URL: https://cds.sevenoaks.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=394&J=1

Decision Maker: Scrutiny Committee

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting explaining that the decisions taken by Cabinet on 21 April 2026, relating to the Community Asset Transfers (CAT) had been called in by five cross party Members. Members were reminded that the purpose of the meeting was no to re-debate the item but to address matters relating to the decision.   The Chairman invited one of the signatories to address the Committee. In doing so, Members were advised that the decision had been called-in on two grounds.  Firstly, that the decision was not taken in line with the Council’s Policy Framework, specifically the Disposals Policy (2025-2030); and secondly that the decision was not taken in accordance with the Constitutional decision-making principles.   In response the Portfolio Holder advised that the CAT process was working and since its introduction, 14 assets had been agreed for transfer, along with one disposal. 7 requests were rejected as they did not comply with the adopted policy. Cabinet had considered the advice of the Finance and Investment Advisory Committee and the policy before reaching their decision.   Members were reminded that the CAT was discretionary and due consideration had been given to the operational need of the Council and the financial resilience of assets for income for the Council or strategic for any successor council. All assets had been assessed through the Policy, by Officers who had made recommendations. Appendix A in the Cabinet report set out the professional advice from the Property, Finance and Legal teams and Members had the opportunity to ask any further questions if required. In the Portfolio Holder’s view, he confirmed that Cabinet acted within the openness and clarity of the reports and appendices where the appropriate tests had been applied.   The Committee asked further questions, with a particular reference to Hollybush recreation ground and the information used to make the decision as it was unclear where regeneration including plans for housing were coming from. It was further questioned that if this was crucial evidence for the decision where was the evidence detailed.   The Leader advised that regarding Hollybush the discussion in Cabinet included improvements to the site’s leisure offer, which were being considered. He confirmed that previous ideas for the site in 2021had not come to fruition and no member decision had been made.   The Corporate Director for Communities, Place and Economy advised that Hollybush Recreation Ground was classed as a strategic site because of its vital role in current and future leisure and recreational provisions. The designation of strategic did not mean that the site was earmarked for development for housing , and was currently protected through its public open space designation within the Council’s current local plan and emerging local plan.  The site was also essential for ongoing operational use. The Strategic Head of Commercial and Property advised that as set out within the documentation, the transfer of Hollybush would result in the removal of a strategic fixed asset, therefore the loss of both existing and future revenue streams. Retention of the assets would allow the council to unlock future income through, for example, lease renewals. As well as being mindful of the financial position of a successor authority, the assets were still considered to be strategically operational and income-producing and thus should not be transferred as set out within Appendix A and D which were presented to both FIAC and Cabinet.   The Leader further added that the Minute reference from FIAC was provided to Cabinet for their consideration of the FIAC meeting. He also highlighted that he was a member of the FIAC and the Cabinet regularly were kept up to date with progress of CAT through briefings, and the Committee process as well as the detail provided in Appendices A and D.   Further questions of clarification were raised and in response it was clarified that the policy was clear in terms of application in assessing CAT and income generation.  It was confirmed that there was an income generation stream from the site. Asset optimisation was referred to in the papers and it was considered that the current layout of Hollybush needed to be enhanced and improved for access for residents and users. No decision had been taken, but the site needed to be looked at holistically and there were some initial concepts in terms of how it was improved and enhanced.   Members moved into debating the options for resolution.   Some members expressed that it would be important for Cabinet to reconsider their decision based on new evidence. It was confirmed that no new evidence had been presented, and the information provided during the course of the meeting had already been provided to FIAC and Cabinet through the reports. Members discussed the reasons for the call-in. Through the Chair, Member were advised that the Disposals policy was not set out in the Council’s Policy Framework as per Appendix F of the Constitution. Some Members voiced that that they believed the evidence needed to be more transparent in terms of the requirements set out within the policy for the public. Members were advised that all the relevant information as per the policy had been provided to Cabinet.   Further in debate it was suggested that further external legal and audit advice should be sought. It was further explained that the committee papers detailed the options, appraisals and evaluation and all the information required as per the policy to present to Members for their consideration. Officers were also reliant on the information provided by the requesting organisation. Appendix A and D of the FIAC and Cabinet report presented the information, as well as Appendix B in terms of evaluation advice. Each assessment included a financial assessment which had been reviewed by the Finance Team and was in the main body of the reports.   It was moved from the Chair that no further action be taken, and the decision be implemented.   The motion was put to the vote, and it was   Resolved: That no further action, and the decision be implemented.  

Date of Decision: May 5, 2026