Tuesday, 4 June 2013

Ramsgate Pleasurama decision. Provokes Angry Lobby on Thursday

Thanet Council's decision to allow Ramsgate  Pleasurama project developers more time to secure funding has provoked outrage amongst local people who will be lobbying a meeting of Ramsgate Town Council at the Custom House, Harbour Parade  tomorrow (Wednesday 5th June) from 6.15pm
SFP Ventures (UK) Ltd have been the  developers of this £30million luxury hotel/ flats project for over 10 years.
In that time little very little work has taken place on the project and local people have been forced to endure a derelict building site eyesore which has blighted one of the most prestigious seafront areas of Ramsgate  for a decade.
Earlier this year local people concerned about lack progress with the development  and the negative impact it was having on the seafront set up the Friends of Ramsgate Seafront (FORS) campaign group
FORS have organised 2 petitions of local people which have both collected over 1,000 signatures each.
The petitions called on the Council to remove the developers for blighting the seafront for over a decade and to rethink what might be developed on the site
Only last week, in response to the public pressure, the Council had promised an official investigation into  the development  including seeking legal advice to end the agreement with the developers and reclaim the public land. Now the Council appears to have done a U turn and has entered new talks with the developers.
Ramsgate Green Party Councillor, Ian Driver opposes the  development and is supporting the lobby along with FORS supporters.
He said   "I have some very serious doubts about project developers SFP Ventures and their ability to do the work. I am also very worried about the fact that the project is being built in  a high risk flood zone without a flood risk assessment being undertaken despite  advice by the Environmental Agency to have one. There are also some serious concerns about the stability of the cliff face which will be less than 10 mtrs behind the development. These factors lead me to believe that these are wrong developers, building the wrong sort of development in the wrong location.
for more information contact Ian Driver 07866588766


  1. Tomorrow is Wednesday 5th June. Is the meeting tomorrow or Thursday?

  2. Sorry solo the meeting and lobby are definitely on WEDNESDAY 5TH 6.15

  3. Ian emailed me with the correction and I have changed the post so the date is right, the lobby is today.

  4. Hi,

    Something is wrong here. Either the Thanet Council has got its facts wrong, or you have your wires crossed.
    The Thanet Council published that they gave SFP 4 months from January 2013, to show evidence of the money to continue the project. These 4 months have just expired with no evidence submitted from SFP of the financial backing.

    The council announced on the 30th May that the 4 month period has expired. They have appointed a overview and scrutiny panel to investigate where they stand legally in ending the agreement and future development, as SFP still hold the lease for the site.

  5. Anon 11:07,

    I think you have got the picture. The Councillors decided to set up a panel to consider how to extricate themselves from this total shambles which is all or their own making, and now Poole has gone ahead with something totally different. That shouldn't really surprise you. The last thing TDC would want would be to find Ezekiel's sticky fingers all over the deal. When you elect idiots and crooks to represent you, don't don't expect sanity or common sense. Vote UKIP next time.

    1. Anon 11:07,

      the panel was to look at further options, not "how to extricate themselves from this total shambles".

      Perhaps if you got your facts right, there wouldn't be as much confusion in future ;)

      "Thursday, 30 May 2013
      Pleasurama Site Development Task and Finish Group
      A new Pleasurama Site Development Task and Finish Group is to be set up as a priority project for the Overview and Scrutiny Panel.
      This follows a meeting of cabinet held last night (Wednesday 29 May) in which members gave their full endorsement for Scrutiny to review all of the options for the development of the site in Ramsgate.
      The developers were given a four month period following a meeting of Cabinet in January to satisfy the council that the finance was in place for completion of the development or to ensure an agreement was in place for the construction and operation of a hotel.
      As the four month period passed without the criteria being met, Cabinet has now agreed to a review of the options for the site, which include continuing discussions with the current developer or considering alternative options"

  6. Take down the fence.

    Take down the Royal Sands pictureboards.

    Pleasurama needs taking out of the hands of the council.

    They are corrupt and have failed us for years.

    1. Site should be sold to the highest bidder without further delay, I wholeheartedly agree!

  7. Councillors in Thanet aren't interested unless there is something in it for them. Vote them out next time.

  8. See on the BBC news today that the next disaster is about to unfold. Dreamland. How many TDC/Labour scandals are there now?

  9. The BBC have now announced that Dreamland will be all up and running by next summer. Ha bloody Ha In your dreams Clive. If you cant get the Royal Sands the Victoria Pavilion the Old Motor Museum or Arlington site sorted, how do you expect to have Dreamland completed in 11 months. You haven't even acquired the site yet. Your Council is a disaster and a disgrace. Pretty good at loosing £3.4 million though.

    1. I agree with a lot of your diatribe, but how exactly did the council lose £3.3million at the port?

    2. You're posting too often again JH, and not paying attention. The £3.4M was lost by letting TEF off their costs for too long and not finding a replacement ferry. And all in secret.

      EKO and Chinagate costs are still awaited.

      Try and keep your posts to one a day except for your own blog and be less foolish.

    3. Anon 15:47, sadly it is taking longer to educate you than 1st estimates suggested, but I won't leave you in the ognorant state I found you, I promise ;)

      Now, let's try this simply concept, if TDC had forced TEF under, they would have receieved no mooring fees, just as they have recieved no mooring fees but tried to secure the fees by allowing the compnay to re-finance, so my little freind, how have TDC been responsible for "losing" £3.4million, where do you think the replacement was going to be coming from (bearing in mind that the port could accomadate several operators)...

      I LOVE you childish and simplistic attitude, but sadly the grown up's in the council have tolive in the real world ;)

      Perhaps learn something about the subjects of your posts in future, it will help you avoid the inevitable ridicule that always follows your posts, there's a good boy ;)

    4. Foolishly JH you're assuming that TEF wouldn't have raised the money elsewhere if TDC had refused to provide "free" berthing ie depriving the taxpayer of the £3.4M fees. TDC weren't "forcing TEF under" nor did the refinancing you describe actually yield any funds for TDC.

      As well TDC could have found another operator (and they still haven't knowing for 2 years TEF was bust).

      You've ignored the point on secret meetings too. Next you'll be saying EKO or Chinagate or Manston's discounted rates were value for money.

      Your childish insults are just drab.

    5. And you, 12:00, reach the pits of borish ranting with your ill informed comments. An attempt was made on both sides of the channel to keep TEF operating, no more, no less, without which they would have folded much sooner.

      Anyway, since you are so smart please explain for the less gifted amongst us, how the council could lose money they never had in the first place?

    6. Strewth it's the Mallinson and JH-BS tag team. When one of them proves inadequate the other oaf steps in.

      Why on earth would the pair of them want to justify the TEF failure and loss of council business and money? Rank idiocy perhaps.

      Pay attention Mallinson. The loss of £3.4M income by TDC is a problem. So much so that the senior civil servants have had to draw on other funds. Or are you right and the whole thing isn't a problem at all?

      The "money they never had" as you describe it are the berthing fees losses (possibly grants to TEF we don't know with the secrecy): in effect continuing to fund the port when it's bust. Public sector accounting at its best.

      You don't mention the secret meetings. Nor the failure to find other ferries for 2 years.

      Probably rank idiocy. Drab insults too.

    7. Anon 12:00, you REALLY need to aquiant yourself with the real world of business before humiliating yourself further ;)

      If TEF could have raised the money from else where, I'm sure they would have, and whatelse do you think would happen to a ferry company unable to pay it's mooring fees, that then had it's mooring privilidges removed, perhaps they could have found a landing craft and unloaded across the beach!

      "As well TDC could have found another operator" really? Who would you suggest, Sea France perhaps? it;s funny you know, but I haven;t seen that many ferry operators fighting to do business across the channel these last few years, I'm wondering who you had in mind, White Star line maybe?

      You do understand the concept of commercial confidentiality I presume my little lad? If not, then perhaps you should seek education before humiliating yourself again, and if you do, you have clearly addressed the "issue" of "secret" meetings.

      No insults from me boy, I simply post clear facts, you should try that sometime.

      As neither of us have as yet appeared inadequate, we shall leave that to you Anon 15:02, it's clearly the only talent you have. I seek to educate you on business 101 my boy, clearly you have no grasp of business, and hence your comments are ignorant in the extreme.

