Say hello to Barratt Homes' 'Brixton Square' on Coldharbour Lane (old Cooltan site)

[quimcunx]

Massive surprise:

Brixton Blog ‏@BrixtonBlog
#Lambeth Council planning committee have approved the change of social housing at #Brixton Square to affordable - a rise of 20% in rents

 

[shifting gears]

Councillors Steve Bradley and Brian Palmer were the only members of the committee to object to and vote against the amendment - both lib dems.

Fuck you labour.

The bloke from barrats was exactly the kind of smarmy twat you'd expect - with a piss poor story of why they'd backtracked to boot.

Someone, I assume gramsci, gave a decent objection with plenty of salient points.

A thoroughly depressing affair.

 

[editor]

Innit.

northsouthfood ‏@northsouthfood
Tonight’s decision to convert Brixton Square to affordable housing rather than social housing is more gentrifying than any new restaurant…

 

[TruXta]

CUNTS

 

[quimcunx]

Councillors Steve Bradley and Brian Palmer were the only members of the committee to object to and vote against the amendment - both lib dems.

Fuck you labour.

The bloke from barrats was exactly the kind of smarmy twat you'd expect - with a piss poor story of why they'd backtracked to boot.

Someone, I assume gramsci, gave a decent objection with plenty of salient points.

A thoroughly depressing affair.

What was the 'mood' in the audience? Lot of people turn up?

 

[shifting gears]

It was the last item to be dealt with, they didn't get to it till around 10.15pm

No, I'd have to say a lot of people didn't show up - was mostly a few lone stragglers (myself included), the guy I presume was gramsci and a couple of cohorts, the guy from barrats and sidekick, and a load of councillors who clearly wanted to go home.

All in all, a right bag of shit.

 

[quimcunx]

Any reason for the running order? What else was covered?

 

[shifting gears]

Various other planning applications throughout the borough - At the beginning they asked the audience to raise hands to show which item they were attending for. Not many hands went up for coldharbour lane

 

[TonyH82]

Very weak from the Labour members. The Lib Dems did an excellent job, asking probing questions for which the developer did not have convincing answers.

Ultimately, it is inconceivable that a developer would have broken ground on a scheme which was not financially viable. They were just trying it on to boost their profits. And in fairness, this is their job.

The planning officer did explain that the "affordable rents" would be within the revised housing benefit levels and total benefit cap - so at least that provides some comfort. I suspect this is what the Labour members will say to justify the decision, and I also believe that if rejected, Barratt could have appealed the decision and won as their plans are strictly compliant with policy...

Given the strength of feeling on this board, I'm surprised that only one person spoke up against the amendment. Whoever it was who spoke did a great job, making good points and speaking with real feeling.

 

[Rushy]

Very weak from the Labour members. The Lib Dems did an excellent job, asking probing questions for which the developer did not have convincing answers.

Ultimately, it is inconceivable that a developer would have broken ground on a scheme which was not financially viable. They were just trying it on to boost their profits. And in fairness, this is their job.

The planning officer did explain that the "affordable rents" would be within the revised housing benefit levels and total benefit cap - so at least that provides some comfort. I suspect this is what the Labour members will say to justify the decision, and I also believe that if rejected, Barratt could have appealed the decision and won as their plans are strictly compliant with policy...

Given the strength of feeling on this board, I'm surprised that only one person spoke up against the amendment. Whoever it was who spoke did a great job, making good points and speaking with real feeling.

Were finances the only reason given?
Why do you think it would have been passed at appeal?

 

[TonyH82]

Were finances the only reason given?
Why do you think it would have been passed at appeal?

Basically, yes.

The guy from Barratts said that they stated work with the idea of working with the council to iron out the section 106... The Lib Dems pointed out this was nonsense as what kind of company would commit millions without being reasonably sure the scheme would be profitable.

The professional planning officers said it was compliant with defined planning policy - they were very firm about this. I was chatting to a friend from uni who works for a large developer and he said that if a planning application is compliant with policy but rejected, it is possible to go through a lengthy and costly appeal process. If the council thinks they will lose in the end, it would be wrong go to waste money in this manner...

 

[teuchter]

Well done to those of you who actually bothered to show up. I had half-intended to go along myself but was still waiting in for a delivery at 7, although that's a bit of a half-baked excuse for what was partly laziness.

It would be good to know what bit of policy it is exactly, that the change is claimed to comply with. If it's true, then fair enough that they passed it - criticism should instead be aimed at the stated policy itself.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Various other planning applications throughout the borough - At the beginning they asked the audience to raise hands to show which item they were attending for. Not many hands went up for coldharbour lane

Some people were but weren't used to the whole set-up and didn't realise what the running order was and didn't put their hands up...I know of four people who were there at the beginning but left before the end. These things are easier to speak up in if you're not already a bit unsure of protocol and don't really understand the process.....

 

[Mrs Magpie]

...as Gramsci said somewhere else...residents and the council are not equal, and it's not residents who hold the everyday power.

 

[quimcunx]

Well done to those of you who actually bothered to show up. I had half-intended to go along myself but was still waiting in for a delivery at 7, although that's a bit of a half-baked excuse for what was partly laziness.

It would be good to know what bit of policy it is exactly, that the change is claimed to comply with. If it's true, then fair enough that they passed it - criticism should instead be aimed at the stated policy itself.

Even if it complies with policy it was not the agreement they got the planning permission on in the first place. There should not be an issue with saying 'this is what you agreed to and we are holding you to that agreement'.

 

[happyshopper]

The document before the Committee is here: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s54136/04 Coldharbour Lane.pdf

If you read the document you will see that the decision is not as dire as much of the previous discussion would suggest. And faced with the clear officer recommendation to approve, I assume the Committee decided that it would be a waste to spend Council resources on fighting an appeal.

 

[colacubes]

Some people were but weren't used to the whole set-up and didn't realise what the running order was and didn't put their hands up...I know of four people who were there at the beginning but left before the end. These things are easier to speak up in if you're not already a bit unsure of protocol and don't really understand the process.....

I did wonder why it had been pushed to the end as I was following online as I couldn't get there myself at the end. There was also a similar application re the Streatham Hub (Tesco ) reducing Social Housing (which I believe was also passed ) and a big application on the South Bank on the agenda.

Depressing but not surprising decision unfortunately

 

[Rushy]

It would be good to know what bit of policy it is exactly, that the change is claimed to comply with. If it's true, then fair enough that they passed it - criticism should instead be aimed at the stated policy itself.

The document before the Committee is here: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s54136/04 Coldharbour Lane.pdf

If you read the document you will see that the decision is not as dire as much of the previous discussion would suggest. And faced with the clear officer recommendation to approve, I assume the Committee decided that it would be a waste to spend Council resources on fighting an appeal.

It does basically say that the policies upon which the condition was based have changed. Any new application or amendment would have to take into account new policies - which is effectively what they say they have done. I can't see how they could refuse it and not expect it to be overturned at appeal.

I don't see any financial argument in there about affordability of the development.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

It does basically say that the policies upon which the condition was based have changed. Any new application or amendment would have to take into account new policies - which is effectively what they say they have done. I can't see how they could refuse it and not expect it to be overturned at appeal.

I don't see any financial argument in there about affordability of the development.

Yes - from a skim read it basically tackles the objections that have been made. I'm not sure it would even be possible for affordability to be dealt with in those terms as no-one objecting would have access to their internal costings. Maybe if the council objected it might come up.

It's noticable from this that the treatment of an amendment is to question why it shouldn't be permitted. It seems to me that 'why aren't you sticking to your agreement?' would be more appropriate.

 

[TonyH82]

Yes - from a skim read it basically tackles the objections that have been made. I'm not sure it would even be possible for affordability to be dealt with in those terms as no-one objecting would have access to their internal costings. Maybe if the council objected it might come up.

It's noticable from this that the treatment of an amendment is to question why it shouldn't be permitted. It seems to me that 'why aren't you sticking to your agreement?' would be more appropriate.

