Agenda item

Report C/19/12 recommends the acceptance of two bids to deliver the Biggins Wood development.

Report C/19/12 recommended the acceptance of two bids to deliver the Biggins Wood development.

Andy Jarrett, Chief Strategic Development Officer gave a presentation to members which is attached to these minutes for information. He also advised that additional confidential information was available for members to scrutinise, should they wish to go into a private closed session due to the information being commercially sensitive.

This provided members with the background explaining that with no movement on the site the Council chose to acquire the land in 2016. The site benefited from planning permission for 77 houses and commercial use of the site.

There are a number of constraints on the site particularly that of land contamination which requires remediation. It is also proposed that there will be acoustic barriers between the proposed commercial development and housing development.

Mr Jarrett informed that following adverts in Estates Gazette various offers had come forward and these are shown within the attached papers.

The development would meet the Councils aims of providing more home and jobs and would include 23 affordable houses.

Members paid particular attention to the following:

·         Site risk –  site is considered risky and further information on risk mitigation is required

·         Transparency – there is a desire to be more transparent, recognising the information that could be provided to members is commercially sensitive

·         Housing – That there is no additional housing other than the 77 granted under the existing permission as it is already very close to existing residential properties

·         Additional costs/joint venture – the joint venture is in respect of the commercial part of the site and any additional costs would be the council’s responsibility on land on the site for use as gardens and landscaping

·         Information – members felt that in the public papers there was little detail for them to discuss

·         Financial implications – members would have liked more detail on this. recognising it was commercially sensitive

·         Contamination – members were advised that advice had been sought from specialists in that field and that contamination costs were expected to be covered by the Homes England Grant

·         Company information – further information relating to the companies in discussions would have made it easier for members to understand the recommendations made by officers

·         Audit process – a copy of this will be provided to members following the meeting

·         Risks – this was a very risky project and more information needed to come back to scrutiny so that an opinion could be given in public.

Mr Jarrett made it clear to members that this was a joint venture which is a good proposal and meets the Councils objectives and aspirations for the site. Members were reminded that if they have specific questions or lines of enquiry, advance notice to officers listed at the end of the report would allow for necessary information to be given.

Proposed by Councillor Peter Gane

Seconded by Councillor Tim Prater and

Resolved: That no additional housing, other than the 77 proposed in the planning application be put onto the site.

(Voting: For 4; Against 0; Abstentions 4)

Officers advised the Committee that there was additional information that could be made available to members for discussion but as this was commercially sensitive would be required to be presented as an exclusion of the public item and would therefore need a vote to do so.

Councillor Patricia Rolfe proposed to request that members go into a private session but as there was no seconder this fell.

The Committee therefore made it clear it did not wish to go into private discussions.

Proposed by Councillor Lesley Whybrow

Seconded by Councillor Laura Davison and

Resolved: A very risk project, more information needs to come back to the Overview & Scrutiny Committee so that an opinion can be given in public. 

(Voting: For 7; Against 1; Abstentions 0)