| Time: | 7:30 p.m. | Place: | Council Chamber, Council Offices, Gernon Road, Letchworth Garden City |
| PRESENT: | Councillor R.L. Shakespeare - Smith (Chairman), Councillor Cathryn Henry (Vice-Chairman), Councillor John Bishop (Substitute), Councillor Bill Davidson, Councillor John Harris, Councillor Steve Hemingway, Councillor S.K. Jarvis (Substitute), Councillor David Kearns, Councillor David Leal - Bennett, Councillor Ian Mantle (Substitute), Councillor M.R.M. Muir, Councillor Frank Radcliffe, Councillor Mike Rice and Councillor Deborah Segalini. |
| IN ATTENDANCE: | Councillors Clare Billing, Judi Billing, P.C.W. Burt, Paul Clark, Tricia Cowley, Julian Cunningham, Fiona Hill, Tony Hunter, David Levett, Mrs L.A. Needham, Mrs C.P.A. Strong and Michael Weeks. David Scholes (Chief Executive), John Robinson (Strategic Director of Customer Services), Vaughan Watson (Head of Leisure and Environmental Services, Anthony Roche (Acting Corporate Legal Manager), Mary Caldwell (Development and Conservation Manager), Steve Crowley (Contracts and Project Manager), Ros Allwood (Cultural Services Manager), Sharon Nahal (PA to the Strategic Director of Customer Services), Jack Hughes (Project Support Officer), Brendan Sullivan (Scrutiny Officer) and Hilary Dineen (Committee and Member Services Officer). |
| ALSO PRESENT: | At the start of the meeting 7 members of the public. |
| Meeting attachment |
Agenda Front Pages |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
| PART I | ||||
| 62 |
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jean Green, Sal Jarvis, Sandra Lunn and Gerald Morris, Having given due notice, Councillor John Bishop advised that he would be acting as a substitute for Councillor Jean Green. Having given due notice, Councillor S.K. Jarvis advised that he would be acting as a substitute for Councillor Sal Jarvis. Having given due notice, Councillor Ian Mantle advised that he would be acting as a substitute for Councillor Sandra Lunn. |
Noted | ||
| 63 |
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS No other business was submitted for consideration by the Committee. |
Noted | ||
| 64 |
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (1) The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting, particularly those who had come to give a presentation; (2) The Chairman reminded the registered speakers that they had a maximum of 5 minutes each; (3) Members were reminded that any declarations of interest in respect of any business set out in the agenda, should be declared as either a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest or Declarable Interest and are required to notify the Chairman of the nature of any interest declared at the commencement of the relevant item on the agenda. Members declaring a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest must withdraw from the meeting for the duration of the item. Members declaring a Declarable Interest which requires they leave the room under Paragraph 7.4 of the Code of Conduct, can speak on the item, but must leave the room before the debate and vote. |
Noted | ||
| 65 |
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST REGARDING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: NORTH HERTFORDSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL AND HITCHIN TOWN HALL LIMITED The Chairman asked if there were any Members that wished to make a Declaration of Interest at this point of the meeting. No Declarations of Interest were made. The Chairman asked the Monitoring Officer to give further advice regarding Declarations of Interest. In response to a query by a Member who was concerned that impartiality would be maintained during any possible complaint procedure, Councillors Judi Billing, Paul Clark, Bill Davidson, Steve Hemmingway, S.K. Jarvis, David Kearns, Michael Muir and Mike Rice, who were Members or Substitutes of the Standards Committee left the room during this statement and the following discussions. The Monitoring Officer read out a statement regarding Declarations of Interest as follows: "Members will be aware that it would not be my normal approach to discuss advice relating to a particular councillor with a committee, but this is not a normal situation given the contract dispute with Hitchin Town Hall Limited (HTHL) and Councillor Leal-Bennett's links to that organisation. I can confirm that the end of Cllr Leal-Bennett's director role with HTHL means the question of a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest has ceased. As Members know under the Code of Conduct adopted by Full Council on 18 July 2013 we have a second category of interests, Declarable Interests. I have provided advice to Cllr Leal-Bennett that due to his long standing relationship with HTHL he would be considered to have a "close association" with the organisation under 4.6 (a) and/or (b) and that additionally 4.6 (c) applies. For the benefit of the Committee I will read those sections out. Declarable Interests 4.6 You have a Declarable Interest in an item of business of the Council where: (a) a decision in relation to that business might reasonably be regarded as affecting the well-being or financial standing of you or a member of your family or your employer or a person or body with whom you have a close association to a greater extent than it would affect the majority of the Council Tax payers, ratepayers or inhabitants of the ward for which you have been elected or otherwise of the Council's administrative area; or (b) it relates to or is likely to affect any of the interests listed in the Appendix to this Code in respect of a member of your family (other than covered in the legislation) or your employer or a person or body with whom you have a close association; or (c) the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest; or and that interest is not a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest. The effect of having a Declarable Interest is set out at 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5 of the Code of Conduct. Paragraph 7.3 states If you are present at a meeting of the council and you have a Declarable Interest relating to any business which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest you must not participate in the discussion or vote on the item, although you may speak as a member of the public. My advice is that the test in 7.3 would be met, due to Cllr Leal-Bennett's long standing role on the project with HTHL and therefore the requirements of the Code of Conduct are that whilst he can speak as a member of the public and listen to any other public speeches, he must leave the room prior to the item being presented and debated. My role as Monitoring Officer has different aspects to it. One role is to provide advice to Members, it is for that Member to decide whether to follow the advice or risk the consequences of not doing so. Another of my roles is to protect the Council. What we are discussing tonight is a contract dispute with large sums of money at stake and I have to consider what is the right approach for the Council. My advice to you Chair is therefore as follows:- 1. You should consider whether Councillor Leal-Bennett remains part of the Committee tonight, or whether you ask him to retire to the public gallery, where he could make a presentation as a member of the public. My advice is that, I consider it inappropriate he remain part of the Committee given the nature of the business being discussed and his obvious and clear close association to the party with whom the Council is in dispute. 2. If you accept that advice you should then consider whether Councillor Leal-Bennett is allowed to remain in the public gallery for the Part I debate, if he chooses to in the knowledge of the potential breach of the Council's Code of Conduct, or whether you choose to exclude him from the room. This is a matter for your discretion as Chairman of the Committee. 3. Finally, if Councillor Leal-Bennett is allowed to remain as part of the Committee, or in the public gallery, for the Part I item, you should consider whether to exclude him from the Part II debate. My strong advice, given the contract dispute is with the organisation with whom he has an obvious, clear and recent close association, and given the confidential nature of what will be discussed tonight, is that Councillor Leal-Bennett should be excluded from that part of the meeting in the same way as the members of the public present. You may also wish to seek the views of the Chief Executive and I am happy to assist further if required." The Chairman asked Councillor Leal-Bennett whether he had any response to the advice given by the Monitoring Officer. Councillor Leal-Bennett stated that he was amazed at the advice given and that it was sad to have got to this position. He advised that he was no longer a Director of Hitchin Town Hall Limited nor was he associated with them. He stated that the Monitoring Officer had been wrong before. In response to the remarks made by Cllr Leal-Bennett the Monitoring Officer sought clarification on which advice relating to Declarations of Interests he referred to as being the wrong advice and whether he was stating he did not believe he had a Declarable Interest Councillor Leal-Bennett advised that the previous Monitoring Officer had given incorrect advice prior to the contracts regarding Hitchin Town Hall being signed and stated that he found "singling him out" as offensive. Councillor Leal-Bennett read from a letter addressed to him from the Conservative Councillors Association as follows: "That there can be no Declarable Interest because you are no longer a Director (We did not accept that even that created an interest). 