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

[leanderman]

If you are to be totally even handed then you should not take as you say" their claim" as the facts either.

I don't

In which case you should regard both sides as vociferous critics of each other and therefore not reliable sources on factual information.

I do

Which logically leads to you should not be making any assertions either way with the lack of "incomplete narrative".

I am asserting only that the narrative is incomplete.

To be realistic historians and journalist have to make judgements based on the incomplete evidence they have.

Yep. And they are very wary of their sources!

Brixton Green have been going around talking to individuals and groups about "their planning application". This is totally factually incorrect. And the bringing a theatre to Brixton. Also factually incorrect.

Fair enough

 

[teuchter]

Some actually come through with real support though, including the person you don't have the guts to confront openly.

You may not be aware, or may have forgotten, that a number of posters have been banned, by that person, from confronting them openly. Assuming we are talking about the same person, who I'm not allowed to mention.

 

[alcopop]

You may not be aware, or may have forgotten, that a number of posters have been banned, by that person, from confronting them openly. Assuming we are talking about the same person, who I'm not allowed to mention.

"You-Know-Who", "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" or "the Dark Lord".

 

[editor]

"You-Know-Who", "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" or "the Dark Lord".

No one has even been banned for expressing an opinion I don't like, but when it's endless, thread trashing, off-topic nasty personal abuse purely designed to hurt and belittle, well they can get the fuck out, just like the rules state.

Mind you, it's always amusing when some individuals trot out the line that the beastly, despotic editor simply bans anyone he doesn't like: they seem oblivious to the fact that they're still happily posting away.

But this thread is about Brixton Green. Not me. Let's keep it that way.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You may not be aware, or may have forgotten, that a number of posters have been banned, by that person, from confronting them openly. Assuming we are talking about the same person, who I'm not allowed to mention.

And yet you still find a way to slide your snidey little jabs in, don't you?

 

[Brainaddict]

So what's the latest on proposed rent levels for this development? I'm interested cos Lewisham is doing a very similar project (Besson St) which will be all private rented, but 65% at market rent initially (rises capped at inflation) and 35% at a 'living rent' level devised by Lewisham. Given the assault on social housing I don't mind them doing a private rental scheme, but given they own the land, 65% at market rent strikes me as very high. I'm also interested to know of other similar projects and the mix of rent levels and tenures councils are offering.

cheers

 

[teuchter]

And yet you still find a way to slide your snidey little jabs in, don't you?

Statement of fact, unlike your post that I was replying to, which was definitely a snidey jab. Merry Christmas.

 

[Gramsci]

So what's the latest on proposed rent levels for this development? I'm interested cos Lewisham is doing a very similar project (Besson St) which will be all private rented, but 65% at market rent initially (rises capped at inflation) and 35% at a 'living rent' level devised by Lewisham. Given the assault on social housing I don't mind them doing a private rental scheme, but given they own the land, 65% at market rent strikes me as very high. I'm also interested to know of other similar projects and the mix of rent levels and tenures councils are offering.

cheers

Good question. And as far as I can see no real detail on this. The idea , according to the Future Brixton page is:

The development will be owned and managed by local people, businesses and the wider community. The new homes will all be for rent and managed through a new housing cooperative to make sure tenancies and rents are fair. Half of the new homes will be available at affordable rents and 121 of these will be at council rent levels.

And more here:

Homes at a fair rent for local people
We’re proposing to build a genuinely mixed and diverse community with more than 300 new homes available to rent. This means homes will be a mixture of sizes from one bedroom flats, extra care units providing affordable homes for older people, to larger family sized homes. It also means a mixture of rents that goes beyond the council’s policy for affordable homes. We’ll build at least 121 homes at social (or council) rent levels and around 31 homes at below market rent for families in low pay, as well as secure market rent tenancies for those unable to buy.

The letting policy for the new homes is still to be agreed, although a number of the extra care homes are earmarked for residents moving out of Fitch Court and the people moving into the social rent homes will be taken from the 21,000 on the council housing waiting list.

So out of the 300 units ( including the extra care units for ex Fitch Court residents- which imo are not "new homes" but replacement for loss of Fitch court homes) 121 will be a "social" or "Council" rent levels. Thats a bit vague for me.

The second quote says 31 will be at below market rent. I assume this is under the "affordable" rent levels. Which in other areas Council set at 65% of market rent.

From this I guess that the rent levels, tenancies have still to be finalised. Which means they are still working on the financial model for the whole scheme. This scheme will be separate financially from the rest of the Council owned housing. That is it will not be part of the HRA.

The money will be borrowed over a long period of time. Income ( from rents) will pay for loan. So I guess the rent levels still will not be finalised until later on. As we all know that could lead to slippage as if cost of project rises final rents may be higher.

Another point is that the idea of a Coop for the housing was to do with getting around RTB. As RTB will upset/ scupper the financial model. Now the Government is pushing ahead for giving RTB to housing associations ( this includes permanent Coops) not sure how this may affect the scheme.

In summary about whilst half the homes will be at "affordable" or similar to Council levels the other half will be at full market rent.



Is this similar to scheme in Lewisham?

 

[Brainaddict]

Thanks Gramci. This looks better than the Besson St scheme in Lewisham tbh. Of the measly 35% at sub-market rent at Besson St, none of them will be set at target/social rent level. They've said they'll be offering them to people who have incomes too high to get a place on the housing list but who can't afford market rent.

The Besson St scheme is also planned to be a partnership with a private company. So however bad Brixton Green might look to you all as a partner, we are going to get a rapacious profit-making company who can provide 'expertise' in PRS schemes. Also, the council have admitted that not only will this private company make a profit from it, but Lewisham will also make a profit from the scheme. This will go to fund local services, as they put it. But it strikes me as odd priorities given the housing crisis - using council land to make profit from renters, even if it is money going to other council services.

The whole scheme seems a bit* off to me, but little local opposition so far.

*Well, more than a bit actually.

 

[Brainaddict]

Oh, and also, the scheme will not be a co-op or a CLT or anything. It will just be Lewisham+Private partner as landlords.

 

[Gramsci]

Oh, and also, the scheme will not be a co-op or a CLT or anything. It will just be Lewisham+Private partner as landlords.

As yet the has been little consultation on how the finished site will be managed. Its been discussed in the Steering Group for the project. But the minutes are brief so no detail.

Its really something that needs wider consultation and/ or more detail of what the internal Council led discussion on it is proposing. Its important as if the Council is serious on local community say in management of the finished project then this needs a lot more consultation and discussion with wider community.

The second issue is how much cost the proposed overall management body of the site will add to the rents.

In Lambeth the way it works is this - Lambeth sets Council rent for a Council flat/ house - then service charges are extra on top. So actual rents can vary. An old street property may have no service charges for example.

The danger is a high service charge will make the flats less affordable to some.

 

[Gramsci]

Thanks Gramci. This looks better than the Besson St scheme in Lewisham tbh.

Had to edit my post as the two quotes I used agree with each about level of affordable housing. So its half. With 121 at rents similar to Council and about 30 at less than market rent but higher than Council rent. The other half being at market rent.

My other question for Coop housing option is that looks like people will be on different rents and tenancies. So not clear how that will work in a Cooperative.

 

[Brainaddict]

My other question for Coop housing option is that looks like people will be on different rents and tenancies. So not clear how that will work in a Cooperative.

You can have different tenancy types in a co-op can't you? Are you saying it would be difficult to force a co-op to stick to the rent levels the council has mandated? Presumably the co-op would be renting from the council and that rental contract could specify tenancy types and min/max rent levels? The co-op would then lose a fair amount of autonomy I suppose, but at least they could run their own management affairs.

Does anyone know of other council private rental schemes in London? I'm eager to compare our local proposal to others. I feel it's a pretty poor deal for local people (it will be a gentrifying scheme in essence) but most people I've talked to have been fairly accepting of it. Would be useful to know if other councils are offering a better deal.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You can have different tenancy types in a co-op can't you? Are you saying it would be difficult to force a co-op to stick to the rent levels the council has mandated? Presumably the co-op would be renting from the council and that rental contract could specify tenancy types and min/max rent levels? The co-op would then lose a fair amount of autonomy I suppose, but at least they could run their own management affairs.

Does anyone know of other council private rental schemes in London? I'm eager to compare our local proposal to others. I feel it's a pretty poor deal for local people (it will be a gentrifying scheme in essence) but most people I've talked to have been fairly accepting of it. Would be useful to know if other councils are offering a better deal.

