“Partial demolition of existing buildings, retention of 3 storey building and former industrial chimney and redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed use scheme comprising blocks of 2 to 7 storeys and accommodating 5644 sq. m, of commercial floorspace at basement, ground, part first, second, third, fourth and fifth floor level, 50 residential units at part first, part second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth floor levels (23 X 1 bed, 17 X 2 bed, 8 X 3 bed, 2 X 4 bed) as well as 127 sq. m. café floorspace (A3) at ground floor level, landscaped communal gardens, pedestrian link route to the Regents Canal and other associated works.”
“Viability Please find attached (Enclosure 3) the updated FVA (dated September 2018) which was originally produced in April 2018 pursuant to viability discussions with the Council and their advisors. The FVA has been updated to reflect further discussions with officers and increase the agreed CIL and S106 financial contributions arising from the development to a figure of£2million from£1.983 . The FVA and Summary Report is provided in an unredacted format and can be disclosed to the public. The FVA demonstrates that the maximum economically feasible amount of employment floorspace has been accommodated within the development. Affordable Housing Contribution Pursuant to further discussions with the Council, the Applicant has agreed that the£40,708 S106 contribution previously identified (under the November 2016 consent) for affordable workspace can be reallocated towards the provision of off site affordable housing given that the scheme already comprises 24% affordable workspace. The redistribution of this contribution results in a minimum S106 affordable housing contribution of£206,797 . However, subject to further analysis of the CIL liability of the development, the affordable housing contribution could rise to£805,000 .”
“The table below provides the summary of the key differences in the appraisals between the respective assessors. Assumptio n Savills Strettons / Tuner Morum Residential Sales Value£35,295,0 00£33,855,0 00 Commerci al GDV£24,227,4 29£26,925,0 00 Costs£28,743,8 84£25,837,7 47 Benchmark£12.84 £12 Profit on GVD 16.64% 16.90% Profession al Fees 10% 10% Planning Contributio ns£1,421,10 0£1,421,10 0 Finance Rate 7% 6.75% The largest areas of difference between Savills and BNPP were: - Benchmark Land Value; - Construction Costs; - Sales Values; - Commercial Values; and - Finance. Following this analysis, the Applicant’s team provided further information in respect of the proposed scheme, particularly in respect of the affordable commercial space to correct the appraisal provided by Turner Morum. The Applicant then, despite disagreeing with the conclusions of (sic) provided by Strettons and Turner Morum, agreed to accept their remaining appraisal parameters on a without prejudice basis in order to progress the application.”
“3.1 Whilst the Applicant they disagreed with the evidence provided by Strettons and Turner Morum, confirmed they would accept these assumptions (sic). This produced the following viable level of planning obligations: S106 Costs at£421,267 comprising: o Highways -£100,130 ; o Employment and Training -£226,504 ; o Travel Plan -£3500 ; o Tow Path Upgrade -£35,000 ; o S106 Monitoring -£15,425 Mayoral and Borough CIL of between£814,773.83 and£1,412,644 ; Additional Contributions of£206,797 which might be provided towards affordable housing. 3.2 The total contributions then equate to£2,000,000 of which between£814,773 and£1,412,644 will be Mayoral and Local CIL costs. If the CIL saving is apparent at the point this scheme is delivered, the total Planning Contributions (in addition to affordable workspace) of£2m would be maintained. … 3.4 Savills then tested the ability to provide affordable housing on site with the contribution of£206,797 . We have determined that this would not allow for even one unit of affordable housing on-site and as such would revert to a financial contribution. 3.5 We have also tested the ability for affordable housing on site in the event that the CIL saving is secured (i.e. an extra circa£598K totalling circa£805K ). We have determined that between 3 and 4 units of Shared Ownership could be provided on site. We understand from discussions with local Registered Providers that this is an insufficient number of homes to deliver efficient management for their residents and as such a financial contribution is agreed. … Viability Please find attached (Enclosure 3) the updated FVA (dated September 2018) which was originally produced in April 2018 pursuant to viability discussions within the Council and their advisors. The FVA has been updated to reflect further discussions with officers and increased the agreed CIL and S106 financial contributions arising from the development to a figure of£2million from£1.983million . The FVA and Summary Report is provided in an unredacted format and can be disclosed to the public. The FVA demonstrates that the maximum economically feasible amount of employment floorspace has been accompanied within the development. Affordable Housing Contribution Pursuant to further discussions with the Council, the Applicant has agreed that the£40,708 S106 contribution previously identified (under the November 2016 consent) for affordable workspace can be reallocated towards the provision of off site affordable housing given that the scheme already comprises 24% affordable workspace. The redistribution of this contribution results in a minimum S106 affordable housing contribution of£206,797 . However, subject to further analysis of the CIL liability of the development, the affordable housing contribution could rise to£805,000 .”
