Ramsgate slipways, horrible heritage asbestos sheds, Mike Samson Harbour Street Wall and Piece, bonkers aspects of bookselling and publishing, a ramble from the bookshop.

The remainder of the winch houses for the WW2 slipways are being demolished at the moment. These were once petrol engined winches, replaced I think in 70s with electric motors. My understanding is that the winch gearboxes date from WW2, I would doubt the winch houses do as if the winches were housed it would have probably been corrugated iron and not asbestos.

The winches are being retained, I understand, one for back up on the main slipway and the other for one of the WW2 slipways, which will be usable after the demolition and rebuilding.

I am very much behind The Hornby Hobby Visitor Centre being built on this site, it is just the sort of tourist attraction that Ramsgate needs.

I do however have some reservations, one being that there seems to be no clear understanding about whether workshops and office buildings are going to be built so the slipways can operate again, the other being the recent financial problems that Hornby have had.

I am not sure of the planning status of the bar complex that was going to be built there, only that the plans for it seemed too low from a storm and tide point of view, something that was addressed in the visitor centre plans.

I have posted about the slipways development before and if you haven’t been following the issue here is the link to my previous posts, which should help you to access planning documents and mock up pictures of the various proposals http://thanetonline.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Ramsgate%20slipways%20development 

On to our very own Banksey and our Wall and Peace, Mike Sampson who runs York Street Gallery and is doing one of his famous Ramsgate cartoon letterbox paintings, actually as it’s around fifty feet long and eight feet high, letterbox format may be an understatement.

Rather him than me, good on you Mike.

On the bookselling front, it may surprise non book collectors to know that book collectors and booksellers are quite fussy about the condition of collectable books, first editions and the like. Booksellers of the secondhand and antiquarian type also become rather fussy.

I will use my favourite novel to explain what I mean, The Magus by John Fowles, here is the link to copies of first editions of it available for sale today http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?bi=0&bx=off&dj=on&ds=30&fe=on&pn=cape&recentlyadded=all&sortby=17&sts=t&tn=magus

A fine condition first edition is worth about £200 the only difference in the book between the first edition and the second impression is the line, Second Impression June 1966.

The dustwrapper of the second impression has reviews printed on the inner flap which weren’t available for the first edition as the critics hadn’t been able to read it because it hadn’t been published.

So this £200 is for a fine copy, write your name in it, or anything else for that matter and the value would be reduce to around £100, clip the price off the dustwrapper and that would reduce the value by about half, as would tearing the dust wrapper.

Slap a horrible sticky label on it and a paper conservationist may be able to get it off, something which would cost about £100 and you would probably still get some sort of mark.

Waterstones the chain booksellers have been trying to enter the secondhand, antiquarian and collectable book world, this is one of the results.

Large publishers can do some pretty bonkers things too, imagine studying Bertolt Brecht and being told to get a copy of Methuen Plays Three, one has completely different plays in it to the other. 

Back to Ramsgate where the Pleasurama cliff façade paint is still falling off, what can you say? Obviously water is getting behind the façade, not something I would like to live under.

Finally apologies for not that much in the way of blog posting at the moment, I have been busy in my bookshop mostly managing incoming stock, this lot got processed today http://michaelsbookshop.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/a-small-selection-of-fiction-arrives-in.html

The increased activity is mostly down to the main online bookselling sites having shot themselves in their feet. So that while on the one had most books appear to be for sale online for less than or around the cost of posting them, meaning it is very difficult to sell books online. While on the other hand when you actually go to buy a secondhand book online most of the cheap copies seem to be for sale from seller that have less than 98% good feedback, making difficult to buy online.

This situation means that I am buying and selling quite a lot more books at the moment, so don’t have a lot of time to blog.   

   

Ramsgate Slipways Development update

First my email to TDC in blue and the reply in red

To customer.services customer.services@thanet.gov.uk, cllr-chris.wells cllr-chris.wells@thanet.gov.uk, cllr-iris.johnston cllr-iris.johnston@thanet.gov.uk, cllr-robert.bayford cllr-robert.bayford@thanet.gov.uk

Hi I have looked at the new planning application for the Hornby Visitor Centre on the slipways in Ramsgate and while I am happy with the development there and don’t wish to object to it I can’t find any sign of replacement buildings to operate the slipways on the plans.

Could you please tell me the following.

1 Will the temporary building housing the slipways workshop be replaced with something and if so what?

2 Where will the offices for the slipways boat repair business be?

3 Will all of the replacement buildings the be of the same spec building materials design and so on as the new visitor centre?   

Michael

Dear Mr. Child,

My practice submitted the visitor centre application at this important site and I have now received a request from the TDC caseofficer to respond directly to the queries you raise in your e mail dated 23 December 2015 ( you will see I have copied this e mail to Mrs Fibbens).  I welcome your general support to the scheme and hope the following information addresses the questions you have raised. 

The intention is for the extant permission which included the slipway building (restaurant), slipway office/commercial building and conversion of the existing winch room to a fish stall to remain 'live' through the current applications to discharge and vary the relevant conditions. They would be implemented in accordance with the specification as shown on the already approved plans & details.

Subject to the approval of the current conditions applications, the other elements I.e the slipway office/commercial building & winch room etc. would remain implementable through the existing extant permission. 

If approved, the proposed visitor centre building would essentially 'substitute' the permitted restaurant building. The current visitor centre application, once implemented, would in no way impede the functioning of slipways 1 or 3. 

Alternatively, the development of buildings and structures ancillary to the function of the working slipways may be the subject of future application(s) - however this currently falls outside the scope of the current visitor centre application.

I trust this clarifies the position.


Regards

Alister Hume

With this one my concern is that without any provision for workshops or offices related to the boat repair business on the slipways we we wind up without viable slipways.

There is a rumour that TDC intend to build some other boat repair facility on the other side of the harbour or in the port.

Post picture Ramsgate in 1791 click on it to expand it

Planning Changes, Ramsgate Harbour Slipways to accommodate Hornby Hobbies Visitor Centre.

Above is the nearest I can get to a comparison between the old approved application and the new one which is in the hands of TDC awaiting planning consent or refusal.

The artist's impressions seem ok the main thing that concerned me about the previous one was that it was a bit on the low side from the flood and storm perspective, this time it's been moved up to comply with the flood risk assessment.

The planning application can be found here https://planning.thanet.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=NY26OHQEGXL00 I haven't had a chance to read it so haven't got anything much to say, apart from I can't find where the shipyard workshop is on the new plan.

Huge Corrugated Iron Shed appears in front of the Ramsgate Mayor's Parlour, Roger Gale sings a strange song over Manston and a ramble.

I assume that most readers are familiar with the new plans for the new Hornby Visitor Centre on the slipways at Ramsgate, which we were told would all be a very tasteful building in the late Victorian or Any Edwardian style.

Much of this came about because members of the previous Labour town council members didn't like the view of the working slipways from their rather palatial accommodation upstairs in The Custom House.

I think the thing that they liked the least were the corrugated sheds, which have just been demolished, so you can imagine my surprise at seeing a huge corrugated shed being built right in front of the windows of The Mayor’s Parlour.

Here is the view from the mayor’s window

and here are the mockups on the mayor’s table of the attractive buildings he or she, depending on when expected to see being built there.

I asked the chaps building the shed if it was a temporary building while the new one is being built and they said no it’s a permanent structure.

I tried to speak to the planning officer at TDC who is dealing with this application but he was in a meeting and will call me back.

I think the alternatives are.

1 This is a temporary structure.

2 That the council has made a mistake and passed plans for something totally unsuitable for the site.

3 It is being built illegally.

On to the Manston, TDC cpo meltdown, I was going to write a blog post about this yesterday and what with the council considering taking legal action against MP Sir Roger Gale and having received some fairly stiff legal letters from the council over Pleasurama, I thought I ought to speak to a council officer first. So I phoned the council and asked to speak to an officer about the Manston cpo issue, the answer I got I have to admit astonished me. The officer on the council switchboard said they are no longer allowed to pass on calls about Manston to officers. I then asked to be put through to the council’s legal department and was told firmly no. After being moderately firm I was told they would arrange for someone to call me back, which hasn’t happened yet.  

I tried again today and the situation seems to advanced to the point where the council now put you through to an officer specially delegated to tell you that the council won’t talk about Manston.

Well the local media and social media are overflowing with the Manston issue, so I have selected what I think is the most unusual comment from the most experienced local politician, it’s in the form of an email thread and I have redacted Sir Roger’s constituent’s name.

“From: ***

Sent: 05 October 2015 11:32

To: GALE, Roger

Subject: Tony Freudmann

Dear Sir Roger,

I understand that you have known Mr Freudmann for some years.

I understand that in October 1993, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ordered that he be "struck from the roll" for misappropriating client funds.

When were you first aware that Mr Freudmann had been struck off the solicitor's roll?

