Chichester District Council
Agenda item

Agenda item

Public Question Time

The procedure for submitting public questions in writing no later than 12:00 on the day before the meetingis available upon request to Democratic Services (the contact details for which appear on the front page of this agenda).

Minutes:

A public question had been received from Mr A Hooper by the deadline of 12pm on the day before the meeting. Mr Hooper was present and stated his question to the committee as follows:

 

“The Council has decided to sell 2 The Gardens, College Lane, Chichester by auction. The auction is scheduled for the 22nd May 2018 as follows:

 

Bernard Marcus Auction 22 May Lot 43

Guide Price £210,000

 

As of today’s date, a week before the auction, no legal documents are available for potential buyers to review. There are statements that the buyer will have to make contributions to the seller and that these are in the legal pack.

 

No internal pictures are available of the property; No weekend viewing are available of the property; No ‘For Sale’ sign has be erected outside the property;

 

Without the legal pack, there is:

 

No time to review the legals;

No time for survey;

No time to arrange mortgage.

 

The auction guide price is £210,000

The Zoopla valuation is £408,000

 

How does the Council justify that this arrangement will generate best value for this property?

 

The property should be withdrawn from the May auction and re-entered with at least a month’s notice once legals are available. It is a complex site with regard to access and rights of way.

 

What is CDC’s policy for selling assets and why it has taken so long to advertise and arrange a legal pack for this property?

 

Auction is in London with no internet bidding.”

 

Mrs V McKay, Divisional Manager for Property & Growth and Mr N Bennett, Divisional Manager for Democratic Services, were in attendance to answer Mr Hooper’s questions.

 

Auctioneers had taken pictures of the property and weekend viewings had been facilitated on Saturday 12 May and again on the following Saturday 19 May. Possible further weekend viewings were being considered. A sales board was now to be erected as the query regarding the boundary had been resolved. Auctions were normally in major cities and there was a process to enable proxy votes. The Cabinet had approved the sale of this property via auction whereupon the background work had begun to enable officers to bring it to the market. Unlike other forms of property sales, an auction requires that all necessary legal work involved - confirming boundaries, rights of way, statutory searches and preparation of documentation – be carried out before the property is auctioned. The legal pack was now complete but had not yet been circulated. An RICS qualified valuer had valued the property and the guide price had been published by the auctioneer - a reserve price is not disclosed.

 

A property auction was acceptable as ‘best value’ as it opened the sale to a wider audience in order that many offers could be received at the same time. Auctioneers liaised with the council on the best way to achieve best value as it was in their interests to do so.

 

A decision had already been discussed by officers to postpone the auction from the May auction date to the June date.  

 

The committee made the following comments:

 

·         The processes were unsatisfactory and should be borne in mind for future auctions.

·         Queried the policy on disposal of land.

·         Queried the reason the property was declared surplus. 

 

Mr Bennett advised that auction of property was not a common district council process. The council’s legal and estates processes were efficient. This sale had involved complex and exceptional issues which resulted in delays.

 

The question had not been circulated to the committee due to the short period between receipt of the question and the meeting itself.

 

Mr Hooper declared that he was satisfied with the officers’ responses and of the outcome of this issue.

 

 

Top of page