Lambeth's plans to demolish Cressingham Gardens and other estates without the consent of residents

[Winot]

And put out very quickly. Well done

Interested to hear about involvement of barrister at the end there. Is that the first such involvement? From the quote, it doesn't sound like he said much more than echo residents' concerns. Have specific legal grounds for taking it to the High Court been identified?

They are running a judicial review iirc. My understanding is that judicial review challenges the *process* by which the decision was reached, not the decision itself. It can introduce delay and force the council to re-run the process, but can't of itself change the decision, i.e. Lambeth could rerun things properly and still come down in favour of demolition.

[Please would someone more au fait with this correct me if I've misunderstood]

Also to add my thanks to Tricky Skills for a very good report.

I am most struck by the lack of a proper vote at the end of it all. It sounds like (some) councillors had concerns and yet here they are, in public, being asked by their leader to agree on a murmur. They should at least have the balls to raise their hand. Ideally it should be a secret ballot.

 

[editor]

I'm happy to keep on fundraising for the fight against this until I'm blue in the face. Lambeth Council are acting disgracefully.

 

[Tricky Skills]

I am most struck by the lack of a proper vote at the end of it all. It sounds like (some) councillors had concerns and yet here they are, in public, being asked by their leader to agree on a murmur. They should at least have the balls to raise their hand. Ideally it should be a secret ballot.

Cabinet 'decisions' are always taken on an "agreed' nodding of the heads. It is local government democracy at its very worst. The decisions have been already been made anyway behind closed doors. Cabinet is a charade so that democracy can be seen to take place - residents and what is left of any Opposition get to question the Cabinet, but it's not going to change a decision that they have already made in private.

The lively nature of the meeting last night made the "agreed" murmur really unfortunate. I wanted to see who agreed. You couldn't tell who was speaking. At least a raising of the hands would have given a physical way to see that all Cabinet members were towing the pre-agreed party line.

Here's the rambling closing of the agenda item.

 

[Greebo]

I'm happy to keep on fundraising for the fight against this until I'm blue in the face. Lambeth Council are acting disgracefully.

Thank you.

The judicial review continues. So do the T shirt sales, and we'll be selling things this weekend too.

The amount of media coverage last night, and the turnout (considering that it's an awkward time, and during the working week) was a huge boost to morale. I wish that I could claim last night as at least a small victory for democracy, but it was very far from that.

 

[299 old timer]

Very good report, thanks. Difficult to understand Lambeth Labour's arrogance in the face of the genuine and informed opposition. All the facts are stacked against them, and yet they persist, truly appalling.

 

[DJWrongspeed]

I'm happy to keep on fundraising for the fight against this until I'm blue in the face. Lambeth Council are acting disgracefully.

Reading the Buzz report of the council meeting at least they've admitted that things haven't gone that well i.e. the consultation. None of this is any comfort given they've reached the wrong decision. I wonder what Chukka has got to say?

 

[Rushy]

IMO the strongest argument for redeveloping a site such as this is to increase density and provide new homes. But 23 new units is close to negligible. I don't get it. Is the council's argument set out concisely anywhere?

 

[editor]

This is Lambeth. This is Labour. Unforgivable.

 

[editor]

 

[leanderman]

IMO the strongest argument for redeveloping a site such as this is to increase density and provide new homes. But 23 new units is close to negligible. I don't get it. Is the council's argument set out concisely anywhere?

I think it's 150 extra homes on top of the existing 300. But, currently, only 23 of these would be social.

The council's argument being that they can't afford to refurbish so a developer rebuilds all the 300 homes and adds 23 more in return for being given a site for 130 homes.

That's my guess anyway.

Not sure where the existing third (?) of homes that are freehold-private fit into this maths.

 

[leanderman]

If I am right, 300 households are paying a very high price to create just 23 more homes - and 130 unaffordable flats.

The other big problem is the carbon cost.

 

[Greebo]

If I am right, 300 households are paying a very high price to create just 23 more homes - and 130 unaffordable flats. <snip>

We are.

The other big problem is the carbon cost.

If you take into account the grants available, and the potential carbon tax offset (ie of neither needing to make new concrete, nor sending rubble into landfill etc), repair combined with green retrofit to passivhaus standard would come in at well under the cost of either regeneration or conventional refurbishment & repair.

The other thing is, if we opted to get everything done to that standard, nobody in the building chain would get paid a single penny until everything had been tested, checked, and signed off as reaching the required standard of work. So, no shenanigans or botches possible, even in Lambeth.

