Camden councils controversial unitary development plan has been criticised by four leading developers just a month after it was revised.
It has been attacked even though Camden has backed down on its strict targets for 50% affordable housing levels.
It also revised its policy of forcing developers to designate 35% of commercial buildings to housing – half of which had to be affordable – in its submission to the planning inspectorate.
The council now proposes to ask developers for 50% affordable housing on gain to stock – the additional space created by development work. This is likely to receive consent in January.
Wholly residential schemes would still be required to make roughly 50% of units affordable but this would only be enforced for large sites with low-value uses.
Camden revised its proposals after the implementation of its draft plans to force developers to provide large amounts of affordable housing came under fire from the private sector.
But in their submissions on the UDP, Legal & General, Network Rail, Bedford Estate and St George said the gain to stock proposals were not flexible enough.
Stephen Mundy, property director of Legal & Generals life fund, which has planned a major redevelopment in the borough at Centre Point, said: “Large areas of London have been unnecessarily paralysed like this for years, including the site where the Mayor has just built his HQ. People should have learned from it.”
Developers blamed the original policy for scuppering deals such as London & Paris Estates bid to buy the Stewart House development opportunity in Kingsway, WC2.
Legal & General claimed that, even under the new policy, its plans to develop St Giles Circus, W1 could be jeopardised.
The current building, let to the Ministry of Defence until 2011, comprises 250,000 sq ft (23,250 sq m).
Legal & General is considering options including redeveloping the site as a 750,000 sq ft retail and office scheme, which would mean that up to 250,000 sq ft of the site would have to be developed as homes, 125,000 sq ft of which would be affordable.
Mundy added: “We are under no obligation to develop this site and if we felt the council was being too prescriptive we could just hold off.”
EGi News 25/11/02
