Saturday, 16 February 2013

Pleasurama / Royal Sands Response from Alan Poole



Ed. I have just received the following by email from Cllr Allan Poole, I will respond to this and publish my responses, between the lines. If anyone has any thoughts that may assist in forming the responses please leave them as comments.   

Due to the concern in Ramsgate about the future of the Royal Sand (Pleasurama) site the council has received a considerable amount of correspondence, including yours. In response I have tried to set out below the main facts and the actual position relating to these, as the information both in the media, on blog sites and at local meetings may not represent the current position with complete accuracy:

·    Freehold - Whilst the council currently holds the freehold for the site, the future transfer of the freehold is already part of an existing agreement with the developer which was approved by the Council in 2006. This agreement also granted the developer three 199 year leases covering the whole of the site - granted to enable the developer to secure funding and have possession of the site for construction purposes. Following completion of the flats, commercial units and hotel, the freehold will pass to the developer. The agreement was made against the aim to achieve value from the council’s sites, as well as trying to address our top priority of generating sustainable employment.

·    The Current Agreement - The 2006 agreement was subsequently revised in 2009, at which time it was secured by a bond paid by the developer which will only be released on completion of the development. The freehold is still retained by the Council and the developer retains the long leases.

·    The Latest Discussions - The council has more recently been approached by the developer and asked to consider transferring the freehold before completion, at the signing of a new agreement, in exchange for the agreed sale value. In that event, in order to ensure that the agreed development goes ahead, the council will retain control of a number of flats within the development, which it will only release on practical completion and fitting out of the hotel.  In the event that another agreement is to be signed, the council will take the opportunity to strengthen the legal requirements should the site be transferred to another developer to ensure that all the provisions within the agreement are transferred to them as well.

·    Work on Site - Despite assertions to the contrary the developer has invested nearly £5 million in the site so far. This has funded cliff works undertaken by the council, as well as significant drainage and road works. In addition, this has also included the foundation works completed on site and the associated design works, as well as the bond payment (mentioned above) that has been paid to the council.

·    Development Funding - The developer has been seeking in excess of £20 million of external funding to allow the completion of the site, and this has proved very difficult since the revised agreement was signed in 2009. In the current financial climate the banks and other lending institutions are reluctant to financially back investments on land outside of a freehold than they used to be.

·    Development Funding - Under the current agreement, if a development financier wanted to exercise ‘step in’  rights because the developer was  in financial  difficulties, they would take on all the liabilities associated with the development, which would not be the case if the developer held the freehold - hence the latest request for an earlier transfer of  the freehold

·                                                                                            Compliance with Agreement - It is a fact, despite assertions to the contrary, that the main fundamentals of the agreement have been met by the developer. Although the development is due to be completed in 2014 under the agreement, there are provisions that this can be extended to 2017 if market circumstances dictate this; and given the existing national economic position any such request would have to be given proper consideration. The Council could decide to refuse a request for an extension taking into account the slow progress of the development to date. However given the amount of funds already invested we would expect the developers to make a legal challenge to this. This would inevitably result in expensive and uncertain litigation, therefore the council would need to consider its chances of succeeding in terminating the agreement against the cost of legal action. More importantly, it must be noted that even if the council was successful, there would remain the long leases which the developer holds, which would remain valid even if the agreement was terminated. It would take further legal action by the Council in order to terminate those leases and recover possession of the site, the success of which would also be uncertain.


·    Financial Return - There have been some misconceptions about the value of the site and that this has been undervalued. However, this has been looked at in some depth by the council’s professional property officers and for a site on which all the investment cost and risk lies with the developer the council is getting above the market average for this type of deal based on the calculated profit. This even excludes the wider benefit of a hotel being constructed on the site that reduces the possible profit margin for the developer.

·    Due Diligence  -  The council has already set out its requirements before accepting a revised agreement, and one of these is in relation to due diligence on the funding of the development. Despite concerns raised about this, the deal has always required the large majority of funding to come from external lenders, and the council’s focus will be primarily on whether this is financially robust. However, as an external lender will be providing a large amount of funding the council will also be taking some assurance from their due diligence processes as part of the approval process, due to the level of risk to them.

·    Nature of Proposed Development - the question of whether this is the correct development for the site has been raised since it was first discussed over 10 years ago. Although this is a fair question, and will remain so, it does not provide a route forward for the council. The development has a valid and enacted planning application for the proposals, and has a valid development agreement under which it can be constructed if the funding is available. These cannot be set aside without legal action and as explained above, this has limited chance of success at this stage.

·    Action by council - The council has already agreed to consider its options in relation to the current agreement and action to be taken if matters are not moved further by the developer before the end of May 2013.

·    Alternatives - Due to the issues discussed above there is no advantage to considering alternatives at this stage.

88 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon you obviously have issues, personal insults are neither helpful nor are they constructive, to those of us who have to live with it, the Pleasurama fiasco has a history that runs through both political parties running our administration and failing to deliver anything more that a horrible mess.

      Delete
    2. As is becoming increasingly apparent then Michael, it is left to those of us who reveal our identity as residents to comment on this, and other matters.

      It is a shame this summary was not given out when first requested by Cllr Driver, or at least a timetable given for a full response. It was a bit silly of Cllr Poole to just tell us in response that he didn't see any other developer queuing up to take this on. Maybe if councillors did not get so personally wound up by each other, this failure to communicate to the electorate in the first instance would not have happened, giving rise to conspiracy theories as it has (and that is not to say I am ruling them out).

      On a small note in passing, I believe Cllr Driver asked about details of interest on the bond. Perhaps just another oversight, and nothing personal?

      Delete
    3. Cllr Driver is bi-sexual but Alan Poole is not

      Delete
    4. Why is this about sexuality?

      Delete
    5. Yes anon 3.35, why are you seeking to close down debate by mentioning the sexual orientation of Councillors? Stay on subject please.

      Delete
  2. Well done Michael, it's nice to see your not adverse to posting factual evidence after all.

    Cllr Poole should be congratulated for providing such clear and concise information.

    Onwards and Upwards....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poop Scoop, you don't actually think that Poole had anything to do with writing that email surely?

      Delete
  3. Councillor Alan Poole is a fair minded person. Lets not forget that it was Councillor Bob Bayford's team that could have done things differently.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's also not forget that it was Labour that signed up with this offshore developed nothing before company in the first place. It is a long saga of ineptitude by the council with both sides having quesyions to answer.

      Delete
    2. As a tory activist Ren how did you raise it?

      Delete
    3. So, if you are not a Labour luvvie you must be a Tory. How sweetly blinkered you are 6:31. I said both sides have been involved in this saga and both have to accept some of the blame, Labour for starting it off and the Conservatives for failing to sort it out when in office. Me, well my side are not involved for I am UKIP and, as such, only represented in Brussels such is our democracy.

      Delete
    4. No Ren I'm anti-idiot. You haven't explained how you raised Pleasurama as a Tory activist. Presumably you didn't and have jumped ship to UKIP to mess that up too? Farage is quiet on Pleasurama has he raised it in Brussels or should we ask the French to do it?

      Delete
    5. I never raised Pleasurama as a Tory activist because I am not one. I simply responded to one of those bigotted blinkered comments that wanted to make it all one party's fault. Fail to see, since we have not previously discussed my political allegiance, how you can claim I have jumped ship but then I detect something odd about your comment in general. You seem to want to pick a fight, to insult even. Farage is not a local representative so Pleasurama is nothing to do with him anymore than it is the European Parliament in Brussels.

      Anyway, since you claim you are anti-idiot, I suggest you look in a mirror and punch the reflection you see in the nose.

      Delete
    6. Ren you've said at length how you were a Tory activist and leafleted for Laura etc. Or is that not so?

      Farage is the Kent representative for EU so yes he is the local representative (indeed he spoke in Broadstairs a few months ago) and Pleasurama would be relevant for him and Brussels. If you don't know that then you're UKIP claims are likely to crash and burn.

      You need to look in the mirror and decide who you are and what you're saying. So far it's unbelievably idiotic.

      Delete
    7. In a democracy I thought I could support whatever party I choose and currently that is UKIP. I am, at heart, a small 'c' conservative but David Cameron and his appalling government are not. As for Nigel Farage, he is leader of UKIP and, as such, speaks all round the country and his attendance in Broadstairs does not make him a Thanet politician anymore than Brussels, despite its over interference in British affairs, is dealing with local planning issues.

      Of course you knew all that, but you are all about wind ups, not real debate or substance. Since such is your childish pleasure why don't you get yourself a clockwork toy so you can indulge it to your hearts content.

      Delete
  4. What exactly could they have done differently? The information shown above seems clear and blows the conspiracy theory out of the water.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We can all have a grown up discussion about what could have been done differently once I know whom I am addressing. Presumptuous of you to suggest that no misfeasance has occurred?

      Delete
    2. Solo what has this got to do with gay issues you can't keep blaming conservatives for everything?

      Delete
    3. We are not victims anon 3.31. Stay on subject please.

      Delete
    4. Solgays has referred twice in this debate to not having anonymous comments etc but is posting under a nickname. He/she needs to decide if they're anonymous or not and if/what gay issues are relevant for Pleasurama or indeed Thanet. Details please.

      Delete
    5. When I signed up for this, Google made quite clear that nicknames are allowed. I just thought that would be rather fun?

      Delete
    6. Sure, but you're criticising people for being anonymous which is what you are. And detail on gay issues?

      Delete
    7. I do not see any harm in people posting under a nick name, providing they stick to it. So that the rest of us are able to follow their train of thought. What is irritating and confusing is the ubiquitous practice of various people slinging comment around as anonymous. Sometimes I get the impression that these anonymice are arguing with themselves. Importantly, by setting up a google identity under your chosen name you can prevent people from posting as you. As Solo Gays and others have done. I do not know who Solo Gay is, but this does not matter because I can still follow his argument.

      Delete
    8. I think you need to read through very carefully what I have said anon 5.14. I don't think you will be able to substantiate your allegation.

      If you want to join my community group to learn about gay issues, you will have to talk to the Lead on Equality & Diversity in Thanet Council, which is Cllr John Worrow.

      Delete
    9. I agree with John. I couldn't be bothered rereading Sologays posts but Sologays was criticising others for being anonymous, which is what Sologays is.

      And the opportunity to speak up on gay issues is just whatever Worrow says by the sounds of it, whatever that may be.

      Can anyone else - or Sologays again - explain what are gay specific issues in thanet?

      Delete
    10. So you agree with John that it is a good idea to work under a chosen identity to prevent misrepresentation? Good.

      As far as my allegedly criticising those who choose to post anonymously is concerned; you need to understand that I myself had to start that way, but quickly took advice and assumed a consistent identity. So I am hardly going to criticise anonyimty per se am I? I think you will find that the tone of my contribution here is more one of disapointment, that it is hard to follow who is saying what, because of not being able to distinguish between anonymous contributors. It's not personal, but certainly discussion between users with an established identity need to display integrity and show good manners if we are going to make the most of being online.

      If you are after an apology, you will have to select the phrase you find most offensive, we can then break it down from there to see if your complaint holds water.

      The issue is about Pleasurama here, so anyone with an established identity is unlikely going to debate gay issues with you (I said unlikely, so I could be proved wrong!). Thanet Council has a legal duty to protect and facilitate discussion between protected groups(gay people being one of them) and the wider community. John Worrow can only work within that legal framework.

      Delete
    11. Shame then that John Worrow does not stick to that framework instead of regularly branding all and sundry, and particularly Tories, as homophobes. If anyone has set back the LGBT cause in Thanet by years it is that man.

      Delete
    12. So to paraphrase Sologays is anonymous and now says they don't criticise other anonymouses. So what. The rest of it was word-fart.

      And he/she refuses to explain any gay issues at all. And support of Worrow seems knee-jerk again without any explanation of what are the gay issues.

      I'm not sure TDC or any council has a legal duty for protected groups whatever that means, or that gay people are protected.

      Delete
    13. Yes 7.03 I hear what you are saying, but you must remember that the last Tory administration chose not to introduce an Equality and Diversity Lead. I wonder why?

      7.20, there are nine protected groups altogether, and everyone will make up at least three of them at some time in their lives. You must also take into account the friends and relations of all the other protected groups.

      I suspect the current administration will get around to explaining John's role soon. It's just they do appear to have had a lot of other issues to deal with presently.

      Delete
    14. Solo Gays, a word of warning, you are engaging with a provocative anonymous who seems to get his kicks by winding up others. Elsewhere in this thread he attacks Ren Wood and accuses her, on not a shred of evidence, of jumping ship politically whilst here he seeks to attack you. Ultimately he will start slinging around the insults having already started by dismissing your earlier comment as word-fart. Soon you will be stupid, talking rubbish and accused of things you never said. You have been warned.

      Delete
    15. Solo Gays,

      Tom is correct. It matters not what you say. For the sole purpose of this well known troll is to bait you. Have fun playing around with him if you wish; but you cannot share a discussion. On balance he is best ignored.

      Delete
    16. Sologays, maybe they didn't introduce a Diversity post because there are no gay issues. You can't detail any. What are the 9 protected groups and what does that mean in practice? John's role is for John i would have thought?

      Don't worry about Tom and John the old boys don't get out much. Clarkey especially is stupid, talks rubbish and accuses you of things you never said, but they're harmless unless you mention Manston and pollution then they froth.

      Delete
    17. You are very funny. I like you.

      Delete
    18. Anonymouse 8:23PM,

      You are incorrigible.

      You are also a crushing boor.

      Delete
    19. We are all focused on our different issues here 6.51 and 7.12, which I am sure are coming together in some way.

      I suppose it's hard to get councillors to focus on the important issues you raise, certainly in the early stages at least, either they are too young, too busy fighting each other, busy with their vanity projects etc etc. Oh, and not to mention setting budgets to give money to civil servants that do us so proud.

