Thursday, 20 February 2014

Royal Sands Development the end

My thanks to the TDC cabinet for deciding to terminate the development agreement with SFP today.

My understanding is that any future development of the Pleasurama site in Ramsgate would now mean that the site would have to be leased or sold to a new developer meaning that the site would have to go to asset disposal and the associated public consultation.

I am hoping that the council will use the £1m deposited with them as insurance that the developer would have completed the development by now to clear the site, do the cliff façade repairs detailed in the survey of two years ago and surface the site so that I can be used for leisure and parking this summer.      

29 comments:

  1. If the news is true, this is fantastic news for Ramsgate and everyone should be pleased that the right decision was reached! Well done TDC! And the façade MUST be made part of the new agreement. It needs work.

    ReplyDelete
  2. TDC have a good history in terms of financial management so I can see this happening......

    ReplyDelete
  3. Talking of Thanet Life, I see Simon is STILL milking his "The police cautioned me!" story (it's actually starting to rival the Worrow-Gregory "I hope you get AIDS!" for being milked). As for the local press not covering it, it's a complete non-story to almost everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter,

      You may be right that this is non-story, although the Observer disagrees with you, but hey what do they know.

      Delete
    2. I meant more of a non-story from a local point of view.

      Delete
    3. On a completely different note (as none of the usual bloggers have mentioned it), congratulations to Will and Jodi on their marriage a couple of days back! : )

      Delete
    4. Peter (your 2042),

      Oh, I see.

      Personally I'm deeply interested in this story. But then I do not have my finger on Thanet's throbbing pulse, unlike others who are out and about in the milieu.

      Delete
    5. As the article in the Guardian seems to have generated some comment on Twitter and facebook but none on here I would like to pose a moral and legal issue over moderating blogs.
      When anyone runs a blog the owner has a decision to make: Do you let comments appear immediately (as on here) or do you read them first (as on Simon's Thanetlife)
      If you allow them to immediately appear (without moderation) any risky comments can only be dealt with by the moderator deleting either by the receipt of a complaint or the moderator reading (when they have time) and deleting.
      If on the other hand the moderator reads and then publishes all comments does that moderator have a moral/legal duty of care. This seems to have been the case on Simon's blog.
      So does Simon have some responsibility in allowing the comments to appear or is it "freedom of speech".

      Delete
    6. John, I'm sure that if it was Driver or Worrow constantly milking and rehashing the same thing you'd agree with me.

      Barry, what Guardian article?

      Delete
    7. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/feb/23/rival-facebook-campaigns-stir-storm-margate-tesco

      Delete
    8. Ok Barry, I've read it now. My favourite part is "Moores says he is considering standing down as a councillor". Nice to know that something good can come out of the whole thing.

      Delete
    9. Peter (your 1036),

      Not so. I endeavour to be fair and impartial in all things, especially where the law is concerned and this is all about the law.

      Delete
    10. John as you posted below I wasn't sure which of my comments you were referring to?

      My original point still stands; Does a blog moderator have any moral or legal responsibility when they read a post and then publish it.

      It really has nothing to do with the Guardian article except that having read the comment Simon allowed them to be published. To take it one stage further I doubt, having vetted them, he would have allowed comments inciting violence against her, but he allowed comments attacking the way she ran her business which had nothing to do with the Tesco protest.

      Delete
    11. Barry,

      My apologies for not addressing your original question which is: Does a blog moderator have any moral or legal responsibility when they read a post and then publish it?

      Morals are subjective, a court cannot and should not decide.

      On the question of the degree legal responsibility I can only answer that I do not know; other than to say that it will be decided by subsequent case law. I would expect one of the tests to be that of did the blog administrator take reasonble precautions.

      Delete
    12. John that is a legal position and I understand that, however is there no morality in this or does a blog moderator allow any posts and hope there is no complaints.

      Delete
    13. Barry,

      I do not understand your point about morality. Surely you are not presenting yourself as the guardian of our morals? Who do you suggest should decide on what is or is not moral - you, me, everyone, anyone? What is morality, are your morals the same as mine?

      Delete
    14. John I don't present myself as you state neither does anyone else as far as I can see. In his next blog post Michael explains the situation better than I however the is a major difference in how Michael runs his blog compared to Simon.
      Michael lets people post then deals with the aftermath, Simon reads the posts then publishes and then deals with issues. That is a major difference as Simon fully moderates and Michael doesn't.
      If any one applies censorship (although that isn't the right word) then it is seen through their moral compass.

      As Michael has introduced the subject in his next blog post might be better to continue on there

      Delete
  4. Goods news but with a confusing message

    1. In regard to the statement recently put out by TDC’s Portfolio holder that the Council have to act in a “reasonable” way I am concerned that there are “errors or omissions” in the 2006/2009 development agreement that means the leases would be unrecoverable immediately the agreement terminates on the 28th February 2014. This, especially in view of the statement “Thanet council will now employ a construction expert to create a timeframe for what work SFP should be reasonably expected to complete” would seem to imply work would be allowed to continue after the deadline of the 28th February, albeit under supervision.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Barry,

    I expect you are already aware that you cannot libel or defame someone if you do not know who they are; which means you can say what you like to an 'anonymous' with impunity.

    Neither can you defame or libel a class of people; which means one is free to say that all Councillors are a bunch of crooks.

    Politics is a knockabout profession and is not for the thin skinned. Some terrible things were said about Maggie; but she did not go whining to law about being harassed. Some pygmy politicians will use this new legislation as a weapon, being devoid of the strength of character to fight their corner in any other way.

    I first learned this lesson in the line of duty when I engaged in a slanging match with a solicitor over her client. She shouted and bullied me and I eventually returned fire. A few days later when it was all settled, I phoned her up to apologise if I had come on too strong. She replied that I should not worry. She said that she suspected her client was in the wrong and therefore had decided to bully me into doing what she wanted. Adding that this was a considered a legitimate tactic in her profession, and that she would have thought less of me had I not replied in kind. We went on to have a long personal chat, she was fed up with her boyfriend and was going out to enjoy herself. There was a tentative suggestion that we meet up when I was next in UK. We never did.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A DISCLAIMER : I do not personally believe that all Councillors are a bunch of crooks.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh Dear, another DISCLAIMER required: I did not mean to imply that my solicitor was a pygmy lawyer. Quite the reverse. She gave me a lesson in how not to be a wimp, for which I remain grateful.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It still hasn't been revealed who the 3rd Tory cllr question was (anyone know?).

      Must admit though I have a lot of time for Mick Tomlinson, and his wife Shirley.

      Delete
    2. Barry deleted for potentially libelous content.

      Delete
    3. Michael did you not mean Sologays?

      Delete
    4. Sorry Barry I did, this sort of thing isn't easy with a mobile, frankly I don't really have the time at the moment to deal with the blog and am tempted to turn off comments or just shut it down altogether.

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

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

      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.