1. art and entertainment
2. theatre
3. theatre awards

Public Document Pack
Tuesday, 14 April 2015
SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL
Delegated Executive Decisions
On Thursday, 23 April 2015, on the rising of the meeting of the Management Team,
the following report(s) will be considered under powers delegated to Portfolio Holders, the
Chief Executive and Directors for the discharge of the Council’s Cabinet functions carried
out within their area of responsibility.
Copies of these reports have been sent to the relevant Portfolio Holders (and all Members
of the Cabinet for information), the Chief Executive, all Directors and the Monitoring
Officer.
Cabinet Members, or any of the other consultees, may object to the report within five
working days - by 5.00 p.m. on, Wednesday, 22 April 2015 - by notifying the Officer
named on the report of the objection and requesting that the matter be referred to the next
meeting of the Cabinet for determination.
Page Nos.
PART I
1
NOMINATION TO LIST ASSET OF COMMUNITY VALUE (LANGDALE
VALLEY ASSOCIATION)
3 - 18
To consider a nomination made by Langdale Valley Association to enter
Stickle Tarn, Great Langdale onto South Lakeland District Council’s List
of Assets of Community Value.
2
EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT OF THE LEASE OF ABBOT HALL
SOCIAL CENTRE, KENDAL
To consider the extension and amendment of the existing lease of the
Abbot Hall Social Centre, Dowkers Lane, Kendal.
PART II
(exempt reasons under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972,
as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation)
Order 2006, specified by way of paragraph number)
There are no items in this Part of the Agenda.
19 - 24
This page is intentionally left blank
Item No.1
South Lakeland District Council
DELEGATED EXECUTIVE DECISION
Date of proposed decision: 23/04/2015
Nomination to list Assets of Community Value
(Langdale Valley Association)
PORTFOLIO:
Councillor Jonathan Brook – Strategic Growth
Portfolio Holder
DECISION MAKER:
David Sykes – Director People and Places
REPORT AUTHOR:
Sarah Berry – Graduate Policy and Partnerships
Officer
WARDS:
Ambleside and Grasmere
KEY DECISION NO:
N/A
1.0
EXPECTED OUTCOME
1.1
That Stickle Tarn is placed onto the list of successful nominations of Assets of
Community Value.
2.0
PROPOSED DECISION
2.1
To enter the following property on to South Lakeland District Council’s
list of successful nominations of Assets of Community Value:Stickle Tarn, Great Langdale, Ambleside, Cumbria, LA22 9JX
3.0
BACKGROUND AND PROPOSALS
3.1
On 11th February 2015, South Lakeland District Council received a
nomination, under Section 89 of the Localism Act 2011, to list Stickle Tarn as
an Asset of Community Value. The nomination was made by the Langdale
Valley Association.
3.2
Under Section 88 of the Localism Act 2011, the current use of Stickle Tarn
which is detailed in appendix 1, does fit the criteria of an Asset of Community
Value.
3.3
The asset is within the administrative boundary of South Lakeland.
3.4
The Langdale Valley Association are entitled under 89(2)b(i) of the Localism
Act 2011 to make a community nomination and are eligible to nominate with a
local connection to the nomination.
Page 3
3.5
The nominated assets do not fall within a description of land which may not be
listed as specified in Schedule 1 of the Assets of Community Value (England)
Regulation 2012. Specifically the assets are not a residence; in requirement of
a site licence and/ or operational land as defined under section 263 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
3.6
The assessment form in appendix 1 explains why the Langdale Valley
Association believes the asset meets the definition in the Localism Act 2011.
3.7
The assessment form in appendix 1 sets out the reasons for the
recommendation as stated in paragraphs 2.1.
4.0
CONSULTATION
4.1
The Principal Performance and Intelligence Officer received the nomination
and made initial checks. The Graduate Policy and Partnership Officer
assessed the validity of the nomination and the criteria for listing in
accordance with the key steps for considering a nomination to the Council’s
List of Community Assets.
4.2
The current owners and ward members for Ambleside and Grasmere were
consulted at this stage. Councillor Heidi Halliday responded, offering her
support to Langdale Valley Association in respect of their nomination.
4.3
In line with the Cabinet decision on 28 November 2012, delegated authority is
given to the Director of People and Places in consultation with the Strategic
Growth Portfolio Holder to make the determination as to whether an asset(s)
is added to the list.
5.0
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS
5.1
Under Section 89 of the Localism Act 2011, the Council can only enter assets
into the list of Assets of Community Value in response to community
nomination.
5.2
In accordance with Section 91 of the Localism Act the Council will send notice
to the Langdale Valley Association of its decision in respect of each
nomination.
6.0
LINKS TO COUNCIL PRIORITIES
6.1
An ambition of the Council Plan 2014-2019 is as follows:
“Through community engagement and facilitation we will make best use of our
assets, and we will work with local organisations and communities to look at
opportunities to maximise the use of our community buildings.”
Page 4
7.0
IMPLICATIONS
7.1
Financial and Resources
7.1.1 There are no financial implications associated with this report.
7.2
Human Resources
7.2.1 There are no human resources implications associated with this report.
7.3
Legal
7.3.1 Under Section 87 of the Localism Act 2011 the Council must maintain a list of
assets of community value.
7.3.2 Section 88 of the Localism Act 2011 states that a building or other land is an
asset of community value if, in the opinion of the authority:

the current (ancillary) use of the building or other land furthers
the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community.

there is evidence that there is a non-ancillary use of the building
or other land which can further the social wellbeing or social
interests of the local community.
A building or other land is not an asset of community value if, in the opinion of
the local authority:


in the recent past the actual use of the building or other land
was not used to furthered the social wellbeing or interests of the
local community
there is evidence that there is not a non-ancillary use of the
building or other land which can further the social wellbeing or
social interests of the local community.
7.3.3 The full legislation can be found here.
7.4
Social, Economic and Environmental
7.4.1 A sustainability impact assessment has not been carried out. A building or
other land is an asset of community value if its main use has recently been or
is presently used to further the social wellbeing or social interests of the local
community and could do so in the future. The Localism Act 2011 states that
social interests include cultural, recreational and sporting interests.
7.4.2 The inclusion of assets on the List of Assets of Community Value is recorded
as a local land charge under the Local Land Charges Act 1975. The Council is
required under Schedule 4 of the Assets of Community Value (England)
Regulation 2012 to apply to the Land Registry for a restriction to be added to
the registered title of the land that “no transfer or lease is to be registered
without a certificate signed by a conveyancer that the transfer or lease did not
contravene Section 95(1) of the Localism Act 2011”.
7.5
Equality and Diversity
7.5.1 The Impact Assessment published by Department for Communities and Local
Government (DCLG) indicates there are no foreseeable adverse impacts on
Page 5
any single equality group arising out of the legislation relating to Assets of
Community Value.
7.6
Risk
Risk
Consequence
Controls required
Timescales for
responses and
publication of lists
Compliance for
responses to
nominations,
notifications and the
publication of lists of
successful and
unsuccessful
nominations
Appropriate procedures
put in place to achieve
the Council’s obligations
Administer any initial
appeals in respect of
either nominations or
compensation decisions
Meeting the
requirements expected
of the council
Appropriate procedures
put in place to achieve
the Council’s obligations
Listed asset of
community value not
added to the local land
charge register
Reputational challenge
Appropriate procedures
put in place to achieve
the Council’s obligations
CONTACT OFFICERS
Principle Performance and Intelligence Officer, Paul Mountford –
P.Mountford@southlakeland.gov.uk
Graduate policy and Partnership Officer, Sarah Berry –
sarah.berry@southlakeland.gov.uk
APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT
Appendix No.
Assessment Form – Stickle Tarn
1
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE

Community Right to Bid: Non-statutory advice note for local authorities
(October 2012)

Community Right to Bid – Impact Assessment Localism Act 2011

The Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations (2012)

Implementing the New Community Right to Bid Effectively - A Practical
Guide for Local Authorities

CEX/98 – Community Right to Bid
Page 6
TRACKING INFORMATION
Assistant
Director
Portfolio
Holder
Solicitor to the SMT
Council
Executive
(Cabinet)
Committee
Council
N/A
DED –
23/04/15
N/A
Human
Resource
Services
Manager
Leader
Ward
Councillor(s)
N/A
N/A
Scrutiny
Committee
26/03/15
NA
Section 151
Officer
Monitoring
Officer
Note – Report authors must consult the relevant Portfolio Holder, members of
the Senior Management Team, the Monitoring Officer, and any other interested
parties before a decision can be taken. If any objections are received, they
must be reported at the meeting before the decision is taken.
Signed:
Decision
Maker’s
title:
Page 7
This page is intentionally left blank
APPENDIX 1
Detailed Assessment of the Nomination of Stickle Tarn as an Asset of
Community Value
Assets of Community Value Nomination – Assessment
DATE DECISION TO BE
MADE BY:
DATE OF SUBMISSION:
11/02/2015
23/04/2015
NOMINATED ASSET:
Stickle Tarn, Great Langdale, Ambleside, Cumbria, LA22 9JX
NOMINATION
SUBMITTED BY:
Langdale Valley Association
STEP A: This section considers the eligibility of the nominating body to make a nomination
and of the asset to be an Asset of Community Value. It does this through a series of YES/NO
ANSWERS
A1. Is the nominating organisation an eligible body to nominate?
Evidence supplied by
Evidence from application; unincorporated body.
nominee:
Feedback from other
parties and other
information gained in
relation to this criterion:
Score (YES/NO) and any
YES
comments:
A2. Does the nominating body have a local connection to the asset nominated?
Evidence supplied by
Langdale Valley Association – evidence from nomination; the association
nominee:
looks after the welfare of the valley.
Feedback from other
parties and other
information gained in
relation to this criterion
Score (YES/NO) and any
YES
comments:
Nomination Assessment Form
Date: September 2014
Version: v1
Page 9
1
APPENDIX 1
Detailed Assessment of the Nomination of Stickle Tarn as an Asset of
Community Value
A3. Does the nomination include the required information about the asset?



Description of the nominated asset including its proposed boundaries
Names of current occupants of the asset
Names and current or last-known addresses of all those holding a freehold or leasehold estate in the land
Evidence supplied by
nominee:
Feedback from other
parties and other
information gained in
relation to this criterion:
Score (YES/NO) and any
comments:
Map of the nominated asset has been included.
Current address of the occupants included:
(Lake District National Park Authority, Murley Moss, Oxenholme Road,
Kendal LA9 7RL)
The land is designated access land, open to the public.
YES
A4. Is the nominated asset outside of one of the categories that cannot be assets of community value (as
set out in Schedule 1 of the Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012):



A residence together with land connected with that residence
Land in respect of which a site licence is required under Part 1 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960
Operational land as defined in section 263 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Evidence supplied by
nominee:
Feedback from other
parties and other
information gained in
relation to this criterion:
The tender advert says the tarn was “built as the water supply for the old
Elterwater Gunpowder Works and the tarn is still used as a water supply.
The original water level was raised by a dam, and the regulations of the
Reservoirs Act 1974 apply.”
The tarn is a category B reservoir, supplying water to a number of properties
in the Langdale Valley.
The land is registered as ‘common land’.
Score (YES/NO) and any
comments
No
If yes to all of Part A, move on to Part B. If no to one or more parts, please
inform the nominator that the nomination is ineligible. Place nomination on list
of unsuccessful nominations.
Nomination Assessment Form
Date: September 2014
Version: v1
Page 10
2
APPENDIX 1
Detailed Assessment of the Nomination of Stickle Tarn as an Asset of
Community Value
STEP B: This section considers the current or recent usage of the asset. It
does this through a YES/NO answer and an identification as to whether the use
is current or in the “recent past”
B1. Is the current or recent usage which is the subject of the nomination an actual and non-ancillary
usage?


NOTE 1: A working definition of “recent past” is “within the past three years”
NOTE 2: A working definition of “non-ancillary” is that the usage is not providing necessary support (e.g. cleaning) to the
primary activities carried out in the asset, but is itself a primary, additional or complementary use.
Evidence supplied by
nominee:
JPEG Image: Google Image Search
Feedback from other
parties and other
information gained in
relation to this criterion:
Land Registry Tiles June 2010
TITLE
DEED
South Lakeland Web mapping tool:
Score (YES/NO) and any
comments:
If the current or recent usage that is the subject of the nomination is actual and
non-ancillary, go to Step C. If not, place on the list of unsuccessful
nominations.
Nomination Assessment Form
Date: September 2014
Version: v1
Page 11
3
APPENDIX 1
Detailed Assessment of the Nomination of Stickle Tarn as an Asset of
Community Value
STEP C: This section considers whether the use furthers (for current uses) or
furthered (for uses in the recent past) the social Interests or social wellbeing of
the local community.
Evidence provided by nominee
Evidence provided by the nomination;
walkers/climbers ‘paradise’. Use by locals and
visitors for recreational purposes and sport.
Evidence from the community; there are fears
that selling-off more than 100 acres, including
Stickle Tarn will have negative connotations
such as:
- Public access may be restricted.
- Maintenance of the land may not be handled
properly.
- Privatisation may prevent the Lake District
becoming a World Heritage Site.
- Wealthy buyers may try to build on the land.
Evidence from the Lake District National Park
in response to the initial assessment:
C1. Who benefits from
the use?
 Does it meet the
social interests of
the community as
a whole and not
simply the
users/customers
of the specific
service?
 Who will lose if
the usage
ceases?
Evidence gained from other
relevant sources (owner, Ward
member, Town/ Parish
Council, SLDC)
- Public access may be restricted: Public
access is secured by the Countryside and
Rights of Way Act 2000. All the protections
around CROW & SSSI mean this cannot
happen – public access cannot be restricted,
other than by change of laws. In addition
when the land was sold to the Authority there
was a restrictive covenant placed on the land
requiring it to remain available for public
access and recreation. As the beneficiary of
the restrictive covenant still owns the
surrounding fells we suspect that this
covenant would be readily enforced.
- Maintenance of the land may not be handled
properly: The tarn itself is a reservoir
supplying water to a number of properties in
the Langdale Valley and is covered by
Reservoirs Act 1975 which places obligations
on any owner including criminal liability. We
are ensuring through sale process that any
prospective buyers understand this and have
means to fulfil the obligations.
- Privatisation may prevent the Lake District
becoming a World Heritage Site: 96% of the
Park is not owned by the Lake District
National Park Authority, with 60%+ already
privately owned so there is no evidence to
suggest Stickle Tarn being privately owned
would have any impact on the current
position.
Nomination Assessment Form
Date: September 2014
Version: v1
Page 12
4
APPENDIX 1
Detailed Assessment of the Nomination of Stickle Tarn as an Asset of
Community Value
- Wealthy buyers may try to build on the land:
The protections/designation on the property
prevent this. The land owned by the Lake
District National Park Authority is also of
course largely a Tarn with only a small piece
of land around it so development not really
practical either.
The land is registered ‘common land’ and
therefore Secretary of State consent would
need to be granted for any development
taking place here.
Enter conclusion and rationale
South Lakeland District Council does
recognise that Stickle Tarn serves the social
interests and social well being of the
community.
Evidence provided by nominee
C2. Is any aspect of the
usage actively
discouraged by the
Council?
Evidence gained from other
relevant sources (owner, Ward
member, Town/ Parish
Council, SLDC)
Enter conclusion and rationale
Nomination Assessment Form
Date: September 2014
Version: v1
Page 13
5
APPENDIX 1
Detailed Assessment of the Nomination of Stickle Tarn as an Asset of
Community Value
Evidence provided by nominee
Evidence provided by the nomination;
walkers/climbers ‘paradise’. Use by locals and
visitors for recreational purposes and sport.
Stickle Tarn is one of eight sites that the Lake
District National Park put up for sale. Its guide
price is between £20,000-£30,000.
C3. Why is the usage
seen as having social
value in the context of
the community on
whose behalf the
nomination is being
made?
Social context for the land is given through the
specifications for ownership in the tender
advert (which can be view here).
Evidence gained from other
relevant sources (owner, Ward
member, Town/ Parish
Council, SLDC)
Social context raised in the tender:


Enter conclusion and rationale
BOUNDARIES - The buyers will be
responsible for the maintenance and
repair of all boundary walls and
fences as indicated in the Tender
Pack.
The whole area is part of the
Langdale Pikes Site of Special
Scientific Interest (SSSI).
South Lakeland District Council does
recognise that Stickle Tarn serves the social
interests and social well being of the
community.
Nomination Assessment Form
Date: September 2014
Version: v1
Page 14
6
APPENDIX 1
Detailed Assessment of the Nomination of Stickle Tarn as an Asset of
Community Value
Evidence provided by nominee
C4. How strongly does
the local community feel
about the usage as
furthering their social
interests?
Evidence gained from other
relevant sources (owner, Ward
member, Town/ Parish
Council, SLDC)
Enter conclusion and rationale
Overall
Recommendation
Evidence from BBC News Online; information
regarding the sale; “potential buyers also have
to fill in a questionnaire of their intentions and
"aspirations for the future" of woodland on the
land”.
Nationally there is an online petition entitled
‘Save Our National Parks’ aimed at preventing
the sale of land in the Lake District and the
Yorkshire Dales.
South Lakeland District Council does
recognise that Stickle Tarn serves the social
interests and social well being of the
community.
South Lakeland District Council does recognise the tarn’s listing as a category B
reservoir. However the positive impact on social interests and the social well
being for the community of Great Langdale and visitors to the Lake District are
considered a more prominent factor when making the overall recommendation
that Stickle Tarn be placed on the successful register for assets of community
value.
Nomination Assessment Form
Date: September 2014
Version: v1
Page 15
7
APPENDIX 1
Detailed Assessment of the Nomination of Stickle Tarn as an Asset of
Community Value
STEP D: This section considers whether it is realistic to think that there can
continue to be non-ancillary use of the building or other land which will further
(whether or not in the same way) the social wellbeing or social interests of the
local community.
For assets such as this where the actual non-ancillary usage is a recent rather than a current one (see Step B above), 88(2)
(b) of the Localism Act requires the Council to consider whether in the opinion of the local authority it is realistic to think that
there is a time in the next five years when there could be non-ancillary use of the building or other land that would
further (whether or not in the same way as before) the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community.
This will be considered through the following tests:


If the asset is considered to remain fit for purpose (under D1 below), then this is considered to be sufficient grounds for
thinking that it is realistic to think that there is a time in the next five years when there could be use of the asset that would
further the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community identified in Step C above.
If the building is not considered to remain fit for purpose under D1, then an additional Test (under D2 below) will be
applied to determine whether the asset could be made fit for purpose practically and within reasonable resource
requirements and within timescales. The timescales to be applied for this to take place for assets with “recent usage” will
be “within the next five years”.
D1. Has the building/ land-take/ space/ legal requirement for this usage changed significantly since its
initial use so that the asset is not fit for purpose?
Evidence supplied by
N/A
nominee:
Feedback from other
parties and other
information gained in
relation to this criterion:
Score (YES/NO) and
rationale
If no to D1, place on register of Assets of Community Value, and do not go to
D2. If Yes to D1, go to D2.
D2. Could the asset be made fit for purpose practically and within reasonable resource requirements and
within timescales?
Evidence supplied by
N/A
nominee:
Feedback from other
parties and other
information gained in
relation to this criteria:
Score (YES/NO) and
Rationale:
If yes to D2, place on register of Assets of Community Value. If no to D2, place
on list of unsuccessful nominations.
Nomination Assessment Form
Date: September 2014
Version: v1
Page 16
8
APPENDIX 1
Detailed Assessment of the Nomination of Stickle Tarn as an Asset of
Community Value
RECOMMENDATION:
REASON FOR
RECOMMENDATION
THAT STICKLE TARN IS PLACE ON THE SUCCESSFUL
NOMINATIONS LIST.
South Lakeland District Council does recognise the tarn’s
listing as a category B reservoir. However the positive impact
on social interests and the social well being for the
community of Great Langdale and visitors to the Lake District
are considered a more prominent factor when making the
overall recommendation that Stickle Tarn be placed on the
successful register for assets of community value.
Nomination Assessment Form
Date: September 2014
Version: v1
Page 17
9
This page is intentionally left blank
Item No.2
South Lakeland District Council
DELEGATED EXECUTIVE DECISION
Date of proposed decision: 23rd April 2015
Extension and amendment of Lease of Abbot Hall
Social Centre, Kendal
PORTFOLIO:
Councillor Graham Vincent - Health and Well-being
Portfolio Holder
DECISION MAKER:
David Sykes - Director (People and Places)
REPORT AUTHOR:
Caroline Leigh - Economic Development
Corporate Asset Group Manager
WARDS:
Kendal Highgate
KEY DECISION NO:
NA
and
1.0
EXPECTED OUTCOME
1.1
The term of the existing lease of the Abbot Hall Social Centre will be extended
by way of surrender and re grant to improve the facilities and amended to
permit controlled subletting of part of the Centre to enhance continued
community use as set out in the report.
2.0
PROPOSED DECISION
2.1
It is recommended that the Director People and Places;
(1)
in principle approves the extension of the term of the lease by
way of surrender of the lease and re-grant ; and
(2)
authorises the Assistant Director (Strategic Planning) to approve
the detailed terms and conditions under delegation.
3.0
BACKGROUND AND PROPOSALS
3.1
The Trustees of the Kendal Voluntary Old People’s Welfare Committee hold a
lease of land owned by South Lakeland District Council (“the Council”)
adjoining the archway entrance (Highgate end) to Abbot Hall Park off the side
of Dowkers Lane, Kendal. The lease was granted from 1 September 1962 for
99 years at 5p per annum without reviews. The land is shown edged red on
the plan at Appendix 1.
3.2
The Trustees built the Abbot Hall Social Centre on the land and maintain/run it
at their own expense. It is restricted to use as an old people’s welfare centre
and for carrying on the activities of such a centre, relying upon volunteers and
public support to sustain it. Like all community buildings, it is becoming
somewhat tired and worn and in need of refurbishment of its facilities.
Page 19
3.3
In recent years the use of the Centre for playing bridge by the community has
grown into a regular use by Kendal Bridge Club (KBC). This is a very popular
activity and the number of players are starting to outgrow the premises on
bridge nights. The funds generated by the KBC use help to keep the Centre
open and many members of the Centre are members of KBC.
3.4
KBC has some members who are willing to donate capital funds (circa
£30,000) to extend and refurbish the premises. There is peripheral land
within the existing lease area around the footprint of the existing building
which will permit an extension subject to planning consent.
3.5
KBC will require security of tenure from the Trustees in return for the funding.
They require a minimum period of 100 years to replace the current 46 years
remaining under the original letting. This can be achieved by extending the
