leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Telegraph reports today a 25pc year-on-year rise in planning approvals.
It attributes this to changes in planning policy.
Say hello to Barratt Homes' 'Brixton Square' on Coldharbour Lane (old Cooltan site)
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Telegraph reports today a 25pc year-on-year rise in planning approvals.
It attributes this to changes in planning policy.
TruXta
tired
Approvals for what, residential buildings?
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Sorry - I edited my post slightly whilst you were replying. Primarily to add that individuals can be disproportionately affected and that we cannot expect them to just sit back and take it without arguing their cases. It doesn't make them scum or inconsiderate.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Yep. Housing. And no change in devolved Wales and Scotland.
TruXta
tired
No, it doesn't make them scum at all in and of itself (altho it can arguable encourage anti-social behaviour).
Rushy
basically a scrotum
I remember my village strongly opposing HS1 in the 80s. Not many argued that HS1 wasn't needed but just because someone had proposed putting it through their village didn't mean that it was the right place for it or that better measures needed to be put in place to protect the residents - and the inspectorate agreed. Passion ran incredibly high as people with no experience of this kind of thing felt they were being ignored or shafted.
TruXta
tired
Point taken, but at the end of the day change is often disruptive, and on this island there's not that many places where change won't have a significant (and sometimes negative) impact on others in some regard. As I said, someone has to take a hit on their house prices if housing policy is to return to a semblance of sanity.
quimcunx
imprimeo, lamino, distribuo
I'm guessing a lot more neighbours in a rural area will be owner occupiers rather than renters. In an urban area there are probably a lot more renters and a lot more planning applications that you have to first be aware of, then understand, then decide whether you object to or not, then actually do something about. Also a lot more easy to know who your neighbours are and what sort of opinion they might have and round them up in a small village than a more anonymous sprawl.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
I don't disagree. My only objection was the the vilification of people for objecting (not by you). Not all proposals are good ones, not all sites are good ones, cost vs impact assessments need to be made, etc.. We need more housing. There are lots of factors affecting where it is best to put it.
Pretending (not you) that they are anything other than a normal cross section of people temporarily united by a common issue is naive and simplistic. At the end of the day the interests of the people being affected are not going to be strongly defended by anyone else.
TruXta
tired
Nothing to disagree with there. Vilification takes us precisely nowhere.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Certainly renters seem to feel on the whole less threatened by planning changes as they can often just up sticks and move a couple of streets away. Obviously that's not always the case and it's easier for some rather than others but in general it is much more of an issue for owner occupiers who may have problems selling or seeking new finance elsewhere, etc..
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
A few Cllrs opposed this.
Cllr Robbins is a cabinet member who gets approximately £29 000 in allowances. As far as Im concerned officers and Cabinet Cllrs should try harder to defend social housing.
I do not blame local people. I get annoyed that Lambeth Labour is still so Nu Labour. For a member of the Labour party to defend Barratts beggars belief.
On weekend I was looking up stuff on housing "reforms" and benefit changes. Other Labour Councils are much more upfront about supporting social housing and opposing this governments "reforms".
People cannot be expected to spend there time doing this. Cllrs should take into account what is said on the internet. Internet is one way people who are "time poor" can have a say.
It might be ok for well off people in rural villages to oppose developments.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
I blame local people!
If someone really cares about an issue they will make the time to attend a meeting. Completing an online petition or complaining on a forum takes very little effort.
Be the change you wish to see in the world!
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I really disagree. People with children and young people who would not necessarily go to meetings can use the internet.
Making a lot of effort should not be a justification of how ones opinion is judged. To increase political participation, which is of concern in older democracies, hurdles to participation need to be removed where possible.
Its about time internet was taken more seriously.
It is being used on the consultation for Somerleyton road. See how that goes.
Just got some my hands on some interesting information regarding Brixton Square.
There are 155 flats in total. 118 are for private sale. 25 are shared ownership. 12 are rented.
Not sure if this reflects the latest planning decisions... But one thing is clear - most of the “affordable” is shared ownership rather than rented which presumably prices out many people who would traditionally go for council housing.
There are 155 flats in total. 118 are for private sale. 25 are shared ownership. 12 are rented.
Not sure if this reflects the latest planning decisions... But one thing is clear - most of the “affordable” is shared ownership rather than rented which presumably prices out many people who would traditionally go for council housing.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Are the prices of the private flats bumped up to cover the developer's presumed lower margin on the non-private flats. Or is the profit margin the same on both types of flat?
dunno.
i presume they will try and sell the private flats for as much as the market will bear regardless of their s106 obligations.
i imagine they make a lower "loss" on shared ownership than rented.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
This seems an underestimate - according to Part 5 – Members Allowance Scheme you need to add on the basic allowance that every councillor gets (£10,597 for 2012/3) - making a grand total of £39,115 (plus a council laptop and council mobile phone)
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Latest twist on Lambeth social/affordable housing policy: planning have just refused permission for a major refurbishment and redevelopment at Toplin House (former Victorian fire-station and Refugee Council/Post Office building in Ferndale Road). This looked to be quite a good scheme design-wise, opening up the frontage on Ferndale Road for shops/offices facing Bon Marché and demolishing the rear extension on the corner of Stockwell Avenue/Bellefields Road.
Decision (13/00096/FUL) was at officer delegated level - so this may be part of a ping-pong negotiation à la Barratts.
Reason No1 for refusal: The proposed residential flat building appears capable of accommodating additional units, where the size of the proposed units exceed the minimum floor space standards set out in the Councils SPD on Housing Development and resorts in a layout that therefore prohibits the provision of affordable housing. No adequate justification has been provided to demonstrate why additional units can not be achieved at the site, and therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy S2 of the Core Strategy 2011 whereby it fails to address the Boroughs Housing needs.
In plain English this means that the developer has proposed to build flats which are TOO LARGE - thereby not cramming enough units in to trigger the requirement to provide affordable housing.
I know some may disagree - but I think it is a pity that we are losing agreed social housing on the Barratts scheme - where it was written into the agreement. Now we may be losing a quality development on a key commercial site in central Brixton because the council choose to insist on treating MINIMUM FLOOR AREA as a MAXIMUM in the residential back-addition to catch the affordable housing requirement.
What do people make of that - and what will the planning inspector say if there is an appeal?
Decision (13/00096/FUL) was at officer delegated level - so this may be part of a ping-pong negotiation à la Barratts.
Reason No1 for refusal: The proposed residential flat building appears capable of accommodating additional units, where the size of the proposed units exceed the minimum floor space standards set out in the Councils SPD on Housing Development and resorts in a layout that therefore prohibits the provision of affordable housing. No adequate justification has been provided to demonstrate why additional units can not be achieved at the site, and therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy S2 of the Core Strategy 2011 whereby it fails to address the Boroughs Housing needs.
In plain English this means that the developer has proposed to build flats which are TOO LARGE - thereby not cramming enough units in to trigger the requirement to provide affordable housing.
I know some may disagree - but I think it is a pity that we are losing agreed social housing on the Barratts scheme - where it was written into the agreement. Now we may be losing a quality development on a key commercial site in central Brixton because the council choose to insist on treating MINIMUM FLOOR AREA as a MAXIMUM in the residential back-addition to catch the affordable housing requirement.
What do people make of that - and what will the planning inspector say if there is an appeal?
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Having looked at it I can see what they are getting at. They feel the site has been kept down to 9 oversized units in order to avoid this policy:
The developer's statement says that they are focussing on family size accommodation but two of the three 3 bed flats are on the top two floors and have no outside space so aren't really family accommodation in planning terms. Space-wise, those could be replaced with three two beds or another combo taking the number of flats up to 10 and making affordable kick in.
The key thing is that they have to decide whether the site is capable of accommodating 10 homes - which it is. But strictly applied it means that borderline developments will always have to sacrifice larger flats for smaller ones, e.g. 10 one beds rather than 7 x 2 beds or a mix, for example.
quimcunx
imprimeo, lamino, distribuo
All of it? All the changes? Animal cruelty, renewable energy, benefit reform, disability rights, illegal wars, child welfare, Palestine, mental health, sweatshops in China, bear bile farming, legal aid, amazonian rain forests, social housing etc etc. I want to see lots of change. How much spare time do you think people have?
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
That's what I was getting at.
The planners are being consistent with the policy then, on Toplin House.
Going back to Barratts, they now only have to provide 31% affordable at Brixton Square (assuming that means shared ownership and affordable rented added together). Clearly this is why they were raising the viability study - so why did the planning committee not also consider this study (other that hearing an assertion that it existed)?
48 affordable units are to be provided - 13 for affordable rent and 35 for shared ownership.
Under the policy you quote there should have been 62 affordable units, 43 SOCIAL RENT and 19 shared ownership - in the absence of public subsidy. Barratts have been let completely off the hook.
No doubt next step for the Toplin House developer will be to commission a viability study.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Problem is that unless their ward is top-heavy with social housing, there's no percentage in it for them, so we're left to rely on that shrinking quality among councillors: Altruism.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
FFS
This should be resisted. Half the reason for a % of affordable housing is to have mixed communities.
If its in the Labour Administration propaganda mag then they are seriously thinking about doing this. Plus the supportive comments from local residents. Who look so happy to be run by Lambeth Labour.
What is the date of that issue of Lambeth Pravda? As I cant find it on Lambeth website.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
What this country needs is this: (from my Argentinians friends FB)
¡ HERMOSO! ¡COMANDANTE SUPREMO!
