Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gibson and K Gregory.  Councillor Bayford was present as Councillor K Gregory’s substitute, and Councillor Wells as Councillor I Gregory’s substitute.

The Chairman welcomed Councillor Everitt to the meeting.

The meeting was adjourned for a few minutes to enable Members to read the list of questions received from members of the public, and answers thereto in relation to Royal Sands development site (circulated prior to the meeting).

The Chairman thanked the public for submitting questions.

She then invited Panel Members to put questions to Councillor Everitt, the Cabinet Member for Financial Services and Estates.

Panel Members’ questions and comments included the following:

1.  If SFP Ventures Ltd is in breach of contract, as suggested by service of the default notice, is there not an opportunity for the Council to “get out” of the contract. 

2.  If SFP Ventures Ltd is in default, does it not follow that the company that takes overSFP Ventures Ltd is also  in default?

3.  The answer to public question no. 7 refers to due diligence being undertaken in relation to Cardy Construction Ltd.  This implies that Cardy Construction could fail; however, that, in turn, appears to contradict the suggestion that the Council has no option but to deal with Cardy Construction Ltd.

4.  It is stated that the Council will get overage payments before the end of the contract.  At what stage of the contract will that be, and what will the overage be?  In view of property at Ramsgate having gone up in value, could the Council not expect to get more in terms of overage than was previously the case?

5.  With reference to paragraph 5.2 of the Cabinet report dated 11 September 2014, what exactly is the “significant amount of money” that the site is said to be worth?

6.  Paragraph 5.4 of the Cabinet report hints that buying back of the site by the Council is an option.  It also refers to securing “the best financial value for the site”.  Why is the Council not looking to see if there is an alternative to giving the contract to Cardy Construction Ltd?  If the site is worth a significant amount of money, with its value having gone up, then another developer might find taking over the site an attractive proposition.  The council could enter into a “back to back” arrangement, whereby another party’s funds are used in the transaction.

7.  Paragraph 5.4 also suggests that only “the same scheme or a scheme of similar type and scale” could be developed.  Do we know that?  Should we not be investigating what, for example, the people of Ramsgate would be interested in having developed at the site?

8.  If market testing was considered necessary in the case of Manston Airport, then why not in the case of the Royal Sands site?

9.  All Members of the Panel should be privy to the legal and valuation advice, even if that means having another meeting in closed session.

(The Chairman advised that this meeting had been convened in open session to enable the public to hear the Panel discuss general issues.)

10.The answer to public question 2 refers to “the outstanding money owed to the council”.  If nothing has been built, how can there be outstanding money?

11.Is the use of “best consideration” (as in the answer to public question 2) appropriate as that term is understood to embrace social  ...  view the full minutes text for item 422.