BC/18/34 BABERGH FORMER HQ SITE DEVELOPMENT
Cabinet Member for Assets and Investments
This report is coming forward for consideration subject to Cabinet approval on 13 December 2018
Additional documents:
Minutes:
94a.1 Councillor Lawrenson introduced the report and MOVED the recommendations in the report which Councillor Simon Barrett seconded.
94a.2 In his presentation Councillor Lawrenson informed Council that the plans for the future of the former offices at Hadleigh and the former care home at Angel Court included 78 new homes of which 27% were affordable giving a total of 21 affordable homes. The Council had been determined to leave the former offices empty for as little time as possible and the planning application was one of the next steps in bringing the site back into use.
94a.3 Commenting further Councillor Lawrenson said that following the Cabinet decisions to set up a joint venture company with the Norse Group a company wholly owned by Norfolk County Council, to assist the Council in the delivery of high quality energy efficient housing within the district, the report was seeking total funding of £3.77m in the form of a loan to deliver the scheme as set out in the financial section of the report. The special purpose vehicle would be known as Babergh Growth.
94a.3 Councillor Arthey queried why the figures in the report did not include the Angel Court development?
94a.4 in response Councillor Lawrenson confirmed that the figures were not included in the report and would be included in the HRA funding.
94a.5 Councillor Arthey sought further clarification on what the figures did include?
94a.6 In response The Strategic Director for Resources confirmed that the figure included all of the planning stages from 1 to 3 the RIBA stage, however the figure did not include the cost of security for the site. Going forward once Babergh Growth had been set up, the security costs would be within that budget.
94a.7 Councillor Kemp stated that he found the figures confusing and asked where the acquisition and conversion costs were reflected?
94a.8 In response the Strategic Director for Resources confirmed that the figure for the value of the site was based on external validation and had concluded that there was a notional value of zero for the site, with a projected return profit out of the investment of £800k.
94a.9 Councillor Arthey asked what the impact in terms of the viability of the redevelopment would be if the headquarters site had to provide affordable housing rather than the existing hybrid arrangement.
94a.10 In response Councillor Simon Barrett stated that the situation would be the same if you were in the private sector, if you had a site that you were unable to put affordable housing on it you would normally pay a commuted sum and that was what effectively Angel Court was becoming, to enable the delivery of affordable housing.
94a.11 Councillor Busby raised concerns about the viability of Norse and asked if a full due diligence process had been undertaken?
94a.12 The Strategic Director for Resources confirmed that full due diligence
of the company had been undertaken, which had confirmed that the Company was very stable and growing.
94a.13 Councillor McCraw sought clarification ... view the full minutes text for item 94