The Pleasurama Cliff Wall behind the Royal Sands Development Site in Ramsgate Again.

This picture is of firemen digging through the rubble looking for anyone buried in it last time this structure collapsed.

I went down there the other day to photograph the Great Wall vandalism and noticed something amiss with the bottom of the remaining part of the 1860 cliff structure (the bit that didn’t collapse, picture above) that concerned me, so I took the photo (below) of it and sent it off to the council’s engineer with a covering email below.

Hi Mike you may remember about a year ago we discussed the brick balustrade between the two brick pillars at the Augusta Stairs end of the Pleasurama site. This was part of the 1860 structure the rest of which collapsed in the 1960s.

I mentioned to you that the foundations had been exposed by Cardys about two years ago and were sitting on made ground and at that time Cardys had just replaced the soil they had removed covering up this defect.

You assured me that Cardys had agreed to underpin this structure with concrete and I said that I hadn’t seen any evidence of this but couldn’t check as the foundations were now covered up again.

During the last year of site abandonment the infill has settled revealing that no underpinning occurred.

I should remind you that it was this structure that I reported to you and the HSE because part of the rendering was delaminating and within a week of you assurances that the structure was sound about a hundredweight of cement fell into the site and onto the public highway from a height of about forty feet.

As far as I can tell the rendering above the exposed part goes straight over the original drainage holes in the brickwork blocking them causing water from behind the balustrade to be draining via the made ground, this combined the damage to the drain and surface topside looks potentially dangerous to me.

You will also remember several years ago assuring me that something would be done by the council to instigate the weight limit topside required by Jacobs and that something would be done to prevent vehicles from going next to the top cliff edge altogether.

Can you please let me know if any progress has been made on this front?    

Picture attached.

Please take this one as official customer feedback, requiring some sort of response within ten working days. 

Best regards Michael.

I have just had his reply, here it is:

Dear Mr Child

Customer Feedback Reference:48399/2311693

Thank you for your recent communication which was received on 19th February 2013.

You may remember the letter sent by Brian White on 15th April 2011 which confirms the existence of foundations as indicated on the original design drawings, this letter refers to the concrete façade structure adjacent to the Victorian brick abutments.  I am not aware of any issues raised by you concerning the foundations of the rendered brickwork area.  Furthermore I have visited the site since receiving your communication and cannot find evidence of settlement as you have claimed in your email.

I agree that the rendered face of the brickwork (which is quite unrelated to the foundations) does require attention although this is not classified as urgent work and is not connected with the structural performance of the wall.  Funding is being sought for the rendering work but in the meantime the fencing beneath the railing panel will remain in place as a precaution.

As you have highlighted the precautionary work to exclude vehicles from the upper promenade has not yet been undertaken.  This work will be implemented but has not yet commenced due to other priority projects.  I agree some signage at least would be beneficial and I will make sure this is progressed before the summer season.

I hope that this resolves the matter to your satisfaction.

If you are not happy with my response, you may write with your reasons within the next ten working days, requesting a further review. 

In order for the Council to respond as efficiently as possible, please ensure that you quote the above reference number and address your communication to Jean Reynolds - Customer Feedback Co-ordinator, Operational Services.

Yours sincerely

Mike ******

Engineering and Technical Services Manager

I have to admit to being a bit at a loss for words over this one.

Here is a picture of the councils Technical Services team not sorting out this part of the cliff wall after I complained about it last time. 

 over the years of the Pleasuama debacle I have done several blog posts about the cliff wall, this link will take you to a sample of them

http://thanetonline.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=pleasurama+cliff if I get time I will write a more detailed explanation and add some more pictures. 

Anyway now for some sort of explanation here, back in 2005 the council had this unsupported chalk cliff surveyed and one aspect of this survey was a warning not to put anything heavy on the cliff top near the edge.

Since that time I have been asking the council’s engineer to get warning signs put up and since that time council vehicles, people holding events up there, even a 20 ton fire engine parked near the edge giving out Fireman Sam hats to children, you probably don’t need a diagram.     

The council are a bit sensitive about this one and back in 2009 the council’s chief executive wrote to the council’s external consulting geotechnical engineer and told him not to discuss the cliff safety issues with me.

The engineer wrote to me and said that I would need to get permission from the council before he would answer any more questions about the cliff structure.

I then wrote to the council’s chief executive asking him to write to their engineer and give him permission to continue discussing the cliff condition with me.

All of this was fairly difficult for the engineer as I had provided him with historical pictures of the cliff façade for his reports.

Here is the email sequence;

>>> <MichaelChild@aol.com>  09/12/2009 17:12 >>>
Hi Richard I think; "We  will provide  your  comments directly  to  our 
clients for their  
consideration.  If  they ask us to  discuss your concerns  with you, we
will be happy 
to do so.     Until then, we  cannot  respond in substance to the issues
you  
have   raised." is pretty clear.

Look I know no one likes this much, as it has  obviously gone badly wrong,  
but this looks like Jacobs error and not  TDCs, frankly TDC have been stung 
for  £1m and I am only trying to  sort it out for you.

With respect I am good at this sort of thing, for  instance every employee  
of Walkers received an email from me about  it, TDC officers hands  are 
just 
to tied to deal effectively with  this sort of thing, even if they  had the 
ability which I have my  doubts about.  

You  know I will do it anyway with or  without your cooperation, but it 
would be  helpful for the Jacobs  engineers to continue to talk to me as 
they 
have for  several  years.

Also if I am forced to do it the hard way it will be so much  more  
unpleasant for everyone concerned, at the moment Jacobs senior  engineer 
concurs  
with me that the cliff is dangerous and that for a  heavy fire appliance to 
be 
up  there near the edge as there was the  other day is crazy. 

What you will all do if it collapses and  kills people beggars belief, what

would you say at the inquest? 

Best regards   Michael

In a message dated 09/12/2009 17:20:32 GMT Standard Time,  
Richard.Samuel@thanet.gov.uk writes:

This  matter is under investigation as you say and the Council will act on 
any  recommendations we receive. I do not intend to conduct a dialogue with 
you on  it nor do I intend to try and second guess professional engineers 
opinions so  I suggest we leave it to people who know what they are talking 
about. The  Council is well aware of its responsibilities and will fulfill  
them.

Richard Samuel
Chief Executive
Thanet District  Council
Council Offices
Margate
Kent
CT9 1XZ
Telephone: 01843  577002
Fax: 01843 298874
Email richard.samuel@thanet.gov.uk
Web:  www.thanet.gov.uk

From: <MichaelChild@aol.com>
To: Richard Samuel <Richard.Samuel@thanet.gov.uk>

Sent: 09/12/2009 17:30:29
Subject: Re: Ramsgate cliff safety

Are you genuinely saying that you wish me to publicise that the councils  
chief executive has refused me permission to discuss a public safety issue 
with  the senior engineer consulted by the council about the issue?

Presumably you saw the photographs I took of the appalling mess down  there 
where the foundations are supposed to be.

Best regards  Michael

Subject: Re: Ramsgate cliff safety 
Date: 09/12/2009 18:19:00 GMT Standard Time 
From: Richard.Samuel@thanet.gov.uk 
Reply To:  
To: MichaelChild@aol.com 

You can speak to the council about these issues but not our contractors or advisers. That is in essence what you have been told by Jacobs. Your contact is Mike Humber or Geoff Musk. 


I made quite a lot of fuss about the façade structure over the years since the repair and the repair to the repair. In the end the council agreed to institute a maintenance and inspection regime, here is a link to the first inspection report https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0erQxRYd9_rNEQ2M3N3RjV5dms/edit?usp=sharing  

Royal Sands Development on the old Pleasurama site in Ramsgate comes back before the council cabinet, an update.

When I did my last two Pleasurama updates which involved asking Thanet District Council and Cardy Construction the contractor building the development questions about the development, the answers I got led me to ask more questions and make some assumptions.

This combined with some historical research and another foi request to the council has produced enough information for another post updating the situation.

First the legal position with the leases and the development agreement.

Here are the documents for anyone interested http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/pda/

Back in October of last year I got the following answers from the council:

1.    No records are held of changes to the development agreement on this issue.

1a.    No records of a revised programme are held.

1b.    No records of a public information programme are held.

2.    No material alterations to the approved scheme have been proposed or approved.

You can read the post about this at http://thanetonline.blogspot.com/2011/10/royal-sands-development-on-pleasurama.html if you want more information.

What I took this to mean is that the council haven’t agreed to the changes that the developer has to make to continue in the way they say they are going to on their website http://www.royalsandsramsgate.co.uk/

By this I mean building the hotel last, in fact starting from the other end of the site to the one agreed in the development agreement. My understanding is that these changes will have to go back to the council for agreement and that the council will have to amend the agreement again.

I would guess until this happens the development is pretty much stuck, I also assumed that the council would have to check on the status of financial guarantees and progress so far and that the option to determine the development agreement would come before cabinet once again.

Second progress on the site.

I think the most worrying thing here is the contractor’s assurances, combined with their heath and safety documentation has suggested for over a year now that there would imminently be about 200 workers on the site rapidly building the development.

In practice what has happened for the last year is that there have been between two and four workers on the site, using very inexpensive materials to produce unexpectedly shallow foundations.

Throughout the last year the speculation has been, is this really the start of construction, or is it a delaying tactic to keep the option open to develop the site?

To expand on this, the developer seems to have done the absolute minimum in terms of expenditure and resources, that would comply with the delays allowed in the development, agreement assuming the council was notified of those delays. As they haven’t notified the council it looks like we have come to crunch time on this aspect too.

What the council have published about this is a bit vague, see http://tdc-mg-dmz.thanet.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=14755

Third the flood and storm risk

One of the main problems with this site is it sits on land reclaimed by the sea and is in a high risk flood zone, the environment agency have already recommended that there is a proper flood risk assessment see http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/ea/

Having read this document I thought the greatest danger in a big storm with a high tide was overtopping by the sea, now I have more serious concerns. 

This story goes back to about the time of Christ when the first harbour was made at Ramsgate, at this time the cliffs would have gone straight down to the sea as far as about the low tide level, where the solid chalk bedrock that forms the seabed here would have been.

The harbour was started by extending out north-eastern side of the natural inlet and forming groins to hold the sand in place to protect it in easterly storms.

This map published in 1736 shows the situation then, as you can see part of the Pleasurama site has already been reclaimed by the build-up of sand. 

By the 1790s the harbour had been completed and this further extension of the East Pier produced the shelter that allowed more sand to build up. 

This map was produced in 1849 click on the link for the whole map, greatly enlarged http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/map1849/ as you can see by then pretty much all of the site has been reclaimed.

As far as I can tell the natural shape of the reclaimed area produced by the harbour wall is that shown in the map.

The next major step forward with this site was turning it into a railway station in 1860. what they did was to build up the level on top of the sand with chalk dug from the railway tunnel and face the seaward inclined front of this pile of chalk with small slabs cemented onto it.

This 1872 map shows the situation then, click on this link for an enlargement of the whole map http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/map1872/ these map enlargements are best viewed in internet explorer.

The groins to collect sand in the hope of protecting the structure are clearly visable.

The railway company that built this railway extension from Herne Bay were in a hurry, they cut quite a few corners and the opening of the line was delayed for two years because some of the bridges they had built were condemned.

After the railway had opened there were various structural failures of bits of the associated civil engineering the most dramatic of which was the north Thanet sea defence between Reculver and Birchington.

This failed in a storm and in one night about ten square miles of land and about four miles of the railway were washed out by the sea.

Here is a photo of them filling the area back in after building a proper concrete sea defence.     

My various enquires have reached a stage where the council have agreed that the sea defence, in front of the Pleasurama site, is so old that they don’t have any plans relating to it.

They have sent me plans of the recent concrete promenade, but they reveal that this is just sitting on the old sand beach and the pile of chalk.

OK time for a diagram, the grey bit is the solid chalk cliff and seabed, the yellow bit the sand the sea has deposited, the red bit the sea wall between the Pleasurama site and the beach, and the green bit the chalk infill.

The original idea mentioned in the documents produced by the council’s engineers, see the pages at http://thanetonline.com/cliff was to screw the development to the solid chalk seabed.

What has happened instead is that the developer has opted for shallow load spreading concrete foundations resting on the sand that was deposited by the sea.

As what the sea leaves behind it can also take away again, this makes sea wall important.

Most of the sea walls in Thanet were designed by and are maintained by The environment Agency, this is very evident in Margate at the moment where major works are being undertaken on the sea walls there, to prevent damage during a big storm.

As far as I have been able to find out the only bit of sea wall in Ramsgate that isn’t a modern well maintained structure, is the bit in front of the Pleasurama site, this is owned and maintained by the council.   

 We have a bit of history locally of council maintained structures failing.

The nearest is the harbour wall shown in these pictures.

I do have a lot of correspondence about this issue, which I will publish eventually, but at the moment I am trying to keep a complicated issue as simple as possible.

The problem here is not so much whether the sea defence is up to the task of protecting the sand that the building stands on in the event of a serious storm, but really at the much earlier stage of no one having evaluated the sea defence.

Fourth Cliff Safety Issues

The council’s cliff façade inspection was delayed and they have promised to send me the report when the work is complete.  

Fifth Summery of the Situation

Once again this development is coming before the council, this time: “To make changes to the development agreement in relation to the provisions for third party funders, the timing of parts of the development, the guarantees supporting the agreement and the agreed project milestones.”

I take this to mean further delays, the financial aspects are not my province so I won't even try to guess at what third party funders and guarantees supporting the agreement implies.

My take has always been that a proper flood risk assessment and a cliff condition assessment independent of those involved in the cliff repair contract both need to happen before anything else is done on site.

Essentially to address the basic safety issues, especially those highlighted by The Environment Agency, for a development of over 100 residential units, hotel, road, shops and restaurants for a structure that is likely to have about 1,000 people in it.

Back in 2009 this issue came before cabinet, at that time the development had been delayed so much that it had breached the terms of the previous development agreement. 

What the developer put to the cabinet then was that they would finish the ground works by August 2010, the wording in the cabinet document is completion of Groundworks, Piling and Services.

There certainly hasn’t been any sign of piling, the laying of sewers water mains, gas mains or anything apart from the unexpectedly shallow foundations.

Back in 2009 the council officers recommended that the cabinet ended the development agreement, so I am assuming that there is a possibility of the agreement and therefore the development coming to an end when it comes befor cabinet next month.   

Whichever way it goes this decision is a very major one for the future of Ramsgate, the building is much larger than The Turner Contemporary, the asset is the most prominent and largest council owned empty site in the town.

All through the decade of this saga the amount of public information, consultation has been just about zero, the damage done to the economy of the town in having the main leisure site an unsightly mess has been incalculable.  

Finally there is my personal view of the development.

I have always considered this to be one of the most demanding sites anyone could build a residential development on and from the outset I looked for anyone involved that had any experience of the main problems associated with this site, that wouldn’t exist on an ordinary building site. One being building very close to an unsupported chalk cliff and the other being building right behind the beach on the foreshore.

My understanding is that there is a millionaire behind the development who I don’t think has any experience with the problems associated with this site.

Various contractors have come and gone and various things have been done and presumably some of them have made quite a bit of money, some aspects of the work so far are just beyond belief.

One example here is the large roundabout at the pavilion end of the site, first what could a roundabout of this size there possibly be for? Next why lay it all at great expense and then dig it up again to put the surface drain in?

Another is the two way road between the development and the cliff, anyone can see how narrow parts of this are, the implications of a lorry catching either a building support or the cliff façade seem pretty obvious. 

On several occasions over the past about eight years I have discussed this development with senior council officers and councillors see http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/seafront/index.htm and http://www.thanetonline.com/Pleasurama and http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/tdc/ followed by multiple blog postings http://thanetonline.blogspot.com/search/label/Pleasurama%20development over that time various goal posts have moved, some of the issues I have raised have been addressed and some just haven’t.  

Sometime early in this dialogue my concerns about the site switched from those about the look of the thing, which frankly is pretty awful, partly because of the chopping of the gull winged roof to get most of the building below the cliff and partly because the architect has never addressed the problem that the roof of the building will be viewed form the adjacent cliff top path, to those about the safety of the building.

I think they originally intended to go ahead with the development without doing anything to the cliff at all, I think it fair to say that it was this intention to build so close to a cliff façade with a serious structural defect, that first put me on my guard about the safety issues. 

Now I have a new safety problem and to understand, you have to appreciate I already have a situation where the environment agency have said in writing that the development should have a flood risk assessment.

I now have written confirmation from the council that they have no plans for the sea defence in front of the development. This means that have nothing whatsoever on which to base any understanding of its ability to withstand a severe storm.

I would guess position with the sea defence is in rather the same category as the cliff where the developer’s contractor examined part of it, found it to be defective, the developer seems to have used this information as a delaying tactic, when it was convenient, but is now ignoring the defects and carrying on regardless.

There is a difference between providing a reasonably safe development and shifting all of the responsibility to the council. There is also a limit to the amount that can be spent by the council in making this development safe for the duration of its life.

With the cliff façade we have got as far as determining that part of the structure is reasonably safe and well constructed, the arched part, the developer’s contractor even went as far as checking the foundations of one of the pillars and found it to be sound.

Unfortunately we have also got as far as determining that part of the structure has problems, doesn’t appear to be reasonably well constructed, the developers contractor even went as far as checking the foundations of one of the pillars and found that instead of a concrete foundation there was just a pile of muddy chalk, see http://thanetonline.com/cliff/ 

If the council goes down the road with the sea defence that they went down with the cliff, they will commission several reports on it, spend a six figure sum on repairs and we will all be looking at another three or four years of delay.

The underlying problem is that both the cliff wall and the sea wall weren’t designed to protect a residential development, the standard of both these structures is appropriate to a fun fair and amusement arcade.     

Over the last year or so, I have asked the council about the ongoing liability of the development, as things stand it would seem that the council have to pay to maintain the cliff and the sea defence, to a sufficient standard to protect residential dwellings.

With a lot of the cliffs in Thanet the normal standard is you can walk under them but there is I sign warning you not to sit under them and with the other council maintained sea defence in Ramsgate, the harbour’s east pier, there is sign telling you not to go on it in stormy weather, I guess the pictures above are an indicator of why doing so could be unwise.

With the cliff façade the council have already said they will have to spend money on the part at the Broadstairs end and they have already spent money on the portal part at the lift end since the £1m repair contract.

It is important to appreciate that cliffs and sea defences have an element of risk attached to them which increases as the man made structures associated with them ages.

The officers I have asked about this have chosen to interpret these enquiries only in terms of worst case scenarios, saying that the council have insurance cover for when these structures fail, however I think the main cost is in preventing them from failing.

Politics and Responsibilities

I hadn’t really expected much in the way of comments on this post until I had finished it, but there is already some comment suggesting that this is a political issue, or at least there needs to be someone to blame, probably a politician or a group of politicians.

I think in terms of politics that actual planning application slipped under the political net. Around ten years ago under the old Labour council administration there were plans for a smaller development, one well below the cliff, which was backed by Whitbread the brewers.

With these big applications there is usually a great heap of architectural drawings and a document called the planning and design statement, with mock up pictures and an explanation of what is going to be built.

I am not saying here that the Whitbread proposal was a good one that would have got through planning, it never reached that stage. However from the planning and design statement it looked OK and as far as I understand both the Labour Group and the Conservative group were behind it.

During the time when we changed from a Labour to a Conservative administration, which is when the local politician have their eyes off the ball, Whitbread pulled out and their partner SFP that I think were supposed to be the investors not the developers took over the project. At some point in all of this the planning drawings changed although the planning and design statement remained pretty much the same.

By the time anyone realised the building had changed it was to late to object to the planning application and of course the local politicians had backed the thing.

We then entered the bizarre situation where plans had been approved for a building that was too tall to fit in the space between the high tide mark and the top of the cliff.

When it comes to the blame game, there are a few things that don’t add up, decisions that looked weighed unreasonably in favour of the developer and against any local consultation.

One of these was when the gull winged roof was removed, which I think should have been viewed as material change and ought to have resulted in a new planning consent.

This would have meant a mandatory flood risk assessment and local people having a chance to object to the development.

There was the cabinet meeting of 19^th June 2009 when the development agreement came before cabinet with officer recommendations to terminate the agreement, mostly in financial grounds.

I have asked why the Conservative group went against offices advice on this one, even asked Simon Moores on several occasions where he has commented in blog threads, but have had no meaningful response.

My guess is that it may be to do with spiting Ramsgate where the there is a Labour majority or it may be to do with some special relationship with the developer. Councillors don’t often go against the advice of senior officers, so they may have had a genuine and legitimate reason to do so.

There was the granting of the leases without going through the asset disposal process, which once again would have involved public consultation. 

How we got to a situation where all of the expensive liability wound up with the council is unclear, I can understand the sea defence which has always been the councils problem, but I believe with the previous lease the cliff façade was the responsibility of the amusement company.

There is also the developer’s responsibility, not pursuing the contractors investigation of the cliff, but I think worst of all ignoring the Environment agency’s strong recommendations for a flood risk assessment and safe emergency escapes from the development.

Another issue here relates to building control, over the past few years I discussed the issue with the head of building control and the officer in charge of major projects, both of these officers have left the council now and as always I don’t put officers names on the blog.

However they both told me that my concerns about the safety of the buildings design, particularly in terms of ability to withstand a tidal surge storm would be handled by the council at the building control stage.

They said that at this point the council would receive detailed planning drawings and that the council’s building control department would ensure that the designs contained features to withstand the special problems related to the site.

To me the construction looks about a light as it could be for a structure of this height on an ordinary site away from an unsupported cliff and high risk tidal flood zone.

I now gather that the information that the council officers gave me was wrong and the developer is able to use a private outside firm for building control, which is what the developer has done.

I have contacted this firm and had assurances that the person dealing with the building control would discuss some of the issues, but the have never returned my communications.   

I think that is about it, sorry it was such a long post, I am still waiting for some of the documentation, but as I said I will publish the supporting documents. 

Foundations Found at Royal Sands Ramsgate Pleasurama. An Apology and Thanks from Me

It’s all too easy to publish to the internet, unless Conroy Maddox has been using your keyboard as I am sure all of the art lovers who attended the Turner Contemporary will understand.

Many thanks to the contractor Cardy Construction for chipping the chalk off of one of the foundations to a support pillar, that is part of the concrete structure of the arches, part of the Pleasurama cliff façade and sending me a picture.

I genuinely think that it is safe to walk on the cliff top footpath now, something I will be doing again.

Here is the picture and this is what they have to say about it.

“Dear Michael

As recently discussed please find the attached photograph of the exposed column foundation.  The location of concrete highlighted in red extending below the excavation level passed the dotted line would indicate the foundations are built as described within the historic drawings.  It would appear that the concrete was originally cast against chalk and not shuttered therefore causing the surface of the concrete to appear uneven.  We have washed the concrete off as much as possible and driven steel rods into the foundation which appears to be of sound construction.

Regards,
Michael”

This, like so many historical engineering puzzles, has a solution that probably involves practices that wouldn’t occur today.

