Decisions made

Planning permission granted subject to conditions, including a condition for a temporary period until 31 March 2025 (3 years and 3 months).

Planning permission refused for the following reasons:-

1.    The proposed development would have a greater impact on the openness of the greenbelt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development on that part of the site that is previously developed, and would encroach onto open countryside and is therefore inappropriate development in the greenbelt. Substantial weight attaches to the harm to the greenbelt by reason of inappropriateness and further harm arising by reason of the impact of the proposed development on the openness of the greenbelt and encroachments. The benefits associated with the proposed development would not clearly outweigh the resulting harm and therefore do not constitute individually or cumulatively very special circumstances required if inappropriate development is to be approved in the greenbelt in accordance with paragraph 148 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.    The proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety by virtue of the increased traffic movements and inadequate highway infrastructure contrary to paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy BNE 1 of the Chorley Local Plan 2012 – 2026.

3.    The potential noise nuisance and disturbance associated with the vehicular traffic movements that would be generated throughout the use of the development would result in a harmful impact on the amenity of residents in the locality contrary to policy BNE 1 of the Chorley Local Plan 2012 – 2026.

Recommendations approved.

Reasons for recommendations:

1.       That the terms included in the report, for the grant of a 5-year lease are approved.

2.    Approval is granted to instruct the Director of Governance to prepare and issue a 5-year Lease on the terms agreed.

Alternative options considered and rejected:

1.       The grant of a lease will bring the property back into economic use.

2.    The Council will receive revenue in the form of the annual rent agreed over the 5-year term.

3.    The Town Centre will benefit from the services offered.

4.    The transfer of the business from premises on the Covered Market will facilitate the expansion of the business to allow extended/evening trading.

5.    The relocation from their current premises on the Covered Market would unlock the next phase of the market refurbishment.

Michael Green, external auditor from Grant Thornton presented the report to Members. He highlighted that there had been no change to the report from July 2021 that related to the financial statements.

The value for money work had been completed, the work completed was under the previous audit practice, which provided a binary judgement of qualified or unqualified which considered three core criteria, informed decision making, sustainable resource deployment and working with partners and other third parties.

As part of the risk assessment, two significant risks were identified, the first was financial sustainability and the second was the purchase of Logistics House.

There was satisfaction with the arrangements in place that related to financial sustainability. It was recognised that the purchase of Logistics House was carried out on a timetable. It was emphasised that it was not said that the purchase was wrong or that there were any concerns with the investment that the Council made.

Reported findings centred on the arrangement to support the decision-making process with suggested improvements to ensure all Members received relevant information, in addition to management summaries provided to ensure informed decision making.

The recommendations had several key areas.

1)    The decision to purchase Logistics House was supported by a robust and full business case which followed good practice models. However, the business case was not underpinned by robust risk management. The business case should have been supported by robust due diligence, that used both historical and predicted information. The due diligence engaged by the Council could have been enhanced.

2)    The Council demonstrated good practice with informal meetings and engaged with Members as part of the decision making process, however, it could have been enhanced further with record keeping, minutes, and details of questions and challenges published for all Members in advance of the decision making process.

3)    It was recommended that Members had access to all information to support a decision. This should include all relevant sensitive data. The Council’s property advisor Gerald Eve provided a purchase report that when taken to Council was redacted at the request of Gerald Eve without any formal agreement of non-disclosure. As the decision was made in closed session of Council, Members should have had the information to promote transparency.

4)    Papers to the Council recommended a Wholly Owned Subsidiary that would hold the property on behalf of the Council. Members should have been made aware of other options. Seeking third party legal advice was advised.

It was on that basis that it was proposed to issue a ‘qualified except for opinion’ on the value for money conclusion.

In response to Members, Michael clarified that the recommendations made on agenda pages 36 and 37, put into practice would prevent the same concerns being repeated.

Chris Moister, Director of Governance added that the Council was a learning organisation that strived to learn and improve, but didn’t completely agree with the opinion, but understood there were areas and aspects that could be improved upon.

The time constraints on the purchase of Logistics house was not an excuse, but it paved the path of the decisions taken.

Michael welcomed any additional questions or queries from Members and were organising a training session for Members of the Governance Committee.

Decision – The report was noted.