Lambeth's plans to demolish Cressingham Gardens and other estates without the consent of residents
- Thread starter Brixton Hatter
- Start date
299 old timer
Well-Known Member
I've just ordered 100 A4 lamination pouches and a hot laminator, so that exactly that can be done.
Interestingly, some industrious worker from the local housing office has (very poorly) attached notices to the railings about "Garages for rent on Cressingham Gardens". I'm going to ask my comrades-in-arms whether perhaps a bit of "subvertising" is in order.
Those notices to the railings about "Garages for rent on Cressingham Gardens" had been up for months. Have you noticed that they have now appeared down the Hill, - "Garages for rent on Deronda Estate"?
Is Lambeth eyeing up Deronda Estate too?
Another 
for the banners on the railings, saw them as a ran past today.
for the banners on the railings, saw them as a ran past today.
editor
hiraethified
Can someone grab some pics?Another
Maximising every last ounce of earning potential innit.
I'll take my camera with me on my run tomorrow.
Thanks, those railings are a bit too far (and I'd have to spend far too long outdoors) for me to attempt yet.
Enjoy your run.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I think they're just eyeing up some ready cash from commuters who otherwise block the fuck out of roads throughout...well, anywhere with a train or tube station.
editor
hiraethified
Please do and I'll stuck 'em up on Buzz. I think we've run something like 30 articles on Cressingham already and we're going to keep going!
Great.
View attachment 68678 
More here in larger files;
https://dexterdeadwood.wordpress.com/2015/03/11/cressingham-gardens-lambeth/
Last edited:
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Tulse Hill banner.
High Definition
Active Member
Was in the audience at Monday's Cabinet meeting and noticed how some of the Cabinet members who spoke (Edbrooke, Meldrum) were banging on about the number of homeless families, the number of people desperately overcrowded, the size of Lambeth's housing register, etc. Will be interesting to see if the report to Cabinet in May includes any figures for the percentage of the new homes that will be affordable and the percentage that will sold on the market. On the basis of what we know about other "regeneration" schemes in the borough, e.g. Somerleyton Road, I doubt the number of genuinely affordable new homes built at Cressingham will be much more than there is on the estate now.
I've been looking at what Lambeth's planning policies say about affordable housing. Seem to be two relevant policies
1. Percentage of affordable homes that have to be provide in new development
Lambeth's target for affordable homes provided (figure is in the 2011 Core Strategy and the draft Lambeth Local Plan issued in 2013) is 40% affordable/60% market where no subsidy is provided. Lambeth seem to have decided that the 40/60 ratio applies to their own regeneration schemes e.g. at Somerleyton Road where we were told last August that the target was 40% of new homes to be affordable and 60% let at market rents.
2. Developments which replace existing affordable homes
This is covered by Policy H3 of the draft Local Lambeth Plan. This says that the new developments should provide at least the same number of affordable homes as existing and the floor space should be no less. However, Lambeth have given themselves a get-out card for Council regeneration schemes because Policy H3 says that "Exceptionally, the loss of affordable housing may be acceptable where this arises from the managed replacement of housing through estate regeneration" and where the development among other things will "create new units of higher quality and design standard".
Apply both of these tests to Option 5 - 40% affordable and no reduction in the number of affordable homes compared with existing - and it comes 185 or 6 affordable homes, less under the other Options.
Here's the calculation. The Cabinet report says Option 5 will provide 464 new homes. If 40% are affordable and the rest market, that works out at 186 affordable rented homes. Policy H3 requires that the existing affordable rented homes should be replaced - so that's 185 affordable rented. Not sure if this is a coincidence, but it's same number each time. The report also says that Council tenants on the estate will have right to move to another home on the estate. If they all take up that choice, this means Option 5 will provide just one new affordable home to meet other housing needs in Lambeth.
We'll find out that the actual number when the May Cabinet report is published. I suspect that the new affordable homes argument has been used to persuade housing Lambeth councillors to toe the line on Cressingham. If it turns out that the Council's preferred option isn't going to provide any additional affordable housing (or maybe a tiny handful of new flats), then this will be powerful argument to use with local councillors.
I've been looking at what Lambeth's planning policies say about affordable housing. Seem to be two relevant policies
1. Percentage of affordable homes that have to be provide in new development
Lambeth's target for affordable homes provided (figure is in the 2011 Core Strategy and the draft Lambeth Local Plan issued in 2013) is 40% affordable/60% market where no subsidy is provided. Lambeth seem to have decided that the 40/60 ratio applies to their own regeneration schemes e.g. at Somerleyton Road where we were told last August that the target was 40% of new homes to be affordable and 60% let at market rents.
2. Developments which replace existing affordable homes
This is covered by Policy H3 of the draft Local Lambeth Plan. This says that the new developments should provide at least the same number of affordable homes as existing and the floor space should be no less. However, Lambeth have given themselves a get-out card for Council regeneration schemes because Policy H3 says that "Exceptionally, the loss of affordable housing may be acceptable where this arises from the managed replacement of housing through estate regeneration" and where the development among other things will "create new units of higher quality and design standard".
Apply both of these tests to Option 5 - 40% affordable and no reduction in the number of affordable homes compared with existing - and it comes 185 or 6 affordable homes, less under the other Options.
Here's the calculation. The Cabinet report says Option 5 will provide 464 new homes. If 40% are affordable and the rest market, that works out at 186 affordable rented homes. Policy H3 requires that the existing affordable rented homes should be replaced - so that's 185 affordable rented. Not sure if this is a coincidence, but it's same number each time. The report also says that Council tenants on the estate will have right to move to another home on the estate. If they all take up that choice, this means Option 5 will provide just one new affordable home to meet other housing needs in Lambeth.
We'll find out that the actual number when the May Cabinet report is published. I suspect that the new affordable homes argument has been used to persuade housing Lambeth councillors to toe the line on Cressingham. If it turns out that the Council's preferred option isn't going to provide any additional affordable housing (or maybe a tiny handful of new flats), then this will be powerful argument to use with local councillors.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Went to a lecture by Paul Watt of Birkbeck College this afternoon. He was on the panel of the Cressingham Gardens Question Time event last November.
Theme was local government led regeneration/gentrification.
Cressingham Gardens got several mentions, but what struck me was an earlier scheme he described which is already coming to fruition in Barnett - the West Hendon Estate where the same "no money for repairs" situation led to a council deal with Barratt to create "Hendon Waterside"
The situation is analogous in this respect: the spare land in Cressingham could provide some high rise blocks overlooking Brockwell Park - sort of "Brockwell Heights" as it were.
This reinforces the urgency of what High Definition has been saying about the interplay between the Cressingham Gardens Estate and Brockwell Park.
Theme was local government led regeneration/gentrification.
Cressingham Gardens got several mentions, but what struck me was an earlier scheme he described which is already coming to fruition in Barnett - the West Hendon Estate where the same "no money for repairs" situation led to a council deal with Barratt to create "Hendon Waterside"
The situation is analogous in this respect: the spare land in Cressingham could provide some high rise blocks overlooking Brockwell Park - sort of "Brockwell Heights" as it were.
This reinforces the urgency of what High Definition has been saying about the interplay between the Cressingham Gardens Estate and Brockwell Park.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
The Leader of Lambeth Council has written in support of the redevelopment of the estate.
Shows how contentious a decision it was if she writes a piece to support it.
She is saying the same as Cllr Bennett. What she is doing is backing her Cabinet member. Its saying that this decision comes from the top.
She also says:
So the decision had been made some time ago to demolish or partially demolish the estate. If that was the case why did not Bennett answer the Green party member on the panel at the Housing Question Time when he asked several times if Bennett was ruling out Option One? ( keeping existing estate) Now the argument has moved from it being allegedly to expensive to refurb the existing estate to one that the Council says it can build more housing on the land than is there now. That there is a housing crisis and this is the only way to combat it.
This is a completely different argument. I feel that the residents of Cressingham were misled by Council consultation process that if they put forward a good argument then Option One would be considered. It now reads to me that Option One was in actual practise not an option.
This is not how to do consultation. Its Kafkaesque consultation.
Interestingly she cites Dave Hill as support. He writes for Guardian about London issues around housing. He also chaired the Cressingham Gardens "Housing Question Time".
Its worth reading the comments from Cressingham Gardens residents at end of his article.
Dave Hills references to the Housing Question Time leave out one of the academic saying that the Council as a landlord should have been keeping these properties in good repair over the years.
Dave is way to sympathetic to Council view that this is underused land that could contain more housing.
The fact is the Council has been selling of land and housing- ex "Short Life" which it could have kept for social housing. To argue that land is scarce and the only way to build is on existing estates in therefore contradicted by the Councils policy of auctioning off other land and properties.
Shows how contentious a decision it was if she writes a piece to support it.
She is saying the same as Cllr Bennett. What she is doing is backing her Cabinet member. Its saying that this decision comes from the top.
She also says:
So the decision had been made some time ago to demolish or partially demolish the estate. If that was the case why did not Bennett answer the Green party member on the panel at the Housing Question Time when he asked several times if Bennett was ruling out Option One? ( keeping existing estate) Now the argument has moved from it being allegedly to expensive to refurb the existing estate to one that the Council says it can build more housing on the land than is there now. That there is a housing crisis and this is the only way to combat it.
This is a completely different argument. I feel that the residents of Cressingham were misled by Council consultation process that if they put forward a good argument then Option One would be considered. It now reads to me that Option One was in actual practise not an option.
This is not how to do consultation. Its Kafkaesque consultation.
Interestingly she cites Dave Hill as support. He writes for Guardian about London issues around housing. He also chaired the Cressingham Gardens "Housing Question Time".
Its worth reading the comments from Cressingham Gardens residents at end of his article.
Dave Hills references to the Housing Question Time leave out one of the academic saying that the Council as a landlord should have been keeping these properties in good repair over the years.
Dave is way to sympathetic to Council view that this is underused land that could contain more housing.
The fact is the Council has been selling of land and housing- ex "Short Life" which it could have kept for social housing. To argue that land is scarce and the only way to build is on existing estates in therefore contradicted by the Councils policy of auctioning off other land and properties.
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
To say again the housing crisis did not start with this government. New Labour under Tony did nothing for housing.
Peck says:
Peck says:
editor
hiraethified
I've added a piece on Buzz here - thanks to all for for the photos and contributions.
Cressingham Gardens protest banners go up as residents fight to save their homes
Cressingham Gardens protest banners go up as residents fight to save their homes
Single Aspect
Member
My reply to the DB comment
@Dumb’s Bumb
I used to agree with your sentiments until I went there and met them, and spoke to them and got to know them. Not one of the people I met is the original tenant therefore none benefitted from the discount but paid market on purchase. All understand very well the disbenefits of RTB and to the best of my knowledge would argue against it.
Furthermore it is the leaseholders on the estate who are organising the campaign with the undoubted support of the council tenants but there it is. The magnificent speech on Monday at LTH was made by a leaseholder.
Most importantly of all the campaign led by the leaseholders at CG are adamant that this campaign is to benefit ALL on the estate and by no means just the leaseholders.
Your post is unjust and before you write more I strongly suggest you go and meet them and talk to them and find out the truth.
Unless you dare not or will not but why not?
Final official stage of consultation in the Rotunda tomorrow from about 11am.
Silent protest by residents, supported by anyone who wishes to turn up and has an interest in the matter, outside the Rotunda from roughly the same time. I can't be more precise than that, nor am I in anything like a fit state to take part.
Silent protest by residents, supported by anyone who wishes to turn up and has an interest in the matter, outside the Rotunda from roughly the same time. I can't be more precise than that, nor am I in anything like a fit state to take part.
Update: Part of the protest is being set up, and there will (hopefully) be people protesting outside the Rotunda from 11am until 3pm when the so-called consultation ends.
If anyone were to turn up and stand with them for a while, or take photos, it might embarrass Lambeth council, so let's not spare their blushes.
If anyone were to turn up and stand with them for a while, or take photos, it might embarrass Lambeth council, so let's not spare their blushes.
High Definition
Active Member
Terrific banners. I went along this morning to take photos of the banners on the railings facing the park, and noticed lots of people stopping to look, take photos with their camera phones and read the text next to the Cressingham entrance to the park. I spoke to around half a dozen people who all said they'd have signed the petition if there'd been copies there to sign/take away. I for one would be up for volunteering to stand around by the posters for a couple of hours next weekend asking passers-by the sign the petition and generally spread the word. Anyone else interested? I have 4 clipboards I can bring along + a folding table with a handle.
Tulse Hill banner.
Thank you - you have no idea how good it feels to be able to make some of this somebody else's problem, or maybe you do.
I know that Gniewosz is out of ink at the moment, but VP can get several copies printed off by next weekend. One of the advantages of him having been a disabled student is a subsidised monochrome laser printer.
High Definition
Active Member
I'd print off copies of the petition if I could find a print version on one of the websites. Would be good if someone could post a link. BTW I have a colour printer that can print up to A3+. Would have suggested petitioning tomorrow, but the forecast is showers/rain all day, so probably won't be that many people going past. Next weekend looks better. I can do Saturday or Sunday afternoon, say from 1 pm. Don't mind going out on my own, but would be more impact if there are 3 or 4 of use.Thank you - you have no idea how good it feels to be able to make some of this somebody else's problem, or maybe you do.
I know that Gniewosz is out of ink at the moment, but VP can get several copies printed off by next weekend. One of the advantages of him having been a disabled student is a subsidised monochrome laser printer.
If you can PM your email address, I'll send an electronic copy across.
VP can get several pages printed off, but somebody will probably need to collect them from the flat. Can also supply black biros.
High Definition
Active Member
I think I'm sorted for next weekend. I've got the petition on my computer and I can print off copies now and bring along. BTW I can print up to A3+ (19 inches by 13 inches) and will make copies of the Option 5 and As Existing site plans and fix these to the railings next weekend.VP can get several pages printed off, but somebody will probably need to collect them from the flat. Can also supply black biros.
Good woman - I really wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that. OTOH he truly deserves it.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Jim Dickson is well oleaginous at the best of times, so he's probably not doing himself any favours!
