Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Brixton Somerleyton Road development, Ovalhouse and Brixton Green - funding, proposed rents etc

I treat BG's statements and what I read on here with similar levels of scepticism. Not because I think anyone is lying as such, but because what ought to be fairly straightforward facts to establish remain remarkably murky. Statements such as "the community has been locked out" don't convey much information. Locked out in such a way as a previous agreement has been broken by BG, or locked out as in told that they must pay for the space like anyone else? Aside from who counts as "the community" and who doesn't. Similarly, the video that was going around a while ago failed to convey any information other than "we feel we do good stuff here and for some vague reason we are pissed off with BG".

I'd just like to understand the actual situation before forming an opinion - is there something wrong with that?

No, I haven't interviewed all parties concerned myself, or written them all emails demanding facts. I am not a journalist and don't have the time / am too lazy to do so. I'm commenting on what is presented here.
 
And, Maria Santos popped up on here - I asked some questions (which others answered) but then she disappeared after that one post. It would have been interesting to hear more direct from her.
 
teuchter - with your encyclopedic knowledge of trains, can you say what is going on at the Victoria line ventilation shaft/electricity sub station down Somerleyton Road a short distance from No 6?

It's got scaffolding and a canopy worthy of Pop Brixton!
 
CH1 said:
teuchter - with your encyclopedic knowledge of trains, can you say what is going on at the Victoria line ventilation shaft/electricity sub station down Somerleyton Road a short distance from No 6?

It's got scaffolding and a canopy worthy of Pop Brixton!
Click to expand...
No idea I'm afraid.
 
teuchter said:
I treat BG's statements and what I read on here with similar levels of scepticism. Not because I think anyone is lying as such, but because what ought to be fairly straightforward facts to establish remain remarkably murky. Statements such as "the community has been locked out" don't convey much information. Locked out in such a way as a previous agreement has been broken by BG, or locked out as in told that they must pay for the space like anyone else? Aside from who counts as "the community" and who doesn't. Similarly, the video that was going around a while ago failed to convey any information other than "we feel we do good stuff here and for some vague reason we are pissed off with BG".

I'd just like to understand the actual situation before forming an opinion - is there something wrong with that?

No, I haven't interviewed all parties concerned myself, or written them all emails demanding facts. I am not a journalist and don't have the time / am too lazy to do so. I'm commenting on what is presented here.
Click to expand...

I was asking you what kind of proof you require before coming to an opinion.

From what I can see you what you want is called by historians would "primary sources". That is you want documentary proof in writing of agreements that were made or broken.

ie the written agreement between Lambeth Council and BG about granting the management of Number 6. What the responsibilities of both sides are/ were. What Number 6 was to be use for and what community use it would have.

The agreement between BG who managed the space and Brixton Come Together and Small World Urbanism. Was it written or verbal.

Unless you have these primary documentary sources you cannot have an opinion either way.

The issue of what a community group is second question once these conditions of proof have been met.

You could email BG and ask.

As for BG lying. They did put up a statement on there website making allegations against the editor . The statement was taken off the website then a new one went up without those allegations. Draw you own conclusions of BG truthfullness.
 
Of course primary sources are always the best ones if you can get at them. That takes a certain amount of effort - an amount I might be willing to expend if I was a journalist writing up the story, but not as a casually interested bystander.

Establishing which facts both sides agree on is a good starting point.

Unfortunately, no-one reporting on this story seems to have been very interested in getting those basics established. I aint saying that I have some kind of right to have such journalism delivered to me for free. Just, it's a shame the reporting on this has been a bit crap, and hence I find it hard to form much of an opinion.
 
When I get a moment I'l be posting up my thoughts about their recent statement and they'll be more than welcome to respond to the points that I'll be sending out to 20k Twitter followers.

The title of my piece will be: The Lies Of Brixton Green. In Detail.
 
editor said:
Ah, Looks like 'flood damage' has ended Brixton Green's lease at #6.

Brixton Green ends contract with Lambeth Council for 6 Somerleyton Road due to ‘flood damage’

LOL.
Click to expand...

What a shambles.

BGs chance to show how they can manage a development and it ends up like this.

The Council should think really hard who will manage the finished development and how it will be managed.

Its however unfortunately likely that the leading lights in BG will not be affected by this in long term.
 
Last edited:
Gramsci said:
What a shambles.

BGs chance to show how they can manage a development and it ends up like this.

The Council should think really hard who will manage the finished development and how it will be managed.

Its however unfortunately likely that the leading lights in BG will not be affected by this in long term.
Click to expand...

You say "leading lights", I say "cockwombling dim-bulbs". :)
 
Before being handed to Brixton Green it was let on a commercial lease to a market business (who sub key it to others for storage and prep). They also gave the site up because the site was constantly flooding and the cost of repairing the roof was uneconomical compared to the lease length.
 
Yes. The previous occupants tried to repair it too. On a budget. It worked briefly.

I understand that Lambeth contributed some cash toward the recent temporary repairs. It would be interesting to know how much and what repairs were specified. And what contractors had to be/ were used. Etc... I'd be surprised if it weren't one of Lambeth's big contractors.

Certainly the quotes the commercial guys received to make it good were properly huge.
 
Brad was telling me a while back how he had sorted out the roof.

The leaking roof is just an excuse. Never came up as an issue when the so wonderful Green Man took it over on behalf of BG.

The "Meanwhile" management of the building by BG failed.

So BG threw in the towel and gave the building back to the Council. Or were prompted by the saner elements in the Council that it might be better for all concerned to end the debacle now.

Thats how I see it reading between the lines.

From what I’ve heard the saner Council officers had to step into this mess and deal with BGs ineptitude in dealing with different community groups.

Does wind me up that the BG muppets get so much time from the senior Cllrs like Cllr Hopkins. I do know that some of the Council officers are not so happy about BG. Or to be exact certain of the leading lights in BG.

Its where the Coop Council falls down. The Council ( or rather senior politicians) decide which group is to represent the community. And the Council officers and the rest of us have to just deal with it.
 
Tricky Skills said:
Not by me. I would just like to know where the funding came from to repair the roof. I've asked Brad, but he's still ignoring me.
Click to expand...

According to what Brad said to me he sorted out the roof economically to last the life of the building. He was quite insistent on that point. From what I saw it was all done above board.

Which is why I was surprised to read that was the reason BG gave to end the Meanwhile use in your article.
 
As I said its where the Coop Council falls down. BG are an independent entity.

At least if it was purely Council development one can ask Ward Cllrs what is happening. They are in the dark as much as the average local resident.

Secondly as Council have chosen BG as the community partner for the scheme it gets to the point were BG cannot be seen to fail in any way as that will put the Council judgement in question.

Personally I think the opposite is the case. If the Council got rid of BG the scheme would still go ahead. The theatre and housing would still be built. They don’t need BG other than for political purposes of the Coop Council idea.
 
Gramsci said:
Does wind me up that the BG muppets get so much time from the senior Cllrs like Cllr Hopkins. I do know that some of the Council officers are not so happy about BG. Or to be exact certain of the leading lights in BG.

Its where the Coop Council falls down. The Council ( or rather senior politicians) decide which group is to represent the community. And the Council officers and the rest of us have to just deal with it.
Click to expand...

TBF, we're most of us aware that "the co-operative council" is merely a convenient device for the likes of Hopkins, Edbrooke et al to hive off costs and responsibilities to (vaguely) "third sector" bodies. The council itself has proven again and again that the true meaning of co-operation - i.e. between Lambeth's residents and the council - doesn't figure in their vocabulary.
"Social enterprises" like Brixton Green allow councils to do execute their hiving-off agenda more smoothly, and invariably create a network through which mutual back-patting and promotion takes place, giving a semblance of proper functioning to what sometimes appear to be costly exercises in wasting the money of Council Tax and rent payers.
 
Gramsci said:
As I said its where the Coop Council falls down. BG are an independent entity.

At least if it was purely Council development one can ask Ward Cllrs what is happening. They are in the dark as much as the average local resident.

Secondly as Council have chosen BG as the community partner for the scheme it gets to the point were BG cannot be seen to fail in any way as that will put the Council judgement in question.

Personally I think the opposite is the case. If the Council got rid of BG the scheme would still go ahead. The theatre and housing would still be built. They don’t need BG other than for political purposes of the Coop Council idea.
Click to expand...

Well quite, and if a project goes tits-up, Jacko Hopko and the other smug red Tory gits can lay the blame on BG, rather than having to suffer humiliation themselves.
 
ViolentPanda said:
Well quite, and if a project goes tits-up, Jacko Hopko and the other smug red Tory gits can lay the blame on BG, rather than having to suffer humiliation themselves.
Click to expand...

I think its worse than what you say.

As you post in #446 a network is being created.

The network of senior Cllrs like Jacko and the leading lights of BG is already in place. BG fit in with the Lambeth Labour "Progress" party thinking. Not surprising that BG leading light is involved in Pop. Which Cllr Jacko see as a great experiment in how to combine entrepreneurial vision with social good.

The Number 6 debacle is an example is where its gone tits up. The result?- face saving solution was found. BG are safe to transform themselves into some kind of management body for the finished development.

Ovalhouse will run the theatre and hopefully Carlton Mansions workshop units. Though BG would like to get there hands on the Mansions still I think.

But the danger for the Council is that several years down the line they may need to step in to take over the finished project. Given BG record in managing Number 6.

The argument from BG that they will have no role in finished project is semantics. The leading lights definitely want big role in whatever management body is set up to manage the finished scheme.

To add - I keep thinking Corbyn is in charge of Labour party now. Can this Nu Labour Lambeth just go away please. Its tedious having to deal with it. No wonder a lot of people I know around Brixton, who are Labour, wanted Corbyn. These experiments in different ways of doing things like Somerleyton and Pop just do not mean anything to a lot of people I know.
 
Last edited:
Look at the fucking size of this.

Looking-south-down-Somerleyton-RoadWeb-720x445.jpg


The-street-gym-between-the-Extra-Care-building-and-the-Community-use-Residential-building_Web-720x445.jpg


Yeah, that's just what local residents wanted, alright.

Still, I bet that chef school and training restaurant will work out nicely for Phillipe.

Future Brixton
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
Cyclist killed in Brixton
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
T & P
T & P
blameless77
After work pint in Brixton?
Replies
12
Views
786
editor
editor
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Tulster218
T
editor
Where to watch England vs Spain Euro 2024 final in Brixton
Replies
6
Views
503
madolesance
M
story
Palestine support action in Brixton
Replies
23
Views
2K
8ball
8ball
Back
Top Bottom