One of the key issues of the residential aspects of the planning application was the viability of the scheme and its impact on affordable housing. What was eventually decided remarkably produced an outcome which concluded that the affordable housing could be at zero and that the 7% offered ‘exceeds the maximum reasonable provision and this provision is therefore a benefit of the Appeal Scheme’.
The Inspector’s decision included the following paragraphs.
172. Towards the end of the Inquiry the appellant offered an amended affordable
housing offer, on the basis that I might agree that the GLA’s case is
appropriate and that find that the appellant’s original affordable housing offer,
as considered within this main issue, does not represent the maximum
reasonable amount that could be provided………
173. Although I have some concerns as set out above, I do consider that the
intended level of profit is appropriate, that sales values are somewhere close
to the Council’s assessment, and that the comprehensive review mechanisms
that are proposed would be an appropriate method of ensuring that the
scheme would provide a suitable amount of affordable housing, in the event of
future economic growth.
174. As such, I consider that the proposed development provides the maximum
possible amount of affordable housing at this stage, and that the appellant’s
alternative offer of 12% would not be appropriate. I therefore conclude that
the development would have a positive effect on the local supply of affordable
housing ……….
In bald figures that means that of the proposed 1075 units, 65 would be affordable, 52 social rent and thirteen shared ownership. (Para 152) To be eligible for shared ownership in Richmond you need an income of £90,000 per annum. So you can exclude those.
Many of you will be familiar with other developments along the riverside into London. How many of the units in those are actually occupied? How many of those have been bought for investment by non-UK residents?
Richmond Council now has no chance of achieving its objectives on affordable housing. It appears they may now be able to rewrite the targets. Surely that would have to cause concern to some councillors? The less affluent will continue to be driven out. Local services will suffer.
Unless the developers are more successful selling expensive properties in Mortlake than they have been in Teddington, the waterside could be as much of a ghost town, fit only for filming scary movies, as it is now. (The Story Works may also be driven out. What a local loss.) The nationwide policy on broadening the availability of lower cost housing will need a rethink.
Although the Inspector stated that he had concerns, regrettably he felt unable to translate them into what would have reflected reasonable provision. Find a person other than witnesses for the developers and the Council who finds the decision acceptable in relation to this aspect of the case.
This is an issue which will not go away and you can expect it to be revisited here at regular intervals. So what private discussions are now being held about housing in the Borough? And when can we expect to see them published?
