Issue - meetings

Cabinet sought to set out a formal process for identifying interest from third parties to be a Council indemnity partner for a potential CPO for Manston Airport. The process would involve publishing a prior information notice in the Official Journal of the European Union in early 2016 with a questionnaire to be completed by potential partners.

Organisations responding to the soft market test would be required to provide information on finance, company structure, business plans, financial guarantors and how they view the CPO public interest test would be met. These organisations would be given four weeks to submit responses to the questionnaire, after which a report back on the assessment of responses would be considered at a future Cabinet meeting.

Councillor Campbell and Councillor Bayford spoke under Council Procedure Rule 24.1.

Councillor L. Fairbrass proposed, Councillor Crow-Brown seconded and Cabinet agreed to a soft market testing exercise being undertaken and instructed the Director of Corporate Governance to carry out the exercise.

The Chairman advised the meeting that a request for public speaking by Ms Jennifer Maidman, representative of the Save Manston Airport (SMA) had been granted. Councillor David Saunders reminded the meeting that the purpose of the call-in was to review the procedure that was used by Cabinet to make the decision on 29 October 2015.

One Member requested that a RiverOak representative be allowed to speak at the meeting. Mr Tim Howes, Director of Corporate Governance & Monitoring Officer advised the meeting that he had reservation about allowing RiverOak representatives to speak at the Panel meeting. This was because RiverOak were intending to enter into a commercial contract with Thanet District Council (TDC). It followed therefore that RiverOak had an interest in the outcome of the Panel meeting. This meant in his view that it was therefore inappropriate to let the RiverOak representative speak at the meeting. Tim Howes indicated that there were other appropriate processes and methods that RiverOak could use to communicate their views to TDC.

Another Member said that they fundamentally disagreed with the view to disallow RiverOak representative to speak at the meeting and that the Panel could invite anyone they so wished to come and speak at the meeting. The Chairman said he was minded to allow RiverOak representative to speak at the meeting. Tim Howes requested that it be noted that the decision by the Chairman to allow RiverOak to speak at the Panel meeting was contrary to advice given by the Monitoring Officer. Madeline Homer, CEx said that the decision to allow RiverOak to speak could have implications at a judicial review (if there was to be one). The Chairman assured the meeting that he would keep the public speaking to points that related to the Cabinet decision under review.

The Chairman said the reason for the call-in was on the basis of ‘a presumption in favour of openness;’ that although the report was well presented, in the opinion of a significant number of Members, the report may be read as being loaded to achieve the outcome. He reminded Members that the purpose of the meeting was to review the decision making process, highlighting the flaws and then making recommendations. The Chairman advised the Panel that in addition to the options highlighted in the covering report, Members could refer the issue to Full Council. He then asked if Members of the Panel had been ‘whipped’ for the purposes of this extraordinary meeting and he received no positive response.

The Chairman called upon Ms Maidman representing the Supporters of Manston Airport to speak. She said that the information provided to the extraordinary Cabinet meeting had been made contrary to the access to information rules, (the five clear working day rule).

The Chairman then invited Claire Fielding, RiverOak representative to speak. She said that RiverOak had circulated a report to the Overview and Scrutiny Panel members (outside a meeting), stating their position and said that RiverOak was a credible real estate investor. RiverOak had provided an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25

Report to follow.

Cabinet considered a detailed report by the Director of Corporate Governance & Monitoring Officer and additional supportive background information presented to the meeting by the Leader of Council regarding the process undertaken to date to confirm that RiverOak were a viable Compulsory Purchasing Order (CPO) partner. The meeting was advised that a number of meetings were held between representatives of RiverOak and Thanet District Council (TDC) to assess whether progress had been made in moving towards an agreed position regarding the indemnity partnership arrangement between the two organisations.

During these discussions, the Council sought advice from specialist barristers with experience in handling development planning and Compulsory Purchasing Order cases. The fundamental issues TDC wanted to ensure were addressed were that any viable CPO indemnity partner needed to present to Council verifiable evidence that they had in place adequate financial resources to support the CPO process to its conclusion and that Manston Airport would become operational as an airport as soon as was realistically possible at no residual cost to Council.

Cabinet noted that whilst some evidence was presented to TDC by RiverOak, not all key financial evidence was submitted to Council for verification to ensure that a successful CPO process could be pursued by Council and RiverOak. They also observed that the information presented to TDC by RiverOak as evidence towards fulfilling the requirements of the Government Circular 06/2004 to justify the public interest to be derived from carrying out a CPO as measured against the current Manston Airport land owner plans for the site was inadequate as highlighted in the Cabinet report.

Cabinet concluded that it was important to note that the purpose of the meeting was to make a decision based on the evidence presented to TDC by RiverOak whether at the present time RiverOak could be considered a suitable CPO partner.

The following Members spoke under Council Procedure 24.1:

Councillor Martin;

Councillor K. Gregory;

Councillor Rev. Piper;

Councillor Taylor-Smith;

Councillor Campbell;

Councillor Grove;

Councillor Partington;

Councillor Ashbee on behalf of Councillor Collins;

Councillor Ashbee;

Councillor Smith;

Councillor Curran;

Councillor Bayford.

Councillor Wells proposed, Councillor Stummer-Schmertzing seconded and Cabinet agreed the following:

1.  That having reviewed its position, details of which are contained in the Cabinet report, that no further action be taken at the present time on a CPO of Manston Airport, on the basis that RiverOak do not fulfil the requirements of the Council for an indemnity partner;

2.  To note that this is the second time that RiverOak have not fulfilled the requirements of the Council for an indemnity partner.