Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A new development of 40 homes is proposed to replace the current warehouses at 2 & 2A Crystal Palace Road. Please see attached.


The developer is holding an exhibition of the proposals 2-8pm 28 November at the site.

Please do pop along and give your views.


I've not seen the detail yet. My initial thought is what a shame some of the site couldnt be used to extend the Dulwich Leisure Centre.


What do you think?

this can only be a good thing, the more affordable homes, aimed at first time buyers, the better. although i resigned myself along time ago to not getting on the property ladder, plans such as this might give people with average incomes an actual chance.

granadaland Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Would be interested if the proposals include a

> consideration for parking for the new flat

> occupants, considering this stretch of road is

> already used by existing residents and visiting

> Dulwich leisure centre users.



More parking will just mean more cars.

The contact, Kim Humphreys, is presumably the ex Southwark councillor and head of housing. I note that the proposed scheme is for "approximately 40 homes with on-site affordable housing" i.e. not 40 affordable homes, but a proportion of that number. I assume the council via the planning team have a degree of freedom to decide the nature and extent of the affordable component. At least they are 'on site' i.e. not planning to build an exclusive development on site A and cheap homes for poor folks at the other end of the borough.
I personally think that there needs to be more parking space round there because of the leisure centre , it's so hard to park round there and I feel for the people who live at that end who had no problem getting a space before the leisure centre came along .

Talk about cramming properties on every single piece of land in Dulwich.


The altermatives are (a) hit another borough, in the same way, but to the detriment of someone else; (b) build a new town on green belt, where there are curently NO schools, hospitals, doctors or jobs; © have a bit more rough sleeping or families in sub-standard and cramped accommodation (presumably as long as that's not in ED)


There is a shortage of housing in London - that drives up prices - and leaves many people in substandard accommodation, or having to pay more than they can afford. More people coming in will, inter alia, benefit local shop-keepers and those providing services locally, if they have cars, local garages. Better to live where others want to live than in places where nobody wants to be (much of post industrial Wales and the North, according to many accounts).

>>definition of 'affordable' 80% of market rents


Definition of Affordable Rent (under the Government's Affordable Rent Programme) is up to 80% of market rent equivalent but a lot of housing providers charge less, depending on the size of the property.

Mick Mac asked for some more information on Crystal Palace Properties Limited. I've done a bit of digging. And I started this post by thinking it would be a straightforward case of a property development company with maybe one or two investments. But now (about two hours later), I've been through 16 group companies and property investments totalling maybe ?50m or more.


All of the information below is public and usually recorded as a consequence of maintaining limited liability of the investment vehicles. In the interest of balance, I would note that property development means disturbing vested interests and can result in unfair media reporting.


Crystal Palace Road Limited is part of the Trehaven Group Limited. Previous SPVs have been Chrisfys 1, 2, etc., although other group affiliates include partnerships like Old Kent Road LLP and Brixton Road LLP.


The constant factor in the wider property group is the involvement of the following five people as directors / shareholders

* Charles Allison (appears to live in Holland Park)

* Simon Bakewell http://www.astonrose.co.uk/news/newsdetail/simon-bakewell-appointed-as-chairman/171


* Philip Nelson

* William Woodward Fisher

* Rebecca McKinnon (as company secretary)


Also Magma Auditing LLP of Rugby.


Some history on these Messer Bakewell and Nelson here here

http://www.fasttrack.co.uk/fasttrack/leagues/dbDetails.asp?siteID=2&compID=416&yr=2000


And here


http://www.propertyweek.com/nelson-and-bakewell-company-collapses/3104748.article


Miss McKinnon, who is Company Secretary, is also company secretary of Kensal Properties Limited, which was recently in the Evening Standard

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/faked-emails-support-flats-plan-for-library-8829637.html


One of the more-frequently used trading names is Chrisfys Properties. There is plenty of public information available on Chrisfys and its subsidiaries. It mainly develops property in London and South-east e.g.

*. Houndslow http://www.forsters.co.uk/index.php?page=15&person=14


* Barking http://www.barkinganddagenhampost.co.uk/news/heritage/barking_magistrates_court_plans_raise_heritage_concerns_1_2236691


* Chelsea http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/rory-bremner-helps-defeat-plans-to-shoe-horn-new-house-into-green-sliver-in-chelsea-8941455.html


* Iver http://www.capitasymonds.co.uk/pdf/Notice%20Underlease.pdf

* Southend http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/792232.Millions_to_be_invested_in_Kursaal/



I note the attempt to renegotiate s106 agreement in Southend; times were tough in 2008 for leveraged property companies.


** edit Jan-15


Apologies, I can no longer find the article relating to s106 at Southend, not sure what happened there. Fortunately, it turns out Trehaven has sought to redevelop s106 agreements elsewhere and more recently - in Hounslow, Bedfont Pits - see point #53 here

http://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/(S(0jvmmq45oktuyd55cs22ct45))/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=581&MId=6891


End edit **


Digging further into the group, I note companies such as Edgehill Securities and Padmanor Investments, which seem to be largish companies in their own right. I also note income from film LLPs such as Howzat Media LLP and Big Screen Productions 20 LLP. Odd that a property development company would receive income from film production companies. I note recent legislation reducing tax relief on investment into film production companies.


So overall, I would note

* very experienced property development group

* not afraid of taking financial and planning risks

* adept at using limited liability to ring-fence development risk

* publicly-reported debate on their development tactics (often public reporting is a minor proportion of private speculation)


I'm sure Southwark Council is capable of handling these development proposals fairly and will appropriately weigh the intentions of the developer with the interests of local residents.


??edit some time later??

Also found some interesting news regarding the business carried on at the warehouse


http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/00,news,13417,5632,00.htm

Southwark news link stopped working, replacement here: http://www.xact.org.uk/investigation/news/art-13.html

New, affordable homes good. Increased parking bad.


I must declare a NIMBY interest in this. Parking along Adys Road/C. Palace Road is already at a premium at different times of the day/week as a result of: two churches, one school, one playground & park, one leisure centre and several cafes/restaurants.


Perhaps the answer is insisting on underground parking as part of the development, like Altima Court.

Trehaven normally seems to use Nicholas Taylor Associates as agent (see the Evening Standard link above for the Chelsea site). They must have thought Mr Humphries would be more appropriate for a site in Southwark. Some other local developers seem to agree.


* http://betterelephant.org/blog/2013/04/09/report-uncovers-corruption-at-the-elephant/

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...