Issue - meetings

To consider a report of the Director of Estate and Asset Management.

The report provides information about a nomination received in response to the Community Right to Bid, and asks Members to determine the nomination whether Mirrlees Fields should be added to the list of Assets of Community Value, subject to the criteria set out in Section 88 of the Localism Act 2011.

The Area Committee is recommended to agree that Mirrlees Fields should be added to the list of Assets of Community Value.

Officer Contact: Paul Edgeworth on 0161 218 1934or email: paul.edgeworth@stockport.gov.uk

A representative of the Director of Estate and Asset Management submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) providing information about a nomination received in response to the Community Right to Bid and requesting members to determine the nomination whether Mirrlees Fields should be added to the list of Assets of Community Value, subject to the criteria set out in Section 88 of the Localism Act 2011.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

·         It was noted that the Council had received correspondence from the Friends of Mirrlees group who were opposing this nomination.

·         It was felt that the nomination met the requirements of the Act, however queried what the consequences would be to the council if not agreed as an Asset of Community Value.

·         In response, it was stated that no legal action could be taken in response to the Area Committee decision to not agree the site as an Asset of Community Value and community groups who qualify under the Act could nominate the land at a later date which would be considered on its individual merits.

·         It was queried whether permission from the landowner had any bearing on the eligibility of the site being considered as an Asset of Community Value.

·         In response, it was stated that it did not appear so under the strict wording of the Localism Act and accompanying regulations as the test in Section 88 of the Act related to actual use of the land and did not reference lawful use of the land. It was stated that there was evidence in the nomination of extensive community uses, which potentially further the social interest and social wellbeing of the community.

·         It was queried whether the moratorium could be dispended with or shortened under any circumstances.

·         In response, it was stated that if the land was recognised as an Asset of Community Value it would be added to the list for a period of five years. If the asset owner wished to make a relevant disposal they would be required to inform the council who would advertise the land for sale and eligible community groups could be treated as a bidder. It was noted that there was an initial moratorium period of six weeks where no sale, except an exempted sale, could take place to allow the groups to notify the council of their wish to be treated as a bidder. If no group comes forward, the asset owner is free to dispose of the land as they wish, however if a group did come forward it would trigger the full moratorium of six months and the Act did not specifically contain a provision for the six month moratorium to be shorted or amended in any way.

·         It was queried whether the right to buy was limited to the nominating group.

·         In response, it was confirmed that any qualifying community group could make a bid to purchase or trigger the moratorium.

·         It was queried whether a community group could make a partial purchase of the land if they were unable to raise all the funds required.

·         In response, it was stated that if the asset owner was minded to entertain a partial purchase, it would be legal and permissible under the terms of the Act.

·         It was noted that Members had received correspondence from several interested groups in relation to Mirrlees Fields and whilst there was no consensus about the preferred way forward, all groups had the best interests of the site at heart.

·         It was noted that in considering this nomination, Members were not able take account of the views of residents and must simply determine whether the nomination met the requirements set out in Section 88 of the Localism Act 2011.

·         It was felt that Mirrlees Fields clearly met the requirements to be approved as an Asset of Community Value under the Act.

RESOLVED – That approval be given to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7