Agenda item

Report by Head of Corporate and Community (attached).

The Executive considered a report by the Head of Corporate and Community (circulated previously), the options and/or alternatives and other relevant facts set out in the report regarding the request for the Council to consider the use of compulsory purchase powers in respect of The White Hart, Bratton Fleming.

The Head of Corporate and Community highlighted the following:

·         The Localism Act 2011 introduced the regime relating to Assets of Community Value (ACV).  Under this system, community groups can nominate assets that they feel have a community value.  If the local authority agree, the asset is included on a list for a period of 5 years.  During that time, if the freeholder owner wished to sell the asset, the community group must be given an opportunity to be treated as a bidder.

·         The legislation does not impose a duty on the freeholder to sell the asset to the community group and nor does it specify the consideration for any sale.

·         The White Hart had been listed as an ACV as a result of its past use as a public house providing community use.

·         The freeholder had indicated his intention to dispose of the asset.  In turn, the community group indicated that it wished to be treated as a potential bidder.  It was unclear what actual negotiations have taken place between the two parties however it was clear that no agreement was likely be reached on the value of the premises and so it was highly unlikely that a sale to the community group would take place.

·         Over the past few years, the owner had submitted planning applications involving elements of residential development which have been refused.  The community group remain concerned that the community use would be lost through development at some stage.  The latest application had been refused and the owner had submitted an appeal.

·         There were various legislative provisions that give a local authority power to compulsorily purchase land and buildings. Guidance on the use of compulsory purchase powers had been issued and this set out some expectations form the exercise of such powers.

·         A statement had been received from Mr Milton which had been tabled in relation to the item.  The statement referred to “It would seem an inappropriate use of Rate-payers’ money especially as it could turn into a costly white elephant and I regret that unless members of the community committed real money to the project from inception, I cannot see the “Community” ever stepping forwards to put hands deeply enough into their pockets to meet the cost of purchase, the refurbishment and working capital demanded”.  The Head of Corporate and Community confirmed that other Local Authorities such as South Cambridgeshire District Council had considered compulsory purchase to ensure that an asset remained for community use.

·         Specific Government guidance had been provided where it was intended to use the powers in order to purchase an ACV.

·         Before the Council decided whether to proceed and use its powers, there were clearly a number of issues to consider as set out in the report.  In exploring the options, officers would seek further information that would enable any further report to deal with the considerations in full.

In response to questions, the Head of Corporate and Community advised:

·         The outcome of the planning appeal would inform any future decision in relation to compulsory purchase.   If the appeal was successful, it may change the scope of the decision.  The appeal could also affect future valuation of the asset.

·         If a decision was made in the future to compulsory purchase the asset, funding would need to be sought from other grant sources or community organisations.  This could then be underwritten by the community group.

·         The fact that the asset was listed as an ACV was a material planning consideration which the Inspector would consider giving weight to as part of the appeal decision process.

Councillor Prowse addressed the Executive as Ward Member.  He advised that the asset was an eye sore and that the situation had been going on for a long time.  Mr Milton needed to give access to the property to enable a proper valuation to be carried out.  There was a need to take the next step to move the situation forward.

            DECISION

            That officers explore whether the community group had financial resource to purchase the asset and seek clarification regarding the community use proposals of the asset.

            REASON FOR DECISION

            To allow officers to seek further information from the community group and to commence preparation for the exercise of those powers in advance of a further report to Executive.