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

[colacubes]

Fight on mate This is one battle not the war x

 

[Rushy]

What's all the scaffold at Cressingham?

 

[Southlondon]

I might have missed something here but if the rebuilt estatE will provide extra council housing, and one of th main complaints seems to be the extra cost to those who will want right to buy, why is this a bad thing?
I'm a Lambeth tennant and love my home, but if they were to rebuild my estate and rebuild with extra homes, and an increase in the homes value to protect from people buying the leaSe and depriving future tennants of a home, then I would be up for it.
And talk of the council wasting money, how about the money wasted fighting futile legal challenges?

 

[snowy_again]

I'd suggest you go back and read the full thread if that's your misinterpretation.

 

[Southlondon]

I'd suggest you go back and read the full thread if that's your misinterpretation.

It's 41 pages, so I prob won't read it all. I was initially in support of the residents on the basis there would not be extra council homes available, but it seems there will be. Is this true?
I have no interest in people worried about not being able to buy the leases under right to buy, as that Thatcherite policy did enough damage to our stock

 

[editor]

It's 41 pages, so I prob won't read it all. I was initially in support of the residents on the basis there would not be extra council homes available, but it seems there will be. Is this true?

All those people kicked out of their homes (many residents are elderly and/or infirm), their lives turned upside down, a lovely estate flattened and a tight community ripped apart to make way for luxury flats and just 23 extra council flats. And all against the wishes of the vast majority of tenants. I'd say there's loads to oppose here.

Lambeth Council Cabinet set to agree to demolish Cressingham Gardens with only 27 new council houses being built

 

[friendofdorothy]

It's 41 pages, so I prob won't read it all. I was initially in support of the residents on the basis there would not be extra council homes available, but it seems there will be. Is this true?
I have no interest in people worried about not being able to buy the leases under right to buy, as that Thatcherite policy did enough damage to our stock

thats our council tax money they are spending fight their own tenants.

The residents presented an alternative plan 'The People Plan' to raise funds to renovate the estate (which needs renovating as Lambeth has neglected its duty to upkeep it) which involved very few homes being demolished yet still creating new homes. Lambeth has rejected this.

I agree that council homes shouldn't be sold - but as that is the law as we have and they houses have been already sold, often to long term older residents - the costs to those leaseholders is unacceptable. Lambeth want them to pay up for major repairs on the homes they intend to demolish. Then to compulsory purchase them for less than favourable price. Lambeth want to destroy an attractive and popular estate to provide very few extra council homes.

Demolishing existing council homes to build for rich new buyers, our labour run co-operative council have no right and no mandate to do this.

 

[friendofdorothy]

I received this today - they need funds to carry on the fight.

Click here to support Save Cressingham Gardens by Gerlinde Gniewosz

The ruling for the judicial review was handed down this week and sadly the judge refused to quash the most recent Lambeth cabinet decision to proceed with plans for full demolition of Cressingham Gardens. However, residents are not deterred by this set back and have already commenced work to appeal this decision. And at a minimum, the failings of Lambeth council have now been put on record, which will be beneficial for future actions.

Here is more on the ruling as well as a detail write-up of the proceedings themselves:
Save Cressingham Gardens

Note that a judicial review, let alone two judicial reviews, on a cabinet decision to redevelop an estate is very unusual at such an early stage in a regeneration timeline. The council still has a long way to go before they even have permission to proceed with demolition and we will be lodging actions at each step.

Thank you so much for all your continuing support!!!!! It has made everything possible so far. We hope that all have a wonderful holiday season.

* edited due to wrong link

 

[sealion]

I'm a Lambeth tennant and love my home, but if they were to rebuild my estate and rebuild with extra homes, and an increase in the homes value to protect from people buying the leaSe and depriving future tennants of a home, then I would be up for it.

Would you be up for it if your rent was increased and your tenancy was no longer secure ?

 

[oryx]

Would you be up for it if your rent was increased and your tenancy was no longer secure ?

...and you had to move at least twice?

 

[oryx]

Wrong thread @ self!

 

[ViolentPanda]

What's all the scaffold at Cressingham?

So-called "weathertight repairs" that are being done (4-5 years late) purely because otherwise the council would be in receipt of an estate-wide serious detriment complaint. So-called because some of the roofing and guttering repairs were Heath-fucking-Robinson in their bodgey complexity, and had to be ripped out and replaced. They were also going to rip off some damaged zinc roofs (which Lambeth's contractors had originally damaged by using roofing nails to fasten down panels that were lifting) and replace them with a heat-sealed membrane during the dampest part of winter, and were most put out when residents told the site agent that like had to be replaced with like, otherwise they'd be in breach of their contract (one clause that wasn't redacted from the contract we FoI'd, fortunately). The scaffold is mostly to put temp roofs over properties where they're having to replace like-for-like, although earlier in the year it was so they could line out the guttering with a sealing agent, and coat the capping with it too.

As usual, Lambeth paid peanuts and got monkeys for contractors.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I might have missed something here but if the rebuilt estatE will provide extra council housing, and one of th main complaints seems to be the extra cost to those who will want right to buy, why is this a bad thing?
I'm a Lambeth tennant and love my home, but if they were to rebuild my estate and rebuild with extra homes, and an increase in the homes value to protect from people buying the leaSe and depriving future tennants of a home, then I would be up for it.
And talk of the council wasting money, how about the money wasted fighting futile legal challenges?

Here's some maths on what Lambeth proposes to do to Cressingham Gardens (and ANY OTHER estate they choose to "regenerate), if they demolish.

They'll build 158 new homes, plus build 306 to replace the original homes.

Of the 158, 47% (74 homes) will be rented out at 80% of market rent for similar properties in the area.
A further 17% (23 homes) will be for *council-level rent.

*Council-level rent merely means private housing pegged at council rent levels.

The rest will be rented out at full market rent.

So, the actual contribution to shrinking the housing waiting list is less than 2 dozen extra homes for social rent, and guess what? You don't get a secure tenancy like normal either, because Lambeth are forming their own Housing Association, which can only give assured tenancies.

People aren't worried that it'll put up "Right to Buy" costs - lots of tenants are ideologically-opposed to RtB anyway. What people are worried about is that Lambeth Council wisshes to derive them of longstanding rights without negotiation or compensation. How would you feel if the council turned round to you and said "we're rebuilding your estate, but when you return to your new home, you won't have a secure tenancy, you won't have any voting rights on what happens to the estate going forward, you'll lose your Right to Buy completely, and by the way, your council tax will increase by at least 1 band, and your rent will increase by 25%". You'd be pissed off, wouldn't you?

Futile legal challenges? What's your obviously well-informed assessment based on - the High Court result from Wednesday? If so, did you read the 100-page finding by the judge, or just what the local press printed - that Lambeth won? No challenge is futile, and it hasn't cost Lambeth Council Tax payers a penny.

Do yourself a favour and don't gob off about something you've obviously little current understanding of. Thanks.

 

[ViolentPanda]

All those people kicked out of their homes (many residents are elderly and/or infirm), their lives turned upside down, a lovely estate flattened and a tight community ripped apart to make way for luxury flats and just 23 extra council flats. And all against the wishes of the vast majority of tenants. I'd say there's loads to oppose here.

Lambeth Council Cabinet set to agree to demolish Cressingham Gardens with only 27 new council houses being built

Not "new council houses", sadly. 23 new properties for "council-level rent", which is an entirely different thing, and gives the resident only an assured tenancy, i.e. none of the protections that a council secure tenancy gives.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Fight on mate This is one battle not the war x

Absolutely. I still think that some people don't grasp the seriousness of the situation. If Lambeth get away with what they plan for Cressingham and the other "regeneration" estates, there will be no bar to them doing the same on every estate in the borough, socially-cleansing the entirety of Lambeth. They're - as far as we've been able to find out - the ONLY borough who expect tenants to cede their secure tenancies, throw away their rights for sweet fuck-all.

 

[ViolentPanda]

...and you had to move at least twice?

