Agenda item

To consider a report updating the Committee on the Joint Property Vehicle initiative.

Due to the size of the document the full business case has been printed as a separate document and copies have been placed in Group Rooms for Councillors.  It is also published with the agenda on the Council’s website.

The Committee received a report setting out the Full Business Case in relation to the establishment of a Joint Property Vehicle (JPV) for the delivery of improved and more efficient property and asset management services to a number of public sector partners across the West Midlands.  Members were asked to consider becoming a partner within the new arrangement, agree to nominate the Council’s representatives to the Board and Shareholder Group and delegate authority to Officers to implement the decision and complete the actions and documentation to do so. 

Officers advised that the recommendations at paragraphs 2.2 to 2.5 of the report were recommendations to Full Council rather than matters to be resolved by the Executive Committee as stated in the report.  It was further proposed that the delegation to Officers referred to at recommendation 2.5 would be in conjunction with the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Management.  Jim Stobie, JPV Manager at Worcestershire County Council, was also in attendance for this item.

Officers highlighted the key elements of the Business Case and benefits of the JPV to the Council.  The JPV would be an arms-length Company limited by shares, wholly owned and governed by the participating public sector partners.  The JPV proposals related to the management of the Council’s properties only and did not affect their ownership, which would remain with the Council. 

Since 2010 the Council’s Property Services had been delivered by the County Council.  If participating in the JPV the authority would have a greater say over its property management services as it would have an equal shareholding in the JPV and be in a position to contribute towards change programmes.  The JPV would formalise joint working, making it sustainable for the future, driving rationalisation, service transformation, regeneration, growth and efficiencies.  The JPV tied in with the locality approach which was being developed in Redditch and which was already in place for some direct service delivery, and also supported a number of the Council’s Strategic Purposes.  

Officers and Mr Stobie responded to Member questions during the discussion.  Mr Stobie advised that the JPV would have its own IT system which would provide for a single database of property assets and therefore allow for much greater interrogation of property than was currently possible.  Communication for the JPV would be key and was a current priority, with the same messages needing to be delivered to all of the partners involved at the same time.         

It was queried how the outcomes from the Board of the Company would be passed on to Members, for both information and scrutiny.  The exact mechanism for this had yet to be determined, although these might be reported to the Executive Committee in the same way as the minutes of the Shared Services Board and Worcestershire Shared Services Joint Committee were, with the Executive Committee ultimately being able to determine how it wished for such reporting to take place.  It was further noted that the Company would be a limited company and therefore subject to the full legal requirements applicable to limited companies.  Officers stated that any decisions on assets owned by the Council would continue to be made by the Executive Committee and Full Council.  Mr Stobie stated that the JPV would not in any way circumnavigate the Council’s current governance arrangements, which would also continue to apply.   

RECOMMENDED that

1)            the Council participates in establishing a Joint Property Vehicle company limited by shares;

2)            The Director of Finance and Resources, currently representing the Council on the Shadow Shareholder Group, represent the Council on the Board of the Company;

3)            two Member representatives and their substitutes be appointed to the Shareholder Meetings; and

4)            authority be delegated to the Director of Finance and the Head of Legal, Equalities and Democratic Services, in conjunction with the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Management, to take the measures required to implement the decision at recommendation 1) and to complete any necessary documentation relating to it.