Photo credit: www.theguardian.com
The Housing Dilemma in Wanstead: A Case Study at Harley Court
While Wanstead presents itself as a tranquil suburb of East London nestled alongside the expansive Epping Forest, the residents of Harley Court are confronting significant upheaval. The ongoing construction of a two-storey extension to their block of flats, which will introduce 12 additional units, highlights a pressing issue within the housing market. As authorities strive to meet ambitious housing targets, the question arises: how much disruption is acceptable for those already residing in established communities?
James, a resident who moved into the postwar flat in autumn 2022, found solace in his new environment. It marked his first experience of living independently, and he appreciated the chance to personalize his space. However, shortly after settling in, his health deteriorated, leading to a cancer diagnosis early in the following year. Increased home time during his chemotherapy treatments brought with it relentless fatigue.
As construction commenced, conditions within the flat became increasingly trying. James’s sister Naomi, who moved in to support him, described the constant noise as reminiscent of a dentist’s drill, an experience exacerbated by their attempts to keep windows closed to shield themselves from dust and clamor. Naomi reflects on their decision to remain amidst the chaos as a complicated choice. Although moving seemed like an attractive option, their circumstances—James’s desire not to relocate and his financial worries amid a health crisis—rendered it difficult. Tragically, shortly after James’s passing, Naomi vacated the flat that had become their shared refuge.
In 2020, Robert Jenrick, then serving as the Conservative housing minister, implemented a policy designed to facilitate developments like that at Harley Court. This legislation granted “permitted development rights” to property owners, aiming to boost housing construction and invigorate a stagnant economy of the COVID-19 era.
Proponents of these “piggyback homes” argue that they represent a straightforward response to the ongoing housing crisis. The London borough of Redbridge, encompassing Wanstead, anticipates a 16% population increase over two decades. To align with national expectations, it is tasked with constructing 1,409 new homes annually, yet only a fraction—224 homes—were completed last year. In pursuit of targets, a council official emphasized that planning permissions would typically be granted unless significant harm to current residents was evidenced.
However, these developments often come at a considerable cost to established residents. Blue Gower Ltd acquired the land of Harley Court in 2021 and intended to capitalize on freehold rights for expansion. Leaseholders were given the chance to voice their objections during the planning framework, citing concerns such as noise disturbance and dust pollution, as well as the potential negative impact on quality of life. Despite these protests, the council approved the development, vowing to convey resident concerns to the developer and enforce conditions for minimizing disruptions. The reality, as acknowledged by the developers, is that enduring construction is an inherently unpleasant experience.
The prevailing Labour government has shown no inclination to rescind permitted development rights; instead, it is inclined towards setting more housing goals while considering easing planning regulations to fulfill them. There remains a looming threat of governmental intervention in local councils that fall short of these objectives. As a consequence, a cycle of construction and disruption associated with developments like Harley Court can be expected to persist.
Supporters of the strategy contend that while obstacles are temporary, the long-term benefits, including the fulfillment of housing quotas, are crucial for boroughs such as Redbridge. Yet, numerical goals fail to encapsulate the complete picture: the pressing need for affordable housing remains unaddressed. As of 2024, the average home in Redbridge is valued at approximately £495,000—around 11 times the average London salary, and developers focus on maximizing profits rather than minimizing costs for buyers. Newly listed flats in Wanstead, albeit attractive with modern amenities like solar panels and underfloor heating, are listed at prices beyond reach for many—one unit, for instance, stands at £585,000.
Local councils play a pivotal role in this dynamic. They have the ability to negotiate terms during the approval processes, including commitments to incorporate affordable housing, which is defined as units priced at 80% of the market rate. However, the landscape has changed significantly; council departments faced substantial austerity measures, leading to drastic funding cuts of around 50%. This diminishes their capability to enforce adherence to agreements regarding affordable housing. In the case of Harley Court, developers made a section 106 payment intended for community development and infrastructure enhancement.
The discourse surrounding housing development is nuanced and complex, transcending the simplistic categories of “NIMBYs” (Not In My Back Yard) versus “YIMBYs” (Yes In My Back Yard). The reality encompasses communities yearning for affordable housing, residents desiring tranquillity within their homes, and developers motivated by profit. It is incumbent upon councils to mediate these competing interests and strive toward the most equitable outcomes, a task made challenging by governmental pressures and policies.
Source
www.theguardian.com