Venue: Council Chamber, Council Offices, Cecil Street, Margate, Kent. View directions
Contact: Charles Hungwe
Apologies for Absence
Apologies were received from the following
Councillor Everitt, substituted by Councillor
Councillor Constantine, substituted by Councillor
Declaration of Interests PDF 87 KB
To receive any declarations of
interest. Members are advised to consider the advice contained
within the Declaration of Interest advice attached to this Agenda.
If a Member declares an interest, they should complete the
Declaration of Interest
There were no declarations made at the meeting.
Overview & Scrutiny Panel call-in of Cabinet Decision - Proposal for the disposal of the Dreamland freehold PDF 76 KB
The following members of the public spoke
under scrutiny procedure rules for public speaking:
Mr Dan Hind;
Mr David Collard;
Mr Steve Villette.
Councillor Bayford, Leader of Council
responded to the comments made and questions that were raised by
the public speakers.
Councillor Duckworth and Councillor Rawf asked
questions under Council Procedure Rule 20.1 and the Leader
The Chairman reminded Members the purpose of
the meeting that it was to consider the call-in of a Cabinet
decision and that the grounds for call-in were that Members were
seeking clarification from Cabinet on the following:
- The need to identify the range of
options considered; specifically this being the need for Cabinet to
explain why they have taken the decision to dispose of the asset
now, rather than retaining it.
Members then asked questions and made comments
- Agreement was needed from the
funders to remove ongoing grant obligations. Did this mean that
some of the grants would need to be paid back by the Council?
- Had TDC consider the packaging up of
the site into separate entities as there had been interest in
different parts of the park from Ace Cafe, Picturehouse, and
Carters Steam Fair?
- Why was a restricted period of only
10 years given within the sale of the freehold for housing on the
site, instead of no housing at all in line with the local plan
policy for Dreamland?
- If a period had to be given, or not,
for no housing on the site, TDC should, in the event of housing
being granted in the future, require a percentage of the sales to
be paid to TDC as part of the contract of sale, to ensure full
value to the Council Tax payer;
- Can a claw back be included as it
would not be an inducement but rather a dis-incentive to develop
housing on the site?
- As part of the DCO, the Council made
the argument that the site is not suitable for housing as it was
contaminated land and was therefore only going to be for leisure
use only. Had that view changed?
- What if any due diligence has been
done on the owners and employees of SHL to see if they have a
sufficient track record to own and successfully operate a theme
- The Head of Asset Management was due
to leave TDC, were the Cabinet members confident that this was the
right time to be making such a decision, and were they confident
that TDC will have the expertise needed in-house during this
- Many residents would be concerned
that the 10 year restriction was not long enough to reassure
residents that the site would continue to be managed as a leisure
facility. The decision needed to include the 25 year restriction on
- The Council made a brave decision to
purchase the site. Local authorities did not have the money to
invest and run amusement parks. TDC should not run the Dreamland as
only a private investor was best suited ...
view the full minutes text for item 183.