Give your view! DEFRA launch public consultation on the de-designation on Walpole Bay for bathing

Walpole Bay tidal pool by Chloe Young

Last week, the Thanet Gazette reported that, despite receiving a majority of submissions against de-designation of Walpole Bay for bathing, Thanet District Councillors Iris Johnston (Margate Central ward) and Alan Poole (Sir Mose Montefiore ward) referred the bay to DEFRA recommending de-designation. Today, DEFRA launched their consultation. There is a four page report which raises even more questions about how this proposal has reached this point:

The report begins by stating clearly that:

"Information about water quality is not taken into account in making a decision."

Remember that, folks! Wasn't most of the fuss in February being about the fear of signage that would have to go up in 2015 because it would fail to pass the new regulations. The de-designation process is actually about the number of users. The DEFRA report points out in some detail, that over the last few years, facilities to support bathing have been reduced. Obviously, the responsibility for any reduction in facilities lies squarely with Thanet District Council.

"Facilities at Walpole Bay have been reduced over recent years. In 2009 the beach was awarded a Blue Flag, an award which requires a high level of beach management. Since then lifeguards have been withdrawn and the nearest toilet facilities have been closed. The nearest café is at the adjacent beach, Palm Bay. A lift that formerly operated from the top of the cliffs has been closed. 
The beach is, however, close to the amenities of Cliftonville and Margate town centre. The nearest public toilets are now approximately 750m away."

And yet, despite all these reductions in facilities, people still enjoy bathing at Walpole Bay. Imagine what it would be like with the facilities back in working order as they should be.

Then, DEFRA point out in their report that the wording in Thanet District Council's consultation:

'was a leading statement focussing on the perceived threat to to the local tourist industry, rather than on the number of  people bathing at Walpole Bay.' 

There is then a reference to pre-consultation discussions Thanet Council held with a local traders' representative and a residents' association representative between December 2013 and January 2014:

'During December 2013 and January 2014 the Council held discussions with two local hotels, a local traders’ representative and a Residents Association representative. The business representatives felt that dedesignation was preferable to a sign advising against bathing'

This is the first we have heard about discussions prior to the public consultation. 

Who were these representatives of a local traders' and a residents' association? Perhaps the Council or the people in question might be let us know.

Then the statement that:

'DEFRA state that 'Thanet District Council ward members are in favour of dedesignation'.

Is this true? All Ward Councillors of which Wards? Walpole Bay is in Cliftonville West. Have any Councillors from this ward stated they are in favour or de-designation? This would be:
Councillor Linda Aldred
Councillor Doug Clark
Councillor Clive Hart

The report confirms that a majority of respondents were against de-designation:

"There were emailed responses to the consultation from 74 individual members of the 

public. 

• 5 supported dedesignation 

• 36 opposed dedesignation 

• 9 commented specifically on the bathing pool 

• The remainder commented on the proposal but were unclear in their intentions." 

Further scrutiny is probably recommended of those that were unclear in their intentions!

The report finishes by stating that if it is de-designated, DEFRA will discontinue water testing.

So, if you have views about the de-designation of Walpole Bay for bathing, please send in your comments to bathingwater@defra.gsi.gov.uk.

Why not pop along to the Walpole Bay Bathing Facebook page and let us know your views. And do use the hashtag #walpolebaybathing on twitter.

  

Thanet Council policy regarding email retention

Thanet Council's email system has cropped up in conversation a few times recently. I'd heard from a few councillors that the council system is awkward and not the easiest to use. Which has lead to many councillors privately stating they prefer to use their own private email accounts for council business. This may recently have changed following a statement of clarification from the Information Commissioner's Office. 

The Council's previous stance was that private email accounts were beyond the remit of FOI and Data Protection requests, because it is Council policy that only official email accounts may be used for council business. The Information Commissioner's Office then clarified on October 16th 2013:

"More generally, the Council will need to remind and impress upon the councillors the requirement to adhere to the Council’s policy on use of official Council email addresses only for Council business.   

Should any councillor fail to do so and continue using their personal email address to conduct Council business, it will need to be made clear to them that such information will be potentially subject to FOIA and will need to be made available upon request (subject to any valid exemption).  Moreover, were the Council to provide a not held response to a future request, or only provide some of the information actually held, and were the Commissioner to subsequently discover that in fact relevant information was contained in the personal email accounts of a councillor(s) then this would be a serious matter for which the Commissioner would need to consider more formal action."

I've recently been sent a series of Thanet District Council policy guidance documents that go some way to explain why officers and councillors might be struggling to keep up with the demands of modern day email communication. They have a 500MB inbox limit. I don't think I've had a 500MB limit for the last decade. 

Council email management guidance issued July 2012 gives the following advice:

"Things to remember about email;
Your Mailbox has a size limitYour mailbox will be set to a 500mb limit as standard and will only be extended with the written authorisation from a head of service or equivalent.To help you manage the amount of storage space, you should complete some routine housekeeping on a regular basis.  Housekeeping tasks should includeDeleting all unwanted emails from all your folders, inbox and sent boxSaving any large attachments to an appropriate network folder, then deleting the email

• Using the inbuilt function to empty your ‘deleted items’ folder, this can be found in Tools – Options - Other"

What is not clear, is how councillors and officers, who are very busy, are supposed to manage deletion of information in the present day, that may then become relevant and important at a later date.

And further, recognition of emails as potentially required in future legal action or as evidence in a court case:

"A public office must not dispose of any records required for current or pending legal action or where the records may be required as evidence in a court case.  A public office should not destroy records that are the subject of a current or pending Freedom of Information (FOI) request."

What I can't yet find is any supporting policy guidance on claims that emails older than 4 months old can now be deleted. Most domestic free email accounts such as gmail give 15GB of storage, and some council based projects can take years to undertake, is the advice to delete for good housekeeping really prudent advice? As their own guidance states, correspondence can convey the background to contractual agreements. Another interesting fact is:

"It is important that nothing is sent via email that could be considered as bullying, harassment, offensive or discriminatory"

Thanet District Council Policy Guidance Documents relating to email retention:

Retention and Disposal Protocol v1.1
Email Management Guidance July 2012
Email Acceptable Use Policy July 2012

Cliff Terrace circa 1900

On the eve of MP Laura Sandys Cliftonville Conservation public meeting, Thanet District Council has published the seven Draft Cliftonville character appraisal documents and many people have been asking to see sight of them for years. The appraisal documents were commissioned and paid for by English Heritage and were completed in 2011. So it is a hugely big deal for these documents to now be released and up for consultation.

So go download them and tell Thanet Council what you think: 
http://thanet.gov.uk/your-services/planning-policy/heritage-strategy/draft-plans/

There are seven areas up for consultation and this is a first step towards them achieving Conservation Area status. 

Politicians from all sides of the political spectrum have popped up saying the other side won't work with them. Then they've all popped up to say they will. So thank goodness for that. We can all now look forward to people sitting around the same table working out how best to preserve and enhance the wonderful built environment in Cliftonville. 

The seven proposed areas are:

Draft Edgar Road and Sweyne Road Character Appraisal (PDF)

Draft Grotto Hill Character Appraisal (PDF)

Draft Northdown Road Character Appraisal Part 1  (PDF)

Draft Northdown Road Character Appraisal Part 2  (PDF)

Draft Cliftonville Clifftop Character Appraisal  (PDF)

Draft Ethelbert Road and Athelstan Road Character Appraisal  (PDF)

Draft Norfolk Road and Surrey Road Character Appraisal  (PDF)

Guest blogger: Councillor David Green on Cliftonville Conservation Areas

It's now the turn of Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning Services, Councillor David Green as guest blogger.

"Members of the council have agreed to consult on the future designation of a conservation site for Cliftonville with reference to the appraisals undertaken by the council.

Preserving the heritage and important historic architecture of Cliftonville is a key part of the wider regeneration here and we recognize the benefits that formally designated Conservation Areas can bring.

We’d like to begin consulting with residents to build support for future management of any conservation area and discuss the area this could cover. Our aim is to develop this in a way that is manageable and sustainable, complementing the wider regeneration of the area.

This consultation will be in parallel with work to develop a new Design Code for Cliftonville which the council has initiated. This sees the council working in partnership with the local community so that they can be directly involved in how their town develops.

This is a great opportunity for local people to give their views on the appraisal documents and to set out how they would like to see conservation taken forward in the future.

The comments received will be used to feed into the development of the new Cliftonville Design Code which residents will have the opportunity to contribute to at a public event in April.

Residents can share their views on these appraisal documents by e-mailing consultation@thanet.gov.uk or writing to Consultation, Thanet District Council, PO Box 9, Margate, CT9 1XZ.

Louise, could I ask you and your colleagues to encourage as many cliftonville residents as possible to respond."

An open letter from Councillor Julie Marson to Councillor Will Scobie

The guest blog theme continues... Councillor Julie Marson responds to Councillor Will Scobie.

