Showing posts with label China Gateway. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China Gateway. Show all posts

Wednesday, 16 November 2011

Chinese Puzzle?


China Gateway, China Gate or whatever you want to call it comes before the planning committee for deferral this evening and I suppose deferral is probably the best option for it.

The worry with this one was that the council would either pass it without the proper measures in place to protect our water supply, or turn the thing down and the planning inspectorate would overrule the council and pass it without the proper measures in place to protect our water supply.

Here are the pertinent bits from when full council passed it last time http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/1111/id4.htm

My understanding is that until all of the problems in the 106 agreement are sorted out the council won’t sign it so the development won’t start.

At the moment while we have so much vacant industrial land both nationally and locally, building an industrial site on prime farm land next the drinking water borehole does seem totally insane.

However whether you are for or against this development I would say you would be likely to agree that resolving the surface water drainage form the lorry park down near the pumping station has to happen before the development starts. The main reason for this is that if the situation can’t be resolved then the site layout would have to be changed, something that would be very difficult if part of the site has already been developed.

The problem is a simple one to understand, at the moment just down hill from the lorry park is the borehole, so a typical problem scenario would be; a thunder storm that caused a power cut and rain, with no pump running the water and any contamination from the lorries would run off the edge and into our drinking water.

Manston Airport solve this one by having a big pipe leading into Pegwell bay, the China Gateway people don’t have this option as the Environment Agency have already said that it is too dangerous to drain the lorry park into Pegwell Bay. 

Tuesday, 8 November 2011

China Gateway Plans to Come Before Thanet District Council’s Planning Committee Next Week.


This morning I got a letter from the council inviting me to attend a meeting about this in November 2008 i.e. three years ago. I have just rung them up and apparently this was an error, the planning committee meeting will be next week.

I am starting this with the company behind the development, China Gateway International, their latest report is at http://www.cgiplc.com/documents/cgi-signed-accounts.pdf and says among other things, their £34.5m loan expires at the end of this month, that without the council signing the 106 agreement the land at Manston could be worth as little as £1.8m, with the agreement signed the land would be worth about £4m.


The London Stock Exchange is quoting their share price at 4.5p see http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/summary/company-summary.html?fourWayKey=GB00B1P70L34GBGBXASQ1 giving a market cap of £1.37m, so if you think the council are going for this development it may be a good time to buy shares.




The main snag with this development has been where the water goes, it is on top of the chalk right next to where most of Thanet’s drinking water is pumped from and initial plans were for the individual Chinese companies to have septic tanks on site that drained into our drinking water.



One way or another you may think that this was a good idea, I didn’t however and objected to the proposal, during this period I put my engineering hat on and asked the planning officers involved some questions about the proposal.


Eventually the two senior planning officers, Doug and Brian (no surnames here, they have both left the council now, comment with officers surnames in it will be deleted) came to see me. It was obvious to me that they both understood the implications of the drainage issues and they considered that the best approach was to set very stringent requirements for a 106 agreement and pass the plans. Their main concern being that if the planning application was refused then it was possible that the planning inspector would allow it on appeal, without proper regulation of the drains.    


This is where Pleasurama rears its ugly head as I had somewhat similar conversations about The Royal Sands Development, they said that they weren’t that concerned about the safety aspects that worried me with this development, as they would deal with these when the development was under construction, because the council would be regulating the building control.

What actually happened was that when the development started building control regulation was put in the hands of a private company and frankly I don’t think the remaining council officers are convinced that what is going up is what they expected to go up. Particularly in terms of the development being stuck to the ground so that I can withstand a tidal surge storm.

I have now found a more up to date financial statement for China Gateway International, see http://www.cgiplc.com/announcements_1600N.htm  



I have had a chat with the council’s planning department, who say that the 106 agreement is just about due to be finalised, it seems that there are new plans for the drains that Southern Water are happy with, although it seems a bit uncertain if the council have seen them.


They don’t seem to have been published on the council’s planning website, I have made arrangements to email the council once I have had a look at all the documents that are online and they have promise to send me anything they can find about the application that they haven’t put online.


I have some reservations about the level of communication between TDC and Southern Water after the incident last year that lead to the council flying a blue flag on the beach immediately after Southern Water had had an equipment failure that lead to a sewage discharge adjacent to the beach.


Anyway on to the documentation that the council have published http://tdc-mg-dmz.thanet.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=15160 is the stuff relating to next week’s meeting.

With the plans it is a bit more difficult as they are on the councils planning website so I can’t make links to them you will have to search the application ref F/TH/08/0400 and the website address http://www.ukplanning.com/thanet

You may wonder why this wasn’t discussed in April, May and October of this year when the newer documents were added, the answer is that the council’s planning website gives no notification of added documents, so no one was aware they had been added.




I think that the problem here is one of the balance between any local jobs the scheme produces against the environmental considerations, the main environmental consideration being maintaining a usable water supply.

The main other considerations will be that noise, traffic, air and light pollution these considerations seem to covered comprehensively in the documentation that the council have published.

I can’t find athe documentation about the water issue so have sent the following to the council.

“Thanks I have been trying to get to grips with the documentation on the UK Planning website and the China Gateway website.

As far as I can see detailed documentation has been submitted to all the other aspects of how they intend to comply to the 106 agreement apart from drainage.

I don’t understand if this means that the council would sign the 106 without a drainage strategy or whether the drainage strategy exists and either hasn’t been published or I haven’t found it on the planning website.

I would assume that the roof drainage would go into the ground in SPZ2 and 3 areas but not be allowed in the SPZ1 areas on the site.

I am also assuming that the foul drainage will be going into the sewage.

I can’t see how the car park drainage can be accommodated within the existing infrastructure, both in terms of pipes and processing plants, so I would very much like to see what the plans are for this drainage.

Sunday, 10 April 2011

China Gateway and Marina Esplanade Ramsgate two interesting new planning applications

China Gateway and Marina Esplanade Ramsgate two interesting new planning applications

You can see form the picture above this enhancement to the Victorian Granville Marina will be highly visually stimulating. Planning ref F/TH/11/0244

The China Gateway development that has been awaiting compliance with a stringent agreement mostly to do with the original plans that were for a series of individual Chinese companies with there own septic tanks, processing their own sewage and poring the results into our drinking water reservoir, has now come up with whole new raft of plans.


Oddly enough I couldn’t find the ones stating how they intend to deal with the drains, planning ref F/TH/08/0400 

Thursday, 16 December 2010

China Gateway update

"The Company is pleased to announce that it has agreed additional funding from Israel Discount Bank (IDB), covering all its existing properties at Manston Business Park, Thanet; Western Heights, Dover; and Farthingloe Great Farm, Dover.

The funding will remain in place until 30th November 2011 on a profit share basis.

The facility will enable the Company to obtain a signed Section 106 agreement on part of the Company's land holding at Manston and conclude the resolution to grant planning."

Well that’s what they have announced, I am a bit mysified about how extra funding can lead to the signing of a 106 agreement.

Further info http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/drink/id36.htm

http://thanetonline.blogspot.com/search/label/China%20Gateway

Plans at http://www.ukplanning.com/thanet ref F/TH/05/1410

Sunday, 1 August 2010

Sunday Ramble 1 China Gateway, Manston Airport and Thanet Earth

I see that China Gateway and various plans for Manston Business Park seem to be back in circulation

‘Property Week’ magazine reports (30 July) see http://www.propertyweek.com/manston-plans-to-open-gateway/5003607.article

I have lifted this from Acol Newsletter; “a major change of direction for China Gateway: The 106-acre site achieved con-sent for a 1.5m sq ft first phase in October 2008. However, the £200m scheme was dealt a severe blow when it failed to find development funding, despite having a 1m sq ft pre-let agreement with Chinamex, an investment company backed by the Chinese government.

The developer had expected to build out the first phase in one go with the prelet secured, but its plans have now changed. Ken Wills, chief executive at China Gateway says that Instead it will build six “globalisation centres” in its first phase of around 120,000 sq ft each. Each building could contain between 200 and 300 small and medium sized enterprises which China Gateway hopes will be Chinese. It is in talks with the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China about establishing a base, and electronics giant Aigo. It hopes to be able to start construction on the revised phase before the end of the year. Another Ken Wills business, Summit Aviation, is to let out 40,000 sq feet of its new jet engine service facility at Manston.”

This is all a bit odd, as I can’t find any planning application for the changes, the previous planning application has as far as I understand gone into one of those odd states that our crazy planning laws produce.

By this I mean that when the council agreed it would pass the application if certain conditions were met, so the clock stops that determines when the application will expire, until the developer comes up with details of how they will comply, and until this has been thrashed out with the council and a planning agreement produced, the thing stays open in perpetuity.

My main gripe over Manston is the water one, I will try to set this out as simply as I can.

The situation at the moment is that a lot of the aquifer (the underground drinking water reservoir under Thanet, made of porous chalk) has been contaminated and the usable bit that is essential for our water is mostly under Manston. Setting aside the pollution risk issues that relate to the various activities there, the main constraint on developing Manston is the amount of undeveloped land needed for water replenishment (the bit where the rain soaks in).

The trouble is that the county and district council have both been involved with and passed various schemes there, Thanet Earth, the new road, airport expansion, China Gateway, buying land for development and so on.

Saturday, 17 July 2010

Blogs and stuff

I have just noticed that the counter that I put on this blog about two years ago has passed the 100,000 mark, so a thank you to all of you who have put up with my ramblings.

