Tuesday 15 August 2017
Friday 11 August 2017
Genesis & Notting Hill Housing merger threat to residents - 16th August meeting
MEETING FOR ALL
RESIDENTS OF NOTTING HILL HOUSING AND GENESIS HA.
All residents very
welcome - tenants, shared owners and leaseholders.
WEDNESDAY 16 AUGUST
2017
6:30-8:30 pm
Westbourne Grove
Church
Westbourne Grove
London, W11 2RW
(The venue has wheel
chair access)
From Genesis Residents
What are the real reasons for the proposed merger of Notting Hill Housing and Genesis Housing Association? Why are the 170,000 NHH and Genesis residents worried. Genesis Residents explain:
So that the merged H.A can borrow more money on the private money markets to build homes which are out-of-reach for ordinary people. Both housing associations have lost sight of their original purpose.
In 2016 the National Housing Federation, the HA bosses association, said (1) that rental income is central for ,“raising private debt in order to build more homes”. Service charges and ‘management charges’ on maintenance work for leaseholders and shared owners also increase income and allow HAs to raise more private debt.
Increasing income (from rents, service charges and management charges on repairs) and a bigger asset base (our homes) means more loans for out-of-reach housing. It has very little do with protecting homes or ending the housing crisis.
In 2016 Genesis funded a report (2) by a ‘think tank’ set up by extremist conservative MPs which called for the government to give H.As a ‘deal’ – to build more out-of-reach homes based on increasing H.A debt to 60% debt and forcing up rents. Part of the deal was also that the H.As could sell their existing housing. Although lip service was paid to ‘rent caps’, HAs would be able charge whatever rent they wanted:
“Government would give the housing associations signing up complete discretion over the use of the social housing grant from housing asset sales and allow the housing associations to set their own rents for its social housing tenants.”
Neither HA has been honest with residents about the real reasons for the merger – or the likely consequences.
What will this mean for our rents and service charges?
We are concerned that there is a long term agenda to raise rents or get tenants out, to sell properties on.
What is happening is shown by Genesis’ attitude to older ‘secure tenants’. The rents for these pre-1989 tenancies are currently uncapped. Despite the fact that all 2,000 of them are retired, or nearing retirement, usually on fixed savings or pensions, Genesis has been raising their rents by up to 177%.
As Kate Davies said (3) in 2008, “housing associations should be free to use new social housing, and existing social housing…as they see fit” (our emphasis). The new Housing and Planning Act 2016 allows H.A.s to end much of the protection for residents including their rents ( a process sometimes called ‘deregulation’).
In other words the terms of tenancies, including rent, are under attack. Service and other charges may also go up with the pressure to fund more building. Neil Hadden said in an interview (4) in 2015 that Genesis was:
“really looking at our asset base and seeing what the value of that is and how we can get our hands on that value, by changing its tenure, by churning it, by selling it and using those proceeds to build more homes.”
So there appears to be a serious conflict of interest between the interests of current residents and the drive to increase the income of Genesis and Notting Hill’s (and therefore the new merged HA) by any means.
Labels:
Dipesh Shah,
Genesis Housing Association,
housing associations,
Kate Davies,
merger,
Neil Hadden,
Nottting Hill Housing
Thursday 10 August 2017
Uproar over Brent's Alperton high rise approval, despite application “failing to meet requirements in 13 different matters”
Guest post by Alperton resident Andrew Linnie
Once again questions are being raised regarding the scrutiny
under which Brent Council Planning Committee examines applications in the Alperton
growth area, after the approval on August 9th of a development at
245-253 Ealing Road.
The site is formed of two small plots separated by a private
laneway, one section a disused HSBC bank and the other formerly a pub called
the Plough. As was the case with Minavil House in May, I was speaking on behalf
of locals in opposition to the proposal. Neighbouring residents objected for a
wide variety of reasons, and the planners at Brent Council conceded that the
plans for the development, which will feature 92 flats in two towers over 9 and
10 stories, failed to meet a large number of planning regulations and considerations.
144 neighbouring windows failed light assessments, yet were
deemed acceptable anyway. Some homes, between this scheme and the impact
of 255 Ealing Road, are losing almost all of their direct sunlight. It
was asked at the meeting of August 9th what the point of such
assessments is, if even the worst affected windows are to be deemed “acceptable
given the context”. The effect of the buildings’ imposing height is exacerbated
by the fact that their positioning fails to meet standards – none of the nearby
existing buildings is 20m away as recommended by the London Plan, and one
building, the currently-under-construction 255 Ealing Road, is less than 10m
away from the proposed towers, failing to even meet the less stringent 10m
separation guideline required elsewhere.
Residents also raised concerns over the legality of access
through private land to the new development. According to the submitted plans,
the emergency exit at the rear of Block A of the building opens directly into
garden beds owned and maintained by residents of the 243 Ealing Road
development, though the plans incorrectly show this as being paved. The
residential and commercial refuse stores on the side of the same block open
facing a privately owned laneway connecting Hatton and Ealing Roads. The access
to these stores along the side of the building is less than 100cm wide at its
narrowest point, narrower than Brent Council’s 1100 litre bins.
Planners
recommended in a supplementary report that access should be added into the
refuse stores from the private laneway bisecting the site, ignoring the fact
that it is privately owned and maintained by residents of the development next
door. This was just one of many design flaws in the plan, including a wheelchair
accessible unit included on the ninth floor of a building with just one lift,
and the fact that, although obscured windows are planned for the rear of block
A to avoid encroaching on privacy in neighbouring Braunston House, there are
still balconies looking directly into nearby homes.
The mix of housing was another concern which failed tests.
Just 16% of units are family sized, well short of the 25% requirement, and the
affordable housing provision fails to meet expectations by some distance, at
26%. The density of surrounding schemes is 260 housing units/hectare, the
maximum recommended in the London Plan. The scheme approved this week is 800
units/hectare. Planners said this is mitigated by the community space provided,
a community space which less than a quarter of respondents in the public consultation
said they wanted, and which is only 166sqm.
The current non-residential space
provided on the site is 832sqm, so this “mitigation” actually represents a loss
of over 80% plus added demand, while Alperton still has under half the open
space of an average London ward. Saying that the density is similar to nearby
developments ignores the fact that those developments included a significant
provision of open space and retail units, which are still unused due to a lack
of access.
This, like other developments nearby, is described as ‘car-free’
and provides 10 disabled spaces for accessible units, but no parking for the
other 82 homes. The impact of this is estimated to be 66 additional cars
parking in neighbouring streets, leading to an extension of the Controlled
Parking Zone. There is a large provision for cycle parking, however the roads
nearby are all marked red in the lowest category for cycle safety by TFL, and
the only segregated cycle lane in the ward of Alperton, along the canal, is
unlit and dangerous at night.
While the buildings are close to Alperton Station, TFL say
Alperton ward has one of the lowest average PTAL (Public Transport Access) scores
in all of Brent. Hundreds of new homes have been approved in the area without
any plan for improved services, notably the 251 units in the controversial 26
storey Minavil House tower, approved in May despite widespread opposition and a
limit of 17 storeys in the area’s Masterplan. According to an independent
transport assessor the figures presented at the council for the transport
impact of Minavil House nearby were out by a factor of 8. Once again,
there was much debate at planning committee level regarding the quality of
transport services in the area, particularly with regard to the accessibility
of Alperton Station and the lack of night services. The state of medical
services in the area, already severely stretched, was also raised.
The Plough Pub, which has been closed for over a year, was
open until developers purchased the site. Cllr Mary Daly pursued the planning
officers on the issue of the pub’s upkeep, and the fact that it was not
advertised for lease for the statutory 24 months after closure. The building has
been allowed to decay since its closure, according to residents.
Cllr Michael Maurice at one point of the meeting counted off
13 matters in which the proposal failed to meet guidelines and requirements.
The developers of the scheme failed to take into
consideration the views put forward in the initial consultation. The design is
seen by many as inappropriate for the site and lacks context, to the point that
the area will become a patchwork of clashing styles. There are five unrelated
styles of high rise architecture already approved or constructed, this adding
yet another. The developer made no effort to gather views from residents until the
week in the run up to the planning meeting, at which point it was much too late
to make a difference. 42 addresses objected to the scheme, none responded in
favour. Many also raised concerns as to the safety of residents during the
construction phase, as the buildings occupy the entire site and will
necessitate external building space, impacting on the ability of emergency
services to access neighbouring homes.
"Are our
councillors and planners here to enforce the laws and guidelines for local
people,
or to make excuses and exceptions for private developers?”
When speaking at the meeting on behalf of objecting
residents, I concluded by asking our representatives what their duty in the
process is, in the their opinion: “This scheme fails light, massing, density,
air, noise, access and other tests, yet is recommended for approval. Are our
councillors and planners here to enforce the laws and guidelines for local
people, or to make excuses and exceptions for private developers?”
The Planning Committee was split three votes to three, with Cllr Daly
abstaining despite raising many concerns. At that point the chair, Cllr Agha,
cast a deciding vote in favour of the development proceeding, and in doing so
gave me an answer to my question. One wonders at this point just how many
guidelines and regulations a developer would have to ignore for Brent Council
Planning Committee to refuse them permission.
Labels:
245-253 Ealing Road,
Alperton,
Andrew Linnie,
Councillor Agha,
Councillor Daly,
Councillor Maurice,
Minavil House,
planning committee,
Plough Pub
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)