Rally round the banner

The latest press release posted today by TDC takes us nowhere,

NEWS RELEASE

Latest update on the Royal Sands site, Ramsgate

On Thursday 20 February, Cabinet members at Thanet District Council agreed to terminate the Royal Sands site (Ramsgate) development agreement, in line with the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

The council wishes to confirm that pursuant to those recommendations formal notice has been served on the developer’s solicitors requiring them to correct a breach of contract.

Cabinet Member for Financial Services and Estates, Cllr Rick Everitt, said: “I’d like to offer my strongest assurances to residents that we are doing all we can to progress matters.

“I can appreciate the frustration when it appears that things are not progressing as quickly as anticipated. However, the council is working hard behind the scenes and has a dedicated team in place who are driving this forward.

“There are a number of complicated legal issues which we are continuing to work to resolve. This does mean that we need to take the time to ensure we get the process right. It also means that we won’t be able to provide any further detail at this stage – to do so would only undermine the strength of our legal position and that’s not something I’m willing to risk.

“What I can confirm is that the council ?is committed to ensuring this matter is resolved as quickly as possible."

ENDS

Due to the factors mentioned in the release the council will not be commenting further on this issue or putting anyone up for interview. Thank you for your understanding.

So that TDC understand that people in Ramsgate are getting tired of excuses we are planning to hold hands around the Pleasurama site from 5pm on the 6th July. We need at least 4 hundred people, man, women and children

Join us on Facebook search for Friends of Ramsgate Seafront

Waiting

I know TDC are pretty slow and lately they seem to have been in some sort of meltdown however what on earth is going on with serving papers on SFP Ventures (UK) Ltd.

The Development Agreement terminated on the 28th February 2014 and the construction engineer has issued his report so why are we all waiting?

The last I heard it was on Mark Seed's desk awaiting something now I hear it is with Pinsent Mason.

Come on TDC get your backsides in motion else it will be 2017 before anything happens.

Golden Balls revisited

Its funny how a crystal ball is good to see into the future and also wonderful how 20/20 hindsight can help with navel gazing.

Two examples of the above that come together nicely are this email sent to Thanet Watch by "mistake"

21 August 2013

Hi Graham/Daniel/Stuart

This chap runs a local blog in Thanet, and I suspect without any doubt his interest in Cardy is fuelled solely by agitators and spoilers who are against the Royal Sands site.

I spoke with this chap (I wonder who this is?) about two months ago,  and at that time it was to put him straight regarding a story he was going to write then about Cardy Construction Ltd being struck off at Companies House....my call to him prevented a negative and damaging story. I doubt he has much of a following, and most of them would be odd.

I do not intend responding by email but I do think I should phone with a "positive" and up beat conversation.

Cardy Healthcare is separate to Cardy Construction Ltd and was a specialist company that we set up to develop and explore opportunities within the Healthcare Sector, including healthcentres, medical centres, GP Surgeries, Pharmacies and Hospitals both in the Private Sector and the NHS. 

This has been a speculative 5 year plan , and our initial investment in this process has proved to have been very successful and we have a secured and confirmed order book of approaching £10million pounds of quality and profitable work.

Let me know your thoughts, I do not intend speaking with him today.

Ironically a took a call from the Chief Exec of TDC yesterday at 4pm. And he asked if he and I could have an "off line" chat re Royal Sands. He does not want lawyers or others involved and felt that me/Cardy and him were the two people in this project that could influence success for the project . Not sure why I have been singled out, but I guess if I can finally pull this one off, I would be Billy Golden Balls.

I am sure it will end up being more hot air. Seeing him at 8.30 this morning. Will update you.

Stan

And the following excerpt from the embargoed Cabinet papers dated 20th February 2014 as follows:

"5.4 Within the timescales of drafting  the report to reflect on the recommendations from Scrutiny the council has been approached confidentially by a reputable local business who has expressed a desire to acquire SFP and take the development forward for completion."

The first part is actually factually wrong as the Chief Exec is Sue Macgonical however, if true, it shows the approach was by TDC in August last year not as 5.4 says "within the timescale of drafting the report" but what seems to be worse is the fact that no officer deemed it important enough to tell the Cabinet that they were talking to this "reputable local business" (widely thought to be Cardy the builders) until the publishing of the Cabinet papers. In fact the "Golden Balls" email was portrayed as some sort of fake and dismissed as a publicity stunt by Thanet Watch.

So there are a few questions.

When did officers start negotiations with Cardy?

Who approached who?

How serious had these negotiations got?

Which officer and what director of Cardy where conducting these Negotiations?

When did Cabinet get told and why weren't they part of the negotiations? 

End of an agreement

The development agreement between Thanet District Council and SFP Ventures (UK) Ltd, signed on the 20th October 2006, finally runs out today.

Quote "The agreed build programme required the development to commence in May 2008 and be substantially complete by January 2012" (from the 2006 agreement)

This development agreement was varied in the Autumn of 2009 to change the £5.6M bond to a £1M surety and the practical completion date was changed to the 28th February 2014 (TODAY).

As no development has taken place, bar the tombstones , and Friends of Ramsgate Seafront had been campaigning against the developer and TDC, the Council decided to set up a committee to look into this sorry situation. The Task and Finish group met for the 1st time 25th June 2013.

This committee decided that the developer was in material breach of the 2006/2009 agreement and asked a leading Law firm to look at these agreements with a view to terminating them and so in October they forwarded a brief to Pinsent Mason for a legal opinion.

Pinsent Mason have concluded that:

SFP Ventures (UK) ltd are in breach (obvious really as they haven't built Royal Sands)

The Development Agreement, drafted by Eversheds, did not contain a "conventional longstop date" which means the Council does not have an "unconditional right to terminate the Development Agreement" and further they say "This is a material defect in the drafting of the Development Agreement"

In Lawyer speak they are saying someone made a mistake!!!

This mistake has meant that the developer must be given an opportunity to remedy the breach (the breach being the building of the development) albeit under conditions.

These conditions are what TDC refer to in their recent statement which says an expert will draw up a schedule with specific dates for completion of each stage which will provide opportunities for SFP to complete the job assuming they have the will and the money, Should they fail to get the work done then, and only then, will they forfeit the site.

The Task & Finish Group also had another stipulation that Eversheds are contacted to see why they so clearly failed in their "duty of care" towards the Council in the drafting of two legal documents.

The question that needs answering is did they, in 2006 and in 2009, make a huge error of judgement or where they instructed not to include a "conventional longstop date"

Because of this error the People of Ramsgate will very likely be unable to have a say on Pleasurama for at least 2 years or if they build, ever.

When will the "Fat Lady" be singing?

When will we get to see the back of this inept developer and move on in Ramsgate?

Not very Prettys

This issue over "the letter" that Dr Sue had described thus:

"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."

The FOI request to Harvey Patterson stated the external solicitors were "Prettys" however it seems someone is being economical.

Further looking at the answer from Dr. Sue I wonder whether what she told the T & F committee is reflected in the letter. Unless of course there is further correspondence still not disclosed to the Councillors.

No mention of a binding legal agreement and is only a solicitors opinion on the subject matter.

Further the 2 further letters mentioned " a development appraisal document"

and " a confirmatory email from SFP's funders"

Both leave a lot to the imagination. This is a £20M development on Ramsgate seafront that seems to be funded at least in part from the word of a lawyer who doesn't seem to be the developers lawyer (according to TDC lawyer) and at least £5M on the say so of a letter that looks like Micky Mouse drew it up.

The only correspondence to detail anything to do with finance is from Shaun Keegan who says they have lodged £650K with TDC (£100K for cliff works and £550K for the 3 leases) which completely agrees with the January 2010 accounts which show Assets and liabilities of £1.6M (the £1M being the deposit alluded to.

The more TDC try and hide their "duty of care" to the people of Thanet the deeper the hole they dig for themselves.

IT IS TIME FOR AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE COMPETENCE OF COUNCIL OFFICERS AND THEIR ABILITY TO DO THEIR JOBS

If anything changes I will add to the blog

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?