Wednesday, 10 July 2013

GB Pizza Co Margate, windsurfers at Westbrook and a ramble about The Royal Sands development on the Pleasurama site in Ramsgate

We had to go to Margate on an errand after work today. Wednesday is special offer day at GB Pizza Co, this is something worth remembering, pizzas and soft drinks for four came out at £25 which I thought was very good value.
I did stop at Westbrook to take a picture of the windsurfers.

The Royal Sands development on the Pleasurama site in Ramsgate is attracting considerable public interest at the moment , there was a public meeting this Monday and quite a few questions about it tabled for tomorrows council meeting.

Frankly there isn’t much new to say about it, nothing much has changed recently apart from both council officers and councillors saying that they think the development is less likely to happen.

This is really a subtle and gradual, but I think important change, than anything sudden or earth shattering. I will ramble on here.  

I guess what underlies this development is bad planning. Wrong plans that had to be dramatically changed into a poor compromise, a gull winged liner like design that had to have its gull wings clipped off. A development agreement that didn’t seem to work for either the developer or the council that had to changed. Failure to understand the limitations of the site, both in terms of the cliff and the flood risk, delays and unsatisfactory repairs to the cliff and a bizarre situation with the flood risk with EA recommendations both in the public domain and ignored.   

Barry James has sent me the transcript of what Terry Painter said at meeting and I have added it below as I think it helps to clarify the situation.

Good evening everybody
Got me to blame really haven’t you, I introduced the site some eleven odd years ago, but we .... we’re all to blame, of course, because we’ve all had our share of protesting and upsetting the situation in a number of ways.
What I would like to do because it will answer a lot of those questions and I think Councillor Poole has given a good sensible appraisal of the current situation. We are at deadlock; I am now going to read a report from SFP’s solicitor that summarises a lot of what Alan Poole has said and shows my client’s position, so bear with me it is quite lengthy.
At present both parties i.e. the Council and SFP are bound by the terms of the 2006 development agreement. The Council through Mark Seed are stating they require to be convinced that the Council will be in a stronger position under any new agreement and there will be a guarantee that the work will be completed and that the Hotel will be completed.
The 2006 agreement does not work and indeed because of this both the Council and SFP are in an impossible situation. The Main reasons the 2006 agreement does not work are as follows:
a)      That agreement requires any funder for the development to enter into a separate agreement with the Council. Guarantee that if the developer, if for any reason does not proceed with the development, it (the Funder) will take over the developer’s responsibilities and secure the completion of the development. In the present economic climate no funder will agree to enter into such an agreement. This point has been accepted by both the Council and SFP.
b)      That agreement effectively prohibits the sale of the flats until completion of the Hotel and that is now practicably impossible because of the following:
1)      The Hotel is at the Harbour Parade end of the site and the new(?) traffic order  affecting Nero’s Hill prohibits any construction traffic from approaching the site from the other end, which you would have to do if the Hotel is built first and the flats and commercial units secondly.
2)      The design of the Hotel incorporates a build over the access road at the rear and the tunnel at the back has a height restriction which will prevent construction traffic passing through it.
3)      It has been made clear by proposed hotel operators that they would not operate or open the hotel with a building site in operation next door.
c)       Pursuant to that agreement being signed leases for 199 years had been granted to SFP by the Council. These leases made reference to the 2006 agreement and as such are not acceptable as security by Funders for the development of the site.
The redrawn agreement incorporates a legal commitment on the part of SFP to the Council to complete the development, being the flats, commercial, and the Hotel. As in the original agreement overage is to be paid to the Council on the disposal of each of the flats and each of the commercial units. To support and secure the Council their obligation SFP has offered a second charge on the more valuable part of the site i.e. the residential and commercial part which provides an obligation on the part of SFP to complete the development and pay the overage. If SFP were to default the Council would be in a position to call in the second charge and whilst this would involve in redeeming the first charge it would then be in a position to seek forfeiture of the leases and repossession of the site.
SFP’s commitment to date, as you have already heard, has been investment exceeding £5M. The delays have been brought about by the change in the economic climate, which has made finance for the project extremely difficult. It has been endeavoured at all times to overcome these problems and extremely anxious to get on the site and commence the development as it needs a return on its capital investment. The delay has substantially reduced its potential profit, and therefore the attraction of this development, primarily because of the change in the economic climate, which has meant the interest he is paying for the funding has increased by 20%. Notwithstanding this SFP remains committed to complete the development.
It is a Commercial Company and has endeavoured to jump through the various hoops put up by the Council but its ability to continue to do so is becoming extremely difficult and its willingness to start and to show the people of Thanet on what has been a dead site. For too many years it appears to have been obstructed at every turn.
  

65 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Every reason why TDC should get off its backside and get this job moving...it would do wonders for the Thanet economy and jobs in the construction. I think you may have got your wires crossed...I have checked duedil, and I think you will find that they were just late filing a set of accounts...I have checked out them on a credit search and they are fully upto date

      Delete
    2. Making inaccurate statements, that can't be backed up with facts or evidence James, same shit different day.

      Delete
    3. James Hamilton criticizes someone else for making statements which cannot be backed up with evidence. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. You couldn't write it.

      Delete
    4. And you, 6:46, do not know your James from your John. That must cause you problems, ha, ha, ha, ha!

      Delete
    5. You shouldn;t write it anon 5:22, you just look even more stupid ;)

      Delete
  2. I attended the Public Meeting on Royal Sands to be nosey.
    What is fascinating in all of this, is how SFP are treated with such hostility. This is a developer who has invested £4million into the site and has also deposited £1million for surety that the shell and core of Hotel will be built. So £5million.
    And lets face it...no Hotel Groups are that interested in Hotel Sites which are outside of the M25. Indeed Canterbury have been trying for 5 years to lure a new Hotel to the Kent Cricket Ground site. And have failed miserably...and given that Canterbury is one of the UK's most visited City, and also doesnt have too many existing Hotel's....it is perhaps no surprise therefore that SFP are finding hard to get the Ramsgate Hotel moving.

    We cannot also blame SFP for the Global Banking crisis that has hit the economy so badly over the last 4 years or so. Banks are simply not lending....

    I am told that the current Development Agreement in the event of an economic downturn,gives SFP,until 2017 to deliver the project. We are told its a 2 year build. So on that basis SFP would have to start until 2015. and who could blame them.WE blame SFP,but I fail to see how they are supposed to buck a trend that no one else can in other more striving city areas.

    SFP and mr Shaun Keegan are treated like aliens.In Thanet we are great to moan about the lack of prospects in the area...and then as soon as we get a shoot of promise, we then go about making the potential invstors so un welcome, that we drive them away....Pfizer? Airport?

    We moan about teh lack of progress from both Cardy and SFP on the site. Well I have walked my dog along this route for many a year. And for nearly two years the site was dogged with delays as a result of ongoing repairs to the Cliff Face. Michael Childs posted a blog on the saga of TDC's and their many attempts at making good the blockwork. There is no way that Construction activities could be started whilst these works were ongoing. So TDC at fault...not SFP.

    Iread also that a certain TDC Councillor actually has written to SFP's potential funding sources and told them not to fund SFP on the project....now if that is not double dutch....we are told TDC have always wanted SFP to start...but then TDC try to ward off the funder....I have total sympathy with SFP on this point.






    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 11.21

      I wonder whether TDC were aware that Pfizer were pulling away from the area, when they sold it to SFP.....and I am suspicious that they withheld the news Ferrygate hoping to hide this from SFP

      Delete
    2. Rarely do i agree with anonoumous posters, but anon 11.21, you have PERFECTLY summed up the Pleasurama debacle! It's good to see at least someone has a clue how the real world works apart from me!

      Delete
    3. No, mate, Fred!

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, it may be, but they are not bankrupt thus making your first statement totally inaccurate, Barry. It would help all round if people would stick to facts rather than speculation and rumour.

    Very fair comment by Anon 11:21, such a shame more people do not take the trouble to spell it out rather than simply condemn, usually without any substance or real evidence. One has to wonder why any business would invest in Thanet and face the resultant protests, biased and inaccurate publicity and the good chance of legal injunctions from her from oop north.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. As, of course, should anyone thinking of investing in a business in Thanet. Another step not to be lightly taken.

      Delete
    3. Allan MallinsonJuly 11, 2013 11:30 am

      Barry, in support of 8:35, you clearly stated that the company had filed for bankruptcy whereas the notice of striking off was the result of filing accounts late and was lifted when the accounts were filed. Furthermore, a first notice in the London Gazette is automatic if accounts are late, happens frequently, and is not the disaster for a company that you imply.

      Still, must not stop a good old Thanet whinge and scaremonger, must we?

      Delete
    4. You have to cut poor ole Barry some slack Allan, he thinks he is a forensic accountant, whereas his actually posts and comments prove he is lacking in the EXTREME in any area that requires factual accuracy.

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Allan MallinsonJuly 11, 2013 12:06 pm

    How do you know the previous years account were not late. You are clutching at straws, Barry, to try to justify your earlier comment that they had applied for bankruptcy. Cardy are a sound and operating company, but perhaps you would like to invest the twelve quid necessary to get the full SP on them and then come back with your news.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Allan MallinsonJuly 11, 2013 3:21 pm

      But Cardy is still trading, so all this quoting of the Companies Act is just flannel in this case. Cardy is not dormant nor removed from the register and, in any event, it is all rather irrelevant as Cardy is not the leaseholder or developer of the Pleasurama site.

      Delete
    2. Allan MallinsonJuly 11, 2013 4:01 pm

      Well an interesting debate where one party to it suddenly removes all his previous comments. Are you saying you got it all wrong, Barry?

      Delete
    3. I think you'll find that is Barry's reaction when he is once again proven to be posting BS which he has no proof support :)

      Delete
  8. If Barry is right it will all become apparent in the next few weeks. If Barry is right I will be expecting to see apologies from Mr. Mallinson and chums.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Farnie BarnardJuly 11, 2013 9:25 pm

      I would suggest that if Barry was right he would not have deleted all his comments. Probably realised that it is not too clever making unsubstantiated allegations against a company who might just sue.

      Delete
    2. You can never delete a comment. It will always be sitting out there on a Google server and can be recovered by a simple internet search. This also applies to 'anonymous' comments. A more difficult search, but not impossible for those with the technical knowledge say, in the event of a court case.

      Delete
  9. Barry is very wrong..No doubt Solicitors letter is on its way...

    ReplyDelete
  10. It now transpires that one of our more infamous councillors has been writing to SFP Funding sources, telling them not to fund SFP and Royal Sands.

    So run this by me again
    TDC want SFP to get the funds to build,but in the next breath, they are writing to funders telling them not to lend

    You couldnt make it up

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since the infamous councillor is almost certainly the maverick whose only interest is self promotion, hardly surprising and not a lot TDC can do about it. They cannot expel a councillor.

      Delete
  11. "This is a developer who has invested £4million into the site"

    Absolutely priceless. Can anybody else see the £4 million? If I'd "invested" £4million I'd be pretty p*ss*d off if I'd ended up with 43 concrete pillars. Where is the evidence of £4 million investment, and if there is none, who is the "anonymous" contributor who is posting such rubbish to try to manipulate the discussion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder if you have any clue at all of the cost of ground works and civil engineering projects 10:58, I would suspect you clearly have none, but don;t let that stop you posting on subjects about which you are clearly clueless.

      Delete
    2. Actually, I'm in the building trade myself (unlike you). Please explain where you think £4million has been spent.

      Delete
    3. Digging holes does not impart any knowledge of the building trade 10:40, I would suggest you go polish your shovel ;)

      Clearly Anon 10:40, you know even less about me than you do about the building trade.

      Delete
  12. what have SFP built before?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thus speaks someone whose only building expertise was with a box of Lego.

      Delete
  13. 4 million of what. John i strongly suggest that you identify where the 4 million was spent?

    FOI's now into KCC and TDC, lets get to the bottom of this fiscal incompetence shall we - and whilst i am at it i will go through Cardys accounts and others and lets see where the chips fall shall we John!!

    I don't know about other Ramsgate residents, but i am now ticked off over this affair! I really do think the developers are using the banking crises a tad too much as a problem to resolve some of the issues? letter into Bank of England to get to the bottom of some of this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FOI may be into TDC but that does not mean that John has to jump to your bidding, 11:51. The ground work carried out at the Pleasurama site, which included underpinning was extensive and would have involved the construction firm in considerable expense. However, that was down to the developer, not us taxpayers, so it is really no concern of ours. As for Cardy, you research all you like, but again, they are not employed by TDC being contracted to the developers.

      Anyway, you do your research and when you have some information come back and tell us all about it. I will not be holding my breath in expectation.

      Delete
    2. Tee hee, 11:51, please do show us your reply from the Bank of England.

      Delete
    3. You strongly suggest anon 11:51? What will happen if it chose not to, will you perhaps simply post yet more BS?

      You do that anon. As the work wasn;t carried out or paid for by KCC or TDC, they will have no details or costings, and the accounts from Cardy's are unlikely to have enough detail of individual works to make a costing from that source. It seems that your available time clearly exceeds your talent or ability in this area, but I look forward to seeing your guesswork that you will no doubt try to pass of as fact in the near future :)

      A letter to the Bank of England....

      Now that really is funny! What would that be for, perhaps a request for them to explain the most simple business practices and you clearly have little to know knowledge in this area...

      Delete
  14. My day off yesterday and I have only just had a chance to read through this lot.

    As far as I can see we come back to the same old problems.

    SFP’s lack of experience and failure to communicate with the public: the main results of the lack of experience is unworkable agreements and plans, with the subsequent changes. The main results of their failure to communicate and by this I men; no website, no offices, no public phone number and so on, this means that any rumour goes around and around.

    As far as Cardy’s involvement goes, there are several Cardy companies:

    Cardy Group Holdings Ltd
    Cardy Developments Ltd
    Cardy Construction Ltd
    Cardy Canterbury Ltd
    Cardy Design Build Ltd

    The main company here being Cardy Construction Ltd, a reputable local building contractor that has just finished the new hotel in Margate.

    This is the firm that built the concrete pillars, two men and a digger.

    When they took over as contractor, the fourth contractor to be engaged to build they development there, they were very communicative, I would phone them and they would provide updates.

    Initially they said that a pile boring team would turn up and very quickly the site would be ready to put the slab (above the ground floor) on the top of the piles. This communication became more difficult for me over the period that the unexpected two men an digger occurred and from the point the stopped work on the site almost impossible.

    Their directors no longer return phone calls, their staff are don’t seem prepared to say if they are still the main contractor.

    One of the companies above, Cardy Developments appears to wholly owned by the developer who also owns SFP.

    I did get a very terse reply from their main director, who had previously been helpful and communicative when I asked about this, here are the emails.

    From: michaelchild@aol.com [mailto:michaelchild@aol.com]
    Sent: 11 April 2013 12:47
    To: Michael Stannard
    Subject: Another Cardy?

    Michael I don’t know whether you wish to comment on the latest in The Royal Sands fiasco as it occurs to me that it may have an impact on your company’s reputation.
    Re Cardy Developments Ltd" which was dissolved (reg No NI050796) in 2011
    Cardy Developments Ltd" (reg No 06726001) which was originally incorporated as Future Homes On-Line Properties Ltd" in 2008 but renamed to "Cardy Developments Ltd" only on the 4th of April this year.
    Future Homes On-Line Properties Ltd" had Keegan as director, when I checked out his other directorships several years ago.
    Companies house now say
    Cardy Developments Limited is an Active, non trading business incorporated in England & Wales on 16th October 2008. Their business activity is recorded as Buying And Selling Of Own Real Estate. Cardy Developments Limited is run by 1 current members. 1 shareholders own the total shares within the company. It is not part of a group.
    The latest Annual Accounts submitted to Companies House for the year up to 31/10/2012 reported 'cash at bank' of £0, 'liabilities' worth £0, 'net worth' of £0 and 'assets' worth £0. Cardy Developments Limited's risk score was amended on 26/04/2010.
    Current directors and secretaries
    Mr Shaun Patrick Keegan

    Best regards Michael
    On 11/04/2013 22:37, Michael Stannard wrote:
    Hi Michael

    Thanks for your email.

    I am however already fully aware of all such information.

    Kind Regards

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you exepect Michael! you clearly bombard these people with irrelevant, repititious and ill onformed emails, letters and phone calls, as you do councillors and council officers.

      The difference with Cardy, is they are a private company, and under no obligation, percieved of actual to keep spending time and money continuing to answer pointless and irreleavnt enquiries, the answers having been provided, then to be subjected to further ill informed online pillory!

      Delete
  15. Allan MallinsonJuly 12, 2013 12:33 pm

    It sounds very much as though legal action between the developer and TDC is on the cards with both sides keeping very quiet under orders from their lawyers. Clive Hart's leader's report over on the Thanet Labour site is interesting as it seems that just about every project in Thanet is currently stalled. A difficult time is how Cllr Hart describes it whereas it seems more a time when nothing is happening all round, from Pleasurama through Tesco/Arlington to Ferrygate, because of impending legal action.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Silly me, developers fiends - i thought TDC paid an enormous amount of money in betterment on this site?

    Michael its very clear that their are a large amount of arm chair Johns and Farnies who actually do nothing in the community, other than support their developers friends.

    John cutting through thin air more like?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Farnie BarnardJuly 12, 2013 1:18 pm

      So what exactly is your contribution to the debate, 12:49, apart from dismissing the comments of others. What do you do in the community apart from whinge? Love the developer fiends, presumably you have been watching Buffy the Vampire slayer again.

      Delete
    2. ‘s all very difficult with the Ramsgate council owned sites, mistakes under both administrations. Over Pleasurama, the biggest under Labour was, I think, when the developer was first chosen and claimed to be the development arm of a Swiss bank doing a combined project with Whitbread, someone should probably checked this was the case. Written to Whitbread and the Swiss bank type of thing. The biggest under the Conservatives, was, I think, deciding not to pull out when they had the opportunity 2009, doing this against officer advice and without issuing a public explanation suggests outright stupidity. This combined with the developer’s mistakes, plans that were too high, unworkable development agreement and so on means an awful mess for the people of Ramsgate to endure.

      For me the key issues are those of putting the cart in front of the horse and to restart by making a proper assessment of what is really viable on the site. Flood risk assessment producing the key answers to. What is a safe baseline? Is the sea defence adequate? Taking a baseline that was suitable for the front part of the 1860 development and not checking out the 1860 sea defence is just stupid. Cliff producing the key answers to. How close can you build to it and economically maintain it? Does it have a life commensurate with the life of the building and if not can it be replaced with the building there?

      Delete
    3. Inclined to agree with all you say, Michael, but I think TDC are in a difficult position. They cannot just go back to square one and start over without exposing themselves to legal action by the developer who was granted both a lease and planning consent, seemingly without time default clauses. The leader's report over on Thanet Labour rather says it all about the impasse TDC find themselves in on several fronts.

      Delete
    4. William Barry James has sent me the transcript of what Terry Painter said at meeting and I have added it to the post as I think it helps to clarify the situation.

      With today’s Gazette headline I think there is a problem developing with relation to how Ramsgate people perceive the council, they appear to be sorting out, or at least tying to sort out the major Margate issue, Dreamland, despite the considerable cost and yet the Pleasurama issue still drags on.

      I am certain that the key action the council should be taking at this point in time is to spend the small amount of money to obtain a site specific flood risk assessment as strongly recommended by the Environment agency. I also think that a full detailed assessment of the cliff, in view of obvious unsatisfactory nature of the repairs, needs to be made.

      Getting involved in a protracted legal battle about a development, with out first ascertaining if that development is viable, would seem to be a luxury that all parties can ill afford at this time.

      Delete
    5. My only problem with that suggestion, Michael, is should the council be spending our money to do the developers research for them. If you were the developer hoping to sell luxury flats and attract in a hotel group, wouldn't you want to first investigate those risks that may effect both the insurability of the development and saleability of the units. Different matter if the lease reverted to TDC and then it may well be sensible to check out these matters before looking at alternative options for the site.

      For years Ramsgate folk have felt they are poor relations to Margate where TDC are concerned, which makes me glad I am just a humble Broadstairs town councillor, but whether that is justified or not I would not like to say. Maybe the location of TDC offices does not help, but with your own council now, you just have to make sure it's members fight your corner.

      Delete
    6. William, I can think of no reason why the developer should have ignored the environment agency’s written recommendations – that is assuming the developer genuinely intended to develop the site.

      The EA recommendations are in the public domain and until they are addressed then any development there would be blighted to a greater or lesser extent.

      The developer however while not having built any developments that can be confirmed as existing, does have a record of quite legitimately extracting a six figure sum from a local authority with relation to a development that didn’t actually happen.

      As I said, my feelings are that even at this late stage actually spending a relatively small amount of money finding out how this council owned site could reasonably be used, would at least clarify the situation.

      You have to remember the original plans stated that the development was set well below the cliff but there were no heights above sea level shown on the plans, however had the top of the development been below the cliff top its height would have meant that the bottom would have been under the water at high tide. Various compromises have been made to reduce the height, but frankly it still pokes about a metre over the top.

      There is also the business at the back of the building, a 70 foot cliff and a 70 foot building with a 12 foot gap between them. I doubt I have to draw you a diagram, maintaining the cliff would be well neigh impossible.

      My guess is that if we at least got the stage of something reasonably viable then at least the finance would be a possibility

      Delete
    7. Michael, I think the developers concerns, according to the agent, are more over the terms of the lease than anything else when it comes to financing the development. In all honesty, I am not disagreeing with you, just wondering about the justification for spending council tax payers money when, at least for the time being, TDC have no redevelopment rights over the site having effectively signed those away a decade ago.

      That said, as an agent, I would not want to have to try and sell units in the proposed development knowing that surveyors are almost certainly going to want to ask the same questions you are and mortgagees are going to be looking for buildings insurance as a condition of the loan. It is all a bit amateurish all round.

      Delete
    8. It’s a tricky one William, underlying all of this is the question, does/did the developer ever intend to build the development, or was it all some landbanking operation? What is evident is that the initial plans which were granted planning consent by the council were for a building that couldn’t be built. The mutually exclusive below the cliff top in one planning document and far too high in another planning document, suggest either a very high level of incompetence, or no intention to complete.

      While the impending legal battle builds I don’t want people to lose sight of the difference between the very real limitations of the site and the developers plans.

      Delete
  17. Farnie out of all the people on this blog i am a real time Nemesis!

    Trust me Farnie if i am investigating anyone, i will turn their whole life upside down and it will be legal, unlike a certain news group who stupidly turned down my offer to work for them?

    So sorry to burst your bubble that i am some midday/midnight troll.

    Will send Micheal hard evidence as and when it comes in!! Signing off permanently from this blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Farnie BarnardJuly 12, 2013 5:01 pm

      Try investigating me then, hero. Can hardly wait to see a real expert, or should that be time Nemesis, at work.

      Delete
    2. "Farnie out of all the people on this blog i am a real time Nemesis!

      Trust me Farnie if i am investigating anyone, i will turn their whole life upside down and it will be legal, unlike a certain news group who stupidly turned down my offer to work for them?"

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA what a dumb cock!

      Delete
  18. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well, I've just read what Painter read out and for me the course of action is clear. TDC should immediately pursue legal avenues to reclaim the site. SFP entered into this agreement in full knowledge of the consequences should they fail to deliver. They have failed to do so and now, they blame the agreement and want further concessions from the council to enable them to proceed. However, they haven't been prepared to share with the council any details of how they intend to finance the development. I can't see the problem for HP and TDC. This is an open and shut case of a developer who has failed to deliver over a prolonged period of time. No reason to suppose a court would side with them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately, 10:37, there were no time clauses and thus no consequences for failing to deliver. It is, therefore, far from an open and shut case and it would seem that SFP's lawyers have been a lot smarter than those of TDC.

      Delete
    2. I think a court may have some sympathy with the developer when the judge reads the evidence
      1). TDC Councillor has been working behind the scenes to stop SFP's funding sources
      2). Considerable delays on the site caused by TDC and the Cliff Face works
      3). Global economy crisis for the last years (I think the judge might already be aware of this one)
      4). A catalogue of admin errors by TDC executives
      5). Slander and defamation of character claims
      6) It wouldnt be hard for the developer to give many other examples of developments in Thanet which TDC have helped to stall
      7). TDC sold the site on the basis that it was deemed suitable for the development irrespective of the position on FRA
      8). The claim from the developer could add up to a few bob. £5million invested, interest on those monies over the last 5 years @£500k per year would grow the sum to £7.5million, plus legal costs, plus settleemnt claim from Cardy. I am sure it will be growing to closer to £10million by the time it is finished
      Not sure TDC can be as confident as Anon at 10.37 seems to be

      Delete
    3. Add about 5 years before it would be resolved through the courts

      If the devloper has the funds, and wants to build, which appears to be the case, why dont TDC just get off the pot and let them build it. Problem solved???

      Delete
  20. I see the anonymous developer's friend is trying to muddy the water with spurious tittle-tattle which a court would not entertain. I agree with the earlier poster that TDC ought to seek legal advice,and sooner rather than later. For me, the key was Painter's ill-conceived remarks to the public meeting in Ramsgate. In essence he was saying that the developers had the funds to proceed with the development but were reluctant to do so because they were worried that TDC might be able to take legal action to reclaim the site. You don't have to be a genius to see that this directly contradicts Alan Poole's view of the situation: TDC is not in a strong position to reclaim the site and that the position is so weak that it isn't even worth taking legal advice. Alan Poole has no legal experience and I can only assume that his view of the situation is coloured by advice given to him by council officers. However, for an issue of this magnitude, where veiled threats are being made (e.g. the posting above where anonymous poster invents a figure of £10million) it is clearly worth the few thousand it would require to establish what your options are and how strong your case would be.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 9:47, do you seriously think TDC have not already taken legal advice. Of course they have, but you have a situation here where it looks increasingly like the developer is deliberately trying to push TDC down the legal road knowing that the end result will be huge compensation coming their way. That was probably the plan all along. TDC are in an insidious position, albeit of their own making by not doing their research thoroughly when first granting this developer the lease, but there are no easy answers now.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Pleasurama's TDC legal advice is only Harvey who's a TDC civil servant: unsurprisingly his advice is TDC have been excellent and should do nothing to rock the boat. Continue collecting monthly paycheck and pension while councillors scrabble around.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yes, I seriously think that TDC has not taken external legal advice. Do you have information to the contrary?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, but I am not going to share it.

      Delete

Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive, anonymous derogatory comments about real people, comments baiting internet trolls, comments saying that an anonymous comment was made by a named real person, boring comments and spam comments, comments in CAPs will be deleted. Playground stuff like calling real people by their time stamp or surname alone, referring to groups as gangs, old duffers and so on will result in deletion. Comment that may be construed as offensive to minority groups is not allowed here either, so think before you write it, remember that the internet is a public place, that it is very difficult to be truly anonymous and that everyone who uses it leaves a trail of some sort. 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. When things are particularly difficult on the commercial spam front I may turn comment moderation on for periods.

If you feel that someone has left a comment that is offensive and directed at you personally please email me (link on the sidebar) asking to have it removed, you will need to tell which post and the date and timestamp of the offending comment. Please do not reply to the offending comment as I will assume you continuing the dialogue as meaning that you want the comments left there.