Here follows a fast touch-typed rant during lunchtime in the bookshop, that will be in need of correction if I ever get around to it, very much thought as I go along tha something really intended for publication.

Looking at the various posts here and on the other blogs, one is very much aware of a sense of dissatisfaction with Thanet District Council, particularly over asset disposal and leisure facilities.

I am not really sure how much of this is real and how much of it is perceived and talking to people in the shop it is obvious that this feeling extends outside of the blogs and is almost universal.

I think much of the problem stems from poor communication with local people and frankly whith the internet this really shouldn’t be happening, the council has a whole press department that is supposed to tell us what they are up to.

Frankly it shouldn’t be difficult to extract the major things that are likely to effect peoples lives, from the masses of information the council publish, and publish information about these somewhere on the internet.

My last posting is a case in point, the planning application to decimate Hartsdown Park in Margate was hidden in plain view on the internet, published among the masses of planning applications for double glazing, shop signs and so on and I missed it.

The business over putting Westcliff hall into a residential property auction see ECRs post http://eastcliffrichard.blogspot.com/2010/07/flog-your-assets.html is another case of dreadful communication and bad pr, I asked Ramsgate Town Council about this yesterday and I know that they have been involved in the plans by local people to rejuvenate this.

The sad truth here is that Ramsgate Town Council hadn’t been told about putting it into this auction by Thanet district Council, so if they can’t be bothered to tell the town council what hope do local residents hope to have of finding out what is going on their town.

Another one is the Margate Caves site see my post about it http://thanetonline.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-plans-for-margate-caves-site.html something else that I hope Margate people will take up, however I am not sure that what looks like impossible access to what should be an important tourist attraction, would be grounds for objecting to the planning application.

The development on the slipways in Ramsgate is another one see http://thanetonline.blogspot.com/2010/06/new-development-in-ramsgate-harbour.html although it is being talked about in Ramsgate as a done deal already, I can’t find anything about it on the council’s planning website. Once again the problem here isn’t likely to be something that would be somthing to object to it on planning grounds, nonetheless the question, will the harbour be viable with only one slipway? Is a vital one to the economy of Ramsgate as a town.

There is quite a bit of comment on the two posts about Manston airport see http://eastcliffrichard.blogspot.com/2010/07/oozalum-bird.html and http://bignewsmargate.blogspot.com/2010/07/manston-airport-is-it-issue.html and once again I find there is very much a sense of the council not taking local people with them.

It is quite ridiculous for people to suggest that the noise issue in Ramsgate is a new one, over fifty years ago the problem was such that the American air force decided that Ramsgate was only suitable coloured troops, who at the time they considered racially inferior or some such thing, possibly deaf. All of the officers were billeted in Margate away from the aircraft noise see http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/blogpicts2/id71.htm

Perhaps the council are suggesting that Ramsgate people are racially inferior now, or possibly deafer than those in Margate, how it can be down to a council governing Ramsgate from what always has been and always will be our main rival town can decide fairly that Ramsgate should or shouldn’t have night flights passing over it is beyond me.

The question being asked here to our council dominated by cabinet members and Conservative members on the north of the island is; your biggest problem is Margate a large town with a leisure and shopping based economy that has collapsed, the main rival town Ramsgate appears to be regenerating from within, will you allow disruptive night flights over it?

Always for me though the airport issue comes down to our water supply and there are two aspects that won’t go away.

One is replenishment of the aquifer, by this I mean that amount of Thanet that can be concreted over is finite if we want to retain our essential water supply, this water supply has already been severely effected by various major pollution incidents and the low level but widespread pollution caused by the high level of population and associated infrastructure above.

The remaining mostly green bit of Thanet has Thanet Earth, with plans for expansion, China Gateway and the business park all with plans for more concrete and roads, the new road from Ramsgate to the main London road and the airport expansion.

The problem here is that you can have some of these things but you can’t have all of them and still have enough of a water supply for our domestic, industrial and agricultural needs.

The other problem is that over the commercial life of the airport there has been a lax attitude to water pollution safety issues, there is some information about this on this website I put up the last time I looked into the water pollution issue, see http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/drink/ if people consider that there isn’t enough information here I do have some more I could publish too.

Truth is that I don’t want to scupper aspects of the airport that could be commercially beneficial to Thanet but on the other hand I don’t want us to go down the road to something that makes neither environmental nor economic sense.

One thing I find worrying here is that it is obvious that the airport has a long history of a lax attitude to safety in terms of water pollution and any airport with a lax attitude to safety in any area is a matter for concern.

Anyway is suppose I had better go and do some work now.

Saturday, 24 October 2009

Visit of Chinese delegation & 'In principle' agreement to purchase land

China Gateway International (CGI), the AIM listed property company, announces that it has hosted a delegation from the Chinese Peoples Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries, including the Honorary President of the China Friendship Foundation, Madam Li Xiaolin, the daughter of the former President of China Li Xiannian. Also in the delegation were Mr Yao Mingyu, the Vice Chairman and Secretary General of the Chinese People's Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries, and Mr Lu Changhe from the China National Culture and Art Company. The delegates were also accompanied by Mr Hu Yuandong, the Head of the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) Investment Technology Promotions Office (ITPO), Beijing.

The purpose of the visit was to show the delegation the Company's property at Manston and explain the concept of the China Euro Cultural Industry Hub (CECIH).
The CECIH project plans to attract up to 300 businesses & commercial organisations from China to a purpose built 'Hub' at Manston Business Park. This would be the first of the 'China Gateway' buildings to be constructed.

The Company also announces that an 'in principle' agreement has been reached with East Kent Opportunities (a joint venture between Kent County Council & Thanet District Council) for the purchase of a further 5.5 acres of land (subject to contract) at Manston Business Park, adjacent to the Company's existing land holding.

A further announcement will be made if a Contract to Purchase is entered into.

For further information, please contact:

China Gateway International PLCKen Wills +44 (0) 1843 822444

Beaumont Cornish Limited Roland Cornish +44 (0) 20 7628 3396

Square1 Consulting Ltd David Bick/Mark Longson +44 (0) 20 7929 5599

This information is provided by RNSThe company news service from the London Stock Exchange.


Ed. Sorry about the delay with this one, I got the press release late but thought it would be of interest to some people published in full, so here it is.

Sunday, 12 July 2009

The man from the ministry, Pamplona bull run and other thoughts for Sunday.

An old friend of mine who I hadn’t seen for some time dropped in for a chat today, he now works in what we once would have called the ministry of education but is now probably made up of a great many government departments, at local, national and European level.

We had quite a considerable chat about the coming of the end of the public service gravy train, partly as the government department he works in is one that David Cameron says he will close if he gets elected.

My notion that the whole UK education system could be improved for nothing, just by ensuring that the teachers took the examinations with their students and that as long as the same examiner marked all of each classes and their teachers exam papers, many of the problems in our education system would be resolved, went down quite well with him.

Interestingly he considered that many civil servants including him were grossly over paid, he considered that pay in the public sector was now markedly better than in the private sector, for similar jobs.

Catching up on this week’s news, “Man gored to death by bull in Pamplona run,” was one I had missed click here for story and video footage, it seems hardly credible that this should still be going on in modern Europe.

Having read the article and watched the video I am trying to get my head round how I feel about this, I suppose this is probably the most dangerous legal public event still in existence.

From the point of view of the young chap who got killed, I don’t suppose he really thought of the danger or the awful consequences for his family. I would like to say that when I was in my late teens or early twenties, especially if goaded on by my friends, I would have been too sensible to what he did, but am not so sure.

From the bulls point of view as the bulls that are bred for Spanish bullfighting are just that and wouldn’t exist without the sport, this is more difficult for me than just saying it’s barbaric and has no place in a modern world.

If I had been born a bull in the UK, castration, intensive farming and the slaughterhouse would have been my lot.

The bulls bred for Spanish bullfighting however pretty much range freely, as close to the bovine natural habitat as one is likely to find in Europe today, I think reaching maturity intact and dieing relatively quickly has more appeal for me.

Anyway moving away from the Hemmingwayesk to the more mundane, I have just put last weeks planning applications on http://thanetpress.blogspot.com/ and am once again pondering the bizarre nature of TDC planning online.

The most ridiculous aspect of the plans as they appear online is that pretty much all of them are scans of scale drawings, the only way one can work out any of the dimensions on them is to use a scale ruler against the paper sheet.

This means that when viewing the planning drawings online it is impossible to tell how long any of the lines are i.e. the height, width or depth of any of the proposed buildings, rendering most of the documents published on the site next to useless.

I have been asking TDC to get linier scales added to the drawings before they are scanned for some time, this wouldn’t be difficult, it could be done as simply as having a rubber stamp of each scale made and applying it to the plan.

I know that TDC are working on a new planning site, which should be working by now, however they tell me that this has been beset with technical problems. Not having got as far as putting liner scales on the sheets yet suggests there will be quite a long wait before we get anything really useful.

Pondering our local water contamination a question that occasionally flits through my mind is, would the combination of government agencies that appear to be incapable of insisting in basic safety measures, like a flood risk assessment for Pleasurama, combine through incompetence or design to supply contaminated tap water in a first world country click here to read.

