Brixton news, rumours and general chat

[nagapie]

People were objecting to the Avenue Park Rd site in Tulse Hill for having too much social housing but yes fair point that we need guarantees but would that mean people would not object to taller buildings?

Perhaps, to a degree but not completely. Poor people also want quality of life.
The community I serve is full of families living in one bedroom waiting to rehoused for years. But they don't want tower blocks. They want light and green space. They don't want to be trapped by ever breaking lifts and scared because after Grenville, these blocks are still not safe.
People want to live in nice places, not housing at any cost.
And planning regulations are there to protect them. They have been thought out to do this and have already been watered down by successive governments. They are based on Green principles too. How anyone can think that just abandoning them for the sake of the people is a real thing, is beyond me.

 

[Gramsci]

As promised The Green Cllrs comments on the first consultation about the Draft Site Allocations Development Plan

They make good points and made an effort to put in detailed comments.

Thing that stands out is lack of real consultation beyond statutory consultation. No Cooperative Council here.

Going to be over several posts:

Lambeth Green Councillors
General 1. Introduction
The Green Group have serious concerns about these proposed
developments. Our concerns relate to the lack of evidence provided that
these developments will benefit Lambeth residents, and that emissions
associated with new developments of this nature undermine Lambeth
council’s commitment to tackling the climate crisis.
Prior to laying out our main issues with the developments, we would like
to make a user experience point about the commonplace consultation
site itself. We found the fragmented layout of the site to be functionally
challenging. Having an individual page dedicated to all 14 site
subsequent subpages, evidence, draft site allocations DPD, the HRA
screening and sustainability appraisal to ‘comment’ on, makes it
impossible to present a coherent and organised response. It not only
limits the scope of the response but makes for an overwhelming and
disorienting experience for anyone attempting to participate in the
consultation. On a diversity and inclusion basis, the site’s presentation
may prevent neurodivergent people from participating fully in the
consultation. It has contributed to our electing to present our response
in a document format, rather than via the site, and we are concerned it
will have dissuaded Lambeth residents from attempting or completing
their own response.
The other issue with what is being presented via the ‘consultation’ is
that there is no evidence that collaboration with local communities has
taken place in drawing up these plans. Whilst Green Party councillors
have been present at a couple of meetings prior to publication, nothing
they have contributed appears to have been taken on board. Areas
such as West Norwood have their own stakeholder groups who
understand the area and what will work. As an example, Green Party
councillors have worked alongside the Norwood Planning Assembly in
trying to help them develop their own plans for the area, which would
look nothing like these. Instead of wasting council officer resources and
time on ‘top-down’ development proposals, which will be robustly
challenged by local residents, the council would do far better spending
time and money listening to residents and developing ‘bottom up’
solutions - becoming a cooperative council, not one that only benefits
corporate developers

 

[Gramsci]

Part two Green Cllrs on SADP

In the following sections we outline our principal objections to the
proposed developments.
General 2. Offsetting of operational carbon
It is important to understand that there are two different types of carbon
emissions which pertain to buildings: ‘Embodied Carbon’ and
‘Operational Carbon’. The former is discussed in the next section, while
the latter refers to all the greenhouse gases emitted during the life of a
building. This includes those produced due to e.g., electricity
consumption, heating and cooling. Operational Carbon costs can be
completely eliminated by building to the right standards. Developers in
Lambeth are currently allowed to pay a carbon offset tax, instead of
building to the highest efficiency standards.
Offsetting is an unrealistically cheap ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card for
developers, which will always incentivise a developer to opt for a low
standard. The cost of upgrading a building later to meet 2050
standards, when you would hope these new buildings will still be
standing, will be many multiples of any carbon offsetting fee. The offset
tax isn’t put aside for a future building upgrade but is expected to be
spent on other projects that should deliver equivalent carbon savings.
The reality is those savings are rarely delivered to the required levels
and require a lot more effort and money than building right in the first
place.
While the 2025 government requirement for the minimum standard to
be at least ‘zero carbon ready’ has not yet come into force, ignoring this
impending standard would be most short-sighted, and leaves Lambeth
lagging behind other more progressive councils such as Norwich or
Exeter.
The reality of ‘zero carbon ready’ is that a building must be built to, or
near to, the Passivhaus standard. Building to this standard requires it to
be the design intention at the very outset to avoid unnecessary
additional costs. The small premium to build to the Passivhaus standard
would be a fraction of the high and predictable future upgrade costs
needed to meet 2050 requirements, if the plans involved robust energy
efficiencies. It would therefore be fairer, clearer and simpler to make it
clear to developers that they should now be building to the Passivhaus
standard. The Green Group would like to see developers building to the
Passivhaus Plus standard, for instance by the addition of solar PV

