many artics round that piece of road. That's the difference between us boy, you talk about it, I've done it ;)

      Every time you post, you high light both yours and poor ole Turner's ignorance :)

      Delete
    20. Oh Superham in your own words "proof my boy proof" why would anyone even you accept the say so of a known Troll

      Delete
    21. Freight trains can be up to half a mile long. Freight terminals are large. There is no space for that at Ramsgate station, even if they were, large container lorries would have difficulty getting there.

      What they are like inside your little brain frying itself in Arizona has no bearing on what they are actually like in the real world, Troll.

      Delete
    22. just to keep count:

      no roll on roll off facilities in the port plan - wrong
      space at one of the Thanet stations for a strategic rail freight interchange facility - wrong
      that there is no contradiction between Panther and TDC regarding the demolition of a building - wrong

      Seems like every time you open your mouth, rubbish falls out, doesn't it, troll.

      Delete
    23. So far superham you have worked in retail, manufacturing, driven artics, worked for a supermarket. Can you not hold down a job? or are you so gobby you get sacked.
      You say you live here but then say you live near Biggin Hill. When did you live here or is that just more bullshit like the rest of it you spout?

      Delete
    24. Also, 3:26, according to the local super sleuths he was a local politician (per Smudger 4 weeks ago), an Arizona Cowboy, a photographer in Gravesend, a landlord in Medway, was sacked by Tesco, visited Battersea Power station, was a developer (buildings or films not clarified), applied to join a gun range and is also any one of half a dozen local Tories. It is amusing, but has really gone on too long for anyone with half a brain cell to take seriously anymore.

      I shall no doubt now be accused of being an apologist for Hamilton, but, in reality, he does not need one. He is successfully winding up a whole load of people and it is they, in their pathetic scrambling around like demented school kids, that need someone to apologise for them.

      Delete
    25. Don't defend him William, he is an idiot, you are better than that.

      Delete
    26. But can't you see that is the point, Joe, I am not defending him, simply pointing out how he is succeeding in winding you all up to the detriment of the debate on the causes you wish to pursue. Tim Garbutt, in his guise as the Aquifer Man, did it to me for a long time with his snide anonymous comments until I finally worked him out for the pathetic loser he is. Now I can happily ignore him.

      Delete
    27. He isn't winding me up, in fact I'm finding some of his interventions quite helpful. For example, I now realise the importance of the Manston Parkway station - which previously seemed to be rather superfluous in a small area which already had 7 train stations. It seems obvious now that the enthusiasm some in the district have for the project is associated with this freight train terminal, which is seen as key for the future of the port.

      Delete
    28. Suit yourself, Joe, but you and Barry do seem to spend a lot of time trading literary blows with JH. Good point about Parkway though, but I recall very long goods trains in Ramsgate shunting areas, often with wagons of coal, when I was a kid. Freight trains do not need platforms, just places where they can be lined up as more and more container carriers are loaded and coupled on.

      Delete
    29. I've lived near a modern freight terminal. It would be very difficult to do that at Ramsgate, given there is already a large yard there. Don't let the troll get to you, that isn't happening.

      Delete
    30. What does interest me is how much extra traffic the line could take. I think I'm right in saying that it is single track much of the way to Canterbury. Maybe it is associated with improving the highspeed line too?

      Delete
    31. William as Joe says and so does Michael in his posts hammy is useful in being used to make points.

      As a separate issue you state hammy has been called many people but then that is the nature of trolling he thinks he is a keyboard warrior but all he is is pathetic. Many of us here have a lot of respect for Michael and to a greater or lesser extend each other but he is just an "anonymous type!" without any cares for the area. His trolling on many Facebook pages shows that we just happen to be "flavour of the month" for him.

      William I take an active part in Ramsgate attending local meetings and sometimes politics gets in the way, overall people I meet understand how committed we are to the area.
      I doubt hammy has set foot in Ramsgate for many a day if at all.

      William do you doubt the passion I hold for Ramsgate and my annoyance when the likes of Panther try to break the planning rules

      Delete
    32. Barry, I do not doubt your passion, but I think sometimes it causes you to leap in before you have thoroughly checked your facts. On the Panther issue, I am pretty sure from the accumulation of statements that they have broken planning laws. I am less convinced that they did so on a nod and a wink from TDC and I feel such allegations are unhelpful.

      If you really belief Hamilton is an anonymous type, your best bet would be to ignore him. For a time on this thread it was complete hijacked by your and Joe's literary fencing with Hamilton. Do you think that advanced the debate or got anyone anywhere?

