The Chairman introduced the item and drew
attention to the information contained in the Annexe which was
exempt from publication.
The Principal Maritime Engineer introduced the
report and set the context for the request to extend the lease to
Brett Aggregates on the East Quay of Whitstable Harbour. He
outlined relevant matters including:
The Whitstable Harbour Strategic Plan.
The current lease ends in four years at which time Bretts would be able to apply for a new lease.
Early renewal allows for the area of lease to be redrawn to
facilitate the new embarkation facility.
The designation of the site in the Kent Minerals and Waste
Local economic impact of the operation.
The members made comments including the
Early renewal of the lease would encourage them to invest in the
Their presence ensured that Whitstable Harbour remained a working
harbour and that was what people wanted.
It was important that the council’s interests were looked
after and given the restrictions placed on the site, this seemed to be the best outcome at this
The recommendations in the report were
proposed, seconded and when put to a vote unanimously agreed.
The options were set out in the report as
Do nothing, in which case a continuation tenancy would arise at the
end of the current term.
Attempt to negotiate a new lease between the parties.
Make an application to the Court to determine the terms of a new
lease. The tenant is entitled to a lease on similar terms at a
market rent (the Court has the ability to grant a lease for a
maximum term of 15 years).
RESOLVED: That the lease be extended on the
terms set out in the confidential annex to this report.
Reason for the decision:
Negotiating the new lease at this time and outside the Landlord and
Tenant Act renewal provisions gives greater flexibility. It
provides the Council with certainty as at the moment there is no
guarantee that Bretts would renew the
lease in 2022. If the lease was not renewed in 2022 the Council
would be faced with finding a tenant for a significant section of
the Harbour which does have limited uses and therefore a limited
pool of potential tenants.
Record of the
For the proposal: A Baker, Dixey, Fisher,
Fitter-Harding, Glover, I Stockley, I Thomas, R Thomas and Waters
Against the proposal: None
Abstaining from the proposal: None