Agenda item

To consider a referral to Scrutiny in the name of Cllr Firth.

The report of the Head of Democratic Services presented details of a referral that fell within the remit of the Scrutiny Board (Infrastructure, Investment and Inclusive Growth)

The following were in attendance for this item:

·  Councillor James Lewis

·  Councillor Debra Coupar 

·  Councillor Sam Firth

·  Martin Farrington, Director – City Development

·  Mark Mills – Head of Asset Management

The referral had been made at the request of Councillor Sam Firth following the decision made at Executive Board regarding the proposed sale at auction of East Lodge, Temple Newsam Estate as part of the Accelerated Capital Receipts and Estate Rationalisation. There was concern that the correct information had not been provided and that sufficient consultation had not been carried out prior to this decision.  The Board was asked to consider scrutinising the consultation process.  It was reported that the Friends of Temple Newsam had not been consulted regarding the sale until after the Executive Board decision.

Ward Councillors had been in constant engagement with the local community regarding the proposed disposal of East Lodge and there had been many conversations with the Friends of Temple Newsam and there were still ongoing conversations.

The Accelerated Capital Receipt programme budget had been used to help with balancing the Council’s budget and to protect front line services.  The proposal referred to in the referral was to sell a leasehold to the building, which would enable the Council to retain ownership of the building and ensure that it would be preserved and used appropriately.  This would bring in a capital receipt for the building while reducing running costs.

Members were informed that the East and West Lodge building has been part of the Council’s social housing stock since the 1960s.  East Lodge had become vacant in 2017 when it was removed from the social housing programme due to the costs to achieve decency standards.  It had been proposed that East Lodge be included in the Capital Receipts Programme and the disposal date had been brought forward due to the pandemic.  As with any property that would be included in the Capital Receipts programme there had been consultation with Ward Councillors.

In response to questions and comments from Members, the following was discussed:

·  The leaseholder arrangements that would apply to the sale.  The Council would retain rights to request that any leaseholder forfeit the lease should terms of the lease not be followed.  There would be clauses within the leases to ensure this protection.

·  The normal amount of consultation had been carried out with Ward Councillors.

·  The lease would limit the use of the building for residential use only.

·  Heritage aspects would be protected as the building was Grade II listed and any proposed alterations would have to go through the normal conservation process.  Any leaseholder would be made aware that they could only work within the terms of the lease and the listing of the building.

·  Advice was being sought as to whether a clause could be included into the lease that ensured that the building remain occupied.

·  Feedback from Ward Councillors had included their discussions with Friends of Temple Newsam and others.

·  Estimated costs to bring the property back into use were between £50k and £70k.  It was felt that the cost of the investment for the use of social housing would be excessive.

·  If the property was part of the social housing programme it could be subject to the right to buy scheme.

In summary, Councillor Firth informed the Board that there had been a 1,250 signature petition against the disposal of East Lodge and over 50 people had written to the Leader of the Council to delay any decision.  It was felt that there should be a scrutiny inquiry into the decision and the Friends of Temple Newsam could be invited to contribute.

A proposal was made that a more detailed report should be brought with further contributors and details regarding any lease and the future of the building.  A further proposal was made that no further action be taken.

Following a vote it was

RESOLVED – That no further action be taken.