      Delete
    33. I challenge you to let someone on a blog say things about Broadstairs that you know to be untrue, William. The building was demolished, it didn't have plannning permission, TDC were informed beforehand and yet didn't act. Those are all fact.

      The guy told me he had been given permission to demolish the building, which matches what he has said in the local media. You can chose to disbelieve that, but you are still left with a) a developer who has broken the law and b) TDC enforcement who did not act in time, even though they were informed that the buildings were being demolished. Either way, they've clearly not acted to protect these buildings, have they.

      Delete
    34. Nothing in your 6:13 comment would I dispute, Joe, but it was the earlier one about the nod and the wink from TDC that I objected to. There is no proof of that so it is an unhelpful statement.

      Yes, I would react to an untrue statement about Broadstairs and I respect your right to do likewise in Ramsgate, but when defending untruths make sure your response is factually correct.

      Delete
    35. maybe Joe should have taken a recorder with him. but then he didn't know someone would doubt his word.

      Delete
    36. Am I missing something, Anon 8:01, but just how do you record a nod and a wink? Don't tell me, he should have taken a movie camera as well. Please comment again for you are really amusing in a funny peculiar way.

      Delete
    37. Yes William you are missing the sarcasm I used. Joe said that is what the foreman told him do you doubt Joe's word because so far you seem to.
      "The guy told me he had been given permission to demolish the building" just who do you think he was talking about when he said he had permission. It is plain he is talking about TDC.

      Delete
    38. That's ok, I don't care whether William believes me or not, that is what happened. The guy could have been lying, but I don't think so. It could be cock-up, or misunderstanding or deliberately telling the developer one thing in public and another thing in private. I've told you what I think, but whichever it is, a building has been demolished in a very dangerous way without supervision of the local council when they had plenty of time and information to stop it and insist that the work was actually completed to a planning application. Which would have meant notifying neighbours, properly stopping traffic and supervision from TDC.

      Delete
    39. Yep, a derelict building has been demolished, with/without consent, I certainly don;t give a crap, James has only involved himself because his hero has, and as we know, James does like to think he's important when he's making allegation he can't substantiate.

      Happily Turner simply continues to make a fool of himself, I wonder what he expected TDC to do when no demolition had taken place, maybe a police cordon, and why was he sticking his nose into something that was none of his concern in the 1st place I wonder?

      Delete
    40. Oh William, I've been everything from a cllr to a cowboy, and lived everywhere from Broadstairs to Arizona. I stopped making individual comments on each and every new fairy tale sometime ago. It just amuses me that the like of Turner and James try to use such accusations to divert from the fact that I have exposed their bullshit for what it is.

      Delete
    41. Oh dear Turner my boy.

      Now how to educate you best I wonder.....

      Ok. you know that freight trains and made up of wagons that come apart aren't you (get your mummy to take you down to Hornby, they can show you these <a href="http://www.newmodellersshop.co.uk/images/Trains/wagons/r6425-container-wagon-2x30ft.jpg>little wagons</a><br /> ) now, when the wagons are loaded by the container handling equipment, which is only slightly larger than the container, the train is then assembled, and can in some cases me over 2 miles long.

      Seems all that living next to a container facility has taught you is that that you are so stupid that you learned nothing about it's operation.

      Oh love your picture of a small container port. You know that's the Port of Felixstowe right, the 6th biggest container port in Europe! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you've been caught in even more bullshit Turner my boy, you and James must get on famously!

      You make it to easy to wipe the floor with you boy, TRY and come back with something that isn't bullshit there's a good boy ;)

      Delete
    42. Wrong again, troll. The demolition was in progress, the officer visited but did not stop the work.

      Large equipment is needed to load containers onto trains. This is what a large rail container facility looks like.

      The largest rail freight facility is in Birmingham.

      But, y'know, not having lived in the UK for so long, you wouldn't have a clue about what it is like, would you troll.

      You are just wrong about very single thing you say.

      Delete
    43. "a derelict building has been demolished, with/without consent, I certainly don;t give a crap"

      Exactly. Why would you give a crap, Troll, given that you don't live here and it doesn't affect you?

      Delete
    44. Hmmm, why would anyone give a crap that a long derelict eyesore has gone I wonder boy, perhaps a meaningless peon may be trying to feel important...

      Delete
    45. Hamilton only comments coz he luvs the commotion he causes. Does he give a fig about the area of course not. He has never lived here.

      Delete
    46. I think you are being economical with the truth my boy. As you stated elsewhere, you were told that as demolition hadn;t occured, no offence had been commited. Were you lying then or now boy?

      Why is a large freight railhead relevant my boy? I think you maybe still be drunk from last night ;)

      Oh, here is a smaller piece of equipment for handling containers in smaller facilities than Felixstowe, which you seem to think is small (6th largest in Europe, but don;t let facts get in the way of your bullshit there's a good boy).

      I wonder when you will; make a statement that contains something correct, no sign so far ay boy...

      Delete
    47. Hmm. that'll be because you make such a point about listening to TDC when they make arbitrary and unpopular planning decisions in favour of developers, troll. Funny that. Following the planning rules is only important to you when they act in favour of developers.

      Delete
    48. http://www.sydneyforklifts.com.au/wp-content/uploads/about-bg1.jpg

      Delete
    49. Hmm. Let's see. When I was at the site, where workers were removing material. I complained to TDC, they said that they only had permission to remove the roof. Subsequently the same workers started demolishing an adjacent building. People complained again. TDC enforcement officers visited whilst the demolition was in progress and issued enforcement notices. Some days later, the building was entirely demolished. So you see, and you'd know if you actually read local blogs and the local media, this thing was going on for some days.

      Whatever the size of Felixstowe, they do not have the largest rail freight terminal. Fact. Inconvenient to you, I know, troll.

      Delete
    50. That was what you said my boy, oh dear, it seems you really losing the plot aren't you ;)

      I am in favour of Thanet being revitalised, sadly peons such as you whining about the loss of long empty and derelict buildings, just to further your laughable political crusade will always have nothing to offer Thanet, and delay those that have my boy.

      Delete
    51. Now you are dribbling. Another whisky, troll?

      Delete
    52. wow, you can find a picture of a fork lift and a container. Next you'll work out how to use basic code properly. Or maybe you can't do that whilst posting drunk, eh?


      Delete
    53. Ah so when you whined to TDC they DID take action, well there's a thing. So when you said they didn't, were you lying or bullshitting, and what connection did you have with the buildings?

      Why would the size of the rail head at Felixstowe have any bearing on anything, apart from you seem to think it's a small container port you silly boy..

      Delete
    54. I said they did not prevent the illegal demolition of a building. Learn to read.

      Delete
    55. Even blind drunk, wiping the floor with you would be embarrassingly easy my boy ;)

      Now boy, why would a small intermodel facility need anything larger I wonder ;)

      Delete
    56. What? You have completely lost it, fool. A rail freight facility is large and larger than there is space at Ramsgate station. Endof. Dream up whatever other crap you like.

      Delete
    57. Small is a relative term in rail infrastructure. Unlike your brainpower, rail freight is a big thing.

      Delete
    58. Oh dear turner my boy, you are proved an out and out liar...

      "When I complained to the TDC planning enforcement officer, he said originally that no offence had taken place because no demolition had happened"

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oh dear you really are 100% clueless aren't you. " A rail freight facility is large" HAHAHAHAHA no my boy, not if it's not connected to a a LARGE container port ;) You really are a clueless fuckwit turner, but SO SO funny. Get mummy to take you to Hornby boy, they can show you some trains, maybe if you play with some for a while, you might get a rudimentary understanding of how container transport works.

      Certainly any knowledge is better than your current in depth knowledge, being gained from living near one once HAHAHAHAHA. How does it go, oh yes Endof. HAHAHAHAHA Thanks Turner, you have given me the best belly laugh this week.

      Delete
    59. Troll, you're proven wrong by the facts. Get a life and complain about things in your own town rather than writing shit all over blogs about our town.

      Delete
    60. Nothing I have said it a lie. Demolition of the buildings went on for days, at the point where I complained, the officer maintained that there had been no offence, however the demolition continued and we got to the point where a building fell into the street. Lack of action earlier in the process by TDC officers directly led to a dangerous and illegal collapse.

      Of course, you wouldn't know that - not being a local etc.

      Delete
    61. Oh dear, really. You've been proved a liar, a fool, clueless about freight, ports, railways, planning and development (so far). You really are quite the person whose bullshit and plain ignorance is by far the easiest exposed.

      I nearly pity you my boy, but the fun of taking you apart post by post far exceeds any pity I have for you.

      Delete
    62. Ro-ro, fool? You think anyone forgets that you are unable to read a post that you are commenting on?

