Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Brixton news, rumour and general chat - February 2014

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah. People just need places to live, but our accomodation is now a fucking investment fund for rich Chinese and Brits who want to make even more money by doing fuck all.
Ban overseas buyers, massive taxes on second homes (and third, fourth….), rent controls, long-term secure tenancies...
Ironically the house next to mine was bought last year by a Chinese developer.

Unfortunately his hard-working team of builders understand no English at all (at least they affect not to) which is frustrating my plans to off-load my own building remnants from years gone by in their daily builder's skip pick-up.

Seem to be doing thorough job though. ALL the former owner's favela style additions (including the gas boiler fixed on the outside wall) have now gone.

3 years of attempts to get Lambeth planning/enforcement/ward councillors to do something about my former neighbour's excesses came to absolutely nothing. Now a Chinese developer has cured everything at a blow.

The good news from the Urban 75 point of view is it looks like it's going to be 3 flats - so everyone will be able to have a good moan soon about how small/expensive they are.
 
Some good posts Dexter Deadwood - property speculation is vile and it's screwing communities all over the country. I'm an assured shorthold tenant - which is not 'assured' at all - there's fuck all protection. Shitting it about the likely massive rent rise I'm gonna get in May...

Private renting is increasingly impossible.

Which makes the desperate bid crazy money to buy properties.

And so it carries on.
 
Ironically the house next to mine was bought last year by a Chinese developer.

Unfortunately his hard-working team of builders understand no English at all (at least they affect not to) which is frustrating my plans to off-load my own building remnants from years gone by in their daily builder's skip pick-up.

Seem to be doing thorough job though. ALL the former owner's favela style additions (including the gas boiler fixed on the outside wall) have now gone.

3 years of attempts to get Lambeth planning/enforcement/ward councillors to do something about my former neighbour's excesses came to absolutely nothing. Now a Chinese developer has cured everything at a blow.

The good news from the Urban 75 point of view is it looks like it's going to be 3 flats - so everyone will be able to have a good moan soon about how small/expensive they are.

Can't split houses into three flats any more on some roads.

After developers had ruined streets such as this one - creating a state of anomic transience - Lambeth changed the rules. Too late as usual.
 
And build more social housing managed directly by local councils. Repairs and services to be carried out by directly employed council staff, not contractors and subcontractors.
yeah this ^^^^

Central government bans local authorities from borrowing money to do this (build social housing) - neither Labour or the tories are willing to change this. And it's one of the central issues. Ask yourself "why?" and I think you have all the answers you need.
 
Central government bans local authorities from borrowing money to do this (build social housing) - neither Labour or the tories are willing to change this. And it's one of the central issues. Ask yourself "why?" and I think you have all the answers you need.
Councils used to have quite a lot of financial autonomy way back when.
In 1920 the LCC issued Housing Bonds. Seems there is a clip on the BFI site, but I have forgotten my membership details (if I ever signed up).

The pre-amble is here:
David Lloyd George, the Prime Minister, had promised "homes fit for heroes" to alleviate the acute housing shortage after World War I. Much of the funding for public housing came from local authorities or state subsidy, and the London County Council (LCC) introduced housing bonds. The public were encouraged to buy the bonds and the money raised would be used to build new public housing.

To promote the scheme, the LCC launched a publicity campaign and this short film makes witty use of animation, combining words and drawings to enliven a topic with little immediately apparent cinematic potential. Little is known about the animator, D.E. Braham, and this may be the only surviving example of his animation.

The film appeals to its audience's sense of both duty and thrift. Potential investors will be doing their duty to their less fortunate neighbours suffering from the housing shortage, while also being guaranteed a 6% return on their outlay. £5 was a significant investment, being more than the average male weekly wage; nevertheless, Londoners raised just under £4 million by purchasing the bonds.

In case such practical encouragements are insufficient, the film culminates with an early example of celebrity endorsement. Hollywood stars Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford add a touch of glamour to the film - despite not actually appearing in it - with their letter of support for the scheme from the Ritz Hotel.

Ros Cranston

http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/1168388/

spacer.gif

spacer.gif
 
After developers had ruined streets such as this one - creating a state of anomic transience - Lambeth changed the rules. Too late as usual.

Lambeth did not step in to stop developers running amok. Developers were acting in line with the development plan. Rightly or wrongly, Lambeth's earlier development plan actively encouraged conversions of the larger houses into flat. The need to create more residential units was part of the council's Reasons for Approval. Developers (quite often the original owners / occupants of the property, rather than some corporate bogeyman) followed the rules. Central govt also incentivised conversions of houses into flats since at least since 97 by reducing VAT to 5%.

You've often lauded he idea of building higher and more densely (e.g. The Cantebury Arms). This was a way of increasing the number of residential units (as required by central government) in an area with no other development potential. The mistake the council made was not being more strict about the requirement to have a family unit on the ground floor (or perhaps defining it better) or agreeing on some developments that it was infeasible to do so. Restrictions on allowing larger ground floor rear extensions (which were allowed on houses under permitted development) actually made it more difficult to provide better family units on the ground floor. A limit on number of houses per street should probably have been part of the policy.

The council did have policies protecting smaller houses from division. This protected the housey nature of some streets like Horsford Road where the original houses were less than 120sqm - but there were not many streets like that.

They have not stopped conversions of houses into flats - just on streets where they believe there is conversions stress. It's a very very long list.
And the new policy does not prevent the further subdivision of properties which are already subdivided. E.g. large flats can be divided in two as long as they meet minimum space standards.
 
Don't be too pessimistic

Brixton's gentrification is capped by the fact many homes are socially rented. And largely protected.

However, on present trends, Brixton will - soon enough - be occupied by millionaires or those in social housing.

Social rents are increased each year, the increase is based on the average earnings in that area. Now that we have millionaires and the middle classes moving in the average wage of these people will inflate social rents. Its only a matter of time before social rents become unaffordable to normal working class people.Id say they are protected in the short term but give it ten years and social housing as we know it wont exist.
 
It was strangely quiet at 4am this morning at Coldharbour Lane. The Dog seemed to have closed early and there was a refreshing paucity of drunken men shouting at each other, emotional girlfriends, puke puddle creators and mobile urinators.
 
It was strangely quiet at 4am this morning at Coldharbour Lane. The Dog seemed to have closed early and there was a refreshing paucity of drunken men shouting at each other, emotional girlfriends, puke puddle creators and mobile urinators.
10am this morning was hilarious. Must have been 200 gurners off their nuts staggering about between The Electric and McDonalds, several standing with their eyes closed, faces turned up towards the sunshine. A big night. :D
 
Last edited:
Lambeth did not step in to stop developers running amok. Developers were acting in line with the development plan. Rightly or wrongly, Lambeth's earlier development plan actively encouraged conversions of the larger houses into flat. The need to create more residential units was part of the council's Reasons for Approval. Developers (quite often the original owners / occupants of the property, rather than some corporate bogeyman) followed the rules. Central govt also incentivised conversions of houses into flats since at least since 97 by reducing VAT to 5%.

You've often lauded he idea of building higher and more densely (e.g. The Cantebury Arms). This was a way of increasing the number of residential units (as required by central government) in an area with no other development potential. The mistake the council made was not being more strict about the requirement to have a family unit on the ground floor (or perhaps defining it better) or agreeing on some developments that it was infeasible to do so. Restrictions on allowing larger ground floor rear extensions (which were allowed on houses under permitted development) actually made it more difficult to provide better family units on the ground floor. A limit on number of houses per street should probably have been part of the policy.

The council did have policies protecting smaller houses from division. This protected the housey nature of some streets like Horsford Road where the original houses were less than 120sqm - but there were not many streets like that.

They have not stopped conversions of houses into flats - just on streets where they believe there is conversions stress. It's a very very long list.
And the new policy does not prevent the further subdivision of properties which are already subdivided. E.g. large flats can be divided in two as long as they meet minimum space standards.

All good points. Especially about the increase in residential units.

But the fact Lambeth stepped in suggests the policy was wrong - or at least had gone too far.
 
All good points. Especially about the increase in residential units.

But the fact Lambeth stepped in suggests the policy was wrong - or at least had gone too far.
Yes - they changed their policy. Because their policy was wrong. Blaming developers (whether private or HA) for carrying out developments which meet policy guidelines is pointless. The worst culprit for splitting houses was Lambeth themselves. On top of which they never applied for permission for conversions so, when they dispose of the properties, they are often unmortgageable. Meaning that they go at a discount to cash buyers.
 
Yes - they changed their policy. Because their policy was wrong. Blaming developers (whether private or HA) for carrying out developments which meet policy guidelines is pointless. The worst culprit for splitting houses was Lambeth themselves. On top of which they never applied for permission for conversions so, when they dispose of the properties, they are often unmortgageable. Meaning that they go at a discount to cash buyers.

People we bought from sold to us only after we proved we were not developers. They were upset at how the street had been cut up.
 
I know the feeling. Really hope my landlady doesn't want to increase the rent. That's the problem with the property price increase across all of London. :(
Yeah…I'm just hoping that being a good tenant and looking after the place/sorting the garden etc will help. Last year they wanted to increase by over £100/month but I managed to negotiate them down to about £46. This year I reckon they will try to up it even more. I'm gonna try and get it down as low as possible then ask for a three year deal or something. Landlords seem to like certainty...
 
Yeah…I'm just hoping that being a good tenant and looking after the place/sorting the garden etc will help. Last year they wanted to increase by over £100/month but I managed to negotiate them down to about £46. This year I reckon they will try to up it even more. I'm gonna try and get it down as low as possible then ask for a three year deal or something. Landlords seem to like certainty...

Seems immoral to push up rents when interest rates are flatlined.
 
leanderman and Rushy - whatever the rights or wrongs of Lambeth's policy were, it's more a structural/economic problem why rents/prices are so high imo. In London especially, demand massively outstrips supply and there's an incentive for the wealthy to buy up property. We need loads more social & (truly) affordable housing in London, but we won't get it under the current policies, no matter which party is in power and whatever they promise in terms of house building.

The solution is of course Full Communism, but that's another thread. ;)
 
A tax on second properties would solve it overnight imo.
It would only hurt small buy to letters - like owners who kept their first flat when they remortgaged and bought a house. The big corporates and funds (e.g. pension funds) are the ones taking huge numbers of properties out of the market and they won't be putting them back in for a long time.
 
Seems immoral to push up rents when interest rates are flatlined.

it is. but landlords aren't in it to provide affordable housing to those struggling to survive. they're in it to make money by charging what the market will bear. if some poor sod can' afford it a wealthier person can and fuck everyone else.
 
it is. but landlords aren't in it to provide affordable housing to those struggling to survive. they're in it to make money by charging what the market will bear. if some poor sod can' afford it a wealthier person can and fuck everyone else.

Obviously this analysis is from a source working in the interest of landlords - but the figures are government figures:

Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that in the eight years between December 2005 and December 2013, rents across London as a whole increased by no more than 11.4 per cent. Inflation as measured by RPI over this period was 30.5 per cent and by CPI was 26.2 per cent.

In comparison, figures published by the Department for Communities and Local Government show that in the eight year period between 2005/06 and 2012/13, local authority housing average weekly rents in London increased by 36.2 per cent and 48.2 per cent for housing associations.
 
Absolutely - so they just ascertained to their satisfaction we were not developers.
Most people selling their home would prefer not to sell to developers if they could get the same money from a nice family.

(I'm not saying your family is nice, mind you.)
:p
 
Obviously this analysis is from a source working in the interest of landlords - but the figures are government figures:

Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that in the eight years between December 2005 and December 2013, rents across London as a whole increased by no more than 11.4 per cent. Inflation as measured by RPI over this period was 30.5 per cent and by CPI was 26.2 per cent.

In comparison, figures published by the Department for Communities and Local Government show that in the eight year period between 2005/06 and 2012/13, local authority housing average weekly rents in London increased by 36.2 per cent and 48.2 per cent for housing associations.

that's some fine sophistry going on there.

LAs and HAs need to provide, by law, far greater levels of service than any landlord in the country, and are restricted by law to how much they can put their prices up.

when private landlords are expected to perform just 10% of the duties of a housing association towards their clients we'd see a fucking change.

but official government policy for the last 30 years has been to effectively make HAs act as social services and make them spend so much money that they are effectively owned by the banks.

i know you landlords think you're doing a good deed by being kind enough to let people live in your precious investment in return for as much money as you can extract, but you're really not. sorry.
 
Lambeth did not step in to stop developers running amok. Developers were acting in line with the development plan. Rightly or wrongly, Lambeth's earlier development plan actively encouraged conversions of the larger houses into flat. The need to create more residential units was part of the council's Reasons for Approval. Developers (quite often the original owners / occupants of the property, rather than some corporate bogeyman) followed the rules. Central govt also incentivised conversions of houses into flats since at least since 97 by reducing VAT to 5%.

Back in the '80s, as the older (ex)-squatters among us will know, Lambeth had a shedload of derelict and near-derelict big houses across the borough, so encouraging conversions/making it easier for non-resident owners to milk their assets made a perverse kind of sense, back then. :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom