Now that the statutory consultees documents are available for us all to view I intend to highlight some of the aspects of the development that are of concern.This first one concerns Theatrical Pyrotechnics, this is a viable existing business right in the middle of the site where the developer wants to build, they provide about 30 real jobs, their lease is until 2013 and I have been told that Malcom Armstrong (proprietor) has no intention of moving until as least then.
The outline of their compound is shown in red with the purple boundary as the safety zone for glass buildings that the developer wants to build.
Not only is Pyrotechnics sitting on where they want to build but also the safety zone around site means any building in that zone cannot happen unless they close down.
Theatrical Pyrotechnics became tenants of the developer when they bought the land in 2006
Click here to read the what HM inspector of health and safety (explosives) has to say about it.
This is just my own personal analysis but let us imagine that the council grant planning permission fro the build. The change required to "work arround" the current tenant would require a new application and could be stop things dead untill 2013. Still with the same "let's pretend" for a moment do the combined forces of TDC and the developers have the legal and finacial muscle to move the current resident.
ReplyDeleteFor example can the council use a compulsery purchase order?
For example could the developer spend a lot of cash and have them current occupier removed? If so what sort of cash are we talking about and to whom?
Finally do the Chinese know about this "explosive issue"? If there is any doubt can some one privatly forward me their address (email or physical) because I think they should be told.
If you were the developer, Michael, what would your plan A (or plab B) be?
Ah. Updated thoughts. I've just looked at the documents again and I have to revise my ideas a bit. The planning application could invalidate the license for the current tenant and so do away with the problem...
ReplyDeleteNo, the planning officer has said he is not asking for the licence to be revoked to safeguard, one assumes, real jobs that do exist on the site unlike the mythical jobs CGP is talking about.
ReplyDeleteThis is a viable company with contracts for among other things, according to their website, flares for use at sea etc. These jobs are direct ones with a local firm and this is what we should be safeguarding.
If you can find any contact details for Chinamex like e-mail addresses, there are plenty of people who'd like to be able to contact them to explain that democracy in this country means they just have to wait for the due process to go through.They cannot understand, I've been told, why they're not up and running their businesses on that site. What's planning permission? I can hear them say in my imagination.
ReplyDeleteHello Michael
ReplyDelete(1) I have received an acknowledgement from TDC re my FOI request about the Sericol solvent leakage threatening water table. Signed Rose Donnely "Executive Support Unit"
(2) I know nothing about explosives storage regs. I did guard a quarry in South Wales at the time INLA stole explosives from a West Country quarry. And I remember the quarry I worked at was carrying out work specified by Police who had a role in the regulation.
(3) Extended safety areas. TDC and Kent Police both refused to send details of the Range Safety Certificate and Extended Range Safety details for 6th Thanet Range (in spite of Home Office directing me to them for the information). I think the extended range safety area is ordnance survey referenced. The sort of rifle seen on that range requires a five mile ERSA. IE The rifle should never have been on the range.
Best of luck and well done Michael
Oh yes I received a brief email from Chief Executive KPA. Complaint against Mr Hayton is going to Standards and he promises to notify me of "what steps will follow."
ReplyDeleteYou know this cross links into the Sericol matter (FOI TDC)relevant to your concerns and the planning and enforcement issues at 6th Thanet Gun Range peripheral to your concerns.
There is also the matter of a mail intercept operated at TDC which I am not sure you know about. I am not sure it was ever properly investigated and the council officers allegedly involved identified and dealt with. There was an admission to running it from a former tory cllr to a former Chief Executive. (My information is from Margaret Mortlock who took the tory cllr in front of the Chief Exec over this)
Be lucky etc
Matt footnote for you mate
ReplyDeleteThis is on your subject of separation of powers as the questions exist whether the tory cllrs associated with TDC mail intercept were a source of information to then Police Area Commander George Rogers.
In Thanet the concept of three party control of police (Chief constable, Home Sec and Police Authority), under the primacy of independent judiciary, had seriously broken down in my view.
And I think it a case history worthy of examination by Judiciary as to the limits upon the legality of "Intelligence led policing" as piloted in Thanet ?
A box of matches worked in Sussex - it could be the way of getting rid of this fireworks factory too? But I'm sure someone's already thought of that!
ReplyDeleteOn the 20th August when Mr Brown showed this picture and explained it to The Planning Committee, the reaction on Planning Members faces was fascinating to watch. Expressions of 'what on earth next'seemed to be the main response from those who did not have a clue about this major problem whilst some seemed to know all about it.
ReplyDeleteIt does beg the question of what has been 'promised' already by TDC Cabinet and Senior Officers to the developers, CGP? Ezekiel (in IOTG today) echoes Ladyman and seems to have no concerns about this development other than push it through at all costs to create mythical jobs for Thanet.(Isn't that what Thanet Earth was promising to do as it covers the countryside in concrete in glass?) Ezekiel seems in an unsavoury alliance with Ladyman but at least Ladyman has 25000 reasons to support CGP whilst Latchford and Ezekiel only have 12,500 unless there was more than we know about those Tesco bags.
As MattB has pointed out, there appears to be an implied threat to the livliehoods of those at Theatrical Pyrotechnics if this Planning Consent is approved. One must assume that CGP were well aware of the problems and yet the plans submitted take no account of the safety hazard or even the existence of the firework factory. This is remniscient of the original CGP cesspit plans and a complete disregard of the aquifer and its safety.
Surely, CGP should be required to either 'buy out' the Firework Factory or re-write its plans. How can Councillors approve plans that might effectively close down a thriving business?
If there was just one reason , let alone many that come to mind, for our Councillors to send this Application back on 9th October and thus have an Independent and unbiased and untainted Inspector decide the issues, this must be it.
Condition 33 of the planning officer's recommendation to the planning committe states the following:
ReplyDelete"33 Part of the site forming the subject of this permission presently contains a Pyrotechnic Company which is the subject of Health and Safety Executive safeguarding requirements. A copy of the safeguarding plan relating to these premises is attached. No development that breaches the requirements of the safeguarding plan shall be carried out while the Pyrotechnic Company remains in operation on the site unless otherwise agreed, in writing, with the Local Planning Authority."
My guess would be that CGP will probably offer the pyrotechic company a very good price to buy the lease.
17.53, I suspect that Theatrical Pyrotechnics have already told Ken Wills and CGP(their new landlords since 2006)to 'sod off' in the nicest possible way.
ReplyDeleteIts time for our Councillors to do likewise and then arrange proper sustainable and safe development of Manston Business Park rather than an overcrowded irrational ware-house import/redistribution point for cheap Chinese imports that will create an HGV nightmare on our roads and provide a few warehouse jobs.
One thing that has concerned me from the point that I first realised that the architects had designed something essentially unbuildable is, are Chinamex and the Chinese government aware of the problems relating to this development? I can’t see them wanting to have a showcase for their products that appears to be unwelcome locally.
ReplyDeleteThe problem I have with all of the aspects that don’t make sense about the plans, is that no one supporting the development is able to answer reasonable questions, one would have thought that those who say they are supporting passing of the existing plans would be only to keen to enter the debate and explain why.
We had a similar situation with Pleasurama, totally unbuildable plans were submitted by the same architect and most unwisely passed by the council, and the resultant confusion has blighted Ramsgate for years now.