Minutes:
38.1 The following question had been submitted by Kristopher Poole for the Chair of the Policy and Performance Committee:
“Under Section 123 (2A) of the Local Government Act 1972 and Section 233(4) of the Local Government Act 1990, a local authority that is considering disposing of public open space must advertise its intentions in a local newspaper for two consecutive weeks. It must subsequently consider any objections made to the proposed disposal before making any final decisions, as the public response to the notices may be material to any decision. The whole of the central area of Redwood Crescent clearly met the definition of open space under the 1990 Act and yet no advertising occurred and no consultation over the sale took place. Can you explain why?”
The Chair of the Policy and Performance Committee stated that in relation to the sale of land at Redwood Crescent, no advertisement relating to the sale of the open space land was placed. This was a breach of proper legal procedure as a result of which disciplinary action had been taken. The person responsible for this had been dismissed for gross misconduct. Following this, a report would be produced to the next Council meeting on 19 December 2018 detailing what went wrong. The Council had purchased back an open space area in the middle of the development which was granted planning permission, in order to secure its future. On 9 August 2018 the Chief Executive wrote to you as follows:
‘The Council is responsible for actions which it through its officers have taken. I am satisfied that the appropriate steps have been taken to subject the actions which have been taken to a rigorous externally led analysis. The process that this has led to is not yet concluded. When it is I can assure you that the Council will be as transparent as it can within the constraint of the law as to anything that went wrong, and how those matters have been addressed. All necessary apologies will be made. I believe the Planning section is doing all in their power to work with the current site owners to achieve a resolution to the uncompleted nature of the development which was granted planning permission. I also know that informal discussions with you have been held regarding how the future of the amenity land might be secured to the satisfaction of local residents. I acknowledge the current situation is unsatisfactory and if any Council officer has committed blameworthy actions, I will apologise on behalf of the Council.’
In a report to the December meeting a public report would include an apology in relation to what went wrong. The Chair apologised on behalf of both himself and the Chief Executive, as the internal disciplinary process had now concluded.
38.2 The following question had been submitted by Mrs K Johnson for the Chair of the Policy and Performance Committee:
“According to documents supplied in response to a Freedom of Information request, the independent valuation for the land at Redwood Crescent was not acquired by the Council itself, but by the same company (Precision Homes) that then bought the land, is it normal and good practice for this to happen when the Council is selling off its assets?”
The Chair of the Policy and Performance Committee stated that it would normally be good practice for a valuation to be obtained which was independent of both the Council and the purchasing party. However, all qualified valuers were bound by their professional codes of practice and should be expected to provide valuations which were fair and reasonable.
38.3 The following question had been submitted by Lindsay Clay for the Chair of the Policy and Performance Committee:
“Since residents of Redwood Crescent first raised their concerns over the process of the sale of land at Redwood Crescent with you and the Chief Executive, we have been promised that we will receive answers about what happened, as well as an apology. However, you have failed to respond to any recent messages requesting a date by which these will happen. As the Council attempts to sell off another community asset, when will you both deliver on that promise?”
The Chair referred Ms Clay to the response given to question one.
38.4 The following question had been submitted by Deborah Pitchfork for the Chair of the Policy and Performance Committee:
“Residents have recently been informed that the Council has now bought back a much reduced area of green space within the Crescent. This is, of course, welcome news. However, why did the Council not establish an agreement for the land to be returned to them before the original sale to Precision Homes took place, as we were told would happen?”
The Chair referred to the response given to question one and stated that there were a number of things that had not been done correctly with regard to the sale of land at Redwood Crescent. These would be detailed in the report to Council on 19 December 2018. However, the Chair stated that he was now satisfied that the remaining open space was within the Council’s control.
38.5 The following question had been submitted by David Johnson for the Chair of the Policy and Performance Committee:
“What oversight do you and the Chief Executive exercise over senior staff to ensure that they do not act in contravention of their responsibilities and powers?”
The Chair responded that councillors agree the Constitution, scheme of delegation, financial regulations and contract standing orders, within which officers were expected to operate. These were underpinned by an Employee Code of Conduct, also approved by councillors, which employees were expected to comply with. The Chief Executive, as the Head of Paid Service, had overall responsibility for ensuring that employees operated within these rules, and if they did not, appropriate disciplinary action was taken.