Jam Yesterday

A history of Angel Property’s flagship redevelopment of the Jam Factory in London
with supporting documents

by David Burke
March 2007

introduction

If you want an idea of how Angel Property might develop the Phoenix Quarter in Lewes, it makes sense to examine the history of the Jam Factory in Bermondsey. Though it is nowhere near the size of what they plan to build in Lewes, this conversion of an old factory in London remains the biggest project Angel have ever done, and features prominently on their website.

But not mentioned is the fact that after seven years the development is still not completed. All new building at the Jam Factory was stopped after intervention by the Secretary of State and an acrimonious battle with residents, during which the head of planning in Southwark told the Local Government Ombudsman that Angel had “proceeded without regard to the terms and conditions of the planning permission”. And last month a barrister for London Borough of Southwark told a Judicial Review of the development “that it was now common knowledge that there had been widespread breaches of planning control at the Jam Factory site” and that the local authority has not ruled out the option of enforcement action against Angel Property.

A visit to the Jam Factory site reveals three attractively converted warehouses. But behind these Victorian brick buildings is a new structure of breeze block covered in stained softwood boards, polycarbonate plastic sheeting and painted render. It stands empty, and overlooks a building site that was collecting rubbish for seven years until last month when it was tidied and the weeds cut back.

A stalemate exists between the residents, Angel Property and Southwark Council. The residents blame the developer for overfilling the original buildings and a lack of amenity space. The developer blames the residents for stopping the planning process in order to gain a park on land that was always designated for a block of flats. Southwark Council have been uncertain how to proceed, but have yet to see the affordable housing they had been promised.

Block D standing empty and the site of Block E as seen for seven years, before recent tidying.

the original permission

In 1999 Angel Property applied for consent to renovate three buildings of the old Hartleys Jam Factory (blocks A,B and C) and build two others (blocks D and E). The consent was granted the following year. It specified that the two new buildings should each be four stories high. Permitted on the site would be 154 units, of which 24 would be affordable housing. These would be placed in the new Block D.

The consent also stipulated that no work should begin until full elevation details were submitted and approved. The elevations included with 2000 application were silhouettes of buildings at 1:500 scale, small enough that the entire site fit on to one sheet of A3 paper. Angel was allowed to submit more detailed drawings on a “phased” basis, building by building. This led to confusion, and Southwark Planning would later regret they had not asked to see everything beforehand, as is normally the case.

Detail from drawings of Block D by Angel’s architects Ian Simpson in 1999 to accompany planning application
The Meakin Estate is on the left.

what Angel have built

Angel Property put more units into Blocks A, B and C than had been approved. Of the 154 units permitted for the entire development, Angel have built and sold 147 in the first three buildings, none of them as affordable housing.

The number of storeys also changed. Block D is not four storeys tall, but five and a half. Angel refers to these as “fourth floor, third floor, second floor, mezzanine, upper ground and lower ground”.

Drawings for Block E also extend beyond five storeys, but construction on this block has not been allowed to start.

Detail from drawings of Block D by architects Alan Camp in 2001
The Meakin Estate is on the left.

the residents’ argument

The residents accuse Angel of over-development, building over and above his original consent in just four of the originally planned five blocks. Since Angel did not build what they said they would in 2000, the residents want the permission for the entire site re-evaluated. Their last petition gained signatures from 90% of residents.

The wording of the 2000 consent specified that Blocks D and E should be four storeys each. Block D is now five and a half storeys.
The original consent was based on drawings that make the neighbouring Meakin Estate building look a storey taller than it actually is, causing the proposed buildings to look smaller.
There was always a limit on density. Because Angel have over-filled the first four buildings, they should not be allowed to build a fifth.
Because the density in blocks AB and C is higher than originally predicted, and block D has yet to be filled, the site is short of amenity space. The amenity space provided is largely vehicle hard-standing.
Block D is cheaply built and does not provide necessary storage and waste facilities.
Block E as proposed has more storeys than were originally permitted. It will cause over-crowding and block the sunlight.
Angel want to move the affordable housing to Block E because they can charge more for units in Block D.

Angel’s rebuttal

Angel Property accuse a small number of residents of hijacking the planning process. They feel the Council have been inconsistent in support of an imaginative development that was always intended to provide the developer and owner/occupiers with flexibility.

The drawings attached to the 2000 consent show four stories plus a ground floor. And what mattered in the 2000 application was not the number of storeys named in the text but the height of the buildings shown in the drawings.
The original consent was based on the idea of ground-space, with a flexible approach to the number of living units.
The drawings of the Meakin Estate shown alongside were done to the best of the artist’s ability, counting bricks. In any case they did not form part of the application.
While the original 2000 consent did limit density to 154 units, a subsequent consent for variations to Block D, dated Sept 2002, lacks any mechanism tying it back to the original 2000 consent. Therefore, Block D may be treated separately from the rest of the development. Its units can therefore be added to the total for the site.
There were always going to be five buildings on the site. The residents cannot expect Angel to donate land for their park.
Block D is an exciting piece of architecture that will win awards. What matters about block E is not its height or number of units but the way it is designed, so as to allow adequate sunlight.
Angel want to move the affordable housing to Block E because the housing association they are working with, Guinness Trust, would prefer to manage units in a single building.

Southwark Council seem uncertain how to proceed

They have openly criticised Angel Property for breaches of planning control, yet have shown anxiety about the clarity of their legal position and the costs of enforcement action. Most of what follows is based on the chronology of events written by the Head of Planning to the Local Government Ombudsman

Southwark Planning were embarrassed that the 2000 consent and its drawings did not match. They admitted this was an "extremely serious error".
"The developer’s implementation of Phase 1 without compliance to the provisions of the original legal agreement brings into question the lawfulness of the entire development."
Southwark admitted in 2004 that full consent had been given in 2000 when the information given was more appropriate for outline consent.
Southwark planners feared that the developer may be right, and that the 2002 consent was “extremely vague”, with “very poor” drawings and nothing to tie it back to the 2000 consent.
Planners agreed with residents that the Meakin Estate was shown as too high in the 2000 drawings.
They disagreed with Angel's assertions that the number of storeys or the number of units were irrelevant compared to overall size and design. "The construction of Block D has continued regardless of its planning position and its elevations and layout differ now from that approved in 2002 let alone the scheme permitted in 2000."
But Southwark planners are now caught in a dilemma. They can have the density originally agreed for the entire site, or they can have the affordable housing they were promised – but not both.
In fact, should all the existing units to be sold at market rates, as the developer wishes, that will create an additional requirement for affordable housing. The developer has used this as a justification to build the new block, E, even higher.
Southwark planners reserved, and continue to reserve, the right to take enforcement action. But they have always seemed unwilling to use it.
Southwark planners said they hoped to use breaches of planning control at the site as negotiation tools to persuade the developers to come forward with an acceptable comprehensive scheme for continued development.

the stalemate

After seven years the Jam Factory is still not finished. The controversy over Blocks D and E took shape in 2003 and Southwark waited a year and a half, advising Angel that it risked enforcement action but not taking any. During this period the staff of Southwark Planning changed a number of times and all parties complained that the situation had become confused.

The residents complained they were not party to negotiations between the developer and the council. They invoked the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to obtain correspondence. They then filed a complaint with the Local Government Ombudsman.

In Dec 2005, The Ombudsman required Southwark to produce their own chronology of what happened.

The Secretary of State ordered Southwark to halt all consideration of applications at Jam Factory until he could determine whether or not to call them in.

Angel withdrew those applications. They have now made new applications.

The JFRA want Angel to put the affordable housing in D and turn block E into a park with children’s playground.

Angel have submitted new applications for the last building to be five storeys and the right to fill the entire site with a total of 200 residential units.

On 26 February 2007 a Judicial Review in the High Court instructed the Planning Committee of Southwark Council to meet by the 27^th of March to consider the Jam Factory applications. That date came and went. The council have now set a provisional date of the 3^rd of May.

what could have been done to avoid this

Planning law is complicated and subtle legal points can be overwhelmed by public relations, force of numbers at public meetings and the speed of pouring concrete. But there are simple questions that deserve answers.

How did Southwark planners not compare the drawings they were given to the words of the planning consent they granted?
In the vast majority of developments, large and small, councils require a developer to apply for outline consent (of height and massing) followed by a detailed application for full consent (including materials and detailed elevations of all buildings). Why did Southwark grant Angel Property full consent for the Jam Factory site, and then allow it to submit detailed drawings afterwards, on a “phased basis”? Why did they not then take steps to eliminate possible confusion? How is it possible that permission for changes to one building were not linked back to the original permission on the site?
When a developer promises benefits to the community in a Section 106 Agreement, should those benefits not be delivered before the developer enjoys almost all the projected revenue from the development? What if Southwark had made certain their affordable housing was built and occupied before Angel had sold almost all their market rate units?
The planning situation at the Jam Factory has been the subject of an ombudsman's inquiry and a judicial review. Even the planning officers at Southwark are not sure what they did and did not approve over the past seven years. But what if Angel Property had just built what was written in the planning consent of 2000? What if they had just built two four-storey buildings and 154 living units over the entire site, 24 of which were affordable housing in Block D?

David Burke is a freelance journalist living in Lewes. He is the author of two books on television, computers and privacy and has written on these subjects for the Independent, the Express, New Statesman and other publications.