Grove tavern to reopen. Fact or fiction.

[Penguin68]

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.

[DulwichFox]

Similar scenario with what was once The Yorkshire Grey pub (Eltham).

That was turned into a McDonalds several years ago...

DulwichFox

[Earl Aelfheah]

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

[EDOldie]

There goes the neighbourhood.

[James Barber]

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.

But we have any steps before this could happen.

[Otta]

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.

[Angelina]

I think it should be an Iceland.

[Penguin68]

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?

[Abe_froeman]

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

[Salsaboy]

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

[Mick Mac]

Salsaboy Wrote:

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

> Spoke to my friend who works for McD's.

Employee of the week?

[wulfhound]

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.

[James Barber]

Hi Wulfhound,

You mean the island within the Harvest site? That would be between the two directions of traffic direction. To place such an island TfL want to widen the road. So no.

[Abe_froeman]

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.

[Salsaboy]

Nah, head office bod.

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> Salsaboy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Spoke to my friend who works for McD's.

>

>

> Employee of the week?

[James Barber]

Yes Abe_froeman, but to have a pedestrian phase they'll be planning on staggered crossings. So the islands will need to be longer and wider.

[Tima]

Looks like people are living in Grove Tavern.......

[Earl Aelfheah]

Good. It may as well be used

[DulwichFox]

There are people living in the Half Moon too.

They are Live-in Guardians

Foxy

[Guest]

Every now and again I see things like JCBs and other heavy machines parked on the drive but then it disappears again with no work haveing been done. Very odd.

[JohnL]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> There are people living in the Half Moon too.

>

> They are Live-in Guardians

>

>

> Foxy

They have signs outside saying this I think

Tenant and Landlord benefit :)

[rendelharris]

"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

[Penguin68]

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.

[rendelharris]

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.