Sadiq Khan refuses regeneration plans due to social housing loss (Grahame Park estate in Colindale)

[editor]

More of this please:

Sadiq Khan has refused planning permission for estate regeneration plans in Barnet due to a “completely unacceptable” net loss of 257 social homes.

The mayor of London today announced he would not support plans to demolish the Grahame Park estate in Colindale and replace it with new housing.

In a statement he said the plans involve knocking down 692 socially rented homes and replacing them with 435.

Barnet Council, which approved the application from housing association Genesis to redevelop the estate last month, has been told to work with City Hall planners to redesign the scheme to include more social housing.

Mr Khan, who called in the planning application, described it as “how not to do estate regeneration”.

For the mayor, it is the most significant flexing of muscle over the hotly-contested and often controversial process of estate regeneration in the capital.

The Greater London Authority has consulted on estate regeneration guidelines, but the final document – originally due to be published in the summer – has been delayed.

It comes as the national Labour party takes a tough stance on estate regeneration - demanding mandatory tenant ballots before they are approved.

Mr Khan, said: “This is a classic example of how not to do estate regeneration. I fully support improving social housing on this estate and across the capital, but this scheme falls far short of what I expect of London boroughs.

“As I have made clear in my new London Plan, estate regeneration projects must replace homes which are based on social rent levels on a like-for-like basis. Londoners so urgently need more high-quality housing, not less, which makes this scheme completely unacceptable in its current form.

“I have asked Barnet Council to work constructively with the applicant on alternative plans with greater density, which do not result in the net loss of affordable homes. Given its recent record in this area, I hope the council recognises the need to replace what would be lost at Grahame Park.”

Genesis planned to demolish the estate and build 1,083 homes, of which 60% would have been ‘affordable’ - covering social, affordable and London Living rents and shared ownership. The remainder would be offered for private sale (431).

Sadiq Khan refuses regeneration plans due to social housing loss

 

[NoXion]

Finally?

 

[Ted Striker]

Not wanting to sound pessimistic, but the subtext of assuming the equivalence of bona fide (?) Council homes for "affordable" rent properties is still WAY off the mark, no?

 

[Pickman's model]

This is a token gesture

 

[editor]

Not wanting to sound pessimistic, but the subtext of assuming the equivalence of bona fide (?) Council homes for "affordable" rent properties is still WAY off the mark, no?

It's still shit but not as shit as it could have been.

 

[Ted Striker]

It's still shit but not as shit as it could have been.

True.

 

[agricola]

This is a token gesture

Well quite; that estate is miles from anywhere and probably only came up for development because every other available spot in NW9 has already been clustered with new buildings that do not have many / any social housing (indeed the site made famous by the last Avengers film doesn't have any social housing on it at all, IIRC).

 

[stethoscope]

Interesting stuff unearthed from Sian Berry (London greens) about Khan seemingly signing off funding for estate demolitions on the quiet after promising that he wouldn't do so until consultation had happened on resident ballots.... @ViolentPanda

Mayor quietly signs off funding for 34 estates, dodging new ballot rules - Sian Berry AM

 

[stethoscope]

Also...
'Sadiq Khan has betrayed us,' say campaigners as Mayor approves controversial plans for town square

Approving the plans for redevelopment of the town centre and square, Mr Khan said: “Today is an important day in the delivery of genuinely affordable homes in Waltham Forest – an area of the capital which has seen significant pressure on housing and a sharp rise in property prices in recent years – and we have listened carefully to the local community.

“Through these two developments, Londoners will soon be able to benefit from hundreds of new genuinely affordable homes, including those that the council will look to build through their own homebuilding programme.”

Yet...
These ‘affordable’ homes are anything but

Home ownership means permanency and security, but only affordability will make it achievable. So what does a so-called ‘affordable’ shared ownership option look like here in Walthamstow? According to website sharetobuy.com, a one-bed property in the borough is available in a 50 percent shared ownership deal, with that share worth £180,000. The handy budget calculator then estimates that you’d pay around £902 for your mortgage, £422 to rent the half of the home that you don’t own, plus a service charge of £54 a month. In total you’re looking at £1,377 in housing costs a month which, I can tell you for me would be quite a stretch.

Demonstrators from campaign group Waltham Forest Citizens were some of the many protesting outside Walthamstow Assembly Hall prior to December’s planning meeting

Generally, 30 percent is accepted as a reasonable and a manageable proportion of your salary to pay on housing costs for incomes over £30,000, before other essential items are affected. For the average person in Waltham Forest this proportion of their monthly wage would be £772. On this principle, to be able to afford the 50 percent ownership of the example above, a person would have to be earning in the region of £50,000 per year. How can this be deemed affordable for the average resident?

If affordability is to be genuine then it must relate to the incomes of local people, not to a marginally reduced market rate. The council has options when it comes to affordability. Community Land Trusts provide affordable homes relating to local incomes and have been successful in other London boroughs, including the Mile End site in Tower Hamlets.

Shared ownership is not genuinely affordable and yet it is the only ‘affordable’ offering at The Mall’s development. The council’s decision to approve it doesn’t seem to align with its declarations that the provision of affordable housing for the borough is a top priority.

 

[teqniq]

Saw this yesterday, not entirely unrelated imo.

London tenants to protest at auction of social flats worth £7.2m

 

[andysays]

I've just received an email from my union asking me to support a petition aimed at ensuring Sadiq Khan really does offer a meaningful ballot for residents threatened with regeneration of their estates.

Estate Regeneration – Resident Ballots
As you may know, in the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan’s election manifesto he pledged that estate regeneration only takes place where there is resident support based on full and transparent consultation.

Following a wide consultation launched in the early Spring of last year, the Mayor has finally agreed to honour his manifesto pledge, and has now put out a
consultation document on how ballots will be conducted. How these ballots are conducted is crucial and will decide if residents’ voices will be truly heard.

Unite is supporting the proposals from Demolition Watch - a London wide estates group campaigning for ballots on estate regenerations - to the Mayor’s consultation paper on how the ballot process should be conducted. We believe if their points are incorporated into how ballots are run residents will get a real say in determining the future of their estates.

You can take part in the consultation by signing the Demolition Watch petition
here. This consultation is open to all Londoners and even if you are not a resident on a council estate we urge you to show solidarity with our friends and neighbours. Please sign the petition to help support residents in finally having control over the future of their homes.