Revised new - M&S planning application to replace Iceland..

[LondonMix]

You can keep on repeating that Frazer but the only problem with the policy is that its poorly enforced. It needs to be made stronger not abolished. There is no reason why a requirement for affordable housing should restrict total housing developed.

In NY, developers are rewarded for affordable housing. The gross buildable area is fixed for each zone relative to the plot size (FAR). For every sqm of affordable housing you develop you can develop additional market rate units above and beyond the FAR limit up to a maximum amount. This works very well.

Ambiguity and the ability to get section 106 varied out of applications is the only issue and its unacceptable that the planning system continually allows this to happen. The ability to vary these conditions needs to removed (and the previous system restored). This is one of the worst changes that's been implemented in the planning system in recent times.

[LondonMix]

What a crock of sh!t. Don't the variations need to assessed by a 3rd party and signed off? If so, whoever that 3rd party is needs to be audited (and jailed).

Why is this variation loophole not the thing that's got people up in arms, starting petitions and marching in the streets. When I see petitions for small chain toy stores instead it makes me wonder what the hell is going on. The government needs to reverse its position on this 100%.

MarkT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LondonMix,

> The Crystal Palace development is for 22 dwellings

> including 4 bedroom town houses. Officers

> calculated the density as about double the policy

> limit. The officers' report stated that it was

> made acceptable by the promise of 35% affordable

> housing (which was in any case a policy

> requirement for anything over 10 dwellings) and

> recommended refusal if that was not legally

> agreed. The application was approved subject to

> that legal agreement. Once the application was

> approved, the developers applied to vary the 35%

> to zero. You'd have had to be at the appeal

> hearing to judge whether the the Council threw in

> the towel. A line of high ranking property and

> planning officers essentially stated that the deal

> had been made in good faith and the developer

> should stick to it - a morally upstanding

> position, but not a winning argument.

>

> Having previously gained the change of use on the

> claim that they had tried and failed to let the

> factory, the developers now stated that it was

> empty at their own choice; factory space was now

> in high demand; commercial rents were rising

> rapidly and they had underestimated the floor

> area. They had also underestimated the costs of

> building so high and so deep. Their potential

> profit was marginal.

>

> MarkT

[Earl Aelfheah]

MarkT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LondonMix,

> The Crystal Palace development is for 22 dwellings

> including 4 bedroom town houses. Officers

> calculated the density as about double the policy

> limit. The officers' report stated that it was

> made acceptable by the promise of 35% affordable

> housing (which was in any case a policy

> requirement for anything over 10 dwellings) and

> recommended refusal if that was not legally

> agreed. The application was approved subject to

> that legal agreement. Once the application was

> approved, the developers applied to vary the 35%

> to zero. You'd have had to be at the appeal

> hearing to judge whether the the Council threw in

> the towel. A line of high ranking property and

> planning officers essentially stated that the deal

> had been made in good faith and the developer

> should stick to it - a morally upstanding

> position, but not a winning argument.

>

> Having previously gained the change of use on the

> claim that they had tried and failed to let the

> factory, the developers now stated that it was

> empty at their own choice; factory space was now

> in high demand; commercial rents were rising

> rapidly and they had underestimated the floor

> area. They had also underestimated the costs of

> building so high and so deep. Their potential

> profit was marginal.

>

> MarkT

Wow, if that's an accurate account it is pretty fecking outrageous.

[LondonMix]

I believe it. The Elephant and Castle case is worse. The craziest part of it is that they can claim that the value of the land they already own going up in value squeezes their development profit. In the variation analysis, the land (even though the developer already owns the land) is marked up to fair value (rather than purchase price) to test if the developers returns are viable. Its such an insane way to test these things.

[Abe_froeman]

I wonder if it is even possible to impose a section 106 condition on an application for two penthouses and eight offices. Presumably the permission already granted can't be ungranted and made subject to a new condition?

[LondonMix]

Hopefully a condition can be made that if the permission under the original planning application is ever used, the section 106 for this new planning application will kick in-- ideally a large payment in lieu of affordable housing. Developers shouldn't be able to circumvent the rules simply by making two applications to achieve the original end. Very dishonest behavior.

[fazer71]

I rest my case unnecessary complexity.

Confusion is the result not more homes.

Who cares what Americans do with their disposable housing ... They build new developments which are treated like new cars the owners move every ten years.

The UK market is totally different.

Let people build their own homes rather than this Barratt home system run for profit of large home builders and corporations.

In London implement straightforward rules which result in more homes rather than more confusion and fewer homes.

[LondonMix]

I agree the law has a loophole that should be closed as it creates uncertainty that undermines the delivery of affordable housing.

Are you the only one allowed to use international comparisons to show how other markets deliver housing?

[Abe_froeman]

I'm not convinced that the law has loopholes more than the council are scared of being taken to court for applying the law as it is written.

Judicial review is very expensive and I suspect developers have deeper pockets for legal expenses than the council on these issues and less (no) public opprobrium if they lose in court.

[LondonMix]

I agree but that effectively makes the variations allowance a loophole as its a component of the law being exploited to avoid an obligation.

Variations were intended to allow developments to move forward when the market falls to increase building. However, none of the checks are being implemented (for fear of being sued perhaps?).

[James Barber]

Back to this thread.

All three East Dulwich ward councillors attended the planning committee tonight. We spoke against the planning application.

The committee voted, and this has become a regular pattern, Labour councillors the majority for the application accepting it was 50% over the suburban densities for the area. The two Lib Dem councillors voted against stating they agreed it was an over development.

Currently it feels like a free for all for taller denser buildings in Southwark. I've not seen an application refused on these grounds for several years now.

Planning committee aren't whipped - they are quasi judicial - but if you attend enough planning committees they give this aura. Schemes are being granted permission that exceed our policies and strategies.

Before such decision making was removed by the Labour administration it would have been decided by local councillors in Dulwich. My experience of local Dulwich councillors deciding such schemes was they knew the area better. That the M&S applications would not have been granted permission. Which means the officers would have more ability to get better schemes presented than this one approved tonight.

One small request I made was accepted - adding a condition for s Construction Management Plan in the hope this will eliminate the outlandish developer habit of ignoring hours of work on the site. Assuming this works it will be a little more considerate for nearby residents and less officer time enforcing the rules.

One bizarre point was a resident objecting to the scheme quoting word for word the H&S Executive guidelines about delivery lorries and bandsmen. Then the Southwark transport officer stating Southwark policy which completely ignored the H&SE Exec guidelines.

[LondonMix]

What about affordable housing James?

[spanglysteve]

Affordable housing while noble, is flawed in its current implementation.

If a developer built 16 flats in Central London which have a theoretical market value of ?800k each he gets ?12.8m. Say 6 had to be affordable at a cost of ?300k. The developer has then lost ?3m (6*(800-300)).

Why not instead allow the developer to sell all the flats at market value but then require him to reinvest ?2m in an affordable block in cheaper areas. The developer could combine this ?2m with other such amounts from their other developments to then build a larger block of affordable flats therefore getting better value for money and greater economies of scale. The developer wins as they get effectively ?1m more profit than they would otherwise, and society wins by a greater number of both prime and affordable homes being built.

[first mate]

James,

Many thanks to you and the other councillors who attended snd objected. It is now clear that the whole system is a farce when, as you say, the Council's own planning policy is consistently ignored. Developers rule.

Someone attached to that site commented to me that part of the problem was the planning officers did not have the "bxxxs" to make a decision. Given your comments about planning committees appearing to be 'whipped' by the ruling party, that comment has a new layer of meaning.

[fazer71]

The "affordable" "Loophole" is nothing of the sort!

There are incredibly parts of our dysfunctional planning system which do actually work

.. eventually after many hurdles and much much much wasted time.

Council planners and councillors know applying idiotic nonsense they will have fewer homes.

Result is they pick and chose when they do and don't thankfully they have some discretion.

THE END!

[first mate]

James, how likely do you think it is the proposed licensing application will also be nodded through, because this would completely undermine earlier agreements with M&S about trading hours.

[edhistory]

What are the names of the people who made this decision?

Which Southwark Wards do they represent?

John K

[LondonMix]

You are simply making assertions backed by no facts or analysis. Mrepeating an ubstantiated view over and over again doesn't make your point any more convincing

fazer71 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The "affordable" "Loophole" is nothing of the

> sort!

> There are incredibly parts of our dysfunctional

> planning system which do actually work

> .. eventually after many hurdles and much much

> much wasted time.

> Council planners and councillors know applying

> idiotic nonsense they will have fewer homes.

> Result is they pick and chose when they do and

> don't thankfully they have some discretion.

> THE END!

[LondonMix]

Section 106 agreements can work that way. They are often just a payment towards affordable housing to a southward if that makes sense- not that I agree it does in this circumstance. This developer is simply circumventing their obligations through submitting two applications which is a blatant manipulation of the system .

spanglysteve Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Affordable housing while noble, is flawed in its

> current implementation.

>

> If a developer built 16 flats in Central London

> which have a theoretical market value of ?800k

> each he gets ?12.8m. Say 6 had to be affordable at

> a cost of ?300k. The developer has then lost ?3m

> (6*(800-300)).

>

> Why not instead allow the developer to sell all

> the flats at market value but then require him to

> reinvest ?2m in an affordable block in cheaper

> areas. The developer could combine this ?2m with

> other such amounts from their other developments

> to then build a larger block of affordable flats

> therefore getting better value for money and

> greater economies of scale. The developer wins as

> they get effectively ?1m more profit than they

> would otherwise, and society wins by a greater

> number of both prime and affordable homes being

> built.

[XIX]

Thanks for attending and for this update James.

To re-assert and follow-up on First Mates comment, my concern, now that the final extent of the building has been decided, is that the next step will be the gradual erosion of any conditions agreed before around opening hours (the licencing application shows clear intent) and delivery schedules (which would, I imagine be brought earlier in the day if they now intend to open earlier). Can the council do anything to prevent former agreements/conditions being ignored? Or perhaps the more pertinent question is, would they have the will to do anything?

I know this is hypothetical, but I'd also appreciate your thoughts on what will happen if, as FM and some others suspect, the project is bigger than the plans indicated and it turns out that they are not able to get lorries in and out of the back entrance for deliveries? Is it likely they'd seek to stop in the road (Chesterfield) and offload everything onto the pavement before manually pushing it in towards the back entrance? Would they be allowed to do so? Or would the council forbid this and enforce that they deliver on Lordship Lane and through the front door (which should have always been the original solution anyway)?

Many thanks

[fazer71]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You are simply making assertions backed by no

> facts or analysis. Mrepeating an ubstantiated view

> over and over again doesn't make your point any

> more convincing

convincing bit = the final result here and elsewhere over and over again

anyone who looks at the final result can see nothing unsubstantiated, it has played out exactly as I said it would

conclusion

a lot of wasted time, emotional upset, nonsense and meaningless political claptrap would have been avoided

sad bit

this will play out again and again and create emotional upset, nonsense and meaningless political claptrap and result in fewer homes and a painfully slow process every time

"good bit"

planners architects and associated specialists will be kept busy being "busy" shuffling paperwork creating confusion

insanity

[Abe_froeman]

Fazer, which other laws, policy and "political claptrap" do you think our council or politicians should ignore for the sake of expediency and commercial profit?

[LondonMix]

Show some analysis that affordable housing restricts development.

Everything else you are saying is just noise. The planning system needs to remove the loophole to avoid this circus but that is not the same thing as affordable housing per se restricting development.

[James Barber]

If people object to the licensing application it would help stem this tide.

I suspect they're seeking longer licensing hours than the planning conditions currently allow and will them go back to planning to have that condition amended to increase hours to the licensed hours. Otherwise why do it. Assuming such a planning application is refused the developer/M&S will appeal. These guys have deep pockets to keep wearing us down.

[Penguin68]

London is a city constantly under pressure and constantly changing. Attempts to set things in aspic (that's the way we were, we don't want change) is both understandable and clearly wrong-headed. Where environs don't change, they cease to be fit for purpose and sooner or later 'die'. London is (in many places) a 24/7 city - that's generally a good thing, I think. London is heavily populated (and getting more so) - that's actually a good thing, as well, as long as there is sufficient housing. If (slightly) higher rise gets there that may be an acceptable price to pay, if we wish our children to be able to live close to us rather than being forced out into the sticks and long commutes. [The dystopian view in the film shortly to be released, High Rise - which is a great film - is also not the way ED is going, by the way.]

Perhaps the (Labour) Southwark councilors actually have a better vision of the necessary future of the borough than those local to (and too wedded to the past) of our wards.

Reading these pages you'd think a Centre Point was being planned for Lordship lane, not a shop which many people have been crying out for (not all, of course) and a handful of additional flats to add to the local housing stock. Yes, it's change, yes it's being hard fought for by the shop and developer, no, it may turn out not be such a disaster as all that. Of course individuals who live very locally are worried about the change and what the impact will be on them, that's completely understandable - and sometimes the greater good prevails.

And if the extended licencing hours, if granted, lead to violent excesses etc. - then there are remedies to be had. And if they don't - well maybe we'll be pleased we can buy stuff when we want to (and if we don't want to over extended hours, no shop as clever as M&S is going to be staying open late with no customers).