To hear questions from the public in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.9 to the Leader or other Members of the City Executive Board for which the required notice (1.00pm on Thursday 4^th October 2012) and the full wording of the question has been given to the Head of Law and Governance, and to hear responses from those Members.

Two questions were submitted by members of the public as follows:

(1)       Question to the Leader of the Council (Councillor Bob Price) from Mark Pitt

            Asset Management Plan 2011-2014

The following question (slightly amended) was submitted on 12/09/12 before the deadline, for a response at the CEB, but was not presented; therefore I must ask the same question to the Full Council.  

Agenda Item: Asset Management Plan 2011-2014

Under the Asset Management Plan, the precious Bury Knowle Barn and Stables with “high local heritage significance” has been granted planning permission at the East Area Planning Committee on 06/09/2012, (12/01605/CT3) for conversion into flats, destroying its heritage value, precluding any possibility of community use, and decreasing accessibility to Bury Knowle Park by increased parking pressure.

This is short sighted as a facility will be required in Bury Knowle in the coming years due to the additional 12,000 residents in Headington by 2026.

Can the Council please explain why this precious heritage asset with very strong community potential located in the busiest corner of BK Park has not been formally assessed prior to disposal as per stated in the AMP paragraph 3.2. “b. Supplemental Policy Objectives and “Community Groups and Asset Transfer” and “d. Heritage and Environment”?

Why isn’t there an AMP option to dispose of assets in sensitive, targeted ways where appropriate when the community can benefit?

Why does the Council believe the community criteria only apply to “Community Centres and Pavilions” and not heritage agricultural buildings in parks such as Bury Knowle barn and stables, Cheney barn and Headington Hill dairy?

Would it be possible to review AMP, freeze the disposal process, and consider sale to, for example, a community business such as café or club for the benefit of the surrounding community and Bury Knowle Park that would retain its precious internal heritage space?

Appendix 1 - Asset Management Plan Extract

“b. Community Groups and Asset Transfer

The Council is supportive of the content the ‘Quirk Report’ (Department for Communities and Local Government 2007) and the government’s response ‘Opening the Transfer Window’ (Department for Communities and Local Government 2007), which sets out the principles of Community Asset Transfer.

The Council considers that this will be mainly relevant to its Community Centres and Pavilions and therefore the strategy for these asset classes will have due regard to these principles.”

And:

“d. Heritage and Environment

The Council has significant land and building holdings in key parts of the city centre and elsewhere in the city. In some cases this property not only supports the Council in delivering its services or supporting its budgets but also, incidentally, it contributes to the historic and/or environmental fabric of the city. In managing and reviewing its property holdings the Council will be mindful of this, and where it considers that the historic or environmental fabric of the city may be prejudiced unless it continues its ownership, it will retain ownership.”

Response:The buildings that make up the formal Bury Knowle Stables and Barn have been surplus to the Council’s operational requirements for some years now.  As part of our strong focus on asset management within the Council over the last 3 years, we have sought to maximise the contribution that the Council’s land and buildings make to both the community and the financial resources of the Council.  

Our review of Depot premises in 2009/2010 resulted in this asset being declared surplus to operational requirements as depot accommodation.  This is due to both the location and nature of the accommodation not being fit for purpose. 

The disposal of the property has subsequently been delayed whilst a planning permission has been sought to demonstrate the best value that could be achieved for the building in the possible alternative use for housing.  A full and transparent marketing process will now be progressed which will draw out all potential uses for the buildings, which may include use as community space or alternatively the provision of much needed homes for the local community.

Unfortunately it is not possible to freeze the disposal although any community groups which are interested in purchasing the property are able to make an offer which will be assessed.

In terms of the heritage value of the buildings a formal heritage assessment has taken place and has informed the planning application. Officers from Corporate Property have worked closely with the heritage team to ensure that the nature of the building and its location in a Conservation area, have been respected.

It is also worth noting that the buildings are currently in a very bad state of repair and their very existence in the future will depend upon their conversion to a sustainable and viable use.

(2)       Question to the Leader of the Council (Councillor Bob Price) from Sietske Boele

            Constitutional changes regarding planning powers

At the last Full Council meeting a member of the public asked the Council to provide more details when and on what grounds the Council reached a decision to allow Members with executive powers to determine planning applications regarding land in which the council has an interest.  The answer which was provided to this question was incomplete indicating that the process was somewhat flawed.  Can you please provide me with the following information

(1)       Any documentation such as policy documents, minutes etc which recommend the reversal of the Council's policy from 2005 that Executive and Planning powers should be separated with regard to the determination of planning applications in which the Council has an interest

(2)       When was this decision taken and did this change in policy require an amendment to the Constitution if so when and on whose authority was the constitution amended.

Response: A question on this issue was asked at the July Council meeting by Diane Hutcheson.  This is the answer given -

The Council’s Constitution did earlier include, ....., a provision that members of the Executive could not sit on the SDCC. However, following clarification of the law in R (on the application of Lewis) V Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council in 2008 the restriction that was introduced in 2005 was, following that judgement, no longer necessary and the Constitution was accordingly amended.

The questioner asks for further details.  The decision to remove the provision was taken by full Council on 25 January 2010 (minute 80) in the context of a periodic Constitution review.  The reasons given for the removal were that the wording was superfluous (in the light of the Redcar case) and over-prescriptive.

The Redcar and Cleveland case has since been applied in a number of cases including Feeny v. Oxford City Council (2011) EWHC 2699 and this year by the Court of Appeal in Berky v Newport City Council (2012) EWCA Civ 378.

Council agreed to refer the question back to the Head of Law and Governance for confirmation.