"Since when were public authorities there to guarantee developers 10% profits?" Councillor Derek Antrobus
It wasn't so much Salford councillors biting back against developers and speculators at Salford Council's planning meeting this afternoon; it was more like a nasty suck. But at least they had a go, deferring one application for trying to drive a coach and horses through Council policy, and jibing at developers for ridiculously low financial contributions to the city and the complete absence of affordable housing.
In the latter part of the planning meeting there were two monster applications before them, which had been slated this week by the Salford Star for potentially losing Salford people £4.4million in financial obligations (for full background see previous Salford Star article – click here).
The first application was for 995 flats and `commercial floorspace' in four horrid blocks up to 23 storeys high at Chapel Wharf next to The Lowry Hotel. Developer Acroy Ltd, a sub-company of Dandara, should have been paying £3,557,663 in Section 106 planning obligations but, because of `viability' issues, agreed to contribute only £798,000.
Dandara should also have been providing 20% affordable housing but, again this was waived because of `viability' issues. Salford Council also has a policy (HOU2) that `Studios and one bed apartments should not predominate and a significant proportion of three bedroom apartments should be provided'. But this application had 55% studio and one bedroom apartments.
While Salford Council's planning officers recommended that the councillors should approve the application, the councillors, for once, had had enough. Developers, thanks to the ConDem Government's National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), are allowed to make around 10% profit on rental sector developments, and anything less apparently makes the scheme `unviable', allowing a zillion loopholes for them to sneak through, even though their figures are `checked' by the District Valuer...
"The legislation is up the wall" railed Labour Councillor Derek Antrobus "Since when were public authorities there to guarantee developers 10% profits?"
The councillor then rounded on the amount of one bedroom dwellings in the scheme, which, he said, was against Salford Council `SPD' policy... "I don't know what's going on here..."
Conservative Leader, Councillor Karen Garrido, also laid into the plans, quoting the planning report stating `it is regrettable that a better mix is not being proposed'... "That, to me, means `We've asked, they've looked at it and they're not going to do it' - then why am I here now being asked to agree to it? We are the planning authority, we are the people who set these rules...it's up to all of us to make that decision ..."
Moving on, Garrido said her second concern was that "there's no affordable housing ...we need to have a mix of affordable housing..."...and her third concern was the `viability issues'...
"I have to get my head around an area that should be providing £3million and we are prepared to accept £700,000" she argued "I need to understand why that is the amount...We need to know why somebody has said this development of 995 apartments is not viable for us to get more..."
A sheepish Council planning officer replied: "There is a tension in this...We took independent advice from the District Valuer and we have to take his advice...The Government changes the goalposts..."
After having a "moan", as Councillor Antrobus called it, the councillors decided not to reject the application on the grounds of dodgy `viability' issues, instead opting to `defer' the application for `clarification' on Council policy for the mix of apartment sizes.
And so it was onto the second application by Amstone Ventures II LLP for 665 flats in five hideous blocks up to 15 storeys high on the old cinema site at Clippers Quay on Trafford Road.
Someone on the Skyscapercity blog had called this development (and the Chapel, Wharf scheme) `worse than arse gravy', which contrasted slightly with the applicant's description to planning councillors... "a unique oasis of calm...a warm natural environment". They even passed bricks around for the councillors to stroke and had brought along a `daylight specialist' to counter objections from nearby residents worried that the blocks would, er, block their light.
This time, however, councillors were happy with the mix of apartments and there was hardly a word about the lack of affordable housing, or the missing £millions - £2,376,796 should have been paid in Section 106 contributions but the developers had only agreed to pay £700,000 towards a bridge.
Councillor Garrido made a final stand... "I just really feel that we've lost out on a very large development here..."
"It's Pickles" insisted Councillor Antrobus
"Now stop blaming Eric...planning is non-political" she scolded "...you won't convince me that there isn't a profit in this, and I just think that no-one's going to build anything or do anything if they're not going to get something out of it..."
Indeed, the applicant had stated earlier that the site was "very sustainable...a great location..."
When the vote came, Councillor Garrido abstained. The rest voted to accept the application. No so much councillors biting back. More of a nasty suck.
Now the challenge is for Salford councillors to take their grievances about the pathetic levels of Section 106 contributions and affordable housing out of the planning panel meetings and explain to their residents why the Council is losing £millions every month to back slapping developers – and more importantly to take a stand on it and campaign for change. Residents might well be asking where the Mayor is hiding in all this.
Had both applications gone through, Salford people would have lost £4.4million alone today, on top of around £20million in missing fees recently. This while the council is currently making £31.5million cuts for next year – and as the affordable housing crisis grows ever worse in the city.
* Over two months ago the Salford Star submitted a Freedom of Information request to see a `viability assessment' for an apartment block planning application. No response from Salford Council has yet been received... Update: 30th January 2015 - Salford Council refuses to disclose viability figures - see here
See also update 22nd January - Salford Planning Mayor finally exposes `Planning Scandal of Immense Proportions' - click here
* Main photo shows applicants from Amstone Ventures addressing the planning panel of councillors
.jpg)
(2).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
(3).jpeg)
.png)
(1).JPG)
