Evictions in Rushcroft Road, Brixton
- Thread starter wjh
- Start date
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
You might approach "Rotten Boroughs" - I know that this is written by a variety of correspondents around the country and they obviously have somebody who knows a bit about Lambeth. You'd need to put the case well, though. The aspect of the evictions being apparently illegal would be of interest but so would the business of the squatters having made a longterm effort to pay rent.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Theres a rumour going around Brixton that the block in RR that was evicted was due to Crack etc being sold there. The rumour seems to be that other squatters in central Brixton are not going to be evicted as thay arent selling hard drugs from there flats.
The person i talked to was adament about this.That impression i got was that the police/council are letting it be known this eviction was done for "community safety" issues.
I did say to the person i didnt really believe this.But he said he had been told it by other squatters in the area.
Has anyone else heard this? Or clarify this? I now a little of that block and it doesnt seem correct to me.Anyway if it was going on in one flat that doesnt mean everyone should be evicted.
Im concerned also that this might become a standard excuse from the Council/Police so they dont look so bad.
The person i talked to was adament about this.That impression i got was that the police/council are letting it be known this eviction was done for "community safety" issues.
I did say to the person i didnt really believe this.But he said he had been told it by other squatters in the area.
Has anyone else heard this? Or clarify this? I now a little of that block and it doesnt seem correct to me.Anyway if it was going on in one flat that doesnt mean everyone should be evicted.
Im concerned also that this might become a standard excuse from the Council/Police so they dont look so bad.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
I was talking to someone who had been involved in trying to help fight this for a while and was shocked by how apathetic most of the residents seem to have been towards impending eviction. Not setting up an action group, not contacting housing helping organisations etc. Is there any truth to this?
Not the whole truth.
I will tell you the full story next time I see you in person, if you want ?
Am not prepared to discuss this on a public BB.
sheothebudworths
Up the bum - no babies!!!
How you doing, Drew? 
And have you managed to get all your stuff back ok? xxxx
And have you managed to get all your stuff back ok? xxxx
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Jesus 50 quid a week to have a hired thug keep homeless people out, and check this on the web-site: 'Other security solutions, using visiting security teams often fail because the security is intermittent and has no real personal interest in the safety of the property.
Under new legislation a live in care taker has more rights when defending themselves or the place where they live from intruders.'
In other words a bunch of scabs who'll rough up homeless people.
^^ i've been close enough to sleeping rough to consider using their cheapo rent possibilities....
didn't do it cos i wasn't comfortable, for the reasons of your last statement (even being a tenant is being complicit in that...)
been to scared to consider squatting, cos i didn't know any current squatters
didn't do it cos i wasn't comfortable, for the reasons of your last statement (even being a tenant is being complicit in that...)
been to scared to consider squatting, cos i didn't know any current squatters
Just caught up with this, very belatedly. I knew a little bit about the Rushcroft and Clifton histories, but Casaubon's excellent post has been a real eye opener, Gramsci's posts too.
This is all disgraceful news .... compare and contrast what happened a good few years ago woth the Pullens estate in Walworth, a former mass squat from the late eighties. This, after early, partly successful resistance to eviction attempts, later ended up in the early nineties with its remaining residents (many of them still former squatters, 20 years on!) having their status legitimised. Southwark Council had and still have plenty of faults but Lambeth's incompetence and outrageous behaviour is on a completely different level
Hope you're OK Drew.
This is all disgraceful news .... compare and contrast what happened a good few years ago woth the Pullens estate in Walworth, a former mass squat from the late eighties. This, after early, partly successful resistance to eviction attempts, later ended up in the early nineties with its remaining residents (many of them still former squatters, 20 years on!) having their status legitimised. Southwark Council had and still have plenty of faults but Lambeth's incompetence and outrageous behaviour is on a completely different level
Hope you're OK Drew.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
In actual fact Lambeth Council has rehoused many ex Short Life but its not a consistent policy. They are agreeing to rehouse most S/L in order to sell of the Short life housing they are in.
In RR seems to me as the Land and property prices have collapsed theres no need to pursue heavy handed large scale evictions. If they arent causing trouble leave them there.
Thats what happened before in the late 70s when funding for large scale building projects dried up.
In RR seems to me as the Land and property prices have collapsed theres no need to pursue heavy handed large scale evictions. If they arent causing trouble leave them there.
Thats what happened before in the late 70s when funding for large scale building projects dried up.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Heard that 2 evicted blocks will be sold off.But the money will be recycled to redo up remaining Council owned property in RR "for much needed flats for those in need" etc.
THe money from selling the blocks cannot be specifically ringfenced but this is the assurance ive got.
THe money from selling the blocks cannot be specifically ringfenced but this is the assurance ive got.
Casaubon
Well-Known Member
Selling Flats, Re-investing the Proceeds.
Hi everyone
Thanks for your feedback, and sorry I haven’t had time to post further.
I was notified of Gramsci’s post (#72) and decided to make the time to reminisce about Elmwood House, a block of flats on Rushcroft Rd.
(It was a long time ago, and there’s been a lot of water under the bridge, so my memory is incomplete and possibly faulty. If anyone has additions or corrections to my account I’d be happy to hear them).
About 10(?) years ago Elmwood was owned by Lambeth council but nominally controlled by London and Quadrant. There were only a couple of L&Q ‘short-life’ tenants living there, the other flats were empty or squatted, and there may have been a council tenant.
The residents association of the time, Rushcroft Rd Action Group (a.k.a. RAG) had been in lengthy negotiations with Lambeth council about the future of Rushcroft Rd.
It was agreed that Elmwood would be emptied and sold, and the money would be used to start a rolling regeneration of Rushcroft Rd.
The few L&Q or council tenants were re-housed.
The property developer who bought Elmwood turned out to be a very sensible, straightforward and honest bloke. (Honestly, after years of dealing with council politicians and officers, he was a diamond.) The woman who was the driving force behind RAG (can I mention names?) brokered a deal between the developer and the squatters that was acceptable to both sides. (One of the squatters, who’d been there a couple of weeks, got £2K – he was very happy.)
As soon as they had the money in the bank, the council reneged on the agreement to use the money to start the rolling regeneration.
They’d been lying to us all along.
RAG had put huge effort into realistic plans for regeneration and the council shafted us, and left 100-odd flats to rot for another 10 years.
I wouldn’t bet on a single penny being re-invested in Rushcroft Rd.
The council has never had the ability to deal with the complexities of Rushcroft Rd, and I can’t imagine that any of the current shower of politicians and officers will be any more able than the previous shifty, self-seeking deadbeats.
The complexities will defeat them, and they’ll probably let Rushcroft Rd sink back into relative obscurity, bearing in mind the challenge of selling the flats in this economic climate and the countless other ways they could spend the money.
Casaubon
p.s. Do I have the Longest Lurk record?
p.p.s. Donna Ferentes – no, Umberto Eco/George Eliot
Hi everyone
Thanks for your feedback, and sorry I haven’t had time to post further.
I was notified of Gramsci’s post (#72) and decided to make the time to reminisce about Elmwood House, a block of flats on Rushcroft Rd.
(It was a long time ago, and there’s been a lot of water under the bridge, so my memory is incomplete and possibly faulty. If anyone has additions or corrections to my account I’d be happy to hear them).
About 10(?) years ago Elmwood was owned by Lambeth council but nominally controlled by London and Quadrant. There were only a couple of L&Q ‘short-life’ tenants living there, the other flats were empty or squatted, and there may have been a council tenant.
The residents association of the time, Rushcroft Rd Action Group (a.k.a. RAG) had been in lengthy negotiations with Lambeth council about the future of Rushcroft Rd.
It was agreed that Elmwood would be emptied and sold, and the money would be used to start a rolling regeneration of Rushcroft Rd.
The few L&Q or council tenants were re-housed.
The property developer who bought Elmwood turned out to be a very sensible, straightforward and honest bloke. (Honestly, after years of dealing with council politicians and officers, he was a diamond.) The woman who was the driving force behind RAG (can I mention names?) brokered a deal between the developer and the squatters that was acceptable to both sides. (One of the squatters, who’d been there a couple of weeks, got £2K – he was very happy.)
As soon as they had the money in the bank, the council reneged on the agreement to use the money to start the rolling regeneration.
They’d been lying to us all along.
RAG had put huge effort into realistic plans for regeneration and the council shafted us, and left 100-odd flats to rot for another 10 years.
I wouldn’t bet on a single penny being re-invested in Rushcroft Rd.
The council has never had the ability to deal with the complexities of Rushcroft Rd, and I can’t imagine that any of the current shower of politicians and officers will be any more able than the previous shifty, self-seeking deadbeats.
The complexities will defeat them, and they’ll probably let Rushcroft Rd sink back into relative obscurity, bearing in mind the challenge of selling the flats in this economic climate and the countless other ways they could spend the money.
Casaubon
p.s. Do I have the Longest Lurk record?
p.p.s. Donna Ferentes – no, Umberto Eco/George Eliot
editor
hiraethified
Sadly, I tend to agree with you. But at least the council will have two nice apartment blocks to flog off, if they ever get around to refurbishing them.
Noticed that large empty building next to the carpark on Porden Road finally seems to have been squatted, which made me kinda happy.. been wandering past for a couple o years thinking it seemed a shame and an ideal empty property. Anyone know who's in there - organised collective or just some peeps looking for somewhere to live? Only idle curiousity, mind
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
An email to Lambeth's internal communications who produced the hatchet job on the lambeth life paper from a friend of mine who works for the council:
I wonder if he'll get a response in any way. I imagine it will be a formal complaint to his manager for his temerity.
I wonder if he'll get a response in any way. I imagine it will be a formal complaint to his manager for his temerity.
editor
hiraethified
That's a great letter.
Timely that this thread's popped up again. As some of you may remember, I was a bit concerned about my mate P, who was evicted from Rushcroft and uncontactable.
I've just seen him in the blinking freebie London Paper though - featured in the latest 'squatters take over multimillion ubermansion' story.
I've just seen him in the blinking freebie London Paper though - featured in the latest 'squatters take over multimillion ubermansion' story.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Yes as far as I can remember Elmwood House had three Council tenants and the rest was L&Q "shortlife".
I remember some years later the issue came up and the Council denied that Elmwood house had ever been Council owned.
Long time no see Casaubon. Hope life is ok on sunny Brixton hill
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I must say i found the front page of the new "Lambeth Life" rather annoying.Its like the Council are gloating about it as thought they have doen a good job.
Yes better not talk about our coop business in public,lets carry on the ideal of a mutually exclusive society of peace loving hippys protected from the nasty world by our insular superiority.
As real estate prices have escalated in recent years, forced up by competition for housing in communities across the UK, pressure has increased on local people to sell up and move out. But some organisations have been fighting back to protect the people that make the communities what they are.
Lambeth Self Help Housing Association (LSHHA) is one of the most effective. The groundbreaking mutual cooperative helps local people stay in the heart of their community by providing affordable housing in South East London. Managed by its tenants, LSHHA is described as the only genuinely self-funding housing association of its kind currently active in the UK. It receives no external funding and still fulfils all its legal obligations as a housing association.
Two years ago Lambeth Council expressed an interest in selling off 62 properties, all of which were managed by LSHHA, and many of which were large enough to accommodate families. A loan from Triodos Bank helped the Association to start to buy them. The deal with Lambeth Council gave LSHHA a discount on the properties in return for a promise that they would only offer new places to council applicants. The agreement allowed the Association to buy the homes and secure the future housing needs of a significant number of families in the community.
Abraham Krespin, Director of LSHHA, has worked for the Association for over 20 years and manages the day-to-day running of the Co-operative. He believes the organisation and its tenants can look forward to a bright future. “There is a second phase of the development in the pipeline, hopefully involving the purchase of over a hundred more residential properties in the Lambeth area in the next few years,” says Mr Krespin. “This kind of housing scheme really does meet the needs of its customers. It allows the tenants to manage their homes and to make the decisions which affect their lives.”
Call 020 7274 8848 for more information.
If any coop people want to PM me to engage in a bit of deluded fantasy of staying where they are or getting some dirt on LBL to pressurse CBL into giving them good rehousing options feel free,but you should know that CBL are illegally puutig coop decant in band C (supply transfers) instead of band H,so they really got jack to whine about.
oops i think i may have disclosed something just now
As real estate prices have escalated in recent years, forced up by competition for housing in communities across the UK, pressure has increased on local people to sell up and move out. But some organisations have been fighting back to protect the people that make the communities what they are.
Lambeth Self Help Housing Association (LSHHA) is one of the most effective. The groundbreaking mutual cooperative helps local people stay in the heart of their community by providing affordable housing in South East London. Managed by its tenants, LSHHA is described as the only genuinely self-funding housing association of its kind currently active in the UK. It receives no external funding and still fulfils all its legal obligations as a housing association.
Two years ago Lambeth Council expressed an interest in selling off 62 properties, all of which were managed by LSHHA, and many of which were large enough to accommodate families. A loan from Triodos Bank helped the Association to start to buy them. The deal with Lambeth Council gave LSHHA a discount on the properties in return for a promise that they would only offer new places to council applicants. The agreement allowed the Association to buy the homes and secure the future housing needs of a significant number of families in the community.
Abraham Krespin, Director of LSHHA, has worked for the Association for over 20 years and manages the day-to-day running of the Co-operative. He believes the organisation and its tenants can look forward to a bright future. “There is a second phase of the development in the pipeline, hopefully involving the purchase of over a hundred more residential properties in the Lambeth area in the next few years,” says Mr Krespin. “This kind of housing scheme really does meet the needs of its customers. It allows the tenants to manage their homes and to make the decisions which affect their lives.”
Call 020 7274 8848 for more information.
If any coop people want to PM me to engage in a bit of deluded fantasy of staying where they are or getting some dirt on LBL to pressurse CBL into giving them good rehousing options feel free,but you should know that CBL are illegally puutig coop decant in band C (supply transfers) instead of band H,so they really got jack to whine about.
oops i think i may have disclosed something just now
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
'Self-funding' as long as it gets its houses at a discount, isn't really self-funding.
Some of us, who pay the full market rent for our housing, resent this fantasy bookkeeping.
And those of us who can't afford the rents asked because so many twats did the 'buy to rent' route,and others who lived on equity due to inflated house prices,and are now suffering the fucking credit crunch,think social house is more than just a good idea it is essential.
Laughing Toad
Turn the volume down please.
Even if social housing were essential, there's no reason to pretend that it doesn't cost taxpayers anything.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Article from Inside Housing sent to me
Local authority bids to recover budget deficit
Lambeth sells 10 homes for £1.68m
13/11/2009 | By Jamie Obertelli
Lambeth Council attempted to sell more of its social housing stock than any other local authority last month, as it claws back an overspend on last year’s annual budget.
Figures from EIG, which collates data from all auctions across the country, revealed Lambeth made 14 properties available for auction in October, selling 10 homes for £1.68 million. Camden Council raised more money than any other local authority, selling the eight properties that it made available at auction for £2.7 million.
Both authorities said the properties were auctioned to help raise funds to meet the decent homes standards.
Lib Peck, cabinet member for housing and regeneration at Lambeth, said it was the council’s policy to sell off one and two-bedroom flats that were ‘prohibitively expensive’ to repair.
Ms Peck explained: ‘These sales help to fund the refurbishment of empty properties - for every one property sold, we can repair and bring back into use three homes that have lain empty - for the benefit of those in housing need.’
In January this year Lambeth was branded ‘reckless’ by a committee of three councillors who investigated a £6 million overspend in its annual homelessness accommodation budget of £11 million.
Abigail Davies, head of policy at the Chartered Institute of Housing, said: ‘Councils are trying to recoup money either because it is not easy to upgrade the properties being sold or the local authorities in question need to raise the revenue to improve other properties in their stock.’
A spokesperson for London Councils said local authorities were in the business of providing the best quality affordable homes so selling off stock was always a ‘last resort’.
Readers' comments (11)
Harry Lime | Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:45 GMT
It doesn't say in this article if the "empty properties" that they're refurbishing are owned by Lambeth Council, if not, the selling of council stock to refurb "other" people's properties, regardless of any nomination rights they may obtain, seems perverse. If the refurbed units are owned by Lambeth it seems even worse!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:40 GMT
Unless right to buy (and sell) is banned this is what happens. Social landlords will use any excuse to sell stock to cover up for their maladiministration and inefficiency in others sectors for which individuals should be prosecuted. And there is very little anyone can do to stop it.
Anyone who maintains this can be controlled, is either living in dreamland or has some personal speculative interest in it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter | Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:47 GMT
This is not a new policy and it has been going on for many years in Lambeth. The process begins when a property becomes void. An assessment is made on the cost of repair and if the costs exceeds the set limit i.e £10K than the property it will recommended for disposal (through an auction).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:00 GMT
Peter | Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:47 GMT
You quoted 10k as an example or as the actual figure?... Because it seems to me a very good price to pay to keep a property, compared to buying or building a new one.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
panjandrum | Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:02 GMT
Lambeth had almost 1000 empty units less than a year ago, consisting of about 600 long-cycle voids and 400 shortlife units. Long cycle voids arose because Lambeth didn't place any orders for void works for over 6 months due to an 'administrative error'! The Housing Revenue account was at least £11M overspent due to their inefficiency and incompetence.
They are evicting all shortlife occupants and rehousing only those people who they have a statutory duty to rehouse. These properties then stand empty until they decide what to do with them. They invited RSL's to submit proposals to acquire shortlife units, with vacant possession, and several RSL's submitted proposals. None were accepted because they didn't come close to market value. RSL's could only buy the properties at considerable discount due to the amount of work needed to bring the properties up to decent homes standard. Lambeth's incompetence means that its stock of unlet social housing is being sold to private developers at knock-down prices at auction (Lambeth had to withdraw properties from auction 6 months ago because they didn't reach the reserve prices)
Scandalous!
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/story.aspx?storycode=6507252
Local authority bids to recover budget deficit
Lambeth sells 10 homes for £1.68m
13/11/2009 | By Jamie Obertelli
Lambeth Council attempted to sell more of its social housing stock than any other local authority last month, as it claws back an overspend on last year’s annual budget.
Figures from EIG, which collates data from all auctions across the country, revealed Lambeth made 14 properties available for auction in October, selling 10 homes for £1.68 million. Camden Council raised more money than any other local authority, selling the eight properties that it made available at auction for £2.7 million.
Both authorities said the properties were auctioned to help raise funds to meet the decent homes standards.
Lib Peck, cabinet member for housing and regeneration at Lambeth, said it was the council’s policy to sell off one and two-bedroom flats that were ‘prohibitively expensive’ to repair.
Ms Peck explained: ‘These sales help to fund the refurbishment of empty properties - for every one property sold, we can repair and bring back into use three homes that have lain empty - for the benefit of those in housing need.’
In January this year Lambeth was branded ‘reckless’ by a committee of three councillors who investigated a £6 million overspend in its annual homelessness accommodation budget of £11 million.
Abigail Davies, head of policy at the Chartered Institute of Housing, said: ‘Councils are trying to recoup money either because it is not easy to upgrade the properties being sold or the local authorities in question need to raise the revenue to improve other properties in their stock.’
A spokesperson for London Councils said local authorities were in the business of providing the best quality affordable homes so selling off stock was always a ‘last resort’.
Readers' comments (11)
Harry Lime | Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:45 GMT
It doesn't say in this article if the "empty properties" that they're refurbishing are owned by Lambeth Council, if not, the selling of council stock to refurb "other" people's properties, regardless of any nomination rights they may obtain, seems perverse. If the refurbed units are owned by Lambeth it seems even worse!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:40 GMT
Unless right to buy (and sell) is banned this is what happens. Social landlords will use any excuse to sell stock to cover up for their maladiministration and inefficiency in others sectors for which individuals should be prosecuted. And there is very little anyone can do to stop it.
Anyone who maintains this can be controlled, is either living in dreamland or has some personal speculative interest in it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter | Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:47 GMT
This is not a new policy and it has been going on for many years in Lambeth. The process begins when a property becomes void. An assessment is made on the cost of repair and if the costs exceeds the set limit i.e £10K than the property it will recommended for disposal (through an auction).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:00 GMT
Peter | Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:47 GMT
You quoted 10k as an example or as the actual figure?... Because it seems to me a very good price to pay to keep a property, compared to buying or building a new one.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
panjandrum | Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:02 GMT
Lambeth had almost 1000 empty units less than a year ago, consisting of about 600 long-cycle voids and 400 shortlife units. Long cycle voids arose because Lambeth didn't place any orders for void works for over 6 months due to an 'administrative error'! The Housing Revenue account was at least £11M overspent due to their inefficiency and incompetence.
They are evicting all shortlife occupants and rehousing only those people who they have a statutory duty to rehouse. These properties then stand empty until they decide what to do with them. They invited RSL's to submit proposals to acquire shortlife units, with vacant possession, and several RSL's submitted proposals. None were accepted because they didn't come close to market value. RSL's could only buy the properties at considerable discount due to the amount of work needed to bring the properties up to decent homes standard. Lambeth's incompetence means that its stock of unlet social housing is being sold to private developers at knock-down prices at auction (Lambeth had to withdraw properties from auction 6 months ago because they didn't reach the reserve prices)
Scandalous!
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/story.aspx?storycode=6507252
Gramsci and co are correct in what they say,there are other factors that affect the discounting of disposals however.
one is the occupants and the purchasers retention of those in the stock,another is the nomination rights agreed with lbl,coin st has 50%southwark,50% lbl.
whole estates have been transferred to almo,stockwell park etc.
the problem with the coops is they never developed into the sustainable housing model for inner city regeneration that they were expected to because of competetion from the housing associations.
one is the occupants and the purchasers retention of those in the stock,another is the nomination rights agreed with lbl,coin st has 50%southwark,50% lbl.
whole estates have been transferred to almo,stockwell park etc.
the problem with the coops is they never developed into the sustainable housing model for inner city regeneration that they were expected to because of competetion from the housing associations.
FINANCE SCRUTINY SUB-COMMITTEE
VOIDS FORMULA
SECOND DESPATCH
Date and Time: Thursday, 4 September 2008 7.00 pm
Venue: Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW
Democratic Services Officer:
Democratic Services
London Borough of Lambeth,
Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill,
London, SW2 1RW
Despatched: Wednesday, 27
August 2008
Matthew Mannion
Tel/Voicemail: 020 7926 2225
Fax: 020 7926 2361
Email: mmannion@lambeth.gov.uk
Website: www.lambeth.gov.uk
MEMBERS: Councillors ROBBINS (Chair), TRUESDALE (Vice-Chair),
C. BENNETT, MORRIS and SABHARWAL
SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS: Councillors CAMERON, DODSWORTH, HIPWELL and
PALMER
AGENDA
Appendices to reports- bulky appendices are published on the Website
www.lambeth.gov.uk and can be obtained from report authors/Clerk or at the meeting.
They are not circulated with the agenda.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA MAY BE CHANGED AT THE MEETING
Page
Nos.
2. Long Cycle Voids Update Report
1 - 28
(Report 135/08-09)
All Wards
Non-Key Decision
Executive Director of Housing Regeneration and Environment
Contact: Claire Drummond 020 7926 2751
E-Mail: cdrummond@lambeth.gov.uk
London Borough of Lambeth
Finance Scrutiny Sub-Committee – Special Meeting 04/09/08
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUEST
Long Cycle Voids
1. Background/Context
1.1 Following consideration of draft reports by the Chair and Vice-Chair of the
Finance Scrutiny Sub-Committee additional information was requested to
supplement the report on Long Cycle Voids (agenda item 2) and to assist
members in their scrutiny of the matter.
1.2 The responses to these questions will be material to the discussion held on 4th
September, will be provided to all members of the Committee and will be made
available to the public in accordance with the council’s access to information
rules.
2. Consultation
Name of
consultee
Department Date sent Date
response
received
Comments
appear in
report para:
Internal
Richard Hornby DD Finance & Resources 29.08.08 2.09.08 Throughout
Greg Carson Legal and Democratic Services 29.08.08 1.09.08 None
Conrad Hall DD Corporate Finance 29.08.08 1.09.08 None
3. Reasons for Consideration
3.1 The following reasons for consideration will be provided if required:
The Chair is of the opinion that although this information will not have been
available for at least five clear days before the meeting, nonetheless it should be
considered because of the special circumstances that failure to receive the
information at this meeting will compromise the committee’s ability to conduct
thorough and effective scrutiny of the matter.
4. Additional Questions
4.1 The following additional information was sought from officers:
1 Confirmation of the accuracy of the figure of 376 Long Cycle Voids (LCVs)
at 2nd April 2006 (see appendix 1).
2 The latest figures for LCV numbers in the borough excluding temporary
decants (see appendix 2).
3 An indication of which of the current voids were in their current LCV status
prior to 2nd April 2006 (see appendix 2).
4 A copy of the delegated decision of July 2002 referred to in 1.3 of the report
(see appendix 3).
5 A copy of the Housing Performance Digests for March 2005 and March
2006 (see appendix 4 and 5).
6 How long has each LCV been empty for (see appendix 6), including:
Agenda Item 2 Page 1
• How many properties have been removed from the LCV list in the
period March 2006 until now;
• What caused them to be taken off of the list;
• If they were brought back into residential use, what was the cost of
repairs required to bring them to a lettable standard?
7 When did the existing policy review commence, who initiated this and what
is the timetable?
5. Commentary
Accuracy of the figure of 376 LCVs at 2nd April 2006
5.1 Officers can confirm that on 2nd April 2006 the number of LCVs were as follows:
Total
LCVs 458
Temporary decants 82
LCVs excl. temp decants 376
5.2 The figure of 82 can be seen on page 7 of appendix 1 under ‘Major Works
Decant’.
Current LCVs excluding temporary decants
5.3 Officers can confirm that as of 22nd August 2008 (the latest available set of
figures) the council has 393 current LCVs excluding temporary decants (see
appendix 2).
Current LCVs’ status prior to 2nd April 2006
5.4 Appendix 2 displays all current voids (as of 10th August) and indicates those that
were void prior to 2nd April 2006 and those that were in their current LCV status
prior to 2nd April 2006.
5.5 109 of the 393 current LCVs at 22nd August 2008 were void before 2nd April 06.
5.6 57 of the 393 current longcycle empties at 22nd August 2008 were in their current
longcycle void status before 2nd April 06.
5.7 This means that there are 52 current longcycle empty dwellings which were void
before 2-Apr-06, but which weren’t in there current longcycle void status at the
date. These 52 properties will have been void, but in another void status at that
time - many will have been in another longcycle void status at that time, some will
have been squatted, and some may have been in use as shortlife. It is also
possible that some will at that time have been considered as shortcycle voids,
before a later assessment was made that they were in fact longcycle.
How long have the LCVs been vacant?
5.8 Appendix 61 includes the figures for the length of time properties have been void,
although these are in weeks rather than days.
1 Please note that officers have not been able to access a list of the 376 properties recorded
as LCV on 2 April 2006, but have been able to access a list of LCVs recorded the previous
week, when the figure was 361.
Page 2
5.9 The analysis notes that 110 are still void and 251 properties have been removed
from the list and the reasons given as follows:
• 42 have been Relet, and are now Tenanted
• 15 have been Sold Leasehold at auction
• 12 have been Sold Freehold at auction
• 105 have been Demolished
• 77 have been Stock Transferred
5.10 It has not been possible to extract the costs of the voids removed at this point as
no report currently exists to capture this information, and there was not the time
available to obtain this information manually or go into each record.
Policy review
5.11 The policy review has been a piece of work undertaken by the Housing
Disposals Group (HDG), which is an officer meeting that reviews progress on
properties agreed for disposal and discusses other properties that may
subsequently be approved for disposal. This group meets every 6 weeks and
consists of officers within Strategy and Partnerships; Valuation and Asset
Management Services and Lambeth Living.
5.12 Following a weekly update with the Cabinet Member on 2nd May 2008 an
instruction was given to review to explore the option of retaining and refurbishing
properties. HDG, subsequently started work on a disposals policy on 9th May
2008 and a final version is to be presented back to CMH in September.
6. Appendices
Appendix 1: Extract from week 52 Empty Homes Weekly Report (2nd April
2006).
Appendix 2: Long Cycle Voids - Week 18 (10th August 2008)
Appendix 3: Delegated Decision Report, July 2002: Model for evaluating high
cost void disposals
Appendix 4: Housing Performance Digest March 2005
Appendix 5: Housing Performance Digest March 2006
Appendix 6: Long Cycle Voids at 31st March 2006 and status of these at 10
August 2008
SORRY HAD TO CUT IT SHORT TO LONG! FOR MESSAGE.
HOT TIP IF YOU HAVE GIVEN YOUR NAME AND GOT A REPLY FROM LBL DO A DATA REQEST ACT TO FIND OUT WHAT WHAT THE INTER OFFICE COMM WERE TAHT GOT YOUR DESCISION
VOIDS FORMULA
SECOND DESPATCH
Date and Time: Thursday, 4 September 2008 7.00 pm
Venue: Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW
Democratic Services Officer:
Democratic Services
London Borough of Lambeth,
Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill,
London, SW2 1RW
Despatched: Wednesday, 27
August 2008
Matthew Mannion
Tel/Voicemail: 020 7926 2225
Fax: 020 7926 2361
Email: mmannion@lambeth.gov.uk
Website: www.lambeth.gov.uk
MEMBERS: Councillors ROBBINS (Chair), TRUESDALE (Vice-Chair),
C. BENNETT, MORRIS and SABHARWAL
SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS: Councillors CAMERON, DODSWORTH, HIPWELL and
PALMER
AGENDA
Appendices to reports- bulky appendices are published on the Website
www.lambeth.gov.uk and can be obtained from report authors/Clerk or at the meeting.
They are not circulated with the agenda.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA MAY BE CHANGED AT THE MEETING
Page
Nos.
2. Long Cycle Voids Update Report
1 - 28
(Report 135/08-09)
All Wards
Non-Key Decision
Executive Director of Housing Regeneration and Environment
Contact: Claire Drummond 020 7926 2751
E-Mail: cdrummond@lambeth.gov.uk
London Borough of Lambeth
Finance Scrutiny Sub-Committee – Special Meeting 04/09/08
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUEST
Long Cycle Voids
1. Background/Context
1.1 Following consideration of draft reports by the Chair and Vice-Chair of the
Finance Scrutiny Sub-Committee additional information was requested to
supplement the report on Long Cycle Voids (agenda item 2) and to assist
members in their scrutiny of the matter.
1.2 The responses to these questions will be material to the discussion held on 4th
September, will be provided to all members of the Committee and will be made
available to the public in accordance with the council’s access to information
rules.
2. Consultation
Name of
consultee
Department Date sent Date
response
received
Comments
appear in
report para:
Internal
Richard Hornby DD Finance & Resources 29.08.08 2.09.08 Throughout
Greg Carson Legal and Democratic Services 29.08.08 1.09.08 None
Conrad Hall DD Corporate Finance 29.08.08 1.09.08 None
3. Reasons for Consideration
3.1 The following reasons for consideration will be provided if required:
The Chair is of the opinion that although this information will not have been
available for at least five clear days before the meeting, nonetheless it should be
considered because of the special circumstances that failure to receive the
information at this meeting will compromise the committee’s ability to conduct
thorough and effective scrutiny of the matter.
4. Additional Questions
4.1 The following additional information was sought from officers:
1 Confirmation of the accuracy of the figure of 376 Long Cycle Voids (LCVs)
at 2nd April 2006 (see appendix 1).
2 The latest figures for LCV numbers in the borough excluding temporary
decants (see appendix 2).
3 An indication of which of the current voids were in their current LCV status
prior to 2nd April 2006 (see appendix 2).
4 A copy of the delegated decision of July 2002 referred to in 1.3 of the report
(see appendix 3).
5 A copy of the Housing Performance Digests for March 2005 and March
2006 (see appendix 4 and 5).
6 How long has each LCV been empty for (see appendix 6), including:
Agenda Item 2 Page 1
• How many properties have been removed from the LCV list in the
period March 2006 until now;
• What caused them to be taken off of the list;
• If they were brought back into residential use, what was the cost of
repairs required to bring them to a lettable standard?
7 When did the existing policy review commence, who initiated this and what
is the timetable?
5. Commentary
Accuracy of the figure of 376 LCVs at 2nd April 2006
5.1 Officers can confirm that on 2nd April 2006 the number of LCVs were as follows:
Total
LCVs 458
Temporary decants 82
LCVs excl. temp decants 376
5.2 The figure of 82 can be seen on page 7 of appendix 1 under ‘Major Works
Decant’.
Current LCVs excluding temporary decants
5.3 Officers can confirm that as of 22nd August 2008 (the latest available set of
figures) the council has 393 current LCVs excluding temporary decants (see
appendix 2).
Current LCVs’ status prior to 2nd April 2006
5.4 Appendix 2 displays all current voids (as of 10th August) and indicates those that
were void prior to 2nd April 2006 and those that were in their current LCV status
prior to 2nd April 2006.
5.5 109 of the 393 current LCVs at 22nd August 2008 were void before 2nd April 06.
5.6 57 of the 393 current longcycle empties at 22nd August 2008 were in their current
longcycle void status before 2nd April 06.
5.7 This means that there are 52 current longcycle empty dwellings which were void
before 2-Apr-06, but which weren’t in there current longcycle void status at the
date. These 52 properties will have been void, but in another void status at that
time - many will have been in another longcycle void status at that time, some will
have been squatted, and some may have been in use as shortlife. It is also
possible that some will at that time have been considered as shortcycle voids,
before a later assessment was made that they were in fact longcycle.
How long have the LCVs been vacant?
5.8 Appendix 61 includes the figures for the length of time properties have been void,
although these are in weeks rather than days.
1 Please note that officers have not been able to access a list of the 376 properties recorded
as LCV on 2 April 2006, but have been able to access a list of LCVs recorded the previous
week, when the figure was 361.
Page 2
5.9 The analysis notes that 110 are still void and 251 properties have been removed
from the list and the reasons given as follows:
• 42 have been Relet, and are now Tenanted
• 15 have been Sold Leasehold at auction
• 12 have been Sold Freehold at auction
• 105 have been Demolished
• 77 have been Stock Transferred
5.10 It has not been possible to extract the costs of the voids removed at this point as
no report currently exists to capture this information, and there was not the time
available to obtain this information manually or go into each record.
Policy review
5.11 The policy review has been a piece of work undertaken by the Housing
Disposals Group (HDG), which is an officer meeting that reviews progress on
properties agreed for disposal and discusses other properties that may
subsequently be approved for disposal. This group meets every 6 weeks and
consists of officers within Strategy and Partnerships; Valuation and Asset
Management Services and Lambeth Living.
5.12 Following a weekly update with the Cabinet Member on 2nd May 2008 an
instruction was given to review to explore the option of retaining and refurbishing
properties. HDG, subsequently started work on a disposals policy on 9th May
2008 and a final version is to be presented back to CMH in September.
6. Appendices
Appendix 1: Extract from week 52 Empty Homes Weekly Report (2nd April
2006).
Appendix 2: Long Cycle Voids - Week 18 (10th August 2008)
Appendix 3: Delegated Decision Report, July 2002: Model for evaluating high
cost void disposals
Appendix 4: Housing Performance Digest March 2005
Appendix 5: Housing Performance Digest March 2006
Appendix 6: Long Cycle Voids at 31st March 2006 and status of these at 10
August 2008
SORRY HAD TO CUT IT SHORT TO LONG! FOR MESSAGE.
HOT TIP IF YOU HAVE GIVEN YOUR NAME AND GOT A REPLY FROM LBL DO A DATA REQEST ACT TO FIND OUT WHAT WHAT THE INTER OFFICE COMM WERE TAHT GOT YOUR DESCISION
