Agenda item
Asset Management and Value for Money Scrutiny Review
Minutes:
Adam Walther, Strategy Policy and Performance Officer, introduced and highlighted key points in the report, which provided a progress update on implementation of the recommendations contained in the Scrutiny Review Working Group report “Asset Management and Value for Money Scrutiny Review” of May 2012. Ann Sutcliffe, Service Head Strategic Property, Abdul J Khan, Sustainable Development Manager, and Katie Gent, Environmental Sustainability Officer, were also in attendance for this item.
A discussion followed which focused on clarification being sought and given on the following points:-
· Whether all surplus Council buildings were classed as ‘community assets’, whether the community could bid for these if declared surplus, and the number of lets to community groups since buildings had been declared surplus or the number of surplus buildings classed as a community building and available to let. Rights under the Community Right to Buy element of the Localism Act and consideration that there was a need for improved clarity of policy around this. No community assets had been declared surplus, a list of bids to be provided in writing. The provisions of the Localism Act were currently being worked through and Community Right to Buy bids received to date had been supported by the Council.
· Given complaints from community groups previously in relation to the transparency of the disposal of surplus buildings (examples of Old Poplar Town Hall and Limehouse Library what steps were being taken to ensure future transparency. Clarified: The disposal process agreed by Cabinet in 2010 was adhered to and Officers considered this to be robust and transparent. The examples cited were marketed by external agents and disposed for greater value than their initial valuation, thereby achieving value for money for the Council in accordance with ‘Red Book Valuation’.
o What action was being taken to ensure surplus/ under-utilised buildings were made available for use by community groups, and that information on how to achieve this was transparent and readily available. How small niche community groups could be supported by the Council with prohibitive hire fees. Also what measures were in place to ensure that, where it was not beneficial for the Council to repair or refurbish derelict buildings but demolition was not appropriate because of their historical value, that the buildings did not remain derelict for lengthy periods but were put back to use. Clarified that work was underway to map Council buildings tagged for community use in conjunction with partners with a view to consolidating use of assets and thereby releasing some. A more flexible lease structure for such groups would also be examined to facilitate self-sufficiency.
· Given the need to work with developers to upgrade assets and the move to a Corporate Landlord Model, with the next step of closer control of work undertaken on behalf of the Council, what steps were being taken to ensure that the health and environmental impacts of development and development materials were taken full account of through the Council’s procurement process. Was a Corporate statement on usage of sustainable and safe materials needed. Clarified that other assessment processes on environmental impact and procurement were available to take forward, but the focus was currently on energy and carbon. Cabinet had recently included sustainably produced timber in its policy requirements. Consideration that it would be a positive step to build on this with other health and environmental elements.
The Chair Moved and it was:-
Resolved
1. The contents of the report be noted
2. That Members comments be noted; that it be agreed that further scrutiny on this issue is not appropriate at this point, but that Officers should continue to monitor progress against the original scrutiny review recommendations.
Action by:
Adam Walther (Strategy Policy & Performance Officer, Strategy Policy & Performance, CE’s)
Supporting documents: