Councils challenge planning permission for Mount Pleasant

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2015 ... velopment/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Camden and Islington councils challenge planning permission for Royal Mail Mount Pleasant redevelopment

Camden and Islington councils have submitted a joint application for a judicial review of mayor of London Boris Johnson's decision to grant planning permission for the redevelopment of Royal Mail's Mount Pleasant site in Farringdon. 28 May 2015

The redevelopment includes the construction of 681 homes as well as shops, offices, restaurants and public open space. The scheme allocates 24% of these new homes as affordable housing, which includes affordable rented housing. The councils claim that viability evidence shows that at least 42% of the new homes could have been allocated as affordable housing, making the mayor's decision to grant planning permission with only 24% of the homes being affordable housing unlawful. It is also argued that the level of the affordable rent is too high.

Islington Council has said that one of the grounds of challenge is that both councils argue Johnson "failed in his duty to provide the maximum amount of affordable housing on the site that could reasonably be delivered. The councils believe [Johnson] did not fulfil the requirements of policy and fair process when he assessed the scheme's viability."

Royal Mail originally submitted its planning application for the site to both Camden Council and Islington Council as the boundary of the site straddles both boroughs. Johnson called in the scheme as he claimed the councils were delaying the application. Johnson granted planning permission in October last year.

Following Johnson's decision both councils said they would have rejected the scheme owing to the level of affordable housing and the poor design connecting the development to the surrounding streets.

Islington Council’s executive member for housing and development, James Murray said: “The mayor of London’s decision last year was wrong – Mount Pleasant is a huge site where we could have built hundreds of genuinely-affordable homes. But instead of supporting local residents and the local councils, Boris Johnson handed the Royal Mail a huge windfall at the expense of affordable homes."

Camden Council’s cabinet member for regeneration, transport and planning Phil Jones said: “Boris Johnson’s intervention has completely ignored the needs of Camden people – and goes against the usual democratic process where councils decide planning applications in their own area. It especially undermines his own ‘2020 ambition’ of providing homes which ordinary Londoners can afford … we think he has acted unlawfully.”

A spokesman for Johnson said that "he was pleased to be able to approve plans that will lead to the construction of almost 700 new homes… In the event that a legal challenge is submitted the mayor’s team is confident that his decision will be upheld."

Planning expert Victoria Lindsay of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com said:

"This decision raises important points of principle relating to the use of viability assessments and the delivery of affordable housing. The mayor approved a scheme with 24% affordable housing including affordable rents that could potentially be two or three times the level of social rent. The mayor stands behind his decision stating that London is in a housing crisis and there is an urgent need for housing and affordable housing."

"The application was in danger of stalling and the applicant initially only offered 12% affordable housing, therefore the mayor argues that he secured 24% affordable housing and delivery of housing in a key location," she said.

"If you choose to follow one test case in London, follow this one", said Marcus Bate, another planning expert at Pinsent Masons. "A successful judicial review would have the potential to significantly weaken the force of the threat of mayoral intervention on London Borough councils. With the mayor wanting to take over many more 'stalled' planning applications, the political consequences of this judicial review are likely to be even more interesting than the legal arguments about the application of affordable housing policies and viability principles."