Of the 56 councillors 41 voted to approve China gateway 10 voted to reject it Tories: Savage, Crotty, Wells, Hayton Labour: Poole, Fenner, Dark, Campbell,Clark Independent: King. Cllrs Hart and Harker were both unwell and left early. Cllrs Ezekiel and Latchford didn’t vote, that leaves one unknown unaccounted for.
Of all of the councillors with in depth knowledge of planning I would say Bill Hayton must be fairly near the top of the list, so it is of some concern that he voted to reject, I would certainly like to know his reasons.
Commercial group properties announced on Friday, that a resolution to grant planning consent, subject to conditions, has been approved at the extraordinary meeting of Full Thanet District Council on 9th October 2008. The consent for Phase 1 of the "China Gateway" scheme at Manston in respect of 1,481,815 sq ft of commercial development should allow construction to commence in 2009.
This didn’t cause a rush of buying see http://www.londonstockexchange.com/en-gb/pricesnews/prices/system/detailedprices.htm?sym=GB00B1P70L34GBGBXAIM%20B1P70L3CMGP their share price is at 42p in July their share price was 115p and back in december it was 210p. I don’t know if the lack of share sales on this announcement is the result of the stock market crash, Ken Wills saying on “BBCs Inside Out” that it’s all three phases not a stand alone development or the lack of answer to the question where does the surface water go and the other conditions many of which look very difficult to comply to.
Certainly as Roger Gale said that it would probably need a public enquiry for the land for phases 2 and 3 to have any chance of getting changed from agricultural to industrial use, so it doesn’t look to be a particularly good gamble at the moment.
So we have permission granted for a stand-alone development but the developer has said that it isn’t a stand-alone development, where that leaves us leaves me somewhat confused.
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.
Sunday 12 October 2008
20 comments:
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)
Of all the councillors that voted for it, the one that shocked me the most was Alistair Bruce. The word is - it seems that although he was against it at first, he now seems have his eye on something senior.
ReplyDelete14.52 At the time of completion of the recommendation to approve, the council had received a total of 408 representations 1 in support and 407 in objection, if this is an indication of the ratio of public’s feelings about it I should think canvassing for the next elections will be interesting.
ReplyDeleteThe councillors seemed to form the opinion that approval with conditions would be better than turning the plans down, I however am not so sure that this will wash with the public because the plans don’t make sense.
Passing plans that make sense for something you don’t like I order to restrict it is one thing, passing plans that don’t make sense well that is something else altogether.
It was announced that one of the Tories was away but I didn't catch who it was and, as it's still impossible to access the website with the councillors' details, I can't work out who it was.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the letters received by the end of the formal period of objection, there were 61 yes 61, from the villagers of Acol objecting.That info was in the agenda for the evening. I understand Minster Parish Council changed its view from being 'for' to being 'against'. maybe that's why Parish Councillor Neville didn't get in the gallery unlike Cllr. Worrow who was already in there when the first of the public was admitted and he certainly wasn't outside queuing up with the rest of us mere plebs.
Megan I think a lot of the problem here with people understanding how bad these plans are from an environmental point of view, is that all of the previous developments there have had normal environmental standards from their inception. So although the people of Acol have had industrial development close by it hasn’t blighted their lives, the X types and associated lorry activity just don’t seem within the bounds of credibility so close to a village.
ReplyDeleteMegan
ReplyDeleteI was early because I had a meeting with Independent district cllr Mc Castree and was already in the building before the meeting started.
Next time please do say hello, as I enjoy meeting people.
However, I think the whole thing went on a bit too long.
I must say I was surprised that Cllr Clive Hart was not there.
Michael, the suppression by the Chair of the only 2 Councillors to address the issue of the 'plan' itself and how to improve it with conditions was quite amazing. Cllrs Poole and Wells were silenced on this issue despite Doug Brown stating he had 'asked the devlopers to consider relocating the X-types'.
ReplyDeleteHow ineffectual we can be in TDC when we have a serious far -reaching application but will force a house-owner to change windows he has installed because they are out of character!
This was Thanet’s largest business park, which had stood empty for years. Here we had an application that just might bring activity to the park.
ReplyDeleteI read opinion of CGP's motives, useually stated as fact. Unfortunately, I do not have resources and inside knowledge to know that. Of course I have suspicions that increasing the value of land holdings is a motive, CGP's publicity states this as reason that to invest in the company.
The permission granted is for 5 years, if it is not built then there is no problem. The land has been undeveloped now for at least 10 years. There is plenty of other land designated for employment purposes.
But I digress, to return to the application before us.
Yes, there were problems with the application that needed addressing, and in my opinion Council officers had addressed them in the conditions. I do not support empty gestures. Voting against this application, on already designated land (in two local plans) was, in my opinion gesture politics, that would have certainly been overturned on appeal.
Trying to impose conditions that were not supported by the relevent statutary consultees would also be doomed to failure, unless they could be backed by a strongly argued case.
Those that attempted to change spatial aspects of the application at the Council meeting were either showing their ignorance of Planning Law, or were being intentional mischievous. Once again, gesture politics.
My calculation was that there would probably be enough votes to permit the application. If not, there would almost certainly be an appeal which, because the site was already designated employment land, would be successful.
I wanted to reinforce the scrutiny of the implementation of the 106 agreement and the conditions on the permission. Hence my amendment that required the Council to consult on the applicants responses and to take them back to the Planning Committee for approval.
In my opinion, this now gives those concerned as well as myself the opportunity to lobby the relevant statutory consultees, whether they be the Environment Agency, Southern Water, or KCC as Highways Authority, to ensure that the conditions are met in full before permission is granted. Incidently, accepting this amendment creates a precident concerning the way conditions and section 106 agreements are dealt with in future.
In passing, I would make two comments by way of apology to you and the people of Thanet.
The first concerning the conduct of the meeting which was far from satisfactory.
The second concerning the legitimate concerns expressed by many concerning the antics of the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council. I believe this has led to distrust of the Council’s impartiality as a Planning Authority.
I believe a more fundamental mistake was made far earlier though, and that was the Council Leadership’s decision to combine the Planning and Economic Development Cabinet briefs. I thought this Council had learnt many years ago that these two functions of the District Council were distinct and separate, and that each deserved its champion in Cabinet. Combining the two can only lead to the suspicion that the impartiality of the Planning function is compromised.
David thanks for your detailed comment, unfortunately I like many others have become confused about how planning law works in this respect, as you and many of the other councillors whose judgement I respect voted to approve I would appreciate a little more clarification on the following points.
ReplyDelete1 It has been suggested in various quarters that had the planning application been rejected, the stringent conditions laid down by the statutory consultees would have some how been negated on a successful appeal, is this the case?
2 How does your amendment affect the decision, by this I mean what would the difference be between approval with the amendment and approval without?
3 If the developer does not come up with solutions to all of conditions does this mean that permission is not granted, i.e. is this approval in suspension?
Sorry to appear rather stupid on those points but I think you will find I am not the only one who doesn’t understand this properly.
As far as the site remaining substantially empty for so long, I believe that it was designated for employment use nearly 20 years ago, I believe this has more to do with the difficulties associated with the drainage and proximity of the airport. On the one hand the surface drainage requires a complex and expensive system, including open ponds with wildlife in them, on the other hand the airport objects to these because of the problems with wildfowl flying into planes. 20 years ago I suspect it would have been possible to get surface water discharge consent into Pegwell Bay, which would have resolved this issue, however this is no longer the case.
Effectively the presence of the aquifer makes this site only suitable for low-density development of the environmental quality that we have now, there doesn’t seem to be any way that the proposed high-density development can be safely drained. I am pretty certain that if there were someone either in favour of the development or the planning department would have countered my assertions that the development is undrainable and therefore unbuildable.
You and I are both aware of the problems associated with the architects PRC presenting and gaining approval for unbuildable plans as has happened in the case of Pleasurama, do you think we are now looking at a 5 year blight on houses in Acol, while similar attempts to ignore the advice of the EA and TDC planning go on?
As far as the conduct at the council meeting goes I shall be pressing for the use of the webcast system that was installed in the council chamber to be put into full operation, any help with phrasing a question about this that can be raised to a valid LGO complaint if necessary would be appreciated.
This park HAS NOT STOOD EMPTY for years. (sorry about caps). There are 6 businesses on site already employing almost a 1000 people. Development so far has been of quality. No one objects to good development but you and your colleagues did not examine the merit of the plan in detail despite the Planning Officer clearly signalling that he had asked the applicant to move the X types and that he had refused to do so. Are you saying that Full Council in planning mode cannot discuss location of buildings and their heights whislt granting outline planning consent? The applicant filed a poor overcrowded plan and you and you colleagues accepted it. At this stage the developer has done no more than put in pretty pictures of building footprints on land and TDC could not ask for that to be changed? You also fail to address the issue of EKO and TDC with partner KCC holding the rest of the site to ransom! Where is their development at the moment on their land? This business stinks and sadly so does TDC.
ReplyDeleteAll change come the next election then?
ReplyDeleteWe hope so - we definately need a change of control - maybe the better conservatives will start showing themselves not always fawning to their leader
ReplyDeleteMichael,
ReplyDeletethe effect of Davids ammendment is that all changes and the results of consultations with statutory bodies will have to come back to Members.
If you recall the Pleasurama application Members agreed a planning application but also allowed Officers to agree any changes, the net result was that although we the Members had agreed to a zebra Officers allowed it to be changed to a camel, this will not be allowed to happen this time.
1 It has been suggested in various quarters that had the planning application been rejected, the stringent conditions laid down by the statutory consultees would have some how been negated on a successful appeal, is this the case?
ReplyDeleteThe answer is that we dont know. What I do know is that many patient hous went into agreeing the current conditions. Which are now the starting point to be argued over before bring back to the PLanning Committee.
2 How does your amendment affect the decision, by this I mean what would the difference be between approval with the amendment and approval without?
Mike Harrison has answered this
3 If the developer does not come up with solutions to all of conditions does this mean that permission is not granted, i.e. is this approval in suspension?
This is unchartered territory, but I would suppose that the answer is yes. I would suppose they could still go to appeal though with all the time, uncertainty and costs that would entail.
Incidently, the protestors could contemplate a Judicial Review of the deciscion. They have 28 days in which to to this I think. Given the shambles of the Council meeting I think they would have a case. However, I would councel against this for the same reason that wouldnt risk an appeal to an Inspector.
Mike David looking at the effect on CGPs shares, which have fallen today to an all time low of 37p in what is a rising stock market, I would imagine that they have no solution to the problems, otherwise one would have thought they would have foreseen this situation when they got the first southern water letter back in June. They have known that there was nowhere for the surface water to go for over 3 months while prc presumably have been hoping for the zebra to metamorphosise into a camel.
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:41
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that Cllrs couldnt discuss the plan at what was a detailed planning application, not outline.
What they cant do is change the plan, which is what Cllr Well's amendment would have done. They can only accept or reject it.
I believe you are wrong Dave about the proposed amendments.
ReplyDeleteI ran all the amendments by a Planning Officer and as far as I am concerned all the amendments were legal including moving the X-types........
It would have been down to the developer to either accept the amended development or come back and try to change it.
That is very different from refusal .. the Chairman made a very wrong decision. Maladministration?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlan
ReplyDeleteYou are obviously getting different advice from me concerning amendments that materially change the application.
Something we need to clear up.
To that end, I have asked for chapter and verse from our Planning Officers.
Concerning the other amendments you attempted to put, I'm afraid you allowed the Chair scope to reject them by trying to put them all together. Its fairly obvious we couldnt vote on two or three amendments at once.
Taken individually they would have been valid amendments, though whether they would have been succesful, we shall never know, I suspect not. The first because of the difficulty of measuring traffic flow to this application on a site that already contains 6 other businesses; the second because it asked for a greater restriction in opening hours than that enjoyed by the other businesses on site.
Dave,
ReplyDeleteI certainly did not agree to the two amendments being put together. I tried unsuccessfully to prevent it and was overuled by the Chair.
The two amendments: one to limit HGV movements and the other to limit the hours of operation of HGVs and fork lift trucks would have improved the application and the amenity of Acol residents...
An amendment moving the X-types was perfectly 'legal' ........it did not negate the application as it was only designed to modify one contentious part of the it. I believe ruling it illegal has left the Council open to challenge at a Judicial Review on the grounds of maladministration.
Dave Allan the more I hear about this decision, the more unhappy I am about it, if Allan’s amendments were legal and would have lifted the blight on Acol, would a judicial review mean that they could be reconsidered?
ReplyDeleteSomething I am finding from both of your comments is that I am beginning to understand how the process works better, which is very helpful.