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

[Crispy]

Oh bugger. The covering letter for this latest application says:​

​

The proposal has evolved from detailed discussions with the Council's Housing Services. To this end, the proposed changes in definitions and Affordable Housing Provider are now firmly supported by both Housing and Planning Officers. The developer's reasoning is that Housing Associations are strapped for cash and so they won't be able to sell the affordable units to a suitable provider.​

​

And BH, you're right, the actual application doesn't propose reducing the percentage of affordable housing, it just makes it less affordable. However, it's still in opposition to the 70:30 social rent:intermediate policy.​

But, given the apparently chummy nature of the arrangement, I doubt that the objection will be strong enough. Worth a punt anyway. I've removed the "substantially reduces the total amount of affordable housing" bit from my email and sent it.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Oh bugger. The covering letter for this latest application says:​

​

The proposal has evolved from detailed discussions with the Council's Housing Services. To this end, the proposed changes in definitions and Affordable Housing Provider are now firmly supported by both Housing and Planning Officers. The developer's reasoning is that Housing Associations are strapped for cash and so they won't be able to sell the affordable units to a suitable provider.​

​

​

All the more reason to get our objections in.​

​

Did you find the original s106 agreement?​

​

I think there might also be a point around the % of the OMR proposed to be charged. Is it standard what they propose? Or is it less affordable than originally stated in the s106.​

 

[Crispy]

I couldn't find it and gave up There's so many references and separate applications and guff. Lots of references to "as agreed in previous" and "as described in section 6.3.4 above" without any *actual* figures, AFAICT.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

It might also be worth writing to the ward councillors for the area, which are:

Ward Councillors

Cllr Donatus Anyanwu
Address C/o Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, London SW2 1RW
Phone 020 8769 7541
EMAIL DAnyanwu@lambeth.gov.uk
Councillor RACHEL HEYWOOD
Address C/o Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, London SW2 1RW
Phone 07961 100 198
EMAIL rheywood@lambeth.gov.uk
Councillor Matthew Parr
Address C/o Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, London SW2 1RW
EMAIL mparr1@lambeth.gov.uk
Phone 020 7926 1166

 

[Brixton Hatter]

I couldn't find it and gave up There's so many references and separate applications and guff. Lots of references to "as agreed in previous" and "as described in section 6.3.4 above" without any *actual* figures, AFAICT.

Ok thanks. I might contact the case officer at the council to find out more.

 

[BJM2012]

My guess is that they're doing this now because it is easier to vary S106 agreements than it will be to change the replacement Community Infrastricture Levy (CIL) that comes in next year. The CILs should, in theory, bolster social housing provision. Until developers find a way around that as well. S106 should be enshrined and not subject to the whims of greedy planning pricks.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Oh bugger. The covering letter for this latest application says:​

​

The proposal has evolved from detailed discussions with the Council's Housing Services. To this end, the proposed changes in definitions and Affordable Housing Provider are now firmly supported by both Housing and Planning Officers. The developer's reasoning is that Housing Associations are strapped for cash and so they won't be able to sell the affordable units to a suitable provider.​

​

Here's the letter for reference: http://planning-docs.lambeth.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00350008.pdf

And here's the new s106 for reference: http://planning-docs.lambeth.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00350011.pdf (which includes the definitions of 'affordable housing' etc)

Unfortunately this is all making my head hurt - but I'm getting somewhere. I'll come back to this later when I have more time.

 

[quimcunx]

Oh bugger. The covering letter for this latest application says:

The proposal has evolved from detailed discussions with the Council's Housing Services. To this end, the proposed changes in definitions and Affordable Housing Provider are now firmly supported by both Housing and Planning Officers. The developer's reasoning is that Housing Associations are strapped for cash and so they won't be able to sell the affordable units to a suitable provider.

And BH, you're right, the actual application doesn't propose reducing the percentage of affordable housing, it just makes it less affordable. However, it's still in opposition to the 70:30 social rent:intermediate policy.

But, given the apparently chummy nature of the arrangement, I doubt that the objection will be strong enough. Worth a punt anyway. I've removed the "substantially reduces the total amount of affordable housing" bit from my email and sent it.

Then this sort of thing is hiding that stuff isn't working.



Are councils allowed to build new council housing? Or are they allowed but have so many constraints they can't?

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Then this sort of thing is hiding that stuff isn't working.

