Cabinet Member for Assets and Investments
Minutes:
The meeting was adjourned between 7:54 pm and 8:10 pm.
Note: Councillor Geake left the meeting at 8:06 pm.
50.1 The meeting had reached the guillotine deadline and the Chair asked for a proposer and seconder for the meeting to continue.
50.2 Councillor Carter PROPOSED that the meeting continued, which was SECONDED by Councillor Muller.
50.3 Members approved by consensus and none spoke against the proposal.
It was RESOLVED: -
That the meeting continued beyond the guillotine deadline, until all business was concluded.
50.4 The Chair invited the Cabinet Member for Assets and Investments, Councillor Gould to introduce Paper MC/20/21.
50.5 Councillor Gould introduced the report and MOVED the recommendation in the report, which was SECONDED by Councillor Morley.
50.6 Councillor Field referred to paragraph 7.3 and asked if there would be any briefings for the opposition and other Members of the Council and not just for Cabinet Members. He thought that the opposition would like to have the opportunity to be constructive.
50.7 Councillor Gould responded that in many of the activities of the projects Members had opportunities to be involved and that the expectation was that Members would be briefed.
50.8 In response to Councillor Passmore’s question, the Assistant Director – Assets and Investments confirmed that the evaluation of the total value of the assets was undertaken by an external party, as this was a CIFCO requirement and that this was carried out on a rolling basis of three or five years.
50.9 Councillor Welham referred to page 103, bullet points 1 and 3 and asked if the Carbon Reduction Management Plan would ensure that all new council facilities were energy efficient and delivered to sustainable specifications, and that the Council would insist on this.
50.10 The Assistant Director – Assets and Investments explained that standards applied to council housing developments and the Council’s own occupational houses. The carbon reduction plan was key to the Council and the Strategic Asset Management Plan would support the Carbon Reduction Plan in relation to the delivery of new build housing and require assets. There would be an appropriate approach to ensure sustainable new build houses, similar to operational properties.
50.11 Councillor Stringer queried page 81 regarding the timeframe of the ‘pipeline’ delivery of houses, to which Councillor Gould explained that the long term ‘pipeline’ delivery timeframe was for the overall plan and that some of the development would be completed sooner rather than later.
50.12 Members debated the report and Councillor Richardson thanked Councillor Gould for the report. He thought that that there was a broader impact of the Council owned assets, such as that 61% was open and amenities spaces, which had an impact on the wellbeing of residents and communities.
50.13 Councillor Field thought that the document did not represent a whole Council vision but a restricted one, though he was in agreement with some aspects of the plan. He considered whether the Council should be a vehicle for investments to deliver what residents required. He thought that there should be a level of reporting for failures and successes and that the data should be available on the website.
50.14 Councillor Otton was uncertain that she supported the recommendation, she thought that the Constitution required that any financial decision over £10k was required to be made by Cabinet and that any officer decision under that figure had to be reported.
50.15 The Monitoring Officer clarified that the scheme of delegation allowed officers to make decisions over £10k, and that any decision over the value of £10k had to be advertised.
50.16 Councillor Otton commented on page 135, paragraph 8.3 and that she was concerned that disposal of properties for community groups, often run by volunteers, as these would be leased at market value and many community groups might be forced to comply with a lease at market rates.
50.17 Councillor Gould explained that normally there was a requirement for leasing properties at market value, however there might be a social value, which could be taken into consideration. The Assistant Director – Assets and Investments added that if there were any leases at less than best value payable, the decision would be transparent. This meant that they would be following a decision process and that a paper would be presented to Cabinet for consideration.
50.18 Councillor Moley thought that it was absolutely fundamental for the Council’s decision-making process to have a Strategic Assets Management Plan and she thanked Councillor Gould and the Assistant Director – Assets and Investments for their work especially during the Covid-19 period.
50.19 Councillor Welham felt that a great range of views would have added value to the document and a greater understanding behind the document. He thought that when the document was reviewed it would be beneficial to seek views across the Council. He then queried the cost of managing the assets and the differences between the two Councils and how that would be mitigated.
50.20 The Assistant Director stated that there were differences between the clarification of assets between the two Councils, in part the number of assets held. The number of assets was not the best way to measure the cost of managing them but rather the number of cases and activities conducted in relation to each asset.
50.21 Councillor Humphreys thought the Strategic Assets Management Plan was a professional document as it was forward leading and ambitious. It was an evolving document and he asked Members to come forward and contribute to the plan going forward.
By 30 votes for and 1 vote against.
It was RESOLVED: -
That Council approves and adopts the SAMP for 2020-2025 (Appendix 1) including the Transactions and Community Transfer Policies set out in the SAMP as Appendices A and B.
Supporting documents: