Mark Beeley explained that the call in on St Cloud Way would be initially considered in Part I, allowing a public speaker to address the Panel and initial comments from Members to be made. The Panel would then move to Part II for the rest of the discussion.

Councillor L Jones questioned whether the sale of the St Cloud Way site needed to take place at the current time, if it applied with the council’s adopted plans and strategies and if the council was getting best value, in terms of finance and the demand for affordable housing.

A public speaker, Mr Andrew Hill, addressed the Panel. He understood that the meeting would move to Part II but private details of the site had been reported in the press. He had a number of questions for officers:

·         Was the land currently owned by the council?

·         Was the decision to put the land forward for planning permission one taken in conjunction with officers or Members of RBWM?

·         Did officers agree that for the press and public to be legitimately excluded from Part II discussions, that the answer needed to be ‘no’ to the two questions above?

·         Did the meeting contain any information which had to be disclosed under the Companies Act?

·         Officers needed to ensure that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information, Mr Hill asked for confirmation that this was the case.

Emma Duncan, Monitoring Officer and Director of Law, Strategy and Public Health, said that residents were entitled to ask questions at meetings and officers were not obliged to reveal anything which could prejudice the position of the council. She suggested that officers sought legal advice before answers were provided to Mr Hill’s questions. Part II was necessary for private discussions, irrelevant of whether some details had been leaked to the press. Emma Duncan was satisfied that the right exemption had been applied in this case.

The Chairman said that a response to the questions raised would be provided to Mr Hill after the meeting.

ACTION – Answers to Mr Hill’s questions to be provided after the meeting.

Councillor Johnson said that he was extremely disappointed that information had been leaked to the media, Part II information was confidential for a reason. An unprecedented amount of information and reports had been shared in Part I. This was the third piece of information leaked to the media, all of which was related geographically to St Cloud Way. It damaged the council and also trust in elected Members, along with the relationship the council had with businesses and organisations. Councillor Johnson had assurances from the Conservative Group that they had not leaked the information, it was disappointing that someone wanted to undermine the position of the local authority.

Councillor L Jones felt that the comments made were not needed in scrutiny. She did not feel it was appropriate to have this conversation at the meeting.

The Chairman understood the genuine concerns raised by Councillor Johnson but it was important to consider the matter in hand.

Councillor Baldwin said that he felt that Councillor Johnson was accusing a Member of the Opposition or an officer of the council of leaking the information. He said that a serious investigation should be called, rather than making remarks at scrutiny.

Councillor Johnson said that it undermined the position of the council and the ability of scrutiny to hold the executive to account effectively.

Councillor Werner said that he was upset about the accusation from Councillor Johnson, he had received assurances from the Liberal Democrat Group that they had not leaked the information. Councillor Werner requested an apology from Councillor Johnson.

Councillor Johnson said that he had not made an accusation, he thanked Councillor Werner and Councillor L Jones for their assurances from their respective groups. He was frustrated that this was the third time a leak of confidential information had happened.

The Chairman said that there would be an investigation on the leak, the Panel needed to move to Part II to continue the discussion on St Cloud Way.

A summary of the Part II discussion:

The Panel discussed the land value for the St Cloud Way site which was different to the one which had been put forward in 2017. The Members which had signed the call in form were concerned that the council was not achieving ‘value for money’ and that the decision to sell the land for the sum stated should be reconsidered. There was also concern that the business plan that had been put together for the construction of Braywick Leisure Centre included selling the land at St Cloud Way for the sum which had been advertised in 2017.

Officers had explained that the land value could change when plans for the development of the site were proposed and finalised, along with when planning consent was granted. The amount of affordable housing planned for a site could also affect the land value, while other impacts on the land value included the increase in construction costs and the current economic climate. RBWM was in a contract with the developers of the site which meant that the land needed to be sold, otherwise the council could incur additional financial penalties. The council had a guarantee that the land could not be sold for a lower amount than the residual land value, while there was also an overage clause to ensure the council benefited from any increase in the sales value of properties on the site.

Members of the Panel questioned the impact of the new land value on the Medium Term Financial Strategy of the council and whether this could have an impact on other projects and services that the council provided.

Officers informed the Panel that schemes should not be factored into plans until they had received planning consent, to ensure that the council did not rely on income which did not then materialise. The capital cashflows were updated throughout the year and slippage also had to be factored into the plan.

After the discussion on the item, it was decided that the council needed to progress with the decision. Members of the Panel requested that background documents were provided showing the original land valuation of the site in 2017, along with the dates where changes to the land value had been taken to Cabinet.

RESOLVED: That the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel took no further action, therefore the decision could be implemented immediately.