Single Aspect
Member
I'd be interested to see it if you're allowed to post it to public webspace Flickr etc. Thanks.
Lambeth's plans to demolish Cressingham Gardens and other estates without the consent of residents
- Thread starter Brixton Hatter
- Start date
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Sorry, I don't have a Flickr account or similar. If you send me a private message/start a "conversation" (mouse over the "inbox" tab at the top right of the page, then click on "start a new conversation" at the bottom of the drop-down menu) containing an e-mail address, I can send them to you.
Single Aspect
Member
Oh there's nothing secret about my email address it's blog [at] singleaspect [dot] org [dot] uk thanks.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Sent!
Single Aspect
Member
"We’ve worked with residents on the costings of refurbishment and even on the most conservative and optimistic forecast it would cost three times what the council can afford just to refurbish existing homes."
This is the lie that needs to be challenged and is the line that jumps out from both the leaflet and the almost identical posting here http://lambethlabour-labourclp132.nationbuilder.com/why_we_re_rebuilding_cressingham_gardens
I think it's clear from the last paragraph that they want to demolish.
"We have the opportunity at Cressingham Gardens to build a new estate, fit for its time, giving families who are badly housed today the same chance at a new home as the couple I met on the estate last autumn did some thirty years ago. Given the scale of the housing crisis we face, it’s an opportunity that we must take."
Single Aspect
Member
Those four words are so rude and dismissive of the existing architecture when its entirely possible, and indeed likely, that the first plans put forward will consist of a majority of single aspect flats facing the park with their backs to the street. That will have to be challenged by the GLA and a second proposal put forward before anything like decent design is achieved on the land, and this in spite of the fact that what stands is already more than fit for purpose. The whole thing is deeply depressing, and unnecessary.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Just dropped the following comment on that site (I bet it gets moderated away into the ether!):
"I'm disgusted but unsurprised at the spin that Cllr Bennett is putting on the Cressingham Gardens story (I live on the estate). Lambeth Council have been constructing a narrative about this since 2012 - a narrative that presents the council as having done its' best for the people on Cressingham, when in reality what we've had are ineptness, evasions, elisions and downright incompetence. To name but a few recent instances:
We've had Cllr Marcia Cameron claiming at Housing Question Time (an event held in a church on Trinity Rise) that she'd spoken to tenants on the estate, which gave her the idea that the estate needed to be regenerated - no tenant has acknowledged speaking with Cllr Cameron.
we've had a farcical "households needs" survey conducted in mid to late February that couldn't even set out its questions clearly - a survey that's the subject of a complaint to the council and the polling company.
We've had the council representing the cost of refurbishment as "£14 million-plus" - Our own independent survey found the cost to be £7-9 million at worst.
We've had 6 flats empty and bricked up for 15 years, without any attempt at remedial work, based on a single survey that found subsidence/slip - the flats are still here 15 years later, and are eminently repairable, according to building specialists.
I could carry on, but frankly I'm not convinced that Cllr Bennett and his associates care about what those currently living on Cressingham Gardens think, except where the councillor can use a resident's personal story as the basis of a bit of spin for his puerile apologia for his having decided (while we're still supposedly in the consultation phase) to go with regeneration rather than refurbishment. And yes, I know how many people are technically-homeless in Lambeth. That's not a justification for tearing up the green spaces on half a dozen estates for a PROJECTED net gain, especially given Lambeth's past supine incompetence with regard to social and affordable housing gain on private developments."
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
It's crystal-clear from Bennett's apologia that it's option 5 (full redevelopment - see page two of this thread for details) that's on the cards - the only option, coincidentally, that means that residents lose the Rotunda Community Centre. Great thinking, Lambeth-erase a series of communities and replace them with...fuck all.
Also, just to make clear, Cressingham isn't the only target, here (a projected 150+ new homes, although how Lambeth will finance this without losing 2/3rds to the private sector, I'm unsure about - projected cost of regeneration is around £70 million). Central Hill and four other estates are in the front line for this, and Central Hill are already being told by Lambeth that there's no refurbishment option for them, only regeneration.
Also, just to make clear, Cressingham isn't the only target, here (a projected 150+ new homes, although how Lambeth will finance this without losing 2/3rds to the private sector, I'm unsure about - projected cost of regeneration is around £70 million). Central Hill and four other estates are in the front line for this, and Central Hill are already being told by Lambeth that there's no refurbishment option for them, only regeneration.
The other thing to bear in mind is, that even if Lambeth council completely knock down this estate and build on it, the current options would generate (at most) 15 extra flats.
