Affordable housing at Racecourse "not viable"... Options

[Richard Garvie]

From a report at tonights Exec members meeting: Alan Law suggested that affordable housing developments always have viability issues and that the developers may come back to negotiate. As predicted, is this the reason minimum commitments were removed for this development in the LDF??? I know the percentage in the planning consent is just over 28%, but why not insert a minimum commitment of 28%, or the 439 units mentioned tonight? Any dilution will be yet another failure for those on low incomes who wish to buy in West Berkshire.

[dannyboy]

Don't you mean - Any dilution will be yet another failure for those on average incomes who wish to buy in West Berkshire.

[Iommi]

Don't you mean - Any dilution will be yet another failure for those on average incomes who wish to buy in West Berkshire.

That would depend on how many affordable houses went to HAs.

[dannyboy]

That would depend on how many affordable houses went to HAs.

Isn't that renting?

[Iommi]

Isn't that renting?

Yes, but don't shared ownership count?

[dannyboy]

Yes, but don't shared ownership count?

I guess it depends what the person living in the house gets out of the deal other than a roof over their head. Were they still called tennants?

[Iommi]

I guess it depends what the person living in the house gets out of the deal other than a roof over their head. Were they still called tennants?

I've no idea. Although this isn't what Richard Garvie was getting at, but should 'affordable' houses become available, then hopefully average income families from the area can afford them, thus easing the 'pressure' on the 'low rent' market (HAs). So even if the 'affordable' content might not directly help low income families (low income families probably can't afford to buy in Newbury), it probably indirectly helps low income families establish a home in Newbury.

[dannyboy]

I've no idea. Although this isn't what Richard Garvie was getting at, but should 'affordable' houses become available, then hopefully average income families from the area can afford them, thus easing the 'pressure' on the 'low rent' market (HAs). So even if the 'affordable' content might not directly help low income families (low income families probably can't afford to buy in Newbury), it probably indirectly helps low income families establish a home in Newbury.

'Affordable' the million $ question....

[Richard Garvie]

'Affordable' the million $ question....

Well, the reason why we need affordable housing is that prices are so high, those on low salaries and average salaries like you say, struggle to get a mortgage. It's just a shame that it looks like the affordable quota at the Racecourse will be further diluted (as predicted), let's hope we end up with more than what was included at Parkway. Let's just remember that at the time, the Conservatives insisted that there will be no further reduction in affordable housing, as did the council officers.

[NWNREADER]

What is 'affordable housing'? Is it a PC way of saying 'cheap'? If so, the reasons developers don't want to build them could be they make no money from the land the house stands on. Plus, they are 'marked', and create a sub-market later in their life.

What is 'unaffordable housing'?

[Richard Garvie]

What is 'affordable housing'? Is it a PC way of saying 'cheap'? If so, the reasons developers don't want to build them could be they make no money from the land the house stands on. Plus, they are 'marked', and create a sub-market later in their life.

What is 'unaffordable housing'?

The point being that the council said the affordable housing quota was protected under the planning consent (already a 5% reduction). Now we know that might not be the case.

[Iommi]

What is 'affordable housing'? Is it a PC way of saying 'cheap'? If so, the reasons developers don't want to build them could be they make no money from the land the house stands on. Plus, they are 'marked', and create a sub-market later in their life.

What is 'unaffordable housing'?

Affordable housing is unofficially two things. It is social housing and it is housing that an average income (or less) family/person can afford.

It is obvious that developers don't like to build 'cheap' houses, but it is a part of the planning policy that if a developer wants to make money developing they have to pay a 'tax' in the form of building a quota of 'cheap' houses.

At the end of the day, the developer and the planning department come to an agreement, then it seems the developer (possibly with knowledge before hand) starts to back track. Probably knowing they have the council 'over a barrel'. Just like what appeared to happen at parkway (which was obvious as pox was going to happen).

[NWNREADER]

At the end of the day, the developer and the planning department come to an agreement, then it seems the developer (possibly with knowledge before hand) starts to back track. Probably knowing they have the council 'over a barrel'. Just like what appeared to happen at parkway (which was obvious as pox was going to happen).

