Transcript

[BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Welcome to this meeting of the Development Subcommittee. The beginning of this meeting is being live broadcast to YouTube for the public to see and hear the proceedings. Please can I ask that you turn your microphone on when speaking? May I also ask everyone to turn off any mobile phones or switch them to silent mode? In the event of a fire alarm sounding, please follow the council officers out of the building and do not use the lift. May I remind members where necessary to complete the gifts and hospitality book located by the sign-in sheets? You may see that from time to time, I'll be speaking to the officers on the dias who will be guiding me through any procedural points. The intention is for this meeting to finish by 10 p.m. And can I ask that members dispose of any used cups and bins provided outside the chamber? We have a very full agenda tonight, so I would ask members to keep their comments concise and relevant to the subject matter. Turning to the agenda, item one, apologies for absence and substitutions. Apologies have been seen from Councillor Chandler. Are members of the committee aware of any other apologies? No, thank you. Item two, minutes. Do members agree the minutes from the meeting held on 22nd April 2024 as a correct record? Thank you. Item three, disclosures of interest. Does any member have a disclosure of interest to make in relation to any item on the agenda, other than the standing declaration from those members who are also on the planning committee or a sorry county councilor or a member of KGE? No, thank you. Questions from members of the public, there are no questions from members of the public, urgent items there are none. Item six, development subcommittee forward plan. Does the committee have any comments in respect of the forward plan? No, thank you. Right, into the meeting. Update report, development delivery strategy. This item is to approve the introduction of a development delivery strategy and can be found on pages 19 to 32 of the main agenda. Corley Holman will present the report over to you, Corley. Thank you, Chair. Members of the committee will remember that this report came to development subcommittee in April and we agreed to take the report away to come back this month on the basis that we were going to hold a further member workshop, which we did in April to consider some site prioritization in respect to the development sites and also focus on removal of appendix two that was in the previous version of the report. So that committee, sorry, that workshop did happen. And it was agreed that we would prepare a site prioritization list, but because there is some information that's needed around that together with the financials, that isn't available for this meeting. And the members of the workshop did agree that we shouldn't hold up considering the development delivery strategy in advance of that site prioritization list being pulled together. So it's been agreed that a further member workshop will be held and we will aim to bring the site prioritization list to the business infrastructure and growth committee in September. So just as a quick reminder, the purpose of the development delivery strategy is effectively since we have decided to stop building sites ourselves. We're looking to progress delivery via partnership initiatives and delivery could take a variety of different forms from on a site to site basis. So adoption of the development delivery strategy is going to set out criteria against which committee members can appraise the various different options. Without such an established criteria, we can't ensure that there's consistency in approach and decision making and that may result in delayed decision making continued financial pressures. The strategy has been developed following, as I say, the member workshop in April and one prior to that, to allow sufficient flexibility so that bespoke decisions can be made for each site, but within an agreed set of parameters that set out principles and objectives, which are summarised in the report. We also want to make sure that we take a joined up approach with a local plan, achieving best value and decisions being taken by all Councillors feeling fully informed. Thank you. Thank you, Carly. Does the committee have any questions? Councillor Gibson. Can I go second? Anybody else? No? Okay. I'm probably, if you could just help me with something, first of all, on the first part of this particular report, the reasons for recommendation, because I don't know about my other colleagues, but I don't eat, sleep and breathe this. What would have been helpful is to have a list of the sites. The Council owns a number of sites that have been identified for development purposes, if we can actually have a list of the sites, because in the past the list has actually changed quite a bit. So I don't know if you could do that at some stage for us. My next question is... Do you want to answer that? I think we've shown the sites in the past, haven't we? We have, but as a cross-reference, so that they're actually at people's fingertips, and it could grow and ask everybody if they can list the sites off the top of their heads, because I came across two lists and they were different, so I just wanted to complete assurance. I would suggest, if it's all right with you, given that we will be prioritising those sites, can we wait until the list of sites comes back prioritised, so it'll actually be the final list? Absolutely, and if anything falls off, if we can make a note that that's the reason why it's not there, but it was, and there's one that we're going to be discussing later, that's my first question. My second question is, in the summary of the report where we say, What is the situation? We say, While the Council will no longer be directly developing any of its sites, there's a desire to progress development on these sites via partnership arrangements. And I was just wondering how the above, how that partnership arrangement will correlate with the information in Appendix 1, which is 9-10 pages further down the report. Appendix 1 is ensure all development meets Council's corporate objectives and cares, aimed to deliver high quality housing, prioritised delivery of affordable social key worker housing, all significant purposes proposed developments will be subject to meaningful public consultation, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. How much is that still going to be within our gift? Is my question? Do you want to take that or should I take it correctly? I think, to some extent, it's going to be on a case-by-case basis, but I think, as you will see from the upcoming waterfront development, the assets team have worked very hard with the proposed joint partners to come up with something that we feel does, in many ways, achieve what the Council's priorities are. If you look at what we're looking to at the other sites, I think the same thing stands out. So, can I have confirmation or assurance that every single one of those sites will meet the criteria of Appendix 1? Because that's what we're saying here. So I'm just asking the question and asking for assurance. The Council has one of the Council's priorities is to deliver affordable housing, but clearly, if one of the sites is on a floodplain and the EA have told us we can't build residential there, then we can't do that on that site. So I don't think you can expect that the Council will apply every single one of those priorities to every single site. I think we have to be pragmatic about it, but that's certainly the aim. That is what we've said. All developments will need to consider the impact of all groundwater flooding sources, not just the river Thames, as well as a number of other bullet points. I'm just asking, are we going to stick to those? Because we've said we're going to. So I'm just asking, categorically, are all those developments that we have on our list going to meet the criteria of Appendix 1 at all? That's the intention, but we have to be practical about it. If we say they have to meet the requirements of groundwater flooding and river flooding and so on, but by the same token, we want to prioritize affordable housing. We can't do both, can we? We have to let one of them go. We have to, you know, chair, I'm just asking for assurance. So what we're saying on the packet is what we're going to do. That's all. It's in the report. All I'm asking for is assurance. That's all. I can't assure that every single one, we can't assure that every single one will be over the Council's priorities will be met. We said we will consider the effect. That's what we're saying we're going to do. What would you like to change it to? I don't want to change it to anything. I'm happy with what I'm reading, and I'm really happy with what's in the report. I'm just asking, are we going to stick to it? That's all. If we possibly can, then yes. Councillor PLAT. Thank you. Thanks, Chair. I think it kind of follows on from Councillor Gibson's point. So, we're to approve a Council-led working party to produce a development site prioritisation list to be considered at the September Business Infrastructure and Growth Committee meeting for approval and to do it. So, I think the question, what will be the makeup of the Council-led working party? Because I do feel that we are here together with different views and objectives and different people, and we are a working party here. But I think perhaps the Council has been guilty previously of having too few people making decisions and then presenting them to committees and then everyone nods and agrees and says, Okay, we want to agree with that, and then it all gets taken off. So, I think, if you could draw out what the detail of the working group would be, that would be really appreciated. Thank you, Chair. I can't remember off the top of my head how we established the last working party. I think we just asked for volunteers. Councillor HOWEKINS? Sorry, probably. So, thank you very much, Chair. The working party was initially formed of those ward Councillors, representatives of development subcommittee, the ward Councillors, where the specific sites were located. That morphed slightly to include the group administration leaders, and I think in terms of the working party, it's almost just since checking the material that we're bringing back to committee. Just to help us from an officer point of view, to make sure that we're hitting things in the right direction so it's not actually making decisions. It's just kind of guiding us from an officer's perspective. All the decisions will be taken at the committee. And although we're a relatively small committee compared to some of the others, obviously when you're having a working party, there's far too many people in this room to be focused when we're having meetings about moving things forward and discussing the detail and the priorities to be able to pull that list together. So, that's why the working party was set up. And that really does help us from an officer point of view in terms of, as I say, making sure that we're taking things in the right direction, and then obviously feeling back and taking on board the comments of the committee when we bring the relevant items forward. Thanks, Carly. Obviously, the investments are from the officer brief. The investments are the elephant in the room of the council, and we do need to get it right. And I know that there's a lot of residents who pass through to councils that they're concerns. And they're sorry, which properties are you talking about? The investment properties. That's not sorry for what we were discussing there. Sorry. We're talking about the regeneration opportunities, like the Bridge Street car park, then wrong house ashes victory place, probably about a dozen of those. And this was a small group of people looking at those saying, what should be the criteria for prioritising them, i.e. holding costs and stuff like that. The idea being then that the assets team can come back to this group with a report showing how those regeneration properties have been prioritised, because they're the ones that we're going to go out and try and find partners for to build houses, basically. So it's nothing to do with the commercial investments. Okay. Thanks, Chair. Councillor HOWARD. Do you have a question? Just a quick one. I think that this was drawn up by the final bit was drawn up by each one of us from the different properties, and that that's where it came from, helping, currently with what they put together, because I was on this myself. What I would maybe suggest to turn around and, I don't know, change the wording. It's just shown around say, our aims are to, and then drop it down the line, deliver whatever, and that covers for everything. Sounds like a very sensible suggestion. Can we do that? Thank you. Thank you, Councillor HOWARD. Any other questions on this point? Councillor Gibson now got Councillor BEAT. Just very quickly on section 6 financial implications, which is on page 23. I wasn't 100% sure on exactly what that particular paragraph meant, because I thought that there might be some financial implications, so I was really requesting some clarification on that. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Thank you. This was the same point I think that we discussed last time where we were just saying that in respect of this report in isolation, there are no financial implications. In respect of the individual sites, there will of course be financial implications, and as we bring those sites forward, we'll set those out in the relevant reports. Right, thank you. Councillor BEATY. I don't know whether it's a question. It's an observation and perhaps a partial answer to Councillor Gibson's first point. And the documentation, I draw reference to directly link corporate plan themes where it talks about more and better quality homes, including affordable social and key worker homes. This Council will know that it's an area that I have continually expressed my opinion, the opinion of my group on, and will continue to do so. The site delivery strategy also talks about consultation will be taken with local Councillors and other key stakeholders. Indicative project methodology talks about reporting back to Councillors and local consultations at the beginning of that process. And in relation directly to Appendix 1, which again I've referenced a number of key areas of Appendix 1, my view is ultimately it's the decision of us as the 39 of us as elected Councillors to make a decision on whether a proposal is acceptable, not acceptable. Partially acceptable, which trade-offs or not that we will have to give to ensure that we meet a majority. In an ideal aspirational world, we would meet every single aspiration that we have. The reality of the world is you don't achieve that, but the fundamental thing is we as Councillors will be able to make that decision as to what happens. Good, bad or indifferent, it's our decision as Councillors to make and then the people of spelt them or decide whether every four years whether those decisions are the right decisions or the wrong decisions. So that hopefully will help Councillor Gibson to be a little bit swaged. Councillors say yes. There is no page number that I can see, page 29. Whilst the Council is no longer progressing the direct development of its sites, there remains a good opportunity to partner with external organisations to achieve corporate plan objectives. And to allow the Council to input and direct schemes developed on each site whilst not retaining the construction cost and the risk associated with direct development. Then we have appendix one with a number of bullet points. Now quite frankly, if I were third-party and I had a site and I was going to actually invest in construction and take on the risks associated with direct development, there might be some elements of appendix one that might drop off the radar. So all I'm asking for is how are we going to maintain the bullet points that we're going to actually achieve in appendix one but still not have any of the risk or the costs of construction and development. I'm trying to just equate the two, that's all I'm trying to do. Carley, do you want to say that one? Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm struggling to understand what appendix one you're talking about. I think this is probably me being... So it's actually of the development delivery strategy you're referring to. Sorry, I was looking for further appendix down the list. Bear with me just one second. Oh yeah, sorry, apologies. So I think this is obviously the list of objectives of the things that we want to do on a site-by-site basis and we will try and achieve all of those. That will be the kind of the starting point but I think it has been discussed and referred to by both Councillor Williams and Councillor Beatty. We will have occasions where not everything is possible to achieve and we'll have to make some decisions as we go forward but I think we can provide you with the assurance that the starting point will hopefully be to meet all of those various different objectives. If we can't, that's when in the reports that we bring them forward, we'll be stipulating the reasons that we can't meet them and that will be informing the recommendations that we bring forward. Can I just interject here because Chief Executive has pointed out that in the Four Square document which forms a part of this paper, it says this is what we want to do about it, implement a strategy to set key principles but allow sufficient flexibility in order that the Council can take bespoke decisions in relation to each site. That's what we're talking about doing. Yes sir, I know I was just trying to correlate how that can happen when we have someone who pitches up and is going to take all the risk and put all the money in. That's all, that's all I'm asking. Thank you. And then as Councillor Beatty said, we will have the final decision. Thank you. Are there any other questions on this matter? Okay. Does the committee agree to recommend a corporate policy and resources committee to one, approve the introduction of a development delivery strategy to approve the form and content of the draft development delivery strategy attached to this report. Three, approve a Councillor led working party to produce a development site prioritization list to be considered at the September business infrastructure and growth committee meeting for approval. And four, refer the development delivery strategy to full Council for adoption. Thank you. Moving on, the next item is an update on residential consultations with regard to Benwell second phase and White House sites. This item is to note the feedback from residents and approve the engagement of an architect to produce feasibility drawings and can be found on pages 33 to 38 of the agenda. And Richard Mortimer will present the report. Thank you, Chair. Essentially this report looks to set out the feedback we've had from the residents, what we've undertaken is is neighbour consultations. So it's really the people that have been going to be most affected by the development that we could potentially take. So we've spent some time with them going through their concerns. Both sites have been the subject of planning refusals. And so therefore, the first step has been to consult those that are adjacent to the site. Get their views on how they feel the site could be brought forward. And then hence the reason why we're looking for a small budget to undertake some feasibility drawings so that we can seek to reflect their feedback in those proposals. And then we've had meetings with the residents of around Benwell House phase two. And it's fair to say a lot of the feedback that we've had was focused on some of the impacts of phase one, which are found and those were really around issues such as noise from the car park. There's some external lighting, so the hoarding they've asked for that to be removed, which has been done. And also some tree pruning around the perimeter of the site, which affects light into their gardens, which again, that's something we can do. And also in terms of the island site itself, it's probably fair to say residents preference would be for that to actually have the trees planted, which are previously died due to potential honey fungus. And for the phase two site to be left as it is. However, there's a recognition as well that the site has been in the housing land allocation, so therefore it has a certain status and has been brought forward into emerging planning policy proposals. So again, there's a status that the site has the potential brownfield site. And in terms of development on that site, I think it's fair to say they recognize that they're probably better off working with us to find the scheme that works rather than working with the party developer where we sell the site, for example. We got to a point where their main concerns were around both height and distance from the meadows end properties, which are at the rear of the site. So we were really very much focused on looking at what we can do to draw the building towards a green street side of the site and also reducing the height of the block, so it has less of an impact on them. So that's where we've got to, obviously the next step will be to articulate that through some feasibility drawings so that they can get a flavour for what that could look like and then present that back to them and then look to refine and build on that process. In terms of the White House residential, again, it's a lot of the concerns really were around traffic, the accident rate, which I didn't feel was really being recognized by Surrey because they were minor accidents, not major ones. Also concerns about flooding on site and general infrastructure matters as well. There are also concerns really around development on the site as a principle and several didn't really want to see anything done on the site at all, even potentially having it as an amenity space for wider residents. But following some dialogue, some of them were open-minded towards looking at a scheme that was more akin to a townhouse-led development. So probably between four and six because that's probably the maximum that could be accommodated on site, but a key element of that was to make sure that we had sufficient parking on site, not only to consume the requirements of the residents, but also visitors, what they do find is that visitors often go and park within the housing estates around that vicinity and therefore displace local residents. So those are probably some of the key things that came out of it. So reports fairly straightforward in terms of what it's seeking to do. It's what I'd suggest is it's a first step in a longer journey, and the next step will be to, with this one as well, get an architect to articulate what those townhouses may look like presented back to the residents and then try and see their consensus over that and get us into a position where we have a potential scheme that we could take forwards and engage in further consultation with a wider group of residents. So it's the same blueprint for both sites, essentially, and that's what we're asking the committee to note and approve. Thank you, Richard. So, if I may, Councillor Beecher, so basically this is tool intent and purpose and extension of the consultation. We've taken their views on board, we're going to put something back with visual take back and see what feedback we get. That's correct, yeah. Okay, thank you, Councillor Beecher. Quick question, how much of an architect you get for £1,000? That's a good question. We can twist the arms of architects and get them to do some initial feasibility drawings for that. I think it's fair to say that the carrot will be a potential planning application, if that, if it were to go down that route, but at this stage, it's essentially this use of phrases, perhaps to catch a macro, I suppose. Councillor Gibson. Sorry. Richard, just a quick one, well, a couple of quick ones. The first one is, we said that the planning for Benwell House was refused in November 22, it wasn't, it was refused in the 13th to the 10th 21, just for clarification. But the next point is, have we actually carried out this consultation, are we going to? Because as I mentioned in the report that relates to both White House and Benwell House, that there was a consultation in March 2024, 2024, with whom was that carried out? How many people, where's the result of it? Where can we find it? We had meetings in March, we had two, they were basically small groups. First one, we invited some brief Councillors, but no one came to that one. Second one, we invited Councillors, and we had the Leader, we had Deputy Leader, and two other Councillors along as well, who attended that one. So essentially the feedback was taken from that, and what you see in the report is essentially what was come from that. So was it documented, and can we find it? In this report, there is a minute, yes, that we can provide. If you could provide that, that would be lovely, because from the point of view of the Benwell House element, I do recall that there were approximately 230 letters of objection with a number of residents actually being quite upset and cross with what was actually being proposed. Hence, the refusal, apart from a few other elements where the Councillor was actually contributing on some of its own policies. Councillor Gibson. Yes. Could we keep it concise? I understand. We're having a two-way conversation here, not a committee meeting. Yeah, yeah, I'm just trying to actually get to the bottom of history impacts on future, and what I'm trying to get is how the consultation, recent consultation, compared to all the Ferrari that happened before, to be quite clear on the level of travel, the direction of travel, this particular development's going in. Because what I'd hate to see if it's a score. Can I call it and answer that question? Sure, because my next question is, how is this going to be financed? Okay, if I can just, to address your first point, if I can just draw your casting mind back to some of the reports that we brought to this committee before Christmas, which was suggesting early steps in terms of how we wanted to move these schemes forward, on the basis that we weren't going to reach any conclusions, we're going to do some low-level consultation initially just to get effectively the views of some of the resident representatives. And that's what we've done within these two sessions. We've had two informal meetings, as Richard's just set out, to get an idea of what the concerns were, and just have a kind of wider, more informal conversation with them. So they understood where we were as a council, in terms of some of the pressures, if that's the right word, that we've got in respect of the sites. And then, so this is really an early stage, and we want to come back to committee at every stage. So, as Richard said, we've got some feedback. We want to just get some very, very low-level drawings pulled up, some feasibility designs, so we can take those back to residents and ward councillors again to get some views. When we think that we've actually got some traction in terms of a design that we can move forward, that's when we'll undertake the proper full consultation in terms of residents, so that will be open to residents. Any interested part is as we've done previously in the scheme, so this is a really, really early piece of work, just trying to make sure again, the same as we were doing with the development and delivery strategy, that we're moving in the right direction, supported by members, and certainly has the understanding of residents. And we can assure ward councillors and the committee that we've taken on board the early views of the residents as we move things to recommendation stage. Thanks. I'm just going to cut in again because, again, chief executives very kindly pointed me to our fourth square, which says this is what we want to do about it. Following initial neighbour consultations, there is an opportunity to use their feedback to inform revised scheme proposals for further feedback and buy-in. So my understanding of this process, as an administration that's trying to consult more openly with residents, we're not going to do one massive consultation with lots of people. We're going to meet with people that want to meet, we'll go away, we'll come back with some ideas, and then we'll maybe have another consultation, and maybe in the life of that we need to. So this isn't the be all the end or this is the first step in the process. Thank you, sir, and I have read the fourth square, and all I was asking for was evidence on the consultation that took place in March 2024, because I wasn't aware of it. Maybe some other councillors were weren't, I don't know, but it'd be nice to have the evidence and see what the feedback was, and so what I'm asking for. And my next question is, how are we going to finance this? Should it actually proceed? Carly. It'll be the same as a variety of projects that we want to bring forward when we feel that we've got the projects to a sufficient stage, and that is the Royal We Members and Officers that we feel that we can actually take it to the stage of a planning application. We will then have to make a bid effectively for the capital funding, and it'll have to go forward into the capital programme. Sorry, I can add to that, that in terms of the White House residential, we have a surplus amount of money on that, so the initial thousand pounds will be covered with that. Obviously, if we look to take it further, then we need to come back to committee, as Carly said, seeking a further budget, the proposal in terms of them will house, where we don't have a budget available, will be to access it through revenue. I'm sorry, Councillor CASSIDY, are you talking about financing the architects cost financing the whole scheme? I mean, I can change it in there. I think this is part of where the prioritisation comes from. If we can't find a part that wants to do it, then it's going to be down at the bottom of the list of priorities. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Just to lay some of your concerns, Councillor GIBBS and Councillor Bates and myself, and I believe it was also Councillor Kaplan, that were there on the night in March to meet with residents at the once. They were indeed about eight residents in total, and so it came from that area as well. Notes were taken because I took those notes. I sent them over to Richard Mortimer, who then just tidied them up and sent them and circulated them to all of the Councillors in that ward. So you're aware. Thank you. Thank you. That was the March consultation that we're talking about. Only for the White House? Yeah. Thank you. Because I went, yes. And the Four Square looked like it related also to Benwell House. Do we do one for Benwell House as well? I don't know. I wasn't there. But all I can say to you is the way that it's been described and the way that we now consult is very much in bite sizes. And as Councillor Williams has just said also, it is then prioritising how we take these four depending on who's interested and who's not interested in helping us in terms of funding them. So I hope that lays your fears. Thank you. Thank you, Leader. Much appreciated. I do appreciate the bite sizes, but I sometimes do find it difficult to follow the thread and try to keep with the trajectory. So just thank you. Maybe I can ask the assets team to document these meetings and share them more widely so that all Councillors are aware of what's going on, not just the ward Councillors in future. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Council happens. Just one quick one. When we did a tour around Benwell House, there was all that Harris fencing up. I went past the other day and there was still a load of Harris fencing up. And it was said that we were going to remove it. Is it going to go? The answer is yes, it is going to go. However, there is an element of contaminated land on that site, which has a membrane over it, but that membrane got disturbed when they were taking out some of the dead trees. So therefore, we have to get essentially a quite protracted process of getting a remediation method statement produced and get it approved by our environmental health team. And then you've got a point at the team to come in and actually do the works. And after you've done the work, you've then got to get a validation statement prepared and then that's got to be approved by the environmental health team. And at that time, if we get the green light, the Harris fencing can come down. Okay, expensive. And they tracked it, yes. What's the main contamination? Excuse me, Councillor Huchens, I think we're going off topics like how I appreciate the interest, but this is about the next stages with regard to the architects. So, are there any more questions about that specific point? Councillor Gibson, come on, let's go be another one. No, what's going to say is that there is information about the contamination. I can point Councillor Huchens to the report, if needed. Thank you very much. Okay, in that case, does the Committee agree to note the feedback from residents, as detailed in the report, approve the engagement of an architect to undertake feasibility drawings that articulate forms of viable development that align as closely as possible with residents' feedback. And three, approve a budget for the architect of £1,000 for each project. I really agree. May I please abstain until I've actually seen the whatever I'm noting, the feedback from the residents, I haven't seen it, so I can't see. We will note that you've abstained in a minute, don't worry. Thank you. Moving on, the next item, item nine, is a presentation on the waterfront scheme. Now, remind Councillors, this item is to receive a presentation on the proposed waterfront scheme can be found on pages three to 14 of the supplementary agenda, so you are not being asked to vote on anything tonight. Okay. Other than to note the presentation. Richard Martel will present the report. Thank you, Chair. This report is really a sort of build on the previous presentation we've done, and to really update on certain elements and provide some clarifications around some of the things that were raised in that previous presentation. I suppose starting with the second slide, or scheme proposals, or the scheme is essentially an apples, what's called an upscale hotel, which is a plus four star quality. There's about 250 bedrooms being proposed as part of the development, and there's an apart hotel suite complex as well, which is about 29 units in total. There's a range of facilities that will be supporting those facilities, which includes a restaurant, bars, and scenery retail as well, which is essentially kiosks, which may have jewelry, may have some newspapers, that sort of thing in a cafe fitness bar as well, meeting rooms and the lounge. If we go to the next slide, please. One of the questions which is raised really was around what benefits does the development bring to spell form, and one of the key ones is around economic regeneration of both the daytime and nighttime economy. Essentially what the scheme seeks to do is increase the volume of tourism coming in as well. It also supports local businesses as well in terms of providing local good quality hotel facilities. It also gives stains and enhanced profile in terms of having such a high quality facility within the borough, which is also accessible to local residents as well. Local employment, again, this is something which Aurora has said they're very keen on. The priorities to employ local people because it's easier and more convenient for both them themselves. They're very much into training as well, so they're prepared to take on the people under apprenticeship schemes, train them up. So that means that it includes a whole range of people with different skills or diversity and inclusivity basis as well, but corporate CSRs are very much geared towards that as well. So I think they're also looking at potentially between 150 to 180 employees on site, so it's quite a reasonable number of people they're looking to bring into local employment. Obviously, if they can't get people locally, then they will obviously go wider, but that will be something which they will need to establish at the time. And I think probably all the way that there are a lot of demand for people on that sort of service level, but whether they're available locally or not is something they'll only conclude once they actually start looking for people. Again, this sort of facility is going to bring the vibrancy, vitality and connectivity to what's currently sort of in the gut and corner of the riverside as well. It's a prime corner, it's usually a gateway because as you come out of running meat across the bridge, it's the first thing you see. So in terms of quality, it's an important and prominent facility that will connect up the town centre and the river frontage and the gateway into the town centre as well. I suppose another important element to this is which also feeds into economic regeneration is the fact that it should increase spend in the local economy. I don't mean just in the hotel itself, I think that permeates even further, it's not only people that visit the site and stay at the hotel and spend money within it. People also visit the local town centre, other attractions within the borough will spend there, but also in terms of a Aurora supply chain, they look to use local businesses as well. So again, there's potential for a range of different businesses to be engaged and benefit from having a facility like this in the town. And I suppose one of the other benefits from a regeneration basis is that it's a significant amount of inward investment and probably talking in the order of 80 million plus for that site to be developed out. It also gives a huge amount of confidence to both businesses looking to relocate into the town centre because it provides a facility which they can send visitors to or indeed visit and use for their own business purposes. So I think there's a lot of benefits around it as well as also, beforehand, enhancing the profile of stains which also attracts new businesses into the town and hopefully encourages other people to invest and enhance their assets which are owned within stains. If we go on to the next slide, please. This is really just giving you an image of what the site will look like. It's something which you will have seen before from the previous presentations, but it just reiterates what their proposals look like. You can go on to the next slide. That sort of gives you an idea of the elevation treatment and proportions that I've been talking about. That's all six stories you may recollect with the previous elevation which we showed you actually had the 11 story, sorry, nine story pop up at the back. So this is more reflective of what their current ambitions are. In terms of how we manage the height, you'll see there's a red line at the top and the current scheme proposes that there will be a demise envelope which caps the height at 30 metres. That allows for a certain build-up in terms of typical floor-to-floor heights. The total height of the building which you see there from ground floor slab is about 26.4 metres. What that does is excludes any further build-up that will be required for accommodating any floodwater retention on site. Hence that's why it's been set at 30 metres whilst the building is only 26.4. It's likely that in order to compensate for a lot of flood space they have to build up so that water can flood in naturally and also flood out. That's essentially the best part of about 3.6 metres to play with if needed. There's a slight sight slopes, probably the heights will vary a little bit over the duration. That's essentially what we're seeking to do if we can go on to the next slide. It's the next one from that. What we sort to do here, I suppose it's quite important because heights have been a very topical part of the proposals here. I suppose it goes back as far as the previous bellways scheme in 2014 when proposals for that first emerged. That was a 12-story scheme that was actually consented but surrounded with a lot of controversy and a lot of public objection towards that. Obviously it didn't go ahead. I think it's fair to say off the back of that consented scheme when we went out for tender. There was a view that because that principle had been established that bidders would look to introduce a scheme of a similar sort of scale. The tallest part of that scheme which we received at the bid stage in 2020 for a mixed use scheme that included a hotel, including a 15-story element. It's fair to say that we've gone through quite a transition and quite a journey with that. I think Aurora and fairness to them recognized that there was going to be a lot of opposition. I think one of their, and they're unlike a normal developer I'd say because most developers will come in and build something and then they leave. I think because they've sold all units whereas the difference here is that Aurora are both an owner operator. So whatever they build they have to live with because they're not going anywhere. So I think for their own local reputation they were very keen to make sure that whatever they're bringing forwards had some buy-in from both the wider council and administration. As well as trying to seek some consensus with the local community. So they dropped it down to a lower 10-12 stories and then I think more recently it's fair to say that again there's been a stronger shift towards reducing the densities in the town centre of stains and therefore they've made this very significant shift down to six stories overall. So that's where the scheme currently sits. If we go on to the next slide I felt it would be helpful to give some context as to what that looks like because we've talked about height of 26.4 metres as a floor to from ground floor slab to the top of the building. We've also talked about the 30 metres and what that potentially looks like. To put that red line and the elevations against buildings that we know of in the town centre and then some context to we've provided a few images for local new build schemes and the first one being London Square. So you can get an idea of how that scheme sits alongside the London Square buildings. If you go on to the next slide we've done the same but with the Almsley Road Fairview scheme so again that lends some context. It's fair to say that the floor ceiling height in hotels is slightly different to residential heights so that's something we need to bear in mind. So there's not an exact correlation floor by floor but it's and also the ground floor of a hotel is typically double height and particularly with a four star plus hotel so that makes a bit of a difference. And I guess one of the things we've factored in in terms of capping the height of 30 is that there's always a lift over run at the top of the building and as they're likely to have access to a roof deck as well. It has to be a full height to lift over run to allow the full height of a lift to go up. If we go on to the next slide even Grove again typically this is giving you an idea of what those building height building heights look like compared to that. Next slide please, there's a question here is how does the council control the heights and this comes back to the demise envelope will be incorporated into the lease so that will be it's not a planning instrument at all. This is something that will form part of their lease contract so that can be enforced by us as free holder or even if we were to sell the free hold of the site offset at some point. The free holder would be constrained by that lease which is for 250 years so they've got the sort of print of the site within which they can build. They've got this height they can build out and even if they were to get planning for a taller scheme they could never build higher than that 30 meter height so because that's set in stone as part of their contract. Equally so if they want to also the building in any way there are the usual sort of landlord and tenant clauses within the leases that were proposed that would ensure they need to obtain prior land was consented before they undertake any works. If we can go to the next slide please. In terms of public consultation and this again this has been something which I think both the local community have been concerned about and rightly wanting to be consulted about how this development proceeds and I think equally so members of this committee have been reinforcing to Aurora. They need for them to consult extensively and as important to listen and take on board what locals have to say about it so that's something that they have agreed that they will do. They will do that essentially what will happen is if this committee and CPRC and full council indeed approve signing up of an agreement to lease subject to planning then they will undertake that consultation as part of their pre application processes. Flood risk is an important very topical thing at the moment and it's fair to say that the site has been recognised as a flood zone three location which will need a significant amount of mitigation in order to satisfy the site is going to be developed. That actually is part of Aurora's risk in signing up to the agreement to the subject of planning so they will need to work with the EA they will need to indeed get an agreement with them that whatever they're proposing in terms of the building itself and the mitigation is going to be satisfactory to them otherwise they will get an objection from the EA and I think it's inevitable that what to follow that is a planning rejection as well. So that's where we've got to at the moment that's really the update as to where we are. There's any questions happy to take them. Thank you. Thank you Richard. Before we go on to questions I'd just like to advise members that if they have any specific questions relating to proposed heads of terms or financial information please indicate this clearly so that we can enter into part. If we do go into part two then at the end of that debate we'll have to go back into part one to agree to note reports. So members of the public if we go into part two you're more than welcome to leave because you won't be missing much when we go back into part one. Is that clear? Is that okay? Right. Thank you. Thank you. I think Councillor Houtins had their hand up first, then Councillor Gibson, then Councillor Borrow, then just a second and so. Councillor Houtins, Councillor Gibson, Councillor Borrow, Councillor Clark and Councillor Beecher. We'll start with that. Okay, thank you. Councillor Houtins. I think this might take you into part two. Do you want to go last? Okay, can I ask you to part that for a minute. Do any of the people that put their hands up have questions that we can put in part one? Okay, Councillor Borrow was quickest off the draw then, then I've got Councillor Beecher then, Councillor Gibson, if that's okay. Thank you. Yeah, it was a simple one. When I say suitable mitigation for the environmental agency, would that be to not make the footing worse for the other areas in stands, not just the people who are in the hotel? Yeah, the requirement of the VA is that not only to mitigate the impacts, but you've actually got to deliver betterment. So any subsequent, sorry, consequential impacts of that have to be mitigated and improved. So it's not a case of making it okay for the site itself because by displacing water, it's going, it goes, if you just displace the water, then it could go elsewhere. What you need to be able to do is demonstrate betterment by actually improving not only your site, but what happens with that water elsewhere. So, yeah, you're absolutely right. That's what the VA will be looking for. You can't improve your site, but ruin someone else's. Thank you, Richard. Before I pass it to Councillor Gibson, it's very brief. It's worth pointing out, isn't it, Richard, that this architect has got experience of very similar sites in London where they've had to deal with the floodless mitigation. That's right. In fact, they've also done one in running mode as well. Thank you, Councillor Gibson. Thank you very much. Thank you, Richard. Thank you very much for the correlation between the other sites, London Square, Eden Grove, et cetera, but none of those are on the river, bang on the river. So there is a bit of a difference. One of my first question is, we've been going around, there's quite a number of quite a long time now. So from the point of view of the hotel rooms, we've got approximately 250 beds. Now, is that give or take? How many would that be give or take? Because approximately is quite a long word. That's my first question. Okay. We haven't even started the planning process. So it's an iterative process. So they may all put four of these designs. The designs may have to be tweaked in consultation with the planning authority with a wide range of other stakeholders as well. So that's a statutory stakeholder, isn't it? Maybe they can't quite get that number of rooms. I think that's their targets, because that's ideally what they would like to end up with. So that's what they're looking to achieve. Thank you. It's just that they were quite clear on the 29 units, but it was the approximate for the hotel rooms. I was just very curious about that. But thank you. Also, there was talk about a public immunity. Is there going to be a public mooring of which we've got precious little in the borough? For both, that is. So I think, obviously, there's a lot of detailed questions that are coming forward that we don't have the answers to. This is a kind of indicative process with what Aurora have presented us today. I think when they know that, or if we get to the point where we've got approval to move this forward, they'll start moving the designs forward in a lot more detail, but we don't have the ability to influence those designs at all. So that's what the public consultation is around. So things like that, if there are kind of requirements, that's the time it should be fed in. So, again, sorry, not deliberately trying to be obstructed, but a lot of the detail we just don't have the clarity on at the moment, because this is an early piece of work. And I can add to that that actually the river edge actually sits outside of their demise. So that's not something that's immediately within their gifts. I appreciate that. But from your little drawings, it looks like they've done a job on it. So yeah, I was just curious. Thank you. Just two more questions. There was on one of the slides, we said that once the agreement is signed, then we go to public consultation. Isn't that the wrong way around? No, they we sign the agreement to the subject of planning. And then what would happen is they would then take forward the planning and consultation process. Thank you. I want to jump in here because, again, this comes back to the point that we're trying to get into an iterative consultation process. So inviting the public in here is part of that. We're going to see what feedback we get, but there will be a formal consultation process as part of planning application with local residents. But that's not the only kind of what we're doing now is kicking off that discussion with local residents as well. Fantastic. Thank you. Because in the beginning, you know, when things were being discussed, there was quite a lot of, well, description and some detail on the fact that there was going to be a ballroom and a conference room and that we would need because of we're so lacking those facilities in the borough, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So I thought by now that there'd be a little bit more meat on the bone. But thank you. I will jump in there again. I'll stop because I was going to mention this earlier on. Again, part of the one of the challenges of engaging early in consultation is that you don't have all that detail. So it's almost like damned if you do damned if you don't, because we work out all the detail and then take it into consultation, then you're accused of presenting people that face a complete. So by definition, we won't have all those detailed answers. That's part of what we're trying to get to by kicking this off today, if that makes sense. Thank you, Chair. Did you have another question? No, I didn't. Well, I got off lightly. Councillor Beecher, thank you for your patience. I could ask my detailed question, but I'll ignore it. Anyway, the detailed question is, what is the elevation of the architect's datum point? The simple question is, what is 30 metres below the red line showing the elevations? Where will we be? The 30 metres is calculated in AOD, so that's ground level, not floor slab, actual physical ground level. So that excludes floor slab, so that hence the reason why the building is 26.4 metres, and there's that 26.4 metres, and that's why there's about 3.6 headroom, if they have to build inside the building. To build in some flood mitigation. Do other Councillors have any questions that we can put in part 1? Councillor CLARK? Thanks, Chair. So I think it's really good that the rules work well to make the skyline of stains and the borough look really good, because obviously you don't need to live in a good looking house, but as long as the house offers that you is good looking, you've got a good view. So there is a symbiosis there, as people live across the bridge and drive across the bridge. This first point, second point, I'm in Leyland and Shepton Green, and I think all the residents in Leyland and Shepton Green can go anywhere in the ward, and they can access all areas, it feels very inclusive. You mention exclusive, basically means excluding other people, and I just worry that as we progress, that people who live in stains may well feel excluded, that it's too high brow for me, and that Mrs. Smith, who used to go to debonings, or used to go here, there or everywhere, they may feel that they don't have access to all these very high brow areas, so I'll be keen to make sure that there's not concierge, or no, no, sorry, you're not welcome within this area. I know it's way down the line, but I think it's one to bear in mind. And then the final point is on the architecture, the design code is hopefully coming on, and I hope their architects will really engage with the design code so that it all stains looks cohesive, and it looks beautiful, and it's a lovely place to drive through, and it really fires ejects architecturally. Sorry, Chancellor Platt, is there a question coming? Yes, yes, that the architects are going to engage with the design code. Are they going to? Good question, thank you. Just to warm up. All I can say is that if it's a material planning document at the time, of course, they will have to, they won't have any choices. This isn't a works contract, so we can't impose anything on them, but if it's a statutory planning document, or a material planning document, then, of course, they'll have to look at that. I think, Councillor SEX has another question. Just that Councillor gives a fair point in regards to some of the buildings that you've shown the different sizes of, which I'm really pleased that you did. But I think it would be advantageous if one could find a picture and align it with the properties across the way where the slaggenetis is, those flats there, just to see what it looks like so when you come over the bridge. Is that what it's called? Thank you very much, Councillor. Williams, I think that would be really, really good, because then people can see that it's in keeping in terms of heights. If you get your hands on one of those, that would be good. Thank you. Councillor Nito's. I can ask this question in part one, but whether the answer is part one, I'm not sure. Could you just not wait until we get into part two there? No, because I think it's a legit question in the book, if I wait. How long will it be before we are getting meaningful income to actually cover the costs of holding Hannah's house? We'll answer that in part two. Any other questions? No. I'm just trying to find the words to put us into part two. We will now need to move into part two to deal with its end business. As we will be discussing private information, we will need to formally agree to exclude the public from this meeting. But thank you for extending. May I have a proposal to move the exclusion of the Press and Public for this discussion in view of the likely disclosure of exempt information. Within the meaning of paragraph three of part one, schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, which states information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person, including the authority holding that information. And in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information because disclosure to the public would prejudice the financial position of the authority in being able to undertake even-handed negotiations and finalising contract terms. Is that proposed by some more, please? Thank you, Councillor Houghton. Is that seconded? Councillor Clark, thank you. Is that agreed? Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor, Councillor, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thanks, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Okay, members of the public, thank you very much for your patience. We're now back in part one through just two quick items on the agenda before we go back into part two. So, the end of this debate is, does the committee agree to note the presentation? Thank you. The next item is with regard to Ashford victory place. And this relates to the extinguishment of Spellthornborough Council and Noel Green Estates contractual obligations. This item is to seek approval to terminate the conditional contract to transfer Ashford victory place to Noel Green Estates limited and can be found on pages three to 76 of the supplementary agenda. And I'm going to ask Richard Mortimer to present the report, please, Richard. English? Of course, yeah. Nothing else. Yeah, I mean, I'm hoping this is a relatively straightforward report insofar as what we're looking through is terminate the contract. At the moment, we have essentially a sales agreement from the Council to Noel Green Estates. Obviously, we're looking to, and that was done two years ago when we were looking at direct development ourselves. The idea is that the Council built the scheme and then essentially Noel Green would purchase it at the end of when we got to practical completion. So, as we're no longer looking to develop our schemes directly, we need to sort of essentially entangle ourselves from that agreement by terminating it so that we can take, obviously, market the site and ultimately sell it to a third party developer. So, as it stands, Cage have an interest in the site by virtue of having a contract and whilst they're part of that, whilst that contract exists, it's impossible to, we couldn't sell it to a third party. So, what we're asking really to do is extinguish that contract. I suppose the key thing to this is that whilst Cage signed the Section 106 agreement, that document remains assignable. So, even if that contract's extinguished, that agreement essentially runs with the land, so whoever buys it from the Council will have those, have to fulfil those same obligations. So, it is a relatively simple process that we're asking, that we're seeking. Hopefully that's in good English. Thank you Richard. Before you ask any questions, may I just point out, appendix one is confidential. If you do have any questions relating to this appendix, please indicate this clearly so we can agree to enter into part two if necessary. I know this is a lot of jumping around, but we're trying to keep as much of these committee meetings in the public domain as we possibly can, rather than just shunting it all into part two. So, apologies if there's a lot of jumping about, but please bear in mind, appendix one confidential. So, questions for Richard on this point, please bear that in mind. On that note, does the committee have any questions? Council Gibson. Thank you, sir. So, Richard, if I understand it, because I was under the impression that nothing could be transferred to Cage unless it was actually built. And this isn't built yet. Did I get the wrong end of the stick? That's a first question. But the second question is, no, it's not a question, it's just a reiteration. So, basically, no green estate has really signed a contract and they have power over this particular site. They want to relinquish that power, and that means that the council will then have the site and be in a position to sell it to a third party. Is that correct? That's correct. I mean, we've got to go one o'clock back to 2022 March when we were undertaking director of development. We were looking at that point for the council to build out the scheme and then transfer it to Noel Green. Different world now, we're not building directly, so Noel Green has no need to be in a contract. They don't build themselves. They wouldn't buy properly the council's sole shareholder as well. So, in all respects, this contract can be extinguished. Okay, understand. And then the council will own it, then the council will then sell it to a third party. But once that transactions happen, there's nothing to stop the third party from selling it on. Is that correct? A third party, if they were to sell it on, but even if they sold it on, they're still subject to the same planning consent and Section 106 agreement. So, probably. Do you want to jump in? Yeah, just to say we haven't actually got any terms agreed with the third party yet, so I think probably drawing conclusions about what a third party may or may not do is probably a point for down the line. Speculation, just remembering what happened within the homes. Thank you. Councillor HOWER-PINS. Hi, is this a direct link to the discussion we had at the last Development Subcommittee meeting on this plot of land? Yes, it is. Yeah. And we can pick up on that later. Are there any other questions at this point? Councillor CLOKE. Thanks, Chair. I assume because KG is armed links to the Council that there isn't going to be the time when somebody in KG can say, Well, actually, we need a financial payment for it. It can just transfer like water. Sorry, Terry. Did you want to pick up on that? I was going to add that the agreement with KG actually expires in March next year. So if we haven't built it by then, then the agreement lapses anyway. So in reality, we're not going to build it. And even if we were, we would never have it built on time. So it's academic, is what I'm getting at, that we're not direct developing. We wouldn't need that time to build it on time, so this agreement is going to fall by in any case next year. Thank you. Terry, did you want to speak as well? Yes, I mean, as Richard says, this is essentially an academic issue from KG's perspective. But we do have two members of the Caje board in this room, myself and Councillor Nichols, and the Caje board have discussed, and they don't have an issue with this proposal. Thank you, Terry. Councillor Nichols. That's pretty nearly exactly what I was going to say, but I also might just consult. I'll learn a legal friend as to whether or not I should vote on this matter, or have my position noted as I've gotten the word for it now. Ignore voting. Yes, it's entirely at your discretion using your, just putting the correct hat on for your voting, shall we speak. So, yes, it's entirely up to you. You've disclosed your interest, so this is the main thing. Thanks. Thank you for that. Are there any other questions at this point? Councillor Harkins. Will this have any negative effect on spell forms balance sheet? Well, I defer to Terry, but no, it won't. Anybody else? Councillor Gibson. Just very quickly, following on from Councillor Harkins' questions, will we actually go through the previously mooted design and/or plan for this particular site in later on in this meeting? Yes, if we could wait until later, I think that would be better, but yes, could bear that question in mind, please, in case I forget, because it's a brain like a civil. Right. In that case, does the committee agree to, one, approve the request to formally terminate the conditional contract dated 3rd March 2022 during the Council, and Noel Green Estate Limited, for the sale and purchase of land at Ashford Hospital, London Road, Ashford, the Ashford Victory Place contract, and two, authorize the group head of corporate governance to enter into any legal documentation to terminate the Ashford Victory Place contract. Thank you very much. You're going to like this? Moving on. The next item is the exclusion of public and press exempt business. We will now need to move into part 2 to deal with exempt business. As we will be discussing private information, we will need to formally agree to exclude the public from this meeting. May I have a proposal to move the exclusion of the press and public for this discussion in view of the likely disclosure of exempt information within the meaning of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12(a) of the local government at 1972, which states information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person, including the authority holding that information, and in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, because disclosure to the public would prejudice the financial position of the authority in being able to undertake even-handed negotiations and finalizing acceptable terms. Is that proposed? Council section? Thank you. And is that seconded? Council feature? Thank you. Is that agreed? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]

Transcript

[BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Right, into the meeting. Update report, development delivery strategy. This item is to approve the introduction of a development delivery strategy and can be found on pages 19 to 32 of the main agenda. Corley Holman will present the report over to you, Corley.

Thank you, Chair. Members of the committee will remember that this report came to development subcommittee in April, and we agreed to take the report away to come back this month on the basis that we were going to hold a further member workshop, which we did in April, to consider some site prioritization in respect to the development sites. And also focus on removal of appendix two that was in the previous version of the report. So, that committee, sorry, that workshop did happen. And it was agreed that we would prepare a site prioritization list, but because there is some information that's needed around that together with the financials, that isn't available for this meeting. And the members of the workshop did agree that we shouldn't hold up considering the development delivery strategy in advance of that site prioritization list being pulled together. So it's been agreed that a further member workshop will be held and we will aim to bring the site prioritization list to the business infrastructure and growth committee in September. So just as a quick reminder, the purpose of the development delivery strategy is effectively, since we have decided to stop building sites ourselves, we're looking to progress delivery via partnership initiatives and delivery could take a variety of different forms from on a site to site basis. So adoption of the development delivery strategy is going to set up criteria against which committee members can appraise the various different options. Without such an established criteria, we can't ensure that there's consistency in approach and decision making, and that may result in delayed decision making continued financial pressures. The strategy has been developed following, as I say, the member workshop in April and one prior to that, to allow sufficient flexibility so that bespoke decisions can be made for each site, but within an agreed set of parameters that set out principles and objectives, which are summarized in the report. We also want to make sure that we take a joined up approach with the local plan, achieving best value and decisions being taken by all counts is feeling fully informed. Thank you. Thank you, Carly. Does the committee have any questions? Councillor Gibson. Can I go second? Anybody else? No? Okay. If you could just help me with something. First of all, on the first part of this particular report, the reasons for recommendation, because I don't know about my other colleagues, but I don't eat sleep and breathe this. What would have been helpful is to have a list of the sites. The council owns a number of sites that have been identified for development purposes if we can actually have a list of the sites, because in the past the list has actually changed quite a bit. So I don't know if you could do that at some stage for us. My next question is. Sorry, did I just cut across? Do you want to answer that? Come on, Carly, because I think we've shown the sites in the past, haven't we? We have, but as a cross-reference so that I don't actually add people's fingertips, I'm going to go on and ask everybody if they can list the sites off the top of their heads, because I came across two lists and they were different. So I just wanted to be, you know, complete assurance. I would suggest what, if it's all right with you, given that we will be, sorry, given that we will be prioritising those sites, can we wait until the list of sites comes back prioritised, so that should be the final list? Absolutely, and if anything falls off, if we can make a note that that's the reason why it's not there, but it was. And there's one that we're going to be discussing later. That's my first question. My second question is, in the summary of the report where we say what is the situation, we say while the Council will no longer be directly developing any of its sites, there's a desire to progress development on these sites via partnership arrangements. And I was just wondering how the above, how that partnership arrangement will correlate with the information and appendix one, which is nine and ten pages further down the report. Appendix one is ensure all development meets Council's corporate objectives and cares, aim to deliver high quality housing, prioritise delivery, affordable social key worker housing, all significant purposes, proposed developments will be subject to meaningful public consultation, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. How much is that still going to be within our gift? That's my second question. Do you want to take that or should I take it? I think, to some extent, it's going to be on case by case basis, but I think as you will see from the upcoming waterfront development, the assets team have worked very hard with the proposed joint partners to come up with something that we feel does in many ways achieve what the Council's priorities are. If you look at what we're looking to at the other sites, I think the same thing stands out. So can I have confirmation or assurance that every single one of those sites will meet the criteria of appendix one? Because that's what we're saying here. So I'm just asking the question and asking for assurance. The Council has one of the Council's priorities is to deliver affordable housing, but clearly if one of the sites is on a floodplain and the EA have told us we can't build residential there, then we can't do that on that site. So I don't think you can expect that the Council will apply every single one of those priorities to every single site. I think we have to be pragmatic about it, but that's certainly the aim. That is, that is what we've said. All developments will need to consider the impact of all groundwater flooding sources, not just the river Thames, as well as a number of other bullet points. And I'm just asking are we going to stick to those, because we've said we're going to. So I'm just asking categorically are all those developments that we have on our list going to meet the criteria of appendix one at all. Well yeah, that's the intention, but we have to be practical about it. If we say they have to meet the requirements of groundwater flooding and river flooding and so on, but by the same token we want to prioritize affordable housing, we can't do both, can we? We have to let one of them go. We have to, you know. Chair, I'm just asking for assurance that what we're saying on the packet is what we're going to do. That's all. It's in the report. All I'm asking for is assurance. That's all. I can't assure that every single one, we can't assure that every single one will be over the Council's priorities will be met. We said we will consider the effect. But that's what we're saying we're going to do. What would you like to change it to? I don't want to change it to anything. I'm happy with what I'm reading. And I'm really happy with what's in the report. I'm just asking, are we going to stick to it? That's all. If we possibly can, then yes. Councillor. Thank you. Thanks, Chair. I think it kind of follows on from Councillor Gibson's point. So, we're to approve a Council-led working party to produce a development site prioritization list to be considered at the September Business Infrastructure and Growth Committee meeting for approval and so I think the question, what will be the makeup of the Council-led working party? Because I do feel that we are here together with different views and objectives and different people in, you know, we are a working party here. But I think perhaps the Council has been guilty previously of having too few people making decisions and then presenting them to committees and then everyone nods and agrees and says, okay, we want to agree with that. And then it all gets ticked off. So, I think if you could draw out what the detail of the working group would be, that would be really appreciated. Thanks, Chair. I can't remember off the top of my head how we established the last working party. I think we'll just ask for volunteers. Councillor HOWkins. Sorry, totally. So, thank you very much, Chair. The working party was initially formed of those Ward Councillors, representatives of development subcommittee that Ward Councillors were the specific sites were located. That more slightly to include the group administration leaders. And I think in terms of the working party, it's almost just since checking the material that we're bringing back to committee just to help us from an office appointment view to make sure that we're hitting things in the right direction. So, it's not actually making decisions. It's just kind of guiding us from an office perspective. All the decisions will be taken at the committee. And although we're a relatively small committee compared to some of the others, obviously when you're having a working party, there's far too many people in this room to be focused when we're having meetings about moving things forward and discussing the detail and the priorities to be able to pull that list together. So, that's why the working party was set up. And that really does help us from an office appointment view in terms of, as I say, making sure that we're taking things in the right direction and then obviously feeding back and taking on board the comments of the committee when we bring relevant items forward. Thanks Carly. Obviously that the investments and from the, from the officer brief, the investments are the the elephant in the room of the council. And we do need to get it right. And I know that there's a lot of residents who pass through to councils that their concerns and and they're up to, you know, that they're sorry. Which properties are you talking about? The investment properties. That's not. Sorry for what we were discussing. Sorry. We're talking about the regeneration opportunities like the bridge street car park. And then long house ashes victory place, probably about a dozen of those. And this, this was a small group of people looking at those saying what should be the criteria for prioritizing them, I holding costs and stuff like that. And I think the idea being then that the assets team can come back to this group with the reports, showing how those regeneration properties have been prioritized, because they're the ones that we're going to go out and try and find partners for to build houses, basically. So there's nothing to do with the commercial investments. Okay, thanks. Council have a question. Just a quick one. I think that the this was drawn up by the final bit was drawn up by each one of us from the different parties, and that that was where it came from helping. So, I think it was just, you know, I think it was just, you know, I think it was just, I think it was just something to do with what they put together, because I was on this myself. What I maybe suggest to turn around and, I don't know, change the wording is just shown around, say, our aims are to, and then drop it down the line, deliver whatever and that covers for everything. Councillor Gibson, I've got Councillor B. Just very quickly on section six financial implications, which is on page 23. I wasn't 100% sure on exactly what that particular paragraph meant, because I thought that there might be some financial implications, so I was really requesting some clarification on that. Colleen. Thank you. This was the same point. I think that we discussed last time where we were just saying that in respect of this report in isolation, there are no financial implications in respect of the individual sites that will, of course, be financial implications as we bring those sites forward. We'll set those out in the relevant reports. Right. Thank you. Councillor Beasy. I don't know whether it's a question. It's an observation and perhaps a partial answer to Councillor Gibson's first point. And the documentation, I draw reference to directly link corporate plan themes where it talks about more than better quality homes, including affordable social and key worker homes. This Council will know that it's an area that I have continually expressed my opinion, opinion of my group on and continue to do so. The site delivery strategy also talks about consultation will be taken with local Councillors and other key stakeholders. Indicative project methodology talks about reporting back to Councillors and local Councillor consultations at the beginning of that process. In relation directly to Appendix 1, which, again, I've referenced a number of key areas of Appendix 1. My view is ultimately it's the decision of us as 39 of us as elected Councillors to make a decision on whether a proposal is acceptable, not acceptable, partially acceptable, which trade offs or not that we will have to give to ensure that we meet a majority. In an ideal aspirational world, we would meet every single aspiration that we have. The reality of the world is you don't achieve that, but the fundamental thing is we as Councillors will be able to make that decision as to what happens. Good, bad, or indifferent. It's our decision as Councillors to make, and then the people of spelt them or decide whether every four years whether those decisions are the right decisions or the wrong decisions. So that hopefully will help Councillor Gibson to be a little bit swaged. Yes, Councillor Gibson, meeting much appreciated. However, I still have a little bit of an issue. Call me thick, call me an empty, I don't care what you'd call me. But on our report, just above Appendix 1, we have conclusions. There is no page number that I can see, page 29. Whilst the Council is no longer progressing the direct development of its sites, there remains a good opportunity to partner with external organisations to achieve corporate plan objectives and to allow the Council to input and direct schemes developed on each site. Whilst not retaining the construction cost and the risk associated with direct development, then we have Appendix 1 with a number of bullet points. Now, quite frankly, if I were third party and I had a site and I was going to actually invest in construction and take on the risks associated with direct development, there might be some elements of Appendix 1 on my drop off the radar. So all I'm asking for is how are we going to maintain the bullet points that we're going to actually achieve in Appendix 1, but still not have any of the risks or the costs of construction and development. I'm trying to just equate the two. That's all I'm trying to do. Carly, do you want to say that? Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm struggling to understand what Appendix 1 you're talking about. I think this is probably me being... So it's actually of the development delivery strategy you're referring to. Right. Sorry. I was looking for a further Appendix down the list. Bear with me just for a second. Oh, yeah, sorry. Apologies. So I think this is obviously the list of objectives of the things that we want to do on a site-by-site basis, and we will try and achieve all of those. That will be the kind of the starting point that I think has been discussed and referred to by both Councillor Williams and Councillor Beatty. We will have occasions where not everything is possible to achieve and we'll have to make some decisions as we go forward, but I think we can provide you with the assurance that the starting point will hopefully be to meet all of those various different objectives. If we can't, that's when in the reports that we bring them forward, we'll be stipulating the reasons that we can't meet them, and that will be informing the recommendations that we bring forward. Can I just interject here, because Chief Executive has pointed out in the Four Square document, which forms a part of this paper. It says, this is what we want to do about it, implement a strategy to set key principles, but allow sufficient flexibility in order that the Council can take bespoke decisions in relation to each site. That's what we're talking about doing. Yes, sir. I know I was just trying to correlate how that can happen when we have someone who pitches up and is going to take all the risk and put all the money in. That's all I'm asking. That's from the Corley and her expert negotiators, negotiate with that partner. Thank you. And then as Councillor Beatty said, we will have the final decision. Thank you. Are there any other questions on this matter? No, okay. Does the committee agree to recommend a corporate policy and resources committee to one, approve the introduction of a development delivery strategy? Two, approve the form and content of the draft development delivery strategy attached to this report. Three, approve a Councillor led working party to produce a development site prioritization list to be considered at the September business infrastructure and growth committee meeting for approval. And four, refer the development delivery strategy to full Council for adoption. Thank you. Moving on. The next item is an update on residential consultations with regard to Benwell second phase and White House sites. This item is to note the feedback from residents and approve the engagement of an architect to produce feasibility drawings and can be found on pages 33 to 38 of the agenda. And Richard Mortimer will present the report. Thank you, Chair. Essentially this report looks to set out feedback we've had from the residents, what we've undertaken is is neighbour consultations. So it's really what the people are going to be most affected by the development that we could potentially take. So we've spent some time with them going through their concerns. Both sites have been the subject of planning refusals. And so therefore the first step has been to consult those that are adjacent to the site, get their views on how they feel the site could be brought forward. And then hence the reason why we're looking for a small budget to undertake some feasibility drawings so that we can seek to reflect their feedback. In those proposals. We've had meetings with the residents of around Benwell House phase two. And it's fair to say a lot of the feedback that we've had was focused on some of the impacts of phase one, which are found. And those were really around issues such as noise from the car park. Also some external lighting. So the hoarding they've asked for that to be removed, which has been done. And also some tree pruning around the perimeter of the site, which affects light into their gardens, which again, that's something we can do. And also in terms of the island site itself, it's probably fair to say residents preference would be for that to actually have the trees planted, which are previously died due to potential honey fungus. And for the phase two site to be left as it is. However, there's a recognition as well that the site has been in the housing land allocation. So therefore it has a certain status and has been brought forward into emerging planning policy proposals. So again, there's a status that the site has a potential brownfield site. And in terms of development on that site, I think it's fair to say they recognize that they're probably better off working with us to find the scheme that works rather than working with the party developer where we sell the site, for example. We got to a point where their main concerns were around both height and distance from the meadows end properties, which are at the rear of the site. So we were really very much focused on looking at what we can do to draw the building towards a green street side of the site and also reducing the height of the block so it has less of an impact on them. So that's where we've got to. Obviously, the next step will be to articulate that through some feasibility drawings so that they can get a flavor for what that could look like and then present that back to them and then look to refine and build on that process. In terms of the White House residential. Again, it's a lot of the concerns really were around traffic, the accident rate, which I didn't feel was really being recognized by Surrey because they were minor accidents, not major ones. Also concerns about flooding on site and general infrastructure matters as well. There are also concerns really around development on the site as a principal and several didn't really want to see anything done on the site at all. Even potentially having it as a an amenity space for wider residents. But following some dialogue, they were some of them were open minded towards looking at a scheme that was more akin to a townhouse led development. So probably between four and six, because that's probably the maximum that could be accommodated on site. But a key element of that was to make sure that we had sufficient parking on site, not only to consume the requirements of the residents, but also visitors because what they do find is that visitors often go in park within that housing. The states around that vicinity and therefore displaced local residents. So those are probably some of the key things that came out of it. So reports fairly straightforward in terms of what it's seeking to do. It's what I'd suggest. It's a first step in a longer journey. And the next step will be to with this one as well get an architect to articulate what those townhouses may look like presented back to the residents and then try and see their consensus over that and get us into a position where we have a potential scheme that we could take forward and engage in further consultation with a wider group of residents. So it's the same blueprint for both sites essentially. And that's what we're asking the committee to note and approve. Thank you, Richard. So if I'm a council feature. So basically this is tool intent and purpose and extension of the consultation. We've taken their views on board. We're going to put something back with visual take back and see what feedback we get. That's correct. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Council feature. Quick question. How much of an architect you get for 1000 pounds? That's a good question. We can twist the arms of architects and get them to do some initial feasibility drawings for that. I think it's fair to say that the carrot will be a potential planning application. If that if it were to go down that route. But at this stage, it's essentially a phrase of sprat to catch a macro, I suppose. Councillor Gibson. Sorry. Richard. Just a quick one. Well, a couple of quick ones. The first one is, we said that the planning for Benwell House was refused in November 22. It wasn't. It was refused in the 13th to the 10th 21 just for clarification. But the next point is, have we actually carried out this consultation? Are we going to, because as I mentioned in the report that relates to both White House and Benwell House that there was a consultation in March 2024 2024. With whom was that carried out? How many people? Where's the result of it? Where can we find it? We had meetings on the in March. We had two, they were basically small groups. First one, we invited the summary. Councillors, but no one came to that one. Second one, we invited Councillors and we had the leader, we had deputy leader and two other Councillors along as well that attended that one. So essentially the feedback was taken from that and what you see in the report is essentially what was come from that. So was it documented and can we find it? In this report, there is a minute, yes, that we can provide. If you could provide that, that would be lovely because from the point of view of the Benwell House element, I do recall that there were approximately 230 letters of objection with a number of residents actually being quite upset and cross with what was actually being proposed. Hence, the refusal apart from a few other elements where the Councillor was actually contributing on some of its own policies. Councillor Gibson. Yes. Could we keep it concise? I understand. It is concise, sir. We're having a two-way conversation here, not a committee meeting. I'm just trying to actually get to the bottom of history impacts on future and what I'm trying to get is how the recent consultation compared to all the Ferrari that happened before to be quite clear on the level of travel, the direction of travel, this particular development's going in. Because what I'd hate to see, can I score? Sure, because my next question is how is this going to be financed? Okay, if I can just, to address your first point, if I can just draw your casting mind back to some of the reports that we bought this committee before Christmas, which was suggesting early steps in terms of how we wanted to move these schemes forward on the basis that we weren't going to reach any conclusions. We're going to do some low-level consultation initially just to get effectively the views of some of the resident representatives, and that's what we've done within these two sessions. We've had two informal meetings, as Richard's just set out, to get an idea of what the concerns were and just have a kind of wider, more informal conversation with them. So they understood where we were as a council in terms of some of the pressures, if that's the right word, that we've got in respect of the sites. And then, this is really an early stage and we want to come back to committee at every stage. So, as Richard said, we've got some feedback. We want to just get some very, very low-level drawings pulled up, some feasibility designs, so we can take those back to residents and ward councillors again to get some views. When we think that we've actually got some traction in terms of a design that we can move forward, that's when we'll undertake the proper full consultation in terms of residents, so that will be open to residents. Any interested part is as we've done previously in the scheme. So, this is a really, really early piece of work, just trying to make sure, again, the same as we were doing with the development and delivery strategy, that we're moving in the right direction that's supported by members and certainly has the understanding of residents. And we can assure ward councillors and the committee that we've taken on board the early views of the residents as we move things to recommendation stage. Thanks. I'm just going to cut in again because, again, chief executives very kindly pointed me to our fourth square, which says this is what we want to do about it. Following initial neighbour consultations, there is an opportunity to use their feedback to inform revised scheme proposals for further feedback and buy-in. So, my understanding of this process, as an administration that's trying to consult more openly with residents, we're not going to do one massive consultation with lots of people. We're going to meet with people that want to meet, we'll go away, we'll come back with some ideas, and then we'll maybe have another consultation, and maybe not that we need to. So, this isn't the be all an end or this is the first step in the process. Thank you, sir, and I have read the fourth square and all I was asking for was evidence on the consultation that took place in March 2024, because I wasn't aware of it. Maybe some other Councillors were weren't, I don't know, but it'd be nice to have the evidence and see what the feedback was, and so what I'm asking for. And my next question is, how are we going to finance this? Should it actually proceed? Carly. It'll be the same as a variety of projects that we want to bring forward when we feel that we've got the projects to a sufficient stage, and that is the Royal We Members and Officers that we feel that we can actually take it to the stage of a planning application. We'll then have to make a bit effectively for the capital funding, it'll have to go forward into the capital program. Sorry, I can add to that. In terms of the White House residential, we have a surplus amount of money on that, so the initial thousand pounds will be covered with that. Obviously, if we look to take it further, then we need to come back to committee. As Carly said, seeking a further budget, the proposal in terms of Bemwell House, where we don't have a budget available, will be to access it through revenue. Sorry, Councillor, you're talking about financing the architects cost financing the whole scheme. I mean, I can try and chip in there. I think this is part of where the prioritization comes from. If we can't find a part that wants to do it, then it's going to be down at the bottom of the list of priorities. Councillor interjecting. Just to lay some of your concerns, Councillor Gives and Councillor Bates and myself, and I believe it was also Councillor Cappling that were there on the night in March to meet with residents at the White House. There were, indeed, about eight residents in total, and so the Councillor also came from that area as well. Notes were taken because I took those notes. I sent them over to Richard Mortimer, who then just tidied them up and sent them and circulated them to all of the Councillors in that ward, so you're aware. Thank you. Thank you. That was the March consultation that we're talking about. Only for the White House. Yeah. Thank you. Because I went, yes. And the Four Square looked like it related also to Benwell House. Do we do one for Benwell House as well? I don't know. I wasn't there. But all I can say to you is the way that it's been described and the way that we now consult is very much in bite sizes. And as Councillor Williams has just said also, it is then prioritising how we take these four depending on who's interested and who's not interested in helping us in terms of funding them. So I hope that lays your face. Thank you. Thank you, Leader. Much appreciated. I do appreciate the bite sizes, but I sometimes do find it difficult to follow the thread and try to keep with the trajectory. So just thank you. Maybe I can ask the assets team to document these meetings and share them more widely so that all Councillors are aware of what's going on, not just the ward Councillors in future. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Council happens. Just one quick one. When we did a tour around Benwell House, there was all that Harris fencing up. I went past the other day and there was still a load of Harris fencing up and it was said that we were going to remove it. Is it going to go? The answer is yes, it is going to go. However, there is an element of contaminated land on that site, which needs to be essentially, it has a membrane over it, but that membrane got disturbed when they were taking out some of the dead trees. So therefore, we have to get a quite protracted process of getting a remediation method statement produced and get it approved by our environmental health team, and then you've got a point at the team to come in and actually do the works. And after you've done the work, you've then got to get a validation statement prepared, and then that's got to be approved by the environmental health team, and at that time, if we get the green light, the Harris fencing can come down. Okay, expensive and attractive, yes. What's the main contamination? Excuse me, Councillors, I think we're going off topics like how I appreciate the interest, but this is about the next stages with regard to the architects. So, are there any more questions about that specific point? Councillor Gibson, come on, let's go be another one. No, what's going to say is that there is information about the contamination, I can point Councillor Halkins to the report, if needed. Thank you very much. Okay, in that case, does the committee agree to note the feedback from residents as in as detailed in the report approve the engagement of an architectural undertake feasibility drawings that articulate forms of viable development that align as closely as possible with residents feedback. And three, approve a budget for the architect of 1000 pounds for each project. May I please abstain until I've actually seen the whatever I'm noting the feedback from the residents I haven't seen it so I can't. We will note that you've abstained in a minute. Sorry. Thank you. The next item, item nine is a presentation on the waterfront scheme. Now, remind Councillors, this item is to receive a presentation on the proposed waterfront scheme can be found on pages three to 14 of the supplementary agenda. So you are not being asked to vote on anything tonight. Okay. Other than to note the presentation. Richard Moore to present the report. Thank you, Chair. This is this report really is sort of build on the previous presentation we've done and to some really update on certain elements and provide some clarifications around some of the things that were raised in that previous presentation. I suppose starting with the second slide or scheme proposals or the scheme is essentially an absolute called up scale. Hotel, which is a plus four star quality. There's about 250 bedrooms being proposed as part of the development. And there's an apart hotel suite complex as well, which is about 29 units in total. There's a range of facilities that will be supporting those facilities, which includes a restaurant bars and silvery retail as well, which is essentially kiosks, which may have jewelry may have some newspapers that sort of thing in a cafe fitness bar as well meeting rooms and the lounge. And if we go to the next slide, please, one of the questions which is raised really was around what benefits does the development bring to spell for. And one of the key ones is around economic regeneration of both the daytime nighttime economy. Essentially what scheme seeks to do is increase the volume of tourism coming in as well. It also supports local businesses as well in terms of providing local good quality hotel facilities. And it also gives stains and enhanced profile in terms of having such a high quality facility within the borough, which is also accessible to local residents as well. Local employment, again, this is something which Aurora has said that they're very keen on their priorities to employ local people because it's easier and more convenient to both then themselves. They're very much into training as well. So they're prepared to take on the people under apprenticeship schemes train them up. So that means that it includes a whole range of people with different skills or diversity and inclusivity basis as well, but corporate CSRs are very much geared towards that as well. So I think they're also looking at potentially between 150 to 180 employees on site. So it's quite a reasonable number of people that they're looking to bring into local employment. Obviously, if they can't get people locally, then they will go wider, but that will be something which they will need to establish at the time. And I think probably all the way that there are a lot of demand for people on that sort of service level, but whether they're available locally or not is something they'll only sort of conclude once they actually start looking for people. Again, this sort of facility is going to bring the vibrancy, vitality and connectivity to what's currently sort of the gut and corner of the riverside as well. It's a prime corner. It's usually a gateway because as you come out of running meat across the bridge, it's the first thing you see. So in terms of quality, it's an important and prominent facility that will connect up the town center and the river frontage and the gateway into the town center as well. I suppose another important element to this is which also feeds into economic regeneration is the fact that it should increase spend in the local economy. I don't mean just in the hotel itself, I think that permeates even further. It's not only people that visit the site and stay at the hotel to spend money within it. Those people also visit the local town center, other attractions within the borough will spend there. But also in terms of a Aurora supply chain, they look to use local businesses as well. So again, there's potential for a range of different businesses to be engaged and benefit from having a facility like this in the town. And I suppose one of the other benefits from a regeneration basis is that it's a significant amount of inward investment and probably talking in the order of 18 million plus for that site to be developed out. It also gives a huge amount of confidence to both businesses looking to relocate into the town center because it provides a facility which they can send visitors to or indeed visit and use for their own business purposes. So I think there's a lot of benefits around it as well as also beforehand of enhancing the profile of stains, which also attracts new businesses into the town and hopefully encourages other people to invest and enhance their assets which are owned within stains. If we go on to the next slide please. This is really just giving you an image of what the site will look like. It's something which you will have seen before from the previous presentations, but it just reiterates what their proposals look like. You can go on to the next slide. That sort of gives you an idea of the elevation treatment and proportions that they've been talking about. That's all six stories you may recollect with the previous elevation, which we showed you actually had the eleven story and so nine story pop up at the back. So this is more reflective of what their current ambitions are. In terms of how we manage the height, you'll see there's a red line at the top and the current scheme proposes that there will be a demise envelope which caps the height at 30 meters. That allows for a certain buildup in terms of typical floor-to-floor heights. The total height of the building, which you see there from ground floor slab, is about 26.4 meters. What that does is excludes any further buildup that would be required for accommodating any floodwater retention on site. Hence that's why it's been set at 30 meters whilst the building is only 26.4. It's likely that in order to compensate for a lot of flood space, they have to build up so that water can flood in naturally and also flood out. That's essentially the best part of that 3.6 meters to play with if needed. There's a slight sight slopes, probably the heights will vary a little bit over the duration. That's essentially what we're seeking to do if we can go on to the next slide. It's the next one on from that. What we're sought to do here, I suppose it's quite important because heights have been a very topical part of the proposals here. I suppose it goes back as far as the previous bellways scheme in 2014 when proposals for that first emerged. That was a 12 story scheme that was actually consented but surrounded with a lot of controversy and a lot of public objection towards that. Obviously it didn't go ahead. I think it's fair to say off the back of that consented scheme when we went out for tender. There was a view that because that principle had been established that bidders would look to introduce a scheme of a similar sort of scale. The tallest part of that scheme which we received at the bid stage in 2020 for a mixed use scheme that included a hotel, including a 15 story element. It's fair to say that we've gone through quite a transition and quite a journey with that and I think Aurora and fairness to them recognise that there was going to be a lot of opposition. I think one of their and they're unlike a normal developer I'd say because most developers will come in and build something and then they leave. And I think because they've sold all units whereas the difference here is that Aurora are both an owner operator. So whatever they build they have to live with because they're not going anywhere. So I think for their own local reputation they were very keen to make sure that whatever they're bringing forwards had some buy-in from both the wider council and administration. As well as trying to seek some consensus with the local community. So they dropped it down to a lower 10 to 12 stories and then I think more recently it's fair to say that again there's been a stronger shift towards reducing the densities in the town centre of stains and therefore they've made this very significant shift down to six stories overall. So that's where the scheme currently sits. If we go on to the next slide I felt it would be helpful to give some context as to what that looks like because we've talked about height of 26.4 metres as a floor to from ground floor slab to the top of the building. We've also talked about the 30 metres and what that looks, what that potentially looks like. To put that red line and the elevations against buildings that we know of in the town centre and then some context to provide us a few images for local new build schemes and the first one being London Square. So you can get an idea of how that scheme sits alongside London Square buildings. If you go on to the next slide we've done the same but with the Almsley Road Fairview scheme so again that lends some context. It's fair to say that the floor ceiling height in hotels is slightly different to residential heights so that's something we need to bear in mind. So there's not an exact correlation floor by floor but it's also the ground floor of a hotel is typically double height and particularly with a four star plus hotel so that makes a bit of a difference. I guess one of the things we've factored in in terms of capping the height of 30 is that there's always a lift over run at the top of the building and as they're likely to have access to a roof deck as well. It has to be a full height to lift over run to allow the full height of a lift to go up. We go on to the next slide even grove again typically this is giving you an idea of what those building height building heights look like compared to that. There's a question here is how does the council control the heights and this comes back to the demise envelope will be incorporated into the lease so that will be, it's not a planning instrument at all. This is something that will form part of their lease contract so that can be enforced by us as free holder or even if we were to sell the freehold of the site at some point, the free holder would be constrained by that lease which is for 250 years. So they've got a sort of print of a site within which they can build. They've got this height they can build that and even if they were to get planning for a taller scheme they could never build higher than that 30 meter height so because that's set in stone as part of their contract. So equally so if they want to also the building in any way there are the usual sort of land or tenant clauses within the leases that we propose that would ensure they need to obtain prior land or consent before they undertake any works. If we could go to the next slide please. In terms of public consultation and this again this has been something which I think both the local community have been concerned about and rightly wanting to be consulted about how this development proceeds and I think equally so members of this committee have been reinforcing to Aurora. The need for them to consult extensively and as important to listen and take on board what locals have to say about it so that's something that they have agreed that they will do. It's one of their commitments and they will do that essentially what will happen is if this committee and CPRC and full council indeed approve the signing up of an agreement to lease subject to planning then they will undertake that consultation as part of their pre application processes. And flood risk is an important very topical thing at the moment and it's fair to say that the site has been recognized as a as a flood zone three location which will need a significant amount of mitigation in order to satisfy the site is going to be developed and that actually is part of Aurora's risk in signing up to the agreement to the subject of planning so they will need to work with the A they will need to indeed get an agreement with them that whatever they're proposing in terms of the building itself and the mitigation is going to be satisfactory to them otherwise they will get an objection from the A and I think it's inevitable that's what follow that is a planning rejection as well. So that's where we've got to at the moment that's really the update as to where we are. There's any questions happy to take them. Thank you. Thank you, Richard. Before we go on to questions, I'd just like to advise members that if they have any specific questions relating to proposed heads of terms or financial information, please indicate this clearly so that we can enter into part two if necessary. If we do go into part two, then at the end of that debate, we'll have to go back into part one to agree to note reports. So members of the public, if we go into part two, you're more than welcome to leave because you won't be missing much when we go back into part one. Is that clear? Is that OK? Right. Thank you. I think, Councillor HOWkins have their hand up first, then Councillor Gibson, then Councillor Borrow, then just a second and so. Councillor HOWkins, Councillor Gibson, Councillor Borrow, Councillor Clark, and Councillor Beecher. We'll start with that. OK. Thank you. Councillor HOWkins. I think this might take into part two. OK. Can I ask you to part that for a minute? Do any of the people that put their hands up have questions that we can put in part one? OK. Councillor Borrow was quickest off the draw, then. I've got Councillor Beecher, then Councillor Gibson, if that's OK. Thank you. This is a simple one. When it says suitable mitigation for the environmental agency, would that be to not make the flooding worse for the other areas in stands, not just the people who are in the hotel? The requirement of the VA is that not only to mitigate the impacts, but you've actually got to deliver betterment. So any subsequent consequential impacts of that have to be mitigated and improved. So it's not a case of making it OK for the site itself, because by displacing water, it's going, if you just displace the water, then it could go elsewhere. What you need to be able to do is demonstrate betterment by actually improving not only your site, but what happens with that water elsewhere. So, yeah, you're absolutely right. That's what the VA will be looking for. You can't improve your site, but ruin someone else's. Thank you, Richard. Before I pass it to Councillor Gibson, it's very brief. It's worth pointing out, isn't it, Richard, that this architect has got experience of very similar sites in London where they've had to deal with the flood risk mitigation. That's right. In fact, they've also done one in running it as well. Thank you, Councillor Gibson. Thank you very much. Thank you, Richard. Thank you very much for the correlation between the other sites, London Square, even Grove, et cetera, but none of those are on the river, bang on the river, so there is a bit of a difference. One of my first question is, we've been going around, there's quite a number of quite a long time now. So, from the point of view of the hotel rooms, we've got approximately 250 beds. Now, is that give or take? How many would that be give or take? Because approximately is quite a long word. That's my first question. Okay. We haven't even, I say Aurora, haven't even started the planning process, so it's an iterative process. So, they may all put forward these designs. The designs may have to be tweaked in consultation with the planning authority with a wide range of other stakeholders as well. So, that's a statutory stakeholder, isn't it? Maybe they can't quite get that number of rooms. I think that's their targets because that's ideally what they would like to end up with. So, that's what they're looking to achieve. Thank you. It's just that they were quite clear on the 29 units, but it was the approximate for the hotel rooms. I was just very curious about that. But thank you. Also, there was talk about public immunity. Is there going to be a public mooring of which we've got precious little in the borough? For both, that is? Colley. So, I think, obviously, there's a lot of detailed questions that are coming forward that we don't have the answers to. This is a kind of indicative process with what Aurora presented us to date. I think when they know that, or if we get to the point where we've got approval to move this forward, they'll start moving the designs forward in a lot more detail, but we don't have the ability to influence those designs at all. So, that's what the public consultation is around. So, things like that, if there are requirements, that's the time it should be fed in. Again, sorry, not deliberately trying to be obstructed, but a lot of the detail we just don't have the clarity on at the moment because this is an early piece of work. I can add to that that actually the river edge actually sits outside of their demise. So, that's not something that's immediately within their gifts. I appreciate that, but from your little drawings, it looks like they've done a job on it. So, yeah, I was just curious. Thank you. Just two more questions. There was, on one of the slides, we said that once the agreement is signed, then we go to public consultation. Isn't that the wrong way around? No, we sign the agreement to this subject to planning, and then what would happen is they would then take forward the planning and consultation process. Thank you. I want to jump in here because, again, this comes back to the point that we're trying to get into an iterative consultation process. So, inviting the public in here is part of that. We're going to see what feedback we get, but there will be a formal consultation process as part of planning application with local residents. But that's not the only kind of what we're doing now is kicking off that discussion with local residents as well. Fantastic. Thank you. Because in the beginning, you know, when things were being discussed, there was quite a lot of, well, description and some detail on the fact that there was going to be a ballroom and a conference room and that we would need because of we're so lacking those facilities in the borough, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So, I thought by now that there'd be a little bit more meat on the bone, but thank you. I will jump in there again, because I was going to mention this earlier on, again, part of the one of the challenges of engaging early in consultation is that you don't have all that detail. So, it's almost like damned if you do damned if you don't, because we work out all the detail and then take it into consultation, then you're accused of presenting people with a fatal complete. So, by definition, we won't have all those detailed answers. That's part of what we're trying to get to by kicking this off today, if I make sense. Thank you, chair. Did you have another question? No, I didn't. Well, I've got off lightly. Councillor Beecher, thank you for your patience. I could ask my detailed question, but I'll ignore it. Anyway, the detailed question is, what is the elevation of the architect's data point? The simple question is, what is 30 metres below the red line showing the elevations? Where would we be? The 30 metres is calculated in AOD. So, that's ground level, not floor slab, actual physical ground level. So, that excludes floor slab. So, that hence the reason why the building is 26.4 metres, and there's that 26.4 metres. That's why there's about 3.6 headroom, if they have to build in some flood mitigation. Do other Councillors have any questions that we can put in part one? Councillor Clark? Thanks chair. So, I think it's really good that the rules work well to make the skyline of stains and the borough look really good because, obviously, you don't need to live in a good looking house, but as long as the house opposite you is good looking, you've got a good view. So, there is a symbiosis there as people live across the bridge and drive across the bridge. That's the first point. Second point, I'm in Leyland and Shepton Green, and I think all the residents in Leyland and Shepton Green can go anywhere in the ward, and they can access all areas, it feels very inclusive. You mentioned exclusive. Exclusive basically means excluding other people, and I just worry that as we progress, the people who live in stains may well feel excluded, that it's too high brow for me, and that Mrs. Smith, who used to go to debonings or used to go here there or everywhere, they may feel that they don't have access to all these very high brow areas. So, I'll be keen to make sure that there's not concierge, or you're not welcome within this area. I know it's way down the line, but I think it's one to bear in mind. And then the final point is, on the architecture, the design code is hopefully coming on, and I hope their architects will really engage with the design code so that it all stains looks cohesive and it looks beautiful. And it's a lovely place to drive through, and it really fires ejects architecturally. Sorry, Councillor. Is there a question coming? Yes, yes. That the architects are going to engage with the design code? Are they going to? Good question. Thank you. Just to warm up. All I can say is that if it's a material planning document at the time, of course, they will have to. They won't have any choices. This isn't a works contract, so we can't impose anything on them, but if it's a statutory planning document, or a material planning document, then, of course, they'll have to look at that. Thank you. I think Councillor Sexton had a question. Just that Councillor Gibson made a fair point in regards to some of the buildings that you've shown the different sizes of, which I'm really pleased that you did. But I think it would be advantageous if one could find a picture and align it with the properties across the way, where the slaggenetic is, those flats there, just to see what it looks like so when you come over the bridge. Is that what it's called? Thank you very much, Councillor Williams. I think that would be really, really good, because then people can see that it's in keeping in terms of heights. If you get your hands on one of those, that would be good. Thank you. I can ask this question in part one, but whether the answer is part one, I'm not sure. Could you just not wait until we get a party there? Well, no, because I think it's a legit question in the party. Okay, fire away. How long will it be before we are getting meaningful income to actually cover the costs of holding hand of the house? We'll answer that in part two. Any other questions? No. I'm just trying to find the words to put us into part two. We will now need to move into part two to deal with its end business. As we will be discussing private information, we will need to formally agree to exclude the public from this meeting. But thank you for attending. May I have a proposal to move the exclusion of the pressing public for this discussion and view of the likely disclosure of exempt information within the meaning of paragraph three of part one, schedule 12A of the local government Act 1972, which states information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person, including the authority holding that information, and in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information because disclosure to the public would prejudice the financial position of the authority in being able to undertake even handed negotiations and finalizing contract terms. Is that proposed by someone, please? Thank you, Councillor Hucans. Is that seconded? Councillor Clark, thank you. Is that agreed? Thank you very much. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you. The next item is with regard to Ashford Victory Place. And this relates to the extinguishment of Spellthonborough Council and Noel Green Estate's contractual obligations. This item is to seek approval to terminate the conditional contract to transfer Ashford Victory Place to Noel Green Estate Limited and can be found on pages three to 76 of the supplementary agenda. And I'm going to ask Rich Mortimer to present the report, please, Rich. [BLANK_AUDIO] [INAUDIBLE] Of course, yeah. Nothing else. Yeah, I'm hoping this is a relatively straightforward report. And so far as what we're looking to do is terminate the contract. At the moment, we have essentially a sales agreement from the council to Noel Green Estate. Obviously, we're looking to, and that was done two years ago when we were looking at direct development ourselves. So the ideas of the council build the scheme and then essentially Noel Green would purchase it at the end of when we got to practical completion. So as we're no longer looking to develop our schemes directly, we need to sort of essentially entangle ourselves from that agreement by terminating it so that we can take, obviously, market the site and ultimately sell it to a third party developer. So as it stands, Cage have an interest in the site by virtue of having a contract and whilst they're part of that, whilst that contract exists, it's impossible to, we couldn't sell it to a third party. So what we're asking really to do is extinguish that contract. I suppose the key thing to this is that whilst Cage signed the Section 106 agreement, that document remains assignable. So even if that contract's extinguished, that agreement essentially runs with the land. So whoever buys it from the council will have those, have to fulfil those same obligations. So it is a relatively simple process that we're asking, that we're seeking. Hopefully that's in good English. Thank you Richard. Before you ask any questions, may I just point out, appendix one is confidential. If you do have any questions relating to this appendix, please indicate this clearly so we can agree to enter into part two if necessary. I know this is a lot of jumping around, but we're trying to keep as much of these committee meetings in the public domain as we possibly can rather than just shunting it all into part two. So apologies if there's a lot of jumping about, but please bear in mind appendix one confidential. So questions for Richard on this point, please bear that in mind. On that note, does the committee have any questions? Councillor Givson. Thank you, sir. So Richard, if I understand it, because I was under the impression that nothing could be transferred to Cage unless it was actually built. And this isn't built yet. Did I get the wrong end of the stick? That's a first question. But the second question is, it's not a question, it's just a reiteration. So basically, no green estates has really signed a contract and they have power over this particular site. They want to relinquish that power and that means that the Council will then have the site and be in a position to sell it to a third party. Is that correct? That's correct. I mean, we've got to go one o'clock back to 2022 March when we were undertaking director of development. We were looking at that point for the Council to build out the scheme and then transfer it to Noel Green. Different world now, we're not building directly. So Noel Green has no need to be in a contract event, build themselves. By the property of the Council, the sole shareholder as well, so in all respects that this contract can be extinguished. Okay, understand. And then the Council will own it, then the Council can sell to a third party. But once that transactions happen, there's nothing to stop the third party from selling it on. Is that correct? A third party, if they were to sell it on, but even if they sold it on, they're still subject to the same planning consent in Section 106 agreement. So probably, did you want to jump in? Yeah, just to say we haven't actually got any terms agreed with the third party yet. So I think probably drawing conclusions about what a third party may or may not do is probably a point down the line. Speculation, just remembering what happened within the homes, thank you. Councillor HOWARD. Hi, is this a direct link to the discussion we had at the last development subcommittee meeting on this plot of land? Yes, it is. Yeah, we can pick up on that later. Are there any other questions at this point? Councillor CLOVE. Thanks, Chair. I assume because KG is arms length to the Council that there isn't going to be the time when somebody in KG could say, well, actually, we need a financial payment for it. It can just transfer like water. Sorry, Terry, did you want to pick up on that? I was going to add that the agreement with KG actually expires in March next year. So if we haven't built it by then, then the agreement lapses anyway. So in reality, we're not going to build it. And even if we were, we would never have a built on time. So it's academic is what I'm getting at. We're not direct developing. We wouldn't need that time to build it on time. So this agreement is going to fall by in any case next year. Thank you. Terry, did you want to speak as well? Yes, I mean, as Richard says, this is essentially an academic issue from KG's perspective. But we do have two members of the cage board in this room myself and to Councillor Nichols and the cage board have discussed and they don't have an issue with this proposal. Thank you, Terry. Councillor Nichols. That's pretty nearly exactly what I was going to say. But I also might just consult. I'll learn it to leave a friend as to whether or not I should vote on this matter or have my position noted as I've gotten the word for it now. Ignore voting. It's entirely at your discretion using your, just putting the correct hat on for your voting shall we speak. So yes, it's entirely up to you. You've disclosed your interest. It's the main thing. Thanks. Thank you for that. Are there any other questions at this point? Councillor Haratkins. Will this have any negative effect on smell forms balance sheet? Well, I defer to Terry, but no, we won't. Anybody else? Councillor Gibson. Just very quickly, following on from Councillor Halkins questions. Will we actually go through the previously mooted design and/or plan for this particular site and later on in this meeting? Yes, if we could wait until later, I think that would be better. Could bear that question in mind, please, in case I forget, because it's a brain like a civil. Right. In that case, does the committee agree to, one, approve the request to formally terminate the conditional contract dated 3rd March 2022 during the council and North Green Estates Limited for the sale and purchase of land at Ashford Hospital London Road. Ashford, the Ashford Victory Place contract, and two, authorize the group head of corporate governance to enter into any legal documentation to terminate the Ashford Victory Place contract. Thank you very much. You're going to like this. Moving on, the next item is the exclusion of public and press exempt business. We will now need to move into part 2 to deal with exempt business. As we will be discussing private information, we will need to formally agree to exclude the public from this meeting. May I have a proposal to move the exclusion of the press and public for this discussion in view of the likely disclosure of exempt information within the meaning of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, which states information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person, including the authority holding that information, and in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information because disclosure to the public would prejudice the financial position of the authority in being able to undertake or even handle negotiations and finalising acceptable terms. This is a proposed council section. Thank you. And is that seconded? Council of the future? Thank you. Is that agreed? [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO]