35% Campaign blogBlogging about developments in Southwark2024-01-24T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/What next after High Court overturns Aylesbury planning decision?2024-01-24T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/ayllesbury-planning-decision-quashed/<h3>Amendment to outline planning permission quashed</h3>
<p>The legal challenge against the decision to amend the outline planning decision for the regeneration of the Aylesbury estate <a href="https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2024/57">has succeeded</a>. The High Court quashed Southwark's decision in its judgement on the 17 January, after a <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/aylesbury-estate-legal-challenge-goes-to-the-high-court/">hearing last November</a>.</p>
<p>The challenge was brought by long-term Aylesbury resident and campaigner <a href="https://twitter.com/AysenDennis">Aysen Dennis</a>. Aysen argued that a change to the description of the redevelopment was unlawful. The change was made to smooth the path for a planning application by Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) for Phase 2B. NHG holds an <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=119&MId=4808&Ver=4">outline permission</a> for the whole of the estate, including Phase 2B, which was awarded to them in 2015. But in 2022 NHG applied for a new <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=119&MId=7308&Ver=4">'drop-in' application</a> just for Phase 2B, because they wished to build something taller than the outline permission would allow. In tandem with this, Southwark decided to change the wording on the outline permission to remove any potential legal obstacles to the new application.</p>
<p>The change itself was to <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=ROBJTAKBKX400&activeTab=summary">add the single word <em>'severable'</em></a> into the outline permission for Aylesbury development. This would make it easier for NHG to treat the different phases and parts of the development separately, rather than as a whole. Aysen argued that the outline permission was granted for an integrated scheme, with interconnected and interdependent parts and not for something where NHG could <em>'mix and match</em>' what was built, using different planning permissions. Aysen submitted that while the outline permission was flexible, it also set the physical limits and parameters across the whole site, needed for a coherent scheme and was therefore not severable.</p>
<h3>Southwark and NHG's case</h3>
<p>According to <a href="https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2024/57">the judgement</a>, Southwark had argued that the outline permission was just that - <em>'very outline'</em>. It was not a detailed permission and allowed for a flexible development that would take a long time to complete. On a legal point, Southwark said that what was built on one phase would be less likely to create a problem with what was built in later phases, because each was on a <em>"'discrete area' [with].....no necessary overlap or conflict</em>". The outline permission gave Southwark and NHG <em>'scope.....to react to whatever has already been developed in earlier phases when considering a subsequent phase'</em>. Southwark further argued that adding the word severable to the outline permission was not the main point, and that <em>'the key issue was whether an outline permission authorises a number of independent acts of development on spatially discrete areas of land through a phasing arrangement...'.</em></p>
<p>NHG took part in the case as an interested party. They addressed the same legal point as Southwark, saying that it was inappropriate to apply the reasoning of a recent Supreme Court decision on similar issues (Hillside) to this case. In relation to this, NHG emphasised the distinction between an outline permission and a detailed decision. and that <em>'there is an obvious and inherent form of severability contemplated'</em> in an outline permission for a phased development.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/aylesbury_demo_high_court_281123.png" alt="" /></p>
<h3>The judgement</h3>
<p>The judge, the Hon. Mr Justice Holgate, <a href="https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2024/57">did not agree with Southwark and NHG</a>. He said that the key question was what the outline permission actually meant (what he called the scope of its <em>'bundle of rights')</em> and how that meaning had been changed by adding of the word <em>'severable'</em> to the permission. He ruled that this was a significant <em>'material'</em> change and should not have been made in the way that it was. He therefore ordered that the decision to amend the outline planning decision, by adding the word <em>'severable'</em>, be quashed.</p>
<p>In reaching his decision the judge said*, 'with respect'*, that Southwark and NHG's points about phasing and severability <em>'lacked coherence'.</em> He showed particular concern in his reasoning about how a severed planning permission might fall foul of time limits for implementation, if it were broken into parts.</p>
<p>He also notes that there would have been be nothing to stop NHG from breaking a permission down further than just into phases, if the word <em>'severable'</em> was added to the permission, saying that <em>'I have strong
reservations in any event about the legality of an amendment to a planning permission which simply inserts language as uncertain as the bare term “severable”. There was nothing to indicate the extent to which the OPP [outline permission] was purportedly severed. For a largescale development it would have been possible to conceive of many different alternatives'.</em></p>
<h3>Why did Southwark agree to the 'drop-in' application?</h3>
<p>The High Court judgement raises serious questions about how the Aylesbury regeration is being taken forward. Southwark Council is a partner in the Aylesbury regeneration and has a <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LBS_NHHT_DPAgreement.pdf">Development Partnership Agreement</a> with NHG. NHG has the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=119&MId=4808&Ver=4">Outline Planning Permission</a> for the whole of the Aylesbury and the normal procedure would be for them to have submitted more detailed applications for each of the remaining phases. Why did Southwark agree to NHG making a new and entirely different planning application for Phase 2B instead, outside of the limits of the OPP?</p>
<h3>What next for Phase 2B?</h3>
<p>The <a href="https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2024/57">High Court decision</a> is also likely to have serious consequences for <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s111184/SITE%20PLAN%20-%2022AP2226%20Aylesbury%20Estate.pdf">Phase 2B</a>, which includes much of Wendover, plus Winslow, Ravenstone and Padbury blocks. The 'drop-in' application was approved by the planning committee in 2018 on the understanding that the change to the outline permission would be made, protecting its validity. Now that change has been ruled unlawful will Southwark abandon the drop-in application?</p>
<p>After the decision, Alexandra Goldenberg, solicitor at <a href="https://www.pilc.org.uk/">PILC (Public Interest Law Centre)</a>, who represented Aysen, told the <a href="https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/walworth/aylesbury-estate-resident-triumphs-in-high-court-battle-that-could-hinder-developers-plans-for-the-walworth-estate/">Southwark News</a>: <em>“NHG will now have to revisit that application as this puts into question how the redevelopment will be brought forward and could lead to NHG having to submit an entirely new planning application.”</em></p>
<p>Southwark also has the option of appealing against the decision.</p>
<h3>What about the rest of the development?</h3>
<p>It also appears that nothing can happen on the remaining phases until Phase 2B is resolved. In an illuminating passage of the judgement Southwark and NHG agreed that Phase 2C, Phase 3 and Phase 4 can only properly proceed once Phase 2B is complete. The redevelopment of the Aylesbury has been going for nearly 25 years and three phases remain to be completed. How do Southwark and NHG intend to achieve the <a href="http://www.aylesburynow.london/">target date of 2036</a> for full completion?</p>
<h3>Southwark and NHG - authors of their own (and our) misfortune</h3>
<p>This is not a case where Southwark and NHG have been unwittingly tripped up by some legal technicality, as they both suggest in the <a href="https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/walworth/aylesbury-estate-resident-triumphs-in-high-court-battle-that-could-hinder-developers-plans-for-the-walworth-estate/">Southwark News</a>. The High Court case has not caused this problem - Southwark Council and NHG have. First, by jointly putting forward a 'drop-in', detailed application for Phase 2B that did not agree with the outline permission. Second, by undertaking a planning manoeuvre that was supposed to protect the permissions from legal challenge, but had the opposite effect. The net result is that we now have one valid, eight-year-old, planning permission that should have advanced to Phase 2B, but was not used, and one, unvalidated permission, that has been cast into doubt.</p>
<p>Aysen was represented for her case by <a href="https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/barristers/jenny-wigley-kc">Jenny Wigley KC</a> and <a href="https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/barristers/alex-shattock">Alex Shattock</a>, both of Landmark Chambers, instructed by PILC (Public Interest Law Centre). Southwark was represented by Melissa Murphy KC and Heather Sargent, both of Landmark Chambers. NHG was represented by James Strachan KC of 39 Essex Chambers, instructed by Winckworth Sherwood LLP.</p>
<p>You can read more about the decision in <a href="https://www.pilc.org.uk/news/victory-in-the-high-court-aylesbury-estate/">PILC's</a> press-release, <a href="https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/news-and-cases/planning-court-hands-down-judgment-in-important-case-for-drop-in-planning-permissions">Landmark Chambers</a>, , the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/26/aylesbury-estate-resident-aysen-dennis-continues-regeneration-fight-southwark-council">Guardian</a> and the <a href="https://www.bigissue.com/news/housing/aylesbury-estate-lonon-aysen-dennis-high-court-case-verdict/">Big Issue</a>. Some planning lawyers views of the wider implications can be found <a href="https://www.dacbeachcroft.com/en/gb/articles/2024/january/hillside-and-the-limitations-of-s96a/">here</a>, <a href="https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/planning/401-planning-news/56165-non-material-amendment-that-allowed-drop-in-phases-in-aylesbury-estate-regeneration-was-ultra-vires-high-court-rules">here </a> and <a href="https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9db6dbb7-f420-4cf9-8a8c-340956100cfd">here</a>.</p>
Giant Elephant Park office block gets go-ahead2023-12-21T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/giant-elephant-park-office-block-gets-go-ahead/<p>Southwark Council’s <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=65131">decision to refuse</a> Lendlease planning permission for a large office block on H1, the final plot of Elephant Park (formerly the Heygate estate) has been <a href="https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?Caseid=3319797&CoID=0">overturned by a planning inspector</a>. The decision means that Lendlease can go ahead with construction of the office block.</p>
<p>The decision comes after an <a href="https://gateleyhamer-pi.com/en-gb/h1-elephant-park/">eight-day public inquiry in September</a>, before Inspector Paul Griffiths, appointed by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Southwark and the Community Objectors H1 (COH1) argued to maintain the planning committee’s decision, who <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=65131">refused the scheme</a> in October 2022, because of its size, the detrimental impact it would have on the light and privacy of neighbours and harm it would cause to the character of the area. COH1 argued in addition that the H1 site should be used for housing, not offices, as the original outline planning permission, held by Lendlease, required. Southwark Council had no objection to an office block in principle.</p>
<p>The 35% Campaign was part of COH1, which included local residents, housing campaigners and the Walworth Society. COH1 were represented by the <a href="https://www.pilc.org.uk/">Public Interest Law</a> Centre (PILC), the Southwark Law Centre’s <a href="https://www.southwarklawcentre.org.uk/planning-voice/">Planning Voice Project</a> and barrister <a href="https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/barristers/charles-bishop">Charles Bishop</a> of Landmark Chambers.</p>
<h3>What the Inspector thought….</h3>
<p>Contrary to Southwark and COH1 <a href="https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?Caseid=3319797&CoID=0">the Inspector found</a> the proposed design of the office block to be of a very high standard. He considered that the office block’s shape would be a <em>‘pleasing’</em> contrast to the rectilinear forms of the rest of Elephant Park and that it would provide a focus for the development and for the wider Elephant & Castle regeneration. He thought that the design features, such as the lattice work <em>'cage'</em>, the terracing and the <em>‘ripples’</em> in the façade, would counteract any impression of oversized bulkiness. He further thought that the high ground floor lobby, with restaurant/cafes, would amount to an extension of the outside public space, with the proposed NHS health hub giving the building a sense of destination.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/88_96_walworth_rd.pdf-adobe-acrobat-reader-64-bit-18_12_2023-09_29_17.png" alt="" title="Walworth Terrace 88- 96 Walworth Rd" /></p>
<p>The Inspector acknowledges that there would be harm to the light of neighbours on Walworth Terrace, just over the road from H1, and in Hurlock Heights on Elephant Park, noting that there would be <em>‘significant reductions in daylight’</em> for Nos.82-96 Walworth Road and for <em>‘all the single aspect north facing master bedrooms in the lower part of Hurlock Heights’</em>. Against this, though, there was a <em>‘policy expectation’</em> of a big building on H1, which meant the loss of light was <em>‘not surprising or extreme’</em> and therefore acceptable. He also did not think changing the use of the site from a residential to office development made much difference in terms of privacy.</p>
<h3>The objectors’ case for homes</h3>
<p>COH1 made the case for homes to be built on H1, as originally intended in the Elephant Park masterplan. A full account of all the new homes on the redeveloped Heygate site showed that only 100 were social rent (<a href="https://gateleyhamer-pi.com/filer/sharing/1694091234/17733/">92 on Elephant Park</a> and eight on Trafalgar Place). This is a fraction of the 1,000-plus council homes that were demolished. Further, <a href="https://gateleyhamer-pi.com/filer/sharing/1694091234/17733/">only 48 ex-Heygate households</a> had benefited from new homes provided by the regeneration. COH1 therefore argued that the Mayor’s London Plan policy for estate regeneration should apply to Plot H1. <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/planning/london-plan/the-london-plan-2021-online/chapter-4-housing#policy-h8-loss-of-existing-housing-and-estate-redevelopment-170938-title">This policy (H8)</a> requires that demolished affordable housing be '<em>replaced by an equivalent amount of affordable housing floorspace</em>' and that <em>'social rent housing must be provided as social rent housing where it is facilitating a right of return'</em>. (More about the COH1 case can be found on the PILC <a href="https://www.pilc.org.uk/blog/">blog page 28 Sept 2023)</a></p>
<p>The Inspector acknowledges that COH1's case was <em>‘perfectly legitimate’</em> (contrary to Lendlease, who <a href="https://gat04-live-1517c8a4486c41609369c68f30c8-aa81074.divio-media.org/filer_public/47/d5/47d50b1e-c99c-449b-acff-986522f96f0e/inq-16_closing_submissions_of_aa__22_september_2023.pdf">said it was '<em>inadmissible</em>'</a>), but decided that the question had been settled in 2013, when Southwark determined that off-site replacement housing (the so called <a href="https://www.35percent.org/heygatepages/newhomesforheygate/">Early Housing Sites</a>) was sufficient for rehousing ex-Heygate households. While declining to say whether this was the right or wrong decision, the Inspector could see no compelling reason to re-open the debate. He also saw no reason not to accept an office-use development on H1. (The Inspector praised the design of the Heygate, in passing, in a footnote).</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/units_in_heygate_final.pdf-adobe-acrobat-reader-64-bit-16_12_2023-17_16_16.png" alt="" title="Table of re-provided housing for the demoliishedHeygate estate, by tenure." /></p>
<h3>In the Zone – offices before homes….</h3>
<p>The Inspector’s decision draws heavily on the policy basis for deciding planning applications. These policies show that building new homes is not necessarily a top priority for either the London Mayor or Southwark Council, regardless of their <a href="c:%5CUsers%5Cgrego%5CDocuments%5CD-Drive%20201017%5CCopy%20of%20Elephant%20Amenity%20Network%5CBlog%2035percent%20campaign%5CNetlify%5Cbuilding%20new%20homes%20is%20not%20necessarily%20their%20top%20priority">pronouncements otherwise</a>.</p>
<p>The Mayor tells us in his <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/london-plan-2021">London Plan 2021</a> that office-building is as important as home-building at the Elephant and Castle, because it is in the Central Activities Zone (CAZ). The Plan says that in the CAZ <em>‘The nationally and internationally significant office functions of the CAZ should be supported and enhanced….and ‘New residential development should not compromise the strategic functions of the CAZ’</em> <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/planning/london-plan/the%E2%80%93london-plan-2021-online/chapter-2-spatial-development-patterns#policy-sd4-the-central-activities-zone-caz-170173-title">(Policy SD4)</a>.</p>
<p>For its part, Southwark Council gave Lendlease an indispensable helping hand, by introducing the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-guidance/development-plan/new-southwark-plan">Southwark Plan</a> Policy ST2, in 2022. This increases the amount of office space on Elephant Park from the 5,000sqm that Lendlease were allowed under their original 2013 planning permission, to 60,000sqm (a decision Lendlease uncannily anticipated in 2017, by hiring Acme architects to design an office block for H1 of almost exactly that size).</p>
<p>The Inspector notes all this, as well several other policies, including London Plan policy <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/planning/london-plan/the%E2%80%93london-plan-2021-online/chapter-2-spatial-development-patterns#policy-sd5-offices-other-strategic-functions-and-residential-development-in-the-caz-170176-title">SD5</a>, by which housing cannot be given more weight than offices in planning decisions for CAZ developments. In an important passage he says <em>‘the provision of offices on the appeal site draws support from both the London Plan and the Southwark Plan. Indeed, London Plan Policy SD5 expresses no preference for residential development over offices and/or other strategic functions in the Central Activities Zone, or vice versa. There is no policy basis, therefore, for a conclusion that housing and affordable housing would be a better use for the site.’</em></p>
<h3>A smaller health hub?</h3>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/image_health_hub_f_ludewig_presentation_cd0610.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>A particularly disappointing aspect of the decision is that the Inspector favoured <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/lendlease-row-back-on-elephant-park-health-hub-commitments/">Lendlease’s version of the s106 legal agreement for the Health Hub</a>, over both the COH1 and Southwark Council versions. Lendlease’s version leaves the exact size and length of lease open to negotiation with the NHS. The Inspector’s reasoning is that this would make it more likely that the health hub would become a reality. This may be true, but it also opens the door to Lendlease providing something <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/lendlease-row-back-on-elephant-park-health-hub-commitments/">smaller and on a shorter lease</a>, than the 10% of total workspace and 30-year lease that they had committed at the planning committee meeting in October 2022.</p>
<h3>What we say….</h3>
<p>Lendlease could not have succeeded in this appeal without the 2021/2022 changes to planning policy, which increased the office space they were allowed to build twelvefold, to 60,000sqm. This change was made by Southwark Council, facilitated by the Mayor's London Plan. It was a change which Lendlease was well prepared for, having, with remarkable foresight, already hired Acme architects four years previously, to build an office block almost exactly that size (a point acknowledged by both ACME and <a href="https://www.pilc.org.uk/blog/">Lendlease advisor, DP9, at the inquiry</a>).</p>
<p>We <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/2021-09-12-lendleases-final-plot-for-elephant-park-offices-not-homes/">blogged in September 2021</a>, about these late policy changes to the Southwark Plan. We also noted other major changes to the Heygate redevelopment, departing from the scheme which had been presented and approved by Southwark's planning committee in January 2013 – more homes on fewer plots, 900 <a href="https://www.lendlease.com/uk/media-centre/media-releases/debut-build-to-rent-homes-from-lendlease-near-completion/">free-market homes to be let, not sold</a> – plus the substantial number of homes <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/2016-11-12-elephant-park-a-populist-narrative/">sold overseas</a>.</p>
<p>Now Lendlease has also strengthened its position in negotiations with the NHS for the provision of a health hub, which by all accounts looks as if it will be incorporating two GPS's surgeries, Princess St and Manor Place. Southwark Council will also be <a href="https://gat04-live-1517c8a4486c41609369c68f30c8-aa81074.divio-media.org/filer_public/8a/75/8a75b889-ffff-4d1f-ada4-dbd17c6bf5a7/cd174_letter_on_health_hub_february_2022.pdf">party to these negotiations,</a> but as the Southwark Law Centre has pointed out in <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/lendlease-row-back-on-elephant-park-health-hub-commitments/">our previous blogpost</a> <em>'Any figures put forward by Lendlease would involve subjective estimates that would no doubt skew things in their favour. The Council would have the ability to review these figures, but they would likely lack the resources and the data needed to properly scrutinise them’</em>.</p>
Aylesbury estate legal battle goes to the High Court2023-11-22T08:38:17Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/aylesbury-estate-legal-challenge-goes-to-the-high-court/<h4>Latest phase of troubled regeneration triggers legal challenge to Aylesbury Outline Planning Permission</h4>
<p>The legal challenge against Southwark Council’s decision to amend the Outline Planning Permission to facilitate approval of the latest phase of the Aylesbury redevelopment will be heard in the <strong>High Court in the Strand next Tuesday 28 November.</strong></p>
<p>The challenge is being brought by long-term Aylesbury resident and <a href="https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/aylesbury-estate-residents-legal-battle-with-southwark-council-edges-closer/">housing campaigner Aysen Dennis</a>. It relates to an amendment to the Outline Planning Permission for the Aylesbury Estate, which would allow the latest phase, <a href="http://www.aylesburynow.london/regeneration/planning-information/phase-2b">Phase 2B</a>, to go forward, but not as part of the historic, overarching Outline Planning Permission. Aysen is being represented by the <a href="https://www.pilc.org.uk/gentrification-project/">Public Interest Law Centre (PILC)</a> and barrister <a href="https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/barristers/alex-shattock">Alex Shuttock of Landmark Chambers</a>. Phase 2B includes much of Wendover, plus Winslow, Ravenstone and Padbury blocks.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/aylesbury_estate_block_from_burgess_park_-02-_wikipedia_crop.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Wendover Block on Phase 2b of the estate</em></p>
<p>Aysen’s case is that Southwark Council acted unreasonably by approving a change to the wording of the Outline Planning Permission, which covers the whole estate and was given to Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) back in 2015. The change is to add the word 'severable' in relation to the phased development. Although a small change, the consequence smooths the path for planning permissions which sit outside the parameters of the Outline Planning Permission, despite it being on the same land. As an example of this, NHG now proposes a 25-storey tower for Phase 2B, while the Outline Planning Permission only allows for a 20-story tower. Additionally, if this change is deemed lawful, it is feared that all future phases of the redevelopment could be outside the limits of the outline permission.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/phase_2b_jr_presentation.png" alt="" />
<em>The Aylesbury planning permission jigsaw - courtesy of PILC</em></p>
<h4>Less social rented housing</h4>
<p>The case has generated national publicity. In a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/09/london-estate-resident-goes-to-high-court-over-demolition-plans">Guardian article</a> Saskia O’Hara, from PILC, referred to a recent <a href="https://35percent.org/posts/aylesbury-estate-legal-challenge-goes-to-the-high-court/recent%20supreme%20court%20decision">supreme court decision</a> on this issue, and said: <em>“It is already difficult for communities to play a meaningful role in the planning process, and this is never truer than for a resident of a London estate which has been a target for demolition by councils and private developers over decades. Developers should not be able to sidestep the findings of the supreme court and have a free pass to change what was promised to residents in the historic planning permission.”</em></p>
<p>The Guardian article also points out that there would be a reduction in social rented housing, if the new planning permission for Phase 2B is allowed to go ahead. At the moment, there are 327 social rented homes on the site, plus 46 sold under right to buy. NHG proposes replacing them with 614 new homes in total, but only 163 would be socially rented.</p>
<h4>Aylesbury campaigners mobilise</h4>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/aylesbury-estate-protest-by-guy-smallman-e1595420841115.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Aylesbury estate protest - photo by Guy Smallman</em></p>
<p><a href="https://twitter.com/Aylesbury_exhib">Fight4Aylesbury</a> campaigners believe that there is now a fresh opportunity to shape the future of the Aylesbury. They want a decent deal for all residents on the Aylesbury and believe that the best deal involves retaining current precious homes. They point out the CO2 impact of demolition is huge and make a four-point proposal;</p>
<p>• Invest in and improve the buildings we already have</p>
<p>• Insulate, retrofit and refurbish</p>
<p>• Stop the managed decline of the estate</p>
<p>• Stop social cleansing and demolition</p>
<p>They are urging all supporters to join them at the <strong>Royal Courts of Justice High Court (Strand, London WC2A 2LL) on Tuesday 28 Nov 2023 AT 9am.</strong></p>
<p><a href="c:%5CUsers%5Cgrego%5CDocuments%5CD-Drive%20201017%5CCopy%20of%20Elephant%20Amenity%20Network%5CBlog%2035percent%20campaign%5CNetlify-%20https:%5Ctwitter.com%5CAylesbury_exhib">Twitter@AYLESBURY_EXHIBITION</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/fight4aylesbury/">Instagram@FIGHT4AYLESBURY</a></p>
<p>Email – <a href="mailto:fight4aylesbury@gmail.com">fight4aylesbury@gmail.com</a></p>
Lendlease row back on Elephant Park health hub commitments.2023-11-10T15:41:55Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/lendlease-row-back-on-elephant-park-health-hub-commitments/<p>Elephant Park developer Lendlease is watering down its commitments to providing a health hub as part of its proposed office block on the final plot of Elephant Park, H1.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://gateleyhamer-pi.com/filer/sharing/1695377138/17820/">draft s106 agreement</a> between Lendlease and Southwark Council shows that Lendlease no longer want to commit to a 30-year lease, if the development goes ahead, but leave the length of the lease open to negotiations. Lendlease had previously expressed the intention of agreeing a 30-year lease, as noted in both the <a href="https://gateleyhamer-pi.com/filer/sharing/1692268144/17415/">council report </a>to the planning committee and a <a href="https://gateleyhamer-pi.com/filer/sharing/1692286223/17493/">Memorandum of Understanding</a> between Lendlease, Southwark and the NHS.</p>
<p>The draft agreement was lodged as part of the recent <a href="https://gateleyhamer-pi.com/en-gb/h1-elephant-park/">public inquiry</a>, called after Lendlease appealed against the Council’s <a href="https://gateleyhamer-pi.com/filer/sharing/1692268137/17410/">decision to reject</a> their office block application in October 2022. Southwark Council and local campaign group Community Objectors H1 (which includes the 35% Campaign) have submitted their own versions of the s106 agreement to the inquiry, which both specify that the health hub lease should be for 30 years. Objectors had already unsuccessfully argued that even 30 years was too short a period.</p>
<p>The office block and health hub will only be built if Lendlease wins its appeal. A decision will be made by the inquiry inspector and is still awaited. The Inspector will also decide which version of the s106 will apply.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/extract_mou_09_feb_2022.png" alt="" />
<em>"From Memorandum of Understanding between Lendlease, Southwark and the NHS, 09 Feb 2022"</em></p>
<h2>How big will the health hub be?</h2>
<p>The size of any eventual health hub is also in doubt. It would be provided instead of affordable workspace, which is what is usually required in developments of this kind, under <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/94325/Southwark-Plan-2022.pdf">Southwark’s planning rules.</a> These say that 10% of the total workspace should be <em>‘affordable’</em> at a discounted market rent for 30 years. There is the option, though, for <em>'health services'</em> to be provided as an <em>'alternative'</em> in <em>'exceptional circumstances'</em> and both Southwark and Lendlease prefer this for H1.</p>
<p>However, Lendlease does not propose to simply provide the same floorspace for the health hub as it would have done for the affordable workspace. Instead, it proposes a complicated formula where the health hub’s rent would be a determining factor in calculating its size. This is to avoid paying more for providing the health hub than for providing affordable workspace, but it might also mean that the hub is smaller than 10% of the total workspace.</p>
<p>Southwark Council go along with this approach in their version of the draft s106 agreement. The Community Objectors H1 (COH1) disagree and in their version say the health hub simply says that the health hub should be 10% of the affordable workspace.</p>
<h2>What we say….</h2>
<p>Lendlease should provide a health hub that is equal to 10% of workspace at a minimum 30-year lease, if it gets planning permission for its office block. Nor should it be at the expense of affordable workspace, which is needed for the many local traders that still have no affordable premises, as local charity Latin Elephant pointed out in their <a href="https://gateleyhamer-pi.com/filer/sharing/1692279141/17445/">planning inquiry evidence</a>.</p>
<p>Against this, Lendlease and Southwark say that the health hub is the preferred option, in place of any affordable workspace, because of the local need for a health facility. But allowing Lendlease flexibility on the size and the length of the lease puts their financial interest above the public need. If all parties agree that the health hub is so important, then it must be fully delivered. Lendlease should cover any increased cost entailed in the hub (as they appeared to be committed to, previously) and count it as a good investment, for the benefit of having a NHS facility right in the middle of what is, after all, their own development.</p>
<h2>Southwark Law Centre's adds....</h2>
<p>Lendlease wants to leave the length of the lease and the size of the health hub to the vagaries of negotiation. The cost of the health hub would be effectively capped by whatever the cost of the affordable workspace would be and the figures underlying this would be supplied by Lendlease. Jed Holloway of the Southwark Law Centre, who advised the COH1 objectors at the public inquiry, says <em>‘Any figures put forward by Lendlease would involve subjective estimates that would no doubt skew things in their favour. The Council would have the ability to review these figures, but they would likely lack the resources and the data needed to properly scrutinise them’.</em></p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/floor_plan_health_hub_feb_2022.png" alt="" />
<em>"Indicative health hub floor plan"</em></p>
<h2>.....what's the future for Walworth GP surgeries?</h2>
<p>Also, the future of the two local GP surgeries at Manor Place and Princess St must be also be taken into account. If they are replaced by a health hub, as the Memorandum of Understanding implies, we must avoid any possibility of losing the hub and GP facilities at the end of an unsatisfactorily short lease.</p>
<p>Finally, it appears that Southwark Council is again bending to Lendlease’s will; they allowed Lendlease to <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/2020-02-21-heygate-final-chapter-and-chance-for-southwark-to-redeem-itself/">squeeze more homes into a smaller space</a> on Elephant Park and then agreed in principle to an office block on H1, only rejecting it on size grounds. This all adds up to the lesson that developers always put their own interests first, a lesson Southwark should have learned by now.</p>
<p>NOTE - COH1 is comprised of local residents, including some who live on Elephant Park; the Walworth Society and the 35% Campaign. It was represented by barrister Charles Bishop of Landmark Chambers, the Public Interest Law Centre and the Southwark Law Centre’s Planning Voice Project. You can <a href="https://www.pilc.org.uk/blog/elephant-park-planning-inquiry-recap/">read more about the public inquiry here</a>.</p>
Southwark turns blind eye to social rent homes let at market-related rents2023-06-12T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/southwark-loses-social-rented-housing-from-new-development/<p>Southwark Council has declined to take any action to recover nine social rented homes that have been lost from Gutenberg Court, a housing development on Grange Road in Bermondsey. Southwark Law Centre made a formal complaint in October 2021 that homes were being advertised on the Council's Homesearch website at over twice the average social rent levels. After a lengthy delay the Council have now replied that it will not be taking any enforcement action.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.35percent.org/img/gberg.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Image: Social rent homes at Gutenberg Court advertised at twice social rent levels</em></p>
<p>Gutenberg Court was given planning permission by the Council in July 2011. The <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s21421/Item%201%20report.pdf">officer's report</a> states that the 38 units development would include nine units of social rented housing. The applicant's planning statement for the development also says that there will be nine social rented units.</p>
<p><img src="http://35percent.org/img/11_ap_1390-planning_statement-3054269.pdf-google-chrome-15_05_2023-10_10_25.png" alt="" />
<em>Image: Planning statement for Gutenberg Court</em></p>
<h2>Council fails to enforce affordable housing requirement</h2>
<p>The Council, however, <a href="https://35percent.org/posts/southwark-loses-social-rented-housing-from-new-development/img/GutenbergSouthwarkResponse.pdf">say</a> that the <a href="https://35percent.org/posts/southwark-loses-social-rented-housing-from-new-development/img/gutenbergs106.pdf">s106 agreement</a> between themselves and the developer, which should say how much affordable housing a new scheme delivers, has <em>'unfortunately...no specific requirement ...to provide affordable housing to be let on social rent terms.'</em> and <em>'we have therefore concluded that there is no clear breach of the section 106 agreement and no basis for enforcement action...'.</em> The Council says that the matter has been raised with the Housing Association (<a href="https://www.pahousing.co.uk/">PA (Paragon Asra) Housing</a>) but that they are <em>'not willing to alter the status because they are complying with the terms of this agreement'.</em></p>
<p>While the Council says that there is <em>'no specific requirement ...to provide affordable housing to be let on social rent terms'</em> the s106 agreement says otherwise:</p>
<p><img src="http://35percent.org/img/gutenbergrented.png" alt="" />
<em>Image: Section 106 agreement for Gutenberg Court</em></p>
<p>Southwark ignores this part of the s106 agreement, which clearly says that the nine rented affordable homes should be consistent with social rent levels. Further, Gutenberg Court's market-related rents (known as 'affordable rent') were not introduced as an affordable housing tenure until 2012 - after the s106 agreement was signed.</p>
<p>Instead they point to a recent Local Government Ombudsman decision that says it has a proper affordable housing monitoring system in place and that the system shows that the borough has received over 1400 more social rented units from developers than s106 agreements require.</p>
<h3>Public funding at stake</h3>
<p>The Mayor of London's grant funding database shows that Gutenberg Court was awarded a total of <a href="https://www.35percent.org/img/GLA+Affordable+Housing+Dataset_v1_0-1.xls">£386k grant funding</a> from the Mayor's Affordable Housing Fund for the 13 affordable homes, at a time when the development's housing association was known as Leicester Housing Association. This raises a question of whether the Mayor has been properly monitoring the delivery of social housing he is paying for.</p>
<p>A further question arises around the price paid for the affordable units. <a href="https://35percent.org/img/LRGutenberg.pdf">Land Registry documents</a> show that the housing association paid the developer £650k for 14 homes. If nine of these were to be let at market related rents, not social rents, then the price would probably have been greater, improving the viability of the scheme and the scope for additional affordable housing.</p>
<p><img src="http://35percent.org/img/gutenbergfunding.png" alt="" />
<em>Image: Details of Mayoral funding for Gutenberg Court</em></p>
<h3>Some questions for Southwark Council</h3>
<p>Gutenberg Court is one of seven developments that the Southwark Law Centre's Planning Voice project raised with Southwark Council, where the <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/southwarks-new-developments-that-fail-to-deliver-social-rent/">social rents appear higher</a> than they should be. The Council's limp response effectively concedes that the nine social rented homes promised for Gutenberg Court have not been delivered; what is worse, the Council makes it clear that they intend to do nothing further to retrieve them. This is wrong, Southwark should take robust enforcement action, not just to retrieve these social rented homes but to send a strong message to developers and housing associations that when they agree to build social rented housing it must be delivered.</p>
<p>Southwark should also explain why it took no action until it received a complaint from Southwark Law Centre, when its own audits noted the discrepancy with the comment: <em>"9x Social Rent units delivered as Affordable Rent."</em> This should have prompted immediate action. Affordable rent can be up to 80% market rent and is not considered a suitable tenure for Southwark according to the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-guidance/monitoring/monitoring-affordable-housing-delivery#Affordable-housing-policy-timeline">Council's own website</a>.</p>
<p><img src="http://35percent.org/img/notaffordable.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Instead of addressing these points, though, Southwark hides behind the <a href="https://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/planning/other/21-009-646">Ombudsman's decision</a> that a monitoring system is in place and that this shows that private developers have delivered over<a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2022/dec/southwark-council-takes-action-on-affordable-homes-promises"> 1300 more social units</a> than they should have.</p>
<p>There is a simpler explanation for this 1300 figure, though, and that is that the audit is flawed, as Gutenberg Court demonstrates. The audit depends upon accurate returns from many housing associations, big and small and if the figures do not add up that requires a better explanation than <em>'we are getting more social housing than we thought'</em>. Southwark should identify this 'extra' social housing by address, to be sure it is social housing, let at social rents, and not just an accumulation of errors and inaccurate reports.</p>
<p><img src="http://35percent.org/img/screenshot_of_southwarks_ah_monitoring_gutenberg_court_-002-_240523.png" alt="" />
<em>Image: Southwark's <a href="https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiODIzNTdiMGUtMDAxNS00NGI1LThjY2EtYjBjMWQwYzcxMzQ2IiwidCI6ImNhZjg2Y2IxLThjYTItNDU0NS1hNGRkLWYzNTlkMDM5MGEwOCJ9&pageName=ReportSection">audit</a> results for Gutenberg Court</em></p>
<h3>Southwark Law Centre's Planning Voice says...</h3>
<p><em>'Given the desperate need for social rented housing in Southwark, the lack of action from Southwark Council despite its own affordable housing audit's findings is very worrying.
There are thousands of families who are in dire need of housing at social rent levels, when social housing is promised, it is vital that it is delivered'.</em></p>
Southwark developments that fail to deliver real social rent2022-12-07T08:23:58Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/southwarks-new-developments-that-fail-to-deliver-social-rent/<h3>Social rent of £295.50 challenged by Southwark Law Centre</h3>
<p><a href="https://www.southwarklawcentre.org.uk/">Southwark Law Centre</a> has written to the council to ask why social rents on new housing developments are higher than the limits set by government. One development, Gutenberg Court, has a social rent of £295.50, which is £130 above the social rent cap of £164.87, for a two-bed property. It is also wrongly advertised as 'market related'.</p>
<p>For the past year the law centre's <a href="https://www.southwarklawcentre.org.uk/planning-voice/">Planning Voice Project</a> has been monitoring Southwark Council's Homesearch website, which is used by those on the housing waiting list to find a new home. <a href="https://www.southwarklawcentre.org.uk/"></a>It has written to the council with seven examples of private developments which have rent levels above government <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rent-standard/limit-on-annual-rent-increases-2022-23-from-april-2022">formula rent cap</a> guidance. All the developments have been approved on the condition that a proportion of the housing is social rented.</p>
<p>The developments identified include Elephant Park, in the site of the former Heygate estate, and three where the social housing is delivered by the same registered provider, <a href="https://www.optivo.org.uk/">Optivo</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/screenshot-2022-11-26-at-11-24-07-limit-on-annual-rent-increases-2021-22-limit_on_annual_rent_increases_2022-23.pdf.png" alt="" />
<em>Government guidance limit on annual rent increases 2022-23 (from April 2022)</em></p>
<p>The seven developments are; 44 Willow Walk, Eden House, Shirley Chissom Court, Dockley Apartments, Gutenberg Court, Elephant Park and Joseph Lancaster Terrace. All the rents in these schemes exceed the rent cap by various amounts, both with and without weekly service charges. The council has said that it will investigate the complaints.</p>
<h3>Optivo's big social rents</h3>
<p><a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=ZZZV1FKBWR595&activeTab=summary">Eden House</a> is a workspace/residential development with 84 homes, on Ilderton Rd, in the Old Kent Rd Opportunity Area. It was approved in 2018 with sixteen social rented units; <a href="https://www.optivo.org.uk/">Optivo</a> provides this, but is charging £216.92, including a £9.86 service charge, against a rent cap of £155.73 for a one-bed flat and £281.54pw, including a £12.35 service charge, against a rent cap of £164.87, for a two-bed flat. A 3-bed wheel-chair accessible flat is let at £332.31, against a rent cap of £174.03.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/edenhouse.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p><a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=ZZZV0SKBWR962&activeTab=summary">Shirley Chisholm Court</a> is a residential development of 86 homes, also on Ilderton Rd, approved with eighteen social rented units. Here Optivo is charging a total of £184.03, including £15.69 service charge, against a rent cap of £155.73 for a one-bed wheel chair accessible flat. For a two-bed wheel chair accessible flat the total rent is £198.50 (including a £24.47 service charge) against a rent cap of £164.87.</p>
<p><a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=ZZZV0RKBWR806&activeTab=summary">Dockley Apartments</a> has one hundred and eleven homes and is part of the Bermondsey Spa developments. Here Optivo is charging rents for one and two bed wheel chair accessible flats at the rent cap limit of £155.73 and £164.55, but with large service charges added the total rents payable are £189.03 (rent cap £155.73) and £201.78 (rent cap £164.87) respectively.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/optivo_table_051222.pdf-adobe-acrobat-reader-64-bit-05_12_2022-09_37_44-2-.png" alt="" /></p>
<h3>Rent and service charges - Peabody and Paragon</h3>
<p>Some of the scheme's providers do not show any service charge in the total weekly rent. Peabody are charging total rents of £223.50 (rent cap £164.87) two-bed and £248.72 (rent cap £174.03) three-bed at Willow Walk. Three and four bed wheel chair accessible homes are being let at £252.60 (rent cap £174.03) and £243.26 (rent cap £183.18) respectively.</p>
<p>Paragon and Asra Housing Ltd are charging £261.44 for a one-bed and £295.50 for a two bed at <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=ZZZV1QKBWR443&activeTab=summary">Gutenberg Court</a>. <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/ombudsman-rejects-affordable-housing-complaint-against-southwark/">Our last blog post</a> showed how the nine social rented units that were approved at planning committee have been audited as intermediate, or affordable rent, red flagged, but with apparently no enforcement action to date.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/gberg.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/peabody_and_paragon_table_051222.pdf-adobe-acrobat-reader-64-bit-08_12_2022-09_24_50-2-.png" alt="" /></p>
<h3>L&Q at Elephant Park</h3>
<p>L&Q provides the affordable housing on Elephant Park, including one hundred 3-bed social rented units. L&Q are charging below the rent cap for rents, but then adding very large service charges, to take total rents up to at least £213.43pw, against a rent cap of £174.03. The latest flats advertised in Robeson Apts, Rodney Place are a whopping £281.20pw.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/l-q_elephant_park_word-29_11_2022-08_51_53-2-.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The level of social rents was <a href="https://southwarknews.co.uk/news/housing/fears-raised-that-100-elephant-park-social-rent-properties-are-charging-tenants-incorrectly/">raised by objectors</a> at the planning committee meeting that rejected Lendlease's proposal to build an office block on Elephant Park. Southwark have also started <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/enforcementDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=RELD9TKB00K01">an enforcement action</a> for an audit of the rents of Elephant Park's Sandow House. This was due to be concluded by 21 September, but remains pending.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/robeson_apt_3-bed-flat-2-.png" alt="" />
<em>Southwark Council's Homesearch advert for Elephant Park's Robeson Apartments</em></p>
<h3>Southwark Council and Adrian Court</h3>
<p>The social rents being charged for Southwark's twenty-five new council homes on Adrian Court stand in stark contrast to those of the registered providers listed above. The one, two bed units are all being let at below the rent cap level, and the three-bed at just above, all rents including a flat service charge of £10.29.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/southwark_council_at_adrian_court_table_051222.pdf_adobe-acrobat-reader-64-bit-05_12_2022-10_18_05-2-.png" alt="" /></p>
<h3>Conclusion - lost social housing and ineffective monitoring</h3>
<p>Southwark Law Centre's intervention comes just after the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman ruled that Southwark had an effective monitoring system for the delivery of affordable and social rented housing. The size of these rents tells a different story. Registered providers are letting social rent homes at rents way above the rent cap, with and without big service charges. Some of this might be justified when the units are wheel chair accessible, but the amounts vary wildly. Nearly all are also wrongly advertised as 'market related rent', not 'social rent'.</p>
<p>To its credit, Southwark seems to be setting rents according to the rent caps, but the result is that a social tenant can pay dramatically different total rents for the same sized flat - a three-bed on Southwark's Adrian Court costing £176.75, whereas the same on Lendlease's Elephant Park can cost £281.20.</p>
<p>Southwark is getting little enough social housing from new developments as it is. <a href="https://londontenants.org/">The London Tenants Federation</a> research has found that it there has been a<a href="https://twitter.com/londontenants/status/1593640575584149506"> net loss of over 1800 social rented homes</a> in the decade from 2011 and that social housing as a proportion of total housing has been reduced by 13%. We should not be losing what we do get because of slack monitoring.</p>
<p>TABLE - LTF, DELIVERY OF HOMES 2011-2021:</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/ltf_table_word-29_11_2022-09_00_59-2-.png" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>Southwark Law Centre’s Planning Voice project says</strong>: <em>“Given the desperate need for social rent housing in Southwark, we are deeply concerned about the levels of rent for properties being advertised on HomeSearch. We have highlighted many that are above the formula rent cap, and Southwark Council should be doing much more to ensure its approved social landlords are not charging excessive rents so they are in line with council rents. We hope they investigate these cases and the rents are reduced. Thousands of tenants need these homes.”</em></p>
Ombudsman rejects affordable housing complaint2022-10-31T08:49:56Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/ombudsman-rejects-affordable-housing-complaint-against-southwark/<p>A complaint by the 35% Campaign that Southwark has no effective system for the delivery of affordable housing, has been rejected by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. The judgement (LINK) comes after an 18-month enquiry process, with the Ombudsman ruling that <em>'We found no fault because the Council has effective procedures for carrying out its functions'.</em></p>
<p>However, the Ombudsman declined to investigate discrepancies between the affordable housing figures given on <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiODIzNTdiMGUtMDAxNS00NGI1LThjY2EtYjBjMWQwYzcxMzQ2IiwidCI6ImNhZjg2Y2IxLThjYTItNDU0NS1hNGRkLWYzNTlkMDM5MGEwOCJ9&pageName=ReportSection__;!!Ou-zFulSALS7ubxZ2oj45Dg!Vqi3bagEzmK7icBcQgGm18ZQk8FHJAYsCVjB_M_V6G6fzAaRhemokxPlAzcnrCU09xxdfdKYI2SsLLc63Oa-DmfMFJGVKA$">Southwark's interactive audit</a> and those found on other reports, from both Southwark Council and the Greater London Authority (GLA), primarily on the ground that effective compliance procedures were in place.</p>
<p>These discrepancies were not minor. They show a shortfall of over 3,500 in the number of recorded social rented units and number audited. There are also more than 200 completed schemes, listed by the GLA, that remain unaudited.</p>
<p><img src="http://35percent.org/img/2041.png" alt="" /></p>
<h3>The two complaints</h3>
<p>This was the second complaint to the Ombudsman on this issue. Southwark had said it would introduce effective monitoring procedures, after the Ombudsman found that none were in place, following an <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/2016-12-12-ombudsman-slams-southwark-for-no-s106-monitoring/">earlier complaint in 2016</a> . The new procedures were to include annual audits. In the six years since then, though, only two incomplete audits have been published. An online monitoring tool, able to record live data, and commissioned by Southwark was never launched.</p>
<p>In response to the second complaint, Southwark explained the four-year gap between the first audit in 2017 and the second in 2022 was because of the large amount of data that had to be processed. Most of this task had been undertaken by two officers, later increased to ten officers to complete the project. Southwark also said that <em>'better suited'</em> off-the-peg software had replaced the online tool it had commissioned and that it was now working with another software developer to build a comprehensive new tool.</p>
<p>Southwark explained enforcing the legal s106 agreements, which guarantees affordable housing, was complicated by their variety. It cited <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/2017-06-20-signal-tower-embarrassment-southwark-pays-for-lost-affordable-housing/">one legal case</a>, where affordable homes had been returned after a significant failure to comply with the s106, but said otherwise <em>'most breaches</em>....<em>could easily be resolved'</em>.</p>
<h3>The Ombudsman's decision</h3>
<p>The Ombudsman noted in his decision the <em>'gap of several years between issuing annual reports</em> <em>and it is only in the last year that it</em> [the council] <em>had substantially completed its database'</em>. Nonetheless he concluded that this did not amount to a fault, because the task <em>'was always likely to take a long time...'</em>. No time period had been set for this in the Ombudsman's 2016 complaint decision. The Ombudsman also decided that the council was not at fault for replacing the bespoke tool with proprietary software, because this was a matter for them to decide.</p>
<p>The Ombudsman therefore concluded <em>'I am satisfied that the Council now has effective means to capture and record AHO</em> [Affordable Housing Obligations] <em>for enforcement and other purposes'.</em></p>
<h3>What we think</h3>
<h3>....six years too late</h3>
<p>The Ombudsman's decision is a disappointment to us. We believe that the Ombudsman treats Southwark very benevolently, given what his own report tells us. It says that Southwark only** <em>'now</em>** <em>has effective means'</em> of monitoring affordable housing delivery (our emphasis), six years after the issue came to light; the report does not dwell on what has been happening in the meantime.</p>
<h3>.....the lost tool and the missing units</h3>
<p>A bespoke tool that could have monitored real-time delivery has been discarded and reverted to spreadsheets, with the possibility of developing a different purpose-built tool later.</p>
<p>The Ombudsman's report also says that the database of schemes has only been <em>'substantially'</em> completed in the last year. This is a generous description, given that there is evidence of a 3,556 unit gap between the number of units of social housing Southwark says it has delivered and those recorded by the audit. Southwark's <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/monitoring/authority-monitoring-report/housing?chapter=4">Housing Facts and Figures webpage</a> (Table 8) says that 5,597 social rented homes have been built since 2004/05, whereas only 2,041 have been <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiODIzNTdiMGUtMDAxNS00NGI1LThjY2EtYjBjMWQwYzcxMzQ2IiwidCI6ImNhZjg2Y2IxLThjYTItNDU0NS1hNGRkLWYzNTlkMDM5MGEwOCJ9&pageName=ReportSection__;!!Ou-zFulSALS7ubxZ2oj45Dg!Vqi3bagEzmK7icBcQgGm18ZQk8FHJAYsCVjB_M_V6G6fzAaRhemokxPlAzcnrCU09xxdfdKYI2SsLLc63Oa-DmfMFJGVKA$">recorded in the audit</a> (since 2002).</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/screenshot_southwark_housing_facts_figures_table_8_210922_highlight-2-.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h3>....the missing schemes</h3>
<p>The Greater London Authority (GLA), which funds much affordable housing, also has responsibility for monitoring its delivery across London. Our examination of the <a href="https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/glaintelligence/viz/PlanningLondonDatahub-Dashboard/MainDashboard">GLA datahub</a> found 209 completed schemes listed as having provided affordable housing in Southwark, as part of a planning permission, but which do not appear in Southwark's own audit.</p>
<p>One-hundred and forty three of these schemes can be found on <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-applications/planning-register-search-view-and-comment-on-planning-applications">Southwark's planning portal</a> and date from at least 2004 onwards. Many are simple one- and two-unit conversions, but there are also much larger schemes, including parts of Elephant Park and Canada Water with thirty-eight schemes for between ten and 100 units.</p>
<h3>....weak enforcement actions</h3>
<p>There are also a couple of alarming explanations from Southwark's officers, about how affordable housing is secured and retained. The first is that <em>'there were cases where there had been changes between what was originally expected during the planning (sic) and what was finally agreed in section 106 agreements. <strong>It was sometimes difficult to know what changes had occurred....'</strong></em> (our emphasis).</p>
<p>There should be no changes between what is approved at planning committee and and <em>'what was finally agreed in s106 agreements'</em>. Planning committees approve schemes that provide a precise amount of affordable housing of given tenures. If the developer cannot deliver what has been agreed at committee, then a s106 agreement for something different should not be signed. Southwark's officers should also be able to say why there have been changes, to ensure that they have been made properly.</p>
<p>Southwark's officers explain that <em>'evolving policy'</em> or loss of funding may be reasons for changes, between committee resolutions and legal agreements. Again, this should not be happening; applications are judged against emerging policy and changes to funding, or to the viability of an agreed scheme should be addressed by way of formal variations. Officers note that some applications change this way, but only on <em>'other occasions'</em>.</p>
<p>In any event, a look at the Southwark's planning <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Enforcement">enforcement action webpages</a> shows sixteen enforcement notices relating to affordable housing have been issued since 2016. Ten of these are for not responding to the audit and were lodged on the same day (10 May 2022) - three months after the Ombudsman began his investigation). Three remain open, including an <a href="https://southwarknews.co.uk/news/housing/fears-raised-that-100-elephant-park-social-rent-properties-are-charging-tenants-incorrectly/">audit of social rents on Elephant Park</a> (link).</p>
<h3>....Gutenberg Court - the £295 social rent</h3>
<p>The Ombudsman's report notes that <em>'In some cases, the type of AHO</em> [Affordable Housing Obligations] <em>tenancy was not what had been required'.</em> The report does not say how often this has occurred, but one instance that has come to light is that of <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=ZZZV1QKBWR443&activeTab=summary">Gutenberg Court</a>, which was also one of the schemes cited in our original <a href="https://www.35percent.org/img/ccomplaint15Dec2016.pdf">2016 complaint</a>. This was a development of 38 homes, including nine social rented homes, approved by Bermondsey Community Council planning committee in 2011. <a href="https://www.southwarklawcentre.org.uk/">Southwark Law Centre</a> complained to Southwark Council in October 2021 that the social rented units were being wrongly advertised to the housing waiting list as <em>'market related rent'</em>, not <em>'social rent'</em>, on the council's <a href="https://www.southwarkhomesearch.org.uk/">Homeseach</a> webpages. The development now appears in Southwark's audit as delivering nine affordable rent units (which can be up to 80% market rent) and zero social rent units.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/guttenberg-court-1-bed.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The difference between a market related rent rent and social rent can be seen from the rents that are being charged - £261.44pw (one-bed) and £295.50 (two-bed). This compares to the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rent-standard/limit-on-annual-rent-increases-2022-23-from-april-2022#rent-caps">social rent formula rent caps for 2022/23</a> of £155.73 (one-bed) and £164.87 (two-bed).</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/limit_on_annual_rent_increases_202223_from_april_2022_govuk__google_chrome-08_11_2022_14_15_45-2-1-.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The scheme has been 'red-flagged' on <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiODIzNTdiMGUtMDAxNS00NGI1LThjY2EtYjBjMWQwYzcxMzQ2IiwidCI6ImNhZjg2Y2IxLThjYTItNDU0NS1hNGRkLWYzNTlkMDM5MGEwOCJ9&pageName=ReportSection__;!!Ou-zFulSALS7ubxZ2oj45Dg!Vqi3bagEzmK7icBcQgGm18ZQk8FHJAYsCVjB_M_V6G6fzAaRhemokxPlAzcnrCU09xxdfdKYI2SsLLc63Oa-DmfMFJGVKA$">Southwark's audit</a>, but no enforcement action is listed on the <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Enforcement">enforcement action webpages</a>.</p>
<h3>Conclusion - everything is not alright</h3>
<p>The Ombudsman's findings will be welcomed by Southwark, particularly following his adverse finding in 2016.</p>
<p>But the Ombudsman's paints a picture of a service that is still not on top of the monitoring job, six years after he first exposed the problem. Just two officers were tasked with the audit, later increased to ten, <em>'to complete the project'</em>. Only two annual audits were completed in six years and solid evidence from Southwark and the GLA sources, that a large number of schemes and units have been omitted, has not been investigated. A bespoke online tool was commissioned, then abandoned (at the <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/748870/response/1849828/attach/3/210805%202021%20January%20JR%20to%20SB%20Redacted%20FOI%202560592%20Redacted.pdf">cost of £230k</a>), with another now apparently in the works.</p>
<p>The process for securing affordable housing also appears haphazard. Consequential changes are being made to approved applications, for different reasons and at different points in the planning process, which Southwark officers cannot properly explain - a problem that would not arise if we had an effective monitoring process.</p>
<p>It is the facts on the ground though, that really expose Southwark's monitoring failure. Gutenberg Court is one example of a scheme with social housing, approved by planning committee several years ago, that is now appearing on Southwark's Homesearch website with 'market related' rents very much higher than social rents. Elephant Park is also <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/2022-10-03-elephant-park-the-final-squeeze/#are-the-social-rents-on-elephant-park-really-social-rent?">under scrutiny</a> because of the high level of its social rents. For as long as we have cases like this, Southwark Council cannot complacently say every thing is alright, simply because the Ombudsman says so.</p>
Lendlease’s Elephant office block rejected.2022-10-17T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/elephant-park-office-block-rejected/<p>The <a href="https://www.southwarklawcentre.org.uk/">Southwark Law Centre</a> (SLC) has <a href="https://docdro.id/hDVgX7D">written</a> to London Mayor Sadiq Khan asking him to respect Southwark Council’s <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=65131">decision to reject</a> developer Lendlease’s <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/2021-09-12-lendleases-final-plot-for-elephant-park-offices-not-homes/">plans to build a giant office block</a> on the final plot (H1) of Elephant Park, at the Elephant and Castle. (Reports on the decision can be found on these links - <a href="https://se1direct.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c9e47e62fc585738905a6b0c1&id=790b169c64&e=b62d87bbbf">SE1</a>, <a href="https://southwarknews.co.uk/news/housing/towering-office-block-application-for-elephant-park-refused-by-southwark-council/">Southwark News</a> and the Australian <a href="https://www.afr.com/property/commercial/council-rejects-last-piece-of-4-4b-lendlease-london-landmark-20221009-p5bo9g">Financial Review</a>).</p>
<p>SLC sent <a href="https://docdro.id/hDVgX7D">the letter</a> on behalf of objectors to the scheme, which was unanimously rejected by Southwark Council’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuaEbg9sUyY">planning committee on the 4 Oct</a>. The vote followed a four-and-half hour meeting, including a 50-minute closed session, when the committee considered the application in the absence of the public. The scheme has now been referred to the Mayor, who has the option of allowing the decision to stand or ‘calling in’ the proposal, to make a decision himself. Objectors (including the 35% Campaign, the Walworth Society and local residents) fear that this could open the door to the office block being approved against the wishes of the local community.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.35percent.org/img/screenshot-2022-10-01-at-11-48-17-plot-h1-elephant-park-land-bounded-by-walworth-road-elephant-road-deacon-street-and-sayer-street-north-elephant-and-castle-london-se1.-21_ap_1819-report_to_planning_committee-3558918.pdf.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Harpreet Aujla, of SLC, says in the letter <em>‘It is hoped that the local, democratic process will be respected, especially so given the history of regeneration and community input in Elephant and Castle.’</em> The letter points out that the application was <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g7303/Printed%20minutes%20Tuesday%2004-Oct-2022%2018.30%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=1">rejected because</a> the <em>‘excessive height, massing and bulk of the application would cause harm to the character and appearance</em>’ of the local area and that it <em>‘would cause unacceptable harm to the neighbouring amenity due to loss of daylight’,</em> contrary to Southwark's planning policies and the Mayor's London Plan.</p>
<h3>Health hub worries</h3>
<p>Objectors were also worried about the knock-on effects of a proposed health hub, which would have occupied part of the office building. The letter says that <em>‘would have impacts for health care delivery for the whole of Walworth, which were not properly addressed by the application.’</em> The planning committee heard how the hub would be instead of affordable workspace and would serve those using the Princess Street and Manor Place surgeries. SLC has asked the Mayor for a full public consultation on what this might mean, before any planning permission is considered.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.35percent.org/img/surgeries.png" alt="" />
<em>Princess St Surgery and Manor Place Surgeries at risk of being replaced rather than complemented by the new health facility.</em></p>
<h3>Sustainable or not?</h3>
<p>The SLC letter also takes up various green and sustainability issues, some of which had been raised by the Mayor's own officers, such as <em>'a lack of rainwater harvesting and a green roof'</em> and <em>'issues with sustainable drainage strategies'</em>. Nor was there evidence of a net biodiversity gain from the scheme, with a diversity loss, should the wildflower meadow presently on site disappear. The proposed scheme also includes no renewable energy or decarbonised heat sources in the design and comes with no proposals to decarbonise the estate, in line with the Mayor’s London Plan 2021 policies.</p>
<h3>What we think...local schools and 'bright shiny buildings'</h3>
<p>The Mayor must uphold Southwark's decision to reject Lendlease's proposal for an outsized office block.</p>
<p>The planning committee resoundingly rejected the application on the good grounds of its huge size and the impact that would have on the local area and residents and the Mayor should support this. A health hub would be very welcome, but people need to know more about what this will mean for the future of Princess Street and Manor Place surgeries.</p>
<p>Decisions about the hub should also not be driven by the developer's ambitions and without consideration about the wider social impacts. The danger of this is well illustrated by the plight of schools in regeneration areas, many of which are facing closure due to falling rolls; the local headteacher of Victory Primary School, right next door to Elephant Park, has little doubt about the <a href="https://southwarknews.co.uk/news/education/exclusive-headteacher-slams-regeneration-policy-as-southwark-schools-crisis-mounts/">negative impact on her own school of 'bright shiny buildings'</a>, with little real affordable housing; a giant office block will not improve the situation.</p>
<h3>Lendlease owes Southwark affordable and social rented housing</h3>
<p>Elephant Park is notorious for <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/affordable-housing/">only delivering 25% affordable housing</a>, not 35%, and only having 100 social rented homes (whose <a href="https://southwarknews.co.uk/news/housing/fears-raised-that-100-elephant-park-social-rent-properties-are-charging-tenants-incorrectly/">rent is being investigated</a>). The justification for this is a viability assessment that is 10 years old and based on <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/2020-02-21-heygate-final-chapter-and-chance-for-southwark-to-redeem-itself/">220 fewer units</a> than have actually been built, so the case for a new assessment to see whether more affordable housing can be provided is obvious.</p>
<p>We know how easily, though, such assessments can be <a href="https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/policy_and_research/policy_library/report_slipping_through_the_loophole_how_viability_assessments_are_reducing_affordable_housing_supply_in_england">manipulated to reduce affordable housing</a>, so they cannot be relied upon. Lendlease should simply use H1 to build housing and make up the affordable housing shortfall from the rest of the development. There is no reason that this could not also provide a health hub too, properly developed and designed to meet the needs of the local community. There should also be room for the affordable community space which is also lacking elsewhere on Elephant Park.</p>
<h3>Could Southwark buy the H1 land?</h3>
<p>Alternatively, given that Lendleases are treating plot H1 as <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/heygate-redevelopment-lendleases-final-squeeze/">surplus to Elephant Park's housing requirements</a>, Southwark could consider taking over H1 themselves, to build council homes, towards meeting its 11,000 council homes pledge. According to <a href="https://35percent.org/img/h1lrdeeds.pdf">Land Registry records</a> it looks as if Southwark still retain freehold ownership of the Elephant Park land, with the the final plot valued at £6m, according to Southwark's <a href="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ra.pdf">Regeneration Agreement</a> with Lendlease:</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/screenshot-2022-10-21-at-15-35-59-ra.pdf.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Southwark <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s108740/Report%20Capital%20monitoring.pdf">recently budgeted</a> <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s108628/Appendix%20B%20Housing%20investment%20month%204.pdf">£101.146m to buy land</a> for council housing, so forgoing £6m (plus VAT) to secure H1, with the capacity to <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/heygate-redevelopment-lendleases-final-squeeze/">build around 300 homes </a>, could be a deal worth considering.</p>
Elephant Park - Lendlease's final squeeze2022-10-03T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2022-10-03-elephant-park-the-final-squeeze/<p>Lendlease's proposal to build a giant office block on the last plot (H1) of the demolished Heygate estate has been recommended for approval by Southwark Council's planning department. It now goes to the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=119&MId=7303&Ver=4">planning committee</a> for a final decision tomorrow (Tues 4 Oct).</p>
<p>If approved the office block will replace the housing that Lendlease <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=ZZZV1JKBWR520&activeTab=summary">promised in 2012</a>, when it won planning approval for Elephant Park. As <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/heygate-redevelopment-lendleases-final-squeeze/">we reported</a> in a previous blog, <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ZZZV1JKBWR520">Lendlease's original plan</a> for H1 was to build three residential blocks, one of 30-storeys, two of ten-storeys, comprising about 300 homes.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/screenshot-2022-10-01-at-11-48-17-plot-h1-elephant-park-land-bounded-by-walworth-road-elephant-road-deacon-street-and-sayer-street-north-elephant-and-castle-london-se1.-21_ap_1819-report_to_planning_committee-3558918.pdf.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The new office block application will be much larger than the abandoned H1 housing development. According to the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s109058/Report">committee report</a> on the office block proposal, it would exceed the housing footprint and have a greater mass.</p>
<p>Lendlease says that it has built enough housing on the rest of Elephant Park, to allow it to build an office block on H1. To do this more homes have been <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/heygate-redevelopment-lendleases-final-squeeze/">shoehorned into fewer plots</a>, leaving H1 as a ‘spare’ for the office development.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/screenshot-2022-10-01-at-11-46-10-plot-h1-elephant-park-land-bounded-by-walworth-road-elephant-road-deacon-street-and-sayer-street-north-elephant-and-castle-london-se1.-21_ap_1819-report_to_planning_committee-3558918.pdf.png" alt="" />
<em>Left- the consented scheme (36,000sqm); Right - the proposed office block (64,000sqm).</em></p>
<p>Were Lendlease to continue its plan for housing on H1, it would be required to submit a viability assessment, which would open up the question of affordable housing provision across the scheme.</p>
<h3>The objections</h3>
<p>Lendlease’s H1 proposal has generated over <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=neighbourComments&keyVal=QTPPZDKB03Q00&neighbourCommentsPager.page=2">500 comments</a>, mostly objections, on a range of issues. Local campaigners and groups (including the 35% Campaign) supported by the <a href="https://www.southwarklawcentre.org.uk/">Southwark Law Centre</a>, have focused on the lack of affordable housing, affordable retail and community space on Elephant Park. There are also concerns about the proposed health hub and a question mark over the levels of social rent, as well as objections to the design and size of the proposed building and shortfalls in carbon reduction.</p>
<h3>Use Plot H1 for more affordable housing</h3>
<p>Plot H1 is the site of a demolished council estate and as such a brownfield site that should be optimised for housing, according to the Mayor’s <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan">London Plan 2021</a> policy (also called H1).</p>
<p>Also, while Lendlease have built 2,689 homes on Elephant Park it has only delivered 25% affordable housing, including only 100 social rented homes, much less than the 35% required. Lendlease’s claim in 2012 that they could only provide those numbers was justified by a <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/2015-06-25-heygate-viability-assessment-finally-revealed/">viability assessment</a> that is now ten years old and which was based on 2,462 units, <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/2020-02-21-heygate-final-chapter-and-chance-for-southwark-to-redeem-itself/">two hundred and twenty-seven fewer than the 2,689</a> than has actually been built. There should be a new viability assessment, on the basis of the actual number of units delivered, to ensure the maximum amount of affordable housing, in particular social rented housing, is built on Elephant Park.</p>
<h3>Will there be a Health hub?</h3>
<p>Lendlease hopes that the offer of a health hub will sweeten the office block proposal. Under the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/new-southwark-plan">Southwark Plan 2022</a> Lendlease is obliged to give over 10% of the floorspace to either <em>‘public health services’</em> or affordable workspace, in any event, so this is by no means a gift. The <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s109058/Report%20Plot%20H1%20Elephant%20Park%20Land%20bounded%20by%20Walworth%20Road%20Elephant%20Road%20Deacon%20Street%20and%20Sayer.pdf">committee report</a> also reveals that the health hub is just the ‘priority option’ and so the hub will not be secured by granting the planning permission, only after further <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/files/3E107DB92E1C2C8D981676CADEFBDA2E/pdf/21_AP_1819-LETTER_FROM_LENDLEASE_ON_HEALTH_HUB_USE-3485797.pdf">successful negotiations</a> between Lendlease, Southwark and the South East London Integrated Care System (SEL ICS).</p>
<p>If there is a health hub it will also only have a short 30-year lease (compared to the 250-year lease granted by Lendlease to Southwark for the Walworth Library, now on Elephant Park).</p>
<p>A further concern is the probable loss of the Princess St and Manor Place surgeries, should the hub be built. While it would no doubt provide more up-to-date facilities than the surgeries, the impact for future local health provision and the impact on users of those existing facilities (eg in terms of potentially longer journey distances), beyond the development site, really demands a comprehensive public consultation before, not after, the determination of this application.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/surgeries.png" alt="" />
<em>Neighbouring Princess St Surgery and Manor Place Surgeries at risk of being replaced rather than complemented by any new health facility.</em></p>
<p>Objectors say no decision should be made on the Plot H1 application until all these issues are resolved, one way or another.</p>
<h3>What kind of community space?</h3>
<p>The community space provided by Lendlease on Elephant Park is largely taken up by amenities such as a library and nursery. While this is welcome (although the library appears to have been purchased by Southwark [for £6m]), there is little available for the local community to let at affordable cost, for social and other events. The terms for such rented community space (the so-called Trunk) have been long promised, but not concluded. The Plot H1 application should not be approved unless the community space is improved and leasing and letting arrangements are finalised.</p>
<h3>Better design and less mass needed</h3>
<p>Lendlease’s proposes a building higher and larger than that which would have been built, had they stuck to their original promise of building new homes. This housing was also designed after extensive local consultation, which has now completely fallen by the wayside. The proposed office floorspace is nearly <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/2021-09-12-lendleases-final-plot-for-elephant-park-offices-not-homes/">ten times greater</a> than that which would have been allowed before the adoption of the 2022 Southwark Plan and will have nearly double the floorspace than originally planned. The proposed building will dominate views and reduce sunlight in Elephant Park and have severe negative impacts on neighbouring buildings.</p>
<p>Southwark’s <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/design-and-conservation/design-review-panel">Design Review Panel</a> has also said that the proposed building had an ‘overly bulky character’ and had concerns about the deep plan design; it invited Lendlease to return to them, but this has not happened, according to the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s109058/Report%20Plot%20H1%20Elephant%20Park%20Land%20bounded%20by%20Walworth%20Road%20Elephant%20Road%20Deacon%20Street%20and%20Sayer.pdf">committee report</a>. Objectors say that the proposal should be returned to the Design Review Panel for its further opinion, before any decision on the application is made.</p>
<h3>Any room for displaced traders?</h3>
<p>A large number of local businesses, most from black and ethnic minority backgrounds, have been <a href="https://latinelephant.org/displaced-traders-with-no-relocation/">displaced by the Elephant’s regeneration</a>, in particular by the demolition of the shopping centre.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.35percent.org/img/traderscomp.jpeg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Lendlease has an obligation under the Elephant Park planning permission to help relocate some of these traders by providing affordable retail units and workspace.</p>
<p>Lendlease has not yet met that obligation fully, supplying only 902sqm, against a requirement of 960sqm. While this is a relatively small amount, the requirement is a minimum and still leaves many traders without premises, including La Bodeguita, one of the Elephant’s largest independent traders. Arch 7 traders also face relocation. Plot H1 should be used to help as many remaining displaced traders as possible.</p>
<h3>Not enough carbon reduction</h3>
<p>Instead of passive heating or heat pumps, which tend to be the norm in most new developments, the office block will be heated by a central gas boiler.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/elephantparkmarketing.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>This is despite the development being <a href="https://thefifthestate.com.au/innovation/residential-2/lendleases-elephant-park-sustainability/">selected</a> as one of only 19 schemes worldwide, which claim to be 'zero carbon or carbon positive' and provide an example of sustainable development.</p>
<p>In addition, Lendlease has chosen not to fully comply with the 2022 Southwark Plan's minimum requirement to reduce CO2 by 40%, cutting it instead by 38% and make the difference up with an offset payment of £1.2m. This is a small shortfall, but if Southwark is to reach its target of being carbon neutral by 2030 the full 40% should be met on-site. It is also a long way short of <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3897">the pledge made in 2009 for the Elephant regeneration</a> by the Lendlease Europe Chief Executive to be a Climate Positive Development and ‘to strive to reduce the amount of on-site CO2 emissions to below zero’, as a founding project of the Bill Clinton Climate Initiative.</p>
<h3>Are the social rents on Elephant Park really social rent?</h3>
<p>The Council also has an <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/enforcementDetails.do?keyVal=RELD9TKB00K01&activeTab=summary">outstanding enforcement action</a> for a social rent property on Elephant Park, to establish whether or not the home is being properly let at a social rent. This raises a question about whether or not social rents are being charged for the hundred Elephant Park social rented units, in accordance with the s106 agreement. Southwark are getting few enough social rented units out of this development as it is; the Council must make sure that those we have are being let at the correct rent levels.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.35percent.org/img/arexampless.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>We have <a href="https://35percent.org/redefining-social-rent">written about this problem since 2016</a> and Southwark still has no effective system for monitoring the rent levels of social rented housing managed by RSLs.</p>
<h3>What we think</h3>
<p>Lendlease has maximised its gains from the Elephant Park development at every turn – primarily by <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/2020-02-21-heygate-final-chapter-and-chance-for-southwark-to-redeem-itself/">building more homes than originally consented</a>, <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/2016-11-12-elephant-park-a-populist-narrative/">selling many of them overseas</a> and by reducing the amount of affordable and social housing.</p>
<p>Up to now, Southwark Council has meekly accepted any argument Lendlease cared to make to justify all this and <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/2021-09-12-lendleases-final-plot-for-elephant-park-offices-not-homes/">done what it can</a> to give Lendlease’s H1 office proposal a safe passage.</p>
<p>Southwark now has a final chance to redeem itself, by heeding the objectors to Plot H1 and not approving Lendlease’s application on Tuesday evening. It must also urgently demand another viability assessment, to determine just how much affordable housing Elephant Park can really deliver. The is Southwark's last chance to claw something back from the disastrous redevelopment of the Heygate estate. The decision now lies in the hands of the planning committee - all eyes are on them!</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/planningcommitteecouncillors.png" alt="" />
<em>Southwark Council's Planning Committee</em></p>
Elephant Park - homes dumped for offices2022-06-17T11:14:21Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/heygate-redevelopment-lendleases-final-squeeze/<p>Southwark Council is set to roll over to Lendlease yet again in its final bid to squeeze maximum profit out of the Heygate redevelopment. The developer's latest and last Elephant Park application will increase the density of the scheme via the back door, using the sweetener of a new health facility that is was required to provide anyway.</p>
<p>One of the first tasks of Southwark's <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgCommitteeMailingList.aspx?ID=119">new planning committee</a> will be to consider developer Lendlease's <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/lendlease-applies-for-office-block-and-zero-housing-in-next-stage-of-regeneration/">controversial planning application for a new office block</a> on the final plot of Elephant Park, H1. Plot H1 stands on what was protected metropolitan open land, on the site of the demolished Heygate estate:</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/elephant-rd.jpg" alt="" />
<em>The former Elephant Park open space on the corner of Walworth Road and Elephant Road</em></p>
<p>The <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage">H1 application</a>, which includes a proposal for a health hub, is a dramatic change of direction by Lendlease. Up to now, Elephant Park has been built as a housing development, with some retail, and other uses; <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ZZZV1JKBWR520">Lendlease's original plan</a> was for H1 to be much the same, with three residential blocks, one of 30-storeys, two of ten-storeys, comprising about 300 homes, across 36,100sqm of floorspace:</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/mp5h1.png" alt="" />
<em>The original plans for plot H1 included a 30-storey residential block</em></p>
<p>This proposal was part of Lendlease's successful <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=ZZZV1JKBWR520&activeTab=summary">2013 planning permission application</a>. Now, in 2022, it turns out that Lendlease has shoehorned the housing planned for H1 into all the other plots already built or currently under construction, leaving it with a surplus plot. Instead of building additional housing on H1, which would require a fresh planning application and might open up a can of worms about affordable housing delivery, Lendlease says it wants to build an office block on the site, which would improve <em>'employment capacity'</em>. A health hub, covering a tenth of the total floorspace, is also being offered, to sweeten the proposal - but only in place of providing affordable workspace.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/h1offices.png" alt="" />
<em>Lendlease's plans for this now surplus plot comprise a large office block</em></p>
<h4>Lendlease benefits from rule change 1</h4>
<p>Southwark Council has reacted favourably to Lendlease's proposal to provide offices on the surplus plot, with local councillors saying that they are <em>'generally in support'</em> of the application, at a pre-election hustings.</p>
<p>More practically Southwark Council also changed the planning rules to give the application a fair wind. We <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/2021-09-12-lendleases-final-plot-for-elephant-park-offices-not-homes/">reported last September</a> how Southwark Council has smoothed Lendlease's path by changing the local planning rules in the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/new-southwark-plan">Southwark Plan</a>, to allow a ten-fold increase in <em>'employment floorspace'</em> on Elephant Park.</p>
<p>Lendlease's <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=ZZZV1JKBWR520&activeTab=summary">2013 planning permission</a> allowed only a maximum of 5,000sqm of business space across the whole Elephant Park site of thirteen plots. Lendlease's <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage">new application</a> proposes ten times that amount, 49,565sqm on a single plot. This would have had no hope of being approved without a change in the planning rules. Southwark Council duly obliged and approved an <em>'uplifted'</em> amount of 60,000sqm, when the new Southwark Plan was adopted in <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/new-southwark-plan">February 2022</a>.</p>
<h4>More homes in a smaller space....</h4>
<p>Lendlease has also been careful to build all the homes it promised under its 2013 permission. Lendlease say it has built almost to the maximum floorspace allowed by the permission, delivering 2,689 homes including 25.7% affordable housing.</p>
<p>But these 2,689 homes must obviously have been shoehorned into fewer plots, at a greater density than originally proposed, if Lendlease now finds itself with a spare plot that can be used for an office development. Should this application succeed it will also be the second time that the density of the development has been increased. In 2019 Lendlease <a href="https://www.35percent.org/posts/2019-08-05-elephant-park-final-phase-affordable-housing/">took advantage of a poorly drafted s106</a> legal agreement, to increase the original maximum homes from 2,469 to 2,689 homes.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/12AP1092extracts.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from Lendlease's original planning consent ref: 12/AP/1092</em></p>
<p>There is also a discrepancy between what Southwark has been told about the number of homes built and the figures Lendlease have given in their 2022 half-yearly report to the <a href="https://www.lendlease.com/au/investor-centre/announcements/">Australian Securities Exchange</a> (ASX). Lendlease's <a href="https://www.lendlease.com/-/media/llcom/investor-relations/asx-announcements/2022/lendlease-hy22-major-urban-projects.pdf">hy22 Lendlease Major Urban Projects report</a> says that 3,208 homes will be delivered on Elephant Park (including Trafalgar Place's 235 units), 284 more units than are in the <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/files/3087518D1F1E382D8EC9CBF0F7834E63/pdf/21_AP_1819-PLANNING_STATEMENT-1145922.pdf">planning documents</a> and 739 more homes than originally consented:</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/urbanreport.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from Lendlease's half yearly report to the Stock Exchange</em></p>
<h4>.......fewer social rent</h4>
<p>Lendlease remains silent on the shortfall of affordable housing, against the longstanding 35% affordable housing requirement, half of which should be social rented. Roughly calculated by unit this is a loss of about 270 affordable homes, half of which would be social rent.</p>
<h4>The sweetener - the health hub</h4>
<p>Lendlease appear to have won local councillors around to supporting their office block proposal by promising a health hub. <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/files/3E107DB92E1C2C8D981676CADEFBDA2E/pdf/21_AP_1819-LETTER_FROM_LENDLEASE_ON_HEALTH_HUB_USE-3485797.pdf">Discussions about this</a> have already taken place between Southwark Council, the NHS SE London Clinical Commissioning Group and Lendlease, and have also including GP services provider Nexus.</p>
<p>A health hub or facility would be very welcome and for that reason it has been a requirement for Lendlease to build it since 2013, under the current planning permission. Rather than get on and build it though, Lendlease has waited until the final plot and the final planning application to extract further gains, in the shape of an office block, several times the size of the health hub. It has had to make £1.08m health contributions along the way, but evidently considers this an acceptable cost.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/healthfaciility.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the section106 agreement governing the current planning consent</em></p>
<p>Given that Lendlease were happy to build the health hub as part of a residential development before, there is no reason why it must be part of an office development now, other than it suits Lendlease. It is also not clear why councillors and Southwark think they are getting a good deal by supporting a health hub with offices, when there is already an agreement to build a health hub with homes.</p>
<h4>Lendlease benefits from rule change 2</h4>
<p>A further gain for Lendlease in building a health hub is that it would relieve it of the obligation of providing around 5,000sqm of affordable workspace. This has been enabled by another favourable change to the planning rules in the new Southwark Plan, to add to the change that allowed more office space. Up to <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/19869/EIP27B-Proposed-Changes-to-the-submitted-NSP-2020-Track-Changes-version-.pdf">August 2020</a> developers could provide affordable retail and affordable cultural uses instead of affordable workspace. Lendlease submitted its application in May 2021 and by the time of the final version of the Southwark Plan in February 2022 <em>'public health services'</em> was added to the list of alternatives to affordable workspace.</p>
<p>So, with this addition, an obligation was turned into a choice between providing a health hub, at what we can assume will be a commercial rent, or affordable workspace at discounted rents.</p>
<h4>Princess Street and Manor Place surgeries to go?</h4>
<p>Southwark Council has joined with Lendlease and the NHS SE London Clinical Commissioning Group (SEL CCG) to sign a <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/files/3E107DB92E1C2C8D981676CADEFBDA2E/pdf/21_AP_1819-LETTER_FROM_LENDLEASE_ON_HEALTH_HUB_USE-3485797.pdf">Memorandum of Understanding</a>, supporting the provision of a health hub and an <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/files/A24210053190B15B0DA22B657CF282E3/pdf/21_AP_1819-PLOT_H1_HEALTH_HUB_TEST_FITS__INDICATIVE_-3443704.pdf">indicative plan of the hub</a> has been drafted.</p>
<p>One point that leaps out of the Memorandum is that the hub is intended to replace the Princess St and Manor Place GP surgeries. It says that the hub would be a <em>'health centre for GP....services....to serve the population at Elephant & Castle and the existing people served by the Princess St and Manor Place GP Surgeries.'</em></p>
<p>New state-of-the-art GP facilities would be a boon to everyone at the Elephant and in Walworth. But if these facilities entail the closure of two longstanding GP surgeries then that is something that should be made plain in the planning application and the public consultation about that application. This has not happened; the only consultation has been around the planning aspects of the application, which the Memorandum calls a <em>'separate and independent process'</em>.</p>
<p>A consultation is promised by the SEL CCG, but it looks as if this will not be until after the planning application is decided. This is too late; the fate of the surgeries will be effectively decided too, if the application is approved. Southwark Council and the NHS are the proper authorities to deal with our health care provision, Lendlease are not, but at the moment it is Lendlease who seem to be in the driving seat, with no reference to the people who depend on Princess St and Manor Place surgeries. This planning application should only be determined after the formal consultation promised by the SEL CCG.</p>
<h4>What has been delivered on Elephant Park?</h4>
<p>Southwark must also clarify and confirm just exactly what housing has been delivered on Elephant Park. The development we have now looks a lot different to that approved, back in 2013 - bigger, denser, with fewer homes for sale (many were <a href="https://btrnews.co.uk/elephant-park-build-to-rent-homes-near-completion/#:~:text=Elephant%20Park%20Build%20to%20Rent%20scheme.,Elephant%20Park%20early%20in%202021.">converted to Build to Rent</a>), and with an office block in the middle, if the H1 planning application succeeds. This is not what the 2013 planning committee agreed to.</p>
<p>A new Overview & Scrutiny committee has just begun <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=308&MId=7383&Ver=4">drawing up its scrutiny arrangements</a> and annual work programme; the committe should put an examination of the whole Heygate regeneration and what has been delivered on Elephant Park at the top of its agenda.</p>
Only one in ten new homes in Southwark is social rented2022-04-12T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/only-one-in-ten-new-homes-in-southwark-is-social-rented/<p>Hoardings publicising the Council's delivery of 11,000 council homes are a familiar sight around Southwark. They promote the Council's creditable council house building programme, which it launched in 2013 and describes as the <em><a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/housing/new-council-homes/why-we-re-building">'most ambitious...in the country'</a>.</em></p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/hoarding_southwark_pk_rd_mar_2022_resize-2-.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The impression Southwark wants to create is that building social housing is the Council's top priority - as it should be in a borough where only 7% of households can afford free-market housing[^1].</p>
<p>The reality is different. Only one in ten new homes built in Southwark since 2004 is social rented. The figure has emerged from analysis of the London Mayor's <a href="https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/planning-london-datahub?_gl=1*1q4sghb*_ga*Nzk4MDMxOTU4LjE2NDU2OTEwODg.*_ga_PY4SWZN1RJ*MTY0OTUwNzM1OC45LjEuMTY0OTUwNzM4My4w">new Planning Datahub</a>. The Datahub documents all the homes built in London since 2004, including those built in Southwark[^2]. The Datahub analysis shows that after losses are taken into account, only 2,711 out of twenty-five thousand new homes in Southwark are social rented[^3].</p>
<h2>Eighteen years of low social rent, but high free-market numbers</h2>
<p>The contrast between the small number of social rent and the large number of free-market homes built is stark, as our chart below shows. The Datahub figures show that nearly 70% of all new homes are free-market (nearly 18,000 in number) against just 10.7% social rent, with the rest made up of other affordable homes[^4].</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/screenshot-2022-04-12-at-10-13-39-southwark_completions_bar_chart_market_social_rent_fy20042021-pdf.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Bar chart by 35% Campaign. Source: Planning London Datahub, Residential Completion Dashboard</p>
<h2>Lost Heygate homes</h2>
<p>The Datahub also shows that more social rented homes were lost in 2021 than were built. Only 31 were built, while 122 were demolished, with a net loss of 91 homes. Southwark claim this is a <em><a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/number-of-new-social-rents-decreases-by-20/">'discrepancy'</a></em> but the lost units can be identified through the Datahub as being from the demolished Heygate estate[^5].</p>
<p>The Datahub shows the loss clearly, in percentage terms, as minus 20.4% of the total housing delivered in 2021[^6].</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/screenshot_planning_london_datahub_london_datastore_google_chrome_010422_highlight-3-.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Southwark misses the target</h2>
<p>Southwark has <a href="https://35percent.org/posts/only-one-in-ten-new-homes-in-southwark-is-social-rented/claimed%20that%20it%20has%20more%20than%20met%20its%20target">claimed that it has more than met its target</a> to build 2,500 council homes by 2022, <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/housing/new-council-homes/why-we-re-building">a pledge it made in 2013</a>.</p>
<p>But this target has in fact been missed. Only 2,208 social rented homes have been built in Southwark since 2013, and this includes any council housing built. This figure is calculated from Southwark's own <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/monitoring/authority-monitoring-report/housing?chapter=4">Housing Facts and Figures webpage Table 8.</a> The Mayor's Datahub shows that over the same period 1,136 social rent homes have been lost, mainly through estate demolitions, leaving a net gain of only 1,072 social rented homes[^7].</p>
<p>it should be noted that these figures are from all social rented housing in the borough. It is made up of social housing on private developments, as well as any council housing. The number of council homes built will therefore be a smaller number than the number of social rented homes.</p>
<h2>The Council plays with the figures</h2>
<p>Southwark is only able to claim that it has fulfilled its 2013 pledge to build 2,500 council homes by 2022, by using an elastic definition if what 'build' actually means. For Southwark, it means the homes do not have to be completed, just started, and can also include other homes brought back into use, according to <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/exclusive-council-promises-1000-more-council-homes-claiming-it-has-already-beaten-it-target-of-2500-its-target-of-2500/">this Southwark News article</a>.</p>
<p>Southwark also apparently include in the definition of council housing homes gained from private developments, through planning requirements. If this is the case then there is no real gain in social rented housing numbers, because these would have been built anyway, and at private developer's cost.</p>
<h2>We need less free-market housing, more social rent</h2>
<p>The need for social rented housing has continued to rise since Southwark made its 2013 pledge to build 11,000 council homes over thirty years. The pledge is a good one, but it will probably only maintain the 2013 number of homes, not increase it. Southwark also does itself no favours by exaggerating the progress it is making towards the 11,000 council homes target. The amount of council and social housing being built in the borough is a fraction of the amount of free-market housing and unless this changes and we start getting more social housing from private developers as well as council homes, then Southwark's housing crisis will continue.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong><br />
[^1]: 'CACI Paycheck data confirms that 93% of households in Southwark have a household income that requires social and intermediate housing' - para 2, pg 108 <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/new-southwark-plan">Southwark Plan 2022</a></p>
<p>[^2]: The <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/who-we-work/borough-webpages#:~:text=The%20Planning%20DataHub%20is%20a,shared%20understanding%20of%20the%20data.">Planning London Datahub</a> is a <em>'collaborative project between all of the Planning Authorities in London'</em> including Southwark. It is part of the <a href="https://data.london.gov.uk/">London Datastore</a> and is a 'new data base that includes data fed live from the boroughs...'. The Datahub's <a href="https://public.tableau.com/views/PlanningLondonDatahub-Dashboard/MainDashboard?:language=en&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link">Residential Completion Dashboard</a> shows all housing completions for all the boroughs in London.</p>
<p>[^3]: 5,761 social rented homes were completed, 3,050 s/r homes were lost, leaving a 2,711 net gain for the eighteen financial years FY2004-FY2021. 25,286 homes of all tenures were completed in total, after losses are taken into account. From an analysis of the <a href="https://public.tableau.com/views/PlanningLondonDatahub-Dashboard/MainDashboard?:language=en&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link">Residential Completion Dashboard</a>, data filtered for Southwark.</p>
<p>[^4]: 17,651 free-market (69.81%), 2,711 social rent (10.72%), 339 affordable rent (1.34%), 3,572 intermediate (14.13%), 57 Discount Market Rent (0.23%), 956 Other (3.39%) - 25,286 units in total. Completed during the eighteen years FY2004-FY2021. Figures do not include non-conventional units and empty homes brought back into use. From an analysis of the <a href="https://public.tableau.com/views/PlanningLondonDatahub-Dashboard/MainDashboard?:language=en&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link">Residential Completion Dashboard</a>, data filtered for Southwark.</p>
<p>[^5]: 31 social rented homes were completed in Southwark in 2021, while 122 were demolished, all on Elephant Park Plots H2 and H3 (14/AP/3438/3439), leaving a net loss of 91 units. More social rented homes were lost than completed in FY 2004 (-140), FY2015 (-121), FY2016 (-166), FY2021 (-91). From an analysis of the <a href="https://public.tableau.com/views/PlanningLondonDatahub-Dashboard/MainDashboard?:language=en&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link">Residential Completion Dashboard</a>, data filtered for Southwark.</p>
<p>[^6]: The net gains/losses for FY2021 are 441 free-market units (98.7%), -91 social rent (-20.4%), 39 affordable rent (8.7%), intermediate 58 (13%). From an analysis of the <a href="https://public.tableau.com/views/PlanningLondonDatahub-Dashboard/MainDashboard?:language=en&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link">Residential Completion Dashboard</a>, data filtered for Southwark.</p>
<p>[^7]: Southwark's Table 8 gives 'Gross' figures; the Datahub describes the same figures as 'Gains'. The Datahub figures for FY2019 and FY2020 vary from Southwark's, giving total Gains for FY2013 to FY2020 of 2,170, against Southwark's figure of 2,208 for the same period. Datahub figures from an analysis of the <a href="https://public.tableau.com/views/PlanningLondonDatahub-Dashboard/MainDashboard?:language=en&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link">Residential Completion Dashboard</a>, data filtered for Southwark.</p>
Aylesbury Update: cost of leaseholder buy-outs leaps2022-02-02T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2022-01-24-aylesbury-update-cost-of-leaseholder-buy-out-leaps/<p>Southwark Council's Cabinet <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=302&MId=7019&Ver=4"></a><a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=302&MId=7019&Ver=4">has agreed</a> to increase the budget for its Aylesbury estate redevelopment costs by nearly £30m. The money will be used to buy-out leaseholders, to allow for the estate's continued demolition and redevelopment.</p>
<p>The Cabinet also approved a <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s104415/Report%20Future%20of%20Aylesbury%20Estate.pdf">further £13.32m</a> to cover an overspend on an original budget of £75m for estate redevelopment. £6.35m of this further expenditure is also for leaseholder buy-outs, with £6.97m for unspecified <em>'contract variations'</em>.</p>
<p>Discretionary home loss and disturbance payments totalling £165,000 for Plot 18 council tenants over 55 were also agreed. The extra money brings Southwark's reported total budget for estate redevelopment costs up to £118.29m, to come from the council's Housing Investment Programme.</p>
<h3>A new deal with Notting Hill Genesis</h3>
<p>The same Cabinet meeting also agreed to make changes to the Development Partnership Agreement (DPA), the agreement made by Southwark with Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) for the estate's regeneration. This deal was first struck in 2014; <a href="https://www.35percent.org/aylesbury-estate-fds-variation/"></a> <a href="https://www.35percent.org/aylesbury-estate-fds-variation/">major changes were approved in 2020</a> for the Aylesbury's First Development Site (FDS). The FDS variations saw Southwark pay NHG a gross £210.8m for 581 council homes, while leaving revenue generating free-market housing with NHG.</p>
<p>No details were given in the public <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s104415/Report%20Future%20of%20Aylesbury%20Estate.pdf">report to the Cabinet</a> about any of the proposed changes, or <em>'variations'</em>, or whether any money will be paid to NHG. A <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgReasonsRestricted.aspx?ID=104420&OID=62848&OT=A&RPID=3453695&BM=AI62848">closed report</a> including financial details and the impact on the Housing Investment Programme is unavailable to the public. We have submitted an <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/request_for_the_closed_report_fu">FOI request</a> for the closed report.</p>
<h3>The end of the Aylesbury Area Action Plan</h3>
<p>In another significant development, the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/1647/Aylesbury-AAP-2010.pdf">Aylesbury Area Action Plan (AAP)</a> is a step closer to being discarded. Despite <a href="https://www.35percent.org/southwark-rips-up-aylesbury-objectives/">protests from housing campaigners and residents</a> the a much slimmed-down AAP has <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/73562/Main-Modifications-Appendix-7-Annex-5-AAP-policies-and-sites-replaced-by-NSP.pdf">been incorporated</a> into the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/75943/Southwark-Plan-2022-for-adoption-.pdf"></a><a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/75943/Southwark-Plan-2022-for-adoption-.pdf">New Southwark Plan (NSP)</a> along with the Canada Water and Peckham & Nunhead AAPs, after <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/new-southwark-plan?chapter=10">approval by government inspectors</a>. The AAP's generous <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/73557/MAIN-51X.PDF">affordable housing space standards</a> have been retained and there is now a new NSP policy commitment, for the <em>'reprovision of at least 2,249 social rented homes'.</em></p>
<p><img src="https://www.35percent.org/img/screenshot_2021-04-14-aylesbury-area-action-plan-january-2010-aylesbury-aap-2010-pdf.png" alt="" /></p>
<h3>Social rent - no loss, but no gain</h3>
<p>The social rent commitment is an important and welcome improvement on what would have been delivered under the outline planning permission held by NHG, which allowed for a loss of between <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s53361/Report.pdf">778 and 1,166 social rented units</a>. But it will still mean that when the redevelopment is <a href="http://www.aylesburynow.london/">completed in 2036</a>, we will have no more social rented housing on the estate, after 40 years, than <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/13/aylesbury-estate-south-london-social-housing">we had in 1998</a>, when the Aylesbury regeneration began.</p>
<p>It also raises the question of how the deal between Southwark and NHG, sealed by the DPA and a legal s106 agreement, will be changed and how much it will cost Southwark to do this. As we pointed out <a href="https://www.35percent.org/aylesbury-estate-fds-variation/#fn:1">when Southwark took over the FDS</a> the price is likely to be high and any money spent on the Aylesbury is money that is not available for building council housing elsewhere in the borough.</p>
<p>The Cabinet has promised a further report on the new deal with NHG. This must give the full details of its financial and other terms. Under the original outline planning agreement NHG had to provide all the affordable housing, including the social rented housing, at its own cost. Southwark must not simply take this over and pay NHG's tab. NHG should pay for all the affordable and social rented housing that it agreed to; Southwark should only pay for anything above this, to ensure that the Aylesbury regeneration delivers the homes that Southwark needs, not just cash to NHG.</p>
<h3><strong>PS - Fakery by design</strong></h3>
<p>We're glad to see that the fake bricks that were missing from the façade of one of the blocks on the First Development site have <a href="https://twitter.com/35percent_EAN/status/1486718449468395526">been replaced</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/fakebricks.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>But it looks as if Southwark's explanation, that 'random' gaps had been <a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/lb_southwark/status/1483060481854263296">left by design</a>, to be filled by children's decorated bricks, was equally fake. All the replacement bricks look just like the rest <a href="http://aylesburynow.london/news/posts/young-people-create-brick-designs-for-new-homes">and nothing like as lovely</a> as the children's.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, if we see any more bits drop off, we will be sure to let Southwark know.</p>
Elephant traders without new premises one year after shopping centre closes2021-12-06T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2021-11-20-elephant-traders-without-new-premises-one-year-after-shopping-centre-closes/<p>Independent traders displaced by the <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/10407">closure of the Elephant and Castle shopping centre</a> are to send a deputation to <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=302&MId=7017&Ver=4">Southwark Council's Cabinet meeting tomorrow</a>. The deputation will be urging the Council to do more to help them secure new premises, after being left homeless by the shopping centre closure.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/scdemo.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>This will be the traders second attempt to get a hearing from the Council, after its recent Assembly meeting <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/its-ironic-southwark-group-representing-tens-of-thousands-of-people-denied-chance-to-tell-councillors-about-residents-concerns-about-infill-consultation/">refused to receive the deputation</a>.</p>
<p>Many of the Elephant's former traders have shops and cafes in <a href="https://www.castlesquarelondon.com/">Castle Square</a>, in Elephant Rd and in the <a href="https://www.elephantarcade.com/">Elephant Arcade</a>, after a three year campaign to secure new premises, but many others are<a href="https://www.35percent.org/elephant-traders-still-homeless/"> still without trading spaces</a>, including two of the Elephant and Castle's longest standing businesses, <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/popular-diy-shop-elephant-castle-shopping-centre-gets-lease-extended-3-months/">Pricebusters DIY</a> and <a href="https://www.elephantandcastle.org.uk/about-elephant-and-castle/la-bodeguita/">La Bodequita</a> restaurant.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/bodeguitap.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Both Pricebusters and La Bodequita have been offered new premises on Elephant Park, but have been unable to reach agreement with developers <a href="https://www.delancey.com/elephant-and-castle-redevelopment.html">Delancey</a> and <a href="https://www.elephantpark.co.uk/about-elephant-park/lendlease/">Lendlease</a> about who will meet the relocation costs. Southwark Council has legal agreements with both developers covering traders' relocation requirements and the deputation will be asking Southwark to enforce these agreements.</p>
<h3>Traders <em>'very disappointed'</em></h3>
<p>The owner of <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/popular-diy-shop-elephant-castle-shopping-centre-gets-lease-extended-3-months/">Pricebusters</a>, Rakesh Patel, said <em>'We have been trading at the Elephant for 35 years, ever since the shopping centre opened. We were the biggest DIY shop in the area and sold things people cannot get anywhere else. We have had long negotiations with Delancey and Lendlease and have made some progress, but there is still a big gap between us. The costs of setting up new premises are astronomical and the amount we are being offered from the relocation fund set up to help us is simply not enough. Just lately Southwark councillors have joined the negotiations, but we still need much stronger support from the Council'.</em></p>
<p>The owner of <a href="https://www.elephantandcastle.org.uk/about-elephant-and-castle/la-bodeguita/">La Bodequita</a>, Diana Sach, said <em>'I started La Bodequita in 2001, with my brothers and we worked hard to build up a successful family business. La Bodequita and other cafes and restaurants at the Elephant and Castle helped to introduce Colombian and Latin food to London and people came from all over the city to eat with us. We trusted Southwark Council and Delancey to help us with the relocation, but have been very disappointed. We have spent many thousands of pounds designing new premises and storing equipment, while we have had no premises. It is over a year since we left the shopping centre and we really need to re-open soon, but we just seem to be stuck'.</em></p>
<h3>Successful businesses are being lost</h3>
<p>Rakesh and Diana point out that <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/popular-diy-shop-elephant-castle-shopping-centre-gets-lease-extended-3-months/">Pricebusters</a> and <a href="https://www.elephantandcastle.org.uk/about-elephant-and-castle/la-bodeguita/">La Bodequita</a> were both successful businesses, before <a href="https://www.35percent.org/shopping-centre-closes-but-campaign-for-traders-continues/">they were forced to move</a>.</p>
<p>Rakesh says <em>'We did not want to move, but the decision was taken out of our hands and I am having to find a very great deal of my own money for the relocation. I was assured by Delancey and Southwark Council that there would be enough money in the relocation fund for us all, but so far this has not been the case'.</em></p>
<p>Diana says <em>'La Bodequita is more than a restaurant. It is part of the Elephant and Castle and part of <a href="https://www.trustforlondon.org.uk/publications/no-longer-invisible-latin-american-community-london/">Latin American life in London</a>. We want to stay here, as part of the new regeneration and are investing a lot to do this, but we need the help we were promised from Delancey and Southwark Council'.</em></p>
<h3>'No more Elephant as we knew it'</h3>
<p>The traders' deputation will also include <a href="https://latinelephant.org/displaced-traders-with-no-relocation/#Onubas">Mathew Onuba, of the Look@Me stall</a>. from the shopping centre's old market. About a dozen displaced market traders have been in discussions with Southwark Council about setting up a <a href="https://www.35percent.org/shopping-centre-traders-propose-new-stalls-for-the-elephant/">small number of new pitches</a> at the Elephant.</p>
<p>Mathew says <em>'We have had intentions of opening up a business, but it's been a struggle. There is no more Elephant and Castle as we knew it, there are no units, there is still no market, even after trying to make plans with the Council. Leaving a previous business and going to a new location is a hard process - it involves careful attention, publicity to attract new customers. None of this has been provided. We kept our goods with the promise that we would receive anew place but it never came. I've been paying for storage up until now, with the believe and hope I could continue my business....but I would like the support from the council to continue.'</em></p>
<h3>Elephant Arcade struggles</h3>
<p>A representative from the <a href="https://www.elephantandcastle.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ElephantArcadeC.pdf">Elephant Arcade</a> will also be on the deputation. They will be telling the Council of the difficulties of trading from their new premises, at the bottom of Perronet House, just opposite the Bakerloo line tube entrance.</p>
<p>Yousaf Dar, of <a href="https://www.elephantandcastle.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ElephantArcadeC.pdf">Dar Bags</a>, says <em>'We were working at the shopping centre, my dad almost 15 years, me the last 10 years. Business was good. When the shopping centre closed, we asked them not to put us in Elephant Arcade, and still they placed us in there. They told us we would be opposite a Western Union, but when we arrived we were opposite another shop that was the same business as our own. After the pandemic, there were no customers, no business. We were struggling too much, we couldn't even afford to pay rent, that's why we decided to leave. Now we have been left at the side of the road, so we are not in a position to start another business, and have no access to relocation support. I don't want to go on Universal Credit, I want to work at my business, but I may have to.'</em></p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/dar.png" alt="" /></p>
<h3>Southwark must do more</h3>
<p>The traders are being supported by <a href="https://latinelephant.org/">Latin Elephant</a>, which advocates on behalf of all traders, the <a href="https://www.southwarklawcentre.org.uk/">Southwark Law Centre</a> and the <a href="https://twitter.com/uptheelephant_">Up the Elephant campaign</a>, which fought against the demolition of the shopping centre.</p>
<p>Natalia Perez of <a href="https://latinelephant.org/displaced-traders-with-no-relocation/#Onubas">Latin Elephant</a> said <em>'A year on since the closure and demolition of the shopping centre in Elephant and Castle, Latin Elephant reiterates the demands for a proper scrutiny of the s106 legal agreements signed by developers, so that every trader that has been displaced is relocated; that the necessary funds are released by developers to cover moving and fit-out costs and not passed on as a burden to independent traders and that the much needed investment in the relocation sites are put in place for the benefit of the traders, as well as the local community'.</em></p>
<p>Harpreet Aujla of Southwark Law Centre said <em>'Southwark Council have a big part to play in resolving the problems traders face moving from their old premises. They have legal agreements with both Delancey and Lendlease to make sure that the traders get the money that they need to relocate. So far, though, Southwark has just been happy to go along with whatever Delancey and Lendlease have offered. This is not good enough. Southwark must make that clear to Delancey and Lendlease, other these businesses will be lost to the Elephant'.</em></p>
<p>Jerry Flynn, of the <a href="https://twitter.com/SouthwarkNotes/status/1461854475703009288">Up the Elephant</a> said <em>'Traders are not looking for hand-outs or charity. They are looking for Southwark and the big developers to fulfill the promises that were made before the shopping centre was demolished. Southwark Council said that <a href="https://southwarkawards.co.uk/redevelopment-of-elephant-and-castle-shopping-centre-moves-forward/">no-one would be left behind</a> in the Elephant's regeneration - now is the time to prove it'.</em></p>
Lendlease's final plot for Elephant Park - offices, not homes2021-09-17T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2021-09-12-lendleases-final-plot-for-elephant-park-offices-not-homes/<h3>Southwark to change rules to allow office block on former Heygate estate.</h3>
<p>Southwark Council is set to change its planning rules to enable developer Lendlease to build an office block on the site of the former Heygate estate. The block would be on the final development plot of Elephant Park, Plot H1, which is earmarked for housing under Lendlease's <a href="http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!ucZFhScQGKP6RXG9kTjlDw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">current planning consent</a>. Lendlease has <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=QTPPZDKB03Q00">now applied</a> to replace this consent with an entirely new one, to build an office block, not housing.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/lloffice.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Southwark is also ready to change the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/new-southwark-plan">New Southwark Plan</a> (NSP) to pave Lendlease's way to a successful approval of the application. The change will allow an increase in the office floorspace on Elephant Park, from the maximum of 5,000 sqm that Lendlease is presently allowed, to the 49,565 sqm it is proposing in its <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=QTPPZDKB03Q00">new planning application</a>. Southwark has said <em>'an office development on this plot is broadly supported'</em> in the 'Conclusion' of <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/files/EF1756B5230AF961CE8859EC9F9423D5/pdf/21_AP_1819-COUNCIL_S_PRE-APPLICATION_RESPONSE-1150308.pdf">pre-application discussions</a> with Lendlease.</p>
<h3>Late changes to the New Southwark Plan</h3>
<p>The change to the NSP, which governs all development throughout the borough, is part of a <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/52312/EIP219-Main-Modifications-to-the-NSP.pdf">'main modification'</a> to the Plan. The modification MM7 would allow 60,000 sqm of <em>'employment floorspace'</em> to be built specifically on Elephant Park; at the moment the local plan envisages a <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/1817/1.0.5-Elephant-Castle-SPD-OAPF.pdf">maximum of 30,000 sqm</a> of <em>'business floorspace'</em> for the whole Elephant and Castle Opportunity Area.</p>
<p>The NSP, including the main modifications, is in the final stages of approval by government inspectors. Comments on all proposed modifications can be made up to a <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/new-southwark-plan">deadline of 24 September 2021</a>.</p>
<h3>From open space to office space</h3>
<p>A good part of Plot H1 sits on land that was covenanted for use as open space, in perpetuity, when ownership was devolved to Southwark in 1985, on the abolition of the Greater London Council (GLC). In 2014 Southwark <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s47529/Report%20Elephant%20and%20Castle.pdf">transferred ownership of the Heygate land</a>, including Plot H1, to Lendlease, removing the covenant in the process.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.35percent.org/img/oldelephantpark.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>In 2019 Lendlease took advantage of a <a href="https://www.35percent.org/elephant-park-final-phase-affordable-housing/">poorly drafted s106</a> legal agreement with Southwark to increase the maximum number of homes allowed on Elephant Park by 220 units, to 2,689. Lendlease is using ten plots of land for these homes, instead of the eleven available, leaving itself a spare plot. This is the justification for the new planning application - Lendlease claims that they have <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/files/3087518D1F1E382D8EC9CBF0F7834E63/pdf/21_AP_1819-PLANNING_STATEMENT-1145922.pdf">fulfilled their housing obligations</a> under the current planning consent, so Plot H1 can be used for an office development, which would create jobs.</p>
<p>Lendlease does not say in their new planning application how many homes could be built on Plot H1, if it were used for housing as originally intended, but by making a rough comparison with <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications-old/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9582742">neighbouring plot H7</a>, a capacity for about 340 homes can be calculated.</p>
<h3>Lendlease on manoeuvres</h3>
<p>Lendlease's Plot H1 planning application is the latest of a succession of self-advantageous manoeuvres. As well as increasing the number of homes on the estate and squeezing them into fewer plots, Lendlease has also announced that over <a href="https://www.lendlease.com/uk/media-centre/media-releases/debut-build-to-rent-homes-from-lendlease-near-completion/">900 of the free-market homes</a> would no longer be for sale, but kept under their ownership, and let to private renters, not sold. Before this, they marketed and sold substantial numbers of <a href="https://www.35percent.org/elephant-park-a-populist-narrative/">homes overseas</a> . This all followed the notorious 2010 <a href="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ra.pdf">Heygate regeneration agreement</a>, which reduced the affordable housing to 25%, from 35%, with a meagre <a href="https://www.35percent.org/peters-denial/">79 social rented units</a> (later inching up to 100 units).</p>
<p>Southwark Council is now poised to give up a prime housing site (in the middle of an opportunity area, on former council estate land) at Lendlease's behest. Southwark is doing this while <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/the-great-infilling-debate-in-southwark-every-estate-where-new-developments-are-proposed-or-already-underway/">embroiled in controversies</a> across the borough about infill development on council estate sites, none of which are anywhere near the size of the plot it is about to give up.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/ytfd_infill_demo_070921-3-.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h3>Object!</h3>
<p>Lendlease's argument that offices will good for employment is entirely self-serving. They did not make this proposal for Plot H1 in 2012, when applying for their first planning permission. Instead, they have tricked their way into a position where they have built more homes than originally consented, on a smaller space, and now want to squeeze in an extra office block for good measure.</p>
<p>Southwark Council have aided Lendlease's application by proposing a ten-fold increase in <em>'employment space'</em> on Elephant Park, in the New Southwark Plan - a huge uplift, introduced to boost the chances of an office-space application being approved.</p>
<p>There has been much speculation about whether Southwark's <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/councillors-and-mps/leader-of-the-council-and-cabinet-members">recent change of leadership</a> has resulted in a change of direction for the Council.</p>
<p>This is the planning committee's chance to prove that the Council won't roll over to Lendlease indefinitely. The committee must stop this cynical attempt to manipulate planning policy to Lendlease's advantage and reject this planning application.</p>
<p>Once this is done, Southwark should start a sensible discussion on what is to be done with this prime site, with the focus on the local community's real needs, including affordable housing, with all the amenities and open surroundings needed to make life liveable in London.</p>
<p><a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=neighbourComments&keyVal=QTPPZDKB03Q00">470 comments and objections</a> have been made to this application.</p>
<p>If you would like to add your objection, you can do so <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=QTPPZDKB03Q00">here</a>.</p>
<p>You can use <a href="https://35percent.org/img/Objection_model_TWO.pdf">this model objection text</a> or view our full letter of objection <a href="https://35percent.org/img/Objection_FINAL.pdf">here</a>.</p>
Former Council leader glides through Southwark's revolving doors2021-08-11T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2021-08-05-former-council-leader-slides-through-the-revolving-doors/<p>Former Southwark Council leader <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/exclusive-council-leader-steps-down-after-ten-years/">Peter John OBE</a> has joined the <a href="https://www.35percent.org/revolving-doors/">long list</a> of councillors and ex-council staff now working for property developers. Cllr John led Southwark from 2010 to 2020, and was chair of <a href="https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/">London Councils</a> from 2018 to 2020.</p>
<p>Cllr John was recently <a href="https://www.terrapingroup.co.uk/ourPeople/17">appointed Chairman</a> of the Terrapin Group, a lobbying firm, whose <a href="https://www.terrapingroup.co.uk/ourClients">client list</a> is dominated by property developers and real-estate investors. Cllr John joins three other serving councillors, from different boroughs, as a Terrapin <em>'practitioner'</em>, but in the more senior chairman's role.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/pjterrapin.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Terrapin was founded by former Tory politician Peter Bingle in 2012 and has acquired a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/13/home-builders-lobbyist-pushed-council-leader-to-sort-and-speed-planning">reputation</a> for lobbying local government politicians to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/13/home-builders-lobbyist-pushed-council-leader-to-sort-and-speed-planning">help developers get planning consents</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/terrapincomp.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The <a href="https://register.prca.org.uk/register/previous-registers/">Public Affairs Board Register</a> shows <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre">Elephant & Castle</a> developer <a href="https://www.35percent.org/manx-connections-the-off-shore-home-of-the-elephants-developers/">Delancey</a> is one of Terrapin's oldest clients, having benefited from their consultancy services since 2013. The <a href="https://www.elephantpark.co.uk/">Elephant Park</a> (formerly Heygate estate) developer <a href="https://www.elephantpark.co.uk/about-elephant-park/lendlease/">Lendlease</a> was also on Terrapin's books for 4 years, from 2013 to 2017.</p>
<p>Other Terrapin clients with schemes in Southwark include Barratt Homes (from 2013 to 2017; <a href="https://www.35percent.org/blackfriars-circus/">Blackfriars Circus, Maple Quays, the Galleria, Redwood Park</a>); Telford Homes (from 2019; <a href="https://www.se16.com/2287-telford-homes-rotherhithe-new-road">Bermondsey Works</a>), Hollybrook Homes Ltd (2018 - 2020; <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=ZZZV0LKBWR146">Eagle Wharf</a>) and Bellway Homes (from 2013; <a href="https://www.35percent.org/elmington-regeneration/">Elmington estate regeneration</a>, Phase 3).</p>
<p>The biggest developer in the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/development-plan/area-action-plans-section/old-kent-road-aap">Old Kent Rd Opportunity Area</a>, Avanton Ltd, was also a Terrapin client from 2017 to 2019. <a href="https://avanton.co.uk/project/avanton-old-kent-road/?single">Avanton is behind</a> the <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications-old/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9577483">approved Ruby Triangle development</a> and the upcoming <a href="https://avanton.co.uk/2019/12/03/avanton-acquires-gasholders-site-on-old-kent-road-for-230-million-mixed-use-regeneration-project/">Gasworks and Carpetright schemes</a>, which together will have over 2,100 homes.<a href="https://www.35percent.org/ruby-triangle-goes-to-committee/"> Ruby Triangle Properties Ltd</a> was also on Terrapin's books, from 2017 to 2019, as was its affordable housing partner <a href="https://a2dominion.co.uk/en">A2 Dominion</a>, for different periods.</p>
<p>Other developers with smaller schemes in Southwark, who are or have been registered with Terrapin include Higgins Homes plc (<a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2021/may/56-new-homes-to-be-built-on-ex-school-site-in-bermondsey">Cherry Garden School</a>); <a href="https://southerngrove.co.uk/">Southern Grove</a>, who are looking to develop two sites (<a href="https://southerngrove.co.uk/portfolio/brooklyn-canada-water/">the 'Brooklyn'</a>, near Rotherhithe tunnel, and the <a href="https://southerngrove.co.uk/portfolio/st-james-bermondsey/">St James</a>, Bermondsey) and <a href="https://www.35percent.org/no-room-for-social-rent-at-pocket-living-on-the-old-kent-road/">Pocket Living</a> (<a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=ZZZV0WKBWR623&activeTab=summary">Varcoe Rd</a> and <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=Q2TJM2KBKZ000">Credon House</a>).</p>
<p>Peter John's relationship with Terrapin's Peter Bingle spans most of the years of his leadership at Southwark. The Council's <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgDeclarationSubmission.aspx?UID=189&HID=1954&FID=0&HPID=0">Register of Interests</a> shows a number of dinners paid for by Terrapin, Bingle himself or his previous company - the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41245719">disgraced Bell Pottinger</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2020/11/pj-bingle-1-2.jpg?w=768" alt="" /></p>
<p>The announcement of Cllr John's appointment as Terrapin chair gives us an opportunity to look back at some of the controversial schemes signed off during his 10 years as Council leader.</p>
<h2>Heygate estate redevelopment</h2>
<p>In July 2010, just months after taking the reins at Southwark, Peter John <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/4712">signed a development agreement</a> with Lendlease for the demolition of the 1,200 homes of the Heygate estate and its replacement by a private development with only 25% affordable housing - 10% less than Southwark's policy requirement - and with a minimum of social rented housing. In the event, Lendlease has built nearly 3,000 homes on the site, with just <a href="https://www.35percent.org/elephant-park-final-phase-affordable-housing/">100 at social rent</a>.</p>
<p>It <a href="https://www.35percent.org/heygate-regeneration-faq/#the-deal-with-lendlease">emerged</a> that the deal involved a payment to the Council of just £50m for the 25 acre site - barely enough to cover the cost incurred by the Council in emptying the estate.</p>
<p>Later, in 2012 and 2014 Cllr John <a href="http://heygatewashome.org/img/SNOlympicTickets.pdf">came under fire</a> for accepting tickets to the London Olympics, paid for by Lendlease and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/14/yacht-cannes-selling-homes-local-government-officials-mipim">for making a trip to Cannes</a>, to attend the MIPIM developer jamboree.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/screenshot-2021-08-06-at-10-25-18-elephant-castle-regeneration-agreement-formally-signed.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Aylesbury estate redevelopment</h2>
<p>In 2014, Peter John <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2014/feb/02/southwark-council-aylesbury-estate-regeneration">signed-off the sale</a> of the 2,759 council homes and 60 acres of land of the Aylesbury estate for demolition and redevelopment to housing association Notting Hill Genesis. Whilst the deal required Notting Hill to provide 50% 'affordable housing' it failed to secure any of the 3,500 proposed new homes as council homes and would have entailed a <a href="https://www.35percent.org/aylesbury-estate/">net loss of social rented housing.</a></p>
<p>Delays and political pressure forced Southwark into a U-turn last year, when it agreed to pay Notting Hill £193m to convert 581 new homes in phase 1 of the scheme into council homes. Southwark has also now committed to <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/aylesbury-regen-increase-in-social-rent-housing-in-phase-2-means-all-tenants-from-later-development-stages-will-have-off-plan-homes-ready-by-2028/">no net loss of social rented housing</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/c8vumwwxcaeliyc.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Canada Water redevelopment</h2>
<p>In 2018, Peter John signed off the <a href="https://www.room151.co.uk/151-news/southwark-joins-british-land-in-deal-for-3000-new-homes-at-canada-water/">sale of 15 hectares</a><a href="https://www.room151.co.uk/151-news/southwark-joins-british-land-in-deal-for-3000-new-homes-at-canada-water/"></a> of council-owned land at Canada Water to developer British Land.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/CanadaWaterSiteC.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The deal secured 35% affordable housing, but this is below the 50% requirement for publicly-owned land, set by the Mayor in his <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/the_london_plan_2021.pdf">London Plan 2021</a> (Policy H4A).</p>
<p>It is unknown what land receipts (if any) the Council will receive in return for its 15 hectares, because the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/regeneration/canada-water?chapter=6&article">development agreement</a> with British Land has been heavily redacted.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.35percent.org/img/cwdpa.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Elephant & Castle shopping centre</h2>
<p>Also in 2018, Cllr John took the unusual step of <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/9599">announcing his support</a> for Delancey's <a href="https://www.35percent.org/shopping-centre/">proposed redevelopment</a> of the shopping centre despite it having been <a href="https://www.35percent.org/delancey-tries-again/">knocked-back by the planning committee</a> earlier in the year. Amongst other things, the scheme, while exceeding density limits, didn't meet minimum social rented housing requirements, or offer any relocation support to existing traders.</p>
<p>It was only after a <a href="https://www.35percent.org/test-blog-post/">concerted local campaign</a> (leading to legal action) that Delancey improved its offer from 33 to 116 social rented homes and agreed to provide relocation units and financial support for some of the traders.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/screenshot-2021-08-06-at-11-50-04-interview-cllr-peter-john-southwark-labour-leader.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Southwark also boosted Delancey by <a href="https://www.35percent.org/shopping-centre-compulsory-purchase-order/">adopting Compulsory Purchase Order</a> (CPO) powers to help clear the site of traders. This little-publicised power gives local authorities a great deal of legitimate leverage in its negotiations with developers; if a site is not empty, it cannot be developed. But rather than use the power to get <a href="https://www.35percent.org/shopping-centre-compulsory-purchase-order/">a better deal for traders</a>, it stood behind Delancey, whose own hand was strengthened <a href="https://www.35percent.org/shopping-centre-traders-expelled-by-regeneration/">at the traders' expense</a>.</p>
<h2>Letting developers off the hook</h2>
<p>Aside from the shopping centre, Delancey has also been involved in other schemes in the borough, including <a href="https://www.35percent.org/tribeca-square/">Elephant Central</a> (formerly Elephant One), with 272 student rooms and 374 private residences and <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/8388">185 Park Street</a> (next to Tate Modern) with 69 new homes - neither development has any social rented housing.</p>
<p>These schemes are not exceptions. Our <a href="https://35percent.org/major-schemes">research</a> shows that only 456 new homes, out of 11,863 units in 25 major developments, approved in Southwark from 2006 to 2016 were social rented tenure - 3.8%. Had these schemes to complied with minimum policy requirements then around 2,500 social rented homes would have been delivered in total.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.35percent.org/img/majschemes.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>What we say</h2>
<p>Confidence in the planning system has been badly dented by high profile schemes not delivering the affordable housing we need. That confidence is not improved when the former leader of the council becomes the chair of a lobbying firm whose business is <em><a href="https://www.prca.org.uk/sites/default/files/Definition%20of%20Public%20Affairs%20PDF.pdf">'influencing government'</a></em>, including <em>'public authorities'</em>, such as councils.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.terrapingroup.co.uk/">The Terrapin Group</a> boasts that it is a <em>'market leader'</em> and has <em><a href="https://www.terrapingroup.co.uk/terrapinCommunications">'a superb track record of helping our clients achieve successful planning consents right across Greater London'</a></em> and invites inquiries for <em>'potential assignments'</em>.</p>
<p>We cannot know for whether any of the developments featured above are examples of such successful <em>'assignments'.</em> More recent developments, such as along the Old Kent Rd, have at least 35% affordable housing, most social rented and so it looks as if the current administration may not be cut from quite the same cloth as the previous one. Notwistanding this, it remains a fact that <a href="https://35percent.org/revolving-doors">five</a> sitting Labour councillors (including Cllr John) currently also sit on the payroll of property lobbyists.</p>
<p>If Southwark's new administration wants to clean up its act it could start by taking two simple and immediate measures;</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p>No sitting councillor should also work for a public affairs company whose clients are property developers and investors. It is not enough that councillors do not engage in such work within their own borough, as required by the <a href="https://www.prca.org.uk/sites/default/files/Public%20Affairs%20Code%20February%202021%2023.2.2021.pdf">Public Affairs Code</a>. They should not be trying to persuade fellow councillors in other boroughs to approve schemes either. Planning decisions must be seen to made solely on the merits of the application, with all discussions open to public view.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>A local register of public affairs companies for the borough should be established. Every applicant for at least major schemes should be required to list their agents, including public affairs companies.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>These measures would not only help maintain the integrity of the planning system, but might also avoid damaging headlines like <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/14/yacht-cannes-selling-homes-local-government-officials-mipim">this</a> one, <a href="http://heygatewashome.org/img/SNOlympicTickets.pdf">this</a> one, or <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/private-eye-southwark-council-developers.png">this</a> one:</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/private-eye-southwark-council-developers.png" alt="" /></p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image" />
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@35percent_EAN" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Former Council leader Peter John slips through revolving doors" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Former leader (and sitting Councillor) Peter John is now chairman of lobbyist firm Terrapin, which is paid to help developers get planning permission. " />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/rdoors2.jpg" />
Legal battle for the Elephant and Castle shopping centre ends2021-06-12T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2021-06-12-test-blog-post/<p>The Appeal Court has <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/827.html">upheld the High Court decision</a> allowing developers Delancey to proceed with the demolition and redevelopment of the Elephant and Castle Shopping Centre, after it found that there were no grounds for reversing the High Court's decision.</p>
<p>The legal challenge was mounted as part of a <a href="https://www.35percent.org/shopping-centre-closes-but-campaign-for-traders-continues/">hard-fought 4-year campaign</a> by <a href="https://twitter.com/UpTheElephant_/status/1398978498740604929?s=09">Up the Elephant</a>. This brought together housing campaigners (including the 35% Campaign), students, tenants' groups, local councillors and trade unionists, in the fight for more social rented housing and a better deal for traders displaced by the proposed development.</p>
<p>The decision will now allow the <a href="https://www.elephantandcastle.org.uk/overview-of-the-plans">mixed-use development</a> of new shops and homes to proceed, with 116 social rented units, out of 979 'Build to Rent' homes.</p>
<p>Despite the legal outcome the Up the Elephant Campaign secured many improvements to the original proposals, compared to the baseline of the original application, made in October 2016.</p>
<ul>
<li>Increase of social rented housing from 33 units of 'social rent equivalent', owned and managed by the developer, to 116 proper social rented units, owned and managed by the Council or housing association</li>
<li>Provision of affordable retail space</li>
<li>An established traders' panel</li>
<li>Temporary traders' premises on Castle Square</li>
<li>Trader relocation to Elephant Arcade (Perronet House)</li>
<li>Trader relocation and assistance funds of £634,000 and £200,000</li>
<li>15-year affordable retail lease</li>
</ul>
<h3>What we have lost</h3>
<p>Despite these improvements Delancey's scheme still remained a bad one, hence the legal challenge. The shopping centre may have been shabby, but it housed one of the <a href="http://www.palacebingo.co.uk/london-palace/">largest bingo halls in Britain</a><a href="https://www.facebook.com/londonbowling/"></a>, much used by older people from black and ethnic minority backgrounds, with a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/londonbowling/">bowling alley</a> next door, equally popular with younger people.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.github.io/uptheelephant/img/header.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>It had over decades become one of <a href="https://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/the-fight-isnt-over-for-elephant-and-castles-latin-american-community">two social hubs for Latin Americans</a> living in London (along with <a href="https://www.facebook.com/wardscornercommunity/">Wards Corner</a>, in Seven Sisters). Most of the other <a href="https://latinelephant.org/displaced-traders-with-no-relocation/">independent traders</a> come from other parts of the world and had built businesses for themselves and their families. All this would be lost. And while the affordable housing 'offer' was improved it still did not meet Southwark's minimum policy requirements, falling short by over fifty homes for social rent.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.github.io/img/traderscomp.jpeg" alt="" /></p>
<h3>The GLA grant mystery</h3>
<p>The status of a purported <a href="https://www.35percent.org/viability-and-delancey/">£11.24m grant from the Mayor</a>, that allowed Delancey to improve the social rented housing offer from 74 to 116 units and how this was <a href="http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!HvOs1eG7BYgl0hYZ8SIm5w%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">reported to the planning committee</a> was a key question before the court. The planning committee was told variously that the grant was <em>'an agreement in principle for grant funding'</em> (Officer's report <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/b50009564/Addendum%20No.%201%20Tuesday%2003-Jul-2018%2018.30%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=9">Adden. para 11</a>), or <em>'recently confirmed'</em> (<a href="http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!HvOs1eG7BYgl0hYZ8SIm5w%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">OR 371</a>), when in fact it was neither. There was no grant and no application had been made. Delancey had only been advised by the Greater London Authority (GLA) that an application would be welcome (<a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/827.html">Appeal Judgement para 87</a>) and of the steps that they needed to take to make an application.</p>
<p>On this point, the appeal court ruled that while there had been an <em>'overstatement'</em> (<a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/827.html">AJ 87</a>) of the position, all-in-all the committee had not been misled, particularly as Delancey had committed to building the social rented housing, with or without grant (<a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/827.html">AJ 85,86</a>).</p>
<p>This commitment naturally led the legal challenge to argue that if Delancey could provide 116 social rented units without grant, they should be able to provide more with a grant. Again, the appeal court did not agree, citing the viability assessment, which stated that 116 units was <em>'the maximum reasonable amount'</em> of social rented housing, and accepting that Delancey was committed to building the social rented housing at their own risk, even if grant were not available (<a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/827.html">AJ 91</a>).</p>
<h3>'The land and sum of money'</h3>
<p>The appeal court also found that the <a href="http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!HvOs1eG7BYgl0hYZ8SIm5w%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">officer's report</a> and <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/b50009580/Addendum%20No.%202%20Tuesday%2003-Jul-2018%2018.30%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=9">two</a> <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/b50009564/Addendum%20No.%201%20Tuesday%2003-Jul-2018%2018.30%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=9">addenda</a> were only guidance and allowed council officers discretion in how the committee's decision was practically put into effect (<a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/827.html">AJ 49, 50</a>). This ruling had important consequences. One of the main grounds of the legal challenge was that a stipulation that would allow Southwark, not Delancey, to build the social rented housing, but without cost to itself, had not properly found its way into the legal agreement that sealed the planning permission.</p>
<p>To this end, the officer's report had said that <em>'The s106 agreement would therefore stipulate that if the development on the west site has not substantially commenced within 10 years of the east site commencing, the land and sum of money sufficient for construction and completion of the social rented units would be transferred to the council, to deliver the social rented units'.</em> (<a href="http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!HvOs1eG7BYgl0hYZ8SIm5w%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">OR 364</a>)</p>
<p>What actually appeared in the s106 agreement was a more complicated arrangement of three options, two of which require Southwark to find up-front costs of construction. Delancey argued that the land value and non-residential elements of the social rented housing block had to be taken into account in this transaction and that this arrangement was therefore perfectly correct. Surprisingly, given that it was putting itself in a position of finding money to build something that Delancey would otherwise have to pay for, Southwark agreed with Delancey. The judge agreed with both, against the campaign's arguments, ruling that this was a fair rendering of the committee's decision (<a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/827.html">AJ 57-60</a>).</p>
<h3>Social rent and social rent equivalent - different, but the same</h3>
<p>The legal challenge also took issue with Southwark and Delancey effectively treating <em>'social rent equivalent'</em> and <em>'social rent'</em> as being the same tenure.</p>
<p>This distinction becomes relevant if part of the development were to be switched from <em>'Build to Rent'</em> to <em>'Build to Sell'</em>, with a higher affordable housing requirement and higher profit leading to an uplift to the social rented housing numbers. Delancey argued that any such uplift would have to be housed in towers that were managed by the affordable housing provider, who could not cope with real social rented housing, for stock-management reasons, and so the uplift would have to be social rent equivalent.</p>
<p>Despite the campaign offering three sets of differences between the tenures - including differences of security of tenure (3 years assured short-hold for social rent equivalent against lifetime tenancies for social rent) and differences in regulatory oversight - the appeal court judges these differences to be 'nuanced' rather than <em>'material' (</em><a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/827.html">AJ 77-79</a>)<em>.</em></p>
<h3>The implications of the judgement</h3>
<p>While the Court of Appeal's decision is disappointing, and the end of the legal challenge against the redevelopment of the shopping centre, we are not disheartened. The Up the Elephant campaign took up the fight in defence of council policy for a minimum amount of social housing, about 170 units, when Southwark Council refused to do so. The campaign did not succeed in getting 170 units, but it did raise the number from 33 social rent equivalent, <a href="http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!0iVzasdHCgb1eVmQCrssOg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">to 74</a>, then <a href="http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!b5xBNaYRSleWlYx6oXVrEA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">116 </a>social rent. Other gains have been made along the way, as noted at the beginning of this blogpost.</p>
<p>But though the local community and the Up the Elephant campaign won 116 social rented units, Southwark's track record of repeatedly conceding ground to Delancey shows that it is more than capable of losing them.</p>
<p>It was not enough for Southwark to allow Delancey almost 10 years to build the social rented housing; Southwark then allowed Delancey the option of passing the task back to them, without adequately securing the resources to do the job. Southwark then went to court, not to make sure that they got the social rented housing, but to defend this lopsided arrangement, and back Delancey up, when it argued that this was all fair and proper.</p>
<p>The appeal court's endorsement of Delancey and Southwark's interpretation of <em>'land and a sum of money'</em> (<a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/827.html">AJ 58, 59</a>) now opens the door, under one option, to Southwark getting nothing more than the land and £1 (one pound). A second option will get Southwark money to build the social rent, but not the full construction costs. Both options would leave Southwark having to find upfront the construction costs. And, despite the appeal court's judgement, we don't believe that this is what the planning committee had in mind when it approved Delancey's scheme.</p>
<p>Southwark should also demand to know when Delancey are going to make the application for the £11.24m that back in 2016 was claimed to be both agreed in principal and confirmed, but in reality, in 2021, does not seem to exist. As at June 2021, Delancey had not completed the registration of its affordable housing provider T3 Residential Limited with the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/current-registered-providers-of-social-housing/list-of-registered-providers-17-september-2020">Regulator of Social Housing</a>, that the <a href="http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!b5xBNaYRSleWlYx6oXVrEA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">GLA advised</a> was a condition of a successful grant application. As a recent <a href="c:%5CUsers%5Cgrego%5CDocuments%5CUsers%5Cgrego%5CDocuments%5CD-Drive%20201017%5CCopy%20of%20Elephant%20Amenity%20Network%5CBlog%2035percent%20campaign%5Cexpos%C3%A9">Sunday Times exposé</a> has shown, Delancey are well versed in how to use the public purse to its own advantage, when it comes to affordable housing. It is not difficult to envisage a scenario where it does so again, at Southwark's expense.</p>
Southwark rips up Aylesbury Area Action Plan2021-05-09T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2021-05-04-southwark-rips-up-aylesbury-objectives/<p>Without consultation, Southwark Council has decided to scrap the 182-page planning document which sets the parameters for its redevelopment of the Aylesbury estate. The so-called Aylesbury Area Action Plan (AAAP) will instead be replaced by a <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/38832/EIP202a-Aylesbury-Background-Paper-Update-20042021.pdf">2-page 'Area Vision and 5-page 'site allocation'</a>, as part of the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/new-southwark-plan">New Southwark Plan</a>.</p>
<p>The decision was revealed in a <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/38832/EIP202a-Aylesbury-Background-Paper-Update-20042021.pdf">late background paper</a> for the Examination in Public of the New Southwark Plan (NSP). Described by the government Inspector at the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3CohnTQXhI">Examination in Public (EIP)</a> as a ‘raft of policies’, the AAAP incorporated <a href="https://digital-land.github.io/development-plan-document/local-authority-eng/SWK/dev-plan-aaap-2010/#record">29 policy documents</a>, covering all aspects of the redevelopment, including housing, design, open space and the phasing of the development. It was adopted as the effective rule-book for the redevelopment of the estate in 2010, after four years of extensive public consultation, including its own separate public examination.</p>
<p>The implications of this are significant; while Southwark claim that all the relevant policies in the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/development-plan/area-action-plans-section/aylesbury-aap">AAAP</a> will be taken into account by the NSP, so that such things as more generous space standards, more family housing and car-parking for residents are retained, the lack of any prior notice or consultation has raised strong fears that much that was beneficial in the AAAP will not be carried across into the New Southwark Plan.</p>
<h2>Zero Carbon Growth</h2>
<p>Amongst the policies supporting the AAAP, policy at 3.6.1 requires the scheme to result in 'zero carbon growth':</p>
<p><em>"The development will be designed to result in zero carbon growth, that is, no net growth in carbon dioxide emissions despite an increase in the number of dwellings. This will require buildings which are highly energy efficient."</em></p>
<p>While the NSP requires developers to take measures towards achieving carbon neutrality, and has targets for major developments (Policy P69), the very specific requirement that the Aylesbury achieves zero carbon growth will be lost.</p>
<p>Experience has shown that unless such a requirement is exact and explicit, as it is for the Aylesbury, it can be lost when complicated, large schemes are considered for planning approval and the decision is made by balancing out how well the development meets all planning requirements, not just the environmental ones.</p>
<h2>Open Space</h2>
<p>Policy at 4.5.1 of the AAAP requires that the Aylesbury redevelopment results in no net loss of open space. Again, while the NSP has the strategic target for the borough, to retain and protect all open space, it makes no specific reference to open space requirements for the redeveloped Aylesbury.</p>
<p>This is a particular concern, given Southwark's welcome new commitment to re-provide all the social housing on the new development, which could put space at a premium. The NSP also allows payments in lieu of providing open space, a get-out that is often used by developers who want to build to maximum density.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/fdsgreenspace.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Children's Play/Youth Space</h2>
<p>Paragraph 4.5.2 of the AAAP says: <em>"We will require children’s play areas to be integrated into the residential areas. About 3 hectares of children’s play space and youth space will be provided".</em></p>
<p>The proposed New Southwark Plan makes no requirement to replace any of the children's play and youth space.</p>
<p>Campaigners and residents giving evidence at the EIP also pointed out that there were three separate policies for play space and open space in the AAAP (PL5, PL6, PL7), and that they provided space well beyond that which was standard. This generous allocation of space in the AAAP reflects the estate's design, around an extensive network of children's and youth play spaces. Campaigners noted that this was part of the family orientation of the AAAP, and that these policies would need equal prominence in the NSP, to make sure that families remained a priority in the redevelopment.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/aylesburycourts.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Replacement Social Housing</h2>
<p>In March 2019, Southwark <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/aylesbury-regen-increase-in-social-rent-housing-in-phase-2-means-all-tenants-from-later-development-stages-will-have-off-plan-homes-ready-by-2028/">announced</a> in a <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s81088/Report%20Aylesbury%20Regeneration%20Programme%20Moving%20Forward.pdf">Cabinet report</a> an <em>'important shift'</em> in its plans for the Aylesbury, with the <em>'ambition... to see the replacement of the number of social rented homes on the footprint of the estate'.</em> The density and number of homes on Phase 2 was therefore increased, with 400 extra units, up to about 1,250 homes in total.</p>
<p>The New Southwark Plan follows through on this, now <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/38832/EIP202a-Aylesbury-Background-Paper-Update-20042021.pdf">saying that</a> <em>"it would now be appropriate to consider an increased number of homes within the land covered by the Action Area Core, replacing all the existing social homes within the footprint of the estate".</em></p>
<p>But only 148 social rented units have been delivered so far, with a further 581 council houses under construction on the First Development Site. These leaves about 1,500 social rented units to be built, which is about half of the total remaining development, if Southwark is to replace the Aylesbury's social rented housing (<a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!Vbu5QpckfYCnJrulzlWyuQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">see Table 14 here</a>).</p>
<p>Meantime, Notting Hill Genesis remain in possession of a planning permission that allows for a loss of social rented units, which points to either further increases in density or a deal with Notting Hill Genesis, <a href="https://www.35percent.org/2020-07-12-aylesbury-estate-fds-variation/">as was done for the First Development Site</a>, or some combination of the two.</p>
<h2>End of service life?</h2>
<p>The NSP described the Aylesbury estate as <em>"characterised by large concrete slab buildings built in the mid-1960s –70s, now at the end of their service life."</em></p>
<p>This drew criticism from residents, leading to a change of wording. Further <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3CohnTQXhI">objections during the EIP hearing</a>, argued that the Council had submitted no evidence supporting the claim that the estate was at the end of its service life and had failed to investigate whether refurbishment could be a more viable and sustainable option. This was contrasted to Southwark's decision <a href="https://35percent.org/2020-07-12-aylesbury-estate-fds-variation/">to bail out</a> Notting Hill Genesis housing, at a cost of over £200m, after the housing association failed to deliver the First Development site, evidently <a href="https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/notting-hill-genesis-scales-back-development-plans-amid-changing-market-conditions-62506">hit with financial viability problems</a>.</p>
<p>Successful examples of the refurbishment of estates built using the same system as the Aylesbury and which might usefully be examined, can be found on the <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/OCD28_SixAcresestateRefurb_Illustrations.pdf">Six Acres estate</a> in Islington and the <a href="https://35percent.org/img/doddington.pdf">Doddington estate</a> in Battersea.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/sixacresbeforeafter.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Long delayed delivery</h2>
<p>Residents at the EIP also argued that the loss of the AAAP would allow Southwark to gloss over delays to the redevelopment. Southwark insisted that the monitoring provisions of the AAAP would be retained, but in any event the dismally slow pace of progress cannot be disguised.</p>
<p>While various community facilities have been completed, the house building programme has fallen many years behind schedule. Over 2,500 new homes should have been built by now, according to the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/12791/EIP32-Aylesbury-AAP-2010-.pdf">AAAP’s timetable</a> (Table A7.1), at an average rate of 221 homes per year; in fact, only <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/38832/EIP202a-Aylesbury-Background-Paper-Update-20042021.pdf">408 have been completed</a>, giving a rate on only 40 homes per year.</p>
<p>These figures also take no account of the homes lost through demolition. When this is factored in, the situation is even worse. Southwark will have to build 2,750 homes just to get back to where we were, before demolition began. Southwark claim that this will be done by 2027/28 (<a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/38832/EIP202a-Aylesbury-Background-Paper-Update-20042021.pdf">see para 31 here</a>), but they then must build 1,500 more homes to reach 4,200 homes and this will not be achieved until 2035 (<a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/37485/EIP82a-Sites-Methdology-Report-April-2021.pdf">Appendix 2: Sites Methodology Report pg 60 April 2021</a>).</p>
<p>Campaigners cast some doubt on whether this large net gain in housing will ever be achieved, without which the huge displacement and disruption of the whole regeneration can barely be justified. The additional pressure on the housing waiting list of rehousing displaced tenants was also noted.</p>
<h2>The time has come for a rethink....</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/development-plan/area-action-plans-section/aylesbury-aap">Aylesbury Area Action Plan</a> (AAAP) was adopted 10 years ago and was supposed to govern the 25-year redevelopment of the estate. Action Plans are special planning policy documents for big, extensive redevelopments. They require a high level of consultation and the involvement of affected residents.</p>
<p>The Aylesbury AAP is a complex document, with a large evidence base and was only finalised after its own Examination in Public. There may now be good reasons to update it, not least because it comes into conflict with more recent planning policy documents.</p>
<p>But it cannot be right that it is simply discarded, at short notice, half way through the estate's redevelopment, without first carrying out a proper public consultation. Southwark's reassurances, given in the EIP, that all the key policies will be carried over to the New Southwark Plan are not good enough, particularly given the <a href="https://35percent.org/aylesbury-estate">sorry history of the estate's regeneration so far</a></p>
<p>Any proper consultation must also take into account the slow progress of the redevelopment to date and the urgent need to address the climate emergency. It should also assess the impact of the redevelopment on the residents, the majority of whom are from black and ethnic minority backgrounds, and what benefits, or otherwise, will fall to them - a point forcefully made by long-term residents, past and present,<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3CohnTQXhI"> in the EIP</a>.</p>
Action on Southwark's empty homes2021-04-11T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2021-04-11-action-on-southwarks-empty-homes/<h2>Manor Place Depot photoshoot</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.nhgsales.com/sales-developments/manor-place-depot/">Manor Place Depot</a> will be one of one of the next sites for a nationwide <a href="https://www.actiononemptyhomes.org/day-of-action">Day of Action on Empty Homes on Sat 17 April 2021</a>. When we last looked (10 April 2021) at least 14 homes stood empty on a single street within that development. There will a Photoshoot and livestream 11am to 11:30am - click here <a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/603755493915647/">to find out more and join event</a>.</p>
