In reply to question 16 Development Commitments, they confirm development expenditure that has been contracted for but has not been provided for in the financial statements and which will be funded by loans from the parent company. These are as listed below.

2013 £589,949
2014 £5,388,382
2015 £6,989,561

In my view the interesting question is whether the loans were provided on commercial terms as required under Welsh Government circular RSL 05/08 Group Structures, and whether social housing grant allocated to the parent company to deliver social housing in Pembrokeshire has been transferred to the subsidiary to fund the purchase of open market development sites at Letterston, Pentlepoir, Templeton Crundale and Cilgerran.

In 2015 accounts the following information is provided in response to questions on form.

Question – Who are the community the society benefited?
Answer – People seeking housing accommodation.

Question – How did the society benefit that community during the year?
Answer – The society provided housing accommodation with associated facilities and amenities.

Question – How did the society use any surplus / profit.
Answer – Surplus was transferred to the parent Registered Social Landlord to invest in affordable housing.

I shall leave it to others {who are more suitably qualified} to comment on whether these statements are appropriate for a community benefit society. The parent company should not be investing in “affordable” housing it should be investing in “social” housing. There is an obvious difference.

Some years ago I tried to get an official definition of ‘affordable housing’. It can mean whatever the person using the term wants it to mean. It is a very elastic term.

It remains unclear whether social housing grant provided by Welsh Government to the parent company has been transferred to the subsidiary company to fund the construction of these 11 “affordable” housing units.

Is there a possible conflict of interest here between the Council’s regulatory planning role in granting planning permission for the development while also being in a position to purchase some of the properties under its role as housing provider.

On the subject of problem accounts, it is worth noting that Mill Bay Homes sub-contracted the Pentlepoir development to Hale Construction, a family owned business in Neath. Hale Construction supplied the infamous Tom Whelan, the Irish Site Manager who ‘returned’ to Ireland owing over £1000 in rent, Lee Sinclair provided the ‘digger’ and the ‘muscle’ for the infamous swinging digger arm incident. A similar set-up, apart from Tom Whelan, is also being used at the recently commenced Kilgetty site.

So what is my point? Well, Mill Bay Homes Ltd are not the only ones having problems providing accounts, as can be seen from the Companies House extract below, which shows that Lee Sinclair are facing an ‘Active Proposal to Strike Off’.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07707053

This is a point I have consistently made in this blog – the ‘Welsh’ Government is just window-dressing for the civil servants who really run the show, and take their orders from London.

Actually, the ‘Welsh Government’ does not really exist. Civil servants in Cardiff were just dishing out ‘what’s allowed’ advise on a speculative punt. The AMs haven’t got a clue and the minister at the time would not have been able to add up his pie shop receipt. I don’t think the civil servants in Cardiff would have run it over the ministers desk, they are more likely to just ask their superiors in Whitehall for reassurance, who would, in turn, have seen £12.5m as small beer. At the same time the ‘social entrepreneurs’ of the local golf club would have been well aware that if you buy a few acres in Pembrokeshire with odds-on of getting planning permission, you can’t lose. Sort out the corporate governance issue later, get the buy-build-sell ball rolling, and keep the ball rolling by sniffing out farmers with scraps of land to sell. The cash being punted is taxpayers money, and if it fails Auntie Flo lives with damp a few more years and you still get to Pimms it up on the Cleddau. Call me an old cynic.

Yes, I agree Brychan. Thanks to Jac, and those that contribute to this blog with very helpful comments, there is now a mountain of evidence available in the public domain. Time for this nonsense to end and for public funds to be managed in a proper manner and for housing associations to be accountable to the taxpayer who part fund their projects. Self-regulation needs to be replaced with proper regulation.

It would have been impossible for Mr Maggs to get the ‘go-ahead’ from the Welsh Government in 2012 or been guided by the 2008 guidance notes. The Act of Westminster parliament that governs the structure created was not given royal assent until 2014. It was part of the ‘Big Society’ chunk of legislation from London.

I’ve looked at other Housing Associations and have found none in Wales similarly structured. Valleys is ample cheap housing stock, Cardiff has overheated and full of normal private developers wanting to build on sites like Caerffili mountain. The strange thing about Pembrokeshire is that it has a pocket of poverty and cheap run-down housing stock in Milford Haven and Pembroke Dock. An area which has ample brown field land for development, but the money is made furnishing demand is for holiday homes and retirement palaces around Saunderfoot and green-field heaven up on the Ceredigion border. The PH and MBH structure is an instrument to get cash subsidy from the Welsh Government to corner the market for posh developments. This money was supposed to help house the indiginous poor, but it’s actually being used as leverage to house posh incomers. I doubt even the Labour champagne socialists of the Bae saw it coming, unless they’re in on it.
.

A very good point, and one that I had planned to make – but forgot.

The only justification I think PH could come up with is that by loaning money to MBH it helps first-time buyers. Unfortunately this defence is undermined by MBH advertising for investors and retirees. And how many local first-time buyers can afford – or need – a four-bed detached property?

Something else that I wonder about is whether Pembrokeshire Housing couldn’t have built properties for sale under its own name.