Agenda item

Submission of business strategy in accordance with paragraph 4.3 of Part 1 to Schedule 1 of the S106 agreement dated 14th March 2018

 

Minutes:

Councillor White had previously declared that, with regards to Planning Application 16/00671/FUL & 16/00656/FUL, he is the Ward Councillor for this item and has declared himself as predetermined on all other applications regarding this, he  therefore withdrew from the meeting whilst the Committee deliberated and reached it decision. Councillor Heaney therefore Chaired the meeting for this item only.

 

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of refusal.

 

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Head of Planning (CB) in respect of the business strategy.

 

An update sheet was circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of:

 

(1)       Updated recommendations.

(2)       A letter received from joint Chairs of the Trust confirming the business strategy has been prepared with the involvement of the Trust.

(3)       A letter from St Osyth Priory Estate Limited confirming the Sargeant family have permission to prepare and submit a business strategy on their behalf.

(4)       A letter was emailed to Councillors by Tim Sargeant outlining issues of a business and local economic nature and also providing comments on the officer’s recommendation to Committee.

(5)       A letter was emailed to all Councillors (12/03/2019) by Tim Sargeant making further comments about the content of the business strategy and the report to Planning Committee.

(6)       Appendices page numbers and Appendix 5 table reproduced as partially missing from the agenda.

 

 

Sonia Grantham, a representative for the owner St Osyth Priory Estate Limited and member of the St Osyth Priory & Parish Trust,spoke in support of the business plan submitted.

 

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Baker, seconded by Councillor McWilliams and RESOLVED that the Head of Planning (or equivalent authorised officer) be authorised to refuse approval of the submitted business strategy, for the following reasons:-

 

1. The Business Strategy contains neither realistic nor viable proposals to secure the restoration of the Additional Listed Buildings (specified in the Section 106 Agreement) within the relevant 10 year period and therefore has not shown it can deliver on its essential aim under the Agreement.

 

2. This is because it is reliant upon enabling development proposals of unidentified scale and location justified by reference to a claimed Conservation Deficit of a minimum of £26M which is only partly related to the restoration of the Part 3 Buildings. Further, the scale of enabling development and / or public subsidy inherent in this approach appears out of proportion to the public benefits secured and would be unlikely ever to be sanctioned. It is therefore an approach which is neither realistic nor viable in practice.

 

The Council’s proposed alternative strategy:

 

3. As has been consistently maintained by the Council in meetings throughout 2018, the approach of this submitted Business Plan should be discarded in favour of a pragmatic, bespoke Business Plan which excises all references to estate-wide Conservation Deficits and focuses on grants, loans or enabling development directed at addressing the needs of the individual Part 3 Buildings or groups of those buildings on a case by case basis.

 

Further proposals for enabling development for restoration of Part 3 Buildings in line with the Business Strategy must contain detail of the specific heritage asset(s) that would benefit and the proposed development site. This must include a viability appraisal for the heritage asset(s) concerned that has:

·         An up to date condition survey for the heritage asset(s).

·         An assessment of options for the Part 3 Buildings, in the context of the agreed strategy for the estate (appended to the Colliers Report at Appx.1), including options for spatial layout. Options should include a minimum cost option to make the asset(s) safe over the medium term. The assessment of options should involve, as a minimum, a business planner, conservation architect and quantity surveyor.

·         Drawings for the preferred option.

·         Costs of the options, verified by the quantity surveyor, and including professional fees, project management and enabling and infrastructure works.

·         An estimate of income that will be generated, both from the asset itself and from other incremental income to the site resulting from it.

·         An estimate of the true conservation deficit in respect of the relevant Part 3 Building(s), if the heritage asset(s) has income generating potential. This should not include a current market value because assets that have a conservation deficit should not have market value. Any development profit should reflect genuine financial risk taken in restoring the heritage assets concerned. Financial risk is related to the amount of equity contributed and/or security provided for loans.

 

4. Authority is delegated to the Corporate Director for Planning and Regeneration and Head of Planning Services to liaise with the Owners to reasonably request that the submitted Business Strategy be amended to reflect the Council’s proposed alternative strategy.

 

5. Authority is delegated to the Corporate Director for Planning and Regeneration and Head of Planning Services in consultation with the Council’s external consultants to approve or reject, within the context of this decision, any further Business Strategy submitted by the Owners; and

 

6. Officers are instructed to refer any matters remaining in dispute in relation to a submitted Business Strategy for Dispute Resolution in accordance with clause 5.1 of the Legal Agreement to ensure that any matters of disagreement can be determined by an independent expert, to minimise any further delay for the benefit of the restoration of the Part 3 buildings.

 

 

 

Supporting documents: