What the Councils planning department says

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" height=82 BGCOLOR="#111111" TEXT="#F7F7FF"> <div> <FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Arial" ><B>Email Height Parking financial accountability</B></FONT><B>     |     </B><A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Email Height Parking financial accountab"><U><B>home</B></U></A><B>            </B><A HREF="http://www.thanetonline.com/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.thanetonline.com/"><U><B>thanetonline.com</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Email Height Parking financial accountab"><U>Email Height Parking financial accountability</U></A>   |   <B>What the Councils planning department says</B>   |   <A HREF="id35.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="To all members of the scrutiny committee"><U>To all members of the scrutiny committee 24/11/2004 </U></A>   |   <A HREF="id37.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="To all cabinet members 16/11/4"><U>To all cabinet members 16/11/4</U></A>   |   <A HREF="to_all_councillors_5_11_04.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="To all Councillors 5/11/04"><U>To all Councillors 5/11/04</U></A>   |   <A HREF="email_about_the_old_pleasurama_site_in_ramsgate__.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Email to all councillors about the old P"><U>Email to all councillors about the old Pleasurama site in Ramsgate. </U></A>   |   <A HREF="leisure_facilities_in_ramsgate_.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="leisure facilities in Ramsgate "><U>leisure facilities in Ramsgate </U></A>   |   <A HREF="david_green.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="David Green"><U>David Green</U></A>   |   <A HREF="richard_nicholson.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Richard Nicholson"><U>Richard Nicholson</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id38.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Mike Harrison"><U>Mike Harrison</U></A>   |   <A HREF="steve_ward.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Steve Ward"><U>Steve Ward</U></A>   |   <A HREF="jack_cohen_.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Jack Cohen "><U>Jack Cohen   </U></A>   |   <A HREF="john_kirby_.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="John Kirby "><U>John Kirby </U></A>   |   <A HREF="letter_to_dr__ladyman.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Letter to Dr. Ladyman"><U>Letter to Dr. Ladyman</U></A>   |   <A HREF="report_for_cabinet_10th_november_2004.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="report for Cabinet 10th November 2004"><U>report for Cabinet 10th November 2004</U></A>   |   <A HREF="alan_poole.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Alan Poole"><U>Alan Poole</U></A>   |   <A HREF="ian_gregory.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Ian Gregory"><U>Ian Gregory</U></A>   |   <A HREF="elizabeth_green_.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Elizabeth Green "><U>Elizabeth Green </U></A>   |   <A HREF="michelle_fenner.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Michelle Fenner"><U>Michelle Fenner</U></A>   |   <A HREF="iris_johnston.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Iris Johnston"><U>Iris Johnston</U></A>   |   <A HREF="councillors_who_have_replied.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="councillors who have replied"><U>councillors who have replied</U></A>   |   <A HREF="vicki_williams.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Vicki Williams"><U>Vicki Williams</U></A>   |   <A HREF="rita_hancock.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Rita Hancock"><U>Rita Hancock</U></A>   |   <A HREF="john_elvidge.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="John Elvidge"><U>John Elvidge</U></A>   |   <A HREF="steve_ladyman.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Steve Ladyman"><U>Steve Ladyman</U></A>   |   <A HREF="cllr_kirkpatrick.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Cllr Kirkpatrick"><U>Cllr Kirkpatrick</U></A>   |   <A HREF="sandy_ezekiel.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Sandy Ezekiel"><U>Sandy Ezekiel</U></A>   |   <A HREF="roger_latchford.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Roger Latchford"><U>Roger Latchford</U></A>   |   <A HREF="charles_hibberd.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Charles Hibberd"><U>Charles Hibberd</U></A>   |   <A HREF="martin_wise.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Martin Wise "><U>Martin Wise </U></A>   |   <A HREF="leisure_facilities_in_thanet.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="leisure facilities in Thanet"><U>leisure facilities in Thanet</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id39.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="David Greens finance Questions"><U>David Greens finance Questions</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id40.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Ken Gregory"><U>Ken Gregory</U></A></div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" height=398 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <I>What the Councils planning department says</I></div> <div> Lucy and Cheryl are the two council officers who are trying to find out what is going on for me as I can't keep going over to Margate due to Children (2 of mine potty training the person who works for me on maternity leave)</div> <div> Doug I have just read through your last email it would seem from reading it that you failed receive the clarification email that I sent to Mr White below. </div> <bR> <div> Doug </div> <div> Please look at the illustration attached. You will see it is a detail from section AA and a detail from the front elevation where section AA intersects it.</div> <div> I have drawn on it the lines of site and the beach in red biro.</div> <div> I have taken the beach dimensions and sea level for the shoreline from the other planning documents.</div> <div> You will see that the roof level on the v shaped tin roof in front of the bandstand is higher relative to the cliff in section AA than in the front elevation i.e. level with the top of the railings in one and above the railing in the other.</div> <div> You will see that you can’t see any of the beach over the four story part of the building. As there is a considerable drop in the level of the beach at the shoreline you wont be able to see any of it at low tide either. As far as I can see there is no point in the whole development where you can look over the top of it and see the beach in front of you.</div> <div> You will further appreciate that, as you can’t see over the top of any of the v shaped tin roofs if you go by AA or only just if you go by the front elevation. You wont be able to see any of the harbour either because of the distance they stick out.</div> <div> What you will in fact be able to see is a bit of sea and the horizon and one hell of a lot of zinc.</div> <div> I can only conclude that either you have advised the council cabinet by accident or design that the visual impact of the building different to that shown on the plans or that you have conspired with the cabinet to misinform me.</div> <div> It is my intention to make a formal complaint both to the council and the LGO to this effect in 3 hours time, unless I have had some sort of explanation from you.</div> <div> You have to appreciate that as the council has decided to keep the address of the developer and the names of its shareholders and employees a secret I am not in a position to be certain of anyone’s impartiality in this matter.</div> <div> It is also my intention to write to all of the national newspapers, architectural and financial periodicals. </div> <div> I should like you to know that I am becoming, for reasons that I hope you appreciate, fairly annoyed and impatient.</div> <div> Michael. </div> <div> <IMG SRC="00f49a90.jpg" border=0 width="585" height="425" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <div> In a message dated 29/11/2004 17:17:04 GMT Standard Time, Doug.Brown@thanet.gov.uk writes: </div> <div> Sorry for the delay in my reply. The height of the railings are not relevant, its just that the valley gutter is right at the junction of the cliff top and bottom of the railings so I have to assume the cliff top position and that the railings remain 1 metre high, I am sure that is the case. As far as I can see the height of the cliff top on the section and elevation is the same, approx 16.2 metres. It appears to me that the roof height at this point is just below top of railing height on both the section and elevation, ie approx 17metres, whereas the height to top of railing is approx 17.2 metres.</div> <bR> <div> I still feel it would be difficult to give a meaningful response with regard to view. It would appear that the four storey sections of the building will afford views of the beach to someone walking along the cliff top, but not of the promenade. This is based upon section A-A as it runs through a four storey part of the building.</div> <bR> <div> As far as the roof details are concerned a condition is attached to the permission requiring submission of roof details prior to commencement, including materials. We don't go out to consultation on conditions, but they are a public document.</div> <bR> <div> Doug Brown</div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> Doug </div> <div> I do appreciate your efforts, you have to appreciate that from my perspective particularly in view of the previous lack of response from planning officers to what I consider reasonable questions. I find it very difficult to tell if you are genuinely an overworked council official doing his best to help make sure the development is as sensible and viable as possible or just delaying things until it is far to late. </div> <div> You will appreciate that the difference between the height above the cliff top in the section and the plan is very important to get resolved first. It something that has a bearing on all the other answers and from the cliff top between the bandstand and the lift means the difference between a very restricted view and virtually no view at all. </div> <div> Bits of horizon viewed between zinc gables 100 ft or more away or the back of a concrete wall you can't see over the top of is what the drawings show taken out of the context of the other documents. </div> <div> You will further appreciate that the cabinet members have been telling the press and local people that the development only comes above the cliff a small amount in a few places I find that is reasonable assuming that they had read the planning and design statement but not understood the architectural drawings. However now you tell me that what the planning and design statement says is not what has been passed and therefore what they have told both the press and the people of Ramsgate in their public consultations is wrong it does put a very different complexion on the matter. </div> <div> There is a tremendous difference between resolving an unfortunate error and covering up an act of negligence. </div> <div> Michael </div> <bR> <bR> <div> In a message dated 26/11/2004 17:27:39 GMT Standard Time, Doug.Brown@thanet.gov.uk writes: </div> <div> Sorry I have not responded to your emails, I'm afraid we are a bit sort</div> <div> of staff so I tend to spend a lot of time at meetings or covering for</div> <div> others. I will endeavour to answer your queries on Monday.</div> <bR> <div> Doug Brown</div> <bR> <bR> <div> Doug</div> <div> Thank you for your email I appreciate the effort that you are making and note that you have answered my Questions about parking:</div> <div> 1 As the development covers the main beach car park what will be the</div> <div> parking </div> <div> allowance in the developed area for the beach and the A1 & A3 retail</div> <div> part of </div> <div> the development? </div> <div> 2 What will be the arrangement for disabled parking and parking for</div> <div> people </div> <div> with young children in the beach and retail area? </div> <div> 3 Will there be any more area made available for parking in the area</div> <div> but </div> <div> not within the development area?</div> <div> I should like you to know that I am satisfied with the answer and my assessment of the parking situation agrees with yours.</div> <div> It has occurred to me that the retail part of the development is unlikely to work without any parking and that the making of Marina Esplanade into a two way street, effectively removing the majority of the parking in the immediate area, was tailored to a previous development.</div> <div> The rear of the current development is all a private car park the developer who presumably would like the retail part of the development to be a success may be amenable to allowing one way road access through the car park so that Marina Esplanade could be returned to a one way street thus restoring the majority of the parking in the area.</div> <div> As far as I can see this would only require fairly minor modifications to prevent unauthorised parking in the residential and hotel spaces.</div> <div> I am sure you are aware part of Ramsgate’s economy is reliant on people visiting the beach tourists who can’t park close enough to it presumably will never return but just go to one of the towns where they can park near the beach.</div> <div> It has been suggested that it is the councils and the developers intention that the retail and hotel part of the development is intended to fail in order justify turning the whole development into residential.</div> <div> As a planning expert do you have an opinion as to if the basic design lends itself to conversion in this way?</div> <div> As far as my questions about the Height:</div> <div> 1 Looking over the lowest part of the building from the edge of the</div> <div> cliff</div> <div> directly out to sea will I be able to see the beach, if so how much?</div> <div> Obviously if you calculate this the answer will be in meters from the bottom of the cliff however as I am sure you are aware one of the planning documents shows the high and low water marks i.e. the shoreline so if you could express your answer relative to the closest of these it would help to determine what one would be able to see.</div> <div> 2 With the exception of the towers above the lift and stairs, what will</div> <div> be</div> <div> the maximum height of the building above the top of the cliff?</div> <div> I can’t see where you are having difficulty here please clarify.