At that size they obv can't get the lorry on site.
No idea what they're shifting but maybe heavy machinery or those sales portacabins.
No idea what they're shifting but maybe heavy machinery or those sales portacabins.
Guinness Trust plans for Loughborough Park Estate
- Thread starter lang rabbie
- Start date
jimbarkanoodle
Well-Known Member
im not sure how relevant this is, but I live in a guardianship scheme called Camelot, where you live in empty buildings etc, technically and supposedly acting as a "guardian" of the property whilst its fate is decided. One of the properties on offer (not mine) is a flat in the estate, with rent of around £300 a month.
http://uk.cameloteurope.com/?id=151&level=1&guard_man=558&args=&property_id=2734&wtlive=Brixton
http://uk.cameloteurope.com/?id=151&level=1&guard_man=558&args=&property_id=2734&wtlive=Brixton
jimbarkanoodle
Well-Known Member
they are bastards alright.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Correct. The fencing and stuff was apparently for the (health and safety) purposes of moving an enormous crane.
editor
hiraethified
And the dog was there to ward off any cats that came to look.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I was asked by Lambeth Housing Activists to look in GT and planning. Here is what I have found so far.
asked me to look into whether GT have planning permission for remaining works on the Loughborough Park Estate.
The short answer to the question do GT have planning permission for "Phase 3" ,the demolition of the remaining blocks and new build, is no.
There is "outline" planning permission for the whole scheme.
However detailed planning permission is required for each stage. Phase 3 is the last one that needs full planning permission.
The planning application for Phase 3 is in planning officer jargon "pending". It has been submitted and public comments can be made still.
The comments against have been about the height of the blocks. Which will be higher than the nearby Barrier Block or recent proposals for the Somerleyton road project. So there is a planning issue around height.
The application is on the Lambeth planning website. To make comments you have to log in. That requires to fill in online- email address etc. After that you can log into site and comment online. Its application number 15/01281/FUL- it also should be in the Tate Library.
As the application is still open to comments I would suggest that people could comment to say that the short life remaining in these blocks should be rehoused in the new development. Unfortunately this is not considered a planning issue. However it might be worth doing to make a political point.
Also to ask for guarantees on the type of tenancies and level of affordable rent on phase 3. Which may be a planning issue.
The application has a lot of pdfs.
One that summarises the housing issues and history of the application is this pdf
Its of course written by Gt so presents there side. But its revealing about the history of the regeneration of the estate. It also has useful drawing showing the different phases.
I have read it through and it looks to me that GT were persuaded to make more of an effort to build social housing. An issue that came up when the residents opposed the original application years back now.
See page 3 point 2.7. Instead of half for outright sale now all units will be rented or shared ownership. Only first two phases are social rented. Phase 3 will be at "affordable" rent. Whatever that will mean. Its an issue for planning imo that can be raised. The rest will be shared ownership. So there will be according to GT net increase in social housing. Only if one includes shared ownership. The got extra funding or promises of it to do this.
Is the enough affordable housing to rehouse all the remaining Short Life in phase 3?
It looks like yes.
( The issues will be were do they live in meantime and what affordable rent will be. Looking at the drawings it appears that phase 3 will be done in two parts. As the temporary community centre will move twice. Therefore it will be possible to keep existing short life on site. At this time GT are using Camelot to replace existing insecure tenants. So I reckon that GT think it will take time to get full planning permission and start works.Phase 3 is largest phase.
Page 2 point 2.2 of the pdf states that:
"The first phase is complete and the second phase is nearing completion. On completion of phase 2 all the existing resident will be rehouse in new homes."
Also says this on page 4 point 3.1
I do not know how many of the original resident on secure tenancies there are left. I know at least one family rehoused elsewhere.
It could be that in phase 2 there may be flats surplus to the number of secure residents that need to be rehoused on the estate.
page 6 point 3.3 states that those on insecure tenancies will be referred to Lambeth.
To add the "The Business Case pdf for phase 3 page one also say that over the remaining years of the scheme the financial viability as they put it will have to be reviewed. And that the scheme may change.
In that doc it says that its says phase one and two got funding. Phase 3 is seeking new bid for funding. So am not clear whether first funding was for 290 homes or not. The various pdfs say slightly different things imo.
asked me to look into whether GT have planning permission for remaining works on the Loughborough Park Estate.
The short answer to the question do GT have planning permission for "Phase 3" ,the demolition of the remaining blocks and new build, is no.
There is "outline" planning permission for the whole scheme.
However detailed planning permission is required for each stage. Phase 3 is the last one that needs full planning permission.
The planning application for Phase 3 is in planning officer jargon "pending". It has been submitted and public comments can be made still.
The comments against have been about the height of the blocks. Which will be higher than the nearby Barrier Block or recent proposals for the Somerleyton road project. So there is a planning issue around height.
The application is on the Lambeth planning website. To make comments you have to log in. That requires to fill in online- email address etc. After that you can log into site and comment online. Its application number 15/01281/FUL- it also should be in the Tate Library.
As the application is still open to comments I would suggest that people could comment to say that the short life remaining in these blocks should be rehoused in the new development. Unfortunately this is not considered a planning issue. However it might be worth doing to make a political point.
Also to ask for guarantees on the type of tenancies and level of affordable rent on phase 3. Which may be a planning issue.
The application has a lot of pdfs.
One that summarises the housing issues and history of the application is this pdf
Its of course written by Gt so presents there side. But its revealing about the history of the regeneration of the estate. It also has useful drawing showing the different phases.
I have read it through and it looks to me that GT were persuaded to make more of an effort to build social housing. An issue that came up when the residents opposed the original application years back now.
See page 3 point 2.7. Instead of half for outright sale now all units will be rented or shared ownership. Only first two phases are social rented. Phase 3 will be at "affordable" rent. Whatever that will mean. Its an issue for planning imo that can be raised. The rest will be shared ownership. So there will be according to GT net increase in social housing. Only if one includes shared ownership. The got extra funding or promises of it to do this.
Is the enough affordable housing to rehouse all the remaining Short Life in phase 3?
It looks like yes.
( The issues will be were do they live in meantime and what affordable rent will be. Looking at the drawings it appears that phase 3 will be done in two parts. As the temporary community centre will move twice. Therefore it will be possible to keep existing short life on site. At this time GT are using Camelot to replace existing insecure tenants. So I reckon that GT think it will take time to get full planning permission and start works.Phase 3 is largest phase.
Page 2 point 2.2 of the pdf states that:
"The first phase is complete and the second phase is nearing completion. On completion of phase 2 all the existing resident will be rehouse in new homes."
Also says this on page 4 point 3.1
I do not know how many of the original resident on secure tenancies there are left. I know at least one family rehoused elsewhere.
It could be that in phase 2 there may be flats surplus to the number of secure residents that need to be rehoused on the estate.
page 6 point 3.3 states that those on insecure tenancies will be referred to Lambeth.
To add the "The Business Case pdf for phase 3 page one also say that over the remaining years of the scheme the financial viability as they put it will have to be reviewed. And that the scheme may change.
In that doc it says that its says phase one and two got funding. Phase 3 is seeking new bid for funding. So am not clear whether first funding was for 290 homes or not. The various pdfs say slightly different things imo.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I also look at "Guinness Trust Investment strategy and business plan". pdf was to large to upload her but if you google the title it comes up.
Pages 16 and 17 cover the Loughborough Park Estate.
Interestingly GT have moved into building homes for sale and rent at market prices:
page 8
The structure of GT is complicated. They have set up different entities that are independent of each other. Guinness Development Ltd does building for outright sale. (page 15). Its a company not a charity.
So Guinness in practise is both a charitable social housing provider and a private developer.
page 16:
page 16 & 17 cover Loughborough Park Estate
I assume when it say phases 2 to 5 it now means just phase 3 the rest of the estate.
Doc show that GT got grant funding to replace the existing social housing.
What I do not understand is that it says it got a grant to replace the existing 390 homes but phase 3 will be nil grant homes. As phase one and two will account for only 211 social rented not the full 390.
Plus phase one, two and three will come up to 354 rented units ( social and affordable ) not 390. The rest being shared ownership.
Pages 16 and 17 cover the Loughborough Park Estate.
Interestingly GT have moved into building homes for sale and rent at market prices:
page 8
The structure of GT is complicated. They have set up different entities that are independent of each other. Guinness Development Ltd does building for outright sale. (page 15). Its a company not a charity.
So Guinness in practise is both a charitable social housing provider and a private developer.
page 16:
page 16 & 17 cover Loughborough Park Estate
I assume when it say phases 2 to 5 it now means just phase 3 the rest of the estate.
Doc show that GT got grant funding to replace the existing social housing.
What I do not understand is that it says it got a grant to replace the existing 390 homes but phase 3 will be nil grant homes. As phase one and two will account for only 211 social rented not the full 390.
Plus phase one, two and three will come up to 354 rented units ( social and affordable ) not 390. The rest being shared ownership.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
My post above goes into some of it.
Seems that charitable institutions can set up entities that are not charitable status that are controlled by them in practise. In legal terms they are separate and not covered by charitable society guidelines. I assume.
imo opinion it starts to make a charitable institution start to lose its real purpose. What is to stop GT running down its charitable side and becoming more and more like a straightforward property developer?
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
If anyone can add to my post please do. The application is long and complicated. There are also issues of height in this redevelopment CH1 High Definition
My looking at it is to see if its possible for the remaining short life to be rehoused on the estate.
Looks to me like that is feasible.
GT say the units in phase 3 will go to Lambeth for allocation. So it might be worth trying to get Lambeth to at least rehouse those short life with children on the estate.
My looking at it is to see if its possible for the remaining short life to be rehoused on the estate.
Looks to me like that is feasible.
GT say the units in phase 3 will go to Lambeth for allocation. So it might be worth trying to get Lambeth to at least rehouse those short life with children on the estate.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Thinking about the charitable status of Guinness Trust.
Do having non charitable "subsidiaries" as part of GT contradict the core charitable purpose?
Even if in strict legal terms they are separate? But in practise not. The old legal argument. If it walks like a duck and quakes like a duck its a duck even if you call it something else.
GT also at one level call them subsidiaries at another separate entities.
Do having non charitable "subsidiaries" as part of GT contradict the core charitable purpose?
Even if in strict legal terms they are separate? But in practise not. The old legal argument. If it walks like a duck and quakes like a duck its a duck even if you call it something else.
GT also at one level call them subsidiaries at another separate entities.
A bit more:
And then this:
http://www.guinnesspartnership.com/about-us/governance/legal-structures
It seems to mean the old Guinness Trust (and Board) is now a subsidiary of the Partnership - one of five subsidiary entities. The umbrella 'group' entity (the Partnership) is of charitable status - this is interesting as it means the profits its subsidiaries accrue (some from commercial activities) still belong to the charitable entity. Basically a charity with different sub companies making money for it.
So, alongside the Trust - which remains as it always has - the other four subsidiaries:
* Develop and sell at market rates (Guinness Developments Ltd)
* Offer properties at market rent (Guinness Homes Ltd)
* A care and support entity with its own sub companies
* A repairs and planned works entity
In terms of the future - and this is only my opinion - it is reasonable to worry about the ambitions at Group level (the Partnership), not least because it could presumably abandon its charitable status. But. The key word for Guinness tenants is if their landlord is the Guinness Trust - you can't mess with that, and the terms of the Trust will be crucial.
It might also be the case that the landlord for new and new-ish tenants won't be Guinness Trust but Guinness Partnership, which means they don't have the same (Trust) protection of tenants pre 2012 - again imo.
And then this:
http://www.guinnesspartnership.com/about-us/governance/legal-structures
It seems to mean the old Guinness Trust (and Board) is now a subsidiary of the Partnership - one of five subsidiary entities. The umbrella 'group' entity (the Partnership) is of charitable status - this is interesting as it means the profits its subsidiaries accrue (some from commercial activities) still belong to the charitable entity. Basically a charity with different sub companies making money for it.
So, alongside the Trust - which remains as it always has - the other four subsidiaries:
* Develop and sell at market rates (Guinness Developments Ltd)
* Offer properties at market rent (Guinness Homes Ltd)
* A care and support entity with its own sub companies
* A repairs and planned works entity
In terms of the future - and this is only my opinion - it is reasonable to worry about the ambitions at Group level (the Partnership), not least because it could presumably abandon its charitable status. But. The key word for Guinness tenants is if their landlord is the Guinness Trust - you can't mess with that, and the terms of the Trust will be crucial.
It might also be the case that the landlord for new and new-ish tenants won't be Guinness Trust but Guinness Partnership, which means they don't have the same (Trust) protection of tenants pre 2012 - again imo.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
My preliminary thoughts on this are:
WOW! Three pages of pdf files are listed - maybe a trip to the library would be better.
As I read it the official deadline for comments on the application was 1/2 April.
They hadn't gone out of their way to consult had they? No workshops at 6 Somerleyton Road attended by Tulse Hill ward councillors etc etc.
For reference I have tried to create an image of the planning approval from 2011 (by the planning committee) which does show that all this has already been approved in principle - and the current 2015 application is essentially the full set of drawings showing the buildings as they are proposed to be constructed.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Regarding both the original and current Guinness application I would like to mention the transport assessment.
This was done (in terms of buses) by adding together all the buses on routes "near" to the Guinness Trust site = P4, P5, 322, 35,45,345.
Altogether they have calculated that there are 27 buses an hour each way serving the site. Therefore no extra capacity will be needed.
The original transport study is 88 pages and the supplement for the current application is 23 pages -neither seem to contain anything much useful - except to justify a consultancy fee.
One further point - the transport surveys were done before the Evelyn Grace Academy was built.
This was done (in terms of buses) by adding together all the buses on routes "near" to the Guinness Trust site = P4, P5, 322, 35,45,345.
Altogether they have calculated that there are 27 buses an hour each way serving the site. Therefore no extra capacity will be needed.
The original transport study is 88 pages and the supplement for the current application is 23 pages -neither seem to contain anything much useful - except to justify a consultancy fee.
One further point - the transport surveys were done before the Evelyn Grace Academy was built.
Twattor
Well-Known Member
This is the industry standard model now. When central government funding started shrinking post-2008, it didn't take housing associations long to work out that they had a massive competitive advantage over private developers because they had a huge asset base and income stream to borrow against, and didn't have to partner with anyone to pick up the affordable elements in large developments.
They are still charitable bodies and essentially non-profit making so the private sales cross-subsidise the affordable, but effectively the drive is towards maximising revenue so they can develop more. This is why you tend to see more "affordable rent" than "social rent" in the new developments. I'm only aware of one RSL that is committed to providing only affordable and social with no private, and they aren't based in london.
Most tenancies these days are ASTs rather than protected. Again, that is a fact of life as these entities are commercial and want to minimise maintenance and management costs, which are increased by disruptive or destructive tenants.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Blockade Friday morning. Supporters came from Aylesbury estate, Radical Housing network, Lambeth Housing activists and Housing Actions in Southwark and Lambeth. Its good to see so many groups offering solidarity.
Whilst GT have offered concessions to the remaining ASTs its still necessary to keep the pressure up.
The fences and security guards have gone. GT must have seen them as bad publicity.
This was early morning. All credit to those who had an early start friday morning.
Whilst GT have offered concessions to the remaining ASTs its still necessary to keep the pressure up.
The fences and security guards have gone. GT must have seen them as bad publicity.
This was early morning. All credit to those who had an early start friday morning.
Blockade Friday morning. Supporters came from Aylesbury estate, Radical Housing network, Lambeth Housing activists and Housing Actions in Southwark and Lambeth. Its good to see so many groups offering solidarity.
Whilst GT have offered concessions to the remaining ASTs its still necessary to keep the pressure up.
The fences and security guards have gone. GT must have seen them as bad publicity.
This was early morning. All credit to those who had an early start friday morning.
Saw some familiar faces on the Mayday march, had a chat with one or two but don't know them beyond that. I took this effort in the wind;
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
I was told they were a temporary measure to allow for the movement of a giant crane.
Indeed, it's not a detention camp.
editor
hiraethified
Imagine it may have felt that way to residents already threatened with eviction. How would you like it if 15 security guards and fencing suddenly encircled your home without warning or explanation?
I'd refer to my eviction correspondence, particularly from the County Court. And maybe even ask them what they were doing there.
Ftr, I wouldn't take a bunch of photos of an articulated lorry.
editor
hiraethified
What?
editor
hiraethified
1. This naivete you're showing that by suggesting that simply 'checking the eviction correspondence' would put a worried mother's mind completely to rest when suddenly faced with an army of security guards turning up unannounced. You're living in a fantasy world if you think that evictions always go by the book and that landlords never use intimidation or illegal tactics to boot out tenants.
2. What are you about: "Ftr, I wouldn't take a bunch of photos of an articulated lorry."
This tells us you know fuck all -and I mean FUCK ALL - about GT.
Are you sure you're not conflating tenants rights with squatters rights to build your *story*?
LOL QED.
editor
hiraethified
So the tenants - you know, the people that actually live there - were all just being silly billies for being so worried about what was going on? And as for desperately writing to people to ask them to come down when the security turned up announced - well, that's them just not knowing anything too, yes? What fright babies!
You may dismiss their concerns out of hand. I won't.
You don't know the difference, do you. Pretty convenient.
Any more photos of non-tenant evictions to build your bogus narrative?
Any more photos of non-tenant evictions to build your bogus narrative?
editor
hiraethified
Why do you think the tenants were so worried? Any ideas? Are you able to empathise or understand anything?
Similar threads
