Last week I went through the process of getting the decision
on the Royal Sands Development agreement called in.
The decision as published on the council’s website is:
Decision:
“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.
Minutes:
Councillor Bayford spoke under Council Procedure Rule 24.1,
seeking assurances from officers in relation to the proposed development
agreement.
On the proposal of Councillor Poole, seconded by Councillor
Hart, it was RESOLVED:
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.”
Truth here is I really don’t understand if the OSP (overview
and scrutiny panel) actually do anything, I know they can call a decision in,
whether once they have done so they then have the power, or the inclination to
change that decision is something I don’t understand at all.
The run around I encountered trying to get the decision
called in suggests that they are treated by officers as a nuisance that has to
be negotiated, rather than some properly functioning part of the council.
Anyway here is the email I have just sent off to the
councillor and officers concerned, after being instructed by Thanet District
Council’s democratic services, that this is how a member of the public
communicates with the OSP.
“Ian, Mike, Harvey.
I have been told by democratic services to contact the three
of you regarding the Royal Sands call in.
Two issues here, the first being the way in which scrutiny
and call in is available to a member of the public.
Could you please confirm my assumptions here, as the
machinations of local government remain something of a mystery to me?
I am assuming the whole business of scrutiny costs something
and that it is local taxpayers that foot the bill for this.
I am also assuming that the voting constituents of Thanet
should have some point of input and instigation via officers, in the mater of
scrutiny.
I am also assuming that having instigated the scrutiny of an
issue a constituent should then have access to an officer who will ensure that
their points are put impartially to all of the members of the scrutiny panel.
In terms of instigating the call in of The Royal Sands
decision initially I tried the democratic services, customer services and
emailing the chief executive route as a means of getting the decision called
in. This failed and I got no email response, apart from one, from the officer
who wrote the report, essentially saying that he could hardly call his own
report in.
I tried the method of contacting members of scrutiny, until
I reached one where the council’s website had omitted their contact details,
fortunately I already had Ian’s personal email address, and contacting him via
this resulted in the decision being called in.
On Friday I phoned democratic services and asked what the
next stage was, mostly how I could contact an officer who would put forward my
points to the scrutiny panel and what they came up with was emailing the three
of you.
Now I am fairly certain that Harvey and Mike are the
officers who have supported the aspects of the decision that I wish to be
scrutinised and that Ian, while responsive, is likely to be unpopular with some
scrutiny members, who may take a less than balanced view of anything he
proposes.
I however feel that as member of the Thanet electorate,
council taxpayer, business ratepayer and a resident of the ward the development
is situated in, I should get my reasons for requesting a call in, put
impartially, by an impartial officer, to all members of the panel.
All that said can, you please tell me, what are the possible
outcomes from calling the decision in?
Can you also provide me with contact details for the appropriate council
office?
On to second and main issue, the Royal Sands call in, which
is the information I want put to all the members of the scrutiny panel,
preferably by an officer who impartial.
The flood risk issue first.
Up to now officer take on this one appears to be that I am
some sort of crank, who has taken issue with the development of the site and
wishes to see another fifteen years of dereliction.
This is not the case, my objective here is to ensure that
the development, is if built, both safe and viable in terms of its funding. My
assumption is that the construction of a new residential development on an EA
designated high risk flood zone, without any site specific flood risk
assessment is both foolhardy from the public safety point of view and will to a
lesser or greater degree blight the development, effecting the development’s
financial viability.
There are various aspects of the sites vulnerability to
flood and storm damage.
1 Historical
The site suffered considerable damage during the 1897 storm
when various structures on the site were demolished by wave action.
It also suffered damage in the 1953 storm, most notably a 12
ton crane that had been working on the beach was swept over the sea defence and
into the site by wave action.
In the 1978 storm the front of the Pleasurama arcade was
stove in by the sea (the main Pleasurama building had an internal floor height
higher that the frontage and after 1978 the lower front part was only used a
pool area because of the water damage to the arcade machines).
Also the adjacent harbour wall suffered considerable damage,
there was also damage to the sea defences from Ramsgate to Dumpton.
This information is well documented in the local paper
archives.
2 Environment Agency recommendations.
On 8th February the Environment Agency sent the
council and developer a letter strongly recommending a site specific flood risk
assessment and emergency flood escapes, see http://michaelsbookshop.com/ea/
When I put discussed this with officers I was told that
these concerns were invalid (officers implied that as the EA officer was young
and female, her position as the only qualified technical specialist to examine
the plans should be ignored), so I asked Laura Sandys to ask the southeast’s
senior environment agency officers for their official position in writing.
This is what she sent me:
“The Pleasurama development gained planning consent prior to
the publication of the latest government guidance on development and flood
risk, PPS25. When we were consulted in
2003 our floodplain maps did not show the site to be at risk and the design, at
that stage, had clear evacuation routes to the top of the cliff. But, having
received revised plans for the development last year, we highlighted our
concern over flood risk and recommended that a site-specific flood risk
assessment be undertaken. This would
inform appropriate mitigation measures such as recommended floor levels, flood
resilient design and an evacuation plan to ensure that the development is made
as safe as possible.”
3 Design Changes.
When the site originally gained planning consent the
intention was that the development be supported on driven piles, into the chalk
bedrock.
The design was then changed to piles bored into the chalk
bedrock (this construction method has been insisted on and adopted for the two
other recent developments on Marina Esplanade, although the are both set behind
modern well constructed and maintained sea defences).
At some later time this was changed to shallow foundations
only dug down as far as the top of the sand, which once formed the beach where
the site is.
Note; The site was formed by sea wave action prior to the
construction of Ramsgate harbour, so the chalk bedrock is at about the level of
low tide. The construction of the harbour shielded the site from the scouring
action of the sea and caused a build up of sand forming a beach approximately
where the site is. In 1860 chalk spoil from the railway tunnel, put on top of
the sand, was used to raise the site to its present level. The inclined side of
this pile of lose sand and chalk was then paved with stone slabs forming a sea
defence. The existing Ramsgate sands are the result of wartime defences, prior
to 1915 the sand was all below the normal high tide level. Since the removal of
the wartime defences, which happened when the sand was removed for the
construction of Port Ramsgate, the level of sand above the high tide line in
front of the development has been variable.
4 Sea Defence.
My understanding is that the sea defence there is still the
original 1860 inclined slab defence and all of the promenade structures behind
and above this are founded on the pile of lose chalk and sand.
Mike has confirmed this in writing and informed me that the
council, who own this sea defence, hold no construction plans or maintenance
record relating to it.
In simple terms, the foundations of the development rest on
sand, it isn’t screwed down to the bedrock like the other new developments down
there and the only thing preventing the sand from being washed out by the sea,
is a 150 year old sea wall with no maintenance record and more sand.
The only other sea defence, that I know, of that was built
by the same railway company, as part of the 1860 railway expansion, was the one
between Reculver and Thanet, this failed in 1953. About 10 square miles of land
and about three miles of railway track were lost in one night.
I should like to add that I think it highly inappropriate
that this sea defence and flood risk assessment issue is discussed in closed
session, as it relates to public safety.
Next the questions relating to the asset disposal.
Here the secrecy situation is the reverse, I am concerned
that the proper asset disposal process didn’t occur at the time of issuing the
199 year leases, see http://michaelsbookshop.com/pda/id4.htm
and further isn’t occurring at this stage of freehold transfer.
Harvey has assured me that this isn’t the case, but wasn’t
able to provide me with a full explanation because of disclosure legislation. I
am assuming that this information will be available to a closed session of the
scrutiny panel.”
Best regards Michael.
If you read or skimmed through that lot you will see I am as
much trying to get to grips with the ins and outs of scrutiny as to make much
sense of The Royal Sands.
The picture at the top is my unfinished first attempt at having a go at
oil painting. I have been buying tubes of oil paint at the boot fairs I have
been to.
Ian Driver has called the decision in.
There is an OSP extraordinary meeting on 16
th
August and although there are no details saying what it is about on the
council’s website yet, my guess it is The Royal Sands call in.
It doesn’t seem that many decisions get called in.
The call in notice for The Royal Sands says:
This decision has been called in by:
Councillor Ian Driver who writes Reasons for call-in:
1. To ensure
that there has been a recent flood risk assessment of the development site;
2. To ensure
that the disposal of the site was in compliance with agreed Council processes;
3. To ensure
that the Council secured a reasonable price for the sale of the development
site."
I may add to this one.
