DUMPTON PARK DRIVE - WHERE TO NEXT?

I hope that I have managed to precis what has been a complicated tale for readers but the question that now needs to be asked is where to next?
.
Cllrs at Full Council on 23 April made it clear that they did not really want to consider the item but we still await the next move by TDC. Do they intend to accept that their grubby, cheap attempt to put a house on this land when having no freehold to offer a developer, has incurred waste of tax-payers money, Councillor's time and resident's not inconsiderable expense? Or could it just be possible that they carry on digging deeper into the hole they are in? I have heard a rumour that G. Day were the builders/developers who placed the present fence in the wrong position in the first place that has included land TDC has no title to freehold for. Was Cllr Day, who has been a keen supporter of this project on Planning, aware of this? What developers are showing interest in this scheme? Would TDC care to name them?
.
I believe it is long overdue for TDC to comply with its own Cabinet directive of August 2008 and go back to the Ward Cllr and residents and re-commence discussions to dispose of the land as gardens to residents, which is where the saga began in 2007! The serious issue of what poor and incorrect advice was given to Cllrs by Officers and why, is up to Cllrs to ponder and then to perhaps act on?
.
One has to ask the question whether Cllr Latchford and Mr White are prepared to admit that they got this issue wrong and apologise to all concerned? It seems to me that this is the only way, tax-payers are going to benefit from an asset disposal of this nature. There is a real danger that TDC might find itself owning scrub-land that is worth something as gardens but could be of little value at all, if it transpires that access to it is not possible!
.
Whilst it is the duty of TDC to maximise the return for tax-payers on asset disposal, in this matter it seems to have not acted in the tax-payer's interests or considered the interests of the residents in Dumpton Park Drive.
.
This saga would seem to have further to run yet. In the meantime, I intend to go along to support a Summer Fete organised by the residents, on Saturday 11 July on their 'village green'. I wonder if there will be a coconut shy with pictures of various well known faces glued to coconuts?

THE EXTRAORDINARY CONDUCT OT TDC IN DUMPTON PARK DRIVE- PART 3

Despite the Cabinet decision of 7 Aug 2008 (regarding asset disposal) that required the Ward Cllrs and residents to be consulted about purchase for gardens it would seem that Mr Brian White and The Deputy Leader (Cllr Latchford) decided to pursue another course!
.
Presumably they had plans drawn up by an architect and then got an officer to make an application on behalf of TDC . What we can only speculate on is what pressure was then put on the Planning Officers to come up with a case that would then be a justification to allow this application to go ahead. Well Emma Fibbens, obliged, with or without the influence of her Deputy Leader or her 'boss', Mr Brian White, to put a 'defer to full Council for approval' case to Planning Committee on Wed 18th February this year. There were some difficult issues she had to side-step in regard to TDC's own declared Policies.
.
The first was the fact that development of the site completely ignored Policy SR 10 and Policy SR 11 (concerning no devlopment on public and private open space) so she made no mention of these! The other policy that had to be got round was of course Policy H1! This states quite clearly:
.
"residential development on non-allocated sites will be permitted only on PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND (my capitals) within existing built up confines."
.
Well this land does not fall into that category but Emma Fibbens, gets round the problem by admitting that this development is contrary to policy but that " a departure from this policy can only be considered IF THERE IS A FAVOURABLE JUSTIFICATION THAT OUTWEIGHS THE NEED TO COMPLY WITH POLICY H1 (my capitals)".
.
Now, forgive me for being cynical, but the only justification would appear to be the fact that this application is TDC's own application! I will not bore you with the further waffle in the officer's report to try and justify this application on the grounds that it enhances the street scene when it clearly does not!. (See picture below of present street scene.) but this quote is too good to leave out:
.
"On balance it is considered that the space offers no intrinsic value to the street scene and therefore the development of the site and the completion of the street scene WOULD RESULT IN THE GREATEST ENHANCEMENT (my capitals). How this can be argued by an independent minded Planning Officer baffles me. But of course, that may not have been the case.
.
Well, Planning Committtee did its stuff and referred the application to Full Council. Here is the extract of the minutes that show Cllr Day ( a developer) proposing:
.
"Moved by Councillor Day and seconded by Councillor Ward that:
“the application F/TH/08/1394 be referred to Council with recommendation to
approve......."
Between February and Full Council of 23 April this year, there was a veritable flurry of activity; residents pursued legal options; lobbied their MP, Dr Steve Ladyman; lobbied Councillors and lodged an application with KCC to designate the land as common land as a 'village green'. It would appear that Mr Brian White and Cllr Latchford were, to put it simply, one tracked on this issue and forged ahead despite reasonable arguments put to them that this whole nonsense was a waste of time. One does wonder why that should have been?
.
I digress. The report to Cllrs for the Full Council in April used the same specious argument used to convince the Planning Committtee in February:
.
" the open space the site provides offers no intrinsic value to the street scene and therefore the development of the site and the completion of the street scene would result in the GREATEST ENHANCEMENT (my capitals)!"
.
There was no mention that TDC had no freehold to the site other than the 'garden space' and that there was a priority application at KCC (which needs to be resolved first) under The Commons Act 2006 in regard to the planned location of the house itself! The Full Council was further grossly misled in writing in the Brief to Councillors and at the start of the consideration of Agenda Item 19 by the newly appointed Monitoring Officer. It is important to grasp what our Cllrs were told in writing by Head of Regeneration Services (Mr Brian White) and verbally by TDC's own Monitoring Officer:
.
4.1.1. A refusal of planning permission may result in the submission of an appeal, which may incur financial costs should external assistance be required in preparing and presenting the Council's case. Furthermore, Members are advised that, should the appeal be in the form of a hearing or Public Inquiry, and if the appellant applies for costs, there is a risk that an awarded (sic) could be made against the Council.
.
4.2.1. A decision to refuse planning permission may result in an appeal and the need for legal assistance in response. Should the appeal be in the form of a Public Inquiry, it may be necessary to appoint external assistance.
.
If you have not grasped what utter tosh this is, let me explain! We have Mr Brian White and the Monitoring officer telling OUR Councillors that TDC could end up paying a great deal of tax-payers money fighting an appeal by TDC (the applicant) against TDC (the LPA)! One could not invent this tale if one tried!
.
The Full Council Meeting in April descended into farce as this item was examined. It was quite clear that many of our Councillors were not happy! Cllr Hayton ( a respected Chair of Planning at TDC for 20 years until sacked by Ezekiel last year) stated:
.
" The idea that we are attempting to give planning permission to ourselves here when ownership is not absolute is extremely dubious. I don't like it and will not support it."
.
When it was apparent that most of our Councillors wanted nothing to do with this application and were likely to turn it down, sycophantic members lept to their feet to state "move, we move on to next business" and "seconded!" After a second carefully counted vote, this motion was carried and Council moved on!
.
No wonder (see Part 2) a rep from a major chain said afterwards, " I've never seen anything like what I just witnessed in there... pandemonium and fiasco I'd say....and if I was you I'd check up on whether there weren't proceedural irregularities there."
.
I am beginning to think that this whole business is a disgrace that brings our Council into disrepute and makes us as much of a laughing stock as the antics of our Leader and his 'f***ing t***er' incident in 2007 or the description of his Deputy Leader, Cllr Latchford in The Edinburgh Woollen Mill in 2008, 'leaping like a salmon to grab the petititon'! The difference here,of course, is that senior officers and other officers that our Councillors rely on for professional advice are also involved in the farce and this is perhaps a more worrying issue?

THE EXTRAORDINARY CONDUCT OF TDC IN DUMPTON PARK DRIVE - PART 2

In Part 1, I outlined how a 'disposal' involving residents at Dumpton Park suddenly became an application by TDC to TDC, to 'shoe-horn' a house between 132 and 134 Dumpton Park Drive.
.
In February this year (prior to TDC Planning Committee meeting on Wed 18 February) , Albion Fencing arrived to fence off the open ground between the houses and residents took it down. This eventually led to a stand-off with TDC Officer Paul Verrall threatening to have residents arrested. Albion Fencing and TDC were required to retire, not gracefully, when the details of the Land Registry pronouncements were drawn to their attention! If you look at the picture above, TDC's land is marked in yellow and blue; the blue denotes a restrictive covenant preventing building taking place on the blue land (hence the alteration to F/TH/08/1394!). The plan below shows the Land Registry findings quite clearly!

The land marked purple is declared as 'Open Land' and Land Registry have denied TDC's 'land grab' through 'adverse posession' for it. The land marked green has been offered to TDC by Land Registry under possessory title due to unchallenged wrongful positioning of a fence. However, TDC cannot claim freehold until 2021! My understanding is that the fence was not erected by TDC but by a person who kept horses here some time ago, without consent from anyone!

.

The first picture below shows the land denied to TDC that has now become the subject of a village green application with KCC by the local residents. The fence, not built by TDC, does not demarcate TDC's land correctly but that did not stop TDC putting up a sign a little while ago, claiming it as theirs. I wonder what the position in law would be if residents decided to re-position the fence correctly?

