Heygate Estate redevelopment: just 79 social rented units out of a total 2,535 new homes

[editor]

This is fucking outrageous.

Thanks to a council cock up, details of Southwark Council's secret deal with Lend Lease over the Elephant and Castle regeneration project has cone to light, with the proposal seeing just 79 social rented units being built out of a total 2,535 new homes.

*speechless

http://www.urban75.org/blog/elephan...35-new-homes-and-just-79-social-rented-units/

 

[Pickman's model]

could have been a nice little bump. http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ate-elephant-and-castle.270319/#post-10037271

 

[editor]

could have been a nice little bump. http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ate-elephant-and-castle.270319/#post-10037271

Great, a wannabe pogofish.

I'm of the opinion that this recent development and its potential political ramifications is big enough to be worthy of a new thread, but thank you anyway for linking to a relevant thread which does, to be fair, include that rather lovely picture of the copper sulphate crystals artwork.

 

[Pickman's model]

tbh there are a load of developments, eg in haggerston and round the colville estate in hackney, as well as the heygate which i would suggest ought to have a big single thread rather than having one for every estate which is knocked down and then replaced just without more than a few token social housing flats.

 

[editor]

tbh there are a load of developments, eg in haggerston and round the colville estate in hackney, as well as the heygate which i would suggest ought to have a big single thread rather than having one for every estate which is knocked down and then replaced just without more than a few token social housing flats.

Feel free to start any thread you like, but I'm happy to see this development being discussed right there, thanks.

It's too important to be buried in one monster thread full of unrelated redevelopments in different boroughs, IMO.

 

[Pickman's model]

Feel free to start any thread you like, but I'm happy to see this development being discussed right there, thanks.

It's too important to be buried in one monster thread full of unrelated redevelopments in different boroughs, IMO.

so what do you think this development's potential political ramifications are?

 

[editor]

so what do you think this development's potential political ramifications are?

That's what I'm hoping to learn something about.

Have you read the article and the links contained therein? Lots to take in there.

Perhaps you could discuss some of that rather than offer your opinion about how and where I should post here.

 

[Pickman's model]

That's what I'm hoping to learn something about.

Have you read the article and the links contained therein? Lots to take in there.

Perhaps you could discuss some of that rather than offer your opinion about how and where I should post here.

let's start off with the potential involvement of the district auditor who might be interested in why southwark flogged off the land below its market value.

 

[toblerone3]

Sounds like somebody's palm somewhere has been crossed with silver. Surely this will face legal challenge.

 

[equationgirl]

Can this decision be appealed in any way? It sounds extremely dodgy to say the least.

 

[toblerone3]

I wonder what marty21 thinks?

 

[Favelado]

I spent time in Walworth in 2011 and got to know some of the people involved in the Heygate gardening project and met one of the guys holding out to get a decent price for his flat. The whole thing has just stunk of the worst kind of gerrymandering possible. It's abysmal.

 

[spanglechick]

just those sheer numbers make me feel physically sick. talk about social cleansing... what's happening in brixton seems sometimes debatable, too many small cuts.

this is just... monstrous.


two and a half thousand new homes for wealthy londoners... a tiny, tiny fraction of them for the people who have traditionally lived in the area.

 

[weepiper]

Disgusting

 

[Frances Lengel]

I spent time in Walworth in 2011 and got to know some of the people involved in the Heygate gardening project and met one of the guys holding out to get a decent price for his flat. The whole thing has just stunk of the worst kind of gerrymandering possible. It's abysmal.

Is this the gardening thing?

Some nice pics of Heygate here, starting about halfway down the page.

www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=501265&page=123

 

[Favelado]

I also got told that the big Phillishave penis thing in Elephant has all the social housing at the bottom and the higher levels for everyone else. There are separate lifts too - the bottom floors are served by one and then from the 10th floor upwards it's a different one. This is allegedly so that the yuppies don't have to mix with the unwashed.

 

[Favelado]

Is this the gardening thing?View attachment 28565

Some nice pics of Heygate here, starting about halfway down the page.

www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=501265&page=123

Yeah. I was there a little bit. I failed at gardening but I have followed the Heygate story closely. If you look at the history of the equally giant and very well-known Cabrini Green project in Chicago, you can see that the same stunts are pulled on social tenants worldwide.

 

[eatmorecheese]

Words fail me. I've left the area now, but my in-laws and their whole family grew up in Walworth and Elephant & Castle. Generations of community up in smoke. Just so Selena and Jasper feel safe when they're braying in their luxury apartments.

