Brixton Somerleyton Road development, Ovalhouse and Brixton Green - funding, proposed rents etc

[CH1]

Given what "Blusher" Vokes has been up to recently -including going bright red every time he dissembled at the scrutiny committee last Monday - I'd contend that he may have been promoted, but has actually gone onto "lower things".

Do you recall the Peter Principle? Here is Wikipedia's very elaborate formulation:

"In an organizational structure, assessing an employee's potential for a promotion is often based on their performance in the current job. This eventually results in their being promoted to their highest level of competence and potentially then to a role in which they are not competent, referred to as their "level of incompetence". The employee has no chance of further promotion, thus reaching their career's ceiling in an organization."

 

[CH1]

Saw this on Brixton Buzz today:

Somerleyton Road site sees slight increase in number of units despite concerns from Brixton Society

Now I am confused. CH1 pointed out to me a while back that the Council did not own the whole site. I thought that the Council would be CPOing the privately owned section in order to consolidate ownership of the site and produce a scheme that was owned by the Council and managed by as yet to be decided organisation.

Now it appears a private developer is putting in plans to develop a section of the site separately with some homes for sale on private market and a % of affordable. ( As regular posters know developers are likely to come back later on to vary affordable element with a "viability" report. So any commitments to % of affordable housing and its form is to be taken with a pinch of salt.)

Seems to me that this undermines the whole scheme.

Officers say in the linked report to planning committee ( see Brixton Buzz ) that the Council scheme will require "revisions" (page 17 summary of objections). The scheme was to be 100% Council owned with all flats to be let rather than sold. Some flat at market rent and some at affordable.

The whole financial basis of the original scheme was based on Council full ownership of the site.

Also the way the Council promoted the scheme and consulted on it was that they would retain ownership of the whole site.That this would guarantee social rents on some flats and market rents with proper long term tenancies on others.

So if this scheme goes forward it how will a management body operate?

How will it affect the financial modelling the Council had been doing for the Somerleyton road project?

Why did the Council not CPO that land before going ahead with all the consultation and planning of the scheme?

Whilst, as the planning officers say, this application is in planning terms compliant it undermines what the Council were planning for the site.

Resuming my thoughts in the clear light of day I must say this still looks a bit of a mess after all the planning and consultation and seeking partners etc.

There is another uncertainty which was not there at the beginning - the temporary use of the prefab buildings near Carlton Mansions by St John's School. The new St John's school in Angell Town is not yet ready- not sure of the timescale, but presumably this could have held up a starting date for the Oval House end of the site.

I wonder if OvalhouseDB has any information about that end of Somerleyton?

It seems to me there are now two plans - one (most likely) a private development on 16-20 Somerleyton plus a scaled down council-led scheme for the other parts. And Plan B - the old plan A to be implemented in the event of the applicant not agreeing to section 106 obligations.

I am planning to go to the planning meeting tonight to see what is said. Be interesting to see if the chair bumps Tintagel House up the agenda over Brixton. Somerleyton supposed to be first on the agenda (after the minutes) Meeting is at Karibu at 7 pm.

Of course there could be a Plan C - involving selling off other bits of the Somerleyton site. From the present and potential council tenants' point of view the popular mixed scheme originally proposed would then be seen as a Trojan horse.

If there is a problem here with the old council/Brixton Green idea of Public Works Loan Board financing of Somerleyton this could impact on all the other regenerations -Cressingham Gardens, Central Hill and all the rest. They might have to become PFI partnership schemes led by Barretts, Taylor Wimpey etc. I'm sure that would go down at treat with the Conservative government. What about Sadiq?

Yet another complication is that the Public Works Loan Board is currently being abolished (see here) The functions will be taken over directly by the Treasury - presumably more closely controlled by government ministers.

 

[editor]

One thing for sure: most people I know in the area have zero clue about what is going on, despite Brixton Green's claims to have adequately consulted the local community ("Just pay us a £1 to have your voice heard!").

 

[ViolentPanda]

One thing for sure: most people I know in the area have zero clue about what is going on, despite Brixton Green's claims to have adequately consulted the local community ("Just pay us a £1 to have your voice heard!").

Perhaps they follow the Lambeth council definition of "consultation"?

 

[CH1]

Does anyone know about this by the way? What settlement did Lambeth achieve?

The paragraph below is taken from a Swindon Tenants blog that goes into great detail about government finance of social housing:

"When they carried out the calculations on this basis 136 authorities had to take on extra ‘debt’ whilst 34 received payments from the government to reduce theirs. Those that had to take on extra debt were given a ‘loan’ by the Public Works Loan Board (an executive agency of the Treasury) which Councils ‘paid’ to the government. It was of course a paper transaction between the PWLB and the Treasury. The ‘debt settlement’ produced an £8 billion surplus which the Treasury pocketed. This was in effect a subsidy to the Treasury taken from Council tenants’ rent. In addition Councils have to repay the ‘loan’ to the PWLB, together with annual interest charge. Rent used to pay off this ‘loan’ is money that cannot be spent on the upkeep of tenants’ homes".

 

[CH1]

The applicant is apparently "Milegate Ltd".

Milegate Limited seems a bit of a rum company.
If you look at trade directories it deals in specialist shell fish etc.
Others say it grows cereals and legumes.

The current address of the company is 20 Somerleyton Road, however the correspondence address for the company secretary is 1 Bishops Avenue N2 0AP. Seems a bit odd - Bishops Avenue is the mythical hangout of the super rich.

 

[CH1]

Don't want to bore everyone to death, but I did discover that Milegate has a mortgage secured on the Masons Arms in Edgware. So apart from trading in frozen fish etc. it also has at least one property investment.

The Masons Arms was apparently notorious in 2012/3 for a stabbing and a shooting incident. Whether this led to Milegate taking over cannot say, but I noted the pub now has the de rigeur Facebook page Clubul Romanesc Masons Arms

I am delighted to say after all the fuss about the advert for "a night" at Brixton Jamm the other day that the Masons Arms has it's own cultural spin:

In my delusion I thought it would be wonderful if a warren of Romanian bunnies arrived at the Town Planning meeting to assist the deliberations of the councillors.

 

[CH1]

Pressing on with investigating Milegate Ltd - there is an associated company recently formed and registered at 20 Somerleyton Road called Fishnet (London) Ltd, directors Mr Nouri Nourani (of Milegate) and David Nourani - going on age could be a son of the above.

Business stated as Food supply (other) so this is fortunately in the grocery trade, rather than strictly in the Fishnet trade.

 

[gdubz]

Pressing on with investigating Milegate Ltd - there is an associated company recently formed and registered at 20 Somerleyton Road called Fishnet (London) Ltd, directors Mr Nouri Nourani (of Milegate) and David Nourani - going on age could be a son of the above.

Business stated as Food supply (other) so this is fortunately in the grocery trade, rather than strictly in the Fishnet trade.

Maybe fishnet supplies the tights for the bunnies. Get a bbc documentary crew in there

 

[Gramsci]

The Masons Arms was apparently notorious in 2012/3 for a stabbing and a shooting incident. Whether this led to Milegate taking over cannot say, but I noted the pub now has the de rigeur Facebook page Clubul Romanesc Masons Arms

I am delighted to say after all the fuss about the advert for "a night" at Brixton Jamm the other day that the Masons Arms has it's own cultural spin:
View attachment 87002
In my delusion I thought it would be wonderful if a warren of Romanian bunnies arrived at the Town Planning meeting to assist the deliberations of the councillors.

The question is why advertise a Romanian club night with a photo of Japanese Cosplay girls?

 

[CH1]

The question is why advertise a Romanian club night with a photo of Japanese Cosplay girls?

I see what you mean. I had just assumed they were Romanian. BTW nothing like that was evident at the Planning meeting!

 

[teuchter]

I see what you mean. I had just assumed they were Romanian. BTW nothing like that was evident at the Planning meeting!

Did they approve it then?

 

[Gramsci]

I see what you mean. I had just assumed they were Romanian. BTW nothing like that was evident at the Planning meeting!

Thats a pity.

I’ve met Romanian women. Trouble is they all have big burly Romanian boyfriends from there village who they marry in two day weddings in Romania.

Why some people want to get out of EU I really don’t understand. Have had some misery guts going on about this country being flooded by East Europeans and a stop needs to be put to it recently. The more the merrier as far as I’m concerned.

How did it go at the planning meeting?

 

[CH1]

Planning Committee Report
Things sure drag at Planning at the moment. New chair is improving, but still not up to the curt incisiveness of the previous chair Diane Morris.
We spent an hour on the minutiae of a basement excavation on an outbuilding behind 6-8 Larkhall Lane. Currently an artist studio and to be an expanded version of same (according to the applicant). After 3 speakers against, 3 in favour and much humming and haahing the committee approved subject to extra conditions.

The the meat of the meeting. 16-22 Somerleyton Road.
Officer presentation was more or less inaudible. Curious that since the councillors and senior officers seemed to have no difficulty with their microphones.

The gist of the argument was this is an application following on from a Lambeth application for a much bigger scheme. This scheme has to be evaluated on its own merits - and in fact there is no reason why theoretically the Lambeth scheme cannot be adjusted to achieve the same final result as the Masterplan had indicated.

There was an objector - Brixton Green. Two people from Brixton Green were there. Then speaker was a shaven headed man - definitely not Brad, or Zac Munro, unless he has changed his image. He was morally supported by a woman who looked to me like Dinah Roake, but I would not swear 100% to that either.

The gist of the objection was that this new proposal undermined the community control of the Somerleyton Scheme and also by depriving it of rental income would render it unfeasible. The speaker was clear and well timed.

The supporter was from the architects - he too was quite clear setting out how they had sought to accommodate the council's objectives as in the Masterplan.

Altogether presentations, questions from councillors and debate took an hour.

Councillor Mohammed Sadeet was quite blatant that he preferred the design of the applicaton compared to Lambeth's earlier one. I think he was probably right on that (sorry if anyone is offended).

The was a question about affordable vs market - and the answer was that the current application plus what would remain of the Lambeth scheme would produce more affordable housing than before - but some of this would be shared ownership rather than rental.

There was a lot of discussion about Somerleyton Passage. Assistant Director David Joyce had to clarify on this - the present application could only be charged 50% of the cost of doing up Somerleyton Passage as this was originally a cost on the whole Somerleyton Scheme.

Councillors raised the nursery issue - the applicant clarified that this was a preference for the orginal scheme, so they had applied for the various options required for these ground floor uses - A1/A2/D1.

The senior planning officer was surprisingly frank towards the end. Following a probing question he said it was understandable that a site owner might bring their own proposals forwards under threat of a Compulsory Purchase Order.

The end of this issue was the most surprising I have seen recently: the chair said she was unable to support the proposal as in her view it lacked the quality of the Lambeth application which had already been approved. Moreover she was not satisfied that issues such as the Somerleyton Passage had been properly dealt with - and she also thought this application would undermine the council's larger proposal.

She therefore asked for another councillor to propose the application be approved. Cllr Mohamed Sadeet was delighted to do so.
The vote was 3:3 tied.
At this point I expected the chair to cast her casting vote in favour of the officer's recommendation - which used to be the convention.
In fact David Joyce, Assistant Director, leaned over and gave the chair strong advice that her earlier reasons for voting against the application would not be defensible in a Planning Appeal and the council could therefore incur costs.
So Councillor Wilcox duly cast her chair's casting vote in favour of the application.

General impressions - Councillor Diana Morris is still the one on the committee who has a full grasp of the issues and the rules, though I suppose Councillor Wilcox deserved an honourable mention for demonstrating her views.

The Brixton Green objector walked out before the end - maybe sensing how things were going - maybe had an appointment.
Dinah Roake (if it was her) gets an honourable for shouting out that application would spoil the Lambeth scheme (against what officers were saying).

 

[CH1]

Did they approve it then?

see my report above

 

[CH1]

Thats a pity.
I’ve met Romanian women. Trouble is they all have big burly Romanian boyfriends from there village who they marry in two day weddings in Romania.
Why some people want to get out of EU I really don’t understand. Have had some misery guts going on about this country being flooded by East Europeans and a stop needs to be put to it recently. The more the merrier as far as I’m concerned.
How did it go at the planning meeting?

I always had a weakness for the music of Enescu (as did Yehudi Menhuin)
Moreover the greatest ever Bruckner conductor is allegedly Sergiu Celibidache.
So don't do them down.
Account of the meeting above.

 

[teuchter]

The senior planning officer was surprisingly frank towards the end. Following a probing question he said it was understandable that a site owner might bring their own proposals forwards under threat of a Compulsory Purchase Order.

I don't quite follow the background here. Was the original intention that Lambeth wouldl CPO this site, and if so why have they changed their mind? Or might they still CPO it and this application is to do with the owner building a case for its value or something?

 

[Gramsci]

I don't quite follow the background here. Was the original intention that Lambeth wouldl CPO this site, and if so why have they changed their mind? Or might they still CPO it and this application is to do with the owner building a case for its value or something?

Before I was kicked off the site I did take part in the earlier consultations.

The assumption always was that the Council would consolidate the ownership of the whole site. The consultation on the site was on the basis it would be a Council owned scheme. And that they would retain ownership - renting not selling housing. Even the new theatre would be on a lease not a freehold.

So somewhere down the line something has happened.

Future Brixton

The Council planning application was agreed. No suggestion in the Future Brixton piece that one section would be done by private developer.

 

[CH1]

I don't quite follow the background here. Was the original intention that Lambeth wouldl CPO this site, and if so why have they changed their mind? Or might they still CPO it and this application is to do with the owner building a case for its value or something?

They always intended to - and were quite open about it AFAIK.
Seems they never got round to it or maybe they notified the applicant and didn't follow through.

I would have though the next step might be for the applicants to do the same as 86-88 Gresham Road and find a suitable building company like Taylor Wimpey to buy the site with planning permission.

 

[Gramsci]

The the meat of the meeting. 16-22 Somerleyton Road.
Officer presentation was more or less inaudible. Curious that since the councillors and senior officers seemed to have no difficulty with their microphones.

The gist of the argument was this is an application following on from a Lambeth application for a much bigger scheme. This scheme has to be evaluated on its own merits - and in fact there is no reason why theoretically the Lambeth scheme cannot be adjusted to achieve the same final result as the Masterplan had indicated.

The was a question about affordable vs market - and the answer was that the current application plus what would remain of the Lambeth scheme would produce more affordable housing than before - but some of this would be shared ownership rather than rental.

Councillors raised the nursery issue - the applicant clarified that this was a preference for the orginal scheme, so they had applied for the various options required for these ground floor uses - A1/A2/D1.

My issue with this is that the private developer would not have had a potentially lucrative scheme without the Council plans already consulted on to make this road mainly residential. So the private owner is piggy backing on a Council scheme.

 

[CH1]

Before I was kicked off the site I did take part in the earlier consultations.

The assumption always was that the Council would consolidate the ownership of the whole site. The consultation on the site was on the basis it would be a Council owned scheme. And that they would retain ownership - renting not selling housing. Even the new theatre would be on a lease not on at a freehold.

So somewhere down the line something has happened.

Future Brixton

The Council planning application was agreed. No suggestion in the Future Brixton piece that one section would be done by private developer.

The one time I went to a Brixton Green meeting - an AGM maybe 2013 - they had a chart with a "Timeline". Key dates were the council election 2014 and General Election 2015. In fact the planning permission was on time I think, but after that everything slipped.

I think we need to call in OvalhouseDB to see if there is any slippage at that end.

This could be not malice or incompetence - but just having too many balls in the air.
The not long ago we were reading that Your New Town Hall had a problem.

Mastermind McGlone has only got a finite amount of brain cells.

 

[Gramsci]

Reminds me of the academic who talked at a Cressingham Gardens meeting. He had looked at "regeneration" schemes across London. All the grand promises had been watered down by the time the schemes were finished.

 

[CH1]

My issue with this is that the private developer would not have had a potentially lucrative scheme without the Council plans already consulted on to make this road mainly residential. So the private owner is piggy backing on a Council scheme.

Certainly is - including adapting the Masterplan to achieve his ends.

But if the original scheme had gone through as planned he would have been CPO'd 2 years ago. What happened?

 

[Gramsci]

This could be not malice or incompetence - but just having too many balls in the air.
The not long ago we were reading that Your New Town Hall had a problem.

The Somerleyton road project is a flagship project of this Nu Labour Council.

Cllr Jack Hopkins, Cabinet Member for Jobs and Growth says “ Somerleyton Road is genuinely ground breaking and has been created through a partnership that brings together Ovalhouse theatre, the local community, Igloo and five outstanding architects. Now we can see the shared ambition and creativity of everyone involved start to become reality and that’s really exciting.”

Future Brixton

So they should have made sure they were on top of it at all times.

If I was on one of the estates they have earmarked for "regeneration" I would be somewhat concerned that the Council have not kept on top of this scheme.

 

[Gramsci]

What local people wanted
A different kind of regeneration
People wanted any development of the area to be designed with and for existing residents with profits benefiting the local community rather than going to private developers.

Cllr Jack Hopkins said, “Somerleyton Road is not just about a development providing homes and community facilities. It’s about making an investment in a community which will stand the test of time, come what may. Driven by communities for communities, I think it heralds a new way for local people, the Council and partners to work together – putting people above profit and keeping value in communities”

Future Brixton

For once I agree with Brixton Green on this. It probably was Dinah Roake at the planning meeting

 

[Gramsci]

This could be not malice or incompetence - but just having too many balls in the air.

The problem I have is that when it came to getting Carlton Mansions residents out the Council were very competent and nasty about it.

When it comes down to taking on a landowner and developer they roll over.

If the New Labour Council want to put people above profit- a laudable aim- this means taking on the big boys. Something Im afraid Nu Labour talk the talk but don’t do when it comes down to it.

 

[CH1]

The problem I have is that when it came to getting Carlton Mansions residents out the Council were very competent and nasty about it.

When it comes down to taking on a landowner and developer they roll over.

If the New Labour Council want to put people above profit- a laudable aim- this means taking on the big boys. Something Im afraid Nu Labour talk the talk but don’t do when it comes down to it.

There is a major difference. In the case of 16-22 Somerleyton Road the guy owned the property, not the council.

If the council had followed their own timeline this would not have happened. They have not rolled over - they have cocked up doing a compulsory purchase needed as part of their Flagship Scheme.

If this was a balanced council someone might have been forced to resign over this I would have thought.

 

[teuchter]

They have not rolled over - they have cocked up doing a compulsory purchase needed as part of their Flagship Scheme.

Is there some kind of time limit on it? Is it now impossible/infeasible for them to do a CPO?

 

[editor]

The problem I have is that when it came to getting Carlton Mansions residents out the Council were very competent and nasty about it.

When it comes down to taking on a landowner and developer they roll over.

And don't we know it: Fight for social housing in Brixton: Town Hall, March 12th – update – council caves in

 

[CH1]

Is there some kind of time limit on it? Is it now impossible/infeasible for them to do a CPO?

There is a deadline (12th July) by when the applicant must sign the council's section 106 agreement.

If this does not happen then the planning department has delegated powers to refuse permission - so in that sense the permission is currently conditional.

I expect you have better idea than me whether a CPO can still go through. Presumably if it did the applicant, Milegate, would argue for much higher compensation - and not just covering their architects fees!