Agenda item

The following statements were made by members of the public and Councillors.

Councillor Colin Blackburn addressed the Panel.  He made reference to the fact that, although this was a Conservative led call-in, it had support from across the groups.  This challenge expressed a fear that residents were being short changed.  He explained his concern that the valuation figure was too low and reported a much higher offer he was aware of from a local developer.  At a time when finances were so constrained, he considered this was unfair to residents and better value could be obtained. 

Councillor Andy Furse asked if the offer Councillor Blackburn had received had been in writing and including the conditions regarding HMOs and holiday lets, to which Councillor Blackburn responded that it had been.

Councillor Winston Duguid followed this up to check that the valuation had been on a 5-bedroom detached house rather than the market which might serve the RUH.  Councillor Blackburn replied that it was to re-develop into 6 apartments with a restriction against HMO or AirBnB type properties.

Bob Goodman addressed the Panel describing the concern, in his view, of commercial property irregularity.  He explained that Aequus has been set up to ensure empty properties went back into residential use, but now activity was going way beyond that.  He ran through some financial details which called this decision into question and proposed that this was only proceeding in this way to keep a failing development company going, at the expense of residents.  He asked this be referred to Council to look into his concerns, including the company arrangements, with independent advice to hand.

Councillor Karen Warrington asked Bob for his view on the return if sold for student and holiday lets, to which Bob responded that he had not addressed that in his statement.  It may well be the case that that would bring a higher return, but he recognised the social need and so had not made reference to that aspect.

Councillor Winston Duguid asked Bob is he was calling into question the competence of Knight Frank.  Bob responded that, if that was the valuation they had produced, then he did consider it should be independently reviewed.

Councillor Mark Elliott asked Bob if he believed Cabinet Members should follow advice given to them, such as from professional valuers.  Bob replied that the Cabinet Member should look at all the information available and if the Cabinet Member believes any advice is wrong, he should seek further advice.

David Stubbs addressed the Panel.  He explained his background as a retired Chartered Valuation surveyor.  He posited that the rationale behind the decision was flawed, as being justified by the imposition of voluntary conditions.  He explained that, in his experience, any developer would be prepared to pay at or close to the unconditional value reported by Knight Frank.  This transaction is predicated on the hope for future return, which is not enough, due to the element of risk.  He suggested this was taking place as ADL were unable to go ahead without the discount.  He would like to see this go to the private sector with the same conditions for a higher return. 

Councillor Mark Elliott asked if David could comment on why he considered Knight Frank had come up with a flawed valuation.  David responded that, unless he was able to see the instructions given to them and their methodology, he would not like to comment, but he could not see how the undervalue was warranted based on the known information.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson addressed the Panel.  A full copy of her statement can be read via the link from the minutes.  Councillor Jackson questioned the assumptions about the planning process made in this proposal and outlined the considerations the Planning Committee would consider.  She queried why 3 valuations had not been sought, as was necessary for Parish Council negotiations.  She asked the Panel to request the Cabinet Member ask for 2 more valuations and to ask for the evidence to justify the need for this accommodation.

Councillor Paul May addressed the Panel.  He asked for clarity on 2 issues; firstly relating to the need, as he had not seen evidence of this and secondly, about the value.  On breaking down the numbers and seeking advice from the Section 151 officer, he was advised that ADL is TECKAL exempt.  CIPFA advises that TECKAL is complex and subject to challenge and so Councillor May wanted the Scrutiny Panel to check if this exemption was valid in proving value for money for Council Tax payers.

The Chair thanked all the speakers for their statements.