To consider the report of the Corporate Director of Regeneration and Community Services.
Minutes:
Having regard to the views expressed by the Proper Officer regarding the public interest test, that on balance, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information and that the report should be exempt.
RESOLVED that the public be excluded whilst this item of business is transacted as it is likely there would be a disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 14, Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act, 1972 (as amended).
Consideration was given to the report of the Corporate Director of Regeneration and Community Services.
At the invitation of the Chair, the Corporate Director spoke in detail to the report and highlighted the salient points contained therein. Particular reference was made to paragraph 2.3 relating to the site being placed on the open market, the Heads of Terms and the counter proposal to remove the parkland from the sale.
It was noted that if the preferred option (1) was approved, the Working Group would continue to develop the other aspects of the option considered by Council in terms of the Democratic space in the General Offices, the Community Hubs and the alternative arrangements for staff accommodation. A capital allocation of £180,000 to fund the cost of the required works at the General Offices and the Community Hubs and a further £650,000 for demolition of the Civic Centre would be required. However, the subsequent sale of land was expected to generate a capital receipt of £750,000.
The Corporate Director concluded by outlining the risks contained in paragraph 5.2 of the report which included both legal and human resources implications.
The views of Members were, thereupon, sought (summarised below) and were responded to by the Corporate Director of Regeneration & Community Services and the Executive Member – Regeneration & Economic Development:
- A Member pointed out that she had raised at the previous Council meeting, that the site had been advertised on the open market prior to the vote being taken to proceed with the site acquisition. The press release that had been issued following this Council meeting had indicated that if there were private investors interested in the site, the Council would withdraw from the purchase. However, the Member expressed concern that this report did not reflect the reason for withdrawing from the site purchase.
The Executive Member confirmed that it had been agreed by the Working Group that the Council would only progress the purchase of the site as a last resort i.e. if there was no private sector interest.
The Leader of the Labour Group referred to correspondence that had been forwarded to himself and the Leader back in July advising of private sector interest in the site.
The Executive Member advised that at the time the business case had been developed, the Council had not been aware of any firm offers made for the site but subsequently as information had been received confirming that there was now private interest, it was now proposed that the acquisition be left to the private sector to progress.
The Leader of the Labour Group requested that in future that all relevant information be included within reports and pointed out that the external interest should have been referenced in order to provide Members with the full information for voting purposes.
- From the marketing information that was publicly available, a Member advised that the vendor had only removed a parcel of wetland from the sale and not the parkland.
The Corporate Director confirmed that the prospectus did indicate that the vendor was exploring splitting the site into a two elements i.e. retail and parkland. The green book methodology that had to be used to value the site and the business case developed for Welsh Government’s consideration had included both elements in terms of the purchase.
- In reply to a question regarding the costs incurred for progressing the work to date, the Corporate Director confirmed that £30,000 had been incurred for consultants to develop the business case (it was noted that these consultants had originally been engaged as part of the Bridging the Gap proposal in terms of Accommodation Review and their work had been repurposed to develop the business case). Other costs included a full building condition survey costing approximately £20,000 (the exact figure would need to be confirmed) and there was also a potential cost associated for the provision of legal advice in relation to the Heads of Terms – the Corporate Director advised that he would need to establish if this legal advice had been provided.
A Member requested that the full cost associated with the work undertaken be provided together with the cost of the refurbishment works undertaken on the Leader’s Office and former Mayor’s Dining Room.
- A Member advised that the remit and main focus of the Working Group had been the development of the business case for the Festival Park site and now this purpose had been fulfilled stated that the Working Group should be disbanded.
The Executive Member stated that the Working Group had been established to also consider the wider Accommodation Review and would continue in its current form.
The Member reiterated that as the Working Group had fulfilled its purpose and it should be disbanded and a new Working Group established to consider the wider Accommodation Review. Another Member said that the new Working Group should be a Cross Party Member Working Group and include Members of the Minority Independent Group.
The Executive Member reiterated his previous response.
- Another Member commented that it should be left to private investors to enter into negotiations but it was important for the Council to have a supportive (not financial) involvement with whoever acquired the site as part of its duty for the residents and Members of the area. The Corporate Director confirmed that this would be the case.
- A Member referred to the previous press release and said that whilst he understood the commercial sensitivity of the topic, the Council had a duty to the residents of the Cwm Ward to address the local uncertainty regarding consultation.
The Executive Member said that consultation was extremely important element but it was felt that in terms of timings the business case needed to have been completed and a firm proposal approved in the first instance. However, he noted the comments made and said that consultation would form part of the Accommodation Review going forward.
- In reply to a question regarding the £180,000 capital allocation, the Executive Member confirmed that this would be used in part to fund I.T. costs i.e. a portable microphone system and I.T. infrastructure to ensure that the venue could accommodate Council meetings.
In reply to a concern raised that both the local school and college used this venue to hold examinations, the Executive Member advised that this would not be a permanent Council Chamber and the venue would still be able for use by other organisations.
- A Member said that the report left a lot of unanswered questions and asked that if the democratic function was relocated to the General Offices, what would happen to the other functions currently based at the Civic Centre i.e. where would these be housed and the associated costs of this accommodation.
The Member continued by expressing his concern regarding the cost and risks associated with the demolition of the Civic Centre and referred to the requirements of the Local Development Plan which would not be met. He said that demolition of this building would place a burden on the council taxpayer and the authority and this large site could be vacant and remain a liability for many years to come. The Member concluded by also expressing his concern regarding the parkland and said that this could potentially be a burden for any purchaser moving forward.
The Executive Member said that the Accommodation Review would consider the location of staff and this would be reported via the usual democratic process.
The Corporate Director added that development of housing had been discussed at the previous Council meetings and confirmed that there was currently a demand for housing sites in the northern corridor. He was unaware of the reasons for the vendor splitting the site into two elements but acknowledged the concern raised by the Member regarding the parkland and said that any requests would be considered upon their receipt.
- Councillor Winnett referred to the cost of demolition and made reference to the on-going expenses that had been incurred due to asbestos removal for a building that had previously been demolished and requested that it be placed on record that she did not agree with the cost that had been provided in respect of the demolition of the Civic Centre.
- Another Member also agreed with the earlier comments regarding disbanding the current Working Group and reforming a different Working Group to consider the future working arrangements. He also made reference to community engagement, particularly in relation to transport as some members of the public would be unable to access services if located at inaccessible locations.
Following a discussion, the Leader of the Labour said that the report should be considered as two separate elements (i.e. Festival Park and the Civic Centre/Working Arrangements) and proposed the following amendment to the preferred option, namely that:
- It be noted that the position agreed at Council to proceed with acquisition of Festival Park had been reconsidered by the Member Working Group, and that it should now be left to private investors who had expressed an interest in the site to take it forward.
- The matters of the Civic Centre and working arrangements for staff be considered by a newly formed Working Group comprising of Members of each political group.
A recorded vote was, therefore, requested.
In Favour of the amendment – Councillors P. Baldwin, M. Cross, P. Edwards, L. Elias, K. Hayden, H. McCarthy, J. Millard, J. C. Morgan, K. Pritchard, T. Smith, S. Thomas, H. Trollope, D. Wilkshire, B. Willis, L. Winnett.
Against the amendment – Councillors J. Collins, M. Cook, N. Daniels, D. Davies, G. A. Davies, M. Day, D. Hancock, S. Healy, J. Hill, W. Hodgins, J. Holt, J. Mason, C. Meredith, J. P. Morgan, L. Parsons, G. Paulsen, K. Rowson, B. Summers, B. Thomas, G. Thomas, J. Wilkins.
The vote on the amendment was not carried.
A recorded vote was, thereupon, taken in respect of Option 1 (preferred option):
In Favour of Option 1 – Councillors J. Collins, M. Cook, N. Daniels, D. Davies, G. A. Davies, M. Day, D. Hancock, S. Healy, J. Hill, W. Hodgins, J. Holt, J. Mason, C. Meredith, M. Moore, J. P. Morgan, L. Parsons, G. Paulsen, K. Rowson, B. Summers, B. Thomas, G. Thomas, J. Wilkins.
Against Option 1 – Councillors P. Baldwin, M. Cross, G. L. Davies, P. Edwards, L. Elias, K. Hayden, H. McCarthy, J. C. Morgan, T. Smith, S. Thomas, H. Trollope, D. Wilkshire, B. Willis, L. Winnett.
Abstentions – Councillors J. Millard and K. Pritchard
The vote in respect of Option 1 was carried.
It was, therefore,
RESOLVED, subject to the foregoing, that the report which related to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority) be accepted and Option 1 be endorsed, namely that:
- The position agreed at Council to proceed with acquisition of Festival Park had been reconsidered by the Member Working Group, and that it should now be left to private investors who had expressed an interest in the site to take it forward.
- The Council takes forward the other aspects agreed at Council to develop the democratic facility at the General Offices, community hubs in town centres, and vacate and demolish the Civic Centre.
- A capital allocation of £180,000 be agreed to fund the cost of the required works at the GO and the Community Hubs and a further £650,000 for demolition of the Civic Centre. The subsequent sale of land was expected to general a capital receipt of £750,000.