8/4/2019 LBC Scrutiny Board Report on the Drill Hall

1/4

.

.

For: (x) Agenda Item Number: ExecutiveCLMTMeeting Date: 12 th September 2011Report of: Overview and ScrutinyBoard

Report author: Councillor DorisHinkley Chair, Overview andScrutiny Board

Subject: Old Recreation Centre, Old Bedford Road Consultations: (x)Councillors

(For Executive Only) ScrutinyLead Executive Member(s): Councillor Harris StakeholdersWards Affected: High Town Others

Recommendations(i) That Executive acknowledge that Hightown residents and Masjid e Ali were not treated inthe fair and open way they should have been and are both feeling justifiably aggrieved.

(ii) That it be noted that Officers and the Portfolio Holder for Finance implemented correctlythe decision made by the Executive in 2008 regarding disposal of the Old Recreation Centre.

(iii) That, in relation to the disposal of assets, delegation of powers to officers and portfolioholders should have clearly defined parameters for officers to work within to avoid confusion,and any deviation from those parameters should be reported back for approval to theExecutive.

(iv) That the Executive notes the concern of the Overview and Scrutiny Board regarding thepotential risk/division in respect of community cohesion within the town and in the High Townarea in particular which appears to have been caused by a lack of communication betweenExecutive members.

(v) The Executive be requested to set up a series of pre-agreed dates for informal meetingsof Executive Members in order to receive regular updates from portfolio holders on decisionsmade within their area of responsibility.

(vi) That the Executive be requested to include as part of the process for the disposal of

assets an equalities impact assessment and that ward councillors be informed of significantissues affecting their wards as a matter of course.

(vii) That the Executive requests Active Luton to fully publicised and promote the High TownCommunity Centre; and that Active Luton be encouraged to engage in dialogue with theCommunity Liaison Officer in High Town regarding encouraging greater usage and take up of the activities at the centre by local residents.

(viii) That the Executive considers before making their final decision:

(i) That the understanding for the Old Recreation Centre once closed was for theland to be earmarked for housing, although, no formal agreement existed;

(ii) That the High Town area is in urgent need for family housing, which is an issuereplicated across the town;

(iii) The effects of their decision on community cohesion in the town.

8/4/2019 LBC Scrutiny Board Report on the Drill Hall

2/4

BackgroundThe Overview and Scrutiny Board at their meeting on the 9 th June 2011 received a reference

from Council to consider two Petitions alongside the Review of the Property Disposals Policy whichhad been requested by the Executive on 7th March 2011".

The Overview and Scrutiny Board agreed that in order to fulfil the requirement from Council,detailed evidence should be taken from key witnesses, including: council officers involved with thedisposal and the sale, the Leader of the Council, the Chief Executive, the two petitioning groups andresidents of High Town, before making their recommendations to the Executive on 12 th September,2011.

The Executive at their meeting on 7 th April 2008 approved the disposal of four sites that weresurplus to requirements to be disposed of by freehold:

o The former Old Recreation Centre, Old Bedford Roado The former open air pool site behind Wardown Swimming and Leisure Centreo The former elderly persons home, Warden Hillo The Oaks/Acorns site

5. In accordance with the scheme of delegation, the Executive delegated responsibility to theHead of Capital and Asset Management in consultation with the Director of Customer andCorporate Services and the Portfolio Holder for Finance to select the successful tenderers for each of the four sites.

6. The marketing campaign in 2008 attracted interest from private housing developers for the sitesto be marketed for freehold residential use. A bid from a private developer for the former OldRecreation Centre was accepted, which later was withdrawn due to the economic downturn inthe housing market. Other bids were also received from social landlords that were below themarket value.

7. The Performance Resources and Assets Scrutiny Committee in September 2008 received areport from the former Chief Executive that set out the process and timescale for the sale of surplus sites and included terms for the disposal of leasehold and freeholds properties. Thestandard practice was for the Head of Capital and Asset Management to obtain approval fromthe Executive with delegated authority to decide, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder, theterms for disposals.

