Following the call-in of the decision with regard to land at Post Hill made by Cabinet on 3 December 2020.
The Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 14 December had made the following recommendation:
‘That Cabinet reconsiders its decision on the delivery of Post Hill homes by a possible Teckal Company and that it instead substitutes it for a recommendation to Full Council’.
The Cabinet Member for Housing and Property Services stated that he was confused by the recommendation from the Scrutiny Committee as any decision with regard to the formation of a Teckal Company had not yet been considered. With regard to development at Post Hill, there was no project plan and that any design work had yet to be completed. He emphasised that he would be happy that any decision to be made on the formation of a Teckal Company would be a Council decision.
Consideration was given to:
· The views of the Scrutiny Committee with regard to the previous decision and whether that was predetermination of a decision with regard to the formation of a Teckal Company
· The delivery of affordable housing on the Post Hill site.
RESOLVED that following Cabinet consideration of the formation or not of a Teckal Company that the decision and relevant papers are taken to Full Council for consideration and deliberation.
(Proposed by Cllr R B Evans and seconded by Cllr R J Chesterton)
Note: Papers previously circulated copy attached to minutes
The Cabinet had before it a *a report of Deputy Chief Executive (S151) providing options to progress the development of land at Post Hill, Tiverton.
The Cabinet Member for Housing and Property Services provided a response to the questions posed in public question time: he thanked Mr Quinn for his question and stated that he was quite right that a previous Cabinet decision provided for expenditure on advice regarding the possibilities of a Teckal-compliant company. That was why the wording of this evening’s report did not assume that such an entity would exist in future and provided for a Cabinet decision to be made based on both possible outcomes.
So to answer Mr Quinn’s specific questions; firstly the report was likely to be scheduled to come to Cabinet in January and he believed that the Council’s forward plan was being published tomorrow (Friday) confirming this. And secondly, yes this would be listed as an open item.
He then outlined the contents of the report which provided background information with regard to the site and the need for financial diligence to protect the HRA, he felt that Option 4 would be the way forward.
Consideration was given to:
· The need for social housing as outlined in the Corporate Plan
· Funding streams for social housing
· The impact on the HRA
· The percentage of affordable housing on the whole site which was set at 21% and the viability issues which had lead to the figure
· The meaning of affordable housing
· The need for low carbon dwellings
· The housing need in the locality
· A proposal to use infill sites for social housing to be funded by the HRA across the district and not on one site (which would form another report to be presented to the Homes Policy Development Group and the Cabinet)
· Whether to consider a full tender exercise rather than consider the establishment of a Teckal compliant company
· Any Teckal company would be bound by procurement rules and the impact of Brexit on European procurement rules
· Further information required with regard to setting up a Teckal compliant company
1) Authority be given to submit a planning application, subject to final design and based on:
(iii) Option 4- 70 Affordable Homes
(Proposed by Cllr R B Evans and seconded by Cllr D J Knowles)
2) In the event that Cabinet proceeds in future to establish a new company structure, which
(i) is “Teckal” compliant; and
(ii) appropriate for the delivery of social/affordable housing
the Cabinet agrees that delivery of the housing will be through that new company, subject to advice received when establishing the new company and any other material factors.
(Proposed by Cllr R B Evans and seconded by Cllr B A Moore)
3) Recommendation 3 within the report be withdrawn following the debate and approval of recommendation 2 and that a further report with regard to the tender exercise for Post Hill, Tiverton be brought before the Cabinet at a future meeting.
(Proposed by the Chairman)
Reason for decision – A decision was required on what level and mix of housing would be provided on the recently acquired Post Hill development site and then what would be the most appropriate delivery mechanism to bring this forward.
Note: *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.