Issue - meetings

Disposal of Surplus Land at Mount Pleasant Car Park

Meeting: 26/10/2023 - Cabinet (Item 67)

67 Disposal of Surplus Land at Mount Pleasant Car Park pdf icon PDF 214 KB

To consider and decide on the recommendations as set out in the associated report.

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED – 

 

1. That the disposal of the land referred to in the report and appendices be approved.

 

2. That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Economic Development and Property, in consultation with the Director of Finance, Policy and Development, the Monitoring Officer and the Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance to negotiate and agree terms of the disposal, provided this satisfies the Council’s best value requirements be approved.

 

3. That the Head of Mid Kent Legal Services be authorised to negotiate and complete all necessary and ancillary legal documentation and formalities to give effect to these recommendations and the disposal of the land be approved.

 

4. That the Director of Finance, Policy and Development in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Performance be given delegated authority to negotiate and complete all necessary future leases and other formalities as a consequence of this disposal be approved.

 

 

REASON FOR DECISION: To deliver best value to the Council in terms of the capital income from the sale.

Minutes:

Councillor Chris Hall, Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance introduced David Candlin, Head of Economic Development and Property who presented the report set out in the agenda.

 

Discussion and questions from Members included the following:

 

-       The Local Government Housing Act 1989 set out the requirements Councils must follow for Capital receipts.

-       Capital receipts were proceeds from the disposal of Capital assets, and must be spent on Capital expenditure (the Capital Programme).

-       The Council could therefore use the proceeds on items such as the multi-storey car parks, the Town Hall and the Assembly Hall Theatre, i.e. any of its major assets.

-       Using Capital receipts to fund the Capital Programme meant that the Council avoided having to dip into its Reserves.

-       The Council had negotiated with AXA to retain the existing level of terms for the transfer to Crescent Road car park (60 spaces). 

-       The occupancy rate for the car park at the weekends (when it was used by the public) was 4%. 

-       There was sufficient available capacity at the other car parks to cover the 4%.

 

To note, the matter was decided in taking the exempt information set out in the agenda as read.

 

RESOLVED – 

 

1. That the disposal of the land referred to in the report and appendices be approved.

 

2. That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Economic Development and Property, in consultation with the Director of Finance, Policy and Development, the Monitoring Officer and the Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance to negotiate and agree terms of the disposal, provided this satisfies the Council’s best value requirements be approved.

 

3. That the Head of Mid Kent Legal Services be authorised to negotiate and complete all necessary and ancillary legal documentation and formalities to give effect to these recommendations and the disposal of the land be approved.

 

4. That the Director of Finance, Policy and Development in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Performance be given delegated authority to negotiate and complete all necessary future leases and other formalities as a consequence of this disposal be approved.

 

 

REASON FOR DECISION: To deliver best value to the Council in terms of the capital income from the sale.


Meeting: 10/10/2023 - Finance and Governance Cabinet Advisory Board (Item 44)

44 Disposal of Surplus Land at Mount Pleasant Car Park pdf icon PDF 195 KB

To consider and decide a recommendation to Cabinet on the proposals set out in the attached report.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Peter Benfield, Senior Estates Officer introduced the report set out in the agenda.

 

Discussion and questions from Members included the following:

 

-       The asset was listed with one agent, Lambert, Smith, Hampton.

-       Lambert, Smith, Hampton were the retained agents for AXA, for the disposal of their site.  As the two sites were linked, it made sense for the Council to use the same agent.

-       To date there was one firm offer, along with several expressions of interest.

-       The advert would continue to run until the end of October.

-       There was no compulsion to sell the asset, retaining it was still an option.  

-       If the offers didn’t meet the requirements of the Council in terms of value for money, then the Council would have to consider next steps, and this could include not selling the asset, but waiting until a later date subject to market conditions.

-       In order to establish what market conditions existed, it was necessary to ‘test the water’ and attract bids. It would be for the Portfolio Holder, in consultation with officers to then to decide whether any of those bids were appropriate.

-       Recommendation 2 included in the report provided delegated authority for the Portfolio Holder, in consultation with the Director of Finance, Policy and Development and the Monitoring Officer to negotiate and agree terms for the disposal of the land.

-       The Property Asset Oversight Panel (PAOP), a Working Group of Cabinet, had already discussed the possible disposal of this asset.  PAOP was the first stage in the process.  

-       Full Council had already approved the car park being surplus to requirements. 

-       Officers then considered the market, bearing in mind that the car park was located immediately next to a large development site.

-       PAOP were consulted, and were satisfied that the asset could come forward for possible disposal.  The report therefore sought approval for full delegation for the disposal of the site.

-       Sealed bids would be assessed by Officers.  A recommendation would then be made to the Portfolio Holder as to whether or not to accept a particular offer submitted.

-       If the offer was deemed suitable, full delegation existed to complete the formalities of sale.

-       Having both sites on the market at the same time, offered better opportunities for sale, rather than marketing them separately and at different times.

-       There was concern that there was no advisor that could assess the asset independently from the selling agent and Officers to ensure that best value had been achieved.

-       Before the Council could dispose of any land or asset, it must seek a Red Book Valuation Section 123 (details of which were included in the Exempt Appendix).

-       This had established the potential ranges and value of this asset.  This must be signed off by a professionally qualified valuer, who were duty bound to act independently and give true and fair advice. 

-       A view was expressed that the Council should not be disposing of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44