http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 03356.htmlCovfefe wrote:Link?
The Independent has confirmed that the homes in question were built by St Edward as a condition of the granting of planning permission by Kensington and Chelsea Council.
Under Section 106 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act, councils can require developers to commit to provide a certain amount of social housing in any new private residential development (or alternatively pay a sum of money to the local authority for investment in social housing elsewhere) as a condition for the granting of approval.
This is what St Edward was doing. These social housing flats were always going to be available for use by low-income Kensington residents at some point.
In the absence of this deal The Independent has also confirmed St Edward would have offered the homes for sale to locally based housing associations. These housing associations would then have then have let out the homes at below-market rents.
There are actually two types of social rent that housing associations are allowed by the Government to charge tenants.
"Social rent" means the rent is around 50 per cent of market rates. "Affordable rent" means about 80 per cent of market rents.
The planning documents of the site suggest they were to be social rent.
But, regardless, those rich people in the development who have reportedly voiced their discontent at poorer folk moving in obviously failed to appreciate that they would have soon have had some new low-income neighbours in any event.