Core Stratergy

Subject: Re: Shaping Our Future - Thanet Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation Date: 21/12/2009 16:48:08 GMT Standard Time From: michaelchild@aol.com

Hi **** thanks not quite sure who else extended it but please pass on my thanks to them. I know several people who tried and failed to comment the way they wanted to, some of them gave up and just sent all or part of the Ramsgate Society’s response, this was because they either couldn’t make the online form to work or couldn’t type on the downloadable response form.

I will probably respond with the Ram Soc response form with added comments of my own, as I consider this is probably mostly a numbers game with the largest number of similar responses carrying the most clout.

If you have spoken to *** you will probably be aware that the Pleasurama development looks to be even more unviable, I don’t see any way that it could be built 4metres away from that cliff, both from a safety and maintenance point of view.

The whole future of the eastern undercliff hinges on the cliff and associated incline road being safe and able to act as PSV access for the life of the developments there combined with reasonable flood risk provisions for the area. I imagine you have read what the EA have to say about it at http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/ea/id2.htm

The trouble is that the council seem to be in a state of denial about what can actually be done with the area and no amount of forward planning will ever go anywhere unless it accepts the considerable restraints that relate to this very difficult site.

Frankly to phrase that in a way that would count for anything in the consultation process is probably beyond me.

The other main points I will try and make is the pedestrianisation of the rest of Ramsgate town centre, consulted approved and mysteriously never completed and the areas where housing association housing are making ghettos of socially disadvantaged people, like the part of Ramsgate where I live.

Subject: Re: Shaping Our Future - Thanet Core Strategy Preferred Options Consultation Date: 22/12/2009 16:40:02 GMT Standard Time From: ****

Thanks for your e-mail. I have passed your thanks along regarding extension of the consultation period. We have also reviewed our consultation arrangements for the Core Strategy and are proposing some improvements to the user interface.

As you may be aware we have never insisted that comments be supplied in electronic format. While electronic returns using the questionnaire do make analysis of representations easier, we are happy to receive free-form comments in hard copy. (Indeed we have already received representations in this format).

In respect of your observations regarding the Pleasurama site I have forwarded a copy of your e-mail to relevant colleagues for information.

Subject: response to the core strategy Date: 18/01/2010 16:43:26 GMT Standard Time From: michaelchild@aol.com

Hi **** this is my best go at a response to the core strategy, I hope you are happy to accept it in this form and that sending it to you is ok, if any of it needs translating into govspeak please do so.

I am submitting my response to the core strategy by email here, my original intention was to submit the Ramsgate Societies prepared response but having read it and the other major consultees responses have decided on this approach.

Firstly I should like to endorse the responses of the Ramsgate Society, The CPRE and ERA, my understanding is that these consultations are to some extent a numbers game and submitting the same response would give more weight to it.

I am most concerned that that my support for the points raised about Ramsgate being supported as much as Margate is noted.

I am also most concerned about the points raised by The CPRE relating to policy 25 and disagree with anything that weakens the protection of our remaining greenfield sites.

I would like you to consider my further comments here as additions to rather than separately from the responses of the above named organisations.

To ERAs response on compensation to Ramsgate residents in relation to airport expansion I should like to add that special compensation needs to made to owners of the many listed buildings in Ramsgate, to allow them to be soundproofed adequately without spoiling their historical features.

I am particularly concerned that the core strategy is being used as a backdoor method to allow the Eurokent business site to be redesignated as a residential site, especially as here in Thanet we are well ahead of our residential building targets.

My main concern here is that by taking land that is already designated for commercial use and changing that designation to residential use this then produces a shortfall in the land designated for commercial use providing an excuse for unnecessary use of greenfield sites for commercial use.

There is also a fundamental flaw in the allocation of more of Thanet’s greenfield sites for development which is that development of this land is restricted by our future and present water requirements.

Already large developments preventing water penetration for the replenishment of our aquifer such as Thanet Earth and the airport aprons and parking are bringing us close to the critical level to maintain our water supply.

Before any further development can be sanctioned on the remaining greenfield sites the actual amount of greenfield land that must be retained for this purpose should be sought from The Environment Agency.

Should you need this I can substantiate my concerns here with documentation from the EA.

With Ramsgate an area of special concern requiring more positive and specific coverage within the core strategy is the eastcliff area. By this I mean the whole area from the main sands including the pavilion, the Pleasurama site, Granville Marina and the old Marina Swimming Pool extending back into the town to Hardres Street.

I have a specialist understanding of this part of Thanet as I have lived and traded in it for over twenty years. Problems similar to Margate Central and Cliftonville West wards are beginning to occur here, this area needs an holistic approach and it should be added that its position relative to the main sands is critical to Ramsgate’s regeneration.

The core strategy may not be the correct place to expand on this issue but I have done so in response as it is a complex issue that needs understanding if any solutions are to be found.

1 On the seafront the Pleasurama site has dominated the last 12 years of decay however the main sands whole area has moved it to a state of stasis partly due to a state of denial that has developed within the council over the limitations of the site.

In the first instance a proper site specific flood risk assessment needs to be undertaken to determine what sea defences will be required there to protect the existing buildings and any new developments there over a reasonable development life, say 75 years.

There is little point in restoring the pavilion, developing the Pleasurama site, restoring or rebuilding Granville Marina and developing the Marina Swimming Pool site without first determining and appropriate defence against tidal surge storms that occur here and are likely to be worse and more frequent because of climate change.

The whole cliff structure from the lift to the swimming pool site needs to be properly appraised in terms of its life and maintenance requirements for the probable life of the developments there.

The important factors being the Wellington Crescent cliff façade, a definite safe distance both in terms of the space required for maintenance and a safe distance to build away from it id needed.

The Marina Road incline, its life as the main access for PSVs, HGVs and other motor vehicles needs to be determined and if this is not viable for the probable life of developments there then such development there, particularly on the Pleasurama site needs to allow road access.

Based on these two investigations the flood risk and the cliff safety issues it should be determined what if any of the existing buildings can be retained and an holistic approach the development of the whole main sands area should be instigated.

2 The cliff top area this area has a high density of historic listed buildings, unfortunately many have been badly converted into flats, many are unoccupied and partially of wholly derelict, making what should be an architectural gem into a fairly scruffy area of high resident turnover.

Once again some sort of holistic approach to the whole area is needed with a concentrated approach to grants for listed buildings, heritage street furniture unsightly estate agents boards and a much tighter approach to the empty and semi derelict buildings.

3 The town area of the eastcliff, this is easiest considered as centralised around the area where Plains of Waterloo joins King Street.

This area is dominated by two very large tower blocks at one time these were very desirable dwellings and tenants were selected accordingly, now however a mixture of various factors has made them much less desirable.

It is important to understand that living in a tower block involves self-disciplined and pretty much model tenants, incidents within the tower blocks recently suggest that the worst sort of tenants have been allowed residence in them and this culminated recently with a near fatality when one of the threw a heavy object from an balcony at a passer by.

A sensible plan needs to devised for the future of the tower blocks, their viable life considered and better control of the entrances to them.

A mixture of misapplication of social housing legislation, poor policing, weak licensing, lack of action over derelict property and poor maintenance of the areas infrastructure is rapidly turning the area into a ghetto of social deprivation.

Various actions have made the area less desirable to live in, licensing takeaways to 4am, removing the area from town centre policing, too high a density of social housing, the defragmentation of the shopping area with randomly placed residential planning permissions granted on the ground floor are all factors.

Possible solutions could be continuing the pedestrianisation as was originally planned, some sort of change in street furnishings and layout where King Street is mostly residential.


Subject:		Re: response to the core strategy
Date:		20/01/2010 13:37:15 GMT Standard Time
From:		michaelchild@aol.com
Reply To:
To:	*****

Hi ****, thanks for that, one definitely needs to see other people’s comments to begin to understand how best to respond and I hope in the furtherance of open government they will be available on the council’s website soon.

I think a major stumbling block may be the difference between what the council says its intention are and what it is doing in reality, the only really big local project I know much about is Pleasurama and if the type if thing happening there is happening with other local projects where the council is involved is happening with other major projects I don’t see much hope for the medium term future of Thanet.

The picture in the email taken at 9.10 this morning is of the repair work to the repair work on the cliff façade where the are due to start work on the Pleasurama development in three weeks time.

Note no safety hats, no concrete compacting equipment, just two blokes and an unmarked truck.

The block infill they are repairing has no foundations they have put a strip of concrete about 2 feet up the cliff on top of the exposed topsoil, the blockwork isn’t tied to the cliff or the adjacent pillars – these also have inadequate foundations – they have pushed short bits of reinforcing rods through the concrete fill in the hollow blocks, when the concrete dries and shrinks away it is possible to pull the rods out.

Now I know this isn’t your manor so to speak, but the future of this part of Ramsgate hangs on getting this development of the ground, the council have announced that work will start in three weeks, when the cliff repairs are finished.

This will involve bore driven piles 4 metres from the cliff façade, i.e. a firm large enough to run the complex equipment to do this with all of the health and safety implications involved.

So you see the state of denial that has developed in building control about the condition of the cliff façade will reach another hurdle then, it must be obvious to anyone that no construction work will actually start.

Any idea how to get around this problem, at the moment it would seem the that the officers that have made the mistakes relating to the cliff façade repairs are hoping to delay things until they retire, will that be within the next fifteen years?