Agenda item

To receive any questions relating to items on the Agenda from members of the public.

Barry Warren

In paragraph 1.9 two schemes for MMC modular homes to be installed in Willand: Fir Close, 1 unit underway for completion in November 2025] and Somerlea, 7 units due to commence August 2025.

The Parish Council and some residents are aware that public money, their money, has been spent already on these projects but they can see nothing other than a fenced area in Fir Close which, has been like it for nearly two years. No sign of it being underway.

Question 1:

When are we going to see some positive progress on site?

It was raised at a Parish Council meeting that MDDC have made payments of over £1.1million to Zed Pods for the Somerlea development with nothing to show for it on site. The main concern was about what safeguards were in place for public money should the company fail. As the result of concerns raised, one of our Ward Councillors asked a number of questions to try and obtain facts.  The answer conveyed from an officer contained the following:

“There are contractual obligations, as is the case with most development projects irrespective of the contractor, where staged payments are made. Nonetheless, through drawing down a contract via the South West Procurement Alliance (SWPA) framework there are additional protections for all parties whereby our funds are not released until key milestones on delivery are signed off.”

Question 2:

According to accounts seen monies have been paid to Zed Pods - so what key milestones on delivery have been ‘signed off’ and by whom?

In May 2025 the accounts appear to show six payments to Zed Pods in relation to Somerlea namely;140k; 103k; 110k; 140k;103k;103k and 37k.

Question 3:

What is the detail of each of these payments please?  Generalisation such as ‘contractual obligations’ will not answer the question.

In 2024/25 so far £1,139,000 has been paid up front to Zed Pods. The risk assessment on page 368 of your bundle refers to the detail being covered in the report. Nowhere does it clearly address what protection the Council has for these monies should Zed Pods fail to deliver on the contract.

Question 4:

As risk owner, will the Chief Executive recognise that there is a potential risk to the Council and include the potential risk in the Corporate Risk report?

Paul Elstone

After the massive financial losses and losses still being incurred due to the 3 Rivers debacle, It is reasonable for the Mid Devon Residents to expect that business plans, budgets and supporting detail would be scrutinised to a completely new level and by this Administration and its various Committees. I contend that the required level of scrutiny is not happening. The Modular Home Value for Money Benchmarking report being a case in point.

This report references two external projects, and which form the major part of the conclusion being projected that the ZED POD’s modules are the best value for money. Namely a development at the former Eastleigh Post Office and the other at New Kingsland, Bristol

Reference – Eastleigh Post Office.

Question 1:

Are Cabinet Members fully aware that the report is based on the following and factually incorrect information?

That it’s a development of 28 flats with retail units under. A development made up of 2 separate apartment blocks.  It is not 10 flats as the report projects.

That the value for money Appendix ‘B’ does not even get simple subtractions correct for the Eastleigh development this when deducting the £1,050,000 grant funding.

That the net cost should be £1.78 million not £2.7 million as stated. This seriously corrupting the bench marking results. 

Question 2:

Are Cabinet Members fully aware that the report is based on the following and factually incorrect information?

Reference – Bristol New Kingsland.

That the net cost calculation is based on a Gross Internal Floor Area (GIFA) or Liveable Area. They are the same thing of only 900 square meters. It is not. The true area is 1,350 square meters as the detailed drawings previously provided to you show.

That the net cost per square meter is in fact £2,482.  It is not £3,742 as the report says.  A huge difference, a reduction of 50%. Yet again very seriously corrupting report results.

That the report says its Traditional Build. It is not. It is a MMC panel system Category 2 development.

Given these facts the Bristol MMC Development is Best Value and by any reasonable measure and not as the Value for Money Report attempts to present.

Question 3:

Will this Cabinet now “tear up” the value for money benchmarking Annex B report this given in the clearest of terms it does not represent fact. It is fatally flawed.

That instead arrange for a proper and fully independent value for money benchmarking exercise to be undertaken and to Royal Institute of Chartered Surveys (RICS) standards? 

The Leader stated that Mr Warren and Mr Elstone would receive a written response to their questions. The Leader noted that the Cabinet had received and read the email from Mr Elstone in regards to the Value for Money item on the agenda.