David Green

My attempts learn about the Pleasurama project have lead me into a dialogue with Thanet District Council about their website and the way they pass on correspondence to councillors. Click on the links above to read the correspondence.

If you are writing a "history" of the current situation I think it should be as correct as possible before it becomes urban myth. WE all have selective memories, but my recollection is as follows. Do with it what you will!

Next the council asked for tenders to rebuild our main leisure complex. Several plans were submitted including one, the design of which was based on the Victorian brick arched design of the cliff on the other side of the harbour. Included in this one was a public swimming pool to be donated to the council on completion. Local residents saw various proposed projects but it appeared that nothing had been finalised.

Next one of the members of the local residents association discovered that the council had accepted a development that appeared from the plans to be higher than the cliff top behind it. No plans of this development had been on public display although the council had several shop premises in Ramsgate that they used as offices of enquiry and would have been the obvious and proper place to display them.

The members of the town’s resident’s association, and those of the Ramsgate Society, plus many more concerned people, none of whom knew anything about the development, contacted Thanet District Council and were told that it was too late to object. They were told that there was to be a planning meeting to finalise and pass the plans the following week. At this meeting the council indeed passed the plans despite being aware that the building was unsuitable for its situation.

Next the Council asked for tenders to rebuild our main leisure complex. There were several expressions of interest, but only two plans were submitted……..

The two plans were examined by Full Council in December 2003. The one chosen by overwhelming vote and subject to planning consent was a design entirely on the footprint of the old site, was well below the cliff top and contained hotel, with conference facility, a leisure area, landscaped roof and apartments, with retail on the ground floor.

In May 2004 there was a change of administration. Eventually, a design was brought to Planning that was considerable different from the Dec 2003 “Concept”. It was much larger (as you describe) with an extra floor, and was above the cliff top with a galvanised “wing” roof. I contacted the residents association and others and managed to get the decision referred from the Dec 2004 meeting to Jan 2005. I and Peter Landi of the Ramsgate Society spoke against the design, but it gained the consent of the committee on the votes of non Ramsgate members.

Because “retail” on the site was against the then Local Plan, the Labour Group forced a debate on the proposal at full Council. The decision at full council was that the design should “revert to the original Dec 2003 design”.

Officers were left to negotiate with the developers and report to cabinet. Protests, including one I organised to Parliament to lobby Dr Ladyman, continued.

The report eventually came back to Cabinet for decision on signing the development contract. The cabinet conceded that a condition be attached that the roof should be below the cliff-top and “landscaped”.

Good luck to you, its seemed to be a bit of a lonely fight this far, yourself, me &Liz, the Woods, Peter Landi!

Residential was against the then local plan, which means it should have been refered to the Secretary of State (GOSE) to decide whether to call in.

The original brief that the tenders were drawn against contained no mention of residential. It is my belief that the expressions of interest (8) that didnt tender were not told that housing could be included.

There is a full Council resolution (the Planning Authority) (overriding Planning Committee decision) that the design should be "restored to the origional concept"


	July 2007 \| home thanetonline.com michaelsbookshop.com Click here for books about The Isle of Thanet Dangerous cliff ? this link takes you to the rest of my Pleasurama site this link takes you to my previous correspondence July 2007 \| Thanet District Council press release \| Pleasurama update 6/6/2007 another years delay! \| The temporary railings \| Ramsgate \| latest news \| heads embedded in the concrete \| Simon Moores Thanet life \| Michael Child \| Latest views \| Details from the latest plans \| Pictures 2007 \| April 2007 \| April replies \| Replies to my email about the new introduction January 2007 \| David Green \| pleasurama update \| Seafront site ready for rejuvenation \| Companies House Search \| correspondence \| prompt replies \| Action \| Riddles \| Committee \| more \| Follow up \| councillors \| councillors revised \| spam your councillors \| Councillors responses \| Economical with the truth \| The Member Portal \| Taking the member out of the portal \| Ken Gregory \| Gerry O'Donnell \| survey \| May 2007 \| Cracks over the voids \| Engineers report on the condition of the cliff \| more report \| election results My attempts learn about the Pleasurama project have lead me into a dialogue with Thanet District Council about their website and the way they pass on correspondence to councillors. Click on the links above to read the correspondence. David Green Hi Michael If you are writing a "history" of the current situation I think it should be as correct as possible before it becomes urban myth. WE all have selective memories, but my recollection is as follows. Do with it what you will! Dave Green Next the council asked for tenders to rebuild our main leisure complex. Several plans were submitted including one, the design of which was based on the Victorian brick arched design of the cliff on the other side of the harbour. Included in this one was a public swimming pool to be donated to the council on completion. Local residents saw various proposed projects but it appeared that nothing had been finalised. Next one of the members of the local residents association discovered that the council had accepted a development that appeared from the plans to be higher than the cliff top behind it. No plans of this development had been on public display although the council had several shop premises in Ramsgate that they used as offices of enquiry and would have been the obvious and proper place to display them. The members of the town’s resident’s association, and those of the Ramsgate Society, plus many more concerned people, none of whom knew anything about the development, contacted Thanet District Council and were told that it was too late to object. They were told that there was to be a planning meeting to finalise and pass the plans the following week. At this meeting the council indeed passed the plans despite being aware that the building was unsuitable for its situation. Next the Council asked for tenders to rebuild our main leisure complex. There were several expressions of interest, but only two plans were submitted…….. The two plans were examined by Full Council in December 2003. The one chosen by overwhelming vote and subject to planning consent was a design entirely on the footprint of the old site, was well below the cliff top and contained hotel, with conference facility, a leisure area, landscaped roof and apartments, with retail on the ground floor. In May 2004 there was a change of administration. Eventually, a design was brought to Planning that was considerable different from the Dec 2003 “Concept”. It was much larger (as you describe) with an extra floor, and was above the cliff top with a galvanised “wing” roof. I contacted the residents association and others and managed to get the decision referred from the Dec 2004 meeting to Jan 2005. I and Peter Landi of the Ramsgate Society spoke against the design, but it gained the consent of the committee on the votes of non Ramsgate members. Because “retail” on the site was against the then Local Plan, the Labour Group forced a debate on the proposal at full Council. The decision at full council was that the design should “revert to the original Dec 2003 design”. Officers were left to negotiate with the developers and report to cabinet. Protests, including one I organised to Parliament to lobby Dr Ladyman, continued. The report eventually came back to Cabinet for decision on signing the development contract. The cabinet conceded that a condition be attached that the roof should be below the cliff-top and “landscaped”. Cllr David Green 27 La Belle Alliance Square Ramsgate, Kent, CT118HZ 01843591495 Blog http://eastclifframsgate.blogspot.com/ Subj: Re: Pleasurama Date: 01/02/2007 12:27:28 GMT Standard Time From: dgreen.home@btinternet.com To: MichaelChild@aol.com Sent from the Internet Good luck to you, its seemed to be a bit of a lonely fight this far, yourself, me &Liz, the Woods, Peter Landi! Three points that might be useful: Residential was against the then local plan, which means it should have been refered to the Secretary of State (GOSE) to decide whether to call in. It wasnt! The original brief that the tenders were drawn against contained no mention of residential. It is my belief that the expressions of interest (8) that didnt tender were not told that housing could be included. There is a full Council resolution (the Planning Authority) (overriding Planning Committee decision) that the design should be "restored to the origional concept" Cllr David Green 27 La Belle Alliance Square Ramsgate, Kent, CT118HZ 01843591495 Blog http://eastclifframsgate.blogspot.com/