Jump to content

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

James Barber
 Share

Recommended Posts

MarkT

MarkT

Posted
Posted

I am otherwise occupied on Tuesday. As the Council is pre-empting the Appeal by capitulation, I suppose we?ll never learn HM Inspector?s view.


The officers? Report states that they had been minded to reject and, though I can?t find it now on-line, I think their recommendation to the Inspector was to reject, but the reasons cited were fixable details. If they really meant to reject, I think they could have done so, if they had acted within the statutory period, on clear policy grounds without reference to Planning Committee.


With regard to the existing permission for 8 flats, the wording in the Council?s Policy would not seem to require clear proof of intent:

?The council will seek to ensure that proposals deliberately designed to circumvent the threshold of 10 units will not be accepted.?


With regard to height and density the London Plan, I think, is pretty clear. Table 3.2 defines Suburban development as up to 3 storeys and 350 Hr/Ha, and Policy 3.4 states:

?Taking into account local context and character, the design principles in Chapter 7 and public transport capacity, development should optimise housing output for different types of location within the relevant density range shown in Table 3.2. Development proposals which compromise this policy should be resisted.?


The Officer?s Report makes no mention of London Plan Policy 3.4 or Table 3.2, even though specifically referenced by several objectors.


The Report does, however, cite Policy 3.3 ?Increasing Housing Supply?. By approving this plan, which on the face of it replaces the existing approval, the Council has, paradoxically, accepted a reduction of 6 units.


Whatever has gone wrong with the processing of this application, there seems to be a pattern in recent applications in the neighbouring Suburban Zone ? Crystal Palace Road factory site; Railway cottages; Crown house. All 4 storeys and well over policy density. In each case officers list a string of London Plan policies but not 3.4 or Table 3.2. In each case, however, they state that it is in the Suburban Zone. Why? If they are not applying the definitions, what is the point of the ?Suburban? label?


MarkT

first mate

first mate

Posted
Posted

Many thanks James and I hope your objection/s prevail. You will now how massive this build is now. It is so much bigger than any of us imagined. Many of us feel this is an accident waiting to happen in terms of cramming in residents on top of servicing vehicles. Best of luck and please let us know the outcome.


Mark T, who clearly knows his stuff, makes excellent points in particular a pattern of events and interpretation of policy across a number of unpopular applications. These things are being noted and it does smack of a degree of collusion between developers and planning.

rch

rch

Posted
Posted

Hurrah, it would be good for you to be there since the guys can't make it!


My guess, addressing MarkT's point, is that they'll use the Lordship Lane Town Centre designation to override the Suburban designation, but it would be great if you could at least try to put down a marker.


If nothing else, can you make sure that the CIL payment actually gets used for something useful in East Dulwich instead of being diverted somewhere else??


For instance, we could still use a police meeting point in the ward... converting the Library Annexe would still be my first choice, or maybe they could include something on the M&S site that wouldn't incur revenue costs?


Or else, maybe they can use to the funding to reconfigure Chesterfield to discourage lorries???


Maybe try to get the developers to understand that they could incur goodwill if they actually tried to work with the community... otherwise people are going to be really upset about them railroading in the extra floor.

Earl Aelfheah

Earl Aelfheah

Posted
Posted

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi first mate,

> After some serious reorganising of family diary

> I'll be at the planning committee speaking as a

> ward councillor against this planning application.


without wanting to sound like a sycophant and regardless of whether or not I always agree with James Barber, it is worth pointing out that he works extremely hard representing the area. I think it's worth pointing out occasionally as he tends to get a lot of stick on this forum.

MarkT

MarkT

Posted
Posted

In the interests of balance I should point out that one of our other councillors turned up to oppose the application for the Crystal Palace Road factory site. He put up a good fight but the committee appeared somewhat predisposed to accept the officer's recommendation to abandon policy and approve the over dense, over height application on a promise of 35% affordable housing, later varied to zero.

MarkT


PS To be fair to the Planning Committee, one member abstained.

James Barber

James Barber

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi rupert james,

Bit unfair on the other two councillor.s I know Cllr Rosie Shimell plans to be present but will also be covering the Standards Committee as well. Rosie covers face to face surgeries and I cover the East Dulwich Forum. Im also much more of a propeller head about planning.


Hi Robin,

Thanks for the Cil suggestion.

James Barber

James Barber

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Marks and Sparks have also made a licensing application.

they wish to sell alcohol 6am-midnight 7 days a week.


BUT the site only has planing permission to operate as a shop Mon-Sat 7am-10pm & 10am-6pm Sundays and Bank holidays.


You can see the application here - http://app.southwark.gov.uk/licensing/LicPremisesAppliedDetails.asp?systemkey=851512


You can tell council licensing officers by 31 March 2016 whether you support or oppose such opening hours via [email protected] and please copy me so I can see how things are going.

LondonMix

LondonMix

Posted
Posted

Why was it varied to zero? That developers continually get away with this in a rising market is unbelievable. They are totally gaming the system and its disgusting.


MarkT Wrote:

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

> In the interests of balance I should point out

> that one of our other councillors turned up to

> oppose the application for the Crystal Palace Road

> factory site. He put up a good fight but the

> committee appeared somewhat predisposed to accept

> the officer's recommendation to abandon policy and

> approve the over dense, over height application on

> a promise of 35% affordable housing, later varied

> to zero.

> MarkT

>

> PS To be fair to the Planning Committee, one

> member abstained.

Penguin68

Penguin68

Posted
Posted

Affordable housing = less housing


No, as 'affordable' housing tends to have a smaller footprint and be less expensively built then, for any given investment and land size it would be possible to put up more 'affordable' housing units. Your syllogism only works if you assume that developers intend to build affordable housing units but then price them as un-affordable. Or perhaps you are confusing 'affordable' with uneconomic or 'at a loss'. Which it isn't/ needn't be. There are, of course, local market rates; what is deemed 'affordable' in London may not be in Birkenhead.


There are (sadly) marketing issues where what is seen as 'social' housing appears in the same development as premium/ luxury build, but that says more about the people who might buy the premium housing than it does the economics of building it.

Earl Aelfheah

Earl Aelfheah

Posted
Posted

MarkT Wrote:

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

> In the interests of balance I should point out

> that one of our other councillors turned up to

> oppose the application for the Crystal Palace Road

> factory site. He put up a good fight but the

> committee appeared somewhat predisposed to accept

> the officer's recommendation to abandon policy and

> approve the over dense, over height application on

> a promise of 35% affordable housing, later varied

> to zero.

> MarkT

>

> PS To be fair to the Planning Committee, one

> member abstained.


where is this site? I've not heard about this development

LondonMix

LondonMix

Posted
Posted

You don't know what you are talking about Frazer. If the planning system strictly enforced section 106 requirements, the impact would be on land values. If everyone bidding knew for a certain fact they would be required to build affordable housing it would be baked into the bidding numbers. It's entirely possible to build affordable housing profitably-- high house prices in London are due to high land values not high building costs.


Its the fact that developers can often circumvent the rules that's the problem. They either overbid the land on the assumption they'll be able to convince the council its not economic to build affordable housing or they don't overbid but create a false financial analysis (see Elephant Park) that suggests they cannot build affordable housing.


The Elephant Park scenario is really despicable. There is a reason why they (and Southwark) fought tooth and nail to prevent that information being released and its because its a true scandal.




fazer71 Wrote:

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

> This development is a prime example if you still

> don't understand

>

>

> Would the developer build the extra flats if they

> were "affordable" ?

>

>

> Nope

MarkT

MarkT

Posted
Posted

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

fazer71

fazer71

Posted
Posted

LondonMix and Penguin68 you both show why ?affordable? housing is a nonsense why at best it?s an extra layer of unnecessary unenforceable design at worst (this is my view) it?s political claptrap designed to fool the masses whilst making things worst!

Why is it harmful

1. As you both note it creates a false confused market and room for manipulation.

2. It divides the housing market into decent homes and second rate homes small homes with restrictions further unhelpful restrictions causing lower economic mobility stunting advancement, it?s another form of warehousing people rather than giving people freedom of movement.

3. The scandal is that it is restricting the number of new homes and that?s not reported.

4. It is harmful fantasy.


The solution would be to open the market setting minimum heights for new developments say 4 or 5 floors, fix the sizes of the new homes ie 10 % 30 sqm 30% 45sqm 40% 75 sqm etc. The current system restricts developments to a set number of bedrooms in Europe they don?t fuss about bedrooms many developments are finished with a bathroom and kitchen and the remainder of the home is open for the new owners to split up or not as they desire.


Reality is as I have said is this ?affordable? requirement is restricting the numbers of new homes anything which does that should be scrapped!


If everyone bidding knew they could build more they would!


This stupidity is fundamental basic SIMPLE maths

Affordable housing will only happen when there is sufficient supply!


Unnecessary complexity will always result in fewer homes.

Unnecessary complexity helps planner?s architects and their specialists add to the price and increase the time it takes to build more homes.

Unnecessary complexity is good for politicians as it gives them more fantasy to spread.

Unnecessary complexity is a curse on progress.


The planning system is 90% unnecessary complexity.




LondonMix Wrote:

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

> You don't know what you are talking about Frazer.

> If the planning system strictly enforced section

> 106 requirements, the impact would be on land

> values. If everyone bidding knew for a certain

> fact they would be required to build affordable

> housing it would be baked into the bidding

> numbers. It's entirely possible to build

> affordable housing profitably-- high house prices

> in London are due to high land values not high

> building costs.

>

> Its the fact that developers can often circumvent

> the rules that's the problem. They either overbid

> the land on the assumption they'll be able to

> convince the council its not economic to build

> affordable housing or they don't overbid but

> create a false financial analysis (see Elephant

> Park) that suggests they cannot build affordable

> housing.

>

> The Elephant Park scenario is really despicable.

> There is a reason why they (and Southwark) fought

> tooth and nail to prevent that information being

> released and its because its a true scandal.

>

>

>

> fazer71 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > This development is a prime example if you

> still

> > don't understand

> >

> >

> > Would the developer build the extra flats if

> they

> > were "affordable" ?

> >

> >

> > Nope


Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Affordable housing = less housing

>

> No, as 'affordable' housing tends to have a

> smaller footprint and be less expensively built

> then, for any given investment and land size it

> would be possible to put up more 'affordable'

> housing units. Your syllogism only works if you

> assume that developers intend to build affordable

> housing units but then price them as

> un-affordable. Or perhaps you are confusing

> 'affordable' with uneconomic or 'at a loss'. Which

> it isn't/ needn't be. There are, of course, local

> market rates; what is deemed 'affordable' in

> London may not be in Birkenhead.

>

> There are (sadly) marketing issues where what is

> seen as 'social' housing appears in the same

> development as premium/ luxury build, but that

> says more about the people who might buy the

> premium housing than it does the economics of

> building it.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...