• About
  • Contact Me
  • Archive

OurCity.London

Investigative journalism into the town planning and development industries

  • Home
  • Issues
    • Financial Viability
  • Photography
  • Write for OurCity.London
  • May 16, 2022
You are here: Home / Comment / The Politics of Battersea Power Station

The Politics of Battersea Power Station

July 23, 2017 By George Turner 5 Comments

It seems some councilors at Wandsworth are bit sensitive about the reporting I have been doing around the Battersea Power Station Project.

In the last few days a number of councilors have been tweeting the following:

Doubling costs: the truth about Battersea Power Station that the Observer & @georgenturner won’t want you to see: https://t.co/ixie7NlZU4 …

— Cllr Ian Hart (@IanHart14) July 22, 2017

The truth that I am hiding from you – all rather amusing given the months it took me to extract details of the planning application for Battersea Power Station from Wandsworth Council. 

The argument that they are seeking to make is that Battersea Power Station has been hit by massive increasing costs, which is what they say makes the scheme unviable, and why the developers need to dump affordable housing.

They are rather missing the point.

My article on Battersea dealt primarily with the deal done with the developers at the planning stage, before a brick had been laid. Before any cost increases had been incurred.

After having got hold of the previously confidential documents attached to the original planning application it became clear that Wandsworth Council had done a deal with the previous owner of the site, Treasury Holdings, to drop affordable housing. They gave the company a more valuable planning permission which it needed to recoup the huge sums it had paid for the land – nothing to do with rising costs on construction.

The council’s advisors were clear that if planing guidance had been applied strictly then the council could have demanded over 1000 more affordable homes. They choose not to.

Secondly, now that the deal is out in the open, the developer may well try to deflect attention by squealing about rising costs, but the fact that costs have been rising at the project is meaningless unless you know what is happening to revenues too. And they have been hugely increasing over the original estimates.

In 2010, with the original planning permission was granted, developers estimated that the project would generate £6.6bn in revenues. By 2016 that estimate had risen to £8.8bn. Both estimates I have accounted for future price growth. The additional £2.2bn is over an above the increase in house prices predicted at the time of the application. 

Finally, the whole episode brings up the core problem with the way financial viability is treated in the current planning system.

Even if costs had been rising to the extent that it wiped away almost all of the profit for the developer, why is it that the public has to pay?

Developers often claim that they require high profits to compensate them for the risks they undertake. But where is the risk in the project if you can just go back to the council for a handout of more luxury homes if the going gets tough. Risk after-all should have an upside and a downside.

I understand why Conservative councilors are sensitive about the issue. The Labour party in Wandsworth have been campaigning on the the lack of affordable housing at Battersea, and they feel the need to defend their actions.

But Labour equally are cutting the same deals all over London in boroughs they control. What is needed is for politicians on all sides to engage with the issues and think though why our city is failing so miserably to deliver the kind of housing we need.

A good start would be for councils to start publishing the deals they propose to make with developers before planning permission is granted, rather than 7 years later (and only then after some resistance). That way we could have a proper debate about the appropriate contribution to be made by developers.

Filed Under: Case Studies, Comment Tagged With: Battersea Power Station, Viability, Wandsworth

Comments

  1. John Lipnicki says

    July 26, 2017 at 11:31 am

    You did well to get any details about the pre-planning deal, these are often kept off record. The big developers have far too much control over the planning process what with Section 106 agreements and the LA can use delegated powers to keep decisions out of scrutiny by committee. Everything favours the intentions of a big developer and site owner. If they do not like a decision they can go to appeal. Often lawyers rather than anyone else make final decisions. Its convoluted and expensive, the interests of a broader public are not represented, social needs sidelined.

    Reply
    • Juliet Solomon says

      September 20, 2017 at 8:21 am

      As an opposition member of a London planning committee, we were not ever going to be told what was really going on. When it got to the point where developers told us that prices had shifted so they couldn’t produce the affordable housing if they were to make their profits, we seemed to give in every time. I still don’t see why financial profits should be given precedence over public interest; but the words “public interest” never appeared.

      Reply
  2. groovmistress says

    July 27, 2017 at 9:13 am

    My feelings exactly. Something is terribly wrong with the whole process of planning and development (particularly housing) when profit for the private developer takes precedence over all else, even to the detriment public need.

    Reply
  3. juliet solomon says

    August 2, 2017 at 5:19 pm

    You are quite right. The whole system stinks.

    Reply

Comment Policy: I would dearly love to hear your thoughts. However I ask that you please only use your real name and keep your comments focused on the issues raised by this article. If you want to contact me privately you can do so by sending me a message directly. My contact details are included on this site. Spam, or abusive comments will be deleted

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

What we are writing about

Investigative journalism telling the real story of contemporary London. In particular we are interested in:

Planning, development and affordable housing

Estate Regeneration and compulsory purchase

Bad practice and fraud in the property and development industry

But any stories which give an insight into how the economy and places of London are changing are welcome. If you have a story you are interested in please connect with us using the buttons below.

About Me

George TurnerGeorge Turner - an investigative journalist digging the dirt on London's property and development industry Read More

Archives

  • May 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • July 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • December 2015

Recent Comments

  • John on Lockdown Landlords Acquitted
  • Concerned Citizens (@dequacivis) on The Battersea Power Station affordable housing scandal: How Wandsworth Gave away over 1000 affordable homes to a failing developer
  • HCLG Report Highlights ‘Lockdown’ as a significant problem – Hanworth.org on Lockdown landlord convicted for breaches in Planning Act
  • Hussain on The Housing Crisis
  • Ben Jamin' on The Housing Crisis

Tags

8 Albert Embankment Affordable Housing BNP Paribas Camden Canary Wharf Canary Wharf Group Canon A1 caroline pidgeon Compulsory Purchase Daylight DCLG Development development professionals Estate Regeneration Foreign Ownership GLA Planning Committee Heygate Isle of Dogs King's College Knight Frank Lambeth LFEPA Mayor of London Neighbourhood planning Offshore Planning Protest Quod RIBA RICS RTPI Sadiq Khan Savills Shell Shell Centre sian berry South Bank Spinwatch Sue Foster surveyors Viability Viability Consultants Wandsworth Westminster Wood Wharf

Recent Comments

  • John on Lockdown Landlords Acquitted
  • Concerned Citizens (@dequacivis) on The Battersea Power Station affordable housing scandal: How Wandsworth Gave away over 1000 affordable homes to a failing developer
  • HCLG Report Highlights ‘Lockdown’ as a significant problem – Hanworth.org on Lockdown landlord convicted for breaches in Planning Act
  • Hussain on The Housing Crisis
  • Ben Jamin' on The Housing Crisis

Newsletter

Subscribe to my newsletter

Never miss a story. I will never pass on your details and will email you no more than once a week.

Please wait...

Thank you for subscribing

Copyright © 2022 George Turner · Website powered by WordPress using the Genesis Framework · Log in