Content

RESOLVED:
Cabinet authorised the
Assistant Director Assets & Environment in consultation with
the Director of Legal and Democratic Services to enter into the
agreements envisaged in the heads of terms at Appendix A (with any
minor variations as is practically necessary) and any matters
reasonably necessary to give effect to them.
 
 
REASONS RESOLVED:
1.   
To maximise the opportunity for NCCC to raise the
necessary funds and deliver the proposed facility, and thereby to
secure the identified sporting and wider benefits for West
Northamptonshire.
2.   
The loss of potential capital receipts for disposal
of the land at market value is considered justified in view of the
expected sporting, health, and economic development
benefits.
3.   
To provide a clear structure for the transaction
which protects the interests of the Council and the residents of
West Northamptonshire.
4.   
If NCCC is unable to raise the funds to proceed, the
Council would be left with the land unfettered and able to be used
in whatever other ways it considers best.
 
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS:
1.   
Choice 1: Most fundamentally, the choice open to the
Council is to proceed with offering NCCC a site or not doing so.
For the reasons set out above (paragraphs Error! Reference source
not found. to 5.17) it is suggested the benefits likely to be
gained by West Northamptonshire if the scheme proceeds are
sufficient to justify providing a site. In the absence of a WNC
provided site, it is less likely the scheme would
proceed.
2.   
Choice 2: Assuming a site is provided, the Council
could provide it, as proposed, on a peppercorn basis (albeit with
the provision for sharing any super-profit which might arise in the
future) or it might seek to charge the commercial value of the
site, or somewhere between those two. It appears likely that if the
Council sought to charge the commercial value the scheme would be
unable to proceed. This is not certain, and it is possible the
scheme could support at least a modest land value payment. However,
the Council charging for the land would be likely to be seen by
funders as indicating a lack of support and thus make it less
likely they would be forthcoming. Additionally, the proposed
arrangements, which NCCC has accepted, provide robust protections
for WNC’s intentions in providing the site. If WNC was to
charge the commercial value or even some fraction of this, it is
likely to re-open the negotiations and NCCC may not be willing to
accept the protections. At worst, this could mean either the scheme
does not proceed (because the parties cannot agree terms) or WNC
accepted such limited protections that it could not be confident
the site would be used for the purposes intended.
3.   
Choice 3: It would be possible for WNC to offer to
proceed by providing a site, but to offer a different site than one
at New Manor Farm. However, none of the other sites examined appear
as suitable, and in some cases the Council also has conflicting
requirements for them. Therefore, offering a different site does
not seem likely to be a productive approach.
 
There are, of course,
effectively an infinite combination of possible terms which could
be applied. However, it is suggested that those set out in the
heads of terms achieve the necessary outcome i.e., secure access
for NCCC provided it can secure funds and necessary permissions,
and protection for WNC.