If you want a lot of detail, click on this link http://thanetonline.blogspot.com/search/label/Pleasurama%20development?updated-max=2011-02-25T16%3A45%3A00Z&max-results=20 and every time you get to the bottom of a page of posts click on the “Older Posts” link. If you want to go back even further, I was writing about this development before I started this blog and this link takes you to that http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/tdc/
For those who want a quick résumé of the last ten years of building site, here it is.
The site belongs to Thanet District Council and for most of the past 100 years formed Ramsgate’s main leisure site, in a similar way to the way Dreamland in Margate was the main leisure site there.
Anyway about ten years ago the council decided to join with Whitbread and SFP Venture Partners to build a hotel, residential and retail development there.
Work was to start on thing in 2002 and be completed in 2003, unfortunately Whitbread pulled out of the project.
Anyway the council decided to go forward with the project just with SFP, at the time SFP was a purely offshore company and even to this time I have never been able to find any evidence that they have ever produced a development of any sort.
I think that the problems have really stemmed from this decision, over the years SFP have engaged various contractors to do both design work and construction work, but the problem that there is no experienced developer behind the project comes back to haunt us.
The site, situated between a tall cliff with a history of problems effecting its stability and the sea with a history of storms engulfing the site, is a very demanding site to build on.
Neither the problems relating to the cliff that the council have already spent £1m on, or the problems relating to storm flooding, which the Environment Agency have made safety recommendations about, have been satisfactorily resolved.
Various contractors have done work on aspects of the development and then pulled out before completing the contract.
Eventually so many deadlines schedules and financial obligations had failed to be met that the council officers put the issue to the council cabinet on the 16th June 2009. The officers put two courses of action to the cabinet one of which was to pull out of the agreement with SFP for failure to comply, this was the option that the officers recommended. The other was to go ahead with reduced financial guarantees and a new schedule for the building work.
Once again the work on the site isn’t following the timescale agreed with the council, added to this instead of pile boring foundations down into the solid chalk as was originally expected the developer has laid shallow foundations down onto the old sand beach.
I wondered what the council’s building control department, that had recently insisted that the adjacent development was “piled bored” well and truly screwed down to the chalk bedrock below. Apparently the council are not in charge of building control for the Royal Sands Development, although they do have a new search facility on their website where you can find out who is at http://www.thanet.gov.uk/environment__planning/building_control_case_search/case_search_facility.aspx this reveals:
Case Number IN/83246/10
Case Status Decided
Decision Pass plans unconditionally all types
Decision Date 15/09/2010
Case Details
Case Description New Development Comprising 107 Apartments 82 Bedroom Hotel 4 Retail Units And Health/Fitness Centre
Applicant Name Sfp Ventures (Uk) Ltd
Agent Name Harwood Building Control Approve Inspectors Ltd
Case Officer Paul Morgan
Harwood Building Control are a local firm however there is no reference to the development on their website http://www.harwood.uk.com
We also have a new architect, mentioned on the signage at the site, John Sime & Associates/ Alan Butcher are quoted as the designers, although no new plans have been submitted to the council.
In the past when I have voiced concerns about the buildings design, particularly those aspects related to flood risk and cliff stability many of the reassurances that I have had related to the council acting as building control.
The overall understanding being that this was to be a pile bored development with a steel cage, seems to have changed to a building constructed using shallow foundation pads resting on the old sand beach, with the very small part of the cage that has appeared so far being constructed of ferro concrete.
Anyway at the moment we have a development agreement amended to say that the pile boring should be completed by the later date of 31st august 2010 and that at the moment there should be a considerable amount of the structural framework completed, obviously this hasn’t happened.
I have had an ongoing dialogue with the council over this development going back over about nine years, during which time officers dealing with the issue have come and gone.
Anyway back in February I escalated this to a foi request.
Emails from me in blue, from the council in red and the contractor in green.
www.thanet.gov.uk
email customer.services@thanet.gov.uk
>>> 23/02/11 16:22 >>>
email customer.services@thanet.gov.uk
>>>
Please treat this as an official customer feedback request.
This is essentially a general enquiry about the Royal Sands Development on the old Pleasurama site in Ramsgate.
1 Please send me any addition information about this development that I haven’t requested below, because I am unaware of its existence.
It would appear that some work has occurred on the site during the last month, but obviously this work doesn’t relate to the development agreement schedules and conditions of the various leases contained in it.
2 Does this mean that the leases are now invalid and the development agreement is to be determined?
3 Or does it mean that there has been an updated agreement with new schedules?
If the development is going ahead, either to a new schedule or is being allowed under some other flexible arrangement:
4 Can you please supply me with a revised building schedule?
5 Can you please tell me which of the approved plans the development is to be built to and if these plans are published on the council’s planning website?
6 Can you please send me details of the public information sessions that were promised once work started on the site?
7 Can you please send me any updated information on the cliff safety issue? Details and dates of the promised cliff top weight limit, correspondence between the council, the HSE, the developer, cliff survey and maintenance schedule, any cliff survey reports, any agreements for cliff maintenance between the council and the developer.
8 Can you please send me details of any flood, storm or emergency escapes incorporated in the development as a result of the EA recommendations 8th Feb 2008.
9 If the artists impressions, details of roof material and other building materials for the building to be built, are different to those described on the councils planning website, due to the various different plans and in consequence plans being used that no longer relate to the ancillary details, can you please send me the details of these changes?
10 If the plans that are to be used no longer relate to all of the planning and design statement, can you please send me revisions to the planning and design statement?
Please confirm your receipt of this request?
Best regards Michael
Subject: Thanet District Council - Your Information Request Response
Date: 08/03/2011 13:14:29 GMT Daylight Time
From: ****
Reply To:
To: MichaelChild@aol.com
Ref No: 26393 / 1650743
Dear Mr Child
Thank you for your communication received on 24/02/2011 09:00:09 where you requested information about the Pleasurama or Royal Sands deevelopment.
In response to your questions I can comment as follows:
1 There has been some early slippage in terms of works undertaken to comply with the terms of the development agreement. The construction works are however now starting to claw back time lost earlier in the construction programme and progress is now being made on site. There is no amended agreement with the developers and no action is presently anticipated in relation to determine the development agreement, neither has there been a request for a revised build schedule.
Dear Mr Child
Thank you for your communication received on 24/02/2011 09:00:09 where you requested information about the Pleasurama or Royal Sands deevelopment.
In response to your questions I can comment as follows:
1 There has been some early slippage in terms of works undertaken to comply with the terms of the development agreement. The construction works are however now starting to claw back time lost earlier in the construction programme and progress is now being made on site. There is no amended agreement with the developers and no action is presently anticipated in relation to determine the development agreement, neither has there been a request for a revised build schedule.
1a I will request a revised programme from the developer who has indicated that he will be aiming to adhere to the programme.
1b I will also request that the developer establishes a public information programme.
2 No recent amendments have been proposed to the design of the building and no alterations have been made in response to the Environment Agencies correspondence with the developer in 2008. Any amendments would need to be considered through the planning process.
In 2008 and 2009 we received plans to comply with conditions of the planning permission that were approved in January 2009. These proposals did not result in material alterations to the approved building and I recall providing you with those drawings following receipt. I can confirm that no subsequent amendments have been proposed to the building since that time. In terms of the planning and design statement I consider the scheme still complies with the principles of the original submission.
3 I can confirm that the HSE have considered the cliff survey. In an email to the Council they have confirmed they do not intend to pursue this matter. They have requested that the Council draws up a programme and regime for the future maintenance of the cliff face. This matter is in hand.
Yours sincerely,
******
Major Developments Manager
2 No recent amendments have been proposed to the design of the building and no alterations have been made in response to the Environment Agencies correspondence with the developer in 2008. Any amendments would need to be considered through the planning process.
In 2008 and 2009 we received plans to comply with conditions of the planning permission that were approved in January 2009. These proposals did not result in material alterations to the approved building and I recall providing you with those drawings following receipt. I can confirm that no subsequent amendments have been proposed to the building since that time. In terms of the planning and design statement I consider the scheme still complies with the principles of the original submission.
3 I can confirm that the HSE have considered the cliff survey. In an email to the Council they have confirmed they do not intend to pursue this matter. They have requested that the Council draws up a programme and regime for the future maintenance of the cliff face. This matter is in hand.
Yours sincerely,
******
Major Developments Manager
Subject: Ref 26393 / 1650743
Date: 25/05/2011
From:
Reply To:
To: customer.services@thanet.gov.uk
Hi there I refer to my previous feedback request (below) Ref No: 26393 / 1650743 and the promises made in the response.
Work on the site has been progressing very slowly, looking more like a delaying tactic to keep the developers option open and now appears to have stopped altogether.
I have numbered ***’s responses for clarity and am now asking for an update on this issue.
Firstly a general what is going on update.
1 As there is obviously no intention now of complying with the development agreement schedule, no obvious claw back is occurring progress seems to be sporadic with very few workers on site and no sign of much investment, when does the council intend some action to determine the development agreement?
1a Have you received a revised programme from the developer? If you have please supply me with a copy.
1b Can you provide me with a copy of the a public information programme
2 I understand that considerable have been made to the building design since the latest plans on the council’s planning website, can you please confirm this?
