Council officers and Labour Cabinet member Rick Everitt
tried their best to bamboozle and scare councillors into accepting a deal whereby
Canterbury building contractors, Cardy,
would buy out the controversial development company SFP Ventures (UK) Ltd and
complete the project within a three year period. Everitt said that the stalled legal
action against SFP Ventures for breach of agreement would cost a fortune and that
a deal with Cardy might be the best option. Chief Executive Madeline Homer said
that she though legal action would “take years” and that it would be preferable
to make a deal with Cardy.Conservative leader Bob Bayford and his colleague Councillor Chris Wells challenged much of what Everitt had to say. Green Party Councillor Ian Driver pointed out that everything Everitt and Homer had said was based on legal and valuation advice which members of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel had not seen. He expressed his concern that the Panel was being asked to make recommendations on an incredibly complex issue without having seen the key information. This was an highly improper abuse of process. Driver then moved a motion calling for the members of the Panel to be provided with copies of the legal and valuation advice and the officers report about progress on the Cardy takeover of SFP.
Driver’s motion was passed by 7 votes to 5 with 2 abstentions. It was
notable that the 5 votes against and 2 abstentions were Labour
Councillors, Campbell, Huxley, Moore, Matterface and Poole voted against Driver’s
motion. Worrow and Fenner abstained.
Said Driver “Labour showed their true colours tonight. They
voted to prevent the Panel from having sight of key documents about Pleasurama
before they make a decision. This is undemocratic and appallingly
irresponsible. Quite clearly Cabinet member Everitt and his labour colleagues,
supported by senior council officers, are determined to drive through this deal with
Cardy and foist on the people of Ramsgate a development which is extremely unpopular
and which many people oppose.
What makes this this worse is that Everitt and 6 of the Councillors who voted against or abstained
on my motion (Campbell, Fenner, Huxley, Moore, Poole and
Worrow), represent, or have been selected to represent, Ramsgate wards. These people have shown by
their actions tonight that they don’t give a damn about their constituents concerns over
Pleasurama. They have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted by the voters, preferring
to stab local people in fthe back in a cynical pusuit of party politics.
A source close to senior council officers reported that Chief Executive Homer was
incandescent with rage as her plans to have the Cardy/ SFP takeover rubber
stamped were scuppered by Driver and Conservative councillors. Apparently the
air turned blue at a hastily convened officer pow-wow called by Homer
immediately after the Scrutiny meeting had ended. Said Driver the Chief Executive must realise that if councillors are being asked to
make important decisions, such as the future of the of the Pleasurama site, we
must be provided with all the relevant background documentation instead of second
hand explanations and vacuous summaries We are not a rubber stamping factory we
are supposed to be scrutinising and evauating decisions on behalf of the public. We can't do this without the relevant information.
Why do they still call themselves the Labour Party? Is it something to do with their agonising and painful decisons they inflict on the public in an attempt to produce a satisfactory outcome? It's certainly nothing to do with closing the gap between the rich and the poor by attempting to contribute, in the form of Royal Sands, to blighting our seafront permanently with a grotesque white elephant primarily for the benefits of the rich.
ReplyDeleteIts not any Labour party I know
Delete... and that was a party political broadcast on behalf of UKIP!
ReplyDeleteIs there anything in the building leases or development agreement that gives TDC any control over changes of ownership of of the *development company* - as opposed to changes in ownership of the leasehold interest in the site? I can't see any, but admittedly, these documents do ramble on for many many pages.
ReplyDeleteWithout any political bias, would you please post timescales up so that those concerned over this fiasco can be as prepared as possible in adequate time. Wasn't the three sides of A4 with points produced just the morning of the meeting - for example? Leaving little time for proper reflection.
ReplyDeleteWell done Ian. Everitt must go. This is a hasty deal with Cardy and scaremongering.
ReplyDeleteTDC can cancel any contract since at least February and take back the site. 7 months have been wasted by Everitt.
Everitt is still in charge of the Port too? That's another disaster
ReplyDeleteThe Scrutiny panel on Thursday night was instructive. For the second time in a fortnight, the first occasion being the Cabinet meeting, officers and administration politicians came ill prepared to explain their position in detail, simply expecting the voting members to nod it through. This of course happened at Cabinet, in spite of losing every argument debated during the evening, the nodding donkeys of deserter ate labour said yes.
ReplyDeleteThis Thursday was a different story. With no labour majority, and the arguments exposed as facile, if not sham, members deferred decision until they had seen some of the paperwork, and were able to draw their own conclusions. When it also became clear that some of the questions and answers were not honest either, The proposal to rubber stamp the situation became very unpopular. Cabinet now has an interesting decision to make. Having made such a fuss about wanting scrutiny lead in these matters before, they will look totally hypocritical if they now choose to ignore the panels concerns. Watch this space.
ReplyDeleteWorse, I am reminded of how some of the attitudes to general purposes committee considerations of the furore surrounding EKO and the chief executives actions were treated. All classic labour machinations, do as I say, not as I do! Perhaps Michael Vhild should read all this and consider his own positions on Pleasurama and Manston. His heroes were looking to run both the CPO debate, and Pleasurama through the same extraordinary cabinet on the same evening. Pretty good way to stifle real debate. As ever, Micheal's silence When it comes to criticising labour politicians is deafening.
ReplyDeleteMichael won't post on blogs other than his own, as he can't control the replies. Same reason why he doesn't answer comments on twitter.
DeleteBoth pleasueama and cpo look finished. Iris will go if she cannot sort this mess. The election will be a clearout of these idiots
ReplyDeleteIris and Everitt must go.
ReplyDeleteIn a slightly off topic, have I missed the going of Sue Mc. as Chief Ex.? Or is she still taking her salary. For sitting at home.
ReplyDeleteWho is Edwina Crowley mentioned with Pleasurana? In charge of it now at TDC?
ReplyDeleteYou are not off topic 18:22, these events are symptoms of the shambles created by McGonigal and her hopeless team of supporters she surrounded herself with. Yes she is still being paid sitting at home, but her clone (and just as untrustworthy) Homer is being paid a second Chief Ex salary, and then there is the S.151 Officer, a third high salary, all three being paid to do what McG. was actually appointed to do in the first place according to her own reckoning in one job and one salary. Her appointment and plan was rubber stamped by Bayford and Hart of course.
ReplyDeleteWell said 9:04 Iris needs to get a grip of this. And for a useless council we're paying high salaries for continued failure...
ReplyDeleteIris must go!
ReplyDelete