The report presented outlined the call-in made to the Cabinet Decision 110667 - Asset Disposals Programme – Recommended next tranche of properties for disposal, highlighted the reasons why the call-in was made and the alternative proposal being put forward. The report offered advice to the committee on how to manage the call-in through the committee process and should be used as a summary document to help understand the overview of this particular call-in.

Due to Councillor Green unable to attend the meeting due to illness, the chair agreed to read out the statement provided by Councillor Green:

I was supposed to be here this evening to object to the selling of land in Purfleet on Thames, which is distrusted into three sections. First being the Purfleet Medical Centre car park, to be sold for potential ground rent. With the Integrated Medical Centre project now up in the air and HOSC is now waiting for a report what next. Will they be happening? Will it be done on a smaller scale? No one knows. All we know is we are waiting and a potential area for expansion could be the rear of the Purfleet Medical Centre which could potentially house any future medical centre building. But with all this aside expect people to pay to park in there hour of need, we are in a cost-of-living crisis, council tax and rent hikes, residents cannot be expected to fork any further expenditure. The next pieces are two pieces of land located off Water Lane and St Clements Courts and Tank Lane and Purfleet Primary School. Purfleet on Thames has seen many developments over the years and no local infrastructure, which the long-anticipated regeneration was supposed to rectify. But unfortunately, just like the Integrated Medical Centre the regeneration is up in the air. I strongly object and why is Purfleet on Thames potentially losing their green belt to ‘the lungs of Thurrock’. In closing I ask you all to support my call-in and call on cabinet to make the right decision. 

The chair asked the Portfolio Holder to speak, the following points were made:

·       The land referred to by Councillor Green as green belt was actually white land.

·       This was not recreational land; it was a piece of land the council no longer had any use for.

·       Although the land was idle, the council still had maintenance liability for it.

·       Questioned why land that the council had no use for, should be retained.

·       Supported the disposal as there were no identifiable need or use for the land.

·       Planning processes would still need to be undertaken for whomever purchased the land.

·       Recommended to proceed with the disposal of the land at a market value.

Officer updated members on the small piece of land which said “ground rent” this was an old note and should not have been included on the plan.

The Chair asked members for their questions, the following points were made:

·       Members sought some clarification on the relevant parcels of land that were included within the disposal as there had been some confusion over postcodes.

·       Member noted that reports and documentation presented to members needed to be accurate ensuring that the detail presented was correct.

·       Member had concern over the disposal of the land without any consultation or discussion with the community.

·       Member questioned what process and due diligence had been undertaken to identify this land for disposal.

·       Member questioned that going forward would there be an opportunity for ward members and communities to see cabinet papers, to comment and put forward any objections on land disposals.

·       Member stated this felt like a “test case” and there had to be due process in place before further asset lists came forward and that lessons could be learnt from tonight’s meeting.

·       Officer agreed that information would be shared earlier and much wider, to be available in advance to try and avoid further call-in meetings.

·       Member highlighted as the land was fenced off, access should only be available to those with permission.

·       Member questioned whether the land had or could be called in for a community asset.

·       Members discussed the planning process which would include looking at tree preservations orders.

The Chair agreed that Councillor Watson could speak, who raised her concerns in particular the amount of infrastructure being proposed for Purfleet on Thames, the uncertainty of the Integrated Medical Centre, loss of part of the NHS car park, questioned how these would fit into the local plan and to think about residents and what communities need.

The Chair thanked members for their robust debate and summarised the following comments - thanked Councillor Green for his call-in; Portfolio Holder disputed the call-in by stating no planned use of the land; Members were here to scrutinize reports; the lack of detailed information had been noted; uncertainties raised on the use of the land; questioned the due diligence process; members appreciated the financial situation of the council; consideration of consultations; awareness of future disposals and to improve communication; be mindful of any tree preservation orders; thanked officers for their comments; Chair’s personal view was there was no reason to dispose of council land; noted Councillor Watson’s comments that backed up Councillor’s Green statement; the words “consultation” and “unsure” were heard a lot this evening; referred to the principles of the call-in made by Councillor Green to refer back to cabinet.

The Chair called a vote to which 6 members voted for, 0 against, 0 abstained.

RESOLVED

1.1       The Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee agreed to accept the call-in and refer back to Cabinet.

1.2       The Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee ask Cabinet to re-consider the decision based on due regard to communities.

At 7.50pm, Mark Bradbury and Rob Large left the meeting.