Agenda item

5.1

The Committee considered the decision of the Cabinet made at its meeting held on 30^th November 2016, regarding the China Economic and Civic Programme Update.  The Committee considered two separate call-ins.

5.2

First Call-in

5.2.1

Signatories

The Lead Signatory was Councillor Chris Peace, and the other signatories were Councillors Steve Wilson, Lewis Dagnall, Neale Gibson and Lisa Banes.

5.2.2

Reasons for the Call-in

The signatories had confirmed that they wished to allow further scrutiny of future plans for a City Centre Library should the current building be leased as suggested, and to allow scrutiny and consideration of the future accommodation of Graves Art Gallery and alternative accommodation for users of the Library Theatre should this go ahead.

5.2.3

Attendees

·                Councillor Jack Scott (Cabinet Member for Libraries and Community Services)

·                Councillor Leigh Bramall (Cabinet Member for Business and Economy)

·                Paul Billington (Director of Culture and Environment)

·                Ed Highfield (Director of Creative Sheffield)

·                Dawn Shaw (Head of Libraries and Community Services)

5.2.4

Councillor Chris Peace addressed the Committee, as Lead Signatory to the call-in, indicating that, due to the level of questions received from her and her colleagues’ constituents, she considered that there was a need for further scrutiny of this decision.  Councillor Peace stated that the Council needed to be both ambitious and realistic in terms of the future of the Central Library building, particularly in the light of the present condition of the building, and the costs involved in either refurbishing or redeveloping it.  As part of her address, Councillor Peace raised a number of questions, initially asking for a guarantee that Sheffield would still have a Central Library building, questioning whether there had been any consideration given to its location and whether any new library building would be as iconic or inspiring as the current building.  She questioned whether the views of current library staff, any relevant friends’ groups, the Museums Trust and any amateur dramatic groups who used the Library Theatre, had been sought, whether any consideration had been given to other possible funding streams, whether there had been any consultation in terms of the Council’s interim plans and what part the public could play in any future consultation.

5.2.5

In response, it was stated that Guodong had looked at a number of possible locations in and around the City Centre, but had expressed an interest in the Central Library building, and the initial plans indicated that it would be a very inspiring new building.  Councillor Jack Scott referred to the publicity material that had been circulated at the first of a number of public meetings to discuss the proposals, which indicated that the Council had been very open in terms of the information shared with the public to date.  He added that he had arranged to meet with the group which had been established to defend the Central Library building, where it was hoped that plans could be drawn up, comprising a number of options, regarding the provision of a library, either contained within the new building, or elsewhere in the City Centre area.  Paul Billington stated that he had met with representatives of the Museums Gallery and the Arts Council to discuss future proposals regarding the Art Gallery and the Library Theatre.  Whilst there were no firm proposals at this stage, there was a joint ambition between the Council and Guodong in connection with maintaining the Art Gallery in an alternative, more accessible, location within the City Centre.  Councillor Leigh Bramall stated that the possible £1 million a year business rates in terms of a new building on this site would prove beneficial for the Council in terms of funding Council Services.  The current staff at the Central Library had been briefed on the proposals, and would continue to be updated in terms of any further developments.

5.2.6

Questions from Members of the Committee

Members raised questions and the following responses were provided:-

·                There were no guarantees that the Central Library would not close at any time in the near future.

·                Consideration had been given to transferring the archives currently stored in the Central Library building to the current Sheffield Archives building on Shoreham Street.  However, as there was not sufficient storage capacity at Shoreham Street, consideration would have to be given to an alternative location if all the City’s archives were to be kept together.

·                Whilst it was not yet clear that the deal being considered would be viable from the Council’s point of view, the potential benefits of the proposals made the plans worth considering.  Whilst there were no guarantees, it was considered that, given the level of investment, as well as the on-going receipt of business rates in respect of the new building, the proposed deal should be given detailed consideration.

·                There were no detailed plans at this stage, but in due course, full costings and plans in terms of a permanent location, would be considered by the Cabinet.  The Council would only be able to make a final recommendation on the proposals once statutory consultation had been held.  There could also be delays due to legal issues.

·                Any possible interim library in the City Centre would be recognisable as a library service, although there were no firm details at the present time. 

·                It was not envisaged that there would be any issues in terms of the receipt of business rates regarding a new building, in the light of any possible issues regarding the Company’s future performance, as the business rates referred to the building and not the Company.

·                There were serious concerns in connection with the condition of the Central Library building, to the extent that the issue was referred to on the Council’s Risk Register.  There would be issues in terms of the Council meeting the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act, in terms of disabled access to, and within, the building, and this, and the other problems regarding required repairs and maintenance, was creating serious financial pressure for the Council. 

·                Whilst the proposed investment deal refers to a 5-star hotel, there was no specific location mentioned.  However, Guodong has mentioned the Central Library building as a preferred location for such a hotel.

·                Whilst there was always the possibility that an alternative location could be found for a 5-star hotel in the City Centre, this would not help the Council in terms of its requirement with regard to the maintenance of the Central Library building. 

·                The Council does pay business rates in respect of the Central Library building, but not in respect of the Graves Art Gallery, due to its charitable status.

5.3

Second Call-in

5.3.1

Signatories

The Lead Signatory was Councillor Martin Smith, and the other signatories were Councillors Penny Baker, Vickie Priestley, Ian Auckland and Steve Ayris.

5.3.2

Reasons for the Call-in

The signatories confirmed that they wanted to allow for further scrutiny of the Strategic Investment Partnership Agreement with Guodong and the 12-month Exclusivity Agreement on the potential redevelopment of the Central Library building.

5.3.3

Attendees

·                Councillor Jack Scott (Cabinet Member for Libraries and Community Services)

·                Councillor Leigh Bramall (Cabinet Member for Business and Economy)

·                Paul Billington (Director of Culture and Environment)

·                Ed Highfield (Director of Creative Sheffield)

·                Dawn Shaw (Head of Libraries and Community Services)

5.3.4

Councillor Martin Smith questioned precisely what had been agreed between the Council and Guodong in June 2016, in connection with the agreement, specifically whether there had been any legal or financial commitments on the part of the Council.  He also queried the nature of the Exclusivity Agreement, and whether this prevented the Council from engaging with other potential investors.

5.3.5

Councillor Jack Scott stated that, as set out in the Cabinet report, the Council had agreed to establish a strategic investment partnership with Guodong in June 2016, which established the operating principles and an outline investment blueprint which would see Guodong invest a substantial amount of money into Sheffield over the next five years, through a number of residential and commercial real estate projects.  The Heads of Terms, which were agreed in June 2016, now needed to be developed into full legal agreements, and it was anticipated that this work would commence in January 2017, and provide the detailed governance and operational framework for the long-term investment relationship.  If, for any reason, the Council was not happy with any of the arrangements, as part of this process, it would be able to veto the agreement.  The Exclusivity Agreement was similar to those the Council had with other developers in the City, and which had a number of legal agreements attached to it.  It was confirmed that no financial payment had been made to Guodong.

5.3.6

Questions from Members of the Committee

Members raised questions and the following responses were provided:-

·                The commitment was made, on behalf of the Council, to ensure that any future arrangements or negotiations in connection with the Partnership Agreement would be as open and transparent as possible.  Assurances were also given in terms of the Council doing whatever it could to make the agreement a success, particularly in the light of the enormous potential of the partnership.  If it was decided that this particular scheme should progress, and if it was a success, this could result in further investment in the City.

·                The Council had dealt with a number of overseas investors in the past, in connection with developments in the City, which had included Meadowhall, Ikea and residential development provided by investment from China.

5.4

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)       notes the contents of the report now submitted, together with the comments now made and the responses to the questions raised;

(b)    supports (i) the transparent and open approach adopted in connection with the proposals, (ii) the inclusion of Graves Art Gallery as part of the plans and (iii) the working up of plans, both temporary and permanent, with regard to replacement facilities for a central library; and

(c)        agrees to take no action in relation to the called-in decision, but requests that a further report providing an update on progress of the China Economic and Civic Programme be submitted to its first meeting in the Municipal Year 2017/18, prior to the final decision being made by the Cabinet in relation to the Central Library building aspect.