<p>The Depot is a Notting Hill Genesis development, on the site of the <a href="https://www.elephantandcastle.org.uk/a-brief-history/manor-place/">Manor Place Baths</a>, one of Southwark’s most characterful development sites. The baths provided laundry and bathing facilities to Walworth people for 80 years, until the demolition of the surrounding streets and the removal of the local population to the Heygate and Aylesbury estates sounded its death knell in the 1980’s.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/manorplaceforsale.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Manor Place Depot is also a symbol of much that is wrong with ‘regeneration’ – <a href="https://35percent.org/manor-place-depot/">public land sold off cheaply</a>, for an expensive housing development (starting price £557,500 rising to £882,500) with only a small fraction social rented housing. Only <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!9Q1EPI%2b575%2fbXRF60n0WDw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">44 of the 270 units</a> are social rented and most of this was only provided only after Notting Hill Housing, as it then was, was caught out <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-12-12-ombudsman-slams-southwark-for-no-s106-monitoring/">failing to provide the right amount of social rent</a> on another development.</p>
<h2>Southwark–London’s empty homes hotspot</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.actiononemptyhomes.org/what-we-do">Action on Empty Homes</a> has identified Southwark as London’s <a href="https://www.actiononemptyhomes.org/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=37082220-f6ea-4a60-825d-e772d7fb1dd1">empty homes hotspot</a>, with a 61% rise in the number of long-term empty homes – up from 1,469 to 2,358 in the year up to October 2020, <a href="https://www.actiononemptyhomes.org/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=37082220-f6ea-4a60-825d-e772d7fb1dd1">topping the league for London boroughs</a>. And most concentrated empty home areas are in the <a href="https://www.actiononemptyhomes.org/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=37082220-f6ea-4a60-825d-e772d7fb1dd1">north east quarter of the borough</a>, the site of three of Southwark’s opportunity areas. The fourth, at Canada Water, has its own concentrations of empty homes.</p>
<h2>Number of second homes and Airbnb’s explode</h2>
<p>As well as empty homes, Southwark has seen a massive increase in second homes – <a href="https://www.actiononemptyhomes.org/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=37082220-f6ea-4a60-825d-e772d7fb1dd1">3,630 in 2020</a>, nearly six times the number of the previous year. But this could be matched, if not outstripped, by the number of <a href="https://www.actiononemptyhomes.org/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=37082220-f6ea-4a60-825d-e772d7fb1dd1">Airbnb whole home rentals, which stood at 2,635</a> in November 2019. Unsurprisingly these are also concentrated in the north east quarter of the borough, another consequence of regenerations that produce overpriced housing that make for better investment opportunities than homes for local people.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/lightsoutheygate.jpeg" alt="" />
<em>Lights out on the redeveloped Heygate estate.</em></p>
<h2>More empty homes than households in temporary accommodation</h2>
<p>This is all at a time when Southwark has <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s93304/Report%20Empty%20Homes%20Action%20Plan.pdf">14,000 households</a> on its housing waiting list, <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/millions-pledged-for-temporary-accommodation-but-most-people-will-be-housed-outside-southwark/">3,000 in temporary accommodation</a> and plans to increase the already large number housed <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/millions-pledged-for-temporary-accommodation-but-most-people-will-be-housed-outside-southwark/">outside the borough</a>.</p>
<p>So, when we have more empty homes than households in temporary accommodation, ACTION ON EMPTY HOMES is vital.</p>
<p>We must fight for a borough and a city where ordinary people can afford to live; filling empty homes won’t solve the housing crisis, but it must be part of that solution.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/requisitionemptyhomes">#RequisitionEmptyHomes</a>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/fillemptycouncilhomes">#FillEmptyCouncilHomes</a>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/prettyvacant">#PrettyVacant</a><br />
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/emptyhomes">#EmptyHomes</a><br />
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/fillemptycouncilhomes">#Fillemup</a><br />
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/homesneedresidents">#HomesNeedResidents</a><br />
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/thewronghousing">#TheWrongHousing</a></p>
Appeal against Elephant Shopping Centre development tomorrow2021-03-15T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2021-03-15-shopping-centre-appeal/<p>The long-awaited Court of Appeal hearing against the High Court decision to uphold the planning approval for the demolition and redevelopment of the Elephant and Castle shopping centre will be held on the 16 and 17 March 2021. The hearing will be online. Permission to mount the appeal was granted to Jerry Flynn, of the 35% Campaign, who is supported by local campaigners Up the Elephant. <a href="https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/member/david-wolfe/">David Wolf QC</a> of Matrix Chambers, <a href="https://www.ftbchambers.co.uk/barristers/sarah-sackman">Sarah Sackman</a> of Francis Taylor Building and <a href="https://www.pilc.org.uk/paul-heron/">Paul Heron</a> of the Public Interest Law Centre represent Mr Flynn.</p>
<p>The planning approval was <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-07-09-delancey/">granted by Southwark Council</a> in January 2019 to shopping centre owner and developer Delancey and the appeal follows an unsuccessful <a href="https://35percent.org/2019-10-17-day-of-decision-for-elephant-shopping-centre/">High Court challenge</a>, when Mr Justice Dove refused to quash the planning approval, after a two-day hearing in October 2019.</p>
<p>While the demolition of the shopping centre has begun, the legal challenge has focused on <a href="https://35percent.org/2019-07-03-why-we-are-challenging-elephant-and-castle-plans-in-court/">the shortage of social rented housing</a> in the proposed development. Delancey has increased the amount of real social rented homes from zero to <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre/">116 units</a> under the pressure of a 3-year campaign by <a href="https://twitter.com/UpTheElephant_?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">Up the Elephant</a>, but it is still only a fraction of the nearly one thousand in the new development. The social housing could also be at risk, if Delancey doesn’t deliver on the “West site”, not due to be built for nearly another decade.</p>
<p>Campaigners also believe Southwark's Council’s planning committee was misled as to the maximum amount of affordable housing the scheme could viably provide and that there could be at least another 42 social rented homes, with help of Mayor of London funding.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-the-elephant-shopping-centre-destruction/">Over £8000</a> has been raised to support the legal challenge through a CrowdJustice appeal and the <a href="https://twitter.com/UpTheElephant_?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">Up the Elephant</a> campaign continues the struggle for a better deal for the <a href="https://latinelephant.org/public-statement-on-traders-without-relocation/">many traders who have not been properly relocated</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/436632110919121/">The online rally</a>, supporting the legal case, will be held on the morning of the appeal and will hear from Mr Flynn, traders, lawyers and trade unionists.</p>
<h2>The Elephant and Castle shopping centre appeal rally</h2>
<p>Homes for People, Not for profit!</p>
<p>9:30am, Tuesday 16th March</p>
<p><strong>Join the Zoom Meeting</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fus02web.zoom.us%2Fj%2F84686776386&h=AT1g73Ayjnwc0tIqXRrvnb2X1VMve17CnhifDO9iqVqugHT54z2BamIgNNC2iFEL1zMwrgznwYg1OHqDuuHje-AYvLKVRu7hh-IwSQ3lFK46y1fzti5XhTlayAqvIaE5fSzbnh3KebuUrs8fUgWW">https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84686776386</a></p>
<p>Meeting ID: 846 8677 6386</p>
<p>The rally can also be seen on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9CglAW9ta6SGNyYvoQtHsg">YouTube</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/UpTheElephant/">Facebook</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Jerry Flynn</strong> of the <a href="https://twitter.com/UpTheElephant_?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">Up the Elephant campaign</a> has said;</p>
<p><em>“Delancey may have already begun the demolition, but the battle for what is to be built is not over. Southwark is not getting as much social rented housing from Delancey as it should, while the need for it has become even more acute. Delancey are not building the homes and new shops that local people need. Their planning permission should be quashed and homes and shops that local people can afford built instead.”</em></p>
<p><strong>Paul Heron</strong>, solicitor from the <a href="https://www.pilc.org.uk/paul-heron/">Public Interest Law Centre</a>, who is representing the campaign, adds:</p>
<p><em>“We are happy that the matter will now be considered by the Court of Appeal. The case raises a number of important legal issues regarding how local councils should handle these developments. One concern is that Southwark council, and many councils like them, are failing to maximise social housing in these developments. Another concern is that councillors are failing in their duties – far too much power is being given to unelected council officials in the decision-making process. This has to stop otherwise there will be a democratic deficit in planning law”.</em></p>
<p><strong>Tanya Murat</strong>, of <a href="https://www.facebook.com/southwarkdch/">Southwark Defend Council Housing</a>, supporters of the campaign, said:</p>
<p><em>“Southwark Council should now listen to the views of its own residents instead of throwing yet more money on lawyers to prop up the mega profits of its friends in the development industry. This development wouldn’t have gone ahead without the Council's active support. Councillors should put the needs of homeless and low paid residents above the needs of developers.”</em></p>
Social Rent or Affordable Rent?2021-01-16T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2021-01-16-affordable-housing-monitoring-15000-homes/<p>Five years ago today, Southwark Council rejected our <a href="https://35percent.org/img/ccomplaint15Dec2016.pdf">complaint</a> that affordable homes secured from private developments weren't in fact being delivered, Southwark's Director of Planning <a href="https://35percent.org/img/Stage1response28Jan2016.pdf">saying</a> <em>‘Southwark Council has appropriate safeguards in place and has not failed in its duties .. therefore your compliant is not upheld".</em></p>
<p>We made the complaint after discovering that Neo Bankside, a high-profile development next to the Tate Gallery, had only delivered 62 of the 94 social rented homes required by the planning approval. The story was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2015/jul/21/neo-bankside-how-richard-rogers-new-non-dom-accom-cut-out-the-poor">taken up by the Guardian</a>.</p>
<p>We were later contacted by a resident living at the Signal building, a new development at Elephant & Castle, who was confused about an affordable housing tenant pack put through his letterbox. He was concerned that a similar trick had been pulled by the developer of his building, as he was paying market rent for his flat. He asked if we knew how to find out if his flat was supposed to be one of the 11 affordable homes in the building and what implications that would have.</p>
<p>We told him that we had no way of knowing whether his home was one of the 11 affordable units and advised him to contact the Council.</p>
<p><img src="https://omghcontent.affino.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/096/signal-building-MIN.jpg" alt="" />
<em>The Signal Building at Elephant & Castle where affordable homes were let at market rent and then sold on the open market</em></p>
<p>It later <a href="https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/the-court-battles-over-section-106-delivery--56141">emerged</a> that the housing association concerned had sold these and other affordable homes across the borough on the open market, resulting in a court case, brought by Southwark Council.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/lhah.png" alt="" />
<em><a href="https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/the-court-battles-over-section-106-delivery--56141">https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/the-court-battles-over-section-106-delivery--56141</a></em></p>
<p>Given these examples of where there appeared to be no control over affordable housing delivery, we checked the Council's <a href="https://www.southwarkhomesearch.org.uk/">choice-based letting system</a> for social housing and found homes approved as social rent being let at more than twice social rent levels.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/nhghomesearch.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the Council's <a href="https://www.southwarkhomesearch.org.uk/">lettings system</a> for households on its waiting list</em></p>
<p>We then cross-checked planning committee reports with section 106 agreements, Land Registry information, the <a href="https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/gla-affordable-housing-programme-outturn/resource/0c87e5dc-f1e9-4edf-b246-bef6b40a9ba3">GLA affordable housing outturn dataset</a> and the government's <a href="https://core.communities.gov.uk/">CORE lettings data</a>. From this we compiled a long (but by no means exhaustive) <a href="https://35percent.org/img/section106_tenure_breaches.pdf">list</a> of 46 schemes which indicated that there had been a potential breach in provision, involving a total of 1,145 social rented homes. We submitted these to the Council as evidence that it was not getting the affordable housing it should be and asked them to investigate.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/arexampless.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>The Ombudsman</h2>
<p>When Southwark rejected our complaint we referred the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman and in November 2016 he <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-12-12-ombudsman-slams-southwark-for-no-s106-monitoring/">published a damning report</a> stating that Southwark actually have no proper procedures for monitoring the delivery of affordable housing. In response Southwark undertook to introduce monitoring procedures and conduct an audit of all the section 106 affordable housing in the borough.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/LGOFinalDecisionSOR.png" alt="" /></p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/lgoreport.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>In late 2019, after three years of badgering, the Council finally <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/monitoring/authority-monitoring-report/housing?chapter=9">published a spreadsheet</a>, which it claimed to be an audit.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/auditpage.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>But the audit is in fact only a list of developments, detailing affordable housing required according to the s106 agreement. A necessary link to what was actually delivered is absent and any breaches cannot be identified from it. It is therefore impossible to tell from the audit if the affordable housing has been delivered according to the planning consent.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/audit_extract.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>In addition, the audit shows that in over two thirds of the developments, the Council still doesn’t have confirmation of the affordable housing provided and nearly one thousand homes have 'Not Known' tenure, out of nearly 7,000 affordable homes listed.</p>
<p>In many cases where the housing association has responded confirming the tenure and number of homes provided, they clearly don't match with the requirements of the planning consent.</p>
<p>For example, phase 1 of the Aylesbury estate (07/CO/0046) is listed as being let at affordable rent (i.e. up to 80% market rent) but the s106 agreement for this scheme requires social rent.</p>
<p>Similarly phase 1 of the Canada Water regeneration (09/AP/1870) required at least 123 homes at social rent. The audit shows these all at being provided at affordable rent.</p>
<p>Also, the 553-home Tabard Square scheme (02/AP/0168) was approved with a requirement for at least 79 social rented units. These are being listed as having been provided by Horizon Housing Association as affordable rent.</p>
<h2>Show us the 5,462 social rented homes</h2>
<p>The audit clearly hasn’t been conducted effectively. It remains impossible to know with certainty how much affordable housing has been delivered or whether it has been delivered under the tenure required by the section 106 agreement.</p>
<p>Southwark’s Housing Engagement and Scrutiny Commission <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF0cobZ3kIk&feature=youtu.be">considered affordable housing delivery at its last meeting</a> at the beginning of December and we have sent the Commission a <a href="https://35percent.org/img/hscrutiny.pdf">detailed account of the gaps and flaws in the audit</a>. We have told the Commission that five years on, Southwark still has not properly fulfilled the requirements of the Ombudsman’s decision.</p>
<p>As we have pursued this issue, Southwark's response has been that it is in the process of <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/innovate/collabrative-project/affordable-housing-monitoring">developing new software</a> to deal with monitoring. But after 5 years of development this software is still not operational.</p>
<p>Southwark Council has lately been emphasising the number of affordable and the number of social rented homes that they have succeeded in securing from developers at the planning stage, but this is obviously a hollow claim if the homes are not built and or are then let at a higher rent tenure. Until a proper audit is conducted (plus an investigation of any apparent infractions) Southwark’s <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/monitoring/authority-monitoring-report/housing?chapter=4">claim to have delivered 5,462 social rented homes</a>, in particular, can only be met with scepticism.</p>
<p>Southwark Council is now under new leadership - solving this issue head-on, instead of just muddling along and sweeping it under the carpet will be a test of whether it will be any better than the old leadership.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/screenshotahmon.png" alt="" />
<em>Southwark's website <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/monitoring/authority-monitoring-report/housing?chapter=4">claims</a> it has delivered 5,462 social rented homes</em></p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image" />
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@35percent_EAN" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Social Rent or Affordable Rent?" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="5 years after damning Ombudsman report and Southwark still doesn't know (or care) which tenure is delivered." />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/arexampless.png" />
Wood Dene Protest against empty homes 2020-10-27T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2020-10-25-wood-dene-protest-against-empty-homes/<p><a href="https://m.facebook.com/peoplebeforeprofitCVD19/">People Before Profit</a> and <a href="https://m.facebook.com/southwarkdch/">Southwark Defend Council Housing</a> (SDCH) are mounting a protest against empty homes in Southwark with a <a href="https://m.facebook.com/events/3120862284692741?acontext=%7B%22action_history%22%3A%5B%7B%22surface%22%3A%22page%22%2C%22mechanism%22%3A%22page_admin_bar%22%2C%22extra_data%22%3A%22%7B%5C%22page_id%5C%22%3A839272879439624%7D%22%7D%2C%7B%22surface%22%3A%22events_admin_tool%22%2C%22mechanism%22%3A%22events_admin_tool%22%2C%22extra_data%22%3A%22%5B%5D%22%7D%5D%2C%22has_source%22%3Atrue%7D">demonstration at Peckham Place 12pm Saturday the 31 October</a>.</p>
<p>The demo is to highlight the number of empty homes in the borough and takes place at a critical time for London’s homeless people, who enjoyed some respite from their plight during the Covid lockdown, when they were housed in the capital’s empty hotels. Charities are warning <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54458884">homeless people's lives</a> will be lost this winter unless action is taken.</p>
<p><a href="https://m.facebook.com/peoplebeforeprofitCVD19/">People before Profit</a> and <a href="https://m.facebook.com/southwarkdch/">SDCH</a> are demanding that empty homes are requisitioned for the homeless. It will be the third demo highlighting the issue, after demos at Maydew House and Elephant Park, formerly the Heygate estate - see <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RequisitionEmptyHomes?src=hash">#RequistionEmptyHomes</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/wood_dene.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Wood Dene council homes that were lost</h2>
<p>The new Peckham Place development replaced the Wood Dene estate, <a href="https://35percent.org/wood-dene-regeneration/">which had 323 council homes</a> before it <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/notting-hill-admits-wood-dene-estate-peckham-wont-rebuilt-2019-thirteen-years-demolition/">was demolished in 2007</a> as part of the <a href="https://embed.verite.co/timeline/?source=0Aprl6XcACewydEhRaWFOLVBfUjBSVW1HUGVZNEhGeFE&font=Bevan-PotanoSans&maptype=toner&lang=en&hash_bookmark=true&start_zoom_adjust=2&height=650#1">Southwark Estates Initiative</a>, a regeneration strategy devised by Southwark Council’s as part of New Labour’s ‘Urban Task Force’ renewal strategy. None of the council homes have been replaced.</p>
<p>Peckham Place has had a tortuous development history, <a href="https://35percent.org/wood-dene-regeneration/">related on our Wood Dene regeneration webpage</a>. Southwark decided to <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Executive/20030729/Agenda/56%20-%20Disposal%20of%20216-224Underhill%20Road,%20SE22.pdf">demolish Wood Dene back in 2000</a> and the Presentation housing association were adopted by Southwark as the site’s developer <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Executive/20050523/Agenda/Item%2011%20-%20Wooddene%20EstateRegeneration%20-%20Update.pdf">in 2002</a> [^1]. In 2005 Presentation’s ‘preferred’ proposal was for <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Executive/20050523/Agenda/Item%2011%20-%20Wooddene%20EstateRegeneration%20-%20Update.pdf">a development of 216 units</a>, half to be social rented, half to be intermediate [^2] But Presentation were taken over by Notting Housing Trust (NHHT) in 2009 and it was NHHT who eventually secured planning permission for the redevelopment, in 2013.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/peckplace.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Despite being a housing association, NHHT produced a viability assessment that claimed that only 63 shared ownership and 54 social rent units could be built (alongside 216 private units) – a net loss of 197 affordable homes <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!gC0r1MnWVfiWgymHTtPApA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">according to the GLA</a> [^3], compared to the council homes on Wood Dene. By the time Peckham Place was completed in late 2019, there were 54 ‘affordable rent’, and 201 homes for shared ownership, <a href="https://35percent.org/wood-dene-regeneration/">according to an onsite billboard</a>, leaving <a href="https://www.nhg.org.uk/building-homes/developments/wooddene-estate-southwark/">78 for private sale</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/wooddenehoarding.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>What happened to the Wood Dene residents?</h2>
<p>Southwark <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Executive/20050523/Agenda/Item%2011%20-%20Wooddene%20EstateRegeneration%20-%20Update.pdf">stopped issuing secure council tenancies</a> on Wood Dene in May 2002, but there were <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Executive/20030729/Agenda/56%20-%20Disposal%20of%20216-224Underhill%20Road,%20SE22.pdf">289 households to be decanted</a> in July 2003, with 173 wishing to return to new homes on the redeveloped estate [^4]. Given that the work on the new homes <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/notting-hill-admits-wood-dene-estate-peckham-wont-rebuilt-2019-thirteen-years-demolition/">did not begin until 2016</a>, it seems that they were all bound to have been disappointed, despite a pledge that they would have a <a href="https://35percent.org/wood-dene-regeneration/">‘right to return’</a>. All but the 16 leaseholders would have been rehoused in current council housing stock, as long as they were secure tenants, not temporary tenants filling the voids created since May 2002.</p>
<p>Leaseholders would have received compensation for their homes at ‘market value’, but as <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/blog/2014/05/30/aylesbury-leaseholder-fights-incestuous-valuation/">leaseholders at the Heygate and Aylesbury estates</a> found, it would not be sufficient for a free-market homes in the area, let alone anything on Peckham Place, where a two-bed home <a href="https://www.nhgsales.com/sales-developments/peckham-place/#availability">costs between £585k and £700k</a>.</p>
<p>The cost of decanting the residents was <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Executive/20030729/Agenda/56%20-%20Disposal%20of%20216-224Underhill%20Road,%20SE22.pdf">estimated in 2003 to be £879,750</a>, made up of home loss, and disturbance payments and leasehold acquisition [^5].</p>
<h2>The cost of demolition</h2>
<p>The rationale of the Southwark Estates Initiative and for demolishing Wood Dene was that the money from selling the land was needed to regenerate Southwark’s housing stock. The Council’s Executive committee, as it then was, <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Executive/20050523/Agenda/Item%2011%20-%20Wooddene%20EstateRegeneration%20-%20Update.pdf">was told</a>in 2005;</p>
<p><em>“It is estimated that the sale of the site will generate £6.9 million net to be recycled into the wider SEI programme, this figure is based on a valuation of the site completed in 1998. The cost of demolishing the block is estimated to cost in the region of £3.4m.”</em></p>
<p>When Southwark resolved in December 2005 on a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) for <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Executive/20051213/Agenda/Item%2013%20-%20CompulsoryPurchase%20of%20lands%20on%20the%20Acorn%20Estate,%20Peckham%20SE15%20-Report.pdf">the sixteen Wood Dene leasehold properties</a> Southwark stated further, that;</p>
<p><em>“Securing vacant possession and onward sale to the RSL [registered social landlord] will generate a substantial capital sum. The securing of this receipt is essential to the delivery of the Housing Investment Programme”</em> [^6]</p>
<p>Despite being ‘essential’ for the Housing Investment Programme, the land was not sold until 8 years later, in December 2013, and for not much more than its 1998 valuation, to NHHT for only £7.05m.</p>
<h2>Notting Hill in Southwark</h2>
<p>As well as redeveloping the Wood Dene site, NHHT, or Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) as it became in 2018, has a big presence elsewhere in Southwark. NHG is development partner for <a href="https://www.nhg.org.uk/building-homes/developments/canada-water-southwark/">the Canada Water development</a>, where it is building 1030 homes across a range of tenures). Including 230 private rent units, through its <a href="https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/g15-landlord-lines-up-250m-loan-using-prs-portfolio--68091#:~:text=Notting%20Hill%20Genesis%20(NHG)%20is,non%2Dsocial%E2%80%9D%20housing%20business.&text=The%20G15%20landlord%20has%20been%20slowing%20its%20development%20programme%20overall">Folio London</a> subsidiary.</p>
<p>NHG is also the affordable housing provider on the Aylesbury regeneration, <a href="https://35percent.org/2020-07-12-aylesbury-estate-fds-variation/">where it received a £210m bailout from Southwark</a>, after Southwark took over the development of the First Development site, to build council homes.</p>
<p>When NHHT amalgamated with Genesis Housing in 2018, it did so amidst criticism that it had <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/11/housing-association-merger-will-lead-to-social-cleansing-warn-tenants">‘lost their mission to meet housing needs among the low-income people in inner London..’</a> and like many big housing associations has moved away from solely providing social rented housing, to building shared-ownership and free market homes. In 2019/20 only <a href="https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/large-london-association-sees-unsold-homes-hit-610-amid-market-challenges-67715">720 of the 1,900 plus homes completed by NHG were ‘low-cost rent’</a>.</p>
<h2>An object lesson</h2>
<p>The story of Wood Dene is an object lesson in how estate regenerations go wrong. Southwark persuaded itself that the estate’s land value justified demolition and that the money received could be used to improve other council housing stock. It then waited 8 years for that land receipt, which barely rose in value from the original estimate, while property prices rocketed. It displaced over 300 households and depended on a housing association that either could not or would not build enough social rented homes to replace the council homes lost. Instead we have the usual mix of ‘affordable’ housing, with just 54 ‘affordable rent’ units where there were once over 300 council homes.</p>
<h2><strong>PROTEST</strong> - Stop this horror story! - Fill these empty homes!</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://m.facebook.com/events/3120862284692741?acontext=%7B%22action_history%22%3A%5B%7B%22surface%22%3A%22page%22%2C%22mechanism%22%3A%22page_admin_bar%22%2C%22extra_data%22%3A%22%7B%5C%22page_id%5C%22%3A839272879439624%7D%22%7D%2C%7B%22surface%22%3A%22events_admin_tool%22%2C%22mechanism%22%3A%22events_admin_tool%22%2C%22extra_data%22%3A%22%5B%5D%22%7D%5D%2C%22has_source%22%3Atrue%7D">12pm, Saturday 31st October, 2020</a></li>
<li><a href="https://m.facebook.com/events/3120862284692741?acontext=%7B%22action_history%22%3A%5B%7B%22surface%22%3A%22page%22%2C%22mechanism%22%3A%22page_admin_bar%22%2C%22extra_data%22%3A%22%7B%5C%22page_id%5C%22%3A839272879439624%7D%22%7D%2C%7B%22surface%22%3A%22events_admin_tool%22%2C%22mechanism%22%3A%22events_admin_tool%22%2C%22extra_data%22%3A%22%5B%5D%22%7D%5D%2C%22has_source%22%3Atrue%7D">Peckham Place - Corner of Queens Road and Meeting House Lane, SE15</a></li>
</ul>
<p><a href="https://m.facebook.com/events/3120862284692741?acontext=%7B%22action_history%22%3A%5B%7B%22surface%22%3A%22page%22%2C%22mechanism%22%3A%22page_admin_bar%22%2C%22extra_data%22%3A%22%7B%5C%22page_id%5C%22%3A839272879439624%7D%22%7D%2C%7B%22surface%22%3A%22events_admin_tool%22%2C%22mechanism%22%3A%22events_admin_tool%22%2C%22extra_data%22%3A%22%5B%5D%22%7D%5D%2C%22has_source%22%3Atrue%7D">FB Event here</a></p>
<p><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RequisitionEmptyHomes?src=hash">#RequisitionEmptyHomes</a></p>
<p><strong>Footnotes</strong>
[^1]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Executive/20030729/Agenda/56%20-%20Disposal%20of%20216-224Underhill%20Road,%20SE22.pdf">Wood Dene SEI decant arrangements 29th July 2003</a> para 2</p>
<p><a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Executive/20050523/Agenda/Item%2011%20-%20Wooddene%20EstateRegeneration%20-%20Update.pdf">Wood Dene Estate Regeneration Update 23 May 2005</a> para 12</p>
<p>[^2]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Executive/20050523/Agenda/Item%2011%20-%20Wooddene%20EstateRegeneration%20-%20Update.pdf">Wood Dene Estate Regeneration Update 23 May 2005</a> para 13</p>
<p>[^3]: <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!gC0r1MnWVfiWgymHTtPApA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">Officer's Report Planning Committee 2 July 2013</a> pg 47</p>
<p>[^4]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Executive/20050523/Agenda/Item%2011%20-%20Wooddene%20EstateRegeneration%20-%20Update.pdf">Wood Dene Estate Regeneration Update 23 May 2005</a> para 7</p>
<p><a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Executive/20030729/Agenda/56%20-%20Disposal%20of%20216-224Underhill%20Road,%20SE22.pdf">Wood Dene SEI decant arrangements 29th July 2003</a> para 19</p>
<p>[^5]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Executive/20030729/Agenda/56%20-%20Disposal%20of%20216-224Underhill%20Road,%20SE22.pdf">Wood Dene SEI decant arrangements 29th July 2003</a> para 24</p>
<p>[^6]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Executive/20050523/Agenda/Item%2011%20-%20Wooddene%20EstateRegeneration%20-%20Update.pdf">Wood Dene Estate Regeneration Update 23 May 2005</a> para 11,</p>
<p><a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Executive/20051213/Agenda/Item%2013%20-%20CompulsoryPurchase%20of%20lands%20on%20the%20Acorn%20Estate,%20Peckham%20SE15%20-Report.pdf">Compulsory Purchase of Lands on the Acorn
Estate Peckham 13 December 2005 </a>para 21</p>
No room for social rent at Pocket Living on the Old Kent Road2020-10-06T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2020-10-05-no-room-for-social-rent-at-pocket-living-on-the-old-kent-road/<p>Southwark Council is set to approve a mixed-used residential scheme in the Old Kent Rd Opportunity Area with no social rented housing or family housing, at its <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=119&MId=6678&Ver=4">planning committee meeting this evening</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/pocketplan.png" alt="" /></p>
<p><a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=Q3J511KB03Q00">The proposed development</a> on Ossory Rd is for 105 units of housing, with light industrial space beneath this. All 105 units will be affordable housing, but of the most expensive type, sold at 80% market value. The applicant is <a href="https://www.pocketliving.com/">Pocket Living</a>, which specialises in maximising the amount of housing on small sites. All the homes will be one-bed, one person units, without family housing. This is the second such Pocket Living development in the area; the first, in <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=ZZZV0WKBWR623&activeTab=summary">Varcoe Rd</a> had 57 units and a third, <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=Q2TJM2KBKZ000">Credon House</a>, also for 57 units is in the pipeline.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/pocketscheme.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Pocket Living make up their own rules</h2>
<p>Southwark Council requires 35% affordable housing, 70% of which should be social rented, on all developments of this size. This has been the case since 2007 and the requirement has been retained in a succession of local planning documents, up to the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/new-southwark-plan">draft New Southwark Plan</a> and the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/development-plan/area-action-plans-section/old-kent-road-aap">Old Kent Rd Area Action Plan</a>. All <a href="https://oldkentroad.org.uk/keydevelopments">major approved developments</a> within the Old Kent Rd have pledged to deliver that amount.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/newsouthwarkplanah.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>There should also be at least <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/1675/1.0.2-DL-Core_Strategy_2011.pdf">20% family housing</a> of 3, 4, 5-beds in major developments and <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/1675/1.0.2-DL-Core_Strategy_2011.pdf">60% of should comprise 2-bed homes</a>[^1].</p>
<p>Pocket Living, however, want to make up their own rules. Their sites are small and it wishes to maximise the number of homes built, so they are all one -bed/one person units, <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/files/49DC49BD88B13B7B1434CD39C64C23BC/pdf/20_AP_0009-DESIGN_AND_ACCESS_STATEMENT_PART_1-830493.pdf">though 10% of their occupants appear to be couples</a>, with most units <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s90901/Report%202-10%20OSSORY%20ROAD%20LONDON%20SE1%205PA.pdf">barely above the minimum size</a> allowed (37 sq metres) [^2].</p>
<p>The amount of open and amenity space for occupants is also squeezed. In a development of this size there should be 1,050 sqm private amenity space, Pocket are providing a miniscule 42 sqm. Developers can compensate for a lack of private space with more communal space, but Pocket falls well short here, too, providing <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s90901/Report%202-10%20OSSORY%20ROAD%20LONDON%20SE1%205PA.pdf">less than half the amount</a> required (506 sqm instead of 1,058 sqm) [^3] .</p>
<h2>Not that affordable</h2>
<p>Pocket Living justify their radical departures from Southwark’s affordable housing requirements, by claiming they are serving the hard-pressed, young first-time buyer and supply their own statistics and census figures to back this up, dutifully reproduced by the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s90901/Report%202-10%20OSSORY%20ROAD%20LONDON%20SE1%205PA.pdf">officer’s report</a>, which recommends approval of the scheme [^4]. The report also makes the confusing claim that the affordable housing offer is policy compliant:</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/pocketcompliant.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Buying a decent home in London is undoubtedly hard for the young professionals Pocket Living housing is squarely aimed at, but they are still relatively much better off than those excluded by the absence of social and family housing from Pocket Living developments. Pocket’s typical purchaser will have an average income of £44,000 (OR, Para 60), an income enjoyed by <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/11656/NSP01-New-Southwark-Plan-Submission-Version-Proposed-Modifications-for-Examination.pdf">less than 4.5% of Southwark’s households</a>. Pocket Living <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/files/6030AD1B523680D0E48386152C0A4203/pdf/20_AP_0009-VIABILITY_ASSESSMENT_MONTAGU_EVEANS-939343.pdf">estimates</a> that its homes will sell for approximately £300k each (with the 20% discount). Supplying homes at these prices to those who earn £44k per year, at the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/11656/NSP01-New-Southwark-Plan-Submission-Version-Proposed-Modifications-for-Examination.pdf">expense of those who earn barely half</a> that is not what affordable housing should be about[^5].</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/pocketprices.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Density and un-exemplary design</h2>
<p>Unsurprisingly, given Pocket’s ambitions to maximise the number of units, they are proposing a scheme which is <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s90901/Report%202-10%20OSSORY%20ROAD%20LONDON%20SE1%205PA.pdf">twice the density</a> it should be, (at 2,333 habitable rooms per hectare against a maximum allowed of 1,100 hrph), justified on the basis of exemplary design. However, many of the measures for <em>‘exemplary’</em> design are not met – it does not have enough amenity space, there is no <em>‘predominance’</em> of dual aspect flats, it does not have any 2-bed or more flats, and the flats do not <em>‘significantly exceed minimum floor-space standards’</em> [^6].</p>
<h2>Equality not a great consideration</h2>
<p>The lack of social and family housing and the provision of all the homes as single bed units, targeted at middle income professionals, would also seem to have clear implications for the various social groups protected under equalities legislation. Southwark have a legal duty to consider this, but have not done so in any detail, content just to note of affordable housing, that there is <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s90901/Report%202-10%20OSSORY%20ROAD%20LONDON%20SE1%205PA.pdf">‘a high demand for such accommodation and a relatively high BAME population’</a> [^7].</p>
<h2>Viability and the Bakerloo Line Extension</h2>
<p>The officer’s report and recommendation for approval was written before <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/10413">press-reports</a> that the Bakerloo Line extension has fallen down the list of priorities for Transport for London (TfL) and may not be built for many years. Pocket Living’s proposal is, according to themselves, <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s90901/Report%202-10%20OSSORY%20ROAD%20LONDON%20SE1%205PA.pdf">technically non-viable</a> and depends upon the delivery of the BLE to turn a profit (as do many other Old Kent Rd schemes) [^8]. There is no mention of a late stage review of the scheme’s viability, which removes the possibility of any improvement in the affordable housing offer, such as a greater discount in the selling price.</p>
<h2>The Mayor likes it</h2>
<p>While Pocket Living pretty much ignores Southwark’s own housing policy, so does the officer’s report to the planning committee, which notes the departures, but nonetheless recommends approval on <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s90901/Report%202-10%20OSSORY%20ROAD%20LONDON%20SE1%205PA.pdf">other ‘material’ grounds</a>. The report also cites the enthusiastic support of the Mayor (matching his enthusiasm for Build to Rent, another middle/upper income affordable housing tenure that sacrifices social rent)[^9].</p>
<h2>What we say...</h2>
<p>It is hard to see what this scheme brings to the Old Kent Rd, in housing terms. It has no social housing and no family housing. The affordable housing it does provide is of the most expensive kind. The scheme does not have the private and public space that it should have and it serves a very narrow demographic, while excluding broader sections of the community.</p>
<p>Pocket Living would argue that the constraints of the site and the housing needs of a relatively well-off section of the community should outweigh these shortcomings, but Southwark’s local plan already addresses how much housing there should be for different income groups, with the overarching aim of building a mixed and cohesive community. Pocket Living simply ignores this, so the planning committee should reject this application.</p>
<p>You can find the <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/files/8DAB57C1FA7189E58CEE5EE07D530A78/pdf/20_AP_0009-OBJECTS-937661.pdf">35% Campaign objection to this development here</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: Southwark's <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/1675/1.0.2-DL-Core_Strategy_2011.pdf">Core Strategy</a> Strategic Policy 7 - Family homes, pg 86</p>
<p>[^2]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s90901/Report%202-10%20OSSORY%20ROAD%20LONDON%20SE1%205PA.pdf">Officer Report</a> Table pg 42</p>
<p>[^3]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s90901/Report%202-10%20OSSORY%20ROAD%20LONDON%20SE1%205PA.pdf">Officer Report</a> para 133,134,135</p>
<p>[^4]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s90901/Report%202-10%20OSSORY%20ROAD%20LONDON%20SE1%205PA.pdf">Officer Report</a> para 112</p>
<p>[^5]: <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/11656/NSP01-New-Southwark-Plan-Submission-Version-Proposed-Modifications-for-Examination.pdf">New Southwark Plan Submission Version Jan 2020</a> Fig 2</p>
<p>[^6]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s90901/Report%202-10%20OSSORY%20ROAD%20LONDON%20SE1%205PA.pdf">Officer Report</a> para 118, 119</p>
<p>[^7]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s90901/Report%202-10%20OSSORY%20ROAD%20LONDON%20SE1%205PA.pdf">Officer Report</a> para 28</p>
<p>[^8]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s90901/Report%202-10%20OSSORY%20ROAD%20LONDON%20SE1%205PA.pdf">Officer Report</a> para 64, 65</p>
<p>[^9]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s90901/Report%202-10%20OSSORY%20ROAD%20LONDON%20SE1%205PA.pdf">Officer Report</a> para 229-237; 57</p>
Shopping Centre closes, but campaign for traders continues2020-09-28T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2020-09-26-shopping-centre-closes-but-campaign-for-traders-continues/<p>The closure of the Elephant and Castle shopping centre last Thursday was <a href="https://twitter.com/UpTheElephant_?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">marked by protest</a>, impassioned speeches and <a href="https://docdro.id/thWuAyH">widespread media coverage</a>. The centre closed after 55 years’ service to the local community and is now set to be demolished, to make way for a new retail, leisure and residential complex. Shopping centre owner, Delancey, leads the development partnership behind the new scheme.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/scentrehoarding.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>While the centre’s major stores had gradually left over the previous months, many of the independent businesses were trading up to the final day. The closure also brought the end for the market which occupied the centre’s ‘moat’, which numbered around <a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DwEQ6HqW0AEbC6W.jpg">60 stalls just under 2 years ago</a> when Southwark’s planning committee first considered developer Delancey’s proposals for the centre’s redevelopment.</p>
<p><a href="https://elephantandcastletowncentre.co.uk/news/elephant-and-castle-town-centre-relocation-correcting-the-misinformation-and-providing-the-facts/">Only 40 traders</a> have been relocated to three sites – Castle Square, Perronet House and Elephant Park – <a href="https://latinelephant.org/public-statement-on-traders-without-relocation/">‘leaving about 40 traders who have been trading at least since January 2019 (as per the s106 agreement) without alternative premises’</a>. A major aim now of the traders and their supporters is to secure space that could double the number of relocated traders, with a <a href="https://35percent.org/2020-09-14-shopping-centre-traders-propose-new-stalls-for-the-elephant/">proposal to the Mayor for new market stalls at the Elephant</a>.</p>
<h2>Up the Elephant solidarity</h2>
<p>A large protest organised by the <a href="https://twitter.com/UpTheElephant_?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">Up the Elephant campaign</a> (which includes the 35% Campaign) marked the centre’s closure and commemorated the people who had worked there, many from for black and ethnic minorities, and its role as a social hub for the Latin American community in particular. The campaign has long fought against the demolition and Delancey’s redevelopment plans and while the centre’s fate was lamented, speakers also noted the gains that the campaign had made - <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-07-09-delancey/">more social housing</a>, affordable retail space as well as <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-10-30-shopping-centre-legal-challenge/">new premises for some displaced traders</a>, along with transition and relocation funding.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/scentremarch.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>What the Papers say…</h2>
<p>There was extensive press and media coverage of the closure and protest, including articles on the <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/10407">SE1 website</a>, <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/traders-appeal-for-new-market-stalls-in-last-ditch-attempt-to-save-businesses-before-shopping-centre-closes/">Southwark News</a>, <a href="https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/london-mayor-sadiq-khan-welcomes-plans-for-a-new-market-for-elephant-and-castle-shopping-centre-traders-as-historic-market-closes-after-more-than-half-a-century/">South London Press</a>, <a href="https://www.swlondoner.co.uk/news/19092020-elephant-and-castle-traders-speak-ahead-of-shopping-centres-demolition/">South West Londoner</a>, <a href="https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/elephant-and-castle-shopping-centre-closes-doors-good-0">Morning Star</a>, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/sep/24/were-going-to-miss-the-community-elephant-and-castle-shopping-centre-closes-after-55-years?CMP=share_btn_tw">The Guardian</a> (and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/24/developers-ruining-cities-elephant-and-castle-london">here</a>), <a href="https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/london-mayor-sadiq-khan-welcomes-plans-for-a-new-market-for-elephant-and-castle-shopping-centre-traders-as-historic-market-closes-after-more-than-half-a-century/">the Justice Gap</a>, <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/z3edxj/elephant-and-castle-london-regeneration-shopping-centre">Vice</a> and the Spanish language <a href="https://twitter.com/ExpNewsUK/status/1309329889481424896/photo/1">Express News UK</a> (and <a href="https://twitter.com/ExpNewsUK/status/1309107760479571971/photo/1">here</a>) and the BBC’s <a href="https://twitter.com/UpTheElephant_/status/1309258295048314880">Drivetime with Eddie Nestor</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/scentreprotest.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Amongst the comments from protest speakers highlighted in <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/10407">SE1 website</a> were those from Patria Roman of <a href="https://latinelephant.org/map/">Latin Elephant</a>, a mainstay of the campaign, and trader Emad Megahed.</p>
<p>Patria expressed her sadness at the closure of the shopping centre but noted that campaigning efforts had yielded improvements in the support provided by developers and the council to local traders.</p>
<p><em>‘I am incredibly proud of all we achieved,’</em> she said.</p>
<p><em>‘If today we can say that some traders have been relocated, it is because the campaigners fought fiercely. Everything they have is because campaigners fought for it. Nothing came for free.’</em></p>
<p>Emad said - <em>‘I am so proud of my community. I am proud that my community stuck together – whatever nationality ... we all speak the same language, the language of love, and sticking together as one. That's the lesson we want to teach our kids.’</em></p>
<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/24/developers-ruining-cities-elephant-and-castle-london">The Guardian</a> noted <em>‘the shadow of decades of underinvestment’</em></p>
<p>and commented-</p>
<p><em>‘rarely has a managed decline been so obvious, or so long-winded’</em></p>
<p>adding-</p>
<p><em>‘you don’t need to love the shopping centre as it is right now (or at all), or worry about what happens after its demolition to the meeting places, public spaces and social bonds it offers, …. to raise questions about who must leave and who can stay, when the developers arrive in town’</em>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/scentreguardian.png" alt="" /></p>
<p><a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/traders-appeal-for-new-market-stalls-in-last-ditch-attempt-to-save-businesses-before-shopping-centre-closes/">Southwark News</a>
also covers the rebuttal of Southwark Council and Delancey claims that nearly all traders have been satisfactorily relocated. It quotes Latin Elephant, which has <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/nearly-30-elephant-and-castle-traders-rejected-for-delancey-relocation-units/">profiled those turned down for new premises or unable to find appropriate space</a>, and who say-</p>
<p><em>‘Our research has been widely documented, and it was carried out independently with an effort to enforce transparency and accountability. This has been discussed several times with Southwark Council and Delancey. It is unacceptable to see the closure of the Shopping Centre with many traders still without relocation, so we will continue our advocacy work in a constructive way to support the local community.’</em></p>
<h2>The Mayor responds to traders’ proposal</h2>
<p>A day before the centre’s closure Mayor Sadiq Khan <a href="https://twitter.com/se1/status/1308803401757659136/photo/1">responded</a> to the <a href="https://35percent.org/2020-09-14-shopping-centre-traders-propose-new-stalls-for-the-elephant/">traders' proposal for new market stalls </a> to accommodate traders who have not been allocated new premises.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/traders-appeal-for-new-market-stalls-in-last-ditch-attempt-to-save-businesses-before-shopping-centre-closes/">Southwark News</a> and <a href="https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/london-mayor-sadiq-khan-welcomes-plans-for-a-new-market-for-elephant-and-castle-shopping-centre-traders-as-historic-market-closes-after-more-than-half-a-century/">The South London Press</a> highlighted the response. The Mayor, quoted in the SLP, says <em>‘It is disappointing that a number of small businesses still don’t have the certainty they need….in general I would welcome any workable solution that would provide these businesses with the space they need to trade’</em> while cautioning that the traders’ proposal <em>‘would be subject to various planning and licensing consents’</em> making it <em>‘not appropriate’</em> to comment on the specific plans being presented.</p>
<p>The traders' proposal is supported by <a href="https://twitter.com/FloEshalomi/status/1306540256578203648">Florence Eshalomi</a> MP, London Assembly member for Lambeth and Southwark, local councillor <a href="https://twitter.com/mariaadderley?lang=en">Maria Linforth-Hall</a> and London Assembly members <a href="https://twitter.com/CarolinePidgeon/status/1306979203066327043/photo/1">Caroline Pidgeon</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/sianberry">Sian Berry</a>, the Green Party candidate for Mayor. The <a href="https://twitter.com/cambpecklab">Camberwell and Peckham Labour Party Constituency Party</a> also passed a motion in support of the traders’ Proposal at their meeting last week.</p>
<p>The traders and their supporters will now be building on this support to get new market stalls and kiosks for those traders without new premises and repair some of the damage done to their businesses and livelihoods, by the centre closure.</p>
The Elephant traders who face the end without new homes2020-09-22T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2020-09-20-the-elephant-traders-who-face-the-end-without-new-homes/<p>Shopping centre developer Delancey and Southwark Council have mounted a desperate defence of their failed trader’ relocation strategy, with a <a href="https://elephantandcastletowncentre.co.uk/news/elephant-and-castle-town-centre-relocation-correcting-the-misinformation-and-providing-the-facts/">joint statement</a> claiming that all qualifying businesses have been relocated or offered relocation options <em>‘without question’</em>. The centre is due to close on Thursday.</p>
<p>The very same joint statement reveals, however, that only <a href="https://elephantandcastletowncentre.co.uk/news/elephant-and-castle-town-centre-relocation-correcting-the-misinformation-and-providing-the-facts/">40 traders have actually been found new premises</a> through the relocation process, a fraction of the approximately <a href="https://latinelephant.org/map/">130 independent businesses</a> identified in January 2018 by Southwark, as operating at the Elephant [^1]. Much of the rest of the joint statement is a lengthy account of how this much larger figure has been was reduced to just forty traders through the relocation process. The statement also outlines <em>‘options’</em> available to the unfortunate traders who have nowhere to go and makes self-justifying excuses for this miserable outcome.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/lescreenshot.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The joint statement also attacks what it calls <em>‘uncorroborated statistics’,</em> <a href="https://35percent.org/2020-08-31-southwark-responds-to-shopping-centre-campaigners/">which show that at least 40 traders will have nowhere to go when the centre closes</a>, and online <em>‘misinformation’</em>. This is clearly aimed at the <a href="https://twitter.com/UpTheElephant_?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">Up the Elephant campaign</a>, including the 35% Campaign and, in particular, <a href="https://latinelephant.org/#Onubas">Latin Elephant</a>, who have worked tirelessly to support the traders.</p>
<p>Latin Elephant has issued <a href="https://latinelephant.org/public-statement-on-traders-without-relocation/">its own rebuttal</a>, noting that Delancey and Southwark have now themselves admitted in the joint statement that only 40 traders have been found new premises, <em>‘leaving about 40 traders who have been trading at least since January 2019 (as per the s106 agreement) without alternative premises’</em>. Latin Elephant’s rebuttal also includes links to all the <a href="https://latinelephant.org/map/">supporting research evidence</a> on the fate of traders, through the regeneration process. This research names the independent businesses, maps their location and gives relevant dates.</p>
<h2>Who gets to be eligible?</h2>
<p>As Latin Elephant explains, while 130 independent businesses were recognised by Southwark as operating within the red-line of the development in January 2018 (the date of the first hearing for the shopping centre planning application), Delancey and Southwark take only 79 <em>‘eligible’</em> businesses as the base-line in their account of the relocation process, excluding many long-standing businesses. Delancey and Southwark then whittle the 79 ‘eligible’ businesses down to forty businesses, in successive stages– 64 applications received, 61 valid, 40 found new premises. (Southwark has acknowledged on its website that there are <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/regeneration/elephant-and-castle?chapter=13">33 eligible traders remaining without a relocation offer</a>, but that is not mentioned in the joint statement).</p>
<p>The <em>‘options’</em> for those not awarded premises are to search for somewhere else themselves, through a commercial premises database. If they do not find anywhere, they will receive payments of around £8000. The inadequacy of these <em>‘options’</em> hardly needs stating. The database has been a constant source of frustration to traders, who have criticised it for being out of date and listing premises that are simply too expensive and too far away. An £8000 payment is also very little compensation for the loss of a livelihood, built up over many years and a long way short of what is needed to re-establish a business; one of <a href="https://35percent.org/2020-08-24-shopping-centre-traders-expelled-by-regeneration/">our previous blogposts</a> has the stories of traders of up to 20 years standing who are in this situation.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/traderscomp.jpeg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>No commitments</h2>
<p>Delancey and Southwark’s joint statement also takes pains to say that there was never a commitment to relocate all the traders. This is shamefully true – it is to Southwark’s great discredit that it <a href="https://35percent.org/2020-08-31-southwark-responds-to-shopping-centre-campaigners/">ignored evidence from Latin Elephant</a> that this situation was bound to arise, because there was only half the space required for a proper trader relocation in Delancey’s redevelopment plans, but <a href="https://35percent.org/2020-08-31-southwark-responds-to-shopping-centre-campaigners/">Southwark went ahead and approved the plans nonetheless</a>.
Notwithstanding the lack of a formal commitment, Southwark still created the impression that all traders would be accommodated; when asked directly by councillors at the planning meeting for Castle Sq, one of the relocation sites, whether <a href="https://twitter.com/elephant_petit/status/1081278395504197633"><em>‘given all of the different site…does that cover…enough sites for all of the current number of traders…..How many short would we be roughly?’</em></a> council officers replied <a href="https://twitter.com/elephant_petit/status/1081278395504197633"> <em>‘…across the piste there should be sufficient’.</em></a>
By their own <a href="https://latinelephant.org/#Onubas">testimonies</a> traders also confirm that they have been strung along with false hopes of relocation space throughout the relocation process.</p>
<h2>Stall-holders do it for themselves</h2>
<p>Faced with the loss of their businesses the market stallholders who occupy the ‘moat’ that surrounds the shopping centre have banded together to draft <a href="https://latinelephant.org/elephant-castle-relocation-proposal/">a Proposal for more market stalls at the Elephant</a>, after the centre’s closure.
The Proposal was received by <a href="https://twitter.com/FloEshalomi/status/1306540256578203648">Florence Eshalomi</a>, London Assembly member for Lambeth and Southwark, who met the traders at City Hall, gave strong support and <a href="https://twitter.com/FloEshalomi/status/1306540256578203648">undertook to take up the matter with Mayor Sadiq Khan</a>. Local councillor <a href="https://twitter.com/mariaadderley?lang=en">Cllr Maria Linforth-Hall</a> also met the traders and is giving her support, as are Assembly members <a href="https://twitter.com/CarolinePidgeon/status/1306979203066327043/photo/1">Caroline Pidgeon</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/sianberry">Sian Berry</a>, Assembly Member and the Green Party candidate for Mayor.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/proposal1.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The <a href="https://twitter.com/cambpecklab">Camberwell and Peckham Labour Party Constituency Party</a> also passed a motion in support of the traders’ Proposal at their meeting last week.</p>
<h2>…while UAL looks after itself</h2>
<p>Sadly, the <a href="https://www.arts.ac.uk/about-ual">University of the Arts London (UAL)</a> has not felt able to help the traders, nearly all of whom come from black and ethnic minority backgrounds and despite its professed commitment to <a href="https://www.arts.ac.uk/about-ual/press-office/stories/black-lives-matter">Black Lives Matter</a>. In letters received by Southwark Law Centre UAL declines to either withdraw from the shopping centre redevelopment <a href="https://www.alliesandmorrison.com/projects/london-college-of-communication">which will supply it with a new campus for the London College of Communication</a> on the very spot traders now occupy, nor to offer support for the traders’ Proposals for additional market stalls. UAL is instead happy to take Southwark and Delancey’s assurances that all traders are being properly treated at face value.</p>
<h2>Division and attrition</h2>
<p>Southwark and Delancey’s treatment of the people who actually work at the Elephant now can be summed up as ‘division and attrition’. The relocation strategy and traders’ participation in decisions on their future were only put in place after Delancey had gained planning committee approval for their scheme. Latin Elephant’s advocacy on behalf of all the BAME traders was also resisted. The s106 legal agreement (negotiated between Southwark, Delancey and UAL), which determines who was ‘eligible’ and who was ineligible for relocation support uses formal criteria around leases and licences that do not reflect the way the community has developed over the years. Alongside this, the decline in footfall and in the physical fabric of the centre led to a decline in trade that unsurprisingly meant that traders left before the centre’s closure, wearied beyond hope by the whole ‘regeneration’ process.</p>
<p>For Southwark and Delancey this is all part of the natural process of regeneration and relocating just 40 out of 130 traders is a triumph to be proud of. For the traders and the campaigners who support them it is deplorable outcome which exposes the hollow promise that the Elephant and Castle regeneration is providing a 'fairer future' for the local community.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/spd.png" alt="" />
<em>Southwark Council's <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/development-plan/supplementary-planning-documents-spd/spd-by-area?chapter=4">Planning Framework for E&C regeneration.</a></em></p>
<h2>Going, but not forgotten...</h2>
<p>You can see <a href="https://youtu.be/U_41XM1_VSc">a short valedictory film</a>, by Emile Scott Burgoyne, celebrating the Elephant community <a href="https://youtu.be/U_41XM1_VSc">here</a>.</p>
<p>[^1]: See <a href="https://elephantandcastletowncentre.co.uk/news/elephant-and-castle-town-centre-relocation-correcting-the-misinformation-and-providing-the-facts/">joint statement</a>, heading 'Who is being relocated?', first bullet point.</p>
Shopping Centre traders propose new stalls for the Elephant2020-09-14T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2020-09-14-shopping-centre-traders-propose-new-stalls-for-the-elephant/<p>Traders who will be losing their market stalls when the Elephant and Castle shopping closes have come up with <a href="https://latinelephant.org/elephant-castle-relocation-proposal/">their own proposal for new stalls</a> at the Elephant. Around forty traders face the loss of their businesses and livelihoods when the Centre closes its doors for the last time on 24 September.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://latinelephant.org/elephant-castle-relocation-proposal/">traders’ proposals</a> are for new stalls to be sited around the Faraday Memorial, by the railway arches along Archer St and outside the new Elephant Arcade, at the bottom of Perronet House.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/proposal1.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Traders are proposing at least 45 new stalls. Most of the new stalls would be around the large silver Faraday Memorial in the middle of the Elephant roundabout. This will become an even more important commuter route between the train station and the tube stations, with the closure of the shopping centre. The proposal would keep established traders at the heart of the Elephant and maintain the ‘sense of place’ that they have created. The proposal builds upon a <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7961">previous Transport for London (TfL) project</a>, from 2014, but never delivered.</p>
<p>The proposal has been sent to the Mayor of London for his support. The land around the Faraday memorial is owned by TfL, which the Mayor leads.</p>
<p>Local London Assembly member Florence Eshalomi MP has submitted a <a href="https://twitter.com/se1/status/1303737672565960706/photo/1">formal question to the Mayor</a> asking him if he will support the proposals.</p>
<p>Traders are also looking for support from local councillors from all parties and representatives at the London Assembly.</p>
<p>Traders believe that with wholehearted support from the Mayor, Southwark Council, councillors and London Assembly members, all the displaced traders from the shopping centre can be found new homes. <a href="https://35percent.org/2020-08-31-southwark-responds-to-shopping-centre-campaigners/">Only 45 out of 97 traders had secured relocation space</a>, up to the end of April 2020.</p>
<p>The proposal was devised by Alice Chilangwa Farmer and is supported by the Up the Elephant Campaign, Latin Elephant and Southwark Law Centre. If adopted it would provide shopping options and continuity to a local community facing a prolonged period of disruption and construction work.</p>
<p>The complete proposal can be found <a href="https://latinelephant.org/elephant-castle-relocation-proposal/">here</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/proposal2.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>This is what the traders and supporters have to say;</p>
<p>Trader Shapoor Amini says: ‘ I’ve worked at this market since 2001. These people promised us so many things, they said we’ll give you a space, we’ll look after you guys, but they’ve done nothing for us. …I applied so many times—I’ve made calls, been to the council, been to the office, done lots of paperwork […] been to countless meetings, and still nothing. My whole life has been spent in this market, in this area, and now I don’t know what to do…..I have a kids, a wife it is very difficult’.</p>
<p>Trader Edmund Attoh says: ‘I’m working here over 20 years. Things are very difficult people who have been here for a long time didn’t get nothing. That’s what we don’t understand, that’s why we are frustrated. We don’t know where we are going now. I applied for a space, and anything they asked, we give to them. They turned us down. But they didn’t say [why].’</p>
<p>Traders Mathew and Eden Onuba say: ‘We’ve been 5 years at Elephant and Castle. We don’t know what to do in September, it is a very difficult situation. I don’t want much, but to save the business we’ve built up together.’</p>
Southwark responds to shopping centre campaigners2020-08-31T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2020-08-22-southwark-responds-to-shopping-centre-campaigners/<p>Southwark Council has posted a <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/regeneration/elephant-and-castle?chapter=13">lengthy statement</a> in defence of its treatment of the shopping centre traders, as around <a href="https://latinelephant.org/displaced-traders-with-no-relocation/#Sayed">40 face the loss of their livelihood</a> when the centre closes on 24 September, according to research by local charity Latin Elephant.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/traderscompunallocated.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The updated statement tries to answer the fierce criticism of Southwark and developer Delancey from the traders and their supporters, as voiced on the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p08pkr7b">BBC Radio London's Drive time with Eddie Nestor</a> programme and detailed in <a href="https://twitter.com/LatinElephant?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">Latin Elephant's twitter feed</a>.</p>
<p>Southwark's statement says that 45 traders have been relocated, with 33 'remaining'. Thirty-one of the 'remaining' unallocated traders, <a href="https://twitter.com/LatinElephant">with nowhere to go</a>, have received £3000 each from the Business Transition Grant. They will receive a second payment of an unspecified amount <em>'near the closure of the shopping centre'</em> ; given the number of traders and the total size of the Business Transition Grant fund (£200k) this is likely to be about another £3000. Southwark also say that unallocated traders <em>'are able to claim from the relocation fund'</em> - a consolation, no doubt, but of limited use to them if they have nowhere to relocate to.</p>
<p>Other than this the statement details various generic <em>'business support'</em> measures, such as access to websites and databases and advice from <em>'independent business and relocation advisor'</em> Tree Shepherd (remote access only).</p>
<p>The inadequacy of these <em>'business support'</em> measures barely needs stating; if they were of any use nearly half of the remaining traders would not be without new premises. Our webpage <a href="https://35percent.org/traders-expelled-by-regeneration/">E&C Traders with nowhere to go</a> has the testimonies of six unallocated traders, who have been at the centre for between eight and 20 years each (a total of nearly a hundred years between them). They are all experienced traders who would otherwise be continuing in their trade, but for the regeneration. They deserve something more than ineffectual promises of help, with a derisory £6000 to see them on their way, come 24 September.</p>
<h2>The Relocation Fund</h2>
<p>While Southwark says <em>'the Relocation Fund (£647,835) has been available for eligible traders ...from February 2020'</em> traders have not in fact been getting the money they need because Southwark, Delancey and Tree Shepherd have shown no urgency in resolving issues around the costs of fit-outs and lease and rent arrangements. Southwark says these are being <em>'currently'</em> resolved, when there is less than a month to go before closure. There is also no on-the-ground practical help, of the kind Tree Shepherd should be providing. This can be excused to an extent by the Covid crisis, but that does not help the traders.</p>
<p>Each relocation payment will be based on the size of the new premise, but averages out at £14,396 per trader - less than a tenth of Tree Shepherd's fee of £192,900 for administering the whole exercise [^1]. The payments are only designed to meet actual relocation costs - they do not include any compensation for loss of business, premises, disturbance etc.</p>
<p>The total amount in the Relocation Fund is derisory in comparison to the Delancey's anticipated profit of £148.4m [^2]. Southwark attempts to address this, saying <em>'Delancey have long agreed to supplement the relocation fund on a case by case basis'</em>. This turns out to be Delancey's hardship fund, awarded entirely at Delancey's discretion and only after traders have first considered raising loans from family, friends or elsewhere. An alternative method would be to simply assess the actual costs of relocating and paying anything above the paltry amount currently on offer. Delancey has also helpfully advised that traders could become Uber drivers.</p>
<h2>Southwark's statement - the highlights</h2>
<p>Several other parts of Southwark's statement stand out, one for being particularly inane;</p>
<p><em>'For many smaller traders this is an opportunity to grow and develop their business.'</em></p>
<p>There has never been true at any point since the redevelopment of the shopping centre was first proposed three years ago and it certainly isn't true now.</p>
<p>Southwark also claim that <em>'The council is committed to enabling the largest possible number of existing businesses to remain in the area'</em> .</p>
<p>If Southwark was genuinely committed to keeping the largest number of businesses in the area it would not have approved a planning application that did not guarantee this. Southwark's planning department was happy to recommend, in 2017, a scheme that did not then have one of the main relocation sites (Castle Square). It continued to recommend a scheme without a fully realised relocation strategy, which <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=49413">the planning committee duly approved</a>. Delancey designed the redevelopment to exclude current independent traders and Southwark went along with them [^3].</p>
<p>Southwark's statement further says, <em>'Unfortunately there were always going to be traders that were not able to be offered a unit in
the relocation spaces listed owing to space restrictions.'</em></p>
<p>This is not what Southwark said back in December 2018, when the question was raised at the planning meeting for the temporary relocation facility at Castle Square. When asked directly by councillors <a href="https://twitter.com/elephant_petit/status/1081278395504197633"><em>'given all of the different site...does that cover...enough sites for all of the current number of traders.....How many short would we be roughly?'</em></a> council officers replied <a href="https://twitter.com/elephant_petit/status/1081278395504197633"> <em>'...across the piste there should be sufficient'</em></a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/boxpar3.jpeg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Southwark ignored the true state of affairs, revealed by Latin Elephant's planning objection in July 2018, which said <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!HvOs1eG7BYgl0hYZ8SIm5w%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d"> <em>'Only 2,050sqm of affordable retail space would be available for immediate relocation, and 4,005sqm is needed'</em> </a> and approved the scheme anyway [^4]. Southwark was also well aware that <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!HvOs1eG7BYgl0hYZ8SIm5w%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d"> <em>'Market stall operators may experience temporary or permanent closure or disruption to business operations, financial or other barriers to re-opening at the new development or in the wider area'</em> ,</a> but this did not lead them to seek improvements in the scheme or to insist on a fully realised relocation strategy, agreed with traders, before giving planning approval [^5].</p>
<h2>Gone - but not forgotten</h2>
<p>While Southwark has been forced to turn its attention to the remaining traders, it would be easy to forget the traders, services and leisure amenities that have already been lost to the regeneration. Latin Elephant/petit Elephant research shows that there were around <a href="https://latinelephant.org/map/">130 traders in January 2018</a>; now we have about ninety left, with <a href="https://latinelephant.org/displaced-traders-with-no-relocation/#Sayed">only about half reallocated</a>. Forty or so more have already gone, and have fallen out of Southwark's reckoning, forced to leave, as footfall and business declined, wearied beyond hope by the whole 'regeneration' process.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/palacebingo.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Amongst these are the <a href="https://www.palacebingo.co.uk/london-palace/">London Palace bingo hall</a>, one of Britain's largest, with its <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/demolition-elephant-castle-shopping-centre-bingo-hall-impact-bme-elderly-ladies-break-community/">large customer base in the BAME community</a>; the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/londonbowling/">Palace Superbowl</a> bowling alley, much loved by local students; the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coronet">Coronet live music night-club</a>, an entertainment venue since 1872; the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S_S3ZNZYq8">Charlie Chaplin pub</a>, the many small office businesses in <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/4703">Hannibal House</a>, just above the centre, which also housed a <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7978">college</a>, charities and voluntary organisations and the <a href="https://www.uvwunion.org.uk/news/uvw-needs-new-home">United Voices of the World</a> trade union. In Southwark's happy reality they no longer exist and so their loss does not count.</p>
<p>The true story about the shopping centre redevelopment is the same as it was for the <a href="https://35percent.org/heygate-regeneration-faq/">Heygate estate regeneration</a> - Southwark Council has thrown its lot in with the developers, Lendlease and Delancey, and what happens to the people who actually live and work at the Elephant has been an afterthought.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: <a href="https://www.docdroid.net/wIuSC8m/shoppingcentres106-pdf">Elephant and Castle Shopping Centre s106 Agreement</a> pg 113</p>
<p>[^2]: <a href="https://www.docdroid.net/wIuSC8m/shoppingcentres106-pdf">Elephant and Castle Shopping Centre s106 Agreement</a> Appendix 10 pg 266</p>
<p>[^3]: Delancey's view of the independent traders was made clear in their <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!LnbCaTCiMmUoN4H%2fUA2yyg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">Planning Statement</a>, which says <em>‘…some existing retailers in the area are benefitting from disproportionately low levels of rent for such a central London location and it may not be financially viable for them to survive in the wider area over the longer term’</em> para 8.7.</p>
<p>[^4]: <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!HvOs1eG7BYgl0hYZ8SIm5w%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">Officer's Report Elephant and Castel Shopping Centre</a> 3 July 2018 para 851</p>
<p>[^5]: <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!HvOs1eG7BYgl0hYZ8SIm5w%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">Officer's Report Elephant and Castel Shopping Centre</a> 3 July 2018 para 169</p>
The shopping centre traders expelled by regeneration2020-08-24T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2020-08-15-shopping-centre-traders-expelled-by-regeneration/<p>In <a href="https://35percent.org/2020-08-03-UAL-campaigners-demand-withdrawal-black-lives-matter/">our last blog post</a> we detailed how Up the Elephant and other campaigners had written to the University of the Arts, London (UAL), informing them that at least 28 traders had not been relocated new premises, as they face the closure of their businesses, to make way for the demolition and redevelopment of the shopping centre. <a href="https://latinelephant.org/displaced-traders-with-no-relocation/">Analysis by Latin Elephant</a> puts the number of traders in peril at between fourty and fifty.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/lescreenshot.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>All the displaced traders (bar one) come from black and ethnic minority backgrounds and the <a href="https://southwarknotes.wordpress.com/2020/07/27/elephant-shopping-centre-university-of-the-arts-london-displaced-traders-and-black-lives-matter/">campaigner's letter</a> demanded that UAL withdraw from the redevelopment, which includes a new UAL campus, in line with its <a href="https://www.arts.ac.uk/about-ual/press-office/stories/black-lives-matter">Black Lives Matter statement</a> <em>“We aim to build our anti-racism commitments through collective engagement into actions that make a meaningful difference.”</em></p>
<h2>No reply from UAL</h2>
<p>Nearly a month after the letter was sent no reply has been received. We are printing below the stories of six of the displaced traders, in their own words, to prompt UAL into giving some thought to those who are losing their livelihoods so that they can benefit from shiny new premises. Southwark Council and developer Delancey might also want to take heed.</p>
<h2>Nassim Cheraitain</h2>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/trader1.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>My name is Nassim Cheraitian, I’ve been trading at Elephant and Castle market for over 20 years. The closing down of the Shopping Centre, for us, wasn’t good news, because they haven’t helped us. For the last three, four, five years business has been down, we’ve been losing, losing... they promised us they would help to find us to find a new unit but they didn’t. I applied, they asked us for all our details [...] we provided them with everything. After that they said that there isn’t space for everyone. And it’s been left like this. We don’t have anywhere to go. They [the council] gave us £3000, but honestly it’s not really [been helpful]. £3000 is nothing — three years ago they told us they would help us, so all that time we’ve been waiting, the business has gone down, we’ve been losing money, losing customers every day, and we were waiting to get something back. Instead we got £3000. I don’t have any plans, as I’ve been waiting to get this promised help from the council [...] we’ve been here for too long for them to leave us like this [...] [my customers] are unhappy, they think it is unfair to us, we’ve been here too long to be left with nothing—no shop, no unit, nothing.</p>
<h2>Shapoor Amini</h2>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/trader2.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>My name is Shapoor Amini, I’ve worked at this market since 2001. These people promised us so many things, they said we’ll give you a space, we’ll look after you guys, but they’ve done nothing for us. Some people who were [trading] here for one year, two years, 6 months, they got a space. Me, I’ve been here 20 years, and they gave me nothing; they just said sorry, sorry, you still need to wait. And I don’t know what’s going on. I had someone who worked for me who got a space! But I’ve been here for twenty years and nothing. I applied so many times—I’ve made calls, been to the council, been to the office, done lots of paperwork [...] been to countless meetings, and still nothing. I don’t know why not, they never talk to us face to face. They sent letters out [...]some people got something, others didn’t [...] everybody knows me here [...] customers come to me as say ‘where is your new space?’, and I say I don’t know. My whole life has been spent in this market, in this area, and now I don’t know what to do. It’s very difficult for me. I have a kids, a wife... they said if you find yourself a shop we will help you. But at this late stage how can I find a shop? [...] they promised us too much. Places are asking for a £30,000 deposit, it is very difficult.</p>
<h2>Edmund Attoh</h2>
<p>My name is Edmund, I’m working here [at the market] over 20 years. Things are very difficult, they gave a space to some people, who’d been here 5 years, 4 years, 2 years, people who have been here for a long time didn’t get nothing. That’s what we don’t understand, that’s why we are frustrated. We don’t know where we are going now. I applied for a space, and anything they asked, we give to them. They turned us down. But they didn’t say [why]. It has affected us [...] someone who has been here for 20 years, and suddenly they say go. We don’t know where we are going. It is very hard for us. My customers always call me and ask where we are going. But we don’t know what to tell them [...] that is a problem for us [...] we’re looking to them (the council) [...] we need help.</p>
<h2>Mohammed Jamal</h2>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/trader4.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>My name is Mohammed Jamal, I’m working in the market the last 8 years. I’m in a very bad situation, because I haven’t found a relocation [...] I’ve got four children, and i’ve got no choice [but to work at the market] because I’m more than 55 now, and can’t find any other suitable job, and I’ve also got an illness I take medicine for [...] customers ask ‘where are you going’ I said I still can’t find relocation [...] because the council says there is no more relocation, it is all full. But I am still waiting for something to come up. One lady told me I’m not even on the waiting list [...] she said your application is on file but not on the waiting list [...] because there are so many people and the relocation spaces are limited [...] I applied many times for a space [...] and a small shop is alright for me [...] I sent many emails, but no answer. The feeling of not having anything is very painful. If someone doesn’t speak English very well, or is softly spoken [...] I am very soft, not talking a lot. That could be why no-one helped me.</p>
<h2>Muhammad Raza</h2>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/trader5.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>My name is Muhammad Raza, I’m working here since 2006. The market is dead now, before it was alright, but slowly, slowly they are closing down shops, big stores—Tesco, Poundland, Boots is going—it’s really dead now so it’s really hard to survive. And because we don’t have a space we don’t know what to do. Tree Shepherd and Delancey aren’t answering our emails, actually I emailed two days ago and didn’t get a response. This morning Tree Shepherd called me and said ‘if you find yourself any shop, we’ll help you’, I said which kind of help? Because I’m looking for a shop [...] but if I look myself shops are £15,000, £20,000—I can’t afford that rent. And Tree Shepherd said they don’t have any affordable rents. If your looking for Castle Square or Elephant One, don’t even think about it [...] they said ‘we’ll help you’, but which kind of help? I don’t know. This has affected my business, my life, my family, I don’t know what to do next.</p>
<h2>Mohammed Al Waris</h2>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/trader6.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>"My name is Mohammed Al Waris, I’ve been trading at the Elephant and Castle market for the past 15 plus years. Throughout these years I’ve been selling fashion accessories, and I’ve made friendships within the local community. Recently what happened was that they tried to demolish the shopping centre, and that affected most of the traders’ lives, I’m one of them. We haven’t been offered anything. We were asked to pick three different locations—Castle Square, Perronet House, Elephant One—they haven’t offered me none of them. They haven’t told me [why], they just said we haven’t got any affordable unit for you guys. At the beginning they promised us, and then we suffer for the past three years, they closed the subway (underground walkway) and the business going down by about 80%. Two years before they came with an application, saying that we going to definitely relocate you 100%. Now we have one and a half months left to leave the market, and we can’t get any help from Tree Shepherd, or from Delancey. Every time we talk to the they say ‘sorry we haven’t got anything for you guys’, so we can’t do nothing. I believe we are entitled to a place in this area, cos they are making millions from this project, why can’t they help these traders? These traders have families they are trying to look after. By kicking them out, they are destroying their family life [...] I really hope they can think about these traders and help to move them to a place nearby the area, where they have their customers [...] they say you can’t stay in the area because this area, like Central London, is going to be very expensive. So where should we go? We don’t know."</p>
<h2>Our campaign...</h2>
<p>Our campaign is to get Nassim, Shapoor, Edmund, Mohammed, Mohummad, Mohammed and their fellow traders new premises or suitable compensation for the loss of their businesses. The power to do this lies with Southwark Council, Delancey and University of the Arts London (UAL), but time is running out fast - the centre is due to close on 24 September.</p>
<p>You can help us by sending a Twitter message to the Southwark Councillors responsible for this fiasco:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://twitter.com/peterjohn6">@peterjohn6</a> (Council Leader)</li>
<li><a href="https://twitter.com/rebeccalury">@rebeccalury</a> (Deputy Leader, Ward Cllr and Cabinet member for Equalites and Communities)</li>
<li><a href="https://twitter.com/MerrilDarren">@MerrilDarren</a> (Ward Cllr and Chair of the traders panel that was supposed to support traders)</li>
<li><a href="https://twitter.com/cllrmseaton">@cllrmseaton</a> (Ward Cllr and Chair of the Planning Committee)</li>
<li><a href="https://twitter.com/JohnsonSitu">@JohnsonSitu</a> (Cabinet member for Regeneration)</li>
<li><a href="https://twitter.com/Leo_Pollak">@Leo_Pollak</a> (Cabinet member for Social Regeneration)</li>
<li><a href="https://twitter.com/steviecryan">@steviecryan</a> (Cabinet member for Jobs, Business and Innovation)</li>
<li><a href="https://twitter.com/coyleneil">@coyleneil</a> (Local MP and Elephant & Castle resident)</li>
</ul>
<p>You can find <a href="https://35percent.org/traders-expelled-by-regeneration/">more infomation about the displaced traders can be found here</a>.</p>
Campaigners demand that UAL withdraws from shopping centre development.2020-08-03T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2020-08-03-UAL-campaigners-demand-withdrawal-black-lives-matter/<p>Campaigners fighting against the demolition and redevelopment of the Elephant and Castle shopping centre have demanded that the University of the Arts London (UAL) withdraw from <a href="https://35percent.org/uptheelephant/">the controversial scheme</a>. The demand was made in an <a href="https://southwarknotes.wordpress.com/2020/07/27/elephant-shopping-centre-university-of-the-arts-london-displaced-traders-and-black-lives-matter/">open letter</a> to the UAL's Rector, Sir Nigel Carrington.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/shameonual.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>UAL’s London College of Communication (LCC) is to benefit from <a href="https://www.arts.ac.uk/about-ual/press-office/stories/new-ual-campus-at-the-heart-of-proposals-for-elephant-and-castle-town-centre-regeneration">a new campus in the development</a>, after its current premises are demolished. The shopping centre is due to be closed at the end of September 2020. UAL is a key stakeholder, along with <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-05-05-manx-connections-the-off-shore-home-of-the-elephants-developers/">offshore developer Delancey</a> and a signatory of the s106 legal contract that underpins the development.</p>
<h2>Fifty traders with nowhere to go</h2>
<p>Campaigners wrote to Sir Nigel Carrington in response to UAL’s publication of a <a href="https://www.arts.ac.uk/about-ual/press-office/stories/black-lives-matter">statement in respect of the Black Live Matter</a> protests taking place across the world. In its statement, UAL declares:</p>
<p><em>“We aim to build our anti-racism commitments through collective engagement into actions that make a meaningful difference.”</em></p>
<p>The letter points out that many traders at the Shopping Centre have not been given any relocation space and they are all from black and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds. According to a Southwark Council report at least 28 of the displaced traders have not been offered relocation premises.[^1] Local charity <a href="https://latinelephant.org/">Latin Elephant</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/elephant_petit/status/1118825370017386496">Petite Elephant</a> has conducted their own research which shows the figure is nearer 50 traders.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/traderscomp.jpeg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Urgent action is needed now</h2>
<p>The letter goes on to state:</p>
<p><em>“Urgent action is now needed to rectify this distressing situation and it is within UAL’s power to effect this ... We are therefore asking UAL to withdraw from the redevelopment of the Elephant and Castle Shopping Centre if the organisation is genuinely committed to anti-racism.”</em></p>
<p>The letter says:</p>
<p><em>“UAL’s alleged commitment to anti-racism will not stand up to scrutiny if it allows the imminent erasure of this community in Elephant and Castle. In this case actions will prove to speak louder than words.”</em></p>
<p>Campaigners acknowledge that the London College of Communication (LCC) is itself an important part of the Elephant and Castle, but while so many traders from BAME backgrounds have suffered under the redevelopment LCC is a big winner, gaining a new, state-of-the art campus.</p>
<p>The letter’s signatories are Planning Voice <a href="https://www.southwarklawcentre.org.uk/">(Southwark Law Centre)</a>, <a href="https://latinelephant.org/">Latin Elephant</a>, <a href="https://35percent.org/uptheelephant/">Up the Elephant campaign</a>, Anita Israel <a href="https://twitter.com/AnitaWaithira">(#UALstillsowhite)</a>, Stand Up To Racism <a href="https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/protesters-join-stand-up-to-racism-southwark-on-march-against-prejudice/">(Southwark)</a> and <a href="https://southwarknotes.wordpress.com/">Southwark Notes</a>. The letter has been copied to Natalie Brett (Pro Vice Chair UAL), Stafford Lancaster, (Investment Director, Delancey) Cllr Peter John OBE, (Leader, Southwark Council).</p>
<p>The letter was sent on the 17 July 2020 and no reply had been received, at the date of this blog post.</p>
<h2>Southwark is listening, again...</h2>
<p>Simultaneously with UAL, Southwark Council is conducting its own 'listening exercise', <a href="https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/housing-community-services-department-community-engagement-team/southwark-stands-together/?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=">Southwark Stands Together</a>, asking anyone who lives, works or visits the borough about their experiences, so that they can <em>'identify solutions to address entrenched, persistent racism and injustice'</em>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/sst.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>But Southwark has been down this road before - <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/posts/6/">back in 2005</a>, London Mayor Ken Livingstone <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/dec/15/regeneration.communities">called</a> for the Commission for Racial Equality to investigate the Elephant’s regeneration, after shopping centre traders <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/1906">voiced concerns</a> about how they would be accommodated in the redevelopment. Southwark had already commissioned the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Council%20Assembly/20050324/Agenda/2%20-%20Independent%20Review%20ofthe%20Council's%20Equality%20and%20Diversity%20Framework%20by%20Lord%20HermanOuseley%20-%20appendix%201.pdf">Lord Herman Ouseley to investigate</a> its borough wide practices and in 2007 the Council’s Executive signed up to a <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Overview%20&%20Scrutiny%20Committee/20070709/Agenda/Attachment%202.pdf">‘Traders Charter’</a>, setting out how <em>'continuity of trading'</em> could be secured and how to facilitate '<em>..the
transfer of existing businesses to new trading locations'</em>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/fui.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Nobody should be left behind...</h2>
<p>So, the problems traders face because of the regeneration are well-known and long acknowledged. According to Southwark forty-five traders have been relocated, but as many still have nowhere to go [^2]. The <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/developer-delancey-submits-plans-for-castle-square-temporary-home-for-elephant-traders/">relocation</a> and <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/10093">transition</a> funds set up to assist traders are a fraction of the <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre/">£148.4m profit</a> Delancey stand to make from the redevelopment.</p>
<p>There can be no more blindingly obvious injustice than that <a href="https://35percent.org/2020-04-23-reality-for-traders-elephant-castle-shoppping-centre/">longstanding shopping centre traders</a>, all from BAME backgrounds, should face the loss of their stalls and premises, with no compensation and little prospect of continuing their businesses, to make way for a <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre/">profit-spinning development</a> that has no place for them.</p>
<p>We do not believe that between them the University of the Arts London, Southwark Council and Delancey with the vast resources at their command, cannot either find all traders new premises or pay them suitable compensation for the loss of their livelihoods. Now is the time for them to do so.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: Elephant and Castle Shopping Centre Progress Report <a href="https://moderngov.southwarksites.com/documents/s88161/Appendix%20D.pdf">Appendix D</a> para 23</p>
<p>[^2]: number of relocations given in email correspondence 24 April 2020</p>
Aylesbury estate regeneration to have new council homes2020-07-12T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2020-07-09-aylesbury-estate-fds-variation/<p>Southwark Council has announced that the First Development Site (FDS) of the Aylesbury estate regeneration will now deliver 581 council homes, increasing the number of social rented homes on the site by 280 units. The figures come from <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89813/Report%20Aylesbury%20Regeneration%20programme%20-%20Delivery%20of%20New%20Council%20Homes.pdf">a Cabinet report</a> to be considered on Tuesday 14 July. These will be the first new council homes on the regeneration.</p>
<p>Southwark will be paying for the new council homes, which will consist of 520 general needs, 54 flexi-care and 7 specialist learning homes, while Notting Hill Genesis will build them. This is a new <em>'arrangement'</em> ; previously the homes were to have been built and paid for by Notting Hill Genesis, under the terms of <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s53361/Report.pdf">a planning permission</a> granted to Notting Hill Housing Trust, as it then was, in 2015. Southwark will pay £193m in development cost; it will also forego a further £17.8m in lost receipts from NHG, giving a total cost of £210.8m. Two GLA grants, totalling £54.5m, would bring the cost down to £156.3m [^1].</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/combinedtotal.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89813/Report%20Aylesbury%20Regeneration%20programme%20-%20Delivery%20of%20New%20Council%20Homes.pdf">Tuesday's Cabinet report</a> approving the decision</em></p>
<h2>The good news</h2>
<p>Understandably, Southwark councillors are making the most of the gain in council housing, which is undeniably good news. Local housing campaigners, both on and off the estate can also take credit - <a href="https://35percent.org/aylesbury-estate/">reducing the loss of social housing</a> has been a consistent aim and at the centre of <a href="https://35percent.org/2017-05-08-aylesbury-cpo-what-has-really-happened/">many hard-fought battles</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/kierontweet.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>There are a couple of wrinkles though - a proportion of these social rented units will be needed to <a href="https://www.aylesburynow.london/web/uploads/files/New_Homes/Information-for-Aylesbury-Leaseholders.pdf">rehouse leaseholders</a> decanted from later phases. How many remains to be seen - Phase 2 and 3 has 62 leaseholders yet to be bought out and their options include the <a href="https://moderngov.southwarksites.com/documents/s74901/Report%20Amending%20the%20shared%20equity%20rehousing%20policy%20for%20qualifying%20homeowners%20affected%20by%20regenerati.pdf">new shared equity scheme</a> introduced in response to the Secretary of State's CPO <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/16/government-blocks-controversial-plan-to-force-out-housing-estate-residents">ruling</a> that BAME leaseholders were being wrongly displaced from their communities [^2].</p>
<p>Also, the report is silent on whether the new council housing means that there will be a reduction in the net loss of social rented housing in the overall regeneration, or whether it is simply social housing being brought forward from later phases in the regeneration. The outline planning permission granted to NHG, who remain responsible for delivering the rest of the regeneration's 2,745 units, still allows for a net loss of between 778 and 1,166 social rented units [^3].</p>
<h2>The not-so-good news</h2>
<p>Southwark Council presents the cost of building the new council and other FDS homes as being a reasonable £238.4k per unit. Southwark arrives at this figure by assuming receipt of two GLA grants, reducing development costs from £193m to £138.5m.</p>
<p>But only one GLA grant has been secured and leaving the unsecured grant out of the equation and including the loss of £17.8m from NHG (for the land, and contributions to infrastructure costs) gives a total cost to Southwark of £182m and a less flattering cost per unit of £313k.</p>
<p>Neither of the above calculations, though, take properly into account the major fact that, under the existing delivery arrangements with NHG Southwark was to pay nothing for the housing, including the 240 social rented units; this was to be met by NHG.</p>
<p>So, while Southwark is now to get 581 council homes, instead of 301 social rented homes, this net gain requires an outlay of £193m gross - equivalent to £690k for each of the extra 280 units [^4].</p>
<h2>NHG takes all the private housing</h2>
<p>NHG also get to keep part of the FDS land, so-called Package C, on which to build 261 homes for themselves, most of which, 170 units, will be private homes. These units comprise all the private housing on the FDS. There will also be 57 shared ownership, and 34 social rent [^5].</p>
<p>NHG will also continue to build the homes on Plot 18, most of which are again private - 99 private homes, 6 shared ownership and 17 social rent. (This is despite the fact that it is no longer paying £6m towards Plot 18's community infrastructure) [^6].</p>
<p>This is all in stark contrast to the what NHG was supposed to deliver across the whole FDS under the <a href="https://35percent.org/img/aylesburyDPA.pdf">Development Partnership Agreement (DPA)</a> between Southwark and NHG, signed in 2014. Under the DPA, NHG was obliged to provide at least 50% affordable housing, 75% of which social rent - now this requirement has been abandoned [^7].</p>
<h2>An explanation?</h2>
<p>NHG therefore appear to be walking away unscathed from their FDS obligations and while Southwark are getting many welcome council homes, they are having to dig deep financially to pay for them. The Cabinet report notes a knock-on effect for future housing investment [^8].</p>
<p>An explanation for all this lies with the Development Partnership Agreement, which gives NHG an effective 'viability veto' on the progress of the regeneration. A DPA clause allows NHG to decide whether or not a particular plot or phase can proceed, depending on its viability. This viability test includes a 21% 'priority return' of revenue to NHG and is determined by their own assessment.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/pvc.png" alt="" /></p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/nhtprofit.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>NHG's circumstances have also changed for the worse since it signed the DPA in 2014. It has been forced to <em>'significantly scale back'</em> its development pipeline, after a <a href="https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/notting-hill-genesis-scales-back-development-plans-amid-changing-market-conditions-62506">Regulator of Social Housing report</a> last August concluded NHG, with more than 400 unsold private market homes sitting on its books, <em>“faces a range of risks and exposure to sales”</em> .</p>
<p>Southwark, on the other hand, has invested heavily, both financially and politically, in delivering the Aylesbury regeneration. It has been decanting homes for nearly 10 years and now 500 or so stand empty, or are being used for temporary accommodation. The first FDS homes were supposed to have been completed this summer (a two-year delay on the original timetable), but much of the site is still rubble. Phase 2 is still not fully empty and no planning application has been submitted. Further delays can be expected for any compulsory purchase order and a demolition notice.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/phasingaylesburynow.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>It is therefore not difficult to see why Southwark might have felt compelled to make concessions to NHG, by taking over the delivery and meeting the cost of nearly all the affordable housing, while leaving all the revenue-generating free-market homes to NHG.</p>
<h2>NHG holds Southwark over a barrel - again</h2>
<p>Southwark has been forced to make such concessions twice before. In September 2016, Southwark agreed to <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s63817/Report.Aylesbury%20Regeneration%20Delivery.pdf">underwrite or advance £22.1 million</a> to NHG, for the FDS demolition and design costs, including a payment of £16.8m for demolition, that was to have been paid by NHG. This advance funding was to be recouped by the FDS land receipt, which will now not be paid. The <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s63817/Report.Aylesbury%20Regeneration%20Delivery.pdf">report agreeing</a> this also noted that Southwark was due to spend £52.5m on the Aylesbury regeneration by 2018/19 [^9].</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/nhttproceed.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>In 2018, NHG was awarded £30m of GLA grant funding for the first phase of the scheme. The <a href="https://35percent.org/img/aylesburyDPA.pdf">Development Partnership Agreement</a> set out that any grant funding awarded to the scheme should go to Southwark, such that it receives some kind of remuneration for the sale of its land (see para 4.1, page 111). But NHG forced Southwark to agree to a variation allowing it to pocket the entire £30m [^10].</p>
<h2>What next?</h2>
<p>Gaining 581 council homes is a boon for everyone in Southwark who depends upon social housing. Delivering these in the FDS phase also has the advantage that existing residents from later phases have a better chance of remaining on the Aylesbury.</p>
<p>But rescuing the Aylesbury regeneration is costing Southwark dearly. Southwark is plugging holes left by NHG's failure to deliver. Southwark is paying not just for council housing on its own account, but also for social rented housing that NHG should have paid for, and Southwark is doing this with money that could otherwise be spent on building more council housing elsewhere. Meantime NHG retains choice pieces of land, in the middle of the Aylesbury, to build nearly 270 private homes. No figures are given in Tuesday's cabinet report of how much NHG stand to make from this.</p>
<p>This is also not the first time Southwark have come to NHG's rescue. Southwark has also <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89813/Report%20Aylesbury%20Regeneration%20programme%20-%20Delivery%20of%20New%20Council%20Homes.pdf">spent £101m keeping the estate habitable</a>, while the regeneration stalls under NHG's stewardship [^11].</p>
<p>At least four of the DPA milestones haven't been met:</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/aylesburymilestones.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>....and Southwark has the right to terminate the DPA if Notting Hill doesn't meet milestones:</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/termination1.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>There is also a clause that allows the Council to terminate 3 years after it was first found that a plot wasn't viable:</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/termination2.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>It would be a serious matter for Southwark to consider such a step, but given its past performance and its present circumstances it would be no surprise if NHG do not return, asking for more concessions and for more money. If this does happen, Southwark should take stock of the situation and consider whether this is the best use of its money.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89813/Report%20Aylesbury%20Regeneration%20programme%20-%20Delivery%20of%20New%20Council%20Homes.pdf">Aylesbury Regeneration Programme: Delivery of new council homes on the First Development Site</a> paras 52, 54.</p>
<p>[^2]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89813/Report%20Aylesbury%20Regeneration%20programme%20-%20Delivery%20of%20New%20Council%20Homes.pdf">Aylesbury Regeneration Programme: Delivery of new council homes on the First Development Site</a> para 23, 29</p>
<p>[^3]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s53361/Report.pdf">Outline Planning Permission report 14/AP/3844</a> Table 14 para 97</p>
<p>[^4]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89813/Report%20Aylesbury%20Regeneration%20programme%20-%20Delivery%20of%20New%20Council%20Homes.pdf">Aylesbury Regeneration Programme: Delivery of new council homes on the First Development Site</a> para 50, 54</p>
<p>[^5]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89813/Report%20Aylesbury%20Regeneration%20programme%20-%20Delivery%20of%20New%20Council%20Homes.pdf">Aylesbury Regeneration Programme: Delivery of new council homes on the First Development Site</a> paras 55; <a href="https://aylesburynow.london/web/uploads/files/Planning_Application/section73_1/06_Design_addendum.pdf">S73 planning application Design Statement</a></p>
<p>[^6]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwarksites.com/documents/s78337/ITEM%207.1%207.2%20-%20REPORT%2017AP3885%2017AP3846.pdf">s73 Variation of Plot 18, 17/AP/3885</a> para 42; <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89813/Report%20Aylesbury%20Regeneration%20programme%20-%20Delivery%20of%20New%20Council%20Homes.pdf">Aylesbury Regeneration Programme: Delivery of new council homes on the First Development Site</a> para 53</p>
<p>[^7]: <a href="https://35percent.org/img/aylesburyDPA.pdf">Development Partnership Agreement (DPA)</a> Schedule 3 pg 83</p>
<p>[^8]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89813/Report%20Aylesbury%20Regeneration%20programme%20-%20Delivery%20of%20New%20Council%20Homes.pdf">Aylesbury Regeneration Programme: Delivery of new council homes on the First Development Site</a> para 64</p>
<p>[^9]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s63817/Report.Aylesbury%20Regeneration%20Delivery.pdf">Aylesbury Regeneration Delivery</a> para 16</p>
<p>[^10]: Evidence given at the The London Borough of Southwark (Aylesbury Estate Site 1b-1c) Compulsory Purchase Order 2014 Inquiry January 2018</p>
<p>[^11]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89813/Report%20Aylesbury%20Regeneration%20programme%20-%20Delivery%20of%20New%20Council%20Homes.pdf">Aylesbury Regeneration Programme: Delivery of new council homes on the First Development Site</a> para 15</p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image" />
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@35percent_EAN" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Notting Hill Genesis gets another Aylesbury estate bung" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Southwark forks out £210m for 280 extra social rented homes - £690k each home!!" />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/aylesburybung.png" />
Old Kent Rd scheme faces loss of affordable housing2020-05-01T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2020-05-01-old-kent-road-faces-loss-affordable-housing/<p><a href="https://www.berkeley-oldkentroad.co.uk/">Berkeley Homes</a> is the first developer in Southwark to threaten to reduce the affordable housing in one of its schemes, since the onset of the Coronavirus crisis. Berkeley secured planning permission for the <a href="https://35percent.org/2019-06-01-malt-street-berkeley-homes-old-kent-road/">Malt St development</a>, just off the Old Kent Rd, in June 2019, with a promise to build 40% affordable housing. Since then it has joined-up with Peabody, who had a smaller, neighbouring development on <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s77120/Item%203%20-%20Report%2017AP4596.pdf">Nyes Wharf</a>. Together the two sites will provide 1,569 new homes, with 40% affordable housing (359 at social rent and 222 shared-ownership), <a href="https://www.peabodysales.co.uk/blog/future-developments-sales-launches/peabody-secure-deal-to-deliver-224-new-shared-ownership-homes-in-southwark-in-collaboration-with-berkeley-homes/">delivered by Peabody</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/images/malt.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Now a <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88488/Report%20Mortgagee%20in%20possession%20S106%20clause-%20Malt%20Street%20redevelopment.pdf">planning committee briefing</a> reveals that this affordable housing is at <em>'risk'</em> because Berkeley intends to mount an appeal that will reopen the question of the viability of the scheme. To prevent this happening, the briefing recommends approval of an unprecedented clause in Southwark's s106 planning agreement with Berkeley, that could see all the affordable housing lost, should development partner, [Peabody] hit financial trouble.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.southwarklawcentre.org.uk/">Southwark Law Centre</a> has <a href="https://docdro.id/eG9icIa">written</a> to the planning committee, objecting to the proposed clause and requesting a deferral, to allow the serious issues it raises to be properly addressed.</p>
<h2>Why a Mortgagee in Possession (MIP) clause matters</h2>
<p>The planning committee is being asked to approve a so-called <a href="https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100211114">Mortgagee in Possession (MIP)</a> clause. Simply put, if a borrower cannot pay their mortgage, then the lender can take legal possession of the property and sell it - they become the 'mortgagee in possession' and up until now this has evidently been covered with a clause that keeps the affordable housing affordable <em>'in perpetuity'</em> .</p>
<p>The MIP clause proposed for Malt St is different - it will not secure the affordable housing <em>'in perpetuity'</em> , should Peabody fail. Instead, Southwark or another affordable housing provider would be given the option to take on the affordable housing, but if they do not, the affordable housing can then be sold onto the open market. If Southwark does buy the affordable housing, they would also have to pay anything outstanding <em>'under the terms of the relevant security documents, including all accrued principal monies, interest and costs and expenses'</em> [^1].</p>
<p>The MIP briefing is at pains to point out that such a situation is very unlikely to arise, because Peabody is in rude financial health; it has an annual turnover of £630m, an annual profit of £160m and assets of £7.6bn, so the possibility that it will fail is remote. The briefing reinforces the point by noting that no major housing association has ever gone into administration and quotes a <a href="https://www.housing.org.uk/globalassets/files/resource-files/gla_practice_note_mortgagee_in_possession_january_2019.pdf">GLA document</a> that says <em>'there is no known cases of a MIP clause being triggered.....'</em> [^2].</p>
<h2>Mayor of London opens the door...</h2>
<p>This all begs an obvious question - why replace a MIP clause that protects affordable housing, in all circumstances, even unlikely ones, with a clause that does not?</p>
<p>Part of the answer is that this is what the Mayor of London wants. As Southwark's briefing explains it, the Mayor wants <em>'a consistent approach to MIP clauses across the London boroughs and to secure greater access to funding for RPs (registered providers) to increase the delivery of affordable housing'</em>. The report continues; <em>'In order to achieve this, the GLA MIP clause would allow, in certain limited and unlikely circumstances, affordable housing to no longer be “in perpetuity”'</em> . The briefing notes that Southwark's own MIP clause is different from the Mayor's, precisely on this point; Southwark <strong>does</strong> require affordable housing to remain such <em>'in perpetuity'</em> , should a RP go into administration [^3].</p>
<h2>Peabody takes advantage</h2>
<p>Peabody also wants the GLA MIP adopted, because it would allow them to borrow more money for other projects. To quote the briefing <em>'Peabody have funds to deliver this scheme, but given the very large scale of the investment they are only willing to make such a commitment on the basis that they are able to secure additional funding in the future against the asset of the completed scheme'</em> . The report says that while the Malt St scheme is <em>'entirely financed by Peabody from its own investment'</em> Peabody nonetheless wants more private bank finance and needs to make more of its <em>'capital assets'</em> and the banks consider that the affordable housing <em>'asset is not sufficiently liquid'</em>. The briefing reiterates <em>'Peabody has confirmed that they cannot proceed as the RP [registered provider] partner in this scheme without this clause'</em> [^4].</p>
<h2>Berkeley turns the screw</h2>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/pidgley.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Berkeley backs Peabody, saying that it cannot, or will not, proceed without them. Berkeley goes on to threaten to reduce the affordable housing in the scheme, if the GLA MIP clause is not agreed, by way of an appeal to the government of <a href="https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200232/planning_applications/58/the_decision-making_process/8">'non-determination'</a>. Berkeley would argue that Southwark had failed to conclude the s106 legal agreement in the required time, and also reopen the question of the viability of the scheme [^5]. Berkeley has a track record for such manouvers; <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/03/berkeley-calls-affordable-housing-targets-unviable-as-chairman-earns-174m">this 2018 Guardian report</a> shows that Berkeley has reduced its affordable housing obligations using viability reviews in almost all of its London schemes.</p>
<p>Southwark's briefing tries to make the best of things; as well as emphasising the unlikelihood of any default, it claims that this decision will <em>'not therefore set a precedent for other schemes.'</em> The Mayor has different ideas - he wants to see <a href="https://www.housing.org.uk/globalassets/files/resource-files/gla_practice_note_mortgagee_in_possession_january_2019.pdf">his MIP clauses used across London</a> and says they will be used for anything he 'calls-in', (such as the <a href="https://35percent.org/2020-02-17-biscuit-factory-is-back/">Biscuit Factory</a>) and that he <em>'will promote their use for other schemes that are referable...and non-referable'</em> ie basically everything [^6].</p>
<h2>What we think</h2>
<p>A Mortgagee in Possession (MIP) s106 clause that has evidently been perfectly adequate up to now is to be changed, compromising the <em>'in perpetuity'</em> principle of affordable housing. The Mayor hopes that this will help meet his strategic 50% affordable housing target, but Peabody and Berkeley are not proposing 50% for the Malt St site. More generally, the Mayor has published no concrete commitment from developers and registered providers to increase affordable housing, in exchange for the Mayor's more market-friendly MIP.</p>
<p>So, while it would be easy for Southwark's planning committee to approve the clause in the almost sure knowledge that it will never be triggered and the affordable housing will remain as such, <em>'in perpetuity'</em> , they should nonetheless reject the Mayor's new MIP clause. It purports to facilitate a general increase in affordable housing, but there is no evidence before the committee that this will actually happen, either in Southwark or elsewhere. On the other hand, though, the Mayor's MIP will definitely weaken the <em>'in perpetuity'</em> status of affordable housing</p>
<p>This is the thin end of a very long wedge. These clauses have already been used in Islington, Tower Hamlets and Lambeth. They are being actively promoted by the GLA and the Mayor. Once they proliferate the whole principle of affordable housing being for <em>'in perpetuity'</em> will start to be lost and developers and their registered provider partners will use the same kind of ingenuity that they have used with viability assessments to squeeze real affordable housing out of London [^7].</p>
<p>The <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88488/Report%20Mortgagee%20in%20possession%20S106%20clause-%20Malt%20Street%20redevelopment.pdf">briefing and its recommendation</a>, will be considered by the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=119&MId=6643&Ver=4">planning committee meeting on Monday 4 May</a>, the first to be held online.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88488/Report%20Mortgagee%20in%20possession%20S106%20clause-%20Malt%20Street%20redevelopment.pdf">MIP S106 Briefing-Malt St and Nyes Wharf</a> paras 14,1</p>
<p>[^2]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88488/Report%20Mortgagee%20in%20possession%20S106%20clause-%20Malt%20Street%20redevelopment.pdf">MIP S106 Briefing-Malt St and Nyes Wharf</a> paras 19, 17</p>
<p>[^3]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88488/Report%20Mortgagee%20in%20possession%20S106%20clause-%20Malt%20Street%20redevelopment.pdf">MIP S106 Briefing-Malt St and Nyes Wharf</a> para 8, 14</p>
<p>[^4]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88488/Report%20Mortgagee%20in%20possession%20S106%20clause-%20Malt%20Street%20redevelopment.pdf">MIP S106 Briefing-Malt St and Nyes Wharf</a> para 16, 15, 16, 9</p>
<p>[^5]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88488/Report%20Mortgagee%20in%20possession%20S106%20clause-%20Malt%20Street%20redevelopment.pdf">MIP S106 Briefing-Malt St and Nyes Wharf</a> para 12</p>
<p>[^6]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88488/Report%20Mortgagee%20in%20possession%20S106%20clause-%20Malt%20Street%20redevelopment.pdf">MIP S106 Briefing-Malt St and Nyes Wharf</a> para 23, <a href="https://www.housing.org.uk/globalassets/files/resource-files/gla_practice_note_mortgagee_in_possession_january_2019.pdf">GLA MIP s106 standard clauses, practice note Jan 2019</a> para 8</p>
<p>[^7]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88488/Report%20Mortgagee%20in%20possession%20S106%20clause-%20Malt%20Street%20redevelopment.pdf">MIP S106 Briefing-Malt St and Nyes Wharf</a> para 24</p>
The harsh reality of relocation for shopping centre traders2020-04-23T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2020-04-23-reality-for-traders-elephant-castle-shoppping-centre/<p>The <a href="https://www.southwarklawcentre.org.uk/">Southwark Law Centre</a> (SLC) has written to Southwark Council, detailing the shortcomings of the relocation of the independent traders from the Elephant & Castle shopping centre, prior to its demolition on 31 July 2020.
The letter is supported by Latin Elephant and Up the Elephant, which includes the 35% Campaign.</p>
<p>SLC's letter supplies Southwark with the details of a survey of traders about the relocation, conducted just before the Coronavirus lockdown. This 'snapshot' survey of ten traders shows that 4 had not been offered a relocation space and the remaining six were offered the spaces that were inadequate, mainly because they were too small, but also because they were in poor locations for attracting trade and had no space for storage or for displaying their goods.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/traderscomp.jpeg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The letter also criticises the traders' appointed business advisor, <a href="https://treeshepherd.org.uk/regeneration/elephant-castle/">Tree Shepherd</a>, for a lack of appropriate support, particularly during the lockdown. The relocation fund is described as not fit for purpose and the relocation database of limited value. It regrets that Southwark approved <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=47899">using CPO powers on Delancey's behalf</a> without any increase to the Delancey relocation fund.</p>
<p>The letter also notes that work on completing Castle Square had stopped and asks how this will impact on the traders' relocation. This is one of the four relocation sites and due to open in June - but work has stopped as a result of the coronavirus crisis:</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/castlesquarecurrent.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The letter acknowledges that Southwark is not able to control the wider economic circumstances, but nonetheless calls on them to give stronger and more effective support to the traders.</p>
<h2>Loyalty not repaid</h2>
<p>All the trader respondents to SLC survey come from black and ethnic minority backgrounds, the longest serving trader having been at the Elephant for 22 years, while the longest serving trader not offered relocation space has been there 15 years; all ten traders together clock up over 115 years at the shopping centre.</p>
<p>In their survey comments all the respondents say the same thing - that more money is needed, and more space, and if the space cannot be found then compensation should be offered.</p>
<h2>Relocation applications rejected</h2>
<p>The SLC survey is a relatively small, but its finding that 4 out of 10 traders have no place to go is mirrored by the much larger and earlier research of <a href="https://latinelephant.org/">Latin Elephant</a>/<a href="https://twitter.com/elephant_petit/status/1118825370017386496">petit elephant</a>. This has tracked the fate of nearly a hundred businesses, since December 2018 and estimated <a href="https://35percent.org/2020-01-20-elephant-traders-still-homeless/">that only 40 would be relocated</a>, a prediction that now appears to be confirmed by Southwark Council in its <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88161/Appendix%20D.pdf">own assessment of the relocation process</a>. This states that while there have been 64 applications for three of the four main relocation sites, only 36 have been successful, with 28 rejected[^1]. Southwark gives no explanation for this, or says anything about what exactly it expects these 28 businesses to do. The fourth site, Elephant Park, has had one successful application out of 5[^2].</p>
<h2>Public support for development falls</h2>
<p>Southwark prefers to emphasise the increasing confidence traders are said to have, that they will be able to at least remain trading, by reference to an <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88162/Appendix%20E.pdf">Equality Impact Assessment (EIA)</a>. This is cited as evidence that the so-called mitigation measures are working, despite the 28 rejected relocation applications. The EIA also reveals the embarrassing fact that public support for the shopping centre redevelopment from 67% in 2016 to 42% today, mainly because of concern <em>'about what will happen to businesses currently in the shopping centre'</em>. The proposed remedy is to continue the well-meaning, but now hardly appropriate <a href="https://www.theherdse1.com/">'Follow The Herd'</a> publicity campaign.</p>
<h2>Crisis response needed</h2>
<p>As we reported in <a href="https://35percent.org/2020-04-04-shopping-centre-cpo-council-plough-on-regardless/">our last blogpost</a> Southwark has approved a welcome £200,000 in support of traders, agreed before the Coronavirus lockdown. Separately, Southwark has also launched a <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/health-and-wellbeing/public-health/for-the-public/coronavirus/business-hardhip-fund">Business Hardship Fund</a> of £2m, aimed at all the borough's 10,000 microbusinesses.</p>
<p>But otherwise Southwark's <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88157/Report%20EC%20Shopping%20Centre%20Progress.pdf">latest report</a> on the progress of the shopping centre redevelopment takes no account of the entirely new, desperate circumstances of the Coronavirus pandemic. This could be excused as it is dated 24 March, the first day of the lockdown, but was not considered until 7 April, two weeks after lockdown, without any amendment or addendum, that recognised the new trading situation.</p>
<p>The report also gives no figures for any amount of money actually paid out to traders, from any source.</p>
<h2>Support traders, not Delancey</h2>
<p>Southwark has done Delancey the huge favour <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=47899">of adopting CPO powers</a> and <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=56017">leasing both the shopping centre and the LCC</a>, to override residents legal rights. While Southwark claim that is at nearly nil cost to itself, it will be of considerable financial benefit to Delancey, who would not otherwise have been able to secure the necessary funding for their redevelopment scheme[^3].</p>
<p>Southwark did this without insisting that Delancey improve its own support for traders. The relocation fund remains the meagre £634,700, agreed nearly 2 years ago, at planning committee. Delancey also still insist on closing the centre on the 31 July, with some <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/10180?utm_source=SE1+Direct&utm_campaign=0c3a7afe5a-SE1+Direct+1000&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9d1f71fd65-0c3a7afe5a-407867973">minor concessions</a> and despite <a href="https://twitter.com/se1/status/1240692710987558913">the SE1 survey</a> that showed 72% of local people want the centre kept open.</p>
<p>Over the past 3 years and more the shopping centre traders have been fighting a hugely unequal battle to keep their businesses going, while the centre has been rundown and trade blighted. Now is the time for Southwark to start giving the level of support it has been giving Delancey. It must get cash to traders for their immediate survival. It must tell Delancey it will not be using its CPO powers on its behalf, until all the traders are either relocated or suitably compensated and that there must be no centre closure until this is done.</p>
<p>You can support us in our fight for fairness for traders, by sharing these hashtags;</p>
<p><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/supporttradersnotdelancey?src=hashtag_click">#supporttradersnotdelancey</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/supportelephantnotdelancey?src=hashtag_click">#supportelephantnotdelancey</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ElephantJR?src=hashtag_click">#ElephantJR</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/deldemands.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: See <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88161/Appendix%20D.pdf">Elephant and Castle Shopping Centre Progress Report Appendix D</a> para 23</p>
<p>[^2]: See <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88161/Appendix%20D.pdf">Elephant and Castle Shopping Centre Progress Report Appendix D</a> para 15</p>
<p>[^3]: See <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88163/Report%20EC%20CPO.pdf">E&C Cpmpulsory Purchase Order Report</a> para 16, 57</p>
<hr />
Shopping centre CPO - Southwark ploughs on regardless2020-04-04T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2020-04-04-shopping-centre-cpo-council-plough-on-regardless/<p>Southwark Council is <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50015357">set to assume Compulsory Purchase Order</a> (CPO) powers, on behalf of <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-05-05-manx-connections-the-off-shore-home-of-the-elephants-developers/">offshore developer Delancey</a>, at its Cabinet meeting this <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=302&MId=6420&Ver=4">Tues 7 April</a> (postponed from 24 March). While this extraordinary move will strengthen Delancey's hand in ongoing negotiations with various development stakeholders, such as TfL, and will relieve Delancey of funding risks, the scheme itself remains unchanged, delivering only 116 social rented units and displacing traders wholesale.<br />
<img src="https://35percent.org/img/traderscompevicted.jpeg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The Cabinet meeting is also set to approve <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50021995">a report that will override</a> local residents' legal rights, for the loss of light caused by the redevelopment. A <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88157/Report%20EC%20Shopping%20Centre%20Progress.pdf">third report</a> will approve the recently announced £200,000 relocation assistance for traders.</p>
<p>The meeting will be by videoconference, but no livestream is advertised.</p>
<h2>Residents lose legal right</h2>
<p>As we reported in <a href="https://35percent.org/2020-03-23-shopping-centre-compulsory-purchase-order/">our last blogpost</a> Southwark intends <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88163/Report%20EC%20CPO.pdf">to lease</a> both the shopping centre and London College of Communications buildings themselves. Subleasing arrangements will return the shopping centre and LCC back to the control of Delancey and University of the Arts London, but as nominal public property, residents legal 'right-to-light' options can be overridden. Residents will <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88172/Report%20EC%20Property%20Rights.pdf">no longer be able to seek</a> an injunction against the development (while remaining able to claim compensation). Southwark say that there will be no cost to the Council from their leasing arrangements, other than officer time, but the report supplies no figures.</p>
<h2>No guarantee that scheme will be built anyway</h2>
<p>Southwark's extraordinary measures illustrate its determined support for Delancey's redevelopment of the shopping centre, despite the <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre/">shortfall in social rented housing</a> provided and the mass displacement of traders. Local charity and advocate for all traders Latin Elephant <a href="https://35percent.org/2020-01-20-elephant-traders-still-homeless/">estimates that over half</a> still have nowhere to go.</p>
<p>Southwark's unwavering support extends as far as <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88163/Report%20EC%20CPO.pdf">neglecting to obtain a guarantee</a> from Delancey that the scheme will go ahead, even with the CPO powers being exercised on their behalf, saying <em>'it is not necessary to impose… an obligation to build the Scheme as the measures negotiated for inclusion in the indemnity agreement give the Council comfort that EC is likely to proceed with the Scheme.’</em> [^1]</p>
<h2>72% say keep the centre open</h2>
<p>The proposed measures follow a <a href="https://twitter.com/se1/status/1240692710987558913">survey conducted by the SE1</a> news website that shows 72% of local people want the centre kept open, in the light of the Coronavirus public health crisis. In response Delancey <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/10180?utm_source=SE1+Direct&utm_campaign=0c3a7afe5a-SE1+Direct+1000&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9d1f71fd65-0c3a7afe5a-407867973">reiterated that they still intend to close</a> the shopping centre on 31 July, while waiving rent and service charges (a long-standing traders' demand) and promising to making pharmacy and food supplies available, beyond then, if the public health crisis continues.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/surveysc.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>What we say...</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://twitter.com/UpTheElephant_?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">Up the Elephant Campaign</a>, supported by the 35% Campaign, has <a href="https://35percent.org/2017-09-23-elephant-castle-shopping-centre-update/">consistently opposed</a> Delancey's shopping centre redevelopment scheme, since its inception, over 3 years ago. We support the <a href="https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/save-the-elephants-diverse-com-appeal/">ongoing legal challenge</a> to quash Delancey's planning permission.</p>
<p>Over time various concessions, dragged out of Delancey by campaigners, have made marginal improvements to the redevelopment. Southwark's <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/10093">pledge of £200,000</a> for the traders is also welcome; it now urgently needs to be distributed as cash grants to traders. Nonetheless, Delancey's scheme still remains a bad one. Delancey are <a href="https://35percent.org/2019-03-30-no-room-for-traders-in-the-new-elephant/">displacing an entire community of traders</a>, and destroying <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRC2cyhpzAM">a social hub</a> for the many working people from all over the world who have made the Elephant their home. The new development will have a miserly 116 social rented homes, out of nearly a thousand new units (if they ever get delivered).</p>
<p>So, Southwark Council should not be bending over backwards helping Delancey, in any circumstances - certainly not now, when half the traders still have nowhere to go, while Southwark has an <a href="https://35percent.org/2020-03-23-shopping-centre-compulsory-purchase-order/">obligation to help secure traders accommodation</a> in the new development it never properly exercised. We do not need to add that the traders' desperate situation has been rendered dire by the Coronavirus crisis.</p>
<p>The UP THE ELEPHANT CAMPAIGN HAS THEREFORE MADE THE FOLLOWING DEMANDS TO SOUTHWARK COUNCIL;</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/deldemands.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>You can support us in our fight for fairness for traders, by sharing these hashtags; <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/supporttradersnotdelancey?src=hashtag_click">#supporttradersnotdelancey</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/supportelephantnotdelancey?src=hashtag_click">#supportelephantnotdelancey</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ElephantJR?src=hashtag_click">#ElephantJR</a>.</p>
<p>Or by lobbying the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgMeetingAttendance.aspx?ID=6420">Councillors approving the decision</a> directly: <a href="https://twitter.com/peterjohn6">https://twitter.com/peterjohn6</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/rebeccalury">https://twitter.com/rebeccalury</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/evenor23">https://twitter.com/evenor23</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/Jasmine_Ali">https://twitter.com/Jasmine_Ali</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/steviecryan">https://twitter.com/steviecryan</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/Livingstone_RJ">https://twitter.com/Livingstone_RJ</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/Victoria_Mills">https://twitter.com/Victoria_Mills</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/Leo_Pollak">https://twitter.com/Leo_Pollak</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/kieronjwilliams">https://twitter.com/kieronjwilliams</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/JohnsonSitu">https://twitter.com/JohnsonSitu</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/cabinetmembers.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>[^1]: See para 76 <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88163/Report%20EC%20CPO.pdf">Report: E&C CPO</a></p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image" />
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@35percent_EAN" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Southwark presses on with CPO to remove shopping centre traders" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Council steams ahead with compulsory purchase order despite 50% of traders having nowhere to go." />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/traderscompevicted.jpeg" />
Council to remove last shopping centre traders using CPO powers2020-03-23T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2020-03-23-shopping-centre-compulsory-purchase-order/<p>In an extraordinary move Southwark Council is poised to 'buy' both the Elephant and Castle shopping centre and the London College of Communication from current owners, developer Delancey and the University of the Arts London (UAL). It is also excercising Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) powers over the shopping centre site, on behalf of Delancey's <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-05-05-manx-connections-the-off-shore-home-of-the-elephants-developers/">British Virgin Islands registered offshore subsidiary</a>[^1].</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/images/elephant_castle.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The CPO powers are needed because Delancey has failed to reach agreement with 11 of the remaining shopping centre traders who have secure tenancies and several other so-called <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88166/Appendix%20C.pdf">third-party 'interests'</a> including land owned by Transport for London and arches owned by Network Rail/Arches company. [^2]</p>
<p>The additional purchase of the shopping centre and LCC land is part of a legal manoeuvre, vesting ownership in a public body, that will override the rights of residents in surrounding homes whose daylight will be affected by the redevelopment of the two sites. A leasing arrangement will allow both sites to return to Delancey and UAL once the CPO process is complete. [^3]</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/images/cposcreenshot.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Southwark say that both measures will ultimately result in no cost being incurred to itself (except for officer time plus a proportion of any public inquiry costs) with Delancey indemnifying all other costs, but no figures are provided in the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=302&MId=6420&Ver=4">three publicly available reports</a> detailing the purchase arrangements and the indemnity agreement has not been made public. Decisions on both measures will be made at a video-call Cabinet meeting <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=302&MId=6420&Ver=4">tomorrow - Tuesday, 24 March</a>.</p>
<h2>Will the scheme ever happen?</h2>
<p>The main justification for the proposed measures is to ensure the success of the development. Council officers advise that if they are not adopted Delancey may meet delays and will not secure the <em>'enormous funding'</em> the scheme requires and then the site could lie empty for years.</p>
<p>Despite this concern, officers are nonetheless so personally convinced that the development will <em>'likely'</em> go ahead, that they are not requiring a guarantee from Delancey that it will proceed with the scheme after Southwark has cleared the site with its CPO powers.
<a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88163/Report%20EC%20CPO.pdf">The CPO report</a> says <em>'it is not necessary to impose... an obligation to build the Scheme as the measures negotiated for inclusion in the indemnity agreement give the Council comfort that EC is likely to proceed with the Scheme.'</em> [^4]</p>
<p>The contrast between Southwark's favourable treatment of Delancey, (a property developer <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-05-05-manx-connections-the-off-shore-home-of-the-elephants-developers/">rooted in offshore shell companies</a>) and the neglectful manner it has treated traders who have made the Elephant their home is also laid bare. Under CPO legislation Southwark is required <em>'to exercise its power...in a manner which, so far as practicable, secures that relevant occupiers of that land are provided with a suitable opportunity to obtain accommodation on the land in question.'</em> [^5]</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/Jamie-Ritblat-Cllr-Dora-Dixon-Fyle.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>This hasn't happened; such <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/regeneration/elephant-and-castle?chapter=20">relocation benefits</a> as there are (eg the <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/developer-delancey-submits-plans-for-castle-square-temporary-home-for-elephant-traders/">£634,700 relocation fund</a>, the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88157/Report%20EC%20Shopping%20Centre%20Progress.pdf">£200k New Home Bonus Fund</a>) have been won by the traders and local campaigners and owe little to Southwark Council's efforts. Even with these gains, 60 traders <a href="https://35percent.org/2020-01-20-elephant-traders-still-homeless/">still have no new premises</a> and those who do will be re-housed off-site, with only some (those in <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/developer-delancey-submits-plans-for-castle-square-temporary-home-for-elephant-traders/">Castle Square</a>) having the smallest possibility of <em>'accommodation on the land in question'</em>. Just last week the BBC ran a <a href="https://35percent.org/posts/2020-03-23-shopping-centre-compulsory-purchase-order/(https://twitter.com/LatinElephant/status/1239870649851613185)">feature on the plight of the remaining traders</a>.</p>
<h2>Southwark has always had the power</h2>
<p>By Southwark's own account the scheme may well not go forward unless it exercises CPO powers, because Delancey is unwilling to bear the risk of the uncertainty created by its absence, given its <em>'enormous capital investment in the Scheme'</em> and in addition <em>'any prudent funder of the Scheme is also unlikely to fund the Scheme whilst that uncertainty persists'</em>. [^6]</p>
<p>Southwark therefore has had a great deal of legitimate leverage. It was clear when Delancey first submitted <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications-old/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9569810">its planning application</a> for the shopping centre's redevelopment back in 2016, that there was little intention of retaining resident traders in the new redevelopment. When Delancey described the traders as <em>'benefiting from disproportionately low levels of rent'</em> and unlikely <em>'to survive....over the longer term'</em>. [^7] Southwark should have made it clear then that <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-11-04-southwark-resolves-to-use-cpo-powers-for-shopping-centre-retailers/">any anticipated use of CPO powers</a> would be dependent on fulfilling the requirement that <em>'relevant occupiers'</em> ie the traders be given the opportunity to stay in the new development.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/traderscomp.jpeg" alt="" /></p>
<p>As it is, it looks as if Southwark intends to sacrifice trader's interests, again, in favour of Delancey, just as it sacrificed those who depend on social rented housing, when it <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-07-09-delancey/">granted Delancey planning permission</a>, without securing the minimum amount required by its own policies.</p>
<h2>The coronavirus risk</h2>
<p><a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88163/Report%20EC%20CPO.pdf">Southwark's attempts</a> to indemnify itself against any mishaps in its CPO arrangements with Delancey includes, amongst other things, a requirement that there be a <em>'reasonable prospect of the development of that area being delivered in a reasonable time frame'</em> [^8].</p>
<p>Any sensible person, or local authority, must now see that this is unlikely, given the coronavirus crisis and it multi-dimensional impact. Southwark should at the very least defer consideration of exercising CPO powers and the purchase of the shopping centre and the LCC sites, on any terms. At the same time, Southwark should use its resources to maintain and improve support for the traders and insist that Delancey do the same, if it wishes to have the benefit of Southwark's CPO powers at some time in the future.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: According to Southwark, Delancey is not the developer, but rather the advisor to the so-called 'Triangle Partnership', which is a partnership between the Dutch pension fund APG; Qatari Diar and Door SLP (a joint venture involving Delancey's <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/PrivateEyeNo1311.pdf">DV4 offshore property fund</a>). There are further partnerships within this Triangle, detailed in the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88163/Report%20EC%20CPO.pdf">Report: E&C CPO</a> para 12. Southwark refer to the developer as Elephant & Castle Properties Co. Limited ("EC") <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-05-05-manx-connections-the-off-shore-home-of-the-elephants-developers/">registered offshore in the BVI</a>. We continue to refer to the developer by the commonly known name of 'Delancey'.</p>
<p>[^2]: See paras. 80, 59 <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88163/Report%20EC%20CPO.pdf">Report: E&C CPO</a></p>
<p>[^3]: See paras. 1,2 & 12 <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88172/Report%20EC%20Property%20Rights.pdf">Report: E&C Property Rights</a></p>
<p>[^4]: See para 76 <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88163/Report%20EC%20CPO.pdf">Report: E&C CPO</a></p>
<p>[^5]: See para 81 <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88163/Report%20EC%20CPO.pdf">Report: E&C CPO</a></p>
<p>[^6]: See para 57 <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88163/Report%20EC%20CPO.pdf">Report: E&C CPO</a></p>
<p>[^7]: See 8.7 <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!LnbCaTCiMmUoN4H%2fUA2yyg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">Planning Statement</a></p>
<p>[^8]: See para 74 <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88163/Report%20EC%20CPO.pdf">Report: E&C CPO</a></p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image" />
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@35percent_EAN" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Southwark to remove last remaining shopping centre traders with compulsory purchase powers" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Southwark bails out Delancey by purchasing E&C shopping centre and LCC in order to override traders' and residents' legal rights." />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/traderscompcollage.jpg" />
Elephant Park - planning committee misled?2020-03-01T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2020-03-01-final-heygate-application-planning-committee-misled/<p>Developer Lendlease failed to disclose at <a href="https://35percent.org/2020-03-01-final-heygate-application-planning-committee-misled/">Last week's planning committee meeting</a> that it was in receipt of public funding, which could have increased the amount of affordable housing at Elephant Park (aka the Heygate estate regeneration).</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/eparkaerial.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The meeting was called because of the large number of objections to the final phase (H7 MP5) and the lack of additional affordable housing. We explained in our <a href="https://35percent.org/2020-02-21-heygate-final-chapter-and-chance-for-southwark-to-redeem-itself/">previous blog</a> how Lendlease have met their 25% affordable housing requirement, while increasing the total number of homes, but without increasing the number of affordable homes or proportion of social rent (3%).</p>
<p>One of the objections, from the 35% Campaign, was that <em>"There appears to have been no effort to take advantage of any public funding"</em>. Southwark responded by saying: <em>"There is no obligation on Lendlease to seek public funds."</em> (para 282, 283 of the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s87381/Report%20Plot%20H7%20Heygate%20Street%20within%20land%20bounded%20by%20Elephant%20Park%20to%20the%20north%20Plot%20H2%20to%20the%20wes.pdf">officer's report</a>)</p>
<p>The planning committee followed this up in their cross examination of Lendlease, who were asked directly by Cllr King whether they had considered applying for grant funding:</p>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uYXZEWz7-wo?t=12360" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<p>In a lengthy reply, Lendlease did not disclose that the Mayor had in fact committed to fund Elephant Park, back in September 2018.</p>
<p>Elephant Park is the very first entry on a <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/31.07.19_for_website_-_estate_regen_projects_approved_after_18_july_2018.pdf">list</a> of estate regeneration projects on the Mayor's <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/housing-and-land/increasing-housing-supply/estate-regeneration-data">website</a>, which have had funding approved since July 2018.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/screenshotglafunding.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>This gives rise to a number of questions:</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p>Why did Lendlease not say that they had received funding when the question was asked?</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Why were the committee members not told that Lendlease has received funding in the committee report?</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>How much money has Lendlease received from the Mayor?</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Why has the affordable housing offer not been improved?</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>We suspect that the answer to this lies in the murky world of viability; Lendlease insisted in 2013 that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jun/25/london-developers-viability-planning-affordable-social-housing-regeneration-oliver-wainwright">only 9.4% of the new homes could be viably provided as affordable</a>.</p>
<p>They repeated this at the planning committee meeting last week and would no doubt argue that any money they have received from the Mayor has gone to bridging the gap between what is viable and the 25% being delivered.</p>
<p>Whatever the merits of this argument (and we think it has none) it still leaves open the question of why Lendlease and the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s87381/Report%20Plot%20H7%20Heygate%20Street%20within%20land%20bounded%20by%20Elephant%20Park%20to%20the%20north%20Plot%20H2%20to%20the%20wes.pdf">officers report</a> did not disclose the grant funding to members.</p>
<p>There is a similarity here to the ongoing dispute about affordable housing in the <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre">shopping centre development</a>. Developer Delancey claims that the £11.24m it is also receiving from the Mayor is being used to increase the amount of social rented housing. We <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-07-02-viability-and-delancey/">showed previously</a> how it was going to Delancey's bottom line:</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/delanceyfvaprofit.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>POSTSCRIPT - no public funding</h2>
<p>Shortly after publishing the above post, Southwark Council contacted us to say that Elephant Park had not received any public funding. They forwarded <a href="https://www.docdroid.net/fbRoIQ5/ltr-to-lbs-re-35pc-campaign-tweet-020320-pdf">a letter from Lendlease agents</a>, DP9, saying that the appearance of Elephant Park at the top of a list of developments that had received GLA funding was an ‘administrative reporting error’. <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/elephant_park_grant_funding_appl#incoming-1558142">GLA have confirmed</a> that no application for funding had been received.</p>
<p>In answer to further questions, Southwark said that there was no realistic prospect of securing public funds for Elephant Park and the tenure change to BtR would not affect affordable housing delivery. Southwark further said that the BtR change was allowable by the planning consent and ‘maintains project delivery’, forestalling delay. Southwark also does not think its share of extra profit, or ‘overage’, would be affected by the BtR change.</p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image" />
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@35percent_EAN" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Elephant Park - Planning Committee misled" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Lendlease failed to declare that it was in receipt of public funding that could have increased the amount of affordable housing at its Heygate estate regeneration." />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/pcomscreen.png" />
Elephant Park - final phase, final windfall for Lendlease2020-02-21T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2020-02-21-heygate-final-chapter-and-chance-for-southwark-to-redeem-itself/<p>We <a href="https://35percent.org/2019-08-05-elephant-park-final-phase-affordable-housing/">blogged last year</a> about the final phase (MP5 H7) of the Heygate regeneration.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/eparkaerial.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Lendlease's application for 424 new homes (15 social rent) in this final phase is now set to be approved by the Council's planning committee on <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=119&MId=6403&Ver=4">Monday</a>.</p>
<p>If approved without a viability review it will seal an increase in the number of new homes beyond that <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s34476/Report.pdf">approved by Southwark's planning committee back in 2013</a>, without any increase in the number of affordable homes. This will <a href="https://35percent.org/img/epark92socialrent.jpg">result</a> in a total of 2,689 homes (220 more than approved in 2013) of which 92 will be social rent.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/12AP1092extracts.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s34476/Report.pdf">2013 Outline application Committee report</a></em></p>
<p>This windfall gives Lendlease the revenue of 220 extra homes that were not included in the original viability assessment of the scheme, which was based on 2,469 units. This <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jun/25/london-developers-viability-planning-affordable-social-housing-regeneration-oliver-wainwright">allowed</a> Lendlease to build 25% instead of 35% affordable housing and to reduce the required amount of social rented homes to next to nothing. Taking account of the 220 extra homes could have improved both the viability of the whole scheme and the affordable housing offer.</p>
<h2>Reviewing viability</h2>
<p>We <a href="https://35percent.org/2019-08-05-elephant-park-final-phase-affordable-housing/#viability-questions">noted</a> in our previous blog that Southwark has neglected to carry out any viability review. Monday's <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s87381/Report%20Plot%20H7%20Heygate%20Street%20within%20land%20bounded%20by%20Elephant%20Park%20to%20the%20north%20Plot%20H2%20to%20the%20wes.pdf">planning committee report</a> reiterates this, stating: <em>"The council has no mechanism to insist on a viability review"</em> (para 129)</p>
<p>However, this looks to be contradicted by the terms of the <a href="https://files.whatdotheyknow.com/request/heygate_estate_development_partn/191203%2020141201_Lend%20Lease_2014%20Deed%20of%20Variation_COMPLETE.pdf%20EIR%201351433_Redacted.pdf">Regeneration Agreement</a> between Southwark and Lendlease, which provides a mechanism for the affordable housing mix to be reviewed on an annual basis.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/vreviewra.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>If these annual reviews had been taking place it should have been reflected in higher levels of social rented housing. The fact that the tenure mix hasn't changed suggests that they haven't.</p>
<h2>Grant Funding</h2>
<p>We also noted in our <a href="https://35percent.org/2019-08-05-elephant-park-final-phase-affordable-housing/">previous blogpost</a> that the 2013 planning committee anticipated that the regeneration could benefit from public funding if it became available.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/gfunding2.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s34476/Report.pdf">2013 Outline application Committee report</a></em></p>
<p>This was in line with the <a href="https://files.whatdotheyknow.com/request/heygate_estate_development_partn/191203%2020141201_Lend%20Lease_2014%20Deed%20of%20Variation_COMPLETE.pdf%20EIR%201351433_Redacted.pdf">Regeneration Agreement</a>, which also obliged the parties to seek grant funding:</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/fundingra.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Such funding has been available since 2016 when Sadiq Khan <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/housing-and-land/homes-londoners-affordable-homes-programme-2016-21">announced</a> a £4.6bn funding programme, but despite the 2013 planning committee's intention and the Regeneration Agreement's obligation, Lendlease has made no funding application.</p>
<p>Also, despite this clear contractual obligation, Southwark nonetheless states in Monday's <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s87381/Report%20Plot%20H7%20Heygate%20Street%20within%20land%20bounded%20by%20Elephant%20Park%20to%20the%20north%20Plot%20H2%20to%20the%20wes.pdf">committee report for the final phase</a>: <em>"There is no obligation on Lendlease to seek public funds."</em> (para 283)</p>
<p>Given the clear obligation on Lendlease to seek grant funding, we say that until Lendlease does so Southwark should reject this final phase application.</p>
<p>Southwark should also reject the application unless Lendlease commits to a viability review. There are a number of reasons why this is necessary. Not only was the original viability assessment based on fewer homes than the number actually being built, but also the free-market homes are being <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jun/25/london-developers-viability-planning-affordable-social-housing-regeneration-oliver-wainwright">sold for twice Lendlease's viability assessment estimate</a>.</p>
<p>Another significant change to viability since the original assessment has been Lendlease's recent <a href="https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2018/01/17/lendlease-launches-1-5bn-build-to-rent-partnership/">decision</a> to let, rather than sell homes in the later phases of the scheme.</p>
<p>Monday's planning committee should also take account of Policy 3.12 of the Mayor's <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/the_london_plan_malp_final_for_web_0606_0.pdf">London Plan</a>, which says that <em>"The maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing should be sought .. having regard to .. individual circumstances including development viability, {and} the availability of public subsidy.</em>"</p>
<p>The Elephant Park development lost Southwark 1,200 council homes. This final phase is Southwark Council's last chance to (partially) redeem itself by insisting Lendlease abides by its obligations, reviews the viability of the scheme and applies for grant funding.</p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image" />
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@35percent_EAN" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Elephant Park - final phase, final windfall for Lendlease" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Call for viability review after Lendlease apply to build more homes than approved without any increase in affordable." />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/eparkaerial.jpg" />
The Biscuit Factory is back2020-02-17T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2020-02-17-biscuit-factory-is-back/<p>We <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-09-25-grosvenor-taking-the-biscuit-factory/">blogged</a> back in 2018 about the redevelopment of the former Peek Freans biscuit factory and adjoining Bermondsey college campus site.</p>
<p>Grosvenor Estate, headed by Hugh Grosvenor the 7th Duke of Westminster, London's <a href="https://whoownsengland.org/2017/10/28/who-owns-central-london/">largest landowner</a> and the world's richest man under 30 (worth over £10bn), proposed 1,343 new homes, none of which were to be social rent. The site is next door to two Bermondsey wards with some of the most deprived neighbourhoods in the country and the complete lack of any social housing was too much for both local councillors and Southwark's planning committee, who early last year rejected the scheme.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/biscuitfactory7.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>However, Mayor Sadiq Khan overrode Southwark's decision by <a href="https://www.building.co.uk/news/khan-to-rule-on-500m-grosvenor-housing-scheme/5099459.article">'calling it in'</a>, citing Southwark's <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/public%3A//public%3A//PAWS/media_id_458537///biscuit_factory_final_decision.pdf">failure to meet its affordable housing targets</a>, and is now <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/biscuit_factory_hearing_report.pdf">set to approve the scheme</a>, after a <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/planning-applications-and-decisions/public-hearings/former-biscuit-factory-public-hearing-0">public hearing</a> at City Hall on the 21st February.</p>
<h2>Still no proper social rent</h2>
<p>The original scheme has been amended, with an overall increase in the number of homes, by 206 units, including 160 affordable, up to 1,548 units in total. But because the scheme remains Build to Rent (BtR), with none of the homes for sale, there will still be no proper social rented housing. Instead 140 of the 160 affordable units will be 'social rent equivalent' (SRE) - a pseudo-social rent on 3-year tenancies, with just a <em>'presumption'</em> of renewal, not the lifetime assured or secure tenancies of proper social rented housing.</p>
<p>Even were we to accept SRE as social rent, the 140 SRE units still amount to less than 10% of the 1,548 total number of homes.</p>
<p>The SRE rents will be Target Rents, which are <a href="https://docdro.id/lHMSPBe">higher than most Southwark council rents</a> (eg one bed would be £134pw, compared to council rent of £107pw). The SRE service charges are unquantified, with only the assurance that they will <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/biscuit_factory_hearing_report.pdf">be 'controlled'</a> (para 249).</p>
<p>Most of the affordable housing, though, is made up of Discounted Market Rent (DMR) - 342 units to be let at much higher rents than SRE, eg £354pw for a one-bed. It is not clear if these rents include service charge, There will be no units let at London Living Rent, the Mayor's preferred rent level, which would have much <a href="https://docdro.id/lHMSPBe">reduced the DMR rents</a> (para 250).</p>
<h2>(Another) non-viable development.</h2>
<p>At the bottom of the poor affordable housing offer is Grosvenor's rehearsal of the well-worn developer claim that this is a non-viable development. A non-viable development is one where the developer's own profit target is not met, not one where it makes no money. In this case Grosvenor's profit target is <a href="https://docdro.id/SEWzVwi">12% IRR</a>, and they say they can make barely half that (6.53%) and the affordable housing offer is the best that they can do. GLA and Southwark agrees, but any confidence we can have in these judgements is undermined by huge disparity in the estimates of profits; Grosvenor estimated they would make a £189m loss on the original 2017 planning application, while Southwark said they would make £101m profit. Now Grosvenor claims a profit of £13m on the amended scheme. We don't know the GLA's profit estimate, because it hasn't published its own appraisal, despite the Mayor's <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/569cb9526a21db3279000001/attachments/original/1457451016/x160668_Sadiq_Khan_Manifesto.pdf?1457451016">commitment to transparency</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/biscuitoutputs.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Early and late stage reviews of the scheme are offered and should there be any increase in profitability, extra social rent equivalent or London Living Rent homes will be provided, but only by reducing the DMR rents, not by converting market-rent units, so there will be no increase in the number of affordable units.</p>
<h2>Mayor misses 50% affordable housing opportunity</h2>
<p>In October 2018 Southwark's regeneration boss, Cllr Johnson Situ, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/oct/26/grosvenor-1bn-bermondsey-build-to-rent-project-in-jeopardy-duke-of-westminster-property-group">commented</a> on the original application: <em>"With over 10,000 people on our housing waiting list it is very disappointing to see such a little amount of social or genuinely affordable housing in this application. As it stands, we are still a long way from agreeing a scheme that meets the council’s policies."</em></p>
<p>Southwark has followed this up by making a representation on the amended scheme to GLA, reiterating some of the objections that led to the original scheme's rejection, but Southwark has not argued for the amount of real social rented housing that its own policy requires - 35% of the total amount of housing, 70% of which social rented housing - 30% intermediate. This would give us around 380 social rented homes and 162 DMR homes.</p>
<p>Indeed, it is arguable that the affordable housing requirement should be nearer 50%, given that nearly three-quarters of the Biscuit Factory site is former industrial land. The <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/biscuit_factory_hearing_report.pdf">GLA report</a>
recommending approval of the scheme skips lightly over the fact that such land should deliver 50% affordable housing, in line with the <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/intend_to_publish_-_clean.pdf">Mayor's 'strategic' target</a> (Policy H4, pg 188), by saying <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/biscuit_factory_hearing_report.pdf"><em>'the site currently comprises a privately-owned commercial complex, the previous industrial use having ceased over 30 years ago'</em></a> (para 232) and so is subject to a 35% requirement instead.</p>
<p>While Southwark has been reduced to a bystander in the decision making, GLA has indulged in a pick n mix of the <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/biscuit_factory_hearing_report.pdf">bewildering number of affordable housing policies</a> (paras 220-236) and decided that only 140 pseudo-social rent homes need to be built, with 342 DMR at much higher rents - an exact reversal of the proportions of social to intermediate housing, required by Southwark's policy.</p>
<p>In sum, a Labour Mayor has called in a development that a Labour council has rightly refused because it has no social rented housing, ignored that council's own affordable housing policies, and applied his own, weaker policies, all to help a developer build something without any proper social rented housing.</p>
<h2>Keeping Build to Rent rented</h2>
<p>Many of the other BtR provisions are familiar from the proposed BtR development of the <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre/">Elephant and Castle Shopping Centre</a>. As at the Elephant a legal covenant is needed to ensure that the BtR development remains for rent, not for sale. The covenant for the Biscuit Factory is only for 20 years though, whereas Southwark required thirty years from developer Delancey for the shopping centre; in any event the covenant does not entirely stop a developer selling on, if they are prepared to pay a penalty, known as 'claw-back'.</p>
<h2>Poor doors</h2>
<p>Besides being BtR, there is much else not to like about the development.