Dear Cllr Scobie

I am pleased that you are on board with our commitment to the conservation of Cliftonville and very glad that you are keen to implement these conservation designation areas soon. As you are aware Laura and I have been campaigning on this for almost a year.

Since the administration amended my motion to exclude certain areas and to phase the designation, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss my and the residents' real concerns about implementation with the Labour administration. I would also like to extend the invitation to include Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning, Cllr David Green, since his decisions will be critical to the success of conservation in Cliftonville.

Yours

Cllr Julie Marson

Follow Julie Marson on Twitter
Julie Marson's speech to Thanet Council Thursday February 27th 2013 (Word Doc)

Open letter to Councillor Julie Marson and Laura Sandys MP from Councillor Will Scobie

I think this is the first open letter and guest blogger I've featured here on Margate Architecture. Following the debate last night across the council chamber regarding the proposed Cliftonville Conservation Area roll out. Councillor Will Scobie has penned an open letter. oh, and congrats to Will and Jodie on getting married!

p.s. Please do pop in to tomorrow's Margate Neighbourhood Plan Forum public meeting:

2pm-4pm 
Cliftonville Community Centre, St Paul's Road, Cliftonville.
Details here:
http://margateneighbourhoodplanforum.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/public-meeting-march-1st-margate-neighbourhood-plan-forum/

Open letter to Julie Marson and Laura Sandys – Conservation areas in Cliftonville

Dear Julie and Laura,

I would like to suggest that we meet to discuss the issue of conservation areas in Cliftonville so that we can work together on this important issue. I have been a vocal supporter of conservation areas in Cliftonville since I was elected to represent the area in May 2013. I think that by working together we can make sure that we have a scheme that protects the historical beauty of Cliftonville. The motion that was presented by Julie at the meeting of Thanet District Council on the 27^thFebruary unfortunately failed to get cross-party support for the scheme. We have the opportunity here to change that.

I feel that we mostly agree about conservation areas in Cliftonville and that a meeting would allow us to form a common position. Unfortunately in modern politics we spend far too much time talking about the things we disagree on rather than focusing on areas of agreement. This open letter is an attempt to try and get past this.

The areas that we disagree on are over the extent of the conservation areas and whether this can be done at once or phased over time. I am happy to discuss both of these issues. I did not support Julie’s original motion that proposed going beyond the English Heritage appraisals because we were presented with no evidence that residents wanted it extended to these areas. Nor were Council members provided with any factual evidence of the need to conserve these additional areas. However we can certainly discuss this and I will listen to your ideas. If there is a desire from residents for their area to be included, or if there is a factual case for it to be extended to other areas, then I am prepared to listen and talk about this openly.

Similarly I am also happy to discuss whether the conservation areas should be brought in at once or phased. I opposed them being done simultaneously because after speaking with Conservation and Planning Officers at the Council it became apparent that we not have adequate resources to do this. My worry would be that this could impact heavily upon conservation work taking place elsewhere in Thanet and potentially be very costly if rushed. If you have a proposal on how we can deliver conservation areas simultaneously with the resources available then I am prepared to listen to your views.

I hope that you will take me up on my offer because if we can agree a common position then it will send a clear message that politics in Thanet is changing. It will also allow us to deliver something incredibly important for the people of Cliftonville. I hope that we can put party politics aside for the good of Cliftonville.

Yours sincerely,

Will Scobie.

Kent County Councillor for Margate and Cliftonville and Labour’s Parliamentary Candidate for South Thanet.

Ed: follow Will on twitter 
Will Scobie's blog

Act today to save Thanet Press from demolition

*News Update Feb 14th 2014*

I received a letter from the Council that once again new files have been added on February 12th to the application for comment.

So everyone who has already commented will have to comment all over again.

Which begs the question why new files are being allowed to be added to the current application after the receipt of extensive comments?

Is the developer simply countering the submitted comments with new files? Time for Thanet Council to require the developer submit a new application. 

Check out the new files on www.ukplanning.com/thanet



The proposal to demolish the historic Thanet Press buildings in Union Crescent in central Margate has been revised. 

Today is the deadline for comments. The proposal, by GTL Property Management Ltd, is for the erection of 2 x 4 storey buildings  and 1 x 3 storey building to accommodate 70 one and two bedroom flats.

I've been rather snowed under, so apologies for the lateness of this post. 

So, if you think there is a better future for this central light industrial site, nestled in the midst of Margate's Conservation Area and surrounded by Listed Buildings, please share this to your contacts.  

Here are the grounds I think worth commenting on myself. To comment, go to www.ukplanning.com/thanet 

Ref: F/TH/13/0538 and C/TH/13/0539

Make sure you comment on both applications.

- This is a key existing light industrial site, ideally placed in Central Margate to take full advantage of the available Regional Growth Fund loans in the East Kent Area. The loss of this site that could create and support employment and enterprise is unacceptable. The site is unsuitable for the creation of such a high number and high density of residential dwellings. 

- The structural engineer’s report confirms that the building is sound and could be reasonably reused and potentially extended, albeit with some minor remediation measures as recommended by the environmental report.

- The conclusions of the historic report are contrary to the good evidence the historic assessment (at the beginning of the report) presents of the importance of Union Crescent in Margate’s history and this appears to be biased in favour of those commissioning the report.  

- I would strongly disagree with the report’s statement that, "The horizontal rhythm reflects the Georgian terrace opposite”.  The inset vertical expression of the stairwells fronting the main Union Crescent facade is completely inconsistent with the Georgian character of the buildings opposite, and in general, and the overall proportion and hierarchy reads as a very poor pastiche.  The proposed use of stucco rendered corbels and reconstituted stone demonstrates that the building would be of insufficient material quality.  

- The proposed PPC aluminium sash windows are of very poor proportion and would not successfully emulate their Listed neighbours.

- The proposed design is of very poor quality, in a location where there is no precedent for housing of this scale, nor evidence of housing ever existing on the site, directly facing buildings of significant historic interest on all sides.  

- The proposed scheme does not enhance the Conservation Area and would certainly be a detrimental contribution to the street and the town.  For reasons of height, mass and bulk and potentially sunlight/ daylight impact to the neighbours the design remains inappropriate.  

- The fact that the existing 19th Century buildings on the site were not Listed by English Heritage is insufficient justification alone for demolition within a conservation area.

- The loss of the site’s employment use in the town centre remains a concern.  There has been interest in this building commercially that has been dismissed by the owner in favour of this proposed change of use.  The proposed change of use is contrary to local planning policy.

- The overlooking of the properties to the north of Hawley Square, with the overbearing scale of the proposals that face onto a narrow back street, is wholly unacceptable, to what is such an important Georgian square in both national and local terms.  The proposed building facing onto Prince’s Street is significantly taller than the existing massing and goes against the historic grain of the conservation area.

I hope that the council will see fit to refuse this application and encourage the applicant to more sustainably reuse the site and maintain a commercial use.

Further notes:
Historic Significance Appraisal Report
Since the last time the application was submitted a, Historic Significance Appraisal Report has been added to UK Planning. It was for this reason, that Councillor Iris Johnston sought for the application to be brought to Planning Committee rather than be decided under delegated powers. The Planning Department had it recommended for refusal. 

The report gives an enlightening and useful description of the Georgian residential buildings to Union Crescent , including outlining their importance and significance and their Listing status. This adds further weight to the argument that the proposed buildings, with their poorly considered elevation treatment and massing, will serve to de-value the setting of Union Crescent and its contribution to the Conservation Area.

The report contends that the scheme will have a positive contribution to the setting, however it will not. It does not ‘complete the classical composition’ as the street was never conceived as such. As the report outlines, the Thanet Press site has never contained buildings of a massing as proposed, and the street frontage has never been built up to such an extent. The design, particularly the proposed materials and detailing is poor and does not reflect that found on the adjacent buildings.

The loss of versatile commercial space will be hugely detrimental to the local area and the long term future of the town. A truly vibrant streetscape is created by a mix of uses and occupants, and refurbishment of the existing buildings for commercial use is the best way to achieve this.

Structural Report
The structural appraisal clearly states that the existing buildings are in a sound condition and re-use, even extension would be possible. From a sustainability point of view, such re-use is the most effective way forward and will use far less embodied energy than demolition and new build. The council should be taking a forward thinking approach and encouraging the re-use of existing structures.

Hazardous Substance Survey
The existing buildings were found to contain asbestos in parts, however the report states that ‘contamination in general is minimal and localised’. Any future development of the site, be it refurbishment of existing buildings or demolition with new build will have to deal with this so it neither supports nor opposes this application. What is clear is that it is possible to safely clear the existing buildings of hazardous materials and refurbish the existing buildings. There is no case for demolition on contamination grounds.


The Thanet Press site represents an important opportunity for sensitive regeneration of the existing buildings to create a new vibrant commercial space in the heart of the town. The existing buildings have a versatility of use and interest of form that the proposed scheme fails to deliver and I urge the council to refuse this scheme.