Agenda item

Due to the large public interest in the item the Mayor stated that the item which was stated as item 17 on the agenda would be brought forward in the meeting.

Members considered a report on the outcome of the final round of bidding following the Policy and Performance Committee meeting on 4 July 2018 which resolved to continue to work with both remaining groups which had submitted bids with a view to enabling one or other of them (or through enabling them to work together) to provide an outcome which delivers good value to the Council and good community use of the building. The following comments were amongst those included:

• It was necessary to find a long term solution for the building.
• The public feeling was that the building should not be paid for by council tax payers’ money.
• There were numerous benefits to the Cornerstone bid and the bid value was in line with the valuation.
• There had been allegations on social media relating to whether certain senior Council officers had interests which should mean that they should take no part in decisions concerning the future of the Town Hall. The Interim Monitoring Officer had stated that the interests of those officers in their private lives have no connection with the bidders for the Town Hall and was satisfied that there had been no inappropriate behaviour by the officers.
• It was clear that people wanted to use the building for public use and the Council could not be financially responsible for that.
• The country was still experiencing austerity and priorities were in question. The sale of assets was not the correct strategy.
• The Town Hall was a legacy for the people of the borough and the sale of buildings would be regretted.
• There were concerns over the Cornerstone document and claims would not match reality.
• The community was important and the Community Project bid should be backed. The people who had put the work in for the community bid should be thanked as the Town Hall is part of Beeston.
• There had been an immense amount of correspondence on the subject. Councillors represented all of Broxtowe and not just Beeston. If savings were not made then cuts would be experienced elsewhere.
• The Church bid did not meet the criteria for community work. The allegations made against the officers were disgraceful. Cornerstone would not want to work with secular groups and should not qualify for grants from the Council.
• The proposal was robust, financially detailed and would benefit the wider community.  There would be an assurance that taxpayers’ money would not be wasted. The community bid lacked detail. The diversity in Beeston made it such an attractive place to live.
• The Cornerstone proposal would be the best deal for the whole of the Borough.
• Women were able to join the leadership team of Cornerstone and the organisation would have to abide by laws.
• High Court decisions should place the community bid in the forefront. There was no equality impact assessment and the Council was running the risk of voting for something which would be open to legal challenge.
• Community assets should not be sold and the Council would lose full control of the building.
• The building was not surplus to requirements and decisions were being taken without due consideration. The issue should be delayed for proper consideration to be given.
• The groups concerned had not requested that more time be allocated.
• The Town Hall was redundant and owned by all residents of the borough.
• The people of Broxtowe should be represented by the Council members. Cornerstone would want to control everything with regard to the building. There was no equality impact assessment and the weighting was wrong. Furthermore, there was no consultation except for the disposal. The community bid had not been treated fairly.

It was proposed by Councillor S J Carr and seconded by Councillor B C Carr that the debate be adjourned. A recorded vote was called for. The voting on the proposal was as follows:

On being put to the meeting, the proposal was lost.

Discussion continued on the substantive motion and the following comments were amongst those included:

• The long-term financial merits for the people of Beeston and the surrounding community should be considered. Reassurance was needed that this was not a fire sale.
• The selling of assets under value was a fiscal illusion and experts would reject this proposal. The Council’s values of objectivity and inclusiveness should be upheld. There was a duty to listen to the people of Broxtowe.
• There were no cogent arguments for not selling the building. Money raised could be spent on playgrounds or other community facilities. It would not be beneficial to grant a lease only to have to provide support in the future.
• Comments about officers had been disgraceful.
• The entire borough had a right to make the decision. The Cornerstone bid was financially sound.
• The work of the community group had been rubbished, but the group deserved to be supported.
• Finance raised from the sale would enable the provision of services all over the borough. The sale would match the price of the commercial valuation. More money could have been raised by flattening the building, but it was agreed that it should be maintained.

A recorded vote was called for. The voting on the substantive motion was as follows:

RESOLVED that, subject to planning and contract, the bid from Redeemer/Cornerstone Church be accepted.