Agenda and minutes

At this point Members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have in the business on this agenda.

At this point in the meeting Members were invited to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they might have in the business on the agenda.

Councillors Pierce and Aspden both declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in Item 4 (Hungate Review – Interim Report) as they are both members of English Heritage.

Councillor Taylor also declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in Item 4 (Hungate Review – Interim Report), as he is a member of York Civic Trust.

At this point in the meeting, members of the public who have registered their wish to speak regarding an item on the agenda or an issue within the committee’s remit can do so. Anyone who wishes to register or requires further information is requested to contact the Democracy Officer on the contact details listed at the foot of the agenda. The deadline for registering is Monday 9 March2009 at 5.00pm.

It was reported that there had been no registrations to speak under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 January 2009.

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 January 2009 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendment being made:

 Page 5, second bullet point, second sentence, to replace the word confirmed with the word “stated”: ‘Officers stated that this would not be normal practice…’

This Interim Report provides details of the information gathered at the informal consultation sessions and formal meetings and provides additional information requested by Members at the previous meeting on 27^th January 2009.

Members considered an interim report of the Hungate Ad-Hoc Scrutiny Review.

In regard to the financial information at Annex B, the Head of Property Services reiterated that the estimated costs in the table were only a forecast estimation of the future committed expenditure and that any abortive costs would not be known until later.

Officers confirmed that:

·                 the costs included the demolition of the Peasholme hostel and the new hostel at Fishergate

·                 in regard to the demolition costs, the Hungate site was now a larger and more valuable site and that knocking down the Peasholme hostel had added to the value of the site.  Also the Peasholme hostel was no longer fit for purpose therefore a new hostel needed to be built anyway

·                 the interest from selling St Leonard’s was more than the rent

·                 it was likely  that St Leonard’s would still be in use by the Council in 2010, therefore the additional rent for that period had been included

·                 in relation to the additional fees paid to the consultant architects of £125,000, five models had been produced of which the Council had purchased one model subsequently, CABE were not happy with the model chosen so the Council decided to change their brief resulting in additional work for the architects

·                 information on the current procurement process for a new HQ would be available once the new site had been agreed

While recognising the increased value of the site, Members suggested that market variables should also be taken into account.

In regard to the strategic site study, Members noted that there was conflicting information from the consultant and English Heritage about massing and queried whether the issue of the adjoining public house had been taken into account.  Officers confirmed that information had been taken from the Hungate Masterplan, that software models had been used to show the massing, and a massing study had been undertaken.  It was acknowledged that the pictures in the strategic site study were stills and did not show everything.

Members considered the documentation provided by CABE as a result of their Freedom of Information request, and expressed concern at some possible gaps in the information provided.  Members referred specifically to the CABE meetings held on  28 February and 4 August 2008 and requested that the  Scrutiny Officer write to CABE¹ and to thank them for their response and to request copies of the full notes from those meetings.  Members also expressed their disappointment at the decision of English Heritage not to attend the meeting and requested that a letter be sent urging them to attend the next meeting or respond in writing to the queries raised by the Committee at their last meeting. It was suggested that both the letters be copied to the Information Commissioner.

In regard to objective (i), officers confirmed that the initial budget set was sufficient for a basic office block as specified in the original brief given by Members.  But, as the public’s expectations for a civic building came to light,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.