friendofdorothy
Solidarity against neoliberalism!
I'll be there too
Lambeth's plans to demolish Cressingham Gardens and other estates without the consent of residents
- Thread starter Brixton Hatter
- Start date
Maharani
Just like Heaven
I shall do my damndest but I'm not 100% sure I can make it yet.
That's good enough.
editor
hiraethified
A few pics. Well done to everyone who made the effort to turn up.
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/08/...s-protest-outside-lambeth-town-hall-11th-aug/
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/08/...s-protest-outside-lambeth-town-hall-11th-aug/
Sorry, no.
I had a migraine from about 4 pm or a bit earlier (bad enough for one person to actually ask if I was okay and not take "yes" for an answer), woke up at 7pm, and wouldn't have been safe anywhere near anything noisy or requiring me to sound halfway sane before roughly 9pm.
Others from the estate also had very good resons why they couldn't get there, which I'm not prepared to mention on this publicly readable section of urban. Let's just say that not making it there was nothing to do with apathy or antipathy.
Last edited:
Tricky Skills
Well-Known Member
Lambeth Council statement:
"Lambeth Council will press ahead with proposals to redevelop the Cressingham Gardens estate, providing at least 464 new homes, after senior councillors rejected a call for the decision to be reconsidered.
Lambeth’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee last night [Tuesday, 11 August] decided that the Council’s Cabinet should not be asked to review its decision to opt for the redevelopment of the estate. However, Committee members made a number of recommendations for the Cabinet to consider – including comments on the “Test of Opinion” carried out among residents, and the financial analysis of the regeneration scheme.
Members of the Cabinet last month approved a report – “Investing in better neighbourhoods and building the homes we need to house the people of Lambeth” - proposing the replacement all the 306 homes, many of which are in a poor state of repair. The redevelopment will provide a minimum of 464 new homes – a net gain of 158 extra homes. The scheme, part of the Council’s estate regeneration programme, will contribute towards the commitment to build 1,000 extra homes at council rent levels.
The decision to authorise the Cressingham Gardens scheme was challenged by Green councillor Scott Ainslie, who questioned the validity of the test of residents’ opinion of the options available and the Council’s financial assessment of the options, and said the decision should be “reviewed on Historical/Heritage grounds”. In his official request for the decision to be “called in” by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Cllr Ainslie said: “I believe the information in the report is inaccurate which therefore brings into question the validity of the cabinet’s decision.”
After a meeting in the Town Hall last night, the committee decided the decision should stand. Members raised a number of questions, including about the methodology used to carry out the test of opinion, and suggested that the financial analysis of the rebuilding project should be more transparent. Their comments will now go to Cabinet for consideration.
Cllr Matthew Bennett, Cabinet Member for Housing, said: “I am pleased that the decision to go ahead with the rebuilding of Cressingham Gardens has been endorsed, and am grateful for the committee’s further recommendations.
“We face a major housing crisis in Lambeth, but in Cressingham Gardens we have the opportunity to build a new, modern estate - for existing residents and for people who at the moment do not have a secure home by increasing the number of homes for council rent for local families. I hope we can now get on with this vital project."
"Lambeth Council will press ahead with proposals to redevelop the Cressingham Gardens estate, providing at least 464 new homes, after senior councillors rejected a call for the decision to be reconsidered.
Lambeth’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee last night [Tuesday, 11 August] decided that the Council’s Cabinet should not be asked to review its decision to opt for the redevelopment of the estate. However, Committee members made a number of recommendations for the Cabinet to consider – including comments on the “Test of Opinion” carried out among residents, and the financial analysis of the regeneration scheme.
Members of the Cabinet last month approved a report – “Investing in better neighbourhoods and building the homes we need to house the people of Lambeth” - proposing the replacement all the 306 homes, many of which are in a poor state of repair. The redevelopment will provide a minimum of 464 new homes – a net gain of 158 extra homes. The scheme, part of the Council’s estate regeneration programme, will contribute towards the commitment to build 1,000 extra homes at council rent levels.
The decision to authorise the Cressingham Gardens scheme was challenged by Green councillor Scott Ainslie, who questioned the validity of the test of residents’ opinion of the options available and the Council’s financial assessment of the options, and said the decision should be “reviewed on Historical/Heritage grounds”. In his official request for the decision to be “called in” by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Cllr Ainslie said: “I believe the information in the report is inaccurate which therefore brings into question the validity of the cabinet’s decision.”
After a meeting in the Town Hall last night, the committee decided the decision should stand. Members raised a number of questions, including about the methodology used to carry out the test of opinion, and suggested that the financial analysis of the rebuilding project should be more transparent. Their comments will now go to Cabinet for consideration.
