Agenda item

A copy of the Executive Member decision no. 21/22 DP 130 is attached.

Councillor Crosby, as proposer, explained his reasons for the call in. He felt that there was little that described the efforts in the report to assess the public value of the site and the social and economic contribution that public open space made towards the welfare and wellbeing of the public.  He stated that without compelling evidence he was not convinced that the proposed housing was a greater community benefit that outweighed the site’s value and use as public and open space. He pointed out that this was not the only site within the district that the Council may have to consider appropriating in response to the government’s demands for housing.  The Council would need to be able to demonstrate to its communities that the evidence put to them was assured and compelling and that the decisions taken were truly tested and balanced in their conclusions.

Councillor Crew, as seconder, explained his reasons for the call in, giving his full support to the comments made by Councillor Crosby. He stated that it was clear the Council had not convinced the residents of Nailsea, the town councillors and its own district councillors that the Council had given due diligence in the appropriation of the land and therefore he endorsed what had been said and that a recommendation be made by the Panel for the decision to be reconsidered.

The Executive Member for Assets and Capital Delivery welcomed the debate.   As a former Chair to the precursor of the Panel he respected and supported the role of elected members to test and challenge Executive member decisions.  He felt that it was a good report and he was very happy with the documents that supported it. He referred to the phrase contained in the report ‘no longer required for the purpose for which it is held’ which had been referenced from the Local Government Act 1972 Section 122 A and that the phrase needed to be contained in the report, but he understood why that would be questioned if taken literally. It had been considered in a number of legal cases and in particular the London Borough of Merton case which was referenced in the report.

He further added that he had taken everything into account when making the decision and in particular in relation to the land being used as public space during the pandemic and the increased use of public space that had been referenced in Section 4.4. He rejected the notion that it had been a financially motivated decision.  It was not a decision he had taken lightly and was one he had considered at great length, reading all the comments from those who responded to the consultation and visiting the site on two occasions. He noted that the site itself would not be fully taken up with the development as there was a small open area of woodland, and a bridleway. He pointed out that the council was the sole judge of whether or not the land was required for the purpose of which it was held immediately before the appropriation decision. That was not to suggest it was not being used by the public for its current use. Neither was the council bound by any previous uses with regards to the previous uses of the land. He added that the decision was subjective.

In supporting the call in, members of the panel made reference to the fact that as owner of the freehold of the site the Council needed to be fully satisfied that the land was no longer required for a particular purpose for which it was currently held. It was felt that North Somerset Council had not shown enough evidence that the open space was no longer required for the purpose for which it was held and that nothing in the history of the current site seemed to have been taken as evidence in the document. 

Reference was made to The Green Book (Central Government Guidance on Appraisal and Evaluation) which considered that when balancing exercises were required in decision making there should be consideration of the need for a cost benefit analysis to weigh up all the factors having regard to the existing and proposed use of the land.  The metrics in the book were wide ranging and presented the perspective of society and from the context of different stakeholders.  These would be calculated over the lifetime of the project and should be considered over a period of 60 years.

Metrics to be considered were numerous but included: carbon emissions assessment (before and after); social cost benefit analysis; social cost effectiveness analysis; biodiversity assessment; community wellbeing; transport impact assessment; quality provision of public space in general (not merely the assertion that something one kilometre away is an acceptable alternative); what are the other benefits such as whether more schools, leisure centres, parks are to be provided.  

The Green Book raised some key points regarding appraisal and evaluation underlining the inclusion of welfare economics and concerns regarding overall social welfare efficiency.  The decision-making process should begin with an open and objective evidence base.  Members agreed the need to weigh all these factors in a way that was meaningful using proper metrics, and that this was not apparent in this decision.

It was proposed by Councillor Crosby and seconded by Councillor Crew that the Executive Member be requested to reconsider his decision for appropriation of open space to planning purposes: land south of The Uplands, Nailsea for the reasons outlined below.

The proposal was put to the vote by Members of that Panel and was CARRIED (7 votes in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention).

Recommended:

that the Executive member for Assets and Capital Delivery be requested to reconsider the decision number 21/22 DP 130 (Appropriation of open space to planning purposes: land south of The Uplands, Nailsea) for the reasons that the measured social value had not been carried out sufficiently against the benefits of the development and to also take into account other relevant metrics including: quality of provision of replacement public open space; carbon emissions; social cost benefit analysis; social cost effectiveness analysis; biodiversity assessment; community wellbeing; transport impact assessment; other benefits such as schools, leisure centre, new parks and health centre provision.