Head Lease accordingly and permitting the Trustees to grant a sub-lease of
part of the premises to KBC but restricted by days, times, uses and other
clauses to be approved by the Council as Head Landlord.
3.6
KBC involvement in the Centre is already part of the community use, as
Centre members play on Club nights. KBC accepts that any improvements to
the premises will be used for other Centre purposes outside of KBC nights.
4.0
CONSULTATION
4.1
The Ward Member has been consulted and has no objections to the request.
4.2
The Economic Development and Asset Group Manager has no objections to
the request. The land is not required for Council purposes and possession
cannot be obtained under the existing lease for the next 46 years.
5.0
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS
5.1
To not grant the extension, in which case the Trustees can carry on with the
existing lease. This may prompt KBC to look for alternative premises
resulting in a loss of funding to the Social Centre. An examination of the
Centre’s financial summary over the last 5 years as published on the Charity
Commission website shows the Centre varying between either an annual loss
or a small surplus of income over expenditure over the last 5 years.
6.0
LINKS TO COUNCIL PRIORITIES
6.1
Health and Wellbeing - through community engagement and facilitation we
will make best use of our assets. We will work with local organisations and
communities to look at opportunities to maximise the use of our community
buildings.
7.0
IMPLICATIONS
7.1
Financial and Resources
7.1.1 The recommendation has no financial consequences for the Council.
7.2
Human Resources
7.2.1 There are no staffing implications for the Council.
Page 20
7.3
Legal
7.3.1 In normal circumstances the grant of a lease in excess of 7 years would have
to be at best consideration under Section 123 of the Local Government Act
1972. However, The General Disposal Consent 2003 under the provisions of
section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 permits local authorities to
dispose of land at less than best consideration where the undervalue does not
exceed two million pounds and the disposal is likely to contribute to the
promotion or improvement of the social, economic or environmental wellbeing of the area or of persons resident in its area
7.3.2 The device of using KBC funds to enable the extension and refurbishment to
happen enables the Centre to continue to provide a facility for the community
which might otherwise be at risk. The use of the Centre by the community
with a membership which is open to all meets the qualification that it
contributes to the promotion or improvement of the social well-being of the
district. In all the circumstances, the surrender and re-grant of the lease for
the purpose of extending the term of the lease as set out in the report meets
the conditions of the Local Government Act 1972: General Disposal Consent
(England) 2003.
7.4
Social, Economic and Environmental
7.4.1 The proposal has no social, economic and environmental impacts other than
those beneficial ones already included within the existing use which will be
continued.
7.5
Equality and Diversity
7.5.1 The constitution of the Social Centre has been approved by the Charity
Commission (The Abbot Hall Social Centre Registered Number 228877) and
membership is open to all individuals over the age of 18 years who are
interested in furthering the work of the Charity and who have paid any annual
subscription laid down from time to time by the Executive Committee.
7.6
Risk
Risk
Consequence
Controls required
Criticism
that
the Ombudsman or Legal Publication
of
the
Council
is
not Challenge
reasons for the decision
maximising the return
as justified by the
from its assets in times
proposed
disposal
of austerity.
meeting the terms of the
the Local Government
Act 1972:
General
Disposal
Consent
(England) 2003.
CONTACT OFFICERS
Report Author –
David Pogson, Estates
david.pogson@nps.co.uk
surveyor,
NPS
Group,
Page 21
tel:
01539
797437
or
APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT
Appendix No.
1
Location Plan of site of premises
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE
Name
of
document
Background Where it is available
NPS file KND/LA/21/A
NPS Kendal Office, Aynam Mills, Little Aynam,
Kendal
TRACKING INFORMATION
Assistant
Director
Portfolio
Holder
Solicitor to the SMT
Council
Scrutiny
Committee
25/03/2015
25/03/2015
19/03/2015
NA
NA
Executive
(Cabinet)
Committee
Council
Section
Officer
NA
NA
NA
25/03/2015
Human
Resource
Services
Manager
Leader
Ward
Councillor(s)
NA
NA
11/03/2015
151 Monitoring
Officer
25/03/2015
Note – Report authors must consult the relevant Portfolio Holder, members of
the Senior Management Team, the Monitoring Officer, and any other interested
parties before a decision can be taken. If any objections are received, they
must be reported at the meeting before the decision is taken.
Signed:
Decision
Maker’s
title:
Page 22
APPENDIX NO 1
PURPOSE OF APPENDIX 1
1
The purpose of this Appendix is to show the location of the land.
Page 23
This page is intentionally left blank