Fucking angry just about sums it up.

 

[marty21]

I wonder what marty21 thinks?

Boris seems to have stopped bothering about Section 106 - Ken had his flaws, but he was well into the Social Housing element of new developments

 

[toblerone3]

Boris seems to have stopped bothering about Section 106 - Ken had his flaws, but he was well into the Social Housing element of new developments

Still plenty of Section 106 money being agreed as part of new development agreements as least judging by what is happening in Hackney. Surely S 106 is a borough-level thing. So its to do with Southwark Council rather than Boris Johnson. But what is happening is some of the agreements are being negotiated at Chief Executive level rather than with the planning departments and they are somewhat opaque. Have heard some stuff about Woodberry Down estate as well.

 

[quimcunx]

How the Heygate was sold(out)

The Planning Application was for what was the Heygate Estate an area of 1,100 council homes built in late seventies at the Elephant.

The council decided 12 years ago to "Regenerate" the area and so evicted the local families living in the area with the promised right of return.

But last night the 4 Labour councillors who were the majority approved an application to develop the site from an international development corporation Lend Lease that:

1. Instead of 1,100 new social housing units included only 71. So no right of return for over 1,000 families.

2. Instead of social housing, 2,400 private luxury apartments to be built instead.

3. Instead of building human scale housing, the supposed brutal ugly Heygate which had at maximum 12 storey blocks, is to be replaced with a plethora of massive tower-blocks up to 30 storeys tall.

4. The council has a policy of requiring 20% renewables in new buildings. The developer proposed ZERO and it was granted.

5. The council has a policy of zero car parking in developments at major transport hubs. The developers proposed 600 car parking spaces and it was granted.

6. The council has a policy of requiring space for cycling in new developments. The developers proposed zero meters of segregated cycle paths and it was granted.

7. The new roads and footpaths in the development are to be privatised.

8. Existing public park is to be replaced with a privatised park.

9.The council has a policy of protecting existing tree canopies. The developer proposed to fell 286 trees (70% of the existing mature tree canopy) and it was granted.

What is the point of having elected councillors or a planning department when they collude to destroy our communities and trash our environment?

from occupy london's facebook page.

 

[tbtommyb]

wankers.

 

[agricola]

Sounds like somebody's palm somewhere has been crossed with silver. Surely this will face legal challenge.

Emphatically this. From the ed's blog post:

The document reveals that having spent £44m[4] on emptying the Heygate Estate, Southwark Council is set to receive just £50m[5] in return for the 22 acre site. The agreement does give the Council a share of overage (profit left after the developer has taken a 20% priority slice), but a report from the District Valuer[6] shows a viability gap such that there is actually unlikely to be any overage.

Its hard to imagine anyone who is competent and honest agreeing to such a deal.

 

[Favelado]

Elephant will be the next or one of the next Dalstons won't it? Edgy, gritty-looking but on the edge of zone one and amazing transport links - it will be perfect for housing the next load of trust-funders and cock-wipes.

 

[quimcunx]

£50m for 22 acres of zone 1. Right. That leasehold or freehold? Of course once you sell an asset you no longer have that asset. This is a major issue. Future councils can't re-own what previous councils have sold off. And council land is OUR land.

 

[Reno]

Sad to say, I'm not even surprised.

 

[brogdale]

Southwark’s cabinet member for regeneration, Cllr Fiona Colley response to these claims was that land value payments had been reduced in favour of a guarantee of 25% affordable housing, itself a breach of Southwark’s policy of a minimum 35% for developments in the Elephant & Castle Opportunity Area.[3]

They still use this language then?
Using words with antonyms that catagorise the majority of the development as unaffordable or anti-social!

 

[quimcunx]

we'll give you a discount on the land if you promise us less 'social' housing than we demand in our policy, and then let you not bother giving us even that much? Good deal.

 

[editor]

just those sheer numbers make me feel physically sick. talk about social cleansing... what's happening in brixton seems sometimes debatable, too many small cuts.

The scale may not be as large in Brixton, but it adds up to the same thing once you've lost your home.

Something like a third of the Guinness Trust residents at the back of the Moorlands Estate were made homeless not so long ago by another of these 'partnership' deals, and there's more to come, no doubt.

 

[Mapped]

Sounds like somebody's palm somewhere has been crossed with silver. Surely this will face legal challenge.

LB Southwark for one

They've had funding after funding for this development for over a decade. Section 31 money given on the basis that there would be no loss in social housing, but no actual enforceable conditions on the money.