Rita Hancock
Subj:
|
Re: Pleasurama site
|
Date:
|
16/04/2004 16:00:07 GMT Daylight Time
|
From:
|
Rita.Hancock@thanet.gov.uk
|
To:
|
MichaelChild@aol.com
|
Sent from the Internet (Details)
|
Thank you Mr Child - I will pass all of this on to the Leader tonight.
Rita
Subj:
|
Re: Pleasurama site
|
Date:
|
16/04/2004 15:37:01 GMT Daylight Time
|
From:
|
Michael Child
|
To:
|
Rita.Hancock@thanet.gov.uk
|
Dear Ms. Hancock
You may find a copy of my previous email to you helpful in your investigation.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
Subj: Re: E-Mail
Date: 18/02/2004
To: Rita.Hancock@thanet.gov.uk
Ms Hancock
I have sent a number of emails to Councillor Ezekiel both directly via my MP and have had a number of councillors say they have passed questions I have asked them via email to Councillor Ezekiel over a period of about a year.
They all relate to the devlopement on ramsgate seafront. Here are the last two.
I have two concerns myself. That I think are of particular importance.
1 The financial guarantees in relation to the expected returns of the project.
The saleable value of the completed accommodation is expected to be in excess of 60 million pounds.
The developer SFP Ventures Partners Ltd is a British Virgin Islands company and therefore not accountable to UK authorities in any way whatsoever.
The land valuation and guarantees appear to be inadequate for the money that we hope to receive with respect to the sale of the accommodation nor do they appear to be protect against any financial losses during the construction period.
2 The way the height and size of the building impact on the area does not seem to have been accurately measured by anyone.
The reasons for this are that large detached concrete buildings do not usually have a public footpath in a conservation area next to their roof level so height variations of a meter or so are not noticeable.
My own calculations based on the site survey and plans submitted by the developer make the maximum height of the building 3.4 meters above the footpath surface on the cliff top. It is difficult to completely accurate due to the radical changes that will have to be made at ground level, because of the size of the building changing the road and promenade layout so this may be inaccurate by a meter or so in either direction.
My calculations relating to the lines of site suggest that it will no longer be possible to see the shoreline when looking from the cliff top over the lowest part of the development or the cliff top from the shoreline.
The planning department reckon not more than three meters above the cliff top based on holding a scale ruler next to the side elevation.
No calculations appear to have been attempted by the planning department with relation to the lines of site.
I have recommended that the opinion of an independent qualified architect be sought due the large impact that small variations in the angle of the view will have.
Kind regards Michael Child
You are probably only too familiar with the following but I have added them in case you are not.
1 The planning and design statement for the development, on page 9 says the following.
"The views of Wellington Crescent at the top of the cliff will be retained when viewed from the harbour and the shore line, with the proposed scheme set below the cliff top.
When viewed from ground level along Wellington Crescent the buildings will not be visible as they are below the cliff face. When viewed from the cliff edge, the buildings will provide an extension to the gardens with the roof terraces. It will also enhance the existing views replacing the unsightly vacant land. The roof design will provide architectural interest whilst allowing views of the sea to remain."
2 A BVI company can be used for holding land and buildings for the purpose of development and or generating rental income or realising capital gains. Strategies can be employed in order to minimise or eliminate taxes in the country where the property is located.
No public record is kept of the identity of shareholders or directors
The books and records of the company may be maintained anywhere
No accounts or annual summaries have to be filed with the Government
No taxes on dividends, interest, royalties, capital gains, inheritance, gifts or any other income derived outside the BVI;
No requirement to file annual return s or financial statements;
No requirement to hold annual general meetings of shareholders or directors;
Full exemption from taxation on any business activity or transaction carried on outside the BVI;
Complete business privacy and confidentiality;
Minimal capital requirements and minimal registration fee on capital;
Nominative or Bearer shares at owner's option;
Companies are allowed to have sole director;
The shareholders, directors and officers may be of any nationality and may be resident of any country;
Neither the director nor the officers need be shareholders;
Directors and/or officers can be either corporate entities or natural persons;
There is no requirement to register initial, or ongoing, changes in director(s) and/or officer(s);
A company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands has the same powers as a natural person;
No disclosure of the beneficial owners is required
No Company Secretary is required
No local Director is required
Directors and Shareholders meetings may take place anywhere (even via telephone)"
Hello
I run the bookshop in Ramsgate and live over the top of it, I also write the thanetonline.com website during the last couple of weeks a large proportion of my customers have been talking about the plans for the redevelopment of the old Pleasureama site.
