Comments

DAMESATHOME@YAHOO.CO.UK
send the Dame your information, discretion assured.
Comments are welcome but do not necessarily reflect the view of the Dame.
Offensive/inappropriate comments will be deleted and the poster banned.

Thursday, 26 November 2015

AFFINITY SUTTON TO GROSS £360 MILLION FROM PROPERTY SALES

FIGHT FOR SUTTON DWELLINGS












A planning expert writes to the Dame

Dear Dame


Affinity Sutton have now had their planning application for the Sutton Estate validated by the RBKC planning officers, and it seems that officers may not have given it their recommendation. 
This would appear to be because  of the loss of social housing. Something Cllr Coleridge has always said he would resist.
According to the AS planning application the proposal would entail:
Number of social rent homes demolished =
383
Number of social rent homes 
proposed
 =
237
Total loss = 146 homes

Social housing floorspace to be demolished =
18,708 m2
Social housing floorspace proposed = 16,142 m2
Total loss = 2566 m2

Number of sheltered housing units demolished = 73 (Blocks J-K)
Number of sheltered housing units to be built = 0
Private garden and community area for sheltered housing residents will not be replaced.

Gross revenues from sale of properties > £360 million !!

An analysis of the planning documents on the RBKC website shows that the income from the redevelopment and sale of more than 44% of the new development would be £360m. That leaves a profit of £130m from the re-development. Affinity Suttonhave always claimed that this is the minimum necessary sale of the estate to ensure the retention of social housing and that they wouldn't make any profit. 


Apart from the issue that the proposed building is an ugly mediocrity totally inappropriate and out of keeping and context with its surroundings, this application is in clear breach of the 2010 RBKC Core Strategy in the loss of social housing. 
Both the RBKC Consolidated Local Plan (CLP) and the London Plan (LP) state that there will be no net loss of existing social rented provision.

Policy CH4 Estate Renewal of the Consolidated Plan states the council requires that where the redevelopment of social rented housing estates is proposed:
‘the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing, with the minimum being no net loss of existing social rented provision.’

The London Plan, Policy 3.14 Existing Housing, section B states,
‘loss of housing, including affordable housing, should be resisted unless the housing is replaced at existing or higher densities with at least equivalent floorspace’.

Since they took over the estate Affinity Sutton have claimed that they have no money to refurbish the estate even though they have been getting an income in excess of £3.5 million p.a. from the estate and shops. They paid nothing for the estate, they have done nothing to maintain the estate, and now they are cashing in on William Sutton's legacy to the working people of Chelsea. 

Almost all local Chelsea residents and the vast majority of the estate residents wish to stop this project. Any objection that you could be put to stop this very faulted proposal, which can only serve to damage the community and lead to further social cleansing of London should go to 

This is the time to tell the Council NO....We want no greed driven demolition.
Please make your feelings felt by clicking HERE

40 comments:

  1. Any councillor on the planning committee who votes for this application, in breach of the Council's own Core Strategy must be seen as working against the interests of the residents of Chelsea and their motives must be questioned.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Liars. They - AS and councillors guffawed when local residents said there would be a huge profit/surplus call it what you want. Destruction of the Sutton Estate is a destruction of our borough and our country. Have these Councillors no backbone !

    ReplyDelete
  3. Don't leave any money to good causes in your will. After this any private company /charity can get there paws on it and have a divvy up and chuck a little bit to suspect good causes whilst feathering their own nests. These guys are meant to be a Charity

    ReplyDelete
  4. £360 Million -I was lead to believe they were doing just enough to keep social housing in Stanley Ward.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I might have missed something here. What is the direct benefit to the local community?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cadogan flogged Sutton the land.Isnt he a bit piffed that someone else is profiting from land he sold at a very resonable price for philanthropic purposes.Bit of a rip off really.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why don't they just do it up instead of knocking it down.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm a resident of the estate. None of us here want our homes knocked down.Every time we ask Affinity why can't they refurbish- they just say 'don't you want a nice new home'. We have nice homes and a nice estate. If they put as much effort into maintaining the estate as they did try to ram this unwanted development down our throats, we would have a lovely estate.we all feel like those ducks that end up as foie gras

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yea- they are so patronising with those crap surveys that everyone on the estate knows can't be true. The residents committee are the only honest ones,trying against the aggressive bully of Affinty Sutton- to let the true message come out.We have a lovely estate

    ReplyDelete
  10. I was at the AGM of the res association. Affinty tried to run the residents association election. They never tried to do that in the whole history of the estate. Some muppet from Affinity claimed this wosnt the case-but loads of people said they saw the email saying Affinty wanted to run it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's true. I saw it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Funny how they want to run the election for the residents association when they've got a half a billion riding on it. Thank God for the Cats - they are the only ones who've got our back

    ReplyDelete
  13. I was there.They tried to deny it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. When will these t**ts realize there's more to a Community than just bricks and glass.

    ReplyDelete
  15. They do realize there's more to it than bricks and glass. Money and bonuses

    ReplyDelete
  16. Eh where's everyone going to live.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'd be pi**ed off if I was William Sutton.That's what you get for being public spirited

    ReplyDelete
  18. Not as pi**ed off q's his kids. They could've had that money.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Cadogan must feel a right mug.He could developed it himself.

    ReplyDelete
  20. What's Cadogan got to do with it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. He flogged Sutton the land on the cheap - cos it was for housing for the poor.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yes your right.He must feel a right mug.Has anyone told him.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sorry old chap. Next time he's down the pub i'll tell him over a light ale.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Keith Exford, CEO of Affinity Sutton has ordered his catamites to push this through whatever the cost. So far the planning application has cost them £3.5 million, money which they said wasn't available to refurbish the estate.
    Exford may be able to bully and threaten his staff, we can only hope the RBKC councillors are not as spineless as his minions.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Our Councillors wave through an application that isn't entirely legal or wanted -never. When have they ever done such a thing. Marlborough School was just a one off!

    ReplyDelete
  26. If this planning application doesn't get accepted by RBKC will the repulsive Exford and his cronies be bought to account by the trustees of Affinity Sutton, or are they just toothless yes men?

    ReplyDelete
  27. "In the 2010 Inside Housing survey of Chief Executive salaries, Keith Exford, CEO of Affinity Sutton, was highlighted as receiving the highest bonus in the Social housing sector."

    ReplyDelete
  28. RBKC and its planning team are sworn to serve the constituents of the borough. Instead, they're putting developers' profits ahead of every other concern.

    Make no mistake, Affinity Sutton may be branding themselves as a housing association but they're ruthless, profit-seeking developers by any other name.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Exford has friends in high places, viz his CBE award in the 2015 New Year Honours list. This will be a tough fight for us all but we MUST win it. Many of the flats need modernisation but the area around the estate doesn't need total redesign. And local taxpayers don't need to pay for the upkeep of a new road that would cut through the estate.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Everybody gets CBE's so we should not assume he is well connected. What happens is that people in our sector promote a name

    ReplyDelete
  31. RBKC does not care about the residents, local society, that they are about to demolish their homes. They wish to make millions, pay their elite 'decision making' officers who have brought misery to the thousands of residents in K and C. The borough is being cleansed from any local community that exists in exchange for multi million individuals or coorporates. Their reasoning is to ' provide more affordable housing' - the truth is affordable at a million plus pounds a property.

    Where is the government from all this social clensing that is happening in K and C as well as other boroughs!

    Totally against this plan......
    Warwick rd estate resid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The estate in Warwick Road is due to be demolished.

      Delete
    2. Disgraceful !!!!

      Delete
  32. This government is absolutely committed to social cleansing. The proposed housing bill speaks for itself.

    All social housing properties above the value of £ 500,000 will be sold off to the private market when they become vacant.

    This borough will loose most of it's public housing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These councillors are committed to socially cleansing this borough.

      Delete
    2. They target social housing.

      Delete
    3. Nick Paget-Brown has boasted publicly that "long life tenants and right to buy leaseholders are the biggest obstacle to middle bracket earners coming into the borough"

      Delete
    4. How many "middle bracket earners" can afford the five million pound houses that are being proposed on The Sutton Estate Mr. Page-Brown ???

      Delete
    5. Do you not mean the very wealthy ??

      Delete
    6. Ship out the poor to bring in the rich.

      That is their policy.

      Delete

Comments are your responsibility. Anyone posting inappropriate comments shall have their comment removed and will be banned from posting in future. Your IP address may also be recorded and reported. Persistent abuse shall mean comments will be severely restricted in future.