To receive the above report.

Andrew Green, Community Partnership Co-ordinator introduced the report and explained that the Community Right to Bid was established three years ago under the 2011 Localism Act. Local authorities were required to maintain a list of ‘Assets of Community Value’. If or when a building came up for sale community groups were given an additional six months to prepare a bid. Nominations had been dealt with by the Community Partnerships Team. Members noted further details of the report which included the following:

Ø  Recent changes to the legislation meant that nominations of drinking establishments would affect permitted development rights. In view of those changes the Lead Member suggested that responsibility for Assets of Community Value should be passed to ‘Development Management’ (Planning).

Ø  However, following consultation with Planning it was now proposed that the process should stay with Community Partnerships but that Planning would be involved in the process.  The arrangement would be reviewed in 12 months time.

Ø  Where an owner appealed against a decision a Listing Review had to be carried out by a senior officer not involved in the original decision. It was proposed that the Corporate Management Team should nominate who carried out Listing Reviews.

Ø  Appendix C explained what lessons had been learned from previous bids.

Ø  The Community did not always have a good grasp of the legislation and sometimes, expectations were very high.

Ø  Councillor Bathurst requested the Community Partnerships Team to look at the criteria around decisions made as the scheme was about giving the community the opportunity to make a bid.

Ø  The team were only judging if the nomination did or did not meet the requirements and if it did meet them, the asset should be listed.

Ø  There was a test case going through the scheme where a National Trust property had been nominated but was held inalienably so that it could not be sold. The team were seeking legal advice regarding whether a property must be listed if it met the criteria irrespective of whether it was likely that the community could bid for the property.

Ø  Page 16 of the report listed financial implications. There was a small administration fund that was no longer available from Central Government so the council would have to meet the costs itself.

Ø  It was a Manifesto Commitment to support the national pub loan scheme and discussions were taking place with the local CAMRA group around potential collaboration.

Ø  Owners of buildings could claim compensation if they felt losses had been incurred. Potential compensation claims were initially underwritten by central government up to £20,000 but this provision is no longer in place so the full cost of any future compensation claim would have to be met by the Council.

Ø  Legislation allowed eight weeks for the Council to make a decision on whether or not to list the property.

Ø  Occasionally, people wanted to mount a bid where there was no need, which could add a lot of bureaucracy that there was no need for (e.g. when a community group was interested in purchasing or leasing a property that the Council itself owns).

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That:

1.    Responsibility for the Register of Assets and associated procedures should remain with the Community Partnerships team but with closer involvement from Planning Development management; the position is to be reviewed in 12 months time.

2.    Responsibility for Listing Reviews (where the owner of a property appeals against a decision), should be undertaken by a senior officer nominated by CMT with support from Shared Legal Services.

3.    The Panel should note the Community Right to Bid Policy at Appendix A and the procedure at Appendix B.