Issue - meetings

(1)       The Head of Regeneration Projects introduced her report by explaining that East Kent Opportunities LLP had been established as a joint arrangement company in 2008 by KCC and Thanet DC to pump prime the economic development and regeneration of the Manston Business Park and Eurokent sites. 

(2)       The Head of Regeneration Projects replied to a question from Mr Shonk that a planning application had been submitted by the company and Rosefarm Estates Ltd to Thanet DC in 2011 for a joint mixed use development.  Permission had been refused in 2013 and the applicants were now pursuing an appeal and the application had been called in by the Secretary of State for his determination. 

(3)       The Chairman advised that the concerns raised by Mr Shonk would be most appropriately considered by the Economic Development Cabinet Committee as the Trading Activities Sub-Committee’s remit did not extend to the actual merits of the company’s business case. 

(4)       Mr Whybrow questioned whether reputational damage could occur as a result of the company’s focus shifting from economic regeneration to residential development.  He then asked whether the legal and professional fees of over £200k for the years 2012 and 2013 (set out in the schedule to the detailed accounts for year ended 31 March 2013) had been costs accrued in challenging the decision of Thanet DC to refuse planning permission.

(5)       The Head of Regeneration Projects replied to Mr Whybrow by saying that the legal and professional fees mainly covered advice on land ownership transfers relating to sales as well as professional/technical advice to the company and might not be advice relating to the planning appeal.  The residential element of the company’s work represented an essential component of its economic development remit rather than a departure from its original focus.

(6)       The Sub-Committee noted that the company had lost money in the previous two years as it had not yet been able to carry out its intended developments.  It also noted the advice from the Corporate Director of Finance and Procurement that no individual received financial remuneration.  The “members” who were remunerated from the profits of the LLP were in fact KCC and Thanet DC as corporate bodies, which were described in this manner for accounting purposes.

(7)       RESOLVED that:-

(a)          the contents of the report be noted for assurance; and

(b)          East Kent Opportunities LLP’s Annual Report and Financial Statements for 2012/13 be noted as set out in the Appendix to the report

(1)       The Executive Officer EKO LLP reported on East Kent Opportunities LLP which was founded in 2008 as a Joint Arrangement (JANE) with Thanet DC in order to bring forward the economic development and regeneration of the Sites known as Eurokent and Manston Business Park.  The key aim over the next 12 months was to promote a major outline mixed-use planning application for commercial, community and retail development and up to 550 new homes on the Eurokent site.

(2)       In response to a question from Mr Wells, the Executive Officer EKO LLP said that the figure of £183,895 for Legal and Professional Administration Expenses in 2012 consisted mainly of the pre-application costs, including the public consultation process.  The Spine road costs of £163,323 for the same year represented interest on the construction costs (spread over two years).  He agreed to provide further details to the Panel Members following the meeting.  He also agreed to clarify the relationship between EKO LLP and Employ Thanet.

(3)       RESOLVED that subject to (2) above, the contents of the report be noted for assurance together with the East Kent Opportunities LLP Annual Report and Financial Statements for 2011/12 appended to the report.