Spot the Four London Borough that didn’t get money from the @sadiqkhan £1 Billion Council Housing Pot

Total

14,724

£1,029,302,138

Homes

GLA Grant Allocation

London Borough Barking and Dagenham

565

£25,338,000

London Borough of Barnet

87

£8,700,000

London Borough of Brent

817

£65,610,000

London Borough of Camden

308

£30,800,000

City of London

156

£14,880,000

London Borough of Croydon

888

£61,288,000

London Borough of Ealing

1,138

£99,352,000

London Borough of Enfield

571

£18,108,000

Royal Borough of Greenwich

588

£32,600,000

London Borough of Hackney

949

£45,556,000

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

251

£15,308,000

London Borough of Haringey

848

£62,858,000

London Borough of Harrow

618

£32,144,000

London Borough of Havering

282

£24,046,000

London Borough of Hillingdon

347

£11,678,000

London Borough of Hounslow

741

£63,252,000

London Borough of Islington

465

£24,200,000

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

336

£33,600,000

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

713

£67,844,000

London Borough of Lewisham

384

£37,700,000

London Borough of Newham

1,123

£107,476,000

London Borough of Redbridge

400

(funding from Right to Buy receipts)

London Borough of Southwark

926

£89,494,138

London Borough of Sutton

81

£6,500,000

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

675

£13,000,000

London Borough of Waltham Forest

293

£25,518,000

London Borough of Wandsworth

They are Bexley, Bromley, Lambeth, Merton

Why Lambeth – it is stupidly proposing to knock  down several estates of the finest council homes in South London – covered in a thematic EH review here 

Bexley is complicated because of Thamemead, but I can find no record of plans to build council homes at London affordable rent.

Bromley has had no stock of its own since 1992. and I can find no plans o build council homes at London affordable rent wither itself or through an RSL partner.

Merton – similarly no council homes all through Circle.

It may have been that the RSLs only got teh letter from the Minister, build homes at affordable rents in urban areas, thats your jobs, not to flog off land to build elsewhere (which K&C called this week ‘immoral’} after the bid deadline.

 

 

CPRE Waverely Local Plan Green Belt Challenge Goes to Court

13th Oct Haselmere Herald

The astonishing thing here is the amount of money people have been prepared to spend JRing everything.

CAMPAIGNERS objecting to “excessive housing numbers” in Waverley Borough Council’s Local Plan went to judicial review at the High Court on Tuesday.

On Wednesday, the High Court challenges by Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) Surrey and Protect Our Waverley, against Waverley, the Secretary of State for Communities and Dunsfold Airport Ltd were still in full flow.

CPRE and Protect Our Waverley both object Waverley’s housing target to build 11,200 homes by 2032 is “unsustainable” given its landscape constraints and will result in further erosion of currently protected areas of the green belt.

Separately, Protect Our Waverley has challenged the SoS decision to approve outline plans for 1,800 houses at Dunsfold Aerodrome . The airfield has been allocated at least 2,600 houses in Waverley’s local plan part one, which was adopted in February.

The jury is still out on whether CPRE and Protect Our Waverley were correct to challenge Waverley’s agreement to take Woking’s unmet housing need, which has added 1,600 houses

But the gloves have come off concerning the costs incurred as a result of the High Court action, with Waverley joining Dunsfold in dismissing Protect Our Waverley’s application for its costs to be capped.

Waverley has set aside £300,000 as its “fighting fund”, but costs for CPRE and Protect Our Waverley could be limited to £10,000 each.

Waverley’s barrister Wayne Beglan maintained Protect Our Waverley was not entitled to Aarhus cost protection, because it had not supplied enough information about the financial support it could draw on from its supporters.

Dunsfold barrister David Elvan QC went further, saying: “Protect Our Waverley has pursued a concerted and well-resourced campaign against the development of Dunsfold Aerodrome for many years.

“In 2017 that campaign included: issuing a judicial review of WBC’s resolution to grant planning permission; making detailed written and oral representations against the Dunsfold allocation in Local Plan Part One; and presenting the main opposition to the grant of planning permission in the planning inquiry.

“Protect Our Waverley has been represented by leading and junior counsel and has engaged several specialist consultants. The costs of so doing exceeded £200,000.

“It is understood that those funds have been raised from the local community, primarily from a small number of individuals with a direct interest in resisting the development of Dunsfold.

“Despite its name, Protect Our Waverley appears to be exclusively concerned with Dunsfold.”

Defending the SoS decision to approve 1,800 homes at the airfield, barrister Clare Parry said: “The amount of development attributed to Dunsfold is entirely unaffected by any error in the approach to unmet need from Woking.”

Protect Our Waverley barrister Paul Stinchcombe QC maintained that the the Dunsfold Park outline planning consent for 1,800 houses was granted unlawfully on appeal, because part one of Waverley’s local plan had been adopted unlawfully.

* A government examiner has approved Waverley’s community infrastructure levy charging schedule for developers, setting out how much they must contribute towards the cost of infrastructure. The council will now seek to formally adopt the levy at full council on October 31.