One of Sadiq Khan's manifesto pledges was that he would <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/23/sadiq-khan-pledges-ban-poor-doors-london-housing-developments-mayor">ban poor doors in London's housing developments</a>. He has held true on this pledge to the extent that separate entrances for private and affordable tenants are indeed a thing of the past and instead we now see entirely separate buildings (see Heygate, Aylesbury and most major schemes approved in last 5 years.)</p>
<p>Grosvenor are following <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/25/poor-doors-developers-segregate-rich-from-poor-london-housing-blocks">this trend</a>, <em>'consolidating'</em> most of the Biscuit Factory's affordable housing into separate blocks.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/grosvenorahextract.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from Grosvenor's <a href="https://35percent.org/img/grosvenorahstatement.pdf">Affordable Housing Statement</a></em></p>
<h2>Renewable energy</h2>
<p>Despite both the Mayor and Southwark Council having formally declared a 'climate emergency', Grosvenor's scheme fails to comply with the either the Mayor's or Southwark's minimum 20% requirement for on-site renewable energy supply.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/current-london-plan/london-plan-chapter-five-londons-response/poli-6">Policy 5.7 (para 5.42) of the Mayor's new London Plan</a> requires that <em>" all major development proposals will seek to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by at least 20 per cent through the use of on-site renewable energy generation"</em> via the use of <em>"renewable energy technologies such as: biomass heating; cooling and electricity; renewable energy from waste; photovoltaics; solar water heating; wind and heat pumps"</em>.</p>
<p>Southwark's sustainability policies also require this minimum 20% on-site renewable energy generation (see policy 13 of the Core Strategy) and Policy 3.5 of its <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/1820/Sustainable_Design_and_Construction_SPD.pdf">Sustainability SPD</a>:</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/sustainabilityspd.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Grosvenor's <a href="https://35percent.org/img/EnergyAssessment.pdf">Energy Assessment</a> proposes just 0.7% renewable energy generation (see para 7.6) using a handful of solar panels and some air conditioning units in the commercial units that can also provide heat.</p>
<p>Grosvenor also falls short of the <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/current-london-plan/london-plan-chapter-five-londons-response/policy">London Plan's zero-carbon requirement</a>, opting to make a <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/biscuit_factory_hearing_report.pdf">£1.137m payment in-lieu</a> instead (para 470).</p>
<h2>More Build to Rent, less Social Rent</h2>
<p>The proposed Biscuit Factory development demonstrates why we do not have enough homes that people can actually afford to live in. It could deliver nearly 50% affordable housing, around 700 units of which nearly 500 would be social rented, if the Mayor abides by Southwark's adopted policy and the site is treated as former industrial land. Even reduced to 35% affordable housing, applying Southwark's policy would get around 380 social rented units. Instead it is only delivering 140 pseudo-social rent, plus 20 Discounted Market Rent.</p>
<p>The Biscuit Factory also demonstrates the threat of BtR developments for social rented housing. Build to rent schemes do not provide social rented housing, only a pseudo-social housing and very little of it. The more Build to Rent schemes we have in London the less social rented housing there will be.</p>
<p>The Mayor cited Southwark's <a href="https://docdro.id/qjen6U3">failure to meet housing targets</a> as reason to call-in the application. This is justifiable, but his concern is <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/aa45341e-ef87-11e5-aff5-19b4e253664a">headline figures</a>, not meeting the priorities of local housing need, which in Southwark is for <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/11656/NSP01-New-Southwark-Plan-Submission-Version-Proposed-Modifications-for-Examination.pdf">proper social rented housing</a> (pg 67).</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/sadiqft.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The Mayor's pre-election <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/569cb9526a21db3279000001/attachments/original/1457451016/x160668_Sadiq_Khan_Manifesto.pdf?1457451016">manifesto promise</a> was to build 'genuine affordable housing', including social rented housing, and he pledged to 'support councils to...maximise the affordable housing'. The Mayor has also made much of his <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/aa45341e-ef87-11e5-aff5-19b4e253664a">50% affordable housing target</a>. If Grosvenor's proposals for the Biscuit Factor gets the go-ahead he will have failed to live up to all these promises, approved a scheme that has less than 10% genuinely affordable housing (if we were to accept 'social rent equivalent' as real social rent) and thwarted Southwark's attempts to get anything better.</p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image" />
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@35percent_EAN" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Grosvenor's Biscuit Factory is back" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="1,548 new homes but only 140 (pseudo) social rent - Mayor overrides Southwark to accept lower affordable housing offer from London's wealthiest landowner." />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/biscuitfactory7.png" />
Shopping centre traders demand fair play2020-01-27T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2020-01-27-shopping-centre-traders-demand-fair-play/<p>A deputation of shopping centre traders are due to attend Southwark Council's <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=132&MId=6570&Ver=4">Assembly meeting tomorrow</a>, to demand fair treatment from developer Delancey and the Council. This follows Delancey's announcement that it intends to <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/10081">close the centre on 30 July 2020</a>. All the businesses in the centre, including the market traders, must move before then, but despite a <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/regeneration/elephant-and-castle?chapter=200">relocation package</a> about <a href="https://prose.io/#35percent/35percent.github.io/edit/master/_posts/2020-01-11-elephant-traders-still-homeless.md">60 traders still have nowhere to go</a>, according to research by local charity <a href="https://latinelephant.org/map/#Q7">Latin Elephant</a>. Representatives from Latin Elephant and <a href="https://www.southwarklawcentre.org.uk/">Southwark Law Centre</a> will be joining the traders on the deputation.</p>
<p>The trader's deputation will present seven demands to the Assembly, which is a meeting of all Southwark's councillors. These are the traders' demands;</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p><strong>that the shopping centre is not closed until every independent trader is relocated or receives financial compensation.</strong> The independent traders have been at the heart of the Elephant and Castle for decades. The Elephant regeneration is trumpeted as a great benefit for the local community and local people; if this is to be true then all the independent traders must be fairly treated, with either new premises or compensation.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><strong>that Delancey increases the relocation fund.</strong> This is currently £634,700 with traders having to demonstrate 'hardship' for Delancey to consider increasing the amount beyond this.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><strong>that the rent and service charge costs of the relocation options are brought into line with each other.</strong> Of the four main relocation options the most expensive, Perronet House, is owned by Southwark Council.
The others are owned by either Delancey (Castle Square, Elephant One) or fellow developer Lendlease (Elephant Park) and have lower rents and service charges.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><strong>that the businesses in Arch 7 are fully included in the relocation strategy and can draw from the relocation fund.</strong> Railway arches 6 and 7, beneath the shopping centre, are due to be knocked through, displacing established businesses, but they do not qualify for relocation support.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><strong>that the market traders around the centre are equally and fairly treated and that all traders get the benefit of rent reductions, until the shopping centre closes.</strong> Rent reductions made because of the disruption to trade have not been passed on to the market traders.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><strong>that the independent business adviser, Tree Shepherd, applies the agreed criteria for the allocation of relocation spaces in a fair and transparent way.</strong> Longstanding traders have not been offered alternative premises or have been offered premises not suitable for their businesses.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><strong>that the database of opportunities reflects what was agreed on the approval of planning permission.</strong> This database should give information about vacant premises within a mile of the centre and within Southwark, but many do not meet these criteria.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<h2>Support the traders - demonstrate!</h2>
<p>There will be a <a href="https://twitter.com/UpTheElephant_">demonstration, organised by the Up The Elephant campaign</a>, in support of the traders' deputation to Southwark Council's first assembly meeting of the year on <strong>Tuesday 28 January Southwark Council Head Offices, Tooley St 6pm</strong> - everyone who wants a fairer, inclusive regeneration at the Elephant is welcome.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/jan2020protest.jpg" alt="" /></p>
Elephant traders still homeless2020-01-20T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2020-01-11-elephant-traders-still-homeless/<p>As Delancey <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/10081">announces</a> its intention to close down the E&C shopping centre, research by <a href="https://latinelephant.org/">Latin Elephant</a>/<a href="https://twitter.com/elephant_petit/status/1118825370017386496">petit elephant</a> has shown that only around 40 out of nearly 100 independent traders still operating at the centre have been allocated new premises.</p>
<p>Latin Elephant's web-page has an <a href="https://latinelephant.org/map/#Q5">interactive map</a>, accompanied by supporting evidence, which narrates the decline in trader's numbers, up to late spring 2019. Latin Elephant’s figures show that there were originally 130 independent traders operating in January 2018, of whom only around 40 will be relocated, if the relocation strategy continues on its present course.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/latinelephantmap.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>How many traders?</h2>
<p>The figure of 130 independent traders (ie traders with less than three outlets) was <a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DwEQ6HqW0AEbC6W.jpg:large">supplied by Southwark Council</a> in January 2018 and later confirmed by officers at planning committee in July. These include market stallholders and businesses in Hannibal House, the office block above the centre, and all lie within the so-called 'red-line' of the proposed redevelopment area. Latin Elephant, with the assistance of petit elephant, then conducted its own survey in December 2018, just before the redevelopment was finally granted planning permission. This found <a href="https://latinelephant.org/map/#Q1">only 97 traders remained</a> indicating a loss of 30 traders over a few months.</p>
<p>In March 2019, Southwark responded to <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/independently_owned_retail_busin?nocache=incoming-1334948#incoming-1334948">a Freedom of Information</a> (FOI) request, with a <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/555280/response/1334948/attach/2/190321%20For%20FOI%20EC%20traders.pdf%201037530.pdf">database</a> of 79 'independent local operators', eligible for relocation funds as defined by the legal agreement between Southwark Council and developer Delancey; Latin Elephant identified a further <a href="https://latinelephant.org/map/#Q7">21 independent businesses omitted</a> from this list.</p>
<p>Latin Elephant/<a href="https://twitter.com/elephant_petit/status/1184572253381500928">petit elephant</a> also consider that 17 more businesses are excluded from relocation funding, simply by the wording of the legal agreement. These includes sub-tenants in Arch 7, on Elephant Road, and small traders in the shopping centre that rent their space through third parties, such as Forum CentreSpace Ltd.</p>
<p>In any event, in March 2019, Southwark confirmed that <a href="https://twitter.com/kieronjwilliams/status/1108781273630289920?s=12">only 36</a> of the 79 'independent local operators' had been offered a relocation unit.</p>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.gstatic.com/charts/loader.js"></script>
<link href="https://cdn.datatables.net/1.10.19/css/jquery.dataTables.min.css" rel="stylesheet" />
<div id="visualization" style="width: 100%, height: 100%"></div>
<script>
google.charts.load('current', {packages: ['corechart']});
google.charts.setOnLoadCallback(drawAnnotations);
function drawAnnotations() {
// Create and populate the data table.
var data = new google.visualization.DataTable();
data.addColumn('date', 'Date');
data.addColumn('number', 'Independent businesses');
data.addColumn({type: 'string', role: 'annotation'});
data.addColumn({type: 'string', role:'tooltip', 'p': {'html': true}});
data.addRow([new Date(2018, 0, 18), 130, '130', createCustomMessage(130, 'Date: January 2018<br>Source: Southwark Council email to Latin Elephant')])
data.addRow([new Date(2018, 11, 12), 79, '79', createCustomMessage(79, 'Date: 12 Dec 2018 (Planning Subcommittee B)<br>Source: Freedom of Information Request')])
data.addRow([new Date(2019, 2, 21), 36, '36', createCustomMessage(36, 'Date: 21 March 2019<br>Traders with relocation space as of April 2019')])
// // Create and draw the visualization.
var options = {title: 'Southwark Council figures of independent businesses over time',
//width: 100%,
height: 400,
//colors: ['#fb9a99'],
chartArea: {left:50, width: "60%", height: "70%" },
vAxis: {title: "Businesses"},
//hAxis: {title: "Time"},
lineWidth: 1,
tooltip: { isHtml: true },
legend:'none'
};
var chart = new google.visualization.ScatterChart(document.getElementById('visualization'));
chart.draw(data, options);
function resizeHandler() {
chart.draw(data, options);
};
if (window.addEventListener){
window.addEventListener('resize', resizeHandler, false);
}
else if (window.attachEvent){
window.attachEvent('onresize', resizeHandler);
}
}
function createCustomMessage(totalTraders, message){
return '<div style="padding:5px 5px 5px 5px; font-family: Arial; font-size:12px">Businesses: <b>' + totalTraders+ '</b><br>' + message + '</div>';
}
</script>
<h2>Not enough relocation space</h2>
<p>Even though Latin Elephant has voiced concerns about the shortage of relocation units on many occasions, both before and after planning approval, only 40 units are being provided on three sites. Latin Elephant identify 12 units in Perronet House, 8 in Elephant One, and 20 in Castle Square.</p>
<p>In addition to these sites Southwark claim that Lendlease's <a href="https://www.elephantpark.co.uk/about-elephant-park/">Elephant Park</a> development (formerly the Heygate estate) offers 1,350 sq m of affordable retail space, but this only equates to eight units, at most. To date, none of the Elephant Park units has been offered to traders affected by the shopping centre redevelopment, according to an <a href="https://docdro.id/R6YTe4e">FOI response</a> to a <a href="https://www.southwarklawcentre.org.uk/">Southwark Law Centre</a> question. Thirty market pitches in East St market were also suggested by Delancey in its planning application, but these are nearly a mile away and have never been delivered.</p>
<h2>Unfit database</h2>
<p>Delancey has also a legal obligation to maintain a database of vacant retail properties and make it available to eligible traders. Even though Southwark Council says on its <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/regeneration/elephant-and-castle?chapter=20">regeneration webpage</a> that properties are in the borough and within one mile of the shopping centre, petit elephant found that as of June 2019 many did not meet these criteria. Moreover, many demanded rents between £50,000 and £100,000 per annum, which Latin Elephant has already submitted are beyond the means of small-sized businesses. The whole list of 54 relocation units in the database is <a href="https://twitter.com/elephant_petit/status/1135529323220176896">here</a>.</p>
<p>So, the best-case scenario is that less than half of all independent traders within the red line have been relocated to premises that might be more or less suitable for their businesses, with all other traders looking at options some distance away and/or too expensive.</p>
<h2>Not enough money</h2>
<p>Another obstacle to successful relocation is the cost of moving, fitting-out new premises and re-establishing the business. The relocation fund provided by Delancey stands at <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/regeneration/elephant-and-castle?chapter=20">£634,700</a>, with a vague commitment to an unspecified greater amount, after <em>‘all claims have been properly assessed’</em> and <em>‘taking into account genuine trader hardship’</em>. This averages out at a £17,630 per trader, given thirty-six traders and a very modest £8,034, given 79 traders. In fact, the costs will of course vary, according to size and other needs. By way of example, one business was quoted £121,000 including VAT, for the fit-out works of a 65 sq m unit at Elephant Park.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/traderscomp.jpeg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Feeble enforcement from Southwark Council</h2>
<p>The trader' relocation strategy was inadequate from the start, with too little space to move to and too little money to do it with, but it has been made worse by ineffectual enforcement by Southwark Council.</p>
<p>The relocation process is effectively controlled by Delancey and, in the case of Elephant Park premises, fellow developer Lendlease. Both <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/regeneration/elephant-and-castle?chapter=20">developers have obligations</a> to provide affordable retail premises to shopping centre traders, under their respective legal s106 development agreements with Southwark Council. Southwark therefore has the power to take action if it thinks that these obligations are not being fulfilled. Traders complain that this is indeed the case, with shopping centre traders not fitting the retail profile required by Delancey and Lendlease for the new Elephant developments. <a href="https://www.southwarklawcentre.org.uk/">Southwark Law Centre</a> has taken up the case of one trader, refused premises because of the nature of their trade.</p>
<p>Even those traders who have been allocated space have justifiable complaints about its size, cost and position - all critical factors for successfully continuing business. In particular, there are complaints about Perronet House. Despite being owned by Southwark Council, who is thus the traders' new landlord, both the <a href="https://docdro.id/5AQJ8yg">service charges and rent</a> will be higher there than those for Castle Square, the relocation site owned by Delancey. For example, the rent of a 26 sq m unit on the ground floor in Castle Square is £6,768 per annum, plus £2,256 of service charge (£8 per square foot), while Southwark Council offers a 25.7 sq m unit in Perronet House at an average of £7,645 over 5 years, with an ‘estimated’ service charge of £3,047 (£11 per sq ft).</p>
<h2>What information does Southwark Council hold?</h2>
<p>Several FOI requests have been made to Southwark, in pursuit of information about the traders' relocation. The <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/independent_traders_in_elephant?unfold=1#incoming-1456513">latest request</a> is for information about which traders have succeeded in their <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/443429607/Summary-of-the-allocation-process">relocation requests</a> (thirty-six in number), those refused (28 in number), those who have left the Elephant and Castle, plus the 130 Elephant traders initially identified by Southwark, back in January 2018. Perhaps unsurprisingly this request has been refused, on the grounds that it would prejudice the commercial interests of unspecified third parties; an appeal has been made against the decision.</p>
<h2>A bad tale continues</h2>
<p>An <a href="https://www.homesandproperty.co.uk/area-guides/southwark-borough/elephant-and-castle/living-in-elephant-castle-area-guide-to-homes-schools-and-transport-links-a135826.html">Evening Standard article</a>, enthusiastically <a href="https://twitter.com/peterjohn6/status/1214971921277890560">endorsed by Southwark Council leader Peter John</a>, tells the shopping centre redevelopment story that developer Delancey wants the world to believe in - new homes, new jobs, 'funky street food'. Through their diligent research Latin Elephant and petit elephant tell a different story; one of <a href="https://35percent.org/2017-04-02-traders-charter-broken-promises/">neglect and broken promises</a>. The independent traders, their families, customers and the social fabric they have built over many years is being pulled apart to enable Delancey and Southwark's idea of a bright future.</p>
<p>But it is not too late for Southwark to partly redeem themselves - the traders need more space and more money for their relocation fund. Delancey (and Lendlease) are well able to provide it. Delancey's anticipated profit from the shopping centre redevelopment is at <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-07-02-viability-and-delancey/">least £137.1m</a>.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://twitter.com/UpTheElephant_">Up the Elephant campaign</a> will be holding a stall on <strong>Saturday, 25 January 11.30pm</strong> just outside the <strong>former Charlie Chaplin pub</strong>, on the <strong>New Kent Rd side of the shoppin centre</strong>.</p>
<p>There will also be a <a href="https://twitter.com/UpTheElephant_">demonstration, organised by the Up The Elephant campaign</a>, in support of the traders' deputation to Southwark Council's first assembly meeting of the year on <strong>Tuesday 28 January Southwark Council Head Offices, Tooley St 6pm</strong> - everyone who wants a fairer, inclusive regeneration at the Elephant is welcome.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/jan2020protest.jpg" alt="" /></p>
High Court hearing looms for Elephant shopping centre2019-10-17T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2019-10-17-day-of-decision-for-elephant-shopping-centre/<p>The <a href="https://35percent.org/2019-03-05-elephant-shopping-centre-judicial-review/">legal battle</a> to quash the planning permission for the <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre">demolition and redevelopment of the shopping centre</a> reaches the High Court next week, when a judicial review hearing is scheduled for the 22 and 23 October, after being postponed from July. The challenge is supported by the <a href="https://35percent.org/uptheelephant">Up the Elephant campaign</a>, the <a href="https://www.pilu.org.uk/">Public Interest Law Centre</a> and <a href="https://www.southwarklawcentre.org.uk/">Southwark Law Centre</a>, as well as by the <a href="https://35percent.org/2019-07-03-why-we-are-challenging-elephant-and-castle-plans-in-court/">35% Campaign</a>. The challenge will be presented by barristers <a href="https://www.ftbchambers.co.uk/barristers/sarah-sackman">Sarah Sackman</a> of Francis Taylor Building and <a href="https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/member/david-wolfe/">David Wolfe QC</a> of Matrix Chambers.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://twitter.com/uptheelephant_?lang=en">demonstration of support</a> is being held on <strong>Tues 22 October 9am</strong>, outside the <a href="https://goo.gl/maps/cW7PHZiFmzs96Vbx7">Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, WC2A 2LL</a>. There is a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/2400323290216792/">free coach to the protest</a> - departing <strong>8am, from outside the Metropolitan Tabernacle</strong>, opposite the Northern line tube station (<strong>text/phone 07792786192 to reserve a place</strong>).</p>
<h2>Traders are being lost</h2>
<p>The High Court will decide whether or not Southwark Council's decision to award planning permission to <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-05-05-manx-connections-the-off-shore-home-of-the-elephants-developers/">offshore developer Delancey</a> was lawful. Delancey proposes to build shops, homes and much else besides, including a new Northern Line tube entrance and new college campus for the London College of Communication. But Delancey's big plans have very little in them for local people, those who are living and working at the Elephant now.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/traderscompsk.jpeg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The much-loved bingo hall <a href="https://35percent.org/2019-04-29-delancey-deals-double-blow-to-traders/">has already gone</a> and is unlikely to return. If the shopping centre is demolished it will <a href="https://35percent.org/2019-03-30-no-room-for-traders-in-the-new-elephant/">displace all the traders</a> from the world over who have made the Elephant their home. Demolition will also destroy a social hub for London's Latin American community and nowhere near enough has been done to mitigate the consequences of this. <a href="https://latinelephant.org/">Latin Elephant</a>, with the help of <a href="https://twitter.com/elephant_petit?lang=en-gb">Petit Elephant</a>, have made a <a href="https://latinelephant.org/map/#Q5">detailed study</a> of what is happening to all the traders and they estimate that almost fifty traders have not been given relocation space and will have nowhere to go.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/latinelephantmap.png" alt="" />
<em>Latin Elephant's detailed <a href="https://latinelephant.org/map">interactive map</a> and list of traders with nowhere to go</em></p>
<h2>Much more social rented housing needed</h2>
<p>While we are losing the small traders, Delancey's <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications-old/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage">'mixed-use' development</a> is denying us the one kind of housing we most need - social rented housing. The Up the Elephant campaign has gradually driven up Delancey's social housing offer from 33 'social rent equivalent' units to <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-07-09-delancey/">116 proper social rent</a>, but this is still a very small number out of the 979 total number of new homes.</p>
<p>Next week's legal challenge will argue that <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/elephant-and-castle-vote-watch-council-planning-committee-live/">Southwark's Council’s planning committee</a> was misled about the maximum amount of affordable housing the scheme could viably provide. Delancey committed uncounditionally to providing 116 social rented homes, but is asking for Mayor’s funding, which won't go towards increasing the number of social rented homes. We argue that this £11.2m of public money should provide us with another 42 much needed social rented homes. This would still fall short but nevertheless go a long way towards meeting the minimum policy requirement of 165 social rented homes.</p>
<p>The challenge will also argue that even the 116 social rented homes promised could be at risk; the devil is in the detail and Delancey has managed to pull the wool over the Council's eyes, with a legal (s106) agreement that could leave us with little or no social rented housing if Delancey chooses not to deliver the latter part of the scheme, which in any case is not due to be built for another 10 years.</p>
<h2>Join Us!</h2>
<p>We should be getting something much better than this. The regeneration of the Elephant has already lost us over a thousand council homes, from the <a href="https://35percent.org/heygate-regeneration-faq/">demolished Heygate estate</a>. The shopping centre is the last major site within the Elephant and Castle Opportunity Area - it should be making up much more of these losses. The benefits of the redevelopment in the shape of the new tube station and new college campus should not be at the expense of social rented housing.</p>
<p>The <strong>Up the Elephant</strong> campaign has fought tirelessly for <a href="https://35percent.org/2019-06-15-delays-and-delancey/">nearly 3 years</a> to get more social rented housing and a better deal for the independent traders; it has shown that we can make gains. As well as the extra social housing, traders have got more affordable retail space, a relocation fund and a temporary facility on Castle Square - but it is not enough to make Delancey's development one that really benefits everyone at the Elephant.</p>
<p>So, please <a href="https://twitter.com/uptheelephant_?lang=en">join us on 22 October</a> to show your support for our battle!</p>
<p>Text/phone <strong>07792 786192</strong> to reserve a coach place.</p>
<p>You can still also <a href="https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-the-elephant-shopping-centre-destruction/">donate to our crowdfunding appeal</a></p>
<p>For a brief history of the controversy surrounding Delancey's scheme, check out Emile Burgoyne's recently released film - <strong>'Why do Elephants keep developing?'](https://youtu.be/EQ2M6_vQo2s)</strong>:</p>
<div align="center">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ2M6_vQo2s"><img src="https://img.youtube.com/vi/EQ2M6_vQo2s/0.jpg" alt="IMAGE ALT TEXT" /></a>
</div>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image" />
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@35percent_EAN" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Decision Day for Elephant & Castle Shopping Centre" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Next week's judicial review could send Delancey's inequitable scheme back to the drawing board." />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/Elephant_JR_Tweet.png" />
Canada Water regeneration finally up for approval2019-09-22T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2019-09-22-canada-water-masterplan/<p>Southwark Council's planning committee is <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!XG78U8hptdA1Wd%2brEpqcTA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">set to approve</a> the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=18/AP/1604&system=DC">largest planning application</a> ever submitted in the borough this week, when it considers the redevelopment of Canada Water. This huge 21 hectare site includes the Surrey Quays shopping centre and leisure park and the old Daily Mail printworks. Developer British Land's (BL) proposals for about 7 million sq ft of development will be considered over two planning meetings on the 25th and 30th September.</p>
<p>The masterplan site is the final phase and main component of the <a href="https://35percent.org/canada-water">Council's regeneration of Canada Water</a> and comprises a cluster of tall buildings up to 34 storeys, with a mix of residential, retail, office, workspace and leisure uses. It will include a hotel, student accommodation, cinema and community facilities.</p>
<p>The planning application is in two parts. The first part is the main outline application for between 2,000 and 4,000 new homes plus a large element of non-residential floorspace, while the second, is the detailed application for phase 1 of the scheme comprising 265 new homes, a leisure centre (a replacement for the Seven Islands centre largely paid for by Southwark), plus a petrol filling station.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/cwmasterplansite.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Canada Water Shopping Centre (shaded blue), Print Works (shaded green), Leisure park (shaded purple)</em></p>
<h2>The Affordable Housing</h2>
<p>The proposed scheme is for a minimum of 2,000 new homes, rising to a possible 4,000 maximum, 35% of which would be affordable (25% social rent, 10% intermediate housing). This is in line with Southwark's own local plan.</p>
<p>As well as the local plan requirement, though, the Mayor's London Plan requires a viability review mechanism, to ensure that if a scheme turns out to be more profitable than predicted, then extra affordable housing can be provided, up to a cap of 50%. Canada Water triggers this review requirement because at least a quarter of the site is either public or industrial land, and more affordable housing is expected from such sites.</p>
<p>But Southwark has compromised with British Land on the review mechanism, in breach of housing policy. It is allowing a 40% cap on any increase in affordable housing, instead of 50%, and is also allowing British Land to discount any profit from the commercial elements (office space, retail etc) of the scheme from any viability review.</p>
<p>Southwark justifies this departure from policy requirements on viability grounds. It agrees with British Land's claim that the scheme can only viably support 11% affordable housing, not 35%, and thus British Land is incurring a 'risk' by committing to 35% <em>"given the current day viability position."</em> This is a familiar line of argument, recently deployed by developers of major Old Kent Rd schemes. Developers claim a scheme is unviable, while agreeing nonetheless to provide 35% affordable housing, but only if there is no review, or conditions are placed on the review. The true profitability of the scheme is therefore never established.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/reviewexception.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!XG78U8hptdA1Wd%2brEpqcTA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">planning committee report</a></em></p>
<p>It is difficult to understand why Southwark agrees to undermine reviews with these compromises. If the review shows that no extra profit is made, then the developer does not have to provide the extra affordable housing. If, on the other hand, the review shows enough profit is made to provide 50% affordable housing, then it makes no sense to cap it at 40%. The cap should be restored to 50% and the profit of the whole scheme, not just the residential element, should be measured - it could give us around 400 extra much-needed affordable homes, if the scheme is built to its maximum extent.</p>
<p>Other factors reinforce the argument for not settling for just 35% affordable housing. British Land are receiving a total of £39.1m of public money from the Mayor for the first phase alone. If the Mayor gives grants to developers without ensuring the maximum amounts of affordable housing are secured, then it simply becomes a subsidy for developers' profit margins.</p>
<p>While the Mayor considers that only the Rotherhithe Police Station is public land, Southwark is in fact the freeholder of 15 hectares of the site - the Print Works and the Surrey Quays shopping centre (for which it collects £400k p.a. in rent and 5% of turnover respectively[^1]), as well as being British Land's development partner, with a 20% interest in the site's development, under a Master Development Agreement (MDA).</p>
<p>Finding space for new affordable homes is also becoming increasingly difficult. Last week Southwark <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s84621/Report%20593%20Old%20Kent%20Road%20acquisition%20of%20site%20to%20deliver%20new%20Council%20housing.pdf">approved the purchase</a> of its fifth site in the neighbouring Old Kent Rd area in the last two years alone[^2].</p>
<p>It would therefore be reasonable to expect that maximising affordable housing on the largest development site in the borough would be Southwark's top priority on Canada Water, the largest of many large development sites in the borough. Southwark should not just be settling for the minimum its housing policy requires and ignoring the Mayor's viability review policy.</p>
<h2>Green energy</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/2386/Canada-Water-Area-Action-Plan-2015.pdf">planning policy</a> governing this scheme said that all developments would be linked up to a district heating network in order to reduce carbon emissions and promote sustainable development.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/dhn.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/2386/Canada-Water-Area-Action-Plan-2015.pdf">Area Action Plan</a></em></p>
<p>However, paragraphs 968 and 969 of the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!XG78U8hptdA1Wd%2brEpqcTA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">planning committee report</a> quietly mention that any such plans to deliver or connect to a district heating network have been dropped on feasibility grounds.</p>
<p>It is not clear from the report whether the handful of solar panels proposed will now even satisfy the Council's basic 20% on-site renewable energy policy requirement.</p>
<h2>A little history - British Land</h2>
<p>British Land is Southwark's development partner for the scheme and is one of the UK’s largest developers. It is formerly run but still partly owned by property magnate Sir John Ritblat, father of Delancey’s Jamie Ritblat (see <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre">E&C redevelopment</a> and its <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-05-05-manx-connections-the-off-shore-home-of-the-elephants-developers/">offshore connections</a>). The Ritblats are one of the Tory party's top 100 donors.</p>
<p>Both Delancey and British Land were named in the Panama Papers leaks for their <a href="https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/80061680">relationship to a network of offshore subsidiaries/parent companies</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/BritishLandPanamaPapers.png" alt="" />
<em>British Land's <a href="https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/80061680">network</a> of offshore companies</em></p>
<h2>Footnotes</h2>
<p>[^1]: See para 34 of <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s74525/Canada%20water%20Report.pdf">this</a> council briefing paper.</p>
<p>[^2]: Sites bought to date are the PC World site, a site on Verney Rd, a site at 1 Ann Moss Way, <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/southwark-council-buys-former-old-kent-road-gas-works-site-15m/">the former gas works</a> and the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s84621/Report%20593%20Old%20Kent%20Road%20acquisition%20of%20site%20to%20deliver%20new%20Council%20housing.pdf">B&M Ruby Triangle site</a>. See <a href="https://twitter.com/Leo_Pollak/status/1144307552601198598">this thread</a> for more details.</p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image" />
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@35percent_EAN" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Canada Water regeneration finally up for approval" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="4000 new homes on 15 hectares of public land but affordable housing not policy compliant." />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/cwmasterplansite.jpg" />
Elephant Park MP5 - the final chapter2019-08-05T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2019-08-05-elephant-park-final-phase-affordable-housing/<p>Developer Lendlease proposes building 2,689 homes on the completed <a href="https://35percent.org/heygate-regeneration">redevelopment of the Heygate estate</a> - 220 more homes than were originally approved back in 2013, but with twenty-nine fewer affordable homes. Just 92 of the affordable homes in the redevelopment,now known as <a href="https://elephantpark.co.uk/">Elephant Park</a>, will be social rent.</p>
<p>The proposal is made in the detailed <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications-old/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9582742">planning application</a> for the last plot of the scheme (MP5/H7), where Lendlease proposes building 424 new homes, including 72 affordable units (37 shared-ownership, 20 affordable rent and 15 social rent). There is no proposal for a viability review of the scheme, to maximise the amount of affordable housing.</p>
<p>The number of social rented units in the development has crept up from <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-01-13-will-the-planning-committee-see-sense/">71 units</a> since 2013 (plus a further <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!DcDunvLF2MOAcCag9FShbg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">eight on Trafalgar Place</a> (Heygate Phase 1)). The overall affordable housing is broken down into 92 social rented, 167 affordable rent and 282 shared ownership.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/epark92socialrent.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Figures for the total and affordable units proposed in <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!Mz5nzvZX38X%2fWRNbT2Vd6A%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">planning documents for MP5, the final phase of the development</a></em></p>
<p>Lendlease's application for MP5/H7 anticipates that the completed development will have 2,689 homes, 220 more homes than the numbers agreed by the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=27221">planning committee in January 2013</a>, which <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!Q7K%2bVQ5GwV3kVWHHRXBCqg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">agreed a development of between 2,300 (min) and 2,469 homes (max)</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/orheygate.png" alt="" />
<em>Development description from <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!Q7K%2bVQ5GwV3kVWHHRXBCqg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">planning committee report for outline consent, Jan 2013</a></em></p>
<p>While the number of homes proposed exceeds the number consented, Lendlease proposes a reduction in the number of affordable homes. Only 541 of the 2,689 homes will be affordable, 29 fewer than the indicative figure of 570 given to the planning committee in 2013.</p>
<p>The figure for the 570 approved affordable homes was given on page 9 of the 2013 planning committee's <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!Q7K%2bVQ5GwV3kVWHHRXBCqg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">addendum report</a> (correcting a previous figure of <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!swSywGCW3zgzV1miHXgXSg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">574</a>).</p>
<p>Table 8.1 of the recently submitted <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!ODWxL4QoZvkgXXbACxb5vg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">Reconciliation Statement</a> for the <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9582742">MP5 reserved matters application</a> shows that only 541 affordable homes are now proposed overall.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/para163.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the addendum to the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!Q7K%2bVQ5GwV3kVWHHRXBCqg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">2013 outline planning committee report</a></em></p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/reconc.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from Lendlease's <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!Q7K%2bVQ5GwV3kVWHHRXBCqg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">recently submitted application</a></em></p>
<h2>Southwark fail to secure housing numbers</h2>
<p>The increase from 2,469 to 2,689 total units on Elephant Park has been facilitated by an <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=18/AP/3225&system=DC">amendment</a> to the original planning permission. This was made in November 2018 and changed the way the amount of residential space was calculated by <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!s8fyBoziHiy%2fr1TPdwL8eQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">replacing the minimum and maximum figures for residential units</a> with floorspace figures. The floorspace figures remained the same as those <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!hgyBVuEH%2b8BxXry2bGRAtA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">approved by the planning committee</a> (160,579sqm GEA {min} and 254,400sqm GEA {max}), but by removing the unit figures the amendment enables Lendlease to build more homes within the allowed floorspace.</p>
<p>It also transpires that the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!RmPsohICrz2DqmiiC%2fGX%2fQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">number of units to be built were not secured</a> in the original planning permission, thus opening the door to the amendment, which was deemed 'non-material' and so was approved by officers and not referred to the planning committee.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/orpara8.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Policy compliance</h2>
<p>While Lendlease has not delivered the number of affordable homes expected by the planning committee, they are nonetheless able to say they are <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!ODWxL4QoZvkgXXbACxb5vg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">fulfilling the affordable housing obligation of 25% affordable housing</a>. This is because the amount of affordable housing is measured as a percentage of habitable rooms, not units. The <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!swSywGCW3zgzV1miHXgXSg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">officer's report</a> to the planning committee noted that there were a relatively high proportion of larger affordable units.
These are undoubtedly welcome, but do mean that there is just 20% affordable housing when measured by units.</p>
<h2>Viability questions</h2>
<p>At the time of the application's original determination in 2013, a viability review was proposed in the event that the development was delayed, or a change of circumstances occured. No such viability review has occured to take into account Lendlease's proposed increase in density or reduction of affordable units.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/vrev.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!Q7K%2bVQ5GwV3kVWHHRXBCqg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">2013 planning committee report</a></em></p>
<p>The increase in maximum units to 2,689 units with the 29 unit drop in affordable housing gives Lendlease about 190 more free-market homes than the planning committee was led to believe would be built. These have a rough estimated value of £80m, a figure that obviously cannot have featured in the 2012 <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/HeygateViabilityAssessment_MainReport.pdf">viability assessment</a>. This assessment was made on the basis of 2,462 units and concluded that the scheme could not provide 35% affordable housing and that only a very small fraction could be social rented.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/orfigs.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>No public funding?</h2>
<p>The lack of available public funding was cited in the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!swSywGCW3zgzV1miHXgXSg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">officer's report</a> as a factor that diminished the chances of a viable scheme delivering 35% affordable housing, when the application was originally considered.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/gfunding1.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>This came with the reassurance that should public funding become available the affordable housing situation could be improved. There is no indication that this has happened through the duration of Elephant Park's development, despite the <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/housing-and-land/homes-londoners-affordable-homes-programme-2016-21">Mayor Sadiq Khan having £4.6bn in his kitty</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/gfunding2.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Object to MP5 - fight for 84 more affordable homes</h2>
<p>Lendlease's detailed MP5 H7 application is almost the final chapter in the <a href="https://35percent.org/heygate-regeneration-faq/">redevelopment of the Heygate estate</a> and it allows us to evaluate what is being delivered, against what was said and what was approved by Southwark Council, back in 2013.</p>
<p>It is now apparent that while Lendlease will fulfil its reduced affordable housing obligation they intend to do so by delivering fewer affordable homes. Lendlease has also been granted a change in the permission that has allowed them to build many more units. The upshot is that Lendlease has about 190 more free-market homes to sell.</p>
<p>Southwark, on the other hand, has neglected to secure the number of homes to be built and is giving Lendlease the opportunity to build more, without getting any improvement in the affordable housing situation. There also appears to have been no effort to take advantage of any public funding.</p>
<p>This final Heygate application must be decided by the planning committee, not officers alone. It must ask why we are getting fewer affordable housing units than it was told to expect, while Lendlease are being allowed to build more units in total. The committee must also ask why there have been no viability reviews since 2013 and what has been done to improve the affordable housing.</p>
<p>Without a viability review, the planning committee must refuse planning permission. The very least Lendlease should do is increase the total number of affordable homes, back to the indicative 570 the planning committee approved, plus 25% of the additional 220 units it has gained over the original maximum build. This would give us a much-needed 84 affordable homes and half of these must be social rented, as Southwark's housing policy requires.</p>
<p>You can object by <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9582742">clicking here</a> or filling in the form below:</p>
<form id="form5" action="https://thirtyfivepercent.herokuapp.com/" method="post">
<fieldset><legend>Fill in your contact details and amend text as necessary.</legend>
<div id="mc_embed_signup">
<div class="indicates-required"><span class="asterisk">*</span> indicates required</div>
<p class="first" style="margin:20px">
<label for="name">Title:</label>
<input type="text" name="title" id="title" size="5" placeholder="Mr" /><span class="asterisk">*</span>
</p>
<p style="margin:20px">
<label for="email">First Name:</label>
<input type="text" name="firstname" id="firstname" size="15" placeholder="Joe" /><span class="asterisk">*</span>
</p>
<p style="margin:20px">
<label for="email">Surname:</label>
<input type="text" name="surname" id="surname" size="21" placeholder="Bloggs" /><span class="asterisk">*</span>
</p>
<p style="margin:20px">
<label for="email">Email:</label>
<input type="text" name="email" id="email" size="23" placeholder="joebloggs@gmail.com" /><span class="asterisk">*</span>
</p>
<p style="margin:20px">
<label for="address">Address:</label>
<input type="text" name="address" id="address" size="27" placeholder="99 Chaplin Street" /><span class="asterisk">*</span>
</p>
<p style="margin:20px">
<label for="address">Town/City:</label>
<input type="text" name="city" id="city" size="12" placeholder="London" /><span class="asterisk">*</span>
</p>
<p style="margin:20px">
<label for="postcode">Postcode:</label>
<input type="text" name="postcode" id="postcode" size="10" placeholder="SE17 1RS" /><span class="asterisk">*</span>
</p>
<p style="margin:20px">
<label for="message">Comment:</label>
<textarea name="message" id="message" cols="55" rows="10">Dear Southwark Planning,
This application (19/AP/1166) is pursuant to the outline planning permission granted to developer Lendlease for the redevelopment of the Heygate estate (12/AP/1092). This entailed an obligation to build 25% affordable housing.
<p>It is now apparent that while Lendlease will fulfil its affordable housing obligation they intend to do so by delivering fewer affordable homes than the planning committee were told would be delivered when they gave approval for the redevelopment. The committee was told there would be 570 affordable homes, while Lendlease now proposes to deliver only 541.</p>
<p>Since permission was given Lendlease has also been granted a change to that permission that will allow them to build 220 more units than the original maximum.
Southwark, on the other hand, has neglected to secure the number of homes to be built and gave Lendlease the opportunity to build more, without getting any improvement in the affordable housing situation. There also appears to have been no effort to take advantage of any public funding.</p>
<p>This final Heygate application must be decided by the planning committee, not officers alone. It must ask why we are getting fewer affordable housing units than it was told to expect, while Lendlease were allowed to build more units in total. The committee must also ask why there have been no viability assessments or reviews since 2013 and what has been done to improve the affordable housing.</p>
<p>There should be a viability review in order to reflect the increase in density and the planning committee must refuse planning permission, unless Lendlease increases the total number of affordable homes, back to the indicative 570 the planning committee approved, plus 25% of the additional 220 units it has gained over the original maximum build. This would give us a much-needed 84 affordable homes and half of these must be social rented, as Southwark's planning policy requires.</p>
<p>Yours sincerely,
</p></textarea></p>
<p></p>
<p class="submit" style="margin:20px"><button type="submit">Send Objection</button></p>
</div>
</fieldset>
</form>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Elephant Park MP5 - the final chapter" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Final phase of Heygate scheme proposes increasing overall number of homes while reducing affordable. " />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/epark92socialrent.jpg" />
Why we're challenging the Elephant & Castle redevelopment plans in court2019-07-03T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2019-07-03-why-we-are-challenging-elephant-and-castle-plans-in-court/<p>Twenty years ago, Fred Manson, Southwark Council's Director of Regeneration laid out the aims of the Labour council's new regeneration strategy in industry magazine, the Estates Gazette: <em>"We need to have a wider range of people living in the borough"</em> because <em>"social housing generates people on low incomes coming in and that generates poor school performances, middle-class people stay away."</em> As the Gazette reported it, this was <em>"part of a deliberate process of gentrification that will result in social housing being replaced by owner occupied dwellings and developers being given free rein to build luxury flats"</em> [^1].</p>
<p>Since Mr Manson's 1999 anti-council housing manifesto, the borough has lost more than 13,000 council homes (see graph below) and the proportion of council housing had fallen from 60% of to <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/2683/Southwark_Housing_Key_Stats_October_v2_2015.pdf">28% of housing stock</a> by 2015. This is mainly the consequence of <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/759390/LT_685.xlsx">Right to Buy</a> and <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/561232/LT_648.xlsx">void sales</a>.</p>
<p>But council estate regeneration, Manson style, is also playing its part. The Gazette article mentions three estates south of Tower Bridge earmarked for demolition. At <a href="https://35percent.org/the-southwark-clearances">least eight others</a> can be added, totalling 7,639 council homes and leasehold properties lost. The developments replacing these will provide over 11,000 new homes, but only 3,200 of them will be social rented and while Southwark does now have an council house building programme, it is <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-11-12-11000-council-homes-manifesto-pledge/">still knocking down and selling off council homes faster than it is building them</a>.</p>
<p>The proportion of social rented housing is even lower when other major schemes are considered. Analysis of the major schemes approved by Southwark over the last 15 years gives <a href="https://35percent.org/major-schemes">an average social rent component of under 4%</a> out of about twelve thousand homes - well below the Council's <a href="https://35percent.org/posts/2019-07-03-why-we-are-challenging-elephant-and-castle-plans-in-court/LINKTONSP">policy requirement of 25%</a>. (<a href="https://35percent.org/img/OKRapprovals.pdf">Recent approvals</a> of <a href="https://35percent.org/2019-06-16-verney-rd-yet-another-old-kent-road-development/">Old Kent Rd developments</a> increase the overall percentage to 10%).</p>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.8.2/jquery.min.js">
</script>
<script src="https://code.highcharts.com/highcharts.js">
</script>
<script src="https://code.highcharts.com/modules/exporting.js">
</script>
<div id="container1" style="min-width: 310px; height: 400px; margin: 0 auto">
</div>
<script type="text/javascript">
$('#container1').highcharts({
title: {
text: "Southwark's Council Homes",
x: -20 //center
},
description: {
text: 'Source: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/674346/LT_116.xlsx">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/674346/LT_116.xlsx</a>',
x: -20
},
xAxis: {
categories: ['1999', '2000', '2001', '2002', '2003', '2004', '2005', '2006', '2007', '2008', '2009', '2010', '2011', '2012', '2013', '2014', '2015', '2016', '2017', '2018']
},
yAxis: {
title: {
text: 'Council-owned stock'
},
plotLines: [{
value: 0,
width: 1,
color: '#808080'
}]
},
tooltip: {
valueSuffix: ' Council homes'
},
legend: {
layout: 'vertical',
align: 'right',
verticalAlign: 'middle',
borderWidth: 0
},
series: [{
name: 'Southwark',
data: [51706, 50903, 49875, 48052, 46887, 45346, 43885, 42275, 41873, 41287, 40618, 40120, 39845, 39781, 38578, 39029, 38687, 38522, 38553, 38489]
}]
});
</script>
<h2>Nearly a thousand new homes, 116 social rented - (maybe)</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre">Elephant and Castle shopping centre redevelopment</a> is no exception in this regard. A stone's throw from the demolished Heygate estate, only 116 of nearly a thousand new homes will be offered as social rent (8.6% by floorspace), all to be built nearly ten years hence. Shopping centre owner and <em>'specialist real estate investment and advisory company developer'</em> <a href="https://www.delancey.com/welcome.html">Delancey</a> said that this was <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!b5xBNaYRSleWlYx6oXVrEA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">as much as it could afford</a> to build, but we now know that with Mayor’s funding they could give us another 42 homes - still a modest amount, but almost enough to reach Southwark's local plan requirement.</p>
<div id="container2" style="min-width: 310px; height: 400px; margin: 0 auto"></div>
<script type="text/javascript">
var colors = Highcharts.getOptions().colors,
categories = [
'Private: 65%',
'Social Rent: 17.5%',
'Intermediate: 17.5%'
],
data = [
{
y: 65.0,
color: colors[2],
drilldown: {
name: 'Market Rent',
categories: [
'Market Rent'
],
data: [
65.0
]
}
},
{
y: 17.5,
color: colors[1],
drilldown: {
name: 'Social Rent',
categories: [
'Social Rent',
'Intermediate Rent'
],
data: [
8.6,
0.0
]
}
},
{
y: 17.5,
color: colors[0],
drilldown: {
name: 'Intermediate Housing',
categories: [
'Intermediate Rent'
],
data: [
26.4
]
}
}
],
browserData = [],
versionsData = [],
i,
j,
dataLen = data.length,
drillDataLen,
brightness;
// Build the data arrays
for (i = 0; i < dataLen; i += 1) {
// add browser data
browserData.push({
name: categories[i],
y: data[i].y,
color: data[i].color
});
// add version data
drillDataLen = data[i].drilldown.data.length;
for (j = 0; j < drillDataLen; j += 1) {
brightness = 0.2 - (j / drillDataLen) / 5;
versionsData.push({
name: data[i].drilldown.categories[j],
y: data[i].drilldown.data[j],
color: Highcharts.Color(data[i].color).brighten(brightness).get()
});
}
}
// Create the chart
Highcharts.chart('container2', {
chart: {
type: 'pie'
},
title: {
text: 'Approved Tenure Mix'
},
description: {
text: 'Source: <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=16/AP/4458&system=DC" target="_blank">Southwark Council planning ref:16/AP/4458</a>'
},
plotOptions: {
pie: {
shadow: false,
center: ['50%', '50%']
}
},
tooltip: {
valueSuffix: '%'
},
series: [{
name: 'Policy Requirement',
data: browserData,
size: '60%',
dataLabels: {
formatter: function () {
return this.y > 5 ? this.point.name : null;
},
color: '#ffffff',
distance: -30
}
}, {
name: 'Approved percentage',
data: versionsData,
size: '80%',
innerSize: '60%',
dataLabels: {
formatter: function () {
// display only if larger than 1
return this.y > 1 ? '<b>' + this.point.name + ':</b> ' +
this.y + '%' : null;
}
},
id: 'versions'
}],
responsive: {
rules: [{
condition: {
maxWidth: 400
},
chartOptions: {
series: [{
id: 'versions',
dataLabels: {
enabled: false
}
}]
}
}]
}
});
</script>
<p>Whether there will ever be even 116 social rent units is also open to doubt. Leaving aside the fact that they won't be built for nearly ten years, a long time by any measure, Delancey has the option of passing the obligation to build the homes back to Southwark, along with land and <em>'sufficient funds'</em> to fulfil the obligation. We fear that the wording of the development's legal agreement fails to properly secure this. We also believe that the wording of the legal agreement fails to provide an effective viability review mechanism - a basic policy requirement and a way to get greater affordable and social rent housing, should the development prove more profitable than expected.</p>
<p>As well as housing, the new development will provide about the same amount of retail space as there is in the present shopping centre, but catering for the more well-heeled customer other social-rent free developments are now drawing to the Elephant. The shopping centre itself will be demolished, which will destroy not just the shops of the many independent traders who have made the Elephant their home, including many ethnic businesses, but one of two major social hubs for the Latin American community in London (the other, in <a href="https://www.facebook.com/wardscornercommunity/">Seven Sisters</a>, is under similar threat).</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/traderscomp.jpeg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Concerted campaigning has gained some space for these traders in the shopping centre and other new developments, as well as a <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-11-24-castle-square-delancey-responds/">temporary relocation facility</a>, but there is not enough space for every trader who wants it. <a href="https://latinelephant.org/">Latin Elephant</a>, a local charity and advocate for all ethnic traders in the area, reckons there are nearly a hundred independent traders in the area and, given the practicalities of moving a business and a limited relocation fund of <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!0iVzasdHCgb1eVmQCrssOg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">£634,700</a> only a fraction of traders are likely to benefit.</p>
<p>Delancey's anticipated profit from all of this is £137m or £148m, according to the last available <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-07-02-viability-and-delancey/">viability assessments</a> and depending on the grant funding situation. Delancey developments, at the Elephant, are based in <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-05-05-manx-connections-the-off-shore-home-of-the-elephants-developers/">off-shore</a> tax-havens, with the shopping centre development registered in the British Virgin Islands.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/delanceyshoppingcentrecgi.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>We must have homes that meet local need</h2>
<p>Delancey and Southwark argue that other elements of the scheme - a new Northern Line tube entrance and a campus for the University of the Art's London College of Communication - provide positives that <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre">outweigh any negatives</a> in the housing and retail offer. This is entirely in keeping with the regeneration rationale, as articulated by Fred Manson back in 1999, so successfully implemented by Southwark since then and now making a sizeable contribution to London's disastrous housing situation - thousands of new homes that many, not just of the poorest, cannot afford to either rent or buy; housing costs for the poorest <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/21/uk-europe-housing-cost-rise-lowest-earners-report">the 'worst in Europe'</a> and a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/31/record-number-of-people-are-sleeping-rough-in-london">record number of rough sleepers</a>.</p>
<p>From the moment the shopping centre planning application was made <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!qmb8aBDQpUlOrlnojZ2sVQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">over two years ago</a>, Southwark Council has been content to take whatever Delancey has offered, regardless of local need, in pursuit of its wretched gentrification agenda. It has been local campaigners, with the support of some local councillors, who have <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-12-16-mayor-approves-shopping-centre/">fought hard</a> over the past two years to squeeze housing concessions and a better deal for shopping centre traders out of the development. We must now fully secure the maximum social rented housing, and not have to wait nearly ten years for them. 42 extra social rented homes are not that many, the London Mayor has the money to pay for them and we are determined that they should be built. We also want a better deal for traders - more space and more money for relocating.</p>
<p>That is why we are challenging Delancey’s planning permission through the High Court. We want the permission quashed and then we want a development scheme at the Elephant and Castle that provides homes and shops that are truly affordable for local people.</p>
<p>If you agree with us, you can help in this fight by donating <a href="https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-the-elephant-shopping-centre-destruction/">here</a> or coming to <a href="https://twitter.com/UpTheElephant_/status/1144586245252759552">support us at the High Court on Wednesday 17th July</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: Estates Gazzette article <a href="https://heygate.github.io/img/EstatesGazette.pdf">published 13 March 1999</a></p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image" />
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@35percent_EAN" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Why we are challenging the E&C redevelopment plans in court" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Southwark Council - demolishing council homes, generating better people." />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/lovetheelephantbanner.jpg" />
Verney Rd - yet another Old Kent Rd development2019-06-16T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2019-06-16-verney-rd-yet-another-old-kent-road-development/<p>The application for a mixed-use development at 6-12 Verney Rd, just off the Old Kent Rd, behind PC World, is due to be considered by Southwark's <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=119&MId=6392&Ver=4">planning committee this Monday</a> (18 June). The proposal is for 3 blocks, the tallest of 17 storeys, comprising 338 residential units, office and workspace and associated open, green and amenity spaces. The application is <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s83243/Report%20and%20Appendix%201%20and%202%206%20-%2012%20Verney%20Road%20London%20SE16%203DH.pdf">recommended for approval</a>.</p>
<p>The application follows <a href="https://35percent.org/2019-06-01-malt-street-berkeley-homes-old-kent-road/">Malt St</a>, approved less than two weeks ago, <a href="https://35percent.org/2019-05-27-southernwood-retail-park/">Southernwood Retail Park</a>, <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/9869">Cantium Retail Park</a> and <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-10-08-ruby-triangle-goes-to-committee/">Ruby Triangle</a> and is the latest of the big developments being rushed through planning committee, in advance of the adoption of the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/development-plan/area-action-plans?chapter=2">Old Kent Rd Area Action Plan (AAAP</a>.</p>
<p>Verney Rd shares several characteristics with the other Old Kent Rd developments, although somewhat smaller. All have 35% affordable housing, in an approximate 70:30 social rent:intermediate housing split, compliant with the local plan (Ruby Triangle and Malt St have 40% affordable housing). All, though, are technically non-viable, according to their viability assessments, so should be unable, in theory, to meet this affordable housing requirement.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/verneyprofit.png" alt="" /><em>Developer's estimate of profit shortfall for Verney Rd scheme.</em></p>
<h2>Viability rules?</h2>
<p>This contradiction is reducing the consideration of viability into something of a ritual. The developer (in this case <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!L5kRr99Gvx64nCZlTK8JqQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">CB Acquisition London Ltd</a>,
(correspondance address, <a href="https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/NHZ7WPE191E-dhaeASgbVK9QiZk/appointments">Cayman Islands</a>)) says that the scheme will only make about <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!TQY%2bsILnV9wsUjV9l44bPw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">half the profit</a> needed to support the affordable housing required and the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s83243/Report%20and%20Appendix%201%20and%202%206%20-%2012%20Verney%20Road%20London%20SE16%203DH.pdf">Council's appraiser broadly agrees</a>, with some caveats. Then, after 'stand-back analysis' or 'sensitivity testing' (and with the <a href="https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/planning-for-the-future/bakerloo-line-extension">Bakerloo Line Extension</a> (BLE) very much in mind) the developer graciously agrees to deliver the affordable housing, regardless.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/verneyextract.png" alt="" /><em>Extract from <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!TQY%2bsILnV9wsUjV9l44bPw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">developer's viability assessment</a></em></p>
<p>This is different to what has been happening at the Elephant and Castle, where every major development used viability to <a href="https://35percent.org/major-schemes/">refuse to deliver</a> policy compliant affordable housing, so it must count as progress - but maybe not as much progress as it first appears.</p>
<h2>Homes and jobs</h2>
<p>Verney Rd is designated in the Mayor's planning policy as a <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/current-london-plan/london-plan-chapter-two-londons-places/policy-3">Strategic Industrial Location</a>. Southwark Council and the Mayor have <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/development-plan/area-action-plans?chapter=2">agreed to the release of such land</a> for mixed use development, including housing, before the Old Kent Rd AAP has been adopted, much to the anger of the <a href="https://www.vitalokr.com/">many Old Kent Rd businesses</a>.</p>
<p>Such developments, where the industrial land is lost, should provide 50% affordable housing, according the Mayor's <a href="ttps://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/draft_london_plan_-showing_minor_suggested_changes_july_2018.pdf">draft New London Plan</a>. This was the case for Ruby Triangle and Malt St, as well as Verney Rd. The draft NLP is not yet adopted, so developers are getting in quick, before it takes full force.</p>
<p>Second, while CB Acquisition Ltd are offering 35% affordable housing, they want any improvement in viability to<a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!TQY%2bsILnV9wsUjV9l44bPw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d"> <em>'be used to bridge the current viability "gap" rather than for further planning obligations'</em></a> (ie affordable housing). This pre-empts the use of a late review mechanism, designed to capture any uplift in profits for affordable housing when the development is complete. (Malt St was passed without a late stage review mechanism, though both Ruby Triangle and <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=52967">Cantium Retail Park</a> have them).</p>
<h2>Denser and denser</h2>
<p>On top of this Verney Rd is a very dense development - 1180 habitable rooms per hectare - way above the London Plan range of 200-700 habitable rooms per hectare (hrh) for an <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/current-london-plan/london-plan-chapter-3/policy-34-optimising">Urban Density Zone</a>. But even Verney Rd is not as dense as Ruby Triangle (2713 hrh) and Cantium and Southernwood Retail Parks (2353 hrh and 2522 hrh respectively), rendering the London Plan policy a dead letter, as far as the Old Kent Rd is concerned. Together the developments will deliver over 4,600 homes, with a gross development value above £2bn, with the potential for a big impact on profitability from any marginal improvements in the viability figures.</p>
<p>All the Old Kent Rd developers have shown a marked reluctance to take advantage of the <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/housing-and-land/increasing-housing-supply/affordable-housing-capital-funding-guide">grant funding available from the Mayor</a> - only Ruby Triangle and Malt St have done so and then only for 5% of the affordable housing. As the Southernwood Retail Park developer explains it, grant funding would have <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s82616/Report%20Southernwood%20Retail%20Park%202%20Humphrey%20Street%20London%20SE1%205JJ.pdf">'a significant negative impact on the viability of the scheme'</a>.</p>
<h2>More or less affordable housing?</h2>
<p>So, the picture that emerges is that of a pact being struck - developers will deliver the affordable housing that the local plan requires, but not much more, regardless of the true profitability of the developments and of any <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-sets-out-plans-to-deliver-90000-homes">'strategic' target of 50% affordable housing</a>, set by the Mayor. On the other hand, should, say, <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/9916">problems occur with the BLE</a>, reducing the prices that can be charged for new homes, it is not hard to envisage developers returning to Southwark, reminding them that they always said their schemes were technically unviable, and looking for a reduction in the affordable housing.</p>
<p>Indeed, this eventuality is even envisaged in the proposed small print of the planning consent.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/verneyvreview.png" alt="" /><em>Paragraph 256 of the <a href="https://35percent.org/2019-06-16-verney-rd-yet-another-old-kent-road-development/">planning committee report</a>.</em></p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image" />
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@35percent_EAN" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Verney Rd - Yet another Old Kent Rd development" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Third major OKR scheme in as many weeks to be waved through without a viability review mechanism." />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/verneycgi.png" />
Delays and Delancey2019-06-15T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2019-06-15-delays-and-delancey/<p>In the face of a <a href="https://35percent.org/2019-03-05-elephant-shopping-centre-judicial-review/">judicial review</a> of their planning approval for the shopping centre demolition and redevelopment (now scheduled for 17 and 18 July), centre owners and developer Delancey showed a touching concern for the welfare of the traders, making noises about how the <em><a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/9863">'timeline for starting on site will be pushed back'</a></em>, affecting the traders' hopes for <em>'stability and certainty'</em>.</p>
<p>Delancey has not previously been in any hurry to settle the centre's future, other than entirely on its own terms. This is amply demonstrated by the snail's pace progress of their planning application. It is a story of constant deferment, caused by Delancey's refusal to meet the minimum requirements of the Council's own local plan.</p>
<p>Delancey are culpable in 3 areas - the affordable retail offer, the relocation of the traders and the affordable housing offer.</p>
<h2>No affordable retail</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!jyNktp6uoRKVofXMUvOmvA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">application</a> was lodged on the 28 October 2016 but did not include any affordable retail units, contrary to Southwark's 10% requirement. Instead Delancey submitted a <a href="https://35percent.org/posts/2019-06-15-delays-and-delancey/">Retail Assessment</a> which said <em>'The Proposals do not include 10% affordable retail for the reasons outlined later. This would be unviable and inappropriate given the intention to create a strong retail/leisure anchor at the heart of the town centre'</em> (4.63).</p>
<p>By Dec 2017 the affordable retail offer had inched up to the <a href="https://docdro.id/Ax564vh">equivalent of 5.3%</a> (para 88), including an in-lieu payment. The application was scheduled for a planning meeting on 18 Dec 2017, when Delancey, no doubt fearing a refusal, despite a <a href="https://docdro.id/Ax564vh">recommendation to approve</a> (para 1) asked for <a href="https://docdro.id/yRVyr1u">a deferral</a> <em>'to allow time for further negotiations in relation to the affordable retail proposal'</em> (para 2) . A fully <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!k0%2f9zNPAdMf5Ya4yWjd0Bw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">policy compliant offer</a> was not made until Jan 2018 - 15 months after the application was first made.</p>
<h2>No relocation strategy</h2>
<p>The relocation of shopping centre traders was even further down the list of Delancey's priorities. A <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!CgEoZ4vEh0beAm1jRSlUrA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">draft strategy</a>, put together without any input from traders, appeared in August 2017, nearly a year after the planning application. The strategy did not include anywhere for the traders to move to during the building of the new development. This would have to wait another 5 months, until <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!0iVzasdHCgb1eVmQCrssOg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">February 2018</a>, when the <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-10-30-shopping-centre-legal-challenge/">Castle Square</a> temporary facility for traders was proposed.The planning application for this wholly inadequate temporary space was made in <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!hAV0cqN%2bsOq%2febuFpH0spQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">June 2018</a>, with approval in <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9578882&activeTab=summary">January 2019</a>.</p>
<h2>No social rented housing</h2>
<p>Alongside this, similar delays plagued the affordable housing offer, which Delancey only slowly and reluctantly improved because of <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-06-26-delancey-tries-again/">fierce campaigning opposition</a>. It took Delancey over 2 years (Oct 2016 - Dec 2018) to progress from their initial offer to the final, approved proposal, while still falling short of the social rented housing requirement.</p>
<p>There was a complete absence of social rented housing, or quantities for any kind of affordable housing in <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!i%2fH2BvEXXozMcypxg9AnYA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">the initial offer</a>. Delancey would only say that 35% affordable housing would be between 15% and 80% market rent, with a <em>'blended percentage'</em> of 57% (Para 6.3). This turned out to include a only a meagre <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!SeVE7nVBcuVxpQARghoUbA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">33 'social rent equivalents'</a>, out of 979 total units. This went up to 74 units in <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!0iVzasdHCgb1eVmQCrssOg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">February 2018</a>, with 95 London Living Rent units and 161 affordable rent at 80% market rent. Five months later, in <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!b5xBNaYRSleWlYx6oXVrEA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">June 2018</a>, the social rent was increased to 116 units, (with the promise that they would be 'proper' social rent), but the London Living Rent was reduced to 53 units to compensate, with 161 units remaining at 80% market rent (income thresholds of £80,000-£90,000 pa). This was too much for Mayor Sadiq Kahn who <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!TivFPuHnthygbiMWO4k6Tw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">insisted on</a> a top threshold of £60,000 pa.</p>
<h2>Three deferrals</h2>
<p>Delancey's foot-dragging caused the application to be deferred three times (18 Dec 2017, 16 Jan 2018, 30 Jan 2018), while the planning committee, under intense <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-06-26-delancey-tries-again/">pressure from campaigners</a>, wrestled improvements into Delancey's scheme, until final approval on <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=119&MId=5723&Ver=4">3 July 2018</a>.</p>
<p>This entailed 4 versions of an expanding <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s76025/ITEM%201%20-%20REPORT%2016AP4458.pdf">officer's report</a>, which recapped the reasons for each successive delay and recounted the improvements wrenched from a reluctant Delancey. Each version recommended approval, on the basis that the deal offered, including affordable retail, trader relocation and the 'maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing' was the best that could be got, only for the next version to demonstrate that this was not the case.</p>
<h2>Castle Square</h2>
<p>The delays did not end with the planning committee approval. Planning approval was also needed for the Castle Square temporary facility, as a condition of the shopping centre development approval. While the proposal was made in <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!0iVzasdHCgb1eVmQCrssOg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">February 2018</a>, Delancey came forward with this application at the end of June and it went to committee on <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=353&MId=6315&Ver=4">7 Jan 2019</a>. The final decision notice for the shopping centre application was then published on <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!E6IobTn81r9jhON1O8ivDA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">10 Jan 2019</a>, nearly a full year on and there hasn't been any progress since then.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/emptycastlesquare.jpg" alt="" /><em>Castle Square showing no sign of works commencing on the temporary boxpark</em></p>
<h2>Where the fault lies...</h2>
<p>It might be argued that through this whole tortuous saga that Delancey 'listening' and responding to the community's concerns. An alternative explanation is that it is a well-rehearsed developer tactic- offer as little as you can get away with, and then make only those improvements you are forced to concede. Delaying the delivery of the hard-one 116 social rented units for at least 9 years employs the same delaying tactic.</p>
<p>To sum up, we have little doubt that had Delancey presented the improved scheme that it presented to the planning committee on 3 July 2019 at the very first scheduled planning committee meeting, back on 18 December 2017, it would have been approved and any legal challenge long resolved. Delancey could then have saved the crocodile tears it is currently shedding on behalf of the traders.</p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image" />
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@35percent_EAN" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Delancey's delays" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Delancey looks to escape blame for its own faults." />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/emptycastlesquare.jpg" />
Malt Street - the next big Old Kent Road development2019-06-01T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2019-06-01-malt-street-berkeley-homes-old-kent-road/<p>Southwark's planning committee is to consider yet another major Old Kent Rd development <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=119&MId=6391&Ver=4">on Monday</a>, the fourth so far, after <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-10-08-ruby-triangle-goes-to-committee/">Ruby Triangle</a>, <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/9869">Cantium Retail park</a> and <a href="https://35percent.org/2019-05-27-southernwood-retail-park/">Southernwood Retail Park</a>. Southernwood was unanimously approved by Southwark's planning committee just last week, despite objections, including doubts about whether it that it will deliver the maximum reaonable amount of affordable housing. Serious concerns raised about the impact of the scheme on the proposed Bakerloo Line Extension (BLE), were allayed by a last minute letter to the Council from Transport for London (TfL).</p>
<p>For Malt St, Berkeley Homes <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=17/AP/2773&system=DC">proposes</a> a mixed use development, including 1,300 homes and 7,000 sqm of commercial space, on 1.9 hectares of land behind Asda. It is a 'hybrid' application of two parts, a detailed application for 420 homes, and an outline application for 880 homes. The total development comprises 11 blocks, including 39 and 44 storey towers, to be built in three phases, with completion by 2027.</p>
<p>Berkeley Homes are offering 40% affordable housing in total across the whole scheme, with the detailed part of the scheme providing 83 social rented and 48 intermediate units, but leaving the exact number of affordable units provided by the outline part of the scheme to be determined later.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/maltstreet.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Taking the 'social' out of social rent?</h2>
<p>As stated in the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s82712/Report%20and%20Appendix%201%20and%202%20Malt%20Street%20Regeneration%20site%20Land%20bounded%20by%20Bianca%20Road%20Latona%20Road.pdf">planning committee report</a>, Berkeley propose 35% affordable housing, of which 25% would be social rent, 10% intermediate, with an additional 5% intermediate, supplied with the help of grant funding. However, the term 'social rent' does not appear anywhere throughout Berkeley's planning application, with the documents eg the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!R3Si0Rp49ADxAyylzQ24ww%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">viability assessment</a>, using the term 'affordable rented' or just 'rent' instead.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/maltstar.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Even the Mayor's Stage 1 <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!haTo0z2rc9BKNsdNgCZODw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">planning report</a> avoids using the term 'social rent' and instead describes the proposed tenure as 'low-cost rent' (para 33) . This is yet another affordable housing label, newly introduced by the Mayor's <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/draft_london_plan_-showing_minor_suggested_changes_july_2018.pdf">draft New London Plan</a>, where it is defined to include London Affordable Rent, as well as social rent. <a href="https://www.londontenants.org/publications/briefings/Briefing%20-%20Genuinely%20affordable%20housing%20(FF).pdf">The London Tenant's Federation</a> has given evidence to the Mayor that there is a 43% difference between LAR and social rent, while the GLA has conceded during the Plan's public examination that there is a 14% difference between new build LAR and social rent.</p>
<p>The Malt St <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!CQmOQKOASqZFZSaVyAtPJA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">S106 draft heads of terms document</a> says that the exact tenure of the affordable housing will not be decided until after the application is approved:</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/maltstreetaffordability.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>We have <a href="https://35percent.org/redefining-social-rent">seen before</a> promises of social rent do no not necessarily guarantee that social rent will be delivered and we are still waiting for the <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/council-will-clamp-housing-providers-flunk-affordable-housing-promises/">promised audit</a> of affordable and social rented housing, after a <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-12-12-ombudsman-slams-southwark-for-no-s106-monitoring/">damning ombudsman investigation</a>, which found that Southwark had not monitored or enforced the tenure requirements of its s106 affordable housing agreements.</p>
<h2>No late stage review</h2>
<p>Berkeley Homes' <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!R3Si0Rp49ADxAyylzQ24ww%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">viability assessment</a> of the Malt St scheme says it will produce a 'substandard return' and it is technically unviable with 35% affordable housing (just as the developers of Ruby Triangle, Cantium Retail Park and Southernwood Retail did).</p>
<p>Southwark's consultant's <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!AK20AajFL8UYvRQUA5hBAw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">agree with this analysis</a>, albeit they calculate that the scheme is slightly less unviable than Berkeley claim. In any event, Berkeley offer 40% affordable housing on the understanding that the viability will be improved by better transport links (ie the Bakerloo Line Extension) and the ongoing regeneraation of the area. There is an important proviso, however - that there will be no late stage review.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/maltstreview.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>This pre-empts any possibility that the amount of affordable housing will be raised to 50%, as <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/draft-new-london-plan/chapter-4-housing/policy-h6-threshold-approach-applications">required by the draft London Plan for Strategic Industrial land</a>, such as the Malt St site - (the draft London Plan will be fully in force by the time Malt St is completed.)</p>
<p>Applications can avoid a late stage review, if they take the Mayor's Fast Track Route, by providing, 50% affordable housing, but the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!haTo0z2rc9BKNsdNgCZODw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">Mayor's planning report</a> makes it clear this is not happening in this case:</p>
<p><em>"The application does not therefore follow the Fast Track Route with 35% affordable housing (as the threshold level would be 50% in this instance), and it must therefore be considered under the viability tested route."</em> (paragraph 32)</p>
<p>A 35% Campaign objection on this point is appended to the end of this blogpost.</p>
<h2>Viability assessment flaw</h2>
<p>An important part of viability assessments is estimating a scheme's likely revenue. This is done by using 'comparables' ie the revenues other similiar schemes have realised. Berkeley Homes commissioned Savills for this task and they estimated an average sales value of completed homes of £776 per square foot.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/maltst776.png" alt="" /><em>Extract from the Savills report in Berkeley's <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!R3Si0Rp49ADxAyylzQ24ww%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">viability assessment</a> (appendix 4a)</em></p>
<p>In arriving at this figure Savills uses Elphant Park (formerly the Heygate estate) where the sales are currently achieving £1,247 per sqft.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/eparksales.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>This is double the revenue estimate of £600 per sq ft Savills gave back in 2012, when it was commissioned for exactly the same task by Elephant Park developer Lendlease.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/heygate600psf.png" alt="" /><em>Extract from the <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Appendix12.pdf">Savills report</a> in Lendlease's <a href="https://35percent.org/collated-viability-assessments/#heygate-viability-assessment">viability assessment for Heygate estate redevelopment</a></em></p>
<p>The explanation for this big difference lies with the rule that viability assessments are based on current day values. This is a major problem in the viability testing method and is supposed to be mitigated by sensitivity analysis or scenario testing, where various increases in sales values are tested, but these tests are often inadequate. In the Heygate case the District Valuer Service, acting for Southwark, ran just one scenario, with a 5% increase in sales values, when the actual increase has proved to be just over 100%.</p>
<p>In the case of Malt St, Berkeley's hasn't done any scenario testing. The Council's independent review has done some, but only with a 5% increase in sales values. More comprehensive scenario testing should have been undertaken, for a major scheme such as this, likely to take a decade to complete and where values will be affected by such a major variable as the Bakerloo line extension.</p>
<p>In the absence of this the very least the Council should do is secure a late stage review, which should ensure that any great rise in values does not solely benefit the developer's profit, but is shared with local community, in the form of more affordable housing.</p>
<h2>35% Campaign objection to no late stage review</h2>
<p><em>"I am writing on behalf of the 35% Campaign to object to the recommended approval of planning application ref: 17/AP/2773.</em></p>
<p><em>The planning committee report for this application refers to the 40% affordable housing offer as exceeding the policy compliant level, stated as 35% (para 167). However, para 22 of the report also notes that the site is 'designated Strategic Industrial Land (SIL), in the London Plan'; as such, the draft New London Plan requires a higher, 50% level of affordable housing under Policy H6, Para B(3).</em></p>
<p><em>The planning committee report gives weight to the draft New London Plan and other emerging policy to justify the release of industrial land for residential and other development (para 145), in the first instance; therefore equal weight should be given to the 50% affordable housing requirement for housing built on such land and 50% affordable housing required.</em></p>
<p><em>Without 50% affordable housing the application fails to qualify for the draft London Plan's Fast Track route under the threshold approach to viability testing. Policy H6 is clear that applications that do not meet the 50% SIL threshold are subject to the viability tested route, which involves a Late Stage Viability review (Para E 2(b)). This is confirmed in the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!haTo0z2rc9BKNsdNgCZODw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">GLA Stage 1 report</a> for the scheme (para 32), which states;</em></p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/glamstreet.png" alt="" /></p>
<p><em>A late stage review should therefore be required if 50% affordable housing is not offered.</em></p>
<p><em>For these reasons and in the light of the Stage 1 report, we believe that the planning committee report is wrong when it states that the affordable housing offer 'exceeds the 35% GLA threshold level' and 're-provides the existing commercial floorspace' and that therefore there need be no late stage review (para 171). (NB Nothing in Policy H6 says that the 50% threshold for SIL locations can be avoided if existing commercial floorspace is re-provided).</em></p>
<p><em>As the application is a large phased development a mid-term review should also be required, according to Policy H6, Para E 2(c)."</em></p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image" />
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@35percent_EAN" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Malt Street - the next big Old Kent Road scheme" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Big scheme and big questions for Berkeley Homes remain unanswered." />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/maltstreet.jpg" />
Southernwood Retail Park2019-05-27T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2019-05-27-southernwood-retail-park/<p><a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9580625">A proposal</a> for the development of Southernwood Retail Park is due to be decided at Southwark's planning committee <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=119&MId=6489&Ver=4">this Tuesday evening</a>. Developer <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!KrRBUGorCJrSgSs6BtYYVw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">Glasgow City Council, acting as trustees for its (Strathclyde) Pension Fund, wants permission</a> for a mixed-use development of 725 residential units, with a hotel, cinema, shops, restaurants and offices. The proposed scheme has seven blocks, including a 48-storey tower. The site is currently occupied by Argos and Sports Direct, just opposite Tesco and over the road from Burgess Park.</p>
<p>Southernwood offers, in round figures, 35% affordable housing; 25% of the total housing will be social rent, 10% intermediate, in line with the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/development-plan/local-plan?chapter=4">emerging New Southwark Plan's</a> minimum requirements, giving 219 units.</p>
<h2>Viability conundrum</h2>
<p>Viability assessments have become notorious as a way for developers to <a href="https://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1434439/2017.11.01_Slipping_through_the_loophole.pdf">avoid</a> their affordable housing obligations. Over the past few years housing <a href="https://35percent.org/viability-assessments">campaigners</a> and several <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jun/25/london-developers-viability-planning-affordable-social-housing-regeneration-oliver-wainwright">high profile</a> cases have managed to shed some light on this practice, leading to <a href="https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/home/home/london-borough-makes-viability-assessments-public-54133">changes in policy</a> and greater scrutiny of developer's viability claims.</p>
<p>In Southwark this had meant we are starting to get the 35% affordable housing that we have been denied until now. But while developers are offering 35% affordable housing, they continue to insist that their schemes are unviable. Southernwood Retail Park is a case in point. Here the developer (Glasgow City Council) claims that they will only make 2.24% (£8.4m) profit on Gross Development Value (GDV); Southwark's consultants beg to differ and say 16.37% (£62.5m) can be made. Both figures fall short of Glasgow CC's profit target (set by themselves) of 18.84% (£72m), so the development is technically deemed 'unviable'.</p>
<p>Glasgow CC's 18.84% target profit exceeds its benchmark return of 10.4% set by its pension fund manager for real estate projects (DTZ), who manage Southernwood on its behalf (See DTZ, pg 97 in Strathclyde Pension Fund's <a href="https://www.spfo.org.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=42886&p=0">most recent annual report</a>).</p>
<p>Despite the Southernwood scheme being deemed 'unviable', Glasgow CC says that it will deliver 35% affordable housing, comprising 25% social rent and 10% intermediate, in line with minimum local policy requirements. The Council's <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s82616/Report%20Southernwood%20Retail%20Park%202%20Humphrey%20Street%20London%20SE1%205JJ.pdf">planning report</a> accepts the 35% affordable offer, but without addressing the difference in the profit estimates or considering the difference in the profit target and the pension fund's DTZ target benchmark.</p>
<p>After so many major developments <a href="https://35percent.org/ivorytowers.html">at the Elephant & Castle</a> and <a href="https://35percent.org/major-schemes">elsewhere in Southwark</a> have been allowed to flout affordable housing requirements, this can be counted as progress, but leaves the true viability of the Southernwood scheme unresolved. This is important, because as well as all the minimum affordable housing requirements, there is also a <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/current-london-plan/london-plan-chapter-3/policy-312-negotiating">general requirement to produce the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing</a>, which obviously cannot be known, unless the real viability position is known. There is also the danger that the development proves to be 'undeliverable' and the developer returns to get the promised affordable housing reduced.</p>
<p>The Southernwood scheme joins <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-10-08-ruby-triangle-goes-to-committee/">Ruby Triangle</a> and <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/old-kent-road-cantium-plans-approved/">Cantium Retail Park</a> as an 'unviable' scheme that will deliver 35% affordable housing. Unlike Ruby Triangle, but like Cantium Retail Park, no 'late stage review' of viability is proposed for Southernwood. This is a comprehensive viability review where developers are required to disclose in detail actual costs and revenue received, to establish the scheme's real profitability and enable the local authority to 'claw back' additional affordable housing, should the profit be greater than anticipated. Given the site's position alongside the likely site of a new tube station should the Bakerloo line extension be built, this looks like a serious omission.</p>
<h2>Affordable housing - 35%, 40% or 50%?</h2>
<p>Two other features in the Southernwood application stand out - the first is that the applicant, Glasgow City Council, is reluctant to take advantage of any public funding, such as that <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/file/11941201">available from the Mayor of London</a>, which could raise the affordable housing to at least 40%, giving another 30 or so affordable homes. All schemes are expected to consider this, to maximise affordable housing, under the <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ah_viability_spg_20170816.pdf">Mayor's Housing policy</a>. Glasgow CC's surprising explanation for not applying for public funding is that it claims it will make the scheme less viable. As related in the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s82616/Report%20Southernwood%20Retail%20Park%202%20Humphrey%20Street%20London%20SE1%205JJ.pdf">planning committee report</a> (Para 182,183), this is because the £28,000 per unit grant (for each of the 250 affordable homes) would not make up the full loss in value of converting 5% of the private market homes into affordable homes. It appears, however, that in reaching this conclusion Glasgow CC have <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!usFYGB9yhRh95Q0p6tmP8g%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">used</a> the highest values of the private flats in the 48-storey tower for comparison, rather than the lower-value private flats in the lower blocks, the difference being £600k per unit versus £500k per unit.</p>
<p>Glasgow CC also say that they will not be in time for the <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/file/11941201">current funding round</a>, which requires a start on site before 31st March 2021, notwithstanding that Phase 1 of the scheme would <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!Z%2fngWgPScvw3gDPzmFkc8A%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">commence in 2021</a>, to be <em>"open and operational by 2022/23"</em> (Para 44); the report simply proposes a condition that this is reconsidered before the scheme is implemented. The second half of the scheme won't commence until May 2030 and won't complete until 2033 (See para 57 of <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s82616/Report%20Southernwood%20Retail%20Park%202%20Humphrey%20Street%20London%20SE1%205JJ.pdf">planning committee report</a>).</p>
<p>The second feature is that the site is both owned by a local authority and is in an area marked as a <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/draft-new-london-plan/chapter-6-economy/policy-e5-strategic-industrial-locations-sil">Strategic Industrial Location</a> and on both counts should deliver 50% affordable housing, according to the <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/draft-new-london-plan/chapter-4-housing/policy-h6-threshold-approach-applications">draft New London Plan</a>, which would raise the number of affordable homes to around 360.</p>
<p>Glasgow CC submitted its own legal opinion on this, arguing that the site should not be considered as public land because it would <em>" penalise the members of the [Pension] Fund simply for having worked as public servants"</em> (see para 173 of <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s82616/Report%20Southernwood%20Retail%20Park%202%20Humphrey%20Street%20London%20SE1%205JJ.pdf">planning committee report</a>). There can be no dispute that the land is owned by Glasgow City Council, on behalf of its pension fund, as <a href="https://35percent.org/posts/2019-05-27-southernwood-retail-park/35percent.org/lrdeeds/SouthernwoodRetailPark.pdf">land Registry deeds</a> show; nonetheless Southwark and the Greater London Authority (GLA) have accepted Glasgow CC's argument.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/SouthernwoodRetailParkdeeds.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Southwark's and the Mayor's decision flies in the face of the Mayor's planning policy, which has its own specific Guidance Note for determining what constitutes public land - <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/practice_note_on_threshold_approach_to_affordable_housing_on_public_land_july_2018.pdf">Threshold Approach to Affordable Housing on Public Land (July 2018)</a>. This defines it as <em>"Land that is owned or in use by a public sector organisation, or company or organisation in public ownership"</em> (para 9). Anticipating disputes on the definition, the note goes on to say that these <em>"will be determined with reference to the <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/uksectoraccounts/datasets/publicsectorclassificationguide">Public Sector Classifications Guide (PSCG) published by the Office for National Statistics</a>"</em>
and this guide lists Local Government Pension Funds as a <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/classificationsandstandards/economicstatisticsclassifications/introductiontoeconomicstatisticsclassifications">public sector body</a>, just as Glasgow CC is a public sector body.</p>
<p>Notwithstanding this Southwark argues in the legal advice appended to the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s82616/Report%20Southernwood%20Retail%20Park%202%20Humphrey%20Street%20London%20SE1%205JJ.pdf">planning committee report</a> that imposing the higher 50% affordable housing <em>"would reduce the capital value of the site and therefore the Fund’s ability to pay pensions to retired workers"</em> and that <em>"It would be unfair on the retired workers if their pension expectation might possibly be impacted.."</em></p>
<p>It might well be 'unfair' to pensioners if this happened, but it would also be 'unfair' to those who need affordable housing if it is not delivered when required by policy. It is also unfair on planning committee members who are recommended to approve this scheme without the detailed policy requirements or the alleged 'impact' on pensions having been properly explained in the planning report.</p>
<p>As unedifying as it would be to see two local authorities fight over their respective shares of a development's profit, one on behalf of pensioners, the other, on behalf of those who need affordable housing, Southwark and the GLA's responsibility in this situation is to vigorously represent the interests of those in housing need and it has not done so, by giving way so easily.</p>
<h2>TfL gives scheme (many) red lights</h2>
<p>There also appears to be <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/9916">major issues</a>, to say the least, with Transport for London (TfL), particularly around the impact of the development on plans for the proposed Bakerloo Line Extension (BLE). In <a href="https://35percent.org/img/TfL_Southernwood.pdf">its latest communication</a> of barely a month ago, in which TfL urges Southwark not to approve the application, except for <em>"the rear portion of the site"</em>, until the Bakerloo Line Extension (BLE) is complete, for fear that it will be compromised.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/swtflsummary2.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from TFL's <a href="https://35percent.org/img/TfL_Southernwood.pdf">Objection to the scheme</a></em></p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/swtflsummary.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from TFL's <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!W%2bBDjjAJuU3mmtTnlOWc0Q%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">Objection to the scheme</a></em></p>
<p>TfL make the damning accusation that Southwark has <em>'no joined-up thinking'</em>, which must sting after several years of consultation and planning for the yet-to-be adopted <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/development-plan/area-action-plans">Old Kent Rd Area Action Plan (AAP) and Opportunity Area</a>.</p>
<p>TfL examine eight aspects of the scheme for policy compliance - Strategic approach, Healthy Streets, Transport Capacity, Transport Assessment, Cycling, Car Parking, Deliveries, Funding - and gives the red light to six (meaning 'Major changes/redesign required'), with amber for two, including 'Funding' ('Further work required')'. One of the more radical amendments TfL require for policy compliance is to move the proposed hotel, currently to face onto the Old Kent Rd, but overall TfL consider that it is <em>'unlikely that the significant design changes and stringent management measures necessary to make the existing proposals workable can be made to address the issues'</em> raised.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s82616/Report%20Southernwood%20Retail%20Park%202%20Humphrey%20Street%20London%20SE1%205JJ.pdf">planning committee report</a> addresses TfL's objections at length, over 14 pages (Para 524 - 602). While it acknowledges the critical importance of the BLE to the success of the whole Opportunity Area, much of the remedy the report proposes depend on future agreements between all parties, including rival developers Tesco/Invesco, to be secured by s106 and other legal conditions <strong>after</strong> consent is granted, when the common-sense response is surely to resolve these problems <strong>before</strong> consent is given.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>Southernwood provides the peculiar spectacle of one public authority building homes on land owned by another, but refusing to apply for public funding, because that would make an 'unviable' development more unviable, added to which it is promising to provide affordable housing the figures say the scheme cannot provide.</p>
<p>As noted above, Ruby Triangle and Cantium Retail Park were also both declared technically non-viable and depend upon the rise in land values that the Bakerloo Extension will bring, so should the problems feared by TfL occur, they may well have consequences for their promises of affordable housing too.</p>
<p>The TfL objections to Southernwood also adds weight to the argument that the whole Opportunity Area project is developer-driven, rather than plan-led and that the approval of major developments, such as Southernwood in advance of the adoption of the Area Action Plan is premature and rendering it redundant. Southwark should not be granting permission for a scheme in such a key location beforehand, especially when it is not due complete until 2033 and no late stage viability review is proposed.</p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image" />
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@35percent_EAN" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Southernwood Retail Park" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Third major Old Kent Road scheme up for approval. Mayor's 50% affordable housing requirement for public land trumped by Glasgow Council worker's pension expectations." />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/southernwoodretailpark.jpg" />
Delancey deals double blow to shopping centre traders2019-04-29T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2019-04-29-delancey-deals-double-blow-to-traders/<p>Traders at the Elephant and Castle shopping centre were dealt a double blow last week, by the closure of Tesco and the erection of a large unsightly hoarding, isolating shops on the second floor.</p>
<p>The 8-foot high boards surround the bottom of the escalator to the Palaces Bingo and Bowling Hall, which has now closed. Delancey claim it is necessary to prevent children getting onto the escalator and becoming a site for anti-social behaviour. Traders, however, have demanded its removal, saying it is blighting their trade and customers will assume that the centre is closing.</p>
<p>Traders were also rocked by Tesco’s announcement that it was permanently closing the Metro supermarket in the centre. This follows four weeks of closure, to deal with a mice problem.</p>
<p>Local news website, SE1, <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/9903">reported Tesco</a> as saying <em>"We have today announced to colleagues that we have taken the difficult decision to close our Elephant & Castle Metro store”</em>. An <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/9879">earlier announcement</a> had said that the store was only <em>“temporarily closed"</em> while Tesco worked with Delancey and <em>“a specialist pest control company to take urgent steps to deal with this problem”</em>.</p>
<p>Both these events will reduce the ‘footfall’ in the centre, which smaller traders rely on for their custom and the responsibility lies squarely with shopping centre owner and developer Delancey.</p>
<p>The hoarding on the second floor is oversized, obtrusive and unnecessary. The Palaces can be safely closed by securing the doors at the top of the escalator, and the escalator itself does not need an 8-foot high barrier to prevent children climbing on to it. The hoarding was erected without any consultation with traders and is having a detrimental impact on their businesses.</p>
<h2>Delancey manage centre's decline</h2>
<p>Delancey have been the landlords of the shopping centre since 2013, when it bought the centre with the express intention of demolition and redevelopment. Tesco’s departure is clear evidence that it has failed to keep the centre as a fit place to trade. It follows traders’ long-term complaints that the centre is being deliberately run-down, complaints which were described as having <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!HvOs1eG7BYgl0hYZ8SIm5w%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">‘some validity’</a> by Southwark Council planning officers.</p>
<p>Delancey are obliged by the terms of its legal s106 agreement to give 6-month notice of both the centre’s closure and any demolition. Campaign groups and traders fear that it is evading this obligation, by closing the centre bit-by-bit. Many traders are also angry at being <a href="https://35percent.org/2019-03-30-no-room-for-traders-in-the-new-elephant/">excluded by Delancey</a> in its allocation of alternative premises. The <a href="https://latinelephant.org/map/#Q5">latest figures</a> from <a href="https://latinelephant.org/">Latin Elephant</a> show that there are still 62 shopping centre traders who haven't been offered any relocation space.</p>
<p>Southwark Council have <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/9879">taken no action</a>, either to deal with the rodent problem or to force Delancey to abide faithfully by its s106 agreement.</p>
<h2>Petition - Keep Tesco at the Elephant!</h2>
<p>We think that it cannot be beyond Tesco's resources to solve this problem and Southwark Council should be insisting that it does so, not standing idly by. The Up the Elephant Campaign has started <a href="https://chng.it/hj5r6BmNwL">a petition, 'Keep Tesco at the Elephant!</a> - please <a href="https://chng.it/hj5r6BmNwL">sign it and share!</a></p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/Tescos_Tweet_Image003.png" alt="Tescos_Tweet_Image" /></p>
<h2>Save the Elephant's Diverse Community!</h2>
<p>35% Campaign is part of the <a href="https://35percent.org/uptheelephant/">Up the Elephant</a> legal challange to the planning approval for the redevelopment of the centre, on the grounds that it fails to provide enough social rented housing. If you would like to help us in our fight, you can <a href="https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-the-elephant-shopping-centre-destruction/">donate</a> to our funding appeal <a href="https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-the-elephant-shopping-centre-destruction/">here</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/lovetheelephantbanner.jpg" alt="" /></p>
No room for traders in the new Elephant2019-03-30T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2019-03-30-no-room-for-traders-in-the-new-elephant/<p>Just thirty-six independent traders from the Elephant & Castle shopping centre have been allocated new space in which to trade, in the event of the centre's demolition and redevelopment. Despite <a href="https://twitter.com/MerrillDarren/status/1112289309351182336">concerns</a> raised by the Chair of the 'Traders Panel' <a href="https://twitter.com/mariaadderley/status/1112309409361874944">and his fellow panel member</a>, the figure is trumpeted in a <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2019/mar/thirty-six-local-businesses-secure-new-home-in-the-heart-of-elephant-castle">self-congratulatory press-release</a> from Southwark Council and belies the true situation which is that at least <a href="https://twitter.com/LatinElephant?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">40 traders have been left out in the cold</a>, according to <a href="https://latinelephant.org/">Latin Elephant</a>, who champion the cause of all independant ethnic minority traders. Southwark News reported that <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/nearly-30-elephant-and-castle-traders-rejected-for-delancey-relocation-units/">28 applications for space were rejected</a>.</p>
<p>The new spaces are a mixture of permanent affordable units, at the base of the <a href="https://35percent.org/tribeca-square/">Elephant One Tower</a> and on the ground floor of <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/9676">Perronet House</a> (the 'Elephant Arcade'), and temporary affordable units in <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-11-24-castle-square-delancey-responds/">Castle Square</a>.</p>
<h2>No room on the Park</h2>
<p>Noticeably absent from the relocation sites are the affordable retail units on <a href="https://www.elephantpark.co.uk/about-elephant-park/">Elephant Park</a>, formerly the <a href="https://35percent.org/heygate-regeneration-faq/">Heygate estate</a>. At over 1300 sqm, with circa 800sqm available in 2019, this is by far the largest of the four sites <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!HvOs1eG7BYgl0hYZ8SIm5w%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">presented to Southwark's planning committee</a> as alternatives for displaced traders. This 800sqm of affordable retail <a href="https://twitter.com/elephant_petit/status/1076037101509140480">comprises 8 units</a> all located on one street (Sayer St), pictured in the CGI below (extracted from Lendlease's <a href="https://www.elephantpark.co.uk/files/ElephantPark_retail_V11-website-optimised.pdf">marketing brochure</a>).</p>
<img src="https://35percent.org/img/ep-sayer-cgi.jpg" width="600" />
<p>Unlike the other 3 sites, Elephant Park is under Lendlease control, not Delancey or Southwark, so the suspicion is that they have no desire to help Delancey, or Southwark, relocate traders, notwithstanding the <a href="https://www.lendlease.com/uk/projects/elephant-park/?id=3c8e138c-140a-4268-8cba-199afaec168d"><em>'imagination, empathy and dedication'</em></a> it claims to be bringing to the Elephant & Castle. The CGI image above and marketing image below suggest that Lendlease's vision doesn't aim to include the likes of Jenny's Burgers or the Sundial Cafe.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/spiritofelephant.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Lendlease's new retail units on Sayer Street nearing completion</em></p>
<h2>A predictable debacle</h2>
<p>A relocation strategy that only to relocates half of those who need relocation is a failure by any measure, more so when that failure is entirely predictable. Objectors, led by <a href="https://latinelephant.org/">Latin Elephant</a>, have consistently pointed out that Delancey's half-hearted and dilatory 'strategy' simply did not provide enough space to accommodate all the traders who wish to stay at the Elephant and this has remainded the case, even as the number of traders has inevitably changed over time.</p>
<p>In the summer of 2017 Southwark estimated that there were <a href="https://twitter.com/LatinElephant/status/1081169626590048258">about 130 independent businesses</a>, occupying 4005sqm within the 'red-line' of the development (excluding the Hannibal House office space). Latin Elephant calculated that all available space, including Elephant Park (East St market spaces, nearly a mile down the road), could accommodate 84 businesses on 2,263 sqm - not much more than half the floorspace required and leaving at least 38 eligible buinesses out in the cold.</p>
<p>In March 2018, Latin Elephant objected to Delancey's planning application, on the grounds that the amount of affordable retail space <a href="https://latinelephant.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2018-03-09-LE-Objection-Deferred-Appl.pdf">fell far short of the 4000 sqm needed</a>. Nonetheless, the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!HvOs1eG7BYgl0hYZ8SIm5w%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">officer's report</a> for the application, lumped the new shopping centre's affordable retail with the affordable retail of Elephant One and Elephant Park. The report noted that over a third of that space would not be completed until 2024, but nonetheless reached the comforting concluson that the total of 3866 sqm was <em>'only marginally short...of the 4,005sqm of space currently occupied by independent retailers on the east (shopping centre) site'</em> (para 221).</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/traderscomp.jpeg" alt="" /></p>
<p>By January 2019, Perronet House had been approved and Castle Square itself went to planning committee, so the officer's report for this wisely drops any reference to the shopping centre, to reach an affordable retail total of 2,859sqm. The <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!12dhIwvd2JFDUQgBXBnMXA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">report</a> acknowledges that <em>'whilst this would be less than the 4,005sqm currently understood to be occupied by independent businesses on the east site, some businesses may be able to operate from smaller premises'</em> (para 57). Southwark now identified 80 businesses in the redline and gave <a href="https://twitter.com/elephant_petit/status/1081278395504197633">verbal assurances</a> that there <em>'should be sufficient'</em> units to accommodate everyone.</p>
<p>In an <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/independently_owned_retail_busin?nocache=incoming-1334948#incoming-1334948">FOI response</a> in March 2019 Southwark gave the number of traders as 79 (an underestimate that treats the several businesses in Arch 7 as one).</p>
<h2>Wishful thinking and indifference</h2>
<p>While Southwark's approach to relocating centre traders can be characterised as wishful thinking, Delancey's can be characterised as indifference. It's starting position was that providing affordable retail <a href="https://docdro.id/tpVc90A"><em>'would be unviable and inapproriate'</em></a> (para 4.63) and that a relocation strategy would <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-12-19-delancey-submits-shopping-centre-application/">only be forthcoming</a>, once Delancey had secured planning approval (an aim it acheived). Only the concerted <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-10-30-shopping-centre-legal-challenge/">efforts of local campaigners</a> and councillors has dragged concessions from Delancey, including Castle Square, a relocation fund, as well as the affordable retail units, but more is needed. Traders must be given more space for relocation and securer leases; the centre itself needs urgent maintenance and promotion, so that businesses remain viable. The relocation fund of £634,700 is not enough to for the number of traders who need its help.</p>
<h2>It's not too late</h2>
<p>In the meantime, it's not too late to put a stop to this disastrous and inequitable scheme. The application for a judicial review of the shopping centre planning permission continues its legal progress. We want the permission quashed, for a scheme with more social rented housing and a better deal for traders.</p>
<p>You can find out more about the legal challenge <a href="https://35percent.org/uptheelephant/">here</a> and you can help fund our fight by donating <a href="https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-the-elephant-shopping-centre-destruction/">here</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/cj7020.png" alt="" /></p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary" />
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@35percent_EAN" />
<meta property="og:url" content="https://35percent.org/2019-03-30-no-room-for-traders-in-the-new-elephant/" />
<meta property="og:title" content="No room for traders in the new Elephant" />
<meta property="og:description" content="Shopping Centre traders left out in the cold" />
<meta property="og:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/36edited2.png" />
Elephant shopping centre plans - judicial review sought2019-03-05T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2019-03-05-elephant-shopping-centre-judicial-review/<h2>Crowdfunding appeal launched - please donate!</h2>
<p>A coalition of local people and groups fighting for a fairer regeneration at the Elephant and Castle, including the 35% Campaign, are supporting a legal application to overturn the planning approval for the redevelopment of the Elephant and Castle shopping centre.</p>
<p>The legal challenge argues that Southwark were misled by shopping centre owner and developer Delancey about the amount of the social rented housing that could be provided. If the challenge is successful it would mean that the planning approval awarded to Delancey by Southwark Council would be quashed, stopping the demolition and redevelopment of the centre.</p>
<p>A CrowdJustice appeal <a href="https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-the-elephant-shopping-centre-destruction/">has been launched</a> to help fund the challenge and donations can be made <a href="https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-the-elephant-shopping-centre-destruction">here</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/crowdjustice.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>A destructive scheme</h2>
<p>The action is being mounted because Delancey's scheme will destroy and displace the local community, while allowing Delancey a required profit of £137m –</p>
<ol>
<li>Most traders won’t get a place in the new development</li>
<li>There is no certainty over the future of the bingo</li>
<li>Delancey is not providing enough social rented housing – and even that could be lost</li>
</ol>
<p>The case for quashing the planning approval is that Southwark Council’s planning committee was misled about the maximum amount of affordable housing that the scheme could viably provide. Delancey said it could only afford to provide 116 social rented units, but we now know that with the Mayor’s funding they could give us another 42. This would still only amount to a fraction of the total 979 units of new homes in the development, but social rented housing is the most vital kind of affordable housing and desperately needed throughout Southwark - 42 families should not be deprived of somewhere decent and affordable to live.</p>
<h2>Social rent in doubt</h2>
<p>Even the 116 social rented homes promised could be at risk; the devil is in the detail and Delancey has managed to pull the wool over the Council's eyes with a deal which could leave us with little or no social rented housing if Delancey doesn’t deliver the “West site”, not due to be built for another 10 years.</p>
<p>We want the planning approval quashed and then we want a development scheme that provides homes and shops that are truly affordable for local people.</p>
<p>Our legal challenge is supported by the <a href="https://www.pilu.org.uk/paul-heron/">Public Interest Law Centre</a> and <a href="https://www.pilu.org.uk/paul-heron/">Southwark Law Centre</a>. We will be represented by barristers <a href="https://www.ftbchambers.co.uk/barristers/sarah-sackman">Sarah Sackman</a> of Francis Taylor Building and <a href="https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/member/david-wolfe/">David Wolfe QC</a> of Matrix Chambers.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/lovetheelephant.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Please donate!</h2>
<p>We must raise at least <strong>£5000</strong> to be able to mount this vital challenge and for that we need your help. All funds will go towards the legal costs of the case. If we lose the case we will have to pay the other side's costs. If we win, we will be able to pay our own lawyers!</p>
<p>Please <a href="https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-the-elephant-shopping-centre-destruction/">donate to our appeal</a>, any amount big or small!</p>
<p>Please share this page with you friends and contacts!</p>
<p>Any <a href="https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-the-elephant-shopping-centre-destruction/">donation</a> you can make will help in this crucial fight to make London a city where the needs of our diverse communities come before the profits of offshore property developers.</p>
<p>You can read more about Delancey's desructive plans <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre">here.</a></p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/lospropertydevelopersnopasaran2.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image" />
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@35percent_EAN" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Elephant and Castle plans - Judicial Review sought" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Crowdfunding launched to support legal challenge to the planning approval for redevelopment of Elephant and Castle shopping centre." />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/shoppingcentreappealcomp.png" />
2019 - New Year's Resolutions2019-01-14T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2019-01-06-new-years-resolutions/<p>To welcome the New Year and in a spirit of fraternity we have come up with ten actions that Southwark Council can consider taking, in order to ease the effects of the housing crisis and create a fairer future for the borough's residents.</p>
<h2>1. Stop selling off Council homes</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.londontenants.org/publications/other/Boroughs%20SR%20loss%20or%20gain%202001-17%20(FF4).jpg">Research</a> by the <a href="https://londontenants.org/">London Tenants Federation</a> shows that Southwark has lost more social housing than any other borough since 2001.</p>
<p>As well as <a href="https://35percent.org/the-southwark-clearances/">right to buy and estate demolitions</a>, homes are also being lost through the sale of 'high value' coumcil homes, through a scheme that was introduced in 2009 by Southwark's Tory/Lib Dem administration, for vacant council houses valued above £400,000 . In 2011 the scheme was <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s19458/Report%20Review%20of%20Void%20Disposal%20Strategy.pdf">reviewed and the value reduced to £300,000</a> by the incoming Labour administration and then <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s47497/Report%20Review%20of%20voids%20disposal%20strategy.pdf">increased to £500,000 in 2014</a>.</p>
<p>We don't know how many council homes have been sold under this policy to date, but <a href="https://35percent.org/img/sold_by_southwark.pdf">this compilation</a> taken from an auction website shows a sample of over 50 properties sold off in this <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?AIId=48244">ongoing policy of disposals</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/samplecouncilhomessold.png" alt="" />
<em>Extracts from a <a href="https://35percent.org/sold_by_southwark.pdf">sample</a> of council homes sold by the current Labour administration under this policy</em></p>
<p>Southwark's justification for this is that the sales revenue allows more council housing to be built more cheaply elsewhere in the borough, but the cost of building new social rented homes is surprisingly high and there is a severe shortage of available land.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/buildcost.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from <a href="https://moderngov.southwarksites.com/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=5887">Council report</a> on Kipling estate new builds</em></p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/pelierpsqm.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s75190/Report%20Gateway%202%20-%20Contract%20Award%20Construction%20of%20New%20Build%20Units%20at%20Pelier%20Street.pdf">Council report</a> on Pelier estate new builds</em></p>
<p>As we <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-11-12-11000-council-homes-manifesto-pledge/">reported previously</a> the Council is still selling off or knocking down Council homes faster than it is building them.</p>
<h2>2. Stop selling off public land and buildings</h2>
<p>Southwark's 'modernisation' drive has also seen it sell off public buildings and land including <a href="https://35percent.org/southwark-town-halls/">both Bermondsey and Peckham Town Halls</a>; Harper Rd Social Services Centre; Castle Day Centre; Whitstable Day Nursery; Abbey St Children's Home; Willowbrook Community Centre and the Wansey St Homeless Hostel.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/selloff2.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Land sold includes <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=5885">a plot near Millwall stadium</a> and Southwark's <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=6563">former car pound</a> off the Old Kent Road, likewise <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieIssueDetails.aspx?IId=50017404&PlanId=0&Opt=3#AI50577">a plot of land</a> at Devonshire Grove and <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=3755">a plot of land</a> on the Beacon House estate and <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?AIId=29450"> one at Woods Road in Peckham</a>.</p>
<p>These sales no doubt raise funds, but The Mayor's <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/what-new-london-plan">new draft London Plan</a> introduces a requirement that 50% of new housing developments on public land <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/draft_london_plan_chapter_4.pdf">should be affordable</a> so whatever immediate gains these sales bring, the imperative should be retaining as much land in public ownership as possible, to take full advantage of this change.</p>
<p><a href="https://35percent.org/img/soldland.png"><img src="https://35percent.org/img/soldland.png" /></a></p>
<p>What brings these land sales further into question is that the Council is simultaneously buying plots of land to fulfill its manifesto pledge of building 11,000 new council homes. <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s79805/Report%201%20Ann%20Moss%20Way%20Rotherhithe%20London%20SE16%201TL.pdf">This recent Cabinet report</a> approving the purchase of a site in Rotherhithe, confirms that <em>"A key constraint we face is this great task is in the availability of land to build the next generation of new council homes, and to this end the council is committed to identifying and where possible acquiring new sites in the borough."</em></p>
<h2>3. No more approvals like this...</h2>
<p>If Southwark is serious about fulfilling its <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-11-12-11000-council-homes-manifesto-pledge/">manifesto promise</a> to build 11000 council homes there must be no more approvals of developments like Braganza St, on the site of the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/regeneration/southwark-regeneration-in-partnership-programme?chapter=7">council's former enterprise workshops in Kennington</a> and one of 20 sites in <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/regeneration/southwark-regeneration-in-partnership-programme">Southwark's Regeneration Partnership Programme (SRRP)</a>, its flagship council house delivery programme. Despite the <a href="https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-regeneration/2nd-round-consultation-braganza-street-workshops/supporting_documents/Braganza%20Online.pdf">consultation process for this site promising 55% council homes</a>, planning permission was granted last year for 33 new homes, 28 of which private, 5 intermediate and none social rent or council housing.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/braganzascheme2.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>4. Stop granting planning permission for schemes that don't comply with planning policy requirements</h2>
<p>Our <a href="https://35percent.org/img/major-schemes">research into major developments</a> approved in Southwark over the past 10 years has shown that out of a total of 11,863 new homes given planning consent, just 456 (3.8%) were social rented tenure. Had Southwark stood firm and forced these schemes to comply with minimum policy requirements then 2,500 social rented homes would have been approved in total.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/majschemes.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>5. Stop buying S106 homes from developers</h2>
<p>We have <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-11-12-11000-council-homes-manifesto-pledge/#buying-affordable-housing-instead">blogged</a> previously about the council buying affordable housing from developers to help deliver on its failing manifesto pledge. The problem with this method of buying council housing is that it does not actually increase the net supply of social housing - the same units would otherwise have been bought and let by a housing association anyway. Further, Southwark is denying itself the benefit of the S106 contribution, by paying for something a housing association would have paid for - and, rather perversely, denying itself funds for building units that would actually increase the net supply.</p>
<h2>6. Start monitoring and enforcing tenure requirements of Section 106 agreements</h2>
<p>In May 2015 we <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/southwark-council-probes-44-missing-social-homes/">discovered</a> that Notting Hill Housing association had provided affordable rent (up to 80% market) as part of its Bermondsey Spa Regeneration scheme. Following this we discovered 43 further schemes where raised a similiar concern. After the Council dismissed our complaint we referred it to the Ombudsman who concluded that the Council <em>"did not have a systematic supervision procedure to check compliance"</em> with the tenure provision requirements of its section 106 agreements. Instead <em>"it relied on developers’ voluntary compliance."</em> The Ombudsman ordered Southwark to conduct an audit of S106 tenure provision and introduce monitoring/compliance procedures.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/LGOFinalDecisionSOR.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The Council initially <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/gov-report-finds-council-failed-years-monitor-developers-broken-promises-provide-social-housing/">promised</a> that the first 1-year audit would be published in 2017. It didn't happen. It later <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/council-will-clamp-housing-providers-flunk-affordable-housing-promises/">explained that the audit was taking time because it was going back to 2010 and promised</a> that it would be completed in Spring 2018. Nearly three years have now passed since the Ombudsman decision and while the chair of the planning committee has <a href="https://twitter.com/cllrmseaton/status/1058056214230253573">promised</a> to look into it, we are yet to see or hear anything of the audit.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/snauditpromise2.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>7. Make development partnership agreements public</h2>
<p>Southwark has made an often repeated <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/southwark-councils-new-policy-will-stop-developers-copping-out-of-affordable-housing-obligations/">committment</a> to transparent viability assessments. This transparency should be extended to all development related documents, including development partnership agreements with private developers. These contain the same categories of information as viability assessments and determine the public benefits a scheme will deliver.</p>
<p>Last October we requested a copy of the Council's partnership agreement with British Land for the <a href="https://35percent.org/canada-water/#british-land-masterplan-site">gargantuan Canada Water redevelopment plans</a> (46 acres of Council freehold land, more than 3000 new homes). After two and a half months it was <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/partnership_agreement_for_redeve#incoming-1281908">released</a>, in heavily redacted form - all financial and viability details, affordable housing provisions, pubic open space requirements and developer's protected profit levels are completely redacted.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/cwdpa.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/partnership_agreement_for_redeve#incoming-1281908">redacted partnership agreement</a></em></p>
<p>Amongst the unredacted information is a reference to <em>"Seymour Street Homes Ltd"</em> as the affordable housing provider. <a href="https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10044321/filing-history">Companies House records</a> show that this is a recently incorporated and wholly-owned subsidiary of the developer British Land, part of a new trend in affordable housing provision that shifts it further from public control.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/cw4.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/partnership_agreement_for_redeve#incoming-1281908">redacted partnership agreement</a></em></p>
<p>Development partnership agreements, like the one for Canada Water, are invariably used for big developements, and if Southwark wants to avoid the <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/news/2013/02/southwark-accidentally-leaks-confidential-information">controversies</a> caused by the eventual <a href="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ra.pdf">publication</a> of the Heygate and the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/sep/12/london-council-aylesbury-estate-development-southwark-financial-risk">Aylesbury partnership agreements</a>, it should be fully open and transparent about the agreements it makes with developers.</p>
<h2>8. Keep Walworth Town Hall in public ownership</h2>
<p>Having <a href="https://35percent.org/southwark-town-halls">sold off</a> all Bermondsey and Peckham Town Halls, it was a relief when Southwark made a <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1307/southwark_council_commits_to_restoring_the_walworth_town_hall">solemn promise</a> to restore Walworth Town Hall & library to public use after it was badly damaged by a fire in 2013.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/wth.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>It is therefore disappointing, but maybe unsurprising, that Southwark has now gone back on that promise, claiming that it doesn't have the funds to restore the Town Hall back into public use.</p>
<p>The Walworth Society is objecting to the Council's current plan to privatise it and <a href="https://walworthsociety.co.uk/index.php/2-uncategorised/262-walworth-town-hall-redevelopment">makes the very good point</a> that if the two shortlisted developers <em>"are able to redevelop the Town Hall buildings for up to £20 million and then make a profit from them with a commercial development, why could not Southwark redevelop them for a similar amount and include a significant proportion of commercial usage."</em> <a href="https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-regeneration/wthbids/">Consultation on this runs to 21 Jan</a>; this is a link to the Walworth Society's <a href="https://walworthsociety.co.uk/index.php/2-uncategorised/262-walworth-town-hall-redevelopment">objections</a>.</p>
<p>Southwark should stick to its original promise and restore the Town Hall to public use.</p>
<h2>9. Reconsider its funding choices?</h2>
<p>While Southwark argues that it doesn't have enough money to restore Walworth Town Hall, shortly before Christmas Southwark's Cabinet agreed to the purchase of 'Courage Yard', a commercial development in Shad Thames. SE1 website <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/9791">reports</a> that the Council is paying £89m for the site - nearly twice what the current owner paid for it in 2015.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/imageuploads/1546965982_162.158.158.45.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>According to <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s76412/Report%20Treasury%20Management%20Outturn.pdf">this Council report</a> (para 21) Southwark owns £232m worth of such commercial investments, which currently provides a net total of £9.2m per year in revenue (3.9% return), but this appears to be less than the amount it is paying in interest on its debt - 4.6% on £563m (para 41).</p>
<p>Southwark is also spending <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/council-spend-temporary-housing-now-five-times-20112012/">£10m per year</a> on bed & breakfast accommodation for its homeless residents, so, refurbishing Walworth Town Hall, reducing debt, or reducing temporary accommodation costs, by building more council houses, more quickly, all seem plausible alternatives for spending £89m.</p>
<p>Southwark has a large and diverse number of assets, which need to be managed in a prudent manner, but it should remember that it remains, first and foremost, a local government authority, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/17/councils-commercial-property-spend-council-housing-housebuilding">not a speculative property developer</a>.</p>
<h2>10. Treat the traders at the Elephant shopping centre fairly</h2>
<p>Elephant shopping centre developer Delancey has finally secured <a href="https://twitter.com/LatinElephant?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Eembeddedtimeline%7Ctwterm%5Eprofile%3ALatinElephant&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Flatinelephant.org%2F">approval of Castle Sq</a>, the temporary facility for displaced shopping centre traders, after making a <a href="https://twitter.com/uptheelephant_?lang=en">last minute concession</a> reducing the rents to between £18 and £24 per square foot; a significant victory for traders and campaigners, to join at least two others - the provision of Castle Square itself and the increase in social rented housing from 33 to 116 units.</p>
<p>However, Castle Sq is much too small and many traders will be looking at alternative premises, such as new units at the bottom of <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/4502/Perronet%20Garages%20Consultation%20Boards%20Low%20Res.pdf">Perronet House</a>, over the road from the Bakerloo line tube station. These are also <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/9676">not ideal</a>, but as the landlord, Southwark could make traders lives a lot easier by charging rents no greater than those Delancey will be charging.</p>
<p>(We will be writing more on the whole shopping centre redevelopment shortly.)</p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="New Year Resolutions for 2019" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Ten positive changes Southwark Council could make in 2019 " />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/resolutions.png" />
Southwark gives Delancey a helping hand2018-12-23T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2018-12-22-southwark-gives-delancey-a-helping-hand/<p>As we anticipated in our <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-12-16-mayor-approves-shopping-centre/">last blogpost</a> Delancey missed the deadline for completing the legal S106 agreement that seals <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-07-09-delancey/">the planning approval</a> for the shopping centre's demolition and redevelopment.</p>
<p>Missing the deadline put the power of refusing the redevelopment application back into the Southwark Council's hands, a decision it had every reason to take, given, amongst other things, Delancey's <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-12-16-mayor-approves-shopping-centre/">failure to secure planning approval of Castle Square</a>, the temporary relocation facility for traders. Planning sub-committee B <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-12-16-mayor-approves-shopping-centre/">deferred a decision on the application</a> to 7 January, to allow officers time to <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!12dhIwvd2JFDUQgBXBnMXA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">'corroborate rent level paid by traders'</a> and to check whether they would be paying more or less rent, if they moved to Castle Sq.</p>
<p>Southwark have ignored both Delancey's failures, to conclude the S106 and secure Castle Square, and instead sent them a comforting <a href="https://twitter.com/se1/status/1074707373644746753">letter</a>, saying that it had no intention of refusing the shopping centre application, because <em>"all of the 'substantive requirements'"</em> of the S106 had been met. Southwark generously tells Delancey that Castle Square was <em>"now not in your control"</em> , implying that Southwark itself is at fault, for not passing the application, rather than putting the responsibility where it should be - with Delancey, for not submitting an application that the committee could pass, with the confidence that it met the traders' needs.</p>
<p>Southwark further reassures Delancey that there will be an <em>"officer recommendation for approval"</em> of the application, which raises a question of how much weight any new data on rent will actually be given.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/sebv.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Southwark's letter does not entertain the notion that the Castle Square application can be rejected, but rather says that <em>"we will complete the section 106 agreement as and when planning permission is granted..."</em> . In <a href="https://docdro.id/t6AVbTv">a response</a> to <a href="https://docdro.id/OAz3IlX">campaigners' objections</a> to its letter, Southwark says that the phrase <em>'"as and when"...acknowledged the fact that permission might not be granted'</em> , an interpretation that is not easy to agree with, in the absence of an <em>'if'</em>.</p>
<h1>What Southwark should have said...</h1>
<p>When Delancey failed to meet the S106 deadline for the shopping centre, Southwark should have refused the centre planning application. Short of this, it could still have reminded Delancey that they needed to secure the Castle Square approval and to do so must address the <a href="https://www.docdroid.net/cJY7s28/latin-obj.pdf">objections of the traders</a>.</p>
<p>Instead Southwark has done the traders a great disservice, by the comforting message that it has sent Delancey. The <a href="https://docdro.id/I8Egaq5">improvements to the shopping centre scheme</a>, such as the increase in the social rented housing and the trader relocation strategy, were only won during a deferral of that application, but the incentive for Delancey to repeat this has now been undermined. It is also arguable that the intention of both the main planning committee and sub-committee B of securing adequate mitigation for the traders has also been undermined.</p>
<h1>Time for Planning sub-committee B to step up</h1>
<p>The <a href="https://london.eater.com/2018/12/13/18139283/elephant-and-castle-shopping-centre-demolition-sadiq-khan">reality of the loss of the shopping centre</a> has long been apparent, but is now beginning to <a href="https://novaramedia.com/2018/12/19/latin-venues-forced-out-to-make-way-for-elephant-and-castle-redevelopment/">strike home</a>. The traders' future livelihoods depend on a robust relocation strategy, including a satisfactory Castle Square facility, and Delancey are not providing this. Planning sub-committee B will need to assert itself on 7 January and show it won't be bounced into approving the Castle Square application.</p>
<p>You can a help them reach the right decision by</p>
<p>-<strong>signing this</strong> <a href="https://facebook.us12.list-manage.com/track/click?u=cb39db56cab07dad23385b7eb&id=4b8f6ebd68&e=52bef8aad0">petition</a> calling on the Lead Member for Planning Johnson Situ to refuse the Elephant application now.</p>
<p>-<strong>objecting using</strong> our <a href="https://35percent.org/boxpark#object">online objection form</a></p>
<p>-<a href="https://m.facebook.com/events/2192172687721804?acontext=%7B%22ref%22%3A%223%22%2C%22action_history%22%3A%22null%22%7D&aref=3&ref=page_internal&_ft_=mf_story_key.2289812681052296%3Atop_level_post_id.2289812681052296%3Atl_objid.2289812681052296%3Acontent_owner_id_new.839272879439624%3Athrowback_story_fbid.2289812681052296%3Apage_id.839272879439624%3Astory_location.4%3Astory_attachment_style.event%3Apage_insights.%7B%22839272879439624%22%3A%7B%22role%22%3A1%2C%22page_id%22%3A839272879439624%2C%22post_context%22%3A%7B%22story_fbid%22%3A2289812681052296%2C%22publish_time%22%3A1545413307%2C%22story_name%22%3A%22EntStatusCreationStory%22%2C%22object_fbtype%22%3A266%7D%2C%22actor_id%22%3A839272879439624%2C%22psn%22%3A%22EntStatusCreationStory%22%2C%22sl%22%3A4%2C%22dm%22%3A%7B%22isShare%22%3A1%2C%22originalPostOwnerID%22%3A0%7D%2C%22targets%22%3A%5B%7B%22page_id%22%3A839272879439624%2C%22actor_id%22%3A839272879439624%2C%22role%22%3A1%2C%22post_id%22%3A2289812681052296%2C%22share_id%22%3A0%7D%5D%7D%7D&__tn__=HH-R"><strong>joining us on 7 January</strong></a> in support of the traders’ demands - for space at rents that allows all of them to continue their businesses and to earn a living for themselves and their families.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/7jandemo.jpg" alt="" /></p>
E&C shopping centre - Delancey stumbles after Mayor's approval2018-12-16T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2018-12-14-mayor-approves-shopping-centre/<p>Last Monday, shopping centre owner and developer, Delancey, seemed to have finally secured full approval for the redevelopment of the Elephant shopping centre, when Mayor Sadiq Khan <a href="https://www.docdroid.net/njfeOJz/3654.pdf#page=23">declined to intervene</a> in the decision-making. In doing so he allowed Southwark Council's <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre/">decision to approve</a> the application to stand and joined them in defying written objections from nine local ward & constituency level Labour parties [^1], two London Assembly members and over a thousand formal objections submitted by local people, against <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre">Delancey's disastrous redevelopment of the Elephant & Castle shopping centre</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/traderscompsk.jpeg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Come Tuesday, though, and it was a different story when Delancey failed to secure another planning approval, for a vital condition of the shopping centre scheme. <a href="https://twitter.com/uptheelephant_?lang=en&lang=en">After a vibrant demonstration</a> outside Southwark's HQ in Tooley St, including impassioned speeches from the Latin American community, planning sub-committee B deferred a decision on Castle Square, the <a href="https://35percent.org/boxpark">temporary boxpark facility</a> for displaced traders. Delancey <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=49413">is obliged to get this planning consent</a> before it can go any further with the shopping centre redevelopment.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/boxpar3.jpeg" alt="" /></p>
<p>To make matters worse for Delancey, it now looks certain that it will miss the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=49413">18 December deadline</a> for concluding the legal S106 agreement that sets the seal on the planning approval. This missed deadline <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=49413">puts the power to refuse</a> the application into the hands of the Director of Planning.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/scconditions.jpeg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The Director of Planning has every reason to make this refusal, judging by what was <a href="https://www.pscp.tv/w/1nAJEywMqObJL">heard on Tues evening</a>. Council officers acknowledged that Castle Square would not be suitable for every kind of trader, while asserting that it was just one of the relocation options. Traders point out that it is the only purpose-built option and even when all the alternatives are taken into account there is <a href="https://www.docdroid.net/cJY7s28/latin-obj.pdf">still a shortfall in floorspace</a>.</p>
<p>Close questioning from sub-committee members revealed other shortcomings, including an obvious one, that should larger traders take units in a yet to be settled flexible design, the Square would accommodate fewer traders in number. <a href="https://www.thecolombian.co.uk/">Distriandina</a>, home to the Colombian cafe and restaurant, the 'Heart of Latin London', and currently occupying Arch 6, testified that Castle Square was not a feasible alternative for them at all.</p>
<p>Delancey has also been dragging its feet setting up the Trader Panel, which has meant that traders have had little influence over the design of Castle Square, prompting several practical objections, such as lack of window space to display goods. Nor has the Traders Panel been able to address fundamental issues, like leases that provide some certainty beyond the lifetime of Castle Square and the rents to be paid, the latter being the biggest problem for sub-committee members. Delancey claimed that the rents to be paid would be on a par with what is being paid by traders at the moment, with officer's citing an average rent of £64psf. This was fiercely contested by the Elephant Traders Association and so the sub-committee deferred a decision on the application, to allow officers to gather better information.</p>
<p>The sub-committee is due to reconvene for a decision on Castle Square on <strong>7 January 2018</strong>, other details to be announced.</p>
<h2>Mayor gives dire scheme his approval</h2>
<p>Hopes that the Mayor would have had the courage to reject the main shopping centre scheme were sorely disappointed by his refusal to intervene. It transpires that the <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/9772">decision was passed on</a> to deputy mayor for planning, Jules Pipe, when the Mayor cited a conflict of interest, being chair of TfL, who are party to the scheme's s106 agreement, including a deal for Delancey to provide a new Northern line tube entrance. The decision still remains the Mayor's, though, in a formal and legal sense.</p>
<p>The decision was announced in <a href="https://www.docdroid.net/njfeOJz/3654.pdf#page=22">a report</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/lukewbarratt/status/1072201103356411904">press statement</a> which claimed further improvements negotiated by the Mayor, including an extension to the length of time traders would benefit from below-market rents to 15 years. This is better than the current 5 years, but its benefit depends on what the market rent is taken to be, and the Castle Square meeting shows there is no agreement on this. The statement also says that there will be <em>'35 per cent...social rent... or other genuinely affordable levels'</em>. The report shows this to be <a href="https://www.docdroid.net/S6CBtQA/stage2-description.pdf">116 social rented units</a>, which is neither more than there was when the decision was referred to the Mayor, nor enough to meet Southwark's <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/supplementary-planning-documents-spd/spd-by-area?chapter=6">planning policy</a>, which would require around 170 social rented homes. The top end cap for discounted market rent, aka affordable rent, has been reduced from £90k to £60k, but this makes for a 'genuinely affordable' rent only in the Mayor's imagination.</p>
<h2>Delancey, TfL and UAL win, local people lose?</h2>
<p>Delancey's grudging improvements to their <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre/">money spinning scheme</a> betrays their reluctance to do anything for local people. The delay in bringing forward Castle Square to the last minute has backfired and there is now a chance to refuse the shopping centre scheme, a scheme that is disastrous for traders, the <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sadiq-khan-housing-elephant-and-castle-development-delancey-social-affordable-a8684776.html">Latin American community in London</a>, as well as offering both much less social rented housing than we need and less than we should be getting.</p>
<p>This chance for a refusal should be taken. All the big beasts - the Mayor, TfL, <a href="https://www.arts.ac.uk/colleges/london-college-of-communication/about-lcc/lcc-new-building">UAL</a> and Southwark - have been focussed on what they can get out of the development, in the shape of new tube stations and university campuses, much needed no doubt, but gained at the expense of local traders and real affordable housing. They all supported the scheme with little reservation when it was first proposed and it took the local community to step forward, and by outright opposition wrest a few small, but important concessions, from Delancey.</p>
<p>Come the 19th December, Southwark's Director of Planning can redeem the council by finally putting this scheme to a merciful end. It must not be allowed to destroy the long-standing, vibrant, mixed Elephant and Castle community, a home to working people from around the world for decades. If he does not do so, the local community and all its supporters - traders, residents, local councillors, students, TRAs and trade union branches - will be <strong>rallying at Southwark HQ once more on January 7</strong>, in support of the traders' demands for space at rents that allows all of them to continue their businesses and to earn a livelihood for themselves and their families.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/elephantdemo.jpeg" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>Footnote:</strong><br />
[^1]: The following parties wrote to the Mayor objecting to the scheme's failure to meet minimum affordable housing requirements and provide sufficient relocation measures for traders: Bermondsey & Old Southwark Labour Party; Borough & Bankside Labour Party; North Walworth Labour Party; Faraday Ward Labour Party; St George's Labour Party; Chaucer Ward Labour Party; Camberwell & Peckham Labour Party, Dulwich and West Norwood Constituency Labour Party and Herne Hill Branch Labour Party</p>
Elephant shopping centre - decision day2018-12-08T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2018-12-04-delancey-no-relocation-strategy/<p>Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan is due to make a decision on the <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre">Elephant shopping centre planning application</a> on Monday, 10 December. Southwark <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-07-09-delancey/">resolved to approve</a> developer Delancey's proposals back in July, after fierce opposition and three planning committee meetings. Southwark referred the decision to the Mayor on 29 November, when it sent him the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!cmd1tKmi8kCHCJ6ouDat0w%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">legal s106 agreement</a>, which seals the application; he can either approve, direct refusal or take the decision over himself.</p>
<p>The Mayor has said that he will <a href="https://www.change.org/p/sadiq-khan-sadiq-say-no-to-the-displacement-of-bame-communities-from-elephant-castle/responses/41627">demand a 'robust relocation strategy'</a> for traders displaced by the centre's proposed demolition and redevelopment. He has also said that he will be subjecting the affordable housing offer to <a href="https://www.change.org/p/sadiq-khan-sadiq-say-no-to-the-displacement-of-bame-communities-from-elephant-castle/responses/41627">'rigorous scrutiny'</a> and be addressing unresolved transport issues.</p>
<h2>Relocation strategy and Castle Square</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://docdro.id/0xsDbrm">relocation strategy</a> is listed as Appendix 10 to the s106 (although titled Appendix 9) and was only published on Friday, 7 December. It outlines how traders will be assisted, but they take issue with the document's claim that they have been consulted on its contents (9. Trader Consultation). The Trader Panel has not yet been established and the temporary relocation facility at Castle Sq has <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-11-24-castle-square-delancey-responds/">drawn many objections</a>, for its small size, design, opening hours, leases and rents. As the <a href="https://docdro.id/cJY7s28">Latin Elephant objection</a> points out these issues could have been resolved though the Trader Panel, had it been set up more promptly.</p>
<p>According to the terms of the S106 agreement, Delancey must obtain planning permission for a <a href="https://35percent.org/boxpark">temporary boxpark</a> before it can proceed with the redevelopment of the shopping centre and this will be decided by Southwark's planning sub-committee B on <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=353&MId=6147&Ver=4">12 December</a>.</p>
<h2>The S106 agreement</h2>
<p>Aside from the relocation strategy other notable aspects of the draft S106 include no mention of increasing the social housing offer, above the 116 units Delancey has already committed to build, if it receives a GLA grant. Delancey claimed to the planning committee that it had an <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!b5xBNaYRSleWlYx6oXVrEA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">'in-principle agreement'</a> for the funding, but this claim has been <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-10-30-shopping-centre-legal-challenge/">challenged by campaign groups</a>.</p>
<p>There also remain several points on which Southwark and Delancey are not in agreement, including the target profit on the residential element of the scheme - Delancey wants 17.5% GDV, Southwark says 12.5% GDV is a more appropriate profit level <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!cmd1tKmi8kCHCJ6ouDat0w%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">(pg 39, footnote)</a>. This could be significant for getting more affordable housing; if the target is exceeded, half the extra profit should go to Southwark, so it benefits from the lower figure.</p>
<p>Page 60 of <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!cmd1tKmi8kCHCJ6ouDat0w%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">the S106 agreement</a> ('Eligibility Review') also details the complex arrangements for extending the London Living Rent and other so-called affordable, discounted market rent tenancies, beyond their 3-year terms. Tenants who are fortunate enough to see their salary increase during their tenancies may also find much of it going to Delancey, if they jump into a higher band of rent payment - or maybe not, depending on what other affordable units are available at the time. While Delancey is bound to maintain the affordable housing ratios, final decisions on how to do this are left in Delancey's hands.</p>
<h2>Sadiq Khan must reject this scheme</h2>
<p>The shopping centre traders are the people to judge whether or not Delancey's proposals for trader relocation are 'robust', as the Mayor has demanded; but the Trader Panel has not been set up and has had no opportunity to discuss the relocation strategy, yet alone amend or improve it, so this test has not been passed.</p>
<p>There are also unanswered questions over any GLA funding for social rented housing; will Delancey get the funding and if it does, will it increase the amount of social rented housing or just <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-07-02-viability-and-delancey/">use it to subsidise</a> the 116 units it has already committed to build?</p>
<p>The Mayor also needs to take a close look at the head-scratching arrangements for extending so-called affordable rent tenancies, beyond their 3-year terms. They are a recipe for confusion and mismanagement and will leave tenants vulnerable and insecure.</p>
<p>The case for Sadiq Khan 'calling-in' this application is strong, for the sake of shopping Centre traders, the local community and all future residents and the call-in is <a href="https://docdro.id/DsV9baX">supported by Sian Berry AM</a> amongst others. Delancey's scheme does not deserve to be approved and should be rejected.</p>
<p>You can still <a href="https://35percent.org/boxpark/#object">object</a> to Delancey's inadequate Castle Square application <a href="https://35percent.org/boxpark/#object">here</a>.</p>
<p>You can also join us to make some noise at a demonstration this coming Wednesday when the Council's planning committee decides on the Castle Square application: <strong>6pm 12 December 2018, Southwark Council head office, 160 Tooley St SE1 2QH</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/747582068976611/">https://www.facebook.com/events/747582068976611/</a></p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/tweet.gif" alt="" /></p>
Castle Square - Delancey responds2018-11-24T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2018-11-24-castle-square-delancey-responds/<p>Since our <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-10-30-shopping-centre-legal-challenge/">last blog</a> on the Elephant & Castle shopping centre saga, over 100 objections have been made to the <a href="https://35percent.org/boxpark">temporary boxpark proposals</a> for traders on Castle Square.</p>
<p>In response, Delancey has submitted a two-page document covering rent levels, tenancy agreements, service charges, selection criteria, hours of operation, access and the relocation fund. There is now a reconsultation on the planning application proposals.</p>
<p>One clear improvement has been made - the facility will now have lift access - but otherwise Delancey does little more than restate its previous position.</p>
<p>There will still be no affordable retail units, but Delancey <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!chJya7aQe7u2p4T5F1pEDA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">claims</a> that the proposed rents are <em>"discounted in excess of the requirements of the Elephant & Castle SPD"</em>.</p>
<p>Delancey also states that traders will be given first right of refusal to the temporary units at Castle Square and units will not be let to others until Delancey receives refusals in writing.</p>
<p>However, the overall size of the boxpark facility is still only 492 square metres and there is no increase to the relocation fund of £634k.</p>
<p>There is also still no agreement with the traders on any of these and the other issues such as the trading hours, service charges and selection criteria.</p>
<p>Moreover, the Traders Panel has only just got off the ground, with no traders yet appointed to the Panel.</p>
<p>Until this happens none of these issues can be said to be settled and the <em>"robust relocation strategy"</em> that Mayor <a href="https://www.change.org/p/sadiq-khan-sadiq-say-no-to-the-displacement-of-bame-communities-from-elephant-castle/responses/41627">Sadiq Khan is asking for</a> will not be achieved.</p>
<p>Many of our readers have previously submitted objections. We have drafted a revised objection in light of the minor revisions submitted by Delancey.</p>
<p>We must ensure that the traders get the best possible deal, whatever happens; they need the temporary facility, but it must be better; if you would like to help achieve this, please submit an objection using our <a href="https://35percent.org/boxpark#object">online objection form</a>.</p>
<h2>Join our party!</h2>
<p>The <strong>Up the Elephant</strong> Campaign in support of the traders and for more social rented housing at the Elephant is also holding a Campaign Party on this coming <strong>Friday 30 Nov</strong> - a <a href="https://www.eventbrite.com/e/up-the-elephant-campaign-party-tickets-52191660662">night of of Latin beats</a> with DJ Gloria (Exilio) to raise funds to pursue a legal challange to Southwark Council's granting of planning permission for the shopping centre scheme -
further details and tickets available <a href="https://www.eventbrite.com/e/up-the-elephant-campaign-party-tickets-52191660662">here</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/latinasparty.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Links:
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/pg/Up-the-Elephant-1117314135042279/events/">https://www.facebook.com/pg/Up-the-Elephant-1117314135042279/events/</a><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/uptheelephant_">https://twitter.com/uptheelephant_</a></p>
11000 new council homes: figures show loss rather than gain2018-11-12T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2018-11-12-11000-council-homes-manifesto-pledge/<p>In 2014, as part of its manifesto pledge Southwark Council's administration <a href="https://www.southwarklabour.co.uk/latest-news/southwark/news.aspx?p=102262">announced</a> an <em>"ambitious but realistic plan to build 11,000 new council homes"</em> across the borough over the next 30 years. Concerns were <a href="https://35percent.org/the-southwark-clearances">raised by us</a> and in the <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SNHeygateOverage.pdf">local press</a> that this would fail to make up for the thousands of council homes currently being lost to ongoing estate regeneration, <a href="https://35percent.org/the-southwark-clearances/#void-disposal-policy">void disposal policies</a> and Right to Buy applications over the next 30 years.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SN1100homes.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from an <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SNHeygateOverage.pdf">Oct 2014 article in the local newspaper</a></em></p>
<p>Council leader Peter John subsequently issued an <a href="https://35percent.org/img/pj11000councilhomesletter.pdf">open letter</a> insisting that the 11,000 council homes would be over and above the existing stock count - i.e. a net increase:</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/pj11000councilhomesletter.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from Council leader Peter John's <a href="https://35percent.org/img/pj11000councilhomesletter.pdf">open letter</a></em></p>
<p>Councillor John went one step further to pledge that the first 1500 net additional council homes would be finished by 2018:</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/1500councilhomes.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s47488/Report%20Long%20term%20plans%20for%20the%20delivery%20of%20new%20council%20homes.pdf">2014 Cabinet report</a></em></p>
<p>Four years on and we have taken a look at whether Councillor John has delivered on his manifesto pledge. <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/674346/LT_116.xlsx">Official statistics</a> from the government's <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants">live tables</a> on local authority dwelling stock show that since the manifesto pledge in 2014 there has been a net reduction in Southwark's council housing stock of 540 council homes.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/livetableextract.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the government's <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/674346/LT_116.xlsx">Live Table 116</a></em></p>
<p>The figures aren't saying that Southwark hasn't built any new council homes, only that the rate at which it is building has not kept up with the rate at which it is knocking them down and selling them off. The Council has or will demolish <a href="https://35percent.org/the-southwark-clearances/">over 7,500 council homes</a> as part of regeneration schemes, including 1,200 council homes in the <a href="https://35percent.org/heygate-regeneration-faq/">Heygate estate regeneration</a> and circa 2,400 in the <a href="https://35percent.org/aylesbury-estate/">Aylesbury estate regeneration</a>.</p>
<p>In addition, it has <a href="https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/comment/comment/how-we-will-attempt-to-restrict-high-rents-on-right-to-buy-re-lets-58865">sold 1,300 council homes under the Right to Buy since 2012</a> and has an <a href="https://35percent.org/the-southwark-clearances/#void-disposal-policy">ongoing policy</a> of selling every council home that becomes vacant which is valued at £300k or more.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, this <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s78248/Report%20New%20Homes%20Programme%20Delivery%20Model%20Review%202018.pdf">30th Oct 2018 Cabinet report</a> confirms that the council has built just 262 council homes over 5 years (para 12).</p>
<h2>Buying affordable housing instead</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s78248/Report%20New%20Homes%20Programme%20Delivery%20Model%20Review%202018.pdf">Cabinet report</a> confirms that an additional 239 units of developer-built (S106) affordable housing have been bought by Southwark, to become council housing (para 17). One such example is Blackfriars Circus, where the Council has <a href="https://35percent.org/2017-04-29-blackfriars-affordable-housing-circus/">bought</a> 56 homes for £10m from dev eloper Barratt.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/tweetmwilliamsblackfriars.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>A problem with this method of buying council housing is that it does not actually increase the net supply of social housing - the same units would otherwise have been bought and let by a housing association anyway. Further, Southwark is denying itself the benefit of the S106 contribution, by paying for something a housing association would have paid for anyway - and, rather perversely, denying itself funds for building units that would actually increase the net supply.</p>
<p>It is also not clear whether <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s78251/Appendix%202%20Map%20showing%20approved%20schemes.pdf">all the new homes</a> have been let at council rents. We have <a href="https://35percent.org/2017-04-29-blackfriars-affordable-housing-circus/#10m-wasted-and-new-council-homes-not-even-social-rent">blogged previously</a> about new 'council homes' now being let at a percentage of market rent (40%) rather than social rent (which is currently approx 20% of market rent).</p>
<p>In any event, 54 of these new 'council homes' are temporary accommodation units in (<a href="https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/housing-community-services-department-community-engagement-team/11-000-new-council-homes-design-and-neighbourhoods/"><em>Willow Walk homeless hostel</em></a>, as are all 37 units in <em>Good Neighbours House</em>, which in any case is not new but simply <a href="https://moderngov.southwarksites.com/documents/s51072/Item%201%20Report%2014AP3033.pdf">converted from what used to be a council care home</a>). As with all of Southwark's temporary hostel accommodation units, these are <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s65880/Temporary%20Accommodation%20Report.pdf">let</a> at <a href="https://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/SearchResults.aspx?LocalAuthorityId=28&LHACategory=999&Month=10&Year=2018&SearchPageParameters=true">LHA rent levels</a>, which are more than twice current council rent levels.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/lharates.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Even if we were to count all the hostel units and purchased S106 units as council homes at council rents, the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/674346/LT_116.xlsx">overall figures</a> still show an ongoing decline rather than any net increase in the number of council homes:</p>
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.8.2/jquery.min.js">
</script>
<script src="https://code.highcharts.com/highcharts.js">
</script>
<script src="https://code.highcharts.com/modules/exporting.js">
</script>
<div id="container" style="min-width: 310px; height: 400px; margin: 0 auto">
</div>
<script type="text/javascript">
$('#container').highcharts({
title: {
text: "Southwark's Council Homes",
x: -20 //center
},
description: {
text: 'Source: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/674346/LT_116.xlsx">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/674346/LT_116.xlsx</a>',
x: -20
},
xAxis: {
categories: ['1994', '1995', '1996', '1997', '1998', '1999',
'2000', '2001', '2002', '2003', '2004', '2005', '2006', '2007', '2008', '2009', '2010', '2011', '2012', '2013', '2014', '2015', '2016', '2017', '2018']
},
yAxis: {
title: {
text: 'Council-owned stock'
},
plotLines: [{
value: 0,
width: 1,
color: '#808080'
}]
},
tooltip: {
valueSuffix: ' Council homes'
},
legend: {
layout: 'vertical',
align: 'right',
verticalAlign: 'middle',
borderWidth: 0
},
series: [{
name: 'Southwark',
data: [55803, 55162, 54439, 53363, 52448, 51706, 50903, 49875, 48052, 46887, 45346, 43885, 42275, 41873, 41287, 40618, 40120, 39845, 39781, 38578, 39029, 38687, 38522, 38553, 38489]
}]
});
</script>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Southwark's Council-house build programme" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Sales and demolitions still far outstripping new-builds" />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/councilstock.png" />
Elephant Shopping Centre - traders and campaigners step-up the fight2018-10-30T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2018-10-30-shopping-centre-legal-challenge/<p>Elephant shopping Centre traders and local campaigners have taken the first step of a legal challenge to Southwark Council's <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-07-09-delancey/">resolution to approve</a> the <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre">shopping centre planning application</a>, while also objecting to the small size of a <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!hAV0cqN%2bsOq%2febuFpH0spQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">proposed temporary facility</a> for the traders' relocation during the 5 years it would take to redevelop the centre.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.pilu.org.uk/paul-heron/">Public Interest Unit</a> (PIU) of Lambeth Law Centre has <a href="https://35percent.org/img/letterbeforeaction.pdf">written</a> to Southwark, asking it to rescind the decision taken by the planning committee on 3 July 2018, or return the application to the committee. If the Council fails to do this an application will be made to the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/planning-court">Planning Court</a> to quash the decision.</p>
<p>The seven page pre-action <a href="https://35percent.org/img/letterbeforeaction.pdf">letter</a> gives two grounds for rescinding the permission. The first ground is that the planning committee was misled about public funding for the social housing in the scheme. The committee depended on an officer's report in making its decision and this led it to believe that funding from the Greater London Authority <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/">(GLA)</a>, was secured for an increase of social rented housing, when this was not the case.</p>
<p>The second ground is that Southwark had not fulfilled its public sector equality duty (PSED) properly, neglecting the collective impact on the Latin American community across London, for whom the <a href="https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/90160/">centre is a social and economic hub</a>. Southwark had also not taken into account the impact on women business owners from black and ethnic minority backgrounds or on particular Latin American nationalities, such as Colombians, despite the detailed objections of <a href="https://latinelephant.org/update-on-ec-relocation-strategy-le-comments/">Latin Elephant</a> and <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!%2b3vgsnFhgtxRNSSWoQ1w3w%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">Southwark Law Centre</a>. The pre-action letter gives a deadline for reply of 24 Oct 2018 and this is still awaited.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/traderscomp.jpeg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>The Mayor to respond</h2>
<p>Aside from the legal challange, the Mayor Sadiq Khan will also be having his say, once the draft legal S106 agreement that would seal the planning approval is complete. Campaigners have written an <a href="https://twitter.com/UpTheElephant_">open letter</a>, asking him to reject the approval as it stands. Local ward councillors <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/ward-councillors-call-on-sadiq-khan-to-fix-moral-and-policy-failings-in-approved-elephant-and-castle-regeneration-plans/">added their voice</a> to the call, as did Assembly Member <a href="https://35percent.org/posts/2018-10-30-shopping-centre-legal-challenge/www.southwarkgreenparty.org.uk/call_in_the_elephant_decision_says_sian">Sian Berry</a>. Local Assembly Member Florence Eshalomi, on the question of traders, <a href="https://twitter.com/se1/status/1054823139421630464">says</a> <em>"we cannot have these cultural communities being displaced."</em> Inside Housing reports that Sadiq Khan is keen to ensure that the development <a href="https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/khan-keen-for-elephant--castle-development-to-deliver-affordable-housing-58462">'delivers as much genuinely affordable housing as possible'</a>.</p>
<h2>A temporary new home for traders...</h2>
<p>As well as contending with the consequences of any legal challenge or a call-in from the Mayor, developers Delancey must also provide a temporary facility for displaced independent traders, as a <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=49413">condition</a> of planning approval for the shopping centre redevelopment.</p>
<p>Delancey have had to make another planning application to do this and <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!hAV0cqN%2bsOq%2febuFpH0spQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">propose a 2/3 storey building</a> on the Castle Square market place, on their adjoining development <a href="https://35percent.org/tribeca-square/">Elephant One</a>. Castle Square is on land owned by Southwark Council, but currently <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-06-26-restricted-access-elephant-park/#elephant-parks">leased to Delancy on a peppercorn rent</a> and a share of the revenue from the Square's future street market. The shopping centre planning condition implies that Delancey will now be buying that land from Southwark.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/tempboxpark.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The Castle Square facility would last for 5 years, until the Elephant & Castle Shopping Centre development has been completed. Traders would then have the first right of refusal back into the shopping centre.</p>
<h2>..but better is needed...</h2>
<p>The facility is a valuable gain for the traders, won by their campaign for a fair deal. Latin Elephant and the Elephant Traders welcome the concession, but have also <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=neighbourComments&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9578882">objected</a> that the proposed building is too small and would have trading restrictions that would make it an impractical premises for many of the displaced businesses. <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!hAV0cqN%2bsOq%2febuFpH0spQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">Delancey's proposals</a> mention 33 independent traders, while the trader's own estimate is that there is a need to provide for over 100 traders. There are also many other issues, including the level of rents and service charges, the security of tenacy arrangements, selection criteria and disability access.</p>
<p>Delancey have agreed to the establishment of a Traders Panel and traders want these issues, and the size of the relocation fund (currently at an insufficient £634,700) to be decided by the Panel, but trader representations on the remit and format of the Panel have gone unanswered, leaving them fearful about the make-up of the Panel and how it might deal with these issues.</p>
<h2>Delancey is not there yet</h2>
<p>Delancey only secured a resolution to approve their shopping centre application after three planning committee meetings. It must now get a further planning permission for the trader's temporary facility on Castle Square, before they can undertake any shopping centre redevelopment.</p>
<p>We must ensure that the traders get the best possible deal, whatever happens; they need the temporary facility, but it must be better; if you would like to help achieve this, please submit the following objection - just fill out fields below and click 'Send Objection' button.</p>
<h2>Object!</h2>
<form id="form5" action="https://thirtyfivepercent.herokuapp.com/" method="post">
<fieldset><legend>Fill in the details below to object to the planning application.</legend>
<div id="mc_embed_signup">
<div class="indicates-required"><span class="asterisk">*</span> indicates required</div>
<p class="first" style="margin:20px">
<label for="name">Title:</label>
<input type="text" name="title" id="title" size="5" placeholder="Mr" /><span class="asterisk">*</span>
</p>
<p style="margin:20px">
<label for="email">First Name:</label>
<input type="text" name="firstname" id="firstname" size="15" placeholder="Joe" /><span class="asterisk">*</span>
</p>
<p style="margin:20px">
<label for="email">Surname:</label>
<input type="text" name="surname" id="surname" size="21" placeholder="Bloggs" /><span class="asterisk">*</span>
</p>
<p style="margin:20px">
<label for="email">Email:</label>
<input type="text" name="email" id="email" size="23" placeholder="joebloggs@gmail.com" /><span class="asterisk">*</span>
</p>
<p style="margin:20px">
<label for="address">Address:</label>
<input type="text" name="address" id="address" size="27" placeholder="99 Chaplin Street" /><span class="asterisk">*</span>
</p>
<p style="margin:20px">
<label for="address">Town/City:</label>
<input type="text" name="city" id="city" size="12" placeholder="London" /><span class="asterisk">*</span>
</p>
<p style="margin:20px">
<label for="postcode">Postcode:</label>
<input type="text" name="postcode" id="postcode" size="10" placeholder="SE17 1RS" /><span class="asterisk">*</span>
</p>
<p style="margin:20px">
<label for="message">Comment:</label>
<textarea name="message" id="message" cols="55" rows="10">Dear Southwark Planning,
I welcome this proposed development as an attempt at mitigation against the detrimental impact of the redevelopment of the Elephant and Castle shopping centre on local independent traders.
