Agenda item

Mr Bob Goodman made a statement to the Panel in relation to agenda item 7 (Call-in of Decision E3181). A copy of the statement can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book and a summary is set out below.

I am here in a non-political way as a resident of the City I grew up in and which I hold as the most special City there can be. I am immensely concerned that the Commercial Portfolio which this Council hold is being frittered away at the expense of what is important to the residents.

I speak, I believe, from a degree of authority on this subject being a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and one who trained in this City’s Commercial Department which then was the envy of local Authorities throughout the Country – Oh how things have changed. 

We have here a situation whereby we are being told that it makes economic sense to give – YES GIVE nearly ½ a million pounds to a Tenant so they can get out of their responsibilities under the terms of the Lease.

It is clear that there are structural faults with the building which have not been addressed and which are the responsibility of the Tenant – I suspect there is a dilapidation liability with respect of the Tenant in excess of £500,000-£700,000 – so Guinness is getting away with say £1.2 million when you add the payment which is being made. 

Where is the dilapidation report?  Who carried it out?  Then where is the Valuation Report from the surveyor?  If GVA prepared this and continued the negotiation and their fee is linked to the surrender, one has to question the Conflict of Interest and whether the RICS Red Book has been complied with.  This needs independent verification.

We need transparency – Let all the information be put out there so we can believe what is being said.

The surrender of the Lease also means the loss of some 20 Social Units, the Tenants having to be rehoused by the Council’s Housing Provider – adding further to the housing waiting list.

So much for this Administration’s Manifesto to create more Social Housing.  This is a significant failure.

If this Scrutiny Panel does not send this back to Full Council, then they are letting the people of Bath down and they will have significant questions to answer in the future.

Please also recommend a Root and Branch review of this Commercial Estates Department so that you can have confidence in the advice that is being received. 

Councillor Winston Duguid asked if he was surprised to see a reverse premium on a lease such as this.

Mr Goodman replied that he felt it was unusual on a premises such as this.

The Chairman asked if more information regarding this decision should have been publicly available.

Mr Goodman said that yes it should have been as the process was not transparent at all.

Councillor Paul May made a statement to the Panel in relation to agenda item 7 (Call-in of Decision E3181), a summary is set out below.

My query is the financial logic of the proposal. Having signed such a long lease, surely the Guinness Housing Association must have carried out due diligence in relation to the building and their use of it.

I would say that if their needs have changed the responsibility for the property remains theirs, but we have been told that we must buy them out for an enormous sum of money without them doing any remedial works.

We have not been made aware of the size of the risk we are taking on and no figures have been shared for the overall cost of the project.

There also seems to be some confusion over the deadline for vacation of the property and that should be confirmed.

Finally, a full property appraisal must be shared publicly.

Councillor Vic Pritchard made a statement to the Panel in relation to agenda item 7 (Call-in of Decision E3181), a summary is set out below.

There has been a lack of transparency with no explanation to the public of what the plan is to do with this asset despite key local impacts on housing and finance. I find this extremely disappointing which is why this Cross-Party supported Call-in was made in order to achieve some proper scrutiny.

What are the implications for homeless housing stock of losing 20 properties? We already have a shortage and this decision can only exacerbate it.

It is not justifiable to spend such a large amount on something due to come back to us in a poor state.   What is the value of property, cost of refurb, completed value?

To handover £450K without a business case being in place is not justifiable.

We don’t believe the tenant should be allowed to walk away without contributing – setting a dangerous precedent.

We don’t believe that this Administration has demonstrated that the Council is getting the best outcome for homeless people or best value for money from these arrangements.

Councillor Robin Moss made a statement to the Panel in relation to agenda item 7 (Call-in of Decision E3181), a summary is set out below.

This meeting should be a good example of scrutiny and allow the public and Councillors to understand the decision that has been made.

Does the decision fit in with the priorities of the Council? Does it make financial sense for the Council?

Can the loss of 20 housing units and the reverse premium payment be justified?

What is the current value of the property? How much will it cost to repair any dilapidations? What will be the final value of the property and will the Council have a say in how this money is spent?

I ask the Cabinet Member to review this decision.