Monday, 4 November 2013

The Royal Victoria Pavillion Ramsgate

Originally built as a Concert Hall and Assembly Rooms in 1903. Designed by Stanley Davenport. Adshead and built by F.G. Minter of Putney.

Ostensibly in the style of a Robert Adam orangery and based on the Little Theatre at Versailles; the whole was aimed as an exercise in the Adam style. Designed in 1 week, to be built in 6 weeks in time for the 1903 season. Well that's what English Heritage says, take it or leave it. 

The main physical snag with the building is that it is on the bit of Ramsgate seafront that has no environment agency sea defence, which extends from Augusta Stairs to the harbour.

On the flood defence front the good points are that it is behind more beach than the rest, that it sits on concrete foundations that go down to the chalk bedrock and that the main structure of the building is a metal frame.
I guess if you live in Ramsgate you don't really need a picture of a very high tide there, but here is one anyway, no need for a diagram about what happens if you get a storm at the same time, and no I wouldn't be down there taking pictures.

I worked in the building on and off in the 70s and although it has had serious sea flooding it wasn’t flooded in the big storm in the 70s when the front of Pleasurama was, it was washed though by the sea on other occasions according to Don Long, sometime Ramsgate Borough Councillor.  

The options for the building are knock it down and open up the beach to harbour parade, knock it down and rebuild it higher up, knock it down and build something else there or preserve it for as long as we can. If they are right about rising sea levels this may not be for as long as the new lease.

This is a case where I would like the council to consult with the environment agency and see if some sort of sea defence paid for out of the national costal protection budget can be achieved.   


Anyhow despite my main area of understanding being the engineering side, the council’s ghastly fiscal and political approach to all things Ramsgate once again rears its ugly head and so I am publishing my recent email correspondence about The Pav here.    

Here is the email exchange with the leader of the council.

On 4 Nov 2013, at 11:37, michaelchild@aol.com wrote:

Morning Clive, could you kindly clarify the position over The Royal Victoria Pavillion with a view to my publishing something about it on the blog?


I guess like the rest of us you will have read ECR’s post http://eastcliffrichard.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/councillors-pants-on-fire.html with associated comment including Cllr Driver’s and that you will have seen the video presentation by Emma Irvine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5Bl3CsPGt4

My primary concern here is that we seem to be going down a road where the entire Ramsgate waterfront area is becoming bars and eateries without the associated leisure facilities to sustain this.
In Margate local government has worked very hard to produce a very different situation with The Turner Contemporary and now Dreamland, plans for Ramsgate so far seem to be, Pleasurama, with bars and eateries on the ground floor, the slipways another bar and eatery, and now it appears the Pav going the same way.
What I would most like is to have a general idea of where you think the council are going with the Pav but I have added a few direct questions, which I hope you will be able to answer.
1 Have Rank offered to return the lease to the council, either previously or on the table now?
2 Do the council have any plan for incorporating leisure facilities within the Ramsgate waterfront area?
3 Do the council have a say in who Rank pass the lease onto?
4 Is the council’s offer to extend the lease an open one or does it only apply to Weatherspoon’s?
5 Are the council also considering Emma Irvine’s proposals?
Best regards Michael  

From: Clive Hart <clive.hart@btinternet.com>
To: michaelchild <michaelchild@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 11:52
Subject: Re: Pav
It's all here Michael: 


Frommichaelchild michaelchild@aol.comToclive.hart clive.hart@btinternet.com Mon, 4 Nov 2013 12:00

Clive are you saying you want me to put up my email to you and your answer without further explanation or answers to the direct questions? Frankly people in Ramsgate are taking this issue seriously, I have had several emails about it and several people in the shop have told me that they are not happy that the council are behaving in an open and above board way over the issue.  
Best regards Michael

I also sent one to Cllr Simon Moores to try to find the opposition position. 

Frommichaelchild michaelchild@aol.coTozentelligence Mon, 4 Nov 2013 13:20

Simon I am forwarding you a couple of emails, not for personal comment but hopefully to ascertain the Conservative group’s position – if any – on the Pavillion lease issue.
Frankly apart from emailing you I don’t know of any other way of obtaining the TDC Conservative group stance on TDC issues, so please let me know if you are the wrong person to send this sort of thing to and if possible the right person and email address.  
Emails and responses are intended for publication in today’s blog post.   
Best regards Michael.

And have received this lot 

From
Emma Irvine emma@myseasideluxury.co.uk
To
michaelchild michaelchild@aol.com


Dear Michael 

Mark suggested I contact you directly about the above. 

Firstly with regard to Ranks position they would rather surrender the lease (Tony Robinson Director of property confirmed this on the telephone) which we would also prefer. So the covenant issue, relevant only for a lease assignment, is not a deal breaker for either parties. Rank would surrender to anyone as they would effectively be free of ties. TDC are very much in control of this transaction. Without agreement to extend the lease or to allow the lease to be surrendered Rank would be locked in to the lease for another 31 years. The condition of the building gives the council the basis to refuse the extension so there is no legal obligation for them to take the action they are taking. 

The main legal issue here is the lack of proper procedures followed by TDC. By agreeing to extend a lease to support the marketing of a lease on a council owned asset they must ensure the asset is marketed. The lessee Rank has ceased to market the property or facilitate interested parties and has never advertised the inclusion of the lease extension. The last known advertising online clearly states the length of the lease. See below. The prospect was wholly unviable in this guise and only since June 20th has a development become viable. 

http://docs.novaloca.com/165_8995_634497834685386250.pdf

We have spoken to a solicitor and on the basis of the following believe grounds for Judicial Review may be established. 

1. The cabinet on June 20th agreed to support the commercial marketing of the property by offering a lease extension
2. No marketing has been carried out, the property is not available on the open market, the agent does not return phone calls or facilitate viewings 
3. We have submitted a viable scheme to Rank and the council, the latter just 10 days after the chief executive advised us by email that interested parties should come forward, at the meeting however we were told it was too late. 

I have the documentation to support the councils lack of procedure, (report issued prior to the cabinet meeting proposing the lease extension be marketed in an open an transparent way, a tweet sent out that evening and the minutes taken). I also have an email from Sue McGonigal as referred to above and if you search on CBRE you will see it is not on the open market. 

If you would me to furnish you with the documents I shall happily do so

Kind regard

Emma

-
From:
Sent: 03 November 2013 16:30
To: undisclosed recipients:
Subject: Fw: TDC has been misleading us
Please read the exchange of emails below. Please turn up to Wednesday night's town council meeting at the Custom House if you can.
Regards
Jfx
----- Forwarded Message -----
I'm sorry Alan but that is not true. You are being mislead.
Like many residents, I am incensed to find out that Tony Robinson, Director of Property for Rank said on 1st Nov to Emma Irvine on the phone, that Rank offered to surrender the lease back to TDC sometime ago as it would remove Rank from any risk associated with assigning the lease to a third party.
I have sat in town Task Force meetings for a year being told that Rank owned the lease and the problems with The Pavilion were all down to Rank. It seems that is not true.
David Green, the Ramsgate Society and the rest of us have asked time and again and again at those meetings for the issue to be sorted.
The discovery that TDC have been untruthful about their position and their hands being tied with The Pavilion lease is bringing Ramsgate people out in protest on an unprecedented scale. TDC has been completely misleading us. TDC could have been marketing a new lease for some time.
Regards
Janet
From: Alan Poole <poole@btinternet.com>
To: "*****
Sent: Saturday, 2 November 2013, 23:58
Subject: Re: TDC not listening to widespread concern from Ramsgate residents - PLEASE TAKE ACTION
Hi Janet,
Wetherspoons may not be our ideal solution but they are the only 'game in town'........we did advertise and Rank have advertised the vacancy but there were no takers with any money. Wetherspoons are the only people with the £3m needed to renovate the Pavilion...........we simply cannot allow the Pavilion to remain empty any longer.....  there is an option for some 'community use' but someone will have to find he money to finance that.............as always no easy options.......
Regards,
Alan
PS Nice and warm here in sunny Queensland.........

Sent from my iPad

On 2 Nov 2013, at 21:11, 
Sent: Saturday, 2 November 2013, 10:14
Subject: TDC not listening to widespread concern from Ramsgate residents - PLEASE TAKE ACTION
This is the press release posted by TDC
http://thanet.gov.uk/the-thanet-magazine/news-articles/2013/october/update-on-pavilion/

There are both inaccuracies and more importantly references to minutes which are a misleading record of what exactly was proposed and agreed at cabinet level.
I cannot stress how important it is that we show our concern as this is a political move to allow the council to defend themselves in 2015 by saying they did 'something'

We have submitted a viable alternative which'
1. promotes local businesses
2. promotes local food
3. generates increased footfall to the seafront
4. is wholly viable and financially sound

We shall be submitting our formal offer along with proof of funds within weeks and need your support. If you haven't seen our proposal click here, we have had over 700 people watch this since Tuesday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5Bl3CsPGt4 

Please please please email your representatives to say you are concerned about 
1. the lack of transparency and the marketing of the building
2. the lack of consideration to wider impacts of the proposed use of the building
3 the lack of consultation with constituents
Please find the time to read the press release and the information below the list of emails. This is the future of our town which is at stake. Ask me anything which you want to know and I shall do my best to give you the full picture.
CENTRAL HARBOUR
Cllr-peter.campbell@thanet.gov.uk
cllr-Mary.Dwyer@thanet.gov.uk
cllr-corinna.huxley@thanet.gov.uk
EASTCLIFF
cllr-Richard.Everitt@thanet.gov.uk
cllr-david.green@thanet.gov.uk
cllr-Pat.Moore@thanet.gov.uk
NETHERCOURT
cllr-Steve.Alexandrou@thanet.gov.uk
cllr-Kim.Gibson@thanet.gov.uk [Also Mayor of Ramsgate]
NORTHWOOD
cllr-elizabeth.green@thanet.gov.uk
cllr-kay.dark@thanet.gov.uk
cllr-Ian.Driver@thanet.gov.uk
MOSES MONTEFIORE
cllr-michelle.fenner@thanet.gov.uk
cllr-alan.poole@thanet.gov.u
The Press Release;

