A workable way forward for all?

Here follows a letter on

Rookwood which may be of interest. Please note it covers my own personal views and not those of HDC

Housing Numbers

1. First it would be as well to remind everyone that we are required by the Government (HMG) to plan to build so many houses per year and have a five-year land supply available. If we do not, developers can appeal and win when we refuse unsuitable applications and if we ignore numbers, HMG will override us and we will have no control over building settlements.

The Past and Current situation

2. There is a lot of misinformation and fake news about the current state of the Rookwood golf course. Personally, I cannot imagine why it was built in the first place as Councilowned bowling greens and golf courses are notorious ‘black holes’ and best avoided. In this case it is supposed to bring in around £100K per year, but this has not always been achieved and at no stage would the original development sum have been repaid.

3 Golf is a declining sport. The traditional players have grown fitter and generally moved to other sports such as wild swimming, hiking, cycling etc. For example, numbers playing in UK dropped 9.5 per cent in the period 2017 to 2020 (Statista 2021).

4. Campaigners say the area is well used by the general public. Not in my experience. I have been there several times and seen very few people both in and out of lockdown. Recently I went there again and saw no more than ten others in a 90-minute period. I have also questioned a number of residents and so far, most have never used it and some do not even know where it is, despite press coverage. Other councillors have similar experiences.

5. In fact, it is a privately run course and golfers make their views very plain if they see you on or near the fairways etc, or even having a drink in the bar area. You cannot use the car park because notices say that is for the exclusive use by users of the golf facilities only. There is supposed to be a petition with10,000 names on it. No one I know has seen it, been asked to sign it and more importantly, no one knows what was actually being asked.

6. So, in sum, we have a public asset that is not generally used by the public and is only available to a few on payment and more importantly not available to those many on reduced incomes etc. If it was free, I would have different views.

The future

7. There have been a number of plans put forward over the last year or so. HDC have listened to local comment, some of it pertinent, some just hot air and some purely political. The result is a plan to build 750 houses on 30 per cent of the land, with the rest of the land being available to everyone for recreation.

8. A year ago, I would have said remove the golf course, green/wild it and open it up to all of us for recreation etc. But we now have a very major financial problem. We were in a comfortable position with adequate reserves. Now we have lost more than £2m which will never be replaced. Future assessments show that at current rates, we will continue to spend more than we earn and eventually become bankrupt, which as a council we cannot do.

9. There are various ways we can reverse but all are unpalatable and include:

9.1. Reducing our expenditure very significantly. This would mean that we would have to stop doing all those nice things that make life in Horsham pleasant. We could have to close our parks, sell the museum and Capitol, stop investigating planning breaches etc. etc. As well there would be no money for future capital projects like Highwood, the Drill Hall, a new running track and others.

9.2. Increase HDC’s council tax by 40 per cent or £63 for a Band D house. This would be on top of large rises from County, the Police and others. It would need a referendum, and would be highly unpopular.

9.3. Re-programme redundant assets.

10. Making better use of some redundant assets may be a way forward and in the case of Rookwood have distinct advantages. In Para.6, I said it was a public asset with restricted and declining use. After a clumsy start and considerable consultation, HDC has arrived at a safe and sensible solution which has three main advantages:

10.1. It allows everyone access to what is currently a closed green space.

10.2. It provides 750 new homes in a green environment, with a large proportion being affordable.

10.3.It preserves and enhances the existing wildlife park at Warnham Mill.

In addition, it will give HDC a considerable amount of capital to fully offset the current financial crisis and ensure stability for the future. However, here we have to be careful and ensure we have an accurate plan to account for outgoings and the net gain in say five years’ time. There are current, and in my view, wild estimates of what this will be £41m, or £21m or other sums. We need to remember

that half could go to the Lucas Trust and a considerable amount of what is left will go in construction costs, landscaping etc.

11. These are my personal views but I think may indicate a workable way forward to Horsham residents. PETER BURGESS Haybarn Drive,

Horsham

In twice branding Rookwood Golf Course as an ‘underperforming asset’ in last week’s County Times, Glen Chipp (HDC chief executive) certainly nailed his colours to the mast.

Even with almost 40,000 rounds played there in 2020 (despite lockdowns), representing at least 100,000 healthy active hours for residents, and contributing around £50,000 annually to HDC revenues, Rookwood is still apparently considered of ‘insufficient value’ to retain.

Let’s put a few facts straight.

The land to accommodate the proposed new 750home housing estate has a registered land charge, effective from March 27,1986, to pay (I quote) ‘a sum equivalent to 50 per cent of the net proceeds occurring within the period of 80 years’.

So that’s why I maintain that ‘overnight’ in 2066 HDC would be relieved from the obligation to forgo 50 per cent of development profits; 80 years is exactly what it says on the tin!

Additionally on this land, there are no restrictive covenants to overcome that would need to be ‘bought out’ by negotiation from 2066, if subsequently developed.

Mr Chipp’s letter makes it clear that there’s no independent financial assessment with the necessary complex calculations to compare the options of a short term sale with 50 per cent of proceeds lost, versus longer term retention with 100 per cent of proceeds retained.

From his response it appears that a somewhat simplistic ‘in house’ analysis just assumes that a long-term land holding will only produce future ‘devalued’ money, without considering the inherent financial appreciation of the underlying valuable asset.

This is further complicated by the unusual ‘cliff-edge’ doubling of HDC’s share of the proceeds on March 27, 2066. Proper, independent advice is surely needed to satisfy Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972, isn’t it?

Of course it’s absolutely correct to say that site allocations in the Local Plan are to be made primarily on planning grounds. But, the separate decision of the landowner (i.e. HDC) to promote the site for development at this time is a political one, and so should be founded on a robust ‘business case’ and approved by Cabinet and/or Council. When and by whom has this decision been made?

It seems to me to be unconstitutional, and certainly undemocratic, that apparently the major decision to promote Rookwood for development (and spend approaching £200,000 in the process) has never come before either of these committees of elected councillors, in advance of any debate to ‘approve’ the local plan.

Is this a clandestine attempt to stymie the scrutiny by, and opinion of, members (and the public), in full knowledge that the local plan decision must focus on planning matters, and also inevitably be constrained by predetermination principles?

The alleged extra benefit of 45 years of council tax on these 750 homes is a complete red-herring as such homes built anywhere in Horsham district (be it north or south!) would attract council tax levies.

Finally the spectre was raised of a future ‘cashstrapped’ and remote unitary authority, perhaps involving Horsham, Crawley and Mid Sussex, making decisions.

That’s a fair point, but remember that significant potential savings in management costs should then accrue.

For example the £600,000 per annum current total cost for chief executives (see 2019/20 published accounts for the three districts, plus say 50 per cent of now departed Nathan Elvery’s infamous £236,930 annual package at WSCC) should reduce by at least two-thirds; similarly for directors.

Maybe then, ‘under new management’ (certainly trimmed down; hopefully enlightened), a revenue positive and well used facility (not to mention being a well-tended wildlife/ecology buffer for the adjacent nature reserve) will be cherished and not simply dismissed as an underperforming asset to be financially sweat. PAUL KORNYCKY Cox Green, Rudgwick