Agenda item

The Deputy Chief Executive to provide a Report for:

 

Members to make a review decision on whether The Red Lion Car Park, Stathern should be classified as an Asset of Community Value following the decision by Melton Borough Council to List as an Asset of Community Value.

 

Members to approve changes to decision making process.

 

To advise Members of potential separate decision process for Public Houses which account for the majority of nominations MBC receive

The Deputy Chief Executive presented a report for members to make a review decision on whether The Red Lion Car Park, Stathern should be classified as an Asset of Community Value (ACV) following the decision by Melton Borough Council to list as an Asset of Community Value.

The Community Policy Officer explained to members that the Community Right to Bid allows Parish Councils to bid for an Asset of Community Value, as noted in Appendix A. In light of this nomination, members were advised that a previous nomination had been made for The Red Lion public house and the car park to be listed as an ACV, however only the public house was approved as a partial listing as of 230117 (as per 3.5 of the report); the listing of the car park was not approved on the grounds that its use was ancillary to The Red Lion Inn. The Community Policy Officer noted that a new nomination for solely the car park of The Red Lion Inn, Stathern was received in October 2017.

Members were directed to Appendix A, showing the nomination of the car park. The Community Policy Officer advised members that the justification for approving the application for the car park to be listed as an ACV were detailed in the following sections of Appendix A:

(d)  There is a time in the recent past when an actual use of the building or other land that was not an ancillary use furthered the social wellbeing or interests of the local community.

And

(e) It is realistic to assume that in the next five years there could be non-ancillary use of the building or other land that would further (whether or not in the same way as before) the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community.

The Community Policy Officer noted that Appendix A detail Melton Borough Council’s justification in approving the nomination, whereas Appendix B contains the land owner’s grounds for appeal and reasons for the car park not qualifying as an ACV. It was noted that this argument used case law as evidence to refute the nomination.

Members were reminded that this report was not presented as a planning matter, members were being asked if they agree with the decision made by the Council.

The Head of Place and Regeneration noted that as this was a review of a decision made by officers, those officers that participated in the decision making process would have to leave this Committee after presenting the report.

A member asked, in reference to recommendation 2.1 of the report, if officers made an informed decision, why members would go against that decision.

The Community Policy Officer noted that the owners have a legal right to appeal and under the current appeal process attached in Appendix A, the matter is presented to this Committee.

A Member asked if there is evidence that the Parish Council – in this case the nominating party – can purchase the car park.

The Head of Place and Regeneration advised that it is not relevant at this time to look at whether that is an option. Members are being asked to review a decision made by officers in approving the car park as an ACV.

A Member asked how the car park could be marketed if it is part of the land of The Red Lion Inn.

The Deputy Chief Executive emphasised that an original application of both the pub and car park was made. The pub was approved as an ACV, but not the car park. Legislative interpretation would suggest that the car park should have been included as it is ancillary. The nominating group re-applied for the listing of the car park in its own right. On the basis of the nomination, it has been dealt with following the process, as attached. In accordance with the review process, it is being brought to this Committee. It seems that the whole site should have been determined to be an ACV however a partial listing does appear to be an advantage to the land owner.

The Deputy Chief Executive advised that there is no right to appeal for the nominating group. This review is an opportunity to look at both sides and review the decision made to list the car park as an ACV.

At this point (7:46PM), the Deputy Chief Executive and the Community Policy Officer left the room as they were part of the decision making process that approved the car park as an ACV.

A Member noted that it feels wrong to de-value the land and that listing the car park as an ACV is against her principles. A Member noted displeasure with the legislation behind the ACV process.

A Member noted that this listing would make it more difficult for people and we cannot stop people use of the car park. People should have the opportunity to turn the site around and consider young people. Additionally, she could not support this decision as we owe it to the villagers to ‘make a go of it’.

The Head of Place and Regeneration noted that listing the car park as an ACV does not stop use of the land.

The Housing, Welfare and Safer Communities Manager noted that this matter is about whether the car park adds value to the community. It is not an invitation for a group to buy.

The Head of Place and Regeneration is about recent, past and future use of the site and does not mean that the owner can prohibit use. Listing the land would not deter people from using the car park.

A Member stated that officers ruled the site to be an ACV and the owner is asking how often the facility can be used and that he was struggling with the officers’ decision.

A Member noted personal attendance to events in Stathern and parking is not a huge problem but also struggling with the decision of the officers.

The Head of Place and Regeneration noted that the asset owners have not responded to every point of the approval that based the officers’ decision. The appeal grounds consist of case law and do not counter the justifications behind the decision.

Also, Members should be aware that the owners have an opportunity to raise their appeal to go a first tier tribunal to escalate the review of the decision; however the nominating group do not have an opportunity to appeal.

The Chairman noted that this was an opportunity to amend a past decision that was made as a result of misinterpretation of ‘ancillary’ which was the grounds on which the car park was rejected as an ACV. The Parish have made a case in favour of the listing and the owners have appealed the listing using previous case law. The question is whether this Committee agrees with the knowledge and the staff or with the owner’s justifications. The Chair noted the owners’ absence at the Committee meeting.

The Head of Place and Regeneration reiterated that the owners can appeal, unlike the nominating group.

A Member noted that the report could be misleading – at no fault of the officers’ involved – in that the Red Lion Inn allowed people to use the car park during non-peak hours, such as after lunch and early evening when the pub was less busy. Community use has therefore been during off-peak times which make the report slightly misleading as it does not reflect the nature of the village’s use of the land.

The Chair reminded members that rejecting the officers’ decisions closes the door on the nominating group with regards to appealing the decision.

A Member enquired as to the cost of a tribunal and noted that escalating the decision to a tribunal will not be free.

The Housing , Welfare and Safer Communities Manager noted that this is presented as a test of whether criteria has been properly applied by officers.  The question is whether the officers have adhered to the legislation properly.

The Chair sought a proposer to remove the recommendation 2.1. The recommendation was not seconded.

The Head of Place and Regeneration advised members that they would need to vote on an amended recommendation.

A Member recommended to reverse the officers’ decision and reject the nomination of the car park as an ACV.

The Chair sought a proposer and seconder. Members voted four in favour and one against. One member abstained from voting.

RESOLVED that:

Following the confirmed listing as an Asset of Community Value Status on The Red Lion Car Park, Stathern and a review request from the Asset owner, Members reject the decision to list the car park as an ACV.

The Community Policy Officer and the Deputy Chief Executive re-entered the room.

The Chair noted that members needed to vote on recommendations 2.2 and 2.3.

A Member asked the Community Planning Officer how many nominations are in the pipeline.

A Member again repeated disagreement with legislation behind the ACV process.

The Community Planning Officer advised that there are three nominations ongoing.

The Chair sought a proposer and a seconder.

All members were favour.

RESOLVED that:

2.2 Members approve amended decision making process;

2.3 Members note a policy paper relating to specifically to the decision making process for Public Houses will be undertaken and presented at a future committee meeting.