Agenda item

1.            Mr Oakford introduced the report and emphasised the importance for the County Council of maximising the value of every asset it had.  This had led to the drafting of the disposals policy, which would boost both the revenue and capital budgets.  Mr Oakford and Mrs Spore responded to comments and questions from the committee, including the following:-

a)  asked about the County Council’s policy on disposing of housing stock, Mr Oakford pointed out that the Council was not a housing authority but sought and welcomed close working with district councils around managing surplus properties;

b)  Mrs Spore advised that the Council always complied with the appropriate legislative requirements and its Property Management Protocol and would always seek to gain the best value as part of any disposal;

c)  asked if the County Council could set up its own property management company, Mrs Spore advised that this would be possible but would be a difficult economic decision, given the Council’s financial position and its limited resources and the need to ensure that it was able to fulfil its statutory duties;

d)  the policy set out was supported as being what currently happens, and had happened, for many years. There would inevitably be some instances for which there was no precedent and it was important to have a process to decide how these should be dealt with.  When looking at value, monetary value was not the only consideration; what was important was to achieve the best overall deal for local residents;

e)  it was not clear how an asset’s value beyond its monetary worth could be identified, for example, the value to a community of retaining green space for leisure use. It was confirmed that the proposed disposal policy enabled value to be considered, which directly related to the delivery of the Councils statutory services. The provision of green space was a consideration for the planning process; 

f)   it was suggested that recommendation 3 in the report be changed to end with the words ‘… after consultation with the Policy and Resources Cabinet Committee’ as any proposed future change to the policy should be first presented to the committee for discussion and comment. Mr Watts reminded the committee that its role was not to change a proposed decision but to comment and either endorse or make a recommendation to the Cabinet Member to consider; and

g)  asked how a decision about the Council’s need would be made, when an asset was to be declared surplus, Mr Oakford advised that a directorate would identify a premises as being surplus to their service requirements. Where appropriate, this change in service may be subject to consultation.  If the outcome was agreement that the premises was indeed surplus, the Infrastructure team would be asked to dispose of it, in accordance with the Property Management Protocol. Concern was expressed by another speaker that such a decision would need to take full account of all factors.    

2.            Mrs Spore undertook to provide written responses to detailed questions about disposals of property to Members and a comparison of Kent’s disposals practice to that of other local authorities.  

3.            Mr G Cooke then proposed and Mr M Hood seconded that the first recommendation in the report have the words ‘in consultation with the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance, Corporate and Traded Services’ added after ‘Director of Infrastructure’ and that the third recommendation in the report be deleted. This was supported, with four abstentions.

4.         It was RESOLVED that the decision proposed to be taken by the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance, Corporate and Traded Services, to:-

a)    adopt the Freehold Property Assets Disposal Policy attached to the report as Appendix B, which reflects the Executives priorities in the delivery of the Council’s objectives; and

b)    delegate authority to the Director of Infrastructure, in consultation with the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance, Corporate and Traded Services, to take such actions as are necessary to implement this decision, including, but not limited to, finalising the terms of, and entering into, contracts or other legal agreements,

be endorsed.

Mr A Brady, Mr M Hood, Mr A Hook and Dr Sullivan asked that their abstentions from this resolution be recorded in the minutes.