Basingstoke & Dean Borough Council Cabinet Meeting

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

There were no urgent matters.

In response to comment from Councillor McCormick regarding minute 70/22 regarding reasonable rent and actions to address empty retail units, the Leader of the Council stated there was no agreed action to provide a response and the minutes were an accurate reflection of the discussion at the meeting.

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 February 2023 were confirmed as an accurate record and signed by the Chair.

Cabinet considered the following motion referred from Council on 23 February 2023:

Full Council notes:

·           A cost-of-living crisis is affecting families across Basingstoke & Deane, with inflation currently running at over 10%. Parents are struggling to afford school uniforms and lunches for their children.

·           In 2021 the government passed the Education (Guidance about Cost of School Uniforms) Act which mandates schools to “consider the costs of school uniform requirements, minimise branded items, and ensure items are available from suppliers which have evidenced their value for money”.

·           Across Basingstoke, many schools still expect and require pupils to buy branded uniform items, which are often significantly more expensive than unbranded alternatives.

·           Across Hampshire County Council, the number of pupils eligible for free school meals has increased from 6.3% to 11.9% in the last four years.

·           In 2018, the Conservative government reduced the free school meal annual eligibility income from £16,190 to £7,400

Full council believes:

·           No family should struggle to provide the basics, such as school uniforms and food, for their children.

·           There is no justification for school uniform policies that require families to purchase branded items that are significantly more expensive than unbranded alternatives.

·           No child should be adversely affected by poverty of their right to a decent education and the opportunity to achieve their potential

Full council resolves to:

·           Ask the cabinet to work with our Hampshire County Council partners to ensure all Basingstoke schools comply with the Education (Guidance about Cost of School Uniforms) Act.

·           Ask the council leader to write to the Minister of State for Education to review the eligibility criteria for free school meals, including those below the poverty line, defined as 60% of the current median household income of £31,400.

·           Ask the council leader to write to the remaining MPs for the Basingstoke & Deane area to lobby the Minister of State for Education and their government on this issue.

·           To place on record our thanks to all council services, community organisations and charities involved in supporting families of Basingstoke & Deane through the cost-of-living crisis and beyond.

Visiting speaker, Councillor Lee, the mover of the motion addressed the meeting.  He urged Cabinet to fulfil the requests as set out in the motion.  He referred to not just the benefit of reducing hunger among children but the economic benefits of providing free schools meals for all school age children such as better academic performance and better school attendance resulting in better exam results and higher earning potential.  He added that providing free school meals would benefit those living in poverty and on low incomes.  He further referred Cabinet to the findings of PwC and concluded that the provision of free school meals to all school age children was not only a moral imperative but would have significant economic benefits that could improve the lives of individuals and society as a whole.

Resolved:     Cabinet agree to commit to the actions as set out in the motion.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Property presented a report which proposed governance changes relating to two principal Manydown corporate vehicles, MGC LLP and MDV LLP, as a result of staff changes and aligning the governance between MDV LLP and MGC LLP. In addition, changes for reasons of efficiency were proposed to the authorised signing of documents on behalf of MGC LLP and MGC LLP as a member of MDV LLP and to the requirements for members’ meetings.

Resolved: To

1.     Approve the updates to the Member Representatives and substitutes for MGC LLP and MDV LLP as set out in paragraph 2.2, 2.3 and 2.8. of the report.

2.     Approve the proposed revisions to the MGC LLP Members’ Agreement and Delegation Policy and authority be given to Project Director Manydown and Chief Operating Officer MGC LLP in consultation with the Executive Director for Corporate Services and Assets and Head of Legal and Governance and Monitoring Officer to finalise the terms of the long form Members’ Agreement and Delegation Policy.

3.     Approve the appointment of Attorneys for MGC LLP and MGC LLP as a Member of MDV LLP as set out in paragraph 2.13. of the report.

Cabinet received a report which provided the forecast 2022/23 outturn position for capital spend at 31 December 2022 and a comparison of current expenditure against the 2022/23 quarter three capital scheme budget profile.

Visiting speaker, Councillor McCormick, referred to the slippage related to the Manydown North scheme and asked when the slippage was anticipated.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Property responded that the budget was set 9 months ago and at that time capital provision needed to be made that could be drawn down appropriately in the event that the drawdown could be achieved.  The drawdown had taken longer and recognised at quarter 3 hence the amendment rather than waiting until the end of the year.

Resolved: To note:

1.     The forecast capital expenditure for 2022/23 of £23.867M which is £23.097M (49.18%) less than the latest approved budget at 31 December 2022 for the capital programme. Of this reported variance, £18.097M, or 78.35%, relates to slippage on the Manydown North scheme.

2.     That the Capital Programme update approved by Council subsequently in February 2023 update the programme to take account of these variances.

3.     The 2022/23 significant outturn forecast variations, and explanations for them, are shown in section 4 of the report.

4.     The quarter three forecasts and the impact of scheme variances for 2022/23 on future years’ capital expenditure were reported to Council in February 2023.

5.     The capital programme budget for 2022/23 has been profiled to show the period when the budget will be spent, so that progress on scheme delivery may be monitored more closely. Profiled budgets by Council Plan Priority and capital scheme are shown in section 5 and Appendix 2 of the report.

6.     That expenditure to date against the quarter three profiled budget shows overall net slippage of £3.669M.

7.     The latest forecast of capital receipts, grants and contributions for 2022/23 in section 6 of the report.

8.     The risks associated with the capital forecasts are as detailed in section 9 of the report.

9.     The latest approved capital programme for 2022/23 to 2025/26 and associated financing as shown in section 7 of the report and detailed in Appendix 1 of the report.

10.  The capital programme remains fully funded from the council’s own resources up to 2025/26, based on the latest forecast of available resources.

Cabinet received a report which set out the financial position for the third quarter of the financial year 2022/23 as at 31 December 2022.  The report was set out to provide the financial position and variances from budget in line with the council plan priorities reflecting how the budget was agreed. 

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Property summarised the report highlighting an underspend of £50k whilst absorbing increased staff costs resulting from the local government pay award agreed across England. Interest rates rose higher than expected and were forecast to add £1.46M to the council’s income.  The Cost of Living Assistance Fund was close to being fully allocated and a new scheme would be launched in April to help residents struggling with the rising cost of living.    He added that property rental income had stabilised as collection returned to pre-pandemic levels and there had been an increase in credits as a result of bigger recycling tonnages. He was also pleased that at a time of increased living costs it has been possible to make a one-off payment of £300 to officers.

Resolved: To note:

1.     The financial position for quarter 3 of 2022/23 and the forecast for the financial year as set out in paragraph 2 of the report is an underspend of £0.05M;

2.     Budget virements amounting to £0.02M were processed during the third quarter, as summarised in section 5 of the report.

3.     The 2022/23 savings position is as detailed in section 8 of the report.

4.     The risks associated with the revenue forecasts are detailed in section 9 of the report.

Cabinet considered a report which set out the objectives of the Annual Property Plan 2023/24 implementing the plans from the Strategic Asset Management Plan approved by council in February 2022.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Property provided a summary of the report and highlighted work undertaken to review rents and lease re-gears, increased footfall in the Malls, and the sale of Mountbatten House.

Resolved: To approve the Annual Property Plan 2023/24.

Cabinet considered a report concerning 24 Swan Street which had been identified as an underperforming property held in the council’s investment portfolio which did not fit into the council’s Property Investment Strategy 2022/23 to 2026/27. This is against a background of voids and the need for undertaken works in the future. The report recommended the disposal of the property.  The building repairs, if the property was retained, in its existing state were likely to be extensive and amount to £0.20M over the next 5 years.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Property highlighted an amendment to paragraph 7.8 of the report to remove reference to state aid and an updated appendix 4. 

He stated the council had responsibilities that extended beyond financial to the social, economic and wellbeing of communities, therefore it was right that the council respond positively to the local community who had successfully applied for the property to be registered as an Asset of Community Value, which had the support of the parish council and borough ward councillors.  Having visited the property and met with existing tenants, he recognised the importance of the property and car parking facilities to the community and the imaginative plans to make it an even more useful community facility.  He recommended sale of the property, within a 6 month period, to Kingsclere Performing Arts and Youth Centre (PAYC) at a discounted price to be agreed.

Visiting speakers, Hannah Horton, Eira Tonkings, Councillor Morrow and Councillor Rhatigan addressed the meeting.

Hannah Horton referred to the further education and dance school based at the property at Swan Street.  Should the arrangement to transfer the community asset to PAYC be agreed plans were in place to create an enhanced facility for young people.  She added that the property housed more than a dance school, it was a base for a performing arts college which prepared students for a career in performing arts.  She added that it was an important employment base with over 230 students and 20 professional staff.  The aim of the community interest company (CIC) was to develop the property as a performing arts facility, a permanent base for the youth club, a café that supported the facility and accommodation for Kingsclere’s food bank. She also highlighted the importance to the community of the parking facilities.  She requested the council to support a community asset transfer with the maximum discount possible.  She did not feel that the 6 month period to conclude the transfer was sufficient to enable funds to be raised through grant funding.

Eira Tonkings, an owner of two businesses based at 24 Swan Street stated that the uncertainty of the future of the property had impacted detrimentally on her businesses and they were having to look for new premises.  She was disappointed that the council were disposing of the property due to the impact on the dance school and felt the council did not support small local businesses.  She considered the sale of the property would result in the loss of her businesses.

Councillor Morrow raised concern regarding what he considered to be the shameful handling of the disposal of 24 Swan Street, the failure to consult with the tenants, the lack of understanding of the facilities and activities at the property and the years of stress and uncertainty that the tenants had been subjected to.  He commended Ian Bowes on his service to the community to prevent the sale of the property and successfully apply for Asset of Community Value status.  He added that Cabinet could choose to take the risk and uncertainty out of the disposal of the property and make a promise that 24 Swan Street would not be put back on the market for a second time.  He also referred to the lack of a Community Asset Transfer policy and considered that the proposal for a moratorium period of 6 months for the CIC to make an acceptable offer and conclude a sale was the minimum that could be offered and was not sufficient time as the CIC had not yet been able to apply for grants as they had not been set a target. He further referred to the support from the community to save the property and the social and economic value that it brought to the community.  The future KPAYC plans strongly align with the recent council plan and council policies enhancing Kingsclere as a place to live.  He requested that Cabinet support the proposal to sell 24 Swan Street to the KPAYC CIC and consider arrangements to allow some respite for the tenants, who had been under a constant threat of losing the home to their business, for over two years.

Councillor Rhatigan supported the potential disposal of the property at a discounted rate.  He acknowledged the concerns and uncertainty for the dance school and tenants.  He added that the potential disposal had been known for a couple of years but felt that the timescale to agree a sale was appropriate and the disposal needed to move forward.  He felt more needed to be done to support the CIC to secure grants to fund the purchase to ensure the community asset was something to be proud of in the future.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Property responded to the comments.  He was impressed by the work of the performing arts school and felt the proposal would provide security for that activity.  He expressed sympathy for the tenants but stated the council had a responsibility to best manage its property and assets, however the proposal would provide an opportunity for the existing tenants to continue to occupy the building and provide some security.  He expressed surprise at the critical comments made by Councillor Morrow and stated that the disposal of Swan Street had been known by the occupiers of the building and felt that consideration had been given to the representations put forward which had resulted in the proposal under consideration which would enable the valuable community facilities to continue in the future.

Cabinet discussed the proposal.  In response to a question regarding the lease arrangements and obligation of the council regarding repairs to the grade 2 listed building, it was clarified that if a long lease was agreed, repair responsibilities would normally rest with the CIC.

Resolved: To

1.     Approve the disposal of 24 Swan Street.

2.     Agree to offer the long leasehold interest of the property to the CIC and negotiate an appropriate discount off the Section 123 valuation figure to reflect economic benefits.

3.     Delegate authority to the Head of Property Services to serve notice upon the council as registration authority of intention to dispose of 24 Swan Street which is an Asset of Community Value.

4.     Delegate authority to the Executive Director of Corporate Services & Assets (Section 151 Officer) to:

a.    Agree a potential offer from the Kingsclere Performing Arts Community Interest Company at a discount below market value. Any discount to take account of the social benefits weighted against wider council policies.

b.    In the event of the sale not being complete in a six-month period from a decision to sell to dispose of the property in the open market at market value.

Cabinet considered a report which recommended an in principle agreement, to support the long leasehold sale of the Basingstoke Golf Centre to Great Wolf Resorts (GWR), to enable the development of a new regional indoor waterpark resort with a 500 room hotel, conferencing facilities and ancillary leisure and food and beverage uses to help realise the priorities in the Council Plan.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Property introduced the report.  He considered the proposal could be transformative for the borough and fully supported the recommendation to agree the long leasehold sale of the land to GWR.  He recognised it had not been possible to carry out advanced communication with residents due to the commercial sensitivities of the proposal but engagement with councillors and residents would take place in due course.  He considered the proposal would bring huge investment and benefits to the borough such as a hotel, conference facilities, good quality jobs, training and career opportunities in the hospitality sector and access to a range of leisure facilities for residents.  He added that the proposal would enhance attracting business to the Leisure Park.

Visiting speakers were invited to address the meeting.

Jack Miller, Chair of Basingstoke Town Football Club referred to a quote from the Leader of the Council at a previous Cabinet meeting regarding the future home of the club.  He refuted comments that the club’s ambition was to take over Winklebury football complex.  He acknowledged that discussions had been held with several parties in the borough regarding replacement facilities but at no point had pinpointed any individual site other than the Leisure Park as a long term solution.  He added that upgrades to the Winklebury complex stadium to enable a single promotion were unlikely to reach the minimum 3,000 capacity target needed for levels above and would leave the club league locked. At a meeting with Council officers, the club reiterated its plans for a replacement home for the football club and had made it clear that the Leisure Park was the single target of its business plan which would be forthcoming.  He was clear that the Camrose had not been replaced and they would continue to fight for a like for like replacement home of their own that the town deserved.  He invited the Leader of the Council to retract his comments previously made.

Councillor Harvey referred to various other past and present major projects, the issues encountered with partners and whether lessons had been learned from past mistakes.  He was concerned that the GWR proposal was another project with a single investor and commented that due diligence and scrutiny of the scope of the deal was vital.  He raised questions regarding how local people would be able to access the resort, affordability for local people, build quality of the buildings and how it would impact on the Leisure Park.  He suggested more detail needed to be provided to understand what was being offered and it must be more than merely a commercial deal.

Councillor Jones commented that he considered that the proposed site was not a suitable location for the scheme as the land was situated between three housing estates with the railway line through one of the estates.  He considered the noise level would be an issue and felt that the pitch and putt was popular and affordable for families where other golf facilities in the borough were more expensive.  He added he would be supportive of the scheme in a different location.

Councillor McCormick questioned the short timescale between the publicity of the proposal and the decision to be made by Cabinet.  He was also concerned that the proposal was from a single bidder and the impact of the development competing with facilities on the Leisure Park and what it would mean for the redevelopment of the Aquadrome.  He further questioned the open market value of the land, which other golf clubs would offer driving range facilities and how much would they cost.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Property referred to the negative comments made.  He was content that GWR was a well-financed, well-intentioned investor and he welcomed their interest in the borough.  He added there was a significant amount of work still to be discussed such as lease arrangements, scope of the deal, access for local residents, good quality environmentally friendly buildings and access to golf facilities for residents.  He added the proposal would bring £275 million investment to the borough, good quality jobs and attract visitors to the borough. 

The Leader of the Council acknowledged the concerns raised regarding a single investor but considered that GWR had families and communities at the heart of their business and testimonies from Mayors in North America supported the delivery of schemes and socio-economic value to their communities as promised by GWR.

Referring to the comments made by Jack Miller he was surprised at the comment made as his recollection of the conversation differed as he felt that the fundamental attributes of the meeting in September were a pitch for a level of support for the club to take over the running of the Winklebury football complex.  He added that narratives and messaging from the club had been inconsistent in the past.  The Council would be supportive of a clear, well-articulated, consistent ambition for the football club, with a plan that could be achieved by working together.

Cabinet resolved that due to the confidential nature of the information to be discussed, by virtue of paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting.

Visiting speaker, Councillor Lee addressed the meeting.

On resumption of the meeting the Leader of the Council confirmed that Cabinet had discussed the confidential appendices in the report.

Resolved: To agree

1.     In principle to support the long leasehold sale of Basingstoke Golf Centre to GWR at Market Value upon the basis that the development of a GWR resort would be a regional draw, supporting growth, attracting visitors and bringing economic benefits to the town and wider borough.

2.     That any disposal is subject to:-

·         Satisfactory Planning Permission being granted for the development of the Golf Course by Great Wolf as a leisure resort (classes C1, E(d) F2(c) and F2(d)) or sui generis

·         Agreement of Heads of Terms

·         An approved strategy to support the re-provision of equivalent golf facilities

·         Notice of intention to dispose of the public open space being published in a newspaper circulating within the borough for a two-week period and consideration of any objections (by Cabinet)

·         The imposition of restrictive covenant in favour of the council’s adjoining land at the Leisure Park requiring that the land is not to be used other than as a leisure resort

·         A satisfactory s123 valuation to show that the long leasehold sale is at open market value

3.     That authority be delegated to the Executive Director of Resident Services and Regeneration to agree the Heads of Terms for the long leasehold sale of the Golf Centre.