Member Info for james188

This one is very tricky for TEF. Based on the limited reports so far in the public domain, I don't think that in reality the scheme was "put on hold" as the ES article suggests. Referring the scheme back to the applicants to come up with a better offer means that it was rejected - quite aside from whether the failure to reach a decision for this long constitutes a deemed refusal because the statutory time limits have been exceeded. TEF does a lot of business with LBTH, so will no doubt be weighing up what to do on a portfolio basis. TEF must have known that this sort of outcome was quite likely, so will have already decided in principle what the next step is. I agree with Steph that a face saving tweak that secures an approval is probably the preferred option, but there is an argument that it is all too difficult and that the councillors would secretly welcome an imposed decision where they can say that they held out as far as they could. It is a complete shambles and disservice to the residents.

The 16 page update report and the key detailed report from the Plannning Officer to the committee both unequivocally recommend approval of the scheme. The one good thing about such an exhaustive exercise is that it should make any appeal easier, relatively speaking. The fact that the affordable housing element is above and beyond what is required seems to have been lost in the wash. The officer’s report is very clear on this aspect. It is a very thorough report.

Sain, the local authority elections take place on May 3rd. This vote kicks the can down the (East India Dock) Road until after the elections. It looks as if the committee tried to use wording that did not amount to an outright refusal (which could be appealed and where specific reasons for refusal would have to be given). If so, I don’t think that they succeeded. The applicants now have a judgement call as to whether to go straight to appeal or to try to negotiate yet further changes. Given the politically charged atmosphere, there must be real doubts that the Council will approve any viable commercial scheme. More cost and delay whatever the decision. Also bad news for the families on the waiting list that the councillor refers to.

So, I understand that the LBTH planning meeting last night was a lively affair and that - despite pretty much everyone agreeing that the site needs to be redeveloped to provide much needed enhanced facilities - the councillors did not follow the advice of their planning officers and deferred/rejected the proposal, asking for further concessions. The costs on this one must be simply eye-watering. The final paper to the committee from the planning officer ran to over 100 pages and demonstrated the huge amount of time, effort and inevitably money that has been devoted by all the main stakeholders to try to secure an acceptable solution. Hugely depressing. The Mayor should get involved if his stated intentions to speed up housebuilding (including affordable housing) are to mean anything. It is just too difficult at the moment. I have never seen a scheme with as much complexity as Chrisp Street Market. It makes Canary Wharf seem straightforward by comparison.

WJG published its full year results this morning. There are several interesting areas for comparison to TEF - and not just the sky high rating of the shares (too frothy for my liking). The main chunk of their business is purpose built student accommodation (PBSA) and they forward sell pretty much all of that. More recently, they have expanded into build to rent and it looks as if they intend to grow that element fairly aggressively. However, in contrast to their PBSA strategy, apparently they intend to delay their disposal of schemes until late in the process. The CEO states that "..we will increasingly be able to demonstrate the revenue enhancement and cost savings achievable with specialist management ,[i.e. their small specialist property management arm] which in turn all increase the value of completed assets. We are therefore currently taking a prudent approach to forward sales, in anticipation of rising values in the build to rent market. Across the board, WJG achieved an operating margin of 14.1% It does not break this down between the three lines of business. It will be interesting to see how it fares and what margin it achieves over the next few years for this extra level of risk.

Yes; Telford exchanged unconditionally on Cambridge Heath and took the planning risk. That was no doubt a major factor in knocking out other bidders. The next year or so will be fascinating for the evolution of the BTR sector. Many of the top international players are circling, including the North American funds. As well as Greystar and very probably Oxford Properties, there was an article in the FT today that indicated that Brookfield had allocated a couple of towers at Canary Wharf for this type of development. The sector is in its infancy and hats off to Telford for spotting this early. Maybe my favourite share.

One question on the Walthamstow deal - does anyone know why U+I sold out, having secured planning consent as recently as this July? The RNS they issued referred to having achieved a return at the top end of what they expected, so perhaps they just decided to bank a good gain, but you would have thought that it is the sort of scheme that they would want to build out.

Blimey. Just as I posted on Walthamstow, another RNS popped up to confirm formal exchange on the previously announced deal with Brent Council. What next? A very busy end to the year.

I think they will have a choice of partners for this scheme. They probably have an in principle agreement already as I recall the plan is to get to the stage where the selected partner is involved in the scheme and buys the land up front (as Greystar did), rather than Telford having to use its capital initially. It is larger than the deals they have done to date with M&G, but they look a shoe-in. Maybe a bit small for the likes of Greystar, although I do wonder if they will add another major player to their roster - e.g. Oxford Properties. Very interesting times.

Terrace - you may well be correct, but is that downside outcome so bad? The shares pay a decent dividend and the company is much more risk averse than many of its peer group and will have a decent market absent total meltdown. I have enough other "exciting' shares in my portfolio. Some are doing really well, but some have been very painful. I am actively considering whether TEF is a better safety play than the likes of National Grid and GSK - or Berkeley Homes in the housing sector (all shares that I really like and hold).

As to the lack of comment in the TU today as to 2019, I remember JDS expressly flagging at this year's AGM that he considered giving figures for the following two years was not usual market practice and that TEF had done this at the time of the placing in order to give further confidence to investors. He went on to say that TEF might not continue this practice. It looks like they may have decided to restrict the crystal ball gazing.

Terrace - is the guidance that you are referring to the latest Equity Development note? In any event, we will soon know what the company has to say.

Typo. Ten months on.

Two thoughts. First, we are now almost two months on from when TEF announced in their interims that they were progressing in JV the purchase of a significant new site in East London. Assuming that was not Cambridge Heath, I wonder if that deal is still live. Complex JVs always take some time to sort out, but I would have expected an announcement by now. Secondly, I noted an article in The Sunday Telegraph today that the Chancellor is apparently minded to try and deal with the "problem" of new accommodation being purchased off plan by south-east Asian and other overseas buyers who are thereby cutting local buyers out of the market. If true, it is unbelievable that a Conservative Government is this clueless as to the fundamentals of the market and the consequences of introducing further constraints to such overseas investments.

I know that UANC do some direct development, but primarily they are a master developer who prime sites for others and fund the core infrastructure. The majority of their portfolio is well north of London. TEF are a very different animal and have stated that they want to focus on the London Boroughs (excluding prime). they also run a quite conservative model and stated as recently as the AGM a few weeks ago that they were not intending for the foreseeable future to move from AIM, as the tax benefits for many of their investor base rely on that AIM listing. I am sure that sooner or later (quite possibly sooner) TEF will be involved in M&A activity, but is UANC really the ideal partner for them? Berkeley Homes is a more obvious fit, to my mind.