Councillor Kaczmarek

Dear Mr Kaczmarak                                                                                

A recent report in the West Briton relates to a £2.25M plan for homes to be built by the end of the year in Caharrack and 2 or 3 people in the report, yourself included, seem delighted with the idea.

We are a little puzzled by the economics for the (yet another) development.

1. £2.25M for 18 houses will equate to an average price per house of £125K which will also include supporting infrastructure.

Can you please advise what actually will be the required spend on the required infrastructure and what will be the sale price on build completion to the prospective owner of the 2, 3 & 4 bedroom homes?

Note: Were these houses to go onto the open market can we point out that after deducting a 10% deposit from the average sale price, (Should you be able to find a lender who will offer a 90% mortgage) the balance would probably need to be borrowed. We understand that some mortgage lenders will still provide 3 times salary. Therefore to fund the balance and buy the house outright there is the requirement for any joint occupier to have an income in excess of £41.5K which even as joint income is above average earnings in the Duchy. So with the so called ‘affordable’ tag again being trumpeted, in fact only a small proportion of the smaller homes would be ‘affordable’ to average earner resident so there must be another option which makes them ‘affordable’.

2. We conclude therefore that what makes them ‘affordable’ is:

a) The Council has sold a part of Cornwall to Ocean Housing for the princely sum of £1. Therefore the land is effectively provided free of charge.

Can you please advise how long the Cornwall Council has had control of the land in question, what was its cost to the ratepayers’ (If any) when it was purchased or obtained and what would be its open market value as building land with the appropriate planning permission for 18 homes at present day values?

Can you please advise if the land in question is (or was, prior to its sale for £1) defined as Greenfield or Brownfield land?

Can you please advise is the sale of the land in question for £1 was agreed by full council, the cabinet, or a few select members?

b) It is reported that the homes will not be sold on the open market but will be a mix of rented and part buy homes. Surely, under a part buy agreement these homes will eventually be sold to the buyer?

Are we correct in stating that to ensure these homes actually remain as ‘affordable’, in addition to donating the land, the Cornwall ratepayers have further provided £155K and the Homes and Communities Agency £725K. This totals £880K. Is it correct also to assume that the Ocean group will provide the balance of £1.37M?

Note: The construction will be undertaken by Gilbert & Goode Construction who we understand is affiliated with Ocean Housing. Is it correct to conclude therefore that this project was not put out to tender, from local builders?

Can you please advise who will own the houses and the land they stand on when the project is complete?

If this is not Cornwall, then would it be fair to assume that it will be Ocean Housing? If this is the case, will the ratepayer see a return on the capital expenditure they have made, or will Cornwall ratepayers have made a donation of £155,000 plus an area of land at a yet undefined value for 18 ‘affordable’ homes which will be under the control of a private organisation?

Can you further advise if the homes in question will remain as rentable in perpetuity or will these houses become available on the open market at market values after a predetermined period of time?

3. The report states that you have said (quote) “that the Council has been inundated with requests from local people who desperately want to rent one of these fantastic new homes”.

Can you advise how many local residents are on the waiting list at this present time?

Can you advise the definition of local in this context? Is it within the immediate boundary of Caharrack village, Caharrack Parish, or will the catchment area be greater?

Can you give assurance that they will be reserved for the sole purpose of providing local need accommodation and not for inward migration into the area?

We have used the term ‘affordable’ in this letter as that was how the build was defined by the Ocean group. It is of course an ambiguous statement and it remains undefined by all who use it. A £5M turreted castle will be affordable to somebody.
As this is a word used by the media and the public, and regularly used by developers wishing to get planning permission granted on quality agricultural land, to avoid confusion and misunderstanding, perhaps this is the time to ask if you are prepared to formally define the use of the word so that the general public will be aware of what precisely is meant when used in this context.

Yours Sincerely etc. 

Dear Councillor Kaczmarek

 SUBJECT: PFI FUNDING

Recent reports indicate that you have secured £151M of PFI funding for which, we understand, you are reported as saying that this was for the production of 900 social houses. There are a bewildering number of statements being voiced on what is planned, what is law, and what will be contractually binding in any such PFI agreement. The objective of this letter is to seek clarification on a number of points so far raised.

