MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE AUDIT AND PERFORMANCE COMMITTEE HELD AT COUNTY HALL, NEWPORT, ISLE OF WIGHT ON TUESDAY, 10 APRIL 2007 COMMENCED AT 6.00 PM

Present :

Cllrs Anne Bishop (Chairman), Ivan Bulwer, Mike Cunningham, Barbara Foster, Susan Scoccia

Officers Present :

Steve Beynon, Barry Cooke, Claire Robertson, Bob Streets, April West

Apologies :

 Cllrs George Brown, Jonathan Fitzgerald-Bond, Jilly Wood

 Joe Duckworth

71. MINUTES

RESOLVED :

THAT the minutes of the meeting held on 13 March 2007 be confirmed as a true record.

72. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

No interests were declared.

73. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

No public questions were received.

74. PROPERTY DISPOSALS / CAPITAL RECEIPTS PROGRAMME

The Committee was updated on the current progress being made with the Authority’s Property Disposals / Capital Receipts Programme.

Members were informed that the list attached to the report as appendix 1, was a list of potential capital receipts, and was not absolute. The list presupposed that property would be declared surplus, if properties were not declared surplus then they would not be brought forward for disposal purposes.

The Committee was informed that the capital receipts target for the forthcoming year was likely to be increased to £4 - 5 million.

The Committee wished to know what constituted abnormal development costs, which was listed under ‘risk considerations’ in appendix 3. It was explained that these were costs that you could not necessarily predict before the process was started i.e. ground conditions/contamination.

Members were informed that the consultation process involved 3 reports to be produced. The first report related to a quarterly update on the Capital Receipts Programme, the second to the property being declared surplus and the third to the actual disposal itself. It was being considered whether the second report was required, or whether, when a property became vacant it was automatically declared surplus, unless the service area had a sound reason for retaining it. The Committee wished to know at what stage local Members were informed of disposals in their area. Members were informed that the local Member would be notified when reports 2 and 3 were produced under the current consultation process. The Committee questioned whether local Members were being informed of disposals in their area. The Corporate Property Manager assured the Committee that the consultation process as set out to them would be followed.

Members noted that no leisure facilities appeared on the list in appendix 1. The Committee was informed that the Corporate Property Manager was due to attend a meeting regarding the proposals from the leisure review and that once he had received feedback from service areas there may be some additions to the list. It was suggested that it would be useful if potential capital receipts, listed in appendix 1, could have dates or reference numbers attached, to enable the Committee to easily identify and keep track of them.

The Committee asked whether the list in appendix 1 was a fait accompli. It was reiterated that the list was of potential capital receipts.

Members wished to know how assets were valued. It was stated that when looking at a site for potential disposal this was looked at internally. The difference between asset and open market value was explained to the Committee. In terms of the disposals process, if a site was sold it would go via an external agent. Properties would then be exposed to the open market to satisfy that best consideration had been obtained. If a special purchaser situation arose then the Authority would always seek two independent valuations to substantiate the price being achieved.

The Committee wished to know whether there were any Isle of Wight Council employees that were unaware their base of operations could potentially be disposed of. Members were informed that there was a possibility some employees were unaware, however, it was hoped that most staff would realise through the Council’s Strategic Asset Management Plan and the way the Authority was examining its property portfolio at the moment, that potentially any property owned by the Authority was subject to review. It was stated that employees, who may be relocated as a result of a disposal would benefit by being based in a better property in terms of being fit for purpose.

Members wished to know whether the 2006/2007 capital receipts target stated in paragraph 5 of the report was gross or net. It was explained that this was net.

The Committee wished to know what the process would be for making decisions regarding disposals. Members were informed that the financial delegations set out in the Constitution would be adhered to and that any disposal which exceeded the threshold of £250,000 would be decided by the Cabinet. Properties that did not exceed the latter threshold would be dealt with under delegated powers.

The Committee asked why in appendix 2 the capital receipts target increase significantly from £2,150,000 for 2006/2007 to 17,000,000 for 2008/2009. It was stated that the 2008/2009 target accounted for the development at Pan.

Members wished to know, with regard to the risk considerations listed in appendix 3, at what point the Authority considered that the risk was too high. It was explained that this was dealt with on a case by case basis.

The Committee wished to know whether the Authority had the flexibility to look at disposals in a prompt way. Members were assured that the Authority did have this flexibility.

RESOLVED :

THAT :

a. the ongoing work related to the Property Capital Receipts Programme be noted by the Committee.

b. a report be received by the Committee on a monthly basis.

75. MEMBERS QUESTION TIME

No questions were asked.

CHAIRMAN