Council and democracy

Agenda item

Community Asset Transfer Policy

Minutes:

The Head of Regeneration and Assets and the Officer presented the report outlining the proposed policy for efficient use of publicly owned buildings and Spaces in Thurrock, particularly in terms of leasing or selling property to a Voluntary Community of Faith Sector (VCFS) organisation.  The report also highlighted the importance of a simple, transparent and consistent process which would be fit for purpose to deal with every type of organisation and every type of asset.

 

Councillor Wheeler explained that he had been contacted by an angling club with a query which he believed was relevant to this item and asked what types of organisations could apply, and whether they had to be voluntary.

 

Members were advised that there would be an assessment of the eligibility of organisations when they apply, however if they were a club charging fees then they would be running a commercial organisation and as such would be ineligible.  The officer continued to express that it would be difficult to give an exact answer without knowing the organisation’s specifics.

 

Councillor Watkins asked what plans there were for promoting the policy to communities and the expressions of interest process.  The Officer outlined that reasonable awareness had already been raised through the consultations carried out but there was also hope that relevant training would be introduced.

 

Councillor Watkins continued to seek clarity on the expressions of interest process, particularly circumstances of several organisations showing interest in one asset.

 

The officer described an historic case whereby two organisations wanted use of the same property and the outcome had been an agreement where one organisation became the subtenant of the other as neither wanted use of the property at the same time as the other.  The Committee heard that it could only be assessed on a case by case basis, but there would be sufficient advertising to ensure the Council would not be open to complaints or challenges suggesting unfair advantage.  In every case there would be an assessment of broader community benefit versus commercial benefit to the Council and the matter would be put to the Member Property Board.

 

Councillor Watkins then addressed the Member Property Board proposal and whether it would be flexible so that Ward Councillors could be included in cases directly affecting their ward.

 

The Committee was assured that the Panel would be constituted to reflect the specific asset in question and as such membership would vary from case to case.

 

Councillor Fish drew the Committee’s attention to existing examples in which there had been significant delays and was concerned that this might show the policy and the process weren’t working as they should.

 

The Officers recalled the examples in question and the delays had been on the part of the organisation obtaining the necessary documentation, but Officers were aware that banks were proving particularly slow in providing references.

 

The Head of Regeneration and Assets agreed with Members that the process needed to be smooth and that it would be refined as time progressed.  Currently organisations had showed possible discomfort at being asked for so much documentation but at the same time showed understanding of why it would be required.  The Committee was assured that if it became apparent that the Policy or the process was not efficient it would be reviewed.

 

Councillor Duffin asked for an estimated figure of cases per year, and whether there was a predicted or target timeframe for completion of cases.  Members heard that it would be difficult to put a number on how many cases were to be expected, however the consultation process had generated interest.  It was also highlighted that the Policy set out certain properties which would not be eligible due to commercial value to the Council or broader regeneration plans.  It was expected there would be a spike in interest initially that would subside, to around 6 cases a year, the officers suspected.

 

The Committee was then informed that there would be an 8 week target from the expression of interest to the end of advertising for that asset.  There was to be no target timeframe set for the overall process as some organisations may require additional support with business plans, documentation etc. and the Council did not wish to penalise smaller organisations.

 

Councillor Wheeler requested an initial point of contact to feed back to interested organisations.  The committee heard that assessments would go through the Corporate Property Board, and as such they should be the initial contact.

 

The Chair asked the Head of Regeneration and Assets as to whether he was the Chair of the Corporate Property Board.

 

The Head of Regeneration and Assets clarified that he had taken responsibility for managing the Board, but was not the Chair.  He insisted he was keen to review the Board and that it would need to be re-drawn; in future it would not be chaired by him but he would be responsible for its coordination.

 

The Chair suggested that this might be necessary before the Committee could support the proposal.  The Committee heard that it would not be necessary as the proposal was in line with the Council’s Constitution.

 

The Chair also referred to Officers’ statements that anything above £500,000 would go to Cabinet and the fact that it was not explicitly mentioned within the report.  Officers agreed that the Policy would be amended to be more explicit on this point.

 

The Chair finally raised concern that Member involvement was not explicit within the Policy either and proposed that Cabinet reflect upon the balance of Members to Officers within the decision making process.

 

RESOLVED:

1.    The Committee acknowledged the work of the Thurrock Community Assets and Management of Assets (COMA) Partnership supported by Locality.

 

2.    Members commented on the Community Asset Transfer Policy.

 

Supporting documents: