Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Peach.  Councillor Winslade was acting as substitute.

At this point Members must declare whether they have an interest, whether personal or prejudicial, in any of the items on the agenda. Members must also declare if they are subject to their party group whip in relation to any items under consideration.

Councillors Goodwin, Murphy and Winslade declared personal interests as they were the ward councillors.

In accordance with standing orders, Members are asked to determine whether Appendix 3 of agenda item 4 – Request for Call-In:  Disposal of the former Lady Lodge Arts Centre site, which contains exempt information relating to financial and business affairs in the proposed disposal of the Council’s asset, as defined by paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1972 should be exempt and the press and public excluded from the meeting if it is discussed, or whether the public interest in disclosing this information outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption.

RESOLVED that in accordance with Standing Orders, Appendix 3 of agenda item 4 – Request for Call-in: Disposal of the former Lady Lodge Arts Centre site was exempt and the press and public would be excluded from the meeting if it was discussed.

On 16 March 2010, the Cabinet Member for Resources made an executive decision relating to the disposal of the former Lady Lodge Arts Centre site.  In accordance with the Constitution this decision was published on 17 March 2010.  On 22 March 2010, Councillors Goldspink and Murphy submitted a request to call-in this decision on the following grounds:

(i)                The decision did not follow the principles of good decision making as set out in Article 12 of the Council’s Constitution, specifically that the decision maker did not:

(a)     Act for a proper purpose and in the interests of the public.

Councillor Murphy advised that the reasons for the request were clear from the call-in form.  In support of the request Councillor Goldspink made the following points:

• There needed to be some way of recompensing the community for the loss of an asset.
• The Cabinet and Cabinet Member should acknowledge the loss of a community asset by compensating the community by amending the capital programme.
• The loss to the community had not been considered when the decision had been made.

In response to the request, Councillor Seaton made the following comments:

• A case could not be made that the decision did not follow the principles of good decision making.
• The building on the site had been in decline for many years and was subject to crime and anti-social behaviour and in February 2009 had been demolished.
• Everybody agrees that it was right to dispose of the site.
• It did not remove a community asset as that had been lost long ago.
• The previous decision notice selling the site had not been called in.
• The Council was committed to improving community facilities for everybody.
• He had an open door to listen to all councillors about what they needed in their wards.
• The Asset Management Plan did not allocate funding to specific projects.
• The Committee should endorse the decision to dispose of the site.

Councillor Murphy clarified that it was the methodology for the dispersal of the receipt that he disagreed with and not disposing of the site.

At the request of the Chairman, the Principal Lawyer confirmed that the decision to be made tonight was to either support or not to support the disposal of the Lady Lodge site as the decision taken was for disposal of the site by Councillor Seaton. That the current Asset Management Policy did not permit sale proceeds to be allocated to specific projects as such could not be taken into consideration.

Councillor Goodwin advised that the site was being abused and should be sold and developed as soon as possible.  The offer on the table would improve the situation and would bring £25,000 of Section 106 monies into the ward. The Acting Head of Delivery confirmed that no retail offers had been received for the site.  

Councillor Murphy reiterated that the Council needed to look to reinvest the money received from the sale into the local community.  If this could not be done within existing policy then  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.