Agenda item

Mr J McInroy, Deputy Cabinet Member for Corporate Services; Ms R Spore, Director of Infrastructure; and Mr M Cheverton, Senior Asset Manager were in attendance for this item.

1.    The Chairman introduced the item and shared his disappointment that the decision maker, Mr Oakford, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance, Corporate and Traded Services, was not present. He invited the proposer of the call-in, Mrs Dean, to provide an overview of the reasons for her call-in. Mr Brady and Mr Hood as seconders were also invited to speak.

2.    Mrs Dean presented the reasons for her call-in. She began by clarifying that she had no concern regarding the disposal of Council assets where there was no KCC service need or community interest. She explained her concern that the Freehold Property Assets Disposal Policy’s community value principle could obligate voluntary and community sector groups, financially or otherwise, in a way which would make community bids unlikely. It was noted that the principle was not mentioned in the Council’s Strategic Statement or Civil Society Strategy. She stated that the Policy required accompanying guidance for community groups and local councils, explaining the bidding criteria and purchase process. She added that many organisations within the voluntary and community sector faced challenges funding the necessary legal assistance required to finalise contractual arrangements with KCC. An assertion was made that community groups with limited financial resources would be put at a disadvantage when competing with commercial bids. The ambition to increase community resilience was welcomed, though it was stated that the aspiration would be in direct conflict with the ambition to achieve the highest price for property. She asked that the Policy be reconsidered to reconcile the two objectives.

3.    Mr Brady shared his concerns that the Policy would limit the Council’s ability to retain open spaces, in opposition to the Strategic Statement’s commitments to protect those spaces, improve access and support nature recovery. He stressed the need for the Policy to assess open spaces against multiple values, not limited to finance, including their environmental benefit. In response to Mr Brady’s statement, Ms Spore explained that the Policy came into effect when the Council had exhausted its own requirements to use the property for its own services, such as use as country park. She confirmed that Infrastructure worked in cooperation with colleagues in Growth, Environment and Transport (GET) to maximise biodiversity on the Council’s estate.

4.    Mr Hood stated that the Policy needed to be reconsidered to allow for district councils to be given the first chance to buy Council property, for the purpose of developing social housing. He added that the option to dispose of property below market price should be included within the Policy, so long as it had a significant positive community benefit. Following the statement, Ms Spore confirmed that KCC would consider community bids from district councils.

5.    Mr McInroy, on behalf of Mr Oakford, made a statement. He confirmed that the Policy was clear in its commitment to provide community organisations with the opportunity to purchase Council property, with the proceeds financially benefitting statutory services. He explained that the Council needed to prioritise measures which eased its financial pressures, with the protection of statutory services being the main priority. It was emphasised that the Policy should be taken into account in conjunction with the Council’s Civil Society Strategy and Strategic Statement.

6.    Ms Spore clarified that the Policy would take account of an asset’s community value when it contributed to supporting the Council’s statutory services. She reminded Members that the Policy was subject to community asset legislation and gave reassurance that the Council provided advice and extensions, where possible, to aid community groups in their bids and business cases. Concerning the typical property for disposal, she noted that the majority were small and often within local planning allocation areas. The means of comparing bids, be that community or commercial, were explained, with it stressed that the process was clear and even-handed. It was noted that the Policy was only applicable when a property was declared surplus. She concluded by explaining that KCC were required to follow local plan designations, set by district councils.

7.    Mr Watts explained the role of Democratic Services in assessing the validity of a call-in against the criteria set out in the Council’s Constitution. He emphasised the impartiality of the process and explained that in determining the validity no judgement was passed on the reasons put forward by the Members.

8.    Concerns were raised by a Member in relation to the centralisation of decision making set out in the Policy and ‘special purchaser’ exception, which they stated could impact bid competition.

9.    In response to a question from a Member, Ms Spore confirmed that, on average, 5 community asset requests were received annually. She explained the typical timeline for a building disposal, which included interaction with communities, with community groups having 6 months to act after KCC announces its intention to dispose.

10.Mr McInroy confirmed, following a question from a Member, that it was a political decision not to have a community asset policy.

11.Members emphasised the importance of developing clear guidance for community groups, which accommodated local needs and requests.

12.A Member asked whether local Members would be notified of proposals to dispose assets in their division. Ms Spore confirmed that, in line with the Property Management Protocol contained within the Council’s Constitution, local Members were consulted on property transactions or decisions which had an impact on property matters in their division.

13.Ms Spore confirmed, following a question from a Member, that the Council had disposed of property under their asset value. An example was given, with it noted that the disposal formed part of a wider regeneration project.

14.A Member asked that examples of successful bids be shared with community groups, to improve their understanding of the process and general requirements.

15.Following the comments made by the Committee, the Chairman offered the proposer and seconders the opportunity to reply. Mr Brady stated that the Policy needed to be reconsidered to realign the policy with the Strategic Statement. He stressed the need to develop a mechanism to explain how the Policy would be implemented and could be referenced by community groups. He reiterated his concern that the Policy did not determine how a community could quantify the public value of a property.

16.Mr Love proposed and Mr Cooke seconded recommendation (b) “that the Scrutiny Committee express comments but do not require reconsideration of the decision.”

17.Members voted on the motion. The motion passed by majority vote.

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee expressed comments but did not require reconsideration of the decision.