Yeah, why should low paid people suffer just because Barratt say they won't be able to sell the units? Maybe they should have built them cheaper, or offered them for less ££? It's a crap argument.

Are councils allowed to build new council housing? Or are they allowed but have so many constraints they can't?

I don't think there's anything to stop them, but it's easier to get developers to do it for them and means they dont have to stump up any cash in advance.

 

[quimcunx]

I mean council houses not 'affordable housing' or 'association housing'.

either way developers aren't doing it for them, are they.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Yeah I know what you mean. I don't think we'll ever see any new "council houses" built - just 'affordable housing' or 'association housing'. IIRC the law requires local authorities to build a certain amount of "social housing" but, as I understand it, the definition is loose enough to include a wide range of housing like part ownership etc. So not traditional council housing as we might imagine it.

 

[Gramsci]

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...


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

If u look at my photo it says comments in by the 26th October. The date would be different on a sign outside premises if its only just been put up. I think that notice only went up in last few days. Or I would have noticed it before.

 

[editor]

This is so important that we're looking to do a joint urban75/Brixton Blog/Brixton Buzz onslaught on this. The Blog are going to have a go at drafting up a piece which will then be posted here for checking over and editing (if needed).

There seems to be several levels of dodginess going on, so I think we need to join forces and get busy!

 

[beeboo]

Just wanted to clarify something about the "affordable housing". "Affordable" rents are pretty much replacing "social" rents everywhere now, due to changes introduced by the current government (including slashing the grant funding available for building affordable housing massively).

So instead of social rents, which are calculated according to a complicated formula, we now have 'affordable rents' which are set at any level upto 80% of what that property would be worth to rent on the open market. I think the average in London so far has been 65% of open market rents, so the rents on this scheme are below average (but higher than the old social rents).

Contrary to what was said earlier, rents don't go up if local market rents go up - at least during the course of tenancy. Increases are capped in the same way as they are in social rented housing (which is RPI + 0.5%). However, when a new tenancy is started, rents are recalculated for the relevant % of market rents at the time.

Something to watch out for is that another change from "social" to "affordable" housing is that tenancies no longer need to be offered on a lifetime basis - they could be as little as 5 years. A tenant offered a 5 year tenancy may well be able to renew their tenancy at the end of the term, but at this point the landlord has the opportunity to recalculate the rent. Therefore I would try to get an answer to whether the these properties will be offered on lifetime or fixed-term tenancies, as this could affect not only people's security of tenure but what they ultimately pay to live there.

 

[beeboo]

Incidentally Islington are the only borough in London that's trying to reject "affordable rent" outright - but they've got to fight BoJo to achieve it, and the only way they can make it work is to flog their own land to do it:

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/council-rejects-affordable-homes-programme/6522655.article

 

[Brixton Hatter]

This is so important that we're looking to so a joint urban75/Brixton Blog/Brixton Buzz onslaught on this. The Blog are going to have a go at drafting up a piece which will then be posted here for checking over and editing (if needed).

There seems to be several levels of dodginess going on, so I think we need to join forces and get busy!

mate is trying to get hold of the origianl s106 agreement...which may take a few days. I feel a little unsighted on this until I can see that original document...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Then this sort of thing is hiding that stuff isn't working.



Are councils allowed to build new council housing? Or are they allowed but have so many constraints they can't?

No money, and no suitable financing mechanism. Most older council stock was built through local authorities borrowing on the money markets at the government rate, and having the repayment "guaranteed" by the Treasury. As that would effectively put new borrowing "on the books" in terms of Treasury liabilities, Osborne is as likely to allow it as he is to admit he's a whey-faced sneering cunt with a superiority complex.
That means that what they can build, at most, is dribs and drabs, unless they get in bed with developers, as they've done with Myatts Fields (they're planning to do on my estate if we don't stop them).

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yeah I know what you mean. I don't think we'll ever see any new "council houses" built - just 'affordable housing' or 'association housing'. IIRC the law requires local authorities to build a certain amount of "social housing" but, as I understand it, the definition is loose enough to include a wide range of housing like part ownership etc. So not traditional council housing as we might imagine it.

The problem there being that no developer or group of developers have either the will or the desire to build even enough new housing to keep abreast of demand. A strain on supply equates to larger profits, and if the lack of supply happens to inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people, then so be it!

 

[Gramsci]

Just wanted to clarify something about the "affordable housing". "Affordable" rents are pretty much replacing "social" rents everywhere now, due to changes introduced by the current government (including slashing the grant funding available for building affordable housing massively).

So instead of social rents, which are calculated according to a complicated formula, we now have 'affordable rents' which are set at any level upto 80% of what that property would be worth to rent on the open market. I think the average in London so far has been 65% of open market rents, so the rents on this scheme are below average (but higher than the old social rents).

Contrary to what was said earlier, rents don't go up if local market rents go up - at least during the course of tenancy. Increases are capped in the same way as they are in social rented housing (which is RPI + 0.5%). However, when a new tenancy is started, rents are recalculated for the relevant % of market rents at the time.

Something to watch out for is that another change from "social" to "affordable" housing is that tenancies no longer need to be offered on a lifetime basis - they could be as little as 5 years. A tenant offered a 5 year tenancy may well be able to renew their tenancy at the end of the term, but at this point the landlord has the opportunity to recalculate the rent. Therefore I would try to get an answer to whether the these properties will be offered on lifetime or fixed-term tenancies, as this could affect not only people's security of tenure but what they ultimately pay to live there.

This is very useful.

I did notice that the OMR % that Barratts have negoitiated with Officers is lower than the possible 80%.

I think Officers will argue that they have got the best deal they can. If this is refused Barratts would win on appeal.

Good point to ask about the tenancies on the "affordable" rented properties. Could argue that there should be clause in the Section 106 variation to cover this.

 

[Gramsci]

This has had more interest than I thought when I put up the photos.

Now seems Brixton Blog are interested as well.

Having read some of the docs I would say they will get the variation.

The weak point of Barratts argument lies in that fact that they have half built the Square before asking for a variation to the Section 106. If its so important to make the scheme viable then they should have sorted this out before starting works.

Also I think the issue of the gradual death of social housing is what makes people so annoyed at this. So its worth opposing this to make it known to Council that local people want affordable social rented housing. Also they want the Council to stand up to developers. So its a symbolic protest.

Its best that people put in there own comments. These count more to the planning committee. Its noted if the objections are all identical.

I will put up my own comments when Ive thought them out more.

Also you do not have to be expert on planning to do this. Just say what you feel about the loss of affordable social rented housing with secure tenancies. In an area that needs it.

 

[quimcunx]

No money, and no suitable financing mechanism. Most older council stock was built through local authorities borrowing on the money markets at the government rate, and having the repayment "guaranteed" by the Treasury. As that would effectively put new borrowing "on the books" in terms of Treasury liabilities, Osborne is as likely to allow it as he is to admit he's a whey-faced sneering cunt with a superiority complex.
That means that what they can build, at most, is dribs and drabs, unless they get in bed with developers, as they've done with Myatts Fields (they're planning to do on my estate if we don't stop them).

'so many constraints' then.

I do feel slightly sorry for councils stuck at the coal face of govt budget cuts and policies.

 

[beeboo]

Also I think the issue of the gradual death of social housing is what makes people so annoyed at this. So its worth opposing this to make it known to Council that local people want affordable social rented housing. Also they want the Council to stand up to developers. So its a symbolic protest.

Also what is happening is generally poorly understood - it doesn't help that different language is used interchangeably - 'affordable housing' is a bit of a catch-all term which encompasses social housing as you knew it, but Affordable Rent is a specific thing which isn't Social Rent. And the confusion is deliberately exploited by people on all sides to make their case which just deepens the confusion even further.

So symbolic or not if it helps raise people's awareness then that's a result in itself.

 

[ViolentPanda]

'so many constraints' then.

I do feel slightly sorry for councils stuck at the coal face of govt budget cuts and policies.

Basically, since the early 1980s, Thatcher's government eroded away just about all the possibilities that local authorities had of raising money, generally by transferring the power away from local authorities, and toward central government, until most spending was mediated through central government, leaving local authorities as little more than tax collectors and asset managers.

 

[Manter]

Contrary to what was said earlier, rents don't go up if local market rents go up - at least during the course of tenancy. Increases are capped in the same way as they are in social rented housing (which is RPI + 0.5%). However, when a new tenancy is started, rents are recalculated for the relevant % of market rents at the time.

