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)

The Chairman introduced the item and noted that it had been prepared at the request of the Committee to provide Members with an opportunity to review the Council’s assets, ask officers any relevant questions and consider recommendations, if necessary.

Questions and Discussion

      i.        Cllr C Cushing referred to a car park and stated that the value seemed relatively low given its location, and asked who valued the assets. The DFR replied that it could be that the asset had not been valued for some time, and a revaluation may be required in accordance with the normal five year timetable. She added that the report also explained that the register was kept for accounting purposes and it may be that the listed values would not reflect market values, if any assets were to be sold. It was noted that others may be direct replacement costs or existing use values, and most assets would not be listed as market values. Cllr C Cushing asked how often each asset was reviewed to consider whether it would be beneficial to sell, to which the DFR replied that from an accounting perspective assets were not reviewed in this manner. She added that the authority was obliged to value its assets every five years on a rolling programme, but unless it had been deemed potentially beneficial to sell an asset, a market value would not be sought.

     ii.        Cllr C Cushing noted that in some cases it would cost more to maintain an asset than the benefit it would provide, and asked whether there were any profit or loss assessments made on this basis. The DFR replied that this was not done on a routine basis, but it would be considered in advance of any significant repair works to determine whether it would be more cost effective to dispose of the asset.

    iii.        The Chairman referred to an asset that had recently been sold and noted that the sale value was much higher than the value listed on the register. The DFR replied that the value listed on the register would be for existing use, whereas the market value had been higher, as could be expected. It was confirmed following a question from the Chairman that the listed value of the Pavilion Theatre did not include the Pier, and the DFR added that the value may represent the replacement value. The Chairman asked whether the values listed were used for insurance purposes, as land values would remain even without buildings. The DFR replied that values were not used for insurance purposes as assets would be subject to a separate valuation process for this.

   iv.        The CE stated that the register was useful to understand the Council’s portfolio, but it should be noted that some assets were subject to planning policy retention and could not be sold without changes to existing policy, which would effect asset values. He added that external consults had previously been used to identify sites that held potential value to the Council, should a decision ever be made for disposal. It was noted that future administrations may choose to act upon this, should any asset values outweigh the public benefit they provided, but the disposal of assets would always be a political decision. The CE stated that significant improvement works had been made on a number of the Council’s public convenience assets, which was a political decision that had been made on the basis of their value to the public.

     v.        Cllr C Cushing referred to the work undertaken by consultants and asked whether this could inform the basis of any future decisions. The CE outlined  key proposals made as part of the consultants work, but noted that the majority had not progressed as they had not been supported by Members at the time. He added that all proposals could potentially be revisited by a new administration, should they choose to do so. It was suggested that there was an expectation that many coastal assets presented significant commercial value, but the CE noted that there were a number of factors unique to each location that may impact asset values which would have to be taken into account.

   vi.        *The meeting returned to public session*

RESOLVED

That the Committee note the contents of the report and Appendix A.