</div> <div> 3 As the height of the building rises from East to West, while the</div> <div> height </div> <div> of the cliff top falls from East to West, what will be the average sort</div> <div> of view </div> <div> looking out to sea with respect to the beach shoreline or horizon?</div> <div> I am happy to accept the minimum distance from the base of the cliff you will be able to see, viewed directly out to sea from the cliff top from any of the following positions provided you tell me which you have used.</div> <div> A The middle of the development.</div> <div> B Directly in front of the bandstand</div> <div> C Where the height is average i.e. area above the cliff top divided by length of the development.</div> <div> 4 Will you be setting a maximum height above the cliff top for all or</div> <div> part </div> <div> of the building?</div> <div> You haven’t answered any of them yet so it is my intention to continue turning each question into an official complaint until they are answered.</div> <div> All the best Michael </div> <bR> <bR> <div> In a message dated 25/11/2004 16:54:09 GMT Standard Time, Doug.Brown@thanet.gov.uk writes:</div> <div> Further to my earlier email I can confirm details relating to parking</div> <div> provision.</div> <bR> <div> Parking details are shown on drawing PL 13-100C. The rationale for the</div> <div> provision is explained in a supporting Travel Assessment.</div> <bR> <div> 107 spaces are provided for the 107 flats, five are to disabled</div> <div> dimensions.</div> <bR> <div> 67 spaces are provided for the 60 bed hotel, 60 for residents, 4 to</div> <div> disabled standard, and 7 for staff.</div> <bR> <div> 10 spaces are available for either residential visitors or those</div> <div> occupying the retail units. There is no provision for customers or other</div> <div> beach users who would use the existng retained car parks.</div> <bR> <div> A liftable barrier separates the 67 hotel spaces and the</div> <div> residential/commercial spaces. </div> <bR> <div> In terms of the height of the buildings, I can provide them</div> <div> approximately based upon the height above the building floor level. The</div> <div> land at the base of the cliff is not level so this provides the only</div> <div> constant datum. I t would be inappropriate to consider these anything</div> <div> other than apprximate until working drawings are available, although the</div> <div> applicants will be required to adhere to the permitted drawings.</div> <bR> <div> The dimensions are taken from the front elevation on dwg no PL 13-106D</div> <div> and sections and the rear elevation on dwg no PL 107C, all at 1:250</div> <div> scale.</div> <bR> <div> The maximum height to the tip of the gull winged roof on the highest</div> <div> elements of the residential flats is 18 metres, the valley gutter height</div> <div> is 17 metres. The roof height of the 4 storey links is 14.2 metres. The</div> <div> height of the hotel is 17 metres (excluding the tower). This is also the</div> <div> height of the flat roof at the eastern end of the residential</div> <div> apartments.</div> <bR> <div> It is difficult to respond to your concerns relating to an average view</div> <div> because of the number of variables involved. The building is not of an</div> <div> even height or depth and neither is the cliff top, the view over a four</div> <div> storey part of the development where the cliff is higher would differ</div> <div> significantly from that at a lower point on the cliff over a deeper five</div> <div> storey section, also where the development is set away from the cliff</div> <div> there will be different impacts upon views.</div> <bR> <div> Doug Brown</div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> I really do appreciate your efforts in trying to sort this out. </div> <div> It may also help you to understand my mild annoyance over this issue if you read some of the correspondence at <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><U>http://www.thanetonline.com/Pleasurama/id36.htm</U></FONT> </div> <div> All the best Michael </div> <div> B J White </div> <div> Dear Mr White </div> <div> I am sorry you had difficulty understanding my Questions. Of the 40 or so recipients (press council staff and councillors) you are the only one. I will attempt to make them as objective as possible for you taking them one at a time </div> <div> With reference to the height </div> <div> Your reply to this was disheartening. You say “the view is impossible to describe…the roof details have not been received yet”, but nonetheless the plans which have been received and approved exist and it is these plans I am concerned with. I understand there is a side letter whereby the developer may change the height of the building but this is not certain. </div> <div> 1 Looking over the lowest part of the building from the edge of the </div> <div> cliff </div> <div> directly out to sea will I be able to see the beach, if so how much? </div> <div> Obviously if you calculate this the answer will be in meters from the bottom of the cliff however as I am sure you are aware one of the planning documents shows the high and low water marks i.e. the shoreline so if you could express your answer relative to the closest of these it would help to determine what one would be able to see. </div> <div> 2 With the exception of the towers above the lift and stairs, what will </div> <div> be </div> <div> the maximum height of the building above the top of the cliff? </div> <div> I can’t see where you are having difficulty here please clarify. </div> <div> 3 As the height of the building rises from East to West, while the </div> <div> height </div> <div> of the cliff top falls from East to West, what will be the average sort </div> <div> of view </div> <div> looking out to sea with respect to the beach shoreline or horizon? </div> <div> I am happy to accept the minimum distance from the base of the cliff you will be able to see, viewed directly out to sea from the cliff top from any of the following positions provided you tell me which you have used. </div> <div> A The middle of the development. </div> <div> B Directly in front of the bandstand </div> <div> C Where the height is average i.e. area above the cliff top divided by length of the development. </div> <div> 4 Will you be setting a maximum height above the cliff top for all or </div> <div> part </div> <div> of the building? </div> <div> I can’t see where you are having difficulty here please clarify. </div> <div> With reference to accessibility </div> <div> I am indeed concerned with parking allocations on the development site post </div> <div> completion of the new structure for both the retail development and the beach. So, I repeat </div> <div> 1 As the development covers the main beach car park what will be the </div> <div> parking </div> <div> allowance in the developed area for the beach and the A1 & A3 retail </div> <div> part of </div> <div> the development? </div> <div> 2 What will be the arrangement for disabled parking and parking for </div> <div> people </div> <div> with young children in the beach and retail area? </div> <div> 3 Will there be any more area made available for parking in the area </div> <div> but </div> <div> not within the development area? </div> <div> I am in possession of a of a full set of planning documents as published on the ukplanning.com website it is because of the differences between the planning and design statement and the drawings that I am asking these questions. </div> <div> Obviously I am not expecting you to comment on any future plans that may or may not be submitted. I am glad to hear that you think the developer may submit a revised plan for the roof. However as I am sure you appreciate any substantial change in the height will have a considerable impact on the interior of the building so would seem unlikely. </div> <div> I am also concerned that the developer may have difficulty sticking to the current base line for the building in view of the fact that the site has now flooded and that sea levels are expected to rise substantially in the future. This is a factor that may also make it more difficult for them to reduce the height.</div> <div> Since I wrote the email you replied to I have had an email from Cllr Green saying the council are in violation of planning law and a letter from my MP saying he has reported the matter to the Ombudsman. You will appreciate that leaves businessmen in the town like me wondering what on earth is going on. </div> <div> It would seem to me that the publicity must reflect badly on the council and on Ramsgate. </div> <div> I sincerely hope that you soon have all the correct facts available at least to prevent inaccurate reporting of the matter. As I am sure you appreciate the BBC showing an inaccurate mock-up of the building towering 3 storeys above the cliff top and Kent on Sunday reporting the wrong height which all go towards making us look more stupid. </div> <div> I will get back to Cheryl and ask her to forward the other questions relating to the developers track record to someone appropriate. </div> <div> Kind regards Michael Child </div> <div> In a message dated 17/11/2004 12:37:39 GMT Standard Time, Cheryl.Pendry@thanet.gov.uk writes: </div> <div> Michael, </div> <div> Just to let you know that I have passed your questions on to Brian </div> <div> White, the Council's Head of Environmental Services, and he will be </div> <div> replying directly to you with the answers. </div> <div> Regards, </div> <bR> <div> I’ve had a few emails asking what Doug and I are talking about, what difference does it make if the line is above or below the railings. What’s it all in feet? </div> <div> This is all approximate I am sure Doug will put me right if I have made any errors.</div> <div> You will understand from looking at the plans that most of the roof about 40,000 sq feet of it or about an acre is made of corrugated zinc.</div> <div> The drawing of the front shows the amount it sticks up over the cliff top as being different to the amount shown in the drawing of the side. The written part of the plan says that it’s a building of a completely different height again about 11 feet shorter than it actually is.</div> <div> Doug says “We rely upon the drawings which have been approved rather than</div> <div> the supporting design statement” so the written part of the plan although completely wrong is fine because the planning officers ignore it.</div> <div> Once the development is built if you stand on the edge of the cliff in front of the bandstand looking out to sea there will be a 20 foot gap between you and the back of the building. Then at about ground or knee level (depending on if you go by the plan looking from the side or the one looking from the front) you will be facing the beginning of the gutter at the bottom of the 60 foot wide, v shaped corrugated zinc roof. The sides of the v extending each side of you 30 feet outwards and just over 3 feet upwards. The gutter and of course the roof each side of it is about 90 feet long pointing directly out to sea. The view in front of you (depending on if you go by the plan looking from the side or the one looking from the front) will either be sea and the horizon in the v 110 feet in front of you framed in 180 degrees of corrugated zinc or you will be able to see the horizon all around you with the sides of the roof below it.</div> <div> There are four of these v shaped zinc roofs in the development they have a surface area collectively of 20,000 square feet. They are said by the council to be visually stimulating. It I find it rather begs the question. What scale of stimulation do they require for their other senses?</div> <div> This question is now the subject of an official complaint the local government ombudsman tells me that the council may be required to compensate the people affected should it be found to be in the wrong in this matter. </div> <div> The pictures, supplied by Thanet District Council (visual stimulation) attached to this email should help you to visualise the thing. However they have been produced by the developer to show the roof at its best you may notice that they do this in the picture I call “advanced visual stimulation” by showing the lowest part of the building relative to the top of the cliff large in the foreground 8 inches across the picture and then scrunch all the high part relative to the top of the cliff up into a blur les than an inch across. In the one I have named ”visual stimulation” you can see they have moved the whole building along to the left, from where v shaped roof is relative to the bandstand. If you look carefully on the right of the picture you can see the high part above the cliff top.</div> <div> I have included their picture of Kent terrace from their planning and design statement just to show you that the developer can be manipulative with pictures. Kent terrace is a charming Regency terrace next to the development three of the houses were destroyed by a bomb in the war and rebuilt in the style of bad post war economy the rest are listed buildings of outstanding quality.</div> <div> In the immediate vicinity of the development is a concentration of Georgian, Regency and Victorian buildings of a quality and diversity that is frankly astounding.</div> <div> Then finally I have included a picture "diferences" to show that if they actually manage to build a building where the drawing of the side is incompatible with the drawing of the front it may indeed be visually stimulating.</div> <div> I hope you all find this helpful and would appreciate it if any of you see any errors you could let me know.</div> <div> Plans available on the thanetonline.com website or the official government planning website the scale is 1:250 this means if that if tour computer is set up ok 1 cm = 2.5 Meters.</div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> Doug </div> <div> I am assuming that you wish to continue at this more technical level, as I am sure you understand I was unaware of your abilities in this field. </div> <div> 1 I don't understand how the height of the railings can effect the height of the gully relative to the height of the cliff. </div> <div> 2 Section B-B on drawing PL-1307C shows the maximum height of the building above the level of the top of the railings whereas at the point that drawing B-B on PL-1307C intersects the front elevation on drawing PL 1306C the front elevation shows the maximum height below the top of the railings. </div> <div> One of these at least then must be wrong from my measurements. The height of the cliff top is shown wrongly on the front elevation on drawing PL 1306C in comparison to the site survey. </div> <div> You will appreciate while I am working with a computer and have my professional qualifications in physics and engineering you are working on paper and are presumably qualified in architecture the resultant co-operation may be beneficial and produce a better development something I am sure we both want. </div> <div> Kind regards Michael </div> <div> In a message dated 25/11/2004 15:22:51 GMT Standard Time, Doug.Brown@thanet.gov.uk writes: </div> <div> With reference to our discussion yesterday and todays email I will try</div> <div> to offer clarification.