Question

Normally when a major planning application to build houses is submitted developers are required to provide around 35% affordable housing.  Yet, when the Council granted itself permission to destroy Elms Field, it excluded itself from this requirement on the grounds that the development was not viable.

At last months’ Council meeting, you provided a glowing account of the finances and stated income will cover costs in each of the next three years, even though there are numerous empty units and of the occupied ones, many are in the rent free period.  You later stated profits are set to rise to £6m per annum.

In fact, you painted such a rosy picture of the development claiming 90% of the units have been let, and as can be seen businesses are so keen to be a part of the place that they are not even bothering to fit-out their empty units ahead of the lifting of lockdown restrictions.

In view of this, would you please state how much affordable housing could be built per annum, with the £6m per year profits and explain why this is not being done?

Question

Normally when a major planning application to build houses is submitted developers are required to provide around 35% affordable housing.  Yet, when the Council granted itself permission to destroy Elms Field, it excluded itself from this requirement on the grounds that the development was not viable.

At last months’ Council meeting, you provided a glowing account of the finances and stated income will cover costs in each of the next three years, even though there are numerous empty units and of the occupied ones, many are in the rent free period.  You later stated profits are set to rise to £6m per annum.

In fact, you painted such a rosy picture of the development claiming 90% of the units have been let, and as can be seen businesses are so keen to be a part of the place that they are not even bothering to fit-out their empty units ahead of the lifting of lockdown restrictions.

In view of this, would you please state how much affordable housing could be built per annum, with the £6m per year profits and explain why this is not being done?

Answer

Throughout, the Council has been completely open and transparent about the limited amount of affordable housing in the town centre regeneration and very specifically why this is the case.

The regeneration, which consists of three sites, has already provided 22 affordable key worker homes as part of the Peach Place phase.  We have not included further homes as the community benefits of the regeneration scheme are so much greater than anything anyone who was not the local authority would have been able to provide.

Instead, the funds, that other private developers would have expected to use towards providing affordable homes, are being fully utilised to pay for all of the non-profit making elements of the scheme. These are things like the new park and destination play area, new open and pedestrianised spaces for events, public toilets, water fountains, the new road and, when it opens next year, a brand new swimming pool, leisure and library hub, which will also help cater for community and cultural events.

Being able to reinvest these funds into the scheme has also helped with making lettings decisions that have put the town and community before pure profit margins.  This has allowed us to bring in a new cinema to the town for example, and make choices to let to an independent boutique rather than generic high street clones, who arguably would pay more, but would contribute little towards creating a great future for the town.

In regards to vacant units, the picture this question paints is strange.  A simple walk around the town would show anyone that the majority of the regeneration units are already up and trading, or simply waiting for permission, post lockdown, to reopen their doors.

The few that have not started fit out expect to do so soon, although the impact of Covid-19 remains an issue for the industry, with many tenants waiting for factories to begin manufacturing specialist equipment again, or for their contractors to start again as existing jobs are taking longer than planned.

But right now, when our businesses have suffered so much, when livelihoods, and much more are on the line, we should all be 100% behind our businesses.  For two Council meetings in a row now, you seem to be down on Wokingham, and down on its businesses.  Some of these businesses are very new and just about to open up in our town and we welcome them warmly. My message is very clear tonight on behalf of this Council. I am for this town and for its success.

Supplementary Question

The Council has always pointed out that these are separate schemes so there is in fact no affordable housing in Elms, so make a note of that.  Moving on to what you just said, in one of the shop units at Elms Field, the internal flooring area is about half a metre higher than the pavement outside, making it impossible to open the front door inwards.  Access is obviously impossible for wheelchair users and difficult and dangerous for the able bodied.  Why have the Council accepted a building that does not meet the requirements of health and safety legislation, and are any steps being taken to get the developer to fix this at their expense? All those units facing the field are still empty as a matter of interest.

Supplementary Answer

The units facing the field may be empty at the moment, not all of them are actually, but the ones to which you are referring, some of them are actually already let but are waiting for fit outs at the moment.  Just to give you an example at the moment, one unit in the regeneration scheme, we have had three offers for it on the table last week, so it is not all doom and gloom.  In terms of what you are saying in terms of the different floor levels I do not know very precisely about that, but I can look into it.  Do you know exactly which unit it is because I do not know exactly to which one you are referring to, but I am very happy to look into it. [next to Starbucks]