Title 93

Pictures of E Hodgkins holiday in Ramsgate 1928 | thanetonline blog More pictures Even more pictures

REGENERATION SERVICES

Our Ref: BJW/BH/TDC/COM807

Direct Dial: 01843 577007

FORMER PLEASURAMA RE-DEVELOPMENT SITE, RAMSGATE

Thank you for your correspondence regarding the above subject. Because my responsibilities include both asset management and planning it is appropriate for me to reply. Please note that recognising that you expressed dissatisfaction with the information provided in answer to your questions regarding this site your complaint is being processed within the Council's Complaints Procedure.

With your agreement I would propose to regard this response as stage 2 of the Council's procedure. I do so because you have already met Doug Brown to discuss in some detail your continuing concerns about the planning application and grant of approval.

Your complaint covers both planning matters and the Development Agreement regarding this site. I will respond to your questions about planning first.

Thank you for your kind comments regarding the conduct and long discussion you had with Doug Brown. I will pass those on to him. He explained to me that you are still worried about the vehicular access arrangements to the new development. Insofar as an example you state that, if two heavy goods vehicles could not pass each other there could be serious health and safety problems if, for example, a lorry caught fire. May I draw to your attention that the planning system in the UK deals simply with land use allocation. In doing so, through the consultation process, which is open to members of the public like yourself, but must also include the views of what are known as `statutory' consultees the decision taking process aims to be inclusive. But it does not deal, and assess separately issues like safety and road safety. Instead it relies on the input of the relevant statutory consultee. In this case Kent County Council, it being the highway authority and therefore expert on highway questions. No adverse comment has been made by Kent County Council.

Just by way of interest, and I hope useful reference, I can tell you that when I visited Windsor last weekend I noted a modern shopping centre not very far from Windsor Castle. In order that the urban character of the district was respected the architect had designed heavy goods vehicle access in such a way that it was somewhat similar to that proposed at the site of interest to us. In sharing this observation with you I do not say that the design solution is common place, but I can say it is most definitely not unique.

Turning then to your worries regarding coastal flooding and the opinion expressed by the Environment Agency. It is a matter of fact that during the consultation period for the planning application the Environment Agency had no substantive comment to make on flooding. Hence the planning authority in taking its decision had no opinion, or appropriate conditions put forward by the Agency to attach to the planning consent. Once given a planning permission may not be changed. However as we both know statistics available to the Environment Agency and revised shoreline management plans would lead the Agency to subsequently require, by stipulation a Flood Assessment before development could proceed. Indeed the Agency has recommended this to the developer. But in law neither it, or the planning authority have powers to make that recommendation an obligation. And there the matter stands. We have discussed before, and at length, the fact that there are in the approved designs no residential properties at ground floor level.

With respect to the highway works, effectively linking the development site to the public highway, completed by the developer and at his expense I can reply as follows.

The scheme required what is called Section 278 approval from Kent County Council. No work could be commenced until the County Council had approved the detailed proposals, you will recall this is because ultimately it will be responsible for maintenance of the adopted highway. My understanding is that highway surveyors have, supported by local public interest, being vigilant in making sure that the required standard of work, in compliance with the drawing, has been achieved. But in saying this I am reliant on professional advice from highway surveyors. The last report I received confirmed that all work was complete except for minor repairs to the electrical connection to a particular lamp. I trust that this dispels your fear that the highway works have been `done wrongly'. But if you still have concerns those are more appropriately addressed to Kent Country Council.

You asked the question that because the highway works are deemed by Thanet to constitute commencement of implementation of the planning approval, is the planning consent granted in perpetuity. As I believe Mr Brown may have explained to you once underway the general principle is that a planning consent remains in place. And there are examples of schemes, sometimes surprisingly small developments, perhaps a resident building their own home, where the implementation of planning consent can take many years. On the other hand each particular scenario of prolonged implementation should be considered on its own merit, and on matters of fact and degree. In conclusion then the development has a planning consent, and it is being implemented. The grant of consent is not however for an infinite time, and the planning authority is able to review the position.

I have to inform you that at this point in time it is inappropriate for me to answer your questions regarding the Development Agreement. This is because the Cabinet is to receive a report regarding the Development Agreement on 7 May. Because of its commercial and legal content the report is not for publication. Once the minutes are published I will contact you again. I am sure that you understand that it is not possible for me to reply, into the public domain, to yourself on these matters before the 7 May.

In the meantime should you be dissatisfied with my response to your complaint do contact my colleague Pauline Davis. She will arrange to escalate your complaint to stage 3 of the procedures. Normally the Ombudsman might expect a complaint to have exhausted the `Council's `own process before the ombudsman decide to investigate. But I have no objection to you copying this letter to his office, or anyone else for that matter.

Director of Regeneration Services

cc. Doug Brown - Major Developments Manager

]On the 26.3.2009 I emailed various senior council officers including the chief executive Richard Samuel the email follows in quotation marks.

“Gentlemen I am wondering how the situation now stands with Pleasurama, I had a long discussion with Doug Brown about the development last week, he was as ever courteous and helpful.

He also provided me with a set of the new plans, which now show a two way road between the cliff face and the back of the building that appears to be too narrow for large vehicles to pass each other on, I believe this could present serious problems if a lorry caught fire down there.

He was unable to satisfy some of my concerns about safety issues relating to the development, I am coming to the conclusion that none of you would really want the development to go ahead without a FRA and escapes to the cliff top.

Progress on the development so far has been to build an access road roundabout and drop off point for busses, as this was done without a FRA and as the new plans have storm shutters that are higher than the new road, it would appear that even the architect has accepted that the sea will continue to overtop the road.

As you are probably aware the new road is constructed of lose cobbles and slabs on sand, there also seem to be considerable doubts about the safety of the Marina Esplanade incline and its ability to act as an access road for busses.

Frankly as far as I can see most of the work so far has been done wrongly and will probably have to be undone, to go ahead without the certainty of public transport access would seem unwise with a development of this size.

I now come to the validity of the planning consent and am wondering if you could answer me some questions about this, as you know I am reluctant to go down the LGO and FOI road as I think it just adds unnecessarily to your workloads.

I have been told that as work has started on the access road work is deemed to have started on the development and therefore the consent didn't expire after five years.

1 Does this mean that planning consent is granted in perpetuity for this development?

I have been told that before work can start on the development a bond has to be placed in a bank account, last time I asked about a month ago and after the five years had expired the bond had not been placed.

2 Does this mean that work has not officially started on the development and therefore planning consent has expired?

3 I gather that SFP as a company would need to have supplied you with a certificate of authenticity for prevention of money laundering purposes does such a certificate exist?

I am copying this to the LGO officer who dealt with my complaint about this before that resulted in the environment agency's letter strongly recommending a FRA and emergency escapes.

Best regards Michael”

Although I am not against the development in principle I am most unhappy about aspects of the development that the EA consider may be dangerous and feel that the council has not acted in the best interest of local people in this matter.

The latest plans are very different to those first passed and I believe the differences constitute material change and that the planning consent is no longer valid.

In this instance my complaint is that I have not received answers to the three questions in my original email.

I have had an email dialogue about this with Richard Samuel and on the 9.4.2009 he sent me an email promising me answers last week, in quotation marks below.

“An officer will reply to you on this next week. I have made some initial inquiries and I understand the obligations under the Proceeds of Crime legislation are not quite as you say. I think you rmay be confusing due diligence procedures with irregularities in the deposit of funds which do not come into effect until funds are received. However I am not the expert and you will receive a fuller reply shortly.

Thanet District Council

As no answers have arrived I am now lodging this complaint, I should also like formal notification of the existence of the certificate of authenticity for prevention of money laundering purposes and the name of the authenticating bank as I believe this document may be falsified.

Can you also please send me email confirmation that you have received the complaint and send all correspondence by email.

Please let me know if you want the rest of the documentation as the complaint form will not accept the html in the emails.