The proposal to locate a concrete block manufacturing and waste wood
processing facility at Ramsgate Port might not, as Labour Councillor Mike
Harrison wrote in a letter to the Thanet
Gazette, conflict with the Council’s current planning policy. But this doesn’t mean that TDC,
the port owner, is obliged to permit this hugely unpopular development taking
place on its land. On the contrary!
Planning permission or not, Thanet
Council could have given ORegan’s the bums rush months ago and there is not a
thing the company could have done about it. So why didn’t this happen.?
According to the information I have received from the Council, O’Regan’s
first met the Council to talk about their plans on 25 June 2014. The O’Regan’s
proposals are very significant in terms of their scale and implications, so it’s inconceivable that the Cabinet Portfolio Holder for the Port of
Ramsgate, Labour Councillor Mike
Harrison and possibly the Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning, Labour Councillor
Richard Nicholson, were not briefed about this meeting. Because this meeting involved discussions about plans which would generate a significant rental income from O’Regan and the
possibility of increased shipping at the
Port, I would also have expected the
Leader of the Council, Iris Johnston, to have been briefed as well.
But erring on the side of caution, perhaps council officers needed to
get more information from O’Regan and its agents about its plans before they put Cabinet members in the picture.
The second meeting where this would have happened was, according to the Council,
held on 10th July. Just 2 weeks after the first meeting. So shortly
after 10th July 2014 I believe that key Labour Party
politicians responsible for running Thanet Council would have been fully conversant
with the O’Regan plans.
At this point in time I would have expected the Council’s Labour bosses
to have realised just how risky and potentially polluting
the O’Regan plans were. I would have expected them to have instructed officers to tell O’Regan’s “sorry we don’t want your business
here. Do yourself a favour, save time and a lot of money and move on”.
The fact that this didn’t happen at the second meeting in July 2014 meeting makes me suspicious.
But to be totally fair and scrupulous I
will concede that only 2 meetings had taken place with O’Regans and that the Council
and its Labour bosses didn’t wish to be
too hasty in making a decision. They simply wanted more time to conduct robust due diligence on O’Regans. If this was
true then there was a 2 month period between the meeting on 10th July and the
next reported meeting on 12 September in which the Council could have conducted research
into their wannabe tenant O’Regan. In this time it would have been possible to have quickly established, through company check
websites, that the O’Regan Group and its
associated companies do not appear to have been financially active, or to have established a significant business track record, in the UK.
Further, I assume that if the Council and its Labour bosses would also have discovered, as I
did by a few hours googling:
- A report in the Irish Times dated 11 June 2008
that Louis O’Regan was embroiled in a dispute with the Bank of Scotland
(Ireland) concerning an unpaid debt of 196,000 Euros.
- A report in the Experian Irish Gazette dated
28th October 2009 which stated that judgments against Louis O’Regan
to the value of 138,686 Euros were made by Cork County Court
- A tax debtors report published by the Irish
Government in September 2011 which states that the Louis O’Regan Limited
owed the Irish Tax Authorities 93,456 Euros in undeclared VAT and PAYE
Also if research was conducted into the sustainability of the O’Regan business plan, particularly its proposal to process waste wood at the port, it would have soon become clear that this activity is not viable. The imminent commissioning of the large, state of the art, MV Energie Biomass power plant, co-incidentally located at Ridham Dock, will “hoover up” virtually all the available waste wood in Kent to feed its gargantuan 172,000 tonnes annual capacity. This means that it will be virtually impossible for the O’Regan group to get its hands on any waste wood at all because most of will be heading toward the MV Energie Biomass plant.
But the most important issue when evaluating and assessing O’Regan and
the suitability of its proposals, would
have been its record in its native Ireland. Checks on this record would have
quickly revealed a report in the Irish Times of May 2005 about Louis J O’Regan, being fined 100,000 Euros
for illegally dumping 100,000 tonnes of builders rubble in a quarry in Cork.
The judge said “this was no small enterprise to bring 100,000 tonnes of
waste on to the site. The defendant had a total disregard for the requirements
of waste management legislation." A report in the Irish Examiner of 26 June 2008 that Louis J
O’Regan Ltd was responsible for the unauthorised removal of hazardous waste
from a former steel works site in Cork Harbour. So serious was the risk of
pollution from this action that the Irish Chief Sate Solicitors Office wrote
to the company ordering it to cease work immediately and leave the site.
It’s my belief that had the Council and its Labour Leaders done its homework it would have decided before the 12 September
meeting with the O’Regan Group that this organisation was totally unsuitable to be a
tenant of the port. There are question about its business record in the UK, there are questions about its payments of debts, there are questions about its business plan and questions about it pollution record. In short more than enough evidence for a reasonable local authority to decide that granting a tenancy to this company to this company would be high risk. At this point the company and it agents should have firmly
but politely been shown the door. But amazingly that didn’t happen!! There have been 2 further meetings with the
O’Regan Group. The Council’s Corporate Management Team and the Labour Cabinet
have also discussed the O’Regan plans and pre-planning advice is still being proffered
to them. Why??
Well there are 2 possible explanations. First the Council and its political leaders
have been totally incompetent and failed to carry out proper investigations into O’Regan’s.
Second the Council’s Labour leadership was more interested in the income they
could secure from the O’Regan operation than any consideration about the track record of this company and the environmental
implications of what it proposes to do at the port.
Personally I tend toward the second explanation. Bearing in mind how TDCs Labour councillors are already tearing up their 2011 election
manifesto promises to protect Thanet’s environment
by overdeveloping the district with 12,000 new houses more than half of which will built on greenfield sites. Bearing in mind how
Thanet Labour Councillors are now support building a Parkway Station despite
having opposed it in their 2011 manifesto on environmental grounds. It’s hardly
a surprise that the Labour Leadership of
Thanet Council are also quite happy to have O’Regan ply it’s dirty, risky, and potentially
polluting trade at Ramsgate Port.
There is not a shred of evidence
to suggest that Labour Councillors were
worried about the noise and atmospheric pollution
the proposals might involve. Nor the problems associated with the storage and transportation of large volumes of polluted
water generated by O’Regan’s industrial processes.
There appears to have been no thought about the
threat to Ramsgate’s tourist industry; the site of special scientific interest
and the European special area of conservation which border right on O’Regan’s proposed
area of operation. It is my belief that the possibility of earning a little bit
of extra money in rental income from O’Regan’s port operations caused Thanet’s Labour
bosses to abandon any pretence they had to defend the environment in
and around the port and town of Ramsgate.
It was only on 12 January
2015 at the public meeting at Chatham House Grammar School that Labour came unstuck. I very much doubt they expected the anger and universal opposition to the plans which were
so evident that night. Hot on the heels
of that meeting, an emergency Ramsgate Labour Party conclave took place on 19th January where it decided that it would be electorally expedient
to fall in behind the public anger and say, after more than 6 months silence on
the matter, they didn't like the idea. But worse than that some people standing
to be Labour Councillors in 2015 are now doing the rounds saying we never supported
the O’Regan plan. Labour councillors were always opposed to it. But we had go through due process. To be frank this utter bollox. The only process to be gone through was to have identified that O'Regans were chancers trying to find a cheap port from which to ply their cheap and dirty trade and to have told them to get lost!!
Any other explanation is is nothing but nonsensical clap-trap aimed at distorting the truth and getting Labour out of a tricky fix. Sorry but this misguided loyalty, muddying of waters and covering up the truth is hardly likely to endear the Labour Party to voters heartily sickened by Labour's TransEuropa Ferries and Pleasurama shenanigans
Any other explanation is is nothing but nonsensical clap-trap aimed at distorting the truth and getting Labour out of a tricky fix. Sorry but this misguided loyalty, muddying of waters and covering up the truth is hardly likely to endear the Labour Party to voters heartily sickened by Labour's TransEuropa Ferries and Pleasurama shenanigans
The truth as I see it is that if Thanet Labour councillors were genuinely opposed to
the O’Regan plans they could have sent them packing in September 2014 if not before. The fact
that this was not done suggest to me that Thanet Labour Councillors wanted to
do a hypocritical dirty deal with an organisation with a questionable record,
at the expense of the people of Ramsgate.
But of course this is just supposition and guess work on my part. But we
will find out the truth soon enough when the Information Commissioner orders
Thanet Council to release to me the documents and e-mails related to these
meetings with O’Regans. The documents which the Council and its Labour Leaders
are desperately trying to resist letting me have.
Ian. What makes you think that elected Labour Councillors are, in any way in charge, even in their own party ? The Labour party mandates its leaders from within. Faceless, unelected party officials are actually in charge and their so called councillors have to tow the party line. There is no leadership from the top, as in most healthy organisations. This is nowhere more evident than in local government, where political correctness, politics of envy and ideological claptrap from the bottom up becomes the order of the day. Well done on your excellent sleuthing, Very impressive and valuable. The local Labour parties (Branch, District, Constituency) will be hastily covering up. If you want this kind of behaviour to stop, we will need to elect our own council leaders and not allow parties to subvert our democratic rights. Looking forward to our public debate on this.
ReplyDeleteTime dinosaurs like Harrison moved on.
ReplyDeleteVery good article. Why is there only one councillor doing any public scrutiny of what our council does? What are the other fifty doing year in year out?
ReplyDeleteThe question is, if a Labour Party conclave decided they now don't like the O'Regan plan, why has Cllr Harrison written in full and active support of it in the newspaper?
Harrison has been deselected so good riddance. But the other Labour councillors must have supported ORegan and White
ReplyDeleteHow can we be rid of Iris and Everitt too. Dinosaurs the lot of them.
ReplyDeleteBoth the rank and file KCC and TDC councillors are irrelevant. Almost 100 of them. Maybe qe should just elect the Cabinet and have the ithers as ward volunteers? Too much inept governance and the appearance of democracy. Elected Leaders would ensure public accountability.
ReplyDeleteBut they prefer secrecy and party deals.
The proposal for a wood burning plant at Richborough has everything to do with this. BFL have not put in their planning application for their "energy park" yet. They have plans for Biomass CHP generation which entails burning.....yes! wood chip! How convenient that will be to transport the wood up the river to Ramsgate and chip it there. I believe BFL are waiting to see if O'Regan get the go ahead before they commit to this.
ReplyDeletevery interesting point. I had not thought of this.
DeleteBlimey if you want to know where the pollution risk is, this wood burning plant is it, thanks 12.27.
DeleteRamsgate and Broadstairs would be downwind of this most of the time with prevailing winds.
So much madness goes on in the name of the environment like diesel cars to save CO2 when in fact they are 20 times as toxic as petrol cars, and wood burning when people have to keep breathing the smoke from it let alone the "impurities".
I bet the two former officers have pulled a few strings to help it along.
ReplyDeleteWho did they meet?
ReplyDeleteWhat a coincidence that Gloag has money in bio-mass!
ReplyDelete