Agenda item

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 would be the responsibility of the owner. Councillor Webb suggested that if the process required validation of the applicant’s business plan then the Council might be criticised if the business was unsuccessful. Andy Day advised that the business plan would be considered during the decision making process, along with other factors.

Councillor Alan Macro raised his concern that the community bidding process would be inhibited by placing the asset on the open market. Andy Day advised that the guidance was designed to compliment the asset disposal policy. The guidance provided the opportunity for community groups and commercial bidders to place a bid against the asset using the same timeframes.

Councillor Brooks suggested that it would not always be suitable to market an asset but due to the guidance the Council would be expected to follow the process as detailed. Councillor Brooks advised that assets had been leased by the Council, therefore providing some degree of flexibility. It was suggested that the guidance could be more specific in terms of listing alternative options.

Councillor Brian Bedwell thanked Andy Day for attending and requested that the minor amendments be made to the guidance and return to the Commission in October 2013 to provide an update.

In answer to a question, Andy Day advised the Commission that the guidance would be used in its current format for the purpose of assessing the bids received in respect of the Greenham Control Tower.

Resolved :

• That the Asset Disposal Guidance, including the minor amendments, be noted.
• That Andy Day return to the Commission in October to provide an update on the use of the guidance in relation to the disposal of the Greenham Control Tower.