Thursday, 12 December 2013

Arlington House Tesco High Court Challenge Fails.



The pictures are the only artist’s impressions I know of and may not be exactly what will be built.


I have mixed feelings about this one as I had hoped that as the most iconic piece of modern architecture apart from perhaps the Turner Contemporary Arlington house would be protected and Tesco or any other developer would have to build in the same Brutalist style as the rest of the structure.





237 comments:

  1. There is a God!
    Now that end of Margate can be rebuilt at last.
    And even the campaigners will see proof of their lie ... the proposed Tesco is NOT and never was intended to be 'on the seafront.'
    It is in All Saints Avenue !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. about time too!!

      Delete
    2. Col its great news I am replying here on your comment because I see that there are already 170 comments and I am expecting them to be off comment and derogatory . I have backed Tesco since the word go plus TURNER CENTRE football club and anyone else who wants to put cash into Thanet. I am glad all these people are commenting on Michael s blog so I dont have to read them

      Delete
    3. I need to buy a pot of paint for my bathroom. Nothing fancy, just some white emulsion, but to do that I have to walk / cycle / bus a 4-mile round-trip to B&Q and back! THAT is how bad Margate is now, and a reason why this Tesco will make such a difference to many people's lives. Not everyone drives.

      Delete
    4. So Westwood Cross has decimated Margate town centre and the only chance of revival is another huge Tesco?

      Delete
    5. Yes... combined with Turner Contemporary, Dreamland and a refurbished Margate Station to name but three. None of this can revive Margate on it's own, but together they can... as long as we all STAY POSITIVE!!! : )

      Delete
    6. Rubbish Peter. The Turner COntemporary was supposed to do that ans hsn't. and certainly not for the c.£50M spent on it.

      Dreamland is derelict and only now can be developed.

      Margate station is a random view of your own.

      WC reform and demolishing Arlington and without a Tesco is the start of regeneration.

      Delete
    7. OK, start a "Let's Demolish Arlington House" campaign and I'll join it.

      Delete
  2. Yippee, I think most people want that eyesore tidied up and this is the only way it was going to happen. Pity it's been delayed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Splendid news and so good to see one of the Thanet whining killjoys defeated, though not until after she delayed things for months. It almost tempts me to move back except I love it here in the country and I am sure the whinge brigade will rise again in Thanet next time someone proposes progress or wants to invest in the old place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For once we're in total agreement Allan. Margate Station car park is having a major refurbishment in the coming months, and of course there's the new houses over the road from Arlington House that were built a year or two back. Now that we'll have major stores and probably a big new hotel, this end of Margate will look as good as the Harbour end.

      Delete
    2. We agreed the other day, Peter, about the George & Dragon and escaping Thanet in the search of trees. We probably also agree over Sir Roger being a good constituency MP, so you see, we have lots in common.

      Delete
    3. I find it amazing that folks shout about NIMBYS stopping "progress" however does all investment have to be trumpeted as "good". Or in other words money = progress.
      In the 1960's money was spent on high rise apartments in many parts of England and trumpeted as "best thing since sliced bread" 40 years old they are being called "vertical slums", Many authorities are demolishing them as unfit for habitation. People get some realism here rampant building without checks and balances is plain anarchy.
      Whether Louise had won or lost different people would have been celebrating so get real people having the investment or not getting it doesn't happen to the be all.
      We live in a civilisation that that needs those checks and balances so please be grateful that we can oppose else we will live in a dictatorship that jails people for upholding hard won rights.

      Delete
    4. I'd like to know just how much of taxpayers money has been spent on delaying and trying to prevent this investment. As Lord Justice Moses said "This type of unsuccessful challenge was not in fact focused on the real grounds of objection and should not have been deployed to inhibit the successful regeneration of Margate."

      Delete
    5. And maybe what was spent was her and her supporters money Peter, you could ask her. That wasn't the point I was making either Peter. Anyone who objects isn't a NIMBY the point of the systems are to provide checks and balances against uncontrolled development else we end up with anarchy.

      In all developments there are plusses and negatives look at Ramsgate seafront with a developer who has ridden roughshod over TDC and the people of Ramsgate are you telling me that is OK, Far from it.

      Delete
    6. Terrible news. Arlington should be demolished. And another out of touch judge pretending a Tesco is successful regeneration.

      The High St will be destroyed again and the seafront spoilt.

      Delete
    7. I agree that Arlington should be demolished. Unfortunately Oldfield & Co weren't fighting for that (they wanted the building to be listed!).

      Delete
    8. Peter and anon are you genuinely suggesting that some state agency should go around forcibly demolishing people’s homes because they don’t like their architectural style?

      Delete
    9. The building is falling to bits Michael, with the rusting ironwork showing through in places where the concrete is missing. So it's either going to need some MAJOR renovation work within the next few years or it will be demolished anyway.

      Besides, presumably you don't have to look at such a blot on the landscape every time you look out your bedroom window.

      Delete
    10. Peter who should pay for the repairs of Arlington?

      Delete
    11. Michael, many similar blocks built elsewhere around the same time have been demolished. Obviously residents are rehoused, often into better accommodation ultimately. I would agree that this should not be done simply because a change in attitude towards architecture, but if the building is becoming dilapidated and there were concerns about its safety then that would be a different matter. Obviously that would not appear to be the case here so it is scheduled to be refurbished.

      Delete
    12. No-one should Barry. It should be demolished.

      Delete
    13. Barry, the repairs to Arlington House must surely be covered under the maintenance agreement between the freeholder and lease holders or tenants. If maintenance charges have been levied but the work not carried out, it should fall on the management company (sometimes also the freeholder). If, on the other hand, the residents run their own maintenance company then it would be down to them. Without looking at the leases or tenancy agreements I would not know for sure.

      Delete
    14. Arlington should demolished as the worst kind of tatty 1960's tower block. But another Tesco is not the answer for regeneration. Pedestrianising the road to link it to the beach and a mix of park and shops with Dreamland is needed.

      How many people live in Arlington/the maximum flats?

      Delete
    15. Please explain to me how the traffic is supposed to get to the TC area anon. Via Victoria traffic lights and through Cecil Square? There's enough traffic there as it is.

      Delete
    16. Peter, it's just another troll.

      Delete
    17. Such traffic would need to be rerouted or park and walk. The Margate seafront and beach in front of Dreamland/Arlington is too important to be left to a few cars driving past.

      Demolish Arlington and pedestrianise the seafront as part of the Dreamland development would be far better regeneration than yet another Tesco.

      And Tesco remember destroys all the local businesses and rehires a fraction of the workforce on minimum wage/flexible contracts - although to be fair much of Margate town centre is already destroyed.

      Similarly Ramsgate seafront and Military Arches Road needs to be pedestrianised - the latter has almost no traffic anyway. Perhaps due to the town gradually dying off.

      Delete
    18. Unfortunately, no-one is even considering demolishing Arlington House. Otherwise this might be feasable.

      Delete
    19. Incorrect Peter, demolishing Arlington is feasible.

      Delete
    20. Did I say it wasn't? Read again!

      Delete
  4. well, that's the end of Margate's High Street, Richard Ash and the town team should now do the right thing and return the £100K Portas money as it is now throwing good money after bad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nope, it's the revitalisation of Margate High Street! More people will shop in the whole of Margate instead of going to Westwood Cross now.

      Delete
    2. As for Richard Ash, he's a rude, horrible man.

      Delete
  5. Margate 1, Oldfield 0.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A completely different issue anon. You can hardly compare a very dubious "developer" who's never developed anything with the most successful shopping chain in the country... and as far as I can see, YOU are the only person to use the word "NIMBY" on this thread. Twice.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Peter, the anon you're talking to is Barry, someone who knows a lot about NIMBYISM!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anon 6:04 I don't think so I am here and many people use the word NIMBY although I find it difficult to understand how that applies to Louise as she doesn't live in Arlington Towers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yet again, no-one here is calling Louise & co NIMBYs.

      Delete
    2. I certainly remember hammy doing just that Peter

      Delete
    3. Hammy calls lots of people many different names.

      Delete
    4. I think Peter's point here is, Barry, that nobody on this thread had mentioned Nimbys. What has been said on other sites at other times is surely irrelevant, but, as you raised it, you would not have to live in Arlington House in this instance to be one. In my back yard could mean your town or, in the case of an airport, even outside it.

      Delete
    5. hammy certainly called the objectors NIMBYS both on here and on his blog in fact he calls anyone who objects to development anywhere NIMBYS.

      The point the anon was making is that the whole process of development has its checks and balances otherwise it becomes anarchic. Is that what people want no objections to what anyone with money wants to build?

      Delete
    6. Barry, you're a NIMBY! Satisfied?

      Delete
    7. what a strange reply Peter I have never objected to any development anywhere. In the case of Ramsgate Seafront I object to the alleged "developer"

      Delete
    8. A strange reply to a strange person who keeps going on about NIMBYs. Go away.

      Delete
    9. Peter Checksfield one BIG shit stirrer. About time you went away.

      Delete
    10. Come round here and say that to my face, cowardly anon:

      Flat 7, 6 Garfield Road, Westbrook.

      I'm in all evening, and will be waiting.

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    12. But you will need to be quick Peter, it's up for sale.

      Delete
    13. Oh dear Peter you having a bad day

      Delete
    14. A far better day than Oldfield I suspect... ; )

      Delete
    15. I would hazard a guess, Barry, that this is the best day Peter has had in a while. He is probably already preparing his first shopping list for the new Tesco as, no doubt, are lots more happy Margate folk. It is all very well for a few to exercise their rights to object, but should it be done when the majority so obviously wanted this development after having lived with the eyesore for so long.

      Delete
    16. My understanding the supporters had a fundraising which will pay the £2000 and although Louise front the action there is quite a group of supporters

      Delete
    17. I've probably worked as tirelessly as Louise has to ensure that this goes ahead, both publicly and behind the scenes (got a nice reply from Eric Pickles too). So yes, I'm effing ecstatic! : )

      As for "the supporters", she only preaches to the converted now. All comments are closed on the Arlington blog because the majority of comments supported the development, and whenever it's mentioned on the FB Gazette page the majority of comments support it there nowadays too so she avoids commenting there. I like and respect Louise, but frankly if she thinks she's speaking for the Margate majority then she's living in her own deluded fantasy world as much as Bluenote and Garbutt.

