Nothing much but here is the link https://plus.google.com/photos/103118335852639233427/albums/5883865246201832305?banner=pwa
sorry the sketches are photographed several times, playing about trying to copy
pencil sketches with my mobile phone.
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.
Thursday, 30 May 2013
Wednesday, 29 May 2013
New Isle of Thanet Gazette Website with tube and Cllr Worrow going bananas, some reflections on the use and misuse of video.
Looking at the other local blogs today,
Thanet Star at http://thanetstar.com/article/temper-tantrums-at-council?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ThanetStar+%28The+Thanet+Star%29
and Thanet Life at http://birchington.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/worrows-wonga-moment.html
both did a post about the story The Isle of Thanet Gazette put up on their
website at http://www.thanetgazette.co.uk
the story about John Worrow’s behaviour at http://www.thanetgazette.co.uk/Independent-Thanet-councillor-John-Worrow-brands/story-19114035-detail/story.html
relies strongly on the video that the paper published online.
After the other websites embedded it the
IOTG decided to disallow sharing on the video which stopped it from working elsewhere
on the internet including on their own facebook post.
The council have also published some videos
of council meetings on their website at http://www.thanet.gov.uk/council_webcast.aspx
another council meeting spat, this is the one where nearly all of the
Conservative councillors walked out.
I will ramble on about this subject as I get
time.
I am not really sure about the business of
councillors throwing a wobbly and walking out of meetings, I guess we elect
them to turn up at meetings and represent our views, I should point here that I
last went to a meeting in about 1972 and don’t like them much, so haven’t been
to any more.
Something very odd about the way the IOTG
have hosted this video, and there are parallels here with the council, what the
IOTG have done is host it on Brightcove video.
There is a rather unusual snag involved with
doing this, and that is that it makes it impossible to credit the video to the
person who published it, because Brightcove don’t let you know where the video originated
from.
Tweets by @ThanetCouncil
Tweets by @margatearchi
Monday, 27 May 2013
A few pictures of Margate Meltdown and a bit more progress towards a review of The Turner Contemporary’s new exhibition; Curiosity: Art and the Pleasures of Knowing.
Some glass sea animals here, I may be entering my blue period.
Sunday, 26 May 2013
Turner Contemporary Margate. Curiosity: Art and the Pleasures of Knowing, initial thoughts, sketching towards a review.
I have always been a bit of a slow thinker, particularly
when it comes to art, the latest exhibition at The Turner Contemporary Margate.
Curiosity: Art and the Pleasures of Knowing, isn’t easy to take in at one
viewing, the upper floor of the gallery has been turned into a maze which may
eventually lead to what? A walrus? Turning into a walrus? I am one as you are
one as you are me and we are all in the maze together.
Seeing how it runs run like pigs from a gun, does it fly? I'm crying. I guess the answer is yes it does for me.
Up the stairs or sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the
lift to come.
Expecting a Corporation art-show, stupid sheep eyed dog.
Yes really in the first gallery the first thing you
encounter is dog with a sheep’s head accompanied by the inevitable narwhal’s
tusk.
Into the first gallery and you are in the maze with
Leonardo, nice one HM Queen thanks for the loan of the Leonardos and top marks
to the gallery for displaying them in a wall where we can see both sides,
So here is the sketch in the maze, being amazed at the
Leonardos.
After this everything got a bit confused, possibly the
influence of Elizabeth I’s magician’s black scrying mirror and crystal, there
was only one place in the maze to sit down and I sat down and sketched
something, here by a great rack of boxes and a glass spiral.
goo goo g'joob goo
I really could have stayed all day, but the gallery
was filling up and I had other commitments, I sat in the galley’s café and
sketched the view over a cup tea.
It is Margate Meltdown tomorrow, and after last year’s
problems with the hells angels - over taking photographs - I will probably have
another go at doing some sort of post about this exhibition.
We went on as we do, here is the link to today’s photos https://plus.google.com/photos/103118335852639233427/albums/5882372495503370913?banner=pwa
Friday, 24 May 2013
A Friday ramble, Pleasurama, the ferry, the recent elections and so on if I get time.
First the Pleasurama update, which is about
the large building next to the site, most recently called Ramsgate Boulevard
and used as an amusement arcade owned by the late Jimmy Godden.
Over the last couple of years there have
been various claims made by SFP and their associates that this building had
been bought by SFP and would become the offices for the development and branch
of the Terrance Painter Estate agents, here is the link to one of the news
articles about this http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/Businessman-Jimmy-Godden-sells-Ramsgate-seafront/story-14055028-detail/story.html#axzz2UDDlhUda
Some time ago I looked into the matter and
what seems to have happened is that the director of SFP Sean Keegan used
another of his companies to begin the process of buying the freehold for this
building from Jimmy Godden.
The reached the point where it appeared on the land registry
certificate [(30.11.2011) BENEFICIARY:
All Type Properties Limited (Co. Regn. No.
07219682)]in the way one would associate with the property
transaction being underway.
In the last couple of days posters have
been put up on the inside of the building for a property management company
owned by the Godden family, so it looks like they have put it back on the
market.
While on the subject of the Pleasurama
site, when I posted about this the other day http://thanetonline.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/royal-sands-development-on-pleasurama.html
to publicise the fact that the council are now moving towards repossessing the
site there was some dialogue about the flood and storm risks there. John
Hamilton in particular seems to confused about this one and I promised to put
some detail in this post.
In engineering there are few safety
definites, just a series of compromises, because the best way to avoid having
buildings collapse is not to build any buildings and the best way to prevent
motor vehicle accidents is not to build any motor vehicles.
With flood risk there is a series of
compromises, where we talk about 1 in 50 year or 1 in 200 year events makes it
very easy for people without any engineering or scientific background to get
very confused.
This doesn’t mean that the property is
going to flood every 50 or 200 years but is the way the risk is expressed so
that insurance companies and banks financing developments on these sites can
assess the risk.
With the Pleasurama site I would say the
flood and storm situation was fairly marginal when the plans were first
approved, the EA looked at the plans which were just over the designated ground
floor commercial designated level, they assumed the staircase to the cliff was
the pedestrian escape from the flats above and let them through.
Since then a mix of information has changed
the situation, the EA redesignated part of the site a high flood risk, the
architect produced new plans with the staircase moved and levels above the tide
mark clearly indicated.
After this happened the EA wrote to the
developer and the council recommending a flood risk assessment, here is a link
to the letter http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/ea/id2.htm
Since the beginning of 2008 even more
information has come to light, some relating to historic storm damage on the
site and some relating to the sea defences and geological structure of the
site.
It all adds up to the site needing a proper
flood risk assessment before any further uses of the site are contemplated. The
difficulty for me is that the John Hamiltons of this world seem to think saying
that the flood risk needs properly and professionally assessing, is the same as
me saying the site will be washed away.
We now come to the debt the ferry operator
wound up owing the council when it went bust.
A lot of comment here on the various blogs,
with some people making the fundamental mistake of thinking the £3.3m was money
the council lent to the ferry operator to keep their business afloat.
What this was, was mooring fees that the
ferry operator should have paid the council but couldn’t afford to.
In very simple terms this equates to shop
rents in our towns and factor which equates to Westwood Cross and the internet
market that has caused so many of our shops to close, with the ferries this is the
channel tunnel.
Obviously the ferry berthing facilities
have been significantly under used since The Sally Line pulled out.
So suppose the council owns five large
shops in the middle of Margate, four are empty and the other is trading with difficulty
and paying a rent of a £1,000 per week and the company running this shop go to
the council and say we can’t afford to pay the rent, but we hope to get an
investor who will finance our business so we can pay it off eventually.
I guess the question here is what should
the council do and how long should they do it for?
Obviously at any time they can make the
company bankrupt by demanding the money they are owed straight away, but this
will only result in five empty shops instead of four and no money.
On to the UKIP result.
My guess here is that come the next TDC
elections some of the existing Conservative and Labour councillors would like
to get re-elected and that in the light of the recent county council elections
there is a very good chance that most of them won’t be.
What happened at county level may very well
be repeated a district level, either come the next elections or the elections
after that and the main reason for this is that local people have lost touch
with who their local representatives are and what it is they do.
I guess the thing that seems to have made
the voting difference recently has been very simple messages that the voters
can relate to, no night flights, a vote on whether we stay in Europe.
What is very much apparent is that what the councillors get up to at a local
level hasn’t made much difference to how people actually vote.
I think the last Thanet District Council
meeting was a case in point, I couldn’t have attended if I wanted to and I
guess a great many of the people who do actually vote – like me – have other
commitments that prevent them from attending meetings.
I tried to follow the meeting online,
although I knew the microphone system that has caused problems with the
webcasting of meetings had been fixed, the meeting wasn’t live streamed. This
is particularly irritating as I know this can be done via youtube for free and
I also know that once the meeting has ceased to be relevant and in any real
sense interesting to watch, it will be presented by the council hosted on a
paid for server at considerable expense.
There is also a difference between the
council producing a fair and accurate record of the council meeting and
something that is dramatic and politically motivated, which is well understood.
However doing what they actual do, which is to produce something that is
basically unwatchable, where the image quality is so poor that no one can be
identified, is also unacceptable.
Frankly if our local councillors want us to
vote for them based on how they perform and not just to vote based on national
issues they are going to have to make some sort of collective effort to present
themselves as a viable council doing something that we the voting public can
see is useful.
Thursday, 23 May 2013
St Peter’s in Thanet, quick sketch over lunch
Wednesday, 22 May 2013
Thanet’s Blue Flag Beaches Announced
.JPG)
 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
My excuse with the sketch is it was executed on Ramsgate Main Sands
I wonder what the council's excuse is for missing out Ramsgate Main Sands in their press release about the blue flag awards?
whoops my mistake it seems the blue flag website hasn't been updated and here is the actual list
Minnis Bay ThanetDistrict Council
West Bay ThanetDistrict Council
St Mildreds ThanetDistrict Council
Westbrook Bay ThanetDistrict Council
Margate ThanetDistrict Council
Botany Bay ThanetDistrict Council
Joss Bay ThanetDistrict Council
Stone Bay ThanetDistrict Council
Tuesday, 21 May 2013
Royal Sands Development on the Pleasurama Site in Ramsgate no money, no hotelier, no development
The council have now published the
information that SFP Ventures haven’t come back with finance and that the
council is going to start the lengthy and possibly expensive business of extricating
themselves from this particular mess.
Here is the council document
Ramsgate Royal Sands – Options
To:
Extraordinary Cabinet – 29th May 2013
Main Portfolio Area: Operational
Services
By:
Mark Seed – Director of Operational Services
Classification:
Unrestricted
Ward:
Eastcliff
Summary:
To consider options for future action following the end of the four month
period agreed at the 22nd January Cabinet meeting for the developers
of Royal Sands to have demonstrated the financing for the construction of the
development.
For Decision
1.0
Current Situation
1.1 At the Cabinet
meeting on 22nd January it was resolved that
“Cabinet set a review period of 4 months from 22nd
January 2013 and request officers at the end of this period to prepare an
options report to Cabinet if either the finance is not in place for the
completion of the development or no agreement is in place for the construction
and operation of a hotel.”
1.2
As the four month period has now passed without these criteria being met it is
necessary that the options in relation to the future of the current development
agreement and leases for this site are now considered.
1.3
In the meantime a petition was considered at the meeting of Council on 18th
April as set out in Annex 1, and it was agreed that the petition be referred to
the Overview & Scrutiny Panel. As a result of this the Panel agreed the
following at its meeting on 23rd April:
1. To set up a Pleasurama Site Development Task
& Finish Group as a priority scrutiny project for 2013/14;
2. Officers to draft the terms of reference
1.4
At the time of drafting the report the Scrutiny task and finish group has yet
to meet and consider its terms of reference.
2.0 Discussion and Proposals
2.1 The issue of
the development of the Pleasurama/ Royal Sands site has been a matter of
contention since before the decision to take forward the current proposals at
the end of 2002. This has surrounded all aspects of the development including
its form agreed under planning, the choice of the developer, the nature of the
developer, the conditions within the agreements and changes to these, and
retention of the developer despite the site not being moved forward.
2.2 This process
has taken place under three separate administrations, but needs a collective
way forward for the council that represents a political accord. This should
reflect the need for a development to be completed that complements the future
regeneration of Ramsgate, and provides a financial return for the council on a
key water front site.
2.3 In addition,
the future of the agreement and leases with SFP needs to be assessed carefully,
as unilateral decisions on these by the council are almost certain to be
challenged legally by the developer. The bottom line is that such action is
uncertain, potentially costly, and likely to take a long time to resolve.
2.4 It is
important that consideration of this issue is primarily focussed on where we
are going and how to achieve that aim, with the prime elements being:
· An agreed
development for the site
· A
timescale to complete this development
· A
financial return to the council for the site
· An
understanding of the risks involved in any course of action
2.6 The report is
specifically not proposing a legal way forward for the council as this requires
to be considered in a way that does not prejudice any future court action and
the position of the council within this. Such a way forward also needs to be
supported by high level commercial and legal advice that dovetails with the
direction of travel for the council.
2.7 In this
context it would seem to be appropriate for Cabinet to support the setting up
of the task and finish group by Overview and Scrutiny and ask them to consider
and recommend a course of action. In doing this it would be appropriate to
consider the following:
· Encouraging
the task and finish group to focus primarily on the key issues to help guide
the way forward for the council as a whole
· Committing
Cabinet in supporting the work, including the cost of seeking confidential
legal and commercial property advice
· Advising
that consideration of action moving forward that may involve legal processes
needs to be done in a way that does not prejudice the position of the council
· Ensuring
that the legal, financial and time risks associated with any proposed course of
action are considered with care
· Encouraging
an expeditious result so that Cabinet can move forward on this
2.8 Due to the
lack of progress by the developer it is no longer possible to consider the
option of waiting for them to deliver, even though the final deadlines within
the agreement have not been breach. In addition, the need for a cross party
independent consensus on future action supports the role of the Scrutiny task
and finish group, rather than alternative routes.
2.9 The council
has been very supportive in relation to this development, mainly in recognition
of the difficult financial market over the last 5 years. However, the repeated
failure of the developer to make progress is no longer acceptable to the
council. The lack of any substantial progress in resolving the issues that were
discussed in the Cabinet report in January, and failure to reach a conclusion within
the four month period agreed by Cabinet, gives the council no confidence for
the future.
2.10 On this basis, the future
of the development has entered a new phase in which the council is actively
seeking an alternate way forward, with a key focus on the determination of the
current development agreement and leases.
2.11 This has become too much
of a key issue to wait until the current deadline in 2014 and the possible
extension to 2017. The continued failure to deliver gives the council no
confidence that progress will made, and a rapid move to considering and
deciding on alternatives is essential.
3.0 Corporate
Implications
3.1
Financial and VAT
3.1.1 The primary long term impacts
of choosing a specific course of action on the site and the costs of this need
to be assessed as part of the risk analysis work as part of review by the
Scrutiny task and finish group. In relation to this report the proposed support
to seek initial high level commercial and legal advice can be met from existing
budgets.
3.1.2 In addition to the legal risks
involved with ceasing the current arrangements can be added the timescales
involved in seeking an alternative proposal and the financial risks of this in
comparison to the current arrangements and the potential return to the council.
3.2 Legal
3.2.1 It is not proposed to set out
a full legal analysis of the situation at this stage as this will have to be
considered in some detail through the Scrutiny process. However, a clear option
as a course of action would be to seek the cancel the current development
agreement and leases or not provide an extension to any timescales. As
indicated above these courses of action are almost certain to be challenged
legally, so any legal risk assessment through the Scrutiny process must assess
the chances of being successful, the costs that may be involved, and the
timescales to achieve the result in court.
3.3 Corporate
3.3.1
The future of the current development agreement
development agreement and leases is seriously in doubt. There are risks
associated with taking action about this, as set out in this report, but the
repeated failure by the developer to move forward on site, despite the
willingness of the council to assist, is no longer acceptable. As set out
above, the failure to deliver has to change the council’s approach to this site
development and its consideration of options for the future. This represents
Cabinet’s entire dissatisfaction that the four month deadline it gave to the
developer to resolve matters and make progress on site has not been met. Care
needs to be taken in relation to considering options for the future as
indicated above, but now is the time to take this step.
3.4
Equity and Equalities
3.4.1
The proposal in this report does not have any impacts on groups with protected
characteristics.
4.0
Recommendations
4.1
That Cabinet supports the setting up of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel task
and finish group, and advises that the following considerations should be taken
into account in proposing a course of action for the council:
· A focus
primarily on the key issues to help guide the way forward for the council as a
whole
· Cabinet’s
support for the work, including the cost of seeking confidential appropriate
legal and commercial property advice
· Consideration
of action moving forward that may involve legal processes needs to be done in a
way that does not prejudice the position of the council in a court action
· Legal,
financial and time risks associated with any proposed course of action are
considered with care, including those associated with alternative developments
· Seeking
an expeditious result so that Cabinet can move forward on this site
4.2
That Cabinet expresses its strong dissatisfaction with the progress made by the
developer in the last four months to move forward with this development, and
signals a shift into a new phase of the development in which it wishes to see
robust alternatives to the current arrangements being developed and acted upon
by the council.
5.0
Decision Making Process
5.1 The proposed
decision is within the council’s budgetary and policy framework.
Contact Officer:
|
Mark Seed, Director of Operational Services
|
Reporting to:
|
Sue McGonigal, Chief Executive
|
Annex List
Annex 1
|
Petition to Council
18th April 2013
|
Background
Papers
Title
|
Details of where to access copy
|
None
|
N/A
|
Corporate Consultation Undertaken
Finance
|
Sarah Martin,
Financial Services Manager
|
Update
The council have now published the details of the Pleasurama Site Development Review Task & Finish Group
Membership
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)