Council is very concerned about the lack progress made by SFP Ventures (UK) Ltd in moving forward the Ramsgate Royal Sands development.
It is therefore agreed that officers produce a comprehensive report which sets out all the options available to the Council to either facilitate the completion of the development or enable the council to terminate the existing development agreement.
This report will include a risk assessment of each available option and will be included on the agenda of the next meeting of the Council.
Moved by Councillor Ian Driver
Thats a bit of a nothing motion. Where is the meat? It needs to be sexed up a bit!
ReplyDeleteAnon you have to appreciate that motion both needs to be constitutionally acceptable and have some chance of councillors voting for it.
DeleteYou also have to temper this with the officers main fear i.e. that pulling out of the development agreement could result in both the developer and contractor taking the council to court, which could be expensive to those of us who are council taxpayers.
It's great to see someone is trying to get something moving on this and although it's only looking at options at first, by keeping the focus on this 'development' it might make the 'do nothing tangible and keep discussing it' easy route unacceptable in the future. This helps keep the pressure on.
ReplyDeleteI would add that no councillors who have been involved with the current state of affairs should be allowed to vote on this motion. Clearly, something has gone badly wrong. If srongdoing were inveolved those responsible would have a vested interest in covering this up. It's important that the council deals with this transparently and so, we need fresh meat on the case.
ReplyDeleteWill this be supported by the TIG (sorry WC party) or the TOM party, which is the important part. At the very least he needs one TIG to break ranks if it goes to a numbers game.
ReplyDeleteStop playing childish tolet games COUNCILLOR Moores
DeleteToilet games even*
DeleteHow many Tories do you think will vote for the motion? Will you support it? Do you think that it's time to sort out this mess?
ReplyDeletedont stand a chace of getting out of the starting blocks to many with much to hide bringin the POLICE
ReplyDeleteAs ever, 8:56, on what charge?
Delete8:56 is right: fraud and wasting public funds would be the relevant charges at Pleasurama. Even endagering the public with some of the construction plans/work. Or are you saying 9:10 that Pleasurama is clean and above board and handled impeccably? Pull the other one. Pleasurama and TDC stink. A Police investigation is required.
DeleteCHANCE
ReplyDeleteIan should have submitted a second motion of no confidence in Poole and McGonigal's capability of representing the Council and that someone who knows what he is doing, namely a properly qualified surveyor should be engaged. Cut corners now and pay the price later.
ReplyDelete11.43 is right. Dealing with sharks here.
ReplyDeletesideshow
ReplyDelete