Out with the Old... Network Rail tell businesses to vacate Atlantic Road arches

[Baron]

No. I am on 20 year lease. They have predicted what they would like "top end". In un-realistic figures that they say they can get. No evidence given. That's the rents advertised. An out side regulator negotiates our rent and looks at both sides at the moment. The new rules do away with that. It's all their way! No more long leases. It's take it or leave it. No negotiation. Forgetting our 42 years history of lease agreements.

 

[bimble]

Given the data in the planning application about stepped increases in rents pegged to the 2015 market rent, does that mean your current rent is 30% of 2015's market rent?

How is NR defining what 'market rent' for a square foot of arch is ?

 

[editor]

How is NR defining what 'market rent' for a square foot of arch is ?

'Think big' is the motif when it comes to market rents. And, of course, having big spenders like Brindisa move in a few doors up sure helps accelerate that figure skywards.

 

[SpamMisery]

How is NR defining what 'market rent' for a square foot of arch is ?

The same way everybody else does presumably

 

[Baron]

Far from it. They are predicting what they believe they can get. No evedence given. They are taking away our abitilty to go to an outside negotiator through the court. As is our right now by law! No it will be take it or leave it.

 

[Baron]

Figured based on their top paying tenant. Not the one who pays the least. The pawn brokers pay double I do. But they have just arrived. We have been there 42 years! That counts for a lot. We have the right to goto court to fight for fair figures. Not any more.

 

[Baron]

No more negotiations.

 

[Baron]

Don't worry Foxtons will back them up!

 

[CH1]

As Carpet Man suggested, what's driving this is Network Rail's £50billion debt, which came on to the Treasury's books when NR was brought completely into public ownership 18 months ago.

Surely this just means the Treasury are spineless gits.

When they wanted to nationalise the Gas industry in 1947 they just issued Gas Stock to pay for it.

Likewise when Water was effectively a non-profit government regulated utility they issued Water stocks.

Even the GLC and Liverpool Council issued fixed interest stock to fnance council house building.

What's so wonderful about our Utopian Osborne land that we have to constantly make cuts and sell off the family silver?

Its about time they cut out this zero interest rate policy causing London crane cancer and a useless building boom - office blocks and luxury apartments nobody in the UK wants to or can afford to buy, and reverts to using the stock market in the way it was intended - issuing stock to pension funds to fund public projects and pensioner's pensions.

 

[Rushy]

Figured based on their top paying tenant. Not the one who pays the least. The pawn brokers pay double I do. But they have just arrived. We have been there 42 years! That counts for a lot. We have the right to goto court to fight for fair figures. Not any more.

That is generally how open market value is assessed, to be fair. By looking at the most recent leases. The older the lease generally the bigger the disconnect with the current market values. How have you been advised current market value should be calculated?

 

[Baron]

Editor. Please pass by if you have time.

 

[Gramsci]

I have quick read of the application.

Some points.

As this is large redevelopment that is contentious NR are using this a PR job. Thats not unusual. Most planning applications will of course try to present the plans as reasonable and good for the area.

However promises do not have to be kept.

The planning application will be likely to be judged in relation to existing planning guidelines. ie the types of shop A3 etc and whether the uses are complaint with existing planning guidelines. The issue of it being in a conservation area and whether the the works are compatible with that.

The issue of rent levels and affordability are strictly not a planning matter.

I would take with a pinch of salt NR promises of right to return and stepping up of rents. This is the PR bit and they are trying to present themselves as nice guys. So what they say in the application on these issues I would treat as part of the PR battle.

This will not make or break the application. Also if NR go back on them its not going to affect the granted planning permission. That is its not possible to put in as a condition of planning permission that rents are kept low or stepped up. This is strictly a landlord / tenant issue.

The planning issues that may be possible to use to oppose this are bland design ( which NR think they have dealt with.) Also some of the planning guidelines quoted by NR in there application that go on about sustainability and developments been in the interests of communities. I think they may be arguments to oppose this application on that. Though need to look at it more.

Hopefully Brixton Society will be all over this application. CH1

Also as we all know developers can come back later to and put in application to vary the original application. ie its all costing so much and so difficult they cannot do all the promised in the original application. Poor hard pressed developers.

 

[CH1]

I'm sure the Brixton Society will look at this urgently.

On an aside - I went down Camberwell Station Road on a mission this morning and was amazed - not having been down there before. It is a very wide road with the railway along the side and arches built out and expanded to the road by the tenants who are mainly motor repair, building materials wholesale etc, a bit like Loughborough Junction.

Maybe the Camberwell Station Road arches are currently safe as they seem to be ill located for the Expresso/patisserie trade.

 

[Gramsci]

A couple of issues.

No CIL ( Community Infrastructure Levy). On large developments money is got from a developer for works to enhance the neighbourhood/ provide for social needs.

NR say as they are losing retail space so have no obligation to a CIL. (I assume the arch that will be used as walk through.) I guess they talked to Lambeth Regen and planning officers about this and they gave it the ok. If so its a bit feeble of officers imo.

However I think this is arguable. This is big project and I do not see why no CIL.

Secondly the development is , as NR say, not compliant re bike racks. NR say its all to difficult and there are enough in area.

Again I think this is arguable.

Basically like any developer they are trying to get out of anything that may add cost to there investment.

 

[Gramsci]

I'm sure the Brixton Society will look at this urgently.

On an aside - I went down Camberwell Station Road on a mission this morning and was amazed - not having been down there before. It is a very wide road with the railway along the side and arches built out and expanded to the road by the tenants who are mainly motor repair, building materials wholesale etc, a bit like Loughborough Junction.

Maybe the Camberwell Station Road arches are currently safe as they seem to be ill located for the Expresso/patisserie trade.

Yes. NR see Brixton as coming up in the world so to speak. Not a coincidence they decide to cash in on Brixton. Same as Herne Hill.

NR are acting like a private developer who sees the opportunity of using there assets to bring in more money.

 

[Baron]

The arch that they are removing is the current fabric shop on Atlantic Road. They are putting in "micro units". So the financial return is improved!
The current leaseholders have no return possibilities. Another family business kicked out.

 

[Baron]

Why put another walk way there anyway? There is another existing one about 20 meters away.

 

[Baron]

They were absent when Brixton was drug ridden. Funny that.

 

[SpamMisery]

The fabric shop is the third business not to return then? Who needs gagging orders?

 

[Gramsci]

The arch that they are removing is the current fabric shop on Atlantic Road. They are putting in "micro units". So the financial return is improved!
The current leaseholders have no return possibilities. Another family business kicked out.

Yes I agree. The argument NR I guess are using to get out of a CIL levy is spurious as it will be lined with micro units.

 

[Rushy]

It won't get turned down on the basis of CIL - they'll either be asked to pay it or won't. This is essentially a refurbishment. You don't pay CIL for refurbishment. There are already several micro units where arches have been split. These are being got rid of. If they are asked to pay anything in respect of this it will be very minor.

Regarding bike rack provision, let's assume for a moment that it is impossible to practically add enough bike racks. Of course that would never be considered a reasonable argument for refusing refurbishment of existing units. If planning agree it is impractical I think the best you can hope for is a contribution towards providing cycle parking elsewhere.

 

[Gramsci]

It won't get turned down on the basis of CIL - they'll either be asked to pay it or won't. This is essentially a refurbishment. You don't pay CIL for refurbishment. There are already several micro units where arches have been split. These are being got rid of. If they are asked to pay anything in respect of this it will be very minor.

Regarding bike rack provision, let's assume for a moment that it is impossible to practically add enough bike racks. Of course that would never be considered a reasonable argument for refusing refurbishment of existing units. If planning agree it is impractical I think the best you can hope for is a contribution towards providing cycle parking elsewhere.

I didn’t think it would get turned down for CIL or bike racks. Just that they may be issues to raise in comments.

 

[Gramsci]

I still think its worth people putting comments on the planning application website. To make a comment online you have to register.

You do not get long to do it. I think its around 10th March.

I notice some already. Even if its to say object and against the loss of these long standing business and damage to Brixton character etc. May not be technical planning issues but will show strength of local feeling.

Planning is political imo. Its unfortunately limited in way it can defend communities.

