‘An independent assessment needs to examine the Rookwood proposal”

It would appear that HDC is bringing on the cavalry with letters in consecutive weeks from councillors Chowen and Clarke, respectively cabinet members for culture and leisure and finance, plus of course a letter from the CEO Glenn Chipp and a lengthy intervention from councillor Burgess.

In addition in the last few days there have also been numerous behind closed door briefings to neighbourhood councils and focus groups (but excluding golfers) promoting the latest plans for Rookwood.

Contrast all this PR activity to the original plan for the Rookwood development drawn up in 2016 which was essentially kept under wraps until forced into the open last year by an FoI request.

These original plans were drawn up a few months after the adoption in November 2015 of the HDPF which made absolutely no mention of Rookwood as a potential development site and therefor begs the question what changed in such a short space of time and who instigated this initiative?

It is significant that part of the brief given to the consultants specified that whatever they produced should maximise the financial return to HDC and in producing plans for a a full blown development of the whole site they clearly met this objective.

However in doing so they and/or HDC overlooked the fact that a covenant covering the northern parcel of land adjacent to the nature reserve precluded any such development there although it seems like it took three years and much expenditure on fees for this penny to drop.

This oversight might well have been avoided had the initial proposal been presented to council members for scrutiny at the outset although it would appear this never happened.

Consequently councillor Chowen’s magnanimous gesture of designating the area as a country park following ‘public consultation’ is more a consequence of not being able to build there as originally planned.

As things stand the proposed country park area is fully maintained by the excellent golf course staff at zero cost to HDC. Were HDC to close the golf course then all maintenance and infrastructure costs including such things as security and litter collection would have to be borne by HDC.

Given some of the issues with Southwater Country Park and even Horsham Park regarding anti social behaviour is it such a good idea to have a country park adjacent to a nature reserve in a relatively remote location?

It will certainly require a high degree of supervision and I wonder to what extent the police have been consulted in this respect.

There is a common denominator amongst these official communications in that although they purport to provide ‘accurate facts’ they are all largely based on innuendo and broad brush statements with little or no evidence to support them.

The favourite being that golf is in decline and access to the golf course is restricted both of which as evidenced by numerous letters to your paper have been demonstrated to be manifestly untrue.

Councillor Clarke suggests that it is unfair to non-golfers to effectively subsidise golfers which I find difficult to comprehend given that HDC earn a net return from Rookwood.

Is he going to apply the same criteria to the skate park, swimming pools or the leisure centres that many of us, myself included, do not use and where some unlike Rookwood there are direct costs borne by HDC.

Is it also as he infers such a bad thing that golfers outside of the district patronise Rookwood generating income for the district. Likewise visitors from locations such as Crawley or Guildford I’m sure patronise some of the excellent productions at the Capitol or is he suggesting that HDC leisure facilities should be for the exclusive use of local ratepayers?

So based on the Avison Young consultants report – which is so full of bias it could well have been written by HDC – the solution for the displaced golfers is to jump in their cars and drive for up to 30 minutes for a game of golf.

This despite that in recent times at least four courses within that radius have closed due to development.

More importantly where is the long awaited SOSRA report? It is also noticeable that HDC has virtually eliminated all mention of Rookwood from the sport and leisure section of its website and other council publications which leaves one with the impression that perhaps they really don’t want it to succeed.

Another scenario HDC are peddling is that if Rookwood plus the Drill Hall and BH running track are not sold then financial armageddon awaits us all and we will lose the Capitol, Horsham Museum et al.

This argument would carry more credibility were it not for the fact that HDC are currently sitting on reserves of £15million+ and whilst this years revenue has been affected by the pandemic, thanks to a generous government settlement and grants they will more or less break even, this year and next.

HDC are budgeting for annual income of up to £900,000 from investing their share of the proceeds from selling off Rookwood. Their share of the proceeds after paying the Lucas Family an equivalent amount will be of the order £15-18 million with the majority of the proceeds invested in HDCs property investment vehicle Horsham District Homes.

To achieve the predicted income they will need to achieve a 6 per cent rate of return which given a very uncertain market in the affordable/social housing sector due to rising unemployment and future job uncertainty may be difficult to achieve.

A recent investment by HDC in Slinfold was based on a return of 4.6 per cent and I wonder to what extent a valuable asset such as Rookwood should be sold to enable HDC to dabble in a potentially speculative property market?

Finally I would like to address the question of impartiality as at least three of our councillors via your publication have nailed their colours to the mast as regards being in favour of selling off Rookwood.

I think it is a given that the planning department is required to act impartially although it is very difficult to see how they can carry out this responsibility when HDC are the landowner and a very significant amount of money is involved which the majority of the Cabinet appear desperate to get their hands on and reallocate.

Surely a truly independent assessment needs to examine the Rookwood proposal as a counterbalance against the inherent bias within HDC.

At one of his recent closed door meetings councillor Chowen apparently posed the question ‘who stirred up the golfers?’ To which the answer is really quite simple….you did.

In response, Horsham District Council said:

1. Rookwood was considered as a potential site in preparing the HDPF 2015 and councils are required to review their own land holdings when preparing a new Local Plan.

2. The covenant in place would not prevent development of the northern section of the site. The proposal has been revised entirely as a response to further consultation over the past year.

3. General public use of Rookwood is restricted to the southern pathways. The northern part is a golf course and thus not available for general public recreation.

4. Covid-19 has impacted all sport and 2020 participation figures have declined by some ten per cent.

5. The financial return from this golf course has steadily declined. The council’s leisure contract typically returns ten times the amount that Rookwood does and have much higher levels of use by our residents.

6. The council does not recognise the numbers quoted in this letter either for capital receipts or investment return. Budget forecasts are published online in the council’s mid term financial plan. These show an emerging deficit that threatens provision of existing council services to our residents.

7. The council does not ‘dabble in’ speculative property developments.

8. The council is required to provide affordable homes for its residents in an area of high property prices. The greatest need is in and around Horsham town.

9. The planning merits of all of the strategic sites were set out in a formal document (Regulation 18) agreed by the council in 2019 and published for full public input. Rookwood is one of the most sustainable sites in the district.

10. Council members are entitled to explain council policies and respond to comments both in the media and made directly to them. Doing so positively does not make them any less impartial than any councillor opposing a scheme.