First it’s likely that there might be issues about the stability
of the cliff face. As I have already mentioned at least £2million of public
money has been spent in the last 5 years repairing and painting the cliff face.
The latest efforts appear to have hit snags which have led to over-running of
the repair contract and the decision to delay work until next spring. I don’t
believe that this delay is, as Thanet Council would have us believe, simply because
bad weather prevented the application of the final coat of paint. I think there
is something a lot more serious going on. Ramsgate bookseller, Michael Child,
has blogged extensively about the Pleasurama cliff face here is a link to his
latest thoughts on this matter.
http://thanetonline.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/the-pleasurama-development-in-ramsgate.html
Michael has a number of concerns about the stability of the cliff face and the lack of foundations for the facing. He makes the extremely important point that the proposed flats will be built within 4-5 metres of the cliff face and asks how it will be physically possible to repair and maintain the cliff face with such a narrow gap to operate and work within. He also asks whether mortgage lenders and insurance companies would fund the purchase and cover insurance costs of buildings which are built extremely close to a cliff face which has previously collapsed and may possibly have stability problems.
http://thanetonline.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/the-pleasurama-development-in-ramsgate.html
Michael has a number of concerns about the stability of the cliff face and the lack of foundations for the facing. He makes the extremely important point that the proposed flats will be built within 4-5 metres of the cliff face and asks how it will be physically possible to repair and maintain the cliff face with such a narrow gap to operate and work within. He also asks whether mortgage lenders and insurance companies would fund the purchase and cover insurance costs of buildings which are built extremely close to a cliff face which has previously collapsed and may possibly have stability problems.
The other issue is, of course, the risk of flooding. The
Pleasurama development is to be built on a site which is designated by the
Environment Agency as a high risk flood zone. But because planning was secured
10 years ago there was no requirement for a flood risk assessment to be carried
out on the development plans. Was new planning permission to be applied for on
this site then a flood risk assessment would have to be obtained and its
findings taken account before the plans could be approved. It should also be
borne in mind that the flood risk analysis of the site dates back to 2009 and
that in the 6 years which has elapsed since this analysis, climate change experts
have upwardly reviewed their forecasts for temperature changes, sea level rises
and extreme weather incidents. In fact just this week climate change experts
and politicians from around the world have been meeting in Paris to discuss the
growing danger of melting ice caps and rising sea levels. From what I can gather
(although I’m no expert), sea levels will continue to rise and extreme weather
incidents increase over the next few decades making it much more likely that
the Pleasurama site will be flooded, which again raises the question of whether
mortgage lenders and insurance companies
will wish to fund the purchase and cover damage to flats built on this site.
Last but not least is the most important question of all –
would anyone wish to buy one of the 107 flats planned for the site? Had Thanet District Council, on instructions
from its then Labour leadership, not served a High Court Injunction on me (and
the Thanet Gazette) 12 months ago I would have been able to publish a very detailed independent report on this matter which might (or might
not) have shed some light on this critically important question. However
not wanting to risk a large fine or having
to spend Xmas in prison, I will make no
further reference to this report except to say it is a highly professional
document which makes extremely interesting reading . But in any case, events have now overtaken the
injuncted report and probably made its contents redundant because an answer
about the potential saleability of the Pleasurama flats lies not in my locked filing cabinet, but just half a mile down the
road from the development site at Marina Esplanade. This is the location of the
mini-Pleasurama-style seafront development, Beach Retreat, with 7 flats on the
market for about £425,000 each. The development has been complete for over a
year now and according to my research on the Land Registry website none of the
flats appear to have been sold. So the
question must be asked if 7 already completed, high spec, seafront flats have
failed to sell in 12 months, what’s the prospect of 107 nearby flats of a similar price range and
specification selling? Bearing in mind what £450,000
could buy you elsewhere in Ramsgate and taking account of the issues about the cliff face and the flood risk, I personally believe that that
there will not be many takers for these flats. Spending somewhere in the region
of £15 million building 107 flats which nobody
wants to buy is probably a gamble too far for even the most experienced property
developer. My guess is that Cardy is now becoming anxious about Pleasurama becoming a financial Disasterama
for them. Unless of course they have (S)ecret (F)unding (P)roviders supporting them in this ill-starred Venture - perhaps assisted by a Swiss based financial institution owned by a former Sunday Times rich list member?
Interestingly the Thanet Gazette reported just last week
that the exchange of contracts between Cardry and TDC relating to the transfer
of the Pleasurama freehold has not been completed yet. Presumably this means
that the Council has not yet received the widely reported £3million for the
sale of the land from Cardy? Perhaps the
delay in the exchange of contracts, the delay
in payment for the freehold of the site and the delay in finishing the repairs
to the cliff face may all somehow be linked. In fact some people might argue that these
delays will provide a convenient opportunity for TDC and Cardy to negotiate and
agree a way out of what looks like a very difficult situation. In the same way that Margate’s Dreamland is also
trying to extract itself from the brown stuff with its creditors.
Although I normally like to wish all my reader’s season’s
greetings and a happy and prosperous New Year I somehow think 2016 might well
become a Nightmare for Dreamland, a
Disasterama for Pleasurama, and SNAFU
for TDC.
Changes in the Autumn statement mean that on a £450K property buy to let owners will have to pay £36K in stamp duty, up from £22.5k and not be able to claim all of their mortgate interest as tax relief so those flat will cost nearly £500K to buy.
ReplyDeleteTdc are running the election incorrectly aren't they as only 6 working days not the required 19 have been allowed for candidates to register? Very dodgy to breach electoral law and reduce the number of candidates?
DeleteBayford and Painter must be able to explain this and other strange property deals..?
ReplyDeleteA disaster indeed as with Dreamland Tdc planning are expensive incimpetents and need the sack
ReplyDeleteTdc planning dept should be sacked. We need a clear out
ReplyDeleteBayford and Painter must know more about this development and the mystery Caribbean tax haven company?
ReplyDeleteYour TDC Court order is appalling Ian - why have the councillors not instructed Homer to drop it?
ReplyDeleteHomer is not running tdc any better than macgonigal. She should detail improvement or go
ReplyDeleteYes UKIP aren't doing anything different or better to improve TDC...
ReplyDelete