Zorro
reproduces the full set of minutes here.
Towards the end of the minutes are the various recorded votes taken on the
various elements of the proposal to sell off the Knowle. There is also a record
of the voting on an amendment to put off a decision until the first Council
meeting after the 7 May District Council election.
On both the amendment and the various votes on the
proposals there is a consistent set of 36/37 Councillors who are determined to
sell off the Knowle, whilst there is a consistent 12/13 Councillors who oppose
the proposition.
If you want to consider whether to vote for a
particular Councillor in the forthcoming District Council election have a look
at how they voted at the meeting. If you oppose how the Conservative majority
group on the District Council have behaved over this and other key local issues
have a look at East Devon Alliance’s website http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/
where details about it and the
candidates that it is supporting are set out.
Equally, if you want to get an Independent MP next
time check out Claire Wright’s website and details http://www.claire-wright.org/.
It’s time for change! It’s time for challenge!
East
Devon District Council – Minutes of Council meeting held on 25 March 2015
3.
Office relocation
Minute 59
The proposals for relocation of its offices from
Knowle, Sidmouth had been considered by Cabinet at its meeting on 11 March 2015
and by the combined meeting of the Audit & Governance and Overview &
Scrutiny Committees on 12 March 2015. The recommendations from Cabinet
had been supported at the combined meeting, the only amendment (from the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee) being an additional recommendation in respect
of the proposed land transfer of the Knowle parkland to Sidmouth Town Council.
The recommendations from both of these meetings were set out in full on the
agenda.
Although present, the Leader was unwell and
therefore the Deputy Leader presented this item on his behalf.
In presenting this item, Councillor Andrew
Moulding, Strategic Development and Partnerships Portfolio Holder and Deputy
Leader said that East Devon had been considering the office relocation
carefully and in detail through a variety of options for several years.
Throughout that time, the consistent finding has been that the Knowle was not
the location for a cost effective or operationally successful local government
function and the Council needed to look to the future to provide and deliver
the best possible services to all of the people of East Devon. He referred to a
site visit to the purpose built offices of West Dorset. These gave an excellent
example of effective modern ways of working.
He reminded Councillors that at the Council meeting
in December 2014 two things had been made clear and accepted, namely to
continue to make progress and engage independent testing of the process,
the financial modelling and the assumptions in the project. The numbers
had been subject to detailed modelling developed with Grant Thornton, the
Council’s external auditors. In addition, SWAP, the Council’s internal
auditors had assessed the project’s processes and governance in place. The
independently tested modelling had given a comparison between the dual-site
option and remaining at Knowle.
Councillor Moulding said that the findings had been
supported by Cabinet and the combined meeting of Audit and Governance and
Overview and Scrutiny committees; at both meetings, the internal and external
auditors had been present to be questioned on their work. A workshop had
subsequently been held for Councillors to further consider the financial
modelling, raise any concerns and ask questions of the Strategic Lead - Finance
and the Relocation Project Manager.
Councillor Moulding emphasised the cost savings
that would be achieved and highlighted key figures:
·
The Knowle Site offer price agreed is £7-8m
·
Exmouth Town Hall modernisation will cost in the
region of £1m
·
New Offices at Honiton will cost in the region of
£7m
·
The Council will secure relocation in total for
under £10m
Independently verified modelling of whole life
costs showed the following:
·
Comparing operational expenditure over 20 years
between Knowle and the twin site solution of Honiton and Exmouth, the twin
sites will save the Council £6m.
·
From day 1 of the move and thereafter in the new
and modernised offices the Council will be saving on operational expenditure
including repayment of borrowing; after 20 years the Council would have cleared
the debt.
·
To make the move to modern offices £2.1m of
long-term borrowing was needed - to stay at the Knowle and do
minimum repairs, £2.6m would need to be spent.
What that meant for the future was:
·
A Council that can deliver continued quality of
service, manage its operational costs and make best use of its assets.
·
New and modernised offices based in the heart of
the district and in the district’s most populace town with a guarantee of
availability of services in other towns as people need them.
