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

[CH1]

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.

You reckon planning would refuse a change to residential when it's in a residential area? There must be some history to it - looks to me like it was a clinic relocated there as part of ad hoc post Brixton Riots rebuilding work.

 

[CH1]

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.

I think these targets of extra homes Lambeth is committed to are probably Mayor's Office targets which do not discriminate between social and non-social housing. Therefore councils like Lambeth find themselves inexorably drawn into the viability trap - unless they have some social conscience or political spine - qualities not very obvious in Lambeth right now.

 

[snowy_again]

You reckon planning would refuse a change to residential when it's in a residential area? There must be some history to it - looks to me like it was a clinic relocated there as part of ad hoc post Brixton Riots rebuilding work.

I seem to remember some restricted covenant - but it's later than immediate post riots rebuild.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Whoever you are you evidently have no taste for aspirational social housing.

It's blatantly obvious, isn't it?
Welcome to Urban75, Judy, from a fellow Cressingham-er!

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?

Paving that was originally scheduled to take 6 weeks, and is now nearing 4 months, and still not completed! I HATE walking along Hambridge Way, it's almost like tank-traps for the mobility-impaired!
Still, it seems that the reason for the paving and so-called "weathertight" work (haven't seen much of that, frankly!) is because Lambeth realised that a solid case could be made for taking them to court for multiple and repeated violations (that is, making loads of different violations, and making each one many times) of residents' "right to repair" (which presents specific time-frames in which repairs and rectifications to faulty repairs need to be carried out). Fortunate for Lambeth that they "lose" so many records every year, or they'd have 10+ of my complaints about the paving on the estate embarrassing them.

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.

Didn't the direct labour force start on another couple of estates, but got shafted when Thatcher introduced CCT (Compulsory Competitive Tendering) during her first government? Always thought that was ridiculous, because it virtually guaranteed poor-quality work.

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

Plus extra pressure on public transport, greater use of already-busy roads, packed classrooms in local primary schools, and rammed GP surgeries.

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.

Well said!!!

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think these targets of extra homes Lambeth is committed to are probably Mayor's Office targets which do not discriminate between social and non-social housing. Therefore councils like Lambeth find themselves inexorably drawn into the viability trap - unless they have some social conscience or political spine - qualities not very obvious in Lambeth right now.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: This is also about the money-generating opportunities that "regeneration" will provide for the council, and I don't mean rental income, I mean profits from sales - present day profits that will effectively be mortgaged over the lifespan of the regeneration's finance cost.

 

[CH1]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: This is also about the money-generating opportunities that "regeneration" will provide for the council, and I don't mean rental income, I mean profits from sales - present day profits that will effectively be mortgaged over the lifespan of the regeneration's finance cost.

You mean like the council have become property speculators - surely not?

 

[ViolentPanda]

You mean like the council have become property speculators - surely not?

Sadly, they have.
I mean, they've always done so on a small, instrumental scale (badly, in Lambeth's case, more often than not), but using SPVs to "regenerate" estates allows them to tempt investors in with a share of the profits, with the remaining percentage going into council coffers to ease current difficulties. it's a pisspoor model, though. Rental, even acting as a private landlord, would provide a better income stream than sales, but the cash-flow isn't as immediate.
Yet again, local authorities are selling off the family silver, only this time Lambeth seem to be doing it all-to-willingly.

 

[Manter]

What baffles me is that 23 homes goes no way towards addressing the housing problem, even slightly. So they need to be looking for much more radical solutions. They could build some huge blocks on some of the squares and parks round here, rebuild the barrier block without any parking and with less dead space, do compulsory purchases on a couple of semis with big gardens and build a tower block...not necessarily brilliant answers, and certainly contentious but if there are thousands of people needing homes then the odd flat here or there is pointless.

But if we are in a situation where every little helps, and 23 is significant- why let developers off the hook? Why are there not more 'affordable' flats in Brixton square, etc?

It just seems a disingenuous argument to say we need thousands of homes so we are building a few. Must be something else going on.

 

[leanderman]

If 23 council homes really is the aspiration, then repair the Cressingham homes that are currently empty and the aim is achieved.

That's not a solution to the lack of social housing.

But it reveals one of the council's dubious motivations: avoiding a massive repair bill.

 

[Tricky Skills]

That's not a solution to the lack of social housing.

But it reveals one of the council's dubious motivations: avoiding a massive repair bill.

The repair bill isn't that big when compared to the finances involved in building a new development.

£1.5m has been spent by the Council or repairs since the 'consultation' started. I'm not sure how to look at this - £1.5m as evidence of it being costly to manage the estate as it is, or £1.5m being thrown away on an estate that you knew you were going to bulldoze all along.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What baffles me is that 23 homes goes no way towards addressing the housing problem, even slightly. So they need to be looking for much more radical solutions. They could build some huge blocks on some of the squares and parks round here, rebuild the barrier block without any parking and with less dead space, do compulsory purchases on a couple of semis with big gardens and build a tower block...not necessarily brilliant answers, and certainly contentious but if there are thousands of people needing homes then the odd flat here or there is pointless.

But if we are in a situation where every little helps, and 23 is significant- why let developers off the hook? Why are there not more 'affordable' flats in Brixton square, etc?

It just seems a disingenuous argument to say we need thousands of homes so we are building a few. Must be something else going on.

I'll say it again: The (minimum) additional social housing is a by-product. This is about "opening up" some fairly prime space to development. As boohoo has remarked, Cressingham and Central Hill both have fantastically-saleable views, and the other 4 estates primarily under threat are all in prime locations w/r/t access to public transport and infrastructure.
This is about the council making money from sales - one-off monies that will doubtless be spunked, and which will mortgage the future of Lambeth CT-payers. For any other context, including repayment of co-investors in the SPV, 60% of new-build for sale doesn't make sense, as far as I can see.

 

[Greebo]

<snip> I'm not sure how to look at this - £1.5m as evidence of it being costly to manage the estate as it is, or £1.5m being thrown away on an estate that you knew you were going to bulldoze all along.

The second - because the repairs (as far as I can tell, only living here, not being a surveyor and not walking the entire estate every day) have been badly done, badly targetted, and wouldn't have been anything like as costly if maintenance had remained at an adequate level.

Paving and weathertight repairs are being done now, but only because the threat of being fined by the EU for neglecting them is far far greater than the cost of getting them done (no matter how badly).

 

[ViolentPanda]

That's not a solution to the lack of social housing.

But it reveals one of the council's dubious motivations: avoiding a massive repair bill.

"Massive" is rather nebulous,and even if we doubled the council's original estimate of £14-16 million to refurbish Cressingham in case Lambeth missed something important (we are talking about Lambeth, after all), £28-32 million is still around £50 million lower than the lowest finance cost for the "regeneration" of the estate (and IIRC, that £50 million is post any money Lambeth makes from actual sales).
This leads me to ask "what's more important to Lambeth: Preserving existing communities, or erasing evidence of their poor care-taking while incidentally shifting the demographic of the area?".

 

[snowy_again]

The repair bill isn't that big when compared to the finances involved in building a new development.

£1.5m has been spent by the Council or repairs since the 'consultation' started. I'm not sure how to look at this - £1.5m as evidence of it being costly to manage the estate as it is, or £1.5m being thrown away on an estate that you knew you were going to bulldoze all along.

Which is the same sum spent on my estate to address fire safety concerns post camberwell fires + kitchen & bathroom refurbs. Approx 350 residents, but service charge doubled for the year.

 

[Manter]

I'll say it again: The (minimum) additional social housing is a by-product. This is about "opening up" some fairly prime space to development. As boohoo has remarked, Cressingham and Central Hill both have fantastically-saleable views, and the other 4 estates primarily under threat are all in prime locations w/r/t access to public transport and infrastructure.
This is about the council making money from sales - one-off monies that will doubtless be spunked, and which will mortgage the future of Lambeth CT-payers. For any other context, including repayment of co-investors in the SPV, 60% of new-build for sale doesn't make sense, as far as I can see.

So Lambeth make money selling the land/70 odd private flats?

 

[ViolentPanda]

The repair bill isn't that big when compared to the finances involved in building a new development.

£1.5m has been spent by the Council or repairs since the 'consultation' started. I'm not sure how to look at this - £1.5m as evidence of it being costly to manage the estate as it is, or £1.5m being thrown away on an estate that you knew you were going to bulldoze all along.

The paving repairs are not impressive. Where there are straightforward runs, the quality is okay, but anywhere there's a bit of complex geometry (and if you've been to Cressingham you'll have experienced our undulating pathways!), they're cocking up and going for cheap and dirty fixes - for instance: A shallow stairway at the top of the estate has several loose slabs, mostly because groundwater from the pavement has undermined the steps over time. The pavers "cured" the rocking slabs by laying new slabs on top of the old -result: Still rockin' after all these years! Toward the bottom of the estate they didn't put down enough sand and aggregate under the new paving one one of the Ways, with the result of cracked slabs, and of some slabs tilting up to about 30 degrees off horizontal when walked on. Even where they've paved around utilities covers etc, they've made a fuck-awful job of making sure the surrounding paving surface is reasonably flush to the hydrant covers etc. They're a tripping hazard for anyone, let alone the senior citizens and disabled people on the estate.The estate officer reckoned she has had at least one call a day about the shonky work since works started about 10 weeks ago.

 

[snowy_again]

The second - because the repairs (as far as I can tell, only living here, not being a surveyor and not walking the entire estate every day) have been badly done, badly targetted, and wouldn't have been anything like as costly if maintenance had remained at an adequate level.

Paving and weathertight repairs are being done now, but only because the threat of being fined by the EU for neglecting them is far far greater than the cost of getting them done (no matter how badly).

Not to denigrate your position, but isn't that typical of Lambeth Living repair contracts all over? It's hardly a borough which doesn't have its own almost Hackney levels of fraud, corruption and misappropriation allegations relating to contracts for building and maintenance works. But I can see how wilful neglect supports their financial argument - the same approach is being used at Dorchester Court by private landlords.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So Lambeth make money selling the land/70 odd private flats?

More like 85-odd flats (if we take their 158 extra dwelling figure seriously - their most "extreme" plan was looking at 550-ish on the site). they appear to not be looking to sell the land per se to a developer along with signing up to some profit-sharing agreement, but retaining freehold themselves, then selling on the right to build leasehold properties in some kind of profit-sharing exercise, as far as I could tell from the viability studies. Of course, not being a conveyancer or a lawyer, I may have read the studies incorrectly.

 

[Greebo]

Not to denigrate your position, but isn't that typical of Lambeth Living repair contracts all over? <snip>

Not entirely - the neglect of maintenance which even a tiny bit of common sense would tell you was needed (gutter clearance on an estate with lots of trees) was happening long before Lambeth Living took over.

 

[Manter]

More like 85-odd flats (if we take their 158 extra dwelling figure seriously - their most "extreme" plan was looking at 550-ish on the site). they appear to not be looking to sell the land per se to a developer along with signing up to some profit-sharing agreement, but retaining freehold themselves, then selling on the right to build leasehold properties in some kind of profit-sharing exercise, as far as I could tell from the viability studies. Of course, not being a conveyancer or a lawyer, I may have read the studies incorrectly.

Ah, ok, understand. I've found most if the documents on it (as a non specialist) completely impenetrable.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Not entirely - the neglect of maintenance which even a tiny bit of common sense would tell you was needed (gutter clearance on an estate with lots of trees) was happening long before Lambeth Living took over.

Yep, early to mid 2000s were when the basic maintenance started to go seriously downhill. Lambeth Living was foisted on us in '08, ostensibly because ALMOs had access to income streams (grants mostly, and some matched funding) that LAs couldn't access - income streams that disappeared when the banks took the economy into a tits-up position. result: Lambeth Living carried on Lambeth Council's unenviable record of doing the square root of fuck-all for Lambeth tenants.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ah, ok, understand. I've found most if the documents on it (as a non specialist) completely impenetrable.

Glad it's not just me.
What annoys me is Lambeth "selling" the scheme to people (by which I don't mean residents, but rather the media and other "interested outsiders") on the basis of the results of the viability study with the lowest financial impact, so you get to hear "£80 million over 30 years, or £100 million over 50 years, and you think "wow,that's only £2-3 million a year". What doesn't happen is that the other extreme - the viability study with the highest finance cost - doesn't get mentioned, or the fact that we're talking about a minimum of 6 estates (one of which is admittedly tiny) have a similar spread of possible financial impact. Lambeth already has a half billion pound debt, and this will add much more, whether "off-book" or on.

 

[RoyReed]

Cressingham Gardens is going to be part of Open House London again this year. I doubt Lambeth get the irony of this.

 

[Greebo]

Eileen and Michael O Keefe will be walking along the Thames and aiming to cross at least three bridges - roughly 10 miles. Money raised will go into the fighting fund (for the costs of the judicial review), and every penny raised by them will be pretty hard earnt. Here's the link.

http://www.gofundme.com/rn5yn56k

BTW see some of you at Nanker Phelge's final Time Tunnel in the Canterbury Arms on Saturday. Not sure if I should be happy about that, as the demolition of a successful family pub is nothing to smile about, even if his donating whatever he makes that night to the cause is very generous.

 

[Robert Langtry]

Greebo, going back to your posting #481 on which you advised me that using my name on the net was not wise. I have always been meaning to Thank you but as I belong to a generation for whom typing is not a desirable skill and spelling a bit of a pain, it's always "I must do that - later". Anyway, for now 'Thank you' . . . Robert

 

[Greebo]

Robert Langtry no problem.

If or when you decide to change it here, send a message to one of the moderators, explaining why, what you want to change it to, and swearing on your mother's grave/children's lives etc that you'll stick with the new name.

 

[Greebo]

Reminder. This Saturday and Sunday are Open House Weekend. People who live here will be showing some of (I hope) the visiting hordes around. It's always interesting seeing the reaction of others to somewhere (or something) you take for granted.

Any who can't make it this weekend, there'll be a guided sketching party on a Sunday afternoon in early October (maybe others to follow) to help raise money for the fighting fund (to pay for taking the council to court). Check the Save Cressingham Gardens FB page for details. If you prefer to avoid that place, please email directly to drawingthelineevents@gmail.com.

The people organising that day (one lives here, one's another urbanite, and one's very into art) have walked around the estate and they're aiming to make the 2 hours interesting and enjoyable.

 

[Belushi]

Cressingham Gardens is included in the always excellent Municipal Dreams guide to Open House Weekend

Open House London: A Tour of the Capital’s Council Housing, Part Two

 

[boohoo]

As Greebo mentioned, this is a fundraiser and awareness raising event, which will give people the opportunity to explore the estate, learn some local history, do some sketching and share their work.

We don't have a fee for attending events - we just ask for a donation which will go towards Cressingham Gardens.

One second-class stamp and blank postcard per participant will be provided for the those with Craftivist inclinations - send a local councillor or an MP a picture of the homes along with your thoughts!

Please bring your own drawing supplies both traditional and non trad. We suggest: paper, rubber, clipboard or a hard backed sketch pad, biro, crayon, watercolour, charcoal, pencil, pastel, felt-tips, sharpies, finger paints, or whatever you have lying around indoors.

 

[ViolentPanda]

As Greebo mentioned, this is a fundraiser and awareness raising event, which will give people the opportunity to explore the estate, learn some local history, do some sketching and share their work.

We don't have a fee for attending events - we just ask for a donation which will go towards Cressingham Gardens.

One second-class stamp and blank postcard per participant will be provided for the those with Craftivist inclinations - send a local councillor or an MP a picture of the homes along with your thoughts!

Please bring your own drawing supplies both traditional and non trad. We suggest: paper, rubber, clipboard or a hard backed sketch pad, biro, crayon, watercolour, charcoal, pencil, pastel, felt-tips, sharpies, finger paints, or whatever you have lying around indoors.

View attachment 77192

I made up a simple A5 "Drawing the Line" flyer for Open House day at Cressingham that we (Greebo and I) handed out about 70 of, over the 2 days, which will hopefully get you a couple of extra sketchers!