Decision Maker: Cabinet, Council

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: Yes

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: October 16, 2025

Purpose:

Content: Decision   RESOLVED that Cabinet:   1.     Approved entering an exclusivity agreement with the Developer identified in the Part 2 report. 2.     Authorised the Head of Asset Management & Engineering Services and Chief Finance Officer in consultation with the Portfolio Holders for Asset Management and Finance & Budget to finalise and agree the Exclusivity Agreement. 3.     Approved the preferred food store and nursery occupiers identified in the Part 2 report and authorised the Head of Asset Management & Engineering Services and Chief Finance Officer in consultation with the Portfolio Holders for Asset Management and Finance & Budget to agree and enter into the respective Agreements for Lease, subject to completion of the Development Agreement.   Reasons for decision   1.1             To facilitate delivery of significant new public open space, affordable homes (c110 units) and Community Hub via residential and commercial enabling development of part of the site. 1.2             To secure the long term management and maintenance of the new facilities and additional revenue to the Council via generation of significant long term income. 1.3             To enable the preferred developer to undertake the due diligence necessary to fully assess the viability of the proposals which will be achieved by the Council entering an exclusivity agreement to enable the Developer to commit at risk funds to design team and technical reports. 1.4             The Development Agreement will be progressed through the Exclusivity period, being informed by the outcomes of the work. Either before or on completion of the Exclusivity period a further report will be brought to Cabinet to seek approval to enter into the Development Agreement.   Alternative Options Considered   In assessing the future of the former golf course site, three main options have been considered:   Option 1 – Do Nothing 1                    This option would see the site retained in its current unused state, with only essential maintenance undertaken. 2                    While this would require no immediate capital investment and would maintain current ownership, it would not deliver on any of the Council’s strategic objectives. 3                    Current income from meanwhile uses is £179.1k p.a. Most of the tenants were inherited after the previous head lessee was surrendered. Some have poor covenant strength and are in occupation under a Tenancy at Will.  The buildings are deteriorating, will need a planned maintenance schedule and likely investment in the structures, especially the roofs. 4                    Current Council outgoings on the site exceed income. The Council is seeking to obtain rateable values from the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) for the separate hereditaments and are seeking to apportion utility charges and a service charge allocation so that individual tenants can make their respective contributions. The poorer covenant tenants have indicated that any additional occupational costs would render their businesses unviable. Advantages: •                      No upfront capital outlay •                      Maintains Council ownership and control •                      Existing occupiers maintain a certain level of surveillance that reduces the need for on-site security and minimises ASB Disadvantages: •                      No contribution to Corporate Plan or Local Plan priorities •                      Ongoing maintenance and security costs with limited income •                      Likely site income reduction due to tenant business failures •                      Asset remains under-utilised •                      Risk of deterioration, anti-social behaviour, and blight •                      No capital receipt or long-term revenue stream •                      Loss of opportunity to secure external investment or funding •                      Additional occupational costs likely to compromise existing businesses.   Option 2 – Residential Led, Mixed Use Development   1                    Partnering with a developer to bring forward a housing-led scheme would provide significant capital and revenue benefits, deliver much-needed homes (including affordable housing), and contribute to regeneration objectives. 2                    This approach has the highest potential financial return and policy alignment, but will require careful engagement with the community to address concerns. Advantages: •                      Significant capital receipt potential or exchanged for commercial and community buildings and infrastructure •                      Long-term council tax and business rates income •                      Significant additional secure long term rental income •                      Delivery of affordable housing and infrastructure •                      Stimulates local economic activity •                      Some existing occupiers can be retained and rehomed •                      Delivery of long term community benefit and facilities Disadvantages: •                      Possible local opposition •                      Planning risks, particularly as the site is Green Belt •                      Infrastructure and mitigation costs   Option 3 – Alternative Non-Residential Uses 1                    The site could be repurposed for leisure, open space, commercial tourism, or renewable energy generation. 2                    This would allow retention of open space and could align strongly with environmental and wellbeing priorities. However, the financial return is likely to be lower and dependent on market demand. Advantages: •                      Maintains/enhances green space and biodiversity •                      Potential for ongoing revenue from leisure, tourism, or renewable energy •                      Greater community acceptability than housing in some cases Disadvantages: •                      Upfront investment often required •                      Market demand for certain uses uncertain •                      Possible seasonal or variable income •                      Potential for running costs to outstrip income   3                    Options Evaluation Matrix Criteria Weighting Option 1. Do Nothing Score × Weight Option 2. Residential Development Score × Weight Option 3. Alternative Non-Residential Uses Score × Weight Financial Return 30% 1 0.30 5 1.50 3 0.90 Policy Fit 25% 1 0.25 5 1.25 4 1.00 Deliverability 20% 2 0.40 4 0.80 3 0.60 Community Impact 15% 2 0.30 3 0.45 4 0.60 Environmental Impact 10% 2 0.20 3 0.30 5 0.50 TOTAL SCORE 100% — 1.45 — 4.30 — 3.60     4                    Following this comparative assessment of the available options, residential-led development is identified as the preferred option for the former golf course site. The Residential Development option offers the strongest combination of: •                      Financial benefit – maximising the capital receipt to support the Council’s Medium-Term Financial Strategy and generating long-term council tax revenue •                      Policy alignment – delivering new homes, including affordable housing, in accordance with Local Plan objectives and the Council’s Corporate Plan priorities on housing and regeneration •                      Deliverability – attracting experienced development partners with the capability to deliver a high-quality scheme within a realistic timescale •                      Place-making benefits – opportunity to integrate green infrastructure, sustainable transport links, and community facilities as part of the masterplan While recognising that a housing-led approach may attract some public concern, these impacts can be mitigated through: •                      Retention and enhancement of significant areas of open space and landscaping •                      Incorporation of biodiversity net gain measures, habitat creation and contribution towards the Nature Recovery Strategy. •                      Comprehensive community engagement during the design process Alternative non-residential uses were considered and remain possible as part of a mixed-use masterplan.  However, as a stand-alone option they do not provide the same level of financial sustainability or policy delivery as a residential-led scheme. 5                    The “do nothing” approach has been discounted due to its very low contribution to Council objectives, limited revenue, ongoing costs, and risk of site deterioration.