Decision details

Property Disposals - Revision of Agreed Terms

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: Yes

Is subject to call in?: Yes

Purpose:

To consider the report of the Cabinet Member for Resources seeking approval to the revised terms of the property sales set out in this report.

 

Appendix 1 of this report is not for publication by virtue of Category 3 (Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person including the Council) of paragraph 10.4 of the Council’s Access to Information Procedure Rules as contained in the Council’s Constitution. It is not considered to be in the public interest to disclose this information because this Appendix contains confidential and commercially sensitive information relating to the property interests potentially involved in this matter.

Decision:

(i)  To delegate authority to the Head of Property, Procurement and Health and Safety to negotiate and agree the terms of the sale following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Resources, and the Leader in respect of Marland House, and Culture and carry out all ancillary matters to dispose of the site on the basis of the terms set out in the confidential appendix.

(ii)  To note the estimated value of the capital receipt from these disposals has already been built into the funding of the capital programme, apart from the new receipt for 22 - 28 Above Bar. Any receipts that differ from the estimates will need to be considered corporately as part of any future prioritisation of resources as the intention is to use any additional capital receipts from disposals over and above those which are funding the current programme to repay long-term council borrowing.

Reasons for the decision:

  1. To release properties surplus to Council requirements
  2. To raise a capital receipt.

Alternative options considered:

  1. Marland House, 60 – 64 St Marys Road and the former Eastpoint site have been declared surplus by the Council. Retention of the properties would not be viable as cost would exceed revenue.
  2. Not disposing of a long leasehold interest would mean the Council would continue to receive a low fixed income. The capital receipt is more beneficial.

Other Relevant Matters Concerning the Decision:

None.

Report author: Paul Mansbridge

Publication date: 15/07/2014

Date of decision: 15/07/2014

Decided at meeting: 15/07/2014 - Cabinet

Effective from: 24/07/2014

Accompanying Documents: