The following application has just been brought to my attention.

Back last year application 08/0307/FUL was granted permission:

“Redevelopment of the site to provide a 3-storey building comprising 17 private units (11 × 1-bedoom and 6 × 2-bedroom) and 10 affordable units (3 × 1-bedroom for shared ownership and 2 × 3-bedroom, 4 × 2-bedroom and 1 × 1-bedroom for social rent), basement parking for 20 vehicles and 27 cycle parking spaces, refuse and recycling storage and communal amenity space.”

Read the Council’s notes

However there were a number of conditions attached, in particular U20861:

“No development shall begin until details of schemes for the provision of education, health, public realm, transport infrastructure and affordable housing to meet the needs of the development in accordance with the relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan have been submitted to an approved in writing by the local planning authority. The schemes shall include a timetable for the provision to be made and shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: to help off set the increased burden on local public infrastructure resulting from this development and to comply with the terms of the Council’s adopted Planning Obligations Strategy."

The developers are now applying to have this removed.

The application for this condition removal is 09/0959/VRC

“Removal of condition (Grampian) attached to planning permission approved 21/05/2008 to allow redevelopment of the site to provide a 3-storey building comprising 17 private units (11 × 1-bedoom and 6 × 2-bedroom) and 10 affordable units (3 × 1-bedroom for shared ownership and 2 × 3-bedroom, 4 × 2-bedroom and 1 × 1-bedroom for social rent), basement parking for 20 vehicles and 27 cycle parking spaces, refuse and recycling storage and communal amenity space.”

However you need to drill in to the detailed documents to see the fine print, available at

They claim that “This permission renders the permission financially unviable to implement.”

Essentially it looks like they are trying to avoid the requirement to build a certain amount of affordable housing, and would prefer to make the whole development in to the ubiquitous Luxury Flats™.

This might be of interest to some of your readers who may feel inclined to add their own comments on the matter!

— from Ed Randall