Request support for Guildford
We're not currently able to provide detailed weekly summaries for Guildford Council. We need support from the council to:
- Ensure we can reliably access and process council meeting information
- Cover the costs of processing and summarizing council data
- Maintain and improve the service for residents
You can help make this happen!
Contact your councillors to let them know you want Guildford Council to support Open Council Network. This will help ensure residents can stay informed about council decisions and activities.
If you represent a council or business, or would be willing to donate to support this service, please contact us at community@opencouncil.network.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Tuesday, 19th March, 2024 7.00 pm, NEW
March 19, 2024 View on council website Watch video of meetingTranscript
This meeting will be recorded for live and/or subsequent broadcast on the Council's website and according to the Council's capacity in performing a task in a public interest and in line with openness of local government bodies regulations 2014. The whole of the meeting will be recorded except where there are confidential or exempt items and the footage will be on the website for six months. If you have any queries regarding webcast and meetings please contact committee services. Okay, welcome everyone to the first call and I think since 2020. There are no fire alarms due tonight but if a alarm goes off please make way out the two exits and answer the car park quietly quickly. Mobile phones please turn to silence. I think everyone has but just a word for calling. Mayor of the community members who indicate in turn they are present. Councillor Philip Rooker, President, Councillor Jeff Davis, President, Councillor Jason Fenwick, President, Councillor Gillian Harwood, President, Councillor Steve Nives, President, Councillor Vanessa King, President, Councillor Madeleine Redpath, President, Councillor John Shaw, President, Councillor Domenique Williams, President, Councillor Sue Wythe Price, President, thank you everyone. Apologies for absence and notification of substitute members James. Thank you Chair. Three apologies Councillors Steel, Brooker and Lee and three substitutes, Councillors King, Davis and Hives. Thank you James. Item two, local code of conduct, declaration, and disposal of Pune interests. This is on page five, section two. Has anyone got any pecuny or non-pecuny interest? Please do so now. Thank you. Since the last meeting, it should have received I think earlier this week. Is the committee happy to confirm the minutes of the meeting in the 5th of March? Good good. Thank you. Item four, the option agreement with Blackwell Park Limited in respect of purchased council owned land calling of the proposed decision taken by the strategic director place. So the scope of the meeting, the committees reviewing the 29th of February decision with the strategic director place and matters will include whether decision accords with the principles of decision making in Article 14.2(d) of the Constitution, the timeline and the urgency of the decision, whether decision was of such importance and sensitivity that any reasonable member of the public would reasonably have expected it to be taken by the executive. We're not here to explore or review the wider areas of council policy and we're here to review the decision taken in the 29th of February so we won't be discussing the local plan or planning regulations every on the decision. In terms of the outcomes, the committee has a power to, two things, endorse the decision or not to refer the matter back to the decision maker, in which case the decision shall take effect immediately or not support the proposed decision and refer it back to the decision maker for reconsideration with such comments and advice as the committee deems appropriate. So before we begin I'd start to welcome the five Councillors who call this in as Councillor Pat Oven, Councillor Catherian Young, Councillor Tom, sorry, sorry, not Councillor Tom Hunt, Councillor James Brooker, Councillor Jason Fennwick and Councillor Seawyth Price, welcome everyone. Welcome also to all the other Councillors in Nicki Chamber, including I think half the cabinet at the back, including Julia, thanks for attending. Councillor Tom Hunt, he's the lead Councillor and who, have we got anyone if I, Councillor Smith and Councillor Mills. Okay, we've got several officers here to help this, including Dawn Hardy who's a chief director of place, welcome Dawn. Susan Seaw, street director of legal and democratic services and the Councillor's monitoring officer. Claire Beasley, who's a senior legal specialist, corporate commercial and property and welcome to to Andrew Tildy, who's Andrew's not a council officer, he's a consultant to the regeneration corporate program at the back of the park development lead. Thank you for attending. Okay, you should have all received the procedure list. It's going to be a bit different to the standard over-inscrutity committees and I'm going through it quite tight, I'm keeping it quite tight to what's on the list. So we start off with by asking the five calling Councillors to discuss their reasons for the calling, to make any comments and then we move on to respond to them. So can I ask that? Thank you. Good evening everyone. I'm not a member of the overview and scrutiny committee so my role in these proceedings is somewhat limited. Effectively I'll be confining myself to the reasons we feel the five of us have put in this application why the council's rules have not been followed. On every council meeting on the front of the meeting papers are the council's values and those values state we will listen to the views of residence and be open and accountable in our decision making. Now that could of course simply be just empty rhetoric but it is actually given teeth by the terms of the council's constitution. In particular and I'm afraid that this is going to involve of necessity a tour through some fairly abstruse points of the council's constitution. But in part two of the constitution Article 1, brackets 3, bracket E states it intends to create powerful and effective means of holding decision makers to public account. Still in part two of the constitution Article 14 which is headed Article 14 decision making goes on to state all decisions taken by or on behalf of the council will be made in accordance with the following principles. There are a number of principles listed but the one that concerns the primarily is 14(2) brackets D a presumption in favor of openness. Still at Article 14 brackets 3 sub bracket B a key decision is described as an executive decision likely to result in expenditure or savings of at least 200,000 pounds or which would have a significant impact on two or more wards within the borough. This decision clearly meets both of those criteria and in fact in the decision notice that was made it was headed the part of the notice is headed key decision yes no and it was confirmed that this was indeed a key decision. So we come then to the reasons that it can be called in and there are specific rules for the overview and scrutiny procedure rules. Rule 16 brackets C and we say that the one that is in particular relevance is 16(c)(4) which states that the decision is not in accordance with the decision making principles set out in the constitution and one of those constitutional rules it takes us back to Article 14 again paragraph 2(d) that I've mentioned already the presumption in favor of openness. We say that this decision breaches it for no good reason. Such an important decision has been taken by the officer without the opportunity for the public or councillors to engage with the decision maker and the final decision on such a matter in our view should be made or should have been made by the executive not by an officer. So that's overview and scrutiny procedure rule 16(c) brackets (4) Roman (4) but we say that also relevant is another paragraph of that rule 16(c) brackets (2) that all relevant facts have been taken into account and properly assessed. Now this site is in an area of great landscape value and we understand it's likely to be included in the extended national landscape the AONB as was in the near future. On that basis we've considered that not all relevant facts were taken into account and given sufficient weight in making this decision. This should have been accorded due weight that was not done. If we move on now to part four of the constitution as I said it is going to be rather an academic tour I'm afraid. That's headed the access to information and procedure rules. Part B refers to executive decision making. Paragraph 22.3 deals with the decision making by officers and it states officers contemplating a decision in connection with an executive function shall have careful regard to the following principles in deciding how this should be taken and at 23 22.3 brackets D it states that whether the proposed executive decision is sufficiently important and or sensitive so that a reasonable member of the public would reasonably expect that it to be taken by the executive. Now we say that clearly this decision is on all fours with that provision. This is a highly important decision. It's the man on the clapper, omnibus principle that anybody looking at this principle is a reasonable outsider would say this is so important it should not be taken by an officer. This should at the very least be going to the executive. This is an important and a sensitive decision and as I say in our view and I think it is unarguable that this should have been taken by the executive. Now that was paragraph 