Agenda item

Phased comprehensive redevelopment including demolition of existing structures; site preparation and enabling works; and the construction of 985 residential homes including 60 extra care homes (Use Class C3), a Women’s Building (Use Class F.2) and flexible commercial floorspace (Use Class E) in of buildings of up to 14 storeys in height; highways/access works; landscaping; pedestrian and cycle connection, publically accessible park; car (blue badge) and cycle parking; and other associated works.

(Planning application number: P2021/3273/FUL)

Councillor Klute was not in the meeting room nor involved in the consideration of this item. Councillor Poyser chaired the Committee for this item.

In the discussion the following points were made:

·       This application has been brought back to the Committee in order to comply with a resolution by the Committee on 8 March 2022 to secure a mid-stage viability review mechanism and a further resolution requiring that details of that mechanism be brought back for approval.

·       Planning permission has been granted subject to any direction by the Mayor of London to refuse the application or for it to be called in and conditional upon the prior completion of a Deed of Planning Obligation made under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

·       In addition, the resolution to grant planning permission imposed an additional obligation on the developer to appoint a fundraiser with regards the Women’s building and a further requirement on the developer to secure a £2.9 million contribution to the fit out of the Women’s Building.

·       The Service Director, Planning and Development informed the meeting that the reason for the item being brought back before Members is to approve the wording of the Head of Terms in relation to the mid stage review mechanism as set out in paragraph 3.60 of the Case Officer’s report and the associated details as set out in Appendices One and Two of the report.

·       Members were reminded that Peabody has agreed that upon commencement of Phase 3 of the Development, it would conduct a bespoke mid-stage viability review to be secured in accordance with Appendix Two of the Case Officer’s report and if the review was to indicate a surplus, this will be used to convert some of the proposed shared ownership homes in Phase Three to London Living Rent homes. 

·       The conversion of shared ownership homes to London Living Rent homes, would be capped at 50% of the total shared ownership floorspace.  The officer noted that if this conversion could be achieved through grant funding the requirement for a mid - stage review mechanism would fall away.

·       Members were advised that the proposed 985-home development provides 60% affordable housing, which exceeds the 50% strategic affordable housing target of both GLA and Council policies, that it delivers the affordable housing provision at a policy compliant affordable housing tenure split of 70% social rent and 30% London Shared Ownership in accordance with Policy CS12 Part G.

·       The Service Director of Planning and Development informed the meeting that as set out in the report, it is clear that the scheme faces viability challenges and would not be able to afford to deliver any London Living Rent housing at present, however they noted that an early stage viability review mechanism has been secured in line with GLA policy. 

·       Members were informed that following the Committee’s request for the mid stage review mechanism to comply with the GLA formula, discussions with GLA officers have indicated that there is no precedent for a mid stage review mechanism for a scheme that delivers a policy complaint level of affordable housing because mid-stage review mechanisms are reserved only for schemes where the developer is failing to meet the affordable housing targets when planning permission is granted 

·       Members were advised that Policy H3 of the Council’s Emerging Local Plan which states that the majority of intermediate tenure housing should be London Living Rent can be given moderate weight in securing the Mid-Stage Review Mechanism.

·       The Mid Stage Review Mechanism would be triggered upon the commencement of Phase 3 of the development which includes the delivery of 321 homes of which 108 are shared ownership

·       Meeting was advised that in line with the standard GLA formula, the proposed mid-stage review formula includes a deficit of £38.5 million.  This is not the full deficit put forward by the applicants.

·       Members were advised that the above obligation falls away if grant or other funding is secured to meet the same objective.

·       The Service Director advised the Committee that because the current proposal is policy compliant in terms of social rented housing, the formula does not incorporate the ability to convert homes to social rented homes if there is a surplus.

·       With regard to the Women’s building, the Committee was advised that on the 24^th of March 2022, the Executive agreed to underwrite the £2.9 million Cat B fit out costs.

