But yesterday I was struck by a parallel with something generally understood in 'development economics', e.g. the need for land reform. The problem there is generally that agricultural land is either divided up into holdings which mean that farmers can't benefit from economies of scale, or that the benefits of any improvements they make are just creamed off by the landlords, or that the landlords live somewhere else, and aren't in a position to see how they could benefit from doing things better.there has to be some effective coordination of the letting policies of Sydenham Road commercial landlords. This would require one landlord, or a small enough group to be able to act cohesively, owning enough properties in a block in the better part of Sydenham Road - e.g. near the station where the footfall is best - and planning a mix of tenant types which will maximise their long term returns.
The situation on Sydenham Road is very similar, except that we are concerned about people being able to make a living out of retail premises here rather than farming. If we had larger units, of neighbouring units which could be combined, there would be more scope for investment. We probably have a lot of freeholders who are just in it for the fixed freehold income, protected by upward only rent reviews, with the kicker of speculative gains if the premises get so run down that the Council will agree it change of use to residential. They probably have a portfolio of such investments, across different High Streets, diversified to reduce their overall risk. I'm not sure about this - it's why, to find out, it would be good to develop the local database I suggested in this thread, using information in the public domain thanks to the Land Registry.
But we cannot solve this on our own. We need a national - or maybe better London-wide - commercial freehold reform - in which existing commercial landlords are offered a deal which will leave both them and High Streets such as Sydenham Road better off. The value added would come from consolidating holdings geographically, so that we also had landlords who could invest as do the Grosvenor and Howard de Walden estates. Some existing commercial landlords would welcome being put in this position themselves and others would be happy enough to become shareholders in property companies which had these new concentrated holdings. Others would not, but the added value others who did could achieve would mean they could be bought out at attractive premiums.
Should we be alarmed at the idea of much stronger private sector landlords? Not really - they will have an incentive to impose the sort of good regulation Lee, I and I'm sure most other people would like to see on Sydenham Road, and will be able to do it more flexibly. They would still be subject to Local Authority regulation, and probably much more professional in how they respond to it than lots of small landlords who will just ignore the Council as longs as they can - which sometimes seems forever, given the lack of enforcement officers.