"
Good evening everybody
Got me to blame really haven’t you, I introduced the site
some eleven odd years ago, but we .... we’re all to blame, of course, because
we’ve all had our share of protesting and upsetting the situation in a number
of ways.
What I would like to do because it will answer a lot of
those questions and I think Councillor Poole has given a good sensible
appraisal of the current situation. We are at deadlock; I am now going to read
a report from SFP’s solicitor that summarises a lot of what Alan Poole has said
and shows my client’s position, so bear with me it is quite lengthy.
At present both parties i.e. the Council and SFP are bound
by the terms of the 2006 development agreement. The Council through Mark Seed
are stating they require to be convinced that the Council will be in a stronger
position under any new agreement and there will be a guarantee that the work
will be completed and that the Hotel will be completed.
The 2006 agreement does not work and indeed because of this
both the Council and SFP are in an impossible situation. The Main reasons the
2006 agreement does not work are as follows:
a) That
agreement requires any funder for the development to enter into a separate
agreement with the Council. Guarantee that if the developer, if for any reason
does not proceed with the development, it (the Funder) will take over the
developer’s responsibilities and secure the completion of the development. In
the present economic climate no funder will agree to enter into such an
agreement. This point has been accepted by both the Council and SFP.
b) That
agreement effectively prohibits the sale of the flats until completion of the
Hotel and that is now practicably impossible because of the following:
1) The
Hotel is at the Harbour Parade end of the site and the new(?) traffic
order affecting Nero’s Hill prohibits
any construction traffic from approaching the site from the other end, which
you would have to do if the Hotel is built first and the flats and commercial units
secondly.
2) The
design of the Hotel incorporates a build over the access road at the rear and
the tunnel at the back has a height restriction which will prevent construction
traffic passing through it.
3) It
has been made clear by proposed hotel operators that they would not operate or
open the hotel with a building site in operation next door.
c) Pursuant
to that agreement being signed leases for 199 years had been granted to SFP by
the Council. These leases made reference to the 2006 agreement and as such are
not acceptable as security by Funders for the development of the site.
The redrawn agreement incorporates a legal commitment on the
part of SFP to the Council to complete the development, being the flats,
commercial, and the Hotel. As in the original agreement overage is to be paid
to the Council on the disposal of each of the flats and each of the commercial
units. To support and secure the Council their obligation SFP has offered a
second charge on the more valuable part of the site i.e. the residential and
commercial part which provides an obligation on the part of SFP to complete the
development and pay the overage. If SFP were to default the Council would be in
a position to call in the second charge and whilst this would involve in
redeeming the first charge it would then be in a position to seek forfeiture of
the leases and repossession of the site.
SFP’s commitment to date, as you have already heard, has
been investment exceeding £5M. The delays have been brought about by the change
in the economic climate, which has made finance for the project extremely
difficult. It has been endeavoured at all times to overcome these problems and
extremely anxious to get on the site and commence the development as it needs a
return on its capital investment. The delay has substantially reduced its potential
profit, and therefore the attraction of this development, primarily because of
the change in the economic climate, which has meant the interest he is paying
for the funding has increased by 20%. Notwithstanding this SFP remains
committed to complete the development.
It
is a Commercial Company and has endeavoured to jump through the various hoops
put up by the Council but its ability to continue to do so is becoming
extremely difficult and its willingness to start and to show the people of
Thanet on what has been a dead site. For too many years it appears to have been
obstructed at every turn.
7 comments:
Barry
I got the impression at the meeting that what some speaker/s really wanted to know was how the development brief got changed? It is hardly surprising things are such a mess when public land is disposed of in such an ill considered way without first having public meetings. It annoys me that residents are being burdened with this detail without having having the aforementioned answered. Afterall, the question was avoided then, so why should we continue to tolerate this? I accept I could have missed something here?
well as meetings go the track record is "dont answer any questions" but I did enjoy the threat at the end of his monologue
The slippery estate agent has basically admitted that the development cannot go ahead because the developer is claiming that he hasn't the money and can't borrow it. It would be worth considering making a small payment as an incentive for the developer to vacate the site so that it could be considered as part of an overall strategy for Ramsgate with a public consultation. This exercise would have to be carried by someone with professional experience and not the goons in Cecil street.
This is all very straightforward. The situation is such a mess that a full public inquiry is required. The public inquiry isn't to determine what we do in the future. It's to determine how we ended up in this mess and who is responsible. Anyone in a position of authority should be supporting this measure. The fact that nobody in a position of authority is supporting this measure tells you everything you need to know about why Thanet is in the state it's in. They all put loyalty to their parties above their duty to the people of Thanet.
Annon 22:48 you are right but TDC don't keep records of officer decisions and those who attended face to face meetings will choose not to remember. I Judge lead enquiry with powers to compel witnesses to attend will never happen. Everything is hidden and TDC wouldn't want that to change. A new law regarding recording officer decisions has only just come into force.
Point 3 regarding "hotel operators have made it clear they would not operate wi a building sit next door"
Which hotel operators? The only name put forward by terry and SPF - whitbread- have never been involved in this development.
The £5mm investment. On what? Could we see a breakdown?
The 20% increase in finance costs. 20% of what? To be brought into the argument, it needs to be quantified. 20% of nothing is nothing. Or is it 20% of something?
The council should insist on speaking to the organ grinder. In the spirit of openness, now we all know whitbread were never involved, that the goalposts have changed with the developer, its about time he stood in front of the council and asked questions directly,
Steve I heard Hilton and Accor had been approached, however if they built the flats 1st would you buy one with a hotel being built next door?
breakdown is on another page, I don't get £5M either
Agree. Terry has said to the paper that Shaun Keegan put in his own money therefore no interest has been lost. He may not get his profit out as quick but that is the danger of investing in property.
Agreed but they insist it is only Shaun Keegan they are dealing with and it is a shame he doesn't come and speak to Ramsgate instead he gets Terry to take all the flak
Post a Comment