As is usually the case with this development it is the
secrecy surrounding any democratic discussion about it that I find most
worrying.
We always come back to the fact that it is to be built on
the most prominent, council owned seafront leisure site in Ramsgate. Because of
this much of the towns leisure based economy hinges on getting it right.
My main concern with this development focuses on the safety
issues, cliff stability, flood risks and emergency escape routes. As a local
historian I am very much aware that Ramsgate Eastern Undercliff has a history
of storm damage and cliff collapses that is sporadically recorded back to the
mid 1800s. This history isn’t written up in one place and I periodically discover
new information about it.
More of this information came up over the weekend when I was
reading the book that I hope to have in print next week about the Granville,
this time it related to Marina Road, the sloping road down the cliff in front
of the Granville. According to the plans for The Royal Sands this road forms
the access for busses and delivery lorries to the development.
After various cliff collapses there in about 1960 the
borough engineer made this road a one way only, up the hill and I have taken
the issue of having heavy vehicles going down this hill with various council
engineers, particularly with respect to the forces associated with a line of
heavy vehicles having to stop in an emergency while going down the hill.
The answers I got were along the lines of those Victorian
engineers knew what they were doing and there was no problem. It was
interesting for me to read that part of this structure collapsed the day before
the opening ceremony and the opening parade had to be diverted around it.
As this development is to be built between the sea and the
cliff face on an EA designated high risk flood zone, with access via Marina
Road, then the condition of the cliff and sea defences between the lift and
where Nero’s was (the hairpin bend on Marina Road) is important to the
viability of the development.
Because the development is built between the face of the
cliff and the sea, a safe and dry means of escape from the development also needs to be considered.
A considerable part of these problems aren’t really anyone’s
fault, developer or council, as the site was designated a high risk flood zone
after the planning permission was granted. However when it comes to the
financial viability of the development, much is likely to hinge on the ability
to borrow money for a new development built on a high risk flood zone, without
a flood risk assessment.
Obviously as the plans were passed before it was designated
it doesn’t have to have one, but I think at some point the proximity of the sea
needs to be properly assessed and one hopes this doesn’t happen in the way it did for the Turner Centre.
There are various things in this article that don’t quite
make sense to me, the most obvious being that it says about 30% of the
apartments have been reserved. Obviously as the apartments that are available
to reserve are published on the internet, it is an easy matter to see that 14
out of 107 were reserved when the article was published last month and this
figure is the same today.
The council offices stance on the development has changed
from when this came before cabinet three years ago when they recommended
winding up the development and taking the land back, to their position now
which is recommending that the cabinet approve going ahead with the
development.
My guess on this one this that the council are concerned
here about the developer taking them to court to get back the money he has
spent so far.
I guess my position on this one is, if the council go decide
to go ahead, I would like them to ensure that the development is a as viable
and successful as it possibly can be and if they decide to pull out, that the
site is returned to a usable state as soon as is possible.
So going ahead for me ought to mean a proper flood risk
assessment and an assessment of the cliff condition from the lift to the old
Nero’s site, before continuing with the development.
Much of this is cost related, as any problems with
either the cliff or the sea defences may be much cheaper to solve before the
development is built.
I guess of all the aspects of The Royal Sands it is the flood and storm situation that is the most bizarre.
Conversations with those involved go along the lines. “there is no problem as we have complied with all the legalisation, so there isn’t a problem.”
To which I reply. “You do accept that the site is an EA designated high risk flood zone.”
The answer to this one is now always. “Yes”
I then say. “You do accept that there hasn’t been a flood risk assessment.”
This has pretty much moved from the “Not that we know of” to the “Yes” camp.
Within a £22,000,000 project, the cost of a flood risk assessment would be a drop in the ocean and it is most likely that any work that needed doing would be funded by national government.
The other aspect of this is the newly built foundations, where conversations with the parties involved assure me that the shallow foundations on the old beach are adequate and properly calculated, something I don’t disagree with.
The problem occurs when I ask them about the sea defence that protects the sand these foundations are sitting on from the sea. “Yes” they agree that the sea defence dates from 1860. “Yes.” They agree that they have no plans or maintenance record for it.
Now obviously this sea defence may be perfectly ok, on the
other hand it may need some repairs and maintenance before people are going to
live in the development behind it, which is sitting on sand.
On of the councillors asked me. “How long it would take before
there was a problem, if we had a big tidal surge storm.”
