You probably remember back in February when we learnt that listed building status didn’t necessarily protect our buildings. Click here for my previous posts on the subject.You can providing you have the right software view the new plans for it at http://www.ukplanning.com/thanet the planning reference is L/TH/08/1197
Alternatively I have published the main elevations click here to view them, I can’t give you a link to the plans on the TDC planning website, as it appears to have written to make it as difficult to use as possible. The photographs of the building have been published in the wrong file format, so that they are as good as useless, and us yes we pay for this.
Mock Victorian mock Elizabethan stuck to mock 50s with flying saucer on top, the architect like the designer of the planning website will probably get an award, perhaps it’s attributable to something in the water.
If they want to rebuild it bigger can we have it all in mock Victorian mock Elizabethan please?
It was one of Ramsgate’s most charming and eccentric buildings and I for one think it should be replaced not desecrated.
Wasn't it supposed to have been rebuilt exactly as it was originally ? Or did I just dream that ?
ReplyDeleteSo did I, I also thought the area had been included in the conservation area. N.b. I don’t know why the illustration is coming up so big, a ghost in bloggers machine? I will do a quick fix from my end if I can.
ReplyDeleteThis smacks of cynical behaviour by some-one. The criterion in Feb was quite simple; rebuild the building as it was before you decided to take unilateral action to start demolishing it. We have the same problem at Dreamland. Waterbridge seems to be dragging its heels in repairing the Scenic Railway, yet tax-payers money is being spent by TDC in fencing it in (do we remember the last Godden debt written off by TDC) but we have no money to keep our Museums or Northdown House open?
ReplyDeleteThey've got to be having a laugh! That this horror is going to be linked to what's left defies belief! The terrace numbers 1 to 4 are listed.....and they want to build this futuristic mess on the seafront? What can we expect next?
ReplyDeletestrange - thr building depicted seems to bear an uncanny resemblance to the Royal Sands development - or am i just dreaming too?
ReplyDeleteIts worth a quick read of the document: "REPORT ON THE CONDITION OF THE BUILDING FOLLOWING PARTIAL DEMOLITION" - the last item on the ukplanning case file.
ReplyDeleteI find the last two paragraphs of 6.00 SUMMARY a bit worrying.
Millicent I think that the problem relates to the half baked way some modern architects think which is; as it’s by the sea it should have a boat like appearance therefore round windows should be included somewhere i.e. a representation of a porthole that while it doesn’t actually look like a porthole……….. to er remind us of the nautical location.
ReplyDeleteMy hope is that a special kind of hell has been prepared for architects that have designed some of our modern seaside building, confined for eternity to a room with 70s orange wallpaper the only decoration being china seagulls on nitrous oxide perpetually singing Frigging in the Rigging out of tune fits the bill.
9.45 when I tried access the document you mention the ensuing battle with the ukplanning website, this is a typical error message http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/blogpicts2/id13.htm took far too long so I have published the relevant bit here http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/blogpicts2/id14.htm
michael, if I remember rightly, there was a council planning officer who allowed the demolition to take place. The noises from council afterwards suggested this was wrong, and the grade II listed building would be put back as it was, brick by brick.
ReplyDeleteSteve. If you look at the pictures at http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/cafe/index.htm you can see that TDC building control officers were in attendance, which aspect of this one they were controlling I am not certain about
ReplyDelete