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

[High Definition]

The point is though that all of the town hall construction is being paid for by the developers who get to build the flats. They would get to build a whole lot less flats and therefore would, in theory, not pay for the development of the new Town Hall. (Not that I want that huge tower, by the way). How many floors is it supposed to be now?

If the new Civic Centre only needs to be 3 storeys high (rather than six), then the subsidy required will be less. The developers are already getting the Hambrook House site and Ivor House for housing. That should be enough to pay for the new town hall.

 

[Rushy]

If the new Civic Centre only needs to be 3 storeys high (rather than six), then the subsidy required will be less. The developers are already getting the Hambrook House site and Ivor House for housing. That should be enough to pay for the new town hall.

Should it? I've really no idea.

 

[Gramsci]

The point is though that all of the town hall construction is being paid for by the developers who get to build the flats. They would get to build a whole lot less flats and therefore would, in theory, not pay for the development of the new Town Hall. (Not that I want that huge tower, by the way). How many floors is it supposed to be now?

Is it? I thought that at least some of the funds will be from disposal of other Council office sites.

Some buildings currently used by the council are occupied on a lease arrangement and will be vacated and returned to their landlords on expiry of the leases. 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.

 

[Rushy]

Is it? I thought that at least some of the funds will be from disposal of other Council office sites.

So what? A commercial deal was arrived at which included a transfer of land on which a developer expected to be allowed to build and sell a number of properties. In return they agreed to build the town hall. During the initial stages of consultation they found that they could only build a proportion of the original planned flats. The deal changes.

 

[CH1]

The point is though that all of the town hall construction is being paid for by the developers who get to build the flats. They would get to build a whole lot less flats and therefore would, in theory, not pay for the development of the new Town Hall. (Not that I want that huge tower, by the way). How many floors is it supposed to be now?

I would just like to correct some terminology here.

They are not building a New Town Hall - it is going to be a "civic centre" and will contain a "customer service centre" (as currently in Olive Morris House and recently refurbished for £2.5 million) and "offices" - as currently leased from St George property company in Vauxhall.

This was in a 2005 Council report:

1.1 Lambeth Council holds a 999-year lease on the office building at 10 Wandsworth Road. Council staff will move into the building shortly. Officers in the Corporate Facilities Management team have applied to assign an official name to the building.

4.2 The company that owns the freehold for the building, St George South London Ltd, has been informed of the proposals.

Maybe Rushy can explain why the present council are claiming that somehow the Phoenix House lease runs out and the council need to move their offices (again)? Looks like the lease is good for another 990 years to me!

The council have officially denied that they are building a New Town Hall - even though the project is branded "Your New Town Hall"

Confused? I certainly am!

 

[Greebo]

<snip>The council have officially denied that they are building a New Town Hall - even though the project is branded "Your New Town Hall"

Confused? I certainly am!

Come off it, this is Lambeth; nothing ought to surprise you about what happens.

This is the same council which wrings its hands over the length of the housing list, while blocking up flats for 16 years instead of making them habitable and reducing need.</derail>

 

[Rushy]

Maybe Rushy can explain why the present council are claiming that somehow the Phoenix House lease runs out and the council need to move their offices (again)? Looks like the lease is good for another 990 years to me!

Maybe you should explain why I should be expected to know the answer to that or explain that to you?!

All I am saying is that if someone constructs a deal on a premise, and that premise turns out to be inaccurate, then the deal fails unless a work around can be found. The premise was that a certain number of flats could be built by building to a certain height over the entirity of a particular site. That height proved to be problematic in relation to Arlington Lodge. So they reduced the height at the rear of the site and increased it at the Brixton Hill side. I don't like it and will object. But the reason they have proposed it, to maintain the same number of flats whilst building lower at the rear, seems perfectly clear to me.

 

[CH1]

Maybe you should explain why I should be expected to know the answer to that or explain that to you?!

I just thought you might have heard stuff through the grapevine - such as Lambeth sold and leased back on Phoenix House for example.

Look what a mess International House became - Lambeth apparently did just this on that building, then had to buy the freehold back in order to progress their fiendish plans.

Just saying.

 

[Gramsci]

So what? A commercial deal was arrived at which included a transfer of land on which a developer expected to be allowed to build and sell a number of properties. In return they agreed to build the town hall. During the initial stages of consultation they found that they could only build a proportion of the original planned flats. The deal changes.

I am not having a go Rushy.

Unlike the other sites I have not followed the "your new Town Hall" development plans. Partly as officers already went ahead with it and then decided to consult. Which put me off. Its been a bizarre exercise. Its part of Future Brixton but also part of Council office accommodation strategy. Which is getting rid of office space as Council argue they do not need so much. Which is not proven to me. I was just quoting what Council say on their website. Which of course makes it all clear to joe public

Reading the posts by High Definition and CH1 the whole consultation on the scheme is a mess.

 

[Manter]

Why do hints have to have such cheesy names? 'Your town hall'- vomit.

 

[High Definition]

As it’s a while since anyone has added anything to this thread and, to my mind at least,the 7 storey civic building and the 14 storey montrocity planned for the Hambrook House site are two of the worst threats to the character of Brixton Centre (far worse than the neon-lit advertisement hoarding on the front of the Prince of Wales), I thought it would be worth reviving the thread with an update on the affordable housing element.


Those of you with long memories, might recall that back in November 2013 when Cabinet approved the appointment of MUSE, we were told that the Town Hall development (including Hambrook House, Ivor House and Olive Morris House) would create 275 housing units (of which 40% would be affordable). Lambeth were still claiming 275 units as late as August 2014. Then, in December 2014 Cllr Paul McGlone posted a blog on the “Your New Town Hall” website in which, the eagle-eyed amongst us at least, might have spotted that the figure for new housing units across the YNTH site had gone down to 200. CH1 and I were at a meeting with Cllr McGlone and Lambeth officers earlier this week at which we discovered that the number of housing units has shrunk yet again – to 196.


This, of course, means that the number of affordable homes produced is shrinking fast. Lambeth’s target (but no guarantee it will be achieved) is that 40% of homes will be “affordable”, of which 70% should be rented and 30% intermediate. It’s debatable whether intermediate housing counts as “affordable” – even Lambeth’s 2012 Housing Needs Assessment admits that just 3% of households in housing need in the borough can afford intermediate housing. If we disregard the intermediate, then Town Hall sites will produce just 37 affordable rented flats. (Calculation - 40% of 196 is 78 “affordable” homes. 70% of 78 is 37).


To put this into perspective, in 2010 Lambeth had around 1,090 empty council homes, of which 848 had been empty for more than 3 months. (Figures were provided by Lambeth as a result of an FOI request from the Evening Standard – haven’t been able to find anything more recent). 37 new affordable rented homes across the Nu Town Hall sites (including that 14 storey blot on the landscape planned for the Hambrook House site seems to me to be a trickle in the ocean compared with the 800+ empty homes council-owned homes across the borough.

 

[editor]

As it’s a while since anyone has added anything to this thread and, to my mind at least,the 7 storey civic building and the 14 storey montrocity planned for the Hambrook House site are two of the worst threats to the character of Brixton Centre (far worse than the neon-lit advertisement hoarding on the front of the Prince of Wales), I thought it would be worth reviving the thread with an update on the affordable housing element.


Those of you with long memories, might recall that back in November 2013 when Cabinet approved the appointment of MUSE, we were told that the Town Hall development (including Hambrook House, Ivor House and Olive Morris House) would create 275 housing units (of which 40% would be affordable). Lambeth were still claiming 275 units as late as August 2014. Then, in December 2014 Cllr Paul McGlone posted a blog on the “Your New Town Hall” website in which, the eagle-eyed amongst us at least, might have spotted that the figure for new housing units across the YNTH site had gone down to 200. CH1 and I were at a meeting with Cllr McGlone and Lambeth officers earlier this week at which we discovered that the number of housing units has shrunk yet again – to 196.


This, of course, means that the number of affordable homes produced is shrinking fast. Lambeth’s target (but no guarantee it will be achieved) is that 40% of homes will be “affordable”, of which 70% should be rented and 30% intermediate. It’s debatable whether intermediate housing counts as “affordable” – even Lambeth’s 2012 Housing Needs Assessment admits that just 3% of households in housing need in the borough can afford intermediate housing. If we disregard the intermediate, then Town Hall sites will produce just 37 affordable rented flats. (Calculation - 40% of 196 is 78 “affordable” homes. 70% of 78 is 37).


To put this into perspective, in 2010 Lambeth had around 1,090 empty council homes, of which 848 had been empty for more than 3 months. (Figures were provided by Lambeth as a result of an FOI request from the Evening Standard – haven’t been able to find anything more recent). 37 new affordable rented homes across the Nu Town Hall sites (including that 14 storey blot on the landscape planned for the Hambrook House site seems to me to be a trickle in the ocean compared with the 800+ empty homes council-owned homes across the borough.

Nice analysis - can I lob that on Buzz?

 

[High Definition]

Nice analysis - can I lob that on Buzz?

Of course

 

[leanderman]

As it’s a while since anyone has added anything to this thread and, to my mind at least,the 7 storey civic building and the 14 storey montrocity planned for the Hambrook House site are two of the worst threats to the character of Brixton Centre (far worse than the neon-lit advertisement hoarding on the front of the Prince of Wales), I thought it would be worth reviving the thread with an update on the affordable housing element.


Those of you with long memories, might recall that back in November 2013 when Cabinet approved the appointment of MUSE, we were told that the Town Hall development (including Hambrook House, Ivor House and Olive Morris House) would create 275 housing units (of which 40% would be affordable). Lambeth were still claiming 275 units as late as August 2014. Then, in December 2014 Cllr Paul McGlone posted a blog on the “Your New Town Hall” website in which, the eagle-eyed amongst us at least, might have spotted that the figure for new housing units across the YNTH site had gone down to 200. CH1 and I were at a meeting with Cllr McGlone and Lambeth officers earlier this week at which we discovered that the number of housing units has shrunk yet again – to 196.


This, of course, means that the number of affordable homes produced is shrinking fast. Lambeth’s target (but no guarantee it will be achieved) is that 40% of homes will be “affordable”, of which 70% should be rented and 30% intermediate. It’s debatable whether intermediate housing counts as “affordable” – even Lambeth’s 2012 Housing Needs Assessment admits that just 3% of households in housing need in the borough can afford intermediate housing. If we disregard the intermediate, then Town Hall sites will produce just 37 affordable rented flats. (Calculation - 40% of 196 is 78 “affordable” homes. 70% of 78 is 37).


To put this into perspective, in 2010 Lambeth had around 1,090 empty council homes, of which 848 had been empty for more than 3 months. (Figures were provided by Lambeth as a result of an FOI request from the Evening Standard – haven’t been able to find anything more recent). 37 new affordable rented homes across the Nu Town Hall sites (including that 14 storey blot on the landscape planned for the Hambrook House site seems to me to be a trickle in the ocean compared with the 800+ empty homes council-owned homes across the borough.

Very interesting.

Not much can be done without increasing the share of 'affordable units' to more than 40 per cent.

But why has the overall number of units fallen 29 per cent?

 

[High Definition]

Very interesting.

Not much can be done without increasing the share of 'affordable units' to more than 40 per cent.

But why has the overall number of units fallen 29 per cent?

Thanks

The 40% affordable is only a target, not a guarantee. With Lambeth trying to squeeze other things out of the site (new offices, replacement customer service centre, open space) I can't see the actual % of affordable being more than 40% and could well be less.

Why has the overall number of housing units fallen? We were told this was because of quality issues - which I think means that Lambeth have decided they can't get 275 units out of the sites and still comply with minimum space and daylight/sunlight standards.

 

[Tricky Skills]

A few more details on the tower that will replace Hambrook House.

The minutes have now been published for a meeting that took place between the Council, Muse and local residents. They hint at what sounds like a Poor Doors situation for the new building.

Plus the affordable housing in the new tower will be "between 33% - 40%."

BBuzz piece.

 

[Greebo]

A few more details on the tower that will replace Hambrook House.

<snip> the affordable housing in the new tower will be "between 33% - 40%."

BBuzz piece.

So much for official handwringing about housing need in the borough.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So much for official handwringing about housing need in the borough.

"Lambeth Council are shit-eating hypocrites!" non-shocker.

 

[Gramsci]

A few more details on the tower that will replace Hambrook House.

The minutes have now been published for a meeting that took place between the Council, Muse and local residents. They hint at what sounds like a Poor Doors situation for the new building.

BBuzz piece.

Also they are going to put the "affordable housing" at the ground level at the back. ie in the dark.

Heard ex New Labour advisor Matthew Taylor talking about poor doors on the radio.

He chairs the "Social Integration Commission"

There report on page 19 says that Councils should ban poor doors on developments as they stop integration.

19
Neighbourhoods

Our neighbourhoods and communities shape and are shaped by the ways in which we interact
with one another. If we are to build a more socially integrated nation, we must first develop new
ways of relating to one another within our local areas.

Principle 6: Planning authorities should develop and preserve neighbourhoods which are
not only diverse, but are organised to enable residents from different backgrounds to
mix with one another.

At present, many mixed housing developments are designed so as to curtail contact between
private and social tenants. Whereas social housing in these complexes is often clustered in
seperate buildings or out-of-the-way corners, an integration-friendly approach would see social
housing slotted in alongside privately rented properties. The Commission views the growing trend
in London (and potentially elsewhere) for separate entrances to housing developments for the
use of private and social tenants as a particularly disquieting – almost Dickensian – development.
‘Poor doors’, installed to keep social tenants out of sight of their more affluent neighbours, are
emblematic not just of a growing divide between the rich and poor but of the way in which that
gulf is now being built into our physical environment.The Commission calls on
all local authorities to ban the installation of ‘poor doors’ and‘rich gates’ in their areas.

Furthermore, we call on the Department of Communities and Local Government to introduce a requirement for councils to consider whether proposed major developments would allow people from different backgrounds to meet and mix and to reject planning applications which do not pass this test

Taylor on the radio put a good defence of the report. He was asked would not having poor doors increase costs. He said the issue is what kind of society did you want to live in. At some points if it cost more then so be it.

My point is if a centre New Labour advisor can argue against poor doors you would have thought Lambeth would not have them on one of its developments. And apart from the poor door issue they are segregating the affordable housing from the for sale housing. This is also an issue about stopping mixing.

 

[Tricky Skills]

This one is a bit technical. I think that I just about get it...

'Built asset consultant' EC Harris has been given a further £328,000 as part of this project. This is on top of the £204,000 it bagged back in 2012. The extra money was never part of the plan. But the work needs doing.

And what is that work?

Cost consultancy

BBuzz piece.

 

[Dan U]

You won't get it but it would be fascinating to see a copy of the invoice submitted for that under FOI

 

[Twattor]

This one is a bit technical. I think that I just about get it...

'Built asset consultant' EC Harris has been given a further £328,000 as part of this project. This is on top of the £204,000 it bagged back in 2012. The extra money was never part of the plan. But the work needs doing.

And what is that work?

Cost consultancy

BBuzz piece.

Typically these days the employer's agents/cost consultants might get a fee of somewhere between 1-1.5% of the build value.

Consultant's works are often "at risk" until a build contract is awarded, so no contract no fee. It looks like Muse have been awarded the contract to develop, in which case the consultant would be entitled to draw down the first bit of their fee for all of the work done that far; and because the works to date might have gone on for years that might be 40% of their total fee.

The consultant's appointment will generally be on the basis that there is one basic design, developed by one design team, so they only have to procure the design team and cost the proposals once. If for some reason that this doesn't work out and they have to sack a design team, start a new design from scratch, price it all over again then there might be an entitlement to further costs. This additional work could be billed at hourly rates. If you consider that the charge out rates for a senior member of staff may be a couple of hundred pounds an hour, and you may get three or four members of staff at a meeting then a meeting lasting a couple of hours may cost the Council a few thousand pounds once you've thrown in the travel costs etc. One of those a week will soon rack up the costs, and that is before they even start on the proper work.

 

[happyshopper]

Just received formal notification of the two planning applications

 

[CH1]

Just received formal notification of the two planning applications

Here are the links:
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NMX0RHBOJWZ00
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NMYGSQBO0I000

Deadline for comments 12th May.

 

[Tricky Skills]

A cut and paste from the main Brixton thread:

OK - here's the BBuzz piece on the two planning applications.

Thoughts:

A deadline of May 12 is not realistic. Three years in the planning, three weeks to take on board a mass of information and then form an opinion. If passed (and it will be...) then this will change central Brixton forever.

The planning portal is clunky. We already knew that. But how are you expected to comment if the docs haven't been uploaded yet?

The tower block remains - 14 stories. The number of new homes appears to have gone down from 275 at one stage to 120 - 94 in the tower block and the remainder in a refurbished Ivor House.

There is no mention whatsoever of Olive Morris House. Maybe a separate planning application is to follow.

Plus bye bye Firdge Bar. I wonder if a CPO was ever needed, or if a settlement was reached?

 

[High Definition]

I’m finishing off comments on the New Town Hall and Olive Morris House planning applications – deadline for these to be sent in to Lambeth planning is tomorrow 12th May.


Had a look at the Lambeth planning website just now and noticed there are only 5 objections - including one from the owners of the Fridge bar. Hopefully a lot more will come in before the deadline.


I agree with all the points other objectors have made to the 14 storey building planned for the Hambrook House site and the 6 storey Civic Building. If the applications gets the go-ahead then Brixton’s historic centre will be dominated by two monolithic tower blocks, more than twice the height of any surrounding buildings, dwarfing views of the Town Hall tower from Brixton Road and looming up in the background behind St Matthews Church and the Peace Garden.


Lambeth and MUSE claim that any damage to the townscape or local historic buildings is not significant and is justified by the public benefits that the scheme will deliver - this argument is set out in the pre-application advice provided by Lambeth planners (appended to the Planning Statement which can be downloaded from the Council website).


However, now that we have the actual figures for housing and office floor space, the promised public benefits (affordable housing and improved office space) are hardly impressive. Take each of these in turn:


Housing - yes, we need new affordable housing in Brixton. The reality, however, is that the development will provide a relatively insignificant number of truly affordable homes.


The development will provide a total of 194 new homes – 94 on the Hambrook House site, 74 at Olive Morris House and 26 at Ivor House. The Planning Statement claims that 78 (40%) of these will be affordable. However, 23 of the claimed affordable homes will be provided as shared ownership units. Lambeth’s Housing Needs Assessment 2012 estimates that just 3% of households in housing need in the borough can afford intermediate housing while 97% are only able to afford affordable rented housing. If the 23 intermediate units are excluded from the affordable total, then the Town Hall site and Olive Morris house sites will produce just 55 affordable rented flats.


While 55 new homes will go some way to meeting housing need in the borough, the total is not particularly impressive when measured against total need in the borough. To put this into perspective, in 2010 Lambeth had around 1,090 empty council homes 848 had been empty for more than 3 months. (Figures were provided by Lambeth as a result of an FOI request from the Evening Standard).


New Civic Building - I don’t disagree with the principle that concentrating council office-based staff in the centre and saving running costs is a good idea. However, now that existing and proposed floorspace figures are available, it’s not at all clear to me that this objective couldn’t have been achieved, more cheaply and with less damage to Brixton Centre, by refurbishing the existing buildings around the Town Hall.


As was picked out in the summary in the Buzz last month, the new Town Hall proposals will result in a very big reduction in the amount of Council office space in Brixton now.


I checked the figures and now seems the new Civic Building (with 11,084 sqm office and customer service space) will provide 4,800 sqm LESS space than exists now at 2-7 Town Hall Parade (3,241 sqm), Ivor House (3,354 sqm), Hambrook House (2,860 sqm), Olive Morris House (7,229 sqm) – an overall reduction of 29%.


You might ask how Lambeth are proposing to relocate all their office staff to Brixton and fit everyone into a new office building which has nearly 30% less space than they have now. The answer – set out in the Planning Statement - is that this will be achieved mainly by expecting Lambeth staff to “hot desk” (arrangements by which Council staff will have access to shared desks at a ratio of 7 desks per 10 fulltime employees rather than being provided by individual desks of their own).


This suggests that the objective of concentrating Council staff in and around the Town Hall could have been achieved by retaining and refurbishing existing buildings and then introducing the same hot desk regime proposed for the new Civic Centre. Would have allowed Lambeth to make the same savings from relocating staff to Brixton from other parts of the borough (and sell Phoenix House, their most valuable office asset), and would have retained the Customer Service Centre at Olive Morris House (rather than chucking away the £3.1 million invested in 2008). Why didn't they go for this option, instead of option for the grandiose Nu Town Hall project.


Would be interesting to see the financial figures for the New Town Hall scheme – would it be worth an FOI? – but even without these it’s beginning to seem to me that Lambeth’s New Town Hall scheme is an unnecessary vanity project.



.

 

[Tricky Skills]

Cllr Paul McGlone is due to update Full Council on Wednesday about Your Nu Town Hall. Nothing much new - 47% 'affordable' homes, 194 homes in total, work is due to start later this year.

There is an interesting update though about the possibility of the police and helath services also using the space. Do they reall need this?

BBuzz piece.

 

[CH1]

Cllr Paul McGlone is due to update Full Council on Wednesday about Your Nu Town Hall. Nothing much new - 47% 'affordable' homes, 194 homes in total, work is due to start later this year.

There is an interesting update though about the possibility of the police and helath services also using the space. Do they reall need this?

BBuzz piece.

It wouldn't be too surprising under sod's law if the Police migrated to the Nu Town hall site - after all the Met has spent millions on 367 Brixton Road in recent years.

 

[High Definition]

Cllr Paul McGlone is due to update Full Council on Wednesday about Your Nu Town Hall. Nothing much new - 47% 'affordable' homes, 194 homes in total, work is due to start later this year.

There is an interesting update though about the possibility of the police and helath services also using the space. Do they reall need this?

BBuzz piece.

Doesn't seem that Cllr McGlone has actually bothered to read the Town Hall and Olive Morris House planning applications (either that or he's rubbish at maths).

He says that 47% of flats will be "at affordable rent levels".

The figures quoted in the Planning Statement are that 55 of the 194 flats will be social rented (34 in Hambrook House and 21 in Olive Morris House). 55 out of 194 is 28.3%.

The development will also include some intermediate (i.e. shared ownership) flats - 14 flats in Hambrook House and 9 in Olive Morris House. However, these won't be at "at affordable rent levels".







.

 

[High Definition]

Doesn't seem that Cllr McGlone has actually bothered to read the Town Hall and Olive Morris House planning applications (either that or he's rubbish at maths).

He says that 47% of flats will be "at affordable rent levels".

The figures quoted in the Planning Statement are that 55 of the 194 flats will be social rented (34 in Hambrook House and 21 in Olive Morris House). 55 out of 194 is 28.3%.

The development will also include some intermediate (i.e. shared ownership) flats - 14 flats in Hambrook House and 9 in Olive Morris House. However, these won't be at "at affordable rent levels".







.

Found out how Cllr McGlone got to 47% - by including the intermediate (shared ownership) flats and by lumping in the flats which will be built on the Wynne Road site.