Agenda and minutes

Councillor Steve Battlemuch – work commitments

Ross Brown, Corporate Director for Finance and Resources - unwell

In relation to agenda item 6 (Remainder of the School Capital Maintenance Grant Allocation 2022-23), in the interests of transparency Councillor Angela Kandola stated that she is a Governor at Claremont Primary School.

Minutes of the meeting held on 21 March 2023, for confirmation

The Board confirmed the minutes of the meeting held on 21 March 2023 as a correct record and they were signed by the Chair.

Report of the Portfolio Holder with responsibility for property

The Leader of the Council presented the report recommending the disposal of a number of assets for sale in line with the adopted Disposals Policy.

Resolved to

(1)  make the freehold of the Fairham Development Site available for disposal on terms to be agreed and to note that the property (comprising the former Fairham School and Summerwood Day Centre) have already been declared surplus;

(2)  declare the property known as the Crocus Place Development Site surplus to requirements noting no alternative operational, regeneration or community uses having been identified and make the freehold available for disposal on terms to be agreed;

(3)  make the freehold of the property known as the former John Carroll Leisure Centre available for disposal on terms to be agreed noting that the property has already been declared surplus;

(4)  delegate authority to the Corporate Director for Growth & City Development to declare the car park adjacent to the former John Carroll Leisure Centre on Denman Street Centre surplus to Council requirements and/or to include into the disposal boundary, in the event that it is declared surplus to operational requirements by Parking Fleet and Transport;

(5)  declare the property known as 30 Woolpack Lane, Nottingham, surplus to requirements noting no alternative operational, regeneration or community uses having been identified and make the freehold available for disposal on terms to be agreed;

(6)  delegate the Method of Sale approval to the Director of Economic Development & Property;

(7)  delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Growth & City Development to agree any future revisions to the method of sale and to agree the future terms of sale, including price;

(8)  delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Growth and City Development to agree costs in respect of any actions that may be appropriate in maximising the capital receipt for the subject sales;

(9)  pay disposal costs equating to 1.5% of the disposal price as detailed in the exempt appendices;

(10)delegate authority to the Director of Economic Development & Property to approve the appointment of any sales agent(s) or any other required consultant via a procurement compliant process (tender/framework/quotation) to facilitate the disposal;

(11)note that the receipt will be held as a corporate capital receipt and used in accordance with the Capital strategy.

Reasons for decision:

·  Disposal will generate significant capital receipts which can be used by the Council as considered appropriate. It will also mitigate potential future risks arising from lease events such as break options and lease expiries and will remove any potential risk of downward shifts in the rental/capital performance of the asset. Disposal will also remove any costs associated with voids/reletting/holding the asset and refurbishment which the Council as Landlord would need to cover. 

·  Property Specific reasons are contained in the exempt appendix for each asset.

Other options considered:

·  Not to implement the recommendations set out in the report. This option has been rejected as the assets are surplus to the Council’s ongoing operational or strategic requirements and holding them would cause a revenue pressure. The timely disposal of the assets will generate a capital receipt which can be used as considered appropriate by the Section 151 Officer.

Report of the Portfolio Holder with responsibility for children’s safeguarding

The Portfolio Holder for Children, Young People and Education presented the report including Nottingham City Safeguarding Children Partnership’s Annual Report covering the period from 1st April 2021 to 31st March 2022. It highlights the key strands of work, how they have developed since the previous report as well as plans moving forward.

Resolved to note the annual report

Report of the Portfolio Holder with responsibility for schools

The Portfolio Holder for Children, Young People and Education presented the report allocating the remaining £1,329,416 from the annual capital maintenance grant allocation from the Department for Education (DfE) for 2022-23, for new schemes.

The schemes that have been identified for funding allocations have been prioritised using the draft strategy document that is being used prior to the full development of the Council’s Asset Management Strategy.

Resolved to

(1)  approve the seven schemes shown below, prioritised using the draft strategy document.

(2)  approve a Contingency of £179,416 and delegate authority to the Corporate Director for People to approve and authorize how the contingency is allocated;

(3)  authorise the procurement of any necessary contracts to carry out the programme of schemes using the 2022-23 funding and delegate authority to the Corporate Director for People to award any procured contracts;

(4)  approve a payment of up to £300,000 from the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) Lifecycle Reserve fund to Rosehill Special School to undertake condition and maintenance works to the school buildings;

(5)  approve a payment of up to £500,000 from the BSF Lifecycle Reserve fund to Ellis Guilford Academy to undertake condition and maintenance works to the school buildings.

Reasons for decision:

·  The prioritisation of the school capital maintenance grant is based on technical advice and a review of the condition of the Nottingham City schools estate. The process is articulated in the appended Business Case (Appendix B) and the draft strategy document which is being used until the Corporate Asset Management plan is fully developed. There are two areas where funding is prioritised:

o  Health and safety issues likely to impact on children and staff to ensure the safeguarding of the pupils within the school site, ensuring buildings are structurally sound and can be safely evacuated in the event of an emergency; and

o  Condition issues likely to impact on the operation of the school, to ensure that school buildings are warm and dry to negate the potential of schools closing and loss of learning for the pupils.

·  The programme of works is prioritised in line with the draft Capital Maintenance Strategy for Schools.  This will be reviewed and reflect the priorities that are in the overarching Corporate Asset Management Plan that is currently being developed as part of the wider Corporate Landlord role.

·  The grant for 2022-23 was £2,679,416, initial approval was given in June 2022 for five high priority schemes to the value of £1.350 million. This report seeks approval for the remaining £1,329,416 of the grant and includes seven schemes.

·  Delegating authority to the Corporate Director for People to approve and authorise how the Health and Safety contingency is allocated will ensure a timely response to any urgent issues that arise. 

·  Both Rosehill Special School (maintained) and Ellis Guilford School (Academy) were part of the BSF programme and were significantly remodelled and refurbished under the programme.  As part of the programme, there was an agreement with the Department for Education (DfE) that a lifecycle fund would be held for 25 years to pay for maintenance issues in that time period. Both projects completed over 10 years ago and it is becoming necessary to spend money on the maintenance of the buildings to keep them in the original condition.

Other options considered:

·  To combine the remainder of the 2022-23 Schools’ Capital Maintenance Grant with Basic Need funding and the SEND capital funding to address the shortfall of SEND capacity and secondary places across the city. This option was rejected as it would leave schools at risk of temporary closure due to health and safety or condition issues. It could also mean that school buildings continue to deteriorate and may be subject to forced closure whilst emergency repairs are carried out.

·  To do nothing with regard to the Rosehill and Ellis Guilford Schools: this option has been rejected as whilst this would retain the funding within the lifecycle reserve, it would not support the maintenance of the schools as a positive environment for education and learning.

To consider excluding the public from the meeting during consideration of the remaining items in accordance with Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, under Schedule 12A, Part 1, Paragraphs 3 and 5, on the basis that, having regard to all the circumstances, the public interest in maintaining an exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information

The Board resolved to exclude the public from the meeting during consideration of the remaining item in accordance with Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, under Schedule 12A, Part 1, Paragraphs 3 and 5, on the basis that, having regard to all the circumstances, the public interest in maintaining an exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information

The Leader of the Council presented the exempt appendices to the report which the Board noted.