Update on Plans for Marina Restaurant posted 25th October.
As this building is in an area designated as high flood risk and so I assumed a flood risk assessment would be mandatory I sought advice from TDC planning on the application.
“This is an application for listed building consent I assume there will also be an application for planning permission upon which the views of the Environment Agency will be required. I would expect they would require some form of flood risk assessment, which includes consideration of overtopping.”
It is I believe at this point that we should object on the grounds that the proposed rebuild and extension doesn’t retain the character and setting of the listed building.
I should remind anyone interested that it was part of a beach resort built by J T Wimperis in 1877 click here for a bit more info
Click here to enlarge the picture
I've been puzzling over some of the details in the design and access statement:
ReplyDelete13.0 flooding: "We do not expect the site to be at risk of flooding in an event with a return period of two hundred years however further assessment can be carried out if required. As a further safeguard the floor levels of both the new extension and the historic building have been raised by approximately 1m".
I'm sure I remember a few of the houses in Granville Marina having sandbags outside their doors last winter.
I guess they will just increase the internal floor level of the ground floor of the Marina Restaurant and have lower ground floor ceilings. Looking at the elevation on p.17 it looks like the internal floor level (assuming this is all at the same level and is at the top of the steps into the extension) would be about 1/3 of the way up what appear to be (mock?) French windows in the front elevation of the Marina Restaurant.
Even if they get permission for this pastiche rebuild I don't see any reason why it needs the ghastly extension or that the restaurant needs to be converted into yet another apartment.
The previous owners had permission (2003) for converting the floors above the restaurant into flats and for construction of a small stairway next to the cliff to give independent access to the flats. The land to side of the restaurant apparently being purchased from TDC earlier that year. In my opinion, it would be better if the planning department insisted on going no further than these original plans.
14.28 It looks like a badly thought out attempt overcome the restriction that you can’t put residential accommodation on the ground floor in a high-risk flood zone.
ReplyDeleteLike Pleasurama, building between a cliff and the sea is a very demanding task for an architect, with the existing accommodation there upstairs well inside the arch you would probably be safe whatever the sea threw at you.
In a big tidal surge storm you just wouldn’t want to be down there at all, in the 1953 storm the sea deposited a 12 ton crane that had been working on the beach right where the glass fronted Pleasurama building is going.
Thank Heavens that someone has submitted a contentious planning application for the blogs to get their teeth into. The (wholly expected) 'victory' by CGP seems to have really taken the wind out of many people's sails.
ReplyDeleteThings slowed to the extent that former pariah Rick was being lauded for his 'revelations' about the Sericol leak! This is a leak that has been in the process of being cleaned up for the last 14 years and so far almost 500 tonnes of the stuff has been shifted. It's hardly a secret to be revealed and people seem to be doing a remarkably good job putting it right. There'll be no Pullitzer Prize on its way to Rick for this. And remember his blog also makes the case that Leonard Cheshire and Sue Ryder(they of charity shop fame) conspired in the untimely death of one of their staff some decades ago. He further asserts that his Sericol leak revelation is the reason behind a spate of recent local fires involving illegal drug factories! I know it's any port in a storm but is this the best bandwagon that bloggers could find to jump onto following CGP...?
My point? As always it is that we shouldn't take ourselves as bloggers too seriously.
Jack to me this is primarily another public safety issue, how do the people in the building escape?
ReplyDeleteWith the chemical leak I am still awaiting answers to the following questions from the council.
Which agency is monitoring the public health side of this and have there been surveys of the health of the people living and working in the effected area?
Is the vapor from the chemical spilt still coming out of the ground in the Westwood area?
Who is monitoring the private water abstraction boreholes?
As far as CGP goes between them Southern Water the airport and the EA appear to have made it impossible for them to comply with their surface water runoff restrictions, you may call that a victory I don’t?
Of course if you can tell me where the water goes that is different altogether.
Michael, I don't think I'm naive - but I could be wrong in this case - but surely no building could be approved that carries anything more than the most extreme of public safety risks (as all buildings do). Society doesn't rely on those being pointed out to those in positions of authority, surely.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I have to be honest and say that although issues such as water run-off and drainage at China Gateway should be simple I'm having trouble following the technicalities. If there is a problem then keep asking questions. This is the sort of non-public safety issue that just might be compromised on.
Similarly the points you raise about the leakage are well made and should be answered. I don't see there's a conspiracy to chase down though, a definite cock-up by Sericol, but there has followed a diligent clean up that's only become interesting because a light's been shone on it. It didn't become sinister, just interesting.
What are your thoughts on the charity death and the recent fires that Rick regularly mentions?
Jack look at some of my postings on Pleasurama the council approved plans for a building between an unsafe cliff and the sea, after severl years of pointing this out to them, they eventually agreed to repair the cliff.
ReplyDeleteAfter numerous letters to the council and the EA the effect that a tidal surge storm could cause the building to collapse with over a thousand people in it, the environment agency examined the plans and wrote to the council saying that they strongly recommended a flood risk assessment and escapes to the cliff top.
However because of the way things are they couldn’t insist on these things.
The developer has so far put in part of the road layout including laying lose slabs on sand on top of the sea defences where waves overtop in a storm, can you imagine tying to escape through a stormy sea full of concrete blocks?
I have explained the China Gateway surface drainage problems in layman’s terms click on the link to read http://thanetonline.blogspot.com/2008/10/thanatos-or-hypnos.html the plans are passed but there is just nowhere for the water to go.
As far as Rick’s comments go I can only speak for his engineering and science related ones if I can’t fault his arguments from a technical point of view and I haven’t been able to do so as yet, then I post about them. I don’t have Rick’s background as a police officer nor do I have his understanding of criminal law, I can say though I have had what he said about the firing ranges confirmed by an impeccable source.