Thanet Council reject Turner Contemporary’s inspirational plans for historic Fort Road Hotel, in favour of demolition and social housing

Options Study for Fort Road Hotel, June 2014

In December 2014 Councillor Iris Johnston surprised the public with her Leader’s Report to the Council regarding the potential demolition of the historic Fort Road Hotel and the development of the site for social housing flats.

Soon afterwards, Councillor Richard Nicholson, Cabinet Member for Housing, stated that:

“several attempts were made to market this building but unfortunately to no avail.”

• 
This Labour Council’s  announcement was a shock to many  residents and interested parties, who had been following the council’s own PR and marketing of the hotel for development as boutique hotel.

• It seemed obvious that such a prominent seafront location, opposite Turner Contemporary made a hotel an obvious and attractive option. The council had even erected a rooftop neon ‘ICONIC SITE’ sign to market it for development into a much needed boutique hotel, which would be an economic boost to Margate. I covered this in my blog post of December 6th 2014.

ICONIC SITE neon marketing

• The Kent and London based award-winning architectural and interior design practice of Guy Hollaway Architects RIBA, has presented  two high quality schemes,  drawn up for  two separate developers since 2010.

• The first of these with the original landowners, was proceeding with the apparent agreement of KCC and Thanet Council during the Tory administration of Bob Bayford in 2010. But the CPO for demolition was still implemented in 2010 by the council’s housing department with the stated purpose of demolition.  This in itself is questionable to demolish a building in a Conservation Area without an approved scheme to replace it.

• The second Guy Hollaway  Architects scheme was for a London based developer and was announced in the press on July 22nd 2013

Guy Hollaway scheme July 2013

• In February 2014, after hearing this second scheme had also fallen through,  I asked the council if they had any buildings which the council were looking for developers to take forward as hotels. I’m the owner of a successful  boutique bed and breakfast business and we were actively exploring expansion of our business. I was told there weren’t buildings for hotels and I should make enquiries of estate agents in the area.

• It then came to my attention that in spring 2014 that Turner Contemporary had been asked by the council from February 2014 to draw up an options scheme for a boutique hotel for the Fort Road Hotel site.

In December 2014 I made a Freedom of Information request for documents relating to the site. At first the Council refused to release the options document them on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. Following a successful appeal to the council the options document was made public last week. 

• I can now reveal that an options document was indeed drawn up for Turner Contemporary by architects Hawkins Brown in June 2014. Email discussions between Turner Contemporary and the council’s Head of Economic Development and Asset Management, Edwina Crowley, show that while the council had first encouraged Turner Contemporary to draw up a hotel scheme Ms Crowley then stated on June 24th 2014 that they would not hand over the freehold to the site as part of any deal. And further that: "The agreement for the lease will prevent any land banking and enable us to get the site back, plus prevent residential use."

Download the public file (PDF) of the email discussions with the Council.

• This scheme, which was never disclosed to the voting public, then appears to have collapsed. Download the PDF of the options document that has been made public. Ironically, it includes an image from one of my own bedrooms in my B&B as a style guide!

Illustration of potential boutique hotel use

• After this opaque and puzzling episode, the current council administration is now  determined to demolish a heritage building and utilise  this strategic site for housing;  rather than economic/job creation /tourism regeneration as was their position in 2010 at the time of their CPO.

• This raises the issue of why a great deal of taxpayers money was  wasted  in marketing the site for development into a boutique hotel?

• In addition, large sums of wasted money have been  spent by prospective developers in drawing up expensive schemes to submit to this council,  schemes which TDC had no intention of pursuing. And all the while the building has been left in a derelict eyesore state open to the elements since the CPO of 2010.

• This Thursday on April 2nd, the TDC Cabinet Meeting has tabled a motion to transfer the Fort Road Hotel to the Housing Revenue account so that demolition can take place and development for social housing.

• Perhaps we should now be asking Councillor Nicholson whether he knew that TDC had made TDC possession of the freehold of the site non-negotiable, when he said that efforts to find a partner for the hotel project had been "to no avail."

The Save Fort Road petition is now running at over 600 signatures. It’s clear the public don’t want this historic building  to be demolished. And despite the council’s attempts to suppress the information, the Turner Contemporary proposal it looks like the kind of scheme the public would support.

There are plenty of empty properties and sites throughout the area for the council to utilise and develop for  modern  housing. Margate doesn’t  have many places where Turner’s sea and sky can be seen in such a spectacular setting, where natural beauty can support local jobs and sustainable revenues for the town.      
               
• If we’re elected to the council, Ed Targett and I will work to ensure all asset disposals are conducted in an open and transparent manner.                                                                                        

We must not lose any more strategic economic sites in the town that could provide badly needed jobs. Margate is a great town with a great future as a tourist destination and as a place to live.                              
We  deserve better from our council.

What can we do as individuals?

SIGN THE PETITION!
Join the Save Fort Road Hotel Facebook page and spread the word!

Write to Acting Chief Executive Madeline Homer ahead of Thursday’s Cabinet Meeting to ask her to review the decision to move towards housing development of the historic Fort Road Hotel. Madeline.homer@thanet.gov.uk        

Follow the hashtag #MargateSpringClean    
https://www.facebook.com/margatespringclean                                     

Additional Edit:
I finally managed to open this coming Thursday's April 2nd Cabinet Meeting Agenda Report document. PDF of the Fort Road Hotel Agenda Item 7 here.

There's even more shocking information. These excerpts are taken from the above Agenda Reports document.

Given the information that has been released to the public regarding the Turner Contemporary options document, it doesn't seem to be true that there wasn't a suitable development proposal put forward. The Council no longer offering the freehold is not the same issue.

There we have it. £950,000 is the figure the Council are proposing to spend on destroying historic building to build social housing.

The council have spent £30,000 is scaffolding since 2010 while private developers spent their money proposing hotel schemes for the site. What about the cost of the marketing and PR with the neon 'ICONIC SITE'?

The Council stipulate for themselves as developers that the site must be developed for non commercial purposes, yet in June 2014, Edwina Crowley stipulated any lease created for a private developer would be to ensure it wouldn't be residential.

How much public money has been spent on  marketing the site for a hotel?

How much money have the proposals cost private developers since 2010?
Why has the public been kept in the dark?

It's this kind of behaviour from the Council that convinced me to stand for election in the Margate Central Ward. If elected I will do my best to ensure there is full transparency and accountability for disposals of this nature. And a level playing field for private developers when up against the Council as a developer. #MargateSpringClean

Thanet Council policy regarding email retention

Thanet Council's email system has cropped up in conversation a few times recently. I'd heard from a few councillors that the council system is awkward and not the easiest to use. Which has lead to many councillors privately stating they prefer to use their own private email accounts for council business. This may recently have changed following a statement of clarification from the Information Commissioner's Office. 

The Council's previous stance was that private email accounts were beyond the remit of FOI and Data Protection requests, because it is Council policy that only official email accounts may be used for council business. The Information Commissioner's Office then clarified on October 16th 2013:

"More generally, the Council will need to remind and impress upon the councillors the requirement to adhere to the Council’s policy on use of official Council email addresses only for Council business.   

Should any councillor fail to do so and continue using their personal email address to conduct Council business, it will need to be made clear to them that such information will be potentially subject to FOIA and will need to be made available upon request (subject to any valid exemption).  Moreover, were the Council to provide a not held response to a future request, or only provide some of the information actually held, and were the Commissioner to subsequently discover that in fact relevant information was contained in the personal email accounts of a councillor(s) then this would be a serious matter for which the Commissioner would need to consider more formal action."

I've recently been sent a series of Thanet District Council policy guidance documents that go some way to explain why officers and councillors might be struggling to keep up with the demands of modern day email communication. They have a 500MB inbox limit. I don't think I've had a 500MB limit for the last decade. 

Council email management guidance issued July 2012 gives the following advice:

"Things to remember about email;
Your Mailbox has a size limitYour mailbox will be set to a 500mb limit as standard and will only be extended with the written authorisation from a head of service or equivalent.To help you manage the amount of storage space, you should complete some routine housekeeping on a regular basis.  Housekeeping tasks should includeDeleting all unwanted emails from all your folders, inbox and sent boxSaving any large attachments to an appropriate network folder, then deleting the email

• Using the inbuilt function to empty your ‘deleted items’ folder, this can be found in Tools – Options - Other"

What is not clear, is how councillors and officers, who are very busy, are supposed to manage deletion of information in the present day, that may then become relevant and important at a later date.

And further, recognition of emails as potentially required in future legal action or as evidence in a court case:

"A public office must not dispose of any records required for current or pending legal action or where the records may be required as evidence in a court case.  A public office should not destroy records that are the subject of a current or pending Freedom of Information (FOI) request."

What I can't yet find is any supporting policy guidance on claims that emails older than 4 months old can now be deleted. Most domestic free email accounts such as gmail give 15GB of storage, and some council based projects can take years to undertake, is the advice to delete for good housekeeping really prudent advice? As their own guidance states, correspondence can convey the background to contractual agreements. Another interesting fact is:

"It is important that nothing is sent via email that could be considered as bullying, harassment, offensive or discriminatory"

Thanet District Council Policy Guidance Documents relating to email retention:

Retention and Disposal Protocol v1.1
Email Management Guidance July 2012
Email Acceptable Use Policy July 2012

Paul Turner-Mitchell's Margate Portas Pilot FOI Request to Thanet District Council

Below is the original FOI Request made by Paul Turner-Mitchell to Thanet District Council on January 7th 2012.  The FOI was the subject of two articles in the Independent newspaper yesterday and today, was covered on BBC Newsnight as well as last night's BBC South East Today and BBC Radio Kent's breakfast show. The topic being Thanet District Council's none reply to the FOI request. Thanet District Council's response finally published their response yesterday afternoon. When I learned the figures and content I was dumbfounded. However, it contains a degree of creative embellishment that is out of the remit of FOIs and certainly out of the jurisdiction of Thanet Council. They take it upon themselves to issue more of a press release than factual response and enter into discussion about the make up and history of the Margate Portas Pilot bid team, who are and independent community group.  I was a member of Margate's bid team and as Chair of Margate Independent Traders was not contacted by Thanet District Council prior to the release of this information.  Thanet District Council have delayed replying to my own FOI requests and I've had to log a complaint with the Information Commissioner. This is a lengthy, time consuming process. It's unlikely that I will get a resolution before the Optomen TV show goes out in March. Thanet Council have instead released information to a journalist under duress. If they had done so, I could have corrected their creative invention on the composition of the original bid team and how it certainly was not formed of two groups. Margate Independent Traders organise public meetings throughout the year that are free for anyone to come to. We invite guest speakers and it is a social event. We then have a mailing list that sends out information relevant to independent businesses across the Margate, Cliftonville and Westbrook area. The group had come together to fulfill the need for more access for small businesses to information. We've done all the work we have over the last 2 years with no funds.  The Town Team as it stood in August 2012 did not fail to see eye to eye or work together. The Margate Town Team Committee was undermined in by conflicting loyalties and informal meetings arranged with TDC and Mary Portas without the knowledge of the Margate Town Team committee. Thanet Council are well aware of the events surrounding a day of filming on August 20th. To date,  there have been no meetings of the newly reformed  Margate Town Team accessible to the public. The promise of a public AGM at 6 months was quashed. And as we see from yesterday's FOI release, only £111.47 of the available spend of £100,000 has been spent. Thanet District Council have acted outside of their remit to publish information in this manner. It is serving to prop up Margate Town team as it now stands, which is in the control of people who did not raise issues within the many minuted meetings. The real losers in this mess are the residents and traders of Margate High Street who have been treated with disdain and disregard. From: Paul Turner-Mitchell [mailto:XXXX@XXXX] Sent: 07 January 2013 12:07 To: 'foi@thanet.gov.uk' Subject: Freedom of Information Request On 26th May 2012, Margate was named as one of The 12 new Portas Pilots’ to enable the town team bring their high street back to life. In order to achieve this, a share of £1.2 million was awarded to put their winning plans into action. This money was paid through s31 unringfenced revenue grant, paid directly to the local authority.  Each partnership needed to identify an Accountable Body (local authority) to receive the grant, if they were not, themselves, a local authority.  It was expected that local authorities in receipt of grant to work constructively with their communities, through their Town Team, in using funding. The following request is, therefore, made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000:- ·         The exact amount of government funding applied for and received for the Portas Pilot initiative ·         The exact amount of that funding that has physically been spent as a 31st December 2012 ·         Please provide a breakdown and summary of how that funding has been physically spent including date of payment, amount of payment and what exactly the payment was for. ·         Please provide details and evidence as to how the Local Authority is benchmarking the success of the Pilot. ·         Please provide details of the criteria and terms of reference for the monitoring and benchmarking as to the success of the Pilot. ·         Has the success or otherwise of the Pilot been assessed by the Local Authority to date? If so, please provide a copy of the relevant report and/or summary. Thank you. Paul Turner-Mitchell Director "FOI response to Mr Turner-Mitchell The Margate Independent Traders together with the Margate Town Partnership submitted a bid to the Ports Pilot Town Team scheme. The bid was successful and Thanet District Council agreed to act as the accountable body.  The initial bid, and subsequent award of funds, was for £100,000. Following a difficult time for the two groups who submitted the bid to form a cohesive management committee, this has now been established and meeting consistently for several months.  This has delayed the development of detailed project proposals and subsequent spend of project monies.  In addition, the in-kind support to the team has been far greater than originally expected. By 31st December 2012 the Team had made the following payments; 18-Dec-12    Stationery                                                                    £21.47 19-Dec-13    T Painter for Land Registry searches                         £90.00 Given the early stage of implementation of the project it is too early to assess the success of the Pilot scheme. However, one of the projects that has been sponsored by the Pilot has been a 'Pop-up shop' on the High Street.  This was part of the implementation plan for the Team but so far has been entirely funded by in kind support and revenue from renting space in this shop (consequently it has not required any of the Portas Pilot funding to support it).  The Pop-up shop has supported over 14 individuals to experience high street trading and test their business ideas, 12 of these are still trading. If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date of receipt of the response to your original letter and should be addressed to: Information Request Assessor, Thanet District Council, P O Box 9 Cecil Street, Margate Kent CT9 1XZ, or send an email to foi@thanet.gov.uk. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications. If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF"