Decision Maker: Cabinet

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 the retention of the car park site as a strategic Council asset. 2                    Approved progression of the detailed design and specification for resurfacing and relining works, in order to secure budget approval in due course and prepare the project for tendering.   Reasons for decision   1                    The site lies within Flood Risk Zones 3a and 3b. Redevelopment would require significant flood risk mitigation and associated design work to satisfy national planning policy and Environment Agency guidance. 2                    We were unable to secure external funding to progress the upfront design work required to address the flood risk and deliver the necessary mitigation. 3                    As a result the Council would need to bear the cost of commissioning and funding the design work, securing planning permission, and delivering the core structural infrastructure. 4                    While there appears to be healthy interest from national retailers to occupy space in this location, developers have made clear that they would only engage once planning consent is secured and the enabling infrastructure is in place at the Council’s expense. 5                    In light of the above, retaining the car park in its current form and undertaking essential resurfacing and relining works represents the most cost-effective and deliverable option. It avoids substantial upfront expenditure and planning risk while maintaining the car park’s ongoing operational function. 6                    The car park continues to provide an important function for the village, the local retailers and residents. Retention ensures continuity of provision without disruption. 7                    In light of the Council’s position within the wider devolution agenda, the investment already made in site assessment, and the risks associated with speculative redevelopment (given the Council is not itself a developer), retention of the site is considered preferable. Retention keeps strategic options open, safeguards the Council’s ability to align with potential future funding or partnership opportunities, and avoids crystallising a disposal at sub-optimal value.   Alternative Options Considered   1                    Do nothing The Council leaves the car park as-is. a)     Pros: No upfront capital cost, continuing income b)     Cons: Doesn’t address deterioration of the car park surface and associated infrastructure. Reactive maintenance may be costly. 2                    Commission Further Technical Work The Council directly funds the next stage of hydraulic modelling and detailed flood-risk investigations (c.£200k). a)     Pros: Establishes technical certainty; improves chances of attracting credible developers. b)     Cons: High upfront cost; no guarantee of viable solution; requires third-party land agreements. 3                    Proceed with the Unconditional Freehold Disposal Accept the unconditional offer to purchase the freehold, transferring the site and flood-risk responsibilities to a third party. a)     Pros: Immediate capital receipt; eliminates Council’s risk exposure. b)     Cons: Council loses long-term control of a strategic site; Council loses significant income; sale would be at less than independent Market Value; would require Secretary of State approval for an under-sale. 4                    Seek a Joint Venture or Public-Sector Partnership Explore a joint approach with neighbouring authorities, public agencies, or the Environment Agency to deliver a sub-regional flood solution as part of wider regeneration. a)     Pros: Spreads costs and risks; potential to unlock other sites regionally. b)     Cons: Complex governance; uncertain partner appetite; long lead-in times.