Agenda item - Land at Plumpton Hill and Poynings

Report of the Executive Director for Economy, Environment & Culture (copy attached).

111.1   RESOLVED:

1)    That Committee notes the further requested information, analysis and consequences regarding these two pieces of land,

2)    That the two sites be referred to the policy review and the decision referred to the back to the PRG for decision.

3)    That with regards to the HLF Stanmer Park project, a report be brought to Committee outlining alternative options for meeting the match funding requirement.

111.1      The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director for Economy, Environment & Culture in relation to Land at Plumpton Hill and Poynings. A joint amendment was presented to December 2016 Policy, Resources & Growth (PRG) Committee by the Green and Conservative Groups requesting that an urgent report be brought to the January 2017 committee meeting detailing alternative options in relation to the approved proposed disposals that include these 2 pieces of land referred to in Policy & Resources Committee February 2016, and that options take account of any impact affecting the Stanmer Park Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) bid.  This report was complemented by a separate report in Part Two of the Agenda. 

111.2      In response to Councillor Janio it was confirmed that the report in July 2014 July 2016 related to the funding and refurbishment of the Home Farm traditional agricultural buildings. Councillor Janio went on to highlight to shift to consider the Council’s assets in terms of social value, and noted the desire of all group to improve Stanmer Park. He noted the differing views being put forward by residents, and welcomed the policy review panel that had been agreed by the previous item. He went on to note that, given the amendments from both the Conservative & Green Groups, he felt a joint amendment could be put forward.

111.3      At this point to Committee took a short adjournment to agree the wording for the new proposed joint amendment.

111.4      Councillor Mitchell noted her concern that any amendment could undermine the HLF bid to support the wider Stanmer Park project.

111.5      Councillor G. Theobald stated his view that this would not adversely affect the HLF bid, and that an urgency sub-committee could be convened were this to the case. He went to note his concern in relation to some of the language in the report that the Council sought to raise capital from the disposal of assets, and that this could signify the first stage of a wider disposal of down land assets.

111.6      Councillor Mac Cafferty formally proposed a joint amendment on behalf of the Green and Conservative Groups.

111.7      Councillor G. Theobald formally seconded the amendment.

111.8      Councillor Hamilton highlighted sections of the Council’s Asset Management Plan, and noted that this had received cross-party support at Committee. He went on to note that the sites were not farms and as such were considered ‘non-core assets’; the capital value of the sites was over 100 times the annual rent. The Poynings site did not have public access. The Plumpton site had been managed by the college for over 60 years; had statutory Rights of Way access; it was protected by virtue of being within the South Downs National Park area, and the proposed sale price was low given the restricted use.

111.9      Councillor Gibson noted that he considered there was insufficient information in the report for the Committee to take the decision. The returns referenced in the report did not make allowances for capital growth, and he felt that the option of exploring borrowing in relation to the HLF match funding had not been properly explored given the current very low interest rates.

111.10   Councillor Mac Cafferty stated his view that other alternatives to selling these pieces of land had not been properly considered by the Committee in the past.

111.11   Councillor Janio stated that the Conservative Group wanted the land to be in the ownership whoever could best utilise it, but he felt there was not enough information before the Committee to allow them to take a pragmatic approach. There was no information in relation to the social value of the land; however, the policy panel would consider all this information as part of a full review.

111.12   Councillor Mitchell highlighted that the sale of the land had been brought about in a coherent way and followed agreed Council policy. She noted that the proposed amendment would make the position in relation to Stanmer Park project uncertain. The Administration were fully prepared to work with the Opposition through the policy review panel to work through the issue as quickly as possible.

111.13   The Chair then put the joint amendment to the vote. This was carried with 6 in support and 4 abstentions.

111.14   The Chair then put the amendment recommendations to the vote. These were carried.

111.15   RESOLVED:

1)    That Committee notes the further requested information, analysis and consequences regarding these two pieces of land,

2)    That the two sites be referred to the policy review and the decision referred to the back to the PRG for decision.

3)    That with regards to the HLF Stanmer Park project, a report be brought to Committee outlining alternative options for meeting the match funding requirement.