Agenda item

To receive a report from the Cabinet on recommendations referred to the Council

 

 

(Councillors Bindloss and Posnett here left the meeting due to their interests declared at Minute CO52.)

 

The Portfolio Holder for Growth and Prosperity (Deputy Leader), Councillor Higgins, moved the recommendations and provided a brief introduction as follows:

 

·         A clerical correction was pointed out at recommendation 2.1, which should read Section 9 and not Section 10 as set out in the report

·         A presentation had been made to the Scrutiny in June 2019. A report was approved by the Cabinet  in April 2020 and had been mentioned explicitely in the Corporate Strategy and there had been updates throughout its journey

·         This was the next stage of the review of Council owned sites to asses their development potential

·         The report’s intention was not to close down any service or any operation, nor force any organisation or asset to move out of any building or asset, it was not proposing to close Phoenix House

·         The report proposed to draft a design for Parkside to best use the space available taking account of current occupiers’ intentions to move out of the building, this would enable the Council to then rationalise its own position with all its assets

·         There was a proposal to relocate Me and My Learning to The Cove which was currently vacant

·         The report did not ask the Council to sell or  sell or develop any property but to start considering plans for the future

·         Following approval of this report, the proposals would return to Cabinet later in the year

·         It was considered that scrutiny could add value to the process in assessing the business case as well as how any proposals would affect those who need and use those services

·         He made it clear that notice had not been served on any tenants and no tenants had been asked to leave

·         With regard to the Cattle Market north site, this had stood vacant for over 10 years but could provide capital receipts and there was a possibility to develop the site for providing housing for first time buyers

·         The Council was looking to achieve a financially sustainable model with limited risk and secure external grant funding. The project may involve the redesign of Parkside and Phoenix House site

·         Leicestershire County Council (LCC) had given notice to leave Parkside in 2021 and office space was currently not in demand due to Covid. The Council had to reassess its assets to retain income and reduce operational costs generally

 

Councillor Orson seconded the motion.

 

During debate the following points were noted:

 

·         It was appropriate to be taking stock of the Council’s assets as the Council was short of money

·         All options should be considered before making a decision  so that the Council was well informed and gave the best value for its residents

·         It had been requested that the proposals would be reviewed by Scrutiny. If added to the workplan Scrutiny would then report to Cabinet and/or Council

·         Due to LCC leaving Parkside at the end of 2021, it was important to take stock and rationalise the Council’s assets to minimise the loss of revenue and there was a good opportunity to improve accessibility to public services at the same time

·         The Cove was considered a good venue for public access and services

·         It was felt that risk and opportunities needed to be taken into account

·         The Council needed to ensure value for money and sell at the right time and have a strong vision of the end result

·         It was important that the Council had a strategic plan of what any capital receipts would be invested in and the community benefits for any proposals

·         The services offered at Phoenix House supported the more vulnerable and it was important these were retained. Those that supported early intervention were considered essential as they saved the Council money in the long term and reduced pressure on other service areas

·         It was important to retain the 3 community centres due to their strategically placed locations which were based in the communities they served and to retain/improve the service they offered

·         Concern for the timing of the report being in the middle of a pandemic. Phoenix House provided services to the more vulnerable who may be more affected by the pandemic

·         The scrutiny process could take a lot of time and it was felt there was no business plan or clear vision in the policy

·         Concern were raised that there had been a clause in the sale of the land to Sainsbury’s that they would have first option on the Phoenix House site. However this was not confirmed and due diligence would be carried out before any sale which would identify any such clause and its scope

·         Concerns were raised that the consultants’ work started in January and there would be a lot of money spent before Members had another chance to debate the sale of Phoenix House

·         It was felt a wider picture and vision was needed to understand how the projects fitted together

·         It was mentioned that full market housing was also needed to bring people with disposable income to the town centre to spend money and boost the local economy

·         The Cattle Market needed to retain enough space to function such as washing down and turning areas for cattle vehicles

·         If a service be relocated, any lottery money received by that service may have to be repaid which would affect the viability of the organisation

·         Snow Hill was mentioned as a large area of Council owned land that had potential

·         The town centre was almost empty, it was suggested that empty shops be used as homes to create a viable community in the town

·         There was a suggestion for Parkside to be sold and the Council relocate to Phoenix House

·         Some housing companies had become bankrupt and the Council should be careful of this and learn and pick up best practice from other Councils

·         Relocating the Melton Learning Hub may affect its viability, success and accessibility of this valuable service

·         It was mentioned that the opposition Members had no forum of bringing ideas forward and a flexible approach was needed to this project

 

Councillor Higgins raised a point of clarification during the debate that it was not for the executive to request scrutiny of the project, he had invited the Chair of Scrutiny to consider adding this project to the workplan.

 

Councillor Higgins thanked Members for their contributions and reassured Members that their concerns would be taken on board and form part of the way forward and all Members would continue to be involved in this important Council project.

 

Extension of the meeting

At 9.22 pm, it was proposed, seconded and carried that the meeting be extended beyond the 3 hours duration as set out in the Constitution.

 

As seconder to the motion, Councillor Orson thanked Members for their contribution to the debate and his understanding was that it was a good time to consider proposals to sell property. He referred to the previous years of investment in the Egerton Ward which had now resulted in Egerton being the powerhouse of Melton Mowbray. 

 

RESOLVED

 

That Council:

 

Approves the inclusion of £285k within the Capital Programme for the Asset Development Programme Phase 1 funded through £163,000 grant funding and £122,000 from the Council’s capital receipts as set out in section 9 of Appendix A.

 

(17 for, 5 against, 3 abstentions)

 

(Councillor Chandler had lost connection during the debate of the preceding item and therefore abstained at the vote.)

(Councillor Bains left the meeting during the debate on the preceding item and was not present for the vote.)

(Councillor Carter here left the meeting.)

(Councillors Bindloss and Posnett here re-joined the meeting.)