      Delete
  9. Peter I didn't think Tesco was building anything they will just be a tenant although I haven't even seen that confirmed they had just indicated an interest

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not by Tesco but by the Leaseholder perhaps Peter

      Delete
    2. I don't care who builds it, as long as I can do next year's Christmas shopping there. Of course, if it wasn't for a handful of people who haven't lived here long deciding what's best for all the residents I would be doing my Christmas shopping there this year, and possibly last year too. They're too stupid to even see the irony of their two main objections: (1) No-one wants it, and (2) There will be chaos when everyone shops there. Idiots!

      Delete
    3. Tesco may well be the leaseholder, are almost certainly financing the project and choosing the developer.

      Delete
  10. Where's Spamilton? This is his big day!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surely according to you lot, he is out rounding up cattle or down the gun range in his Stetson. Yeeha!

      Delete
  11. Some priceless comedic comments on here:

    https://en-gb.facebook.com/NoTescoSuperstoreArlington

    ReplyDelete
  12. Some priceless comedic comments on here:

    https://en-gb.facebook.com/NoTescoSuperstoreArlington

    ReplyDelete
  13. Isn't Louise Oldfield the co-owner of an incredibly successful bed and breakfast in Margate, set up when Margate was at its lowest ebb? Doesn't that give her some claim to know what it takes to regenerate the town? And also to know what developments (such as a giant Tesco at Arlington) are likely to sabotage that regeneration?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And didn't I live here to see it dip to it's lowest edge, and know what brought it there in the first place?

      Claiming that Arlington Tesco will take away trade from the lower High Street and Old Town is frankly laughable, unless it includes an over-priced cafe and a section selling old tat.

      Delete
    2. What did bring Margate to its lowest ebb? Was it the lack of a Giant Tesco?

      Delete
    3. Not quite, it was having a giant Tesco 3 miles away in Westwood Cross!

      Delete
    4. As for successful private businesses, haven't I managed to turn my photography hobby into a business? It might not make as much money as The Reading Rooms, but it's probably even more famous on a world-wide basis (give me a shout if ever Thanet Watch needs some Page 3 girls, we might be able to do business!).

      Delete
    5. Tesco at Westwood Cross didn't bring Margate to it's lowest ebb... cheap package holidays, the inability of hoteliers and Guest House operators to adapt to the changing nature of holidays and successive useless Councils did that, not a shop in the middle of Thanet!

      Delete
    6. Rob the sanest thing I've heard for ages. become a councillor quick

      Delete
    7. So what year would you say was Margate's "lowest ebb"? Personally I'd say around 2005 - 2007, in between Dreamland closing and Turner Contemporary opening. Sure, the other things you mentioned contributed to it, but Westwood Cross (and Tesco Extra in particular) was the final straw.

      Delete
    8. Same question Barry, when exactly did Margate reach it's lowest ebb in your opinion?

      Delete
    9. Peter my opinion is when the leasehold was granted to Mr Firestarter. He was the worst thing to happen to both Margate and Ramsgate in the last 25 years

      Delete
    10. That might've been the catlyst, but we still had a thriving shopping centre then. No, I'm right and you're wrong.

      Delete
    11. Peter if WX destroyed the shopping in margate (which it may have done) and of course the same thing happened to a lesser extent in Ramsgate, why hasn't Broadstairs suffered as much as either of those 2

      Delete
    12. (1) Because Margate had more major stores that relocated to WC, and (2) it came at the same time when the town lost it's most popular tourist attraction. So, Dreamland closing and Westwood Cross opening was a double blow that came within a year or two of each other.

      Delete
    13. Peter who owns the little precinct next to mill road carpark and that looks like a ghost town. and do you know why people moved out of the precinct

      Delete
    14. Before Tesco Extra at Westwood Cross Peter there was a very, very, very large CO-OP, don't recall people moaning back then! Out of town centres do play a part but they only have a part to play in the saga, poor central planning, high rates, rubbish parking schemes, "mates" in businesses, skeletons in cupboards... all of those can be laid at successive Councils who do little but blame the one before for ills that have befallen every seaside destination of yesteryear.

      Delete
    15. No idea Barry.

      You didn't answer my question Rob.

      Delete
    16. Thanet Watch @ 1021,

      You claim is interesting. Please expand your earlier comment. Can you explain in what way is Ms Oldfield's bed and breakfast "incredibly" successful when compared to Tesco who will employ hundreds of local people, support local farmers, donate to local charities, collect millions in VAT and pay millions in tax? Whereas Ms Oldfield.......

      [By the way the dictionary definition of the word 'incredibly' is:- so extraordinary as to seem impossible or not credible; hard to believe: unbelievable. In the light of this is Thanet Watch actually saying that it does not believe Ms Oldfield is truly successful; or maybe the writer is a bit lazy when it comes to adjectives which I find curious for a journalist.]

      Delete
    17. Christine, don't forget to let me know regarding page 3 girls. This was always popular in The Thanet Times, so you'll undoubtedly sell far more copies (people love seeing local women with their tops off!).

      Delete
    18. You are quite pathetic, Peter.

      Delete
    19. What's pathetic about that? Please explain.

      Delete
    20. Peter, socialists don't like that sort of thing. They think modelling work is demeaning to women or something like that.

      Delete
    21. Funnily enough that's pretty much what Joe wrote below! Hahaha!!!

      Delete
    22. Suggesting that readers of the Thanet Times want to see topless women is pathetic.

      And I'm not a socialist, anon.

      Delete
    23. So readers of The Sun do, but not readers of The Thanet Times... fact is when (then) editor of The Thanet Times introduced page 3 girls it proved very popular. Of course, The Thanet Times no longer exists, and while it wouldn't be suitable for the more up-market Gazette, perhaps Thanet Watch could be it's new home.

      As for your "demeaning" comment, I think most models would find it demeaning that you're implying that they have been somehow coerced into it against their will. Fact is that modelling can be a very rewarding and high paying career choice (and I'm proud of the fact that at least two highly successful local models started their careers at Naked in Thanet).

      Delete
    24. Page 3 is a relic of the past. It isn't coming back to the local media, and it will soon be gone from national media. You're living in the past, Peter.

      Delete
    25. Nope, Page 3 is the future. There's a big backlash coming against all this political correctness nonsense.

      Delete
    26. It's a more realistic dream than a town without large superstores.

      Delete
    27. Peter's right in his point on Margate losing more stores to WC. Although that's happened with the other towns eg Barclays in Broadstairs moving to WC.

      The WC effect needs to be reversed with higher rents and parking charges to compensate for the destruction of the towns in one of the most foolish planning decisions even for TDC. Plus the congestion and pollution and free parking and unsightly sprawl and big box store developments.

      The foolish oversupply housing sprawl like Manston Green etc also need to be cancelled.

      WC is shit and makes the area look shit.

      Delete
  14. Peter, planning permission was sought to build a hotel, as yet no one has said they are going to build one and nobody has said they would run it if it got built. There is a distinct reality that the corner will be torn down and lay derelict for some time before, if ever, it gets redeveloped. Tesco won't care, just look at the eyesore next to the little Tesco on Canterbury Road, which may see reduced trade given Tesco stating they expect trade at the Northdown Road store to drop by 10-14%.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That eyesore next to the little Tesco in Canterbury Road has been that way for almost 20 years, nearly 2 decades before Tesco arrived! So you can hardly blame them. If anything it's more likely to be sold now, just as the long empty Dog and Duck pub has been sold since Tesco moved there.

      Delete
    2. It may have been sold... doesn't mean anything will happen at the site, probably be landbanked. Who do you think would be interested in building a hotel next to a Tesco and who do you think would be interested in running one, and for what purpose?

      Delete
    3. If you're just going to have a glass-half-empty attitude all the time then you're wasting your time talking to me. Some of happen to love the area and believe in it.

      Goodnight.

      Delete
  15. Does anyone know of an example of a town being regenerated by building a giant Tesco on its edge?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't think of many towns that have been regenerated by constant negative comment from left-wing "newspapers" either.

      Delete
    2. Thanet Watch, Are you saying that Tesco will have no benefit at all for that part of Margate; or is your remark nothing more than knee jerk socialist anti big business propaganda?

      Delete
  16. Christine, what is your idea of democracy, a handful of people saying "we know best" or giving what the majority want?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Peter,

    As you admirably point out the word 'democracy' is given quite a different meaning in the lexicon of the revolutionary socialist. For instance there is 'The Democratic Peoples Republic Of North Korea', popular I would imagine with the ludicrous red hall massive.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Barry and Christine, instead of being Oldfield's spokespersons, perhaps you can get her to grace us with her presence on here? Or does she only talk about this with her ever-dwindling rabble of supporters now?

    Come on Hammy, where are you?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would she post here to be abused by you, Peter? C'mon man, get real.

      Delete
    2. Peter @0820am

      Perhaps Ms Oldfield should be let alone to lick her wounds. It is wrong to kick someone when they are down.

      Delete
    3. You don't have to agree with her to appreciate the passion and commitment she has shown - and the totally unnecessary amount of personal abuse that some have thrown in her direction.

      Delete
    4. The victors must be magnanimous.

      Delete
    5. I don't see any personal abuse here, certainly no more than people are giving me. Fact is, she knows that I'll have a more than reasonable reply for everything she says about it.

      As for "passion and commitment", I believe I have shown just as much - and probably abused even more because of it.

      Delete
    6. Peter, you and the 'John Hamilton' character said some disgusting things to Louise on facebook. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. The chances of her ever communicating with you again are zero.

      I have no idea how much passion and commitment you put into your campaign or how much abuse you got. Given you were joining the chorus of personal abuse with the bullies, I doubt it was very much of the latter even if you were putting in a lot of the former.

      Now leave it alone and get back to your dirty pictures.

      Delete
    7. Joe (aka Louise spokesperson #3), I'm not the only Arlington Tesco supporter on here.

      Now get back to looking at my dirty pictures.

      Delete
    8. I am not a Louise spokesman. And I wouldn't dignify your website with my time, you pathetic excuse for a photographer.

      Delete
    9. Peter, he's not old enough.

      Delete
    10. You asked why Louise didn't come here and communicate with you - and I told you - because you were extremely nasty to her previously.

      I haven't made any statement ever on the Arlington development, but I can tell you that you went well over the line on this one.

      Delete
    11. Thank you for proving how hypercritical the "No" campaigners really are. Against big business, yet putting down successful small local businesses.

      Delete
    12. Anon, you appear to be channeling John Hamilton. If you'd like to make an appointment, you can meet me and see how old I am. If you're a coward like Hamilton, of course you won't.

      Delete
    13. Which part of the 'I didn't support the No campaign' are you not understanding, Peter?

      Delete
    14. Perhaps she can come and talk to William, John and Allan instead then. Or are they beneath her too?

      Delete
    15. So you agree with my "Yes" campaign, but were too afraid to speak up about it in case Louise, Christine, etc gave you an earbashing? Man up!

      Delete
    16. I didn't take any opinion on the Arlington House campaign. Funnily enough, there are some issues upon which I don't think it is my place to take a position.

      Delete
    17. It isn't about anyone 'being beneath' her, it is about the fact that you bullied and personally attacked her for having an opinion you disliked and campaigning on an issue you disagreed with. And the tragedy is that you can't even accept that you were wrong to do this.

      Delete
    18. So, William, John and Allan "bullied" her too?

      As for your age, I don't know (or care) how old you are, but judging from your level of debate I'll take a wild guess... 12? 14?

      Delete
    19. If they made death threats, like John Hamilton did, then yes. As I recall, you stood on the sidelines and laughed about it.

      And if you too would like to continue making statements about my age, I suggest you too make an appointment at my office and stay them to my face.

      Delete
    20. I'm on about John Holyer, you fool. I doubt if he, William or Allan have made any death threats (deaf threats perhaps!).

      Delete
    21. I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about you and your totally idiotic suggestion that Louise should come here and justfiy herself to you. You are delusional.

      Delete
    22. Joe, I think this was two sides to a debate with Peter very much in the 'Yes' camp and Louise in the 'No' group. Both had the right to campaign, but the impression I get from talking to folk in Margate was that the 'Yes' was more popular. Arlington and its car park and arcade has long been a bone on contentment in Margate, much like the eyesore that is Pleasurama has been in Ramsgate.

      Not in anyway disputing peoples right to campaign, but I do feel that some of the objectors in Thanet never know when to draw the line or when they are way out of step with public opinion. Much the same anger is mounting in Margate over the delays to get this project started as in Ramsgate over the decade of inactivity on the lower sea front. Difference in Margate is that it is a handful of objectors that have brought about the delay.

      Delete
    23. As I said, I have no opinion on the substantive issues, William. But certain people, who I think know who they are, need to know that they personally attacked a personality involved in this campaign in a particularly disgusting way.

      Incidentally, if it has been the other way around I would also have called them out on it.

      Delete
    24. It is entirely legitimate to state that Louise has unjustifiably delayed work at the site. In fact that appears to be the conclusion of the court case. It is not acceptable to make death threats and other disgusting personal jibes about her.

      Delete
    25. I have no interest one way or the other whether a superstore will be built on a car park by Westminster Realisations (where Tesco have indicated an interest in being the tenant) which is the reality of the situation however to put matters straight there were campaigners (on both arguments, both for and against) but it is immoral to highlight one person and vilify her for being the public face of the no campaign.

      Also the system surrounding a Judicial Review requires that one individual asks for the review so please remember when attempting to smear her that she is the public face of the review but is just the lead person else if it where to happen to anyone of us in the same position and fronting a campaign you put yourself in line for abuse and vilification when all you are doing is lifting your head over the parapet.

      Delete
  19. On a completely different note, I just got a Christmas card from the lovely young lady who sells The Big Issue in Margate. I thought that was very thoughtful of her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll just go out now and warn her that you may be expecting her to expose her breasts for you in a public space.

      Delete
    2. Not all men just see every woman as a sex object. When you grow up you'll perhaps realise that.

      Delete
    3. Not all men think it is acceptable to demean women and their bodies, anon. when you come to my office in Chapel Place, you can make these kinds of statement about my age to my face, can't you.

      Delete
    4. Joe, word of advice. These constant offers of face to face confrontations are beneath you and rather childish. Bit like the old West, there is always a guy out there somewhere who is faster on the draw than you so don't push your luck on the basis no one will ever turn up at Chapel Place. Some nutter just might one day.

      Delete
    5. I'm tired of the same old people making the same old comments about my age, William. I'm not threatening anyone, I am simply stating that I am prepared to meet anyone at any time to prove my age. As if I should have to.

