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

[leanderman]

Just a bit of clarification (and to my pleasant surprise) on BTL, I moved into the development in June and in my core there are 22 flats I think of which one is BTL. Having spoken with the vast majority of neighbours the majority like me have lived in the local area, so I'd have to say a lot of the assumptions made are ill-founded.

That is a pleasant surprise.

 

[cuppa tee]

I'm still a bit confused how the developers of the nearby Viaduct got away with converting the commercial units at the rear (on Valentia Place) because they really don't look like they're designed for residential use.

Unless my eyes were playing tricks on me i'm sure I saw people sat watching telly in the commercial units on the ground floor of the ugly new build opposite the crown and anchor
of course watching telly is not the same as living there.

 

[editor]

That is a pleasant surprise.

It's a little at odds with my (admittedly limited) experience: I've met three people who have moved in to the flats. All were renting, and none said they were living in the area. Perhaps I found the only three examples. Maybe. Barratts were certainly aiming the development at buy to letters though.

 

[leanderman]

It's a little at odds with my (admittedly limited) experience: I've met three people who have moved in to the flats. All were renting, and none said they were living in the area. Perhaps I found the only three examples. Maybe. Barratts were certainly aiming the development at buy to letters though.

Intriguing contrast.

 

[teuchter]

That is a pleasant surprise.

The hatemongers will be restive.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That really is a comprehensive refusal. Sometimes these things read like "yeah, you nearly got it, but if you just tweak a bit and come back to us, no wories" but that is pretty full on.

I suspect that even Lambeth Planning cottoned on that local people were pissed off about Barratts being allowed to get out of the "social housing" committment, and have done this to send a message, as much as because it was the right thing to do.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Intriguing contrast.

The best sort.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The hatemongers will be restive.

As will sententious pricks like yourself who go around saying things like "the hatemongers will be restive".

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Just a bit of clarification (and to my pleasant surprise) on BTL, I moved into the development in June and in my core there are 22 flats I think of which one is BTL. Having spoken with the vast majority of neighbours the majority like me have lived in the local area, so I'd have to say a lot of the assumptions made are ill-founded.

Forgive me for being sceptical, but how do you know only 1 of 22 is BTL? You say "you think..." and that you've spoken to the "vast majority" but not all of the residents. Also, you only speak for "your core" of 22 flats - there are 5 blocks and well over 100 flats...

So methinks you are stretching the truth. But I'd be happy to be proved wrong with any evidence.

 

[teuchter]

As will sententious pricks like yourself who go around saying things like "the hatemongers will be restive".

My suspicions are confirmed.

 

[JAC2013]

Brixton Hatter – I was similarly sceptical, but there was a ‘meet the neighbours’ day of sorts recently for all of the first phase of residents, a bit of a meet and greet for all of the new residents. So we have actually had the pleasure of meeting the vast majority of all the current occupiers in both ours and the other two occupied cores. Quite genuinely nearly all of the various people that I spoke to were living in the development with a minority renting. I think this will tie in with rightmove listings over the past 2/3 months with only 2/3 from my monitoring being BTL. Undoubtedly this could well potentially change with the second phase released later this year with a higher BTL ratio, but I have to say it’s a really nice mix of people in my block with a high number of permanent residents, as opposed to the adjacent Valentia place which is fully rental. Hope this info is of interest!

 

[editor]

Undoubtedly this could well potentially change with the second phase released later this year with a higher BTL ratio, but I have to say it’s a really nice mix of people in my block with a high number of permanent residents, as opposed to the adjacent Valentia place which is fully rental. Hope this info is of interest!

Thanks for the update.

Shame the development is priced so high with so few affordable rents available thanks to the disgusting, obligation-wriggling antics of Barratt Homes.

 

[ViolentPanda]

My suspicions are confirmed.

Mentioning that you're a sententious prick (a fact evident from many of your postings) isn't "hatemongering", it's a Public Service Announcement.

 

[leanderman]

Brixton Hatter – I was similarly sceptical, but there was a ‘meet the neighbours’ day of sorts recently for all of the first phase of residents, a bit of a meet and greet for all of the new residents. So we have actually had the pleasure of meeting the vast majority of all the current occupiers in both ours and the other two occupied cores. Quite genuinely nearly all of the various people that I spoke to were living in the development with a minority renting. I think this will tie in with rightmove listings over the past 2/3 months with only 2/3 from my monitoring being BTL. Undoubtedly this could well potentially change with the second phase released later this year with a higher BTL ratio, but I have to say it’s a really nice mix of people in my block with a high number of permanent residents, as opposed to the adjacent Valentia place which is fully rental. Hope this info is of interest!

Clearly, the meeting was staged by Barratts using out-of-work actors!

 

[Rushy]

as opposed to the adjacent Valentia place which is fully rental.

The guy who built it (well, finished building it) never sold up.

 

[Mr Bim of Bar]

Clearly, the meeting was staged by Barratts using out-of-work actors!

Lol I move into BS in November so will inform you about the next wave of BTL/owner occupiers/newbies

 

[Manter]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/thousands-affordable-homes-axed-councils

This is interesting- on affordable homes being axed from new developments, why, etc

 

[editor]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/thousands-affordable-homes-axed-councils

This is interesting- on affordable homes being axed from new developments, why, etc

Shameful, disgusting greed from the developers and spineless capitulation from the councils is why.

 

[Gramsci]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/thousands-affordable-homes-axed-councils

This is interesting- on affordable homes being axed from new developments, why, etc

Developers are using financial "viability" as reason. The article says that these financial viability asssessments are commercially confidential. They are so confidential that when the alteration to the Section 106 by Barratts went to planning committee even the Cllrs on the committee did not see it.

 

[Crispy]

I've worked on one of those "viability" reports. It's a sham.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

The viability stuff is such a sham it's hard to think anyone genuinely believes it. Seeing as the affordable housing is agreed at the time the development is planned but then routinely (as in, every single time) not put in on affordability grounds I can only see two possible explanations: a) the developers are so poor at calculating their expected costs and incomes from a project that each time it's a massive surprise to them that they aren't working out, or b) they routinely assume that they can get rid of the affordable housing upon completion and build on that basis. I wonder which is true?

 

[Manter]

Shameful, disgusting greed from the developers and spineless capitulation from the councils is why.

Judging from the article, the councils hand are largely tied- don't know how true that is?

 

[Chilavert]

Councils are dealing with what, a 35-40% reduction in their funding at the moment? If, as Manter says, their hands are largely tied, why would they waste what little money they have appealing to the planning inspectorate over decisions they have no chance of overturning?

That being the case Ed I think your description of councils' actions is a little hyperbolic (not that there aren't other very legitimate reasons to criticise Lambeth).

 

[Rushy]

Councils are dealing with what, a 35-40% reduction in their funding at the moment? If, as Manter says, their hands are largely tied, why would they waste what little money they have appealing to the planning inspectorate over decisions they have no chance of overturning?

That being the case Ed I think your description of councils' actions is a little hyperbolic (not that there aren't other very legitimate reasons to criticise Lambeth).

Indeed. Developers spend 10s of thousands on these viability reports. Council's don't have the funds to challenge them effectively / risk losing on appeal.

I think there is an argument to made for simplifying the process. Much of the "affordability" of the project will be tied up with what was paid for the land. That should be an irrelevance. Otherwise a developer who over pays for a site can make up for it at the expense of affordable housing. They should simply have to develop it or sell it to another developer - even if it means they sell it at a loss. The profit on successful development are high because of the risks involved. It is not the government's job to take al the risk out for the developer and still maintain profit.

 

[teuchter]

over decisions they have no chance of overturning?

It's the developer who could appeal if the council refused permission, isn't it? It would still involve a cost to the council, of course, but I wonder what the appeal process would make of the "financial viability" arguments? After all, unlike the councils themselves, they might be less scared to annoy developers. Have many of these kinds of applications have actually gone to appeal I wonder?

 

[Chilavert]

I'm sure you're right Teuchter, I'm by no means an expert on the planning system (who is?).

 

[Rushy]

It's the developer who could appeal if the council refused permission, isn't it? It would still involve a cost to the council, of course, but I wonder what the appeal process would make of the "financial viability" arguments? After all, unlike the councils themselves, they might be less scared to annoy developers. Have many of these kinds of applications have actually gone to appeal I wonder?

I'm not really all that clued up on details but believe that if the council loses the appeal they may be liable for potentially huge costs for delay to the developer. hence appeals can be "with costs".

 

[Gramsci]

I have looked this issue of renegotiation of Section 106 agreements ( which include affordable housing). There are several articles in Inside Housing.

What has happened is that this Government has changed the planning rules:

Plans to allow developers to renegotiate their affordable housing obligations if they believe these are making schemes unviable have become law.

The Growth and Infrastructure Act, which received royal assent yesterday, will allow developers to reopen discussions over section 106 agreements and reduce the number of affordable homes they are providing.

During the passage of the bill through parliament the government accepted an amendment introducing a ‘sunset clause’ to end the measure in April 2016, although the government will be able to extend it if it feels it is still necessary.

So this is supposed to be temporary measure due to economic crisis. Also read developers were lobbying government for this.

In the run up to passing this act the GLA assembly urged Boris to oppose this change:

The London Assembly calls on the mayor… to reaffirm his commitment to mixed and balanced communities, and to reject any attempt to renegotiate existing planning obligations where this would lead to a reduction in the level of affordable housing being provided,’ she said.

These alterations to Section 106 were also opposed by the (national) Labour Party

This is a developers view

The agreements were signed in January 2007 before Freshstart acquired the developments and, importantly, prior to the property market downturn.

As first revealed by Inside Housing, section 106 agreements can now be removed if they make a project commercially unviable for a developer. This can only be a good thing for the property market and the economy on the whole.

Does look to me that developers must have lobbied government for this easing of Section 106 agreements. Given that in London the housing market is ok for sellers of property do not see how this argument can apply.

 

[Gramsci]

This article argues (correctly imo) that the "viability" testing can lead to long term problems.

"However, without further guidance, the narrow definition of viability in the NPPF risks undermining the future wellbeing and resilience of our communities by reducing the delivery of social and affordable housing and weakening positive action on responding to climate change.”

Chris Cousins, local government liaison manager at BRE, said: “Viability assessments of new developments must consider the impact of the buildings, homes and infrastructure provided. Developments that don’t respond to 21st century challenges like an ageing population and climate change will have big costs to local authorities and society in the long-term.”

Naomi Luhde-Thompson, Friends of the Earth's planning and policy advisor, said: "The planning system needs to deliver in the public interest, but the current viability policy is short-term and damaging for local economies and our environment. The Government must commit to revising the policy as soon as possible for fairer and more sustainable decisions.

It would cost more to build homes to a zero carbon standard. Viability assessment that are based on short term profit or loss do not take into account long term savings that benefit society as a whole.

 

[CH1]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/thousands-affordable-homes-axed-councils

This is interesting- on affordable homes being axed from new developments, why, etc

Edward Lister's reported comment in the article is not logical: "while the priority is to get new schemes off the ground, the mayor would intervene in future to raise affordable housing numbers if it was shown that developers were making disproportionately large profits"
If the priority in a property boom is to "get new schemes off the ground" by accepting 15 or 20% affordable and no social housing, how is the Mayor's Office going to intervene in the next property slump?