Agenda item

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 bring it back to standard and the property would be placed better in a commercial environment to make judgements and market the shops more actively.

Councillor Goldspink said that the Executive were required to make difficult decisions. She appreciated that the community valued the local shops highly, but the council were not experts in the ownership and management of shops. She said that it was more realistic that they were looked after by experts in the field. She said that the best option would be to sell the block and the whole plot of land.

Councillor Estop said that the previous administration had planned an ugly development on this site. She said that the report did not mention that planning had been consulted. She felt that the units had been kept deliberately vacant and leases kept at two years and the area was attracting anti-social behaviour.

Councillor Crystall said that the three empty units were not making it a dangerous area.

Councillor Brittian said he understood the fear in the community about the previous planning application happening again, but the planning system had prevented it, and the system would continue to prevent that kind of development.

Councillor Glover-Ward said that the council was wearing two hats in this situation; the planning authority and the landowner. She said it was not appropriate for the Director of Place to comment on the property sale.

Councillor Wilson said that the Executive had heard the passion from the residents, and it was clear the demand for the shops was there. He said that any commercially minded business would recognise that, and the Executive needed to look at its priorities to make sure core services were protected and improved.

Councillor Crystall said that one of the challenges arising from the local government review was to ensure councils were as financially sustainable as possible.

Councillor Dumont said that difficult decisions had to be taken, and this decision fell into that box. He said the Executive needed to look at the bigger picture and had given a lot of thought into this property and its options.

The motion to support the recommendations having been proposed and seconded was put to the meeting and upon a vote being taken, was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED – 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.