The Innes Centre controversy continues!

Date article online: 14/04/2008

It appears that the Impact Partnership's belated response raises more questions than it answers.

Christine Arrowsmith has asked a number of questions regarding Council asset sales, strategic planning consultation and community service provision.

1. Who is the "Impact Partnership"? 
2. If the decision to sell the Innes Centre off for housing in 2004 then why, within the past 4 years, hasn’t residential planning permission been sought for the site? Surely this is the only way to get 'best value' for the site rather than a botched attempt in February 2008 to auction if off without PP and without all the required paperwork in order? 
3. In addition to following the Best Practice principles of Asset Management, the Planning Permission process to change the use of the former School to housing would allow for effective public consultation. This is not a NIMBY issue - it is doubtful that local people would want to see the site left as it is. The current debacle appears to be the very worst of both words: 1. no public consultation. 2. a lack of any process to enhance the value of the site, in a reasonable way, to its full potential. How has Best Practice been followed?
   
   Currently a number of PCT Lift centre projects throughout the Borough are now being made public. These announcements are a culmination of several years of strategic planning and negotiation with RMBC, Impact Partnership and other agencies. 
4. The allocation of LIFT centre provision was widely publicised in 2004. Several articles were published locally at the time. It is incredible to suggest that there has been no dialogue between RMBC Strategic Planners (and other officers) and the PCT on such a wide reaching project for the Borough PRIOR to the Innes centre being declared surplus. For the avoidance of any doubt, please can this be re-confirmed.
5. As for the former Innes Centre being “released by DCSF for the purpose of a private housing development only”. On what authority and basis is this claim made? 
6. Government guidance (Circular 3/99) is clear on the need for effective consultation. In regard to RMBC and DFES/DCSF, what consultation has been done, and with whom, in (a) 2004 and (b) in the 10 weeks prior to the March 2008 confirmation? 
7. The guidance in 3/99 makes specific reference to DETR Planning Policy Guidance Note 17: Sport and Recreation. It states that PPG17:
   
   “… may be a material consideration for local planning authorities when considering whether to grant planning permission. Many disposals will be dependent upon the prospective purchaser first securing the planning permission necessary for their intended development.”
   
   How does this clear government guidance square with the actions and decisions made regarding the former Innes Centre in the past 4 years? 
8. If the decision to sell Innes off for housing was made in 2004, why was this fact was NEVER publicly raised, during 2005, when the closure of Spotland Library was mooted? 
9. Your letter of 10/4/08 mentions that “other land in the area” could not be considered for development as (misnomer or not) it is classified as Protected Open Space. For clarification, does this mean the land surrounding the footprint of the Innes Centre buildings and car park retains its protected designation?