 

[Gramsci]

Part three

Embodied Carbon equivalent (CO2e) is the amount of greenhouse gas
(GHG) that is produced during the extraction, production, transportation
and destruction of materials (cradle to grave). This has largely been
ignored by developers and planning officers across Lambeth’s
developments but is critical if the council is seriously concerned about
the effects of global heating on our climate and ecology. Ideally
Lambeth would have a carbon budget in the same way as it has a
financial budget which it must not exceed. In the absence of a carbon
budget, Lambeth must move away from pushing materials such as
bricks, cement and reinforced concrete and insist that developers use
materials that benefit our environment. This is particularly the case for
its own in-house developer, Homes for Lambeth, over which it
theoretically has complete control.
Below are a couple of materials, the use of which should not be
encouraged, and which are used extensively in Lambeth:
● Cement
Cement is a very high CO2e emitter. Guidance from Green Building
Resource GreenSpec lists cement production as the third ranking
producer of anthropogenic (man-made) CO2e in the world, after
transport and energy generation. This is on top of the following:

• The production of cement results in high levels of CO2e output.
• 4-5% of the worldwide total of CO2e emissions is caused by cement

production.
- Concrete production makes up almost 1/10th of the world’s industrial
water use

• 75% of this consumption is in drought and water-stressed regions
• Cement constructions contribute to the “urban heat island effect”, by

absorbing the warmth of the sun and trapping gases from car exhausts
and air-conditioner units

• Dust from wind-blown stocks and mixers contributes to air pollution
• Quarries, cement factories, transport and building sites all contribute

to air pollution
● Steel Steel also has a significant impact on the environment:

• It is CO2e intensive
• It increases pollution associated with steel production (coke oven gas,

naphthalene, ammonium compounds, crude light oil, sulphur and coke
dust) There are many alternative materials now being manufactured,
such as Hempcrete and mass timber (wood) that are sustainable and
should be recommended as build materials instead of emission heavy
cement:
● Hempcrete Hempcrete combats carbon emissions. It is one of the few

 

[Gramsci]

Part 4

building materials that removes carbon from the air, and is a highly
effective insulator for walls, floors and roofs. Unlike other insulation
materials, it does not contain the Volatile Organic Compounds that emit
“off-gas” toxic chemicals. As a build material, hempcrete is becoming
less and less expensive. Companies like The Hemp Block Company
have developed blocks that require no specialist skills or equipment to
use, making installation much more cost-effective.
● Mass Timber / Cross Laminate Timber As a building material, mass
timber, or cross laminate timber also reduces carbon emissions. It
prevents energy from escaping buildings which can reduce emissions
and energy expenditure, much less energy is required in the
construction process when used as a building material, meaning
reduced overall emissions. Using timber also encourages the expansion
of forestry and is biodegradable. It can be used for taller buildings,
provides greater fire safety than steel and is a robust and sturdy
material. The use of cross-laminated timber as a building material for
skyscrapers is on the rise: there are plans to build a 70-storey wood
skyscraper in Tokyo (the world’s riskiest city when it comes to
earthquakes) by 2024. In Norway, an 18 floor, 280-foot building
completed in March 2019, making it the tallest wooden building in the
world to date. Later that same year, a 275-foot building in Austria was
completed, made from 75% wood. The Green Group is not
recommending tall buildings but is using these examples to show the
versatility of this material. Closer to home a project at 1 Bowling Green
Street SE11, near Kennington Park (9 apartments over the pub) is
made from Cross Laminated Timber.
4 Building Height and Mass
High-rise buildings tend to have a greater environmental impact than
mid-to-low rise buildings. High-rises tend to contribute to issues such
as:
● Overheating, caused by the proliferate use of glass and a high
concentration of inhabitants
● Increasing carbon energy required to offset this through mechanical
ventilation
● Carbon heavy technology, needed for high-rises to function as homes
and workplaces (e.g., lifts and service shafts)
● Accelerated wind, which make natural cross-ventilation difficult, and
can prevent the use of open balconies closer to the top of the building
● Dark alleys around the base of the buildings can cause high
concentrations of pollution and stagnant air
● The “urban heat island effect”
● Greater reliance on artificial light for surrounding properties because

 

[Gramsci]

Part 5

of shadows created by the taller buildings
● Replacement of glazed cladding every 40 - 50 years
● Increased operating costs
● Higher construction costs, meaning the number of affordable homes
is smaller
● High-rise neighbourhoods result in about 140% more total emissions
than a lower-rise area with the same population
High rise ‘skyscraper’ buildings also increase the densification of
housing. You still need green spaces between them, while the services -
lifts, stairs, water, wastewater, power - must be installed in a narrow
block.
6. Summary
Carbon offsetting should not be an option for developers. The proposed
build materials of concrete and steel are carbon heavy and are
incompatible with Lambeth Council’s commitment to carbon neutrality
by 2030. There are alternative materials, such as hempcrete and mass
timber, which would serve as energy efficient, environmentally friendly,
sustainable and safe materials to use in future developments. The
height of these developments presents environmental issues, including
the urban heat island effect, the use of carbon-heavy technology,
preventing cross-ventilation and increased pollution. They block light for
neighbouring properties, creating greater reliance on artificial light and
overheating, caused by, for example, a large percentage of glass.
The proposals are dismissive of the importance of community areas
such as Oasis Farm Waterloo and Lower Marsh Street markets, both of
which are properly used and efficient uses of land, and which currently
serve the needs of vulnerable children, children with additional needs,
children at risk of exclusion, looked after children, schools, teachers,
families, traders, workers and local residents. The proposals have not
provided enough evidence to justify the closure/impinging of these
spaces and have not shown why the building of affordable workspaces,
‘Medtech’ spaces and new-build housing, is a better use of the land in
service to the wider community, nor properly accounted for the impact
the developments will have on the people and communities who benefit
and rely on these spaces.
7. Our recommendations:
1. Accessibility. Look for a better way of laying out and delivering
information to make the proposals more accessible. The commonplace
site made navigation very frustrating and inaccessible, even for those
with good computer experience and skills.
2. Resident Involvement. Residents know their areas best. Start with
the residents when looking for opportunities for improvements and do
not impose things on them that creates extra work for everyone and

 

[Gramsci]

The original report on first consultation is this document. Officers did respond.

Go to page 1027 to see Green Cllrs comments plus officer response.

As is usual officer response was stock one of repeating what they have already decided is best.

 

[alex_]

The greens are against this development because its spec isn’t way beyond building regs ?

(a lot of what they say is true, and I’m sure hotel operators and lots of other businesses who commission buildings and pay to run them are building way past building regs)

But I assume this is why they are against most property building ?

 

[Gramsci]

The greens are against this development because its spec isn’t way beyond building regs ?

(a lot of what they say is true, and I’m sure hotel operators and lots of other businesses who commission buildings and pay to run them are building way past building regs)

But I assume this is why they are against most property building ?

No

 

[Gramsci]

The greens are against this development because its spec isn’t way beyond building regs ?



But I assume this is why they are against most property building ?

That is not what they are saying

The SADP consultation that was posted up by Angellic is looking at specific sites that are liable to come up for development at some point and making site specific policies for these sites

The Greens are not against development. Its the form it takes.

As they lay out in their comments I posted up.

What they are saying is ( and I think this is entirely reasonable) is that if the Council thinks these site are important enough to make additional policies to be added to the Local Plan then they should specify building materials etc that future proof these sites for climate change. Argument being that its better to do it now than have to try to retrofit at later date.

The outlay of extra money now would save money later. They also say for example that alternatives to concrete are coming down in price so feasible to use. The technology/ design principles ( Passive Haus for example ) are there so use them.

 

[Gramsci]

(a lot of what they say is true, and I’m sure hotel operators and lots of other businesses who commission buildings and pay to run them are building way past building regs

I don't understand this.

Can you give examples?

As my experience is that developers follow whatever planning guidance there is and no more.

 

[Gramsci]

One of the main issues Greens take up is Carbon Offsetting.

I see their point on this.

Seems to me one can make claim that a development is Carbon neutral by Offsetting. That is making a payment to Council that is used elsewhere for another Green measure.

This is smoke and mirrors and does not lead to real change in building / design techniques.

So it would be better to not have offsetting but building planning guidelines that ensure all developments are as green as possible.

This is also in long term in peoples interest. Properly insulated buildings with solar panels for example mean less running costs.

Stiffer building guidelines also mean a level playing field for developers. So one cannot undercut another.

 

[Gramsci]

The problem I have with Green Cllrs comments { not a criticism of what they want to see. Rather is it possible under existing system) on this is that I'm not sure a Borough can insist on things like say Passive Haus. As planning is also linked to national guidelines and GLA London wide guidelines.

I'm not a total expert on this. So not sure if a developer could contest a Local Authority who say insist on all development of housing be Passive Haus.

Whether a developer could appeal against this.

My understanding is that planning policy is partly local but also partly national

Anyone else know any more on this?

 

[Gramsci]

That said I think the Greens in Lambeth have been very good on housing

 

[alex_]

As my experience is that developers follow whatever planning guidance there is and no more.

I’m talking about organisations which commission and pay to heat/cool, buildings - eg hotel chains.

 

[alex_]

The problem I have with Green Cllrs comments { not a criticism of what they want to see. Rather is it possible under existing system) on this is that I'm not sure a Borough can insist on things like say Passive Haus. As planning is also linked to national guidelines and GLA London wide guidelines.

I'm not a total expert on this. So not sure if a developer could contest a Local Authority who say insist on all development of housing be Passive Haus.

Whether a developer could appeal against this.

My understanding is that planning policy is partly local but also partly national

Anyone else know any more on this?

Yes, this is a good point - is there a legal basis for a council to require developers to exceed building regs ?

 

[technical]

The problem I have with Green Cllrs comments { not a criticism of what they want to see. Rather is it possible under existing system) on this is that I'm not sure a Borough can insist on things like say Passive Haus. As planning is also linked to national guidelines and GLA London wide guidelines.

I'm not a total expert on this. So not sure if a developer could contest a Local Authority who say insist on all development of housing be Passive Haus.

Whether a developer could appeal against this.

My understanding is that planning policy is partly local but also partly national

Anyone else know any more on this?

You are right that the planning system is kind of hybrid - there's legislation and national planning policy, which is supposed to be underpinned by more locally specific plans produced by boroughs.

Lambeth could try to set out detail on things like materials for site allocations, but I suspect it would be pretty pointless. No local authorities to my knowledge do this. Developers would probably challenge it when it goes for examination by the Planning Inspectorate (who have the final say on whether a plan is fit for purpose) and even if it got through that, I don't see how it could be enforced when it came to a planning application. Much as the Green cllrs may have a point, what they are saying is probably just point scoring as they must know all this.

 

[teuchter]

The place to implement higher standards of construction from an environmental point of view is in the Building Regulations really, rather than via planning.

The other day I was reading this page about proposed changes to the building regs:

Part L & F Consulation | ACAN

www.architectscan.org

 

[teuchter]

The original report on first consultation is this document. Officers did respond.

Go to page 1027 to see Green Cllrs comments plus officer response.

As is usual officer response was stock one of repeating what they have already decided is best.

I was interested to see this in the Lambeth comments responding to the GP points about tall buildings (p1031).

The site-specific nature of a site allocation would not set a precedent for future tall building development.

Something to quote back at them in the future...

 

[BusLanes]

I quite like a lot of what the Greens have written in those extracts but I'm rapidly getting to the point where I sympathise more with just build stuff that is sort of ok

 

[Winot]

This is interesting - idea is to rebuild 1960/1970s poorly built estates at higher density and with better insulation to provide homes at social rent:

Plan

(I've read the summary not the whole thing)

 

[Crispy]

Old estate buildings can be upgraded to passivhaus standard (more strictly, Enerphit - the parallel standard for retrofit projects) at a much lower cost (in £ and carbon terms) than full demo/rebuild. But the skills just aren't there in the UK construction industry. Wilmcote House in Portsmouth was a big one about 10 years ago (11 storeys, 100 flats), but it was a real struggle on site and there hasn't been much of similar scale since.

There's plenty of land in between such estate buildings, usually car parks, that could easily be built on if you want to increase density.

 

[Gramsci]

This is interesting - idea is to rebuild 1960/1970s poorly built estates at higher density and with better insulation to provide homes at social rent:

Plan

(I've read the summary not the whole thing)

Looking at what they say and this is similar to what Council tried to do in Cressingham gardens and failed.

Nor do they appear to look at what has happened to schemes where this approach has been followed. Such as around Elephant and castle.

Where the upshot of this rebuilding is a loss of social housing.

The aspirations at start of schemes is gradually watered down

I notice all those involved are ex advisors to government/ politicians or have worked for PWC.

The website comes across as Mish mash of technocrats government policies made by people who've spent whole careers as advisors for politicians.

As is common now the blame is put on planning system and those pesky residents who avail themselves of it. They are what's holding britain back apparently.

Not that housing has been more and more commodified over years.

 

[friendofdorothy]

There are a lot of disused garages - space that should be used for housing . The peoples plan for cressingham converted them and replaced one disused block for more housing. Presume that could be done in more places.

 

[jimbarkanoodle]

There are a lot of disused garages - space that should be used for housing . The peoples plan for cressingham converted them and replaced one disused block for more housing. Presume that could be done in more places.

Yes there is. I am fortunate enough to live in a new development built by a community land trust which scoped out some disused garages in Sydenham, campaigned to Lewisham council to be given the land, got some grants and built 11 flats on it, then sold them to vetted applicants for 60% of the market value.

‘We made a nuisance of ourselves’: how Citizens House created real affordable housing – for ever!

After years of campaigning, 11 homes have been built as London’s first community land trust – protected in value from the volatile property market. We meet the people who made it happen

www.google.com

 

[CH1]

Not that I am a fan of Claire Fox - quite the contrary - but she's is right about this

 

[GarveyLives]

More depressing news:

Brixton: Couple injured in another homophobic attack in south London

Police are investigating an assault on two men in Brixton who were punched at a bus stop.

www.bbc.co.uk

Hopefully they'll be plenty of CCTV to identify the attacker.

31-year old Jabbard Mabounda of Crosby Walk, Cressingham Gardens Estate, Tulse Hill, has been imprisoned for 12 months after attacking two men, Michael Smith and Nat Asabere, who had been waiting for a bus at around 10.30 p.m. after attending a Black Pride event on 19 August 2023. The attack happened on Brixton Road and left the two victims with injuries that required hospital treatment.

The two men who were attacked were supported by PC Andy De Santis of the Metropolitan Police, and one of them wrote a letter commending his support.

(Source: Metropolitan Police)​

Jabbard Mabounda was sentenced at Inner London Crown Court on 22 April 2024, following his conviction for one count of racially or religiously aggravated grevios bodily harm and two counts of aggravated assault by beating.

 

[edcraw]

New house coming up for sale in Stockwell soon!!

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

Oh dear what a shame never mind....

Also given climate change green and pleasant is a bit of a coin toss.

Also stockwell isn't that well off for greenspace.

 

[quimcunx]

New house coming up for sale in Stockwell soon!!

I liked this response.