(a) Councillor Sashi Mylvaganam to move that
“this Council RESOLVES that
(i) concern about articles which have appeared in the national press in respect of the Council’s property investments which suggests possible multi-million pound valuation losses in the Council’s property investments in Camberley Town Centre be noted;
(ii) in order to protect the current and future financial interests of Surrey Heath Borough Council Taxpayers, Financial Officers, in conjunction with the Council’s Auditors, and/or other independent organisation, be asked, subject to budget approval, to produce a report, to be presented to the next Full Council Meeting, detailing the purchase costs of property purchased by the Council as investments for treasury management since January 2016, together with independently ratified valuations of those property investments as at the time of purchase and at end of the last financial year and a current valuation, as at the date of this Council meeting;
(iii) in the event that the valuations as at the end of the last financial year show an erosion of more than 25% of the purchase costs, or 50% of the current valuation, a further independent report be commissioned, subject to budget approval, from the Council’s Auditors or other qualified company or institution (in accordance with the Council’s Contract Standing Orders) into:
a) the strategic rationales behind each property investment made since January 2016;
b) the procedures followed in respect of each investment to ensure that all Council Standing Orders and protocols were adhered to correctly;
c) the amount paid for each property investment made since January 2016 to assess if proper value for money at the time of purchase was obtained for Borough Council Taxpayers in respect of each investment;
d) the actual and forecasted rental income, and all other critical financial aspects, to assess whether the full financial costs, risks and benefits were properly evaluated;
e) whether the most appropriate financial methods and mechanisms, for both the short and long term benefit of Council Taxpayers, were used to fund each property investment made since January 2016; and
f) Based upon a), b), c) and d). above, to produce recommendations in respect of procedures to be adopted in future property investments to ensure best practice is followed for the ongoing security and benefit of Council Taxpayers; and
(iv) Financial Officers, based upon the findings of the independent report(s), and taking further independent advice, as necessary, produce a Property Investment Strategy report in time for the 2021/22 Budget setting process, detailing options in respect of the future management and deployment of the Council’s property investments to ensure prudent financial management.”
(b) Councillor Rodney Bates to move that
“this Council RESOLVES to
(i) formally support the general principle of unitary authorities within local government and agree that any such unitary authority affecting Surrey Heath should be ideally around the region of 300,000 to 500,000 residents;
(ii) oppose the principle of a single unitary authority to cover Surrey on the grounds that such a unitary authority would be too big, too remote and not in the best interests of Surrey Heath residents;
(iii) instruct the Acting Chief Executive to formally open negotiations with neighbouring authorities (not just within Surrey) with a view to Surrey Heath forming part of a unitary authority;
(iv) confirm that it has no formal position or preferred option at this stage regarding the specific unitary grouping that it wishes to be part, but believes that all options must be thoroughly and positively reviewed and properly considered; this includes the establishment of a network of locally Parish/Town type Councils which could deal with localised issues, including certain planning functions;
(v) instruct the Acting Chief Executive to convene regular Group Leader meetings to update on the various options as they progress and to bring forward a report to Full Council once all options have been clearly worked through;
(vi) ask the Acting Chief Executive to send a copy of this motion to the Chief Executives and Leaders of all of Surrey Heath’s neighbouring authorities, other Surrey Boroughs, and Surrey County Council to inform them of the Council’s position.”
Minutes:
It was moved by Councillor Sashi Mylvaganam and seconded by Councillor Kristian Wrenn that
“this Council resolves that
(i) concern about articles which have appeared in the national press in respect of the Council’s property investments which suggests possible multi-million pound valuation losses in the Council’s property investments in Camberley Town Centre be noted;
(ii) in order to protect the current and future financial interests of Surrey Heath Borough Council Taxpayers Financial Officers, in conjunction with the Council’s Auditors, and/or other independent organisation, be asked, subject to budget approval, to produce a report, to be presented to the next Full Council Meeting, detailing the purchase costs of property purchased by the Council as investments for treasury management since January 2016, together with independently ratified valuations of those property investments as at the time of purchase and at end of the last financial year and a current valuation, as at the date of this Council meeting;
(iii) in the event that the valuations as at the end of the last financial year show an erosion of more than 25% of the purchase costs, or 50% of the current valuation, a further independent report be commissioned, subject to budget approval, from the Council’s Auditors or other qualified company or institution (in accordance with the Council’s Contract Standing Orders) into:
a) the strategic rationales behind each property investment made since January 2016.
b) the procedures followed in respect of each investment to ensure that all Council Standing Orders and protocols were adhered to correctly;
c) the amount paid for each property investment made since January 2016 to assess if proper value for money at the time of purchase was obtained for Borough Council Taxpayers in respect of each investment;
d) the actual and forecasted rental income, and all other critical financial aspects, to assess whether the full financial costs, risks and benefits were properly evaluated;
e) whether the most appropriate financial methods and mechanisms, for both the short and
f) long term benefit of Council Taxpayers, were used to fund each property investment made since January 2016; and
g) Based upon a), b), c) and d). above, to produce recommendations in respect of procedures to be adopted in future property investments to ensure best practice is followed for the ongoing security and benefit of Council Taxpayers; and
(iv) Financial Officers, based upon the findings of the independent report(s), and taking further independent advice, as necessary, produce a Property Investment Strategy report in time for the 2021/22 Budget setting process, detailing options in respect of the future management and deployment of the Council’s property investments to ensure prudent financial management.”
It was noted that, although the Mall Shopping Centre, Camberley, now known as the SQ, had been acquired primarily for the purposes of regeneration rather than purely investment purposes, this acquisition would be considered within the scope of the motion.
The Executive Head of Finance advised Members that the cost of the work proposed in the motion would be outside the existing budget and, if Members were minded to agree to this investigation, the Council would need to agree a budget for this work.
The Council was informed that the Performance & Finance Scrutiny Committee had agreed to dedicate its meeting on 9 September 2020 to the scrutiny of the Council’s property investments and this might be a more appropriate forum for this matter. In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12 (e), it was moved by Councillor Rodney Bates and seconded by Councillor Alan McClafferty that the motion be referred to the Performance & Finance Scrutiny Committee to discuss in more detail. This procedural motion was put to the vote and carried.
RESOLVED that the matters identified in the motion be referred to the Performance and Finance Scrutiny Committee for consideration.