Decision details

9.1 Katherine Nidd (SGM Commercial and Investment Delivery) introduced the report. The following key points were noted:

·         The Asset Management System (ASM) was a piece of software that was being developed in-house on SharePoint to keep a record of the Council’s non-housing asset portfolio and to enable effective management of those assets. At the last update for the Committee in March there had been some delay but had not been any further delays since.

·         The ASM was currently going through user acceptance training. The development of the facilities management aspects of the system had been left for the end of the process. After the user testing, formal training of staff in using the new system would take place.

·         Work had been done to validate information and improve the quality of information held on the register of assets. In July 2015, 396 non-housing assets were listed as ‘not classified’ – in June 2016, there were only 39 assets in the category ‘not classified’. There were also 13 more assets identified and added to the register.

9.2 Katherine Nidd, Freddie Murray (SGM Asset Strategy & Technical Support) and Janet Senior (Executive Director for Resources and Regeneration) responded to questions from the Committee. The following key points were noted:

·         A new member of staff had been recruited to work on the ASM system, and had been tasked with providing extensive notes for users of the system and notes about the back-end of the system for future staff. This knowledge was also being shared with the London Borough of Brent as part of the shared IT service.

·         The Council could think strategically about how to use its assets with the detailed information in the register of assets. An area-based approach is taken to determine how assets could be used, and the proposal is to involve Councillors as part of the initial work of reviewing several assets in a specific area for regeneration and development. This approach could be tried in for example the Lower Sydenham/Bell Green area.

·         The further identification of pieces of land in the ‘not classified’ category had now taken place. The Council already tried to involve ward councillors when developments happened, but the pilot would aim to improve this process.

9.3 The Committee made a number of comments. The following key points were noted:

·         Councillors might have knowledge about the ownership of pieces of land in their ward that Council officers do not have.

·         The Lewisham Culture & Urban Development Commission’s report from 2001 (item 11 on the agenda) had highlighted the need for “a holistic approach to planning which integrates land use, architecture and urban design with a sense of how this affects mental geography and people’s sense of place” (page 103 report).

·         Many people and organisations could be interested in plans for developments and regeneration, such as for example neighbourhood fora, housing providers, ward councillors and community organisations. The difficulty for the Council would be to have meaningful but contained engagement.

·         Ward assemblies could offer opportunities for collaboration for area-based regeneration.  

9.4 RESOLVED: that the report be noted, and that the Committee was pleased with the progress of work on the management of the Council’s assets.