A decision to sell off council-owned properties and put the proceeds towards a £20 million investment fund has been “called in” for scrutiny by councillors.
Brighton and Hove City Council’s cabinet agreed to sell various properties last month as part of a capital asset strategy. Some sites could be used for council housing.
But members of the council’s Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee have “called in” the cabinet decision for review.
Their reasons were “an absence of sufficient evidence on which to base a decision” and whether there was “sufficient consultation with stakeholders”.
Councillors will consider the cabinet decision in more detail at a special meeting on Monday 19 May amid concerns over excessive secrecy rather than just a proper level of commercial confidentiality.
The financial details of the report to the cabinet were contained in confidential papers.
Four of the properties were identified including the old Homewood College site, in Queensdown School Road, Brighton, after the school’s closure last November.
The other properties listed were an old school caretaker’s house, in Hangleton Way, Hove, an empty office, in Shenfield Way, Hollingdean, and a vacant cottage, in Stanmer Village.
At the cabinet meeting, Green councillor Pete West said that the council was planning to “sell off the family silver” without scrutiny.
He called for openness and transparency about the proposed £20 million investment fund and criticised the report to the council’s cabinet for identifying just four assets earmarked for sale.
Councillor West said: “This is clearly the thin end of what Labour plan to sell, with the rest hidden beneath the convenient guise of commercial sensitivity.
“We elected members of the council and the public are left to wonder what else is being lined up for privatisation (and) how far this might go.
“These are public assets. They do not belong to the Labour administration. They belong to the people of Brighton and Hove, held in trust by the council.”
The Labour deputy leader of the council Jacob Taylor presented the report to the cabinet and told Councillor West that he was happy to share the confidential papers with councillors.
Councillor Taylor said: “I reject totally the idea that we’re not transparent and open to scrutiny many times. I’ve taken a few things proactively to scrutiny committee.
“The papers will be shared with the Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee. I understand that committee may well call in the decision and if it is called in, I would welcome that.”
pay councillors less- what does the police commissioner do? pay them less.
could they not sell off land that is not being used to developers?
Not green land but grey empty warehouses so the drug gangs don’t use it – abandonded properties – 2,500 empty properties could be renovated by developers with apprenticship jobs-
charge more rent for council owned property. Confiscate drug gangs assets
Without loking it up please tell us how much you think a back bench councillor and the leader of the council gets paid
£18,000
The Leader gets a shed load
‘shed load’ isn’t a figure
Give a figure!
Good – it’s not up to a Labour council to sell off assets owned by the public instead because it’s easier than them challenging their Labour friends in Westminster about the damage continued austerity is having in the city.
These buildings are land are publicly owned and it’s wrong for councillors to simply sell them off as it’s an easy option to raise capital.
Hmm, I’d say it’s more multifaceted than that. I think you’re right that this council should be pushed to challenge central government; very clear data that shows councils have been having to do more with less.
In the meanwhile, some creative thinking about random investment properties being sold to create capital to potentially improving the crisis housing situation in Brighton seems reasonable to me.
And of course, scrutiny wanting to scrutinise is exactly what it should be doing too.
This happned when the Greens and Tories led the council.
The council can’t raise all it’s capital funding needs from grants and borrowing.
And remember borrowing also incurs annual interest payments which comes out of the council tax.
And also remember that this property also costs the council in rates and maintenance etc. If there is an esset that they aren’t using and there is no future use for it then surely it makes sense to dispose of it?
So many disused buildiñgs in Brighton such as large empty shops and banks. The area around the Old Stein has been empty for years after the bank closed so why not use that site and many others? Are they being left there to decay? Not a good look for Brighton especially so close to the Pavillion. Creative thinking needed here.
Those might not be owned by the council. Land banking is a common tactic.
Not every building in the city is owned by the council.
The private sector is also bad at managing its assets. But the council can’t force a property owner to develop their property.
The site next to the old Royal Bank of Scotland i(closed August 2023 so less than 2 years ago) s now been converted by the council into much needed housing – the creative thinking you appear to want in action!
https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2024/11/26/work-to-start-soon-on-homeless-flats-says-council/
They should have sold it on and with the capital earned out of the sale, use the money to build housing elsewhere. It doesn’t need to be in prime location. It won’t be long before it will look like a squat with blankets hanging in the windows and the buillding looking grubby. Why does Brighton and Hove council insist to keep persuing in trying to mix junkies and alcholics with thhe general public. Not a great look for Brighton right next to the iconic Pavilion.
Why would a bank build housing?
If the £20 million fund is to be used purely for making improvements to the Cities appearance, ie going towards Madeira terrace or the seafront lights I’m all for it.
The Leader gets a shed load.
Well we all know the Council Cabinet system was set up to abuse the democratic process .. Nor did it follow the Gunning Principles as legally required in its implementation so it is now time to demand its dissolution.
Stupid idea to sell the family silver anyway as selling assets is why this council is struggling for money. Back in the day when it owned half the city it had rent monies coming out of its ears.
Mike, that’s not quite accurate.
Brighton & Hove City Council’s shift to a cabinet system is a lawful governance model under the Local Government Act 2000, used by most councils across the UK. While you mention the Gunning Principles, these only apply when a public consultation is held, and there is no legal requirement to consult the public before changing governance models unless a legitimate expectation has been created, in this instance, that would be difficult to prove.
BHCC ran a public engagement consultation in March 2024, but it focused on improving resident participation under the new model, not on whether the model should be adopted. Therefore, under this interpretation, GP doesn’t apply.
As for the asset sales, it’s simplistic to blame financial struggles solely on that. Years of reduced central government funding, rising service demand, and specific projects like the i360 have all contributed.
We need to build council more housing full stop.
My daughter has been on a waiting list for over two years.
Agreed. I don’t think anyone would disagree with you there. The challenge is where, how, and with what money.