Venue: Virtual Meeting. View directions
Link: Click to view live meeting from 6.00pm on 15 December 2020
Declarations of Interest
To receive from Trustees, declarations of the existence of any disclosable pecuniary, or non-pecuniary, interests and the nature of those interests in relation to any agenda item.
1.1 Councillor Gravells clarified that he would be acting as a trustee and not as the City Council’s Cabinet Member for Planning and Housing Strategy.
1.2 Councillor Coole declared a personal interest as a sitting ward Councillor for the area of which the trust land was a part and also as a local resident. They confirmed that they would not be acting as a Councillor and was not pre-determined in any way.
1.3 Councillor Derbyshire declared a personal interest as a local resident but that she would be acting as a trustee.
1.4 The Chair declared an interest as a ward Councillor for the area of which the trust land was a part but that she was not pre-determined.
1.5 Councillor Taylor declared a personal interest as he lived close to the land.
1.6 Councillor Lugg declared an interest as a ward Councillor for the area of which the trust land was a part but that she was not pre-determined.
Consideration of report by the Managing Director on the subject of the future of the Saintbridge Recreation Ground, Reservoir Road, Matson PDF 2 MB
The report contains exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended: information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). Should Trustees wish to discuss the exempt information they will need to resolve to exclude the press and public from the meeting.
2.1 The Managing Director introduced the report and highlighted that all members of the Trust had received training as trustees.
2.2 The document provided background as to how Gloucester City Council became the corporate trustee. The Managing Director outlined that, the reason for meeting was that the Council had been approached by Gloucester City Homes (GCH) which had identified the site as a critical site. GCH was asking if the trust would be willing to dispose of the land to it to further its regeneration objectives. There was also the possibility that GCH may consider an alternative parcel of land. An independent valuation of both sites had been secured by Council officers in recent weeks.
2.3 The Managing Director outlined the recommendations with particular reference to consideration of whether acquiring a suitable alternative parcel of land to replace Saintbridge Recreation Ground would enable the purpose of the Trust to continue to be delivered.
2.4 Councillor Coole asked, in reference to the first proposed recommendation, whether mentioning a specific alternative entity be viewed as prejudicial by the Charity Commission and could such reference be kept neutral. He also asked why GCH was asking the Council to transfer the Banebridge Road site to the trust.
2.5 The Managing Director stated that his understanding, according to advice, was that when seeking advice from the Charity Commission on disposal, it would be advantageous to provide as much detail about the nature of the request. As such, this would not prejudice the Trust’s approach to the Charity Commission. In respect of the suggested transfer of the Banebridge Site, the Managing Director stated that this alternative option was presented as it was not likely that disposal of the Saintbridge site would meet the charitable objectives of the trust.
2.6 Councillor Coole noted, at 8.1 of the report that GCH had carried out investigations and was unable to identify a suitable alternative site to the Saintbridge Recreation Ground and that this research had been shared with Council officers. The Managing Director stated that this information could be circulated to Trust members.
2.7 Councillor Coole also noted that costs had already been incurred and queried how the income and expenditure of the Trust could be managed but not by the City Council. The Managing Director confirmed that the Council had agreed to absorb costs as a way of supporting the regeneration project. He provideed assurance that the Council could set up a separate cost centre.
2.8 Responding to queries regarding whether the Trust had the ability to receive an alternative parcel of land, Matthew Waters of Bevan Brittan LLP confirmed as per Appendix 1 that this was possible as it would constitute an amendment to the current Trust documents. With regard to whether Trust could apply to the Charity Commission for registration, Mr Waters confirmed that an approach could be made but that, in practice, the Commission does not typically manage to complete the registration of those bodies that do not reach the financial reporting threshold.
2.9 Councillor ... view the full minutes text for item 2.