Content

Decision
 
RESOLVED that
Cabinet:
 

1.    
Approved entering
an exclusivity agreement with the Developer identified in the Part
2 report.

2.    
Authorised the
Head of Asset Management & Engineering Services and Chief
Finance Officer in consultation with the Portfolio Holders for
Asset Management and Finance & Budget to finalise and agree the
Exclusivity Agreement.

3.    
Approved the
preferred food store and nursery occupiers identified in the Part 2
report and authorised the Head of Asset Management &
Engineering Services and Chief Finance Officer in consultation with
the Portfolio Holders for Asset Management and Finance & Budget
to agree and enter into the respective Agreements for Lease,
subject to completion of the Development Agreement.
 
Reasons for
decision
 

1.1            
To facilitate delivery of
significant new public open space, affordable homes (c110 units)
and Community Hub via residential and commercial enabling
development of part of the site.

1.2            
To secure the long term management
and maintenance of the new facilities and additional revenue to the
Council via generation of significant long term income.

1.3            
To enable the preferred developer
to undertake the due diligence necessary to fully assess the
viability of the proposals which will be achieved by the Council
entering an exclusivity agreement to enable the Developer to commit
at risk funds to design team and technical reports.

1.4            
The Development Agreement will be
progressed through the Exclusivity period, being informed by the
outcomes of the work. Either before or on completion of the
Exclusivity period a further report will be brought to Cabinet to
seek approval to enter into the Development Agreement.
 
Alternative Options
Considered
 
In assessing the future of the former golf
course site, three main options have been considered:
 
Option 1 – Do Nothing

1                   
This option would see the site
retained in its current unused state, with only essential
maintenance undertaken.

2                   
While this would require no
immediate capital investment and would maintain current ownership,
it would not deliver on any of the Council’s strategic
objectives.

3                   
Current income from meanwhile uses
is £179.1k p.a. Most of the tenants were inherited after the
previous head lessee was surrendered. Some have poor covenant
strength and are in occupation under a Tenancy at
Will.  The buildings are deteriorating, will need a
planned maintenance schedule and likely investment in the
structures, especially the roofs.

4                   
Current Council outgoings on the
site exceed income. The Council is seeking to obtain rateable
values from the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) for the separate
hereditaments and are seeking to apportion utility charges and a
service charge allocation so that individual tenants can make their
respective contributions. The poorer covenant tenants have
indicated that any additional occupational costs would render their
businesses unviable.

Advantages:

•                     
No upfront capital
outlay

•                     
Maintains Council ownership and
control

•                     
Existing occupiers maintain a
certain level of surveillance that reduces the need for on-site
security and minimises ASB

Disadvantages:

•                     
No contribution to Corporate Plan
or Local Plan priorities

•                     
Ongoing maintenance and security
costs with limited income

•                     
Likely site income reduction due to
tenant business failures

•                     
Asset remains
under-utilised

•                     
Risk of deterioration, anti-social
behaviour, and blight

•                     
No capital receipt or long-term
revenue stream

•                     
Loss of opportunity to secure
external investment or funding

•                     
Additional occupational costs
likely to compromise existing businesses.
 
Option 2 – Residential Led, Mixed Use
Development
 

1                   
Partnering with a developer to
bring forward a housing-led scheme would provide significant
capital and revenue benefits, deliver much-needed homes (including
affordable housing), and contribute to regeneration
objectives.

2                   
This approach has the highest
potential financial return and policy alignment, but will require
careful engagement with the community to address
concerns.

Advantages:

•                     
Significant capital receipt
potential or exchanged for commercial and community buildings and
infrastructure

•                     
Long-term council tax and business
rates income

•                     
Significant additional secure long
term rental income

•                     
Delivery of affordable housing and
infrastructure

•                     
Stimulates local economic
activity

•                     
Some existing occupiers can be
retained and rehomed

•                     
Delivery of long term community
benefit and facilities

Disadvantages:

•                     
Possible local
opposition

•                     
Planning risks, particularly as the
site is Green Belt

•                     
Infrastructure and mitigation
costs
 
Option 3 – Alternative Non-Residential
Uses

1                   
The site could be repurposed for
leisure, open space, commercial tourism, or renewable energy
generation.

2                   
This would allow retention of open
space and could align strongly with environmental and wellbeing
priorities. However, the financial return is likely to be lower and
dependent on market demand.

Advantages:

•                     
Maintains/enhances green space and
biodiversity

•                     
Potential for ongoing revenue from
leisure, tourism, or renewable energy

•                     
Greater community acceptability
than housing in some cases

Disadvantages:

•                     
Upfront investment often
required

•                     
Market demand for certain uses
uncertain

•                     
Possible seasonal or variable
income

•                     
Potential for running costs to
outstrip income
 

3                   
Options Evaluation
Matrix

Criteria

Weighting

Option 1. Do Nothing

Score × Weight

Option 2. Residential
Development

Score × Weight

Option 3. Alternative
Non-Residential Uses

Score × Weight

Financial Return

30%

1

0.30

5

1.50

3

0.90

Policy Fit

25%

1

0.25

5

1.25

4

1.00

Deliverability

20%

2

0.40

4

0.80

3

0.60

Community Impact

15%

2

0.30

3

0.45

4

0.60

Environmental Impact

10%

2

0.20

3

0.30

5

0.50

TOTAL
SCORE

100%

—

1.45

—

4.30

—

3.60

 
 

4                   
Following this comparative
assessment of the available options, residential-led development is
identified as the preferred option for the former golf course
site.

The Residential Development option
offers the strongest combination of:

•                     
Financial benefit –
maximising the capital receipt to support the Council’s
Medium-Term Financial Strategy and generating long-term council tax
revenue

•                     
Policy alignment – delivering
new homes, including affordable housing, in accordance with Local
Plan objectives and the Council’s Corporate Plan priorities
on housing and regeneration

•                     
Deliverability – attracting
experienced development partners with the capability to deliver a
high-quality scheme within a realistic timescale

•                     
Place-making benefits –
opportunity to integrate green infrastructure, sustainable
transport links, and community facilities as part of the
masterplan

While recognising that a
housing-led approach may attract some public concern, these impacts
can be mitigated through:

•                     
Retention and enhancement of
significant areas of open space and landscaping

•                     
Incorporation of biodiversity net
gain measures, habitat creation and contribution towards the Nature
Recovery Strategy.

•                     
Comprehensive community engagement
during the design process

Alternative non-residential uses
were considered and remain possible as part of a mixed-use
masterplan.  However, as a stand-alone option they do not
provide the same level of financial sustainability or policy
delivery as a residential-led scheme.

5                   
The “do nothing”
approach has been discounted due to its very low contribution to
Council objectives, limited revenue, ongoing costs, and risk of
site deterioration.