Staying with the theme of the Pleasurama development, as the cabinet meeting about it is on Thursday, I am of the opinion that to make concessions to the developer without first having plans on the table that comply with the strong recommendations from the Environment Agency that relate to the buildings safety, may be unwise.As I am coming to the conclusion that that the new plans may be unworkable in various ways I have been looking into what could be built there, that would be a safe and viable development with respect to the difficult constraints of the site.
The main factors here are safe and viable access for public transport for the life of the development, a means for the inhabitants to escape from the building to the cliff top in an emergency, especially one caused by a storm and high tide, and a properly calculated flood risk assessment.
This is particularly important as the Environment Agency class this site as a High Risk Rapid Inundation Zone the following is a quote from their letter about this development.
“Areas immediately behind defences lie in the High Risk Rapid Inundation Zone (RIZ) and are particularly vulnerable due to the risk of the defences being over-topped or breached, resulting in fast-flowing and potentially deep water with little or no warning. Again, if this were a new application we would expect an FRA to identify the RIZ and predict potential wave heights.”
There has been some comment about how I gather information relating to this and other issues so I have published some of my recent correspondence with one of the experts who advises our local authorities on structures to do with our cliffs.
This is an example only and I have removed the names in the correspondence click here to read it.
The video below is once again of an ordinary spring tide with a moderate sea running such as we have regularly here a severe storm has a somewhat more dramatic effect as you can see from the picture above of the damage caused by the 1978 one.
Fortunately in 1978 it wasn’t combined with a tidal surge and the Royal Victoria Pavilion was protected by the very large beach that built up on and held together by the war defences.
Unfortunately the council used this very large beach as infill for part of Port Ramsgate.
As obviously it is only the sand that dissipates the waves before they reach the sea defences in front of the pavilion and site for the new development and some years there is very little sand there, the potential for a considerable problem exists.
As those who are following this saga will be aware I made an official complaint about some aspects of this recently the main substance of which were 3 questions I have had a response that answers one of the questions and as Brian White says in it that he doesn’t mind me sending it to anyone, I have published it on the internet with my complaint below it click here to read it.
As you know I have been very pleased with the diligence of TDC reply, re Sericol aquifer contamination, from their officer Morgan Sproate.
ReplyDeleteI think Mr White's response is reasonable. So I don't think we are criticising TDC officers.
It seems that an impasse has been reached in which the safeguards and guarantees available at law, from the public agencies, would not satisfy the risk assessments for an insurer to guarantee a bond ?
Hence the May 7th TDC meeting must essentially be about whose money is to be put at risk.
I hope, therefore, Thursday sees the end of this fiasco. Rather than proceed and find that after the bond insurers would not touch it neither will the mortgage lenders ?