editor
hiraethified
That might be the case if they hadn't put them on the market via the charmers at Foxtons.
Brixton news, rumour and general chat - August 2014
- Thread starter Rushy
- Start date
- Status
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
A bit of a trek, but until it's sorted out you could try the new pool at West Norwood...
Manter
Lunch Mob
We're going to do a tour of the local pools- the rec is always a bit cold for the baby anyway, so it's a good spur to investigate others...
sparkybird
ask the bird...
Ed - But social housing only moves into private ownership when a council tenant exercises their right to buy? So are you saying that they shouldn't?
The Clapham leisure centre childrens pool is good although gets busy at the weekend
Camberwell pool is also good
editor
hiraethified
I'm saying that Thatcher should never have allowed the big council housing give-away to happen and subsequent governments should have stopped it in its tracks, given that it failed to deliver on its promise of new council housing being built with the money raised.
With no new council housing being built, it is insane to keep offering what little is left at discount prices, although I attach no blame to the tenants whatsoever.
With government policies about social housing making them feel ever more unsure about how safe their tenancy is, I don't blame any council tenant buying their own property. After all, how else can they can guarantee that they can stay part of their own community?
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
Peckham Pulse best for babies ime but phone ahead.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
It does, however, diminish the total supply of local authority social housing, and as for HA new-build, they've barely managed to service about 5% of demand for new social housing in any year in the last 20. In some cases they haven't even managed a replacement rate for LA social housing lost through RtB sales.
So while total supply may not have been diminished, total supply doesn't matter. What matters - what is relevant to what the ed is saying - is the supply of social housing, which is diminishing.
sparkybird
ask the bird...
I agree it is madness, but as you say who of us would look such a gift horse in the mouth?
I'm not sure it does guarantee that they stay part of their own community though... the people I know who have RTB have sold up when they could and used the profits to buy with a mortgage something bigger outside of the area. (and said a big thank you for what they see as basically a free gift and a leg up onto the housing 'ladder')
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
*2001 total LA dwelling stock for Lambeth was just under 35,000. As of 2011 it was around 25,500, so over 10 years, 9,500-ish Local Authority social housing units have been lost to those in need of social housing, mostly through RtB.
In the same period, RSL/HA holdings have increased from around 16,500 in 2001, to 23,000 in 2011. A gain of 6,500 dwellings.
Now, according to my maths, that means a total of 3,000 homes lost entirely to the social housing sector in Lambeth, so I'd say that even allowing for an even spread of losses and gains across the borough, Brixton is likely to have significantly less social housing than it used to.
*ONS local authority property holdings figures
Last edited:
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
As I've said elsewhere, another problem was that around '87-'88, the clause within Right-to-Buy contracts giving local authorities first refusal to buy back houses bought under the legislation, was removed, so that local authorities couldn't even minimally replenish lost stock.
editor
hiraethified
Well, yes, but tenants - including those staunchly opposed to selling off council housing - are increasingly feeling under pressure to buy because they're fearful that the council will flog off/demolish their housing or 'do' a Guinness Trust.
Last edited:
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Me. If I had the money to buy my council flat, and I was that bothered about owning a property, I wouldn't exercise my "right to buy". I'd use the money to buy outside of London or in the London backwaters. My reasoning is two-fold:
a) Inner London prices are ridiculously high, and what buys a 1-bed flat here, could buy a larger property elsewhere, and
b) I ideologically disagree with Right-to-Buy, and believe it was and is a deliberately socially-destructive policy invented by Tories, in order to turn people into Tories.
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
Without getting angry, can someone explain why people don't like the right to buy? I know a lot of people opposed it but I never really understood why
sparkybird
ask the bird...
But the majority of people don't think like you, VP.
editor
hiraethified
Pre-Thatcher, a lot more would of though.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Because it diminishes the stock of council housing.
boohoo
No.
Right to buy sells off council housing without the money being earmarked for creating new social housing.
If you want to read a book about this sort of stuff, I recommend Estates by Lyndey Hanley - well worth a read.
Well there are the ideological reasons as seen above - 'property is theft', the philosophical - taxpayers' money financed the building of this housing and so it should be available to future generations not just for the private benefit of those who happen to be living in the community asset when the opportunity to buy arose -'selling off the family silver' kind of thing.
Then there is the more 'practical' objection that it reduces the amount of affordable housing available to people across London reducing the diversity of the community in terms of income and forcing those in less well paid jobs to move further out of London/ live in poorer quality housing. Selling off council housing is not necessarily an issue in itself but the way that the policy has been implemented from the early 1980s onwards means that there are now fewer affordable houses and flats in London. It also had an element of social engineering by the Tory government.
When the policy was introduced Thatcher specifically prevented local authorities from reinvesting the proceeds of housing sales in new housing as she wanted to reduce their power-base and create a new class of home-owners who she hoped would be free market capitalists (and Tory voters). Thatcher brought in discounts for tenants buying to make the whole thing more desirable.
Previously the Labour government and Labour & Tory councils had sold off council housing but had used the money they got to build new houses to replace and expand the housing stock.
There is also a problem that the housing that was bought under RTB was the more 'desirable' family housing -generally the houses rather than flats- which meant that councils were left with a much reduced stock of usually the hardest to let flats and so social housing went into a spiral of offering poorer quality housing and being seen as less desirable.
This was the situation across the country: it has only really become more of an issue since the mid-1990s in Brixton as the area wasnt seen as being desirable. Since then people have wanted to live in Brixton more and so the demand for council housing has gone up whilst at the same time people have seen that they can make a 'profit' by exercising their right to buy and then selling the housing on and moving to somehwere cheaper.
However social housing is still a major factor in the local area: the situation in Lambeth and other inner city areas is very different to outer London and the rest of the country. For example the figures for Coldharbour Ward show that in 2011 58% of residents lived in social housing, whilst 16% lived in housing owned outright/ with a mortgage and 21% of households rented privately (see http://www.neighbourhood.statistics...m=0&r=1&s=1409172218656&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2505). Across England as a whole 63% of households are owner occupiers, 18% are council or housing tenants and and 17% rent privately.
The problem of not building enough council housing is allied to a general problem that we have not been building enough housing generally over the past 25 years across the UK to meet demand. The number of people needing houses has grown as people are living longer, more people are divorcing, more people are wanting to live alone and more people have wanted to come and live in this country which all means that demand is greater than supply. The official stats show that each year something like 240,000 new households are created in England and Wales but the total number of new homes built last year was only around 120,000 and it has been around this level or less for a long time.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Hopefully this will bring to an end the mawkish cross thread baked potato reminiscences.
Ms T
Honey-coloured ramparts
A friend of mine got a council flat near Old St under RTB for something like 30k. She then raised capital on the equity, rented the ex-council flat out for a while, then sold it and bought another property in Notting Hill as a buy-to-let. All the while insisting she was "working class". 
I also know someone who rents his flat from someone who got it under squatter's rights. Now that really is working the system.
I also know someone who rents his flat from someone who got it under squatter's rights. Now that really is working the system.
simonSW2
Well-Known Member
In the interests of balance: 37 new flats for families in two small new blocks being built just off Christchurch Road / Brixton Hill junction on Garden Lane at the moment.ALL social housing.
Overall figures would be very interesting though. Provision 10 years ago versus now against overall number of households etc.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Adding in maybe one or two thousand right to buys - which council tenants gain from - that is a fall-off of around 4 per cent (35,000 to about 33,500).
And the pace of social housing new-builds may be picking up to close the gap entirely.
I would like to see a lot more social housing built however.
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
Thanks teuchter and boohoo I quote se5 for simplicity only
Now that's an argument I can understand. Although I can't shift the idea that in a way this position sort of says there will always be x number of people requiring social housing. Surely we should be aiming for the end point of nobody requiring state aid? Unlikely I know, but it's a bit like the bank saying "here's a loan but don't worry we know we won't see our money back". However, my beer befuddled mind can't assess the time limit aspect - the right to buy only lasted for a short period? I thought from what was previously posted that it existed for quite some time (if not still existed)?
That I'm not so sure about as it rewards those that have (and I realise this doesn't sound good but I struggle after a few beers to find a better turn of phrase but) made an effort to improve themselves *enters bomb shelter*
However, that, which I happily assume to be true, alleviates my above comment.
And I know for sure this will cause blood to boil, but I can't help feeling that if you require social housing, then your expectation to live a desirable area is secondary to your desire to live in state funded accommodation? I should point of out that whilst I agree with preventing ghettoisation(sp?), I do find it hard to walk past the Georgian mansions in expensive parts of London handed over to social housing without some envy.
I realise I'm a bit of a noob on the right to buy discussion, but I am trying to understand
Now that's an argument I can understand. Although I can't shift the idea that in a way this position sort of says there will always be x number of people requiring social housing. Surely we should be aiming for the end point of nobody requiring state aid? Unlikely I know, but it's a bit like the bank saying "here's a loan but don't worry we know we won't see our money back". However, my beer befuddled mind can't assess the time limit aspect - the right to buy only lasted for a short period? I thought from what was previously posted that it existed for quite some time (if not still existed)?
That I'm not so sure about as it rewards those that have (and I realise this doesn't sound good but I struggle after a few beers to find a better turn of phrase but) made an effort to improve themselves *enters bomb shelter*
However, that, which I happily assume to be true, alleviates my above comment.
And I know for sure this will cause blood to boil, but I can't help feeling that if you require social housing, then your expectation to live a desirable area is secondary to your desire to live in state funded accommodation? I should point of out that whilst I agree with preventing ghettoisation(sp?), I do find it hard to walk past the Georgian mansions in expensive parts of London handed over to social housing without some envy.
I realise I'm a bit of a noob on the right to buy discussion, but I am trying to understand
Manter
Lunch Mob
Thankyou :/)
editor
hiraethified
Here. Have a read.
Could you list all these 'Georgian mansions in expensive parts of London that have been handed over to social housing' that you've been walking past recently please? Thanks.
Coldharbour does have greater levels of council/social housing than probably 95%+ of England but I think the situation in Coldharbour is similar to wards in the Brixton area generally - Vassall, Stockwell, Tulse Hill, Larkhall etc - its places like Streatham and Clapham that are significantly different in terms of greater numbers of owner occupiers, fewer social housing tenants etc.
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
I lived in Pimlico and several of my neighbours lived in (Georgian) reduced rent accommodation through a housing association. Perhaps a housing association doesn't pass your social housing test, but it does to me (I worked for one briefly). Oh, and you forgot the facepalm emoticon you're so found of (although I smugly feel I've ruined that for you - yeah that's right I split an infinitive. I'm a maverick)
Here, I'll put in in for you Seriously, enough with the passive aggressive posting. This is not an opportunity for you to score points, I'm actually trying to understand your (plural) point of view
Here, I'll put in in for you
Seriously, enough with the passive aggressive posting. This is not an opportunity for you to score points, I'm actually trying to understand your (plural) point of view- Status
Similar threads