·       The s106 Heads of Terms agreed by the Planning Committee on the 8 March 2022 included an additional obligation on the applicant to employ a fund raiser to secure funding for the fit out/operating costs of the Women’s Building and that the applicant must also demonstrate to the council’s satisfaction that it has done everything that it practically can to secure this funding by other means before the funding is paid to Peabody.

·       Meeting was advised that the proposed mid stage review mechanism will not therefore provide a contribution towards the fit out costs of the Women’s Building if a surplus can be demonstrated as this would be duplicating an existing obligation.

·       The Council received 3 further representations on the application since the Committee met on the 8^th March 2022. Camden Council raised no concerns. Another representation expressed significant disappointment at the Committee’s resolution to grant planning permission on 8 March 2022 specifically in relation to the proposals for the Women’s Building.  Community Plan for Holloway requested that the s106 agreement should secure:equitable access to the resident’s space; commercial spaces to be made available to young people at a peppercorn rent; conversion of shared ownership homes to London Living Rent; fit out costs for the Women’s Building and a mid-stage review mechanism to be secured.

·       Nikki Gibbs, representing CPH4 Women’s Building Working Group, Reclaim Holloway was concerned that the needs of women were still not been addressed, suggesting that both the Council and Peabody must consider CPH4’s alternative proposal as it will deliver social housing for the council, provide ground-breaking facilities for the youth, surplus for Peabody and a building for women. Nikki Gibbs suggested that as Block E2 is entirely private, CPH4 would want to raise money to buy private block E2.

·       Nikki Gibbs reminded members of earlier representations at previous meetings concerning the need to provide aa befitting women’s building, reiterating that the current proposal will not deliver a building for traumatised women, however noting that CPH4 are willing to work with all parties to ensure the building is delivered.

·       Linda Clarke reminded the meeting that Peabody received a huge amount of grant and public money so should fund the fit out of the women’s building, supporting the Council’s deficit assessment statement rather than the applicants.

·       In response to questions regarding profit, surpluses and viability, the Peabody project manager reminded the meeting that the figures put forward have been agreed by both the Council and the applicants viability experts.

·       On whether Peabody had made any further concessions beyond the heads of terms, the Peabody project manager indicated that in addition to securing the mid stage review mechanism which is unprecedented considering that the scheme is policy compliant, Peabody has agreed to employ a fund raiser in relation to the women’s building.

·       Meeting was advised that for the scheme to generate a surplus, the value of the private homes will have to increase and/or the construction costs will have to fall below their current levels.

·       Member queried the omission of the £2.9m fit out costs for the women’s building from the draft s106 and had concerns that the employment of the fund raiser was specifically targeted towards the running costs rather than the capital cost which is contrary to what was agreed by the Committee at the previous meeting.  The Service Director noted that the fundraiser would be tasked to raise funds for both.

·       With regards to the provision of affordable broadband cost for all residents, the Peabody project manager advised that free public wifi will be available in the public park and the residents facility and that discussions were underway to ensure that residents on low incomes and universal credit will have access to low cost wifi.

·       During deliberations, a member noted that although not perfect he welcomed the head of terms, that any further delay to the commencement of the scheme would not be beneficial to Islington residents who require genuinely affordable homes.

·       Another member noted that although it is clear that Peabody’s approach to the scheme has not been encouraging especially in terms of its relationship with residents, its provision of social housing and the scheme being policy complaint in terms of affordable housing holds it in good stead.

·       A member expressed his disappointment, that the scheme fell short of expectations. He acknowledged residents’ objections regarding loss of light, pollution concerns for residents facing the busy road and the excessive heights of the tall buildings in an area of high density which is contrary to the council policy on Tall buildings and stated that he would not be supporting the proposed Head of Terms.

·       Councillor Wayne moved a motion to support the approval of the Head of Terms. This was seconded by Councillor North


RESOLVED:
That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee, submitted representations and objections provided verbally at this meeting, that both the wording of the Head of Terms in relation to the mid stage review mechanism as set out in paragraph 3.60 of the report and the associated details as set out in Appendices One and Two of the report be approved.