Carlton Mansions co-op, Coldharbour Lane, Brixton - history and news
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
299 old timer
Well-Known Member
I'm a cynic now Lambeth has shown its true face, and I expect Carlton Mansions to be demolished. Who owns the land to the left?
OvalhouseDB
Well-Known Member
Carlton Mansions certainly will not be demolished!
<<chains self to railings>>
299OldTimer - bring yourself intonew times and read the Somerleyton Rd / Ovalhouse thread!
<<chains self to railings>>
299OldTimer - bring yourself intonew times and read the Somerleyton Rd / Ovalhouse thread!
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
It is a thread derail. Rectory Gardens situation and history is different to Mansions.
The underlying argument was between the Labour administration and Lambeth United. Its a political and propaganda war. Some of it is between Lambeth Green party and Lambeth Labour party. I am not saying its wrong. The spectacle blog article is pretty fair. They have asked Bennett the right questions.
The Mansions was never part of Lambeth United.
Carlton Mansions was not squatted and then licensed. It was early example of S/L of a property through Mini HAG to being properties into use that would otherwise be left empty.
I had a run in with Bennett at the Cressingham Gardens Housing question time. Labour group have gone back to slagging off shortlife. They used to do tell Council tenants this stuff. After a while it no longer worked. Council tenants realised that the Labour party had given up on Council housing and was using the S/L issue as a distraction. Trying to stir up resentment against S/L people when the real issue was that the Labour party in power did not support Council housing. Realistically a few S/L people in Lambeth were not standing in the way of the Labour party building Council housing.
The tree issue. From what I have heard the tree was part of the wacky S/L design originally.
However I know for years there has been a war of attrition between the Council and different S/L groups. (ie Rushcroft Road Action Group RAG). Gradually the legal action or on off threat of it wore people down. RAG success was to get the Council to concede that there was an issue about the tenancy status. The compromise being that Council would rehouse what it called "legitimate" S/L.
People might not like it but in this country people do have rights. (Some) Judges have treated S/L people as human beings. The fact that they may be living in houses in Clapham worth millions ( as Bennett complains about) is not the issue in law. The much maligned Human Rights Act was very useful. So was the law around housing/ tenancies. For all its faults the law is not just about criminalizing certain actions. Its plays an important role in protecting individuals and there families from the State.
The "war of attrition" over last ten years or so meant that a lot of S/L people left to be replaced by squatters. Nothing wrong with that as such. But it meant that some S/L groups last control of some of the housing.
I do find it irritating that Bennett refers to property as S/L when in court the Council is adamant that it has not been S/L for some years as the license were terminated. Thus in court the Council would term people the "unauthorized occupiers".
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
The Council own most of Somerleyton road. The land to the left is planned to go to new theatre. But Council will retain ownership of the land. But who knows what may happen in next year with Councils getting another load of Government imposed cuts?
I paid a visit to Mansions a few days ago with Council officers and Brixton Society to see how its bearing up being empty for first time in over hundred years. A sad sight to see. Its likely to deteriorate quickly now its empty. I am trying to persuade Council to consult Brixton Society as plans for the Mansions are developed. As now the Coop is gone.
There are no plans to demolish. The front and mural are locally listed. The plan at moment is to turn it into workshop space - hopefully affordable.
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
At one point the Coop came to arrangement with Council to take people off waiting list. Also used single person referral agency- Threshold I think.
Council referrals stopped when Council decided to "withdraw" from S/L.
Some ex Coop members when they had children did apply and get into permanent Coops.
299 old timer
Well-Known Member
The Council own most of Somerleyton road. The land to the left is planned to go to new theatre. But Council will retain ownership of the land. But who knows what may happen in next year with Councils getting another load of Government imposed cuts?
I paid a visit to Mansions a few days ago with Council officers and Brixton Society to see how its bearing up being empty for first time in over hundred years. A sad sight to see. Its likely to deteriorate quickly now its empty. I am trying to persuade Council to consult Brixton Society as plans for the Mansions are developed. As now the Coop is gone.
There are no plans to demolish. The front and mural are locally listed. The plan at moment is to turn it into workshop space - hopefully affordable.
Thanks for the reply Gramsci. Cynic that I am, and having seen it before as a council tactic, is not the vacant space and likely deterioration a cue for demolishment?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Given the (sound) condition Carlton Mansions was left in, while surface deterioration will occur quickly (plasterwork, exposed woodwork etc) the fabric will take longer, and a demolition order would rely on the property being nigh-on unsalvageable. As a gauge, Battersea Power Station's fabric was left open to the elements for over a decade, and didn't deteriorate at anywhere near the rate that the developers were hoping for!
Of course, Carlton Mansions could go the way of so many places with inconvenient listings, with someone accidentally dropping a bottle full of meths and a lit fag on one of the wooden floors...
teuchter
je suis teuchter
In what way is Battersea power station a meaningful "gauge"?
And when you say that Carlton Mansions was left in a "sound condition" - what's that based on?
It's a very real risk that deterioration will accelerate now that the building is unoccupied - even just as a result of it not being heated.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Not to mention Sitex-type porous honeycombed metal security shutters mounted in formerly closed windows and doors to stairwells allowing access to the elements.
billythefish
toad licker
Battersea Power Station is an industrial building. Most of its interiors were ruined decades ago - the main survivors being its brickwork and chimneys. Even the latter are now being replaced due to neglect (I still have a 1980s AtoZ promising completion of the theme park in 1989!).
Carlton mansions is a residential building. It was still intact until a few weeks ago - plaster still on the walls - joinery still in place - its envelope still intact. It may have looked scruffy around the edges, but it was still in use as it had been designed for. It would have taken minimal intervention to maintain it as such, but internal finishes perish extremely quickly when neglected. There is no day to day life there now, and it is only a matter of time before windows are broken, roofs degrade and the fabric will decay. It will happen extremely quickly without the regular attention that its previous occupants attended to it.
There are carefully and democratically thought through processes in place to protect buildings like this, yet they appear to have been pissed on from a large height in Lambeth.
(Grrrrr.)
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
They're both double and triple course brick, using a similar bond (I could also have used Wandsworth Prison as a comparator).
Do you think that Carlton (or Clifton, or Rushcroft etc etc etc) would have been targeted if their dilapidation was so advanced that developers couldn't score a quick buck? Do you not believe that the council would have used a state of dilapidation (as opposed to the ludicrous "fire safety certificate" scam) if the place hadn't been structurally sound? :
Have I said that it won't deteriorate? Nope. I've said that if developers are hoping for the building to fall into dilapidation, it'll take longer than they might assume.
Carry on nit-picking, though. It's always good to see you showing yourself up.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I agree with the above. All I've said is that the plasterwork and woodwork will go first (if no-one from the council decides to "help things along"), before the structural fabric does, and that full dilapidation (at which point the building will become unsalvageable) will take longer.
And for as long as I've been alive, local authorities have found ways to circumvent those processes, for buildings "great and small". Not just in Lambeth, but everywhere. If you were a cynic, you might almost believe that there are deliberate loopholes left in such processes, so that they can be circumvented (if you have the money and/or the connections)...
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Or, if "Carlton Mansions" is still there, it'll be the (listed) facade and mural, with a brand-new set of rabbit-hutch "luxury apartments" with faux-period touches behind the venerable frontage. It's not unknown for developers to gut, sadly.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
So you're basically sayoing they are both built from brick.
Are the mortars similar, despite them being built 30-50 years apart during the time of transition from lime based to cement based mortars? Are the bricks themselves similar? And even if they had been built at the same time is it in any way plausible that the construction types and specifications for a 4 storey residential building would be similar to those used in a giant power station and the biggest brick structure in Europe? Does Battersea Power station have timber structural elements that are embedded in the walls, that have survived through its state of disrepair?
All this of course ignoring the basic point that it's a nonsense anyway to suggest Battersea Power Station is somehow evidence of the potential of building stock to survive neglect - it's in a terrible state. As billythefish says above.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
They have been judged to be worth salvaging in the context of an inflated London property market. The buildings' value is based on their location rather than the soundness of their fabric. I don't know how structurally sound they were at the point of reposession, but I wouldn't be drawing many conclusions from the fact that they've been judged worth redeveloping.
editor
hiraethified
Squatters evicted today
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/01/...t-squatters-from-carlton-mansions-in-brixton/
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/01/...t-squatters-from-carlton-mansions-in-brixton/
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Squatters evicted today
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/01/...t-squatters-from-carlton-mansions-in-brixton/
I just heard about this.
The Council were told they would not be able to secure the building.
Did they listen? No.
Sitex security screens cost a fucking fortune per week. I've forgotten exactly how much... and oddly all the websites I find say "email us for a quote".
editor
hiraethified
I like this very much indeed.
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/06/...ng-co-op-commemorated-with-unofficial-plaque/
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/06/...ng-co-op-commemorated-with-unofficial-plaque/
"Local authority and housing association tenants in England who earn more than £30,000 - or £40,000 in London will have to pay 'market rents'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33399650
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33399650
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I can see the logic from a Tory government point of view - but given the HRA is normally ring fenced, what is the practical effect?
According to the Indepenent ...
The Treasury will recoup the additional rental income that local authorities receive, which will be used to reduce the deficit and generate extra income for housing associations to reinvest in affordable housing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ncome-earners-in-social-housing-10366555.html
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Looks like Thatcher had Housing Revenue accounts ring fenced so councils couldn't subsidise housing.
Now Osborne is unringfencing them so the government can use rent as a form of taxation!
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
Earning £40k and receiving taxpayer subsidised rent seems unfair given their are bucketloads of people earning far less whilst paying market value rent in the private sector and bucketloads earning virtually nothing who are desperate for somewhere to live.
Similar threads
