Agenda item

6.1  Members were concerned that representatives from the voluntary sector should have the opportunity to express their views on this issue.  The chair, Councillor Gavin Edwards, confirmed that there would be subsequent sessions to allow for this.

6.2  Jeremy Pilgrim, the head of property, introduced the report.

6.3  Members of the committee highlighted areas of concern:

-  balancing consistency and fairness in rent setting against desire to support local business and community organisations

-  clarity of priorities

6.4  The head of property explained that a proportion of the council’s estate was geared up as its commercial portfolio and a proportion as its voluntary sector portfolio.  Most rents were reviewed every five years with open market rent geared to the market place.

6.5  Members asked how much communication there was across the council in respect of renting property to the voluntary sector.  They also asked the extent of transparency in respect of the level of rents.  The head of property indicated that there was close working with the community engagement team.  An overview of rent totals and rents per square foot was available but specific rents were seen as commercial information and therefore confidential.  In response to further questions, the head of property explained that council policy restricted the letting of premises to betting and money lending shops.  The letting of property was also reviewed in terms of the requirements of the local area.  Where the council did not own many properties, for instance on Rye Lane, it was restricted to trying to use its influence in planning terms.

6.6  Members were unclear as to the definition of the commercial and voluntary sector estates, for instance whether and how many properties were ear-marked for the voluntary sector.  They also challenged whether, once a contract was signed, the level of commercial rent needed to remain confidential.  Members felt it would be helpful to publicise rent levels.  They also asked whether churches were treated in a particular way.  The head of property explained that the voluntary portfolio had grown out of premises that could not be let commercially and included some offices that the council had moved out of.  Publicising of rents was a commercial rather than a legal issue.  Doreen Forrester-Brown, the director of legal services, offered to do a briefing note on this question.  The head of property clarified that letting of property to churches usually came down to a question of planning issues, for example around parking and noise.

6.7  In response to further questions, the head of property stated his view that there should not be a separate voluntary and community sector estate but that the current flexibility should be retained in order to be able to respond to the market.  He also informed the committee that properties tended to be re-let within three months.  In terms of disposals of properties, he considered this to be part and parcel of the council’s regeneration programmes but was keen to retain an income producing commercial estate and improve the stock in the council’s possession.  The council was achieving around a 6% return on its estate, most of which went into the Housing Revenue Account.

6.8  The chair proposed that a future meeting invite evidence from representatives of Community Action Southwark and from a representative body for churches in Southwark.  He also proposed that the committee receive the briefing paper from the director of legal services and a detailed breakdown of properties in both the commercial; and voluntary and community sector estates.