I have just sent the following email out to all of the councillors and other interested parties.
Best wishes to you all.
You may as yet be unaware that the environment agency has now commented on the Pleasurama development.
I have been writing to local politicians and government officers about this issue since early in 2003 when Thanet District Council turned down the developer Westcliff Park Ltd that developed Belmont House on the westcliff on the grounds that they were financially unsound. The council chose instead SFP Ventures Partners Ltd an offshore company that never seem to have developed anything, they are a Virgin Islands Company and as such completely unaccountable in the UK.
Westcliff Park Ltd tendered to build a development on the Pleasurama site in the style of the red brick arches behind the harbour and as part of the development would have included a swimming pool that was to have been donated to the town for free.
As their development was integrated with the cliff façade it would also have saved the council £450,000 on cliff repairs.
Now from the Environment Agency’s report it is obvious that SFP Ventures Partners Ltd lack of experience has lead us into a situation where the town has suffered a building site where our prime leisure site should be for the last 5 years.
Having studied the Flood Risk Assessment conducted by H R Wallingford for the Turner Centre, and mentioned in the Environment Agency’s report on the Pleasurama development, it is obvious that any development on the site will have to be set on and well behind, a concrete sea defence at least 1 meter higher that the existing one.
This of course means that the proposed 5 story development will not fit in the space available between the sea defence and the cliff top, at best I would expect another years delay and consider it highly unlikely that the development will go ahead without a new planning application being submitted and approved.
Any of your views or comments are always welcome, please indicate if you want any reply kept confidential other wise I will assume that it is for publication.
Best regards Michael.
My Weblog where you can comment anonymously should you wish http://thanetonline.blogspot.com/
Westcliff Park http://www.westcliffepark.co.uk/
Belmont House http://www.westcliffepark.co.uk/belmont.html
Virgin Islands companies http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/seafront/further_correspondence.htm
Environment Agency Report http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/ea/id2.htm
News, Local history and Thanet issues from Michael's Bookshop in Ramsgate see www.michaelsbookshop.com I publish over 200 books about the history of this area click here to look at them.
This letter is extra-ordinary and I want to know why it has not been made public before - local councillors should have been told about it at the very least. It would seem from this letter that the EA advice changed between outline planning permission and today so even if TDC were right to award permission based on the advice in 2003 they certainly now have a duty to at least ask the developer to submit amended plans. If he doesn't I suspect his flats will be blighted so it is in his interest to address these issues.
ReplyDeleteI have written to TDC to ask for an explanation. At the very least a cliff top access must be constructed and it would be sensible if the first floor flats were built further from the ground.
My reading of the report is that as the planning application was approved before the Environment Agency’s latest advice about rising sea levels and the need to build residential accommodation at 5.6m above ODN and there appears to be very little that can be done unless the developers apply to make substantial changes to the design. In this case they would need to submit a new application that will need AE approval.
ReplyDeleteThe whole project has been badly managed and I am still not fully convinced that I will actually ever see it built!
as the comments come in by email I am publishing them peoples names in lower case, perhaps it could be seen as a measure of who is interested in ramsgate
ReplyDeleteWell done, Michael! I am particularly pleased to read Dr Ladyman's views.
ReplyDeleteGasp !!
ReplyDeleteNew planning application for the empty plot at the end of Granville Marina:
THE ARCHES ADJ GRANVILLE MARINA COURT, MARINA ESPLANADE, RAMSGATE, CT11 8NB. Ref: F/TH/08/0426
6 storey building for 7 flats with undercroft parking and balconies.
Yes - the 6 storey bit is correct! Its almost up to height of the cliff tops, with Marina Road running behind it. This could also do with a FRA I guess.
Fred
Fred I can’t find it on the government planning website, from talking to the EA it seems it’s the RIZ and pedestrian escape that worries them most with these sites next to the sea. 6 story’s seems a bit extreme is the building in keeping with the Granville behind it 6 stories including basement I believe. The previous buildings there http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/harbourcards/id21.htm were 1 story I believe, personally I would be most worried about the state of the arches down there which TDC assure me are capable of supporting 40 tonne lorries, I will do a post about it when I have proper confirmation but if you email me I will send you my correspondence with them so far.
ReplyDeleteMichael,
ReplyDeleteIts filed under 'Granville Marina' in the ukplanning street search menu. Or you can search for application no: 08/0426
The application is dated 11 Apr 2008.
The proposed building is not in keeping with the Granville or Granville Marina. I'd say it was more in keeping with the new Pleasurama development in terms of style !
You need to see the drawings to appreciate the size of this proposed construction and the effect it would have on the views from the cliff top.
Fred
Strewth Fred I’ll give it some thought, I can never understand why conventional materials and a design in keeping with the listed buildings isn’t compulsory in a conservation area. I wonder have you considered just how big the Pleasurama development is though, the one you have just discovered has a frontage of 29 meters whereas the Pleasurama development has a frontage of 250 meters.
ReplyDeleteBy the way I couldn’t get the plans to come up when I searched by application number only by looking under Granville Marina. Since the last planning application for this site was under Marina Esplanade it made it very hard to find.
I suspect the justification will be that it’s a lot less awful than Pleasurama will be the main one sited and I suppose from the developer’s point of view it would seem justifiable.
I also can’t understand why there is no flood risk assessment with the plans, I am certain that it is now a statutory requirement.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteAgreed, the Pleasurama development is far larger - this new proposed development is just a 'mini' version.
Its worrying that developers will be able to point to the pleasurama development as a justification for building further buildings of this type on the seafront. I'm concerned about what might be next on the redevelopment list down there - particularly if high land values encourage the owners (whether private or public) to sell the land.
In reference to this new proposal needing a FRA - in my experience, this is the location on our seafront that suffers the most frequently from 'over topping'.
Fred
Fred having had a bit of a further look at it I am not certain that the height is feasible, there is no site survey showing the height of the cliff, nor any measurements on the plans, however a quick assessment comes out as between 23 and 24 meters above ODN with a base line of 6 ODN meaning that the height is 18 meters so allowing 3 meters for each floor which is about the norm that does seem to take it up to the top of the cliff.
ReplyDeleteThose of us, like you Michael and myself, that have been pressing TDC to bring the revised plans for this development back to the Planning Committee can feel vindicated. Like Dr Ladyman, I to have requested an explanation from TDC of why they have been in posession of this opinion since mid February and have not shared it with Eastcliff Ward Councillors or the public. I too feel that escape access at cliff top level is a minimal requirement. However, that would open up the whole discussion concerning the roof design and function.
ReplyDeleteSteve David Bertie Alan Fred and the rest of you I have, in my own small way endeavoured to find out what is going on, I have been unable to get written publishable answers from either TDC planning or any members of the cabinet.
ReplyDeleteNor have I had any luck with the architect or builder, despite having been told that there would be local consultation on this project.
I have however had considerable cooperation from TDC planning officers.
I gather in the light of the EA letter and my concerns over the last 18 months about storm damage, the developer has submitted yet another set of plans, features being thicker glass, raising of the car park behind the building to help offset the effect of the sea sweeping round behind it and a two way road behind the building next to the cliff.
They still show no escape to the cliff nor any raised sea defence to mitigate the effects of overtopping.
In view of the fact that waves have picked up lumps of granite, that were part of the harbour, wall weighing several tons and tossed them into the harbour on several occasions and that a 12 ton crane was swept by the sea to where the new building will be in the 1953 storm, thicker glass may be inadequate.
But really without a proper and professional Flood Risk Assessment as strongly recommended by the EA it is all just guesswork.
Of course with a road adjacent to the cliff, the roundabout that has just wiped out our main sands car park looks even more ridiculous.
I think one of the worst aspects of the whole thing, is starting building the roads for it before viable plans have been submitted and approved, now no one knows even if they are at the right level.
What i want to know is why is public property [the old paving] stored under these acrhes and why isn't TDC claiming it back and store it away to replace broken paving etc in and around the harbour?
ReplyDelete