The purpose of this report is for Cabinet to approve the contents of the Council’s Asset Management Plan (AMP) for 2008/09 and endorse the ongoing process of managing land and property assets on a corporate basis.

Cabinet considered the report of the Head of Asset Management and Property Services to which was appended the Council’s Asset Management Plan (AMP) for 2008/09.  The Cabinet Member for Resources advised Members that the Asset Management Plan set out the focus of activity for the Asset Management and Property Services team over the next 12 months and demonstrated how those activities supported the authority’s corporate priorities.

The AMP outlined the following aspects:

(i)                  team roles and responsibilities (although Members were made aware that it had been difficult to attract suitable candidates for key appointments to the revised officer structure agreed almost two years ago and that critical gaps had been covered through the use of interim support).

(ii)                working with stakeholders

(iii)               data and performance management arrangements

(iv)              planning and delivery of property related programmes

(v)                reviewed last 12 months activity against targets

The Head of Asset Management and Property Services introduced Russell Cheasley, who had recently been appointed Property Review and Contracts Commissioning Manager and was one of the first appointments secured to the new structure. 

Members attention was specifically drawn to the following points within the report:

• As there was a need to respond to the requirements of the Comprehensive Area Assessments and Local Area Assessments (paragraph 1.1, page 7), the AMP would form part of the compliance documentation submitted to Government, in support of the authority’s appropriate use of resources.
• The authority currently used property data derived from four legacy systems (pages 11-13).  As maintaining these systems currently required duplication of information, discussions had been held with the authority’s ICT team to outline specification for a corporate property database which would provide high quality information across the council.
• Paragraph 5.1.3 ‘Capital Programme’ had not been included in the draft AMP as it had been necessary to await the decision of the Cabinet on the Draft Capital Programme 2008/09 report, which would be considered on the meeting’s agenda.  Should approval be given to the Capital Programme report this paragraph would be finalised.
• Action Plans to support the progress of the AMP were outlined on pages 27-31 (appendices 5-12).

In discussion the following comments were made by Members;

• The action plans were welcomed as a means by which development and monitoring were clearly outlined.
• Consideration should be given to the asset management requirements across public bodies in the County and a culture developed within public partners of jointly achieving best use of property assets in relevant locations to allow for appropriate accessibility of public services to residents.  Such an approach would reflect the recommendations outlined in the Audit Commission’s 2000 report, Hot Property which considered how to achieve the best out of local authority assets.
• A request was made that the presentation of the data be reconsidered prior to final publication as a public document (e.g pages 11-13).
• In response to a comment on the apparent suspension of recording value for money information it was stated that it was unfortunate that the authority was unable to continue to collect the value for money statistics as the indicators were part of a suite of benchmarking indicators which were no longer collected by the collating body COPROP, however it was emphasised that value for money remained important to the Council through the Corporate Plan which provided for comparable information for benchmarking e.g. in relation to the Comprehensive Area Assessments.  .
• In response to a question relating to the new management structures, the Leader advised Members that the new structure was to be delivered on a cost neutral basis with any capacity required delivered at a senior level.
• As most of the graphs illustrated on pages 11-13 demonstrated a downward shift it was hoped that the situation would improve.
• Members in attendance advised the Cabinet of concerns expressed to them from tenants in Council smallholdings.  It was confirmed that a review of the smallholdings policy would be undertaken by the SMC in the next few months.
• In response to a question regarding carbon management for schools, the Head of Asset Management and Property Services advised Members that all schools would be assessed over time with building management systems undertaken over the next few months. 
• The Chief Executive, in response to questions relating to Herefordshire Connects, stated that this project was put on strategic pause some months ago, however others, e.g Social Care, had been considered through SMC the previous week.  Members were reminded that a commitment had been given to report back to Cabinet (indicatively June/July) on Herefordshire Connects following the next stage meetings with contractors.
• The Director of Resources confirmed that the AMP for approval was the latest revised version of the Plan formerly agreed in December 2006.
• In response to a member in attendance, officers advised the Cabinet that the £30m+ figure stated in paragraph 5.2.4.1 against the new back office, was solely an indicative figure as currently no project plan existed (therefore no costs were known) and that this project had many steps to go through.  The final figure would be heavily dependent on the on the project plan which would be approved by Cabinet, which would include back office functions together with training provision, front office etc.  It was acknowledged that the wording of ‘new back office’ in the report did not adequately reflect the breadth of the functions included and that it would be amended appropriately reflect this point.
• In response to a question from a Member in attendance, the Head of Asset Management and Property Services stated that the monitoring of schools would be ongoing, however the current administration has stated that there would be no disposals during their time in office (with the exception of the ongoing small schools review).  Discussions would be held with Children Services regarding ongoing provision.
• Members were advised that whilst asset management list was public information and was available in hard copy, it was not accessible on the web due to the manner in which the information was stored.  The Leader emphasised the difficulties of setting indicative values on assets, some of which would, by definition, be purely speculative and others valued for insurance purposes (especially civic buildings).  As public information, the Leader emphasised that, as public information, all Members were welcome to receive a copy of the authority’s assets at any time, however they were requested to exercise caution in particular when considering the value placed on assets as the information could be subject to misinterpretation without an awareness of the context to how the values were determined.  The value placed against each asset was purely submitted for financial purposes, such as insurance, and did not necessarily reflect a full market value.  Asset valuations were provided to comply with CIPFA regulations and as such were not a reflection of the value of the property for disposal, but a reflection of the "worth" of the asset to the Council. This included use of historical acquisition prices for community assets, etc, which might be £1.
• In response to a question about the certainty or otherwise of the authority’s schools receiving £30m, and the process for allocation of these monies, the Director of Children’s Services advised that the £30m related to areas of capital funding over three years for capital improvement.  Whilst the amount expected was sizable, it would not be sufficient.  The most significant projects to receive funding would be the Academy and the BSF.  An allocation of £1.8m had been allocated to the authority’s primary schools. Final approval for the £30m was awaited from the DCSF in June 2008.

RESOLVED

THAT: Cabinet;

(a)   approves the content of the Council’s Asset Management Plan for 2008/09.

(b)   note that the Council’s Asset Management Plan for 2008/09 would form part of the Resources Directorate’s service plans for the year with performance being managed in line with the Council’s performance management framework.

Additionally

(c)  the Cabinet endorsed the view expressed in discussion that asset management requirements should be considered across the County’s public bodies and a culture developed with public partners of jointly achieving best use of property assets.