Row Blows Up Over Prestolite Social Housing

---

Mayor compares Council's actions with Shirley Porter's

A major dispute has blown up over the proportion of social housing in the massive Prestolite development.

Both the Mayor and the local MP, Andy Slaughter, have accused Hammersmith & Fulham Council of attempting to drastically reduce the amount of homes available to those on lower incomes and the Mayor has used his powers to reject plans by the Council to cut the number of low rent housing association homes by more than a third.

The Council has reacted angrily to the accusation saying that in fact the proportion of affordable homes in the project is 65%, well above the Mayor's own target. Under the Council's proposed scheme the number of properties available on the open market would remain the same at 165 or 36% but there would be an increase in shared ownership properties (part buy/ part rent). The Mayor claims that because of high housing prices in the area shared ownership is out of reach for people on lower incomes but the Council say they want to help local people gain a stake in their community by owning their own homes.

The Council has claimed that the cut was justified because the ward in which the development was located had more social rented homes than the London average. The Mayor's planning officers' report acknowledges that it is up to the borough to manage this strategic objective.

The redevelopment of the Prestolite factory site which is in East Acton on the boundary with Chiswick, will bring around 450 new homes to the area. The original application from Genesis Housing Group referred to the Mayor in July 2006 for the redevelopment of the site included 148 affordable rented homes, 33 per cent of the total development. Following Council intervention this number was cut to just 65. When the Housing Corporation refused to fund a scheme on this basis a further change was made to bring the total to 92 low rent homes, still a third down on the original application. The Housing Corporation was in favour of the current proposal

The Mayor has pointed out that the Borough's own statutory plan stipulates that 35% of new housing should be 'affordable' and that the Prestolite plans also ignore planning guidance about the need for larger homes to accommodate families.

The Mayor said, "It is scandalous to cut new affordable rented homes and to justify this by saying that the area has enough cheap rented housing already. Hammersmith's actions have the stench of Shirley Porter’s regime at Westminster Council in the 1980s."

He said there were 2,000 homeless families in temporary accommodation in the borough alone this Christmas and that over two thirds of London households who need new homes can only afford to do so through the social rented sector. He also disputed the Council's figures on social rented housing in the ward.

Council Leader, Cllr Stephen Greenhalgh furiously dismissed the accusations saying, “Mayor Livingstone's decision to turn down this planning application will deny several hundred ordinary, hard-working people the chance to get a foot on the property ladder. It is a shameful abuse of his powers to interfere in local planning decisions for purely political purposes. It is political sour grapes and flies in the face of his own officers’ advice.”

The Council are pointing to advice from the Mayor's own planning officers that states, “on balance, the application will deliver substantial numbers of affordable homes, significantly above the overall strategic target for boroughs.”

Local MP Andy Slaughter (Ealing, Acton & Shepherd's Bush) said, ‘This is a blatant abuse of the planning process with the aim of limiting the amount of homes available to those in greatest need. The Council’s conduct is both improper and immoral and is a matter for the Standards Board for England which I shall be taking forward, but I am delighted the Mayor has taken decisive action on such a matter of strategic importance to both the borough and the whole of the capital.’

The Mayor has not ruled out giving approval to an amended proposal but, for the time-being, the future of the project looks uncertain.

December 29, 2006