Many Eastcliff residents will have watched with interest and some trepidation the progress or otherwise of the Royal Sands development on the old Pleasurama site that dominates Ramsgate's Eastern Seafront.
Planning permission (F/TH/03/1200) was granted on the 28th January 2005 for a mixed use scheme comprising a 60 bedroom hotel, 107 residential apartments, 7 retail units, a health and fitness centre and the construction of a childrens play area. Variations in the approved plans were later approved as set out in leters from the Council dated 30th Sept 2005 and 12th September 2006.
The development works in addition included the erection of a clifftop stairway and highway works.
Subsequently, Council officers approved various changes to the plans under delegated authority, summarised in plans dated 28 Jan 2009.
As the landowner, Thanet Council signed (end of 2006) a development agreement with SFP Ventures (UK Limited) relating to the development and sale of land.
The detail of the development agreement state:
1. On exchange of the development agreement, the developer will pay a deposit of £55,000.
2. Following exchange of the development agreement, within 3 months, the developer will enter into a highways agreement with Kent County Council as specified in the planning permission. The works refer to a new roundabout and bus lay-by in Marine Esplanade.
3. The Site Lease Completion Date is the date 10 working days after the date of completion of the Highways Agreement.
4. On the Site Lease Completion Date:
a. The developer is to pay £550,000 to the Council which will include the deposit of £55,000.
b. The Site Leases of the hotel suite, the mixed use site and the residential premises will be granted to the Developer.
c. The developer will enter into an option agreement in favour of the Council, whereby the Council will be granted an option to aquire the Developers interest in the hotel site and the cliff stairway lease.
d. The Developer will provide a £5.6m performance bond in favour of the Council. Last time I asked, the account had been opened, but nothing paid in.
5. SFP Ventures (UK) limited is not entited to assign the Development Agreement.
To the casual observer, progress on site has been painfully slow.
The Council, with some contribution from the developer has in the last month competed the works on the cliff face costing around £1m.
The highways works are completed, in the main, with some tidying up required. These will have to be signed off by KCC highways.
So the time for SFP to pay over the £550,000 to the Council and provide the £5.6m performance bond, must be due any time now.
So decision time for the shadowy figures behind SFP Ventures Ltd?
Planning permission (F/TH/03/1200) was granted on the 28th January 2005 for a mixed use scheme comprising a 60 bedroom hotel, 107 residential apartments, 7 retail units, a health and fitness centre and the construction of a childrens play area. Variations in the approved plans were later approved as set out in leters from the Council dated 30th Sept 2005 and 12th September 2006.
The development works in addition included the erection of a clifftop stairway and highway works.
Subsequently, Council officers approved various changes to the plans under delegated authority, summarised in plans dated 28 Jan 2009.
As the landowner, Thanet Council signed (end of 2006) a development agreement with SFP Ventures (UK Limited) relating to the development and sale of land.
The detail of the development agreement state:
1. On exchange of the development agreement, the developer will pay a deposit of £55,000.
2. Following exchange of the development agreement, within 3 months, the developer will enter into a highways agreement with Kent County Council as specified in the planning permission. The works refer to a new roundabout and bus lay-by in Marine Esplanade.
3. The Site Lease Completion Date is the date 10 working days after the date of completion of the Highways Agreement.
4. On the Site Lease Completion Date:
a. The developer is to pay £550,000 to the Council which will include the deposit of £55,000.
b. The Site Leases of the hotel suite, the mixed use site and the residential premises will be granted to the Developer.
c. The developer will enter into an option agreement in favour of the Council, whereby the Council will be granted an option to aquire the Developers interest in the hotel site and the cliff stairway lease.
d. The Developer will provide a £5.6m performance bond in favour of the Council. Last time I asked, the account had been opened, but nothing paid in.
5. SFP Ventures (UK) limited is not entited to assign the Development Agreement.
To the casual observer, progress on site has been painfully slow.
The Council, with some contribution from the developer has in the last month competed the works on the cliff face costing around £1m.
The highways works are completed, in the main, with some tidying up required. These will have to be signed off by KCC highways.
So the time for SFP to pay over the £550,000 to the Council and provide the £5.6m performance bond, must be due any time now.
So decision time for the shadowy figures behind SFP Ventures Ltd?
1 comments:
David I really don’t think KCC highways should adopt the new road layout as it was built without a flood risk assessment, which was strongly recommended by the environment agency.
Any one who knows Ramsgate also knows that waves break over where the road layout is, to a greater or lesser extent depending on how much sand the sea deposits on or removes from the beach in any given year.
The surface of the road layout isn’t stuck down it’s just laid on lose sand, so come the next big storm it will be wrecked.
There is also considerable doubt about the strength of the arches leading to the bus drop off point and the roundabout for busses to turn and it is becoming increasing unlikely that busses will ever be allowed to get there.
Despite a considerable amount of warning the developer appears to have laid the road layout wrongly and I don’t think KCC should have to pay for digging it up and laying it rightly.
I should also point out that the previous roundabout and drop off that were built down there were never needed and have now been partially dug up and partially abandoned, who paid for them to be built?
Post a Comment