Agenda item

To consider Exempt Report No. REG2502 (copy attached), which sets out options for the disposal of 82 residential units contained within the Union Yard scheme in Aldershot.

The Cabinet considered Exempt Report No. REG2502, which set out options  for the disposal of 82 residential units contained within the Union Yard scheme in Aldershot town centre.

Members were informed that a Cabinet report in July, 2021 had set out an ‘exit strategy’ for the different components of the scheme. It was agreed at that time that the 82 apartments for private rent would be subject to disposal on completion to the Council’s Housing Company, Rushmoor Homes Limited (RHL). Members heard that the scheme had now reached practical completion, with all elements having been handed over to the Council following an opening event in March, 2025.

The Chairman brought the Cabinet’s attention to the draft minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 27th March, 2025 and Members considered the comments contained therein.

The Cabinet considered and discussed the risks of each option, as set out in the updated risk table, and decided that Option 1, disposal to RHL, now demonstrated a significant short-term risk to the Council’s revenue account that meant that this option was the least favourable in terms of short-term financial risk. The Cabinet therefore agreed to discount this option. Option 2 was for the direct sale of the units to the open market but it was felt that this would carry a high risk in terms of potential delays in receiving the capital receipts when compared to the other options. There was a further risk in respect of the future sales of the units not achieving the same value as agents had forecasted. This option was, therefore, also discounted. Option 5 was for the sale of the units to private investors. The highest offer received was not competitive when compared against the other proposals under consideration. Option 5 was, therefore, also discounted at this point.

Option 4(b), whilst having a higher value than option 4(a), was also discounted as the proposed leaseback value for the commercial properties represented an additional risk to the Council, outweighing the higher value.

Members discussed the remaining two options, which were Option 3 to a named registered housing provider and Option 4(a), which was to a provider of sub-market rental accommodation for key workers. It was noted that Option 3 would provide increased affordable housing whilst Option 4(a) would provide key worker accommodation. The Cabinet agreed that both the provision of social housing and the provision of key worker accommodation fitted with the Council’s priorities. In discussing the options in detail, the Cabinet felt it needed more information in relation to the two options and the two operators to be able to make an informed choice. It was proposed, therefore, that the meeting should be adjourned until this further information could be obtained, at which point the meeting would be reconvened and the decision made.

At 8.38pm on 8th April, 2025, the Cabinet RESOLVED that the Cabinet meeting be adjourned for further information on the two options and operators to be obtained. The meeting would be reconvened at the first opportunity once this had been completed.

At 6.45pm on 14th April, 2025, the Cabinet meeting of the 8th April, 2025 was reconvened in private session.

At the start of the meeting, in the absence of the Leader of the Council (Cllr Gareth Williams), the Cabinet RESOLVED that Cllr Jules Crossley be appointed Chairman for the remainder of the meeting.

It was confirmed that, since the adjournment of the original meeting, the Cabinet had received presentations from each of the parties involved in Options 3 and 4(a) to obtain further information regarding the details of each option. This had assisted the Cabinet in assessing the relative benefits of providing affordable housing compared with key worker accommodation and helped the Cabinet to understand how each organisation would manage the property. The Cabinet agreed that reducing the housing waiting list was a key priority of the administration. In this regard, the Cabinet noted that the operator in respect of Option 4(a) had agreed to receive nominations from the Council’s waiting list that fulfilled the relevant key worker criteria for a proportion of the units.

On an initial vote the preferences of the members of the Cabinet were equally balanced for each option. Following further discussion and given that it would be possible to accommodate qualifying persons on the Council’s housing waiting list in the development under Option 4(a), it was proposed that the Cabinet’s preferred option would be Option 4(a).

At this point, the Cabinet RESOLVED that

(i)           the  disposal of the residential apartments at Union Yard (Seacole Place and Burton House) to the organisation making the offer set out in Option 4(a) in Exempt Report No.REG2502, be approved;

(ii)          the Executive Head of Property and Growth, in consultation with the Economy, Skills and Regeneration Portfolio Holder, the Executive Head of Finance and the Corporate Manager – Legal Services, be authorised to enable the disposal of the 82 residential apartments in line with the approach set out for Option 4(a), subject to any further due diligence and any further valuations considered necessary by the Corporate Manager – Legal Services or Executive Head of Finance; and

(iii)         the disposal would also be subject to revised Heads of Terms, enabling local people on the Council’s housing waiting list who were employed by the local hospital to be eligible for housing within the development.