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

[teuchter]

Brad - and Brixton Green - were talking about "addressing the issue" of the street frontage of the Barrier Block in April 2011.

Yes, that's exactly the passage of posts I linked to above when I was using the misinterpretation of their comments as an example of the seemingly aggressive response they recieved . Didn't you even bother look at what I'd linked to before replying to that post of mine?

And the whole point is that "addressing the issue of a street frontage" is not the same as suggesting that something is knocked down.

Oh, and it wasn't me bringing up the myth of the block being built the wrong way around.

Again, .

I didn't say you had "brought up the myth of the block being built the wrong way around".

This is why it's so infuriating to try and discuss anything with you. It seems like you don't really read what people have actually written. It may not be your intent to misrepresent but this is why many people feel that's what's happening.

 

[teuchter]

If this is the case then why have you ignored all attempts by me to contact you over the past month as part of the research for a Brixton Buzz story?

For the record, while I think it's understandable and reaonable that BG have decided not to debate on u75, there's not really an excuse for ignoring attempts to contact them by the means they offer on their website. If true, then it significantly limits my sympathy for them and the situation they've got into here.

 

[ViolentPanda]

This post is confusing what Lambeth Council decided to do on the site with BG.

In fact Council in other parts of London have been setting up schemes where they retain ownership. Lambeth Council came to it later than others. I know they were looking at what other Councils were doing.

Initially the Council were thinking of getting a developer as a partner. I do not remember BG opposing this at the time.

They didn't.

I therefore find the statement incorrect to say that the named individuals are damaging a community project.

No they are not. The project is a Council led project. BG were chosen by Council as one of the partners.

To criticise BG is not to undermine the whole project. It is to criticise one of the "partners". This is an important difference.

The project will go ahead with or without BG.

To say that taking a critical position to BG is undermining the possibility of new homes etc is ridiculous.

But it's a tactic way too frequently used by businesses (and, as we're well aware, local authorities) to silence criticism. It's cheap, it's inaccurate, and it is quite telling - it's what you use when you've got fuck-all in your armoury except gobshitery.

 

[editor]

This is why it's so infuriating to try and discuss anything with you. It seems like you don't really read what people have actually written. It may not be your intent to misrepresent but this is why many people feel that's what's happening.

It's clear that you're only interested in trying to score points and pursue your personal agenda here. This is disrupting the thread massively and serves no useful purpose. If you continue these personal attacks you will be banned.

 

[ViolentPanda]

This is a downright lie. No posts were deleted. None.

They/Brad are claiming this because you can't prove that you didn't delete any posts. It's a smear tactic.

 

[editor]

However on the 15th June, Maria Santos and approx 20 other people including Mike Slocombe, caused a disturbance in the building.

This untrue and defamatory. You are doing your organisation no credit by posting up such lies. Kindly apologise immediately.

 

[editor]

They/Brad are claiming this because you can't prove that you didn't delete any posts. It's a smear tactic.

It's obvious we didn't because it's totally against mod policy, there is no record of any mass deletions happening in the mods forum, and no posters one mentioned what would have been really unusual mod conduct at the time.

I'm getting a bit fed up with their lies, to be honest.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That's correct. No posts were mass-deleted, as claimed.

For the record, if any mod did try to unilaterally delete a load of posts for no good reason (or on a personal whim), the following would have happened:
(a) several other mods would have demanded to know why, as randomly deleting posts is against our own rules.
(b) loads of posters would have noticed and demanded to know what had happened.

There is no record of this happening because it didn't happen. Brixton Green are lying.

Or are too stupid to do a post search on the word "brad" in the Brixton forum.

And just in case there's any doubt: I want brad's posts to stay online because I think they're fairly damning of his organisation's attitude toward their engagement with the local community - and I want others to be able to read it too. It's of historical importance.

Agreed.
It may also be worth "replying" to each Brixton Green post on this thread in order to preserve them for posterity, should their author decide to edit out some of the more egregious bullshit.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's obvious we didn't because it's totally against mod policy, there is no record of any mass deletions happening in the mods forum, and no posters one mentioned what would have been really unusual mod conduct at the time.

I'm getting a bit fed up with their lies, to be honest.

Given how interested some Brixton forum posters (and Brixtonites,including members of Brixton Green) are in what Brixton Green are,and what they do, you'd have had several pages of being taken to task if anything had been deleted, and yet there was no such storm, and some of us were able to recall where Brad's comments could be found.

 

[leanderman]

Wow, what a torrent of words! Claims and counter-claims, none of which seems particularly significant.

Or even interesting, except the allegation that the Editor is demanding an apology for.

Still:

1) Brixton Green's comms skills are indeed poor. This might be a large part of the problem.

2) The saga shows up the problems with the 'cooperative' council concept.

3) The debate follows the usual narrative here of a project being put forward and then being savaged by the same few individuals.

4) Adding spice is that BG has parked its tanks on the lawn of a couple of those individuals, Editor and Gramsci

5) The moderating here is fine if you think it's OK for a match to be refereed by the captain of one of the teams.

6) For example, this comment, which may help explain Brad's reluctance to engage, was 'liked' by the moderator

'My 'shared vision' would be brad pinned to the nuclear dawn mural with a firework sticking out of his arse'

 

[editor]

6) For example, this comment, which may help explain Brad's reluctance to engage, was 'liked' by the moderator

'My 'shared vision' would be brad pinned to the nuclear dawn mural with a firework sticking out of his arse'

I imagine the context for that joke which you've cherry picked out of thousands of posts might be the years of supremely frustrating and truly exasperating answer-evading from Brad. Those threads really are worth revisiting because I see him being given every chance to explain what BG are up to.

I STILL don't know exactly what it is they do. It seems to change like the wind.

 

[leanderman]

I STILL don't know exactly what it is they do. It seems to change like the wind.

True

 

[Maria Santos]

Responding to specific rumours and allegation appearing in social media, online and on posters made by the Brixton Buzz, Boyd Hill and Maria Santos, we set out the facts:

1. The community have not been locked out of No.6:

1) There has been community activity at Number Six throughout this period when they've made accusations that the building was locked, including continued activity from Boyd Hill, a volunteer of Small World Urbanism and Maria Santos.

2) Brixton Green sent an email to the various members of Brixton Come Together to let them know that the building was still available for them to hire when the accusations were first made. Brixton Come Together had done some great work for the project and we wanted to ensure there continued to be a positive, supportive relationship.

3) Maria Santos's initial frustration when she got back from spending the winter out of the country was that she wanted to use office space in the building, instead of hiring space.

4) At the time, we spoke to Green Man Skills (the new management) and they were agreeable for Maria Santos to have an office.

However on the 15th June, Maria Santos and approx 20 other people including Mike Slocombe, caused a disturbance in the building. There was a community youth project at the building at the time. The young people had to be sent home for their own safety. Boyd Hill and Filip, one of the other volunteers of Small World Urbanism, have been aggressive to the Green Man Skills team making it impossible for them to keep their staff and attendees safe while working the building. All bookings have been postponed until this matter is resolved. Brixton Come Together and Small World Urbanism have now been informed they will not be permitted to hire the space following their recent behaviour.

We need to make sure this space is available for the whole community and ensure that it is not dominated by a small group who wish to exclude others. The cost of running the space needs to be shared fairly by all users.

View full statement here

Dear Brixton green, ALL we asked, all we want, is for our centre to be OPEN, to be properly managed. For it to be a community hub for somerleyton rd residents before ANYTHING else. For WE the volunteers to be treated with a bit more respect and dignity. Brixton green, we have built the space you wanted, in your own words "the space for the community". Your DUTY IS to manage it properly, embracing the old and the new. INSTEAD You have locked us out and barred us from even the most basic amenities: power, water and toilets. This is very simple to fix. OPEN the centre, MANAGE it properly and treat your volunteers with RESPECT. That should be more than enough to prove your point as being a community interest company. #YOUCANTLOCKOUTTHETRUT

 

[teuchter]

Dear Brixton green, ALL we asked, all we want, is for our centre to be OPEN, to be properly managed. For it to be a community hub for somerleyton rd residents before ANYTHING else. For WE the volunteers to be treated with a bit more respect and dignity. Brixton green, we have built the space you wanted, in your own words "the space for the community". Your DUTY IS to manage it properly, embracing the old and the new. INSTEAD You have locked us out and barred us from even the most basic amenities: power, water and toilets. This is very simple to fix. OPEN the centre, MANAGE it properly and treat your volunteers with RESPECT. That should be more than enough to prove your point as being a community interest company. #YOUCANTLOCKOUTTHETRUT

So I can try and understand this, which organisation do you represent?

Are you part of "Brixton Come Together" or "Small World Urbanism"?

 

[editor]

However on the 15th June, Maria Santos and approx 20 other people including Mike Slocombe, caused a disturbance in the building.

This is untrue and defamatory. You are lying, just you liked you lied about the comments being deleted. Withdraw the comment immediately.

 

[Gramsci]

3) The debate follows the usual narrative here of a project being put forward and then being savaged by the same few individuals.

4) Adding spice is that BG has parked its tanks on the lawn of a couple of those individuals, Editor and Gramsci

'

What "project" is being savaged? BG have no "project". The project is run and led by the Council. Its the Council who are funding it. Its the Council who are hiring Igloo. Ovalhouse are raising funds themselves to move to the site. What exactly is BG project? This is part of my problem with BG - they try to make out what is happening on Somerleyton is down to them. When they get a chance to show us all how it will work in practise ( at Number 6) its a mess. Hardly inspires confidence.

My stance on this Council project is critically supportive of aspects of it.

I also support Ovalhouse coming to Brixton. I also hope OHT will manage the workshop units in Carlton Mansions.

Given BG management of Number 6 I am even more sure I do not want BG to get there hands on Carlton Mansions. This is not a joke for me.

In my posts in reply to the BG press statement I have tried to put the some of the facts right in BG statement.

As for parking a tank on my lawn. I represented a group who lived on the site. Who over the years got on with Cllrs and some officers. Who were willing to take a constructive engagement with Council plans for the site.

Yet we were evicted.

Those who are in charge of BG cannot even manage one building without causing arguments. Yet the Council give them a lot support.

Sometimes I listen to business programmes on radio. A big thing now in management of organisations is "soft skills" and what is termed "emotional intelligence". BG lack soft skills imo. Quite staggering for an organisation that wants to be an overarching organisation for Brixton people. If I had dealt with people in my (ex) Coop like BG my Coop would have fallen apart ( this can happen).

How is it that Ovalhouse can deal with the local community and not BG?

So yes I am pissed off with this.

 

[Gramsci]

So I can try and understand this, which organisation do you represent?

Are you part of "Brixton Come Together" or "Small World Urbanism"?

Maria is "Brixton Come Together"

She is also active member of the Latin American community in Brixton.

 

[editor]

Useless fucking clueless amateurs. It takes about a minute to install a web form and this one has been fucked for ages.

Anyone would think that they don't want people to be able to reach them.

 

[equationgirl]

Useless fucking clueless amateurs. It takes about a minute to install a web form and this one has been fucked for ages.

Anyone would think that they don't want people to be able to reach them.

View attachment 73264

They certainly appear to be giving that impression.

 

[editor]

Comments from friends who went along today:

Somerleyton Road development proposal 125 rental properties, 100 at 'market rent' 7 'affordable' and 18 'social' and varying amounts of prettification. Lambeth needs more than a tiny number of social housing - Even if all 125 were social housing it wouldn't be nearly enough - its was all put on display/for 'consultation' today under the guise of 'street party'

And soooo loud nobody could discuss the issues with the architects

 

[Tricky Skills]

It was a very odd street party.

The party end of the street was a consultation. The other end had a community centre that was locked up with local volunteers protesting about how the project has failed them so badly.

I tried to take part in the consultation, but as mentioned above, conversation was impossible. Instead I stuck a few dots on a Council consultation board.

I did manage a brief chat with a Council officer. I asked why Brixton Green is no longer involved. She said that they are. It seems that the Council has a legal commitment to honour the lease that it gave out for No. 6. I was told that the decision to hand over the management to Green Man was taken by Brixton Green.

I tried to find out a little more about the mysterious Brixton Green but there was no official representation. This was most odd, seeing as the Brixton Green logo was plastered all over the street party posters.

I did however manage to have an informal chat with a Brixton Green member. He said that he was "absolutely baffled" by the statement that has been put out by Brixton Green above.

A number of houses on the road had some street signs showing their feelings towards Brixton Green. Photos of these are below.

BBuzz piece.

 

[Twattor]

Comments from friends who went along today:

Surely that can't be right. Only recently we've been reliably informed straight from the horse's mouth:

Shaped by Brixton People

This is a development shaped by Brixton people:

• The project will pay its own way, and over its lifetime, and will not be a cost to Lambeth taxpayers
• There will be no 'poor doors'. The social and market rent housing will be mixed throughout.
• There will be over 300 new homes all for rent and all owned by a new housing cooperative.
• At least 60 of the homes will be part of an extra care scheme for older people
• 40% of the homes will have genuine low cost rents, the kind of rents that the Council sets. 50% of all the homes will be Affordable Homes, as defined by the government.
• The homes will be built to meet, and if possible exceed, the London Housing Design standards, with an aim for 100% of the homes to have dual aspect.
• There is an ambition for a high level of environmental sustainability in the build and use of resources.
• The layout of facilities and access to services is being structured to make it easier for people to look after each other.
• The scheme includes real job opportunities for local people.

BG are so open and transparent that i can't imagine that they'd ever misrepresent anything.

Are your sources correct? Could they have been confused or over excited as a result of the street party?

 

[OvalhouseDB]

It was loud!
(no criticism of King Tubby - I enjoyed my afternoon listening).
Thanks to everyone who came and spoke with us on the Ovalhouse table - for the interest and comments on the theatre, we had some good feedback, and for the interest on our Youth festival starting 13th July.

It's possible that the sound levels made following details difficult - it was harder than ideal to have in-depth conversations - but the housing levels and rent levels are as previously stated; around 300 homes in total, 50% at 'affordable' rents- but within this at least 70% of those will be at council target rent levels, and allocated from the LBL housing list. There is still some to-ing and fro-ing about the exact numbers of 1, 2 and 3 or 4 bed flats, according to most acute need, policy etc.

No compromise on length of tenure, no right to buy, no segregation- tenants on all rent levels on the same blocks, same flats.

 

[leanderman]

The housing levels and rent levels are as previously stated; around 300 homes in total, 50% at 'affordable' rents- but within this at least 70% of those will be at council target rent levels, and allocated from the LBL housing list. There is still some to-ing and fro-ing about the exact numbers of 1, 2 and 3 or 4 bed flats, according to most acute need, policy etc.

No compromise on length of tenure, no right to buy, no segregation- tenants on all rent levels on the same blocks, same flats.

So, 50% completely unaffordable, 15% so-called affordable and 35% actually affordable?

 

[Winot]

Could be worse.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Could be worse.

It is worse.
"Council target rent levels" usually means that the tenure won't be a secure council tenancy as defined under the 1980 Housing Act, but a "secure lifetime tenancy" as defined under the 1985 Housing Act. They sound very similar,but the latter lacks some of the elements of the former, and makes basic tenure more conditional.

 

[Gramsci]

It was loud!
(no criticism of King Tubby - I enjoyed my afternoon listening).
Thanks to everyone who came and spoke with us on the Ovalhouse table - for the interest and comments on the theatre, we had some good feedback, and for the interest on our Youth festival starting 13th July.

It was good to see you.

To explain.

The site has been divided up between different architects. What used to by my end of site ( Carlton Mansions) has specialist architects designing the new build theatre and Zac Munro , a local architect, is doing the design work on the Mansions.

He had been trying to contact me before but after all the fight with Lambeth I had had enough of it. So had ex Coop members.

Finally relented and got in touch with Zac as he wanted to know more about the history of the Mansions.

Ended up having a long chat with him on Saturday and some of the other people who work in his practise. . He wants to incorporate some of the history of the Mansions into finished development. There is possibility some ex Coop members might be interested. As I met some today

He had some interesting ideas for Mansions so will try to follow this up. He is trying to keep a lot of the existing features.

Of course the Council have stuck there oar in are going on about the wooden staircases have to go. Fire risk. Yawn,The stairs have been there for over a hundred years with no problem. Like a lot of old buildings in London. Get the feeling some officers wouldn’t be sorry if the building was demolished and just the facade kept.

Zac initial design ideas look good to me.

The idea is a new build theatre with the Mansions next to it converted into workshops managed by Oval House.

 

[Gramsci]

The noticeable absence of Brixton Green on Saturday was rather pleasant. Normally they around trying to push the BG shares and generally being irritating.

 

[madolesance]

I got a feeling from the 'funded' by Lambeth 'Street Party' that 'Brixton Green' have been moved aside and a new group of consultants have been put in place.

 

[editor]

I got a feeling from the 'funded' by Lambeth 'Street Party' that 'Brixton Green' have been moved aside and a new group of consultants have been put in place.

The whole thing is a farce.