1. Agreement during Cabinet
A Tweet (attached) , the proposal to the cabinet and the agreement in the room was to market the lease (in an open and transparent way according to the formal proposal to the cabinet) lots of evidence proving this. The minutes do not reflect this and pose a question as to why this is the case?
2. Advertising - Where did Rank advertise the lease? Not online, and no previously interested parties were notified of this significant change
3. Rank have been advertising the building with a lease (31 years left) with no indication of how much a lease extension would be or how this would be arranged. Any investor would need the extension agreed prior to any assignment. This point cannot be denied. Last place it was advertised
http://docs.novaloca.com/165_8995_634497834685386250.pdf
4. TDC should be promoting the attractiveness of the investment potential of our area and this building. Especially as they have allowed the building to fall in to such a poor state of repair. It is not about a right or obligation, they should insist on the lease extension being marketed (as agreed necessary at cabinet) by the tenant at the very least. The lease extension dramatically increases the potential value of the building which the council must now almost give away to encourage the investment required
5. The only marketing material in place since before June 20th is the for sale board on the building!
6. Covenant strength - the council would achieve a better tenant if they allowed Rank surrender which is what Rank want also. By assigning the lease to a company with a strong covenant the council is in a weak position as in the past the financial strength of their tenants have led to a wide range of issues, similar to Arlington House debacle
7. Sustainability - cheap alcohol and cheap food may not lead to a sustainable sea front. Potential for anti social behavior in a building with poor surrounding supervision could lead to major problems on this part of the beach, one of our most important assets. The impact on the attractiveness of commercial units surrounding large pubs with opening times from 9am until 1am can be significant. Sustainability is not simply about paying for a refurbishment and continuing to trade. There has been no discussion on the knock on effect on the existing businesses and the attractiveness of this type of offering to locals and tourists. The decision to proceed (as per the press release) has not been discussed with any local groups or stakeholders and is being taken by a small group of top level councillors. This is not what we vote our councillors in to do!
8. Is the council extending the lease before they agree the works and design with Wetherspoons? In other areas Wetherspoons do not financially commit before they have their planning permission. In this case the lease is costing them just £1. Strategically the council could find themselves in a weak position. Once the lease has been assigned and extended the council will have no power or alternative but to grant planning permission on Wetherspoons terms. Wetherspoons famously walked away from a development in Maldon as they wanted to remove existing plate glass to install openable windows, the conservation department refused. This is not simply a listed terraced unit, this is not an easy building to redevelop. Is the council in receipt of detailed proposals? We shall hear the same old reply from TDC, they do not have the financial wherewithal to legally force the large powerful company to comply with the agreed terms or perhaps there shall just be none to enforce.
9. With regards to the cost to council tax payer. We rely on our seafront to provide us with trade and employment in our town. We must be sure this will not negatively effect the attractiveness our town or the cost to all of us will be very high indeed.
Thank you for all your support to date.

Emma
Emma Irvine

Back to the blog post now


Anyone who wants to know what state the Pav is in, here are some pictures I took of the inside some time ago.

http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/pav2010/index.htm

http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/pav2010/id3.htm

http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/pav2010/id4.htm

I would assume it has suffered further deteriation.





220 comments:

  1. You off again, Barry, don't you have anything better to do with your time apart from being the local wally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. anon look in the mirror before you post

      Delete
    2. I did and I saw a good looking bloke who has an aversion to wallies. Why does every town have to have a self opinionated campaigner like you.

      Delete
    3. and you aren't self-opinionated then anon. Anon meaning you do not want to stand by your opinion then

      Delete
    4. You know my mate John is right about you. Even your comments don't make sense. My opinion is just that, mine, and I do not presume to thrust it upon everybody else like you do.

      Delete
    5. and you opinion is worth nothing without a name. So Anon what thinks you about the blog itself as you havent said as yet

      Delete
    6. Whilst your grammar, 5:11, is shite.

      Delete
    7. As is the reply from you 8:11

      Delete
  2. Yet again the Council trying to do deals behind closed doors. When will they ever learn

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Sent from my iPad


    LOVE WHAT YOU DO
    DO WHAT YOU LOVE"

    lolz

    ReplyDelete
  4. EXCELLENT, it's good to see consistancy!

    An investor is found, and then immediately attacked by scaremongers and the usual whiners and nimbys, and of course Driver, just incase a story appears in the press!

    It's pathetic, no wonder Ramsgate is quickly becoming an ever greater shithole when every move forward is attacked by those with other agendas to service!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hamilton didnt you read what Michael posted it seems lies have been stated by TDC and an alternative deal has been proposed. Where are the NIMBYS protesting?

      Delete
    2. Yep, read Michaels scaremongering and watching the nimby alliance swing into action to attempt to prevent yet another investor improving Ramsgate for the good of the majority.

      It's truly sad watching people trying to do something with Ramsgate, getting attacked by all the usual subjects, who with very few exceptions contribute nothing.

      Delete
    3. And Emma Irvine is a nimby? She has proposed an alternative have you bothered checking it out?

      Delete
    4. So why shouldn't TDC consider other investors Hammy? I'd probably agree with your criticism if people simply wanted to stop anything happening, but this obviously isn't the case here.

      Delete
    5. John from your comments I can only assume you didn’t actually read the post, be a good chap and read it and then post something that responds to it, at least then I can reply to you.

      As it is it looks as though you have copied something that you wrote about some other subject and pasted it in here. Or perhaps you could at least tell me what it is you think I was scaremongering about. Me I just thought that as several people had asked me what was going on over the issue I would ask both major parties at TDC, from their replies so far it seems they don’t know either.

      Delete
    6. Because they sold the lease cheggers, keep up ;)

      Thanks Michael, I trawled through your scaremongering, and usual attacks on TDC once, I have no intention of doing so again.

      Funny I was going to say the same thing! You must have some kind of award from the EA as being it's greatest supporter, if it was a private company, I'm sure Driver and his pet James would have been accusing you of all sorts of EA serving corruption by now.

      Delete
    7. Hamilton
      1. TDC say they marketed the lease. Where?
      2. RANK say they want to give the lease back to TDC. When did TDC acknowledge this
      3. Are TDC considering both offers equally?

      Delete
    8. John, obviously very dodgy people the EA I have to concede it should be you and not them running the UK’s environment.

      Delete
    9. 7:14
      1. Ask Rank
      2. Fact is Rank have the lease, and no doubt all the usual suspects would attack TDC if they DID take the lease back, for the current state of repair of the pavillion!
      3. It's not for TDC to consider "offers" on a property on which it has sold the lease.

      Delete
    10. Hamilton
      1. TDC said they marketed the lease as well as RANK. There is no evidence either did
      2. Tony Robinson, Director of Property for Rank said on 1st Nov to Emma Irvine on the phone, that Rank offered to surrender the lease back to TDC. You obviously didnt read the blog
      3. Agreed except they were told they could have it back to consider offers

      Delete
    11. 7:25
      1. "As per landlord and tenants laws the council has no rights to market the lease or to dictate how this must happen" which part of that are you unclear about?
      2. Read it, has no bearing on my previous statement - Fact is Rank have the lease, and no doubt all the usual suspects would attack TDC if they DID take the lease back, for the current state of repair of the pavillion!

      If Ms Irvine is in contact with Rank, then it would seem that she is talking to the right people re securing the site, as it's Rank's to sell. If she cannot aggree terms with Rank, that is not a matter for TDC.

      3. once again - It's not for TDC to consider "offers" on a property on which it has sold the lease - I deal with facts, not hearsay.

      Delete
    12. Hamilton
      1. from TDC press release "Cabinet agreed to open up the marketing of the site in order to offer an extended lease of over 100 years to a new potential leaseholder, with the council retaining the freehold of the property." is that simple enough for you

      Delete
    13. 1. Agree BUT they are renewing the lease from 31 yrs to 100 yrs. You would have thought that with a lease of that size, you would be able to protect the future of the building and the community.
      2. The current lease has ben very laxly administered by TDC in the past and consequently Rank feel under little obligation to the terms of the lease - quite rightly.
      Agree - how transparent with Ms Irvine were Rank and is this appropriate.
      3. Again - but it is in the position to alter the terms of the lease.

      Delete
    14. Hmm 7:38, now does that say anywhere that TDC will market, or that it will in any way control the marketing off the site?

      Once again, TRY and get your head around this very simple concept...

      "As per landlord and tenants laws the council has no rights to market the lease or to dictate how this must happen" which part of that are you unclear about?

      Delete
    15. The part that says "Cabinet agreed to open up the marketing of the site in order to offer an extended lease of over 100 years to a new potential leaseholder,"

      Delete
    16. It's very very simple smithson,
      1. Rank are free to sell the lease to whom they see fit. A renewed lease simply makes the site more saleable, and thus it can be bought back into use, despite the best efforts of the usual suspects.
      2.Who are you to dictate how Rank carry out a business negotiation. It's a big bad world out there, and if Ms Irvine failed to ask for a lease extention, where JD's were are little more realistic, then that really is a matter for her.
      3. Not if Rank choose not to sell the lease, or if they choose to sell the remaining 31 years to whom they choose. If TDC would like to try to impose conditions on the lease, then that will make it unsaleable, and if they choose to try dictate whom it is sold to, that will have the same effect, along with having to deal with the usual nimby subjects, which NO investor would be happy to do.

      Delete
    17. 7:41
      I suggest you have a little tink about these 2 very simple situations;

      "As per landlord and tenants laws the council has no rights to market the lease or to dictate how this must happen" which part of that are you unclear about?

      extending a lease so it maybe marketed is NO marketing something, neither is it dictating how it should be marketed, it is simply making, it marketable,

      Get some help from a grown up if that's still an issue for you ;)

      Delete
    18. 1. We are in broad agreement John. Just you phrase it differently.
      2. I dont think I was saying that John. But we can agree to disagree
      3. Yea. Ok. Its arguing over minutia. Its the manner in which TDC have let a lease go that is the important matter from local democratic point of view.