“Planning members are advised to resist being lobbied by either applicant or objectors. As such I have passed your note onto officers and ask them to take account of and report to members as appropriate.”
“Dear Ms Ring Planning decisions are “quasi-judicial” meaning that Councillors who determine their outcome have to do so based on evidence provided through formal channels so we are advised we cannot allow ourselves to be lobbied. I have sought legal clarification on this and paraphrase their advice as follow:- Members must determine planning applications before them with an open, impartial mind and all applications must be assessed on their planning merits alone. Any other matters that are not material to planning issues should be disregarded and members should not pre-determine their position on any application. The number of objections or representations received on a planning application is not a material planning consideration and therefore not relevant when determining an application. To avoid the perception that Members have been influenced they should forward any lobbying letters to Governance Services and refrain from reading them. Objectors or supporters of any Planning Application should make their views known by; - Writing to the Council’s Planning Service - Contacting Governance Services and ask to speak to the relevant Sub-Committee meeting - Contact Councillors who are not on the Committee to see if they will make representations In the light of this advice I have not read your email but passed it on to the Governance Services Officer who will ensure the evidence presented to the relevant Planning Committee is complete.”
“5.3.2 The London Plan identifies that the CFOA as having an indicative employment capacity of 70,000 jobs and a minimum of 8,700 new homes. 5.3.3 The Core Strategy sets out that the main purpose of the PEAs is to protect and promote business locations in the borough, especially in areas where clusters are well established. As a reflection of this they are exempt from permitted development rights allowing a change from office to residential uses. 5.3.4 Policies CS17, CS18, and DM17 confirm that residential uses (C3) may be acceptable in PEA’s, as long as such uses are auxiliary to business and do not undermine the primary and long-term function of PEA’s as employment areas. There is no specific ratio given in any policy as an acceptable split in employment to residential uses. There is no specific preference given to a single employment use class. Specifically for Wenlock PEA, policy DM17 states that development must result in an increase of office floorspace compared to the existing amount. … 5.3.6 5.3.6 Consequently, it is concluded that the primary function of sites within these designations is to support and promote commercial opportunities, but there may be opportunities to supplement this with other uses including residential 5.3.7 Policy DM14 of the DMLP sets out a prescriptive set of criteria that proposals for the redevelopment of sites containing employment land and floorspace, and where the loss of employment land and floorspace must meet to be considered compliant. DM17 states that applicants must first consider the commercial opportunities and potential of that land and floorspace and demonstrate in the first instance that the maximum economically feasible amount of employment land and floorspace is provided. New A Class and residential (C3) uses may be acceptable in PEAs, as long as auxiliary to business, and where not considered to draw trade away from existing identified retail centres to the detriment of their vitality and viability.”
“5.3.36 On assessment of the proposed space, in the basement and throughout, it is considered by Officers that the specific operational needs of Holborn Studios, as set out in their consultation comments, would not be accommodated. It is therefore logical to assume that if the proposed development is approved, this user may likely vacate the site as it could no longer operate from this space. Beyond this, Holborn Studios have also stated that the studio space proposed would be unsuitable for any “photographic and moving image studio” and “in their professional opinion would be unviable”
“Housing Affordability 5.3.58 In reflection of London Plan policies, Hackney Core Strategy policy 20 sets a target of 50% of new residential development to be affordable within developments of 10 or more units, with a tenure split of 60% affordable/social rent and 40% intermediate, subject to site characteristics, location and scheme viability. CS Policy 20 sets out a sequence that affordable housing should be delivered on-site in the first instance, where off-site provision and in-lieu contributions may only be considered in exceptional circumstances. Policy DM21 sets out the requirement to comply with CS Policy 20, and outlines criteria to which on site provision of affordable housing will apply to, subject to the content of supporting paragraphs 5.3.5, 5.3.6 and 5.3.7 of the DMLP. 5.3.59 The content of the policies’ supporting paragraphs details the instances where in lieu contributions are acceptable, and how such should be ring fenced for the delivery of affordable housing. 5.3.60 The application proposes no on site affordable housing. The application was supported by a viability assessment that outlined it would be unviable to provide any affordable housing. 5.3.61 It is acknowledged that the proposal reflects that of application reference 2015/2596. This proposal also did not provide any affordable housing offer. However, since this 2015 application the context and date upon which viability assessments are undertaken has changed. 5.3.62 The table below provides the summary of the key differences in the appraisals between the respective assessors: Assumpti on Applican t’s Agent Independ ent Assessors Residentia l Sales Value£35,295,0 00£33,855,0 00 Commerci al GDV£24,227,4 29£26,925,0 00 Costs£28,743,8 84£25,837,7 47 Benchmar k Land Value£12,840,0 00£12,000,0 00 Profit on GDV 16.64% 16.90% Profession al Fees 10% 10% Planning Contributi ons£1,421,10 0£1,421,10 0 Finance Rate 7% 6.75% 5.3.63 The largest areas of difference between the Applicant’s Agent and Independent Assessors were: - Benchmark Land Value; - Construction Costs; - Sales Values; - Commercial Values; and - Finance. 5.3.64 Through negotiations with Officers the conclusions provided by independent assessors were accepted by the applicant. Consequently, the applicant agreed to the provision of£757,076 beyond that of other financial contributions and non-financial obligations to satisfy policy requirements. 5.3.65 As discussed, there is a policy emphasis on maximising employment led development on this site in the first instance. The proposed development is considered to be acceptable with regards to these policies, specifically the affordable workspace offer. On this basis, it was considered that the£757,076 viability surplus should be attributed towards meeting or mitigating a further policy issue or material concern. It was concluded by Officers that housing delivery, and specifically affordable housing delivery is a primary strategic issue in the wider borough, (and it was raised during consultation), therefore on this basis the surplus should be provided towards this matter, in line with affordable housing policy. 5.3.66 Officers therefore consider that the affordable housing provision represents the maximum reasonable amount once other policies have been fully satisfied. 5.3.67 The affordable housing provision is offered as a financial contribution, and consequently, there is therefore a contribution in lieu of affordable housing provision on site or on an alternative site within the vicinity. 5.3.68 The provisions of affordable housing of site reflecting£757,076 was assessed internally. There is an identified borough wide need for social rented units, and the most pressing need in the borough within this tenure is for 3 bed social rented units. Given land values it is considered unlikely that the surplus amount would secure more than two of such units of site. This level of provision alone is not preferred by Registered Providers (RPs) in general, and it could be difficult to secure an RP to a manage them in isolation. Further to this, layout design changes to accommodate the units and access, are considered to undermine the delivery of the maximum feasible amount of employment and affordable housing workspace, and the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing. 5.3.69 In comparison, the off-site contributions could be secured, ring fenced and used within the Council’s affordable housing supply programme, which would ensure the delivery of the maximum amount of affordable housing within the borough, in more predominantly residential areas that can better support family housing. 5.3.70 Overall, the contribution of£757,076 towards affordable housing delivery does not undermine the policy compliant employment element and its benefits, represents a betterment against the previous application reference 2015/2596 and will ensure the delivery of the maximum amount of affordable delivery for this amount.”
“6.2 The proposed development is considered to be employment led and offer the most economically feasible amount of such floorspace of employment space which is considered to be of a modern standard, cater for and sustain a wider range of B1 uses in line with policy designations and their supporting evidence base, generating possibly more employment opportunities; secure the provision of 1,355m2 (24%) affordable workspace with a defined rent, quantum and fair process that exceeds policy requirements; provide further uses with additional benefits of their own, which will support the employment use, whilst not undermining the wider operation of the PEA, and secure the viable delivery of the employment element; all of which is considered to support and sustain the PEA and is in line with pertinent employment policy. 6.3 The residential element of the proposed development will deliver 50 units deemed to be of a high standard of accommodation, supporting the borough in meeting its housing targets, and offers the contribution of£757,076 to the provision of affordable housing. 6.4 The proposed development adopts an approach to heritage conservation which is considered on balance, acceptable. This is achieved through the retention of the most significant elements of the sit, removing later adhoc structures, careful massing, vernacular design and high quality materials. Impacts have been assessed in line with the pertinent policy, legislation and considerations, and are considered to be, on balance, acceptable. 6.5 The likely loss of Holborn Studios and the impacts of this as a result of the proposed development have been considered, and on balance this is considered to be acceptable when assessed against all Development Plan policies. 6.6 Overall, the proposal is considered to comply with the pertinent policies in the development plan for the reasons set out above, there would be compliance with the adopted development plan viewed as a whole and other material considerations do not indicate that the plan should not be followed. Accordingly the application for full planning permission reference 2017/3511 is recommended for approval, subject, to conditions and the completion of a legal agreement.”
“Information outlining an agreed appraisal and a viability summary explaining the agreed viability assessment, the assumptions adopted by the council and their independent advisors Strettons and Turner Morum, the final agreed viability assumptions and planning obligations provisions was made publicly available on14th September 2018 . This information has been formally consulted upon twice. Overall the Council consider that the publicly available information provided to be proportionate and in line with national guidance on this matter.”
“Committee Members are not warned against reading anything other than the report and, for instance, they are entirely free to look at all the application documents that are published on our website the viewing by anyone that is interested. Members are warned about viewing lobbying material as this can be considered to be prejudicial to their consideration of the application. Members are free to inspect any site from the highway and an officer is only required when the site is entered as this usually involves the applicant or an objector to the application.”
“Paragraph 5.3.62 should read: Assumpti on Applican t’s Agent Independ ent Assessors Residentia l Sales Value£35,295,0 00£33,855,0 00 Commerci al GDV£24,227,4 29£26,925,0 00 Costs£28,743,8 84£25,837,7 47 Benchmar k Land Value£12,840,0 00£12,305,0 00 Profit on GDV 16.64% 16.90% Profession al Fees 10% 10% Planning Contributi ons£1,421,10 0£1,421,10 0 Finance Rate 7% 6.75% The first column of figures was the position of the applicant’s agent. The second column of figures is that of the Council’s independent assessor, to which the applicant agreed to which informed the viability assessment.”
“Perhaps I’ll deal with the specifics of the, the values of where- of where they have been reported and Stuart will want to talk about, uh, the transparency of the information in the public domain. So I just want to clarify, we’ve used an existing use value plus approach in accordance with all guidance and the- what that approach- that approach forms was known as benchmark land value, that’s referred to in the table at 5.3.62. Uh, you have the applicant’s proposed benchmark land value and then the independent assessor’s benchmark land value. And what you do is you, uh, look at the residual land value and the appraisal, basically, given them the residual land value, show them the appraisal equals or is more than the benchmark- benchmark land value, the scheme is viable. Because what that means is that a hypothetical, uh, developer can purchase the site at a figure above the benchmark land value. And we see in appraisal it’s just shy of that benchmark land value. But basically, um, through our negotiations we accepted that the scheme had maximised, uh, it’s viability with the, um, agreed contributions.”
“19. Again, the September 2017 Savills FVA was outsourced to be reviewed by Hackney’s appointed consultants. Strettons were appointed in conjunction with Turner Morum to review the submitted FVA on behalf of Hackney, while the build costs were reviewed separately by WT Partnership Cost Consultants. Due to the commercially sensitive nature of this information, it was not made public. 20. As part of a separate instruction, WT Partnership reviewed the proposed costs in the September 2017 Savills FVA and prepared a report dated October 2017, which concluded the proposed costs in the FVA had been overestimated by£3,420,434 or 11.90%, and their estimated build costs for the scheme were£25,323,450 . 21. As instructed, Strettons and Turner Morum then reviewed the FVA, and using WT Partnership’s proposed build costs identified above, they concluded in their joint December 2017 reports, that the scheme was actually viable, by approximately£1.5 million . 22. The main reasons for the improved viability position were as follows: - An increase in commercial values to£28,235,000 from£24,870,000 . - Reduced estimate of building costs by WT Partnership. - The proposed BLV was reduced from£12.84 million to£12.3 million . (Based upon an EUV of£10.7 million , with a 15% landowner premium applied to it, reduced from the 20% premium applied in the first application by Deloitte Real Estate). 23. Strettons reported two separate Existing Use Values. These were£7,820,000 and£10,700,000 . The reason two separate vales were reported, was the first assumed that the existing tenants remained in occupation and any tenants’ improvements which had been made to the property could not be rentalised. The second higher value of£10,700,000 assumed vacant possession of the property, and after 6 month letting period, it assumed the property re-let at a higher rental than the existing tenants were paying. 24. The December 2017 Turner Morum report based on the BLV off the higher EUV of£10,700,000 and applied a 15% premium to this, though his report highlights in section 3.6 that “the Council may well want to seek assurances as to the realistic prospect of vacant possession being obtained on the site”. 25. The ability to achieve vacant possession was considered by officers. My understanding was that the developer had confirmed its ability to determine the leases to the planning officers working on the case. Furthermore, the supporting planning documents such as the September 2017 Savills FVA highlighted that the applicant as landlord of the property had a break option in its lease from June 2018 with 12 months’ notice. The December 2017 Strettons valuation report also confirmed that the lease could not be broken on any date after June 2018 with 12 months’ notice. 26. Ultimately, it appeared reasonable to assume that vacant possession of the site could be achieved, as not only did the lease enable the landlord to do so, but the applicant maintained it had the ability to do so. The fact that the applicant was progressing with the planning application, appeared testament to its belief it would be able to do so. 27. Furthermore, it did not appear realistic to expect a landowner to release a site for development at a value which was considerably less than it could achieve in accordance with other potential options which were available to it. It therefore, appeared unreasonable to expect a site to come forward for development at a benchmark, land value which was based off the lower£7,820,000 EUV.”
