Agenda item

To receive the report of the Planning & Economy Manager

A report had been presented to the Community & Resources Committee on 7 September in relation the removal of a restrictive covenant on the hotel site in Westward Ho!  This had been debated by the Community & Resources Committee and they had resolved that the removal of the restrictive covenant, in return for a capital receipt of £120,000.00 (One Hundred and Twenty Thousand Pounds) exclusive of all other costs, be refused.  The decision had been called in by Councillors Bushby, Cottle-Hunkin, Harding, Jones and McGeough.

The Chair invited Councillors McGeough and Cottle-Hunkin to share with the Committee their reasons for the call in.  Councillor McGeough stated he felt that the money being offered to remove the covenant provided a good capital receipt which could be used for the wider community.  Furthermore, he did not see how retaining the covenant benefitted the people of Torridge.  Councillor Cottle-Hunkin said she was unaware of any public objections to the removal of the covenant and that the debate and vote by Community & Resources had been very close and therefore, deserved further debate.  She added that she did not know if there were still a need for a hotel in Westward Ho!

The Interim S151 Officer clarified that the money would be a capital receipt and could generally only be spent on capital.  He also confirmed that there was a shortfall in the capital programme.

Councillor Inch proposed that the Community & Resources Committee consider removing the existing covenant and replacing it with a new covenant requiring the land to be used for commercial use only.  He sought confirmation from the Senior Solicitor whether this would be permissible. 

The Senior Solicitor confirmed that the recommendation could be made but the owner would need to consent to this.  A further valuation would potentially be required as the existing one was based on removal of the covenant.

Justification was sought for continuing to retain a covenant on the site, especially as any decision about development of the site would be directed by the Plans Committee and the market. 

The Senior Solicitor responded that the covenant had been imposed some time ago reflecting the views at the time and with the agreement of both parties, and the intention had been to build a hotel.  She acknowledged that things had moved on and the owner was now of the opinion that such a development was no longer viable.

Councillor Hodson spoke, as Ward Member for Westward Ho! acknowledging the importance of representing the financial interests of the Council but also the interests of the electorate.  Whilst canvassing during the last District Elections, Councillor Hodson had identified that many constituents were opposed to a hotel being erected on the square.  The plans being discussed at that time were for a huge, multi-roomed hotel which would overwhelm the site. 

Councillor Hodson which to have noted that she has never stated that she is against any more acceptable hotel development.  She talked about the many planning applications and the reasons for the covenant.  However and in light of the latest White Paper relating to planning, if the covenant were to be removed, Councillor Hodson felt the authority would be unable to refuse any future planning applications for an intensive development especially on a site which been previously earmarked for regeneration.

Councillor Hodson asked whether the short-term benefit of a capital receipt outweighed potentially unencumbered development of the site.

It was proposed by Councillor Newton and seconded by Councillor Boughton –

That:

The covenant be removed.

A recorded vote was taken.

(Vote: For 3, Against 5, Abstentions 3)

The motion was lost.

It was proposed by Councillor Inch, seconded by Councillor Hames and –

That:

The Community & Resources Committee be asked to consider removing the existing covenant and putting on a new covenant requiring that the land be used for commercial use only.

A recorded vote was taken.

(Vote: For 8, Against 1, Abstentions 2)

The motion was carried.

The recommendation will be put to the Community & Resources Committee and if they are in agreement, negotiations will take place with the landowner.  If Community & Resources Committee do not agree, the recommendation will go to Full Council.