Issue - meetings

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Neil MacDonald

Executive is requested to authorise officers to dispose of land at Eastern Gateway within agreed parameters as set out in the exempt Appendix 2.

61.1.    Councillor MacDonald introduced the report, explaining that the report proposed the sale of the last plot at the former Sugar Beet site. Councillor MacDonald said that the Council had remediated a difficult site and provided space for businesses, with in excess of 900 jobs related to the site.

61.2.    Councillor Fisher commented that the proposed sale would be at the lowest price per acre achieved so far and asked for confirmation that the Council was not selling the site at a low price just to get a capital receipt. The Head of Property, Mel Chiknagi, explained that as this was a larger plot than the others a lower price per acre was to be expected; a letter of reassurance had been provided by the Council’s property agents confirming that, in their opinion, the sale represented best value.

61.3.    Councillor Fisher commented that the proposed sale would allow the developer to make a profit on the development, an opportunity which he said that Council should have taken up. Councillor MacDonald said that whilst the Council had acted as an enabler on this difficult site it was not a property developer.

61.4.    Councillor M Cook noted that Ipswich Borough Council would not benefit from additional income from the site as this would reduce the amount of money received through ‘Fund B’ contributions.

61.5.    Councillor MacDonald commented that the state would break even on the development and had created lots of jobs. Councillor Fisher said that the state would not break even as £3.9 million of public funding had been provided by the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and commented that private developers made money out of redeveloping similar sites.

61.6.    Councillor Jones compared the contributions made by the LEP to those made through the Housing Infrastructure Fund towards the Ipswich Garden Suburb where public money had been spent to provide infrastructure to enable development by private sector housebuilders. Councillor Fisher felt that these weren’t comparable because the Council didn’t own the land on which the Garden Suburb would be built.

61.7.    Councillor J Cook noted that Babergh District Council hadn’t taken any action to redevelop the site and that if Ipswich Borough Council hadn’t decided to act as an enabler it would likely still be a vacant brownfield site. Councillor Ross noted that Government would benefit from additional business rates as a result of the development.

61.8.    Councillor MacDonald commented that the Sugar Beet site had been on sale for 15 years before the Council bought it and so private sector development seemed very unlikely.

It was RESOLVED:

that the Head of Property be authorised, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Place, the Director – Operations & Place, the Section 151 Officer and the Head of Legal Services – Non Contentious, to enter into contracts to dispose of the plots identified in Appendix 1 to the report on terms as they see fit providing these are within the parameters set out in exempt Appendix 2 to the report.

Reason: To enable the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61