Battersea Power Station under fire from council over low levels of affordable housing
August 21, 2024
Battersea Power Station under fire from council over low levels of affordable housing
by verytallperson1
8 comments
So who signed this off if it wasnt the council? Are they not the ones who give planning permission?
A ban on foreign assets ownership would mean we would be able to worry less about making “affordable” units
Unfortunately when Tories say affordable housing (back then) they tend to mean flats and homes that are super expensive and never truly affordable (like social housing that can be owned by the tenant or social rent for people that need a decent home that can be rented out by potential tenants).
The problem is there are no serious repercussions for developers who decide at the last minute to just not build the affordable houses they agreed to, so you see it all the time where they just come up with some cock and bull reason at the last minute as to why they couldn’t do it.
Slightly different story, but I once went to look at a flat that was supposed to be reserved mostly for locals in the borough. I was living the next borough along and so asked if there was a waiting list or something. He told me that actually they just put that in the brochure but literally anyone can buy it they don’t really check lol. Ridiculous, but if they can get away with it they will.
A levy for this sort of development would make much more sense than affordable housing. The maintenance costs are extortionate and there’s no real community.
Use the levy to build other affordable housing in more suitable places.
Its a capitalist theme park with no soul.
Only more housing creates affordable housing. Location and size is the biggest price indicator.
To give more context to the article and the issues some may, or may not be aware of. The site is subject to a masterplan planning permission, which is not unusual given its size.
The masterplan will include various phases of development. Each phase will be subject to the overall affordable housing requirements set out in the masterplan consent, but likely require independent planning permissions for each phase of development.
The developer and the authority will negotiate the level of affordable housing in each phase of development unless set out in the original masterplan and/or seek a variation of the same.
The key thing to remember is that the developer is only required to deliver the maximum reasonably required. This is the 35% target. However, the developer has the option of reducing this figure down by submitting a financial viability report to assess the ‘reasonability’ of the target.
This report will be independently assessed by the authority and the mayor’s office. It will include all sorts of financial considerations including build costs and agreed profit levels (usually 20% but this varies slightly depending on the component) etc.
The developer here has cited the cost of the restoration of the listed building as the reason for the low financial viability return, hence the low affordable housing offer of only 9%. This is permissible if that’s what reasonable following the viability assessments.
The authority will then include in a legal agreement with the developer a review of the financial viability information submitted with the planning application (at various stages) – to capture any uplift in profit. Theoretically, this means that any surplus generated can be used to deliver more affordable housing onsite and or as a cash payment towards more affordable housing provision offsite.
Everything else in the article appears to be political posturing.
I don’t work for the authority or the developer for the avoidance of doubt.
8 comments
So who signed this off if it wasnt the council? Are they not the ones who give planning permission?
A ban on foreign assets ownership would mean we would be able to worry less about making “affordable” units
Unfortunately when Tories say affordable housing (back then) they tend to mean flats and homes that are super expensive and never truly affordable (like social housing that can be owned by the tenant or social rent for people that need a decent home that can be rented out by potential tenants).
The problem is there are no serious repercussions for developers who decide at the last minute to just not build the affordable houses they agreed to, so you see it all the time where they just come up with some cock and bull reason at the last minute as to why they couldn’t do it.
Slightly different story, but I once went to look at a flat that was supposed to be reserved mostly for locals in the borough. I was living the next borough along and so asked if there was a waiting list or something. He told me that actually they just put that in the brochure but literally anyone can buy it they don’t really check lol. Ridiculous, but if they can get away with it they will.
A levy for this sort of development would make much more sense than affordable housing. The maintenance costs are extortionate and there’s no real community.
Use the levy to build other affordable housing in more suitable places.
Its a capitalist theme park with no soul.
Only more housing creates affordable housing. Location and size is the biggest price indicator.
To give more context to the article and the issues some may, or may not be aware of. The site is subject to a masterplan planning permission, which is not unusual given its size.
The masterplan will include various phases of development. Each phase will be subject to the overall affordable housing requirements set out in the masterplan consent, but likely require independent planning permissions for each phase of development.
The developer and the authority will negotiate the level of affordable housing in each phase of development unless set out in the original masterplan and/or seek a variation of the same.
The key thing to remember is that the developer is only required to deliver the maximum reasonably required. This is the 35% target. However, the developer has the option of reducing this figure down by submitting a financial viability report to assess the ‘reasonability’ of the target.
This report will be independently assessed by the authority and the mayor’s office. It will include all sorts of financial considerations including build costs and agreed profit levels (usually 20% but this varies slightly depending on the component) etc.
The developer here has cited the cost of the restoration of the listed building as the reason for the low financial viability return, hence the low affordable housing offer of only 9%. This is permissible if that’s what reasonable following the viability assessments.
The authority will then include in a legal agreement with the developer a review of the financial viability information submitted with the planning application (at various stages) – to capture any uplift in profit. Theoretically, this means that any surplus generated can be used to deliver more affordable housing onsite and or as a cash payment towards more affordable housing provision offsite.
Everything else in the article appears to be political posturing.
I don’t work for the authority or the developer for the avoidance of doubt.