What he was getting at was if the sea defence started to
wash out, how long would the council have to put in some alternative to protect
the foundations from washing out, which would cause the building to collapse.
The only other example we have of this is when the other sea
defence built in 1860 by the same railway company failed in 1953, then we lost
about ten square miles of land to the sea in one night.
The cliff is a difficult one, the whole of the cliff face
from the lift to the hairpin bend where Nero’s used to be is faced with a variety of man made structures, to a lesser or greater degree these act as cliff
supports. And to a lesser or greater degree these are intended to stop the
effects of the weather from damaging the chalk and causing a cliff collapse.
The idea with most of these structures is to waterproof the
front of the cliff and the cliff top to stop rainwater from getting in, the
slightly acidic nature of rainwater causes the chalk to soften and
disintegrate.
with a natural
grass topped cliff this is largely compensated for as soon as one gets a
few feet into the chalk as the chalk itself acts as a filter purifying the
water. I have simplified this issue considerably to help people form a mental
picture of the situation.
A problem here and one that has contributed to some very
large cliff falls in Ramsgate, is that when the surface on the top of the cliff
cracks this concentrates the rainwater into a small area, causing the damage to
the chalk to extend much further in.
Another problem is that the supporting façade structure
holds back small chalk falls until the structure fails and a much larger fall occurs.
The council’s engineers and the engineers that advise the
council describe the cliff façade behind the Royal Sands as structures to
prevent weathering and not as support structures. Essentially it is the chalk
cliff that holds up the concrete façade and not the concrete façade that holds
up the chalk cliff.
Generally there are three main signs that all is
not well with these support structures, vegetation growing from any cracks,
spalling (concrete cancer) where the metal reinforcing rods inside the concrete
go rusty and damage the surrounding concrete and movement of parts of the
structure.
Back when the development was first granted planning
permission this structure showed all of these signs, and I made a considerable
amount of fuss along the lines of the fuss I am now making about the sea
defence.
Whether it was because of this fuss or for some other reason
the council eventually decided to survey most of the cliff façade behind the
site. The results of this survey were pretty bad, the gist of the results was
the structure was in a poor state, had a short serviceable life and needed
emergency repairs. Two years after the
survey I managed to get hold of the report and made some more fuss, which may
or may not have resulted in the emergency repairs.
One way or another the council spent about £1,000,000
on repairing the cliff, but at some point or another the council officers and
councillors seem to have got it into their heads that this repair has given the
cliff façade a new life comparable to the expected life of the development.
I guess since the £1m repairs, the repairs to
the repairs, the weedings, the condition of the cliff now, you can see the
latest crop of vegetation the picture above, are all rather self explanatory.
After the cliff repair various things came to light that I
find considerable cause for concern.
The first was the crack and bulge in one of the panels that
I reported to the council and was subsequently repaired, it wasn’t this
occurring that really concerned me but that the crack which didn’t appear in
any of the reports prior to the £1m repair had been filled rather than the
panel replaced during the £1m repair.
The next was the lose bit of masonry which I reported to the
council and the hse and about which they took no action about until a large chunk of it
fell off partly into the site and partly outside.
After that was the business where the council gave me the
wrong plans to the arched part of the cliff façade, when the developer
undermined it I made a considerable amount of fuss fire brigade hse and so
on.
As it happened there was no safety issue as the arched part
is cast concrete and not concrete blocks as the plans showed.
But what was really worrying was the council,
developer and the survey for the £1m contract, all used these wrong plans.
I guess the underlying problem here is that the council have
got into a position where having spent £1m on the cliff, they have to say that
it’s ok condition wise.
My own feelings about the cliff are that the arched
concrete part is probably in fairly good order, this was built in the 1930s
after a series of large cliff collapses and I would guess that because of these
no chances were taken. The square portal part at the lift end I haven’t really
filled I the history of this part properly. I am pretty certain that it was
constructed at various times and in various bits between 1940 and 1970, this is
the part where the majority of the vegetation is growing out of the wall. It was
one of the panels in this part that had to be replaced after the contract. This
was also this part that was the subject of the contractors investigation.
I have laid out what I hope is a very concise explanation of
my concerns about aspects of this development because of the cabinet meeting
about it next Thursday.
Once again the cabinet have to decide whether to go
ahead with this development, this issue is to be discussed at the end of the
cabinet meeting, in secret with the press and public excluded.
Picture added to respond to comment