I've been trying to read up on housing co-ops lately, so the following is my understanding of what I've read (blogs by housing co-ops, legislation, other officialese guff).
Co-ops can rent property from any supplier, private or public. They can also, if they have the assets and/or security, buy property for rental, although this tends to take the form of "taking into ownership" properties that they already administrate.
Co-ops can specify tenancy types, but only within a very limited band - basically "Lifetime Assured Tenancies" and limited tenancies (ASTs etc).
It's not really in the interest of a co-op (as opposed to, for example, a housing association) to set too high a rent, as "profit" beyond maintenance costs has to somehow be folded back into the existing housing stock.

IIRC Enfield have a council private rental scheme going, but as a result of taking over a street of properties from an RSL, rather than through deliberate development of private rental housing. A lot of LAs have plans in train though, although most are waiting to see how the latest housing bill turns out before committing themselves.

 

[Brainaddict]

Thanks. Okay, I'd forgotten co-ops could be limited in the type of tenancies they can offer. Perhaps a CLT would be more appropriate for these types of schemes. The problem from the council point of view is that any increase in local democracy means they have less control....

It might be worth starting a thread on council PRS schemes at some point. We're waiting on Lewisham to release more on the finances of Besson St - might be enough to prompt me to start the thread.

 

[Gramsci]

You can have different tenancy types in a co-op can't you?

You can but its not in spirit of cooperation imo. Views may differ now.

A tenant management Coop I know has the Housing Association, who own the estate, trying to make then use the new "affordable" and limited time tenancies on new lets. They are opposing this on basis it will create two tier Coop members. One with secure tenancies on social rent and those on the new time limited tenancies at "affordable" rent.

The view of there Coop is each member should be equal. Which I agree with.

Unfortunately the people devising the scheme for Somerleyton do not have actual experience of Coops. They might be experts on the legal and technical side of it but not the practical nature of it.

 

[Gramsci]

I've been trying to read up on housing co-ops lately, so the following is my understanding of what I've read (blogs by housing co-ops, legislation, other officialese guff).

My old one was Fully Mutual. Which worked quite well. Basically a member was a tenant - both went together. The rules were fairly straightforward.

I was never that great on details. In then end its not the details its the ethos.

The thing about Coop housing is that either it works or its like a bunch of ferrets in a sack.

It takes time to build up a Coop as a working entity. Along the way people fall out, things go wrong and its always difficult to get active membership. If you are lucky one third will take posts and do the work ( rather than say they will do it), one third will support those who do the actual work and turn up to meetings and the last third are a mixture of people with various "issues" about life . Which they take out on Coop officers sometimes and other Coop members.

Its worth talking to these people CDS

They may be of help if you are thinking of Coop.

They provide a mixture of service. Such as helping with management. But they are in Lambeth and I would recommend trying to talk to them directly about advice on setting up a Coop and training etc. They have a lot of experience.

 

[ViolentPanda]

My old one was Fully Mutual. Which worked quite well. Basically a member was a tenant - both went together. The rules were fairly straightforward.

I was never that great on details. In then end its not the details its the ethos.

The thing about Coop housing is that either it works or its like a bunch of ferrets in a sack.

It takes time to build up a Coop as a working entity. Along the way people fall out, things go wrong and its always difficult to get active membership. If you are lucky one third will take posts and do the work ( rather than say they will do it), one third will support those who do the actual work and turn up to meetings and the last third are a mixture of people with various "issues" about life . Which they take out on Coop officers sometimes.

Its worth talking to these people CDS

They may be of help if you are thinking of Coop.

The provide a mixture of service. Such as helping with management. But they are in Lambeth and I would recommend trying to talk to them directly about advice on setting up a Coop and training etc. They have a lot of experience.

Thanks for the link. As you may have guessed, we're considering a co-operative model if we exercise Right to Manage, so every new source of information gives us a firmer basis for any choice.

 

[Gramsci]

You can have different tenancy types in a co-op can't you? Are you saying it would be difficult to force a co-op to stick to the rent levels the council has mandated? Presumably the co-op would be renting from the council and that rental contract could specify tenancy types and min/max rent levels? The co-op would then lose a fair amount of autonomy I suppose, but at least they could run their own management affairs.

These are all good questions about how the new management body that the Council / Brixton Green are developing will work in practise.

As this is being done with minimal consultation its hard to guess what they are working towards.

I have heard on the grapevine from someone lucky enough to be consulted that the overall management body for Somerleyton road will somehow sublease to a Housing Coop to run the housing side of things. So the Coop will be at two removes from Council.

The issue of sticking to rent levels and the proportions of social/ affordable housing and how the Council will ensure the new management bodies it has will keep to the them is interesting question. If something goes wrong with finances then will rents go up?

Also it appears from the limited info available that the new management body for Somerleyton road will get a lease on the site of 250 years. Which is a lot. How will this affect the democratic control through Cllrs of the site? Why is it necessary to lease it? Why cannot the management body be just that with the Council just making a management agreement with the new body. Better for democratic control I would argue.

 

[Gramsci]

Thanks for the link. As you may have guessed, we're considering a co-operative model if we exercise Right to Manage, so every new source of information gives us a firmer basis for any choice.

I did guess that. St Georges Residences in Railton road is a tenant management Coop. An early one. Was Short/Life coop ( a bit of a mad one). Got money post one of the riots to rehab plus new housing on next door.

Some ex Carlton Mansions HC went there over the years.

It might be worth a chat with them. It works up there as has a high percentage of ex short life Coopers.

 

[Gramsci]

Thanks. Okay, I'd forgotten co-ops could be limited in the type of tenancies they can offer. Perhaps a CLT would be more appropriate for these types of schemes. The problem from the council point of view is that any increase in local democracy means they have less control....

The reason for a Coop for the housing was to stop RTB. If the Council had built Council Housing RTB would take effect. However the Government is attempting to push through parliament RTB to be extended to housing association tenants. Which would be a disaster imo for social housing. This would include permanent Coops.

IMO starting a Coop for a reason like that is not a good one. Coop is not an easy option. To do one on Somerleyton is going to require a lot of officer time and resources to support the setting up of it. As well as ongoing support in early stage until it can float without support. Its not a cheap option by any means.

Look at "Cooperative" Parks. Even officers now say this took up a lot more officer time to set up a few. And the problem is as they are voluntary the Council can spend a lot of resources to set one up and then people stop doing it. As understandably they cannot work for free for ever.

I do not think the Council realise this is big project to set up an independent management body plus a Housing Coop from scratch. They appear to be relying on Brixton Green to do this. As we all know opinions on BG are mixed to say the least. BG do not have the resources to do it. Apart from the social skills required.BG have one person capable of devising models for Coop and management. But model building with limited consultation and making a model a reality is a different thing altogether.

( That is if as BG website says this is all going to cooperatively and democratically run. With the wider community involved in all the great benefits this scheme will bring. And not just a management board elected once a year by a relatively passive membership. With "directors" of some management body being paid to do day to day management. Whilst the elected board has a role to oversee. ie something a bit like a social enterprise rather than a Coop)

So do not know if the model are betters are devising for Somerleyton road will undergo changes to try to attempt a way around this possible new RTB for HAs.

The schemes finances depend on a rental stream over X years to pay back the loan the Council borrow. As I understand RTB would put a coach and horses through any financial model. Making the scheme potentially unworkable.

CLT is what at one point BG were going on about. Always a non starter as the Council would have to sell the land to Brixton Green. BG had no way to raise it. Lambeth could not give the land away. Councils cannot just give public land away. Not how it works.

A CLT would put the site out of any wider democratic control. Whilst I support Coops the thought of being under BG was a nightmare scenario.

Lambeths idea for Somerleyton was/ is a good one. Councils like Governments can borrow money much more cheaply than smaller concerns like CLT or even private developers. They pay back over longer periods. And are considered a good risk by financial markets.

CLTs idea came from USA where there is little concept of such socialist idea as Council Housing as it developed here post war. They also depend on getting land cheap. The issue imo is to get rid of RTB and make sure the Labour party defend Council housing.

 

[Brainaddict]

Yeah, I think setting up a co-op just to avoid RTB (which might not work anyway) is a silly reason to do it, and will result in it not being a proper co-op. Lewisham are perhaps being a bit brighter in acheiving that end, by ensuring there is technically no social housing in their rental development*. This doesn't mean the rent can't be cheap - though as I've said, in the case of Besson St it's not going to be as cheap as I think it should be.

CLT's aren't such a bad idea are they? They are meant to be democratic, much like a co-op but with a wider community membership, so in theory it would not be controlled by BG. Whether they could gerrymander the democratic process to have effective control I don't know.


*I just don't think there will be a return to the previous concept of social housing, unless Corbyn wins a general election, which seems unlikely right now. So I'm okay with councils offering other tenure types that aren't subject to central government meddling. It could be more durable than new council housing built right now...

