Agenda item

This report will follow in an Additional Papers pack, once the report has been published for consideration of the Executive Committee.

The Head of Planning, Regeneration and Leisure Services presented the Nomination of the Community Centre at Easemore Road - Asset of Community Value for consideration by the Committee. The following was highlighted for Members’ attention:

·       Included within the Localism Act 2011 was a ‘Community Right to Bid’ enabling communities the right to identify a building they believed to be of importance to their community. It was reported to Members that as per the report and its appendices, a nomination of an asset of community value had been received from Bromsgrove and Redditch Network (BARN) in respect of Community House, Easemore Road. Members were informed that a statutory evaluation must be undertaken in order to register the property as an asset of community value. As the building was owned by the Council, on this occasion, the Head of Legal, Democratic and Property Services and Monitoring Officer had made the decision that the evaluation be undertaken by an independent barrister.

·       Officers reported that the independent evaluation had noted that a Condition Survey carried out in November 2021 had identified costs of repairs and maintenance of £340,407 over a period of five years. It was confirmed that these costs would fall to the new owner. In addition to this the Committee were furtherinformed that Community House had been valued between £1.2m and £1.5m. Following consideration of the business plan submitted by Redditch Common Neighbourhood Trust (RCNT) this sum was deemed well beyond RCNT’s means.

Following the presentation of the report, Members queried what consultation had taken place with the tenants of the building and it was explained that there had been contact made with the tenants prior to the previous report presented to the Executive Committee on 12^th July 2022.

Some Members noted that if Community House was listed as an asset of community value this would provide the tenants with more time within the building in order to raise funds. It was also noted that there had been examples in the past where residents had purchased assets of community value successfully. However, some Members felt that this would merely raise expectations and create a sense of false hope for the tenants.

Members subsequently discussed why the report on this matter was being considered by the Executive Committee as decisions regarding assets of community value were delegated to Officers. It was explained that although Officers had delegated authority to determine whether a property be listed as an asset of community value, the report had been submitted to the Executive Committee on a consultative basis and for transparency.

There were some questions regarding the valuation of the building and Members questioned whether it would be possible to separate the cost of the property and the land value. Officers confirmed that this would not be possible, and that the Council would not sell an asset separately as this would result in no car parking facilities being available.

After detailed debate, the following recommendation was proposed:

‘that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee consider the contents of the report in relation to Community House and decide to support listing as an Asset of Community Value.’

On being put to the vote this recommendation was lost.

The following recommendation was then proposed:

‘that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee consider the contents of the report in relation to Community House and decide to not support listing as an Asset of Community Value’.

On being put to the vote this recommendation was agreed.

RECOMMENDED that

the Overview and Scrutiny Committee consider the contents of the report in relation to Community House and decide to not support listing as an Asset of Community Value.