Capital Asset & Property Strategy

At last Thursdays Resources, Performance & Partnerships Overview and Scrutiny Committee (why such long names?), the major item of business was to note the contents of the Capital Asset & Property Strategy.

Being asked to note a report is a totally pointless exercise. The report had been through cabinet some time ago so there was no chance to change anything, so we duly noted it. I did however have some questions which I had submitted in advance in the vain hope of some meaningful answers.

The report talks about tying in with the financial strategy of ‘keeping Council tax as low as possible and below the rate of inflation’. The Tories have been trumpeting the fact that their proposed Council tax rise (2.81%) was below the rate of inflation. Of course even if this was the case when they set it (this is hotly debated), it clearly is not now. If the capital programme is meant to work within this framework then I don’t see that there can be much of a capital programme left. The officers present bravely stuck to the line that the aim was still to keep council tax below the rate of inflation. If we enter a period of deflation then we should all be getting refunds then!

My next question concerned the statement in the report that a ‘strong treasury management strategy would deliver the required prudential borrowing and enable the council to take advantage of opportunities offered by the market.’

We obviously have not had our fingers badly burnt enough if we still think that we can play the markets.

The next question concerned the property strategy. The Tories make a big fuss about protecting the Greenbelt, so you would expect the property strategy to align with this. The report says the following.

‘Although land values in Barnet are high, much of the Council’s portfolio cannot be developed for high value housing, either because of its location in the greenbelt, or through current usage as parks and schools.’

So far so good but here comes the interesting line.

‘Current usage and need may in time change however and future development of such sites is not impossible.’

I asked under what circumstances development would take place in as many different ways as I could but got the same answer every time, which was that it depends on the individual case. There are clearly no guarantees for protection of parks, open spaces and the greenbelt in this document.

The final ‘interesting’ part of the meeting happened when the officers were questioned about a line in the report that said that property was reviewed on a ward by ward basis on a rolling schedule. When asked if the committee could see the schedule there was a whispered conference between the two officers followed by a we will have to see if that’s allowed response. Can anyone suggest why Councillors should not have access to this schedule?