Wednesday, 23 April 2008

HOW TDC ARROGANCE COULD COST LIVES AT THE PLEASURAMA SITE

The picture above shows a little Gale Force 9 throwing tons of seawater over Margate Harbour Wall last month. Click on it to see about 60 tonnes of water airborne and how it behaves.

You will be aware, I hope, of how Michael Child (Thanetonline) has drawn the press, Cllrs and Thanet South MPs attention to a report from The Environment Agency concerning The Pleasurama Development ( Royal Sands) in Ramsgate sent to TDC on 8 Feb 2008. TDC sat on this report for 2 months and did nothing. The history behind this report is that the Environmental Agency has revised sea-level data and Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) parameters since Pleasurama (Royal Sands) got planning consent. Let me quote from it:

"As the proposal stands a serious flood could potentially leave residents stranded in their homes without a safe means of escape for the duration of the event."( A high sea piling into the building).

"We would HIGHLY RECOMMEND that a full FRA (Flood Risk Assessment) is undertaken which could inform appropriate resilience and resistance measures" (i.e. the building is reinforced/protected structurally to withstand 250 tonnes of water hitting it over 600 times in a 3 hr period). "The assessment could also inform the production of a suitable flood warning and evacuation plan for both residential and commercial parts of the development." (i.e get people to safety before loss of life).

Now, I am just a simple sort of guy, but here we have the Government experts (The Environment Agency) HIGHLY RECOMMENDING some sensible steps that should be taken in respect of this development. You would think that any responsible Local Council would get on with it and institute a new FRA and enforce its findings on the developers. No, not TDC.

According to Tom Betts in today's Your Thanet, here's what a TDC spokesman (sic) had to say about denying the need for a new FRA:

'She said " The letter from the EA states that although standards have changed, they are not requesting a Flood Risk Assessment............... THERE IS NO NEED WHATSOEVER TO REVISIT THE PLANNING APPLICATION" (my capitals!)

Does this silly woman have any idea what 'highly recommended' means and what the EA are telling TDC? She needs talking to and quickly; how arrogant can TDC get? Its no surprise that 'Royal Sands' developers SFP Ventures UK Ltd had no comment to make with comments like this from an officer or member from TDC; she's doing a good enough job on their behalf already!

I just hope to goodness there are some councillors out there who will get onto this issue and sort it out fast. If the EA's 'highly recommended' suggestions are to be ignored, who is going to be liable in Law and stand accused of 'corporate manslaughter' should nothing be done now and the worst happens?

8 comments:

Ian J said...

Well they can't say they didn't know about the flood risk when standing before the judge at the high court, trying to explain the 100 dead bodies that were dragged from the wreckage.

Anonymous said...

I doubt anyone planning to buy a flat there would get buildings insurance so would be crazy to buy. I know that there were difficulties in getting insurance for the flats built in the chalk pit in St. Peter's behind Albion Road.

This is yet another example of this council's unbelievable arrogance (or, in this case, it seems a council employee). No wonder so many despair of this lot but no doubt, will still vote them in next time round.

Michael Child said...

Bertie thanks for the supporting post, this is the second time my posts Pleasurama Environment Agency report and Pleasurama where do we go from here have made it into the local papers in a week, so I am hopeful of a productive outcome.

This is such a big project that will effect Ramsgate for such a long time that we have to try and get it right. The thought of a line of uninsurable and hence uninhabitable retail units disfiguring our main promenade is too horrible to contemplate.

Ian J I find most people underestimate the scale of the project the building is a quarter of a kilometre long, in a worse case scenario it’s more likely to be between 1,000 and 1,500 bodies, about the same as the Titanic, to put it in perspective.

Rick said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Interesting Rick, but relevent how?

Please try and stick to the topic rather than boring us to death with your monotonous rants! Please!

Anonymous said...

Rick is right

"Article 2 of the ECHR. If TDC allow the development to go ahead then are they breaching Article 2 ? failing to ensure rights to life."

Not forgetting corporate manslaughter law?

Lets not forget some of the other factual statements within ricks so called rant.

So rick/michael keep it up please

Michael Child said...

Rick on odd occasions you have produced very short one liners that nail it to the wall, re think please we need you help too

Bertie Biggles said...

Rick,
I have to agree with others and I have hit the edit button again. You make a very valid point about bureaucracy passing the buck backwards and forwards. I show your 'edited' post below:

Rick said...
Power to you Michael.

But the bigger the risk the less people will identify with it or accept it.

This remains the problem with the issue I fight. Unreliable (including deliberately sabotaged) backup generators.

Ian J. I think you would find that they would accept knowing of the warnings re floods but deny it was their responsibility.

And in the nuclear situation ... Police say it is for Trading Standards. Health and Safety say it is for the industry, Defence Select say it is for Home Affairs and Works and Pensions; and Home Office say it is for the Independent Police Complaints Commission who say they do not have retrospective jurisdiction.

DTI Civil Nuclear Security say it is for Health and safety. Who (see above) say it is for the industry itself.


Keep going Michael. And bear in mind Article 2 of the ECHR. If TDC allow the development to go ahead then are they breaching Article 2 ? failing to ensure rights to life.
24 April 2008 13:58