</div> <bR> <div> In terms of the building height there is not a cross section adjacent</div> <div> to the bandstand. The nearest is section B-B on drawing PL-1307C which</div> <div> is to the west. The front elevation on drawing PL 1306C shows the</div> <div> relationship of the building to a point directly in front of the</div> <div> bandstand which lines up with the valley gutter of the gull winged roof.</div> <div> The height of the building at this point is 17m above the floor level of</div> <div> the building. Assuming the cliff top railings to be of constant height</div> <div> the building height at this precise point equates to the cliff top</div> <div> height. We rely upon the drawings which have been approved rather than</div> <div> the supporting design statement.</div> <bR> <div> I am looking at the drawings at present and will try to respond more</div> <div> roundly within the next hour or so.</div> <bR> <div> Doug Brown </div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> Subject: Re: Pleasurama site development Date: 19/11/2004 17:44:44 GMT Standard Time From: <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><U>Brian.White@thanet.gov.uk</U></FONT> </div> <div> <TABLE BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="627" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="VOID" RULES="NONE" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 19 WIDTH="101"><div> Reply To:</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="519"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="19" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="519" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 19 WIDTH="101"><div> To:</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="519"><div> <U>MichaelChild@aol.com</U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >, </FONT><U>Lucy.Tuson@thanet.gov.uk</U></div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 19 WIDTH="101"><div> CC:</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="519"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="19" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="519" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 19 WIDTH="101"><div> BCC:</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="519"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="19" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="519" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER HEIGHT= 19 WIDTH="101"><div> Sent on:</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="519"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="19" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="519" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <div> <I>Sent from the Internet </I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><I><U>(Details)</U></I></FONT> </div> <bR> <div> Dear all,, I do not believe there is anything to add to my earlier email, as stated if Mr Child would like to see the file [ and plans] in Ramsgate, then I will arrange it.</div> <bR> <div> Brian</div> <bR> <div> >>> <MichaelChild@aol.com> 11/19/04 1:43:36 PM >>></div> <div> Hi Lucy</div> <div> here are the emails</div> <div> as i said on the phone the sort of answers i want are very simple how high </div> <div> what will i be able to see when its built where will i park. you would think it </div> <div> wouldn't be a problem but i think you may encounter substantial </div> <div> difficulties.</div> <div> All the best Michael</div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> Cheryl</div> <div> Unfortunately Mr White says he was not able to understand my questions and therefore failed to answer any of them. Copy of his email and my reply below.</div> <div> I think it may be more appropriate to get someone who has both seen the site recently, has read my previous correspondence, and can read an architectural drawing to give an accurate impression of how high the building is likely so stand above the cliff top and how the views may be affected. I am sure you will agree that it would be beneficial to end inaccurate speculation on this matter as soon as possible. It is also difficult to tell from Mr Whites reply if he just doesn’t know, hasn’t the authority to say or wont say. As you appreciate this is not he most positive impression to pass on to the press who received a copy of the questions as well.</div> <div> Can you please pass on my questions about the developers track record to someone appropriate. You may have noticed that KM Isle of Thanet Extra has published the fact that the developer is a BVI company today. Presumably some of its readers will understand the implications of this and I am concerned that the resulting publicity may be harmful to the town and the council.</div> <div> Kind regards Michael.</div> <div> Dear Mr Child</div> <bR> <div> Your e-mail of 16th November 2004 has been passed to me for reply. </div> <div> Thank you for your interest in this subject. I trust the following is</div> <div> helpful:</div> <bR> <div> 1. Your first 4 questions are largely subjective. For example 'an</div> <div> average sort of view' is impossible to describe in a definite manner. </div> <div> With regard to the 4th question, the development has the benefit of</div> <div> planning approval, and reserved matters (roof details) have not been</div> <div> received yet. Until they are it is inappropriate to comment on anything</div> <div> other than the existing approved plan.</div> <bR> <div> 2. Please clarify your questions on accessibility. Are you</div> <div> concerned with parking allocations on the development site post</div> <div> completion of the new structure?</div> <bR> <div> 3. My responsibility in this matter is planning. The previous</div> <div> developments of any planning applicant are not a factor relevant to the</div> <div> processing of planning applications.</div> <bR> <div> Can I suggest that the most productive way of answering your questions</div> <div> would be to make the planning file available to you. I appreciate that</div> <div> it may not be convenient for you to visit the Thanet Offices in Margate,</div> <div> but if you contact my office, I will endeavour to make arrangements</div> <div> convenient to you, in Ramsgate, if that is helpful.</div> <bR> <bR> <div> B J White</div> <div> Dear Mr White</div> <div> I am sorry you had difficulty understanding my Questions. Of the 40 or so recipients (press council staff and councillors) you are the only one. I will attempt to make them as objective as possible for you taking them one at a time</div> <div> With reference to the height</div> <div> Your reply to this was disheartening. You say “the view is impossible to describe…the roof details have not been received yet”, but nonetheless the plans which have been received and approved exist and it is these plans I am concerned with. I understand there is a side letter whereby the developer may change the height of the building but this is not certain. </div> <div> 1 Looking over the lowest part of the building from the edge of the</div> <div> cliff</div> <div> directly out to sea will I be able to see the beach, if so how much?