1.    Can you confirm the statement that the £151M PFI funding which has been obtained is for the build of 900 social houses? If not, how many social houses are planned ? and what percentage of this PFI has been allocated towards ‘other infrastructure’ requirements or are these to be as part of a 106 agreement with developers and if so at what level per house? .

 2.    We are led to believe that whatever number of social houses there are, they will form part of a mix of social and private houses, presumably as new estates. Can you advise what will be the ratio of social houses to private houses on any such mixed development?

3.    Can you further advise the numbers which are planned at present as a result of the PFI funding, ie how many private houses are planned and how many social houses are planned?

4.    We have already asked you for detail regarding the plan for repayment of the PFI funding but as yet we are still to receive a reply. However, as a supplementary question, we are informed that any such social houses built with this PFI funding will result in the houses remaining the property of the developer for anything up to 30 years before becoming the property of Cornwall Council.

Does this then mean that any rental charges levied against the occupants of such homes during this period will not be paid to Cornwall Council, but to the developer or another agency, and who will control the level of the rental?

5.    It is assumed that any rateable payments due will be paid to Cornwall Council to cover services, as is the norm, but who will take responsibility as ‘landlord’ for maintenance and repairs of these houses prior to them becoming the property of Cornwall Council?

6.    There is also the issue of land. You are reported as saying that the land the houses will be built on is Council owned land. If social housing is built on this land, and the house occupier rental is paid to developer for an agreed period prior to Cornwall Council taking ownership, will the developer be required to make payment to the Council as rental for the land on which the building stands, or is the council donating the land, at no charge, to the developer for the period of time of build to the point at which it becomes Cornwall Council property?

7.    If private houses are to be built on this land and are for sale on the open market, will they be sold as leasehold, or, if freehold, will the developer be required to purchase the land from the County Council or will the Council be donating the land on which these houses will stand to the developer?

8.    In 7 above, if the latter, and it is intended to sell off tracts of Council owned land to property developers, who will set the price and the terms and conditions?

9.    Could you advise, under what authority you have entered into the PFI funding agreement, for example, as it will be the Cornish ratepayer underwriting this loan, was this agreed by full council?

10. Do you consider that a referendum on the principle of PFI funding would be an appropriate step to take at this juncture, or will the electorate be informed and ‘consulted’ only after the plans have been drawn and agreed in outline by the county planners, the developer/builder and the cabinet?

We also have an issue with phraseology and process. We talk here about the owner of the land being Cornwall Council, but we assume that this is public land and in reality it is presumably the ratepayer who has provided funding for its initial purchase and maintenance or it is historically public land and it is therefore Cornwall. It is surely then the generations of residents who ‘own’ the land and the Council is purely the administrator.

Is there an accountability issue here? For example,

1.    You have been talking about building on some 17 sites around The County on land which is administrated by the Council. What say in this have the ‘owners’ (ie the residents of Cornwall) had. If the answer is none then would you agree that you have no mandate to proceed until they have been consulted, and have agreed?

2. You have also secured £151M of PFI funding which the ratepayers will have to repay at some point in the future. Again, it is the residents who will be affected by this if it is correct that repayment it total or in part will have to be made. Who has agreed, in the present financial climate, that this was an acceptable way to proceed and who has given you the authority to secure this amount of money as a loan on behalf of the residents, and which will have to be paid back by the ratepayers?

3.    On a Radio Cornwall program a short while ago you were appealing for landowners to sell you land on which to build social housing. Presumably you will not be using your personal account for these purchases and it will be funded by the ratepayer. What is the budget for any such purchases and, again, who, in the residents’ name, has agreed to this and given you the authority to proceed with this expenditure?

There is no suggestion that you should refer back to the electorate for every decision you take, that’s why you have been elected. However, we would expect in return, to be kept informed of the reasons behind the decisions being taken in our name.

Yours Sincerely
Trelawney Alliance

Note - Acknowledgement of receipt of letter (Below) received on 25th Jan 2010
Note - 5th Feb 2010 - No reply yet received - 14 days since receipt in County Hall
Note - 15th Feb 2010 - No reply yet received - 24 days since receipt in County Hall

19th Jan 2010

Dear Sir,

Following the Trelawney Alliance meeting on Friday 15th Jan 2010 a number of supporters were unable to ask questions due to time constraints. We have summarised these questions below and look forward to your reply.

1.    The number of new build homes planned under the RSS for the Camborne/Redruth/Pool/Illoganarea is 11,100 and this figure, along with others are contained within the AAP.

Our understanding is that an initial figure of 9,400 new build homes was formulated by the RSS but this was increased to the 11,100 by the present Government. We further understand that, as a former Kerrier District Councillor, you voted in favour of the original RRS formulation of 9,400 new build homes as a requirement for area of Cornwall, however, as the RSS has not yet been scrapped, the 11,100 total still stands.

At several presentations on the subject it would appear that developers will be requested to ensure 30% of the total be so called affordable local need homes.

Can you please advise if this 30% figure is, or will be, a mandatory figure, written into any contract if developers are to be given planning permission to proceed, or are they just going to be asked to implement it?

2.    Withthe inception of the Unitary council we understand that the waiting list for local need homes stood at some 19,000 for the entire County. In an interview on Radio Cornwall some weeks ago, under questioning from the interviewer, you stated that the number had reduced to 8,000. Following this, soon after, at a council meeting with members of the public in attendance, you stated that it was 5,000. At a Trelawney Alliance meeting held in Camborne on the 15th January 2010 you stated that it was 6,000.

Given the obvious confusion this has caused, can you please advise us what the correct number of applicants held on the waiting list for affordable, local need homes in Cornwall actually is?

3.    Under the RSS, the total number of homes required in Cornwall for a 20 year period ending 2026 is 68,700. With a requirement of 30% of this total to be affordable, local need homes, the total for these homes equates to 20,610 in total.

In the CRPI area 11,100 of the total RSS requirement are planned, giving, again using the 30% concept, 3,330 affordable local need homes in total. Therefore, in this relatively small area of Cornwall it is planned to build just over 16% of the total requirement for Cornwall.

Can you please advise how many applicants there are on the waiting list in this area?

Presumably, as they are for local need, applicants will only be selected from the immediate area.

4.    As local need housing, by definition, they need to be affordable to local residents, the vast majority of whom will be employed locally. If we take, for example a 2 bedroomed, semi or link attached house:

Can you please advise what the present planned cost to buy will be, and, as you have said that there will be a mix of options, what will be the rental for such a home?

5.    There is of course no point in these local need homes being released in the first few years of the planned build because it is a 20 year program, so if, for example a family requests such a home in, say, 2023 it would be expected that there will be one available or in the process of being made available. Therefore there must be a phased release of homes into the scheme between now and 2026.

Can you please provide the details of the intended phased release?

6.    When the total numbers (11,100) for this area are considered, the RSS intended for this to be the total requirement for the period between 2006 - 2026. Given that we are now 4 years into the planned period, it would be correct, in our opinion, to deduct the number of homes built since 2006 from the total requirement of the RSS, and that should be the figure contained within the AAP.

This begs the question, how many affordable, local need houses have been built in the area from 2006 to the present date.

Could you please advise what that figure is and the reason why it has not been deducted from the RSS total requirement?

7.    You stated at the Trelawney Alliance meeting that you would like to see the phrase ‘affordable’ dropped, and these homes be referred to as Local Need. A company called THF Ltd have built small estates of what they describe as (quote): affordable homes for local people. We understand that planning permission has been granted by Cornwall council, of which you are a member, for at least one of their building projects, and another is in the system. They also are exploring the possibility of extending into West Tolgus. A residents group there informs us that there are many homes on the open market at a lesser price but that those are freehold, as opposed to the THF homes which are leasehold. This means that any potential buyer, will, in addition to paying a mortgage, also pay a ground rent to THF, presently intended to be £87 per month, (Index linked of course) thus rendering the homes more expensive to buy than those on the open market. The other aspect of these homes is the local need factor and reading their website it seems that there are a number of factors which will qualify an individual for occupancy. Apart from the obvious ‘Are you resident in the area’ type of qualification, there are two others worthy of note. The first is ‘Have you close relatives living in the parish’ It can be deduced then that if somebody living in the parish has a relative living in a Northern city such as Manchester for instance or even south to Paris, they will qualify for one of these homes. The second is ‘Are you a key worker’ It may be considered therefore that a nurse or fire-fighter deciding to move here from virtually anywhere in the world will qualify for one of these homes. Hardly local need it would appear, and, quite obviously, if more homes than the requirement are built and a percentage of homes are not taken up, the developer can extend the catchment area to China if he so wishes. The council is agreeing planning permission for this under the guise of affordable local need homes and these will presumably be part of the figure asked for in the previous question.

Do you consider that the criteria for local need homes is therefore correct in this particular case? If not will you be raising this issue in cabinet? And if so what will be your recommendation?

8.    There is also the question of homes already on the market. Vacant homes, semi-derelict homes and homes which are for sale at a cost similar to any new homes planned to be built. A glance in the local version of the West Briton each week will show hundreds of homes for sale and hundreds for rent. All these seem not to be included in the AAP as a deduction from the RSS figure.

Can you advise why this source of homes are being ignored and what percentage could be ‘recycled’ to form part of the requirement rather than build new on Greenfield land?

9.    If we may give you a few other examples,

Galiford Try Homes Ltd is the parent company of Midas homes (Who’s MD, we understand, also sits on the board of the area regeneration company) and is in line for something in excess of £6M of taxpayers’ money to build 95 homes in Dolcoath.

Do these form part of the RSS requirement figure?

10. You yourself, we understand, on behalf of Cornwall Ratepayers, have bid for £151M of PFI funding for another 900 homes to be built at sites around the County which you want to keep secret from the ratepayers at this time.

Are these included in the RSS requirement figure?

11. Whatever way it is said, PFI funding is fundamentally a loan.

Do the Cornish ratepayers have to repay all or any of this funding? If so, how much has to be repaid, when? and how has the repayment plan been budgeted?

12. When we consider the total number of homes planned for Cornwall, 67,700 under the RSS, and the fact that AAPs have been or are being produced to reflect that figure, or are in the process, or they have been recommended for acceptance by County, there must be consideration given to the supporting infrastructure as part of any sensible forward planning.

Scaling down to our own area of CRPI, 11,100 new homes are planned in addition to the normal annual build. This will give rise to some 25,000 residents in this area alone. With reference to Police, Fire, Ambulance, Coastguard, A&E. and the roads infrastructure to allow access for these units:

Can you please advise what recommendations are to be given with respect to the increased demand on the Emergency Services to cope with any difficulties experienced by this increase?

13. We are assuming that this will have been discussed prior to any form of agreement to increase housing stock, particularly if the whole of Cornwall is considered

There are also the other services used by us all, utilities servicing, refuse and recycling collection to name but a few. It would appear obvious that all these services will need expansion to cope with a population increase which could top 20%.

What discussions have taken place, and with whom, to determine the additional requirement to service the new build?

14. With respect to employment, under the RSS there will in the CRPI area 11,100 of the total RSS requirement. Again using the 30% concept, this will mean 3,330 affordable local need homes in total and 7,770 by definition, unaffordable for local need homes.

Given a potential for 82% inward migration this would imply that 9,102 families will be new to the area. If there is an allowance of 15% for families who are of independent means, or do not require employment, that leaves 7,737 households, potentially some 14,000 people, who will require employment to fund their home purchase. To fund a mortgage of course the employment opportunities need to be ‘real’ jobs paying reasonable wages.
Nigel Tipple has stated publically that there is no major employer knight on a white charger coming over the hill to provide ANY employment.

Can you therefore please advise, to your knowledge, how many employment opportunities will be available in the immediate area to satisfy this requirement?

15. We have been advised, and it was a point raised at the Trelawney Alliance meeting, that where the policy of ‘let’s build the houses, and hope that employment will follow’ does not work, and the result is the potential for ’sink’ estates and long term unemployment prospects for those who reside there.

Why do you consider that this will not happen here?

Trelawney Alliance will publish this letter on our website for public viewing and we will extend you the courtesy of publishing your reply in the same manner.

Yours Sincerely

On behalf of Trelawney Alliance Supporters

Website:  www.trelawney-alliance.org
email:       trealliance@aol.com


rss feed

Copyright © Trelawney Alliance - Hosted by FTI Cornwall