To receive any questions from members of the public and replies thereto.
Minutes:
The following public questions were asked:
Mr Barry Warren
My observations and questions are prompted by item 12 on your agenda.
The report is prepared by the Head of Housing and Health.
Question 1
Is this the report which he told the March 2025 meeting he was going to present to give further reassurance that the Zed Pod developments were value for money and for people to be assured that right homes were being provided at the right cost?
After he had advised of his proposed actions the then Chair of this committee said “Make it as robust as possible to counter the little group of difficult people.”
Question 2
Is the report robust as required when there is manipulation of facts or the full truth is not being told?
An example of this is contained in paragraph 1.8 of the report where it states – “It is also worth noting that MDDC has also been instrumental in enabling the delivery of other affordable housing units within the district - for example the 70 new properties at Post Hill.” There are those who know the full story behind this site where a deal was done with the original developers to acquire the land for a 3 Rivers project that did not materialise and the land has been sold by MDDC at a loss of some £1.4 million. If the developers had built the houses as part of the original development some would already have been lived in for the past 3 years.
Question 3
Is this an example of due diligence and value for money?
The report gives information of grant funding which has been obtained which is excellent news for the MDDC finances.
Question 4
Is it correct for this grant monies to be deducted from a build cost to make costs per square meter of floor space look cheaper than it really was?
In true ‘Yes Minister’ comedy script the following appears on page 145 of your papers: Space standards – all residential schemes meet the nationally described space standards. As the formal Principal Designer and developer, Zed Pods are responsible for incorporating this into each building design and this is checked by MDDC Development Control at Planning Approval stage to ensure the minimum standards are met. Post-completion, as built measurements have been taken at several schemes to further verify compliance.
Question 5
This suggests that as built measurements have not been taken at all schemes. Which ones have not been so measured?
Mr Paul Elstone
My questions relate to Agenda Item 12.
Modular Home Value for Money Benchmarking Report.
A report which I fully consider is fatally flawed this including with some very basic maths errors plus factual errors that seriously distort results.
I have provided Committee members with a copy of a document plus attachments, and which I hope you have had the opportunity to read. A document I believe once scrutinised fully validates my statement.
Question 1
The report represents that the Bristol New Kingsland development as a high cost development this when compared to this Councils ZED POD’s modular projects.
The factual information available shows something very different.
The gross square meter cost for the Bristol development is three thousand four hundred and seven pounds (£3,407)
ZED POD - Croft Estate, Sandford, development cost five thousand five hundred and ninety pounds £ 5,590 or 64% higher.
Shapland Place – Tiverton cost £5,103 or 50% higher
St Andrew – Cullompton cost £4,689 or 36% higher
And astoundingly while not mentioned in the report, Fir Close - Willand will cost £8,108 or 136% higher.
These cost fully exposing the accuracy and therefore validity of the Value for Money data you have been presented with
Why are the financial numbers in the report so very different from fact?
Question 2
Why does the report say that the Bristol Development is Traditional Build when the evidence says it’s built with MMC structures and using robotics?
Question 3
Why does the report indicate that the Bristol Development is not as energy efficient than it really is and as the available evidence shows. Even having Passive House design components?
Question 4
How reasonably can the Eastleigh former Post Office development be considered as a Value for Money point of reference?
A four (4) story high block, built using a mix of traditional and modules, even with a lift.
Very importantly a development that has two commercial units on the ground floor. This as shown in the document provided to this committee?
Question 5
The benchmarking makes use of grant funding in various forms to reduce the apparent ZED POD development cost. Grant funding that in most instances could and should be applied to the external developments used as the reference this to normalise the quoted development cost.
Grants if applied to the Bristol development cost calculations it would further and substantially prove that this Councils ZED POD development schemes are not providing the anything like “Best Value” and by any reasonable measure.
Will this Committee accept that the data they have been provided with in the report is fundamentally (fatally) flawed and therefore defer making any recommendations to Cabinet based on its content, this until fully scrutinised?
The Chair stated that as the questions had not been received in advance, written responses would be provided within 10 working days and attached to the minutes.