Agenda item

The Leader introduced a report seeking approval for the new Asset Management Strategy. 

The Asset Management Strategy had been in place since 2018, refreshed from the previous administration and items contained within the Strategy  had been delivered.  Taking it forward took into account all other works going on in the town centre and members were referred to paragraph 2.5.1 of the report which outlined the planned capital works and projects and 2.5.2 which outlined asset disposals.  Paragraph 2.5.3 outlined other projects at Chatterley Valley, Kidsgrove and the Circus Heritage Centre.

Councillor Fox-Hewitt asked for absolute clarity on the proposed terms for the Joint Venture Redevelopment in terms of the end purchasing agreement.  Councillor Fox-Hewitt’s understanding was that the costs would be redevelopment of the site or the value of the land at that time – whichever was the greater. Hypothetically, if York Place cost £900,000 to redevelop and it was valued at £1.5 million, the Council would receive £1.5 million but would that include the purchase of the site.  For example, if the purchase cost £1 million and £900,000 was spent redeveloping it, that would leave a shortfall of £400,000.  Therefore clarity was required that the purchase cost of the land and site was included in the package of payments.

The Leader believed that was the case and would bring in the Deputy Chief Executive.  With regard to the borrowing, all Council’s did this.  Newcastle had not borrowed significantly for a number of years because of the sale of the housing stock in the 1990’s.  From a financial point of view, that money would pay off the interest and loan.  The Deputy Chief Executive advised that the cost of creating the York Place asset would include land, construction cost, development fees, interest payments on the construction period etc so there would be a budget code and every cost put against that budget code would be the cost of creating the asset.  At the time of completion the Council would receive a valuation of that asset and that would include the land and the development – whichever was the greater would be the cost that the Council would receive.

Councillor Fox-Hewitt asked, in terms of the partnership and any of the developments in the town centre, would the procurement of materials and trades be sourced locally.  The Leader confirmed that would be the case.  Capital and Centric were also keen on sourcing locally.

Councillor Brockie stated that built into each stage of the journey with Capital and Centric was the provision that if things did not work out the Council was under no legal responsibility to continue with it.  Preliminary work would be undertaken by Capital and Centric at a cost of up to £256,500 to be available for scrutiny within six months.  Could the Committee be kept appraised of who would be responsible for carrying out regular risk assessments, how risks would be quantified and qualified and what would be in place to bring about the necessary interventions.

The Leader stated that it was key that it was done properly and done in such a way that it could be delivered.  This Scrutiny Committee would be kept informed.  The Deputy Chief Executive explained the PAGABO framework and process, stating that its use had become increasingly popular as they had saved local authorities in time and cost.

Councillor Brockie stated that it should be remembered that this was a market town and not a metropolitan borough and thinks needed to be kept as local as possible.

Councillor Bryan stated that she had worked on a project that had used the PAGABO framework and it had gone really well and cost effective way of working.

Councillor Grocott asked if any of the areas were taken out of the equation, were there any other areas that would be looked at.  The Leader stated that the Council was in the hands of Planning Inspectors and other things.  Biodiversity and net gain had now come along, which was a planning obligation and the Council could use its land assets to offer these at a price to a developer so there were other income options but the local plan needed to run its course. 

The Deputy Chief  Executive advised that if the Council did not deliver on what had been listed out there would be two consequences.  Firstly, the Council would not get the capital receipts but in the case of car parks and some of the sites where the Council had gone for housing,  if they are not agreed through the local plan process or they were not sold, somewhere else would have to be found for those houses to go.

Resolved:    That the report be received and the comments noted.

Watch the debate here