Tuesday 11 March 2014 2.56pm
I do not understand the post from James Hatts. No-one is saying that there are no plans to replace - and indeed increase - residential development. It is the nature and target price of that development and the market at which it is aimed that is the problem. James says - "completely removing affordable housing from the site as a whole would [not] be politically acceptable." Again no-one is talking about "complete removal" of affordable housing but cutting it down to a derisory token amount. JazzyQ has posted a lengthy BBC news piece. One quote from it says it all -
"Mr Johnson is also taking a more active role in the planning process, threatening to over-rule individual boroughs who want to block developments or demand more social housing.
Plans to build 700 private flats - 81 of which will be "social rented" homes - on the site of a Royal Mail sorting office, in Mount Pleasant, North London, is the latest big project to be "called in" by City Hall
's planning team.
Developers say this is the only way London will get the new homes it so badly needs.
The Royal Mail says it cut its original target of 20% affordable homes to 12% as that was the only way to make the site, which will continue to house a sorting office, financially viable - but the final decision rests with the mayor."
Now let's just guess what that decision might be!