Leader of the Council
Minutes:
29a.1 Councillor Ward introduced the report on behalf of the Cabinet and informed Council that they were not here to discuss the part sale of the site or the house to Churchill Retirement Living as this was now part of the planning process and not appropriate for discussion tonight. Similarly, the Council have already decided that they would like to see a welcoming new entrance to the park with café and toilets funded from the sale both of these decisions had been taken by Cabinet on the 11th March 2021.
29a.2 This report was to seek Council approval and addition to the Capital Expenditure Programme, of the scheme to create a retaining wall, new high quality secure and accessible park entrance and new café/toilet block facilities (to Changing Places Standard).
29a.3 The report also sought forward funding for essential works by borrowing until the sale to Churchill went through and the capital receipt was received and to ensure that the overall site delivery programme including the retirement living development remained on track and in line.
29a.4 The forward funding would allow the work to progress on that basis and minimise the disruption and duration on site.
29a.5 Councillor Ward made reference to 2.1b in the report which would enable the commissioning of a multi-disciplinary team to support and deliver the stakeholder and community engagement, detailed design work, surveys and investigations, planning application, principal contractor procurement, liaison
with the retirement living professional team and construction delivery within the required time frame.
29a.6 These works were likely to cost within the region of £80k to £100k and although no physical works would start on site with regards to the retaining wall until planning permission was secured by Churchill and the contract with the Council was completed. The pre work did mean that construction could commence in accordance with the purchaser’s programme ie within 3 months of the contract’s completion.
29a.7 Councillor Ward clarified that this was the amount the Council was seeking funding for and not the full investment amount of £1.12m that it had already committed to spend on further improvements to the park and to the entrance all of which were detailed in the Vision for Prosperity for Sudbury.
29a.8 Councillor Ward added that a stakeholder group had been set up which included the Town Council and County Highways. This would enable stakeholders to have input in the design and thereby deliver an exceptional scheme in planning terms ensuring that the park will be a great asset for the town, residents and visitors. This group has been kept fully informed of the council’s plans particularly the need for the retaining wall due to the significant difference in the two lands levels to ensure that the entrance was accessibility compliant.
29a.9 A public event will be held in the park in late summer to present a detailed design to members of the public.
29a.10 Finally, Councillor Ward informed Council that Cabinet had reviewed the benefits against the key risks and were satisfied that the schemed delivered benefits to the community and demonstrated its commitment to Sudbury.
29a.11 Councillor Holt seconded the report and reserved the right to speak.
29a.12 Councillor Parker requested that the recommendations 3.1 and 3.2 in the report were debated and voted on separately.
29a.13 This was AGREED by the Chairman.
29a.14 Councillor Ward raised concerns that if 3.1 was voted against 3.2 would become irrelevant and would not be able to proceed.
29a.15 Councillor Parker disputed this and stated that funding could be funded from other sources.
29a.16 Councillor Lindsay asked if recommendation 3.1 was voted down would the Council be in breach of contract with Churchill Living?
29a.17 In response the Assistant Director for Economic Development confirmed that there may be other funding available and that Cabinet could discuss how the capital receipt could be diverted.
29a.18 Councillor Beer questioned whether if money was spent on the retaining wall now, whether the wall would be affected later on in the development?
29a.19 In response the Assistant Director for Economic Development confirmed that work would not start until planning permission was granted the retaining wall was needed to deal with the difference of levels on the site in order to allow disabled access to the site.
29a.20 Councillor Maybury queried whether any structural survey had been undertaken as there was no estimate for remedial work and felt that this should be included.
29a.21 Councillor Hinton queried why if the Council had agreed the capital expenditure programme of up to £1.2m, the pre work was only estimated at £80 to £100K, why was there a vast difference in funds if no construction work was taking place and asked if recommendation 3.1 was actually needed?
29a.22 In response Councillor Ward confirmed that it was customary to put the full amount as a provision into the capital programme. the provision for the full amount had been committed to Churchill and the park. The Council did not need forward funding for anything other than the pre- planning work.
29a.23 Councillor Hinton asked normally when you are selling a piece of land once the contracts had been exchanged a completion date is set, why is there no completion date set?
29a.24 Councillor Ward responded by stating that the completion date would be set following planning approval this was part of the agreement with Churchill.
29a.25 Councillor Parker queried why if the recommendation in 3.1 was predicated on the provision of a café and toilet block, and the cost of providing the facilities on site were not yet known how could the Council be expected to approve it?
