Statement by the Portfolio Holder for Housing Private Finance Initiative - Public Consultation

Councillor Philip Goldenberg

In introducing this paper tonight, I want in particular to speak to Section 7 of the Report, which formally acknowledges the significant damage that has been suffered by the Council in terms of public trust by the planning process we have had to follow. We have done this in pursuit of a key objective of Council policy which has had and, I hope, will continue to have all-Party support.

In this context, I want to thank the key Members of the Conservative and Labour Groups who have joined Sue Smith and myself in signing the Foreword to the Outline Business Case (OBC) submission in order to make that all-Party support manifest.

Let me start by recapping some background.

Through extensive public consultation, the Council identified its Top Priority of delivering decent and affordable homes. In consultation with the Citizens' Panel about the PFI proposal, there was clear evidence of continuing public support for the Council's Top Priority with 72% of respondents in favour of the Council pursuing the PFI project, and 53% supporting an increase in Council Tax to achieve this objective.

The problem we have faced is that the Government required us to seek Outline Planning Approval for the PFI schemes to demonstrate that it is possible for us to deliver the housing units if the Government provides us with the PFI credits. The Government has taken this stance because so many PFI projects have been delayed or frustrated because of planning delays. We argued that this was unreasonable because it would cause us to fast-track the planning processes against our normal practice; the Government did not share our concern. We had no choice but to do what we did.

Local residents, who are happily unfamiliar with the strange world of local authority procedures, have understandably regarded the grant of Outline Planning Approval as meaning that the Council will proceed willy-nilly. I sat through the meeting of the Planning Committee, and saw the pain - of both residents and Councillors. But, where the Council itself will be involved with the submission of the full detailed planning applications in due course, nothing is pre-judged and nothing is pre-empted. I expand this point later.

The report before the Executive is the Outline Business Case that will hopefully enable us to secure £43.5m of Government financial support to help us meet some of the need for affordable family housing in the Borough. I hope that all Members of the Council will support the submission when it is presented to the Council on 13 July. It is important to note that support for the PFI OBC does not mean support for each site. Members' will remain free to represent the concerns of residents in their wards. I personally know well the need for this distinction as, whilst supporting the PFI OBC, I will also continue to represent the concerns of Brookwood residents over the details of the proposed development of Brookwood Farm. I am sure other Members will be in the same position. This is the difficult balance we must all strike; we must pursue the wider interests of the Borough whilst representing and seeking to address the concerns of local residents.

I would now like to comment briefly on the concerns of local residents. Section 7 of the report acknowledges that we need to take early action to understand and, to the extent possible, address the concerns raised. The PFI Project Board agreed earlier this week that it will oversee arrangements for early community engagement for the larger PFI sites to ensure we capture all the issues of concern and seek to address them as we move forward.

In addition, there is the particular case of Barnsbury. There will be a full programme of engagement with the local community there this autumn. I know that at present many Barnsbury residents see the proposals as a threat; I want the outcome of the engagement process to be proposals which are seen as an opportunity to upgrade the quality of life for the whole community on that estate, which is badly in need of improved facilities.

Similar issues, although obviously not on the same scale, arise in relation to both Eden Grove and Pares Close.

In addition I will seek, through the Local Development Framework (LDF) Task Group, to address the public concern that 60% affordable housing on one site cannot lead to a sustainable and integrated community. The LDF Task Group will shortly be considering public responses to the Core Strategy; and this issue will be considered alongside all other representations received prior to the Council being asked to approve the Core Strategy. I believe we can achieve a balance between the need to bring forward the reserve housing sites for affordable housing and delivering those homes in a sustainable and integrated way. Clearly one possible route is to limit the affordable housing on-site to 40% (which will by then be the normal yardstick for private developers of major sites), and use the additional money that will be generated from the resultant higher private sector housing numbers to fund purchases of affordable housing off-site - a strategy which may well also be better in terms of public transport.

Finally I want to make it clear that, quite apart from these early engagements with local residents, we will ensure that full public consultation will be undertaken in bringing forward detailed planning applications for the PFI sites. We will listen to the concerns of residents and where possible address them, but likewise we need local residents to recognise that we have a responsibility to help their fellow local residents who are not fortunate enough to have a decent and affordable home.

Councillor Philip Goldenberg

Portfolio Holder for Housing

Woking Borough Council

29 June 2006.