A winchester HOUSING association MAY be lumbered with two near-useless sites after councillors disagreed over a buy-back clause in the sale agreement.
Eastleigh Housing Association, which planned to build hostels on the sites, bought the land from the council for £511,000. The hostels formed part of council plans to comply with the 2002 Homelessness Act by providing accommodation for vulnerable people.
But the project was abandoned last summer after opposition from local people, and planners have said any new proposals for development are unlikely to be approved.
Now it is uncertain whether the council will buy back the land, despite a clause in the sale agreement stating it would do so if the hostels did not go ahead.
The Liberal Democrat-controlled council has offered to purchase the land but Labour councillors are opposing the deal.
The Labour group is questioning whether the buy-back clause had a six-month time limit, which would now have expired.
The decision has been delayed to allow council officers to take advice from lawyers.
Labour group leader Patrick Davies said he doubted the council had a legal obligation to buy back the sites at cost price, as originally agreed. He said: “Whether there is a moral obligation is another question.
I’m not persuaded that we ought to buy the land back. Planners say it is incapable of being developed
Patrick Davies, Winchester council
“I personally am not persuaded that we ought to buy. The Thurmond Crescent site is effectively sterilised for development. The planners were adamant that it is incapable of being developed,” he said.
Councillor Dominic Hiscock, cabinet member for housing, said: “The deal with Eastleigh was that we would buy it back. Davies is asking us to renege on that deal.
“I think we do have a moral obligation. If we wish to be taken as a serious partner, we have to be seen not to renege on that deal.”
A spokesman for Eastleigh said: “Winchester council is taking legal advice. Until that happens we have no comment. We continue to discuss the situation with them.” The hostel plan was backed by a £500,000 grant from the Housing Corporation’s Safer Communities Scheme, which has now been lost.
Opposition from local people included accusations that the council was being “underhand and devious” (HT 28 March 2003, page 12). The council had told residents at consultation that the scheme would be affordable housing and the actual intended use was only revealed in February 2003.
Source
Housing Today
No comments yet