      Delete
    6. Understood, Joe, having been regularly slagged off myself on this site for being a pensioner. Some seem to think that it then becomes fair game to talk about old duffers, senility and dementia. Not like one has always been old or that such critics will not themselves grow old, but insults seem part of Thanet blogging. The joke is that one of the main users of ageist insults is a flabby, overweight couch potato a lot less fit than most of us OAPs.

      Delete
    7. Does anyone know what country the lovely Big Issue seller (Gina) is from? I want to try to say something in her own language next time I see her.

      Delete
    8. If you're referring to the pleasant young lady I often see outside Morrisons in College Square, I think she may be Czech or Slovakian. However, I'm not totally sure. Try saying 'ahoj' (pronounced a-hoy, meaning 'hi') and see what the reaction is.

      Delete
  20. The anti-Tesco NIMBYs are on Radio Kent right now. Why can't they just admit defeat?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sometimes that is hard to do when you've invested so much time, energy, passion and money into a campaign.

    I suspect the legal reality is that they may have to admit defeat.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The dismay of the arlington vanquished will be ameliorated by the knowledge that they will soon find something else about which to protest. For many of them it is all about the protest. It's all fodder for the Red Hall Massive.

    ReplyDelete
  23. John having met Louise the once she doesn't strike me as a Red Hall anything. BTW at their last meeting Bob Bayford and martin Wise attended. Are they serial protesters or just concerned citizens?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barry, unfortunately, Bob and Martin were then subjected to some ridicule around the blogs afterwards by the Red Hall faithful whilst Laura Sandys, who tendered her apologies for absence due to a vote in the Commons, was criticised for not turning up on the Thanet Watch site. Whilst Christine Tongue maintains the meetings are open to all, they do not then go out of their way to make us Tories welcome, quite the opposite. The TW's latest smear campaign against Laura Sandys in their latest edition is despicable.

      Delete
    2. Having not read it William (and do not intend to as they seem to get simple things wrong) I haven't a view on it. All I was saying is not all who attend Red Hall are troublemakers nor do they support the aims and objectives of the faithful.

      John as your comment below seems not to be an answer to this thread but seems to be randomly placed I am not sure it is in response to my statement.
      I will assume it is and respond thus (part is in my reply to William) Are you saying that those that attend Red Hall meetings are serial protesters?

      Delete
    3. Barry,

      My apologies, my comments were in reply to you 1114.

      No Barry I am not saying that all those who attend the Red Hall are necessarily serial protesters. What I am saying is that the Red Hall encourages and wallows in serial protest, and that any protester will find a comfortable home there.

      Delete
    4. William there is much about the previous Conservative led Council that has to be denounced as I understand it led by an obnoxious bully who went to jail for abusing his position however the legacy of that will take a long time to get over. IMHO what the Conservatives have done since Worrows defection (keeping their heads down) has done nothing to move the debate nor did it help to mend the issues with the electorate.
      The last couple of weeks has seen a seachange in their delivery but they must realise they have to face the anger from people before the reconciliation can take place

      Delete
  24. That's an odd comment, John Holyer. First the accusation appears to be that Louise has wasted everyone's time by taking the case to the High Court. Now you appear to be implying that she is not serious about the campaign.

    So which is it?

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

      Delete
    2. Joe Turner @1139,

      You ask, which is it? -- Which is what? There can be is no answer to your question for reason that you are conflating the argument

      You are seeking to squabble with me about something that I have never said nor implied. Your purblind reading of my comments has led you astray; and not for the first time.

      Delete
    3. Is Louise not serious about this campaign (and will soon join another) or has she been wasting everyone's time with the court case. Simple question.

      Delete
    4. She's been wasting everyone's time.

      I was hoping that one of the "No" mob would at least have the decency to congratulate me on a successful campaign, but it seems not. The words "bad" and "losers" spring to mind!

      Delete
    5. Joe, I take it that your simple question is addressed to me. In reply I have a question for you. Are you by nature obtuse, or do you work at it for effect?

      Delete
    6. John, I don't think anyone can seriously claim that Louise is not serious about her campaign.

      Peter, your campaign was disgusting.

      Delete
    7. My campaign was disgusting? Are we referring to Tesco or my photography? ; )

      If you're referring to Hammy's campaign, that wasn't mine. Long before that I replied many many times to any comments on Margate Architecture and the Arlington blog (before they both decided to restrict comments), as well as on the Gazette page, as well as writing to Eric Pickles, as well as being interviewed outside Arlington House by Radio Kent (much to Richard Ash's annoyance - horrible man!). So, yes I've worked tirelessly. Still, it's obviously been worthwhile.

      Delete
    8. Alright, Joe, alright let me answer your simple question.

      I do not know whether or not Louise has wasted everyone's time. To find your answer you will need to ask everyone.

      The freedom to protest is a tenet of Law that must be protected at all costs.

      Whether or not a protest wastes people's time is subjective and I put it neither here nor there. He who opposes the protest will claim it a waste of time, whereas he who supports it will claim the opposite.

      Jo, I am not saying that serial protesters are by definition not serious. In my experience they are deadly serious. To them serial protests are just a means to an undeclared end.

