PAPER C

 

Purpose : For Decision

 

                        REPORT TO THE EXECUTIVE

 

Date :              3 NOVEMBER 2004

 

Title :               SEAVIEW ROPEWALK TOILETS, SALE AND ALTERNATIVE PROVISION

                         

JOINT REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR RESOURCES AND THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING POLICY

 

IMPLEMENTATION DATE : 15 November 2004

 


 

SUMMARY/PURPOSE

 

1                    To dispose of the existing public toilets in Seaview in a manner which secures alternative, higher quality provision of public toilets for the long-term future.  Reduces or removes the revenue cost of provision of those public toilets.  Secures the maximum capital receipt consistent with delivering the policy objectives.

 

BACKGROUND

 

2                    Earlier this year the Executive agreed the sale of the Seaview Ropewalk Toilets to the owner of the Seaview Hotel, by way of a leasehold arrangement that decision was called in by the Resources Select Committee under the scrutiny procedure.

 

3                    The Resources Select Committee met on the 7 June and recommended to the Portfolio Holders that the proposed arrangements be delayed pending determination of a planning application for this site and consideration of financial benefits of other alternatives.

 

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

 

4                    Seaview and Nettlestone Parish Council has confirmed the local community does have an expectation that the toilet facilities will be replaced if the site of the existing toilets is used differently.  As such the local community will expect a permanent replacement with assurance that the provision of the service is to be provided for the foreseeable future.

 

5                    The possibility of the Council providing toilets elsewhere on land yet to be identified and for which planning permission would need to be obtained must be considered.  Given such an opportunity were to be available, and it is not expected to be, (after which the existing toilet blocks could be sold for redevelopment) then the present value analysis of costs is as follows:

 


Capital Receipt for sale of two building plots (optimistic value)

 

 

£200,000

New build costs of toilets (priced by independent surveyors)

£170,000

 

Whole life running costs (excluding inflation and period upgrades)

 £92,400

 

Land acquisition value (estimated)

£20,000

£282,400

Total negative value

 

-£82,400

 

6                    Thirdly, the Council’s independent Consulting Surveyors have also been asked to reconsider their advice to the Council.  This has been done in the knowledge that the proposed development by the Seaview Hotel would now need a lift to comply with Building Control requirements, but may obtain an additional letting room, all subject to planning permission.  The consultants have reported their views and conclude that “after consideration of the additional significant costs of installing the lift and other associated works we believe that the terms of the transaction as currently agreed remain favourable to the Council, despite the design now showing one more room than originally planned”. This advice to the Council is dated 12 July.

 

7                    To be absolutely certain that there is no alternative route open to the Council that will provide the Council with a better result than previously proposed, invitations to treat were sought by way of public notice for any other proposition to come forward. 

 

8                    Following this advertisement three public enquiries were received for information pack.

 

9                    Three new proposals were received on 12 August seeking to purchase either a leasehold or freehold interest in the Council’s property; this made four proposals as follows :

 

·                    F leasehold interest £30,000

Plus new toilets, plus deed of covenant over hotel.  (This original proposal whilst not resubmitted has been reaffirmed.)

 

·                    G leasehold interest £32,000

Plus new toilet but no undertaking, bond or covenant offered.

 

·                    H freehold interest £45,000

Plus bond later changed to freehold covenant for new toilets.

 

·                    K freehold interest £55,000

Plus new toilet but no undertaking, bond or covenant offered.

 

10               All three proposals were made conditional on planning permission being granted.

 

11               Evaluation of the proposals was against the criteria of securing long-term service provision, long-term revenue cost and capital receipt.

 

12               All three of the above tenderers were approached on this subject and the two bids, G and K, declined to give any assurance about long-term provision and were therefore withdrawn from the process. 

 

FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

 

13               The current running costs of the Ropewalk Toilets at Seaview includes rates, cleaning, insurance, water, electricity, minor repairs and time spent on inspections expressed as a present value lump sum is £92,400.  This excludes periodic upgrades to this service and the back log of building repairs. Any capital receipt will be added to the capitalised saving.

 

OPTIONS

 

(a)              To declare the site of the existing WC’s as surplus to requirements.

 

(b)              To accept offer F.

 

(c)               To accept the offer by bidder “H”.

 

(d)              To close these toilets and market the freehold disposal.

 

(e)              To keep the existing toilet provision.

 

EVALUATION/RISK MANAGEMENT

 

14               Proposal F is the best offer in terms of securing long term provision of quality public toilets at nil cost to the Council whilst also obtaining a capital receipt.

 

15               The Select Committee recommended that planning permission should first be granted before any transfer of property shall take place.  All offers have been made on the basis that contracts shall be conditional on planning permission being granted; this meets with the Select Committee’s recommendation in that there will need to be an acceptable outcome to a planning application before any binding commitment to dispose of the current site arises. This is the traditional and accepted property procedure for new development proposals. Developers require the strength of a contractual undertaking before they will run the risk of investment in professional design fees and other costs.  The assessment of value is on the assumption that planning consent has been granted.

 

16               The two proposals left, F and H, must be evaluated against the three criteria set out above.  Proposal H initially offered a bond but later confirmed that a bond in perpetuity would be prohibitively expensive and offered instead to enter into a positive covenant against the freehold, in addition to entering into a positive covenant.

