Content

Decision
 
RESOLVED that
Cabinet:
 

1                   
Approved the
retention of the car park site as a strategic Council
asset.

2                   
Approved
progression of the detailed design and specification for
resurfacing and relining works, in order to secure budget approval
in due course and prepare the project for tendering.
 
Reasons for
decision
 

1                   
The site lies within Flood Risk
Zones 3a and 3b. Redevelopment would require significant flood risk
mitigation and associated design work to satisfy national planning
policy and Environment Agency guidance.

2                   
We were unable to secure external
funding to progress the upfront design work required to address the
flood risk and deliver the necessary mitigation.

3                   
As a result the Council would need
to bear the cost of commissioning and funding the design work,
securing planning permission, and delivering the core structural
infrastructure.

4                   
While there appears to be healthy
interest from national retailers to occupy space in this location,
developers have made clear that they would only engage once
planning consent is secured and the enabling infrastructure is in
place at the Council’s expense.

5                   
In light of the above, retaining
the car park in its current form and undertaking essential
resurfacing and relining works represents the most cost-effective
and deliverable option. It avoids substantial upfront expenditure
and planning risk while maintaining the car park’s ongoing
operational function.

6                   
The car park continues to provide
an important function for the village, the local retailers and
residents. Retention ensures continuity of provision without
disruption.

7                   
In light of the Council’s
position within the wider devolution agenda, the investment already
made in site assessment, and the risks associated with speculative
redevelopment (given the Council is not itself a developer),
retention of the site is considered preferable. Retention keeps
strategic options open, safeguards the Council’s ability to
align with potential future funding or partnership opportunities,
and avoids crystallising a disposal at sub-optimal
value.
 
Alternative Options
Considered

 

1                   
Do nothing
The Council leaves the car park
as-is.

a)    
Pros: No upfront capital cost,
continuing income

b)    
Cons: Doesn’t address
deterioration of the car park surface and associated
infrastructure. Reactive maintenance may be costly.

2                   
Commission Further Technical
Work
The Council directly funds the next
stage of hydraulic modelling and detailed flood-risk investigations
(c.£200k).

a)    
Pros: Establishes technical
certainty; improves chances of attracting credible
developers.

b)    
Cons: High upfront cost; no
guarantee of viable solution; requires third-party land
agreements.

3                   
Proceed with the Unconditional
Freehold Disposal
Accept the unconditional offer to
purchase the freehold, transferring the site and flood-risk
responsibilities to a third party.

a)    
Pros: Immediate capital receipt;
eliminates Council’s risk exposure.

b)    
Cons: Council loses long-term
control of a strategic site; Council loses significant income; sale
would be at less than independent Market Value; would require
Secretary of State approval for an under-sale.

4                   
Seek a Joint Venture or
Public-Sector Partnership
Explore a joint approach with
neighbouring authorities, public agencies, or the Environment
Agency to deliver a sub-regional flood solution as part of wider
regeneration.

a)    
Pros: Spreads costs and risks;
potential to unlock other sites regionally.

b)    
Cons: Complex governance; uncertain
partner appetite; long lead-in times.