29a.26 Councillor Holt stated that it was usual practice to create a budget for a capital scheme where the costing of the actual facilities would be done at the next stage of the development.
29a.27 Councillor Busby asked what the £2m reserves were that were carried over from last year for Belle Vue and whether this could be used to cover the £1.2 m?
29a.28 Councillor Ward in response stated that the money was from the previous year’s budget for general works on Belle Vue and would need Cabinet to agree that this could be made available. That decision would be taken at the Cabinet meeting on the 2nd August 2021.
29a.29 Councillor Parker queried why planning permission not being granted was not listed as a risk?
29a.30 In response, the Assistant Director for Economic Development stated that the risk of the developer not gaining planning permission was dealt with in their contract. The risk of the Council not gaining planning permission had not been dealt with yet as this was still a fairly early stage of the process.
29a.31 Councillor Maybury queried why the Council agreed to build the retaining wall?
29a.32 In response, Councillor Holt stated that the park entrance was brought forward through the Sudbury Steering Group, way in advance of the land sale. Once the land was sold the subsequent consultation happened and it made common sense that if the park entrance was to go ahead then the retaining wall would need to be built. The wall is for the accessibility of the park entrance. If the Council does not do this work now it will struggle to meet its contractual commitments that have been made with Churchill.
29a.33 On the proposal of Councillor Malvisi and seconded by Councillor Barrett, it was proposed that under 15.1 of Council Rules and Procedures the question now be put.
29a.34 This was AGREED
29a.35 Recommendation 3.1 was put to the Council as follows:-
That the Council approve the addition to the Capital Expenditure Programme of the Council’s spend of up to £1.12m to create a new high quality, secure and accessible park entrance with supporting retaining wall structure and new café/toilet block facilities (to changing places or equivalent standard) at the Belle Vue Park Site in Sudbury.
29a.36 This was LOST.
29a.37 The Council resumed the question and debate on Recommendation 3.2
29a.38 Councillor Parker proposed an amendment as follows:-
That Council authorise forward funding of essential works by borrowing until the capital receipt is received, to enable the commissioning of a multi-disciplinary professional team to support and deliver the stakeholder and community engagement and detailed design work, surveys and investigations, planning, principal contractor procurement, liaison with the retirement living developer’s professional team (including party wall matters) within the required timeframe. Any such borrowing should only be considered once existing reserves or other sources of external funding have been exhausted.
29a.39 Councillor Hurren seconded the amendment.
29a.40 The Chairman asked Councillor Ward if he accepted the amendment.
29a.41 Councillor Ward accepted the amendment subject to the word reserves being removed from the amendment.
29a.42 Councillor Lindsay asked why the Council had entered into a contract with a private developer that required the Council to borrow money before the guarantee that the work would go ahead.
29a.43 In response the Assistant Director informed Council that the borrowed money would be going into the design work and retaining wall.
29a.44 Councillor Hinton commented that there was nothing to indicate when the planning application would be coming through and asked why the Council was sourcing money from many sources for the same thing.
29a.45 In response Councillor Holt stated that if the Council was able to get additional funding it would fund additional improvements to the park, with any funding left over going towards improving Sudbury. The capital receipt would be used for improvements in the park.
29a.46 Councillor Maybury asked why the Council sold the land without the developer agreeing to building the entrance?
29a.47 In response, the Assistant Director for Economic Development informed Council that the entrance had already been designed before the site was sold to Churchill. Churchill have not contributed to the scheme because they have not yet gone through the planning process.
29a.48 Councillor Ward in summing up stated that many options had been looked and this scheme could be delivered and crucially funded. The combined projects retained and protected the house and delivered an improved park entrance as per the exhibition and consultation event held in January last year which the public wanted to see. This project has every chance of every success and would provide a wonderful showcase for the town.
29a.49 The substantive motion as amended was PUT to the meeting and CARRIED.
It was RESOLVED:-
That Council authorise forward funding of essential works by borrowing until the capital receipt is received, to enable the commissioning of a multi-disciplinary professional team to support and deliver the stakeholder and community engagement and detailed design work, surveys and investigations, planning, principal contractor procurement, liaison with the retirement living developer’s professional team (including party wall matters) within the required timeframe. Any such borrowing should only be considered once other sources of external funding have been exhausted.
Supporting documents: