To note procedures currently in place for the disposal of community assets to the market place, including a review of what has taken place in the past.
Minutes:
The Committee had before it and NOTED a report * from the Director of Finance, Assets and Resources regarding disposal of assets. The report had been requested by the Committee at its meeting in October.
The Group Manager for Corporate Property and Commercial Assets outlined the contents of the report and responded to questions that had been received from Cllr Mrs N Woollatt in advance of the meeting.
1. In Paragraphs 1.4 and 3.2 consultation with Ward Members is mentioned. Can I have clarification on exactly what is meant by consultation, i.e. is consultation prior to the decision to purchase or sell being made seeking views as to whether the case is appropriate or necessary from a local perspective or is it seeking a view after the decision has been made by CSAG?
The officer explained that, as per the report, in cases where there was no commercial interest Members would be consulted accordingly. He further explained that when public open space land was disposed of it had to be advertised in the local paper for two weeks, following set procedures. If objections were received the matter would be referred back to the Capital Strategy Asset Group (CSAG). An example given was a play area in Willand for which Members were notified regarding the transfer. This had been a lease transaction but the same procedures applied.
2. The procedure does not address 'Transfer' of assets merely disposal. I am concerned specifically regarding transfer of assets to our SPV, Three Rivers Development. Would a Ward Member be notified and consulted if a 'transfer' was being considered?
The officer explained that the same procedure had to be undertaken for a transfer as for a sale. Regulations dictated that Three Rivers had to pay market value for land in order that they were not in receipt of state aid. Any profit from Three Rivers would go back into front line services.
Discussion took place regarding:
· The weight given to generating income versus building houses and the fact that each piece of land was looked at on an individual basis with an independent valuation taken out. CSAG would make decisions based on that. Depot sites which had been sold were unsuitable for housing and this had been established prior to sale of the land. Every disposal was assessed on its own merits.
· Whether or not the notes from CSAG meetings were confidential, whether local ward members had the opportunity to make representation and whether or not the group was politically balanced;
· The requirement for marketing when appropriate;
· The perceived differences in procedures followed during sales of public toilets at Silverton, Tiverton Town Hall and Crediton Town Hall and the need for fairness;
· The benefit of consulting with the community regarding the sale of assets;
· The need for reports to CSAG to take equality and community impact into consideration;
· Valuations were undertaken by an independent valuer;
· For a transaction to occur there had to be a willing seller and a willing buyer;
· Assets from original borough councils which had been gifted to the District Council were now being sold to Town and Parish Councils.
· The need for consistency and the fact that a commercial valuation from an independent party was obtained prior to any negotiations. The buyer always had the opportunity not to buy and circumstances were unique to each deal;
· Officers should obtain the maximum amount for sales of assets.
Notes- i) Report * previously circulated and attached to the Minutes.
ii) Cllr Mrs J Roach declared a personal interest as she was involved with Room4U at Silverton.
iii) A proposal put forward by Cllr Mrs Roach that given the different approaches taken with past transactions the Council review those transactions and justify what had happened was not supported.
Supporting documents: