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

[leanderman]

So, nothing to do with the worldwide "credit crunch", then, and the knock-on effects from that?
Labour might have run up the structural deficit, but most economic predictions prior to the "credit crunch" saw the deficit as easily repayable further into the economic cycle, and the running up of the debt in the first place as "safe". Notice, for example, how none of the ratings agencies were marking down UK debt between 2004-2008, the years when the structural deficit increased.

Labour aren't blameless. Their unwillingness to re-regulate parts of the financial sector that had been deregulated by the Tories directly contributed to the financial products that caused the "credit crunch", but that's regulatory as opposed to economic incompetence, and anyone who understood or understands the economic agenda Labour signed up to (neoliberalism, the same agenda the Tories were already signed up to) in order to get business support in the run-up to '97, knew that hitting The City was vanishingly unlikely except in the form of the one-off "Windfall Tax".

Generally agreed. Although citing the ratings agencies is a bit much!

 

[ViolentPanda]

I can't speak for secateurz but it looks to me like you are getting caught up in the rhetoric rather than being open to understanding the general point someone else is making, even if not as precisely and eloquently as you.

I understand the point being made very well, as well as the language used in the discourse around social housing, and why it is used. That's precisely why I replied to secateurz as I did.

As for your second point - yes - it is a result of there not being enough council owned properties to give to everyone who wants one. But the reason behind it doesn't make it any less of a privilege for those who have that benefit.

No, it doesn't, but as a privilege, it's one that not many would actively seek, given that access to that privilege generally entails "qualifying" for it due to poverty, disability and/or a dozen other reasons that mark one down as a member of the "underclass" (however eloquent we are. ).

 

[ViolentPanda]

Generally agreed. Although citing the ratings agencies is a bit much!

Well, they were touted as the best guide to whose debt to buy, up until the bared their baboon-like arses to the world and showed us what they were really made of in '07-08.

 

[Gramsci]

I can see why people who rent homes on the open market whilst contributing into a system which supports some but not others by giving them access to non-private sector rents feel they are subsidising others even if, as you correctly point out, the proper definition of the word 'subsidise' does not accurately describe the transaction or relationship. I suppose a better term would be that some are supporting others by giving them privileged access to non-private sector rents which they don't have access to themselves. Getting too bogged down in the technicalities of the term 'subsidise' seems to miss the real point being made.

Private landlords are doing quite nicely in London. Rent controls have gone over the years. Unlike other parts of Europe. Private landlords high rents also have led to the growth of housing benefit. A subsidy for private landlords.

Dont see they have much to complain about in London.

The assets private landlords own increase in value as well.

Must be a quite profitable enterprise as Barratts have been pushing there flats in Brixton square for buy to let.

 

[Rushy]

Private landlords are doing quite nicely in London. Rent controls have gone over the years. Unlike other parts of Europe. Private landlords high rents also have led to the growth of housing benefit. A subsidy for private landlords.

Dont see they have much to complain about in London.

The assets private landlords own increase in value as well.

Must be a quite profitable enterprise as Barratts have been pushing there flats in Brixton square for buy to let.

I was referring to individuals who pay full market value to live in their homes. Not as in landlords who rent property out.

 

[Gramsci]

I was referring to individuals who pay full market value to live in their homes. Not as in landlords who rent property out.

So u do my mistake.

However the idea that there is a clear line between non private sector and private sector is mistaken. See here A bit of an old article, so some things have changed, but the point is that its a mistaken to look at social housing as subsidised and private housing as not. As article says its a more complicated picture.

Of course, many private landlords dislike dealing with benefit recipients. As the Rugg report on private renting pointed out, the public sector has had to invent expensive incentive arrangements for landlords, such as leasing schemes which pay guaranteed rents for up to five years, even when the property is unoccupied.
There is nothing wrong with such schemes, but they are clearly a form of subsidy for housing poorer tenants that goes direct to the landlord.
Ms Wilson has one clear point, which is that social sector rents are below market levels. As Steve Wilcox, editor of the Chartered Insitute of Housing’s UK Housing Review, shows in the coming edition of the report in December, the gap is currently an average of £36 per week - much less than Ms Wilson would have us believe, and one that varies enormously between the north of England and the south east.
It is true that this is an economic subsidy, but it is not a cash subsidy: council housing is currently in surplus at national level, as Inside Housing has repeatedly made clear.
The worst aspect of Ms Wilson’s piece was that it perpetuates the impression that ‘subsidised’ housing is the same as social housing. But of course, there are cash subsidies for homeowners, too.
Low-cost home ownership, renovation grants and income support for mortgage interest together cost the taxpayer well over £1 billion each year.
What constitutes ‘subsidised’ housing is therefore much more complicated than Karen Wilson suggests.
Applying the label only to social housing tenants is not just a slur on the tenants, but also happens to be completely wrong.

 

[leanderman]

I need to think about this - it's complicated!

 

[CH1]

For information: extract from minutes of Planning Applications Committee, as discussed above -
9. 368 - 372 COLDHARBOUR LANE, LONDON SW9 (COLDHARBOUR WARD) (12/03393/S106)
Agenda Item No. 4 and Addendum, Page 65 of the Agenda)
There was an officer presentation which stated that the wording of the last section of paragraphs 4.3 and 7.3 (which reads PROVIDED THAT…..) should be as follows: ‘The Section 106 agreement is currently in draft form. Officers are requesting that Members delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning and Development in relation to the wording of this clause of the Section 106. A clause restricting the rent rises will be included in the legal agreement; this normally states that rent shall rise only in line with inflation (this is usually the Retail Price Index + ½%).’
The meeting was addressed by a local resident who made the
following points:
· There was a lot of concern about this issue both in Brixton and online.
· Tenants would be required to pay a percentage of market rent which would increase over time.
· Concern that work had started on the site before the application was made.
· Concern about how much the rent would be increasing.
· If the application was agreed to it would set a precedent for the future.
· There was a difference between affordable levels and social rented levels.
· Although Councillor Donatus Anyanwu, Ward Member for Coldharbour Ward, was not able to be present at the meeting he also opposed these proposals.

It was noted that the agent had previously been employed as a planning officer at Lambeth.

The applicant addressed the meeting and made the following points:
· The application had originally been granted in 2007 but that applicant had not carried out the development. The present applicant (Barratt Homes) had taken over in 2010.
· The application for the change in conditions had been agreed with the council.
The meeting was addressed by Councillor Matt Parr, Ward Councillor for Coldharbour Ward, who made the following comments:
· Whilst acknowledging that there may be a good reason to change the Section 106 agreement he questioned as to what would happen if it was not agreed.
· He asked that there be a comparison of rents under both criteria.
· If it was agreed to it would set a precedent and the Committee should not accede to the request at this late stage.
Officers made the following points:
· There had been an independent viability study carried out which had indicated that the scheme would not be viable if social rented scales were applied.
· The rent for a two bed flat would increase from £149.74 a week to £192.88 and for a four bed flat from £166.39 to £202.70.
· If the proposal was not agreed there would be fewer affordable units in the development.
· It was confirmed that the proposals met local needs.
MOVED by Councillor Diana Morris, SECONDED by Councillor Ruth Ling, and RESOLVED:
(1) That the Section 106 agreement pertaining to planning permission 06/04037/FUL be amended as set out in the report as amended by the addendum.
(2) That authority be delegated to the Assistant Director of Planning and Development in relation to the wording of the definition of an ‘Affordable Rented Unit’.
Voting For – 4 Against - 2
CLOSE OF MEETING
The meeting ended at 10.42 pm

 

[teuchter]

· If the proposal was not agreed there would be fewer affordable units in the development.

What does this bit mean exacly?

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

What does this bit mean exacly?

That they'd be social instead presumably. Technically true but weaselly as fuck.

 

[CH1]

What does this bit mean exacly?

it probably refers to Barratts previous application of December 2011 [11/04431/S106], presumably their fall-back position: converting 10 of the shared ownership flats into private for-sale AS WELL AS turning social rent flats into affordable. That application was withdrawn and the one passed at planning committee substituted. If you access the planning applications it is clear from the correspondence that negotiations have been going on for 18 months about this.
The council bamboozled into preserving the developer's "viable" return at the expense of abolishing social rents in new build in Brixton. Not a good omen for Somerleyton Road.

 

[Gramsci]

“Affordable housing: social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing
provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market.Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices.Affordable housing should include provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.”

“Affordable rented housing is let by local authorities or private registered
providers of social housing to households who are eligible for social rented
housing. Affordable Rent is subject to rent controls that require a rent of no
more than 80% of the local market rent (including service charges where
applicable.”

From the officers report explaining definitions.

A LD Cllr pointed out to me that recycling of subsidy is not dealt with in report. This bit looks like it says that either rents are set at % that is affordable for those on lower incomes. ( Someone from the Tenants Council said that the average yearly income of Council Tenants in Lambeth is £13 000.) Or its set at the 80% and some recycled to provide more "affordable" housing.

This new "affordable" regime is hard to understand.

CH1

jeremyclyne

 

[Gramsci]

The council bamboozled into preserving the developer's "viable" return at the expense of abolishing social rents in new build in Brixton. Not a good omen for Somerleyton Road.

Latest thinking by officers for Somerleyton is "65% blended rate of the market value (including service charge). This means one and two beds would be up to 80% of the market rent and larger family sized homes would be at social rent."

The officers say they will run financial appraisal to see if scheme can afford to provide more units at target rent.

Also officers say Somerleyton road will be a "policy compliant scheme for affordable housing and therefore we are aiming for 60% private and 40% affordable."

I will post this up on the Somerleyton thread as well.

It does confirm your point that the planning application for Barratts will be seen as example of policy compliant scheme.

Also that making the smaller flats higher % is a way to subsidize family units. Maybe I do not understand all of this.

There is a big difference in that the Barratts development is private land and (most) of Somerleyton road is Council owned.

 

[Gramsci]

Officers made the following points:
· There had been an independent viability study carried out which had indicated that the scheme would not be viable if social rented scales were applied.

(2) That authority be delegated to the Assistant Director of Planning and Development in relation to the wording of the definition of an ‘Affordable Rented Unit’.
Voting For – 4 Against - 2
CLOSE OF MEETING
The meeting ended at 10.42 pm

Nothing in minutes of the LD Cllrs questions to Barratts.

The viability study was not in the officers report.

It was asked what sort of tenancies. Whether secure or time limited. This was not answered. Not that happy now that authority has been delegated to officers to define wording of definition of what is an Affordable Rented Units.

 

[Gramsci]

Latest issue of Lambeth Weekender has (page 10) quotes Cllr Pete Robbins , Cabinet member for Housing and Regeneration, as saying that

"both the developers and Councils hands are tied due to the coalition governments new approach to affordable homes ( abolishing the government subsidy for social rent homes last year) We fundamentally disagree with this approach but we cant wish it away. Instead we ask developers to set affordable rents at the lowest possible level in order for them to still be viable."

I do not understand what Cllr Robbins is going about it.

• Barratts went to Council to alter the Section 106 which had already been agreed.

• This was an application by Barratts. Not the Council.

• No evidence was presented to the Planning Committee meeting about viability.

• The officers/ Barratts did not justify the affordable rent levels they were suggesting.

• The Council is not there to look after the interests of a large developer but is there to represent the interests of the less powerful.

• A Labour Council should not imply that they are in the same position as a developer like Barratts. Barratts is a large profit making business and the Labour party is there to represent interests of ordinary people. Barratts can and should speak for themselves.

• My experience of the meeting was that officers/ Barratts thought that this just how things are and needed no explanation. Going to committee was just a rubber stamp on an issue that as CH1 posted has been discussed between officers and Barratts for some time. In that case, and if Cllr Robbins thinks what he says is correct ,could the Council not waste residents time in planning. Obviously Council and Barratts think residents who took there right to object were wasting there time.

 

[leanderman]

Latest issue of Lambeth Weekender has (page 10) quotes Cllr Pete Robbins , Cabinet member for Housing and Regeneration, as saying that



I do not understand what Cllr Robbins is going about it.

• Barratts went to Council to alter the Section 106 which had already been agreed.

• This was an application by Barratts. Not the Council.

• No evidence was presented to the Planning Committee meeting about viability.

• The officers/ Barratts did not justify the affordable rent levels they were suggesting.

• The Council is not there to look after the interests of a large developer but is there to represent the interests of the less powerful.

• A Labour Council should not imply that they are in the same position as a developer like Barratts. Barratts is a large profit making business and the Labour party is there to represent interests of ordinary people. Barratts can and should speak for themselves.

• My experience of the meeting was that officers/ Barratts thought that this just how things are and needed no explanation. Going to committee was just a rubber stamp on an issue that as CH1 posted has been discussed between officers and Barratts for some time. In that case, and if Cllr Robbins thinks what he says is correct ,could the Council not waste residents time in planning. Obviously Council and Barratts think residents who took there right to object were wasting there time.

But Lambeth councillors and officers can do as they like when so few people bother to call them to account, as you have.

Maybe we get the councils we deserve.

 

[TonyH82]

But Lambeth councillors and officers can do as they like when so few people bother to call them to account, as you have.

Maybe we get the councils we deserve.

Absolutely.

Has anyone been watching the BBC show "The Planners"? It is a documentary series looking at the planning process.

It is fascinating to contrast the Barratt's planning meeting with those relating to the construction of houses on green-field sites in rural Britain.

At these rural meetings, loads of dreadful, middle aged NIMBYs turn up in force. They sit in the front row, loudly applauding objectors and generally letting the members of the committee know that local people don't like what is going on.

This has a massive impact, and the elected members often reject officer recommendations.(The shows points out that such decisions may well be overturned on appeal).

These people are utter scum who are motivated only by preserving the value of their house - but you have to admire their organisation / motivation.

As the recent Lambeth meeting, there was one objector, and no massed presence in the front row. Absolutely no pressure was applied - so who can blame the councilors for going along with their professional advisers?

 

[editor]

These people are utter scum who are motivated only by preserving the value of their house - but you have to admire their organisation / motivation.

Why is someone 'scum' for trying to preserve the value of their home?

 

[TonyH82]

Why is someone 'scum' for trying to preserve the value of their home?

Watch the show and you will see.

Daily Mail / Daily Express reading types who don't care about people who are priced out and need new houses.

The kind of people who would hate the ideal of a new development with affordable housing near to their home.

The kind of people who would love a Foxtons near their house.

The kind of people who would love to snap up a couple of BTLs in a new Barratt's scheme.

The kind of people this board hates!

 

[TonyH82]

i.e - incredibly selfish and unpleasant people!

but determined people.

 

[Rushy]

These people are utter scum who are motivated only by preserving the value of their house - but you have to admire their organisation / motivation.

Scum? A bit rough. You're ignoring the genuine issues and playing the man rather than the ball. They may well be nimbys but many are motivated by genuine fear of change or loss of quality of life rather than house prices. I think their fears are understandable even if, on balance, the weight should often be in favour of the applicants. It has to be decided on a case by case basis.

Whilst effect on house prices is not a valid reason for planning objection it is short sighted not to recognise the real impact it can have on individuals lives. For instance, it can put people into positions of negative equity. Houses in quiet areas suddenly blighted by 5 or six years of building works become pretty much unsaleable, reducing mobility, etc.. Massive schemes can have a huge impact on qulaity of life. And of course, because they are not professional planners, objectors often fall into the trap of adding numerous tenuous reasons for objection because they feel it will bolster their cause, rather than detract from their more genuine and often more valid concerns.

 

[TonyH82]

Scum? A bit rough. You're ignoring the genuine issues and playing the man rather than the ball. They may well be nimbys but many are motivated by genuine fear of change or loss of quality of life rather than house prices. I think their fears are understandable even if, on balance, the weight should often be in favour of the applicants. It has to be decided on a case by case basis.

Whilst effect on house prices is not a valid reason for planning objection it is short sighted not to recognise the real impact it can have on individuals lives. For instance, it can put people into positions of negative equity. Houses in quiet areas suddenly blighted by 5 or six years of building works become pretty much unsaleable, reducing mobility, etc.. And of course, because they are not professional planners, objectors often fall into the trap of adding numerous tenuous reasons for objection because they feel it will bolster their cause, rather than detract from their more genuine and often more valid concerns.

Yeah - fair play, scum is a bit harsh!

Inconsiderate is probably a better thing to say.

The point I'm trying to make is that these people get mobilised and put pressure on the council.

There's lots of chat on this forum and how terrible Barratt's are for welching on their s106. But then only 1 guy shows up to object.

Leanderman is right to say that you get the council you deserve!

 

[Rushy]

And house prices are often linked to quality of life in a particular area so they are not entirely separate issues.

 

[TruXta]

At the end of the day house-prices have to go down (or rather should go down) if we're to sustainably house people. So someone has to take a hit.

 

[Rushy]

Yeah - fair play, scum is a bit harsh!

Inconsiderate is probably a better thing to say.

The point I'm trying to make is that these people get mobilised and put pressure on the council.

There's lots of chat on this forum and how terrible Barratt's are for welching on their s106. But then only 1 guy shows up to object.

Leanderman is right to say that you get the council you deserve!

Objecting does not = inconsiderate. If they don't object their concerns will often not be heard. And lots of planning apps are put in with a few very inconsiderate 'extras' which the developers use as negotiating tools.

I don't think these confrontational situations always bring out the best in people, but painting a broad picture of them as anything other than normal people is way off the mark.

 

[leanderman]

At the end of the day house-prices have to go down (or rather should go down) if we're to sustainably house people. So someone has to take a hit.

As I keep saying, there is no way house prices will go down if homebuilding cannot keep pace with the population.

Not sure Osborne's plans will make much difference. If anything, they will push prices up.

 

[TruXta]

As I keep saying, there is no way house prices will go down if homebuilding cannot keep pace with the population.

Not sure Osborne's plans will make much difference. If anything, they will push prices up.

Sure. Hence my "if". It's a big if, granted.

 

[Rushy]

At the end of the day house-prices have to go down (or rather should go down) if we're to sustainably house people. So someone has to take a hit.

That's a totally different subject. Planning applications are localised and can affect small areas very suddenly and disproportionately whilst everywhere else in unaffected (living standards and/or house prices) . I think it is a bit much to expect people to sit back and take it without arguing their case.

 

[leanderman]

Why is someone 'scum' for trying to preserve the value of their home?

An interesting contrast with the Barratts situation is the refusal of planning for turning the Josephine Avenue former job centre into 'student studios'.

In this case, councillors rejected the advice of their officers.

And were perhaps influenced by the loud and numerous complaints from the owners of neighbouring houses.

 

[TruXta]

That's a totally different subject. Planning applications are localised and affect small areas very suddenly whilst everywhere else in unaffected.

Sure, but all those local decisions add up to national-level effects. It's like power plants - they've got to go somewhere.