What happened in this case was that having cut a slot about three feet wide and about three feet deep, going up the seventy foot high bare chalk cliff above, they got some poor chap to get in the bottom of the slot and dig a hole eight and a half feet deep in solid chalk.

I think this picture (I have put coloured lines on the original 1930s plan and sorry about the drawing of the bloke, my children are better at using MS Paint) explains what this is about.

Viewed from the side on.

The red line is the outline of the concrete pillar.

The green line the original line of the ground before the contractor dug out the ground next to the cliff about a fortnight ago.

The brown line about where they have dug the ground down to now.

The blue bit shows where the concrete block walls between the arches are.

Having solved one problem that is a mixture of industrial archaeology and civil engineering, like so many other things in life that leaves us with another problem and more questions.

Can anyone think of a way that they could have got the foundations in for the infill walls between the arches? The most they could be are nine inches thick, I think, not room enough for a man to get inside.

You can see from on the right hand side of Cardy’s photo that the virgin chalk seems to go right up to the bottom of the block wall.

Are there any foundations under the concrete block infills? If there are, do they extend down as far as the contractor has dug down? Are the concrete block infills tied to the pillars either side? In the simplest terms, is there a danger of block infill walls falling on the people working on the building site next to them?

I don’t know how far down you can dig a nine inch wide foundation trench in solid chalk with a shovel, but would doubt it is as far as the chalk has been dug down next to bottom of the block wall.

The pictures should all expand if you click on them.

Royal Sands Development, Pleasurama Site Ramsgate Cliff Safety Response From Thanet District Council.

I have received a response from the council which they have asked me to publish on this blog relating to my concerns about the foundations that support the cliff façade, the base of which has recently been partly exposed by the contractor.

I have also received a response from the contractor via Laura Sandys MP, who is the MP for this constituency.

First an explanation for anyone who either hasn’t been following this issue or hasn’t understood it properly.    

The two pictures above show the bottom of the concrete cliff façade support pillar marked with red dots and what appears to be virgin (undug) chalk below it. 


The picture should get bigger if you click on it and even bigger if you click on it again. 

This picture shows you where this is and I have drawn a red line around the area shown in the two first pictures.  

This is a detail from the original design plans for the pillar supplied to me under foi legislation from the HSE, it is a side on view of the pillar.

I have added coloured lines to it to help explain what is where. The red line shows where the front of the pillar should be. The green line the ground level before the contractor started excavating. The blue line is roughly where I think they have dug down to. The purple line roughly where the virgin chalk has been cut back to.

As I can’t work out how the foundation was put beneath the virgin chalk, without digging it up and the front of the pillar doesn’t follow the line shown in the design drawing I have concerns about the integrity of this structure.

I discovered this situation last Saturday and asked Kent Fire and Rescue if they would examine it and close the footpath above it while more detailed investigations were made.

Kent Fire and Rescue investigated the area, confirmed that they couldn’t find and sign of foundations but told me that as the council had told them that the cliff was safe, they were not able to close the footpath.

Below is the response I have received by email from the council’s engineer Mike Humber signed by the council’s Director of Regeneration services Brian White which they have asked me to publish here.   

"REGENERATION SERVICES

Michael.child@aol.com

15 April 2011

Our ref: BJW/BH

Your ref:

Dear Mr. Child

‘PLEASURAMA’ CLIFFSIDE, RAMSGATE

I am writing in response to your interest regarding the cliff wall to the rear of the Royal Sands

(formerly ‘Pleasurama’ site at Ramsgate. Your concern being that the cliff wall has no proper

foundations, and is therefore at risk. A site visit was made on Monday 11 April by Mr. Mike Humber,

the Council’s Engineer and myself. The ground has been excavated adjacent to the cliff wall in

recent weeks to enable work on the foundations to the Royal Sands development to proceed.

Consequently chalk is visible in places at a level beneath the cliff wall façade, and this has led you to

believe that there may be no foundations supporting the cliff wall itself.

However the point that you have missed on your inspections is that there are substantial concrete

foundations, to a minimum depth of two metres, beneath each of the main supporting columns to the

cliff wall. This was verified during our site inspection.

Records exist of the design of the original cliff wall dating from the early part of the 20th century in the

form of a construction drawing and I believe you already have a copy of this. The observations made

on site this week confirm that the foundation provision appears to be as described on the drawing. It

can be seen that the foundations and columns were both cast insitu with the columns exhibiting a

regular finish from timber formwork whilst the foundations were cast against the hand excavated face

of bare virgin chalk. I suggest that it is this interface between these two very different concrete

finishes that you have misinterpreted as the base of the concrete structure. Although recessed a

little, the foundation does continue well below this elevation as confirmed above.

I do trust that this letter draws your concern to a satisfactory conclusion. Thank you for your interest

in the subject. Perhaps you might post a copy of this letter on your blog.

Whilst writing, because of your interest also in the engineering history of Ramsgate Harbour I thought

I would draw your attention to the pending completion of a new floating concrete breakwater in the

Outer Harbour area. This is the single biggest investment the Council has made in the Harbour for

some 20 or so years. The new floating breakwater will not only protect the Eastern Marina, it will also

provide satisfactory berthing for work boats used in the construction and ongoing operation of the

London Array offshore windfarm. The Council is very pleased with the new structure, a large portion

of the funding was provided through European Union grant.

Yours sincerely

B White

Director of Regeneration Services

Email: brian.white@thanet.gov.uk

Tel: 01843 577007

cc. Cheryl Pendry

Mike Humber"

Below is my response to them 

"Dear Brian and Mike.

I have to admit the saga of this cliff wall is a bit of a difficult one, but as the wretched thing doesn’t conform to the design drawings I feel it best to err on the safe side. Most particularly as the previous two problems I reported to the council, the bulging panel and the 1860s balustrade both resulted in council action to repair the problem.

God alone knows how that 1860s balustrade is supposed to work, if it has foundations and how much water is getting in from behind. Did you know that when the railway extension from Herne Bay to Ramsgate was put in, in the 1860s the government inspector, Captain Rich condemned much of the civil engineering work including several of the bridges, which had to be rebuilt?

I am still concerned that I haven’t got any evidence that there is sound concrete all the way between the bottom of the visible concrete pier and the rough cast concrete that you have discovered at the at the bottom of the recent excavation.

Have you either exposed continuous concrete between the bottom of the pier and the bottom of the excavation, carried out a driven rod or bore test this in this area?

The reason I ask this is that the chalk at the bottom of the pillar doesn’t have the appearance of made ground and I can’t see how the back of a load spreading foundation or the bottom of the pillar could have been constructed without disturbing the chalk.

As we have discussed before the façade isn’t a load bearing structure and I am particularly concerned that heavy vehicles are accessing the cliff edge while below excavations are being made of foundations that don’t conform to exactly the design drawings i.e a uniformly cast liner pillar extending down to the foundations.

After the arched part of the façade (visibly the most sound and professionally constructed part) the contractor will presumably excavate in front the less linier portal part of the façade where both the pinning took place and the contractor has already discovered and documented one pillar with inadequate foundations sitting on made ground.

In short the risks of a normal building site appear to have been adequately addressed apart from the added problem of the proximity of the public footpath to the edge of the cliff.

I am not asking that this be permanently closed while the building work is in progress, something would I think be unnecessary and damaging to the town’s economy.

Just that the parts above excavation of any part of the base of the façade that doesn’t conform precisely to the design drawings is closed while investigations are made and of course some emergency signage warning people not to drive anywhere near the cliff edge.

Best regards Michael"

I have also had a response from Laura Sandys informing me that the contractor, Cardy Construction will “further expose a section of the foundation and provide Michael with photographic evidence of the existing foundation,”


I have added a link to a series of linked webpages showing some of the various technical reports on the cliff façade structure http://www.thanetonline.com/cliff