Scarborough Council says it 'complied with the law' when selling former indoor swimming pool
There were concerns about the "due process" of a decision to sell to a developer
Scarborough councillors have criticised the council cabinet’s decision to sell the town’s former indoor swimming pool to a developer over concerns about “due process”, although council officers have maintained that no rules were broken.
At a heated meeting of the authority’s places and futures overview and scrutiny committee, Scarborough Council’s cabinet came under fire for its decision to sell the plot of land on the North side of town to a developer, HQ Hotels, whose boss is Scarborough businessman Nick Thomas, which had approached the council about purchasing the site.
However, the committee ultimately decided that “no further action be taken” and the sale can proceed subject to approval from North Yorkshire County Council.
Criticism was levelled by certain councillors regarding concerns about due process, transparency, and a perceived lack of public involvement. Council officers strongly denied any claims of impropriety or deviation from regulations.
Speaking at the meeting, Scarborough Council’s monitoring officer, Lisa Dixon, said: “I can confirm that the council has adhered to the relevant statutory procedures and has complied with the law of the land.
“We have taken external advice on that which validates that point”, she added.
The sale of the former indoor swimming pool was approved at a meeting of the authority’s cabinet on July 26, with plans for a developer, HQ Hotels, to transform the site into a £15m “four-star plus hotel”.
This was planned to complement the council’s North Bay Masterplan for regenerating the area and attracting tourists as well as investment into leisure activities.
However, the cabinet’s decision was called in for further scrutiny by four councillors after they raised “concerns that the property is being sold without being adequately marketed to raise the highest possible sum”.
The call-in was proposed by Cllr Heather Phillips, and supported by Cllrs Clive Pearson, Mike Cockerill and Phil Trumper, who also suggested that “due process has not been followed”.
The overview and scrutiny committee’s meeting took place on Wednesday August 31, and members of the public were excluded from the meeting twice due to the discussion of “confidential” issues relating to the sale’s financial and legal aspects.
It is not uncommon for committees to exclude the public when sensitive financial or legal issues are discussed.
As the second private session lasted until the end of the meeting, Scarborough Council confirmed to the Local Democracy Reporting Service that the cabinet’s “original decision was upheld” which means the sale can proceed.
No public tender
Speaking at the meeting, Cllr Heather Phillips, who proposed the call-in of the cabinet’s decision, said it was not done in an “accusatory” manner, but was “exploratory”.
Cllr Phillips added that she wished to explore approval needed from North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) as well as the “marketing” of the site as she said there had been interest in purchasing the site from other developers.
She also said she had been “reliably informed” that a Scarborough businessman would have been willing to pay “50 per cent more” than the agreed price, though neither figure has been made public.
Council officers said that they were in the process of seeking approval from NYCC and added that the public tendering of land disposal was not always “preferable”.
The council officer added that selling directly was also possible, even if “slightly under market value” because they were relying on the return that would come from the investment and regeneration of the site by the chosen developer as part of the council’s North Bay plan.
Following a brief private session of the committee from which the public was excluded due to the discussion of “a legal case” regarding the land sale issue, the meeting resumed in public.
Cllr Bill Chatt proceeded to ask whether council leader, Cllr Steve Siddons, had a “legal right” to be at the meeting and whether he was present to “intimidate”.
Cllr Chatt was informed that elected members were welcome to attend meetings of the scrutiny committee.
Legal questions
Cllr Bill Chatt also suggested that the council had not adequately consulted the public on the sale and development of the former swimming pool, citing the case of a woman who had contacted him with such concerns.
He said the woman lived close to the site and did not want a hotel next to her home.
However, council officer Marc Cole said that the public had been consulted as part of the overall consultation process for the North Bay Masterplan.
Cllr Chatt replied: “I’ll write to the lady and tell her ‘Mr Cole says you’re a liar, there have been consultations and you don’t know what you’re on about. So there you go, up your nose!’”
Cllr Eric Broadbent replied to Cllr Chatt’s comments, saying: “I fully understand we get emails when people are not happy about decisions, but I was on the working group and I thought it was thorough, we covered every aspect.”
Accusations were also made about the cabinet’s decision-making process by Cllr Mike Cockerill who suggested that “the requirements” of local government legislation “was not fulfilled in the preparation of cabinet report” for the meeting on July 26.
However, this was strongly refuted by council officers, with monitoring officer, Lisa Dixon, “confirming” the council had complied with the law and relevant regulations.
She added: “So, I’m sorry, Cllr Cockerill, but I do need to take issue with that point because the council has followed the law.”
The meeting was soon returned to a private session with the public excluded, as Cllr Cockerill proceeded to read out “confidential” email correspondence between the council’s CEO Mike Greene, and what Cllr Cockerill suggested was another company that wanted to develop the site.
The meeting was not returned to a public session before it ended, but Scarborough Council said that no further action would be taken by the committee and “as per the original decision we will now liaise with the continuing authority (NYCC) to obtain its agreement for the decision under Local Government Re-organisation process”.