Agenda item

To consider a report from the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development outlining the request for Scrutiny on the disposal of the former Blackgates School and including a report from the Director of Development responding to Members’ concerns.

The Head of Scrutiny and Member Development submitted a report outlining the background to the approval of a request by local residents for Scrutiny into the disposal of the former Blackgates School at Tingley.  Attached was a report from the Director of Development responding to Members’ concerns which were raised at the Scrutiny Board (Development) meeting on 10^th October 2006.

With the Board’s support, the Chair had declined to table at the meeting further written information submitted by the community safety representative of Shancara Court in response to the Director of Development’s report. The Board also rejected a request from this resident to speak at the meeting, as his request for scrutiny and evidence on behalf of residents had been received at the previous meeting.

The Chair then welcomed Paul Brook, Chief Asset Management Officer, Chris Gomersall, Head of Property Services, Mike Darwin, Head of Highways Development Services, and Andrew Thickett, Section Engineer - all from the Development Department - to present the report and respond to Members’ questions.

In brief summary, the following issues were discussed:

·  The Chief Asset Management Officer referred to the comment made earlier in the meeting under minute 40 regarding circulation of exempt information in advance of the meeting. He reported that it was usual at meetings of the Executive Board for exempt items to be tabled on the day of the Board meeting and for those papers to be collected again at the end of the meeting. He took the view that this should also apply to Scrutiny Boards and that it was not intended to cause any offence to Scrutiny Board Members.

·  The comment from a resident that the original company had gone into receivership and the challenge as to the legality of any agreements with Mintons.

·  Access to the Blackgates School site from Bradford Road – the position of the pedestrian crossing, vehicle movements and the calculations for the volume of traffic generated.

·  Confirmation that Shancara Court which is a Mews Court arrangement had been designed to serve a maximum of 25 dwellings.

·  Achieving best consideration and whether tenders should have been invited from other developers.

·  The valuation – the Board were satisfied with the valuation of the site but questioned whether it was good practice to obtain the second external valuation from the same company. The paper designated exempt under Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4 (3) on the second valuation was distributed at the meeting for Members’ information and collected again at the conclusion of this item.

·  Recognition that nationally accepted procedures and internal and external audit requirement, in particular for seeking valuations, had been complied with in every respect.

·  The timescale of events, in particular when it was known that Blackgates School was to be disposed of and the negotiations with Mintons to build Shancara Court.

·  The significance of the ransom strip owned by Mintons in achieving best consideration and whether Mintons had agreed to give this up if negotiations could not be concluded.

·  The continuing negotiations with Mintons and the current position regarding their appeal following the Council’s recent rejection of their planning application.

·  The adoption of Shancara Court by the Council.

Having listened to the response of officers to their queries and concerns, the Board concluded that they were satisfied that further scrutiny was not necessary.  However they expressed a number of concerns, chiefly the need for greater transparency in these matters and improved consultation arrangements wherever possible.

The concerns were in summary:

·  The view that in order to ensure transparency in assessing whether best consideration had been achieved in negotiations of this kind that more than one tender should be obtained.

·  The view that where a second external valuation is obtained that this should be from a different company.

·  The view that consultation with residents, Parish and Ward Councillors on the disposal of the site had sometimes been misleading and lacked transparency. 

·  That there should be ongoing consultation between departments and Members/the public/partners about service priorities which then shapes future policy against which individual proposals can be assessed.  Members of Council should be advised that departments would sponsor or support a particular proposal if it was consistent with those pre-agreed policies.

·  That the Heads of Terms should be agreed with Mintons as soon as possible, preferably within 30 days, or the site should be offered on the open market for informal tender.

RESOLVED –

(a)  That having considered all the evidence from Officers, that no further scrutiny be required on this particular matter.

(b)  That the Director of Development be asked to expedite the Heads of Terms with Mintons as quickly as possible, preferably within 30 days.