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

[ViolentPanda]

Here's another way to think about gated communities ....

Mortars for the win!

 

[Gramsci]

On the planning website it says the following. OMR means "Of Market Rent". From a quick look at the documents on the planning website this is a change from social rented by a RSL to the new definition of "affordable rented" by a registered provider. Affordable rented is related to the market rents in the area. So 60% for a 2 bed is 60% of whatever the market rent is for the area.

Reference 12/03393/S106

Application Received Thu 06 Sep 2012

Address 368 - 372 Coldharbour Lane London

Proposal Variation of S106 to allow the following: 1. To substitute the previously included definitions for Social Rented Housing Units with Affordable Housing Units and to fix the rent figures at 60& OMR for a 2 bed, 55% OMR for a 3 bed and 49% OMR for a 4 bed unit; and 2. In the case of the approved intermediate units, to widen the RSL definition to include Affordable Housing Providers.

Status Pending Consideration
Appeal Status Not Available

​

​

​

​

​

 

[editor]

Any chance of a slightly bigger version of that?

 

[quimcunx]

What does that mean in english?

 

[Manter]

And here's the delightful piece of architecture that's coming our way.

Is it an office block? Council offices? No, it's Brixton Square, the kind of square where the public aren't allowed in!

http://www.urban75.org/blog/brixton...ith-flats-starting-at-a-quarter-of-a-million/

I know I'm late to the party- but f*** that's horrible.

If we aren't allowed in, maybe we can barricade it so the Brixsters can't get out?

 

[Manter]

OMR is open market rates. Social rents would be fixed- e.g. you will pay £350pcm. Affordable rent means that now you pay 55% what a private tenant would pay (let's say that's currently £350)- as gentrification gathers pace, your rent will go up too- still way below market rates, but if you are on benefits or doing a low paid job (or three) you'll be priced out. If market rates go up by £100, your rent goes up by £55. And I bet your income doesn't...

 

[quimcunx]

Where do I send my objection?

e2a: said for effect. I can read the details on the new bigger better pic.

 

[Gramsci]

Any chance of a slightly bigger version of that?

just been doing that. First pic did not work.

 

[Gramsci]

OMR is open market rates. Social rents would be fixed- e.g. you will pay £350pcm. Affordable rent means that now you pay 55% what a private tenant would pay (let's say that's currently £350)- as gentrification gathers pace, your rent will go up too- still way below market rates, but if you are on benefits or doing a low paid job (or three) you'll be priced out. If market rates go up by £100, your rent goes up by £55. And I bet your income doesn't...

Thanks Manter. I started to look at the documents on the planning website associated with this. Not exactly written in laymans language.

So this is pretty crap really. I was wondering if it meant this. The "affordable rent" will go up with the market rent. This is completely different from Council rents or old style RSL rents.

This is of no real use to a lot of people. As if the market rent goes up a lot you will have to leave. Especially as there are new Government restrictions on Housing Benefit.

 

[quimcunx]

So basically they got planning permission on the basis of providing x no. of units to be rented at a set price (set to what?) and having got permission they've built them and now they're wanting to renege on the deal?

 

[editor]

Could someone who understands the intricacies of these things please detail exactly what's been proposed here and if it's as I think it is, I want to get publicising this pronto. Brixton needs proper social housing, not this bollocks.

 

[fortyplus]

Not an expert on the different types of lower-cost housing. But this is a s106 variation - same thing that Tesco used to pull the ice-rink trick. S106 is about "planning gain" - developer agrees to provide some public benefit, e.g. a new sports centre or some social housing, as part of the planning deal. Then you apply for a variation, which usually goes through with less scrutiny than a full application. S.106 variations need greater scrutiny, because they are always about big corporations reneging on deals they have done.

 

[Manter]

Thanks Manter. I started to look at the documents on the planning website associated with this. Not exactly written in laymans language.

So this is pretty crap really. I was wondering if it meant this. The "affordable rent" will go up with the market rent. This is completely different from Council rents or old style RSL rents.

This is of no real use to a lot of people. As if the market rent goes up a lot you will have to leave. Especially as there are new Government restrictions on Housing Benefit.

That's about the size of it

 

[Manter]

Could someone who understands the intricacies of these things please detail exactly what's been proposed here and if it's as I think it is, I want to get publicising this pronto. Brixton needs proper social housing, not this bollocks.

Likewise no expert but I read badly written bullsh1t for a living and having trawled through the planning website, which is exactly that, I think that fortyplus is spot on. What Barratts build eventually will be less social provision and at higher cost than would ever have been approved in the initial planning application.

 

[Crispy]

If anybody is thinking of writing an objection, the following are useful references:

The London Plan 2011 - Chapter 3, Policy 3.11A (This is the London-wide planning policy document)

The Mayor will, and boroughs and other relevant agencies and partners should, seek to maximise affordable housing provision and ensure an average of at least 13,200 more affordable homes per year in
London over the term of this Plan. In order to give impetus to a strong and diverse
intermediate housing sector, 60% of the affordable housing provision should be
for social rent and 40% for intermediate rent or sale. Priority should be accorded to
provision of affordable family housing

LDF Core Strategy 2011 - Chapter 4, Policy S2c (This is Lambeth's planning policy document, prepared in response to The London Plan)
[The Council will meet the borough’s housing needs to 2025 by: ]
Seeking the provision of affordable housing on sites of at least 0.1 hectares or on sites capable of accommodating 10 or more homes. At least 50 per cent of housing should be affordable where public subsidy is available, or 40 per cent without public subsidy, subject to housing priorities and, where relevant, to independently validated evidence of viability, or where there is a clearly demonstrable benefit in a different mix in the case of housing estate regeneration. The mix of affordable housing should be 70 per cent social rented and 30 per cent intermediate.

This S106 variation is clearly violating these policies. (is violating the right word?)

 

[Brixton Hatter]

What does that mean in english?

They are rowing back on the original agreement to provide social housing - more beneficial for the private owners.

 

[quimcunx]

So are we organising to get lots of objections sent and maybe a petition?

someone should do this.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

So basically they got planning permission on the basis of providing x no. of units to be rented at a set price (set to what?) and having got permission they've built them and now they're wanting to renege on the deal?

Yep. And this has happened a lot ime - once the building starts, developers start trying to squeeze the margins wherever they can. Standard practice really. Developers will do their best to avoid or delay any section 106 agreements. For example, one of the section 106 agreements at Dick Sheppard School (now Brockwell Gate) was for the developer to build a new entrance to the park from Tulse Hill. This didn't actually happen until years after the last flats were built and sold, with the developer forced kicking and screaming to a cheap, late job.

 

[editor]

I'm not really up to speed with the technicalities here, but it would be grand if someone could word this in really easy to understand jargon and perhaps offer a template complaint so I can get publicisin'.

 

[quimcunx]

We need a twitter storm! And facebook etc.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

So are we organising to get lots of objections sent and maybe a petition?

someone should do this.

It's a planning application, so we can object. Looks like comments are open until 4 October. You can send a letter to the planning department, or even better, log in to the Lambeth website and make your objection in the comments section here: http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...iveTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=MAA4WOBO0GL00

Case reference is 12/03393/S106

 

[quimcunx]

Like Ed I want to know I'm objecting in correct and effective terms first. I am going to object though.

 

[editor]

I'm all fired up and ready to go, but I want to make sure I know what the feck I'm on about.

 

[Crispy]

Interesting. An identical application for a S106 variation was made in 2011, ref 11/04431/S106 : http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...CaseNumber=IATT91BOXK000&keyVal=LWAHW0BO0GL00 but was withdrawn

 

[Crispy]

I'm having trouble tracking down the previous S106 agreement. The decision letter for the original application makes no mention of S106. Getting closer now...
(In process of writing a letter/email)

 

[Brixton Hatter]

I will try to find some more details on the exact definitions posted on the planning notice....

 

[Brixton Hatter]

The wording on the actual planning application on the Lambeth planning database doesn't match the wording on the poster above which Gramsci posted:

12/03393/S106 | Variation of S106 to allow the following: 1. To substitute the previously included definitions for Social Rented Housing Units with Affordable Housing Units and to fix the rent figures at 60& OMR for a 2 bed, 55% OMR for a 3 bed and 49% OMR for a 4 bed unit; and 2. In the case of the approved intermediate units, to widen the RSL definition to include Affordable Housing Providers. | 368 - 372 Coldharbour Lane London

 

[Crispy]

I'm sending the following email:

Ref: 12/03393/S106
Dear Sir/Madam,
In reference to the above planning application, I am writing to object to the proposal, on the following grounds. The removal of Social Rented Housing is in direct opposition to both London Plan 2011 policy 3.11A, which states,
"The Mayor will, and boroughs and other relevant agencies and partners should, seek to maximise affordable housing provision and ensure an average of at least 13,200 more affordable homes per year in London over the term of this Plan. In order to give impetus to a strong and diverse intermediate housing sector, 60% of the affordable housing provision should be for social rent and 40% for intermediate rent or sale. Priority should be accorded to provision of affordable family housing."
and Lambeth's own LDF Core Strategy policy S2c, which states,
"The Council will meet the borough’s housing needs to 2025 by:
Seeking the provision of affordable housing on sites of at least 0.1 hectares or on sites capable of accommodating 10 or more homes. At least 50 per cent of housing should be affordable where public subsidy is available, or 40 per cent without public subsidy, subject to housing priorities and, where relevant, to independently validated evidence of viability, or where there is a clearly demonstrable benefit in a different mix in the case of housing estate regeneration. The mix of affordable housing should be 70 per cent social rented and 30 per cent intermediate."
The proposed S106 variation substantially reduces the total amount of affordable housing, and reduces the affordability of that portion remaining by tying it to market rents, which are rising fast in Brixton (and are projected to rise further). Barratt Homes made a £191.1m profit in FY2012, a 40% increase on the previous year. In my mind, they do not need the assistance of Lambeth Borough Council to inflate this figure further. They should remain committed to the original S106 proposal, which is to the greater benefit of the people of Lambeth.
Yours faithfully,
name
address

 

[Brixton Hatter]

And funnily enough - purely a coincidence I imagine - on October 4, the deadline for comments on this application, Barratt Homes will be having a little drinks party to celebrate their development. Maybe some of us should pop along to day hello...

Launching soon

Join us on Thursday 4th October for canapés and refreshments between 4pm to 8pm on site at Coldharbour Lane.

http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/new-homes/greater-london/H591301-Brixton-Square/

 

[Brixton Hatter]

I'm sending the following email:

Good letter.

I'm not sure I understand the numbers here yet though - and I think this might be crucial. There are going to be 107 flats at Brixton Square, which means 43 flats (40%) must be "affordable". Of those, 70% must be "social rented" (30 units) and 30% "intermediate" (13 units). I'm not sure how the definitions on the poster relate to the definitions in the LDF etc. Still trying to get my head around it...

E2A: Apparently it's 155 units overall. I'll have to check and come back to revise figures.