Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Council plan to redevelop Somerleyton road/ Ovalhouse Theatre to move to the site.

Hello and thanks for your questions. Hopefully I can answer all your points below.

First, let me explain what we mean by realistic and detailed plans. As you acknowledge there are constraints. Lambeth has agreed to work with local residents and local organisation to make this redevelopment process take account of local needs and concerns. However, there is no extra government funding for this site so Lambeth, community groups, and residents, need to jointly develop a plan that can deliver the most value back to the community, which means looking at all the different options for housing (among other aspects of the site) including discussions about how much housing is created, who it is for, how can it be made affordable for local people, whether options like self-build or co-ops are of interest and viable. To directly answer your point about whether asking for social rented council housing is a fantasy, I would say no, it is a valid option to raise and consider in this process. So yes, there are constraints and we will be using the plans and designs that are currently being circulated as the starting point, however, there is still a lot of scope to shape the detail of the plans.

Second, we will include the discussions that take place here (if people are happy with that?), and the discussions that take place on our blog, in the feedback that is collated during this process.

Third, we are working with Brixton Green to run these workshops, which are one element of a broader programme of community involvement that is being co-ordinated by Lambeth. However, we know that there are lots of other local organisations with points to raise so I would urge people to get in touch with the Social Life team and we would be happy to talk to you.

Saffron



Gramsci said:
I have got no problem with Social Life consulting residents. As an independent body with no interest in the site. I have also looked at your website and links to the Young Foundation. Which all looks interesting. But what is Brixton Green involvement in this? They are not the only local group. Would you be prepared to meet other local groups separately?

They have had an interest in acquiring the site.

To make it clear this is a Council led project for the redevelopment of the Council owned Somerleyton road site.

What is the meaning of "realistic" and "detailed" plans? This makes me think that there aspects of the development that are a "given". This should be made clear.

For example the Council is definitely thinking of progressing the scheme with a "development partner". Who will build out the whole site, including the theatre. The developer in exchange will get up to 60% of the housing to sell on the open market. So any discussion of what the housing could be for will need to be started by what the Council is thinking of doing to further the scheme. If that is residents are supposed to be participating in a "realistic" plan.

So what happens if local people say they would like social rented Council Housing on the site? Is that "realistic"? Or will it be said to be arguing for a "fantasy" scheme?

Also some of the discussion about Somerleyton road can take place here. Will you be collating what is said here?

I also see nothing about the design and layout of the site. In particular the Theatre, Carlton Mansion and the layout proposed in the original Brixton Masterplan.
Click to expand...
 
Saffron said:
Third, we are working with Brixton Green to run these workshops, which are one element of a broader programme of community involvement that is being co-ordinated by Lambeth.
Click to expand...
There is considerable confusion arising from your workshops because people are getting the impression that the workshops are just part of Brixton Green's 'recruitment' drive, and you are seen as part of what you get for your £1 'share' (which I refuse to buy, by the way, because I'd rather have my say with the council directly, than run the risk of having my opinions misrepresented under the BG banner).
 
Saffron said:
Hello and thanks for your questions. Hopefully I can answer all your points below.

First, let me explain what we mean by realistic and detailed plans. As you acknowledge there are constraints. Lambeth has agreed to work with local residents and local organisation to make this redevelopment process take account of local needs and concerns. However, there is no extra government funding for this site so Lambeth, community groups, and residents, need to jointly develop a plan that can deliver the most value back to the community, which means looking at all the different options for housing (among other aspects of the site) including discussions about how much housing is created, who it is for, how can it be made affordable for local people, whether options like self-build or co-ops are of interest and viable. To directly answer your point about whether asking for social rented council housing is a fantasy, I would say no, it is a valid option to raise and consider in this process. So yes, there are constraints and we will be using the plans and designs that are currently being circulated as the starting point, however, there is still a lot of scope to shape the detail of the plans.

Second, we will include the discussions that take place here (if people are happy with that?), and the discussions that take place on our blog, in the feedback that is collated during this process.

Third, we are working with Brixton Green to run these workshops, which are one element of a broader programme of community involvement that is being co-ordinated by Lambeth. However, we know that there are lots of other local organisations with points to raise so I would urge people to get in touch with the Social Life team and we would be happy to talk to you.

Saffron
Click to expand...

Glad you say that workshops are part of broader programme that is being coordinated by Lambeth. Also that you are happy to talk to other local organisations separately . As ed says there is some confusion.

If residents are to be asked to discuss "realistic" options I also think that we need more info. The Core group- Ovalhouse/ Council/ Brixton Green get more info as they meet separately. I think it would be idea if this was made public.

I also think there is an argument that people should be able to agree to disagree. For example if people say they want housing at a social rent and the Council say this is not possible. The Council are looking at the new "affordable" category of roughly 60% of OMV for the site.The Council could state its reasons why it thinks this. Both sides could have there wishes recorded.

This means that people get to have there say. And do not feel pressured into agreeing to something they are not 100% happy with. First and foremost I think its important for local people to be able to air and have there views recorded. Critical support for the scheme rather than an illusion that we residents have the final say.

Residents are not in an equal power relationship with the Council. That is not a criticism. Its just a fact. Residents and Council are not in the same situation. Residents can lobby Council but in the end this is Council land.

And the Council have to take in consideration other factors. Such as a "development partner". The Council will produce a planning brief that will go out to interested development partners. The developers will respond to the brief. Which will mean the Council will negotiate with developers. There is a specific laid down process for choosing a developer that has to follow EU guidelines. A complicated process that I wonder how much involvement residents can have in.
 
Gramsci said:
I also think there is an argument that people should be able to agree to disagree. For example if people say they want housing at a social rent and the Council say this is not possible. The Council are looking at the new "affordable" category of roughly 60% of OMV for the site.The Council could state its reasons why it thinks this. Both sides could have there wishes recorded.

This means that people get to have there say. And do not feel pressured into agreeing to something they are not 100% happy with. First and foremost I think its important for local people to be able to air and have there views recorded. Critical support for the scheme rather than an illusion that we residents have the final say.

Residents are not in an equal power relationship with the Council. That is not a criticism. Its just a fact. Residents and Council are not in the same situation. Residents can lobby Council but in the end this is Council land.

And the Council have to take in consideration other factors. Such as a "development partner". The Council will produce a planning brief that will go out to interested development partners. The developers will respond to the brief. Which will mean the Council will negotiate with developers. There is a specific laid down process for choosing a developer that has to follow EU guidelines. A complicated process that I wonder how much involvement residents can have in.
Click to expand...

What an excellent post. Procurements are posted by the Official Journal of the European Union
http://www.qsl-tenders.co.uk/free-trial-01.php?fromLP&theLP=ojeu-tenders.php&theHeading=OJEU Tenders &keywordSearch=OJEU and all bidders are supposed to be treated equally by law. This procurement is apparently being conducted according to the process competitive dialogue, where more dialogue/negotiation is allowed, than it would be for a procurement of an item or service that is fairly non-contentious.

Authorities such as the Council who want works done or services provided give an outline view of what they want, advertising on OJEU.

Upon seeing this, bidders who are registered with OJEU complete something called a PQQ (Pre Qualification Questionnaire) which is basically about their (the bidders') organisations.

If the procurement is being arranged under competitive dialogue there is discussion throughout this process on what is best. For instance, on what element of social housing? Where?....

Bidders then complete something called an ITT (Invitation to Tender) where they are invited to state how they will provide the completed project.

The resultant bids are graded and the (provisional) successful project is selected by a group of 'experts' in their field........ Perhaps by a presentation, perhaps through other methodologies. There is then a ten-day period for appeals, called an ALCATEL period.
 
Hi

Thanks to everyone who came to the first Action Planning Workshops about housing and communal space, and health, education and culture.

A summary of the discussions and actions from these workshops is on our blog:
http://somerleytonsays.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/first-workshop-on-housing-and-communal-spaces/

Please feel free to comment on these discussions either on our blog or on this forum. I will be collating all the comments from this forum about the Action Planning Workshops and feeding them into the final write up.

Next week we are running workshops on employment, training and local business (Tuesday March 26) and long-term management (Wednesday March 27). Both of these are at the Volunteer Centre Lambeth from 7-8.30. If you would like to come along please email us at hello@social-life.co

If not, please keep an eye on the blog for updates.

Best wishes, Saffron
 
Saffron said:
Hi

A summary of the discussions and actions from these workshops is on our blog:
http://somerleytonsays.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/first-workshop-on-housing-and-communal-spaces/

Please feel free to comment on these discussions either on our blog or on this forum. I will be collating all the comments from this forum about the Action Planning Workshops and feeding them into the final write up.
Click to expand...

I went to the housing and communal space workshop.

It was run by Social Life. Not Brixton Green. Which I was happy about. So lessons learned from the Dexter workshop.:)


We were asked to park to one side whatever, if any, organisation we represented. And to say what we as individuals thought. Which needs to be taken in consideration when reading the summary. Nothing wrong with that. I think its a good idea. Took a bit of getting used to.

Looks to me like a good cross section of people in that part of Brixton turned up. A few I recognised but most not.

It would be useful if Social Life put up a pdf of the briefing document for the workshop online. As it contained a lot of background info about "deliberative workshops" and also present Council thinking. I not 100% sure about the idea of "deliberative" workshops. In the end the Councils decides. I do not think it should be up to local residents to feel that they have to go along with everything the Council says it needs to do. Im a bit concerned that at the 2nd and 3rd workshop people could start to feel pressurised to go along with such things as Councils idea of "affordable" rents linked to market rents for example. We are not all equal partners here. Housing is a political issues not a purely economic one.

What I took from the first meeting was the strength of feeling on the need for the site to have really affordable housing with secure tenancies. I cannot emphasise this more. The strength of feeling surprised me. People expressed concerns about the long term effects of this governments "reforms" of housing and benefits.

The (Labour) Cllrs and Council need to get the message that social housing is not just a minority interest for planning bores. They need to get it into there heads that its a political issue that is important to people in local area of Coldharbour ward.

Saying that this area has large concentration of social housing and needs "rebalancing" is not good enough. Something that the Council say in the draft SPD and in there documents.

Bottom line is that , my feeling from the meeting , that people want affordable housing. ie rent that is affordable without recourse to benefits. Someone there from the Tenants Council stated that the average income for Lambeth Council tenants is £13000 a year.

Also as a bottom line people want secure tenancies not time limited ones that the Government is encouraging Councils and RSLs to use.

A lot of concern was voiced about the new Government policy of linking social housing rents to market rents. That this is what the Labour council is thinking of doing that on Somerleyton road. ( I will post up latest thinking on Somerleyton road % later).

So imo these concerns about housing on the site in from the workshop needs to be unequivocally passed onto the Cllrs and Council as an issue. In clear terms. Its a political issue they need to acknowledge and take as completely reasonable position to have.

Everything else- communal space , coops etc is secondary.

I am afraid that the Council might want to go about the green space and all the rest of it to take peoples attention away that the development on Somerleyton road is potentially not going to be affordable for a lot of people.
 
Latest thinking by officers for housing on Somerleyton (according to the briefing document given out at workshop) is "65% blended rate of the market value (including service charge). This means one and two beds would be up to 80% of the market rent and larger family sized homes would be at social rent."

Why the smaller flats have to be nearer 80% of market rent I do not understand.

The officers say they will run financial appraisal to see if scheme can afford :rolleyes: to provide more units at target rent.

Also officers say Somerleyton road will be a "policy compliant scheme for affordable housing and therefore we are aiming for 60% private and 40% affordable."

There is a big difference in that the Barratts development across the road from this is private land and (most) of Somerleyton road is Council owned. Despite this the officer are looking at same % in private and affordable housing on the site.

Really do not understand why. In essence officers are treating the housing scheme on the site just as though it was a privately owned site. In which case why not sell the land on open market , gaining the Council a lot of capital, then do a section106 agreement with the private developer who bought the land to get 40% housing?

As it look to me that the end result of the housing on this scheme is little different from a private scheme.
 
Saffron

I looked up Lambeth Tenancy Strategy.

Legislation enacted through the Localism Act 2011 has placed a duty on all local authorities to produce a Tenancy Strategy for their area. The purpose of this strategy is to set out the broad objectives that all providers of affordable housing in the borough should have regard to when formulating their own tenancy policies.
Click to expand...
Its relevant to Somerleyton road site as it clearly sets out Council thinking on how to deal with recent "reforms" by the Tory/ LD government.

It explains background to policies for what officers would call a "policy compliant scheme" for Somerleyton Rd.

So not clear to me what actual say residents get in this. If Somerleyton road development is to be "Co-produced" with local community as stated by Council. What bits of it will be Co-produced?.
 
"who wins and who looses"?

Sorry, I've just come out of a 2 day training course, where I spent most of the time picking up on the grammatical and speelling errors of the presenter. I'll try to read the documents and have some more constructive feedback.
 
From the Foxton thread this cautionary tale about consultation and regeneration is worth a read.

At the Heygate, only 79 of the 2,535 planned new homes on the site will be available to rent as social housing. And while 25% of homes have been earmarked as "affordable housing", since the definition of affordable housing was changed by the coalition to mean up to 80% of market rent, that rules out the vast majority of those on lower incomes.
Click to expand...

After lots of consultation the affordable housing element was gradually whittled down over the years.

So I fear with Somerleyton road site that for all the promises after a while things could be changed. Particularly when negotiations with a "development partner" start.

The new "affordable rents" are in danger of not being affordable. As I said this is big issue and one that Anna Minton brings up.

So structures for residents to oversee/ comment on this project and written agreements are needed.

This should include transparency. The maximum amount of information for residents. Not being kept in the dark by officers or other parties like the "development partner".
 
Having just read Lambeth Lie whilst making a cup of tea, I was thinking similar things... too many carefully couched words around 'aims' and 'ambitions'...
 
Hi

This week we ran workshops about jobs, training and local business, and long-term management of Somerleyton Road. You can see the notes from these two sessions on our project blog: http://somerleytonsays.wordpress.com/

Please comment or send us your thoughts.

The next workshops start week of April 8.

Happy Easter! Saffron
 
Saffron

Looked at notes for Long Term Management here are some comments.

  • Ovalhouse have already said that they want to run there part of the finished scheme separately from any other management body. This would be a drawback as Ovalhouse will potentially have a big effect on local area.
  • As the development will be built with up 60% of the flats for private sale by the developer who builds the scheme I do not see how the private flats will be part of the long term management.
  • How would this work if the private and social rented/ affordable flats are mixed together?
  • I am not clear what is the aim of a management organisation. Looks like from workshop its aims are social not purely management
  • Unless the flats are affordable a lot of the aspirations stated in the workshop of inclusion,retaining cultural capital and diversity will be redundant.
  • If a wider constituency is sought that could lead to lack of involvement. Numbers are not necessarily what is needed. Coops work best when membership is smaller and linked to specific aim. Such as tenants managing one estate.
  • In which case it would be perhaps better to have several organisations for separate parts of the estate. Rather than one overarching organisation with a larger constituency.
  • It would also be more practical to have together a residents / Ovalhouse/ workshop users estate residents association that could include reps from neighbouring estates. The association could deal with outside bodies such as Council.
  • If it wanted to this association could undertake other projects related to the estate.
  • There is a danger that starting a fully fledged management organisation with a lot of social aims could fail. It is taking on to much in one go. Most people have enough to deal with in there lives. Better to keep things simple to start. If people want to do more then that can on taken later.
  • Getting people united around one objective presupposes that there is one objective. Sometimes people can think doing things on a community level is good but they assume there interests are the same as the community.
  • I also get concerned when phrases such as people winning if they invest time into the vision of the project. What vision? Have to be careful that a particular vision is not being already agreed that people are supposed to sign up to.
  • Coops work best when people have shared practical aim. Such as keeping there housing maintained. Not some "vision" that others think is good for them. This can develop or not on a case by case basis. But has to be allowed to develop over time.
  • I also think that "long term management" can be seen as panacea for dealing with a lot of social problems that cannot be dealt with at a micro level.
  • The issue of capability and availability for governance. This is why I am not keen on large complicated over arching organisations. Why I think organisations should be specific and simple as possible to understand.
  • Other issue is that if a management organisation is set up will it be compulsory to belong to it for those who live/work on finished development?If it is in that case the membership should be limited to the development.
  • If not and the idea is to have an organisation with a wider constituency then there is a potential problem. People could just leave or not renew there membership. Could end up with a management organisation with few members.
  • In housing coops membership and tenancy are linked.
  • "Targetting for mental health". As much as Cooperatives can be a safe environment for those with mental health issues Coops cannot be a substitute for properly funded help. Nor should they feel obliged to because they are Coops. Neighbours can voluntarily help each other. Coops can foster neighbourliness. But that is as far as it goes.
  • Group 4 notes brought up good issues. Especially what kind of involvement does the community want? There is a contradiction running through discussion in workshop. On the one hand there is talk of "vision" and "project" (not defined enough) and on the other how to include people.
 
Saffron

Long term management briefing pack says:



6 Long-term management: constraints

Funding
The development of Somerleyton Road needs to be self-funding; large-scale grants will not be available. This means the proposals for long-term management, and other dimensions of the project, need to be realistic, make the very most of available assets and opportunities, and be sustainable in the long-term. This means thinking about how the new assets created at Somerleyton Road can be used to generate revenue streams to pay for the long-term management of buildings and spaces, and, be able to respond to local social needs.
Click to expand...

If there is to be no funding then revenue streams, to be "realistic" :rolleyes: will just cover management imo. So I do not see how the project , as its envisaged at present, will be expected to meet undefined "social needs". What social needs?

Social needs like training and employment? These should be met anyway. Not burdened onto community organisation.

Also how will affordable workspace / creative studio space be able to provide a revenue stream? The only revenue streams I see will come from this sector. This could only happen if its let at a market rent.

Also who will own the finished work/ studio / business units? The Council? Or will they be part of the package that goes to the development partner?

Already some revenue stream will be lost as the Council envisage the "development partner" selling up to 60% of the housing on the private market.

If the Council want this development to play a social role the Council should produce a financial brief of what they think is possible. How they , the Council, believe these revenue streams will be feasible and realistic:rolleyes:.

I do not see it.
 
Saffron

Long term management briefing pack says:

  1. What is long-term management?
The key objective is to deliver not just some new buildings but a transformational development that brings a lasting change for the better. This can happen only if the delivered project is managed to reflect a constructive long-term vision.
  1. How will it be paid for?
The cost of the management function cannot be a revenue burden on Lambeth Council but neither should it impose a disproportionate service charge on the constituent parts of the delivered project.
  1. What would its role be?
All constituent parts of the delivered project need to be embraced even though various occupiers may manage operational elements discretely.The organisation could undertake or sub contract additional activities, such as:
Training and employment provider
Financial management advisor
Managing agent for collecting service charge
Suggested principles
1. Formally constituted organisation and not an ad hoc committee. It would have memorandum and articles that enable it to undertake the agreed role.
2. Some form of value-lock to sustain the agreed vision over the long-term but that would not restrict the ability to renew or a valid need for funding parties to secure value.
3. Clear membership rules that enfranchise occupiers, tenants, the neighbouring community, investors and the local authority; with an independent chair.
4. Obligations to tender for services (with the ability to count non-monetary benefits) and to appoint directors/trustees/office holders/employees using fair and open processes.
5. Reasonable restrictions on the ability to take on unsustainable debt.
6. Clear guidelines and limitations on setting the level of service charges (and any rents).
7. Obligations to publish accounts and to hold regular business meetings and general meetings of the membership.
8. If the organisation is part-funded by a profit share endowment, a trust mechanism to safeguard the application of endowment funds or to oversee allocations.
Click to expand...

  • To big. This is more like a business ( of a social enterprise sort). Will end up being like a business rather than a Coop. With a membership that is distant.
  • What is the "long term constructive vision". Its unspecified.
  • Why are new buildings not a "transformational development" on there own?
  • It is Council land. Whilst the Council say it cannot be a "revenue burden" on them what role do the Council want? Are the Council specifying that the community is expected to produce "lasting change for the better"? Lot to ask imo. Also what "lasting change" do the Council want?
  • . Some form of value-lock to sustain the agreed vision over the long-term but that would not restrict the ability to renew or a valid need for funding parties to secure value.
    Click to expand...
    What does this mean? The sentence contradicts itself. Either there is a value lock or not. What is a value lock? I assume it means that land/ buildings cannot be resold.
 
"Ovalhouse have already said that they want to run there part of the finished scheme separately from any other management body. This would be a drawback as Ovalhouse will potentially have a big effect on local area."

We need to look at this in more detail - it depends on the nature of the management body, really.

Ovalhouse is constituted as a charity and is a not-for-profit grant funded organisation, with a Board of Trustees. As we currently own the freehold to our building and land, and will be investing this, and the development potential of this in the new development, we have to be very precise about the degree of managemernt responsibility our Board retain. We cannot merge with another organisation, or hand over management of the charity's assets to a third party.

However, there are obvious advantages to a joint approach to the area as a whole - an area 'Association' of some kind.
 
OvalhouseDB said:
We need to look at this in more detail - it depends on the nature of the management body, really.

Ovalhouse is constituted as a charity and is a not-for-profit grant funded organisation, with a Board of Trustees. As we currently own the freehold to our building and land, and will be investing this, and the development potential of this in the new development, we have to be very precise about the degree of managemernt responsibility our Board retain. We cannot merge with another organisation, or hand over management of the charity's assets to a third party.

However, there are obvious advantages to a joint approach to the area as a whole - an area 'Association' of some kind.
Click to expand...

Nor would I think it be a good idea for Ovalhouse to be merged into an untested management organisation that uses "revenue streams" from Ovalhouse. Could be a disaster.

What I meant is that Ovalhouse history of community based and radical theatre means it could have potentially a big role to play in Brixton.

That is partly why I think some kind of residents/ business association for the new development is an idea.

I do think there should be some kind of covenant put on the land so that if , for whatever reason Ovalhouse fail, the remaining theatre assets are used in the same way for local benefit. To stop what happened to Ritzy. Which was funded by Brixton Challenge as independent cinema and now belongs to Cineworld.
 
Fail? FAIL? Fail?

<<faints behind arras>>

You are right, of course, and as a basic guarantee the assets of a charity must be disposed of for the benefit of another charity. And the land will continue to be owned by the council - and any other investment must be protected for community benefit.

There are all sorts of ways in which a residents, business and community organisation for the area could work together - a joined up network of training and jobs within the organisations based in the area, lots of ideas coming out of the workshops, I think. Lots of creative possibilities, too. We are excited!
 
OvalhouseDB said:
There are all sorts of ways in which a residents, business and community organisation for the area could work together - a joined up network of training and jobs within the organisations based in the area, lots of ideas coming out of the workshops, I think. Lots of creative possibilities, too. We are excited!
Click to expand...

To many ideas are coming out of the workshops.

What are the workshops for? I thought they a bit like a focus group to get some peoples opinion who are local to area. Or are they team building exercise? So people involved will go off and put all these exciting ideas into practise in there own time? Or are they an experiment to see how well "deliberative" idea works out in practise? In that case the results should be treated with caution and caveats put into final report.

I would also like to see more info of what the Core Group have discussed /is discussing put up online. As not everyone is in the Core Group.

Also how the Core Group think they are going to use Social Lifes findings.

The bottom lines need to be in place first. For example the Council ( its them leading the project) ensuring that the housing is truly affordable. Also what % of housing is to be sold off to fund scheme. And why.

I like to keep things simple. To what people can realistically manage in long term. As I live in Coop I have some understanding of how time consuming it can be.

The workshops are encouraging people to have lots of ideas that the Council can put on its website to say how good the consultation has been. How exciting the project is.

Whether any of these exciting idea will come to anything is another matter. They are, at the moment, potentially a distraction.

Also this is all being done to quickly. Saw somewhere Council ad for event in Windrush sq in beginning of May to show the results/ feedback. Ridiculously short timescale for involving the community in this project

What I would like is some real explanation to people of how the Council is thinking of pursuing the scheme. And discussion about it. For example how is the "Development Partner" to be chosen? What say will local community get in choice? What sections/ groups in the community will get a say in this project after the workshops?

Also the various layouts for the scheme. There are several. BGs one, the recent Council appointed consultant, OH architects ideas and the original Brixton Masterplan. There is not enough time to discuss these. It needs time to go through all this.

In the workshops the only drawings presented are Brixton Green one.

Also it appears that negotiations with a "development partner" could lead to alterations to plans. But not sure how this would work.

Jobs and training are imo a responsibility of education and employers. And should not be foisted off onto unpaid volunteers to organise as part of some Big Society/ Coop Council.


Saffron
 
editor said:
Why do we even need Brixton Green to look after a council-led development?
Click to expand...

I would like it clarified by Council if they are proposing/ thinking of using Brixton Green as the "long term managers".

As I am not clear on that.

Its a good question.
 
Gramsci said:
To many ideas are coming out of the workshops.

What are the workshops for? I thought they a bit like a focus group to get some peoples opinion who are local to area. Or are they team building exercise? So people involved will go off and put all these exciting ideas into practise in there own time? Or are they an experiment to see how well "deliberative" idea works out in practise? In that case the results should be treated with caution and caveats put into final report.

I would also like to see more info of what the Core Group have discussed /is discussing put up online. As not everyone is in the Core Group.

Also how the Core Group think they are going to use Social Lifes findings.

The bottom lines need to be in place first. For example the Council ( its them leading the project) ensuring that the housing is truly affordable. Also what % of housing is to be sold off to fund scheme. And why.

I like to keep things simple. To what people can realistically manage in long term. As I live in Coop I have some understanding of how time consuming it can be.

The workshops are encouraging people to have lots of ideas that the Council can put on its website to say how good the consultation has been. How exciting the project is.

Whether any of these exciting idea will come to anything is another matter. They are, at the moment, potentially a distraction.

Also this is all being done to quickly. Saw somewhere Council ad for event in Windrush sq in beginning of May to show the results/ feedback. Ridiculously short timescale for involving the community in this project

What I would like is some real explanation to people of how the Council is thinking of pursuing the scheme. And discussion about it. For example how is the "Development Partner" to be chosen? What say will local community get in choice? What sections/ groups in the community will get a say in this project after the workshops?

Also the various layouts for the scheme. There are several. BGs one, the recent Council appointed consultant, OH architects ideas and the original Brixton Masterplan. There is not enough time to discuss these. It needs time to go through all this.

In the workshops the only drawings presented are Brixton Green one.

Also it appears that negotiations with a "development partner" could lead to alterations to plans. But not sure how this would work.

Jobs and training are imo a responsibility of education and employers. And should not be foisted off onto unpaid volunteers to organise as part of some Big Society/ Coop Council.


Saffron
Click to expand...

Hi, I’ll try to address some of the comments raised in this thread.
There are many ideas coming out of the workshops. The intention of the first workshops for each theme is to explore ideas that can then be developed in more detail with sector experts during the second session, taking into consideration practicalities and local constraints. At the end of the third (and final) workshops it is anticipated that some feasible new ideas will have been developed for the council to consider.This week we have run the second workshops for two themes: jobs, training and local business, and long-term management. Both of these sessions have worked on the long list of ideas from the first workshops and developed one or two more concrete and detailed proposals. These will be taken into the third workshop session.
Secondly, I want to explain a bit more about the Long-term management workshops. Long-term management is about creating opportunities for residents to share their views and take an active part in driving how Somerleyton Road is managed. (More information about how we describe long-term management can be found on our blog). The right approach depends on local circumstances, including whether local people want to have a voice in long-term management, what assets need to be managed, and what resources are available to fund the work.
The second workshop has focused on how to work towards creating a long-term management organisation that can generate income. There are many good examples of other communities that have done this in the UK. Development Trusts and Community Land Trusts (CLTs) like Westway Development Trust and Coin Street are one model that the workshop participants will explore during the second workshop (The notes from the first workshop can be found here).
We will be posting notes from these two workshops on the blog in the next few days. Please share your thoughts and feedback with us, either here or on our project blog, or by email.
Please join us for the next workshops and if you can’t make it please keep an eye on the blog for updates.

Best, Saffron
 
Why oh why can't they use normal language - I had to look up inimical - and I think I've got quite a wide vocabulary...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Vision Homes Council Housing Takeover - please sign the petition
Replies
7
Views
561
madshadow
M
Rushy
Petition to make busy Effra Road / Brixton Water Lane junction safer for pedestrians
Replies
18
Views
1K
Zapp Brannigan
Zapp Brannigan
I
Lambeth council magnolia paint
Replies
9
Views
665
WouldBe
WouldBe
editor
Lambeth increases the rent of council tenancies by £60-£75 PER WEEK
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
191
Views
11K
edcraw
E
N
Major fire at waste depot on Shakespeare Road, Brixton, Friday 8th Sept 2023
2 3
Replies
67
Views
6K
wemakeyousoundb
wemakeyousoundb
Back
Top Bottom