Transcript

And we have some additional members joining us today and also we have some guests to help us with our inquiry and welcome to everybody. First off, I just wanted to make sure that we start recording the session so that it can be viewed later online. And the first item I got is apologies, which I know we receive from Cheryl Philpott, comes to Cheryl Philpott that is, and they also understand one of the contributors who was due to come with us this afternoon. Rosemary Harvard Jones, she can't make it this afternoon now but we have a written submission from her and a colleague also is here as well. So if I can just go on to item two, disclosures of interest. Any disclosures of interest out there. Okay, thank you. And what I just have to remind you is there's a prohibition of what votes on a scrutiny panel. So just a reminder of that minutes of the previous meeting if we want to have a look at those. And we'll go through them page by page. Okay, so, a quick look. If anybody wants to raise any points of accuracy on page one. And then on page two, people happy with those being a true and accurate record of the meeting. And if you'd like to, but that's a proposal from Council Jeffrey, you'd like to second that. And second by Councilor Locke. Okay, thank you. Just moving on then to section five, which is public questions. We haven't received any formal public questions today, but we do have members of the public who are with us for the panel discussion to help inform this inquiry. And if I can then go into section six, which is the stakeholders consultation, which is about the public elected counselors and community councils. We've written out his own inquiry to number of different bodies and also asked via the council website and other mediums for feedback and ideas about the community asset transfer process. And I'm happy to say that we've had a number of responses and some of the people involved in those responses are here. And I hope we're going to join us also online later. So I think what we would probably do is as a members of already received copies of each of the responses. I thought, well, I'd introduce some of those people responded. Pick out some of the main issues and they give them a chance to tell us what their thing that they would like us to take away as the main that main issue that they've raised that we can put in to our considerations for recommendations to the wider council. So, as we have Adrian Lester from Swansea co housing in the room with us. Welcome Adrian. If you need to speak, all you need to do is press the little hand button as well. So, we've had a read through the submission, which came from your colleagues and we welcome that. And we noted as well in the submission about the process happens in other councils. And on the back of that submission, we also added in that our desktop research which will come later, the Southampton example, and the spirit of that. I just thought this might be an opportunity for you to say a little bit about your thoughts and maybe to give us a sort of a takeaway, something that you think that we should, as a group, take away and bring forward, what's your main thing that you think that should be improved. Okay, thank you. Fantastic. I'm really I think the sort of overarching thing in our response was looking at the tone, the, the general attitude of different councils towards community asset transfer, and some being much more proactive in that sense than Swansea and seeing much wider benefits. And if there was going to be one take home, I think it would be on those, those wider benefits and it's not just about the value of the asset. It's about the long term value that services provided through that asset can provide the long term value that that asset if it's a built asset being maintained in good condition can provide. And the long term savings to the council from not having to maintain that built asset after it's being transferred. So they're probably the key strands that go significantly beyond the sort of immediate and realization of market value. And I think that needs to be built into the thinking so that rather than being restrictive about the conditions under which a transfer might take place. Actually, it's, it's more of a process of seeing the potential benefits and then verifying those benefits. Look realizable. And starting from that positive mindset that the other councils seem to. And thank you. Has anybody got any questions they would like to ask Mr Lester directly about the submission. I've got a couple of things I can pick up. Is there anybody out there. Any on the line. Council Holly. That's fair. And as I said, I suppose your submission is quite interesting reading it about the way you use the comment on your comment this afternoon with regards to how how do you assess the long term benefit and what benefit you would receive from that asset transfer. The, the problem as I see it and we're discussing it is how do you measure that measure that long term benefit. And I think that's something it's part of the reason that this inquiry and power needs to look at benefits of asset transfer and what would you consider to be long term as opposed to what we might consider to be long term because I, I don't feel in that, you know, a council's. A civic, civic time is probably around about four or five years between the election. So it's, it's difficult for us to give them the legal problems that exist with committee transferred to actually do one within that period of time for the one to the better term. So it'd be interesting to hear what you have to say about what you consider to be long term sustainability and benefit. I mean, in fairness, the sort of the electoral cycle of five four five years is at the bottom end of that, that spectrum not necessarily completely outside it but but definitely at the low end. I think there are, there are benefits to be realized in that time scale. It depends on the particular project that that's in question and the particular asset. When I wrote the response and consulted with my colleagues, we were all thinking more in this sort of 20 years time scale than the, than the five. There's a wider picture about sound financial planning in government, both local and