Meeting documents

Members are reminded of the need to consider whether they have a disclosable pecuniary, prejudicial or other (personal) interest to declare in any items on this agenda.  Details of any interest must be declared at the start of the meeting or as soon as any interest becomes apparent during the meeting.  The attached form must also be completed. Any advice required should ideally be sought before the day of the meeting.

Cllr Riley declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in item 4 as the YCBID Company had provided support to the Filey Bay 1779 Research Group Ltd, a Community Interest Company. The Cllr was a Member of the Filey Bay 1779 Working Group that shares the Company’s objectives.

Cllr Riley also declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in the meeting at item 5 (Work Programme) as secretary of Scarborough Civic Society regarding the Land disposal, former sports centre Filey Road, Scarborough.  

Public questions of which due notice has been given and which are relevant to the business of the committee.

There were no public questions received.

To approve as a correct record and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on

the 15^th June, 2022. (Attached)

RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on 15^th June, 2022 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Cllr Coulson (Chair) to provide an update to the Committee.

The Chair introduced the item and informed the Committee that the YCBID Company’s Chief Executive and Chairman had declined an invitation to attend the meeting following a vote of no confidence by the Council in the company’s governance arrangements and representation of local businesses on the board. The Director (NE) added that following a conversation with the YCBID Chairman, the YCBID believed it would be inappropriate to attend Committee at this time but were committed to provide a good service to their levy-payers.

Cllr Cockerill commented his disapproval in how the YCBID Company had acted.

Cllr Riley agreed that it would have been inappropriate for the YCBID to attend due to the circumstances. However he argued that the vote of no confidence limited the Council’s ability to manage its relationship with the company such as using its position to recommend a measure to hold an annual meeting of the company and its members. He noted no such meetings had yet occurred. The Member further commented on the following aspects: that the YCBID had failed to respond to enquires of its levy-payers; that there had been no membership applications to its board of directors; that initial delays in the collection of the levy had subsequently led to circa £1m surplus and that the resulting departure from its business plan should have been communicated to levy-payers; and that the performance and progress of projects such as Route YC was not available on its site. The Member felt that a letter to the YCBID should be written that communicates the above points and encourages the company to hold an Annual General Meeting with its members. These meetings would offer members the opportunity to pass resolutions on its finances, projects, and future. The Member felt that if a satisfactory response was not received then the matter should be referred to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

Members agreed that the Chair of the Committee write to the YCBID Company a letter articulating the concerns outlined above.

RESOLVED: That the Chair of the Places and Futures Overview and Scrutiny Committee writes a letter to the YCBID Company communicating its concerns regarding the company’s operations.

To consider the Committee‘s Work Programme (Reference 22/192), along with a copy of the most recent version of the Cabinet Forward Plan.

Cllr Riley suggested to the Committee that the item Land Disposal: Former Sports Centre, Filey Road, Scarborough currently on the Forward Plan be considered for pre-decision scrutiny so that Members were informed on how the site had been advertised for sale. He noted the site was of historical importance regarding its tennis legacy and thought that due to the heritage of the building and its location within an attractive area it would be useful for Members to review the plan.

Cllr Smith raised a query regarding the Peasholm Park tree walk area as it featured on the work programme as to be allocated.  The Assistant Democratic Services Officer replied that he would liaise with Officers on both suggestions to determine whether they could be brought to Committee.

The Monitoring Officer (MO) made Members aware that Local Government Reorganisation brought with it a prioritisation of resources that meant workload pressures would prevent some projects from being taken forward. She also commented on staffing issues.

Other Members supported the suggestions made and agreed that Members should focus on a work programme that was practicable over the remaining 3 meetings.

RESOLVED: that the work programme, as presented, be approved subject to the following changes:- requests for the addition of items, Land Disposal: Former Sports Centre, Filey Road, Scarborough, and Peasholm Park Tree Walk be considered by Officers, and that the Chair of Committee be provided with a response to these requests in due course.post-meeting.

Private and confidential appendices

The reports in this section of the agenda have been written so that as much as possible can be discussed in public but it may become necessary to discuss the appendix and therefore the following motion will be considered:

"that in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (and subject to consideration of the public interest under Paragraph 10 of Part 2 of Schedule 12A of the Act) the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information (as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act), namely information;

(a) relating to any individual;

(b) which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual; and/or

(c) relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)".

The Chair explained to Committee that the meeting would continue in public unless Members wished to include information found in the confidential Appendix at which point Members would vote on entering private session. The MO advised members that confidential material related to the commercial and legal aspects of the deal.  In the event, the committee entered into private session on two occasions.  This additional discussion is recorded in the extended restricted minute.

To consider the report of the Director (MC) (reference 22/180) in respect of the Cabinet’s decision dated 26 July 2022 concerning the sale of the former indoor Swimming Pool site, and to determine whether to recommend that the Cabinet amends it decision to:

1.    Provide in principle and final approval of the sale of the former Indoor Swimming Pool site on the terms principally contained in the private and confidential appendix to this report.

2.    Ring fence the capital receipt relating to the sale of the site for the delivery of the North Bay Masterplan. 

The Cabinet’s decision has been called in for scrutiny pursuant to Section 4.6 of the Constitution, additional Overview and Scrutiny Board Procedure Rules, paragraph 10.

Call-In Forms, Cabinet Extract Minute and report of the Director (MC) (reference 22/180) are all attached.

The Chair introduced the item and invited Cllr Phillips, a co-signatory of the call-in, to speak. Cllr Phillips explained to Committee the reasons behind bringing the Call-In to Committee. She stated that she accepted the Council’s disposal of assets was necessary but wished to explore the deal’s details. First, that as the project was under the constraints of Section 24, where did the Council stand in acquiring the approval from North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC)? Second, the Member asked that Officers expand on the marketing of the site as she was aware of interest in the site since 2019. Third, she sought confirmation that all procedures for selling the site had been complied with. The Member also requested to know who supplied the Council with the quotes regarding the site’s sale.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer (DMO) responded and acknowledged that the Council would need to seek the authority from the executive of NYCC which was not at that point obtained but was recognised within the report as well as the draft heads of terms attached to the report. Steps were however being made to schedule a meeting regarding permission but were subject to the outcome of the call-in. In regard to marketing the site, the constitution stated that as a general rule land disposals should go out to competitive tender however, it was not always considered preferable to do so. Rather, subject to obtaining a valuation, the relevant Portfolio Holder could consent to selling direct. This was legally permissible through the Government’s General Disposal Consent 2003 which allowed local authorities to dispose of land for a consideration less than the best that could reasonably be obtained without the consent of the Secretary of State, provided certain conditions were met.  These conditions included the substantial regeneration and other benefits outlined in the Cabinet report.

Cllr Phillips mentioned she knew of a local businessman who was prepared to offer 50% more for the site given the revenue generated from the attached car park. Therefore the Member was concerned how the site was marketed. The DMO informed Members that the deal would contribute towards achieving the council’s recently adopted North Bay Masterplan, and passed on to the Interim Regeneration Officer (IRD) to explain further. The IRD explained that the Masterplan set forth a direction for the North Bay area which included the provision of additional tourist accommodation as a key component. Although the former indoor pool site was a complementary site rather than within the masterplan area it was clear that the best use of the land was for a four star plus hotel. On that basis the council was approached by a local hospitality company that offered above the market value for the site when sold as a future hotel development.

Cllr Phillips informed committee that she wished to discuss the legal elements of the report. Members voted on a motion to exclude the public.

RESOLVED that in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (and subject to consideration  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.