Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and stated the reason for the Overview and Scrutiny Board meeting was to consider a Call In submitted by Councillor Morgan McClintock. The decision being called in was made by the Executive Sub Committee for Property on 4 September 2024 relating to the disposal of land at Nunthorpe Grange.

The Chair provided an outline of how the Call In would proceed; the Councillor proposing the Call In (Cllr Tom Livingstone on behalf of Cllr Morgan McClintock) would be afforded 15 minutes to present to the Call In and this would include any statements from witnesses. At the end of the 15-minute presentation the Executive Member for Regeneration would have the opportunity to question the proposing Councillor for 5 minutes, this could include input from officers from the relevant service area, in this case the Director of Regeneration.

The Executive Member for Regeneration and the service area would then have 15 minutes to provide the reasons for the decision after which the proposing Councillor would have the opportunity to question the Executive Member for 5 minutes.

The Overview and Scrutiny Board (OSB) would then be given the opportunity to ask the proposing Councillor and Executive Member questions and to debate the matter.

After this the Call-In proposer and the Executive Member would be given 5 minutes each to sum up. OSB would then vote on whether the decision should be sent back to the Executive Sub-Committee for Property.

The Chair invited the Call-In proposer to provide the case to OSB. During the presentation the following points were made:

·         The question posed to OSB was whether sufficient alternatives were offered to the Executive Sub Committee for Property on 4 September.

·         The decision made at that meeting was the private treaty sale of land at Nunthorpe Grange to a housing developer.

·         The three alternatives proposed as part of the decision were described.

·         The first two options were dismissed by Executive immediately as not viable with the third classed as viable but not appropriate given the Council’s financial position.

·         As such, OSB needed to determine if the alternatives listed in the Executive report were the only ones available.

·         The Call-In proposers did not think these were the only alternatives.

·         Other example alternatives included the Council testing the market for a competitive process. The Council had received an offer higher than what the land was valued at, and the offer had been on the table for at least three months. As such there had been time to test the market to understand if other developers could offer the same, or higher level.

·         By doing this there was the possibility other developers would approach the Council with similar offers and to accept the risks associated with the land.

·         There was time to do this when the decision was made on the 4 September, however this was not mentioned during the Executive meeting.

·         A potential argument for this option not being offered was the possibility of the buyer withdrawing. However,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24/26

None.