Agenda item

An Executive decision taken by the City Mayor on 26 November 2025 relating to a land exchange arrangement has been the subject of a 6-member call-in under the procedures at Rule 12 of Part 4D, City Mayor and Executive Procedure Rules, of the Council’s Constitution.

The Committee is recommended to either:

 

a)    Note the report without further comment or recommendation. (If the report is noted the process continues and the call in will be considered at a future meeting of Full Council); or

 

b)    Comment on the specific issues raised by the call-in. (If comments are made the process continues and the comments and call in will be considered at a future meeting of Full Council); or

 

c)    Resolve that the call-in be withdrawn (If the committee wish for there to be no further action on the call-in, then they must actively withdraw it. If withdrawal is agreed the call-in process stops, the call-in will not be considered at a future meeting of Full Council and the originaldecision takes immediate affect without amendment).

An Executive decision taken by the City Mayor on 26 November 2025 relating to a land exchange arrangement has been the subject of a 6-member call-in under the procedures at Rule 12 of Part 4D, City Mayor and Executive Procedure Rules, of the Council’s Constitution.

 

The procedure rules state that a scrutiny committee or any five councillors may request formally that the decision be called-in for a further review by giving notice in writing to the Monitoring Officer within five working days of the decision.

 

The 6 Councillors who signed the call in were: Councillor Kitterick (Proposer), Councillor Porter (Seconder), Councillor Rae Bhatia, Councillor Chauhan, Councillor Westley and Councillor Kennedy-Lount.

 

The Chair clearly outlined the process that she would follow in determining how to resolve the call-in. The Commission was recommended to either:

 

a)    Note the report without further comment or recommendation. (If the report is noted the process continues and the call in will be considered at a future meeting of Full Council); or

 

b)    Comment on the specific issues raised by the call-in. (If comments are made the process continues and the comments and call in will be considered at a future meeting of Full Council); or

 

c)    Resolve that the call-in be withdrawn (If the committee wish for there to be no further action on the call-in, then they must actively withdraw it. If withdrawal is agreed the call-in process stops, the call-in will not be considered at a future meeting of Full Council and the original decision takes immediate affect without amendment).

 

The Chair invited the proposer of the call-in, Councillor Kitterick, to make their case. The following points were raised:

 

• Concerns regarding the overall value and strategic implications of the proposed land exchange. While acknowledging that the Council may reasonably seek to acquire land and pay an appropriate premium, it was argued that the proposal would result in the Council exchanging a larger area of land for a smaller site, with additional financial costs to the Council including paying the Stamp Duty to facilitate the exchange. 
• Concerns were expressed regarding the valuation assumptions underpinning the decision, with Councillor Kitterick questioning whether sufficient weight had been given to the relative size, location and development potential of the land being disposed of by the Council. Councillor Kitterick highlighted that there are viable buildings on site, with there appearing to be a local training college on site although the revenue lost is unknown and details of the tease term terminations. 
• It was noted that the land pursued does not seem to have any viable buildings that are lettable.
• Reference was made to the strategic importance of the existing land to the St George’s Street area, including its proximity to the ring road, the Cultural Quarter and the Phoenix site, and concerns were raised that the Council could lose long-term control of a key gateway site.
• Councillor Kitterick further noted that previous land disposals of the area had resulted in fragmented ownership and reduced influence over future development and suggested that a clearer long-term strategy for the St George's area should be in place before proceeding with the exchange.

 

The Chair invited the seconder of the call-in, to the table to make their case.

Councillor Porter and raised the following points:

 

• Questioned whether alternative options had been fully explored whether the Council approached the developer and the asked for details on the process, and whether the Council sought to acquire the land without disposing of its own assets.
• Reference was made to the valuations cited within the report on page 21, with concerns raised about transparency and clarity, including the absence of certain valuation details and comparative site sizes.
• It was suggested that, based on indicative calculations, the land being exchanged may represent a significant different in value, and that further information should be provided to enable members to assess whether the proposal represented best value.
• Councillor Porter emphasised that the call-in was not party-political but was intended to ensure that the Council had discharged its duty to taxpayers by fully scrutinising the financial and strategic implications of the decision.

 

Councillor Osman entered the meeting and declared no interests.

 

The City Mayor entered the meeting at this point.

 

The Director presented to the Commission and highlighted the following points:

 

• Provided context for the proposal within the Council's wider regeneration objectives. It was explained that the land exchange formed part of a broader strategy for the regeneration of the St George's area, in line with allocations in the adopted Local Plan and the Council's economic development and city-centre strategies.