3 have the Council drawn up a programme and regime for the future maintenance of the cliff? face
Dear Mr Child
Thank you for your further communications which have been received following your initial information request of 24/02/2011 regarding the Royal Sands Development.
I would apologise for the delay in sending this response but as I am sure that you will appreciate, without detailed knowledge of the Development Agreement there was a need for considerable research into the agreement and related correspondence before I was able to reply. With regard to your request for details of officer responsibility for this development I would advise that as acting Estates Manager I will be the most appropriate point of contact until a permanent appointment is made.
The specific information you requested is as follows and is numbered in accordance with your request..
1. No records are held of changes to the development agreement on this issue.
1a. No records of a revised programme are held .
1b. No records of a public information programme are held.
2. No material alterations to the approved scheme have been proposed or approved.
3. Following the refurbishment work undertaken in 2008 and 2009 a programme of inspections will commence in October this year. The future programme will be developed following these inspections and until these are carried out the information that you have requested is not held.
Yours sincerely,
*****
Building Control Manager
Hi *****
I am just about to do a blog post reviewing the progress of the Pleasurama development, and as you probably remember there was going to be some sort of public information program once the development started.
I will be posting about the perceived ongoing delay, compared with the development agreement and the differences in construction method, compared to the pile boring we were expecting, but mostly about the lack of public information about the project.
Essentially a what’s going on with Pleasurama post, working under the assumption that as very little is happening, both in terms of investment and progress, suggesting that what is really going on is a delaying tactic to keep the option of commencing development proper open. I will also be saying that the lack of public information is because there is probably no positive information for the public and that we are likely to be reaching the grinding that we have had with previous contractors.
This is really just a courtesy email in case you had some sort of different view on the matter or some sort of positive news on the matter, that would change the flavour of the post.
Best regards Michael
Websites
Websites
Dear Michael
Thank you for your email.
I am pleased to confirm that the Development is currently on target to be completed ahead of the dates detailed within the development agreement.
There has indeed been very positive interest in the scheme and a large proportion of the residential units have already been sold off plan with many more under offer.
The Hotel site is also under offer to a very well known Hotel group which is all very good news for the local economy.
From a contractors point of view we are very happy with the timescales that have been set and certainly this project will provide much needed work within the industry for many local tradesmen over the next 18 months or so.
Kind Regards
*****
The heath and safety notification pinned up by the site entrance describes the development as starting on 1st May 2010 and lasting for 104 weeks with 200 people working on the site.
So far we are about 60 weeks into this period with an average of about 3 or 4 people working on the site, so it seems fairly obvious that things are not going to plan.
It is possible that the contractor genuinely thinks that the development is on target, this is a very worrying thought.
In all of this I think the developers most serious error though has been the absence of the public information program that was promised, there seems to be no sense whatever of trying to take local people along with this major development on publicly owned land.
Is suppose the real problem now, is where do we go from here?
Ten years is a very long time for a developer to be engaged with a council owned site without producing a viable development.
Obviously many people in Ramsgate are not happy about this development, partly due to concerns over the height of the building and the effect on the view from the cliff top, partly because this has traditionally been Ramsgate’s key leisure site.
My own concerns have concentrated on the developments safety as it falls between a cliff with a history of stability problems and the sea with a history of tidal surge storms and wave overtopping.
Neither the council nor the developer ever seem to have properly addressed the environment agency’s concerns relating to storm protection and pedestrian escapes. On a more practical level anyone who saw the repairs to the cliff shortly after the council had spent £1m on repairing it and had pronounced it safe, will be aware the cliff façade condition is unpredictable and needs more than the 5 metre gap between the cliff and the building to repair.
So far since the £1m contract to repair the cliff, cliff maintenance work there has had to be carried out on two occasions because I have pointed out dangerous looking parts of the cliff wall.
My own feelings are that both the developer and the council should have noticed cracks in the cliff wall and lose bits of masonry before I did and that in an ongoing sense, with people working and living so close to such a high cliff, much more interest should be taken in the cliff condition.
The weight limit for vehicles using the top of the cliff, that the council promised to instigate several years ago, still hasn’t been imposed, something I also find cause for considerable concern.
The flood and storm protection is a difficult one, neither the council nor the developer appears to have had the flood risk assessment strongly recommended by the environment agency, carried out.
The flood risk assessment for the adjacent build (Granville Marina Restaurant) resulted in a pile bored development with a base line about 1 metre higher. Historically the site is known to have been subject to wave overtopping and damage, the sea defence in front of the site seems to have been made up in bits and pieces since the 1860s when this part of the beach was raised with the chalk spoil from the tunnel excavation to provide a site for the station.
No comments:
Post a Comment