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.