Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Hawes+Curtis plan breaches Mayor's need for affordable housing
Just had a look at their plans, for the Planning Meeting this Thursday.
I would have thought that the plan is disqualified as their provision of anything but private sale is inadequate. The mayor's manifesto says 'I’ll work with boroughs to deliver on my target of half of all new homes being genuinely affordable'. I don't know how much of his manifesto has been confirmed as policy but that is his target.
"The viability assessment submitted with the application sets out that no affordable housing can viably be provided [the usual starting position]. The independent viability assessment that was commissioned by the Council did not agree with this position and subsequently the provision of 12%, equating to 16 shared ownership units with the NHS facility or 17.3% equating to 26 shared ownership units if a commercial unit is proposed has been proposed. This is confirmed to be the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing."
So where is the genuinely affordable housing in this scheme?
Tags for Forum Posts: 590-598 Green Lanes, hawes & curtis
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
During the course of my engagement over the Hampden Road site, I've learned that the lay of the land is now very different to what we may suppose. It's now exceptional for affordable housing to be anything other than shared ownership or discounted rent. The arguments now are not about 'genuinely' affordable vs the rest, they're about the level of rent discount.
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
Which is why there's a housing crisis. London is becoming impossible to survive in for many reasons, but the main one being around having a roof over ones head, with shabby landlords, shite housing, extortionate rents and little regulation. The UK's combination of laissez faire capitalism pandering to the international rich, privatisation of services, collapse of centre ground politics, low interest rates forcing pensions into by to let decisions and an increasingly selfish individualism that society here seems to favour, means you have situations such as developers riding roughshod over communities and building low quality to boot. It's just one symptom of such processes and attitudes.
I see that Sadiq is/has launched an enquiry into one aspect of the housing crisis. Someone on high has to start doing something, otherwise the angry folk will do something silly. Oh wait that's already happened ... with the vote for Brexit
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/sep/29/london-mayor-sadiq-k...
From the article ... 'the number of thirtysomethings leaving London has leapt in recent years, as high housing costs have forced people to move out.'
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Let's say ten of the ladder's millionaires clubbed together and bought the site. They would be offered an easy return of 50% or, if they play hardball with the council, 100%.
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher Fowler on
-
John - In fairness to people who live on the Harringay Ladder, I'm not sure that most of them have incomes which are that high. In terms of property value, maybe some people own (often, I suspect, with a sizeable mortgage) houses that are worth a million pounds, though I suspect there are not many of them. I do agree with you that our Council seems very weak on making developers build _truly affordable_ (i.e. what we used to call council housing, and now call social rent) homes of any kind, anywhere in the Borough). The residents of Haringey need a lot more homes for rent which are at a rent they can actually afford.
-
-
10 out of 10,000 is 0.1%. The Telegraph says that 1 in 35 Londoners are millionaires. I was being extremely conservative.
I'm just trying to point out that unless you're dealing with a bunch of philanthropists like StArt, you're not going to get any social housing and probably no "affordable" housing either. We wouldn't expect our neighbourhood millionaires to take less money for something they were selling, why should we expect any millionaires to do that?
-
Permalink Reply by Charlotte A on
-
1 in 35 Londoners might be millionaires, but I suspect the majority live in Chelsea or some other upscale neighbourhood. If I were a cash millionaire I think I'd live somewhere where the streets are cleaned more often.
-
-
If you were a cash millionaire you would be foolish not to have yourself leveraged to the hilt and in buy-to-let land. Anyway, 0.1% was conservative and I stand by it.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on
-
I think the once-in-a-decade revolt by 12 Labour Cllrs over Hornsey Town Hall shows the way the tide is turning towards a 'living' rent, against 'gentrificleansing' and in favour of direct action in the rich west of the borough to reduce the inequality that plagues us.
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
We can but hope, but there needs to be more clout coming though from the Mayor.
What happened at the planning meeting?, the web page still says Pending.
-
-
There was another article in today's guardian about the Mayor's housing strategy
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2016/nov/03/how-sa...
For those who poo-pooed my earlier comments on bringing back some sort of rent regulation, that is one element that Mr Khan is suggesting - London Living Rent - set at one 3rd of the average wage to provide "genuinely affordable housing" in the private rental sector. They describe it as "rent-indexing" as opposed to rent controls but I think it's a step in the right direction. But it only applies to new developments.
-
-
Completely agree! I see this as groundbreaking - it recognises that the 'free market' is damaging and costly. It reminds government: provide basic needs for people that include housing.
Government must intervene where a market fails and this market seems to have clearly failed with disastrous consequences. Haringey is getting a lot built in the East of the Borough but who will live there? Even the way-less-than-half 'affordable' ones are simply not affordable, so it seems that Haringey are getting huge sums poured into securing accommodation from people outside the borough who will displace the poor within it - that's crazy!
I'd like to see something done about all those people who are profiteering whilst many ordinary families suffer. Taxing excessive gains is one way, a higher rate for unoccupied use is another.
I'd also like to see seemingly widespread abuse of planning law by landlords eradicated. It's wrong to profit from misery. A Council (non-profit) 'lettings agency' is a good idea but the main problem seems to be that there are simply not enough inspectors doing the work of regulation. The Council are quick to collect parking fines - how much cash are they not collecting from landlords sweating assets?
There's so much wrong and thus so much to do that big changes are needed quickly - don't see much prospect of that on the horizon. The forces ranged against those like Sadiq who could make some of the changes needed are huge, because the very fabric of our society is set up as a vehicle for property owners to leverage - property has always been part and parcel of wealth and the wealthy have far more power that we are ready to understand, let alone accept.
Guess we have many more bedrooms than are being used (some have one, some 100), so it's possible to gradually right the wrongs and see everyone decently housed near where they grew up if they want that.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
