I have been cracking on at the senior members
of the Labour group, two of the cabinet members are also my ward councillors, with
Pleasurama in the same ward, but I didn’t even get an answer from them.
The main man Alan Pool in this instance has
been away on holiday in the antipodes and although jetlagged hasn’t been caught
singing the non politically correct verse (Let me Abos go loose: They're of no
further use, Bruce) so it would appear he will be there whipping a Labour vote
to flog the Pleasurama saga at full council tomorrow.
Here is what he has to say:
Hi
Michael,
Cllr Driver is electioneering; he is merely
'band wagon jumping'......the KCC elections are in May!
I appreciate the Pleasurama saga has been
rumbling on for more years then I care to remember......there are far too many
nutty conspiracy theories surrounding this project!
Currently we have a lease in place that is
valid until 2017 and we cannot unilaterally change it.
It is very unlikely that the developers
will be able to raise the required finance in the current economic climate with
the current agreement. They have already invested a considerable amount of
money in the development.
If we do nothing the site will remain an
empty mess until at least 2017.
In all probability we will need to take
expensive legal action to get the site back and it is by no means certain that
we will get the site back.
If we do manage to get the site back we
will then need to find a new developer.... and they are not exactly queuing up
at our door.
In all probability we will also need a new
planning application (with flood risk assessment etc). The whole process could
take many more years!
From where I'm standing I believe the best
option for Ramsgate is to get the site developed ASAP and if we can do that by
'tweaking' the current agreement, so that it is easier for the developer to
raise the necessary finance, then that's what we will do.
We have built in a number of legal
safeguards to protect our interests but nothing is risk free.
We will not sign a new agreement until we
are fully satisfied that the necessary finance and hotel operator are in place.
I think this is the best opportunity that
we are likely to have to get this vital regeneration project completed in the
foreseeable future.
My understanding is that we are now very
close to completion..........
The two 'Motions to Council' (Full Council
6th December) are merely spoiling tactics by publicity seeking
individuals.........
Alan
(You are free to publish the above)
My take on this development for years has
been that at the very least it should be safe and regardless of my concerns
about cliff safety, which can be rejected or accepted by anyone who has read my
posts about it.
The flood risk is a different ball game because
the developer and council have chosen to ignore the Environment Agency’s strong
recommendations and it should be addressed.
This isn’t because there is no problem but because
of a loophole in the rules that the developer and council are using, here is
the link the EA’s letter for anyone who doubts what I am saying here http://michaelsbookshop.com/ea/
Because of this letter the development would
start out with a blight on it, making it more difficult to insure and at every
stage, from development loans to individual apartment owners mortgages, more
difficult to secure money againt.
Of course there are plenty of existing
properties on high risk flood zones, but new builds on one without a flood risk
assessment just don’t exist, because one is mandatory and no one else has the
loophole.
I am very conscious of once again being
where I was with the Conservative administration three years ago, where the now
Labour administration has the opportunity of getting us out of this ten year
mess, but for some reason of their own probably won’t.
Perhaps there was a donation made to either
or both parties at some time, with a tangle of different offshore companies
this would be difficult to find out as it could have come from anywhere.
I think in this case it is the hope of
raising some short term funding rather than any real hope that a reasonable development
will be built, may be a factor.
If they were sincere in wanting to benefit Ramsgate
they would have insisted on a flood risk assessment as part of the deal as part
of granting the developer the concessions he asked for.
I would say a reasonable approach towards
public safety is a minimum requirement to being seen as a positive administration.
Now however the emphasis has moved to the financial
side of the deal, with Cllr Driver’s comments and the motions by him and the
conservative group.
I guess if I put my legal hat on here I will
encounter considerable adverse comment, but here are some thoughts.
Starting with Ian Driver’s questions
relating to banking l
Banks letters genuine or otherwise may not significant
enough in the decision making process to invalidate the agreement amended 2009.
The council decision was do they take the
£1m deposit instead of the performance bond, not did the developer have the
funds to complete.
The officers wouldn’t have necessarily have
checked the documentation as they had recommended to the then Conservative
cabinet to reject taking the deposit instead of the bond and direct the
officers to terminate the development agreement.
The decision to go on with the reduced guarantee
and produce an amended development agreement delaying the finishing date to
2017 was that of the Conservative cabinet.
It did go to full council with a
Conservative working majority for final decision, but this was for forms sake,
the Conservative councillors wouldn’t have rejected it, whatever they thought, as
it would have been a show of no confidence in their leadership.
The Conservative cabinet then Ezekiel,
leader, Kirby, Latchford, Tomlinson, Wiltshire, Wise and Moores, could I guess
say they had been mislead. Perhaps the existing conservative Cabinet now Bayford,
Bruce, Moores,
xxxx, Wells and Wise could say they were mislead.
What happens if council just grab the land
back now.
Even if SFP didn’t take the council to
court, Cardys who invested money in it probably would, use the courts to try
and recover what they have spent.
My guess is the most expensive part of the
work since Cardys involvement was the subcontracted surface drain. You may remember
I tried to get the subcontractor to go around the underground toilets instead
they tried to go though them, this must have been expensive. You may also remember
I tried to get them to avoid the old sewage flushing sluice and instead they
dug it up to see what happened, before using a different approach, this must
have been expensive too.
I don’t know who paid the bill, if it was
Cardys I would guess this would be in the order £700k, I don’t think 9 months
of larking about afterward with three men and a digger can have cost all that
much.
One way or another though I guess about £1m
is involved here and as the council has already spent £1m on the cliff and is
just about to spend some more on it, things could clock up.
Ian Driver has had a response to his email to the chief
executive.
Dear Ms McGonigal
Further
to my e-mails to you of 27 and 28 November, I wondered if you are now in a
position to advise me whether the documents included in the
confidential Pleasurama Report
to Cabinet of 16 June 2009, were ever checked for authenticity and if not
what steps will now be taken to carry out these checks especially in light of
the concerns I have expressed to you.
I
did request in my e-mail of 27 November that I be provided with a copy of
this report and am surprised that I have not received it yet.
I
feel that I must point out that I am becoming increasingly concerned that my
e-mails to you are never acknowledged and that I must spend time chasing you
for replies.
I
am sure you will agree this is not an acceptable situation for an elected
member and chairman of a major panel to be placed in, particularly when
the issues I am raising have a considerable public interest element.
I
look forward to hearing from you.
Yours
sincerely
Ian
Driver
Chairman OSP
Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2012, 15:47
Subject: RE: Pleasurama
Dear Cllr Driver,
Firstly may I apologise that your emails have not been
acknowledged. With the volume of emails that I receive I do not routinely
acknowledge every email, particularly those from officers or Members of the
Council, as I ordinarily endeavour to reply within reasonable timescales. On
this occasion, I felt I was still within a reasonable timeframe, given that
only 5 working days had elapsed between your first request and your email
below, and given that I have had to recover old files in order to be able to provide
the requested confirmation. However, I will ask my PA to acknowledge your
correspondence in future.
Turning to your actual request - I can confirm that checks were
made in respect of the documents and the claims within the documents which were
included in the Cabinet report of 16 June 2009, and that these were deemed to
be satisfactory in the light of the decision that was being taken at that time,
and the associated risks of such decision. I would like to point out that
the report set out clearly that the supporting evidence attached to the report
"show how the project is being funded, but they do not prove funding"
and that the question for Members was "whether to proceed with the
Development Agreement on the basis that there is evidence to support, though
not absolute proof, funding is in place"; which of course, Members decided
was sufficient to proceed with the new development agreement.
I will again ask that you be provided with the full Cabinet
report.
Thank you for your suggestion regarding future due diligence in
your email of 28 November, I have noted this and will factor it in to our
verification process associated with the revised agreement.
Regards,
Sue
Dear Ms McGonigal
Thank you for your reply to
my e-mails.
I am pleased to note that
checks were made "in respect of the documents and the claims within the
documents ... and that these were deemed to be satisfactory".
However my e-mails to you
actually requested specific information about the nature of the checks which
were made namely -
1. "if checks have
ever been made with Nat West bank to ascertain if the letter on page 18 of the
report is genuine"
2. "if checks have
ever been made with SBP Bank to ascertain if the letters on pages 17 and 21 of
the report are genuine
3. what checks were were
made to establish the bona-fides of Wetmore Investments in 2009
I would be very grateful if
you could provide me with answers to these questions
My own feelings here are that there is something wrong that
goes back to 2002 under the Labour administration when the initial proposal Whitbread and SFP said that the
funding was to come from a Swiss bank at a time when the Swiss bank didn’t have
a banking licence.
“SFP Bank will be funding the project overall through SFP Ventures
Partners Ltd”
At this time Société Financière Privée S.A. (SFP) had a
licence as a stockbroker it later changed its name to Société Bancaire Privée
S.A. (SBP), it was granted a banking license from the Swiss Federal Banking
Commission (SFBC) on January 22, 2003, in addition to the securities trading
license it received in 1999. SBP was listed on the SWX Swiss Exchange. Société
Bancaire Privée (SBP), became Banque Profil de Gestion (BPDG) in 2009, there is
a fairly bumpy history of licensing.
I should point out here that SFP Ventures Partners Ltd turned out not to be part of Société Financière Privée S.A. (SFP) but a Virgin Islands Company, at this time Virgin Islands Companies were blacklisted in many financial circles due to their connections with money laundering.
My feelings are that the problems began when the council
decided on a project funded by a bank, with out checking that the bank was in
fact a bank and therefore in a position to fund an overseas development.
I have asked various people I know who are involved in
property transactions what they think the site is worth as a development site.
Answers are varied and between £10m and £20 the higher
figure relates to its worth with planning permission and the council being
responsible for the cliff maintenance and sea defence maintenance, which is the
case at the moment.
The difficulties with this are that no well known developer
would be likely to proceed without a flood risk assessment and the consensus
here is that this would be likely to make the base line about a metre higher.
The type of developer who would be prepared to proceed
without one, would be unlikely to get a development loan, for a new build on a
high risk flood zone without a flood risk assessment.
The lower end assumes starting from scratch and some
responsibility for the cliff management, the consensus being that funding for
the sea defence would come out of the national flood defence budget.
Finally I should point out that I have been fairly restrained in publishing supporting documentation, however if either Labour or conservative councillors feel that there is an imbalance between error in favour of one party or another I have some room to redress it.