Meeting documents

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 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

Members agreed to re-enter public session. The Chair invited Cllr Chatt to address the committee as a signatory of the Call-in.

The Member inquired into why the Leader, Cllr Siddons, was present at the meeting. The MO explained that Cllr Siddons was attending instead of the Portfolio Holder, Cllr Colling who could not attend.

Cllr Chatt referred to a resident who had contacted their local councillor to express that they had not felt consulted on the project. The Member was concerned on numerous issues: that the process had been carried out in a closed manner; that fencing was never erected around the site, that the area was saturated with hotels; that the overflow car park which the Council retained control of would suffer competitively compared to the hotel’s car park and queried why the car park was included in the deal. The Member believed that the project was not supported by Full Council and that Members should have been involved in the process. Additionally, the Member was troubled that the site did not go out to tender and argued the administration had not acted transparently. Furthermore, he thought the site was isolated from the North Bay Masterplan and questioned whether best value for money had been achieved. In conclusion the Member felt that more options should have been available via the process of competitive tender and requested to know why it was not marketed.

The IRD referred Members to para. 4.1 of the report which detailed an extensive consultation that was undertaken on the North Bay Masterplan and included the former indoor pool site. The Officer remarked that over 700 comments and contributions were received from a variety of users. The predominant response was positive towards what was being proposed. The Chair understood that as the former indoor pool site was part of the larger North Bay Masterplan consultation, the resident may have been unaware the site had previously been consulted on.

Cllr Stonehouse reminded Committee that the plans would eventually pass through the Planning and Development Committee and would represent an opportunity for further debate.

Cllr Broadbent responded to Cllr Chatt’s comments, he said he participated in the working group and believed they were thorough. The Member believed that the addition of a hotel would resolve several issues facing the borough such as extending tourist visits and expenditure within the borough.

Cllr Cockerill believed that in this case the Council had not followed the proper constitutional procedures and law of the land. He argued the requirements of the Local Government Act 1972 were not fulfilled, and that Cabinet’s grounds for the decision were flawed. The Member clarified he did not believe any omission to be intentional. Moreover he was in favour of selling the site in principle but sought further detail on how the site had been marketed, specifically, how HQ Hotels became aware of the site in order to make an offer. The Member went on to share with committee knowledge of another interested party that had contacted the Council via email regarding the purchase of the site at a price in excess of what the site was currently being sold for. The MO advised that discussion of the emails be conducted in private session due to the confidentiality of the correspondence. Before this, the MO responded to charges the council had not acted legally, she confirmed that as MO the Council had adhered with all relevant statutory procedures and complied with the law of the land. Moreover that external advice had validated the position.

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 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

RESOLVED That the Places and Futures Overview and Scrutiny Committee uphold the Cabinet’s decision dated 26 July 2022 in respect of the Land Disposal of Former Indoor Swimming Pool Site.