Minutes:
Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member (Health and Wellbeing) - Councillor Mick Titherington
There were no questions.
Cabinet Member (Communities, Social Justice and Wealth Building) – Councillor Aniela Bylinski Gelder
The Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Karen Walton, noted she had not received a written response regarding her question asked at the last Council meeting regarding the young people speaking at Planning Committee. A response would be provided following the meeting.
A member of the public queried the functionality of the council’s website, noting that some information was out of date. He noted the ‘clean streets’ app which assisted in reporting issues as an option and might reduce the number of calls to customer services.
Councillor Bylinski Gelder requested the detail of the question be shared with her to enable further investigation, highlighted the work to date on the new website and thanked the member of the public for his feedback.
Cabinet Member (Finance, Property and Assets) – Councillor Matthew Tomlinson
A question was submitted in advance by Councillor Damian Bretherton:
At the last council meeting I asked for an update on the financial implications for the McKenzie Arms development. A recent Homes England Compliance Audit on the McKenzie Arms development referred to a predevelopment valuation report. At Cabinet in November 2019 the scheme was presented at a cost of slightly more than £2 million with an estimated end value of £1.34 million. The valuer, under the Value For Money section of their report, indicated a “valuation gap” of £705,000.
Since then, costs have risen to over £3 million. Can the Cabinet member report on what the completion cost will be, or known to date, for the 15 homes and an estimate of the new “valuation gap” when completed?
Can the Cabinet Member confirm that Sanderson Weatherall (RICS Registered Valuer) will be invited back to revisit the site on completion to provide a report on the valuation of the completed project and update on the “valuation gap”?
Councillor Tomlinson apologised for any confusion and noted his recollection was that the question would be shared in writing for a response. He noted the complex history of the site, including restrictions on the resale of the site when the property was purchased.
The site would be valued as part of the accounts to state whether the development provided value for money for the existing use as social housing. As the project neared completion there was a projected underspend of around £180,000.
The budget was £3.1 million and the expected completion costs were £2.8 million.
Councillor Margaret Smith raised a point of order for personal clarification – that the council had partnered with a registered social landlord for the provision of homes within the borough.
A member of the public noted the freeze in council tax, noting money saving options and queried the plans to balance the budget.
Councillor Tomlinson noted shared services, use of ICT and efficiency gains as money saving options and advised that the budget was currently being finalised. The general reserves held by the council would be above that agreed sum of £4 million. He noted that staff deserved a pay rise.
Cabinet Member Planning, Business Support and Regeneration) – Councillor James Flannery
There were no questions.