Huge proposed development around Lambeth town hall promises 'community space and feel good vibes'

[CH1]

This Youtube explanation of PFI was made in 2008, but the points still apply today. This new town hall scheme is the latest example of a PFI type scheme - the needs of the borough's residents are secondary. The needs of the financiers and property developers are actually paramount - whatever the council and it's consultants pretend.

 

[Crispy]

Is the proposal actually a true PFI? ie. the building is effectively leased back?

 

[CH1]

Is the proposal actually a true PFI? ie. the building is effectively leased back?

If not it will be pretty massive "planning gain" for a residential development.
BTW someone mentioned about Phoenix House. Surely the rationale at that time was that Mary Seacole House - wholly owned by Lambeth - needed a major upgrade. The then council opted to sell that for redevelopment and move into the only suitably sized modern leased premises available - at Vauxhall.
Doing a sale and leaseback PFI deal on the Town Hall Campus is simply following on the slippery slope already started by the much reviled Liberal Democrat/Conservative council.

 

[Gramsci]

Have I got this? I am not sure I have been paying attention.
There seem to be different proposals for a redevelopment of Olive Morris House and the Town Hall, proposed by different architectural practices.
Are there more than two proposed treatments? Is one favoured over the other?
Where do we go to comment on any of them?

Here

This summarizes the Council reason behind the development.

I see they used:

We are currently in a competitive dialogue process with three developers. We expect to choose a preferred bidder in Autumn 2013.

Thats not a bad process to use. The developers are given a brief and then come up with solutions which are then discussed further. It is a longer way to choose a developer. It means both sides enter a discussion on the scheme before signing up to do it.

It could have had more community input. Competitive dialogue takes time.

Now its only little time to get in feedback on the 3 developers. I do not really understand why.

There has been only one presentation on the 3 developers. During the daytime.

Council chould have put up an exhibition of the three developers ideas in say the library.

As we are in competitive dialogue with three developers we have three different timescales at present but roughly speaking we are aiming to proceed as follows:

• Autumn 2013 - Selection of preferred developer
• Autumn 2013 - Conditional agreement signed with preferred developer
• Winter 2013 – March 2014 - Workshops and activities for local people and businesses with preferred developer
• April 2014 - Planning application submitted
• April 2014 – April 2015 - Planning process including public consultation
• April 2015 - Works start (this is still to be confirmed as it is dependent on the preferred bidder’s programme)
• Winter 2017 / 2018 - Your New Town Hall complete

The timescale above is very likely to change and is included at this point as a guide only. Once a preferred bidder is selected this timescale will be updated and will become more fixed.


6. Who makes the final decisions on the project? Who chooses the developer? Who makes the decision on the final proposals?

There is an Office Accommodation Strategy project board that meets frequently to discuss key decisions on the project. All recommendations from the board must be agreed by the Council’s Cabinet.

 

[Gramsci]

Is the proposal actually a true PFI? ie. the building is effectively leased back?

Says here that:

12. Will you be selling any land and / or any offices to developers? Couldn’t some or all of the spare offices be donated to the community?
Some buildings are occupied on a lease arrangement and will be vacated and returned to the Landlord on expiry of the lease. Any money generated from disposals of leases will be crucial to ensuring that the project pays for itself.

This investment will enable the Council to maximise the efficiency of the remaining offices and provide significant savings on our annual property costs.

As part of our strategy to co-locate the council’s services around the town hall we will be vacating some of our existing offices that we own, which are then surplus to our requirements. These surplus sites could pass to the developer. The value of those surplus sites will help us to develop our remaining sites as a self-financing scheme.

There are many different permutations to our partnership agreement with the potential developer. These specifics are being discussed as part of the competitive dialogue process which is currently underway. When we have chosen a developer these specifics will be communicated. See timeline above as part of the answer to Question 5.

So its not PFI it is supposed to be "self financing".

I also think the Council are looking at how costs savings from rationalizing there office space can be included in demonstrating that this project is at zero cost to Council.

So if they set out that they can save X millions a year from less office space over a period of years this could be included into making this project feasible.

Also looks like a developer will be able to sell some of the housing on the site.

I reckon it will be similar to a PFI scheme in that the developer ( in theory) takes on the risk of building the scheme to time and cost.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

They reckon they can save £4.5m each year by consolidating offices - so over 5 years that would be £22.5m (though we've already heard that is looking optimistic.) The rebuild itself is being done by a developer, who will get given International House (big red brick tower block behind the Rec/opposite the Canterbury pub) in exchange. So yes, there won't be £30m changing hands (people like to tot up the figures and brandish a big number to make the development seem impressive.)

I'm interested in how the deal is being financed and how International House has been valued. If this scheme ends up costing more than expected (which is almost inevitable) I assume the council will dip into its (allegedly) vast reserves, rather than adding it on to our council tax.

I've FOI'ed them on this anyway, so we should find out in 28 days

FOI reply came today....and it was useless. They didn't answer my question properly.

But they did release an interesting bit of information - apparently the development is going to cost £50m rather than the £30m originally estimated

Brixton Blog have just posted an article suggesting residents are angry over the lack of consultation. Cllr Paul McGlone is getting upset about it on Twitter.

 

[boohoo]

FOI reply came today....and it was useless. They didn't answer my question properly.

But they did release an interesting bit of information - apparently the development is going to cost £50m rather than the £30m originally estimated

Brixton Blog have just posted an article suggesting residents are angry over the lack of consultation. Cllr Paul McGlone is getting upset about it on Twitter.

It's quite a huge change to the area. And not at all sympathetic to the area. It doesn't enhance Brixton. Feels like it's all about the money!

 

[Gramsci]

FOI reply came today....and it was useless. They didn't answer my question properly.

But they did release an interesting bit of information - apparently the development is going to cost £50m rather than the £30m originally estimated

Brixton Blog have just posted an article suggesting residents are angry over the lack of consultation. Cllr Paul McGlone is getting upset about it on Twitter.

Good article from Brixton Blog.

Worth quoting:

Alan Piper, secretary of Brixton Society, said he received an email to say the unveiling of the three proposals at the Ritzy cinema on October 1 had been cancelled. When he contacted Lambeth to check this he got no response so didn’t go to the meeting.
He said: “The council must involve the community more at an early stage so they can head of problems later.

“Where there’s secrecy it tends to make people defensive. I would urge Lambeth to involve the community so they can head off problems at an early stage.

Brixton Blog

Just added to the twitter.

As article shows this project was done by officers. Community input was nil at beginning. The main outlines of the scheme have been decided before consulting.

So people are just been asked to comment on the 3 developers.This is not Co Production or Cooperative Council. Its is a limited form of consultation.

 

[newbie]

It's quite a huge change to the area. And not at all sympathetic to the area. It doesn't enhance Brixton. Feels like it's all about the money!

bigschemeitis. Wholesale rather than piecemeal change because apparently our heritage of intermixing different age, style & scale buildings has to be ditched in favour of visionary monolithic redevelopment. The trouble with the vision is that it'll all fade into obsolescence and/or fall apart together and have to be replaced wholesale again. Big development is bad in and of itself, whatever the apparent merits of any particular scheme.

But yes, it's all about the money, with a sideserving of the awards for the vision.

 

[Pinggoombah]

bigschemeitis. Wholesale rather than piecemeal change because apparently our heritage of intermixing different age, style & scale buildings has to be ditched in favour of visionary monolithic redevelopment. The trouble with the vision is that it'll all fade into obsolescence and/or fall apart together and have to be replaced wholesale again. Big development is bad in and of itself, whatever the apparent merits of any particular scheme.

But yes, it's all about the money, with a sideserving of the awards for the vision.

Isn't it about the height too? As more people live and work in the area, we need to increase the available floor space. The only place left to build is up.

Don't forget that the Bon Marche building and the Quin and Axtens building next to it on Brixton Road must have been quite bold and visionary in their day.

 

[editor]

Don't forget that the Bon Marche building and the Quin and Axtens building next to it on Brixton Road must have been quite bold and visionary in their day.

They weren't "visionary" or particularly "bold."

They were just solid examples of well built, confident, Victorian commercial architecture. Their appearance was very much in tune with the popular styles of the day and I imagine would have been thought of as a welcome enhancement to the town landscape.

 

[Onket]

They weren't "visionary" or particularly "bold."

They were just solid examples of well built, confident, Victorian commercial architecture. Their appearance was very much in tune with the popular styles of the day and I imagine would have been thought of as a welcome enhancement to the toen landscape.

I dunno, I bet there were some complaining, as there always is about these things.

 

[Rushy]

Isn't it about the height too? As more people live and work in the area, we need to increase the available floor space. The only place left to build is up.

Don't forget that the Bon Marche building and the Quin and Axtens building next to it on Brixton Road must have been quite bold and visionary in their day.

They weren't "visionary" or particularly "bold."

They were just solid examples of well built, confident, Victorian commercial architecture. Their appearance was very much in tune with the popular styles of the day and I imagine would have been thought of as a welcome enhancement to the town landscape.

Sandhurst Court (20/30s) on Acre Lane is probably a better example. That was apparently very controversial on account of its height and design.

Sadly it looks shit now, although it is about to be extended upwards and refurbished. There are no plans to replace the original windows though and without that the refurb can only be averagely successful. Architecturally, the building's integrity will be lacking.

 

[lang rabbie]

[Puts on council regeneration person/property developer hat]
The whole redevelopment would become a lot more viable/generate substantially more funds if the Palladium/Fridge/Brixton Electric site was included and allowed the Town Hall campus to be concentrated.
Now where did I put those matches...
[/Takes off council regeneration person/property developer hat]

 

[CH1]

The Standard "Londoner's Diary" puts a new spin on the matter:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-workers-in-with-a-new-town-hall-8896945.html
(I hope they have it wrong about the Fridge - but there again maybe they just get their gossip from Urban75))

 

[Pinggoombah]

The Standard "Londoner's Diary" puts a new spin on the matter:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-workers-in-with-a-new-town-hall-8896945.html
(I hope they have it wrong about the Fridge - but there again maybe they just get their gossip from Urban75))

They probably meant the Fridge Bar, which would be no loss.

 

[editor]

There was some righteous anger from one person attending this 'urbanism' bash at the Town Hall today. She was rightly indignant at the prospect of Olive Morris House being turned into luxury flats (something the council members were unable to rule out completely) and made it clear that if any such proposal was put forward - and Morris's memory sullied by such an association - resistance would be mighty. She got my vote.

 

[leanderman]

There was some righteous anger from one person attending this 'urbanism' bash at the Town Hall today. She was rightly indignant at the prospect of Olive Morris House being turned into luxury flats (something the council members were unable to rule out completely) and made it clear that if any such proposal was put forward - and Morris's memory sullied by such an association - resistance would be mighty. She got my vote.

Should be another primary school

 

[Pinggoombah]

Should be another primary school

That's a lazy suggestion. You might as well suggest an art gallery or a museum.

The project depends on using the profit from residential accommodation to fund new council offices.

 

[CH1]

There was some righteous anger from one person attending this 'urbanism' bash at the Town Hall today. She was rightly indignant at the prospect of Olive Morris House being turned into luxury flats (something the council members were unable to rule out completely) and made it clear that if any such proposal was put forward - and Morris's memory sullied by such an association - resistance would be mighty. She got my vote.

Any more details - how many there, what was said like? I bet they didn't serve Brixton ales for the informal drinks!
I should have noted the event and attended myself. Must diary in 30th October - Somerleyton Road briefing room 8 at 6.30pm

 

[CH1]

That's a lazy suggestion. You might as well suggest an art gallery or a museum. The project depends on using the profit from residential accommodation to fund new council offices.

The way tings are going now in Brixton they could have a fee paying "Free School" then you'd both be satisfied.

 

[Gramsci]

That's a lazy suggestion. You might as well suggest an art gallery or a museum.

The project depends on using the profit from residential accommodation to fund new council offices.

Seems like fair enough suggestion to me from leanderman

Does the project depend on profit from residential accommodation?

The workings of what makes this project feasible I find hard to understand.

The project is about reducing the office space the Council have in there possession. As Council say they can make better use of less office space.

The developer will be paid in kind by for example getting the office block "International House" by the Brixton Rec. With the understanding that a planning application for change of use to residential would be looked upon favourably.

So its not the profit from residential that this project depends on. The development partner is being paid in kind to take on risk of building the Town Hall project.

What I do not understand is that ,given with the savings from getting rid of office space and giving the developer International House (and the Olive Morris site for housing possibly), the project should cost the Council anything at all.

 

[Gramsci]

There was some righteous anger from one person attending this 'urbanism' bash at the Town Hall today. She was rightly indignant at the prospect of Olive Morris House being turned into luxury flats (something the council members were unable to rule out completely) and made it clear that if any such proposal was put forward - and Morris's memory sullied by such an association - resistance would be mighty. She got my vote.

Did anything come up about affordable housing?

Was chatting to some people in Iceland today ( not the kind of people who guzzle champagne at C&F) and there is a lot of anger about lack of affordable housing, benefit cuts, the bedroom tax etc.

They all wanted copies of the Housing Activist newsletter.

 

[jimbarkanoodle]

i hope we dont lose the Fridge?!

 

[editor]

They all wanted copies of the Housing Activist newsletter.

I've posted it up here: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/10/...in-somerleyton-road-brixton-see-leaflet-here/

 

[Crispy]

i hope we dont lose the Fridge?!

It's left in place in all three options. Not going anywhere.

 

[Pinggoombah]

It's left in place in all three options. Not going anywhere.

They probably meant the Fridge Bar, which would be no loss.

 

[Rushy]

They probably meant the Fridge Bar, which would be no loss.

Yes - that's going as I understand it. Not the Electric.
I know a lot of people who will be pleased.
I wonder if the lease is up of whether it is a compulsory purchase or...what?

It would be nice if the Electric could get a facelift in the course of works. Not necessarily back to what it was, but it is not really a fine example of what it currently is.

 

[Crispy]

It's alright on the inside, but the facade is a mess. They don't even have proper lettering for the NOW SHOWING sign above the door. It's made out of gaffer tape ffs.

 

[Rushy]

Yep - I was specifically meaning the outside. Inside is not bad - though nothing special. Don't love the blue and gold but they've certainly made an effort to restore some of the old features.