      Delete
    63. ""When I complained to the TDC planning enforcement officer, he said originally that no offence had taken place because no demolition had happened"

      Or

      "I said they did not prevent the illegal demolition of a building"

      or

      " When I was at the site, where workers were removing material. I complained to TDC, they said that they only had permission to remove the roof. Subsequently the same workers started demolishing an adjacent building. People complained again. TDC enforcement officers visited whilst the demolition was in progress and issued enforcement notices"

      Didn't you say that they closed the road before the building was demolished across it? Hardly a collapse then is it my boy, if they closed the road then flattened it and closing the road rendered it not dangerous.

      So are you lying or bullshitting boy? And what connection are you to these buildings, were you squatting in them?


      Delete
    64. Nope. The road was closed because the building fell into it. As you'd know if you read the local media.

      Delete
    65. I think you misunderstand the nature of a road closure, which in this country can only be done with the permission of the local authority. There was no permission. The building was deliberately pushed into the road without permission, closing the road. Clear?

      Delete
    66. Twisting and turning is the only way to describe superham. TDC have reported Panther to HSE and KCC for acting illegally. As reported in the media and copy pasted in this blog.

      What part of that do you not understand Hamilton or doesn't it bother you. Of course not you have lived in Thanet have you.

      Delete
    67. Fair enough, so your calling James a liar, no problem, you have both been proven as such at various points.

      Barry James - "they had pushed the buikding into the high street. The only sop to H&E was 2 men with tape blocking the high street"

      Think you "misunderstand" pretty much everything you have tried to comment on my boy.

      Clear boy.... ;)

      Delete
  15. Surveys in the 1970s were into integrated Harbour and Manston use. But this was for offshore tanker off load and pipeline to Manston. Found viable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought I saw that survey later than that, maybe 80's, but I could be wrong on date, It was a while back lol.

      Delete
    2. It was about 1974 and was a viability study for shallow draught tankers and change of use of Manston. A 600 metre distance from shore for pipeline offloading. The survey found that it would also be viable to make the largest enclosed harbour in the world. I guess this was by using the Goodwin Sands but that bit I am guessing. For reasons I do not know the plan would have taken over the golf course (North Foreland ?) and questioned what deal existed for a below commercial rent for the golf course land (IIRC). There was talk about the water storage and pipeline work at Manston (pipe to Haine etc) being dual use designed.

      The initial driver behind the survey IIRC was threat and viability of contingency planning to offload oil rigs. TDC had no idea of the survey occurring but I gather one of the oil company surveyors may have mentioned it to a planning chief at TDC for a laugh at his astonishment.

      I don't know whether BOJO got a sight of the findings when he came up with his idea for an airport on Goodwin Sands.

      Delete
  16. Aahh, the 80's. When manston was MOD and Port Ramsgate was filling the town with hope if not foot passengers.

    Perhaps we'll get back to those good old times

    ReplyDelete
  17. Bring back the hovercraft!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Which civil servant drew up these recommendations for the Port - presumably without councillor or public approval and consultation?

    Where are the FOI costs of running TDC and why do councillors not have those costs each month? McGonigal is CEO and Finance Director so she must know, does anyone else?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Butt out, Tim, you are boring.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John, I'm not Tim.

      Delete
    2. And, Tim, I'm not John. Only Tim refers to local government officers as civil servants, a mistake he repeats on his blog site.

      Delete
    3. what a shambles!!

      Delete
    4. Whoever you are, you're both boring!

      Delete
    5. Actually, Peter, I think there are three of them but you can never be sure. Did Michael ever respond to you about a picture of that sea pool by Stone Gap. As a kid I recall it still pretty much complete, even with a small diving platform and the steps leading down from a tunnel in the cliff face.

      Delete
    6. No William, no-one has. I've been searching online but can't find anything (would love to see some pics of it though!).

      Delete
  20. http://thanet.gov.uk/the-thanet-magazine/news-articles/2013/november/latest-update-on-pavilion,-ramsgate/

    ReplyDelete

Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive, anonymous derogatory comments about real people, comments baiting internet trolls, comments saying that an anonymous comment was made by a named real person, boring comments and spam comments, comments in CAPs will be deleted. Playground stuff like calling real people by their time stamp or surname alone, referring to groups as gangs, old duffers and so on will result in deletion. Comment that may be construed as offensive to minority groups is not allowed here either, so think before you write it, remember that the internet is a public place, that it is very difficult to be truly anonymous and that everyone who uses it leaves a trail of some sort. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts. When things are particularly difficult on the commercial spam front I may turn comment moderation on for periods.

If you feel that someone has left a comment that is offensive and directed at you personally please email me (link on the sidebar) asking to have it removed, you will need to tell which post and the date and timestamp of the offending comment. Please do not reply to the offending comment as I will assume you continuing the dialogue as meaning that you want the comments left there.