Covent Garden London
The heart of London's West End
Housing
Not long ago it was called Public Housing and, as the adjective suggested, the housing was publicly owned and managed by publicly accountable authorities. Then the term became Social Housing, implying a tinge of social services, housing for the deserving poor, but now owned and managed by unaccountable, self-appointed housing associations. Now the term is Affordable Housing, affordable to whom is a moot point.
Whilst the terminology changed, and with it the financial way housing for those who are unable or unwilling to be private owners, so the method of procuring new affordable housing has completely changed. In Covent Garden the only way new affordable housing is created is by way of planning gain. This simply means that Camden & Westminster agree to grant planning permission on the condition a proportion of the new private housing proposed is given over to a Housing Association or, as in the case of the development of St Paul's Hospital, permission is granted for a commercial scheme in lieu of some affordable housing elsewhere.
As this is the only way any new, low-rent residential accommodation is to be provided in Covent Garden, it is vital that both Councils actually pursue their stated planning policies in their Unitary Development Plans, which state as the highest priority that their intention is to increase low-rent housing.
However the reality is very different. So far, Westminster's line is to always take money from private developers active in Covent Garden rather than require them to provide affordable housing in Covent Garden. Indeed, of the almost £14.5 million received since 1997 by way of this arrangement, over £2.5 million has come from planning permissions granted in Covent Garden; but not one new affordable home has been provided in the area. For example, the developers of the Strand Palace Hotel annexe paid £644,000 into the affordable housing fund; the fund has contributed £466,000 towards two housing association schemes off Victoria Street. Clearly, Westminster are pursuing planning policies that will make it impossible for any local resident who needs new accommodation to remain in Covent Garden, unless they can purchase a new home, and will be forced to leave the area completely contrary to their UDP policies to enhance and protect residential communities. In the forthcoming year the CGCA intends to investigate this matter with Westminster Council and take steps to bring home to the Council the damaging effects of their behaviour.
In the case of Camden, the situation is different in that some affordable housing is occasionally procured through planning gain arrangements but far too often the Council, guided by their planning officers, claim nothing can be done as the development site in question is not designated as a potential site in Camden's Unitary Development Plan [there is no assurance that even when a site is designated a housing site - the St Paul's site in Endell Street comes to mind - that Camden's officers will uphold their own policies, but at least such designation makes it more likely some affordable housing will result.]
The CGCA, with many other groups, struggled through the interminable public enquiry process associated with Camden's Unitary Development Plan from 1994-97. Both the CGCA and neighbouring Charlotte Street Association (CSA), with whom we share many concerns, were assured by the independent Inspector's findings following the Public Enquiry, that Camden should designate in their Proposals Map sites that were appropriate for housing development and affordable housing in particular. This was in 1997.
The CGCA and CSA subsequently have reminded Camden officers and politicians of the Inspector's support of our views. Camden have ignored all such reminders. Before the Council placed their Unitary Development Plan on deposit (the final legal hurdle) the CGCA and CSA again met the Chairman, and consequently the relevant committee and officers at Camden. We were informed that the Council had not had time (since 1997!) to do the necessary work; no housing sites had been incorporated into their UDP's proposals map. Both the CGCA and CSA have been legally advised that the reason given by Camden is not a legal ground to ignore the Inspector's findings, and consequently both the CGCA and Charlotte Street Association took proceedings in the High Court to stop the Deposited Unitary Development Plan being adopted until the necessary new housing development sites are determined.
This may appear very heavy-handed, if it were not for the case that, repeatedly, Camden planning officers are disregarding local representations that particular sites subject to commercial development applications are not appropriate for housing, simply because they are not designated in their Unitary Development Plan for housing.
It is hoped some compromise can be found with Camden, but both the CGCA and CSA are of the view that there is very little point of making representations at public enquiries, if the result is that recommendations are ignored by the local authority on such spurious grounds as not having enough time. It is a shame the executive arm of Camden is not more effectively controlled by the members; where they fail, the community endeavours to ensure there is some public accountability. Hence the legal action.
Jim Monahan
[ Home | About | Advice | Cartoons | Contact | Gallery | Handbook | Links | News | Newsletters | Sponsors ]