High rise ED (April 2015 M&S planning application)

[DaveR]

"You don't have to look futher than the nearest war memorial to see what's wrong with that."

It's been a while since we've had a Godwin. It's not that surprising given the general over-excitement of the post. I liked this:

"Which is why we're now living in the looming shadow of the obscenely hubristic outpost of a slave-trading nation and busy constructing a city-state for another oil-rich power's embassy."

in the context of the re-development of Iceland, Lordship Lane.

Planners are caught between developers (whose tactics are pretty accurately described in Burbage's otherwise somewhat hallucinatory post, and who know exactly what they want), residents (who either don't know what they want or are nimby fanatics) and politicians local and central (who have to pretend they're trying to please everyone). If there's enough money at stake the courts sort it out, usually pleasing no-one. In another universe these matters might be discussed calmly and rationally with give and take on both sides, but that's a universe far, far away (to coin a phrase).

[robbin]

Ha ha! Good post Dave R.

Maybe Burgage should change his or her name to Verbiage.

[first mate]

Burbage, great post. I think people need to wake up and smell the coffee, and I guess you think the same. But, yes it is hard to keep objecting and it was always clear that the developer in this case had a very long game in mind; who's to say a few more rounds, with a few more storeys each time, is not on the cards? Meanwhile, this developer is happy to leave most of the upper levels unused and empty. They seem to be a rather opaque outfit with a very large portfolio of investment properties around the UK; the agent operates out of Dorset.

[James Barber]

If thedeveloper were to add two flats to the granted permission for 8 that would = 10 flats.

The threhold for providing 35% social housing is over 9 flats.

So they're now descrining the flats as offices - the plans clearly show 8 bathrooms, etc.

Classic salami tactic of developers. KEep applying for slightly more. The individual incremental changes being hard ot resist but the total would never have gained permission. Clearly the developers have deep pockets to be so patient.

So, we've called-in this planning permission so a planning committee of my councillor peers will decide the scheme.

[robbin]

But the offices are not flats James? Surely you are not suggesting they will surreptitiously and in breach of authorised user, build them as flats, not offices?

If so, I think that's a bit far fetched and frankly not something they could achieve without detection.

If that's not what you are suggesting, then your point is not a good one - if the cut off for Section 106 purposes is 9 flats then they are entitled to ask to build 8, not 10 aren't they and to instead build offices rather than flats? Every developer is going to look to make maximum profits within the rules, surely?

[Jeremy]

Perhaps they're planning to initially offer them as offices, with a view to applying for change of use to residential a few years down the line? Pretty sneaky..

[robbin]

I can quite see they may do that, but it's not (as I read his post) what James was suggesting. He said they are describing flats as offices.

[KalamityKel]

The "offices" in question were previously applied for and granted as additional housing robbin. If planning is granted on this application the penthouses would be in addition to the housing already granted even if the intention is to keep the space as offices.

[Otta]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I can quite see they may do that, but it's not (as

> I read his post) what James was suggesting. He

> said they are describing flats as offices.

Offices with their own bathrooms? Pretty unusual.

[Otta]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But the offices are not flats James? Surely you

> are not suggesting they will surreptitiously and

> in breach of authorised user, build them as flats,

> not offices?

> If so, I think that's a bit far fetched and

> frankly not something they could achieve without

> detection.

> If that's not what you are suggesting, then your

> point is not a good one - if the cut off for

> Section 106 purposes is 9 flats then they are

> entitled to ask to build 8, not 10 aren't they and

> to instead build offices rather than flats? Every

> developer is going to look to make maximum profits

> within the rules, surely?

You'd be surprised what some developers think of the rules

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/developer-told-to-rebuild-maida-vale-pub-brick-by-brick-after-site-torn-down-without-notice-10211892.html

And they could still get away with it, the utter utter cunts.

[first mate]

Once more it is a question of what is reasonable ..and safe...to squeeze into that area. If developers can 'game' the planners and the system and, it seems to me, win just about every time on some technical issue or other, then the system needs to change doesn't it. Otherwise what might happen along LL, for example, is 4 storeys sets precedent for 5 and so on, after all, it's only one more level, the argument might go.

Call me a nimby if you like but these guys have no interest in investing in the community, their sole purpose is to make money and as much as they can. Fair enough, but if the existing processes do not offer sufficient checks and balances is it not right that local people try to? I am not anti change or development but I want to see a holistic approach, not just bricks for big bucks.

[gh]

Cynical cap on?

The developer seeks permission for 2no flats on the roof, with 8no small subdivided offices on levels 1 and 2 complete with WC and kitchens.

When works complete, then developer exploits the coalition government's temporary relaxation which permits change of use from offices to residential, without planning permission [rule change ends May 2016].

So achieves 10 flats and no affordable.

[KalamityKel]

gh, they already have the go-ahead for residential use...

[first mate]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But the offices are not flats James? Surely you

> are not suggesting they will surreptitiously and

> in breach of authorised user, build them as flats,

> not offices?

> If so, I think that's a bit far fetched and

> frankly not something they could achieve without

> detection.

> If that's not what you are suggesting, then your

> point is not a good one - if the cut off for

> Section 106 purposes is 9 flats then they are

> entitled to ask to build 8, not 10 aren't they and

> to instead build offices rather than flats? Every

> developer is going to look to make maximum profits

> within the rules, surely?

Robbin, an application for 8 flats above the retail outlet has already been passed, despite much local opposition. That application was turned down twice and then passed on a technicality which the planners decided they dare not take to appeal as the developers have more money and better lawyers. One of the most important points against was on safety grounds...but that's small beer for the developers.

The new application is now proposing that the levels 2 and 3 be kept as they are currently designated, as offices and a fourth level created to be made into 2 penthouses..

The planners will patiently wait it out and get this new application passed and then go back and try to apply for 8 flats with penthouses on top using the earlier application as precedent....that's how developers play the game. It's a bit like property chess, only planning seems to end up checkmated more often than not.

What might be of interest to Mr Barber and to planning us that one of the upper levels already consists if two flats and these were lived in last summer. If that is still the case wouldn't the developer have to apply for change of use for the current application to work?

[Goose]

They already have permission for 8 flats. Now they say 8 offices but add two flats. Then suddenly they build it - 10 flats appear and they probably have permission for all of them. If they are to be offices why do they have to have the outside walkways/ balconies which is one of our biggest gripes as local residents - why not internalise it all.

This is clearly a game people ... and we are being played. And please remember they already have permission for M+S, so this is not an M+S vs Iceland debate.

[James Barber]

I';m suggesting that the flats will be purported to be live/work offices. They don't need 8 bathrooms for two small floors of offices space. The plans are quite clear lots of bathrooms.

eitherway this can all be resolved at the planning committee that will now decide this application due to the councillor call-in Rosie and I have requested.

[first mate]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> robbin Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > But the offices are not flats James? Surely

> you

> > are not suggesting they will surreptitiously

> and

> > in breach of authorised user, build them as

> flats,

> > not offices?

> > If so, I think that's a bit far fetched and

> > frankly not something they could achieve

> without

> > detection.

> > If that's not what you are suggesting, then

> your

> > point is not a good one - if the cut off for

> > Section 106 purposes is 9 flats then they are

> > entitled to ask to build 8, not 10 aren't they

> and

> > to instead build offices rather than flats?

> Every

> > developer is going to look to make maximum

> profits

> > within the rules, surely?

>

>

> You'd be surprised what some developers think of

> the rules

>

> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/developer-to

> ld-to-rebuild-maida-vale-pub-brick-by-brick-after-

> site-torn-down-without-notice-10211892.html

>

> And they could still get away with it, the utter

> utter @#$%&.

Otta, good find. Mr Kieran Rafferty, mentioned in the Standard article, is exactly the same guy involved with this development. Good, now we can see how far they are prepared to go and to what extent they have any interest in adding value in the community.

[first mate]

There are currently two flats on the third level ( I think ). So either the current use is illegal, if designation is offices or if current designation is residential then they wouldn't they have to apply for change of use to offices in the most recent application? Or does new planning law make this unnecessary? Does anyone know?

[Otta]

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Otta, good find. Mr Kieran Rafferty, mentioned in

> the Standard article, is exactly the same guy

> involved with this development.

Oh wow, I hadn't even realised that. Just saw this story yesterday and posted as an example of how developers in general are not above some pretty dodgy practise. Hadn't realised some of the same people were involved.

[robbin]

I quite understand all that - I'm very familiar with tactical manoeuvrings over Section 106 and CIL liabilities and I know how the system works. I was merely pointing out that openly suggesting someone is falsely describing something with a view to making a profit amounts to an allegation of dishonesty. That's a matter for James if he wants to do that. I may be wrong - it's just how I read his post.

[robbin]

As James says, (in the post I've just seen) it can all be sorted out at the planning committee meeting.

[first mate]

Well, let's hope the committee is good and ready because at least one developer Mr Kieran Rafferty represents appears to have real form.

In James' defence the current application does refer to office space. Though not impossible it seems unlikely that the developer having got permission to build 8 flats would not try for 10? I am also not aware of small office spaces with a high number of dedicated bathrooms, but perhaps I am behind the times.

[cl]

Erm, lets not kid ourselves that it will all be sorted at the planning committee meeting.

They didn't sort it last time. In fact, they mainly acknowledged how badly it had been dealt with by the council...... But then decided to approve it anyway. I remember quite clearly one of the counsellors who voted in favour turning round once it was a done deal, looking me in the eye and offering me an sympathetic shrug as if to say 'I'm sorry, there's just nothing I could do'. Which clearly was not the case. She could have voted against.

James are you able to do anything in advance to encourage them to grow some balls this time round rather than just rolling over again?

[KalamityKel]

cl out of curiousity did you receive any notification of this new application?

[cl]

No!