That has always been so, in most areas I have experience of. Apply for what you can get, then go back with amendments so you can do what you want. Once a permission has been granted it is very difficult for the Councils to resist these tactics, even when it is blindingly obvious what is going to happen. That is why developers etc employ multiple consultants to support the application process.

[Richard Garvie]

That has always been so, in most areas I have experience of. Apply for what you can get, then go back with amendments so you can do what you want. Once a permission has been granted it is very difficult for the Councils to resist these tactics, even when it is blindingly obvious what is going to happen. That is why developers etc employ multiple consultants to support the application process.

But this is exactly why I raised the story in the media, to say that is what would probably happen. The council dismissed it, and said there would be no future reduction in quota at the Racecourse. What we are seeing now is the start of further backtracking. How many other issues will the council say one thing, then do another???

[NWNREADER]

Affordable housing is unofficially two things. It is social housing and it is housing that an average income (or less) family/person can afford.

An unfortunate truth is that many house buyers do not want 'council housing' nearby, especially when those houses are identifiable by being bviously cheaper. I remember many kerfuffles when Sovereign etc bought blocks of estates at a discount and then placed their tenants. That was not 'affordable' housing, just standard ones bought cheaper by the dozen.

[NWNREADER]

But this is exactly why I raised the story in the media, to say that is what would probably happen. The council dismissed it, and said there would be no future reduction in quota at the Racecourse. What we are seeing now is the start of further backtracking. How many other issues will the council say one thing, then do another???

Sadly they are very much over a barrel. The Council have no plan or wish to reduce the numbers but the developers do, and they hold the Aces.

The real world........

[Richard Garvie]

Sadly they are very much over a barrel. The Council have no plan or wish to reduce the numbers but the developers do, and they hold the Aces.

The real world........

So why say in the media at the end of last summer that there would be no further reductions? I remember certain elected members saying I was creating a problem that didn't exist and that the affordable quota was protected. This is why I asked for a minimum quota to be inserted rather than no minimum commitment in the LDF. Otherwise the developer would come back and request a reduction, which although it hasn't happened yet, we may be seeing that sooner than we think if this report is correct.

[NWNREADER]

So why say in the media at the end of last summer that there would be no further reductions? I remember certain elected members saying I was creating a problem that didn't exist and that the affordable quota was protected. This is why I asked for a minimum quota to be inserted rather than no minimum commitment in the LDF. Otherwise the developer would come back and request a reduction, which although it hasn't happened yet, we may be seeing that sooner than we think if this report is correct.

Do you really not understand? Really?

Central Government drive through Law and issue 'guidance' to Planning Authorities to ensure they help Govt deliver.
LAs write local policy that tries to deliver what they have been told they must in a way that is acceptable to their community.
Developers, who own Land Banks all across the country under various guises, seek to turn their holdings into profit and examine by the letter the policy documents to discover ways they can make the Council give them what they want.

Months of exploratory meetings precede an application, with Members and Officers huddled around maps and models hypothesising on what might be.

Developer then submits an application they feel will succeed.

Council may pass that application. The only comment the councillors can then make is that the application as passed is what is to be built. It is not for them to say what they think the developer may subsequently do: why would they pass an application if it was not likely to be the actual product. Is the developer going to tell them?

The PPd development is then reviewed by the developer for ways to increase profitability. Having got the permission the LA is very much over a barrel as regards refusing amendments, especially when they are incremental. They may not surmise where the appliocation is really going, even if it is obvious.

Thus (with the Racecourse) the Council approve something, and the developer thenseeks to amend. No-one at the Council can say other than what they have said. And in the real world that is the business of land development, the megabucks behind the developer trumps the public funds available to the LA.

You are an idealist, Mr G. Pragmatism is not weakness.

[Cognosco]

That has always been so, in most areas I have experience of. Apply for what you can get, then go back with amendments so you can do what you want. Once a permission has been granted it is very difficult for the Councils to resist these tactics, even when it is blindingly obvious what is going to happen. That is why developers etc employ multiple consultants to support the application process.

If this is the case we should just get rid of all planning officers and save a large amount of money and just let developers do just what they want. Apparently just what they are doing now then?

[Iommi]

You need planners to attempt to administer and oversee legal requirements. Planning policies aren't necessarily legal requirements, hence why 'fat-cat' developers have the council over a barrel if it wants to. H&S are just about the only authority with any teeth or power.