Guidance on personal and personal prejudicial interests is attached to these agenda pages.

Councillor McCready attended to ask a question (minute xx refers).  Councillor McCready declared a personal prejudicial interest in the subject of the meeting (minute xx refers) because he lived in a property on the Sunnymead estate that was subject to a covenant in favour of the Council (Section 11 of Appendix 3 to the report refers).  After Councillor McCready asked his question and received a reply he left the meeting and took no further part in it.

Members of the public may, if the Board Member agrees, ask a question of the Board Member on any item for decision on this agenda (other than on the minutes).  The full text of any question must be notified to the Head of Law and Governance by no later than 9.30 am two clear working days before the meeting.  Questions by the public will be taken as read and, at the Board Member’s discretion, responded to either orally or in writing at the meeting.  No supplementary question or questioning will be permitted.

The total time permitted for this item will be 15 minutes.

Mr Mark Pitt submitted a question to the Board Member which, although received after the deadline for public questions, the Board Member agreed to take.  Mr Pitt did not attend the meeting.  Mr Pitt’s question, in summary, concerned the retention of ownership and safeguarding of the barn at Bury Knowle Park (and other assets, for example Cheney Barn) that may be of community use either by the Council or, if disposed of, by the acquiring organisation. 

The Board Member replied by saying that Mr Pitt’s comments would be considered when all comments as a result of the consultation were considered.

City Councillors may, at the Board Member’s discretion, ask a question or address the Board Member on an item for decision on the agenda (other than on the minutes).  The full text of any question and the nature of any address must be notified to the Head of Law and Governance by no later than 9.30 am two clear working days before the meeting.  Questions by councillors will be taken as read and, at the Board Member’s discretion, responded to either orally or in writing at the meeting.  No supplementary question or questioning will be permitted.  If an address is made, the Board member will either respond or have regard to the points raised in reaching her or his decision.  If the address is by the Chair of a Scrutiny Committee or her or his nominee then the Board member will be required to say as part of their decision whether they accept the Scrutiny recommendations made.

Councillor McCready asked a question of the Board Member concerning covenants imposed by the Council.  He referred in this regard to Section 11 of Appendix 3 to the Plan and to recommendation 16 of the Scrutiny Panel’s recommendations.  Councillor McCready elaborated on his question but, as submitted, it read as follows:-

"Recommendation 16 of the Value and Performance Scrutiny Committee's panel on the Asset Management Plan 2011-14 proposes that the City's enforcement of covenants should be proportional.  Do you consider that it would make the policy clearer if it stated to what the enforcement should be proportional, such that paragraph 11.2 of appendix 3 read: In relation to covenants the Council has imposed, it will enforce such covenants where it is reasonable to do so, and, where the Council grants a release or partial release from a covenant, it will charge a reasonable payment proportionate to the administrative burden of issuing the release and proportionate to any injury the Council may suffer to its legitimate interests as a result of actions made permissible by the release.“ “

The Board Member replied by saying that he had some sympathy for Councillor McCready’s points and that they would be considered when all comments as a result of the consultation were considered.

Councillor McCready then left the meeting.

This report presents a draft Asset Management Plan for 2011-2014 for consultation and recommends its release for that purpose.  A report from the Value and Performance Scrutiny Committee and from Councillors Fooks and Van Nooijen on behalf of the Scrutiny Committee are also attached and the Single Member must have regard to the views of Scrutiny in reaching a decision on the Plan.

The Head of Corporate Assets submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended).  The Value and Performance Scrutiny Committee also submitted a report and so did Councillors Fooks and Van Nooijen who, as a panel had considered the Asset Management consultation draft in detail.

Resolved:-

(1)      To approve the Asset Management Consultation draft 2011-14 for consultation subject to the typographical corrections and other matters set out in paragraph 19 of the scrutiny panel’s report:

(2)      Not to agree the recommendation in paragraph 1 of the scrutiny panel’s report because the retrospective discussion of previous years achievements was not felt to affect clarity;

(3)      To defer consideration of the scrutiny panel’s remaining recommendations and to consider them with all other comments after the consultation period had ended, and to note that the two panel members would meet with the Head of Corporate Assets to go through the recommendations;

(4)      On the Scrutiny Committee’s recommendations:-

(a)    That recommendation 1 be agreed and the change be made to the consultation draft before it was issued for consultation;

(b)   On recommendation 2, that during the consultation period the Head of Corporate Assets should consider appropriate targets;

(5)      To note that the consultation period would last about three months.