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.
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 discussed. The objections were, in our view, not thoroughly debated and fully understood. Councillor Osborne asked the question if there was a deficit of open space, as raised in the objections, and the answers given could not confirm or deny and were quite vague.
If you look on page 155 of the agenda supplement to the Cabinet papers, it shows that there is a minus 15.76 hectares of park and recreation land. Why are we selling our parks and green spaces when we do not have enough? Friars Water Meadows were mentioned as not being included in the current assessment, but it is underwater for many months of the year and not accessible for wheelchairs. This does not affect the current shortfall of park and recreation land as the meadows are a part of a different open space category.
Given these points we do not see how the Cabinet Members could take a decision to dispose of open space when they were not clear on what it is or where it is. We believe Appendix A should clearly set out what is open space before a decision is made.
Another issue is why the red line was not defined in a clear manner as it has a lot of impact on the decision overall. There was no clarification whether the winning bid would be for the land at Appendix A, the red line drawing, or whether the land will be required for the bid to succeed and the bids are subject to planning permission.
The impact of the lack of clarity includes the terrace at the front of Belle Vue house is outside of the red line and there was confusion as to whether more land would be negotiated at a later date.
The resolution at 1.1 relates only to Appendix A at the red line drawing and so surely bids outside the red line would have to be reheard and the process started again.
The land at the front of the house is public open space and would be subject to a new disposal process. The extra land would increase the value so the bid would need to be renegotiated to reflect the extra land given and could attract further bids as most would want the house with the terrace.
Given these key issues the preferred bidder requires additional land. The marketing process should be started again as a disposal agreed by the Cabinet was only for the land in Appendix A nothing further.
We are asking the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to review the decision made on the basis of the points raised.
52.3 The Lead Petitioner called on Councillor Maybury, a signatory, to contribute to the statement.
52.4 Councillor Maybury supported the Call-in based on the negative aspect on the public open space and the requirements for such for residents. Belle Vue Park was an important part of maintaining health and wellbeing for residents and for the future of Sudbury and this was this point of clarification she thought that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee should ask for.
52.5 The Cabinet Member for Economic Growth, Councillor Holt provided a summary of the events at Cabinet. The Belle Vue site had a long and complex history and the house and pool site had remained unused for a number of years, and as result the Council decided to dispose of the site in 2013. Some use of these areas had been re-provided for public use, such as fitness and swimming at the Kingfisher Leisure Centre, which recently had a £2.4m upgrade including a new skate and multiuse gaming within the wider park. There had been a costly upkeep for the Council for the site as it was a key gateway into the central area of Sudbury. This had remained underutilised and had not made any contribution to the economic health of the town, neither for the vison and ambitions nor for enabling further investments. There had been no firm consensus on the future viability, and this had led to the site remaining dormant. The latest marketing campaign had sought to encourage fresh interests and opportunities for the site to progress. During the Cabinet meeting, the objections, which were 32 in total, for the disposal of the house, park and the old pool site were considered, objection grounds ranged from the loss of open space, to planning matters, to the future use of the whole site or just the house, on the marketing period and the process. The Cabinet balanced and carefully determined the grounds for objections with its wider approach for the site and the best benefits for the town. In deciding to progress with a disposal, the Cabinet had considered the six bids received by formal tender by 12 February 2021 and after a debate and consideration a preferred bidder was chosen, although there had been no obligation for Cabinet to select any of the bids for progression. All proposals were subject to planning and all bids received included retaining or refurbishing the house in some form. The bids ranged from residential, care home to retirement and community uses. The Cabinet also considered a recommendation for diverting up to 100% of the sales proceeds into the creation of a new assessable park entrance, café and toilets, so that park amenities, local community and visitors would benefit directly from any capital receipts.
52.6 The Cabinet Member for Assets and Investments was invited to make a statement by the Chair but declined. He had not agreed with this part of the decision, as he thought there were flaws in the process but was content to comment in the debate.
52.7 Committee Members were invited to ask questions of the Lead Signature and Cabinet Members.
52.8 Councillor Dawson enquired of Councillor Busby why he thought the process was flawed, to which Councillor Busby responded that he thought that there was not enough detail provided for the bids and he believed he could not make an informed decision based on the information provided. He referred to the red line in the attached plans and to the additional 5 metres into the park in one of the bids.
52.9 In response to Councillor Dawson’s further questions, Councillor Holt responded that Cabinet had been asked to approve the recommendations in the report and not to decide the bids. The bids had been presented in a matrix. The red line was an accurate outline of the land, which was at the Councils disposal. The bidding process had been provided to Cabinet Members, and the papers for this had been made available for all Members and the wider population, except for the confidential papers.
52.10 Councillor Gould commented that if one bid required an additional 5 metres the bids were not like for like. However, the key point was that all six bids had been discussed. She asked if bidders knew if they could bid for more land even if most bids were based on land within the red line.
52.11 Councillor Holt clarified that the red line was a boundary requirement on plans, and whilst bidders could bid for more land, the red line marked all the land the Council intended to sell.
52.12 Councillor Grandon asked the Lead Signatory, Councillor Owen what her objectives were for the call-in and what she expected to achieve from this, no matter which bid was successful the outcome would be the same.
52.13 Councillor Owen reiterated that she though the process had not been open and transparent and should have been an objective consideration of each bid, and of the scoring matrix and the loss of open space. Her concern was that the decision had been rushed, even if the end result remained the same.
52.14 Councillor McLaren questioned the rules around the length of time for the bidding process and how this had been made public. Councillor Holt responded that the S123 disposal notice had been posted publicly and published just before Christmas and had run for 3 weeks and had been extended for a couple of weeks.
52.15 The Assistant Director – Economic Development and Regeneration confirmed that the project was marketed on 14 December 2020 and that the bidding process ended on 22 January 2021.
52.16 In response to Councillor McLaren’s concerns for the timing of the bidding process, Councillor Holt explained that this had been where the project was at and that marketing of the disposal of the land had been viewed on over 60 websites and received considerable interest. The timing had not appeared to have been an issue.
52.17 Following a discussion between the Cabinet Member and Councillor Dawson, the Monitoring Officer advised Members that they had agreed the scope of the call-in points and that strategic matters and the scoring of the matrix were not included in the scope. Members could discuss whether the red line was clear enough on the plans but not the bids themselves.
52.18 Members continued questioning including whether Cabinet Members had access to all the papers for the decision, the transparency for the bids and whether the bid matrix was flawed, as some bidders had submitted bids for extra land outside the red line on the plans.
52.19 Councillor Busby reflected that he felt that the decision was flawed due to the way the matrix had been presented.
52.20 Councillor Grandon referred to point 2 of the Call-in and if it had been an officer or Cabinet decision to provide the bid matrix under the confidential part of the Agenda as this meant that the matrix could not be discussed in open session. The Chair advised Members that information discussed in the closed session of a meeting was determined by law.
52.21 Further questions from Members regarding the matrix and if part of the matrix could have been made public and considered in open session followed and the Assistant Director – Regenerations and Economic Partnerships clarified that information contained in the Matrix was highly competitive and that this kind of information could not be made available during the negotiation process. She assured Members that due process had been followed and that the bid had been signed off by the Lead Procurement Officer and the Monitoring Officer. Cabinet had been asked to make a decision for bids within the red line only and the matrix was provided to enable Members to compare the bids for this purpose. In response to Councillor McCraw’s question if the matrix could have been made partly public, the Assistant Director stated that every effort had been made to make as much information as possible available in the open part of the report.
52.22 Councillor Dawson referred to the reinvestment of up to 100% of the sale for the new entrance, café and amenities and that this was not included in the papers. The Assistant Director – Regeneration and Commercial Partnership explained that work was still ongoing for this. However, Councillor Holt, assured Members that the reinvestment up to 100% was a commitment for the Cabinet to reinvest the proceeds from the sale of land back into the development.
52.23 In response to Councillor Grandon’s question regarding open space, the Assistant Director – Regeneration and Commercial Partnerships explained that public open space was defined in a number of ways including in the Joint Local Plan.
52.24 The Chair asked for a Proposer and Seconder for the recommendation to go into closed session to discuss the confidential papers. However, no Member made such proposal.
52.25 The Chair invited the Cabinet Members for Economic Growth and Assets and Investment to provide a summary of the respective cases.
52.26 Councillor Holt, Cabinet Member for Economic Growth stated that the three points made in the Call-in had been addressed and that the decision process had been following legal advice and that endeavours had been made for openness and transparency, as far as possible. He felt that the process had been clear and had resulted in a positive outcome in third option B. Due to the commercial sensitivity and the financial implications defined by law, the matrix could not have been made public. The issues surrounding the definition of public open space had been addressed and he thought that this too had been subject to transparency.
52.27 Councillor Busby, Cabinet Member for Assets and Investments felt that the process had not been moved forward any further as there was still further negotiations taking place with the preferred bidder and possible other bidders. He felt that this should have been completed to avoid a decision made on a flawed process.
52.28 The Chair invited the Lead Signatory, Councillor Owen to present her summary.
52.29 Councillor Owen summarised the key-issues including, that the matrix had not been considered, not all of the bids had been discussed, the scoring matrix was not open and transparent, the loss of open space was not assessed properly, the objections were not thoroughly heard, Cabinet agreed to sell the land within the red line in Appendix 8 however a bidder had wanted extra land, and that this should be part of a remarketing process as this affected the bids. She felt that overall, the decision had been rushed by Cabinet.
52.30 The Chair asked the Monitoring Officer, Emily Yule to present her statement, which had been circulated to Members and tabled for the meeting.
52.31 Following the Monitoring Officer’s statement to Members, Councillor Adrian Osborne asked her if she had been satisfied that Cabinet had read the papers, to which she responded that it was not with in her remit to attempt to assess what Members had read or not read. If a Member was present during the whole of the Cabinet meeting, the assumption was that Members are well prepared for the meeting. The questions raised at the meeting indicated that Members had read the papers.
52.32 Before the debate, the Chair outlined the course of action for decision options and added that he felt that the Monitoring Officer’s statement had clarified point 2 in the Call-in Notice.
52.33 Members debated the issues and Councillors Grandon and Adrian Osborne felt that points 1 and 2 in the Call-in Notice had been answered, as the Matrix could not by law be debated in open session, and that point 3 regarding concerns for public open space had been justified at this meeting.
52.34 Councillors Dawson and Gould thought that as the issues were contentious, they should have been debated at Full Council and it had not been clear why the five bids were refused. They did not fully accept that all the information had been included and thought it would have been more transparent if all the bids had been discussed.
52.35 The Monitoring Officer advised Members that the decision had been Cabinet’s as the executive decision maker, because the Council followed the Leader/Cabinet governance model. The decision could only be presented to Full Council if the Committee agreed that the policy or budget had not been fulfilled.
52.36 Councillor McLaren was satisfied that the correct process had been followed by Cabinet but had further questions for Cabinet in due course.
52.37 Councillor Dawson questioned and the Chair advised her on the responses provided to the Committee and whether they were within the scope of the Committee. The Monitoring Officer advised Members that all Members had access to all Cabinet papers and that the Leaders allowed questions from non-Cabinet Members during the Cabinet meetings.
52.38 The Chair summed up the debate and he thought that all three points made in the Call-in Notice had been addressed. He therefore proposed that the Cabinet decision be upheld and implemented immediately.
52.39 Councillor McLaren seconded the proposal, which was put to Members for voting.
By 5 votes for and 1 vote against.
It was RESOLVED:-
That the decision be upheld and implemented immediately.
Supporting documents: