Agenda item

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW

(Papers relied on to write the report, which do not contain exempt information and which are not published elsewhere)

Contact Officer, telephone number and email:

Lucy Hume (Chief Technical Accountant) lucy.hume@north-norfolk.gov.uk 01263 516246

The CTA introduced the report and informed Members that a list of assets had been provided along with their current valuation, date of valuation, their use and designated class. She added that this could be cross-referenced with the statement of accounts to consider each asset’s usefulness to the Council. She added that any suggestions on additional information would be welcome.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          The Chairman referred to p311 and suggested that it was comforting to see that community assets were identified for their value to local communities, and asked whether there was any protection in place for these assets. The CTA replied that there was no specific law to protect community assets, though any sale would be considered on a case by case basis, with any purchaser required to show how the community benefit would be maintained prior to sale.

      ii.          Cllr L Withington sought clarification on whether community assets had been nominated as such, or designated by the Council. The CTA confirmed that community assets would have been designated by the Council, as it was required to do so for accounting purposes. Cllr L Withington noted that no indication of a community asset nomination had been provided, and suggested that this would be helpful information, as it may impact potential future use.

     iii.          Cllr C Cushing asked how often each asset was reviewed to consider its value and usefulness to the Council. The CTA replied that this was done on an ad-hoc basis, though the Assets Team were reviewing this process. Cllr C Cushing noted that several assets were listed as having no value, and asked whether this was because they hadn’t been valued. The CTA replied that this would depend on the type of asset, as often community assets were considered to have a very low monetary value. She added that it was the aim of the Council to review assets every five years, though community assets could be reviewed less frequently due to their limited economic value. It was noted that assets were also valued differently depending on their category or use, with assets listed for sale at market value, whereas other land and buildings might be shown at existing use value, and investment properties shown at fair value. It was noted that the low value of community assets may therefore not be representative of a sale value, as the community value was considered to be of greater importance.

    iv.          Cllr P Heinrich referred to the heading of surplus assets, which he suggested might apply to small patches of land, and asked whether any consideration had been given to disposing of these. The CTA replied that the definition of surplus assets was fairly specific, in that CIPFA would allow designation of assets as such when not being used for a specific service purpose. She added that this category often applied to small patches of land, and in some cases these had been sold or transferred to the assets held for sale category. It was suggested that these would need to be considered on a case by case basis for alternative use prior to sale.

      v.          Cllr E Seward stated that it was helpful to see the Council’s assets outlined in a single register, and noted that many of the surplus assets were areas such as verges that required maintenance. He added that small pockets of land were often transferred and sold, though this took time to complete. It was noted that most of these assets did not provide an income for the Council, and often cost the Council to maintain.

    vi.          The Chairman asked whether it would be simple to cross-reference the assets with the accounts to determine the true value of the asset, including any income or expenditure. The CTA replied that this might not be simple in all cases, though the income from investment properties would be clearly listed within the accounts. She added that non-investment property income could be added to future reports if required.

   vii.          Cllr A Brown referred to an asset for which the record of the lease was unknown, and suggested this could impact its valuation. He then asked whether the legal status of the Council’s assets had been audited, and whether any restrictions or impacts on assets were up to date, to avoid any future embarrassment prior to sale. The CTA replied that the register provided was the audited list of assets, and added that whilst any lease information would be held by the Estates Team, all values provided took into account leases. She added that the values would also include any liabilities, such as maintenance costs or repairs required.

  viii.          The Chairman referred to small areas of land and asked whether there were any ransom strips on the register. The DFC replied that the Estates Team would hold this information, and they would be shown on the register. He added that it would be for the Council to determine whether to sell or use these areas of land at the appropriate time, though these sales were often market driven.

    ix.          Cllr E Seward suggested that if Members were aware of any assets that did not provide any particular benefit to the Council, then they could raise it to be considered for sale or transfer.

RESOLVED

To note the contents of the Report and Appendices.