The Isle of Wight Council leader says he cannot guarantee that council-owned sites listed for sale will be sold for social housing purposes, despite calls to do so from an opposition councillor.
Although admitting housing is his ‘number one priority’, Councillor Phil Jordan has said the council must ‘seek best value’ when it comes to sales.
Last week Cllr Jordan answered a question from Councillor Peter Spink which probed what would happen to 20 sites County Hall is currently seeking to dispose of.
Cllr Spink, the representative for Freshwater North and Yarmouth, said:
“You recently declared that housing is your number one priority and that you, by an executive decision, will be disposing of 20 council-owned sites for development.
“Will it be ensured that the disposal of the sites will be to registered providers or housing associations and that the overwhelming majority of the housing will be social housing for rent by Island residents on the housing register?
“Will the details of the housing mix be disclosed in advance of disposal to Corporate Scrutiny?”
Cllr Jordan replied:
“If by executive decision you mean by cabinet, yes, not executive decision by me. It’s 20 sites – a list of ten sites we have already released for marketing and ten sites that we’re preparing to be marketed.
“I can’t give you those guarantees since they are going out to the open market and we will be seeking best value on those sites.
“I can’t therefore say what the successful bidder for those sites will be proposing or planning to bring forwards on those sites.”
Councillor Warren Drew, who represents Ryde South East, asked a follow up question:
“In terms of best value and how that’s determined, I wonder if we could have some clarity as to exactly what might be within the ambit of that?
“I think the point Cllr Spink is making, which I absolutely agree with, is that the cost to the council in terms of providing housing is something that could go to that determination, the calculation of best value.”
Cllr Jordan said in a response that best value was not just ‘monetary value alone’ and gave ‘community benefits’ as another potential measure of worth.
Last week, Cllr Jordan defended his administration’s commitment to housing at a Corporate Scrutiny Committee meeting.
Maybe, just maybe someone in the council should have written a clause into the sale documents that if houses are built on the land a percentage would be for ‘Social Housing’.
It’s a shame the council won’t back themselves. Invest some of the pension windfall into building the houses themselves for long term returns.
All Council owned sites should be for social housing
where is Angela Rayner on this!
If the Government are interested in creating more
homes for people, then they should make sure it’s
for social housing.
I remember reading recently that Angela bought
a right to buy property, therefore taking a property
away from a family who needs a property.
Where are these 20 sites located?
Of course the council could sell the land conditional upon it being used for housing. I agree that they must get best value but it is important not to confuse best price with best value. The highest price may not deliver the best value for the use of the land or does the Council simply know the price of everything but the value of nothing?
Making things a priority sometimes costs you money I’ve never believed the brown envelope story’s but I do sometimes wonder