Thanet Life, Simon Moores Moves the Goalposts, is it a new Thanet Blog Wars?

I have been commenting on Thanet Life blog since sometime in 2006, sending Simon information and pictures that he has published there since that time too, so I was pretty much gob smacked when I got an email from him today saying that he was refusing to publish a comment I had made there. This hasn’t happened before and I am not certain if I will ever be able to comment there again, or for that matter if I will even bother to try.

This relates to a key Thanet issue that Simon raised on his blog about consultation over the disposal Thanet’s council owned leases.

Here is what the said:

“DrM. said...
Andrew, the most fundamental change is the treatment of long leases of 25 years or more as part of the overall asset disposal process.

The emphasis is now very much on consultation as part of such a process to avoid circumstances where the council is seen to be over-riding the wishes of local people without proper consideration of their arguments. 1.37 pm.”

Now an important point here is when this change came into effect, because of some of the disposal issues that have come up recently in Thanet. There have been many contentious asset issues in Thanet, part of Hartsdown Park in Margate being the most recent.

Here in Ramsgate there are several large council owned assets in prominent positions and some of them have been effected by this rule, Pleasurama where the council granted a 200 year lease to the developer without any consultation, The Maritime Museum where the council invoked this rule in a way that caused the closure of the museum, the slipways where the council used this rule to prevent a developer obtaining a long lease to build a bar complex there.

This is essentially an issue about money, as developers need leases longer than 25 years to finance developments on council owned land, hence the council are able to effectively halt the Margate Football Club development, that has planning permission, by not offering the club a long lease. This can also effect grant funding for charitable organisations wishing to run council assets. There is also the common sense side of this, it you are going to run a museum or theatre, you are in for the long hall and can’t invest heavily when the building’s security is a matter of the council’s whim, even if you could I doubt the charity commissioner would let you.

Anyway here is the link to Simon’s blog post http://birchington.blogspot.com/2011/02/lost-in-translation.html and here is my comment that he refused to publish.

Michael Child has left a new comment on your post "Lost in Translation":

Thank you Simon for the information, did you mean 26th July 2010 or 2009?

This is a quote from an email I received from the council in February 2010.

“The position regarding the Clock-Tower Building, occupied by the Steam Trust is as follows. The subject was discussed by the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny (Asset Management Working Party) in view of the length of lease sought by the Trust.”

With relation to your pervious replies the difficulty here is that you are different from the other bloggers, in as much as you are privy to council information that we are not.

In an ideal world the council’s information department would have a forum where major local issues could be discussed openly on the internet, it is the perception from outside the council, is that the councils information department exists exclusively to control the information that is available to the public.

I suppose in a way even that would be mostly unnecessary if the council published all of the information it held, apart from the information that would be refused in a foi request, as the council receives it, onto its website.

This could be achieved with considerable savings in costs to the council, by the council insisting that all information sent to the council, was supplied in preferred file formats, with the council levying a charge to commercial organisations either sending information on paper – so it has top be scanned in – or in a file format that has to manual converted for web publication.

In this instance I would say that you are as much a victim as the rest of us, in as much as the changes to such a fundamental rule about the way the council conducts its business, should have been publicised and the rules governing the way the council rents out its properties should be clearly and openly available on the council’s website.

The discussion I had with the leader of the council isn’t pertinent to this issue as it relates to a lease of less than 25 years and not the older lease that council didn’t issue due to the new rules. However it demonstrates very clearly what I am saying about information that you are privy to and we are not, put the shoe on the other foot for a moment and consider the situation if I was privy to your conversations with the leader of the council and said to you. “Simon. I understand the Leader of the Council called you to personally explain the issues surrounding such and such an issue, and hopefully that should have answered most if not all of your questions.” By way of an answer to a question you had asked me on a blog

Comment posted 11.18 am 2nd March 2011-03-02

Don’t misunderstand me here I delete comments that are potentially libellous, offensive or containing personal abuse, I suppose all bloggers do, but to delete a comment because it disagrees with your point of view, well that is another matter altogether.

When a local councillor who claims to support transparency and impartiality does this, then one can only form ones own conclusions.

Council turns down Ramsgate slipways planning application

Sorry if this is fairly old news to some people, I only just found out today and I don’t think anyone else has mentioned it.

They have turned down both the application to demolish and the one to develop.

This leads one with the question of what happens to the site now? The terms of the lease are that the site is used as a boat repair yard however the new owner of part of this yard is a property developer.

With sites like The Eagle Café on the end of the east pier, council owned, presumably leased by them under a lease stipulating that it is used as a café, but disused for a number of years I think this is one that may need watching.

The last thing we need in Ramsgate at the moment is a derelict boatyard.

Ramsgate Town Council to recommend that TDC turn down slipways development

I have just phoned the town council and received confirmation that the town council turned down the development on heritage grounds.

The basis of their objection goes something like this: While they concede that the buildings design is excellent, they feel that an ultramodern building is not suitable for the site between the listed Clock House and Royal Victoria Pavilion.

I have just phoned the town council and received confirmation that the town council turned down the development on heritage grounds.

The basis of their objection goes something like this: While they concede that the buildings design is excellent, they feel that an ultramodern building is not suitable for the site between the listed Clock House and Royal Victoria Pavilion.

Please correct me if I am wrong here as I didn’t go to the meeting.

Ramsgate Slipways Demolition and Development 2 Days Left to Comment

There are only 2 days left to comment on this development, you can comment supporting the development or objecting to it, but you have to have sent your comments to the council before 15th October.

The pictures click on them to enlarge are all stills from the developers animated presentation, there are various options for viewing this, depending on your computers capabilities at http://thanetonline.blogspot.com/2010/10/ramsgate-slipways-development-update.html

Comments can be sent in a number of different ways, one thing is certain and that is if you don’t comment then there isn’t much point in complaining about the outcome.

There are two planning applications on the councils planning website, this link takes there http://www.ukplanning.com/thanet and you then have to enter the application reference I the search box to access them.

A word of warning though, if you have an old computer the planning sheets are large PDF files, I have published the planning sheets on the internet as much smaller files at http://www.thanetonline.com/slipways/index.htm if you find that your computer can’t open them.

The first planning application is the one to demolish part of the slipways and the boatyard buildings the reference for this is L/TH/10/0736 the second application is the one to build the new bar and restaurant complex there the reference for this is F/TH/10/0737

The first page you arrive at once you have pasted in the application number into the search box on the council’s search box and clicked on the search button has a link called “Comment on Application” this is one way of commenting.

Another is to email your comments to the council customer.services@thanet.gov.uk if you don’t get a response to your email within one business day I would assume that something has gone wrong, normally the council’s customer services are very good at acknowledging the receipt of emails.

Another way is to write your comments to the council and post it to.

Thanet District Council,
PO Box 9,
Cecil Street,
Margate,
Kent,
CT9 1XZ

If you need help producing your comments, telephone the council on 01843 577000 and ask speak to a planning officer about the development. It is important to understand that the planning officers are duty bound to be impartial, my experience is that they are also courteous and helpful.

If you follow this blog you will know that I have covered aspects of this application in various posts, clicking on this link should bring them all up http://thanetonline.blogspot.com/search/label/Ramsgate%20slipways%20development

This is an important development as it could change the café culture, inner harbour, main sands area in a fundamental way, by removing boatyard activity from this part of Ramsgate.

Bar, café, restaurant operations are always going to be more profitable than boatyard operations, they are likely to look smarter and be more sustainable because they are not subject to competition from out of the area.

If you want a drink and or a meal when you are in Ramsgate, you are not going to look for them in other parts of Europe where they may be better and or cheaper, whereas if you want your boat repaired you may and prices will be effected by the exchange rate.

There is a problem here though and that is that if Ramsgate only has food and drink to offer, then people may stop coming here for food and drink.

How high is high tide at Ramsgate?

With the various developments proposed and ongoing on the foreshore in Ramsgate, most particularly the proposed one on the harbour slipways, I have been looking at the various tidal flood risk assessments.

I spent some time today discussing the flood risk assessment for the slipways development with the chap who wrote it and as far as I can see there have been various errors made and problems relating to access of full and accurate information both about the development and the local tide statistics, by the person writing the flood risk assessment.

One thing that is petty simple here is that the development is to be built on three levels, undercroft, ground and first floor. Unfortunately it seems that the planning sheet showing the undercroft wasn’t passed on to the firm preparing the flood risk assessment.

Engineering hat now, so I would suggest just taking my word that people in the bar the ground floor may get wet feet, unless you have some patience.

OK for those who are following into the higher country of the mind here, I want you to think about just exactly how high, high is. Start with something big that is easy to think about, Mount Everest is at 29,002 feet or 8,840 metres high, you can check this if you want, but the question you may not have asked is higher than what?

OK if you said sea level, you are doing pretty well here, but the sea goes up and down so what sea level?

If you live in Ramsgate then you have probably have seen the levels marked next to the lock gate, between the inner and outer harbour so you may think that it is level that I am talking about.

It indicates that the harbour wall is about 6 metres above sea level. So you would assume that the top of Mount Everest is 8,834 metres above the harbour wall in Ramsgate.

I am afraid to say that you may be wrong the levels written on the harbour are in chart datum, but when in 1856, the Great Trigonometric Survey of British India established the height of Everest the surveyors used ordnance datum.

Ordinance datum is 2.58 metres (about eight foot six inches) higher than chart datum.

Architects use ordnance datum on their planning sheets and information about tides and sea levels is measured in chart datum, make a mistake about this and you may be in deep water.

This wasn’t the mistake that happened with any of the plans for developments on Ramsgate’s foreshore, but I think the confusion around it helped to cover some up.

Now to save confusion here I am going to take off my engineers hat and put on my sailors hat, so it’s time to say, “hello sailor.” If you didn’t think I could do this see http://thanetonline.blogspot.com/2007/12/friggin-in-rigging.html or http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/cryfromthesea/index.htm

All of the figures below are in chart datum.

The lowest indoor bit of the proposed development on the slipways is 6.18 metres above chart datum.

I think some of the confusion has come from, the figure 5.4m is the MHWS for Ramsgate, the flood risk assessment takes this to be about the highest astronomical tide, this actually stands for mean high water spring, i.e. the average height of a spring tide and not the highest astronomical height.

HAT - Highest astronomical tide is the one they should have used the HAT at Dover is 7.3m the difference for Ramsgate is 1.6 giving a HAT for Ramsgate of 5.7

The highest recent tidal surge locally was 14th Feb. 1989 at 10:00 hours this was 1.84 metres above normal high tide registered on the Dover tide gauge, as tidal surges are caused by low barometric pressure the level would be about the same for Ramsgate.

I would think it reasonable to assume that adding the HAT at Ramsgate to the surge would give the best idea of the highest possible spring and surge level here i.e. 7.54 metres.

We would be very unlucky to have a tide this high now, the tidal surge of 1953 was 8.22 m at Dover which works out at 6.62 for Ramsgate, this surge was combined with a severe storm, though fortunately not a spring tide.

In the 1953 tida1 surge 1,835 people were killed in the Netherlands and 307 were killed in the United Kingdom and about 250 people were killed at sea, many of them sailors.

A problem with the sea is that it has waves, I suppose the fact that it killed over 2.500 people in this part of the world during one storm, is a testament to this.

This means that anyone contemplating building on our foreshore needs to consider how high the waves here can get.

Several factors determine how high the waves will get in a storm, once again there are different ways of expressing the height of a wave, as I have my sailors hat on I will use the one called significant height, this is the height difference between the trough between the waves and the crest on the waves.

One factor is the strength (speed) of the wind, as a sailor I will express this in knots, nautical miles per hour, a nautical mile is a little bit longer than a statute mile.

In the days of sail sailors measured the speed of their ship with a line with equally spaced knots tied in it and a lump of wood on the end. One of them dropped the bit of wood over the side and counted how many knots passed through his hands, while another one timed this with a glass, something like a big egg timer with sand running through it.

Another factor is the duration of the storm, the longer the wind blows for the higher the waves, this has a saturation time after which the waves don’t get any bigger.

Another factor is the fetch of the sea, this is how far it is between the shores along the line of the wind direction.

There are other factors but I think we will stick to those, otherwise it is going to get scientific and didn’t wear a hat when I worked as a scientist.

As Michael Fish said there won’t be a hurricane so we certainly don’t need to worry about 11 metre waves on a worse case scenario 7.45 metre tide.

You will be glad to know that the depth of water mitigates the height of the waves.

The worst we have had in recent years was in 1953, because of the wind direction we were sheltered in Ramsgate, the waves were also mitigated here because the fetch was across the Straights so Dover and not along the Channel.

I would say about 7 metre waves on a 6.62 metre tide.

The environment agency say that new developments should be assumed to have a life of 100 years, the best predictions for the rise in sea level by 2110 are between 1 and 2 metres, they are working on just over a metre.

They are saying that by then we should be expecting static tides of about 8 metres above sea level here in Ramsgate and building now to accommodate for them.

Obviously there have to be compromises here a balance between the worst case scenario, which is a 2 metre sea level rise and 7.45 metre tide with 11 metre waves and what is likely to happen in reality.

Normally anyone producing a flood risk assessment will have considered the sea defences in front of the development and how far behind them the waves will be broken up enough to stop them damaging the building.

This isn’t an option with the slipways development as it is to be built on a small pier, so the waves will be under it as well as in front of it.

With the Pleasurama development there hasn’t even been a flood risk assessment, so no one has even bothered to consider the problem.

Ramsgate Seafront Developments a bit of ramble

Having just phoned the architects for the slipway because their flood risk assessment just doesn’t make any sense, this is really case of time is running out to comment on the application and the flood risk assessment appears to have errors in it.

What is seems to be saying is something akin to the tallest person is four feet high, therefore we propose to build as house with all of the ceilings five feet high.

There are several examples of this in the document, here is one of them; it actually says on page eleven of the document is. “Spring tides can reach 5.4m above chart datum”.

This weeks tides see http://easytide.ukho.gov.uk/EasyTide/EasyTide/ShowPrediction.aspx?PortID=0102&PredictionLength=7 Thursday 5.4m, Friday 5.6, Saturday 5.7.

Now you would think that the architects would have something to say about this, some sort of explanation, but know it would seem that my only approach here is to use this as part of my grounds for objecting to the development.

Next door to this site is the pavilion and here they seem to be painting and filling the cracks in the outside, with no real reference to the problems inside the building.

Also this work seems to be going on without any thought to the flood protection, it would seem that a lot of money is to be spent on Margate’s flood protection, but nothing on Ramsgate’s.

I wonder if the council have read the wrong figures for a high tide in Ramsgate too, this is something that would explain quite a bit.

Over the road the building on the back of the Belgian Café is still proceeding with the windows about a metre lower that they should be according to the plans.

Back to my conversation with the architects for the slipway development, they really don’t seem to appreciate that what they are building is in fact a short pier and that the building of piers is a specialist business.

I asked about wave heights and the architect that I spoke to said that this wasn’t a problem with the Clock House, he didn’t seem to understand that the stone apron at the back of the Clock House dissipates the waves, something that doesn’t happen with a pier.

On to the Pleasurama site, all work seems to have stopped there now, understandable really now I know the sequence of events, which is.

Cardy Construction the people building the development started clearing the site about a month ago, this has exposed the bottom of the cliff wall, which frankly looks a bit dodgy.

I now know from the HSE that they expressed concerns about the cliff wall, foundations, weeds, cracks, strange damp patches and so on to the council.

The council reassured them saying that the cliff wall was perfectly safe and work continued.

Then a lump of it fell off that was big enough to kill someone below.

Now they have stopped work and left the site.

The HSE have now told me that they are going to send one of their construction engineers to visit the site.

During the war cliff maintenance, weed removal, keeping the drains clear and so on didn’t happen as people were busy fighting Hitler and after the war we had several cliff collapses in Ramsgate.

Once again and I don’t really know why cliff maintenance seems not be happening quite as it should, this is an example from another part of Ramsgate.
The picture above is of another blocked drain and illustrates what I mean about recent cliff maintenance about as clearly as I can.

The pictures below are of when this part of cliff in Ramsgate collapsed just agter the war.

The pictures apart from the one I took at the top, are courtesy of Margate Museum, click on them to enlarge them and click on them again to make them even bigger.

I should stress that this was only one of several cliff collapses in Ramsgate and that the most likely cause of them was poor maintenance.

The trouble is that once water has damaged the chalk cliff it stays damaged. It doesn’t really matter what is done to the cliff facades, it is the condition of the thousands of tons of chalk behind them that causes the problems.

In a natural state it is the sea undermines the chalk and the cliff steadily collapses at about the rate of a foot a year, so if man hadn’t intervened with sea defences then most of our famous cliff top buildings in Ramsgate would have already fallen into the sea.

I don’t fully understand the business of building foreshore and under cliff developments here in Thanet recently.

We had a spate of this mostly in Victorian times when either these were leisure buildings, most of which have now vanished, like Ramsgate and Margate piers or most of the other Thanet pavilions. Or they were major pieces of civil engineering integrated with the cliffs, like Westcliff Hall, The Winter Gardens or the arches in Ramsgate.

Now we seem to have a group of developers that only ever seem to have experience of building inland who seem to think that they can ignore the major civil engineering challenges posed by these sites and just build any old thing there.

Ramsgate Slipways Development Update

First the amazing boards that were presumably made of the development’s new construction material and that changed colour, rather like a DJs trousers in 1971 have gone.

See http://www.thanetonline.com/slipways/id5.htm if you missed them.

Speculation as to why has so far eluded me. Were they stolen? Seems unlikely. Did the developer remove them and if so why?

Any ideas on this one greatly appreciated.

A three dimensional animation of the development has now appeared, see below.




I should point out that this animation has been produced by the developer to promote the development and not by people opposed to it.

The Ramsgate Society’s website is where I got it from, the trouble here is that you need a special program installed on your computer to view it, this is great on the duel processor 200 gig ram computer that I am using at the moment, but not so funny if you are using an old computer trying to run a newer operating system, like my ancient laptop that I tried to use to view it with last night.

This is the same as the council’s huge pdf files in as much as they are open to everybody rather in the same way that the Ritz is.
The image on the Ramsgate Society’s site is much cleaner than the one I put on youtube see http://www.ramsgate-society.org.uk/slipway.html

If you can’t view the animation on The Ramsgate society’s and decide to install software to do so, be careful of the tick boxes along the way, especially the one that asks you if you want it to be the default program for viewing video files.

And as I said if your computer is old and struggling I would give it a miss altogether.

Harbour slipways demolition application deadline extended.

I have just heard from the council that the deadline for comments supporting or objecting to the application to demolish part of slipways 2 and 3 all of slipway 4 and virtually all of the buildings on the boatyard don’t have to be submitted until the 15th of October.

This is now the same date as for the application to build the new development and I believe means that comments submitted can relate to both the development and the demolition.

Frankly this is a bit of a relief as I didn’t want to comment until I had heard what the environment agency – a statutory consultee – had to say about the matter.

One problem here is that they seem to have designed a small pier, but according to their flood risk assessment they seem be in a stare of denial regarding the hypostasis that the sea has waves.

I have come up with an estimate of the probable wave height in the harbour see http://www.thanetonline.com/slipways/id6.htm

Many thanks to reader Gareth who drew my attention to the glossy brochure that is part of the planning application, the picture above that should expand if you click on it a couple of times, shows some more interesting facets of the development.

Including the panoramic views across the sea and harbour, not sure where all the skyscrapers came from and one called, slipway incorporated within the proposal which appears to show the development sloping into the sea.

Ramsgate Slipways Development Artists impressions.

I have given up waiting for the developer to drop me in copies of the artists impressions of the development and as comments on the demolition application have to be sent to the council by Friday I went down to the Town Council offices where they are on display and photographed them.

Two of each one with flash and one without, both could be better but I have done my best.

I have also been sent an artists impression from another source and of a different view, below.

Also the picture it was based on, below, so that you can see the view from the harbour wall that is obscured by the development.

None of them come anywhere near expressing the building material that changes colour depending on the angle you view it from, click on the link for the pictures of the sample boards http://www.thanetonline.com/slipways/id5.htm

I have cropped some of the pictures of the boards and put them on the web to try and give some idea of the actual colours involved http://www.thanetonline.com/slipways/id7.htm

Plans to Demolish Ramsgate Harbour Slipways, Another Update

I have been discussing this development with the council, developer and architect mainly trying to find about the issues that were raised in the last posting about it see http://thanetonline.blogspot.com/2010/09/plans-to-demolish-ramsgate-harbour.html

I will start with the information about the lease, at the moment these are verbal assurances from a senior council officer, in view of the time the comments on the demolition application have to be submitted by 1st October, it is unlikely that I would get anything in writing before that time.

These comments relate to the lease for the part of the site comprising slipways 2,3 and 4, which is where the proposed development would be built.

The demolition application would, if successful, mean that these slipways cease to be usable.

This leasehold interest was bought from the boatyard operator by the developer for £90,000.

The conditions of the lease stipulate that the site can only be used as a ship repair facility.

The council have no intention of changing the terms of the lease at the moment and I have been assured that such a change would only be considered after a proper consultation process.

The current lease expires in ten years and the council assure me that, no lease longer than 25 years could be granted by the council, without going through the full asset disposal process.

This of course leaves us to consider what would happen if the developer fails to get change of usage for the site that he holds the lease on. I would conclude that he is unlikely to operate it as a ship repair facility.

Obviously I am not party to the agreement between the developer and the ship repair business owners, so there may be some part of the agreement that says the leasehold returns to them if the developer fails to get change of use or planning consent.

On the other hand we may be going into a situation where that part of the yard just falls into decay, I suppose much of this would depend on the will of the council to implement the terms of the lease.

I now come to the planning applications. The first application is the one to demolish the slipways workshops winding houses etc L/TH/10/0736

Now a new set of plans have appeared on the council’s planning website, planning ref F/TH/10/0737 the council’s planning website can be found at http://www.ukplanning.com/thanet

These are the plans to erect the development and the main difference that I can see is that these include a flood risk assessment.

This flood risk assessment doesn’t make sense to me.

I am going to have to put my science and engineering hat on here and do some explaining about sea levels, sorry about this but I have to assume that some people won’t know about sea levels.

In this country we use two different sea levels, the base level is called “datum”.

One is chart datum, this one appears on navigational charts, tide tables and is marked up next to the lock gate in the harbour.

The other is ordinance datum, this one appears on Ordinance Survey maps and architectural drawings.

Ordinance datum is 2.58 metres (about eight foot six inches) higher than chart datum.

Drawing no 206/05 (I have put it on the internet for convenience, the little numbers are the levels above ordinance datum) http://www.thanetonline.com/slipways/id3.htm shows an internal corridor, which is 3.6 metres above ordinance datum or 6.18 metres above chart datum.

The flood risk assessment’s highest predicted static tide 6.3 metres above chart datum, in fact ordinary high tides in Ramsgate are about 5 metres see http://easytide.ukho.gov.uk/EasyTide/EasyTide/ShowPrediction.aspx?PortID=0102&PredictionLength=7 for this weeks tides.

A spring tide or a tidal surge would push this figure up by about a meter and if the two occur together then we start to get into the realms of exceptionally high tides.

On top of this you get the effects of any wave action, I think highest waves in the harbour would be in the order of about 3 metres.

This corridor looks like it would be the only safe dry escape for the Seascouts.

I suppose the only thing in my assessment of the problems related to the high tide, that isn’t confirmed in the applications own flood risk assessment, is the maximum wave height in the harbour.

These pictures are of the damage sustained to the harbour wall adjacent to the development during a storm about thirty years ago. I have seen wave heights in the harbour of about 2 metres and been on pontoons with a wave height of over 1 metre, I suspect that 3 metres as a maximum may be an underestimate, best look at the pictures and make your own mind up.

With any plans if I find that there is something that doesn’t make sense to me in simple engineering terms the first place I go is the source of the plans, in this case the architects.

As this is a simple matter of, either the lower part of the development floods or it doesn’t and I asked them about this on the 20th and it is now the 24th I am beginning to suspect that there is a fault with the plans.

I have also put this to the council’s planning officers, who have forwarded the issue to the environment agency for comment.

Now we come to the look of the thing, or in this case things, I will start with what is there now, at a first look the corrugated sheds, vehicles and engineering equipment don’t look very attractive.

I suppose there is the characteristic that they have been there so long or at least buildings and equipment that are similar that most of us hardly gave what they look like a second thought, they are just part of the harbour.

In terms of slipways 3 and 4, these were the ones built in 1942 to service wartime vessels, the most interesting part from an historical point of view is the winding equipment in the winding house that dates from then.

It is a time capsule of preserved and working engineering from the Second World War.

On the yards perimeter fence next to the Clock House are the boards showing Ramsgate Lifeboat rescues, the whole thing is very much tied up with the town’s connection with the sea.

In the last few days two new boards have appeared above the lifeboat ones, there is no explanatory notice but these boards have a very unusual characteristic which is that they change colour depending on the angle that you view them from, click on the link for more pictures of this http://www.thanetonline.com/slipways/id5.htm

I am assuming that they are the material that is to be used in the construction of the new development as this is also supposed to change colour depending on where it is viewed from.

I suppose that it was this aspect of the new development that interested me the most, rather in the way the glass coating or the new Turner Contemporary interests me.

At this point someone who is very much for the new development turned up, and I told him what I thought they were, so there we were two grown men wandering up and down looking a the colours change.

After some consideration I remembered where I had seen this effect before, even the colours were similar.

Back in 1972 I had a summer job on a travelling fun fair and I had a pair of trousers that were made out of a fabric that did this, I am afraid the word that springs to mind here is tacky.

Looking at the planning drawings http://www.thanetonline.com/slipways/index.htm I haven’t put up any of the artists impressions here, as it is the plans that we are actually being asked to consider, the portholes life buoy on the wrong, landward side of the building, I am afraid that vulgar is another word that comes to mind.

I am still wondering about why the boards that change colour are where they are, above the lifeboat boards that will presumably be removed if the new development is built, seems a tad tactless in view of our connections, see http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/storm/id6.htm

I would have thought that if the idea was to check the building material’s resistance to salt water, the other side of the slipway would be more beneficial, the video is of an ordinary spring tide, with a moderate sea running.


This video was taken adjacent to the eastern side of where the new development is supposed to be going. I do wonder if the architect has considered this effect.

Having said this it does occur to me that I am probably mistaken here and the boards are something to do with the fun fair that will be coming for the quad bike event that the town council are organising.

The other day when I first looked into this the choice was between attempting to retain working slipways and the boat repair yard, which as I have said is not something attractive in an architectural sense or getting behind a new development.

Now it seems that the new development hasn’t been thought out properly, so we are being asked to support something that doesn’t appear to have been designed with existing sea levels in mind.

Given that the development is expected to have some sort of useful life then there is also the problem of rising sea levels to consider.

I have had a very busy day in the bookshop and will add to this post during the evening as I get time, I am using my rather ancient laptop so have put up an associated website as it just can’t manage the huge files on the council’s planning site, see http://www.thanetonline.com/slipways/index.htm

Plans to demolish Ramsgate harbour slipways update

Talking to people in Ramsgate at the moment this seems to be the main issue that they are interested in, when it comes to developments in the town.

A bit more information has come my way and here it is.

Today started with the information that the last date to comment on this application was this coming Tuesday, information about this application differs depending on who you ask.

I have since discovered directly from the planning case officer that last date you can comment is 1st of October.

For Ramsgate this application is a watershed and the choice is between having a working boatyard in the town and a single isolated slipway with a very small workshop. The main distinction is between a working harbour and a leisure marina.At the moment we have four slipways combined with a large workshop and yard area.

The intention is to turn most of this in to a restaurant and bar complex.

More information and pictures at http://www.ramsgateslipways.co.uk/ and http://www.ukplanning.com/thanet planning ref L/TH/10/0736

No. 1 Slip - 60 MTRS LONG X 12 MTRS BEAM

700 TON DISPLACEMENT

This is the main slipway, mostly used for plating, painting and repairs to small cargo vessels. Very roughly it is not available for use about half of the time, by this I mean it either has a ship on it or is down for maintenance.

No. 2 Slip - 36.6 MTRS LONG X 7.5 MTRS BEAM

100 TON DISPLACEMENT
The council surveyed this in April 2009 and declared it unfit for use.

No. 3 Slip - 15.3 MTRS LONG X 5.5 MTRS BEAM

50 TON DISPLACEMENT

The firm that operates the slipways recently spent quite a bit, rumoured to be about £50,000 repairing this and rebuilding the cradle.

No. 4 Slip - COVERED SLIPWAY 16.5 MTRS LONG X 4 MTRS BEAM

20 TON DISPLACEMENT

This is a small vessel slipway that takes vessels into the workshop and was largely replaced by the marina’s boatlift.

No. 5 Workshop - MULTI-DISCIPLINE FACILITIES AND PROJECT OFFICES

The general stance from the slipway operator has been that slipways 2, 3 and 4 are not profitable but slipway 1 is. I don’t really know if this is based on some sort of commercial evidence, certainly none seems to be available. I would think that the harbour’s lift has had an impact there see http://www.portoframsgate.co.uk/welcome_to_the_marina/booking_berths__fees/boat_lifting_charges_2010.aspx

Another consideration that comes into this is the future of the maritime museum, the historic vessel pontoon and how these integrate with the historic boatyard next door.

I suppose my assumption was that slipways 2 and 3 with their World War 2 heritage status would have had a part to play in this, I would assume that grant funding would have been readily available, particularly as the original wartime 1942 winding equipment is still there and working, something I assume is fairly unique. What I expected to see was these being used for modern boat repairs and historic boat restorations, providing a backdrop to our emerging café culture.

There is a bit of a balancing act here, on the one hand when it comes to what Ramsgate has to offer that makes it different from other towns is its unique heritage, something that is much more evident in most parts of the town than is usual.

On the other hand a working boatyard does produce noise and dust and to some people may be seen as a bit of a nuisance in the middle of our emerging café culture.

Another aspect here is the wind farm operators both Thanet Offshore Wind Farm and the London Array, the smaller slipways are ideal for the maintenance of their support craft. At the moment slipway 3 is used for this for much of the time.

A major factor in the decision about what happens here will depend the comment from local people both those supporting and those objecting to this application. At the moment my information is that no one whatsoever has commented at all.

The developer has recently restored The Custom House, something that I think most people would consider has been fairly successful, although in this case it puts the town council in the difficult position, that is should they wish to object to the application to demolish the slipways, as this application is being made by their landlord.

The developer also recently demolished The Granville Marina Restaurant, I would say that most people would consider that this restoration project has been less successful.

I should make it clear that the application that one has to consider is one to demolish the slipways and although there are potential development plans attached to the application, their approval isn’t being sought at this time.

There are several aspects of this potential development that concern me, the first being that the land has already changed hands.

The council own the freehold and the lease to the yard operator for the whole site was a twenty year lease dating from 1990. The developer paid the yard operator £90,000 for the remaining 10 years leasehold, for the part of the site that the development is to be built on, so the land registry now records two leases from the council.

This is unusual as normally there would be a sublease from the yard operator to the developer. It would seem unlikely that the developer would wish to construct an expensive development with only a ten year lease.

There is also a rumour that the council intend to grant the developer a 120 year lease, normally any lease over 25 years would be seen as an asset disposal and therefore have to go through the council procedures and scrutiny associated with this.

This rule doesn’t apply in some cases where tenants already hold long leases, however I am uncertain of the position should the council wish to use this exception in this case.

There are also likely to be conditions attached to the lease stipulating what this site can be used for.

There is also the problem of what could be done with the remaining slipway and the smaller workshop facilities, you can see from the plan above that the proposed bar and restaurant complex is very close to the slipway. As I have already pointed out work on vessels rends to be dusty and noisy.

Considering that a normal high tide comes up to the bottom of the slipway cradles when they are at the top of the slipways and the new workshop is much smaller, it is difficult to see where normal ship repair operations like bending a ships steel plate to shape could take place.

You can also see that what remains of slipways 2 3 and 4 would be submerged at high water, so they would not be of any use for anything.

The listed status of the slipways, in fact all of the harbour is somewhat fragmented and appears to be out of date, here it is:

“RAMSGATE ROYAL HARBOUR
TR 36 SE + TR 3864 NW
3+ 13/345

East Pier, No. 1
Slipway, bollards
30.10.85 and Victoria or
Dover Stairs
GV II
Harbour pier, slipway and bollards. Circa 1750 to 1792; built in part round
the old pier. Later repairs. Thomas Preston, Harbour mason. Extension or
advanced pier to south west c.1788, with Smeaton as designer and engineer:
pier head repaired 1812-14 by John Rennie. Faced with granite; stepped
granite to inner walls, roll moulded outer wall below parapet. Stone flag
paving, largely covered now with C20 paving. Thirty eight painted granite
bollards along inner wall. Radial pattern paving slabs at pier head. No.
1 slipway against east pier inner face is a Morton's Patent Slipway of 1838
with travelling cradle running on inclined rails above granite sets,
originally steam operated. Victoria or Dover stairs of granite, 1831 against
inner face of East pier. (See Busson, chap. 3; also Maritime Thanet,
R.B. Matkin).

Listing NGR: TR3812864526”

What protection is affords in this case is uncertain, I suppose that most people assumed that the harbour would be better listed.

Something that also concerns me is that the delays in granting the maritime museum a lease, means that the people closest to this development are not in occupation and therefore not in a position to make the comments about the development that would hold the most weight, in terms of planning law.

With the pavilion vacant on the other side, the site has no immediate neighbours available to comment, a situation that makes the site vulnerable to unsuitable development.