Questions are invited from members of the public about the work of the Cabinet.
Notice of any question must be given to Democratic Services by midday on Monday, 07th July 2025. Approximately 30 minutes will be set aside for Public Question Time, if required.
Minutes:
Eleven members of the public attended and asked questions of the Cabinet.
The following question was asked by a member of the public, Jess Wiseman:
Can the Council confirm that the £480,000 disposal price for the Pinfold Lane Library approved by the Cabinet in February 2025 was based on the joint NHS Council valuation completed in December 2024, as reference in the Cabinet minutes and Part A report?
Responding, Councillor O’Brien reported that he wasn’t in the position to confirm a sale price, as this was confidential due to commercial confidentiality. The questioner was right to suggest there have been previous figures of the value for that site, which is the usual guiding price for any deal that we would make. Although not in a position to confirm anything tonight he was hopeful that in the near future we should be able to provide the details. Once the NHS have finalised the deal within their own structures that should then allow us to be clear about the price paid for the site and hoped that will clarify how it relates to previous assessments of the value of the site.
The following question was asked by a member of the public, John Jacobs:
Can the Council confirm the nature of the potential breach of section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 that was identified in or around April 2025. I’m not asking for legal advice, just a summary of the issue that was raised.
Responding, Councillor O’Brien reported that the starting position is that the Council’s legal advice does not state that there was a breach. This is helpful in clarifying any speculation around it – people may have opinions otherwise, but that is not what our external, independent legal opinion concluded. Ask our Director of Law and Governance to confirm how things are considered internally in the Council and how it informs our thinking.
Jacqui Dennis advised that in considering section 123, the Council may dispose of land held by ourselves in any manner we wish, however in doing so we should not dispose of land for a consideration less than that that can be reasonably obtained. So in terms of how the Council made its decision, it obtained a joint valuation with the NHS, that was considered. Cabinet received a report in February where members agreed to transact with the NHS to sell the land. In terms of the consideration, reliance was placed on an independent valuation, and it was on this basis the Council undertook to enter in to this sale.
The following question was asked by a member of the public, Ellie Partridge:
Since Cabinet gave consent to dispose of the site at £480,000, has the proposed sale price changed and, if so, on whose authority, and was that change reported back to the Cabinet or benchmarked against any other offers?
Responding, Councillor O’Brien reiterated that he was not in a position tonight to confirm any sale price. I am confident and hopeful we can in the near future. At that point I would hope to assume Members and members of the public that this deal has been negotiated and completed on a sound legal basis, with a sound independent valuation of the site.
The following question was asked by a member of the public, Rebecca Partridge:
Given that a formal public offer of £450,000 was made after Cabinet approval but before completion, and the early expressions of interest were on record, why was the offer not tested or retained as a fallback?
Responding, Councillor O’Brien reported that fundamentally after the Cabinet has made a decision we are still in the process of completing and seeing that decision through. We’ve effectively done what we need to as part of that deal, it’s now sitting with the NHS and their decision making processes. These are different from ours and also take time. Ultimately once we’ve made that decision it’s only right that we allow that process to be completed, and I have given assurances at the last Cabinet meeting that if that deal does not complete for any reason we would welcome and be open to exploring other offers. I think it’s important to note that, as Roger Frith confirmed at the last meeting, prior to that Cabinet decision in February no other offers had come in and we were making a decision in February on the basis of that offer from the NHS as the sole offer.
The following question was asked by a member of the public:
Since legal completion of the Pinfold Lane library deal still hasn’t taken place, is there a specific reason for the delay and has any part of the deal materially changed in the interim?
Responding, Councillor O’Brien reported that the deal has not changed, it is simply the pace of the bureaucracy within the NHS. Nothing more to it than the NHS’s decision making process which is currently underway. The NHS is made up of smaller components within one organisation which has resulted in the extra time needed for the deal to be finalised. I am confident we will get to that point but equally confident that if we don’t then we will come back to the table looking for offers and engage with those who are interested in the site.
