Sold in the Margins: How to Audit Council Asset Sales Before the Budget Vote

On 14 November 2026, many councils are no longer debating whether to sell public assets. They are deciding which ones, at what price, and how little attention the process can attract. The 2026/27 budget vote is close enough to discipline dissent and distant enough for disposals to be approved in the margins: a delegated decision here, a forward-plan entry there, a lot list circulated to a narrow group of bidders. The result is a quiet transfer of public wealth at the precise moment when scrutiny should be loudest.

This is not an argument against every sale. Some buildings are expensive to maintain and poor value to keep. But a fire sale is not defined by the fact of selling. It is defined by speed, opacity, and a failure to ask what the asset was worth to the community rather than merely what it can fetch before 31 March. Ratepayers need a ledger, not a press release.

The receipts are not the whole story

A council can sell a former library, a depot, a community centre, or a parcel of land and present the receipt as financial competence. The number that matters is not only the sale price. It is the sale price against book value, against independent valuation, against the cost of replacing the service elsewhere, and against the community value that never appears on a balance sheet.

Under section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972, councils generally need to obtain best consideration for disposals of land. That duty is not a formality. It should generate a paper trail: valuations, marketing evidence, comparison with prior offers, and an explanation of any departure. Where a sale is below best consideration, the council should be able to show the legal basis and any government consent. Where an asset is transferred to a community group, the terms should be transparent, including any clawback or restriction on future sale.

The audit question is therefore simple: what left the public estate, what did the public receive, and who decided?

Start with the disposal register

Ask for the council’s asset disposal register or schedule of land and property disposals. Not the glossy asset management plan alone. The register should list the site, the decision date, the decision-maker, the sale price or consideration, the book value, the valuation basis, the purchaser where publishable, and any conditions attached.

If no register exists, that is itself a finding. Submit a Freedom of Information request for:

• the forward plan of key decisions and any delegated decision records relating to property disposals since January 2024;
• cabinet reports, officer decision notices, and scrutiny reports mentioning asset sales;
• the current asset management plan and any disposal schedule appended to it;
• valuation reports and marketing particulars, with commercially sensitive material redacted only where the exemption genuinely applies;
• section 123 best consideration assessments and any consent letters;
• community asset transfer policies, applications, and outcomes;
• the register of Assets of Community Value and any Community Right to Bid moratorium notices under the Localism Act 2011.

Where the council holds environmental information, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 may also apply. Do not accept a blanket refusal. Ask for a schedule of withheld documents and the specific exemption or exception relied on.

Build the ledger

A spreadsheet is enough. Create one row per asset and columns for: asset name and address; service previously delivered; decision date; decision route; book value; independent valuation; sale price; purchaser type; community asset transfer status; restrictive covenants; overage or clawback; and scrutiny or call-in status.

Then test the outliers. A sale price far below book value needs an explanation. A disposal approved by a single officer under delegated powers needs a check against the constitution. A sale completed weeks before the budget vote needs a check against the forward plan. A purchaser with no local presence needs a check against the marketing evidence. A community group that expressed interest but never received the asset needs a check against the community asset transfer policy.

Do not let the council treat “commercial confidentiality” as a universal cloak. The public interest in knowing what public assets sold for before a budget vote is substantial. Redactions should be narrow and reasoned.

Test the community asset transfer claim

Councils often say they support community asset transfer. The test is whether the policy was applied before the asset was marketed, whether the community group had a realistic opportunity to bid, and whether the terms were fair. Ask for the timeline: when the asset was listed for disposal, when community groups were informed, when the Localism Act moratorium applied, and when the sale was agreed.

A genuine community asset transfer is not a consolation prize after the auction. It is a deliberate decision to protect a service and a site. If the policy exists only on the website, the ledger should say so.

Publish before the vote

Take the completed ledger to the scrutiny committee, the full council meeting, and the local press before the 2026/27 budget is sealed. Ask councillors to identify each asset in the register and confirm whether they saw the valuation and the disposal terms before delegating the decision. Ask whether the receipt has been built into the budget as a one-off windfall that masks a recurring gap.

Then publish the ledger yourself. A local ratepayer’s audit does not need to be perfect to be powerful. It needs to be specific, sourced, and dated. The fire sale thrives in the gap between a decision and a headline. Closing that gap is the work of campaigners before the vote, not after the auction.