To unravel the hysterics lets just go back to basics.
Planning consents for developments over 100 square meters attract Community Infrastructure levy’s , Tower hamlets had released a revised charging rate up from 2015’s £200 per sqm to £280 per sq m, the charge is not a new thing and the potential increase is also effected by planning guidance on application of the charges weighed against the Affordable housing and other social and commercial benefits any particular Scheme offers to the community in which it is proposed.
Financial Viability Assessment in support of the Planning Application https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tSolSiVGMg7g0099VRKUmGqwkkTidoWA/view? usp=sharing Planning Obligations Package £11,490,732 DP9 Planning Obligations/Payments Mayoral CIL 5,517,565 Oct-18 Oct-18 S106 5,973,167 Oct-18 Oct-18 £11,490,732 1.3% 17 Jan 2020 Correspondence SECRETARY OF STATE APPEAL DECISION - ALLOWED - PERMISSION GRANTED. TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL MADE BY WESTFERRY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED LAND AT FORMER WESTFERRY PRINTWORKS SITE, 235 WESTFERRY ROAD, LONDON E14 3QS APPLICATION REF: PA/18/01877/A1 Main issues The fallback position 16.The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector’s assessment of the fallback position at IR417-419. He is satisfied that the site benefits from an existing permission for 722 residential units (20% affordable), a secondary school and other uses (‘the consented scheme’). The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the consented scheme represents a realistic fallback position and there is a reasonable 4 prospect this would continue to be implemented if this proposal were to be dismissed. He agrees with the Inspector at IR596 that many of the public benefits of the appeal scheme would be delivered by the consented scheme. However, the Secretary of State considers that there are significant benefits that the proposed scheme would deliver in comparison with the consented scheme, as set out below. 34.The Secretary of State considers, however, that while not in line with the policy requirements for affordable housing, an increase in affordable units from 140 to 282 (IR583) provided by the appeal scheme as against the consented scheme is a benefit of the scheme. In the judgment of the Secretary of State, contrary to the finding of the Inspector, the delivery of an additional 142 affordable homes attracts significant weight in the planning balance, notwithstanding the conflict with LonP Policy 3.12, CS Policy SP02 and THLP Policy S.H1. Further, notwithstanding the Secretary of State’s findings above as to the housing mix, the Secretary of State considers that the additional housing which the proposal would deliver is of itself a benefit to the scheme. While the Council can demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing sites, the Secretary of State considers, for the reasons given by the Appellant as recorded by the Inspector at IR191-194, that significant weight can be accorded to this benefit, contrary to the arguments of the other parties. Overall the Secretary of State concludes that the benefits of increased provision of affordable housing and open market housing should attract substantial weight in favour of the proposals.
Planning obligations 39.Having had regard to the Inspector’s analysis at IR404-616, the Unilateral Undertaking dated 6th September 2019, paragraph 56 of the Framework, the Guidance and the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, as amended, the Secretary of State 9 agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion for the reasons given in IR533-537 that the obligation at clause 3.8(b) with regards to the Late Stage Review would meet the tests contained in Regulation 122(2) of the CIL Regulations. He agrees, however, that the obligation fails with regards to Schedule 8 and Schedule 15 to comply with Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations and the tests at paragraph 56 of the Framework. He agrees that the other elements of the Undertaking would comply with the CIL Regulations and paragraph 56 of the Framework. 40.The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR565-568 that while the appeal scheme would not itself provide a secondary school, the planning obligation given in connection with the consented scheme would be carried forward. He agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions at IR568 and considers for the reasons given that the undertaking in relation to a school is neutral in the planning balance. He has taken those obligations set out at IR564-569 into account in reaching his decision. He further agrees with the Inspector at IR591 that the contributions to employment and training, affordable workspace, local employment/procurement and apprenticeships would be greater than the consented scheme and should attract moderate weight in favour of the proposals. Formal decision 42.As set out above, the Secretary of State considers the consented scheme to be a realistic fallback position. As such, his assessment of the planning balance is carried out by comparison with the consented scheme. 43.The Secretary of State considers that the proposal would provide a significantly greater amount of market and affordable housing than the consented scheme. He considers that, even though the scheme would not deliver the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing and might reasonably provide up to 35% affordable housing so as to comply with the minimum target in CS Policy SP02, would not deliver the balance of market housing types sought and would not maximise the provision of family homes, there is no evidence before the Secretary of State of any other scheme which might come forward or what level of affordable (or market) housing such a scheme might deliver and the provision of an additional 142 affordable units and 660 market units are nonetheless significant benefits to the proposed scheme in comparison with the consented scheme. Overall, he gives substantial weight to the housing benefits of the scheme. He considers there would be additional employment benefits during construction by reference to the consented scheme, to which the Secretary of State 48.Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. He hereby allows your client’s appeal and grants planning permission subject to the conditions set out at Annex B to this letter, for a comprehensive mixed-use redevelopment comprising 1,524 residential units (Class C3), shops, offices, flexible workspaces, financial and professional services, restaurants and cafes, drinking establishments (Classes B1/A1/A2/A3/A4), community uses (Class D1), car and cycle basement parking, associated landscaping, new public realm and all other necessary enabling works in accordance with application ref: PA/18/01877/A1. 49.This letter does not convey any approval or consent which may be required under any enactment, bye-law, order or regulation other than section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Right to challenge the decision