Agenda Document Pack - Perth Common Good Fund Committee - 22/06/2026
Perth and Kinross Council · 22 June 2026
Back to Perth Common Good Fund Committee — 22 June 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Some pages contain no extractable text. They may be blank, graphics or scanned pages. OCR has not been applied.
Page 1
Ambition | Compassion | Integrity Our vision is for a Perth and Kinross where everyone can live life well, free from poverty and inequality Council Building 2 High Street Perth PH1 5PH 15/06/2026 A hybrid special meeting of the Perth Common Good Fund Committee will be held in the Council Chamber on Monday, 22 June 2026 at 09:30. If you have any queries please contact Committee Services on (01738) 475000 or email Committee@pkc.gov.uk. THOMAS GLEN Chief Executive Those attending the meeting are requested to ensure that all notifications are silent on their device and other devices are in silent mode. Please note that the meeting will be broadcast online and recorded. The recording will be publicly available on the Council’s website following the meeting. Members: Bailie Chris Ahern Councillor Liz Barrett Councillor Peter Barrett Councillor Andy Chan Councillor Stewart Donaldson Councillor Eric Drysdale Councillor Iain MacPherson Councillor Carol Mair Councillor Ian Massie Councillor Sheila McCole Depute Provost Andrew Parrott Councillor John Rebbeck Page 1 of 20
Page 2
No embedded text on this page.
Page 3
Perth Common Good Fund Committee Monday, 22 June 2026 AGENDA MEMBERS ARE REMINDED OF THEIR OBLIGATION TO DECLARE ANY FINANCIAL OR NON-FINANCIAL INTEREST WHICH THEY MAY HAVE IN ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCILLORS’ CODE OF CONDUCT. 1 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3 DISPOSAL - PART OF THE NAVIGATE BUILDING, GEORGE INN LANE, PERTH Report by Strategic Lead - Economy, Development and Planning (copy herewith 26/180) 5 - 20 Page 3 of 20
Page 4
Page 4 of 20
Page 5
Our vision is a Perth and Kinross where everyone can live life well, free from poverty and inequality ___________________________________________________________________ Committee or Board: Perth Common Good Fund Committee Date of Meeting: 22 June 2026 Report Title: Disposal - Part of the Navigate Building, George Inn Lane, Perth Report Number: 26/180 Report Author: Alan Campbell, Estates Surveyor Organisational Lead: Serge Merone, Strategic Lead – Economy, Development & Planning ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this Report is to seek the Committee’s approval for disposing of a vacant part of the Navigate building, George Inn Lane, a common good property that is partly vacant and partly in operational use. 1.2 Sections 1. Purpose 2. Recommendation 3. Background/Context 4. Main Issues 5. Proposals 6. Conclusion 7. Impact Value Assessment 8. Appendices 2. Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee: 2.1 Agrees to the sale of the subjects to Lock Terrace Ltd or their nominees on the terms set out in this report, or otherwise on terms to be agreed by the Strategic Leads for Economy, Development & Planning and Legal & Governance. 3 Page 5 of 20
Page 6
3. Background/Context 3.1 The Council owns the Navigate building, a two-storey office building with single-storey garage annex located on George Inn Lane within the Perth Central conservation area. The building is recognised as common good property and is held on the Perth Common Good Fund account. It is shown on the location plan at Appendix 1 as Areas A and B. 3.2 The two-storey northmost section of the Navigate building is occupied by the Council’s Navigate service. With the exception of a plant room and fire escape serving the operational part of the building, the two-storey middle section of the building has been unused for several years, other than for limited storage purposes, and it is not in an occupiable condition at present. The single-storey southmost section of the building is a garage used formerly to house the Provost’s car; it has been vacant since 2024 when parking provision was relocated to Council Headquarters. 3.3 In December 2025, Councillors nominated Lock Terrace Ltd and its directors as the developer for the proposed ‘The Heiton’ hotel development at 1-5 High Street, following a due diligence review prompted by changes in the status of the previously preferred bidder (Report No. 25/355 refers). Planning permission for the development, subject to conditions, was also granted in November 2025 (Planning Ref. 24/01613/FLL). The hotel development is expected to generate new employment opportunities, increase visitor footfall, and support surrounding businesses. 3.4 Lock Terrace Ltd has advised that the successful conversion of 1-5 High Street into a hotel is dependent on housing the hotel’s laundry facility (for storage of linen and other hotel consumables) and staff welfare facilities (staff kitchen and dining area, toilets and showering facilities) within an ancillary property in close proximity to 1-5 High Street. A vacant part of the Navigate building has been identified by the hotel developer as the preferred location for these facilities. Locating the laundry and staff welfare facilities within the buildings at 1-5 High Street instead would reduce the proposed hotel’s room count and have a negative impact on the scheme’s viability. 4. Main Issues 4.1 The main issue that this report is intended to address is the disposal of part of Navigate Building, a common good property. 5. Proposals 5.1 To support the ‘The Heiton’ hotel development at 1-5 High Street, officers recommend selling the southmost section and part of the lower storey of the middle section of the Navigate building to Lock Terrace Ltd, in order to facilitate their conversion into a laundry facility and staff welfare facilities. Page 6 of 20
Page 7
5.2 With reference to the location plan at Appendix 1: - Area A denotes the proposed common good disposal subjects (the single-storey garage and part of the lower storey of the middle section of the Navigate building); - Area B denotes the remainder of the Navigate Building, which is part vacant and part operational, being occupied by the Council’s Navigate service; and - Where Areas A and B overlap, it is part of the Navigate building’s lower storey that forms part of Area A, and part of the upper storey that forms part of Area B. - Area C denotes the extent of the property at 1-5 High Street that will be redeveloped by Lock Terrace Ltd under their ‘The Heiton’ hotel scheme. 5.3 Disposal terms have been agreed in principle with Lock Terrace Ltd. The key terms are set out below: − The sale price of the common good disposal subjects will be equal to their Market Value currently considered to be between £15,000 and £18,000. We do not consider that it is likely there will be any material change to this range before Missives are concluded. − The purchaser will be solely responsible for all costs incurred in the separation of the Navigate building into two independent premises. − The purchaser will be responsible for obtaining all necessary statutory consents for the separation works. − The common good disposal subjects would form part of the leased subjects under the development lease to be granted to Lock Terrace Ltd for 1-5 High Street to implement the proposed development, and ownership of both 1-5 High Street and the part of the Navigate building would transfer upon completion of the proposed ‘The Heiton’ hotel development. 5.4 The sale receipt arising from the disposal of the common good subjects (net of transaction costs) will be allocated to the Perth Common Good Fund. 5.5 The proposed disposal will not impair the Council’s continued ownership and use of the retained parts of the Navigate building, which would continue to be held on the Perth Common Good Fund account. The Council would continue to access the retained parts of the Navigate building from the main entrance on George Inn Lane. The purchaser would access the disposal subjects via the courtyard and pend off Tay Street that are already part of the proposed hotel development subjects (shown within Area C on the location plan at Appendix 1). 5.6 The planning application for the hotel development that was approved in November 2025 (Planning Ref. 24/01613/FLL) included conversion of the middle and southmost sections of the Navigate building as well as the primary 1-5 High Street subjects. Page 7 of 20
Page 8
5.7 Section 104 of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 requires the local authority to consult with the local community when it is planning to dispose of a common good property. The local authority must publish details of the proposed disposal, and they must also notify and invite representations from community councils and community bodies. There is no established community council for the Central area in which the subjects are located and there are no community bodies known to have an interest in the property. 5.8 Details of the proposed disposal were published on the Council’s Consultation Hub website, where an eight-week public consultation opened on 2 March 2026 that welcomed the views of current and former residents of Perth on both the general principle of disposing of part of the Navigate building, and the specific proposal to sell part of the Navigate building to Lock Terrace Ltd. 5.9 Under the terms of Section 104 of the 2015 Act, the Committee must have regard to the consultation responses in deciding whether to dispose of the subjects, since it is held as part of the common good. 5.10 A total of 39 responses were submitted via the Council’s Consultation Hub website, of which 35 were submitted by residents and former residents of Perth. Consultation responses are provided in full in Appendix 2. 5.11 While a significant number of consultation responses referred to the Council’s earlier decision to dispose of 1–5 High Street and associated matters, it is important to note that this report concerns a separate and specific proposal: the disposal of part of the Navigate building. The decision to dispose of 1–5 High Street has already been taken and is not the subject of this report or of the current consultation. 5.12 The other concerns raised in the consultation responses are about the principle of disposing of common good property and whether best value is being achieved. These matters are addressed within the report, which confirms that the subjects are partly vacant and not in occupiable condition with restricted access, that the proposed sale range price reflects best consideration (being market value), and that disposal proceeds will be credited to the Perth Common Good Fund. The report also explains that the disposal is required to support the delivery of a development which is expected to generate economic and regeneration benefits for Perth. 5.13 Having considered the consultation responses alongside these factors, officers remain of the view that the proposed disposal is appropriate. 5.14 The Council is required to fulfil its statutory duties under Best Value, as set out in Section 1 of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003. Relevant aspects of this duty include: − Making best use of public resources, including land and property. − Being open and transparent in transactions. − Ensuring sound financial controls are in place to minimise the risk of fraud and error. Page 8 of 20
Page 9
− Assessing the full financial consequences of decisions at an appropriate level before major financial decisions are taken or commitments entered into. − Demonstrating responsiveness to the needs of communities, citizens, customers, and other stakeholders, where relevant. 5.15 The Council is also required to comply with Section 74 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and the Disposal of Land by Local Authorities (Scotland) Regulations 2010 when disposing of land and buildings. 5.16 Setting the sale price at market value ensures that the proposed disposal is compliant with the 1973 Act and the 2010 Regulations. When seeking to dispose of a property, there is no statutory requirement for local authorities to undertake a marketing exercise. The disposal subjects have not individually been marketed for sale, and the Council is not under any obligation to consider any unsolicited offers that are made. The subjects were expressly included within the original marketing particulars and therefore formed part of the site opportunity presented to the market from the outset. While it was not taken forward at that earlier stage, the evolution of the scheme has confirmed that the subjects are now essential to its delivery. It is the stated aim of Scottish Ministers to give local authorities the freedom to exercise their own judgement and discretion in disposing of land to best meet local needs and priorities. Lock Terrace Ltd seek to purchase the subjects to underpin their ‘The Heiton’ hotel scheme, which the Council is supportive of, and which represents a strategic opportunity to enhance Perth’s tourism infrastructure, stimulate local economic growth, and preserve a historically significant asset within Perth city centre. 6 Conclusion 6.1 Officers recommend that the Committee agrees to sell a vacant part of the Navigate building to Lock Terrace Ltd or their nominees, on the terms set out in this report or otherwise on terms to be agreed by the Strategic Leads for Economy, Development & Planning and Legal & Governance. This disposal will support the ‘The Heiton’ hotel development at 1-5 High Street by enabling the conversion of the disposal subjects by the nominated developer into a laundry facility and staff welfare facilities. 7. Impact Value Assessment Disposal_-_Part_of_the_Navigate_Building__George_Inn_Lane__Perth.pdf 8. Appendices Appendix 1 - Deed Plan Appendix 2 - Responses to consultation Page 9 of 20
Page 10
Page 10 of 20
Page 11
Drawn by: Ref: Date: Dwg No: Printed at DS/BD 28/04/2026 D/P/1127a v5 Scale: 1:500 © Crown copyright [and database rights] 2026. OS 100016971. You are permitted to use this data solely to enable you to respond to, or interact with, the organisation that provided you with the data. You are not permitted to copy, sub-licence, distribute or sell any of this data to third parties in any form. Area A Area B Area C NAVIGATE building George Inn Lane Perth PH1 5LG KeyAPPENDIX 1 3 Page 11 of 20
Page 12
Page 12 of 20
Page 13
Appendix 2 Disposal - Part of the Navigate Building, George Inn Lane, Perth Responses to consultation Are you a resident or former resident of Perth? - Yes/No What are your views on the general principal of disposing of part of the Navigate building and former Provost's Garage? - What are your views on the general principal of disposing of part of the Navigate building and former Provost's garage? What are your views on the proposed recommendation to Perth Common Good Fund Committee to approve the sale? - What are your views on the proposed recommendation to Perth Common Good Fund Committee to approve the sale as part of the proposed hotel development at 1-5 High Street, Perth? 1 Yes It should be put up for sale on the open market! The council has proven its inability to hold fair and transparent processes by selling the building to Lockheed for nominal money instead of putting it on the open market. No it should only be approved if it’s put on the open market. However as we know the council disregards public opinion and thinks it knows best so it will happen anyway. 2 Yes This sale should not proceed as it demonstrates the lack of foresight it respect of the future requirements of the City in respect of facilities. If the sale did proceed any Market Value should reflect the special purchaser status of the buyer as it would in any commercial transaction. This proposal is flawed and does not reflect best value for the Common Good Fund. 3 Yes Why is this being sold at market value but the main building sold for £1? No. Stop the whole development and sell the whole area at market value to a local bidder without form for failure 4 Yes I assume the staff welfare accommodation is to provide overnight accommodation for hotel staff, if so why is this required? 