      Delete
    19. Michael your 7:18 I hope Hamilton doesn't run anything beyond a playpen with just him in it

      Delete
    20. Thank you Michael, but i am forced to refuse a job at EA where I may have to deal with limitless scaremonegring from people with axes to grind.

      1. No snithson, Rank are perfectly entitled to sell it to whom they choose. That JD's have had the commercial sense to seek an extention is a point in their favour, as is their track record. I see no issue with the sale going straight through, and indeed, TDC would have little if any say in whom it is sold to.

      2. "Agree - how transparent with Ms Irvine were Rank and is this appropriate." Once again smithson, it is upto Rank on what terms they choose to offer the sale of a property on which they hold a lease.

      3. Once again smithson, it's a very simple choice, whine that someone wants to do something without the usual suspects, nimbys and clowns getting EXACTLY what they want, never mind that they offer to actually contribute nothing beyond endless whining and bullshit, or accept that the site will remain closed and empty until the end of the remaining 31 year lease.

      Delete
    21. Hamilton I wonder if Councillor Poole understands yours and William Epps's reasoning as all the way from sunny Queensland is his response to a concerned ratepayer. I have amended it by replacing lower case to Uppercase to highlight his words. "Wetherspoons may not be our ideal solution but they are the only 'game in town'........WE DID ADVERTISE and Rank have advertised the vacancy but there were no takers with any money. Wetherspoons are the only people with the £3m needed to renovate the Pavilion...........we simply cannot allow the Pavilion to remain empty any longer..... there is an option for some 'community use' but someone will have to find he money to finance that.............as always no easy options......."
      Now that is perfectly clear as to the TDC Cabinet's position in this matter. So please explain if landlord/ Tenant rules say only Tenant/leaseholder can advertise a lease why does a Ruling Cabinet member say clearly WE DID ADVERTISE. Is he being economical with the truth or just mistaken?

      Delete
    22. If by agreement, with the lessee, the freeholder is invited to assist in the marketing, then they can do so. The lessee would, however, remain the decision maker in the transfer of the lease to a new tenant as, in event of default by said tenant, the lease and its obligations would revert to them. I have no axe to grind for Cllr Poole, he being of the political persuasion that has done untold damage to this country every time they have got their hands on the reins of power, but in this instance he is neither lying nor mistaken.

      Delete
    23. Can you guide us to the marketing that TDC carried out that you obviously have in your possession James, or have you simply been caught in yet more of your bullshit...

      Delete
    24. Don't you read what's posted Hamilton. it's very clear what Alan poole said and he separated Rank from his own Council statement "we did advertise and Rank have advertised the vacancy but there were no takers with any money" There you go Mr arrogant asked and answered.
      BTW what did the gun range membership cost you?

      Delete
    25. Are you suffered a head injury 10:05?

      Lets try to help you all over again...

      It's James who is suggesting that TDC carried out marketing 9:24. The release merely says "we marketed it", hence TDC were making the building viable for a new incumbent, bringing the derelict building back into use. Perhaps you should take yourself and your sorry band of friends who "understand the English Language" to class on marketing or property, maybe that way you won't look as foolish as you do trying to defend the fool James ;)

      There you go my boy, shall i get some crayons ready for your next post?

      Delete
  5. Has anyone answered Emma's mail yet???? She deserves a response. There were twice as many views of her video on youtube than the majorities of ramsgate councillors - she deserves a response. Or is TDC that much of a closed shop?

    And in response to Alan - yes. There is something you could be doing Alan. And thats negotiate a deal with JDW to include a wider community re-mit as part of its terms of the lease - or are you just prepared to throw away another 100 year lease away and get nothing for the town???

    ReplyDelete
  6. Michael, I don't know about others, but for me the red message from Emma Irvine goes right across the page onto the side links and beyond and is pretty much unreadable.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And can I also say I feel Clive's response to Michael a little dis-respectful considering his heritage within Ramsgate

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A perfect response given michaels further pointless scaremongering, and irrelevant questions.

      Delete
    2. Peter I hope it works ok now, it was a browser issue, if I get a chance later I will format it better.

      Duncan not sure about my heritage in Ramsgate, I think the issue here is I made it clear that I was going to publish the correspondence on the blog, so any response must be seen as being directed to the blog readers, if the webstats are to be believed this is 5,000 unique individual readers.

      Delete
    3. Thanks Michael, it's perfect now.

      Actually I thought that Duncan was referring to Clive's heritage, but either way it's a very unprofessional response from a council leader.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice to see you can still turn on the inane bullshit tap when you want to Hooper.

      Delete
    2. Sorry Miss Incognito, read the rules about commenting at the bottom “Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive and anonymous derogatory comments about real people will be deleted.” And have another go.

      Delete
  9. Have you ever noticed that you never see John Holyer and John Hamilton in the same room together?

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

    ReplyDelete
  11. Has anyone replied to the emails Michael?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I got one from Simon Moores saying he would find out if the TDC Conservative group have a collective view on the matter and that he would let me know if they have.

      Delete
    2. Shall we start a book on when they get back to you? He possibly feels its not on his patch!

      Delete
  12. Maybe The Thanet Star has the answers... according to today's post Folk Week has moved to November!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Good place to raise questions over the Pavilion is THANET QUESTION TIME this Friday, 7.30pm at Red Hall, 11 Grosvenor Rd, Broadstairs. Laura Sandys and Will Scobie will be on the panel. Email inmeds@yahoo.co.uk to book your seat or put in a question. THANET WATCH.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unlikely at best seeing as TDC don;t currently own the lease, and the red hall brigade are an outdated irrelevance :)

      Delete
    2. Are Laura Sandys and Will Scobie an outdated irrelevance? THANET WATCH

      Delete
    3. Thanet watch and the red hall mob are, that is clearly obvious :)

      Delete
    4. Clearly obvious as opposed to the unclearly obvious?

      Delete
    5. That's correct, well done, one day you may make it to being regarded as a 9th rate "journalist", an improvement from he 10th rate you are currently regarded as :)

      Delete
    6. Yep, a mis-spelling of HAHAHAHA really does underline your inept attempts at "journalism" ;)

      Delete
    7. Don't you think this Ha Ha business is becoming rather childish and does it contribute anything to the debate. Do you have any views at all on the issue of the Ramsgate Pavilion as one of our local media sources?

      Delete
    8. It's what passes as "journalism" down at Thanet Watch, and is actually an improvement on their usual fare.

      Delete
  14. For Hamster a play wot I rote

    Rank "We wanna surrender the lease"

    TDC "We don't wanna it. We will make lease last longer so as you can flog it innit"

    Rank "Ok bro and we could give it to Wetherspoons."

    TDC "Standard"

    Michael "What is the weather going to do over the period of the new extended lease. I am thinking ask the EA innit and not Michael Fish ROFL"

    Hammy (Dribbling) "Usual suspects, nimbys, Michael pointless questions. Scaremongering. Laws. Landlords. Tenants. Not allowed. Driver. Usual suspects. Opposed to progress." (Musing out loud whilst copying and pasting)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very good 8:10, EXACTLY the piss poor standard I had expected of you :)

      Delete
  15. Hi Michael,
    You are a kinda historical figure in Ramsgate, that people greatly respect, I being one of them.
    I enjoy reading your blog, its like going to the local news agents and getting The Gazette, or Thanet Watch.
    People have good discussions from your info, some of these discussions stray away from what you originally put out. this can be a shame and disheartening.
    If emma can get the judicial review,....ooh thats would be soop'A! you watch the faces drop with the usual suspects!
    This is an expensive road if it goes wrong tho! :-(
    The way the council and officers bend procedures and are deaf to their constituants is diabolical. :-(
    We have watched this happen for wayyy too long, im so glad the 'nimbys' are around to keep a watch over the incompetent, corrupt, gang members who have ruining our town for many years.
    Anyhoo thanetonline, sooperb job your doing xx
    P.S
    What a flash back :-) loved the photos! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Emma Irvine here.

    I think the main issue is not just who takes it on, it is how this process is being managed or mismanaged.

    The proposal to the cabinet which was agreed after it was proposed by Councillor Poole and Councillor Fenner seconded is clear (following exerpt from Public reports pack 20th-Jun-2013 19.00) ,

    'to consider supporting a possible extension to the leasehold interest of the Royal Victoria Pavilion...Cabinet is asked to consider authorising officers to expand the marketing process of the lease, in conjunction with the existing tenant, for the site, in an open and transparent method, whilst ensuring best value and probity for the Authority. In considering potential tenants under a longer lease term the Authority will be in a position to consider financial issues against social benefits achievable'.

    Questions we need answers to are;

    How do you expand a marketing process which ceased to exist in 2012?

    How do the council propose they establish best value?

    How do the council prove they have dealt with this in an open and transparent way?

    What factors have been considered in considering financial benefits against social issues?

    Surely what is agreed at Cabinet is legally binding and must be abided to.

    Final point, as we now know Rank have offered to surrender the lease.

    This leads to the important question.

    Why have TDC not advertised a new lease for sale for £1 to all of the market with the condition that any successful tenant has the financial wherewithal and covenant strength to protect the council against future costs.

    We are pushing forward with our bid and shall be providing full details and proof of funds to TDC and Rank very soon.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why didn't you contact Rank, and request an extention to the lease earlier?

      Delete
    2. PS the ONLY issue is who takes it on with a sustainable plan, why have you not tried to secure the building in the last 6 years, and why, if the length of the lease was the only issue, have you not contacted Rank to investigate an extention to the lease (which I suggested some months ago) prior to recently.

      Delete
    3. TDC are the lessors of this property and, as such, can do very little as the lessee, Rank in this case, still has the right to retain or dispose of their leasehold interest as they see fit. About all TDC can do is to extend the lease if such is desirable in order to help find a new tenant and TDC do have the right to check out the financial standing of any such proposed lessee in so far as ability to pay the rent and meet the obligations of the lease are concerned.

      The suggestion that Rank may have offered the lease back to TDC is not that straightforward, because this could have left the council with a dilapidated building and no more rent. One could imagine the screams if there was a loss of income and a sizeable repairs and renewals bill on top. I do not doubt that the blogs would have been buzzing at this scandalous waste of tax payers money. I can think of a blog where Paviliongate would have been the headline of the day.