In Part 3, the hilarious and risible proceedings by TDC Planning Officers, Planning Committtee and finally Full Council in this matter will be covered. Just to whet your appetite, here is a quote from a representative of a major chain of retailers with an application approved on 23 April 2009 talking to residents as they left the TDC Council Chamber:

.

"I am the legal representative of ***" she said, "I spend my working life in council chambers all over the country on planning applications and I can tell you...I've never seen anything like what I have just witnessed in there..... "

.

The farce that this whole issue has become, gets even more interesting. You must bear in mind though that for the residents in Dumpton Park Drive, this is no laughing matter as they fight their own elected Council who are behaving like some grubby property speculator and they have already incurred £10,000 + legal expenses to fight this issue. No return by TDC to the minuted Cabinet Meeting instruction of 8 Aug 2008 to 'consult with those residents who may wish to extend their gardens'. Why is that?

.

Instead TDC is till pushing its own Planning Application to itself, to put a house on land they have no claim to in law; on land they have no freehold on until 2021 and only if their cliam is not disputed! One has to wonder what is the motivation behind this? Who is to benefit? Is this really in the Council Tax payer's interest?

THE EXTRAORDINARY CONDUCT OF TDC IN DUMPTON PARK DRIVE - PART 1

This tale is going to take some time to tell and readers will have to persevere with me. It will I hope reveal some extraordinary activities by TDC that are clearly not in the public interest; may be the subject of a Local Government Ombudsman report and has, I would argue, already cost TDC a great deal of money and effort that has been totally unnecessary and may cost a great deal more yet.
.
In the picture above ( from Virtual Earth/Bing) you will note a gap between 132 and 134 Dumpton Park Drive with a patch of overgrown shrubland between the small rear gardens and the railway line. It would appear to have been left as an access to the railway and a nearby bricked up tunnel that ran down to Ramsgate Harbour.
.
Through-out 2007, local residents became so fed up with 'agents' for developers knocking on doors and asking ' who owns this land?' or putting up signs on an old wooden fence saying 'private property', that they decided to approach Land Registry and find out. Part of it turned out to be registered with The Mayor and Burgesses of Ramsgate Council (now TDC). (Should it now revert to ownership by Ramsgate Town Council?)
.
Residents drew the attention of TDC to the fact that it owned most of this plot ( a fact that they seemed unaware of at the time) and in 2007 made an offer to TDC to purchase it at market value to extend their gardens. This seemed a sensible step. TDC would be able to dispose of an asset that has been derelict for almost 50 years and get a return for the Council tax-payer and residents could benefit with enlarged gardens that had been truncated for a purpose that was no longer relevant i.e. access to the railway tunnel and track. This matter then rested with TDC saying 'we will get back to you' but never did!
.
Instead this land appeared on TDC's Assets Disposal Register in the summer of 2008 as Item 10 and at Cabinet on 7 August 2008 it was agreed that the land was surplus subject to:
.
1. Detailed discussion with Network Rail.
2. Consultation with ward Cllr and those residents who may wish to extend their gardens.
3. A Land contamination survey.
4. Final decision left to HOS (Mr Brian White) and Deputy Leader (Cllr Latchford)..
.
Now a reasonable person would assume that TDC would now go back to residents and negotiate a price with them or at least raise it with them. This did not happen!
.
Instead TDC, on 27th November lodged its own Planning Application with itself to build a detached garage to the rear and in the gap place a 4 bed-roomed detached house. ( At this stage you may wish to go to UK Planning and look at F/TH/08/1394 or try www.ukplanning.com/ukp/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=F%2FTH%2F08%2F1394&action=Search .
.
Although TDC is perfectly in its rights to apply for consent from itself, you might be forgiven for asking why, given the Cabinet Minutes above of 3 months previously?
.
There were some problems however for TDC in its attempts to 'shoe-horn' a house into this narrow gap. The first was a restrictive covenant on building and the second was ownership of land. More about that later in Part 2.
.
Below, I have shown you what the 'revised' plan from TDC became by the time the application came before Planning Committtee on 18th February 2009! You might note how close it is placed beside 132 Dumpton Park Drive and its balcony and rear extensions ie. it is right up against the boundary. When you read what a 'professional' TDC Planning Officer advised TDC Cllrs, please bear this in mind! (click on the pic below for more detail).

TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT?

As rubbish and neglect seems topical at the moment, I must thank another regular reader for these two pictures. The contrasting causes for the problems are perhaps piquant!
.
TDC clearly falling down on the dog pooh problem in St Peter's Recreation Ground led to this unsavoury pile of deposits steaming in the summer sun-shine yesterday morning. (I am told this has now been rectified.)
.
The litter in Hawley Square last night cannot be blamed on our hard-pressed TDC teams. This is entirely the responsibility of the scroat who dropped it, despite being within spitting distance of the bin across the road!

Perhaps we should all try and do better?
.
It might help if TDC monitored better their little lorries scurrying about the towns behind street cleaners etc . On Monday morning a private residence with the ground floor flat being revamped, had one of their lorries pull up and amidst merriment and real urgency, the decorator and TDC chaps loaded up debris into the lorry that had been piled in the front garden. It did not seem an official activity and I am suspicious that it was not. Mentioning this to one or two contacts revealed that 'moon-lighting' work of this nature for a few quid to a Council mate is a well know feature in Thanet and not only during the week but at week-ends.
.
Perhaps we should take a lesson from pupils from Holy Trinity & St Johns Primary school who were out in force this morning in yellow jackets and with TDC waste bags cleaning up litter in Dane Park? My first thought was that TDC must be desperate if they have now got children doing the work, as the full bags indicated the sorry prior state of the Park. Then I thought that as an 'eco' school it was a sensible activity for pupils but surely as a 'voluntary' activity after school?
.
Is it unreasonable to expect children to be taught at school during school hours and not picking up litter in our local park in such quantities that would indicate TDC is not on top of the problem?

COUNCILS LIKE COBBLERS SHOULD STICK TO THEIR LAST

A regular reader has sent me this picture and one below of wild meadows growing around Broadstairs where neatly mowed verges should be. If you visit ECR (www.eastcliffrichard.blogspot.com) you will see a recent picture of unsavoury matter floating in Ramsgate Harbour and plenty of pictures of rubbish and closed public toilets.
.
We seem to have a problem with TDC and KCC as both councils seem to ignore and neglect the traditional functions of Councils whilst embarking on projects they should not be involved with.
.
Frankly, I am not interested whether Cllr Latchford is happy that 90,000 people visited Palm Bay this weekend because my view is that TDC should not be involved in this sort of nonsense. I am reminded of KCC and its costly TV station.
.
Both councils waste money on such projects whilst streets go unswept, uncut and become pot-holed; our toilets are rundown and then closed; our country roads, back-alleys and harbours accumulate rubbish and heaven knows what else; our road drains are silted and grow weeds; pollution incidents are not monitored properly and rectified and our underground aquifer is in state 'red' and we are likely to lose it.

The picture below shows two examples of how inept our Councils have become. The infilling and tarmac laying by KCC after replacing a lamp-post has left an 8 inch depression and the first visitation by a street cleaner in 9 months has led to two bags of rubbish left behind for 8 days now. This is inept supervision and poor management that other councils in the land do better.

Is the fact that KCC Highways reorganised and their out-station with TDC first moved to Canterbury and then Ashford responsible for this neglect in Thanet? I am reliably informed that this re-organistaion has cost in the region of £30,000,000 gross and that the previous Head of Highways has been quietly moved sideways.

.

The dirty dilapidated condition of our streets, harbours, toilets and drains not only puts off visitors but encourages the anti-social to not care either, so exacerbating the situation with more littering, fly-tipping, graffiti and vandalism. So Cllr Latchford and TDC, instead of organising a Big Event, ineptly according to some, get on and look to the basics please and get KCC to look after its responsibilities in Thanet too.

UPSET IN ST PETER'S?

It is with pride that we should celebrate the fact that Her Majesty has commanded Her Lord Lieutenant for Kent to go along to St Peter's on the 2nd July to present on her behalf, The Queen's Award for Voluntary Service to the stalwarts behind that major tourist attracting project, St Peter's Village Tour.
.
There is however a small snag. Her Majesty's representative is likely to find roads blocked off as the revisit to the gas-mains work will be in full progress. The pictures below show holes opened up and ready and even some modern technology of a plank of wood in place! One has to ask, why wasn't the job done properly in the spring after so much disruption to local businesses and massive inconvenience to the public?

Sources tell me that the start of road closures and some serious work has been delayed at the request of TDC for a Dickens to Turner walk!

.

So in the nicest possible way, b*gger Her Majesty's instructions to Her Lord Lieutenant in regard to a presentation on Her behalf, but TDC can delay the work without considering the events of 2nd July in St Peter's for some arty farty Turner Contemporary promotion?

.

I hope some KCC and TDC Councillors will look into this matter and clarify if the Lord Lieutenant can carry out Her Majesty's wishes on the 2nd July without having to pick his way past gas mains work that should have been done properly in the first place.