The following question was asked by a member of the public:
If the terms of the Pinfold Lane deal have changed in price, timing or valuation basis, will the new deal be brought back to Cabinet for renewed consent as required under proper governance procedure?
Responding, Councillor O’Brien reported that yes, if there were substantive changes to it, we would have to bring it back for renewal of the decision. That’s not the case at the moment, we’re confident it won’t change, but yes on principle if substantial changes are made to the deal we would bring that back.
The following question was asked by a member of the public, Daniel Jacobs:
In April 2023 I first expressed interest in the Pinfold Lane library site and followed up more than a dozen times. Every request was ignored and I received contradictory explanations from Mr Frith about the nature of the sale. Then in February this year Cabinet approved a disposal that internal emails now suggest did not comply with Section 123 of the Local Government Act. I requested a pause; that was denied externally, but from the outside it appears that the deal has been paused internally and possibly revalued. The original price agreed was around £480,000, factoring in £15,000 costs for demolition so effectively £465,000. Now we’re seeing references in the press to a £500-600,000 valuation yet this revised deal has not been remarketed and not tested against other bidders and no legal advice or valuation has been published. My question is this: how can the Council claim it is meeting its legal duty to achieve best consideration when it appears to be preparing to push through a materially different deal, again, on a one to one basis, again, without competition, and again, behind closed doors?
Responding, Councillor O’Brien reported that we have always done this deal as transparently as possible: the information that we’ve shared has come through Cabinet reports, it’s formed part of our thinking and vision around the Whitefield Town Plan. Clearly there are some bits of information at this stage that we’re not able to share in the public domain. That does make this harder to give you confidence in our approach of transparency on this, but I hope in the near future to give you that reassurance. The deal, at the moment, has not been paused or revalued or materially changed. It is simply going through a slow bureaucratic process from the NHS. We have also been reassured that the legal basis for what we have done so far has been sound. There were differences of opinion, that is clear from the email correspondence, which I don’t think is a bad thing as it shows people are taking things seriously and we don’t just follow the pack. The key consideration as a result of that difference of opinion was do we have an external independent view on the deal, and that is what we have got. That says we are not in breach of Section 123. Fundamentally we have made a decision that is legal, as transparent as we can be at this point, and crucially we are delivering on what we said we would to the residents of Whitefield; a new health centre, GP practices, away from a building that has for a long period of time been in poor condition and not serving residents as well as it could be. We have tried to do the best for the residents of Whitefield as a whole in keeping with the Whitefield Town Plan, and I’m confident we will get something of a high quality for those residents at the end of this. I appreciate there is other interest in the site, I appreciate you may be personally disappointed in the decision, but we have a duty to the wider set of residents. I remain confident that we have done the right thing in the right way.
In response to further discussion with the public, the Leader advised that we do not have a system that the highest bidder always wins. The size of the bid is only one factor that we have to consider. We are trying to get the best value and the best outcome for residents. We have to weigh up those considerations against things like the value, and what we’ve tried to do in this instance is ensure we have the right balance between value of the land, and benefit to the people of Whitefield. I am satisfied that we have got good value and a good outcome for residents.
Ultimately if you’re asking for a legal view about what we’re doing, all I can do is take the legal advice that we’ve been given, which is that what we have done is in accordance with the law. I am confident on that front that we have done what we need to do in keeping with the law. The secondary element of what you’re saying is if there is a higher bid then we should take that bid. And what I’m saying is the size of the bid is one factor – a very important part, clearly, but it is only one factor in what we consider around these types of decisions. There are some decisions which have no strategic value to the Council where the size of the bid is probably a much bigger consideration, but this is a slightly different case. So I appreciate what you’re saying, but the decision has been made. We’re going to see that deal through with the NHS. Should that change, I repeat myself again, we will be happy to consider the bids – yours and any others – for the site, in the proper process.