      The respective merits of Weatherspoons' or Emma Irvine's market idea are not for TDC to decide in the first instance, but Rank as the lessee. TDC would only come in when a proposed transfer of lease was put before them insofar as the vetting of the ability of the proposed new tenant to pay was concerned. If I was negotiating on behalf of Rank, and knowing that the lease would revert to my company in the event of failure by the new tenant, I might be inclined to favour the approach by a large household name organisation. I would suggest it would be up to Emma Irvine to convince me otherwise, not the usual bunch of Thanet protestors.

      Delete
    4. a bit high and mighty expecting Emma to convince you William didn't know it was up to you "I would suggest it would be up to Emma Irvine to convince me otherwise"

      Delete
    5. I said, 9:19, if I was negotiating on behalf of Weatherspoons or is that beyond your simple understanding. Great contribution to the discussion I must say.

      Delete
    6. Didn't know you had changed jobs my mistake

      Delete
    7. Did you miss " If I was negotiating on behalf of Rank" 9:33, seemed fairly obvious....

      Delete
    8. William Epps,

      Your 9:05 pm of 4 November.

      Your statement of the position is informative, clearly put and accurate.

      Delete
  17. Nice to see the Deputy Leader of Thanet Council is enjoying himself in 'sunny Queensland' I would of thought he would have been around for the implementation of the new recycling and refuse collection regime? From what I have seen in the last couple of years certain senior Councillors seem to have more holidays abroad than I have had in my entire lifetime. Clearly I need to become a Socialist!!

    Laurence Davies

    ReplyDelete
  18. I know who Emma Irvine is but can anybody tell me what her credentials are? What has she done for Ramsgate to elevate her to a position where she is lecturing us on what should or shouldn't be done and who or what we should believe. Has anybody looked to see what's happening with her Town Team venture (see https://www.facebook.com/RamsgateTownTeam)? Does anybody know what's happening with her Albion House venture?

    I think we should learn from TDC's mistakes and exercise due diligence before we start lining up behind an unknown quantity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ask her yourself CO she is easily contactable or where you just spouting

      Delete
    2. Just interested Anonymous. Probably not a good idea to ask someone to comment on their own integrity. I'm one of the many who have viewed Emma's presentation but found it lacking in any mention of funding. I just wonder if she has a track record on this type of thing.

      Delete
    3. I would agree with 9:27 that Emma Irvine seems to be elbowing her way into the disposal of both Albion House and now Pavilion when her Town Team after much fanfare (2 years?) has done nothing. Sounds like Painter-style property ventures with the council.

      Delete
  19. One little last thing, we viewed the property last year and were told that any lease extension would have to be negotiated with TDC. Here are the sales particulars which we had. The length of the lease is clearly stated regardless of what TDC's press release says. The only place it wasn't noted on was the board on the front of the building, now the only sign that the building is on the market.

    http://docs.novaloca.com/165_8995_634497834685386250.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why did you not contact TDC at that point re a lease extension, as one could certainly have made a persuasive business case for an extension, and JD's clearly have...

      Delete
  20. Emma, firstly let me say I am not opposed to your idea of a market place, but my concern would be that TDC, by accepting the return of the lease, would be losing the rental income of the present lessee with no absolute guarantee of a new tenant being willing to take on the building in its current state.

    Appreciate your experience of sitting through many meetings, but I, in turn, have witnessed the total negativity displayed towards every proposal by a certain element within Thanet. I am quite sure that if TDC had accepted a return of the lease and you were now the front runner, the usual suspects, for such they are, would be screaming their 'due diligence' clichés from the rooftops and submitting FOI requests to ascertain what rent had been lost.

    Appreciate your apology of not lecturing and trust you will accept mine if I come over as cynical. I have a deep seated suspicion of the motives of certain people which I realise increasingly impedes my thinking.

    I would say, in conclusion, that if you can pull off your proposal, I wish you the best of luck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If TDC offered a new lease, there would have to be a full public consultation as to the future of the building. They appear to be suggesting that if the lease is passed from Rank to a new leasee this will not be necessary. Indeed, they are saying that their only involvement would be in planning, and as far as I can see there is not necessarily going to be any planning application associated with the change of use. We could therefore have a large new bar without any public consultation.

      It strikes me that Rank just 'want shot' of the lease and that TDC are attempting to ensure public consultation is limited by trying to force them into offering a new 99 year lease on their behalf. Other than TDC attempting to force Rank to pay for the work needed on the building, which Rank appears to be denying responsibility for, I can't see there is much of a reason for Rank to do TDC's work for them.

      Delete
    2. Due respects, Joe, but Rank are the lessees and, as such, they have rights. It is more a case of TDC assisting Rank dispose of the lease than the other way round.

      Delete
    3. Rank only have rights beyond the 30 odd years remaining on the lease of TDC give them an extension. So the fact the TDC wants a long term leasee is obviously going to come into the equation.

      Delete
    4. That does not change Rank's rights, Joe, and they remain obligated under the terms of their lease until such time any new lease is completed with a new tenant, regardless of the term of that lease. I do not think it is so much a case of TDC wanting a new lease as one proving necessary to attract a taker. Mind you, we are both speculating to a certain extend save on the law pertaining to landlord and tenant issues.

      Delete
    5. And we shouldn't forget that the required repairs to a Grade 1 listed property have not been done by Rank nor TDC. Probably the latter are looking to do nothing and hush it up for as long as possible. And the lease has reverted to TDC hasn't it? And even if Rank are essentially looking to extend the lease, the site is vacant - both of which in effect are TDC responsibilities.

      Delete
    6. You start with getting the listing of RP incorrect, and your accuracy goes downhill from there 8:32!

      Delete
  21. I wonder if someone would like to confirm, or deny, the current understanding that RANK are only paying a peppercorn rent for the building of £150 a year. If true TDC would not be losing much, in fact should they amend other parts of the new lease ground rent could be increased as could the annual rental

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barry, if you do not know that as fact, why not find out first before throwing it into the equation.

      Delete
    2. It has been thrown out into the equation purely for the reason stated as someone out there might know. William stop all these personal attacks. If you do not like someone just say so and get over it

      Delete
    3. What the hell as like got to do with anything, Barry? Surely you could have phrased the question, if your real interest was to find what someone might know, does anyone know what rent Rank are paying the council for the Pavilion? You threw in the £150 to suggest that TDC would lose nothing by taking back the lease and you know it. It is simple mischief making.

      Delete
    4. Barry,

      The rent was £10,000 for the first 25 years; £12,500 for the next 25 years and will be £15,000 for the last 25 years. The 75 year term was granted as from 1 May 1969. [so the rent is currently £12,500.]

      The lease was not granted for a premium, so the initial rent of £10,000 per year would have been the market rent at that time (not a peppercorn rent). This works out to about £140,000 pa today after allowing for inflation. I guess Ramsgate Council thought they had secured themselves a pretty good deal in 1969, unaware of the rampant inflation that was about to begin a few years later.

      Delete
    5. Bear in mind that there are commercial properties on Ramsgate High Street that are marketed for less than that. If I recall correctly, the building which was most recently used by Greggs was advertised at £12k per annum.

      Delete
    6. Thank you Gerald. William I asked and someone kindly explained you did not have to state I was mischief making as I wasn't.
      As you obviously didn't know your comment was merely irrelevant to the question being asked.
      I was thinking Michael might know but someone beat him to it.

      Delete
    7. Fair enough, Barry, but where did your peppercorn rent of £150 come from? Imagination, perhaps like the comments a while back you made and then deleted about a well known Canterbury based construction company's accounts.

      Delete
    8. William this is getting completely ridiculous and in reality I do not answer to your comments. I asked and was answered the rest is just irrelevent.
      For your information check Companies house for info on Cardy also reported elsewhere including by Mike Stannard in an email to at least 2 people concerning their accounts.
      I will repeat this so you get the message NO One from anybody acting on behalf of Cardy have ever approached me to discuss the matter and I doubt they ever will. Also for your information so you get the message what happened to Cardy was also repeated in a Thanet Publication and they have not been approached to retract what was said either.
      If in any way Cardy thought that what was said was wrong or malicious they would have instructed solicitors however they didn't which speaks volumes for what was actually said.

      Delete
    9. Did I say you were approached by Cardy? I said comments you subsequently deleted so, not unreasonable to assume you thought better of them.

      You may consider the £150 peppercorn rent you threw into the pot to be irrelevant, but I do not and especially as you did not just leave it at that. Why did you feel it necessary to go on to suggest that TDC had little to lose other than to support your own case. There is far too much speculation and too little fact.

      Interested that you do not answer my comments because I guess there is no answer to, where did the figure of £150 come from? We both know don't we?

      Delete
    10. I know who said it to me. You don't know because it wasn't said to you. end of the matter.
      As I said before point out to me where I attack you then look at your comments the comment about Cardy have nothing to do with the Pavilion they were just an attempt to discredit me. Please stop with these silly attacks which get us nowhere. We aren't all NIMBYS objecting to drive "investors" away we love Ramsgate and want the best. It isn't a done deal as to Weatherspoons and certainly was not dealt with in an open and constructive way.
      Point out where an advert has been placed by anyone with a 99 year lease attached since June 2013 when Cabinet discussed extending it.

      Delete
    11. Barry, think it best we draw a line under this because we are getting nowhere. Elsewhere Joe Turner says that he has a letter from a District and Ramsgate Councillor saying the public have a right to be consulted. I would suggest you work on that, and other Ramsgate Councillors, to put up a united front to TDC. Hear what you say about loving Ramsgate, but I am sure the same is true of your town councillors. How about you work with them rather than seemingly rubbishing TDC the whole time on blog sites.

      Delete
    12. When someone acts in an inept manner they will be exposed. Since when did it become rubbishing someone to expose ineptitude. As michael pointed out in the blog itself "the council’s ghastly fiscal and political approach to all things Ramsgate" In your mind this would be rubbishing TDC but you do not comment do you?

      Delete
    13. "Barry JamesNovember 05, 2013 3:55 pm

      When someone acts in an inept manner they will be exposed"

      Quite true James, as you have been by me for some months, and when you were forced to remove the lies you posted re Cardy's.

      "the current understanding that RANK are only paying a peppercorn rent" whose current understanding is that James?

      "we love Ramsgate and want the best. It isn't a done deal as to Weatherspoons and certainly was not dealt with in an open and constructive way"

      If the 1st part is in any way true James, move, and inflict your bullshit on another town a LONG way away. Rank don;t have to deal with anything in what you see as open and constructive James. They are at liberty to carry out their business transactions in any legal way they so choose. If Ms Irvine has a great proposal, then I'm sure Rank would be interested and they wish to dispose of the RP as soon as possible no doubt.

      William, sadly as we have established, James doesn't deal in facts. He merely deals in bullshit, more bullshit, innuendo and straight out, bald faced lies. He's the kind of irrelevant pedant that wants to feel important, but knows nobody will ever take him seriously without him trying to make himself somekind of heroic investigative genius.

      Sadly some have swallowed his bullshit, but happily, that number is falling as more and more people realise he is simply a bullshitter seeking a naive audience.

      Delete
    14. hammy please post these lies you are talking about some people don't understand to what you refer

      Delete
    15. and hammy take your own advice and inflict your rubbish where you live. when challenged you do not even know how much petrol is here or had you forgotten!!!
      So how much did the gun range charge you for the membership you requested in May?

      Delete
    16. I only post facts and correct information James. I leave posting inaccurate bullshit, lies and slanderous allegations about longstanding Kent companies, that you are then forced to remove to you.

      You only have 1 talent James, posting inaccurate innuendo, bullshit, lies and laughably inept guesswork as pretty much everything you've posted on this thread proves ;) Do Thanet a favour James, go away, and take the tragic band of whiners with you.

      Delete
    17. Hamilton = Troll
      Hamilton = Boring
      Hamilton = Nothing to do with Thanet, doesn't live here so take you're trolling elsewhere and latch on to another group/blog.

      Delete
    18. Hamilton as you have been posting stuff about posts being removed surely you have saved the original posts to which you refer so do everyone a favour and post your evidence here otherwise its just bullshit and lies. And if you cannot and keep saying it you are just the same as james posting lies and innuendo

      Delete
    19. anon = foolish and cowardly waste of skin and organs ;)

      9:17, which part of "I only post facts and correct information" are you struggling with? Mr Epps and I are both fully conversant with the lies that James posted and was forced to remove. Your opinion of that episode is of course valueless.

      Delete
    20. So that's a no to any evidence that anything was posted. The word of a troll and a politician not very convincing. If you had any screen prints you would post them, wouldn't you? anything else is just bullshit.
      BTW how much was membership of C2 Tactical that you were enquiring about in May this year?

      Delete
    21. Sorry 10:09, were you thinking that I was attempting to prove something to an anonymous fool such as you? My mistake, I should have made it plainer for you, let me help you, your opinion is valueless, and the fact that James was caught in a lie, and forced to remove those lies is a matter of record.

      Feel free to roll around in James's bullshit, clearly that is a level you will be unlikely to ever improve from :)

      Delete
  22. Replies
    1. Lyndon's link, for which I thank him, clearly shows the property has been advertised by Colliers, hardly the smallest commercial agents in the country, at a price of £500,000 for the existing lease and on a passing rental of £12,500 per annum. Comments, Barry, or would you prefer to contact Colliers first to check out this information.

      Delete
    2. Is this ad current? I only ask because it does not suggest that a 99+ year lease is available, which appeared to be the point agreed by the Council Exec in June.

      Delete
    3. If the ad was placed by Rank they could only advertise the lease they currently hold. A new lease would not usually attract any premium because it would start at the then determined correct rental value. The premium is normally calculated on the difference between existing rent and current rental value times the years remaining until the next review plus or minus for other considerations like state of the building, f & f etc. Possibly the new lease proposal came up because there were no takers for the lease as it stood. Not being TDC I do not know.

      Delete
    4. That all might be the case, William, but Emma is contending that Wetherspoons have been offered a lease that is not available to anyone else. I don't think anyone is arguing that Colliers were never offering the building over the last years, they do not appear to be marketing a more adventageous offering, which changed since June. Indeed, Emma says that they are not replying to her enquiries at all. Furthermore, the agent actually advertised on the building is not offering the lease. Hence Emma claims that she had to go directly to Rank to discuss.

      And, given that she wants to lease the building on commercial terms, you'd think she'd be in a good position to know.

      Delete
    5. Not arguing with Emma at all, Joe, but if a new lease became necessary to attract a new tenant, presumably at the current rental value, then Rank continue to have an interest as the existing lessee until a new lease is concluded between the freeholder (or head lessee) and new tenant, whilst TDC would have a right to check the ability of the proposed new lessee to meet their obligations under the lease. Due diligence, which you often use, would require TDC to be properly convinced of that new tenants financial standing for, after all, none us presumably want a repeat of Pleasurama.

      Delete
    6. William for your info rather than listen to people's best guesses I actually made the effort to meet with Emma and find out first hand what she believes to be happening.

      Delete
    7. Well done Emma for putting the spotlight on this matter

      Delete
    8. William, I was attempting to discuss the agent pdf of the building which you saw as evidence that the building was properly marketed. I'm not sure what you are now wanting to discuss.

      I'm not sure that I've ever suggested that Emma's proposal should be accepted without due diligence. If she has the funds then it should be considered carefully along with all the other options. In public and with consultation with the stakeholders who will be affected by the new tenancy.

      Delete
    9. Joe, the advert served to establish that the property had been duly advertised at the terms currently enjoyed by Rank. It also served to confirm the suggestion that there were no takers on those terms and that is probably why a new lease was proposed in an endeavour to attract someone. As for Emma's proposals, as I said in my response to her, I wish her luck with them, but TDC would still have a duty to accept the tenant their financial and legal advisers recommended as being best able to fulfil the commitments under the lease.

      Barry, factual matters pertaining to the law on leasehold interests are not anyone's best guesses. Too much is spouted around these blogs on hearsay and belief, sometimes at the expense of facts.

      Delete
    10. If Landlord / Tenant rules preclude TDC from marketing said building please explain "WE MARKETED IT" in the email from Allan Poole. He is a member of the Cabinet and will be party to what goes on.

      Delete
    11. William, the press release from TDC of last week discussed the marketing of the tenancy under the terms offered to Wetherspoons. Hence whatever terms were offered prior to June is irrelevant.

      Delete
    12. Dear me, understanding round here is in short supply. Barry, TDC cannot market the building because it is effectively vested in the tenant, but they can assist the tenant in the marketing if so requested.

      Joe, until a new lease is actually completed with a new tenant, the old terms still apply and the pre-existing tenant retains their rights. Have you never noticed the term 'Sold - subject to contract.' If the contracts are not exchanged and completed you revert to the former position, in this case the residue of the lease to Rank.

      Delete
    13. I don't understand why you are arguing this point. It is a simple question: were Wetherspoons offered a lease for this building which was not offered to anyone else? Emma says it was.

      You can waffle as much as you like, this remains the critical point of the discussion.

      Delete
    14. I responded to your comment that the pre-existing lease is irrelevant. It is not.

      I have no way of knowing if only Weatherspoons were offered the new lease anymore than you do. Maybe they came forward to Rank and said they would only be interested if a new lease were part of the deal. Why don't to contact your friendly District Councillor on the matter for you might get another letter to frame.

      Delete
    15. Even if the lease extension was made after June due to a request from Wetherspoons, even that is irrelevant, because the same offer should have been made to anyone who enquired. Given Emma is the only person here with experience and in conversation with Rank, why are you not taking seriously what she says?

      Delete
    16. Joe, last try. My job once was to advise a corporate banking group on acquisitions of commercial premises so I know a wee bit about leasehold interests. I have responded to Emma elsewhere and have not disputed what she says. How could I not being privy to her negotiations. I can only surmise that Rank, more latterly joined by TDC, were far advanced in their negotiations with Weatherspoons before Emma came on the scene, but I do not know.

      Since I am not a TDC councillor your best bet remains to take it up through your own District Councillor.

      Delete
    17. Right, you don't know. So any contradictions you repeat and which contradict Emma's reports are actually based on no information. Thanks for that admission.

      Delete
    18. Since I have not contradicted Emma's comment your last shows you up as a rather nasty vindictive person who takes a childish delight in what you perceive as scoring a point. This is now playground stuff so I am out of here.

      Delete
    19. As I have repeatedly shown, you've contradicted everything Emma said, from the advertising of the Royal Pavilion, through the offering of a lease to Wetherspoons which was not available to her, to the access to a land agent, to the options regarding the current lease. It is playground stuff because you are so big-headed that you can't even be bothered to read the post on which you are commenting.

      Delete
    20. James, would you like to paste a copy or, or a link to the marketing that you contend TDC carried out? The term "we" is clearly meant in a "working as a team" context, TDC quite correct action in offering an extended lease enabling Rank to successfully find a buyer.

      Lets try and remember a couple of things here, before the bullshit from the likes of james gets totally overwhelming;

      1. TDC is NOT in a position to sell a lease for RP, as it doesn't currently own it.
      2. TDC does NOT have have to weigh up different offers that are made, as the current lease is not theirs to sell
      3. Rank does NOT have to treat all offers equally, and is at liberty to sell to whom it wishes, assuming that TDC investigations into the buyer prove they have the standing to pay the rent.
      4. Ms Irvine has had 6 years to attempt to secure the building, and a longer lease. I suggested some months ago that TDC should offer a longer lease. I wonder why she didn't attempt that negotiation. Does the RP need someone with a little more business awareness to secure it's future?
      5. If Ms Irvine's offer is attractive, there is no reason to suppose that Rank would turn it down, As has been stated, the lease is THEIRS to sell. If they are not entertaining her offer, that would seem to suggest that isn't as attractive as she would have you believe.

      Obvious points, but they would seem to be relevant, as opposed to the nimbyist "build a heritage centre" in every empty public building.

      Before the usual suspect go rushing headlong into heady ideas of markets, "public space" and all the other fearfully expensive grant funded sillyness that is being bounced around, lets just remember what happens when the good people of Thanet have something which the usual suspects think they want.

      Motor museum - closed, not viable, no visitors
      Model village - closed, not viable, no visitors
      Dreamland - closed, not viable, no visitors

      Will JD's be viable, of course, why, because people WANT TO GO THERE IN DROVES.

      Will some kind of market be viable, errrr, well, how many markets are flourishing in the 21st century, especially when you consider that if Michael is to be believed, those who don't get killed by waterborune cranes, will die in the flood!

      Delete
    21. I don't think you should sound so authoritative on the subject, John Hamilton, given we have Emma saying that some of these things are not true, and she should know being as she is involved in the process.

      1. TDC cannot sell the 30 odd years remaining on the lease. But the discussion is not about that, because nobody will buy a 30 year lease given the costs of work on the site. Hence we're actually talking about a 99+ year lease, which Rank would only have if TDC extend their lease so they can sell it.

      2. TDC could take back the remaining lease and Rank have said they are prepared to give it back, hence it is possible to see a way that options are weighed. Plus, many local people think that TDC have a moral responsibility to listen to views on the future of a building they own on our seafront.

      3. That simply isn't true, as shown by Emma above. TDC are in the driving seat in the negotiation for a new tenant.

      4. Do you know how long Emma has been in Ramsgate? If not, how can you possibly tell how long she has been working on this project, the negotiation or the lease?

      5. That isn't true though is it. If TDC is in the driving seat and Rank want to get rid of the site, they'll obviously have to take account of TDC's wishes. Again, see what Emma said above.

      The motor museum closed in 2006, the model village in 2003 and dreamland in 2005. Hard to see any of these as relevant to the viability of new business ideas a decade later in a different place.

      How do you know that people want to go to a large Wetherspoons in droves in Ramsgate? I've been in a lot of their local places, I'd not say that they are often packed. Even if they are, I don't see what that has to do with it.

      Local people would probably want to visit a free brothel in droves. That doesn't mean it should be on our seafront.

      Delete
    22. Hamilton your above "James, would you like to paste a copy or, or a link to the marketing that you contend TDC carried out?"
      You are a complete idiot and you cannot read, The comment about marketing came from Allan Poole in his email above in the main blog. I suggest, if you really want to know and not just shit stir, you contact Cllr Poole via TDC website and ask him yourself.
      Those of us on here that understand the English Language and not just make up lies await you posting his (Allan Poole's) reply

      Delete
    23. So Turner,
      1. TDC does not own the lease, and thus is not in a position to either sell it, or to interfere in whom it is sold to. Extending a lease at sale simply means the building becomes a viable asset, again, however, TDC don't have the the current lease in their possession, hence no control over to whom the building is sold.

      2. That Rank want to hand back the lease is hearsay, and the rest of your point 2 laughable

      3. It is Ranks lease to sell. If you fail to understand that, that is an issue for you. There is no compunction for Rank to offer equal terms to competing bids, merely to carry out a legal sale. Once again, anything you refer to re the handing back of leases is once again hearsay.

      4. She has failed for 6 years to seek a longer lease. How long she has lived in Thanet is irrelevant.

      5. Once again *sigh* it's Rank's lease to sell. Any TDC involvement beyond extending the lease at sale is hearsay, and irrelevant.

      Simple Turner, the oft quoted "community" don;t utilise what they have/had, let alone something extra. I would be happy to see RP revitalised in any guise, but a market with a pizza shop, that is tenuoous at best, especially when compared to one of the best pub chains in the country.

      If you really can;t see the link between droves of people wishing to come to a venue and spend large amounts of cash, and that building's long term viability, then really Turner, you shouldn't be trying to have an intelligent conversation in which you are clearly ill equipped to take part.

      Free brothel? Bless, don't worry, I'm sure one day you won't be turned down ;)

      It's James who is suggesting that TDC carried out marketing 9:24. The release merely says "we marketed it", hence TDC were making the building viable for a new incumbent, bringing the derelict building back into use. Perhaps you should take yourself and your sorry band of friends who "understand the English Language" to class on marketing or property, maybe that way you won't look as foolish as you do trying to defend the fool James ;)

      Delete
    24. Actually Hamilton it isn't anyone suggesting TDC Marketed the lease it is the statement from Alan Poole in his email above "we did advertise and Rank have advertised the vacancy but there were no takers with any money" It is quite clear that as a TDC Cabinet member he is describing the separate actions of Rank and TDC as he clearly separates these in his statement.

      Hamilton learn to read before you post anymore Bullshit.

      BTW how much was the membership of C2 Tactical gun range?

      Delete
    25. Oh dear 10:14, seems you are really flailing around this morning, not really understanding what's going on around you.

      It's James who is suggesting that TDC carried out marketing 9:24. The release merely says "we marketed it", hence TDC were making the building viable for a new incumbent, bringing the derelict building back into use. Perhaps you should take yourself and your sorry band of friends who "understand the English Language" to class on marketing or property, maybe that way you won't look as foolish as you do trying to defend the fool James ;)

      Get a grown up to read it to you before humiliating yourself next time ;)

      Delete
    26. John Hamilton, it is Mr Turner to you. And for all your other sockpuppets as well.

      I have addressed your first point. Your second point is true, except that everything you say is also hearsay, that Emma has an interest in the process and that she stands to gain nothing by lying about it. I have addressed your third point, namely that Rank is only selling a 30 year lease that nobody wants. You don't know how long Emma has had to look at the lease, and in fact it doesn't matter if she only became interested after June. This is a rhetorical point with no merit whatsoever. You again repeat a point that is not fact and is in dispute.

      You've not proven there are droves of people wanting to come to Wetherspoons, nor that their potential clients are more advantageous to the town than those which would come for Emma's proposal. In fact, one might argue that the kinds of people who go to Borough market have rather more disposable income to spend in the town than those who typically go to a Wetherspoons. Hence the need for a public examination of the options for this, a publicly owned building. Even if there are droves of potential customers, not all developments are what we want on the seafront. And, given we actually live here, we are entitled to have a view on that.

      TDC are not involved in marketing, if, as you point out above, because it is a private third party sale. Hence your final point proves nothing. In fact, the argument made by Emma above is that no substantial advertising has been made by Rank, TDC or anyone else.



      Delete
    27. No boy, TDC do not own the current lease, and are therefore not in a position to sell it, or a 100 year lease as they don't currently own the lease, and won't for another 30 years, this is really basic stuff boy. It's like your mortgage company trying to sell your house, they aren;t in a position to, and neither are TDC,

      Simple real world fact, Rank don't want the building, and want to sell it, extended lease makes building more saleable, but TDC STILL have no say in who it's sold to. Perhaps it would be better if it stood empty for the next 30 years, Rank are of course perfectly at liberty to take that course if they choose.

      Ms Irvine stands to gain nothing? Really, apart from a 100 year lease on a building that she has previously missed to boat on? You are more naive than even I took you for boy.

      Once again, It's Ranks lease to sell, TDC have no input further than the financial viability of the new leasee. Once again, Rank are under no obligation whatsoever to offer the same terms to alternative buyers, stop being so naive boy.

      Oh really? This is like dealing with a petulant child who asks for proof that if he sticks his fingers in a socket, he'll get a shock! You really think that a new version of Borough Market in Ramsgate is viable on a windy rainy Thursday afternoon in Ramsgate...

      Public examination HAHAHAHAHAHA by the likes of you and James HAHAHAHAHA It is proven beyond doubt that James is simply a bullshitting clown, and you are utterly clueless, what makes you think that input from the usual suspects will do anything to secure this lovely building's future? How many more buildings will it be suggested be turned into "heritage centres".

      The "say" will come from the planning process, Who the lease gets sold to is a matter for the lease holder. Whether Rank advertised it, didn't advertise it, phoned mickey mouse and asked him if minney mouse wanted is utterly irrelevant.

      Fact is, Rank can and will sell it to whom it chooses, and with any luck, the usual whining suspects won't have frightened off JD's who are without doubt the best that that building can ever hope for my boy.

      Delete
    28. John Hamilton, please let us all know how Emma would take control of the Pavilion by claiming here and elsewhere that she knows that a) Rank would give up the current lease and b) that TDC were in the driving seat of negotiations if that isn't actually true. She doesn't. As you repeatedly state, if the deal is a simple commercial one, making the claims she makes wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference.

      I'm not your boy. Stop talking down to me.

      Delete
  23. Have I understood this correctly. There is existing consent for use as a licensed premises ? But on change of ownership conditional that licensing continuation is not unreasonably withheld ?

    The licensing authority is TDC.

    As I understand it licences have been refused in Thanet before. Because police cannot meet the anticipated extra demands on public order policing.

    The thinking behind Turner Centre was to attract visitors.

    With all due respect to Wetherspoons they are not a tourist attraction.

    But an idea, like Emma's, could be. Let Margate have its Turner Centre and Ramsgate have its Earner Centre.

    Having said that this is a market decision not a political one. So the issue is to ensure that the market isn't being skewed.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well those seem to be good questions to me, Lyndon. As a general point, I'm sure that Wetherspoons would not continue persuing the lease if they thought there was any chance that they would be refused the license, particularly as it looks like it would require complicated negotiation long before any building work was done.

      But I agree that Wetherspoons is not a tourist attraction. In my view they mostly attempt to tap into local demand, which has implications for other establishments in the town. Which might not in itself necessarily be a bad thing, except that we're talking about an area which already has a lot of licensed premises and very limited parking.

      On the other hand, they do have a good record of restoring buildings and are generally considered to be a community minded chain.

      But these are issues that should be discussed in the open: do we want another x hundred seat pub on the seafront? Where is the demand going to come from and what impact will that have on other businesses? What would it say about our town if the first business to be seen from the beach is a large pub?

      This discussion is not going to happen if the license is simple allocated from Rank to Wetherspoons.

      Delete
    2. Sounds like Thanet. Come up with enough delays and objections until we drive another potential investor away like we have done so often before. Joe, you have no idea what it is like to be out of it in a nice little rural community where folk promote their locality, not seek to perpetuate its blights.

      Delete
    3. Given that you know nothing about me, Alan, I'm not sure your comments are really credible. Nobody is trying to drive anyone away.

      Delete
    4. Having met with Emma all she wants is a level playing field. Surely that's all anyone wants

      Delete
    5. Sadly, Allan's comment is perfectly credible as one only has to look around Thanet to find objectors to just about everything somewhere. The idea that we elect a council to take decisions for us seems quite alien to some people who want public consultations on everything. Imagine trying to run the nation on referendums.

      Really do not see what knowing you or otherwise has to do with Allan's observation. His reference to you was simply to express his relief at moving to somewhere evidently not so blessed with habitual objectors.

      Delete
    6. The objection, Alan, was that I don't like being judged on aspects of my history and character based only on the knowledge of my name. How does Alan know that I have "idea what it is like to be out of it in a nice little rural community where folk promote their locality, not seek to perpetuate its blights". Of course he doesn't. He knows nothing about me, and you are here supporting these inanities.

      Asking the public to accept a major development of a very public building without public consultation by asking the existing leasee to extend, and then sell, their lease is not normal anywhere.

      Delete
    7. And it might also interest you to know that I have a letter from my district Councillor, who also happens to be a member of Ramsgate Town Council, stating that the public have a right to be heard on the issue. Just because you and a few other people think it is a perfectly fine way to behave does not mean it is.

      Delete
    8. OK, Joe, you frame your letter if it makes you happy like Louise can frame her High Court injunction stopping the people of Margate getting the Tesco they want. I do not think it will be too long now before I join Allan in seeking to escape. Shame really because I grew up here, but it is not the same place or people. Far too many DFLs and incomers.

      Delete
    9. Yeah, that's right. Barry James, Michael Child and others are obviously just DFLs and incomers. Pathetic.

      Delete
    10. For your information there is a meeting 2pm Customs House Ramsgate today to discuss the local plan and tomorrow night Customs House there is the Ramsgate Town Council meeting both of which I will be going to. If you care like I do about Ramsgate then why do you not attend and make your voice heard. We genuinely care for Ramsgate unlike some who think that caring is being a NIMBY.
      The Ramsgate Society will be in attendance making their proposals would you consider them to be NIMBYS.
      If I'm not making myself understood then so be it.

      Delete
    11. Like it is not pathetic to come here, buy a house under the Manston flight path and then complain about aircraft noise or to jump up with bygone flood scares that people who were living here then have no recollection of. In truth, I do not really mind people moving here and spending their money in Thanet, but I do the ones who come here to whinge about everything.

      Delete
    12. I have never complained about Manston flight path nor have any opinions as to the flood scares, hence you must be referring to others. And if those two points apply to Barry and Michael, then clearly you have an issue with people who have lived in Ramsgate for a long time rather than the 'DFLs and incomers' you decried earlier.

      In fact, one might argue, it is those from Broadstairs and further afield who are demanding that those of us who actually live and work in Ramsgate should have to accept any development that is hoisted upon us, however badly organised and however much public opposition there is to it in the town. It is our town, William. Why don't you stick to issues that apply to yours?

      Delete
    13. You know I thought this was an open forum and this is not the first time you have questioned my right to speak. Be that as it may, you take things a little too literally and rather want to pin things on individuals. The Stop Manston Expansion lot mainly bought under a flight path which they then complain about. I know Michael is not one of them and have no idea whether Barry is a member. I do know that some of them are very recent incomers.

      Yes, Ramsgate is your town, not mine, but it's problems can also blight its neighbours. I spent seven happy years going to school in Ramsgate and another seven more recently as a school governor there. I like the place and it holds fond memories for me. Nonetheless, it is more your problem than mine so I reiterate earlier advice and recommend you get your town and district councillors working for you.

      Delete
    14. Right, so you are attempting to castigate my name (again) by associating me with campaigns that I'm not associated with. You do that a lot. Either address the points I make, or butt out. Stop attacking me personally - when you actually know so little about me that you can't even do that coherently.

      Delete
    15. What utter nonsense, Joe, and you still further confirm your ill manners. Nowhere have I attacked you personally, but it is OK for you to tell me to butt out. You evidently did not attend the debating society of a school like mine where such remark would illustrate you had lost the argument.

      Delete
    16. Final word William. You have to have the final word. In school they would have called you a bully, here you are just a plain common-or-garden shit-stirrer.

      Delete
    17. Seems to me that you are the one who has got to have the last word, Turner. Having followed this little debate with some interest your idea of case presentation is an interesting one. You just tell your opponent to butt out or that they are a shit stirrer. I suppose on a face to face you just kick them in the crutch.

      Delete
    18. Funny that when hammy uses just the arguments that have just occurred here you happily let him carry on. maybe pot and black come to mind.
      Debating is also about acknowledging your opponents point which there is scant regard here. Both parties have some points why don't you agree that and move on.
      Finally Emma would certainly put you all in the picture given the chance just like she would like to put her proposition to all relevant parties given a level playing field.
      I have been told by a Cabinet member the whole process has been a shambles. Not my words. As I said this is not open governance and in Michaels words "the council’s ghastly fiscal and political approach to all things Ramsgate" So are we both wrong pray tell!!

      Delete
    19. We seem to have accepted that TDC cannot or will not enforce Rank to carry out or fund repairs ? why ?

      There is a public interest in licensing criteria. As I understand it with previous licence refusals the objection upheld was from police. I hope Tony Beachcomber will contribute as he sat on the Licensing sub cttee at the time IIRC.

      Historically Ramsgate seafront (Neros 2000) has picked up business that had problems when run in Margate (Student Functions Winter Gardens). In part this was why, some years after those functions ended at Winter Gardens, the tory Mayor of Ramsgate L Richard Taylor processed a report by Neros head bouncer to the Home Secretary. This was in fact the beginning and initial idea that is now seen as Door Steward licensing.

      The objections, that I know of, about Wetherspoons have been about EDL and about the culture of all day drinking. I don't want to get Michael sued by JDW but the objections seem to be about reducing footfall in pedestrianised zones. It isn't just Wetherspoons of course. In the seaside town I am thinking of the post office, for example, means that people do have to walk past pubs with outside seating including a large Wetherspoons. And people don't like it.

      Off licences are not supposed to sell alcohol to people they know or suspect will drink it in a public area in the vicinity of the off licence. Yet de facto with all day drinking pubs do what off licences are prohibited from doing.

      My preference would be for a scheme such as Emma proposes. The problem I see with a pub there is that licensing consents would be on offer in exchange for the pub operator footing the bill for building repair.

      How many years was Margate shooting itself in the foot with its rule that coaches had to be out of town by about 6 PM. Kill the licensed trade to avoid public order policing commitments. Are we to understand that Thanet now has the policing capacity it did not have in the past ?

      Delete
    20. Lydon, I think there is an obvious attraction in a new tenant like Wetherspoons, who will take the building 'as is', given that then TDC would not need to take enforcement action. It is possible that is why they want this to remain a commercial transaction between third parties, otherwise they themselves would have to pay to improve the building before offering it to a new tenant themselves.

      Which actually seems like a fair point.

      Delete
    21. Not at all James, Me pointing out your lies and bullshit is something totally different.

      Delete
    22. Shit-stirrer sounds about right for Cllr Epps. Mallinson is his backup on anything Manston. If only they had something sensible to say on the pollution form either Thor or Manston. Pensioners jeopardising the future.

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

    ReplyDelete
  25. A few points here.

    1 The lease is fairly normal for the time it was issued and aspects like the landlord not being able to object to reasonable uses are just standard terms in commercial leases.

    2 I have had no further reply for either political group, I have to say that I am a bit surprised that the Conservative group don’t seem to have any stance on the issue.

    3 I am a bit miffed that there seems to be no council plan to include some sort of leisure facility within Ramsgate waterfront.

    4 My own take is that the council should be seeking to recover the remaining properties that are vacant and long term disused and secure grant funding to bring them into use as leisure facilities as they are doing in Margate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael I met with Emma and Julia Marson this morning and I suspect a Tory view will be forthcoming

      Delete
    2. I told you i wanted to run a book! waiting for ANY official comments...

      Delete
  26. Michael, you have a valid point there for the days of fairgrounds and seafront swimming pools did attract visitors. Important to have something for the children and not just for the adults.

    You are a bit short on Conservatives in Ramsgate these days so why not approach your only town councillor on the right side or Laura Sandys herself it being a Ramsgate matter. Simon Moores is probably too involved with Westgate matters and, knowing how the TDC cabinet system seems to work these days, probably not well informed on the Pavilion negotiations himself. He probably has to ask as you have.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. William taking the proviso that I am a businessman in Ramsgate I have made various approaches to the Thanet Conservatives at various levels and have found it is Simon Moores who always responds himself and acts as the voice of the TDC Conservative group when it comes to email.

      You will note I didn’t ask his opinion about this Ramsgate issue but asked him to ascertain the TDC Conservative group’s opinion, if the have one, which from his reply I would guess he doubts.

      This is a TDC issue and whereas Jonathan Aitkin would no doubt be down the council breathing fire and threatening the councillors of all political persuasions with all sorts of fire from the House of Commons, I am afraid our Laura is far too nice for that sort of action.

      A carefully worded response from one of her aides in about a weeks time is the best I would expect and when I next meet her I have no doubt that she will agree with what I have to say about the council owned foreshore properties here.

      Come the next elections I would say that Ramsgate will be a decisive factor in the Conservatives gaining power, and I would think without some clear plan for the future of Ramsgate combined with some sort of expectation of fulfilment many Conservative voters will vote for UKIP.

      I think the Conservative plan was that Margate should become Thanet’s main leisure town supported by the arts, Broadstairs should remain Dickensian and that Ramsgate should become a successful port.

      Here in Ramsgate we have tried to explain that regeneration based around transport hubs here is unlikely to work, this is because 80% of the wheel is seawater and although fish do travel they don’t spend any money.

      Delete
    2. So... what are you saying that Ramsgate should be, given the investment in other Thanet towns to focus on specific things and the more difficult parking and distance to the train station in Ramsgate?

      At one time there was a wholesale fish market in Ramsgate, I read a while back. At present I hear that the majority of the landed fish goes to France to be sold, but I guess it would be very hard to compete with other fishing towns.

      Delete
    3. Why does Epps insist on posting on everything? When ever asked to do anything as a councillor he indulges in bureaucratic bullshat about BTC or TDC or KCC boundaries etc or name calling so as to do nothing. Yet spouts drivel on here whether Manston, fracking or the Pavilion or Pleasurama. All of which are invariably tripe or waffle or bigging up his role as a senior financial something or colonel in days gone by. He is typical of exactly what is wrong with Thanet.

      As with Holyer surely one post a day is enough for his words of wisdom?

      Delete
    4. Anon 8:43 (I will pretend I do not know who you are) do you not pop up on every post with your usual drivel about pollution and 0% salaries? Why do you feel you enjoy a right to comment, but that I somehow don't?

      Don't you big up your role as a multi-director of SFA.

      Finally, and as I have told you before, I am more than happy to respond to people who approach me about matters within the remit of the council on which I serve, but I am not going to engage in an open forum on a blog site with someone from Ramsgate raising historic TDC matters from well before my time. Approach your own district councillor.

      Delete
  27. Barry & Joe,

    William Epps has repeatedly and accurately explained in simple language the circumstances of the Pav lease. He was stating a fact and not an opinion. He has not indicated a preference for either Emma or Wetherspoons. For this you lash out at him with the calumny of bully. Perhaps you enjoy posing as a victim.

    Barry & Joe, I have looked at all your comments in the round. In all honesty I can make neither head nor tail of your argument. What in your view is TDC doing wrong and what should they do to put matters right; how do you see the future of the Pav; and who should finance it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As my points do not make any sense to you maybe the comment from an RTC Councillor will make sense. "The way the Cabinet have acted is a shambles"
      Does that make sense to you?

      Delete
    2. I think the future of the Pavilion is something of general interest to people and businesses in Ramsgate and that there should be public discussion regarding a future tenant. Whilst it true that the remaining 30 year lease is a commercial disposal by Rank, this is not the issue, because nobody seriously wants a 30 year lease. This is because TDC appear to not want to pay to clean up the pavilion themselves nor want to attempt to force Rank to do so.

      Hence they're trying to get Rank to extend and then sell the lease. Which, contrary to what they said last week, is not a purely commercial transaction of which they (TDC) have no interest, given that Emma has said above Rank are prepared to give back the lease to TDC without any payment of a premium to anyone.

      Emma says that she has finance, and if that is true then she (and anyone else who also has a suggestion for the future of the Pavilion) should also be spoken to by TDC. The fact remains that there is a real issue regarding a new large bar on the seafront. That isn't to say that Emma's proposal should be the only-game-in-town either, but that it should be considered at least as favourably as Wetherspoons.

      Fundamentally, if there really is a commercial only deal between Rank and Wetherspoons, what business is it of the council to release information about it before anything is signed? Alternatively, if there are other options (both of potential tenant and of the mechanism by which the tenancy is awarded), then that should be done openly and with public consultation.

      Otherwise the worry is that a large bar will open on the seafront without any consultation at all.

      Delete
    3. Barry,

      your 4:49 pm.

      No it does not make sense. I would ask the 'RTC Councillor' to explain why in his opinion the way the cabinet has acted is a shambles? Can you explain what he meant, Barry?

      What are you going to do if the next Councillor you meet tells you that TDC has done an excellent job?

      Professor Arnold Layne has written the definitive book on the subject of government leases . The reading of his guidance in chapter 2 of the book demonstrates that TDC is behaving correctly and in an exemplary manner. Now does that make sense?

      Of course it doesn't because the book does not exist.

      Delete
    4. Joe Turner, Who in your opinion should attend your proposed public discussion and what should be its terms of reference?

      What do you anticipate as the outcome of a public discussion? If the discussion does not reach an agreement about a future tenant then who should have the final say? What would you say to members of the discussion group who state that they would like to have a large bar on the seafront, and that such a prospect does not worry them?

      Or perhaps you envisage some kind of free for all where those with the stamina and loudest voices win the day.

      Delete
    5. I've no opinion on who should attend a public discussion nor what the outcome should be.

      District Councillors should listen and consider public views - as they do with every other planning proposal. If they then decide that Wetherspoons is the best option, then they'll be making the decision in public and after considering public objections. If they ignore the public feeling on the issue and make a contrary decision, then they'll have to account for it at the next poll.

      Delete
    6. John I understand your concerns however I'm sure you wouldn't like me to explain your point of view anymore than I would speak for an RTC Councillor. There aren't that many of them and they are approachable. come and meet a few tomorrow night and ask them for their opinion.
      I asked today but didn't ask for the specifics so no I am unable to expound.

      Delete
    7. John - I suspect the guys are not anti the development, but they have some objections with TDC just giving away a new lease to the first suitor for the project without considering the wider impact on the community. The deal they are working up is apparently "a shambles". I have spoke to Cllr's from three parties today and each is in agreement - TDC are making yet another bad business decision in handing over the lease so easily. On the commercial market, the potential for that site is massive! I look forward to seeing the site developed - but with a decent deal on the table in return for 100yrs worth of use.

      Delete
    8. Jo, Barry & Duncan,

      I have studies your comments.

      The butterfly was upset because winter was coming and that meant he was going to die. So he went to the wise old owl for advice on how to survive the winter. The owl asked for time to think about it. A few days later the butterfly returned and asked the owl if he had a solution. "I do" said the owl, "I have noticed that ants are able to survive the winter. Therefore, what you must do when the winter comes is to change yourself into an ant." The butterfly was initially pleased and then grew puzzled as he thought about it. He asked the owl, "How do I change myself into an ant?" Don't ask me" replied the owl, "I just decide policy".

      Delete
    9. Barry James - Plot lost

      1st fact you've ever posted James, congratulations!

      Delete
    10. John. Not sure if you get my point. I am not anti-development. I think both proposals i have seen have financial and community benefits. My objection is the way TDC are just giving away the land for 100yrs without recognising its true market value. I would also like to ensure the building is protected in a lease of that size. Thats where the policy bit comes in, I guess. And thats what I am moaning about - TDC's handling of their part of the deal. Does that make sense?

      Delete
  28. Can I ask if it is sensible for TDC to grant extra years to the lessee for a building that has been allowed to fall into disrepair? If the lessee was found to be in breach of the lease it would revert to the lessor, TDC. Who then in turn could market the lease. Also in line with the newly adopted DMP (Destination Management Plan).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Loiuse,

      In leases with a minimum term of 7 years and with at least 3 years still to run, the tenant on receipt of of a S.146 repairs notice can claim the benefit of the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938. This then requires permission of the court for forfeiture [for the repairs breach] and in effect limits work that has to be done *immediately* by the tenant under an interim schedule of dilapidations to just the repairs that are needed to keep the building watertight and structurally sound (or other works which would have a small cost now, but a far greater cost later if they were delayed).

      The leaseholder would of course still be expected (in principle) to complete all of the other repairs to the building [such as those inside] before the end of the lease, but the argument would be that there was plenty of time to do this. A terminal schedule of dilapidations is served towards the end of a lease - in effect giving the tenant a last chance to fix things. Repairs outstanding after a lease has ended are recorded in a final schedule of dilapidations. These are dealt with by financial compensation by the tenant to the landlord - the settlements can often be substantial and often come as a major shock to the former tenants, who in the case of small businesses may have just retired.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Gerald, that is useful. So are you saying that if the lease was voluntarily given back early that the owner could not claim the costs back of the work? Could (at least in theory) TDC insist that the tenancy is ended now and insist that Rank do the work?

      Delete
    3. How pleasant to see someone who actually understands property posting here

      Turner "the tenant on receipt of of a S.146 repairs notice can claim the benefit of the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938" this isn't rocket science ;)

      Delete
    4. Joe,

      A tenant can *offer* to surrender their lease, and a landlord can then decide whether or not they wish to accept the surrender. I believe that, by default, dilapidations would become payable if a lease is surrendered - however any surrender would almost certainly be negotiated between landlord and tenant, and details about liability for any repairs would normally be agreed as part of that settlement.

      For a modern full-market-rent lease, the tenant would usually need to pay a premium to buy their way out of the lease as well as the cost of any repairs. An old lease with a low (fixed) rent has a potential value to the landlord to recover, because any future tenant on a new market rent lease would be likely to pay far more rent. An opening gambit by a tenant with an old low rent lease might be to offer to surrender the lease on agreement that the landlord formally agrees to take over the cost of any repairs.

      I don't know the details of the repairs that were done by Rank to the Pavilion a few years ago. I would guess however that Rank has done all those repairs from the interim schedule of dilapidations that they were legally obliged to do immediately - and that TDC are not able to force them to do the other [mainly internal] repairs immediately or to terminate the lease.

      Delete
    5. Gerald, thanks again. So were TDC to accept a surrender of the lease with some kind of negotiated premium, would they (TDC) then have to pay to make good the building for a new tenant? Could they offer the building 'as is' - which might be suitable for various possible investors, such as Emma, Wetherspoons and others?

      Would you say it is normal for a land owner to offer an extension to an existing lease on a delapidated building in order for it (the lease) to be sold to a third party?

      Delete
    6. Seems you are trying to learn about a subject on which you are clearly ignorant in one thread, whilst trying to pontificate on the same subject elsewhere. I suggest you learn before trying to have a conversation boy.

      Delete
    7. I suggest you go and hassle people in some other distant town from where you live, John Hamilton. Nobody is wearing you any more.

      In this conversation I am interested to find out facts from someone who clearly knows something. Which, unsurprisingly, isn't you.

      Delete
    8. I wasn't aware I had become a garment, how very entertaining.

      That you are starting to learn what I already know gives me a warm feeling inside my boy, I have encouraged you to deal with your obvious naivety, and happily you acknowledge your ignorance, and seek help from someone with patience enough to deal with you.

      Sadly, your gullibility remains an issue my boy.

      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.