Another really interesting piece addressing what has long seemed to me the cause of much of the feeling that “everything’s broken/nothing works” . I still cannot understand why ministers fail to see the importance of well funded local authorities in addressing these issues and why they think reorganising local government into larger - inevitability more remote - units will help this situation. As police forces close police stations it really makes no sense at all for local government to be retreating to “out of town” buildings, although both are driven by the pursuit of efficiency over other considerations. If the state wants to demonstrate that it can improve people’s lives, then the state needs to be visible (see Tony Judt “Ill Fares the Land”
Thanks for sharing this article. I am a small scale developer and I would look at the empty shops, offices or industrial units with a view to developing them. But you are right - the challenge is to make them viable financially versus the headache of planning, utilities and build costs. I love being able to give back to a community though. It’s integral to my business as a developer.
I would be interested to know whether there are feasible tax and accounting reforms that could incentivise asset owners to keep assets active. I am not sure you can (or necessarily should) stop investors assembling bigger sites over a number of years, which may necessitate keeping some sites dormant as it's not feasible to refurbish them just to demolish three years later, but I can think of residential properties in Oxford that have been boarded up for years, that could not feasibly be replaced with anything else (e.g. mid-terrace houses), which seem impossible to release in the current regime.
Southport MP Patrick Hurley mentioned just this very topic in PMQs this week. Fingers crossed Sefton Council are successful in their work on Lord Street. It certainly has the local support.
Interesting points on change of retail and broken places. I live in NW London and see this on High St, a third of shops closed (mostly those who sold goods, moved to internet) and services (restaurants, salons, etc.) struggle to survive because we don't have enough foot traffic. Lack of density in suburban Metroland.
The large local pensioners association protests against new housing by default, one objection was "the top 2 floors can be seen from High St and therefore detrimental". The NIMBY friendly Tory council plays along. They and the council decided the solution to revive High St is free parking! Savings a quid or two hardly makes a difference.
The planning system is utterly broken. We need small independent developers for small sites, and the costly and risky planning process makes it impossible for them to exist; one local application to convert 2 shops to 8 flats has been languishing for 3 years.
This is a great initiative, but we have to talk about the 'Maintenance Gap.' Since 2020, London has seen a massive net loss in social infrastructure—not because we aren't building, but because we aren't protecting.
Why is it easier to get funding to invest in assets but nigh on impossible to get funding to "run" them?
Too often, community groups do the heavy lifting to improve these small sites, only for the asset to be lost when the group faces a funding hurdle or the land value spikes. How are we ensuring these specific sites have robust asset locks or endowed maintenance funds so they don't just become private profit in 10 years?
For these small sites to truly work, the Community Land Trust (CLT) model needs to be the default, not the exception. We have to de-commodify the land if we want the social value to actually stay in the community.
Unfortunately it's a trap for many and the huge net loss of social infrastructure simply proves it.
Taxation could be part of the answer. High rates on derelict sites —-> seizure for non-payment (saving CPO compensation). Or reduced CPO compensation for derelict sites. Or corporation tax relief for profits derived from developing land a local council has certified as derelict. Etc
Really thought provoking piece. I despair at the inability to DO SOMETHING when buildings are allowed to deteriorate, sometimes causing peripheral damage as seen at the Ayr Station Hotel.
On the land register point, the Register of Controlled Interests in Land in Scotland dies at least bring the data together in one place. However, the barriers of shell companies and offshore trusts remain a challenge.
And as you say, knowing who owns the land or property doesn’t help bring it into useful public use.
Unfortunately for Polly (thanks for the mention!) who is making broad policy points about tax planning and not about a specific site, I happen to know this particular site quite well!
I remember when they were building Cooperative House! I think a big old coop warehouse/shop was knocked down and replaced. If only they'd done both sites at the same time, there wouldn't *be* neighbours to complain.
Another really interesting piece addressing what has long seemed to me the cause of much of the feeling that “everything’s broken/nothing works” . I still cannot understand why ministers fail to see the importance of well funded local authorities in addressing these issues and why they think reorganising local government into larger - inevitability more remote - units will help this situation. As police forces close police stations it really makes no sense at all for local government to be retreating to “out of town” buildings, although both are driven by the pursuit of efficiency over other considerations. If the state wants to demonstrate that it can improve people’s lives, then the state needs to be visible (see Tony Judt “Ill Fares the Land”
Thanks for sharing this article. I am a small scale developer and I would look at the empty shops, offices or industrial units with a view to developing them. But you are right - the challenge is to make them viable financially versus the headache of planning, utilities and build costs. I love being able to give back to a community though. It’s integral to my business as a developer.
I would be interested to know whether there are feasible tax and accounting reforms that could incentivise asset owners to keep assets active. I am not sure you can (or necessarily should) stop investors assembling bigger sites over a number of years, which may necessitate keeping some sites dormant as it's not feasible to refurbish them just to demolish three years later, but I can think of residential properties in Oxford that have been boarded up for years, that could not feasibly be replaced with anything else (e.g. mid-terrace houses), which seem impossible to release in the current regime.
Southport MP Patrick Hurley mentioned just this very topic in PMQs this week. Fingers crossed Sefton Council are successful in their work on Lord Street. It certainly has the local support.
Interesting points on change of retail and broken places. I live in NW London and see this on High St, a third of shops closed (mostly those who sold goods, moved to internet) and services (restaurants, salons, etc.) struggle to survive because we don't have enough foot traffic. Lack of density in suburban Metroland.
The large local pensioners association protests against new housing by default, one objection was "the top 2 floors can be seen from High St and therefore detrimental". The NIMBY friendly Tory council plays along. They and the council decided the solution to revive High St is free parking! Savings a quid or two hardly makes a difference.
The planning system is utterly broken. We need small independent developers for small sites, and the costly and risky planning process makes it impossible for them to exist; one local application to convert 2 shops to 8 flats has been languishing for 3 years.
This is a great initiative, but we have to talk about the 'Maintenance Gap.' Since 2020, London has seen a massive net loss in social infrastructure—not because we aren't building, but because we aren't protecting.
Why is it easier to get funding to invest in assets but nigh on impossible to get funding to "run" them?
Too often, community groups do the heavy lifting to improve these small sites, only for the asset to be lost when the group faces a funding hurdle or the land value spikes. How are we ensuring these specific sites have robust asset locks or endowed maintenance funds so they don't just become private profit in 10 years?
For these small sites to truly work, the Community Land Trust (CLT) model needs to be the default, not the exception. We have to de-commodify the land if we want the social value to actually stay in the community.
Unfortunately it's a trap for many and the huge net loss of social infrastructure simply proves it.
Taxation could be part of the answer. High rates on derelict sites —-> seizure for non-payment (saving CPO compensation). Or reduced CPO compensation for derelict sites. Or corporation tax relief for profits derived from developing land a local council has certified as derelict. Etc
Really thought provoking piece. I despair at the inability to DO SOMETHING when buildings are allowed to deteriorate, sometimes causing peripheral damage as seen at the Ayr Station Hotel.
On the land register point, the Register of Controlled Interests in Land in Scotland dies at least bring the data together in one place. However, the barriers of shell companies and offshore trusts remain a challenge.
And as you say, knowing who owns the land or property doesn’t help bring it into useful public use.
Unfortunately for Polly (thanks for the mention!) who is making broad policy points about tax planning and not about a specific site, I happen to know this particular site quite well!
After many, many empty years..... this is up in front of planning right now! https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/files/CB325A9CAE940EE9060470D7B27F5FAE/pdf/24_AP_3834-PROPOSED_ELEVATIONS_-_A___B-3983636.pdf
Neighbours are not happy: https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=neighbourComments&keyVal=SPBC1YKBGH500
I knew you would!
I remember when they were building Cooperative House! I think a big old coop warehouse/shop was knocked down and replaced. If only they'd done both sites at the same time, there wouldn't *be* neighbours to complain.