Issue - meetings

(Reasons: LGA 1972 - Sch 12A Paragraph 3 – Financial or business affairs of any particular person and Sch 12A Paragraph 5 – Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings)

This report updates Members on progress with reviewing the Council’s office accommodation requirements and presents high-level options for consideration.

(Reasons: LGA 1972 Sch 12A Paragraphs 3 and 5 – Financial or business affairs of any particular person and information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.)

Report of Director of Central Services and Deputy Chief Executive

The report provided an update on progress with reviewing the Borough Council’s office accommodation requirements.  Consideration was also given to the recommendations of the Finance, Regeneration and Property Scrutiny Select Committee of 26 July 2022.

The Cabinet RESOLVED that:

(1)             the options set out in the report to the Finance, Regeneration and Property Scrutiny Select Committee be noted;

(2)             the view that the main offices of the Borough Council should continue to be located in Kings Hill be supported;

(3)             the view that the co-location arrangement with Kent Police should continue, if a suitable solution was identified be supported;

(4)             Officers be instructed to progress the further actions recommended by Counsel in respect of the removal of covenants (as set out in Annex 2 to the report);

(5)             Officers be asked to carry out further investigation into the feasibility of Option 4 (as detailed in the report), including negotiating a settlement with Kent County Council on the alteration/removal of the covenants; and

(6)             a further progress report be presented to the Finance, Regeneration and Property Scrutiny Select Committee in due course.

(Reasons: LGA 1972 Sch 12A Paragraphs 3 and 5 – Financial or business affairs of any particular person and information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.)

Decision Notice: D220088CAB

The report provided an update on progress with reviewing the Borough Council’s office accommodation requirements.  Consideration was also given to the recommendations of the Finance, Regeneration and Property Scrutiny Select Committee of 26 July 2022.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)             the options set out in the report to the Finance, Regeneration and Property Scrutiny Select Committee be noted;

(2)             the view that the main offices of the Borough Council should continue to be located in Kings Hill be supported;

(3)             the view that the co-location arrangement with Kent Police should continue, if a suitable solution was identified be supported;

(4)             Officers be instructed to progress the further actions recommended by Counsel in respect of the removal of covenants (as set out in Annex 2 to the report);

(5)             Officers be asked to carry out further investigation into the feasibility of Option 4 (as detailed in the report), including negotiating a settlement with Kent County Council on the alteration/removal of the covenants; and

(6)             a further progress report be presented to the Finance, Regeneration and Property Scrutiny Select Committee in due course.

(Reasons: LGA 1972 - Sch 12A Paragraph 3 – Financial or business affairs of any particular person)

This report updates Members on progress with reviewing the Council’s office accommodation requirements and presents high-level options for consideration

Due to its size Annex 2 will either be published as a supplement or emailed under Private/Confidential cover to Members.

(Reason: LGA 1972 Sch 12A Paragraph 3 – Financial or business affairs of any particular person)

The report of the Director of Central Services and Deputy Chief Executive provided an update on progress being made with reviewing the Council’s office accommodation requirements and presented high level options for consideration.

Members views were sought on where the Borough Council should have its main office, whether the co-location arrangement with Kent Police should continue and the approach to be adopted towards the removal of covenants on the Council’s title.

There was in-depth discussion on where the main offices of the Borough Council should be located and whether there were any suitable alternative sites in the ownership of the Council that represented value for money, easy access for residents and provided appropriate facilities.  On balance, the Committee were of the view that the main offices should continue to be located at Kings Hill on the grounds of reasonable transport links from the North and South of the Borough and its central location.  It was also recognised that options around the current location had the potential to represent best value for money. 

However, the Committee also expressed the view that other Members of the Council should have the opportunity to comment on any future location of the main offices.  It was recommended that a short survey should be circulated to all councillors and responses reported to the next meeting of Cabinet.

Members were also of the view that co-locating with Kent Police had many benefits for residents and were supportive of the arrangement continuing if a suitable solution was identified.

Unfortunately, the opinion of Counsel in respect of the covenants was not available and the Committee requested that this matter be deferred until the advice had been received and circulated.  

Finally, the Monitoring Officer committed to clarifying the position around access to the opinion of Counsel for those Members who also served as a County Councillor.

RECOMMENDED:  That

(1)             the options set out in the report be noted;

(2)             the view of the Committee that the main offices of the Borough Council should continue to be located in Kings Hill be noted;

(3)             the view of the Committee that the co-location arrangement with Kent Police should continue, if a suitable solution was identified, be noted;

(4)             the view of the Committee in respect of the removal of covenants be deferred until legal advice had been received and circulated;

(5)             Officers be asked to carry out further investigation into the feasibility of Option 4 (as detailed in the report) including negotiating a settlement with Kent County Council on the alteration/removal of the covenants (subject to Member approval);

(6)             a short survey be circulated to all Councillors seeking their views as to where the main office building should be located and responses presented to Cabinet in due course;

(7)             a further progress report be brought back to the Finance, Regeneration and Property Scrutiny Select Committee in due course.

*Referred to Cabinet