Best regards,

***

***,

Herne Bay

________________________________________

On 5 Oct 2015 9:03 pm, "GALE, Roger" wrote:

Yes

.I am also aware of the facts behind this case.

You, clearly, are not.

RG

________________________________________

From:****

Sent: 06 October 2015 08:35

To: GALE, Roger

Subject: RE: Tony Freudmann

Dear Sir Roger,

I am grateful for your swift reply, but it does not address my original question: when were you first aware that Mr Freudmann had been struck off the solicitor's roll?

Best regards,

*****

________________________________________

On 6 October 2015 at 19:53, GALE, Roger wrote:

Mr ****,

Mr Freudmann`s record was considered at the time of his earlier involvement with Manston and was public knowledge. I am surprised that you appear to be unaware of this.

Sir Roger Gale MP

________________________________________

From: ****

Sent: 07 October 2015 09:29

To: GALE, Roger

Subject: Re: Tony Freudmann

Dear Sir Roger,

Once again I am grateful for your reply, but once again it does not answer my question. To repeat and clarify:

When were *you* first aware that Mr Freudmann had been struck off the solicitor's roll?

Best regards,

*****

________________________________________

GALE, Roger

10:23 (1 hour ago)

Reply

to me

Mr. ****

As I have already told you – and in concluding this futile correspondence – at the time when Mr. Freudmann was first involved in Manston: I cannot put a date on it but it was years ago.

For the record – as you clearly have the time to chase up blind alleys – Mr. Freudmann is not a Director of RiverOak and the project is being managed by one of their senior Directors.

Sir Roger Gale MP”

So Sir Roger who also seems to represent or be related in some way, to RiverOak, the American hedge fund trying to acquire the Manston site seems to be saying That the man who appears on both RiverOak’s websites http://www.riveroakic.com/about.html as the Managing Director isn’t actually a director.

This is Thanet and when it comes to our local politics where UKIP have just lost overall control of TDC, you couldn't make it up, if it was fiction it wouldn’t be... Oh I’m lost for words.

28 UKIP councillors and 28 others, and as the chairman has a casting vote on some issues perhaps lost control is an overstatement

On my bookshop blog http://michaelsbookshop.blogspot.co.uk/ you can see the books going out on the shelves everyday in Ramsgate, which is an indicator of what local peole are reading, I have been looking at this blog trying to work out if it has something to do with our bizarre tastes in litrature, that throws up such perculiarites in our local politics.

I should stress here that his is what they are building and not knocking down.

Update, I think everyone will be pleased to know that the developer has just popped into my bookshop and has assured me that this corrugated shed is just a temporary structure to keep the slipways running while the development is built.

He said he will send me the drawings of the new slipways workshop tomorrow, when he sees the architect.

Nearly forgot, letter of the week.

And the reply

From: GALE, Roger Sent: 13 October 2015 07:30 To: 'madeline.homer@thanet.gov.uk' Cc: 'victoria.williama@thanet.gov.uk'; 'cllr-Chris.Wells@thanet.gov.uk' Subject: FW: Letter from Madeline Homer, Chief Executive - Thanet District Council
Madam, I acknowledge receipt of your attached communication and have noted your comments. I stand by my observations which are neither defamatory nor libellous.
You appear to need to be reminded that I have been elected to represent, promote and protect the interests of my constituents and I shall continue to do so without fear or favour at every level of government.
Noting that you have chosen to release your own e-mail publicly and that comment indicates that I have not responded I am making this communication, also, publicly available.
Yours, etc. Sir Roger Gale MP


I have just taken the picture below from the council's planning website

Broadstairs pen and watercolour sketch and minor ramble.

Here is the sketch of Broadstairs High Street

And a photo for budding art critics, in this instance the architecture fascinated me.

In Ramsgate McDonald’s is to become The Fabric Shop, Morrisons in Ramsgate is to become a My Local supermarket, work is well underway demolishing the slipways buildings in Ramsgate, this is to become a smaller boat repair yard and the Hornby visitor centre.

The Pleasurama cliff repairs are still ongoing and I still can’t see how they could be finished on time. Just how this will affect the development agreement I don’t know, but my guess is there will be more delays.

Ramsgate Slipways Development New Plans Submitted

As you see once again something that looks like a mock Victorian railway building, I think the architect must have spent a long time playing with trains when he was a child.

It never rains but it pours when blogging Ramsgate news, nothing for ages and then the Great Wall post and the slipways one on the same day.

The plans, such as they are, no mock up pictures this time, only very basic drawings are on the UK Planning website that TDC use, it is a dreadful site and I can’t link to the pages on it as the web addresses change after a few hours.

To view the plans you will need to copy the planning reference 13/0595 then go to the planning website at http://www.ukplanning.com/thanet and put it into the right search box there.

The application contains a new flood risk assessment which as it is adjacent has some interesting implications for The Royal Sands.    

I objected to the two previous applications on this site, mostly on the grounds that the flood risk assessment was flawed, working through this type of assessment takes ages and I don’t know that I will have time this time around. At the moment I don’t know if the assessment is ok, the key here with this development before was that part of it was in the form of a pier, so there was no wave dissipation and there was also the added complication of buoyant objects getting under it. Further to this is the fact that Ramsgate Harbour Wall is periodically breeched and partially demolished by the sea, this last happened about forty years ago and as the waves shift the 2.5 ton granite blocks that the wall is made of, it can be interesting.

My underlying concern is that once the slipways are compromised by the inclusion of a restaurant the viability of Ramsgate as a working harbour may be compromised.      

Ramsgate slipways development turned down by council.

The planning reference is F/TH/11/0874 you need to go to the uk planning website http://www.ukplanning.com/thanet and put it into the search box if you want to view the council’s decision and report. 


I would think the underlying problem here is that a bar and restaurant complex on the site is always going to be more profitable to the leaseholder than a boat repair business.   


The problem for the council is I believe that the harbour - and it is important here it understand that the council derives a six figure income from the harbour - needs certain facilities to operate, the slipways being one of these facilities. Rather in the same way that the harbour needs an entrance to the sea to operate. Of course it would be much easier to run if it had no entrance to the sea, there would be no dredging problem, no problems with vessels and so on.    

Ramsgate harbour Slipways Plans, nice railway shed shame about the waves.

This is one of those last chance to have your say things, it relates to the well known local developer, who has recently been responsible for the restoration of the Custom House and the Marina Restaurant, both very attractive and viable developments.

The Custom House is now the home to Ramsgate Town Council and because of the way this has been arranged, the subletting of the other parts of the building mean that the parts used by the council are effectively rent free.

Commercially the difficulty with the slipways partly relates to their commercial viability and partly to the commercial viability of Ramsgate Harbour without slipways.

The slipway operators take on this, being that only slipway No1 is commercially viable, this viability is partly related to the rent and rates for the site, the rent being set by TDC and the rates by the Inland Revenue.

Slipway 4 is really just a bit of sloping concrete with a trolley on it that leads into the workshops and has really been replaced by the TDC owned lifting cradle, in fact the lifting cradle means that much of the work on the smaller craft can be done without the slipways, so the cradles very existence renders the whole slipway operation less viable.

Slipway 2’s cradle (the bit that goes up and down on the rails) was condemned by TDC a couple of years ago and hasn’t been replaced.

The TDC owned lifting cradle (don't get your cradles muddled or you bring up the wrong baby) near the harbour gates has limitations, both in terms of weight and in terms of the beam (width) of the vessels that can use it.

Slipway 3 has mostly been used for the windfarms catamarans (wide twin hulled vessels) during the last couple of years. These are both to wide and too heavy for the lifting cradle.

Slipway 1 has to stay whatever happens as it is a heritage lump, a listed Victorian slipway. Slipway one is mostly used for much larger vessels, often for replating and when a vessel is on slipway one (one has been stuck on it for about the last 3 months awaiting parts) the only way to get the windfarm vessels out of the water, for repairs and maintenance is to use slipway 3.

The overall commercial viability of the harbour is a difficult one, it seems to have an income from mooring and port fees in the multimillion pound a year bracket and harbour maintenance appears to have been fairly minimal over the past few years.

I am no accountant, so I can’t extrapolate what actual income TDC receive from the harbour, but assume it is a fair amount.

Part of the problem here is that TDC haven’t yet produced their harbour master plan, so it is difficult to tell how vital the slipways are to the overall long-term commercial viability of the harbour.

Most especially this relates to the windfarm vessels, it is unclear just how vital the long term use of the slipways is to the windfarm operators, obviously it would detrimental to TDC’s income if they took their operation elsewhere.  

Another factor with the windfarm vessels is that they are new and still under warranty, so the work on them is mostly done by firms from outside the area, this means that there is very little to be derived, in the way of income, for the slipway operator for letting them use the slipways.   

Anyway what happened was that the developer bought half of the lease from the slipways operator for £90,000 and TDC issued a separate split lease to him, roughly covering the area for slipways 2 to 4.

There is an added problem here, which is did TDC issue the lease with the full knowledge that the developer wanted to use the site as a bar and restaurant complex? Meaning that if TDC try to enforce the terms of the lease i.e. that the site be used for ship repairs, could this be open to a legal dispute?

One last thing on the lease, which is that I think when it was issued officers omitted the side access to the maritime museum, which if this was just a mistake, could lead to more delays in granting the maritime museum lease.

That was the background, so now onto the planning applications, the first application was for the modern brightly coloured development in the picture.

Apart from all of the problems mentioned above, for me the main problem was the flood risk assessment presented with these plans.

This flood risk assessment had various flaws the most glaring of which was that the flood risk assessor had made an error and confused Mean High Tide with Maximum High Tide.

Whatever the financial implications of the development, it was obvious that a building, inhabited parts of which would definitely flood, was a non starter, so my main objection to the first development was on the grounds that the flood risk assessment was wrong.

One of the factors with planning applications is that if they get turned down, then you have a limited time in which to reapply before you have to start all over again and pay the planning fee again, this can be several thousand pounds.  

So I think there was a bit of a rush getting this one in, when I looked at the application I soon realised that they had used the faulty flood risk assessment that had been a major factor in the council’s turning down of the previous plans.

Something important to understand with flood risk assessments and the business of building on the foreshore is that the sea has waves, so you have to make an allowance for what the Environment Agency call RIZ, they explain this in their letter to the council about the Pleasurama development, click on the link to read it http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/ea/

Usually design of this sort of development design revolves around two factors, the height of the sea defence in front of it, relative to the maximum high tide, and the distance that it is behind the sea defence to allow for wave dissipation.

Both of the applications for building on the slipways involve building part of the new development on a small pier above the sea, so there will be no wave dissipation, plus the added problem of any floating objects getting trapped below the development and being impacted into the bottom of the development by wave action.

Now the latest development the one that looks like an Edwardian railway shed, was designed by one of the senior planning officers who has just left the council, so you would have assumed that he would have known about this.

In fact I am very surprised that he has put the cart before the horse in this way, the normal approach, I would have thought, would be to do the flood risk assessment first and then design the building to be safe within the constraints of the existing environment. 

Anyway when I went to object to this development based mostly on the fact that the flood risk assessment was wrong, I spoke to the officer in charge of the application, who said that the wrong flood risk assessment had been submitted and I could delay my objection until he let me know that the right assessment had been submitted and I had had a chance to check it was ok.

I also had a chat with the developer, who said pretty much the same and that the assessment would be with the council in few days. Much more than a few days passed and so I contacted the officer in charge of the application.

He said that the new flood risk assessment still hadn’t been submitted and as time is running out on this one, I would need to object in the next few days, based on the existing, wrong assessment.

So if you want to comment on this one, you had better be quick.

The main planning reference is L/TH/11/0875 the council’s planning website is http://www.ukplanning.com/thanet

The council’s planning website is a strange place and there seems to be pretty much the same application filed under the ref F/TH/11/0874 I can’t link to the plans as unlike normal websites the web address of the page the plans are on doesn’t stay the same.

The first applications relating to the previous brightly coloured development are: The one to demolish the slipways workshops winding houses etc L/TH/10/0736 and the development F/TH/10/0737 may be helpful in trying to assess this new one.

The officer tells me that the retention of the slipways for continued viability of the harbour as a whole are a valid reason for objection too.

On a more personal note here I think there is the whole business of the expanding café culture to consider, my guess is that rather like the case in Whitstable, the background of a real working harbour is a major attraction.

On the face of it the working fishing boat environment can be fairy disruptive and sometimes rather smelly, but it is something real going on and is obviously a major factor in the very successful regeneration of Whitstable.

With the fast train, Ramsgate is now a faster and easier commute to London than Whitstable is, regeneration is now extending from the café culture into the High Street with new shops opening. 

I think there is a very real danger that the part of the harbour next to the café culture could turn into just a parking area for expensive and somewhat similar boats, not really much of an attraction.  

Ramsgate Slipways Plans, a comedy of errors.

The picture above looks like a nice development doesn’t it and it’s intended for families.

If anything the side elevation that Mr Wren proposed looks even better. I am also told that the people running it won’t be harassing legitimate protest groups.

But the question is would it be appropriate instead of the harbour slipways?

 As you can see what is being proposed there is an attractive looking development

and yes it also looks even better from the side.

Because of this it was my intention to comment on the plans in as positive way as I could, but had the underlying concern that the harbour may need the slipways in the future.

Last time there were proposals to develop this site, it was for a very modern building that didn’t fit in well with the surrounding architecture and I had no qualms whatsoever about objecting to it, here is the objection I sent to the council http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/1111/id5.htm

This time my concerns fall into two main areas.

The first one is the economic one, Thanet District Council’s accounts are not something that I find easy to understand, so I may have this figured wrong, but the port and harbour seem to bring the council an income of about three million a year.

So I would say that before there is any consideration of redeveloping the slipways the council need a professional assessment of the harbours needs in terms of getting boats out of the water for repairs and maintenance.

The second concern was the flood risk assessment, as last time there were all sorts errors relating to this, (it confused mean high tide with maximum high tide, there had been a lack of communication between the flood risk assessor and the architect and so on) I was interested to see what they had come up with.

From an engineering point of view it is an interesting one, normally a flood risk assessment for a foreshore building produces two main figures, one being how high the sea defence needs to be and the other how far behind the front of the sea defence the development can be, to allow for wave dissipation. In this case the development is built on a short pier so there is no sea defence in front of it and no wave dissipation, there is also the added problem of anything floating underneath it.

There have been quite a few comments on my previous post about this, see http://thanetonline.blogspot.com/2011/11/ramsgate-harbour-slipways-plans.html so I had a thorough look at the plans and promised this post.

I was pretty much astonished to find that the previous flood risk assessment, the one with the errors in it had been used for this application. Why an architect would base a foreshore development on a flood risk assessment already proven to wrong and one of the reasons that the previous development was rejected defies any understanding whatsoever.

The basic maxim of  first discovering how high the water rises and then designing the development had obviously been ignored altogether.

I then phoned the council for some more information before lodging my objection, and asked them some questions.

Q Were their plans to demolish the slipways and if their were, why weren’t the on the council’s planning website?

A Plans were submitted but they weren’t submitted correctly, so they will be submitted again, after which the council will publish them.

Q Did they realise that the flood risk assessment was the same one that had been one of the grounds for the previous application being rejected?

A Yes they did and they were already aware that the Environment Agency would object to the new application because of the flood risk assessment.

Q If the application lacks the right flood risk assessment, lacks the demolition application and so on how can I express either support or objection in the next few days, before the time limit to comment runs out?

A The council will defer the objection date until after the missing documents are published on their planning website?

Q Is the viability of the harbour with reduced capacity to get larger vessels out of the water valid grounds for objection?

A Yes.

Well that was where I was last week, so I started asking some of the people I know if they had any idea about the application.

Yesterday, Monday the developer came to see me to ask why I wasn’t being supportive of the development.

I think his stance is that the council approved the transfer of the lease to him with the knowledge that he intended to develop the site and therefore he should be allowed by them to develop it.

I will continue with this if I get more time.  

Ramsgate Harbour Slipways Plans Published on the Council’s Planning Website.

The planning reference is F/TH/11/0874 because of the strange approach to ICT adopted by the council’s planning website I can’t link to the plans as unlike normal websites the web address of the page the plans are on doesn’t stay the same. Best copy the reference and search it on their site at http://www.ukplanning.com/thanet

Part of the plans appeared yesterday part today and I am not sure that the whole application has appeared there yet, particularly as the last time this was submitted it was as two applications one to demolish the existing buildings and some of the slipways, and one for the development.

It is my day off today and I am using my laptop to post this, the picture above is a screenshot from the planning and design statement.

Sorry I haven’t done a better job of the post the documents on the council’s planning website are difficult to use, they open very slowly and links have elusive titles like “drawing” or “other” instead of what they are actually called.


I will convert the pages into ordinary web pages tomorrow as I think this is too important an application for battling with unlabeled pdf files, grr, perhaps it’s just me and no one else has problems with this sort of thing. 

The first applications the one to demolish the slipways workshops winding houses etc L/TH/10/0736 and the previous development F/TH/10/0737 may be helpful in trying to assess this new one.

Before considering what effect this would have on the viability of the slipways and therefore the workings of the harbour, I will endeavour to work out if the proposed development is safe and viable in terms of flood and storm risk.

This is particularly important with this development as flood risk on the foreshore is usually determined by the sea defence in front of it, the main factors being the height of the sea defence relative to the highest possible tide and the distance the development is behind it.