by Julia Haythorn | Nov 3, 2015 | Info
Gerald Eve have just published their quarter three review of West End Office Space. WestEndFloorReview_Q3_2015.pdf
f
This review offers another definition of the West End (that runs right across Bloomsbury and Covent Garden)
The figures for Fitzrovia and Bloomsbury indicate a massive take-up of office space. The rental values are shooting up as well.
The report states that
‘As well as Facebook committing to almost 230,000 sq ft at One Rathbone Place in Fitzrovia, several game and software developers signed up to West End space during Q3. Proportionately, this was most pronounced in Soho, as the TMT sector accounted for 82% of all space taken.’
Having a quick discussion on Twitter this afternoon with Steve Chambers @respros over in Soho, we both conclude that the rise in residential schemes has started to edge office space out of the picture. GE report that demand for small spaces is dwindling – but might that be because the rentals are too high right now for any entry level business to consider.
by Julia Haythorn | Nov 2, 2015 | Environment, Our Neighbourhood, Public Space, The Plan
This week I have been thinking about the environmental benefit of roof gardens and edible gardens in particular. My thoughts have been driven by two very different events. The first is that the West End Partnership have been adding flesh to the bones of their plans for London’s West End. As a member of their Peoples Task Group, I needed to consider, among other topics, what their emerging greening strategies might mean for people who work here, live here or visit Fitzrovia.
And in another, completely unconnected event, my own rooftop garden features in this month’s Garden Magazine, the organ of the Royal Horticultural Society(RHS). It is a special issue devoted to urban gardens.
My own rooftopvegplot. Open by appointment April – September
If you are not a member of the RHS then this might be a good time to join. The organisation is slowly becoming a little more progressive and organic gardening, protection of wildlife and greening the urban realm are now all on their agenda. People like me, who do not own acres of manicured evergreens somewhere in the Dukeries, are now welcomed. I’m rather proud that a productive, urban, organic garden, the size of a postage stamp is featured within the hallowed pages.
The RHS is taking a number of excellent initiatives that the most progressive of urban gardeners and the most devoted of environmentalists would approve. In this issue November 2015, the magazine is suggesting how we can find space and place to plant more. Their ‘Greening Grey Britain’ initiative.
Front gardens make an amazing difference. But we don’t have front gardens in the inner city!
The RHS are right on the button when they say that gardens play a crucial role in urban and suburban areas, and potentially will become even more important in the future as our climate changes. From helping protect us against flooding and extremes of temperature, to supporting wildlife and helping gardeners to be healthy, gardens can provide an amazing range of benefits.
https://www.rhs.org.uk/science/gardening-in-a-changing-world/Greening-Grey-Britain/urban-planting
The estimate is that 25% of the urban realm is open space, that might be transformed into a garden. That could be a formal flower garden, a wild space, a flowering place for pollinators or an allotment. Gardens can be at ground level, on balconies or on rooftops. Temporary gardens can be found on building sites. So called guerrilla gardens can spring up anywhere. We have our own guerrilla gardens in Great Titchfield Street, started by one of the flat dwellers in Collingwood House. The idea has proved infectious, the space around trees in the street have been invaded by flowers right up as far as the restaurant Conchiglia and the Smile Clinic. Well done to those businesses for taking up the initiative. It’s a great pleasure to walk down that part of the street now. (Though I despair at the number of cigarette butts I see casually tossed into flower beds.)
Guerrilla Gardening in Great Titchfield Street
My own contribution to greening the city is a rooftop vegetable plot, designed to be intensively productive all year round as well as beautiful. It is organic, and full of flowering produce as well as leaves and roots. I have bee hotels up there, a stick tower for insects and several bird feeders and nesting boxes. You can find the article in this month’s RHS magazine, or in the recently published book, ‘My Tiny Veg Plot’ by Lia Leendertz. Pavillion, Books 2015. This lavishly illustrated book is an excellent resource for different urban/small space gardening techniques.
As part of the FitzWest Neighbourhood Plan we will be looking at how we can improve the urban space. That’s about reducing deliveries, traffic calming and improving space for pedestrians and cycles. It’s about improving our rubbish collection system so that the streets are no longer strewn with take-away cartons and banana skins. It’s about management of contractors and street diggers, so that builders rubble, skips and cranes don’t litter the streets, causing danger to pedestrians and blocking carriageways. And it’s also about finding more places for planting.
A survey of green space in FitzEast has already been completed for the Business Improvement District. This is an issue that touches those who work or visit the area as much as it does residents. We need something similar in FitzWest.
if you would like to join FitzWest please visit this page of the website:
https://fitzwest.org/become-a-member/
And if you’d like to help with the survey of public space and greening of FitzWest email me, Wendy Shillam on info@fitzwest.org
by Julia Haythorn | Oct 13, 2015 | Consultations, Public Space
Westminster Consultation on Cycling QuietWay from Edgeware Road to Fitzrovia
The Greater London Authority has developed a cycling strategy, which involved super highways and quiet routes which criss-cross the city. In Westminster several of these proposed routes run through FitzWest. The Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Forum welcomes the attempt to link up the city and to devise routes where less experienced cyclists might feel more comfortable.