While Grant Shapps backtracked from saying social tenancies should be 2 years as standard, the revised guidance is that 5 years is the 'norm' but 2 years is 'acceptable'. These are described as 'flexible secure tenancies' (as I said, badly written b-s-) but basically mean the landlord has the absolute right to change rents to the same tenants in the same property after the (short) protected period ends. (The word in the advice is 'mandatory possession at the end of the assured fixed term').

So rents go up as market rates go up- while not quite as fast as in private renting where most contracts are 1 year, it still leaves your average low wage owner of benefits claimant in pretty serious trouble.

 

[Gramsci]

While Grant Shapps backtracked from saying social tenancies should be 2 years as standard, the revised guidance is that 5 years is the 'norm' but 2 years is 'acceptable'. These are described as 'flexible secure tenancies' (as I said, badly written b-s-) but basically mean the landlord has the absolute right to change rents to the same tenants in the same property after the (short) protected period ends. (The word in the advice is 'mandatory possession at the end of the assured fixed term').

So rents go up as market rates go up- while not quite as fast as in private renting where most contracts are 1 year, it still leaves your average low wage owner of benefits claimant in pretty serious trouble.

So basically these Government reforms are not clear and its what happens on the ground that will define how they will work. All the more reason to complain then.

I take it how these "reforms" will operate will also depend to some extent on how a Council responds?

 

[Gramsci]

This is so important that we're looking to do a joint urban75/Brixton Blog/Brixton Buzz onslaught on this. The Blog are going to have a go at drafting up a piece which will then be posted here for checking over and editing (if needed).

There seems to be several levels of dodginess going on, so I think we need to join forces and get busy!

One of which is found in Barrets agents letter to the Council on page 2 where reasons why the development is required:

"Provision of decanting flexibility during Somerleytons regeneration."

Which sounds like the Barrier Block possible demolition to me. As came up on the Brixton Green thread.

 

[Manter]

So basically these Government reforms are not clear and its what happens on the ground that will define how they will work. All the more reason to complain then.

I take it how these "reforms" will operate will also depend to some extent on how a Council responds?

Government reforms, unclear? wash your mouth out...

Yeah- is complete chaos, and will largely be settled by precedent. I believe one of the professors at Sheffield Hallam is doing some research into what it means in practice, and what <<actually>> happens across the country.

I have little confidence in Lambeth doing the right thing. Not through ill intent necessarily, but I am increasingly of the opinion their policy and housing people aren't that bright. With all due respect to any who post on here who I am sure are total geniuses, but my dealings with them have been pretty... depressing.

 

[Manter]

Oh bugger. The covering letter for this latest application says:​

​

The proposal has evolved from detailed discussions with the Council's Housing Services. To this end, the proposed changes in definitions and Affordable Housing Provider are now firmly supported by both Housing and Planning Officers.​

​

​

​

​

I wouldn't put too much store in that. If someone gave you coffee and didn't physically eject you from the building that counts as strong support. Trust me, I know whereof I speak ​

​

But, given the apparently chummy nature of the arrangement, I doubt that the objection will be strong enough. Worth a punt anyway. I've removed the "substantially reduces the total amount of affordable housing" bit from my email and sent it.

I've taken your text, amended so it looks like I wrote it and sent off... I am now in airports and hotels 'till after the deadline so thought best to get it off, tho will follow developments until I get back on here...

 

[Gramsci]

The letter from Barratts agents says:

"The difficulties in delivering the approved scheme have been demonstrably complex and the financial environment has changed in ways that the developer and the Council could not have predicted in 2005 when discussions first took place."

But Barratts took on the site and started work before demanding a variation to the Section 106. This letter is dated 6th September 2012.

If Barratts thought the the original scheme agreed back around 2005 was to difficult they should not have started work until they sorted this out. IMO the Council is within its rights to say to Barratts that they started this building work and so what will you do if we refuse to vary the Section 106? Stop work? Its Barratts problem.

Also officers should not have entered discussion post the start of building work. It is almost like this application to vary the Section 106 is just a formality.

 

[Plumdaff]

Contrary to what was said earlier, rents don't go up if local market rents go up - at least during the course of tenancy. Increases are capped in the same way as they are in social rented housing (which is RPI + 0.5%). However, when a new tenancy is started, rents are recalculated for the relevant % of market rents at the time.
.

Is this definitely correct. I ask because I live in an intermediate market rent tenancy and there is none of the capping you describe. The rent has gone up nearly a third in two years.