Brixton news, rumours and general chat

[Gramsci]

The developer paused the work long before the election, it basically didn’t get off the ground after the community consultation.

My read is more that this is the typical developer “we can’t afford that much social housing” line and they are using the part you quoted as a red herring.

But, things certainly are getting tougher for developers, both in some good ways and some bad.

Here is the Pravda Love Lambeth on the great partnership bringing untold benefits to the toiling masses.

The great leap forward for Brixton

Love Lambeth

Lambeth Council’s Cabinet approved the decision for London Square to be its preferred development partner for the Growing Brixton Rec Quarter project to bring new affordable homes, workspace, jobs and public realm improvements to Central Brixton.

love.lambeth.gov.uk

---

---

 

[Gramsci]

The council have made a decision on the Pop Brixton site and International House:

https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s161303/CMDDR%2049%20Brixton%20Station%20Road6%20Canterbury%20Crescent%20Deed%20of%20Variation%20to%20Contract%20with%20Development.pdf

Unsurprisingly the differences in the deal with the developer, London Square, are:

1. Reduce social housing by 10%
2. Reduce overall amount of commercial floor space
3. Seems like they are keeping the same amount of affordable commercial floor space
4. I think they are selling (leasing) the land for less money overall now
5. Remove the councils right to first refusal on buying affordable homes to then rent out

Seems like a bad deal overall to me.

From the email I got:

BTW welcome as a new member.

And thanks for bringing this to my attention

Sorry I've got so fed up and cynical about Council that stopped following these issues.

Which are important for Brixton

My feeling is that the Council do what they want anyway.

 

[Gramsci]

The council have made a decision on the Pop Brixton site and International House:

https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s161303/CMDDR%2049%20Brixton%20Station%20Road6%20Canterbury%20Crescent%20Deed%20of%20Variation%20to%20Contract%20with%20Development.pdf

Unsurprisingly the differences in the deal with the developer, London Square, are:

1. Reduce social housing by 10%
2. Reduce overall amount of commercial floor space
3. Seems like they are keeping the same amount of affordable commercial floor space
4. I think they are selling (leasing) the land for less money overall now
5. Remove the councils right to first refusal on buying affordable homes to then rent out

Seems like a bad deal overall to me.

From the email I got:

Yes one of the main reasons the Council went for the partnership model rather than just maximising capital receipt was to get 50 percent affordable housing.

Now its is 40 percent. And imo with ongoing viability assessments it could go lower



The capital receipt is less and appears to me to be used up by cost to Council for clearing the site and more significantly separating shared services of International house and Brixton Rec.

So no gain for community on that score.

On separating services - why?

In Brixton master plan new developments are meant to be able to be hooked up to local energy networks as part of move to Combined Heat and Power networks. I do not see how spending a large amount of the capital receipt goes towards this aim. Separating already existing buildings at great cost does not seem to me a good way to spend money.

Most irritating is that now our officers have decided office space is not required so much due to changes over pandemic. Working fron home.

During the Hondo application they said reports by experts said office space requirements were on the up.

I was telling them this was not so. Based on my own experience of seeing largely empty offices in City. But what do I know. I'm not a professional expert.

The report also to my annoyance says International house was part of the original site up for development as stated in local plan

It was not. Officers decided with no consultation to add International house to the site. Which is really annoying.

I'm starting to wonder what the point of this partnership model is. As the clever clogs in Lambeth were insisting it would bring benefits above what a standard sale of land by Council would garner.

I think the Council should be asked if this 40 percent affordable housing is cast iron guarantee.

Remember asking about this before on the 50 percent and did not get an answer on that.

So its a no then.

Great.

 

[Gramsci]

The council have made a decision on the Pop Brixton site and International House:

https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s161303/CMDDR%2049%20Brixton%20Station%20Road6%20Canterbury%20Crescent%20Deed%20of%20Variation%20to%20Contract%20with%20Development.pdf

Unsurprisingly the differences in the deal with the developer, London Square, are:

1. Reduce social housing by 10%
2. Reduce overall amount of commercial floor space
3. Seems like they are keeping the same amount of affordable commercial floor space
4. I think they are selling (leasing) the land for less money overall now
5. Remove the councils right to first refusal on buying affordable homes to then rent out

Seems like a bad deal overall to me.

From the email I got:

Reasons given by Council for need to vary the agreement

3.1 The original development agreement needed to be revised as several factors had changed since
the original agreement which made it undeliverable. The most significant of these were;

 Legislation around Building Safety that now requires a second staircase to be included within
buildings of the scale envisaged and would thus reduce the space available for residential
units.

 Significant increases in Construction Cost post pandemic beyond the level that could
reasonably expected to be covered by contingency

 The value of workspace falling significantly post pandemic and post procurement as the shift
to homeworking has become embedded and reduced demand for office and other workspace.

Second staircase cannot be blamed on Labour government. Or any government. This was change that applies to all developers. It came out of Grenfell that two staircases are now needed.

Value of workspace falling. My question in that case is why this leads to making the scheme non viable. Cannot there be less workspace and more housing instead? As I would have thought less demand for office space could mean More space for homes. I don't see this as necessarily making the scheme less viable. Rather a difference of emphasis.

On construction costs. Well I though that a reason to get private development partner is that they took the risk. Now as per usual it appears they don't. What they do Is go back to Council wring their hands and go its not viable so you the Council will have to change agreements to suit us.


On of the things about this private / public partnership model is that if it ends up as a watered down scheme people rightly are going to say the Council has sold this land off and not got the community benefits it told us it would.

 

[Gramsci]

The council have made a decision on the Pop Brixton site and International House:

https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s161303/CMDDR%2049%20Brixton%20Station%20Road6%20Canterbury%20Crescent%20Deed%20of%20Variation%20to%20Contract%20with%20Development.pdf

Unsurprisingly the differences in the deal with the developer, London Square, are:

1. Reduce social housing by 10%
2. Reduce overall amount of commercial floor space
3. Seems like they are keeping the same amount of affordable commercial floor space
4. I think they are selling (leasing) the land for less money overall now
5. Remove the councils right to first refusal on buying affordable homes to then rent out

Seems like a bad deal overall to me.

From the email I got:

On the affordable workspace. Now I have re read it yes less overall workspace but ( at this time) keeping the original amount of affordable.


Workspace: Reduce minimum
requirement for delivering 6500 sqm
GIA of employment floorspace to a
quantum aligning with the principles of
Lambeth Local Plan Policy ED1 (D),
paragraph 6.7 concerning mixed-use
development schemes with significant
public benefits.
As outlined in this report, the office market has shifted
affecting office values and the overall viability of the
indicative scheme. Lambeth Local Plan Policy ED 1 (D)
supports mixed use regeneration schemes which
deliver significant public benefits where full reprovision
of existing commercial floorspace cannot be achieved,
subject to viability testing at the planning application
stage. Paragraph 6.7 clarifies that the amount to be
provided is expected to be no less than 50% of the
existing floorspace. Whilst a reduction in the
anticipated commercial floorspace within the scheme,
this level of workspace still represents a significant and
permanent contribution to Brixton’s wider workspace
ecosystem and a significant driver of jobs and other
employment and skills opportunities.
Workspace: Revise minimum
requirement to deliver 20% of the
workspace on affordable terms with a
discount of at least 35% on market
rents over a 25-year period to a
requirement to deliver a minimum of
1,300sqm GIA of affordable
workspace at the same discount level
and for the same time period or an
affordable workspace on different
terms which amounts to equivalent
value.

This protects the expected quantum of affordable
workspace originally required to be delivered when a
larger workspace was anticipated - this is an important
public benefit in the Brixton context. These changes
also allow for a more flexible approach to delivering the
affordable workspace, e.g. a smaller quantum could be
provided at a greater discount (e.g. 50% discount or
more on market rents) which may respond more
effectively to local needs. This will be addressed
through pre-application engagement and the planning
submission.
Land receipt: Reduce the expected
land receipt in line with financial
modelling undertaken.
This is necessary given the impa