|
West of Horsham Development
Management Report - HDC's reply
23 November 2009
Dear John
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Request for Information - Land West of Horsham
Thank you for your letter of 18 October. As agreed at
our recent meeting, I am writing to confirm the
Council’s position.
As you noted at our meeting, it is unlikely that we
will agree on the question of whether the deal was the
best that could have been achieved. I will explain the
context within which we made the decision and I hope
that those who read this will understand that whilst
this was a tough call, it was nevertheless the right
judgement in the very difficult circumstances we were
facing.
We commissioned the District Valuer to undertake a
critique of the financial model supplied by the
developer. This was to help test the cost and
valuation assumptions that had been made and was one
factor in the consideration the Council had to make
about the future of the scheme. The District Valuer
provides advice based on his opinions and knowledge of
the market. Ultimately, however, the decision on
whether a development is viable is for the developer.
As you know, we have to take a much broader view of
development proposals of this nature which go beyond
the merits of the proposal itself. As the local
planning authority, we are required to ensure a
sufficient supply of housing land to meet the levels
of development set through regional and local planning
processes. If we fail to do so, the consequences are
far reaching. We already have difficulties with land
supply which will be made much worse if West Horsham
falters. If that happens, we will see less favourable
sites being granted permission, including through the
appeals process. That would mean a loss of influence
and control over design and the provision of
infrastructure.
In considering the West Horsham scheme in June,
therefore, we were not only looking at the District
Valuer's advice. We had to weigh up the prospects of
the developer abandoning the scheme and the impact of
such an outcome. In addition, Members were alive to
the fact that a major benefit of the scheme is the
delivery of a highway solution that was favoured by
the local communities over the alternative that had
been promoted at an earlier stage. This in itself will
add substantially to the cost of the development.
Much of the debate at the time and since has centred
on the amount of affordable housing that can be
secured. In some quarters it seems there is a belief
that the District Valuer’s report demonstrated that
the 40% target was achievable. As you know, this was
not the case. He supported the Council’s
counter-proposal for a package of affordable homes
amounting to 20% numerically but containing a better
mix of tenures more suited to meeting local housing
needs.
After a long debate at the Development Control
Committee in June, Members agreed that the economic
climate, the practical realities and the consequences
of failing to secure the development were so
significant that we should agree to a package of
community facilities and affordable housing that would
be less than could have been secured in more
favourable economic circumstances. However, the scheme
will still deliver over £30 million of investment in
improved road infrastructure, public transport,
community facilities, open space and leisure
facilities as well as a significant level of
affordable housing.
We are now in a position where we are able to shape
the details of the scheme, in order to secure the high
quality development that is needed, because there is
still a scheme “on the table”. This would not have
been the case if the Council had taken a different
decision in June.
Turning to the easements issue, I made it very clear
to Council in September that Members had the choice to
decide whether to recycle the capital receipt to
support community facilities or not. It was always the
case that the development would have to fund the
easements. The issue in September was whether the
capital receipt was used to ensure that local people
got the benefit of those funds.
The redacted copy of the District Valuer’s report is
now available on our Disclosure Log on the Council’s
website under FOI/Disclosure Log/June 2009 via the
following link:
http://horshamfoi.org.uk/documents/DisclosureLog/CEF%2023%20Redacted%20DVS%20Reporet.pdf
I am advised that, in accordance with the copyright
statement on our website, the material may be re-used
for non-commercial research and private study. Re-use
(and this will include posting the information on
another website) is subject to the following
conditions, namely that the source of copyright is
acknowledged; the information is reproduced
accurately; the information is not used in a
misleading way; the information is not used for the
purpose of advertising, and not used for any
commercial activity or resale. Users are encouraged to
establish hypertext links to the Council's website to
avoid breach of any of these conditions.
Finally, I welcome the Society's inputs to the
detailed planning process and I am sure that by
working together in this way we can secure the best
possible design and layout for this major extension to
the town.
Yours sincerely
Tom Crowley
Chief Executive
Background information»
|
