Issue - items at meetings - Strategic Use of Land

35.1 At the invitation of the Chair Councillor Gill Mitchell, the Head of Property and Design Angela Dymott introduced the report on the Strategic use of Land.

35.2 Tony Mernagh, Executive Director, Brighton & Hove Economic Partnership then spoke in more detail about his request for scrutiny and referred to his 8-page paper that had been circulated to Members the previous day as a response to the published report.

35.3 He said it was important that the City’s land was developed wisely yet the decision taken by 17 February Cabinet on the sale of land at Patcham Court Farm represented a departure from the Local Plan.  He pointed out that the site was identified as employment land in the Local Plan, emerging Core Strategy and the widened planning brief and handed out an extract from the  ‘Planning Policy Context’ of the planning brief highlighting the words ’... the Council as local planning authority would expect development proposals for B1(a) or B1(b) uses on the site. Should development proposals seek ‘enabling’ development in the form of alternative employment-generating uses (eg a hotel/leisure use) a sufficiently strong planning case would need to be made as part of any planning application.’

35.4 ‘… as a minimum there should be no net loss in employment floor space and seek to provide for at least as many jobs’ was underscored.

35.5 He asked whether the land could be put to better use, how the successful bidder became successful, whether the departure could be justified in terms of the quality and quantum of jobs that would be created, and the whether Economic Development officers were involved in the sale decision.

35.6 Mr Mernagh referred to alternative options that he said would have produced 15 times the quantum and quality of jobs and been of greater economic benefit to the city. He questioned what message this sent to other potential developers intending to comply with the brief, who would have been at a disadvantage?

35.7 The Chair Councillor Gill Mitchell reminded the meeting that the decision on the sale of the land had been taken. The role of OSC was to consider if there were lessons to be learned for the future. The strategic use of land was pertinent to the current review of the Core Strategy.

35.8 Answering questions the Head of Property and Design said the bids were subjected to a rigorous evaluation with individual scoring against 8 criteria: track record; deliverability; financial appraisal; funding; planning (including adherence to the planning brief and the Local Plan) quality/innovation. A panel of 7 comprising 5 officers including a representative of the planning team had individually scored all those interviewed. In Part 2 closed session 17 February Cabinet were aware of the scores of the 5 shortlisted candidates and de Vere Hotels had the highest score.

35.9 Members felt the questions were not unreasonable but asked officers about the merits of the request for scrutiny and whether more time was needed to consider Mr Mernagh’s reply.

35.10 The Principal Planning Officer Strategy Alan Buck pointed out that planning issues would be tested at a future date, at the planning application stage when Members would consider any application against the Local Plan as adopted and other material considerations and would be aware of departures. There had been other instances of significant departures, such as the Amex Stadium. The planning brief was not intended to be a full reflection of policy and carried a caveat to the effect that it is an informal advice note.

35.11 The Strategic Director Place Geoff Raw stated that under ideal circumstances development proposals would match exactly with strategic plans for the Council’s property assets. He said the review of the core strategy and review of land assets was an opportunity to look again at how decisions are made. That was not to say, the decision on Patcham Court Farm was wrong; he was satisfied with the position taken.

35.12 In reply to questions, the Head of Property and Design told Members that Economic Development officers were involved in the revised development brief and marketing brief, and in previous asset sales. They were not involved in the interviews, though there was close working and informal input.

35.13 In Mr Mernagh’s view, greater involvement of Economic Development was important. Clarity and transparency of decision-making was also key, so that potential developers had a clearer picture of what would be acceptable. He told the meeting in strong terms that a number of potential developers were dissatisfied.

35.14 The Chair wished to ensure that concerns were addressed in full and lessons could be learnt for future sites.  Members noted the current review of the Core Strategy and the new national planning policy framework expected in December that would require Local Authorities to be more specific about employment land.

35.15 A scrutiny panel was proposed but the timescale for reporting back and the risk of duplication of existing work on the Core Strategy were reasons this was not agreed. BHEP has the opportunity to make representations on the Core Strategy during the statutory consultation process.

35.16 After discussion it was agreed that questions on the strategic use of land raised by the BHEP, and focusing on learning lessons from the process, should be sent to the Cabinet Member and replies circulated to OSC Members and BHEP.

35.17 OSC also wished to comment on the Employment section in the revision of the Core Strategy If the timetable allowed.

Economic Development 

1. What is the involvement of the Economic Development team in decisions and could this be strengthened?
2. How are proposals’ impacts on the local economy evaluated during decision-making?

Decision-making process

3. Can the process for achieving the best strategic use of land for the benefit of the City and its residents, be made more robust for the future?
4. Is there a more transparent way to demonstrate that alternative proposals have been properly considered?

Evidence

5. Where there are significant departures from current strategies plans and studies; should additional research be undertaken e.g. on the impact of proposals on existing provision, employment generation especially including graduate level jobs, and wider social, economic and environmental benefits to the City and National Park?

Consultation

6. Is there scope for consultation with interested parties to be improved e.g. with more time allowed for queries or responses prior to a final decision being made?

35.18 RESOLVED (1) that on behalf of OSC the Chair write to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Economic Development and Regeneration for a reply to the questions raised at 35.16.

(2) that during the revision of the Core Strategy a request be made for the Employment section to be brought to OSC if timing allowed.