Poor Affordability
Planning application 14/13247 ( Sept 2015 )
We spoke on this topic at the presentation DC meeting on the 14th of October 2015
We spoke on this topic at the presentation DC meeting on the 14th of October 2015
Affordable Housing is a hot topic, described as “broken”. But this doesnt mean we can
accept the dismal provision by this development, particularly at a time when the lack of
affordable housing is so acute. There is a pressing need for more affordable housing in Kingston.
It is virtually impossible for the majority to consider buying a home. The council’s policy
position under DM15 is that 50% of housing on developments of 10 units or more should
be affordable.
St Georges offering 15 %, less than 1/3 of council’s requirement!
As we have said before, they cant blame the cost of bringing back the listed buildings into
use. They must have been aware of these cost risks when buying the site.
They can't blame the viability assessment. - with developers profit going sharply upwards
while levels of affordable housing provision are dropping significantly.
There are numerous examples where local authorities have successfully challenged
developer’s assessments. Where councils were prepared to fight their corner, they
achieved substantially higher provision than that originally offered.
Those council’s that are prepared to really challenge a developer’s viability assessment
can secure a much better result for the communities they represent. We would urge you all
to ensure you are totally comfortable that this area has been examined in sufficient detail
and that whatever independent review you commission is sufficiently robust.
As we said in June, high-rise construction is a killer for affordable homes under the current
system. And yet perversely the developer is able to walk away with more profit from the
site. We are therefore left in a position where the very features that make the development
so unattractive to residents and which contravene established development briefs are also
the factors that are impacting the supply of affordable housing.
This is not something that would be picked up in an independent review because the
review will only consider the viability of the development as proposed. But, you the
committee, can consider whether there might be a better way to develop the site, one
which would provide more affordable homes and create a high quality environment that
provides homes needed by Kingston rather than providing homes that cannot be widely
afforded and that maximise profits for a few.
We are not against development and not against profit, but it is interesting that the
proposers of this scheme declared gross profits of over 30% in 2014 whilst paying their
Chief Executive over £5M.They are able to make a pretty healthy return out of their
business, but how much of this is a result of schemes where they make additional profits
by overdeveloping the site and consequently under providing affordable housing.
We urge the council to think very carefully about whether this development offers the best
outcome for what is one of the key strategic sites in the borough and also to consider
whether it sets a poor precedent that Kingston is a place to make hay at the expense of
balanced development.
accept the dismal provision by this development, particularly at a time when the lack of
affordable housing is so acute. There is a pressing need for more affordable housing in Kingston.
It is virtually impossible for the majority to consider buying a home. The council’s policy
position under DM15 is that 50% of housing on developments of 10 units or more should
be affordable.
St Georges offering 15 %, less than 1/3 of council’s requirement!
As we have said before, they cant blame the cost of bringing back the listed buildings into
use. They must have been aware of these cost risks when buying the site.
They can't blame the viability assessment. - with developers profit going sharply upwards
while levels of affordable housing provision are dropping significantly.
There are numerous examples where local authorities have successfully challenged
developer’s assessments. Where councils were prepared to fight their corner, they
achieved substantially higher provision than that originally offered.
Those council’s that are prepared to really challenge a developer’s viability assessment
can secure a much better result for the communities they represent. We would urge you all
to ensure you are totally comfortable that this area has been examined in sufficient detail
and that whatever independent review you commission is sufficiently robust.
As we said in June, high-rise construction is a killer for affordable homes under the current
system. And yet perversely the developer is able to walk away with more profit from the
site. We are therefore left in a position where the very features that make the development
so unattractive to residents and which contravene established development briefs are also
the factors that are impacting the supply of affordable housing.
This is not something that would be picked up in an independent review because the
review will only consider the viability of the development as proposed. But, you the
committee, can consider whether there might be a better way to develop the site, one
which would provide more affordable homes and create a high quality environment that
provides homes needed by Kingston rather than providing homes that cannot be widely
afforded and that maximise profits for a few.
We are not against development and not against profit, but it is interesting that the
proposers of this scheme declared gross profits of over 30% in 2014 whilst paying their
Chief Executive over £5M.They are able to make a pretty healthy return out of their
business, but how much of this is a result of schemes where they make additional profits
by overdeveloping the site and consequently under providing affordable housing.
We urge the council to think very carefully about whether this development offers the best
outcome for what is one of the key strategic sites in the borough and also to consider
whether it sets a poor precedent that Kingston is a place to make hay at the expense of
balanced development.