Agenda item

This report advises the Committee of a notice of call-in received from six Members of the Council of a Cabinet decision (87/2016) to close, appropriate, declare surplus and dispose of various council owned properties, applying for planning permission and entering into any necessary agreements in relation to the re-provision of services and undertaking the procurement of development/alternative facilities where appropriate.

Discussion:

Members considered a report regarding a call-in received from six Members of the Council of Cabinet’s decisions (87/2016 – 7 June 2016) in relation to various land disposals. The Committee was requested to consider the Cabinet decisions and decide either to take no further action or to refer the decision back to Cabinet for reconsideration.

Councillor Maple, the Lead Member for the call-in, explained the reasons for the call-in as outlined in paragraph 2.2 of the report. In particular, he made the following points to the Committee:

That the Labour Group rarely used the call-in procedure in comparison, nationally, to opposition groups on other Local Authorities.

That the Labour Group was not opposed, in principle, to the disposal of land.

That the Labour Group recognised the Council’s financial situation.

That given the Portfolio Holder for Resources had indicated that further reports may be submitted to Cabinet on land/property disposals, it was necessary to establish a set of principles for the process for such disposals, including how consultation should be undertaken.

That there were a variety of complex matters considered by the Cabinet on 7 June and that the form of consultation would be different for each of the matters.

That the Cabinet’s decision and reasons for decision had not made reference to consultation nor the improvement of any facilities.

That the Cabinet had agreed consultation on proposals on a different matter at the same meeting (decision no. 84/2016 - Short Breaks Provision for Children with Disabilities and the Local Offer), and that the Cabinet should have formally agreed to consultation on the various land disposals.

That, in conclusion, the Cabinet should be asked to reconsider decision 87/2016 with a recommendation to start a public conclusion on the seven sites.

Members then raised a number of questions and comments which included:

Concern was expressed that the Council’s service departments had not objected to the proposals (paragraph 7.1 of the Cabinet report) which suggested that there had not been any analysis on the impact of the disposals on the Council’s strategies (e.g. Council Plan, Housing Strategy) or existing services.

That there had not been any reference to consultation with partners about whether any of the sites could be used to become community facilities.

That comparison with the issue with Short Breaks Provision was not appropriate given the scale and nature of the particular issues relating to short breaks provision.

That there was general support for the proposals, however, individual schemes needed to be looked at closely, for example, parking provision at Luton Road Shoppers Car Park, recognising that any improvement would be positive.

That the individual proposals presented to the Cabinet would have benefitted from being more developed and that it had been unhelpful that such a wide range of proposals had been included in one report and that any future proposals to Cabinet should be in single reports or grouped by type.

That there had been no analysis of the social impact of the disposal of Aburound House. The Head of Valuation and Asset Management informed the Committee that it was no longer used by the current leasee for operational purposes, however, the leasee had expressed an interest in acquiring the lease from the Council.

That there was some merit in some of the proposals, however, further detail was needed, as well as consultation being undertaken.

During discussion, the Head of Valuation and Asset Management confirmed that that Cabinet had agreed to delegate authority to the Chief Legal Officer, in consultation with the Leader and Portfolio Holder for Resources, to make the decisions set out in decision no. 87/2016.

Councillor Gulvin, Portfolio Holder for Resources, was invited by the Chairman to address the Committee to explain the basis for the Cabinet’s decisions:

That it was not the intention to dispose of the community facilities at White Road and Hook Meadow without ensuring that community facilities were reprovided as part of the process.

That the redevelopment of the White Road site would enable the provision of much needed social housing as well as the reprovision of the community facilities.

That the Hook Meadow site was no longer fit for purpose and that redevelopment was necessary to allow the reprovision of community facilities.

That there would be extensive consultation in respect of these sites and that this would represent an opportunity to ask local residents what they would like to see provided.

That some of the sites (e.g. Whiffens Avenue and land at the Esplanade) represented a good opportunity to provide housing.

That the reprovision of disabled car parking spaces in Rochester would provide a better mix of parking (spaces would be reprovided at Northgate, Almond Place and at Rochester Station) whilst allowing the development of the Kings Head site which used to have buildings at that location.

In response to a question, the Portfolio Holder confirmed that the Hook Meadow and White Road community centres would be reprovided as part of the proposals.

In response to a question, the Portfolio Holder accepted that it had been unhelpful to submit one report to Cabinet given that some of the proposals in the report were more complex than others, and that it would be appropriate for any future disposals to be submitted either in single reports or in reports grouped by type.

He also stated that Members would be able to consider these matters when presented to the Planning Committee for consideration, noting that, on certain occasions, it may be appropriate for the Council to apply for planning permission prior to the disposal of some of the sites.

In response to a question, the Portfolio Holder stated that he would expect Ward Members to be involved in consultation.

The Committee considered a proposal that the cabinet reconsider the decisions with a recommendation to start a public consultation on the seven sites, as set out in paragraph 2.2 of the report. On being put to the vote, the proposal was lost.

Decisions:

(a)  The Committee recommended to Cabinet to reconsider decision no. 87(iii)/2016 as follows:

      “To close the Hook Meadow Community Centre, Library and Changing Rooms, Chatham, and declare them surplus, appropriate them and dispose of them on the best terms reasonably obtainable whilst entering into any necessary agreements concerning the re-provision of the community facilities at Hook Meadow as set out in paragraph 3.3 above”.

(b)  The Committee recommended to Cabinet to reconsider decision no. 87(iv)/2016 as follows:

      “To close the White Road Community Centre, Chatham, declare it surplus, appropriate it and dispose of it on the best terms reasonably obtainable whilst entering into any necessary agreements concerning the re-provision of the community facilities at White Road Community Centre, as set out in paragraph 3.4 above”.

(c)  The Committee agreed that each of the proposals is reported back to the Committee before any decision is taken.