</div> <div> Obviously if you calculate this the answer will be in meters from the bottom of the cliff however as I am sure you are aware one of the planning documents shows the high and low water marks i.e. the shoreline so if you could express your answer relative to the closest of these it would help to determine what one would be able to see.</div> <div> 2 With the exception of the towers above the lift and stairs, what will</div> <div> be</div> <div> the maximum height of the building above the top of the cliff?</div> <div> I can’t see where you are having difficulty here please clarify.</div> <div> 3 As the height of the building rises from East to West, while the</div> <div> height </div> <div> of the cliff top falls from East to West, what will be the average sort</div> <div> of view </div> <div> looking out to sea with respect to the beach shoreline or horizon?</div> <div> I am happy to accept the minimum distance from the base of the cliff you will be able to see, viewed directly out to sea from the cliff top from any of the following positions provided you tell me which you have used.</div> <div> A The middle of the development.</div> <div> B Directly in front of the bandstand</div> <div> C Where the height is average i.e. area above the cliff top divided by length of the development.</div> <div> 4 Will you be setting a maximum height above the cliff top for all or</div> <div> part </div> <div> of the building?</div> <div> I can’t see where you are having difficulty here please clarify.</div> <div> With reference to accessibility </div> <div> I am indeed concerned with parking allocations on the development site post</div> <div> completion of the new structure for both the retail development and the beach. So, I repeat</div> <div> 1 As the development covers the main beach car park what will be the</div> <div> parking </div> <div> allowance in the developed area for the beach and the A1 & A3 retail</div> <div> part of </div> <div> the development? </div> <div> 2 What will be the arrangement for disabled parking and parking for</div> <div> people </div> <div> with young children in the beach and retail area? </div> <div> 3 Will there be any more area made available for parking in the area</div> <div> but </div> <div> not within the development area?</div> <div> I am in possession of a of a full set of planning documents as published on the ukplanning.com website it is because of the differences between the planning and design statement and the drawings that I am asking these questions.</div> <div> Obviously I am not expecting you to comment on any future plans that may or may not be submitted. I am glad to hear that you think the developer may submit a revised plan for the roof. However as I am sure you appreciate any substantial change in the height will have a considerable impact on the interior of the building so would seem unlikely.</div> <div> I am also concerned that the developer may have difficulty sticking to the current base line for the building in view of the fact that the site has now flooded and that sea levels are expected to rise substantially in the future. This is a factor that may also make it more difficult for them to reduce the height.</div> <bR> <div> Since I wrote the email you replied to I have had an email from Cllr Green saying the council are in violation of planning law and a letter from my MP saying he has reported the matter to the Ombudsman. You will appreciate that leaves businessmen in the town like me wondering what on earth is going on.</div> <div> It would seem to me that the publicity must reflect badly on the council and on Ramsgate.</div> <div> I sincerely hope that you soon have all the correct facts available at least to prevent inaccurate reporting of the matter. As I am sure you appreciate the BBC showing an inaccurate mock-up of the building towering 3 storeys above the cliff top and Kent on Sunday reporting the wrong height which all go towards making us look more stupid.</div> <div> I will get back to Cheryl and ask her to forward the other questions relating to the developers track record to someone appropriate.</div> <div> Kind regards Michael Child</div> <div> In a message dated 17/11/2004 12:37:39 GMT Standard Time, Cheryl.Pendry@thanet.gov.uk writes: </div> <div> Michael, </div> <bR> <div> Just to let you know that I have passed your questions on to Brian</div> <div> White, the Council's Head of Environmental Services, and he will be</div> <div> replying directly to you with the answers. </div> <bR> <div> Regards, </div> <bR> <div> Cheryl </div> <bR> <bR> <div> To all cabinet members.</div> <div> Having yesterday discussed the Pleasurama issue with Cheryl Pendry, she suggested that cabinet members would now probably be prepared to answer my questions relating to the issue. Now that the press have begun to take an interest in the issue I find that I am having great difficulty explaining to them the councils official position. As you know I have studied the planning documents in detail.</div> <div> I am sending this email both to all the cabinet members and to those members of the press that I have discussed the issue with. I am also sending it to any other councillors where I happen to have their email addresses. </div> <div> Could you answer me the following questions.</div> <div> With reference to the height.</div> <div> 1 Looking over the lowest part of the building from the edge of the cliff directly out to sea will I be able to see the beach, if so how much?</div> <div> 2 With the exception of the towers above the lift and stairs what will be the maximum height of the building above the top of the cliff?</div> <div> 3 As the height of the building rises form East to West while the height of the cliff top falls from East to West what will be the average sort of view looking out to sea with respect to the beach shoreline or horizon?</div> <div> 4 Will you be setting a maximum height above the cliff top for all or part of the building?</div> <div> With reference to accessibility </div> <div> 1 As the development covers the main beach car park what will be the parking allowance in the developed area for the beach and the A1 & A3 retail part of the development?</div> <div> 2 What will be the arrangement for disabled parking and parking for people with young children in the beach and retail area?</div> <div> 3 Will there be any more area made available for parking in the area but not within the development area?</div> <div> With reference to the developer</div> <div> 1 Has the developer been responsible for any other development in the past and if so what?</div> <div> 2 What will be the position regarding the developers responsibility for the building after the development is completed?</div> <div> Kind regards Michael Child.</div> <bR> <div> <TABLE BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="627" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="VOID" RULES="NONE" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 20 WIDTH="60"><div> Subj:</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="560"><div> <B>Re: Pleasurama Site </B></div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 19 WIDTH="60"><div> Date:</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="560"><div> 19/04/2004 14:36:12 GMT Daylight Time</div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 19 WIDTH="60"><div> From:</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="560"><div> <U>Michael Child</U></div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 19 WIDTH="60"><div> To:</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="560"><div> <U>John.Elvidge@thanet.gov.uk</U></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <bR> <bR> <div> Dear Mr Elvidge</div> <div> It is my email of the 17/02/2004 that I am waiting for a reply to copy below.</div> <div> Please note I am publishing all the correspondence relating to this matter at <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><U>http://www.thanetonline.com/Pleasurama/</U></FONT> to avoid any further confusion.</div> <div> Kind regards Michael child</div> <bR> <div> >>> <MichaelChild@aol.com> 02/17/04 04:59pm >>></div> <div> Dear Mr Elvidge</div> <bR> <div> Thank you for returning my phone call. As you appreciate I am either looking </div> <div> after two year old twins or running the shop when I answer the phone so my </div> <div> concentration is limited.</div> <bR> <div> I think that although we both have different ideas on an appropriate </div> <div> development we both are concerned that the end result is most beneficial to the town </div> <div> and will pursue that objective from any given point in time.</div> <bR> <div> I have however given some thought to the matter of the height of the building </div> <div> and would like to clarify the situation with you. The following is my </div> <div> understanding of the height issue. Any comments you have would be helpful.</div> <bR> <div> There must be some point where the height is deemed by you to be </div> <div> unacceptable. </div> <bR> <div> There must also be a point where effect on the views is deemed by you to be </div> <div> unacceptable.</div> <bR> <div> The way the height and size of the building impacts on the area does not seem </div> <div> to have been accurately measured by anyone. </div> <bR> <div> The reasons for this are that large detached concrete buildings do not </div> <div> usually have a public footpath in a conservation area next to their roof level so </div> <div> height variations of a meter or so are not normally an issue.</div> <bR> <div> My own calculations based on the site survey and plans submitted by the </div> <div> developer make the maximum height of the building 3.4 meters above the footpath </div> <div> surface on the cliff top. It is difficult to completely accurate due to the </div> <div> radical changes that will have to be made at ground level, because of the size of </div> <div> the building changing the road and promenade layout so this may be inaccurate </div> <div> by a meter or so in either direction.</div> <bR> <div> My calculations relating to the lines of site suggest that it will no longer </div> <div> be possible to see the shoreline when looking from the cliff top over the </div> <div> lowest part of the development or the cliff top from the shoreline at any point </div> <div> behind the building. </div> <bR> <div> You reckon about three meters above the cliff top based on holding a scale </div> <div> ruler next to the side elevation.</div> <bR> <div> No calculations appear to have been attempted by you with relation to the </div> <div> lines of site. </div> <bR> <div> The planning and design statement for the development, on page 9 says the </div> <div> following.</div> <div> "The views of Wellington Crescent at the top of the cliff will be retained </div> <div> when viewed from the harbour and the shore line, with the proposed scheme set </div> <div> below the cliff top.</div> <div> When viewed from ground level along Wellington Crescent the buildings will </div> <div> not be visible as they are below the cliff face. When viewed from the cliff </div> <div> edge, the buildings will provide an extension to the gardens with the roof </div> <div> terraces. It will also enhance the existing views replacing the unsightly vacant </div> <div> land. The roof design will provide architectural interest whilst allowing views of </div> <div> the sea to remain."</div> <bR> <div> This document clearly describes the height inaccurately but is part of the </div> <div> plans that all the calculations relating to the height are based on.</div> <bR> <div> I have attached a couple of pictures of the site that I hope will amuse you. </div> <bR> <bR> <div> Kind regards Michael Child</div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> In a message dated 19/04/2004 09:29:24 GMT Daylight Time, John.Elvidge@thanet.gov.uk writes:</div> <bR> <div> Subj: <B>Re: Pleasurama Site </B></div> <div> Date: 19/04/2004 09:29:24 GMT Daylight Time</div> <div> From: <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><U>John.Elvidge@thanet.gov.uk</U></FONT></div> <div> To: <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><U>MichaelChild@aol.com</U></FONT></div> <div> <I>Sent from the Internet </I></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> Dear Mr. Child,</div> <bR> <div> The reason why it is probably unclear as to the e-mail to which I was replying is that your e-mail of 15th April was addressed to 'planning services.' In view of the fact that everything to do with Pleasurama ends up on my desk it was an e-mail to which I was able to give an immediate response, hence the speedy reply.</div> <bR> <div> With regard to your e-mail of 1st April, I was unable to provide you with an immediate response as I could not ascertain any question you were asking or point that you wished to see addressed. I have read the content once again but remain unable to determine the nature of the reply that you are seeking.</div> <bR> <div> With apologies for being unable to assist further at this stage.</div> <bR> <div> Yours sincerely</div> <bR> <div> John Elvidge</div> <div> Principal Planner</div> <bR> <div> >>><MichaelChild@aol.com> 04/18/04 05:04pm >>></div> <div> Dear Mr Elvidge</div> <div> As far as I can see my last email to you was on April 1st and related to your </div> <div> granting permission to fill in Ramsgate harbour and build houses on it. I </div> <div> intended this to be some light relief for you because of the pressure your job </div> <div> evidently puts you under.</div> <div> Since your email of 18/02/2004 saying: I will endeavour to respond in due </div> <div> course to the detailed points that you have raised. However, as you may be aware, </div> <div> the Development Control section continues to suffer from an unprecedented </div> <div> workload which, coupled with staff shortages, is causing undue delays in </div> <div> responses to correspondence</div> <div> I have remained in a state of heightened expectancy and have avoided sending </div> <div> you anything that would increase your unprecedented workload and further delay </div> <div> my long awaited reply. </div> <bR> <div> I can only assume that somewhere in the confusion you are now answering the </div> <div> emails sent to someone else. On the 15th April the only emails I sent were to </div> <div> councillors so failing the unlikely event that you were at some stage elected </div> <div> under a false name it would be helpful to know to which of my emails you are </div> <div> replying.</div> <bR> <div> This is particularly important as I have found that the only way I can get a </div> <div> response from some councillors is to threaten them with an official complaint, </div> <div> unless of course they tell me that an unprecedented workload which, coupled </div> <div> with staff shortages, is causing undue delays in responses to correspondence.</div> <div> Kind regards Michael Child.</div> <bR> <bR> <div> Subj: Pleasurama Site </div> <div> Date: 16/04/2004 09:53:47 GMT Daylight Time </div> <div> From: John.Elvidge@thanet.gov.uk </div> <bR> <bR> <div> Dear Mr. Child,</div> <bR> <div> Thank you for your e-mail dated 15th April regarding the above site.</div> <bR> <div> Firstly, I can confirm that planning permission has not been granted for the </div> <div> concept scheme seen by Members back in 2002.</div> <bR> <div> I would further advise you that the resolution agreed by Members at the </div> <div> recent Full Council meeting requires further discussions to be undertaken with the </div> <div> prospective developers and the matter to be referred back to Full Council, I </div> <div> believe in July. It is important to note, however, that such discussions will </div> <div> be undertaken by Members and officers of the Council, as owner of the site, and </div> <div> not as Local Planning Authority. I regret, therefore, that I can be of no </div> <div> further assistance on this particular point.</div> <bR> <div> Once the matter is reported back to Full Council and a further resolution </div> <div> taken, it will be at that time for the Council, as Local Planning Authority, to </div> <div> determine whether any changes to the development previously agreed can be dealt </div> <div> with by way of amendment to the existing planning consent or whether they </div> <div> will require a fresh planning application. In either case, I can confirm that all </div> <div> individuals, interest groups and consultees who were previously notified or </div> <div> commented upon the last scheme, will automatically be notified again and given </div> <div> the opportunity to inspect the plans and comment thereon.</div> <bR> <div> I trust that this clarifies the planning situation for you.</div> <bR> <div> Yours sincerely</div> <bR> <div> John Elvidge</div> <div> Principal Planner</div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> ______________________________________________________________________________</div> <div> This email has been checked for viruses by ArmourPlate,</div> <div> http://www.armourplate.com, the multi-scanner anti-virus facility from Corpex. </div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> <TABLE BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="627" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="VOID" RULES="NONE" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 20 WIDTH="254"><div> Subj:</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="366"><div> <B>Pleasurama Site </B></div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 19 WIDTH="254"><div> Date:</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER><NOBR><div> 18/04/2004 17:04:39 GMT Daylight Time</div> </NOBR></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 19 WIDTH="254"><div> From:</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="366"><div> <U>Michael Child</U></div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 19 WIDTH="254"><div> To:</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=CENTER WIDTH="366"><div> <U>john.elvidge@thanet.gov.uk</U></div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=CENTER COLSPAN=2 BGCOLOR=#C0C0C0 HEIGHT= 38 WIDTH="621"><div> <I>Right-click picture(s) to display picture options</I></div> <bR> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <bR> <bR> <div> Dear Mr Elvidge</div> <div> As far as I can see my last email to you was on April 1st and related to your granting permission to fill in Ramsgate harbour and build houses on it. I intended this to be some light relief for you because of the pressure your job evidently puts you under.</div> <div> Since your email of 18/02/2004 saying: I will endeavour to respond in due course to the detailed points that you have raised. However, as you may be aware, the Development Control section continues to suffer from an unprecedented workload which, coupled with staff shortages, is causing undue delays in responses to correspondence</div> <div> I have remained in a state of hightend expectancy and have avoided sending you anything that would increase your unprecedented workload and further delay my long awaited reply. </div> <bR> <div> I can only assume that somewhere in the confusion you are now answering the emails sent to someone else. On the 15th April the only emails I sent were to councillors so failing the unlikely event that you were at some stage elected under a false name it would be helpful to know to which of my emails you are replying.</div> <bR> <div> This is particularly important as I have found that the only way I can get a response from some councillors is to threaten them with an official complaint, unles of course they tell me that an unprecedented workload which, coupled with staff shortages, is causing undue delays in responses to correspondence.</div> <div> Kind regards Michael Child.</div> <bR> <bR> <div> Subj: Pleasurama Site </div> <div> Date: 16/04/2004 09:53:47 GMT Daylight Time </div> <div> From: John.Elvidge@thanet.gov.uk </div> <bR> <bR> <div> Dear Mr. Child,</div> <bR> <div> Thank you for your e-mail dated 15th April regarding the above site.</div> <bR> <div> Firstly, I can confirm that planning permission has not been granted for the concept scheme seen by Members back in 2002.</div> <bR> <div> I would further advise you that the resolution agreed by Members at the recent Full Council meeting requires further discussions to be undertaken with the prospective developers and the matter to be referred back to Full Council, I believe in July. It is important to note, however, that such discussions will be undertaken by Members and officers of the Council, as owner of the site, and not as Local Planning Authority. I regret, therefore, that I can be of no further assistance on this particular point.</div> <bR> <div> Once the matter is reported back to Full Council and a further resolution taken, it will be at that time for the Council, as Local Planning Authority, to determine whether any changes to the development previously agreed can be dealt with by way of amendment to the existing planning consent or whether they will require a fresh planning application. In either case, I can confirm that all individuals, interest groups and consultees who were previously notified or commented upon the last scheme, will automatically be notified again and given the opportunity to inspect the plans and comment thereon.</div> <bR> <div> I trust that this clarifies the planning situation for you.</div> <bR> <div> Yours sincerely</div> <bR> <div> John Elvidge</div> <div> Principal Planner</div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>