The more questions I raise about China Gateway the more I am coming to the conclusion that the property company behind it CGP, the architects PRC and the technical consultants Scott Wilson, must have known that the plans that were submitted could never be built.
What I really need at this point is to find is someone who understands the plans and who will explain the aspects of them that don’t seem to make any sense, is there anyone who can explain how the existing plans could be built, without such radical changes to them that the architect would need to submit new plans?
I have had some email communication with Doug Brown the planning officer on the case, anyone interested will need to read it from the bottom email up click here to do so
To view the plans on the councils planning website copy the application reference F/TH/08/0400 click here to go to the planning site and paste the reference in the appropriate box and click search.
At the moment no one as adequately refuted my assertion that a full council meeting will be recommended to approve plans that couldn’t be built, something that would seem ridiculous.
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.
Saturday 20 September 2008
1 comment:
Comments, since I started writing this blog in 2007 the way the internet works has changed a lot, comments and dialogue here were once viable in an open and anonymous sense. Now if you comment here I will only allow the comment if it seems to make sense and be related to what the post is about. I link the majority of my posts to the main local Facebook groups and to my Facebook account, “Michael Child” I guess the main Ramsgate Facebook group is We Love Ramsgate. For the most part the comments and dialogue related to the posts here goes on there. As for the rest of it, well this blog handles images better than Facebook, which is why I don’t post directly to my Facebook account, although if I take a lot of photos I am so lazy that I paste them directly from my camera card to my bookshop website and put a link on this blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Michael, you have summed up the problem for the A and X types wonderfully. If SW and the EA are stating that they are unhappy with the unproved undersurface microbe layer and are stating that run-off in SPZ 1 off HGV standing has to go to main sewer, why are there no sewerage plans being submitted? The A Types in SPZ 2 and their HGV hardstanding drainage should be directed through interceptors and into balancing ponds but again no plans have been submitted for this. It seems that everyone is ignoring the sesnible advice given to TDC in 1995 by the NRA, that no hazardous activity in regard to the aquifer should be located at the N end of the site and yet we have the greatest threat, still positioned there. If this application is a stand-alone application, the design layout of the site is illogical and irrational to the point of Wedbnesbury principle. It only makes sense however, when you attach Phases 2 & 3 to it' i.e. all smelly HGV stuff down Columbus Ave towards the aquifer and leave the rest of the total project area for other activity in an introspective overcrowded industrial landscape.
ReplyDelete