Issue - meetings

On 17September 2020, the Leader published a statement of decision in respect of the Redevelopment of Chislehurst Library (and the disposal of Land at 36 Vinson Close, Orpington). The report (a part 2 document) had previously been scrutinised by this Committee at its meeting on 2 September 2020 and was available for scrutiny by Executive, Resources and Contracts PDS Committee on 10September 2020. After pre-decision scrutiny and consultation with other members of the Executive, the Leader decided to approve the proposals as recommended in the report.

The decision on Chislehurst Library had been called in by Councillors Angela Wilkins, Ian Dunn, Vanessa Allen, Kathy Bance, Kevin Brooks and Josh King, and other members of the Labour Group. This Committee was requested to consider what action should be taken in response to the call-in of the decision; the options were to refer the decision back for re-consideration or to take no further action on the call-in, in which case the decision could be implemented without further delay.

Visiting Member Councillor Ian Dunn said the decision was called-in on the basis of lack of best value and lack of scrutiny and transparency. The Part 1 report named the developer and stated that the development would include a medical centre. There was no doubt that every word in the paper had been checked by the Council’s lawyers. Councillor Dunn asked why the report had not been published before the meeting of the RR&H PDS Committee on 2 September as publication would have facilitated a well-informed public debate.

Discussion at the Executive Resources and Contracts PDS Committee meeting did not cover the merits of the proposal and the Minutes of that meeting contained nothing about supporting the proposal.

Councils had a transparent objective process for balancing price and quality when awarding contracts to give best value. This protected both sides with bidders having a level playing field and the Council getting assurance that it was obtaining best value. The Council sets out its requirements at the start and end of the process with the best value bid being appointed.  While this process was not mandatory for selling land, it did represent best practice but was not followed in this case. There was no Committee paper setting out the Council’s requirements and no objective method for balancing those requirements with the price obtained.

Councillor Dunn was under the impression that the scheme would involve a supermarket and flats.  He was therefore surprised to learn that while two of the three bids related to a supermarket and flats, the third involved a medical centre and was the winning bid even though it was 30% below the highest bidder. Councillor Dunn asked where the idea of a medical centre came from and why only one bidder included a medical centre. The proper way to get best value was to ask all bidders to provide the same thing.

He asked if it was reasonable for the Council to subsidise the provision of GP services.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18