Discussion in 'Brixton' started by ringo, Mar 2, 2007.
And there you have it:
Its that the results were accurate representation of my memory of the consultation. Yet Lambeth planning officers who must have seen these results are supporting the scheme.
The planning officers are supposed to be on residents side. Or so I thought. Pre application consultation should be taken into account by officers.
My memory of the consultation event was that it was the height and lack of affordable housing that made people object strongly.
I bumped into a few locals. There view was that this was gentrification. But "They" ( council/ developers/ LJAG) would get it through whatever they said.
One would have thought that if a pre application consultation event showed this overwhelmingly opposition one might think its time to go back to the drawing board.
Started looking at the Planning Statement on the planning website. They are standard and best doc to read for overall summary of application.
The affordable housing and play space. Page 5. The affordable housing is , surprise surprise , stuck on the bottom above the pub in two floors. So yuppies won't have to see them.
The play space for children is on roof. Statement doesn't say if play space in roof will be available for social housing residents.
This is an issue that needs clarification. It might be in another doc. But worth querying. I kid you not play space when finished has seen social housing residents children excluded from it.
This all reminds me of Ballards novel High Rise.
The quote from page 5,
Note the affordable amount will be subject to "review mechanism" ie the developer will seek to reduce it if he doesn't see big profits.
This isn't what they said at the public consultation. The snake oil salesmen that developers are.
Lambeth planners are on the side of Lambeth planning!
Objections that aren’t focussed purely on planning issues are very rarely taken into consideration. If it’s a high profile case (like the previous attempt on 414) and the objections can be tied to a council policy they may have to listen but otherwise they just ignore what they consider ‘emotive’ objections.
Makes it very hard for lay people without design or planning knowledge to object, particularly now when they seem to have dropped the need to notify local residents.
It's almost like they don't care about local residents when there's a big bucks developer in town!
I disagree. Its a common assumption that only if one has planning knowledge can one object and be taken seriously.
Officers are there to work for us. They are supposed to be servants of the public.
Planning officers have to work to certain guidelines.
Cllrs on planning committee are meant to directly represent the community.
Imo there is nothing wrong with so called "emotive" comments.
Counter intuitive Example. The planning statement put forward by the developer includes what I think can be regarded as "emotive" justification for the design. Going on about the "Golden Mean". This isn't scientific. Its emotive justification based on ancient Greek thought. Which the architect as a professional expert regards as just factual statement. Its not.
Its up to planning officers in conjunction with Cllrs to see if the lay persons comments can be given weight.
Planning should not be an obscure thing only "professionals" can interpret. Its the usual view. I think its undemocratic. It shows how disempowering the local state is to ordinary people.
Something as fundamental as designing and changing ones neighbourhood should not be just delegated to experts.
Back to affordable housing as discussed on the planning Statement. As I guessed the developer has already used viability to reduce percentage of the affordable element from 40% as per planning guideline to a meagre 17%. This is agreed with officers. Its also subject to "review".
The policy 40% of whole scheme should be affordable:
After "viability" actual amount will be miserly 17%
The reasoning used is this frankly incomprehensible paragraph. Seems to say poor developer is losing money. Bollox.
In my experience of Lambeth planning they certainly aren’t servants of the people, they routinely ignore the people. I totally agree they should be servants of the people and open to helping people object if there are grounds to.
They are so short staffed and scared of getting into court cases with developers that they are putting planning applications with blatant errors/lack of meeting guidelines.
The initial planning application for a development behind us was riddled with mistakes and breaches of design and material standards, yet the planning officer had recommended it be approved.she continued trying to push the development through when items that had previously been noted by the council as unacceptable hadn’t been changed. even sending out subsequent planning notices with the wrong number of houses/number of floors/number of proposed bedrooms.
On a recent proposed development no notices were sent out to adjoining residents nor notices put up. We only knew it was happening once work started.
Back to the Planning Statement.
Its so annoying. Despite the public consultation being against it the developers are still arguing this is an enhancement of the public space.
What can I say? This is gentrification agenda dressed up as good for the area.
The "markers" for the estate are the Council housing blocks. This yuppie tower is an insensitive intrusion on the social housing estate. Its not in keeping with the way this estate was designed.
From my reading of the planning statement the developers are putting these reasons forward.
This development increases housing density thus meeting targets for more homes
The pub is of no historical or architectural importance
They have worked closely with Lambeth officers on height, density and massing during design process
The tower will enhance the area as a "marker". Thus contributing to making LJ a "destination"
They are contributing money to enhance Hero square ( the tarmac area by the pub) Thus contributing to making this a "gateway" to LJ. Fitting supposedly in with LJAGs ideas for the area.
They have amended the design to stop overlooking.
They really want to put in affordable housing. Due to costs this will be less than 40% as planning guidelines state. This reduced amount may be reduced further as project continues.
The pub and same landlord will be re provisioned in new development.
I looked at the viability document. They hired Savills , one of the biggest property companies to reduce the affordable element.
For those who don't know large development like this should have 40% affordable. However the developer can argue that the development would not be "viable" is not profitable enough if it had 40% affordable.
Savills professional judgement was to reduce the affordable element to zero.
Counter viability appraisal from Council said 11 units affordable. This was less than 40%. Developer still argued.
So know it's six.
The unacceptable face of Capitalism. Its been good reading this application. Just shows how rubbish capitalism is .
Relevant excerpt from the doc:
This company behaves like a prostitute, advising Lambeth Council and simultaneously doing its level best to ensure no social housing ever gets built.
In normal life it used to be the case that one had the right to employ professionals who have no conflict of interest. Unfortunately with property management, development and investment conflict of interest is the norm.
a pretty headline from Savill's website:
That is a fecking disgrace.
Separate names with a comma.