As the Ramsgate Pleasurama development deal collapses Into uncertainty
and confusion, desperate Thanet Council bosses have issued a Question and
Answer crib sheet to soothe nerves and steady the ship. But hang on a minute,
instead of publishing the Q&A on the Council’s website and issuing a press
release about it, this important document appears to be intended to be secret. According to an email I have seen the Q&A “has been prepared for Councillors only
and is not being issued externally”. Excuse the bad language but keeping
this important document secret form the
public is nothing less than taking the
piss out of Ramsgate residents! That’s
why I am publishing it in full below.
For more than 20 years the people of Ramsgate have been
forced to endure having their seafront blighted by the stalled Pleasurama
development. I do not believe there
is another seaside town in all of the UK in which a large area of its seafront
has been blighted, overshadowed and despoiled by the presence of a massive derelict building site for such a
long period of time. The economic implications of this situation are
appalling. £millions worth of investment
in Ramsgate and the jobs that might have been created by it, have almost certainly been lost as a consequence
of the seafront dereliction. Many thousands of visitors have undoubtedly been
put off coming to Ramsgate because of the neglected run-down feel of the
seafront.This is simply not acceptable. Whatever their excuses and despite
their weasel words, the blame for this situation
lies entirely with Labour and Conservative councillors who could have done
much, much more to end the blight and dereliction
of Ramsgate’s seafront, but chose not to do so.
Surely it is the people of Ramsgate, who have had to live with the consequence of the bad choices of their politicians, who are owed a full and frank explanation of what is happening at the Pleasurama site. But no! Being true to its culture of North Korean style secrecy, the bosses at TDC act as if they do not need to be truthful and accountable to the people who pay their wages and to whom they are supposed to be accountable. Instead they mail secretive Q&A crib sheets to elected councillors, rather than publically publishing this information in and open and transparent way. This a disgraceful and undemocratic way to run a council.
But my anger and frustration over this tight lipped
approach to democratic accountability is focused most of all on Thanet councillors. I am astonished
that not a single councillor, especially
Ramsgate councillors, have had the guts,
decency and respect for their constituents to publish in full the Q&A crib sheet which
was circulated to them a week or so ago. Surely it is the democratic duty of elected councillors to keep their constituents
fully informed of what is going on, especially on important matters such as the
Ramsgate Pleasurama development which has now hit extremely seriously problems.
Yet, to the best of my knowledge not a
single councillor has publically mentioned the existence, or contents, of the secret
Q&A. This is an inexcusable piss take of the people of Ramsgate who, in my view,
are being treated like fools by their councillors.
Labour's Iris Johnston & Rik Everitt celebrate deal with Cardy which is now in trouble |
Labour’s TDC councillors for the Ramsgate area; Karen Constantine, Peter Campbell and Michelle Fenner, and the 2 Labour Ramsgate Town Councillors; Penny Newman and Susan Kennedy have been silent on this extremely important issue. To the best of knowledge not a single one of them has published the secret Q&A document, nor have any of them made any public statements about the worrying Pleasurama situation. Furthermore there has been no mention of Pleasurama on the South Thanet Labour Party website or the South Thanet Labour Facebook page. This is a gross dereliction of Thanet Labour Party’s duties and responsibilities as political opposition group and in neglecting these duties they have badly let down the people of Ramsgate who will continue suffer the economic consequence of the continuing dereliction of the seafront.
But Labour’s silence
might well be explained by the fact that it was they, when in charge of the council in 2014-15 who negotiated, approved and signed off the deal with Cardy which
is now unravelling so badly. It is their short-sighted and badly thought out
deal which was paraded by them as an election gimmick in 2015, which is now allowing associates of the former developer SFP
Ventures, to regain control and influence over the Pleasurama development and potentially gain ownership of the freehold of the land. Is there any wonder that
these incompetent so-called politicians now wish to remain silent in order to avoid attracting
attention to their own appalling failure and mismanagement of Pleasurama.
Here is the secret Q&A which your councillors were too
spineless to publish. It raises many more questions than it answers. I will be writing
more fully about the Q&A shortly. In the meantime feel free to comment on the document. Unlike
your councillors and TDC I am happy to promote free and open debate about what
is happening to Ramsgate seafront.
Background
The Council entered
into a development agreement for Royal Sands, Ramsgate with SFP Ventures Ltd in
2006 - which was subsequently modified in 2009. The development then stalled.
Both parties undertook a mediation process which resulted in discussions with
the introduction of Cardy Construction Limited to the process by SFP Ventures
Ltd. It was agreed in 2014 that Cardy would purchase SFP Ventures limited which
enabled them to renegotiate the terms of a new agreement with the council.
Further detailed
information can be found in the October 2014 Cabinet report at:http://democracy.thanet.gov.uk/documents/s39152/Royal%20Sands%20-%20Cabinet%20Paper%20final%2016%2010%2014%20version%203.pdf
Q 1. Who were the
parties to the 2015 agreement?
A new agreement was
entered into in March 2015 between SFP Ventures Ltd (since they had the benefit
of the 2006 development agreement with the council), Cardy Ramsgate Limited
(who agreed to purchase SFP Ventures Limited and purchase the freehold of the
site) and Cardy Construction Limited (who were the guarantors for SFP).
SFP Ventures Ltd is now
wholly owned by Cardy Ramsgate Limited.
Q 2. So who owns the
Royal Sands site?
It is now owned by
Cardy Ramsgate Limited.
Q.3. How much was paid
for the site and by whom?
The council received
£3.515m for the site.
This was made up as
follows: a sum of £550k was paid in 2009 by SFP Ventures Ltd in 2009 (under the
2006 agreement); a sum of £1m was paid as a deposit by SFP Ventures limited in
2009 (this deposit together with accrued interest formed part of the purchase
price); the balance of £1.96m was paid by Cardy Ramsgate Limited in 2016.
Q 4. What provisions
are in place to ensure that the site will be developed?
In the agreement, there
is a long-stop date of three and a half years with measurable milestones, by
which the site must be developed. If it is not developed then the council has
an option to buy it back.
The first milestone
relates to the completion of piling (and certified practical completion of that
piling) for the hotel within two years. The second milestone relates to
completion of the building works so they are ready to be fitted out within
three and a half years.
If those milestones are
not met, the council has an option to purchase the site back from Cardy
Ramsgate Limited.
Q 5. Hasn’t the piling
already been completed, if so, why was this condition imposed?
Only the hotel site
needs piling, together with the certificate of practical completion – which
Cardy Ramsgate Limited has two years to complete
Q 6. What is the impact
on the agreement, of Cardy Construction Limited’s insolvency?
Cardy Ramsgate Limited
is a stand-alone company, completely independent of Cardy Construction Limited.
Cardy Construction
Limited was identified as the builders by the original developer. The council
awaits confirmation of which contractor will be completing the building of the
development.
Q 7. Were any checks
carried out into Cardy Construction Limited prior to the council entering into
an agreement with them?
A due diligence process
was conducted into Cardy Construction Limited following the Cabinet decision in
October 2014. That process included:
· Evidence
of meeting funders requirements for the scheme and funding in place
· Development
viability appraisal
· Compliance
with TDC Money Laundering regulations
· Credit
Checks - 3 year audited accounts – including asset and liabilities statements
· Evidence
that Cardy Ramsgate Limited have purchased 100% share capital of SFP
Ventures Ltd
· Full
breakdown of Company structure and CVs on key individuals
Q.8 Why were there
delays with this scheme?
This has been a complex
agreement to put together given the history of the site and there were further
difficulties with completing the cliff works due to adverse weather conditions.
Q.9 There has been a
recent change to the directors of Cardy Ramsgate Limited, what difference does
that make?
Well said Ian: our councilors are useless. Publish all the info and costs - not a brick will be laid at Pleasurama and it needs cleaning up.
ReplyDeleteWhat do Cllr Bayford and estate agent Painter know about this? Keegan Also a Painter employee and SFP director?
ReplyDeleteAnd the opposition is solely Labour. I don't think so what has Bob Bayford done?
ReplyDeletein Ramsgate the opposition is Labour It has the most councillors after UKIP. But the Tories have also been tight lipped about this issue too.
DeleteQ 10. Were any checks carried out into Cardy Ramsgate Limited prior to the council signing the lease over to them since they are standalone ?
ReplyDeleteA right to buy back ? Mind boggles. Do I understand this right ? TDC is now holding no money as a surety against development of site ? But if it opts to use its buy back it will do so at 100% public expense at the price negotiated at that time.
ReplyDeleteGood point Mr Card. Check out Peterborough United Holdings Ltd Company number 04930471 Company dissolved after £8M recieved and a debenture still outstanding foe over £3M with Persons entitled Societe Bancaire Privee S.a
ReplyDelete