DISPOSAL PROGRAMMES LESSONS Lessons from commissioning and implementing a live disposals programme

Kathryn Hurlock

Kathryn is Vice Chair of ACES Eastern Branch.

Kathryn outlines her experiences for implementing a disposals programme. She has been working on this programme for 3 years, and shares lessons she has learnt. “The central lesson from implementing a live disposals programme is that success depends less on identifying individual assets and more on commissioning the conditions in which delivery can happen effectively.” 

From strategy to implementation 

Across local government, the strategic case for estate rationalisation is well established. Authorities are under increasing pressure to align assets to service need, reduce liability, and generate capital receipts where appropriate. The challenge is not simply identifying assets for disposal, but commissioning and implementing a programme capable of delivering those outcomes in a controlled and measurable way. 

A live disposals programme has highlighted a number of lessons about what is required to move from strategic intent to effective implementation. 

1. Establish the programme as a corporate change initiative, not a property exercise 

One of the earliest and most important steps is to position disposals correctly within the organisation. 

A disposals programme should not be framed as a series of individual property transactions. It is a corporate programme that supports wider organisational objectives, including estate rationalisation, service alignment, liability reduction and capital delivery. 

Positioning the programme in this way creates a clearer mandate for implementation and helps secure engagement beyond the property function, particularly from finance, legal, procurement and corporate leadership. 

2. Commission a clear strategic basis for disposal 

Implementation is significantly stronger when there is clarity at the outset about why assets are entering the programme. 

This requires an agreed strategic framework that defines the triggers for disposal. These may include:

• assets no longer required for service delivery 

• assets generating disproportionate maintenance or management liability 

• assets that are misaligned with future estate requirements 

• assets capable of releasing capital to support corporate priorities. 

By commissioning this clarity upfront, authorities can move away from reactive decision-making and towards a more transparent and defensible approach. 

3. Design governance to enable implementation 

Governance is often discussed after a programme has started. In practice, it needs to be commissioned as part of the implementation model from the beginning. 

A strategic property board or equivalent governance forum can play a critical role in reviewing assets before they enter formal decision-making routes, testing alignment with corporate priorities, and maintaining oversight of programme progress. 

Equally important is the relationship between governance and constitutional arrangements. Approval pathways, delegations and reporting thresholds need to support delivery. Where they do not, implementation becomes slower, less predictable and more resource intensive. 

A key lesson is that governance should not simply provide assurance; it should actively support pace, prioritisation and accountability. 

4. Commission the delivery model before accelerating the pipeline 

There can be pressure to move quickly once a disposal pipeline has been identified. However, successful implementation depends on taking sufficient time upfront to design the delivery model. 

This means understanding: 

• the composition of the portfolio 

• the complexity of likely disposals 

• the appropriate routes to market 

• the internal resource model required 

• the external support that will need to be procured. 

This early implementation work is often undervalued, but it is fundamental. Without it, programmes risk entering the market without the structure needed to sustain delivery. 

5. Build the programme around multi-disciplinary support 

A live disposals programme cannot be implemented through property resource alone. 

An effective model requires coordinated support across legal, procurement, finance and specialist technical disciplines. This support should not be left to informal or reactive engagement. It should be commissioned as part of the programme architecture. 

This includes: 

• legal support for title review, contracts and negotiations 

• procurement support for the compliant appointment of advisors 

• planning, valuation and technical consultancy input where required 

• access to development and viability expertise for more complex opportunities. 

Implementation improves considerably where these disciplines are aligned from the outset around a shared programme structure. 

6. Procure external support as a delivery enabler, not a transactional add-on 

A further lesson is the importance of being deliberate about external support. 

Too often, agency costs are treated as the main consideration. In practice, the wider consultancy and advisory ecosystem is central to programme delivery. For example: 

• independent valuation advice may be required to support Section 123 considerations 

• planning input may be needed through pre-application advice or supporting statements 

• technical surveys may be necessary to de-risk assets and inform value 

• specialist market advice may shape the most appropriate disposal route. 

Similarly, the agency model should reflect the needs of the programme rather than default to a single arrangement. There is value in: 

• using auctions where assets are straightforward and speed is a priority 

• commissioning multiple agents where conflicts of interest may arise 

• combining local agency intelligence with national market reach. 

This is not simply about outsourcing activity. It is about commissioning the right expertise to support implementation. 

7. Align route to market with asset type 

Implementation is stronger when route-to-market decisions are made strategically rather than uniformly. 

Different asset types require different approaches. Straightforward disposals may lend themselves to auction. More complex or development-led sites may justify a tender process or a more structured marketing exercise. 

The lesson here is that route to market should be an outcome of programme design and due diligence, not an assumption applied across the pipeline. 

8. Use early due diligence to improve delivery confidence 

Early due diligence is one of the most important commissioning decisions within a disposals programme. 

Where title, planning, access, technical constraints or abnormal costs are not understood early, they tend to emerge later as delay, reduced bidder confidence or weakened value outcomes. 

Commissioning due diligence upfront improves implementation by: 

• clarifying risk earlier 

• informing the correct route to market 

• improving the quality of reporting and decision-making 

• increasing market confidence in the disposal process. 

In this respect, due diligence is not simply preparatory work; it is part of the core delivery infrastructure. 

9. Forecast realistically and manage capacity openly 

Implementation is often constrained less by ambition than by capacity. 

A live programme requires realistic assumptions about: 

• internal professional resource 

• the volume of assets that can be progressed at one time 

• dependencies on legal, governance and procurement activity 

• the continued need to maintain business-as-usual services. 

Forecasting should therefore be grounded in delivery capacity, not just financial aspiration. This is particularly important where capital receipts are a corporate requirement, as unrealistic forecasting can place pressure on the programme to bring forward assets before they are ready. 

10. Use reporting and metrics to maintain performance discipline 

A commissioned programme needs a clear performance framework. 

Governance becomes significantly more effective when reporting is structured around implementation metrics rather than narrative updates alone. This allows senior officers and Members to understand whether the programme is progressing as intended and where intervention may be required. 

Useful measures include: 

• actual versus forecast capital receipts 

• percentage of programme assets with completed due diligence 

• percentage of programme assets with the required approvals in place 

• status tracking by stage of the disposal process 

• variance between planned and actual progression milestones. 

Used well, these metrics do more than monitor delivery. They help focus attention, surface blockages early, and create a more disciplined implementation culture. 

Conclusion 

The central lesson from implementing a live disposals programme is that success depends less on identifying individual assets and more on commissioning the conditions in which delivery can happen effectively. 

That means setting a clear strategic basis, designing governance around pace and accountability, commissioning the right internal and external support, and using reporting and metrics to maintain implementation discipline. 

In that sense, disposals should be understood not simply as a transactional workstream, but as a commissioned corporate programme requiring structure, leadership and active performance management.