I repeat: Several years of upheaval, disruption, mess, noise etc to knock down and rebuild this entire estate of 300+ households, for just 15 extra dwellings. At most. Clearly we, who live here, are ungrateful selfish nimbies.
Edtited to add: Correction, option 5 would maybe provide an extra 50 flats. I still believe that the disruption, expense, and negative impact on the rest of us isn't worth it.
Last edited:
Tricky Skills
Well-Known Member
Here's the BBuzz piece.
I'm not going to FoI this one. The data is already included in the Cabinet report [pdf] for March.
To be fair it offers a comparison between the three survery quotes: the Council commissioned quote, the Lambeth Living quote and the survey commissioned by the residents.
It is slightly confusing as quotes for three different levels of repair were sourced. You can't accurately compare them.
Unless I have missed something?
I'm not going to FoI this one. The data is already included in the Cabinet report [pdf] for March.
To be fair it offers a comparison between the three survery quotes: the Council commissioned quote, the Lambeth Living quote and the survey commissioned by the residents.
It is slightly confusing as quotes for three different levels of repair were sourced. You can't accurately compare them.
Unless I have missed something?
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Had you studied the offer document appended to Neil Vokes report for cabinet? (as you have highlighted above)
What does this mean? "4. Where a tenant chooses to remain on the estate, the new tenancy will be an assured lifetime tenancy. Where a tenant chooses to move away from the estate they will have the opportunity to bid for a secure tenancy or an assured tenancy elsewhere in the Borough."
I'm not well up in housing terminology, but to me it sounds as though they are strongly steering people who are insisting on their rights into moving out.
Tricky Skills
Well-Known Member
Single Aspect
Member
Read the Expert Post at the bottom of this page, it's very informative about secure and assured tenancies.
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/what...tween-a-secure-and-assured-tenancy/351.thread
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Thanks.
There is also a detailed guide to the differences in the appendix to the report Tricky Skills quoted.
The glaring difference is that assured tenants do not have right to buy.
I had originally wondered if it was about rent levels, but on reflection it seems more about not doing up properties only to have them subsequently lost to the housing stock through RTB.
Okay guys, the gloves are well and truly off now. If the council can change the rules, so can people in this area. If they want to remove the 3 options we found the most palatable from the board, we can add something.
Emergency meeting today, followed by more to come. I'm not saying we'll definitely win this, but we can at least make the council think twice about treating council estate residents (ie everybody here, regardless of what type of tenure) like this.
We're going to need publicity, help fundraising, ideas, you name it.
But it can be done.
Emergency meeting today, followed by more to come. I'm not saying we'll definitely win this, but we can at least make the council think twice about treating council estate residents (ie everybody here, regardless of what type of tenure) like this.
We're going to need publicity, help fundraising, ideas, you name it.
But it can be done.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
My emphasis. The "generation" also covers a considerable time when Labour party was in power.
What did the last Labour governments do for Council housing? New Labour was hostile to Council housing. Encouraging Councils to set up ALMOs and coerce tenants into transferring to RSLs.
It was only at the very tail end of Labour party rule that moves were made (under Gordon Brown) to make it easier for Councils to borrow to build new Council housing.
What Cllr Bennet does not say is that the lack of housing cannot be solely blamed on the Tories/ LDs.
It was only when New Labour realised that it was taking its core vote on Council estates for granted that it changed its tune.
They have been selling off land and housing. Ex Short life that could have been used.
On Somerleyton road they evicted a community that was willing to work with the Council to leave a block of flats empty. Refusing any compromise.
Also on Somerleyton road ( which I still try to keep up on) several times Bennett has gone on about the plans for a Coop and different types of housing. I have yet to see any practical detail how this will work. Nor has the local community to my knowledge. In actual fact the affordable element of the scheme will be 40% of the total housing. Which is the same as a private developer is supposed to build. In the case of Somerleyton road the Council took decision to retain the freehold. I doubt that the housing will be Council housing. Some may be at Council level rents. That is not something that there has been clarity on from Council/ Brixton Green.
The estates are not imo built to low density. They were built to provide humane places to live with light and greenery. I have noticed Lambeth keep saying low density is an issue but as I cycle around Lambeth I see estates. The space between buildings is there for a reason. Its part of the design.
There is an unpleasant edge to Bennetts post that if you oppose this "regeneration" you are being selfish. The lack of housing is not the fault of existing Council tenants. Bennett would be better to criticise the foreign super rich who buy up houses in London and then do not use them most of the year.
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Key question is around the budget allocation to Cressingham of £3.4m… another interesting story that we haven’t gotten to the bottom of. What is the right level of allocation? Well in a recent FoI, Lambeth Living provided a whole lot of LHS Updates for each Ward (look like PR brochures). In it it states “In 2013/14 – the first full year of the LHS – we invested £91m in over 3,000 homes”… By my rough calculations this is ~£30k per home they are spending. Using £30k per home as the average across the borough, then just for the council tenants’ homes, the budget allocated to Cressingham ought to be around £6m, and if they are assuming also that £30k is averaged over the leaseholder properties as well, then we should be seeing a budget of £9m (approx 300 homes x £30k) for Cressingham Gardens. All they are essentially saying is that they ****ed up their original budgeting across the entire borough... waiting for the real numbers to come out and there will be a guaranteed scandal
They are still using the old numbers that they issued last year in July and haven't bothered to update anything. Their Option 5 only produces an extra 63 "affordable homes"... But they still haven't added back any replacement 4 bed homes, which is apparently where the real shortage is in Lambeth.
Also the NPV (Net Present Value) of Option 5 when calculated is a whopping negative £26m, i.e. in today's money, the net cost to the council to build is £26m, or equivalent to £415k to build each new council/affordable home. Note, this is after the private sales and all the council rents ... really poor financial management.
Single Aspect
Member
Entirely true, Polly Toynbee wrote about this when she lived for a while on I think Clapham Park Estate and John Prescott (remember him) got into a lot of trouble for blackmailing tenants and withholding maintenance unless they voted for transfer. Guardian article linked here:-
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/sep/27/labour2004.politics
I couldn't agree more. The underlying tone of the whole piece is that "we need to do this for Lambeth and you are standing in our way". Very poor approach.
Single Aspect
Member
It simply means that since a rebuilt CG will not be under the council any longer that the tenancies will automatically become assured rather than secure. This is explained very well in the document I linked to elsewhere from Inside Housing, indeed that's where I learned about it yesterday. At least that's how I understand it. If you're a council tenant on a council owned and run estate you have a secure tenancy including RTB but if the estate passes to a HA or other body such as under an SPV then the tenancy becomes an assured lifetime tenancy.
Last edited:
BTW some of you who don't live on the estate have asked what you can do: There are 2 things at least this week, involving time rather than money, and one on Monday week (9th March).
PM for details if interested, I'll get back to you when possible. Busy at the moment letting others in this block know what happened at yesterday's emergency meeting and what's planned for the next 9 days.
PM for details if interested, I'll get back to you when possible. Busy at the moment letting others in this block know what happened at yesterday's emergency meeting and what's planned for the next 9 days.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
The sad thing is, he may claim that "we need to do this for Lambeth", but he can't see beyond how it'll look on his CV (and that of his fellow MP-wannabes) - he and his fellow councillors will be dismantling existing communities, and while they'll claim "well, almost everyone will still be living on their estate", that doesn't mean that the community itself will be preserved. Community cohesion can be very fragile.
Tricky Skills
Well-Known Member
I'd forgotten all about the Lambeth Living 30 week programme of repairs that was due to start on 15 February. Any sign of this yet? It seems odd to be investing in the repairs when we now know what the intention was all along.
Single Aspect
Member
There was a clue in the phrase "meanwhile works" as I understand it. Heard from Gniewosz.
A small amount of scaffolding has gone up (not enough for even one small block), and there's been work on the crocodile plates at the main drivers' entrance but apart from that? Nothing that I've seen.
Probably still 2 months off starting... They are apparently still dealing with the nominations for contractors and then have to issue the second s20 notice for comment. They really dragged their feet last year.
High Definition
Active Member
Have just been reading through the report to Cabinet on 9th March. Agree 100% with the criticisms made by others in the last week (Lambeth's repair figures don't stack up, why do they think it's okay to ignore the views of the 70 - 80% of residents who want Option One? etc, etc), so won't repeat them here.
The report has another big failure, however, which doesn't seem to have been picked up by objectors so far.
This is the total absence of any reference to the damaging impact Options Two to Five will have on the green and tranquil south west corner of Brockwell Park and the way it will diminish the enjoyment that users have of the park.
See below for some shots of low rise buildings on the boundary between the estate and the park and a sketch of how these compare with the four storey block of flats that would replace them under Option Two. Options Three to Five involve even more demolition and rebuild so would be far worse.
Why is there no reference to this in the report? It's not as if Lambeth officers aren't aware that the redevelopment of the estate is likely to damage the Brockwell Park Conservation area.
Only last month the Council's Conservation and Urban Design team told the Brixton Society that "this office works closely with colleagues in Housing Regeneration and we have briefed them on the heritage issues around Cressingham Gardens".
This, presumably, includes briefing them on the recommendation from English Heritage (issued in December 2013) that Lambeth consider extending the boundaries of the Brockwell Park Conservation Area to include the Cressingham Gardens Estate and explaining why Lambeth officers have chosen to ignore the recommendation.
Seems to me it's totally outrageous for a report to come to Cabinet which could result in decisions being taken which will have a major impact on the Brockwell Park Conservation Area without any consideration of the Council's duties to protect our parks and open spaces.
The report has another big failure, however, which doesn't seem to have been picked up by objectors so far.
This is the total absence of any reference to the damaging impact Options Two to Five will have on the green and tranquil south west corner of Brockwell Park and the way it will diminish the enjoyment that users have of the park.
See below for some shots of low rise buildings on the boundary between the estate and the park and a sketch of how these compare with the four storey block of flats that would replace them under Option Two. Options Three to Five involve even more demolition and rebuild so would be far worse.
Why is there no reference to this in the report? It's not as if Lambeth officers aren't aware that the redevelopment of the estate is likely to damage the Brockwell Park Conservation area.
Only last month the Council's Conservation and Urban Design team told the Brixton Society that "this office works closely with colleagues in Housing Regeneration and we have briefed them on the heritage issues around Cressingham Gardens".
This, presumably, includes briefing them on the recommendation from English Heritage (issued in December 2013) that Lambeth consider extending the boundaries of the Brockwell Park Conservation Area to include the Cressingham Gardens Estate and explaining why Lambeth officers have chosen to ignore the recommendation.
Seems to me it's totally outrageous for a report to come to Cabinet which could result in decisions being taken which will have a major impact on the Brockwell Park Conservation Area without any consideration of the Council's duties to protect our parks and open spaces.
Twattor
Well-Known Member
Yeah. Bugger that.
Having had a look at the cabinet report posted by Tricky Skills it is pretty obvious that Lambeth never had any intention of refurbishing the estate, and that any semblance of consultation was merely a cynical attempt to make it appear that the wishes of the residents had been considered, when in reality it is more likely that a decision was made the moment Ian Sayer’s budget came back. The introductory table where the options are set out sums this up – option 1: too expensive; options 2-4: not interested; option 5: how do we swing this politically?
Despite their assertions to the contrary, I don’t see how this can be anything other than a PPP or joint venture in the vein of Myatt’s Field. They talk of 464 units to replace the existing 306 units. Basic back-of-a-fag-packet calcs assuming an equal split of 1,2,3, bed units (conservative for social housing) and Boris's space standards you'd be looking at ballpark £60m. If they can’t find £9m to refurbish, where is this £60m going to come from? How many private sales units will have to be built to generate this much profit for a private developer to agree to a joint venture?
There'll be some architecturally rubbish and cheap to build proposal (viz Myatts or Junction) pushed through that no private developer would stand a chance of getting planning for, simply because it has council support. This will be followed by an application to vary the permission because the proportion of affordable damages the viability (now a material consideration for planning).
Next stop 200 social units, 800 private sale and fuck off.
Having had a look at the cabinet report posted by Tricky Skills it is pretty obvious that Lambeth never had any intention of refurbishing the estate, and that any semblance of consultation was merely a cynical attempt to make it appear that the wishes of the residents had been considered, when in reality it is more likely that a decision was made the moment Ian Sayer’s budget came back. The introductory table where the options are set out sums this up – option 1: too expensive; options 2-4: not interested; option 5: how do we swing this politically?
Despite their assertions to the contrary, I don’t see how this can be anything other than a PPP or joint venture in the vein of Myatt’s Field. They talk of 464 units to replace the existing 306 units. Basic back-of-a-fag-packet calcs assuming an equal split of 1,2,3, bed units (conservative for social housing) and Boris's space standards you'd be looking at ballpark £60m. If they can’t find £9m to refurbish, where is this £60m going to come from? How many private sales units will have to be built to generate this much profit for a private developer to agree to a joint venture?
There'll be some architecturally rubbish and cheap to build proposal (viz Myatts or Junction) pushed through that no private developer would stand a chance of getting planning for, simply because it has council support. This will be followed by an application to vary the permission because the proportion of affordable damages the viability (now a material consideration for planning).
Next stop 200 social units, 800 private sale and fuck off.