 

[ViolentPanda]

They are running a judicial review iirc. My understanding is that judicial review challenges the *process* by which the decision was reached, not the decision itself. It can introduce delay and force the council to re-run the process, but can't of itself change the decision, i.e. Lambeth could rerun things properly and still come down in favour of demolition.

[Please would someone more au fait with this correct me if I've misunderstood]

Yep, it's about process. Here the issue is that the consultation was poor (workshops on winter weekday nights, for example) and was loaded (surveys laden with very obviously loaded questions, for example). It's felt to many of us like Lambeth were treating this as a box-ticking exercise to satisfy Dept of Communities & Local Govt guidelines, rather than an exercise in finding out what we wanted (which was apparent "from the off").

 

[ViolentPanda]

Cabinet 'decisions' are always taken on an "agreed' nodding of the heads. It is local government democracy at its very worst. The decisions have been already been made anyway behind closed doors. Cabinet is a charade so that democracy can be seen to take place - residents and what is left of any Opposition get to question the Cabinet, but it's not going to change a decision that they have already made in private.

The lively nature of the meeting last night made the "agreed" murmur really unfortunate. I wanted to see who agreed. You couldn't tell who was speaking. At least a raising of the hands would have given a physical way to see that all Cabinet members were towing the pre-agreed party line.

Here's the rambling closing of the agenda item.

Excellent report, mate.

The only thing that casts a slight shadow is that the first "Anne" you mention, doesn't have an "e" at the end of her name, and is touchy about people assuming it does!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Very good report, thanks. Difficult to understand Lambeth Labour's arrogance in the face of the genuine and informed opposition. All the facts are stacked against them, and yet they persist, truly appalling.

In the final analysis (well, my cynical version of it!), this is about two things - political careers and cold, hard cash.

The likes of "Bumfluff" Bennett and "Dimwit" Hopkins (and several others) see this sort of "radical" (in the "outside the normal range" sense of the word, rather than the political sense) action as a calling card to selection committees, and a nod and a wink to the Progress end of the Parliamentary party. They're effectively offering us up as a sacrifice on the altar of their careers.
The "cold, hard cash" element is that destroying Cressingham and the other 5 targeted estates puts money in Lambeth's paws before the next election (sooner if they selloff-plan) - if they sell roughly the same proportion of the new-build on the other 5 estates as projected on Cressingham, i.e. 60%-ish percent, then they're looking at the low tens of millions which can be deployed subtly to shore up votes in some wards - the usual trick of new or refurbed facilities in those wards, rather than blatant corruption, I hasten to add!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Reading the Buzz report of the council meeting at least they've admitted that things haven't gone that well i.e. the consultation. None of this is any comfort given they've reached the wrong decision. I wonder what Chukka has got to say?

As usual, nothing that might possibly rebound on him at a later date.
Pity he's already fucked himself with the majority of voters on the estate after his facebook shenanigans!

 

[Gniewosz]

I really resented one of the cabinet members comments at the end saying that if they spent the money on Cressingham Gardens to refurb it, they would have to take the money from another estate in the borough. He failed to explain though what is happening to the £1.2m pa in council rent that Cressingham Gardens is already paying the council (less £200k for basic shoddy repairs) ... they are using Cressingham as a cash cow to fund other estates already...

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think it's 150 extra homes on top of the existing 300. But, currently, only 23 of these would be social.

A minimum of 158 new homes, of which 15% will be social, out of an overall minimum 464 homes constructed.

The council's argument being that they can't afford to refurbish so a developer rebuilds all the 300 homes and adds 23 more in return for being given a site for 130 homes.

That's my guess anyway.

Bumfluff Bennett is currently touting the claim that all the housing will be "mixed", i.e. that homes for sale will not be located separately from housing for social rent.
Whether this claim survives the planning process seems unlikely given recent precedent in the capital.

Not sure where the existing third (?) of homes that are freehold-private fit into this maths.

CPOs, plus the usual "+10%" bribe and the offer of using their equity to buy a share in a property on the "regenerated" estate. As if any freeholder or leaseholder will trust Lambeth on that score after the Myatts' Fields North farrago.

 

[leanderman]

In the final analysis (well, my cynical version of it!), this is about two things - political careers and cold, hard cash.

The likes of "Bumfluff" Bennett and "Dimwit" Hopkins (and several others) see this sort of "radical" (in the "outside the normal range" sense of the word, rather than the political sense) action as a calling card to selection committees, and a nod and a wink to the Progress end of the Parliamentary party. They're effectively offering us up as a sacrifice on the altar of their careers.
The "cold, hard cash" element is that destroying Cressingham and the other 5 targeted estates puts money in Lambeth's paws before the next election (sooner if they selloff-plan) - if they sell roughly the same proportion of the new-build on the other 5 estates as projected on Cressingham, i.e. 60%-ish percent, then they're looking at the low tens of millions which can be deployed subtly to shore up votes in some wards - the usual trick of new or refurbed facilities in those wards, rather than blatant corruption, I hasten to add!

Yes. From Lambeth's point of view, they dodge a £10m+ repair bill as well get 23 new social homes.

There is a ruthless logic to it all ... if you don't live there.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes. From Lambeth's point of view, they dodge a £10m+ repair bill as well get 23 new social homes.

There is a ruthless logic to it all ... if you don't live there.

Unfortunately, the ruthless logic kicks the arse of future generations with regard to the projected finance cost. None of the spread of projections are particularly appetising, IMO.

 

[Gniewosz]

Bumfluff Bennett is currently touting the claim that all the housing will be "mixed", i.e. that homes for sale will not be located separately from housing for social rent.

In the last set of financial models that I was allowed to review last year, there was already segregation incorporated into the model... Different levels of communal area and finishings. Probably why they don't want me to see the latest models, because it will probably become evident that Cllr Matt Bennett is wrong yet again in his statements

 

[leanderman]

I would be surprised if the sums add up even in the short term, let alone for future generations.

The madness is that, for example, a development site that would provide almost half the extra homes scheduled for Cressingham has lain derelict at the end of our road for 25 years.

 

[Gniewosz]

Looking at the bigger it becomes even more ridiculous... 23 new council rent homes towards the 1000 target by 2020... that is only 2.3%. At that rate, the council is going to have demolish 50 estates over the next 5 years.

 

[leanderman]

Looking at the bigger it becomes even more ridiculous... 23 new council rent homes towards the 1000 target by 2020... that is only 2.3%. At that rate, the council is going to have demolish 50 estates over the next 5 years.

This is what is so baffling. Or perhaps it shows how limited Lambeth's options are.

I suppose they might point to the value of creating 120 extra private homes at Cressingham, which will do something to meet the chronic undersupply of housing.

 

[Tricky Skills]

To be absolutely fair to the Cabinet, the view last night was that 23 was not enough. Cllr Peck stated that whatever plans are now drawn up, the development manager* should aim to work for a higher number than this.

But how higher? 100? 50? 25?

It's all about spreadsheet balancing, and not communities. Plus having 100 extra council houses will take you a step closer to that magical 1,000 figure, but at what sacrifice to the landscape of the Park?

Cabinet has picked the wrong fight with the wrong people at the wrong location.

I'm not sure who they should be fighting with actually, if anyone at all.

*Brixton Green had a presence at Cabinet last night.

Oh Lordy.

 

[299 old timer]

The maths are seriously flawed, as has been witnessed. Obviously they had already agreed behind closed doors the outcome - democracy in action by the cooperative council.
Leanderman - I question if this is about the supply of housing.

 

[leanderman]

Leanderman - I question if this is about the supply of housing.

I'll leave the conspiracy theories to others!

There are no easy choices with a housing crisis like this. Except perhaps on a clear site like Somerleyton.

For example, the town hall development seems to have been scaled back after residents, unsurprisingly, complained about height.

Height also being a factor at Cressingham.

 

[ViolentPanda]

In the last set of financial models that I was allowed to review last year, there was already segregation incorporated into the model... Different levels of communal area and finishings. Probably why they don't want me to see the latest models, because it will probably become evident that Cllr Matt Bennett is wrong yet again in his statements

You say "...is wrong again", I say "...is deliberately attempting to mislead again".

 

[ViolentPanda]

I would be surprised if the sums add up even in the short term, let alone for future generations.

The madness is that, for example, a development site that would provide almost half the extra homes scheduled for Cressingham has lain derelict at the end of our road for 25 years.

Yep. You've mentioned before.
The other thing is that on many of Lambeth's estates there's room for "infill" development. Half a dozen to a dozen new homes on 70 or 80 estates would go a long way - more cheaply and conveniently - to reducing the housing list than this cack-handed money-spinning scheme.

 

[ViolentPanda]

This is what is so baffling. Or perhaps it shows how limited Lambeth's options are.

I suppose they might point to the value of creating 120 extra private homes at Cressingham, which will do something to meet the chronic undersupply of housing.

The circuitous chain of logic that takes us from new private homes to easing the housing list is given an outing in one of the Annexes that were published. It's a lot of ifs and buts, and nothing much solid, in terms of justifying the demolition of existing social housing.