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

    • 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...