The proposals are modest. They include a cycle waiting area at the head of junction stop lines on major roads and a small cycle priority path leading up to the junction. The proposals do not designate an area of the carriageway for cycles, do not provide cycle only phases to traffic lights and do not attempt to calm or restrict traffic in any way. There is a modest section of cycle contra-flow adjacent to Holcroft Court.
We dont believe that cycle quiet routes can be achieved without closing roads to vehicular traffic or (at the very least) reducing access, type and speed of traffic on the proposed cycling quiet routes.
In principle we believe that cyclists and pedestrians should have priority over vehicles on all but the most major thoroughfares, throughout the West End. Many people live and work here. We agree with the GLA that the best method of transport for many of those people is walking and cycling. But we also see that a plateau of cycle road users will be reached unless cars and other vehicles are not also restricted in their use of side streets. This could be achieved with quiet zones, speed limits, traffic calming and cycle/pedestrian priority areas.
In Fitzrovia the narrowness of the streets, the quantity of on-street parking and the volume of deliveries, all mitigate against a successful cycling system. We believe that quiet routes should be introduced, but we don’t feel that the measures taken, which are minimal, will make a lot of difference. Vehicles, deliveries and parking must be better managed on these roads in order for them to be useful for novice cyclists.
In addition the measures taken to allow cycles to cross major road junctions seem flimsy. Putting a priority waiting space in front of traffic is a useful measure, but it is not enough. Cycle priority lights would be one solution, where cycles have their own green phase – perhaps linking with better pedestrian crossing facilities.
We enclose some images of quiet routes from Dutch and Danish cities to illustrate the difference between Westminster’s proposal and more enlightened cities.
We will be commenting formally to Westminster CC soon. Please leave your views here and we will take account of them in our response.
Thank you.
Read the full details
by Julia Haythorn | Sep 24, 2015 | Consultations
One of our Forum members, Edward Kellow has started blogging about Hanson Street, where he lives and in recent days has been noticing the rubbish that is left on his street.
He says:
The Back Story: Ratatouille 24/7
-
Previously we reported that a rat was trying to influence refuse and waste dumping behaviour in Hanson Street
-
Westminster Council threaten to fine people who put out rubbish before 07.00 am
-
The point is that vermin in the area are dining very well on rubbish that is dumped on our pavements at all times of the day and night
-
Westminster are not getting their message across.
His website https://talesfromhansonstreetw1.wordpress.com/ is recording what happens.
FitzWest has set up a small team to discuss recurring complaints about rubbish with the council. The new portfolio holder has met with us and will be happy to consider any better arrangement that we can conceive of. We want to include the community in ideas so please leave a comment below or tweet a comment on our twitter feed. @FitzWestForum
by Julia Haythorn | Sep 21, 2015 | Consultations
There are a few important issues for discussion at the moment. Westminster City Council is considering its policies for Community Infrastructure Levy, HS2 consultations are commencing with a meeting this week for local organisations. There is also a very important consultation our regarding planning obligations. Sometimes called S106, this is the levy that the council; takes from developers of private residential in order to fund social housing.
The consultation can be found here:
The draft response is here:
Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Forum
Observations on:
Draft Supplementary Planning Document: The Use of planning Obligations and Other planning Mechanisms
These observations are a response to the invitation to comment on the draft SPD by 25 September, 2015. They follow the order of the sections of the document.
In general, we welcome the intention to combine, clarify and explain WCC’s revised policy on section 106 agreements and CIL.
Sections 1-4: No comments
Section 5: Affordable Housing and Mixed-use Development
5.1 Affordable Housing
We strongly support the Council’s intention to secure affordable housing through S.106 agreements but have a number of observations to make regarding current practice in the Fitzrovia area:
WCC does not make full use of its current powers and policies and very rarely secures more than 20% affordable housing even on major development sites. Recent examples include:
| site |
Date approved |
Total housing units |
Affordable |
Comments
|
|
Fitzroy Place/Middlesex Hospital site, W1 |
02.02.12 |
291 |
17.4% |
All on site. +£2m to AHF |
|
Post Office sorting office, 35-50 Rathbone Place, W1 |
15.10.13 |
162 |
20 affordable on site – 18 off site = 17.1% |
20 affordable 1 bed units to be sold at discount to people on waiting list. + contribution to AHF |
|
25-33 Berners Street, W1 |
14.10.14 |
None |
none |
£2m to AHF in lieu of residential in development on site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, according to GLA figures WCC has consistently underperformed in relation to all other London boroughs except Redbridge and the City of London. See London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 11 2013-14, page 23:
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Annual%20Monitoring%20Report%2011.pdf
This shows that in 2013-14 WCC only achieved 13% affordable housing as a percentage of total net conventional supply compared with 26% in Wandsworth and 37% in Camden.
WCC increasingly allows developers to provide affordable housing off-site or to make payments to the Affordable Housing Fund (AHF). It is not at all clear how monies in the AHF are used and where they are spent. There is very little evidence of any new affordable housing in Fitzrovia West or in the W1 area.
5.1.4: Bearing in mind the lack of provision of affordable housing in the past we object to the way the proposed tariff is expressed on page 29. In our view these should be expressed as a percentage of units in the development and not in floorspace, and they should be minimum figures, not maximum. For example, the maximum floorspace proportion required for 10-11 units is 80 sq.m. This would be much better expressed as 1 unit and then be subject to GLA minimum floorspace standards.
The maximum percentage required has never been achieved so is a hypothetical issue but in our view we suggest an overall minimum target for Fitzrovia West of 30% (i.e. both inside and outside CAZ. 35% is desirable but probably unattainable.
Tables 2 and 3 (p.30) have no explanation to the sentences relation to ‘….land having a low existing use value’. How is this measured, where is it defined?
Payment in lieu (p.32): This should only be accepted as an absolute last priority and a premium of, say, 25% should be added to discourage developers seeking this alternative. The reasons for this is that the London Plan and WCC’s Plan argue for the creation of inclusive, mixed communities and we support the creation of sustainable and well designed integrated, mixed housing, mixed use developments. Developers will always argue for keeping low value uses off high value West End sites which in the longer term simply creates super-prime housing ghettos occupied by very few ‘real’ residents.
We strongly opposed the approach adopted by WCC to a council-owned site at 87-125 Cleveland Street, where a very inferior development was approved with only 15% affordable housing but a payment of £4.6m to the Council’s Affordable Housing Fund.
In another recent application at 40-42 Newman Street, W1 (15/07438/FULL) for the conversion of offices to 12 residential units, a confidential affordability statement is referred to arguing that the provision of the required affordable units is not viable. This is becoming common practice in several recent developments.
At least £8m has been deposited in the AHF from this and other developments listed above. We would like to know how much of this will be spent in Fitzrovia or W1? We suggest a statement is published annually showing how the AHF has been spent and in which wards.
5.2 Mixed Use Policy
We consider that new development in Fitzrovia should reflect the scale, mix and design quality of the existing urban fabric. This mix is one of the most conspicuous characteristics of the area. We are aware that many landowners and developers seek as few uses as possible on a site in the belief that this enhances land values.
We strongly support the policy set out in 5.2.3 where increases in commercial floorspace of 200 sq.m. or more are matched by an equivalent amount of residential or other approved uses. As argued above, this is not always enforced or required and there is a danger that payments in lieu will be widely accepted.
While targets are set for affordable housing there must be a good case for also having a maximum target for super-prime housing (valued at >£2m). We suggest this should constitute no more that 15% of units in any one development.
Sections 6-15 No comments
Section 17: Negotiating Planning Obligations: Assessing Viability, Procedures and Management
We have major reservations about the secrecy and processes associated with the submission of viability statements. These are never revealed to the public, although are essential in understanding the design and mix of uses in a particular proposal. Observations in the planning profession generally suggest that they are often excessively cautious and often written to support a particular pre-determined development proposal. It appears that the Council rarely questions these statements and if consultants are retained to examine them, they can often be the same consultants who advise other developers.
In our view all viability statements should be made public and consulted on as part of the planning application with the onus falling on the developer to explain why certain sections are commercially sensitive and thus should be redacted.
WCC should also investigate profit-sharing arrangements so that any uplift in residential values on completion of the development over and above those set out in the viability statement, is shared between the Council and the developer.
Appendix 1: Draft Regulations on CIL
Further information is needed on how CIL monies will be allocated to neighbourhood forums before and after a neighbourhood plan is made and how the forums will be consulted about the use of these resources.
In summary:
- We support the intention to create genuinely mixed developments containing the full range of housing particularly on major sites and as underpinned by S106 and CIL payments;
- Figures stated for the provision of affordable housing should be treated as a minimum for negotiation purposes and should be expressed as a percentage of the total rather than in sq.m;
- There should be a single target of a minimum of 30% affordable housing in the Fitzrovia West Forum area and in the CAZ;
- Super-prime residential units should be restricted to no more than 15% of any one development;
- Payments in lieu should be strongly discouraged except for overriding reasons (e.g. legal constraints)and should carry an additional premium of 25%;
- WCC should publish an annual report to show how and where the AHF is generated and spent;
- Viability statements should be publicised as part of planning applications;
- WCC should investigate the potential for negotiating profit-sharing arrangements based on value uplift after completion of a development over and above that stated in the viability statement.
September 2015
