Pleasurama is the largest development in the Thanet towns at a Quarter of a kilometre in length it dwarfs projects like the Turner Centre. Now my fears over the safety of the project needing thorough investigation have been confirmed by The Environment Agency, I have to consider what action to take next.Obviously to stand back while the equivalent of the Titanic without lifeboats is built on my doorstep is not an option. It would seem highly likely that a flood risk assessment will recommend that the building will need to be on a higher sea defence, set well back from the seaward edge with pedestrian escapes to the cliff top.
There are two obvious factors here, the first being that there is no space between a higher sea defence and the cliff top for the proposed 5 story building, second that if there are going to be escapes to the cliff top that go through the cliff these ought to be made as part of the work that is being undertaken on the cliff at the moment.
I consider it highly unlikely that the builder Knight Developments a subsidiary of the Knight Group both companies of good track record will ignore the recommendations of the Environment Agency report, however they are at the moment building a roundabout for busses to turn at the end of a road where it appears very dangerous to take a bus.
Now at the moment money is being poured into the project, much of which is coming from TDC however because there doesn’t appear to be anyone in overall charge of the project, it is likely that much of this money is not being wisely spent.
It would seem that the whole project will have to be reconsidered and in all probability the building redesigned and yet at the moment the infrastructure is still being built at what is almost certainly the wrong height above sea level.
Do your concerns really revolve around the safety of the project? With the greatest respect, contractors are obliged to incorporate these concerns into the construction of the building - it's frankly their problem isn't it?
ReplyDeleteIt would appear to a casual observer that your comments about safety are slightly disingenuous and you are opposed to the development in its entirety for reasons undisclosed. Forgive me if this is a rather cynical viewpoint, but I fail to understand why you have assumed the mantle of safety spokesperson for a project which you have nothing to do with. I live much closer to the development than yourself and have no particular axe to grind if a developer wants to build on land that has been derelict for what must be nearly 20 years.
I hope you can clarify your position for the benefit of all readers of your blog, and again forgive my cynicism if your motives are indeed entirely altruistic. I enjoy your blog greatly, and have taken the liberty of linking to it from my own.
Jethro back when the plans were first approved and I realised that the development towered 3 meters above the cliff top, I and others made a considerable fuss and had the height reduced. No one I have spoken to wanted to see the sea view badly obscured on the Eastcliff.
ReplyDeleteOnce they had reduced the height although I didn’t like the buildings design, it’s old fashioned and without architectural merit particularly after the removal of the gull wing roof, some of the features are just the way we don’t build good social housing now, the only plans I have ever seen have 1 meter wide corridors the whole length of the building, that would encourage crime and social disorder, I decided to let the matter rest. I am very much aware as a business man in the town how urgently the site needs developing, however the site must be viable and the apartments insurable.
The first safety issue to come to my attention was the cliff and after considerable representations on my part it is now being repaired click here to see what happens when our cliffs here collapse an I think you will agree that you can’t put residential accommodation in this sort of position.
Just over a year ago as part of my local history research I discovered that during previous storms buildings on this site had been demolished by storms, indeed in 1953 a 12 ton crane was thrown by the sea to where the want to build a children’s play area.
The Environment Agencies Report is the result of my questions into the flood and storm issues related to the site, had they said that they considered it safe to build on the site yes I would have been happy to drop the issue.
Thanks for the clarification, and I couldn't agree more about the height restriction. Unfortunately, the architectural design is something driven by commercial demands as much as anything else. We can either compromise or have nothing there at all, and miss out on the prestige, money and other benefits this could provide. I would assume that the developers aren't building it to do us a favour, but to maximise returns.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I can't imagine TDC allowing it to be built if there were genuine concerns over safety. Out of interest, do you know if the other residences further along the promenade have ever needed to be evacuated or have suffered serious damage?
I understand your concerns a little better now, however, so thank you for your response.
Jethro TDCs stance has always been that the safety is a matter for the environment agency and the environment agency’s stance that they couldn’t report on the safety issues as it was impossible to determine how high the base line of the building was above sea level, from the plans that were sent to them. I also have a copy of the plans they were sent, they are the ones where the sections are taller than the elevations i.e. the building is shown as being bigger on the inside than on the outside. They also have features like peoples heads embedded in the ceilings where the architect has tried to reduce the height to get the building below the cliff top click here for more detail.
ReplyDeleteAbout six weeks ago I was made aware that the architect had come up with a definite height above sea level, and now the environment agency has commented. You may wish to click here and look at the pictures to see what the environment agency mean by structural damage caused by overtopping.
Jethro I forgot to mention that the last tenant of the flat above the recently demolished Marina Restaurant had to move out because the fire brigade, having rescued him during a storm, said that the couldn’t guarantee his safety in any future storms.
ReplyDeleteMichael, thanks for all this info. Could I just clarify the present position:
ReplyDelete1. This building needs an up-dated Flood Risk Assessment(FRA) to identify the Rapid Inundation Zone (RIZ)i.e. what gets covered in sea water quickly and to identify what steps need to be taken to protect structural integrity WHEN the flooding takes place, not IF!
2. The revised predicted static tide tables (above ODN) 5.6m show the height of the development to be only 5.8m above ODN. So with a good southerly/SW storm along the coast (you have some excellent pictures on record) there is only 20cm allowed for wave action before the water floods into the ground floor of this development?
Is TDC really going to hide behind the out of date assessment and not have a new Flood Risk Assessment made in spite of the letter to them of 8 Feb 2008?
Surely, if they are now aware of the advice given, they have a duty in law to ensure that a new FRA is made and ASAP so that safety and evacuation can be considered when the building is flooded? A scenario where there is likely to be flood damage to property on the ground floor; inability to evacuate residents on floors above and possibility of structural failure and collapse leading to loss of life is now confirmed as a possibility. If TDC, Councillors and Officers, now having a direct recommendation from the Agency, choose to do nothing then are they not liable to leaving themselves open to being sued and in the worst case being charged with 'corporate manslaughter' due to negligence? You had better get onto our local councillors along these lines and quickly. Have you e-mailed a copy of this letter to Knights (the developers?) if not do so with the suggestion that they get onto it as well as they could also be held liable in the event of damage and loss of life. For God's sake what is wrong with TDC that they cannot see they have a duty to businesses and individuals who will become their own tax-payers and residents when they move in?
Jethro
ReplyDeleteI admire the stand Michael has taken.
Sometimes we assume that people are "Obliged to incorporate concerns into construction".
My experience is not with building construction but with electrical systems.
The Head of Electrical Engineering Standards at Institute of Electrical Engineers told me that outside of domestic installations (IEE Wiring Regs) there is "No such thing as electrical engineering standards"
If an emergency backup generator fails on a hospital ? According to Chief Investigator South East HSE Mr Sutton it is "Not a reportable incident under the Health and safety at Work Act" so there is no mandatory HSE investigation.
If an emergency generator fails on a nuclear site then there is a duty on HSE Nuclear inspectors to investigate. But clearly they have no records base for similar failure incidents in civil roles because they are not investigated.
The Scottish Energy Minister Ian Grey called for a report from me about my concerns of unreliability of backup generators after the three incidents at Dounreay (leading to four billion pound decommissioning).
After receipt of the report he called in UKAEA Police.
And this is how it went:
Commons Defence Select Cttee had commissioned the Parliamentary Office of Science and technology to conduct a risk assessment of terrorist attacks on nuclear plant.
Unreliability of emergency power (including due to sabotage) would be a matter for Home Affairs (Homeland Security) and Works and pensions (Health and safety at Work Act.
Home Office say it is for Kent Police (re generators made in Kent)
Kent Police say if it is manufacture in Kent it would be for KCC Trading Standards.
The Head of Civil Nuclear Security (Mike Smith) said that sabotage is not a security issue. It would be for HSE nuclear inspectors
HSE said no it would be for the industry itself to take up with police (who say it would be a trading standards issue)
The UKAEA Police in time reported to Mike Smith at DTI who had already said it was not a security issue.
The PM (then Tony Blair) ordered a report copied to the Northern Ireland Office and sent my request (Civil Contingencies Act 2004) to compel inquiry by Kent Police and HSE, into unreliability and sabotage, to the Home Secretary then John Reid.
I got a reply signed by a Home Office civil servant telling me to write to HSE instead. This letter was directed by the minister responsible.
I phoned the HO civil servant who refused to come to his phone. A colleague took the call
"Who is the Minister responsible who directed this letter"
"John Reid"
"Did John Reid direct the letter"
"I cannot say that he did"
"He had the matter referred to him for decision by the Prime Minister"
"You would be in your rights to tell the Prime Minister about this"
So I wrote to Blair and told him.
Back to John Reid.
Back comes a reply from the "Police Integrity Unit" at Home Office. It is not a matter for HSE as we thought it would be a matter for the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
I write back. No I want a decision signed by the minister responsible under the Act.
My MP then sent an indexed technical report drawn up by me to John Reid.
Then without giving a decision Reid left the Home Office.
I think the problem is that Tony Blair failed to put the IRA Garland sabotage Plan into the SArms Decommissioning declaration terms of the Good Friday Agreement.
And found a problem getting a minister to sign anything to do with alleged sabotage.
Concerns about this were reported to the Northern Ireland Secretary by General De Chasterlain.
In short do not assume that there is an obligation and that someone has matters covered.
Efficiency, however, seems to grow proportionate towards achieving the cover up or buckpassing when and if something goes wrong.
So go Michael.
And do bear in mind Article 2 of the Human Rights Convention. Deaths where advance warning of hazard had been established.
Power to you.