Cllr Matthew Bennett, Cabinet Member for Housing, said: “I am pleased that the decision to go ahead with the rebuilding of Cressingham Gardens has been endorsed, and am grateful for the committee’s further recommendations.
“We face a major housing crisis in Lambeth, but in Cressingham Gardens we have the opportunity to build a new, modern estate - for existing residents and for people who at the moment do not have a secure home by increasing the number of homes for council rent for local families. I hope we can now get on with this vital project."
23 - Twenty sodding three more places for council rent will result from this, and even that's 'aspirational' - not definite.
Yes thanks - I'm just going to need a lot of chocolate and more sleep. Back to proper normal tomorrow.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I see that Lambeth are getting their arses and elbows mixed up again. There will not be "at least 464 new homes". 306 will be replacement homes for those whose homes are demolished. Of the remainder, 60% will be for sale, 25% at "affordable" rent (i.e. 75-80% of market), and 15% (23 homes by Lambeth's current calculations) will be new social rent properties.[/QUOTE]
Can I just remind people about this?
More people are added to the borough's homelessless list every week than are taken off it, and yet Lambeth council thinks that razing an entire medium density estate (in an area where the use of local public services, including buses, has become dangerously close to exceeding capacity), putting roughly 50% extra homes on it, but only 23 of them being a net addition to council housing stock is a credible solution to the problem.
23!
More people are added to the borough's homelessless list every week than are taken off it, and yet Lambeth council thinks that razing an entire medium density estate (in an area where the use of local public services, including buses, has become dangerously close to exceeding capacity), putting roughly 50% extra homes on it, but only 23 of them being a net addition to council housing stock is a credible solution to the problem.
23!
friendofdorothy
Solidarity against neoliberalism!
What happens next? what is the next step?
Judicial review in early November (3rd or 4th) - those who are working on that can't really say much about it, but we really are still in with a chance.
The High Court doesn't let everything go to judicial review - you have to have a valid case, and we have.
Hence the fundraising. *yawn*
Whoever you are you evidently have no taste for aspirational social housing. Do you in fact make this judgement with ignorance? Do you know any thing about the design and the lovely community here? What depresses you? That we are working class?
That the council never mend any thing then put in paving no one asked for and charge a staggering amount to leaseholders? That each flat whether it be a single or family has huge amount of light flowing in that it was designed to preserve the trees and not impinge on the views from the park.That a master bricklayer built it - the only estate Lambeths own direct work force ever built. Yes in an era where a building trade was a craft.
Lambeth speak in true Starbucks style of PLACEMAKING - seeing Brixton and its housing as destinations not homes. Do you? And yes it will be big - 468 houses and non council.
So if you live in Craignair (Deputy Leader) or Athlone or Claverdale or Hillworth or use the 432 415 or 2 best get ready for huge upheaval and even greater amounts of dust for at lest 4 years
And if you have a private flat - including the block in the middle of Cressingham (with the only remaining wall of a former mansion house and vestiges of the orchards. Then FCUK you as compulsory purchase orders will be used. And where the average cost of a house in SW2 is now £500,000 yes half a million quid do not expect more than £200,000.
So get a grip take some happy pills and leave us alone.
Can I just remind people about this?
More people are added to the borough's homelessless list every week than are taken off it, and yet Lambeth council thinks that razing an entire medium density estate (in an area where the use of local public services, including buses, has become dangerously close to exceeding capacity), putting roughly 50% extra homes on it, but only 23 of them being a net addition to council housing stock is a credible solution to the problem.
Just been reading through parts of Lambeths masterplan (30 year one) for housing. A lot rests on razing Cressingham...who cares if people live there and love it hey? It's real estate y'all. Yes there is a housing problem. But putting in high rental units and private housing ain't gonna mend it? 23 jeeze.
Think New York in the 80's. Londons going the same way. Get rid of the working classes who cannot afford to pay high rents. Get in those that can.
I wonder - how many councillors would be willing to raze their houses so the land can have more housing capacity? Yes we are back to high rise and oh darlings Brixton is now a destination don't you know - yes that same place just 15 years ago cab drivers would not bring you back to and yes where black youth are still routinely treated with a degree of racism that makes Ferguson look positively friendly.
BTW there are various fundraisers in the pipeline, including Nanker Phelge's final Time Tunnel at the Canterbury Arms (before it's demolished 
), Michael and Eileen's sponsored walk along part of the Thames (mentioned in Friday's SLP) and a few other things later on...
If you can spare the cash, you can either sponsor that walk, turn up at Time Tunnel, or make a donation via gofundme (it can be kept anonymous to everyone except the person who set it up) or paypal. Just put "Save Cressingham" into google and the details will show up.
The T shirts are on sale at a junk shop in Herne Hill and A & C Continental in Brixton (Jose is a mensch and a half).
), Michael and Eileen's sponsored walk along part of the Thames (mentioned in Friday's SLP) and a few other things later on...If you can spare the cash, you can either sponsor that walk, turn up at Time Tunnel, or make a donation via gofundme (it can be kept anonymous to everyone except the person who set it up) or paypal. Just put "Save Cressingham" into google and the details will show up.
The T shirts are on sale at a junk shop in Herne Hill and A & C Continental in Brixton (Jose is a mensch and a half).
Thanks for that, in spite of it being unsurprisingly bad news.
BTW the person who stepped in last night did a brilliant job at very little notice, and only partly briefed.
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
Welcome to U75 Judy. Judging by your first post I think you're going to fit right in here
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Can I just remind people about this?
More people are added to the borough's homelessless list every week than are taken off it, and yet Lambeth council thinks that razing an entire medium density estate (in an area where the use of local public services, including buses, has become dangerously close to exceeding capacity), putting roughly 50% extra homes on it, but only 23 of them being a net addition to council housing stock is a credible solution to the problem.
23!
It's bizarre. 23 is a joke figure.
What is the solution?
Tricky Skills
Well-Known Member
If 23 council homes really is the aspiration, then repair the Cressingham homes that are currently empty and the aim is achieved.
I refer m'learned urb to option 6, which would refurbish and repair to passivhaus standard. The carbon tax saved, combined with the grants for green retrofit would make this a lot cheaper than standard refurb and repair.
In addition, the passivhaus style of work could first be done on the Crosby Walk voids (making them habitable after 16 years of being bricked up), giving building students some desperately needed placements. Passivhaus build standard is higher than conventional standard, therefore if they get experience of this, they go to the front of the job queue.
The council was not interested in hearing about this, nor in option 7 (option 6 + light infill, still no demolition) nor in 8 (option 7 + various things to benefit the wider community). All of these were deemed too expensive compared with the (far higher) cost of complete demolition funded by SPV.
..............................................
Option 2 called for 19 demolitions (basically the voids plus the rest of Crosby Walk) and would have replaced those 19 homes and added another 19 homes (i.e. 38 new homes constructed altogether.
Option 3 called for 31 demolitions (Crosby Walk and Papworth Way) and would have replaced those 31 homes and added another 20 homes (i.e. 51 new homes constructed altogther.
In other words, options 2 and 3, both of which were accepted by residents as allowable compromises to option 1, would have given almost the same number of net homes as The Great Cressingham Gardens Massacre. Ever get the feeling that Tweetie Pie is desperately trying to get one over on us?
Adding a small 2 storey block, just beside the spiral ramp at the start of Hardel is an obvious one. It wouldn't even affect anyone's light or privacy. Nor need it extend far enough towards the estate road to affect the sparrow colony in the bush at the front of that corner of Hardel (and the underground entrance to the garages). Nor far enough to the side to impinge on the patch of grass in front of the Rotunda.
But *shrug* what do I know? I'm just a nimby pleb, according to the likes of Matthew Bennett.
friendofdorothy
Solidarity against neoliberalism!
Theres been an empty building on Railton road for the past few years (former Railton Rd Clinic) I wonder how many flats they could fit in there? According to Lambeth's own figures they still have over 200 empty properties.
Seems mad to move 306 households and demolish popular buildings, just to gain 23 socially rented flats. Not a very efficient way of doing things. What business does any council have in building flats for private sale on publically owned land anyway?
Seems mad to move 306 households and demolish popular buildings, just to gain 23 socially rented flats. Not a very efficient way of doing things. What business does any council have in building flats for private sale on publically owned land anyway?
snowy_again
Slush
That's restricted for non residential use though. Saw x2 security guards the other day which reminded me that its been mothballed for so long.
friendofdorothy
Solidarity against neoliberalism!
That is so misleading if only and extra 23 at 'council rent levels' will be gained. At that rate Lambeth will have to demolish every estate to achieve its 1000 extra new homes target. While meanwhile losing hundreds of homes for the period of rebuilding.
Presumably it means to build 135 homes at hideously expensive market rates or is that at 80% of hideously expensive. I wonder what the cost to the Lambeth tax payer will be? The cost of
Lambeth Councillors are forgetting the people they answer to are the electorate of Lambeth. We won't forget that they are selling off OUR public property.
(PS I dont live on the estate or in Lambeth housing)
Tricky Skills
Well-Known Member
From a BBuzz comment:
"At the rate of delivery in the Cressingham Gardens proposal (demolish 300 homes for 23 extra council rent), the council will have to demolish 13,000 homes over the next 4 years just to achieve their target of 1,000 extra council rent homes – that is over 50% of Lambeth council’s entire housing stock needs to be demolished and converted to the SPV."
