While everyone in Salford is looking over their shoulder for coronavirus, Salford City Council is, remotely, chugging along, allowing developers to avoid millions of pounds in planning fees and obligations.
Tomorrow, the remote (pun intended) panel of councillors will be considering an application by the awfully named Eutopia Homes (Salford) Ltd for five hundred apartments in blocks ranging from six to nine storeys at 319 and 321 Ordsall Lane, currently used as warehousing for Pan World Brands and NG Bailey.
In December 2019, Salford Council 'refreshed' its planning policy, making a big show that developers would be providing more affordable housing and planning contributions.
The Council officer's report for this site actually states, "Given the scale of the development an assessment of its impact on nearby transport infrastructure, public realm, open space and affordable housing provision is required in accordance with UDP Policy DEV5 and the Planning Obligations SPD (refreshed 2019)..."
For this Ordsall scheme in a 'high value' area, the developer should be providing 20% affordable housing (75% social rent and 25% affordable rent or intermediate housing) - in this case one hundred properties. But it is providing none at all.
The developer should also be paying for open space, public realm, transport and more. For open space payments alone it should be paying almost £1million (£1,151 per bed space x 804 bed spaces = £925,404).
However, in the report going to councillors, the developer is proposing to pay just £888,125.46 to deliver: an improved bus service along Ordsall Lane; a review of traffic regulations in the area, the lease of a car club vehicle and a monitoring fee.
Altogether, the developer has avoided paying millions of pounds in affordable housing and more as it has submitted a 'viability assessment'...The report states that "The viability case has been reviewed by the City's Estates Team and it has been agreed that a financial contribution would render this scheme unavailable..."
Instead it has agreed a 'clawback' clause whereby if its profits are huge, it will pay something towards open space in the area, including some lamp posts. Affordable housing is last on the list.
When Salford Council brought in its 'refreshed' planning policy, or SPD, it clearly stated that "Good information on how planning obligations have been agreed and used is essential to maintaining public confidence in the planning system.
"Where planning obligations do not accord with all of the policy requirements in this SPD, it is important that local communities can understand fully why a reduced contribution is considered necessary and appropriate" it added "The publication of viability appraisals is a key aspect of this.
"...Any viability assessment should be prepared on the basis that it will be made publicly available other than in exceptional circumstances...The city council will apply a presumption that all viability assessments submitted as part of the planning application process, or in relation to clawback will be published..."
But no! As usual, there is no publicly available viability statement put forward by the developer, as transparency yet again bites the dust at Salford City Council. And the Council officer is, of course, recommending that councillors on the Planning Panel approve the application...
The Planning Panel Meeting will be shown via the net at 9:30am Thursday 14th May - click here
Update: 11am 14th May - The application was approved with 12 councillors in favour, two abstentions (from Councillors Garrido and Nelson) and one vote against from Councillor Clarke.
During the discussion, Councillor Derek Antrobus declared that he was "very pleased with the application...which sits nicely within our vision"...Councillor Jim Cammell insisted on a power supply for an e-bike, Councillor Tanya Burch was pleased with the green roofs. Councillor Lewis Nelson asked for the clawback arrangements to be explained and that the balconies should be more visually attractive.
Councillor Bob Clarke called the development "deeply unpleasant", asked about the lack of affordable housing, and a housing mix that sees 50% of the apartments only one bedroom.
In response, the Council officer said that the application complied with Salford Council policy, and that any money got from the developer was "prioritised towards transport" rather than affordable housing...
Horror in Seedley and Langworthy! Salford Council knocked down rows of terraced houses over ten years ago - to be replaced by...terraced houses with no gardens!!! Click here
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
(3).jpeg)
.png)
(1).JPG)
