Solving level crossing problems in built up areas through wider urban redevelopment

[RT4038]

Interestingly round by me there is a very controversial case of a tower block (Mellish Court, known locally as Melrose) being demolished due to being unsafe, for both structural and fire safety reasons which are not feasible to resolve. The block is Council owned and the tenants are being rehoused locally. However, there are a number of leaseholders who bought their flats, and they are being paid the pre-decision market value. The problem is that there is no other property in the area anywhere near that cheap, so many are being forced from ownership back into private rent or to move away from the area and friends/family.

This seems rather unreasonable to me.

And me!

 

[NotATrainspott]

I don’t see why the residents shouldn’t get a bit of a windfall (the difference in price wouldnt all be profit due to rebuilding cost) - everyone else is gaining and they are in effect putting in the most.

This is where we get into a whole world of mess. In theory, any land value windfall is bad, because the people who own the properties benefit from it without actually having contributed. For all the people who carefully refurbish or improve their homes, there are many other people who do nothing. Land value disregards the value of anything built on top of the land, so it'll go up regardless of whether you've got a lovely owner-occupied house, a house or office illegally subdivided into tiny bedsits, or nothing at all.

Residency status by itself is quite complex to really sort out. If being a resident at time of CPO means you'll get £200k more for your property, then most landlords are going to jump in and use their right to remove tenants for them to live in the property, just for long enough to become eligible. It's pretty hard to create legally defensible rules which prevent 'bad' people doing 'bad' things while allowing 'good' people to do 'good' things. Setting it up so that existing owners can swap to a new property but they don't get to receive all the increased sale income seems sensible. Landlords won't bother, as they'll just use whatever CPO cash they get to buy more property with a good rental yield.

Interestingly round by me there is a very controversial case of a tower block (Mellish Court, known locally as Melrose) being demolished due to being unsafe, for both structural and fire safety reasons which are not feasible to resolve. The block is Council owned and the tenants are being rehoused locally. However, there are a number of leaseholders who bought their flats, and they are being paid the pre-decision market value. The problem is that there is no other property in the area anywhere near that cheap, so many are being forced from ownership back into private rent or to move away from the area and friends/family.

This seems rather unreasonable to me.

This is a good demonstration of why owner occupation as an end in itself is a bad idea. It's like gambling, but where some people are basically guaranteed to win big just because of where they started. At the bottom end of the market, there's no room for error. The risk that the property will be worth very little is significant, especially in estates with relatively little Right to Buy activity in the past. Often these houses end up being unmortgageable for owner occupiers or landlords, so they're only sold to cash buyers, who then never want to live in them and will rent them out. The fact that people relied on Right to Buy to afford the house in the first place is a reasonably good sign that they're quite at risk of falling off the housing ladder and never being able to climb back on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is a good demonstration of why owner occupation as an end in itself is a bad idea. It's like gambling, but where some people are basically guaranteed to win big just because of where they started. At the bottom end of the market, there's no room for error. The risk that the property will be worth very little is significant, especially in estates with relatively little Right to Buy activity in the past. Often these houses end up being unmortgageable for owner occupiers or landlords, so they're only sold to cash buyers, who then never want to live in them and will rent them out. The fact that people relied on Right to Buy to afford the house in the first place is a reasonably good sign that they're quite at risk of falling off the housing ladder and never being able to climb back on.

It's one reason why leasehold is a bad idea, as leasehold is nothing more than a long term rental contract with little or no input into the construction, maintenance or management of the building and with few rights of any kind. Commonhold (or tenement ownership, or condominium ownership, depending which country you're in) is much better, but your investment is still very much dependent on others. A freehold house in a reasonable area is generally a pretty secure investment provided you have a survey done on purchasing, maintain it properly and take buildings insurance which would cover serious unforeseen issues. Such as these houses in Egham you're talking of!

But as I've mentioned, changing the UK to a rental culture more like say Germany is not a small thing to do and would require all manner of major reforms, including to e.g. the state pension.

 

[NotATrainspott]

It's one reason why leasehold is a bad idea, as leasehold is nothing more than a long term rental contract with little or no input into the construction, maintenance or management of the building and with few rights of any kind. Commonhold (or tenement ownership, or condominium ownership, depending which country you're in) is much better, but your investment is still very much dependent on others. A freehold house in a reasonable area is generally a pretty secure investment provided you have a survey done on purchasing, maintain it properly and take buildings insurance which would cover serious unforeseen issues. Such as these houses in Egham you're talking of!

But as I've mentioned, changing the UK to a rental culture more like say Germany is not a small thing to do and would require all manner of major reforms, including to e.g. the state pension.

This problem doesn't go away just because the property is freehold. Council estate regenerations like this, complete with annoyed RTB-ers who can't afford a replacement property, happen in Scotland too and not just in flats. If the area is going to be redeveloped around your property, then that rarely means your property can maintain its value. That's the killer here. A drop in value means the owners are trapped in place. Even if they wanted to move away, they'd not be able to.

Glasgow City Council doesn't try to regenerate Knightswood, despite the fact that most of it was built as council properties. That's because almost all of them have become privately owned. If there are council-owned properties around, they don't cause any problems. In less desirable estates, it's the opposite way around. Having council housing as the housing of last resort now means, typically, that the quality of residents in the remaining council estates goes down. Council housing has always had strong internal social stratifications. The nice, desirable estates were only allocated to good families that were trusted to look after them (plus a whole lot of corruption). People unlucky enough to RTB in the lower strata of housing estates will find themselves surrounded by these lower quality residents, which in turn limits the value of their property. As I mentioned above, a lot of mortgage providers will reject applications for these properties, so there's not even a chance for young people to come in and, um, gentrify. Owner occupiers don't want them for the risk of ending up living next to problematic people (e.g. junkies). That leaves just cash buyers, who will let them out as bottom-of-the-market private rentals to the people who decades ago would have been the council tenants.

 

[Meerkat]

Interestingly round by me there is a very controversial case of a tower block (Mellish Court, known locally as Melrose) being demolished due to being unsafe, for both structural and fire safety reasons which are not feasible to resolve. The block is Council owned and the tenants are being rehoused locally. However, there are a number of leaseholders who bought their flats, and they are being paid the pre-decision market value. The problem is that there is no other property in the area anywhere near that cheap, so many are being forced from ownership back into private rent or to move away from the area and friends/family.

This seems rather unreasonable to me.

I don’t think that’s unreasonable as it has to be demolished. Any complaint should be against their surveyor when they bought. Otherwise it’s just rotten luck (but presumably better off than if it had been an entirely private block??)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don’t think that’s unreasonable as it has to be demolished. Any complaint should be against their surveyor when they bought. Otherwise it’s just rotten luck (but presumably better off than if it had been an entirely private block??)

I don't know, as you've then got complexity to go into whether the Council maintained the block properly since they purchased (see also Grenfell Tower).

Personally I wouldn't have given them free money, but would have offered them social tenancies or shared ownership in the new development (or other nearby social housing) so they could stay in the area.

Yes, probably better than a private block, but then we're back round to leasehold not being a very good solution to anything for anyone other than the jangling pocket of the developer/freehold owner. I would personally outlaw leasehold and put in place a process of converting all existing leaseholds to freeholds (for houses) and commonholds (for flats). For houses with unadopted surrounds, either commonholds or deeds of covenant can be used.

 

[Meerkat]

In theory, any land value windfall is bad, because the people who own the properties benefit from it without actually having contributed.

Not contributed?! They have contributed their own home!

 

[NotATrainspott]

Not contributed?! They have contributed their own home!

The land value is the important thing here, and that value can go regardless of what you do to a property. You could burn your house down and leave it as a smouldering ruin and the land value would stay the same. Land values go up as the result of societal improvements, like better infrastructure and public services.

 

[Meerkat]

The land value is the important thing here, and that value can go regardless of what you do to a property. You could burn your house down and leave it as a smouldering ruin and the land value would stay the same. Land values go up as the result of societal improvements, like better infrastructure and public services.

Relevance??

 

[adrock1976]

Being as the comments on this thread so far have mainly been about the level crossing at Egham, how easy would it be to modify/improve or close the level crossing at Starbeck?

This crosses a major road, and I cannot envisage the road being raised on an embankment being so close to Harrogate.

Would this one be best left as is?

 

[Bald Rick]

Being as the comments on this thread so far have mainly been about the level crossing at Egham, how easy would it be to modify/improve or close the level crossing at Starbeck?

This crosses a major road, and I cannot envisage the road being raised on an embankment being so close to Harrogate.

Would this one be best left as is?

There’s a solution for every Level Crossing, but some are very expensive / locally disruptive.

For Starbeck I guess the solution would be a horseshoe diversion of the road to the south east over the railway, taking out the bus depot, Mazda, and landing in Spa Lane. Would be about £30-£50m, so it’s not going to happen.

 

[Meerkat]

There’s a solution for every Level Crossing, but some are very expensive / locally disruptive.

For Starbeck I guess the solution would be a horseshoe diversion of the road to the south east over the railway, taking out the bus depot, Mazda, and landing in Spa Lane. Would be about £30-£50m, so it’s not going to happen.

how long do road bridge ramps need to be to get over a railway?
Could you get a bridge over the current station using a sliver of the old folk’s home and the block north of the railway without touching the pub?
You can’t even swap the York platform to the other side of the road without demolition - that house is sooo close, must vibrate a lot when a train goes by!

 

[zwk500]

how long do road bridge ramps need to be to get over a railway?

You need around 4m clearance from the top of the rail, more if you're leaving room for OLE. Standard is for 6% gradient, with maximum relaxation to 8%, but you also have to avoid a hump-back bridge. So for simplicity let's assume a 5m rise in the road surface, you're looking at 65-70m approach ramp minimum. By the time you've factored in deck depth and smoothed the vertical profile probably nearer 100m.

Could you get a bridge over the current station using a sliver of the old folk’s home and the block north of the railway without touching the pub?

How do you demolish part of the old folk's home without taking out the entire thing, given it's effectively a single circular block? Not to mention that construction will need a much bigger amount of space than the final road.

 

[Meerkat]

By the time you've factored in deck depth and smoothed the vertical profile probably nearer 100m.

So it might just fit.

How do you demolish part of the old folk's home without taking out the entire thing, given it's effectively a single circular block? Not to mention that construction will need a much bigger amount of space than the final road.

It’s single storey, knocking down one side of it won’t make it collapse.
Actually it looks quite old and curiously space inefficient for a central location - in light of your second point maybe knock the whole thing down and build a better one nearby (obviously it will have to be a lovely new one to overcome the “evil road destroys veteran’s home” headlines!)

 

[Bald Rick]

You need around 4m clearance from the top of the rail, more if you're leaving room for OLE.

Nearer 5m, normally. Of course you can get a bit by dropping the line a little (if that’s feasible, which if near a station it usually isn’t)

It’s single storey, knocking down one side of it won’t make it collapse.

But it makes it a lot more expensive than knocking it all down!

 

[Meerkat]

But it makes it a lot more expensive than knocking it all down!

How so?

 

[Bald Rick]

How so?

You still have to go through exactly the same process of buying the whole property and moving the occupants out. And if you demolish part of the building, you have to make sure that the rest of it won’t fall down, and that all the utilities are properly isolated, etc etc.

 

[zwk500]

So it might just fit.

100m takes you beyond Station rise (the access to a school) and tight up to Prospect Road on the west side, and Forest avenue is c.110m away on the east side, so you'd be demolishing the whole high street to fit it in. Everything accessed by Camwall road would be cut off.

So no, it doesn't fit. Not for any sane amount of money, anyway.

 

[SynthD]

Is reducing the traffic over the level crossing an acceptable answer? That’s an A road, lower it to B. Put a bypass to the north and this route could quieten down.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is reducing the traffic over the level crossing an acceptable answer? That’s an A road, lower it to B. Put a bypass to the north and this route could quieten down.

Or even close it to cars so they have to go round, which is the plan for Woburn Sands (plus a pedestrian bridge). However a bypass isn't always viable.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Is reducing the traffic over the level crossing an acceptable answer? That’s an A road, lower it to B. Put a bypass to the north and this route could quieten down.

There are existing road bypasses around Starbeck, so you can already divert most of the traffic.

A level crossing like this wouldn't work with my redevelopment idea. The land values aren't high enough to make comprehensive redevelopment (densification) profitable, and the level crossing isn't so much of a barrier to development and railway improvements.

 

[Meerkat]

100m takes you beyond Station rise (the access to a school) and tight up to Prospect Road on the west side, and Forest avenue is c.110m away on the east side, so you'd be demolishing the whole high street to fit it in. Everything accessed by Camwall road would be cut off.

So no, it doesn't fit. Not for any sane amount of money, anyway.

If you couldn’t fit it in (and you gave 100m as a long estimate) then straighten Station View by buying a couple more houses.
The North/east side is trickier as demolishing the pub would cause some ripples!
Basically really tricky and hard to sell locally.
Would less demolition to swap the York platform across the road help much?

 

[zwk500]

If you couldn’t fit it in (and you gave 100m as a long estimate) then straighten Station View by buying a couple more houses.
The North/east side is trickier as demolishing the pub would cause some ripples!

100m is not an unreasonable length, especially considering the station is in a valley so you need smooth transitions onto the ramps as well as at the top

Basically really tricky and hard to sell locally.
Would less demolition to swap the York platform across the road help much?

Depends what the issue is. Moving the York platform would reduce closure time, but if its only solving part of the problem it may not be worth the money.