Report of the Strategic Director (Development), Head of Corporate Estates and Facilities, Strategic Lead - Parks, Leisure & Events, Strategic Lead - Neighbourhoods (South) and Community Asset Transfer Manager

This report provides information on the Community Asset Transfer (CAT) activity during 2017/18, provides a background to the scheme and the process for progressing a CAT, and the support that is provided to groups by the Council.  It also provides case studies on community groups that have successfully progressed a CAT and those that haven’t been successful.  It also provides a full list of organisations that have completed the CAT process and information on the transfer.

The Committee received a report of the Strategic Director (Development), the Head of Corporate Estates and Facilities, the Strategic Lead (Parks, Leisure and Events), the Strategic Lead (Neighbourhoods - South) and the Community Asset Transfer Manager on Community Asset Transfers.  It provided information on the Community Asset Transfer activity during 2017/18, a background to the scheme and the process for progressing a Community Asset Transfer, and the support that was provided to groups by the Council.

The Executive Member for Housing and Regeneration referred to the main points and themes within the report, which included:

• The programme of support available to groups;
• The process for Community Asset Transfers;
• Potential future improvements; and
• Case studies.

The Committee also received a report of Martin Preston and Sarah Whitelegg from Macc on Community Asset Transfers.

Sarah Whitelegg referred to the main points and themes within Macc’s report, which included:

• Macc’s observations of the process, as the organisation contracted to provide support to Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) groups in Manchester;
• Macc’s initial recommendations for improving and supporting Community Asset Transfers in Manchester; and
• Good practice in other parts of the country.

Some of the key points that arose from the Committee’s discussions were:

• At what point Ward Councillors were involved in the process;
• What the savings were for the Council due to no longer being responsible for the maintenance costs of the buildings and to request a cost benefit analysis;
• How it was determined which groups paid a peppercorn rent and which paid a reduced commercial rent;
• To request further information on situations where groups did not proceed with a Community Asset Transfer as they felt they lacked the capacity to continue;
• Whether the Council had a list of its assets; and
• What information the Council had on the condition of its assets.

The Community Asset Transfer Manager outlined the process, advising that it typically took about 18 months and that his team recognised the importance of involving Ward Councillors at an early stage.  He advised that the Council had created a formula to assess the average saving per building and that this had showed that the savings were approximately £28,000 per building but he reported that this varied greatly depending on the individual building.  Martin Preston informed the Committee that Bradford City Council had developed a cost benefit analysis of Community Asset Transfers.  The Executive Member for Housing and Regeneration advised that she and officers would look into the cost benefit analysis and come back with further information.

The Community Asset Transfer Manager advised that VCS organisations which were delivering commissioned services on behalf of the Council paid a reduced commercial rent (usually about 30% of the full commercial rate) and that groups which were not delivering commissioned services paid a peppercorn rent.  He advised that some of the issues which influenced organisations not to proceed included the time it would take to administer the asset and the condition of the building, for example, if major work was required.  He reported that the decision not to proceed was usually made by mutual consent between the VCS group and the Council as the challenges became clear while the business plan was being developed.

The Head of Corporate Estates and Facilities updated Members on the ongoing work to assess and record the condition of the Council’s building assets, which, she advised, should be completed within two years.  She informed Members that the Council held a list of all its assets electronically and that Members could be provided with training to be able to use this database to see details of assets in their ward.  The Executive Member for Housing and Regeneration reported that the Members Development service had emailed Members regarding training on the database.

Phil Murphy outlined the process for the Community Asset Transfer of Levenshulme Old Library, including the costs involved and the benefits to the community. 

John Haines informed Members about his experience of the Community Asset Transfer of the skate park.  He described the problems his organisation had previously encountered in obtaining funding because it did not have a lease on the land used for the skate park.  He reported that, following the Community Asset Transfer, this was now a sustainable skate park, that usage had tripled and that having the lease had enabled them to obtain significant further funding to expand.  He informed Members that, when undertaking a cost benefit analysis, it was important to consider other benefits such as community cohesion and additional spending in the city from people travelling from elsewhere to use the skate park.

Decision

To note the report.

[Councillor M Dar declared a disclosable pecuniary interest as an employee of Community on Solid Ground and withdrew from the room for this item.]

[Councillor Fletcher-Hackwood declared a personal interest as an unpaid Trustee of Fallowfield Library.]