5 Yes My understanding of the development of 1-5 High Street is it will be serviced apartments rather than a hotel. If it is not a hotel why does it need a laundry or staff accommodation? The laundry can be carried out by local businesses and if staff are recruited locally surely they would have accommodation? What would happen if the property is sold and Navigate require additional premises? This whole sorry process requires to be independently reviewed. I do not support the sale of these properties. 6 Yes I am against the disposal of the former provost garage and part of the navigate building I would be asking councillors to reject the sale 7 Yes If it is unused and there is a full and transparent valuation of the build and the council is transparent in the amount paid by the developers. Why was there not a consultation on the sale of 1-5 high street to the same developers and why was that building not sold at market value? I agree with the sale as long as the funds are going back into projects for the people of Perth. 8 No I am a Scone resident and think this should not happen. Nor should a company that has been It should not happen, the company has a sorry history! 3 Page 13 of 20
Page 14
twice liquidated be given any part of 1-5 High Street ever! 9 No Are these properties to be sold at market value agreed by the District Valuer, or other independent RICS valuer? According to reports in the press, there seem to have been breakdowns in communication between Council Officers and Councillors, as to information that was made available on the proposed disposal to the preferred development company. If the developer is now proposing serviced apartments, will the developer be required at the planning stage, to make any contribution towards affordable housing? 10 No These properties should only be disposed off at open market value, as agreed by the District Valuer. According to press reports, there appear to have been breakdowns of communication between Council Officers and Elected Members, in the information made available prior to agreement on this disposal. Why can a bidding process not be reopened, to allow any other interested parties to make an offer for the property? If the property is now to become serviced apartments, will the developer be required at planning stage, to make a contribution towards affordable housing? If not, why not? What conditions are included in the sale to mitigate against the developer failing to complete the development, and the Council being left with a half converted development ? 11 Yes Against this proposal. It sounds like the Council are being held to ransom via conditions imposed by Lock Terrace Ltd. The property should be made available to local communities groups, failing which any sale should be on the open market. 12 Yes Disposal of property from the Perth Common Good fund should only be undertaken where it directly benefits the people of Perth. Property should only be sold to another organisation dedicated to the common good (that can only every be a non-profit), or if there is a specific other common good function that requires funding. I am not convinced that this proposal meets these criteria and therefore I do not believe it should proceed. While I am not fully aware of all the commercial pressures being brought to bear on this situation I cannot see how the common good of the people of Perth is served by this sale. Therefore I believe the recommendation to be an error that should be reversed. 13 Yes Against Against 14 Yes These buildings are ‘Not for sale’. You should be ashamed of yourselves even thinking about it, Should not even consider it. 15 Yes In light of the ridiculous deal the council have done with the hotel group I wouldn’t let them do another property deal again. It would be amazing to find out how the committee would fritter this money away. Page 14 of 20
Page 15
16 Yes Totally against. Totally against 17 Yes I think it is disgraceful that a beautiful building that was owned by the people of Perth is being given to a London-based firm owned by two people from the previous firm that went bust that was originally given the building. And throwing £1.9m their way to help them is utter criminality. No wonder no-one trusts anything P&K Council do. Those that voted for this should be made to state their personal reasons to the people of Perth. The building should be refitted to its original purposes or redeveloped for the community. Every building that disappears from public ownership is given to the private sector to make money from. Look at the former Balhousie Primary School. Rather than using the space for something to the community (leisure facilities, swimming, ice-rink, community halls, etc), it gets turned over to the private sector to cram as many homes into the space as possible. When was the last time something was built or refitted for the common good of Perth residents in the central areas of Perth? The councillors should be ashamed of themselves. They do not represent the views of any person I speak to. I think it is a disgrace and should be looked at by the Scottish government. There is no reason why a referendum into important decisions like this should not be put to the people of P&K. We own the building, not the councillors. It should be up to us what happens to historical buildings such as this. 18 Yes I am an economist by trade and education, living in Perth. My response is probably longer than the average response, but please give serious consideration to what I've written. My intent is to be respectful and factual and provide the PKC my honest thoughts and analysis. I know from PKC's own treasury documents that they recently borrowed at 4.88–4.91%, and that current 25-year PWLB certainty rates are approximately 5.0–5.2%. Borrowing to fund the grant costs Perth taxpayers more over 25 years than simply keeping and maintaining the building, even if you use the council's own cost figure of £143,000/year. The grant is non- recoverable. Local authorities can only borrow for capital purposes, and borrowing must be affordable, prudent and sustainable, yet this borrowing funds a gift to a private company with no equity retained, no clawback clause, and a predecessor that failed with £67m in debts. If Lock Terrace fails, PKC holds 100% of the debt and 0% of the asset. Rather than disposing of two Common Good assets to provide back-of-house services for a serviced apartment operator, the council should consider uses that maximise community benefit, which is the legal and ethical purpose of the Common Good Fund. 1. Creative and Cultural Hub Perth is developing an identity as a cultural city following investment in Perth Museum. A small creative hub like shared studios, makers' spaces, artist residencies would animate the city centre, attract footfall, and support the creative economy. The adjacent George Inn Lane building has already attracted a preferred bidder in Fergus Purdie Architects for precisely this kind of mixed creative/residential use, showing market appetite. 2. Affordable Workspace / Business Incubation There is a well-documented shortage of affordable, quality workspace for micro-businesses and start-ups in Page 15 of 20
Page 16
Additionally, the headline figures don't withstand scrutiny. Councillors were told the council was spending an estimated £143,000 a year on the upkeep of the empty building, but a Freedom of Information request obtained figures showing it spent less than £66,000 on maintenance last year. This is highly significant: the stated operating cost was more than doubled when presented to councillors as justification for the deal, which materially undermines the case made for urgency and disposal. The firm did not exist when the council first agreed to sell 1-5 High Street to a "hotel" developer for £1 in 2020. This timeline alone, a £1 sale agreed in 2020, original developer collapsed, replacement run by its former directors, now asking for additional Common Good property should give serious pause to any committee. Lock Terrace Ltd is now planning to create "good quality serviced accommodation" instead 74 bedrooms, with no restaurant or bar. This is a material reduction from the original hotel proposition promised to Perth. What was marketed as a flagship destination hotel has become a serviced apartment block with no hospitality offering, delivering far less economic multiplier effect to the city. The Navigate building on George Inn Lane and the adjoining former Provost's Garage are both recognised as common good property owned by Perth and Kinross Council and held on the Perth Common Good Fund. Common Good assets exist specifically for the benefit of the community in perpetuity. Disposing of them to a private developer so that developer can use them as laundry facilities and staff welfare rooms is a deeply poor use of this category of asset. The community good being served is essentially the operational convenience of a private hospitality business. Ultimately, the council is proposing to pay significantly more to give a public asset away than it would cost to keep it. This is not regeneration, it is a wealth transfer from the Perth Common Good Fund to a private developer, financed by public borrowing, at a net cost to taxpayers that exceeds the operating savings claimed as justification by a factor of more than three to one. Perth city centre. A managed workspace facility would generate rental income for the Common Good Fund, support local employment, and attract younger businesses to the city core. It aligns with Perth's economic regeneration goals without requiring a grant subsidy to an external developer. 3. Community Health or Third Sector Hub NHS Tayside and local third-sector organisations consistently lack adequate office and consultation space in the city centre. A managed letting to health, social care, or voluntary sector tenants would generate modest but stable revenue, serve clear public need, and keep the asset in community use consistent with Common Good obligations. 4. Refurbish and Retain for Council Use At £68,000 per annum in operating costs, the building is not an expensive asset to hold. A targeted refurbishment — potentially grant-funded through Historic Environment Scotland given its character — could bring both the southern Navigate space and the Provost's Garage back into productive use for the council's own expanding services, avoiding both disposal and the debt burden of the £1.9m grant entirely. 5. Community-Led Development Under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, the very legislation triggering this consultation, community bodies have the right to request to purchase or lease assets. The council should actively test whether a community development trust or similar body could bring forward a proposal before committing to Lock Terrace. 19 Yes Common good land should never be sold. It’s against the spirit of the whole ideal Disagree strongly 20 Yes I am not opposed in principle to the disposal of the disused southern portion of the Navigate I strongly oppose the recommendation to approve the sale as currently Page 16 of 20
Page 17
building and the former Provost's Garage. Both properties have been vacant for a number of years, neither is in an occupiable condition, and it is reasonable for the Council to consider releasing underused Common Good assets where it can be demonstrated that doing so serves the public interest and delivers fair value to the Perth Common Good Fund. However, accepting the principle of disposal does not mean accepting the proposed method or the proposed purchaser. Any disposal must satisfy the following conditions, none of which have currently been met: • Independent open-market valuation. The sale price must be established by a qualified, independent valuer who has regard to open-market evidence. The Council's statement that the price 'will be equal to market value' is an assertion, not a valuation. The full valuation report should be published before the Committee votes. • Open marketing to test the market. The assets should be actively marketed before any purchaser is selected. Selling directly to a single developer — identified in connection with an adjacent project rather than through competitive process — does not demonstrate best value. The Council's own handling of 1-5 High Street, where a competing local buyer's approaches were not followed up, underlines why open marketing is essential rather than optional. • Assessment of alternative uses. The consultation documentation does not set out whether alternative community, cultural or commercial uses for these spaces have been considered. Given their central Perth location, this analysis should be provided to the public before disposal proceeds. • Protection of adjacent proprietors. As an owner of the immediately neighbouring property at 23/25/27 George Street, I have a legitimate interest in the structural and amenity implications of any development. These must be assessed and documented before a disposal is approved. In summary: disposal in principle — yes, subject to proper process. Disposal on the current terms and to the current proposed purchaser without open marketing — no. framed. My objection is not to the idea of disposal but to approving a specific sale to a specific purchaser under terms that fail to protect the Common Good Fund, before the serious concerns surrounding the wider 1-5 High Street transaction have been resolved. My reasons are set out below. A. The proposed sale is inseparable from the controversial 1-5 High Street disposal The sole stated justification for this disposal is that Lock Terrace Ltd requires laundry and staff welfare facilities to make its hotel at 1-5 High Street viable. This means the Committee is being asked to approve the permanent transfer of Common Good land as a subsidy to a private developer's operational requirements not as a stand-alone asset management decision in the public interest. The 1-5 High Street deal has attracted significant public criticism: the property was effectively gifted at £1 accompanied by a £1.9 million non- repayable grant; a local purchaser's repeated approaches were not followed up; Councillors voted without full information; the project changed fundamentally from a boutique hotel to 74 serviced apartments; and planning permission was granted despite objections from SEPA and the Council's own Flooding Team. Approving the Navigate disposal without addressing those unresolved concerns compounds an already questionable sequence of decisions. B. No open marketing has taken place Lock Terrace Ltd has been identified as the purchaser because of its involvement in the adjacent project, not because it has competed for these assets. The Council has not published any evidence that the market has been tested for the southern Navigate unit or the Provost's Garage as standalone assets. Best value cannot be demonstrated without this. Given the Council's own admission that 1-5 High Street was never marketed for any use other than a hotel, the same error should not be repeated here. C. The title transfer mechanism Page 17 of 20
Page 18
creates unacceptable risk for the Common Good Fund The proposal is that title does not transfer until the hotel development is complete, but the subjects will be included in the development lease to Lock Terrace Ltd from the outset. This gives a developer with a limited track record effective control over Common Good land before the Fund receives any consideration. If the development stalls or is abandoned as happened with the previous preferred developer Henley Homes Group the Council will be left managing partially separated, potentially altered properties, with no clear remedy. The Committee should not approve an arrangement of this nature without independent legal advice on the Fund's protections in a failure scenario, and that advice should be made available to the public. D. The impact on adjacent proprietors has not been addressed The proposed terms state that the purchaser is solely responsible for all costs and consents relating to the separation of the Navigate building. This is a significant structural undertaking immediately adjacent to my property at 23/25/27 George Street. No structural impact assessment or amenity assessment has been shared with neighbouring proprietors as part of this consultation. The intended use of the Provost's Garage as a commercial laundry and staff welfare facility will also introduce regular deliveries and operational activity into the George Street area. These impacts on neighbours are a material consideration the Committee must address before approving the sale. 21 Yes I am Against the principle No right to dispose of this 22 Yes Pathetic! You have already embarrassed yourselves with 1-5 High Street Poundland deal. Who in their right mind can think that was a good idea, so good in fact you give them £1.9m to spend. Did anyone even check the track record of the beneficiary? So, no to the sale, the most embarrassing and shameful set of councillors, just another comedy decision. Should not be sold on to this particular purchaser. Page 18 of 20
Page 19
23 Yes Poor judgement by P&KC as is the donation to the company proposing to not supply a high quality hotel, just serviced apartments It should be rejected 24 Yes Why give it to A London? Pair of??????? And Why should I Be Paying For A Building that YOU Sold to them With out the Approval of The People WHO Pay Your Wages, The Answer Is NO to The Pair of Them WHO Went Bankrupt the last time. The Perth Common Good Fund Can sell it BUT NOT TO THEM Some other Party 25 Yes Disposing of The Building is fine if it Tops up the Pot for future use buy the Public not the Cooncil , There’s enough Hotels in PERTH already if the other two were used for what They were Built for not to house Foreigners who WE are Paying for that’s two hotels ruined, Buy all means dispose of the Buildings BUT not TO THE PEOPLE who (GOT) the High Street ones You never asked ( The people who help To pay your wages etc if we would like to pay for them to change the Building BUT not to A Fancy Hotel??) So Can you Justify WHY I should Help You Pay Back for the Money £1.9 Million that you ARE Giving them ??? 26 Yes I suppose it’s better than lying derelict At least you’re not giving it away for nothing !!! 27 Yes Should be put on hold and proper consideration given to the whole decision as it appears to have been rushed without sufficient information being available. Not sufficient details have been made available for a proper decision to be made, so the whole thing has to be done again, giving the opportunity for new proposals to taken into account. 28 Yes Against the general principal. The Council needs to pull back from the original deal. Definitely not give more Common Good Fund property over to this project. Against this proposal. 29 No I am against the sale as I am against the sale of the High Street property. Why compound the error? I am against it. 30 Yes I think it should be disposed of as part of a sale, rather than us funding for it to be refurbished. If it is a sale then I would agree, but a sale where we have to spend money to sell it is not effective. 31 Yes Strongly disagree with the principal … strongly disagree with the deal that was done by in first place … effectively 4m of council funding to a private company so they can make money from it ? Rather pay the maintenance ongoing until local interest and benefit is found Don’t… can’t see much “good” for Perth people .. sure some restaurants will benefit but what else ? 32 Yes I do not wish this sold at market value, donated or any form of giving away to the proposed development please. Do not proceed with this idea. 33 Yes Ridiculous, giving it away. Absolutely ridiculous, who elected this council? 34 Yes Do not sell to this company Do not recommend selling the property 35 Yes Totally against disposal Against proposal The proposal and actions of Council would not be for the benefit of the residents of Perth Incurring sizable debt and allowing the transfer to a questionable solvent Page 19 of 20
Page 20
company is definitely not good economical sense 36 Yes Agree with the general principle of disposing of buildings lying empty for correct market value but strongly disagree with selling it to help businessmen who have a very poor track record. The Tay street building should not have been handed over for a £1 and the council certainly should not be handing over our money to assist them. Good idea if it wasn’t connected to the foolhardy plan for the Tay Street building. 37 Yes all good I have grave concerns about the suitability of the Osmani brothers.I also object to the free gift of 1.9m to them. 38 Yes Against sale to a Developer with a track record of going bust. Misguided. 39 Yes Council Tax payers money should not be wasted on disposing of a public asset and subsidising an investment company to profiteer by developing a publicly owned building at little or no cost to them. From public information request indicating the current real cost to PKC is less than half of that previously advised indicates that a full investigation is required to obtain true facts before any decision to sell the property under the agreed terms proceeds. The local business man should also be allowed to pursue his interest in the property in an open and transparent manner. Wake up PKC Councillors and openly show due diligence here and that you are delivering for your voters and Council Tax Payers and not wasting our money! See above. Page 20 of 20