Bill Norman, Director of Law, HR and Asset Management,

The Director, as author of the report, explained the reasoning behind it and stated that one of the two principle purposes of the Strategic Asset Review was to contribute towards the Council achieving a sustainable and balanced budget. With regard to library provision, there would be fewer but better facilities. In respect of community centres they could remain open with the responsibility for their running costs being transferred to community groups. The asset transfer policy was intended to encourage community groups to come forward to run centres.

The Director emphasised that any buildings to be disposed of would be publicly advertised.

Responding to questions from the committee, the Director stated that it would not be normal to incorporate a ‘buy-back’ provision into an asset disposal policy as community groups were less likely to be interested in acquiring a building with such a proviso attached. However, the Community Asset Transfer (CAT) Policy did include a provision for community groups to hand back a building, without any payment or penalty, if the community group no longer wished to manage the facility.

The intention of the CAT policy was to encourage community groups to take on ownership of and responsibility for Council buildings. This had been seen in a number of examples across the country to energise communities and be beneficial to local people.

It was very important that the Council kept under review its asset base as retaining more properties than the Council needed would be a drain on the public purse. The Director did recognise the differing views held and that not everyone shared this judgement on fewer but better facilities.

With regard to Byrne Avenue Baths, there were a number of lessons to be learnt from that asset transfer. Where an asset was transferred it would be done in a way which was likely to be sustainable. The CAT policy set out how the Council would repair buildings before transferring them, but the Council would also look to receive a viable business plan which would show that a community group had sufficient revenue funding to maintain the property after transfer.

The financial implications of incorporating a ‘buy-back’ clause would have a serious deterrent effect on the transfer of assets which could lead to the loss of more buildings from community use. If buildings identified for CAT did not transfer, they would close and be disposed of as the Council would still need to achieve a sustainable and balanced budget. The democratic process was of paramount importance, however, in 20 years’ experience of local government, the Director, had not encountered policies being made with built in provisions to reflect a possible future change of administration.

The Director stated that he was not familiar with the Joseph Rowntree report into Community Asset Transfers. However, he was familiar with the Quirk Review which had identified a number of potential risks associated with CAT (as did the Council’s own CAT policy) as well as giving examples of highly successful asset transfers that had greatly benefited local people.

Councillor S Foulkes – Leader of the Council

Councillor Foulkes stated that the call-in was overtly political. It would be dangerous and unprecedented to have policies set by one administration incorporating ‘get-out’ clauses for a possible future administration. The Strategic Asset Review had been through a consultation process, subject to several scrutiny committees and endorsed by the Council. The policies detailed in the report were a means to carry out the decision of the Council.

Councillors could help local groups in working with the community to take control of premises in making them a success which would be a form of very active citizenship.

The Chair disputed the assertion that the call-in was overtly political as it was open to all groups to call a Cabinet decision in.

Responding to questions from the committee, Councillor Foulkes stated that in respect of the disposal policy there was a well defined scheme of delegation including delegation to the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services and he expressed confidence in the variety of methods of disposal.

He suggested that the fact that Byrne Avenue Baths had remained open for a further 12 years following its transfer from the Council could be deemed a success. The Community Fund was available to meet costs of essential repairs to make buildings fit for purpose at the time of transfer and could contribute interim support towards running costs for up to two years. If there were people and community groups doing a good job in running a facility then the Council didn’t have to run every building. Freehold and leasing arrangements were mechanisms to give control on future use.