Driver, Green, Ward & Partners Who Speaks The Truth?

Greengate who is telling the truth?

Yesterday I published an article which claimed that former Labour councillors, David and Elizabeth Green, had converted the basement of their house at 27 La Belle Alliance Square into a self-contained flat. I also claimed that the Greens had not sought planning permission for this work, nor had they applied for building regulations approval for the works, and nor had they paid any council tax which might be liable to be paid for  the self-contained flat.

I stand by what I wrote and believe it to be true. My article was based on reputable public domain sources which I used in good faith believing them to be truthful and accurate. The sources were  –

·       A property description, photographs and floor plans for 27 La Belle Alliance Square which are/were published on estate agents, Ward & Partners website, the Zoopla and Right Move websites, and in a downloadable pdf brochure. I have copies of these documents.

·       A “what the owner says” statement about 27 La Belle Alliance Square based upon what Ward and Partners   describe an “insightful interview with the owner”. I have a copy of the this statement

·       Thanet council’s record of planning applications and building regulation applications for 27 La Belle Alliance Square

·       The Valuation Office council tax register entry for 27 La Belle Alliance Square

·       The Valuation Office guidance booklet “Council Tax and annexes”

·       Planning portal

David Green has contacted me and said that

“the basement of 27 La Belle Alliance is current an office associated with the main building it does not have separate utilities and so is not a separate dwelling. The estate agents blurb should say potential for conversion to a separate self-contained flat. We are in the process of changing agents and re-advertising. I will make sure the new blurb is clear about that. Please remove these ridiculous and malicious accusations”.

Flat  or Office? Who is Telling the Truth?

My first response is to ask why The Greens need 2 offices?  According to the floor plans of their house published on line by Ward and Partners there is already a good sized office/ study on the first floor of their house. Why would the Greens wish to also use their very sizeable basement space as an office. Perhaps they are operating a commercial business which requires office space over and above their first floor office/ study. However if this was the case then the Greens would require planning permission to allow commercial activities from their home and may also have to pay business rates.  

But much more seriously David Green’s comments appear to suggest that his estate agent, Ward and Partners have made a serious mistake in their description of his house. Instead of saying that his basement was an office space with potential for conversion to a separate self-contained flat they incorrectly stated that it was a self contained flat.  If David Green’s statement to me is true  then he  has got a lot explaining to do – so lets begin.

As far as I can establish the Green’s house has been marketed by  Ward and Partners since 25 April 2016 that’s a period of 19 weeks. If the estate agent’s description and floor plans of their property were wrong, or misleading, as David Green has suggested,  then surely the Greens would have spotted these  mistakes and inaccuracies a long time ago and asked Ward and Partners to change the published property description and floor plans. It seems strange that it took my article of yesterday  to cause the Greens to discover that their estate agent had published misleading and inaccurate information about their house. Perhaps David Green can throw some light on this matter  and explain why he and Elizabeth Green didn’t spot  these serious  mistakes much sooner?

Ward and Partners are a long established estate agency who have a very high professional standards and who have served the people of Thanet well over the many years. The company is a member of the Property Ombudsman service. The Property Ombudsman has published a Code of Practice for Residential Estate Agents which is freely avaible on the internet.

According to Ward and Partners this statement was based on an "insightful interview" with the Greens

Paragraph 7i of the Code states that residential agents must “take all reasonable steps to ensure that all statements you make about a property, whether oral, pictoral or written are accurate and not misleading”. Ward and Partners written description of the Greens house says that “the basement is currently arranged as a one bedroom self-contained flat which has been recently converted and never used! It is accessed from its own entrance to the front and small courtyard to the rear; perfect for an additional income, or for a dependant relative”.

Are they telling the truth?

If the basement flat is, as David Green claims, an office then Ward Partners have published a massively misleading description of his house. This would  be a very  serious breach of paragraph 7i of the Code of Practice for Residential Estate Agents and David Green would have very strong grounds for a complaint to the Property Ombudsman. David Green could also complain to the Ombudsman that not only was the description of his property misleading, but that this misleading description  had caused someone (me) to publish a wildly  inaccurate and malicious  article about him and his wife on the internet, which as prominent Ramsgate citizens has caused them serious reputational damage.



Office or Flat Kitchen Who's Telling the Truth?

Being a former councillor myself I understand how upset and hurt the Greens must feel when unfounded and malicious information is published about them which damages their otherwise nonedescript reputation. Being unwittingly the cause of  their upset and hurt  I genuinely want to help them.  So  I am making  this offer to David and Elizabeth   Green – if they  submit a complaint to the Property Ombudsman about Ward and Partners misrepresentation of his property, I will provide him with a supporting statement explaining that my online article was based upon Ward and Partners description of the Green’s house and that my  article may have damaged their well-deserved reputations in Ramsgate . If David Green’s complaint is successful and Ward and Partners are found to have breached the Code of Practice I will immediately remove my article as it will clearly be untrue. You can’t get the fairer than that can you?



Office or Flat Shower Room? Who's Telling the Truth?

Continuing with the Code of Practice for Residential Estate Agents I now want to look at paragraph 7j which says that “the written details of a property must be agreed with the seller to confirm that the details are correct”. Being a reputable estate agent I am certain that Ward and Partners rigorously adhere to having their clients approve and sign off “all written details of a property”. This being the case then the Greens have  two important questions to answer.

First did the Greens agree and approve the written details of their property, including the references to the self-contained basement flat,  which were published on the internet and in a pdf brochure  by Ward and Partners?  Second did the Greens agree and approve the “What the owner says” statement about 27 La Belle Alliance Square which was published on the internet and in a pdf brochure by Ward and Partners?  This statement, which, according to Ward and Partners, is based on “insightful interviews with the owners”   attributes one or both of the Greens as saying that they “have most recently converted the lower ground floor into a self-contained flat”.  



Lots of Questions to Answer. Who's Telling the Truth?

I am sure that David and Elizabeth Green will have records, such as e-mails etc, of any agreements and approvals  they made with Ward and Partners about these important statements . Perhaps the Greens could post  copies of any such  documents online so the public can know what was actually agreed and who is telling the truth about the status of their basement. If the Green’s have lost these documents then I am sure that Ward and Partners will be happy to provide them with copies.

If Ward and Partners failed to ask  the Greens to “confirm that the details (of their property) are correct”, then the company would be in serious breach of the Code of Conduct for Residential Estate Agents and the Greens would have very strong grounds for  a complaint to the Property Ombudsman. Perhaps the Greens could clarify  whether they have, or are intending to,  complain to the Property Ombudsman about a breach of  paragraph 7i of the Code by Ward and Partners. If they do complain and if the Ombudsman upholds their complaint then I will course delete my article as it would be likely that it was untrue. You can’t get fairer than that can you?

Next, David Green in his complaint to me about my article, sates that  because his basement flat conversion, or as he now describes it – his  office – does not have separate utility supplies (gas, water and electricity) it cannot be classified as a separate dwelling. This is not true. According to the Valuation Office guidance booklet Council Tax Band and annexes a separate area of living within a dwelling house e.g. a flat or annexe, is defined not by having separate utilities but by having “independent access, or access from a hallway or landing; its own facilities for sleeping and preparing food; washing facilities and a toilet”.  

According to the Ward and Partners  property description  and a floor plan of the basement of 27 La Belle Alliance Square published on the  internet and a pdf brochure  the basement consists of 2 separate entrance to the front and rear of the basement, a bedroom,  a shower room, a kitchen and a toilet. The Rightmove, Zoopla and Ward and Partners website all include several photographs of the basement of 27  La Belle Alliance Square including a photograph of the basement kitchen a photograph of the basement shower room and photographs of rooms which could be used as bedrooms. Interestingly the photographs do not show any evidence of office usage of the basement area. They do not include images of computers, printers, filing  cabinets, desks etc. which I would have expected to see in a space which is described by David Green as “currently an office”. Perhaps  David Green could explain the absence of office related stuff in a space he describes as currently an office.

Clearly there is a major discrepancy between David Green’s account of what the status of his basement is and how his estate agent describes it. David Green also appears to have misunderstood  what criteria are used to decide what is and is not a self-contained flat or annexe. There is one way to decide this.

I publically challenge David and Elizabeth Green to invite a Valuation Office inspector to visit their home. The inspector can then decide whether  a basement which allegedly has had the stairs connecting it to the rest of the house removed, but which has 2 of its own separate entrances; a kitchen; a  toilet; a shower and  rooms suitable to be bedrooms;  is an office or a self-contained flat. If the latter, the Inspector can also calculate how much council tax the Greens must pay and from when they must pay it. If, on the other hand,  the Inspector decides that the Greens basement  is not a self-contained flat then I will of course delete my article of yesterday. You can’t get fairer than that can you?

Being the helpful type of person I am I have already written to the Valuation Office to inform them that the Greens are having difficulties  is determining the status of their basement and that they would welcome a visit from an inspector who could then advise them. I have also written similar helpful letters to Thanet Council’s  planning and building control teams who I am sure will be keen to support the Greens in determine what permissions and approvals they might need for their basement. You can’t get fairer than that can you?

Breaking News Our Ramsgate House Hunt Opens Can of Worms

I’ve finally woken up to the very scary fact that I owe Thanet Council £23,000 and that this debt includes a cripplingly unfair 8% statutory interest rate. This large debt was imposed on me by Thanet Council to recover its legal costs for a High Court gagging injunction they took out against me in December 2014. The injunction was secured, with the approval of the then ruling Labour Cabinet at Thanet Council, to prevent me from publishing, in the public interest, confidential documents about the controversial Ramsgate Pleaurama development. The injunction is unique. Its the first time in legal history that a gagging injunction has been secured against a councillor by the council he/she was democratically elected to oversee. This unprecedented action raises some very important questions about the rights of councillors to free expression and their ability to public interest whistle-blow. But I’m digressing. The purpose of this post  is not to discuss  the injunction; I’ll be writing about that  in more detail soon, but to tell you a story  about a very surprising thing which happened to me, which wouldn’t have happened had I not been trying to deal with the injunction and the astronomic court costs.

Having no savings or  income apart from state benefits and a small rental from our  granny annexe, Jo and I recently began searching  for a cheaper  home  for ourselves and our 3 daughters. The idea was to free up some cash so we could pay off Thanet Council and be free of the debt and massive annual interest payments once and for all.

Last week we discovered what we thought was the answer. A large family home with a separate self–contained basement flat at 27  La Belle Alliance Square Ramsgate. The pictures and the description on the Ward and Co website were very exciting and Jo and I thought this property might be a solution to our problems. The asking price was  £385,000. The property  had been on the market since April so we might possibly  get a deal at £360- £375k which would free up enough cash to pay off Thanet Council. It was large enough for the  5 strong Driver clan and had room for  visitors to stay and the girls' mates to come and play. It also looked quite nice and homely too.

No planning application or building control application for the flat

But having had previous bad experiences of house buying  Jo and I have become very cautious house hunters and we like to do a little bit of homework before we take things further with a property we might fancy. The first thing was to find out more about the flat. According to the estate agent’s  blurb  “the basement is currently arranged as a one bedroom self contained flat which has been recently converted and never used”. Having worked for several years in Camden council's  planning department I know that to convert part of a dwelling house into a self-contained flat almost always requires planning permission and building regulations  approval. So we checked Thanet Council’s planning records and discovered  that no planning permission had been granted for the flat and nor had building regulations approval been given for the conversion work.

No separate council tax banding for the flat

We next checked the council tax status of the recently converted self-contained basement flat. According to the Government’s Valuation Office any “part of a building which has been constructed or adapted for use as separate living accommodation”, is required by law to have a separate council tax banding and even if the flat is not occupied by a rent-paying tenant the owner of the flat is still required to pay the council tax due for the flat.  The Valuation Office defines "separate living accommodation" as accommodation which has independent access, or access from a hallway or other area; its own facilities for preparing food and sleeping; its own washing  facilities and a toilet. Looking at the floor plans from the estate agent its clear that this flat meets all of the Valuation Office criteria to be classified as  a council taxable unit of  "separate living accommodation".

picture from estate agent website of the flat

When I worked in planning at Camden council the normal practice was for my team to pass on details of all flat/ annexe conversions to the council tax team so that they could arrange for a valuation to carried out and the newly converted property added to the council tax billing register. However the conversion at 27 La Belle Alliance Square does not appear to have had planning permission or building regulations approval so the council is almost certainly unaware that the flat exists and that a new listing needs to be added to the council tax register for the property. Just to be doubly sure that the owners had, like good citizens should always do, notified the council about the flat, Jo and I double checked the property against the latest council tax register information dated 5 September 2016. The register  lists 27 La Belle Alliance Square as a single property in council tax band C with no separately listed and valued self-contained flat.

another picture of the flat

Clearly the owners of the property we were interested in had failed to secure planning permission and building regulations for the flat conversion and had failed to notify Thanet Council about the existence of the flat for council tax purposes.  These are acts which are unlawful and which most reasonable people would say were dishonest, or perhaps something stronger like fraud. Worse still carrying out the flat conversion without planning permission and building regulations approval is downright irresponsible and  potentially dangerous because unchecked and non approved building works such as electrical wiring and the like  could easily be  sub-standard and dangerous, putting at risk the safety of anyone living in the flat.  So who are the owners of 27 La Belle Alliance Square Ramsgate?



Well you could have  knocked me down with a feather when I found out!   It’s non other than the former Mayor of Ramsgate, David Green and his wife Elizabeth Green! The Greens are longstanding, some might say too longstanding, senior Labour politicians.  David Green, was a Labour councillor on Thanet District Council (TDC) for 16 years (1999-2015) and a Ramsgate Town councillor from 2009 -15. He was Mayor of Ramsgate between 2009-12 and a member of Thanet’s council’s ruling Labour Cabinet between 2011-15 with special responsibility for the council’s  planning and housing services. He recently attempted an unsuccessful political comeback in the July Newington by-election and was, I believe,  the  manager of Labour's unsuccessful Northwood by-election campaign last month. He is also the Treasurer of the South Thanet Labour Party.   Elizabeth Green was a Labour councillor on Thanet District Council (TDC) for 16 years (1999-2015), a Ramsgate Town councillor from 2009 -15 and Kent County Councillor between 2005-13 and a member of Thanet’s council’s ruling Labour Cabinet between 2013-15. The Greens were in effect part of a professional political elite,  living well off  their not inconsiderable councillor allowances for almost 2 decades.



The Greens. Prominent Thanet Labour politicians. Were they prominently dishonest or prominently forgetful? What do you think?

Its inconceivable that experienced and very  senior politicians, like the Greens, didn’t know that their flat conversion required planning permission and building regulations approval, especially when its borne in mind that David Green was in charge of Thanet Council’s planning service for several years.
I also find it hard  to understand why the Greens appear to have failed to register their flat for separate council tax banding and why they have therefore probably failed to pay the council tax which technically is due to Thanet Council.
As members of  Thanet Council's ruling Labour Cabinet until 2015 they were responsible for ending the 6 month council tax exemption policy on empty houses and flats in the district. This means that council tax on the Green's flat was due immediately after the conversion works had been completed, which was April 2016 if not sooner. They were also responsible for developing polices to maximise council tax collection rates in the Thanet district. Its difficult for me to believe that having gained so much council tax experience and knowledge whilst they were Thanet councillors and Cabinet members,  they simply forgot, or didn't realise,   that they owned a flat for which they should have been paying council tax!  

As prominent Ramsgate citizens David and Elizabeth Green must follow the rules like everyone else is required to do, but what I have found out  suggests  to me that they were probably doing the opposite. These are extremely serious allegations which may  mean that the Greens evaded the payment of  council tax  and may have carried out unlawful conversion works as well.  Having not been checked and certified these works could potentially  be sub-standard and pose safety risks and danger to anyone living in the flat. 
I will be contacting the Leader of Thanet Council to request that this matter is investigated. If the investigation reveals any wrong doing I would expect the Greens to pay in full any tax which is deemed to have been due and to secure any relevant permissions and conduct any required works  to regularise their flat
Thanet Labour  Party should also do the right thing and suspend from membership the Greens until investigations are carried out.  If I was a member of Thanet Labour Party I would insist that the Greens were expelled from Labour membership if it is found to be the case that they unlawfully converted a flat and then sought to avoid the payment of council tax due on that flat. Surely such actions, if they are found to be true, could be seen as bringing the Labour Party into disrepute.

Latest news David Green has challenged my account of matters related to his home. I am busy with Live animal exports tonight but will reply to him tomorrow via my blogiste. It will be an interesting read.  

Thanet Labour Revival Needs Apology & Purge

I was disappointed not to have been able to  make the Jeremy Corbyn rally in Ramsgate last Saturday. I‘ve seen pictures and video of the rally and spoke to several people who there who said it was inspirational and that there was a great atmosphere. Sadly child-care came first on Saturday. But that didn’t stop me thinking about the phenomena which has become Jeremy Corbyn.

When was the last time someone was able to pack out the Wellington Crescent bandstand with 3,000 or more people eager to listen to an unashamedly socialist message. I doubt its ever happened before and this says a lot about what is happening  in the Labour Party and the country as whole. People are, without doubt, looking for something new in politics and Corbyn seems to be the lighting rod which is beginning to attract them in their thousands to more than 40 rallies held across the country by Corbyn since the Labour leadership contest began in July.

For me, as a lifelong socialist and trade unionist,  these are exciting times and, like many people,  I’m watching events unfold in the Labour Party with an almost addictive fascination. For the first time in my life, I feel that the movement and the hope unleashed by Corbyn  may lead to a fundamental re-alignment of socialist forces in our  country. Whether that realignment will be focused on the Labour Party, or a broader coalition or association between  a re-invigorated Labour Party and other groups such the Greens and the Socialist Party, trade unions etc who knows. All I know is that I have never experienced political times like these before.

But before I get too carried away I need to ground myself with a reality check. Because although inspirational speeches about grand ideas at  mass rallies are part and parcel of politics,  it’s also about hard work. And here in Thanet if socialism is ever to regain  political support in the community there’s an awful lot of work to do. And perhaps the biggest task of all is to deal with the massively toxic legacy of the 2011-15 Labour Council. But sadly my experience is that rather confront the  issues which led to Labour being humiliated in 2015 and at the recent Newington and Northwood by-elections, many people are in denial and adopting a tribalistic, circle the wagons mentality.



This is the worst thing which could happen. Being in denial and defensive about Labour’s recent history at Thanet Council provides an open goal for UKIP Leader Chris Wells to discredit socialism in Thanet. Not a week goes by without Chris Wells referring to the £14.5million debt he inherited from the Labour Party in 2015 and how appallingly  bad the last Labour administration was at  managing  Thanet Council. Now I’m a vehement opponent of UKIP policies, but I must say this, Chris Wells’ assessment of the last Labour administration at Thanet Council is spot on. My only criticism is that he didn’t go far enough in exposing just how rubbish they really were and I should know because I was on the council at the time.

Not only did the Labour administration waste £14.5 million of tax payers money on the secret TransEuropa Ferries fee-deferral deal (cost £3.4 million); £5.1 million on compensation to live exporters for unlawfully halting the trade when they had  high level legal opinion warning them not to so; at least £3.5 million overspend and compensation payments related to Dreamland; an unpaid £2.7 million bill for the construction of the New Haine Road, but they also messed up big time on many other fronts.

The 2011-15  Labour administration back-tracked massively on their manifesto commitments to protect the environment in Thanet. Instead of safeguarding our open spaces, greenfield sites and agricultural land as they promised they would do – they did entirely the opposite –  supporting the building of 750 houses next to  the New Haine Road when they said they would not; supporting the environmentally damaging Ramsgate Parkway station when they said they would not. Supporting the O’Regan plans for a polluting concrete factory at the port of Ramsgate etc etc. The Labour administration also, in my view,  deliberately delayed the development of the Thanet Local Plan, so as to allow greedy developers and speculators free reign to secure planning permission on massive areas of prime agricultural land  such as the 800 home Manston Green development. I think its safe to say that under the 2011-15 more green field open space was lost to developers than at any other time in the past 30 years. Quite an achievement for a party which said in it’s manifesto it would protect  open spaces.

And it doesn’t end there. The Labour administration did nowhere near enough to facilitate the building of desperately needed affordable social rented housing  in Thanet. The number of completions of social rented housing on their watch was pathetically poor.  They also failed miserably to resolve the problems with the derelict  Ramsgate  Pleasurama development site which has blighted the seafront for 2 decades. In fact they have made the situation  much worse and more uncertain  by striking a deal which has resulted in the sale of the freehold of  this prime seafront site to a company which may end up passing the site over to an offshore Panamanian outfit linked  to land speculators. Last but least the Labour administration was possibly one of the most secretive council leaderships I have ever encountered. Labour run Thanet was one of the few councils in England to prohibit the filming of its  meetings by the public, until they were literally forced to do so by  a change of law. And of course Labour run Thanet council, with the express approval of some its political leaders is the only council in legal history to have secured a High Court gagging injunction against once of its democratically elected councillors and imposed charges upon that councillor (me) which are punishing unfairly his wife and  children – all for trying to expose the secrecy and maladministration of the Labour Cabinet.

I could go on at length and in great  detail about the misdemeanours of the so-called socialists running Thanet Council between 2011-15 but I won’t because I have already written about them on this blog and if you have the time you can read all about it in my earlier posts. The important thing is how to deal with the toxic legacy of a bunch of ego driven incompetents, who fucked things up big time for local people.    

To simply deny these wrongdoings and massive incompetence will consign Labour and socialism to the margins of Thanet politics for a generation. To defend the indefensible will perpetuate the coverups and lies that characterised the culture of Labour’s 2011-15 administration. To regain credibility and to begin rebuilding support in the community the answer is clear. Labour in Thanet  has no choice but to admit its failures and apologise for mess caused by its 2011-15 administration. And it also needs to clearly disassociate itself from the actions of those councillors responsible for making the wrong decisions, especially those who were Cabinet members in 2011-15. To be brutally frank if Labour is serious about regaining influence in Thanet and implementing much needed social change in housing, regeneration, jobs, transport, health, education  the  environmental and open and transparent democracy it needs to purge the wankers who let the people  down in 2011-15 and who still occupy positions of influence to this day. Thankfully the re-election of Corbyn as Party Leader in September and the hundreds of new socialist  recruits in Thanet make this entirely possible and it wont be a day too soon.

Ramsgate Pleasurama: 56 Councillors Gagged By Labour's Agreement

Former Thanet councillor, Ian Driver, has called on serving TDC councillors  “to disobey and rebel against”  advice issued by the Council’s Monitoring Officer, Timothy Howes about Ramsgate’s  seafront  Pleasurama development.

In an unprecedented and hard-hitting advisory e-mail sent to all of TDCs 56 councillors yesterday (31 August)  Mr Howes  says (extracts)  “As .. public interest in the progress of the Pleasurama project grows, it is important  that Members understand ... the terms of the agreement are that neither the Council nor the other parties should make any press release or announcement in respect of the agreement without the approval of the others. Nor shall any party disclose the terms of this agreement to any third party. Given the above, I would ask that Members are mindful of what they say in public and on social media about the Pleasurama agreement”.

Said Driver “There is a massive and growing public interest in the future of the Ramsgate Pleasurama development site. This stalled development has blighted Ramsgate’s seafront for more than 20 years deterring investment in the area for almost a generation and costing £millions in lost opportunities and jobs. With the sale of the Pleasurama freehold to Cardy Ramsgate Ltd for a reported £3.5 million last month;  the sudden change of directors at the company;  followed by revelations that offshore, Panamanian registered company,  Mintal Group Inc. has charges on the freehold of the land;  people are now  becoming very worried about the future of the site. I’ve heard lots of speculation about whether anything will ever be built on the site, or whether it will be land banked, left derelict and allowed to blight the seafront for another 20years”.

“Surely this is time for Thanet Council to be totally open and transparent about what’s happening at the Pleasurama site rather than citing a confidentially clause in the agreement with Cardy and instructing  councillors to shut up and say nothing. Ordering councillors to keep quiet about a very controversial issue is, I believe, undemocratic and raises fundamental  question about who is running Thanet  Council;  democratically elected councillors;  or over paid faceless bureaucrats?

“Local councillors, especially Ramsgate councillors,  should be free to say what they wish  to their constituents about Pleasurama and the development  agreement with Cardy Ramsgate. They should not be gagged or muzzled. If I was in their place I would dismiss Mr Howes advice and insist that the development agreement and all the other secret Pleasurama documents are published so that the public can see for themselves just how badly the previous  Labour and the Tory administrations and senior council bosses mis-managed this major issue.

Just 2 days ago Driver was told by Thanet Council that it would not release him from a two year old High Court Injunction preventing him from publishing confidential documents about the Pleasurama development even though the council no longer owns the site. “Within 48 hours of trampling over my human rights to free expression TDC is now trying to silence 56 democratically elected councillors and prevent them from communicating with their constituents freely and openly about Pleasurama. This is an unprecedented anti-democratic outrage which you might expect in North Korea, but not in the UK”.  

Driver went on to lay the blame for the situation on the shoulders of TDCs previous Labour administration. He said “the Pleasurama development agreement was discussed and   approved in secret by Thanet’s then ruling Labour Cabinet in 2015. Iris Johnston the leader of the Council at the time and Rick Everitt, Cabinet member for finance, were pictured signing the agreement with Cardy’s Mike Stannard  and were quoted  extensively in the local and regional media about how great the deal was, whilst knowing all along  that the agreement included a draconian, unfair  and totally unnecessary confidentially clause”.

“Now when things are beginning to go badly wrong with the Cardy/ Pleasurama  deal the Labour approved  confidentiality clause, publically signed off by Johnston  and Everitt in 2015, is being used to close  down and prevent what should have been major public debate in Ramsgate.  For a party which supposedly supports openness, transparency and accountability in government Thanet Labour have, in my opinion,  stabbed the residents of Ramsgate in the back. I wonder just who’s arses and reputations they were trying to protect by approving a clause in the development agreement which effectively prevents the truth from  coming out about  massive mismanagement of this major £multi-million project which has stalled for over decade and ruined the town’s seafront. Maybe their own?”

Driver added that “two days ago I thought I was the only person in Thanet subject to a politically motivated gagging order which had been approved by Labour Party political bosses. It now turns out that I was wrong. The confidentially clause in the Pleasurama agreement which was approved by Labour, is now being used to silence 56 democratically elected councillors and  subvert democratic debate and accountability over this hugely important issue”.

Ramsgate Pleasurama: Gagging Injunction Continues

Former Councillor, Ian Driver, says he is “astounded” that Thanet Council has refused to release him from a High Court gagging injunction which is almost 2 years old.

Originally granted  by the High Court in October  2014, the gagging injunction prevents Driver from publishing or disseminating  documents about the controversial Ramsgate Pleasurama development site which include reports  produced by lawyers Pinsent Mason and property consultants Strutt and Parker.

Driver, who due to legal aid changes, was forced to represent himself at the High Court argued that  widespread concern about the stalled Pleasurama development and  its  long-term blighting of  Ramsgate’s  seafront,  meant that there was an overwhelming public interest in allowing the publication of the documents. TDC’s barrister, Wayne Beglan, disagreed, claiming  that the release of the documents could have  jeopardised negotiations which were then  taking place between TDC and building contractors Cardy about the development and sale  of the Pleasurama site. The Court ruled against Driver.

Said Driver, “negotiations between  Cardy and TDC over the development and sale of the Pleasurama site were completed on 20^th July 2016 when Cardy purchased the freehold of the Pleasurama site  for £3.515 million from the Council. On hearing this news I immediately contacted the council requesting that I be released from the injunction as there was no longer a legal justification to continue it.

I was astonished to receive a reply  from the Council’s legal officer, Colin Evans yesterday (Tuesday 30 August) saying that the documents remain confidential because their disclosure would be prejudicial both to the interests of the Council and Thanet residents. Moreover if the information were to become public it could prejudice the Council in its commercial dealings and negotiations. If the information was released there could be a detrimental effect on the Council.

Now that the freehold of the Pleasurama  site has been sold, with the cash safely  in the council’s bank,  and  now that negotiations with Cardy have been concluded I am at a loss to see how Thanet Council’s commercial dealings could be jeopardised by allowing the publication of the documents. I think that the real reason for withholding the documents is that their  publication will cause serious embarrassment to top council bosses and  politicians. This is all about watching arses and protecting reputations instead of being open and honest with the public about how the Pleasurama development was mismanaged”.

Driver says he will be contacting South Thanet MP  Craig  MacKinlay and Council Leader Chris Wells to request that the decision not to release him from the injunction be urgently reviewed. He is also seeking advice about taking legal action or complaining to the local government Ombudsman because he claims that his right to free expression is now being unlawfully fettered by Thanet Council’s refusal to release him from the gagging injunction.

It is believed that Driver is the only  councillor in legal history to be subject to a gagging injunction by the council  he was democratically elected to oversee. Driver claims that the Council’s former Monitoring Officer told him that the  decision to secure the gagging injunction was approved by “very senior” members of Thanet Council’s ruling Labour Cabinet,  which  at that time was led by Iris Johnston.

Thanet South MP Craig MacKinlay, who is supporting Driver in his fight against the injunction said in a letter submitted to the judge at a cost hearing  that “the fact that an elected councillor in exercise of his of his own judgment in what should brought into the public domain in the interest of his electors was then subject to effectively a “muzzling action” by the very council upon which he serves, at public expense, is highly questionable and raises important constitutional issues  as to the basis and rights of elected representatives”  

Driver has now had a £23,000 charging order, plus 8% statutory annual interest placed  on his family home by Thanet Council to cover the costs of the High Court hearing. The father of 3, who was forced to give up work almost 3 years ago to become a carer for one his daughters who is disabled said he is paying back the debt at £80 per month but that the  repayment does not cover the interest and the debt is becoming bigger and bigger. He will be publishing an account and short video of how and why  the injunction was secured against him in the next couple of months and will be linking this to a crowdfunding appeal which he hopes will help him clear what he described as a “politically motivated debt aimed at  silencing me and punishing my family who have done no wrong”

 

Ramsgate Live Exports 26 August

Only three lorries tonight. Still three lorries too many. The lorries drove  around the roundabout and onto the  port approach road  at recklessly high speeds. It was sheer luck that nobody was hurt or worse. I wonder if the police have cautioned the lorry drivers for their dangerous driving? Once again the police prescence was very large with over 20 vehicles at the scene.  It was great to see South Thanet MP, Craig MacKinlay at the
demonstration. Craig has been very supportive of the campaign to end live exports and his bill to amended the Harbours Piers  and Clauses Act of 1847 gets a second reading in November. If successful his Bill will pave the way for a post-Brexit banning of live exports. Lots of news faces tonight. Please if you have any interest in stopping this brutal trade, come and join us. Sadly my filming of the lorries was pretty bad tonight and I didn't catch the speeding vehicles. But I did record some interviews with campaigners which show that we are just every day women and men young and old who care about the welfare of animals. Come and join us
 

 
.

Ramsgate Pleasurama- I Publish Secret Q&A

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

But it gets worse. When controversial political issues flare up, such as the recent collapse of the building contractors Cardy and the serious implications that this may have on the  Pleasurama development agreement and the ownership of the site,  it is generally expected that  political opposition parties will step up to the mark,  exposing any secrets or wrong-doing, highlighting shortcomings in  plans and presenting  alternative solutions. But no! Not a word have I heard from Ramsgate’s opposition Labour Party about the Pleasurama crisis which has developed over the past month.

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?

 

A change in directors makes no difference to the legal obligations imposed on Cardy Ramsgate Limited.