“37. The September 2017 Savills FVA had placed a value of£500,000 on the proposed ground rents, and the December 2017 Turner Morum report had valued them at£484,000 . However, following the Department’s comments, Savills in an email dated21 February 2018 , suggested 3 different approaches on how they could potentially now be considered in the appraisal: 1. Maintain them at£484,000 2. Remove them entirely and place no value for them 3. Include them at a higher yield of 10% to reflect the increased uncertainty, reflecting a revised value of£175,000 . 38. Having tabled the three scenarios outlined above, Savills then proposed differing levels of further contributions: Ground rent proposed options Maximum payment in lieu 1. Maintained at£484,000 £350,000 2. Removed ground rents (no value)£14,000 3. Apply a yield of 10% in line with GLA approach£150,000 39. The September 2017 Savills FVA had originally included a figure of£250,000 as an offsite contribution, though no allowance had been made for the s106 costs identified in paragraph 32 above. Meaning that only option 1 above, based on maintaining the ground rents at their original proposed value, would lead to a further planning gain contribution of£100,000 . 40. To place significant value against ground rents in the appraisal was highly subjective, as the industry at the time was either placing a reduced value, or no value at all on ground rents, following the proposed government changes. However, the applicant’s consultant stated the applicant recognised the need to maintain and/or try to improve upon the contributions within the scheme, and highlighted the applicant was prepared to consider an improved offer of a further£100,000 , which was on the assumption that the ground rents would generate a profit for the applicant. 41. Following this revised proposal from the applicant, officers sought to determine the full extent of the CIL liabilities. Based off the highest CIL estimate (assuming no relief) of£1,833,911 , myself and the case officer pushed for a further£350,000 contribution to account for the surplus profit if ground rents could be fully reflected in the appraisal at a value of£484,000 . This would have equated to a total planning contribution “pot” of£2,183,911 . 42. Ultimately, the applicant pushed back against this level of contribution, and a meeting was arranged on16 April 2018 between the applicant and their consultants, and myself and the planning case officers. In this meeting each side stated the reasons for their position, but despite multiple attempts to negotiate a higher figure with the applicant, their final offer was for a total “pot” of£2,000,000 which effectively assumed a yield of 8.5% was applied to the ground rents, reflecting a gross value of£205,882 . 43. The applicant’s position was based on the fact they did not fully agree with the findings of Stretton’s and Turner Morum in their December 2017 reports, and also due to the continued uncertainty which by this point surrounded ground rents and the ability for them to generate a value. … 45. My understanding is that further work was undertaken by the case officer to determine the exact CIL liabilities and therefore the extent of the relief which could be used to improve the policy compliance of the scheme. After the CIL liability was determined, the viability position was agreed to reflect a total planning gain contribution of£2 million , which was aggregated of the various s106 costs and CIL estimates, as set out in section 3: “Agreed Planning contributions” of the Savills Viability Assessment Summary and in the committee report.”
