When Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State, English Heritage said they had considered carefully the information and the application, were they made aware that the validated drawings showing the relationship between the Arlington site with the proposed superstore structure and the adjacent Dreamland site are not a true representation of the proposal and its context?
Background:
Through a series of communications with TDC Planning Officers, it has been established that important drawings published on www.ukplanning.com/thanet ref F/TH/10/1061 do not show the true representation of the difference in ground levels between the Arlington and the adjacent Dreamland site. The reality is that the Arlington site is between 3 and 4 metres higher than the Dreamland site.
The drawings include:
080417-A-P-Si D112
080417-A-P-Si D112A
080417-A-P-Si D124
This substantial difference in ground levels is fundamental to understanding the relationship between the proposed development and its context which includes the Grade II Listed Sangers Menagerie, the Grade II* listed Scenic Railway and the Grade II Listed Dreamland Cinema.
In effect, seen from Dreamland side, the rear of the proposed Tesco Superstore would be up to 4 meters higher than how is represented in the submitted drawings. This seemed to be an issue and so we asked TDC’s Planning department for confirmation.
They explained:
“The Drawings are of the proposed store building, not the ground level outside the application site.”
In other words, one should look only at the outline of the proposed superstore but not at the surrounding context represented in the drawings. So drawings have been validated and sent out for consultation where not all of the information contained in the drawing is to be viewed as an accurate representation of the site?
We thought this sounded odd, so we checked what we would have to include in section drawings if we too were going to submit an application to build a structure next to listed structures. Officers responded stating that showing the adjacent sites in a scaled drawing is mandatory, especially when Listed structures are involved.
Do we have a point that English Heritage and the Secretary of State have not been shown drawings of the site that are accurate when they issued their opinions?
Perhaps you might like to ask the National Planning Casework Unit about this: npcu@gowm.gsi.gov.uk Citing ref: F/TH/10/1061Or ask Thanet’s Planning Department yourself and see what reply you get. We’d be happy to hear an update. planning.services@thanet.gov.uk
Arlington Margate 