Last week I
called for the resignation of the Chairman of Thanet Council, Councillor Doug
Clark, because, in my opinion, he had used his casting vote unconstitutionally
in relation to decisions about SFP Ventures (UK) Ltd and the Royal Sands
Development Ramsgate at a meeting on 6th December.
I have
checked the Constitution of Thanet District Council. Article 21.2 states that “there will be no restriction on how the
Chairman chooses to exercise a casting vote.”
Technically speaking Cllr Clarke did not therefore act unconstitutionally.
I publically apologise to Councillor Clark for suggesting that he did. Any
complaint I may have planned to take to the Council’s Standards Sub-Committee
is therefore not warranted because no rules have been broken.
However I
would like to point out that the exercise of a casting vote does not take place
in a vacuum. A casting vote must be used
in a reasonable and balanced manner and the person using that vote must take
into account all of the issues related to the subject under discussion
including;
·
the
level of public interest
·
the
level of councillor interest
·
the
financial implications of the decision
·
any
precedents set by previous discussion on this or similar issues
·
any
other relevant issues of concern relating to the issue under discussion
·
any
advice or guidance about how best to manage the issue under debate
In relation
to SFP Ventures Ltd and Royal Sands I think it would be fair to say that;
· Quite
clearly the people of Ramsgate are concerned about the Royal Sands development.
They want to know what the Council proposes to do about the lack of progress
made by developers SFP Ventures (UK) Ltd during the past decade
·
Quite
clearly many councillors share these concerns. That’s why 27 councillors (50%
of those present at the meeting on 6th December) voted to have any
final decision about a new development agreement with SFP Ventures (UK) Ltd, discussed
and voted on by a meeting of the full Council, rather than a decision being
taken by a single Cabinet member at a secret meeting.
·
Quite
clearly any decision about Royal Sands has major financial implications for the
Council and council taxpayers.
·
Quite
clearly a precedent has been set when in 2009 the first changes SFP Ventures
(UK) Ltd’s development agreement were agreed at a meeting of the full Council
rather than by a secret meeting.
Furthermore
there are a number of other relevant issues which Councillors may have wished
to raise had they been granted a full debate and vote about the changes to the
development agreement including;
·
the
value of the land proposed to be sold to SFP Ventures (UK) Ltd
·
uncertainties
about the height of the development
·
issues
related to the lack of a flood risk assessment when the project is being built
in a designated flood risk area
·
issues
related to the cost to the Council of maintaining the cliff face behind the
proposed development
There is also sound advice and guidance in place in
relation to how the Chairman should have managed the discussion of Royal Sands on
6th December. Article 15 (iii) of the Council’s Constitution requires
the Chairman “to ensure that the Council meeting is a forum for the debate of
matters of concern to the local community and the place at which Members who
are neither on the Executive nor hold Committee chairs are able to hold the Executive
and Committee chairmen to account”. The Government Audit Commission, following
an investigation into the Royal Sands development, also cautioned the Council
to manage this project as openly and transparently as possible, which suggests
to me that any final decision on the proposed new development agreement with
SFP Ventures (UK) Ltd be made at a meeting of the full Council rather than in a
secret meeting.
It is my
opinion therefore that, when all the relevant
factors are taken into account, there
is an overwhelming case for any final decision on the proposed new development
agreement with SFP (Ventures) UK Ltd to be taken by a meeting of full
Council.
Although technically
speaking the Chairman of the Council did not act unconstitutionally in using
his casting vote to block this proposal, I do believe on the evidence above
that he failed to use his casting vote in a considered and balanced manner.
Finally I
would have expected officers of the Council to have made the Chairman aware of
the issues I have raised in this statement.
Cllr Ian
Driver
Current
Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel