Agenda item

A report is attached on ‘Call-in of decision E3453 – Entry Hill Depot Site, Entry Hill, Bath BA2 5NA – Recommendation for Disposal’

The Chair invited Councillor Councillors Heijltjes (Call in Lead Councillor Councillor) and Councillor Roper (Cabinet Member for Economic and Cultural Sustainable Development) to address the Panel.

Councillor Heijltjes (Call in Lead Councillor – as substitute for Councillor Wright)

Councillor Heijltjes made a statement explaining the reasons for the call in (a copy is attached to these minutes)

Panel members asked the following questions and raised the following points:

Councillor Blackburn referred to the environmental impact assessment which is requested as part of the Call in. He asked how long this would take and what the cost would be. Councillor Jackson commented that this could take up to a year as species have to be observed, she further explained that a snapshot could be taken which meant that it would not take as long as a year. She was not sure on the costs.

Councillor Hodge asked what the constraints were on the site considering the ash. Councillor Heijltjes stated that she was not an expert but as the company plans include some building on the site, other building work would be possible.

Councillor Jackson stated that contamination is not a deterrent as long as the proper scientific tests are carried out. 

Councillor Halsall stated that the site is allocated for employment in the Local Plan and asked if Councillor Hughes was suggesting that the Council should wait for the Local Plan review. Councillor Hughes stated that he felt that the Council needed to decide on the best use of the site for the Council and community regardless of the timescales. He stated that housing should not be dismissed especially considering the lack of affordable housing in the area. He stated that he struggled to see why the ‘red book’ valuation was taken. He stated that the site is described as rare and desirable which implies it has a worth and we should get the best price.

Councill Blackburn asked how residential use versus industrial use compare regarding biodiversity net gain. Councillor Heijltjes stated that she understood that this was not impossible with residential use.

Councillor Roper – Cabinet Member for Economic and Cultural Sustainable Development

Councillor Roper made a statement regarding the decision made by former Councillor Richard Samuel (a copy is attached to these minutes).

Panel members asked the following questions and raised the following points:

Councillor Simon stated that the red book valuation for residential use was substantially higher than for industrial use. If asked if this took account of remedial costs. The Cabinet Member stated that the residential valuation excludes any remedial works.

Councillor Simon asked how long the overage liability be would retained. The Cabinet Member stated that draft heads of terms had been agreed and any overage would be in perpetuity.

Councillor Blackburn asked why the site had been empty for so long and not considered in the Local Plan for social housing. The Cabinet Member stated that a feasibility report was carried out in 2017 and ADL rejected the opportunity to bring the site forward for development.

Councillor Blackburn stated that he was concerned about the use of ADL and asked if this was in the best interests of the Council or would it be better to get another valuation. The Cabinet Member stated that ADL is not the focus of this discussion.

Councillor Hodge asked if ADL’s analysis provided a breakdown of the valuation. The Cabinet Member stated that there were no specific figures on the issue of fuel ash.

Councillor Hodge referred to the report stating the Cross England may locate outside BANES, she asked if there was any evidence for the this. The Cabinet Member stated that it is impossible to enquire if a business is serious about relocating or not.

Councillor Halsall stated that if the land is leased for 3 years, there would be a planning application in that time and should the Council decide not to carry on with the lease after 3 years and the Local Plan was amended regarding housing – would the Council benefit? He also asked that, if there was an immediate sale and use of the land changed – would the Council benefit from that. The Cabinet Member explained that the lease term was discussed initially with the lessee having the right to buy after 3 years.

Councillor MacFie asked why the land was not just put up for sale to gauge the value. The Cabinet Member explained that there had been an unsolicited approach from Cross.

Councillor Treby asked if Cross could sell the land in a few years. The Cabinet Member explained that Cross want to use the land for external storage initially and the company do not build houses, they are also taking a risk on buying the land as they do not have planning permission. If they did apply for housing, they would face a number of hurdles including the 5 metres of fuel ash and it being an industrial site. The overage provision would claw back money for the Council in any case.

·  In his closing statement, Councillor Roper stated that Cross is a third-generation family business of world class precision engineering and are worthy of support. They will be buying at red book value and the risk is theirs.

·  In her closing statement, Councillor Heijltjes stated that the Council has declared a Climate and Ecological Emergency. Tackling this is part of their core policy along with letting people have their say. The decision to sell this land without and ecological impact assessment and without consultation is failing the local residents.

Panel debate

Councillor Simon stated that the Cabinet Member had put forward a powerful case for the decision and there is a need to support local industries and high quality manufacturing. He stated that if housing was ever considered for this site there would be many risks, he noted that ADL had decided that this would not work. Councillor Simon stated that it is important that environmental questions are raised and that this would be for the planning application process to address.

Councillor Halsall stated that the Council did not market the land but had an approach from a renound employer for a site designated for employment. There is a safeguard if the land was ever used for residential from which the Council would benefit.

Councillor Blackburn stated that it was good to hear that the Cabinet Member was supporting business but in this case it was not best value and due process was not followed. This should have been put to the market.

Councillor Moss stated that this was not clear cut. He heard the points regarding the ecological impacts. He asked why the site was not marketed in the past and stated that the circumstances might be different if this was looked at earlier. Outcomes are not just about monetary value. He stated that he was glad to hear that, if there was to be a change of use in the future, the Council will benefit. There is a discussion across BANES regarding the tipping point around employment and housing sites. He stated that this represented support for a local business.

Following a motion from Councillor Simon and seconded by Councillor Halsall:

The Panel RESOLVED todismiss the call-in: the decision shall then take effect immediately

(7 for, 1 against and 0 abstained)

Councillor Moss thanked all for attending and asked that the Cabinet Member take the concerns expressed at the meeting in to account.