|
West of Horsham Development
Management Report - Society's response to redacted
material
18 October 2009
Tom Crowley
Chief Executive
Horsham District Council
Park North
North Street
Horsham, RH12 1RL
Dear Tom
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Request for information – Land West of Horsham
I have been looking at the District Valuer's report
which you gave me on Friday. As a general point I
think it has probably been over redacted but I will
give that further consideration.
The reason for asking for the report was to see
whether the Council had sufficiently taken into
account the District Valuer's independent view in
coming to its recommendations regarding the heads of
terms with Berkeley Homes. In other words has the
Council got the best deal possible for the public
given all the circumstances?
On the face of it this does not seem to be so. The
District Valuer clearly says that he has taken a
pessimistic view of sales, included the full currently
understood S106 requirement, payments agreed to HDC/WSCC
and possible extra costs (sewerage works, Highways)
that could be faced by Berkeleys. He concludes that
the development value is sufficient to meet all these
and furthermore recommends a sales overage if revenue
on the private units exceeds an undisclosed cost. In
other words, he says that over the lifetime of the
development Berkeleys can afford everything asked of
them.
This judgement appears to contradict paragraph 2.4 of
the Council's report to the Development Management
Committee North of 16 June which suggests that were
S106 costs to be at the upper end of what was possible
it would "make the development unviable". This appears
to be the opposite of the District Valuer's view.
A great deal hangs on the amount of affordable housing
and the financial comparison between Berkeleys
original offer and the Council's counter proposal. The
redactions make it impossible to verify the Council's
implied claim that it has struck a good deal on this
account. If the final, redacted, paragraph of the
appropriate section of the District Valuer's report
contains his conclusion on this point then I would ask
for this to be reinstated.
Given the District Valuer's conclusions it appears
that the Council has struck a very bad deal. There was
no prima facie need to cap the S106 payments because
the DV had assumed in his worst case scenario that
they were affordable. Crystallising one party’s risks
in this way, coupled with a decision not to insist on
a clawback if revenue on the private units exceeded
the DV’s suggested threshold, represents a very
considerable potential benefit to the developer
(though of course how beneficial is unclear because of
the redactions). Given the terms of DV's report and
his conclusions, the Council had significant leverage
in its negotiations with Berkeleys and it is therefore
surprising that the Council did not come out of them
with a better deal for the taxpayer. It would be
interesting to know who the Council retained to advise
on this process.
Furthermore, unless I have misunderstood the
situation, it appears that the potential costs of the
easements referred to in the Council's report to
Cabinet of 3 September had already been factored in to
the DV's viability assessment. Thus, by making the
prior decision to cap Berkeleys' S106 costs, revenue
which would otherwise have come to the Council, and
which the DV has assessed as being affordable, has
been lost. One can only speculate whether had this
issue been understood at the time the Report of 16
June was considered the outcome would have been the
same.
I recognise the importance to the Council and
community of proceeding with this scheme. But it would
be implausible on this evidence to reach any other
conclusion but that the taxpayer has got a raw deal.
The Council could arguably have afforded to wait; the
other part of the scheme has a different developer who
might have been prepared to move ahead more quickly,
whereas Berkeleys is a house builder. Unless it is
building houses it is not making any money.
It may be that within the redacted material there is
evidence to show otherwise. If so I would ask you to
reconsider whether it would be in the public interest
to release it.
Otherwise, it may be that the only way in which it
will be possible to determine whether the Council has
acted wisely given all the evidence before it would be
to refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman
who would presumably have access to unredacted
material and case notes etc.
Your letter refers somewhat elliptically to copyright.
It is normal practice, certainly within Government, to
publish the material that is released under the FOI
Act. I assume therefore that there would be no
objection to us publishing it in due course on our
website.
Finally, I will not do anything further until you have
had a chance to consider these points. We are due to
meet on 10 November so we could discuss any points of
clarification then.
Yours sincerely
John Steele
Background information»
|