4.6 (c) the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest; It cannot apply because there is no interest for the public to judge." He also read from a letter addressed to him from the Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP as follows: "Dear David, They (NHDC) seem desperate to stop anyone who has relevant knowledge from participating even in discussion on a subject! By definition you no longer have a close association to HTH ltd given that you are no longer a Director. If their interpretation of the rules - applying the close association rule to past associations even though the rule is written in the present tense - were applied generally it would exclude lots of Councillors with relevant knowledge from lots of debates e.g. former pupils and teachers of a school would not be able to participate in matters affecting that school; former members or officers of sports clubs ditto; former owners of businesses re parking/planning issues affecting local business etc. I think if I were in your shoes I would state at the beginning of any session that you acknowledge that you previously had a relevant interest but no longer do have a close association so you do not accept the advice of the officials and propose therefore to participate in the debate - (but perhaps not the vote?)" Councillor Leal-Bennett stated that he intended to take part in the debate, but didn't propose to get into a discussion about blame. This was a huge issue, which could cost the Council £1 million, that needed addressing. He stated that he wanted to go forward positively and confirmed that he did not have a Disclosable Interest. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that in his view Councillor Leal-Bennett did not have a Disclosable Interest, but that he must consider the effect of having a Declarable Interest. The Chairman welcomed the intention of good will and decided that if Councillor Leal-Bennett wanted to, having considered the advice of the Monitoring Officer, he could remain on the Committee for the Part I section of the meeting. The Members of the Standards Committee returned to the room and the Chairman informed them of his decision. |
Noted | ||
| 66 |
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - MRS ROSEMARY READ Mrs Rosemary Read, Trustee of Hitchin Town Hall Limited, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a verbal presentation. Mrs Read drew attention to a number of clauses in the Development Agreement between NHDC and Hitchin Town Hall Limited as follows: Clause 5.1 and Clause 8 of Schedule 2 Clause 5.1 required the Council to consult with Hitchin Town Hall Limited regarding proposed alterations to the Approved Documents and Clause 8 of Schedule 2 allowed Hitchin Town Hall Limited to enter the site at any time during the development, giving reasonable notice, to inspect the works. Mrs Read stated that Hitchin Town Hall Limited had not been consulted regarding changes to the plans, which resulted in the stage being rendered permanently useless and the foyer inappropriately re-shaped, all caused by the insertion of a plant room above the stage. Furthermore, whilst work was being undertaken, Hitchin Town Hall Limited had been refuse permission to visit the site, and the full horror of what was being done to the stage was only discovered when an acoustics expert was allowed access. This had been sufficiently serious to provoke headlines in the local press. Requests to cease the work whilst discussions took place were ignored. Clause 16.1 This Clause stated that the Council would project manage the development to ensure that Hitchin Town Hall Limited had appropriate input. Mrs Read stated that Hitchin Town Hall Limited never had any opportunity for input, as in the early stages of the building work, Project Board meetings were called at 48 hours notice, if we were lucky. There was no opportunity to raise issues of concern, and if we tried to do so, these concerns were not minuted. Schedule 6 to the Agreement Schedule 6 to the agreement detailed the essential requirements for the Town Hall as set out by Hitchin Town Hall Limited and stated that the proposed uses for the building included concerts and stage performances. Mrs Read advised that, in the first scheme, using 14 Brand Street, the museum storage had to be placed on and behind the stage. The introduction of 15 Brand Street into the scheme, at the expense of Hitchin Town Hall Limited, freed up space elsewhere on the site for this storage and significantly improved the façade of the new build. She stated that Hitchin Town Hall Limited believed the increased size of the development would result in a benefit to them. Council's architect states that the addition of 15 Brand Street would make it possible to find alternative museum storage and save the stage. It subsequently appeared that there had been a deliberate decision by the Council to ignore the architect's advice and the only conclusion was that the stage had been lost due to managerial choice. It seems that the placing of the plant room had resulted in lees than expected museum storage. The circumstances previously described constituted a breach of agreement. The granting of Listed Building Consent ignored the advice of English Heritage to consider a less visually intrusive solution to the pipework and warm air curtain in the foyer, and the process by which it was granted had been described by Eric Pickles, in a letter to the MP, as poor practice. Mrs Read informed Members that repeated requests had been made for face to face meetings with the Council's Chief Executive and Leader of the Council in the hope that a way forward could be found for this impossible situation. The requests had been consistently refused and communications had been channelled through the Officer concerned despite the Council being informed that Hitchin Town Hall Limited could not work with him. The result of the on-going bad publicity, caused by the Council's failure to attempt to keep Hitchin Town Hall Limited informed of their intentions or consult with them, meant that fundraising, due to be started early 2014, had not been attempted. The Hitchin Town Hall Limited Business Plan, which NHDC had access to early in the process, was reliant on being able to raise sufficient money from large events, both to repays loans and subsidise community use. This required an unadulterated, refurbished Listed Building, which was not what will be provided. It was with huge regret that Hitchin Town Hall Limited and their funders had agreed that the model was no longer viable therefore the funding had been withdrawn. Mrs Read concluded by stating that the Development Agreement had been signed and publicised with much trumpeting about NHDC working in partnership with Hitchin Town Hall Limited, and a collaborative approach was vital to the success of the joint project. Collaboration had however been significant by its absence throughout the sorry saga. The Chairman thanked Mrs Read for her presentation. |
Noted | ||
| 67 |
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - MR BRIAN FOREMAN Mr Brian Foreman thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a verbal presentation. Mr Foreman informed Members that, in a classic example of mismanagement by NHDC Officers, the project to provide a community facility with a new District Museum now appeared to be a disaster. The Directors of Hitchin Town Hall Limited had worked tirelessly to benefit the community, but had been thwarted in their endeavours, with a serious breakdown in the consultation process by NHDC with far too much being done without the knowledge or agreement of Hitchin Town Hall Limited. At community group meetings with Hitchin Initiative and the Directors of Hitchin Town Hall Limited, attendees were regularly advised of the difficult problems in working with NHDC Officers. The partnership simply wasn't happening. Mr Foreman advised that initially Hitchin Town Hall Limited were denied access and once access was achieved became extremely concerned about work being done without their approval. Substantive changes were being made to the Grade II Listed Building. The work undertaken to get the building listed to protect it from being sold and made into a nightclub, like the earlier Town Hall, boarded up or destroyed, now seemed less worthwhile. A building of such architectural merit deserved to be preserved for future generations to continue to admire and enjoy with its main features intact. When the community groups agreed to purchase 15 Brand Street as well as 14 Brand Street it was hoped this would save the proposed stud wall from being built across the stage. The original stage had been enlarged, as it was found to be too small for the size of the Mountford Hall. NHDC Officers reaped the benefit of a much better museum entrance without accepting that the museum storage could be moved into the new museum. The situation became far worse once a far more permanent concrete wall was built across the stage, without prior knowledge of the Directors of Hitchin Town Hall Limited. Mr Foreman continued by informing Members that, in March the newspapers broke the story of what was happening in the Town Hall and there was a huge public outcry. Photographs of the wall and other seemingly inappropriate alterations were also published. There was now alleged vandalism by NHDC made public whilst the Leader of the Council attempted to uphold the Council's position. He stated that, if the Chief Executive had taken charge and become Project Manager, the course of events may have changed. Some may consider that the buck stopped with the Chief Executive and that he should accept responsibility for what had occurred. It was now virtually impossible for the community groups to raise the funding required for the project. The Business Plan had been seriously compromised and it was possible that, if news reached the bankers, finance might not be available. It was understood that finance was eventually pulled and the process of many hours spent by the community was wasted. Mr Foreman stated that lessons must be learnt and, if North Hertfordshire was to get closer to the aspirations of the Communities and Local Government Act 2011 he suggested: - Any future project should have an independent Chair; - The Chief Executive should take a leading role and be prepared to meet with Partners at regular intervals throughout the project; - Area Committees should be given a greater opportunity to make recommendations to Cabinet, including Information Notes; - Cabinet should, in its makeup, reflect the size of population within its District, one Cabinet Member for Hitchin was insufficient; - Training should be provided for NHDC Officers in working with the community, including partnerships; - Part II agenda items should be more limited and used as sparingly as possible. Mr Foreman concluded by saying that: - NHDC had been brought into disrepute; - The Development Agreement had allegedly been breached by NHDC, with legal ramifications; - Councillors had only been allowed access to the Town Hall in August 2014 and prevented from taking photographs of this public building; - It was now possible that NHDC may face a bill in excess of £1 million. He ask the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to name and shame those considered responsible for creating the unmitigated disaster of a community partnership and recommend action(s) to be taken against them. The Chairman thanked Mr Foreman for his presentation. |
Noted | ||
| 68 |
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: NORTH HERTFORDSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL & HITCHIN TOWN HALL LTD Report Annexe 1.1 Annexe 1.2 Annexe 1.3 Annexe 1.4 Annexe 1.5 Annexe 1.6 Annexe 1.7 Annexe 1.8 Annexe 2 Councillor Tricia Cowley, Portfolio Holder for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs for much of the period during which this project was discussed and developed, informed Members that she first wished to address a number of points made by the public speaker Rosemary Read of Hitchin Town Hall Limited and by Councillor Leal-Bennett. Members will have noticed the frequent reference to Officers and the derogatory tone in which they were viewed by Hitchin Town Hall Directors. The insinuation was that Officers had somehow been responsible for impeding the proper implementation of the legally binding agreement between Hitchin Town Hall Limited and North Hertfordshire District Council and had somehow operated in a way that was contrary to the will of Council. She stated that nothing could have been further from the truth, from her own dealings with the Directors of Hitchin Town Hall Limited, she knew that Officers had attempted to act in a reasonable manner in order to deliver a complex project in an environment where Hitchin Town Hall Limited had chosen to brief the local media and others in a way that was clearly intended to force changes on the agreed scheme and, in particular, to affect fundamental changes to the layout of the stage and museum storage arrangement behind it. Councillor Cowley reminded Members that the clear intention of the Council was only to agree to such changes if they were delivered without additional cost, delays in the project and if practical arrangements could be found to deal with museum storage elsewhere. Despite receiving an ill- considered proposal from Hitchin Town Hall Limited to do this, it had been perfectly clear that no changes of the sort being promoted were capable of meeting these conditions and, in the circumstances, Officers, in close consultation with the Political Leadership of the Council, had attempted to protect the Council's interests, although this had not prevented Hitchin Town Hall Limited abandoning its responsibilities as our development partner and leaving Council Tax payers to face an additional cost. She informed Members that the approach adopted by Hitchin Town Hall Limited had been a feature of the project from its inception. The risks identified in the reports being considered this evening clearly highlight the possibility that Hitchin Town Hall Limited could undermine delivery of the project. It now seemed likely that their actions had fundamentally breached/undermined the trust that Councillors placed in them to deliver their sider of the bargain. It was even more galling that the approach taken by Hitchin Town Hall Limited came at a time when this innovative project was nearing completion broadly on time and in budget, despite the obstacles placed in the Council's way. Councillor Cowley concluded by stating that whilst a one sided and gloomy view of the management of this project had been presented in public, it was, in her personal experience, that Hitchin Town Hall Limited's motives and collective corporate behaviour had been appalling and contrary to the spirit of the partnership. The Strategic Director of Customer Services gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding the report entitled Development Agreement: North Hertfordshire District Council & Hitchin Town Hall Limited as follows: Decision Making Background - The decision making process and evolution of the project had been long and complex; - The original scheme proposed a mezzanine floor in the Moutford Hall, providing community space in the Gymnasium and Workmans Hall. - The second scheme reversed the proposed layout, retaining the Mountford Hall for community use, but still retained museum storage using approximately half of the stage. At this point the first Development Agreement was signed; - The inclusion of 15 Brand Street allowed expansion of the scheme, the museum storage on the stage was still included. It was at this point that the second Development Agreement was signed. Development Agreement - The progress against the Development Agreement had been broadly on time; - Unusually, the Planning Control Committee asked for conditions regarding Listed Building Consent to be referred back to them, causing an approximate 6 week delay; - The Development Agreement had, by agreement, been signed prior to detailed designs being completed. Timeline - The timeline had been largely driven by the Community Funders; - The first Development Agreement, including 14 Brand Street in the project, was signed in October 2012. This was due to end in March 2014; - Drawings were completed to RIBA Stage F in November 2012: - The Tender was undertaken in October 2012; - Hitchin Town Hall Planning Application was submitted in February 2013; - The Letter of Intent was issued to the contactor in March 2013; - Council received a report regarding the inclusion of 15 Brand Street in April 2013; - The second Development Agreement, including 15 Brand Street in the project, was signed in September 2013. This was still largely based on feasibility studies and is due to end in June 2015; - The contractor was appointed in September 2013. Development Agreement Process - The Development Agreement consisted of a number of documents which set out the legal obligations on the parties, from the beginning to the end of the development; - An overview of the key stages in the Development Agreement appeared in Paragraphs 8.2 and 8.3 of Annexe 1 of the Part I report. It stated that the following sequential events would occur: - NHDC Wold appoint the Architect; - NHDC would appoint the Building Contractor; - HTHL would acquire 14 and 15 Brand Street and allow NHDC access to the site for the purpose of the Development; - NHDC Would carry out the Development; - HTHL would fit out the kitchen for the Café at its own cost; - The architect would confirm completion of the Development; - HTHL would pay its contribution to the Building Contractor; - HTHL would transfer 14 and 15 Brand Street to the Trust; - NHDC would grant HTHL a Lease in the agreed form and would also enter into the Community Use and Management Agreement. - The Development Agreement also dealt with ancillary matters such as dispute resolution, liaison arrangements, and the ability for the Agreement to be used as financial security by HTHL along with other standard clauses for a legal agreement of this nature. Hitchin Town Hall Limited Outstanding Loan - At a meeting held on 19 September 2012 HTHL requested Council consider granting a loan to cover a number of legal expenses for which it did not the resources to cover until its planned fundraising activity commenced following commencement of construction estimated to be April 2013; - The terms of the loan granted were: - The loan will be up to a maximum of £20,000; - Amounts will be paid to HTHL on presentation to the Council of copy invoices addressed to HTHL, up to the value of those invoices and £20,000 as a maximum; - The loan will be subject to an interest charge of 3.2% per annum, calculated on a daily basis from the day amounts are paid; - The Directors of HTHL will undertake to repay this sum as soon as practicable, with final repayment no later than the day when HTHL received the final loan and grant from ACF; - To this end HTHL will make staged repayments at an amount that is affordable, but at a minimum of £1,000 per repayment, on a quarterly basis from June 2013. - The payments detailed in the final bullet point above had not been made; - Fundraising by HTHL should have started prior to June 2012 in order to allow repayments to start. The Strategic Director of Customer Services informed Members that further issues and answers to some of their questions may be considered during the confidential (Part 2) part of the meeting. Members asked questions and commented on the report and presentation as follows: Purpose of the Overview and Scrutiny Meetings A Member queried the purpose of this meeting and suggested that the Committee may like to see Minutes of the Project Board meetings in order to assess what actions had been taken. The Chairman clarified that the meeting was to impart information to Members and listen to testimony and, although the Recommendation was to note the report, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee could add resolutions to this, if they so wished. Meetings of the Project Board Members noted Hitchin Town Hall Limited's claims that they had found it difficult to talk to Officers and to attend meetings often called at short notice and asked whether these complaints had merit. They asked how many meetings had taken place and how many had been of an urgent nature. The Strategic Director of Customer Services advised that some meetings of Project Board had been called at short notice, but these were only when urgent items had to be discussed. Most of the 26 meetings had been arranged in advance around key stages, with the dates and minutes published on the NHDC website. He confirmed he would provide Members with an Information Note detailing these and other meetings. The Chief Executive advised that NHDC had been mindful of the requirements of the Development Agreement, particularly in respect of the confidentiality requirements. In responding to a point about HTHLs requests for meetings with the Leader and Chief Executive he stated that he had been at many meetings with Hitchin Town Hall Limited and had only refused to attend one meeting where unacceptable pre-conditions had been made by HTHL. Finance A member asked whether, in addition to the agreement between NHDC and HTHL, there was an agreement with SIB and asked for confirmation regarding the NHDC loan. The Strategic Director of Customer Services advised that a charge was contained in the Development Agreement, which the Council had agreed to and that the provisions of the loan were such that the repayments were affordable. The Put Option, demanded as a ‘non negotiable' by Hitchin Town Hall Ltd at the request of ACF, was described in Paragraph 8.4 of the report and set out trigger events and the circumstances when NHDC would repay any expense of HTHL. Museum Storage Members asked at what stage of the development had some of the museum storage area changed into a plant room. The Strategic Director of Customer Services advised that the provision of storage had always been a feature of the project and still remained so. It was identified at an early stage in the development that plant equipment would be required and the design construction group had been consulted. Works were on-going. The Stage Members noted that relationships between the parties were at a crucial point and that the main issue appeared to be regarding the wall built across the stage to provide storage. They queried whether Hitchin Town Hall had been consulted regarding the layout of the stage. The Strategic Director of Customer Services advised that there had been no substantive change to the layout of the agreed design set out in the Development Agreement. The Monitoring Officer informed Members that the Development Agreement had taken a substantial amount of time to negotiate and agree. The process for dealing with specific design issues were contained within the terms of the agreement. Future of the Project Members noted that it seemed that the project, as originally conceived, would not happen and that it was now necessary to focus on the future in order to get and end result, rather than blame. It was suggested that some consideration of the history of the development may inform the way forward. RESOLVED: That the contents of the report entitled "Development Agreement: North Hertfordshire District Council & Hitchin Town Hall Ltd" be noted. REASON FOR DECISION: To provide Members with the opportunity to consider the history and context of this project prior to Council determining the way forward at a future meeting. |
Agreed | ||
| 69 |
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC RESOLVED: That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 3 and 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the said Act (as amended). Councillors Bishop, Davidson and Weeks left the meeting. |
Agreed | ||
| PART II | ||||
| 70 |
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST REGARDING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: NORTH HERTFORDSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL AND HITCHIN TOWN HALL LIMITED The Chairman asked the Monitoring Officer to give further advice regarding Declarations of Interest. In response to a query by a Member who was concerned that impartiality would be maintained during any possible complaint procedure, Councillors Judi Billing, Paul Clark, Bill Davidson, Steve Hemmingway, S.K. Jarvis, David Kearns, Michael Muir and Mike Rice, who were Members or Substitutes of the Standards Committee left the room during this statement and the following discussions. The Monitoring Officer re-iterated point 3 of the advice given earlier (Minute 65 refers) that: "If Councillor Leal-Bennett is allowed to remain as part of the Committee, or in the public gallery, for the Part I item, you should consider whether to exclude him from the Part II debate. My strong advice, given the contract dispute is with the organisation with whom he has an obvious, clear and recent close association, and given the confidential nature of what will be discussed tonight, is that Councillor Leal-Bennett should be excluded from that part of the meeting in the same way as the members of the public present." He also stated that some of the examples given in Councillor Leal-Bennett's previous remarks about what could be deemed to be a close association were wholly different to this situation. The Chairman asked the Chief Executive to comment. The Chief Executive thanked the Chairman and made the following statement: "The Monitoring Officer has given a full explanation of the position in relation to the Constitution and Declaration of Interests. I agree with the advice of the Monitoring Officer. I would remind Members that this is advice and it is for the individual Member to consider that advice and take the action that they deem to be appropriate. In terms of the meeting tonight it is for you Chairman to consider the conduct of business. It is appropriate for me to remind Members of the provisions of our indemnity arrangements, as agreed at Full Council, whereby if a Member acts contrary to the advice of the Monitoring Officer they will not be covered by the Council's indemnity cover. Given the circumstances of the situation and Councillor Leal Bennett's former role as Director of HTHL, to remain in the room for Part 2 of the meeting would increase the Councils risks in relation to the project." The Monitoring Officer reiterated that this was a major contract dispute in terms of the amount of money at stake and, that as Councillor Steve Jarvis had stated in the Part I debate, there was the potential that it could end in court and, if that were the case, Councillor Leal-Bennett would be a witness for Hitchin Town Hall Limited. It was therefore necessary to protect the Council's position as it would not be appropriate for a witness for the other side to be party to the confidential Part 2 discussions. The Chairman asked Councillor Leal-Bennett if he intended to remain in the room for the Part 2 discussions. Councillor Leal-Bennett stated that he did not agree with the interpretation regarding Declarations of Interest and that he was concerned about the comments made that there was an increased risk if he stayed in the meeting. He believed that to be a slur on his character. He informed Members that his reason for leaving Hitchin Town Hall Limited was that he believed he could help the Council. He thought that things said should remain in the past and that problems needed to be solved by discussing a way forward. He stated that his knowledge of the project would help move things forward. Councillor Leal-Bennett said that he would like to stay, but Officers seemed desperate to stop anyone with relevant knowledge from taking part. He stated that he would leave and requested that he be sent a written copy of the legal advice given by the Monitoring Officer and the statement made by the Chief Executive. The Chairman thanked Councillor Leal-Bennett for his agreement to leave the meeting. Councillor Leal-Bennett left the room for the remainder of the meeting. The Members of the Standards Committee returned to the room. |
Noted | ||
| 71 |
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: NORTH HERTFORDSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL & HITCHIN TOWN HALL LTD Data/Overview and Scrutiny Committee/201412180730/Agenda/Report Data/Overview and Scrutiny Committee/201412180730/Agenda/Front Sheet Data/Overview and Scrutiny Committee/201412180730/Agenda/Annexe1 1.1 Data/Overview and Scrutiny Committee/201412180730/Agenda/Annexe 1 1.2 Data/Overview and Scrutiny Committee/201412180730/Agenda/Annexe 1 1.3 Data/Overview and Scrutiny Committee/201412180730/Agenda/Annexe 1 1.4 Data/Overview and Scrutiny Committee/201412180730/Agenda/Annexe 1 1.5 Councillor Lynda Needham, Leader of the Council, made a brief statement about the current and on-going risks regarding the development of Hitchin Town Hall as a District Museum and Community Facility. Councillor Tony Hunter, Portfolio Holder for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs and Project Board Member, made a statement about the work undertaken by the Council to enable the project to be completed. The Strategic Director of Customer Services gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding the report entitled Development Agreement: North Hertfordshire District Council & Hitchin Town Hall Limited. There was some debate by Members and it was: RESOLVED: (1) That the contents of the report entitled "Development Agreement: North Hertfordshire District Council & Hitchin Town Hall Ltd" be noted; (2) That, once matters regarding the Development Agreement between North Hertfordshire District Council and Hitchin Town Hall Limited had progressed, a further report be prepared for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee; (3) The Overview and Scrutiny Committee supported completion of the Hitchin Town Hall as a District Museum and Community Facility; (4) That, at a later date, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to consider the approach of NHDC to larger projects. REASON FOR DECISION: To provide Members with the opportunity to consider the history and context of this project prior to Council determining the way forward at a future meeting. |
Agreed | ||