ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I don't think it needed permission because it was already commercial premises (the carpet shop), so no change of use.
Lambeth's plans to demolish Cressingham Gardens and other estates without the consent of residents
- Thread starter Brixton Hatter
- Start date
I don't think it needed permission because it was already commercial premises (the carpet shop), so no change of use.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
I doubt it is anywhere near enough.
Also, the funding rules would need to change to allow councils to allocate a proper share for low rent.
And there is often strong opposition to building high, which might be required.
Or we could just take the properties away from buy to let landlords at some kind of sub prime market rate, the value of your investment may go down as well as up, and make those properties a social good.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Compulsory Purchase Order.
After all, it was good enough for the poor sods on the Heygate estate, and Lambeth think it's good enough for the freeholders and leaseholders on the various "regeneration" estates, so it must be good enough for exploitative buy-to-let fuckers!
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Sure. By the same token, Lambeth could CPO Leander Road and densify it rather than Cressingham.
But I was asking what Lambeth can do to build more, within its restricted parameters.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
cuppa tee posted this info up on the Brixton thread. Worth re posting here as it show Nu Labour and sections of Tory thinking.
IPPR have produced this report ( which I only glanced at).
Conservative Home have this article on it.
oryx
Sitting on the bok of the day
Couldn't agree more. He does, however, know a bit more than the clown who wrote the first comment on the article!
etc.
Interesting report if you can suspend all logic to understand local authority accounting for their council housing ("Housing Revenue Account")... effectively argues that from 2017, any regeneration involving demolition and new build will essentially bankrupt the council's Housing Revenue Account, meaning that Lambeth will not be in a position to even afford basic repairs and maintenance on its housing stock anywhere in the borough...
http://www.awics.co.uk/dynamicdata/...- valuations, depreciation and impairment.pdf
http://www.awics.co.uk/dynamicdata/...- valuations, depreciation and impairment.pdf
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Wow. An interesting read. I can't see how Lambeth (or any other local authority, for that matter) can rebut this. It points up their clinging to the idea of an SPV as being a last desperate attempt to keep their projects on track, rather than a well-reasoned financial approach.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Surely the operative part is the final paragraph, namely:
"The Department for Communities & Local Government said that it does not want councils to be put off building new homes because of accountancy rules and has told sources it will publish a consultation to ensure housing revenue accounts do not take the hit for depreciation and impairment losses after 2017. This consultation is still awaited."
Surely a government capable of justifying QE would have no trouble altering these rules - unless you think that the government actually wants to bankrupt local councils building more housing.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
On Somerleyton road the Council say the project will be done outside of the HRA. The Council will borrow to build scheme. This will be separate from HRA.
Some kind of SPV will be set up.
Of course Somerleyton road will not include demolition and replacement of existing stock.
What I am not clear on from that article is the status of using an SPV on an existing estate like yours.
Will partial/ total demolition of existing housing affect the HRA? Even if the estate is transferred to a SPV.
The article does state that in this "transitional" period of the new "self financing" regime the accounting rules mean that no effect on HRA of estate regeneration and new build.
What the article is flagging up is potential problem in a few years time if the Government does not change the rules. The article is suggesting that these issues are well known and the government has done nothing so far to rectify them. The article implies the government wants to make things hard for Councils through technical measures like accounting rules.
If there is plan to demolish and do new build on Cressingham but transfer new build to a SPV this seems the relevant paragraph (page7)
So am I correct to think that even if the Council set up an SPV and borrow outside the HRA to "regenerate" Cressingham Gardens they still may, if the accounting rules stay the same, have adverse effect on HRA? Due to loss of an asset?
As this demolition cost will affect the HRA?
Sorry accountancy is not my forte. The interesting thing about the article is the fact that these seemingly tedious rules are one place were politics take place.
It looks to me that the government is using this as way to stop Councils building Council housing. Whilst urging them in public to get on with it. Its just another way to get rid of social housing. Can make one understand why Councils are looking at unsuitable measures like SPVs.
Last edited:
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I think you have pinpointed the issues.
Looks like for a definite answer we might have to invest £300 per head to attend the seminar in Novotel Waterloo!
Meanwhile I think Somerleyton Road looks safe as it is wholly outside the HRA, whereas Cressingham and any other regenerations of existing stock they will have to have lawyers as well as accountants crawling all over the contracts.
From what I can understand of the process, the council has to transfer the homes "vacant" to the SPV otherwise it would be subject to a stock transfer vote. If the homes are "vacant" then they have lost all value because they no longer provide a service and would have to be written off and charged against the HRA. The biggest issue will be the buy back of the homeowners' homes (not an issue on Somerleyton Road), particularly if done before the land is transferred to the SPV... Say £400k per home on average x 100 homeowners = £40m. To put into context, Lambeth currently collects around £100m in rents and is pretty much spending it all. If they have to make a further £40m write-off, they will have to find up to 40% cuts across the board - essentially stop all maintenance on everyone's homes... and this is not even considering the impact of the 5 other regeneration estates.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Have you checked recent buy back figures in Southwark? I think it was more like £100,000 - though obviously flats in the Heygate are not directly comparable to Cressingham Gardens.
I think Lambeth will struggle to do what Southwark is doing in terms of the "market valuations". If they try, they will have a massive battle on their hands that will be very nasty and very long. Plus there is all the other costs on top that the council has to cover if they go down the compulsory purchase route, e.g. stamp duty and legal costs on a replacement homes etc. All the extras could add up to 50% on top of the actual market value paid. It is not a cheap process, which is why the new build prices end up so high in the end.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
You may be right about that. I am fascinated how Lambeth have pushed through massive regen schemes in Robsart Street, in Stockwell Park Estate and in Myatts North (i.e. Oval Quarter) with not much opposition.
Maybe in those cases most people got to keep their homes - though I do know of people from Myatts who ended up permanently decanted into (council) street properties. That seems a surprisingly retrograde step considering regeneration schemes are supposed to be updating people to state-of-the-art, if more expensive, municipal utopias.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I did think this morning that the article has to be seen as also written to encourage people to pay up and go to his seminar.
So I would take this as possible bias.
Not saying he is writing anything wrong. Its the emphasis he puts on that this. ie please come to my seminar to hear more.
brixtonblade
Well-Known Member
Might wander up for this if rain holds off
brixtonblade
Well-Known Member
Couldn't see anyone there so went round the park, whoever mentioned the walled garden recently was right, it's looking lovely
Had an unguided look round Cressingham whilst I was up there and lots of the planting looks nice. Would have been nice to get the tour though so might go back tomorrow if anyone knows it's definitely on?
Had an unguided look round Cressingham whilst I was up there and lots of the planting looks nice. Would have been nice to get the tour though so might go back tomorrow if anyone knows it's definitely on?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Yes. You might want to go to the 3pm tour.
I was up there today. ASH were there. Architects 4 Social Housing. Had an interesting chat with them.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
It is.
brixtonblade
Well-Known Member
Went at 3,only me there but I still got shown round by Nick. Was really interesting to hear that the rain garden will help prevent flooding. Very sad to hear that someone has been pinching plants.
I didn't make it myself - needed to catch up on my sleep.
*shrug* These things (nicked plants and illicit cuttings) tend to happen anywhere that you have public space. I'm not sure how much to believe about the pinched plants as it seems to be limited to a few areas and not very often either.
Some of it might even be a result of miscommunication - there were some trees recently planted near the Crosby Walk voids, and they'd been cleared for permission with Lambeth Council, but nothing had been said to residents - not via noticeboards, email, flyers or even notices tagged to the saplings themselves. Because of that, some people on that side of the estate became scared that the trees were going to be a way of hiding regeneration, and pulled them up.
OTOH it could have been wrong uns - about 10 years ago, the mounds were planted with daffodil bulbs, bought by the TRA. Soon after they'd all come into bloom, all of them were dug up and taken away by men in fluorescent yellow waistcoats - whether they were council workers or thieves remains unkown.
High Definition
Active Member
I met ASH at Knight's Walk this afternoon, which might explain why they weren't at Cressingham. Knights Walk in Kennington is one of the other six Lambeth estates threatened with extinction. There was a tour of the estate and a meeting with Kate Macintosh, architect and widow of George Finch who designed Knights Walk. Very good turn out - 40 people I thought. Good news from Kate which is that Leigham Court Road - another of the six estates on Lambeth's hit list - has been listed, which means its safe from demolition.
Save Cressingham T shirts (still available in S, M, L and XL) on sale on the Facebook page, and you might see one or two of them (as well as the Brixton Fightback ones) being worn on the Anti Austerity march on Saturday. Sadly, it clashes with when some of us are on long since prebooked holidays or have other non-shiftable things on that day. So, if you see somebody in a white and green T shirt, do come and say hello.
Money goes towards the fighting fund, which in turn helps pay for the solicitor who we've now got arguing that Lambeth council's consultation process left a lot to be desired. Things went to judicial review last Thursday, that much I can tell you.
Money goes towards the fighting fund, which in turn helps pay for the solicitor who we've now got arguing that Lambeth council's consultation process left a lot to be desired. Things went to judicial review last Thursday, that much I can tell you.
