Guinness Trust plans for Loughborough Park Estate

[Gramsci]

As the film says many of the people in the Estate are "short life". I notice that in the "Housing and Phasing statement" in the supporting docs it say that,


Non-secure tenancies
3.14 Households with non-secure tenancies, will throughout all the above Phases,
be referred to London Borough of Lambeth to assess their housing need,
and then be acted upon accordingly.

This means in practise that most are not likely to be rehoused.

 

[Gramsci]

​

From the plans it looks like this building will be demolished. I rather like it and I think I will oppose its loss in these new plans.

 

[Gramsci]

Biggest problem I see here is the fact that since the first application the trust has only taken new tenants on short life tenancies, some of them have been here in excess of 5 years now but have no guarantee of being rehoused after redevelopment.

9 stories is only 1 more than Southwyck House.



Lifts man LIFTS!!!

Draught-proof windows.

Secure bicycle storage (at least it's what they say).

All in all I'm for it rather than against.

Ive emailed the Chair of the residents association to say the Short life people should get legal advice . I really object to the way Landlords increasingly make people take insecure tenancies. Its all for the interest of the Landlord not the local community. It is also a way of breaking up any real oppositons/ genuine consultation of plans for an estate. As people on S/L may not see themselves as having a long term future on the estate.

 

[Gramsci]

my comments to planning

--------Submission Type: Customer objects to the Planning Application. Comments:

1) I was not informed of this application even though I live a few minutes from the estate. I only knew about it from residents of the estate. So my comments are rushed.

2) I notice that in the "Housing and Phasing statement" in the supporting docs it say that,

"Non-secure tenancies3.14 Households with non-secure tenancies, will throughout all the above Phases,be referred to London Borough of Lambeth to assess their housing need,and then be acted upon accordingly."

This means in practise that most are not likely to be rehoused. I object to this. Many of these residents have lived there on insecure tenancies for many years and are now part of the local community. As part of this application Guiness Trust should be obliged to rehouse these people who it has given "Short Life " tenancies. It has served GTs interest to have tenants who dont have the same rights as permanent tenants.

3) This estate is a fine example of early social housing. In particular the community hall / entrance building with the clock on the front. At least some of the estate , like the original community hall ,should be preserved. This application should be sent back to GT to incorparate some of the historice heritage into any new estate.

4) The proposed height of the new buildings means they will overlook the terraced street on the other side of the railway line.

5) The online docs do not include PDF on consultation as the site says it is to big to put online. A shortened version could have been put up. I am not able to comment on how GT say they have consulted people on the estate. I therefore oppose this application. It needs to have more public consultation. The needs of all residents need to be taken into account - whatever tenancies they have. The historic nature of the estate is not taken into account in this application. At least some of it should be preserved in any new developments.

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

There was something in the SLPs last edition and an article today about the 9 stories video as well.
I'll put a scan of the other one a bit later.

 

[Ms T]

The residents of Mayall Road are a bit concerned about how tall this proposed new building will be, and the possible effect on them.

 

[Gramsci]

They need to but in objections to planning application as soon as possible. Otherwise there concerns will not be noted.

Also I know Brixton Society have raised this issue , among others, about this application.

 

[Gramsci]

Guiness Trust plans are going to committee next Wednesday. There was a site visit last Saturday. Some residents arent happy so will be attending committee

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=442&MId=7163

Its item 4 on agenda

 

[Gramsci]

Some bullet points on the officers report to the meeting:





I have read most of officers report. Here are issues I think are relevant for Planning Committee Cllrs

"flexible" Section 106 sought. Officers and GT want "review mechanism" for Section 106. This will potentially lead to same problems as Tescos with there Section 106.

no rehousing rights for insecure tenants

not green enough development according to planning guidelines due to budgetary restraints on scheme. PV cells could be located on roof. But GT say its to expensive. CO2 proposed reduction falls short of London plan of 20%

design issues . Conservation officers not happy with design. No overall coherent design aesthetic for whole devolopment

full plans only for phase one. Next phases no design plans or guarentees on affordable housing.

Apart from Phase one , for which full planning permission is sought, the rest of the application is for outline permission. Does this mean that if given the rest of the development will not need full scrutiny by Planning Committee? Does it mean that officers are given power to continue planning with GT without further referance to Cllrs on Planning Committee?

underground car park will cause problems. CCTV will be expensive to moniter the underground car park.

car parking above ground . Some officers not happy as this will encourage ASB near some of the housing.

poor consultation by Guiness Trust. Local amenity groups like Brixton Society not consulted in pre application stage

figures for loss/ gain of affordable housing not clear. Oficers say that 233 are secure social housing and 157 AST insecure. GT say 42 vacant , 217 secure and 131 AST insecure.

there is loss of affordable housing not gain as officers and GT claim. This is due to way that they count affordable housing in original estate. They do not count short life tenants as affordable housing. Even though whole estate was originally built as affordable housing.

tenure split differs from London plan and Lambeth Council targets.

original community hall which is fine example of early social architecture should be retained. Officers and GT argue that estate is not protected.

height of buildings leads to loss of light to nearby residential buildings. GT and officers contest this.

there are various comments by GT that the estates social housing is not protected by an existing Section 106. Therefore its within there rights to rent out flats at market value or sell land on open market if no solution found. I read this as saying that if this application does not go through then they will possibly do this.

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

Well, second attempt, this saga has now dragged on for ages, and probably cost a fair bit.
Lots of flats have been empty for ages now as GT has not been taking any new tenants for a long time, out of my window I can see 3 two edrooms and 2 one bedromms so 42 sounds about right..
Some sort of guarantee for insecure tenants would be nice but I think that D.C. is planning on doing away with secure tenancies all round anyway.

 

[ebjackson]

any news from last night metting anyone please

 

[Gramsci]

The Planning Application was agreed by committee with Cllr Palmer voting against. That is the LD Cllr ( who is of independant mind) voted against with the Labour Cllrs all voting for.

A lot of people turned up from Guinness Trust. It was a lively meeting with plenty of heckling by GT residents of GT who were present. Most comments from GT residents were about GTs poor consultation and mge of estate. Even those residents who talked in favour of scheme were critical of GT. It is clear that GT have allowed the estate to run down over recent years. As Cllr Palmer said it was a very good estate years ago.

Cllrs Rachel Heywood spoke in favour of scheme whilst saying there was problems with consultation. The other ward Cllr Matt Parr turned up but did not say anything.

The issue of the insecure tenants came up at meeting. What surprised me was that there was no real split in the residents. All were critical of GT and the secure tenants spoke in favour of the insecure tenants.

This is interesting case of how not to consult residents and gain there support for redevelopment. Seems to me that the people on the estate get on with each other and are potentially a community who want there estate improved. They just have not had much of a say. Whatever GT might say about there efforts at consultation.

I took notes and will write them up when I have time.

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

not directly related but most definitely relevant article about the heygate estate in elephant:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/mar/04/death-housing-ideal

 

[Gramsci]

yes I saw this. Have not read it yet.

 

[Gramsci]

my post 26 has part one of Guiness Trust estate short film . Ive just been sent Part 2. Part 2 is mostly interviews after the Planning Application Committee meeting where the was Guiness Trust application to demolish the estate was agreed. (see my post 42).



Spot yours truly in background of one shot.

At end of film it says decision has been referred to Council scrutiny committee.

 

[Gramsci]

I did speak at that meeting to oppose the application. Also gave the residents a bit of advice on how a PAC works. I dont live there and have no "vested interest" in the estate. Do I get a Gold Star?

 

[editor]

my post 26 has part one of Guiness Trust estate short film . Ive just been sent Part 2. Part 2 is mostly interviews after the Planning Application Committee meeting where the was Guiness Trust application to demolish the estate was agreed. (see my post 42).



Spot yours truly in background of one shot.

At end of film it says decision has been referred to Council scrutiny committee.

I bigged it up on the urban75 blog: http://www.urban75.org/blog/guinness-trust-estate-campaign-continues-in-brixton-video/

 

[Gramsci]

Thanks Ed. I will let them know.

He is a good documentary maker imo.

 

[tshax]

I've just moved to Loughborough Park on a short-term tenancy agreement - should I be worried about any of this?

Is there a known and realistic timetable if any of these plans are to go ahead?

 

[Gramsci]

Yes you should.

You need to talk to neighbours and get in touch with the residents association.

The timetable im not clear on. I dont actually live there.

I have told the Short Life residents to get legal advice on there status.

Short life is easy way for social landlords to fill up flats whilst they sit on property for years. Development may or may not happen sooner or later for various financial reasons. In the meantime people have no status. The way it works is that they try and word agreements in such a way as to get people out quickly with no obligation to house them elsewhere. Short life is often a misnomer as

"Short lifers" often end up as long term members of the community. As is the case with many of the residents on the estate.

from minute of PAC meeting. An "informative" is something that the PAC wishes to happen but does not have the power to make happen.

* Add informative that the Planning Applications Committee request that Lambeth’s Housing officers work with Guinness Trust to make best endeavours to ensure all AST residents in housing need are re-housed on the redeveloped Loughborough Park Estate. This request is to be communicated directly to Lambeth’s Housing officers by the Planning Division.

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/mgAi.aspx?ID=13594

 

[Gramsci]

minutes of the PAC where the GT proposal was agreed.

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/mgAi.aspx?ID=13594

 

[Mrs Magpie]

50 families to be evicted on Nov 20th

 

[Greebo]

50 families to be evicted on Nov 20th

Oh great - where on earth are they supposed to go?

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Your guess is as good as mine....as in, I haven't a clue

 

[Brixton Hatter]

50 families to be evicted on Nov 20th

shit - are they the short life tenants?

What's the ultimate plan for the GT estate - is it going to be completely redeveloped?

 

[Mrs Magpie]

shit - are they the short life tenants?

What's the ultimate plan for the GT estate - is it going to be completely redeveloped?

Yes and I don't know exactly but most if not all will be demolished.

 

[LizzieD]

50 families to be evicted on Nov 20th

Hello, I'm a local journalist and saw news about the evictions on Twitter. Now I can't find it anywhere else on the internet, how did you find out?
Many thanks,
Lizzie

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Yesterday's South London Press (hard copy)

 

[Brixton Hatter]

So despite this condition in the approval of the planning application:

• Add informative that the Planning Applications Committee request that Lambeth’s Housing officers work with Guinness Trust to make best endeavours to ensure all AST residents in housing need are re-housed on the redeveloped Loughborough Park Estate. This request is to be communicated directly to Lambeth’s Housing officers by the Planning Division.​

...they are still evicting AST people?

Cunts.
​

 

[Mrs Magpie]

...I would add that although those to be evicted are 'short life' tenants they've been there for donkey's years and many are really active in community groups and will be sorely missed.