national and actually needing to think of beyond short term electoral cycles. I would hope actually that in Swansea, where we've got a party holding the council with a significant majority and therefore a fair likelihood of continuing to do so. But that sort of thinking might be in play. If I may come back to the problem, the problem with that is quite simply the financial cycle as well, and how the council will adopt to his financial cycle, given the the pressures that it has it, you know, for the last 20, 25 years, you know, we nearly always have to save money. And we nearly nearly always have that financial constraint. So to give the, to give that benefit of 20 years, you need to have a financial plan of money being received by the local authority to last that period of time, which is very, very unlikely. So I appreciate what you say, and I understand what you say, but I think the problem with it is how we as counselors and how the council actually determine that length of period that we can have that. If you like that benefit gain or over community transfer. If I can come back in on that, I mean, if we flip this on its head. If the council is genuinely constrained in terms of the length of time over which it is able to recognize a benefit, then actually putting that in black and white in the policy would be immensely helpful to those organizations applying for a community asset transfer. Because we know what we were working with in that first instance. I think there's a very good idea and something that needs to be considered by this panel. I think I think that's a good point to pick up. One of the things that struck me about your submission, and also your references as well to Southampton was the capacity that you felt the community had to run services which weren't necessarily council services, but from former council property. And I thought that was quite a strength for what you were trying to say that there was something in asset transfer, which wasn't only about protecting services in the original formats or buildings in the original formats, but something new and different. And I wondered if you had any particular ideas that you thought Swansea should be looking to entertain, given your housing background. Yeah, so that again this ties in almost to the previous point is that it's about the open mindedness of the way these things are looked at. And the existing Swansea policy seems very much to be asset transfer is a way to carry on the service in the place without the council having to pay for the service. And for other councils in Southampton's one example I cited a couple of others as well. Really look to it as a way of providing a service in an asset, which is available so taking the housing example. I mean we're looking to provide essentially affordable housing and perpetuity through community land trust. And the buildings in which that's done do not have to be. You know, previous housing, they could be previous office space, they could be previous industrial space, they could be previous derelict buildings that were housing or something else many years ago. And by doing so again, we come back to where we just were in terms of the long term benefit. That that means that housing burden on the council is then reduced in time going forward housing. You know, I cite that because it's what we're looking at, but it's, it's one example. I can imagine a number of other sorts of organizations that might be providing various social type services and needing premises from which to do so that community asset transfer could provide the right, the right assets in the right locations. As somebody considering or potentially considering community asset transfer, what support would be desirable from the council to take you through that process. I think, again, I'm aware we're not necessarily the most typical example because we've got people on our board with a policy background. You know, we've got architects and developers on our board so people who are perhaps more used to the processes. From our point of view, having clear guidance, which stated those conditions and constraints from the outset, but also gave a reasonable idea of how to make the case and was open to the to the concept in the first place would be the first stage. It would also be immensely helpful to have known points of contact within the council. People cut a contact about particular assets that we'd identified and were interested in. And again, we've got some of those contacts, but we didn't have in our early days and other organizations, I'm sure don't. And we'll feel immediately lost when sort of confronting the system. So yeah, contact ability, clarity of documentation, clarity of requirements. And possibly case studies, example submissions, those sorts of things, but I say possibly because unless very much going down the line of a different existing council, it's difficult to do that stuff until a new system's been spun up for a while. But as these things get developed, then actually providing that and maybe even an element of mentoring from other organizations, which have done this before to people hoping to do it, I can imagine would be very helpful. I think those are two really interesting points you made about case studies and mentoring, maybe from external organizations who come through the process, rather than necessarily through the council itself, because capacity is always going to be an issue faced by the council. Does anybody have any other questions or points I'd like to raise with Mr Lester. I can't see any there, but thank you, Adrian, it was been really useful because the points you've made there are some of the things that we've come across in other areas as well during our discussion so far. So we would certainly look in our considerations when we pull together what we recommend to the council, some of the key things, this case studies ideas, the mentoring ideas, the point of contact, which I know is quite a frequent thing that's come out, and also the clarity of it. There is a different spirit isn't there in the in the Southampton example than many others that I've looked at, which is, you know, it's a positive engagement of, rather than seeing a service continue seeing a new opportunity. In that sense. Something I touched on in our submission that I just wanted to flag there's been at least one site and I don't want to name sites given that this is going to be made public but there's been at least one site that we had the potential to be involved in, which was adversely affected politically by council activity around a different nearby site, which actually we could also have been interested in. And really, that was to an extent predictable these these were going to be controversial they were obviously controversial places. And I would urge the council when you have an asset that you know has the potential to be controversial in its disposal. Go out and talk to community organizations first, you're not committing yourself to anything, but it may provide a route to actually dispose of that asset, which in both the cases I'm thinking about the council is still responsible for looking after. To dispose of that asset in an expedient manner with a positive community outcome, rather than both ending up stuck with it and because of the form of proposal or consultation that's taken place, ending up with such a community backlash that no one else can do anything with it either. Thank you. The next person that we have I think it's just online with us now is Councilor Matthew Bailey, who gave us a very useful submission recently with 10 key points that he wanted us to takeaways ranging from consultation to the process of support. And what I wanted to do with you, Councilor if, because I can see you online there. I wondered if, because we've already a submission and thank you for bringing that forward. If you could give us the main takeaway the main thing you feel could improve the community asset process. It's one thing. Thank you Jeff first of all apologies for coming in later technical issues trying to get online. I'll try and keep it brief so I've been involved in a couple of community asset transfer, both directly and indirectly, but just try to be as forthcoming as possible to give so not just the issues but how we can overcome those so you've probably covered these already. But for example, the first one would be to have a single point of contact for asset transfers. You probably established this already and I think that was both previously said it would be good to have a names conducted in the authority. We have had a single point of contact, but quite often that person has other things in their portfolio and I know what the cost is and financial pressures come into it, but it would be really good just to have one person whose sole job is coming to asset transfers and they've got nothing else within their portfolio. The second point that raised raised was to have a transfer process for technology asset transfer. Seeing the documents that were sent up prior to this meeting I think you've already got really good examples from other local authorities so I think that that ball is already moving so don't need to sort of labour in that point any more than I need to. I've said that I think there really should be a minimum threshold for community consultation, so quite often I think what's important to a small group of people isn't always important to the wider community so I think when we're using the community asset we're going to change the use of community asset or somebody else is going to take it over I think there has to be some level of consultation with the wider community what that looks like I'm not quite sure, but trying to get a cross section of the community I think is really important. One of the issues I had when we were looking to take on a community asset transfer is trying to get detailed costumes. One of the big issues is the authority for example if we're going to take over a park. The authority doesn't really have split down costumes as to how much it costs to cut the grass in that park. How much it costs to do the weed management in that park how much the insurance is for that particular play area because the authority tends to sort of group these in the large payments so they have an insurance for the whole council. So it would be really good if a group would take over a particular asset that the council could work with our community group to try and help them get an idea of how much it's going to cost you know they're not experts. The council does have that expertise that they could sort of lend out to help them develop some sort of business plan just to make sure that their idea is feasible. But then is legal queries I think legal queries in general, whatever you are in the world take forever. But again just having a single point of contact not just for the community asset transfers but having a single point of contact just for the legal side of things that can also slow things down and sometimes you wait in months for a simple answer. So a single point of contact for legal queries would really be useful. And the other thing I've said is that with regards to finances. I know everybody sort of when they shake on a Q&A transfer they come to the council and they say we're taking this off you we're going to save your x amount can you give us this money upfront and people want that that bowl of money to get going. Naturally there's a risk with the council doing that they could give that group the money either the council hasn't got the money or they give the group the money and that group can go bust or they could cease to exist. Barely soon after. I think it would be really good if the council could consider you marking how much it would cost to run that community asset transfer if the council didn't hand it over. So for example if that asset transfer cost the council £10,000 per year to run the council could give that group that's taken over that asset £30,000. So three years worth of cost since, but they only give that £30,000 after three years of that group successfully running that asset. So it's what the council would have paid anyway, but they're paying it in retrospect if that makes sense. So that could help the group as well financially and that probably might bring some other people to the table to take on more assets as well so it lessens the risk for the council and lessens the risk for that group as well. And I think that more or less sums up, yeah, just looking at what incentive that more or less sums up on some of the things I think they could be done to make the asset transfer process a lot better as well. Thank you. That's really useful and it sort of compounds on what you've said in your written submission as well. You spoke about almost like a minimum level of consultation being important, and I definitely think that's something that we need to look at. And one of the things that I read in your submission, correct me if I'm wrong, is that there were a number of people interested in the same assets. And it was the process by which that there was clarity about that, because I think at the time it was a community council, and also another third sector organization were both interested in having the same asset. But can you tell us a little bit about how you felt that went. Yeah, it was just, I think the Community Council at the time I was a Community Council at the time we just sort of found out by accident that there was another group also having discussions were taken over a local play area. And we had a really good case to put forwards and both had lots to offer. It's just for a couple of months we had two groups sort of go in different directions. When there could have been a tied in approach we could have come together and work together from the start. And I think that could have ended a lot of issues if we'd boosted it from the beginning. That could have just been miscommunication cross ties. Perhaps that's a single point of contact in the authority. If we had that moving forwards, that might help as well. So if two groups are going to the same person, they could say, hold on. There's actually other interest in this asset as well. Why don't you look working together from the start. As it happens, I think they tried that, but it was too far down the line and they sort of diverged too much at that point. So it couldn't happen. Thank you. Wearing the sort of community council at the. Do you feel that community councils where there's an asset looking to be transferred should be almost like a guaranteed console team, somebody that should always be told about what's going on. Definitely. I think the benefit with the community council is that they are elected. They're publicly accountable. If people are on top of something, they can go directly to a community council to hold them to account for their actions. And they are. They are one of the closest levels to democracy. So. Yeah, I think they should definitely be a statutory consultant in any process for us. Thank you. Has anybody else got a point or things that I'd like to raise with council by Lee. Thank you. I found your response really comprehensive and really useful. And hopefully we can take some of those points forward and have a look at how we can adopt them into future policy and procedure of how we look at community asset transfer. Thanks. Thanks. There are a number of other people who I've got listed here who have a given response. One of which was Rosary Hubbard Jones, who's also a member of the public, who's a colleague at code housing, but she was also talking about a number of other areas and one of the key points in their absence. So and raises about consultation, making sure that there is a basic level of consultation for any community asset transfer. And I think that's quite a common theme that keeps coming back. There were also submissions from Council Chris Evans. And from Council Joe Hill and Joe, Joe, you're there. I think both of your consultation responses were reasonably similar. Would you like to speak to us about what your, your main points are that. I think that's that's why I was going to come in earlier with your first speaker. He raised the issue of, there being not any public consultation, but there was quite a problematic transfer that they didn't want to all they, they didn't eventually become involved in. And I'm just wondering where I mean, we as Councillors and that the authority as a whole is only custodians of the assets of our state. So I'm just wondering where public opinion does lie. And I did give a good example of public toilets being shut. And this is this is an under this administration. This has been going on for years. And I'm just wondering why we get to a position where public utilities seem to be fair game to be sold off. So I presume to raise some sort of revenue. And I'm not led by public opinion, but at the same time, when you get to an age where you might need a public facility. It's a little bit annoying, isn't it? To see that something's been turned into some sort of coffee hub or, I don't know, but which doesn't provide a toilet facility. And that's sort of thing. I'm just wondering where the officers sit in, in, do they take any notice of public opinion. Did I take notice of the fact that maybe so a group of people want to take over a park. But three quarters of the local population don't want the park to be taken over. So what we're doing about our open spaces. So I'm just wondering where that sits in how that decision comes to fruition. Thanks, Council. I agree. It's about the consultation stage, really, isn't it? Making sure that this is something the whole community or the majority of the community can support it comes through the Welsh government guidance on community asset transfer. The full community should be engaged in and benefit from potentially. And I think that's a key question for the panel. How do we look at getting some sort of a minimum version of consultation. And who's responsible for that consultation taking place. So, for example, if it is the person wishing for the community asset transfer to take place, what checks and balances do we make sure as a council. That's representative of people's opinions in the local area because we can all find some form of consultation or suit us. And that's, that's a really key key thing. I know there are lots of issues where that may well be the case around the city where people are asking those kinds of questions about what place does the general public have its say as it were. So, just to pick up from what you were saying as well, Joe is that I think very similar ethic was put forward by Councillor Chris Evans who I can't see online at the moment in his email. He saw us as custodians of the public state and where possible not to be looking at community asset transfer. I think it would be a fair summary of his views. And I think we had similar views from maybe some of the other panel members who are with us today. They were concerned that we were looking to do asset transfer to save money, rather than thinking of what's in the long term interests of the general public in provision of a service or a facility. I mean, can I just come in there? Only because I suppose I've seen some, but some community assets that when something really quite radical has been suggested as in maybe a training centre or something to help within the community. That's been turned down. And then it's been sold off. So, you know, I'm all in favour of something or anything that will help communities. So, why would we then set about not looking to use that asset alternatively within the community, but we're very keen to get rid of it. I mean, that's that's part of the checks and balances, I suppose. But that does none of us are any good. And as I've said, we're custodians of these, these, these assets. They're not ours. I feel sometimes that people in local authority feel like it's theirs. And it's not this these assets are public assets. Thanks. Thank you, Joe. Can't Holly. Yeah, I can't agree with some of what George just said and and and Matthew, I think there's two issues that struck out there is what what is the role of the local authority when it comes to community asset. And what is the minimum provision or the minimum acceptable community involvement that he would accept? It's in the old in the city in the totality of the city, you've got a number of community councils, you've got town councils will have you. So there is, as Matthew said, an acceptable responsibility under the under those community asset community councils, etc, which you haven't got within within the city boundary so within certain parts of the city anyway. I think there's an issue then about how you engage with the community. But I think those two quite important issues and issues that when we compile our final report, we need to take them into consideration. Thank you, Chris, I tend to agree with you as well. I know that both Council Jones and Council Fitzgerald also put in some submissions as a part of the inquiry, would either of you like to raise any extra points at the stage. Thank you, Chair. Yes. I mean, I just submitted the submission to point out that, you know, there are parts of swans where community assets have always been held by the community council. And certainly that is a case in Pennsylvania. And, you know, there have been, I think, a number of successes. We have delivered a sports field. We've delivered a pavilion and all run by the community council, the village hall, a problematical building, because it is an old building, an old school building is managed and maintained by the community council. There is one comment I would make. And I think I briefly mentioned it in my submission. As it can be transferred to the Council, and I'll illustrate by mentioning Pennsylvania pond, which was transferred to the friends about 20 odd years ago, and they have successfully brought it back to life. They cleared the dump vehicles, they planted, they've landscaped. It is a lovely facility, appreciated by many who use it and fish there and use it for other recreational purposes. What has happened now is that, once a council have approved a housing development, and the rough of surface water from this development has been allowed by the planning process to carry it down quite a lengthy slope into the pond. So there are huge pollution issues that are ongoing, and there are seemingly no solutions to at the moment. So it's just to flag up that, you know, an asset can be transferred, but then the council itself agrees to certain changes that then impact. Usually negatively on that asset. So I think it's something we need to be aware of. It's fine transferring that asset, but there can be assets that could certainly be adversely affected by further decisions that the council take along the line. So that's all I want to say chair. Thank you. I find that that's very interesting because the impact of council's decisions on transfer ease in the future, and their form of being able to address any issues. That's got to be something that we look at in terms of any agreements for transfer going forward. And the example you gave there Wendy's obviously the council has made a subsequent decision that's negatively affected how the transfer is going to go about their business or look after the standard of the thing that they're taking over. And is an example in itself, but I'm sure that could be parallel to lots of different scenarios with buildings with other pieces of ground, how the council made decisions around the asset they transferred. So I definitely think that's something that we need to factor into our considerations going forward. Does anybody else have any other issues that they would like to raise the submissions that they put forward? I just come back responding in part to something was said and touching a bit on our submission, an area I didn't talk about. We heard a few times there the word custodianship, and I quite agree, the council should be the custodians of these public assets. The problem is, in quite a lot of cases, these public assets under council ownership are falling into their election. On some of the malicious buildings that's actually a legal duty to maintain. And I quite understand I'm not criticizing the council, I quite understand the reasons for this, which are resource constraints. But actually community asset transfer can provide a means to get out of that problem, to avoid the legal issues of the listed building falling down if that's what's going on, and to ensure that the asset remains in both good condition and community use. We're not necessarily talking here about assets which are currently providing benefit to the council. We're talking in a number of cases about empty and decaying assets, which could be given a better future through asset transfer. Thank you. We also had another submission from Council Mike Dirk, who I don't think can join us today online. I just wanted to summarize a few of the points. It's been circulated with the papers, but Mike was saying about the success of communities being able to take on assets or be able to run assets in their community. And he gave an example of Phoenix Center and a transformational impact, he believed it had on the community in town Hill. Now, he also went on to tell us about how those assets can generate and we almost give a community regeneration to an area and support wider aims than the asset themselves because you talked about dealing with crime. We're giving people the opportunities for work, dealing with sort of social cohesion and a number of other issues. It's worth reading the chapter of the research paper that he put together, which gives a good potted history really of what's happened at the Phoenix Center. And the trust that was developed from it. And I think he was really sort of underlying what he was saying, he was trying to show the positive potential of community run assets, even though in the sense that maybe the Phoenix Center example is not a traditional community asset, because it was something was funded directly by government funding and using council land, and probably preceded when community asset transfer was in existence. But I'm sure he was here, he would be saying how strongly he agreed with that. Is anybody got any other points that they would like to raise in this section before we move on to looking at the examples from other authorities. Just a general general point being sort of a new counselor I hope I'm not speaking out to turn here but it's been a quite a steep learning curve, or we've been in in the post for two years. And until I attended this session here I had very little or sort of no idea as to what community asset transfer was. So, but I did read the city and county is policy, and I did feel that that could do with a bit of an upgrade because there's some terminology in there that I would probably need some clarification on. And then, you know, considering the others that I looked at the Southampton and Bristol ones that were there. I mean, from those examples they're outside. I could see that the policies I felt it was sort of more user friendly and accessible to somebody wishing to take on a community. And, and others, of course, and, and, and to consider a cat with a possibility of. Well, the possibilities are clearly outlining what needs to be done to affect the smooth transfer on a course and to sort of ensure a degree of sustainability. And so the cat is a challenge, and the more help and advice that you get, I mean, surely must be a good thing. And what I'm leading on to here is I feel that I don't know whether I'm alone in this but I'm sure. With some idea as to what a cat is. I'm sure an appropriate degree, or I would say levels of training could be, could be devised so that they could bring, well, councils like myself up to speed with what's with what we've been basically what we've been discussing here this evening, you know. Well, like I said earlier, how do you know how do I not attended this these sessions I would have had a little idea as to what it is and I feel, you know, the more knowledge that we could have as counselors. Could really be a good thing you know I feel we need some kind of toolkit to prepare ourselves for the time when I'm sure we're going to be asked, and to become involved in, in, in, in a community, I said transfer. I think that would be really useful as local members to know that, because obviously one of the first people that anybody interested in comes to is tends to be their local members and their local counselors. So anything that could help in terms of briefing or at least a schematic of how it works so that people could sort of be aware that that I think would be really useful. The other things that I thought would be a good opportunity before we move completely on from this is, does the cabinet member or any of the officers, any want to say anything at this stage or, or would like to make any contributions. I couldn't see any hands there so thank you everyone if we move on to item seven, which is the desk space research. We've already circulated the paper involved there, and you'll see that. Thank you to Michelle as well for pulling through the examples and I've put in one as well. We started off in the paper looking itself Hampton as one of the examples that we wanted to do, as much because it was suggested to us and having read it it also made good sense. The rather than sort of rehearse what's already in the papers that you've seen, I thought the key areas were the spirit of the policy, which was different perhaps from from ours and most of the ones I could see in Wales. And they were very good, in my mind, looking at the risks of community asset transfer, they spelt them out quite clearly in their policy or things that we needed to look at. And it was quite clear eligibility criteria, it seemed quite user friendly and easy to read. I don't know if anybody else had any comments that they wanted to make on the self Hampton example. We can't see anything there. Okay, so in terms of the Bristol example. Yeah, I think this was quite interesting and as much as the way it spoke about risk more than anything else, and the fact that who is involved. And I think that's something we need to understand, it's who's involved and what the risks are. And in many cases, I'm afraid that we do not take that into consideration. And the other one is the time scales as well. I think that's that's an important area and one thing, which I forgot to mention, which I also when reading through the policy for was the assessment criteria. So there was a clear idea from the beginning of how you're going to be assessed and what you would need to do to be successful, because it kind of helped format what somebody would see in a business plan or an approach to asset transfer. The next one we had was Bristol City Council. And they had some quite easy to navigate websites and pages and information there. And there's a good is picking up the point that was made earlier is some good case studies on their site. So people could have a look and see how it'd been successful and what the process