Case of the purloined letter

For those that remember a post in October concerning the financing of the Pleasurama development here I am reproducing the Freedom of Information request. (be mindful that this should take a maximum of 20 working days)

sent 24/10/2013

Dear Harvey

Please treat this as a formal request for information (FOIA request).

The Task & Finish Panel have recently asked a series of questions to Dr. Sue McGonical which have now been published on the TDC website as an appendix to the upcoming meeting on the 31^st October 2013. As the answers are in the public domain I would like to raise some questions under an FOIA.

Also, I believe, you stated at a previous meeting of the T&F you said that a full disclosure of all papers was not an issue as only current negotiations would remain confidential. Is that still the case?

Both Ian Driver and Richard Nicholson asked broadly the same question as follows:-

Letter from SFP Ventures UK Ltd dated 2 June 2009 page 27: This letter states that Wetmore Investments will be funding the construction of the hotel through a £5million  investment.  What  checks  did  the  Council make  into  the  validity  of  this  claim  e.g.  obtaining copies  of  development  agreements  with  SFP,  and what  steps  did  the  council  take  to  check  the  bonafides  of  Wetmore  Investments  e.g.  securing information  about  company  registration  and ownership of Wetmore Investments and copies of its accounts.  Was  Wetmore  Investment  ever  contacted by the council?

Dr. Sue’s answer

External solicitors were used to validate the ability of Wetmore to provide the agreed level of finance, and that a binding legal agreement was in existence.

Having investigated both SFP and TDC over this affair for many months and accumulated much written evidence Dr. Sue’s answer comes like a bolt out of the blue and raises more questions than answers.

In the interest of openness please would you answer the following:-

        Who were the External Solicitors?   

    Prettys

        Who instructed them and the date they were formally engaged?

    They  were not instructed by the Council as they were the developers solicitors.

 

     What was their brief?    

      The Council had asked the developers solicitors  to confirm that their client held a genuine offer of funding from Wetmore Investments  in respect of the construction of the hotel and that a binding funding  agreement was in place.

 

     Was their final report to Council Verbal or written?  

      The Council did not receive a report, only a letter of confirmation from Messrs Prettys. However, ths letter was received  by the Council in confidence and  therefore will not be disclosed to you - Section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 refers.

     Where is this report?  

   Please see my reply to question 4 above

      Why wasn’t it included in the Pleasurama file given to the members of the T&F panel?   

   This is a request for an explanation, not a request for recorded information

      Who are Wetmore?    

    The Council hold no relevant information

    Where are they based?  

   The Council hold no relevant information

    What was their financial standing?  

   The Council hold no relevant information

.   How long was the offer of £5M available for?  

   The Council hold no relevant information

.   Who owns Wetmore?    

The Council hold no relevant information. Please note that at the meeting  of the Pleasurama Site Development Review Task & Finish Group held on 31October 2013, officers advised the Group that no further due diligence had been carried out in respect of Wetmore Investments  other than the confirmation letter sought from Messr Pretty's.

     How much was the Solicitor Invoice for?  

   There was no invoice as Messrs. Pretty's were not the Council's solicitors

     When was it paid?

    N/A

.   Who authorised payment?

   N/A

.   Why weren’t the findings part of the appendixes to the 2009 agreement?  

   This is a request for an explanation not a request for recorded information.

  My response was to ask the following questions

  

     Thank  you for your belated response.

   

    In your answer to question 4 and your responses to the T&F panel you stated all the evidence was available and was handed over.

        Can you explain why this letter from Prettys has never been disclosed to the T&F and why it is not included in the appendixes of the 2009 agreement? Surely this is material evidence that should have been disclosed to the T&F panel.

        Finally I would like to remind you that you stated to the T&F that in your opinion there was nothing in the 2009 agreement that should not be in the public domain. Have you changed your mind?

Fencing with KCC

when and if SFP finally pull out in 52 days the question remains as to who maintains the Great Wall of Ramsgate. Currently Cardy (the local builder) holds the licence with KCC however the licence was granted because "building" was imminent. Something that plainly hasn't happened

The author asked Friends of Ramsgate for a statement and their response was as follows:

"The Wall was placed to protect the public from the supposed building work which plainly hasn't happened. However the site is dangerous so we think the wall should be moved back to the original building line before the season starts at Easter. KCC should work closely with Cardy to ensure Ramsgate gets their boulevard back"

Until the fat lady sings

Quoting an unofficial source it now seems the time has come for SFP Ventures (UK) Ltd to walk away from the misadventure on Ramsgate Seafront.

For over 11 years they have presided over an unmitigated disaster which seems to have finally caught up with them.

In the last post 2 areas of legal advice had been sought:

Firstly what was the legal opinion on allowing the development agreement to run out on the 28th February 2014 and what would then happen to the 3 leases which cost SFP £550,000 in 2009.

It seems legal opinion is clear and SFP have to walk away with nothing because they have failed to fulfill their side of the bargain, that is build what the planning permission was granted for in January 2004.

There is then the matter of £1M given over to TDC as a surety and it seems that this will be used to clear the site assuming Shaun Patrick Keegan doesn't instigate a legal battle to try and recoup the alleged  £5.25M SFP have supposedly spent so far.

Secondly the variation that SFP tried to get the Council to agree to, that is a reduction in the Council's legal protection and it seems another attempt to gain the Freehold of the site has been rejected by the legal adviser as not in TDC's best interest. My understanding is SFP's legal adviser was communicated with before Xmas but has yet to reply.

So it seems barring a legal battle it is all over with nobody the winner. TDC have to regain the confidence of the People of Ramsgate. The People have yet to have anything done with the site as it seems we have to go back to square one. Cardy have lost out through investing their money in a failed project, however it is clear that there is light at the end of the tunnel and finally we should be able to celebrate the end of a disasterous chapter in Ramsgate's recent past.

As they say it is all over bar the shouting.

Lets hope that this scene will be forever erased from Ramsgate's history

Reputation

Has the Council decided to protect their reputation instead of getting it right 1st time?

Currently they are awaiting sight of Legal advice on 2 separate but distinct issues.

Firstly what will happen in the aftermath of the 2006 & 2009 development agreements running out on the 28th February 2014.

This issue is clouded by the 3 X 199 year leases sold to SFP Ventures (UK) Ltd in 2009 (The same development Keegan says they have spent £5M on)

Secondly the developer has requested a change to the agreement removing a legal protection from the said agreement because they (Keegan) say it will help them get a finance package.

So is this developer the "only game in town" or should TDC tell them to get lost?