Minutes:
Dr.
“1. How
did Leicestershire County Council arrive at its current valuation for Measham
Youth Club’s current land and building?
2. Does
the County Council consider this valuation to be incredibly mean considering
that the lack of finance available to the Club will inhibit its ability to
provide a replacement facility?
3. The
current site of the Youth Club is being bought as part of the Ashby Canal
Project. What is the anticipated increase in land value the Council expects
when it sells the land on to a developer?
Is this part of the motivating factors for the current valuation?
4. How
much profit does the Council expect itself or developers to achieve from the
sale of the site?
5. Has
any analysis been undertaken to assess the long term impact on the local
community from the loss of this Youth Club?
6. Is
the County Council going to stand idly by whilst an important community
facility like Measham Youth Club is destroyed, potentially exacerbating local
anti-social behaviour issues, as well as damaging future community cohesion?”
The Chairman replied as follows:-
“1. The County Council is restricted by statute
as to how it assesses compensation .There is a set of rules laid down in
Section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 which govern the basis of
compensation. The current valuation of the site has been based on what is
considered to be the market value of the site in accordance with Rule 2 of
these Rules and reflects what is felt to be the value for the site assuming
potential for its development for residential purposes. In addition, the County Council will pay any
eligible Disturbance and other statutory payments due to the Youth Club. The
site extends to approximately 1 acre and whilst a residential development value
has been applied, the valuation assumes a deduction to allow for the need to
negotiate access to the site over other land. The Youth Club have
appointed Surveyors to act on their behalf (and whose fees will be met by the
County Council) and officers remain in discussion with them over whether this
or an alternative valuation is appropriate in this case.
2. The
valuation reflects the fact that the County Council is governed by a statutory
scheme in assessing compensation which precludes the consideration of factors
such as the financial status of the owner.
3. It is expected that any land which is
surplus to the requirements of the Canal scheme, will be disposed of under the
terms of the Joint Venture Agreement between the County Council and Ideal
Country Homes (Measham) Ltd. Any income arising from an increase in the value
of the land on disposal will arise solely from the reinstatement of the Canal
and subject to Cabinet approval would simply be set against the cost of
construction (which is estimated to be in the region of £13 million). There is
therefore no profit to the County Council from the overall scheme.
4. The answer to question 3 above
sets out the basis on which the County Council is proposing to enter into the
process of disposing of surplus land, including the Measham Youth Club. It is
not possible at the present time to predict entirely accurately the proceeds of
sale and to do so in a public forum would not be in accordance with the County
Council’s usual practice, as this information is commercially sensitive pending
conclusion of regulations and conveyencing procedures.
5. The County Council’s Youth Service is aware of
the situation regarding the Ashby Canal Project and will continue to work with
the local Youth Club Management Committee to ensure the securing of provision
in the area.
The Youth Service has
developed previous strategies to remain in contact with young people in
communities where there are limited sites to work out from via the use of
mobile youth facilities. This would be viewed as a short term measure in the
example of the Measham transition to new premises.
6. The County Council has been attempting to resolve the purchase of this
site in order to remove the uncertainty for the Club and we are happy to offer
advice and support to the Club when it has decided how it wishes
to establish its operations elsewhere. The
decision as to how the compensation monies are spent rests with the Trustees of
the Youth Club.
In addition, whilst the County Council will continue to look to acquire
the site, it does not need to occupy the property just yet and therefore an
offer has been made for the Club to remain in occupation for a period after completion
of the purchase to assist in ensuring a smooth transition from the current site
to any new one. A proposed new site has been identified and is being
considered. It is therefore inappropriate to describe the
facility as being “destroyed”. If the Youth Club Management Committee chooses
to take the option of advice and support from the County Council, issues such
as those raised in the question of improving community
cohesion and tackling anti-social behaviour can be discussed.
As one of the 19 priority neighbourhoods, Measham will figure
significantly in the future plans of Departments, especially those
Services that are charged with securing positive activities and addressing anti
social behaviour. Youth work staff are already involved in enabling young
people to have a say in the
future of provision in the area and during a visit to the proposed relocation
site young people and workers both felt the new venue had much to offer both in
terms of the current quality of accommodation and the location of facilities.
The team of part-time staff and the Locality Youth Development workers are in
regular contact with the Youth Club Management Committee members. Measham is
expected to benefit from other investment in young people’s provision in the
area with initiatives such as the ‘YTalk’ social
networking sites project, which has received funding from the ‘Connecting
Communities’ grant.”
Dr. Vaughan asked the following
supplementary question on the reply to question 1:
“The Youth Club land has been valued by the County Council at
approximately £150,000. The other side of the road from the Youth Club land
there are two plots of land totaling 0.2 acres being offered for sale at
£250,000. How can the County Council justify an offer of £150,000 for approximately
one acre of land when a highways officer has declared that access to the youth
Club land is not a problem and would not need negotiation with a third party?”
Response:
At the request of the Chairman, the Director
of Corporate Resources responded to the supplementary question put forward and
confirmed that the access to
the Youth Club’s current premises was not owned by the Youth Club and this had
therefore affected the valuation. There was no guarantee that Highways approval
would be given to moving the access, onto Youth Club owned land, without going
through a formal planning process. There were several other similar sized
sites in Measham that had struggled in the current market and it was felt that
the valuation was fair.
Dr. Vaughan asked the following
supplementary question on the reply to question 2:
“Does the County Council accept that with an
offer of £150,000 for the Youth Club land, there is no possibility of the
existing facility being replaced?”
The Chairman replied that he would ensure Dr. Vaughan was provided with
a written response to his supplementary question.
Dr. Vaughan asked the following
supplementary question on the reply to question 3:
“At what price is the County Council going to
sell the surplus Youth Club land to Ideal Country Homes?”
The Chairman replied that he would ensure Dr. Vaughan was provided with
a written response to his supplementary question.
Dr. Vaughan asked the following
supplementary question on the reply to question 5:
“The County Council states that mobile facilities
could be used in the transition to new premises. With £150,000 no new premises
are feasible. Does the County Council accept this fact?”
The Chairman replied that he would ensure Dr. Vaughan was provided with
a written response to his supplementary question.
Dr. Vaughan asked the following
supplementary question on the reply to question 6:
“Does the County Council not accept that
without new premises to replace those lost by compulsory purchase - due to the
£150,000 being insufficient to purchase new premises – the Youth Club will
eventually cease to exist?”
The Chairman replied that he would ensure Dr. Vaughan was provided with
a written response to his supplementary question.
It was felt by members that it was difficult to
form on a view on matters such as these without being made aware of all the
relevant facts. Accordingly, it was proposed by Mr. Bailey, seconded by Mr.
Hunt and carried:
“That the Scrutiny Commissioners discuss this
case with a view to requesting that a detailed report on this matter be brought
to a future meeting of the Commission on how the Youth Club can be assisted in
re-establishing itself at alternative premises.”