Sheffield Council denies wanting to sell off community buildings as it reviews sites

It comes as the council adopted a new policy “to build a sustainable and asset-based approach to community buildings” in the city but some raised concerns about the language of the report.

At a strategy and resources policy committee meeting yesterday (March 12), members discussed the council’s community buildings policy adoption and associated pilot project in the South Local Area Community area.

Also, a part of the proposal was a review of 22 housing revenue account-funded community buildings.

Sign up for our free newsletters now

At the end of the review, the findings of the pilot would shape the “revised” community buildings policy and the policy would be discussed in front of the committee members in the next 12 months.

A document published ahead of the meeting said Sheffield Council owns, manages or maintains around 4,000 properties across the city.

In 2022, the finance sub-committee agreed to set out a roadmap “to reduce the size of the estate, and to provide a more financially sustainable approach to the maintenance of the council’s buildings”.

The council, therefore, is aiming to introduce a clear strategy to deliver a sustainable approach to community buildings to “protect them” in the future.

As a result, the council sought to adopt an initial community buildings policy (incorporating a community asset transfer policy) which will be in place for a maximum of 12 months.

During that period, they can work with a number of existing voluntary, community and faith sector organisations who have requested community asset transfers in the short term and at the end of the process, a revised community buildings policy can be delivered.

However, some councillors were somewhat uneasy about the “language” of the report presented.

Coun Martin Smith (Dore and Totley, Liberal Democrats) said he had “concerns” as he said the paper was “heavily predicated on disposal” and added there was not a lot in there about how the assessment was going to be made.

He said: “One section talks about what we’re going to do with surplus buildings but it is not actually saying how we are going to check whether it’s surplus or not.”

Among a number of issues she raised, Coun Dianne Hurst (Richmond, Sheffield Community Councillors Group) asked what engagement had taken place with the use groups and what involvement elected members had in developing the list.

They were told that no decisions had been taken about the buildings listed in the appendixes – so no decision had been taken on any of the 22 housing revenue account-funded community buildings or the buildings on the community asset transfer list.

“What those lists are is a kind of priority in terms of this piece of work to decide what needs to take place with those buildings to get them into a sustainable position financially,” members were told.

Tom Smith from the council told Coun Hurst that those engagements would happen now to “understand” the usage of them and what’s going on with them.

In terms of potential closures of buildings, a review needs to take place first, members heard.

“We’re not assuming disposal,” Mr Smith said.

He reiterated that the aim was not to “get rid of all the council buildings” but to get them to – an already mentioned – sustainable financial position.

Coun Fran Belbin (Labour, Firth Park) said community asset transfers (and disposals) wouldn’t mean the council wouldn’t own buildings or it would be getting rid of buildings.

“Some of the way it has been portrayed is not accurate”, she added.

At the debate, Coun Angela Argenzio (The Green Party, Broomhill and Sharrow Vale) called for a fair process as in the past “it’s always been a bit ad-hoc” depending on the building (and the organisation).

However, she said the council should avoid scaremongering and if the report is worrying people, members need to make sure everyone knows they are not rushing to sell community buildings (or sell off community assets).

“Once the asset goes, especially if it goes to private hands, it’s gone,” she added.

Coun Penny Baker (Liberal Democrats, Stannington) agreed and she called for adding extra information to the report so people understand the council would sell off their community assets.

Mr Smith said the report didn’t even present the policy to dispose of any buildings the council owned.

He added the council had a disposal policy so if they wanted to get rid of buildings they could do so “today”.

Mr Smith said: “This is a community buildings policy and a community asset transfer policy associated with it that enable us to transfer assets to people who wish to take them on.

“It doesn’t change our disposal policy, at all.”

The recommendations were approved by a seven to five majority vote.