Planning Update – No Social Housing…But Big Money On The Table

No social housing but a massive profit for HTH developers

As you may be aware the developers have now submitted a detailed planning application for the refurbishment of Hornsey Town Hall. If you want to read the full application you can access it here

What we suggest you look at is the HTH Viability Report Jul 2017. You will see that all of the key figures are redacted but we are indebted to opinion8 (and the many others) for instructions as to how to unredact the figures.

If you do you will see that FEC project a profit from the venture of £22.6 million; that there will be No affordable housing and that the benefit to Haringey (other than the restoration of the Town Hall and a small capital receipt) is minimal.

We want your views so that we can accurately represent the views of the people of Haringey. Please post your comments.

We will be scrutinising all the planning documents and will write to you again shortly with a more detailed briefing note

Thank you for your support

We look forward to hearing from you

52 Replies to “Planning Update – No Social Housing…But Big Money On The Table”

  1. Absolutely outrageous considering that this is a public building on valuable public land. What with the value of the land and property prices in the area this is a very bad deal. I can’t believe Harringay Council are agreeing to it.

    Having enjoyed attending several events at the Town Hall over the past few months, including the Arts Festival music event, ‘A Journey Round Ulysses’ with James Joyce’ and ‘May Daze’, I wonder if it really needs what FEC is proposing? Surely funds could be raised and there must be grants available to keep the Town Hall under local control?

    Isn’t it time to consult with local MPs, councilors, and residents to find an alternative to a quick sale to foreign investors whose main concern seems to be making a profit for themselves?

    1. This has all been tried before. The council have stymied and attempts to have HTH under the control of the community. Yiu must realise ‘Coubcil knows best.’

    2. It is a priority that the town hall remains to provide the community with a social events centre. The wants and needs of this community are more important than developer profits.

  2. I have written to the Ham and High. Old fashioned I know in this day and age but still.

    To: The Editor Ham and High Broadway

    Sir

    There is currently a planning application awaiting assessment by Haringey’s planning department for Hornsey Town Hall.

    The applicant is FEC (Crouch End) Ltd, part of the group which won the OJEU procurement process.

    When the OJEU process began, council leader Cllr Claire Kober rightly said that when something “doesn’t feel quite right the best thing to do is to re-group . .[ ] or rethink the strategy . . .” The full quote is below.

    I wonder just how not “quite right” things have to be before a new strategy is sought. FEC has moved some considerable distance from the position that won it the bid. Three examples of this are the decision to put in a new, full planning application after all, on a larger scale than the previously permitted 2010 development, and the abandonment of the high quality four star hotel and offering absolutely no affordable housing.

    The details of the promised art centre are, at best, sketchy.

    Haringey has published a confidential document on its planning website setting out the details of the very, very poor deal Haringey has struck with FEC.

    This seems to me to be “not quite right”. I wonder can we expect Cllr Kober to stand by her statement?

    Your faithfully
    Adrian Essex

    “If we go out to procurement and the right solution isn’t found, will we be bold enough to say “this isn’t working” and go back to the drawing board?’ – when something’s not going right and doesn’t feel quite right the best thing to do is to re-group and take the tough decision of saying it’s probably right that we don’t go down this route and we either, in the case of procurement, stop the procurement and go out again or rethink the strategy more fundamentally.”

  3. Haringey “Labour” Council do not represent the Labour that I relate to.

    I am a professional musician…..
    Therefore, I love venues, however, we are refurbishing the Town Hall which IS a venue that is already functioning RIGHT NOW, without the cash. We don’t need flash decorations and hiked ticket prices.

    Not a million miles away we have another expensive refurbishment of the theatre at Alexandra Palace.
    How do these two large venues run profitably so near to each other?

    In spite of my artistic interest, I am in no doubt that affordable housing is the most important issue yet our “Labour” council drop all promises at a sniff of a profit.
    Similar to the fiasco surrounding Tottenham regeneration.

    Don’t get me wrong, I am a member of the Labour party yet I find it very difficult to view Haringey council’s development and housing activities with anything but disdain.

    STOP GIVING IN to the big private investors, if you are strapped for cash tackle central government, do not ghettoize Haringey into a wealthy-only persons’s residential zone.

    Where are your principals?

  4. What possible benefit is there to Haringey or to the local community from this scheme which seems to offer a large profit to the developer but no social or affordable housing?
    It should be rejected and sent back to the drawing board to come up with a plan that provides facilities and accommodation for the wider community including housing for larger families.

    1. I heartily agree with all the above: Haringey is in desperate need of social and affordable housing, not more, expensive housing at commercial rates in the already too expensive area. An expensive hotel is not needed, either, or so-called ‘mews’ accommodation, for which read the smallest possible rooms. The land value alone is worth far more to all of us in Haringey, not to be sold to commercial developers, whose project profit is massive and who would sell continuing ground rents – cause of untold misery right now and under review.

      This is certainly one application that should be rejected. Why not let smaller, local developers take on separate parts, such as the already viable arts venue?

  5. Affordable housing is needed everywhere in London. If this goes through as proposed it will be another development that is bought by overseas investors who are purely invested in making profit. This will only push up rental prices in the area which are already at an all time high.

  6. I do not understand why such a huge development/restoration project which has a former public building at its heart does not feature affordable housing and will return minimal profits to the borough. I have seen people asking for a room for the night in Crouch End because they work on a low wage in local supermarkets but live in the far reaches of South London. Why does this scheme not ensure that lower paid workers can live and work in the same area? This whole scheme has sold to us as something that will benefit the borough but it clearly isn’t benefiting the people who work and live in it. There are numerous small businesses based in the Town Hall who will have to find alternative studios which are few and far between. I hope that planning is not approved for a scheme which does not have working studios and affordable housing at its heart. If they can achieve this in cities like New York, why not London? This is what people need a lot more than a hotel.

    1. There is no will within the council to ensure a scheme such as you describe. They wish to hive it off to big business and have done with it. If the benefits to the local community / the homeless are non-existent or negligible – so be it. The terms of the dela fly in the face of everything the national party stands for: but the national party does not wish to get involved. When advised of this they turned 180 deg. and walked in the other direction. Too much of an embarrassment.

  7. In 2017 there HAS to be affordable housing in every area. It’s not an option. There just are some people who will never be able to afford to buy. Ever. Always. Some compassion please.

  8. As a Horney resident I strongly oppose handing over the town hall to these greedy developers who have no commitment to the Borough, other than to wring every last penny from it.

  9. My family regularly attend community events inside this beautiful but neglected local building. We do not want a profit focused development in Crouch End, we want a restored town hall building that will benefit the whole community, inclusive of new affordable homes, for local people – without huge profits going to private companies.

  10. This deal goes against what ought to be one of the core principles of a labour council…to provide homes that people can afford. Think again!

  11. Also -sorry picked it out of the Economic Viability Appraisal

    Annex*and*energy*centre.*Refurbishment*and*change*of*use*of*the*Hornsey*Town*Hall* from*
    b1* use* class* and* suiBgeneris* to* a*mixed* use* scheme* comprising* a* hotel* (use* class* c1),* food*
    and*beverage*uses*(use*classes*a3*and*a4),*community*uses*(use*class*d1,*d2*and*suiBgeneris)*

    So a hotel! and grotty food and drinks. Just turn it into a Wetherspoons and be done with it.

    I am so upset – no public housing included.

  12. Very upset to read this. With all of the growing awareness of the need for affordable housing everywhere across London, and in order to avoid ghettos of both rich and poor, this sounds like a very bad plan indeed. It isn’t rocket science to see that by not providing affordable housing we are segregating our society and making things increasingly impossible for local people who want to stay close to their roots, homes and communities.

  13. Completely Shameful!! – in light of K and C’s unravelling storm I would hope Haringey could have learnt lessons. Let’s campaign to shame those who are profiting from this and ensure community benefits from this sale. It is not too late – ever.

  14. How can this be a Labour council’s response to a severe housing crisis?
    The national Labour party has moved, with massive public support despite mainstream media’s constant attack to the left.
    Haringey Council seems to be adopting the most Thatcherite interpretation of Blairite Labour, whic is now dead in the water.
    It is time for progressive Labour councillors to sweep away the current scum in charge and turn around this brown envelope travesty of a scheme for this publicly-owned land and building.

  15. Totally unacceptable. Their is no affordable housing, this is a public building and public land. As a Labour member, I am disgusted with this labour council.

    We want a restored town hall, not a profit greedy monster on our door steps!!!

  16. All major new developments should provide affordable housing. London is in desperate need of more affordable housing.
    Shame on the developers and Haringey council for missing this opportunity to save an iconic building and provide needed affordable housing.

  17. I am strongly of the view that the Council should reject the current planning application on the grounds that it fails to provide ANY Social Housing.
    The scheme contains 144 units of which at least 25% should be Social Housing units.
    I do not object to the scale of the Housing provided but it MUST provide affordable housing for local people.

    It beggars belief that a Labour Council, which owns the site, have failed to negotiate for the provision of any Social Housing in the current proposals. What is the point of voting Labour in the local elections if this is an example of their inability to put their Housing Policies into practice.

  18. Robert Wallwork said “I am strongly of the view that the Council should reject the current planning application on the grounds that it fails to provide ANY Social Housing.
    The scheme contains 144 units of which at least 25% should be Social Housing units.”

    That seems like solid ground to proceed on. However, the behaviour of FEC doesn’t inspire confidence. Especially with their boast of more than £22m profit (to their shareholders, I presume). I would think that is an underestimate. I assume all the money collected from property sales go to them. What about the ongoing income from the hotel business?

    And why is all this cash going to the far east? Time to go back to the drawing board.

  19. Why on earth are Haringey council going ahead with this? How can a Labour local authority behave in this manner? You are bringing shame on the Labour party. Haringey residents should withhold their council tax payments in protest

  20. Can I please try to clarify a couple of points.

    The apparent enthusiasm in Haringey Council to privatise anything and everything, making any deal possible to get land and services out of public ownership, is the policy of the ruling clique.
    Not of the two Haringey Constituency Labour Parties. Nor probably of the majority of Labour Party members – many of whom are speaking out against these Tory policies. Our two MPs have also spoken out – for example against the so-called Haringey Development Vehicle. (HDV)

    In May 2014 a group of authoritarian right-wingers did indeed stand for election among candidates wearing Labour Party rosettes. Although they didn’t make their privatising plans clear and explicit . Currently they are in the majority among councillors elected as “Labour” and led by Claire Kober.

    I’m someone with continuous Labour Party membership since the 1970s and a former Haringey councillor for sixteen years. I can offer no coherent explanation as to why they adopt these right-wing Tory policies. It’s not impossible that some of them are well-intentioned; and/or sincerely believe that there is no alternative; and/or that the borough is getting a good deal. Though plainly, for some, loyalty to the Dear Supreme Leader trumps (now an even more useful verb) any doubts they may secretly harbour.

    Whoever spotted the not-really-redacted-file on Hornsey Town Hall deserves the Freedom of the Borough. We appear to have some truthful and accurate figures. Which may enable residents to be fully informed and properly judge whether the Hornsey Town Hall deal is a good one. Or not.
    It may not be popular when I write that it’s necessary to keep an open mind on this. Restoring and then maintaining a beautiful and historic building is not a bad purpose. If the debate and decision is now possible with full “open book” disclosure, this is a real improvement on the closed foetid way this Council leadership usually operates.

    I sometimes wonder what Claire Kober and the others would do or say if they found out such plans for an important public building near their homes or business – or even about their homes – were being cooked-up behind their backs with secret figures. (There is currently one Labour councillor who is publicly campaigning against out-of-scale, out-of-place towers on a brownfield site near their own home. But who hasn’t made the slightest murmur about all the other planned towers.)

    The U.S. billionaire and tax evader Leona Helmsley was quoted as saying: “We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes”. In Haringey only the privileged few have full and transparent access to information. The very last thing our Council wants is to tell the rest of us “little people” what is really going on in the most important transactions.

    In case you think I’m exaggerating or even making this up, please consider that the Haringey Development Vehicle (HDV. Or Homes Destruction Viciousness as I prefer to call it) has many hundreds of exempt (redacted) secret yellow pages which only the “big people” are allowed to see. I’m told that some pages – giving details of people’s private homes to be destroyed – were printed in almost illegibly small typeface. I loaned one Labour councillor a magnifying glass to read them. She opposes this poisonous scheme, but is now gagged and unable to tell me or anyone what she read without being punished by the Kobots.

    Needless to say those individuals and businesses who are directly impacted by the HDV are likely to be the last people to find out the details. Possibly, even after they’ve been cheated out of the full market price for their property. I’m happy to explain what I mean to anyone who thinks this too is an exaggeration. Or “scaremongering” – the usual Kobotic insult for people who try speak truth to their abusive bullying power.

  21. Five weeks is simply not enough time to absorb, reflect and comment on this massive application which has the potential to change the face of Crouch End for ever. Haringey school holidays end Monday 4th September, one day before the end of consultation. Many people are away over the next few weeks and need more time to go through the many detailed documents and confusing visual representations of what the views of the development will actually look like.