The Lib Dems asked why they weren't sticking to the original agreement - the guy from Barratts had no answer.

The planning officer said they had received a development appraisal (a financial model) which they had reviewed and had reviewed by an "independent consultant"... This model suggested the scheme was not financially viable. TBH - it would be pretty easy to overstate costs and understate returns in such a model, and a review by an consultant doesn't provide much comfort re: the reasonableness of the numbers.

Re: the running order. Nothing sinister here - there was a show of hands, and the order was based on the number of people who had attended for a particular case (those with the most going earliest).

 

[teuchter]

The document before the Committee is here: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s54136/04 Coldharbour Lane.pdf

If you read the document you will see that the decision is not as dire as much of the previous discussion would suggest. And faced with the clear officer recommendation to approve, I assume the Committee decided that it would be a waste to spend Council resources on fighting an appeal.

So the new s106 sets the rents for the "affordable housing" at 49%/55%/60% of the open market rate (not the 80% rate discussed earlier in the thread).

The council seem to be saying that this won't be significantly less affordable than social rented housing...can anyone comment on that?

Also, was the original application to vary the terms asking for 80%? Has the percentage at least been changed in response to objections?

 

[Gramsci]

Given the strength of feeling on this board, I'm surprised that only one person spoke up against the amendment. Whoever it was who spoke did a great job, making good points and speaking with real feeling.

Thanks that was me.

There are only 3 minutes to speak so have to leave some things out. So said that the issue had caused caused a lot of concern and had been raised in Urban/ Brixton Blog and Brixton Buzz.

I altered what I was originally going to say at the meeting. Asking more questions. Said I objected to Barratts applying half way through building to flats.

My local ward Cllr Matt Parr turned up and spoke as well to oppose this.

We both asked a lot of questions. Some of which were not fully answered. Still not clear on the type of tenancies that officers think is ok.

I was disappointed that the Labour Cllrs on the committee did not ask questions and the Chair seemed to want to hurry things along. It was the 2 LD Cllrs- Bradley and Palmer who asked the questions ans in the end voted against the application.

The officers had amended there report at the last minute to remove the piece saying that the RSL could alter the % of market rent up to 80%. The officers report imo was poor. Did not give the reasoning behind changing definition of affordable housing. As someone said its almost as though changing this to the new "affordable housing" category is just a standard thing to do.

At meeting it was said that the reason to do it was that otherwise it would not be financially "viable" to do it. It appears that officers and Barratts have been talking to each other about this issue for a long time. Problem I have is that officers feel they are following Council policy but that residents have little say. Nor are residents given much in the way of explanation. Its only the end process of a planning committee that residents get to comment. By that time officers and Barratts have spent months dealing with this issue. The application was supported by officers.So Cllrs were not offered any alternative.

I have not read the Brixton Blog piece yet.

I took some notes so put them up later.

 

[shifting gears]

Thanks that was me.

There are only 3 minutes to speak so have to leave some things out. So said that the issue had caused caused a lot of concern and had been raised in Urban/ Brixton Blog and Brixton Buzz.

I altered what I was originally going to say at the meeting. Asking more questions. Said I objected to Barratts applying half way through building to flats.

My local ward Cllr Matt Parr turned up and spoke as well to oppose this.

We both asked a lot of questions. Some of which were not fully answered. Still not clear on the type of tenancies that officers think is ok.

I was disappointed that the Labour Cllrs on the committee did not ask questions and the Chair seemed to want to hurry things along. It was the 2 LD Cllrs- Bradley and Palmer who asked the questions ans in the end voted against the application.

The officers had amended there report at the last minute to remove the piece saying that the RSL could alter the % of market rent up to 80%. The officers report imo was poor. Did not give the reasoning behind changing definition of affordable housing. As someone said its almost as though changing this to the new "affordable housing" category is just a standard thing to do.

At meeting it was said that the reason to do it was that otherwise it would not be financially "viable" to do it. It appears that officers and Barratts have been talking to each other about this issue for a long time. Problem I have is that officers feel they are following Council policy but that residents have little say. Nor are residents given much in the way of explanation. Its only the end process of a planning committee that residents get to comment. By that time officers and Barratts have spent months dealing with this issue. The application was supported by officers.So Cllrs were not offered any alternative.

I have not read the Brixton Blog piece yet.

I took some notes so put them up later.

Good effort fella.

 

[el-ahrairah]

Good effort fella.

yes, thanks Gramsci.

 

[Gramsci]

The document before the Committee is here: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s54136/04 Coldharbour Lane.pdf

If you read the document you will see that the decision is not as dire as much of the previous discussion would suggest. And faced with the clear officer recommendation to approve, I assume the Committee decided that it would be a waste to spend Council resources on fighting an appeal.

Fighting an appeal was never mentioned as reason to pass this application.

It what ways do you think it is not dire?

I did not think it would be refused. I went to make a point that some local people are not happy with this new "affordable" category.

Also I am not happy that developers can change Section106 agreements as works progress. There is a history of developers changing agreements after works having been going on. As at the Streatham hub.

It was to let the Cllrs now that the issue of affordable housing in Brixton is an issue.

The Streatham hub variation to the Section106 to change to new "affordable" housing category was passed without discussion as no objectors turned up to speak. Also that application, according to the LD Cllrs who turned up, was rushed through with little consultation.

So imo it was worth turning up.

 

[Gramsci]

Here is Brixton Blog article

In a concession to the objectors, the new affordable homes will be run by a registered social landlord.

Two Lib Dem councillors voted against the application and expressed disbelief that it was passed. Speaking to the Blog after the meeting, Cllr Steve Bradley said: “I stated robustly in the meeting that I felt they should be made to stick to their original planning permission to provide social rental properties, not just “affordable” ones which are likely to be on average 20% more expensive.

“Developers regularly get permission to build social housing and then come back later claiming the sums don’t work, for example Robsart Village and Stockwell Park Estate, as a way to get even more.

The committee came to a decision after less than 20 minutes of discussion. The committee’s chairperson, Cllr Diana Morris, said: “I regret the loss of social housing but we’ve had clear officer advice about the viability and we’ve had an explanation from housing officers that they’re supporting this so I am moving the officer’s recommendation.”

Under the changes, a four bed flat will go from £166.39 to £202.70 per week, and a two-bed from £149.74 t0 £192.88. The decision was taken despite a joint campaign by Brixton-based news sites Brixton Blog, Brixton Buzz and Urban 75.

Cllr Matt Parr, Labour councillor for Coldharbour ward, who doesn’t sit on the planning committee, said the reasons for the change were not clear enough. He added: “I don’t think another precedent for giving in to a developers demands at a late stage in a project is a terribly good idea.”

The other LD who voted against was Cllr Palmer. Who is always good at planning issues.

stevebradley
Brixton Blog

 

[quimcunx]

Why is it 'us' who have to bear the cost of someone else's 'sums not working'.

Maybe when I upgrade my phone I'll just tell them that I got my sums wrong, am cancelling the tarriff I don't want to can't afford to pay but I'll keep the phone, cheers.

 

[Greebo]

<snip>Maybe when I upgrade my phone I'll just tell them that I got my sums wrong, am cancelling the tarriff I don't want to can't afford to pay but I'll keep the phone, cheers.

Good analogy, shame it wouldn't work like that.

 

[Gramsci]

Why is it 'us' who have to bear the cost of someone else's 'sums not working'.

Maybe when I upgrade my phone I'll just tell them that I got my sums wrong, am cancelling the tarriff I don't want to can't afford to pay but I'll keep the phone, cheers.

Particularly irritating was the man from Barratts who said that Barratts wanted to get on and build homes for local people. When I now full well the sales people having been pushing buy to let.

 

[shifting gears]

Here's another analogy:

Barratt Homes + Lambeth Council: screwing the community up the arse while making sweet sultry love with one another.