The Leader of the Council presented a report,
a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of
which appears as Appendix 'D' to these Minutes in the Minute
Book.
The Leader of the Council, supported by
Officers, responded to comments and requests for clarification,
details included:
- The existing
planning permission on the site was due to lapse which was
currently being addressed by the current landowner.
- This was an
opportunity for the Council to progress this site and lead by
example and that by purchasing the site it would allow the council
to take control of promoting regeneration in the immediate
area.
- The price for
building on site also included the land transaction costs and the
landscaping of the site and was not solely on a cost to build per
unit basis.
- The Council would
be discussing the issue of gas boilers with the current
landowner/developer.
- Market report data
was taken before, during and after covid restrictions were in place
and is therefore up to date and accurate.
- There was the
possibility that four of the commercial units on site could assist
with the homeworking agenda.
- The development
provided a large central courtyard which would provide a quality
amenity space.
- It was not unusual
for developers to gain planning permission and then not fully
develop a site and this allowed the council to step in and assist
with its regeneration ambitions.
- There was a need to
take a long-term view and once critical mass took effect,
additional projects would follow.
- In developing these
proposals, the council had obtained professional and expert advice
from both an external body and from its own officers, who had both
been prudent in the financial modelling.
- The reward to the
council for taking a risk would be the profitability of the scheme,
which in turn would be used on the Council’s frontline
services.
- In relation to the
planning permission that was due to lapse, there was only a
requirement to satisfy the commencement conditions on site, not to
actually start the work itself.
- Over a period of
time, the level of investment would break even, before going onto
make a profit.
- This scheme was
geared at the private rented sector and
there was a degree of flexibility in the numbers if they did not
work out as planned.
- Seascape would be
managing the development on behalf of the Council.
- The Council was
having constructive discussions with Inland Homes to ensure that
the risks were mitigated, which would continue.
- The Council had
been prudent in its assessment of occupancy rates and had its own
data in relation to market requirements.
It was moved
and seconded that the recommendations to Cabinet and Council be
amended as follows:
In
the recommendations to Cabinet:
a)
Delete “and buildings” after
‘land’ in first line
b)
Insert “for the land”
after ‘price’ in the first line
c)
–
d)
Insert a new d) saying “Authorises the
Corporate Property Officer to pursue for the land a redesigned
scheme having regard to a fresh investigation of demand, the 2021
Parking Standards, this Council’s declaration on Climate
Control and all other relevant matters
e)
Re-letter para d) as e)
In
the recommendation to Council:
a)
Delete after all text after ‘part of this report’ in
the 4th line
Voting:
For – 7
Against – 8
Abstentions – 0
The amendment was therefore LOST
A Member requested that even though the
amendment had been lost that in presenting to Cabinet, the Chairman
highlighted the difference of opinions had by Board Members.
The Chairman thanked Board Members and
Officers for their contributions.