My KCC Election Manifesto & Video

Wednesday, 10 April 2013

PLEASURAMA WHO'S TELLING THE TRUTH

At last the decade long saga of Pleasurama  appears to be unravelling. It's now becoming apparent that claims made about the previous experience of project developers SFP Ventures may have been misleading.

Right from the beginning of this sad story SFP  has claimed that it had extensive previous  experience of managing similar projects. Here are some extracts

Transcript of Thanet Council meeting 5 December 2002 Mr Painter said- The Promoter behind the scheme (Pleasurama) is Sean Keegan.  He's  Director of SFP Venture Partners Limited, which is the project arm of the investors in the SFP Private Bank of Geneva. He is currently developing 280 apartments and villas in Portugal and is actively seeking investment and development opportunities in the UK. He recently purchased 50 acres of land in Lowestoft on the waterfront, and is also developing 60 town houses on the River Colne in Colchester

The KM Group 14/10/2006 Developers SFP Ventures UK Ltd are based in Britain and are behind developments in Felixstowe and Ipswich, as well as a marina site in Lowestoft

Thanet Gazette 3 November 2012 Mr Driver said I find it utterly amazing that a project on land which is owned by the council worth £36 million, should be awarded to an organisation that has never developed anything as far as I can tell." Mr Painter dismissed Mr Driver's comments about the firm, which he says has a strong track record of similar developments in Portugal

 

Thanet Watch Xmas 2013  Estate Agent Terrence Painter SFPs spokesperson says that the Company (SFP) does have a strong track  record in Portugal 

In a letter published in the Thanet Gazette and in a film made by Thanet Watch I publicly challenged Mr Painter to substantiate these claims. He never did.

Until today  the Pleasurama marketing website  repeated these claims sating that SFP Ventures had experience of managing developments in the UK and abroad.
 
A member of the public decided to challenge SFPs claims by complaining to the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA). The ASA took the complaint very seriously.


 

They "informed the advertiser of your complaint  and they have agreed to amend the website to make clear that it is the staff employed by SFP who have experience with mixed schemes in the UK and overseas rather than SPF as a company. We have received a written assurance from them to that effect and we expect the changes to be made within a reasonable timeframe. "
 
So there you have it SFP and it spokesperson, local estate agent  Terrence Painter,  have been telling anyone who would listen that SFP has an established track record as a developer. Yet when challenged by the Advertising watchdog they have rapidly backtracked on this claim and changed their website making it clear that this was simply not true.
 
This begs the question what other claims have SFP or it spokesman Terrence Painter made about the company which are misleading or untrue?

As the only Ramsgate Councillor to have consistently opposed the Pleasurama development I seek your support in the May 2 Kent County Council elections.

Vote Ian Driver Ramsgate's Independent Voice

For more information about my policies follow this link

http://vote4driver.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/my-election-manifesto.html

 I am fighting this election on my own against the Big Party machines. I need all the help I can get. So If you want to help me by delivering leaflets, displaying a poster, or perhaps a small donation towards my election expenses please contact me at
ianddriver@yahoo.co.uk

4 comments:

  1. What have the Council and councillors been thinking? Why weren't the credentials of the bidders thoroughly checked before they were awarded the contract. Who in the council verified the authenticity of SFP Ventures? They should be made publicly accountable for their appalling lack of research. If it wasn't officers who amongst the councillors agreed for the development to go ahead. They should be named and held accountable before the election in May. Why weren't deadlines and default fines set in place for this development? What were the actual conditions attached to the agreement. There are so many 'beggars belief' questions I hope that this case has already been discussed with the Local Government Ombudsman as I believe there should be an external enquiry made into this tedious and incompetant public money squandering affair!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have lived in Thanet for over 30 years now. In that time I have seen the area decline. The decline has been exacerbated by many of the council's decisions (Westwood, Manston, port access road, Turner Centre, Dreamland, Pleasurama etc. etc.) I have taken a keen interest in local affairs and, as a result, have gained a good lay knowledge of the planning system, environmental law and the Thanet version of local politics.

    What I have observed is that whenever a contentious local issue arises a counter campaign is mounted against the protesters. Anonymous and sometimes fictitious characters write letters to the local press, attacking the protesters. The local press obliges by publishing them. However, more recently, these counter-campaigns are waged via the internet and blog sites.

    In all of my time in Thanet I have never come across John Hamilton. He has never been involved in any local issues at any level. He seems to have materialised, very recently, on the internet as an self-proclaimed expert on all local issues. However, I'm getting thoroughly fed up with the tosh being posted by him on his own blog and on other people's blog-sites. I see from the Gazette that Mike Pearce feels similarly frustrated.

    On Michael Child's blog John Hamilton rubbishes Michael, who has spent a great deal of time researching the Pleasurama issue and probably has a more complete picture of the saga than anyone else in the area (including TDC's officers and councillors). As usual, John Hamilton's posting is short on information and long on abuse. He tells Michael that it is a FACT that the directors of SFP have wide experience of property development. How can he possibly know this? As far as I was aware, the directors of SFP have set up an offshore company in such a way as to obscure their identities.

    If John Hamilton is now claiming to know their identities I would have to ask how? Is he involved with the project at some level? I think we should be told and I think we should be told where he came from, what his background is and whether his real name is John Hamilton.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Of course his name isn't John Hamilton. He one of the remaining Ezekielites who Roger the Dodger protects. There is little doubt that persons very close to Ezekiel are involved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you have any proof of that last statement, 09:07? Surely, when we are dealing with misleading information by the developers, those of us that object should, at least, be truthful ourselves and able to back up our statements. Ezekiel was found guilty of misconduct in a public office for failing to disclose his interest in a property someone was buying on his behalf. That property was a fairly modest one in Margate old town, hardly in the same league as a prestigious multi-million pound development project.

      By such unproven allegations, 09:07, we weaken our case when, in reality, there is more than sufficient ammunition to arm a protest group without resorting to conjecture. As for your Rodger the Dodger comment, again how would you imagine a retired army officer, no longer a councillor or even a member of the Conservative party would be able to protect anyone and from what. Please, let us be adult in this campaign and leave the smearing and childish prattle to others.

      Delete