16/00868/FUL | Refurbishment and redevelopment of railway arches between Brixton Road and Pope's Road along Brixton Station Road and Atlantic Road. Works include change of use of 9 arches and alterations to existing units to provide a mix of A1, A3 and A4 uses within 26 units and 13 kiosks; installation of new arch infills/shopfronts; creation of a new pedestrian link between Atlantic Road and Brixton Station Road through arches 577 and 604, refurbishment of the station walkthrough and associated works. | Railway Arches 571 To 609 Facing Brixton Station Road And Atlantic Road Between Brixton Road And Popes Road London Lambeth SW9

 

[brixtonpete]

Why is Network Rail behaving in such a cut throat way? They don’t have regular shareholders to enrich like a normal private company, but we have been told that they have a duty to maximise profits so as to reduce the cost of rail fares i.e. to subsidise rail fares through profit on real estate. However, rail fares should be subsidised by the government because of the environmental benefits of rail travel over car use. Brixton High Street is one of the most polluted streets in the UK. So where does this apparent duty to maximise profits on real estate come from? A Tory government leaning on them, or legal provision in the company’s constitution?

To try and get an answer I searched the company’s Memorandum of Association at Companies House but couldn’t find any such requirement. A requirement to follow the provisions of the Railways Act 1993 was given, but when I took a look at that I couldn’t see any provision that would cover such a cross subsidy. The following is the only paragraph on behaviour towards society in general that I could find in the company's Memorandum of Association:

“4.30 To have regard to the protection of buildings and other objects of historic, architectural or other significance when formulating or implementing proposals and more generally to participate in, manage and co-operate in projects or works designed to restore, preserve, improve or protect the environment."

Evictions and massive rent hikes won’t improve the cultural environment of Brixton. It seems pretty clear to me that they are just acting as a poodle of Tory government policy to commercialise the whole of our society with profit maximisation as the be all and end all, as in the way that the NHS is being pushed. Quality of life does not come in to the equation. The directors have only one knighthood amongst them. Perhaps they are seeking a few more, or seats in the House of Lords.

So far only 6 people have commented on the planning application. A reminder that you can find it at:
Simple Search

and then enter the following into the search box:
16/00868/FUL

The 'Statutory Expiry Date' is Wednesday 13th April 2016, presumably the deadline for comments, but that should be checked as to its meaning.

 

[CH1]

They were absent when Brixton was drug ridden. Funny that.

Indeed - they were unable to come to an arrangement to lock the station at night with iron gates provided to them free of charge by Brixton Challenge when there was mega crack use on the station out of hours.

 

[happyshopper]

?..

On an aside - I went down Camberwell Station Road on a mission this morning and was amazed - ...

Maybe the Camberwell Station Road arches are currently safe as they seem to be ill located for the Expresso/patisserie trade.

Well they might be safe, that is until they build the proposed Camberwell station. See the proposals associated with the Bakerloo Line extension para E1.37.

 

[CH1]

Well they might be safe, that is until they build the proposed Camberwell station. See the proposals associated with the Bakerloo Line extension para E1.37.

Thanks for flagging that info up. However I would have thought the Bakerloo would not terminate there (unless the idea was to have a Thamelink/Bakerloo interchange). Reason being the station site is almost Myatts Fields really - a bit off-centre for current bus route interchanges.

I remember there being a move to re-open Camberwell Station - but we were being told that LJ would then have to close. I can't see this as logical. Also a Thameslink/Bakerloo interchange already exists at Elephant & Castle.

 

[Crispy]

The bakerloo won't be coming to camberwell, but the consultation identified string demand for better rail services so they recommend reopening the station. It's unlikely to happen. Those trains are already rammed.

 

[LeslieB]

Mentioned on BBC London TV news tonight. About 6 and a half minutes in.

BBC London News, 24/02/2016

 

[Gramsci]

Mentioned on BBC London TV news tonight. About 6 and a half minutes in.

BBC London News, 24/02/2016

Good piece. All the talk of NR about business being offered right to return is meaningless. I doubt in the end most of them will.

The following one on Peckham shows this is happening in other parts of London. In the Peckham case "Council engendered gentrification".

Its so shit whats happening to London. It will become the preserve of the rich.