ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED. 4.1 Other options such as extending the existing S75 Agreement or not renewing the S75 Agreement are not feasible options as would lead us to be non-compliant.
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED. 4.1 None for the purpose of this report.
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED. 8.1 Not to sign the IAA, this has been ruled out as it is likely to be helpful to the Council to work collaboratively with our partners in RECAP. The Council could procure an individual contract for the treatment of the DMR however this approach is not considered to be optimal as the benefits of economies of scale cannot be achieved without the partnership.
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED. 4.1 None at this stage.
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED. 4.1 One alternative was considered – to wait for the outcome of the Bus Strategy and then conduct individual tenders for each route. The Framework option recommended gives much more flexibility to let and relet bus routes quickly and efficiently in the future.
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED. 4.1 A number of options were considered about the most appropriate partnership arrangements prior to the production of the Section 75 Agreement. The consensus was that a Section 75 Agreement was the most suitable arrangement.
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED. Not extending the Section 75 agreement beyond 21/22 would mean that the arrangements covering joint commissioning and the pooled budgets between Frimley CCG and the BFC would not be covered until a new S75 is agreed. This is not the preferred option for legal compliance and transparency reasons; specifically, the Better Care Fund national conditions require for a S75 to be in place.
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED. 8.1 Given that Xxxxxxxxxx own 50% of the land at North Westgate there appears to be four main options. Option One - Do nothing. In this scenario Xxxxxxxxxx can be expected to seek to implement the scheme without Council support potentially acquiring further properties as and when they come to the market. This is likely to materially delay if not prevent a comprehensive solution. Xxxxxxxxxx may determine to bring forward proposals for the incremental development of their land holdings at some point which would not be likely to provide the high-quality comprehensive solution to the regeneration of the area but may be difficult to resist if the Council is unwilling to support the comprehensive scheme at this time. Xxxxxxxxxx could also continue to manage income from the car parks they own and, at some point, sell the land to a new investor. This option is unlikely to see regeneration taking place in the foreseeable future. Option Two - Attempt to buy out Xxxxxxxxxx’x interest. Xxxxxxxxxx have not indicated any willingness to sell their assets to the Council at this time and this would not address the issue of the remaining third party properties, which would be required for a comprehensive solution in any event. This option is likely to be achieved only at a premium to market value and would make it difficult for the Council to progress a viable scheme thereafter. Option Three - Pursue a CPO to acquire Hawksworth assets. Xxxxxxxxxx would be expected to resist any CPO of their interest. As 50% site owners and given their willingness to progress a comprehensive scheme, which the Council has supported through both the planning consent and the resolution to enter the Collaboration Agreement, this would have little prospect of success, given the existing principal landowner of the site (Hawksworth) being ready and willing to develop in co-operation with the Council. Option Four – Collaboration supported by the Council’s compulsory purchase powers where necessary (recommended option) To agree in-principle, the making of a CPO pursuant to section 226(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 at North Westgate, subject to a further specific resolution of Cabinet in respect of making, confirming and implementing CPOs, if required, and the relevant test satisfied, to support Xxxxxxxxxx to deliver their approved scheme. This is the recommended option.
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED. 5.1 Employing staff directly into FFL is a future consideration.
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED. 4.1 Due to the newly proposed JBP scheme (as shown on the current planning application - 19/01416/HYA - submitted by settle), the existing DA is no longer considered fit-for- purpose. As a result, the option of leaving it in place without review has been discounted.