However, the applicant's proposals require changes if the development is to benefit the number of traders who need help.
I therefore support the comments and suggestions made by the Elephant Traders Association and Latin Elephant for improvements to the applicant's proposals, and ask that before any planning permission is granted that the size of the facility be increased to accommodate all the displaced independent traders who require new premises and that the following should first be agreed with the traders;
- the rents and service charge levels
- secure tenancy arrangements
- selection criteria, should they be needed
- hours of trade
- disability access
- the remit and format of a Traders Panel that truly represents their interests
- a sufficient relocation fund
Yours sincerely,
</textarea>
</p>
<p class="submit" style="margin:20px"><button type="submit">Send Objection</button></p>
</div>
</fieldset>
</form>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Elephant & Castle shopping centre" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Traders and campaigners step up the fight with legal challenge" />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/traderscomp.jpeg" />
Ruby Triangle2018-10-08T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2018-10-06-ruby-triangle-goes-to-committee/<p>The first of the very large planning applications lining up to take advantage of the proposed <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-11-21-old-kent-road-aap-loopholes/">Old Kent Rd Opportunity Area</a> goes to Southwark's <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=119&MId=6270&Ver=4">planning committee on Monday 29 October</a>. It is for a mixed-use scheme that would include 1152 homes, with 40.5% affordable housing, two-thirds of which would be social rented. A publicly accessible sports hall/gym and 'pocket park' are also promised. The scheme dubbed the 'Ruby Triangle' is proposed by a <a href="https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10733947/charges">joint venture</a> between <a href="https://www.a2dominion.co.uk/">A2Dominion Housing association</a> and recently-formed developer <a href="https://www.avanton.co.uk/">Avanton Ltd</a>, which is <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/michael-fallon-takes-on-property-job-with-avanton-nvgttjprt">chaired by former defence secretary Sir Michael Fallon</a>.</p>
<p>Despite the affordable housing offer, the application has nonetheless excited much passionate opposition. The site is <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/current-london-plan/london-plan-chapter-two-londons-places/policy-3">designated by the Mayor as a SIL - Strategic Industrial Location</a> and the loss of industrial workspace is contrary to the local plan. The proposed development has 3 towers, one of 48 storeys, another of 40 storeys. The <a href="https://www.vitalokr.com/">VitalOKR group</a>, a coalition of residents, businesses and community groups, have objected to the loss of industrial land and impact on jobs. Thirteen businesses and a church currently occupy the Ruby Triangle site.</p>
<p>Among the businesses is a waste recycling facility <a href="https://www.southwarkmetals.co.uk/">(Southwark Metals)</a>, which has been recycling metals on the site since 1980 and a data management company that <a href="https://www.dajon.co.uk/clients">lists</a> both Southwark Council and the GLA amongst its clients. Another business <a href="https://www.const.co.uk/">'Constantine Ltd'</a> employs 130 local people and provides fine-art logistics to clients such as the Natural History museum and the Tate. It has lodged a <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!4ZMeZ3p9kp4Z69c9aEnicQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">formal objection</a> to the planning application, claiming that the developer has made little effort to engage about alternative premises and surrender of their lease which runs for another 10 years.</p>
<p>Objectors point out that, while 40% affordable housing appears generous, the threshold for affordable housing is 50% for SIL sites in the Mayor's draft New London Plan. Local residents in the neighbouring Canal Grove Cottages fear loss of daylight, and the detrimental impact on the local environment of a scheme that is nearly four times denser than the local plan allows (2,701 habitable rooms per hectare against a maximum 700h hbr per hectare)[^1]. Related to this, there is no information on whether any of the 1,152 dwellings proposed comply with the BRE's minimum daylight requirements - a requirement of Southwark's planning policy[^2]. In its <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!zwzcnVTSKTErmZbXhytUAA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">report</a> to planning committee, Southwark's Design Review Panel (which reviews all major developments on the Council's behalf) raised concerns about the lack of sunlight/daylight analysis and expressed serious reservations about the architectural quality of the scheme in general, not least because a very high proportion (50%) of the new homes will be single aspect (10% north facing). The Mayor's <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/draft-new-london-plan/chapter-3-design/policy-d4-housing-quality-and-standards">new London Plan says that schemes should <em>"avoid the provision of single aspect dwellings"</em> (Policy D4(E))</a>.</p>
<p>The Design Review Panel's <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!zwzcnVTSKTErmZbXhytUAA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">report</a> concludes: <em>"The Panel challenged the Applicants to review their proposals and to address their concerns and invited them to return to the DRP in advance of a planning application."</em> Despite this the application is going to committee without the plans having been reviewed and re-assessed by the Review Panel.</p>
<p>Historic England has also <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!ppujvFz2GMyfCX3WMr9UGw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">objected</a> to the scheme, arguing that <em>"tall building development should follow a plan-led approach rather than a reaction to speculative development applications."</em></p>
<h2>Parking the park</h2>
<p>The Design Review Panel said that it was <em>"also concerned that part of the ‘green heart’ that is being proposed as a key public benefit of the scheme, falls outside the site boundary"</em>. The <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!lHNsESl4052kei4QPoSJoQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">site ownership boundary plan</a> submitted by the developer shows that more than half of the proposed 'pocket park' is located on land that it doesn't own. A seperate successful planning permission from the neighbouring landowner would be needed to deliver the whole park, presupposing that they actual want they to develop the land and include such a park.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/rubytriangleownership.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The Review Panel concluded that it cannot endorse the scheme in its current form while further adding that <em>"the panel fear that the AAP will be used to justify opportunistic and piecemeal over development of small sites, with each proposal leaving future developments to provide the public realm strategy and improvements that are required to support such high density schemes."</em></p>
<p>This echoes objectors' fears that developers and Southwark are getting ahead of themselves. The Opportunity Area (and accompanying area action plan) has not completed its own progress through the planning system; a public inquiry (EiP) that examines the Opportunity Area's merits and makes recommendations for amendments is not due to be heard until the new year.</p>
<h2>Enough affordable housing?</h2>
<p>The 35% Campaign is always pleased to see a development that offers more affordable and social rented housing than the local plan stipulates, but where more affordable housing is required, and it is 50% under the emerging, draft London Plan, that should be delivered.</p>
<p>Closer inspection raises some other concerns.</p>
<p>There is an ambiguity over the social rented housing; the application and <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!S%2bIqqCm1W5sBBPLbS6aFWQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">officer's report</a> refers to social rented housing, yet the <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/PAWS/media_id_414643/ruby_triangle_sandgate_street_report.pdf">GLA Stage 1 report</a> refers to same units as 'affordable rent', which can be up to 80% market rent.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/rubytrianglegla.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the GLA's <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!2AGS3H6reesxTcyamvOlcw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">stage 1 report</a></em></p>
<p>The GLA Stage 2 report is not available at the time of going to committee, a departure from usual practice.</p>
<p>The involvement of housing association A2Dominion as a development partner in the scheme also rings an alarm bell. They featured in our <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-12-12-ombudsman-slams-southwark-for-no-s106-monitoring/">successful complaint</a> to the Ombudsman about <a href="https://35percent.org/redefining-social-rent/">tenure switching</a>, where affordable rent was substituted in developments where social rent had been approved, in this case the <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-02-16-the-affordable-housing-mirage/#a2dominion-tenure-switch-example">Colorama development</a> in Blackfriars where A2Dominion acted as both developer and registered provider. A2Dominion, was also subject to a <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/enforcementDetails.do?previousCaseType=Property&keyVal=_STHWR_ECAPR_7108&previousCaseNumber=_STHWR_PROPLPI_116659_1&previousCaseUprn=200003453347&activeTab=summary&previousKeyVal=_STHWR_PROPLPI_116659_1">planning breach investigation</a> from Southwark Council for its development at 166-178 Camberwell Rd, which has stood half-finished since 2015.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/wyndhamcamberwell.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Profit vs affordable housing - what's reasonable?</h2>
<p>There is an unresolved dispute about the reasonable level of profit to be assumed in the viability assessment for the private housing. This could have a bearing on the final amount of affordable housing, to be calculated by the late viability review mechanism. Crudely, the higher the profit the less that is left for affordable housing. The developer wants 20% profit on GDV (Gross Development Value), while the Council's <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!7xk%2fKitlYCgrfYEbtqBRDA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">independent assessors' report</a> argues that this is too high and that 17.5% is reasonable. This is backed up by the Council's own <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/1937/Old%20Kent%20Road%20viability%20study%202016.pdf">viability study</a> commissioned for the OKR AAP, which assumes a developer profit of 18% (para 4.39).</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/gvadisputeprofit.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the Council's <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!7xk%2fKitlYCgrfYEbtqBRDA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">independent viability review</a></em></p>
<p>In cash terms Southwark's assessor gives £73.8m as a reasonable profit for the private housing. According to their <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!oY11bGc7aC6RJOzPXGXlpQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">own viability assessment</a>, where the profits are listed as 'miscellaneous fees', the developer's 20% profit target amounts to £92.21m for the private housing, providing an overall profit assumption of £101.36m, when profits for affordable housing and commercial premises are added in.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/rubytriangleprofit.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!oY11bGc7aC6RJOzPXGXlpQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">viability assessment</a></em></p>
<h2>Viable or not viable?</h2>
<p>A peculiarity of the Southwark assessor's appraisal of the viability assessment is that it concludes <em>'that the proposed scheme would not be viable with a 35% affordable housing offer..., but that ‘stand back’ analysis (using evidence of local land sales with planning permission to ascertain a price per habitable room) indicates that it would be deliverable'.</em> [^3] This raises the question of how useful the viability assessment can be, if its conclusion can be discarded and an alternative (undisclosed) 'stand back' analysis, with a different conclusion, is depended on instead.</p>
<p>Similarly, the caveat that an undisclosed '<em>sensitivity analysis applied in this review also shows that relatively small changes in key variables would result in a viable scheme</em>' illustrates the uncertainties surrounding the viability assessment for this scheme. [^4]</p>
<h2>Reprovision of recycling facilities - at whose cost?</h2>
<p>The capital has a shortage of waste recycling facilities, so the Mayor's London Plan stipulates that any waste recycling facilities lost through redevelopment must be reprovided. The [planning committee report](https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7 b%7b!S%2bIqqCm1W5sBBPLbS6aFWQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d) explains that the Council has bought land in the vicinity in order to reprovide the existing waste recycling facilities (Southwark Metals), but doesn't say whether this will be at the Council's or the developer's expense.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/rubytrianglewaste.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!S%2bIqqCm1W5sBBPLbS6aFWQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">planning committee report</a></em></p>
<p>We will be making representations to the Council's <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=119&MId=6037&Ver=4">planning committee</a> which will decide the application at Southwark Council's offices (160 Tooley St) at 6.30pm Mon 29th Oct.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: See paras 221 and 222 of the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!S%2bIqqCm1W5sBBPLbS6aFWQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">planning committee report</a></p>
<p>[^2]: see section 2.7 of Southwark's <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/1811/1.0.4.1%202015_Technical_Update_to_the_Residesign_SPD__2011_.pdf">Residential Design Standards SPD</a></p>
<p>[^3]: See para 507 of the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!S%2bIqqCm1W5sBBPLbS6aFWQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">planning committee report</a></p>
<p>[^4]: See para 507 of the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!S%2bIqqCm1W5sBBPLbS6aFWQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">planning committee report</a></p>
Grosvenor takes the biscuit factory2018-09-25T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2018-09-15-grosvenor-taking-the-biscuit-factory/<h1>1300 new homes, no social rented</h1>
<p>While most eyes have been on <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9569810">developer Delancey's plans</a> for the redevelopment of the Elephant and Castle shopping centre, on the other side of Southwark an equally large proposal to build over a thousand homes without any social rented housing has been stealthily making its way towards planning permission.</p>
<p>Grosvesnor Estates bought the Biscuit Factory site in Bermondsey in 2013. The total site combines the former homes of biscuit manufacturer Peek Freans and the former Bermondsey campus of Lewisham and Southwark FE College. Peek Freans closed in 1989, the college left in 2013 and the site is currently occupied by a variety of businesses and offices.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/biscuittown.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Grosvenor proposes <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9575486">a £500m mixed-use development</a> of 1343 new homes with 21000 sqm of other uses, and a new school. The homes will all be Build to Rent (BtR), owned and managed by Grosvenor; none of the homes will be for sale. Grosvesnor are <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!6Xs2JaFpJu%2bk1WP4RoXHyA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">offering 27.5% 'affordable' housing at an average of 75% market rents</a>, near the allowed maximum of 80%. No social rented housing or 'social rent equivalent' affordable housing is proposed. Grosvenor offer to be <em>'flexible'</em> about the range of affordable rents, but insist that the average of 75% must be maintained, so any gains at the bottom end would force rents at top end, beyond even 75%, or further reduce the overall quantum of affordable housing.</p>
<p>Southwark Council's adopted housing policy does not support BtR. The <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/1805/Draft_Affordable_Housing_SPD_2011.pdf">housing policy</a> for this part of Bermondsey requires 35% affordable housing, 70% of which should be social rent. This would amount to around 470 affordable units in total, 330 of which should be social rent. Policy also requires that the remainder of the affordable housing be shared ownership. By contrast, the affordable housing in Build to Rent is a form of affordable rent, at up to 80% market rent. Since 2011 Southwark have maintained that affordable rent <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s24907/Report%20Clarification%20of%20affordable%20housing%20policies.pdf">does not meet the borough's housing needs</a>, but it is now in the middle of a sharp policy u-turn, which proposes allowing affordable rent (called Discounted Market Rent) in the latest version of the local plan, the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/5811/NSP%20PSV%20FINAL.pdf">New Southwark Plan (NSP)</a> (see policy P4). Grosvenor are taking advantage of the situation (and employing the same tactic as Delancey) by relying on this so-called 'emerging' policy, rather than the policy as it stands, to get their BtR application through planning committee. The <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/minor-alterations-london-plan/minor-alterations-london-plan-2015#">London Plan</a>, <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2017_london_draft_housing_strategy.pdf">Sadiq Kahn's draft housing strategy 2016</a>
and the government's
<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/590463/Fixing_our_broken_housing_market_-_accessible_version.pdf">White Paper</a> also provide encouragement to impatient BtR developers.</p>
<p>Even if 'emerging' policy were applied to allow a BtR development, Grosvenor's affordable housing offer still comprehensively fails to fulfill its demands. The <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/5811/NSP%20PSV%20FINAL.pdf">NSP Policy P4</a> for BtR requires 35% total affordable housing, made up of 12% 'social rent equivalent', 18% London Living Rent, and 5% for £60k-£90k incomes. Grosvenor falls short on every measure - 0% social rent equivalent, 0% London Living Rent, 100% at £60k-£90k market rent, and only 27.5% affordable housing in total.</p>
<p>Other areas where Grosvenor's scheme fails policy tests are the
<a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!yXzdIlcMgoo5cOuaQyWm8w%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">number of studio flats</a> - (146; there should be no more than about 70 (5%), according to Southwark's <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/1675/1.0.2%20DL%20Core_Strategy_2011.pdf">Core Strategy</a>) and the length of covenant keeping the BtR units as rented tenure (a 15 year covenant is offered, <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/5811/NSP%20PSV%20FINAL.pdf">emerging policy</a> requires thirty years). <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!6Xs2JaFpJu%2bk1WP4RoXHyA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">Management and lettings of affordable housing</a> also appears to be a problem. Grosvenor makes no mention of using a registered provider and is evidently reluctant to extend tenant nominations to Southwark. <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!6Xs2JaFpJu%2bk1WP4RoXHyA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">Grosvenor stresses</a> that while <em>'it will work with LBS to enable prospective tenants to be sourced from any such list'</em> (ie Southwark's <a href="https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/housing-community-services-department-community-engagement-team/intermediate-housing-list/">proposed intermediate housing list)</a>...<em>The lettings and nominations arrangements will need to recognise that Grosvenor will need ultimate control over the occupation and management of the Proposed Development</em>'.</p>
<h1>Estimated profit of £99m not enough</h1>
<p>As always the lack of affordable housing is justified by viability and it is no surprise to see that the viability assessment has been drafted by <a href="https://www.ds2.co.uk/">DS2</a>, who did <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!%2bUkiUaYFcVYqks74FHgXHA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">the same job for Delancey's</a> shopping centre development. In keeping with Southwark's <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/1807/Development_Viability_SPD_March_2016.pdf">development viability policy</a> we won't get to see the full assessment until a week before it goes to planning committee, and have to rely on an <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!cIlFW72KrcsPiQ9RQUJ6aA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">executive summary</a> for any idea of the scheme's finances. The executive summary is deficient, policy-wise, in several respects; the construction, acquisition and other development costs and professional fees are lumped into one figure, instead of given seperately. Instead of developer profit (on cost) Grosvenor has submitted an 'Internal Rate of Return', which is given as an obscure percentage (7%), not as a readlily understandable cash figure. Despite the obscurity, we have run our own calculation of profit (on cost), by subtracting the total costs listed from the gross development value, which gives a figure of £99m. This is not enough for Grosvenor, who reckon a <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!cIlFW72KrcsPiQ9RQUJ6aA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d"><em>'reasonable return'</em></a> is 12% IRR and they<a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!cIlFW72KrcsPiQ9RQUJ6aA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d"><em>'therefore cannot afford to deliver any affordable housing'</em></a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/grosvenorfva.png" alt="" />
<em>Southwark's <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/1807/Development_Viability_SPD_March_2016.pdf">required format</a> vs Grosvenor's <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!cIlFW72KrcsPiQ9RQUJ6aA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">submitted FVA summary</a></em></p>
<p>In the viability assessment summary Grosvenor's total scheme costs are combined together as a lump sum of £755m. This is significantly higher than the £500m estimate stated in its <a href="https://www.belonginbermondsey.com/getattachment/f020ee39-984d-47c5-8cf6-1ea89eb937f5/introcopy">marketing material</a>, <a href="https://www.grosvenor.com/news-views-research/news/2017/grosvenor-publishes-its-%C2%A3500-million-bermondsey-ma/">press release</a> and <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/23228fd6-6201-3de8-b499-2483acc7dc2e">media reports</a>. Given that we are not privy to the full viability assessment or its appraisal by the Council's appointed experts <a href="https://www.gva.co.uk/">GVA</a>, we can only hope that Grosvenor are asked to explain this £250m discrepancy...</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/fivehundredmil.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from Grosvenor's <a href="https://www.belonginbermondsey.com/getattachment/f020ee39-984d-47c5-8cf6-1ea89eb937f5/introcopy">marketing material</a></em></p>
<h1>School's out</h1>
<p>Grosvenor also claim that there can be no affordable housing because of a list of other benefits the scheme provides, including <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!cIlFW72KrcsPiQ9RQUJ6aA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d"><em>'the delivery of a new school'</em></a>, despite Section 13 of its <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!%2bn6U3QMQULFPWhUK7W10pA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">Planning Statement</a> acknowledging that <em>'the construction of the new school is anticipated to be funded by the ESFA</em> (Education and Skills Funding Agency)'.</p>
<p>All is not lost though, because <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!cIlFW72KrcsPiQ9RQUJ6aA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">Grosvenor generously propose</a> that <em>'notwithstanding the overall scheme viability, it would be willing to offer 27.5% affordable housing, delivered as discount market rented (“DMR”) homes (“Grosvenor’s Offer”)</em>.' The average discount would be 25% ie 75% market rents, close to the maximum of 80% allowed for 'affordable rent'. Exactly how much this will be we are left to guess - unlike Delancey's proposals for the shopping centre Grosvenor does not provide any rent tables for either the market or affordable housing. Current new-build market rents in the <a href="https://www.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/flats/london/se16/rotherhithe-south-bermonsey-surrey-docks/">SE16 postcode </a> are upwards of £1500pcm.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/biscuitfactory2.png" alt="" /></p>
<h1>The House of Westminster</h1>
<p>The <a href="https://www.grosvenorestate.com/about-us.aspx">Grosvenor Estate</a> <em>'represents all the business activities of the Grosvenor Family, headed by the Duke of Westminster'</em>. One of its three arms is <a href="https://www.grosvenorestate.com/activity/grosvenor.aspx">Grosvenor Group</a> which <em>'represents the majority of the Grosvenor Estate’s urban property activities and is its largest business'</em>. This in turn includes Grosvenor Americas, Grosvenor Asia Pacific and <a href="https://www.grosvenor.com/our-businesses/grosvenor-britain-ireland/investing-with-grosvenor-britain-and-ireland/">Grosvenor Britain & Ireland</a>, which has £5.1bn of assets and is the applicant for the Biscuit Factory. The Biscuit Factory is also the number one development listed in the <a href="https://www.grosvenor.com/downloads/grosvenor%20britain%20and%20ireland/grosvenor-britain-ireland-approach-(2017)">Grosvenor Britain & Ireland's summary of developments</a>.</p>
<p>Thanks to a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/07/duke-of-westminster-offshore-firms-wealth-paradise-papers">secretive network of offshore firms</a>, the Duke of Westminster is reputed to be worth £9bn and is the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grosvenor,_7th_Duke_of_Westminster">world's richest man under 30</a>. The Biscuit Factory on the other hand, is on the doorstep of South Bermondsey and Rotherhithe, two of six Southwark wards with neighbourhoods classified as being in the <a href="https://communitysouthwark.org/sites/default/files/images/1.%20Overview%20of%20Southwark_Final_1.pdf">bottom 10% most deprived in the country</a>, so the need for social rented housing hardly needs demonstrating.</p>
<p>Grosvenor's spin on the Biscuit Factory that it will bring life to a <a href="https://www.grosvenor.com/downloads/grosvenor%20britain%20and%20ireland/grosvenor-britain-ireland-approach-(2017)"><em>'burgeoning new neighbourhood in London'</em></a>, artfully propogated by the usual <a href="https://www.belonginbermondsey.com/">community engagement</a> soft-soap, but if Grosvenor had any genuine interest in the community it would simply build the affordable housing that local planning policy requires and build social rented housing; the demands are not onerous. As it is, one of the very richest families in the country will be getting richer at the expense of people in one of its poorest areas, by depriving them of the homes they need.</p>
<p>This is not a planning application that deserves approval, by any measure. Southwark's planning committee <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-07-09-delancey/">came close to throwing out Delancey's shopping centre application</a>; it should make no mistake this time and send Grosvenor and its dreadful planning application packing.</p>
<p>You can help by objecting to the application, by following <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9575486">this link</a>.</p>
Third time lucky2018-07-09T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2018-07-07-delancey/<p>Shopping centre owner and developer Delancey's <a href="https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9569810">proposals for the Elephant shopping centre</a> narrowly secured approval from the <a href="https://twitter.com/se1/status/1014434809962225664">planning committee last Tuesday </a>. The approval is subject to Mayor Sadiq Khan endorsing the decision and the successful conclusion of S106 negotiations, to seal the legal contract between Southwark and Delancey for the delivery of the development. A late application to Historic England for listing the shopping centre has also to be resolved.</p>
<h2>Winners and losers</h2>
<p>Southwark's planning officers were frank when presenting the merits of the proposed development - there were going to be positives and negatives (the negatives known as 'disbenefits'). In the positive column was a contribution towards a new Northern Line tube entrance, a new London College of Communication campus for University of the Arts London, new homes and new shops. In the negative column was the displacement of the current traders and the unaffordability of the new homes and new shops for local people (or indeed for most people in Southwark). It was for the committee to decide whether the balance lay and in the event it decided by a <a href="https://twitter.com/se1/status/1014268293442691074">4 to 3 vote, with one abstention</a>, to approve the application.</p>
<p>In reaching this decision the committee accepted that the so-called mitigation measures, designed to minimise the harm to traders and other users, were sufficient to allow a vote in favour of the development. The committee also set aside its own adopted housing policy which lays out clearly how much affordable housing is required, what type it should be and how much should be social rented. Instead it chose to measure the affordable housing offer against a so-called <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/5811/NSP%20PSV%20FINAL.pdf">'emerging' policy</a>, championed by Delancey and other developers, and which entails building less social rented housing (12% of total housing against 17.5%, for the Elephant area). The affordable housing offer even fails by this measure, because it has too little London Living Rent (LLR) and, at nearly half the total units, too much affordable housing at 80% market rent, but the application was approved despite all this.</p>
<h2>Housing policy Pick n' Mix</h2>
<p>As a bonus Delancey also obtained the option of a Build to Sell (BtS) scheme on the West site, while still retaining a Build to Rent (BtR) scheme as its main proposal. This means the committee has approved a major application without knowing the exact tenure of half the housing. Other complications arise because different housing policies apply, depending on whether a scheme is BtS or BtR, and each has different affordable housing requirements. If the BtS scheme is chosen, then more social rented housing would be required (subject to viability). Council officers insisted that they were 'confident' that this additional social housing would be secured, because of their expertise in monitoring S106 agreements (not a confidence the <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-12-12-ombudsman-slams-southwark-for-no-s106-monitoring">Local Government Ombudsman shares</a>).</p>
<p>The BtR scheme has its own complications, one of which is ensuring that the proportion of LLR units are maintained at the consented level. This is a problem, because Delancey wants to reassess eligibility for what it likes to call 'subsidised housing' at the end of every 3-year tenancy. If a LLR household has enjoyed a salary increase over this time, it may jump up a rent band and cease to be eligible to remain in a LLR home. The number of LLR units is already too low, (53 against about 150 units) and Southwark have proposed two equally impractical and almost incomprehensible <a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhMTY3OWAAELO68.jpg">ways of making sure they do not drop further</a>. The officers were not asked to explain why Southwark feels the need to contort itself this way and not simply tell Delancey to comply with adopted policy and thus avoid these complications. The committee did ask some questions on the practical effect on tenants of this recurrent means-testing, such as what happens if a tenant household income goes above £80,000 pa (answer: the rent doubles) and would you have to leave (yes, could happen). The planning officers again reassured the committee that they can resolve this affordable housing dog's dinner in a consistent and flexible way, in S106 negotiations.</p>
<h2>Traders' suffering squared away</h2>
<p>The committee decision to approve the application also tacitly accepts officers' assurances that all that could be done to mitigate harm to the traders was being done. This was despite the traders' objections that there was no relocation strategy in place, that the relocation fund was inadequate (£634,700 - an average of about £6,000 per trader, according to one committee member) and that their businesses were being ruined by Delancey's poor upkeep of the centre, as well as future uncertainty; traders have been told by Delancey they would have to leave the centre by March 2019, regardless of the outcome of the planning application. A trader's panel is now to be put in place to solve all these problems.</p>
<p>Southwark is also content that it is fulfilling its public sector equality duty (ie that it has paid due regard to the harm the development will cause to ethnic minority and other groups), despite being warned by <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!%2b3vgsnFhgtxRNSSWoQ1w3w%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">Southwark Law Centre</a> and <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!prA%2bpmdHItiqXq2TtExNpQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">Latin Elephant</a> that it has ignored other protected groups, such as women and the young. <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!v50NVbhc5ocMnv2Xw4omWw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">Palaces' bingo and bowling</a> has withdrawn its objection to the application, but council officers acknowledged that allowing a bingo operator first right of refusal for the use of some leisure space does not guarantee the bingo will return in the new development. Nor does this right of refusal solve the problem of what bingo users do between the centre's demolition and completion of the new development. Most of the bingo users are from black and ethnic minority backgrounds. The bowling alley, much used by young people, does not benefit from even the small protection given to the bingo.</p>
<h2>Profit vs cost</h2>
<p>The justification for accepting a proposal that drove a coach and horses through its housing policy and displaces the Latin American and ethnic community who have made the Elephant their social home was 'viability'. Delancey told the committee that their estimated level of profit was at 'breaking point' and nothing more could be offered in the way of affordable housing, but then stunned everyone but themselves with the admission that it was only paying £260,000 towards the extra 42 social rented units (lifting the number from 74 to 116 units), the rest of the cost being met by a <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!b5xBNaYRSleWlYx6oXVrEA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">GLA affordable housing grant of £11.25m</a>, thus maintaining Delancey's <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-07-02-viability-and-delancey/">estimated profit at £148.4m</a>. This equates to about 15% GDV (gross development value) or 1.5% pa, according to Delancey.</p>
<p>The committee rests its hopes of improving the affordable housing through a so-called viability review mechanism, which at some later date will supposedly establish the achieved level of profit. Southwark's viability advisor's, GVA endorsed this approach, saying that it would be an open-book appraisal, with all the figures being made available, but given that Delancey are even now <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-07-02-viability-and-delancey/">keeping critical information confidential</a> and <a href="https://35percent.org/tribeca-square/">Delancey's off-shore company structure</a> one can be forgiven for doubting this.</p>
<p><a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!LXcCuPkZXfUd47qX5Tcdtg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">GVA's written advice cautions</a> <em>'It should also be noted that there is no certainty that the Social rent on the West Site will be delivered as this is some way in the future'</em>.
All the 116 social rented units will be on the West Site and although this was said before Delancey secured the promise of GLA funding, it is still a pertinent warning.</p>
<h2>Fortune favours UAL</h2>
<p><a href="https://twitter.com/se1/status/1014452595476369409">Staunch support from the University of the Arts London (UAL)</a> undoubtedly helped turn at least one committee member's vote Delancey's way, through fear of the LCC upping sticks were the application rejected and UAL will be rewarded with a new London College of Communication campus. We know from staff and students that new facilities are much-needed and no-one wishes to see the LCC lost to the Elephant or Southwark, where they do much worthy educational work, but the fact remains that UAL, along with TfL, are the only current occupants of the Elephant who will unequivocally benefit from this new development. Much will depend on the final terms of the S106 agreement, which will include the conditions on the traders' relocation and the traders' fund, amongst other things; UAL should use all its influence with Delancey, on behalf of the traders, to get the best deal possible.</p>
<h2>It will not be plain sailing for Delancey</h2>
<p>The council officers' repeated response when the committee voiced reservations about the application was that the approval would not be sealed until the S106 agreement was concluded, where their concerns would be addressed. A proposal from the local councillors that the S106 agreement return to the planning committee to ensure this was not accepted.</p>
<p>Eight Labour councillors, including the local ward councillors and the deputy leader, have made their dissatisfaction with the decision clear and <a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhNo_cvWAAEiH2w.jpg">asked London mayor Sadiq Khan to make improvements</a>. London Assembly member <a href="https://twitter.com/FloEshalomi/status/1014829701788045320">Florence Eshalomi</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/FaradayLabour/status/1014968384579080197">a local Labour ward</a> has added their voices to the call.</p>
<p>Sadiq Khan has wide planning powers and can direct refusal of a strategic planning application, or <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/PAWS/media_id_287376/elephant_and_castle_shopping_centre_initial_representation.pdf">take over the decision-making himself</a> and given the small amount of one of his favoured housing tenures, London Living Rent homes, he might be inclined to do so, although his GLA officers have been <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/PAWS/media_id_287377/elephant_and_castle_shopping_centre_report.pdf">largely supportive</a>, of the application, with reservations about treatment of the traders. He has <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/planning-applications-and-decisions/what-powers-does-mayor-have-planning">14 days to make a decision</a> from the date Southwark refers the applicaion to him.</p>
<p>Campaign groups, including the 35% Campaign, <a href="https://twitter.com/LatinElephant/status/1014486589194555393">Latin Elephant</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/UpTheElephant_/status/1014481012007620611">Up the Elephant</a> have also <a href="https://twitter.com/UpTheElephant_/status/1014481012007620611">vowed to continue the fight</a>.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://twitter.com/se1/status/1014434809962225664">exemplary SE1 twitter feed</a> gives a blow-by-blow account of the meeting, which can also be <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=130&v=jHlK5JibLAY">viewed on You Tube</a>.</p>
<p>(NB This post was amended on 16 July 2018 to correct the date the application will be referred to the Mayor).</p>
Delancey's subsidised profit2018-07-02T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2018-06-25-viability-and-delancey/<p>Just over a week before the shopping centre planning application goes before Southwark's planning committee <a href="https://35percent.org/2018-06-26-delancey-tries-again/">for the third time</a> a slew of viability documents have been released. Given the size of the main document, the full financial viability assessment <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!7Op6ZeDkjdW7huGG0wKoxg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">(FVA)</a> it has not been possible for campaigners to present a complete response, but some interesting facts have come to light nonetheless.</p>
<p>As is usual developer Delancey claims its affordable housing offer is the most it can viably provide, but it falls some way short of what Southwark's planning policy requires, as is also usual. Delancey has upped the number of social rented units from 33, first to 74 and then to 116, but this is still some way short of the circa 165 units needed for policy compliance. Delancey were helped along by a £11.25m grant from the Greater London Authority (GLA), which promptly found its way straight to Delancey's bottom line, increasing its profit by exactly the same amount. We can see this be comparing two development appraisals of the scheme. <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!eW5y4yYs725p%2bJMli9Cf8g%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">The first</a>, dated 13 June 2018, is for a scheme with 116 social rented units, but without grant funding, and has a profit of £137.1m. <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!rcfVT8LTb%2bOXBtPlyVeyXg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">The second</a>, dated 22 June 2018, is also for a scheme with 116 social rented units, but includes a £11.25m GLA grant, and, by a miracle of development finance, a profit of £148.4m. <a href="https://twitter.com/ShapingElephant/status/1012006789997580294?s=19the">Delancey have responded</a> to justified <a href="https://twitter.com/occupyelephant?lang=en">cries of 'subsidise homes, not profit'</a> pretty much confirming that this is what has happened, but referring to the difference in the profit levels as a 'viability gap' and pleading that it 'maintains' the profit, not 'enhances' it. Most people will struggle to see the difference and would think the money better spent on the social housing Delancey claims it cannot afford to build.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/delanceyfvaprofit.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>The price of a unit</h2>
<p>Another curiosity is the price of the social rented units. Delancey will not be building them for nothing and they will be sold to a registered provider of affordable housing or Southwark Council. The unit price given in both the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!rcfVT8LTb%2bOXBtPlyVeyXg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">June development appraisals</a> is £229,864 (total £26.66m for 116 units). However <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!qNRk8MNVgvk8030tdbJSLA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">an earlier development appraisal</a>, dated 20 Feb 2018, for the first revised offer of 74 social rented units gives the unit price as £78,674, (total £5.82m). Clearly Delancey have more than one way of 'maintaining' profits; together with the GLA grant profit will have been 'maintained' by public money to the tune of £32m, all as a result of Delancey revising upwards its original affordable housing offer.</p>
<p>Delancey also cocks a snook at Southwark's much trumpeted <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/1807/Development_Viability_SPD_March_2016.pdf">viability transparency policy</a>, by keeping important information confidential. The Existing Use Value (EUV) of a development site is a critical figure in determining how viable a site is and, simply put, the higher the EUV is the less there will be for affordable housing. Delancey is claiming an EUV of £175,000,000 (Southwark's independent advisor, GVA <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!PHUQPPiesgvQWEZYj1nx%2fw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">assumes a lower figure</a> of £138,000,000). Delancey says there is supporting information to underpin its higher figure, but adds loftily <em>'However, the reports contain information to the existing landowner and cannot be divulged'</em>.</p>
<p>All this aside it is quite clear from the viability section in the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s76025/ITEM%201%20-%20REPORT%2016AP4458.pdf">officer's report</a> on the planning application that Delancey's scheme can fund a fully compliant amount of affordable housing. However, Southwark are choosing to appease Delancey by accepting the lower amount on offer and proposing a viability review at a later date, and waiting to see if there can be any 'uplift'. This is a mistake, because it shifts risk from Delancey to Southwark - if Delancey should make less money than estimated, it will mean less affordable housing, not less profit. The viability review would also be one of the legal s106 conditions on any planning approval, which Delancey has previously succeeded in <a href="https://35percent.org/tribeca-square#planning-history">changing to its own advantage</a> at its 'ELEPHANT ONE' development, right next door to the shopping centre.</p>
<p>The decision on this application is in the balance. There will be a demonstration before the planning committee meeting <strong>Up the Elephant Tuesday 3rd July @ 5:30pm; Southwark Council Offices, 160 Tooley Street, London SE1 2QH</strong> (Planning Committee starts at 6:30pm)</p>
<p>More info about the demonstration can be <a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/167374030786608/">found here</a> and our briefing to Councillors summarising our objections can be found <a href="https://35percent.org/img/Councillor_lett300618.pdf">here</a>.</p>
<hr />
Shopping Centre redevelopment - Delancey tries again2018-06-26T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2018-06-26-delancey-tries-again/<p>Elephant shopping centre owner and developer Delancey will be hoping it is third time lucky when Southwark's planning committee considers their application for redeveloping the centre on 3 July. The committee chose not approve the application at two meetings in January and the decision was further deferred because of local elections in May.</p>
<p>Delancey's initial failure, though, was the result of a concerted campaign which united shopping centre traders, the local Latin American community, staff and students from the London College of Communication, local housing campaigners and local councillors. There were over 900 objections.</p>
<p>Delancey has used the time since to make some modest improvements to the application. The number of social rented homes was first increased from 33 to 74 units and then, within the last week, up to 116 units. The units will be purchased and managed by Southwark Council, not a private sector registered provider as previously proposed. Interim retail units are also being built, to accommodate at least some of the displaced traders, on Castle Sq, just over the railway from the centre. Any trader within the 'red-line' of the development will be eligible for support from the relocation strategy. A 'cluster' of affordable retail and affordable space is proposed for Pastor St, behind the London College of Communication. There is also a qualified commitment to lease a proportion of the proposed leisure floorspace to a bingo operator. Delancey <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!Hw5NLOf19aAUEMtPn8HzFA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">says</a> it <em>"will give first refusal (on commercial terms) to a bingo operator to lease a proportion of the proposed leisure floorspace within the development."</em></p>
<p>The Palaces bingo hall and bowling alley in the shopping centre are major attractions in the area.</p>
<p>These improvements are valuable for some, but for most traders it is all too little, too late. Local charity <a href="https://latinelephant.org/">Latin Elephant</a> reckons there are 150 migrant and ethnic businesses at the Elephant. The Elephant and Castle Traders Asssociation counts traders from 16 different countries, stretching from Bolivia to Turkey to Bangladesh and Ghana. They have been informed that they will have to leave the centre by March 2019 (regardless of the outcome of the planning application) and there is little doubt that Delancey's proposals will not accommodate them all.</p>
<h2>Moving the chairs around</h2>
<p>The improved housing offer comes at a cost too, but not for Delancey. While there will be more social rented homes, it is at the expense of London Living Rent units, much favoured by Mayor Sadiq Khan as the best tenure for households with middle incomes up to £60k per annum; these have been reduced from 158 in the original proposal to 53 units in the latest offer. At the same time the affordable rent units at 80% market rent have increased in number from 59 to 161. Delancey have reconfigured the offer (as noted by Southwark's viability advisors <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!PQ%2bQOpAIvwfn4d1Q2xLk5w%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">GVA</a>)
and still stand to make £137m profit, according to their <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!eW5y4yYs725p%2bJMli9Cf8g%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">latest Development Appraisal</a>. Delancey is also seeking <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!b5xBNaYRSleWlYx6oXVrEA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">funding from the GLA</a> to build its affordable housing (£60k per social rented unit) which it will then sell to Southwark Council <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!eW5y4yYs725p%2bJMli9Cf8g%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">for an estimated £26.7m</a> (£230k per unit).</p>
<p>Despite all this the affordable housing offer is still does not meet the requirements of the adopted local plan; there would have to be at least 170 social rented units, amongst other things, for this to happen.
Delancey instead hopes to get the advantage of new policy that is in pipeline, so called emerging policy, which requires less social rented housing and favours the Build for Rent type scheme Delancey is proposing, rather than the traditional Build for Sale scheme.</p>
<h2>Poor design</h2>
<p>None of Delancey's amendments involve changes to the design of the scheme, which Southwark's Design Review Panel have criticised heavily, in particular in relation to the transport interchange. In their <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!Lne%2f9qVjTGbWyUdbJYdnsw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">report</a> to the Council's planning committee they said that the <em>"significant size and scale of the proposed UAL and the shopping centre buildings adjacent to the viaduct which block off access to the station from the north or south along the viaduct."</em></p>
<p>It goes on to raise <em>"significant concerns"</em> about the building infront of the railway station <em>"Firstly, the scale of the building and how it affects the generosity of Elephant Court which is severely restricted as a consequence and does not have the proportions of a civic square which a scheme of this scale will require. Secondly, ‘Elephant Court will be an importance entrance point for the railway station at the Elephant and Castle from the west. This includes the interchange from the new underground station at the Elephant and Castle peninsula. The Panel felt the current proposal does not demonstrate how this important transport interchange will be facilitated by the scheme and remained concerned that the new building will impede access to the railway station.</em>"</p>
<p>The panel raises significant concerns about the new Northern line entrance, which they felt <em>"lacked visual presence on the street and is currently proposed as a simple single-storey shopfront – no different to a retail unit."</em></p>
<p>It also criticises Delancey's public realm proposals; <em>"In respect of the public realm, the Panel felt the current proposals lacked generosity. They noted that other significant schemes provided appropriate civic spaces and public realm on their sites and felt that the current proposal did not strike the right balance between pubic realm and built form to mitigate against the enormous scale of the proposal."</em></p>
<p>All in all then, while the application is an improvement on what was <a href="https://35percent.org/2017-09-23-elephant-castle-shopping-centre-update/">dreadful</a>, there is still a way to go before it is fit for approval. The planning committee must hold firm and reject the application.</p>
<p>A protest has been organised for the evening of the planning committee on 3 July - <a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/167374030786608/">details here</a></p>
Council leader Peter John - the alternative facts2017-10-02T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2017-10-02-council-leader-peter-john-alternative-facts/<p>In response to criticism of his administration's failure to secure social rented housing from developers, last week Southwark Council leader Peter John <a href="https://twitter.com/peterjohn6/status/910181725187305472">claimed on Twitter</a> that 40% of new homes delivered in the borough over the last 5 years were social rented:</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/pjfactsthread.png" alt="" />
<em><a href="https://twitter.com/peterjohn6/status/910181725187305472">Tweets</a> from Council leader Peter John</em></p>
<p>We're blocked by Councillor John on Twitter, so we couldn't engage in the conversation or ask Councillor John where he got his 'Facts' from. However, we can show that Cllr John's 40% figure is not grounded in reality.</p>
<p>Every year the London Mayor produces an <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/implementing-london-plan/monitoring-london-plan">Annual Monitoring Report</a>, showing how many affordable homes are provided in each borough, along with a breakdown of tenures. The <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/amr_13.pdf">report for the current year 2016/17</a> shows a net gain of just 13 social rented homes over the past three years in Southwark. This is out of a total 5,220 new homes built in the borough over those three years (Table 3.7).</p>
<p>That's an average net gain of just 4 social rented homes per year (if they are social rent; we have <a href="https://35percent.org/redefining-social-rent">shown before</a> how Southwark turns a blind eye to developers and housing associations providing affordable rent instead).</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/amr13.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The Mayor's figures are net figures and whilst they don't take into acccount social rented homes lost through Right to Buy, they do take into account the number of social rented homes demolished. Given Southwark's <a href="https://35percent.org/the-southwark-clearances/">ongoing pipeline of estate demolitions</a> it is no surprise that the figures for social rented housing are in some years negative and overall extremely low.</p>
<h2>Southwark knocking 'em down faster than it's putting 'em up</h2>
<p>Southwark Council was a bit more candid about its failures earlier in the year when it <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/council-admits-will-miss-target-build-1500-new-council-homes-2018/">acknowledged</a> that it had not reached an early phase target for its 11,000 council house building programme.</p>
<p>When this programme was announced in 2014, sceptics complained that the plans were nothing but PR spin that would be used to cover up the extent of the growing programme of council estate demolitions. Cllr John responded with an <a href="https://35percent.org/img/pj11000councilhomesletter.pdf">open letter</a> guaranteeing that the 11,000 new council homes would be a net increase to the council's housing stock. Three years on, the net figures in the Mayor's Annual Monitoring Reports show just how far Southwark is from achieving this.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SN1100homes.png" alt="" /></p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/pj11000councilhomesletter.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from Councillor John's <a href="https://35percent.org/img/pj11000councilhomesletter.pdf">open letter</a></em></p>
<h2>The listening council</h2>
<p>As well as speaking, or at least tweeting, Cllr John wants us to know that Southwark also 'listens'. He appeared earlier this week at the Labour party conference, alongside Labour's shadow Minister for housing John Healey, at a <a href="https://www.smith-institute.org.uk/2017/08/08/smith-institute-2017-party-conferences/">talk entitled</a> <em>'Listening to communities - the future of social housing post Grenfell'</em>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/lpc.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>All the evidence though, is that Southwark is deaf to its communities, particularly council estate communities. On the Aylesbury estate, 70% of residents balloted <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2001/dec/27/1">voted against its demolition</a>, on a 73% ballot turnout - all to no avail; the estate is being demolished regardless and Southwark continues its <a href="https://35percent.org/2017-05-08-aylesbury-cpo-what-has-really-happened/">ruthless treatment</a> of leaseholders who stand in its way. The Heygate estate community did not even get the chance to be ignored, and were <a href="https://heygate.github.io/img/councilrulesoutvote.pdf">denied a ballot</a> on the future of their homes.</p>
<p>When it comes to developers though, Southwark is all ears; as Private Eye has noted in the past and our <a href="https://35percent.org/revolving-doors">growing dossier</a> shows, an increasing number of Southwark Labour members and officials have links to the development industry. If Jeremy Corbyn's encouraging words that <a href="https://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/news/jeremy-corbyn%E2%80%99s-2017-labour-conference-speech-full-transcript">'regeneration under a Labour government will be for the benefit of the local people, not private developers, not property speculators'</a> are to be made something more than a conference sound-bite, then the Labour Party needs to get its house in order and break these ties.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/private-eye-southwark-council-developers.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Stop press</h2>
<p>Cllr John has issued a <a href="https://southwarklabour.co.uk/latest-news/southwark/news.aspx?p=102392">press statement</a> in response to Jeremy Corbyn's speech.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/statementpjestateballots.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>He says his Council already only considers estate regeneration where there is a gain in council housing. This is a welcome change of heart, but if it is sincere, Southwark must start by halting the demolition of the Aylesbury estate. This will lose Southwark 2,700 council homes, which combined with the 1,200 already demolished on the Heygate, means that around 10% of Southwark's council housing stock will be lost. None of this is being replaced by new council housing, but by much smaller amounts of <a href="https://35percent.org/redefining-social-rent/">'quasi'</a> social rented housing.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://35percent.org/aylesbury-estate/">Aylesbury estate regeneration</a> will see a minimum net loss of 778 social rented units, and, notoriously, on the Heygate <a href="https://35percent.org/affordable-housing/">just 82</a> of the new homes will be social rented. This can be added to the <a href="https://35percent.org/elmington-estate-regeneration/">Elmington estate regeneration</a>, with a <a href="https://southwarknotes.wordpress.com/tag/elmington-estate/">net loss of 346 social rented homes</a> and the <a href="https://35percent.org/wood-dene-estate-regeneration/">Wood Dene estate regeneration</a>, with a net loss of 262 social rented homes.</p>
Elephant & Castle shopping centre update2017-09-23T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2017-09-23-elephant-castle-shopping-centre-update/<p>After a traders' deputation to Southwark Council and well over 200 objections to the planning application, developer Delancey has amended its plans for the demolition and redevelopment of the shopping centre. The original plans had <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-12-19-delancey-submits-shopping-centre-application/">no provison for current traders, no affordable retail units and no social rented housing</a>. Delancey's amendments include a <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s68297/Report%20Elephant%20and%20Castle%20Shopping%20Centre%20Equalities%20Analysis%20and%20Mitigation%20Projects.pdf">draft local business support & relocation strategy</a>, as well as more information about the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!SeVE7nVBcuVxpQARghoUbA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">affordable housing</a> offer.</p>
<p>However, the application is not much better for any of these changes. At local community meetings organised by the Walworth Society and Elephant Amenity Network, traders described the relocation strategy as 'vague'. There will be a relocation fund to assist traders, but Delancey will not say how large it will be, nor who exactly will qualify for payments. Seven off-site units in the new Elephant Rd development are mentioned as alternative premises for traders, as well as unbuilt retail units at Lendlease's <a href="https://elephantpark.co.uk/">Elephant Park</a> and garage areas underneath nearby council block, Perronet House, but this is nowhere near enough - Southwark itself has identified <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s68297/Report%20Elephant%20and%20Castle%20Shopping%20Centre%20Equalities%20Analysis%20and%20Mitigation%20Projects.pdf">45 'local operators'</a>, but there are many more, once kiosks, stalls and sub-leased shop units are taken into account.</p>
<p>Nor are there any proposals for either relocating the bingo hall and bowling alley or accommodating them in the new development. This is a serious omission. A new <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!jL6JkkYmmtpBMzdpRozUkA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">equalities statement</a> notes that both the elderly and people from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds form a large part of the bingo hall's clientele and would be adveresly affected should the application be approved. Southwark's failure to ensure that the Aylesbury estate's BAME leaseholders were fairly treated led to the <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-09-18-aylesbury-compulsory-purchase-order-rejected/">humiliating refusal</a> of its compulsory purchase order application.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/elephantcastlebingo.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Elephant & Castle shopping centre bingo hall - used by up to 500 pensioners daily</em></p>
<p>Delancey's <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!CgEoZ4vEh0beAm1jRSlUrA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">revised affordable retail offer</a> is craftily-worded (10% on the west site of the development, 5% on the east site), but because there is only a very small amount of retail proposed on the west site, the total amount across the whole site is only 5%; half of the 10% minimum policy requirement. Delancey offers a cash payment in lieu, but doesn't say how much this is.</p>
<h3>3% fake social rented housing</h3>
<p>Matters do not improve with the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!SeVE7nVBcuVxpQARghoUbA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">affordable housing addendum</a>. Delancey still refuses to include any proper social rented housing, but instead offers something it calls 'social rent equivalent', starting at £160pw, with a 3-year tenancy. Rents will rise with inflat ion, but with the prospect of further rises, should your income rise. It also looks as if 'social rent equivalent' will only be available to 'economically active' households; what these are is left undefined. Delancey proposes 33 'social rent equivalent' units out of a total of 979 new homes - 3%. This falls well short of the current minimum <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/1817/1.0.5%20Elephant%20%26%20Castle%20SPD%20OAPF.pdf">policy requirement at the Elephant & Castle</a>, which is 17.5% social rented housing. In December Delancey submitted a confidential viability assessment to the Council justifying why providing 17.5% social rented housing is not financially viable. Despite its new transparency policy and despite repeated calls, Southwark has still not made this viability assessment public.</p>
<p>The remainder of the 'affordable' rented housing we will be at 'London Living Rent equivalent', £205 - £308pw, and affordable rent at up to 80% market rent, depending on income. 60% of the overall affordable housing will be for households with incomes over £60,000 pa and up to £90,000pa.</p>
<p>None of this is in line with the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/1817/1.0.5%20Elephant%20%26%20Castle%20SPD%20OAPF.pdf">Elephant's current affordable housing policy</a>, which requires half of the minimum 35% affordable housing to be social rented. Delancey should be providing 170 social rented units, instead of 33 fake social rent. Nor does the affordable housing offer meet the required amounts in the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/development-plan/local-plan?chapter=4">new, 'emerging' policy</a> Southwark is trying to sneak through the backdoor, to help the likes of Delancey reduce their affordable housing obligations. Southwark has also vehemently <a href="https://35percent.org/redefining-social-rent/">argued against including affordable rent in local housing policy</a>.</p>
<p>Delancey's true intentions, if they were ever in any doubt, have been flushed out by these planning amendments - to do as little as possible for local traders and create a social housing-free zone at the Elephant and Castle.</p>
<p>Southwark Council has the power to stop them, by refusing not only to grant planning permission, but refusing to even consider the application in its current form. Delancey needs to make provision for every trader to stay in the area and ensure that the bingo hall and bowling alley are integrated into their plans. It also needs to provide proper affordable housing, including the full amount of social rented housing required by policy.</p>
<p>Southwark also has compulsory purchase order powers that Delancey is relying on, if it cannot come to an agreement with the longer term leaseholders, including the bingo hall. Southwark must make it clear it won't do Delancey's dirty work and won't be seeking any compulsory purchase orders on its behalf while its plans don't comply with minimum policy requirements.</p>
<p>This remains a dreadful planning application, but it's not too late to object! You can write to:</p>
<ul>
<li>local MP Neil Coyle (neil.coyle@southwark.gov.uk <a href="https://twitter.com/coyleneil">@coyleneil</a>)</li>
<li>Council leader Peter John (peter.john@southwark.gov.uk <a href="https://twitter.com/peterjohn6">@peterjohn6</a>)</li>
<li>Cabinet member for Regeneration Mark Williams (mark.williams@southwark.gov.uk <a href="https://twitter.com/coyleneil">@markwilliams84</a>).</li>
</ul>
<p>You can also use our automated objection form below to lodge an objection to the revised planning application.</p>
<h2>Object Now!</h2>
<form id="form5" action="https://commentform.herokuapp.com/" method="post">
<fieldset><legend>Fill in the details below to object to Delancey's revised planning application.</legend>
<div id="mc_embed_signup">
<div class="indicates-required"><span class="asterisk">*</span> indicates required</div>
<p class="first" style="margin:20px">
<label for="name">Title:</label>
<input type="text" name="title" id="title" size="5" placeholder="Mr" /><span class="asterisk">*</span>
</p>
<p style="margin:20px">
<label for="email">First Name:</label>
<input type="text" name="firstname" id="firstname" size="15" placeholder="Joe" /><span class="asterisk">*</span>
</p>
<p style="margin:20px">
<label for="email">Surname:</label>
<input type="text" name="surname" id="surname" size="21" placeholder="Bloggs" /><span class="asterisk">*</span>
</p>
<p style="margin:20px">
<label for="email">Email:</label>
<input type="text" name="email" id="email" size="23" placeholder="joebloggs@gmail.com" /><span class="asterisk">*</span>
</p>
<p style="margin:20px">
<label for="address">Address:</label>
<input type="text" name="address" id="address" size="27" placeholder="99 Chaplin Street" /><span class="asterisk">*</span>
</p>
<p style="margin:20px">
<label for="address">Town/City:</label>
<input type="text" name="city" id="city" size="12" placeholder="London" /><span class="asterisk">*</span>
</p>
<p style="margin:20px">
<label for="postcode">Postcode:</label>
<input type="text" name="postcode" id="postcode" size="10" placeholder="SE17 1RS" /><span class="asterisk">*</span>
</p>
<p style="margin:20px">
<label for="message">Comment:</label>
<textarea name="message" id="message" cols="55" rows="10">Dear Southwark Planning,
<p>I am writing to object to the revised planning application for the redevelopment of the shopping centre and LCC campus at the Elephant & Castle (ref:16/AP/4458).</p>
<p>Affordable Housing:
This application does not propose a policy compliant affordable housing mix. Southwark's policy for the Elephant & Castle requires a minimum of 35% affordable housing, of which 50% must be social rented. This should provide around 170 units but Delancey is proposing a different tenure and only 33 (3%) of the total units will be at social rent levels.</p>
<p>Affordable retail & existing traders:
The Council's strategic planning framework requires a minimum 10% affordable retail for new developments. Paragraph 5.1.7 of the Council's local planning policy (E&C SPD), further requires a number of "affordable retail units which are made available to existing occupiers displaced by development", in order to "ensure that development opportunities provide opportunities for existing and future SME businesses". The applicant's proposals fail to meet this and the Council's minimum 10% affordable retail requirement.</p>
<p>Bingo Hall:
Delancey is failing to make re-provision for the existing bingo hall. This is an importsnt social and community facility for 500 local pensioners every day. This important facility must be retained in any new development in order to ensure that community benefits are not lost without being replaced.</p>
<p>This application should not be considered by the Council until the above shortcomings have been addressed.</p>
<p>Yours sincerely,
</p></textarea></p>
<p></p>
<p class="submit" style="margin:20px"><button type="submit">Send Objection</button></p>
</div>
</fieldset>
</form>
A Signal embarrassment2017-06-20T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2017-06-20-signal-tower-embarrassment-southwark-pays-for-lost-affordable-housing/<p>Most people are aware that private developments are supposed to provide a certain amount of affordable housing, called S106 contributions. The Signal Building at the Elephant and Castle is one such development - 22 storeys, 38 residential units, with an <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=09/AP/1940&system=DC">S106 contribution of 11 affordable homes</a>, to be provided <strong>'at no cost to the council'</strong> [^1] when planning permission was <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7B%7B%7B!BNdputgcl7RAX9PUCwkm0w%3D%3D!%7D%7D%7D">granted</a> in 2011.</p>
<p><img src="https://media.rightmove.co.uk/dir/72k/71137/52949120/71137_SOU150150_IMG_06_0001_max_656x437.JPG" alt="" /></p>
<p>But in an extraordinary turn of events, Southwark Council's Cabinet is tonight <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s69255/Report%20Acquisition%20of%20up%20to%209%20sub-Leasehold%20properties%20at%20the%20Signal%20Building%2089%20-%2093%20Newington%20Ca.pdf">set to agree to pay around £200k each</a> to return 9 of the 11 units to affordable housing, after alleging that they had been sold by the housing association concerned in a series of 'sham transactions'.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/shamtransacts.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the Council's <a href="https://35percent.org/img/ahugget15062017.pdf">court claim</a> against the housing association and developer</em></p>
<p>Southwark has been <a href="https://35percent.org/img/ahugget15062017.pdf">pursuing a High Court claim</a> against housing association <a href="https://www.londonha.com/"><strong>London District Housing Association</strong></a> (LDHA) and numerous other defendants, including developers and leaseholders. While the hearing is due to begin between 5 and 7 July at the High Court and scheduled to last 15 days, Southwark has set the money aside to <strong>'facilitate settlement'</strong> with the leaseholders out of court. Southwark's <a href="https://35percent.org/img/ahugget15062017.pdf">court claim</a> gives open market values of between £650k and £795k for each of the properties, but estimates their affordable housing values at between £190k and £211k. If there should be no settlement Southwark is seeking damages of £1.98m in total. Southwark has reached a seperate, and confidential, settlement with LDHA and with <strong>'entities'</strong> from the <a href="https://www.trademarkgroup.co.uk/"><strong>Trademark Group</strong></a>, who were involved in the development and financing of the scheme.</p>
<p>This settlement follows a similiar one, again confidential, with LDHA and Trademark SPVs, registered under the name 'Protected Growth Plan' (<a href="https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/search/companies?q=pgp+finance">PGP finance</a> and <a href="https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/search/companies?q=pgp+securities">PGP Securities</a>), after Southwark <a href="https://35percent.org/img/2016poc.pdf">alleged</a> that 26 more affordable homes on four other developments were also sold in breach of planning consent. One of the developments is Trademark's joint-venture development with Galliard homes at the Jam Factory in Bermondsey, a second 'South City Court' - a joint venture with Galliard in Peckham and there is a third on Wanley Rd in Dulwich.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/jamfactorysouthcitycourt.png" alt="" />
<em>Jam Factory, South City Court and Wanley Rd schemes</em></p>
<p>In its <a href="https://35percent.org/img/2016poc.pdf">High Court claim</a> Southwark alleged <strong>'sham'</strong> documents were used for <strong>'fraudulent'</strong> purposes. As reported in the <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/affordable-housing-pledges-swept-under-mat-s5r7trv6g">Sunday Times</a> in April, LDHA and Trademark denied Southwark's claims and they have not yet been proven in court. The Jam Factory settlement will return 16 of the 18 units to affordable housing under a new <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=16/AP/5068&system=DC">S106 agreement</a> between Southwark and new affordable housing provider, <a href="https://heylohousing.com/your-heylo-housing/">Heylo Housing</a>. We understand that no damages have been paid to Southwark, which has claimed that there has been no loss to the public purse from the Jam Factory case. We have no information on the status of the two outstanding units at the Jam Factory, the two at Signal Tower and the eight 'affordable' housing units at South City Court and Wanley Rd.</p>
<h3>Southwark's claim</h3>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/claimheader.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The essence of Southwark's allegations for all the sites was that the affordable housing was improperly <em>'stair-cased out'</em>; i.e. passed into full ownership and thus onto the open market, in an implausibly short length of time. Southwark's <a href="https://35percent.org/img/2016poc.pdf">Statement of Case</a> alleged that the PGP companies <em>'conspired'</em> with LDHA to <em>'recruit'</em> individuals to be the supposed <em>'nominees'</em> for the shared ownership leases. In the Signal Tower <a href="https://35percent.org/img/ahugget15062017.pdf">court papers</a> Southwark alleged that 3 of the properties were purportedly <em>'stair-cased out'</em> in 2 days, two in 3 days, one in 4 days and another in 7 days [^2]. The usual period is 21 years, acording to approved Homes and Communities Agency leases.</p>
<p><a href="https://35percent.org/img/ST23April2017.pdf">The Sunday Times</a> reports that LDHA denied executing or knowing about any sham documentation. Protected Growth Plan are reported as saying they were not party to the original S1O6 agreements, was not bound by them and had not breached any law.</p>
<h3>London District Housing Association</h3>
<p>London District Housing Association (<strong>LDHA</strong>), formerly the <strong>Faithland Housing Association</strong>, is the housing association involved in the alleged scam. Its head office overlooks the Jam Factory, and it aggressively pursues every new development in zones 1-4, according to an industry source. LHDA's board report claims they have placed 2500 units under offer in central London and have secured units in Southwark, Camden, Greenwich and other London boroughs. Their <a href="https://www.londondha.com/">website</a> claims that they provide housing for service personal and key workers, giving particular emphasis to BME applicants.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/ldhascreenshot.png" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>LDHA's</strong> chairman Phillip Butt and director Sehaer Siddique, are former officers at Lambeth Living, Lambeth Council's housing management company. According to its Articles of Association, <strong>Faithland Housing Association</strong> was incorporated at the same address as <strong>Trademark Group</strong>'s head office at its <a href="https://www.trademarkgroup.co.uk/portfolio/city-walk-london-se1-4pp/"><strong>City Walk</strong> development</a> on Long Lane in Bermondsey[^3]. One of LDHA's directors is also a director at Trademark[^4]. Trademark's head office also happens to be the former registered address of <a href="https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/former-ujima-boss-in-court-as-35m-trial-begins/6520813.article">disgraced</a> Ujima housing association, a specialist BME housing association that went bust after the Housing Corporation <a href="https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/ujima-why-didnt-anyone-step-in/6500028.article">failed to act</a> on reports of large-scale theft and fraud.</p>
<h3>Trademark Group</h3>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/trademarkscreenshot.png" alt="" />
<em>Trademark's website claims it exercises social responsibility and an ethical approach to business</em></p>
<p>According to its <a href="https://www.trademarkgroup.co.uk/">website</a>, Trademark has delivered 4300 homes across 12 developments, all of which in Southwark - including joint ventures with Galliard's <a href="https://www.trademarkgroup.co.uk/portfolio/marcia-road-london-se1-5xf/">Marcia St</a> development, Galliard's <a href="https://www.trademarkgroup.co.uk/portfolio/city-walk-london-se1-4pp/">City Walk</a> scheme, the <a href="https://www.trademarkgroup.co.uk/portfolio/the-bacon-factory-great-suffolk-street-london-se1-0bd/">Bacon Factory</a> and the <a href="https://www.trademarkgroup.co.uk/portfolio/surrey-quays-leisure-centre-se16/">Canada Water regeneration</a>. The City Walk scheme was <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/dozens-bermondsey-families-billed-thousands-companys-dodgy-roofs-let-leaks/">in the news</a> last year after complaints of substandard construction.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/galliardtrademark.png" alt="" />
<em>Some of Trademark's joint venture schemes with Galliard in Southwark</em></p>
<h3>Neobrand Ltd, Neobrand No 2 Ltd</h3>
<p>The <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!dmSwvsIphYtbdUvdn3A09Q%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">named developer</a> of the Signal Building is Neobrand Limited, who a web search reveals to be <a href="https://www.192.com/atoz/business/london-n20/estate-agents/neobrand-limited/96e72f73ac06593e62ed2e5afa6bcb30f07ca4f0/comp/">an estate agents in </a>Whetstone, north London. A second Neobrand company, <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!UNuKNbr8NdYf%2fFbT8TjOaw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">Neobrand No 2 Ltd</a> is the named developer of 87 Newington Causeway, next door, but separated by a railway line from the Signal Building. Both Neobrand companies share the <a href="https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05677572">same business address</a> and <a href="https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07116114/officers">company officers</a>. Neobrand No 2 successfully obtained <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=44852">planning approval</a> for a <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s67456/Report%2087%20NEWINGTON%20CAUSEWAY%20LONDON%20SE1%206BD.pdfwith">140-bed hotel</a> and 38 residential units, including <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi_w8ehwcfUAhWGKlAKHe8wBo0QFggoMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.london-se1.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fview%2F9158&usg=AFQjCNE1T8CcyUqr1yQWxmNnPOZJmODDhw&sig2=pgy-0qx0_Qp5jPxsCsvBKg">16 affordable units</a> consented in March 2016. It appears however that the permission may have lapsed, due to absence of a concluded S106 agreement.</p>
<h3>Ombudsman's decison - an audit is required</h3>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/signalairbnb.png" alt="" />
<em>One of the 11 supposedly affordable housing units at Signal Tower <a href="https://www.airbnb.co.uk/rooms/5884272?eluid=1&euid=9384f973-2e49-9bc1-357d-99f753a87427">now advertised on AirBNB</a></em></p>
<p>The Signal Building and the Jam Factory were amongst the 46 developments that the 35% Campaign submitted in its <a href="https://35percent.org/img/ccomplaint15Dec2016.pdf">complaint</a> to the Local Government Ombudsman, that affordable housing from private developments was not being delivered. Supposedly affordable units in the Signal Tower were being <a href="https://www.airbnb.co.uk/rooms/5884272?eluid=1&euid=9384f973-2e49-9bc1-357d-99f753a87427">openly advertised</a> on AirBNB for £129 per night. The Ombudsman's summary <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-12-12-ombudsman-slams-southwark-for-no-s106-monitoring/">conclusion</a>, issued last November, was that <em>'When imposing conditions for providing social housing through S106 agreements, the council failed to implement a structured procedure for supervising compliance'</em>. He added <em>'It has now begun a borough wide audit into compliance'</em>. The cases of the Jam Factory, Signal Building, South Court Central and Wanley Rd illustrate how urgently we need this audit.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/LGOFinalDecisionSOR.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>More importantly, when it does discover that planning conditions have been breached, the Council should take a firm stance, especially when allegedly 'sham transactions' and 'sham documents' are involved. Purchasing affordable units that should come at no cost and making concessions in out of court settlements is giving out the wrong signal. We say the Council should instead stand firm, pursue its court action to return the units to their consented use and refer the matter not just to the housing association regulator (HCA) but also to the police.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: See paragraph 1.2.1 pg 48
[^2]: High Court Claim No HC-2016-001745 para 48
[^3]: Studio One, 197 Long Lane, London, SE1 4PD
[^4]: Fraser Allen is listed at Companies House as both director of LDHA and Trademark Group</p>
Aylesbury CPO- what's really happened2017-05-08T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2017-05-08-aylesbury-cpo-what-has-really-happened/<p>To paraphrase Winston Churchill - there are lies, there are damn lies and then there are Southwark Council press releases.</p>
<p>A choice example is the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2017/apr/secretary-of-state-overturns-previous-decision-regarding-aylesbury-estate-compulsory-purchase-order">triumphant annnouncement</a> of 25 April 2017 with the headline <em>'Secretary of State overturns previous decision regarding Aylesbury estate compulsory purchase order'</em>. The press release subsequently neglects to give the Secretary of State's reason for this new decision, but says instead that improved offers had been made to the leaseholders, leaving the impression that this was why he changed his mind. The press release was the basis of a <a href="https://35percent.org/img/aylesburycpojrpress.pdf">number of media reports</a>, which related the story with varying degrees of inaccuracy.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/acpoprlbs.png" alt="" />
<em>Southwark's triumphant and misleading <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2017/apr/secretary-of-state-overturns-previous-decision-regarding-aylesbury-estate-compulsory-purchase-order">press statement</a></em></p>
<p>The final paragraph of the press release notes that the <em>'Consent Order is being agreed with the Secretary of State’s lawyers and will be forwarded to the Interested Parties (Aylesbury leaseholders, their legal representatives and the 35% Campaign) shortly for their agreement'</em>. We had actually received the draft Consent Order on the 25 April, with a peremptory deadline for reply of the next day. This was extended to the 2 May, but it was obviously more important to Southwark to get out a press release immediately, rather than have the courtesy of waiting for a reply, or indeed waiting for the Consent Order to be signed or waiting for the High Court to actually quash the decision.</p>
<p>As for the Secretary of State conceding to Southwark's challenge - this was based on one single ground, arising from the so-called £16,000 savings policy. It had nothing at all to do with any non-existent 'improved offers'.</p>
<p>The £16,000 savings policy stipulated that all of a leaseholder's savings, less £16,000, would be required from them, if they wanted a new home on a shared-ownership or shared equity basis. After the CPO inquiry finished, Southwark <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s58421/Report%20Financial%20Appraisal%20Process%20for%20Home%20Owners%20Affected%20by%20Regeneration%20Schemes.pdf">dropped this policy</a> and asked the Secretary of State to take this into account in his consideration of their CPO application. He did do so, writing to all parties for their views. In his <a href="https://35percent.org/img/Decision_Letter_Final.pdf">final decision letter</a>, he concluded <em>"in the light of the facts of this case,"</em> that the policy change did not make any difference to his decision not to grant the CPO. (para. 7)</p>
<p>Southwark hired a <a href="https://www.ftbchambers.co.uk/james-pereira-qc-compulsory-purchase-and-compensation">big-gun QC</a> who argued on case law that the Secretary of State failed to provide adequate reasoning in relation to this aspect of his decision. The Secretary of State conceded the appeal on this ground alone and he made this clear in the consent order.</p>
<p>We have submitted a <a href="https://35percent.org/img/lbscomplaintaylesburycpo.pdf">formal complaint</a> asking Southwark to correct its press statement, but this latest episode in the Aylesbury CPO battle provides a neat cameo of how Southwark behaves in general. It only dropped the iniquitous £16,000 policy after the CPO inquiry concluded and to retrieve a decision it rightly feared was not going its way. Shameless expenditure of public funds, expert lawyers and good fortune then rescued them, for the moment. It is a story that also illustrate why this is such an important battle - Southwark cannot be trusted to act fairly, plain and simple.</p>
<p>The leaseholders and interested parties have now somewhat reluctantly signed the Consent Order to quash the decision. To do otherwise would have required further legal fees and layed ourselves open to potentially ruinous cost orders. But the Consent Order also has conditions, one being that there is another full public inquiry to hear the objectors' case and re-examine the public interest of the scheme. We remain fully confident that, having won once, we can win again and this time round we are more organised. We now have a <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/aylesbury-the-right-to-a-community-2uefgf2s">crowdfunding campaign</a> to pay for proper legal representation and expert witness evidence showing that refurbishment is more cost effective than demolition.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/wendcomp.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>This is an important battle, the outcome of which could determine the possible 'right to a community' for council estate residents across the country. Any contribution that you can make to this fund, large or small, is greatly appreciated.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/gofundmemay.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Revised planning application</h2>
<p>In the meantime, Southwark has <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s68300/Appendix%202%20Draft%20development%20agreement.pdf">announced</a> an amendment to its development agreement with regeneration partner Notting Hill Housing. The housing association will now be submitting fresh planning applications for the Aylesbury, reducing the number of affordable units on its first phase of development of the estate (plot 18). The previous consent for plot 18 was for a policy compliant mix of 50% affordable housing of which 75% social rent.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/nhhd.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>This fresh application will see the number of social rented homes in this first phase to just 17 of 122 new homes. We have <a href="https://35percent.org/affordable-housing/">shown</a> in detail how promises of replacement social housing on the Heygate were chipped away over the years. The Aylesbury regeneration is now clearly following that same trajectory.</p>
Blackfriars affordable housing circus2017-04-29T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2017-04-29-blackfriars-affordable-housing-circus/<p>Southwark Council <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2017/apr/stunning-new-council-homes-become-ready-for-local-tenantslast">announced</a> last week that 56 new council homes have been provided by a new private development at <a href="https://35percent.org/blackfriars-circus/">Blackfriars Circus</a> and that they are a step towards achieving the Council's ambition to build 11000 new council homes over the next 30 years.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/tweetmwilliamsblackfriars.png" alt="" />
<em><a href="https://twitter.com/markwilliams84/status/837314723402100736">Tweets</a> by Cabinet member for Regen Mark Williams and Council leader Peter John</em></p>
<p>The reality of this claim is somewhat different and worth examining;
<a href="https://www.barratthomes.co.uk/new-homes/greater-london/H625601-Blackfriars-circus/"><strong>Blackfriars Circus</strong></a>
overlooks the South Bank University campus at the Elephant & Castle and comprises 336 new homes in 5 buildings, ranging up to 27 storeys
in height. New apartments in the latest phase, the <a href="https://www.barratthomes.co.uk/new-homes/greater-london/H625601-Blackfriars-circus/">Delphini apartments</a>, have been available since the beginning of the year, starting at £665k for a studio flat.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/erlang-house.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The scheme should have provided 70 social rented and 47 shared ownership homes, in accordance with Southwark's 35% affordable housing policy. However, in time-honoured fashion the developer, Barratt Homes, submitted a viability assessment, claiming that only 30% affordable housing was viable, consisting of 35 shared-ownership homes, 8 social rented and 48 affordable rent, at 65% market rent [^1]. The planning report also said that an additional in lieu payment of £4.7m to make up the 5% shortfall had been proposed.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!5wmNTTJlhAE1P%2fSH390aXg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">officer's report</a> for the planning application
explains that the viability assessment had been appraised by the 'Borough Valuer' (meaning the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/district-valuer-services-dvs">District Valuer</a>) and that <em>"Whilst a number of inputs into the valuation have been agreed.... an agreement has not been reached on two fundamental matters: methodology of calculating the benchmark value of the site; and residential sale values. As such, the applicant and the Borough Valuer have not reached an agreed position about how much affordable housing can be delivered on site."</em> (para. 109). In fact the District Valuer's view was clear and is related in the s106 agreement, which states <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!EO9aOXw4U1fRhx%2f8lcgyPw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d"><em>"the District Valuer concluded... the development could support the minimum housing requirement."</em></a>[^2].</p>
<p>The application was nonetheless given consent and in September 2015 it was further <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/8441">reported</a> that the council was to buy the 8 social and 48 affordable rented homes from Barratt for £10m, in order to turn them into council homes [^3]. The units were duly purchased and listed amongst the schemes that will deliver Southwark's <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s62949/Appendix%201B%20List%20of%20Approved%20Schemes.pdf">11000 new council homes</a> (128 – 150 Blackfriars Road).</p>
<h2>£10m wasted and new 'council homes' not even social rent</h2>
<p>Instead of paying £10m for 56 council homes Southwark could have stood firm and insisted that the social rented housing was delivered on site, thereby securing 70 social rented units at no cost to itself and saving £10m to spend on new council homes elsewhere.</p>
<p>Further, this is not council housing, if as Southwark says in its <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2017/apr/stunning-new-council-homes-become-ready-for-local-tenants">press release</a> the rent is 40% market rent. A calculation based on the Council's <a href="https://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/4454/southwark_housing_market_trends_bulletin">latest market data</a> gives an average 40% market rent of £235 across all flat sizes compared to an <a href="https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/london-borough-to-limit-average-rent-to-below-100-per-week/7005006.article">average Council rent of under £100 per week</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/mtbfeb2017.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from Southwark's <a href="https://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/4454/southwark_housing_market_trends_bulletin">Market Trends Bulletin Feb 2017</a></em></p>
<p>What we are seeing at Blackfriars Circus is a desperate attempt by Southwark to deliver on its <a href="https://35percent.org/the-southwark-clearances">failing manifesto promise</a> to deliver 11,000 new council homes.</p>
<p>By buying up section 106 properties Southwark Council is not adding to the amount of social housing stock in the borough. It is simply buying homes that already exist and that housing associations would have otherwise bought and let as social housing.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: Barratt Homes is Britains third-largest housebuilder, and [it made £321m](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/22/profits-rise-barratt-despite-uks-biggest-housebuilder-building/ in the first half of 2016) before tax in the second half of last year, a profit rise of 9%. This continued Barrett's steady profit climb since 2010, <a href="https://www.ourcity.london/issues/viability/house_builders_profits/">part of the explosion of housebuilders' profits</a> over the past five years. Barratt's success is due in part to its pipeline of major developments in Southwark, which include <a href="https://www.barratthomes.co.uk/new-homes/greater-london/h469201-maple-quays/"><strong>Maple Quays</strong></a> (668 homes in phase 1 of the <a href="https://35percent.org/canada-water/">Canada Water regeneration</a>); <a href="https://www.barratthomes.co.uk/new-homes/greater-london/track-record---article-pages/the-galleria/"><strong>the Galleria</strong></a> development in Peckham; <a href="https://www.barratthomes.co.uk/new-homes/greater-london/h309201-redwood-park/"><strong>Redwood Park</strong></a> (212 homes on former council land at Surrey Quays) and the 60-acre, 3,500-home Aylesbury estate redevelompent for which Barratt is Notting Hill Housing's <a href="https://www.nottinghillhousing.org.uk/our-developments/aylesbury-estate-southwark">development partner</a>.</p>
<p>[^2]: See page 4 of the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!EO9aOXw4U1fRhx%2f8lcgyPw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">section 106 agreement</a>.</p>
<p>[^3]: This compares to the <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LR_LANDQ_TrafalgarPlace.pdf">£3.1m paid</a> by L&Q for the 54 affordable homes bought from Heygate developer Lend Lease at <a href="https://trafalgarplace.com/">Trafalgar Place</a>.</p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Blackfriars affordable housing circus" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="£10m wasted buying new pseudo-council homes that should have been provided as social rent anyway" />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/tweetmwilliamsblackfriars.png" />
Lendlease banks £113m profit from 'unviable' joint venture with Southwark2017-04-12T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2017-01-25-draft-one-the-elephant-fva/<p>Figures published in Lendlease's 2016 half year <a href="https://www.lendlease.com/-/media/llcom/investor-relations/asx-announcements/2016/17022016-lendlease-delivers-double-digit-earnings-growth.ashx">financial statement</a> and 2015 <a href="https://www.lendlease.com/-/media/llcom/investor-relations/asx-announcements/2016/17022016-2016-half-year-results-portfolio-report.ashx">portfolio report</a>
show that it made a handsome £113m profit from its <a href="https://35percent.org/one-the-elephant"><strong>One the Elephant</strong></a> joint venture development with the Council. Southwark received just a <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/profit_overage_payment_received?unfold=1#incoming-881011share">£12.2m share</a> of this. The Council had previously received a £6.6m sum for its land interest and £3.5m <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2017/mar/council-confirms-22m-from-one-the-elephant-will-pay-for-leisure-centre">towards the £20m cost</a> of the new leisure centre, both included as scheme costs. The £3.5m was in lieu of the scheme providing any affordable housing, which Lendlease claimed would render it unviable.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/One_the_Elephant.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Lendlease's <a href="https://www.lendlease.com/-/media/llcom/investor-relations/asx-announcements/2016/17022016-lendlease-delivers-double-digit-earnings-growth.ashx">financial statement</a> reveals that it sold all the homes in <strong>One the Elephant</strong> for a total of £209m ($A345m). All 284 units were pre-sold, many presumably overseas. The three penthouses were sold for a total £8.3m. Construction and other costs totalled £108m [^1].</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/otefinancialstatement.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from Lendlease's 2016 <a href="https://www.lendlease.com/-/media/llcom/investor-relations/asx-announcements/2016/17022016-lendlease-delivers-double-digit-earnings-growth.ashx">financial statement</a></em></p>
<p><strong>One the Elephant</strong> was approved back in 2012 with no affordable housing. A <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/374643/response/921669/attach/3/170116%20St%20Marys%20Viability%20Assessment%20003%203%20Redacted.pdf">viability assessment</a> was submitted justifying the lack of affordable housing. This gave a total scheme value of £134.9m based on estimated residential sales values of £638psf; in the event the apartments sold for an average of £1,033 psf[^2]. The penthouses which were estimated to sell at £734psf actually sold for twice that at £1447psf[^3].</p>
<p>Drafted by Savills, the viability assessment was <a href="https://35percent.org/img/otedvsredacted.pdf">appraised</a> by the District Valuer's Service (who also appraised the Heygate Viability Assessment). Both documents have been released, redacted, to the 35% Campaign following FOI requests.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/otefvacover.png" alt="" />
<em>Lendlease's <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/374643/response/921669/attach/3/170116%20St%20Marys%20Viability%20Assessment%20003%203%20Redacted.pdf">viability assessment</a> for <strong>One the Elephant</strong> prepared by Savills</em></p>
<p>As well as undervaluing the revenues, the viability assessment contains all of the usual curiosities. Lendlease required a minimum profit of 25% on cost - between £20m-£26m depending the amount of affordable housing. This in turn produced a deficit of £12.5m for a scheme with no affordable housing and a deficit of £25.9m with 35% affordable housing.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/otefvadeficits.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from Lendlease's <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/374643/response/921669/attach/3/170116%20St%20Marys%20Viability%20Assessment%20003%203%20Redacted.pdf">viability assessment</a> showing that all 3 scenarios are unviable</em></p>
<p>In the event, the £101m profit that Lendlease has made (£113m minus Southwark's £12m share) is four times the profit estimate put in to the viability assessment.</p>
<p><a href="https://35percent.org/img/otedvsredacted.pdf"></a></p>
<p>Land values also show their customary elasticity, Savills set it at £12.5m, using a market value. The DVS set the value at £9m. Southwark, by contrast, actually <a href="https://35percent.org/img/LRegisterOneTheElephant.pdf">sold the land</a> to Lendlease for £6.6m.</p>
<p>The land value is a critical factor in a viability assessment, because it provides the benchmark, which determines whether a scheme is viable or not; crudely the lower the land value, the larger the amount of affordable housing that can be supplied. Both Savills and the the DVS had to acknowlege that the land actually had a 'nominal' ie zero value when applying RICS'S recommended 'existing use value' (EUV) method. This considers the current use of the land without planning permission, i.e. occupied by a leisure centre that wasn't turning a profit. Given that zero land value is unhelpful when you don't want to build affordable housing, it is no surprise that Savills chose to use the market value instead (which takes into account development value).</p>
<p>In fact it suited both Southwark and Lendlease not to have affordable housing in <strong>One the Elephant</strong>. Southwark <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?AIId=8877">had to remove the new leisure centre</a> and <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s10891/Elephant%20and%20Castle%20-%20Regeneration%20Agreement%20and%20Disposal%20of%20Associated%20Land%20-%20Report.pdf">the MUSCo</a>, before Lendlease would sign the <a href="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ra.pdf">2010 Regeneration Agreement</a>.</p>
<p>Southwark was now willing to sacrifice affordable housing in turn, to make good the loss. On Lendlease's side, the viability assessment notes that having on-site affordable housing would <em>'have a negative impact on the value of the private units'</em> and would require a 2.5% reduction in the price; paying £3.5m towards a leisure centre right on its doorstep saved Lendlease from this expedient and gained it over £5m[^4].</p>
<p>There are two conclusions to be drawn from this sorry tale; <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-01-11-flogging-the-elephant/">Southwark is no match for developers</a> in these joint ventures; the money it is getting might look good in a <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2017/mar/council-confirms-22m-from-one-the-elephant-will-pay-for-leisure-centre">press release</a>, but it's the developer who is walking away with the lion's share. Second, viability assessments are useless, they don't capture the full value created by these enormous gold-panelled towers and it is nonsense to claim that they don't turn enough profit to give us any affordable housing.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/onetheelephantgold.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: Lend Lease <a href="https://www.lendlease.com/-/media/llcom/investor-relations/asx-announcements/2016/17022016-lendlease-delivers-double-digit-earnings-growth.ashx">Half Year Results</a> Feb 2016 pg 23 give One the Elephant revenue as $AD345m (£209m). Lend Lease <a href="https://www.lendlease.com/-/media/llcom/investor-relations/asx-announcements/2016/17022016-2016-half-year-results-portfolio-report.ashx">Portfolio report</a> Dec 2015 pg 16 gives the construction value as £79m. Other costs would include Southwark's overage (£12.24m); CIL (£.997m), total S1O6 (£4.6m), land price (£6.6m) and finance costs (7% - figures from Savill's <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/374643/response/921669/attach/3/170116%20St%20Marys%20Viability%20Assessment%20003%203%20Redacted.pdf">viability assessment</a> and <a href="https://35percent.org/img/otedvsredacted.pdf">DVS appraisal</a>) totalling approximately £108m.</p>
<p>[^2]: Total residential revenue, £209m, divided by total residential floorspace, 202,331 sq ft.</p>
<p>[^3]: See <a href="https://35percent.org/img/lrdeeds_otepenthouses.pdf">Land Registry deeds</a> for the 3 penthouses, which show these were sold for a total of £8.3m. The <a href="https://35percent.org/img/oteskyscapecollection.pdf">brochure</a> shows that the 3 penthouses comprise a total of 5,723 sqft - this gives average sales revenue of £1,447 per sqft across the 3 penthouses.</p>
<p>[^4]: Calculated on the reported total sales revenue of £209m.</p>
Traders Betrayed2017-04-02T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2017-03-27-traders-charter-broken-promises/<p>As residents of the Heygate estate discovered, early <a href="https://heygatewashome.org/displacement.html">regeneration promises</a> made to those <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-06-08-the-heygate-diaspora/">pushed aside</a> are <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-london-housing-idUSKCN0SD0OV20151019">seldom kept</a>, but the scale of the unfulfilled committments made by Southwark to the independent small traders at the Elephant & Castle shopping centre puts the Heygate into the shade.
The committments are made in a <strong>Business Continuity Charter</strong>, drawn up by the head of regeneration and <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Overview%20&%20Scrutiny%20Committee/20070709/Agenda/Attachment%202.pdf">recommended to Southwark's Executive Committee in 2007</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/lbstraderscharter.png" alt="" />
<em><a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Overview%20&%20Scrutiny%20Committee/20070709/Agenda/Attachment%202.pdf"><strong>Business Continuity Charter</strong></a> submitted to Southwark's <a href="https://moderngov.southwarksites.com/CeListDocuments.aspx?CommitteeId=118&MeetingId=3154&DF=30%2f01%2f2007&Ver=2">Executive Committee on 30th Jan 2007</a></em></p>
<p>(NB The <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Executive/20070130/Agenda/Executive%20Minutes%2030%20January%202007.pdf">Executive</a> then included Cllr Kim Humphreys. As plain Kim Humphreys, he now works on behalf of shopping centre developer, Delancey [^1]).</p>
<p>The <strong>Business Continuity Charter</strong> gives a range of undertakings, designed to maintain small traders through the whole redevelopment process. The centre is to be maintained as an <em>'attractive environment for customers'</em> and service charges will be kept at the lowest possible level, with a cap or freeze on rents. There will be funding for independent legal advice on leases and tenancy matters and early release from tenancies, should that be needed. A compensation mechanism for <em>'adverse impacts of the regeneration'</em> will be sought and when the time comes for moving, traders would get first refusal for both Southwark's commercial retail units and those secured via section 106 agreements with its other development partners. Affordable retail units at discounted rents will be available. The report which presented the Charter even floats the idea of building new premises for displaced traders.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/lbstraderscharterextract.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Charter inscribed in planning policy</h2>
<p>The Charter is a creditable attempt to help the traders, but this is Southwark, so, despite appearing in the Council's <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/1817/1.0.5%20Elephant%20%26%20Castle%20SPD%20OAPF.pdf">2012 planning policy framework</a> for the Elephant regeneration, along with details of the rent subsidies, none of the Charter's commitments have been fulfilled - no legal help, no compensation mechanism, no rent freeze, no offer of Southwark's commercial premises, only rising service charges. Furthermore, in its negotiations with Lendlease, Southwark failed to secure any of the 1,600 sqm of new 'affordable' retail in <a href="https://elephantpark.co.uk/"><strong>Elephant Park</strong></a> at the rent subsidies agreed in the Charter[^2].</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/charterspd.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the Council's <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/1817/1.0.5%20Elephant%20%26%20Castle%20SPD%20OAPF.pdf">2012 planning policy framework for E&C</a></em></p>
<h2>Big boys first</h2>
<p>We have detailed <a href="https://35percent.org/tribeca-square/#affordable-retail-units-sold-to-sainsburys">elsewhere</a> how Sainsburys barged small traders aside, denying them the most desirable location on Delancey's <a href="https://35percent.org/tribeca-square"><strong>Elephant One</strong></a> development, and how another prospective location, the Market Square has <a href="https://35percent.org/2017-03-12-delanceys-dirty-tricks/">lost its market</a>. Delancey also took the opportunity, while putting out the welcome mat for Sainsbury, to remove the option of preferential consideration for a free market unit from centre traders.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/deedvariationelephantone.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!XhRoRGo5W%2fA9Lo2WaMsAcg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">Deed of Variation 14 March 2014</a></em></p>
<p>Indeed it is hard to see how Delancey could make its distaste for the traders any clearer, short of taking out an advert in Southwark News. The 9 units of affordable retail that remain in Elephant One and which should have been given to traders 15 months <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!XhRoRGo5W%2fA9Lo2WaMsAcg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">before the scheme was completed</a> remain empty. Delancey's disdains to provide any affordable retail in shopping centre application and <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-12-19-delancey-submits-shopping-centre-application/">thumbs its nose</a> at any relocation strategy.</p>
<p>At a trader's meeting last week Southwark said that there will be affordable units in <a href="https://35percent.org/tribeca-square"><strong>Elephant One</strong></a> (but only seven) and that they have taken issue with Delancey about the lack of any affordable retail in its shopping centre plans and the lack of a relocation strategy for displaced traders. But Delancey are playing Southwark for fools and will be all the more encouraged having seen themselves flattered for their role at the Elephant and as Southwark's development partner, in the Council's <a href="https://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/info/200183/elephant_and_castle/3297/the_elephant_magazine"><em>Elephant Magazine</em></a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/elephantmagazinedelancey.png" alt="" />
<em><a href="https://35percent.org/img/elephantmagazinedelancey-rotated.pdf">Extract</a> from the Council's <a href="https://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/info/200183/elephant_and_castle/3297/the_elephant_magazine">'Elephant Magazine'</a></em></p>
<h2>Ten years down the line</h2>
<p>Southwark says it is going to consider how to support traders at a Cabinet meeting on 9 May - 10 years, 4 months and 9 days after it considered the Charter. There is only one thing that an honest and decent Council would do at that meeting and Southwark needs to repair its shredded credibility after the Heygate debacle. Southwark must honour the undertakings made in the Charter, with the cost met by Delancey through an S106 agreement. If Delancey does not do this (and also include 50% social rented housing in its affordable housing offer) Southwark must refuse its planning application. You can help us stiffen Southwark's sinews by submitting an objection to Delancey's plans using our <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre/#object-now">web form</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: Cllr Humphreys was absent from the 2007 meeting. He was also deputy leader and Executive member for Housing and responsible for the <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-12-07-kim-humphreys-exit-stage-left/">Heygate's decant</a>. He is founder of <a href="https://carvil-ventures.co.uk/about-us">Carvil Ventures</a> who are <a href="https://carvil-ventures.co.uk/case-studies"><em>'providing public affairs services'</em> </a> to Delancey).</p>
<p>[^2]: Rent Subsidies referred to in Charter: Year 1 - Rent free; Year 2 - £15psf x NIA of Unit; Year 3 - (Market Rental Value - £15psf) x 25% + £15psf x NIA; Year 4 - (Market Rental Value - £15psf) x 50% + £15psf x NIA; Year 5 - (Market Rental Value - £15psf) x 75% + £15psf x NIA; Years 6-10 - Review to Market Rental Value.</p>
Get Living London - get lost HMRC2017-03-20T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2017-03-20-get-living-offshore-london/<p>Our last blog <a href="https://35percent.org/2017-03-12-delanceys-dirty-tricks/">reported</a> how Delancey has shown great efficiency in its <a href="https://35percent.org/tribeca-square"><strong>Elephant One</strong> development</a>. Delancey and its development partner bought the site for £8m and then increased the purchase price to £18m by flipping it between companies. This was then used to help <a href="https://35percent.org/2017-03-12-delanceys-dirty-tricks/#fn:1">avoid £58.9m</a> of planning contributions, including affordable housing. Along the way it gained half an acre of public land with which it was to provide a market square, but subsequently ditched the market.</p>
<p>We have also <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-05-05-manx-connections-the-off-shore-home-of-the-elephants-developers/">shown previously</a> how Delancey, having bought the Elephant One land for just £8m, has used a network of offshore companies registered in Panama and Bermuda to avoid paying any corporation tax on developing the £200m scheme.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/elephantoneregister.png" alt="" />
<em>Land Registry <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LandRegistry_TribecaSquare.pdf">deeds</a> for <strong>Elephant One</strong>.</em></p>
<p>Delancey is now showing equal efficiency in managing its new housing at the Elephant. It will be using <strong>Get Living London Ltd</strong>, a company founded by Delancey's offshore arm <strong>DV4</strong> and Qatari Diar, as owner and manager of all 979 units proposed for the <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre">shopping centre</a>, including the 'affordable' housing.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/getlivingbvi.png" alt="" />
<em><strong>Get Living London</strong>'s ultimate parent company based in BVI</em></p>
<p><strong>Get Living London</strong> already manages the 646 dwellings in <a href="https://35percent.org/tribeca-square"><strong>Elephant One</strong></a>, just next to the shopping centre and housing across both sites will be marketed as <a href="https://www.shawcorporation.com/south-village-elephant-castle">'South Village'</a>. <strong>Elephant One</strong> includes 274 student rooms, which <strong>Get Living London</strong> is <a href="https://www.portchesterhouse.com/">letting at rents</a> of £279pw for a 'Classic' room, or £349pw for a 'Supreme'. The remaining 372 'build-to-rent' private rented units are being <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2018/apr/11/build-to-rent-developers-profiting-generation-rent?">advertised</a> starting at £1,841 per month for a 1-bed.</p>
<p>Over in Stratford <strong>Get Living London</strong> also lets just over 1400 private rented apartments at <a href="https://eastvillagelondon.co.uk/">'East Village'</a>, formerly the Olympic Village, with a further 2000 in the pipeline.</p>
<p>Despite this huge rental portfolio, <a href="https://www.cityam.com/238088/elephant-castle-scheme-and-east-village-site-merged-to-create-14bn-private-rented-sector-venture">valued at £1.4bn</a> and further <a href="https://www.propertyweek.com/news/get-living-to-double-assets-to-%C2%A32bn/5088136.article">set to double its assets</a>, <strong>Get Living London</strong> has not paid any corporation tax since it was incorporated in 2011, according to <a href="https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07793925/filing-history">accounts filed at Companies House</a>. This is because its two 'ultimate parent' companies are based offshore, one in Qatar and the other <strong>DV4</strong>, in the British Virgin Islands. <strong>DV4</strong> is Delancey's offshore arm that has been accused of 'aggressive tax avoidance' by the HMRC, as <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/PrivateEyeNo1311.pdf">reported in Private Eye</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/getlivingqatarbvi.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from <strong>Get Living London</strong>'s company accounts <a href="https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07793925/filing-history">filed</a> at Companies House</em></p>
<p>Delancey's two developments comprising 1600 new homes for rent at the Elephant (aka 'South Village') are known in the industry as <strong>Build to Rent</strong> (BtR). With all the tax-free profit to be squeezed out of London's burgeoning private rental sector, <strong>BtR</strong> is in vogue with London's developers. <strong>BtR</strong> developments are 100% rental, with no homes for sale, backed up by large institutional investors and owned and managed by one (private) landlord.</p>
<p>BtR is also giving us a new kind of affordable housing - <strong>Discounted Market Rent</strong> (DMR). <strong>DMR</strong> is similiar to the much derided affordable rent and compares badly with social rent. Like affordable rent, <strong>DMR</strong> can be let at up to 80% market rent, but with a likely 3 year tenancy, and only remaining discounted for 15 years, before passing onto the free market. Social rent levels are largely based on local incomes, giving an equivalent of about 25% market rent in Southwark. Social rented housing still has lifetime tenancies and remains affordable in perpetuity.</p>
<p>It is therefore surprising (or maybe not) that <strong>Discounted Market Rent</strong> is viewed as the housing solution of the future by <a href="https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/southwark-council-to-create-intermediate-waiting-list/7018529.article">Southwark Council</a>, Labour Mayor <a href="https://www.lettingagenttoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2016/10/sadiq-khan-backs-build-to-rent-and-more-landlord-licensing">Sadiq Khan</a>, Deputy Mayor <a href="https://twitter.com/nlalondon/status/842315679948771328">James Murray</a> and GLA Housing Chief <a href="https://twitter.com/tomcopley">Tom Copley</a>.</p>
<p>Sadiq Khan is very enthusiastic about <strong>DMR</strong>; he has given it help and space to grow, by halving the amount of social rented housing he wants from developers in his <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/draft_affordable_housing_and_viability_spg_2016.pdf">draft affordable housing planning guidance</a>[^1].</p>
<p>Delancey has taken full advantage of Mr Khan's largesse and proposed no social rented housing in its redevelopment of the shopping centre and, if approved, their scheme will join another <strong>BtR</strong> development, the <a href="https://35percent.org/london-360-tower/">360 Tower</a>, just over the way at St Mary's Park and built on land bought with £18m of public money, but also social housing free.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/getliving.png" alt="" />
<em>Labour GLA Housing chief Tom Copley <a href="https://twitter.com/tomcopley">trumpeting</a> <strong>Get Living London</strong>'s "East Village"</em></p>
<p>We understand that the Mayor and his Labour Party colleagues are motivated by pragmatism. But while <strong>Build to Rent</strong> is supposedly a market-based solution to the housing crisis, drawing on institutional investment, it also depends upon a large amount of public money - <a href="https://www.ukconstructionmedia.co.uk/news/3-5bn-funding-announced-build-new-rented-homes/">£3.5bn, rising to £6.6bn</a>, while social rented housing is starved of funds. We think that the Mayor should stop championing Build to Rent and start fighting to build social rented housing.</p>
<p><strong>Build to Rent</strong> and <strong>Discounted Market Rent</strong> are designed to meet developers' needs first and our housing needs second. We can help stop their roll-out across London and the further maginalisation of social rented housing by defeating Delancey's plans for the Elephant and Castle shopping Centre; we have launched a campaign group to this end (<a href="https://uptheelephant.com/">www.uptheelephant.com</a>). You can support us by <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre/#mc_embed_signup">lodging an objection</a> or come to our <a href="https://35percent.org/img/march21flyer.pdf">public meeting tomorrow night</a> at the shopping centre.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: See paragraph 2.28</p>
Delancey's dirty tricks2017-03-12T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2017-03-12-delanceys-dirty-tricks/<p>Delancey's <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre">application</a> for the redevelopment of the Elephant & Castle shopping centre includes images of the Market Square, which is part of its neighbouring development <strong>Elephant One</strong>, also owned and built by Delancey.</p>
<p>Eagled-eyed campaigners from <a href="https://southwarknotes.wordpress.com/">Southwark Notes</a> noticed that the CGI images of the Market Square omitted the market stalls that had been <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/2298">earmarked for displaced shopping centre traders</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/SouthwarkNotes/status/837818379180322820">asked the question</a> why? Local news website SE1 supplied the <a href="https://twitter.com/se1/status/837951356963028992">answer</a>: it turns out that when Delancey <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9566927">submitted</a> its Market Square <a href="https://35percent.org/img/marketsquaremanagementplan.pdf">'Management Strategy'</a> for approval last June, it changed its use.</p>
<p>Delancey's justified the change by claiming that there is <em>"limited viability for a market or demand for an operator"</em> and that it is instead <em>"coordinating a strategy for this space along with Lend Lease that could envisage a wider enlivenment and events programme"</em>, which <em>"could include an element of market type operations but not exclusively so"</em>. (Paragraph 1.4.1 of Delancey's <a href="https://35percent.org/img/marketsquaremanagementplan.pdf">Management Strategy</a>)</p>
<p>Southwark could have rejected the management strategy but instead approved it by officer's decision, without any public consultation.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/consultation_none.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!YqRE%2fHHub07usEq0aQthAA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">planning officer's report</a> approving the changed management strategy</em></p>
<p>This is the second time that Southwark and Delancey have connived behind the scenes to do local traders down. Delancey <a href="https://35percent.org/2017-03-12-delanceys-dirty-tricks/#affordable-retail-units-sold-to-sainsburys">dumped half of the affordable retail units</a> in <strong>Elephant One</strong> back in 2013 and replaced them with a Sainsburys.</p>
<p>This latest dirty trick is entirely in keeping with the whole sorry saga of the <strong>Elephant One</strong> development, whose history shows how Delancey has carved out a great chunk of the Elephant for its own profit at the local community's expense, aided and abetted by Southwark Council.</p>
<p>This is the sorry story of <strong>Elephant One</strong> so far.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/elephantone.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>Elephant One</strong> was the first major development to be granted planning permission at the Elephant, back in 2006. It was originally to be called <strong>Oakmayne Plaza</strong>, but was subsequently renamed <strong>Tribeca Square</strong> and then finally named <strong>Elephant One</strong> after <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7373">protests from residents and the Council</a>. It is not to be confused with Lendlease's similarly named and similarly shameful <a href="https://35percent.org/one-the-elephant"><strong>One the Elephant</strong></a> development.</p>
<p><strong>Elephant One</strong> is a mixed-use development including a cinema, shops, new Market Square, 272 student rooms and 374 private residences for market rent with no affordable housing of any kind. It is not know how much Delancey's PRS firm <a href="https://getlivinglondon.com/"><strong>Get Living London</strong></a> will charge for market rents, but rooms in <a href="https://35percent.org/img/portchester-house-guide.pdf">Portchester House</a>, its first student accomodation venture, are currently being advertised for upwards of <a href="https://www.portchesterhouse.com/">£279 per week</a> (for a room).</p>
<p><img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBXYmc6XIAAHGsy.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The development is a joint venture between Isle-of-Man registered, <a href="https://35percent.org/2017-03-12-delanceys-dirty-tricks/#tax-dodging-developers">tax dodging developer Oakmayne and Delancey DV4</a> - a multimillion pound real-estate developer registered in the British Virgin Islands.</p>
<p>It has been constructed entirely using an <a href="https://www.laingorourke.com/media/news-releases/2015/laing-o-rourke-led-consortium-awarded.aspx">offsite prefabricated construction technique</a>; even the <a href="https://www.modulor.ae/index.php?page=view_pages_detail&tbl_pages_id=eacf5a7153">bathrooms</a> are <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7609">prefabricated in Dubai</a>.</p>
<h2>Planning History</h2>
<p>The main development site was originally a light industrial estate owned by the GLC until 1987, when it was transferred to Southwark Council. Southwark subsequently sold it to a subsidiary of <strong>British Land Plc</strong>, which in 2006 <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LR_DV4Eadon2006.pdf">sold</a> the site for £8.5m to <a href="https://services.gov.im/ded/services/companiesregistry/viewcompany.iom?Id=145829"><strong>Eadon Estates Ltd</strong></a>, an anonymous Oakmayne/Delancey shell company registered on the Isle of Man.</p>
<p>Having obtained planning permission for the site in December 2006, in March 2007 <strong>Eadon Estates Ltd</strong> <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LR_Eadon2007.pdf">sold the site</a> to <a href="https://services.gov.im/ded/services/companiesregistry/viewcompany.iom?Id=149600"><strong>Eadon Ltd</strong></a> (another anonymous Oakmayne/Delancey offshore SPV) for £18m.</p>
<p><strong>Eadon Ltd</strong> then submitted a <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3077">fresh planning application in 2007</a>. Despite increasing the height of the development by three storeys and overall floorspace by 7,000 sqm, Eadon claimed viabilty poverty due to the large sum (£18m) paid for the site, reducing the affordable housing offer as a result. It was <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Planning%20Committee/20071218/Agenda/Item%2064Report%20Former%20Castle%20Industrial%20Estate,%20Elephant%20Road,%20London,SE17.pdf">approved</a> on the basis that the developer would provide a number of affordable retail units and a market square for traders displaced from the shopping centre. It would also provide a basement area, which would be used as vehicular service access for the new shopping centre and would also contain a market storage area with lift access to the Market Square above. The basement area would be accessed off New Kent Road.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/tribeca2007or.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Extract from 2007 <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Planning%20Committee/20071218/Agenda/Item%2064Report%20Former%20Castle%20Industrial%20Estate,%20Elephant%20Road,%20London,SE17.pdf">planning committee report</a></em></p>
<p>A year later in December 2008, another planning application was <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3641">approved</a>, further increasing the number of residential units and removing the affordable housing obligation altogether. The <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Tribeca_OfficersReport.pdf">planning officer's report</a> for the application confirmed that the developer had submitted a viability assessment and that the Council accepted that <em>"it is not possible to show that the value from the additional 61 private residential units produces any additional value from which the scheme could support either on site affordable housing or an in lieu payment"</em>.</p>
<p>Instead of affordable housing an in-lieu payment was agreed, amounting to just £1m[^2] and justified by the 'exceptional cost' to the developer of providing the market square and the basement access area - estimated to cost £12.5m. (see paragraphs 101-105). Delancey should normally have paid £52.7m under <a href="https://affordable.heroku.com/images/affordablehousingspg.pdf">Southwark's tariff</a> for commuted affordable housing payments[^1].</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/tribecaoriginal.png" alt="" />
<em>Original CGI of the development <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Planning%20Committee/20071218/Agenda/Item%2064Image%20B%20Former%20Castle%20Industrial%20Estate,%20Elephant%20Road,%20London,SE17.pdf">submitted to planning committee</a></em></p>
<p>Southwark later accidentally published the confidential <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Delancey_Tribeca_ViabilityAssessment.pdf">viability assessment</a> submitted to justify these concessions. It showed that £18m had been used as the land purchase cost - not the £8m originally paid. It also claimed that the completed residential flats would sell for an average of just £525 per square foot. Flats on Lendlease's neighbouring <a href="https://elephantpark.co.uk/">Elephant Park</a> are selling for an average of over £1,000 per square foot.</p>
<p>In 2011, the site was <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LandRegistry_TribecaSquare.pdf">re-registered</a> to yet another shell company <strong>DV4 Eadon Ltd</strong> this time registered in the British Virgin Islands.</p>
<p>In 2013, Delancey <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=13/AP/1866&system=DC">applied</a> for a 'non-material amendment' to its planning consent, which included raising the height of the buildings. It also <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?previousCaseUprn=200003498294&previousCaseType=Property&previousKeyVal=_STHWR_PROPLPI_142970_1&activeTab=summary&previousCaseNumber=_STHWR_PROPLPI_142970_1&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9552388">applied</a> to increase the number of student accommodation units from 243 to 272. Both applications were approved as 'non-material amendments' by delegated officer decision.</p>
<h2>Affordable retail units sold to Sainsburys</h2>
<p>The planning conditions in Delancey's 2008 final <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!yzWhLCC2jRbP5NWsu4IkfQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">s106 agreement</a> made provision for <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/2298">a number of affordable retail units</a> for traders displaced from the shopping centre at discounted rents[^5]. This was one of its justifications for not providing any affordable housing[^6].</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/tribeca_affordablebusinessunits.png" alt="" />
<em>Designated affordable retail units hatched in blue - (<a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!yzWhLCC2jRbP5NWsu4IkfQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">section 106 agreement</a>)</em></p>
<p>But in July 2013, Delancey <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=13/AP/2302&system=DC">went back</a> to the council and <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do;jsessionid=EBCBBF9DAD6717E5F000A1CB21F842D6?action=firstPage">applied</a> to have the s106 agreement changed to take these units away from the displaced traders and give them to Sainsburys instead. Southwark duly obliged and the ground floor units earmarked for displaced traders are now a supermarket.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/delanceysainsburys.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Market Square without a market</h2>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/marketsquare.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Delancey's Market Square - the vision versus the reality</em></p>
<p>The new Market Square that Delancey was obliged to build is on the site formerly known as Elephant Park and part of the Heygate estate's green space. It was designated as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Open_Land">Metropolitan Open Land (MOL)</a> and used frequently by the local <a href="https://elephantamenity.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/no-more-football-on-the-elephant-park/">Latin American football league</a>, amongst others.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/oldelephantpark.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Elephant Park - Metropolitan Open Space on the Heygate estate</em></p>
<p>In 2008, Southwark Council closed the Park and <a href="https://35percent.org/img/DelanceyEadon_MarketSquare_Agreement.pdf">sold the land</a> to Delancey on a 99 year lease at a peppercorn rent of £100 per year. The deal was that Southwark would receive 50% of the net revenue from the new market (25% for the first five years). The basement area with its connection to the new shopping centre would be built underneath the Market Square.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/castlesquarerent.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from market square <a href="https://35percent.org/img/DelanceyEadon_MarketSquare_Agreement.pdf">legal agreement</a> between Delancey & the Council</em></p>
<p>The lease also included the <a href="https://35percent.org/img/councillandsoldtodelancey.png">transfer of a 2m strip of Heygate estate land</a> running along the east of Delancey's plot and a Council-owned triangle of land on the Elephant Road side.</p>
<p>However, in 2016 Delancey <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9566927">submitted</a> a <a href="https://35percent.org/img/delanceymanagementplan.pdf">'Management Strategy'</a> to the Council that largely removed the market from the market square (presumably losing Southwark its share of the rent in the process). Delancey claimed there would be <em>"limited viability for a market or demand for an operator"</em> and said that it is currently <em>"coordinating a strategy for this space along with Lend Lease that could envisage a wider enlivenment and events programme"</em>, which <em>"could include an element of market type operations but not exclusively so"</em>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/marketsquarestrategy.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from Delancey's <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9566927">application</a> to vary market square s106 conditions</em></p>
<h2>Delancey's bargain basement</h2>
<p>The other obligation that went with the peppercorn lease was the basement servicing area with its access to the new shopping centre, plus storage and access for market traders. The estimated £12.5m cost of building this, justified not only the removal of affordable housing but it also relieved Delancey of a £6.2m S106 contribution to <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-08-12-mind-the-gap/">local transport upgrades</a>, calculated according to Southwark's Strategic Transport Tariff[^7].</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/servicetunnel.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Entrance to <strong>Elephant One's</strong> servicing basement off New Kent Road</em></p>
<h2>Where we are now</h2>
<p>During the course of <strong>Elephant One</strong>'s development, Delancey itself acquired the shopping centre and in its <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre">planning application</a> states that it no longer wants servicing access from the basement under the Market Square. Instead it wants a different access route directly off the New Kent Road.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/shoppingcentreaccess.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from Delancey's planning application for the shopping centre</em></p>
<p>TFL have objected to this change, saying that it will disrupt the flow of traffic and inhibit use of new pedestrian crossings. It also clearly conflicts with the planning permission granted for <strong>Elephant One</strong>. The basement sits underneath the market square, on council-owned land, given to Delancey on a 99 year peppercorn lease, in order to provide useful infrastructure by servicing a market and giving access to the shopping centre. The market has disappeared and having bought the shopping centre, Delancey says it doesn't want the access any more. Delancey used the cost of building the basement to relieve itself of affordable housing obligations and the transport tariff, so it has nonetheless clearly served its purpose.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/castlesquare.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Revolving doors</h2>
<p>If anyone is wondering how Delancey manages to get away with all this, the answer is that Delancey is very well advised. Delancey has employed former deputy Council leader Kim Humphries as its adviser and representative. Indeed, Kim was deputy leader when the planning applications were approved and when the basement/market square lease was signed. He has been for hire as a freelance <a href="https://carvil-ventures.co.uk/">development consultant</a> since he stepped down as deputy Council leader and Cabinet member for Housing. Kim <a href="https://youtu.be/E9-cfAdGiFA?t=6m44s">made his name</a> in the <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-06-08-the-heygate-diaspora/">Heygate clearances</a> and is just one of many Council members to have made use of Southwark's increasingly well-used <a href="https://35percent.org/revolving-doors">revolving doors</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/carvilkimcollage.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Tax dodging developers</h2>
<p>The development is a joint venture between <a href="https://opencorporates.com/companies/im/004035V">Isle-of-Man registered</a>, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/dec/16/london-property-tax-avoidance-offshore">tax dodging developer</a> Oakmayne and <strong>Delancey DV4</strong> - a multimillion pound real-estate developer registered in the British Virgin Islands, which has been <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/PrivateEyeNo1311.pdf">accussed</a> of 'aggressive tax avoidance by the HMRC. Delancey is bankrolled by George Soros and managed by <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/party-funding-tory-coffers-benefit-from-fear-of-labour-mansion-tax-9716614.html">Tory donor</a> Jamie Ritblatt, son of property tycoon John Ritblat (<strong>British Land Plc</strong>). Delancey is also developing the neighbouring <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre">shopping centre site</a> and is <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-05-05-manx-connections-the-off-shore-home-of-the-elephants-developers/">using a network of offshore SPVs and holding companies</a> to avoid paying tax on its multi-million pound redevelopment of the Elephant. For developing <strong>Elephant One</strong>, Delancey has used a <a href="https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/OC389454/officers">limited partnership company (LLP) controlled by shell companies</a> registered in the British Virgin Islands and Panama. <a href="https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/OC389454/filing-history">Filing records at Companies House</a> show that the partnership company hasn't paid a penny in corporation tax. Delancey also uses a separate company <strong>Get Living London</strong> to manage its PRS (Private Rented Sector) build-to-rent homes. Despite <a href="https://www.propertyweek.com/news/get-living-to-double-assets-to-%C2%A32bn/5088136.article">managing over £1bn worth of PRS homes</a> <strong>Get Living London</strong> has <a href="https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07793925/filing-history">never paid a penny of corporation tax</a>.</p>
<p>The entire <strong>Elephant One</strong> site including the market square land given to Delancey by the Council, is now <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LandRegistry_TribecaSquare.pdf">registered</a> to a Delancey shell company in the British Virgin Islands.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/elephantoneregister.png" alt="" />
<em><a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LandRegistry_TribecaSquare.pdf">Land registry deeds</a> for <strong>Elephant One</strong> (including market square land)</em></p>
<h2>Up the Elephant</h2>
<p>There are lots of things to object in Delancey's <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre">planning application for the shopping centre</a> as we have previously pointed out. We can now add that Delancey and its behaviour is itself objectionable. It avoids taxes and planning obligations; along with Lendlease, it is carving up the whole of the Elephant & Castle with little regard for building anything that doesn't make it money.</p>
<p>Southwark should start showing some backbone and stand firm on its basic planning policy requirements. It should be standing up for the needs of the local community, not making concession after concession to dicey offshore developers. It should use its leverage as regeneration partner and local planning authority to seek a revised Management Strategy and planning application from Delancey, which reinstates the market square and ensures that its shopping centre plans conform with the original masterplan objectives: basement access via <strong>Elephant One</strong>; affordable retail for existing traders; 35% affordable housing, 50% of which social rent.</p>
<p>We have launched a campaign <strong>'Up the Elephant'</strong> to raise awareness of Delancey's plans and ensure the shopping centre redevelopment conforms with planning policy requirements. The campaign will next meet on Tues 21 March at the shopping centre - all are welcome (see <a href="https://uptheelephant.com/">www.uptheelephant.com</a> for more details).</p>
<h2><strong>Footnotes:</strong></h2>
<p>[^1]: Southwark's in-lieu affordable housing tariff is £100,000 per habitable room. The development comprises 527 habitable rooms, so 35% of this times £100k = £52.7m avoided in affordable housing contributions.</p>
<p>[^2]: See page 2 (Affordable Housing Commuted Sum) of the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!kx6tQZNPCJomdoeiotHphA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">s106 legal agreement</a>.</p>
<p>[^3]: See Strata Tower achieved end sales values (avg. £829 psqft) on pg. 4 of this <a href="https://www.colliers.com/~/media/Files/EMEA/UK/research/residential/201202-central-london-residential-market.pdf">Winter 2011/2012 Colliers International market data report</a>.</p>
<p>[^4]: See paragraph 3.6.4 of the <a href="https://www.pas.gov.uk/viability/-/journal_content/56/332612/4079553/ARTICLE">RICS Guidance on Viability Testing</a>.</p>
<p>[^5]: See pg. 22-25 (Schedule 1 provision 5) of the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!kx6tQZNPCJomdoeiotHphA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">legal agreement</a> entitled 'Affordable Business Space'.</p>
<p>[^6]: See paragraph 104 of the planning case officer's <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!vh9yc2npGzJ28c%2fJbhd%2fLA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">report.</a></p>
<p>[^7]: The development comprises 35,651 sqm of residential floorspace. The E&C Strategic Transport Tariff is £175 per sqm - thus Delancey avoided the required contribution of £6.2m.</p>
Aylesbury CPO appeal - a grounded defence2017-03-05T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2017-03-05-aylesbury-cpo-grounds-of-defence-lodged/<p>Thanks to the general public's generous contributions to our <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/aylesbury-the-right-to-a-community-2uefgf2s">crowdfunding campaign</a>{:target="_blank"}, the Aylesbury Leaseholder Group was able to submit its grounds of defence of the <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-09-18-aylesbury-compulsory-purchase-order-rejected/">Aylesbury CPO decison</a> last Wedsnesday. The grounds were prepared by barrister <a href="https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/christopher_jacobs">Chris Jacobs, of Landmark Chambers</a>{:target="_blank"}, who successfully represented the leaseholders in the final days of the CPO public inquiry.</p>
<p>This is the latest round in the legal battle to maintain the goverment's refusal to grant Southwark Council ownership of the leaseholder's homes. Southwark has gone to the High Court for a judicial review of the decision, made by Sajid Javid, Secretary of State, Department of Communities and Local Government. Mr Javid has also submitted his grounds of defence and the Aylesbury leaseholders are heartened to see that he is sticking to his <a href="https://35percent.org/img/SoSresponsetoLbC.pdf">pledge</a>{:target="_blank"} to <em>"defend the claim robustly"</em>.</p>
<p>The case will be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice on 9 May and the support for the leaseholders is growing. Aylesbury residents have just established a new Tenants and Residents Association, <strong>Wendover Community TRA</strong>, that is determined to protect their interests. Southwark Defend Council Housing organised a fundraising benefit for the TRA, with a special screening of <strong>'I, Daniel Blake'</strong>, followed by a discussion led by director Ken Loach. £600 was raised, with £100 donated to the leaseholder legal fund. A
<a href="https://gallery.mailchimp.com/cb39db56cab07dad23385b7eb/files/26eb3e2e-2b6a-47ee-adf7-54a8a9baa8cc/southwarkDCH_demo_25March2017_A6_2pp_web_4133_.pdf">demonstration</a>{:target="_blank"} is set for the 25 March - <strong>Council housing, not luxury flats!</strong> - and will march from Canada Water, site of <a href="https://35percent.org/canada-water/">the biggest regeneration</a>{:target="_blank"} in Southwark, to the Aylesbury estate.</p>
<p>There is a realistion across London that this is a decision that has ramifications for all leaseholders on all council estates facing regeneration. Over 180 separate donations have been made by individuals, union branches, TRAs and campaign groups, and the crowdfund stands at over £7000 - but more is needed to ensure that the leaseholders are represented on the 9 May by a barrister, so our new target is £10,000 - please <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/aylesbury-the-right-to-a-community-2uefgf2s">give generously</a>{:target="_blank"}!</p>
<h2>ESRC research project</h2>
<p>On 17 Feb we attended the launch of an exciting new <a href="https://gtr.rcuk.ac.uk/projects?ref=ES%2FN015053%2F1">research project</a>{:target="_blank"} investigating the impact of estate renewal, led by Professor Loretta Lees from the University of Leicester. The three-year project involves several partner organisations and aims to provide an evidence base to shape future policy agendas as well as a handbook for residents of council estates under threat of demolition. Residents from the Aylesbury estate were present at the launch as well as residents from estates in other boroughs such as Haringey, where their Council has just <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/2bn-selloff-of-haringey-council-property-will-force-out-families-and-destroy-community-a3480646.html">signed a controversial deal with Lendlease</a>{:target="_blank"} to redevelop several of its estates.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/lorettacambridgehouse.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Professor Lees at the launch of the project at Cambridge House, 17th Feb</em></p>
<p>Loretta's research is key in challenging the 'sink estate' discourse and developer-led redevelopment model that Southwark has so <a href="https://www.progressonline.org.uk/2016/01/14/camerons-has-much-to-learn-on-housing/">wholeheartedly embraced</a>{:target="_blank"}. She gave compelling witness evidence at both the <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-07-18-regeneration-branded-miserable-failure-at-cpo-public-inquiry/">Heygate</a>{:target="_blank"} and <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-05-02-aylesbury-estate-compulsory-purchase-order-public-inquiry/">Aylesbury CPO public inquiries</a>{:target="_blank"}. We very much look forward to being further involved in the project.</p>
Aylesbury: Southwark finally granted leave to appeal CPO decision.2017-01-30T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2017-01-30-aylesbury-southwark-receives-permission-to-challenge-cpo-decision/<p>As has been <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/council-given-permission-take-aylesbury-estate-cpo-case-high-court-disappointing-blow-campaigners/">widely reported</a>, Southwark Council finally got permission to make its case against the Secretary of State, for his refusal to grant compulsory purchase powers over Aylesbury estate leaseholders. It was Southwark's second attempt, after first being <a href="https://35percent.org/img/Scan0017.pdf">flatly refused</a> just before Christmas. There can now be a full court hearing, involving all parties, including the leaseholders, probably some time in April.</p>
<p>Southwark Council leader, Peter John, is no doubt relieved by the decision, but he also appears to be confused. The decision <a href="https://twitter.com/nearlylegal/status/822537665312620546">does not reverse</a> Sajid Javid's refusal or overturn the CPO - it just allows Southwark to get on to the playing field, so to speak, and to make its case at a full hearing.</p>
<p>In giving permission, presiding Judge Collins said that Southwark and the Secretary of State should first make efforts to 'ameliorate' the leaseholders' situation. Cllr John immediately repeated his call to the Secretary of State, Sajid Javid, to reconsider his decision, through <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2017/jan/council-calls-on-secretary-of-state-for-urgent-meeting-after-judge-puts-aylesbury-estate-judicial-review-back-on-track">local media</a> without reference to the leaseholders' plight.</p>
<p>The 35% Campaign is committed to supporting the Aylesbury leaseholders and we have now raised over £6000 to ensure thay they are legally represented throughtout the whole CPO process; if you would like to help please click here - <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/aylesbury-the-right-to-a-community-2uefgf2s">https://www.gofundme.com/aylesbury-the-right-to-a-community-2uefgf2s</a> - all contributions, large or small gratefully recieved.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/gofundmescreenshot.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Lendlease bid to solve Australia's housing crisis</h2>
<p>Scott Morrison, Australia's finance minister and <a href="https://typewriterintl.com/2016/06/21/australias-next-prime-minister-scott-morrison/">possibly</a> <em>“next conservative prime minister”</em>, has been led on a <a href="https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/big-business-super-funds-could-be-the-key-to-fixing-social-housing-problem-in-australia/news-story/46e14eb7da03713ab492211e9cf935c7">tour</a> of the Heygate redevelopment.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/scottmorrisonheygate.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Aussie Minister Scott Morrison with Lendlease's Rob Heasman touring the new Heygate</em></p>
<p>Australian developer Lendlease has been lobbying the Australian government in a bid to help solve the country's deepening housing crisis, holding up its partnership with Southwark Council and redevelopment of the Heygate estate as a viable solution.</p>
<p>Morrison <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/politics/scott-morrison-says-london-property-proves-scrapping-negative-gearing-wont-work-20170127-gtzub1">praised</a> the Council for being 'flexible' in its relationship with Lendlease and for having agreed to accept a <em>"small upfront payment from Lend Lease for the nine-hectare site in exchange for financial benefits once the project was completed."</em></p>
<p>Fortunately, we have been in touch with Australian National Broadcaster ABC and have filled them in with the true story behind Lendlease's lobbying spin, i.e. that due to <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-05-11-no-profit-share-the-true-value-of-the-heygate-regeneration/#how-can-this-be-happening">small print</a> in the contractual agreement, the Council is <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-12-05-heygate-profits-north-of-a-hundred-million/">unlikely to receive any profit</a> when the scheme completes; and while 25% of the new homes will be 'affordable', shared ownership properties require a <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LQPriceList.pdf">minium salary of £57,500</a> and only <a href="https://35percent.org/affordable-housing">82 out of the development's 2,704 new homes will be for social rent</a>.</p>
<p>ABC <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-30/london-affordable-housing-development-criticised/8222042">published its report</a> yesterday. Hopefully Australia can now learn from our mistakes rather than replicate them.</p>
More boroughs neglect social housing delivery2017-01-16T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2016-12-12-draft-more-on-notting-hill/<p>We <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-12-12-ombudsman-slams-southwark-for-no-s106-monitoring/">reported in December</a> how Southwark Council has been slammed by the ombudsman for having no monitoring or enforcement of section 106 affordable housing provision.</p>
<p>Last week <a href="https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/two-further-councils-have-no-section-106-monitoring/7018287.article">Inside Housing magazine</a> conducted a survey of other London boroughs, asking if they had monitoring procedures. There were mixed results - fourteen said they had, one (Bexley) that it did not and 13 which didn't reply.</p>
<p>Some of the replies look familiar to us - Southwark also claimed to have monitoring procedures in place when it gave evidence at the Aylesbury estate CPO inquiry, and the truth that they didn't was only flushed out by our subsequent complaint to the Ombudsman.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/CPO_ExplanatoryNote12May2015.png" alt="" />
<em><a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/CPO_ExplanatoryNote12May2015.pdf">Inquiry document 27</a> - evidence submitted by the Council to the CPO public inquiry, 12/05/2015</em></p>
<p>Our sceptism is deepened by further research, where we have found tenure breaches in Lambeth, who claim to have monitoring, and Greenwich, who did not reply to the survey. In both cases estate regeneration schemes delivered affordable rent when social rent was required by the planning consents.</p>
<h2>Ferrier estate (Greenwich)</h2>
<p>The first of these is the <a href="https://halag.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/ferrier.pdf">ferrier estate regeneration</a> in Greenwich, where 1,906 council homes have been knocked down and are being replaced by Berkeley Homes with a 'mixed tenure' scheme comprising a total of 4,398 new homes.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/ferriervillage.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The most recent phase (4a) of the scheme to be completed is <a href="https://www.berkeleygroup.co.uk/new-homes/london/greenwich/kidbrooke-village">'Kidbrooke Village'</a>, where Berkeley Homes was granted planning consent in 2012 for 374 units. Berkeley's <a href="https://planning.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/online-applications/files/591F8EE5C657B23BE9EBFC830D333E93/pdf/11_2366_O-Planning_Statement-64751.pdf">planning application</a> clearly states that 67 of these would be social rented homes:</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/ferrier4aplanningstatement.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from Berkeley's <a href="https://planning.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/online-applications/files/591F8EE5C657B23BE9EBFC830D333E93/pdf/11_2366_O-Planning_Statement-64751.pdf">planning application</a> for phase 4a</em></p>
<p>This is repeatedly confirmed in the <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/PAWS/media_id_127252/kidbrooke_phase_4_report.pdf">Mayor's planning report</a> for the application:</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/kidbrooke_phase_4_report.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the <a href="https://35percent.org/posts/2016-12-12-draft-more-on-notting-hill/(https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/PAWS/media_id_127252/kidbrooke_phase_4_report.pdf)">Mayor's planning report</a> for phase 4a</em></p>
<p>However, the <a href="https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/gla-affordable-housing-programme-outturn/resource/0c87e5dc-f1e9-4edf-b246-bef6b40a9ba3">GLA affordable housing dataset</a> shows these 67 supposedly social rented units provided as affordable rent at up to 62% market rent.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/kidbrookegladata.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from <a href="https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/gla-affordable-housing-programme-outturn/resource/0c87e5dc-f1e9-4edf-b246-bef6b40a9ba3">GLA affordable housing outturn dataset</a></em></p>
<h2>Claremont East estate (Lambeth)</h2>
<p>Lambeth was one of the boroughs that told Inside Housing that it did have section 106 monitoring procedures in place, but we can show that these are clearly not effective.</p>
<p>In 2013, Lambeth Council <a href="https://35percent.org/img/LRclaremontgarages.pdf">sold</a> land on its Claremont East estate in Brixton Hill to Notting Hill Housing Trust for the knock down price of £1.5m, on the basis that it would provide 100% social rented housing.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/claremontlanddisposal.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from <a href="https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=13743">planning committee minutes</a></em></p>
<p>Despite having sold the land at a discount on the basis it would provide 100% social rented housing, Notting Hill submitted a viability assessment pleaded viability poverty, which Lambeth's planning committee accepted and <a href="https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=13743">resolved</a> to grant consent on the basis that 40% of the homes would be 'affordable' of which 70% social rented.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/claremontplanningcommittee.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the <a href="https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=13743">planning committee report</a></em></p>
<p>However, <a href="https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/gla-affordable-housing-programme-outturn/resource/0c87e5dc-f1e9-4edf-b246-bef6b40a9ba3">GLA housing data</a> shows that Notting Hill has provided the rented element (37 units) entirely as affordable rent, at rents of up to 68% market rent.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/claremontgladata.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the <a href="https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/gla-affordable-housing-programme-outturn/resource/0c87e5dc-f1e9-4edf-b246-bef6b40a9ba3">GLA affordable housing dataset</a></em></p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/claremonteastnewbuild.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Notting Hill Housing (no) Trust</h2>
<p>Notting Hill's <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-03-18-stand-up-for-more-social-housing/">flagrant breach</a> of its planning consent for the Bermondsey Spa regeneration, was what <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-12-12-ombudsman-slams-southwark-for-no-s106-monitoring/#background">provided the impetus</a> for our complaint to the Ombudsman last year. This further discovery of Notting Hill's malpractice should be sounding alarm bells with Southwark's administration, who selected Notting Hill as its development partner not just for Bermondsey Spa, but also for the <a href="https://35percent.org/silwood-estate-regeneration">Silwood estate</a>, <a href="https://35percent.org/aylesbury-estate">Aylesbury estate</a>, <a href="https://35percent.org/elmington-estate-regeneration">Elmington estate</a>, <a href="https://35percent.org/wooddene-estate-regeneration">Wood Dene estate</a>, <a href="https://35percent.org/manor-place-depot">Manor Place Depot</a> and <a href="https://35percent.org/canada-water/#canada-water-sites-ce">Canada Water</a> regeneration (joint venture with Sellar).</p>
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Scheme</th>
<th>Units</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Bermondsey Spa</td>
<td>205</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Silwood estate</td>
<td>160</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Aylesbury estate</td>
<td>3,500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Elmington estate</td>
<td>279</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Wood Dene estate</td>
<td>333</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Manor Place Depot</td>
<td>270</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Canada Water</td>
<td>1,046</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Total:</strong></td>
<td><strong>5,793</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>This mammoth development pipeline of 5,793 new homes doesn't include the housing Notting Hill already owns in Southwark; for example, the St James Place estate in Bermondsey, where Notting Hill was recently <a href="https://twitter.com/Leo_Pollak/status/817366264486252544">branded</a> a 'predatory, rogue landlord' by the local ward councillor, after it implemented a <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/housing-association-slammed-nightmare-scenario-eviction-threat-bermondseys-st-james-estate/">series of rent hikes and eviction threats</a>.</p>
<h2>Former Notting Hill Exec spills beans on CEO</h2>
<p>Last week, Steve Hilditch from the Labour Housing Group <a href="https://redbrickblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/07/one-article-does-not-wipe-the-slate-clean/">spilled the beans</a> on Notting Hill and its predatory activities. Steve is a former Notting Hill board executive, who resigned as a result of the Trust's change in direction and priorities. He points out that Notting Hill's CEO, Kate Davies, was a <a href="https://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/about-us/csj-fellows/kate-davies">fellow</a> of the <a href="https://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/">Centre for Social Justice</a> - the conservative think tank set up and chaired by Iain Duncan Smith, which conceived the idea of both affordable rent and right-to-buy for housing association tenants.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/kdquotes.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Within her role at the CSJ, Kate Davies produced <a href="https://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/UserStorage/pdf/Pdf%20reports/HousingPoverty.pdf">this policy proposal report</a>, in which she claimed that council estates are <em>‘ghettos of the poorest and neediest people’</em> that are <em>‘subsidised by the taxpayer’</em> and provide <em>‘low cost living for life funded from the public purse’</em>. She said that tenants <em>‘often pay little or no rent, and get their home maintained in good order for free.’</em> She concluded that <em>‘social housing is not a desirable destination’</em>, that <em>‘private ownership is preferable to state provided solutions’</em> and that social housing providers should be able to sent rent levels without restrictions.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/csjquoterents.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Kate Davies was also a key advisor to the extremely influential Localis review <a href="https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/5568/1/Ends_and_Means_The_future_roles_of_social_housing_in_England_1.pdf">(Principles for Social Housing Reform by John Hills)</a>, the insidious effects of which are well outlined on the Labour Housing Group's <a href="https://redbrickblog.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/social-housing-reform-less-localism-and-more-localis/">blog</a>.</p>
<p>In 2007, she <a href="https://35percent.org/img/TheTimesMarch06_2007.pdf">wrote a column</a> in The Times saying <em>"It has become popular to criticise Hills for raising the issue of tenure reform and rent levels. But we need to get away from one type of housing-based answer for so many different types of people. Social housing should not be seen as a destination but as a springboard to a better life; a place from which people can re-establish themselves, improve their prospects and move forward"</em>. She went on to assert that <em>"rolling assured shorthold tenancies .. give landlords greater influence to encourage positive social behaviour."</em></p>
<p>In 2008, she <a href="https://35percent.org/img/TheTimes2008_11_14.pdf">wrote in The Times</a> making the case for fixed term rather than secure tenancies - <em>"We need a greater diversity of options in the social sector. For example, some accommodation rented at almost market price.. As well as tenure reform, I would like to see greater flexibility in the housing available and who it is offered to."</em></p>
<p>In 2008 she also <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/davehillblog/2008/nov/21/boris-johnson-housing">wrote for the Guardian</a> in defence of Boris Johnson's introduction of affordable rent and wrote an <a href="https://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2008/10/how-councils-ca.html">article on the Conservative Home website</a> arguing that Councils should promote more homeownership.</p>
<p>The Guardian <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/davehillblog/2010/mar/25/hammersmith-fulham-london-borough-notting-hill-housing-conservative-polices">notes</a> that Davies' partner, Nick Johnson, is chief executive of H&F Homes, the "arms-length management organisation" that manages the Council's homes. Together they run <a href="https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05723532/officers">'Davies Johnson Ltd'</a> - a consultancy employed by Hammersmith & Fulham Council, amongst other things, to <a href="https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/09/bureau-recommends-the-consultancy-tax-avoidance-wheeze/">advise on the redevelopment</a> of council estates in its Earls Court redevelopment. The Independent <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/council-chief-given-unfit-payout-then-gets-163200000-role-2277358.html">notes</a> that Johnson used to lead Bexley Council and that H&F Homes contracts have been awarded to his wife's housing association, Notting Hill Housing.</p>
<p>Kate has clearly come a long way since her days as Kate née Marshall, when she was <a href="https://35percent.org/img/TheGuardian1987_02_11.pdf">Secretary General of the Revolutionary Communist Party</a>..</p>
Shopping Centre stitch-up - Delancey submits planning application2016-12-19T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2016-12-19-delancey-submits-shopping-centre-application/<p>Developer Delancey has finally submitted its <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=16/AP/4458&system=DC">application</a> for the redevelopment of the <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre/">Elephant & Castle shopping centre</a> and London College of Communication campus. It will be a mixed use development of shops, offices, homes and campus facilities. It will also provide a new entrance and ticket-hall for the Northern Line tube station.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/delanceyplan.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>According to the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!i%2fH2BvEXXozMcypxg9AnYA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">affordable housing statement</a> all of the proposed 979 residential units will be for rent, none for sale. There will be 35% affordable housing, but none of it will be social rented or part-buy/part-rent. Instead the affordable housing will be something called 'Dicounted Market Rent' (DMR), let at up to 80% market rent, but supposedly at a <em>'blended percentage'</em> of 57% market rent. The application promises that at least 40% of the affordable housing will be let at or below the new London Living Rent, which would currently <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/london_living_rent_-_monthly_ward-level_rents_by_size.xlsx">equate to around £1000pcm for a 1-bed flat at the Elephant</a>.
