Agenda item

Councillor Dan Levy, Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Transformation, Vic Kurzeja, Director of Property and Assets, Michael Smedley, Head of Estates, and James Cater Clare Martin, Strategic Improvement Lead, and Richard Merritt, Operational Manager Contact Oxfordshire have been invited to present a report on Community Asset Transfer Policy prior to its consideration by Cabinet.

The Committee is asked to consider the report and raise any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

Councillor Dan Levy, Cabinet Member for Finance, Property and Transformation, Vic Kurzeja, Director of Property and Assets, and James Cater, National Management Trainee presented a report on the draft Community Asset Transfer Policy prior to its consideration by Cabinet.

Councillor Levy explained that the Council had historically dealt with community groups’ use of County Council property on an ad hoc basis and had sought to formalise the process to make it clearer for the public and for groups wishing to use, lease or take on Council property. He said a two-part policy had been developed, covering community asset transfer and community leasing, to set out how the Council would offer more favourable terms to eligible community groups than to commercial tenants, and invited officers to present the detail and answer questions.

Officers said the community asset transfer policy had been redeveloped and split into two parts: asset transfer (including transfer at less than best consideration in recognition of social value) and community leasing. They said a cross-council working group had been established to assess applications and to identify properties for transfer or lease, bringing together property, community wealth building and relevant service leads to improve coordination. They outlined transparent assessment criteria focused on social value, support to statutory services, investment in the property, financial management and local community benefit, and said rent concessions had been determined on a case-by-case basis (including peppercorn rent where appropriate). VCS engagement had been undertaken via a survey and webinar, which had informed clarifications on revenue caps, expanded criteria, openness to 10+ year leases, subletting permissions, proportionate reporting and tenant obligations.

In response to the presentation and report, the Committee raised a number of questions and points of clarification.

It was suggested that the Community Asset Transfer Working Group might be under-resourced, and could benefit from public health, finance and legal attendees, as well as a more flexible meeting schedule.

The Committee discussed how different tenants could be treated consistently, including those who had existing arrangements under a different policy, and after local government reorganisation. In response, officers stated that there were relatively few existing arrangements and that they had reviewed current leases; when existing leases ended, renewals and any reapplications would be assessed through the same policy framework and working group process, so that tenants were treated consistently. Officers would communicate and engage with current voluntary and community sector partners to ensure they understood the new process and could prepare for renewal. Officers had also liaised with district councils and that, following any Local Government Reorganisation, policies and processes would be reviewed and realigned by the new authority, with the intention of maintaining broadly aligned principles and consistent outcomes across areas.

Members wished to know whether non-VCS organisations would be eligible to apply under the policy. It was confirmed that non‑VCS community projects could apply under the policy, but VCS organisations would be prioritised where there were competing applications.

Greater information was sought over whether a community asset transfer was a full transfer of ownership or a long lease.  In response, officers said asset transfer had been a transfer of the asset and responsibility for its management to a charitable organisation, but it would have been subject to conditions requiring the property to be used to deliver the agreed community services and social benefit. The arrangement would not continue if the agreed use ceased or the organisation sought to dispose of the property, and the property would return to the council under the same conditions. Officers had discussed the approach with legal colleagues, but that the detailed legal framework would have been developed on a case-by-case basis and was not set out in the policy; the committee suggested that clearer wording should have been added.

Concern was raised that the CAT policy night put the long term survival of organisations in the hands of the Council. In response, officers said leases and agreements would be subject to ongoing review, including annual financial information and service updates from the organisations, and that the council would work with groups to support delivery of the agreed social benefits. Longer leases could help organisations secure external grant funding, and that where circumstances or the agreed purpose changed, the matter would be reviewed and discussed accordingly.

The Committee requested details of the process to take on dilapidated or buildings of an inadequate standard, such as Wood Farm. Officers said the council would not have transferred or leased a dilapidated building that was not fit for purpose without conditions. Where a community organisation was willing and able to invest to bring a building up to standard, this would have been reflected in the lease terms and rent level (including the potential for a peppercorn rent). Where an organisation could not fund the works and the council still intended to lease the building, officers said the council would remain responsible as landlord for making the property fit for purpose. It was highlighted that the council would not have invested in a property until a decision had been made on its future, and that disposal would have been a last resort where there was no service or community need.

Members queried whether the proposed community asset transfer and community leasing policies were consistent with the CLES report and its recommendations. The policies did not fully address wider place-shaping considerations for the disposal of council assets, particularly land and non-VCS disposals, and the council needed clearer, value-led guidance to prioritise social value outcomes (including affordable and social housing) alongside best value. In response, Councillor Levy agreed in principle that community value should be considered, but said the Council still had an overriding obligation to secure best value and generate income to support services, with limited scope to take account of social benefit. Local Government Reorganisation was expected to bring landownership and housing responsibilities together in a new authority, which should strengthen the ability to deliver wider social objectives through land and asset decisions.

The Committee AGREED to make the following recommendations to Cabinet:

-        That the Cabinet amends the CAT policy to make explicit reference to the sale of land

-        That the Cabinet provides in the CAT policy fuller explanation of the approach taken in relation to transfers of dilapidated buildings

-        That the Cabinet provides within the policy greater detail of the legal framework and process surrounding the transfer of ownership

-        That the Cabinet reviews the operation of the Community Asset Transfer and Community Leasing Working Group with a view to increasing the resourcing to support it, broadening the membership to include Finance, Legal and Public Health colleagues, and making the regularity of its meetings more flexible.

-        That the Cabinet ensures the property team works with relevant other Council departments to develop common definitions of ‘social value’ across teams

-        That the Cabinet provides clarification over its social value priorities, to enable proactive place-shaping with regards to land and assets

-        That the Cabinet ensures the property team are aware of and, as far as possible, in alignment with approaches taken by Oxfordshire’s district and city councils with a view to avoiding creating inconsistencies following the upcoming unitarisation(s) under Local Government Reorganisation

-        That the Cabinet ensures that there is a consistency of approach towards leases and transfers granted under the proposed policy and existing leases when they come up for renewal