Full council will decide on October 9th what to do about the China Gateway planning application, as far as I understand they can either approve the application, reject the application or defer it.
If you wish to contact your councillors and express your opinion on the subject you should do so fairly soon, this is a planning issue so only valid planning concerns should be put forward.
If for instance you tell your councillor that you are against the application because of human rights issues in China or because you have concerns about the Chinese flooding the market with fake or dangerous goods, this is not a planning issue and your councillor cannot and must not take it into consideration.
If you tell your councillor that you are for the application because you wish to have greater cultural ties with the Chinese, this cannot be taken into account for the same reason.
On the other hand if you raise specific issues relating to the buildings, logistic infrastructure, environmental, drainage and pollution issues this can and must be taken into account, your ward councillors are elected representatives and as such they are duty bound to represent your views.
If for instance you are unhappy about the cramped layout of the site and lack of sufficient open spaces, (one of the things pointed out in the Kent Count Council strategy and planning document by their director of planning services), it is valid point and must be taken into account.
If you look on the councils planning website the application reference is F/TH/08/0400 and clicking on this link will take you there, you will find that document and others which may be helpful when forming an opinion on the subject, another useful document is the recommendation to approve click here to read it.
If there are aspects of the documents that you don’t understand, contact the councils planning department and they should help you and answer your questions.
Because they have been unable to answer some of my questions 1 to 5 below being some of the most important although I am not sure if 5 is a valid question, I feel that at the very least the decision should be deferred until some of them are answered satisfactorily.
In the case of the Pleasurama development the approval of unbuildable plans submitted by this same architect hasn’t been beneficial to this area and I don’t want us to go down a similar road with this huge development.
1 Is there any viable surface drainage plan or can anyone see how one could be devised?
2 Will the road infrastructure be able to cope with the extra Traffic, especially the thousands of HGV movements?
3 Will the light noise and air pollution so close to Acol be of an acceptable level?
4 With thousands of HGV cold starts adjacent to the borehole will the resultant air pollution falling on the ground above it contaminate the water supply?
5 As the developer has been trying to buy up farmland from Quex for phases 4 & 5 and the cabinet were asked last Thursday to allocate more agricultural land for commercial use, with plenty of disused industrial land in the area shouldn’t we have to use this up before prime farmland?
It has been implied that if the application was rejected and then subsequently appealed the development would go ahead totally unregulated, this is not true.
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.
I believe a planning inspector could, in fact, impose even tighter conditions and controls so those who say we would lose the conditions already set out by planning would be lost are scaremongering, just what they accused the anti-group of doing.
ReplyDeleteI was interested to read in this week's Thanet Extra that, according to Roger Gale, Cllr. Bruce has saved out water supply when actually, Michael, I think you and the Save Thanet's Water group might just have had something to do with it. Mr. Gale also makes reference to KCC and TDC landholdings at Manston and that is interesting when TDC have told me (and their asset register agrees) TDC doesn't hold land at Manston. Odd that.
He also is all for a public enquiry if Phases 2 and 3 come to planning. I thought it was up to the relevant Secretary of State to decide on that ,but, hey, what do I know?
Somewhat off topic - I spotted a notice down by the pavillion this morning, saying something to the effect that because of the delay in the pleasurama development, TDC was reintroducing the parking on the turning circle at the eastern end of harbour parade ...
ReplyDeleteOur Councillors must not be put off the idea of turning this application down or deferring it or even asking for it to be re-presented when the issues highlighted have been resolved. Mr Gale clearly does not grasp the fact that because this application has been handled in the most extraordinary manner, the best outcome for all concerned would be to have it examined closely by an INDEPENDENT Inspector. With the hysteria being demonstrated by TDC Cabinet and Senior Officers as they fall over themselves to promote this project, how possibly can our own Council Planning Department officers retain an independent and professional stance when their boss and his boss and TDC'S Leader and Deputy and other Cabinet members have already promised that this project will proceed and did so over a year ago to the developer and presumably Chairman Hao etc!
ReplyDeleteMichael
ReplyDeleteI will put a copy in post to you of the reply from TDC to my FOI application re a solvent spillage incident at Sericol in the 90s and the threat it represented to the water table.
The reply is from Morgan Sproates Contaminated Land Officer. The reply is detailed and, in my view, diligent.
TDC will be forwarding the FOI request to Dept of Environment for more detail;ed answers to be sent.
The solvent was cyclohexanone which is flammable and harmful by inhalation. It is partially soluble in water.
As you know I wish to quantify the amount of missing solvent. The missing quantity per Sericol production records and the estimated quatity which leaked over time to ground and threatened water table. Initially I think sericol suspected theft of quantities of solvent. So if there is a disparity between the volume calculated to have leaked to ground and the amount missing that would obviously equate to an amount it is reasonable to suspect was stolen.
I will copy one para of Morgan Sproates reply :
" I would agree with your concerns regarding on site storage of harmful chemicals in an area where surface drainage leads directly to soakaways. Where necessary this department, alongside external consultees on planning applications (EG The Environment Agency) currently requests safeguarding conditions to ensure continued protection of the environment and to prevent pollution of controlled waters (including infiltration of potentially contaminated surface water drainage to any water course, land or underground strata). Dependant on the nature of the site and the substances concerned this may be achieved by suitable impervious bases, bunding of above ground storage facilities and pipework or via interceptors designed and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with the site being drained. In such cases no infiltration of surface drainage into the ground would be permitted other than with the express written consent of the LPA"
Ken Gregory was consulted during the preparation of the response and so I have asked that a copy of my reply be sent to him by TDC.
My interest now departs from your environment concerns and it includes why TDC and Dept of Environment were not told when Sericol carried oput inquiry into maintenance and site safety staff with alleged forged qualifications anmd into suepoected staff thefts of Sericol property. (1998 the year Cllr Hayton allagedly told High Court there was no procedure of inquiry into then recently ex Sericol maintenance engineer Cllr George Maison)
Now if I were to find thet my tenants' gas safety certs were issued by a gas fitter with forged Corgi credentials could I continue as if the gas safety certs are valid ? NO.
And in my view the same principle obviously applies to Sericol. So I wait to hear what Environment Agency will tell me about this incident, the quantities involved and the degree of threat to water supply. And about the matter of why Sericol did not make further report in 1998 when it allagedly emerged they had employed a monkey to do a skilled man's job. (For ten years)
Also I think with nitric acid and hydrogen peroxide it is an explosive .....
ReplyDeleteit is carcinogenic neurogenic and a few other genics too.
You have critics Michael who claim you are scaremongering.
Let them think on.
Another person incidentally I will be writing to in due course is the HM Coroner Rebecca Cobb.
In about 1996 she, as I understand it, approached Thanet CID to re-examine the suicide verdict on Georgina MAISON in 1979. A death resulting from choloroform saturation of the body organs. She had died with a plastic bag over her head containing chloroform soaked cotton wool balls. Inquiry it seems did not extend to the source of the chloroform .... IE whether the Maisons knew someone who had expertise in and access to solvents. (I will be naming such a man to Rebecca Cobb)
And Thanet CID (DI HILLS) was "not minded" to comply with HM Coroner request. Just at the same time as Thanet CID appeared not minded to accept SWINDELLS (Ken Speakman's murder) confession to a paramilitary assault on Mrs Mortlock and just at the timer Thanet CID were not minded to make inquiries about suspected removal of a dangerous subtance from Sericol. Think on.
Should you have been snubbing HM Coroner Kent Plod ?
I would love to be able to write to my ward councillors regarding these issues, unfortunately, as both of them seem to have committed themselves irrevocably to the Gateway development I feel it would be a waste of paper!
ReplyDeleteFrom web research it appears that the chemical which may have gone missing from Sericol (possibly covered by spilling a quantity to ground over time) can be used:
ReplyDelete(1) Terrorist cookbook home made bomb recipe
(2) The illegal manufacture of drugs in drug pusher back street laboratories.
I will now make efforts to find out which cllrs at TDC knew about the Sericol incident and when. IF Bill Hayton is one such then more questions arise about him allegedly telling High Court in 98 there were no procedures of inquiry touching on Cllr George Richard Maison then recently ex maintenance engineer at Sericol.
Michael
ReplyDeleteI have emailed you a copy re significance of another Thanet industrial chemical Tetrachlorethylene. (PETBOW CUMMINS)
As I understand it this is an organic solvent which was officially banned from site as its fumes are dangerous (to kidneys etc) when combined with diesel exhaust. So not a good idea near diesel gensets and possibly why Petbow service staff seemed to feature so much kidney disease ?
However you will see from the email that Kent Police were told by me as long ago as 1987 that at least twenty gallons was still stored on site and available to the GMBU shop steward who specialized in solvent safety oddly enough. The man for whom I have now submitted evidence of association with .... yes our Sericol "Senior Site Fire Safety Officer"
I think I have almost brought this one home mate. And how I hope the powers that be give the gloves off order for inquiries in Thanet.
Please could someone clarify exactly what control the council have over planning applications that have be rejected, go to an appeal and win. Do they have less control? Are they unable to impose conditions?
ReplyDeleteI have spoken to my ward councillor who is strongly under the impression that if the application for China Gateway Phase 1 is rejected the conditions are no longer valid if the developers go to an appeal and win. Therefore the council have more control if they approve it first time round. If the rest of the councillors are under this impression the application may be passed on false grounds for fear of losing 'control'.
My ward councillor is not alone with this line of thought - one of our MP's also believes this to be the case and has done for some time.
This needs to be confirmed and councillors informed accordingly BEFORE they make a decision on the 9th October.
From a confused and worried Thanet Resident.
If the application is refused and goes to appeal the Planning Inspector has the ability to attach whatever 'conditions' he sees appropriate. They may even be more restrictive. In my experinece this is probably unlikely!
ReplyDeleteCurrently there are 36 conditions, 7 informatives and a 106 agreement. We know what we are getting and providing we haven't missed anything it should be sufficient. We do however need to ensure that the conditions are strictly enforced.
9.33 I think the problem here is that we already have some experience of what happens when this particular architect produces unworkable plans, in the case of Pleasurama I am told that they still are miles from anything like a safe construction.
ReplyDeleteThey have already gone ahead with the Pleasurama road layout, without taking the environment agency’s strong recommendations and doing a flood risk assessment first, this means that they have guessed the safe level for these road works and the builder has laid loose slabs on sand on top of the concrete sea defences.
Now in the case of the Marina Restaurant adjacent and at the same level, the last occupant of the flat above it was told by the fire brigade, that he would have to move out, as they were not prepared to drive fire appliances through the waves to rescue him again.
Now when the fire brigade go to rescue the 1,000 or so people trapped in the new Pleasurama building the waves will be full of concrete slabs and cobbles, there is no doubt about this the sea has picked up the granite blocks that Ramsgate harbour is made out of weighing several tons and thrown them about like pebbles.
My feelings are that it would be better if the councillors deferred the decision until such time as the developer comes up with solutions to the conditions, otherwise we may be in for a very long haul while the architect tries to wriggle out of the conditions.