 

[Tricky Skills]

This is pretty hilarious - a series of emails have emerged showing how Brad contacted some of the leading Cllr's and Council Officers over the summer, continuing with his smears.

Writing to Cllr Jack Hopkins and Neil Vokes, the Director of Strategic Capital Programmes at Lambeth, Brad shows the lengths that he is prepared to take to smear those that ask questions about the mysterious Brixton Green.

editor and I apparently have a track record of "well organised anarchist activity."

I can't speak for Ed, but I am a Labour party member

Plus how is anarchist activity ever "well organised"?

Brad then asks a senior Cabinet member to "undermine" us and "show them for who they are."

We've been asking questions about Brixton Green, an organisation that itself is far from transparent.

Best of all is the misunderstanding (that's being polite) over the Save Cressingham fundraiser back in July. Brad reckons that it was a fundraiser for urban, and no doubt our "anarchist" activity.

Knob.

 

[editor]

They're a bunch of cowardly liars and clearly not to be trusted. They still haven't apologised for posting up that defamatory bullshit about me, claiming I was disrupting a class of schoolkids when I wasn't anywhere near the building. There's even video footage available to prove that and they know it, the spineless shitehawks.

And yes, I'm still angry about this.

 

[CH1]

This is pretty hilarious - a series of emails have emerged showing how Brad contacted some of the leading Cllr's and Council Officers over the summer, continuing with his smears.

Writing to Cllr Jack Hopkins and Neil Vokes, the Director of Strategic Capital Programmes at Lambeth, Brad shows the lengths that he is prepared to take to smear those that ask questions about the mysterious Brixton Green.

editor and I apparently have a track record of "well organised anarchist activity."

I can't speak for Ed, but I am a Labour party member

Plus how is anarchist activity ever "well organised"?

Brad then asks a senior Cabinet member to "undermine" us and "show them for who they are."

We've been asking questions about Brixton Green, an organisation that itself is far from transparent.

Best of all is the misunderstanding (that's being polite) over the Save Cressingham fundraiser back in July. Brad reckons that it was a fundraiser for urban, and no doubt our "anarchist" activity.

Knob.

Bang goes my credibility!

 

[teuchter]

Plus how is anarchist activity ever "well organised"?

Are you making the common mistake of confusing anarchism with anarchy?

 

[Gramsci]

This is pretty hilarious - a series of emails have emerged showing how Brad contacted some of the leading Cllr's and Council Officers over the summer, continuing with his smears.

Writing to Cllr Jack Hopkins and Neil Vokes, the Director of Strategic Capital Programmes at Lambeth, Brad shows the lengths that he is prepared to take to smear those that ask questions about the mysterious Brixton Green.

Neil is one of Lambeths better officers. He was in charge of the Somerleyton road project before being promoted.

I always found him good to deal with. He listened and took account of what the Carlton Mansions HC members said and went out of his way to consult the Coop about the Somerleyton road project. He had no involvement in the eviction.

Feel for him that he has to deal with Brad.

 

[Gramsci]

And saying that Ovalhouse was being attacked is bollox.

Ovalhouse have been a lot better at dealing with the local community than Brixton Green.

 

[CH1]

This is pretty hilarious - a series of emails have emerged showing how Brad contacted some of the leading Cllr's and Council Officers over the summer, continuing with his smears.

Writing to Cllr Jack Hopkins and Neil Vokes, the Director of Strategic Capital Programmes at Lambeth, Brad shows the lengths that he is prepared to take to smear those that ask questions about the mysterious Brixton Green.

editor and I apparently have a track record of "well organised anarchist activity."

I can't speak for Ed, but I am a Labour party member

Plus how is anarchist activity ever "well organised"?

Brad then asks a senior Cabinet member to "undermine" us and "show them for who they are."

We've been asking questions about Brixton Green, an organisation that itself is far from transparent.

Best of all is the misunderstanding (that's being polite) over the Save Cressingham fundraiser back in July. Brad reckons that it was a fundraiser for urban, and no doubt our "anarchist" activity.

Knob.

Stuart is the new officer in charge of the Somerleyton Project then?

Brad seems to be doing a "Sir" Lynton Crosby.

 

[leanderman]

Michael Groce of Green Man Skills Zone pleased guilty this morning with the charge of using threatening abusive behaviour with intent to provoke unlawful violence outside No 6, whilst he was managing the space "on behalf" of Brixton Green.

He will be sentenced in the New Year.

Groce received his sentence on December 22: Fine of £130.