Issue - meetings

To move that under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the discussion of item 8, Appendix B on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the said Act.

That the freehold of the commercial and residential block owned by the council at Elizabeth Road, Bishop’s Stortford (as shown in the plan at Appendix A) be marketed for disposal, in its current condition and with the current short-term leases in place, with authority to determine the best means of disposal and to complete the sale delegated to the Director for Communities.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability presented the report on the options for the Elizabeth Road shops and flats. He said that the parade of shops had been left in a poor state due to a lack of investment and catch-up repairs were needed, especially to bring up to a higher minimum energy standard in order to be let out. Tables 1 – 3 in the report showed the outcome in Year 1 for each option and Table 5 forecasted the financial implications for a 30-year period.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability said that the best option for the council was to sell the site and reduce its debt. He accepted that the parade historically had not been managed well, and a sale was the best long-term option for the community as the management of small shops was not a core activity for the council.

Councillor Brittain proposed that the recommendations in the report be supported. Councillor Hopewell seconded the proposal.

Councillor Estop made a statement in opposition to the sale of the shops and flats. She raised issues such as the council only offering short lets on the shop units, the boundary for the sale containing the whole site, protection of existing businesses using the units, the failure to install roof insulation in the flats and the expenditure of green space. She also raised the concerns of the three business owners in the units and said that local residents had started a petition which currently had 400 signatures.

Councillor Brittain said that the council’s resources would be better utilised for its core activities and landlord of shops tended to be within the private sector. He said that just because the council was selling the property, did not mean it would change its use. In relation to the boundary change, this option was considered but it was unknown as to what the future owner would want to do with the site. He said that the larger boundary allowed flexibility within the sale negotiations.

Councillor Glover-Ward said the council did not know what would happen to the site under the new owners. She said whatever design came forward, the planning application could be called in and determined by the Development Management Committee.

Councillor Hopewell said that any administration would be keen to make sure green spaces worked well, were enhanced and looked after. She reiterated that the wider boundary allowed greater options for flexibility and did not mean that would be the final boundary position.

Councillor Hoskin responded to Councillor Estop’s point about the car park. He said that it would be odd to sell a commercial property without the car parking spaces and it was not an asset that earned money for the council. He said that the shops met the current standards of EPC but these requirements would increase in the future. He said that there was only one flat that did not meet the standards. He said that the exempt appendix showed the extraordinary money needed to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55