      Once again you clown, whether TEF folded 3 years ago, or yesterday, the SAME amount of cash would be "lost", but as the council never had it, they could hardly have lost it.

      Yepm the only part you get right is that your posts display your rank idiocy.

    8. John, whereas I agree with you all the way, I am afraid you are wasting your time with Anon 12:00. He has been churning out the same old rubbish round the Thanet blogs for years with never a shred of evidence to back up any of his mindless claims about corruption, pollution, 0% salaries, Chinagate bungs and so on.

      As he combines the roles of village idiot and resident Nimby, designed only to protest but with no understanding of what exactly he is protersting about, argument or debate with him is futile. He invariably responds "So you are saying" when you are not saying anything of the sort, but being his stock (and only) response, he has to use it.

      The sad case is best ignored, for response only fuels his ardour and encourages him to write even more drivel.

    9. Hi Allan, oh I have seen this particular individual in the past. I must admit he makes me belly laugh better than most professional comedians! He seems to have infected many others in Thanet who now act in exactly the same way. Shame really that a lovely part of the world should have these no marks inflicted on them.

      I wish that he and they were treated with the derision they deserve by everyone so that Thanet can FINALLY move forward!

      I wish I had the time to get elected to TDC, then these people could finally be dealt with appropriately!

    10. There's not much to reply to with the JH-BS/AM tag team. Childish insults mainly. JHBS's business views are largely idiotic so thank goodness he's not standing for council to perpetuate TDC failure.

      It would be interesting to see how in the last 2 years TDC attempted to find a replacement for TEF. I suspect no effort at all.

      Mallinson now seems to be some empty yelper urging on JHBS. Little of substance in the views. He could though detail a view on 0% salaries. I can't think of a more blatant example of fraud: declaring 0% payrises but they're not they're increases of 15% or more.

      It's strange how these people seem desperate to cover up TDC corruption and failure. Either a rabid party viewpoint or simply contrary bumpkins.

      I suspect the latter.

    11. I think Anon 9:22 that your first sentence would be more accurate if you reworded it;

      "I cannot answer John Hamiltons well made and perfectly correct points with anything sensible, so the rest of my post will consist of mindless foolishness, which underlines the fact that I have no clue about how business is run in the real world"

      I wonder which part of "Who would you suggest, Sea France perhaps? it;s funny you know, but I haven;t seen that many ferry operators fighting to do business across the channel these last few years, I'm wondering who you had in mind, White Star line maybe?" did you fail to understand Anon 22.00? Who do you think this mythical operator should have been....

      Surely you have SOMETHING maybe -0% payrises?

    12. JHBS - the world doesn't revolve around you. Just because you cannot name a ferry operator to replace TEF doesn't mean that TDC 2 years ago should not have begun the search. Your views are neither factual nor credible. What are you talking about with 0% payrises?

    13. You anom 11:12, I cannot name the mystical other ferry operator, because they don't exist a concept that that anon 9:12 seems to be struggling with.

      Sadly for you, my post are clearly factual, credible and relevant. 0% payrises, wish I knew, it's a subject close to another of you nimby's heart, you'll have to ask aquiffer man :)

  10. Agree with all the above points, and the next scandal will be the Manston pollution and missing millions of pounds of fines.

    1. No it will not, 18:29, how ever often you raise the issue, because it is on nobody else's agenda.

    2. It may well do 14:12, failing to collect millions of pounds seems like TEF but a much larger problem. Manston is on KCC's and TDC's agenda and has been for years as to if/how it develops. Where have you been all these years? You seem to have your head buried in the sand like the councillors.

    3. Well, Anon, if the councillors all have their heads buried in the sand it does not matter whether or not Manston is on KCC's or TDC's agenda because they are not going to notice. The only person fretting about it is you and, like it or not, you are just an anonymous minnow on a blogsite of no importance to anyone but yourself.

    4. Crumbs, you twist like a fish on a hook - you say Manston isn't on anyone's agenda then you agree it's on KCC and TDC's agenda. Cheap insults then follow as you can't explain the missing fines or pollution. Although you sort of agree the councillors like you have their heads buried in the sand like you. Try and explain the fines and pollution why don't you?


Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive and anonymous derogatory comments about real people will be deleted. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.