Still on the water issue, some of you may be interested to see how Thanet Earth have addressed some of the problems that China Gateway will have to solve click here to view, as you can see it will a mammoth and expensive task. I believe something like this sort of solution will have to be used for the car and lorry park runoff, looking at the size of these parking areas the tanks will have to be massive

I will endeavour to add more as I get time today.

Wednesday, 24 June 2009

Commercial Group Properties vanish from Stock Exchange

The China Gateway development is one of the most important projects in Thanet, it doesn’t much matter if you are for or against it or like me have serious reservations about the way it is laid out on the drinking water supply, most interested Thanet residents probably want to keep an eye on it’s progress.

I periodically check its share price on The London Stock Exchange website, about ten days ago it just vanished form there, I am not sure what this signifies if anything.

I also noticed this announcement that doesn’t appear on the companies website.

“Substantial Shareholding

The Company were informed on 18 June 2009 that as at 28 May 2009 funds under the discretionary management of Laxey Partners Limited on behalf of Credit Suisse Client Nominees UK Ltd and Vidacos Nominees Limited hold 4,817,343 ordinary shares in the Company representing a holding of 22.94% of the Company's issued share capital and voting rights.”

Nothing unusual in the announcement, what is unusual is it not appearing here http://www.commercialgroupproperties.co.uk/ if you look at the share site performance graph on their homepage you can see everything stops about ten days ago and if you click on the graph it is supposed to take you to where they appear on the Stock Exchange website.

Thanks to Derrick I have also discovered their new website which is interesting click on the link to go there http://www.chinagatewayinfo.com

Friday, 19 June 2009

This and that and will add to it as the day goes on.

A bit of a mixed bag today as it’s Friday in the bookshop and too busy to get on with anything that requires a lot of concentration, snippets between customers.

First quite a lot of events this weekend I have just lifted these from ECRs excellent What's On In Thanet listing on his sidebar

15-30 Thanet Multicultural Festival

20 http://www.ramsgatebandstand.co.uk/

20-24 Broadstairs Dickens Festival

20-21 http://www.sarahthorne-theatreclub.co.uk/

20-21 Margate's Big Event

Video from TDCTV



One local event that doesn’t get much publicity here is The Preston Rally which is on the 27th and 28th of June, click on the links below for pictures of their previous rallies and their website.

http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/psr2008/

http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/prestonsteamrally/more_steam_engines_for_sale.htm

http://www.thesteammuseum.org/rally.html

It’s such a pity there have been so many delays from TDC to get them going on the Maritime Museum, tug and dock as they were to have organised a series of events in Ramsgate this summer and as you can see they don’t mess about when they organise an event.

I noticed that Commercial Group Properties vanished from the Stock Exchange website at the beginning of this week, I don’t know if this is some sort IT glitch or if they have lost their aim registration.

I would have contacted them but they have one of the most bizarre websites I have ever come across, although you can view it in English and Chinese I couldn’t find any email address or contact form on it.

There has been a bit on the local blogs about a graveyard in Margate here from Your Thanet is a video about it for anyone interested.



Actually looking at this properly I don’t think it’s the same graveyard that other people have mentioned.

One rather unusual feature of the councils Big Event website, considering that it starts tomorrow, is that is says that the program of events will be published soon, as some of their press releases have appeared on the council website after the events the were supposed to announce I look on with interest.

Before the Cabinet decision on the Pleasurama development I emailed all of the cabinet members individually about it and have so far had courteous replies from Simon Moores, Sandy Ezekiel and Martin Wise.

The problem for me is that no one involved, developer, contractor or council, has any experience of building between the foreshore and a cliff face apart from the EAs technical expert.

She recommended various basic safety measures that the new plans are not compliant with, what none of them could tell me was why the cabinet are happy to go ahead with this potentially dangerous development.

Click on the link to read her letter http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/ea/id2.htm

Wednesday, 10 June 2009

Commercial Group Properties to change name

The Company has posted a Notice of EGM at which a Special Resolution will be put to Shareholders that the name of the Company be changed to China Gateway International plc with effect from 26 June 2009.

So it looks like they are putting everything they have got into Manston, looking at their recent figures they must be hoping to attract some very serious Chinese investment.

Sunday, 31 May 2009

Sunday ramble


China Gateway

CGPs chairman’s statement is published click here to read.

There is also an Independent Auditors Report it’s a fairly large PDF document so some computers may have difficulties with it click here for it

This is a very important development for Thanet and my concern from the beginning has been that TDC appears to have given CGP unrealistic advice as to what would be allowed in terms of drainage.

Personally I can’t see any way that the existing plans for phase 1 can be drained within the constraints imposed by the EA, Southern Water and KIA, certainly no realistic drainage plans have appeared on the councils planning website.

I have asked various TDC planning officers about the site drainage and none of them have been able to explain how it could be drained, so until this problem is resolved the whole project seems very uncertain to me.

I went for a short walk yesterday and took a few pictures, walking around Thanet is always a thought provoking process as a lot of the problems seem to be caused by red tape click here for the pictures

Ramsgate’s dodgy dance floor

Around the bandstand on the eastcliff the coloured concrete dance floor and surrounding steps is disintegrating, one aspect of this that is very problematic is that this disintegration provides lose lumps of concrete for miscreants to throw from the cliff top.

I am told that there isn’t enough money in the kitty to repair it properly and in practice I think it would have to be completely replaced.

Probably the only affordable solution would be to tarmac it instead but of course it is a protected area in a conservation area, so it is unlikely this would be allowed.

Pleasurama.

Once again we are heading into the summer with Pleasurama a deserted building site, interesting to see people parking on the previous road layout that was never used, this business with slabs and coloured concrete as an alternative to parking and leisure facilities really is strange.

I will have another go at putting pressure on the council next week to try and get the site cleared, as you see from the pictures its an unsightly dangerous unsecured mess.

Not much wrong with Ramsgate sands it’s hard to imagine a town could have such a feature with a large council owned plot of land immediately behind and not exploit this better.

Maritime Museum

Still slow progress here but at least progress, the trouble here is that TDC doesn’t seem to understand that what the new museum operators need is to be able to be open during the holidays.

It is certainly a bit worrying to see windows that have been boarded up due to vandalism.

Thanet District Council is using Twitter I expect loads of you already know this but I couldn’t get on with Twitter so have taken while to catch up click here to follow TDC on Twitter.

It’s a bit sad to see that most of the historic boats have gone from the harbour, I believe this is probably due to the council stopping concessionary mooring fees for them, highly cost effective as nothing is mooring where they were.


As you can see from them pictured last year they were a very cost effective tourist attraction, right in the middle of the café culture that is developing on Harbour Parade.

Sunday, 26 April 2009

Duty and disobedience when questioning the council

There has been some debate on this blog this week about the ethics of my questioning the council and other government organisations particularly with regards to technical issues, see http://thanetonline.blogspot.com/2009/04/budget-and-blogs.html which I found particularly interesting.

For me a major issue here is the way in which my representatives, in this case councillors function and although this may seem strange my feelings are that too many of them have had too much experience of being councillors.

One way or another with the huge amount of legislation, regulatory bodies and being heavily guided by council officers a situation has developed where councillors appear to be trained to conform with council officers wishes, rather than represent the electorate which is supposed to be their primary function.

For me then I find the only course of action open to me is to question the officers directly, for example having acquired the water quality tables my main concern is the private boreholes that may not be properly regulated. For instance this week I will ask what treatment if any is used for the water pumped out of the ground for irrigation at Thanet Earth.

This is not because I have any expert knowledge of water contamination but is based on the premise that if the public water supply needs to be purified and diluted to be safe for consumption, it probably needs to be purified and diluted for the intensive growing of cucumbers and tomatoes that are by their very nature er watery.

A couple of things that I am unhappy about is that all the pesticides are grouped together in one table and my rather dated scientific knowledge leads me to believe that DDT bonds with the fatty acids in plants, I also believe that mercury would accumulate in the growing process.

When I asked about water draining into the ground at Thanet Earth I was told that it wouldn’t so presumably the water must go round and round in the growing process until it evaporates leaving most of the chemicals behind.

One of the great problems with contamination of the aquifer is that many people who would be likely to contaminate the aquifer, engineers and lorry drivers for instance would be unaware of its existence.

To this end I have asked if the council would consider signposting in appropriate areas and I am told that they are considering it.

Another thing that interested me this week was the complaint that I made that didn’t appear on the councils list of complaints, the council officer I asked assumed that I had emailed it to someone randomly and they had forgotten to record it.

In fact I used the online complaints form the essence of the complaint was to try and get TDC to post the dvds, of council meetings that they already make, to Kent TV so they could be available online in a way that would cost the council virtually nothing.

I eventually got a response that a committee was to be set up to find a more expensive way of doing this and at that point I just gave up on the issue.

Trading in the real world in this recession is not easy and that sort of thing makes one annoyed.

Anyway this complaint should have registered automatically so either the council have a serious IT failure here or they are adjusting the figures for some reason or another.

In terms of official complaints and freedom of information requests I am very reluctant to use them as I assume they cost the council a lot to resolve, for instance I believe I have only ever made 3 complaints 2 of which relate to Pleasurama.

With Pleasurama I am going to pursue its problems much more vigorously to ensure that we don’t get another 5 years of deserted building site, 3 years of delay was caused by the council sitting on the survey of the cliff façade and not taking any action.

It was only when I discovered the existence of the survey that action was taken, it may have been coincidental but the timing suggested otherwise.

Now I have suggested the access road is dangerous see http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/tdc/id50.htm and the answers I got from the council suggest that this may be the case, I would imagine that this has instigated some sort of survey, but just don’t know, if it says the road can’t support busses I am determined that they don’t sit on it for 3 years this time.

This is important because if it can’t support busses for the expected life of the new development, it will either have to be made so it can and I would expect the expense of doing this would be tremendous, or it will have to be closed to heavy vehicles.

If it is to be closed to heavy vehicles then the new development will have to be completely redesigned which would mean that it would have to be environment agency compliant.

Another problem I find with the various government agencies is it is very difficult to get them to view big problems as a whole, with the water issue there is now no doubt in my mind that Thanet Earth, China Gateway and airport expansion can’t all be allowed to happen on the aquifer.

Certainly there doesn’t appear to be any way that China Gateway can expand beyond phase 1 as we just wont have enough water if it does and with phase 1 being built it would seem highly unlikely that any airport expansion that involves more hard standing can occur.

Now regardless of your views on other aspects of these developments they involve businesses that are prepared to invest in this area and without Southern Water, the environment agency and the council setting some definite guidelines as to the amount of development on the aquifer that can be allowed it is not possible for these businesses to function properly.

I would say that the tremendous fluctuations in Commercial Group Properties share price is partly symptomatic of there being no realistic understanding both of how much they can expand and how they are going to manage the drainage for phase 1.

The fact that there was consultation with the council before the drainage plans that the council would have known would be totally unacceptable were drawn up shows just how much time and money can be wasted by the councils unrealistic explanation of environmental constraints.

The question I would like to ask those of you who feel I shouldn’t be using the methods I use to get the council to act in a more decisive way over issues that effect our safety and economy is; what methods do they think is should use?

Saturday, 25 April 2009

China Gateway and Commercial Group Properties share price rise

Some of you may be aware that I posted the other day about the extraordinary rise in Commercial Group Properties shares see http://thanetonline.blogspot.com/search?q=china coincidentally within an hour of that post Commercial Group Properties also made an announcement about this see http://www.londonstockexchange.com/LSECWS/IFSPages/MarketNewsPopup.aspx?id=2140933&source=RNS coincidentally again the following article http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/thanet/Deal-signed-attract-firms-Thanet/article-935622-detail/article.html has appeared on the Isle of Thanet Gazettes website.

You can keep track of their shares by clicking on this link http://www.londonstockexchange.com/en-gb/pricesnews/prices/system/detailedprices.htm?sym=GB00B1P70L34GBGBXAIM%20B1P70L3CMGP

Thursday, 23 April 2009

Budget and blogs

Having the budget very much on my mind and looking on many of the political blogs that I look at when some political event occurs the general feeling seems to be that it wasn’t a good budget, even on a lot of the socialist blogs the comment is pretty negative.

There is a remarkable amount of absence of comment about the budget on the local Labour blogs.

For me it seemed to lack the major banking reforms that I would have expected from a socialist government, to me the budget seemed to be much more aimed a forthcoming election than dealing with the current economic crisis.

I also would have expected the government to make use of the crisis to reform public sector pay and pensions, which are something we can no longer afford at the present rate.

I find it hard to see how the government can justify paying civil servants over £2,000 per week when the country is effectively bankrupt, and any employee who really justified a wage of that order wouldn’t have any problem getting a job in the private sector.

Certainly if there are civil servants that it is felt do justify wages of that order then they ought to have to regularly take some sort of postgraduate examination in their field of expertise to prove it.

When we are talking about individuals that for the most part only produce paperwork in most cases any competent clerk or secretary could do their jobs, in fact in many cases this is what happens anyway.

The public perception of the people running the country the county and the district at the moment is that a great many of the people involved put personal financial gain far ahead of any other objective.

Now the only way we can afford to pay these enormous sums is to borrow vast amounts of money.

I have to admit to wondering what happens when the point comes where there is no more money available for the government to borrow, or will this constraint never occur?

It’s certainly happening to businesses and their employees at the moment perhaps we should all work for the public sector and have a country entirely reliant on debt.

Wednesday, 22 April 2009

China Gateway shares rise

Shares in Commercial Group Properties, the company behind China Gateway have risen from trading at 3p on the first of this month to trading at 50p today. I noticed that they are hoping to buy the land at Manston that TDC and KCC bought for £6,286,250 for £3,000,000 and wonder if the two things are somehow related.

I know there were some concerns about the closeness of the relationship between Commercial Group Properties and the council during the Chinagate incident, so this large and sudden rise begs some interesting questions.
Update click here to view the title I had assumed the land was bought by EKOS not KCC so the loss £3,286,250 would fall to them.

Wednesday, 1 April 2009

China Gateway’s shares trade at 3p

50,000 shares in Commercial Group Properties the firm behind China Gateway have just traded at 3p each that is for£1,500 if whoever bought them did so at the end of last year they would have cost them £100,000

Click the link to go to the London stock Exchange site in case you think this is some sort of April fools joke http://www.londonstockexchange.com/en-gb/pricesnews/prices/system/detailedprices.htm?sym=GB00B1P70L34GBGBXAIM%20B1P70L3CMGP

Wednesday, 25 March 2009

Roger Gale Steve Ladyman the drains and Manston Airport

The front page article in The Isle of Thanet Extra today is about ground water pollution here in Thanet, with comment from our two MPs.

Reading the article it was obvious that although both MPs had attended a meeting with the environment agency about ground water quality but didn’t really understand the problems properly.

This is essentially about five different types of drain and understanding the differences between them.

1 Foul sewers these lead to a waste treatment plant, the water and effluent from these is treated and the treated water then goes into the sea.

2 Soakaways, these are often roadside drains the water from these soaks into the chalk, which also forms our drinking and agricultural water reservoir, some of these have interceptors that remove any fuel or oil spillage (how effective they are depends on their size relative to the size of the spillage and how well they are maintained) some of the don’t have interceptors.

3 Direct discharge into the sea, once again these are mostly roadside drains some with and some without interceptors.

4 Septic tanks these are mostly attached to rural properties and are emptied by the council the effluent being taken by tanker lorry to the treatment plant, the problem with these is that many of them leak, either by accident or design. Having them emptied is expensive so people sometimes make a hole in them so they don’t have to be emptied so often.

5 Private treatment plants such as Pfizer has and China Gateway wanted to have, these use bacteria and sedimentation to process the effluent the processed water is then either discharged into the sea or soakaways. Where China Gateway came unstuck is that discharge into soakaways on the water source protection zones is not allowed.

Roger Gale appears to think that industrial developers and the airport don’t play a significant part in the ground water problem, he is quoted in the article thus: “…it isn’t necessary to fault big business or the airport; it’s all down to us.”

The pollution problem that the environment agency faces is that the quality of the ground water is low and this is mostly caused by a great many small leaks and spillages.

The other problem that they face is that we are around the point where any more concreting over the source protection zones means that there will not be enough surface area for the rain to soak into to provide us with sufficient water supply.

Because of the various large pollution incidents like Thor and Sericol the amount of underground water that we can use has become greatly reduced and is concentrated around Manston.

This leads to the problem of what we can get away with at Manston both in terms of airport and industrial expansion, which poses the question how much more dare we concrete over? And the question of how much risk is acceptable in terms of a pollution incident there?

As far as the concreting, the environment agency needs to set defined limits to how much more there can be so that the airport and the industrial developers there know where they stand in terms of expansion.

Most importantly though is the problem of how the risk management is assessed for a fuel spillage caused by an aviation accident, having spoken to a lot of people that understand aviation a worst case scenario would be something akin to the recent air accident at Narita international airport, near Tokyo.

By this I mean an air crash on the grass part of the airfield where the fuselage of the aircraft runs over the wing that contains the fuel tanks rupturing them. The 747s flying to and from Manston can carry 50,000 gallons of fuel so a spillage of 20,000 gallons would not seem out of the bounds of probability.

Although there are many variables we need a clear cut answer from the environment agency as to what quantity, for both types of aviation fuel, would cause irredeemable damage to our essential water supply and to restrict the airports operations accordingly.

I noticed in the article Steve Ladyman said that the risks at the airport were being managed properly, however at the moment the main runway has no fuel interceptor, the contingency plan being to turn off the valves from the drains and contain a fuel spillage on the runway.

In reality with a plane on fire with people inside I wonder would they really stop the fuel from running away? So we really need an assessment of the maximum amount of fuel that should be carried by aircraft using Manston, until the interceptor is installed.

Of course there will always be a risk that our underground water supply will be irreversibly damaged by an air crash and I am afraid it would probably be the end of most of the agriculture in Thanet including Thanet Earth, it would also lead to greatly increased water bill for us. What this is about though is acceptable risk management and in the current economic climate with a doubling of unemployment in Thanet during the last year local industry badly needs to know exactly where it stands in terms of future expansion and future limitations on existing levels of operation.

Thursday, 19 March 2009

China Gateway shares fall again

Not being much of a financial wizard I am uncertain if this has much significance but shares in Commercial Group Properties have fallen again they now stand at 7.5p this is not due to any share trading but just means that people are offering to buy them at 5p and other people are offering to sell them at 10p.

Monday, 2 March 2009

Chinese puzzle

I notice the firm behind China Gateway, Commercial Group Properties website http://www.commercialgroupproperties.plc.uk/ has vanished, I wonder is this some minor technical glitch or have they vanished permanently, does anyone know?