      I don't think this is the right forum to be raising gay related issues. There are things that Thanet Council have done to us that are not right, and I am quietly plugging away at that.

      As for the Equality Act 2010, requiring Local Authorities to have a dialogue with groups that have a "Protected Characteristic";
      well, you could say that is a breakthrough for us regarding the issues I am pursuing? And I agree Manston pollution plays a part in the mix here as well.

      Delete
    20. Anonymouse 6:51AM,

      You claim that I misuse big words. I disagree. I described you as being incorrigible: that is a person of bad behaviour that is impossible to change or improve.

      I also called you a boor. A Boor is a person with rude, clumsy manners and little refinement.

      My use of these words as applied to you was apt. Apt means being of striking appropriateness and pertinence.

      In other words you are are prize twit.

      There is a chance albeit remote that you will scuttle off to a dictionary in search of words with which to retaliate. Do not bother. Just keep listening to those voices in your head.

      Delete
    21. Fair points Sologays but with Manston pollution it's more specific than you say with TDC actually helping Infratil remove the monitoring and refusing to replace it. Similarly the illegal overflights which are not even raised let alone fined by TDC and KIACC.

      By all means raise any specifc gay issues but there seem none except the Aids Gregory nastiness and, I certainly don't think TDC discriminates against gays. Cottaging and public toilets/parks for example is a problem in Thanet that gays could easily prevent.

      You haven't mentioned the 9 groups, but you seem to be arguing not for equality but favouritism for gays: councils have a responsibility for a dialogue with everyone? You could argue TDC manage to fail everyone equally but that's a separate point.

      Delete
    22. 9.35 People are so busy, as well as divided on so many issues, you would think it would take a miracle to come together to agree to take action for the common good. These forums are really all we have at the present time.

      I have of course pondered issues to do with power, and promoting Community Cohesion figures pretty prominently. Maybe cruising toilets is something gays could tackle? It is certainly something I have no influence over. Surely though, by closing down toilets in the guise of saving money, is something that just hurts everyone? We had some really interesting ornate toilets around Thanet, all mostly bulldozed, replaced by depressing looking boxes.

      We can only raise the issues between us, I certainly have not got all the answers, What I can do here, is re-state, that Community Cohesion, or talking to groups that share a protected characteristic, or facilitating discussion between protected groups and the wider community, is the responsibility of TDC. I do at least have an open channel of communication with them.

      Put bluntly, if you were not prepared to listen to me, I would not be reciprocating now. I do agree with John though, that your tone is very abrasive and challenging. But I understand this is a sympton of the isolation and frustration you feel. But we have all been there.

      Delete
    23. Anon 6:51, what precisely has Ren Wood's political allegiance got to do with me? She seems more than capable of fighting her own battles and, although I may agree with her from time to time, I would not presume to comment on her behalf.

      I see you are also back to your ageism insults referring to old John. Do you really have such a problem with your own advancing dotage. John and I may not be spring chickens but at least we do not have a problem with nature's course of growing older. You seem to be the epitomy of the angry old man seeking to blame all and sundry for what you percieve as your misfortunes in life and find some solace in insulting others. Frankly you are a very sad individual and, frankly, a rather nasty piece of work in the process.

      Delete
    24. Tom,

      He is also a buffoon.

      (For the benefit of anonymouse a Buffoon is: either a rude or vulgar fool; or a person who amuses others by ridiculous behaviour; or both. My preference is for the first definition).

      Delete
    25. What a troubled soul 3:46 is proving himself to be. Obsessed with age and stupidy in others but refusing to face up to his own shortcomings. Now the gay community come into his zone for close to the wind insults, as does anyone who challenges his nonsensical and unsubstantiated statements.

      His arguments are totally devoid of logic suggesting, of course, that he himself has no chronological thought process. My conclusion from his comments is that here is an aging man, of limited IQ and from a working class background. Hence the tendency to attach the letter 'y' to people's names, whereas in more affluent society it would be 'ers,' and he evidently inflates his own low esteem by seeking to belittle others.

      All in all, a troubled, lonely individual whose only outlet is to hate, particularly within the anonymity afforded by the internet.

      Delete
    26. In a now deleted post the anonymouse told me that I am 'indirigible'. This word does not exist. But then neither does Mr Anonymouse, save in his own twisted mind.

      Delete
  5. I think it must be about 20 years since Jimmy Godden decided he wanted to buy the freehold of the site and started negotiations to develop the site and acquire the freehold.

    The council managed to lose the insurance money when the buildings on it burnt down.

    It swallowed up a chief executive: “The Cabinet recommendations were:
    That a vote of no confidence in the Chief Executive be agreed for instructing the Director of Support Services, without consulting the Leadership, to cease communicating with the Leaseholder and BNB Bond in regard to the Ramsgate Boulevard development (i.e. Pleasurama Site), and also for instructing the Director of Support Services not to attend an informal Cabinet meeting held on 9 August 2001.”

    I don’t really think we are very much further down the line from a desire to acquire the freehold.

    This problem spans periods of both administrations and I don’t think trying to apportion party political blame is the answer.

    Having examined the document that Allan Poole sent me, it came as a MS Word Document locked and password protected by the council’s director of operational services.

    I don’t think what it says would have been any different or would have had a different author if we had a Conservative led administration.

    Incidentally, are all the comments in this thread by anonymous from the same person?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just out of interest Michael, who is the Director of Operational Services?

      Delete
    2. Oh yes, I remember him, dealt with some FOI requests I made awhile back. He passed them onto someone else to deal with. 3 out of 4 requests were satisfactorily answered. It was the one that remains unanswered is the one I still would like to know more about.

      Delete
    3. Looking back again at your 7.37 post of Feb16 Michael, you say:-

      "Having examined the document that Allan Poole sent me, it came as a MS Word Document locked and protected by the council's director of operational services"

      Perhaps what I should have asked was:- what is the document Allan Poole sent you? And were you actually able to read it?

      Delete
    4. SG the document is the red part of the post above, what I would like to know is what Allan thinks about the issue.

      Delete
  6. What puzzle me is if the developer has paid a £1 million bond and has invested £5 millions already on the project this would be shown in their accounts as assets. Also very strange that the developers agent claims that the developer has built similar in Portugal and I also belive a claim for Ipswich but even cllr Poole had to admid in the BBc interview that there is no evidence of this. It woyld be very easy for the developer to come clean on this and give details. Maybe now that TDC is being a bit moore helpful cllr Poole can also now answer the previous questions on where the bond is held and what the interest arrangements are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good points Man of Kent: I doubt any work at the site is £5m. That and the £1m bond would be detailed. The developer is based in Ipswich (or the company registered there). Painter says Keegan worked on various developments with him in Portugal. With Godden dying I;m not sure who controls the site/company now?

      Delete
    2. Manofkent apart from a £600k contribution to the KCC highways works and £100k contribution to the TDC funded cliff works, I can find no evidence of your £5m, the £1m bond and the £500 payment for the leases which would be returnable I guess if the council take the land back.

      The contractor Cardy construction were also said (2009 cabinet papers) to be investors to the tune of £1.5m, they subcontracted the surface drain which I estimate to have cost about £800k and did three men and a digger for nine months on site which I don’t think could have cost more than about £200k.

      I guess it all depends on the intention, but if this is some sort of land banking scheme then it doesn’t seem like a very big punt.

      Too many aspects of the design look wrong to convince me that there is an intention to develop.

      Delete
  7. Michael I think you have hit the nail on the head here no intention to build just grab the freehold sell to the highest bidder nice little earner if you can get away with it tdc fell for it hook line & sinker

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael & Anonymous,

      I agree. All the evidence suggests to me that SFP have no intention to develop. Surely TDC must realise this also. They are not stupid.

      Delete
    2. So SFP/Cardy have spent c.£1-2M at Pleasurama and now want the freehold and planning permission (with TDC owning some of the flats)?

      But there was also separate costs/work funded by KCC and TDC for roads etc?

      The taxpayer seems to have by far the worst of this, and it's still derelict - Mark Seed is in in charge of it at TDC and Alan Poole is the councillor responsible?

      It's clear the whole lot will be cancelled and not a brick will be laid at the site - pledges during the elections wil ensure both that and getting to the bottom of this sorry saga. What's happening at Dreamland and Arlington also formerly owned by Godden? The last I heard was another planning inquiry/CPO by c.April?

      Delete
    3. I remember seeing another Seed to do with Broadstairs Town Council. I wonder if they are related?

      Delete
    4. By reporting homophobic councillors to the police puts gay rights back by years. Better to cover things up Guyz and Girls

      Delete
    5. We've got that covered thanks.

      Delete
  8. No Sologay they are not related. Although Tim Seed at Broadstairs TC is a Director of Cardy Construction, but is only a Town Cllr and has no connection to District at all.

    On various previous posts. The summary published in Alan Pooles name is probably a fair summation of the TDC position and its legal implications which any or all Cabinet Members who have dealt with this matter will have seen and discussed. Whilst it does answer some of the more fanciful conspiracy theories to a point, and lays out the difficulties the council may have in taking precipitate action,it still leavessome questions unanswered. Why the skeleton was not used at the public meeting instead of relying on insult and backtracking is a direct question for Cllr Poole.

    I read with interest Michael's admission of the role of Pleasurama in the departure of a previous Chief Executive, something often denied and covered over by the then Labour leader and deputy leader, Richard Nicholson and Iris Johnston - who also were responsible for the original decision to contract with a company on whom proper due diligence could never be undertaken, given their offshore status. When I said this in the 2009 debate I was threatened with all sorts by Mr Nicholson - funnily enough he never followed through. Rumour has always claimed the due diligence difficulties were part of the problem with the departing chief executive - I add I have nothing but rumour to report on that point. It is an interesting time to add this to themix given Michael's previous ongoing support for Labour in all things Ramsgate, until they let him down on this one!

    For the record, I know who Sologay is; I met him on a number of occasions during my time in TDC Cabinet, and corresponded with him by email on a number of occasions as well. As I recall we had a perfectly amicable working relationship, as I had with many others whose role was to put their group's views on particular aspects of council policy and implementation. We did not always agree, but could disagree in a manner which did not produce, for me at least, the sorts and types of generic accusation of underlying homophobia which characterise any element of debate now. Indeed the gentleman had some interesting ideas about consultation and democratic process which did not relate to his sexual orientation. I also spent much time with John Worrow in his pre 'independence'days as a cllr and council candidate, and one of the pieces of advice I frequently gave him was that he could not afford to be a single issue cllr, bringing any and every issue he deals with back to gay politics, because he would marginalise himself from voters very quickly, and incidently, make it much harder for voters to accept any fututre openly gay candidates because of the track record and reputation he would have created. The Diversity Champion role may exist in law, but it does not exist in John Worrow - he was simply bought off with a sop for support of the current administration. Sologay,whilst on occasion undoubtedly upsetting some officers and cllrs, seemed, and seems to understand that point much better, and contributed, and contributes here on a much broader perspective. It is a sad observation on how the Worrow/Driver approach to sexual politics taht Sologay should be judged by their actions not his own by commentators to this blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris I guess the main aspect of this where the Conservatives are failing us here in Ramsgate is their failure to provide a proper opposition, in fact the only councillor opposition at the moment seems to be Cllr Driver.

      In this instance we have a major development being discussed at a public meeting, the BBC turns up, Labour councillors turn up and so does Cllr Driver, I didn’t, when the meeting started I was at work, perhaps this is the excuse of Conservative Councillors.

      Recently two documents related to the Pleasurama fiasco have come into the public domain one being the district auditors report 2001/2 on the project and the other the private document pack for the 2009 cabinet decision to go against officer advice and continue with SFP.

      As you can see from Mark Seed’s document above, the council consider their options very limited when it comes to extracting themselves from this particular mess. I think a key problem here is was the 2009 Conservative cabinet decision based on realistic information, or was the information supplied by SFP economical with the truth.

      The money to complete the development was almost entirely based on letters from SFP’s bankers SBP, however at the time of the 2009 meeting SBP bank didn’t exist.

      Obviously if the then Conservative cabinet approved the 2009 variation that grants the 2017 extension, based on false information then this extension has no validity and the council can immediately extricate itself from the 20 years of mess and disaster surrounding Pleasurama.

      I think in the first instance if the Conservative group were to decide if they was done over or not and then either to give their reasons for issuing the variation, reduction in financial grantees and so on, or to fess up and say “we was done and wouldn’t have issued them if the documentation supplied was real and true and reasonable” then it would go a long way to resolving this mess.

      Delete
    2. Michael,

      If you want to solve this issue in any way you have to stop playing politics and work with anyone who wishes to sensibly resolve things. You accuse the conservative group of failure in opposition, but never report their role in putting the original motions with cllr Driver; when we produced a press release echoing some of your concerns you derided it; and in response to my recent comments immediately drag the post back to the 2009 decision as the root problem. It may be adjudged to be a problem but the root problem lay with the decision to select SFP as contractor in the first place. Can I suggest you ask for the DVD of the planning debate in 2009 and listen to the contributions and the vote. You may be surprised by what you hear - even your blood red filters cannot deny what was actually said and why. You ask for support, subject support to caustic criticism when it is offered, then complain you are unsupported. Do your homework better so you can speak from an informed view for a change.

      Delete
    3. It is not often I agree with Cllr Chris Wells views expressed on blogs, but on this occasion he is absolutely right, I know the Sologays group and probably the individual posting under that name, good luck to him in his life choices, that is not the subject of this blog post.

      However TDC in their dealings with SFP Venture Partners Ltd ( Not SFP Ventures (UK) Ltd - their front Company) are dealing with anonymous individuals who are almost certainly locally based and may in fact be TDC councillors. This is the issue which should be debated and answers demanded, not somebody's sexual orientation, which basically to me is old news, get over it, it's their choice.

      Who are SFP Venture Partners Ltd , and why should they be allowed to RUIN Ramsgate Seafront.!!!!!!

      From Alan Poole's (Mark Seed's) reply there is nothing much that will change on May 22nd when the 4 month time limit is up.

      DEMAND THAT SFP VENTURE PARTNERS LTD IDENTIFY THEMSELVES IF THE WISH TO PURCHASE THE FREEHOLD OF THE SITE.

      Delete
    4. Your last sentence is a reasonable demand to make Mr Readit. But Michael has not long replied to an earlier post I have made here about the Mark Seed summary, in that he seeks the PERSONAL opinion of Allan Poole in this matter, not a lawyers summary.

      I do not seek to promote "life choices" as you put it, and I have tried unswervingly to keep this debate on track for Michael. I am entitled to use any nickname I like as long as I can prove history of its use.

      Delete
    5. Solo Gays,

      I totally agree with you and I believe Cllr Chris Wells does, you were not here promoting your life choices but trying to discuss the matter in hand. We both post under pseudonyms but many people know who we are, whereas the trolls who try to subvert these conversations under anonymity are usually shallow, crass and with little original comment.

      Delete
    6. Readit

      Thankyou. You may remember you drew my attention to your blogsite a little under two years ago now. It has taken me awhile to cotton onto the potential in blogs. I am grateful to you, and to the rest of the community here, for advice regarding the impact these trolls can have.

      Delete
    7. Chris just checked on the press release http://thanetpress.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/minority-labour-administration.html#comment-form to see what I said, I don’t appear to have commented on it, nor do I remember deriding it, can you please clarify what you mean?

      As for my going back to the 2009 decision when replying to your comments about Pleasurama as far as I understand this was the only occasion that you had anything to do with the decision making process, hence my asking you what happened in a closed meeting that you were at and I want allowed to access information about.

      My understanding is that the cabinet of which you were part went against officer advice, took no notice whatsoever of my concerns at the time and now the documents SFP submitted, some coming from a nonexistent bank, I am asking you, were you deceived and was the decision based on this deception?

      If there was a planning debate about Pleasurama I am unaware of it, can you give me the date an I will ask for the DVD the only Pleasurama debate I am aware of in 2009 was the public and press excluded cabinet meeting which I would be unable to get a DVD of.

      As for the selection off the developer I have found and published the 2002 document that was part of the presentation that Labour made the decision to select this developer with, this is also based on a Swiss bank that didn’t exist, I have asked the labour councillors about this on numerous occasions here, on David Green’s blog and by email, I haven’t managed to get any answer from them either.

      One way or another if councillors were mislead by SFP then they will have to do the unthinkable and admit to having made a mistake, or we will still be debating this issue in another twenty years.

      Delete
    8. Ken Readit, obviously the whole reason for setting up an offshore company is to conceal the identities of the people involved, when I questioned this I was assured by the council that this situation had been rectified in 2006 by setting up SFP Ventures UK.

      However the council documentation relating to the council meeting 2009 meeting shows that this wasn’t in fact the case and that in 2009 the council were actually still dealing with SFP Ventures Partners BVI.

      I guess if I was looking to find out who was behind SFP Ventures Partners BVI I would look to the site history immediately before they registered an interest in 2002.

      See http://tdc-mg-dmz.thanet.gov.uk/Data/Cabinet/20031016/Agenda/$Agenda%20Enclosure%206.doc.pdf

      Delete
    9. Your post Tuesday 11 September 2012 and associated comments Michael.

      Apologies it was not a planning debate but the full council debate I was referring to, whcih, from memory, did not exclude the public from all. However, given yur magical powers to reroduce confidential material from the council I wondered.......

      Truth is it was not a party vote but split across the chamber, as was the China Gateway vote around the same time, which is where as a senile old bloke I may be getting confused.

      Delete
    10. from a 2008 letter to the council and held in the directory on the 2009 agreement. "SFP Venture Partners are 100% owned by SFP Services" (SFP Services are now SOGIP Services) who are managed by Colin Hill (he has a 13.71% stake of SFP Bank (now Banque Profil de Gestion) and he is Shaun KEEGAN'S SON IN lAW

      Delete
    11. Who Do You Think You Are?July 10, 2013 9:10 am

      Well Kate Middleton's child will be the 23rd cousin twice removed from Beyoncé's child which proves conclusively that TDC must have known this and failed to take it into account when granting the lease to SFP. Furthermore, Shaun Keegan is also probably the 23rd cousin twice removed to both Beyoncé and Kate making his involvement even more questionable in that he should have declared his diva and royal connections in the book of interests. Can TDC get any shadier or is it simply because their offices are on a north facing coast and over shadowed by Arlington House (where, wait for it, one of the directors of Freshwater is also Beyoncé's 23rd cousin twice removed except on Sundays).
      The plot gets ever murkier, so Louise is planning further injunctions and FORS are all sharpening their pencils. Driver, meantime, who is 23rd cousin twice removed to somebody of no consequence whatsoever oop north, has scraped his knees after falling off a passing bandwagon.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Presumably as usual you have absolutely no proof that the CEO said TDC was corrupt, just your brand of hearsay. So what exactly is the 0% fraud. I know you have been asked before but you have never explained.

      Delete
    2. Not sure if that was a genuine comment from Richard Card as he has a blogger id which wasn’t used so I doubt it, I am taking it as part of the effort to post libel here in order to close this blog down and deleting it.

      Delete
  10. Chris,

    You say that the summary published in Poole's name is probably fair. It is certainly written in lawyer speak, however there are many gaping inadequacies. One of the more obvious is that no confirmation has been given that all of the documentation including the representations made by the developer at the outset has been considered by a specialist barrister. If I recall correctly amongst the many representations made by the developer was that the finances were in place and guaranteed. I do accept that Nicholson and Johnston would look pretty stupid for not having applied proper due diligence in their haste to sell the site, and for not gaining a guarantee of available finance. Perhaps the Chief Executive was sacked by Nicholson and Johnstone for raising awkward questions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris's days are looking numbered if he's unable to speak out on these issues. Wasn't he in charge of the airport at one point? A police investigation should help too.

      Delete
  11. If you want to solve this issue in any way you have to stop playing politics and work with anyone who wishes to sensibly resolve things. You accuse the conservative group of failure in opposition, but never report their role in putting the original motions with cllr Driver; when we produced a press release echoing some of your concerns you derided it; and in response to my recent comments immediately drag the post back to the 2009 decision as the root problem. It may be adjudged to be a problem but the root problem lay with the decision to select SFP as contractor in the first place. Can I suggest you ask for the DVD of the planning debate in 2009 and listen to the contributions and the vote. You may be surprised by what you hear - even your blood red filters cannot deny what was actually said and why. You ask for support, subject support to caustic criticism when it is offered, then complain you are unsupported. Do your homework better so you can speak from an informed view for a change.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Offensive and off topic......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PS I am doing my best to manage what I take to be offensive and or libellous comment, aimed at closing this blog down, from my mobile phone using the spam page. Best not to reply to it, I will zap it as soon as I notice it.

      Delete
  13. Michael, typical comment from Chris Wells "Do your homework better so you can speak from an informed view for a change." At least he didn't on this occasion compare you to some obnoxious animal as he did another Thanet blogger whose's views he disliked.
    He suggests you can get hold of the 2009 planning meeting DVD, if its that easy I am sure you will soon have one, on the other hand it could just be a ploy by him.
    Maybe the 2009 planning DVD can highligh whether an over sized development was passed. I am sure that there are many that will be very cross if any part is higher than the cliff.

    Cllr Poole mentions the creation of jobs as one of the reasons for the development being so important, an arguement used for excesses elsewhere but so far the eyesore at Pleasureama has had a detrimental effect on tourism jobs.

    If the developer is in default if they fail the 2017 deadline then in the grand scheme of things thats not so far off and if these unknown developers lose a lot of cash then tough on them,
    and its far better then to giving in to any blackmail. Blackmailers come back for more.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I asked cllr Poole about job creation on the development at the public meeting, stating that realistic job opportunities are sparse and seasonal. He shrugged his shoulders, giggled abit and said there would be work when the work gets started down there. Not very optimistic for future job creation.
      Ps I tried to enter my name but don't have an URL, whatever that's.

      Delete
    2. I put my name in in the name box and url which is another name for the web address at the top you know www.wosisname.thing so I put the address of this blog in, if it works when I click on publish, it works.

      when I go off to bed and turn this off for the night, you will only be able to comment if you have a google blogger account, but I will turn anyone can comment on when I have had breakfast.

      Delete
    3. Yes, but you are not Michael Child. Which is easy to tell.

      Delete
  14. In an attempt to reduce the overnight spam and inappropriate comment I have change the comment settings stopping anonymous comment I will allow them again in the morning once I have had an adequate breakfast.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Maybe the person now standing in Maidstone Crown Court (no 7) could give your a 2009 meeting DVD?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The dodgy deal had already been done six years before 2009 so that DVD would be a bit like watching TV at Christmas, all repeats.

      Delete
  16. Chris Wells

    Could you explain why TDC removed 106 clauses - like the overage agreements and affordable housing?

    ReplyDelete

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.