Don’t tar all towers with the same brush
Residential towers have got rather bad press of late. The arguments against high-rise are that they become ghettos for the rich, bought by overseas investors as somewhere to deposit cash, and do nothing to help solve the housing crisis.
One or two towers may seem extortionately expensive in fringe locations where the price of being 30-40 floors high does not correlate to what is going on below. But that is not the whole story. It is wrong to tar all towers with the same brush.
Residential towers have got rather bad press of late. The arguments against high-rise are that they become ghettos for the rich, bought by overseas investors as somewhere to deposit cash, and do nothing to help solve the housing crisis.
One or two towers may seem extortionately expensive in fringe locations where the price of being 30-40 floors high does not correlate to what is going on below. But that is not the whole story. It is wrong to tar all towers with the same brush.
Take Minavil House in Alperton, north-west London (pictured), for example. Consent was granted in 2011 for an 11-storey development of 55 homes (27 private and 28 social) and a Lidl supermarket. Since then nothing has happened, with the existing building yet to be demolished.
A new planning application has been submitted by pension fund R55, in collaboration with housing association Genesis and Lidl. The proposals are for a 26-storey building comprising 251 homes, far increasing the density. A supermarket will also be provided, along with offices and a canal-side cafe.
However, it is not just the number of homes on offer, but what type. Of 251 homes, 71 will be private, 45 will be social rent and 135 will be shared ownership, making the affordable element a huge 72%.
If the original consent had been built out, 17 social rent homes, 135 shared ownership homes and 44 private market homes would not have existed.
It shows the “safety-deposit boxes in the sky” idea, that towers create ghettos for the rich, is hyperbole. It is the recent planning and economic environment which has tarred towers with a bad reputation. In reality, they can be a force for good and contribute to meeting London’s housing need.
How to increase London’s housing density
There is an interesting side note as to how and why R55 and Genesis were able to increase the Minavil House scheme so substantially.
The previous consent granted in 2011 for 11 storeys and 55 homes, has been superseded by an application for 26 storeys and 251 homes, 72% of which are affordable. So how was this possible?
The fact that the site now lies within the recently created Alperton Housing Zone, along with a new supplementary planing document for the area, certainly helps. The planning statement said about the Alperton masterplan SPD: “As a result, this effectively rewrites the parameters for height, density and the use of any future proposals.”
It is exactly the kind of sentiment expressed in London Residential Research’s recent Opportunity Areas report. It said: “Although not a free ticket through the planning system, developers should have an easier ride and find a more welcoming local authority.
“Planning policy has dictated these 38 areas, covering 25,000 hectares, are ripe for regeneration, with redevelopment therefore encouraged.”
It is the same case for housing zones, albeit with added funding. With Minavil House there was no cash boost subsidy to increase the affordable offer, it is simply a case of the private element creating cross-subsidy for the affordable.
A developer could do a lot worse than look at its schemes with a different set of eyes and go back to the local authority with more ambitious proposals, just as Genesis has done in Alperton.
• Schemes completed within the past five years
• • Applications or permissions, some may have been consented but never started
Metropolitan’s waiting game pays off in Hoxton
Metropolitan Housing Trust has come forward in Hoxton, N1, with a plan for an 11-storey building of 32 new homes.
Metropolitan once had a planning consent from 2009 for an eight-storey building of 14 homes on the site. Part of a growing trend, the revised proposal is far more ambitious. Before, just five of the 14 new homes (35%) were to be affordable. The new proposal will provide 50% affordable housing, equal to 16 new homes.
Some may call this landbanking, but it has worked out for the better. The developer said when referring to the earlier consent that never got off the drawing board: “Due to concerns over the financial viability of the scheme, this development was not realised.” It said the new scheme would “provide a greater contribution to local housing need”.
Could more developers be this ambitious and not adhere to current roof heights? Would that mean more homes would be built?
Interact with Paul Wellman on Twitter @paulwellman_EG
Read more from the London Residential Research team >>
