Plans to Demolish Ramsgate Harbour Slipways, Another Update

I have been discussing this development with the council, developer and architect mainly trying to find about the issues that were raised in the last posting about it see http://thanetonline.blogspot.com/2010/09/plans-to-demolish-ramsgate-harbour.html I will start with the information about the lease, at the moment these are verbal assurances from a senior council officer, in view of the time the comments on the demolition application have to be submitted by 1st October, it is unlikely that I would get anything in writing before that time. These comments relate to the lease for the part of the site comprising slipways 2,3 and 4, which is where the proposed development would be built. The demolition application would, if successful, mean that these slipways cease to be usable. This leasehold interest was bought from the boatyard operator by the developer for £90,000. The conditions of the lease stipulate that the site can only be used as a ship repair facility. The council have no intention of changing the terms of the lease at the moment and I have been assured that such a change would only be considered after a proper consultation process. The current lease expires in ten years and the council assure me that, no lease longer than 25 years could be granted by the council, without going through the full asset disposal process. This of course leaves us to consider what would happen if the developer fails to get change of usage for the site that he holds the lease on. I would conclude that he is unlikely to operate it as a ship repair facility. Obviously I am not party to the agreement between the developer and the ship repair business owners, so there may be some part of the agreement that says the leasehold returns to them if the developer fails to get change of use or planning consent. On the other hand we may be going into a situation where that part of the yard just falls into decay, I suppose much of this would depend on the will of the council to implement the terms of the lease. I now come to the planning applications. The first application is the one to demolish the slipways workshops winding houses etc L/TH/10/0736 Now a new set of plans have appeared on the council’s planning website, planning ref F/TH/10/0737 the council’s planning website can be found at http://www.ukplanning.com/thanet These are the plans to erect the development and the main difference that I can see is that these include a flood risk assessment. This flood risk assessment doesn’t make sense to me.

I am going to have to put my science and engineering hat on here and do some explaining about sea levels, sorry about this but I have to assume that some people won’t know about sea levels. In this country we use two different sea levels, the base level is called “datum”. One is chart datum, this one appears on navigational charts, tide tables and is marked up next to the lock gate in the harbour. The other is ordinance datum, this one appears on Ordinance Survey maps and architectural drawings. Ordinance datum is 2.58 metres (about eight foot six inches) higher than chart datum. Drawing no 206/05 (I have put it on the internet for convenience, the little numbers are the levels above ordinance datum) http://www.thanetonline.com/slipways/id3.htm shows an internal corridor, which is 3.6 metres above ordinance datum or 6.18 metres above chart datum. The flood risk assessment’s highest predicted static tide 6.3 metres above chart datum, in fact ordinary high tides in Ramsgate are about 5 metres see https://www.tidetimes.org.uk/ramsgate-tide-times for this weeks tides. A spring tide or a tidal surge would push this figure up by about a meter and if the two occur together then we start to get into the realms of exceptionally high tides. On top of this you get the effects of any wave action, I think highest waves in the harbour would be in the order of about 3 metres. This corridor looks like it would be the only safe dry escape for the Seascouts.

I suppose the only thing in my assessment of the problems related to the high tide, that isn’t confirmed in the applications own flood risk assessment, is the maximum wave height in the harbour.

These pictures are of the damage sustained to the harbour wall adjacent to the development during a storm about thirty years ago. I have seen wave heights in the harbour of about 2 metres and been on pontoons with a wave height of over 1 metre, I suspect that 3 metres as a maximum may be an underestimate, best look at the pictures and make your own mind up.

With any plans if I find that there is something that doesn’t make sense to me in simple engineering terms the first place I go is the source of the plans, in this case the architects.

As this is a simple matter of, either the lower part of the development floods or it doesn’t and I asked them about this on the 20th and it is now the 24th I am beginning to suspect that there is a fault with the plans.

I have also put this to the council’s planning officers, who have forwarded the issue to the environment agency for comment.

Now we come to the look of the thing, or in this case things, I will start with what is there now, at a first look the corrugated sheds, vehicles and engineering equipment don’t look very attractive.

I suppose there is the characteristic that they have been there so long or at least buildings and equipment that are similar that most of us hardly gave what they look like a second thought, they are just part of the harbour.

In terms of slipways 3 and 4, these were the ones built in 1942 to service wartime vessels, the most interesting part from an historical point of view is the winding equipment in the winding house that dates from then. It is a time capsule of preserved and working engineering from the Second World War.

On the yards perimeter fence next to the Clock House are the boards showing Ramsgate Lifeboat rescues, the whole thing is very much tied up with the town’s connection with the sea.

In the last few days two new boards have appeared above the lifeboat ones, there is no explanatory notice but these boards have a very unusual characteristic which is that they change colour depending on the angle that you view them from, click on the link for more pictures of this http://www.thanetonline.com/slipways/id5.htm I am assuming that they are the material that is to be used in the construction of the new development as this is also supposed to change colour depending on where it is viewed from. I suppose that it was this aspect of the new development that interested me the most, rather in the way the glass coating or the new Turner Contemporary interests me. At this point someone who is very much for the new development turned up, and I told him what I thought they were, so there we were two grown men wandering up and down looking a the colours change.

After some consideration I remembered where I had seen this effect before, even the colours were similar. Back in 1972 I had a summer job on a travelling fun fair and I had a pair of trousers that were made out of a fabric that did this, I am afraid the word that springs to mind here is tacky.

Looking at the planning drawings http://www.thanetonline.com/slipways/index.htm I haven’t put up any of the artists impressions here, as it is the plans that we are actually being asked to consider, the portholes life buoy on the wrong, landward side of the building, I am afraid that vulgar is another word that comes to mind.

I am still wondering about why the boards that change colour are where they are, above the lifeboat boards that will presumably be removed if the new development is built, seems a tad tactless in view of our connections, see http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/storm/id6.htm

I would have thought that if the idea was to check the building material’s resistance to salt water, the other side of the slipway would be more beneficial, the video is of an ordinary spring tide, with a moderate sea running. This video was taken adjacent to the eastern side of where the new development is supposed to be going. I do wonder if the architect has considered this effect.

Having said this it does occur to me that I am probably mistaken here and the boards are something to do with the fun fair that will be coming for the quad bike event that the town council are organising.

The other day when I first looked into this the choice was between attempting to retain working slipways and the boat repair yard, which as I have said is not something attractive in an architectural sense or getting behind a new development. Now it seems that the new development hasn’t been thought out properly, so we are being asked to support something that doesn’t appear to have been designed with existing sea levels in mind.

Given that the development is expected to have some sort of useful life then there is also the problem of rising sea levels to consider.

I have had a very busy day in the bookshop and will add to this post during the evening as I get time, I am using my rather ancient laptop so have put up an associated website as it just can’t manage the huge files on the council’s planning site, see http://www.thanetonline.com/slipways/index.htm