Agenda item

The Area Development Manager (North) presented the report, and reminded members that concerns had been raised about the condition of the Bell Hotel in Curry Rivel when a confidential report on Buildings at Risk in Area North had been considered at the Area North Committee meeting in November.

She provided members with a verbal update on the latest situation and noted that since the agenda had been published, details had been received to enable an internal inspection to be arranged. The owners had since received an estimate for the works required, however the cost was more than they were prepared to spend at the current time and had basically indicated they would not continue with the works required. The Area Development Manager (North) explained that she could not provide detail of the exact figures in public session but advised that the Chairman and ward member were fully aware of the situation.

It was noted a way forward would be to proceed with the Section 215 notice. The situation would be reviewed further, but there was the option for members to express their opinions now regarding what action should be taken.

During discussion most members were generally in favour of action being taken and comments included:

·         Owners have had building for around six years and they had permission for conversion in the past.

·         Cracks in the building were starting to appear

·         Would be useful to have more information regarding costs of going to court, the timeframes involved, and financial implications to SSDC if carrying out the works

·         The authority had delayed taking action for too long and the owners should be pushed to do the works required

·         Could a phased programme to do the works be offered?

·         It’s an eyesore and enforcement action should be taken

In response to comments made the Area Development Manager reminded members that a Section 215 notice would in effect require a tidy up of the site and not for the owners to carry out full repairs to the building. She highlighted the report was for noting only, not a decision, but she acknowledged the comments that had been raised. She explained that members could request a further confidential report to come forward with more detail, or that further information could be circulated to members but let officers take the final decision, as the Development Manager had delegated powers to do so, in consultation with the Chairman and ward member.

To make the opinions of members clear, regarding whether to proceed with enforcement action or not, the Chairman asked for a show of hands, to which ten votes were in favour of proceeding with action.