Carlton Mansions co-op, Coldharbour Lane, Brixton - history and news
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Tricky Skills
Well-Known Member
A similar H & S line that was used for Carlton Mansions is now being used over in Clapham Old Town. Form the bottom of this Lambeth Council press release:
"In a separate incident, Lambeth council has warned of the potentially fatal dangers of stealing electricity after taking possession of a number of ‘short life’ properties in the Clapham area where power had been supplied illegally. An electrician contracted by the council to make the properties safe said unsecured cables and unsafe connections made it the most dangerous site he’d seen in 35 years and it was a miracle that no one had been electrocuted."
"In a separate incident, Lambeth council has warned of the potentially fatal dangers of stealing electricity after taking possession of a number of ‘short life’ properties in the Clapham area where power had been supplied illegally. An electrician contracted by the council to make the properties safe said unsecured cables and unsafe connections made it the most dangerous site he’d seen in 35 years and it was a miracle that no one had been electrocuted."
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Do need to point out that CM electricity supply was legally supplied.
Last edited:
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
To be fair, they may have been right about the dangers of electrocution: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-TREE-poking-one-rooms-route-electricity.html
editor
hiraethified
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Neither filthy, nor spotless. Could use a loo seat though.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
I don’t think this was all that uncommon. When I lived in Tunstall Road in the 90s I understood that a nearby resident was letting out two houses adjacent to them. Recently I discovered they were all shortlife when the residents were evicted and Lambeth sold the buildings. They were in a miserable state.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Indeed. That was exactly my take home from the article too.That's really not a "filthy toilet" is it? Looks pretty spotless to me.
Last edited:
Tricky Skills
Well-Known Member
Here's the full press release pimped out by Lambeth Council. It's clear that a campaign is in place against the co-operative housing:
********
Up to eight people were housed in “appalling” conditions in a former ‘shortlife’ property that had been illegally converted into flats, Lambeth Council has discovered.
Council officers who took back possession of the property, in Rectory Gardens, Clapham, found that it had been transformed from a three-bedroomed home to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO), with eight rooms – pulling in an estimated £40,000 a year in rent.
A large branch from a nearby tree was growing into one of the rooms – and the occupants were using electricity from a cable passed through a hole drilled in the branch. (see attached pictures)
The house did not have clear and suitable emergency exits. All eight occupants had to share a single bath and toilet.
Council experts estimate that, at a market rate of £100 a week per room, the “landlord” could have made £40,000 a year from the property, which actually belongs to Lambeth Council.
The terraced house was a “shortlife” property, one of 1,200 licensed to housing associations and cooperatives on a short-term basis in the 1970s, on the clear understanding that they would be returned to the Council.
The discovery comes a week after Lambeth Council warned of the potentially fatal dangers of stealing electricity after taking possession of another shortlife property in the Clapham area, from which power had been supplied illegally to a number of houses.
An electrician contracted by the council to make the property safe said unsecured cables and unsafe connections made it the most dangerous site he’d seen in 35 years and it was a miracle that no one had been electrocuted.
Cllr Matthew Bennett, Cabinet member for Housing said: “The conditions the people in this illegal HMO were living in were truly appalling, and represented a genuine danger to life and limb.
“It is shocking that someone can make money exploiting people by illegally renting out such dangerous accommodation with no regard for the safety of the people living there.
“We have 21,000 people on our housing waiting list, 1,800 families in temporary accommodation, and 1,300 families who are severely overcrowded.
“With this housing need, it would be irresponsible to spend our money refurbishing shortlife properties which are in a very poor state of disrepair – particularly when they are being misused for these exploitative and illegal purposes.”
********
Up to eight people were housed in “appalling” conditions in a former ‘shortlife’ property that had been illegally converted into flats, Lambeth Council has discovered.
Council officers who took back possession of the property, in Rectory Gardens, Clapham, found that it had been transformed from a three-bedroomed home to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO), with eight rooms – pulling in an estimated £40,000 a year in rent.
A large branch from a nearby tree was growing into one of the rooms – and the occupants were using electricity from a cable passed through a hole drilled in the branch. (see attached pictures)
The house did not have clear and suitable emergency exits. All eight occupants had to share a single bath and toilet.
Council experts estimate that, at a market rate of £100 a week per room, the “landlord” could have made £40,000 a year from the property, which actually belongs to Lambeth Council.
The terraced house was a “shortlife” property, one of 1,200 licensed to housing associations and cooperatives on a short-term basis in the 1970s, on the clear understanding that they would be returned to the Council.
The discovery comes a week after Lambeth Council warned of the potentially fatal dangers of stealing electricity after taking possession of another shortlife property in the Clapham area, from which power had been supplied illegally to a number of houses.
An electrician contracted by the council to make the property safe said unsecured cables and unsafe connections made it the most dangerous site he’d seen in 35 years and it was a miracle that no one had been electrocuted.
Cllr Matthew Bennett, Cabinet member for Housing said: “The conditions the people in this illegal HMO were living in were truly appalling, and represented a genuine danger to life and limb.
“It is shocking that someone can make money exploiting people by illegally renting out such dangerous accommodation with no regard for the safety of the people living there.
“We have 21,000 people on our housing waiting list, 1,800 families in temporary accommodation, and 1,300 families who are severely overcrowded.
“With this housing need, it would be irresponsible to spend our money refurbishing shortlife properties which are in a very poor state of disrepair – particularly when they are being misused for these exploitative and illegal purposes.”
el-ahrairah
forward communism, forward gerbils!
That's really not a "filthy toilet" is it? Looks pretty spotless to me.
no worse than Nu-urban towers was i reckon.
boohoo
No.
I like the way the mail article says the property slipped through Lambeth's hands - like Lambeth can't catch. And that the properties fell into wrong hands -letting the council off any responsibility for these properties in the first place.
These photos are of places abandoned so no-one tends to leave and give it a good spring clean and takes with them the items that they won't be able to fit in their new home. Things start rotting and get covered with dust.
It's a bit like posting this pic below and saying "baby change facilities at West Park hospital were filthy"
These photos are of places abandoned so no-one tends to leave and give it a good spring clean and takes with them the items that they won't be able to fit in their new home. Things start rotting and get covered with dust.
It's a bit like posting this pic below and saying "baby change facilities at West Park hospital were filthy"
Rushy
basically a scrotum
The tree could have grown really quickly too.I like the way the mail article says the property slipped through Lambeth's hands - like Lambeth can't catch. And that the properties fell into wrong hands -letting the council off any responsibility for these properties in the first place.
These photos are of places abandoned so no-one tends to leave and give it a good spring clean and takes with them the items that they won't be able to fit in their new home. Things start rotting and get covered with dust.
It's a bit like posting this pic below and saying "baby change facilities at West Park hospital were filthy"
boohoo
No.
Have you not read Jack and the Beanstalk???
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Is that the one in which the protagonist dodgily sublets a tree house he doesn't own?
boohoo
No.
no -that's the follow up Jack and the beanstalk house.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Oh yeah.The one in which he climbs up the property ladder?
boohoo
No.
Rushy leanderman
Interesting read on Clapham house with tree:
http://www.spectacle.co.uk/spectacl...ew-bennetts-rectory-gardens-slurs-and-errors/
(Sorry slight de-rail from Carlton Mansions but does give back ground to short life)
Interesting read on Clapham house with tree:
http://www.spectacle.co.uk/spectacl...ew-bennetts-rectory-gardens-slurs-and-errors/
(Sorry slight de-rail from Carlton Mansions but does give back ground to short life)
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Can't get this link to work. Nor by going to their website
boohoo
No.
It's working for me.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Got it.
The occupiers should have been put on proper tenancies with standard council rents ages ago.
Turfing people out and selling the properties was costly and short term. ETA: and unfair.
The occupiers should have been put on proper tenancies with standard council rents ages ago.
Turfing people out and selling the properties was costly and short term. ETA: and unfair.
Last edited:
Rushy
basically a scrotum
It's a well enough written piece but it didn't read to me as a balanced synopsis. And the council spin is blatantly heavily biased too. The best anyone can do is pick through available info and make their own mind up based on their own experience and observations.
As regards Rectory Grove, in that piece he does not appear to argue against the facts presented about the tree house - that it was a short life being rented out in dangerous condition by one time occupants for profit - he just argues that it was not part of a particular co-op which he says it was being used to discredit. Which, if true, was not a connection I recall having heard mentioned.
Overall this is about as dreadful a case of prolonged council mismanagement as you can imagine. Where I disagree with the gist of the board is the extent to which the occupiers were doing everyone a favour by "maintaining" buildings and what rights should have accrued to people who had occupied the housing.
editor
hiraethified
Why kind of state do you think Carlton Mansions would have been in if it had been left abandoned for decades?
boohoo
No.
Rushy I think the tree story is just used to generally discredit short life tenants - that's the gist I get.
I'm not sure how you'd get a balanced view ever really - it's a general problem with history.
From recent interviews that I undertook with muralists, one woman talked about hard to lets on a Brixton estate and how these were then given to those on the waiting list as short life tenants. From what I know of short life, tenants have looked after the houses in a constant state of uncertainty - never really knowing when someone can step in and take it off them but having to maintain them enough to make them liveable and comfortable. From my experience of empty houses, I reckon most of those buildings would have fallen down - my old flat in Carlton mansion is showing signs of rot from non-occupation - it's actually upsetting to see a home fall apart.
I'm not sure that the occupiers 'were doing everyone a favour' but the council benefited from these houses not falling apart and their inability to turn them into useful social housing stock or support the established communities into turning them into co-ops supported by RSLs. The sensible thing for the council to have done is to have supported the co-ops and help them become legitimate protect social housing spaces.
Having worked in big government housing policy, i am not at all surprised that this money might be going into a Lambeth council penny jar and not directly into housing.
It seems that alot of this comes down to housing envy and the value of a space being seen as purely financial.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
The council might have gained a bit from properties not falling down - tho lambeth likes to build new and should, in any case, simply have got a grip.
But weren't the biggest winners from this extraordinary situation the occupiers who lived rent-free (minus co-op fees or improvements) - even for decades?
Was any council tax paid?
But weren't the biggest winners from this extraordinary situation the occupiers who lived rent-free (minus co-op fees or improvements) - even for decades?
Was any council tax paid?
editor
hiraethified
Would you view "winning" as living in a run-down property where you have no secure tenancy and can be lobbed out at any time at short notice?
boohoo
No.
The council gained from the current inflated housing market and the fact that many of these properties are nice old things in good locations worth lots of money. In other cases the properties got squatted because the council wasn't looking after them. The late 1970s and 1980s are a very different time in London's history.
I agree that the occupiers got a good deal living rent free but if they had been given a council property (these were people on the waiting list), then they would have been in a better position as secure tenants who would have had the problems of the building fixed by the council.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Agreed.
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
Did they come of the waiting list or did some eventually move into council property?
boohoo
No.
Similar threads
