Issue - meetings

A report summarising the position in relation to Horton Chapel and seeking agreement to a way forward to result in the disposal of the Chapel by the Council, either to an organisation for provision of a community facility, or on the open market.

The Committee:

(1)          Noted the position to date;

(2)          Authorised Officers, following consultation with the Chairman of the Strategy and Resources Committee, to finalise a pack of information to be available for anyone interested in putting forward a bid for the building: such pack to be available by the end of February 2016;

(3)          Agreed the allocation of funds as follows:

a)            Up to £450,000 to be available to any purchaser to be expended on the refurbishment and renovation of Horton Chapel;

b)            Up to a further £1 million to be available to any purchaser proposing a wholly community/charitable end use for the building;

c)            Any mixed use incorporating community/charitable uses and commercial use to be entitled to a sum between the above figures depending on the nature of the mix proposed, with the intention that it be limited to a sum up to £500,000 in addition to the sum at (a)

d)            Additional sums to be held at this point as a contingency and to meet the cost of all professional advice and assistance.

(4)          Agreed that bids be invited for community/charitable proposals to be submitted by the end of June 2016; and

(5)          Agreed that a further report be brought to the Committee at its meeting on 28 June 2016 to update on progress and to consider whether/when/how marketing for commercial bids should commence.

Note: Councillor Eber Kington left the meeting/Chamber and took no part in the debate or decision on this matter.

A report summarising the position in relation to Horton Chapel was presented to the Committee.  The report also sought agreement to a way forward with a view to the Council disposing of the Chapel either to an organisation for provision of a community facility or on the open market.

A revised set of recommendations were tabled by the Chairman for discussion.

A note setting out the background to how the Council acquired Horton Chapel and the numerous attempts to bring it back into use was set out in Annexe 1 to the report. In regard to the sum of money it was proposed to make available to any purchaser to expend on refurbishment and renovation, it was noted that various sums were held in accordance with previous decision and contractual obligations and it therefore it made sense to transfer these sums with the property.  In the intervening years, the Council had not expended significant sums on the building over and above what was required to facilitate bringing it back into use.  Using the earmarked funds would not be at the detriment to the Council’s financial position.

The following points were also noted:

·                     Community groups would have a period of up to 4 months to submit bids at which point a decision would be taken on whether or not any bids were viable, taking into account that bids may be dependent on external funding;

·                     The Council did not have the internal expertise to evaluate such bids and external assistance would be sought to agree objective evaluation criteria;

·                     There would be no public open day and the Chapel could not be used by the community in the interim for health and safety reasons. It was likely that the Council would engage an agent, as in the case of Downs House and supervised viewings would take place as part of this process;

·                     Bidding for lottery funding was not a competitive process and therefore there would be no conflict of interest in the Council supporting a bid submitted in relation to Horton Chapel and any bid in relation to Nonsuch Park.  In any event, there were various streams of lottery funding and it was unlikely that the bids would be made to the same fund;

·                     A small sum was being held back to cover the Council’s costs in facilitating the disposal of the Chapel.

Accordingly, the Committee:

(1)          Noted the position to date;

(2)          Authorised Officers, following consultation with the Chairman of the Strategy and Resources Committee, to finalise a pack of information to be available for anyone interested in putting forward a bid for the building: such pack to be available by the end of February 2016;

(3)          Agreed the allocation of funds as follows:

·                     Up to £450,000 to be available to any purchaser to be expended on the refurbishment and renovation of Horton Chapel;

·                     Up to a further £1 million to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65

A report summarising the position in relation to Horton Chapel and seeking agreement to a way forward to result in the disposal of the Chapel by the Council, either to an organisation for provision of a community facility, or on the open market.

The Committee:

·         Publically noted the position to date but excluded the press and public from the meeting for certain of its deliberations on the grounds that the nature of proceedings dealt with information relating to the financial or business affairs of the Council;

·         Did not authorise Officers to engage an agent to market the property for freehold disposal;

·         Did not authorise Officers to agree allocation of funds for the purposes off the marketing exercise;

·         Did not agree that the period for submission of bids be 4 months;

·         Requested that a report be brought back to the Strategy and Resources Committee in January 2016.

Note: In accordance with the Local Code of Conduct for Members, Councillor Kington declared a disclosable pecuniary interest as he owns a property in the vicinity of Horton Chapel.  He withdrew from the meeting during consideration of this item.

Note:  Councillor Eber Kington withdrew from the meeting during public consideration of this item and left the meeting following consideration of item 19 (Land at Fairview Road, Epsom).

The Committee received a report which summarised the position in relation to Horton Chapel.  The report further sought agreement to a way forward leading to the disposal of the property by the Council either to an organisation for the provision of a community facility or on the open market.

It was noted that a final decision on the Chapel’s future would not be possible until the issues which impacted on the property resulting from the Review of the Social Centres had been resolved.  However, it was not considered that this should prevent the marketing exercise from proceeding.

Officers considered that four months was a sufficient period for bids to be put together – this period could be extended if it was thought appropriate to do so further along the line.  It was recognised that community bids submitted might well be dependent on external funding and that would be something for members to consider when evaluating and deciding which bid, if any, to accept.

In response to concerns that community groups were being expected to compete against commercial organisations, it was reiterated that the Council had tried on a number of occasions since 2004 to achieve a purely community use for the building without success.  There had been a number of public consultations over the years and it was not disputed that the majority of people would like to see this building in community use.  However, the issue had always been that no financially viable plan had been put forward.  On balance, taking into account how the property market had changed since 2004, it was considered that the property should now be marketed so that all interested parties had the same opportunity to bid for the property.  It was intended to engage a property agent to market the property on the Council’s behalf, taking into consideration the most appropriate and cost effective means of doing so.

It was stressed that irrespective of whether the successful bid came from the community or commercial sector, it would be a disposal and the Council would be relinquishing all responsibility for the premises.  Any commercial operator would be taking the property on subject to the restrictive covenants.  If these were lifted the value of the building would rise but in that case the largest share of any increase in value would benefit the Secretary of State for Health and Charles Church Developments Ltd and not the Council.

The Committee:

·         noted the position to date;

·         Did not authorise Officers to engage an agent to market the property for freehold disposal;

·         Did not authorise Officers to agree allocation of funds for the purposes off the marketing exercise;

·         Did not agree that the period for submission of bids be 4 months;

·         Requested that a report be brought back to the Strategy and Resources Committee in January 2016.