The latest proposals for redevelopment of Sutherland House go to the Development Control Committee on Wednesday 8 May. Richard and Heather support the recommendation of the Council’s Planning Department to oppose the proposals.
We want to see Sutherland House re-developed, but not at any price. What is most objectionable is the lack of inclusion of affordable housing, despite evidence to be presented to the Committee that massive profits will be made by the developers and that they could afford to make such a contribution to the local community. There will be 160 private, luxury flats in the development. Richard and Heather, in their casework, meet local families with small children living in horribly over-crowded conditions. These developers can afford to do more for the community! An independent assessment of their proposals shows that the profits they will make are £3.67million beyond what would be “normal” profits.
The proposal will go to the Planning Inspectorate who will, we hope, insist of some provision of affordable housing, something that would be normal in such a big housing development. The reasons given for opposing the current proposal are, in full:
| The proposal does not include any affordable housing which would cause harm to the promotion of mixed and balanced communities and would fail to contribute towards addressing the lack of affordable houses in Sutton and London in general. In addition, the lack of employment generating uses proposed would undermine the policies that underpin the future economic growth of Sutton and would fail to promote the vitality and viability of the Town Centre. Having independently reviewed the applicant’s viability assessment submitted with the application the Councils independent experts disagree with some of the assumptions that underpin the applicant’s figures. The Council’s independent consultant considers the scheme has a surplus of £2.9m in addition to the £670,000 the appellant allows for S106 payments and the developers profit, whilst still providing a viable scheme. This means that approximately £3.67m could be spent on providing affordable housing, planning contributions and/or employment uses along with a CIL payment of approximately £40,000. | |||
• The over-concentration of restaurant uses proposed at ground floor level is considered unacceptable and would mean the over-supply of food and drink uses, which would limit the range, choice and interest of uses in this parade.
|