• Officers explained that the Council had been engaged in a process of land assembly to enable comprehensive regeneration, similar to the approach previous taken in the Waterside area. It was stated that the proposed exchange represented a more proportionate and cost-effective alternative to compulsory purchase, which would be complex, time-consuming and potentially more expensive.
• The importance of securing control over key sites to enable delivery of office space, improved connectivity and enhanced public realm was emphasised, particularly given the site's proximity to the railway station, Cultural Quarter and Phoenix Cinema.
• Officers highlighted the intention to improve pedestrian access and create a strong gateway between St George's Street and the Phoenix area, thereby increasing footfall and supporting wider city-centre vitality.
• The Director summarised the Executive Decision involving site B, owned by the Council, being exchanged for site A owned by Rakal Limited who intend to develop Site B for apartment housing. The Council intend to consolidate land already acquired on Site C, establish strong pedestrian links connecting St Georges St and Queens Street to the Phoenix Cinema which is a key objective of the decision and has Department for Transport funds allocated for this.

 

The Director responded to the first Call-In question:

 

“The plot of land the City Council is giving up is clearly larger than the received plot of land we are receiving in exchange”.

 

• The Director highlighted that site B has a series of trees and a root area which is a non-developable area. Once the TPOs and root protection areas are discounted from site B, the developable area of the two sites are similar.
• Plot A is now demolished and has a higher land value per acre than Plot B, which still requires demolition at cost as buildings still remain on the plot.
• The Director referred to 'marriage value' noting that the Council owning Plot C, the value of plot A is enhanced through the consolidation of adjoining sites which provides further options and is more flexible, compared to the current arrangement where a road separates sites B and C.
• The Director shared that the two independent valuers took these factors into consideration with external professional advice being taken throughout the process.
• It was explained that the differences in site size needed to be considered alongside constraints, including the presence of protected trees, route protection areas, existing buildings and tenancy agreements.
• It was further noted that the negotiated payment had been reduced from £195,000 to £180,000 and that the private landowner was under no obligation to sell the Council.

 

The Director responded to the second Call-In question:

 

The Plot of land the City Council is giving up has at least one tenant who appears to be in situ “Wise Origin”, yet no reference is made to the loss of rental or legal tenancy issues that may be involved in this transfer. The council is giving up a number of other buildings which appear to be in a poorer state of repair but may be viable for future rental. This compares with the land we are acquiring which has no buildings in place, with the site have been recently cleared.”

 

• The Director responded that the Council-owned land currently had no tenants and contained buildings in poor condition where there would be a significant cost to bring these into use to comply with modern building standards.

 

The Director responded to the third Call-In question:

 

“The gateway to Phoenix could have been further enhanced had the City Mayor not sold the freehold of 50 St Georges Street for £1”

 

• The director responded that the proposed pedestrian access gateway to the Phoenix can be constructed within the existing highway boundary to achieve a consistent width (c12m) with the first phase of pedestrianisation on St George Street and emphasised there is no need for further land and objectives can be achieved as the adjacent footpath is wide enough.

 

The Director responded to the fourth Call-In question:

 

“The plot to be swapped fronts onto the Inner Ring Road, so the use, quality and design of any building in this location will be at least as important to the development of the area if not more so.”

 

• The Director responded that high quality design is expected throughout this regeneration area and will be controlled by the planning authority through the usual development management process.

 

The Director responded to the fifth Call-In question:

 

“The plot to be swapped is adjacent to the Inner Ring Road so it fetters any further changes to the layout of access to the St Georges area from the ring road in this location”

 

• The Director responded that the regeneration scheme for the area will not require any changes to Southampton St and Queen St adjoining the ring road

 

The Director responded to the sixth Call-In question:

 

“The loss of 50 St Georges Street and Plot B mean that there is only a relatively narrow pinch point in the City Council's control between the two plots of land in developing the ambition for an attractive entrance to the Phoenix when entering from the Railway Station part of the City Centre.”

 

• The Director responded that the width of the highway/footpaths here is c12m, consistent with the first phase of the St George Street pedestrianisation and sufficient space for good quality access.

 

Councillor Kitterick responded by reiterating that while the case for acquiring land had been clearly articulated, concerns remained regarding the disposal of Council-owned land and the loss of long-term control over a strategically important site. It was suggested that reliance on a private developer to deliver wider regeneration outcomes carried risk, and that future development intentions could change.

 

The Chair asked if the proposer wished to withdraw the call-in. It was noted that the proposer wished for the call-in to proceed.

 

Councillor Kitterick left the meeting at this point.

 

Members of the Commission discussed the report which highlighted the following points:

• Members of the Committee sought clarification on the relative size and constraints of the sites, the proposed pedestrian access arrangements, and how the exchange aligned with planning and regeneration policies. Officers confirmed that areas subject to tree preservation orders and route protection were taken into account in the development value calculations, and that the proposed pedestrian route could be delivered without the need to acquire additional land.
• In response to questions on design and quality, officers confirmed that any further development would be subject to the Council's normal planning processes, with expectations of high-quality design consistent with council’s policies. Officers also confirmed that the regeneration proposals would not require changes to the ring road as they adjoined Southampton Street or Queen Street.

 

Councillor Cassidy moved that, following the points raised during the meeting, the call-in be withdrawn. This was seconded by Cllr O’Neill, and upon being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED.

 

The City Mayor left the meeting at this point.