Thursday 24 April 2014 10.49pm
With my cynic hat on I'd agree that the money was paid to ensure exclusivity and therefore marketability of the Neo Bankside
development. However, as I recall, the £9m payment to LBS in lieu of on site social housing had a lot to do with the type of construction and cost of ongoing maintenance - considerable costs which couldn't be borne by tenants of social housing organisations. For example, maintenance and after 50 years (I think) complete replacement of all glass panels. It was perhaps the first development which moved away from the previously successful attainment of 50% social housing on site. Now of course there are companies who are paid to write viability assessments which 'prove' that developers can't afford to provide on site social housing, or even 'affordable housing' which of course is not affordable for people in social housing in London. At least Neo Bankside
paid up, and indeed were very approachable sponsors of community activities at one time. How times change.
Quite why planning consent is granted for non-sustainable buildings is another question. As is the nature of the Willow Walk
development v mixed communities. The plans seem to be for some social housing along with hostel style accommodation for those in more desperate need. More ghetto than mixed IMHO, and plenty far enough away from any private owners who want to avoid the poors.