The Interim Property Services Manager introduced the report which recommended the leasehold disposal of parts of the Council owned land as shown on the plan in Appendix I of the report.

Members were invited to make comments, and these included:

·         Welcomed the future improvement of this asset;

·         referred to paragraph 2.6 in the report which included details of what was to be included in the Business Plans, and considered that Members needed to be more involved in the decision-making process;

·         would like to know more about the Expressions of Interest (EOI);

·         Barton’s Point, Sheerness had been an under-used asset;

·         the EOIs should be pursued;

·         this was part of the re-development of Sheerness and should correlate with the Levelling-Up fund;

·         the Committee needed to know what any potential leasee would provide;

·         regeneration, property and economic development sat together within the Council, and so there would be an over-arching view;

·         more detail needed on the transfer of this asset;

·         this decision would help to reduce costs to the Council;

·         noted that the current concession had already been extended and had expired, as set out in paragraph 2.4 of the report, so the process needed to proceed quickly;

·         email updates to the Committee would be helpful; and

·         suggested the Head of Mid-Kent Legal be included within recommendation (3).

In response, the Interim Property Services Manager explained that the EOI process was undertaken when it looked as though the Council was looking at a concession agreement, but now a lease arrangement had been decided as the way forward, as set out in paragraph 2.7 of the report.  He explained that this was not a Community Asset Transfer (CAT), but a commercial transfer which was the most viable option for the Council, and it was likely that the final lessee would be a ‘clear runner’ as there were not many companies that would take the asset on.  The Interim Property Services Manager said the leasehold arrangement would remove large maintenance costs and liabilities from the Council.

The Chair proposed the recommendations, and these were seconded by Councillor Mike Henderson.

Councillor Angela Harrison moved the following amendment:  That recommendation (3) be amended to include ‘in consultation with the Chair and group spokespersons from the Regeneration and Property Committee and to include the Head of Mid-Kent Legal Partnership.  This was seconded by Councillor Peter Marchington.  There was some discussion that Ward Members should be included and that they be the group spokesperson where relevant.  On being put to the vote the amendment was agreed.

Resolved:

(1)      That in principle the leasehold disposal of the site to a user or occupier who could invest in and improve the leisure facilities at the site be agreed.  

(2)      That any lease would be granted on the basis that continued use and access of the open spaces by the public would be maintained.

(3)      That authority be delegated to the Head of Regeneration, Economic Development and Property, in consultation with the Chair and group spokespersons from the Regeneration and Property Committee and to include the Head of Mid-Kent Legal Partnership to complete the necessary legal formalities, negotiate, and agree leasehold contracts as applicable and undertake any additional work required to achieve a leasehold disposal.