Issue - meetings

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Evelyn Archer)

Report of Corporate Director (Finance & Performance).  

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Evelyn Archer)

(Mr. T. Hamilton-Cox and Mr. M. Hardy, who had registered to speak on this item in accordance with the City Council’s agreed procedure, spoke in opposition to the recommendations included in this item in accordance with Cabinet Procedure Rule 2.7.  Councillor Fletcher, in her capacity as Ward Councillor, spoke in opposition to the recommendations in this item in accordance with Cabinet Procedure Rule 2.6). 

The Corporate Director (Finance and Performance) submitted a report that enabled Cabinet to consider the tender documents prepared for the site and determine whether the site should be marketed with a view to its disposal. 

A supplementary report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee was circulated at the meeting. 

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows: 

Option 1 – to approve the tender documents and allow the marketing of the land to proceed. This option would enable the Council to receive a capital receipt for land that currently has no alternative, operational use for the Council. This would be in line with the initial resolution of Cabinet. There remains a major risk however that whilst the site could be marketed, the value would be dependent on the granting of planning permission. The tender details recognise that the granting of planning permission for this site is by no means straight forward and there is therefore a risk that a major receipt may not be forthcoming. In terms of timing, whilst the Council is anticipating a receipt in 2008/09, then subject to an early resolution over the choice of a developer/occupier, it could be anticipated that a receipt may be expected in the final quarter of the 2008/09 financial year. Delays in this process would affect the Council’s funding of the capital programme as indicated in the Financial Implications.

Option 2 – not to approve the tender documents. This option would not offer the Council an opportunity to obtain a capital receipt for land that currently has no operational use. The Council’s land would remain for small scale grazing in the immediate future.

The preferred officer option was option 1.  This would allow the Council an opportunity to obtain a capital receipt for land that currently has no operational use, provided that a suitable planning permission is forthcoming. 

It was moved by Councillor Roger Mace and seconded by Councillor Evelyn Archer: -

“(1)   That Cabinet endorses the principles set out in the draft tender brief, subject to:

(i)                  the final version explicitly excluding from the land to be offered for sale a narrow strip of land at the southern extremity of the land to be sold and,

(ii)                the northern boundary of the land to be offered for sale running in a straight line at right angles from the A6 to a point south of the bridge and, 

(2)         That Officers investigate in conjunction with the Footpath Officer, the feasibility of turning the informal path that runs from east to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93