Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Relinquishing some of the land for a wider road allowing a pedestrian island other than via a Compulsory Purchase Order will need the cooperation of the Dulwich Estate as freeholder and the leaseholder.


So that ain't going to happen, is it? What they have they hold.

Salsaboy Wrote:

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

> McDonalds have a policy of using former pubs for

> stores. I know one of the team within McDonalds

> who deals with property and will be telling her

> about the Grove at the weekend.


Snitch

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Similar scenario with what was once The Yorkshire

> Grey pub (Eltham).

>

> That was turned into a McDonalds several years

> ago...

>

> DulwichFox



Quite a lot of years, was certainly McDonald's when I was a teenager. Apparently it was closed as a pub because it was being used as a venue for uillegal bare knuckle boxing.

Hi P68,

Southwark Council is the planning authority. SO I am hopeful if the TfL plans look good that the freeholder and leaseholder will agree as part of any planning agreement.


Is there any past evidence that the Dulwich Estate has agreed to alienate any part of their holdings? I can see why the leaseholder might wish to do so to improve pedestrian access, but I cannot see why the Estate would. Indeed I am not sure to what extent they would be allowed under the terms they operate under to alienate part of their land. The only practical route may be through compulsory purchase - but why would Southwark fund this?

Yep! All the burgers I can eat as a reward!!


rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Salsaboy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > McDonalds have a policy of using former pubs

> for

> > stores. I know one of the team within McDonalds

> > who deals with property and will be telling her

> > about the Grove at the weekend.

>

> Snitch


Surely there must be an alternative crossing design that doesn't involve appropriating someone else's land? Traffic planners do often achieve this elsewhere.



There's already an island on the western arm - is it in fact a three-stage crossing that's proposed, or is the existing island too small to use as a waiting area for a green man crossing?

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Similar scenario with what was once The Yorkshire

> Grey pub (Eltham).

>

> That was turned into a McDonalds several years

> ago...

>

> DulwichFox


Used to drink in there after playing football opposite on Sunday. Wasn't that great looking pub but still did free roasted spuds on a Sunday lunch so Louisa would have loved it. Was sad to see it go but that was years ago.

Wulfhound, looking at it there are actually islands in the middle of the road at all 3 branches of the junction:




The south circular is already very wide at that junction, widening from one to two lanes east bound, and is nearly as wide on the westbound side. Looks to me like there would be plenty of scope there for building a larger island for pedestrians without grabbing privately owned land. And to use the land in front of the grove would mean relocating some or all those street lamps and/or the mobile phone mast / telpehone exchanges that are there.

  • 4 months later...

"Tenant and Landlord benefit"


Not always that rosy; not only is there some very dubious practice as regards treatment of live in guardians but landlords use the system to claim the property has changed from commercial to domestic use and so avoid paying business rates, so the council certainly doesn't benefit.


http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/24/the-high-price-of-cheap-living-how-the-property-guardianship-dream-soured

but landlords use the system to claim the property has changed from commercial to domestic use and so avoid paying business rates


I am not sure that this is true. (a) You need planning permission for such change of use - simple declaration doesn't cut-it. (b) In my experience (my daughter was a guardian for about 3 years) guardians do not pay council tax - thus they are not being treated as 'domestic use' residents. There are reliefs for business rates (I believe) for properties which are not being currently used for commercial purposes (though not full relief) - but these are always seen as temporary use - whilst the building is either waiting to be sold or refurbished/ rebuilt. The landlords get some protection (from squatting and damage) through the guardianship scheme - they maintain the services (power, heating, light etc.) in the properties - which are 'free' to tenants paying reduced rents and who can be thrown out at virtually a moments notice (although companies running such schemes, such as Capita, do try to find alternative accommodation in other schemes for displaced guardians). Landlords include those the public sector - one of the longer tenancies my daughter had was in a former council office block near The Elephant, and she has also 'guarded' a redundant West End police station.

Well, I can only go on what it said in the article to which I linked:


Vacant commercial property is usually a dead loss to landowners. Unless they redevelop it, they continue to pay high business rates while receiving no rent. By installing property guardians ? and basic facilities such as temporary showers and kitchens ? owners can reclassify buildings as domestic, slashing their business rates.


Live-In Guardians advertises its ability to reduce business rates for landowners. Its website states: ?In most cases we will be able to substantially reduce your empty rates liability.? The company reduced a landowner?s business rates on an office block in Lambeth from ?694,000 to ?33,000 per year, lowered liabilities on a gym in Covent Garden from ?150,000 to ?2,650 per year, and reduced the rates on nine light-industrial units in Shoreditch from ?110,000 to ?15,000 per year.


The number of properties receiving rates reductions under these schemes is unclear, but it is clearly costing local authorities millions of pounds. Global Guardians alone claims to have saved its clients ?1.2m in reduced business rates. There are at least 37 guardian companies operating in the UK.

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

    • Staff get taxis in and out and get paid extra (which I think is x2). Some people like to work on Bank Holidays and others don’t. Some people actively avoid Christmas for personal reasons. Long live freedom of choice! 
    • Here is another article from the excellent Special Needs Jungle (SNJ) with tips for responses to the SEND conversation survey. Including shoe horning in EHCPs which they "forget" to ask a question about in the conversation. And living as we do in Southwark with the huge misfortune of 100% academy secondary schools, some thoughts on this and how unlikely inclusion in mainstream is within the current education landscape. Closing date 14 Jan 2026. And please consider a donation to the excellent entirely run by volunteers SNJ. In my view the government could save money by creating some smaller mainstream secondary schools for kids who can cope in primary school but not  with the scale of secondary, and need a calmer less busy setting. The funding would have to be different - it is currently on a per pupil basis which favours larger schools. But it would undoubtedly be cheaper than specialist provision, and the huge cost to individual children and families (emotional and financial) and to society. https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/tips-help-complete-governments-send-conversation-survey-law/ If anyone wants to take a radical step to help their struggling child, my tip is to move far away: these are the best two schools I have ever visited and in a beautiful part of the country. I only wish we'd moved there before it was too late for my son who had to suffer multiple failings at Charter North and then at the hands of Southwark SEND, out of education from February to October in year 10-11, having already suffered the enduring trauma of a very difficult early life, which in combination with ADHD made his time at schools which just don't care so very unbearable for all of us. https://www.cartmelprioryschool.co.uk/ https://settlebeck.org/ As an add on, I would say to anybody considering adoption, please take into account the education battles that you are very much more likely to face than the average parent. First you have schools to deal with, already terrible; then being passed from pillar to post within Southwark Education, SEND, Education Inclusion Team, round and round as they all do their best to explain why they are not responsible and you need someone different, let's hold another multi-agency meeting, never for one minute considering that if they put the child at the centre and used common sense they would achieve a lot more in much less time without loads of Southwark employees sitting in endless meetings with long suffering parents. It is hard to fully imagine this at the start of your adoption journey, full of hope as you are, but truly education is not for the faint hearted, and should be factored into your decision. You'll never hear from people who are really struggling and continue to do so, only from those who've had challenges but overcome them and it's all lovely. And education, the very people who should be there to help, are the ones who make your lives the most hellish out of everything your child and you face.
    • It’s a big problem all over London. I’ve seen it happen in Kennington and Bloomsbury in the last year. I think there has been some progress recently with some key arrests, but you do need to be very careful when walking around with your phone out, especially, as you say, if wearing noise cancelling headphones. Sorry you experienced this 
    • Luke Johnson (prominent director and co-owner), supported Brexit and backed the Vote Leave campaign. He also described the response to Covid as ‘a campaign of fear’ and 2020 funded a media consultant for the ‘Covid-recovery group’ of anti-lockdown MPs.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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