Issue - meetings

Local authority investment in commerical property - National Audit Office report

Meeting: 06/07/2020 - Scrutiny Committee (Item 9)

9 Local authority investment in commerical property - National Audit Office report pdf icon PDF 109 KB

To receive the ‘Local authority investment in commercial property – National Audit Office’ report.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chair welcomed Councillor Caton, who had sat on the Scrutiny Committee in the previous municipal year and had worked on the matter of Local Authority investments, to present the report.

 

CouncillorCaton said he had asked the Committee to look into the National Audit Office report that had been published in February for three reasons: to ensure that Members were aware of any forthcoming changes on national policy in regard to Local Authority investments; to consider the need to audit the Council’s processes to ensure they were robust enough, and; to ensure that all Members were aware that Uttlesford was an outlier in terms of investments. He said 66% of UDC investments were outside of the district, with 34% in the area. The national split was 49% within a Local Authority and 51% outside. He said the Council could not be complacent and said such a significant divergence to the national average warranted an investigation.

 

As the Director – Finance and Corporate Services was not present to answer questions, Councillor Caton  asked for the item to be deferred for further discussion until the next meeting.

 

The Committee agreed.

 

The meeting ended at 10.30pm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Public Speaking – 6 July 2020

 

Councillor Richard Pavitt

 

I have really struggled to understand this document. Something I learnt long ago is that if people don’t understand what you’re saying, then it is either too complex or you’re a bad communicator. 

 

One of the criticisms of the last plan process was that it did not consult the community early enough or sufficiently. Did they even understand when they could or ought to contribute? 

 

Last time, the term “community” was skewed towards landowners and developers. They were consulted from the outset and in continuing detail, but Parish and town councils were a grudging also ran.

 

In effect, our communities – the people who live here - were told where the housing was to go and asked what colour curtains they would like.

 

Last time the plan was reactive. It reacted to a housing target, it reacted to a call for sites, it reacted to Govt’s desire for garden communities. There was little done to harness creative and pro-active thinking from our communities. 

 

I don’t see anything in these papers that reassures me this will not happen again. 

 

The LGA consultants report at 2.4 says: 

 

Public value can be created, for example, by engaging communities in making a plan that is evidence led, puts infrastructure before new homes, provides homes that are affordable for local people and built in locations evidence shows are most sustainable.

 

I would argue that engaging communities is more and lot earlier than reg 18 consultation.

 

This administration has said it will do things differently. I am concerned that it may get dragged back into the conventional thinking that applied last time, that the public are a bunch of nuisance nimbies best avoided unless contact is absolutely necessary.

 

I appreciate that this document is intended to layout a governance structure rather than  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9