Agenda item

The Executive Director, Regeneration and Development Services introduced the draft Asset Management Strategy 2015/16 to 2017.  The Strategy provided a clear framework for understanding the value and condition of property owned by the Council so that, in turn, investment decisions can be taken to optimise the use of the said land/property to meet the needs of the Borough’s residents, businesses and visitors.

 

Below are eight questions, along with feedback, which Members were asked to focus the scrutiny discussion around.

 

Clarification was provided by the Executive Director, Regeneration and Development Services.

 

Q1:      Are Members satisfied with the broad thrust of the Strategy?

 

Feedback received:-

 

There was not a need to use the sites for capital programme at the present time and the order of disposal was one for concern.  With regard to the section in appendix 4, would the Council be looking at the sale of sites separate to the Local Plan and was the Council looking to link both together?

 

A1:      A local plan call for sites with information was for clarification purposes.  Cabinet made the decision to ensure those sites had a recognition.

 

            The Local Planning Authority should determine the merit of those sites from a land use planning point of view.  The Executive Director, Regeneration and Development Services advised Members that he would be happy to discuss the order of disposal after the meeting.

 

A vote was taken asking if Members wished for the call for sites to be included in the Local Plan:-

 

9 in favour

7 against

2 abstains

 

Q2:      Are Members satisfied with the site selection critera used to identify potential sites for disposal?

 

            Feedback received:-

 

            Members were not satisfied.  Members felt all residents should be able to live within walking distance of public open space.

 

            It was asked who decides the suitability of the sites and what was there in place regarding sequencing

 

It was suggested to link up green space to different types of exercise or play areas and was asked when would the Green Space Strategy be available?

 

A2:      If, as a landowner, there was no strategic, operational, financial or other public interest reason to hold the land, there was a process to go through to see if the site would be suitable for development.

 

            The sequencing sought to avoid the situation of overflowing the market with sites.

 

It was agreed at Cabinet on the 10^th December 2014 to approve a new Green Space Strategy which would commence in the next calendar year and would take twelve months to complete.

 

A vote was taken on the site selection criterion used to identify potential sites for disposal:-

 

9 in favour

9 against

 

Q3:      Are Members satisfied that the proposed disposal programme will be adequate to meet future known capital programme needs – i.e. for the next three financial years?

 

            Feedback received:-

 

            Members asked for brownfield sites to be explored for disposal and one Member asked why were the sites revolved around Chesterton.

 

            A Member advised that the Brick Kiln Lane and Apedale Road were two industrial estates and were prime sites for job opportunities.

 

A3:      The Executive Director, Regeneration and Development Services advised that this had been observed but the first site (about eleven acres of land) was within the Green Space Strategy, as semi-natural open space but a developer had approached the Council which could lead to employment within the Borough, subject to displacement of the open space .  The second site was within Apedale Road and was a surplus piece of land.

 

A vote was taken on the proposed disposal programme:-

 

9 in favour

2 against

1 abstain

 

 

 

 

Q4.      Do Members wish to identify any further sites for disposal?

 

            Feedback received:-

 

            It was supported that the seven former NDP sites should be reconsidered and not to identify all the sites at this stage.    

 

            A vote took place on the seven sites to be reviewed:-

 

            9 in favour

            9 against

 

            Resolved:-

 

            That the seven sites are reviewed.

 

Q5:      Do Members agree with the principle of disposing of Council-owned land where there is no strategic or operational reason for retaining it?

 

            The Executive Director, Regeneration and Development Services advised that it was crucially important for Members to address this point, as a matter of principle.  If there was no strategic reason the Council should be able to dispose of the piece of land.

 

Feedback received:-

 

Members did not agree with the principle of the disposal

 

A vote took place on the principle of disposing of Council-owned land:-

 

17 in favour

0 against

1 abstain

 

Q6:      Do Members consider that the consultation process is adequate (and with the related principle that amenity considerations should be addressed through Town Planning processes)?

 

            Feedback received:-

 

            From an asset management point Members felt adjacent property owners should be consulted.  A Member had no confidence in the town planning and local planning process and his concern was a site being disposed of unknowingly.  Secondly there was no Local Plan in place.

 

A6:      The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Assets advised that the seven sites chosen were due to lack of consultation.

 

            A vote took place on the consultation process:-

 

            9 in favour

            9 against

 

Q7:      Are Members in agreement with the principle that the Local Plan process should determine the most appropriate use of the sites identified in the response to the Local Plan “Call for Sites”?

 

            Feedback received:-

 

            A Member asked would the community determine the call for sites in the Local Plan consultation?

 

                        The risk of sites going into the Local Plan for consideration would be the developer submitting an application.

 

            The Executive Director, Regeneration and Development advised the sites were not presently in the Local Plan.  The Local Planning Authority would publish all the sites.

 

            A vote took place asking Members if they were in agreement with the Local Plan process:-

 

            10 in favour

            0 against

 

Q8:      Are Members satisfied that adequate consideration is being given to maintaining the Council’s property assets and minimising risks from a health and safety perspective?

 

            Feedback received:-

 

            One Member was not in agreement with minimising the risk of the health and safety.

 

            The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Assets advised that all statutory testing (for example water and alarm testing) was carried out in every building that required it.

 

A vote took place asking if Members were satisfied that adequate consideration was being given to maintaining the Council’s property assets and minimising risks from a health and safety perspective:-

 

13 in favour

3 against

2 abstain

 

RESOLVED:-

 

A vote was taken and by each Committee separately on the Asset Management Strategy.

 

Finance, Resources and Partnerships Scrutiny Committee

 

5 in favour

5 against

 

Casting vote in favour

 

Economic Development and Enterprise Scrutiny Committee

 

5 in favour

5 against

 

Casting vote in favour