Agenda item

To consider the decision made by the Cabinet at its meeting on 15th December, 2025, to dispose of Blocks C&D at Union Yard, Aldershot to Vivid Housing.

Since the December meeting of the Cabinet, some key project dependencies have changed, and it has been confirmed that the purchase will now take place in mid-February. Therefore, it was agreed that the Committee have the opportunity to re-consider the matter, and revisit alternative options considered as part of the original decision to dispose to Prime in 2025.

The following exempt documents are available for reference:

Cabinet 8 April 2025 - Exempt Report No. REG2502

Cabinet 15 December 2025- Exempt Report No. REG2542

A covering Report will be available on Monday 2nd February, 2026.

Any recommendations arising from the Committee, would then be considered by the Cabinet at its meeting on 10th February, 2026.

The Committee considered the decision made by the Cabinet at its meeting on 15 December, 2025, to dispose of Blocks C & D at Union Yard, Aldershot to Vivid Housing.

It was noted that since the Cabinet meeting in December, some key dependencies had changed, and it had been confirmed that Vivid’s Board decision would now take place in mid-February. The Committee were given the opportunity to speak with Chris Hodgkinson of Lambert Smith Hampton (Investment Management) (LSH) regarding their recent soft market testing on the value of Blocks C & D. Mr Hodgkinson advised that six companies had come forward with offers all of which were under the value being offered by Vivid Housing, therefore, LSH’s recommendation was to pursue the sale with Vivid Housing.

The Committee discussed the financial implications of selling to Vivid Housing against the alternative options set out in Exempt Report No. REG2502 and were advised that whilst red book valuations were used as a benchmark a property’s actual sale value was that value the market was willing to pay at the time. It was also noted that soft market testing was, in general, a true reflection of value, however, on occasion off market sales could result in over valuation as well as under valuation. Members asked and received responses to a number of questions regarding the detail of the sale.

The Committee also discussed selling the properties individually on the open market and shared views on the difference in income this could provide. In response to a query, it was noted that selling the properties in a piecemeal way, which could take between 14-21 months, would result in additional costs whilst sales were still progressing when compared to a single sale of both blocks. Although the total capital receipt achieved from individual disposals could be higher once all were sold this would need to be ‘netted off’ against the additional holding costs and was considered a higher risk compared to the immediate benefit of a larger single capital receipt

Executive Director, Karen Edwards advised that Option 4(a), as set out in Exempt Report No. REG2502, had been the original preferred option for disposal on the units back in April 2025. That offer had been withdrawn and the current offer from Vivid Housing was the quickest to progress in line with the Council’s Financial Recovery Programme and help minimise further costs associated with holding onto the property for a longer period. In addition, it was noted that the mix of properties and restrictions on the commercial units had also been adjusted as part of the negotiations. With regards to nomination rights, it was noted that affordable housing nominations would sit with the Council’s current arrangements and would help address the number of residents currently on the housing list, whereas shared ownership would be managed through Vivid Housing.

In response to a query regarding Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB), and Vivid’s perceived inaction on these matters, it was advised that meetings were being held at a strategic level to address such concerns in a timely and effective manner going forward. Members were made aware that 18 units were already occupied by Vivid tenants and no issues of ASB had been reported to date.

The Committee noted the financial implications of not taking forward the current sale to Vivid Housing and what that could mean for the Council going forward.

The Committee had raised and discussed relevant points on both a financial and social level but had no specific recommendations to make to the Cabinet.