Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Carlton Mansions co-op, Coldharbour Lane, Brixton - history and news

Vibrant-Hubb said:
These are people at Carlton Mansions, not figures on a spreadsheet. People with feelings and frailties. .
Click to expand...

Interesting you say this as part of defence will be Article 8 of Human Rights Acts.

HRA has been criticized but it means that ordinary people have some defence from public bodies like Councils who have a lot of power invested in them.

Council have ( or should) show that the decisions that they make which affect peoples lives are proportionate. They should assess there decisions if new information becomes available.

I am no expert in law but its interesting.
 
Best wishes to Gramsci and Carton Mansions Co-op members & residents at the hearing today and tomorrow.
 
Decent piece in Private Eye's Rotten Boroughs this week on Carlton Mansions:

"More trouble for Lambeth's misleadingly named "short-life" housing co-operatives that sprung up to maintain the borough's older housing that was too crummy to be let in the normal way in the 70s and 80s but are now seen ripe for redevelopment...

Residents requested mediation with the council and a costed schedule of works to improve safety further, even though they had already agreed to leave in 2015 (but had expected to be rehoused) when the building becomes part of the much bigger "Brixton Master Plan" that has trumpeted its involvement of local residents...

The cost of securing the building is likely to run into tens of thousands (nearby music venue Bradys, also closed down by the council, cost Lambeth around £70,000 a year to secure) and eviction proceedings will likely to be hefty."
 
Tricky Skills said:
Decent piece in Private Eye's Rotten Boroughs this week on Carlton Mansions:

"More trouble for Lambeth's misleadingly named "short-life" housing co-operatives that sprung up to maintain the borough's older housing that was too crummy to be let in the normal way in the 70s and 80s but are now seen ripe for redevelopment...

Residents requested mediation with the council and a costed schedule of works to improve safety further, even though they had already agreed to leave in 2015 (but had expected to be rehoused) when the building becomes part of the much bigger "Brixton Master Plan" that has trumpeted its involvement of local residents...

The cost of securing the building is likely to run into tens of thousands (nearby music venue Bradys, also closed down by the council, cost Lambeth around £70,000 a year to secure) and eviction proceedings will likely to be hefty."
Click to expand...

Heard today from the journalist who wrote this that its in today. Will get a copy tomorrow. Its not on Private Eyes website. (paywall I think. They need people to buy copies to keep going).

As its Private Eye the journalists name is not on it I guess. Good journalist.
 
Last edited:
In court all day today. At one point this morning it looked like the case might be adjourned. But that did not happen.

The Council side refused to accept the offer the Coop put forward of paying the estimated works of £16 800 plus vat.

They are still seeking possession. The injunction has been dropped.

An adjournment was asked for by defence. But Judge decided to go ahead. Two days has been set side for the trial.

Not sure how much I can say at the moment as back in court tomorrow.

Its hard to tell what will happen. The is not jury trial. It depends on the judge.

To there credit two of my Ward Cllrs turned up in afternoon.
 
So far no Coop members have been in the witness box. A relief.

Need to read up on my witness statements tonight.
 
Brixton Hatter said:
Good to hear the injunction has been dropped.
Click to expand...

Its no longer "intolerable" risk. The recent FRA by Council said risk was "Substantial" not "Intolerable". The recent one was done by Council Fire Risk Assessor who Coop let in.

Substantial means works need to be done but if occupied then building does not need immediate evacuation. This appears to be accepted by Council side in principle.

Possession is still being sought partly on basis that this building is part of Somerleyton road development in 18- 24 months. So vacant possession is needed.

Defence offered in court that Coop will agree to leave when Mansions is needed for the new development of Somerleyton road.

So Coop has offered to pay the estimate for works and make an agreement to leave when Mansions is needed for the redevelopment building works.
 
Last edited:
Gramsci said:
Possession is still being sought partly on basis that this building is part of Somerleyton road development in 18- 24 months. So vacant possession is needed.
Click to expand...
Is that a rule that applies to every situation like this or just Carlton Mansions ? I know gramsci might be preoccupied with other things, maybe someone else knows.
 
Last edited:
cuppa tee said:
Is that a rule that applies to every situation like this or just Carlton Mansions ?
Click to expand...

The Council are saying this is not unusual.

The issue is that in court defence barrister said an agreement can be make to ensure vacant possession when building works need to go ahead.

So its not really an issue anymore imo.
 
Rollercoaster ride in court today. Did not go to well in morning.

In afternoon sitting a long discussion between the two Barristers and the Judge.

The Judge decided to adjourn the case and issue new directions.

Not sure how much I can say here on the details yet. Will need to check.

It was about the expert witness for the court.

It was a good result for us.

The barrister and solicitor for defence did a really good job today up against Devonshires.

Do not know yet the date for next court appearance. Two days will be set aside.
 
Glad to hear you got a good result Gramsci......

Gramsci said:
Thanks:)
Council did not come out of this well today.
Click to expand...

I know the co-op members are the ones feeling most pressure but the council seem to be acting in a cavalier fashion with funds considering it is a time of belt-tightening and cutbacks ......Chucking money the way of expensive lawyers to pursue a case against a group who have promised vacant possession when required and no doubt having to pay contractors to secure the building while it sits empty for months Or years before the building even starts doesn't seem like a good deal for those on the receiving end of cuts or the people paying council tax out of shrinking incomes.
 
Last edited:
cuppa tee said:
Glad to hear you got a good result Gramsci......



I know the co-op members are the ones feeling most pressure but the council seem to be acting in a cavalier fashion with funds considering it is a time of belt-tightening and cutbacks ......Chucking money the way of expensive lawyers to pursue a case against a group who have promised vacant possession when required and no doubt having to pay contractors to secure the building while it sits empty for months before the building even starts doesn't seem like a good deal for those on the receiving end of cuts or the people paying council tax out of shrinking incomes.
Click to expand...


It's bonkers.

Until the redevelopment in 2015, it's much better to collect rent from the tenants than kick them out and pay a fortune to secure an empty property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
Gunshots fired in Coldharbour Lane, Weds 7th Aug 2024
Replies
21
Views
1K
editor
editor
editor
Cyclist killed in Brixton
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
T & P
T & P
blameless77
After work pint in Brixton?
Replies
12
Views
743
editor
editor
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Tulster218
T
editor
It's a grim Christmas around Brixton: no lights, no tree and no funfair
Replies
1
Views
730
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
Back
Top Bottom