Agenda item

This matter is the responsibility of Executive Councillor Federica Smith-Roberts, Leader of the Council 

The purpose of the report is for Full Council to consider this matter and make a final decision as to whether it wishes to proceed with the sale.

Recommendations:-

That Full Council resolves to authorise Officers: 

2.1.1   to discuss the terms of a lease of land at Galmington Playing Fields (as shown in Appendix D – Land Requirement) to Maggie’s for the purpose of a new cancer support centre; and if so

2.1.2   to report back to Full Council following statutory publication of the disposal for consideration of any representations received and a final decision on disposal; and

2.1.3   to investigate placing the remaining land into trust.

The Motion was lost as follows:-

44 against, 5 for and 2 abstentions.

Councillors were advised of the following before the debate took place:-

The local authority, i.e. the corporate body was the sole trustee.  Individual Councillors were not ‘trustees’ but the management of the charity was the responsibility of the Council as a whole and responsibility and oversight rested with the Councillors.

During the discussion, the following points were raised:-

·       The Leader proposed an amendment to recommendation 2.1.1, as follows:-

To discuss the terms of a lease of parcel of land at Galmington Playing Fields (as shown in Appendix D – Land Requirement) to Maggie’s for the purpose of a new cancer centre.

·       This was accepted by the seconder, Councillor Benet Allen.

·       Councillors requested clarification as they thought the decision made in 2011 had been made by Full Council which was why the report had come to Full Council now.  However, it appeared that the Executive made the last decision, so they queried which procedure was correct.

The Leader advised that the decision made in 2011 was made ‘in principle’ and any final decision needed to be taken by Full Council.  The 2011 decision was not binding and so Councillors were being asked to look at the new recommendations and decide whether they supported them or not.  The Leader clarified that a lease was still classed as a disposal of land.

·       Councillors agreed that it was a difficult decision to make.

·       Some Councillors suggested that the disposal of land would be best for the wider community as the use of a cancer treatment centre outweighed the use of the small section of the playing field.

·       Concern was raised that if Full Council allowed the development on a section of the playing field, it would set a precedent for other playing fields.

·       Many Councillors understood the importance of the treatment centre but felt they must support the community to protect the playing fields from development.

·       Many Councillors suggested alternative sites within Taunton to build the treatment centre.

The Leader gave the reasons as to why alternative sites were not feasible for the treatment centre.  The reasons were included in section 5.3 of the report.

·       The Legal Officer gave clarification on the financial situation on the lease and the disposal of land and the relocation of the play area.

·       Concern was raised on any resource being spent on investigating alternative sites.

·       Concern was raised that Councillors had not seen all the legal documents on the report as they had been kept under legal privilege and that this was the first time the charity had discussed any disposal of land.

The Director for Internal Operations advised that if the trustees made an ‘in principle’ decision to dispose the land, the final decision would always need to come back to Full Council.  The Legal Officer advised that the charity would need to engage a chartered surveyor to give their opinion on how best to dispose of the land.  He also gave advice on the next steps, which included a public notice to consult on disposal of the land.

·       Councillors queried whether the legal advice was from the Charity Commission or the Somerset West and Taunton Council (SWT) solicitor.

The advice had come from a barrister employed by SWT.

·       Some Councillors highlighted that the Liberal Democrat manifesto stated that they would not build on green spaces within the area.

The Leader advised that this was not a political decision as it was the trustees of the charity making the decision.

·       The meeting was paused at 7.20pm due to loss of internet connection.

·       The meeting restarted at 7.45pm and the Councillors voted to carry on with the meeting and that the webcast would be uploaded after the meeting had taken place to allow the public to view the decision that was made on the report.

·       Councillors highlighted that SWT had tried to work with Maggie’s and Musgrove Park Hospital to find a solution.

·       Some Councillors had sat on the Planning Committee for Taunton Deane Borough Council when the application was submitted and admitted they had struggled with the decision to be made at that point.

·       Councillors agreed that it was a difficult decision and that they were not comfortable with the social media campaign.

·       Councillors agreed that the care provided by the treatment centre was invaluable but that all options needed to be investigated for the location of the centre.

·       Councillors highlighted that it was a small section of the playing fields that would be disposed of.

·       Councillors queried whether the building would be solely on Galmington playing fields or on part of Musgrove Park Hospital?

The Leader gave assurance that it was not Musgrove Park Hospital that had applied for the disposal of the land and that she would ensure that Maggie’s would not come back to apply for more land in the future if the motion was carried.

·       Councillors discussed the charitable assets of the trustees.

·       Some Councillors gave advice on the information available on the Charity Commission website, which included the deed and the governing document.

·       Councillors queried if the trustees voted against the recommendations, would that be the final decision.

The Leader advised that if the motion was lost, that would be the final decision.  The Legal Officer gave clarification on a judicial review and that advice was included in the report, along with the charity law that would be followed if the disposal of land went ahead.

·       Councillors highlighted that the play area required much needed investment so that the equipment could be repaired and improved.

·       Concern was raised that if any of the land was disposed of, children would lose their freedom to explore the playing fields.

The Leader gave information on what help could be given for the maintenance of the play area and highlighted the support that the Ward Councillors could assist with.

·       Some Councillors queried what the benefit of leasing the land was.

The Legal Officer advised that because the building would be a permanent fixture, it would need to be a lengthy lease, but that at some point, the land would come back to the charity and that the trustees could place rules on what the building could be used for in the future.

·       Councillors queried how they could protect the land into the future.

The Legal Officer advised that it would require a further deed of trust to protect the land.

·       Councillors queried whether the covenant was legally binding.

The Legal Officer gave advice on the covenant and that the Deed of Gift did not identify any land which was retained by Brigadier Gault. As such, the covenant was personal only to him.

Recommendations:-

That Full Council resolves to authorise Officers:  

2.1.1     to discuss the terms of a lease of land at Galmington Playing Fields (as shown in Appendix D – Land Requirement) to Maggie’s for the purpose of a new cancer support centre; and if so

2.1.2     to report back to Full Council following statutory publication of the disposal for consideration of any representations received and a final decision on disposal; and

2.1.3     to investigate placing the remaining land into trust. 

The MOTION was LOST as follows:-

44 against, 5 for and 2 abstentions.