To consider whether to support the action requested in the petition to reverse the decision of Executive Committee to sell land at the corner of Lincoln Green Lane, Tewkesbury to Aldi Stores Ltd; or whether to note the petition and proceed with the sale of land.

46.1           Members were advised that a petition had been received by the Council which asked it to reverse the decision of the Executive Committee to sell a parcel of land on the corner of Lincoln Green Lane to Aldi Stores Ltd.  The petition had received 767 signatures which was in excess of the 100 signatures required to trigger a Council debate and was the reason the current report was before Members. The report of the Head of Finance and Asset Management, circulated at Pages No. 10-26, asked that the Council determine whether it supported the action requested in the petition to reverse the decision of Executive Committee to sell the land at the corner of Lincoln Green Lane, Tewkesbury to Aldi Stores Ltd; or whether to note the petition and proceed with the sale of the land. 

46.2           The Mayor invited Christine Laird, speaking on behalf of the petition organiser, to make her presentation to the Council. Mrs Laird advised that, locally, people were extremely angry with the way in which the land sale had been pursued and they strongly disputed the accuracy of the information provided to Members believing the main driver for the sale to be money rather than public interest. For the last 40 years, residents on the Tewkesbury Park Estate had been repeatedly told that the land which formed the entrance to their estate could not be sold and that it had been specifically designed to create a rural entrance to an otherwise urban estate which reflected the rural nature of the town. Various requests to purchase the space had been turned down for that reason. Residents therefore believed the decision to sell to Aldi to be perverse as it defied all the urban planning arguments that the Council had previously relied upon. Mrs Laird advised that this was not just a piece of land with some trees on it but rather it was the entrance to where the petitioners lived; they used it, valued it and had always thought of it as being theirs. To suggest that the loss of the land could be compensated for missed the point as it would permanently change the appearance of the area and affect the residents’ quality of life in the long term. Since the Aldi store had been built, air and noise pollution locally had got worse; so far the mature trees on the green space mitigated that because they were an effective sound and noise pollution barrier but removing so many trees would significantly increase noise and air pollution as well as changing the water table. It was suggested that the petitioners were directly and adversely affected by the sale and they believed they should have been consulted before it was announced. The Council claimed it was committed to meaningful community engagement but most people affected by the land sale had found out from an advert in their local newspaper which was not, in her view, meaningful consultation. The petitioners felt they had been treated as an irrelevance and they believed the Council’s decision-making process to be unsound. Confusion was rife as to which organisation had first mooted the sale - residents were told it was Aldi but new information suggested it was the Council - and incorrect information appeared to have been given to the Executive Committee with the site plan being wrong in so far as the number of existing car park spaces shown was incorrect. In addition, the plan inferred only six trees would be removed to make way for the extension of the car park when in fact 14 would need to be removed; even with replanting, half the trees on the site would be lost and pollution levels would therefore worsen. Claims that the green space was not originally part of Tewkesbury Battlefield site were also incorrect according to information received from Historic England in July. It was felt that, if the sale proceeded, a full archaeological survey would have to be undertaken before any redevelopment was contemplated – this had a direct bearing on the sale and its financial implications but was not even mentioned in the report. No first-hand evidence of unmet demand for car parking had been compiled but lack of car parking was being used as the principle justification for the sale; Mrs Laird suggested that a decision taken in the absence of supporting evidence would be unwise. Residents had recently arranged their own car parking survey which had shown that, even at its busiest, 14 spaces were usually available for shoppers. Mrs Laird advised that she had established, from a personal site inspection, that problems with parking occurred when Aldi received deliveries from its warehouse; vehicles struggled to enter the loading bay which inhibited the free flow of traffic into, and around, the car park and caused queues. Aldi was responsible for causing that problem and it seemed unfair to adversely affect residents as a result. Mrs Laird contended that decisions reliant on a public interest justification must be scrupulous in process and totally transparent and she felt this had not happened in this case.

46.3           The Mayor thanked Mrs Laird for the information provided and invited the Head of Finance and Asset Management to introduce the report. Members were advised that the details of the Council’s Petition Scheme and the petition were set out from Pages No. 10-26 of the report. The petition statement was attached at Appendix B to the report for Members’ information and, in summary, it objected to the Executive Committee’s decision to sell the land due to the loss of public benefit; the increase in air and noise pollution; a lack of demand for additional car parking; the impact on the Tewkesbury Battlefield; and the impact on the water table. The Head of Finance and Asset Management drew attention to Paragraph 4.0 of the report which sought to address those issues along with some other points for Members to consider including the fact that the Council had previously been approached regarding the potential for a partial private sale to a local resident for the intended purpose of extending private garden space; those approaches were considered but rejected due to the intended private use. Where Officers felt the offer from Aldi differed was that the intended use still benefited the wider community through the parking provision. With particular reference to the petitioners’ contention that the site was within the historic Battlefield site, the Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that a review of the Historic England website had shown that the current designated Battlefield Site (updated in March 2017) excluded the area of land in question along with the developed area of the Tewkesbury Park Estate, the Aldi store itself and a number of residential properties along Gloucester Road. In terms of car parking, the scheme design detailed an increase of 15 spaces, or 23%, which took the total provision to 79 spaces. In accordance with industry standards, a car park was at full capacity at 80% as 20% was required for circulation. In addition it was noted that, since the Executive Committee meeting, a Community Right to Bid had been received for the parcel of land.

46.4           The Mayor invited questions and confirmed that he would then allow 15 minutes for debate as required by the Petition Scheme. A Member referred to Paragraph 3.9 of the report and questioned where and when it would be decided whether any of the trees in question would be subject to Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). In response, the Head of Development Services advised that TPOs were being considered; if they were made, an application to remove the trees would be required but that would be a separate decision outside of the Council meeting based on technical evidence. The decision on TPOs was delegated to Officers in consultation with local Members then, if appealed by the landowner, was considered by the Council’s Tree Panel. Another Member questioned what the Community Right to Bid meant in practice. He understood that there would be six weeks to decide to bid but he questioned when that six week period would commence. In response, the Head of Development Services explained that, as the asset was now listed as one of value, if the Council agreed at the current meeting to sell it, the bid group would have six weeks from the decision to say whether it wanted to bid and it would then have six months to raise the funds to create a bid. This was a bidding process so it was not possible for Officers to say how much the bid from the community would need to be for. A Member expressed concern about some of the information in the report, particularly in terms of the statements that a “number of trees would be lost” and a “number would be replanted” he questioned what the net loss/gain would be. In response, the Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that there was a feasibility study ongoing so there were no specific figures available at this stage. If the scheme proceeded, it would go through the planning process so the details would be required at that time. Another Member expressed concern that the recommendation to sell conflicted with the Community Right to Bid and she felt the decision on the sale should be deferred for six months until the outcome was known. She was also of the view that the community was at a disadvantage in not knowing how much money it would need to raise. In response, she was advised that, if the Council decided to continue with the sale of the land, the Community Right to Bid process would be triggered automatically. The scheme was designed so the community raised what it could and then submitted that as a bid; it was up to the landowner to decide whether it would accept the bid. A Member was concerned whether the parking extension would require Aldi to submit an application for planning consent; whether the Council had robust enough policies around landscaping and design to ensure it did not just end up with a car park at the entrance to the estate; and whether an uplift clause would be inserted in the sale so that, if Aldi decided to move and the whole site was changed to residential, the Council would not lose out. In response, the Head of Finance and Asset Management confirmed that Aldi would have to submit a planning application so landscaping designs would be required at that time and an uplift clause would be inserted so the Council would not lose out in the long term.

46.5           A Member proposed, and it was seconded, that the Council note the petition and proceed with the sale of the land.

46.6           During the discussion which ensued, one of the local Ward Members commended the Residents’ Association for its efforts in compiling the petition. She, along with the other Ward Member, had been approached with a number of objections prior to the consideration of the item by the Executive Committee and she had put those forward; however, it should be borne in mind that she represented all residents and she had also received some comments of support for the sale. In this case her own view was not to support the sale to Aldi for the reasons set out by the public speaker. In addition, she was concerned that, if Aldi moved out of Tewkesbury, the site would be left derelict, or sold to a different organisation, and would become an eyesore. She was of the view that all supermarkets had problems with parking at peak times and the addition of 15 spaces in this case would merely be a ‘sticking plaster’.

46.7           A Member proposed, and it was seconded, that the Council support the action requested in the petition to reverse the decision of the Executive Committee to sell the land at the corner of Lincoln Green Lane, Tewkesbury to Aldi Stores. In supporting the proposal, a Member expressed the view that money was not everything and the environment was equally important. When the Estate had been developed, the open space areas had been passed to the Council to be maintained as green space to be kept available for use by the residents. He felt the site was a good link to the town and that it would be a shame to lose what was undoubtedly an attractive area. Another Member reiterated that view and thanked Mrs Laird for her speech. He felt the Council had a responsibility to the people it served and, in this case, those people wanted to keep their area of public open space. The number of trees lost was not documented so Members could not specifically identify what would be lost or gained and air quality really was an issue that needed to be addressed. He had rarely queued to use the Aldi car park and had not noticed a capacity issue. It was felt by a few Members that there were no good reasons to support the sale of the land which was of value to the streetscene as well as being a benefit in terms of air quality. The money gained from the sale would provide a one-off boost to the Council’s capital pot but the loss of the space would be mourned forever. In response, the Chair of the Executive Committee explained that the Committee had made its decision in good faith on the details before it. The Council had financial difficulties and there was no doubting that the money gained from the sale could be put to good use. He felt the problems with parking at the store were well known and it was extremely dangerous when that spilled out onto Gloucester Road.

46.8           With the time for debate at an end, the Mayor invited the Borough Solicitor to remind Members what they were voting upon. A recorded vote was requested and, upon receiving the appropriate level of support, voting on the proposal to note the petition and proceed with the sale of the land was recorded as follows: 

46.9           With 20 votes in favour and 13 against, it was

                  RESOLVED          That the petition be noted and that the sale of the land proceed.