The affordable housing tenants would be on 3-year assured short-hold tenancies, not on assured tenancies with no time limit, as issued by housing associations.</p>
<p>The affordable housing will not be let or managed by a housing association, as is usual, but will be privately owned by <a href="https://www.cityam.com/238088/elephant-castle-scheme-and-east-village-site-merged-to-create-14bn-private-rented-sector-venture">Qatari Diar</a> and Delancey's <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/PrivateEyeNo1311.pdf">tax-avoiding</a> offshore investment fund DV4. The Elephant and Castle shopping centre is currently owned by one of the fund's shell companies <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LRDeeds_ShoppingCentre.pdf">registered in the British Virgin Islands</a> and whose directors are <a href="https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04434716/officers">registered</a> in Bermuda and Kuwait.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.social-life.co/media/cache/7c/d8/7cd88351c83035bea1af1a55ffe6d81a.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>As expected the shopping centre is to be demolished and there will be <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-07-12-shopping-centre-and-lcc-redevelopment-proposals/">no room for most of the existing retailers</a>. Delancey's <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!LnbCaTCiMmUoN4H%2fUA2yyg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">planning statement</a> contends that <em>'it is recognised that some existing retailers in the area are benefitting from disproportionately low levels of rent...'</em> and concludes that <em>'it may not be financially viable for them to survvive in the area in the longer term'</em>. Delancey offers a 'relocation strategy', but says that it's only on condition of being awarded planning permission and fails to provide any details of what its 'relocation strategy' entails.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/delanceyretailersrelocation.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Delancey make it clear in their <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!i%2fH2BvEXXozMcypxg9AnYA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">Affordable Housing Statement</a> that the application has been drafted after <em>'extensive discussions...with the Council...and...GLA'</em> (para 5.1). It is also clear that much of these discussions were about changing the affordable housing rules to allow Delancey to avoid building social rented housing. Southwark has shown its affection for so-called 'Build to Rent' in its recent draft of the <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-11-21-old-kent-road-aap-loopholes/">Old Kent Rd Area Action Plan/Opportunity Area Framework</a> and the <em>'flexibility'</em> this allows 'Build to Rent' in the delivery of affordable housing is duly noted by Delancey (para 3.32). Our new London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, also reveals his entusiasm for 'Build to Rent' in the just issued <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/draft_affordable_housing_and_viability_spg_2016.pdf">draft Affordable Housing and Viability Supplementary Planning Guidance</a>, so Delancey can confidently state that the Mayor's <em>'Housing SPG will likely promote the 100% discounted market rent solutions on large scale sites'</em>.</p>
<p>So, while this application is from Delancey, there can be little doubt it is coming forward with the blessing of both Southwark Council and the Mayor of London. None of the latest London Plan or local plan documents Delancey refers to in justification of its departures from affordable housing policy have been adopted; they are out for consultation or still to be consulted on. They all promote radical changes to affordable housing policy, changes that will exclude social rented housing from major new developments.</p>
<p>Delancey's application is just another step down the gentrification road. It has little in it that will help those who can only afford social rented housing; indeed it is purposely designed ot exclude them from the proposed development. The shopkeepers and small traders, many from ethnic minority backgrounds, who have worked hard to become an integral part of the community, are deemed to be <em>'not financially viable ...to survive'</em>. Southwark Council and the Mayor should be telling Delancey how unacceptable this application is, not changing planning policy to ensure its success.</p>
<h2>Object Now!</h2>
<form id="form5" action="https://commentform.herokuapp.com/" method="post">
<fieldset><legend>Fill in the details below to object and let Southwark know that Delancey's planning application is unacceptable. Be sure to amend the suggested wording.</legend>
<div id="mc_embed_signup">
<div class="indicates-required"><span class="asterisk">*</span> indicates required</div>
<p class="first" style="margin:20px">
<label for="name">Name:</label>
<input type="text" name="name" id="name" size="30" placeholder="Joe Bloggs" /><span class="asterisk">*</span>
</p>
<p style="margin:20px">
<label for="email">Email:</label>
<input type="text" name="email" id="email" size="30" placeholder="joebloggs@gmail.com" /><span class="asterisk">*</span>
</p>
<p style="margin:20px">
<label for="address">Address:</label>
<input type="text" name="address" id="address" size="40" placeholder="99 Chaplin Street, London" />
</p>
<p style="margin:20px">
<label for="postcode">Postcode:</label>
<input type="text" name="postcode" id="postcode" size="30" placeholder="SE17 1RS" />
</p>
<p style="margin:20px">
<label for="message">Comment:</label>
<textarea name="message" id="message" cols="55" rows="10">Dear Southwark Planning,
<p>I am writing to object to the planning application for the redevelopment of the shopping centre and LCC campus at the Elephant & Castle (ref:16/AP/4458).</p>
<p>Affordable Housing:
This application does not propose a policy compliant affordable housing mix. Southwark's policy for the Elephant & Castle requires a minimum of 35% affordable housing, of which 50% should be social rented. The applicant's offer does not make any provision for social rented housing or any payment in-lieu. The applicant has submitted a viability appraisal, arguing that providing social rented housing would render the development unviable, but despite the Council's new transparency policy this has still not been made public.</p>
<p>Given that the development is coming forward as a result of the Council's own planning directives and given that the developer is an offshore company registered in the BVI and Bermuda, there is a greater need for transparency - especially so given that the application is not policy compliant.</p>
<p>Affordable retail & existing traders:
Paragraph 5.1.7 of the Council's planning policy (E&C SPD), requires a number of "affordable retail units which are made available to existing occupiers displaced by development", in order to "ensure that development opportunities provide opportunities for existing and future SME businesses". However, the applicant has made no provision for any affordable retail in its application and makes vague reference only to a 'relocation strategy' for existing retailers - it provides no detail on what this 'relocation strategy' entails.</p>
<p>In October 2015, Southwark resolved to undertake an Equalities Impact Assessment, in order to fulfill its Public Sector Equality Duty to the shopping centre traders and explore how the impact of the redevelopment can be mitigated. However, this assessment was never undertaken, the Council is thus neglecting its duty and allowing Delancey to progress the scheme without incorporating the existing traders.</p>
<p>Coronet Cinema:
Delancey has dismissed the campaign to save The Coronet theatre. The Coronet takes up a sizeable part of the shopping centre site and is a popular music and event venue. The building dates back to 1872 and is a popular local institution. The Theatres Trust has objected to its demolition as have local preservation groups, on the basis of its Art Deco interior and exterior, which currently remains hidden behind its blue corrugated facade.</p>
<p>Please register my objection and keep me informed should any of the above shortcomings be addressed and the planning applications amended accordingly.</p>
<p>Yours sincerely,
</p></textarea></p>
<p></p>
<p class="submit" style="margin:20px"><button type="submit">Submit Objection</button></p>
<p>You will receive a confirmation email upon submitting your objection.</p>
</div>
</fieldset>
</form>
Southwark's lost section 106 social housing2016-12-12T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2016-12-12-ombudsman-slams-southwark-for-no-s106-monitoring/<p>The Local Government Ombudsman has issued the <a href="https://35percent.org/img/LGOFinalDecisionSOR.pdf">damning judgement</a> that Southwark Council has no procedure to ensure that social rented housing approved by the Council's planning committee is actually being delivered. The Ombudsman further found that without a monitoring procedure <em>'it is hard to know ..how many social housing units...developers [have] delivered'. Or indeed, how many remain social housing units.’</em></p>
<p>The Ombudsman's decision came after the 35% Campaign <a href="https://35percent.org/img/Ombudsman18July2016.pdf">referred</a> its <a href="https://35percent.org/img/ccomplaint15Dec2016.pdf">complaint</a> that planning consents were being breached, listing 43 developments where we thought the social rented housing may not have been delivered as required.</p>
<p>In her <a href="https://35percent.org/img/LGOFinalDecisionSOR.pdf">decision notice</a>, the Ombudsman said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"In response to my enquiries the Council says it is taking legal action in response to several of the breaches identified by Mr X. It also accepts it did not have a systematic supervision procedure to check compliance. It relied on developers’ voluntary compliance." (para. 12)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>She concludes that <em>'the Council accepts that fault'</em> and has agreed to roll out <em>'a borough-wide annual audit to ensure compliance'</em>, nonetheless noting that <em>'until that audit is complete it is hard to know how many social housing units all section 106 agreements called for and how many developers delivered. Or indeed, how many remain social housing units.'</em> (para 20)</p>
<p>Despite the Ombudsman's decision and Southwark's own admission that it had no monitoring procedure in place, no further action is proposed in any of the other instances submitted - aside from the two cases subject to legal action (the Jam Factory and Signal Tower). This leaves <a href="https://35percent.org/redefining-social-rent">unresolved issues</a> about the levels of rent being charged for purportedly social rented properties.</p>
<h2>Background</h2>
<p>Our complaint was prompted after we <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2015/jul/21/neo-bankside-how-richard-rogers-new-non-dom-accom-cut-out-the-poor">discovered</a> that the Richard Rogers <a href="https://35percent.org/neo-bankside">Neo Bankside</a> development had provided 32 social rented homes fewer than the number agreed at planning committee.</p>
<p>Following this we <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-03-18-stand-up-for-more-social-housing/">discovered</a> that 44 social rented units had been lost from the Bermondsey Spa regeneration and had instead been switched to affordable rent, at 62% market rent, by housing provider Notting Hill Housing Trust (NHHT).</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/bspaexchange.png" alt="" />
<em>Local news coverage of the story: <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/southwark-council-probes-44-missing-social-homes/">21/05/15</a>; <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/council-takes-no-legal-action-over-44-missing-social-housing-units/">01/10/15</a>; <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SN_affordablerent.pdf">11/02/16</a></em></p>
<p>The lost Bermondsey Spa homes were raised at the <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-05-16-aylesbury-cpo-inquiry-extra-time/">Aylesbury estate CPO inquiry</a> in May 2015. The Council assured the inquiry that it had robust procedures in place and that it monitored compliance of S106 affordable housing provision every 12-18 months. This was evidently not true, but was asserted to show that NHHT could be trusted to deliver social rented housing in the Aylesbury regeneration.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/CPO_ExplanatoryNote12May2015.png" alt="" />
<em><a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/CPO_ExplanatoryNote12May2015.pdf">Inquiry document 27</a> - evidence submitted by the Council to the CPO public inquiry, 12/05/2015</em></p>
<p>Southwark struck a deal with NHHT to reprovide the 44 lost social rented units on another site - <a href="https://35percent.org/manor-place-depot">Manor Place depot</a>, but this deal double counted the social rented units and in any event the development is still not under construction.</p>
<h2>Social rent is not affordable rent</h2>
<p>Social rent is calculated by using a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/419271/Rent_Standard_Guidance_2015.pdf">legal formula</a>, based primarily on average local earnings; in Southwark social rent currently equates to <a href="https://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2914/affordable_rent_in_southwark_2011">between 19-25% market rate</a> and this percentage falls as market rents rise.</p>
<p>Our <a href="https://35percent.org/img/section106_tenure_breaches.pdf">list</a> of suspect developments shows many where the level of rent identifies them as affordable rent, not social rent. The list was compliled by cross-checking planning committee reports, section 106 agreements, Land Registry information, the <a href="https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/gla-affordable-housing-programme-outturn/resource/0c87e5dc-f1e9-4edf-b246-bef6b40a9ba3">GLA affordable housing outturn dataset</a> and <a href="https://core.communities.gov.uk/">CORE lettings data</a>.</p>
<p>Amongst the sites we've looked at where the 'social rent' is higher than it should be, are the following;</p>
<h2>Colorama buildings</h2>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/colorama_chroma.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>This <a href="https://www.fabrica.co.uk/The-Chroma-Buildings">redevelopment</a> of the former <a href="https://35percent.org/colorama/">Colorama film processing warehouse</a> in SE1 was completed in April 2016 and should have provided a total of 19 social rented habitable rooms, about 8 units, according to the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!Zz6kQSuw9WcG1eGU1VRSAg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">planning report</a>.</p>
<p>However, GLA <a href="https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/gla-affordable-housing-programme-outturn/resource/0c87e5dc-f1e9-4edf-b246-bef6b40a9ba3">affordable housing outturn data</a>, shows that the developer has provided affordable rent, not social rent. These range up to 59% market rent, giving rent levels of £215pw (excl. service charge) for a 1-bed flat, over twice the current average social rent in Southwark (<a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1738/southwark_council_keeping_social_rent_affordable_for_londoners">£100 pw</a>).</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/coloramagladata.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>143-149 Rye Ln/1-15 B'mouth Rd SE15 4ST (L&Q)</h2>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/landqryelane.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Southwark's <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!yP1lK1SBYnvpeezqHiCudA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">planning committee report</a> (06/AP/0995) approved 61 new homes of which 7 should have been social rent, but the GLA dataset shows that these have been delivered by London & Quadrant as affordable rent of between 74% and 78% market rent.</p>
<h2>32 Crosby Row SE1 3PT (Family Mosaic)</h2>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/crosbyrow.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Southwark's <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!gKqBYbE9RsCLZlddMhjvOA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">planning committee report</a> (11/AP/0140) approved the <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/5235">demolition</a> of St Hugh's church on Crosby Row and the construction of 22 new homes, which should have included 5 social rented units. But the GLA dataset shows that these have been delivered by Family Mosaic as affordable rent at up to 57% of market rent.</p>
<h2>177-184 Grange Road, Bermondsey (Linden Homes Ltd)</h2>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/177-184GrangeRoad.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s21421/Item%201%20report.pdf">planning committee report</a> (11/AP/1390) for this development approved 38 new homes, of which 9 were supposed to be social rented units. The GLA data shows that these have been delivered by Leicester Housing Association as affordable rent of up to 52% market rent.</p>
<h2>34-42 Grange Road, Bermondsey (Bellway Homes)</h2>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/twistgrangeroad.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Southwark's <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!zsXhZcwMT4Yjxyeq6tsl1w%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">planning committee report</a> (11/AP/3251) approved 41 new homes of which 8 should have been social rented, but the GLA dataset shows that these have been delivered by Leicester Housing Association at affordable rent of up to 52% market rent.</p>
<h2>Royal Road, Kennington SE17 3DA (Affinity Sutton)</h2>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/royalroad.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>This development was built on the site of a former old people's home. The site was designated as one of the <a href="https://embed.verite.co/timeline/?source=0Aprl6XcACewydEhRaWFOLVBfUjBSVW1HUGVZNEhGeFE&font=Bevan-PotanoSans&maptype=toner&lang=en&hash_bookmark=true&start_zoom_adjust=2&height=650#15">replacement housing sites</a> for decanted Heygate tenants and sold by the Council, at cost, to Affinity Sutton housing association. Notwithstanding this, the new development wasn't completed until 5 years after the Heygate was demolished and the government's <a href="https://core.communities.gov.uk/">CORE lettings database</a> is showing only 45 units let at social rents at this site, while 76 is the number required by the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=09/AP/2388&system=DC">planning consent</a> and corresponding <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!wBvbff3I8Ky7wx6%2fnWIW7Q%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">section 106 agreement</a>.</p>
<h2>430 Old Kent Road SE1 5AG - (Family Mosaic)</h2>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/430okr.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>This is one of the <a href="https://35percent.org/neo-bankside">Neo-Bankside</a> off-site affordable housing sites, which according to Southwark's <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!siQ3eaBQc4N16%2bb1RFDnxQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">planning committee report</a> (11/AP/0138) approved 22 social rented units, but the GLA dataset shows that these have been delivered at affordable rents of up to 49% market rent.</p>
<h2>Silwood estate regeneration Site 4B (Notting Hill HT)</h2>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/silwoodstreet.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>This is yet another Notting Hill Housing Trust redevelopment of a council estate. It was supposed to provide 22 social rented homes as part of its <a href="https://35percent.org/silwood-estate-regeneration">redevelopment of the Silwood estate</a> involving the demolition of 57 council homes and construction of 127 new homes. The definition of social rented in the section 106 agreement is worded as affordable rent and the <a href="https://core.communities.gov.uk/">CORE lettings data system</a> shows that only 19 units have been let at social rent levels.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>Southwark has confessed that up until now it has not ensured that social rented housing has been delivered in accordance with planning approvals, but instead relied on <em>'voluntary compliance'</em>. Southwark promises an annual public audit as a remedy, with some unspecified <em>'further investigation to ensure accuracy'</em> and has budgeted £60,000 for this. Developers and, unfortunately, housing associations have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted, so we doubt that this will be enough.</p>
<p>Southwark charges developers a 2% administration fee on the sum total of financial S106 contributions, including affordable housing. The table below shows this amounts to be a considerable sum each year and far more of it should be invested to ensure that the affordable housing conditions are properly monitored and enforced.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/s106table.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the Council's most recent <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/13876/s106_annual_report_2012-14">S106 contributions report</a></em></p>
<p>We also need an audit not just 'going forward' but also one looking back, an historical audit of all relevant planning applications for an least the past 10 years, to retreive the social housing that Southwark Council has lost through being let at higher than social rents. Only when Southwark has done this will we believe that it is <em>'leading the fight for social housing'</em> as it <a href="https://35percent.org/img/Standard3rdOct2016.jpg">claims</a> and is not the developers' free-for-all it has been <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/simon-jenkins-net-curtaingate-just-makes-us-laugh-rather-than-show-sympathy-a3355186.html">labelled</a>.</p>
Heygate profit - north of the facts2016-12-05T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2016-12-05-heygate-profits-north-of-a-hundred-million/<p>Council leader Peter John has claimed that Southwark Council will be getting <em>"north of £100m"</em> from the Heygate estate's redevelopment as <a href="https://www.elephantpark.co.uk/">'Elephant Park'</a>. He made the claim while being grilled by Steve Cananne of Australian national broadcaster
ABC, in a report <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-11/homes-for-profit-not-people./8019560">broadcast</a> on Australian prime time television.</p>
<center>
<iframe width="400" height="225" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3ZrDvxOAV5A" align="center" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</center>
In the full 20min interview with Cllr John posted online, Cllr John defends the shotgun deal he [signed](https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/4712) with Australian developer Lendlease just weeks after being elected in 2010.
<center>
<iframe width="400" height="225" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gq_QpqIArGg" align="center" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</center>
During the interview, Cllr John makes a number of unsubstantiated or inaccurate claims which will be familiar to those who have followed the Heygate saga.
<h2>No profit for Southwark</h2>
<p>While claiming that Southwark will receive <em>"north of £100m"</em>, Cllr John says he cannot say exactly how much this will be, until the development is complete in 2025. The 35% Campaign is glad to help Cllr John on this point. We have received the 2016 Elephant Park Business Plan in response to an <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/heygate_estate_regeneration_annu">FOI request</a> and this baldly <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-05-11-no-profit-share-the-true-value-of-the-heygate-regeneration/">states</a> that <em>"no profit overage is currently forecast to be payable to Southwark Council"</em>, adding for good measure the <em>"previous plan reported nil overage payable"</em>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/ElephantParkBusinessPlanFeb2016.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the business plan report received in response to our <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/heygate_estate_regeneration_annu">FOI request</a></em></p>
<p>Southwark will continue to receive these reports every year, because of entirely sensible provisions in the <a href="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ra.pdf">contractual regeneration agreement</a> with Lendlease, which says that the Annual Business Plan will be supplied to the Council and that it will contain <em>"an update of potential Planning Overage and Profit Overage".</em> (paragraph 13.2)</p>
<p>Cllr John also claims that profit would be shared in stages as the development proceeds.
Not so, according to the regeneration agreement (see paragraphs 6.1.1 of schedule 5 and the bottom of page 83). Lendlease also removes any doubt that payment will not be until 2025, with its statement to ABC:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"We are currently three years into an estimated 12-year build programme and the overage calculation will be undertaken after the completion of the whole development, not after each phase."</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Some further points to be noted about Southwark's overage profit share.</h2>
<p>Southwark will be getting only 50% of the profit above Lendlease's ringfenced 20% "Priority Return" plus its 2.6% "Management Fee"[^1]. The management fee was criticised by the <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/DVSreport_HeygateOutline.pdf">District Valuer's review</a> of the viability assessment figures, which he described as 'additional profit'.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/DVSreport_managementfee.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/DVSreport_HeygateOutline.pdf">DVS's review</a> on the Heygate figures</em></p>
<p>Cllr John claims that <em>"20-25% is a normal profit margin for developments in London"</em>. However, again the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/district-valuer-services-dvs/about">District Valuer</a> questioned this profit level and pointed out that most schemes at the time averaged below 15%:</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/DVSacceptablereturn.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/DVSreport_HeygateOutline.pdf">DVS's review</a> on the Heygate figures</em></p>
<p>Lendlease has a track record of accounting disputes with public authorities. In April 2012 it was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/nyregion/lend-lease-expected-to-admit-to-fraud-scheme.html">fined</a> $56m for overbilling on a major public works contract in New York and in December 2012 it was <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/nsw/valuation-dispute-poses-threat-to-1b-return-from-barangaroo-20121206-2ay9e.html">sued</a> by city authorities over its calculation of overage on the Barangaroo regeneration scheme in Australia, a case the Sydney authority <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/nsw/barangaroo-public-works-in-doubt-after-government-loses-court-battle-with-lend-lease-20140821-106lke.html">lost</a>). In 2014 it was embroiled in a <a href="https://www.pitcher.com.au/news/lend-lease-decision-impact-property-development-arrangements">High Court battle</a> with the Victoria Urban Development Authority in Northern Australia.</p>
<h2>Southwark spends, Lendlease profits</h2>
<p>While Southwark has <a href="https://35percent.org/heygate-regeneration-faq/#decant-costs">spent £51.4m on the scheme to date</a>, received £18m of the £50m land payment and lives in hope of more, the profits for Lendlease are rolling in.</p>
<p>For the six months up to Feb 2016, Lendlease has <a href="https://www.afr.com/real-estate/commercial/lendlease-firsthalf-net-profit-rises-121pc-to-354-million-20160216-gmvxux">reported record profits</a> of $354m (£192m). Lendlease <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/property/lendlease-reports-a-3538-million-profit-20160216-gmvo2z.html">said</a> its strong performance was partly down to <em>“strong sales momentum at residential projects at Victoria Harbour in Melbourne and Elephant & Castle in London”.</em></p>
<p>Its <a href="https://35percent.org/img/LLfinancialreport_aug2016.pdf">August 2016 financial report</a> confirmed that the completed phase 1 of the Heygate (Trafalgar Place) turned a profit in 2016 and that phases two and three (South Gardens and West Grove) are also due to turn a profit in 2018/19.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/llprofitprofile.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from Lendlease's <a href="https://35percent.org/img/LLfinancialreport_aug2016.pdf">financial report Aug 2016</a></em></p>
<p>The report also shows that Lendlease had presold 69% of its apartments in phase 3 (West Grove) off plan, netting it $435m (£260m) while construction had barely started.</p>
<h2>Revolving doors</h2>
<p>During the interview Cllr John was also asked about <a href="https://embed.verite.co/timeline/?source=0Aprl6XcACewydEhRaWFOLVBfUjBSVW1HUGVZNEhGeFE&font=Bevan-PotanoSans&maptype=toner&lang=en&hash_bookmark=true&start_zoom_adjust=2&height=650#33">accepting Olympic tickets and a paid trip to a developers' jamboree</a> in the South of France from Lendlease. He was also asked whether it was right for senior Council officers to go on to work for developers such as Lendlease. Councillor John failed to give a direct response, but mumbled something about perception not always being reality. Actually the reality is clear and we have published <a href="https://35percent.org/revolving-doors/">here</a> details of the senior officers who have gone on to work for Lendlease.</p>
<p><img src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8244/8637497136_d25afc426a.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Key documents still witheld</h2>
<p>Cllr John claims a big commitment to transparency, but the Council continues to withold key figures and documents relating to the Heygate deal. Cllr John says that Southwark will be getting a share of the Elephant Park profits 'north of £100m', when all the available evidence is to the contrary.</p>
<p>If Cllr John knows something that we and the people of Southwark don't know, he should tell us. In particular, Southwark should publish a full unredacted copy of the most recent <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/heygate_estate_regeneration_annu">Annual Business Plan</a>. This shows the inflows and outflows to the development and can tell us whether there will be any overage for the Council.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/RAcashflowforecast.png" alt="" />
<em>Redacted cash flow forecast showing the development account actuals</em></p>
<p>In addition, Southwark should publish:</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p><a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/financial_advice_on_signing_rege">The professional advice</a> that the Council received from external consultants on signing the regeneration agreement.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>The unpublished appendices of the <a href="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ra.pdf">regeneration agreement</a> between Southwark and Lendlease.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>A full undredacted copy of the <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/DVSreport_HeygateOutline.pdf">District Valuer's report</a>.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p><img src="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/imageuploads/1280161383_62.49.27.213.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Cllr John with Lendlease CEO Dan Labbad signing the regeneration agrement in July 2010</em></p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: See "Developer's Priority Return" and "Development Management Fee" on pg 83 of the leaked <a href="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ra.pdf">Regeneration Agreement</a>.</p>
Going nowhere in a hurry2016-12-01T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2016-12-01-draft-shopping-centre-cpo/<p>Patrick Duffey, the owner of the Elephant & Castle shopping centre's bingo hall
and bowling alley has
<a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/im-going-nowhere-owner-elephant-bingo-hall-pours-doubt-delanceys-schedule-demolishing-shopping-centre/">announced</a>
that he is staying put.
In an interview with the local newspaper, Duffey poured water on Delancey's
plans, claiming that he has not been approached about by Delancey about the
demolition plans and said <em>“I tell you, this man’s not going anywhere in a
hurry. I’m going nowhere."</em></p>
<p>A year ago, Southwark Council
<a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s57189/Report%20Elephant%20and%20castle.pdf">resolved</a>
to use a compulsory purchase order (CPO) in order forcibly to buy out the
businesses with long leases. But one year on and after its failure with the
Aylesbury CPO, it looks like the council is rowing back. Councillor Mark
Williams, Southwark Council’s cabinet membe for regeneration has now said: <em>"we
would only want to use CPOs as an absolute last resort".</em> He went on to add
<em>“We are strongly encouraging Delancey to do whatever they can to reach a
voluntary agreement with their tenants at the shopping centre so they can gain
full possession."</em></p>
<p>In the meantime, it looks like Delancey has embarked upon a strategy of managed
decline for the shopping centre. Many of its shops are now empty as a result of
traders not being able to afford the sharp increases in service charges by
Delancey.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/planneddecline.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Empty units at the shopping centre</em></p>
<p>Following the Aylesbury CPO decision, Southwark may be realising that obtaining
a compulsory purchase order for the shopping centre may not be quite as
straightforward as it had orginally anticipated.</p>
<p>The traders with long lease that will either need to be bought out or CPO'd
are:</p>
<ol>
<li>Ria Money Transfer on the first floor</li>
<li>Bodeguita and the Jamaican bank next to it on the first floor</li>
<li>Andrea's Hair & Beauty on the ground floor</li>
<li>Inara money transfer on the first floor</li>
<li>Bingo Hall</li>
<li>Bowling Alley</li>
<li>Charlie Chaplin Pub</li>
</ol>
Affordable housing loopholes in Old Kent Road plan2016-11-21T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2016-11-21-old-kent-road-aap-loopholes/<p>Just as Southwark Council embarks on a costly <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-10-10-aylesbury-cpo-challenge-called-in/">legal battle to evict Aylesbury
leaseholders</a>
from their homes it is also ploughing ahead with another plan that will
turbo-charge the gentrification of a great chunk of south London.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/4596/old_kent_road_area_action_plan">latest draft of the Old Kent Rd Area Action Plan/Opportunity Area
Framework</a>
is out for consultation and its housing provisions (misleadingly titled Quality
Affordable Housing) applies the recipe that’s turning the Elephant & Castle
Opportunity Area into a social-housing free zone, with a few added ingredients.</p>
<p>Up until now developers have relied upon on claiming that their <a href="https://www.ourcity.london/issues/viability/house_builders_profits/">profit-gushing
developments</a> were nonetheless unviable, in order to duck out of building affordable
housing, with spectacular results – out of over 5000 dwellings in the seven
major private developments at the Elephant there will be just 82 social rented
homes.</p>
<p>But the likes of Lendlease, Delancey, Berkeley Homes and Barratt are evidently
becoming wary of being humiliated at <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-06-25-heygate-viability-assessment-finally-revealed/">Information
Tribunals</a>
and <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-09-18-aylesbury-compulsory-purchase-order-rejected/">CPO
inquiries</a>
and want easier ways to rip affordable housing out of the local community.<br />
Southwark has dutifully obliged.</p>
<p>First up, Southwark's new planning policy for the Old Kent Road will allow
developers to define what affordable housing actually is. The term is
thoroughly discredited anyhow, with affordable rent at up to 80% market rents
and intermediate housing that <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LQPriceList.pdf">requires minium salaries of
£57k</a>, but Southwark
still think it worth driving a stake through its heart, by introducing yet
another kind – ‘discounted market rent’. This does not meet any of the policy
definitions of affordable housing and Southwark does not bother to explain how
much it reckons the market rent will be or how big the discount.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/discountedmarketrent.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/13714/draft_old_kent_road_area_action_plan_-_part_1">draft Old Kent Rd Area Action
Plan</a></em></p>
<p>Second, the viability loophole will be joined by two more – the ‘design loophole’ and the ‘property management strategy’ loophole. Citing any of these will now be enough to dump affordable housing.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/flexibility.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/13714/draft_old_kent_road_area_action_plan_-_part_1">draft Old Kent Rd Area Action
Plan</a></em></p>
<p>Third, Southwark has fallen in love with ‘build to rent’ private rented sector (PRS) development. Developers (eg Delancey) are desperately trying to position PRS as affordable housing, when it is nothing of the kind, and themselves as providers of affordable housing,– Southwark is doing all it can to help and is promising ‘flexibility' on delivery of affordable housing. There will be ‘flexibility’ on family housing too, where the developer can demonstrate ‘a market demand for single/two-bed flats’. We wonder how many will, particularly when density limits and restrictions on tall buildings are being ripped up too.</p>
<p>Finally, the ‘subject to viability’ loophole has not been abandoned; it used to be buried down in the smaller print of previous policies, but has now been elevated right up into the policy box AAP 3: Affordable homes, just so that there is no doubt that when Southwark says that all new developments will have 35% affordable housing, it is only kidding.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/subjecttoviability.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/13714/draft_old_kent_road_area_action_plan_-_part_1">draft Old Kent Rd Area Action
Plan</a></em></p>
<p>These are all well-worn and familiar tactics used to avoid building affordable housing, but now they are to be enshrined in policy. Southwark aims to build 20000 new homes in the Old Kent Rd Opportunity Area, stretching all the way from the Elephant to New Cross.</p>
<p>All in all, Southwark's draft planning policy for the Old Kent Road opportunity area is an open invitation to developers; it is not so much presenting itself as open for business, but rather as open to being ripped off. We have submitted a detailed response to the Council's consultation, which you can read <a href="https://35percent.org/img/EANresponse_draftOKRAAP.pdf">here</a>.</p>
Elephant Park - a populist narrative2016-11-12T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2016-11-12-elephant-park-a-populist-narrative/<p>Are you <strong>a)</strong> someone in Southwark in desperate need of a home?
or <strong>b)</strong> a property investor in Hong Kong or Singapore?</p>
<ul>
<li>If <strong>a)</strong> join the lengthening council waiting list for a council home, if
you can.</li>
<li>if <strong>b)</strong> welcome to the Elephant and Castle, there is a good investment
opportunity waiting for you.</li>
</ul>
<p>This is the conclusion of our own investigation into who will live on the new
Heygate estate. It was prompted by recent press apologetics for gentrification.</p>
<p>First up, Guardian columnist, Labour hack and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2016/oct/24/lets-get-our-gentrification-story-straight">gentrification
advocate</a>
Dave Hill, has written an
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2016/nov/01/london-housing-sadiq-khan-research-brief-recognises-need-for-overseas-investors">article</a>
claiming that foreign buyers have been wrongly scapegoated for the high cost of
housing the capital.</p>
<p>The article refers to research being commissioned by City Hall, which is
attempting to address not only <em>'concerns about the role that overseas money
plays in London’s property market'</em>, but also <em>"the positive role that overseas
buyers play in enabling developments to go ahead."</em></p>
<p>Hill dismisses the 'populist narrative' around overseas buyers and argues that
<em>"a considerable amount of London’s new “affordable” homes aimed at people on
low and middle incomes, are built as a condition of permission being granted
for large, foreigner-financed housing schemes to go ahead. "</em></p>
<p>Dave Hill is quite right; planning permissions are often given on condition
that affordable housing is built, but unfortunately the promise is seldom kept.</p>
<p>This has been amply demonstrated by London Tenants Federation's
<a href="https://35percent.org/2016-05-07-southwark-in-bottom-3-boroughs-for-affordable-housing-delivery/">analysis</a>
of the latest available figures on affordable housing delivery, which shows
that less than 1 in 5 new homes being built are affordable and only 1 in 10
social rented - half the London Mayor's target in both cases.</p>
<p>The Evening Standard has recently provided us with a <a href="https://35percent.org/img/standard26102016-rotated.pdf">case
study</a> of one such <em>'foreigner-financed housing
scheme'</em></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Elephant Park</strong> (Heygate as was). A perfect test, we thought, of whether
<a href="https://35percent.org/2016-05-11-no-profit-share-the-true-value-of-the-heygate-regeneration/">gifting public
land</a>
and resources to private developers actually delivers affordable housing.</li>
</ul>
<h2>South (East Asia) Gardens</h2>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/southgardenpoint.JPG" alt="" /></p>
<p>The latest phase of Elephant Park is <a href="https://www.elephantpark.co.uk/elephant-park/explore-the-development/south-garden">South
Gardens</a>
which has 360 homes. Above is plot H06 (D,E & F) otherwise known as 'South
Garden Point'. It comprises two blocks with 179 apartments, all for private
sale. The UK sales launch <a href="https://35percent.org/img/southgardensuklaunch.jpg">began this
week</a>,
with prices starting at £550k, but it’s really just to mop up what's left from
the Singapore sales which <a href="https://www.propertyguru.com.sg/property-management-news/2014/4/37646/elephant-park-sales-in-singapore">started on 11th April
2014</a>.</p>
<p>We don't know how many units have been sold to overseas buyers because
Lendlease and the Council <a href="https://youtu.be/WZRV4KMxuEk">won't say</a>, but <a href="https://35percent.org/img/LRegisterSouthGardens.pdf">Land
Registry
information</a>
tells us that it is at least 46. They have been sold via international real
estate firm <a href="https://www.colliers.com/en-us">Colliers International</a> in Hong
Kong and Singapore. Colliers' <a href="https://35percent.org/img/South-Gardens-Fact-Sheet-CIHK.pdf">sales
brochure</a> shows
that it partners with solicitors <a href="https://www.riseamsharples.com/legal-services/overseas-property-exhibitions">'Riseam
Sharples'</a>,
who attend Colliers' overseas sales launches.</p>
<p>Riseam Sharples began travelling to Hong Kong and Singapore in the 80s and 90s
with the aim of helping <a href="https://www.riseamsharples.com/legal-services/overseas-property-exhibitions"><em>'offshore investors to get a
bargain'</em></a>.
Riseam Sharples also has a commendable policy of registering clients' purchases
with the Land Registry, even though such registration is not required or
normally effected until the development is completed. The 46 buyers are
Registered in the <a href="https://35percent.org/img/LRegisterSouthGardens.pdf">Land Registry
deeds</a> as
at Riseam Sharples HQ (2 Tower St, WC2H 9NP):</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/purchaserssolicitor.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from Colliers Singapore sales brochure</em></p>
<h2>Total Gain International</h2>
<p>While one of the Colliers buyers listed in the <a href="https://35percent.org/img/LRegisterSouthGardens.pdf">Land Registry
deeds</a> is clearly an asset management company, appropriately called <a href="https://www.hkgbusiness.com/en/company/Total-Gain-International-Limited">'Total Gain International Ltd'</a>, we cannot categorically state that the remaining 45 buyers are also investors, but a google search brings up possible links to the following companies:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p>Ahsan Din - Director of
<a href="https://www.bankingandfinance.com.sg/company/details/80119512/saka-capital-pte-ltd">sakacapital.com</a>
(bought two apartments)</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Ai Li Oon - <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/ai-li-oon-b0734b">Director of Debt Capital Markets at HSBC Hong Kong</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Mr Wong Pui Ming - <a href="https://webb-site.com/codocs/SFC040901.pdf">Director of Ever-Long Securities (Hong Kong)</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/alex-cheuk-3ab418b0">Cheuk Siu Bun Alexander</a> - <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=1567021">CLSA Investment
Bank</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Cheung Kam Shing Terry - Director of <a href="https://www.gca.com.hk/eng/Aboutus/Company%20Overview">GCA</a>, a Hong Kong asset management company and <a href="https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/60380">linked</a> to Panama Papers scandal</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Ng Man Chung of <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/chung-man-ng">Hong Kong Land Ltd</a>, formerly of Jones Lang LaSalle and Colliers International</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Wendy Danubrata Wenxiong - <a href="https://www.qqstay.co/listing/wendy-danubrata-wenxiong/5YBEYG00000">Property agent for Knight Frank</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Tan Ying - <a href="https://www.cdl.com.sg/app/cdl/index.xml">City Developments Ltd (Singapore)</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Ek Ming Tay - <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/ekmingtay">Executive Director at Goldman Sachs Singapore</a> (bought two apartments)</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Lee Wing Kam Rowena Jackie - <a href="https://www.lesaunda.com.hk/InvestorRelations-pdf/A20060711E.pdf">Le Saunda Holdings Ltd (Hong Kong & Bermuda)</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Mark Henry Gordon-James - <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=28908323&privcapId=209963323">Senior Investment Manager at Aberdeen Asset Managers</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Chen Siak Chan - <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/Research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=44920892&privcapId=4481325&previousCapId=4481325&previousTitle=DFZ%20Capital%20Bhd">President</a>
of DFZ Capital (bought three apartments)</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Wong Oi Sze - Director of the Han River Corporation and <a href="https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/12204853">named</a> in the Panama Papers</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Eng Kiat Lim - <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/eng-kiat-lim-a7489059">Investment Funds Advisor, BNP Paribas Hong Kong</a></p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Li Hwei Yeo - <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/li-hwei-yeo-b87543">Investment Banking Strategic Projects, JP Morgan</a></p>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>Assets not homes</h2>
<p>Leaving all this aside, there is no doubt that these properties are being
marketed as investment assets - not homes. This is clear from the sales
information that Lendlease supplies to potential buyers. They very helpfully
estimate that the cheapest of the remaining flats at South Garden Point will
earn you a healthy rental income of £22,360 per year. So if you have got £430
per week to spare and need a 1-bed flat, head for South Garden Point.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/Availability_1_bedrooms_WC_South_Gardens.png" alt="" />
<em>Lendlease's <a href="https://35percent.org/img/Availability_1_bedrooms_WC_South_Gardens.pdf">price list</a>
for South Gardens</em></p>
<h2>The other side of the coin - affordable housing</h2>
<p>What about the affordable housing at South Gardens? The <a href="https://35percent.org/img/standard26102016-rotated.pdf">Evening Standard
article</a> argued that while 2-beds in <a href="https://elephantpark.co.uk/">Elephant Park</a> might be selling for £1m, locals could
nonetheless pick up an 'affordable' shared ownership flat for just £111,250
(for a 25% share of a 1-bed).</p>
<p>If the Standard had looked at the small print of the <a href="https://lqpricedin.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Elephant-park-1-bed-October16.pdf">price
list</a>,
they would have seen that out of total 360 homes in <a href="https://www.elephantpark.co.uk/elephant-park/explore-the-development/south-garden">'South
Gardens'</a>
only twenty five were available for shared ownership and only 7 were still
available[^1]. The same small print in the <a href="https://lqpricedin.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Elephant-park-1-bed-October16.pdf">price
list</a>
also shows that a minimum deposit of £30k is required and a minimum income of
£42,918. We can assure the Evening Standard that there are not many at the
Elephant and Castle who will be <em>'reviving the dream of home ownership'</em> at
these prices.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/standard26102016.jpg" alt="" />
<em><a href="https://35percent.org/img/standard26102016-rotated.pdf">Evening Standard
article</a> 26/10/2016</em></p>
<h2>Gentrification by the numbers</h2>
<p>The Heygate redevelopment isn't an exception at the Elephant and Castle</p>
<ul>
<li>out of 6228 new homes in the seven major schemes barely 80 are social rented -
nor is it an exception for London, as the <a href="https://35percent.org/img/LTF_delivery_of_housing_in_London_2014-15.pdf">LTF
figures</a>
show.</li>
</ul>
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th><strong>Development</strong></th>
<th><strong>Total homes</strong></th>
<th><strong>Social rented</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://35percent.org/heygate-regeneration-faq">Heygate</a> (12/AP/1092)</td>
<td>2704</td>
<td>82</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://35percent.org/strata-tower">Strata Tower</a> (05/AP/2502)</td>
<td>408</td>
<td>0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://35percent.org/one-the-elephant">One the Elephant</a> (12/AP/2239)</td>
<td>284</td>
<td>0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://35percent.org/tribeca-square">Tribeca Square</a> (08/AP/2043)</td>
<td>640</td>
<td>0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://35percent.org/eileen-house">Eileen House</a> (09/AP/0343)</td>
<td>335</td>
<td>0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://35percent.org/london-360-tower">London 360 Tower</a> (07/AP/0760)</td>
<td>457</td>
<td>0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://35percent.org/skipton-house">Skipton House</a> (15/AP/5125)</td>
<td>421</td>
<td>0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre">Shopping Centre/LCC</a> (16/AP/4458)</td>
<td>979</td>
<td>0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Total:</strong></td>
<td><strong>6228</strong></td>
<td><strong>82</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>So it is not the populist narrative that is false as Dave Hill suggests, it is
the deluded pro-gentrification narrative, which suffers from two
misapprehensions; that affordable housing is actually affordable and that
developers are actually building it.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/sundaytimes4thNov2016.png" alt="" />
<em>Sunday Times <a href="https://35percent.org/img/sundaytimes4thNov2016.pdf">article</a> - 4th Nov 2016</em></p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: See the <a href="https://lqpricedin.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Elephant-park-1-BED-pricelist-OCT16.pdf">price list</a> for 1-beds (3 available); and <a href="https://lqpricedin.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Elephant-park-pricelist-31-10-16-OCT16.pdf">price list</a> for 2-beds (4 available).</p>
Aylesbury Crowdfunding kicks off to successful start2016-10-25T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2016-10-25-crowdfunding-successful-start/<p>Our <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/aylesbury-the-right-to-a-community-2uefgf2s">crowdfunding
campaign</a>
to help Aylesbury leaseholders resist Southwark's
<a href="https://35percent.org/2016-09-26-council-appeals-aylesbury-cpo-decision/">attempt</a>
to overturn <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-09-18-aylesbury-compulsory-purchase-order-rejected/">their CPO
victory</a>
has got off to a great start. We have raised over £2000 in the first week, a testament to the support the leaseholders enjoy. Many thanks to everyone who has donated so far - our target is £7000; we aim to get the leaseholders representation throughout the legal proceedings.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/gfmscreenshot.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>In the meantime the leaseholders' barrister has started work on the case and on
submitting a preliminary response to the Council's grounds of appeal in its
<a href="https://35percent.org/img/20161007_Secretary_of_State_Aylesbury_CPO.pdf">letter before
claim</a>.</p>
<p>On Monday the Secretary of State issued his own <a href="https://35percent.org/img/SoSresponsetoLbC.pdf">detailed
response</a> to Southwark's grounds of appeal, saying
that they have 'no merit', are all 'unarguable' and that the SoS will 'robustly
defend' its CPO decision and 'seek his costs of doing so'.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/SoSresponsetoLbC.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Meanwhile, Southwark continues to justify its appeal by claiming that the CPO
decision is preventing it from continuing with the regeneration of the estate
which will deliver at least 1,260 new 'affordable' homes. As we have
<a href="https://35percent.org/2016-09-26-council-appeals-aylesbury-cpo-decision/">repeatedly pointed
out</a>,
however, the new 'affordable' homes won't be affordable to most and the scheme
will still result in a net loss of at least 778 social rented homes, so we
count any decision that goes towards preventing this as a good one.</p>
<h2>Development partner in the dock</h2>
<p>Southwark has made much of the fact that the Aylesbury estate is being
redeveloped by Notting Hill Housing Trust, a 'non-profit' housing association.<br />
It says much less about Notting Hill's 'developer partner' for the scheme,
Barratt Homes. Barratt is the UK's largest private developer and will be both
building and selling all of the redeveloped estate's 1773 private market homes,
with an <a href="https://35percent.org/img/document.pdf">expected gross worth of £768m.</a></p>
<p>Barratt was in the news last week, when its chief London executive Alastair
Baird, was
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/19/barratt-executive-arrested-internal-inquiry-alastair-baird">arrested</a>
on suspicion of bribery, following an investigation into the awarding of
contracts. Barratt has a large number of <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-09-14-barratt-conquers-southwark/">developments in
Southwark</a> and was
contracted to build the <a href="https://35percent.org/auctions#libraries">replacement</a>
Canada Water library. Here Mr Baird can be seen alongside Council chiefs at
the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/146/new_iconic_southwark_building_emerges">topping-out ceremony for
the new library</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/cwltoppingout.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>More unhappily he also appeared alongside Notting Hill Housing at an <a href="https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/residents-anger-set-to-force-sub-let-u-turn/6504705.article">angry
public
meeting</a>
on the Bedfont Lakes estate in Feltham, to answer for serious flaws in the
estate's gas boiler system.</p>
<h2>Rio sticks the boot in</h2>
<p>The Aylesbury regeneration came under fire from footballer Rio Ferdinand this
week, who grew up in Southwark on the nearby Friary estate. In an <a href="https://35percent.org/img/insidehousing24oct2016.pdf">interview
with Inside Housing</a> he was highly critical of
the impact regeneration was having on communities.</p>
<p>He said he has spoken to people, including family members, who had been forced
to move to different areas because regeneration work had resulted in schemes
that were <em>“not affordable”</em>. He said <em>“The word affordable, I think, is
bandied about far too often and isn’t actually true in a lot of cases”</em>. With
specific reference to the Aylesbury, he said <em>“Kids from my foundation can’t
afford to live there. They grew up on that estate but they can’t live there.
It’s not affordable".</em></p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/rio.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>In coming blogs we'll be taking a closer look at Notting Hill Housing's varying
definitions of afforable housing, its deal with Barratt, its wider role in the
<a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/aylesbury_estate_development_par#outgoing-591461">Aylesbury redevelopment
partnership</a>
and the growing
<a href="https://twitter.com/coyleneil/status/787588742366232576">disquiet</a> about
<a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/housing-association-slammed-nightmare-scenario-eviction-threat-bermondseys-st-james-estate/">Notting Hill's
conduct</a>
elsewhere in the borough.</p>
Scrutiny fails - Southwark submits grounds of appeal2016-10-17T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2016-10-17-aylesbury-cpo-legal-challenge-scrutinised/<p>Last Monday evening, Southwark's Overview and Scrutiny Committee rejected calls for the Council's <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-09-26-council-appeals-aylesbury-cpo-decision/">decision</a> to appeal against the government's refusal to grant it a CPO against Aylesbury leaseholders to be reconsidered, after it heard that it was powerless to do so.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://halag.wordpress.com/">Aylesbury estate Leaseholders Group</a> staged a protest at the meeting, angered at the <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-09-18-aylesbury-compulsory-purchase-order-rejected/">damning judgement</a> that their equalities and human rights had been breached and Southwark's refusal to accept the judgement.</p>
<p>The leaseholders made a <a href="https://halag.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/oscdeputation_10102016.pdf">written submission</a> and gave evidence to the Committee, arguing that the High Court challenge was uneccessary. Having been <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/aylesbury-plan-face-scrutiny/">accused</a> of 'holding the Council to ransom', the leaseholders pointed out that all they wanted was to remain homeowners in the borough. They reminded the Council of its like-for-like rehousing offer and its mysterious disappearance from the list of options available to them early on in the delivery of the present scheme (like-for-like being a simple swap for a similar size flat on a council estate elsewhere in the borough).</p>
<p>Council members came up with some questionable excuses as to why the like-for-like policy was dropped and insisted the best course of action was to challenge the Secretary of State's decision and continue shortchanging leaseholders.</p>
<iframe width="400" height="225" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GlTuN-ffEZk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
[https://www.youtube.com/embed/GlTuN-ffEZk](https://www.youtube.com/embed/GlTuN-ffEZk)
<p>The committee also heard that the Council has spent a total of £200k on the Aylesbury CPO inquiry to date and that it estimates a further £50k is required in order to mount the High Court challenge. It was not able to give an estimate of costs it would become liable for should it lose the High Court battle and be forced to pay the Secretary of State's legal fees and court costs.</p>
<p>It was confirmed to the meeting that the decision to mount the legal challenge was taken by its 'Director of Law & Democracy', Doreen Forrester-Brown (as reported in our <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-10-10-aylesbury-cpo-challenge-called-in/">last blog</a>), therefore the Overview & Scrutiny Committee is powerless to refer the decision to democratically elected members, because it was a delegated officer decision in the first place.</p>
<p>The most vocal member of the Scrutiny committee was Southwark's only Corbynite Councillor Paul Fleming, who instead of scrutinising the Council's decision to appeal against the Secretary of State, scrutinised the decision to call it in. Councillor Fleming is a <a href="https://35percent.org/img/LR_163MerrowSt.pdf">homeowner</a> on the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/jan/18/keyworkerhousing.communities">privatised</a> Octavia Hill estate, overlooking the Aylesbury. He is a ward Councillor for the Aylesbury estate, a <a href="https://pwfpwfpwf.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-aylesbury-estate-utopia-when.html">vehement proponent</a> of demolition and <a href="https://pwfpwfpwf.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/why-i-have-no-choice-but-to-keepcorbyn.html">describes himself</a> as both a Jacobite and a Corbynite, <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/8825">publicly endorsing</a> Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. He is also one of only two Labour Councillors in Southwark to have actively <a href="https://pwfpwfpwf.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/brexit-constructive-case-to-leave.html">campaigned for Brexit</a> (of the Lexit variety).</p>
<p>Cllr Fleming dismissed the leaseholders' request for like-for-like swaps as 'privatising council housing' and defended Doreen Forrester-Brown's decision to appeal, explaining that the Council can't afford to delay selling the Aylesbury estate to Notting Hill Housing and its development partner Barratt Homes any longer.</p>
<h2>Shaky grounds</h2>
<p>Three days before the Scrutiny Committee met, the Council <a href="https://35percent.org/img/20161007_Secretary_of_State_Aylesbury_CPO.pdf">wrote</a> to the Secretary of State and objectors stating its intent and outlining its grounds of appeal. We have drafted a full response to the Council's grounds of appeal in <a href="https://35percent.org/img/SoSletter17102016.pdf">a detailed letter</a> that we have sent to the Secretary of State. As the points made in our response show, Southwark's grounds of appeal are shaky to say the least.</p>
<p>Southwark's appeal is clearly just a panicked response to the CPO decision and a desperate attempt to rescue a regeneration scheme whose viability rests on shortchanging leaseholders in a systematic breach of human rights. Southwark's entire regeneration strategy is based on a cheap method of dispossessing and dispensing with council estate residents. With 250 leaseholders remaining on the Aylesbury estate and thousands more on estates across the borough, the outcome of this case is likely to have implications for regeneration schemes in years to come.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://hsfnotes.com/realestatedevelopment/2016/09/28/a-new-right-to-a-community-decision-by-the-secretary-of-state-not-to-confirm-the-cpo-for-aylesbury-estate/">legal opinion</a> says that the Aylesbury CPO refusal could herald a possible new 'right to a community' for council estate residents, a right we think is sorely needed. We have therefore decided to set up a <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/aylesbury-the-right-to-a-community-2uefgf2s">crowdfunding campaign</a> to help pay for a barrister to represent the objectors at Southwark's appeal hearing. Southwark has instructed two big gun CPO lawyers to fight its appeal case; <a href="https://www.ftbchambers.co.uk/barristers/james-pereira-qc">James Pereira QC</a> who gained his stripes <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jun/02/olympics2012">clearing out communities</a> ahead of the Olympic games and <a href="https://www.ftbchambers.co.uk/barristers/melissa-murphy">Melissa Murphy QC</a> who acted for Basildon Council in the high-profile eviction of Dale Farm gypsy & traveller site. We think it's crucial that the objectors are professionally represented at the appeal and defeat is not allowed to be snatched from the jaws of victory by these top brass lawyers. Any contribution that you can make to this fund, small or large, will help both the Aylesbury leaseholders and provide a step towards making the 'right to a community' a reality.</p>
CPO legal challenge called in for scrutiny2016-10-10T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2016-10-10-aylesbury-cpo-challenge-called-in/<p>The Aylesbury CPO decision took a further twist this week when Southwark Council's <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=308">Overview and Scrutiny Committee</a> 'called-in' the <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-09-26-council-appeals-aylesbury-cpo-decision/">Cabinet's decision</a> to mount a legal challenge, which it will <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=308&MId=5456&Ver=4">scrutinise on Monday evening</a>.</p>
<p>The committee only has the power to refer the decision back to Cabinet or Council Assembly for reconsideration and given the political majorities in these bodies, it is very unlikely that the decision to appeal will be reversed. However, the call-in shows the levels of disquiet at Southwark's behaviour. The <a href="https://halag.wordpress.com/">Aylesbury Leaseholders Group</a> is also due to give <a href="https://halag.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/oscdeputation_10102016.pdf">evidence</a> at the Scrutiny Committee meeting.</p>
<p>The committee has been briefed on the decision to seek leave for the appeal by Southwark's <strong>'Director of Law Democracy'</strong>- Doreen Forrester-Brown and her <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s64406/Briefing%20Paper%20OSC%20101016%202.pdf">briefing report</a> has several interesting points.</p>
<p>First, it seems that the advice given in the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s64034/Report%20Aylesbury%20Delivery%20supplemental%20report.pdf">report</a> to the Cabinet meeting that took the decision to appeal was wrong in one important respect; 'Recommendation 2(d)' of the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s64034/Report%20Aylesbury%20Delivery%20supplemental%20report.pdf">report</a> misled the Cabinet committee to think that deciding to appeal was a matter for the Council; in fact the Cabinet was misinformed and it is instead a decision for someone called the 'Monitoring Officer' (see para 11 of the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s64406/Briefing%20Paper%20OSC%20101016%202.pdf">Doreen Forrester-Brown's briefing</a>).</p>
<p>The briefing report goes on to state <em>'All matters not reserved to Council Assembly, Cabinet or for a committee for decision are delegated to the appropriate chief officer and/or head of service'</em> and <em>'there was no requirement for Cabinet to take this decision'</em> (paras 13 & 15). So it appears that the decision to appeal against the refusal of the CPO is in fact not in the hands of our democratically elected members but in the hands of an unelected senior officer.</p>
<p>Second, having employed one QC, who lost them the case, Southwark has decided it needs to double-up and employ a second QC <em>'of appropriate experience'</em> in its effort to reverse the decision. So it's good news for <a href="https://www.ftbchambers.co.uk/barristers/melissa-murphy">FTB Chambers</a> and others in the highly-paid legal profession and bad news for the hard-pressed Southwark Council tax payer.</p>
<p>Third, the future of the Aylesbury regeneration is now indeed in doubt. The briefing says that if the Secretary of State's decision is not overturned then <em>'it undoubtedly indicates a shift in focus that will be hugely difficult to accommodate within the context of scheme viability and deliverability'</em> - in simple language, Southwark won't be able to deliver the estate's regeneration if it has to pay leaseholders fair compensation for the loss of their homes.</p>
<h2>Desperate measures</h2>
<p>The Council's desperation is such that it has been led to <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/aylesbury-plan-face-scrutiny/">accuse</a> leaseholders of holding it to ransom. It says that <em>'they are being offered market value plus ten percent'</em>, but we have shown the kind of dirty tricks it gets up to in its determination of market value, such as <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-05-16-southwark-gives-green-light-to-slum-landlords/">using a one bedroom flat illegaly converted into four bedrooms as a comparison</a>. These tricks have resulted in the Council getting away with making valuations as low as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/sep/20/aylesbury-estate-ruling-future-regeneration-sajid-javid">£75k for a 1-bed flat in 2012</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/aylesburyestategraphic.png" alt="Architects Journal graphic" />
<em>Graphic produced by the <a href="https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/aylesbury-estate-cpo-ruling-what-went-wrong/10012171.article">Architects Journal</a> showing leaseholder compensation levels</em></p>
<h2>The Right to Remain</h2>
<p>The significance of the Aylesbury CPO decision has led a number of law firms to publish their legal opinions. In <a href="https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7d876b71-cdee-48a9-ad05-240a210b0d82">this opinion</a> from <a href="https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/">Herbert Smith Freehills</a> the decision is heralded as a possible future 'right to remain' for council estate residents:</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/lexologyquote.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Herbert Smith Freehills are Southwark's <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160316171355/https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/news/news20100810-hs-advises-the-london-borough-of-southwark-on-elephant-and-castle-regeneration">legal advisors</a> for the Elephant & Castle regeneration, so Southwark should pay them particular heed.</p>
<p><a href="https://mypreferences.ashurst.com/reaction/PDF/CPOmailing.pdf">Another opinion</a> is from leading law firm <a href="https://www.ashurst.com/">Ashurst</a> and is listed in Doreen Forrester-Brown's briefing, but, given Southwark's decision to appeal, the following paragraph appears to have been entirely ignored:</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/CPOmailing.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Both the manner in which Southwark has decided to appeal against the CPO decision and the decision itself begs some questions - who took the decision, the Cabinet or the mysterious Monitoring Officer? Why was the decision to appeal taken, when at least one respected legal opinion rates its chances of success so low? If Southwark has received any legal advice which says the appeal can succeed it should be made public. We think the Council should also answer the questions;</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p>How much did it spend on the Aylesbury Compulsory Purchase Order proceedings?</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>How much does it expect to spend on its high court challenge of the Secretary of State's decision?</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The Aylesbury regeneration is essentially a commercial development with the aim of building 1773 private homes to make Notting Hill Housing £163m in profit. Southwark's part of the deal is to spend nearly £150m[^1] of public money and to demolish 2,249 council houses, replacing it with 'affordable' housing that is simply unaffordable to those who need it most. To any objective observer none of this makes any sense.</p>
<p>As we said in our last blog, Southwark should take this opportunity to call a halt to this misconceived regeneration and abandon what could be its futile and costly attempt to overturn the Secretary of State's decision.</p>
<h2>Post Script</h2>
<p>The Council has published its pre-action protocol <a href="https://35percent.org/img/20161007_Secretary_of_State_Aylesbury_CPO.pdf">claim</a> stating that it is applying for judicial review to the High Court and outlining its grounds for appealing the decision. The letter is dated 7th October - 3 days before the decisionto appeal was to be called in for scrutiny..</p>
<p>A short clip showing the highlights of the scrutiny committee meeting has been posted online:</p>
<iframe width="400" height="225" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GlTuN-ffEZk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: Pararaph 17 of <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s52089/Report">this 2014 Council report</a> states that the Council expects to spend at least £150m decanting and demolishing the estate. However, the Council has <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-09-26-council-appeals-aylesbury-cpo-decision/#the-business-case-for-a-moratorium">already committed £99m</a> of this before the first development site has even been demolished, so it is expected that this figure will be greatly exceeded.</p>
Heygate nominated for Stirling Prize2016-10-04T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2016-10-04-heygate-stirling-prize-nomination/<p>Trafalgar Place, the first completed phase of the Heygate estate redevelopment has been nominated for the Royal Institute of British Architect’s (RIBA) <a href="https://www.architecture.com/Awards/Awards2016/StirlingPrize/Home.aspx">Stirling Prize</a>.
It follows the nomination last year of <a href="https://35percent.org/neo-bankside">Neo Bankside</a>, another development in north Southwark that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2015/jul/21/neo-bankside-how-richard-rogers-new-non-dom-accom-cut-out-the-poor">failed</a> to provide promised affordable housing.</p>
<p>It’ll be gratifying to ex-Heygate residents that a private development founded on the rubble of their homes is in line for such a prestigious prize, but we would have thought RIBA would be looking for something with a bit more élan. Trafalgar Place’s most distinctive characteristic is that it is built on the footprint of 104 demolished council homes, while itself providing only eight social rented homes out of its total 235 units. Over 60% of its units, combined with those of developer Lendlease’s <a href="https://35percent.org/one-the-elephant/">One the Elephant</a>, were <a href="https://lendlease2013.reportonline.com.au/annual-report/europe">pre-sold off-plan</a>, most likely overseas, before it was even built.</p>
<p>What therefore has prompted the nomination of what looks pretty much like every other new development in London? It cannot be an acknowledgement of its environmental credentials – it has 47 car-parking spaces in what was intended to be a car-free development. Developer Lendlease persuaded Southwark Council that the viability of the whole Heygate redevelopment depended on <a href="https://35percent.org/sustainable-development/#car-free-development">having 663 car-parking spaces</a>, of which the 47 are a small part, despite the Elephant being a car-free development zone, with the highest rating for accessibility to public transport(PTAL 6). Trafalgar Place’s car parking lot also serves to elevate its courtyard above and beyond any public access.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/trafalgarplaceraisedcourtyard.png" alt="" />
<em>Raised private courtyard above parking lot at Trafalgar Place</em></p>
<p>Trafalgar Place should also have showcased the <a href="https://35percent.org/sustainable-development/#zero-carbon-homes">much lamented MUSCo</a> (Multi Utility Services Company), whose cutting edge delivery of utilities and use of on-site renewable energy were <a href="https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8056859.stm">lauded</a> by Bill Clinton and <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/6032">hailed</a> as an example of ‘climate positive development’. The MUSCo, alas, <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/5052">fell victim</a> to hard negotiations on the Regeneration Agreement in 2010 and we have instead an <a href="https://35percent.org/sustainable-development/#zero-carbon-homes">‘Energy Centre’</a>, which is essentially a gas-fired boiler. The previous gas-fired boiler on the Heygate, supplied heat and hot water through a <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/HeygateDHN.png">district heating network to over 2,000 homes</a> on both the Heygate and the neighbouring Salisbury estate. Lendlease’s district heating network will not extend beyond the Heygate footprint - it will not supply the Salisbury estate, and will not be supplying telecoms, potable water, non-potable water, drainage, gas, fibre-optics and vacuum waste as the original MUSCo had planned to. Proposals to supply other estates and developments have been dropped, and all methods of supplying heat and water that rely on renewable sources of energy were <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/blog/2012/07/03/its-all-about-financial-viability/">rejected on grounds of their cost impact on viability</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/energy_envrnmtl-services_lge.gif" alt="" />
<em>The shelved MUSCo biomass 100% renewable energy plans</em></p>
<p>Lendlease acknowledged that its energy strategy did not comply with Southwark’s 20% on-site minimum renewable energy requirement in its <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=12/AP/2797&system=DC">planning application’s Energy Statement</a>. As mitigation it promised a few symbolic solar panels totalling around 3% on-site renewable energy and to try to source some of its gas requirements from renewable gas sources, such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogas">biogas plants</a>. However, the problem is that there are very few such plants fully operational in the UK and many <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2014/mar/14/uk-ban-maize-biogas">questions remain unanswered</a> as to the green credentials of biogas.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, Lendlease maintains that it is building a <a href="https://35percent.org/sustainable-development/#zero-carbon-homes">‘zero carbon growth’</a> development (subtly different to ‘zero carbon homes’), a claim based on an unpublished study, which, we’re told, shows that ‘Elephant Park’ will produce less operative carbon emissions than the estimated operative carbon emissions of the Heygate estate it is replacing; i.e. the new gas boiler will be more efficient than the old one and the new homes will be more energy efficient than the old ones.</p>
<p>So, Trafalgar Place is not much to look at, lost us council housing and only maintains an exemplary environmental reputation through smoke and mirrors – why has it been nominated for the Stirling Prize? It is a choice that has evidently caused some <a href="https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/opinion/the-stirling-prize-jury-shouldnt-be-distracted-by-politics/10012140.article">anxious debate</a> within <a href="https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/opinion/the-stirling-prize-jury-shouldnt-be-distracted-by-politics/10012140.article">architectural circles</a>, provoked by our good friends <a href="https://architectsforsocialhousing.wordpress.com/">ASH</a> and involving RIBA’s president-elect <a href="https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/ben-derbyshire/5050731.publicprofile">Ben Derbyshire</a>.</p>
<p>Mr Derbyshire warns his colleagues against the <em>‘mistake of attempting to stretch beyond their political legitimacy and reach’</em> and that RIBA <em>’is neither the House of Commons nor the United Nations’</em>. We take this to mean that considerations such as the demolition of council estates and the <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-11-06-southwark-sends-in-the-heavy-mob/">forced removal</a> and <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-06-08-the-heygate-diaspora/">displacement</a> of estate residents should play no part in the award’s deliberations. This is hopelessly naïve, to put it kindly. The Stirling nomination of Trafalgar Places casts estate regenerations generally in a good light and it invests the Heygate redevelopment in particular with prestige, a prestige that will no doubt translate into higher sales prices, should it actually win the prize.</p>
<p>As well as being RIBA’s president-elect Mr Derbyshire is chair of HTA Design LLP, which was selected by Southwark and development partner Notting Hill Housing to <a href="https://www.bdonline.co.uk/hta-design-to-lead-%C2%A315bn-aylesbury-estate-redevelopment/5068255.article">draw up the plans</a> for the <a href="https://35percent.org/aylesbury-estate">Aylesbury estate regeneration</a>.</p>
<p>The Aylesbury estate regeneration is now stalled, while Southwark and Notting Hill Housing digest the government’s <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-09-26-council-appeals-aylesbury-cpo-decision/">refusal</a> to grant it a compulsory purchase order for the homes of elderly leaseholders from black and ethnic minority backgrounds, one reason for the <a href="https://35percent.org/img/Decision_Letter_Final.pdf">decision</a> being that Southwark failed to fulfil its public sector equalities duty towards them.</p>
<p>Another reason given for refusal was that <em>'the deficiencies of the scheme include the number of dwellings that fail to meet the Council’s adopted standards for sunlight and daylight, and the extent of overshadowing to the proposed amenity areas'.</em></p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/aylesburyfdsmodel.jpg" alt="" />
<em>CGI model of HTA Design's Aylesbury plans deemed 'deficient' due to overshadowing</em></p>
<p>HTA Design LLP can't be held fully responsible for Southwark’s failure of course, but Mr Derbyshire has very properly noted that the built environment professions have a duty <em>‘not to infringe human rights in the way we design and deliver services’</em>, so it might nonetheless be a case for RIBA to consider when the drafting any national code of conduct and ethics under Mr Derbyshire’s leadership.</p>
<p>ASH have organised a protest at the Stirling Prize awards ceremony tomorrow evening outside RIBA's HQ in Portland Place – full details can be found at the end of the following blog post: <a href="https://architectsforsocialhousing.wordpress.com/2016/09/20/ash-meeting-with-the-riba/">https://architectsforsocialhousing.wordpress.com/2016/09/20/ash-meeting-with-the-riba/</a></p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/labourandtories_trafalgarplace.png" alt="" />
<em>Tweets from both <a href="https://twitter.com/leicesterliz/status/720581957978075136">Labour</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/ElephantParkLDN/status/606461178991255552">Tory</a> leadership praising Trafalgar Place</em></p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/TrafalgarPlaceCN.png" alt="" />
<em>Trafalgar Place and Elephant Park <a href="https://35percent.org/img/West_Grove_Colliers_Fact_Sheet.pdf">marketed</a> for sale in Asia</em></p>
Southwark to appeal against lost CPO decision2016-09-26T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2016-09-26-council-appeals-aylesbury-cpo-decision/<p>Southwark Council's shameful response to the government's refusal to grant it a compulsory purchase order (CPO) application against <a href="https://35percent.org/aylesbury-estate">Aylesbury estate</a> leaseholders, will be to try to overturn the decision through the courts. Southwark's Cabinet met on Tuesday and agreed to seek a judicial review of the Secretary of State, Sajid Javid's decision.
Experienced observers attending the meeting noted that some members of the committee had some reservations, <a href="https://twitter.com/livingstone_rj">Cllr Livingstone</a> in particular, who suggested that it would be sensible to get legal counsel's opinion before approving what could be a costly and futile legal challange - a prudent course of action from the Council's point of view, which may explain why it has not happened.</p>
<p>Coincidentally, the same meeting also received a deputation from the <a href="https://halag.wordpress.com/">Aylesbury Leaseholders Action Group</a>, who led the battle against the CPO, and who have now proposed non-binding arbitration to help resolve disputed valuations. Southwark reluctantly agreed to this, while also making it plain that it is going to continue the demolition programme - around the remaining leaseholders' homes if need be.</p>
<p>Notting Hill Housing's demand for more money, backed up by the threat to halt progress on the Aylesbury scheme was also on the agenda (see our <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-09-18-aylesbury-compulsory-purchase-order-rejected/#notting-hill-gets-cold-feet">last blog post</a>). Southwark was more generous to Notting Hill, approving the allocation of £21m towards demolition and other ongoing costs. The <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s63817/Report.Aylesbury%20Regeneration%20Delivery.pdf">Cabinet report</a> confirms that the £21m will come from the Council's Housing Revenue Account and <em>'recognises that there will be some knock-on impact on other housing investment projects'</em> - i.e. repairs and work on other council estates. To round off a good night, the meeting was enlivened by a half-hour long protest by <a href="https://www.sistersuncut.org/">Sisters Uncut</a>, demanding council housing for victims of domestic abuse.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/20sepcabinet.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Par for the course</h2>
<p>Southwark has justified its recourse to the courts by referring to a change of leaseholder policy in Dec 2015, but ignored, it <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/2188/southwark_council_will_seek_judicial_review_over_aylesbury_estate_cpo_decision">claims</a>, by the Secretary of State. He may feel he had reason to do so though, given that the change in policy was made several months after the CPO inquiry ended in Oct 2015. Council leader Peter John also makes much of the shared equity deal offered to leaseholders, 'rent-free'. Leaseholders say that this will only give them a fraction of the value of a property, not ownership and that there are 'lots of nasties' in the detail eg; no rent on unowned portion of home, but full service charges; no right of succession in the event of the leaseholder's death; and first refusal on the sale of the property reserved by Notting Hill. Little wonder then that so few have taken up the deal.</p>
<p>Aside from the shortcomings of these face-saving justifications, Southwark appears blind to the greater significance of the Secretary of State's decision. His grounds are that Southwark has failed in its public sector duty towards its elderly residents from black and minority ethnic (BME) backgrounds. This is a dreadful indictment of a Labour council to come from a right-wing Tory minister.</p>
<p>Nor is it the first time that such a judgement has been passed on Southwark. Its treatment of the Elephant & Castle's BME shopping centre traders was <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-11-04-southwark-resolves-to-use-cpo-powers-for-shopping-centre-retailers/">criticised</a> by Lord Herman Ouseley in a report commissioned by Ken Livingstone after complaints from the traders. It followed a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/apr/06/race.arts">damning judgement</a>, after complaints from the owners of Imperial Gardens, an entertainment venue in Camberwell. More recently Southwark was <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/judge-blasts-southwark-council-for-evicting-sudanese-tenant-and-destroying-his-possessions-9796994.html">slated</a> by a High Court judge in a Peckham eviction case, to which Southwark responded by <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/confusion-surrounds-sudden-resignation-of-labour-councillor/">claiming</a> that the judge was <em>"clearly wrong"</em> and <em>“the trial itself was unjust”</em>. The recurring theme of these cases is the mistreatment of people from BME backgrounds. Whether they are traders, leaseholders or tenants, Southwark evidently regards them as marginal and not worth too much worry. It made the usual 'lessons have been learned' noises after the shopping centre and Imperial Gardens cases, but the CPO decision shows that in fact nothing has been learned.</p>
<h2>Bridging the gap</h2>
<p>There could be another reason for Southwark's panicked dash to the courts though, which is that the finances of the regeneration rely on keeping compensation levels to a minimum. Southwark halved the original compensation budget from £130m to £65M, as a result of <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/352116/response/873296/attach/3/160926%20EIR%20FOI%20685920.pdf">objections</a> from the planning inspectorate that the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/4444/area_action_plans">Aylesbury Area Action Plan</a> wasn't viable, but around 300 leaseholders remain on the estate and they will no doubt be looking for higher compensation than that paid so far, with consequent effects on the financial viability of the scheme, which is calculated on very fine margins.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/Recommended_Changes.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from <a href="https://35percent.org/img/Table_of_Recommended_Changes.pdf">Table of Changes proposed for adoption of the Aylesbury Area Action Plan</a></em></p>
<h2>The business case for a moratorium</h2>
<p>The CPO decision means that the time has come for a moratorium on Southwark Council's <a href="https://35percent.org/the-southwark-clearances">council estate regeneration programme</a>. The Council has already spent £47m on the Aylesbury regeneration scheme and is due to spend a further £52m over the next 3 years alone - a staggering £99m before the scheme has even really got off the ground.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/expenditure.png" alt="" />
<em>CPO Inquiry <a href="https://35percent.org/img/alag_cpoinquiry_correspondence.pdf">correspondence</a> from the Council confirming expenditure on scheme to date</em></p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/aylesburyspendprofile.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the Sep 2016 Cabinet <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s63817/Report.Aylesbury%20Regeneration%20Delivery.pdf">report</a> showing estimated expenditure over next 3 yrs</em></p>
<p>In return for all this expenditure we are losing 2,249 council homes and the 4,000 new properties being built to replace them will have anything between 778 and 1,166 fewer social rented homes than the old Aylesbury. (We're charitably assuming that the replacement social housing won't be switched to affordable rents at up to 80% market rent as Notting Hill Housing has <a href="https://35percent.org/redefining-social-rent/#bermondsey-spa-site-c5-10ap3010">done elsewhere</a>).</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/aylesburynetloss.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!Vbu5QpckfYCnJrulzlWyuQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">Planning Committee report</a> for Aylesbury masterplan</em></p>
<p>While Southwark is spending, development partner Notting Hill Housing is looking forward to a healthy payday. The scheme's <a href="https://35percent.org/img/document.pdf">viability assessment</a> (disclosed after the Information Commissioner <a href="https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2016/1624349/fs_50589692.pdf">upheld our complaint</a>) reveals that Notting Hill will make a minimum (guaranteed) 21% profit from the scheme, expected to be £163m. Southwark meantime will receive staged landpayments calculated as a residual value, after scheme costs and Notting Hill's 21% profit have been deducted[^1]. The assessment shows that this is currently expected to be £51m - just less than the next 3 years committed expenditure. <img src="https://35percent.org/img/profitshare.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from Notting Hill's <a href="https://35percent.org/img/document.pdf">viability assessment</a> for the Aylesbury redevelopment</em></p>
<p>This all adds adds up to a compelling case for a moratorium, to allow stock to be taken of just exactly what has been spent and whether it might not be spent in a better way, reconsidering all options. It would for instance cost only £30m to bring the remaining 1500 council homes on the Aylesbury up to Decent Homes Standard (Southwark is spending £12m doing this for 611 homes on the estate, a pro-rata cost of £20k per home - info based on <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/DHS_MajorWorks_Section20Invoice.pdf">invoices</a> issued to leaseholders).</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The CPO decision throws some light on how badly the Aylesbury leaseholders are being treated, but the truth is that every resident of the estate is being badly treated and few will benefit from the promised new homes. The figures also show that Southwark is spending a great deal and getting very little in return that will benefit those most in housing need.</p>
<p>Southwark must therefore ask itself a basic question - is this really the best way to spend its money? Wouldn't it be better spent maintaining existing council homes and building new ones elsewhere in the borough?</p>
<p>Southwark should abandon any thoughts of appealing the CPO decision. There should instead be a moratorium on council estate regeneration, during which it must consider the grounds of the Secretary of State's verdict. There must be root and branch reform of the relevant Council departments to ensure that Southwark is never stained again by the judgement that it has failed members of our community from black and ethnic minority backgrounds.</p>
<p>Southwark should also take the lead of the <a href="https://halag.wordpress.com/">Aylesbury Leaseholders Action Group</a>, who, unlike the Council, have shown themselves to be reasonable and fair in their negotiating approach and true representatives of leaseholders' interests.</p>
<p>Finally, if despite all good arguments to the contrary, Southwark is determined to be obstinate and does appeal against the CPO decision, we think it should publish its legal advice on the chances of a successful challenge.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: See paragraphs 26 and 27 of <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s44910/Report.pdf">this Executive report</a> which say that a fixed land receipt has been agreed for the First Development Site (stated as £17.5m in the <a href="https://35percent.org/img/document.pdf">viabilitiy assessment</a>) but that land receipts for remaining phases will be calculated on a residual basis.</p>
Victory for Aylesbury Leaseholders2016-09-18T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2016-09-18-aylesbury-compulsory-purchase-order-rejected/<p>Leaseholders on the Aylesbury estate have won a great victory in defence of their homes, after the Government refused Southwark Council's application to compulsory purchase their properties.</p>
<p>The judgement is a humiliating blow to the Council, who are found to have not taken reasonable steps to negotiate with the leaseholders and to have not made a <em>"compelling"</em> enough case for the Aylesbury regeneration scheme's merits.</p>
<p>The Government therefore refused to override the leaseholders' interests and interfere with their human rights by forcing them to sell their homes. The decision was taken by the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/secretary-of-state-for-communities-and-local-government">Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG), Sajid Javid</a>.</p>
<p>Eleven leaseholders objected to the CPO and gruelling hearings before the DCLG inspector were heard in <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-05-02-aylesbury-estate-compulsory-purchase-order-public-inquiry/">April</a>, <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-05-16-aylesbury-cpo-inquiry-extra-time/">May</a> and <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-10-12-notting-hill-comes-clean/#aylesbury-cpo-inquiry-resumes">October 2015</a>. The leaseholders live in the Bradenham, Chartridge, Arklow and Chiltern blocks - the 'First Development Site' (FDS), which was <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-04-26-aylesbury-applications-approved/">granted planning permission</a> in April 2015. Over 200 leaseholders have been decanted to make way for the scheme to date, only 3 of whom have been rehoused on the Aylesbury. There are around 300 leaseholders remaining on the rest of the estate.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/cpoinquiry.png" alt="" />
<em>CPO Public Inquiry - Council lawyers(left), Inspector Coffey(centre), Aylesbury leaseholders(right)</em></p>
<p>In his damning <a href="https://35percent.org/img/Decision_Letter_Final.pdf">decision</a>, the Secretary of State has said that Southwark has not fulfilled its <a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/equality-act-2010-guidance">Public Sector Equality Duty</a>. He points out the majority of the estate (67%) are from black or ethnic minority backgrounds and it is <em>'highly likely that there is a potential disproportionate impact on [these groups] who are .. likely to have to move out of the area if the Order is confirmed.'</em> He goes on to point out the disruption caused to residents' social and cultural life by the regeneration scheme. The Secretary of State was particularly concerned about <em>'uprooting'</em> children <em>'at a vulnerable stage in their development'</em> and the detrimental impact this would have on their education and future employment prospects.</p>
<p>In the Secretary of State's <a href="https://35percent.org/img/inspectorsreport.pdf">judgement</a>, the rehousing options offered to leaseholders would either impoverish them by requiring them to spend all their savings, or leave the area altogether in search of cheaper housing elsewhere. The inspector's report has this to say about elderly leaseholders in particular: <em>'Many of the leaseholders are of an age where they would be unable to obtain a mortgage to make up any shortfall and their future earning potential is limited. The requirement to use their savings and other investments severely limits their ability to choose how they spend their retirement and the use to which they put their savings and investments.'</em> (Para. 372)</p>
<h2>Notting Hill gets cold feet</h2>
<p>While the Secretary of State accepted that the regeneration scheme was viable, Southwark's development partner, Notting Hill Housing Trust (NHHT) plainly had concerns about the costs even before the CPO decision was issued and has made a whole series of financial demands, which are to be agreed at a <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=302&MId=5373&Ver=4">Cabinet meeting</a> this coming Tuesday. NHHT is said in the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s63817/Report.Aylesbury%20Regeneration%20Delivery.pdf">Cabinet report</a> to demand that Southwark shoulder the ongoing site assembly costs of the scheme, because of the delay and uncertainty resulting from the CPO. NHHT is demanding that Southwark forward fund £21m of the ongoing costs of progressing the scheme, that it was originally required to fund under the terms of the <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LBS_NHHT_DPAgreement.pdf">Development Partnership Agreement</a>:</p>
<ul>
<li>£16.8m demolition costs for the First Development Site</li>
<li>£0.8m for the demolition of Plot 18</li>
<li>£2m to underwrite the cost of Plot 18's planning application</li>
<li>£2m to underwrite the design fees for phase 2</li>
</ul>
<p>These costs are in addition to the Council's other costs that it has already agreed to allocate to the scheme. In total the Council is now forecast to spend £52.5m over the next three years on the Aylesbury redevelopment scheme[^1].</p>
<p>Notting Hill Housing's commitment to the scheme is also plainly a concern. The report goes on to say that <em>'if the scheme has not proceeded in accordance with the DPA (Development Partnership Agreement)'</em> then <em>'at that point all design work will pass to the council enabling the council to market the site'</em>[^2] - in plain language: if Notting Hill drops out then Southwark takes over and looks for another developer.</p>
<p>The CPO decision is a serious indictment of Southwark's conduct since the start of the scheme in 1997. It confirms what leaseholders on the estate have always known - Southwark wants to remove them as <a href="https://35percent.org/aylesbury-estate/#bridging-the-viability-gap">cheaply as possible</a> and has little concern for how it damages them personally or where they go. This bad treatment goes beyond leaseholders; it takes in the majority of residents on the estate who come from black and ethnic minority backgrounds and whose interests have not been protected as they should have been. On top of this, Southwark's development partner NHHT is clearly getting cold feet. All in all, the flaws in the regeneration scheme are opening up and Southwark Council should take the opportunity now to consider its whole future.</p>
<p>The decision could also have wider implications; <a href="https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7d876b71-cdee-48a9-ad05-240a210b0d82">this legal opinion</a> heralds the decision as a possible 'right to a community' for council estate residents.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/righttoacommunity.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>We conclude this blog post with one of the concluding paragraphs of the <a href="https://35percent.org/img/inspectorsreport.pdf">inspector's report</a>:</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/inspectorsreport377.png" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: See paragraph 17 of the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s63817/Report.Aylesbury%20Regeneration%20Delivery.pdf">Tues Sep 20th 2016 Cabinet report</a></p>
<p>[^2]: See paragraph 13 of the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s63817/Report.Aylesbury%20Regeneration%20Delivery.pdf">Tues Sep 20th 2016 Cabinet report</a></p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="CPO Victory for Aylesbury Leaseholders" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Aylesbury estate leaseholders win legal fight against demolition of their homes" />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/cpoinquiry2.png" />
Opportunity knocks down the Old Kent Road2016-07-10T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2016-07-10-opportunity-knocks-down-the-old-kent-road/<p>The first stage towards knocking down the Heygate estate was to call the Elephant & Castle an 'Opportunity Area'. So anybody living on a Council estate down the Old Kent Road can be forgiven for being a little worried by Southwark's proposal to call it an Opportunity Area with a <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/4596/old_kent_road_area_action_plan">draft Area Action Plan</a> on top.</p>
<p>This is a map of all of those Council estates that fall within the Opportunity Area and proposed Area Action Plan boundary.</p>
<center>
<iframe src="https://35percent.org/map.html" width="800" height="600"></iframe>
<font size="2">Click <a href="https://35percent.org/map.html">here</a> to view our interactive map in a separate browser window</font>
</center>
<p>Southwark's ambition is to build at least 20,000 new homes within the Opportunity Area and while it says it's going to focus on industrial and retail land, it does not rule out building on existing housing land.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/20000homes.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from draft OKR Area Action Plan</em></p>
<p>The Council's <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s62019/Report%20Old%20Kent%20Road%20AAP.pdf">Cabinet report</a> accompanying the draft Area Action Plan says that in order to find space for the 20,000 new homes it <em>"would not preclude development"</em> on existing housing estates, but that consultation on such proposals would be <em>"carried out in accordance with the principles set out in the July 2015 Cabinet report."</em></p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/okrreport.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from Cabinet report accompanying draft Area Action Plan</em></p>
<p>The July 2015 Cabinet <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s55565/Report%20Future%20Estate%20Regeneration.pdf">report</a> referred to, is the one which accompanied the Savills <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s55626/Appendix%204%20Savills%20Evaluation.pdf">'asset performance evaluation'</a>. This was the <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/your-home-is-worth-less-than-nothing-council-report-evaluates-southwark-properties/">controversial</a> audit of the borough's Council stock which rated estates according to their Net Present Value (NPV) and a 'social sustainability' score allocated on the basis of indicators like residents' average income. We have blogged about this <a href="https://35percent.org/the-southwark-clearances/#completing-southwarks-clearances-with-savills">extensively</a> and explained how Savills recommended <em>"alternative options for poorly performing stock, such as small scale regeneration or redevelopment."</em></p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/assetgroups.png" alt="" />
<em>Savills Asset Performance Evaluation - rankings</em></p>
<p>The report speaks of <em>"high investment need estates"</em> and <em>"a legacy of poorly designed and built housing,"</em> coupled with <em>"opportunities to increase the amount of council housing through wider estate regeneration."</em></p>
<p>It goes on to highlight <em>"the need to make difficult choices"</em> accompanied by <em>"the prospect of leveraging in private sector investment".</em></p>
<h2>Mind the gap</h2>
<p>Development in the new Opportunity Area will be driven by the construction of the Bakerloo line extension with two new tube stations along the Old Kent Road. The tube extension is estimated to cost a total of over £3bn. <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/13643/infrastructure_plan">Council documents</a> show that the funding requirement just for the two new Old Kent road tube stations is a staggering £1.25bn, to be funded jointly by TFL and planning gain from the developments that are going to provide the 20,000 new homes. This will create pressure on affordable housing, which Southwark emphasises will be 'subject to viability' rather than simply stating the 35% requirement of its <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200210/core_strategy">Core Strategy</a> - an open invitation to developers to reduce it to a minimum.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/subjecttoviability.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The first major development along the Old Kent Road 'Bermondsey Works' shows what can go wrong when developments are 'subject to viability'. As the result of a <em>'tailored financial viability assessment'</em> created by '<a href="https://www.ah-solutions.com/#!services/cee5">Affordable Housing Solutions Ltd</a>', this 19 storey, 158-unit scheme is providing just 10 affordable homes (none social rented) and contributing just £88,546 towards the cost of the new tube stations.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/bworks.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Bermondsey Works - 158 homes currently under construction</em></p>
<p>This works out at just £560 per unit and if this precedent is followed, Southwark would only receive £11.2m from its 20,000 new homes towards the £1.25bn cost of the tube stations. If Southwark can't do better than that, the only opportunities down the the Old Kent Rd will be for developer's profit.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/transportcontribution.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from Bermondsey Works <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!KaiWotaf%2bxHDP83nK8Z9gw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">S106 agreement</a></em></p>
Restricted Access - Elephant Park2016-06-26T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2016-06-26-restricted-access-elephant-park/<p>Lend Lease and Southwark Council have flouted public undertakings not to fence in the centrepiece of the Elephant Park redevelopment of the Heygate estate. The new 'public park' (<a href="https://35percent.org/sustainable-development/#londons-largest-park-in-70-years">falsely</a> billed as the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1718/elephant_park_comes_to_life">largest in central London for 70 years</a>) is in fact just another example of a linear park - much loved by developers because they can line it with shops on both sides. This one will be no wider than the Old Kent Road at any given point.</p>
<p>The proposal for a park drew a lot of objections[^1] and as a result the 'no-fence' undertaking was clearly given to the planning committee, when the Heygate masterplan was approved back in 2013.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/unobstructedaccess.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from <a href="https://35percent.org/img/heygatemasterplanor.pdf">planning committee report</a> for Heygate masterplan application</em></p>
<p>The commitment was subsequently enshrined in the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!tZy%2f1e%2fPr4oRaFYn2rIiLQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">S106 legal agreement</a> for the development and specifically requires 24hr, 365 days/yr public access. It also prohibits Lend Lease from <em>"installing gates railings or fencing"</em> without prior written consent from the Council and even then it is clear that such a fence can only be temporary.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/parkfencings106.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Despite all this, Lend Lease has just submitted a <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!ID5S0qwkBWzpQwKHeM2kyw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">'Park Area Strategy'</a> to the Council for planning consultation that includes a 2-metre high fence, which can also clearly be seen in the <a href="https://35percent.org/img/Elephant-Park-Park-Phase-One.pdf">consultation documents</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/parkfence1.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>There will be no 24 hour access - the access gates will be locked at dusk and unlocked at dawn, by a Facilities Management Company (FMC) according to the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!ID5S0qwkBWzpQwKHeM2kyw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">'Park Area Strategy'</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/parkstrategygates.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from Lend Lease's recently submitted <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!ID5S0qwkBWzpQwKHeM2kyw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">'Park Area Strategy'</a></em></p>
<p>This seems to be another case of Southwark Council either turning a blind eye to breaches of S106 agreements, or simply not noticing them. In any event, Lend Lease's Park Area Strategy should be rejected unless they remove the fence and ensure 24hr, 365 days/yr access. If you wish to make an objection you can do so via the following link:
<a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9566433">https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9566433</a></p>
<h2>Elephant Parks</h2>
<p>Elephant Park will eventually be linked to the the new market square, being built by Delancey as part of the neighbouring <a href="https://35percent.org/tribeca-square/">Tribeca Square scheme</a>, just nearing completion.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/castlesquare.JPG" alt="" />
<em>Delancey's market square - currently under construction</em></p>
<p>The square will be built on green space that was once part of the Heygate estate and was also known as Elephant Park. The original Elephant Park was part of the <a href="https://35percent.org/sustainable-development/">2.4 hectares of public green and amenity space</a> lost when the Heygate estate was demolished; designated as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Open_Land">Metropolitan Open Land (MOL)</a> it was used by the local <a href="https://elephantamenity.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/no-more-football-on-the-elephant-park/">Latin American football league</a>, amongst others.</p>
<p><img src="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/elephant-rd.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>In 2008, Southwark Council closed the Park and leased the land to Delancey for 99 years at £100 per annum (plus VAT), allowing them to use it as the Tribeca Sq site compound. Southwark will also receive 50% of the net revenue from the new market (25% for the first five years). In 2012 Southwark removed the MOL protective covenant by including the land within the area of the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3287/heygate_compulsory_purchase-core_documents_and_proofs_of_evidence_list">Heygate Compulsory Purchase Order</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/castlesquarerent.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from market square <a href="https://35percent.org/img/DelanceyEadon_MarketSquare_Agreement.pdf">legal agreement</a> between Delancey & the Council</em></p>
<p>This sweet deal for Delancy sums up the way that developers are colonising the Elephant and Castle. Public land has been sacrificed to commercial gain and if <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-05-11-no-profit-share-the-true-value-of-the-heygate-regeneration/">Southwark's overage agreement with Lend Lease </a> is any standard, there is little hope that its net revenue agreement with Delancey will reap much reward for the Council.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: See paragraph 324 of the <a href="https://35percent.org/img/heygatemasterplanor.pdf">planning committee report</a> for the Heygate masterplan application.<img src="https://35percent.org/img/parkobjections.png" alt="" /></p>
At fault and unjust - Southwark slammed by Ombudsman2016-06-18T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2016-06-18-southwark-blasted-by-local-government-ombudsman/<p>The Local Government Ombudsman has delivered a <a href="https://35percent.org/img/LGO_Glasspool14-019-995.pdf">damning verdict</a> on Southwark's eviction of the last leaseholder from the Heygate estate. She has ruled that Southwark was at 'fault', causing the leaseholder an 'injustice' and has directed that Southwark give a written apology and make compensation payments amounting to over £11,000. She further directed that Southwark produce proper policies and procedures for dealing with the compulsory purchase of leaseholder properties. Southwark Council has agreed with the Ombudsman's proposals for remedying the injustice.</p>
<p>In making her <a href="https://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/housing/other/14-019-995">judgement</a> the Ombudsman found that Southwark had -</p>
<ul>
<li>failed to make an advanced payment of compensation to the leaseholder, as required to by compulsory purchase order (CPO) law, preventing the leaseholder from rehousing himself[^1].</li>
<li>failed to offer any alternative accommodation, also required by CPO law[^2].</li>
<li>sent in the bailiffs, unnecessarily turning the leaseholder onto the street.</li>
<li>unjustly charged the leaseholder the bailiff's costs.</li>
</ul>
<p>She further found that Southwark had no policies or procedures for dealing with the compulsory purchase of leaseholder properties and for making advance payments of compensation to them. After commenting that <em>'the compulsory purchase of a person’s home is a serious matter'</em> and <em>'given the nature of the process they would be going through, one might reasonably expect them to be given more, rather than less, help'</em>, she concludes that <em>'there was a clear lack of a co-ordinated approach by the Council'</em>.</p>
<p>The Ombudsman's findings come after a complaint from the leaseholder Adrian Glasspool and his brother about the eviction, which took place in November 2013.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/guardiandeathknell.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The payments she has ordered refunded the cost of the bailiffs, which Southwark had deducted from the Glasspools' compensation and the professional fees the Glasspools incurred as a consequence of the eviction, plus a small 'time and trouble' payment. Southwark had previously made a payment of £500 in compensation for an iPhone stolen during the eviction. An FOI request for information relating to the eviction could not be met because Southwark had lost it all <em>"due to technical difficulties"</em>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/handlingfoi.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The Ombudsman issued her draft decision in Sept 2015; Southwark then haggled over the detail, so the final decision was not issued until Jan 2016 and the recommended payments not fully made until May 2016. Among other things, Southwark was anxious that the Ombudsman should omit a reference from the <a href="https://35percent.org/img/Draftdecision.pdf">draft decision notice</a>, to it taking a particularly tough line with the Glasspools, because it believed they were "politically motivated". The Ombudsman agreed to do this.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/politicallymotivated.png" alt="" />
<em>Paragraph 25 of the draft decision notice - deleted after protest from the Council</em></p>
<p>Southwark also made the desperate and bizarre claim that Mr Glasspool had never in fact requested an advance payment, despite this being the subject of the complaint for nearly three years. The Ombdusman gave this argument shorter shrift, noting both that Mr Glasspool had a delivery receipt for the request and that it was a matter only raised after the complaint had been referred to her.</p>
<p>A charitable interpretation of this case is that Southwark are simply incompetent. A more realistic interpretation is that it is hostile to leaseholders on estates it earmarks for regeneration. We have <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-05-16-southwark-gives-green-light-to-slum-landlords/">previously blogged</a> about Southwark's outrageous practice of calculating leaseholder compensation on the Aylesbury estate by using overcrowded 4-bed flats (illegally converted from 1-bed flats) as comparisons. Southwark's <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-05-30-aylesbury-leaseholder-fights-incestuous-valuation/">'incestuous' valuations</a> and its use of staff who are neither <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/PMcGreal_Email28April2015.pdf">qualified</a> nor <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/ALAG_RICS.pdf">RICS registered</a> to conduct evaluations has also been criticised. The conclusion must be that the absence of any policy or procedures that the Ombudsman notes is a deliberate tactic on Southwark's part, one which allows staff to do as they please. Nor does it look as if this will change anytime soon; despite agreeing to the Ombudsman's recommendations Southwark has also <a href="https://35percent.org/img/LGO_apology.pdf">said</a> that it will not introduce policy or procedure changes, until the implementation of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, just passed by Parliament and not likely to be implemented for another year.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: Section 52 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 says that where an acquiring authority has taken possession of land it shall, if requested by a person entitled to the compensation, make an advance payment on account of the compensation payable.</p>
<p>[^2]: Section 39 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 requires acquiring authorities to rehouse displaced persons.</p>
Dulwich Hamlet - unviable but profitable2016-06-08T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2016-06-08-dulwich-hamlet-unviable-but-profitable/<p>Dulwich Hamlet FC is a much-loved Southwark football club with an impressive history. This is their Champion Hill ground adjacent to Green Dale playing fields where the club has been playing since 1931:
<img src="https://35percent.org/img/greendale.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Dulwich Hamlet FC & Green Dale Playing Fields pre-1990s: ca. 15 Hectares of public open space</em></p>
<p>The freehold owners of the Dulwich Hamlet grounds (King's College) sold the site to property developers in 1990, since when the club has joined the long list of football clubs (particularly in London and not only at non-league level) falling victim to the manoeuvres of property developers.</p>
<p>In 1992 the Council reluctantly granted permission for a Sainsbury's superstore and car park, along with consent for a new clubhouse with health and fitness facilities, including a gym and squash courts to provide revenue to the club, which it was claimed would not survive otherwise. As part of the section 106 agreement it was agreed that Sainsbury's would also pay for three astro-turf pitches, to be installed on the Council-owned Green Dale playing fields adjacent to the DHFC stadium. The section 106 agreement also included a restriction preventing the stadium site from being redeveloped in the future.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/dhfc2.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Dulwich Hamlet FC & Green Dale playing fields today</em></p>
<p>The football stadium changed hands again in 2008 when it was bought by cypriot businessmen, the Muduroglu brothers for £1.2m. The Moroduglu brothers had previously bought up Fisher Athletic and sold its Salter Road stadium to Fairview homes for redevelopment, enabled by Southwark Council allocating land for relocation of the stadium to the nearby St Paul’s playing fields.</p>
<p><img src="https://farm9.static.flickr.com/8244/8664376611_0e970777b3.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Fisher Athletic's Salter Road stadium shortly before its redevelopment as flats</em></p>
<p>The Moroduglu brothers later tried the same maneuver with Dulwich Hamlet; in 2012 it applied to Southwark for permission to build on the Champion Hill stadium site and rebuild the stadium on the adjacent Green Dale playing fields. The application was refused on the grounds that the playing fields enjoy <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Open_Land">Metropolitan Open Land (MOL)</a> protection.</p>
<p>In September 2013, <a href="https://dhst.org.uk/">Dulwich Hamlet Supporters Trust</a> succeeded in having the stadium listed as an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_of_community_value">'Asset of Community Value'</a> by Southwark Council, the first London football ground to be listed. However, in 2014 another developer (<a href="https://hadleypropertygroup.com/">Hadley Group</a>) bought the site <a href="https://35percent.org/img/LRegisterDHFC.pdf">(for £5.7m)</a>, and shortly afterwards Southwark removed the club's ACV status on a legal technicality involving the Trust's original application for listing.</p>
<p>Hadley is owned by Hong Kong developer Peterson group, which is <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/07/wealthy-hong-kong-family-to-plough-200m-into-uk-real-estate/">owned</a> by wealthy Hong Kong business tycoons the Yeung family and used an SPV (<a href="https://35percent.org/img/LRegisterDHFC.pdf">registered</a> on the Isle of Man) to purchase the Champion Hill site.</p>
<p>Hadley has now <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=16/AP/1232&system=DC">submitted its own planning application</a> to the Council. As with all previous planning applications for the stadium site, it is pleading viability poverty - despite the club performing well with record attendance figures. In its <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!MOs846oklOp6ieOeJtYFyA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">covering letter</a> to the planning application, Hadley claims <em>"The previous redevelopment of the club was intended to provide a strong and financially sustainable base for DHFC, but in reality the Club has been unable to support the level of ancillary facilities currently provided on site. The gym, squash courts and entertainment space have been consistent loss makers that have resulted in a wholly financially insecure future for DHFC."</em></p>
<p>Hadley goes on to explain that these new proposals <em>"will deliver 155 residential units, which will facilitate the stadium's relocation and redevelopment whilst delivering a vibrant community of affordable and private homes, contributing towards the delivery of much needed housing in the Dulwich area."</em></p>
<p>Hadley claims that the proposed residential development, along with the new stadium <em>"will remove financial burdens for the club"</em>, which <em>"will ensure a long term sustainable future for DHFC, protecting its historical significance."</em></p>
<p>But with its spare pitch now occupied by a Sainsbury's superstore and car park, Hadley is faced with the small problem of having nowhere to build its 155 new homes. Hadley only owns the 1.9 hectare stadium and Green Dale playing fields is owned by Southwark. Hadley needs Southwark to release or sell part of this land, so the stadium can be relocated to where the Council's astro-turf pitches are located.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/dhfc3.jpg" alt="" />
<em>New housing built on DHFC site and stadium relocated to Green Dale playing fields</em></p>
<p>This has naturally met with <a href="https://www.friendsofdkhwood.org/2016/04/green-dale-planning-application/">local opposition</a> as Green Dale is not only <a href="https://35percent.org/img/LRegisterGreenDale.pdf">council-owned</a>, publicly accessible open space, but enjoys <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Open_Land">Metropolitan Open Land (MOL)</a> protection, although this doesn't necessarily stop the Council from selling it and permitting its development, as has <a href="https://35percent.org/sustainable-development/">happened</a> in the past.</p>
<p>As well as the loss of council-owned public open space, the application provides less than half of the required amount of affordable housing - 16% when 35% is the rule. On top of this no social rented housing is proposed when it should be 70% of the affordable quota. Instead the application proposes a 16% mix of shared ownership and 'affordable rent' - i.e. rents of up to 80% market rent[^1].</p>
<p>Hadley justifies its pitiful affordable housing offer by playing the usual viability trump card - i.e. the development cannot provide the required affordable housing and a new football stadium. This argument ignores the generous 25% profit amounting to £17.6 million that Hadley awards itself and has factored into its viability assessment.</p>
<h2>First impressions</h2>
<p>As a result of the Council's new policy forcing viability assessments to be made public, we are able to examine the key assumptions in the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!g6Huud%2ffC8539Zj%2bH4Z0qg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">viability assessment summary</a> submitted by Hadley. The first thing that strikes us is that Hadley's viability assessment was compiled by global property giant Savills. Savills has a long chequered history in all things viability - it was behind <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-06-25-heygate-viability-assessment-finally-revealed/">Lend Lease's viability assessment</a> for the Heygate redevelopment and is <a href="https://35percent.org/the-southwark-clearances/#completing-southwarks-clearances-with-savills">advising</a> both Southwark and David Cameron on council estate regeneration policy.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/savills.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>We found that Savills used the same old tricks as it used with the Heygate; as well as the excessive profit margin of 25%, they give conservative estimates of sales revenue and generous estimates of build costs. Dulwich Hamlet is also a classic example of how a pumped-up land value is used by developers to reduce viability - the higher the land value figure, the less viable the scheme and vice versa. Savills estimates that the benchmark land value of the site is £16m - £10m more than Hadley <a href="https://35percent.org/img/LRegisterDHFC.pdf">paid</a> for the site in 2014, with the previous owners (Moroduglu brothers) having paid just £1.2m for the site in 2008.</p>
<p>Because it is so critical, Southwark is precise about what method should be used in calculating the benchmark land value. Savills ignores this method when reaching its £16m figure and openly states <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!g6Huud%2ffC8539Zj%2bH4Z0qg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d"><em>"we have not given consideration to the existing use value"</em></a> (or Current Use Value (CUV) in Southwark's terminology).</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/blv.png" alt="" />
<em>Southwark's <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/13431/development_viability_spd">Development Viability SPD</a></em></p>
<h2>Land give-away?</h2>
<p>This development depends upon three things: Southwark granting planning permission, Southwark <a href="https://35percent.org/img/LRegisterGreenDale.pdf">releasing</a> the Green Dale land and Southwark lifting the section 106 restriction on development of the stadium site. Southwark Council leader Peter John has <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/final-plans-new-dulwich-hamlet-stadium-submitted/">said publicly</a> <em>"I am opposed to the Hadley scheme"</em>.</p>
<p>We can all sympathise with the massive effort that Dulwich Hamlet supporters are putting in to saving their club. It is a great local institution, but the failure of this proposed development to meet the urgent need for affordable housing, plus the sacrifice it requires of public land should see the application rejected.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: See paragraph 6.74 of the application's <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!s5yeW%2bePQpbhAWzOWHVWkg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">Planning Statement</a></p>
No profit for Southwark2016-05-11T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2016-05-11-no-profit-share-the-true-value-of-the-heygate-regeneration/<blockquote>
<p>"Lend Lease have informed the Council that no overage is forecast at the end of phase 1(Trafalgar Place)" <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/heygate_regeneration_agreement_a#incoming-800392">Response to FOI request ref:570320</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Southwark Council has been stunned to be told by Lend Lease that they will not be getting their expected share of the profits from the first completed phase of the Heygate redevelopment (now known as <a href="https://www.elephantpark.co.uk/local-area/trafalgar-place">Trafalgar Place</a>). The shock revelation is in response to a 35% Campaign <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/heygate_regeneration_agreement_a">FOI request</a>.</p>
<p>The revelation confirms doubts raised from a <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/heygate_estate_regeneration_annu#incoming-841546">Previous FOI request</a> we made for the annual audit of the development account, which said that no overage is currently forecast to be payable.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/ElephantParkBusinessPlanFeb2016.png" alt="Council's response to our FOI request about overage" />
<em>Southwark Council's response to our<a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/heygate_estate_regeneration_annu"> FOI request</a> for the annual audit of the development account</em></p>
<p>Southwark are entitled to 50% of the overage under a profit share agreement, detailed in the <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/news/2013/02/southwark-accidentally-leaks-confidential-information">leaked</a> Heygate <a href="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ra.pdf">regeneration agreement</a>; the amount to be determined at the end of each development phase and paid upon the project's completion in 2025. Phase 1 (Trafalgar Place) has 235 new homes and was finished last June. Southwark were due to meet Lend Lease on 3 February 2016, but the meeting was cancelled - presumably because the Council would have left it empty handed.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.elephantpark.co.uk/local-area/~/media/Developments/UK/EP/Images/Trafalgar%20Place/CGI%20Gallery/DS31656%20002TP.jpg" alt="Trafalgar Place - Phase 1 of Heygate redevelopment" />
<em>Trafalgar Place - completed phase 1 of the Heygate redevelopment</em></p>
<p>This news will have come as a sore disappointment to Cllr Mark Williams, Cabinet member for Regeneration, who can be found <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1785/setting_the_record_straight_the_true_value_of_the_elephant_and_castle_regeneration">'setting the record straight'</a> and telling us what the <em>"true value of the Elephant & Castle regeneration"</em> is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"Some figures we have seen reported on websites and in the media are misleading and incorrect. The council receives phased payments as the scheme progresses and the figures are made public as we receive them. Further payment will be made as the land is drawn down, set to happen soon. The true receipts will amount to hundreds of millions."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It will also come as a disappointment to council leader Peter John who, in response to criticism of the Heygate deal <a href="https://youtu.be/Emvo16iBxFE?t=4m14s">claimed in December</a>: <em>"at the end of the day when profit is coming out of the site, the Council has a 50% share of the profits it delivers."</em></p>
<p><img src="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/imageuploads/1280161383_62.49.27.213.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Council leader Peter John signing Heygate regeneration agreement with Lend Lease's Dan Labbad</em></p>
<h2>How can this be happening?</h2>
<p>It could be that Trafalgar Place simply has not made enough profit to trigger an overage payment, but this would appear to be contradicted by <strong>Lend Lease Corporation</strong> <a href="https://www.afr.com/real-estate/commercial/lendlease-firsthalf-net-profit-rises-121pc-to-354-million-20160216-gmvxux">reporting</a> to the Australian stock exchange that its profits were up 12% to AUD $354m(£192m) in the 6 months to February 2016. Exactly how much of this profit is from Trafalgar Place we don't know, although Lend Lease does <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/property/lendlease-reports-a-3538-million-profit-20160216-gmvo2z.html">acknowledge</a> that the profits are a result of <em>"strong sales momentum at residential projects at Victoria Harbour in Melbourne and Elephant & Castle in London"</em>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/lendleaseprofits.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Alternatively, the explanation could lie in clause 3.7 of the <a href="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ra.pdf">regeneration agreement</a>. This states that <em>"receipts from a disposal of any interest in land to a wholly-owned group company .. shall be disregarded for the purposes of calculating profit overage"</em>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/overageclause.png" alt="Overage clause 3.7 in the regeneration agreement" />
<em>Clause 3.7 of the regeneration agreement.</em></p>
<p>Lend Lease has unsurprisingly set up precisely this kind of group company arrangement; the parent company is <strong>Lend Lease Corporation</strong>, while <strong>Lend Lease (Elephant & Castle) Ltd</strong> is the contractual party to the <a href="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ra.pdf">regeneration agreement</a>. It purchased the Heygate land for £50m and now sells the individual phases on to <strong>Lend Lease Residential</strong> companies. The <a href="https://35percent.org/img/LRegisterTrafalgarPlace.pdf">land</a> for Trafalgar Place was sold for £8m to <strong>Lend Lease Residential (BH) Ltd</strong> . Another plot, for Elephant Park (South Gardens), was <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LRegisterSouthGardens.pdf">sold</a> to <strong>Lend Lease Residential (CG) PLC</strong> for £5m. The <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LRegisterSouthGardens.pdf">Land Registry deeds</a> show the <strong>Lend Lease Residential</strong> companies selling their apartments to the final owners and we can presume that these companies hold the sales receipts, at least in the first instance.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/LRegisterSouthGardens.png" alt="Land Registry deeds for Heygate redevelopment phase 2" />
<em><a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LRegisterSouthGardens.pdf">Land Registry deeds for South Gardens</a></em></p>
<p>The group company arrangements described in clause 3.7 are common; the advantage is that assets, such as land, can be traded between group companies, conveniently arranging debts and credits to put any profit out of the reach of third parties, who might otherwise have a claim to it; in this case however it doesn't look as if this was necessary - Southwark gave Lend Lease an easier way out.</p>
<h2>Advised by experts</h2>
<p>It's hard to believe that Southwark would not have anticipated the consequences for their overage of clause 3.7, or had not been warned by their professional advisors on the <a href="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ra.pdf">Regeneration Agreement</a> about this possibility.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/hsf.png" alt="Herbert Smith Freehills website" />
<em><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160316171355/https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/news/news20100810-hs-advises-the-london-borough-of-southwark-on-elephant-and-castle-regeneration">Press release</a> originally published on Herbert Smith Freehills' website.</em></p>
<p>However it is equally hard to believe that the Council sought its <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160316171355/https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/news/news20100810-hs-advises-the-london-borough-of-southwark-on-elephant-and-castle-regeneration">professional advice</a> from the same company (Herbert Smith Freehills), which back in Australia has a <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160228155112/https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/news/news20120707-fh-freehillsadvisortolendleasebarangaroosouthdev"> <em>"longstanding relationship with Lend Lease and is the company's principal legal advisor"</em>.</a></p>
<p><img src="https://i.imgur.com/m55Lk1a.png" alt="Herbert Smith Freehills website" />
<em><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160228155112/https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/news/news20120707-fh-freehillsadvisortolendleasebarangaroosouthdev">Press release</a> published on Herbert Smith Freehills' website.</em></p>
<p>Southwark demolished 1,212 council homes to allow Lend Lease to build well over 2,000 private homes on the Heygate, so we think that the public is entitled to the answers to some questions, three immediately coming to mind;</p>
<ul>
<li>How much profit have Lend Lease made on Trafalgar Place?</li>
<li>In light of clause 3.7 will Southwark ever get any overage profit?</li>
<li>What advice did Southwark get from Herbert Smith Freehills? The Council should respond to our <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/financial_advice_on_signing_rege#incoming-775158">FOI request</a> and publish the advice immediately.</li>
</ul>
<p>We leave the final words to the eminent architectural critic Rowan Moore, taken from the <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/slowburncity.pdf">Heygate chapter</a> of his recent book <a href="https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/london-time-for-plan-b">'Slow Burn City'</a> : <em>“ Southwark Council has been played by developers. It has had its tummy tickled, arm twisted and arse kicked. It has got a poor deal in return for its considerable assets, multiple promises have been broken and violence done to the lives of many who lived there.”</em></p>
<p>We could not have put it better ourselves.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.panmacmillan.com/PanMacmillanCorporateSite/files/47/472cb0c1-3379-4cc8-bd08-7b9a1e6de092_300_461.jpg" alt="Slow Burn City" /></p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="No profit for Southwark - the true value of the Heygate regeneration" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Southwark Council has been told by Lend Lease that it won't be getting its expected share of the profits from the first completed phase of the Heygate redevelopment" />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/lendleaseprofits.png" />
Southwark in bottom 3 boroughs for affordable housing delivery2016-05-07T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2016-05-07-southwark-in-bottom-3-boroughs-for-affordable-housing-delivery/<p>Southwark is one of the worst three boroughs in London when it comes to delivery of social rented housing. Only 3% of the total homes delivered in 2014/15 were affordable and -5% of the total delivered was social rented (it is a minus figure because more have been <a href="https://35percent.org/the-southwark-clearances/">knocked down</a> or <a href="https://35percent.org/auctions/">sold off</a> than have been built)[^1].</p>
<p>These shocking figures are revealed in an <a href="https://35percent.org/img/LTF_delivery_of_housing_in_London_2014-15.pdf">analysis</a> by the <a href="https://www.londontenants.org/">London Tenants Federation</a> of the latest <a href="https://data.london.gov.uk/publisher/gla?q=housing&sort=score+desc%2C+metadata_modified+desc">GLA housing delivery data</a> published in March. Only Barking & Dagenham and Bromley performed worse, at least when it comes to social rented housing.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/LTF_table.png" alt="" />
<em>LTF <a href="https://35percent.org/img/LTF_delivery_of_housing_in_London_2014-15.pdf">analysis</a> of GLA housing delivery data 2014/15</em></p>
<p>In terms of numbers, 170 fewer social rented homes were built in Southwark than were sold or demolished during the period and this is despite the fact that over the last two years Southwark has built 152 homes as part of its pledge to deliver 11,000 new council homes (over 30 years)[^2].</p>
<p>By contrast, the figures also show that 1,914 private homes were built in the borough, which is 97% of the total delivered and gives a clue as to what's going wrong. Developers are getting to build as much private housing as they want, while ruthlessly driving down the amount of affordable housing particularly social rented housing, required from them in return for planning permission.</p>
<p>These jaw-dropping figures also paint an entirely different picture to what is happening in the borough from the one Southwark is painting. A <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1715/heres_how_southwark_council_will_deliver_thousands_of_new_council_homes">quote</a> from Southwark Council leader Peter John can serve as an example:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"London is suffering from a chronic shortage of quality, affordable homes. We in Southwark are committed to using every tool at our disposal to increase the supply of all kinds of homes across the borough." <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1715/heres_how_southwark_council_will_deliver_thousands_of_new_council_homes">(Council leader Peter John)</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Despite Peter John's assertion, there is one tool that Southwark is not using to increase the supply of affordable housing and that is the power to refuse applications which don't have the required 35% affordable housing.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/newsouthwarkplanah.png" alt="" />
<em><a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/12867/new_southwark_plan_preferred_option_consultation_version_web">New Southwark Plan</a> - Southwark's planning policy</em></p>
<p>Developers are obviously getting away with murder, the latest example of which is <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-04-16-we-surrender-southwark-council-and-skipton-house-latest/">Skipton House</a> where L&R's planning application has a pitiful 15% affordable housing 'offer' - none of this to be on-site. This 'offer' is justified by yet another secret financial viability assessment, which Southwark, despite their new <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/2062/viability_assessments_must_be_published_in_southwark_%E2%80%93_consultation_launched">transparency policy</a> are refusing to release.</p>
<p>If we are ever to bridge this gap between fantasy and reality in the delivery of affordable housing, Southwark needs to grow a backbone. In the meantime you can lodge an objection to Skipton House by clicking <a href="https://commentform.herokuapp.com/">here</a>.</p>
<h2>Aylesbury bashing</h2>
<p>In their anxiety to demolish the Aylesbury estate, Southwark and its development partner Notting Hill Housing have been getting ahead of themselves and started demolishing buildings on land they don't yet own.</p>
<p>Aylesbury residents awoke on wednesday morning to the sound of diggers demolishing parts of the estate. Agnes Kabuto who lives with her 78 year-old mother in one of the last occupied maisonettes on the Chartridge block said <em>"We were woken by a large banging noise, the whole building was shaking - we couldn't believe they'd actually started demolition before the CPO has been granted."</em> She and a number of other Leaseholders in phase 1b/1c, are still awaiting the government's decision following the <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-05-02-aylesbury-estate-compulsory-purchase-order-public-inquiry/">public inquiry</a> into Southwark's application to compulsory purchase their homes. This was due on 3rd May, but has now been delayed. This did not stop Notting Hill Housing from <em>"inadvertently"</em> starting demolition on the CPO land.</p>
<p>Quick action by the leaseholders brought an apology from Southwark after the intervention of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/dclgemail.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>However, Southwark and Notting Hill Housing are determined to proceed and say they will be writing to the leaseholders shortly with details of <em>'the nature of future work to be undertaken'</em>. The CPO decision is due to be issued some time in the coming weeks.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/southwarkdemolitionresponse.png" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: Actually it's worse: the figure is improved to -5% by taking account of the 75 affordable rent units - a tenure which Southwark specifically excludes from its housing and planning policies. Neither does the figure take into account the loss of council homes lost through the right to buy during that period.</p>
<p>[^2]: See <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s59593/Members%20questions%20with%20responses.pdf">Council Assembly Question 1, 26 Jan 2016</a>. NB: only 21 of the 75 Willow Walk homes are social rented council homes, the remainder is temporary accommodation at higher rents. ↩</p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Southwark in bottom 3 boroughs for affordable housing delivery" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Latest GLA data shows Southwark in bottom 3 boroughs for the delivery of affordable housing" />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/LTF_table.png" />
Lendlease says jump - Southwark jumps2016-03-19T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2016-03-19-lend-lease-says-jump-southwark-jumps/<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/viabilityspd.png" Height="300" width="200" align="left" style="margin:20px" /> Southwark Council has bowed to developers' will and restricted public access to financial viability appraisals of planning applications. Instead of being published when planning applications are submitted, the appraisals will be published just one week before the planning committee takes its decision. The changes were made following pressure from developers, who have long been using these appraisals to reduce the amount of affordable housing they have to build.</p>
<p>Last year Southwark was shamed into a <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/my-conscience-is-clear-council-leader-peter-john-comes-out-fighting-as-heygate-deal-scrutinised/">promise</a> to publish viability appraisals following the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jun/25/london-developers-viability-planning-affordable-social-housing-regeneration-oliver-wainwright">revelations</a> in Lendlease’s viability appraisal for its Heygate redevelopment. Released after a <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-06-25-heygate-viability-assessment-finally-revealed/">3 year legal battle</a>, this showed amongst other things, a 25% profit level despite 20% being stipulated in the <a href="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ra.pdf">Regeneration Agreement</a> for the site.</p>
<p>The restriction is revealed in the small print of Southwark’s new planning guidance, the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s60479/Appendix%201%20DVSPD.pdf">Development Viability Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)</a>. It says that the appraisal will be published along with the officer's report for the planning committee 7 days before an application is heard. This is well after formal consultation on the application has ended and well after the council has made up its mind whether to reject the application or recommend it for approval.</p>
<p>Developers have <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/13244/consultation_report_appendix_b_-_appendix_e_public_representations">reacted furiously</a> to the SPD and the restriction follows to the letter the <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LendLease_response_to_viabilitySPD.pdf">proposal</a> made by Lendlease, that the viability appraisal <em>‘should be for information only and not subject to formal consultation’</em>. Lendlease also managed to persuade Southwark not to publish the Council's review of viability appraisals until 7 days before the planning committee hearing, another delay that will deny public access to important planning information about viability.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LLpara1.png" alt="Extract from Lend Lease's response to SPD" /></p>
<p>Instead of the full appraisal an ‘executive summary’ will be published at the beginning of consultation, along with the other planning documents at validation stage. The summary will be confined to the ‘key conclusions’ (DVG5) and while this is valuable information it doesn't allow any interrogation of the headline assumptions - the devil is in the detail. It also omits the key assumption; the viability benchmark value - this is figure against which viability is determined.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/keyassumptions.png" alt="Key assumptions to be included in the summary report" /></p>
<p>Lendlease also strongly objected to the SPD's proposals for viability review mechanisms, which would help claw back value should schemes turn out more profitable than first predicted. It argued that these were particularly inappropriate for <em>'long term multi-phased regeneration schemes'</em>, which is unsurprising given that there are still three phases of <a href="https://www.elephantpark.co.uk/">'Elephant Park'</a> (née Heygate) requiring planning approval. Lendlease says <em>‘our view is that viability review mechanisms should only be applied to these schemes if significant time elapses between approval and any substantial commencement’</em> - a condition easily met by simply sticking a shovel in the ground. Southwark sticks to its guns on the need for review mechanisms, but leaves open the timing of reviews for multi-phased developments.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/viability.png" width="300" height="200" align="left" />Southwark says that all planning applications for developments that require affordable housing will have to submit a viability assessment and that they will all be made public, but the SPD skips over what happens if a developer wants to reduce the affordable housing <strong>after</strong> planning approval. They can do this with a so-called Section 106(A) application or a Section 106(B) appeal. <a href="https://35percent.org/neo-bankside/">Neo Bankside</a> did this six times, successfully reducing the number of social rented homes from 94 to 62. Any such S106(A/B) applications need to provide a new viability assessment, showing that the approved scheme is no longer viable. Southwark says that should such an application be successful, there will be a viability review to make sure that as much affordable housing as possible is built in the end, but says nothing about making this second viability assessment public. This is a big loophole.</p>
<p>So what could have been a big step forward is compromised on at least three counts: the full viability assessments will be published way too late to be of any use; the benchmark value that measures viability will not be published in the executive summary; and developers will be able to reduce affordable housing after planning approval using Section 106 (A/B) applications, without having to publish their viability figures and without the public ever knowing.</p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Lendlease says jump - Southwark jumps" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Lendlease has successfully lobbied Southwark to water down its new policy on the transparency of viability assessments" />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/viability.png" />
Camberwell Chic2016-03-12T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2016-03-12-camberwell-road/<p>With the redevelopment of the nearby <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/aylesbury-estate/">Aylesbury</a> and <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/elmington-estate-regeneration/">Elmington estates</a> now under full steam, <a href="https://www.southwarkregeneration.co.uk/">epic regeneration</a> has now officially embraced Camberwell and social rented housing is the victim.</p>
<p>The villians as always are property developers, using secret viability assessments to deprive the local community of vital social housing.
Five developments on Camberwell Road; 5 viability assessments; 484 new homes of which only 40 are social rented.</p>
<h2>166-178 Camberwell Road</h2>
<p>First on this shameful list are our old friends A2Dominion who featured in our <a href="https://35percent.org/2016-02-16-the-affordable-housing-mirage/">last blog post</a>, where they provided affordable rent instead of social rent in their redevelopment of the Colorama warehouse in SE1.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/wyndhamcamberwelljunction.jpg" alt="Period shop fronts and buildings demolished" /></p>
<p>Their development here at <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!bpCt0dX5ay5Yt8dnMGRUPQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">166-178 Camberwell road</a> has seen the demolition of period buildings to make way for 84 residential units, that should have given us 15 social rented homes. This was reduced to 10 using the viability loophole, but it appears that even these have been lost as A2Dominion are currently <a href="https://www.a2dominion.co.uk/press-releases?pressid=360">advertising</a> them as affordable rent. We will be getting an art gallery and 13 art studios though.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/dominionar.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Furthermore, in November last year A2Dominion came back to the Council <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=15/AP/4739&system=DC">applying</a> for a retrospective variation in the planning permission. As well as halving the amount of amenity space from 22sqm per unit to 11sqm per unit, increasing the height of the buildings by up to 2.2metres, A2Dominion has built out the basement twice the size of that consented and decided to convert it, along with the ground floor retail space into a cinema.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/wyndhamcamberwell.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Crown St Depot redevelopment</h2>
<p>Directly behind A2Dominion's development lies the Crown Street depot - formerly public land until the Council <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LRegisterCrownStreetDepot.pdf">sold</a> it to developers in 2004. This development by Perrit Lang and Leicester Housing Association will provide 69 new homes, of which just 7 will be social rented.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!Pdhuk%2f2yE0RCmdPqLV1odQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">planning committee report</a> explains that the scheme will nevertheless provide other benefits, like the refurbishment and extension of the adjacent Bethwyn Road Playgroup Centre. Paragraph 74 of the report says that the developer has promised to <em>"refurbish and extend the existing building, which will significantly increase the space available to users and the quality of the accommodation."</em> The report goes on to explain that <em>"the brief and the contract requirements will be secured through the S106 agreement if permission is granted, and a clause will be inserted to ensure that the building will be delivered before a proportion of the private housing in the new development can be occupied."</em></p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/crownstreet.jpg" alt="Crown St depot development" /></p>
<p>However, as the development now reaches completion we note that the Bethwyn Road Playgroup Centre remains unrefurbished and unextended. There hasn't even been a planning application submitted and we are wondering if this will be just another nice promise made at planning committee which never gets delivered.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the 7 social rented units are listed in the GLA's <a href="https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/gla-affordable-housing-programme-outturn/resource/0c87e5dc-f1e9-4edf-b246-bef6b40a9ba3">affordable housing outturn data</a> as affordable rent.</p>
<h2>240 Camberwell Road</h2>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/240camberwellroad.png" alt="240 Camberwell Rd before demolition" /></p>
<p>Further down at 240 Camberwell Road Hyde Housing Association is <a href="https://www.hydenewhomes.co.uk/properties/camberwell-os3">building 164 new homes</a>, of which just 18 will be social rented. This site used to be home to <a href="https://www.scenapro.com/contact.html">Scena Ltd</a>, a joinery manufacturer forced to relocate to Croydon, as well as a drop-in centre for <a href="https://blenheimcdp.org.uk/">Bleheim CDP</a> - a charity providing support for people with drug and alcohol addiction problems.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/240crdemolition.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s50981/Report.pdf">planning report</a> for the application confirms that neither the commercial space nor the community space occupied by the charity will be re-provided in the redevelopment or off-site.</p>
<h2>Peabody's Camberwell Rd/Medlar St development</h2>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Peabody-Camberwell-Road.jpg" alt="Buildings demolished by Peabody and Galliard" /></p>
<p>Further down the road still, Peabody together with development partner Galliard Homes, has demolished a number of period buildings on two sites across from Camberwell Green, in order to <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=12/AP/2444&system=DC">build 66 homes</a> of which 5 will be social rented. It should have been twelve but in April 2015 Peabody <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!Zzn2DsRQ760hOnwRlwN7xQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">wrote</a> to the Council to get the number reduced. Peabody explained that despite GLA funding and a £2m windfall due to rising property values, it would need to reduce the number of social rented units, because it had incurred £997,000 in unforeseen costs of asbestos removal.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/peabodycrplan.png" alt="Peabody/Galliard CGI" /></p>
<p><img src="https://www.peabody.org.uk/media/1080/camberwell-road.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Camberwell on the Green</h2>
<p>The worst comes last: <a href="https://www.camberwellonthegreen.co.uk/">'Camberwell on the Green'</a> on the site of the former Job Centre is bringing <a href="https://www.wharf.co.uk/news/property/singapore-developer-wants-bring-chic-10071222"><em>"West End chic to Camberwell"</em></a>. Built by singapore developer <a href="https://www.fraserspropertydev.com/current.asp?project=camberwell">Frasers</a> who has consent for 101 new residential units, sixteen shared ownership and zero social rented. A viability assessment pleaded developer poverty, but <em>"92 private apartments"</em> are now <a href="https://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news.php?id=166559&story_id=46172578&d_str=20160226&fc=13">being marketed</a> in Hong Kong with a starting price of <a href="https://www.wharf.co.uk/news/property/singapore-developer-wants-bring-chic-10071222">£446k for a studio flat</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/camberwellotg.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/camberwellonthegreen.png" alt="old jobcentre" /></p>
<p>The <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s39688/Appendix%201%20Planning%20Committee%20Report%202%20July%202013.pdf">planning report</a> for the application (submitted in 2012) said that there would be a review mechanism secured in the section 106 agreement, to ensure that the affordable housing offer would be increased in line with any increase in property market values, but this is the usual useless review that just requires the developer to stick a shovel in the ground before 18 months has passed (para. 131).</p>
<p><img src="https://www.camberwellonthegreen.co.uk/uploads/slide1.jpg" alt="'Camberwell on the Green' development" /></p>
<p>A generously conservative estimate of the development value of the residential properties alone gives over £80m; this excludes any profit from the retail units. Paragraph 135 of the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s39688/Appendix%201%20Planning%20Committee%20Report%202%20July%202013.pdf">planning report</a> tells us that Southwark is getting a paltry £573k in planning gain. This is the sum total of the development's contribution to transport, public realm, health and community facilities.</p>
<p>A good deal for the developer who paid only <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LRegisterCamberwellOnTheGreen.pdf">£4.6m</a> for the site, not a good deal for Southwark which by granting permission added £75m value to the site, but which captured only a fraction of the gain.</p>
<p>Another scandalous aspect is that such a low number of social rented homes are being delivered in four of these developments by housing associations who are acting in developer roles, and they are just as happy to use the viability assessment loophole as private developers such as Frasers, who at least have the excuse that they are only in it for the money.</p>
<h2>Camberwell Green Care Home</h2>
<p><img src="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Camberwell-Green-Care-home.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>With all of this in mind, we note the <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/search-to-find-35-oaps-new-places-as-care-home-to-close/">announcement</a> that Camberwell Green Care Home is about to close. It is not too difficult to guess what will become of this prime location overlooking the green.</p>
Affordable housing - a mirage wrapped in an illusion2016-02-16T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2016-02-16-the-affordable-housing-mirage/<p>Taking its cue from the 35% campaign's <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Corporate_Complaint_15_Dec_2015Final.pdf">corporate complaint</a>, Southwark News has <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/southwark-council-takes-legal-advice-over-social-housing-promises/">revealed</a> the reality behind the great affordable housing illusion.</p>
<p>It's latest edition devoted a <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SN_affordablerent.pdf">whole page</a> to 'broken social housing promises', citing cases of social rented homes being delivered as affordable rent and affordable homes ending up on the open market. Southwark Council has <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/AHcomplaint_response.pdf">responded</a> to the complaint saying 'it takes it very seriously' and confirms that it is taking legal action.</p>
<p>However, this leaves many questions unanswered - how many breaches have occured? which developers or housing associations are breaking their promises? how many social rented homes have been lost? how is Southwark going to get them back? how will it prevent this from happening in the future? how widespread is this practice? - so this is a complaint that we will be pursuing.</p>
<p>This is a list of all the breaches we have identified and submitted as evidence:</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/breachlist1.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Here is <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/section106_tenure_breaches.pdf">a list</a> of where we say that additional breaches have occurred:</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/breachlist2.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Southwark Council needs to give a full response and explanation for each of these alleged breaches. Unless it does so we can have no confidence that it is indeed taking the breaches seriously. We find it hard to believe that the Council did not have some idea of what was going on, given its extensive relationships with developers and housing associations.</p>
<p>The involvement of housing associations in these alleged breaches is a particular concern. All private developments which deliver affordable housing need housing association partners and most people would assume that these are doing their upmost to guarantee the maximum affordable housing of the right kind - i.e. the tenure approved at the planning committee hearing. It appears that this is not the case.</p>
<p>Southwark Council has an approved list of housing association partners. It should seriously consider whether any housing association in breach of a planning approval should continue as a partner.</p>
<h2>A2Dominion tenure switch example</h2>
<p>It goes without saying that these breaches are making a real difference to people who rely upon social rented housing, as the main example given in the Southwark News shows. This is in fact the <a href="https://35percent.org/colorama/">Colorama development</a> - a former photo film processing centre on Lancaster street, which was demolished in 2014 following planning permission granted for its replacement by the <a href="https://www.fabrica.co.uk/The-Chroma-Buildings">Chroma buildings</a>, a residential development comprising 39 flats delivered by Housing association A2Dominion.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/colorama_chroma.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>At the time, Southwark's planning committee justified the demolition of the period buildings by <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/6437">claiming</a> that <em>"the redevelopment would bring much-needed affordable housing"</em>, with the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!Zz6kQSuw9WcG1eGU1VRSAg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">planning report</a> for the application promising the provision of 19 social rented habitable rooms.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/colorama_or.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>However, two years later when the Greater London Authority published its <a href="https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/gla-affordable-housing-programme-outturn/resource/0c87e5dc-f1e9-4edf-b246-bef6b40a9ba3">affordable housing outturn data</a>, it showed that these were being provided as affordable rent not social rent. These range up to 59% market rent with estimated rent levels of £215pw for a 1-bed flat - more than twice the current average social rent currently charged in Southwark.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/coloramagladata.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The scheme has now completed and new residents have begun moving in. Needless to say, these won't include any of those on the Council's waiting list who can't afford anything except social rented housing.</p>
<p>It seems clear that together Southwark, private developers and housing associations are not delivering even the meagre amount of social rented housing that they claim. Southwark's response confirms this, but is otherwise feeble. Southwark must give a full and detailed account of each alleged breach, say what action it is taking to get the social rented housing promised and what it is doing to prevent these practices from continuing.</p>
Town hall sell off - price on application2016-02-12T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2016-02-12-town-hall-sell-off/<p><img src="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/imageuploads/1364655642_91.125.225.38.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Southwark News has <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/fire-ravaged-walworth-town-hall-may-never-be-restored-to-its-former-glory/">revealed</a> that the Council is now considering selling the Walworth Town Hall, gutted by fire 3 years ago. This is after <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1307/southwark_council_commits_to_restoring_the_walworth_town_hall">solemn promises</a> were given that it would be restored back into public use. The Town Hall sits right on the edge of the Heygate estate, which as <a href="https://elephantpark.co.uk/">'Elephant Park'</a> will become home to such worthwhile developments as the <a href="https://www.elephantpark.co.uk/prices-and-availability/skyscape-collection">'skyscape' collection</a>, currently being marketed at skyscraping prices - prices so high that Lend Lease is too embarrassed to publish them.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/skyscape.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>As anybody who has seen it since its renovation will know, the Town Hall's architectural merit far outstrips anything the Elephant regeneration has so far had to offer, so it could be an eminently desirable purchase.</p>
<p>The building's architecture is a concrete record of proud civic administrations and a leagacy of the days of municipal borough councils, when Southwark once had three town halls, in Peckham and Bermondsey as well as Walworth. It is a sad irony that Walworth Town Hall now looks destined to join its sisters as luxury private developments.</p>
<p><img src="https://media.onthemarket.com/properties/2337629/img_0_2_ls.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Bermondsey Town Hall was <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LR_bermondseytownhall.pdf">sold off</a> in December 2012 to developers Hollybrook Ltd, for the knock-down price of £4 million.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LR_bermondseytownhall.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>By 2014, Hollybrook had carved out 41 luxury apartments from the building, each selling for over a million pounds; a promo video gives prospective buyers a guided tour:</p>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CKo8KxiJSdI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/bthinterior.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Peckham Town Hall</h2>
<p>Peckham Town Hall used to serve as Southwark's main Town Hall for its core administrative functions. The Council sold it with <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s42948/Item%201%20and%202%20report.pdf">planning permission</a> to a Jersey-based developer (Alumno Developments) <a href="https://35percent.org/images/LR_PeckhamTownHall.pdf">for just £5m</a> in December 2014.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/PeckhamTownHall.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Besides allowing conversion to residential accommodation, the planning permission also gave consent to demolish the theatre behind the Town Hall and replace it with a new theatre - with a 7-storey extension above. The town hall will now comprise 149 student flats as well as some 'affordable' studio space for artists and a cafe run by the Council's long-term cultural regeneration partner <a href="https://www.hotelelephant.co.uk/">Hotel Elephant</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/peckhamtownhall.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Paragraph 62 of the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s42948/Item%201%20and%202%20report.pdf">planning report</a> explains that the developer has submitted a viability assessment, which claimed that it cannot provide any affordable housing because of the high cost of providing the new theatre and art studios. It justified its position, saying that <em>"these facilities comprise substantial planning contributions that would bring a comprehensive range of activities and services of significant benefit to local residents, community groups and individuals"</em>. The <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s42948/Item%201%20and%202%20report.pdf">officer's report</a> for the application concludes as follows:</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/peckhamthor.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The report goes on to say that the section 106 planning agreement would ensure that rent levels of the student accommodation would be <em>"no greater than rents of comparable student housing"</em>; and that the artist's studios would be <em>"significantly below market rent for comparable spaces"</em>.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/peckhams106.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>However, the actual <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!J5SYrLl4r0iPhpzIBB3Xiw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">section 106 planning agreement</a> sealing the permission, provides no mechanism for defining 'comparable student housing' and says that affordable workspace rents should be <em>"no LESS than 45% below market rent for comparable properties"</em> - a significant typo which nobody in Southwark Council seems to have noticed. In any event it now means that the developer is obliged to set rents very much to its own advantage (above 45% of market rent - not below).</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/southwarktownhalls106.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Another good deal for developers, not so good for Southwark.</p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Town Hall sell off - price on application" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="How Southwark has flogged off its Town Halls to developers for a pittance" />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://35percent.org/img/bth.jpg" />
Completing london's clearances2016-01-31T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2016-01-31-completing-londons-clearances/<p>David Cameron's <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-pledges-to-transform-sink-estates">announcement</a> that the government will be regenerating 100 council estates across the country, should send a chill down the spine of every council tenant and leaseholder in the country.</p>
<p>This, combined with the Housing & Planning Bill that's being railroaded through parliament, has been interpreted by many as the end of social housing. It is hard to disagree.</p>
<p>Here in Southwark, we know how these estate regenerations - full of <a href="https://35percent.org/affordable-housing/">promises</a> of replacement 'social' housing and <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-06-08-the-heygate-diaspora/">rights to return</a> - usually end up. The Heygate is the most notorious example, but it is just one of many:</p>
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th></th>
<th>Estate</th>
<th>Council homes demolished</th>
<th>Total new homes</th>
<th>of which social rented</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/silwood.jpg" height="150" width="150" /></td>
<td><a href="https://35percent.org/silwood-estate-regeneration/">Silwood estate</a></td>
<td>63</td>
<td>127</td>
<td>22</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/BermondseySpaDemolition.jpg" height="150" width="150" /></td>
<td><a href="https://35percent.org/bermondsey-spa-regeneration/">Bermondsey Spa</a></td>
<td>131</td>
<td>2000</td>
<td>314</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/elmingtondemolition.jpg" height="150" width="150" /></td>
<td><a href="https://35percent.org/elmington-estate-regeneration/">Elmington estate</a></td>
<td>294</td>
<td>279</td>
<td>41</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/wooddene1.jpg" height="150" width="150" /></td>
<td><a href="https://35percent.org/wood-dene-estate-regeneration/">Wood Dene estate</a></td>
<td>316</td>
<td>333</td>
<td>54</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/heygatedemolition.jpg" height="150" width="150" /></td>
<td><a href="https://35percent.org/heygate-regeneration-faq/">Heygate estate</a></td>
<td>1034</td>
<td>2704</td>
<td>82</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/aylesburydemolition.jpg" height="150" width="150" /></td>
<td><a href="https://35percent.org/aylesbury-estate/">Aylesbury estate</a></td>
<td>2402</td>
<td>3575</td>
<td>1471</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/northpeckham5.jpg" height="150" width="150" /></td>
<td><a href="https://35percent.org/north-peckham-estate/">North Peckham estate</a></td>
<td>3203</td>
<td>2019</td>
<td>1184</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td><strong>Total:</strong></td>
<td><strong>7443</strong></td>
<td><strong>11037</strong></td>
<td><strong>3168</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>That's a net loss of 4,275 social rented homes as a direct result of Southwark's regeneration schemes to date and the <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/assembly/darren-johnson/loss-of-social-housing-through-estate-regeneration">GLA has predicted</a> that Southwark will lose 2,051 social rented homes as a result of schemes in its current pipeline (far more than any other borough). In addition, we can't even be sure that the replacement social rented housing provided isn't actually affordable rent or won't morph into it - see the <a href="https://youtu.be/x0CIUdfA-JU?t=4m12s">CPO Public Inquiry</a>, our <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Corporate_Complaint_15_Dec_2015Final.pdf">corporate complaint</a> and <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SN_affordablerent.pdf">this local news article</a> for evidence of this. We have also compiled a <a href="https://35percent.org/img/section106_tenure_breaches.pdf">list</a> of 42 developments where we believe such tenure switches have taken place, comprising a total of 1139 homes approved at planning committee as social rent but provided as affordable rent.</p>
<h2>Completing Southwark's clearances with Savills</h2>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/socialcleanserssavills.jpg" align="left" style="margin:10px" width="100" />Despite widespread criticism, Southwark is <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-03-28-manifesto-for-destruction-of-council-estates/">ploughing ahead</a> with further regeneration plans, largely informed by a Savills <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s55626/Appendix%204%20Savills%20Evaluation.pdf">'Asset Performance Evaluation'</a> undertaken last year (the assets being our council homes).</p>
<p>The Savills evaluation rates the Council's 40,000 homes according to their Net Present Value (NPV) and makes clear recommendations outlining the <em>"key potential options for identified poorly performing stock"</em>:</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/savills2.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>It goes on to recommend a number of additional strategies to achieve the desired <em>"improvement in business plan capacity"</em>. These include increasing rents, albeit <em>"subject to the Council's policies on rents .. and plans to explore devolved management"</em> - (a practice that we argue is already being introduced via the back door[^3]).</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/savills1.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Savills's evaluation informed the Council's <a href="https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/housing-community-services-department-community-engagement-team/asset-management-consultation/supporting_documents/Asset%20Management%20Strategy.pdf">2016 Housing Asset Management Strategy</a>, which explained that <em>"11.5% of the stock (4,167 units) has a Net Present Value which is below zero"</em> located on what it terms <em>'High Investment Needs Estates'</em>[^1] - for which it is recommended that <em>"options be explored with residents as to whether a small scale redevelopment or regeneration scheme may deliver better outcomes than direct refurbishment."</em>[^2]</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/AssetManagementStrategy7.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The publication of the Savills report and asset management strategy understandably created <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/your-home-is-worth-less-than-nothing-council-report-evaluates-southwark-properties/">concerns</a> amongst tenants living on the <em>"poorly performing"</em> estates in negative value homes. In response, the Council's Housing Boss <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/no-more-wholesale-estate-demolition-says-housing-boss/">tried to reassure</a> people by explaining that options will be considered on a <em>“case by case basis”</em> and that only <em>“in a small number of cases it may mean demolition</em>.”</p>
<p>We <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-12-20-heygate-sell-off-how-much-are-we-getting/">blogged</a> about this in December and noted that Savills is just as happy <a href="https://35percent.org/auctions">selling off</a> Southwark's high-value assets, as it is identifying those low-value assets that could be candidates for demolition. Savills also prepared the notorious <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/collated-viability-assessments/">viability assessment</a> that <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-06-25-heygate-viability-assessment-finally-revealed/">allowed</a> Lendlease to slash the social rented housing on <a href="https://www.elephantpark.co.uk/">Elephant Park</a> (the New Heygate) to just 82 social rented units.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/savills.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>So it comes as no surprise to learn that Savills are the brains behind David Cameron's big idea of 'regenerating' 100 council estates, supplied by its Cabinet Office report <a href="https://www.savills.co.uk/research_articles/141285/198087-0">'Completing London's Streets'</a>. The report happens to feature a photo of a Southwark estate, the Brandon, to illustrate how the estate's generous green spaces constitute a <em>"housing typography"</em> that is <em>"deeply inappropriate for current and coming decades"</em>.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/completing-londons-streets-brandon.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The report also uses the Nelson/Portland estate on East Street in Walworth as one of 6 case study sites to expound its ideas (Site C). Two other estates identified by the 35% Campaign are the Glyndon estate in Woolwich (Site B) and the Ampthill Square estate in Camden (Site A). The estates are not easily identified in the report, they are not named and have been disguised by flipping and rotating their layout plans.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/completing-londons-streets.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Below Savills explains that their case study estates <em>"do not represent any current, existing or proposed scheme"</em>, so the residents of Nelson/Portland, Glyndon and Ampthill Square estates can rest easy in their beds...</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/ybarthes.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>City Villages</h2>
<p>Savills <em>'Completing London's Street's</em> report and Cameron's proposals echo many of the proposals put forward by Labour Lord Andrew Adonis, in his <a href="https://www.ippr.org/publications/city-villages-more-homes-better-communities"><em>'City Villages'</em></a> paper published earlier in the year. We <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-03-28-manifesto-for-destruction-of-council-estates/">blogged in march</a> about Adonis's 'City Villages' and how they constituted a manifesto for the destruction of council estates. We also showed how he received support from Southwark Council leader Peter John, who wrote a <a href="https://ippr.org/read/city-villages-more-homes-better-communities#regenerating-elephant-and-castle">whole chapter</a> of the paper, holding the Heygate regeneration up as a successful model and blueprint for the manifesto.</p>
<p>Councillor John is a full subscriber to this cross-party 'sink estate' rhetoric. He wrote an <a href="https://www.progressonline.org.uk/2016/01/14/camerons-has-much-to-learn-on-housing/">article</a> in support of David Cameron's estate demolition proposals in Jan 2016, arguing only that Cameron's plans weren't ambitious enough and that more government funding should be allocated to the programme. In the article he describes the Heygate & Aylesbury estates as <em>"symbols of inner-city neglect, with crime, antisocial behaviour, health inequalities and unemployment the only things that flourished there"</em>. He added that <em>"both had become hard to let to council tenants, and reinforced poverty, crime and inequality"</em> and concluded that in any case, <em>"most brutal estates do not make the best use of the land they occupy."</em></p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/peterjohnquote_1and2.png" alt="Cllr Peter John Quote" /></p>
<p>Councillor John has long been echoing these stereotyped opinions of council estates which seek to justify the demolitions. In a <a href="https://youtu.be/87Yg_SJoPjw?t=1m18s">radio interview</a> he described the Heygate & Aylesbury estates as a <em>"byword for social failure, crime and anti-social behaviour - with all the sorts of problems that people are talking about being the problem with massive council estates."</em></p>
<p>In a local <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/my-conscience-is-clear-council-leader-peter-john-comes-out-fighting-as-heygate-deal-scrutinised/">news interview</a> he claimed that <em>"brutalist architecture wasn’t conducive to building a successful economic community".</em> He evidenced this claim with an anecdote, in which he described local MP Harriet Harman's visit to the Aylesbury estate: <em>"Harriet and a councillor were in a lift with a man injecting drugs in his penis. That’s not the sign of a successful community".</em></p>
<p>On his <a href="https://cllrpeterjohn.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/development-partner-for-aylesbury.html">blog</a> he repeats the same criticisms of council estates touted by the Tories and their proposed replacement by traditional street patterns: <em>"The answers which the Aylesbury provided were soon overshadowed by the problems which were inherent in the design of the huge monolithic and brutalist blocks. The previous street pattern was replaced by long corridors and above-ground walkways, which paid little regard to the human desire to travel at ground level and have neighbours and communities within easy reach."</em></p>
<h2>There is an alternative</h2>
<p>If local communities are to be protected then regeneration has to mean something other than state-sponsored gentrification championed by the property services industry, which makes great profit from it in every which way.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.engineering.ucl.ac.uk/engineering-exchange/demolition-refurbishment-social-housing/">Refurbishment</a> needs to be considered. And if building new council homes <a href="https://www.estatesgazette.com/blogs/london-residential-research/2015/07/costs-southwark-council-528149-build-council-flat/">is costing £383k</a> each, when homes on <em>'high investment needs estates'</em> can be brought up to Decent Homes Standard for a fraction of this, then there is no reason not to do that.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/dhscosts.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>11,000 new 'council' homes</h2>
<p>The council's blanket response to criticism of its council estate clearances, is that it has embarked upon an ambitious plan to build 11,000 new council homes (over the next 30 years).</p>
<p>However, in the two years since the Council launched this ambitious programme it has built a total of just 152[^4]. Meanwhile, according to GLA data during the last year alone the borough has seen a net loss of 170 social rented homes[^5].</p>
<p>This figure doesn't even include those lost through Right to Buy during the year and according to figures quoted in <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SNHeygateOverage.pdf">this article</a> the council is predicted to lose 9,000 council homes through RtB during the next 30 years.</p>
<p>Southwark's own <a href="https://35percent.org/img/11000homesconsultation.pdf">consultation</a> on its programme to build 11,000 new homes made it clear that the programme will involve the wholesale redevelopment of existing council estates:</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/pledge6.png" alt="Southwark's consultation on its 11000 new homes proposals" />
<em>Extract from consultation on 11000 new homes proposals</em></p>
<p>In addition, the Council has <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/southwark-council-to-set-up-own-housing-company/">set up</a> a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) - <strong>Southwark Housing Company Ltd</strong> - a separate limited company that will own and manage the 11,000 new 'council' homes. This has led to fears that these will be let at higher rents, as is the case where other councils are using SPVs to build 'council' homes - i.e. LB Lambeth.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: See paragraph 3.2.3 of the Council's <a href="https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/housing-community-services-department-community-engagement-team/asset-management-consultation/supporting_documents/Asset%20Management%20Strategy.pdf">Housing Asset Management Strategy</a></p>
<p>[^2]: See Paragraph 5.10 (page 22) of the Savills <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s55626/Appendix%204%20Savills%20Evaluation.pdf">Asset Performance Evaluation</a></p>
<p>[^3]: See the <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/297570/response/725827/attach/2/Freedom%20of%20Information%20request%20response%20for%20570900.pdf">Council's response</a> to <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/temporary_housing_on_estates_for#incoming-725827">this FOI request</a>, which confirms it is charging more than twice the average council rent on properties located within regeneration schemes. See also <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/southwark-council-to-set-up-own-housing-company/">this article</a> confirming that the Council has set up a private company to manage its new 'council' homes.</p>
<p>[^4]: See <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s59593/Members%20questions%20with%20responses.pdf">Council Assembly Question 1, 26 Jan 2016</a>. NB: only 21 of the 75 Willow Walk homes are social rented council homes.</p>
<p>[^5]: The <a href="https://www.londontenants.org/">London Tenants Federation</a> has published its <a href="https://35percent.org/img/LTF_delivery_of_housing_in_London_2014-15.pdf">analysis</a> of the latest <a href="https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/gla-affordable-housing-programme-outturn/resource/0ff48fbb-5119-4af1-9692-d0fa57093371">GLA housing data</a> published for 2014/15. The analysis found that Southwark demolished more social rented homes than it built – a net loss of 170 social rented homes in total.</p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Completing London's Clearances" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Savills advises David Cameron and Peter John how to clear London's council estates." />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/david-cameron_peter-john.jpg" />
Heygate sell-off: How much are we getting?2015-12-20T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2015-12-20-heygate-sell-off-how-much-are-we-getting/<p>Local activist Peter Tatchell went head-to-head with Council leader Peter John on a recent <a href="https://youtu.be/Emvo16iBxFE">BBC Politics show</a>. Tatchell accused the leader of selling off the 25-acre Heygate estate for £50m when the Council had <a href="https://35percent.org/heygate-regeneration-faq/">valued</a> the site previously at £150m.</p>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Emvo16iBxFE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<p>Peter John responded to Tatchell's claim by asserting that the Council will also receive a 50% share of the profits from the estate's redevelopment. However, we know from the leaked <a href="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ra.pdf">Regeneration Agreement</a> that this is not entirely accurate: the agreement doesn't say that the Council will receive 50% of the profits; it says the Council will receive 50% of any 'overage' profit. This is any surplus profit which might be left over, after developer Lend Lease has pocketed a 20% “Priority Return” profit plus a 2.6% “Management Fee”[^1].</p>
<p>In Feb 2013, Southwark’s Cabinet Member for Regeneration admitted in a <a href="https://heygatewashome.org/img/SNDocumentBlunder7Feb2013.pdf">press article</a> that <em>“currently viability tests suggested there was unlikely to be any profit”</em> from the Heygate deal.</p>
<p>We recently took a closer look at the Regeneration Agreement and found that it required Lend Lease to send a cash flow statement to the Council on a quarterly basis, showing key figures in the development account, including any currently estimated profit overage.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"The Developer shall provide a copy of the Project Cash Flow to the Council quarterly, together with such calculations relating to the calculation of the Planning Overage and the Profit Overage as the Council may reasonably require." (<strong>Regeneration Agreement, paragraph 3.5</strong>)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>On 16th October we made an <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/heygate_regeneration_agreement_a">FOI request</a>, asking the Council how much profit overage it is expecting according to its most recently received quarterly cash flow statement. After two months and four extensions the Council finally responded to our request. It said <em>"The council does not currently hold this information. While the Regeneration Agreement does include a clause requiring the developer to provide this on a quarterly basis, the council has taken the view that it will collect this information at the end of each phase of the scheme, as this represents a point in the process when information on costs and receipts will be available to enable a full evaluation of overage available at that stage of the project. The first phase of the project [known as Trafalgar Place] has now reached practical completion. As a consequence the council expects to receive information from the developer which will satisfy this condition in the New Year. Once we have received the information the council will determine the extent to which the material can be made publically available."</em></p>
<p>This is poor practice on Southwark's part. If the Regeneration Agreement were adhered to, Southwark would receive 60 audit reports from Lend Lease over the 15 year construction period, but now it looks as if it will be content with just five (one for each phase). Southwark is entirely dependent on Lend Lease's management of the development account for its overage, while Lend Lease is self-financing and completing the scheme using its own in-house construction arm - it controls the whole situation. Southwark should also note that last year City Authorities in Sydney <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/nsw/barangaroo-public-works-in-doubt-after-government-loses-court-battle-with-lend-lease-20140821-106lke.html">lost</a> a <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/nsw/valuation-dispute-poses-threat-to-1b-return-from-barangaroo-20121206-2ay9e.html">court battle</a> with Lend Lease over the calculation of profit overage in a similar-size public/private regeneration scheme.</p>
<p>The audit requirements set out in the Regeneration Agreement allow ongoing monitoring of Lend Lease's development account on a quarterly basis, precisely so that such outcomes can be avoided. Council leader Peter John should enforce the terms of the agreement and publish the audit reports with profit overage calculations on a quarterly basis, on the Council's website for all to see.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/heygatesale.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Greater Numbers</h2>
<p>Southwark should also stop fudging about the affordable housing figures for the site. During the BBC debate, the Council leader claimed that social rented housing would be provided <em>"in greater numbers than Peter Thatchell described"</em>, but without saying what number.</p>
<p>Lend Lease's <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!cvj%2buF2v8VRqQhUGaBSuKw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">Affordable Housing Statement</a> for the redevelopment is clear. It shows that of the 2,469 new homes on the main Heygate site, just 74 will be social rented:</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/UpdatedAHStatement.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Combined with the 8 social rented homes provided as part of its <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200183/elephant_and_castle/1124/heygate_estate/2">separate phase one</a> application - <a href="https://trafalgarplace.com/">Trafalgar Place</a> (235 units), that's 2,704 new homes on the redeveloped Heygate estate of which 82 will be social rented. A further 198 will be 'affordable rent' and 316 will be shared ownership homes.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/phaseones106.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>We would be glad to hear that the Council leader has since secured additional social rented housing, but fear that this is once again just an attempt to pass off the 198 'affordable rent' homes in the development as social rented.</p>
<h2>Epic Regeneration - the spirit of Southwark</h2>
<p>Meanwhile, Southwark's regeneration drive gathers pace. Its regeneration department has launched an energetic recruitment drive branded the Spirit of Southwark, and is <em>‘looking for leaders who relish the challenge’</em> of <em>‘transforming areas from Elephant and Castle to Canada Water to Peckham’</em>.<br />
<a href="https://www.southwarkregeneration.co.uk/">https://www.southwarkregeneration.co.uk</a> -
<a href="https://www.spiritofsouthwark.co.uk/">https://www.spiritofsouthwark.co.uk</a></p>
<p>Last month it also organised a <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/file/12902/welcome_to_southwark_regeneration">'bidders day'</a>, inviting developers to bid on the first two 'lots' of council-owned sites earmarked for regeneration.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Welcome_to_Southwark.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>These 'lots' comprising <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s57187/Appendix%201%20SRPP%20Site%20List.pdf">19 sites</a>, include community centres and council homes that will be demolished and redeveloped as part of the Council's <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s57186/Report%20Gateway%201%20-%20SRPP%20Procurement%20Approval.pdf">Regeneration in Partnership Programme (SRPP)</a>. The <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rx9s4mcl31w6pj9/AACi9ND8ia6XmfATNrwc9Pspa?dl=0">lots</a> should deliver about a thousand new homes, with roughly equal amounts of social rented, intermediate and private sale homes - the private sales supposedly cross-subsidising the 'affordable' housing.</p>
<p>The sites are part of the first phase of Southwark’s pledge to build 11000 council homes and include several that are well described as ‘easy wins’. The recent publication of Southwark’s draft <a href="https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/housing-community-services-department-community-engagement-team/asset-management-consultation">'Asset Management Strategy'</a> for the borough’s council stock, indicates that further gains will be much less easy. In its <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/your-home-is-worth-less-than-nothing-council-report-evaluates-southwark-properties/">appraisal</a>, property consultants Savill’s has identified 4,167 council homes as having a negative Net Present Value (NPV), making them candidates for redevelopment.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/AssetManagementStrategy4.png" alt="" /></p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/AssetManagementStrategy7.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Housing & Planning Bill 2015</h2>
<p>Southwark Council has <a href="https://www.southwarklabour.co.uk/latest-news/southwark/news.aspx?p=102359">warned</a> that <em>"by forcing councils to sell off vacant properties in “high value” areas, the Government’s new Housing and Planning Bill would have a ‘devastating impact’ on Southwark"</em></p>
<p>We have to agree, while also pointing out that Since 2011 the Council has had a <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s19458/Report%20Review%20of%20Void%20Disposal%20Strategy.pdf">blanket policy</a> of selling off all void Council homes valued at £300k or above.</p>
<p>Since 2010 more than 1,500 council homes have been <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/just-65-council-homes-built-in-five-years/">sold or demolished</a>. <a href="https://35percent.org/auctions/">Here</a> is a sample of a number of these sold since 2010 at auction. Southwark can argue that the proceeds of their sales go towards new council homes elsewhere in the borough, whereas the Government’s idea is that in future the money goes to the Treasury; nonetheless the practice leaves the Council exposed and opens an obvious door for the Tory government to walk through.</p>
<p>Below are two of a number of council homes sold by Southwark under its voids policy at a <a href="https://catalogue.auctions.savills.co.uk/london-national/Previous-Auctions/#&&s=1">Savills auction</a> last month.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/savillsauction.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: See “Developer’s Priority Return” and “Development Management Fee” on pg 83 of the leaked <a href="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ra.pdf">Regeneration Agreement</a></p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Heygate Sell-off: Just what exactly is the deal?" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Council leader Peter John explains why he sold the Heygate for one third of its value." />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/heygatesale.png" />
CPO powers to be used on shopping centre traders2015-11-04T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2015-11-04-southwark-resolves-to-use-cpo-powers-for-shopping-centre-retailers/<p>Southwark Council's Cabinet has <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s57189/Report%20Elephant%20and%20castle.pdf">said</a> it will be prepared to use Compulsory Purchase powers to remove retailers from the Elephant & Castle shopping centre, to enable its redevelopment by its owner Delancey.</p>
<p>The Cabinet has also said it plans to conduct an Equalities Impact Assessment (EqiA), which will look at how the redevelopment of the shopping centre will affect various stakeholders including Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) retailers.</p>
<p><img src="https://heygatewashome.org/img/bbc_ouseley.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>This seems like a good opportunity for the many BME traders whose livelihoods are threatened by the redevelopment to make their voices heard. Back in 2005, Mayor Ken Livingstone <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/dec/15/regeneration.communities">called</a> for the Commission for Racial Equality to investigate the Elephant’s regeneration, after shopping centre traders <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/1906">voiced concerns</a> about how they would be accommodated in the redevelopment. Southwark had already commissioned the Lord Herman Ouseley to <a href="https://heygate.github.io/img/ouseley_report.pdf">investigate</a> its borough wide practices and the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Council%20Assembly/20050324/Agenda/2%20-%20Independent%20Review%20ofthe%20Council's%20Equality%20and%20Diversity%20Framework%20by%20Lord%20HermanOuseley%20-%20appendix%201.pdf">report</a> of his findings made the following observations;</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"Large scale regeneration tends to favour relatively big businesses over existing small and medium sized businesses. Because of the diverse nature of the borough and because the business interests of poorer and BME communities tend to be locked in to the SME (small, medium enterprises) sector, equality and diversity competence is critical for planners and decision makers." <strong>(para 41 - Independent Review of the Council's Equality & Diversity Framework, Lord Herman Ouseley March 2005)</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>As a result of Lord Ouseley's Inquiry, Southwark pledged <em>‘to place itself at the forefront of best practice in enterprise development, provision of business support services for SME/BME traders and businesses and planning and regeneration activities, which give priority to local communities at every stage of prospective development proposals and new initiatives’</em> (para 42); and in 2007 the Council's Executive <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Overview%20&%20Scrutiny%20Committee/20070709/Agenda/Traders%20proposedcharter.pdf">approved a 'Traders Charter'</a> setting out detailed policies on how traders would be secured tapered rent subsidies not just on the retail in the new shopping centre but all new S106 retail and also Southwark's own commercial retail premises in the area.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/lbstraderscharterextract.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from the Traders Charter</em></p>
<p>But the pledge has been forgotten and the charter has since been ignored, with Lord Ouseley later <a href="https://heygate.github.io/img/EveningStandard23June2005.pdf">claiming</a> that he feared his Inquiry <em>'may have been used not so much to uncover any wrongs but to help cover them up'</em>; and a <a href="https://tradingplaces-elephant.tumblr.com/">2014 study</a> of shopping centre traders showing just how far Southwark has fallen short of its pledges and ambitions;
<em>"Some traders feel that they are ‘hopeless’ or ‘powerless’, ‘angry’ and ‘frustrated’, but feel that there is little that they can do to influence what happens."</em></p>
<p>In 2006 (whilst in opposition) Council leader Peter John <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/2122">claimed</a> that the Council <em>"wasn't doing enough"</em> to help shopping centre traders, and said that <em>"the council should be using its clout to try to secure them some alternative."</em></p>
<p>Southwark’s Equalities Impact Assessment would seem like a great opportunity to remedy this, but unfortunately it looks like it might end up being used to a less noble end: the EqiA has not been prompted by any great concern for the traders, but by a request from centre owners and developers Delancey, who have asked that <em>‘the council consider exercising its compulsory powers‘</em> to remove leaseholders who have leases which <em>‘cannot be terminated….within the anticipated regeneration timescale’</em> and some freeholders too. (para 51 of <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s57189/Report%20Elephant%20and%20castle.pdf">Cabinet report</a>)</p>
<p><img src="https://www.social-life.co/media/cache/7c/d8/7cd88351c83035bea1af1a55ffe6d81a.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>There is a lot that is questionable about this. First, traders have been pretty much left in the dark for the last decade about what is going on, a fact no better illustrated than by this turn of events – didn’t Southwark think it would be a good idea to ask them what they thought of Delancey’s CPO request? Second, Southwark has carried out EqiAs before, on the Heygate estate and the Aylesbury (68% BME), which failed to prevent the mass displacement of these local BME communities; the big danger is the shopping centre EqiA will just be another routine bureaucratic exercise to satisfy CPO procedural requirements. Third, while getting the CPOs isn’t in the bag yet for Delancey (Southwark will have to consider another report before a final decision), they will nonetheless have a much strengthened bargaining position with any hold-out leaseholders/freeholders (none of whom have named).
The <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/ShoppingCentre_LandRegistry.pdf">Land Registry</a> shows that whilst most are on short leases, there are a handful of traders in the shopping centre with long leases as well as the superbowl, bingo hall, Charlie Chaplin pub, newsagents and dental practice on New Kent rd. There are also the traders in the railway arches who will need to be removed in order for Delancey to realise its plan to open the arches as access routes.</p>
<p>Delancey’s consultation on the redevelopment of the shopping centre has so far been extremely <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-07-12-shopping-centre-and-lcc-redevelopment-proposals/">poor</a>. It has not engaged with the shopping centre traders as a community in the way that it should, and has offered very little to the SME's that make for the centre’s diversity. Instead it is relying on its power as landlord to clear the centre through termination of shorthold leases and the Council's CPO powers for those it cannot terminate. As a local planning authority that has required the demoliton of the shopping centre for planning purposes, Southwark has a legal responsibility to the traders and everyone who uses the centre under the 2010 Equalities Act. It must carry put a proper EqiA - not just a tick-box exercise, and must make it clear to Delancey that unless it makes adequate provision for the retailers in its plans, it will not get its CPO.</p>
Notting Hill comes clean on rents2015-10-12T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2015-10-09-notting-hill-comes-clean/<p>The rents that Aylesbury tenants will have to pay to stay on their newly developed estate have finally been revealed by Notting Hill Housing Trust – and they are shocking. A one bed flat on the <a href="https://www.aylesburynow.london/regeneration/planning-information/first-development-site">first development site</a> will cost £157 per week inclusive of service charges, compared to a current inclusive council rent of about £105 per week. A new 2-bed flat will be £166pw, against current council rents on the Aylesbury of £124pw for a 2-bed inclusive of service charges, heating & hot water.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/nhhtrents.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>These are not social rents</h2>
<p>According to Notting Hill, it will use the Guidance for Rents on Social Housing and the Rent Standard Guidance for calculating Aylesbury rent levels, but it is hard to reconcile that with these forecast rents, which are way beyond the reach of anyone who depends on social housing. The median average household income of a council tenant in Southwark is £9,100 per year, according to the council’s <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2513/southwark_key_housing_data">latest housing data</a>, so any Notting Hill claim that these are social rents is ridiculous.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/averageincome.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Tenants misled again</h2>
<p>The rents information was supplied by Notting Hill Housing in <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/NHHT_EIR_Response.pdf">response</a> to <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Letter_KateDavies_NHHT_Aylesbury_Redevelopment.pdf">questions</a> from the 35% Campaign. It follows a protracted <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-04-18-aylesbury-planning-application-hearing/">argument</a> as to what exactly ‘target rent’ is (Notting Hill's preferred term for social rented housing). During consultation on the Aylesbury planning applications, Notting Hill <a href="https://www.aylesburynow.london/new-homes/rent">claimed</a> <em>"we don't yet have the information to be able to calculate target rents for the new Aylesbury homes"</em> and its excuse was repeated in answer to questions at the planning committee in April. However the figures supplied to us date back to last year when it applied for funding to the Greater London Authority and this has been <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/MGLA010905-3356.pdf">confirmed</a> by the GLA.</p>
<p>The figures are also higher than the rents for <a href="https://www.camberwellfields.com/">Edmund Street</a>, Notting Hill's new build scheme that Aylesbury tenants were <a href="https://www.aylesburynow.london/contact/faqs#what-does-target-rent-mean">referred to by Notting Hill</a>, in the absence of the rent figures it claimed it did not have. A one-bed at Edmund Street is over £30pw cheaper at £123pw inclusive and a 2-bed is £18pw cheaper at £148pw.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/aylesburyfaq.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The new Aylesbury rents will apply from 2018, when phase 1 of the First Development Site is completed. Both the GLA and Notting Hill add caveats to them, claiming that they are just <em>‘prospective’</em> and <em>‘forecast’</em> rents, and <em>‘are subject to market forces and government policy.'</em> but because the figures are the basis for funding the redevelopment, they cannot be reduced without consequences, so we think Notting Hill is unlikely to reduce them by their own volition.</p>
<h2>It gets worse</h2>
<p>The table of rents shows that rents will also rise further as the redevelopment progresses. Phase 2 one beds will be £162.46, two-beds £172, three beds £181.57. Phase 3 rents rise to £168.15, £178.02, £187.92 for one, two and three bed flats respectively.</p>
<h2>Another promise broken</h2>
<p>One of the big promises to Aylesbury residents, to justify knocking down their estate, was that 75% of the affordable housing, 1300 homes, would be social rented (<a href="https://pwfpwfpwf.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-aylesbury-estate-utopia-when.html">referred to</a> interchangably by councillors as council rent). Social rented housing is supposedly guaranteed in the Aylesbury Area Action Plan, the redevelopment’s planning bible. But Southwark and Notting Hill have been systematically undermining the very idea of social rent by introducing all sorts of new names for it, as we have documented – target rent being the worst and most misleading.</p>
<p>But the figures don’t lie and while Southwark keeps council rents in the borough below £100 per week on average (something it is quite properly <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1738/southwark_council_keeping_social_rent_affordable_for_londoners">proud of</a>), it also allows Notting Hill to rack-up Aylesbury rents to levels that make a nonsense of its <a href="https://www.redpepper.org.uk/the-aylesbury-estate-the-latest-front-in-the-battle-against-social-cleansing/">declaration</a> that they would be <em>‘similar to council rents’</em>. Council rents remain the true benchmark for social rents and while housing association rents have always been a little higher, it's clear to see that rents of £157 per week are well above these levels.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/lbs_keepingrentslow.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Aylesbury CPO Inquiry resumes</h2>
<p>We raised the issue of rent levels at the resumption of the <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-05-02-aylesbury-estate-compulsory-purchase-order-public-inquiry/">Aylesbury CPO Inquiry</a>. You can see barrister Chris Jacob's closing statement outlining the issue of rent levels here:</p>
<iframe width="400" height="225" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hC898Rm9rW0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<p>More footage from the Public Inquiry is also available online via <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHRf7Up774EnVkhes9K_4q9VUlLZtcwOo">this link</a>.</p>
Southwark backs down over 'social' housing definitions2015-09-24T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2015-09-24-southwark-backs-down-over-bermondsey-spa-dispute/<p>We have been blogging for some time now about developments routinely breaching planning conditions and Southwark's failure to monitor compliance. In March this year we <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-03-18-stand-up-for-more-social-housing/">stumbled upon</a> a development by <a href="https://www.nottinghillhousing.org.uk/">Notting Hill Housing Association</a>, that had delivered <strong>affordable rent</strong> instead of the <strong>social rent</strong> agreed at planning approval.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.the-exchange-london.com/web/images/01/aerial-shot.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>These homes were part of Notting Hill's Bermondsey Spa regeneration, where 54 council homes had been demolished and replaced with 205 new homes of which 44 were supposed to be social rent. When we discovered that these were being let at <strong>affordable rents</strong> of up to 63% market rent, we set about campaigning for the council to take enforcement action and make Notting Hill convert them back to social rent, which according to Southwark's <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2914/affordable_rent_in_southwark_2011">latest housing data</a> currently equates to around 25% of market rent. The local newspaper ran a <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/southwark-council-probes-44-missing-social-homes/">story</a> on the tenure switch, in which the council promised that 'appropriate action' would be taken on this blatant breach of planning conditions.</p>
<p>The matter was also <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-05-16-aylesbury-cpo-inquiry-extra-time/">picked up</a> by the Aylesbury CPO Public Inquiry in May, where it was confirmed that the parties were in dispute about the wording of the section 106 agreement and were both in the process of 'seeking legal advice'. This week there was an <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Councils_update_statement.pdf">update statement</a> provided by the council to the ongoing CPO Public Inquiry, in which it confirmed that it <em>"will not be taking any [enforcement] action"</em> against Notting Hill for the breach of planning conditions at Bermondsey Spa (para 4.4).</p>
<p>This decision comes as little surprise: Notting Hill is unwilling to convert the homes to social rent because this would breach its funding agreement with the HCA (which was for the delivery of affordable rent); and the council doesn't want to take legal enforcement action; firstly because it allowed an ambiguous definition of social rented housing to be used in the section 106 agreement; and secondly because it doesn't want to draw attention to this widespread ongoing practice, which enables it to trumpet the delivery of social rented housing that is in actual fact <strong>affordable rent</strong>.</p>
<h2>Social housing is not a desirable destination</h2>
<p>Notting Hill has long since turned its back on social rented housing and was not only the first housing association to embrace the <strong>affordable rent</strong> model, but played a significant role in its conception.</p>
<p>Notting Hill's CEO Kate Davies is a <a href="https://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/about-us/csj-fellows/kate-davies">fellow</a> of the <a href="https://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/">Centre for Social Justice</a>, the conservative think tank set up and chaired by Iain Duncan Smith, which conceived the idea of both <strong>affordable rent</strong> and right-to-buy for housing association tenants.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/kdquotes.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>In 2007, a government commissioned <a href="https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/5568/1/Ends_and_Means_The_future_roles_of_social_housing_in_England_1.pdf">report</a> by John Hills laid set out suggestions for reforming social housing, including suggestions of removing secure tenancies and increasing rents. After the report was criticised, Kate Davies <a href="https://35percent.org/img/20070306TT.pdf">wrote</a> in support of John Hills and his suggestions, claiming that <em>"social housing should not be seen as a destination, but as a springboard to a better life"</em>.</p>
<p>In 2008, she featured in <a href="https://35percent.org/img/20081114.pdf">this article</a> claiming that social housing required reform, that tenures shouldn't be for life and that different tenures should be introduced, including rents at <em>"almost market price"</em>.</p>
<p>Kate Davies later co-authored <a href="https://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/UserStorage/pdf/Pdf%20reports/HousingPoverty.pdf">this report</a> by the CSJ, in which she claimed that council estates are <em>‘ghettos of the poorest and neediest people’</em> that are <em>‘subsidised by the taxpayer’</em> and provide <em>‘low cost living for life funded from the public purse'</em>. She said that tenants <em>‘often pay little or no rent, and get their home maintained in good order for free.’</em> She concluded that <em>‘social housing is not a desirable destination’</em> and that <em>‘private ownership is preferable to state provided solutions’</em>.</p>
<p>When the unpopular social housing reforms were being pushed through parliament by the conservatives in 2011, Notting Hill Housing was one of the few housing providers to write in support of the <strong>affordable rent</strong> proposals. In its official <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/8483/2109183.pdf">consultation response</a> it wrote: <em>"Notting Hill strongly welcomes the Government’s social housing reforms. They will lead to a significant increase in the provision of new social housing, with the higher levels of income that associations will receive from affordable rent tenancies."</em></p>
<p>It seems that Kate Davies has come an awful long way from her far left roots as <a href="https://35percent.org/img/19870211.pdf">general secretary of the RCP</a> - (maiden name Kate Marshall).</p>
<h2>From social to target to (capped) affordable rent</h2>
<p>So how does Notting Hill's predilection for <strong>affordable rent</strong> fit in with its redevelopment of the Aylesbury estate, which requires social rented housing?</p>
<p>Throughout Notting Hill's public consultation for its Aylesbury estate planning application, it has consistently referred to the replacement social housing not as <strong>social rent</strong> or <strong>affordable rent</strong>, but as <strong>'target rent'</strong>.</p>
<p>We pointed out during the consultation that whilst there are 'target rents' for both <strong>social rent</strong> and <strong>affordable rent</strong>, the standalone term <strong>'target rent'</strong> has no planning policy support and that the only terms recognised in planning policy definitions are <strong>social rent</strong> or <strong>affordable rent</strong>. Our concerns were addressed in the council's April 2015 <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!Vbu5QpckfYCnJrulzlWyuQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">planning report</a> for the application where it claimed that Notting Hill had <em>"clarified that in all cases references to ‘target rent’ are referring to the social rent tenure"</em> and that our concerns were unfounded because <strong>social rent</strong> would in any event be firmly secured in the (Section 106) legal agreement.</p>
<p><img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCoxHXoWYAAyHtv.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>In our <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-09-14-barratt-conquers-southwark/">previous</a> blog post we pointed out our concerns with the wording of the section 106 agreement. We also published the <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/AylesburyS106_CllrWilliams.pdf">letter</a> we sent to Councillor Williams, which outlined our concerns and suggested amendments to the ambiguous wording of the agreement. We are yet to receive a reply from Cllr Williams and trust that this is because he is in the process of seeking advice from officers and investigating the matter throroughly.</p>
<p>We learned more about Notting Hill's definiton of social rent and 'target rent' during the <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-05-02-aylesbury-estate-compulsory-purchase-order-public-inquiry/">CPO Public Inquiry</a> in May. During the cross examination of Notting Hill's Director of Regeneration (Rosemary Houseman), she reluctantly admitted there is indeed a difference between <strong>social rent</strong> and <strong>target rent</strong>, but that it <em>"isn't a massive difference"</em> (see end of following clip).</p>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jw7LH2SREZI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<p>Ms Houseman was also quizzed about the £59m funding Notting Hill had received for the redevelopment from the Mayor's <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/housing-land/increasing-housing-supply/mayor-housing-covenant-2015-2018">2015-18 MHC funding programme</a>. She reluctantly conceded that this funding programme is linked to the provision of <em>affordable rent</em> not <em>social rent</em>, but argued that it was the 'capped' not 'discounted' version of affordable rent that would be provided.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/The%20Mayor's%20Housing%20Covenant%202015-18%20Programme%20prospectus.pdf">prospectus</a> for this funding programme explains that funding is only available for shared ownership and affordable rent, which comes in two flavours: 'discounted' affordable rent which is up to 80% market rent; and 'capped' affordable rent which is capped at 50% market rent.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/cappedrent.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>So it seems that Notting Hill's definition of social rent is not the traditional one, i.e. determined by the National Rent Regime Regulatory Framework. It seems Notting Hill's definition of social or 'target rent' equates to the Mayor's 'capped' <strong>affordable rent</strong> product, i.e. up to 50% market rent.</p>
<p>We recently discovered that Notting Hill actually submitted detailed prospective rent levels for each and every one of its new 'affordable' Aylesbury homes, as part of its bid submission for the mayoral funding. We believe that the confusion caused by the ambiguous terms used throughout the planning process, can only be cleared up by knowing what the actual rents will be in cash terms. So we have <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Letter_KateDavies_NHHT_Aylesbury_Redevelopment.pdf">written</a> to Notting Hill requesting details of these and look forward to their response.</p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image" />
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@35Percent_EAN" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Aylesbury redevelopment agreement leaves door open to affordable rent" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Southwark rolls over to Notting Hill in dispute over 'social' housing definitions" />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/PeterJohn_IDS_KateDavies.jpg" />
We're all on the list2015-07-19T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2015-07-19-we-are-all-on-the-list/<p>Southwark council is due to discuss progress on its plans to build 11,000 council homes on <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=302&MId=5138&Ver=4">Tuesday evening</a> and will be considering a <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s55626/Appendix%204%20Savills%20Evaluation.pdf">report</a> by global property consultant <strong>Savills</strong>. This measures the performance of all Southwark's 406 council estates or <em>'asset groups'</em> as Savills calls them. Savills does not use Peter John's <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/page_17.jpg">'penile drugs injection'</a> test as a measure of a community's success, but its pseudo-scientific approach is not much better. It lumps together stock condition and maintenance costs with socio-economic measurements such as income levels and educational attainment, to give each council estate a rating.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/harrietharman_peniselevator.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Savills' two sets of measurements are described as Net Present Value (NPV - crudely: the cost of upkeep against rental income) and <em>'Sustainability'</em>, which it defines as the <em>'social and economic performance of the neighbourhood'</em>. The social and economic indicators include, amongst other things how poor people are, how healthy they are, how many are jobless, how many claim benefits and how much crime and anti-social behaviour there is. Sustainability is measured entirely in socio-economic terms; it includes no environmental factors.</p>
<p>All estates then fall into one of four categories: those with <strong>'strong NPV'</strong> (Net Present Value) and <strong>'strong sustainabilty'</strong>; those with <strong>'weak NPV'</strong> and <strong>'strong sustainability'</strong>; those with <strong>'strong NPV'</strong> and <strong>'weak sustainabilty'</strong>; and those with <strong>'weak NPV'</strong> and <strong>'weak sustainability'</strong>. A future course of action is prescribed for each:</p>
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Rating</th>
<th>Course of Action</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Above Average NPV & Above Average Sustainability</td>
<td>Regular Investment</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Below Average NPV & Above Average Sustainability</td>
<td>Small scale redevelopment or regeneration</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Above Average NPV & Below Average Sustainability</td>
<td>Asset investment/community initiatives</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Below Average NPV & Below Average Sustainability</td>
<td>"Widest range of options"</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Those estates that are <strong>above average NPV</strong> and <strong>above average sustainability</strong> can expect <em>'regular investment'</em>. Those that have <strong>below average NPV</strong> and <strong>strong social sustainability</strong> are prescribed <em>'small scale redevelopment/regeneration'</em> measures. Those which have <strong>above average NPV</strong> but <strong>weak social sustainability</strong> will require <em>'community initiatives alongside asset investment'</em>. Finally those which show both <strong>below average NPV</strong> and <strong>weak social sustainability</strong> will be dealt with on the <em>'widest range of options possible'</em>.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/southwark_estates.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Nobody can argue with investment in council estates and social housing, but the examples of Heygate and Aylesbury give us good reason to worry and Savills' involvement is not reassuring. They were authors of a <a href="https://www.savills.co.uk/_news/article/72418/175241-0/04/2014/savills-research--london-regeneration-research-proposal">report</a> last year that led to <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/eric-pickles-tear-down-estates-to-boost-poor-innercity-homes-9277330.html">headlines</a> like <em>"Eric Pickles: Tear down estates to boost poor inner-city homes"</em>.</p>
<p>We also note that Cllr Peter John is <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-03-28-manifesto-for-destruction-of-council-estates/">of a mind</a> that the Heygate and Aylesbury regenerations are a success and holds them up as an example for others to follow.</p>
<p>We should not accept the Savills report as any basis for estate renewal in Southwark. The whole report is set up to lead to conclusions that favour redevelopment and the displacement of local communities. Refurbishment is not mentioned when it should be the benchmark against which the cost and social impact of any redevelopment should be compared. The Cabinet should thank Savills for its report at its meeting on Tuesday, pay them, sack them and send them on their way. It should instead look to the <a href="https://www.engineering.ucl.ac.uk/engineering-exchange/demolition-refurbishment-social-housing/">work</a> of University College London, which has conducted extensive research on the merits of council estate refurbishment versus demolition.</p>
Councillor John promises to reveal all2015-07-18T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2015-07-18-all-is-to-be-revealed/<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/pjflasher.jpg" width="200" height="400" style="margin:10px" align="left" />Viability assessments, the secret documents that developers use to reduce the amount of affordable housing they build, will now have to be made public, according to <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/my-conscience-is-clear-council-leader-peter-john-comes-out-fighting-as-heygate-deal-scrutinised/">this interview</a> that council leader Peter John gave in the Southwark News last week.</p>
<p>Councillor John also said that we could be getting more affordable housing on Lend Lease's <a href="https://www.elephantpark.co.uk/"><strong>Elephant Park</strong></a> development (formerly the Heygate estate).</p>
<p>On viability assessments Cllr John is swimming with the tide. Islington council has just revealed its detailed and well thought-out <a href="https://www.islington.gov.uk/services/planning/planningpol/pol_supplement/Pages/Development-Viability-Discussion-Paper-and-Questionnaire.aspx">proposal</a> for making viability assessments transparent and ensuring developers deliver the maximum amount of affordable housing. At a <a href="https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2015/07/07/bureau-to-hold-debate-on-affordable-housing-and-viability-assessments-at-the-commons/">House of Commons meeting</a> last Tuesday, Islington called upon all London boroughs to join them in a pan-London response to the scandal of lost affordable housing. Greenwich council has also said that all viability assessments it receives will be made fully public and Hackney council is looking at much stronger transparency measures. Most surprising of all, Mayor Boris Johnson conceded at a <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/GLA_Transcript_ViabilityMQ150715.pdf">Planning Committee meeting</a> on thursday, that viability assessments are part of a <em>'dark art'</em> and that something needs to be done because <em>'developers are getting away with it'</em>.</p>
<p>Southwark should take the <a href="https://www.islington.gov.uk/services/planning/planningpol/pol_supplement/Pages/Development-Viability-Discussion-Paper-and-Questionnaire.aspx">Islington Supplementary Planning Document</a> as its benchmark and produce a draft right now for consultation alongside the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/856/planning_policy/3315/the_new_southwark_plan">new Southwark Plan</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/pjsn.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>During the interview, Cllr John also defended Southwark council's notorious deal with Lend Lease that slashed <a href="https://35percent.org/affordable-housing/">affordable housing on the new Heygate</a>, reducing the number of social rented units to just 74. He said that we could still get more than was agreed in future detailed planning applications. If this is a sincere promise, the very first thing we need is a new viability assessment. The one just revealed has been shown to favour Lend Lease's profits above all else and was heavily criticised by the District Valuer, whose recommendations Southwark ignored. It is a document which has no credibility and must not be allowed to govern the delivery of affordable housing on Elephant Park over the next ten years.</p>
Completing the masterplan - Shopping centre traders to be booted out2015-07-12T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2015-07-11-shopping-centre-and-lcc-redevelopment-proposals/<p>Just as the dust settles on the rubble of the Heygate estate, consultation begins on the demise of another large part of the Elephant & Castle's local community.</p>
<p>Shopping centre owner and property developer Delancey, has publicised proposals for a <a href="https://elephantandcastletowncentre.co.uk/">'new town centre'</a> and its working assumption is that the shopping centre will be demolished and current traders will just up-sticks and 'move on'.</p>
<p>An <a href="https://elephantandcastletowncentre.co.uk/exhibition.htm">exhibition</a> of the proposals, dubbed <strong>'Completing the Masterplan'</strong> was held last week. It displayed proposals for a mixed-use development of retail, 1000 new homes and a new campus for the London College of Communication. LCC would move from its present campus, allowing that land to be incorporated as part of the redevelopment scheme.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LCCAerial.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The proposals will obviously entail the demolition of the entire shopping centre including the <a href="https://coronettheatre.co.uk/home/save-the-coronet/">Coronet theatre</a>, but the exhibition does not dwell on this. In our view, demolition is not a foregone conclusion; at the time Delancey bought the shopping centre, refurbishment was the preferred option and it may look a bit tatty but for a lot of people it still has great social value.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.social-life.co/media/cache/7c/d8/7cd88351c83035bea1af1a55ffe6d81a.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The exhibition also failed to say what will happen to the current shopkeepers and stallholders, who depend on the centre for their living and provide a valuable service to the local community.</p>
<p>Nor did the exhibition say how much affordable housing there will be. The 1000 new homes will be entirely private rented sector, with maximum 3 year tenancies and none will be for sale, but this does not exempt Delancey from the policy requirement to provide 35% affordable housing, half of which must be social rented.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/newhomesforlondoners.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>We took up the <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/delanceyinvite.pdf">invite</a> and went along to the exhibition to speak to Delancey's representatives, who provided answers to some of our questions; yes, there will be affordable housing but how much hasn't yet been decided; and no, there will be no provision for current shopkeepers, their leases are coming to an end and they will have to move on.</p>
<p>Delancey suggested that some traders may be able to pick up space in its <a href="https://35percent.org/tribeca-square">Tribeca Square</a> development next door, where there should be a small number of retail units, some at reduced rents and earmarked for displaced shopping centre retailers (see section below for more details on this).</p>
<p>This is Delancey's second public consultation event for its shopping centre redevelopment and despite being a statutory part of the planning process, there are three big, basic questions that Delancey has not addressed:</p>
<ol>
<li>Where are the current traders going to go?</li>
<li>How much affordable housing will there be?</li>
<li>What justifies the demolition of the shopping centre?</li>
</ol>
<p>Without public discussion of these questions there can be no meaningful consultation. Southwark council should send Delancey back to the drawing board and tell it to come up with some answers - then real consultation can begin.</p>
<h2>Our Council Leader's view..</h2>
<p>Council leader Peter John gave his opinions on the latest regeneration plans on BBC Radio London 94.9FM last week, where he was ably challenged by former Labour Councillor Piers Corbyn on the merits of Delancey's plans. Councillor John said that he had not yet seen the proposals, but thought that raising the issue of affordable housing was <em>"premature"</em>. He ducked the interviewer's question of what Southwark would do if the planning application does not come with the required 35% affordable housing; the correct answer would have been <em>'we will reject the application'</em>, instead he rather feebly said that he would <em>'ask for an explanation'</em>.</p>
<iframe width="100%" height="166" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/214183721&color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false"></iframe>
<p>35% affordable housing still only gets us 175 social rented units in this scheme, a fraction of what we <a href="https://35percent.org/affordable-housing">lost on the Heygate</a>, with a further 175 shared ownership. This is the minimum Southwark's policy requires and it must not accept any viability assessment nonsense from Delancey. We don't want to see it pleading poverty once again, as on its neighbouring <a href="https://35percent.org/tribeca-square">Tribeca Square</a> development where there is no affordable housing of any kind.</p>
<h2>Delancey - a morality tale</h2>
<p>A measure of Delancey's sincerity in suggesting new premises for shopping centre traders at Tribeca Square, can be gauged by the following story:</p>
<p>Back in 2008, when Delancey obtained planning approval for its <a href="https://35percent.org/tribeca-square">Tribeca Square</a> site, it signed a <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!kx6tQZNPCJomdoeiotHphA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">legal agreement</a> with Southwark to <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/2298">provide a number of retail units</a> for traders displaced from the shopping centre at special affordable rents[^1]. This was also one of its justifications for not providing any affordable housing[^2].</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/tribeca_affordablebusinessunits.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>By July 2013, former owners of the shopping centre <strong>St Modwen</strong> had shelved demolition plans <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/5215">in favour of refurbishment</a>, so Delancey <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=13/AP/2302&system=DC">went back</a> to the council and had the legal agreement changed to take these units away from the displaced traders and give them to Sainsburys instead. This was Delancey's <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!1764S3MSO%2biBJUp3XuUgYQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">explanation</a>: <em>"the s106 agreement was signed at a time when it was expected that the E&C shopping centre would be redeveloped, but we understand that this is no longer the case and question the requirement to offer these retail units to tenants of the centre in any event due to the change in circumstance."</em></p>
<p>In November 2013 Delancey bought the shopping centre from <strong>St Modwen</strong> and subsequently <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7258">announced</a> its intention to demolish and redevelop the site. It has not returned to Southwark council and said the units are now needed more than ever by the shopping centre's small shopkeepers, can it please change the agreement again?</p>
<p>Delancey have shown themselves to be slippery customers and they are <a href="https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1583098/Soros-offers-a-helping-hand-to-Ritblat-junior.html">backed</a> up by big money, including one of the world's richest men, George Soros. They are in this to make even more money, and Southwark council must defend local peoples' interest much better than it has done so far.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/sainsburys.png" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: See pg. 22-25 (Schedule 1 provision 5) of the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!kx6tQZNPCJomdoeiotHphA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">legal agreement</a> entitled 'Affordable Business Space'.</p>
<p>[^2]: See paragraph 104 of the planning case officer's <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!vh9yc2npGzJ28c%2fJbhd%2fLA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">report.</a></p>
Heygate viability assessment finally revealed2015-06-25T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2015-06-25-heygate-viability-assessment-finally-revealed/<p>After three years of appeals by Southwark Council and its development partner Lend Lease, Adrian Glasspool has finally received the <a href="https://35percent.org/collated-viability-assessments/">viability assessment</a> for the Heygate outline masterplan in response to his <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/viability_assessment_for_plannin?unfold=1">May 2012 FOI/EIR request</a>. Southwark had initially rejected the request and appealed after his subsequent complaint was <a href="https://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2013/fer_0461281.ashx">upheld</a> by the Information Commissioner. A long battle through the Tribunal system then culminated in a 6 day <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-02-11-heygate-tribunal-hearing-extended/">hearing</a> in February last year, followed by a <a href="https://heygate.github.io/img/FirstTierDecisionHeygate.pdf">decision notice</a> directing Southwark to release the assessment minus some of its financial modelling figures[^1]. Following a further dispute about exactly which figures could be withheld, the Tribunal resumed and issued a <a href="https://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i1505/London%20Borough%20of%20Southwark%20EA.2013.0162%20%2810.3.15%29%202nd%20Decision.pdf">final decision</a> in March this year. The viability assessment was then received in April and after examination by sympathetic industry experts we can now disclose our findings. The Heygate tribunal case has since triggered decisions to disclose viability information for other large regeneration schemes including <a href="https://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2013/fer_0491596.ashx">Earls Court regeneration</a> and <a href="https://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2014/fer_0524770.pdf">Greenwich Peninsula</a>.</p>
<p>As well as a copy of the disclosed viability assessment, the 35% campaign has also obtained via FOI a (heavily redacted) <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/DVSreport_HeygateOutline.pdf">copy</a> of the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/district-valuer-services-dvs/about">District Valuer Service</a>(DVS) appraisal of the viability assessment, commissioned by Southwark council.</p>
<h3>First impressions</h3>
<p><strong>This is a profitability assessment- not a viability assessment</strong>
Lend Lease commissioned Savills to produce the viability assessment and the first thing that becomes clear from the disclosed information is that <strong>unviable doesn't mean unprofitable.</strong> Savills tested to see how the development could provide an 'acceptable' level of developer's return for Lend Lease (i.e. profit margin) - and set the level of affordable housing accordingly.</p>
<h3>25% is deemed the acceptable level of profit</h3>
<p>Savills settled on 25% as the acceptable level of profit and the minimum needed to test the viability of the scheme - i.e. the 'viability benchmark'.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/viabilitybenchmark.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>But no explanation is given as to why 25% profit was used as the viability benchmark, rather than the 20% Lend Lease had agreed contractually with Southwark in its Partnership Agreement[^2] (Southwark is a development partner in this scheme); all that Savills says is this:</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/savillsdr.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>In his report on the viability assessment, the District Valuer was clearly not impressed with this explanation. <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/DVSreport_HeygateOutline.pdf"><em>"I do not adopt the profit benchmark that Savills have adopted.."</em></a>(page 30, para. 2)</p>
<p>He goes on to say:</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/DVSacceptablereturn.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Nonetheless, Southwark ignored his advice and accepted the 25% figure (equivalent to approx £300m[^4]) as the viability benchmark in calculating the affordable housing offer. It's important to note that as well as the viability assessment, <em>"the Council keeps DVS's report confidential also"</em>[^5]; it is not shown to planning committee councillors and there is nothing obliging the council's planning officers to implement, or act upon any of the District Valuer's recommendations.</p>
<p>The 25% required profit figure in the viability assessment serves to inflate the projected development costs and allow the consequent reduction of affordable housing. In the event, the number of social rented units was reduced from the 432[^3] required by policy <a href="https://35percent.org/affordable-housing">to just 74</a>, and the total number of <a href="https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/2015/03/17/trafalgar-place-a-damning-indictment-of-affordable-housing-in-london/">'affordable'</a> homes from 35% to 25% (a reduction in itself of £90m worth of affordable housing[^6]).</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/UpdatedAHStatement.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>During the Tribunal hearing, council officers acknowledged that they did not actually see the viability assessment themselves, but depended entirely upon the District Valuer. However, the District Valuer said that the 25% profit margin was too high and well above the 15% average. So with this in mind and, in the knowledge that the Partnership Agreement had stipulated a lower figure (20%), why did Southwark continue to allow the 25% to be used as the viability benchmark?</p>
<h3>Residential sales prices were grossly underestimated</h3>
<p>An important element of the viability assessment is the anticipated sales prices of the new homes. If this is underestimated it reduces the projected profitability of the development and the amount of money available for affordable housing. The viability assessment estimated that Lend Lease's new flats would sell for an average of £600 per sqft[^7].</p>
<p>The District Valuer flagged this up and expressed concern that Lend Lease's sales projections were <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Southwark-Simon-Bevan.pdf"><em>"too conservative"</em></a>(para. 81). He explained that <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/DVSreport_HeygateOutline.pdf"><em>"much of the local sales evidence is not comparable to what is proposed"</em> and <em>"does not give an idea of what may be achieved following redevelopment."</em></a>(page 40)</p>
<p>The local 'comparable' sales evidence provided in <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Appendix12.pdf">appendix 12</a> of the viability assessment, shows just how poor the supporting evidence is. Property number 24 on the comparables list is this 2-bed ex-council flat on the council's Pelier estate straddling the Walworth/Camberwell borders; a long way from the 35-storey, concierge-serviced luxury towers Lend Lease is building up at the Elephant.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/88_LangdaleClose_SE17.JPG" alt="" /></p>
<p>A quick trip to Lend Lease's marketing showroom at the Elephant shows that its <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/WestGrovePrices.pdf">price list</a> for <a href="https://www.elephantpark.co.uk/news-and-editorial/news/west-grove-film-premiere">'West Grove'</a> (the latest phase to go on sale) is advertising flats for sale at an average of £1,012 per sqft - i.e. £400 per sqft more than Lend Lease's viability assessment estimate.</p>
<h3>Why no review mechanism?</h3>
<p>As a result of his concerns about the pessimistic sales projections, the District Valuer recommended that a 'review mechanism' be made a condition of planning consent. He recognised that even a small increase in the sales values given could have a <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/DVSreport_HeygateOutline.pdf"><em>"significant impact on the profitability and this underlines the need to have a review mechanism."</em></a>(page 39, para. h).</p>
<p>Southwark however, did not think a review mechanism was worth their while; the case officer's <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!hgyBVuEH%2b8BxXry2bGRAtA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">report</a> for the masterplan application said:</p>
<p><a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!hgyBVuEH%2b8BxXry2bGRAtA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d"><em>"Given that the development is phased and extends over a prolonged period, it would normally be expected that the viability situation should be reviewed, so that in the event of an economic upturn an increased level of affordable housing could be secured. It should however be noted that the indicative viable level of 9.4%, indicates that a very significant economic upturn would be required in order to bring the viability to a level of affordable housing above the 25% proposed in this application. Hence it is unlikely (in light of the current viability gap) that a review would secure any increase in the quantum of affordable housing that could be supported by the scheme."</em></a> (paras. 153-154)</p>
<p>Southwark council acknowledges that it did not have the expertise nor the experience to appraise the viability assessment. Southwark's Director of Planning said in <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Southwark-Simon-Bevan.pdf">evidence</a> given at the Tribunal that <em>"None of the council's planning officers has the expertise to analyse a viability assessment. The council's planning officers refer all viability assessments, without exception, either to the District Valuer Service, or to the council's internal Property Valuation team."</em>(para 41).</p>
<p>This is why it had to send the viability assessment to the District Valuer Service. It had so little confidence in its own ability to understand the assessment that it did not even open the viability assessment's critical financial model:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Southwark-Simon-Bevan.pdf"><em>"The [financial] model could not be opened as the file was incompatible with the Council's computer systems."</em></a>(para. 73)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Nonetheless, despite being so dependent on the District Valuer, Southwark ignored his criticism of the profit level and ignored his recommendation that there should be a review mechanism. As a result Southwark has lost 358 social rented homes, while Lend Lease stands to make whacking profits.</p>
<h2>'Something Sinister' or 'crap journalism'?</h2>
<p>Southwark has spent 3 years and a significant amount of taxpayer's money on lawyers, arguing that local people don’t have the right to see documents that their elected councillors had based important planning decisions on.</p>
<p>Southwark's regeneration boss justified the council's position by <a href="https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/development/council-to-refuse-demands-about-heygate-estate/6528392.article">claiming</a> that it had <em>"There is nothing I would like more than to publish this document and show the world what a fantastic deal we negotiated for the people of Elephant & Castle. However, we entered into negotiations with Lend Lease on a confidential basis, and I am not willing to break that agreement because a handful of people wrongly think the document contains something sinister."</em></p>
<p>We have published the <a href="https://35percent.org/collated-viability-assessments/">disclosed viability assessment</a> on our website, and will be further exploring the information it contains in a series of blog posts to follow. In the meantime Southwark has got some serious questions to answer. As a result of the findings in a similar Tribunal case in Greenwich Peninsula, <a href="https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2015/05/26/dismay-doesnt-do-it-justice-how-a-secret-system-was-used-to-axe-hundreds-of-affordable-homes-on-britains-most-iconic-construction-site/">media pressure</a> forced Greenwich Council to change its policy and make all viability assessments public by default. Southwark on the other hand has shown no such humility; in response to the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jun/25/london-developers-viability-planning-affordable-social-housing-regeneration-oliver-wainwright">Guardian's exclusive story</a> on our findings, council leader Peter John claimed that the article was <em>"wrong"</em> and accused the Guardian of <em>"crap journalism"</em>. Guardian journalist Olly Wainwright then responded by inviting Councillor John to <em>"get in touch if you think there are mistakes"</em>, to which he replied <em>"Corrected your articles previously - can't do it every time."</em></p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/PJ_HeygateViabilityResponse.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>We have been campaigning for several years now around the Elephant & Castle regeneration, much of which has involved trying to initiate some kind of reasoned debate around planning decisions affecting local people. We have made a point of ensuring that our criticisms are grounded in fact and supported by evidence (even when information has not been made readily available). To date these criticisms have been largely ignored by Southwark council. However, this time the claims are relatively serious and supported by detailed information in the disclosed viability assessment that Councillor John has spent 3 years fighting to conceal. Rather than claiming the assertions are simply <em>"wrong"</em> or <em>"crap journalism"</em>, we invite Councillor John to make a more dignified response. Beyond correcting what he believes is inaccurate, we invite him to answer two very simple questions:</p>
<ul>
<li>Why did the Council fail to follow the District Valuer's recommendation of imposing a viability review mechanism, linked to the delivery of the phased development over its eleven year construction period?</li>
<li>Why did the Council allow Lend Lease's viability assessment to assume a profit margin benchmark 5% higher than had been agreed contractually? (the 5% representing approximately £50m that could have been spent on affordable housing).</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: The Tribunal ruled that Lend Lease could withold its financial model in appendix 22 of the viability assessment and commercial information relating to Lend Lease's negotiations with other businesses - see paras 55 & 56 of the <a href="https://heygatewashome.org/img/FirstTierDecisionHeygate.pdf">decision notice</a> respectively.</p>
<p>[^2]: See page 83 of the leaked <a href="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ra.pdf">Regeneration Agreement</a></p>
<p>[^3]: Southwark's policy requires 35% affordable housing, 50% of which must be social rented (i.e. 17.5% of the total number of new Heygate homes (2,469) = 432).</p>
<p>[^4]: See column 'Scheme Profit' on lower section of page 36 of the <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/DVSreport_HeygateOutline.pdf">District Valuer's report</a>.</p>
<p>[^5]: See paragraph 49 of the Director of Planning's <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Southwark-Simon-Bevan.pdf">Tribunal evidence.</a></p>
<p>[^6]: Total number of habitable rooms in the Heygate masterplan application was 9052. The viability assessment justified the 10% reduction in affordable housing - 10% of 9052 is 905 habitable rooms; <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/affordablehousingspg.pdf">Southwark's tariff</a> for in-lieu affordable housing payments at the Elephant is £100,000 per habitable room; £100,000 X 905 = £90.5m.</p>
<p>[^7]: See paragraph 9.1.1.4 of the <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/HeygateViabilityAssessment_MainReport.pdf">main viability assessment report</a> and <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Appendix12.pdf">Appendix 12</a>.</p>
£63m public money to build 274 private homes2015-06-19T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2015-06-19-housing-minister-visits-new-heygate/<p>Tory Housing Minister Brandon Lewis has <a href="https://www.egi.co.uk/news/lewis-announces-252m-prs-boost/">announced</a> the third round of successful bidders in the government's <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/1000-new-homes-for-private-rent-in-london">Build to Rent fund</a>.</p>
<p>'Build to rent' or PRS (Private Rented Sector) funding is the Conservative government's answer to the housing crisis, with which it subsidises the building of homes for private rent, but without imposing constraints on how much those rents will be. Last year we <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-07-19-community-infrastructure-levy/">reported</a> that Delancey had let slip that its new PRS homes at the Elephant were expected to fetch on average £375pw for 1-bed and £500pw for a 2-bed.</p>
<p>One of the successful bidders this time round was the Richard Rogers designed, 44-storey <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/london-360-tower">London 360 Tower</a>, which <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s45702/06%20Programmes%20delegated%20to%20HCA.rtf">received £45m</a> funding for 274 new PRS homes on the site of the former London Park Hotel at Newington Butts. We <a href="https://35percent.org/london-360-tower/">blogged previously</a> about the 'dreadful irony' of this site being bought (under threat of compulsory purchase) by the government's regeneration agency with £18m of public money, specifically for the purpose of building affordable housing. Now we are seeing an additional £45m being poured into this development which won't contain a single affordable or social rented home.</p>
<p><img src="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/360london.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>In summary, £63m of public funds is being spent to acquire and develop a 44-storey tower comprising what is openly <a href="https://residential.jll.co.uk/en-gb/property-search/property-details.aspx?t=c&id=JLLATC41432">described</a> by the scheme's promoters as <strong>"274 private homes"</strong>. That's a cost of £230k per home when the money could clearly be better spent elsewhere; as we have <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/aylesbury-estate/">shown</a>, council homes on the Aylesbury estate could be brought up to Decent Homes Standard for a sum of just £20k per dwelling.</p>
<p>Most housing associations have snubbed the 'build to rent' funding on the grounds that it doesn't create housing affordable for those in need. As usual, Notting Hill Housing saw pound signs and was one of the first to apply. So far it has been <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/build-to-rent-round-1-allocations/build-to-rent-round-1-signed-contracts">allocated</a> £17m in the first round of funding to build 181 PRS homes in London. We don't know how many of these will be on the new Aylesbury, but we do now know that despite its insistence that there would be no 'affordable rent' homes on the redeveloped estate, the Mayor has now <a href="https://questions.london.gov.uk/QuestionSearch/searchclient/questions/question_282124">confirmed</a> that he has allocated funding for at least 450 new homes on the Aylesbury at - guess what? affordable rent.</p>
<h2>Heygate - a Tory & Labour blueprint</h2>
<p>We <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-03-28-manifesto-for-destruction-of-council-estates/">blogged in February</a> about Labour Lord Adonis's <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/8192">visit to the Elephant & Castle</a> and his <a href="https://www.ippr.org/publications/city-villages-more-homes-better-communities">manifesto</a> for the destruction of the council estates. At the beginning of the month Housing Minister Brandon Lewis <a href="https://twitter.com/ElephantParkLDN/status/606512000261345280">visited phase one of the redeveloped Heygate</a> and made a <a href="https://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e764af1c-0f6a-11e5-897e-00144feabdc0.html">similar call</a>, in what appears to be a race to the bottom in UK housing policy.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/brandonlewis_trafalgarplace.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>In his <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/brandon-lewis-speaks-at-the-london-real-estate-forum">speech</a> at the <a href="https://www.lref.co.uk/">London Real Estate Forum</a> on 11th June, Brandon Lewis vowed to <em>"regenerate those inner city estates that are dominated by the high-rise blocks of the 1960s and 70s"</em> and claimed that <em>"completely rebuilding these estates will provide more homes and commercial space using the same amount of land."</em></p>
<p>He referred to a report he <a href="https://www.savills.co.uk/_news/article/72418/175241-0/04/2014/savills-research--london-regeneration-research-proposal">commissioned</a> last year from Savills, which claims that <em>"rediscovering just half of this former housing capacity would supply London’s expected housing needs for the next 17 years."</em></p>
<p>We <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-11-08-southwark-fails-to-deliver/">blogged</a> last year about Southwark's <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3934/the_new_southwark_plan">draft new planning policy</a>, which praises the Heygate regeneration and proposes to roll out similar schemes across the borough.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/revitalising.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>We also <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-10-04-lets-talk-about-peters-promises/">wrote</a> about the assessment Southwark had <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SNhat.pdf">commissioned</a> from Savills, to establish which of its council estates were no longer 'viable'. Rumour has it that this assessment is now complete but the results have not been published. As soon as this 'disposals list' is made public, we'll be looking to explain to tenants & residents groups affected exactly what regeneration means.</p>
<h2>Urban Parsley</h2>
<p>Meanwhile council leader Peter John was also being led by Lend Lease on a tour of <a href="https://trafalgarplace.com/">'Trafalgar Place'</a> (phase one of the redeveloped Heygate nearing completion). Cllr John was particularly excited about the carrots growing in the new 'community garden', which comes with a ready-grown vegetable patch.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/communitycarrots.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>It was left to us to point out that the carrots are corporate carrots, not communal carrots, as the 'community garden' is situated in a raised courtyard above the parking lobby with zero public access; and, for the record, just <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/affordable-housing/">8 of the 235 new homes</a> in this first phase of the redeveloped Heygate are going to be social rented homes. There will be a handful 'affordable rent' homes and a number of shared ownership flats (<a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LQPriceList.pdf">if you earn an income of £57k</a>).<br />
On a site that was <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/heygate-regeneration-faq/">sold at a loss</a> to developers and home to an <a href="https://heygatewashome.org/">established community</a> now <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-06-08-the-heygate-diaspora/">scattered to the wind</a>, the carrots are a perfect example of what has been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2015/apr/16/the-great-garden-swindle-how-developers-are-hiding-behind-shrubbery">termed</a> <strong>'urban parsley'</strong>: <em>'a green garnish used as a decoy to distract from what’s really going on'</em>.</p>
<h2>Urban Practitioners</h2>
<p><img src="https://action.labour.org.uk/page/-/site/img/people/headshots/helen%20hayes.jpg" alt="" />
One of our new Southwark MPs Helen Hayes appeared in an <a href="https://www.private-eye.co.uk/hp-sauce">article</a> in Private Eye last week. Helen took over from Tessa Jowell as MP for Dulwich and West Norwood earlier this year, but has been a Southwark councillor since 2010. The Eye took issue with her simultaneous role as boss of an architecture firm, which has not only been writing up council planning policy, but was also <a href="https://m.building.co.uk/lend-lease-wins-%C2%A315bn-regeneration-of-elephant-and-castle/3092038.article">part of the Lend Lease consortium</a> that had won the bid for the Elephant & Castle regeneration and has <a href="https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/allies-and-morrison-wins-go-ahead-for-first-private-homes-on-olympic-park/8656074.article">contracts</a> with Lend Lease elsewhere. Her firm has also been involved in a number of controversial developments in the borough, including the Ministry of Sound (<a href="https://35percent.org/eileen-house">Eileen House</a>) development and the <a href="https://www.alliesandmorrison.com/project/aylesbury-academy/">Aylesbury estate regeneration</a>.</p>
<h2>Urban Campaigners</h2>
<p><img src="https://i-d-images.vice.com/images/articles/meta/2015/06/19/untitled-article-1434727223.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Meanwhile our very own <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=116">Cllr Fiona Colley</a> was spotted campaigning for more affordable homes and against austerity in <a href="https://i-d.vice.com/en_gb/article/why-did-the-daily-mail-paint-this-anti-austerity-campaigner-as-a-violent-extremist">this vice article</a>. After selling off the Heygate and Aylesbury, former investment banker Cllr Colley stepped down from her role as <strong>Cabinet member for Regeneration</strong> last year, to take up her new role as <strong>Cabinet member for Finance, Modernisation and Performance</strong>. We wonder whether she has had a change of heart, or - having snapped up two new-build flats in the Canada Water regeneration[^1] - the homes she is marching for are of a different tenure to those her fellow marchers have in mind..</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: On 6th Jan 1999 Fiona Colley purchased flat 8, Yew House, 2 Woodlands Crescent SE16 6YH (Canada Water regeneration) off-plan for £159,000 and then sold it post-construction on 31st July 2003 for £271,000. On Sept 3rd 2003, she purchased flat 8, Rowan House, 3 Woodlands Crescent SE16 6YF (Canada Water regeneration) for £390,000 and then sold it in May 20th 2011 for £610,000.</p>
Aylesbury CPO Inquiry - Extra Time2015-05-16T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2015-05-16-aylesbury-cpo-inquiry-extra-time/<p>The Aylesury CPO Inquiry resumed back at the Den on Tuesday, but by the end of day the Inspector had decided extra time was needed. She accepted the objectors' argument that there were still legal questions to be answered, among others about the absence of a successful ballot result in favour of demolition. She also agreed that objectors needed more time to get legal assistance and that it will probably be autumn before the the inquiry resumes. We understand that the leaseholders have since instructed Landmark Chambers to act on their behalf.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/ell_wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/alanfootballclub.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Tuesday's hearing returned to the issue of the Bermondsey Spa regeneration and the switch of tenures from social rent to affordable rent. Objectors had raised questions about this at the first hearing and in their <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Objectors_OpeningSubmissions_andAppendices.pdf">opening submission</a>, but were told that Southwark and Notting Hill Housing needed time to look into the details before answering questions.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/theexchange.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>On being questioned again, this time representatives from the council and Notting Hill both said they could not comment because the matter was in the hands of their respective legal departments.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, Southwark did table two 'explanatory notes' agreed with Notting Hill about the Bermondsey Spa regeneration and four other developments, which did shed some further light on the matter. The <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/CPO_ExplanatoryNote27April2015.pdf">first</a> of these shows that wholesale changes to the tenure mix had been made post approval on all four developments and that while there was an overall increase in affordable housing of 260 units, there was a net loss in <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/ObjectorsReplyToExplantoryNote1.pdf">social rented housing of 15 homes</a>. Also in each case a broadly policy-compliant scheme was changed after planning approval to become wildly non-compliant.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/ExplanatoryNote1.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/CPO_ExplanatoryNote12May2015.pdf">second note</a> was a strictly legal description of how in each case these changes could be justified. It does not address any of the issues about policy compliance, the correct mix of social and intermediate housing, or why the planning committee is left entirely in ignorance of the significant tenure changes being made post approval.</p>
<p>In the second note Southwark also confirmed that the definition of affordable rent used in the legal agreements <em>"can be interpreted flexibly enough to allow them to be delivered as social rented units"</em>. However, Notting Hill doesn't agree - as the note says: <em>"It is not yet clear whether the parties agree on the correct interpretation."</em> Southwark has therefore <em>"sought advice from the council's legal department"</em> and Notting Hill is also <em>"seeking advice in relation to the wording of the agreement"</em>.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/ExplanatoryNote2.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The problem for Notting Hill and Southwark Council is that they have been found out. By using the same legal definition for both affordable rent and social rent, they can claim to be delivering social rented housing when in actual fact they are delivering affordable rent. The question now is who is going to shoulder the blame and whether or not the affordable rented units at Bermondsey Spa (and maybe elsewhere?) will be converted to social rent.</p>
<p>If these differences cannot be resolved amicably Southwark has the option of enforcing its own interpretation, in which case Notting Hill could respond via the courts. Notting Hill Housing is Southwark's development partner on the Aylesbury and its largest development partner in the borough. So the Council needs to lay down the law and make sure that Notting Hill delivers the social rented homes that the borough so desperately needs, not some bogus 'affordable rent' or 'target rent' by the back door.</p>
<p><strong>Postscript Update 22/5/15</strong>
Southwark News has picked up on our tenure switch story and published an <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/southwark-council-probes-44-missing-social-homes/">article</a> with quotes from Cllr Williams, claiming that the council is <em>"looking into the rent levels proposed at Bermondsey Spa"</em> and that <em>"appropriate action"</em> will be taken. The article also confirms that Notting Hill has built a total of 1,442 homes in Southwark and that it has another 5,489 in the pipeline.</p>
Aylesbury CPO Inquiry - Into the Lion's Den2015-05-02T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2015-05-02-aylesbury-estate-compulsory-purchase-order-public-inquiry/<p>The Public Inquiry into the Aylesbury Compulsory Purchase Order was adjourned on Friday (until 12th May), after four days of sharp argument between Southwark Council and objectors to the order. This is the third CPO Southwark has sought in relation to the Aylesbury regeneration and we can expect many more as it seeks to get rid of leaseholders who do not accept its derisory compensation offers.</p>
<p><img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDsUkrnW0AEP5X-.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The Inquiry was conducted by government Inspector Leslie Coffey and was held in Arry's Bar at Millwall Football ground. The Inquiry had been moved to the Den to be better able to control feared protests from angry estate residents.</p>
<h2>Them and Us</h2>
<p>Southwark Council's large team of officers were led by barrister <a href="https://www.chambersandpartners.com/uk-bar/person/224510/melissa-murphy">Melissa Murphy</a>, whose recent work includes acting for Basildon council in the eviction of the Dale Farm gypsy and traveller site.</p>
<p>Objectors included representatives from the <a href="https://halag.wordpress.com/">Aylesbury Leaseholders Action Group</a>, the 35% Campaign and former local Tory Councillor Toby Eckersley.
Over the first two days council regeneration officers detailed the background and benefits of new development with much reference to the key planning document, the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200211/area_action_plans/1327/aylesbury_area_action_plan">Aylesbury Area Action Plan</a> (AAAP) of 2009, according to which the regeneration will provide a <em>'mixed community'</em> comprising about 3,500 homes of great design standards with new green spaces.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.peoplesrepublicofsouthwark.co.uk/images/stories/news/2804201502.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Social rent or not social rent?</h2>
<p>Also present was Notting Hill Housing's Head of Regeneration, Rosemary Houseman. Ms Houseman was closely questioned by Objectors about the funding arrangements for the scheme. Under cross examination Ms Housman reluctantly admitted that the 1670 'target rented' Aylesbury homes that Notting Hill had received funding for under the <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/housing-land/increasing-housing-supply/mayor-housing-covenant-2015-2018">Mayor's 2015-18 MHC programme</a>, were referred to in the funding allocation as affordable rent - not social rent.</p>
<h2>Non answers</h2>
<p>Notting Hill Housing and Southwark Council were also cross examined by objectors about the <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-03-18-stand-up-for-more-social-housing/">Bermondsey Spa S106 fiasco</a>, where Notting Hill had promised social rented housing but delivered affordable rent instead. Objectors raised further concerns about tenure switching at other Notting Hill developments including <a href="https://manorplacedepot.co.uk/">Manor Place depot</a>, where <a href="https://www.manorplacedepot.co.uk/Manor-Place-Exhibition-Banners.pdf">pre-planning consultation documents</a> described <em>"9 Social Rent Family Homes"</em>, which subsequently disappeared into <em>"Affordable Rent"</em> homes when the planning application was submitted.</p>
<p>No clear answers to these questions were forthcoming - council and Notting Hill witnesses repeatedly argued that they didn't have the details of the schemes before them and thus couldn't comment. Eventually an explanatory note was promised and this arrived at 2pm of what was to be the final day of the Inquiry. These points will be taken up when the Inquiry resumes next week and we will be addressing this in our next blog.</p>
<h2>The cost</h2>
<p>Southwark Council did <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Email14April2015_KReed.pdf">confirm</a> that it had spent a staggering £46.8m on the Aylesbury regeneration scheme to date. This comprised total capital account costs of £32.1m (demolition & acquisiton) and revenue account costs amounting to £14.7m (Management & Administration, Master-planning, Communications, PFI, Development Partner Procurement, Feasibility Studies etc).</p>
<p>Southwark Council also <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/PMcGreal_Email28April2015.pdf">confirmed</a> that some of its officers valuing leaseholders' homes were not fully qualified or RICS registered. Leaseholders had <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/ALAG_RICS.pdf">complained to RICS</a> about officers conducting the valuations, but because neither the officers in question or Southwark Council were RICS registered, they were unable to pursue the matter.</p>
<h2>'Sham' consultations and legal queries</h2>
<p>On the objectors' side Toby Eckersley called the consultation for the AAAP a 'sham'. He supported his claim by reference to the evidence base supporting the council's decision making process. He took the Inquiry to paragraph 3.1.4 of the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/2938/consultation_report_main_report-appendix_6"><em>"Consultation report for the Aylesbury Area Action Plan"</em></a>, which shows that Southwark received just 33 written representations in response to its consultation on the question of demolition or refurbishment, of which only 5 supported demolition while 9 supported refurbishment (the estate is home to over 7,500 people).</p>
<p>Toby also raised several interesting legal points around whether Southwark had actually fulfilled all the procedural conditions needed to go ahead with the regeneration. He argued that several provisions of the Housing Act 1985 could be open to the interpretation that a ballot is required for a scheme to demolish an estate, especially when the scheme provides for secure tenants to be moved to a new tenancy on the site with a registered provider (i.e. stock transfer). He referred the Inquiry to the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/8289/1293538.pdf">Statutory Guidance on schedule 3A</a> and also to section 105 of the Act, which expressly mentions demolition as a housing management matter which, in principle, should be consulted on. The council responded that a ballot with <strong>YES</strong> vote wasn't necessary because its deal with Notting Hill wasn't a stock transfer; i.e. they were booting residents out before handing the buildings over to Notting Hill to demolish. The Inspector granted an adjournment that would allow objectors time to consider and reply to Southwark's response.</p>
<h2>Ms Murphy's law</h2>
<p>Objectors had several expert witnesses to support their case; <a href="https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/iris/browse/profile?upi=BJCAM61">Dr Ben Campkin</a> of the UCL Bartlett School of Architecture argued that the unjustified negative image of the estate is the thread which underlies ideas about its demolition and regeneration. He gave a presentation based on his book <a href="https://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/architecture/events/remaking-london-event">'Remaking London'</a> and was subsequently subjected to a fierce cross-examination by Ms Murphy. She took Dr Campkin to task for not being familiar with the Aylesbury Area Action Plan, one of the many large documents within the Inquiry's four-volume core bundle. Amongst other points she also referred to a previous Inspector's <em>'educated judgement'</em> that the Aylesbury estate was <em>"visually unattractive"</em>, which drew laughter from the (largely uneducated) public present .</p>
<p>Dr <a href="https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/iris/browse/profile?upi=CACRA07">Kate Crawford</a> from the UCL Faculty for Engineering Science gave evidence <em>'as an expert citizen'</em> on the pros and cons of demoliton vs refurbishment, for which she had authored a <a href="https://www.engineering.ucl.ac.uk/engineering-exchange/files/2014/10/Report-Refurbishment-Demolition-Social-Housing.pdf">report</a> by the <a href="https://www.engineering.ucl.ac.uk/">UCL Engineering Exchange</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Conisbee_Nov2004Figures.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Dr Crawford pointed out that there was no legible version of the cost benefit analysis comparing the benefits of demolition against refurbishment, which had been keenly sought by objectiors. She also pointed out that the issue of embodied energy had not been addressed. Ms Murphy had little time for any of this and again referred her to all the documents that Dr Crawford might not have read.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.peoplesrepublicofsouthwark.co.uk/images/stories/0205201502.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Also appearing in support of the objectors were <a href="https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/iris/browse/profile?upi=JREND85">Professor Jane Rendell</a> from UCL Bartlett, who in her <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SummaryProfRendell.pdf">expert witness statement</a> pointed to seven reasons why the CPO was not in the public benefit and <a href="https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/geography/people/professor-loretta-lees-1">Professor Loretta Lees</a>, an <em>'international expert on gentrification and the policies and practices associated with it'</em>. Professor Lees presented her research to the Inquiry which included extracts from interviews conducted on the estate and an analysis of the extent to which residents were being displaced from the area. Her displacement maps projected during the presentation, were a sobering reminder of the <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-06-08-the-heygate-diaspora/">Heygate diaspora</a> and provided a clear indication as to who this regeneration is (or isn't) benefitting.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/lorettalees_aylesburydisplacement.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>The residents speak</h2>
<p>On the fourth day a dose of reality was introduced into proceedings when residents gave personal testimony about the human impact and cost of the regeneration.</p>
<p>Les Kerrigan was a leaseholder and resident of 27 years standing and he spoke up for the refurbishment option. His family and friends were all in the area and he complained of the treatment he had received from Southwark's surveyors (a recurring theme) and their 'derisory' offers of compensation.</p>
<p>Mrs Agnes Kabuto had been leaseholder for 25 years and spoke of Southwark's broken promises, including the promise that residents could return to the rebuilt Aylesbury. Her grandchild attended the local school and her wheelchair-bound mother was becoming ill with anxiety about what would happen to them. She could not afford any of the rehousing options Notting Hill had offered her and would have a problem getting a mortgage because of her age. She said she felt like <em>'a small fish in a sea of sharks'</em>.</p>
<p>Ms Judi Boss complained of the confusion Southwark had caused leaseholders and spoke of the support leaseholders had given each other. She said <em>'I feel like I signed my human rights away when I signed my lease'</em>.</p>
<p>A statement was read out on behalf of Mr Mehmet Suzman, aged 80, and his wife, Mrs Suzman, aged 76, because they were only able to attend the first day of the hearing. It said that they had no idea they could be bought-out without comparable compensation. They had had shop on the Walworth Rd and had lived in the area 40 years; their family and friends lived all around them; they asked where were they to go if Southwark took their home away from them? Who would give them a mortgage?</p>
<p>The Inquiry resumes back at the Den on 12th May.</p>
Aylesbury Applications Approved2015-04-26T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2015-04-26-aylesbury-applications-approved/<p>Southwark council battoned down the hatches at their Tooley Street headquarters last Thursday, in preparation for the controversial Aylesbury planning application committee hearing.
In the event, Aylesbury tenants and leaseholders were bitterly disappointed when the six hour meeting approved the <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-11-01-aylesbury-estate-planning-application/">applications</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDTZqH_WYAAUca2.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Unsurprisingly there was much emotion and some anger at the packed Committee meeting. Objectors were led by tenants group 'Aylesbury Tenants & Leaseholders First' <a href="https://aylesburytenantsfirst.org.uk/">ATLF</a>, accompanied by a representative from the 35% campaign.</p>
<p><img src="https://peoplesrepublicofsouthwark.co.uk/images/2304201504.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>ATLF spoke forcefully against the applications. They objected to the loss of social rented housing, the failure to respect the estate ballot that overwhelmingly voted against stock transfer and redevelopment by a housing association and the pitiful compensation and displacement of leaseholders.</p>
<p>35% campaigners took up the issue of the slippery social rented housing definitions and cited the <a href="https://35percent.org/images/AylesburyPlanningApplications_ref15AP3843-44.pdf">sleight of hand</a> used by Notting Hill Housing in their <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-03-18-stand-up-for-more-social-housing/">Bermondsey Spa regeneration</a> and <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-04-18-aylesbury-planning-application-hearing/">Elmington estate regeneration</a>, switching social rent for affordable rent.</p>
<p>When Councillors challenged John Hughes - NHHT's Development Director about why NHHT had switched rent tenures at these schemes he replied: <em>"The rents that we are charging at Grange Walk (Bermondsey Spa) and Edmund Street (Elmington estate) are wholly compliant with the planning permissions we received."</em></p>
<iframe width="350" height="197" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Xqme8oXrCp0?rel=0" align="center" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<p>This is technically correct (affordable rent is ultimately what ended up in the planning legal agreements) but avoids the question of why the schemes were submitted and approved by committee as social rent. This question Hughes deferred to officers, suggesting they would be better placed to answer it, but thanks to the tight chairing of the meeting this was never followed up.</p>
<p>The only people who stepped forward to speak in support of the application were the Labour ward councillors for the estate.</p>
<p>While the decision to approve the application means that leaseholders now face the loss of their homes and at least 778 social rented homes are lost, a small victory was achieved: Southwark and Notting Hill agreed during the Committee to a tighter definition of social rented housing in the legal S106 agreement. So while this may provide some safeguard, true social rents are not yet guaranteed.</p>
<p>The 35% Campaign challenged Notting Hill's use of the term 'target rent'. In response Notting Hill Housing <a href="https://35percent.org/images/MasterplanClarificationLetter7April.pdf">said</a> <em>"social rent means target rent"</em>. To which we can only ask <em>"why not say social rent then?"</em>.</p>
<p>Notting Hill's funding for the Aylesbury development is <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/InsideHousingBoris.pdf">linked to providing affordable rent</a> not social rent. On the other hand Southwark has pledged that social rent is exactly what local people will get out of the Aylesbury redevelopment. Cooking up this new term <em>'target rent'</em> squares the circle, but at the expense of higher rents for local people.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/votinginfavour.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The 35% campaign will be giving evidence at this week's Public Inquiry into the Aylesbury redevelopment, where we will be giving witness evidence and seeking a fuller explanation of Notting Hill's slippery definitions. The four-day Inquiry is open to the public and will be held at the <a href="https://www.millwallfc.co.uk/tickets/how0-to-get-here/">Millwall Football Club Conference Centre</a> from Tues 28th to Fri 1st (10am-5pm). For an idea of what will be debated at the Inquiry, <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Objectors_OpeningSubmissions_andAppendices.pdf">this copy</a> of the Objectors' Opening Submission sets out their arguments very clearly.</p>
Aylesbury redevelopment - decision day2015-04-18T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2015-04-18-aylesbury-planning-application-hearing/<p>The planning applications for the redevelopment of the Aylesbury estate are to be considered by Southwark council's planning commitee on <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=119&MId=4808&Ver=4">Thursday evening</a>. Officers recommend that approval be granted - their report on the outline masterplan application can be found <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!Vbu5QpckfYCnJrulzlWyuQ%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">here</a>.</p>
<p>We blogged <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-03-18-stand-up-for-more-social-housing/">previously</a> about Notting Hill Housing's development at the Bermondsey Spa regeneration, where social rented housing agreed at planning committee became affordable rent when - by sleight of hand - social rent was defined in the legal agreement as affordable rent.</p>
<p>In an email response to an enquiry about its Bermondsey Spa development from a local ward councillor, a Notting Hill spokesperson confirmed __ <em>"we don't have any social rented properties here"</em> __ and explained that the 44 'social rented' units are currently let at affordable rents, ranging from 42% of market rent for 3 beds to 63% of market rent for 1 beds (average across all unit types = 58% of market rents).</p>
<p>We have now discovered that the Bermondsey Spa tenure definition switch was no isolated incident: another Notting Hill Housing redevelopment - the Elmington estate regeneration (now rebranded <a href="https://www.camberwellfields.com/">'Camberwell Fields'</a>) has a definition of social rented housing in its <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!J5kImYW5llmj0BA4PEvWpw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">S106 agreement</a> enabling the very same tenure switch.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/elmingtons106.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>'Camberwell Fields' is not due to be completed until later in the year, so we don't know exactly the percentage of market rent the supposed 'social rented' units will be let at yet.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/camberwell-fields-logo.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Concern about the same thing happening on the Aylesbury has been amplified by Notting Hill's use of the term 'target rent' in its planning application; this has raised great suspicion amongst local people. On the very eve of the planning hearing, Notting Hill were obliged to send <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/MasterplanClarificationLetter7April.pdf">letters</a> to all objectors 'clarifying' amongst other things that the term 'target rent' means social rent. Southwark's planning officers agree with this:</p>
<p><img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCoxHXoWYAAyHtv.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>However, Notting Hill Housing's <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LBS_NHHT_DPAgreement.pdf">Development Partnership Agreement</a> for the Aylesbury has no such definiton; 'target rent' is defined with a vague reference to a 'target' and 'formula' set by government, without any reference to the term social rent or the National Rent Regime regulatory framework which governs it.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Aylesbury_targetrent.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Past planning committees have had the wool pulled over their eyes by Notting Hill Housing. If the same thing happens again on Thursday then we can add the loss of roughly 1300 social rented units promised by Notting Hill on the Aylesbury, to the 44 units lost at Bermondsey Spa and the 41 units set to be lost on its Elmington estate regeneration.</p>
<p>The Aylesbury applications are due to be heard on Thursday evening. In the meantime, we have written a <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/AylesburyPlanningApplications_ref15AP3843-44.pdf">letter</a> to Southwark's <a href="https://twitter.com/interpolitan_1">Head of Planning</a> and the following planning committee councillors who will be deciding the application, urging them to reject the application until the precise legal definition of the social housing tenure proposed has been published for public consultation. If they stand for social housing which really is social housing or believe in a fair and transparent planning process then they will support and act upon our request.</p>
<ul>
<li>Councillor <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=899">Nick Dolezal</a> - Chair (Labour)</li>
<li>Councillor <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=50000619">Maisie Anderson</a> (Labour) <a href="https://twitter.com/MaisieA">@MaisieA</a></li>
<li>Councillor <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=50000696">Sarah King</a> (Labour) <a href="https://twitter.com/sezking78">@sezking78</a></li>
<li>Councillor <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=50000664">Hamish McCallum</a> (Lib Dem) <a href="https://twitter.com/hamishmccallum">@hamishmccallum</a></li>
<li>Councillor <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=909">Darren Merrill</a> (Labour) <a href="https://twitter.com/MerrillDarren">@MerrillDarren</a></li>
<li>Councillor <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=334">Michael Mitchell</a> (Conservative)</li>
<li>Councillor <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=50000717">Jamille Mohammed</a> (Labour)</li>
<li>Councillor <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=161">Adele Morris</a> (Lib Dem) <a href="https://twitter.com/AdeleCathedrals">@AdeleCathedrals</a></li>
</ul>
Manifesto for the destruction of council estates2015-03-28T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2015-03-28-manifesto-for-destruction-of-council-estates/<p>The prestigious <strong>Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR)</strong> has published a <a href="https://www.ippr.org/publications/city-villages-more-homes-better-communities">policy paper</a> that proposes the wholesale demolition of London's council estates, in the name of regeneration and to allow for the creation of so-called 'City Villages'.</p>
<p>The paper is the brainchild of New Labour peer <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Adonis,_Baron_Adonis">Lord Adonis</a> and includes a chapter by Southwark council leader Peter John.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/adonis.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Adonis was a Greek god who was the epitomy of masculine beauty; our Lord Adonis is a more mundane character: a Blairite zealot who <a href="https://labourlist.org/2014/09/could-we-see-a-jowelladonis-ticket-for-london-mayor/">fancies himself as London's Deputy Mayor</a>. He has gathered together a group of like-minded cronies including London borough council leaders and <a href="https://www.grosvenorestate.com/">property developers</a> to pen a policy proposal entitled <strong>"City Villages: More homes, better communities"</strong>.</p>
<p>The idea is simple: London needs lots of new homes; they could all be built on brownfield sites; council estates are on brownfield sites - so let's demolish council estates. The land is worth a lot of money, so friendly property developers can be enlisted to help. Demolishing council estates would also get rid of that awful <em>"mono-tenure"</em> housing that breeds crime and anti-social behaviour.</p>
<p>His Lordship draws on various provocative examples to make his case, including the Heygate estate. Southwark council leader Peter John writes a <a href="https://ippr.org/read/city-villages-more-homes-better-communities#regenerating-elephant-and-castle">chapter</a> on this great success story, which our readers will know from <a href="https://35percent.org/affordable-housing/">previous posts</a> destroyed 1200 council homes, replacing them with 79 social rented units, plus 200 unaffordable 'affordable' units, <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-06-08-the-heygate-diaspora/">ripping off leaseholders</a> along the way - or, in Councillor John's words creating <em>"a genuine mix of private owned, private rented, shared ownership and social rented homes for people of all incomes."</em></p>
<p>Councillor John further redefines the word success when he praises the Strata Tower's <em>"distinctive three wind turbines"</em>, <a href="https://35percent.org/strata-tower">which</a> do not turn, do not work and do not generate any electricity - a fitting symbol of the Elephant & Castle regeneration after all.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/pjgrin.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Lord Adonis laments the fact that only a <em>"tiny fraction"</em> of London's estates are currently being redeveloped and cites amongst these the massive <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2015/mar/26/andrew-adonis-and-estate-regeneration-some-pros-and-cons">Earls Court redevelopment</a>, which will require the <a href="https://westkengibbsgreen.wordpress.com/">demolition of the West Ken & Gibbs estate</a> and of course our very own <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-11-01-aylesbury-estate-planning-application/">Aylesbury redevelopment</a>. Adonis claims that <em>“The scale of council-owned land is vast and greatly under-appreciated”.</em> and goes on to claim <em>“There are particularly large concentrations of council-owned land in inner London, and this is some of the highest-priced land in the world.”</em></p>
<p>Both his Lordship and Councillor John acknowledge that this can all be a bit controversial, in that <em>"redevelopment of estates is sometimes assumed to mean that existing tenants and residents will be displaced by wealthier incomers"</em>, but according to Lord Adonis <em>"this need not, nor should it be the case"</em>, since redevelopment should offer ample opportunity for residents to remain in new homes once completed.</p>
<p>We beg to differ; over the past 10 years estate regenerations have <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/media/assembly-press-releases/2015/02/8000-social-homes-lost-in-a-decade">lost us 8,000 social rented units</a>, while increasing free-market housing ten-fold and doubling the overall housing density. The lessons that we've learned are that anyone who stands in the way of a regeneration - whether council tenant or leaseholder - is going to lose their home and will unlikely be able to afford any of the new homes.</p>
<p>We are not the only ones to take issue with Lord Adonis's policy proposals; Duncan Bowie, member of the EC of London Labour Housing Group and former advisor to Ken Livingstone has published a <a href="https://redbrickblog.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/city-villages-the-wrong-solution-to-londons-housing-crisis/">detailed critique</a> of Adonis's proposals, which he describes as <em>'grossly out of touch'</em>.</p>
<h2>Aylesbury planning application - get your tickets now!</h2>
<p>The date of the planning committee meeting for the Aylesbury redevelopment applications has been set back from the 14th April, possibly to the 21st April. The council has said it is expecting 'much interest' and it's likely that the meeting will be ticketed, which requires anyone wishing to attend to register with the council beforehand. Health and safety concerns are clearly uppermost in Southwark council's mind and will no doubt mean that numbers will also be limited.</p>
<p>However, the date for the Compulsory Purchase Order Public Inquiry is fixed (28th April - 1st May at <a href="https://www.etcvenues.co.uk/venues/prospero-house">Prospero House</a>) and this will not be changed. The <a href="https://halag.wordpress.com/">Aylesbury Leaseholders Action Group</a> has published its Statement of Case ahead of the Inquiry. Their objections explain how replacement housing will be unaffordable to existing residents and explore the lack of transparency about the proposed tenure mix. You can read through their Statement of Case on their campaign website <a href="https://halag.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/cpo-public-inquiry-help-required/">here</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/chilterngroup.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>P.S. - IPPR makes a couple of good suggestions</h2>
<p>To return to the IPPR policy paper - it does make one or two constructive suggestions, such as the recommendation that <em>"At a minimum, tenants should be balloted on regeneration schemes"</em>. Cllr John couldn't have read this bit, because of course the Aylesbury residents <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2001/dec/27/1">gave a resounding 'NO'</a> to regeneration when they were balloted in 2001.</p>
<p>Another recommendation <em>"Transparency about the future tenure mix is essential from the outset"</em> is also absent from the Aylesbury redevelopment; as we saw in our last two blog posts, Notting Hill Housing's definition of social rented tenure is as clear as mud and it has also been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/29/tenants-face-70m-rent-rise-as-social-housing-converted-to-affordable-homes">reported</a> to be converting its existing social tenancies at an alarming rate.</p>
Stand up for more social housing (at 80% market rent)2015-03-18T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2015-03-18-stand-up-for-more-social-housing/<p><em>"Let's all of us stand up for more social housing"</em> was the <a href="https://twitter.com/NottingHillHG/status/577771553842167808">call to arms</a> during the <a href="https://www.24dash.com/news/housing/2015-03-18-The-Homes-for-Britain-bus-relay-reaches-Westminister">'impassioned speech'</a> from Notting Hill Housing Trust's Director Kate Davies at yesterday's <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/17/london-housing-rally-protesters-gather-at-homes-for-britain-event">'Homes for Britain'</a> rally. The rally was part of an ongoing campaign organised by the <a href="https://www.housing.org.uk/">National Housing Federation</a>, of which NHHT is a founding member.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/homesforbritain.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Notting Hill CEO - Kate Davies</em></p>
<p>We have blogged previously about NHHT's dodgy definition of social housing and its <a href="https://www.nottinghillhousing.org.uk/customers/permanent-rented-housing/information-for-permanent-rented-housing-tenants/affordable-rent-update">blanket policy</a> of converting all its existing social rented properties to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2014/feb/03/affordable-housing-meaning-rent-social-housing">affordable rent</a> when tenancies expire. We also <a href="https://35percent.org/2015-09-24-southwark-backs-down-over-bermondsey-spa-dispute/">blogged</a> about Kate Davies' involvement in the Tory-led think tank that lobbied for the introduction of affordable rent.</p>
<p><img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNUmHQlWIAAdSyI.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>So we have taken a closer look at the kind of 'social' housing Notting Hill's Director wants us all to stand up for more of.</p>
<p>This is <a href="https://www.the-exchange-london.com/">'The Exchange'</a> in Bermondsey, Notting Hill's latest completed development in Southwark and part of the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200180/bermondsey_spa/1144/bermondsey_spa_masterplan">Bermondsey Spa regeneration scheme</a>.
All but three private and two shared-ownership units in this 205-home development have been sold and of those that remain the private flats are <a href="https://www.the-exchange-london.com/availability?tenure=TH">priced</a> at over £1m and the shared-ownership flats <a href="https://www.the-exchange-london.com/availability/so">require</a> a minimum salary of £73,986 to qualify.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/theexchange.jpg" alt="" />
<em>'The Exchange' - Notting Hill's 205 unit development at the Bermondsey Spa regeneration scheme (site 5C)</em></p>
<p>The development should also have had 44 social rented units, to replace the 54 council homes demolished to make way for <strong>'The Exchange'</strong>.
<img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/BermondseySpaDemolition.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Demolition of 54 council homes on the site</em></p>
<p>44 social rented units were duly proposed in Notting Hill's <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=10/AP/3010&system=DC">planning application</a> for the site and that's what was confirmed in the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7B%7B%7B!7lhb2IoB57lo6iUf2g/V0A==!%7D%7D%7D">planning officer's report</a>. Paragraphs 27 & 29 of the GLA <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/GLABermondseySpaReport.pdf">planning report</a> also confirmed that the development proposed 44 social rented homes. However, after approval was given Southwark Council and Notting Hill signed-off the <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7B%7B%7B!v0IQJeAkBHGLkpIJJYfrTA==!%7D%7D%7D">s106 legal agreement</a> with something completely different - 44 'affordable rented' units (ie. up to 80% market rents) <strong>not</strong> 44 social rented units.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/BermondseySpaS106.png" alt="" />
<em>Officers report states social rent but S106 Agreement says affordable rent</em></p>
<p>The change in wording is subtle but the consequences aren't; according to <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2914/affordable_rent_in_southwark_2011">Southwark's own figures</a>, a 1-bed social rented flat in Bermondsey(SE16) costs an average £97 per week, compared to well over three times this for 'affordable rent' at 80% market rent.</p>
<p>We double checked against this against the <a href="https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/gla-affordable-housing-programme-outturn/resource/0c87e5dc-f1e9-4edf-b246-bef6b40a9ba3">GLA affordable housing data</a>, which confirmed that the rents are indeed set at up to 57% market rent. We then contacted a local councillor for the Bermondsey Spa area and he wrote to Notting Hill, who <a href="https://35percent.org/img/nottinghillexchange.pdf">confirmed</a> that the rents were actually as high as 62% market rent.</p>
<p>It's hard not to conclude that the public has been deceived over this development: it was led to believe that it was getting social rents at all stages up to and including planning approval.</p>
<p>Having cross checked a number of other developments, we have <a href="https://35percent.org/img/section106_tenure_breaches.pdf">found</a> that this sleight-of-hand tenure switch is becoming commonplace in Southwark's planning process.</p>
<p>We have also shown in <a href="https://35percent.org/blog/2014/11/01/aylesbury-estate-planning-application/">previous blog posts</a> how Notting Hill is using the terms 'social', 'target' and 'affordable' rent interchangably in its forthcoming application for the Aylesbury estate redevelopment and <a href="https://35percent.org/blog/2015/03/10/affordable-rent-is-not-social/">blogged</a> about the worrying fact that affordable rents of up to 80% are included in the Notting Hill development agreement for the Aylesbury.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LBS_NHHT_DPAgreement.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from Aylesbury estate Development Agreement</em></p>
<p>So, we have to ask the question - will the Aylesbury go the same way as the Bermondsey Spa regeneration with affordable rent slipped in quietly through the back door?</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/AylesburySelection.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Notting Hill's Director & Southwark council leader celebrate demolition of Aylesbury redevelopment's phase 2</em></p>
<p>One way of finding out would be to for details of Notting Hill's funding allocation for the Aylesbury redevelopment. It has currently secured a total of £92m in funding from the Mayor's <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/housing-land/increasing-housing-supply/affordable-homes-programme">Affordable Homes Programme</a> and is by far the largest single recipient of funding from it. London Assembly member Darren Johnson recently tabled a formal <a href="https://questions.london.gov.uk/QuestionSearch/searchclient/questions/question_281359">question</a> to the Mayor about the tenure mix linked to Notting Hill's £92m allocation. We will be watching out for the Mayor's response.</p>
<p>We need to let the council know that the game is up and that we are not going to accept this disingenuous racket. The Aylesbury planning application is due to be heard by committee on 14th April and we will be making our voices heard.</p>
<h2>Postscript update</h2>
<p>The people at <a href="https://southwarknotes.wordpress.com/">Southwark Notes</a> couldn't quite believe that Notting Hill had passed off affordable rent as social rent at its Bermondsey Spa site, so they attempted to seek confirmation via twitter:</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p><a href="https://twitter.com/NottingHillHG">@NottingHillHG</a> Hiya NHHT. Is it true that 44 units of social housing at your Exchange site will be 'affordable rent'? <a href="https://t.co/gUvnsYQjZX">https://t.co/gUvnsYQjZX</a></p>— Southwark Notes (@SouthwarkNotes) <a href="https://twitter.com/SouthwarkNotes/status/578173781019111424">March 18, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Notting Hill unashamedly confirmed that Bermondsey Spa's 44 'social rented' units were indeed let at affordable rather than social rents, but that these generally averaged just 58% of market rent:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-cards="hidden" lang="en"><p><a href="https://twitter.com/SouthwarkNotes">@SouthwarkNotes</a> Yes, affordable rent (average 58% of market rent) due to Gov changes to rent setting in 2011. See <a href="https://t.co/2tThW5DZGZ">https://t.co/2tThW5DZGZ</a></p>— Notting Hill Housing (@NottingHillHG) <a href="https://twitter.com/NottingHillHG/status/583639651702943744">April 2, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>Local newspaper 'Southwark News' has also since picked up the story:</p>
<p><a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/southwark-council-probes-44-missing-social-homes/">Southwark Council probes 44 missing social homes</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/council-takes-no-legal-action-over-44-missing-social-housing-units/">Southwark Council takes no action over 44 missing social housing units</a></p>
Peabody's philanthropic glass towers - 0% social housing2015-01-27T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2015-01-27-peabody-borough-triangle-development/<p>Peabody Housing Association has finally submitted a <a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=9556404">Planning application</a> for its long-awaited <em>Borough Triangle</em> development at Elephant & Castle. This large triangle of land sits between Southbank University, Borough road and the Crown Court on Newington Causeway.</p>
<p>The site is currently home to the <a href="https://www.ipsos-mori.com/">IPSOS MORI</a> buildings and Baptist church on Borough road, which will be the only buildings to survive the redevelopment. The Georgian-built <a href="https://www.ioo.org.uk/">Institute of Optometry</a> and <a href="https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/2015/01/london-school-musical-theatre-relocate-southwark-site-demolished/">London School of Musical Theatre</a> (formerly the Institute for the Blind) will both be demolished under Peabody's plans. The latter being replaced by <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/NewMinistryOfSound.png">new premises</a> for the Ministry of Sound, which Peabody will build in its place.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/boroughtriangle.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The shops and warehouse spaces on the Newington side of the site will also be demolished. These are currently being used as a Pop-up arts and cultural space by <a href="https://www.hotelelephant.co.uk/">'Hotel Elephant'</a> and <a href="https://www.thepaperworks.co.uk/">'The Paperworks'</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/HotelElephant_Paperworks.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Besides new premises for the Ministry of Sound night club totalling ca. 6,000 sqm (allowing an extra capacity of 400 people over its current venue), Peabody plans to build some retail space; 10,000 sqm of office space in a shiny new corporate HQ for its staff; and a total of 529 new homes in a number of (predominantly glass) buildings of up to 38 storeys.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Peabody_BoroughTriangle.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>We originally had high hopes that this site would provide the desperately needed social rented housing that local people need. Unfortunately Peabody appears to have followed the trend of going for the more profitable 'affordable rented' housing with rents of up to 80% market rent. It has also followed the trend of fudging and misleading about the precise nature of the affordable housing it is providing. In its <a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/387231_1.pdf">Housing Statement</a> Peabody states that it will be providing 96 <strong>intermediate</strong> units (16.7% of total) and 78 units at <strong>affordable rent</strong> (16.5% of total).</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/affordable_rent_peabody.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>However, Peabody's <a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/387199_1.pdf">Planning Statement</a> starts off by explaining the council's affordable housing policy: <em>"5.117 In terms of affordable housing tenure, the Core Strategy at Strategic Policy 6 identifies that for development within the Elephant and Castle Opportunity Area the affordable housing should be delivered at 50% intermediate and 50% social rented."</em> but then dropping the word 'social' from social rented, astonishingly goes on to claim that the application is policy compliant: <em>"The proposal provides 16.7% intermediate and 16.5% for rented which is considered to comply with policy."</em></p>
<p>We checked the <a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/387188_1.pdf">application form</a> to see what had been written in the useful boxes that Southwark provides showing detailed tenure mix information. We found that the 78 units had indeed been entered under the category social rented, but that the applicant had doctored the application form to include the word 'AFFORDABLE' over the title 'Social Rented'.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Peabody_ApplicationForm.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>We also checked the <a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/388020_1.pdf">Design & Access Statement</a> which states not only that the units will be affordable rent, but that they will be <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Peabody_TenureMix.png">segregated</a> from the other tenures (the high-rise towers will be exclusively private and intermediate housing).</p>
<p>Finally, we wrote to the Council's planning department asking for some clarity on whether the 78 units were for social rent or affordable rent; this is the baffling response we received.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/EmailDanielDavies.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Southwark recently published a <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2914/affordable_rent_in_southwark_2011">detailed study</a> of the impact of the introduction of affordable rent in the borough. From its <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11603/affordable_rent_study_december_2014_update">underlying data</a> we can see that a 1-bed social rented flat in SE1 would cost an average £97 per week, but a 1-bed flat at the new 'affordable rent' of 80% market rent would cost £316 per week. Given that the median household income for council tenants in Borough and Bankside is £9,100 per year, it is clear that Peabody's affordable housing offer will be of no help to local people in housing need.</p>
<p>Borough Triangle is the second largest development in the Elephant & Castle opportunity area after the Heygate. No doubt lengthy discussions have taken place between Peabody, the Ministry of Sound and Southwark about what should be delivered on this key regeneration site. It is very dissapointing that a Housing Association with Peabody's reputation is not only failing to provide social housing, but is also seeking to mislead people about the fact. It is doubly dissapointing - but not surprising on past record - that Southwark is going along with it.</p>
<p>It seems Peabody has come a long way from the philanthropic intentions it was founded on in 1862, by George Peabody who wanted to <a href="https://www.peabody.org.uk/about-us/our-story">__ <em>"ameliorate the condition of the poor and needy in this great metropolis"</em> __</a>.</p>
<p>You can object to Peabody's application (ref:14/AP/3130) by sending an email to planning.applications@southwark.gov.uk</p>
<h2>Peabody engages 'political intelligence' services</h2>
<p>Peabody's application includes the mandatory <a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/387210_1.pdf">Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)</a>, which is required to show evidence that it has consulted on its plans with the local community. Peabody instructed a public affairs company called <a href="https://www.bellenden.co.uk/about-us/specialist-expertise/property-development/">Bellenden</a> to advise on its application, conduct the consultation exercise and prepare its SCI.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.bellenden.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/MarkGloverColour.jpg" align="left" style="margin:10px" />Bellenden was founded and is run by former Chair of Southwark Labour and local councillor <a href="https://uk.linkedin.com/in/glovermark">Mark Glover</a>. It was named after the road in which <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/4075/statement_of_persons_nominated_and_notice_of_poll">he lives</a>, Bellenden road in Peckham. Glover stepped down as councillor in May 2014. Amongst other things, Bellenden offers its clients a <a href="https://www.bellenden.co.uk/public-affairs/political-intelligence/">'political intelligence' service</a>, which it says involves __ <em>"learning how political parties and their individual members are thinking on any given issue"</em> __ and then __ <em>"seeks to enlarge and inform their thoughts on behalf of our clients."</em> __</p>
<p>With his 12 years as a senior Southwark councillor, we don't doubt that Mr Glover is very well placed to provide this service.</p>
Council Housing - going up or coming down?2015-01-11T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2015-01-11-march-for-homes/<p>Just before Christmas Southwark Council issued a <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1878/southwark_maps_out_1500_new_council_homes_in_just_four_years_as_part_of_the_most_ambitious_council_house_build_in_the_country">press release</a>, accompanied by a lovely <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11416/housing_estates_and_sites_for_new_council_homes">map</a> entitled <em>"Housing Estates and Sites for New Council Homes"</em>, which shows where 1500 of Southwark's 11000 new council homes will be built.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/Pictures/web/y/z/m/New-Council-Homes-deliver_633.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>But as we showed in the <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-12-06-11000-new-private-and-social-council-homes-on-target/">previous blog</a>, this council-house building programme is not all it seems. For example, the 19 new homes planned on the East Dulwich estate (Gatebeck & Southdown House), will be offset by 50 council homes which are being sold off on other parts of the estate - a net loss of 31 council homes in total[^1].</p>
<p>Another site on the map, <em>Maydew House</em> will also show a net loss once completed. This 24-storey block containing 144 council flats overlooking Southwark Park, has been decanted <a href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Save-Maydew-House/316012601837">(amidst protest)</a> after the council <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/00,news,20152,440,00.htm">declared</a> the cost of repair <em>"difficult to justify"</em>. It is now being refurbished and 5 extra penthouse floors added to provide a total of 180 units, but only 74 will remain as council flats - a net loss of 70 council homes[^2]. The remaining 106 flats will all be sold off on the open market.</p>
<p><img src="https://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/02/70/11/2701156_6a4b82c2.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Building council homes is a popular pledge and one that we unquestionably support – it’s the best, most economical way of providing decent housing to those who most need it - but we are reminded of <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/500newhomes.png">similar promises</a> from the not-so-distant past that were used to mask over the loss of the Heygate estate’s 1200 council homes[^3].</p>
<p>When we <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-10-04-lets-talk-about-peters-promises/">blogged in October</a> about concerns that the new homes would only be replacements for council homes sold off or demolished, council leader Peter John reassured everyone that there would be a net gain of 11,000 council homes; he said -
<em>“To be absolutely clear, the 11,000 new homes that we promise to deliver will be new homes additional to our existing stock. ……These are new homes and do not include the existing stock of council housing.”</em></p>
<p>These latest findings show a different picture. A council house building programme that depends upon ‘asset disposal’ and ‘estate renewal’ needs close scrutiny, if it is not going to end up leaving us with fewer council homes than we started with.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: See paragraph 16 of <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s36276/Report%20East%20Dulwich%20Estate%20Regeneration%20Scheme%20and%20Scheme%20Finance%20Update.pdf">this March 2013 Cabinet Report</a>
[^2]: See paragraph 132 of <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s49973/Report%20Qtr%202%202014-15%20Capital%20Monitor.pdf">this November 2014 Cabinet report</a>
[^3]: This is an extract from the <a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/198503633/EandC-RegenMk1SLRplans">2002 E&C Regeneration Masterplan</a></p>
Council sells council homes to build new ('social and private') 'council' homes2014-12-06T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-12-06-11000-new-private-and-social-council-homes-on-target/<p>We <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-10-04-lets-talk-about-peters-promises/">wrote</a> in October about the council's plan to earmark a number of its housing estates for demolition using an <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SNhat.pdf">'Asset Performance Evaluation Tool'</a>, which would take into account factors like residents' income. The results of its survey were supposed to be presented at next week's Cabinet meeting, but the <a href="http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s50476/Report%20Pipeline%20for%20the%20Delivery%20of%201500%20New%20Council%20Homes.pdf">December Cabinet report</a> shows that this has now been postponed until January.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s50476/Report%20Pipeline%20for%20the%20Delivery%20of%201500%20New%20Council%20Homes.pdf">December Cabinet report</a> makes interesting reading: it concedes that its estate renewal programme alone may not provide enough capacity for its 11,000 proposed new 'council' homes and suggests two additional strategies:</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p>Buying affordable housing built through s106 agreements directly from developers. (see <a href="http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s50476/Report%20Pipeline%20for%20the%20Delivery%20of%201500%20New%20Council%20Homes.pdf">para. 58</a>).</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Purchasing land that becomes available on the open market. (see <a href="http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s50476/Report%20Pipeline%20for%20the%20Delivery%20of%201500%20New%20Council%20Homes.pdf">para. 60</a>)</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>We can see two obvious problems with these new strategies:</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p>Southwark's track record on securing affordable housing through s106 obligations is extremely poor. The viability assessment loophole means that developers often get away with building no affordable housing whatsoever. In those cases where affordable housing is provided, it normally takes the form of shared ownership and affordable rent (80% market), which are of little benefit unless these are the kind of 'council' homes that Southwark is looking to provide.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>We have already <a href="https://35percent.org/heygate-regeneration-faq/">reported</a> on Southwark's loss on the sale of its 25-acre Heygate site at a knock-down price to developer Lend Lease. We don't know how much it sold the Aylesbury for, but we think it's unlikely to recover the estimated £150m cost[^1] of demolishing the 60-acre estate. So it doesn't need us to point out the absurdity of selling off structurally-sound council estates on the cheap and then buying back land from the private sector in order to build new 'council' homes.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>The December Cabinet report also provided an update on the council's progress with its 11,000 new 'council' homes 'Direct Delivery' programme. Phase one of the programme involving the 'delivery' of 1,500 new 'council' homes by 2018 is now being finalised, with sites for 837 of these new 'council' homes now identified. <a href="http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s50478/Appendix%202%20Direct%20Delivery%20Sites.pdf">Appendix 2</a> of the report gives a detailed schedule of these 837 new 'council' homes and where they are to be located.</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/DirectDeliverySites.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>However, a closer look at the schedule reveals that many of these won't be council homes and that some are being funded by selling off existing stock. For example, the first two entries on the list are supposedly providing 27 new council homes on the East Dulwich estate (Gatebeck House:9 & Southdown House:18). But it doesn't say that a third of these will be for shared ownership[^2]; neither does it mention that these 27 new 'council' homes on the East Dulwich estate, are being funded by selling off land and 50 existing council homes on other parts of the estate: <em>"with £2.2m to be raised from the sale of 24 drying room conversions; £8.76m from the sale of 50 voids-for-sale and £4.1m to be raised from the disposal of land"</em>.[^3]</p>
<p>The next entry on the Direct Delivery schedule is Willow Walk near Old Kent Road, which is supposedly providing 75 new 'council' homes. However, according to paragraphs 5 & 6 of the <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/284022_1.pdf">planning report</a> for this development, the 75 units comprise only 21 social rented homes, plus 54 rooms for temporary accommodation (replacing the existing temporary accommodation unit) - very welcome no doubt but not 75 council homes.</p>
<p>Next on the schedule is the site of the former Nunhead Community Centre, which is supposedly providing 8 new 'council' homes. What it doesn't mention is that a large (1000 sqm) council-owned community centre is being demolished to make way for these and that the 8 new council homes will be <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/304415_1.pdf">accompanied</a> by 14 new homes for private sale.</p>
<p>Another council-owned community centre and some workshops are being demolished in Sumner road, Peckham. The schedule says that this site will provide 112 new 'council' homes. What it doesn't say is that less than half of these (50) will be social-rented; 20 will be shared ownership and the remaining 42 units will be 'council' homes for private sale. (see <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=9555190">planning docs</a>)</p>
<p>Of the 25 new 'council' homes built on the former Masterman House garages in Camberwell, only 15 will be social rented; the remainder will also be 'council' homes for private sale. Just 34 of the 116 new 'council' homes planned for Commmercial Way will be social rented and so the list goes on. We can't find details for many of the sites listed in the schedule, but we estimate that only around half of the 837 new 'council' homes listed will be 'council' homes as we know them. The remainder will be shared ownership and 'council' homes for private sale, which doesn't come as a surprise in the wake of the revelations stemming from <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-10-18-southwark-mipim-and-the-11000-new-council-homes/">our reporting</a> of Southwark's MIPIM attendance this year.</p>
<h2>Footing the bill of regeneration</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/5293">long-running dispute</a> over who should pay for the capacity upgrades to the northern line tube station in order to meet increased demand from developments, has finally come to an end. Southwark News <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SNroundabout.pdf">reports</a> that of the £154m total cost, TFL have agreed to pay £91m while the council is left to find the remaining £63m. The council's regeneration partner Lend Lease is making a contribution of just £16.3m[^4] towards the council's bill - proof that the regeneration partnership is not an equal one, with Southwark bearing the lion's share of costs and Lend Lease reaping the Elephantine profits.</p>
<p><img src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1713650/thumbs/o-ELEPHANT-AND-CASTLE-STATION-facebook.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Untrustworthy imagery</h2>
<p>Lend Lease got a <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/private_eye.jpg">mention</a> in the latest edition of Private Eye. This time for a development in Chiswick, where its PR firm have been accused of producing misleading imagery. The column also pointed out that Paul Dimoldenberg, the head of Lend Lease's PR firm which created the images, also happens to be leader of the Labour group at Westminster council. We can add that Cllr Dimoldenberg also used to be a senior council officer at Southwark.</p>
<p>Our hats go off to Mr Dimoldenberg's firm for its PR image trickery. The following is a visualisation image from the Heygate application.</p>
<p><img src="http://www.elephantandcastle-lendlease.com/wp-content/uploads/Homepage-Header-2-Not-sure-if-this-size-image-will-work1.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Looks nice doesn't it? but what the image doesn't tell you is that this is one of the developments' 12 'raised courtyards', which are enclosed by buildings and will have zero public access:</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/heygate_raised_courtyards2.png" alt="" /></p>
<p><a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/267119_1.pdf">Image taken from planning application docs</a></p>
<h2>Coronet uncorrugated</h2>
<p>New photographs have been <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SNcoronet.pdf">published</a> showing what the Art Deco Coronet building looks like behind its corrugated blue facade.<br />
The Coronet is currently under threat of demolition from the shopping centre redevelopment. The shopping centre and neighbouring site are being redeveloped by real estate hedge fund DV4. George Soros backed DV4 is based in the British Virgin Islands and managed by <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2041229/Tory-donor-Jamie-Ritblat-snaps-Olympic-Village-knock-price--costing-275m.html">Delancey's Jamie Ritblatt</a>.</p>
<p><img src="http://www.theatrestrust.org.uk/store/ttdb/ttt0048/lowres/010997_regular.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The Theatres Trust has recently submitted an application to have the Coronet listed. You can read more about the campaign on the <a href="http://www.theatrestrust.org.uk/resources/theatres/show/3344-coronet-london">Theatres Trust website</a>, the Save the Coronet campaign <a href="http://coronettheatre.co.uk/home/save-the-coronet/">web page</a> and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2014/dec/07/how-the-coronet-can-help-the-elephant">this article</a> by the Guardian's Dave Hill.</p>
<h2>Unfair trial</h2>
<p>After being unlawfully evicted from his home, having his possessions destroyed and being left street homeless by Southwark council, a Sudanese refugee <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/judge-blasts-southwark-council-for-evicting-sudanese-tenant-and-destroying-his-possessions-9796994.html">won</a> a long-running court case against the council in October. After spending six-figure sums on top QCs to fight the case against the claimaint (who had no legal representation), the council declared last week that the trial was 'unfair' and 'clearly wrong'. An <a href="http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2014/11/southwark-not-appealing/">article</a> about the case by the Giles Peaker, a partner specialising in housing at solicitors Anthony Gold, sums up Southwark's attitude well: <em>"disingenuous in the extreme"</em>.</p>
<h2>Heygate viability assessment FOI/EIR appeal</h2>
<p>The ongoing battle to disclose the Heygate development viability assessment continues. The Information Tribunal has called a final hearing on 21st January to resolve the ongoing dispute concerning the implementation of its <a href="http://heygate.github.io/img/FirstTierDecisionHeygate.pdf">May 2014 decision notice</a>. The hearing will be in closed session attended only by Lend Lease & Southwark's counsel, who will recieve directions as to exactly which of the 22 appendices can be withheld. The Tribunal had previously ruled that the financial model in appendix 22 and the figures related to commercial negotiations for its retail floorspace could be withheld, but there has been a dispute over exactly which of the 22 appendices are related to these. We are expecting the Tribunal to order the viability assessment be disclosed within a short period after the hearing (barring further appeals and heeldragging by Lend Lease & Southwark). After nearly 3 years of battling for its disclosure we are looking forward to finally being able to see why Lend Lease has been so reluctant to show its sums.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: See paragraph 142 of <a href="http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s43556/Report%20Selection%20of%20a%20Preferred%20Partner%20to%20Work%20with%20the%20Council%20to%20Deliver%20the%20Regeneration%20of%20the.pdf">this Jan 2014 council briefing report</a>.</p>
<p>[^2]: See paragraph 19 of <a href="http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s36276/Report%20East%20Dulwich%20Estate%20Regeneration%20Scheme%20and%20Scheme%20Finance%20Update.pdf">this March 2013 Cabinet report</a>.</p>
<p>[^3]: See paragraph 16 of <a href="http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s36276/Report%20East%20Dulwich%20Estate%20Regeneration%20Scheme%20and%20Scheme%20Finance%20Update.pdf">this March 2013 Cabinet report</a>.</p>
<p>[^4]: See 'E&C Strategic Transport' contributions in each of Lend Lease's planning applications: <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/249091_1.pdf">One the Elephant (£2m)</a>, <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/224053_1.pdf">Heygate masterplan (£11.7m)</a> & <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/238280_1.pdf">Heygate phase 1 (£2.6m)</a></p>
Southwark fails to deliver2014-11-08T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-11-08-southwark-fails-to-deliver/<p>The Heygate viability assessment saga took a new turn last week. Southwark Council failed to produce the assessment by the given deadline and all parties have been called back to a Tribunal hearing on 11th Dec.</p>
<p>We can only speculate on the cause of the delay, but Southwark Council is beginning to look a bit ridiculous. After spending a six-figure sum and two and a half years appealing against the Information Commissioner, last week Southwark claimed that it has <em>"always been keen to see this matter resolved as quickly as possible"</em> and that <em>"the final version of the document is now on its way to Mr Glasspool"</em> .</p>
<p>There are still serious oustanding questions about many aspects of the redevelopment, not just about the amount of affordable housing that the assessment can help answer (see our <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/heygate-regeneration-faq/">FAQ</a> for a summary of the issues). Both the Information Commissioner and Information Tribunal have ruled that it is heavily in the public interest for this document to be revealed; Southwark should release the assessment without any further delay.</p>
<p>##Spot the difference
While the tribunal case drags on, Lend Lease are motoring forward with the latest detailed planning application for the Heygate (now known as <a href="http://www.elephantpark.co.uk/">'Elephant Park'</a>). The application for <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1779/lend_lease_submits_detailed_planning_application_for_around_600_new_homes_at_elephant_park">West Grove (phase MP2)</a> comprises 593 new homes and 43,000 square feet of new retail space.</p>
<p>One thing we have noticed is that the <a href="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/5621">visualisations</a> of the new Heygate <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/389783_1.pdf">supplied</a> during public consultations on the outline application, were based on minimum plot/building sizes. To nobody's surprise it is the maximum plot sizes that Lend Lease are applying for in their detailed applications and as we can see from the image below[^1], it makes for a significant difference. It seems that it's only now that we are becoming privy to the true scale of development.</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/parameterheights.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Despite its size however, Lend Lease can only find room for 26 social rented flats in its latest phase, which won't make much of a dent in Southwark's 20,000-strong housing waiting list.</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/mp2affordablehousing.png" alt="" />
<a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/389805_1.pdf">source: planning application docs</a></p>
<p>##More viability struggles
It's not just in Southwark where people are challenging the viability trump card and fighting developers for properly affordable housing. Two notable examples elsewhere are <a href="http://www.wcdg.net/content/waterloos-don-quixote-one-man-against-world">Riverside Communities vs Braeburn estates</a> at the Southbank's Shell Centre development, where developers are getting away with building just 11% affordable housing; and <a href="http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/2014/11/stokey-local-votes-to-take-planning-proposal-fight-to-court-of-appeal/">Stokey Local Community Group vs Sainsburys</a> who want to build a new supermarket and flats, but have reduced their offer of affordable housing from 50% to 17%. In both cases, campaigners are trying to get to the truth about viability and pierce the legal smoke screens of commercial confidentiality.</p>
<p>##Cooltan stuffed
A new housing and student residence development was approved for Walworth road's Blanchard site last week, to the great disappointment of local mental health charity <a href="http://www.cooltanarts.org.uk/">Cooltan Arts</a> and its many supporters. A previously approved application contained a legally binding agreement to supply Cooltan (who were previous occupants of the site) with new premises. The site (plus agreement) was sold to another developer, the planning agreement lapsed and the new developer said it was not economically viable to provide Cooltan with what it needed. Southwark Council claimed it had no power to enforce the lapsed agreement and the application was duly approved.</p>
<p><img src="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/img_0363.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>##Coming soon... a fairer future
Southwark Council is beginning its consultation on the New Southwark Plan, which will both incorporate and replace the existing Southwark Plan and Core Strategy planning policy frameworks. It will determine how all land in Southwark will be developed - or not as the case may be. Contentious issues are likely going to be the possible regeneration of council estates, the density of new developments and the protection of green spaces.</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/fairerfuture.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The paragraph below in the foreword of the <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11161/new_southwark_plan">draft new Plan</a> caught our eye. Southwark's intention to use infill land and pursue estate regeneration as a way of providing 11,000 new council homes, explains why it feels the need to make a <a href="http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s47489/Appendix%201%20Draft%20Charter%20of%20Principles.pdf">Charter of Principles</a> of good behaviour when it consults with its council estate residents.</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/newsouthwarkplan.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The consultation period for this first draft of the New Southwark Plan and this proposal lasts until 6th March 2015, but Southwark isn't wasting time: an 'asset management' process is already <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-10-04-lets-talk-about-peters-promises/">in train</a> and will be making recommendations about potential renewal/regeneration sites to Southwark's Cabinet in December.</p>
<h2>Estate renewal conference</h2>
<p>Last week saw a <a href="http://www.futureoflondon.org.uk/">Future of London</a> conference entitled <a href="http://www.futureoflondon.org.uk/2014/09/30/conference-delivering-estate-renewal/">'Delivering Estate Renewal'</a>. The conference was co-sponsored by Lend Lease who are described in the <a href="http://www.futureoflondon.org.uk/2014/09/30/conference-delivering-estate-renewal/">conference programme</a> as 'estate-savvy developers'. The speakers included representatives from Lend Lease, Notting Hill's CEO Kate Davies and Southwark's Head of Regeneration, Stephen Platts.</p>
<p><img src="http://www.futureoflondon.org.uk/futureoflondon/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Delivering-Estate-Renewal-postcard-front-1024x721.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>A detailed <a href="http://chrisbrown.regen.net/2014/11/10/estate-renewal-community-coproduction/">write-up</a> of the event by Chris Brown from <a href="http://www.iglooregeneration.co.uk/">Igloo Regeneration</a> describes the arithmetic behind the crude logic of estate renewal: a council estate's rental income is subtracted from forecasted maintenance costs to give a 'net present cost'; this is then compared against the estimated development value of the estate as a cleared site, so that local authorities can <em>"get rid of the financial underperformers"</em>.</p>
<p>Brown says that he was <em>"taken to task"</em> during the conference, by Southwark's Stephen Platts over his <em>"description of the Heygate estate renewal as a social disaster"</em> and that his attempts to highlight the social cost of displacing communities seemed to fall on deaf ears.</p>
<h2>Baby shard gets go-ahead</h2>
<p><img src="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/imageuploads/1415187088_46.233.112.163.jpg" width="300" align="left" style="margin:10px" />Irvine Sellar and son James attended Southwark's planning committee meeting last Tuesday evening (in a chauffeur-driven limousine). They were there to watch the the council's labour controlled planning committee <a href="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7931">wave through</a> their plans for a 26 storey shard satellite tower.
In presenting the proposals, James Sellar claimed that <em>"the proposal before you tonight will for the first time bring residents into the heart of this regeneration. It will create homes and bring vibrancy, ensuring that people working in London Bridge have the opportunity to live there as well."</em></p>
<p>However, the Sellars had submitted a viability assessment showing that they couldn't afford to provide any on-site affordable housing provision. Instead, they first <a href="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7915">proposed</a> to meet their affordable housing obligations by funding the stalled redevelopment of the Wood Dene Estate in Peckham. After criticism from opposition councillors the developers have now promised to 'try' and find somewhere in the north of the borough instead. Failing this they have agreed to make an in-lieu payment of £18m - somewhat less than the price of some penthouses currently <a href="http://www.altomagazine.com/news/inside-londons-premier-penthouse-at-neo-bankside-4283694">being sold</a> in the area.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: Image taken from the planning <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=9556728">application's</a>'s <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/389783_1.pdf">reconciliation statement</a>.</p>
Aylesbury estate planning applications - 934 social rented homes to be lost2014-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-11-01-aylesbury-estate-planning-application/<p>After waiting over a month for them to be 'validated' by the council, the planning documents for the Aylesbury estate revelopment are now online.
The application for the First Development Site seeks permission to demolish the Bradenham, Chartridge & Chiltern blocks comprising 630 homes and replace them with 815 new homes (<a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=9557152">ref:14-AP-3843</a>); 362 of these will be at 'target rent' - a net loss of 204 units (provided that target rent is equivalent to social rent). The amount of free market housing on this first phase will increase from 64 homes (initially bought under right-to-buy) to 412 and there will also be 102 intermediate units.</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/aylesburynetloss.png" alt="" />
<a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/398988_1.pdf">Source: planning docs</a></p>
<p>The 204 social rented units lost on the first phase is a fraction of the total net loss from the Aylesbury regeneration as a whole. The <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/398988_1.pdf">Housing Statement</a> for the outline application <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=9557153">(2,735 new homes - ref:14/AP/3844)</a> shows that the social rented housing provision will be reduced by over a third, with a net loss of 934 social rented homes across the estate once the regeneration is completed.</p>
<h2>Target Rent = affordable rent or social rent?</h2>
<p>The table in paragraph 5.11 of the <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/398988_1.pdf">Housing Statement</a>, describes 'Estate Baseline' homes as 'Target and Affordable Rent' which they never were; they were council homes at council rents. Using 'target rent', 'affordable rent' and 'social rent' as if they are all the same thing confuses and misleads. What people really need to know is how much total rent will new-build tenants be paying, whatever the housing is called?</p>
<p>The previous phase of the Aylesbury redevelopment currently under construction by L&Q gives good reason to worry on this point: as we reported in a <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-05-05-manx-connections-the-off-shore-home-of-the-elephants-developers/">previous blog post</a>, the <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/279910_1.pdf">legal agreement</a> for <a href="http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/lq-wins-work-on-next-phase-of-aylesbury-plan/6522708.article">that phase</a> contains a definition of 'social rented', which refers to the <a href="http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/ourwork/affordable-rent">HCA definition</a> of Boris Johnson's 'affordable rented' housing product of up to 80% market rent.</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/wolvertons106SR.png" alt="" />
<a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/279910_1.pdf">Source: planning docs</a></p>
<p>One would normally expect to find a reference to the National Rent Regime under the definition of social rented housing in such documents. This is the regulatory framework which decides the level of social rents based - among other things - on the average level of income. Here is an example of the wording normally used in Southwark's legal agreements securing planning obligations.</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/heygates106SR.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Before the legal agreement securing the Aylesbury planning obligations can be signed, the application has to be approved by Southwark's planning committee; Southwark is also a partner in the regeneration, so it is up to Southwark to ensure that this situation is not repeated and we don't end up with 'social rented housing' that is nothing of the kind.</p>
<h3>Cycling and car parking</h3>
<p>The council recently <a href="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7895">announced</a> plans for a 'Southwark Spine' cycle route linking the south to the north of the borough, which is due to cut straight through the new Aylesbury development[^1]. However, cycle campaign groups have pointed out that the planning applications make no provision for any segregated cycle lanes, instead cyclists will be forced to continue to compete for road space on Thurlow street with buses and cars as the illustrations here show. A <a href="http://www.change.org/p/southwark-council-s-planning-committee-and-transport-department-we-want-physically-segregated-cycle-lanes-on-albany-rd-thurlow-st-and-dutch-standard-prioritised-protected-crossings-for-cyclists-pedestrians-at-cycle-route-junctions-in-the-aylesbury-es">petition</a> has been set up by cycle campaign group http://stopkillingcyclists.org.</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/aylesburycycling.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Paragraph 2.5 of the <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/397955_1.pdf">Transport Statement</a> also confirms that <em>"the proposals are for 1378 residential car parking spaces across the development"</em>. We think this is excessive in an area with such strong public transport links on the border of zone 1 London. The aerial photo below, taken from the application's <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/397933_1.pdf">Design & Access statement</a> shows the Aylesbury estate masterplan in its geographical context:</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/aylesburyincontext.png" alt="" /></p>
<h3>Environmental Impact</h3>
<p><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/1824/schedule/4/made">Planning regulations</a> require major redevelopment applications to provide <em>"An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects."</em> This is to ensure that developers have properly considered the environmental impact of their proposals against the possible lower impact of alternatives and refurbishment. It would appear that no such appraisal or any detailed cost/benefit analysis has been undertaken in relation to the Aylesbury redevelopment.</p>
<p>UCL's <a href="http://www.engineering.ucl.ac.uk/engineering-exchange/">Engineering Exchange</a> recently published a detailed <a href="http://www.engineering.ucl.ac.uk/engineering-exchange/demolition-refurbishment-social-housing/">report</a> showing that <em>"refurbishment of housing is often preferable to demolition and reconstruction"</em> when taking into account environmental and social factors. We saw with the Heygate that wholesale decant and demolition costs can far outstrip refurbishment costs: the council spent £65m emptying[^2] & £15m demolishing[^3] the Heygate when comprehensive refurbishment would have cost just £35m[^4].</p>
<h3>Equalities Impact</h3>
<p><a href="http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Executive/20050927/Agenda/Item%2007%20-%20The%20AylesburyEstate%20Revised%20Strategy%20-%20Annex%20D.pdf">Council papers</a> state that <em>"the Aylesbury is a very diverse community with 67% of people belonging to a minority ethnic group"</em>. According to the Equalities Act 2010, the planning application should have included a detailed equalities impact assessment to consider whether the planning proposals will have an adverse effect on any Black and Minority Ethnic(BME) groups. We have been unable to find any such assessment in the supporting documents for either application.</p>
<p>Should you wish to object to the Aylesbury applications you can use the template we have set up on our online comments submission form. Simply click on the following link, enter your details and click to send the objection to the council's planning department:<br />
<a href="http://commentform.herokuapp.com/">http://commentform.herokuapp.com</a></p>
<h2>Southwark suddenly 'keen to disclose viability assessment'</h2>
<p>Southwark's spin doctors were in full spin this week when they <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SN29Oct2014.pdf">announced</a> that the council is about to disclose the Heygate viability assessment. Having spent two years and a sum running into six figures fighting the Information Commissioner's order to disclose the document, Southwark's new regen boss Mark Williams claimed <em>"Southwark Council has always been keen to see this matter resolved as quickly as possible."</em><br />
The council's sudden keenness to 'resolve the matter' has surely got nothing to do with the fact that at a recent Case Management Hearing, the Tribunal judge gave Southwark a deadline of 5th Nov to disclose the viability assessment...</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: See pg 52 of the council's <a href="http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s49335/Appendix%201%20Cycling%20strategy.pdf">draft cycling strategy</a>.</p>
<p>[^2]: See paragraph 50(ix) of the <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/rnblpa0ajaxk8em/LON_LIB1-%239487917-v1-Lend_Lease_EA_2013_0162_Response_to_LBS_Grounds_of_....pdf">Heygate Tribunal evidence</a> - <em>"The Council’s costs as at January 2013 amounted to about £47.5 million in capital expenditure and just under £18 million in review costs managing the estate"</em>.</p>
<p>[^3]: See paragraph 18 of this <a href="http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s30387/120709%20Heygate%20Estate%20Demolition%20Business%20Case%20signed%20report.pdf">council report</a> - <em>"The baseline budget for the Heygate demolition is estimated to be a total of £15.225m including 10% contingency."</em></p>
<p>[^4]: See this <a href="http://heygateestate.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/genslerheygate.pdf">2012 cost appraisal study</a> by global architects <a href="http://gensler.com/">Gensler</a> and construction consultancy <a href="http://baqus.co.uk/">Baqus</a>.</p>
Southwark's gamekeepers turned poachers2014-10-19T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-10-19-gamekeepers-turned-poachers/<p>Last week's <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/14/yacht-cannes-selling-homes-local-government-officials-mipim">international property fair <strong>MIPIM</strong></a> wasn't just for developers and councils, it was also for those who help developers lobby councils. <a href="http://www.fourcommunications.com/"><strong>Four Communications</strong></a> is one such company. It says it offers teams of experts who <em>"provide support at every stage of the planning, marketing and communications process"</em> and helps to secure <a href="https://www.fourcommunications.com/work-gallery/helping-secure-new-community-stadium"><em>"political support in the face of public opposition"</em></a>.</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/FourMipimStand.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from <a href="http://my.mipim.com/online-database/mipim/companies/#search=d%3D101990%7C0F%26startRecord%3D205%26rpp%3D12">MIPIM attendees
list</a></em></p>
<p>Who are these 'experts' able to magically gain the 'political support' of council members in developments facing public opposition? Well, who better than council members themselves?</p>
<p><img src="http://www.fourcommunications.com/sites/default/files/styles/four_square/public/people/jeremy.png" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>Four Communications</strong> was
<a href="http://www.prweek.com/article/168282/wss-fraser-dickson-join-public-affairs-four">founded</a> in 2001 by former (Labour) Southwark council leader Jeremy Fraser. On its payroll and
<a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/OneStopReport.pdf">list of shareholders</a> are
former (Labour) Lambeth council leader <a href="http://www.fourcommunications.com/who-we-are/our-people/jim-dickson">Jim Dickson</a> (who is also a <a href="http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=165">sitting Lambeth councillor</a>) and Southwark's former (Labour) Cabinet Member for Regeneration Steve Lancashire.[^1] It counts amongst its employees <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/florence-eshalomi-8b55b62b">Florence Eshalomi</a>, Lambeth's former deputy Cabinet member for Housing and current <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/people/assembly/florence-eshalomi/more-about">GLA assembly member</a> for Lambeth and Southwark. Also on the <a href="http://www.fourcommunications.com/who-we-are/our-people">payroll</a> are Hackney Councillors Alan Laing and Karen Alcock - deputy Mayor with responsibility for housing and commercial property.</p>
<p>The South Bank's King's Reach Tower provides a good example of how <strong>Four Communications</strong>' lobbying service works. In 2010, Developer <a href="http://www.cit.co.uk/"><strong>CIT</strong></a> employed <strong>Four</strong> to 'help' get permission for its controversial 41 storey Blackfriars development. This is how <strong>Four</strong>'s 4 step lobbying process was implemented:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Four</strong>'s Steve Lancashire sets up meetings with his Southwark Labour
cronies Peter John (council leader) and Fiona Colley (Cabinet Member for
Regeneration).</li>
</ul>
<p><img src="http://betterelephant.github.io/images/FourCommunicationsMeetingsCouncilMembers.png" alt="" />
<em>Extract from page 6 of <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/152101_1.pdf">King's Reach SCI produced by Four Communications
</a></em></p>
<ul>
<li>
<p>The old friends agree to nod through the development despite its numerous
planning policy breaches like the lack of any on-site affordable housing.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>The council leader and regen boss brief their planning officers instructing
them to recommend the application to the (heavily whipped) planning
committee, providing evidence that local residents support the application.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Every major planning application requires a Statement of Community Involvement
(SCI) to demonstrate that the developer has consulted with the local community
and that its plans have public support. <strong>Four</strong> has helped developers obtain
permission and produced SCIs for an impressive list of (social housing-free)
developments in Southwark. The table below shows a number of developments in the borough where <em>Four Communications</em> have provided a Statement of Community Involvement:</p>
<p>| <a href="https://35percent.org/neo-bankside">Neo Bankside</a> | <a href="http://35percent.org/ludgate-and-sampson/">Sampson & Ludgate House</a> | <a href="https://35percent.org/tribeca-square">Elephant One</a> | <a href="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/8222">SouthBank Tower</a> | The Shard |
| ------------ | ------------ |-------------|------------
| <img src="http://www.e-architect.co.uk/images/jpgs/london/neo_bankside_n220912_n.jpg" width="210" /> | <img src="https://35percent.org/img/slhouse.jpg" width="210" /> | <img src="http://35percent.org/img/elephantone.jpg" width="210" /> | <img src="https://35percent.org/img/sbanktower.jpg" width="200" /> | <img src="http://www.travelsignposts.com/London/files/2012/07/Shard_588.jpg" width="150" height="250" /> |
| 217 Homes<br />0 Social rented | 490 Homes<br />0 Social rented | 646 Homes<br /> 0 Social rented | 193 Homes<br />0 Social rented | <a href="http://www.w4mpjobs.org/JobDetails.aspx?jobid=45094">http://www.w4mp..</a> |</p>
<p>| St. George's Wharf | <a href="https://35percent.org/one-blackfriars/">One Blackfriars</a> | <a href="https://35percent.org/eileen-house">'251 London'</a> | <a href="https://35percent.org/strata-tower">Strata Tower</a> | <a href="https://35percent.org/the-quill">The Quill</a> |
| ------------ | ------------ |-------------|------------
| <img src="http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/119TheTowerOneStGeorgeWharf_pic2.jpg" width="150" height="200" /> | <img src="http://35percent.org/img/251london.jpg" width="210" /> | <img src="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/imageuploads/1387461650_80.79.211.163.jpg" width="210" /> | <img src="http://www.e-architect.co.uk/images/jpgs/london/strata_se1_bfls060410_wp.jpg" width="210" /> | <img src="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/imageuploads/1291215503_80.177.117.97.jpg" width="210" /> |
| <a href="https://www.fourcommunications.com/work-gallery/media-and-marketing-st-george">http://fourcomm..</a> | 274 Homes<br /> 0 Social rent | 270 Homes<br />0 Social rent | 408 Homes<br />0 Social rent | 119 Homes<br />0 Social rent |</p>
<p>Another working example is <a href="https://35percent.org/strata-tower/">Strata Tower</a>, which shows what a sham <strong>Four</strong>'s SCI consultation process is: its consultation showed that it had consulted just 13 people - hardly evidence of widespread public support. Unsurprisingly most of these agreed to the vague and narrowly-framed questions aimed at restricting any kind of meaningful consultation:</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/StrataSCI.png" alt="" />
<em>Page 19 of <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/15810_1.pdf">Strata Tower SCI</a></em></p>
<ul>
<li><em>"The design of the scheme should be of the highest quality"</em></li>
<li><em>"Any new proposals should be environmentally friendly"</em></li>
<li><em>"It is important that local residents continue to be consulted as plans move forward"</em></li>
</ul>
<p>The planning application was duly nodded through and Strata Tower - entirely without social rented housing but complete with useless wind turbines - was built.</p>
<h2>Revolving doors</h2>
<p>It is worth noting that the council's E&C regeneration partner Lend Lease, is absent from the list of <strong>Four</strong>'s clients. That's because Lend Lease employs a different PR company called <a href="http://www.quatro-pr.co.uk/"><strong>Quatro</strong></a> to handle PR for its developments. It's also worth noting that <strong>Quatro</strong>'s Managing Director <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pub/paul-dimoldenberg/a/5b5/b44">Paul Dimoldenberg</a>, is a former senior Southwark council officer and current leader of the Labour group on Westminster city council.</p>
<p><img src="http://betterelephant.github.io/images/dimoldenberg.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Private Eye (issue 1380 - 25 Nov 2014)</em></p>
<p>Paul is just one of former Southwark Council officers and members who have shown that regeneration provides a wealth of opportunity - for those making use of its <a href="https://35percent.org/revolving-doors">revolving doors</a>..</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: See pages 34 & 51 of the <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/152101_1.pdf">Southbank Tower SCI</a></p>
MIPIM, Southwark and its 11000 new 'private and social' council homes2014-10-18T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-10-18-southwark-mipim-and-the-11000-new-council-homes/<p>The MIPIM Jamboree last week attracted much protest and media comment, including articles in the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/14/yacht-cannes-selling-homes-local-government-officials-mipim">Guardian</a> and on the <a href="http://leftfootforward.org/2014/10/the-mipim-property-fair-everything-wrong-with-regeneration/">Left Foot Forward</a> blog, which noted that <em>"the Heygate Estate has become the paradigmatic example of the MIPIM-model of property development"</em>.</p>
<p><img src="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/10/15/1413393213631/Mipim-property-conference-011.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>MIPIM itself revealed the contrasting attitudes of 3 London Labour boroughs towards developers:
Hammersmith & Fulham <a href="http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/News/Homes_for_residents_not_overseas_investors.asp">used their stand</a> to make a strong case for development that provides <em>"Homes for residents, not overseas investors"</em>. It highlighted developers using <em>"ridiculous viability assessments that offer piffling amounts of affordable homes"</em>.</p>
<p><img src="http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Images/cllr-stephen-cowan-at-nipim_432_tcm21-191385.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Islington council leader Richard Watts said in <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/islington.pdf">his response</a> to <a href="http://www.unitetheunion.org/news/labour-councillors-urged-to-boycott-property-developers-fair-as-londons-housing-crisis-mounts/">Unite's call</a> for a boycott: <em>"neither I nor anyone else from Islington council will be attending the event"</em>. He explained that he was <em>"deeply concerned at the lack of genuinely affordable housing in London .. and the increase in foreign investors who are pushing up housing prices to the detriment of our residents."</em></p>
<p>Southwark council leader Peter John's <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SouthwarkUniteResponse.pdf">response</a> took a different view. He said he would be unable to attend himself, but <em>"does not agree with the request and the reasoning behind it"</em> because the council needs to <em>"continue working with the private sector to ensure that we can deliver as many homes as we can"</em>. He concludes by reiterating his <em>"commitment to build 11,000 new council homes at social rents."</em></p>
<p>This commitment to build 11,000 new council homes has come under increasing scrutiny. Our <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-10-04-lets-talk-about-peters-promises/">previous blog post</a> and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/07/southwark-london-regeneration-urban-renewal-social-cleansing-fears">this recent Guardian article</a> show how questions are being asked about whether they will be council homes and whether existing council homes will have to be lost for there to be any gains. So it's not reassuring that Southwark's MIPIM stand display describes the 11,000 new council homes as comprising <em>"both private and social"</em> housing as this image below shows:</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/southwarkMIPIMstand.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Heckling protesters spotted Southwark's Head of Property Steve Platts and Head of Regeneration Jon Abbott attending the fair. It's a day out of the office, but they looked a little downcast; no doubt disappointed that Southwark was <a href="http://blog.mipimworld.com/2014/10/announcing-winners-mipim-uk-estates-gazette-awards/">beaten</a> by Croydon and Lambeth to the awards of 'Best UK Planning Authority' and 'Best Public/Private Partnership'.</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/MipimStevePlattsJonAbbott.JPG" alt="" /></p>
<p>If you would like to enjoy the full MIPIM experience without the canapés and champagne, click on this <a href="http://www.inspiredlabs.com/mipimuk/?project=MIPIM/Mipim-Uk-2014/GroundR/main&bubble=day&yaw=0.09&fov=65&location=loc000&pitch=0">interactive floorplan</a> of the property fair.</p>
<h3>Developers ride the bus</h3>
<p>We hope if you live in Southwark, you didn't see the <a href="http://t.co/LZwNl9yC2T">MIPIM bus</a> driving down your street last week. It was full of MIPIM property developers making a quick trip from Earls Court, no doubt scoping out sites in the developer-friendly <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-10-11-southwark-gets-its-reward/">'can do'</a> borough of Southwark.</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/mipimbus.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Evicting Aylesbury</h2>
<p><img src="https://c4.staticflickr.com/4/3941/14931046894_7eca1011dd_n.jpg" align="right" />A High Court ruling <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/judge-blasts-southwark-council-for-evicting-sudanese-tenant-and-destroying-his-possessions-9796994.html">condemning</a> Southwark officers for having conspired to evict a tenant from an estate in its North Peckham regeneration, is followed by news of a temporary tenant on the Aylesbury estate <a href="http://housingactionsouthwarkandlambeth.wordpress.com/2014/09/27/keeping-people-in-their-homes-a-southwark-council-guide-to-homelessness/">evicted</a> and left entirely homeless. HASL staged a protest in the Council's HQ on Thursday accompanied by the Focus E15 mums and the evictee; and refused to leave the lobby until the poor disabled woman was given a roof over her head. Southwark <a href="http://housingactionsouthwarkandlambeth.wordpress.com/2014/10/16/massive-housing-solidarity-southwark-council-ineptitude/">acquiesced</a> to the request and she was offered temporary accommodation (albeit with stairs..)</p>
<h3>Aylesbury estate SGTO meeting</h3>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SGTOFlyer.png" align="right" width="300" style="margin:10px" />The disruptive impact of regenerations like the Heygate and the Aylesbury on people throughout Southwark has become more apparent day by day. It is not just that council tenants lose their homes, but that leaseholders get displaced and that housing and rehousing opportunities are lost for anyone on the council waiting list. The Southwark Group of Tenants Association has called a <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SGTO25OctLeaflet4.pdf">public meeting</a> about the future of the Aylesbury estate and the demolition of council homes. <a href="http://halag.wordpress.com/">Threatened Aylesbury leaseholders</a> will also be taking part in the meeting. In the meantime - 3 weeks since their submission - the Aylesbury planning applications have appeared on Southwark Council's planning portal (ref. numbers <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=9557152">14/AP/3843</a> and <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=9557153">14/AP/3844</a>) but we can't tell whether the applications meet with affordable housing requirements because there are still no planning documents online. Last week we emailed the council's planning dept to ask about the delay and we have still had no reply.</p>
<h2>Heygate FOI/EIR Tribunal Case</h2>
<p>Parties to the Heygate FOI/EIR Tribunal case reconvened at a 'Case Management Hearing' last week. The hearing was called by respondent to the case Adrian Glasspool, who had complained that disclosure of the viability assessment had still not taken place following the Tribunal's decison at the beginning of May. After hearing an account of progress so far, Southwark, Lend Lease and the Information Commissioner were directed to meet on 29th October to try to resolve any outstanding issues concerning the final disclosure. The judge also asked for parties' availability for a further hearing - should it be needed - in December.</p>
<p>Another <a href="http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/42351530">challenge</a> against a developer's use of viability assessments in Stoke Newington can be added to the list of challenges in our <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-10-11-southwark-gets-its-reward/">previous blog post</a>. Again the developer is arguing that local people simply would not understand what it is all about, just as was the argument in the Heygate FOI/EIR Tribunal case. After 3 days of argument in the High Court, the judge has retired to consider his verdict.</p>
<h2>Lyons Review reviews viability</h2>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/lyonsreview.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Viability assessments are also rapidly rising up the political agenda: the <a href="http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/uploads/editor/files/The_Lyons_Housing_Review_2.pdf">Lyons Housing Review</a> commissioned by the Labour Party and published last week, has identified <em>"substantial concerns about the way in which the viability of local plans, CIL charging schedules and sites are tested. Evidence to the review suggested that this is compounded by the fact that there is no agreed methodology for viability assessment, which allows different parties to pick the methodology most to their advantage .. evidence to the review suggested that the current arrangements create a great deal of uncertainty and complexity, which works in favour of the partner with the most skilled consultants acting for it."</em></p>
<p>The report then makes some suggestions for how the viability testing process can be improved:</p>
<p><em>"Definitive guidance should be produced to ensure a single and robust methodology for viability assessments to reduce the scope for different interpretations of viability and reduce uncertainty."</em> It argues that an <em>"'open-book' approach to negotiating site specific viability is required, to increase transparency and speed of negotiations."</em> It also proposes <em>"an arbitration service for S106 on large scale developments to be funded by the parties involved in the negotiation"</em>.</p>
Southwark gets its reward2014-10-11T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-10-11-southwark-gets-its-reward/<p>Southwark prides itself on being a 'developer friendly' borough. It has been <a href="http://vimeo.com/71882474#t=125s">endorsed</a> by Lend Lease Director Rob Deck as a <strong>'can do'</strong> council and it has been <a href="http://www.mipimuk-awards.co.uk/mipimukawards2014/shortlist">shortlisted</a> (by developers) for the award of <strong>'Best UK Planning Authority'</strong> at next week's <a href="http://www.mipimuk.co.uk/"><strong>MIPIM</strong> jamboree</a>. But pressure is mounting on all councils including Southwark to withdraw from the MIPIM backscratching get-together. Over two dozen community groups, charities and trade unions have <a href="http://radicalhousingnetwork.org/mipim-uk/whos-opposing-mipim/">opposed MIPIM</a>. Unite, Britains largest union has <a href="http://www.unitetheunion.org/news/labour-councillors-urged-to-boycott-property-developers-fair-as-londons-housing-crisis-mounts/">written</a> to all of London's Labour-controlled councils asking them to <em>"withdraw from participation in MIPIM and the close relationships with private developers that the event seeks to foster."</em>; three have done so but not Southwark.</p>
<p>So it is a particulary embarrasing moment for Lend Lease to <a href="http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20141009/pdf/42ss0tfmnqrw92.pdf">announce</a> on the Sydney Stock Exchange pre-sales totalling £312m (AUD$ 570m) from just 20% of the 3,000 homes it is building at the Elephant & Castle. As we detailed in our <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-09-20-setting-the-record-straight/">previous blog</a>, Southwark is going to have to wait 11 years before it gets a sniff of any profit from the Heygate and so far Southwark has received just £15m of its £50m Heygate land receipt while having spent over £65m emptying and demolishing the estate.</p>
<p><img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzdVDNBCAAMCUu0.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>##Developers behaving badly
Some good examples of bad behaviour by developers using viability assessments to avoid building affordable housing are beginning to emerge.</p>
<p>In Southwark, properties in the Neo Bankside development, opposite Tate Modern, were <a href="http://www.colliers.com/~/media/Files/EMEA/UK/research/residential/201202-central-london-residential-market.pdf">reported</a> to be selling for an average of <strong>£1,326 per square foot</strong> in 2012, nearly double that claimed by developer <strong>Grosvenor</strong> when planning permission was granted: <strong>Grosvenor</strong>'s <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/NeoBankside_VA.pdf">viability assessment</a> claimed its residential properties would sell for an average of just <strong>£754 per square foot</strong>[^1]. These figures also take no account of the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/europe-house-of-the-day-luxury-penthouse-on-the-bank-of-the-thames-photos-1412674116">unsold penthouses</a>, which are <a href="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7512">currently on the market</a> for £22m (each). Put simply: the developer undervalued its development by at least £143m in order to avoid affordable housing requirements[^2].</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/neobanksidecomparison.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Southwark Council didn't refer the Neo Bankside viability assessment to the <a href="http://www.voa.gov.uk/DVS/index.html">District Valuer</a> or other independent expert for appraisal, but had its Internal Property Division look it over instead[^3]. Its Property team recommended that the council accept the developer's poverty plea and settle for a <a href="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/5356">conciliatory offer of a £9m in-lieu payment</a>. Based on Southwark's in-lieu affordable housing tariff [^4] this was a whopping gain to the developer of £16.2m.
The absence of any review or reappraisal mechanism in the planning approval, means that there is no chance that Southwark - or anyone in Southwark who needs affordable housing - will benefit from the properties being sold for twice the developer's original estimate.</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/NEOBanksidePenthouse.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Developer <strong>Grosvenor</strong>'s viability assessment can currently be <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/6014_1.pdf">viewed</a> on the council's planning portal. We presume this was a mistake by Southwark, so in the event that it gets removed we have uploaded a backup copy which can be viewed online <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/6014_1.pdf">here</a>.</p>
<p>In Kensington & Chelsea, the <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SKMBT_DVSReport.pdf">District Valuer's report</a> evaluating the developer's viability assessment for the Earl's Court regeneration was <a href="http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/development/earls-court-developer-ignored-house-price-rises/7005985.article">finally disclosed</a> thanks to the efforts of local campaigners. The report was highly critical, stating that the developer's assessment <em>"ignores residential growth in values that occurs between construction start on site and the commencement of marketing and phased release of the dwellings"</em>. The report concluded by recommending that the council implement a <em>‘review mechanism’</em> so that it could increase the level of affordable housing in line with changing market conditions throughout the 22 year scheme. Unfortunately, no such review mechanism was put in place.</p>
<p>In Fitzrovia, developer <strong>TMCT Associates</strong> has adopted a different tack: instead of underestimating sales values it has inflated build costs in its application for an office to residential conversion at Eastgate House, just around the corner from Tottenham Court Rd. As is usually the case here and elsewhere, Westminster planning committee were initially denied access to the viability assessment, but councillors have now demanded to see it. <a href="http://fitzrovia.org.uk/">Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Association</a> has got there first, and it has published <a href="http://news.fitzrovia.org.uk/2014/10/09/affordable-housing-viability-and-profit/">an account</a> of what it found in its newspaper Fitzrovia News. The Developer has estimated that it will cost a staggering £1.2m <strong>per flat</strong> to convert from offices to residential.</p>
<p>Over in the huge <a href="http://knightdragon.com/greenwich-peninsula/current">Greenwich Peninsula regeneration</a> of 10,000 homes, Hong Kong developer <a href="http://knightdragon.com/"><strong>Knight Dragon</strong></a> has secured a reduction in the amount of affordable housing from 38% to 21%. Local campaigners City Peninsula Residents Association are fighting back and are due to appear at an Information Tribunal hearing in January in their efforts to reveal the viability assessment, which justifies the loss of around 1,700 affordable homes. The use of viability assessments in Greenwich <a href="http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/11500983._Pushing_poor_people_out____Greenwich_accused_of_affordable_housing_failure/">appears to be rampant</a>: none of the approved major developments over the last 12 months meets Greenwich's minimum requirement for 35% affordable housing.</p>
<p><img src="http://ystudio.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/gp2.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>##The benefit of review mechanisms
A recurring feature of planning approvals involving viability assessments is the absence of any review mechanism. This means that any uplift in London property prices between the approval of planning and sale of new homes will not be reflected in an increased affordable housing offer. This will be the case on the Heygate estate, where Southwark failed to follow the District Valuer's recommendation that a <em>'review mechanism linked with delivery'</em> should be made a condition of planning approval[^6]. The 37% increase in Southwark's property prices since The Heygate planning application was submitted, will therefore be translated directly into developer profit; the £101m worth of affordable housing that Lend Lease said it couldn't afford to provide remains permanently written off. The Heygate development is not due to be completed until 2025. Any further increase in London property prices over the next 11 years will be converted into Lend Lease profit; the measly affordable housing offer of 79 social rented units out of 2,735 new homes will remain unchanged.</p>
<p><img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BprjPdsCQAEG0ze.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Review/re-appraisal mechanisms for viability assessments don't just make good sense: as well as being in Southwark's case a policy requirement[^5], they are recommended in the official RICS guidance on viability testing[^6].</p>
<p>Some other councils are starting to wake up to the problem of the misuse of viability assessments: Inside Housing <a href="http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/islingtons-planning-backlash-at-developer-super-profits/7005936.article">reported</a> that Islington Council plans to <em>"clamp down on ‘artificially pessimistic’ viability studies used by developers to minimise affordable housing obligations."</em> Islington Council said it comes after it had <em>"received a ‘significant number’ of viability studies that do not provide underlying methodology and modelling. These studies are ‘unsupported by robust evidence’ and create ‘an artificially pessimistic outcome’."</em></p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: See page 11 of the <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/6014_1.pdf">viability assessment</a> submitted by the developer and which is currently published (we presume mistakably) on the council's planning portal.</p>
<p>[^2]: £1,326 - £754 = £572 x 250,000 (<a href="http://www.native-land.com/development-portfolio/neo-bankside">total sqft residential</a>) = undervalued by £143m.</p>
<p>[^3]: See paragraph 46 of the <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/159669_1.pdf">Officer's report.</a></p>
<p>[^4]: Southwark's <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/affordablehousingspg.pdf">planning policy</a> requires all developments in the North of the borough without on-site affordable housing to pay a minimum of £100,000 per habitable room in lieu of each affordable housing unit not provided (i.e. 35% of the total number of habitable rooms which in this case is <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/6006_1.pdf">720 habitable rooms</a> = 252 x £100k = £25.2m). Indeed, developments on the riverside should provide more and are determined on a 'case-by-case' basis.</p>
<p>[^5]: See paragraph 7.3.4 of Southwark's <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/6069/draft_affordable_housing_spd_2011">Affordable Housing SPD</a></p>
<p>[^6]: See paragraph 3.6.4 of RICS Guidance <a href="http://www.pas.gov.uk/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=2c5c4f63-5010-4839-83f9-4955cf09e0a9&groupId=332612">Financial Viability in Planning 2012</a></p>
Let's talk about... Peter's promises2014-10-04T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-10-04-lets-talk-about-peters-promises/<p>Southwark Council leader Peter John has pledged that the 11,000 new council homes to be built over the next 30 years will not entail the demolition of the same number of existing council homes. In an <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/10997/an_open_letter_from_cllr_peter_john_leader_of_southwark_council">open letter</a> to all residents Cllr John says;</p>
<p><em>"To be absolutely clear, the 11,000 new homes that we promise to deliver will be new homes additional to our existing stock. These will be council homes on council rents for those that need them. It has been said that what we are intending to do is demolish 11,000 existing council homes and replace them to reach our target of 11,000. This is just not true. These are new homes and do not include the existing stock of council housing."</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200463/community_conversations/2923/lets_talk_about_new_council_homes_for_southwark"><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/communityconversation.png" width="300" height="200" align="left" /></a>This emphatic promise has been prompted by residents’ concern about some of the questions Southwark are asking in their <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200463/community_conversations/2923/lets_talk_about_new_council_homes_for_southwark">resident survey</a> entitled <strong>‘Let’s talk about...new council homes for Southwark’</strong>. The survey seeks resident approval of a Charter of Principals for how the Council <em>‘will work with residents on our programme of investment and renewal’</em>. The <a href="http://www.sgto.org.uk/">Southwark Group of Tenants Association</a>'s newsletter (issue 15) says that the survey <em>‘seems to confuse the building of 11,000 homes with the ‘renewal’ or ‘redevelopment’ of estates’</em>. Southwark Defend Council Housing puts it stronger - <em>‘Southwark Council threatens massive redevelopment of its housing estates in Camberwell & Peckham’</em>, and links the questions to Southwark’s new CIL <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-07-23-mystery-objector-1301/"><em>‘Estate Renewal Zone'</em></a>.</p>
<h3>..the price tag</h3>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/CILChargingZones.png" width="200" align="right" />All agree that building 11,000 council homes is a good promise and is off to a good start[^1], but the promise now looks as if it has a price attached, a price which the resident survey is very artfully concealing. The survey talks of ‘principles’ and ‘pledges’ but makes no mention of the asset appraisal study of council stock that will determine which estates are chosen for redevelopment, nor the part the survey itself will play in making those choices. The asset appraisal study is due to be completed by December and is described in a recent council <a href="http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/documents/s47488/Report%20Long%20term%20plans%20for%20the%20delivery%20of%20new%20council%20homes.pdf">cabinet report - ‘Next steps on Developing Long Term Plans for the Delivery of New Council Homes’</a>. The report says that the council must <em>‘identify as much potential land as possible for development opportunity’</em>[^2]. This requires <em>‘a detailed and comprehensive appraisal be undertaken of the performance of the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) assets’</em>[^3] (ie council homes), leading to <em>‘an assessment of their worth to the housing business’</em>[^4].</p>
<h3>..the <strong>Asset Performance Evaluation Tool</strong></h3>
<p>Establishing the financial ‘worth’ of each council home does not end the process. Southwark will also look at ‘non-financial’ factors – income, employment, health, education and social exclusion – to see which stock <em>‘prevents the council effectively meeting its social housing objectives’</em>[^5]. An <em>'Asset Performance Evaluation Tool'</em>, which includes <em>‘a measure of social return based on feedback from engagement with residents’</em>[^6], will ‘enable’ the council to reach its decisions.</p>
<p>Finally Southwark will make <em>‘a correlation of these results with open market values and development potential across the stock will identify candidate groups of assets where more detailed options appraisal could result in either opportunities for additional homes or improvements in values to the overall HRA business plan, increasing the surpluses that may be available to subsidise new developments.’</em>[^7]</p>
<p>Putting all this into plain English, Southwark will put a financial value on each of its estates, take a look at the lifestyles of its tenants and residents and estimate how much the land is worth to developers. The ‘options’ will then open up, including sell-offs (aka ‘improvements in value to the overall HRA business plan’). Putting it even more simply, it looks like Southwark will;</p>
<ul>
<li>see how much each council estate is worth...</li>
<li>see which ones it doesn’t like....</li>
<li>see which ones it wants to ‘redevelop’....</li>
</ul>
<p>This all paints a rather alarming picture, particularly in light of the Heygate experience where an <a href="http://betterelephant.github.io/blog/2012/12/23/1998-southwark-housing-stock-survey/">options appraisal study</a> which recommended retaining half the estate's buildings was ignored. The 35% campaign has requested a copy of the <strong>'Asset Performance Evaluation Tool'</strong> given the key part it looks like playing in the future of every Southwark council estate resident.</p>
<h2>Aylesbury - Stop Press</h2>
<p>The long-anticipated outline planning application and phase 1b/1c demolition applications have been submitted to Southwark Council. Residents in the first phase have received <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/scan0027.pdf">this letter</a> from agents acting on behalf of Notting Hill Housing Trust and Barratt. However, despite having been submitted on 25th September, there are no planning documents online yet. All we know at the moment is that the outline application is for 2,745 new 'private and affordable units' including 1,070 parking spaces plus retail, office & community space. The detailed application proposals include 815 new homes, new roads and some <em>'public and private open space'</em>.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: Phases 1 & 2 of the programme will deliver 447 social rented homes out of 669 total units by early 2016.</p>
<p>[^2]: See para. 41 of <a href="http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/documents/s47488/Report%20Long%20term%20plans%20for%20the%20delivery%20of%20new%20council%20homes.pdf">Cabinet report</a></p>
<p>[^3]: See para. 50 of <a href="http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/documents/s47488/Report%20Long%20term%20plans%20for%20the%20delivery%20of%20new%20council%20homes.pdf">Cabinet report</a></p>
<p>[^4]: See para. 50 of <a href="http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/documents/s47488/Report%20Long%20term%20plans%20for%20the%20delivery%20of%20new%20council%20homes.pdf">Cabinet report</a></p>
<p>[^5]: See para. 51 of <a href="http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/documents/s47488/Report%20Long%20term%20plans%20for%20the%20delivery%20of%20new%20council%20homes.pdf">Cabinet report</a></p>
<p>[^6]: See para. 55 of <a href="http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/documents/s47488/Report%20Long%20term%20plans%20for%20the%20delivery%20of%20new%20council%20homes.pdf">Cabinet report</a></p>
<p>[^7]: See para. 53 of <a href="http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/documents/s47488/Report%20Long%20term%20plans%20for%20the%20delivery%20of%20new%20council%20homes.pdf">Cabinet report</a></p>
Elephant Traders - not in the pink2014-09-27T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-09-27-penrose-street-sorting-office/<p>We <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-07-12-the-more-rent-seeking-elephants-at-elephant-the-better/">blogged</a> on 12th July about <a href="http://www.social-life.co/blog/post/Trading_Places_Elephant_and_Castle_regen/"><em>Social Life</em></a>, a social enterprise based on the Pullens estate. They have now completed their research on the Elephant & Castle shopping centre redevelopment and how it is affecting the traders there. A concise and impressive report is now available <a href="http://tradingplaces-elephant.tumblr.com/">here</a>. Its conclusions will not surprise people familiar with the shopping centre. It says: <em>"Overall, traders are anxious and concerned about the redvelopment. Many of the traders have mixed feelings about the plans."</em>;<em>"The shopping centre is an important social space for traders, local people and regular customers and it plays a hugely important role in the social life of the local community."</em>;<em>"The shopping centre supports dense networks of social relationships in the local area, across London and globally."</em></p>
<p><img src="http://33.media.tumblr.com/eb768bd9c749502c3d8926ced246593f/tumblr_nbcjwdMLuv1tklzg2o1_1280.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>We hope developers Delancey have read this report and are giving it full weight in their forthcoming planning application for the shopping centre's redevelopment. However, we hear from several sources that they are not treating the current occupants very well: rents are being raised and new rental agreements are in the form of licences rather than leases, which points towards them getting rid of shopkeepers rather than keeping them. An <a href="http://www.theprisma.co.uk/2014/09/21/how-changes-in-elephant-castle-will-affect-the-latino-community/">interview</a> with respected academic and Director of <a href="http://latinelephant.wordpress.com/">Latin Elephant</a> Patria Roman paints a similar picture. Nevertheless, one shopping centre leaseholder and popular venue for Latin American events appears to be fighting back - the <a href="https://www.change.org/p/southwark-council-save-the-coronet">'Save the Coronet' petition</a> now stands at 3,856 signatures.</p>
<h2>Sorting Office sorted?</h2>
<p>Two contentious planning applications are pending just down the road from the Elephant in Walworth. One of these would see the effective demolition of a local heritage asset - the former sorting office on Penrose street, the other could jeopardise the future of much loved and valued local mental health charity <em>Cooltan Arts</em>.</p>
<p><img src="http://walworthsociety.co.uk/images/Copy%20of%20image%20001%20-%20resized.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The Sorting Office was built in 1897 and the Walworth Society has long been <a href="http://walworthsociety.co.uk/index.php/blog/116-31-penrose-street-walworths-victorian-sorting-office">campaigning</a> to have it retained as part of the extensive redevelopment of the area. A previous planning application was refused after a large number of objections to its demolition. Its owner is now back with <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=9554889">another application</a> which looks like a prime example of 'facadism': an increasingly common practice which has been <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2014/aug/25/front-facade-bad-developments-ruining-historic-buildings">described</a> in the development industry as a <em>"wilful two fingers up"</em> to local planners.</p>
<p>The application is for 6 x 3 storey and 2 x 2 storey town houses, 8 being just below Southwark's threshold for an affordable housing contribution. They will be squeezed behind the retained facade and side wall, but require the demolition of the rest of the sorting office and surrounding outbuildings.</p>
<h2>Cooltan Arts - threat</h2>
<p>Cooltan Arts, long term residents of the Walworth road were relocated last year on the <a href="http://www.cooltanarts.org.uk/2013/10/cooltan-arts-community-space-for-237-walworth-road/">promise</a> that they would be able to return to redveloped premises on their former site off the Walworth road. But a revised planning application for the site no longer contains this promise to reprovide space for Cooltan (nor does it contain the amount of affordable housing required by policy). Objections to the application <a href="http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9553921">ref:(14/AP/0830)</a> can still be sent to planning.applications@southwark.gov.uk.</p>
<p><img src="http://www.cooltanarts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/DSCF4054-lr.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Developers award Southwark top marks</h2>
<p>Southwark Council has been <a href="http://www.mipimuk-awards.co.uk/mipimukawards2014/shortlist">shortlisted</a> for two awards at the latest property developers' jamboree <strong>'MIPIM UK'</strong>, due to be held at Kensington Olympia on 15th-17th October. Southwark is in the running to be both <em>"UK best planning authority of the year"</em> and <em>"Public-Private Partnership of the Year"</em> for the Aylesbury estate. The MIPIM awards <a href="http://www.mipimuk-awards.co.uk/mipimukawards2014/shortlist">web page</a> claims that for developers, Southwark is both <em>"welcoming and demanding"</em>. We agree that it is certainly welcoming but as we have shown, it is not so demanding - especially when it comes to enforcing its own minimum policies on affordable housing contributions.</p>
<p>MIPIM also states in the citation for the Aylesbury partnership award that 75% of its affordable housing will be social rented. We doubt very much that all the new social rented homes will be at social rents and suspect that the forthcoming Aylesbury outline planning application will replace at least some of it with the new so-called 'affordable rents'of up to 80% market rent.</p>
<p>MIPIM itself is usually held in sunny <a href="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/6687">Cannes</a>. In 2013 the Council leader was <a href="http://heygate.github.io/img/SNCannesMipim.pdf">accused</a> of <em>'going on a jolly'</em> to the event paid for by developer Lend Lease and last year he <a href="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7449">withdrew</a> after protests and demonstrations. This year it is proving equally controversial: several Councils have pulled out after media pressure and an <a href="http://southwarknotes.wordpress.com/2014/09/21/open-letter-to-southwark-council-to-not-attend-mipim/">open letter</a> signed by several local campaign groups asks Southwark to join them. So far Council leader Peter John is unimpressed.</p>
<p><img src="http://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/peter-j-mipim.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The <a href="http://radicalhousingnetwork.org/">Radical Housing Network</a> is organising protests during the exhibiton on 15th - 17th October.</p>
<h2>Heygate viability assessment latest</h2>
<p>After a long appeal against the Information Commisioner's decision, the Information Tribunal ordered Southwark Council and Lend Lease to disclose the Heygate viability assessment back in May. The Tribunal extended the time for forwarding the assessment to the Information Commissioner back in June, but the assessment has still not been revealed. After inquiries to the Tribunal by Mr Glasspool who requested the information, a case management hearing has now been scheduled for 15th October.</p>
Setting the record straight2014-09-20T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-09-20-setting-the-record-straight/<p>Southwark Council has had its feathers ruffled by both the Guardian and the BBC lately. A <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/sep/17/truth-property-developers-builders-exploit-planning-cities">Guardian article</a> by Oliver Wainright uses the redevelopment of the Heygate estate as an example of how developers are <em>'exploiting planning authorities and ruining our cities'</em>.</p>
<p>Southwark Council has posted a <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1785/setting_the_record_straight_the_true_value_of_the_elephant_and_castle_regeneration">press statement</a> <strong>'setting the record straight'</strong>, in which it claims it will receive <em>"phased payments as the scheme progresses"</em> and this will amount to <em>"hundreds of millions"</em>.</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/HeygateLandReceipts.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>It is true that there will be phased payments amounting to £50m (£46m for the main site + £4m for the Rodney road site) - this figure is now well known from the leaked <a href="http://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ra.pdf">Regeneration Agreement</a>, but getting the <em>"hundreds of millions"</em> of pounds depends upon the so-called 'overage' or 'super-profit' and how much this will be, if anything, won't be known until the project is completed in 2025.</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/rapage70.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The overage will be what is left over after building costs, a 2.6% management fee and 20% priority developer return is deducted from the total sales revenue and it will be calculated according to Lend Lease's financial model, as detailed in a 3000 page spreadsheet known as Appendix 22 of the Heygate viability assessment. This complicated accounting process is entirely under Lend Lease's control and while the Council has the right to inspect the financial model, this may not guarantee the expected overage windfall as the Barangaroo Delivery Authority in Sydney Australia <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/barangaroo-public-works-in-doubt-after-government-loses-court-battle-with-lend-lease-20140821-106lke.html">is finding out</a> to its cost.</p>
<p>Any reckoning of the gain due to Southwark must also take into account the £65m[^1] it has spent on Heygate decant costs plus an unquantified amount of public money devoted to regeneration since the wider E&C scheme was conceived, starting with the £25m Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) funding received back in 1999.</p>
<p>On top of the Guardian’s Heygate story the BBC has taken up the plight of Aylesbury leaseholders being 'forced out of the city', with an <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29098960">online article</a> and televised reports on both its London News and <a href="http://youtu.be/RtvghCKNJjQ">Inside Out programme</a> on 8th Sep. Inside Out did not think much of the paltry amount of compensation leaseholders on the Aylesbury estate were being offered, particularly in comparison to the £340k cost of one-bed properties in the area and described the situation as <em>'the Right to Buy dream turned sour'</em>.</p>
<center>
<iframe width="350" height="197" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RtvghCKNJjQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</center>
<p>Southwark again 'sets the record straight' and <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1767/southwark_councils_full_response_to_bbc_inside_out_programme">insists</a> that offers such as <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-05-16-southwark-gives-green-light-to-slum-landlords/">£85k for a 1-bed flat</a> are based on <em>"actual market evidence of properties being sold on the Aylesbury estate"</em>. This method of basing valuations on the sales prices of other properties depressed by the prospect of demolition has been <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-05-30-aylesbury-leaseholder-fights-incestuous-valuation/">criticised</a> by the Lands Tribunal. Southwark Council's valuers are also pretty imaginative in the way they gather 'market evidence', using a <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-05-16-southwark-gives-green-light-to-slum-landlords/">1-bed property which had been illegally converted</a> to 4 beds flat as the basis of the compensation for one unfortunate leaseholder. The derisory compensation offered to Aylesbury leaseholders is in stark contrast to the abundant profit that the builder of the Aylesbury redevelopment Barratt has just <a href="http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2750592/Booming-UK-housing-market-fuels-doubling-annual-profits-Barratt.html">announced</a>.</p>
<p>The Guardian and BBC stories reflect a wide-spread public view that developers and housebuilders are making big profits at local people’s expense and taking Southwark for a ride (an <a href="https://www.change.org/p/heygate-estate-scandal-demand-an-investigation">online petition</a> demanding an investigation into the Heygate development has gained over 700 signatures in 3 days) and a couple of press releases from Southwark won’t change this view.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: See paragraphs 5.34 & 5.35 of the Project Director's Jan 2013 <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/8171/proofs_of_evidence_%E2%80%93_jon_abbot_%E2%80%93_final_proof">CPO public inquiry evidence.</a></p>
Notting Hill Housing Trust - Quids in with Boris2014-08-19T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-08-19-notting-hill-housing-trust-quids-in-with-boris/<p>Notting Hill Housing Trust is an important provider of housing in Southwark, both 'affordable' and <a href="http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/00,news,26531,440,00.htm">private</a>. It has plans to build more than 4000 homes in Southwark; 3500 of these will be on the Aylesbury estate, which it is redeveloping <a href="http://www.nottinghillhousing.org.uk/about-us/building-new-homes/our-developments/aylesbury-estate-southwark">in partnership</a> with Britain's largest - and the mayor's favourite - housebuilder Barratt Homes. According to the NHHT <a href="http://www.nottinghillhousing.org.uk/asset/view/6912.pdf">website</a>, a hybrid application comprising outline planning for the whole Aylesbury and detailed planning for the first phase is due to be submitted by the NHHT/Barratt consortium next month.</p>
<p>Notting Hill has <a href="http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/development/greater-london-authority-allocates-404m-for-affordable-homes/7004790.article">secured</a> more money than any other housing association from the Mayor's <a href="http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/housing-land/increasing-housing-supply/affordable-homes-programme">affordable housing fund</a> (£59m - nearly three times the amount of the next highest provider). However, it is <a href="http://www.cih.org/news-article/display/vpathDCR/templatedata/cih/news-article/data/Losing_social_homes_means_we_are_storing_up_trouble">well known</a> that a condition of getting money from this funding stream is that only affordable rented homes can be built - not social rented. This was <a href="http://www.insidehousing.co.uk//7005104.article">cited</a> by London Labour housing spokesperson Tom Copley as the reason why so few housing associations had applied for the funding, of which £380m still remains unallocated.</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/nottinghillfunding.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Notting Hill Housing Trust enthusiastically <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-06-16-notting-hill-housing-no-social-housing">endorses</a> the Mayor's affordable rent policies, which may explain why Boris Johnson is so happy to give it so much money.</p>
<p>Aylesbury estate tenants will have the right to a tenancy in the new Notting Hill development and those already 'decanted' to other parts of the borough will have the right to return, but if the affordable rents are 80% of market rent this won't mean very much. Southwark Council's recently published 'Affordable Rent Product Study' gives £289pw as the market rent of a 1-bed flat in SE17 – 80% of this would be £231pw. A council rent for a 1-bed flat in SE17 is currently around £100pw.</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SouthwarkMarketRents.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Southwark Council has repeatedly said in public that there would be 50% affordable housing on the new Aylesbury, of which 75% would be social rented and this was written into its <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200211/area_action_plans/1327/aylesbury_area_action_plan">planning policy for the scheme</a>. Notting Hill Housing Trust now says that social rent is the same as affordable rent and probably thinks that people are too stupid to tell the difference.</p>
<p>We think that any Aylesbury tenant moving into one of the replacement homes should not be expected to pay much more than their current council rent. If Southwark doesn't want to see another Heygate-style diaspora of long-standing communities then it should hold good on its promises, stick to its policies and ensure that policy definitions are not allowed to be blurred.</p>
<h2>Notting Hill Housing Trust - Manor Place Depot</h2>
<p>We <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-06-16-notting-hill-housing-no-social-housing/">blogged</a> in June about the prospect of no social housing in Notting Hill Housing's Manor Place Depot development. Since then NHHT appears to have had a change of heart.</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/manorplace.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>One of our members visited NHHT's second exhibition for its Manor Place Depot development and reported back as follows:</p>
<p><em>"The exhibition gave no figures for the housing , simply saying some of the housing would be affordable rent, of which social rent was as a subset. However discussions with NHHT staff yielded the following information:</em></p>
<p><em>The 35% target for affordable housing would be met, with 95 units out of the 270 proposed. Of these 95 units, 50% will be affordable rent and 50% shared ownership. NHHT defines affordable rent as including social rent, and there will be some social rent though they don't know how much until the viability assessment. NHHT policy, they say, is for all the family units to be at social rent.</em></p>
<p><em>Since the first exhibition, NHHT has received GLA funds for all of its sites. This contributes £30,000 - £40,000 of the cost per unit, they say. NHHG were unwilling to provide information as to what exact tenure mix this public funding will subsidise, and how it differs per site.</em></p>
<p><em>On affordable market rent, NHHT say they don't go anywhere near 80% market rent and have a cap in London of £230 (i.e. this is the maximum affordable market rent they will charge, they say).</em></p>
<p><em>They said that there will be a further exhibition in September/October ahead of the planning application in November/December."</em></p>
<p>__We say:__Social rented housing and affordable rented housing are not one and the same thing, Notting Hill Housing Trust needs to stop muddying the waters. If it wants to start consulting meaningfully with local people it must tell them exactly how much social rented housing there will be and how much affordable rented housing there will be and exactly how much rent they will be charging for each.</p>
mind the (Elephantine) gap2014-08-12T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-08-12-mind-the-gap/<p>A £64m funding gap for the infrastructure improvements of the Elephant & Castle regeneration has been identified by Southwark Council. The figure is given in its <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/10740/addendum_to_cdeip1">submission</a> to the Government inspector examining Southwark's plans for raising funds from developers through the new Community Infrastructure Levy.</p>
<p>The hoped-for improvements include a new northern line ticket hall, better access to the mainline station, a remodelled northern roundabout, new leisure centre, GP surgeries and refurbished Town Hall with library and museum.</p>
<p>Evidently the money raised from developments at the Elephant so far has not been enough to provide all the benefits that everybody was expecting from the regeneration and so far committed public funding is not enough to fill the gap. This gap comprises a £40m shortfall for the northern line tube station upgrade, £12m needed for the mainline train station upgrade and about £9m needed for the northern roundabout improvements. The reason for the shortfalls is that developers are not paying enough. The CIL predecessor at the Elephant was the Elephant & Castle Strategic Transport Tariff, which required developers to pay £175 per m2 of any new residential floorspace towards public transport infrastructure. The problem is that developers regularly submitted viability assessments showing that they couldn't afford to pay the full tariff. For example, Lend Lease was able to re-negotiate the tariff for its Heygate redevelopment down to a level of £104 per m2, providing a total transport contribution of £13m when it should have paid £22m:</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/s106headsofterms.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>In making up the shortfall, Southwark hopes to gain £18.5m in CIL contributions from future developments at the Elephant over the next 15 years, but this is obviously not enough and it could mean raiding CIL yields from elsewhere in the borough or CIL destined for health facilities, open space or public realm benefits.</p>
<p><img src="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/rbi-blogs/wp-content/blogs.dir/303/files/2014/06/the-blades-MoS.jpg" width="200" style="margin:10px" />The model of private development cross-subsidising public benefits is plainly not working. While public assets (eg. the disposal of public land or spending from public funds) is fuelling the regeneration, developers aren't paying enough towards the improvements. As we have <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-04-15-the-elephants-new-ivory-towers">shown</a> they systematically use viability assessments to wriggle out of planning contributions and all we are ending up with is social-housing free towers sprouting up across the Elephant (the latest proposed being the Ministry of Sound's <a href="http://www.estatesgazette.com/blogs/london-residential-research/2014/06/planning-battle-ministry-move/">'the blades'</a>).</p>
Southwark's mysterious estate renewal zone2014-07-23T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-07-23-mystery-objector-1301/<p>Our <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-07-19-community-infrastructure-levy/">search</a> to identify mystery Objector 1301 - who is lobbying for subsidies to knock down Southwark's council estates at next week's <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/856/planning_policy/2696/community_infrastructure_levy">CIL public inquiry</a> - has brought some clarity but also some more mystery with it.</p>
<p>Having been pointed towards Southwark Council's <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/10738/cdcil5_appendix_i_of_regulation_19_consultation_statement">table of responses</a> to CIL objector representations, we noted that the Council's response to <strong>Objector 1301</strong>'s objection makes it fairly clear who the objector is, but it also raises some worrying questions about the Aylesbury redevelopment and the Council's plan for the future of some of its housing estates in general.</p>
<p>In its response to <strong>Objector 1301</strong>, the Council makes the worrying admission that <em>"The appraisal showed the [Aylesbury] site to be unviable with the requisite of providing 50% affordable housing."</em><a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/10738/cdcil5_appendix_i_of_regulation_19_consultation_statement">(pg 106)</a> and it then goes on to confirm that under the terms of the development agreement Notting Hill will be providing <em>"affordable rented units".</em> <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/10738/cdcil5_appendix_i_of_regulation_19_consultation_statement">(pg 107)</a></p>
<p>But more worrying is the Council's response on page 109, where it states that it has <em>"recommended a lower CIL rate in the lower value area of the Borough, within which the majority of housing estates identified for Estate renewal are located."</em><a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/10738/cdcil5_appendix_i_of_regulation_19_consultation_statement">(pg 109)</a></p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/zone3.png" alt="" /></p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/CILChargingZones.png" width="350" style="margin:10px" align="left" />This estate renewal zone is shown as zone 3 in the map above. You can see from the map on the left that the Council's planners have split the borough into 3 zones for the puroposes of its CIL charging schedule. Zone 1 (bankside) will charge developers £400 per sqm for new residential buildings, zone 2 (the rest of the borough) will charge £200 per sqm, and developers in zone 3 - the <em>'low value area'</em> where <em>'the majority of housing estate identified for renewal are located'</em> - will be charged just £50 per sqm.</p>
<p>Southwark's new estate renewal zone reaches right up to East Street, extends down to include most of Peckham and stretches from Rotherhithe in the East across to include most of the Brandon estate in the west. The map on the right illustrates that a significant proportion of the Council's housing stock is within the boundary of zone 3 and much of this comprises estates that haven't yet been brought up to Decent Homes standard.</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/MapSouthwarkEstates.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>No reference can be found in any other policy documents relating to this estate renewal zone. So is this a precursory indication of what could be found in the forthcoming replacement of the borough's Core Strategy? (which is as usual currently being drafted behind closed doors), or is it more an insight into Southwark's contradictory <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1617/southwark_council_challenges_mayor_over_affordable_rent">outwardly oppositional</a> but inwardly complicit stance towards controversial <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/eric-pickles-tear-down-estates-to-boost-poor-innercity-homes-9277330.html">government</a> and mayoral housing policy? In any case we would be interested to know if any council tenants or leaseholders in zone 3 have been notified that their estates have been <em>"identified for estate renewal"</em>.</p>
PRS - (Private Rip-off Sector)2014-07-19T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-07-19-community-infrastructure-levy/<p>Delancey has been very shy about telling us what rents it will be charging for its new Private Rented Sector (PRS) homes in its <a href="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7258">shopping centre</a> and <a href="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7208">Tribeca Square</a> developments (which could total around 2000 units). We can now tell you: at least £375 per week for a 1-bed and £500 per week for a 2-bed flat; hardly rents that are <em>"relevant to Londoners earning London wages"</em> as Delancey has hitherto <a href="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7378">maintained</a>. We know this because it is written in the evidence[^1] submitted on behalf of Delancey by its representative Deloitte to next week's <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/856/planning_policy/2696/community_infrastructure_levy">public inquiry</a> examining Southwark's new Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charging schedules:</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/DelanceyCILSubmissionPRSRentLevels.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>CIL is the amount a developer must pay towards public infrastructure and largely replaces the current s106 contributions. Developers don't like CIL because - unlike s106 - it is non-negotiable and they are now busy pleading poverty to try and get the CIL levy reduced. Delancey, joined by British Land, Berkeley homes, Sellar, Lend Lease etc. are claiming that the CIL tariffs proposed are a big threat to the viability of future projects and the delivery of affordable housing (not that the absence of affordable housing has worried them in the past!).</p>
<p>Delancey is also making an argument for reducing CIL in the particular case of Private Rented Sector developments, which is no surprise given the two sizeable PRS developments it has in its pipeline. Despite the eye-watering rents, it claims that it can't make as much money out of PRS as it would do if it were building private housing for sale. Added to this it has to wait longer to extract its customary 20% profit. Thankfully on this occasion Southwark Council appears to be standing its ground and rejects Delancey's argument[^2]:</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LBSResponseToCILSubmissions.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Wanted: Objector 1301</h2>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/objector1301.jpg" width="300" align="left" style="margin:10px" />As well as Delancey, Deloitte is representing several other developers at the inquiry, but none are as mysterious as <strong>Objector 1301</strong> whose identity is 'confidential'<a href="https://35percent.org/posts/2014-07-19-community-infrastructure-levy/#footnote-3">[3]</a>. We are not surprised that objector 1301 wants to keep himself in the shadows, because his great idea is that anybody knocking down and redeveloping a council estate should not pay any CIL at all! <strong>Objector 1301</strong>'s argument is that the cost of having to give ex-tenants and leaseholders fair compensation for losing their homes (although it is seldom fair) is too high to maintain the customary 20% profit, while also paying for local public infrastructure. <strong>Objector 1301</strong>'s solution to the problem is simple and elegant - just insert a footnote saying that none of the above applies to council estate regenerations[^4]:</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/objector1301.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Who can this mystery <strong>Objector 1301</strong> be? Property developers have no qualms about being unpopular in their pursuit of profit, it is the nature of the beast. But a Housing Association may well feel the need to maintain its anonymity. Their free-market orientation is becoming more <a href="http://www.socialhousing.co.uk/free-preview-social-housings-2014-sales-and-development-activity-special-report/7004650.article">apparent</a> day by day, but Housing Associations must at least keep up the pretense of being affordable housing providers. If <strong>Objector 1301</strong> is a housing association could it possibly be one with extensive interests in Southwark? maybe one with the initials NHHT? We don't know for sure, but the 35% campaign is offering a small reward for any information that leads to the identification of this mystery objector.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: See page 187 of <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/10287/cdcil9_regulation_17_representations_to_revised_draft_cil_charging_schedule">submitted written representations to CIL Charging Schedule</a></p>
<p>[^2]: See para 38 of <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/10211/cdcil10_revised_draft_cil_charging_schedule_submission_report_april_2014">April 2014 CIL Charging Schedule Submission Report</a></p>
<p>[^3]: See page 144 of <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/10287/cdcil9_regulation_17_representations_to_revised_draft_cil_charging_schedule">submitted written representations to CIL Charging Schedule</a></p>
<p>[^4]: See page 146 of <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/10287/cdcil9_regulation_17_representations_to_revised_draft_cil_charging_schedule">submitted written representations to CIL Charging Schedule</a></p>
Where there's bronze there's brass2014-07-12T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-07-12-the-more-rent-seeking-elephants-at-elephant-the-better/<p>Just when we thought the Heygate pyramid had set the limits on misconceived artistic collaborations at the Elephant, we got wind of the latest 'triumphant elephant' sculpture proposal.
According to <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/samkeil_bio_2010.pdf">documents</a> posted on artist Sam Keil's website <em>"the team responsible for the redevelopment of the Elephant and Castle district in South London have commissioned Sam to sculpt a major piece for a new public square"</em>.</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/samkeilelephant.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The sculpture proposed on the site of the former Heygate estate football pitch is to comprise a bronze elephant <a href="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/keil_elephant.pdf"><em>"standing on its hind legs on top of a tall castle tower, in the act of leaping into the air with its water-spraying trunk raised high in triumph."</em></a> The project also includes <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/samkeil_bio_2010.pdf"><em>"a series of small elephants which will be distributed as bronze key rings to the owners of the many new apartments associated with the redevelopment."</em></a></p>
<p><img src="http://www.vallico.net/sam/img/relief/2.jpg" width="300" align="left" style="margin:10px" />Sam has <a href="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/keil_elephant.pdf">published the full proposal</a> of the project on her website along with an example of her previous work at a St. John's Wood development, where - under the heading <em>"The Effect of a Sam Keil Bronze on Property"</em> - she claims that her sculptures enable developers to <em>"charge whatever rent you like"</em> . A letter from Southwark is also appended to her proposal in which Council bosses claim to be <em>"very enthusiastic"</em> about the idea, because it would be <em>"well received locally"</em> and that <em>"the more elephants at the elephant the better!"</em>.</p>
<p><img src="http://www.vallico.net/sam/img/prince_philip.jpg" width="300" align="left" style="margin:10px" />International artist Keil, seen here rubbing shoulders with Prince Philip, is represented by a <a href="http://www.whpatterson.com/">fine-art gallery</a> in Mayfair. Although Sam's husband claims that she got the commission <a href="http://www.barganews.com/blogs/towler/?p=37"><em>"essentially because she knows one guy with connections"</em></a> and that <a href="http://www.barganews.com/blogs/towler/?p=37"><em>"not only can she sculpt, but she’s got a nice bottom"</em></a>. Sam says that in her spare time she enjoys riding horses <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/samkeil_bio_2010.pdf"><em>"bareback in the Arizona Badlands and also in the Negev desert in Israel"</em></a>.</p>
<p>Sam <a href="http://www.vallico.net/sam/biography.html">works</a> from her studios in Cambridge and Tuscany and has delivered other high-profile sculptures during her career. In 2011 she <a href="http://www.vallico.net/sam/docs/ft.pdf">presented</a> a bronze eagle to former BP Chief Exec Lord Browne at the Royal Academy of Engineering. Her eagle is <a href="http://www.vallico.net/sam/docs/mike_towler_royal_academy.txt">claimed</a> to signify a <em>"symbol of power"</em> in manifesting the desire to make the <em>"UK the King of Nations again"</em>.</p>
<p>Sam claims her bronze elephant <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/samkeil_bio_2010.pdf"><em>"`Phoenix' with water soaring from his trunk will be a new twenty-first century update of the well-known elephant motif for the area"</em></a>. We think it will be a tasteless and poorly thought-out marketing gimmick with little public value and a monument to how out-of-touch Southwark regen bosses are with local opinion.</p>
<h2>Kim Consulting (Limited)</h2>
<p>Delancey's long-promised consultation on the future of the shopping centre has finally begun. Ex-deputy Council Leader <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-12-07-kim-humphreys-exit-stage-left">turned development consultant</a> Kim Humphries, could be seen buttonholing unsuspecting shoppers last Friday to get their views on the redevelopment. One of the key questions being put is: <em>"Do you think that the whole of the shopping centre site should be redeveloped rather than refurbished?“</em> This can only be rhetorical, because as our friends at <a href="http://southwarknotes.wordpress.com/">Southwark Notes</a> point out - the decision to demolish the shopping centre has already been <a href="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7378">taken</a> by Delancey. Southwark Council has also <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1368/council_will_insist_on_demolition_of_shopping_centre_at_elephant">decided</a> to 'insist' on demolition of the centre.</p>
<p><img src="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/photo-5-1.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>At a recent Walworth Society meeting, Delancey said that it hopes to complete the consultation and submit a planning application by May 2014. They listed 94 community groups of different kinds that they said they will consult. One group omitted from the list were the shopkeepers. When challenged, Delancey insisted that shopkeepers' views would be taken fully into account, but that another team of Delancey operatives would be talking to the shopkeepers at the same time as re-negotiating their leases. We are sure this twin-track approach will not inhibit shopkeepers expressing their views. We hear that leases currently offered for renewal are limited to 5 years with a 'break clause' in November 2016, which suggests that this might be the time that those who don't fit the profile of the new town centre will be leaving us.</p>
<p>Delancey is a private developer and a big one. It is registered in the British Virgin Islands and how Delancey turns this to good advantage has already been exposed in <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/PrivateEyeNo1311.pdf">Private Eye</a> and a Channel 4 Dispatches programme. It is <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/8606978/Minerva-deal-sees-Jamie-Ritblat-follow-in-fathers-property-footsteps.html">run</a> by Jamie Ritblat and funded by George Soros. Jamie is following in his dad's footsteps - former British Land chief executive Sir John Ritblat - and is a donor to the Tory party. He courted <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2041229/Tory-donor-Jamie-Ritblat-snaps-Olympic-Village-knock-price--costing-275m.html">controversy</a> in 2011 when he snapped up the Olympic Village at a knock down price of £557million – £275million less than the taxpayer paid <a href="http://www.thelondonmagazine.co.uk/property-experts/expert-opinions/the-olympic-village.html">bailing out</a> the previous owner - Lend Lease. Standing behind Jamie is the richest man in the world, George Soros. Mr Soros is notorious for nearly bankrupting the Bank of England and tipping the rest of us into poverty. Mr Soros claims to be <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/sep/13/black-wednesday-20-years-pound-erm">proud</a> of the fact the he made £1bn selling sterling that he didn't own. We obviously need have no fear about the future of the shopping centre development not being in good hands.</p>
<h2>Shopping Centre who's who?</h2>
<p>The shopping centre was originally to be redeveloped by Lend Lease under the <a href="http://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ra.pdf">Regeneration Agreement</a> signed in 2010 with Southwark Council. St Modwens (KPI) was the owner of the shopping centre at that time. A year later it signed an agreement with Southwark Council and another, tripartite agreement with both Southwark and Lend Lease for the redevelopment of the centre[^1]. These agreements have been kept confidential[^2]. St Modwen then sold the site to Delancey & funding partner APG in 2013. The question then, is what is the current contractual relationship between Southwark, Lend Lease and Delancey for the redevelopment of the shopping centre? It appears to be another instance where Southwark Council has several hats: development partner; public authority with CPO powers; author of enforcer of planning policy, and as former Heygate residents know it does not always resolve these competing roles in the best interests of local people.</p>
<h2>Save the Coronet</h2>
<p>The Coronet is taking no chances with its future, it has launched the <a href="http://coronettheatre.co.uk/home/save-the-coronet/">'Save the Coronet'</a> campaign and has gained impressive support from a long list of <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SNSaveTheCoronet.pdf">distinguished artists</a> who have performed there. A sizeable part of the shopping centre site is occupied by the Coronet - a music and event venue, it has also been a cinema and music hall <a href="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7701">dating back to 1872</a> and is a popular local institution.</p>
<p><img src="http://crackmagazine.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Screen-shot-2013-12-03-at-14.55.50-660x403.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Trading Places</h2>
<p>Welcome to 'Social Life' -a social enterprise based on the Pullens estate. Funded by the Young Foundation, their mission is <em>"to reconnect placemaking with people's everyday experience and the way that communities work."</em> They have turned their attention to the Elephant & Castle and the impact of the regeneration on local people. The say this: <em>"we are carrying out an independent research project to understand how traders in the Elephant & Castle Shopping Centre are being affected by the proposed regeneration. We want to understand how the proposed changes are affecting people now and how they will impact on traders and customers and their businesses, livelihoods, friendships and local relationships in the future. We want to understand more about the Shopping Centre’s social value."</em></p>
<p>The results of the research which will be made available in a number of ways: a short report, which will be available on Social Life’s website; a local exhibition of stories and photographs; and a festival about social change being organised by the Social Innovation Exchange. The research findings will be available in September 2014. Further details can be found on <a href="http://www.social-life.co/blog/post/Trading_Places_Elephant_and_Castle_regen/">their website</a>.</p>
<p>Last but not least, our friends at Southwark Notes are organising a <a href="http://southwarknotes.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/regeneration-rip-the-elephant-sat-19th-july-walk-sound-films/">day of excitement and interest</a> on Sat 19th July. The day begins with an anti-gentrification walk followed by 'Soundscape' - <em>"an immersive multimedia sound piece investigating community and gentrification"</em> ending with the screening of 3 films including the much-awaited <a href="http://concreteheartland.info/">'Concrete Heartland'</a> - a film <em>"exposing the social cleansing of the Heygate Estate in Elephant and Castle."</em></p>
<p><img src="http://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/snag-walk-july-2014-new.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: See para 2 of this <a href="http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgConvert2Pdf.aspx?ID=5663&T=9">22 Nov 2011 Cabinet paper.</a></p>
<p>[^2]: See para 4 of this <a href="http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgConvert2Pdf.aspx?ID=5663&T=9">22 Nov 2011 Cabinet paper.</a></p>
London Assembly investigates refurbishment vs demolition2014-07-11T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-07-11-london-assembly-investigation-into-housing-estate-refurbishment-and-demolition/<p>Last Friday saw the second meeting of the London Assembly's
<a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/investigations/demolition-and-refurbishment-of-social-housing-estates-in-london">investigation</a>
into the refurbishment and demoliton of council estates. The first meeting in
June had heard from regeneration industry 'specialists', who caused a stir when
Stephen McDonald, Southwark's former head of regeneration
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-olUu1wHqA&feature=youtu.be&t=1h6m16s">boasted</a>
about winning an award for 'emptying' the Heygate of its residents in under a
year. Stephen is now working for Barnet Council emptying the West Hendon estate
of its residents.</p>
<p>Last week's meeting gave the opportunity for an alternative perspective and for those directly affected by regeneration schemes to have their say. Among the highlights from speakers at the meeting were:</p>
<p>Roy Kindle - formerly of Greenwich Council who said: <a href="http://youtu.be/laCg-kfcpIE?t=1h6m33s"><em>"10 years ago residents on the Ferrier estate were told that they would have the right to come back, but what Greenwich didn't mention is that they would need to win the lottery to do so."</em></a></p>
<p>Richard Lee from the <a href="http://justspace.org.uk/">Just Space Network</a> who explained that <a href="http://youtu.be/laCg-kfcpIE?t=1h21m44s"><em>"decisions to demolish seem to be based on some kind of ideological, policy-driven agenda rather than a robust cost/benefit analysis - technical reports very rarely look at the question of embodied carbon."</em></a></p>
<p>Chris Jofeh, Director of <a href="http://arup.com/">Arup</a> (the consulting engineers who were involved in the original Heygate construction and also the redevelopment) claimed that <a href="http://youtu.be/laCg-kfcpIE?t=1h50m15s"><em>"Demolition and rebuild emits a super amount of carbon dioxide and even if you build super-efficient new homes it could take 30 years before you redress the balance. If we do take carbon targets seriously then refurbishment is an option which is much more likely to achieve those targets."</em></a></p>
<p>Twice during the meeting the question was asked "can anybody give a positive example of regeneration?"; unfortunately the answer was silence accompanied by widespread shoulder shrugging.</p>
<p>This is a problem, particularly when the issue is polarised around the two opposed camps of refurbishment versus demolition. In the context of the seemingly universal agreement around housing shortages and the need for density increases, this can lead to equally universal <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/davehillblog/2013/feb/13/elephant-and-castle-southwark-council-regeneration-rights-and-wrongs">claims</a> that there is no alternative to the Heygate & Aylesbury-style wholesale discounted disposal option.</p>
<p>What these polarised perspectives miss are the plethora of possibilities inbetween the two poles of refurbishment versus demolition. For example, in 1998 Southwark Council commissioned consulting engineers 'Allot & Lomax' (now part of the <a href="http://www.jacobs.com/">Jacobs</a> group) to conduct a survey and <a href="http://betterelephant.github.io/blog/2012/12/23/1998-southwark-housing-stock-survey/">options appraisal study</a> for the Heygate estate. The engineers declared all of the buildings structurally sound but recommended that 6 of the estate's 19 blocks be demolished and redeveloped to fit in with the Council's plan to increase density, permeability and tenure mix; the remaining 13 blocks they recommended for refurbishment.</p>
<p>However, Southwark rejected the consultants' recommendations on the grounds
that <em>"it was recognised at the time that changing land values could make the
complete demolition and redevelopment by the private sector a better
option."</em>[^1]</p>
<p>We are now 15 years on from this decision and are just beginning to be able to evaluate its social, economic and environmental outcomes:</p>
<p><strong>Economic:</strong> Southwark Council has spent far more on 'decanting' the estate
than expected. By Jan 2013 it had incurred capital and revenue costs totalling
£65m[^2]. <strong>Social:</strong> the social impact of the scheme and its failure to
provide the new homes promised to Heygate residents has been widely
<a href="http://heygate.github.io/">documented</a>. <strong>Environmental:</strong> the continued
emphasis on the operative carbon emission comparisons between Heygate buildings
and its intended replacements entirely disavows the question of embodied
carbon, i.e. the carbon emitted from the construction of materials contained
both in existing buildings and their replacements.<br />
<a href="http://heygateestate.wordpress.com/">This</a> 2012 report by
<a href="http://gensler.com/">Gensler</a> & <a href="http://baqus.co.uk/">Baqus</a> shows that 40,000
tonnes of C02 emissions could have been saved by the estate's refurbishment.</p>
<p>So what might the Heygate have looked like had the Council followed the advice of its consultants?</p>
<p><img src="http://betterelephant.github.io/images/SixAcresRegeneration.png" alt="" />Islington's
Six Acres estate in Finsbury park was built in 1969 - five years before the
Heygate and Aylesbury. In 2011 Islington Council passed plans for the
regeneration of the estate. In 2012 the plans were implemented commencing with
the demolition of one of the maisonette blocks containing 72 social rented
homes. That part of the site along with the former car park, was sold for £8.4m
to <a href="http://onehousinggroup.co.uk/">'One Housing Group'</a> who built 164 new homes
comprising a
<a href="http://planning.islington.gov.uk/NorthgatePublicDocs/00195878.pdf">mix</a> of 82
private, 65 social rented and 17 intermediate units. All new homes were
equipped with solar hot water and ground-source heat pumps. The remaining 9
blocks on the estate comprising 473 council homes were refurbished with <a href="http://www.lawtechltd.co.uk/Project_Tollington.aspx">new
external wall insulation</a>,
new entry doors, exterior furnishing improvements, <a href="http://www.langley.co.uk/asx/six_acres_case_study.pdf">green
roofs</a> and <a href="http://greenroofshelters.co.uk/green-roofed-cycle-shelters-for-islington/">cycle
shelters</a>.</p>
<p>Disregarding the demolition and construction cost of the new homes, the
refurbishment and landscaping works amounted to a total cost of £17m - far less
than Southwark Council has spent just on decanting the Heygate estate.</p>
<p>More information about the Six Acres estate regeneration can be found <a href="http://www.langley.co.uk/asx/six_acres_case_study_-_newsletter.pdf">here</a>, <a href="http://bit.ly/1ssLvV6">here</a>, <a href="http://www.langley.co.uk/asx/six_acres_case_study.pdf">here</a> and under planning application ref: P072153 on <a href="http://www.islington.gov.uk/services/planning/planninginisl/plan_interest/Pages/planning-search.aspx#header">Islington Council's Planning Portal</a>.</p>
<center>
<div style="width:330px; font-size:80%; text-align:center;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/46360829@N03/sets/72157645684480295/"><img src="http://betterelephant.github.io/images/sixacresbefore4.jpg" width="330" height="220" /></a>Six Acres estate before regen - more photos <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/46360829@N03/sets/72157645684480295/">[here.]</a></div>
</center>
<center>
<div style="width:330px; font-size:80%; text-align:center;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/46360829@N03/sets/72157645684757965/"><img src="http://betterelephant.github.io/images/sixacresafter.JPG" width="330" height="220" /></a>Six Acres estate after regen - more photos <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/46360829@N03/sets/72157645684757965/">[here.]</a></div>
</center>
<p><img src="http://betterelephant.github.io/images/Pickles_TearDownEstates.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>So the question is - can Six Acres estate be held up as a positive example of
regeneration? and can it be used in time to halt the approaching onslaught of<br />
council estate demolitons and sell-offs?</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: See <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/8171/proofs_of_evidence_%E2%80%93_jon_abbot_%E2%80%93_final_proof">Paragraphs 5.34 & 5.35 of CPO Statement of Evidence</a></p>
<p>[^2]: See <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/8194/core_document_2_-_statement_of_reasons_sor_-_sor">Paragraph 2.8 of Heygate CPO Statement of Reasons</a></p>
Aylesbury estate - 42 more residents face Compulsory Purchase2014-06-30T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-06-30-aylesbury-estate-compulsory-purchase-order/<p>In China homeowners who stand in the way of new developments can refuse compensation if they are prepared to stay put in <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2014/apr/15/china-nail-houses-in-pictures-property-development">'nail houses'</a>. In Britain homeowners don't have that option - sooner or later they would have to accept whatever is offered, as the leaseholders on Southwark's Aylesbury estate are finding out.</p>
<p><img src="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/4/13/1397410555601/baac3533-f9fe-4c47-994d-eeadf76d8ee1-620x461.jpeg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Last week Southwark Council served a Compulsory Purchase Order on 22 leaseholders, 12 secure tenants and 8 non-secure tenants whose homes are to be demolished in the next phase of the Aylesbury redevelopment. We reported briefly last year on the <a href="http://heygate.github.io/img/SNWolverton.pdf">elderly</a> residents <a href="http://heygate.github.io/img/ObjectionCPOAugust2012.pdf">objecting</a> to the <a href="http://heygate.github.io/img/WolvertonCPO.pdf">Compulsory Purchase</a> of their homes during the previous phase of the scheme and how they were subsequently <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-05-30-aylesbury-leaseholder-fights-incestuous-valuation/">forced into litigation</a> in order to obtain fair compensation for their homes.</p>
<p>The Council's justification for the CPO - its <a href="http://heygate.github.io/img/AylesburyPhase3CPO.pdf">Statement of Reasons</a> for making the order is full of the usual arguments: "the Aylesbury estate is amongst the most deprived areas in England"; "the built fabric is dated"; "it goes against good design principles"; "elements of its layout such as the raised walkways contribute to crime".
Many of these arguments can be contested, for example the 2005 Council-commissioned structural survey declared the buildings sound and Southwark's <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200179/aylesbury_estate/2686/aylesbury_development_partnership/2">own admission</a> that the estate's crime rate is 45% below the borough average. Even if the Council's arguments are accepted it doesn't justify the Council's use of Compulsory Purchase powers against these residents.</p>
<p><img src="http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/pictures/643xAny/2/6/5/18265_Regen_Aylesbury_032.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>One difference between this CPO and that of the Heygate is that it has been served not just on leaseholders but also on council tenants. The Heygate's 1,000 tenants were instead removed from the estate under the Landlord & Tenant Act with the help of 198 Notices to Quit and 4 eventual evictions. Whatever the procedure used, the Council is obliged to make secure tenants an offer of alternative accommodation. Non-secure tenants aren't so lucky: under the Aylesbury CPO there is no guarantee of any offer at all.</p>
<p>Leaseholders will have to rely on their compensation to buy a new home in the area. We know from the two cases that recently went to the Lands Tribunal that this is woefully inadequate with offers of just £85k for a 1-bed and £165k for a 4-bed flat. While current leaseholders are being offered a pittance, 2-bed new-build flats in the <a href="http://www.burgessterrace.co.uk/">completed phase 1</a> Aylesbury development are being <a href="http://www.dropbox.com/s/v02kjcryf8ni15r/LandRegistryTitleTGL392009.pdf">sold for £490,000</a>.</p>
<p>It is difficult to understand this when Southwark should be getting plenty of money from the sale of 28.5 hectares of prime central London real estate. It got £20m for the sale of its nearby Manor Place development site to Notting Hill Housing (£11.8m per Hectare); on this comparison the Aylesbury site could be worth a staggering £330m.</p>
<p>Aylesbury leaseholders are being offered shared ownership options on the nearby Elmington estate regeneration, but this is on very unfavourable terms as shown by <a href="http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/documents/s45196/Representation%20from%20Aylesbury%20Leaseholders%20Action%20Group.pdf">submissions</a> from leaseholders to the Council's recent Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting.</p>
<p><img src="http://www.ruskinwalk.co.uk/images/common/ruskin-walk-brochure.jpg" alt="" />
<a href="http://www.albany-place.co.uk/">Albany Place</a></p>
<p>Aylesbury Leaseholders have formed themselves into an action group and have released <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/vjtwnow85uwfta0/AylesburyCPOPressStatement4July2014v3.pdf">this press statement</a> in their fight to get a fair deal. They have objected to the CPO and there is likely to be a public inquiry.</p>
Notting Hill no social Housing Trust2014-06-16T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-06-16-notting-hill-housing-no-social-housing/<p>One of the most characterful development sites within the the Elephant and Castle Opportunity Area is the <a href="http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/elephant-and-castle-home/elephant-and-castle-history/00,news,10016,5757,00.htm">Manor Place Baths</a>. The baths provided laundry and bathing facilities to Walworth people for 80 years, until demolition of the surrounding streets and the removal of the local population to the Heygate and Ayelsbury estates sounded its death knell in the 80’s; it was replaced as a swimming pool by the Elephant & Castle leisure centre, the baths were filled in by Southwark Council in 1998 and the buildings were then used by the Council's Environmental Services department until their relocation in 2012.</p>
<p><img src="http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/images/buildings/en/471/471093-18941-800.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Notting Hill Housing Trust (NHHT) purchased the 1.7 hectare site from the Council in Nov 2013 for the reasonable sum of £20m - reasonable compared to the <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/elephant-and-castle-estate-revamp-ripped-off-taxpayers-8482794.html">£50m figure</a> it sold the 9.9 Hectare Heygate site for. NHHT is now putting out feelers to local community groups in anticipation of a planning application before the end of the year. The omens do not look good.</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/manorplace.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>First, rather than deal directly with the local community NHTT have engaged M&N Place to do the work for them. M&N Place is eminently qualified – it has an <a href="http://www.mnplace.co.uk/contact-us/">office in Abu Dhabi</a>, provides <a href="http://www.mnplace.co.uk/case-studies/pre-planning/">'political intelligence'</a> about local authorities and is well versed in bending local opinion to the developers will on behalf of London boroughs. M&N Place is also eminently <a href="http://www.mnplace.co.uk/case-studies/pre-planning/kidbrooke-greenwich/">experienced</a> - having successfully bent opinion for Berkeley homes' <a href="http://halag.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/ferrier.pdf">deplorable redevelopment</a> of the Ferrier estate in Greenwich.</p>
<p>Undeterred, a concerned local resident attended the first <a href="http://manorplacedepot.co.uk/manor-place-banners.pdf">public exhibition</a> for the development. There was no information about affordable housing on display, but after probing NHHT staff it turns out there will be no social housing - we will be getting the dreaded affordable rent instead. They agreed this would be beyond the means of people on low or average incomes. <a href="https://35percent.org/images/manorplacedepotconsultation.pdf">Here</a> is a link to his full report.</p>
<p>NHHT are shy about saying what exactly the rents will be, but below is a screenshot taken <a href="http://www.nottinghillhousing.org.uk/customers/permanent-rented-housing/information-for-permanent-rented-housing-tenants/affordable-rent-update">from its website</a> which gives us some idea what to expect:</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/nhhtrents.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Housing contradictions</h2>
<p>Some housing associations have <a href="http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/affordable-rent-not-worth-the-risk-say-associations/6513502.article">complained</a> about the introduction of affordable rent, but NHHT is a true believer: as reported in Labour's <a href="http://redbrickblog.wordpress.com/2014/06/04/what-are-housing-associations-for-part-4/">redbrick blog</a> 'NHHT chief Kate Davies chaired the ‘Housing and Dependency Working Group’ of Iain Duncan Smith’s think tank the Centre for Social Justice. The name of the group almost says it all, but her conclusion is: ‘social housing is not a desirable destination; private ownership is preferable to state provided solutions’.</p>
<p>NHHT's hostility to social housing is evident in its <a href="http://www.nottinghillhousing.org.uk/customers/permanent-rented-housing/information-for-permanent-rented-housing-tenants/affordable-rent-update">conversion policy</a> - social rented homes will be converted to affordable rent as soon as there is a change of tenant.</p>
<p>NHHT will be providing 1,200 of Southwark's new homes over the next three years in Camberwell, Peckham, Bermondsey & Blackfriars plus the 3,500 new homes on the Aylesbury estate. In a <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-05-05-manx-connections-the-off-shore-home-of-the-elephants-developers">previous blog</a> we raised concerns about exactly what kind of affordable housing the Aylesbury estate would get. As the picture becomes clearer that concern deepens. Up to now Southwark has fought the very idea of introducing affordable rent to the borough, joining with seven other boroughs in <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1387/councils_to_take_mayor_of_london_to_court_over_affordable_rents">taking Boris Johnson to court</a>. Former head of regeneration Cllr Fiona Colley <a href="https://35percent.org/images/fionacolleyresponsetolondonplan.pdf">summed up</a> the matter simply: <em>'affordable rent will be very difficult for people in housing need to afford'</em>. So why is NHHT - the champion of affordable rent - providing so many of Southwark's new homes?</p>
Aylesbury leaseholder fights 'incestuous' valuations2014-05-30T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-05-30-aylesbury-leaseholder-fights-incestuous-valuation/<p>As reported in our previous blog post, this week saw a second Aylesbury leaseholder fighting the council's controversial compensation valuations at the Upper Lands Tribunal. In buying back homes on the estate the Council has consistently maintained that all leaseholders are given 'market value' in compensation for the loss of their homes. Last week <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-05-16-southwark-gives-green-light-to-slum-landlords/">we learned</a> how it arrives at its market value calculation by using illegaly-converted flats as comparable market evidence. This week we learned more about its valuation procedures.</p>
<p><img src="http://cached.imagescaler.hbpl.co.uk/resize/scaleWidth/456/?sURL=http://offlinehbpl.hbpl.co.uk/News/NST/charity-Tribunal-20140514044354391.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The claimant was a Mrs Olubunmi John, formerly of 28 Wolverton on the Aylesbury estate and now living in the Kent borders. She was represented by <a href="http://www.averyassociatessurveyors.com/">Avery Associates</a> chartered surveyors and a barrister from <a href="http://www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk/Barristers/Stan_Gallagher">Tanfield Chambers</a>. Mrs John's surveyor had originally carried out a survey and valued her 3-storey, 4-bed maisonette at £288,750. In adjusting for market conditions he increased this to £297,500 on the date she and her family had to leave. The council's valuation of Mrs John's home on the day it took possession was just £165,000.</p>
<p>The hearing began with Mrs John's representatives producing a council-commissioned report confirming that the buildings were structurally sound. This quickly defeated earlier unevidenced intimations by the council that the Aylesbury estate's buildings had structural issues.</p>
<p>The barrister then questioned the impartiality of the Southwark council officer who decided on the compensation offer. He pointed out that other boroughs use an independent valuer - somebody from outside the council to decide how much the property is worth. The compensation is then based upon this objective valuation. Southwark Council keep it all 'in house': they decide their own valuation and then offer that amount as compensation. Most other London Boroughs - <a href="http://sutton.moderngov.co.uk/Data/Strategy%20Committee/20040608/Agenda/$Item%2016.doc.pdf">Sutton</a>, <a href="http://bit.ly/1pqMVho">Kensington & Chelsea</a>, <a href="http://www.newham.gov.uk/Documents/Environment%20and%20planning/Carpenters%20Estate%20Residents%20Charter.pdf">Newham</a>,
<a href="http://debeauvoircouncillors.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/colville-estate-regeneration-what-is.html">Hackney</a> and Lewisham to name just a few - all rely on valuations from independent external valuers as the basis for their negotiations.</p>
<p>Mrs John's barrister also criticised Southwark Council for using other properties on the Aylesbury also earmarked for demolition as its basis for compensation. He referred to Greenwich Council doing just this on the <a href="http://halag.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/ferrier.pdf">Ferrier estate</a> regeneration in Kidbrooke. The Tribunal there rejected the practice as 'incestuous' when it heard an appeal from a Ferrier leaseholder in 2007 and ordered the use of properties off the estate to be used as comparables when calculating compensation.</p>
<p><img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8345/8183341508_e809f1b36f_z.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The barrister went on to claim that the Council was undervaluing properties on the Aylesbury and that this was demonstrated by the high returns that buy-to-let investors were making on the estate. He showed evidence that the properties were averaging a 13% yield - more than double the current average return on investment for properties in London which stands at around 6%. Using the London average figure and average rents on the Aylesbury to calculate the market value of Mrs John's home gives a figure of around £300,000 - nearly double the council's offer. But even this amount is unlikely to buy her a new home in the swanky new <a href="http://www.albany-place.co.uk/">Harvard Gardens</a> - the development replacing her Aylesbury home.</p>
<p>The Lands Tribunal should be there to protect people like Mrs John and her neighbours, including the 130 or so <a href="http://heygate.github.io/img/SNWolverton.pdf">elderly leaseholders</a> left on the estate, but the risk of taking on Southwark Council and losing is too high and Southwark Council is taking full of advantage of the fact. One of the first things the new labour administration must do is start offering the estate's leaseholders decent and fair compensation for the loss of their homes.</p>
<h2>Meet the 'pop-up' neighbours</h2>
<p>On Thursday this week the new <a href="http://www.theartworks-uk.com/">Heygate pop-up boxpark</a> was showcasing its container units to prospective tenants. The event was marketed on the <a href="http://shoreditch.hypeapp.co/shared-events/14034/">'Shoreditch Hype'</a> website inviting <em>'designer-maker'</em> or creative businesses to <em>'head south for Pop-ups'</em> bringing the East London vibe to the Elephant. Prospective tenants were <a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/824753570885436/">invited</a> to come and <em>'meet the neighbours'</em> at the nearly completed container boxpark located the former Elephant Park - formerly designated public open space until its <a href="http://www.35percent.org/blog/2012/07/04/londons-largest-new-private-park-in-70-years">controversial enclosure</a> in 2012.</p>
<p><img src="http://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/elephant-rd-park-2008.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Among the <a href="http://blog.wearepopup.com/p/viewing-at-the-artworks/">'neighbours'</a> already booked to move into the boxpark - when it is completed at the end of June - are two pop-up fashion boutiques, a massage and yoga <a href="http://signup.body-align.co.uk/">'vitality hub'</a>, a Mauritian tearoom where <em>'Artists and designers will showcase their products within Qubes that form the walls'</em> and a <a href="http://www.southeastcakery.com/">pop-up 'Brownie Bar'</a>. There will be another open day for prospective designer makers and creative businesses on Weds 4th June.</p>
<p><img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BouMpuWIAAApjKT.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Put it on the map</h2>
<p><strong>'Put it on the map'</strong>, by the council-led <a href="http://www.creationtrust.org/">Creation Trust</a> - you will be invited to tell your stories of the area at the Listening Post, see old images of Walworth from Southwark's Local History Library and Archive collection and suggest names of the new streets, blocks and open spaces at <a href="http://www.rightmove.co.uk/developer/branch/Lend-Lease/Elephant-Park-108524.html">Elephant Park</a> (or, as many local people with memory still prefer to call it, the former Heygate estate). Refreshments will be provided by the Electric Elephant Cafe at Inspire.</p>
Another Aylesbury leaseholder goes to lands tribunal2014-05-24T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-05-24-aylesbury-leaseholders-at-upper-lands-tribunal/<p>As mentioned in our previous <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-05-16-southwark-gives-green-light-to-slum-landlords/">blog post</a>, this week will see a second Aylesbury estate leaseholder taking the council to the <a href="http://www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/lands">Lands Tribunal</a> over low valuations following its <a href="http://heygate.github.io/img/ObjectionCPOAugust2012.pdf">Compulsory Purchase Order</a> of homeowners on the Wolverton block <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200179/aylesbury_estate/1965/project_overview/3">(site 7 of the regen)</a>. 59 family maisonettes, a sports pitch and around <a href="http://www.peoplesrepublicofsouthwark.co.uk/hold-news/news/3200-sedan-way-chainsaw-massacre">30 mature trees</a> have been demolished to make way for <a href="http://www.albany-place.co.uk/">'Harvard Gardens'</a>.</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Demolition.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>This is the second phase of the Aylesbury regeneration scheme, an L&Q development comprising 147 new homes about which there is <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-05-05-manx-connections-the-off-shore-home-of-the-elephants-developers/">concern</a> that the social rented element will be the unaffordable 'affordable rents' of up to 80% market.</p>
<p><img src="http://www.albany-place.co.uk/images/common/harvard-gardens-thumb.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Former resident, Ms Olubunmi John is the second Aylesbury leaseholder taking the council to court over the low compensation she was paid for her home. Ms John lived with her family at no. 28 Wolverton, a 3-storey, 4-bed maisonette until the council took possession of their home under Compulsory Purchase powers in August 2013.</p>
<p>Ms John and fellow leaseholders <a href="http://heygate.github.io/img/SNWolverton.pdf">fought hard</a> for over two years against the council's low valuation offers of compensation for the loss of their homes. Many are elderly and had lived on the block since it was first built in the early 70s. Amongst these was Mr Djevdet Hilmi age 82 (pictured right), who had lived at 36 Wolverton since 1981; he passed away in Jan 2013, just weeks before he was due to appear at a Public Inquiry to contest the Compulsory Purchase Order.</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/mrhilmi.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Ms John's property has been independently valued by her RICS qualified surveyor at £288,750; the council's final compensation payment was just £165,000. Much higher compensation is being paid in other regeneration schemes by other boroughs, such as Myatts Fields in Lambeth where Ms John's surevyor has also represented displaced leaseholders.</p>
<p>The compensation hearing will take place on Tuesday 27th May at the Upper Lands Tribunal in Bedford Square. Substantial legal costs will be incurred by the losing party whoever it is. Why doesn't Southwark Council abide by its own slogan <em>'A fairer future for all'</em> and pay Ms John a fair price for her home?</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/fairerfuture.png" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Appealing the appeal?</h2>
<p>What's up with Southwark Council and Lend Lease? After Southwark <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1672/decision_on_heygate_viability_assessment_tribunal">‘broadly welcoming’</a> the <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-05-10-foi-appeal-decision/">Tribunal's decision</a> on the Heygate viability assessment, and despite council leader Peter John <a href="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7585">saying</a> that the assessment would show what a good deal 25% affordable housing was, Lend Lease has now asked the Tribunal for more time to respond, as well as more time to decide whether or not to appeal. The Tribunal has responded by giving Southwark and Lend Lease 14 more days until 20th June to come up with the viability assessment and the possibility of appeals still remains open.</p>
<h2>The Elephant forgets</h2>
<p>Retailers, shoppers and users of the Elephant & Castle shopping centre are becoming increasingly apprehensive about its future. New owners Delancey APG have promised consultations on the redevelopment of the site now the local elections are over, so it's useful to look back on the rather dismal history of the shopping centre's previous consultations and a good place to start is this video featuring Dr. Ben Campkin, director of UCL's <a href="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/urbanlab">urban lab</a> and author of <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SBMPEA6cJREC&lpg=PP1&dq=ben%20campkin%20remaking%20london&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=ben%20campkin%20remaking%20london&f=false">'Remaking London'</a>.</p>
<center>
<iframe width="350" height="197" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6-1T1pWiWcQ?list=PLSn28aOCzdBfi8MqPq7DpdeKXuvaePJol" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</center>
<p>Dr Campkin refers to the difficulty of finding the 2005 Ouseley report about allegations of institutional racism in the shopping centre's redevelopment process. We took up the challenge, but it does seem to have dissapeared into Southwark Council's memory hole - despite the fact that there was a <a href="http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CId=194&Year=2005">whole committee</a> set up to respond to it.</p>
<h2>Regeneration goes viral</h2>
<p><img src="http://i.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/5/16/1400257660411/Woodberry-Down-new-builds-012.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>It is not just us at the Elephant & Castle who are suffering from regeneration. The <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2014/may/18/public-private-partnership-housing-projects-london-mapped">Guardian map</a> below shows how it is spreading like a rash across the capital. The map was part of a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/18/-sp-truth-about-gentrification-how-woodberry-down-became-woodberry-park">major story</a> about the regeneration of Hackney's Woodbury down - a council estate of over 1500 homes. The familiar themes are all there: managed dilapidation, council-sponsored gentrification, financial viability defined by fat developer profits, a net loss of social rented housing and poor compensation for leaseholders, but great opportunities for overseas investors.</p>
<iframe width="600" height="400" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://www.google.com/fusiontables/embedviz?q=select+col4+from+1uNRQelJXKNtyCVQkmh6VocGymqxVgUVatz6yevOF&viz=MAP&h=false&lat=51.510697&lng=-0.129547&t=1&z=10&l=col4&y=2&tmplt=2&hml=TWO_COL_LAT_LNG"></iframe>
<p>Lessons are being learned though and they are being pulled together in the forthcoming <em>'Staying Put: an Anti-gentrification Handbook for Council Estates in London'</em>, a collaboration between <a href="http://justspace.org.uk/">Just Space</a>, <a href="http://southwarknotes.wordpress.com/">Southwark Notes Archives Group</a>, Prof. Loretta Lees and The <a href="http://www.londontenants.org/">London Tenants Federation</a>.</p>
<p>The handbook is designed to help local communities faced with the gentrification of their council estate. It explains what gentrification is, how communities can resist it and the alternatives to demolition and displacement. It contains ideas, stories and resources gathered from the experiences of tenants, leaseholders and the wider community organising around council estates in London. The handbook will be launched on 12th June - more details to come.</p>
Southwark's rogue landlords - enforcement or endorsement?2014-05-16T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-05-16-southwark-gives-green-light-to-slum-landlords/<p>We have written briefly before about the <a href="http://heygate.github.io/img/SNWolverton.pdf">Aylesbury estate leaseholders</a> subjected to <a href="http://heygate.github.io/img/ObjectionCPOAugust2012.pdf">CPO proceedings</a> and how the council's low valuations of their homes shares similarities with the story of the Heygate's leaseholders.</p>
<p>Former Aylesbury leaseholder Mr Olufemi Joshua, went to the <a href="http://www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/lands">Upper Lands Tribunal</a> last week. He was taking Southwark Council to court over the low compensation paid for the loss of his 1-bed flat and he heard some extraordinary admissions from a senior council official.</p>
<p>Mr Joshua's barrister first revealed that the flat Southwark had used to estimate Mr Joshua's compensation - by way of comparison - had been illegally converted from a 1-bed into a 4-bed flat. Southwark's officer responded that this quite often happened and that rogue landlords could reasonably expect not to be discovered. He explained that he had used the illegally-converted flat's rental income as the basis for calculating Mr Joshua's compensation. Mr Joshua's 1-bed (but legal) property could not raise as much rent as the 4-bed (illegal) property, so therefore Mr J was entitled to less compensation. The council officer had used the illegally-converted flat unwittingly in assessing Mr J's compensation, but nonetheless defended the valuation. He also referred to another illegally-converted 1-bed property (98 Taplow) and his opinion was that investor landlords commonly take such risks.</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/comparison.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<blockquote>
<p>"The income potential [of the leaseholder's flat] and the way it was laid out at the valuation date doesn't give the same potential as 109 Wendover - that property having been reconfigured or converted to form additional rooms." <strong>(Council official explaining how an Aylesbury leaseholder could have got more compensation by illegally converting his flat, Lands Tribunal 14/05/14)</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Mr Olufemi Joshua, formerly of 252 Bradenham on the Aylesbury - and now displaced to Grays - had first been offered £65k, which was later raised to £85k before the Tribunal. Mr Joshua's surveyor had valued his home significantly higher at £146k.</p>
<p>The illegally-converted flat (no. 109 Wendover) used for the comparison had been sold at a Savills auction in March 2013. This was around the date that Mr J left his home and so was used as a suitable 'comparable' despite having 4 bedrooms. The <a href="http://www.eigroup.co.uk/files/55/18813/f6bc9070-cf2d-4b15-83a0-9809ff36322c.pdf">auction particulars</a> describe the property as a 4 bed flat currently rented out at £300 per week.</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/auctionparticulars.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Mr Joshua's surveyor presented the floor plan of the illegal flat to the Tribunal, and explained that whilst internal layouts differed, the properties were identical in overall size. He showed how rudimentary plasterboard had been used to divide the rooms, two of which were not much longer than a single mattress.</p>
<p>Mr Joshua's surveyor went on to claim that the council's valuation of the converted property as a 4-bed flat was improper, not least because it hadn't been registered for council tax as a 4-bed. He further pointed out that the conversion falls foul of the Housing Act's regulations on overcrowding and that the kitchen, bathroom and two of the newly-created bedrooms are all well below council and statutory requirements on minimum room sizes. He highlighted that the illegal conversion is also a breach of the council's leasehold agreement, its planning regulations and its HMO & fire safety regulations.</p>
<div style="font-size:80%; text-align:center;"><a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/109Wendover.JPG"><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/109Wendover.JPG" /></a>Illegal conversion at 98 Taplow shows new plasterboard walls butted up against the middle of a window pane.</div>
<p>A Land Registry search shows that the illegally-converted 1-bed flat at 98 Taplow was <a href="http://www.auctionhouse.uk.net/london/search-results.aspx?lotid=33522">bought at auction</a> by a <a href="http://www.ourproperty.co.uk/directory/14869.html">property company</a> with a <a href="http://www.blemainfinance.co.uk/">commercial buy-to-let mortgage</a>, after it was reposessed from its original owner when he was declared bankrupt in 2012. The <a href="http://www.auctionhouse.uk.net/london/search-results.aspx?lotid=33522">auction particulars</a> describe 98 Taplow as a 4-bed flat currently being let at £402 per week.</p>
<p>Around 330 leaseholders will have to leave their homes during the Aylesbury's 20-year redevelopment.
The mere fact that the Aylesbury is being knocked down is depressing values on the estate and Southwark shouldn't be using them as a point of comparison for determining market value for compensation. It should also stop using properties that have been illegally converted to maximise rental income, otherwise this could be seen as endorsement and there could be a rush to B&Q to stock up on plasterboard.</p>
<p>Mr Joshua has taken a big risk with his case. Not only will he lose the legal costs he has incurred in mounting the case, but he will also have to pay those of the council should he lose. We sincerely hope that he wins and that remaining leaseholders are not put through the legal torment that he has had to suffer; they should be offered a fair price for their homes, in what is after all a scheme that was intended to benefit residents - not impoverish and displace them.</p>
<p>An audio extract of the hearing can be found on Soundcloud.com at the following url: <a href="http://soundcloud.com/user46375590/lands-tribunal-hearing-14th-may-2014-case-refacq8213-flat-252-bradenham-london-se17-2bg">http://soundcloud.com/user46375590/lands-tribunal-hearing-14th-may-2014-case-refacq8213-flat-252-bradenham-london-se17-2bg</a></p>
<p>The decision notice for Mr Joshua's case is due to be issued in 3-4 months and a second Aylesbury case is due to be heard on 27th May (ref: 28 Wolverton ACQ/100/13).</p>
Heygate FOI appeal decision - Tribunal delivers verdict2014-05-10T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-05-10-foi-appeal-decision/<p>The 35% campaign welcomes the latest - and hopefully final - decision in the battle to make the Heygate viability assessment public. The Information Tribunal has <a href="http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i1279/London%20Borough%20of%20Southwark%20EA.2013.0162%20%2809.05.14%29.pdf">directed</a> that the whole viability assessment be made public, apart from developer Lend Lease's bespoke development model in the assessment's final appendix and the calculations concerning retail & office space - all other information has to be disclosed. Lend Lease and Southwark have been given 28 days to supply the information Commmissioner with the information as outlined by the Tribunal's decision notice. All parties may appeal the decision but only on a point of law.</p>
<p><img src="http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/imagelibrary/Client%20Images/Client00004/00455000/00455204.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Southwark Council has released a <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1672/decision_on_heygate_viability_assessment_tribunal">press statement</a> also welcoming the decision. This is surprising because the FOI request for the assessment was made over two years ago and the Council has since fought tooth and nail to keep the viability asssessment secret. Southwark also misunderstands the Tribunal's decision notice when it claims that the Tribunal feared developers would simply refuse to work with councils. The Tribunal's view on this was clearly stated:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"We are doubtful of the claimed “knock on effects” of disclosure in this case. We had evidence that Lend Lease had changed the way it gave access to data as a result of the decision – but no evidence of any project having been put in jeopardy by the ICO’s decision taken some six months ago." <strong>(Tribunal Decision Notice, paragraph 43)</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Southwark Council was supported in its appeal by Lend Lease, who paid a significant proportion of the money that the council has spent fighting the appeal against the Information Commissioner's decision.</p>
<p><img src="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/3/2/1299076218162/Scales-of-Justice-007.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The viability assessment enabled Lend Lease to build less affordable housing than required by planning policy. The public should now be able to see whether Southwark's decision to waive policy requirements was justified. It was claimed at the planning committee meeting that just 9.4% affordable housing was viable. Only 79 social-rented homes will be built on the whole Heygate development - approx 3% of the total.</p>
<p>The Heygate decision puts the balance of public interest with local people. Their right to information that enables them to take part in the planning process has been found to outweigh the developer's interest in keeping information confidential.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"the importance, in this particular project, of local people having access to information to allow them to participate in the planning process outweighs the public interest in maintaining the remaining rights of Lend Lease"<strong>(Tribunal Decision Notice, paragraph 58)</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>We will be writing more about this as we digest the decision and what it means for housing campaign groups such as those at Greenwich Peninsula and Earls Court, which have also succeeded in obtaining the <a href="http://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2013/fer_0491596.ashx">information commissioner's support</a> for disclosing viability assessments. This is a trend that we will be encouraging other campaign groups to follow.</p>
The Elephant goes offshore2014-05-05T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-05-05-manx-connections-the-off-shore-home-of-the-elephants-developers/<p>Developer Delancey has registered its land holdings at the Elephant & Castle to tax havens in Bermuda, Panama and the British Virgin Islands.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/shoppingcentrelr.png" alt="" />
<em>Land Registry deeds for the Elephant & Castle shopping centre</em></p>
<p>Delancey has registered both the <a href="https://35percent.org/shopping-centre">shopping centre</a> site and the <a href="https://35percent.org/tribeca-square">Tribeca Square</a> site in the British Virgin Islands. This is confirmed by the Land Registry deeds, which can be viewed <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LRDeeds_ShoppingCentre.pdf">here</a> and <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LandRegistry_TribecaSquare.pdf">here</a>.</p>
<p><img src="http://35percent.org/img/bvidelancey.png" alt="" />
<em>Delancey's registered address at 71 Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands</em></p>
<p>Delancey has financed the purchases using one of its venture capital funds 'Delancey DV4', whose offshore tax avoidance schemes are <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/PrivateEyeNo1311.pdf">well reported</a> and have been accused by HMRC of 'aggressive tax avoidance. The developer is <a href="http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1583098/Soros-offers-a-helping-hand-to-Ritblat-junior.html">bankrolled by George Soros</a>, the notorious speculator who brought the country to its knees during <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday">black wednesday</a> in 1992.</p>
<p>Delancey uses separate seperate 'Special Purpose Vehicle' (SPV) companies to develop its sites. In the case of <a href="https://35percent.org/tribeca-square">Elephant One</a> it has used a <a href="https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/OC389454/officers">limited partnership company (LLP) controlled by parent companies</a> registered in the British Virgin Islands and Panama. <a href="https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/OC389454/filing-history">Filing records at Companies House</a> show that the partnership company hasn't paid a penny of corporation tax. <a href="https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/OC389454/officers">Companies House records</a> also show that the partnership's ultimate parent companies are Delancey SPV's registered offshore; one in the BVI and the other <strong>'Kintryre Corp'</strong> registered in Panama.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/kintyrecorp.png" alt="" />
<em>Companies House register shows Delancey parent company 'Kintrye Corp' registered in Panama</em></p>
<p><strong>Kintrye Corp</strong> is also named in the 'Panama Papers' scandal, which exposed how some of the world’s most powerful people may have used offshore bank accounts and shell companies to conceal their wealth or avoid taxes.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/kintyrepanama.png" alt="" />
<em>Kintyre corp named in the 'Panama Papers' scandal</em></p>
<h2>Get living London!</h2>
<p>Delancey also uses a separate company <strong>Get Living London</strong> to manage its PRS (Private Rented Sector) build-to-rent homes. Despite <a href="http://www.propertyweek.com/news/get-living-to-double-assets-to-%C2%A32bn/5088136.article">managing over £1bn worth of PRS homes</a> <strong>Get Living London</strong> has <a href="https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07793925/filing-history">never paid a penny of corporation tax</a>.</p>
<p>Delancey's founder and CEO is Jamie Ritblat, son of property tycoon John Ritblat (British Land), which the Council has selected as its development partner for its <a href="http://35percent.org/2019-09-22-canada-water-masterplan/">Canada Water regeneration</a>. The father and son team are long-standing Tory donors who are among the top 100 donors to the party. Their dealings go beyond property development and among other things <a href="https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/11/14/1573727997000/The-private-education-risk-premium/">own a chain of private schools</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/jamieandjohnritblat.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Jamie Ritblat (left) - John Ritblat (right)</em></p>
<p>Delancey is not alone in its offshore strategy, <a href="https://35percent.org/strata-tower">Strata Tower</a> was developed and owned by a SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) company <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/RegisterTGL251176.pdf">registered</a> on the Isle of Man. Some of the penthouses are also <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/StrataPenthouseLRRegister.pdf">registered</a> to a SPV holding company on the Isle of Man and an offshore company called 'Gamma Civic', which is <a href="https://35percent.org/img/LRegister_strata_penthouse.pdf">registered</a> in Mauritius.</p>
<p><a href="http://83cramptonstreet.co.uk/">O'Central</a>, <a href="http://oakmayneproperties.com/oakmayne-properties/portfolio/south-central-east/">South Central</a> and <a href="https://35percent.org/eileen-house">Eileen house</a> are being developed by 'Oakmayne' - a company <a href="https://opencorporates.com/companies/im/004035V">registered</a> on the Isle of Man and which <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/dec/16/london-property-tax-avoidance-offshore">helps its customers</a> avoid stamp duty by setting up offshore SPV's to buy the finished flats.</p>
<p><a href="https://35percent.org/eileen-house">Eileen House</a> is also being developed by Oakmayne in a joint venture with <a href="http://www.lonestarfunds.com/funds-raised/capital-growth/lone-star-real-estate-fund-iii/">Lone Star Real Estate Fund</a> registered in Bermuda. <a href="https://35percent.org/lrdeeds/eileenhouse.pdf">Land Registry deeds</a> show that the development is currenly registered to a shell company in the Isle of Man.</p>
<p><a href="http://35percent.org/skipton-house/#who-are-lr">Skipton House is also being developed</a> by tax avoiders; despite having a property empire worth £4bn, developer (L&R) pays barely any corporation tax and is registered offshore in St. Kitts and Panama.</p>
<p><img src="https://35percent.org/img/offshoreelephant.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Heygate developer Lendlease's global corporate structure is too complex for us to see whether it shares its fellow developers' fondness of offshore companies. However, we have found that its development arm - Lend Lease Residential PLC <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/lendleasefinancialreport.pdf">doesn't pay</a> a penny in UK corporation tax. Last year Lendlease UK's parent company in Australia <a href="http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MjA0NTA3fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1">recorded</a> an annual profit of over £300m.</p>
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image" />
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@35percent_EAN" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Delancey's Elephant and Castle" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Billions of pounds of real estate at Elephant & Castle registered offshore to avoid tax." />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="http://35percent.org/img/Jamie-Ritblat-Cllr-Dora-Dixon-Fyle.jpg" />
The Elephant's new Ivory Towers2014-04-15T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-04-15-the-elephants-new-ivory-towers/<center>
<iframe src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/ivorytowers" width="600" height="400"></iframe>
<br /><font size="2">Click <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/ivorytowers">here</a> to view our interactive map in a separate browser window</font>
</center>
<p>As part of our evidence gathering for the Heygate <a href="https://35percent.org/2014-02-11-heygate-tribunal-hearing-extended/">FOI appeal hearing</a>, we undertook some analysis of the planning applications behind the Elephant's new high-rise developments. After sifting through pages of planning documents we managed to extract some key figures and have come up with the following startling results:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p>The six largest developments comprise a total of 4,282 new homes of which just 79 will be social rented.[^1]</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Viability assessments helped developers avoid £265m in off-site affordable housing tariff payments required by policy.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>All six developments are situated on former public-owned land.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/interactivemapfigures.png" alt="" />
<a href="https://35percent.org/images/interactivemapfigures.pdf">Source data</a></p>
<p>In order to crunch the numbers properly we had to obtain the total number of habitable rooms in each development. This is how the 35% policy requirement is worked out: 35% of the total number of habitable rooms must be affordable and 50% of these must be social rented as per Southwark's <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/spdpg38.pdf">planning policy requirements</a> at the Elephant. It is worth reiterating that these policy requirements are based on an independent council-commissioned <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/1822/southwark_affordable_housing_viability_study">viability study</a> ensuring that this minimum level of affordable housing requirements is indeed viable.</p>
<p>Next we took the number of habitable rooms sorted by type of affordable housing in each development. We subtracted this from the number of each type required by policy and then multiplied it by the Council's off-site affordable housing <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/affordablehousingspg.pdf">tariff</a> for the Elephant & Castle area. This is the amount a developer must pay if they fail to meet the 35% on-site affordable housing minimum requirement. However, policy also says that this in-lieu payment can further be reduced if the developer submits a viability appraisal pleading viability poverty. Our analysis shows that this loophole has meant a loss to the Council of £265m in off-site tariff payments, in what has become habitual practice by developers not just at the Elephant but across the borough.</p>
<p>Our findings also formed the basis for <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/35percentFALP.pdf">our response</a> to the Mayor's <a href="http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/london-plan/draft-further-alterations-to-the-london-plan">draft further alterations to the London Plan</a>.</p>
<h2>FOI Tribunal update</h2>
<p>For those who have been following our FOI appeal updates and are wondering what the Informaton Tribunal's decision on the appeal is, the good news is that there are only 10 more days to wait. The decision was originally delayed due to the judge's ill-health but is now due to be announced on 25th April - watch this space!</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: Note that our list does not include the Newington Triangle or shopping centre developments (totalling approx 1,500 more homes) - for which there are no planning applications yet submitted, but which have been rumoured not to foresee the inclusion of any social rented homes.</p>
Middlemen on the make2014-03-31T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-03-31-middlemen-on-the-make/<p>It was <a href="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7460">announced</a> earlier this month that the Elephant’s 360 tower is in line for yet more public funding. As mentioned in a <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-08-10-towering-disgrace">previous blog post</a>, the land for this private development was purchased with £18m of public money back in 2007 to provide key worker housing by English Partnerships, a public housing agency. This all fell through and the development was eventually awarded last summer to developers <a href="http://www.essentialliving.uk.com/developments/360-london/">Essential Living</a> by Mayor Boris Johnson. The 360 Tower is now on the short-list for funding from the government's £1bn build-to-rent scheme, which is designed to help developers build large-scale housing developments specifically for private rent.</p>
<p><img src="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/imageuploads/1299150006_80.177.117.97.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Why Essential Living should need help to build homes it will be letting at handsome profit in a booming property market is not clear, particularly when the Tower will not provide any social rented housing (there will be a meagre 29 units of so-called ‘affordable rent’ instead). There will be 159 units for shared ownership, provided without any government grant, but if the developer is getting subsidy instead for its private rented homes then it’s hardly needed. The public purse will be paying for the free-market housing that pays for the affordable housing, which seems to make the developer a bit redundant from our point of view - why bother with the middle man? There is a chance that some money may be recouped on the initial land cost; one of the GLA’s objectives is ‘a land payment at the earliest opportunity representing best value for the GLA but on a partial deferred basis’ – how much this will be remains to be seen; Elephant land values have varied wildly.</p>
<h2>MIPIM</h2>
<p>After <a href="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/6687">bad press</a> following its developer-funded visit last year, Southwark very wisely pulled out of last week's developer jamboree known as the MIPIM event in Cannes on the French riviera. Housing campaigners from all over Europe protested against the sale of our cities, particularly by our public authorities as related in [this Guardian article](http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/14/anger-cannes-property-fair-councils-
developers-mipim). Those from London were organised by the <a href="http://radicalhousingnetwork.org/">Radical Housing Network</a> and included Campaigners from Southwark.</p>
<p><img src="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/3/14/1394794674203/MIPIM-011.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Strata Tower occupation</h2>
<p>Closer to home there was more radical action against MIPIM, when <a href="http://southwarktenants.wordpress.com/">Southwark Tenants</a> occupied a flat in the infamous Strata Tower to protest against social cleansing and Strataspheric private rents, and housing activists <a href="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7449">protested</a> outside City Hall.</p>
<p><img src="http://southwarktenants.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/we-protest.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>TfL - Northern Roundabout Plans</h2>
<p>The long-promised public <a href="https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/elephant-and-castle">consultation on TFL's plans</a> for Elephant & Castle's northern roundabout started last week. The new plans have unlocked the delayed development of the shopping centre and the new transport layout will have a critical impact on the Elephant's regeneration. There are critical local voices though - the SOS campaign (Save our Subways) is canvassing local views through this website: <a href="http://elephantandcastleroundabout.org/">http://elephantandcastleroundabout.org/</a></p>
<p>TFL will be holding an exhibition where the public will have an opportunity to view detailed maps of the scheme and speak to its designers.</p>
<p>The exhibition will take place at:Typo Cafe, London College of Communication, Elephant & Castle, London SE1 6SB</p>
<p>Saturday 29 March 11:30 – 15:30</p>
<p>The consultation closes 30 April 2014.</p>
Mission Possible - bringing viability assessments out of the dark2014-02-22T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-02-22-viability-assessment-says-no/<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/confidential.jpg" width="300" align="left" style="margin:10px" />Following the successful FOI request by Heygate campaigners, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2013/nov/21/earls-court-project-community-benefits-capital-and-counties">Earls Court</a> community activists have also succeeded with their FOI request for disclosure of viability documents behind their local regeneration scheme, which - like the Heygate - has a great absence of truly affordable housing. The Information Commissioner cites the Heygate decision in his <a href="http://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2013/fer_0491596.ashx">decision notice</a>.</p>
<p>However, just as at the Elephant, local authority (Kensington & Chelsea) and developer (Capital & Counties Ltd.) have combined together to appeal against the Information Commissioner's decision. The appeal hearing is due to take place at the beginning of June.</p>
<p>Meanwhile the sixth and final day's hearing against disclosure of the Heygate Masterplan viability assessment took place on Tuesday. The Tribunal heard arguments from barristers representing Lend Lease & Southwark Council on one side, and the Information Commissioner and ex-Heygate resident Adrian Glasspool on the other.</p>
<p><img src="http://www.propertyreporter.co.uk/images/slider/1103231_Scales.gif" alt="" /></p>
<p>The differences between the two sides were brought into focus. Lend Lease argued amongst other things that the public interest is best served by protecting its own commercial interests. Southwark pointed to the disruption that it claimed disclosure would bring to the regeneration process. The Information Commissioner robustly defended his decision to order disclosure on the grounds of enabling effective participation in the planning process. Mr Glasspool's barrister emphasised the departures from Southwark Council's own planning policies, not just regarding affordable housing but also car parking.</p>
<h2>Data Lockdown</h2>
<p>Amongst the interesting facts to come out was that no planning officer had actually seen the viability assessment. This job was given to the District Valuer Service (DVS). Also, Lend Lease no longer shares information with Southwark Council in the same way; it has established a restricted-access 'data room' which admits only selected Southwark Council officers on a need-to-know basis.</p>
<p><img src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/07/article-2320579-19A78BC8000005DC-582_634x934.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Lend Lease also emphasised the Human Rights aspect of its argument: as a legal person it has the right to 'peaceful enjoyment of its possessions' and the unjustified interference with this enjoyment that would be entailed by disclosing the viability assessment. The Information Commissioner robustly rejected this argument.</p>
<p>Southwark offered the argument that the public had ample opportunity to influence the planning decision through the extensive consultation process, and through to the final decisions about the s106 agreement. They also argued that there could be no public interest in disclosing a very hefty and complicated document, which many would simply not be able to understand.</p>
<p><strong>Viability Assessment says NO!</strong><br />
Contrary to Southwark and Lend Lease, Mr Glasspool's barrister made powerful arguments that the public interest lay in allowing the local community full participation in the planning process: the local community had played an extensive part in consultations, but had been thwarted by the use of the viability assessment; its secrecy was an obstacle to understanding how the loss of public benefit promised by the regeneration was justified. She pointed out the dangers of public policy decisions being made when only one side is in full possession of the facts. Lend Lease's answer to any questions about the loss of affordable housing or maintaining a car-free development was simply "Viability assessment says no!".<br />
A decision is expected within around 4 weeks.</p>
<p><img src="http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02419/jobs0_3_2419481b.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>Peabody Triangle - two more faulty towers?</strong><br />
Peabody Trust held an exhibition of <a href="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7342">plans for its Newington Triangle development</a> last Saturday. The triangle is currently occupied by the Institute of Optometry, parts of Southbank University and the London School of Musical Theatre (pictured). It is nonetheless a development site that has passed to the Peabody Trust from a private developer. Peabody plans to build 550 residential units and a new HQ for themselves. While it is reported that there is going to be 35% affordable housing, more worryingly this might not include any social rented units. We hope this is not the case and Peabody's proposed two towers do not join the Elephant's other <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-08-10-towering-disgrace">'Towers of Shame'</a>), notorious for having no social rented housing. Peabody are the preferred providers of the affordable housing at the recently-approved <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-08-10-towering-disgrace">London 360 Tower</a> just around the corner. This has no social-rented housing, just 29 units of so-called 'affordable rent'.</p>
<p><img src="http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/56023043.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>Lend Lease doing well down under</strong><br />
Lend Lease has just <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/court-ruling-over-barangaroo-may-put-public-works-at-risk-20140107-30fhg.html">won a legal battle</a> against a Sydney public authority. The dispute was about how much Lend Lease would pay in so-called 'overage' or value share payments, which is a kind of surplus profit share agreement - similar to the one we have at the Elephant. The decision has left the Sydney authority short of the money it needs to deliver public benefits it expected in return for handing over the prime public land for private development.</p>
<p><img src="http://www.oneplanetcommunities.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Barangaroo-waterfront.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The Barangaroo development has other <a href="https://35percent.org/2012-12-09-has-southwark-signed-a-bum-deal-at-the-elephant">familiar elements</a> - it includes the provision of a public park, which looks doubtful now the authority has lost its money, although it does plan to appeal.</p>
Heygate Tribunal Hearing Extended2014-02-11T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-02-11-heygate-tribunal-hearing-extended/<p>The scheduled 5 day hearing of Southwark Council’s appeal against the <a href="http://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2013/fer_0461281.ashx">Information Commissioner’s order</a> to release the viability assessment for the Heygate redevelopment will now run into a sixth day. The Tribunal will reconvene on the 18 February to hear final submissions from barristers. The viability assessment details why developers Lend Lease cannot deliver the 35% affordable housing required by Southwark’s housing policy, as well as failing to fulfil other policy objectives such as providing a car-free development.</p>
<p><img src="http://thecreativeconsultancy.com/clients/competition-appeal-tribunal/media/steps.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The Tribunal has heard arguments from barristers for Lend Lease and Southwark that disclosure would, amongst other things, be in breach of Lend Lease’s human rights and copyright of its intellectual property. Further, it would give an insight into its business methods and an undeserved advantage to its competitors. On top of this other developers might be put off doing business with Southwark and other London local authorities, if they saw that a fellow developer’s viability assessment was being laid bare. Concerns were also raised about the impact of disclosure on the viability of the Heygate scheme itself and the potential for delay this might cause. Senior officers from Southwark, Lend Lease and GLA gave evidence in support of the case.</p>
<p>On the other side of the arugment was the Information Commissioner and former Heygate resident Adrian Glasspool (the original requester), who argued that Lend Lease’s plan to build only 71 social rented units and its failure to deliver the minimum 35% affordable housing, had given rise to a great deal of public disquiet, reflected in extensive media comment; it amply justified disclosure of the viability assessment, which weighed heavily in the public interest. Witnesses included members of the Elephant Amenity Network, writer and campaigner George Turner, planning and regeneration expert Dr Bob Colenutt and Cllr Adele Morris of Southwark’s planning committee. Cllr Morris argued that disclosure would save the council from further reputational harm: <em>“Much has been made of the harm to Lend Lease if this ‘commercially sensitive’ information is made public, however I pointed out that much reputational harm has already been done to the council by keeping this information covered up. The more the council fights to keep it secret, the more suspicious people become.”</em></p>
<p>Amongst many documents examined by the Tribunal, the planning committee report of 15 January 2013 came under much scrutiny. This report recommending approval of the scheme said that it only became viable at 9.4% affordable housing. It also had an extensive appendix of local objections, focussing not just on the lack of affordable housing but also the over-provision of car-parking and failure to provide any on-site renewable energy.<br />
It was also revealed that Lend Lease no longer shares information on the finances of the scheme with its development partner Southwark as it had done before the information request, but now provides a ‘data room’ for council officers to visit instead.
The Tribunal reconvenes on 2nd Feb at 2pm - Court 2, <a href="https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Competition+Appeals+Tribunal,+Victoria+House,+Bloomsbury+Place,+WC1A+2EB&hl=en&sll=51.48931,-0.08819&sspn=0.668689,1.234589&hq=Competition+Appeals+Tribunal,+Victoria+House,&hnear=Bloomsbury+Pl,+London+WC1A,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=16&iwloc=A">Competition Appeals Tribunal (Victoria House, Bloomsbury Place, London. WC1A 2EB)</a>.</p>
<p>Heygate MP1 – 360 new homes, 17 social rented
Coinciding with the Tribunal hearing was the planning committee hearing for the first of the detailed planning applications under the Heygate masterplan. Approval was waved through for 360 homes - 284 free-market, 55 shared ownership, four affordable rent (at 50% market rent) and 17 social rented. The seventeen social rented units equals the number of on-street car-parking spaces provided for the new private town houses, to spare their owners the inconvenience of having to use a basement car-park. An additional 69 car parking spaces will be provided in the basement car park for the rest of the development's car owners.
The Elephant with its numerous public transport connections was supposed to be a car-parking free zone and a carbon positive development. Despite this the first detailed application fails to conform with Southwark's requirement for zero car-parking and minimum 20% on-site renewable energy provision.</p>
Heygate Viability Figures Tribunal Appeal2014-02-01T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-02-01-heygate-information-commissioner-tribunal-appeal/<p>The 35% Campaign will be giving evidence this week at the 5-day Tribunal hearing for <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/southwark-in-tribunal-fight-to-keep-15bn-heygate-estate-deal-secret-8808759.html">Southwark Council's Appeal</a> against the Information Commissioner's ruling to disclose the Heygate financial viability figures.</p>
<p>We will be supporting the <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-07-24-heygate-figures-must-b-be-revealed-information-commissioner">Information Commissioner's decision</a> and giving evidence to show why we think it is important that the figures be disclosed. We will be showing the Tribunal evidence of the original regeneration benefits proposed, and how these have been squeezed or shelved as a result of the confidential viability assessement submitted as part of the Heygate masterplan application.</p>
<p>Examples include the excessive density of the development and the squeezing of London's newest park down to a <a href="https://35percent.org/2012-07-04-londons-largest-new-private-park-in-70-years">privately managed landscaped strip</a> overshadowed by 12 storey blocks:</p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/MasterplanComparison.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>We will be explaining how the green credentials of the scheme have been further compromised by the shelving of the <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/MasterplanObjectives2010.pdf">proposed MUSCo</a> 100% on-site renewable energy facility, which has been <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/blog/2013/10/11/lean/">dropped</a> by Lend Lease in favour of a less costly <a href="https://35percent.org/sustainable-development">gas-fired boiler</a>.</p>
<p>On the back of its viability poverty plea, Lend Lease also managed to secure permission for 616 new parking plots in what was supposed to be a car-free development.</p>
<p><img src="http://www.bikehugger.com/images/blog/car_free_suburb.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>More importantly we will be showing how the viability assessment justified reducing affordable housing from 35% to 25%, and was used to substitute so-called 'affordable rent' (at around 50% market) for <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/se17rents.png">much cheaper</a> social rented tenure. We will also be pointing out how this contradicts Southwark's position in <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24002244">its fight</a> with Boris Johnson against the introduction of affordable rent in the Borough as a whole.</p>
<p>We plan to refer the Tribunal to viability assessments commisioned by the Council, which support the basis of its 35% affordable housing policy at the Elephant[^1], and we will be asking Lend Lease why its viability assessment generated such significantly different results.</p>
<p>Finally, we will be pointing out to the Tribunal that the lack of an effective review mechanism for the viability assessment means that any improvement in viability over the scheme's 13 year development period, will end up as higher profits for Lend Lease rather than an increase in the affordable housing that the scheme was supposed to deliver.</p>
<p>Lend Lease claims that the public interest is best served by keeping the viability assessment secret. The information Commissioner believes - and we support him - that the public interest is much served by disclosing the document and opening it up to public scrutiny and debate.</p>
<h2>Apathetic Appellant?</h2>
<p>A <a href="http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s42747/Members%20Questions%20Report%20with%20responses.pdf">written question</a> to the Council Leader on how much the Council is spending on the appeal brought the following response in November last year:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"The total estimated cost for the appeal is £57,920 plus VAT, of which about £40,250 will be funded by Lend Lease."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It seems clear to us who is driving this appeal - we think that even the modest amount spent on it by Southwark would be much better spent elsewhere.</p>
<p>The Tribunal hearing is open to the public and will be held at the <a href="https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Competition+Appeals+Tribunal,+Victoria+House,+Bloomsbury+Place,+WC1A+2EB&hl=en&sll=51.48931,-0.08819&sspn=0.668689,1.234589&hq=Competition+Appeals+Tribunal,+Victoria+House,&hnear=Bloomsbury+Pl,+London+WC1A,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=16&iwloc=A">Competition Appeals Tribunal, Victoria House, Bloomsbury Place WC1A 2EB</a> - Monday 3rd through to Friday 7th February, 10:00am - 4:30pm.</p>
<p>Coincidentally the planning application for the first detailed phase of the Heygate masterplan development is being <a href="http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=119&MId=4639&Ver=4">heard on Tuesday</a> evening. This is for the so-called MP1 development bordering Wansey St for 360 new homes, of which 76 are 'affordable' homes (55 shared ownership, 17 social rented and 4 affordable rent). The hearing will take place at 6.30pm on Tuesday at Southwark's Tooley street HQ.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: See <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/CILviabilitysite11.pdf">this extract</a> from the <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Southwark_CIL_viability_report_FINAL_July12.pdf">2012 Southwark CIL Viability Report by BNP Paribas</a>, and pg. 28 of the <a href="http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/2617/southwark_affordable_housing_viability_study">Jan 2010 Southwark Affordable Housing Viability Study.</a></p>
D'One at the Elephant2014-01-11T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2014-01-11-flogging-the-elephant/<p><a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/leisurecentreaerial.jpg/images/OneTheElephantRegisterTGL381808.pdf">Land Registry documents</a> reveal that Southwark Council sold 1.4 acres of the old leisure centre site to developer <em>Lend Lease</em> for the bargain price of £6.5m. The site will now be home to <a href="http://www.onetheelephant.com/">'One the Elephant'</a> - a 37 storey tower with 4 storey pavillion. <em>Lend Lease</em> also recently acquired the 25-acre Heygate estate site for a <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/elephant-and-castle-estate-revamp-ripped-off-taxpayers-8482794.html">generous £50m</a>. <br /><br /></p>
<p><img src="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/onetheelephant.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>By way of comparison, the neighbouring and smaller site (1.2acres) of the former London Park Hotel was bought by a government agency <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/360TowerLandRegistry.pdf">for £17.7m in 2004</a>. New shopping centre owners <em>Delancey</em> <a href="http://betterelephant.github.io/images/OakmayneLandRegistry.pdf">had to pay £40m</a> for another neighbouring site (Tribeca Square - 1.5 acres) to property developer <em>Eadon Ltd</em>, who thereby made a handsome profit having <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/TribecaLR.pdf">bought the land for just £18m</a> from the council in March 2007.</p>
<p><img src="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/imageuploads/1354551143_80.177.117.97.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The 284-unit 'One the Elephant' development <a href="http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/regulation/social-housing-tenants-treated-like-downton-abbey-servants/6529183.article">came under fire</a> from London Assembly members in October last year for proposing no affordable housing. Instead Lend Lease proposed a payment of £3.5m towards the £25m cost of the new (pint-size) leisure centre. This payment is a fraction of Southwark's <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/affordablehousingspg.pdf">affordable housing policy tariff</a>, which should have netted it £33.2m. On the other hand <a href="http://lendlease2013.reportonline.com.au/annual-report/europe">61% of Lend Lease's new homes at the Elephant have been pre-sold off plan</a> to overseas buyers. <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/OneTheElephantRegisterTGL381808.pdf">The Land Registry documents</a> also reveal that 10 of the new flats at 'One the Elephant' had even been sold before the land sale had even been processed. Of the 10 new owners registered 6 come from overseas: - 4 from Singapore; 1 from British Virgin Islands; 1 from Hong Kong; and the remaining 4 were snapped up by UK-based property investment companies.</p>
<p>The buoyant sales are undoubtedly due in part to <a href="http://www.onetheelephant.com/facilities/leisure-centre">Lend Lease's sales pitch</a> that new homes would have a brand new leisure centre on their doorstep.</p>
<p>Once completed, Lend Lease's 'One the Elephant' development is expected to be worth around £230m[^1].</p>
<p>The revelation comes <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SNleisurecentre.pdf">amidst separate news</a> that council chiefs had ignored the results of a public poll created in order to name the new leisure centre, in favour of a suggestion put forward by Lend Lease.</p>
<p>In October 2012, government body <em>Sport for England</em> <a href="http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/6367">criticised the council's plans</a> to reduce the size of sports facilities at the leisure centre site.</p>
<h2>Pleading Poverty - Viability Assessments</h2>
<p>The deal that allows Lend Lease to maximise its profits by selling abroad and minimise its costs by cutting affordable housing, is justified by a <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-07-30-how-to-avoid-providing-affordable-housing-a-guide-for-developers">notorious viability assessment</a>. A similar assessment was <a href="https://35percent.org/2012-07-03-its-all-about-financial-viability">used for the Heygate</a> planning application, and in July 2013 the <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-07-24-heygate-figures-must-b-be-revealed-information-commissioner">Information Commissioner ruled</a> that it is heavily in the public interest that the public should get the chance to see the facts and figures behind Lend Lease's claim that they could not afford all the Heygate's affordable housing. The Tribunal hearing is due to take place on 3rd to 7th February.</p>
<p>Joining <em>Lend Lease</em> and Southwark in the noble cause of defending the developer's rights to know everything and tell the public next to nothing, are Boris Johnson's Greater London Authority and one of the world's largest real estate firms <em>Savills</em>. Amongst the <a href="http://betterelephant.github.io/blog/2013/09/25/lend-lease-is-not-human/">arguments being put forward</a> by Lend Lease is that disclosure would be a breach of its human rights under article 1 of the Human Rights Act.</p>
<p>Council leader Peter John gave his reasons for resisting the Information Commissioner's decision in a <a href="http://crappistmartin.github.io/images/TranscriptOverviewScrutiny.pdf">statement</a> during a recent council meeting. He conceded that revealing the figures might not have any adverse impact on Southwark housing developments at all, but he is worried about the impact it could have on property developers elsewhere in the country, who may decide that it is better not to build unless they can keep their finances secret.</p>
<p>We don't think that Cllr John should worry too much about property developers - they are well able to look after themselves and when it suits them they are also happy enough to reveal viability assessments. The assessments for all of <a href="https://35percent.org/collated-viability-assessments">these developments</a> were revealed at planning appeal stage and nonetheless proceeded merrily.</p>
<p>It should be noted that most of these developments didn't entail the huge transfer of public land that the Heygate development requires. So the case for revealing the facts and the figures that allowed this to happen - without getting the affordable housing in return - is that much stronger, and as the Information Commissioner said in his report: disclosure is <em>"heavily in the public interest"</em>.</p>
<p>[^1]: This is based on an expected average sales value of £815 per sq foot, which was the average sales price <a href="http://www.colliers.com/~/media/Files/EMEA/UK/research/residential/201202-central-london-residential-market.pdf">achieved</a> by the Strata tower. <strong>One the Elephant</strong> comprises 269,000sq ft of residential floorspace in total; the total expected residential sales is therefore £219m (269k X £815), plus 13,000 sq ft of retail in <strong>One the Elephant</strong>'s pavilion with an approximate value of £10m.</p>
Stack em high - 1,000 homes on the shopping centre site?2013-12-14T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2013-12-14-stack-em-high-over-1/<p>New owners of the shopping center <em>Delancey</em> is looking to build in excess of 1,000 new homes on the recently acquired site, <a href="https://www.costar.co.uk/en/assets/news/2013/December/CoStar-Column-Delancey-and-APGs-Elephant-move-marks-milestone-for-PRS/">according to the man</a> who arranged the partnership between <em>Delancey</em> and its financial backer <em>APG</em> - Chris Lacey of <a href="https://www.cbre.co.uk/uk-en">CBRE</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://cdn.ltstatic.com/2006/May/DK372644_942long.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>One reason for the breach between the previous owners of the shopping centre (St. Modwen) and Southwark Council, was the amount of housing proposed for the 3.5 acre site. According to news reports St Modwen wanted at least 1,000 new homes, but Southwark <a href="https://www.costar.co.uk/en/assets/news/2013/March/Elephant--Castle-mall-sale-hits-housing-hitch/">drew the line at 500</a> and it is easy to see why: the Heygate estate had 1,200 homes and was 7 times the size of the shopping centre site.</p>
<p>According to Mr Lacey, Delancey will also propose a new American style 'build to rent' development. Under this model the properties are not built for sale, but are private sector rented. The 360 Tower development operates in this way and is much <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-08-10-towering-disgrace">admired by Mayor Boris Johnson</a> who sees the wholesale expansion of the so-called PRS (Private Rented Sector) as the solution to London's housing crisis. How this model would fit with the present requirement to provide 35% affordable housing - half of which should be social rented - remains to be seen.</p>
<h2>Eileen House - it'll be all over by Christmas</h2>
<p>The GLA hearing to determine the outcome of the Eileen House planning application is due to reconvene on 19 December. Mayor Johnson will have to make a decision either to approve or reject developer Oakmayne's plans for the 41-storey tower over the objections of neighbour's Ministry of Sound. This application is 5 years old and has been dominated by the argument about whether or not a future resident - of a block not yet built - may complain often and loudly enough to jeopardise the Ministry of Sound's music licence. The hearing of 19 Nov had high-powered representatives including QCs arguing their respective cases. Council leader Peter John also appeared and argued in support of the application, despite it having been rejected by Southwark's own planning committee back in 2008. The fact that there is no social rented housing and very little affordable housing did not figure in the debate at all.</p>
<p><img src="https://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/02/64/29/2642974_bdc315a3.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Heygate Pyramid - monumental row brewing</h2>
<p>It is fair to say that the <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-11-15-heygate-pyramid-proposed-pharaoh-not-included/">Heygate pyramid</a> has not yet got many friends. A <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/12/heygate-pyramid-london-estate-evicted-condemn-artwork?CMP=twt_gu">Guardian article</a> features quotes from a bemused former resident and a <a href="https://southwarknotes.wordpress.com/2013/12/13/heygate-estate-artangel-mike-nelson-pyramid-no-thanks/">local campaign</a> against the pyramid is now underway. Artangel trust who are behind the pyramid, have not done themselves any favours by not talking or explaining what it is they are about with local residents (despite their claims to the contrary). No date has yet been set for the planning committee hearing.</p>
<p><img src="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/pyramid-container.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Huntsman & Hounds - pub saved</h2>
<p>The application to redevelop the Huntsman & Hounds pub was approved last Tuesday. Eight flats will be built on the back on the pub, but the good news is that the pub is saved - albeit at half its current size; it will retain its facade. This was down to a great campaign by the pub regulars and other local residents led by the <a href="https://walworthsociety.co.uk/">Walworth Society</a>. They managed to get the pub listed as a community asset and a bid for the pub has been made by charity <a href="https://www.ustsc.org.uk/">United St. Saviours</a>; this however is unlikely to be successful.</p>
<p><img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Huntsman_and_Hounds,_Walworth,_SE17_(4485879963).jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The planning committee showed itself fully aware of the threat to the pub's long term viability, and pressed the developer for assurances of his intentions for keeping the pub - which he duly gave. One safeguard against a future conversion of the pub into more flats is that this would trigger the requirement to provide either affordable housing or an in-lieu payment. Our fingers are crossed.</p>
<p><strong>Late news:</strong>
The 'Artworks' Park, aka the <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-10-23-oakmayne-vs-ministry-of-sound-round-198/">Box Park</a>, was approved by planning committee on 2nd Dec.</p>
<p><img src="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/artworks-new-elephant.png" alt="" /></p>
Kim Humphreys - exit stage left, enter stage right2013-12-07T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2013-12-07-kim-humphreys-exit-stage-left/<p>There was much surprise at Southwark's <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=308&MId=4593&Ver=4">Overview and Scrutiny Meeting</a> last Monday, when new shopping centre owner <em><a href="https://www.delancey.com/about.html">'Delancey'</a></em> turned up accompanied by Southwark Council's <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pub/kim-humphreys/5/312/a34">former deputy leader and head of housing</a> Kim Humphreys. Kim is now <em><a href="https://carvil-ventures.co.uk/">'Carvil Ventures'</a></em> - an independent corporate finance and real-estate consultancy and is advising global property developer Delancey. He is not the first former senior councillor to take this road: former council leader Jeremy Fraser <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/00,news,10971,440,00.htm">founded</a> PR consultancy <em><a href="https://www.fourcommunications.com/">'Four Communications'</a></em> after leaving the council, which advised developer Oakmayne and prepared <a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/42382_1.pdf">part of the planning application for its Eileen House development</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/uploads/Kim-humphreys-203x152.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Southwark residents are understandably confused when it sees former senior councillors who were intimately involved in drafting and implementing regeneration plans, turning up later in their careers working for the developers who are set to profit from said regeneration.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/lbskleptocracy.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>It might be hoped that the involvement of former councillors in the practical delivery of the regeneration would help guarantee the delivery of the long-promised public benefit, e.g affordable housing. Experience so far proves otherwise: Kim Humphries was in charge when the infamous <a href="https://youtu.be/E9-cfAdGiFA">'Heygate Action Plan'</a> decanted 1,000 households without first building anywhere for them to go back in 2007. It may be that as Delancey's new consigliere Kim will redeem himself by ensuring that any housing Delancey provides will include the requisite 35% affordable quota, the omens aren't good however: there were hints that Delancey would be seeking to argue for an exemption to the quota; and its neighbouring <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7208">'Tribeca Square' development</a> has no affordable housing of any kind.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/affordablehousingspg.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Delancey has made an in-lieu payment of £1m to Southwark for off-site affordable housing provision in relation to its Tribeca Square development, but this is a fraction of the £52m that should have been paid had <a href="https://35percent.org/images/affordablehousingspg.pdf">Southwark's tariff</a> for in-lieu payments been adhered to - £100,000 per room x 527 habitable rooms (35% of Tribeca Square total). As with the Heygate outline masterplan, a viability assessment again worked its magic for the developer, by demonstrating that the development could not afford to provide affordable housing and an acceptable 20% profit margin. The application was accepted by the planning committee despite the reservations of both council officer's and the Greater London Authority about the accuracy of the viability appraisal:</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/gla.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Alongside the Heygate estate, the shopping centre site has always been the key development for the Elephant regeneration. It was not only going to provide the retail offer, it was also going to provide a civic space similar in size to Trafalgar Square that was to attract new people with more money to the Elephant; as such it is a key driver of the gentrification the regeneration entails.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/imageuploads/1311085254_80.177.117.97.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>It was <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7238">confirmed</a> that the sale price of the 3.5 acre shopping centre site was £80m, and that buyer Delancey had teamed up for the joint-venture purchase with pension fund <a href="https://www.apg.nl/apgsite/pages/english/services/asset-management/responsible-investing/real-estate.asp">APG</a> - one of the worlds' largest investors in real-estate.</p>
<p>Other <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7258">reports</a> of the sale outlined concerns from the shopping centre's existing retailers that they would be pushed out by the redevelopment.</p>
Heygate pyramid proposed – pharaoh included?2013-11-15T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2013-11-15-heygate-pyramid-proposed-pharaoh-not-included/<p>The Heygate is to get a pyramid. Turner Prize nominee Mike Nelson and public arts organisation <a href="https://www.artangel.org.uk/">Artangel Trust</a> would like to reconfigure one of the Heygate’s maisonette blocks to build a giant square pyramid, not far from where the last Heygate resident was <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-11-06-southwark-sends-in-the-heavy-mob/">evicted last week</a>. Artangel organised <a href="https://www.artangel.org.uk/projects/2008/seizure">‘Seizure’</a>, the blue crystal-filled council flat, also at the Elephant a couple of years ago. Artist Mike was described ‘as the next big thing’ by the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2001/sep/04/artsfeatures.turnerprize2001">Guardian in 2001</a>, and in the spirit of artistic intervention we have here our own image of how Southwark Council leader Peter John might look in his new role.</p>
<p>Local speculation is that this masterwork is being paid for by Lend Lease. The planning application for the pyramid can be found through <a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9552014">this link</a>; click on ‘documents’- the deadline for comments is 21 Nov. Below is an extract from <a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/328350_1.pdf">one of the planning application's documents</a>, which shows how the remnants of Heygate residents' former homes are to be used in this imaginative reconstruction.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/pyramid1.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Eileen House – latest latest</h2>
<p>The public hearing to determine the Eileen House planning application is now set for 19 Nov at City Hall. This is exactly two years and one day after the application was refused by Southwark Council, for amongst other things, a lack of affordable housing.</p>
<h2>Heygate MP1 has landed</h2>
<p>The next detailed applications for the Heygate have now been submitted. Links to three of the applications are below, for the 360 homes to be built on what is now known as phase MP1 running alongside Wansey street and Brandon street. We will be examining these in future posts. For the moment a quick look at the Energy Statement in 13/AP/3581 tells us that <em>"11.1.7 The Development does not comply with the aspiration for 20% carbon reduction by renewable energy set out in Strategic Policy 13"</em> which requires a minimum 20% on-site renewable energy.</p>
<p><a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=9551917">13/AP/3581</a></p>
<p><a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=9551919">13/AP/3583</a></p>
<p><a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=9551920">13/AP/3584</a></p>
Southwark sends in the Heavies2013-11-06T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2013-11-06-southwark-sends-in-the-heavy-mob/<p>The last resident of the Heygate estate was forcibly evicted from his home today. A team of bailiffs from <a href="https://www.shergroup.net/">Shergroup Ltd</a> accompanied by police and officers from Southwark Council arrived at lunchtime, and after a short conversation the last resident left - with the help of the bailiffs. No notice of the impending eviction was issued to him, his surveyor or solicitor.</p>
<p>Adrian Glasspol's home <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-10-27-the-end-for-the-last-heygate-residents/">passed into Southwark's ownership</a> on Monday. On the same day Adrian, his surveyor and Southwark's surveyor met to make a final valuation of the property. Southwark's surveyor formally asked Adrian to leave that day. Adrian said that he would leave as soon as he received a call from his solicitor telling him that his compensation payment had been paid into his solicitor's holding account.</p>
<p>Southwark made no payment and instead today it went ahead with a forced eviction. This evening it informed Adrian's surveyor that payment will be made - after his eviction and <a href="https://35percent.org/img/1979_0001.pdf">less its £6,888 cost</a>.</p>
<h2>Brute force and ignorance</h2>
<p>Why did Southwark Council resort to physical force to remove Adrian? It clearly had the paperwork all ready to go, and was willing to authorise payment - <strong>after</strong> his eviction.</p>
<p>Southwark has behaved vindictively: Adrian and other leaseholders have fought long and hard to get a just amount for their homes. Homes they did not want to leave in an area where they can now no longer live. Unfortunately their battle was without success, but it was too much for Southwark who had to explain themselves at length at the <a href="https://betterelephant.github.io/blog/2013/07/18/regeneration-branded-miserable-failure-at-cpo-public-inquiry/">CPO public inquiry in Feb 2013</a>, when amongst many other embarrassing facts it was revealed that only 45 Heygate residents have been rehoused in new homes at the Elephant.</p>
<h2>Leaseholders beware</h2>
<p>This must also be an alarming event for any leaseholder in Southwark who lies in the path of a regeneration scheme - and there are many, including 580 <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SNWolvertonLeaseholders.pdf">on the Aylesbury estate</a> just down the road from the Heygate. Southwark Council have shown that they are not willing to either negotiate or compromise but will instead resort to the harshest methods to get their own way.</p>
<p>Southwark has <a href="https://heygate.github.io/displacement.html">broken every promise</a> ever made to the residents of the Heygate whether they were leaseholders or tenants, and it seems fitting that the very last of the 3,000 forced out since 2007 should require the assistance of bailiffs. It is entirely consistent with the shabby treatment residents have received right from the beginning of this whole sorry excuse for a regeneration scheme.</p>
The end for the last Heygate residents2013-10-27T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2013-10-27-the-end-for-the-last-heygate-residents/<blockquote>
<p>Southwark Council stole our homes and we are not going to forget it. <strong>(Terry Redpath, Former Heygate Leaseholder)</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The final two Heygate residents must leave the estate by 4th Nov. These will be the last of the 990 households still resident on the Heygate when the <a href="https://heygate.github.io/displacement.html">notorious Heygate Action Plan</a> was put into effect in 2007. This plan decreed that everybody would be moved off the estate before the new homes they were promised would rehouse them were built.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LendLeaseStoleMyHome.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The final residents <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LBS3Oct2013.pdf">have been told</a> that if they are not gone by 4th Nov the bailiffs will be knocking at their doors. They are in a quandary however: The compensation they need to buy a new home will not be paid until after they have left.</p>
<p>A request to Southwark Council that the compensation be paid before they leave - which only seems reasonable - has been refused. On top of this, Southwark has threatened to reduce the compensation by the amount required to pay any bailiffs and associated legal costs.</p>
<p>In response to an enquiry as to what housing might be available should leaseholders have nowhere to go, Southwark first referred them to its emergency housing services, who then said that it had no legal obligation to provide temporary accommodation and suggested staying with friends and family.</p>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7SsoCxnluv4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<p>This is a very long way from <a href="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/new_homes_for_heygate.pdf"><strong>'NEW HOMES FOR HEYGATE'</strong></a> where every resident on the estate - whether tenant or leaseholder - was promised a new home in one of 16 replacement housing sites.</p>
<p><img src="https://betterelephant.github.com/images/newhomesforheygate.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>It is worth remembering exactly what was promised:</p>
<p><a href="https://heygate.github.io/img/Appendix8.pdf"><img src="https://heygate.github.io/img/HeygateNews.jpg" width="300" height="200" align="right" style="margin: 10px; float: right" /></a></p>
<p>Leaseholders were <a href="https://heygate.github.io/img/HeygateLeaseholderPolicy2005.pdf">originally offered</a> a <a href="https://35percent.org/images/HeygateLeaseholderToolkit.pdf">shared equity option</a> on buying a new home in one of <a href="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/new_homes_for_heygate.pdf">16 replacement housing sites</a> and the new-build Heygate homes[^1]. But despite reaching the point of being <a href="https://heygate.github.io/img/ChooseYourNewHome.pdf">asked to choose</a> what kind of layout they preferred for their new homes, the shared equity option never got written into the final agreements with the developers of the sites, and no leaseholders were able to move into any of the replacement housing sites or the new Heygate homes.</p>
<p>When asked at the recent CPO public inquiry why leaseholders didn't get the new homes that they had been promised, the council's lead officer replied <em>"I don't know, I wasn't employed by the council at the time the promises were made. But the new homes will be open for anybody to purchase and I am sure Lend Lease will be happy to sell to anybody."</em>:</p>
<iframe width="300" height="225" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bLIg4xGZrPI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<p>Most leaseholders have subsequently been forced to relocate to outer London boroughs because of the low valuations offered in compensation for their homes. Any leaseholder wanting to return to the Heygate will have to compete with overseas buyers at market prices well beyond their means. New-build Heyate homes are currently being sold at prices starting from <a href="https://trafalgarplace.com/">£340,000</a> for a 1-bed flat, and are being heavily marketed overseas in <a href="https://www2.hkej.com/property/article/id/77797">China</a>, <a href="https://www.65house.com/news/20130412/2638.html">Singapore</a>, <a href="https://www.theborneopost.com/2013/04/24/lend-lease-launches-trafalgar-place-development-in-london/">Malaysia</a> and <a href="https://colliersip.com/uk/trafalgar-place-london/">Hong Kong</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/TrafalgarPlaceCN.png" alt="" /></p>
<p><a href="https://heygate.github.io/img/LBSHeygateacquisitionsOct2012.xls">Analysis of information received from FOI requests</a> shows that the average compensation received by leaseholders as the council's valuation of their homes is as follows:</p>
<ul>
<li>1 Bed flat - £95,480</li>
<li>2 Bed flat - £107,230</li>
<li>3 Bed Maisonette - £156,833</li>
<li>4 Bed Maisonette - £177,421</li>
</ul>
<p>This is why most have been forced to <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-06-08-the-heygate-diaspora">relocate outside central London</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LeaseholderDisplacement3.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>In a recent interview with Property Week magazine, former Heygate leaseholder Terry Redpath said <em>"We could no longer afford to stay in the area: the compensation we received plus £45,000 of life savings bought us a terraced property 15 miles out of London. I feel that we have been forced to give up our home to accommodate the building of homes for overseas investors.”</em></p>
<p><img src="https://heygate.github.io/img/TerryRedpath.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Redpath is a former Southwark housing officer who lived on the estate for 35 years, and whose family has lived in the area for generations. On average the compensation paid to leaseholders amounts to around a quarter of the price of the new Heygate homes.</p>
<p>When Southwark Council took the decision to push residents off the estate in 2007, it wasn't just bad news for Heygate residents, it was the first step towards putting any new Heygate homes beyond the reach of most people in London.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: See paragraph 26 of the <a href="https://heygate.github.io/img/leaseholderpolicy7.png">2005 Leaseholder Policy </a>and also paragraphs 4 & 33 of the <a href="https://heygate.github.io/img/18May2004.pdf">Executive Report - 'Heygate Estate Decant Arrangements'</a>, 18 May 2004: <em>"Council Executive agrees to develop housing options for leaseholders whose interests will be acquired as part of the main scheme, including shared and retained equity arrangements. The negotiation of shared ownership retained equity schemes for people to buy a share in a higher valued property will form part of the procurement exercise to select housing association and developer partners."</em></p>
Oakmayne vs Ministry of Sound - Round 1982013-10-23T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2013-10-23-oakmayne-vs-ministry-of-sound-round-198/<p>The decision on the <a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=9531326">Eileen House planning application</a>, 335 flats, 41 stories has been delayed once more. The public hearing that was to be held 24 Oct at City Hall has been postponed for ‘procedural reasons’. Previous hearings in March and February were also cancelled.
While Southwark’s housing waiting list accelerates upwards, developers Oakmayne and the Ministry of Sound have battled over the fate of this key development site. The application was submitted in 2009 and rejected by Southwark in 2011. The power of decision was then taken over by Boris Johnson, who has been reviewing it ever since.</p>
<p><img src="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/eileen-housenew.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>One of Southwark’s grounds for rejecting the application was that it has no social rented housing, but this wasn’t an obstacle for the Elephant’s other ‘Towers of Shame’ – Strata Tower, One the Elephant, St Mary’s residential, Tribeca Square– which don’t have a single social rented unit amongst their 1500 homes. The real obstacle has been determined objections from Ministry Of Sound, which fears future complaints from their new neighbours.
MoS’s concerns are no doubt well founded and young people have a legitimate need to dance themselves silly, but in a sensible world this would be trumped by the need of others for somewhere to live – not that this need will be properly met by another social housing-free development.</p>
<p>For its part Oakmayne should be told – no social housing means no planning approval, but the chances of Mayor Johnson taking this view are non-existent.
MoS and Oakmayne pay lip-service to the aims of the regeneration but define it entirely in their own self-interested terms; local people (and Southwark Council) have been reduced to bystanders.</p>
<p>__N.B.:__Oakmayne, like <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/StrataLRTitle.pdf">Strata Tower developers</a> are registered as an offshore company on the Isle of Man and therefore pay no UK tax. This setup also <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/dec/16/london-property-tax-avoidance-offshore">enables it</a> to legally sell its flats while avoiding the payment of stamp duty.</p>
<h2>SHOPPING CENTRE LATEST</h2>
<p>Battle lines are also being drawn over the road at the Elephant shopping centre. Southwark Council leader Peter John <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7151">told the council assembly</a> that he expected shopping centre owners St Modwen to deliver a development plan by the end of the year. He ruled out refurbishment as an acceptable option. Previously head of regeneration Cllr Fiona Colley <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7077">had also said</a> the shopping centre would be demolished. St Modwen’s say very little, though there have been press reports that they might sell up, with Lendlease rumoured as purchasers.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/imageuploads/1255443526_80.177.117.97.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>One thing continues unchanged – shopkeepers and their customers have been left out of this conversation. The shopping centre is much ridiculed, but an awful lot of people work, shop and socialise there and it is time they were brought into the arguments about its future.</p>
<h2>BOX PARK MARK II</h2>
<p>The consultation period for the second planning application for the <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-06-22-a-little-bit-of-shoreditch/">Box Park</a> has just ended, although comments will still be received by Southwark planning. The park has grown in size to 56 units (each a shipping container) and been moved down the road from the Shell garage to the corner of Walworth Rd and Elephant Rd, formerly Elephant Park.</p>
<p><img src="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/elephant-rd.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Many remember that the London Latin American community used to have a <a href="https://www.thefirstpint.co.uk/2011/04/16/londons-heygate-estate-the-end-of-utopia/">football league here</a>, before the Park had to be <a href="https://elephantamenity.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/no-more-football-on-the-elephant-park/">given up</a> to the <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3641">Tribeca Square development</a>; developers Delancey say they can manage without it after all, so it now looks like a needless sacrifice.
This aside, nearby Wansey St residents welcome the move of the Box Park away from their immediate vicinity.</p>
<p><img src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ujXl9dbqKE8/UYfaKxGkomI/AAAAAAAABDE/FC250zOeDRU/s1600/IMG_3352.JPG" alt="" /></p>
<p>Other changes include the name (it is now known as The Artworks), dropping the live/work element of the proposal, which was met with scepticism from the many artists and artisans in the area, and the inclusion of a marketing suite for Lendlease, developers of the Heygate estate. Otherwise the application proposes a similiar mix of uses – retail, café, restaurant, indoor market, business workspace, gallery, community space – although the extent of each is not specified.
It will be a temporary development for five years and the applicants are asking that the usual s106 contributions (for mitigating the impact of developments) be waived in this instance, partly because of its temporary nature, partly because the s106 benefits are supposedly included in the application already.
Curiously, Artworks has not withdrawn the previous application for the Shell garage site, saying simply that it has <em>‘..yet to be determined by the Council’.</em> The new application’s reference number is 13/AP/2927; planning documents can be found <a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=9551217">here.</a></p>
Lean, Clean and Green but a bit Contradictory2013-10-11T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2013-10-11-lean/<p>Last week, Elephant & Castle developer Lend Lease was <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/business/markets/property-southwark-gets-a-new-lease-of-life-8841328.html">awarded participant status</a> in Bill Clinton's Global Climate Initiative. According to <a href="https://www.c40cities.org/c40blog/leading-the-way-forward-progress-in-australia">C40 Cities Group</a> - a group of cities world-wide combating the effects of climate change - <em>‘Climate Positive Development Partners have made a commitment to achieve net-negative, on-site, operational greenhouse gas emissions’</em>.</p>
<p><img src="https://dailybail.com/storage/bill-clinton-404_683090c.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The Elephant’s regeneration <a href="https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8056859.stm">first attracted</a> the Clinton foundation’s attention while it still included plans for having a Multi Utilities Services Company (MUSCo) as part of the Heygate and shopping centre redevelopment. This would have produced 100% renewable energy on-site, with zero carbon emissions, and possibly more than was needed, making it ‘carbon positive’.</p>
<h2>MUSCo vs Emission Reductions</h2>
<p><img src="https://www.bdunlop.com/images/Elephant-and-Castle/energy_envrnmtl-services_lge.gif" align="left" width="300" style="margin:10px" />The Global Climate Initiative participant status has been awarded to Lend Lease for reducing operational emissions, in other words reducing day-to-day C02 emissions from homes and businesses. The MUSCo would have done more than this: it would have provided its own renewable energy making the entire development self-sufficient. The <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/5052">MUSCo was dropped</a> from the Regeneration Agreement Southwark signed with Lend Lease in 2010.
Instead of producing renewable energy on-site through the MUSCo Lend Lease are planning to buy in biomethane gas from off-site producers, rather like using a green electricity tariff.
A close reading of this <a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9550213">Energy Strategy</a> tells us that while it might have won an award from Bill Clinton, it does not conform to Southwark Council’s planning policy requirements:</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/page11.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Lend Lease assert that notwithstanding this failure, energy emissions will be over 50% less than they would have been without the its strategy of ‘energy hierarchy principles and…energy commitment’. It also lives in hope that Southwark will have a change of heart;</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/page112.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>In short, Lend Lease’s energy strategy is simply to buy in biomethane gas and hope that Southwark brings its planning policy into line with its proposals.</p>
<p>Biomethane can be a good source of renewable energy but it does need plant to produce it, which is why Southwark's policy requires it to be on-site. The policy needs improving too: the renewables requirement currently stands at 20%, the MUSCo would have provided 100% - which is what is needed if we want truly sustainable cities.</p>
Something Sinister?2013-09-14T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2013-09-14-something-sinister/<p>The <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/southwark-in-tribunal-fight-to-keep-15bn-heygate-estate-deal-secret-8808759.html">Evening Standard</a>, <a href="https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/development/council-to-refuse-demands-about-heygate-estate/6528392.article">Inside Housing</a>, <a href="https://www.propertyweek.com/news/southwark-council-takes-legal-action-to-protect-lend-lease-heygate-agreement/5059836.article">Property Week</a>, as well as the <a href="https://www.southlondonpress.co.uk/news.cfm?id=29041&headline=Heygate%20estate%20deal%20%E2%80%98secrecy%E2%80%99%20is%20attacked">local press</a>, have printed stories about Southwark Council's appeal against the <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-07-24-heygate-figures-must-b-be-revealed-information-commissioner/">Information Commissioner's decision</a> that it make the Heygate masterplan viability assessment public. Regeneration Cabinet member Councillor Fiona Colley <a href="https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/development/council-to-refuse-demands-about-heygate-estate/6528392.article">blames</a> a minority of people looking fruitlessly for something sinister.<br />
Cllr Colley misses the point: the problem isn’t that there might be something sinister going on, the problem is that Southwark has lost about 600 social rented units because Elephant developers routinely use viability assessments to avoid building them.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/imageuploads/1358323753_46.233.70.67.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Taken together the Strata Tower, 360 Tower, Tribeca Square, Heygate estate and 'One the Elephant' will deliver about 4000 units, but only 79 social rented homes - there should be nearly ten times that amount, 700 or so if Southwark had stuck to its affordable housing policy. All these developments used financial viability assessments. An <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-07-30-how-to-avoid-providing-affordable-housing-a-guide-for-developers/">earlier blog post</a> shows that providing them is a small industry. The trick is to get one which shows that there will be less than 20% profit, after all values, costs and sales revenue are accounted for. The development is then classed as unviable and the affordable housing can be dropped.</p>
<p>Developers hide their assessments behind 'commercial confidentiality'. This prevents planning committee members from seeing them. The same councillors are expected to approve the planning applications nonetheless and more often than not do so. In fact there is probably little developers don't know about each other’s working methods; they are more concerned that the public doesn't get an insight into their ways of doing business.</p>
<p>Nor are developers likely to desert Southwark, just because one of them has to reveal a financial viability assessment. Viability assessments are made public in other circumstances, such as developer’ appeals against adverse planning decisions, and the profits to be realised from Southwark's advantages as a central London borough will remain a big attraction.</p>
<p>Lend Lease were fully aware of Southwark Council's 35% affordable housing policy when it pitched to become the development partner. It signed the regeneration agreement in 2007, which pledged to provide half of the affordable housing as social rented housing. It has successfully beaten down the amount of affordable housing to 25%, and it has successfully reduced the amount of social rented housing to almost zero - all on the strength of confidential dealings including the financial viability assessment. The public have a right to see it.</p>
<h2>Linden homes see the light</h2>
<p>The successful planning application for the <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7066">Linden Homes development</a> at St. Georges Circus was accompanied by the usual financial viability assessment pleading poverty. On this occasion however - and much to its credit - Southwark Council refused to accept this plea, and at the twelfth hour planning permission the developer discovered he could provide more affordable housing after all. Notwithstanding the other merits of the application (there were many local objections to the demolition of the pub and period buildings) this shows what can be achieved when you stand your ground. Let's hope Southwark learns the lesson.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/imageuploads/1378318437_80.177.117.97.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>To demolish or not to demolish……</h2>
<p>Southwark’s announcement last week that the shopping centre was to be demolished caught everyone by surprise, including the shopkeepers judging by <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/00,news,26548,185,00.htm">local newspaper reports</a>. The headlines emphasise the demolition and Cllr Fiona Colley is quoted saying that it has been agreed with owners St Modwen and the Greater London Authority. St Modwen seems less sure – it just says that they remain committed to redevelopment and delivering a viable scheme. Southwark has the alternative of compulsory purchase if needs be, but that could be a bruising battle.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/imageuploads/1305725970_80.177.117.97.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Like the Heygate estate, the shopping centre has always been viewed as an obstacle by the champions of regeneration and from their point of view demolition makes sense. St Modwen failed in their bid to become the regeneration partner and hasn’t engaged with the local community at all about their ideas, so Southwark Council cannot be blamed for asserting itself against them. But just as on the Heygate the interests of the current occupants seem to be incidental. The shopkeepers and the stall holders that cluster around the centre serve the people who live at the Elephant now, but are in the dark about what is going on. Doesn’t the future include them?</p>
<p>The decision to demolish or not should not be left just to the big guns. Shopkeepers and the local community must be allowed their say.</p>
Here and Now2013-08-24T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2013-08-24-here-and-now/<p>Last week German national newspaper <em>Die Welt</em> <a href="https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article119060642/Grossbritannien-auf-dem-Weg-zum-Armenhaus-der-EU.html">featured</a> this picture of the Heygate as a symbol of Britain's social decline and the <em>"Krieg der Reichen gegen die Armen"</em> - the rich's war against the poor.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LLhereandnow.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>By coincidence Lend Lease have just submitted a <a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=9550740">planning application</a> featuring the same image but with a more promising message: <em>change and transformation</em> - <em>Here and Now</em>. Lend Lease were no doubt inspired by the prominent piece of graffiti either side of the banner, and it must also know that in Latin <em>Here and Now</em> means 'hic et nunc' - the immediate satisfaction of desire <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(H)">according to Wikipedia</a>. Lend Lease's desire for profit is being satisfied pretty immediately: <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7047">it expects</a> to draw its first profit from the E&C development in 2016, while the Heygate development as a whole is not due to be completed until 2025. Globally it reported a profit of £320m ($553 AUD) in its <a href="https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20130823/pdf/42hvw1dsw9q47d.pdf">annual report</a> last week.</p>
<h2>Here and Now 2</h2>
<p>Chatelaine House on the Walworth road is yet another proposed development in the Elephant & Castle opportunity area that doesn't fulfill affordable housing requirements. The <a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9549289">planning application</a> is for 54 homes plus 5,000m2 of shops, offices and restaurants. There will be only 14 'affordable' units - 10 social rented and 4 intermediate, equating to around 25% of the total number of new homes. The target date for the planning decision was the end of this month. There is no officer's report yet on the application, so it is not clear whether the social rented units will be at council rent levels or the new so-called 'affordable' rents of up to 80% market.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.newmarkpi.com/images/D_07_l.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The viability assessment for the Chatelaine House development was prepared by <a href="https://www.upsidelondon.com/">'Upside London'</a>, a consultancy formed just a year ago with the motto 'Making Development Viable'. The company doesn't have a website yet, so we can't see whether it features <a href="https://www.s106management.co.uk/how-it-works">images of developers wheeling away barrows laden with cash</a>. <em>Upside London</em> was joined by dozens of other property developers, estate agents and public sector representatives at a <a href="https://www.peoplesrepublicofsouthwark.co.uk/hold-news/mqt/files/category/12-planning?download=189:planning-in-london-conference-afternoon">recent conference</a> on achieving viable developments in London. Looking at its title <em>"Very taxing: Is viability vanishing as charges and levies hit London development?"</em> it would seem that all participants think that London is very lucky to be getting any affordable housing at all.</p>
<h2>Come on Eileen!</h2>
<p>The latest in the never-ending round of consultation about Eileen House ended yesterday. The <a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/73440_1.pdf">original application</a> was made in Feb 2009 and was rejected for having no social rented housing and not enough shared-ownership housing. The <a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9531326">updated application</a> is worse: it still has no social rented housing, it has reduced the shared-ownership units by 15 units to 65, and has increased the private units by the same number from 255 to 270.</p>
<p><img src="https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2435/3878668654_0e7f08204c_z.jpg" alt="" /></p>
Towering Disgrace2013-08-10T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2013-08-10-towering-disgrace/<h2>£18m public money spent but no social rented housing</h2>
<p>Boris Johnson has just announced that the UK's largest private rental development will be right at the heart of the Elephant & Castle. The <em>360 Tower</em> on the old London Park Hotel site will provide 462 new homes, most of which will be for free-market rent. 188 will be 'affordable' but mostly shared ownership, and a meagre 29 units - initially social rented - have since been <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/MD1240%20Newington%20MD%20Part%201%20PDF.pdf">turned into so-called 'affordable rent'</a>. Needless to say that this is way below the 80 social rented units required by planning policy, and way beyond the means of most people living in Southwark[^1]. Today's <a href="https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/major-flaws-revealed-in-pay-to-stay-policy/6528085.article"><em>Inside Housing</em> article</a> reveals that the minimum salary needed for an 'affordable rent' flat in Southwark is £46,790 pa.</p>
<p><img src="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/elephant_and_castle_360tower_web.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Of the 188 'affordable' units 159 will be shared ownership. We have no information about how much they will cost, but Southwark Council's income threshold for shared ownership is currently around £30,000 per year for a 1-bed flat.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.the-latest.com/sites/default/files/images/12_1.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>The past...</h2>
<p>The site was formerly home to the London Park Hotel, which provided low-cost accommodation including accommodation for asylum seekers. It was <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3475">bought by</a> Government agency 'English Partnerships' for £18m in order to provide affordable housing for key workers. The current development was given planning permission by Southwark Council in 2007. The developers were then First Base, <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/2835">part of the Lend Lease consortium</a> selected as the council's E&C development partner. The site then passed hands from English Partnerships to the Homes and Communities Agency and finally to the GLA. Along the way First Base dropped out, the overall amount of affordable housing was reduced and then the commitment to provide key-worker housing was dropped in January 2010. <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3475">In 2008</a>, chair of Southwark's planning committee James Gurling noted the <em>"'dreadful irony' that the Government had spent millions of pounds acquiring the site – part of it from Southwark Council – for housing for people who can't afford it and now the committee was being asked to back a reduction in the number of such homes. A lot of money has gone round in a big circle and the net losers will be the people who need the help most."</em></p>
<h2>... and the future</h2>
<p>The <em>360 Tower</em> is now being funded by <a href="https://www.m3cp.com/">M3 Capital Partners</a> - a global real-estate investment company originally part of the Australian <a href="https://www.macquarie.com/">Macquarie group</a>. The tower will be managed by its subsidiary company <a href="https://www.essentialliving.uk.com/"><em>Essential Living</em></a> whose <a href="https://www.essentialliving.uk.com/">aim it is</a> to <em>"revolutionise the private rental market"</em>. <em>Essential Living</em> has recently become very active in Britain and has <a href="https://shbm-news.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/essential-livings-bethnal-green-scheme.html">5,000 new homes in its planning pipeline</a>. One of its projects is the controversial Archway Tower, and <em>Essential Living</em> <a href="https://www.housingexcellence.co.uk/news/london%E2%80%99s-archway-tower-become-rental-homes-gentrification-plan">makes no bones</a> about what its aim is: <em>"Archway deserves regeneration and we believe our investment will be the catalyst to further gentrification in this important North London community.”</em></p>
<p><img src="https://www.housingexcellence.co.uk/sites/default/files/styles/large_490x270/public/Archway.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>In a <a href="https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmcomloc/writev/953/prs125.htm">recent submission</a> to a parliamentary inquiry <em>Essential Living</em> asked for:</p>
<ul>
<li>The continued sale of public land to the private sector</li>
<li>Limits to lifetime and fixed-term tenancies for affordable housing</li>
<li>A relaxation of s106 contributions</li>
</ul>
<p><em>Essential Living</em> offers itself as an alternative to buy-to-let landlords who they <a href="https://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/rogers-stirk-harbour-tower-to-be-a-uk-first/5058596.article">describe as amateurs</a>, but it admits that the costs of building, maintaining and managing their homes in the new American style setup will be more expensive, and is asking for changes in the way the viability of its developments is assessed within the planning process. Large developments must provide public benefits through <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-07-30-how-to-avoid-providing-affordable-housing-a-guide-for-developers/">s106 contributions</a>; these will be reduced if <em>Essential Living</em> gets its way.</p>
<p>Mayor Johnson thinks that M3 capital partners are the perfect new landlords. He hopes they will start a trend: <a href="https://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/rogers-stirk-harbour-tower-to-be-a-uk-first/5058596.article">he said:</a> <em>“This ‘holy grail’ of investment in the riskier pre-development stage is a hugely important milestone but it is just the beginning. I want to entice other institutional investors to come forward and invest in quality homes for Londoners.”</em></p>
<h2>Essential Living?</h2>
<p><em>Essential Living</em> do not appear to have any completed developments where we can see what their rent levels are, but if the so-called 'affordable rents' are going to require an income of £46,790 per year, then we can confidently predict that the free-market rents won't come cheap.</p>
<p>Private rental and 'affordable rent' don't feature anywhere in the policies or plans for the regeneration of Elephant & Castle, but the <em>360 Tower</em> and <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-08-03-the-whole-world-comes-to-the-elephant/"><em>One the Elephant</em></a> show us that both will play a significant role, and that much of the regeneration's housing will be neither affordable nor owner-occupied. The Elephant & Castle regeneration - Europe's largest regeneration scheme - is quickly becoming a property-investment bonanza, one moreover that is being funded through the disposal of public land.</p>
<h2>Stop the Press!</h2>
<p>It was confirmed on Friday by the Information Tribunal that Southwark Council have appealed against the <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-07-24-heygate-figures-must-b-be-revealed-information-commissioner/">Information Commissioner's decision</a> to order Southwark to disclose the Heygate masterplan viability assessment, submitted by developer Lend Lease in its planning application. Southwark have requested a hearing at which they will argue that while they <a href="https://youtu.be/sbSCIuaLFQ4">believe in openness and transparency</a>, on this occasion it would be best if the public was kept in the dark.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: The <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/4331/area_report_walworth">Median household income in Walworth</a> (which includes E&C) is £14,300.</p>
The Elephant - Sold on and Sold out2013-08-03T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2013-08-03-the-whole-world-comes-to-the-elephant/<p>The start of work on <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/6463"><em>One the Elephant</em></a> was marked with some ceremony this week by developers Lend Lease, including a visit by the mayor of London Boris Johnson. However it was a bit unfortunate for both him and Southwark Council that the symbolically important development has no affordable housing.</p>
<p>The event was covered by ITV and the BBC:</p>
<iframe width="350" height="197" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/c0tgOPOI1IE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<iframe width="350" height="197" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WZRV4KMxuEk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<iframe width="350" height="197" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uRSorzbUH94" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<p>The TV reports emphasised the lack of affordable housing. Mayor Johnson and Councillor Colley responded with the well-rehearsed defence that <em>One the Elephant</em> was providing a leisure centre instead, and that 1600 'affordable' housing units will be provided elsewhere in the regeneration.</p>
<h2>Affordable Housing?</h2>
<p>However, as was revealed at the recent CPO inquiry[^1] that only a small
fraction of these 1600 so-called 'affordable' homes will be social rented and
Southwark's <a href="https://35percent.org/redefining-social-rent/">changing definitions</a> have seen this
term now include 'affordable rent' - i.e. up to 80% market rent. The affordable
housing also includes part-buy/part-rent and over 200 units at the new
iniquitous 'affordable rent' at 50% market rent. Neither of these are options
that are really affordable for the vast majority of people who need housing in
Southwark. As this blog has repeatedly emphasised</p>
<ul>
<li>social rent is the kind of affordable housing that Southwark needs most, yet
it is precisely the kind that the Elephant regeneration is destroying.</li>
</ul>
<p>In the ITV interview, Councillor Colley also referred to Southwark Council's <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1301/council_bucks_national_trend_and_promises_vast_increase_in_number_of_council_houses">recent pledge</a> to build 10,000 council houses over the next 30 years. This pledge is very welcome and we hope to see it fulfilled, but affordable housing was to be one of the key benefits of the Elephant & Castle regeneration, and these are homes that should be being built now.</p>
<h2>Profit in Leisure</h2>
<p>The leisure centre in lieu of affordable housing will cost around £20m[^2]. Lend Lease's contribution to this is £3.5m[^3]. Has the sale of the land to Lend Lease generated the £17m shortfall? In any event Lend Lease got a good deal - the required 35% affordable housing contribution would have been around 100 units, and at £300k each[^4] this would have cost Lend Lease £30m.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/public/assets/news_articles/2013/05/1367907090_elephant--castle-leisure-centre---cgi.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Overseas and Off-Plan</h2>
<p>The BBC report also focused on the amount of free-market housing that Lend Lease is selling off-plan overseas for buy-to-let investment. Neither Boris Johnson nor Fiona Colley could say how much this would be, but if <em>One the Elephant</em> follows the <a href="https://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/605cdea2-fb69-11e2-a641-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2auDlY5Ft">trend of 75% going overseas</a> then there will only be 70 units for British-based buyers who are wealthy enough to afford them.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/TrafalgarPlaceCN.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Another recent <a href="https://youtu.be/7yuT3RlR1Zc">BBC report</a> also addresses the overseas buyer issue and local MP Simon Hughes initiated an <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/house-of-lords-22992949">adjournment debate</a> in the House of Commons where he gave his own ideas about how to solve the problem.</p>
<h2>Those who have had to leave us</h2>
<p>In an <a href="https://35percent.org/images/EveningStandardHeygateResidentsForcedOut.pdf">Evening Standard article</a> respected journalist Mira Bar-Hillel focuses on those who have had to leave the Elephant to make way for the regeneration.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/EveningStandardHeygateResidentsForcedOut.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>We covered this briefly in our <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-06-08-the-heygate-diaspora/">recent blog post</a>. The Standard article puts some faces to the statistics and shows what the regeneration has really been about for these former local people.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: Heygate <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/8171/proofs_of_evidence__jon_abbot__final_proof">CPO Proof of Evidence</a> - Jon Abbot, paragraph 5.12 - 5.14</p>
<p>[^2]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s14160/Elephant%20and%20Castle%20-%20Provision%20of%20a%20New%20Leisure%20Facility.pdf">Cabinet Meeting 23 Nov 2010</a>, paragraph 32.</p>
<p>[^3]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s32824/Report.pdf">Officer's report</a> for 'One the Elephant' planning application, paragraph 33.</p>
<p>[^4]: <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s32824/Report.pdf">Officer's report</a> planning application, pargraphs 42 & 44.</p>
How to avoid providing affordable housing - a guide for developers2013-07-30T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2013-07-30-how-to-avoid-providing-affordable-housing-a-guide-for-developers/<p>Since our <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-07-24-heygate-figures-must-b-be-revealed-information-commissioner/">last blog post</a> we have been asked to explain more about viability assessments - also known as viability reports. These are a developer's analysis of the finances of their own scheme, and if this self-assessment demonstrates to the council's satisfaction that the scheme is not financially viable, then the developer is able do duck out of providing affordable housing.</p>
<p>As can be imagined, nearly all developers opt to submit a ‘financial viability assessment’.</p>
<p>In planning terms affordable housing is known as a section 106 obligation, and producing viability reports for developers is big business.</p>
<p>Companies like Savills offer a <a href="https://www.savills.co.uk/services/planning-and-development/planning.aspx">premium service</a>, but for between £1,000 - £3,000 <a href="https://www.s106management.co.uk/">'S106 Management Ltd'</a> will produce a viability report that reduces or eliminates your affordable housing obligation. You can then take a holiday with the money that you have saved or pile it into your wheelbarrow as their website illustrates:</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/s106management2.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Viability reports are confidential, they are not made public and even members of the planning committee do not see them. They have to rely on the recommendation of planning officers (who in turn rely upon an assessment by the District Valuer’s Service).</p>
<p>So the <a href="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/HeygateFOICommissionersReport.pdf">Information Commissioner's decision</a> to order the release of Lend Lease's viability report for the Heygate masterplan is a significant one. He particularly emphasises the importance of transparency in planning matters, and the need to maintain public confidence in the authority's decisions.</p>
<p>Southwark is <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbSCIuaLFQ4&feature=share&list=UU1yTdlADczSqDS-DsEliI8A">committed to transparency</a>, it must now accept the Commissioner's decision and release the report.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/s106management.jpg" alt="" /></p>
Heygate Figures must be Revealed - Information Commissioner2013-07-24T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2013-07-24-heygate-figures-must-b-be-revealed-information-commissioner/<p>Southwark Council has been ordered to disclose the financial viability assessment provided by developer Lend Lease to secure the approval of its Heygate masterplan application. This assessment justified the reduction in the affordable housing requirement from 35% to 25% and the reduction of social rented housing to just 71 units.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/viability_assessment_for_plannin#incoming-304798">Freedom of Information request</a> for the viability assessment was rejected by Southwark Council, but the council's decision has now been overturned by the Information Commissioner who has given Southwark 35 days to produce the assessment.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/HeygateFOICommissionersReport.pdf">Commissioner's report</a> is a closely argued and detailed 35-page document. It draws upon previous decisions made both by the Commissioner and the Information Tribunal to come to its conclusions.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/HeygateFOICommissionersReport.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The Commissioner's judgement was that there was a <em>"very significant weighting in favour of disclosing the information"</em>[^1], and that <em>"The public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exception."</em>[^2] i.e. keeping the information confidential. The Commissioner acknowledged that disclosing the information was detrimental to Lend Lease's commercial interests, but did not think that Southwark Council's own commercial interests were relevant. He also acknowledged that Lend Lease were entitled to confidentiality, but thought that the greater public interest was served by the disclosure. Additional factors that gave increased weight to his argument included <em>"any perception that an authority might not be acting in accordance with its own policies"</em>.[^3] In addition he cited[^4]:</p>
<ul>
<li>The scale of the scheme (£1.5bn over 15 years)</li>
<li>The number of Heygate residents affected by the scheme (3,000) and subject to rehousing and Compulsory Purchase Orders.</li>
<li>The loss of council-owned property through sale of public land to a private enterprise.</li>
<li>The costs incurred to date by the council in taking the scheme forward (£47.9m)</li>
<li>Public concern about the level of affordable housing provided by the scheme and how this sits with the council's Core Strategy.</li>
</ul>
<h2>TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY</h2>
<p>The Commissioner refers several times to the high level of public interest in the development:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"In relation to the general public interest in transparency and accountability, the Commissioner’s general view is that, where this relates to planning matters, there is a strong weighting in favour of encouraging public participation and disclosure is a means of promoting this." <strong>(Information Commissioner's Report, paragraph 167)</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>He notes the press and television attention that the development has received, and considers that the focus of public debate and concern has been on the levels of affordable housing provision delivered by the scheme. Disclosure of the viabilty assessment would inform this debate and reassure the public that the council's decision to allow Lend Lease’s proposals to proceed were based on a correct analysis of the facts presented.</p>
<p>He also notes the concerns raised by various community groups and on websites such as <a href="https://southwarknotes.wordpress.com/">Southwark Notes</a>, <a href="https://35percent.org/">35percent.org</a>, and <a href="https://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/more/item/5458-the-local-lobby-and-the-failure-of-democracy">Spinwatch.org</a>.</p>
<h2>BEST CONSIDERATION?</h2>
<p>The Commissioner also considered that the disposal of the land and its sale price were matters of <em>"relevant public interest"</em>. He acknowledged the difficulties of obtaining best value in the current economic climate, and the argument that the council should be allowed to simply press on with the regeneration. However, he comes down on the side of what he calls a <em>"compelling countervailing argument in favour of making this process as transparent as possible"</em>. He considers the <em>"size of the redevelopment and the number of residents affected should provide a trigger for transparency and engagement with council tax payers"</em><[^5], and that the council should expect a <em>"high level of scrutiny"</em>.[^6]</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"The Commissioner notes that the scheme will not deliver the level of affordable housing required by the council’s own core strategy. In this respect alone, there is a significant public interest in demonstrating to the public that the council’s decision to progress with the scheme is nevertheless justified." <strong>(Information Commissioner's Report, paragraph 100)</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<h2>A LANDMARK DECISION?</h2>
<p>Southwark can demonstrate its commitment to transparency and accountability by accepting the Commissioner's decision without further ado. There will be more viability assessments submitted in the future - local councillors, planning committee members, and members of the general public must be able to see them, particularly if council policy is not being fulfilled. It is ridiculous that the masterplan planning application was passed blind by the planning committee - it dents Southwark Council and Lend Lease's credibility, and local people's confidence in the regeneration process.</p>
<p>The South London Press <a href="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/SouthLondonPress23July2013.pdf">reports</a> that Southwark maintains that the assessment should not be made public and that it is <strong>"seeking further advice to determine its best course of action"</strong>. Every one of our elected councillors - regardless of which party they are in - should say different and insist that the viability assessment is released without further delay.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"With the increasing outsourcing of public services and disposal of public assets to private partners or third parties, the Commissioner considers that there is a growing need for transparency and accountability in authorities’ decision-making and expenditure, not least because many parties which authorities conduct business with will not themselves be subject to the EIR or FOIA." <strong>(Information Commissioner's Report, Paragraph 171)</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: <a href="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/HeygateFOICommissionersReport.pdf">Information Commissioner's Report</a>, Paragraph 171.</p>
<p>[^2]: <a href="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/HeygateFOICommissionersReport.pdf">Information Commissioner's Report</a>, Paragraph 172.</p>
<p>[^3]: <a href="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/HeygateFOICommissionersReport.pdf">Information Commissioner's Report</a>, Paragraph 168.</p>
<p>[^4]: <a href="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/HeygateFOICommissionersReport.pdf">Information Commissioner's Report</a>, Paragraph 169.</p>
<p>[^5]: <a href="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/HeygateFOICommissionersReport.pdf">Information Commissioner's Report</a>, Paragraph 104.</p>
<p>[^6]: <a href="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/HeygateFOICommissionersReport.pdf">Information Commissioner's Report</a>, Paragraph 105.</p>
Heygate leaseholders forced to sell their homes - CPO approved2013-07-20T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2013-07-20-heygate-leaseholders-forced-to-sell-their-homes-cpo-approved/<p>The Compulsory Purchase of the remaining 3 leaseholders on the Heygate estate has been approved by Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. This will allow Southwark Council to buy out the properties at way below the local market rate.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"We are being short-changed and priced out of the area. I am being offered just £150,000 for my two-bed flat, when the new-build two-bed Heygate flats are currently being marketed overseas for upwards of £455,000." <strong>(Heygate Leaseholder, Mojisola Ojeikere - 63 Marston)</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is not surprising that Mr Pickles approved Southwark's application. The decision is taken on the basis that the estate is now empty and takes little account that it was once the home to 3,000 people. Mr Pickles decided that it was in the public interest for the development to proceed rather than to allow the leaseholders to keep their homes. The leaseholders' responses can be seen in this <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23371735">BBC report</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/418865_406280396101674_377969546_n.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The decision was the result of a 4 day public inquiry in February this year. Some points in Inspector Wenda Fabian's <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Heygate_CPO_Inspectors_Report.pdf">conclusions</a> are worth noting:</p>
<p>She says <em>"The quantity of the social rented accommodation on the site of the former estate would be dramatically reduced, some 71 units compared to the 750 formerly existing."</em> The Inspector goes on to note that the 'affordable' rented homes would be provided at higher levels of rent than were current on the estate.</p>
<p>She also says that the evidence given by various academics (Prof. Loretta Lees - King's College, Michael Edwards - UCL, Mara Ferreri - Queen Mary University) were a <em>"matter of wider social policy consideration"</em>, rather than a particular consideration for the inquiry. This evidence showed that regeneration schemes displace those people whose deprivation was the justification for the regeneration, and that low-income residents do not benefit from mixed communities - they lose the economic and social advantages of living in a low-income communitiy.</p>
<p>The Inspector addressed the vexed question of the scheme's financial viability. She noted that <em>"although commercially sensitive viability figures were not produced for the Inquiry"</em>, she did not doubt that Lend Lease would fulfil its commitments because <em>"the reputational consequence for Lend Lease of a market failure on this site so close to the City of London would be substantial".</em></p>
<p>In relation to viability, the Inspector allowed the need for 616 new car parking spaces despite the requirements set out in policy that there should be none.</p>
<p>The Inspector had little doubt that the shopping centre situation can be resolved. She says <em>"its regeneration by the current owner is still feasible and Lend Lease is cooperating in the redevelopment project discussions on this basis."</em> Since it has been just <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/6937">been reported</a> that the owners of the shopping centre are now considering its sale unless Southwark approves its development plans <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/6808">(so far resisted)</a>, it remains to be seen whether this confidence is justified.</p>
<h2>What Next?</h2>
<p>The council will now write to the objectors and inform them of the decision. After two months, ownership of the homes will transfer to Southwark Council.</p>
<p>The council will then serve a further notice and occupants will have 28 days to vacate the property. If they do not do so, the council is entitled to take steps to gain possession.</p>
<p>Following vacant possession, leaseholders will then finally have the opportunity to refer the valuation of their homes to a Lands Tribunal if they still disagree with Southwark's offer of compensation.</p>
Regeneration branded 'miserable failure' at CPO Public Inquiry2013-07-18T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2013-07-18-regeneration-branded-miserable-failure-at-cpo-public-inquiry/<p>Southwark’s Elephant & Castle regeneration plans were branded <em>“a miserable
failure”</em> by former Heygate residents at a public inquiry into the Heygate
Compulsory Purchase Order.</p>
<p><img src="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/IMG_3290.JPG" alt="" /></p>
<p>The Order was confirmed today after a six month wait following the four day
inquiry, which took place during 5th - 8th Feb. The inquiry was triggered when
remaining leaseholders on the Heygate estate objected to the Order, which will
see them dispossessed of their homes to make way for the £1.5bn regeneration
scheme being undertaken by the council and its development partner <a href="https://lendlease.com/">Lend
Lease</a>.</p>
<p>There were a total of <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/8118/core_document_6-objection_table">10 objectors to the
Order</a>,
including the Crossway church located on the estate plus a number of local
residents and community groups. The objections broached a number of themes
including lack of truly affordable housing, loss of trees and claims that the
<a href="https://35percent.org/affordable-housing/">plans had been altered</a> from the
<a href="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/2004SPG.pdf">original regeneration
objectives</a> to the extent
that they were no longer in the public interest.</p>
<p>The objectors lead by the Heygate Leaseholders Group, pointed out that tenants
on the estate had not been given the opportunity to object, as those who
objected had simply been subjected to eviction proceedings under the 1985
Landlord & Tenant Act. They also pointed out that the scheme amounts to forced
displacement - as the council had <a href="https://heygate.github.io/displacement.html">denied Heygate residents a
ballot</a> on whether their homes
should be demolished. Several former Heygate residents <a href="https://heygate.github.io/img/CPOWitnessStatements.zip">gave
evidence</a> at the inquiry
objecting to Southwark’s heavy-handed approach when the <a href="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/HAPtenantsletter.pdf">decant was brought
forward in 2007</a></p>
<ul>
<li>1 in 3 secure tenants were subjected to eviction proceedings[^1], and its
failure to honour promises to residents that they would be able to move to
new homes on the estate footprint: the new ‘affordable’ units will be at the
new ‘<a href="https://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/05/social-rents-increases-break-up-communities">affordable
rent</a>’,
which will be at least double the level of council rents. Just 1 in 5 secure
tenants on the estate have managed to stay living in the SE17 postcode, the
rest have been
<a href="https://35percent.org/2013-06-08-the-heygate-diaspora/">scattered</a> across the
four corners of the borough and beyond:</li>
</ul>
<p><img src="https://heygate.github.io/img/DisplacedTenants.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The objectors were also supported by academic expert witnesses who gave evidence showing the negative effects of displacement on the community, and produced <a href="https://heygate.github.io/img/tenurechangeanalysis.pdf">data</a> showing how the development plans - if passed - would create a far less mixed community at the Elephant & Castle (just 8% social housing in total).</p>
<p><img src="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/IMG_3284.JPG" alt="" /></p>
<p>Among the expert witnesses giving evidence were:</p>
<p><strong>Lorretta Lees</strong> - King’s College London</p>
<p><strong>Michael Edwards</strong> - Bartlett School of Planning (UCL)</p>
<p><strong>Mara Ferreri</strong> - Queen Mary University of London</p>
<p>Other witnesses giving evidence in support of the objectors included members of
local groups <a href="https://betterelephant.github.io/">Better Elephant</a> and the <a href="https://elephantamenity.wordpress.com/">Elephant
Amenity Network</a>, Catherine Croft from
the Twentieth Century Society and Tim Tinker the original Heygate architect.</p>
<p>In his submission, Tinker who spent 7 years drawing up the Heygate scheme in
the 1960s said the following: <em>“The Heygate and its design has been stigmatised
and I thought it was time to set the record straight. Its notorious reputation
is a farrago of half-truths and lies put together by people who should have
known better.”</em>[^2] Tinker also pointed out that the original 1970s Heygate
redevelopment had been based on providing homes for those displaced from a
specific <a href="https://heygate.github.io/img/NewingtonEstateSlumClearanceArea.png">neighbouring slum clearance
area</a> (what
is now the Newington estate). The original scheme he claimed, had kept the
community together whereas the current scheme he said, had seen residents
<em>"scattered to the four winds"</em>.</p>
<p>Michael Edwards who is a senior lecturer in the economics of planning at UCL's
Bartlett School of Planning said <em>"What is called 'regeneration' typically has
perverse, unintended, negative effects of displacing precisely those people
whose deprivation was taken as the justification for regeneration."</em>[^3]</p>
<p>Lorretta Lees, who is Professor of Human Geography at King’s College London and
an international expert on gentrification and urban regeneration policy said
<em>"The development plans do not acknowledge the social mix already present on
the estate, nor do they address issues of social sustainability. They deploy a
language of social balance in the service of social exclusion. The rhetoric is
about social sustainability, but confirmation of the CPO will lead to social
segregation."</em>[^4]</p>
<p><img src="https://heygate.github.io/img/examples/helen.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>In her <a href="https://heygate.github.io/img/examples/HelenObrien.pdf">witness
statement</a>, former chair
of the Heyate Tenants and Residents Association Helen O’Brien described the
redevelopment plans as a miserable failure - <em>“What was once a thriving
community has now been scattered all over Southwark. Southwark's regeneration
plans are a miserable failure. Everyone who has worked on the regeneration at
the Elephant should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.”</em></p>
<p>During the inquiry objectors produced detailed statistics including a <a href="https://betterelephant.github.io/blog/2012/12/23/1998-southwark-housing-stock-survey/">1998
Stock Condition
Survey</a>
and a council-commissioned <a href="https://heygate.herokuapp.com/monthly-roundup/1998-allot-and-max-survey.html">Options Appraisal
Study</a>,
which had made recommendations for large parts of the estate to be refurbished
as part of the redevelopment. They also produced a <a href="https://heygateestate.wordpress.com/">detailed
analysis</a> by global architects
<a href="https://gensler.com/">Gensler</a>, showing how the estate could be refurbished and
modernised at the current cost of just £14k per home.</p>
<p><a href="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/HeygateCrimeStats.pdf">Crime
statistics</a> were
also tabled by objectors in response to the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87Yg_SJoPjw">council's
claim</a> that the bad design of the
estate led to it becoming a <em>"by-word for social failure, crime and anti-social
behaviour"</em>. The figures showed that the crime rate on the estate was a
staggering 45% below the borough average.</p>
<p><img src="https://heygate.github.io/img/TerryRedpath.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Former Heygate Leaseholder Terry Redpath travelled in from Sidcup to give
evidence at the inquiry. His submission highlighted the plight of leaseholders,
many of which had been forced to relocate outside London with the low
compensation paid for their homes - <em>"I could no longer afford to stay in the
area - the compensation I was offered plus £45,000 of life savings bought me a
terraced property 15 miles out of London. I have been forced to give up my home
to accommodate the building of homes for overseas investors.”</em>[^5]</p>
<p>Redpath, who lived on the estate for 35 years and whose family have lived in
the area for generations, went on to highlight the shortcomings of the
consultation process: <em>"Consultation was a farce - the council kept insisting
that 94% of local residents supported the redevelopment plans, but we later
learned that this was 94% of just 6% that had responded to the survey. They
had originally promised us a ballot on whether the estate should be demolished
but we never got it - it has been completely undemocratic."</em></p>
<p>The <a href="https://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?msid=206540700955382422085.0004ddeb74e646a7276ee&msa=0">google overlay map</a> below shows the extent of displacement suffered by Heygate leaseholders as a result of the regeneration scheme:</p>
<p><img src="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/LeaseholderDisplacement1.png" alt="" /></p>
<p><img src="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/IMG_3286.JPG" alt="" /></p>
<p>Remaining leaseholder and statutory objector Adrian Glasspool said <em>“We have
simply exercised our right to say no. This is a privilege that tenants on the
estate didn't have - 198 of whom were forced to leave their homes under the
shadow of <a href="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/jonabbottCPOinquiry8Feb2013.pdf">eviction
proceedings</a>."</em></p>
<p><img src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2ZJgFmnm42M/URLp52OPDEI/AAAAAAAAA9w/03rzKuUo-Js/s400/2013-02-06+10.18.46+HDR+copy.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Remaining leaseholder and statutory objector Mojisola Ojeikere (left in the
photograph accompanying inspector Wenda Fabian during the site tour) said <em>“We
were <a href="https://heygate.github.io/img/Appendix8.pdf">originally promised</a> a range
of options in assisting us to buy one of the new-build Heygate homes[^6], but
this promise was never honoured - now we are being shortchanged and priced out
of the area: I am being offered just £150,000 for my 2 bed flat, when the
new-build 2 bed Heygate flats are currently being marketed overseas for upwards
of £455,000 - <a href="https://www.trafalgarplace.com/">www.trafalgarplace.com</a>.
How am I supposed to buy one of these with the miserable amount they are
offering me for my home?”</em></p>
<p>When objectors asked at the inquiry why they didn't get the new homes
originally promised, the council's lead officer replied <em>"I don't know, I
wasn't employed by the council at the time the promises were made. But I am
sure Lend Lease would be willing to sell to anyone"</em>:</p>
<iframe width="400" height="225" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bLIg4xGZrPI" frameborder="0" align="center" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<p>Analysis of <a href="https://heygate.github.io/img/LBSHeygateacquisitionsOct2012.xls">information</a> received through FOI requests, shows that the average compensation received by leaseholders for a 1 bed flat on the estate was just £95,480.</p>
<p>Southwark Council is estimated to have spent around £3m obtaining the Compulsory Purchase Order.</p>
<p>The council’s case documents submitted for the CPO can be downloaded
<a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3287/heygate_compulsory_purchase-core_documents_and_proofs_of_evidence_list">here</a>,
and a copy of the Objectors’ Statement of Case is available
<a href="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/HeygateCPOStatementOfCaseFinal.pdf">here</a>.<br />
A short audio recording of objectors giving evidence at the inquiry can be
downloaded from <a href="https://heygate.github.io/img/CPORichardLee.mp3">here</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: <a href="https://betterelephant.github.com/images/jonabbottCPOinquiry8Feb2013.pdf">Inquiry
Document 32</a> tabled by Project Director Jon Abbott during Public Inquiry on 8 Feb 2013.
[^2]: Mr Tinker's written statement, Objectors' Statement of Case - page 45.
[^3]: Mr Edwards' written statement, Inquiry Document 21.
[^4]: Professor Lees' written statement, Inquiry Document 26.
[^5]: Mr Redpath's written statement, Objectors' Statement of Case - page 43.
[^6]: See also paragraph 26 of the <a href="https://heygate.github.io/img/leaseholderpolicy7.png">2005 Leaseholder Policy </a>and paragraphs 4 & 33 of the <a href="https://heygate.github.io/img/18May2004.pdf">Executive Report - 'Heygate Estate Decant Arrangements'</a>, 18 May 2004: <b><i>"Council Executive agrees to develop housing options for leaseholders whose interests will be acquired as part of the main scheme, including shared and retained equity arrangements. The negotiation of shared ownership retained equity schemes for people to buy a
share in a higher valued property will form part of the procurement exercise to select housing association and developer partners."</i></b></p>
A little bit of Shoreditch coming to the Elephant?2013-06-22T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2013-06-22-a-little-bit-of-shoreditch/<p>Six months after the appearance of 48 large shipping containers on the forecourt of the former Shell garage on the Walworth rd by the Heygate estate, a planning application for their uses has finally appeared. It has been submitted by 'Artworks', who were chosen to provide interim uses on the Heygate site during the period of its redevelopment. The model for the boxpark is a scheme in Shoreditch. The proposal is for studios, bars, business/workspace, retail, markets, cafe/restaurant, gallery, community, and 'stay-work' uses for a maximum 5 year period.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.elephantandcastle.org.uk/files/251.img.jpg?20140331085433" alt="" /></p>
<p>The application is generating a lot of interest while raising a lot of questions. Artworks say that it will generate job and education opportunities while helping to animate that part of the Walworth road. However, local people are concerned of what the impact will be on what is also a residential area. There are also doubts about the feasibility of the proposals: the application says that the rents will start at £50 per week, but we know from the marketing information reproduced below that the full cost of a 'live-work' container is £200 per week plus bills.</p>
<p>Artworks are offering 'Short-term living accommodation for business operators'[^3] - but the containers are too small to meet Southwark's policy requirements[^1] for live/work use; which is probably why Artworks have called them 'stay-work' units in the application rather than 'live-work' units in their marketing material. Any application for more than 10 units of residential accommodation would also trigger the requirement for 35% affordable housing.</p>
<p>The temporary nature of the development might relieve Artworks of the obligation to provide the usual s106 contributions, which mitigate the adverse consequences of developments by providing such things as local facilities and training. Artworks say that these benefits will come from the scheme anyway; Southwark planning has asked for more detail to demonstrate that this will be so, and that the scheme will actually provide the jobs it hopes to. It has also asked whether any of the units will provide any affordable retail/business space[^2].</p>
<p>The green space in front of Swanbourne will also be part of the boxpark. Artworks say that <em>"The open space will be available for use by the public other than when it is being used for specific and occasional private events."</em></p>
<p>All in all, this seems like a largely commercial development some way removed from the original idea of interim uses as providing space for productive voluntary activities. The application might have its merits, but it should be judged on these alone.</p>
<p>If you wish to make a comment on the application, you can send this by email to planning.applications@southwark.gov.uk, quoting the planning application reference: 13/AP/1224. <a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9549395">Here is a link</a> to the full planning application documents.</p>
<h2>The Boxpark Vision</h2>
<p>Artworks may have just got their application in but they are not wasting any time advertising the containers. Below is a response to an email enquiry regarding the boxpark. The price for the container units is a lot clearer than it is in the planning application. £50 per week gets you a market stall, £150 - £170 per week gets you a work space, and full live-work container will set you back £200 per week plus bills. But hurry!</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/ArtworksEmail.png" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: "At least 40sqm of useable work space (B1 Use Class) must be separately defined within the unit" - Saved Southwark
Plan Policy 1.6</p>
<p>[^2]: 13/AP/1224 <a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/299967_1.pdf">Planning Statement Addendum.</a></p>
<p>[^3]: 13/AP/1224 <a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/299966_1.pdf">Planning Statement - Para 2.1.4.</a></p>
The Heygate Diaspora2013-06-08T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2013-06-08-the-heygate-diaspora/<blockquote>
<p>"There is a huge silent majority of people that have been moved out of the Heygate that are happy in their new homes." <strong>(Cllr Fiona Colley, Cabinet Member for Regeneration)</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“I could no longer afford to stay in the area and, in the end, the offer I was made plus £45,000 of my life savings bought me a terraced property 15 miles out of London. I have, I feel, given up my home to accommodate the building of homes for overseas investors.” <strong>(Terry Redpath, Former Heygate Leaseholder)</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://heygate.github.io/img/examples/PROPWK170513.pdf">Quotes from Property Week Magazine, 17/05/13</a></p>
<p>In our <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-05-26-peters-denial/">last blog post</a> we corrected some of the more <a href="https://www.youtube.com/embed/87Yg_SJoPjw">fanciful claims</a> that council leader Peter John made about the rehousing of Heygate tenants.
<a href="https://35percent.org/2013-05-26-peters-denial/">We showed</a> that only 45 Heygate tenants have actually been rehoused in new homes. We now also know that only around 1 in 5 Heygate secure tenants actually remain in the SE17 postcode (216 tenants out of 1034). This information comes from a response to an <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/analysis_of_displaced_heygate_re#incoming-394155">FOI request</a>. The rest have been scattered to the outer corners of the borough and beyond:</p>
<p><img src="https://heygate.github.io/img/DisplacedTenants.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>While we know what has happened to the secure tenants, Southwark can supply no information about where the 438 insecure tenants were rehoused. These are tenants who had moved onto the estate since Jan 2001, when Southwark stopped issuing proper council secure tenancies, and started using the estate for temporary accommodation. Such insecure tenants had no right at all to a new property out of the regeneration. Those who were eligible for council housing, will in most cases have been moved into existing council stock throughout the borough.</p>
<p>We are still gathering information about leaseholders. What we know so far is that they have <a href="https://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?msid=206540700955382422085.0004ddeb74e646a7276ee&msa=0&ll=51.541211,0.223846&spn=0.699521,1.234589">moved</a> furthest of all residents, as the following illustration shows:</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LeaseholderDisplacement3.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Around half have relocated to SE postcodes (including Woolwich, Thamesmead and Welling), most of the rest have had to move to suburbs such as Sidcup, St. Albans, Chelmsford, Croydon, Bexleyheath, Ilford, Romford, Dartford, Cheshunt, Mitcham and West Thurrock. The reason for this is clear: the very low levels of compensation leaseholders have received for their Heygate homes. <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/LBSHeygateacquisitionsOct2012.xls">This link</a> has a full list of the amounts paid to Heygate leaseholders. It is compiled from information received through Freedom of Information requests, and includes an indexed column showing today's value of the settlements.</p>
<p>The average compensation paid for a 1 bed flat is £108,164 (indexed to today's value). Owners of 2 bed flats received on average £122,140, 3 bed maisonettes £185,070 and 4 bed maisonettes £209,440. Some homeowners got particularly poor deals: one leaseholder received just £32,000 for a 1 bed flat in 2008.</p>
<p>Compare this to the cost of the new Heygate homes as advertised by Lend Lease.
These start at £330k for a 1 Bed flat, £455k for a 2 Bed flat and £590k for a 3 Bed - <a href="https://www.trafalgarplace.com/">(www.trafalgarplace.com)</a></p>
<p>With shared ownership flats <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/landqpricelisttp.pdf">requiring</a> a minimum income of £57k and just <a href="https://35percent.org/affordable-housing/">82 of the 2,704</a> new homes at social rents, not many residents - whether tenant or a leaseholder - will be exercising their right to return to the new Heygate.</p>
<p><img src="https://heygatewashome.org/img/HeygateEstateLeaseholderDisplacement.png" alt="" />
<em>Our displacement map re-worked by Sorbonne student showing correlation with property prices</em></p>
Peter's Denial2013-05-26T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2013-05-26-peters-denial/<p>There was no sound of a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_Peter">cock crowing</a>, but when asked in a recent radio interview if it is correct that there would only be 79 social rented units on the new Heygate, council leader Peter John replied 'no' three times.</p>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ENIkTjE0XB8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<p>However, while Councillor John does go on to say that the 3 bed affordable units for rent will be at council rent levels, he cannot bring himself to say that there will only be 79 of these, as we can see in the document pages below.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/ahframework2.png" alt="" /></p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/schedule6.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>These are Appendix 4 and schedule 6 respectively of the two s106 agreements covering the Heygate site. They are legal agreements that detail how much public benefit the developers will provide, including affordable housing.</p>
<p>Like many such agreements they are not always clear to ordinary people, but look carefully at the highlighted areas and you can see the figures 71, 6 and 2 - making a total of 79 three-bed homes (i.e. council or social rent levels).</p>
<p>Councillor John also says that the 1&2 bed affordable homes for rent will be at 50% market rents (there will be 212 of these). But at 50% of market rent, affordable rent is no substitute for social rent. <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/eip-ema-15_LB_Southwark_Matter2_Appendix%20A.pdf">'Southwark Council's Response to the London Plan Revised Minor Early Alterations consultation in June 2012'</a> shows this very clearly: in SE17 at 50% market rent the average weekly rent across all unit sizes is £194, while the median weekly income of a council house tenant is £174.</p>
<p>We can also see from the s106 agreements, that there will be a total of 291 affordable homes for rent, either affordable rent or social rent - much fewer than the 700 Cllr John says will be available during the interview. The difference is made up by 296 part buy-part rent units, which Cllr John doesn't mention at all.</p>
<p>The Heygate estate had 1200 social rented units, there will now be 79. Southwark has 20,000 households on its housing waiting list. They should be Southwark's priority but none will be housed in the new Heygate.</p>
<h2>Heygate Happiness</h2>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/87Yg_SJoPjw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<p>In the same interview, Cllr John also paints a rosy picture of the rehousing of former Heygate residents. He says that the vast majority have moved into brand new homes and are delighted. In fact the vast majority have simply been moved into existing council house stock elsewhere in the borough, and only 45 have moved to brand new homes. This was conceded by Southwark Council at the recent <a href="https://heygate.github.io/img/CPOPressRelease.pdf">public inquiry determininig a Compulsory Purchase Order</a> on the remaining leaseholders on the Heygate estate.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"<strong>5.16</strong> ...the Acquiring Authority agreed that tenants leaving from this point onwards were entitled to a right to return to new build affordable housing property built through the early sites programme or secured through a development within the core area (via a s106 agreement) for a period of up to seven years. Subsequently 250 tenants entered into such an agreement with the Acquiring Authority. To date 45 former Heygate Estate tenants have chosen to return to a new home made available through this process." <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/8171/proofs_of_evidence__jon_abbot__final_proof"><strong>(Statement of Evidence, CPO Public Inquiry 5th Feb 2013)</strong></a></p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Returning to Nowhere</h2>
<p>Cllr John also mentions the <a href="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/righttoreturn.pdf">'right to return'</a> in his interview. This supposedly enables former Heygate residents to return to the new properties on the Heygate estate.</p>
<p>This was only offered to the secure tenants on the estate (only around 600 by the time of the decant in 2007). It expires on 30 Sep 2015. Only 8 social rented units and only 54 affordable units of any kind will be built by then. Above all, there will only be 79 social rented units in the whole development - whenever it is finished.</p>
<p>Leaseholders won't fare any better: the levels of compensation offered for their homes does not allow them to buy in the area, let alone at the prices quoted for <a href="https://trafalgarplace.com/">Trafalgar Place</a> - the first phase of the new Heygate - which start at £310,000 for a one bedroom flat.</p>
<p>Worst off of all were the insecure tenants. Southwark stopped issuing secure tenancies in January 2001, and <a href="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/HeygateActionPlan.pdf">by 2007</a> there were over 400 insecure tenants. By the <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Housing%20Scrutiny%20Committee/20080123/Agenda/December%2011update.pdf">time of the decant</a> there were still around 300 temporary tenants. These were not given the right to return option at all.</p>
<p>All in all, it doesn't matter what kind of resident you were, the chances of you getting back on the Heygate are very very small.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"There should have been new homes built for residents before they moved. That didn't happen. But they've got the right to return. In reality, though, few will come back to the social housing on the new site." <a href="https://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/mar/04/death-housing-ideal"><strong>(Councillor Fiona Colley, Cabinet Member for Regeneration)</strong></a></p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Heygate Was Home</h2>
<p>Finally, according to Cllr John the Heygate was also a <em>'by-word for social failure, crime and antisocial behaviour'</em>. Former residents beg to differ and have set up a website in an attempt to set the record straight: <a href="https://heygatewashome.com/">www.heygatewashome.com</a></p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/heygatewashome.jpg" alt="" /></p>
Hoarding the Elephant2013-05-18T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2013-05-18-hoarding-the-elephant/<p>An eagle-eyed member of the local community has noticed that the <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/TribecaHoardingsLicence.jpg">licence that allows the hoarding</a> surrounding the Tribeca Square site - formerly known as Oakmayne Plaza, <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/volvocpo.jpg">formerly known as the Volvo garage</a> - has expired. Perhaps the licence has since been renewed, but the hoarding stretching from the New Kent road down Elephant road to the Walworth road, has been a great nuisance and inconvenience to pedestrians since 2006.
After a spurt of on-site activity in 2009 progress has halted.</p>
<p><img src="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/plazagone1.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Oakmayne Director, Martin Lent has recently said that Oakmayne intends to return to Southwark planning to 'tweak' their application before work re-commences. What this means remains to be seen: the <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3641">original application was comprehensively tweaked</a> so that no affordable housing would sully the development. In return, Oakmayne was going to build a huge basement, which was to house the MUSCo 'subterranean servicing complex' between the Heygate and the shopping centre. Now that the <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/5052">MUSCo has been ditched</a>, there will be plenty of room for some affordable housing in the development - even if it is in the basement.</p>
<iframe width="350" height="197" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bIlzq9g1u8c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<h2>Viability Trumps All</h2>
<p>An <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/viability_assessment_for_plannin#outgoing-205692">FOI request refused by Southwark Council</a> over a year ago, has now been partially conceded. The request asked for the viability assessment for the Heygate masterplan application, and was referred to the Information Commissioner after Southwark's refusal. The Commissioner has now said that Southwark is willing to release some of the information requested. We don't know how much and how useful this information will be, but we are looking forward to seeing it.</p>
<p>Developers use viability assessments to relieve themselves of the obligation to provide affordable housing. They are supposed to be objective but in fact are highly contested, as this extract from the GLA report for the aforementioned Oakmayne development from 2007 shows:</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/gla.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Councillors on Southwark's planning committee - the people who actually take the decisions - are not allowed to see viability assessments, despite their critical importance. This is not the case in all boroughs: some like Haringey and Lewisham allow councillors to view them, albeit with certain conditions. Whatever information we will receive, we will be more than happy to share.</p>
<h2>Re-phasing the Heygate</h2>
<p>The Heygate estate development <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/6817">is to be re-phased</a>. The next two phases were due to comprise 1940 homes on the main site north of Heygate street adjoining the Oakmayne site and shopping centre. The next phase is now to be of 360 homes on the south side of Heygate street site adjoining Wansey street. This is welcome to Wansey street residents, who will see that part of the development completed first rather than last within the 15 year scheduled development cycle. It might also make better commercial sense for Lend Lease to hold off from the main development, given the uncertainty surrounding the shopping centre and Oakmayne developments.</p>
<p>Consultation on the Wansey street phase <a href="https://www.elephantandcastle.org.uk/pages/news_events/215/elephant_castle.html">has now begun</a> and the planning application is expected to be submitted in September.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/heygatephases.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h2>Shopping Centre</h2>
<p>Southwark's Liberal Democrat opposition has <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/6808">called for the Compulsory Purchase of the shopping centre</a>. This is a possibility we raised in our previous blog post, but there is little doubt that the owners of the shopping centre, St. Modwen would contest such an action vigorously and have the firepower to do so effectively. There is also the impact on the retailers and shopkeepers in the centre to be considered. On the other hand, Southwark council needs to be able to exert some sort of pressure on St Modwen, or otherwise the whole regeneration will be held hostage by them. St Modwen also needs to overcome its reluctance to engage with the wider community about its plans for the centre.</p>
<p>We note Cllr Fiona Colley's <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/6808">comments on the SE1 website</a>, and are happy that she is pushing for a better deal. But this is a conversation we should all be part of: what is the offer on the table from St Modwen? And what is it that Southwark is demanding from them?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"So far, in our discussions with St Modwen, we have not been presented with a plan for the shopping centre that we believe delivers the right solution for local people or the area especially concerning appropriate levels of affordable housing." <strong>(Fiona Colley, Cabinet Member for Regeneration)</strong></p>
</blockquote>
Pink Shopping Centre Blues2013-05-04T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2013-05-04-pink-shopping-centre-blues/<p>Mystery abounds about what is happening with the Elephant & Castle shopping centre. An article purporting to give the latest information on www.costar.co.uk was removed from their website after only a day. But the google cached version can still be <a href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.costar.co.uk/en/assets/news/2013/April/600m-Elephant--Castle-shopping-centre-plans-on-hold/">viewed here</a> If the article is accurate it looks like nothing will be done until 2014 at the earliest; shopping centre owner St. Modwen/Salhia promised a planning application by the end of this year. It seems that St. Modwen and Southwark cannot agree on the amount of housing the development should have: St. Modwen want 1,000 new homes but Southwark council want no more than 500. No details are given of how much affordable housing either option would provide.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.urban75.org/photos/london/images/lon520.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>It is worth remembering that the redevelopment of the shopping centre was considered the critical element for the success of the Elephant & Castle regeneration. It was to provide the 'destination' retail units that were to attract affluent shoppers to the area, and along with private housing would raise the general level of local prosperity. After Southwark signed the regeneration agreement with Lend Lease in July 2010, it did consider the 'nuclear' option of compulsory purchase of the shopping centre, but in the event a deal was struck with St. Modwen, making them something like a third partner to the regeneration.</p>
<p>Southwark awaits the decision of its recent <a href="https://heygate.github.io/img/CPOPressRelease.pdf">Compulsory Purchase Order</a> for of Heygate leaseholders. If it is granted, will Southwark's success embolden it to revisit this option for the shopping centre?</p>
<p>Deputy Mayor for Transport Isabel Dedring, also appears to have a different idea for the shopping centre if the reference to its demolition is accurate. St. Modwen favour refurbishment and redevelopment of the existing structure. The uncertaintly surrounding the remodelling of the northern roundabout and the northern line upgrade are also big factors. A feasibility study of the roundabout's peninsularisation is due to appear this month. Agreement is still pending for the funding of the northern line tube station capacity upgrade.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/imageuploads/1311085254_80.177.117.97.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<blockquote>
<p>“It will be pivotal to the success of the Elephant & Castle project that it be treated as a single unified programme.” <strong>(Council briefing papers, 15th Sep 1999)</strong></p>
</blockquote>
Objectors excluded from sell-out Heygate hearing2013-01-16T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2013-01-16-objectors-excluded-from-heygate-hearing/<p>Objectors are fuming after being refused entry to Tuesday's public hearing for the Heygate masterplan planning application.</p>
<p>Over 40 local residents including members of the Wansey Street TRA, representatives from the Elephant & Castle's Latin American traders and local priest Grahame Shaw were refused entry to proceedings at the council's Tooley St. headquarters.</p>
<p>A total of 102 seats had been allocated for the hearing, but objectors arrived to find that around half of these had already been taken up by representatives from the developer and the council's regeneration & property divisions.</p>
<p>With Southwark's largest ever planning application and 300 objectors, a room with maximum capacity for just 100 people had been allocated to the hearing. Southwark's Head of Corporate Programmes told waiting objectors that the meeting is full, and that if people put their names on a list then they would be admitted on a one-in, one-out basis. He apologised to objectors and explained that <em>"We weren't expecting to completely sell out".</em></p>
<iframe width="350" height="197" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rHUSIcLIons" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<p>Councillor Bukola subsequently <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU4VFcLvJ3Y&">emerged from the meeting to tell</a> excluded objectors that <em>'there are a sufficient number of objectors already in the room'</em>....</p>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aU4VFcLvJ3Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<p>Fellow objector and MP Simon Hughes later arrived to find objectors barred from the meeting, and immediately <a href="https://twitter.com/swklibdems/status/291277257664770048?uid=0&iid=am-165485524613583391288878247&nid=57+452">tweeted Peter John</a> to complain about the situation.</p>
<p>After much debate with officials, the planning committee's legal officer finally intervened and the meeting was forced into recess. The 30 or so objectors who had stayed in the lobby, were then finally admitted at around 9pm - 3 hours into the hearing.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/planningcommittee3.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Those objectors who had been fortunate enough to gain entry at the beginning of the meeting, made the most of the <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-01-02-heygate-application-will-objectors-get-a-fair-hearing/">ridiculous 5 minutes allocated between them</a> in which to make their representations.</p>
<p>Among these were Jerry Flynn speaking on behalf of the Elephant Amenity Network and Adrian Glasspool representing the Heygate residents.</p>
<p>In answer to questions, Flynn made a number of points including: concerns surrounding the large number of car-parking spaces proposed; privatisation of public realm; lack of clarity in the developer's promise to retain some of the trees; lack of any renewable energy. His major two concerns though, were the masterplan proposal for just 79 social rented homes, and whether the scheme was actually financially viable - the report on the scheme described it as representing a <em>'very big risk'</em> for the developer.</p>
<p>Glasspool objected that Heygate residents had originally been promised new homes in the development, but that the 79 social rented units proposed wouldn't be sufficient to honour this pledge: <em>"An entire community has been ousted on the back of false promises that there would be a right to return."</em></p>
<p>Frustrated that such little time had been allocated for objectors to speak, some residents had prepared placards outlining their concerns. Planning Committee chair Cllr Nick Dolezal immediately halted proceedings and ordered those holding placards to leave the room.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/planningcommittee2.JPG" alt="" /></p>
<p>The meeting reconvened after Dave Walker from <a href="https://southwarkmediation.co.uk/">Southwark Mediation Service</a> was able to persuade objectors to lower their placards. Those privy to the proceedings witnessed the expected approval after the committee accepted Lendlease’s assurances that they could indeed deliver the scheme despite the risk. The application went on to be approved with councillors predictably voting along party lines, with the exception of Cllr Crookshank-Hilton who abstained.</p>
<p>Jerry Flynn's reaction to the decision was emphatic: <em>"This is very bad news for anyone desperate for a home in Southwark. The so-called ‘affordable rent’ homes will be half market rent, at least £50 a week more expensive than council rents – how could anyone who used to live on the Heygate afford that?. There are more planning applications for the Heygate in the pipeline – they must be rejected unless they have cheaper social rented homes."</em></p>
<p>Simon Hughes summed up the decision <a href="https://audioboo.fm/boos/1157878-simon-hughes-reaction-to-heygate-decision#t=2m17s">in an interview</a> with <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/6545">London SE1</a> <em>"Sadly, many people will go short of affordable housing in and around the Elephant because the council weren't tougher with the developers. It is not surprising that there was - peaceful - civil disobedience when so many people feel so strongly that this does not deliver the housing and the balanced scheme, which they have fought for for so long."</em></p>
<p>Chris Mead, Chair of the Wansey Street Tenants and Residents Association issued the following comment: <em>"As Chair of the Wansey Street TRA, I am furious that a number of Wansey Street residents (myself included) were barred from the Heygate master-plan committee meeting on Tuesday evening. Wansey Street directly borders the Heygate development area, and residents have genuine and reasonable concerns about aspects of the planning application; those concerns continue to be ignored and remain without receiving a satisfactory answer. Despite receiving over 200 objections from the wider community, less than 50 seats were provisioned for the public at the largest planning application review meeting in Southwark Council's history. At the least, this was incompetent by Council Officers and the meeting's Chairman, or at worst, a contrivance to exclude the public from what is supposed to be a transparent and democratic process."</em></p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/showustheviability.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>SE17 resident Marie Cane was one of the objectors holding up placards - she explained: <em>"the committee gave us just 5 minutes for 300 objectors to state their case. This is particularly shameful as this is the largest planning application ever submitted to the council. We have been silenced by the council, so we decided to stage a silent protest. We simply wanted committee members to remember the Council's own policy requirements. We are not against change; all we want are guarantees built into this masterplan - guarantees that the council would have required on any other development in the borough."</em></p>
<p><img src="https://www.peoplesrepublicofsouthwark.co.uk/images/stories/news/heygatein01.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Objectors had proposed a number of planning conditions upon this application, i.e. that the park should be managed by a trust, that a detailed RPA survey should be undertaken for the trees, etc.</p>
<p>It was not made clear at the end of the meeting which of these, if any, were adopted.</p>
<p>We were expecting a sell out, but - in the words of Southwark's Head of Corporate Programmes: <strong>we weren't expecting a complete sell out..</strong></p>
<p><strong>Links:</strong>
<a href="https://www.24dash.com/news/housing/2013-01-16-Protests-and-acrimony-as-Heygate-estate-regeneration-plans-approved#.UPbG82MtZlU.twitter">24Dash.com Housing Article - 16/1/13</a></p>
<p><a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SNHeygateplanningapplication17Jan.pdf">Southwark News Article - 17/1/13</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/heygate-objectors-complain-they-were-excluded-from-planning-hearing/5048879.article">Building Design Article - 17/1/13</a></p>
<p><a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/eveningstandard.pdf">Evening Standard Article - 17/1/13</a></p>
Will the Planning Committee see sense?2013-01-13T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2013-01-13-will-the-planning-committee-see-sense/<p>Weak finances, minimal social rented housing, a privatised public realm, vague energy proposals, environmentally suspect and car-friendly – the masterplan application for the regeneration of the Elephant and Castle has finally arrived after 13 years waiting.</p>
<p>The application is the largest ever submitted in the history of the borough: it has taken 9 months to process and is accompanied by over 200 supporting documents. It is also the most inequitable - offering just 71 social rented units out of 2,300 new homes.</p>
<p>Around 300 local residents have submitted objections to the application, which is due to be heard this Tuesday 15 January- 6pm at the council's offices in London Bridge (160 Tooley st).</p>
<p>Having been allocated <a href="https://35percent.org/2013-01-02-heygate-application-will-objectors-get-a-fair-hearing/">just 5 mins for all objectors to voice their concerns</a> during the hearing, the Elephant Amenity Network has sent a briefing document to councillors in the hope that they will take up the issues that can't be covered in the 5 minute slot. You can <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/PlanningCommitteeBrief12AP1092.pdf">download a copy of the briefing document here..</a> and read a summary of the points we wish to raise below.</p>
<p>The planning committee is a public meeting and anyone concerned about the future of our city and environment is encouraged to attend.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/viability.png" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>Financial Viability</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Doubts about the financial viability of the scheme</li>
<li>How will the ‘viability gap’ in the scheme be bridged?</li>
<li>How will we avoid the Heygate becoming yet another stalled development site?<br />
The viability of the scheme is described as ‘problematic’ (para. 151) and refers to a ‘viability gap’ representing 'very big risk' on the part of the applicant (para. 153). The Phase one Heygate application states: “The level of affordable housing proposed represents a level that is currently above what is indicated as being viable.” Non-viability of the scheme is also listed in the council's risk register as one of the major impediments to the scheme going ahead.</li>
</ul>
<p>How is the viability gap between the viable level of affordable housing at 9.4% and the 25% (para. 150 & 153) offered being bridged while maintaining the financial stability of the scheme?</p>
<p>The London Park Hotel and Oakmayne Plaza(Tribeca Square) sites were granted planning permission six years ago; these sites remain undeveloped. There is no reference to the time schedule for the delivery of the detailed planning applications in the report. We propose that a condition be attached to any approval of the application requiring a fixed schedule of applications.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/affordable.png" alt="" />
<strong>Housing</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Lack of social rented housing</li>
<li>Phasing of the affordable housing delivery<br />
The scheme will provide only 71 social rented units out of a total 2,300 new homes (para. 159). This is in breach of Southwark Council's planning policy, which would require approx. 400 social rented units. 198 affordable rent properties are also being provided, but they are not affordable for many residents of the borough.</li>
</ul>
<p>Affordable rent is also not a type of social rented housing. Both the National Planning Policy Framework and draft revisions to the London Plan have social rent and affordable rent as separate categories of affordable housing (with intermediate housing as a third category). A consortium of 9 boroughs including Southwark supported this position at the London Plan examination in public in November 2012. Therefore affordable rent units cannot be used to meet the social rented proportion of the affordable housing required by policy. The application should therefore be rejected on these grounds.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/affordableseventeen.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The first two tranches of the six tranches of the scheme only deliver 20% affordable housing (para. 156). This means that the first 1,200 units of the scheme will only provide 20% affordable housing. This should be changed so that 25% minimum is delivered from the beginning of the scheme.</p>
<p>An initial review of the affordable housing delivery is proposed only after two years beyond the first approved application (para. 154). We are also concerned that the conditions for changes in phasing will not be strong enough to ensure that the development is delivered in a timely fashion (para. 35).</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/animals.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>Public Realm</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>The reduction in amount of green and open space</li>
<li>The private management of the park</li>
<li>Maintaining real public accessibility of the park</li>
<li>Highway Authority concerns about Estate Management Company control<br />
The park will be managed by a private Estate Management Company (EMC). The park should be designated public open space and if not Council managed, a trust should be considered as an alternative, instead of a Parks Advisory Group (paras 326 & 380)</li>
</ul>
<p>We note the comments made by the Highway Authority that the Estate Management Strategy assumes management of the existing areas adopted by the EMC (Appendix 2 - para. 11). We share the Highway Authority's concerns and object to the public realm appearing to move into private hands.</p>
<p>We note the Highway Authority's comments quoted here and support its proposals for alternative management and enforcement regimes:</p>
<p>"General concern is raised about the proposed number of new private streets (unadopted highways) within the application given the likely impact on the council’s ability to control the network and manage the boroughs streets and spaces for the benefit of residents, businesses and the travelling public. If this course is pursued then it is strongly recommended that robust alternative management and enforcement regimes are included in any consent." (Appendix 2 - Para. 11)</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/cars.jpg" alt="" />
<strong>Car Parking</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Contrary to Southwarks car-free policy</li>
<li>Reduce the number of car-parking spaces</li>
</ul>
<p>The development is not free of car parking as originally envisioned and set out as policy by Southwark in the E&C SPD. If the scheme is not to be free of car parking, a condition should be created which sets it at a lower rate than the up to 27% of units having car parking (plus motorcycle parking plus car club places) that is currently being demanded.</p>
<p>616 car-parking spaces are proposed for the scheme (para 225) despite Council policy requiring it to be car free. The Elephant has the highest possible public transport accessibility rating (PTAL 6b) so why are so many car-parking spaces needed?
Strata Tower which has been completed has car parking set at 14%, the consented Oakmayne development 11%. Most recently St Mary’s Residential was granted at 16% (8% disabled and 8% private). If parking is to be allowed it should be at a far lower rate.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/trees.jpg" alt="" />
<strong>Trees</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Concern about caveat on retention of existing trees</li>
<li>Unnecessary removal of trees</li>
<li>Highway Authority recommendation for tree planting<br />
The applicant proposes to remove 283 and retain 123 of the 406 existing trees (para. 336). The retention of the 123 trees is compromised by a caveat deferring to detailed surveys (Root Protection Area – RPA surveys) due to be carried out during later design stages.(Tree Strategy 1 of 8, Page 22, Paragraph 6.4)</li>
</ul>
<p>These RPA surveys should be carried out now and a firm commitment given to retention of trees. A greater number of trees should be considered for retention, especially those on the north side of Heygate St. for which there appears to be no clear grounds for their removal.</p>
<p>We note the objection made by the Highways Authority that the proposed streets will be too narrow to give sufficient space between buildings for newly-planted trees to grow adequately. We support the Highway Authority's recommendation: "It is recommended that the minimum critical distance for streets be increased to 12m in all instances. In the absence of this it is unlikely that street trees and other planting will be accommodated adequately;" (Para. 11 - Appendix 2)</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/sustainability.png" alt="" />
<strong>Sustainability</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Lack of sustainable alternatives</li>
<li>Unrealistic energy centre connection proposals</li>
<li>Unfeasable biomethane fuel proposals<br />
This scheme was chosen by Bill Clinton as a global example of zero carbon development. The scheme aimed to produce enough on-site renewable energy to supply the entire Elephant & Castle area. This aim has since been abandoned and the application fails to propose any on-site renewable energy whatsoever, contrary to Southwark's policy which requires 20% minimum.</li>
</ul>
<p>We note that the application considers biomethane gas for its on-site renewable energy requirements. We don't believe that this an acceptable proposal for reasons that the report itself notes, including:
Biomethane is not classified as an on-site renewable energy source therefore it cannot meet Southwark's policy requirements (para. 411)
There is currently no supply of biomethane available in the UK (para. 410)
The applicant is not proposing to generate any biomethane gas, and makes no firm commitment to purchase any should it become available in the future
We propose that the 20% on-site renewable energy requirement is met using a combination of the alternatives listed in paragraph 406.</p>
<p>We note the report's comment that through planning permission additional plant can be installed to accommodate additional capacity (para. 404). We request that a planning condition is applied upon granting the application accordingly: The new Energy Centre should be constructed such that it has sufficient capacity to supply all of the surrounding developments as identified in the Energy Strategy.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/cyclists.png" alt="" />
<strong>CYCLING</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Inadequacies of proposed new routes</li>
<li>There is no proper transport assessment</li>
<li>There is no proper connection to strategic routes<br />
The cycling proposals fail to take sufficient account of the deaths and injuries cyclists have suffered around the Elephant and Castle. It is proposed to widen the northern roundabout, which will increase traffic flow. The new cycle connection suggested between Brandon St and Meadow Row is not more ‘direct’ as the officer's report claims, and ignores the key connection with the crossing at Falmouth Rd.
A CS6 cycle route through the Heygate site and the needs of commuter cyclists are not being considered in this application.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>S106/Community Infrastructure</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Potential net loss of 1,500 sq metres of community facilities
transport infrastructure spend<br />
The Heyate comprised a total of 2,500 sq metres of community facilities; the scheme proposes a minimum of just 1,000 sq metres. The minimum should be increased to 2,500 sq metres so that there is not net loss in community facilities.</li>
</ul>
<p>The transport infrastructure spend is still insufficient to fund improvements to the tube station and northern roundabout.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/jobs.png" alt="" />
<strong>Employment/Retail</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Will the London Living wage be paid for employment on scheme?</li>
<li>There is no long term commitment to affordable retail units for existing small and independent traders who are likely to be displaced</li>
<li>There are no targets for jobs for local residents post construction</li>
<li>There is no information on how many of the affordable retail units will be available for displaced local retail businesses.<br />
Those employed in construction jobs on the scheme should receive at least the London Living wage.
We note the minimum construction jobs target for local residents (para. 376) We would like to see a similar minimum target for local residents post construction (para. 135). A definition of the area of local benefit is also needed.
We note that the legal agreement will secure 10% of affordable retail space which will be prioritised for existing SMEs in the E&C OA. However, it is understood that this may be limited to a term of just 5 years, thereby failing to provide long-term security for small retailers.</li>
</ul>
<p><img src="https://betterelephant.github.com/images/gatedcommunity.png" alt="" />
<strong>Place Making</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>The size of the large retail units at ground floor are too large</li>
<li>The scale, height and form of the buildings need to create a positive sense of place</li>
<li>Cafes and other amenities need to be affordable<br />
The footprints of the ground floor retail spaces are considerably larger than that of many of the surrounding local businesses. The building form should create a larger number of smaller units. This would increase permeability, enrich the public domain and encourage local businesses to connect with the development.</li>
</ul>
<p>The area around the base of the Strata tower is an example of how the public realm can become marginalized through the impact of tall buildings. The scale, height and massing of the proposed development should be reconsidered.</p>
<p>The proposed cafes around the green space may not be affordable to all local people, and will therefore fail to create a truly human sense of place and inclusiveness for the neighbourhood. Smaller scale community focused businesses should be integrated within the proposals.</p>
Heygate Application - Will objectors get a fair hearing?2013-01-02T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2013-01-02-heygate-application-will-objectors-get-a-fair-hearing/<p>The biggest planning application ever submitted to Southwark Council is due to be heard by its planning committee on 15 January - the Heygate outline masterplan (12/AP/1092). It has taken Southwark 9 months to evaluate this huge application with more than 350 supporting documents, and objectors are frustrated that they will only be given 3 minutes between them to voice their concerns.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.elephantandcastle.org.uk/files/176.img.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The 35% Campaign and other objectors have made the very reasonable request that they be given more time - so far without any success.</p>
<p>There are well over 200 objectors to the masterplan application; if they all wished to speak at the hearing, then they would have less than a second each to voice their objections.</p>
<p><img src="https://southwarknotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/masterplan1.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>This is plainly ridiculous: whatever one thinks of the merits of the application, one of this size should not be determined after only hearing 3 minutes worth of objections. It makes for bad decision making and discredits the whole process.</p>
<p>We have cited examples of similar scale developments where other councils have made changes to procedure in order to accommodate the volume of objectors, but Southwark council refuse to follow suit: around 300 objections to the Ward's Corner development saw <a href="https://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=27397">Haringey Council give objectors 30 minutes</a> in which to make their representations to the Committee; a similar number of objectors to the King's Cross regeneration development saw <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/KingsCross12AP1092.pdf">Camden Council spread the planning committee hearing</a> over 3 entire evenings.</p>
<p>Southwark council's defence for this absurd approach is that objectors can rely upon committee members asking all the right questions after hearing the objectors. Past experience shows this is not always the case. Quite often committee members who don't wish to engage in debate simply stay silent.</p>
<p>It is not too late for this to change, and we hope that Southwark has a change of heart between now and January 15th. If you think this is unfair and want to add your support to our request to extend the 3 minutes, you can email the Chairman of the planning committee: Cllr. Nick Dolezal - nick.dolezal@southwark.gov.uk.</p>
Has Southwark sold the Elephant short?2012-12-09T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2012-12-09-has-southwark-signed-a-bum-deal-at-the-elephant/<p><a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/b4142/Supplemental%201%20Tuesday%2030-Nov-2010%2019.00%20Regeneration%20and%20Leisure%20Scrutiny%20Sub-Committee.pdf?T=9">Council documents</a> show that Southwark taxpayers have now forked out at least £38m in emptying the Heygate estate, and are about to put their hands in their pockets for at least another <a href="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/SNJuly2012.jpg">£15m to pay for its demolition</a>.</p>
<p><img src="https://medias.photodeck.com/32bd6aaa-7703-11e3-9b6b-89e177771d9e/JasonHawkes-8606_medium.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Questions are naturally being asked whether taxpayers will see any of this money back from the council's deal with development partner Lend Lease. According to <a href="https://betterelephant.github.com/images/Appendix_8.pdf">this report</a> from the council's Finance Director in 2007, the deal with Lend Lease involves them reimbursing the council £20m towards the £32m cost of buying out the leaseholders on the estate, £20m towards demolition costs, and a fixed payment for the land of £10m.</p>
<p>So the council is set to receive a total of £50m reimbursement for site assembly, once the Heygate site has been cleared and handed over to Lend Lease - [by which time the council is likely to have spent much more on the task]. The rest of the money the council is expecting to receive from the deal is based on a 'profit share' agreement, otherwise known as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land-sale_overage">'overage'</a>. However, it is important to understand that this 50% share of the profits comes only AFTER Lend Lease has taken a 20% 'priority share' of the profits and a 4% management fee.</p>
<p>So it remains to be seen whether there will be anything left for the council at all in 2026 when the Heygate development is due to be completed.</p>
<p>These 'profit share' or 'overage' agreements are notoriously precarious, and can be subject to disputes over accounting methods - such as the dispute erupting in Sydney last week, where Lend Lease is being <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/nsw/valuation-dispute-poses-threat-to-1b-return-from-barangaroo-20121206-2ay9e.html">taken to court by state authorities</a> over expected land payments for its Barangaroo development. Overage agreements can also be compromised by delays to development, such as with Lend Lease's Greenwich Peninsula scheme where the profit share expected from the scheme by authorities fell by £30m for each year the scheme was delayed. <a href="https://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0708/greenwich_peninsula.aspx">(National Audit Office Report – 14 July 2008)</a></p>
<p>Exactly how much Southwark council is currently expecting to recoup from the profit-share agreement at the Elephant is unclear, as it has <a href="https://35percent.org/2012-07-03-its-all-about-financial-viability/">rejected all calls</a> to publish any financial details relating to the development.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/viabilityminutes.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>If the expected profit share fails to cover the costs it has incurred in emptying the estate, and the money it will have to cough up for the tube station capacity upgrade to support the new development, then it could end up making a substantial loss on the disposal of its 24-acre primely located Heygate site.</p>
East Walworth by-election - the result2012-11-30T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2012-11-30-east-walworth-by-election-the-result/<p>Congratulations to the successful labour party candidate and new East Walworth ward councillor Rebecca Lury. Commiserations to Ben Johnson (Lib Dem) and Stuart Millson (Conservative).</p>
<p>On a cold night last Tuesday around 40 people attended an election hustings two days before polling day. The meeting was organised by Elephant Amenity Network and chaired by Dave Walker, of the Southwark Mediation Centre. It was held at Crossway Church by kind permission of Rev Peter Stevenson.</p>
<p>The three youthful candidates – Stuart Millson (Conservative), Rebecca Lury (Labour), Ben Johnson (Lib Dem) – presented themselves and their arguments well. Transport, road safety, shops, open space, home care provision were all discussed, but the Elephant regeneration, Heygate redevelopment and affordable housing provision were the main topics of debate.</p>
<p>Unsurprisingly, candidates stood by their party positions on these issues – Ben Johnson supported the demand for 35% affordable housing in all East Walworth developments; Rebecca Lury thought 25% was the best to be got on the Heygate for the moment, but hoped it could be improved over time; Stuart Millson, made the case for cheaper free market rented accommodation.</p>
<p>Questions from the floor were informed and to the point. All three candidates gave their support to a proposed neighbourhood plan for East Walworth and to making the notorious ‘finanancial viability assessments’ more transparent; these secretive reports determine how much affordable housing can be built in a development.</p>
<p>The clip below gives a flavour of debate at the meeting. Ben Johnson speaks first followed by Stuart Millson and then Rebecca Lury. The question they are answering is "will they support the financial viability assessments for the Heygate redevelopment being made public?"
Apologies for the poor sound quality.</p>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/q767lVqzYtE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
It's all happening now2012-11-24T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2012-11-19-its-all-happening-now/<p><strong>East Walworth by-election -</strong>
Labour, Lib Dem and even the Conservative activists have been energetically fighting for votes in the East Walworth ward in the run-up to polling day on Nov 29th.</p>
<p>The candidates' profiles were <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SNCandidates2.png">featured in this week's Southwark News</a>. It is disappointing to see all three candidates toeing their respective party lines on Heygate affordable housing, rather than stating out an independent position: the Conservative says - get the money and spend it elsewhere; the Labour candidate says - it's as good as we can get, fingers crossed it will get better; and the Lib-Dem says - we can get more (but doesn't say how). East Walworth needs to be represented by councillors who are prepared to put the interests of their constituents above party loyalty. The only way we are going to get any more affordable housing out of Lend Lease is by making it plain that their current applications will be rejected at planning committee unless both the level of affordable housing is increased and that rented affordable is at council rent levels. That is the commitment local people are looking for from each of the candidates.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SNCandidates2.png" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>Social rented housing is affordable but not all affordable housing is social rented -</strong>
We are strictly non-partisan so we cannot say which candidate does not yet know the difference between 'social rented' and 'affordable' housing. But they have been telling voters on the doorstep that the Heygate redevelopment will have 25% social rented housing. If only this were the case. As anyone who reads our blog will know, there is a big difference between the two: all social rented is affordable, not all affordable housing is social rented. 'Affordable rent' is the most misleading kind of affordable housing and that is what all the 1-bed and 2-bed flats will be on the new Heygate. According to <a href="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/SN800GBPaffordables2.pdf">recent research by Southwark News</a> £800 per month is what local estate agents estimate will be the affordable rent on Phase one.</p>
<p><strong>Local Election Hustings -</strong>
All the candidates have been invited to a hustings on Tuesday 27th November 7pm at the Crossway Church, New Kent rd. This is a public open meeting where electors get the chance to put their questions directly to the candidates. Topics will include not just the Heygate redevelopment but also East St. market, transport, open space, car parking, cycle routes, sustainability and green spaces. More information will be provided on this in the near future.</p>
<p><strong>Siege of the Elephant -</strong>
Alternatives to the profit-led scheme that Southwark are currently wrestling with, were discussed at a gathering of over 70 local people, housing activists and academics at Pembroke House on Saturday. Amongst many interesting presentations one was from a global architecture, design and consulting firm, who got an honourable mention for the Building Trust's <a href="https://www.buildingtrustinternational.org/homecompetition.html">'HOME' competition.</a></p>
<p>It shows how the Heygate could have been refurbished at £14,000 per unit and saved the 40,000 tonnes of embodied carbon that is going to be lost through the demolition of the estate.</p>
<p>While the proposal came in for some criticism, we think it is worth serious consideration and its time may yet come.</p>
<p><strong>Council Leader Scrutinised -</strong>
Eight pertinent questions were put to council leader Peter John and Councillor Veronica Ward about the financial viability of the Heygate redevelopment at last week's overview & scrutiny committee meeting.</p>
<p>Amongst them were how much money is Southwark getting out of the regeneration agreement, and how much money is Lend Lease getting?</p>
<p>The committee would also like to know what St. Modwens plans to do with the shopping centre, and how the funding gap for the transport infrastructure is going to be bridged.</p>
<p>Last but not least, what kind of affordable housing was Southwark actually getting out of the deal, and why should it be any less than either the 35% that policy requires or the 25% that the regeneration agreement promises.</p>
<p>Councillor John <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/6441">made an interesting comment</a> in his answers, that money paid in-lieu of building on-site affordable housing by other developers[S106 money] might be used to buy homes from Lend Lease to be let as council houses.</p>
<p>Councillor John further commented that <em>"I'm told it's not a very cost-effective way of doing things"</em> and we can see why. On-site affordable housing is sold at a fixed unit price, much lower than market price. It would hardly make sense to effectively pay Lend Lease not to build affordable housing, using money other developers have given to Southwark because they haven't built any affordable housing either.</p>
<p><strong>Simon Hughes calls for transparency -</strong>
This week's <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SNHughesFV.pdf">Southwark News also reported</a> that Simon Hughes has called for the financial viability assessments for the Heygate development to be made public.<br />
It is becoming clear that these financial documents are critical to the future of the Elephant & Castle redevelopment. The Heygate planning applications were due to go to committee in October, but have now been delayed until January. Such delays are not unusual but they usually mean that the developer and the planning department are in disagreement about a major aspect of the application.</p>
<p>Southwark Council are fully aware of the viability risks and has prudently listed them in its <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/134246/response/332306/attach/3/E%20C%20Programme%20Risk%20Log%20Oct%202012.pdf">'risk register'</a>. Lend Lease successfully argued that they could only afford the equivalent of 12 affordable housing units at the St. Mary’s Residential tower block development, instead of the 90 units policy requires (paras 41, 42 officers report, below). This demonstrates their skill in using viability assessments to justify dropping the social benefits of redevelopment schemes.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/stmary.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Making the financial viabilty assessment public would reassure the local community that this isn't going to happen on the Heygate.</p>
<p><strong>St. Mary's Residential Parties split -</strong>
The narrow approval of the planning application for St. Mary's Residential development revealed differences of opinion amongst the lib dems and labour parties: three labour councillors and two lib dems voted for the application, while two lib dems and one labour councillor voted against.</p>
<p>For - Councillors [Crookshank-Hilton(Lib Dem), Brown(Labour), Ahern(Labour), Dolezal(Labour)]</p>
<p>Against - Councillors [Merrill(Labour), Barber(Lib Dem), Morris(Lib Dem)]</p>
<p>Unlike other committees, the planning committee is not 'whipped'. This means councillors vote on the merits of the proposal as they see them and cannot be directed in their vote by the party machines. It doesn't always happen that way though. So credit to the councillors who voted against.</p>
How green will the new Heygate be?2012-11-10T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2012-11-10-how-green-will-the-new-heygate-be/<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/M9H_K3msMSc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<p>Following objections to the Heygate Phase 2 outline planning application from the Elephant Amenity Network, developer Lend Lease issued an amendment to its Energy Statement.</p>
<p>The good green news is that there are two Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants proposed within the Energy Centre. These are acknowledged to be highly efficient and are the desired solution for modern energy requirements. The bad news is that CHP will only be meeting just over half of the total heating demand of the new development. The other half will be met by good old-fashioned gas boilers.</p>
<p>Biomethane gas would make this a greener option but the supply is still in doubt. It won't be produced on-site or off-site by Lend Lease. The gas will come from the national grid but will be paid for at a premium biomethane price: a bit like green tariff electricity. Whether you can get biomethane will depend on whether there is enough being injected into the grid. There are currently no operational biomethane plants injecting into the UK gas grid. Despite this, Lend Lease claim that there is a possibility that 15% of the gas supply could be supplied by biomethane by 2020.</p>
<h2>Future (Impossible) Connections</h2>
<p>It is also a big shock to the 35% campaign that there is no guarantee that the Energy Centre on the Phase 2 Heygate development is going to be connected to the Phase 1 development. The separate Phase 1 application proposes having its own Energy Centre - again reliant on gas boilers with CHP providing just half of its total heating requirements. The outline planning application optimistically lists 14 other sites including Phase 1 that could 'possibly' be linked at some future date. But this would only be possible by installing extra plant. However, questions still remain as to whether there is enough room in the Energy Centre for extra plant and who would pay for it.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/energy9.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Let us remember that <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/2270">the fabled 'MUSCo'</a> was going to provide 10,000 homes with renewable energy. It was a pioneering scheme endorsed by Bill Clinton as a global example of 'carbon zero' development. The ambitious plans proposed a biomass CHP plant generating green heat and power from organic waste. It was also going to provide a bore-hole for a green water supply and an automated vacuum waste collection system moving municipal waste through underground tunnels.</p>
<p>Now Lend Lease have submitted applications that propose no on-site renewable energy, and which barely connect one side of the estate with the other.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.bdunlop.com/images/Elephant-and-Castle/energy_envrnmtl-services_lge.gif" alt="" /></p>
Fairer Future - Delivering our Promises2012-11-04T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2012-11-04-delivering-our-promises-a-fairer-future/<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/spd.png" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>'Fairer Future - Delivering our promises'</strong>
This is what is says on the front of the Elephant Castle Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) - the rules for developers at the Elephant. One of the promises is that 35% of the new homes will be affordable, half of which will be social rented (<a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/spdpg38.pdf">see here..</a>)</p>
<p>Naive as we are, we think Southwark should be held to this promise - particularly since it has been made repeatedly over the last 10 years, and made again as recently as March 2012, in the E&C SPD. This promise was also the major justification for moving 1200 households, tenants and leaseholders out of their homes, for demolishing their estate and losing 1200 council homes from the borough.</p>
<p>Leader of Southwark Council, Cllr Peter John has been busy this week producing
justifications for breaking these promises, which <a href="https://cllrpeterjohn.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/social-housing-at-elephant-castle.html">he describes as 'utterly unrealistic'</a>, despite it being council policy. This has involved a <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SHughesSLPOct2012.pdf">war of words</a> with Lib Dem MP, Simon Hughes. The 35% campaign is not interested in the party political battle - all three major parties have been in power at some point over the last 15 years, they all supported the regeneration plans when
they were in power and blamed the other side for its failures when they were not. So they must all take some responsibility for the mess we are in.</p>
<p>Cllr John's administration was however in the hot seat when the crunch came - the deal with developers Lendlease in June 2010, which only secured 25% affordable housing. He is vehement that nothing better could have been obtained and points to an 'independently verified viability test' that showed only 7-8% affordable housing could be built. We can't comment on the validity of this test because several FOI requests to Southwark for viability test information <a href="https://35percent.org/2012-07-03-its-all-about-financial-viability/">have been refused</a>. Let's drag this test, and any others, into the light of day so we can judge how accurate they are.</p>
<p>Cllr John has also referred to the cuts in public funding for social rented housing as another reason for the loss of affordable housing. The 35% campaign understands that the Heygate site redevelopment was never due to receive public funding for social rented housing - as it doesn't fulfil the condition of providing more affordable housing than is being knocked down, so the cuts in public funding, while deplorable have no impact on the current situation.</p>
<p>Inevitably Cllr John also blames the 2008 financial crisis. Well, as we point out above the E&C SPD, which has the 35% promise, was adopted by Southwark on 20 March 2012, four years after the crisis. It followed a <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/1822/southwark_affordable_housing_viability_study">2010 affordable housing viability assessment study</a> commissioned by Southwark from bankers BNP Paribas, which said ‘at least 35%' affordable housing at the Elephant was feasible. It is also in the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/6069/draft_affordable_housing_spd_2011">draft Affordable Housing Policy (June 2011)</a> and the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/1968/core_strategy_background_papers">Core Strategy (6 April 2011)</a>. Did Cllr John miss these meetings?</p>
<p>We are also sorry to see that Cllr John is muddying the waters by confusing 'social rented' with 'affordable rent'. The Heygate planning applications clearly distinguish between the two, and on Phase 1 there will only be 8 social rented units, the 3-4 bed units, while the 18 or so 1-2 bed units will be 'affordable rent'. Substituting 'affordable rent' for 'social rent' is a clear breach of the Regeneration Agreement and the difference between them is simple - 'affordable rent' is a lot more expensive. We reproduce our rents table from a previous blog to show the differences in SE17 rents:</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/se17rents.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/spdpg39.pdf">Elephant & Castle SPD planning policy</a> is clear on the difference between social rent and affordable rent too: <em>"We do not think that the new affordable rent tenure is affordable for people in housing need in Southwark."</em></p>
<p>Whilst Cllr John can be applauded for keeping the 'affordable rent' unit rents below the 80% maximum allowed, this is small comfort for those who still can't afford the £178pw a 1-bed flat would still cost.</p>
<p>Finally in his blog Cllr John cites other sites across London were the situation is a lot worse (Battersea Power Stn, Tower Hamlet's Wood Wharf, Earl's Court). He then supplies the reason for this - developer power. Developers bully councils with the threat that they will walk away from the scheme and they use their own questionable financial viability assessments to do so. It may be worse elsewhere but to go from 35% to 25%, particularly when much of the 25% is not actually affordable is a loss, not a win. This is not delivering promises and will not make a fairer future.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/fairerfuture.png" alt="" /></p>
Neo Elephant - social tenants not welcome2012-10-27T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2012-10-27-neo-elephant-social-tenants-not-welcome/<blockquote>
<p>"There is no affordable housing provision within the proposed scheme." <strong>(Planning Application ref 12/AP/2239, Housing Statement Paragraph 7.3)</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>In their first two detailed planning applications for the Elephant regeneration Lend Lease propose building 8 social rented units out of a total of 519 homes (Heygate Phase 1 - 235 units & St. Mary's Residential - 284 units).</p>
<p>The St. Mary's residential planning application is due to be considered at the planning committee meeting of 6th November and will have no affordable housing of any kind <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/planningcommittee.png">details here.</a>. Nor will Lend Lease be making any contribution to affordable housing offsite. Instead £3.5m is going towards building the new leisure centre that was dropped from the original Regeneration Agreement. Lend Lease is forcing Southwark to take the contribution towards the new leisure centre in lieu of social housing.</p>
<p>The officer's report reveals two further reasons for Lend Lease ditching affordable and social rented housing: first, it would bring down the value of the private homes; second, Lend Lease want to keep social rented tenants separate from private owners. This would mean building a separate 'second core', which would be required to provide:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"separate access including lifts and circulation areas to social rented accommodation within the development." <strong>(Planning Application ref 12/AP/2239, Officer's Report)</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The cost of this social apartheid makes the scheme financially unviable. Unsurprisingly Lend Lease's solution is not to build any social rented or affordable housing! A more obvious solution would be to have a single access point, a single lift shaft, a single lift for all the tenants and residents of St. Mary's residential. Tenants and residents mix happily on the Newington estate on the Rockingham estate and on every other estate at the Elephant and we don't need Lend Lease introducing residential segregation into our community.</p>
<p>We can now begin to see what vision the developers have for the new Elephant and Castle - one that doesn't include any social tenants. Strata Tower and Tribeca Sq (Oakmayne Plaza) both got planning permission without social rented homes. If they are joined by St Mary's and Heygate Phase 1 that will be just 8 units out of 1,300.</p>
<h2>The Developers' Vision:</h2>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/socialunits.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>It is not too late to lodge an objection to these inequitable applications.<br />
Send your objections by email to planning.applications@southwark.gov.uk<br />
St. Mary's Residential - <strong>Ref: 12/AP/2239</strong>
Heygate Phase One - <strong>Ref: 12/AP/2797</strong></p>
<h2>East Walworth By-election</h2>
<p><strong>East Walworth By-election - a chance for our local politicians to prove where they stand.</strong>
The polling date for the East Walworth by-election has just been announced for 29th Nov. This is a chance for the Liberal Democrat and Labour parties to really show how much support they have for affordable housing, by standing candidates who will speak against the Lendlease planning applictions for Heygate Phase 1 and St Mary's Residential. Both applications will be heard soon after the by-election.</p>
<p>The Heygate phase one application has sparked a <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SHughesSLPOct2012.pdf">war of words between local MP Simon Hughes and council leader Peter John</a>.</p>
<p>Read more in the BBC article here: <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20061007">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20061007</a></p>
Southwark Council rolled over by Lend Lease - again!2012-10-20T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2012-10-20-southwark-council-stuffed-by-lend-lease-again/<p>Southwark Council confirmed that there are only going to be 8 social rented units on phase 1 of the Heygate redevelopment, a net loss of 97 social rented units on this part of the Heygate site.</p>
<p>A public meeting last Thursday attended by Simon Hughes MP and council leader Peter John also heard that there will be no 1 or 2 bed social rented units. Instead, development partner Lend Lease has substituted 20 so-called 'affordable rented' units for social rent. The difference in rent each week is around an extra £88 for a 1-bed flat and £105 for a 2-bed flat, making the total rents £178 and £208 per week respectively.</p>
<p>It could have been worse as Councillor John was at pains to point out. The affordable rent is much favoured by the mayor Boris Johnson; he would like to see rents as high as £220 and £256 per week - 80% market rent. Councillor John said he would try to get 50% market rent from Lend Lease. This would bring it into line with phase 2 and would bring rents down to £137 and £160 per week.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/se17rents.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The 8 social rented units will be 3&4 bed homes. About 27 more units of all sizes will be part-buy/part-rent.</p>
<p>To summarise, the phase 1 development will double the density of housing to 235 homes while reducing the social rented element to almost zero. The affordable rented housing isn't as expensive as it might have been, but will still be too expensive for anybody that needs a council house.</p>
<p>Phase 2 is not much better. 2,400 homes are going to be built on this site. It will also have no one or two bed social rented homes only affordable rent at 50% market rent. The 3 or 4 bed homes will be social rented. It is impossible to tell from the application just how many affordable homes will be either 1 or 2 bed or 3 or 4 bed, hence how many will be social rent or how many will be affordable rent.</p>
<p>Both these planning applications breach Southwark's affordable housing policy, which requires 35% minimum affordable housing. Southwark justified this on the grounds that its Regeneration Agreement with Lend Lease was going to provide 25% minimum affordable housing, half of which would be social rented. Now we can see that this promise has been broken too.</p>
<p>Councillor Peter John acknowledged the many shortcomings of the application, but couldn't commit to increasing the number of social rented homes, only to bringing the affordable rent down.</p>
<p>Simon Hughes has since <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20061007">called for the phase 1 planning application to be withdrawn</a> and re-submitted with a revised affordable housing offer.</p>
Heygate Cinema Celebrates Opening Night2012-09-25T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2012-09-25-heygate-cinemas-opening-night/<p>Following last year's attempts by Southwark Council to <a href="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/unauthorised_activities.pdf">prosecute
remaining residents</a> involved in Better Elephant's interim use programme,
this year Better Elephant decided to create a pop-up cinema which can be popped
up and then quickly popped down again.</p>
<p>Around 50 people attended the opening night of the cinema last Saturday 22 Sep,
for the premiere screening of the film <a href="https://youtu.be/CnkVzJXibyI">'Doreen'</a>
made by film-makers David Reeve and Patrick Steel.</p>
<p>In the film, Doreen Gee - former Chair of the Tenants and Residents Association</p>
<ul>
<li>reminisces about the culture of the estate and what went wrong with the
regeneration.</li>
</ul>
<p><img src="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/heygate_cinema2.JPG" alt="" /></p>
<p>The evening was curated by our very own Jerry Flynn, former estate resident and
experienced local campaigner.</p>
<p>Doreen and both of the film-makers attended the event, which was followed by an
animated discussion around the regeneration and wider housing issues. The
audience included a number of former Heygate residents and residents from the
neighbouring Aylesbury estate, who were treated to a bowl of hot soup and
refreshments following the lively discussion.</p>
<p>During the discussion, Doreen - who had originally been a strong propenent of
the regeneration - spoke about the broken promises of new homes for residents
of the estate and how many were forced into unsuitable accommodation much
further afield. She also claimed she had been victimised after speaking out
against the regeneration.</p>
<p>The film was accompanied by a number of newsclips about the estate and an
description from the film-makers' new feature-length documentary about the
regeneration of the estate (<a href="https://larryandjanetmoveout.com/">Larry and Janet Move
out</a>). Film-makers David Reeve and Patrick
Steel have been filming on the estate since the decant started, and have
inspired the confidence of residents past and present. They are due to release
a feature length documentary about the estate in Autumn 2013.</p>
<iframe width="400" height="225" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sl2rSodPHV8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<p>Three days after the event, four council officers turned up to deliver the
enforcement notice pictured below.</p>
<p><img src="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/CinemaNotice.JPG" alt="" /></p>
<p><img src="https://alicecalcagno.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/dsc_9857-2.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Fortunately, the <a href="https://betterelephant.github.io/space">Better Elephant
group</a> was able to hastily pop-down the pop-up cinema on Wednesday evening
before any harm came to it.</p>
<p>The cinema will be re-erected for the next film to be screened, which is
Michael Wadleigh's 1981 film 'Wolfen' - a cautionary metaphor about real estate
speculation and urban gentrification.</p>
<h2>Hotel Elephant</h2>
<p><img src="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/daveware.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Meanwhile, 'developer-compliant' interim uses on other parts of the estate
continue with the council's full backing: <a href="https://elefest.org/">Elefest's annual festival</a> is set to take place
on the estate during 5th, 6th and 7th October. This marks the opening of the
Heygate's new 'Hotel Elephant' - the former doctor's surgery and TRA clubroom
which have been handed over to <a href="https://www.hotelelephant.co.uk/">Hotel
Elephant</a> (at nil cost) to be let out <a href="https://www.hotelelephant.co.uk/studio-space/">(for
profit)</a> as artist studios. Now
that most of the remaining residents have been removed from the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19371334">'unpopular social
housing' estate</a>, the drab interiors of the former community centre are
being converted to plush artist studios in the first step towards creating the
estate's new
community.</p>
<p><img src="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/daveware2.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Dave Ware from Southwark Council's regeneration team marked the opening of the
studios<a href="https://www.elefest.org/event/hotel-elephant-launch/">on 6th
October with</a> a performance by a gas-powered firebreathing robotic dragon.</p>
<p><img src="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/hotelelephant.jpg" alt="" />
<em>Hotel Elephant's Director Reuben Powell</em></p>
<iframe width="350" height="197" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DymdD3Nq-e0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<p><img src="https://betterelephant.github.com/images/mrstilki.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Meanwhile two of the remaining households on the estate - about to be <a href="https://heygate.github.io/displacement.html">forcibly displaced</a> -
include pensioners in their seventies & eighties. Since the council <a href="https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/00,news,19279,185,00.htm">switched their
heating off</a> in 2010, the Mustafa family and the Tilki family have been sat
at home covered in blankets huddled around a portable electric fan heater -
whilst artists and revellers gather around the spectacle of a fire-breathing
dragon in the estate's former community hall.</p>
<p><img src="https://heygate.github.io/img/mrsmustafa.jpg" alt="" /></p>
Affordable Housing - Can it get any worse?2012-09-08T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2012-09-08-affordable-housing-can-it-get-any-worse/<p>The Government has just announced that developers can re-negotiate S106 agreements for so-called stalled development sites. These agreements fund community infrastructure and affordable housing. There are several ways in which this might affect developments at the Elephant & Castle.</p>
<p>The London 360 Tower on the site of the old London Park Hotel was granted planning permission in 2007. In 2008 the developer 'First Base' - part of the Lend Lease consortium - was granted a variation in the permission, reducing the amount of affordable housing, so that they could ‘crack on with the scheme’. We’re still waiting for the Tower and the affordable housing, and there is every likelihood that First Base will be back to seek another 'variation'.</p>
<p>The development was backed by the Government regeneration agency English Partnerships which bought the London Park Hotel site for approximately £18 million with the express intention of developing affordable homes for key workers.
The first round of re-negotiations saw the 159 "intermediate affordable" reduced to 116 units. Social rented homes were increased from 29 to 35, but the number of apartments to be sold on the open market increased from 282 to 319.</p>
<p>At the time, Committee chair Cllr James Gurling noted the "dreadful irony" of the Government spending £18million on acquiring the site – part of it from Southwark Council – for affordable housing.</p>
<p>"A lot of money has gone round in a big circle and the net losers will be the people who need the help most," he added.</p>
<p>Stead St is a development of 464 new homes, 90% affordable, built specifically to re-house Heygate estate residents. Planning approval was given just last week. It will be part funded by £1m S106 contribution from the developers of 'Tribeca Square' (Oakmayne Plaza) another Tower at the Elephant. This got planning permission in 2007. Southwark were due to receive the S106 money in two tranches upon 'implementation' but like the 360 Tower, nothing has been built.</p>
<p>Can we expect the owners of the Oakmayne Plaza site to return for their money?</p>
<p>The Heygate footprint should at least secure 25% affordable housing despite the Government's actions. The phase 1 application specifies 25% and Southwark insists that 25% is guaranteed by the Regeneration Agreement despite its absence from the phase 2 Heygate outline masterplan application. Will Lend Lease forgo the opportunity of trying to take advantage of this new policy?</p>
<p>The Government promises £300m to build 15,000 affordable homes as compensation for the loss of S106 funded homes, but it remains to be seen whether any of this will be coming to the Elephant & Castle.</p>
London's largest new private park in 70 years2012-07-04T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2012-07-04-londons-largest-new-private-park-in-70-years/<p>Developer Lend Lease has rebranded its 25 acre Heygate redevelopment <a href="https://elephantpark.co.uk/"><em>'Elephant Park'</em></a> and made much of the new 'public' park it will be building. But many still remember that the site used to be home to a sizeable public park called Elephant Park, which enjoyed public open space designation in the council's planning policy[^1].</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/elephantpark.JPG" alt="" /></p>
<p>In 2006 the council removed this open space designation on the basis that <em>"The space principally addresses the needs of Heygate residents and following the demolition of the estate there will no longer be a need for this type of estate-based facility"</em>[^2]. The park was eventually closed in 2011 amidst <a href="https://elephantamenity.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/no-more-football-on-the-elephant-park/">fierce opposition</a> from residents. It was subsequently divided in two, with one half leased to the neighbouring <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/tribeca-square">Delancey 'Tribeca Square' development</a> to be used as a compound and the other half to Lend Lease for use as a <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/popup-shopping-mall-to-make-elephant-and-castle-the-new-shoreditch-9022978.html">box park & sales showroom</a>.</p>
<p>According to a <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/HeygateCommunityAssetAudit.pdf">2002 audit by planning consultant Michael Parkes,</a> the Heygate estate used to comprise a total 24,195 square metres of public amenity open space.</p>
<p>Lend Lease & Southwark claim that the new park will be <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/672/final_masterplan_for_heygate_estate_revamp_revealed">central London's largest park in more than 70 years'</a>. However, according to Lend Lease's <a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9544643">planning application</a>, the new park will not be designated open space and will be just 8,220 square metres in size - representing a net loss of more than two thirds of the Heygate's former open space.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/parkdimensions.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>When probed during the Feb 2013 CPO public inquiry into the scheme, architect <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/KenShuttleworthCPOevidenceFeb2013.pdf">Ken Shuttleworth said</a> the 'largest park in 70 years' claim is based in relation to the nearby Geraldine Harmsworth Park (Imperial War Museum), which received designation in 1934. But we did a little research and found that the claim to being central London's largest new park in 70 years is pure fiction and plainly ridiculous. In fact, it's not even the largest new park in Southwark in 70 years - let alone central London: the following <a href="https://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!3CFumZzyYn8kb1LBVrWDlg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d">Southwark parks</a> are all larger than the one proposed by Lend Lease (0.82H) and have all received open space designation since the Geraldine Harmsworth park was opened in 1934:</p>
<pre><code>*Potter's Field 1.35H
*Mint Street Park .92H
*Leathermarket Gardens 1.15H
*Tabard Gardens 1.75H
*Dickens Fields 1.20H
</code></pre>
<p>The <a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/254738_1.pdf">planning application documents</a> also show that the Heygate's new park will be just 42m wide (around the same width as New Kent rd), overshadowed by 12-30 storey buildings and hemmed in by a new road servicing the development's 700 new car-parking spaces[^1].</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/parkcrosssection.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>This is a real kick in the teeth for local residents who can remember the promises of the original regeneration plans. These proposed a sizeable public park and public open space on the site of the Heygate as can be seen from the <a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/198503633/EandC-RegenMk1SLRplans">original masterplan</a> illustrations:</p>
<p><img src="https://heygate.github.io/img/elephantparkcomparison.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>Furthermore, the remaining green spaces on the development will consist of 'raised courtyards' enclosed between clusters of blocks, which will have zero public access:</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/heygate_raised_courtyards2.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>But what is even more disconcerting is that the planning application's <a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/224077_1.pdf">'Estate Management Strategy' statement</a> states that the new park - and indeed the entire footprint of the development - is going to be privately owned and privately managed:</p>
<p><em>"The long term regeneration vision is founded on the core principles of place making and central to this is the effective management of the spaces around Plots in addition to effective Plot and building management."</em> (para. 10)</p>
<p><em>"It is likely that an umbrella Estate Management Company (EMC) will be created, with separate Plot Management Companies responsible for managing each Plot sitting under it. Each Plot will have its own Plot Management Company (PMC). Each PMC will be controlled by the leasehold owners of the new homes, the Registered Provider and the leasehold owners of the retail spaces within the Plot."</em> (para. 2.2)</p>
<p><em>"The Estate Management Company (EMC) will hold the land on a long leasehold basis from Lend Lease. The Estate Management Company shall be controlled by a main board of directors responsible for managing the company."</em> (para. 4)<br />
<img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/emc.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The Estate Management Strategy appears to have quite clear ideas of how behaviour within the site will be monitored and controlled:</p>
<p><em>"Anti‐Social Behaviour Policy - The principles set out in the Anti‐Social Behaviour Policy will lay out common standards for the delivery of effective anti‐social behaviour services across the Estate, the Plots and as part of tenancy and leasehold management."</em>(para. 7.5) <br /></p>
<p><em>"Security - The EMC and PMCs will have a key role in linking with local agencies, in particular the police, Southwark’s Anti‐Social Behaviour (ASB) services and the town centre security team and the local Community Safety teams."</em>(para. 8.2)</p>
<p><img src="https://betterelephant.github.io/images/gatedcommunity.png" width="200" align="left" style="margin:10px" />Further reference to the proposed privatisation of the space is found in the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/4928/cdh34_elephant_and_castle_regeneration_agreement_appendix_6">Master Regeneration Plan</a>: <em>"To ensure that the high quality external environment is maintained the completed site will be managed by its own security, maintenance and cleaning service."</em>(para 2.8)</p>
<p>We have been campaigning in vain to have what little open space there is in the new development formally adopted by the council. Unfortunately it looks like the new 'Elephant Park' is going to be yet another addition to London's growing list of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/aug/24/cheesegrater-london-review-tower-of-no-small-ambition">POPAS</a> (Privately Owned Publicly Accessible Spaces).</p>
<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p>
<p>[^1]: Elephant Park was designated as Public Open Space (ref:A20) in the borough's <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SouthwarkPlan_OpenSpaces.pdf">Unitary Development Plan</a>
[^2]: See paragraph 52 of <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/CastleIndustrialEstateOR.pdf">this planning officer report</a></p>
It's all about Financial Viability2012-07-03T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2012-07-03-its-all-about-financial-viability/<p>The redevelopment of the Heygate estate is essentially a land sale to a private developer. The Council <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SNarticle.png">get a capital receipt</a> for the land and the developer provides some infrastructure and community benefits. There is an assumed <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/spdprofit.png">profit to the developer of 20%</a> of the total costs plus the profit left over when all the new buildings have been sold. The community benefits that were originally supposed to be provided in return for the Heygate redevelopment <a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/82420796/Southwark-Council-2004-Development-Framework">were to include</a>:</p>
<ol>
<li>A new school</li>
<li>A new library</li>
<li>A leisure centre</li>
<li>Affordable housing</li>
<li>A MUSCo energy utility</li>
<li>Upgrades to local public transport</li>
</ol>
<p>Plans for the school and library have now been dropped, and the leisure centre is being developed in a <a href="https://londonist.com/2012/03/further-elephant-and-castle-plans-revealed.php">separate land-sale development</a>.</p>
<p>The Heygate site was also supposed to provide <a href="https://localhost:4000/images/southwark_50percentcopy.png">50% affordable housing</a> and a <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/5052">MUSCo</a> - (a biomass energy generation plant), which was going to provide 'green' heat and power for the whole E&C and Walworth area including the proposed development at the Aylesbury estate. This was in line with the 'zero carbon' objectives for the scheme, which proposed that the new developments would all be carbon neutral and enabled it to be <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/6032">selected as one of Bill Clinton's Climate Positive Initiatives</a>.</p>
<p>Now these too have been dropped from the scheme: the outline planning application contains no minimum guarantee of any affordable housing, and the biomass Combined Heat & Power network has been <a href="https://35percent.org/2012-06-26-environmental-impact-understatement/">dropped in favour of a standard gas-fired boiler</a>, which will only supply the new homes on the Heygate footprint.</p>
<p>Lend Lease acknowledges that these changes are a significant deviation from the original plan and also a breach of planning policy, but justifies this in its planning application by claiming that these are constraints imposed by the financial viability of the scheme:</p>
<p><strong>Sustainability</strong>
<em>“A number of other alternative renewable energy sources are considered in the strategy. However, they do not secure the quantum of CO2 savings that are anticipated through biomethane and impact on the commercial viability."</em></p>
<p><strong>Affordable Housing</strong>
<em>“The outline planning application commits to the Site delivering as much affordable housing as is financially viable."</em></p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/viabilityminutes.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>It would therefore appear that financial viability is the key variable in the whole scheme and the main determinant of whether it will provide any community infrastructure at all.</p>
<p>Members of the local community have raised concerns about the proposed loss of community benefits from the scheme, and have <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/viability_assessment_for_plannin#outgoing-205692">asked the Council to share information</a> about the scheme's viability. However, the Council has refused to make public any details concerning viability claiming that it is <em>"likely to prejudice the commercial and economic interests of both the council and Lend Lease."</em></p>
<p>All that has been released concerning viability so far is a <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/financial_viability_of_proposed#incoming-288071">series of heavily redacted minutes</a> from Council meetings with Lend Lease and its planning consultants 'DP9'.</p>
<p>The Government's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homes_and_Communities_Agency">Homes & Communities Agency</a> has acknowledged these viability issues and has recently <a href="https://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/sites/default/files/investment_and_planning_good_practice_note.pdf">published guidelines for local authorities</a> in responding to the economic downturn:</p>
<p><em>"The HCA strongly encourages stakeholders to employ a transparent approach to considering viability. Transparent viability appraisals have the potential to remove the mistrust and suspicion that has often characterised negotiations around the viability of planning obligations sought by adopted planning policy."</em></p>
<p>The 35percent campaign urges Southwark to release information relating to viability testing, so that we can better understand why the scheme's original community benefits can no longer be provided.</p>
<p>We think this is especially important since <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/SNLLFraud12July2012.png">Lend Lease's recent conviction for serious fraud</a> in connection with a similar regeneration scheme in New York.</p>
<p>If you are a Southwark resident and wish to add your voice to this demand, you can do so by lodging an objection by following the instructions on the <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/485/planning_applications/686/comment_on_planning_applications/3">link here.</a> The planning application reference number is 12/AP/1092.</p>
Environmental Impact Understatement2012-06-26T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2012-06-26-environmental-impact-understatement/<p>The Elephant & Castle regeneration has been hailed as a global example for sustainable growth. It has been declared an 'Energy Action Area' by the GLA and in 2009 it was fortunate enough to be selected by Bill Clinton as one of 16 worldwide projects <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/6032">signed up to the Clinton Climate Positive Development Program</a>, which aims to create 'carbon neutral' urban development.</p>
<p>However, the <a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/224079_1.pdf">Energy Statement</a> in the recently submitted planning application for the redevelopment reveals that the 'zero carbon' target has fallen by the wayside and Lend Lease has missed the Clinton program's boat: All forms of renewable energy provision have now been dropped from the development proposals.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/csh.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>This is not just a blow for Southwark Council's administration and Lend Lease's sustainability credentials, but also a breach of planning law. Furthermore, if Lend Lease aren't able to rush all the detailed planning applications through before 2016 it will also be a breach of building regulations - National Building Regulations state that all new homes built from 2016 onwards must be built to zero carbon standards and therefore comply with Code Level 6 of the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH):</p>
<p>Lend Lease's outline planning application proposes to build the new homes to CSH level 4 - the level 6 requirement is only binding on applications made from 2016 onwards.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/musco.jpg" width="300" align="right" style="margin:10px" /><strong>The 'Fairly Tale' Solution</strong><br />
The original regeneration agreement included plans to provide a Multi-Utility Services Co. (MUSCo) renewable energy plant, which would be powered by a biomass CHP boiler fuelled by organic waste. The utility would provide environmentally-friendly heating, hot water and power to the Heygate redevelopment, the <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/1692">Heygate early housing sites</a>, <a href="https://www.building4change.com/page.jsp?id=473">the Strata Tower</a> and other new developments at the Elephant (<a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3641">Oakmayne</a>/<a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3475">London 360</a>/<a href="https://londonist.com/2012/03/further-elephant-and-castle-plans-revealed.php">Leisure Centre</a>). It was also <a href="https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=16241">going to supply</a> the new Aylesbury estate development and the existing Salisbury and Newington housing estates, making it the largest biomass-fuelled district heating network in London and reducing the overall carbon footprint by a total of 70% compared to gas-fired boilers. However, the <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/5052">MUSCo plans were eventually dropped</a> from the Lend Lease Regeneration Agreement because the estimated costs were too high. The scheme had become 'a fairy tale' according to Southwark's head of regeneration.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/muscoarea.png" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>The 'Boiler House' Solution</strong><br />
<img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/heygateboilerhouse.JPG" width="300" style="margin:10px" align="left" />The replacement solution to the MUSCo is to replace the existing gas-fired boiler with a replacement gas-fired boiler. The existing gas-fired boiler on the Heygate supplied heat and hot water through a district heating network (DHN) to over 2,000 homes on the estate and the neighbouring Salisbury estate. This boiler has now been switched off, and the Salisbury estate DHN is currently being supplied by a temporary oil-fired boiler. According to the planning application, the replacement gas-fired boiler will only supply heat and hot water to the 2,500 new homes on the Heygate redevelopment. Its district heating network will not extend beyond the Heygate footprint - it will not supply the Salisbury estate, and will not be supplying telecoms, potable water, non-potable water, drainage, gas, fibre-optics and vacuum waste as the original MUSCo had planned to. Proposals to supply other estates and developments have been dropped, and all methods of supplying heat and water that rely on renewable sources of energy have been rejected on grounds of their <a href="https://35percent.org/2012-07-03-its-all-about-financial-viability/">cost impact on viability</a>. The existing standard gas-fired boiler and district heating network is being replaced with a new standard gas-fired boiler and district heating network - (albeit a smaller network comprising just the Heygate development).</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/HeygateDHN.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>The implications of this for the E&C's 'zero carbon' objectives are clearly far reaching, but putting these aside there is one further complication: Southwark Council has set a planning policy requirement that for all new major developments, 20% of the energy demand should be met by on-site renewable energy generation: <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/5823/adopted_core_strategy"><em>"Major development must achieve a reduction in CO2 of 20% from using on-site or local low and zero carbon sources of energy."</em></a></p>
<p>The originally planned biomass CHP boiler would have met this on-site reneweables requirement several times over. However, Lend Lease's planning application states quite clearly that the 'impact on commercial viability' i.e. the high capital cost of a biomass boiler is the reason that it has been rejected.</p>
<p>Lend Lease acknowledges in its Energy Statement that its application does not currently fulfill this 20% on-site requirement. It attempts to mitigate this by claiming that it will seek to source some of its gas requirement in future from renewable gas sources. It states that one possible future source of renewable gas may be procured from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogas">biomethane</a> plants located off site, which would work in the same way as green electricity currently does. However, the problem is that there is only <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11433162">one operational biomethane injection plant</a> in the UK and this supplies just 200 homes. The obvious solution of course would be to build one, and it goes on in the Energy Statement to come very short of saying that it will do so: <em>"Lend Lease will seek to work with the GLA, SC and others to locate a biomethane generating plant in London. This could mean that waste from the proposed Development could be used as an energy source."</em></p>
<p>The Elephant Amenity Network are objecting to this application. We do not believe that the proposed development will contribute towards achieving the sustainability objectives set out in the local planning policy and the draft Elephant and Castle Master Regeneration Plan. In order to be acceptable, we are requesting that the current application is amended to include a firm commitment by Lend Lease - either to construct a biomethane generation unit or install a biomass CHP boiler, and to extend the DHN network to neighbouring estates and developments as was agreed in the Regeneration Agreement.</p>
<p>If you are a Southwark resident you can object to these plans. Just type your name, address and email address into the form below, and your objection will be sent directly to Southwark council's planning office. A copy of your objection will also be sent to your local ward councillors. It is best if you use your own words but we have suggested some for you to start with:</p>
<iframe class="iframe2" src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/contact" width="550px" height="500px"></iframe>
<p>If you don't live in Southwark you can sign our petition to the Mayor of London asking him to have the planning application called in and reviewed:</p>
<iframe class="iframe2" src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/petition" width="550px" height="500px"></iframe>
How low can you go?2012-05-31T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2012-05-31-lend-lease-respond-to-35-percent-campaign/<blockquote>
<p>"The application documents do not refer to a minimum level of 25% affordable housing" <strong>(Case Planning Officer(12/AP/1092), 18 May 2012)</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Much weight has been placed upon the 25% minimum affordable housing in Lend Lease & Southwark's regeneration agreement. We couldn't find it in the Masterplan application (12/AP/1092) and the case officer confirmed its absence from the housing and planning statements. However, there is a reference to the 25% in the application, found courtesy of Soundings and Lend Lease: if you look very carefully you can find it in the <a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/224053_1.pdf">draft S106 Heads of Terms document</a>.</p>
<p>S106 refers to the money developers pay to improve local amenities and provide community benefits when their planning applications are approved. It can be cash or in kind and it covers the provision of affordable housing. We had a close look at the Heads of Terms document to see what it tells us:</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/S106.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Under the 3rd column heading shown on the left there is an absence - instead of a figure we have a dash. We not quite sure what this means, but we note that in all other categories of S106 expenditure precise figures are given.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/S1062.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Under the 5th column shown on the right we can see Lend Lease does intend to provide affordable housing on site, but in the 6th column, which should tell us the total amount of this contribution there is nothing. Again, in all other categories of S106 expenditure precise figures are given.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/S1063.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The critical part of this last column is the first sentence: <em>"The outline planning application commits to the Site delivering as much affordable housing as is financially viable in line with planning policy."</em> The sentence omits that planning policy requires a minimum level of affordable housing of 35% - only when a developer thinks it cannot meet this requirement do they submit a financial viability assessment to determine how much they can build. The final sentence is a simple restatement of what is in the regeneration agreement -__ it is not a legally binding condition of the planning application.__</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/S1064.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>The only other reference to the level of affordable housing to be provided can be found in the planning application's <a href="https://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/225206_1.pdf">Supplemtary Planning Statement</a> below. We can see from this that a financial viability assessment has already been conducted, so both Lend Lease and Southwark also have an idea of just how much affordable housing this development can sustain. We think they should share this information with us.</p>
<p><img src="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/supplementaryplanning6.png" alt="" /></p>
How much affordable housing are we getting?2012-05-30T00:00:00Zhttps://35percent.org/posts/2012-05-30-how-much-affoaffordable-housing-are-we-getting/<p>Southwark Council and Developers Lend Lease have been provoked into <a href="https://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200183/elephant_and_castle/2045/elephant_and_castle_regeneration_agreement/1">reiterating their commitment</a> to a minimum guarantee of 25% affordable housing by the 35% campaign.</p>
<p>The 35% campaign aims to secure 35% affordable housing promised by Southwark Council's planning policies. There is no guaranteed minimum included in the Heygate Masterplan outline planning application(12/AP/1092). Southwark Council claim that the outline application does not need to have the minimum guarantee and that it will be included in future detailed applications.</p>
<p>Jerry Flynn, spokesperson for the Elephant Amenity Network (EAN) said <em>"It beggars belief that Lend Lease should not say how many affordable houses they will be building in the outline planning application. The most important question for local people about this development is - will we be able to live there? 'wait and see' isn't a good enough answer. This application will set the benchmark for the detailed applications and without it the minimum could well be zero - just like <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3641">Tribeca Square</a> and the <a href="https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/5896">Leisure Centre development</a>."</em></p>
<p>The EAN is leading the call for Southwark Council to send the application back to Lend Lease and tell them to include the 35% minimum guarantee of affordable housing set out in the <a href="https://crappistmartin.github.io/images/Core_Strategy_82.pdf">Council's planning policy</a>.</p>
<p>It is also pressing the council to make public the confidential financial viability assessment that Lend Lease submitted with its planning application, so that the local community can see for itself why it says it hasn't the money to build 35% affordable housing (see pg. 6 of the Supplementary Planning Statement).</p>
<p>The EAN has mounted the 35% campaign - <a href="https://35percent.org/">www.35percent.org</a> - to hold Lend Lease to Council policy and ensure that at least 800 of the new homes are affordable. It is demanding that the planning application (ref- 12/AP/1092), due for decision in OCT 2012, is rejected.</p>
<p>NOTE: The Elephant Amenity Network is a community group made up of local residents and traders campaigning for open planning, open access to green and recreational spaces and 50% truly affordable housing.</p>
<p>BACKGROUND: Southwark Council and Lend Lease signed a regeneration agreement including the redevelopment of Heygate estate footprint in July 2010. The development of the footprint will be in two phases - the Heygate masterplan for phase 2 (12/AP/1092) including 2,400 new homes has just been submitted. The development will also include retail, business, leisure and community facilities.</p>
<p>Elephant Amenity Network</p>
<p>For any enquiries please contact: <strong>admin@35percent.org</strong></p>