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.

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

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 26 January 2009 at 5.00pm.

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

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 January 2009.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 12 January be approved as a correct record and signed by the chair subject to the following amendments being made:-

• Final Paragraph on Page 4 being divided to create two paragraphs with the second paragraph starting “The Head of Property Services responded…..”

• First paragraph on Page 5 be amended to read “ With regard to the consultation process the Head of Property Services confirmed that Atkins had followed normal procedure and had consulted the Council’s  planning officers about the site. The Council’s planning officers had previously consulted English Heritage about the proposals for the Masterplan for Hungate.

This Interim report provides details of the information gathered at the informal consultation sessions and subsequently discussed at the formal meeting on 12 January 2009, and the additional information requested by Members.

Members considered an updated interim report, which provided background information on the review and included a record and analysis of information gathered at two informal information gathering sessions from key internal and external consultees who had been involved in the Hungate project. Members discussed and agreed amendments to both the interim report and the record and analysis of information (Annex A). The Assistant Director of Property Services and Accommodation Project Director attended the meeting.

Members asked for clarification on who had been responsible for the decisions made. Officers confirmed that the Executive were responsible for all formal decisions made until July 2008 when the Chief Executive (following consultation with Group Leaders) took the decision to withdraw the planning application.

Members asked for clarification on how CMT (Corporate Management Team) were kept informed on decisions taken in relation to the project. Officers confirmed that in addition to CMT receiving copies of all Executive reports, verbal updates and presentations were also given.

Officers also confirmed that the planning application, which was later withdrawn by the Chief Executive, was based on the revised design.

The revised budget history (Annex B) which had been marked “to follow” on the agenda was circulated to Members at the meeting and the agenda had been republished online to include this information. The Technical Finance Manager presented the budget history, which included additional information on leases and carbon costs. Members noted that it did not include information on the additional 2-year rental costs to be incurred for St Leonards, or the additional interest to be earned on the money from the sale as previously requested. Therefore Members agreed that the information still did not reflect the true position with regard to the actual expenditure and committed and abortive costs and asked for a further update to be provided to the next meeting. 

The Scrutiny Officer reported that she had received the information, which had been requested from English Heritage under the Freedom of Information Act and had provided Members with copies of this information. This information included copies of notes taken at internal IAR (Important Application Review) meetings since August 2007, other internal documentation and copies of letters and e-mails held by English Heritage regarding the Hungate development. Members discussed the information and made the following points:

• English Heritage did not express a strong objection to the revised design until the objection letter of 8 July 2008. For example, notes from English Heritage’s IAR meeting held on 23 June 2008 included comments in support of the proposal.

• English Heritage were aware of CABE’s (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment)views as stated in CABE’s letter of 8 April 2008, but at no time did the views of English Heritage appear to reflect the same view.

• The documentation sent by English Heritage in response to the Freedom of Information request did not contain any correspondence/documentation or record of any discussions taking place between 26^th June and 8^th July 2008. Members therefore struggled to understand what had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.