Agenda item

RESOLVED that the freehold transfer of the land to the Diocese for no consideration i.e. no financial benefit to the Council on terms to be agreed by the Monitoring Officer, be approved.

Executive considered a detailed report, presented by Councillor Tom Munro, Portfolio Holder for Growth, which set out options and a recommendation to transfer the freehold of the Council’s land to the rear of St Helen’s Church Hall, Pinxton, for no consideration to the Diocese of Derby in order to deliver the outcomes of the Regeneration Funding which had been allocated to the Church Hall project.

The Regeneration Fund was allocated to the Council in the Government’s Autumn Statement of 2023 and the Investment Plan approved in May 2024.  One of the projects within the Investment Plan was the refurbishment of Pinxton Church Hall which had to be completed by March 2026, unless a variation was submitted and approved by the Minister for Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).

Significant work had been undertaken to explore both the refurbishment and new build options for the site which was in split ownership between the Diocese of Derby and the Council.

The Council’s land had been long associated and used by the Church Hall, however, due to the absence of deed information, the arrangements which led to the Diocese using the piece of land for the last couple of decades were unclear.

The Council’s parcel of land had been valued by the Council’s Land Valuer on the basis of the land being used as amenity/community use.  Local authorities were given powers under the Local Government Act 1972 Act to dispose of land, the only constraint was that a disposal must be for the best consideration reasonably obtainable (except where there was consent from the Secretary of State), who had provided specific consent for the disposal of any interest in land which the authority considered would help it to secure the promotion or improvement of the economic, social or environmental well-being of its area.  Further, requirement of the funding was that land titles must be clear and undisputed.

It was considered that the disposal of the site for less than best consideration would result in the promotion of the social wellbeing of Pinxton’s residents by facilitating the re-development of the hall for the benefit of the whole community and the Council’s land would be used as a community garden which would promote the environmental wellbeing of the area.

Moved by Councillor Tom Munro and seconded by Councillor John Ritchie

RESOLVED that: 1) the freehold transfer of the land to the Diocese of Derby for no consideration, i.e., no financial benefit to the Council on terms to be agreed by the Monitoring Officer, be approved,

2)    the Council acknowledges that the transfer of the land to the Diocese of Derby would contribute to the promotion of the economic, social or environmental wellbeing of the area.

Reasons for Recommendation

The Council’s land had been long associated and used by the Church Hall (over two decades) for no consideration i.e. no financial benefit to the Council.

The Council’s Legal department had advised the site could potentially be pursued by the Diocese if they chose to explore claiming adverse possession rights to the site.

A nil consideration would result in all the VAT being fully recoverable allowing for the full budget allocated by the funders to be spent on the project.

The disposal of the asset would promote the social wellbeing of Pinxton which allowed the Council to dispose of its asset for less than best consideration, in accordance with the Local Government Act 1972.

Alternative Options and Reasons for Rejection

A peppercorn lease transfer could be considered; however, this had been discounted as it would result in more expensive legal fees agreeing the terms of the lease.  The leasehold transfer would have no greater benefit to the Council as restrictions covenants could be imposed on a freehold transfer.

Sale of the Council’s land to adjacent neighbours could be considered, however, this would result in no amenity space being available for hall users and would reduce the scope of the hall and its connection to the proposed landscaping/community garden to the rear.  It was also a possibility that the adjacent neighbours may not be interested in purchasing the site.

Requiring the Diocese to pay for the site could be considered, however, they had already confirmed that they did not have the budget to purchase the site.  If the Council were to sell the land to the Diocese for a consideration it would result in the VAT not being recoverable for the project, thereby reducing the scope of the project.

Councillor Dooley returned to the meeting and thanked the Council and officers for their hard work in relation to this project, especially the Senior Economic Development Officer who had been the lead officer.

The Senior Economic Development Officer left the meeting