was for other people. I don't know if anybody has anything they particularly want to comment on Bristol. But I think it's worth looking at. And the next one is quite an interesting example because it's Gates head and Gates head. Did a bit of survey work about the community asset transfers that had taken place. And what they learned from them. And if you can see the key sort of takeaway comments where we've learned to get political buy in and a lot of what we've said earlier today in discussions were making sure counselors community councils, the local public, a ball on side. And they said that not all community asset transfers should be nil rental, which is quite an interesting concept as well, because often community asset transfers are on popcorn rents or various things. And it could be that it's still feasible to put a stronger rent in for certain properties. And I think that's something to look at the level of support is key. And that keeps coming through. And I'm particularly interested the idea of a mental support, because if we couldn't necessarily do that within the council because of resources. And also it may also be more suitable sometimes to have an external person to talk you through the process as well. They hand their buildings over very carefully. It's what they said. And hopefully we would do the same thing here and I'm sure we do. And, and the interesting point they say we're not going anywhere. So once the transfer happens, they're going to keep in contact and I know that at the last meeting. We all recognize the value of the support that's given from the cultural services department in terms of community centers. And the support, you know, the support that's given there, I know resources are again a key thing, but as a recommendation, resources can be available. I would suggest if we could have a similar support system, maybe not as as intense, but for people who have had the community asset transfer take place. Understanding the running costs. That was a key thing. I think council Bailey raised earlier as well. Understanding the cost involved in it and getting around the everyday barriers, you know, due to, you know, due to care due diligence in running the building, those kinds of things, which we talked about previously. Is anybody got anything they'd like to raise regards to Gates head. Okay, well I'm for it to down the road down the m4 Cardiff council has a toolkit that they put together for community asset transfer. And it's, you know, it's already your organization ready to step up. So it's worth having a look at that and then Michelle and I looked at some other examples, which you've got the bottom of particular asset transfers. So I think it's good to have a look around it. It's not to say that those things happening elsewhere are better. They're different, and they're worth considering to see if they are improvements to our model and what we could do. Has anybody got any of your examples or things that they think we should be considering in terms of research before. So we take the next steps. Yeah, I'm going to do a bit of research myself on big Bob movers in Liverpool, because the Liverpool model on asset transfer was based on an idea that was set up by helping people move in council houses. And then from that day to repair center and the council handed over to this organization warehouse is the stock. Furniture and they then started to repair furniture. So it all started off on that that and it's, I'm going to look to see whether it's still in operation. If it is, I'll drop Michelle a line and show what it is. The, the other aspect of this, which I got in red through them, the one that strike struck me as she was the candidate again on the pool. I thought that was a really good option to put into a charitable status and to run the pool, which is something which I think is the way forward when it comes to swimming pools, because the cost of running up. That is an interesting example. One of the other things that hasn't come up that I saw in some of the other policies is the idea of trying to look at small term licenses, a bit like our yellow licenses with community centers. I mean, I know we've discussed that before in terms of the problems that provides for gaining funding, because they usually want a security tenure over a period of time. But I think it's quite interesting to see what other people have tried to do in those areas as well. Has anybody got any other points they would like to raise? Let's see any other hands up at the moment. Okay, so if I can move on then to item eight, an item eight then is for the meeting. It's on the 17th of June, and this is when we have a stakeholder discussion. Just to update the panel. We've invited representatives from Coig Willem from Mumblescape Park, Pennland AFC, Swansea Tennis Center and Underhill Park. And we have got some responses of three of those already confirmed that they will be hoping to attend, either in person or online. And I think we'll have a roundtable discussion then, and we can be able to get out some sort of ideas of the experience. If there's anybody who's missing from that list, who you think we should be looking to engage or involved in it, please do, and there are other transfers that are happening out there, some of which have been more difficult. So we were aware of those, but unfortunately, some of them we can't invite a meeting due to some legal status of certain situations. But I think we can probably in a closed session future to discuss some of the items that have come up from those as well. Okay, so is there anything else that people wanted to raise on the next meeting's agenda. Okay, then, I just want to take this opportunity to thank our guests, especially thank Mr Lester for coming along on behalf of this wanted to go house in, and Council Bailey for his submission as well and joining us for the meeting today. And for everybody's contributions and council hail and as well for for being actively involved in in that if there is any other examples or any bits of information that we haven't yet heard, and that people want to share with us, then please do. And I look forward to seeing you all on the 17th half past four of June, and thank you very much, one for attending.