Our thanks to the incredibly professional and efficient Lisa Cheung, RBKC Senior Planning Officer - Strategic Developments, who got back to us within 24 hours of our letter.
Wile we are grateful for her efficiency, we are astounded that officers have already accepted the principle of complete redevelopment of the Sutton Estate, displaying complete contempt for the opinions of the residents of the borough, the character of Chelsea, and the wishes of the locals.
They have, contrary to the Core Strategy, advised that Affinity Sutton only has to replace floorspace not flats.
While we wouldn't ever question our RBKC officer's probity, how come their advice seems to invariably favour the profiteering of the developers, rather than the residents of the borough?
RBKC continuing its proud record of putting developers profits before people.
Dear Mr Barshall,
Thank you for your email.
As you are aware, Affinity Sutton (ASG) has sought advice regarding redevelopment proposals for the Estate. Whilst officers accept the principle of complete redevelopment save for Blocks L and M may be acceptable the proposals which have been presented at public consultation events undertaken by ASG have not been agreed. Your reference to officers/the Planning Departments acceptance or approval of various considerations is incorrect.
Core Strategy policy CH3 b) states that the Council will resist the net loss of both social rented and intermediate affordable housing floorspace and units throughout the borough. Councillor Coleridge is therefore correct in his statement that units should be replaced. The proposed redevelopment of the Estate must also be considered against Core Strategy policy CH4 – Estate Renewal. As set out in the preamble to the policy, estate renewal proposals differ from other types of application because often the sale of market housing is used to fund the re-provided social rented housing. As such the proportions of social rented and market housing may differ from conventional housing applications.
Core Strategy policy CH4 states that the Council requires:
The housing needs of the tenants of the estate and indeed the Borough are regularly changing. In this case we have advised ASG that all existing floorspace should be replaced as a minimum and that the proposed unit mix should properly reflect the housing needs of the tenants of the estate. At this stage I do not know the numbers or mix of units or the floorspace of the final proposal from ASG.
Any additional units on the Estate will contribute to the Borough’s housing stock. Core Strategy policy CH2 requires new residential developments to include a mix of types, tenures and sizes of homes to reflect the varying needs of the Borough, taking into account the characteristics of the site and current evidence in relation to housing need.
The re-provision of all existing social rented floor space does not include common parts, gardens or parking spaces but the provision of sufficient cores within the buildings and provision of parking and hard and soft landscaping will be necessary as part of an application (relevant Core Strategy policies are CH2 and CT1).
Core Strategy policy CT1 states that the Council will require all new additional residential development to be permit-free.
I am unable to comment on how any profits from the redevelopment of the Estate would be used.
As set out in policy CH4, it is acknowledged that the provision of market housing is often required to fund the re-provided social rented housing. Part d) of this policy requires schemes to be supported by a financial appraisal were estate renewal is being funded through the provision of private housing. Upon submission of the appraisal, it will be assessed by an independent assessor appointed by the Council which we will use to help decide the application. The financial appraisal and the advice we receive will be published, but there will be elements which are exempted from publication as they contain commercially sensitive information. Councillors deciding any application will of course have access to this information on a confidential basis.
As part of any proposals for development in the Borough, officers will consider the architectural merits of both any building to be demolished and its replacement.
I trust this information is of assistance
Kind regards
Lisa
Lisa Cheung
Senior Planning Officer - Strategic Developments
They have, contrary to the Core Strategy, advised that Affinity Sutton only has to replace floorspace not flats.
While we wouldn't ever question our RBKC officer's probity, how come their advice seems to invariably favour the profiteering of the developers, rather than the residents of the borough?
RBKC continuing its proud record of putting developers profits before people.
Dear Mr Barshall,
Thank you for your email.
As you are aware, Affinity Sutton (ASG) has sought advice regarding redevelopment proposals for the Estate. Whilst officers accept the principle of complete redevelopment save for Blocks L and M may be acceptable the proposals which have been presented at public consultation events undertaken by ASG have not been agreed. Your reference to officers/the Planning Departments acceptance or approval of various considerations is incorrect.
Core Strategy policy CH3 b) states that the Council will resist the net loss of both social rented and intermediate affordable housing floorspace and units throughout the borough. Councillor Coleridge is therefore correct in his statement that units should be replaced. The proposed redevelopment of the Estate must also be considered against Core Strategy policy CH4 – Estate Renewal. As set out in the preamble to the policy, estate renewal proposals differ from other types of application because often the sale of market housing is used to fund the re-provided social rented housing. As such the proportions of social rented and market housing may differ from conventional housing applications.
Core Strategy policy CH4 states that the Council requires:
- the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing with the minimum being no net loss of existing social rented provision
- a guarantee that all existing tenants are given an opportunity of a home that meets their needs with those wishing to stay in the neighbourhood being able to do so
- that the mix of house sizes for the re-provided social rented housing will be determined by the housing needs of the tenants of the estate and by the housing needs of the Borough, at the time that an application is submitted
The housing needs of the tenants of the estate and indeed the Borough are regularly changing. In this case we have advised ASG that all existing floorspace should be replaced as a minimum and that the proposed unit mix should properly reflect the housing needs of the tenants of the estate. At this stage I do not know the numbers or mix of units or the floorspace of the final proposal from ASG.
Any additional units on the Estate will contribute to the Borough’s housing stock. Core Strategy policy CH2 requires new residential developments to include a mix of types, tenures and sizes of homes to reflect the varying needs of the Borough, taking into account the characteristics of the site and current evidence in relation to housing need.
The re-provision of all existing social rented floor space does not include common parts, gardens or parking spaces but the provision of sufficient cores within the buildings and provision of parking and hard and soft landscaping will be necessary as part of an application (relevant Core Strategy policies are CH2 and CT1).
Core Strategy policy CT1 states that the Council will require all new additional residential development to be permit-free.
I am unable to comment on how any profits from the redevelopment of the Estate would be used.
As set out in policy CH4, it is acknowledged that the provision of market housing is often required to fund the re-provided social rented housing. Part d) of this policy requires schemes to be supported by a financial appraisal were estate renewal is being funded through the provision of private housing. Upon submission of the appraisal, it will be assessed by an independent assessor appointed by the Council which we will use to help decide the application. The financial appraisal and the advice we receive will be published, but there will be elements which are exempted from publication as they contain commercially sensitive information. Councillors deciding any application will of course have access to this information on a confidential basis.
As part of any proposals for development in the Borough, officers will consider the architectural merits of both any building to be demolished and its replacement.
I trust this information is of assistance
Kind regards
Lisa
Lisa Cheung
Senior Planning Officer - Strategic Developments
RSS Feed
