Cabinet Member for Economic Growth and Cabinet Member for Assets and Investments.
Decision:
1.1 That Cabinet, having fully considered the objections to the disposal notice given pursuant to Section 123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972, approved the disposal of the site (shown in Appendix A of the report) for best consideration reasonably achievable.
1.2 That Cabinet approved the preferred recommended proposal, bidder B in paragraph 4.24 of the report, including the financial bid outlined in confidential Appendix D attached to the report.
1.3 That Cabinet agreed up to 100% from the sale of the site be diverted to ensure the creation of a new Belle Vue park entrance, café and toilet facilities.
1.4 That authority be delegated the Assistant Director for Economic Growth and Regeneration in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Economy and the Cabinet Member for Assets and Investments to conclude the legal agreements in respect of the recommended proposal.
Reason for Decision:
1. The Council is obliged to publish a notice under S123 of the Local Government Act 1972 prior to any disposal of land which contains areas of open space. The Council is required to consider objections and make a formal decision on whether to proceed with the sale in the light of these objections and balanced with the needs of the site and the future economic growth aspirations of Sudbury.
2. The site has been unused for several years and forms a gateway to the town centre so bringing it back into economic use is a key part of the regeneration plans for the Sudbury Vision.
3. Proceeds from the capital receipt from the sale can be diverted to create a new park entrance, café and new toilets for local communities and visitors. An improved park entrance was a key ‘ask’ from public and stakeholder engagement including the exhibition event held in January 2020.
4. If the preferred bidder drops out or otherwise does not progress on terms proposed, the Council will be able to move forward with an alternative proposal or terms provided it meets best value requirements.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:
1. DO NOTHING (Not Recommended) – the site continues to be retained and maintained by the Council. The land remains under-utilised and a cost burden to the Council, with a lack of a clear consensus on its future. Vision and Strategic Priorities remain undelivered at this key gateway to Sudbury.
2. RETAIN THE SITE (Not Recommended) – Retain existing site in Council ownership and repurpose for other council uses. The Council approved the disposal of the site in 2013 as it was no longer deemed necessary to hold as an asset. There is a need to ensure the site is brought back into some form of use and is enhanced as a gateway to the town, but given previous uses the cost is likely to be high and therefore a third-party development is more likely to ensure wider outcomes for the town are delivered.
3. UNDERTAKE A NEW MARKETING PROCESS (Recommended) – to consider objections to the disposal and any market/community/charity informal tender bids for the site. This option has been progressed and in-line with previous Council resolutions, and in a way to support delivery of a new park entrance/café/toilet for the community. The Council is neither obligated to dispose of the site nor accept any bid resulting from this process.
Any Declarations of Interest Declared: None
Any Dispensation Granted: None
Minutes:
84.1 The meeting was adjourned from 7:09pm until 7:19pm.
84.2 The Chair welcomed Samuel Antwi and Alan Taylor, Shared Legal Service to the meeting.
84.3 The Cabinet Member for Economic Growth introduced the report and provided Members with an overview of the work undertaken with regard to the regeneration of the Belle Vue site in Sudbury.
84.4 Councillor Arthey raised a query on the red line boundary of sale area and the terrace at the rear of the house. In response the Assistant Director for Economic Development and Regeneration advised Members that the red line indicated on the plan represents the boundary between the house and the park.
84.5 Councillor Arthey then queried whether the future owners of the house would have rights of access to maintain the property. The Assistant Director for Economic Development and Regeneration advised that these negotiations would be made as part of the legal agreement once a decision had been made regarding the bidder.
84.6 Councillor Busby commented that the proposal from the preferred bidders was outside of the area offered for sale, indicated by the red line on the plan, and queried whether this disqualified them from the bid process. The Assistant Director for Economic Development and Regeneration confirmed that as this was an informal tender any additional areas included in the bids submitted would be clarified during negotiations after a preferred bidder had been chosen.
84.7 Councillor Busby went on to comment that the land outside of the red line was public open space.
84.8 Councillor Osborne raised a question regarding the objections received concerning open space. The Regeneration and Capital Projects Manager responded that the report referenced the objections and considerations for Members to balance loss of space from sale with potential wider benefits. The 2006 Local Plan showed the existing designation but the 2019 report for the Joint Local Plan is now available. This itself may not reference all areas that could be interpreted as accessible green/open space in the town. Members were also advised that there had been re-provision of facilities for public recreation uses in the town and wider park.
84.9 Councillor Holt responded to Councillor Osbornes question relating to whether a high level of consultation and engagement had taken place, and advised Members that the steering group included a number of Sudbury Town Councillors.
84.10 Councillor Parker raised concerns regarding recommendation 3.5 of the report and queried whether the recommendation could be amended. The Chair advised that this would be addressed later in the meeting, after debate and prior to the vote for the item.
84.11 Councillor Owen asked whether there had been any discussions with any of the bidders prior to the site being marketed. The Assistant Director for Economic Development and Regeneration advised that a number of the bidders had previously bid for, or been interested in, the site, and had been back in contact when the site was marketed.
84.12 Councillor Owen commented that when the house was previously marketed in 2019 the bidders were required to provide a presentation as part of a community consultation and asked why this process had not been carried out again. Councillor Holt advised that the land being sold was the same area of the site, and it was not considered that a further public engagement event was necessary.
84.13 Councillor Holt responded to comments from Councillor Cresswell regarding the distribution of papers to members of the steering group and advised that some papers contained commercially sensitive information which could not be shared in advance.
84.14 Following a question from Councillor Ayres, the Chair confirmed that biodiversity and environmental commitments had been taken into consideration.
84.15 The Chair read out the following question from Councillor Lindsay who was unable to attend the meeting: ‘Why would we want to spend £750,000 on a lovely new entrance with visibility from King Street, which is a really good idea, when we are then going to allow developers to build on a very significant remaining part of the public open space which overlooks that entrance and therefore diminishes the value of the open space. Surely it is better to go with the option to refurbish Belle Vue House into residences and await grants etc to allow us to make the former swimming pool area safe and attractive to the public. A wildlife area springs to mind and would cost very little.”
84.16 Councillor Holt commented on the issues regarding deliverability and the costs involved in Councillor Lindsay’s suggestion.
84.17 Councillor Busby commented that there was a lot of validity within the objections received and they should be taken into account when making a decision.
84.18 Councillor Parker commented on the importance of the potential loss of open space.
84.19 The Assistant Director for Economic Development and Regeneration and the legal representative, Sam Antwi, provided guidance in response to queries about whether the Council had complied with its statutory duty regarding disposal of Council owned land under the Section 123 notice. Members were advised that legal responsibilities under the Section 123 notice had been met.
84.20 Councillor Parker commented on the objections received, in particular one which suggested that the disposal of the land at Belle Vue would negatively impact as a deficit of public open space. In response the Assistant Director for Economic Growth and Regeneration advised Members that, given the area of the sale site designated as public open space within the current 2006 Joint Local Plan, the provision of the new park entrance would create additional public open space.
84.21 In response to a request from Councillor Osborne, the Assistant Director for Economic Growth and Regeneration provided an outline of the requirements for the Section 123 notice.
84.22 The meeting had reached the guillotine deadline and Councillor Ward proposed that the meeting be formally extended beyond 8:30pm. This was seconded by Councillor Holt and agreed by the Cabinet Members via consensus.
It was RESOLVED:
That the meeting continued beyond the guillotine deadline until all the business was concluded.
84.23 Councillor Ward addressed an objection which suggested non-compliance with the Section 123 process on the basis that the Council was legally bound to sell the land for not less than best price. Councillor Ward corrected this and said that the act stated ‘best consideration reasonably achievable’ and that this therefore included factors other than price. The Assistant Director for Economic Growth and Regeneration confirmed that this condition had been met and that additional factors were able to be taken into consideration.
84.24 Councillor Parker stated that a number of the objections made reference to the facts that people did not wish to have a hotel on the site and did not wish to see Belle Vue House demolished and clarified that neither of these was occurring.
84.25 The Monitoring Officer provided confirmation that the correct procedure had been properly followed and that the Cabinet were able to move to recommendation 3.1 in the report and begin debate on the bids detailed in the report.
84.26 Councillor Holt moved the recommendations in the report which were seconded by Councillor Ward.
84.27 A vote was taken in respect of recommendation 3.1 of the report.
It was RESOLVED:-
That having fully considered the objections to the disposal notice given pursuant to Section 123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the disposal of the site (shown in Appendix A of the report) for best consideration reasonably achievable be approved.
84.28 Councillor Arthey commented that the content of the objections had been been fully and carefully considered. He went on to state that he believed the regeneration would be beneficial to Sudbury. This was supported by Councillor Ward.
84.29 Councillor Parker raised the possibility that although none of the bids proposed demolition of Belle Vue House, the successful bidder may potentially demolish the building in future.
84.30 Councillor Busby enquired whether a covenant could be applied to Belle Vue House. The Assistant Director for Economic Growth and Regeneration confirmed that this would not be done and advised that a number of the bids were on a conditional basis and so the sale would only be completed once the planning process had been successful.
84.31 Members continued to debate the item during closed session.
84.32 Members returned to open session in order to vote.
84.33 Councillor Holt proposed that recommendation 3.2 of the report be amended to read: That Cabinet approved the preferred recommended proposal, bidder B in paragraph 4.24 of the report, including the financial bid outlined in confidential Appendix D attached to the report. Councillor Holt also proposed that recommendation 3.5 of the report be removed.
84.34 The proposed amendments were seconded by Councillor Ward.
84.34 The vote for recommendations 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 of the report was carried out via roll call.
By a vote of 6 for and 2 against
It was RESOLVED:
1.2 That Cabinet approved the preferred recommended proposal, bidder B in paragraph 4.24 of the report, including the financial bid outlined inconfidential Appendix D attached to the report.
1.3 That Cabinet agreed up to 100% from the sale of the site be diverted to ensure the creation of a newBelle Vue park entrance, café and toilet facilities.
1.4 That authority be delegated the Assistant Director for Economic Growth and Regeneration in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Economy and the CabinetMember for Assets and Investments to conclude the legal agreements in respect ofthe recommended proposal.
Reason for Decision:
1. The Council is obliged to publish a notice under S123 of the Local GovernmentAct 1972 prior to any disposal of land which contains areas of open space. TheCouncil is required to consider objections and make a formal decision on whether to proceed with the sale in the light of these objections and balanced with theneeds of the site and the future economic growth aspirations of Sudbury.
2. The site has been unused for several years and forms a gateway to the towncentre so bringing it back into economic use is a key part of the regenerationplans for the Sudbury Vision.
3. Proceeds from the capital receipt from the sale can be diverted to create a newpark entrance, café and new toilets for local communities and visitors. Animproved park entrance was a key ‘ask’ from public and stakeholder engagementincluding the exhibition event held in January 2020.
4. If the preferred bidder drops out or otherwise does not progress on termsproposed, the Council will be able to move forward with an alternative proposalor terms provided it meets best value requirements.
Supporting documents: