Agenda item

Purpose of the item: To provide a progress update on the Asset and Place Strategy 2019

Witnesses:

Dominic Barlow, Assistant Director – Corporate Landlord

Patricia Barry, Director of Land and Property

Edward Hawkins, Deputy Cabinet Member for Land and Property

Peter Hopkins, Assistant Director – Commercial

Tim Oliver, Leader of the Council

Anthony Wybrow, Assistant Director of Project Delivery

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Leader of the Council, who held the land and property portfolio within the Cabinet, introduced the item, stating that the Land and Property service aimed to optimise the Council’s estate to ensure it worked well for residents. Staff roadshows conducted by the Leader and the Chief Executive of the Council had shown that most staff did not want to return to the office full-time; ideally, there would be a number of locations around the county that staff could use as bases. The year of the Covid-19 pandemic had accelerated the rationalisation of the office estate, but before having a knee-jerk reaction, the Council wanted to understand its property needs and whether properties were suitable to be used or sold. The service focused on obtaining the best value and best use of its estate. Moreover, the government white paper on the integration of health and social care raised the possibility of a closer relationship between the Council and NHS organisations, including sharing property with organisations such as Surrey Heartlands Health and Care Partnership.

2.    The Deputy Cabinet Member for Land and Property continued to explain that the Land and Property service’s ethos was that it should create the envelope for individual services. It was important to recognise that property was not a quick fix. There were currently around 80 different projects, which seemed to be producing good results so far. The Land and Property service wished to create an environment whereby staff and residents could feel proud of the buildings they lived and worked in.

3.    A Member asked whether lessons had been learnt on why the joint venture with Places for People – which had now been brought to an end – had not worked and what the stress factors had been. The Assistant Director – Commercial stated that a review was being undertaken on this. There certainly was disappointment that the joint venture had been unsuccessful; Places for People had been given multiple resources to drive forward delivery and measured against specific performance measures. The control measures were in place, but the core team was not able to achieve the venture.

4.    A Member enquired whether each project would have its own RACI (responsible, accountable, contributor and informed) table, and whether this would be shared with the Select Committee and the divisional Member. The Director of Land and Property responded that a RACI table for Cabinet governance and papers was attached to the report and a RACI chart would be formulated for each project once project initiation forms had been assembled. These could be shared in future as long as they were not commercially sensitive.

5.    A Member remarked that a list of properties for each Council division that had been sent out to all Members had been helpful, and asked when the Select Committee could see more documentation on housing. The Assistant Director – Commercial replied that it was expected that the internal governance of the housing strategy would be completed in quarter one of 2021/22, after which information could be shared more widely. The Leader added that there was a need for more affordable housing in Surrey, but this was difficult due to the lack of non-green belt land available. While housing sat under the remit of district and borough councils, it would nevertheless be useful for Surrey County Council to work with district and borough councils in order to resolve the lack of affordable housing. The Director of Land and Property agreed that partnership working could be beneficial to all involved. A Member commented that it was difficult for young people to enter the housing market, and also that it was important for housing to be built close to infrastructure and public services, in order to discourage the use of cars. Also, some Members said that they did not recall receiving the list of properties for their division, and requested that it be resent.

6.    A Member asked where – apart from Woodhatch Place – the other three hub office buildings would be located, and whether these would be newly acquired buildings or buildings the Council already owned. The Assistant Director – Corporate Landlord explained that the Land and Property service was currently engaging with all the services within the Council to understand their location and geographical needs. The Council’s intention was to use the facilities it already owned as much as possible, rather than to buy or demolish properties. In six months, progress would have been made and a fuller update could be given. The Leader said that the Council did not currently own a suitable property in the south west of the county, and so it would be looking at acquiring one. The Director of Land and Property added that the agenda of shared spaces with other public sector bodies created an opportunity for making efficiencies while improving working environments.

7.    Pointing out that it could be hard for a Member to become involved in housing in their division if they did not also sit on a district or borough council (as housing came under the district and borough remit), a Member requested that discussion was had with district and borough leaders on housing at local committee meetings. The Leader expressed an eagerness to engage with district and borough leaders on housing. There was concern about high streets in particular and how housing developments could affect the regeneration of high streets. An update to local committees on housing could be helpful so that they were aware of Members’ thoughts on this, but it was important that local committees were not given decision-making powers on housing, as this could lead to difficulties in governance due to the presence of non-county Members on local committees. The Member agreed that information sharing, consultation at a broad level, and discussing housing strategies of individual boroughs at local committees could be beneficial.

8.    A Member asked how the large number of projects within Land and Property were sorted through and prioritised. The Assistant Director – Corporate Landlord responded that the safety of buildings had been the immediate priority in the last year, followed by the provision of residential accommodation for children and adults, the condition of buildings, and factoring in the strategic priorities of the Council. Continuing service delivery during the Covid-19 pandemic had also been a priority. The next step was to ensure that Land and Property worked well with other Council services to fulfil their property needs.

9.    A Member questioned how the Council decided whether to use an asset for housing, income generation or disposal. Also, what was the process behind assessing housing opportunities? The Assistant Director – Commercial replied that there was an appraisal process run for each project, which generated the best option for the Council. For example, a major criterion for determining whether a building was sold might be whether a sale could provide a windfall gain or would require a significant amount of planning and resource. All projects were assessed on a broad basis before a decision was taken. The Director of Land and Property stated that the first consideration was service delivery.

10.  The Select Committee discussed the recommendations, particularly the recommendation on local committees. The recommendations were agreed, with the stipulation that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman might tweak the wording of the recommendations if deemed necessary.

Recommendations:

The Resources and Performance Select Committee recommends that:

1.    An update report be provided at its September or December 2021 meeting; and

2.    Local/Joint Committees have a standing property scrutiny item at their informal/private meetings, to ensure that councillors and the Council’s Land and Property service exchange information on local property projects, requirements and opportunities for development and disposals, to achieve the best outcomes for residents.

Actions/further information to be provided:

1.    The Director of Land and Property to ensure the list of properties for each Member’s division has been sent to all Members and to resend if necessary.