“48. The final agreed position was set out in the appraisal prepared by Savills and dated the12 September 2018 and labelled as “Agreed Appraisal”, which was available as part of the application documents for Planning Application 2017/3511 on the Council’s website. 49. I understand that it has previously been suggested that due to the fact the agreed appraisal refers to a “residualised price” of£12,298,787 , that the Benchmark Land Value (BLV) for the application was not based on the recommended Established Use Value plus premium (EUV+) approach. However, the reason it is referred to as “residualised price” is because the appraisal has been prepared using Argus Developer, which is a development software package widely used by the property industry, and this is how the model reports the land value. It is not possible, as far as I am aware, to alter the appraisal in Argus to refer to BLV. 50. I understand that the Claimant has previously highlighted discrepancies in some of the viability numbers in the committee report and supporting documents on the Hackney planning portal. In particular, the committee report referred to two separate benchmark land values, the “applicant’s agent”
“57. Where up-to-date policies have set out the contributions expected from development, planning applications that comply with them should be assumed to be viable. It is up to the applicant to demonstrate whether particular circumstances justify the need for a viability assessment at the application stage. The weight to be given to a viability assessment is a matter for the decision maker, having regard to all the circumstances in the case, including whether the plan and the viability evidence underpinning it is up to date, and any chance in site circumstances since the plan was brought into force. All viability assessments, including any undertaken at the planmaking stage, should reflect the recommended approach in national planning guidance, including standardised inputs, and should be made publicly available.”
“Openness and Transparency 3.6 Information relevant to the plan-making and planning application process is publicly available. This is consistent with the NPPF which places a requirement on councils to facilitate community involvement in planning decisions. Planning Policy Guidance states that transparency of viability evidence is encouraged wherever possible. The Environmental Information Regulations (2004) recognise the benefits of public participation and include a presumption in favour of disclosure. To ensure transparency and public participation: - The Council will expect information to be provided on an ‘open book’ basis and that this information can be made available to the public, including on the Council’s website, alongside other planning application documents. In submitting development viability information, applicants do so in the knowledge that this may be publicly available, alongside other planning application documents. Where an applicant requests that a redacted version of the development viability appraisal only be made public, the Council will require justification for the components of the report to be redacted and the period of time for which they should redacted. As such a planning application will not be registered (made valid) unless it is accompanied by an ‘open book’ development viability assessment, and a redacted development viability appraisal, including justification (in line with paragraph 3.1-3.3); - The Council may make information available to planning subcommittee members or any other member who has legitimate interest in seeing it; and - The Council may make information available to a third party where another body has a role in determining an application or providing public subsidy and when fulfilling their duties under the Environmental Information Regulations and freedom of information legislation.”
“Creative Character 4.3 In the decades before the proliferation of digital technology this area experienced an influx of artists as well as small businesses, attracted by the availability of cheap space. 4.4 As already mentioned, the creative character of the area has made it more attractive as a business and residential location. It is important that these positive characteristics persist as the business cluster expands and consolidates. The growth of the parallel cluster and associated retail, leisure, café, cultural and night-time economy are all important here. There is also a potentially important role for temporary or “pop-up” uses.”
“Core Strategy Policy 17 Economic Development The Council will encourage economic development, growth and promotion of effective use of land through the identification and regeneration of sites for employment generating uses, the promotion of employment clusters and the encouragement of mixed use development with a strong viable employment component that meets the identified needs of the area, as set out in the Delivering Sustainable Growth chapter of this document. The Council expects to be able to deliver approximately 407,000sqm of employment floorspace to meet future demand. The Council will encourage economic diversity, support existing businesses and business development by facilitating the location of micro, small and medium companies in the borough. … Core Strategy Policy 18 Promoting Employment Land The Council will protect employment land and floorspace last used for employment purposes anywhere in the borough. Redevelopment of existing employment land and floorspace may be allowed, as provided for in Policy 17 (Economic Development), when it will clearly contribute to: addressing worklessness; improvising business function and attractiveness; enhancing the specification of business premises; improving the immediate area; increasing the take-up of existing employment floorspace; and meeting the identified up-to-date needs of businesses located, or wishing to locate, in the borough.”
“4.1.3 Employment land (generally ‘B’ class use) is dispersed across the Borough, but some key concentrations are in Hackney Wick, the south around Shoreditch/Hoxton/Haggerston, and in the centre of the Borough around Dalston and Hackney Central. The Core Strategy designates a number of ‘employment areas’ within the Borough, with different typologies (Core Strategy policy 17). To reflect the changing nature of the local economy from a heavier industrial, manufacturing and distribution base to a need to provide higher grade, more modern and less ‘heavy’ commercial uses, the Priority Employment Areas (PEAs) and Other Industrial Area designations allow for mixed use development where appropriate. However, there is still a need to ensure land supply for these ‘heavier’ type industries, while providing land and floorspace for new types of businesses, particularly knowledge-based economy and the creative and cultural sector of which the Borough is at the ‘forefront’ of the Government’s; ‘Tech City’ initiative and also new typologies of commercial floorspace will come through within the Olympic Park in Hackney Wick over time. Given this, and the release of employment land in recent years, the Core Strategy’s position is to protect employment land and floorspace last used for employment use anywhere in the Borough.”
“Policy DM16 – Affordable Workspace The Council will seek 10% of the new floorspace within major commercial development schemes in the Borough, and within new major mixed-use schemes in the Borough’s designated employment areas, to be affordable workspace, subject to scheme viability. The applicant should submit evidence of agreement to lease the workspace preferably in association with a Council registered workspace provider. Under this preferred option the commercial terms to be agreed between the applicant and Council registered workspace provider are to be secured via legal agreement. If on-site provision is not possible, financial contributions for equivalent off-site provision will be sought. In addition, proposals for the redevelopment of existing low value employment floorspace reliant on less than market-level rent should reprovide such floorspace suitable, in terms of design, rents and service charges, for these existing uses, subject to scheme viability, current lease arrangements and the desire of existing businesses to remain on-site. … .10.4 The key purpose of PEAs, as set out in the Hackney Employment Growth Options Study 2006, is that they “should resemble the core portfolio of existing employment land assets that should be safeguarded for employment use, and in Atkins 2010 that the promotion of other uses should, “…seek to retain the primary function of these areas as employment (B use) locations. In considering proposals, particular emphasis should be given to the need not to compromise the ongoing operations of existing businesses in the area. Furthermore, proposals should not be encouraged where they are likely to limit or prevent investment opportunities for B use businesses in the area. If the proposal is likely to undermine the long-term functioning of the area as an employment (B use) location, such proposals should be discouraged.”
“1.4. Where Members receive lobbying material through the post or by email they should forward it to the Committee Clerks unread, it can then be re-directed in accordance with the Council’s guidelines. If a Member is approached by an individual or an organisation in relation to a particular planning application on the agenda of an upcoming meeting, the Member should explain that they are unable to personally comment on the application but that the person or organisation may: - Where the application is not yet on the agenda, write to the Planning Officer responsible for the particular application/enforcement action who will take into account any material planning considerations raised in the representations when preparing the report for Committee. - Contact the Committee Clerk to request to speak at the committee meeting; - Contact an alternative Councillor who is not a member or substitute member of the Planning Committees. 1.5 If a Committee Member does decide to become involved in organising the support of or opposition to a planning application, or has allowed themselves to be lobbied, then that Member should accordingly declare an interest at the beginning of the committee meeting (see ‘When to…Declare an Interest’ below) and remove themselves from the room when the Planning Sub-committee is determining the item in question. By becoming involved in a planning application prior to the committee meeting other than to read the Planning Officer’s report and to attend Site Visit accompanied the Planning Officers, the Member risks forfeiting his or her right to take part in the discussion or vote on that particular item.”
“All Planning Sub-Committee members will keep an open mind on applications and it is advised that you don’t contact any of the councillors before a meeting. The meetings are necessarily formal because the Chair and members want to listen to everyone and have the chance to ask questions so that they can fully understand the issues.”
“2.1 Planning Sub-Committee Members have to retain an open mind on any application as they are a part of the decision making process and cannot be seen to side with either the applicant or those who are making representations at the meeting at which the application would be determined. Adhering to the following rules will also ensure that public confidence in the Sub-Committee is maintained and serve to minimise the prospect of non-planning related matters and affecting the judgment of Sub-Committee Members. … 2.3 Where Sub-Committee Members receive lobbying material through the post or by email about an application coming before the Planning Sub-Committee they should forward it to Governance Services as soon as they realise it is lobbying material. If a Sub-Committee Member is approached by an individual or an organisation in relation to a particular application on the agenda of an upcoming meeting, the SubCommittee Member should advise the person or organisation that it is not appropriate for them to personally comment on the application by that the person or organisation may: - write to the Planning Service concerning the particular application who will then response and update the person or organisation accordingly. - contact Governance Services to requests to speak at the SubCommittee meeting. Such representation must be received by 4pm on the day prior to a Sub-Committee meeting. Any request to speak may be refused if the representation is not received by the deadline; - contact an alternative Member of the Council who is not to be part of the Sub-Committee meeting at which the application will be heard. 2.4 Council Members should represent the best interests of residents. Sometimes they may find themselves in a difficult situation where they are sent lobbying material. If a Council Member finds themselves in such a situation they need to decide whether they wish to sit on the Sub-Committee and hear the application or represent the interests of their residents.”
“100D- Inspection of background papers. (1) Subject, in the case of section 100C(1), to subsequent (2) below, if and so long as copies of the whole part of a report for a meeting of a principle council are required by section 100B(1) or 100C(1) above to be open to inspection by members of the public- (a) those copies shall each include a copy of s list, compiled by the proper officer, of the background papers for the report or the part of the report, and (b) at least one copy of each of the documents included in that list shall also be open to inspection at the officers of the council. … (4) Nothing in this section- (a) requires any document which discloses exempt information to be included in the list referred to in subsection (1) above; or … (5) For the purposes of this section the background papers for a report are those documents relating to the subject matter of the report which- (a) disclose any facts or matters on which, in the opinion of the proper officer, the report or an important part of the report is based, and (b) have, in his opinion, been relied on to a material extent in preparing the report,”
“3. Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). … 10. Information which- (a) falls within any of paragraphs 1 to 7 above; and (b) is not prevented from being exempt by virtue of paragraph 8 or 9 above, is exempt information if and so long, as in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information”
“70. When the members took the decision they knew that the applicant’s claims had been tested and reviewed by an appropriately qualified and independent firm of chartered surveyors as well as by their officers. They knew also that the claimant and Stokey Local were challenging the adequacy of the affordable housing provision. They heard the claimant saying that the redacted version of the FVA which he had received was written in a language that was incomprehensible if one was not a chartered surveyor. The claimant was suggesting that the members refused the planning application or say they wanted a higher level of inspection. Members, therefore, had a choice, whether to go along with the officer advice, seek further information or to accede to the Claimant’ submission which were unsubstantiated by evidence. On each occasion, in my judgment, members had sufficient to enable them to be able to make an informed judgment. In the case of JR2 there was a further safeguard of a provision within the s.106 that enabled a review of the vulnerability exercise if the development had not started within 12 months of the grant of permission.”
“77. The claimant submits that circumstances here do not mean that the information “relates to” any terms to be proposed within any contract. A narrow interpretation should be given to the words as in Durant v Financial Service Authority (Disclosure)[2003] EWCA Civ 1746 . I reject that submission. The words have to be seen in their own statutory context. The fact that a narrow interpretation was given in the context of theData Protection Act 1998 dealing with access to personal data is of no assistance in constructing the Local Government Act dealing with local government administration. In this context the statutory provisions are dealing with two very different worlds. 78. In the context if the relevant amendments to theLocal Government Act 1972 , in my judgment, it is right to give the words “relates to” a broad meaning. The object of s.100F(2A) is to give the parties the freedom to negotiate, without restriction, terms of a contract. To allow the information contained within the FVA and its review into the public domain would frustrate that statutory purpose. Accordingly, the exemption for financial business affairs remains in the circumstances of this case. 79. The claimant contends that because there was no decision on balancing the public interest under para.10 of sch. 12A the defendant’s reliance on the exemption is otiose. That is a wholly unrealistic submission it is self-evident from the way the defendant treated the documents that its view was that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing it. Paragraph 10 of sch. 12A does not require a formal decision to that effect.”
“89. From what I have set out above it is clear that in my judgment the FVA and its reviews were exempt information. Paragraph 4(a) does not require those documents to, therefore, be included in the list of background documents. It follows that there is nothing in that part of this ground.”
“Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent states from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
“94 The Secretary of State originally argued that there was no interference with the art 10 right by refusing Mrs Rajavi permission to come here to meet the parliamentarians. They could always go to Paris to meet her. Or they could exchange views by audio or video conferencing methods (which these days are so effective that they are regularly used in court proceedings). But it was soon accepted that to prevent them from meeting face-to-face in the Houses of Parliament is indeed an interference with their rights. It would be much harder for the numbers of parliamentarians who wish to meet Mrs Rajavi to do so in any other way. There is also the important symbolic value of a meeting in the Houses of Parliament. On the other hand, it must also be accepted that, as there are other ways in which the parliamentarians could communicate with Mrs Rajavi, the interference is not as serious as it would be if they were banned from all forms of communication with her.”
“Freedom of expression is, of course, intrinsically important: it is valued for its own sake. But it is well recognised that it is also instrumentally important. It serves a number of broad objectives. First, it promotes the self-fulfilment of individuals in society. Secondly, in the famous words of Holmes J. (echoing John Stuart Mill), “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market:”
“Lobbying is a normal part of the planning process. Those who may be affected by a planning decision, whether through an application, a site allocation in a development plan or an emerging policy, will often seek to influence it through an approach to their ward member or a member of the planning committee.”