Purpose

In October 2025, Cabinet took
the decision to approve the disposal of Vine House subject to
agreed Heads of Terms (HoTs). Following this, the lender that the
purchaser is using to finance the refurbishment has requested a
change to the building lease to be a length of 7 years and 1 month,
rather than a length of 30 months included in the HoTs. This is to
allow the lease to be registerable with the Land Registry, so a
charge on the title in the Lender’s favour can be secured.
This allows them to exercise ‘step in rights’ to make
attempts to recover the debt in the event the purchaser cannot
complete the works.
Cabinet Member approval is
sought to agree to the request to vary the HoTs in relation to the
lease length only to ensure the purchaser can access suitable
finance to complete the refurbishment. 
 

Decision

Decision:

 

(1) 
The approved amendment to the Heads of Terms for the
disposal of Vine House, which had been approved by Cabinet in
October 2025 to agree to a lease length of 7 years and 1 month, be
noted.

 

Reason(s) for the Decision(s):

 
Agreement to
vary the HoTs to extend the lease
length is recommended to facilitate the successful refurbishment of
Vine House, which will see a vacant tower block brought back into
residential use. In addition to the environmental benefits from
refurbishing the existing building, there will be 58 new apartments
delivered for Sefton residents. Refurbishing the building will
remove a blight to the neighbourhood and deliver benefits to the
local community in Seaforth.
 

Alternative Options Considered and
Rejected:
 
 Alternative Option 1 – Refuse
the request to vary the Heads of Terms.
 

Risk: This option results in a high risk that the
developer walking away due to being unable to access suitable
finance to fund the refurbishment. The outcome of this would mean
the Council continuing to have responsibility for the vacant
building, resulting in an ongoing financial liability. This outcome
would not see delivery of 58 new homes and would mean the vacant
building would continue to have a negative impact on neighbouring
residents. The Council may consider reverting
back to the previous option of proposed demolition of the
building, which would mean the capital saving detailed in section 2
of the report would be lost. The risks associated with demolishing
the building were detailed in full in the October Cabinet
report.