first mate

There are currently two flats on the third level ( I think ). So either the current use is illegal, if designation is offices or if current designation is residential then they wouldn't they have to apply for change of use to offices in the most recent application? Or does new planning law make this unnecessary? Does anyone know?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > robbin Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But the offices are not flats James? Surely > you > > are not suggesting they will surreptitiously > and > > in breach of authorised user, build them as > flats, > > not offices? > > If so, I think that's a bit far fetched and > > frankly not something they could achieve > without > > detection. > > If that's not what you are suggesting, then > your > > point is not a good one - if the cut off for > > Section 106 purposes is 9 flats then they are > > entitled to ask to build 8, not 10 aren't they > and > > to instead build offices rather than flats? > Every > > developer is going to look to make maximum > profits > > within the rules, surely? > > > You'd be surprised what some developers think of > the rules > > http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/developer-to > ld-to-rebuild-maida-vale-pub-brick-by-brick-after- > site-torn-down-without-notice-10211892.html > > And they could still get away with it, the utter > utter @#$%&. Otta, good find. Mr Kieran Rafferty, mentioned in the Standard article, is exactly the same guy involved with this development. Good, now we can see how far they are prepared to go and to what extent they have any interest in adding value in the community.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But the offices are not flats James? Surely you > are not suggesting they will surreptitiously and > in breach of authorised user, build them as flats, > not offices? > If so, I think that's a bit far fetched and > frankly not something they could achieve without > detection. > If that's not what you are suggesting, then your > point is not a good one - if the cut off for > Section 106 purposes is 9 flats then they are > entitled to ask to build 8, not 10 aren't they and > to instead build offices rather than flats? Every > developer is going to look to make maximum profits > within the rules, surely? Robbin, an application for 8 flats above the retail outlet has already been passed, despite much local opposition. That application was turned down twice and then passed on a technicality which the planners decided they dare not take to appeal as the developers have more money and better lawyers. One of the most important points against was on safety grounds...but that's small beer for the developers. The new application is now proposing that the levels 2 and 3 be kept as they are currently designated, as offices and a fourth level created to be made into 2 penthouses.. The planners will patiently wait it out and get this new application passed and then go back and try to apply for 8 flats with penthouses on top using the earlier application as precedent....that's how developers play the game. It's a bit like property chess, only planning seems to end up checkmated more often than not. What might be of interest to Mr Barber and to planning us that one of the upper levels already consists if two flats and these were lived in last summer. If that is still the case wouldn't the developer have to apply for change of use for the current application to work?

Once more it is a question of what is reasonable ..and safe...to squeeze into that area. If developers can 'game' the planners and the system and, it seems to me, win just about every time on some technical issue or other, then the system needs to change doesn't it. Otherwise what might happen along LL, for example, is 4 storeys sets precedent for 5 and so on, after all, it's only one more level, the argument might go. Call me a nimby if you like but these guys have no interest in investing in the community, their sole purpose is to make money and as much as they can. Fair enough, but if the existing processes do not offer sufficient checks and balances is it not right that local people try to? I am not anti change or development but I want to see a holistic approach, not just bricks for big bucks.

Burbage, great post. I think people need to wake up and smell the coffee, and I guess you think the same. But, yes it is hard to keep objecting and it was always clear that the developer in this case had a very long game in mind; who's to say a few more rounds, with a few more storeys each time, is not on the cards? Meanwhile, this developer is happy to leave most of the upper levels unused and empty. They seem to be a rather opaque outfit with a very large portfolio of investment properties around the UK; the agent operates out of Dorset.

Whether the result of incompetence or design, the impression might be given that there is an unholy alliance between developers and planning....

squiggles, Little point in new housing if the families contained within them have no schools where children can play. Increase housing and you increase demand for the things most families need, there has to be balance.

With respect, the facts are: Reference is certainly made in the drawings to penthouses. The proposed building will be four stories high, not three. The developer proposes that the application for a retail outlet with 8 residential flats, in a three storey building, and an application that has already been passed by planning, is now changed to a four storey building with a retail outlet, lots of offices and two penthouses on top.

TJ, Out of interest what for you is the merit of this application over the earlier application that is already passed and good to go?

Well the fact remains that the current application seeks to replace 8 residential flats with office space and then add two penthouse flats on top.

Jeremy, No difference, over development may apply whatever the housing scheme, it is a question of what you try to pack into the available space.

Jeremy, as I said, it is a matter of proportion, the principle remains the same whatever the size of site. I rather disagree with your inference that private enterprise has absolutely no responsibility to the community in which it operates.

Otta quite. The cleaner, greener, community- minded rhetoric that has been used in support of these serial applications is a lot of sound and fury. The bottom line and the reality is developer profit by any means that just stays within process. There always were and still are safety issues around these applications in terms of access and proposed usage.

It's a matter of proportion, Nine Elms is a large site being taken to the nth degree by developers, the same principle is being applied here, to a small site. Moreover, if you want and are arguing for more housing why would you support a proposal that was passed for 8 flats to be superseded by one for two penthouses, and the existing flats on a lower level to be removed and replaced with offices, which the developer has formerly claimed are not viable?

Nxjen, what is interesting is that the second floor already contains two flats, and they are occupied, or were recently, yet for years that space has been up for rent, though not used, as office space.

Jeremy, Greater density does not have to mean packing in as much as you can possibly get away with by playing the planning process. Or perhaps it does for you. No doubt you will applaud all the 'extra' housing that is expected to lie fallow in Nine Elms/ Hong Kong on the Thanes, safe in the portfolios of investment buyers.

No one is objecting to more housing, overdevelopment of a site is the point.

BemusED The application is not creating more housing. The building already has two flats on the second floor, though this is not apparent from the application, but I know it to be the case as I have been inside them. So there will be a change of use if the second level is now to be offices only. It is also arguable that new housing is not being created but simply moved to a new, higher level. Given that the last application only got through on an 'unforseen' technicality, despite significant and repeated local opposition, I think this looks like pure opportunism on the part of the developer. If you keep using the 'it's only one more level' approach we will end up with high rise ED. Perhaps you don't mind but many do. Your point about parking does not hold since the offices have been empty for many years, on that basis it is impossible to know what extra parking pressure would be created if they are used, or, as us the strong suspicion, the developer reverts to residential use for 8 flats, plus another two on top. Goose, you make a good point.

Thank you James. I hope this time a smidgen of reason and proportion can be injected into the planning process for this site, I also hope that the Council do not find their hands tied by process once again.

Of course it will and planning have just rolled over, with councillor' knowledge, and let it all happen. This developer clearly intend to squeeze every last drop of value (for them)out of the site, come what may...and, let's face it, who will stop them? Actually just tried to find this application and it came up non-existant, how odd. Did you look at it on the planning site today?

Sol, why is having the school in front of the park a big plus?

Tessmo, well said.

Tessmo, precisely. These consultations are not genuine. The decision has already been made and only an appearance of consultation is made, to meet statutory requirements. The process is overly complicated and not transparent and this gives councillors plenty of wiggle room. Yes, these people are voted in, partly on manifesto pledges, to represent us. But that does not give them carte blanche, there still has to be meaningful dialogue with voters, especially those who make the effort to be heard. In this sense the relationship has been abused. It is not democratic and trust is lost.

Yes, we have been told elsewhere by a former S'wark employee that it is claimed letters have been sent out when they haven't.