Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Affordable housing removed from Rogers’ Neo Bankside scheme

  • Comment

Politicians have approved plans to scrap the affordable housing provision in Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners’ London Neo Bankside scheme

Last week Southwark Council’s planning committee voted in favour of a proposal to replace the project’s 34 shared ownership homes with a £9 million contribution from developer Native Land.

The decision to scrap the quota has been criticised by local group Bankside Residents’ Forum. A spokesperson for the trust said the concession would set a precedent for other developers, reported London SE1.

The new deal means a further 10 affordable homes can be built offsite, claimed the developer.

Dan Clarke, Native Land associate director explained: ‘As the development approaches completion, it has become clear that it would not be possible to meet the council’s aims for affordable housing on site in terms of target income groups.

‘We have therefore worked with the council to achieve a solution that will provide accommodation that is better aligned with local needs.

‘In addition it is estimated by the council through the new agreement that 44 affordable homes will be provided, an additional 10 homes compared to the number that could be accommodated on site at NEO Bankside.’

Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners was unable to comment in time.

Councillor Fiona Colley, cabinet member for regeneration at Southwark Council, said: ‘What’s important for the council is that we provide affordable housing in the most effective way possible, and in this instance we were able to secure an in lieu payment for genuinely affordable housing off-site, which will also result in more individual homes than if they had been on site.’

 

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.