Poor London local authority is due to consider rich City London authority’s scheme to demolish a popular organic produce and crafts Spitalfields Market in London by using one of its two developers to rob the local community of “planning gain” benefits for the saved part of the market.

The role of the local authority the Corporation of London as a developer is highly dubious as it remains unaccountable by virtue of its constitution. The authority is currently using its position as developer and freeholder of Spitalfields Market to evade an undertaking made to Parliament in 1988 by splitting the site in two to avoid responsibilities so as to make the original intention to protect the community pointless.

An Act of Parliament and the views of 90 per cent of local residents (1) along with 20,000 supporters who signed a petition to save Spitalfields Market stand in the way of the latest plans proposed by Irish developer Ballymore.

The Corporation of London has attempted to pass on the responsibilities to developer Ballymore for the functioning part of the market while a tiny proportion of the threatened part is held by developer SDG (Spitalfields Development Group) to avoid the Corporation being realised or named as the substantial leaseholder of the site.

Spitalfields Market, which attracts 20,000 weekly visitors on a par with successful venue the Tate Modern, has become a vital part of the Corporation’s plan to expand the city. It is using a flawed planning process to the detriment of local community and the market leaseholders who are subject to gagging clauses.

Local council Tower Hamlets development panel is due to consider a new proposal altering the functioning part of the new market by erecting buildings and reducing the number of stalls from 250 to 170. The so-called “saved” part of the market is currently leased to Irish developer Ballymore. The company has released plans to build a series of large two storey blocks of glass and steel retail and restaurant units reducing the floor space by 45 per cent reducing aisle space dramatically despite it being at a minimum already.

The original undertakings to protect local businesses and people from the negative impact of development clearly defined uses of the local shops, community facilities, 25-year leases and the benefits to the local community. The benefits of the planning gain are held under what is known as a s106 but the gain to residents and local businesses is being eroded through negotiation with Tower Hamlets Council.

“Planning gain” benefits never materialised but were actually used for corporate purposes. Local and market residents questioned why for example a nursery intended for local people is unaffordable to even well-paid doctors or why four places are reserved for City shop Barings Bank. Other benefits include protecting local businesses based in the retained part of Spitalfields Market.
Around 1,000 jobs were created when the Market was permitted to function at its full potential. Local businesses thriving under the previous use are being pushed out with continued development, temporary leases and rising rents only affordable to homogenised and unimaginative chains such as Starbucks’ type coffee houses found on a neighbouring market street.

Some leaseholders have spent considerable amounts of money investing in their businesses relying on promises made by Ballymore. The new plans show little consideration for current tenants or the undertakings made to Parliament as commercial rates will be used to set market rents for existing tenants even though their units will be demolished.

The planning permission for the site expired in December 2002 and is due to be reconsidered including consideration of 11 listed local shops and community uses situated in Horner Buildings managed by Ballymore.

Tower Hamlets also has not made a new s106 agreement showing “planning gain” for the new Ballymore available for public inspection making it difficult for local people or businesses to challenge the undertakings even though the House of Commons clearly stated in 1988: “in the event there was any change to the scheme requiring new planning permission it would not agree to a variation of the present s52 agreement nor enter into a new s52 agreement relating to any provision unless the agreement as varied or any new agreement provided planning benefits equivalent to those provided under the present s52 agreement”.

Around 21 local businesses have signed a petition opposed to the scheme.
At the time of this article going to print, Tower Hamlets Council has failed to inform local residents or businesses how the Corporation of London using City of London and its two leaseholders Ballymore and SDG will fulfil the undertakings made to the Commons.

But council officer at Tower Hamlets says: “If s106 planning is not enforced then the parties to the agreement can take action.” Tower Hamlets Council must now enforce an agreement to protect an urban space from the exploitation of the city’s authority.

Diagram information “planning gain” benefits – the reality

Recreational uses – The swimming pool was part of the sports facility forming part of the planning gain but unfortunately the Council opted to utilise the money for some other purpose than providing a recreational facility benefiting the local community.

Two community spaces – Sonali Bank on the corner of Lamb Street, on the corner of Folgate Street and both are still empty since they were handed over to the council

The £5m paid to Spitalfields Market Community Trust - The board of trustees three are appointed by the local authority, one is appointed by the developer and one is appointed by the City and needs to be more accountable to local business and residents.

Subsidised crèche – The crèche acts as a community building and forms part of the s106 agreement is unaffordable for local residents, which even two well-paid local doctors cannot afford. But even if local communities could afford this service, they would be compromised by the fact that four-of-the-spaces are reserved by Barings Bank for its employees thus depriving local communities further.

Two community facility buildings – The Sonali Bank has been empty for years and the building on the corner of Folgate Street and have remained empty since been handing over Tower Hamlets Council and this particular area of planning gain that has offered little benefits for the less affluent members of the community.

Monies – It has been noted that £3,000 has been set aside for environmental improvements but this needs to be shown to be of benefit to the local community. In addition, the report refers to £7m but only £1.7m is new money and the remainder is made up of the 1997 content.

Notes for Editors

(1) SERA (Social Evaluation Research Association) an independent survey conducted on behalf of SMUT revealed that 90 per cent of residents wanted Spitalfields Market as a community space.

SERA Survey also revealed 88 per cent want to see more public consultation over its future.

SERA survey also revealed tha52 per cent of local people did not believe the demolition of three fifths of the market will result in the creation of City jobs.