My family has lived in Thanet since 1966 and none of us can remember any local issue producing such strong feelings among local people.
The general feeling in the town seems to one of amazement. Mainly because of the height and the lack of public consultation in Ramsgate.
I wonder could you tell me your position on this issue, it is my intention to publicise this information.
Kind regards Michael Child.
In a message dated 18/02/2004 16:56:53 GMT Standard Time, Rita.Hancock@thanet.gov.uk writes:
Subj: Re: E-Mail
Date: 18/02/2004 16:56:53 GMT Standard Time
From: Rita.Hancock@thanet.gov.uk
To: MichaelChild@aol.com
Sent from the Internet
Mr Child,
Vicki Williams has passed on to me your email regarding Councillors' emails. They should all be correct on the website but I believe Councillor Ezekiel has two email addresses. They are:
sandy.ezekiel@lineone.net and sandy.ezekiel@thanet.gov.uk.
I have looked through the thanet.gov email addresses, but cannot see anything from you. I do believe there was a problem with the first email address, but both are now in operation.
If you would like to email me direct, I will make sure that Councillor Ezekiel gets it for you.
Sorry you have not heard from him, but perhaps we can now help you further.
Rita Hancock
PA to Leader
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Any information that you have about the council meeting relating to the sale of the old Pleasurama site and what the decision it reached means in layman's terms would be very helpful to me.
I have received the following explanation from the council.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
QUESTIONS FROM THE PRESS AND PUBLIC/DISPOSAL OF EX PLEASURAMA SITE
The Chairman reported that two questions had been received after the deadline for receipt of questions and they would be answered in writing by the Leader of the Council.
Nine questions from the public in respect of the development on the ex Pleasurama site were answered by Councillor J D Kirby and the Leader of the Council. Two members of the public who had submitted questions were not present at the meeting and in accordance with the Council Procedure Rules, the questions were not put and the response would be sent in writing.
Moved by Councillor Ezekiel, seconded by Councillor J D Kirby, that:
"(A) the planning application approved by Planning Committee on 28th January 2004 be noted;
(B) the action taken to protect the Council's interests as detailed in paragraph 4 of the report be noted;
(C) the financial information contained in the restricted annex to the report and the likely financial receipt to the Council from the sale of the land at Ramsgate Boulevard to SFP be noted'
(D) the continuing efforts of officers and Cabinet Members to bring the development about, with a view to completing the necessary legal paperwork with SFP within a two month timeframe be noted and the agreement of Cabinet be required to the final terms for the disposal and development of the site, including the budgetary elements; and
(E) officers be instructed to report back to the Council meeting on 8th July 2004 on the progress on this project".
Amendment moved by Councillor R Nicholson, seconded by Councillor Harrison, that:
"in (D) above the words "the development about" be removed and replaced with "a satisfactory development about, which meets the original concept accepted by Council on 5th December 2002".
AMENDMENT CARRIED.
Amendment moved by Councillor Harrison, seconded by Councillor R Nicholson, that:
"in (C) above add the words "and agree a sum of £727,600 as an additional contribution to the provision of affordable housing".
AMENDMENT LOST.
SUBSTANTIVE MOTION ADOPTED.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The important part would seem to be: Amendment moved by Councillor R Nicholson, seconded by Councillor Harrison, that:
"in (D) above the words "the development about" be removed and replaced with "a satisfactory development about, which meets the original concept accepted by Council on 5th December 2002".
AMENDMENT CARRIED.
I appreciate that this probably far exceeds the statutory levels of public consultation normal, you may however concede that some people would find it an unusual way of communicating what sort of building we may expect on the towns main leisure site.
Michael Child
In a message dated 16/04/2004 12:00:15 GMT Daylight Time, Rita.Hancock@thanet.gov.uk writes:
Subj: Pleasurama site
Date: 16/04/2004 12:00:15 GMT Daylight Time
From: Rita.Hancock@thanet.gov.uk
To: MichaelChild@aol.com
Sent from the Internet
Dear Mr Child,
I am sorry your emails do not seem to have reached the Leader of the Council, but I will now place your email in front of him upon his return to the office this evening.
I do apologise for any inconvenience caused and will certainly investigate the email problems you experienced.
Rita Hancock
PA to Leader
|