This week the Suffolk Coastal District Council (they are now the advertising agency for Bloor Homes (Sudbury) Ltd) produced a picture of part of the latest Bloor Homes plans, saying that there will now 'only' be 158 homes, car parking and a tea kiosk. There will also be a play area and a toilet block, but as they will both cost us money, as Council Taxpayers, they should be ignored as they are not a benefit given to the community. We shall pay for these in the end. In addition, we are gleefully told, Bloor Homes - at their own expense - will restore the Martello Tower (make 'em turn it into a sound studio for our youngsters, it'll only cost £1 million).
All that raises questions:
Not least is whether this scheme will fall under the remit of the new Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and just what community involvement the Council plans for this site-specific plan. So far they have said they will have a display, in the back room of the Leisure Centre at Felixstowe. If we are to judge that by previous consultations held there it will be poorly attended and very badly reported by the Council.
Of the 158 homes only 16 are to be social housing. Yet the government insist that at least 30% should be social housing, especially on land owned by a council. The usual cop-out is for the developer to provide these badly-needed homes in run-down tatty areas, increasing the social division, leaving the prime, sea-front, site for wealthy buyers (often second-homers). What's to happen here?
How are Bloor Homes planning to make up this shortfall?
How much is a sea-front home worth? Shall we suggest that £300,000 is not an unreasonable price to expect to pay.
The cost of building such homes is variable. Most developers will try to build to as low a price as possible.
Of course, the social housing will have to meet Housing Corporation standards, a standard that any self-respecting council should expect to see in houses built upon publicly-owned land.
The HC standards are built as lifetime homes; people may well live in them for all of their lives, and the building must be able to withstand that usage. Disabled tenants will expect wide staircases, lifts, level access, wide turning circles in hallways and other small matters often overlooked by the speculative housebuilder.
Will such details be overlooked by SCDC, keen to encourage this developer - who didn't even have to apply for planning permission this time?
Even so, given that this development seems to consist of flats (or should we say apartments?) then £100,000 a unit is a reasonable construction cost for such a building. After all most insurance companies will say that rebuilding costs of a semi-detached are likely to be around £900 sq. metre, and 110 square metres is not an unreasonable size. The Environment Agency, looking at flood risk, may have a different tale to tell. These costings will be hardened up once the full plans are revealed, if they ever are.
The builder will have 142 homes at an average of £300,000, that's about £43 million. The cost will be around £16 million to build. Add to that, say, £4 million for service provision - they will have to build roads, add sewerage and others services.
Total spend £20 million. Possible income £42 million. Difference £22 million.
The Council - seeking best value on our behalf, as I am sure they will - should be looking for 75% of that sum, for the land. Let's be generous, after all poor old Bloor Homes have been given a rough time, and so we should expect only £12 million nett.
Add to that the expected income of 280 cars park spaces. How much is that? Assume 50% occupancy for 300 days a year, 12 hours a day at 20 pence an hour, that's about £100,000 a year. Overhead costs, with council managed staff, likely to be £50,000, leaving £50,000 a year profit. Let's leave aside the tea kiosk, and try to ignore the added cost to the Council of the toilets.
The Herman de Stern, a magnificent building, whose twin is a Listed Building, sits on the edge of this land, on just 167x230 feet. Plans have drawn up to build a theatre, a cafeteria/bar, shop and at least four flats. The cost was £1.6 million, let's treble that, and add a little, and suggest £5 million. The Council should still have at least that sum left over, and also have the guarantee of increased revenue for many years to come from the homes, the theatre and other amenities that could be created.
Instead the Council plan to knock down this wonderful building and allow a developer who has no association with this town run away with a huge profit. Why do the Council want to destroy this resource? Is there something they are not telling us? Does it have anything to do with covenants attached to that land, or to the tenants right to buy? We should be told.
Is this 'best-value'? You tell me, for I suspect that the Council, despite their new avowed intentions for more public discussion, will not do so.
We don't need amenity provision provided by a developer. We want their cash! How much are Bloor Homes paying for this peach?
No comments:
Post a Comment