    James Hughes in planning says that it is not in his power to extend the deadline but all is not lost and if we work together we may get the deadline extended.

    We can go above Mr Hughes’ head and email Emma Williamson (Emma.Williamson@haringey.gov.uk ) – Head of Planning and Lyn is her boss as director) asking for an extension. Lyn is away til 29th of August!

    We can also email Cllr Alan Strickland (Lead on Regeneration) asking for an extension and copy the request in to all Crouch End Councillors and Clare Kober as well as Catherine West ( catherine.west.mp@parliament.uk. Alan Strickland is away until the 15th August so emails can be sent after this date. Councillor Jason Arthur is back on the 15th too.

    We can also email other councillors – We should also contact
    Elin.Weston@Haringey.gov.uk
    Adam.Jogee@Haringey.gov.uk
    and
    Jennifer.Mann@Haringey.gov.uk
    who are Hornsey councillors.

    You could follow this letter below and feel free to add your own thoughts and comments in too:

    Dear xxxxxx,
    I am writing to ask you to extend the consultation end date for the above application.
    The consultation period coincides with the summer holiday period and in particular school summer holidays. As you know, many of the local residents who will wish to comment on the application are away. In addition, there is an unprecedented amount of documents for us to get through.

    Furthermore, there have already been highlighted inaccuracies in the material offered at the latest developer’s consultation with residents, and there are discrepancies between the submitted planning statement and planning application drawings. (For example: consultation we were told 4 affordable units, now zero; “hotel” listed in planning statement but apart hotel on drawings; Weston Park listed as 3-4 storeys but is in fact 2 storeys with mansards; etc etc) We need more time to go through the documents and table our thoughts and comments.

    There are further inadequacies in the submission which make it even more important to get an extension on the consultation. For example, the photomontage views submitted with the town hall application which show trees in full leaf. We need to see all the views without the trees in leaf, and also without the trees in place.
    Alternatively at different angles so we do not have them blocked by trees. The plans show trees as having been removed on the corner of the library (adjoining the access), yet the photomontage has retained these and used them to block the view to the new building (block A). We need this redone without the tree in place.

    In addition we require:
    More views from Haringey Park, looking back towards block A.
    Views from Primezone.
    We also require views from Ally Pally, and Parkland Walk of better resolution so that we can zoom in.

    Please would you get back to me as a matter of urgency and confirm that you will extend the consultation period for at least another six weeks.

    Kind Regards

  22. Good to hear form Alan on HTYHAS.org.

    Of the unredacted EVA, he writes that ” We appear to have some truthful and accurate figures “.

    Yes and no.

    The EVA was written by a consultant in support of FEC’s position that to include affordable housing would make the scheme unviable. This could be a bargaining position that ends up with a planning condition applied to overall permission that insists on (say) four units included in the scheme – FEC swallow that and our council claims a great victory on behalf of the community.

    The consultants’ case is made all the stronger by minimizing the scant surplus (profit) to be had from the scheme – this is done by maximizing estimates of the building costs, legal and marketing fees etc and down playing the retail value of the flats that will eventually be up for sale.

    The figures given might indeed be right but I feel that the property comparitors used (Smithfield Square on Hornsey High Street, etc) might not quite command the prices of flats adjacent to a Grade II* building in central Crouch End.

    What would be good to know is how overage has been calculated. This is a technique that ensures the vendor of the land (Haringey) gets a fair share of the prices achieved when the flats are sold. Above an agreed limit, Haringey should get a capital receipt. It is in the interest of the purchaser of the land (FEC) to set the threshold high. I wonder what the Development Agreement threshold is?

    Of course, until we get sight of the Agreement, we will have to assume that Haringey have been prudent enough to negotiate an overage arrangement.

    1. interesting to note that the Development Agreement that we have been led to believe has been signed provides that “the developer will deliver the affordable housing as part of the development…”

      So is it wrong to think that putting in a planning application with NO affordable housing is a breach of the Development agreement?

  23. I’ve lived in Crouch End since 1992, and one of the main things that makes Crouch End a community-minded, friendly and interesting area in which to live is the mix of ‘social housing’ and owner occupier properties.
    I do not want a ‘monoculture’ of people who are extremely wealthy in my neighbourhood.
    I do not want to see young people excluded from my neighbourhood.
    London has a massive problem with this issue: Crouch End has got to fight its corner. FEC cannot be allowed to profit at the expense of local people, both future and current residents. It’s us who live here not FEC. Labelling themselves with Crouch End doesn’t change that – it’s laughable, idiotic PR.
    Affordable housing MUST be part of this development.

    1. Hornsey Town Hall is a beautiful and historic building and it and the surrounding land must be preserved for the use of the local community. I am dismayed at these plans which yet again place private profit ahead of public good and totally ignore the very urgent need for social housing.

  24. This is a shoddy deal and should be opposed. When will our elected politicians have the courage to stand up to developers and say high property prices and high rents are a bad thing? Housing is a basic right and politicians need to be putting all their energies into how to provide genuinely affordable housing for all. Local people don’t need or want a hotel, they need and want housing at a cost they can afford. Hornsey Town Hall should be developed into a mix of council-owned genuinely affordable housing and local leisure amenities.

  25. Having been through the figures in the (not so) redacted viability report, it comes as no surprise that they are totally skewed in the favour of the developers.

    On pages 15 and 16, they suggest comparable developments to base the residential pricing on, which as David W mentions are based in Hornsey and Muswell Hill, and i’m afraid are not comparable. They come to an average price per sq ft of £806. If we temporarily ignore this figure being from non-comparable properties, they then go on to “assume a blended rate of £800 sqft” – cannily removing £6 from the price. This amounts to a £706,806 difference in the revenue figures.

    Assuming that bringing in affordable homes reduces the CIL contribution, then my rough calculations suggest that simply using the average figure they have provided in the document, and not the blended one, and that an “affordable home” is simply one sold at 75% market rate (I know it’s far more complicated than that – but we can simplify for this), then that would grant all 9 of the “mews” developments as affordable homes, with no impact to the developers very healthy £22m profit (on paper – not in reality if figures are initially skewed).

    Going back to the non-comparable properties: if we were to consider that if the average across Hornsey/MH is £806 – then we can assume that CE could demand approx £850 for this development, assuming a decent fit out. I have checked this with local agents. Were this to be the case then the revenue would increase by a much larger £5,890,050 giving us potentially 30-40 affordable units – again without eating into that “profit” line.

    The above is without tackling the commercial values in the same way which also use non-comparable and overly cautious figures.

    I agree with David’s predictions on the council claiming victory by getting the 4 units put back in, but we must not fall for this. The number of affordable units has to 10x this as a minimum in my opinion. We shouldn’t settle for less.

    1. The above should read “assume a blended rate of £800 sqft”. Admins – please update my post above and delete this one if preferred.

  26. Do we simply put aside
    or close our eyes and hope to hide
    from stories we were told when small
    of children no one believed at all.
    What happened to the little lad
    who cried out ‘wolf’? His end was sad.
    The lass “who told such dreadful lies,
    it made one gasp and stretch one’s eyes”.

    But now grown-up they were selected
    with red rosettes they got elected.
    Now telling us of deals they back
    with all the figures painted black.
    “Trust us”, they say with smiles so bright,
    “For we are always always right”.
    But then some geek with software clever
    reveals the numbers. “Well, I never!”

    1. Do we simply put aside
      or close our eyes and hope to hide
      from stories we were told when small
      of children no one believed at all.

      What happened to the little lad
      who cried out ‘wolf’? His end was sad.
      The lass “who told such dreadful lies,
      it made one gasp and stretch one’s eyes”.

      But now grown-up they were selected
      with red rosettes they got elected.
      Now telling us of deals they back
      with all the figures painted black.
      “Trust us”, they say with smiles so bright,
      “For we are always always right”.
      But then some geek with software clever
      reveals the numbers. “Well, I never!”

  27. I am absolutely appalled to discover that there are no plans to build any affordable housing at all in the redevelopment of HTT and nor is there any worthwhile benefit to Haringey. I’m not sure how this can be legal and would like to know who of there Haringey residents were consulted in drawing up these specific plans for the Town Hall site

    I see that the FEC have predicted a profit of £22.6 million but are still prepared to totally ignore any social responsibility. It’s disgraceful

  28. Having seen the Hoxton town hall turned into a place only the super rich can stay or eat . I feel mortified that we are going to lose yet another great building to greed. We have been supporting lots of events at HTH why can’t the council just see past profit for once and enjoy the drip drip drip of profit from locals to locals
    Terry

  29. I find it hard to believe that an economically viable solution cannot be found that does not require the total elimination of affordable housing. The latter represents a complete disregard for the council’s Local Plan target of 50% affordable housing. How can the building of a hotel as well as provision of housing beyond the means of the vast majority of the local population be justified in this context?

  30. This is simply outrageous and unacceptable. It seems amazing that the council are even willing to contemplate allowing a building that is open to the community to use to be turned into exclusive flats and a hotel. This should fully opposed using all available means.

  31. YOUR FUTURE W7 COMMUTER HELL

    The future Town Hall Plan will build 146 separate living spaces with a 263 bed capacity (minimum of 292; maximum of 526 persons). (This excludes Hotel capacity. And there is zero social housing too.)

    What is your commute going to look like???? How long will you have to wait for your W7 bus???? It is already crazy busy.

    You need to ACT NOW –– your comments need to be in by Tuesday 5th September (the Council are hoping you are on holiday!)

    No extra bus capacity is planned – it is beyond their control anyway.

    Also only 45 new resident and 3 visitors parking places are planned – where will all the other cars park – in your spot??? Plus loss of spaces re Library.

    The new “mews” development will be 7 storeys if you were wondering how they are going to cram everyone in.

  32. I do not understand why councils feel their prime duty to be towards large, healthy businesses, rather than the people on whose behalf they govern their local area. Have I misunderstood something about their purpose?

    The local area is doing very nicely and does not need (in case this is an argument the council might have put forward) the kind of ‘stimulus’ that a large hotel would bring. And I’m not sure that a hotel so far from a tube station is a good idea- this surely means increased traffic, because of the taxis that would no doubt be required by guests.

    Most importantly, the area desperately needs more affordable housing and plainly does not need more luxury housing, if it has to be developed into housing at all. I believe that developers are very reluctant to undertake projects featuring affordable housing: because of the low profit margins involved, there is simply no motivation for them to do so. This is a systemic problem for the UK as a whole. But putting something undesirable in place because a more desirable option is not available with current funding (or perhaps just not easy) doesn’t quite make sense.

    A good number of local residents and visitors to the area have made it clear that there is yet another option for the building – one that serves arts and culture and the local community. And the people currently using HTH are a creative bunch with much experience of fundraising. It doesn’t seem absolutely impossible that a solution of alternative (rather than council) funding could be found to allow this use to continue and perhaps – being really bold and optimistic – to find a novel way to encourage a developer to create affordable housing on part of the site. I suspect that if the will was there, this might be possible. (I wish I knew more about council funding and the economics of property development, so I could stick my oar in!!).

    I wish the council was more directly accountable to the local residents. The voting system is too imprecise and too party-driven, and the communications between council and residents are not immediate or transparent enough. Big businesses have the time, money and motivation to get in there and work the system effectively – and they can promise short-term capital gain, which I think all councils desperately need, just to keep basic services going.

    Keep shouting, people. It’s what we’ve got at our disposal…

  33. Are there any local people that want this development?

    I would imagine perhaps some shop keepers, other than that no one.

    It will be a seven story development dominating our village community of Crouch End, the art deco tower will be dwarfed by the hotel and ‘luxury apartments’ built around it.

    The W7 bus route will be over crowded.

    The 41 bus route will be over crowded.

    Parking spaces in the area will become harder to obtain (unless you have £25,000 to buy one at the new development of course).

    The doctor and dentists will be even harder to get an appointment at.

    Labour administration at Haringey finally get this public building off their books after the previous Lib Dem administration fought hard to restore it after years of neglect by… the previous Labour administration. Its like Labour can’t destroy or sell off the centre of Crouch End community quick enough.

    And finally whichever developer turns our village into a building site for the next 3 years gets to turn a healthy 50% profit.

    No benefit to Crouch Enders, plenty of benefit to Haringey and property developers.

    Im genuinely heart broken and it seems we can’t do anything to stop it.

    Hope everyone that voted this administration in again are proud of themselves.

  34. Nice timing for our London Mayor to release his “HOMES FOR LONDONERS AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND VIABILITY SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE 2017”.

    Perhaps most pertinent is this particular paragraph, whereby the guidance states that all documents including viability reports should be made public in full. I wonder if the figures revealed during this fiasco would have been the same had this been implemented and legally binding before the application:

    **The Mayor considers that information relevant to planning decisions should be publicly available alongside other application documents in order to foster a greater understanding of and trust in the planning system. The SPG sets out the Mayor’s expectations when it comes to the publication of viability information, requiring information to be made public, including council and third party assessments. Applicants will have the opportunity to argue that limited elements should be confidential, but the onus is on the applicant to make this case.**

    See it here: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ah_viability_spg_201708152.pdf

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *