Minutes:
Councillor Crittenden asked Councillor Pugh the following question:
“The recent publicity surrounding the sale of the Granville Cinema has brought into focus the sad plight of some of the other community asset disposals from recent years.
What policies and procedures are in place to enable Thanet District Council to monitor the long term success of the sale of assets, large or small, land or buildings, against the expectation not only of achieving the best value income for the Council, but also against realising the goal of retaining these assets for long term community use and benefit? And how does the Council use this information in order to improve outcomes for the future?”
Councillor Pugh responded with the following points:
· Thanet District Council had a Community Asset Transfer Policy that was adopted by the Cabinet on 30 January 2018. The purpose of the policy was to create a transparent framework for decision making regarding the transfer of assets of community value to community and voluntary organisations that work in Thanet. All community asset transfers had been assessed in line with this policy.
· Community Asset Transfer was a voluntary process entered into proactively by public bodies. It involved the transfer of management and/or ownership of public land and buildings from its owner (usually a local authority) to a community organisation for less than best consideration. The discount is based upon a presumption of long-term social, economic or environmental benefit.
· A viable business plan was at the heart of a community asset transfer including a realistic assumption about ongoing revenue and the cost of operation.
· Organisations should be accountable to the community with secure local involvement and community engagement, often with charitable purposes.
· Thanet District Council was dedicated to improving and consistently adopting best practices and building on these. As a result, TDC were including covenants where appropriate to ensure community use in perpetuity.
· In instances where Community Asset Transfer was not appropriate, TDC would seek to market properties on the open market, for a predetermined period of time, to ensure the disposal was fair, open and transparent, and the best consideration would be achieved.
· Examples of where a community asset transfer would not be possible include where the asset is surplus and the proceeds of the sale were required as a capital receipt to fund the capital programme, thus bringing alternative benefits to the community, through the completion of other programmes of work. Other examples included where an asset was held for regeneration or housing purposes or where the council had an on-going operational use for a building or site.
· It could also be the case that there are no viable community applications that could successfully protect a community asset into the future.
· The council was committed to making the best possible use of all of its land and property assets to support improvements in services and facilities for local people. At the same time TDC were acutely aware of the need for long term viable business plans to support the ownership of community assets and the limitations on available resources to support projects.
Councillor Crittenden followed up her question by asking whether there would be guaranteed information in the contract that would be signed which would mean that the building would not rot?
The Chair reminded Members that there was a time limit for supplementary questions.
Councillor Pugh responded with the following points:
· The administration had been trying to do things differently to previous administrations. This included changing the way things had been done, for example through safe guarding buildings for the community and exploring the sale of assets through conditional sales.
· The council would do everything they could to ensure the long term viability of assets for the community.