·
A split site operation on land already owned by the
Council and sufficiently flexible for what the future might hold.
·
A new level of financial certainty for a Council
that is in control of its assets not in fear of unpredictable repair or running
costs.
·
A new asset for Sidmouth both in terms of 3.5 ha of
parkland for the Town Council to own as well as a high quality retirement and
independent living facility for a town that has a retired population nearly
three times the national average.
Councillor Moulding ended the presentation of the
proposals by advising that the recommendations for debate addressed a number of
actions toward relocation including:
·
The reassurance that auditors have given the
Council regarding the process, governance and modelling of this project.
·
The legal decision to appropriate and dispose of
the Knowle site for housing use.
·
The various actions and funding agreement that will
enable the move to happen including contract for sale of the Knowle and
agreeing the project budget for design and contracting of Honiton and Exmouth
offices.
·
In addition, Council would be tasking officers with
investigating whether Exmouth Town Hall modernisation could be brought forward
and negotiating the transfer of the extensive remaining Knowle Park to Sidmouth
Town Council.
The Chairman invited Councillor Ken Potter,
Chairman of Audit and Governance Committee to address the Council. Councillor
Potter advised that his Committee had been very much involved in the relocation
project over a long period of time. Meetings with auditors as part of the
process had been reassuring and as a result, the Audit and Governance Committee
had unanimously supported Cabinet’s recommendations.
The Chairman invited Councillor Tim Wood, Chairman
of Overview and Scrutiny Committee to address the Council. Councillor
Wood said that his Committee had scrutinised the figures and asked questions of
the auditors and relevant officers present to ensure that an in-depth analysis
was properly carried out into the proposals. All relevant information had been
made available for the Committee to make a decision on Cabinet’s
recommendations. An additional recommendation had been put forward by the
Committee – that as part of the negotiations with Sidmouth Town Council on land
transfer, a covenant is proposed to ensure that the land is not built on and
remains as public open space. He added that although the terrace area of the
parkland was included within the development site, there was every expectation
that the developer would incorporate this area within the design for the
benefit and enjoyment of the residents of the new development.
The Chairman invited Councillors to debate on the
recommendations set out in the agenda papers. Points raised included:
·
The driver for the move was not just that the
Knowle offices were old and deteriorating but that they were no longer suitable
for the Council operation.
·
Honiton was the geographical centre of the district
and Exmouth was the largest town – there were therefore logical reasons for the
twin-site approach.
·
The loss of jobs would have an adverse impact on
Sidmouth.
Councillor Graham Troman proposed that the newer
part of the Knowle building plus the Civic Suite (Chamber and Members’ Area) be
retained with the remainder of the old part of Knowle demolished. He said that
this, in addition to the refurbished Exmouth Town Hall, would be sufficient for
the Council’s needs. He asked for the suggestion to be costed.
The
proposal was:
‘That
any decision on the move be deferred to await a full and detailed report on an
alternative Knowle model, with this being prepared and reported in the first
cycle of meetings of the new Council.’
The amendment was seconded by Councillor Stuart
Hughes who questioned why the proposal had not been costed as requested. The
proposal would safeguard the jobs in Sidmouth. He referred to the motion
which he had proposed in December 2012 which had yet to be debated – ‘In the
light of the recommendation to abolish District Authorities in the Michael
Heseltine report ‘No Stone Unturned’, this Council puts on hold its Honiton
relocation plans until Government has ruled on the recommendations.’
Councillor Hughes said that he believed that
whichever Government was in power, that unitary government was likely within
7-8 years. If Devon County Council became a unitary authority, power would be
devolved to Sidmouth and a scaled down Knowle office building would probably
fit the bill. He said that the grass terraces in front of the current Knowle
offices were one of the finest features.
In response to the amendment, the following points
were made:
·
The proposal would be costly and would not generate
the essential capital receipt on which to base borrowing for the necessary
refurbishment.
·
Sidmouth Ward Councillors were accused of using
delaying tactics.
·
Knowle was too costly to maintain.
·
Unitary authorities were not the solution but if
such a reorganisation was to be carried out, the new authority would not be as
sympathetic and accommodating to the wishes of Sidmouth.
·
The amendment was not a practical solution.
·
The ‘newer’ part of the building was still out of
date and not suitable for modern working.
·
Staff would suffer in the chaos of the
refurbishment that would be required.
It was proposed and supported that a recorded vote
be taken on the amendment.
Those in favour – Susie Bond, Roger
Boote, Peter Burrows, Bob Buxton, Trevor Cope, Martin Gammell, Roger Giles,
Stuart Hughes, Ben Ingham, Sheila Kerridge, Peter Sullivan, Graham Troman,
Claire Wright. (13)
Those against – Graham Godbeer, Christine
Drew, Paul Diviaini, David Atkins, Ray Bloxham, Peter Bowden, David Chapman,
Maddy Chapman, Iain Chubb, David Cox, Deborah Custance Baker, Alan Dent, Vivien
Duval-Steer, Jill Elson, Pat Graham, Steve Hall, Peter Halse, Tony Howard,
Douglas Hull, John Humphreys, Stephanie Jones, David Key, Andrew Moulding,
Frances Newth, John O’Leary, Helen Parr, Geoff Pook, Ken Potter, Pauline Stott,
Brenda Taylor, Ian Thomas, Phil Twiss, Chris Wale, Mark Williamson, Tim Wood,
Steve Wragg, Tom Wright. (37)
Abstention – Mike Allen (1)
The amendment was lost. Councillors were
invited to continue to debate on the recommendations and made the following
additional points:
·
The Cabinet was a one-party group without
opposition.
·
The loss of local amenity was fundamental and
should not be supported.
·
The consultation carried out was not always
listened to or was not acted upon. It was not meaningful to carry out
consultation after a decision had been made.
·
There were mixed opinions in respect of the
adequacy of car parking for Exmouth Town Hall.
·
There were air quality issues at Honiton.
·
Other services used the Town Hall and needed to be
accommodated – this included the Citizen’s Advice presence.
·
The option to use the Town Hall as a twin site had
only arisen due to Devon County Council’s move from that site. The
Council had been flexible enough to take advantage of this opportunity.
·
Savings and improved mobile working would mean that
the Council would have a greater presence across the district.
·
The level of debt was a concern. There was a danger
that the Council would have to cut its services.
·
The contingency had been reduced from 20% to 15% on
advice from the auditors. The aim was to pay a lesser debt in a shorter time.
·
There was concern over the financial data and
measurements being used.
·
Overage and Heads of Terms had yet to be agreed.
What penalty clauses were in place should the new Council make a different
decision or if local government was reorganised?
·
The move would have a serious detrimental effect on
Sidmouth.
·
The economic impact on Sidmouth was overstated –
only about 80 EDDC staff lived in Sidmouth and were likely to continue to do
so. The new development with 100 residents would bring more revenue to
the town.
·
The state of the Knowle buildings was questioned –
an independent surveyor had not been allowed to undertake a survey.
·
The proposed relocation had not been included in
the 2011 manifestos and so the public had been denied the opportunity to
influence the decision through the ballot box.
·
Why had there not been a maintenance programme for
Knowle over the last 15 years so that it remained fit for purpose?
·
The Knowle site was not achieving its full market
value.
·
Knowle was not fit for disabled staff or visitors.
·
Doing nothing was not an option, the cost of
maintaining the Knowle would inevitably rise; cutting running costs would help
to protect services delivered to the public. The costs of remaining at Knowle
were greater than moving.
·
Having a professional and adaptable workplace would
mitigate the risk of change.
·
The decision was being made in the best interests
of all of the residents of East Devon – this was the Council’s duty.
·
The transfer of the majority of the parkland to
Sidmouth Town Council was a generous offer.
·
The Chief Executive had yet to have sight of an
application to register the Knowle grounds as an asset of community value.
In summing up Councillor Moulding highlighted the
following key points:
·
The parkland at Knowle would be retained for public
enjoyment.
·
The move was for the benefit of the wider district.
·
The economic impact was positive – the development
would add value to the town.
·
If the Knowle building had been maintained in the
last 4 years whilst the debate on relocation was on-going, this would have been
a waste of taxpayers’ money
·
If there was a reorganisation of local government,
the whole of the Knowle site would be sold off without the protections
currently in place for the benefit of Sidmouth.
·
Options had been fully explored but this work had
come at an inevitable cost.
·
The importance of access for disabled people had
been taken into account.
·
Parking at Exmouth Town Hall would be for visitors
and staff with a disability – other staff would park elsewhere.
·
£2.8M would be saved over 20 years compared with
£3.8M spend if the Council opted to stay at Knowle. This meant that the
Council would be in a position to spend the savings on service provision and
delivery.
He asked the Council to be brave and bold and make
the right decision that would benefit the town and district as a whole.
It was proposed and supported that a recorded vote
be taken on each proposal.
Proposal A – 1-3
Those in favour – Graham Godbeer,
Christine Drew, Paul Diviani, Mike Allen, David Atkins, Ray Bloxham, Peter
Bowden, David Chapman, Maddy Chapman, Iain Chubb, David Cox, Deborah Custance
Baker, Alan Dent, Vivien Duval-Steer, Jill Elson, Pat Graham, Steve Hall, Peter
Halse, Tony Howard, Douglas Hull, John Humphreys, Stephanie Jones, David Key,
Andrew Moulding, John O’Leary, Helen Parr, Geoff Pook, Ken Potter, Pauline
Stott, Brenda Taylor, Ian Thomas, Phil Twiss, Chris Wale, Mark Williamson, Tim
Wood, Steve Wragg, Tom Wright. (37)
Those against – Susie Bond, Peter
Burrows, Trevor Cope, Martin Gammell, Roger Giles, Stuart Hughes, Ben Ingham,
Sheila Kerridge, Frances Newth, Peter Sullivan, Graham Troman, Claire Wright.
(12)
Abstention – Bob Buxton (1)
Proposal B – 4-5 (subject to clarification that the
Knowle site referred to at B4 is that which is defined in the reports
submitted to Cabinet – namely the site included within the red line and
separate from the ground identified at C13)
Those in favour – Graham Godbeer, Christine Drew,
Paul Diviani, Mike Allen, David Atkins, Ray Bloxham, Peter Bowden, David
Chapman, Maddy Chapman, Iain Chubb, David Cox, Deborah Custance Baker, Alan
Dent, Vivien Duval-Steer, Jill Elson, Pat Graham, Steve Hall, Peter Halse, Tony
Howard, Douglas Hull, John Humphreys, Stephanie Jones, David Key, Andrew
Moulding, John O’Leary, Helen Parr, Geoff Pook, Ken Potter, Pauline Stott,
Brenda Taylor, Ian Thomas, Phil Twiss, Chris Wale, Mark Williamson, Tim Wood,
Steve Wragg, Tom Wright. (37)
Those against – Susie Bond, Peter
Burrows, Bob Buxton, Trevor Cope, Martin Gammell, Roger Giles, Stuart Hughes,
Ben Ingham, Sheila Kerridge, Frances Newth, Peter Sullivan, Graham Troman,
Claire Wright. (13)
Proposal C 6-14 (subject to an amendment proposed
by Councillor Geoff Pook and seconded by Councillor Phil Twiss that C11 be
amended to indicate the target of achieving a break-even position)
The Chief Executive gave assurance that delegated
authority to the Deputy Chief Executive to agree Heads of Terms and authority
to enter into contract for the sale of Knowle with conditions was based on the
price given in confidence to all Councillors. If there was any change to
this price, the Deputy Chief Executive would not have delegated authority and
the matter would have to be referred back to Cabinet – the Deputy Chief
Executive could not act outside his delegation.
Those in favour – Graham Godbeer,
Christine Drew, Paul Diviani, Mike Allen, David Atkins, Ray Bloxham, Peter
Bowden, David Chapman, Maddy Chapman, Iain Chubb, David Cox, Deborah Custance
Baker, Alan Dent, Vivien Duval-Steer, Jill Elson, Pat Graham, Steve Hall, Peter
Halse, Tony Howard, Douglas Hull, John Humphreys, Stephanie Jones, David Key,
Andrew Moulding, John O’Leary, Helen Parr, Geoff Pook, Ken Potter, Pauline
Stott, Brenda Taylor, Ian Thomas, Phil Twiss, Chris Wale, Mark Williamson, Tim
Wood, Steve Wragg, Tom Wright. (37)
Those against – Susie Bond, Peter
Burrows, Bob Buxton, Trevor Cope, Martin Gammell, Roger Giles, Stuart Hughes,
Ben Ingham, Sheila Kerridge, Frances Newth, Peter Sullivan, Graham Troman,
Claire Wright. (13)
RESOLVED:
A) that the following be agreed:
1.
the findings of the audit exercises conducted by
South West Audit Partnership and Grant Thornton in response to issues raised by
December 2014 Full Council and the conclusions set out therein be accepted.
2.
the analysis and conclusions on the financial basis
for relocating contained within the report be accepted
3.
On the basis of the valuation advice and price
offered, the Knowle site be disposed of as this would represent ‘best value’ in
accordance with the requirements of Section 123 of the Local Government Act
1972.
B) that the following be
approved:
4. the Knowle site (as defined in reports submitted
to Cabinet within the red line and excluding land identified at C13 below) is
no longer required for the purpose of public walks or as a pleasure ground
under the Public Health Act 1875.
5. On the basis that the land is no longer required
for those purposes to appropriate the Knowle site to housing purposes pursuant
to the powers contained in Section 122 of the Local Government Act 1972.
C) that the following be
approved:
6. To dispose of the Knowle site for housing /
extra care assisted living pursuant to Section 32 of the Housing Act 1985.
7. The Deputy Chief Executive – Development,
Regeneration and Partnership in consultation with the Office Accommodation
Executive Group be authorised to agree on behalf of EDDC appropriate Heads of
Terms with Pegasus Life Ltd.
8. Subject to agreeing the Heads of Terms the
Deputy Chief Executive – Development, Regeneration and Partnership be given
delegated authority to enter into contract for sale of the Knowle site conditional
upon subsequent satisfactory planning approval and such other matters as the
Service Lead (Legal and Democratic Services) may advise.
9. EDDC operations be located to Honiton and
Exmouth.
10. The Council to conduct consultation with
relevant and interested parties to ensure Best Value outcomes are addressed
within the relocation to Honiton and Exmouth.
11. A net project budget of £2,221,445 be noted and
agreed, (the target being to achieve a break even position), this being the
estimated cost for a new build office accommodation in Honiton (BREEAM very
good option) and for the modernisation of Exmouth Town Hall as identified in
the table in paragraph D5.6 (of the Cabinet and combined meeting report) less
the Capital Receipt for the Knowle. In addition, a budget of £900,630 is
required to meet loan interest costs relating to short term and long term
funding. Short term cash flow funding will be required totalling £9.2m to
meet design and build costs prior to receiving the sale proceeds of £7-8m from
the Knowle (financial risks are mitigated by Gateway 7 process detailed in the
report). Once the capital receipt is received, the balance of funding
required is £2.1m to be funded from a long-term loan over a 20-year period.
12. Officers investigate and progress the
opportunity to bring forward the refurbishment of Exmouth Town Hall and take
forward new offices in Honiton.
13. Commence detailed discussions on the Council’s
intention to transfer the retained 3.5196ha of Knowle parkland and the lower
car park to Sidmouth Town Council following disposal of the Knowle site and if
the principle is accepted by Sidmouth Town Council to progress such transfer
including compliance with the relevant statutory procedures for disposal of
open space.
14. As part of the negotiations with Sidmouth Town
Council on land transfer, a covenant be proposed to ensure that the land is not
built on and remains as public open space.
No comments:
Post a Comment