Agenda and minutes

To receive any Declarations of Interest from Members.

(Councillor Marcus Franks declared an interest in Agenda Item 3 but reported that, as his interest was not personal and prejudicial, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

Purpose: To advise the Commission of the process for the disposal of assets that have community value.

Andy Day introduced to the Commission the Asset Disposal Guidance which had been drafted to specifically cover the Council owned assets which had a Community Right to Bid aspect. Andy Day acknowledged that the Greenham Control Tower was an asset of particular interest as it had been listed on the Assets of Community Value database and was, at the same time, advertised on the open market and available for local community bids. He explained that the closing date for bids was 7^th September 2013.

Andy Day explained that in assessing any bids received for Council owned community assets it would be important to consider the following:

(i)         Viability and credibility of overall offer

(a)       Does the organisation have the necessary resources, funding and competence to deliver against the proposal?

(b)       What were the timescales for the delivery of the project?

(ii)        Community use and benefit

                        (a)       How wide would the community benefit be?

(iii)       Financial benefit to the Council

Councillor Marcus Franks asked whether the community value was benchmarked in order that it could be assessed against asset value. Andy Day advised that the criteria had not been benchmarked given that this could impact on the decision making process. Andy Day emphasised that the main consideration of any community application was whether it was viable and credible.

Councillor Garth Simpson recommended that the policy incorporated a review of the applicant’s business plan in order that the application could be validated and asked whether the policy should consider the benefit to West Berkshire residents alone. Andy Day explained that in order to avoid limitations, community value would be measured in terms of the wider community. It was agreed that a review of the applicant’s business plan would form part of the viability and credibility criteria.

Councillor Mike Johnson asked whether the process was subject to Call In and what rights a private bidder would have to appeal the decision. Andy Day advised that the decision would be subject to Call In by Members and private bidders would be encouraged to use the process of Judicial Review if they wanted to appeal against the Executive decision.

Councillor Johnson questioned whether the policy would include a financial claw back mechanism. Councillor Johnson suggested that this clause would ensure that the Council received a percentage of the funds raised if the applicant sold the asset at a higher value than sold to them within a specified period of time. Andy Day agreed to laise with Legal Services in relation to a claw back clause.

The following items were highlighted by Councillor Jeff Beck:

• Page 5, point (ii): It was not clear what stage of the process this was referring to. The Commission requested clarification and that the guidance would be amended accordingly.
• Page 6 (point iii): should be changed to Financial benefit

Councillor Quentin Webb asked whether the policy included a process for recalling an asset if the business plan failed. Andy Day explained that after an asset was transferred it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

Purpose: To give the Commission the opportunity to comment on the final draft of the Housing Allocations Policy.

(Councillor Franks declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 3 due to the fact that he was employed by Sovereign Housing, but reported that, as his interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

Mel Brian introduced the final draft of the Housing Allocations Policy and referred the Commission to Appendix B which listed the amendments made to the document as a direct result of the public consultation that had taken place. The Commission was being given the opportunity to comment on the final draft of the Housing Allocations Policy prior to it being considered at the Executive.

Mel Brain explained that the majority of amendments were technical and sought to clarify the process. The members of the Commission heard the reason for each change before they were invited to comment on the final draft of the Policy.

Councillor Gwen Mason asked whether the amendment to section 16.4 of the policy would result in families receiving more suitable housing. Mel Brain advised that the amendment brought the process in line with the Housing Benefit process. The application would still require sufficient evidence before an additional bedroom could be awarded. Councillor Mason was satisfied with the proposed policy and stated that the assessment process must be robust in order for it to be effective. In response, Mel Brian advised the Commission that new case law provided tests for the assessment of an application.

Councillor Franks asked whether limits within the assessment process considering children’s ages had been increased or decreased. Mel Brian advised that the age was lowered in some cases and raised in others.  The age limit was set at ten years for the purpose of assessing whether a garden was required because it was assumed that a child above that age would be able to play in the local area and therefore have less need for a garden.

Councillor Jeff Beck highlighted typing errors within the policy document and suggested that the document was unbalanced in places by referring only to ‘his’. It was agreed that the errors would be corrected and amendments would ensure that policy was balanced.

Councillor Jeff Brooks suggested that an overview of the consultation feedback would help the Commission to contextualise the amendments. In response, Mel Brain advised that she did not have the information available at the meeting but advised that some feedback was derived from individual’s specific experiences. Mel Brian explained that some people were concerned about changes to the financial test threshold and that it was agreed the threshold would remain in line with the national policy. Mel Brian explained that amendments made to the assessment process for disabled children, looked after children and the policy of dealing with violence towards staff were all a direct result of the consultation. Mel Brian stated that nothing had been taken out of the document as a direct consequence of the consultation.

Councillor Alan Macro noticed that there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.