Examples from other Planning cases
Kingston is not alone in fighting applications of this nature. Here are examples from other planning cases that were refused or have relevance.
St George’s ‘Fortress Wapping’ London Dock towers lowered and Affordable Housing doubled.
The 18 month negotiation with Tower Hamlets resulted in an Affordable Housing increase from 15 to 30% and the lowering the main tower from 33 to 25 storeys. 18 months is considered a fairly rapid turnaround compared with many developments, and not that many more major sites are left to come through the planning process.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/619e5b7c-79ec-11e3-8211-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3d84c3lUL
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/politics/go_ahead_for_st_george_s_fortress_wapping_london_dock_scheme_1_3203515
The 18 month negotiation with Tower Hamlets resulted in an Affordable Housing increase from 15 to 30% and the lowering the main tower from 33 to 25 storeys. 18 months is considered a fairly rapid turnaround compared with many developments, and not that many more major sites are left to come through the planning process.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/619e5b7c-79ec-11e3-8211-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3d84c3lUL
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/politics/go_ahead_for_st_george_s_fortress_wapping_london_dock_scheme_1_3203515
It had to be modified after objections to its scale. The new owners, St George Central London, originally wanted a 33-floor tower, now clipped at 25 storeys.
They have also had to double the ratio of low-cost housing from 15 to 30 per cent, after 18 months of Town Hall negotiations and public consultations.
The latest consultation led to 41 letters of objection, including English Heritage opposing the height of the tallest tower.
The developers are giving more than £7 million towards the Crossrail scheme that passes through Whitechapel and Liverpool Street, little more than a mile away. Another £4m is earmarked towards a secondary school for 1,200 pupils and £500,000 to improve bus services.
Kingston refuses Thames Side Wharf development
We understand this ultimately became a collection of 10-11 storey blocks, having started life as a proposed 23-storey tower.
http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/thames_side_wharf_report_0.pdf
The proposed development has been commented on at pre-application
stage but has since been significantly modified reducing its height by half
to 11 storeys. This change is welcomed making the building less intrusive in
the skyline and more in keeping with the contextual height of the area
whilst still successfully landmarking the new development and public space.
However, whilst an eleven storey building in this location does not present
any strategic concerns, it will still be visually prominent and its overall
design will need to be of an outstanding quality.
Reading refuses 352-home Swan Heights scheme
http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/reading-rejects-controversial-robert-adam-towers/8682235.article
Councillors in Reading have refused permission for a Robert Adam-designed housing development made up of three classically inspired tower blocks.
ADAM Architecture’s 352-home Swan Heights scheme was designed for Lochailort Investments and earmarked for a 0.45ha site on the edge of the town centre.
Adam had argued that the development, which featured towers of up to 28 storeys topped with dome-like penthouses, was an homage to the earliest US tower blocks.
However Reading Council’s planning officers had slated the scheme as ‘alien’ and ‘confusing’ and recommended its refusal on 11 detailed grounds.
Viability report Information request by Greenwich Residents Group is upheld.
Based on a 'viability' reassessment, developers asked Greenwich to be released from some of their promises to build affordable homes in the Greenwich peninsular. The revised proposal seems to have reduced the overall number of affordable homes by about 500 ( out of 10,000 homes ). A member of a residents group made a request under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain a copy of the financial viability report. A tribunal weighed the public interest in declining against the public interest in disclosing the information. They ruled in favour full disclosure.
26. Two factors, in our judgement, tell particularly in favour full disclosure.
27. First, the number of affordable homes to be provided on this enormous
development, as well as their location, is an important local issue on which
reasonable views are held strongly on both sides. Second, this is a case where a
company, robust enough to take on the development of a huge site over a period of
20 years, acquiring its interest in 2012 and increasing its share in 2013,
immediately asks to be relieved of a planning obligation freely negotiated by its
predecessor. It justifies this change on the basis of a downturn in house prices it
knew about at the time of purchase, using a valuation model that looks at current
values only and does not allow for change in the many factors that may affect a
valuation over time. It seems to us that in those circumstances the public interest in
openness about the figures is very strong.
29. Having weighed all the evidence and arguments, in our judgement the admittedly
important public interests in maintaining the regulation 12(5)(e) exception in this
case do not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information.
royal_borough_of_greenwich_ea.2014.0122_(30.01.15).pdf | |
File Size: | 104 kb |
File Type: |