Agenda item - Key Decision - 2013-2014 Property Disposal Programme

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise.

RESOLVED: That

(1) the properties detailed in the report be declared surplus;

(2) the financial implications and projected sale prices, detailed in Appendix 1 to the report, be noted;

(3) the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder and/or Leader of the Council, be authorised to take all action necessary to dispose of the Council’s interest in the land and properties detailed for the best consideration that can reasonably be obtained.

Reason for Decision: To generate a significant capital receipt for the Council, generate a revenue saving and reduce backlog maintenance, thereby fulfilling part of the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) Work Stream.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected: As set out in the report.

Conflict of Interest relating to the matter declared by Cabinet Member / Dispensation Granted: None.

The Portfolio Holder for Property and Major Contracts set out the proposals for the disposal of 11 properties and one site, details of which were set out in the report, including the confidential appendix. He referred to the revised plan circulated for the public lavatories on Whitchurch Lane which also included the site occupied by an electricity sub-station as part of the proposed disposal. Another minor amendment was in relation to the public lavatories at Greenhill Way and that the OS Plan would not include the pavement/bus stop area. He referred to the rationale for the disposal of the various sites and commended the report to Cabinet.

The non-voting non-Executive Cabinet Members made the following comments:

· whether 231a Station Road could be refurbished for the borough’s homeless;

· whether other properties too would be refurbished and why the Council was not able to refurbish them at the same price as a local builder;

· whether investment in properties in high costs areas would be carried out prior to their disposal in order to attain a higher capital receipt;

· why the properties could not be used to provide additional Council housing and the piecemeal approach to their disposal;

· why the Council could not set up an arms length organisation which could rent out the properties.

In response, the Portfolio Holder stated that it was not the Council’s core business to refurbish properties. As a result, it would not be able to achieve economies of scale. Moreover, it would not be cost effective for the Council to refurbish and rent properties such as 231a Station Road which had been damaged by fire.

A non-voting non-Executive Member was of the view that the properties had been undervalued and that some maintenance and refurbishment would help maximise their values in the open market. He asked if any other properties and land had been discounted in meeting the savings set out in the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) target. The Portfolio Holder responded that the target set out by a former administration would not be met as an expected disposal had not been achieved but he hoped that its disposal could be brought forward during the next financial year. He added that the Council was obliged to achieve best value and that the figures set out in the confidential appendix were estimates and that the prices would be the subject of negotiations in the open market. He added that he would ensure that maximum prices were achieved.

The same non-voting non-Executive Member stated that residents would be interested in the Portfolio Holder’s views on appropriate developments for the site in Whitchurch Lane.

The Portfolio Holder for Property and Major Contracts responded to a question about the involvement of community groups on the proposed disposals and whether they had been encouraged to provide challenge. The Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise reported that the Localism Act required community groups to register challenge and that no community groups had registered that challenge in any of the properties listed in the report.

The Portfolio Holder for Adults and Housing also responded to questions about the use of the money from the Housing Revenue Account to refurbish the properties. He explained that the Council did not have sufficient funds to bring the properties to Decent Homes Standard and that it would not be good use of tax payers’ money. The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Development and Regeneration replied that conversions of offices in to flats were not earmarked by the Council as mentioned by a non-voting non-Executive Member but that they were classified as permitted development. He added that, whilst he did not support such conversions, the Council had to work within the framework set.