A question I have seen discussed a lot lately however Thanet
District Council is an inanimate object and cannot be either competent or
incompetent, only people can be incompetent and the buck stops at the top. The
main issues with the development (or not) of the former Pleasurama site can be
divided into 2 main areas.
Firstly who makes the decisions is a problem.
The way it is supposed to work is Councillors decide and Officers
advise.
So unqualified Councillors make choices based on the WIIFM
principle.
Then Officers either not being asked or when asked having
their advice ignored.
Secondly when problems occur the “wagons are circled” and
the CYA principle then comes into play.
Lets take a look at the decision making process right back at the start of this journey.
When the original offer was made by Terry Painter, on behalf
of SFP, on the 7th October 2002 it was in this form:
“At the appropriate
time they are prepared to make a single capital payment to the Council payable on
the date when the development agreement becomes unconditional”
“Anticipated Proceeds from
Whitbread £550,000”
“Additional Sum from Main
Developer, SFP Venture Partners Ltd £810,000”
“Additional sum from main
developer, SFP Venture Partners Ltd, equal to20% of the net proceeds from the
sale of the residential properties, which should include the affordable housing
contribution.”
The offer from Westcliffe Park Ltd was as follows:
Financial offer of
£635K, + a % of the units equal to £423K plus the donation of a 25 meter pool
(worth about £100K) also included in their offer was an “Arts and Performance
area”
So which deal was
accepted and why was the other rejected?
SFP offered more upfront money and Westcliffe offered a
swimming pool and an Arts and performance area with less housing. You would
assume this is a no brainer however we know today which they chose however it
is not clear why. The minutes are unclear however they do say that the decision
making team decided that “the running costs” of the swimming pool and Arts area
would be an unknown ongoing drain on Council resources.
So was this decision
based on the long term use of the site or a quick fix to get money in the
Council coffers?
Westcliffe Park Ltd was under the stewardship of Anthony
Brown an award winning architect with a proven track record. SFP Venture
Partners ltd was fronted by Shaun Patrick Keegan, a man with an unknown track
record, an unknown UK address and as we know now has never been formally
identified by the Council.
WIIFM principle "what’s in it for me?"
CYA principle "Cover your a**e"
3 comments:
More like the former Barry...WIIFM.
So SFP offered £1.36M plus 20% profit on the flats. Wescliffe offered £1.06M, a swimming pool and an arts space.
One feels like a run for the money (not THAT significant compared to TransEuropas £3.4M) and the other feels like a gift for the community for life.
Shocking decision. And all Cllr's Poole and Johnson were interested in was timings and would local people be used on the building project. Shame
Good blog.
Good comment Duncan. Local people being "used" the unwritten modus operandi of TDC.
Post a Comment