Preference from the Executive in 2008 was for the disposal of leaseholds properties to bereported back to the Executive as no formal policy existed or fell within the scheme of delegation. Itwas then agreed for the four sites to be marketed for freehold disposal to fall within delegatedauthority to the Head of Capital and Asset Management.

9. Over the last two years the Old Recreation Centre has remained on the property disposals listfollowing the down turn in the housing market and lack of interest from property developers todevelop the site for housing. The Executive was asked to revise the decision made in 2008 tomarket the disposal through open tender, which attracted five bids: 3 of the highest bidderswere from religious organisations, 1 from a care home developer and 1 the lowest bid from aresidential developer.

The current position

10. A religious organisation for 1.5 million was accepted as the preferred bidder in principal for acommunity centre for the Masjid E Ali Community Group. In line with the Executivedecision, approval to proceed with the sale was obtained from the Director of Customer andCorporate Services and the Portfolio Holder for Finance on 21 st January 2011.

8/4/2019 LBC Scrutiny Board Report on the Drill Hall

3/4

11. The decision to proceed with the sale became a controversial issue leading to articles in themedia and resistance from residents of High Town that voiced their concerns at ward councilmeetings held in the area at which the Leader of the Council was in attendance. As the Leader was unaware of the situation, the Council consequently convened a public meeting in HighTown attended by both the Leader of the Council and Chief Executive.

Questions were raised at the March 2011 public meeting regarding the change of use for theSite which lead to rowdiness and bad behaviour by a number of people many of whom were notHigh Town residents.

Evidence received from council officers and the Portfolio Holder for Finance found thedelegated authority agreed by Executive had not identified the intention for the use of the site and thatCouncil officers and the Portfolio Holder for Finance were unaware of the public meeting and thereforeunaware of residents concerns regarding the proposed change of use. Hence the Leader of theCouncil and the Chief Executive had not been briefed as this was not a requirement within thedelegated authority agreed by the Executive.

In light of the events mentioned above the Executive at their meeting on 7 th March 2011received a report by the Head of Capital and Asset Management to consider a review of the propertydisposals policy following guidance from central government. The Executive agreed to:

o Instruct officers to commence a review of policy and procedure relating to the disposal of assets and to review options for the disposal of sites yet to be placed on the market.

o Instruct officers to return with a further report to Executive seeking approval torecommendations arising from the results of recommendation from the above point.

o Instruct the Head of Capital and Asset Management to proceed with the disposal of theformer St. Kildas Childrens Home and 54-58 Alma Street Tenanted Office Premises

o That the disposal of the former High Town Recreation Centre be suspended and officersbe instructed, as part of the review referred to in the first point; to examine viable optionsfor the redevelopment of the site including options for housing and an urban school andto report back to the Executive at a later date.

Proposals15. The Overview and Scrutiny Board concluded:

(i) The Process

The decision by the Executive in 2008 was ambiguous as no clear parameters were definedin terms of the scheme of delegation to officers for the disposal of the site. At that time theintention was to develop the site for housing; however, these intentions were affected by thedownturn in housing market, which created other priorities to be considered such assecuring the highest bid for the land to off-set against priorities within the capitalprogramme.

Although the Executive decision was unclear officers and the Portfolio Holder for Financefollowed the decision making processes; and there was no evidence to show these weredeviated from in any way.

(ii) Communication

The evidence suggests no consultation was held to obtain the views of High Town

residents, and ward councillors were not made aware of the proposed change of use for thesite. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and officers considered that they were workingtowards meeting the requirements of the Executive. The lack of communication led topotential community cohesion issues within the town and drew negative attention from themedia.

8/4/2019 LBC Scrutiny Board Report on the Drill Hall

4/4

(iii) Outcome for the Former High Town Recreation Centre

That before considering a required outcome the Overview and Scrutiny Board would receive the Disposals Policy before making their final decision.

ConsultationsAll evidence gathering meetings held by the Overview and Scrutiny Board have been held to thepublic and their views are reflected in the conclusions and recommendations made.Appendices and additional background papers attached:None.

IMPLICATIONS

Clearance agreed by:Legal Finance

Equalities Environment Community Safety Staffing Other

FOR EXECUTIVE ONLY - Options: