London Plan "early revisions" on housing

Advertisements

Two days June 13 and 15 spent in the Examination in Public of the housing alterations to the London Plan, one day on behalf of the London Social Forum and the other (with Una Sapietis and Marian Larragy) on behalf of King’s Cross Railway lands Group….


Two days spent in the Examination in Public of the housing alterations to the London Plan, one day on behalf of the London Social Forum and the other (with Una Sapietis and Marian Larragy) on behalf of King’s Cross Railway lands Group. I don’t know if we made any impact on the panel but it was worth going. On the first day we pressed for
– a more needs-based approach to targets
– the need to focus on NET increases in social rented housing (to make up for the RTB losses)
– the need for a better size control, targets to be separately stated for affordable and social rented housing in units (or rooms or m2 best) rather than in %.
Details of the submission at
http://www.londonsocialforum.org.uk/planning/LSF%20for%20LP%20housing%20revisions.pdf

(Then the heavens opened while I was talking, the crazy bubble-chamber which is City Hall’s Chamber seemed to be under the niagara falls and then the alarm went and the tannoi told us all to leave the building. I wonder if the people in Foster’s office know where the water got in.)
The second day was on localised housing issues. We pressed for much stronger targets for social housing for rent around the edges of central London at the expense of office expansion, trying to draw attention to the massive pressures in these zones from all sources. We also expressed strong disappointment with the SRDF’s treatment of housing in the King’s Cross Opportunity Area: the target is better than in the draft, but the final version was issued too late to influence Camden, and the Mayor waved the Argent scheme through. We discovered an interesting fact: the housing figures which the GLA inserted in the SRDF drafts were NOT the result of applying their normal criteria of site capacity but instead were whatever figures boroughs had put in the UDPs or (in our case) the Planning Brief.
Details at (to follow)
Comment: It looks to me as though Argent’s efforts to secure the Planning Brief they wanted from camden paid off not just with camden but with the GLA too. What a scandal it all is.

Author: Ed

Editor

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s