Early February. A lonely figure donning a high-vis
jacket grapples clumsily with a pile of traffic cones as he scours the site
collecting the remaining souvenirs of the building’s time as an abandoned concrete
skeleton.
Not the most glamorous start but nevertheless from
these understated beginnings we can anticipate the completion of a building which
has become an all too familiar blight on the Harrow skyline. Bradstowe House.
Building work at the site has stood still since 2009 when developers Comer Homes were unable to complete the
project.
'…the council does not have the power to force a private landowner to start building against their will…'
Stephen Kelly, Harrow Times, 26 Sep 2012
It's difficult to deny that this isn't good news for Harrow. But it must also be noted that there is a certain facet of the discussions surrounding the project's recommencement which hasn't really been given the attention and or significance it merits.
At the heart of the negotiations concerning
Bradstowe House was a £2,064,960 sum dedicated for the provision of
affordable housing. A Section 106 planning obligation. This sum was once
such a vital part of the building’s planning permission that the project was
rejected in 2001 by the Greater London Authority on the basis that the
provisions made were not at an ‘appropriate level.’ What the development will provide in respect of this affordable housing
obligation is now unclear. The planning permission was only granted following an appropriate review of this obligation.
Town and Planning Act 1990 Section 106
Section 106 allow councils to attach legally binding planning obligations to a piece of land and which can be used to impose specific conditions on developments ensuring they are of benefit to affected communities. Affordable housing, for example, is a particular priority and Harrow council is committed to achieving a 'maximum reasonable proportion of affordable housing on qualifying sites.'
The argument has been posed, not least by prominent Conservative politicians, that the Section 106 obligation was hindering the completion of the project.
“Bradstowe House and similar developments stalled partly due to over-ambitious affordable housing requirements, preventing the development of hundreds of new homes and leaving eyesores in their town centres"
Steve O’Connel, GLA Conservative Spokesman for Planning, 4th July 2013
Comer Homes naturally agreed and when they applied for
permission to alter planning permission in May 2013 it was argued that the £2
million subsidy for affordable housing was simply unreasonable.
‘The commercial viability of Bradstowe House has been marginal for some time and as a result the building has remained uncompleted.’
Harrow Planning Committee, May 2013
The London property market is spiraling out of
control. Property prices have risen beyond their pre-financial crisis peak. Does Harrow exist outside of this bubble? What
are the conditions under which the completion of an already half-built housing
project is construed as un-commercially viable? Is it really true that the
demands of the council are simply too high given the margins that property
developers such as Comer Homes dice with?
Instead of a lump sum, the new proposal stated the planning obligation would
be fulfilled by the provision of large scale private rented accommodation i.e.
the sale of completed flats to Registered Providers (Housing Associations). The council hasn't concealed its disappointment:
‘Whilst disappointed that the outstanding funds for off-site affordable housing delivery are not currently able to be provided by the development due to viability issues, the Council’s Housing Division are broadly supportive of the large scale private rented housing solution, proposed in this case.’
Harrow Planning Committee, May 2013
The council feels there should be
a greater contribution to the provision of affordable housing and it seemed their intention to to seek to place
into the contract a ‘claw-back cause:’
‘to ensure that any future uplift in the gross development value is made available to the council’
Harrow Planning Committee, May 2013
With work going ahead and the Council's Major Developments panel advising that the Section 106 agreement was reached in October, the sealing of this important aspect of the deal has not been publicised.
Even after a fairly exhaustive search we have been unable to find out what has been eventually agreed, surely this information should be freely available? How much of a compromise is the new agreement? Did Comer Homes effectively hold the council to ransom wielding the eyesore? Do we all need to be vigilant and monitor the develops fortunes should we need to press for the claw back cause to be put into effect.?
What agreement was reached regarding the affordable
housing Section 106 obligation on this site?
No comments:
Post a Comment