ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

Site
Stevenage West, Hertfordshire
Planning authorities
Hertfordshire county council, North Hertfordshire district council and Stevenage borough council
Developers
Persimmon and Taylor Woodrow
Homes planned
5000, at least 25% to be socially rented
Current status
Agricultural use, various owners
Value
Undisclosed
Saga dates back to
1997

"A nightmare scenario" is how one local planner describes this six-year scrap over plans to build 5000 homes on 281 ha of farmland on the outskirts of Stevenage.

The story began in 1997 when Hertfordshire county council, which encompasses Stevenage borough council and North Hertfordshire district council, investigated sites on which to develop the homes it expected that forthcoming regional planning guidance would demand. The council knew that regional planning guidance note RPG9, which was eventually released in March 2001, would require 3280 homes a year until 2016.

In 1998 the county council earmarked farmland known as Stevenage West as an area of greenbelt that could be developed. It was duly incorporated into the area's official structure plan and incorporated into Stevenage borough council's local plan.

So far, so good: but local elections later that year threw the first spanner in the works. The Liberal Democrat/Labour administration that had dreamed up the plans for Stevenage West lost control of the county council to a new Conservative regime elected on a platform of minimum loss of greenbelt. It did an immediate volte-face over Stevenage West, putting development plans into limbo, backed by the Conservative-led district council. Stevenage council, meanwhile, is Labour-controlled and protested strongly at the county council's move.

Another spanner followed in March 2000, in the form of PPG3, the planning policy guidance note that obliges councils to develop brownfield over greenfield. After a two-year housing capacity study to explore the potential for new houses on previously developed land, in 2002 the county council concluded that there was indeed potential for further development on such sites.

You might think the situation would deter developers – far from it. In the hope that the borough council's hopes to develop Stevenage West might be approved regardless of the county council's feelings, two developers, Persimmon and Taywood, submitted planning applications in 2002 to Stevenage and North Hertfordshire to build about 5000 homes on the site, at least 25% for rent by social landlords. The applications were called in by the secretary of state – a routine measure with development on greenbelt land – and now await a public inquiry.

However, in March this year the county council issued its new structure plan – one that didn't include Stevenage West. The following month, the borough council issued its local plan – including Stevenage West. In a further twist, the county faces the prospect of having its planning powers removed by the planning bill due to be launched early next year. In anticipation of the bill, the government has asked Hertfordshire to put its revised structure plan – the one without Stevenage West – on hold. Sounds like good news for the pro-development lobby, but in fact there is a clause in the new bill that allows for "saved" structure plans to be valid as long as they have been placed on deposit before April 2003.

What occurred was a rolling plan to get rid of Stevenage West. The county council doesn’t want it to go ahead, that is perfectly clear

Peter Bandy, Stevenage Council

So, what do the councils have to say for themselves? Peter Bandy, head of development and planning at Stevenage borough council, is outraged by the county council's decision. Development would be "sustainable urban extensions", he argues, rather than a destruction of the greenbelt.

"It seemed to us that what occurred was a rolling plan to get rid of Stevenage West," he says. "The county council has taken against it and doesn't want it to go ahead, that is perfectly clear."

But the county council's head of forward planning, Jon Tiley, responds: "Our argument was that government policy had changed and we had a lot of new evidence to suggest that housing development had come forward on previously developed land."

The three authorities remain deadlocked, awaiting a public inquiry that is due to start next January. After six years of inter-authority wrangling, the only occupants of Stevenage West are still the grazing animals.

When nimbys attacked in east london

Site
44 Hopton Street, also known as Tate Tower, London SE1
Planning authority
London Borough of Southwark
Developer
London Town
Homes planned
28 flats, of which nine are affordable (seven low-rent, two for shared-ownership)
Current status
Derelict warehouse
Area
1100 m2 (base of tower 550 m2
Value
Site purchased in 2001 for £7.65m
Saga dates back to 2001

It is often the biggest hurdle in the planning process and, in this case, nimbyism held up a housing scheme for two years. For developer London Town, this meant about £1m in consultants' fees and interest – despite the fact that the plan was backed by statutory bodies including the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, English Heritage, the Greater London Authority and planning officers at Southwark council.

London Town bought the site in 2001. An architect employed by the previous owner's solicitor, had, with the encouragement of Southwark council, already done studies to show that the area, which is on the South Bank, close to the Tate Modern art gallery, was suitable for a slender, 29-storey residential tower. "We'd established that it wouldn't have an effect on amenity or daylight," says Peter Harris, development director of London Town, "so it was a case of how tall you could build a tower from an engineering point of view."

The scheme ticked all the right boxes and should never have been turned down in the first place

Discussions with CABE and the GLA convinced Harris to revise the design to add another three storeys, taking it to 32. For CABE, it was a matter of avoiding symmetry with the 29-storey tower of Tate Modern; for the GLA, the extra height was a trade-off for more affordable housing – taking the percentage from 35% to 50%. "The mayor said 'go taller and get more affordable housing'," says Harris.

In May 2001, London Town submitted an application for a slim, 63 m, tower, designed by architects Kevin Dash and Philip Gumuchdjian. But people living nearby opposed the plans, and were joined by the Tate Modern itself in arguing that the tower was too imposing. The weight of hostile opinion gathered so much momentum that by December the same year London Town was persuaded to withdraw the application.

So it was back to the drawing board for six months. "We worked closely with the community and planners in Southwark, to the extent where their officers were attending our design meetings," says Harris. The tower shrank to 20 storeys and, at the request of the planners, the top was glazed and terraced so that the building tapers between the 15th and 20th floors.

But a shorter tower meant the proportion of social housing fell to 25%. The GLA said it was unhappy with this and might oppose the plans. Under pressure, London Town upped the amount of affordable housing to 35% and submitted a second application in October 2002. Despite 140 letters of objection, it got the backing of council planners.

So, when the planning committee overturned its own officers' decision in October and refused permission, Harris was horrified. Local opposition seemed set to win the day: Sir Nicholas Serota, director of the Tate, argued that London Town's scheme would have a negative impact on the environment. Serota said earlier this year that "a 20-storey elevation cannot fail to dominate the space and create an oppressive environment". Last month's appeal turned into a straight fight between residents, led by representatives of the Tate, and the developer, backed by planning officers and the mayor.

Eventually, though, the planning inspector sided with London Town and the GLA. According to Harris, the scheme "ticked all the right boxes" and should never have been turned down in the first place.

Triumph over tragedy in west London

Site
Lillie Road, Hammersmith, London
Planning authority
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
Developer
Peabody Trust
Homes planned
65 units, 365 habitable rooms
Current status
ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½ complete, residents move in July 2003
Value
Land acquired for £1.6m, scheme cost £12.5m
Saga dates back to 1998

It was as if, given the chance to comment again, the planners took the opportunity to say no 

Julian Gitsham, Feilden Clegg Bradley

Lillie Road is a model of modern social housing. Dense, well-designed, constructed using modular building techniques and with plenty of amenity space, it epitomises the government's housing agenda. The 5300 m2 site, which has a gross floor area of 5785 m2, was officially opened on 5 June by housing minister Lord Rooker. But the scheme's success belies its very difficult beginnings.

In 1998, having bought the site from Hammersmith & Fulham council, Peabody Trust's in-house architects came up with a 40-unit building that it submitted for planning permission. The application was approved without a hitch.

Soon afterwards, Peabody realised that, to make the scheme financially viable, it needed to increase the density and its design group duly re-submitted an application for 65 units. But this time, the council advised Peabody that it was minded to refuse.

A council spokeswoman says: "The second application came to us. We were unhappy with the design, which we felt was not of a high enough quality. We advised Peabody to go back and work on it."

At this point, Peabody hired architect Feilden Clegg Bradley to come up with a solution. Julian Gitsham, a partner at the practice, says: "It was as if, given the chance to comment again, the planners took the opportunity to say no."

"It was a highly political animal," says Gitsham. "From then on we didn't have any hiccups but the process took a long time because of the density and the fact that the design was fairly minimal and innovative."

In 2001 – three years after the first application was submitted – the third version was approved in just four months. A spokesperson for Peabody confirms that, although the final stages went smoothly, the scheme was one of the most arduous it has ever had to deal with: "The council environment department and leading members went through one of the most extensive consultation and advice-giving processes to deliver the scheme."

Selling the site seems to miss the point of local government, which I’d have thought was concerned with social justice 

Rob Joiner

Ker-ching!! money talks in Glasgow

Site
North Gallowgate, Glasgow
Developer
Molendinar Park Housing Association
Planning authority
Glasgow city council
Homes planned
130 affordable
Current status
Derelict, council-owned
Value of site
£1.3m for affordable housing; £2m to private developer
Development value
About £10m as affordable housing or £15m as private housing
Saga dates back to 1994

The clue to the planning problems surrounding this 8600 m2 site lie in the huge profit that it could generate if sold to a private sector developer.

Rob Joiner, director of Molendinar Park Housing Association, had been looking for a site like this since 1994 and, by October 2002, was in encouraging discussions over a masterplan for 130 houses on two adjacent, council-owned sites between Spout Mouth and Great Dovehill – run-down parts of the city's east end that were being used as a car park. But suddenly, the development team began to say that the legal department had advised it to market the site to the private sector – despite the council's longstanding policy of giving priority to social housing providers.

The scheme went into limbo as the officer who had been overseeing the case took sick leave for several months.

Joiner, meanwhile, was approached by a developer, Andrew Borthwick of Alba Town, who had purchased a site across the road on which he planned to build luxury flats. Borthwick wanted to join forces with Molendinar Park and extend his masterplan to include the site the association had been working on.

"Glasgow council's main issue seems to be that, as the site is near the city centre and the market around there is now booming, they seem to think they will get more money as a receipt with the private sector and will not have to provide any subsidy," says Joiner. "This seems to me to miss the point of local government, which I'd have thought was concerned with social justice."

Glasgow councillor David Stevenson, whose ward includes the site of the proposed development, acknowledges that "developers will be dribbling at the mouth for that site" but believes it should stay within the public sector. "The council keeps saying we've got to get the best capital receipts. But if you take that mentality, you'll repeat the mistakes of the past and end up with ghettos of social housing."