We confirm receipt of your email.
This request will be considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and uploaded through our system to deal with this, we will provide a response through this system to you within the 20 day period.
Im caught up most of this week but will respond on the other matters early next week.
Head of Economic Development and Asset Management
Hi Edwina, please ensure I receive conformation of your receipt of this email today.
This email is a request for an update on the situation with the Pleasurama development in Ramsgate, as I don’t know what the current situation is apart from there having been no activity on the site, when I guess activity was expected, it will have to be a fairly general request.
1 Could you please send me any documents relating to the Pleasurama development that have become available since you last email below?
2 As I don’t know what documents have been withheld from me and why and what documents would be available to me if I knew what to ask for, could you please send me a complete list of the Pleasurama Royal Sands documents that the council have on file?
As a customer feedback request:
1 Could you please explain to me the councils opinion as to where we stand with this project, especially: a Is it perceived as being on schedule, b Is it perceived as deliverable, c Is it perceived as economically and environmentally viable. The Council has received considerable advice on this matter as you are aware including assessing viability and deliverability. The Cliff works will be starting soon, programme to be published, and will last up to three months. Cardys have planned their programme to begin after the school holidays to keep disruption to a minimum, again details will be published. The Council will proactively monitor the works in a collaborative way with the developer to ensure it is delivered.
2 With reference to your statement in the email below, relating to ongoing cliff façade maintenance for the life of the development "and the access is considered satisfactory for maintenance purposes." Is this based on any concrete information e.g. survey or engineers report? I am particularly concerned here about the council's liability to maintain this structure for what is likely to a period of around 100 years i.e. the life of the development and whether the council would have some form of redress if it proved impossible or prohibitively expensive to maintain the cliff façade from the three metre gap below. As we know from the 2005 engineers report a tower crane can't be used from above. I believe you have queried this a number of times and again we confirm that it was considered at the planning permission stage and permission was granted. Our technical engineer confirms that there is adequate space for ongoing maintenance.
3 With reference to your statement in the email below: "We are currently considering the recent report, and are planning other investigations but have not completed these yet which is why you have no information on them." Is there any progress and have there been other investigations? The engineer did undertake more surveys, this information will be released as part of the FOI.
I understand I missed your call but understand that you are asking for a response in connection with your email below.
We have sent you all the reports we have in connection with the cliff wall. We are currently considering the recent report, and are planning other investigations but have not completed these yet which is why you have no information on them.
I don’t have anything further to add at this stage, it is all work in progress and there really is nothing new to report.
Head of Economic Development and Asset Management
From: Michael Child [mailto:michaelchild@aol.com]
Sent: 26 January 2015 14:36
To: Edwina Crowley; iris.johnston@btinternet.com; cllr-Elizabeth Green
Cc: TDC Customer Services; cllr-David Green; cllr-Simon Moores; cllr-Richard Everitt; cllr-Mike Harrison; Paul Cook; Ged Lucas
Subject: Re: customer feedback request
Thank you for the report you sent me.
I am sorry to say I am not entirely happy with your response and am therefore seeking a further review.
With respect to the flood risk, three factors have occurred since planning consent, one is that Ramsgate sands have become significantly denuded greatly reducing the protection to the 1860 sea defence fronting the site, the second being the change from pile bored foundations to the development to pad foundations on sand held in place by the sea defence and third the EA letterhttp://www.michaelsbookshop.com/ea/id2.htm
I does occur to me that I could make economic sense for the council to have an independent fra made of the area as it is the council and not the developer that liable for maintaining the sea defence. The company usually used by local authorities for this is http://www.hrwallingford.com/ they did the fra for Turner Contemporary.
When I spoke to you on the telephone you told me that there would be a seismic survey and I haven’t received the results of this from you.
You also said that this would be an independent survey, however what you sent me is a survey by East Kent Engineering Partnership, essentially the same council officers who signed off the main repair contract that has proved to have been faulty. [Coating badly applied, significant panel failure within a couple of months of the contract ending]
I also note that the report you have sent me seems to be saying by omission, inasmuch as it describes the condition of the foundations for the arched part of the façade, that the foundations for the portal part of the façade shown on the design drawings do not in fact exist in reality and this would appear to need underpinning.
There are several other significant and observable issues that the report has omitted covering, these include the surface of the cliff top above the brick and render part of the façade, the foundation of the centre balustrade the brick and render part of the façade which has been exposed and appears to be on made ground and in need of underpinning.
Can you please confirm the position regarding an independent structural engineers report on the condition of the cliff façade?
My understanding is that Cardy Construction commissioned an independent report when they started work on the foundations back in 2009/10 and that this report resulted in site workers examining the façade for movement prior to starting work each day for signs of movement, can you please send me a copy of this report and any other reports on the cliff that I haven’t got?
Your point that the gap between the development of the cliff façade (4 metres) is sufficient to allow for maintained of the cliff façade for the life of the development is “considered satisfactory†requires further clarification.
Can you please send me the report stating how much space is need between the development and the cliff to allow for future maintenance of the cliff façade?
Obviously during the expected life of the development [80 to 100 years] parts of the façade will have to be removed and replaced and the cost of doing so is most likely to fall on the local authority. I assume that the viability and cost of these repairs are a matter of public interest.
Your point on the withholding information for legal reasons, can you please confirm that this would cover issues relating to the civil engineering of the site infrastructure and the structural integrity of the cliff façade?
Regards Michael.
On 20/01/2015 07:47, Edwina Crowley wrote:
Thank you for this, we have only just received the final report back and it is attached for your information. Our Engineers are reviewing and will be taking action as necessary.
The scheme has full planning permission to be built out, there is no legal requirement to do a flood risk assessment, and the access is considered satisfactory for maintenance purposes.
At present we are still undertaking a mediation process the details cannot be shared due to legal reasons, however please rest assured that we have informed the HSE of our negotiations and they will be kept informed and asked to visit should the legal’s complete satisfactorily. We would also ensure a rigorous programme of works that would take into account access and egress limitations and work with the developer to ensure adequate flood risk protection.
I trust this answers your questions.
Head of Economic Development and Asset Management
Thanks Iris, I think the questions were simple, relevant and as most of the cost of maintaining the infrastructure surrounding the development is likely to fall to the council after is built need answering.
-----Original Message-----
From: Iris johnston
To: cllr-Elizabeth Green
CC: michaelchild ; TDC Customer Services ; Edwina Crowley ; cllr-David Green ; cllr-Simon Moores ; cllr-Richard Everitt ; cllr-Mike Harrison ; Paul Cook
Sent: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 18:17
Subject: Re: customer feedback request
Thank you and sincere apologies Michael,
Liz thank you also for following up.
Please let me know why the delay.
Thanks for your email and I can promise you I will look into this immediately and get back to you.
Ok chaps my patience has run out on this one, as you can see the initial email on 15 th December 2014 was ccd to the information commissioners office who confirmed they had received it.
Frankly now it doesn’t matter if you are treating it as a foi request or the customer feedback request I originally asked for the time has run out.
I am expecting confirmation of your receipt of this email and some sort of definite time scale as to when a reply will be forthcoming by return.
The alternative is the adverse publicity, which I know you can do without and my taking up the request with the information commissioner which wastes both your time and mine.
Thank you for your email. I have passed the details through to Edwina Crowley for you today who will respond to you directly.
I am writing to you for an update on the Pleasurama site, mainly as there is a certain amount of rumour circulating on the internet.
There are four main areas of interest relating to the civil engineering infrastructure of the project and updates on any of them would be useful at this time.
1 The cliff façade condition survey; is there any progress on this? And if there are any reports that are in the public domain can you please send them to me by email?
2 The flood risk and structural integrity of the sea defence, has any investigation been made into this? The latest information I have on this that the EA strongly recommended a flood risk assessment. Mike Humber emailed me telling me that the sea defence dated from 1860 and the council while being responsible for the maintenance of the sea defence hold no plans or maintenance record for it. This is particularly important now the construction method has been changed from bored piles to pad foundations sitting on sand held in place by the sea defence.
3 Cliff maintenance access, has any assessment been made to ascertain if there is enough space between the proposed development and the cliff façade to maintain the cliff façade for the life of the development? Important as the various surveys of the façade describe it as having a short serviceable life.
4 Road access, has any investigation been made into the psv and hgv access for the development? Mostly this relates to the Marina Road inclined viaduct, which as far as I can see from the plans is to be used for psv and hgv access for the development, once the development is built, despite KCC signing it as unsuitable for construction hgvs.
Please note I have also sent the above directly to Edwina Crowley.
This email and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy or delete the content of this message immediately and notify the sender by reply email. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that does not relate to the official business of Thanet District Council shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the council.
This email and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy or delete the content of this message immediately and notify the sender by reply email. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that does not relate to the official business of Thanet District Council shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the council.
This email and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy or delete the content of this message immediately and notify the sender by reply email. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that does not relate to the official business of Thanet District Council shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the council.
This email and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy or delete the content of this message immediately and notify the sender by reply email. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that does not relate to the official business of Thanet District Council shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the council.
--
Best regards Michael
Websites
http://thanetonline.blogspot.com/
http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/
http://www.thanetonline.com/
Press release concerning work starting on Cliff face on the 27th July and its being paid for from monies "received" from the royal sand site has appeared on TDC web site. So get down to the Royal Sands next week to see the action.
ReplyDelete