The Area Board is asked to make a decision and either:
· Support the application and make a recommendation to Cabinet; or
· Confirm they do not support the application
Minutes:
Local Member Cllr Paul Sample thanked the applicant for the level of detail provided within the plan.
He noted his concern regarding the level of deterioration of both Grosvenor House and Riverside House since being occupied by Youth and children’s Services.
The absence of any inspections by builders’ surveys was also noted as a concern, as was the lack of confirmed funding which would be required to back a project of this size, noting that the costs of running a professional fundraising organisation costs in itself hundreds of thousands of pounds. There was also no bank account in place, which combined, all suggested that you were not ready to go.
Cllr Sample had been to speak to those affected by the proposals and drew attention to the low numbers of letters and Facebook posts received in support for the project. He suggested that it would be easy to raise a petition of 200 people on an online platform and felt that it did not represent a large number of people given the draw available through social media.
Those who had spoken to Cllr Sample were all neighbours living close to the proposed site. They were all against the proposals and instead supported the property being sold to developers because they wanted the works to be done by professional who would assess the levels of work by structural engineers.
The Business Plan did not include a provision for any unexpected health and safety costs or needs.
Cllr Sample praised the Applicant for their presentation, noting that it was clear they had a vision, however, the issue was how to put that into effect and how they would get the buildings up and running from day one, which he felt the applicant was not in a position to do currently, as he would expect to see a percentage of costs in a functioning bank account before such a project could be supported to go ahead. He would like to see 50% of intents offered.
Cllr Sample moved the motion not to support the CAT at this time, as the project would require someone that could step in and do the work, putting the building safe and managing the security, all from day one.
Members supported the buildings being sold, as did the residents living in close proximity to the site. In these times when there was so little public money available, by allowing this we would be tying our hands behind our back and would result in the lost opportunity to bring millions back into use.
The motion to not support the CAT was seconded by Cllr Sven Hocking.
Cllr Rogers had been the former Chairman of the Management Committee at Grosvenor House for over a decade noted that when looking in detail at the scale of the development and the money that would be required from various organisations, he queried whether the project would ever happen due to the number of uncertainties. He would like to support however, could not and felt it was not feasible.
Other more suitable buildings and locations were suggested, including the Gala Bingo or Blue Boar Row, which were both sites which were more central and felt to be a better option by some.
The general consensus was that the applicants were not yet ready to start and make the project work.
It was also raised that another reason young people left Salisbury was due to the lack of suitable accommodation and the need for more affordable housing for young people.
Cllr Sample gave summary, noting that if the Board did not approve to support the CAT, then it would not go forward to Cabinet. Time was of the essence, as there was a building that was crumbling by the day. The sooner planning permissions were in place for housing development, to enable it to move to the next stage the better.
The Board then voted on the motion not to support:
Decision:
Salisbury Area Board agreed not to support the Community Asset Transfer (CAT) Request - Grosvenor and Riverside House, Salisbury.