Agenda item

The Panel received a report which provided an update on the progress of the Strategic Asset Management and Property Improvement Plan 2023-28 and the associated action plans, set out in appendix one of the report, which captured the recommendations from previous internal and external audit reports. The report was introduced by Cllr Ruth Gordon, Cabinet Member for Council House Building, Placemaking and Local Economy as set out in the agenda pack at pages 139 to 202. Also present for this agenda item were David Joyce, Director of Housing and Placemaking; Jonathan Kirby, AD for Capital Projects and Property; Amanda Grosse, Head of Strategic Asset & Accommodation Management; and Sarah Lavery, Head of Property Change. The following arose during the discussion of this report:

1. The Panel queried whether the Council would be seeking to acquire additional property/assets, rather than divesting them, and also sought clarification about whether the Council would be seeking to acquire assets outside of Haringey. In response, the Cabinet Member gave the example of Pendarren House as an asset that Haringey had outside of the borough and explained that the reason for this was that it served a strategic objective of the Council.  The Council would acquire additional assets if in doing so it was serving a strategic objective. Examples of recent acquisitions were 46 homes at the Gourlay Triangle and the acquisition of property from Grainger on the Wards Corner site. Officers advised that the Council had to demonstrate a direct strategic link to its needs in order to acquire properties outside of the borough.
2. The Panel noted that the report set out that the value of the Council’s assets was £2.8 billion and queried how this compared with neighbouring authorities. In response, officers advised that this figure included everything, including school estates, not just the commercial portfolio. Officers agreed to come back with a written response to members about how the value of Haringey’s assets compared to neighbouring boroughs.  Officers suggested that Haringey had held on to a lot of stock, but that also came with challenges due to the age of some of the stock. (Action: Jonathan Kirby).
3. The Chair sought clarification about the scope of assets captured in the Plan and whether this related to the General Fund. In response, officers emphasised the fact that the plan set up a firm structure so that any decision on acquiring or divesting an asset would go through the governance structure set out in the report. Officers advised that the assets referred to everything that was non-residential and included any acquisition or disposal of assets regardless of the category of property. This excluded council housing tenancies.  
4. The Panel queried the use of flexible capital receipts, referring to paragraphs 7.2.4 & 7.2.5 of the report, which stated that the Council intended to continue with the current stipulation that capital money could only be used on a project that delivered cost reductions or transformation, after the government loosened the rules around this. The Panel commented that it would like to see capital receipts being used on capital projects, the example given was around building an additional floor on some the industrial units to generate more commercial income. In response, officers set out that the budgetary process determined how this money was spent and that it was ultimately the Section 151 officer who determined this. Officers clarified that there was a property review process which determined how capital receipts would be spent. Officers could submit a bid as part of the budgetary process and that this would be determined in the usual way.
5. The Panel sought assurances about whether the Capital Projects and Property service would be able to recruit staff with the requisite skill set, given challenges in the jobs markets and the fact that roles such as surveyors were highly sought after. In response, officers acknowledged that recruitment was a challenge, but that they had been able to recruit to a number of key posts. Officers advised that they were looking at bringing through more apprentices, growing their own staff, and use of acting-up opportunities. The Panel was advised that managers were working with HR to make the roles as attractive as possible, particularly in terms of flexible working arrangements. A number of different approaches were being taken to recruit the right skills within the team. However, the skills required did not always match up with salary expectations.
6. The Panel raised concerns about shops on estates and the fact that the shops were often neglected when estates were refurbished, as they were managed by a different part of the Council. In response, officers acknowledged that this had been a problem in the past, but that work was being done to make property and housing more joined up, so that offices and commercial spaces were picked up when refurbishment works took place. Officers advised that work was also underway to bring hard and soft facilities management together in one place.
7. A panel member raised an issue relating the Lindens, and the fact that the wardens office was not being renovated at the same time as the rest of the unit. In response, officers agreed to get a written response from colleagues. (Action: Jonathan Kirby).
8. The Chair sought clarification about what was meant by changing the shape of the property model long-term. In response, officers advised that this was about ensuring that the asset portfolio met the needs of the community and that it was fit for purpose. The example given was around large leisure centres that were purchased in the 1970s and the extent to which these still reflected the needs of residents, given people tended to use more outdoor space.  

RESOLVED

Noted