Decisions made by Cabinet on 11 March 2021 in respect of the following report was called in for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in accordance with the Council’s Scrutiny Procedure Rules as detailed in the Constitution, Part 3: Scrutiny Procedures Rules, Sections 12 to 15.
Regeneration of Belle Vue Site in Sudbury, Report BCa/20/44
The Call-in Notice, Cabinet Decision Notice, Cabinet report and related minute is attached. The Lead Member and Lead Officer are invited to attend to respond to any questions.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
52.1 The Chair invited the Lead Practitioner, Councillor Owen, to present her reasons for the Call-in.
52.2 The Lead Practitioner presented the following reasons:
We have called in the decision BCa/20/44 relating to the Belle Vue regeneration that was heard at the Cabinet meeting on the 11 March 2021. There were a number of reasons for requesting this decision to be reviewed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The first reason for the call in is because as a Council Member I was able to attend the closed session discussion and I was expecting that each bid would be discussed, and the score reviewed against each other. Only bids B and F were discussed, and they did not go through the scoring and concentrated on the preferred bid B. I had assumed that they would have started with reviewing the scoring matrix and how the scores were decided. The process felt very rushed and needed more time. There were no discussions about who had come up with the system and how it had been weighted and scored. And if six bids came in, then six bids should have been discussed. It should have been clear why the other bidder’s bids were not chosen. Based on these points and that some of the scores did not make sense we believe that the bidding process should be restarted. We believe there should be a clear understanding and agreement of the scoring before any bids are considered. We do not understand why the scoring matrix could not have been made open as to how it was calculated and weighted. The scoring matrix should have had the details of bidders removed so that this could have been made open and transparent. This would have helped to show how the Cabinet came to their decision. This could also help future bids, including community bids, to understand the requirements that Babergh are looking for to get the best bids in.
There was also a lack of clarity around some key areas that we do not feel have been properly considered and decisions have been made with insufficient information. We understand that Babergh have to follow a legal process for the disposal of the open space. The Officers advised Members to weigh up the balance of the loss of open space against wider benefits. There was no clarification on what open space in Appendix A was being lost. It was advised that the process has been followed by advertising in the newspaper for a minimum of two weeks and it referenced Appendix A which is the red outlined land. However, there was no assessment provided on how much of the land Babergh considered to be public open space in Appendix A. There was also a discussion about an extra five metres of land wanted by the house bidder. It was unclear if this land was to be given or sold to the bidder. And there would be further loss of open space that would need to be ... view the full minutes text for item 52