 

17               The most important and valuable consideration to be secured in any transfer of this property is the on-going provision of toilets.  It is therefore, extremely important that Members are clear about the weakness of the offer by bid H and the strength of the undertakings provided through the original offer.

 

18               Tender H is weak because the imposition of a covenant on a freehold sale of the site of the existing toilets would leave no land left in the ownership of the Council that could be benefited by such covenant.  Therefore the means of enforcement of such covenant would be in the law of contract only which would provide no longevity for the covenant and the result of subsequent sale of the site would cause the contractual relationship between the Council and its buyer to be lost making such an arrangement unsafe. 

 

19               The benefit and strength of the undertaking from Proposal F is in two parts.  Firstly because the arrangement is by way of a lease for an extension to the hotel there would be a direct relationship between the Council and all successors in title.  Under such a lease the Council can enforce the provision of new toilets because a failure to do otherwise would put the leaseholder in breach of that lease. Such a breach would give the Council right to seek forfeiture subject to the mechanics of the Landlord and Tenant legislation being observed. Secondly, the Hotel owner has agreed that a Deed of Covenant can be registered over the existing Hotel site to bind the maintenance and upkeep of the new conveniences to a standard set by the Council otherwise the owner will incur severe penalties.

 

20               By only granting a leasehold interest of the site for the hotel extension the Council is retaining its freehold ownership. As such the Council will have a reversionary interest over the area of the new hotel extension. Therefore the Council would own the benefit of an appreciating reversionary asset.  This is a minor consideration and may not, of it self, be determinative.

 

21               The scale and scope for redevelopment on the existing site is severely limited whilst   a marriage of estate interests between the Council and the Hotel offers the best opportunity for improvement provided the Council can satisfy best consideration. On its own the Council’s existing property is hampered and extremely restricted because of size, boundary lines, rights to light and accessibility.

 

22               Given the high level of demand for public conveniences closing the facility and disposing of the freehold is not offered as an option.  Equally maintaining the status quo would miss the opportunity to develop new better quality facilities at a lowed cost to the public purse and is not offered as an option.

 

23               The direct management of public conveniences facilities reduces the likelihood of vandalism to such facilities and other incidents of Crime and Disorder.

 

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

 

24               There will need to be a Building Agreement with draft lease annexed granted over the site of the WCs.  To ensure the future operation of the new toilets and as the Council will continue to be the freehold owner of the WCs there will also have to be accompanying documentation in the form of a Deed of Covenant between the Council and the freeholder owner of the Hotel.  This will deal with standards, opening hours, signage, repair, maintenance, inspection, entry, default works at Hotel owner’s expense with arrangements for control over alternative WC arrangements plus appropriate indemnity and penalties.  The consideration will be £30k, the covenants in the lease and Deed of Covenant, the provision and maintenance and availability of the new toilet facilities throughout the leasehold term and grant of Lease and the Deed of Covenant.  The new toilet accommodation will be operational before the WCs are demolished and development commenced.  The Council is empowered to sell its property and to secure the provision of public conveniences by the Local Government Acts 1972 and 2000 Part 1 and will be actively pursuing objectives of the Community Strategy.  Independent Consultants have issued a report recommending this transaction as best consideration for the Council.

 

STRATEGIC CONTEXT

 

25               By enabling the redeployment of this asset in Seaview, the Council will be progressing the Community Strategy by fulfilling several strategic objectives.  The Council will be helping the development of a more sustainable environment in terms of access to facilities and leisure attractions; the promotion of a quality built environment through the development of a new well designed toilet facility; the consequent promotion of the local economy and economic development enabling a local business to make a longer term investment decision; and, by transferring the management of the new conveniences this should also enable a safer environment through direct on site management.

 

26               The Council’s Corporate Plan and Island Futures Local Strategic Plan both include aims that the Council will promote employment and support tourism.  These are key themes in both strategies and will be enabled by extending the accommodation and facilities available to a quality Hotel.

 

CONCLUSION

 

27               On balance, the best offer remains that made by the owner of Seaview Hotel, this is because the cumulative consideration of the new toilet provision and maintenance and availability, the whole life running cost saving, the freehold Deed of Covenant plus the benefit of the leasehold and freehold covenants, the £30k monetary consideration and the retained freehold reversion is best consideration for the Council and not bettered by any other service provision and financial offer.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

To declare the Seaview toilets site surplus to requirements and to dispose of a leasehold interest in the existing Seaview toilets site, subject to planning permission being granted, in consideration of :

 

(I)                  £30,000

(II)                A covenant to provide quality public toilets in perpetuity

(III)               A tenants obligation to provide public toilets in perpetuity

 

BACKGROUND PAPERS

 

Proposals (and evaluation of proposals) received from F, G, H, K (exempt under paragraph 9 Schedule 12A Local Government Act 1972).

 

Contact Point :   Tony Flower, Head of Property Services ' 823263 e-mail [email protected]

 

 

TONY FLOWER

Head of Property Services

REG BARRY

Portfolio Holder for Resources

 

TERRY BUTCHERS

Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Development,

Environment and Planning Policy