Campaigners Question Commitment to Social Housing in Friary Park |
|
Allege that some of the 237 flats promised will have higher rents
January 10, 2025 Campaigners against what they regard as overdevelopment in the Friary Park estate are accusing the council of reneging on its commitment on the amount of social housing in the scheme. The Cap The Towers (CTT) group is suggesting that flats not allocated to former council tenants on the old estate will not be let out at social rents but rather on an ‘affordable’ basis which costs more and has fewer benefits. The council has denied these claims saying that it is a requirement of planning permission that 237 flats at Friary Park must be supplied on a social rent basis. The third phase of the Friary Park scheme does not contain social housing and all the existing units of this kind were contained in the first two phases. Residents of the existing social housing have taken up the offer of a new flat in the development on the same terms as before. Around half of the people who lived there chose to remain on the estate with the others accepting accommodation elsewhere. It was understood that those on the council’s housing waiting list would be offered those Social Rent units that remained. David Tennant of CTT along with Libby Kemp say they had a conversation with a senior member of staff at Peabody at a consultation event last September in which they were told that only returnees would be entitled to Social Rent units with those on the housing waiting list being given units at London Affordable Rent or equivalent. As well as being more expensive, these types of tenancy are less secure, don’t allow the option of swapping with another council tenant should you wish to move home and have rents set by the government. According to the campaigners, the representative of the housing association was adamant that there was no real difference between Social Rent and London Affordable Rent an assertion which they disputed. London Affordable Rent stopped being offered to new tenants in 2023 although it is not clear if schemes built on the basis of its provision can still have tenancies of this kind. The replacement scheme is called London Living Rent which offers three-year tenancies at rent levels typically set at a third of median household income. The apparent discrepancy over tenancy types came up at the Local Development Plan Advisory Committee Community Engagement Meeting on 28 October last year. CTT says that Cllr Shital Manro, Cabinet Member for Good Growth and New Homes, acknowledged that there would no longer be 237 Social Rent units on the development, despite being signed off on the Phase 1 S106 Agreement and Phase 2 S106 Agreement. He reportedly told the meeting that the state of the Housing Revenue Account, which is currently in deficit by £20million, was such that it was not possible to offer all the flats on a Social Rent basis. CTT says that a table published in the Affordable Housing Statement submitted as part of the planning process confirmed that this was what was happening. This showed just 85 units supplied at Social Rent with the remainder of the 237 provided at an affordable rent. We raised this matter with the council which told us that the table was published by developer Mount Anvil in error and had since been corrected in a revised statement.
Any reduction in the proportion of Social Rent housing would go against the policy of the Greater London Authority (GLA) which is working to increase the number of affordable homes available at Social Rent and has a target of 60% of new affordable homes being in this category.
CTT says that any reduction in Social Rent properties in Friary Park would mean that the development will not comply with either the London Plan or the Local Plan. We asked the council if the 237 flats were definitely all being supplied as Social Rent housing including with the right to swap with other council tenants. A council spokesperson said, “237 Social Rent homes are proposed at Friary Park and this is secured in the planning permission and specifically its legal agreement.
|