Skip to content Skip to main navigation
Site map Arabic Urdu Slovenian Farsi Chinese French

Agenda item

Strategic Asset Management Plan and Property Reviews


The Chair introduced Councillor Lelliott, Cabinet Member for Jobs and the Local Economy who introduced this presentation.  This involved the Strategic Asset Management Plan which formed part of the Council’s health check.


Paul Smith and Louise Murray from Asset Management gave a PowerPoint presentation which drew specific attention to:-


·                Background information.

·                Strategic Asset Management Plan.

·                Policy and Strategy.

·                Objectives.

·                Action Plan and Delivery.

·                Operational Property Review.

·                Non-Operational Property Review.

·                Surplus Properties.

·                Community Buildings Review.

·                Other Reviews.

·                Next Steps.


A discussion and a question and answer session ensued and the following issues were raised and clarified:-


·                Would Ward Members be involved in the report for more specific information for the Community Buildings Review which would be submitted to the Asset Management Board.


Ward Members would be consulted.  Only 12 buildings were affected so did not involve each of the Borough’s Wards.


·                Was there any criteria to retain buildings of benefit to the Borough for non–operational properties.


There was some criteria, but this depended upon the benefit to the community and the use and demand for those properties.  Consultation would take place with Ward Members and all interested parties on the use of those properties going forward.


·                In the objectives it referred to supporting economic growth and the town centre regeneration.  Would this include outlying town centres as well. The building asset list circulated to Ward Members was also out-of-date.


Comments on the building asset list were welcomed and this would be updated with a more comprehensive representation in due course.


In terms of town centres, consideration was being given to Swinton and Wath and others going forward.


·                Objective 4 related to developing growth income for non-commercial activities and a smart action plan.  Could clarification be provided on quantitative measures, figures, direction of travel, financial targets and delivery outcomes.


From a savings point of view there was to be £1 million this year and next year combined.  The planned reviews would assist, make better use of facilities and development of working practices was key.


There were some income targets with growth in academy income.  The trading income was looking at a larger planned investment strategy in developing other property.  For example the site in Manvers next to the business incubation centre may be developed on a commercial basis and invested in by the Council to provide much needed jobs and provide income.  A report on this commercial approach was to be submitted to the Asset Management Board.


·                Did it cost anything to be members of CIPFA and were officers able to provide a challenge to service areas on how to use buildings more effectively and deliver a better service, are they able to do this through this strategy.


The Council did have CIPFA membership.  Challenges to service areas were primarily to do with building usage and not delivery of the services within it.  WorkSmart initiatives would be reinvigorated to help reduce the building catalogue.


·                Anston Library is a building that appeared to be in Council ownership, but was in fact owned by the Parish Council.  Consideration needed to be given to land and property and any asset transfers to other interested bodies, including Parish Councils, before disposing of land.


This Asset Management Review formed part of the process and Parish Councils would be added to the stakeholder list before decisions were made to dispose or declare buildings surplus.


Clarification was provided on the differences between the Community Asset Register and the Community Right to Bid for Community Asset Transfers.


·                Was there any obligation under the One Public Estate to consult others  when properties were to be disposed of to ensure agreement.


The One Public Estate included all Councils in the Sheffield City Region, the Fire Authority and NHS.  This was run by the Joint Asset Board chaired by the Chief Executive and it was this Board that decided on the delivery of the funding.  There was no clawback feature.


·                If there were surplus properties in a Ward and community benefit could be proven was there any reinvestment into that area from the proceeds of any disposal.


Proceeds from asset disposal could not be ring-fenced and was included within the capital fund.  The capital fund target was £2 million within the MTFS; some of which went back into the revenue budget.


·                The Wingfield Community Buildings Review had identified 23 accessible buildings and questions were asked how the asset lists were compiled.


The list was compiled from information held by the Terrier Section.  Hopefully Ward Members would assist as they were the ones that really knew their areas.  This would assist in compilation of more accurate lists.


Resolved:-  (1)  That Councillor Lelliott, Paul Smith and Louise Murray be thanked for their informative presentation.


(2)  That any material be forwarded onto the Parish Councils to maintain information flow.