Political View: Transparency with council property disposals is essential

Nowhere is this more evident than in decisions about the disposal of public property. Civic buildings, community halls, libraries and parcels of public land are not abstract assets on a balance sheet. They are the physical inheritance of local communities, often acquired through public investment over generations. When councils decide to sell them, the public has a right to know not only what is being sold, but why, how, and to whose benefit.

Too often, property disposals are framed as financial necessities, tucked away in committee papers that are heavily redacted, or released too late for meaningful scrutiny. Commercial confidentiality is frequently invoked, sometimes legitimately, but often as a reflex. The result is a democratic deficit: residents learn that a town hall, depot, or green space has been sold only after contracts are signed and bulldozers appear.

This lack of openness matters because public property disposals have long-term consequences. Once a civic building is sold into private hands, it is rarely recovered. A short-term capital receipt can close a budget gap for a year or two, but the loss of a community asset may shape local life for decades. Decisions of this magnitude should not be made behind closed doors or reduced to a narrow calculation of “best consideration” in purely monetary terms.

Transparency should mean more than publishing a final decision. It should involve early disclosure of proposals, clear explanations of the options considered, and honest assessments of social value alongside financial return. If a council is disposing of a library or community centre, residents should be able to see whether alternative uses were explored, whether community ownership was considered, and why one bidder was preferred over another. Scrutiny committees and the public alike need access to enough information to challenge assumptions, not just rubber-stamp outcomes.

There is also an issue of trust.

Local government already operates in a climate of financial strain and public scepticism. When property disposals appear rushed, poorly explained, or linked to well-connected developers, and special interest groups, suspicion grows—even where no wrongdoing exists. Transparency is therefore protective as well as principled. Open processes published valuations (where possible), and clear audit trails reduce the risk of real or perceived impropriety.

Importantly, transparency does not preclude efficiency. Councils can balance commercial sensitivity with democratic accountability by setting clear criteria in advance, reporting decisions in accessible language, and engaging communities early. The argument that openness slows down decision-making is weak when weighed against the irreversible nature of selling public assets.

In the end, public property belongs to the public. Local authorities act as stewards, not owners. Treating disposals as purely managerial acts undermines that stewardship. If councils want to maintain legitimacy and public confidence, transparency in public property disposals must be the rule, not the exception.

Returning controversial decisions for further scrutiny is a useful mechanism to ensure the process is exercised and is surely the way to ensure a local authority is seen to be acting fairly in the best interests of all communities and interests.

We saw that in our own City this week with a ‘call in’ to the Council’s Sustainable Future City Scrutiny Committee on Monday. A constructive meeting heard well-reasoned points of view from several speakers representing opposing positions on the disposal of the New England Complex. The outcome of passionate debate concluded that the proposed sale should be returned to Cabinet to ‘review the process and decision, and determine there will be no disposal until affected tenants have found alternative premises, or are able to retain their tenure, within a timescale of 6 months’.