The Riddle of the Sands, some thoughts on Pleasurama, the Labour administration and Ramsgate.

I would say that there is little doubt that Labours tenuous grip on power at TDC has a great deal to do with a lot of people in Ramsgate voting for them and I guess the Conservative group must realise that unless they can win some of Ramsgate back, then they will have difficulty regaining power.

In Ramsgate the general view of TDC is that it is focused on other parts of Thanet, particularly The Turner Contemporary.

Anyway tomorrow there will be a council cabinet meeting and one of the big issues for people living in Ramsgate, The Royal Sands development on the Pleasurama site, is coming before the Labour cabinet.

I think the idea here is that the cabinet will try to express the wishes of the people of Ramsgate who voted for them and try to come up with a good decision on this one.

Opinion in the town seems to divided into various lumps, there is the for gods sake get on with the thing group, there is the pull out of the thing and give us a swimming pool, skating rink group, the don’t have a clue about it group and so on.

My own feelings about the development is that it isn’t properly tailored for the site, doesn’t fit the available space physically, isn’t architecturally sympathetic with the town, has poorly planned parking and access. While I understand that the residential aspect of the this sort of development is essential to pay for any leisure component, I am not sure that such an intense concentration of dwellings will do any more that overstrain the existing infrastructure, parking access drains and so on.

Having said all of that I realise that something needs to be done urgently with the site urgently.

Taking the pragmatic view, I decided a long time ago that if the council and the developer were determined to attempt to go ahead with a development that I consider to both ill thought out and unsuitable for the site, I would do my best to ensure it was as successful as possible.

I guess the problem main factor at the moment that is beyond dispute is that the site has been designated high flood risk by The Environment Agency and that no flood risk assessment has been carried out.

There are other factors like the state of part of the cliff façade, but this is open to dispute and difficult to pursue.

Historically the site has had flood and storm problems, so we aren’t conjecturing about possible sea level rises, there are various recorded incidents recorded, an example being the 1953 storm when a ten ton crane that had been working on the beach was thrown over the sea defences and into the middle of where the development will be built, this is documented in the local papers and isn’t open to dispute.

So what I had hoped to do was to get the council officers, or get the councillors to get the officers to use the bargaining power created by selling the developer the freehold, to insist on a flood risk assessment.

I am particularly concerned about this one because of the condition of the sea defence, in front of the development, shown in the picture.    

This brings me to the rather strange riddle, who benefits from building the development without a flood risk assessment?

This is a difficult one that I can’t see any obvious answer to, so I will start by considering what the results of a flood risk assessment could be.

One result could be that it showed there was no problem, this would obviously be beneficial all round, it would make it much easier for the developer to borrow the money, to build the development and it would make it much easier for people buying apartments to get a mortgage. 

Another and I think more likely result would show that the sea defence in front of the building, like the sea defence behind Margate beach was inadequate and needed replacing or repairing.

With the development’s foundations built on sand and the only thing between it and the sea being the unmaintained 1860 defence, more sand and the promenade also built on sand, I guess I don’t really need to draw a diagram.  

The question who pays for any work a flood risk assessment shows needs doing to the sea defence? Could be where the answer to the riddle of the sand is. But as far as I can see any cost would come out of the national sea defence budget and wouldn’t be met by either the council or the developer.   

Of course I am hoping that the new Labour cabinet have persuaded the officers to persuade the developer to get a flood risk assessment done. All of the documents relating to tomorrows decision are secret, the meeting itself will be held in secret, the press and public will be excluded.

This rather does beg the question is that what the people of Ramsgate hoped for when they voted Labour, the secrecy I mean? 

In Ramsgate we are all aware that the ongoing saga of The Royal Sands and its crippling effect on our tourist economy is difficult to keep secret. We can see into the deserted building site from the cliff top, we can see the hanging garden or weeds growing from the expensively repointed and repainted cliff façade. 


The development started as a bright idea under the previous Labour administration, went from failure to failure under the last eight years of Conservative administration, so I guess we are all now wondering if the new Labour administration can come up with any solution or any novel approach.  

The Pleasurama site is in my council ward, the Eastcliff ward, two of my ward councillors are also cabinet members, so they will be aware of the problem the development is.  

James Maskell has done a post about tomorrows cabinet meeting, see http://villeviews.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/standards-and-cabinet.html his conclusion is that most of the issues to be discussed have forgone conclusions and will go through on the nod.

James has a much better understanding of local politics than I do, so I guess he is likely to be right on this. 

I am becoming concerned that our local politics has become a bit of a game and wonder if the logical and sensible decision making process has gone out of the window for the sake of this game.  


Perhaps the council are reluctant to have a flood risk assessment here because of the condition of Ramsgate Harbour wall.

 As you see from the picture workers are busy at the moment replacing the cracked tarmac on to of what looks very like a cracked structure, I guess close examination of this could be expensive for the council.

I will continue with this one, but have gone off to think about the question. 

Update, here is the council cabinet’s decision.

Last date for call in: 3 Aug 2012

Relevant Portfolio:

Date of Decision: 26 July 2012

Subject: Royal Sands - Development Agreement

Key Decision No In Forward Plan No

Brief summary of matter:

To agree the principle of a new development agreement for the Royal Sands site.

Decision made:

That the revised development agreement summarised in Annex 1 to the report is

agreed, with delegated authority granted to the Corporate and Regulatory Services

Manager to sign the final agreement, once all advance conditions are met, in

consultation with the Cabinet Member for Commercial Services.

Reasons for decision:

To replace the current development agreement with a revised agreement that allows the

developer to achieve the remaining funding for his proposals whilst ensuring that the

original outcome requirements for the Council are retained.

Alternatives considered and why rejected:

Consideration was given to whether entering into a new agreement should be declined

and action be taken with regards to any defaults on the existing agreement. However,

this was fraught with considerable legal risks and was not the preferred approach.

In addition, the Council could have sought a completely different basis for a new

agreement in relation to the funding, but, again, this has significant legal risks.

Both these issues raised serious concerns about the site remaining undeveloped for

years to the detriment of regeneration in Ramsgate.

Details of any conflict of interest declared by any executive Member who has been

consulted and of any dispensation granted by the Standards Committee:

None

Author and date of Officer report:

Mark Seed, Director of Operations

Background papers

Royal Sands - Development Agreement - Report to Cabinet, 26 July 12

Annex 1 - Summary of main points of draft development agreement

Statement if decision is an urgent one and therefore not subject to call-in:

N/A

Last date for call in: 3 Aug 2012