      And yes, I do believe it was wrong to hurl abuse at Ms Oldfield. Having said that I'm sure that as a would be rough tough politician she is cauterised to personal abuse.

      .

      Delete
    9. Oh I see, she is serious BUT is also a serial protester. Perhaps you can tell me the series of protests she has been involved in, or perhaps that castigation is an assumption you will make about her future conduct.

      Whether or not she is a tough politician, she does not need to face personal abuse, John Holyer. People are entitled to disagree with her campaign, they're not entitled to abuse and bully her.

      Delete
    10. No Joe, [4:08] it is apparent that you do not see. I said quite clearly that serial protesters are not by definition not serious. You seem to have overlooked the second 'not'.

      Perhaps I should have better said 'un serious' or 'lacking in sincerity' then you would not have become confused confused by the two nots so close together'. My fault.

      I appreciate that you might be at work and consequently do not have time to read and study posts thoroughly before you dash off your reply.

      On the other hand I cannot in truth overlook the possibility that you are being deliberately obtuse in order to start an argument for your own amusement.

      I leave it to you to be the self styled final arbiter on what people are and are not entitled to do.

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

      Delete
    12. Jo Turner,

      To clear up a final point: nowhere have I said that Ms Oldfield is a serial protester. She might or might not be, I do not know, nor do I care. Whatever the case may be I am sure that she will appreciate your spirited defence of her, her actions and motives.

      Delete
  25. According to Smudger in today's Gazette, it was actually Kim Gibson who made the "Yes... I mean No!" comment at the recent council meeting rather than Jodie Hibbert. So either Smudger or Simon has made a mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Barry,

    I do not understand your comment. It seems I have not made my feelings clear about Ms Oldfield's campaign; for this I apologise. Simply, I am pleased that she lost, and I am advocating magnanimity on the part the victors. Make of that what you will.

    Furthermore Ms Oldfield, and indeed anyone else for that matter, should be wary of stumbling into the clutches of the Thanet Watch and the risible red hall massive. (I hope I'm correct in assuming you get the Ali Gee reference).

    I shall treat your questions as rhetorical and you will excuse me if I ignore them.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The massive property company Freshwater, who are behind the "build a giant Tesco in Margate scheme", haven't got the best of reputations in their own industry. Look at the highly respected www.allagents.co.uk site. As well as some horrendous reviews from their customers, you'll find Freshwater is ranked 11844 out of 11847 property companies in the UK. Do we really want them owning any properties in Thanet, let alone embarking on some huge new development here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you only see the negative side of everything?? Jeez, you must be great fun at parties...

      Delete
    2. Did their share price jump on the back of the news yesterday I wonder? And did the directors take profits?

      Delete
  28. There's still nothing on the Yes to Arlington Tesco fb page. Proof if needed that Spamilton is the only administrator (or they're all on holiday!).

    ReplyDelete
  29. Indeed 12.52, the leaseholder - Freshwater, is never mentioned in any discussion or news about the Arlington site and the public should know that they are the 'Margate Strongman' who haven't maintained any part of the site, who have closed off the arcade and car park following strategic price hikes in rent to drive out all the businesses and generally have allowed the whole complex to fall into a great state of disrepair or prevented access.

    As a leaseholder, they are legally and financially responsible for the up-keep, safety and general well-being of residents of their property but as mentioned above, proof of their failure in these responsibilities in all of their other properties can be easily found.

    'The only option' is mentioned regularly by Tesco supporters but you all forget that this Freshwater, a developer and landlord with a lot of capital have failed to maintain or regenerate the whole site themselves, asking the residents to self fund the upgrade works to the tower. To allow this development to go ahead will further line Freshwater's pockets for failing Margate, the council and the residents of the property.

    Tesco may build their store first but where's the proof / guarantee of further finance from them to regenerate the arcade and Arlington House itself, no planning applications or even proposals have been made for the seafront end.

    Also of massive concern is also now often brushed over or not mentioned.... Grade II listed remains of Sanger's menagerie of international heritage and cultural importance in Dreamland are butted to the perimeter of the car park. Any development from Tesco must take these structures into careful consideration and strategic planning. The current proposal of the store will completely overpower these inappropriately let alone stand tall above Dreamland having no place for aesthetics with the menagerie or heritage park.

    Hopefully as the freeholder, TDC in light of positive progress with Dreamland will have the final say.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Difficult choice, James. A new supermarket catering for thousands or a derelict menagerie which has been closed for 100 years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 200 jobs!!! That's a lot of local people who would be having a far nicer Christmas if it wasn't for Ms Oldfield's actions.

      Delete
    2. The choice would be minimum wage Tesco jobs or a range of shops and jobs and the amusement park and better housing than Arlington. There is a Tesco at WC why have another one?

      Delete
    3. Please tell me what shops in Margate (or anywhere in Thanet) pay cashier's and shelf stackers more than minimum wage.

      Delete
    4. Of course Peter but Tesco reduces contract hours, destroys the surrounding businesses and the profits of course are taken out of Thanet. You're hopelessly out of your depth in arguing for Tesco being the saviour of the High St.

      Delete
  31. Such unkind comments about Louise! Just confirms everyone's view that if you raise your head above the parapet of Thanet opinion people queue up to throw bricks. So why should anyone be motivated to express a view when they get such appalling attacks. Why do it?
    Christine

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For the same reason that you do it, Christine, whatever that might be.

      Delete
    2. Why does Christine just come here to make statements (or have a moan), yet totally ignore people's questions afterwards?

      Delete
    3. Christine, Peter has "raised his head above the parapet" many times over this too. It doesn't just work one way.

      Delete
  32. Some the comments from either named people or, mostly, anons are out of order and should be deleted by the administrator of the blog.
    Why oh why do people post derisory comments concerning peoples motives. Every one who makes a comment will have a reason for posting, so why make personal derogatory comments?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barry, which ones? If you reply it is the comment date and time I need.

      Delete
    2. On another note, it's good to see so many on-topic comments for a change, excellent!

      Delete
    3. Michael it is only recently I decided to take action and say something. I think it is obvious who has been the worst offender and currently he seems to missing.
      As a general thing debate is about acknowledging points not about putting your opponent down or belittling them. It is all about fairness at the end of the day

      Delete
    4. Barry, surely it is up to the person who is mentioned in the posts to complain if they find them offensive?

      Delete
    5. Barry I do do my best to keep on top of the comment, but on a busy day I am not certain that I have even read it all today. There are 160 something comments on this post at the moment and I have zapped comment containing “0%” “IRA” “mercury” and so on i.e. the comment that looks like non-commercial spam.

      The same sad individuals that seem to say the same out of context things over and over, I also try to delete comment where an anonymous commentator, says something derogatory about a real person.

      I am very reluctant to delete comments made by real people, where their identity is known and people who feel they have the victim of some sort of cyber nastiness know who and where the person is, as opposed to either those hiding behind a nom de blog like John Hamilton, or those who just post as anonymous.

      Delete
    6. Anon of course it is up to the person to complain however the point of a post overall is to enhance the debate and many people who used to post on the debate now refuse to do that because of the abuse they receive instead of complaining so the debate is decreased not enhanced.

      Delete
    7. I haven't seen anything particularly offensive on here today, apart from some fool dismissing my fine art as "dirty photos". However I'm prepared to let that stand, if only to show what philistines some people are... ; )

      Seriously, there's nothing for Michael to delete apart from the usual off-topic spam, and thankfully there's very little of this today.

      Delete
    8. Today, who on earth was talking about just today Peter?

      Delete
    9. Well as Michael mention "160 something comments" then he is also talking about today...

      What's up Barry, having a bad day?

      Delete
    10. Droll Peter.

      Surely the point about people not commenting on here now because they are fed up with being attacked is pertinent?

      Councillors that used to post no longer do so and the Blog is poorer for that

      Delete
    11. William posts here frequently and both Simon and Ian comment here occasionally, but otherwise councillors don't comment on ANY local blogs, not just this one.

      Anyway, fancy talking about Tesco instead? This thread has kept more or less on topic until now.

      Delete
    12. Well Peter on topic (lol) where is your mate Spamilton, Watching you two humiliating people on your "Yes to Tesco page" and on Spamiltons blog ( I do remember your famous line about pensioners smelling of wee and his hose them down) it seems currently the "Yes to Tesco is underwhelming in its gloating about the High Court result.

      Maybe you should log back in and ginger them up on there.

      BTW I agree with Barry the likes of Chris Wells that used to comment is sadly missing (not that I know why he stopped)

      Delete
    13. What tedious blog whining to little effect.

      Delete
    14. 'Fraid that's what happens to blogs when you allow few narrow-minded trolls to take it over. The trolls on this blog often whinge about the anonymous posters but, in my opinion, it is they who have ruined the blog with their inane stream of drivel. I'd suggest limiting each poster to one contribution per day.

      Delete
    15. anon 8:01 I suggest you take it up with Michael

      Delete
    16. I agree totally. Let's restrict anonymous comments to just one a day.

      Now... Tesco???

      Delete
    17. Rubbish 8:01 the likes of Epps and Holyer have ruined this blog. In fact you sound like Epps posting anon again. And you can't restrict any anon to a single post as they are anonymous aren't they so after the first anon post none would be allowed ie back to the refusal to allow anons which encourages Epps and Holyer.

      Delete
  33. Unfortunately it would be more than a matter of simply login back in, as I permanently deleted my FB account. I wish Spamilton was here too... as well as Chris Wells!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bazza is talking rot. Few councillors posted here. And Chris Wells did occasionally, usually with party propaganda that was invariably laughed at and exposed as such. The disaster of the Broadstairs multi-million community centre ended his political career.

      Delete
    2. At least Barry, Chris Wells, Simon Moores and the others posted as their real name unlike some wally that hasn't got the courage to post as themselves

      Delete
    3. And William Watkins is your real name?

      Delete
    4. And anon is your real name? must made getting a passport and driving licence difficult

      Delete
    5. I would suggest removing the comment concerning Simon Moores as it is slanderous Anon 8:42

      Delete

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.