Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Mr Lehmann for whom Mr Hood was substituting, Mr Sturley for whom Mr Thomas was substituting, and Ms Kemp who was attending the meeting virtually.  Mr Reidy, church representative was present but apologies were received from the other church representatives and parent governors.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED that the open and exempt minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2025 be approved as a correct record.

1. The report was introduced by Diane Morton, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health, who outlined the Older Person’s Residential and Nursing Care Service Key Decision, taken on July 25^th after receiving endorsement from the Adult Social Care and Public Health Cabinet Committee. Miss Morton provided an overview of the ongoing challenges facing the Adult Social Care sector including the need to strengthen the local workforce and how this new contract aimed to address those issues.

2. In response to comments and questions from Members, the discussion covered the following:

• Richard Smith, Corporate Director of Adult Social Care and Health, explained to the Committee that the contract acted as a framework that identified and enabled partnerships with strategic providers that met price, quality and location expectations.
• Helen Gillivan, Interim Director Adults and Integrated Commissioning, explained that sustainable pricing for both the providers and KCC as well as quality assurances from implementing a Trusted Assessor Model separated this contract from previous versions. Clare Maynard, Chief Procurement officer, elaborated by explaining how the contract did not guarantee providers work, but that joining the framework gave them the opportunity to access KCC’s client base, increasing control on spend and limiting spot- purchase arrangements. It was emphasised that on the current contract, 78% of providers had joined rather than engaging in spot- purchasing.
• Concerning Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), break clauses would be offered in the contracts for new unitary authorities.
• Mr Smith detailed the average annual 10-12% increase in demand for Adult Social Care, compared to the 4% annual increase in funding via taxation and ring- fenced grants. He also highlighted how the framework supported a sustainable service model post- covid, whilst also considering the balance between reducing demand for Adult Social Care and the statutory obligation to provide essential care services.
• Dave Shipton, Head of Finance, clarified that KCC’s commissioned contracts did not receive additional funding as a result of the increase in employer’s National Insurance (NI). He also confirmed that subject to the continuation of the national grant, KCC’s employment of more in-house staff would result in a higher allocation of funding from that grant.
• Mrs Gillivan assured the Committee that an accommodation market position was being co- produced, that would model multiple options to address spot- purchasing and the degree of reliance on the private sector.
• It was explained how the open purchasing system, categorisations of needs and tendering parameters streamlined the process for providers to access the framework, be placed in their respective price banding and access their care needs.
• The premise of the open light- touch framework was to enable new providers to join throughout the duration and to address the locality-of-need issue present in the adult social care division.
• In response to a concern about a red risk identified in the report, Mrs Gillivan clarified that legacy placements would not be included in the new contract. Further financial reporting would be done through Cabinet Committees to address any budgetary deviations from the report.
• Ben Watts, General  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

1. The item was introduced by the Deputy Leader, Brian Collins, who provided a contextual overview of the statutory obligations of the Local Government Act 1970 and the Asset Disposal Strategy’s importance in KCC’s financial stability.

2. Rebecca Anderson, Head of Business Information and Assurance, introduced the report that outlined the statutory and fiduciary framework for disposing of KCC surplus freehold assets to generate capital receipts.

3. In response to comments and questions from Members, the discussion covered the following:

• When determining the outcome for surplus assets, considerations were made for the property’s holding costs, the strategic position of other KCC departments and environmental options. It was explained that the notice period given to other KCC departments on the availability of surplus properties varied depending on the amount of notice the service exiting the asset provided Infrastructure. 
• Mark Cheverton, Head of Real Estates, outlined the process of delegation to the Director of Infrastructure for any leases under 20 years, and clarified that an options appraisals included a viable leasing option before an asset was declared surplus.
• The decision on whether to rent rather than sell an asset had no defined benchmark but instead depended on several factors including the market sector, value and potential risks. 
• In response to a request on further information on the 77 assets in the pipeline for disposal, commercial sensitivity was emphasised by Mr Cheverton. 
• As KCC was bound by Section 123 of the Local Government Act to dispose of any asset it declared surplus; any potential changes due to LGR could not override this statutory duty until a formal LGR decision was announced.  
• Mr Shipton explained the limited circumstances in which KCC could use capital receipts for revenue purposes, detailed in an appendix to the annual budget report.

• Mr Cheverton provided an overview on how KCC’s property acquisition and disposal teams collaborated to ensure held surplus assets were discounted from reuse before acquisitions were considered. 
• Mr Collins explained that the increase in the number of properties in the disposal pipeline did not indicate a change in policy, due to the proportion of assets that would not mature to disposal. Recent changes were also outlined to explain higher numbers of properties in the pipeline for disposal including an increased number of surplus children’s centres following decisions for service changes.  
• Community Interest Groups may nominate a local property as an Asset of Community Value which ensured the community is given 6 months to prepare a bid for the property if it comes forward for disposal. It was emphasised that in line with KCC’s Disposal Policy, groups could include a business case on its benefit value for KCC’s wider services.
• In response to a request for the annual cost to the Council of maintaining and securing unused assets, Mr Collins confirmed that the figure could be provided outside of the Committee meeting. 
• Where there were assets with De Minimis value, an external valuer would undergo an assessment before the transfer occurred to safeguard against an asset being sold significantly below market  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Resolved to NOTE the Work Programme.