22.3 D that's the principle one we rely on but then there are other paragraphs in paragraph 22.3 in particular sub-paragraph C that we say are also relevant. That states whether a proposed decision is so minor and routine in nature or is otherwise one which could reasonably be considered to be of no interest to a reasonable member of the public then it can be taken by the officer. Well clearly if it doesn't meet 22.3 D paragraph 22.3 C clearly isn't met either because this is not minor or routine and it is not of interest only to an individual member of the public. We say this is of interest to lots of people who will use the area of outstanding natural beauty and the area of great landscape value and therefore 22.3 C has not been met. 22.3 brackets E states whether the proposed executive decision is one which affects only a particular individual as opposed to the public generally. Well that is saying very much similar to 22.3 C and if 22.3 C hasn't been complied with I think it must seem to be able to really follow that 22.3 E has not been complied with either. This is clearly one we say that is a decision that is of application to the wider public as a whole. Rule 22.4 states that these procedure rules shall apply to key decisions taken by officers and as I said earlier this decision was expressly stated as being a key decision and as I've indicated already met the two criteria both of them to count as a key decision. So I find myself asking well why was this decision taken in the way it was? Why was something like this not taken to the executive? And I've thought and thought about this and I thought well perhaps the reason is largely one of embarrassment. Perhaps the figure that is going to be mentioned in relation to this option is either from the council's view a very small figure and that the therefore the council doesn't want it to be known or maybe it's a very large figure and therefore the the the purchasers Blackwell Park who are effectively the university don't want it to be known. That's merely speculation. In my submission for the reasons I've stated this decision did not meet the criteria to be met by an officer and I consider it should be referred back by this committee to either the officer themselves or if it is possible to do so to the executive by here what you've said at the outset it may not be possible. No doubt we'll be given a legal ruling on that in due course. For my part I'd like to say it referred not just back to the officer but to the executive. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Oven. Do any other five signatures want to say anything? Councillor Young. Thank you very much, Chairman. I won't go through blow by blow the constitution but I would just fully endorse everything that Councillor Oven has said as to why we have called in this decision. But I would also like to add the following points and questions that I hope the overview and scrutiny committee will consider and debate this evening as they are all relevant to the decision that was taken. Firstly on Wednesday the 28th of February all Councillors had a briefing with the University of Surrey about their amended solar farm application. The original diary invitation specified six until 645 not unusual as these generally take place before the planning committee. The original invitation was changed and the time extended from 5.30pm to allow for an update on the ransom strip which had been requested by Councillor Joss Bigmore, leader of R4GV and agreed with the lead Councillor for regeneration Tom Hunt at full council. On that evening nothing was discussed or mentioned about the ransom strip. The decision was published the following day. A further invitation to a briefing on the ransom strip was then issued for the night of March the 12th but that too was subsequently cancelled. No explanation has been given for this despite the question being asked. To me this brings into question what was happening about the ransom strip and why Councillors haven't been briefed before the decision which has resulted in this call-in. Further consideration by the executive is based on my understanding that the ransom strip was potentially identified as being worth 30 million by the previous administration. To this to me this makes the option as well as sale a significant decision a key decision as Councillor Oven has emphasised which should have been taken with greater Councillor involvement. I hope that the Oven scrutiny committee will ask questions as to how we have ascertained best value for the land. This is in reference to the case of Stokes versus Cambridge whereby the seller of the land should receive at least I believe 30 to 50% of the land value. Additionally how much was the option sold for? Does the fee include an amount to cover the costs spent on taking the decision and the work that's been taking place on this for some considerable time? What are the terms and conditions? If another party owns or has an interest on any part of the ransom strip are they also able to make a claim on the sale? Do we have to share the funds? Councillor Oven has already referred to the AOMB. I am on the Surrey Hills AOMB board and at the previous meeting a week or so ago the sale of the ransom strip was actually discussed which caused me some embarrassment because I didn't know anything about it. Fortunately I wasn't asked any questions so I think it's also worth considering how this is going to affect the fact that part of this land may be taken forward to be included as Surrey Hills National Landscape. Finally there is a critical need for openness and transparency on this decision given the sensitivity of the location of the ransom strip and its enablement of the Blackwell Farm allocated site in the local plan. There is a high level of public interest surrounding any activity on this site and I believe the decision warranted at the very least consideration by the executive if not for Councillor. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Long. Any other members who table? Thank you. Donne, that's Chief Director. Would you like to make a statement in response to the opening statements? I'll open up to the committee office. Thank you Chair. If you'll indulge me I will read out something I've prepared because we were trying to anticipate what questions might be asked this evening and I think this statement will probably cover off a lot of what's already been said and then if it's possible I'd like to then call on my colleague sitting on either side of me to add anything at this point. So this is a decision related to the management of the Council's land which I took under my delegated authority in consultation with the appropriate lead Councillor and subject to being satisfied that the Council received the best consideration reasonably obtainable to sell land and buildings up to 0.2 hectares in area following consultation with Chief Finance Officer and Board Councillors in compliance with the land and property disposal policy. This is a small strip of land which was purchased to enable construction of a sewer and which varies in width from 30 centimetres to 1 metre although it has historically been to refer referred to as it being one foot wide. At an absolute maximum the strip is no more than 0.192 hectares and is likely to be nearer to 0.086 hectares. The size of the strip means no impact on any one other than Blackwell. The land was appropriated for planning and development purposes when it became clear that the sewer was no longer required and the only purpose of retaining the very small strip of land was as a ransom. The land is such an narrow strip that there is no alternative use for this by the Council other than as a ransom. The managing public money guidance is that to make best use of public assets surplus property land should be disposed of. This was not a decision relating to the development of the University's land, the local plan or the AOMB. These matters all have their own separate and distinct decision making processes and of course planning is not an executive function. As an allocated site under policy A26 the principle that there will be residential led mixed use development on the site has already been accepted and the site allocation was subject to rigorous and transparent examination by the local planning spectre before being adopted by the Council. In taking my decision I was mindful of the Constitution, the land and property disposal policy and statutory requirements. I did not consider this decision to be significant enough that a member of the public would expect it to be taken by the executive. This is a ransom strip for which we are obtaining best consideration and was well within my delegated authority. During the previous administration the lead councillor and the leader were heavily involved in the extensive negotiations that have taken place. The current lead councillor continues to be briefed regularly and I have kept the executive updated with numerous briefings about the negotiation including January 2024 when they were advised that the transaction was nearing completion. The executive did not indicate to me at any of these briefings that this was a decision that they considered to be significant enough to be taken by the executive. In order to demonstrate that we are achieving best consideration in accordance with section 1-2-3 of the local government act 1972 and independent valuation was undertaken. Given that this small strip of land could potentially be classed as public open space, I arranged for this disposal to be advertised in accordance with section 1-2-3 of the local government act 1972 for two weeks in a local newspaper. Whilst one request for information was obtained there were no objections or observations received. This means that we did carry out public consultation. In February 2024 a request was received that the documentation to be completed earlier due to the retirement of the director of Black Wall part limited at the end of that month. There was concern that new directors may cause further delay and could reopen negotiations. It would also be beneficial for the council to complete the transaction this financial year. To achieve this it would not be possible to give the maximum 28 days notice on the forward plan of this key decision. The chair of overview and scrutiny was notified of the intention to use the general exception procedure and notice of the making of the decision was published on the 15th of February 2024. The intention was that the decision should be made on the 22nd of February for implementation if there was no calling on the 1st of March. This was clearly communicated to the chair of ONS and again no request was received that this decision should be made by the executive. In addition to consulting with the lead councillor who was fully briefed throughout I also consulted with section 1-5-1 officer and ward councillors as was required under my delegated authority. The relevant ward councillors were invited to site visits and I met with them to discuss the deal. Given the small size of this piece of land I considered that the relevant ward councillors were those who would be impacted by any future development namely Shalford and Wurpaulston Morves. Although the majority of the strip falls within Westbury Ward it cannot be said that there is any impact on this ward given the nature of the land. As there was some delay in receipt of the section 1-2-3 valuation I was not able to make the decision until the 29th of February 2024. In making the decision I considered all the options available to the council including those matters which had been negotiated over the years. Those included not selling the land this would not be a good use of the council's resources as the land had been retained as a ransom strip and to be obtained best consideration. This would also not support the local plan. Selling the land to someone else was the second option. There is no one else that would be interested in buying this land as it would have no value to them. Third option was waiting until planning position had been granted. This does not benefit the council as under the current arrangement we received the option fee whether or not any future development takes place. It would also make it more risky for any developer submitting a planning application and therefore would not support the local plan. Option 4 was selling the land now. This would not enable the council to obtain best value although there were attempts to negotiate this it was too risky for the developer. Option 5 was entering into an option agreement so that the developer can purchase the land at a future date. This secures an immediate receipt for the council and allows us to obtain best value. Thank you. You can go with me Chair if that's my colleagues whether they wanted to add anything given what was discussed earlier. I don't know if it would assist if I covered off some of the points raised in relation to the constitution or whether you're satisfied with the statement that's being given. Yes please if you've got extra information that's so beautiful. So in considering this decision Dawn was aware of all of the provisions that have been mentioned in relation to the constitution and have particular care to the making of such an important decision including discussing it with both myself and actively reviewing whether or not this should be a decision that was taken by Dawn under her delegated authority. It should be noted and Dawn quoted at the beginning of her statement the delegation that is made to her whether or not this is a key decision this is a delegation that has been made to the officer involved and that includes when it's a key decision. So given this was a key decision Dawn was also aware of any other factors that's around this and in particular you've been referred to the access to information, procedure rules and rules 22.3. This was a decision that relates to an incredibly small piece of land which has been retained by the council in order to obtain a ransom and best value. So this decision was related to obtaining best value for that piece of land which can be demonstrated through the valuation process which Dawn has obtained and which is covered in her delegated authority. The delegation only applies if she has obtained best consideration. If that's not been obtained then she cannot dispose of it under the delegation. So I would say that 22.3 A has been so C has been covered in that this was a matter that was rooting enough to be covered by the delegations that had been given to her. It was not something that was in consideration of the other matters which do have some political connotation in respect to the area of natural outstanding natural beauty. This decision doesn't relate to that, doesn't prevent any other decisions being made in respect to that and has no impact. So Dawn quite rightly having considered all of those points and the guidance within the constitution made the decision that she should proceed under the delegations as discussed with executive. Thank you. Okay, I open up to the committee. The committee have any questions to ask the student director and open up to the wider debate. Any questions? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've come along tonight as a substitute because I want to sort of stick my tunnels within here and these are the subjects I've discussed with Tom before anyway, so he knows my phrasing is about it. I must say I must draw issue with the way that this land is being described. It is not a small piece of land, it's a pure ransom strip. We were dealing with it when we were the administration between 2015 and 2019. We were doing a deal with the university at that time. I think the figure around that time was about 10 million pounds. That was as we were thrown out in 2019 or not reelected whichever way you look at it. The negotiation was taken over by a prominent member of the RGs and it sort of locked up as I can understand it. Nothing seems to have happened in that four years until May 2023. What I do find strange is that I think I'm the only specialist property counselor. I've been in property 60 years and 50 of those years have been in Gilbert. I find it astonishing that as I was here I let it cost nothing to consult me. Nobody would come to me and actually talk to me about the history of this site. There's a lot of history. It is not a small piece of land. It's being misdescribed. It also was not a sewer. That is completely wrong and the reason I know that is in my earlier days when I was very much reactive in the town I spent a lot of time in the Chief Executive's office and at that time it was David Watts who created this and I was always negotiating with David Watts and arguing. While I was in his office Monday something like 20-30 years ago whatever it was he told me that he had created this ransom strip. There are two reasons why he created this ransom strip but nobody seems to be mentioning that. What's been happening is that you've picked up what it is and it is part of the family's silver this is for the buyer. It's a very very valuable asset. It's not a small piece of land. It's a ransom strip of a major development site for something potentially as approved in the plan of 2000 residential units plus industrial and business units and all that so it's not a small piece of land. It's a sort of a disposal that most certainly should have been at least at the executive and probably full council and there were two reasons this ransom strip was created. One was to make the council money which we've just discussed and dawns read out the process she's gone through but it was all so and this was certainly David Watts' language if you like. To control the planning situation it was a lever to control the planning so that the council could be involved in how this site was developed and that was the other reason and nobody's mentioned that. Councillor DAVIS, sorry do you have something about the decision making process? This is the part I'm coming to that. So you know what I'm really saying is and we had a briefing the other day on solar panels on this site I don't even know if the solar panels we get our cut of the action on the solar panels so as far as the process is concerned I find it astonishing that the DA that came around which talked about a small piece of land it didn't even put in there that this is the much discussed ransom strip and for some days my colleague and I here thought this was another piece of land it didn't even say the DA was so poorly drafted and not only did it not ever plan with it it didn't even have a description with it so you know we were somewhat misled for quite a time so as far as the process is concerned I don't think this piece of land has been dealt with properly I'm impressed with Council other than Councillor Young was what they've been saying but I think this should most definitely go to the executive so that the good souls of Guilford who really own this and there's a lot of money at Staker the good souls of Guilford should know what's happening to their land and there's also a lot of people very very interested in the planning potential and what this unlocks and how this will now happen so it's a major decision and it should not have been taken on delegating authority in my opinion thanks Miss Jim obviously all games of planning access is like lots of responses to the other Councillors I don't know if it would help if I could just set out the history to the land I have the conveyance here and it was clear you conveyed to the Council for the construction of some sewers that were to be 12 inches in a sectional diameter and that set out very clearly in the 1937 transfer it was then appropriated when it became clear that it was no longer required for those purposes it was then appropriated for planning and development purposes to be held as a ransom strip and we have minutes to that effect so the history behind this is that it was bought by the Council originally to em in relation to highway's construction to construct a sewer thank you Councillor King thank you chair my my question is mercifully short can I please ask Dawn could you please clarify again the area that we're talking about here did you say 0.086 hectares is that right or did I miss hear you yes I did 0.086 hectares okay thank you so if I just come back on another couple of points if that's okay um reference has been made twice now um to the uh so the farm planning application that is in a separate piece of land has absolutely nothing to do with the ransom strip decision and it would be inappropriate to to discuss that because that's a decision for the LPA and the other thing I was just going to come back and I forgot to say it earlier into one of the other Councillors points of view was about states versus Cambridge the deal that we have agreed with the university is based on the states versus Cambridge model so I hope that that gives some comfort as well. Councillor Hoeff speaks thank you chair I think I was just going to pick up on what Dawn has just said that there's been some figures banded around a little bit here 10 million 30 million and presumably at the time there may have been a value associated with without amount but the presumably the agreement was not made and so we're now talking about the current market rate but one question I do want to ask is really in response to Councillor Oven um and I hesitate a little bit for fear I might get out well it's obvious isn't it is the decision is important I'd just like to better understand Councillor Oven's thought on why is it important because the decision is the key to the blackwell farm development can I just add one more thing there's an intriguing thing this just seems this deal is done on Stokes v Cambridge which I don't argue with as a principal which is the third of the uplift but what that does it brings the Council into straight conflict with itself because now the Council is interested in the maximum development on this site and the maximum value so the Council has got a financial interest and it's cutting straight across the planning process and I'll just answer this point here about the sewer correct it was a sewer originally but it was appropriated as a ransom strip when it was no longer a sewer so any chat about the sewer he's completely misunderstood you know that was the original 1937 situation it became a ransom strip somewhat later and as I say I remember David Watts creating it and a ransom strip it's it's bonkers to talk about a rent strip on the size of it it is a pencil line on a on a plan that's all a tarantula ever is okay that's all it is it don't don't get bogged down with the size and because it's small an officer can make that decision it should be made by Councillors on behalf of of the population of this barra go through your members first then my members to respond that's all could I just come back on the point about which the council has an interest now in the planning application these are separate processes that is a position that the council finds itself in on a fairly regular basis and it's legislated for and we have processes and procedures in place to deal with those circumstances and those processes when we get to any planning application will be followed and this decision itself that planning application isn't relevant to and in actual fact this decision that has been made as Dawn has said we get a receipt whether or not any planning application is forthcoming at all so we have a receipt now and then a receipt again in the future if the option is exercised and the transfer of the land takes place could I just come back on the conflict of interest point as well I mean I think it's really important to differentiate between the big and actual conflict of interest and the potential conflict of interest and I absolutely I don't disagree there's a potential conflict of interest we as Claire said we deal with this all the time and it's the reason that the regeneration team absolutely do not get involved in planning matters and why the planning team absolutely do not get involved in matters like this for the sale of a piece of land there is clear blue water between both sides of the council and therefore no conflict of interest briefly briefly sorry Tom thank you very much of course I love Chinese wars and they often get kicked over there's I um there is every conflict I'm sorry to say because you will now be in a situation where when the planning application is made the council will want to maximize its value and the way to maximize its value is to maximize the development on it which will please which will not please an awful lot of people and as far as money is concerned there is a payment I gather a down payment I think it's one million pounds and that you know if nothing happens that's what the council gets it's something like that which is about one tenth of the figure we were getting in 2019 so you know I just wonder what the heck's been going on so there's an awfully big numbers flying around here and of great interest to to the bummer Tom did you want to make the last word map because it's kind of straying off the the point of the meetings aren't it only that um the the planning application is completely separate to this decision and therefore I'm sorry I disagree that that clearly it will be great to the council get as much money as possible from this ransom strip but it's not going to influence the planning decision that there is no conflict of interest thank you Tom Dominic thank you chair um I don't know if it's possible so I'd like to ask the officer and chair and if we can do this with sake of clarification for the committee and people here present are we allowed to show the field plan of type of type the title plan which shows the actual strip can we show this on the screen as we're talking about the strip through you chair I've got a electronic version of that but you we also have this if you join the team to meeting now if you join the team's meeting and then we can share your screen and if they let you chair would you like me to join the meeting and share a plan sorry bear with you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you should now be able to see a copy of the title plan and you will see the marks on it where it says it's only one foot wide so it is it is very well described as being a pencil line you'll see the markation all the way down have been one foot wide and it's the length which obviously brings this to the naught point naught eight six to naught point one nine two estimation that we've given it no I just think it's important to show the clarification to the size when we're talking about what is at and what is what is claiming so I want we'll just think it's good for everyone to be clear on what we're talking about here and as we've said anything to do with planning is decided on an application basis and goes under all planning rules so this is not about a planning decision cuts worth price and we're just trying to get up on the decision notice um I know we say all the time that planning is separate but I think it's said in the decision notice to facilitate the development of well farm I mean you can't make a decision and say it's nothing to do with planning if you then say it's facilitating a planning application you know there's there's a bit of a fine line we're walking here um so yeah yeah not not that one so it's like me saying it's a bridge too far yeah um so so that's my first point is that you can't separate the two if you've said in the key decision that it facilitates a planning application so that was my first point um the second one is is that maybe we wouldn't have been here we would have had more of an opportunity to discuss things if we'd had the briefings so I'd really like to know you know why the briefings were cancelled and who cancelled them because when counselors have been promised a briefing on something to then not have it and have the decision made without counselors being told that you know can have more things bought to this committee if that sort of thing carries on and then my other issue is more around um the the constitution if you like I know that we've had a short crash course in the constitution this evening but there seems to be two conflicting things here that um Dawn was saying that um it's to do with the size and it's very small piece of land it might be a very small piece of land but it's a very important piece of land um so the decision can be taken um Dawn is saying that the decision can be taken because the piece of land is small and that therefore gives her the right to make the decision on the other hand there are other things defining when the decision is to be made by the executive or can be delegated and those things are the value of the land um it's you know that whether or not there's a strong public interest and it seems to me that those two things are directly in conflicts with each other here so which one overwalls the other one because you know it's our constitution if we've got a conflict in there we need to fix it somehow thank you see Dawn let's respond to that please thank you um i'll deal with the briefings first um the 28th of February briefing i'm not aware of any briefing the university came in to talk to the executive about the solar farm there was no discussion about Blackwell Park at that meeting and the second briefing of the 12th of March which was canceled was canceled because the calling um was triggered before that date and we knew we were going to be debating it here um and so we were officers were focusing on coming here and being prepared to answer the questions i think it's worth noting at this point that um the details of the deal not not the process and the mechanism for it but the actual monetary details of the deal are extremely commercially sensitive and would not be shared in public anyway and we actually went back to the universities today to ask them would they be happy for us to share the financial details and they said absolutely not even when the contract signed they they consider it to be totally commercially sensitive and then on the third point about what the DA says the DA says that um for uh to purchase us to allow the university purchase a small parcel of council owned land necessary to enable development of Blackwell Park Blackwell Park is a strategic site allocated in our local plan and the council has an obligation to work to try and bring those sites forward to meet our housing need so that's i don't think that's a conflict it's what we we have to do we work with all the strategic site owners to try and bring them forward sorry when i when i put up my hand um the discussion of size was still going on um i just want to i really think the size is irrelevant because it's a ransom strip a ransom strip can be up to 15 centimetres it doesn't matter how big it is it's the key to the development which is critical so it could be you know 15 centimetres wide but it doesn't matter it's the point is is you're giving the keys to that development um so i mean i've just googled the purpose of a ransom strip and i'm still want to get to to basic with it but uh it's um to make a profit on the if you land in the future so the land next the ransom strip to grant a planning permission for development it will not be able to be developed developed without crossing the or acquiring the ransom strip so the point is is it doesn't matter what size it is as long as it's blocking that development that's the value of that ransom strip so personally i don't think that the size is relevant for this debate um a question i had was i struggled to see why we aren't just taking this to the executive um what's the my question is a sort of what's the risk in just taking this to the executive uh you know whenever they have an emergency meeting what's the harm in just letting a political official political politician that's the word i'm looking for um vote on it thank you thanks my dear let's respond to that sorry i think maybe if i can help by responding um i think the point is that this has been um a decision that has been on the cards for a very long period of time it's been consulted on with the executive through executive briefings on numerous occasions they were well aware that it dawn was taking this decision um using her delegated authority that had been set out that has been given to her via constitution they were well aware that she'd been considering um her duties under constitution in making those decisions and therefore we felt comfortable that this was a decision and that didn't need to go to the executive and had they felt that it did they could have indicated at any point during the numerous consultations and briefings that have been with them including on the 31st of january where there was an executive briefing and they were given an update on where where we were and again no one indicated so it's not a case that this is a decision that we've tried to avoid taking to executive it's simply a case that having considered all of the relevant factors it wasn't considered necessary to take it to the executive yeah i think my question probably was better directed at tom for why why they felt it wasn't necessary i can understand from your point of view and you've explained that quite well in your intro but i think from the executive's point of view so we talked about it and um i had a conversation with claire and and dawn and we talked about it decided that based on the reading of the constitution we it was not necessary to take it to the to the executive it could be done um under delegated authority and and because the university had asked us to progress it uh by by the end of end of february um that that seemed the most appropriate route um if if if it goes to the executive well i don't think we can refer to the executive from here um we can either refer it back to the original decision maker uh but but let's let's cross that bridge a little bit later on i think the underlying issue is transparency um it might have been the executive briefings but no one else had an insight i think that's where a lot of the problem this lies um oh sorry i didn't answer to my third point which was we've seemed to have two conflicting things here in the constitution about whether or not this is a decision that should have been made um or whether or not it should have been gone gone to the executive then anyway please let's just clarify yes thank you through you chair um there are various provisions in the constitution i will be giving some guidance to the committee in in a short while where i will direct you to some other provisions as well i don't think there's a conflict or such i think it's more of a balancing act that there are considerations that a decision maker must take into account and they must balance those different considerations and come to apply their own judgment and come to a conclusion as to whether or not to exercise their delegated authority so i don't see it so much as a conflict in the constitution i think there are various different provisions that need to be balanced against each other thank you Susan Jason thanks chair um two questions for dawn uh the first is on the um option agreement signature payment um can we have an actual figure um given to us on that um and then the second is on uh the actual tender process was it actually put out the tender to anyone else because a smart investor would see the local plan and see the potential of the ransom strip and um just trying to see if we can get best value for money for this thanks um so on the option payment no i'm afraid we can't disclose the actual figures um at this point especially as the contract hasn't been signed um a receipt will come into the council at some point um and that will be reflected in the council's financial reporting for the first payment um no we didn't put it out to tender because that's that isn't a process we'd go through for a land sale and there was only one special purchase so i let Claire answer that actually very well sorry going out to tender is a process that we could consider for a land sale um but in accordance with our land and asset disposal policy um it wouldn't be the right cause of action for this particular piece of land and getting best value um a someone as you were saying an investor would only be really willing to offer more for it if they thought there was more value in it and i think we're quite satisfied that the council having had an independent valuation has achieved that absolute best value um for it and we would be wanting to get that best value for ourselves rather than selling it to an investor so in accordance with the asset disposal policy um the sale is made to a particular individual who has an interest in this particular piece of land um which is provided for i can't quote the paragraph off the top of my head but i can certainly um find it for you if you want me to refer you to it thank you any more questions or comments from committee members thank you chair um so just one point i was going to bring up before i start my question um i was making a factual point there just to make sure that we understand the fact of the size i did not mention the value of it and with that determining the value i mentioned the size as it had been hinted that it was somewhat larger than it was and it wasn't what it was so i'm making a factual comment on that thank you um so my questions um could you you did touch upon upon this um i think um what would be the financial implications of delaying the decision um and would that affect um taxpayer's money basically because we need best value on this i understand there are a number of factors that would come into play if we delayed the the decision until um that will park limited have an option agreement that's agreed with us they they won't come forward for planning and that site is an extremely important strategic site for this council and delivery of homes 40 percent of which you know should be affordable so that the biggest implication is that we've that site's allocated for around 1800 homes and it wouldn't be able to come forward unless the deal was done on on the ransom strip um notwithstanding that's the process for the LPA and the decision-making on that will be through the LPA and i think you know we're all very aware um which is not here tonight um but i think Richard Lucas is so who you might want to answer but you know we're all aware of the council's financial situation and being able to bring in uh what potentially is a significant capital we see to this council um i think time is of the essence thank you and um because i think it's relevant to this point did you say it has been um by the inspector this part already was not what you said that's been assessed um within the local plan by the inspector yes so it's in the adopted strategic sites yeah in the local plan 2019 yeah that area house yeah thank you apologies chair could i just come back on that point in relation to the land property um and and property disposals policy and guidance it's paragraph 8.6 um which deals with if land is to be sold by private sale without being marketed then the reasons should be recorded in writing which um they obviously have been um and then it goes on at B to set out um well there's a number of reasons but in particular B the nature of the council's land ownership and that of the surrounding land ownership is such that the land must be sold to adjoining or surrounding land owners if best consideration is to be achieved and see the council's corporate objectives and best consideration can best be achieved by sale to a particular purchaser um so those considerations were um in accordance with the policy thank you any more from could we turn this council repoff just very quickly was anyone outside the executive consulted as in any other councilor the ward councilors were and they had a site visit as well okay any more for move on thank you chair um so the reason for this call-in is because um the petitioners i'm not sure another word to put it out my colleagues and fellow councilors said that decisions were need to be made in accordance with the presumption in favor of openness and they felt that there was a breach to this um presumption so my question is i'm not sure who i'm directing it to to be fair what else does the decision-taker need to do in order to ensure that the decision is taken with openness if we because if we if we recommend that the decision needs to go back to the decision-taker for example what more can that person do i think the committee could um potentially send it back to the decision-maker with advice that it goes to executive which then opened a public forum where other councilors could have input i think the issue with this is that backbench council apart from the ward councilors have another say in it i think that's where correct me if i'm wrong that's where a lot of this stem trauma james if i if i may that's the king first sorry thank you but we're isn't our problem that we are questioning the process and where was the process followed correctly and so far i don't see that the process wasn't followed correctly because what sorry i just wanted to answer councilor king's point a little there for my own practical experience um before i was a counselor when things important things went to executive it's possible for members of the public to come and speak um which they haven't had an opportunity to do here really i mean yes we might have put an advert in a paper that not very many people read and that's subject to a different discussion how we advertise these things but if you if it gets referred back to the executive then there's an opportunity for members of the public to um present their point of view which so far they haven't had councilor king but i'm still not clear that the process hasn't been followed properly i think it has been followed properly but is my point any other committee members want to add to that all we can further comments that's very powerful it's just it's a small point in that you know process it's not like you know the computer says no it's not like a it's how you interpret well interpret it's a silly word but you know at any stage the executive could have called it into the executive if they wanted to um so that it could be in the public domain and the public could come in and speak on it um for whatever reason obviously you've decided not to but you can bring things to the executive like you said at any point so the process i suppose has gone to the letter but has it been i don't know followed correctly as in you know how should the executive be called in is this a significant enough from my point of view i would say this is significant enough from the executive point of view maybe they don't but i think for me that's the question is this is this significant enough to have gone to the executive and my opinion yes but i think the issue is that the process is flawed isn't it i mean everything was flooded through the line nobody's culprit for anything that's gone on it's all gone through but put something in the sorry advertiser how many people you're sorry advertiser and it's a kind of more of a political decision i think about this somebody should have looked at this i think a lot of people are interested in this a lot of people want to have a say in it let's open up to public they kind of say and then move on make decision i think that's the issue and it's that's that it's the process is flawed and that's something we as council can look at in a separate forum corporate governance and i think we probably should um but that's uh another day i think right any other comments from the committee members on that before we move to dawn for a final sum sum up in discussion in other words i appreciate all the questions actually tonight and the debate i think you know it's it's quite healthy to do this um i am you know still maintain that and thank you for all your comments to say that you know process was followed um and i don't really have anything else to i because i think the questions have been really good and thanks to my colleagues for ensuring them really helpfully with me um i that's all i wanted to say really thank you thank you pat or if i've any any comments then inclusion following discussion well councillor king says the process has been properly followed um all i can say is i've tried to point out that in my view it hadn't been followed and it's not simply given a gut feeling i've gone through the various parts of the constitution that are relevant i've tried to explain simply as i possibly can on something of such complexity as to why in my view it has not been followed essentially it's a value judgment some of us may think one thing some may think another but i think i've put forward an argument in my view a coherent argument as to why the procedure has not been properly followed or not followed in its entirety one thing i would also like to know um and i appreciate that the solar farm is irrelevant to this but i'm just interested to know whether any part of the road that is going to access the solar farm or indeed the um cable which is going to take a very circuitous route from the farm to the university whether either of those are going to cross the ranssen strip at any point yeah this is i'm sorry councillor it's not relevant for the discussion tonight that's for another forum but that's yeah councillor did you want to follow up as well i most certainly do thank you James um and i think what you've just said is in essence some of the issues about this decision in that whether it's part of the process or not if we had had a briefing and had been able to ask some of these questions all of us would have had that clarity that we so desperately want whether we're back venture or whatever you know um and you know i won't i don't want to get into an argument about it i absolutely wrote down that the timing of that meeting on Wednesday the 28th of February had been extended to include a discussion on the ranssen strip a briefing um so i'm going to stand by that um i can't check it because obviously once you accept these meetings they go into your calendar and you don't see the description so anyway but that that's a small point we are where we are because we haven't had a briefing about this and you know whether it could have been done through the group leaders so that every political party that makes up this council had the opportunity to be briefed by their leaders i don't know what the answer is to that um i'm with councillor oven i don't well i do feel strongly about lots of things i'm sure you all know thank you um i just have a really strong feeling when i first saw that decision and and emailed you to have a chat over the weekend that this should have been taken in a different way whether you say it's related or not to the planning application coming forward for blackwell farm at the end of the day it specifically says to enable that development and i understand as a council we have to look across the borough and we do need housing and we need the strategic sites and everything but but this should have been more public in my mind and given that we're under a lot of scrutiny for a lot of other things from the public this is one that i feel should be more in the public domain thank you thank you force uh committee decides what to do next is to go to season two our five-view legal issues yes thank you chair um i just thought it might be helpful if i take you through some of the constitutional provisions and the purpose and the role of this type of calling before an overview and scrutiny committee so the starting point i would say is article eight of the constitution which sets out the terms of reference of the overview and scrutiny committee and i think it might be worth just focusing our minds on what the terms of reference are it says the work of the overview and scrutiny committee should focus on the council's principles practice procedures and performance rather than politics and personalities and should act in a con as a constructive critical friend's challenge those terms of reference are supplemented by the procedure rules which have been quoted this evening by a councilor of them and in particular paragraph 16 of the overview and scrutiny procedure rules provide you with your power to call in decisions and it is a key decision by an officer that you're calling in this evening and there are four grounds upon which you can call a matter in those have been quoted to you and one is relied on in the papers before you tonight which is that the decision is not in accordance with the decision-making principle set out in the constitution that's the grounds for the call in that was deemed to trigger tonight's meeting councilor oven has also made reference to another ground which is that all the relevant facts have not been taken into account and or properly assessed just like to pause on that one for a moment if i may that all the relevant facts have not been taken into account the addition to that provision would be and that no irrelevant facts are taken into account in a decision there's been quite a lot of discussion tonight about the local plan about development potential that's not a relevant fact for the purpose of this meeting you are considering the decision that was made by dawn to grant the option so nothing to do with the development nothing to do with any planning application which is not before the council and not not something for you to be able to call in and consider this evening so i think that leaves you with the ground that the decision is not in accordance with the decision-making principles as set out in the constitution and if i could just take you to those decision-making principles which are set out in article 14 they are proportionality so the action must be proportionate to the desired outcome and i think you've heard some information this evening that is relevant to that one that dawn has set out why her decision is proportionate to the outcome the council was trying to achieve due consultation and the taking of professional advice from officers you've also heard the seedling about consultation with board members consultation with the lead counselor consultation or more than one occasion with the entire executive through executive briefings and consultation with the public through the section 123 notice respect for human rights a presumption in favor of openness which i will come back to clarity of aims and desired outcomes and providing information on the options considered and giving reasons for the decision taken i think a few relevant points here are taking professional advice from officers you've heard both counsel hunt and dawn say that they took legal advice from the deputy monitoring officer as to whether it was appropriate for this decision to be made by an officer or not and they acted in accordance with the advice given and the report does set out other options that have been considered and dawn has justified why she chose the option that she did this evening before the committee as well i then just wanted to take you to the scheme of delegations and a reminder that the scheme of delegations is of course a document approved by full counsel it is a set of authorities or powers that are given to others normally officers some of them come from counsel where it's a council matter many of them come from the executive where it's an executive decision that's being made our scheme of delegations at gilford borough council includes powers that would amount to key decisions as so there has been reference uh by council robin about the fact that this is a key decision there is nothing to preclude an officer making a key decision in fact ask him a delegations is designed to empower officers to make decisions some key some not key some with limitations others with not so that key decision issue does does not in any way prevent an officer from making a decision um if i could take you to the relevant uh delegation that was relied upon this is in the scheme of delegations under delegations to the joint strategic director perplace it says in consultation with the appropriate lead counselor and subject to being satisfied that the council will receive best consideration reasonably obtainable to sell land and buildings up to 0.2 hectares in area following consultation with the chief finance officer and ward counsellors and in compliance with the land and property disposal policy so committee has heard um discussion about uh the relevance of the size of the piece of land uh the size is relevant in terms of the exercise of the delegation because this council has delegated to the strategic director the power to make decisions up to a certain hectare of land i would like to point out that consultation did take place with the chief finance officer you've heard tonight evidence that it was taken the decision was taken in compliance with the land and property disposal policy and that the director is satisfied as to best consideration being reasonably obtained and that there has been consultation with the lead counsellor i would also point out that the scheme of delegations without it the council would not function would not operate at all it's an essential document to empower officers this particular delegation is to one of the most senior officers within the council it would be open to a council when awarding delegations to put limitations on them the council's chosen not to put any limitations on this other than those consultation provisions that have been complied with um i then just wanted to uh take you to some of the principles around the exercise of delegations um so councillor oven made reference to the access to information rules and that provision that an officer should consider uh the significance and importance um of a decision before deciding whether to make it themselves or not we've heard evidence from dawn that she did consider that and indeed took professional advice upon it if i could just take you to the scheme of delegations paragraph nine of the officer scheme of delegations provides that the executive could have made this decision um dawn undertook consultation with the deputy leader and with the whole of the executive through executive briefing they didn't at any time indicate that they wanted to retain that decision themselves so by implication i think the officer is encouraged or supported to uh consider that she she is um appropriate in exercising her delegation paragraph 11b of the scheme of delegations says that an officer should exercise their delegations so as to promote the efficient effective and economic running of the council and in furtherance of the council's visions and values and i think again you've heard evidence this evening that the officer in making the decision was promoting the council's visions and values was acting in accordance with the local plan um and uh yeah um paragraph three a of the scheme of delegations also says that uh delegation should be exercised in accordance with the council's policies again this was in accordance with the local plan and the scheme provides that an officer should consult with local ward counselors appropriately to ensure there's appropriate consultation and information exchange and uh the constitution implies that that is sufficient reasonable and proportionate and again dawn did do that um paragraph 17 provides that if a counselor who is consulted in respect of an officer decision disagrees with the proposed decision to be taken the matter should be referred to the leader or executive for agreement to exercise the delegation uh it wasn't just the executive that was consulted in this matter it was also the ward counselors and none of them in response to such consultation uh disagreed with the proposal or asked for the matter to be referred to the leader or executive for a decision um so i think there is significant evidence that the officer was a within their powers in making this decision but b acting appropriately and exercising their delegation i also just wanted to uh touch on the um openness and transparency in terms of the key decision process so we have um legislation the executive arrangements regulations 2012 set out the provisions for openness and transparency around executive decisions they provide that where a decision is key i.e over 200 thousand pounds or affects two or more wards which were in agreement this is a key decision that where it is a key decision it should be on the forward plan which is published in the public domain for 28 days before the decision is taken the purpose of that legislation is to give notice to the public and to all counselors that a decision is about to be made it's the opportunity for the public or other counselors to engage with the decision-making process to contact the decision-maker proactively if they want to in this particular case there were good reasons why that 28 days wasn't satisfied there is a provision that that can be reduced to five days again that's a legal provision where the law supports the fact that that is sufficient transparency and openness to publish something on the forward plan for five days it's subject to uh the consent of the chair of overview and scrutiny which was given and in actual fact in this case i think the matter was on the forward plan for 14 days in the end before the decision was making in any event that is public consultation in effect that is the opportunity for the public and all other counselors to engage with the decision that has been made so i would say that is the opportunity for for openness having been satisfied there is also a reference to the fact that the counselor briefing didn't take place i completely appreciate that an all counselor briefing is helpful and it's good practice it's a good means of communicating but i would just reinforce the fact that it's not a requirement in terms of an officer exercising their decision-making function and so i hope that's helpful for the committee to to draw your attention to the provisions of the constitution and to focus your mind on what it is that you're here to decide this evening but i think you you must decide firstly whether you think the decision has been made appropriately by the officer and secondly whether you would want the officer to review the decision with any advice from the committee or not thank you thank you Susan that's really useful i think that justifies the committee to sort of bear that mind when we make our next decision um so on the decision you got two options on we can three if you if anyone wants to pose on but on page eight section two we can endorse the decision or not refer the matter back to decision-maker which case decision shall take effect immediately just um or we can not support the proposed decision and refer it back to decision-maker for reconsideration with such comment and advice as the committee deemed appropriate um may i reply on a point of order it's very brief i don't dispute at all that key decisions can be delegated i think i made that clear in my in my address what i tried also though to make clear is that when key decisions are delegated that brings into play a whole raft of other rules and in particular paragraph 22 stop three and i quoted at some length paragraph 22 3d which i thought was of particular pertinent to this but also paragraph c and e so i say i don't dispute that it can be it can be delegated but there are checks and balances to cover the officer's decision when such decisions are delegated and those rules in particular the three that i've mentioned come into play thank you through you chair um the access to information procedure was clearly relevant uh the one that we have already discussed this evening is whether this decision was sufficiently important and sensitive so that a reasonable member of the public would expect it to be taken by the executive i would say there that we do need to bear in mind the narrow nature of this decision so we're not talking about the local plan we're not talking about any planning decisions we are talking about this decision that was made and not going any wider than that would a reasonable member of the public expect it to be taken by the executive i don't know i do think you have to consider that in the context of the scheme of delegations which is there and designed to empower officers to take these types of decisions with the safeguarding being in consultation with relevant counselors um council rather than also referred to 223B whether the proposed executive decision is merely administrative and with only a remote connection to an executive function it is highly unlikely that a strategic director would be making an officer decision which is merely administrative so the scheme of delegations is designed to empower senior officers to make significant decisions and 223E whether the proposed executive decision is one which affects only particular individuals as opposed to the public generally the point i would make there is that if it was a decision which only affects particular individuals it wouldn't be key for the reasons of it affecting two or more wards significant impact on two or more wards so any key decision that's affecting two wards uh it is not in accordance with that provision in any event which is the case in respect to this decision i just clarify i didn't refer to 223B at all i referred to 223D and then um c and d i didn't mention b at all i didn't think it was relevant okay apologies council riven but c is also talking about decisions that are so minor or routine rather than a administrative minor or routine but i think the point stands that a strategic director is not really there to make minor or routine decisions and the council has afforded such delegated authority to senior officers through the scheme of delegations clear sorry can i um just add to what Susan said 22.3 sets out principles that officers need to take into regard when they're making decisions so it says officers contemplating a decision in connection with an executive function shall have careful regard to the following principles in deciding how this should be taken um it doesn't say what you should do in relation to each of those points it's pointing out that these are the matters that you should be thinking about um when you're taking a decision and of course that needs to be put into the context of everything else that Susan has said in relation to our scheme of delegation and in relation to this particular decision the fact that it was taken to exact briefings as well so the whole thing needs to be looked at in a round these are not rules in and of themselves that if it meets one of these criteria um it should go to executive they're things that the officer should have in their mind at any point that they're making a decision key or otherwise and i think chair if i can just come back on council wife Price's point earlier in that she was perceiving a conflict in the constitution i think it is exactly that point that there are many considerations throughout the constitution that have to be balanced and taken into account when an officer decides what to do that doesn't necessarily mean that there is a conflict in our rules thank you get back to the committee the decision what two decisions that pros are third i think um it's off the top of head but um whether we charge the corporate governance committee to look into the process point and delegation key decisions and to assess whether a review is required um in particular around the consultation process it's just a way of perhaps tightening things up for everyone um if you want to do that then we can work on the wording and share off what's and ask them to do that i think that'd be something positive about this if it's possible chair that's absolutely possible but if i could just point out that the joint constitution review group is due to receive um a revised scheme of officer delegations in due course which once they've considered that will be referred to um the corporate governance and standards committee for consideration anyway okay scotch at them okay you got the has anyone got any a third um option Richard quickly uh thank you chair i just wanted to ask whether there's anything about consideration of a call in uh that precludes the comments from other counselors that are normally taken um at this stage of proceedings of the committee Richard look could you clarify what you mean please Kate and its chair um non-members of the committee who are counselors have been invited to comment has been as i understood at normal practice um i just wondered whether there was anything special this evening that meant that you were not actually following that practice that's trying to keep the meeting tight we've got the five uh non-creative members introducing it was just a as my discretionary but maybe future i could lessening be a bit more uh malleable on that on that note Howard did you have your hand up briefly please sorry no i was just going to repeat make make the same point just a slight moment that we haven't had an opportunity to contribute to the debate earlier i did have some questions there those moments pass now but uh but thank you for referring to us at the end thank you okay the two decisions um on page as i said page eight section two the first one is endorsed the decision or not to refer the matter-based decision maker in which case decisions shall take effect immediately have a show of hands on that please yes or endorse 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 thank you the second one not to support this the process it position and refer it back to decision maker for reconsideration with such comment and advice as a committee deems appropriate show of hands please thank you the first recommendation is carried just like to thank everyone for attending today thanks it's a dawn clear and energy for attending and Susan's fear of us as well it's much appreciated um there are quite a few issues there and there's some things to look at i think going forward but thank you Call the mister close. [BLANK_AUDIO]
Summary
The council meeting focused on the decision to sell a small parcel of council-owned land, known as a ransom strip, to facilitate the development of Blackwell Park. The decision, made by an officer under delegated authority, was called into question and discussed extensively, particularly regarding the transparency and appropriateness of the decision-making process.
Decision: Endorsement of the Officer's Decision The committee endorsed the officer's decision to sell the ransom strip to Blackwell Park Limited. Arguments supporting the decision highlighted adherence to procedural rules, consultation with relevant parties, and alignment with the council's strategic objectives. Opponents argued the decision lacked transparency and public involvement, suggesting it should have been handled by the executive due to its significance. The endorsement implies acceptance of the officer's judgment and the processes followed, reinforcing the delegated authority framework.
Interesting Occurrence: During the meeting, there was a notable focus on the size and strategic importance of the land in question, with some members arguing that its small size did not diminish its potential impact on large-scale development plans. This underscored the complexities involved in municipal land transactions and the varying perceptions of what constitutes a significant decision.
Attendees
No attendees have been recorded for this meeting.
Topics
No topics have been identified for this meeting yet.
Meeting Documents
Additional Documents