Manston update

The Planning Inspectorate have just published the account of their meeting with RiverOak about the Development Consent Order (DCO)

I have copied the whole thing below, in blue.

“File reference Status Final Author Rachel Gaffney Date 05/01/2016 Meeting with RiverOak and Bircham Dyson Bell Venue Temple Quay House, Bristol Attendees RiverOak: Tony Freudmann, Niall Lawlor

Bircham Dyson Bell: Angus Walker, Tom Henderson

The Planning Inspectorate: Susannah Guest (Infrastructure Planning Lead), David Price (EIA Manager), Richard Price (Case Manager), Rachel Gaffney (Assistant Case Officer), Nicola Mathiason (Lawyer) Meeting objectives

Project inception meeting

Circulation All Attendees

Summary of key points discussed and advice given: The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) explained its openness policy and its statutory duty to publish any advice issued under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) to its website. Any advice issued under s51 would not constitute legal advice upon which the attendees, or others, could rely.

RiverOak provided a brief introduction and background to the scheme. Manston Airport was fully operational up until 15 May 2014, until this date the airport’s operation was covered by the relevant Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) licence. RiverOak indicated that in November 2013, the airport had been purchased by Ann Gloag (co- founder of Stagecoach) and subsequently closed. There had been no operation on site since May 2014.

RiverOak noted that it was their intention to reopen the airfield and redevelop elements that are in a current state of disrepair. RiverOak stated that the revised business strategy for Manston Airport would primarily focus on increased cargo capacity. RiverOak also suggested that there may be potential for alternative aeronautical operations including some passenger capacity at a later stage. RiverOak stated their assertion that the proposals for Manston Airport would constitute a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. RiverOak provided a brief overview of their indicative development proposals which could include: increased parking for aircraft; altering taxiways; construction of a new control tower; facilities for handling cargo and the inspection of the goods coming

in and out; construction of office space; runway lighting; radar; and fencing. RiverOak suggested there would be enough physical space on site for these alterations as the site is 680 acres. RiverOak confirmed that the one fixed feature of the site is the 2,750m long runway.

The Inspectorate explored how the indicative development proposal relates to s23 PA2008. In particular the discussion focussed on the provisions of s23(1) and whether the proposal would be considered a construction or alteration project and from what starting point the developer would consider the proposals were having the effect of increasing air transport movements of cargo. RiverOak indicated that the previous capacity of Manston Airport was in the region of 2,000 air transport movements of cargo aircraft per year (approximate 3 planes in and out per day). RiverOak outlined their current calculations whereby proposed air transport movements of cargo would satisfy the threshold requirements outlined in PA2008 (for example in s23(5)(b)).

The reference to ‘capable’ in, for example, PA2008 s23(5) was noted and discussed. The provisions of PA2008 s35 were also noted.

RiverOak discussed the current state of the site and the assets that had been removed since its closure as an operational airport in May 2014, noting for example, runway lighting, instrument landing system and the fire station. RiverOak provided a brief overview of the discussions undertaken with the current owner of the site and subsequently with Thanet District Council with a view to the authority acquiring the site via a Compulsory Purchase Order.

The Inspectorate enquired about the planning history of the site and RiverOak noted some planning applications for change of use by the current owners. RiverOak anticipated that an application for the Stone Hill Park development would be submitted later in 2016.

The Inspectorate enquired about the relevant policy background for such a scheme. RiverOak outlined that whilst the Thanet Local Plan refers to Manston Airport, it recently expired. The Government’s announcement in respect of the drafting of an Aviation National Policy Statement was noted, and its relative timing in respect of an anticipated submission date for this proposal was subsequently discussed.

RiverOak explained that there was an extant s106 agreement dating from 2001 that covered matters such as opening hours and a curfew for aircraft flying from Manston Airport between 2300 until 0700. Under that s106 it was highlighted by RiverOak that there are currently no restrictions on numbers of aircraft flying to and from the airport. The use and relationship of s106 documents with the Development Consent Order (DCO) process and any appropriate requirements included within a DCO was noted by the Inspectorate.

The key highways surrounding the site were discussed, including the A299, the dualling of the route from the M2 to the Channel Tunnel and local B roads. RiverOak indicated that once detailed master planning had taken place this might provide a clearer indication of what road improvements would be incorporated as part of the airport proposals.

An indicative redline boundary was discussed. RiverOak consider the land within such an indicative redline boundary is under single ownership. It was noted that former

RAF housing was located to the north of the scheme. This housing is still occupied and is located just outside the indicative red line boundary.

RiverOak indicated that there was local public support for the proposals and suggested that there had been support from Members of Parliament for the re-opening of Manston Airport. CAA licences were discussed and RiverOak explained that licences are post-holder specific and a formal application would be required. RiverOak confirmed its intention that the Manston Airport scheme would be planned and developed to the satisfaction of CAA standards.

Controlling airspace was discussed. RiverOak noted that Manston Airport is outside of the London airspace boundary (London TMA) and therefore a different management process is used compared to that of London airspace. RiverOak indicated that airspace for Manston Airport is capped by physical slots.

There was discussion regarding the possibility that a s53 application could be needed regarding gaining access to the site. The Inspectorate noted their Advice Note for further information and advice regarding s53 applications.

The future timetable for the scheme was discussed. RiverOak stated it would prioritise a review of its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) data; some of which is available from 2014 when the airport was last open. PINS discussed the likely timescales for submission of an EIA scoping opinion request and the approach to establishing the baseline for assessment. RiverOak confirmed that an EIA would be prepared and that a scoping opinion will be sought. RiverOak stated that the precise timescales would be agreed at a later date and following the appointment of appropriate consultants. However, it was indicated that the request would be made as promptly as possible. PINS did advise careful consideration of the timing of the request in order for the scoping opinion.

RiverOak indicated a likely submission date of Q4 2016. The Inspectorate advised that this was a tight timeframe particularly with regard to environmental survey information and noted the risk that if sufficient preparatory work wasn’t completed during the Pre-application stage (including considering the scheme in sufficient detail) this could impact significantly during both the Acceptance and Examination proceedings if the application was accepted.

Specific decisions / follow up required?

-          The Inspectorate to create a project webpage.

-           

-          - A further meeting to be arranged for February 2016.

-           

-           - Monthly update on progress of the scheme; face-to-face or via telecon.”

Whichever side of the Manston issue you are on this is an important document mainly because it gives us some insight into the future of the Manston site.

The main issue with Manson as an airport was and will be environmental, when Manston was functioning as an airport it failed to obtain an environmental permit (EP) from the environment agency. This was essentially because the various previous airport operators managed to avoid the expensive work that needed doing.

When the airport was up and running I didn’t really have any objections to it’s operation apart from this business of operating without an EP, my take being that airports should conform to safety standards set by government agencies.

Anyway it looks like the first stage will be an Environmental Impact Assessment and a local consultation, with the results being put to planning inspectorate some time around the end of the year.

Manston Airport bought by Ann Gloag

Interesting one this, I believe Ann Gloag Scotland’s richest woman and by all accounts no fool.

My take on the recent commercial history of Manston is that Infratil who are now selling the airport, just didn’t understand the logistics of southern England and viewed Manston’s distance to London and the M25 as though it was in the antipodes, where distances and airport logistics are completely different.

Obviously while Manston was the ideal site for a first world war airbase due to it’s proximity to Europe and the limited range of early aircraft, it doesn’t make an obvious air transport hub.

Since Manson was opened up for civil operations in April 1959 it has a history of different firms failing to run it as a profitable concern. I think the key here has been the airport’s catchment are, mostly sea and there being two major hub airports too close.

So why an astute UK billionaire would buy Manston which is currently loss making to the tune of millions a year, begs some interesting questions.

Will the current boss stay?

Is this the first sage in an asset stripping strategy?

Will the airport now become much busier?

For me the main question though is: Now the airport is in the hands of someone who wants it rather than someone who is trying to get rid of it, will they do the work agreed with The Environment Agency to make it environmentally compliant?

Any one a bit lost on that front, here is the post I did when they pulled out of getting an EP (environmental permit) http://thanetonline.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/kent-international-airport-at-manston_10.html

Kent International Airport at Manston to reduce environmental safeguards.

I think this is self explanatory.

As someone who either responded to our Environmental Permit (EP) application consultation or attended our public meeting in 2011, I thought it would be helpful to update you on our progress given that Infratil have recently put the airport up for sale.

The original EP application that we consulted on during 2010/11 was formally withdrawn by Infratil on 13 March 2012. However, Infratil have committed to providing us with a revised EP application which is more economically viable but still satisfies the key environmental risks posed at the airport from de-icers, etc that were covered in the original consultation.

Clearly, this is disappointing for us as a regulator, Infratil and the local community but I'm sure you will understand that global trading conditions for the aviation industry have changed dramatically since our original consultation period began.

In the interim, we are continuing to work with Infratil to offer advice and guidance on their revised EP application with a site meeting scheduled during April. We are also reviewing our regulatory enforcement options for the site given that the risks remain with or without a current EP in place.

Once the new application has been received we will go through a full public consultation and involve you and the local community.

Please feel free to share this information with your local community. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Regards.
Alan

Follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/EnvAgencySE
P Here at the Environment Agency we've used nearly a quarter less office paper compared to last year. The paper saved so far would build a stack as high as the Eiffel Tower. Please play your part - if you only need something once, avoid printing it

Kent International Airport Margate and despair at the grindings of government a day off ramble

The picture above is of a “joke, shop;” these are all too prevalent now in Margate, by a “joke, shop” as opposed to a joke shop, what I mean is the thing looks like a shop from the distance, but as you get closer you realise that the window display is just painted on and the shop itself is just an empty and abandoned building.

Don’t misunderstand me this isn’t a chance to get at Margate, we have a similar problem in Ramsgate, the only difference being that nothing has been done to make the empty shops a bit more cheerful in Ramsgate, so on the whole I think Margate scores better on this.

The rest of today’s pictures of Margate are here http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/netbook111/id4.htm it was bitterly cold with a biting wind off the sea and I had left my gloves behind, Peacock’s didn’t have any nor did Edinburgh Woollen Mill, so I gave up and nipped in and out of the other shops.

The art galleries are very difficult to comprehend from a commercial shop point of view, by this I mean; they are shops and they evidently have goods to sell, but how they could be commercially viable defeats me, perhaps it is something to do with grant funding.

I really am not very good at assessing modern art, so this is more a general assessment related to my understanding of the retail world and most of it is about scale.

The problem really is that the galleries and arts related shops are just far too small, which to my mind means too much staffing relative to goods for sale, this is about having enough space, to have enough stock, to keep the staff occupied selling it.

It’s a similar problem with the Turner Contemporary, which just isn’t big enough to provide enough art works for people to look at for long enough, the problem is a simple one and relates to someone getting a worthwhile day out.

Take, for example someone in the middle of Kent, wanting to go somewhere to look at art, they have the option of taking the train to Margate or to London, the cost will be about the same, the choice though is spending the day doing, The Tate, The National, The National Portrait, The RA, Somerset House, The Wallace collection, Hayward Gallery, Whitechapel Gallery, Guildhall Gallery, Serpentine Gallery, Dulwich Picture Gallery, Saatchi Galleries, Barbican Gallery……….I could go on but I expect you get the picture, incidently many of the London galleries have free entrance. Or you could go to Margate and Look at the Turner Contemporary.

After going to Margate I came back to Ramsgate to visit the drop in session about Kent International Airport, I found this very beneficial and learnt a lot about environmental issues relating to the airport.

The sad and embarrassing thing was the way the publicity surrounding the meeting just failed, the EA press releases were too late for the local papers and although the EA informed TDC, TDC didn’t publicise the event on their website or issue a press release, so hardly any members of the public turned up.

I suppose combined days wages for the EA officers and the airport operator’s representatives and their travel costs must have been well in excess of £1,000 and for the three hours I was there, there was at least one and often more of these people available to discuss the issues exclusively with me.

The situation with the airport drainage system is one of work underway, the main interceptor hole is dug out and most of the pipework around the hard standing at the airport has been inspected and repaired where necessary.

The airport’s engineers and the EA have come up with a reasonably effective system to drain the hard standing, runway, aprons and car parking into the sea at Pegwell Bay, that when it is completed should prevent spillages on the hard standing from contaminating Pegwell Bay.

I spent much of the time chatting to the airport’s engineer, as we both had information of interest to each other to exchange and I feel I have a much better picture of the weaknesses in the antipollution strategy and the ongoing viability of the airport.

I also had a series of discussions with the senior EA officers there and while I am convinced that their ongoing efforts to improve the state of the Thanet aquifer are going in the right direction, my motive was to get them to consider the medium to long term water replenishment issue.

By this I mean getting the EA to consider how much more of Thanet can be concreted over, so that industry and developers can plan ahead.

Anyway while I assimilate what I have learnt, here are a couple interesting engineering anecdotes about recent environmental investigation at Manston, as they say you couldn’t make it up.

The main noise monitor was first located next to a school playground, when the children came out to play the noise they made sent the monitor right up to the jumbo jet end of the scale, so it had to moved.

The water drainage pipe between the airport and Pegwell Bay is a huge thing, nearly big enough to stand up inside, it runs through porous chalk and is made out of joined concrete sections. I would say there is about as much chance of making it water tight as there is of getting a pig to fly.

It runs through public and private land and some of the inspection covers are in private gardens and is known to have been illegally tapped into in numerous places, it has also been legally tapped by KCC for road drainage, due to a loophole in environmental law that has now been closed.

There is normally a steady trickle coming out of the Pegwell end, to which poring thousands of litres of water in at the Manston end makes no appreciable difference to, however while monitoring Pegwell end it was noticed that apart from the water coming out of the pipe, there was also an appreciable amount of garden waste coming out a well.

I will probably ramble on about what I learnt at the session, later on.

Royal Sands Development Ramsgate, what are you drinking, the water or the wave?

As those of you that read this blog will know I have been very tied up with Pleasurama this week, I suppose the most depressing part of that being that there is really no regulatory body to turn to.

Before my five year long experience with Pleasurama, I had assumed that in this country, if one could provide reasonable evidence that some major project was potentially dangerous to human life, one just wrote to ones MP or local government representative and they would at the very least check what one was saying and if necessary get some experts to investigate what one was saying.

Now after god alone knows how many emails phone calls and the like, here I sit, totally bemused.

The dangerous cliff has been investigated and found to be dangerous, some work has been done to it that appears to have got it from a state where it needs safety rails round it to protect the public, to a state where it conforms to the local norm i.e. it just needs a don’t sit under the cliff sign.

What I haven’t been able to get is a qualified professional to answer the question, how close is it safe to build a residential development to it?

After questions about the flood risk, that I eventually had to take as far as the Local Government Ombudsman, I finally managed to get the Environment Agency to report on the situation.

Yes they concurred with me that there was a serious risk to the people inside the building from a tidal surge storm, but no they couldn’t make either the local council or the developer implement their safety recommendations.

Now please understand here, I am not saying that the building shouldn’t be built because my vague notions as an amateur engineer consider it may be dangerous. What I am saying is that in the light of two reports by qualified experts, employed by government to ensure that the development will be safe, raising concerns about two aspects of the development being potentially dangerous, these concerns should be investigated before more work is done on the site and more money is wasted.

Some quotes from the EA report with a few notes:

“we don't have sufficient information to confirm whether or not the site is vulnerable to waves of a much greater height and if so, if this could undermine the structural integrity of the proposed buildings.”

I take this to mean that they believe some sort of investigation should be made to work out if the building will fall down in a storm, trapping the people inside.

“We are certainly disappointed that access from the development to the top of the cliff, which we believe to have been in the original layout, has since been removed. In the event of the esplanade being impassable, access from the cliff-top would ensure a safe dry route to and from the residential units. As the proposal stands, a serious flood could potentially leave resident' stranded in their homes without a safe means of escape, for the duration of the event,”

I take this to mean, we thought the plans you sent us had some sort of escape for the people to get out if the building starts to fall down in a storm.

“Areas immediately behind defences lie in the High Risk Rapid Inundation Zone (RIZ) and are particularly vulnerable due to the risk of the defences being over-topped or breached, resulting in fast-flowing and potentially deep water with little or no warning.”

This one can be taken several ways, we recommend that all residents are good swimmers could be one, I am not certain that even a good swimmer would want to wake up in fast-flowing and potentially deep water though.

“whilst we accept that this development already has planning permission, we would highly recommend that a full FRA is undertaken which could inform appropriate resilience and resistance measures.”

I take this to mean, we can’t make you get a flood risk assessment but it would be stupid no to.

I suppose with all of this interpreting other people’s signals there will always be a sense in which one is trying to work out whether they are waving or drowning.

Airport noise pollution and Steve Ladyman, is he missing the main point?

I see that our MP Steve Ladyman has entered the local internet Kent International Airport debate with an online survey click on the link to take part http://www.stephenladyman.info/ you have to scroll down the page a bit to find the survey.

I must admit to wondering if he is asking the right questions here with the Stour estuary coming up on the BBC news website as one of the most polluted in Europe see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8267686.stm the map above comes from the article.

An interesting point on internet copyright here as I haven’t copied the map but just pointed the blog to show it from where it is hosted on the BBC website, does this constitute an infringement of their copyright?

When people do this to me without asking I am inclined to change the image to The Lacedaemonian Ambasadors, although obviously a very rude Illustration it was done by Aubrey Beardsley for the 1896 edition of Lysistrata by Aristophanes so it is a bit difficult to criticise.

Sorry I digress, the latest figures from the Environment Agency show the River Stour to be one of the most polluted in Europe this is one source for our drinking and agricultural water needs and it flows into the internationally acclaimed wetland Pegwell Bay.

Kent International Airport is on top of another of our drinking water sources, the underground aquifer and drainage, that doesn’t comply with the most basic safety standards, from the airport flows into Pegwell Bay.

The problem here is that the airport doesn’t comply with the Environment Agency’s water pollution requirements click on the links for a few documents that confirm what I am saying here.

http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/drink/id53.htm

http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/drink/id52.htm

http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/drink/index.htm

My concern here is that we are meandering into a situation where badly regulated airport expansion combined with the multitude of other pollution problems here in Thanet could lead to an incident that could both put a considerable strain on out drinking water supply and make local agriculture including Thanet Earth a thing of the past.

Perhaps the question we should all be addressing is; should airport operation be allowed at all, until the airport conforms with basic environmental safeguards that the Environment Agency have been asking for, for a number of years.

Now I know noise at night is a serious concern although since the changes in the licensing of pubs and takeaways I can’t see that things could be much worse for us poor devils that have to live in the town centres. If you need any confirmation that our environment is now pretty much uninhabitable at night wander down Queen Street in Ramsgate, where you will see about 10 broken shop windows caused yet another bout of noisy and antisocial behaviour in the early hours of the morning.

Surely though the most important issue here is sustainable agriculture, fisheries and water supply, this issue should be our foremost priority when considering the airport and other commercial activities.

I find it hard to believe that the large and serious businesses that we so desperately need to invest in Thanet would even look at us twice while basic safety issues in the area have such a low priority.

Sunday Ramble Thanet’s water supply, Pleasurama and the Environment Agency

An interesting presentation from the Environment Agency on Thanet’s water supply, I have done my best to publish it on the web, it didn’t convert easily from the file format it came in.

I recommend that you copy it if you want to be able to access it in the future as I am not certain that I am strictly allowed to publish it for copyright reasons so may have to remove it.

It is interesting as much for what it does mention as what it doesn’t, the links down the side take you to the various pages.

I was surprised that it doesn’t appear on the council website, well maybe not so surprised as the council seem quite happy to ignore EA recommendations for Pleasurama.

I was wondering if the cabinet decided to continue with the Pleasurama development because council officers gave them the wrong advice.

This is a quote from a council officer in a Your Thanet article:

“The letter from the EA states that, although standards have changed, they are not requesting a flood risk assessment.”

This is a quote from the environment agency letter:

“we would highly recommend that a full FRA is undertaken which could inform appropriate resilience and resistance measures. The assessment could also inform the production of a suitable flood warning and evacuation plan, for both the residential and commercial parts of the development.”

It does beg the question if a council officer is prepared to be economical with the truth over environmental safety issues with the press, how much confidence should we put in their assurances.

I notice Simon Moores is calling for more incisive and accurate journalism locally on his blog and too find my self tempted to criticise the local press for not waving the letter under the officers nose and asking her to interpret it.

The trouble is that I know in many cases they are between a rock and a hard place with many local issues, firstly they don’t have the resources that local papers used to have and secondly there are many restrictions placed on who they can ask what and thirdly the council and local businesses involved in local issues are a source of advertising revenue.

As I write there is a interview with some ordinary Chinese people on the television about pollution in China in the middle of the interview the a communist party representative turned up and stopped the interview.

It is very hard to have much confidence in government at the moment, the latest byword being redacted.

I do wonder where we are going with government in this country, because of the first past the post system anyone wishing to stand for election and get anywhere at all has to join one of our tired old parties now proven to be much more corrupt than we previously thought.

There is something saddening about Gordon Brown promising reform and then the government publishing the redacted expenses documents, it certainly points The Daily Telegraph with the clean documents to where to look.

In the Eye on China Gateway and the leak

I was a bit tied up yesterday half term and so on, so am just catching up this morning, Thanet again features in Private Eye’s rotten boroughs, the China Gateway decision and the Cyclohexanone leak feature.

My stance now is that there is sufficient evidence that putting a very dense industrial development on the source protection zones is just too risky, we can do without China Gateway but we can’t do without the water supply, or risk poisoning people.

I am hoping that the environment agency can be persuaded to review the safeguards, the Cyclohexanone leak was much more to do with the sort of thing that just happens on industrial estates than about the way industry is regulated on the underground water reservoir.

I have worked in several local factories as an engineer and at the time I had no idea that I was on top of the drinking water aquifer, and doubt that the hundreds of engineers coming and going on the site, once it is built, would all know that any spillage there would go into the water supply.

I have severe reservations about the environment agency’s competence there was all that business over not having the resources to read the China Gateway plans properly.

Then they said. “There is thought to be some control over the quality of water used for irrigation and crop washing, although this is not regulated by the Environment Agency.”

Their decision not to maintain the north Wantsum sea defences in 1953 we lost miles of railway and had the Thanet Way been there that would have gone too, this is all based on an actual sea level rise of less than 10mm they seem to have decided that if global warming won't cause a catastrophe yet they will make it happen anyway.

Pollution Maps

I have to admit to still being immersed in trying to properly understand the implications of various local pollution incidents, some of my dealings with both the environment agency and Thanet district council have left me feeling somewhat less confident than I would like to be that we are being properly protected.

In the case of the environment agency, I was particularly concerned when they told me that they hadn’t the resources to read the China Gateway surface drainage report thoroughly. I was also very concerned when they said. “There is thought to be some control over the quality of water used for irrigation and crop washing, although this is not regulated by the Environment Agency.”

With the council I am very concerned that they seem to have a weak attitude to public safety, combined with a desire to conceal matters from us that could effect our safety.

For those of you interested in pollution issues the environment agency have a series of pages where you can enter your postcode to find out the situation near where you live.

Click here to go there

Getting information out of the Environment Agency

Malcolm dropped in the shop to tell me that he has an unfulfilled freedom of information request dating back to February, makes one wonder what they mean by some time or due course.

Click here for their letter

What is the most serious issue in Thanet?

The answer here is undoubtedly the decision to not hold the line of the north Wantsum sea defences, the problem here being that people forget what happens when we have a serious tidal surge storm.

In the map above, click here to enlarge, the grey area shows the Wantsum channel and the area that the sea would eventually reclaim without these defences.

Having recently published a book on our local railways I am more inclined to be interested in the other local railway books, so I was interested to read today that during the 1953 storm the railway and the land around it was simply washed away, thousands of tons of chalk had to be brought in to fill the land and the sea defences were rebuilt to a higher standard, the railway was closed for five months.

Now the environment agency the same people who don’t seem to be protecting our environment to 1995 standards have recommended letting these sea defences be left unmaintained until the sea washes them away.

The picture shows the work of replacing the land between Reculver and Bichington click here to enlarge it

Environmental considerations

Here in Thanet there are three big environmental issues, the biggest being the decision not to hold the line on the north coast Wantsum sea defences, followed by a relaxation of the regulations that protect our drinking water supplies and relatively minor in comparison the Pleasurama development.

The first could quite literally wipe a large part of southeast Kent off the map, the second could result in poisoning of our drinking water supply and the third over a thousand people being trapped between the sea and the cliff in a collapsing building.

These are all worst-case scenarios and of course with all of these issues one of my concerns is that I have misunderstood something and am engaged in unnecessary scaremongering.

For the most part all of the issues are controlled by the environment agency and until I became involved in them, I had reasonable confidence that they knew what they were doing.

Now with the China gateway development, the environment agency officer in charge of the case has admitted to me in writing, that he hadn’t read the planning application properly.

“Regrettably the level of resourcing available to assess the flood risk implications of planning applications does not permit the scrutiny of all 271 pages of the flood risk assessment appendices”

As this came from a civil servant, and they don’t normally admit things like that in writing to a member of the public, I take it as a clear signal that something has gone very wrong, it begs a very important question, which is.

“Are the officers making decisions of huge environmental impact on our future, properly qualified and resourced?”

The picture of Ramsgate harbour wall, which is made of granite and is at a higher level above sea level than Pleasurama is an indicator of what happens when we get an easterly gale combined with a high tide.

How to make friends and influence people

Malcolm has sent me some interesting correspondence he is having with the Environment Agency that leads me to believe they may not always be, creating a better place, like it says on their logo.

They have believe it or not refused point blank two answer 8 of his 10 reasonable questions about local pollution and said the want £100 and an unreasonable ammout of time to answer the others.

Click here to read it

Something Nasty still in the water

I was quite surprised to read in yesterdays Gazette that the developers of the China Gateway intend to ignore the Environment Agency and allow the Chinese to be responsible for treating their own sewage, chemical and industrial waste. It is their intention then to pour the water that they get from their cesspits into our drinking water reservoir.

I am afraid that a lot of the blame for this appears to belong to the council and a remarkable lack of local knowledge on their part, I think the story goes like this.

When the Thanet end of the A299 was made into a duel carriageway some bright spark at the council thought it would be a good idea to earmark the farmland near the end of it for an industrial estate, because of the good road connections.

What no one noticed at the time was that it is also right on top of the underground drinking water reservoir, the big problem now is that the council would have to admit to making a mistake or we shall have the equivalent of a factory ship floating around in our drinking water, with at best a few regulations saying don’t throw anything over the side.

Click here to read what the environment agency has to say

Pleasurama where do we go from here

Pleasurama is the largest development in the Thanet towns at a Quarter of a kilometre in length it dwarfs projects like the Turner Centre. Now my fears over the safety of the project needing thorough investigation have been confirmed by The Environment Agency, I have to consider what action to take next.

Obviously to stand back while the equivalent of the Titanic without lifeboats is built on my doorstep is not an option. It would seem highly likely that a flood risk assessment will recommend that the building will need to be on a higher sea defence, set well back from the seaward edge with pedestrian escapes to the cliff top.

There are two obvious factors here, the first being that there is no space between a higher sea defence and the cliff top for the proposed 5 story building, second that if there are going to be escapes to the cliff top that go through the cliff these ought to be made as part of the work that is being undertaken on the cliff at the moment.

I consider it highly unlikely that the builder Knight Developments a subsidiary of the Knight Group both companies of good track record will ignore the recommendations of the Environment Agency report, however they are at the moment building a roundabout for busses to turn at the end of a road where it appears very dangerous to take a bus.

Now at the moment money is being poured into the project, much of which is coming from TDC however because there doesn’t appear to be anyone in overall charge of the project, it is likely that much of this money is not being wisely spent.

It would seem that the whole project will have to be reconsidered and in all probability the building redesigned and yet at the moment the infrastructure is still being built at what is almost certainly the wrong height above sea level.

Pleasurama Environment Agency report

During my ongoing discussions about Pleasurama I have today received the Environment Agency’s report to Thanet District Council from the Local Government Ombudsman.

From the rest of the correspondence I gather that this report is now in the public domain, so I have run it through the OCR removed the officer’s names and published it for you all to read.

It would seem to me to be unlikely in view of the report that the builder will be prepared to go ahead with the development without a Flood Risk Assessment.

I quote from the report, “if we were to receive a similar application under the current guidelines, we would require a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) to identify the risk, look at flood resilient construction and address the issue of safe, dry access. Without this information it is difficult to determine whether the development can be considered “safe” (PPS25 09 The Exception Test).”

Click here to read the rest of it