Lambeth have been constantly pushing at residents the idea of "single decant" moves through phased construction. What they haven't done is explained that however you phase construction, some of the residents WILL have to move twice. They also haven't explained the degree of long-term infrastructure issues - especially to local roads - that a phased construction that may well last 7 years will cause. They certainly haven't explained to residents how our already-overloaded transport infrastructure will cope with almost 160 new households on Tulse Hill. Bus services on the hill are still reeling from Brockwell Gate opening a decade ago, so an already poor service will be rendered even worse.

 

[ViolentPanda]

thats our council tax money they are spending fight their own tenants.

As Lambeth won this time, the claimant has had costs awarded against him, so they haven't had to spend the money this time, unless the claimant appeals and wins, in which case they'll be in the hole again, and will probably tell fibs about what it cost, like they did after the first judicial review (they claimed to have spent £30,000 - that was for their own legal representation, though. They didn't mention that the legal team of the first Cressingham resident to take them to JR rinsed Lambeth for more than that).

The residents presented an alternative plan 'The People Plan' to raise funds to renovate the estate (which needs renovating as Lambeth has neglected its duty to upkeep it) which involved very few homes being demolished yet still creating new homes. Lambeth has rejected this.

I agree that council homes shouldn't be sold - but as that is the law as we have and they houses have been already sold, often to long term older residents - the costs to those leaseholders is unacceptable. Lambeth want them to pay up for major repairs on the homes they intend to demolish. Then to compulsory purchase them for less than favourable price. Lambeth want to destroy an attractive and popular estate to provide very few extra council homes.

Demolishing existing council homes to build for rich new buyers, our labour run co-operative council have no right and no mandate to do this.

"Rich new buyers" or renters. They've sussed that becoming effectively a private landlord as well as a social landlord, could lead to a big income stream to replace the gaping holes in their finances.

As you say, they've no mandate to regenerate, just the supreme arrogance of the educated middle-classes ministering unto the poor.

 

[madolesance]

As Lambeth won this time, the claimant has had costs awarded against him, so they haven't had to spend the money this time, unless the claimant appeals and wins, in which case they'll be in the hole again, and will probably tell fibs about what it cost, like they did after the first judicial review (they claimed to have spent £30,000 - that was for their own legal representation, though. They didn't mention that the legal team of the first Cressingham resident to take them to JR rinsed Lambeth for more than that).



"Rich new buyers" or renters. They've sussed that becoming effectively a private landlord as well as a social landlord, could lead to a big income stream to replace the gaping holes in their finances.

As you say, they've no mandate to regenerate, just the supreme arrogance of the educated middle-classes ministering unto the poor.

So where does that leave me? Someone who maybe middle class and has supported the campaign all along?

 

[ViolentPanda]

So where does that leave me? Someone who maybe middle class and has supported the campaign all along?

Do you minister unto the poor in a condescending manner? If not, then I'm not talking about you, am I?

 

[Thimble Queen]

So where does that leave me? Someone who maybe middle class and has supported the campaign all along?

I dont understand the question?

 

[Celyn]

I might have missed something here but if the rebuilt estatE will provide extra council housing, ...

"Extra council housing" Whatever gave you that idea? What is "extra" council housing, anyway?

and one of th main complaints seems to be the extra cost to those who will want right to buy, why is this a bad thing?
I'm a Lambeth tennant and love my home, but if they were to rebuild my estate and rebuild with extra homes, and an increase in the homes value to protect from people buying the leaSe and depriving future tennants of a home, then I would be up for it....

An increase in your home's value? I am finding that I can't quite understand your reasoning here.

 

[ViolentPanda]

"Extra council housing" Whatever gave you that idea? What is "extra" council housing, anyway?



An increase in your home's value? I am finding that I can't quite understand your reasoning here.

The schmuck appears to think that a rise in the base value of the property would mean that even with a maximum discount, a mortgage would be unaffordable to someone on the median wage for the borough (currently about £30,000 per household in Lambeth).
What the schmuck doesn't realise is that even at the current base value, Right to Buy is unaffordable for many council tenants, and that over the last 3-5 years a significant minority of RtB applications are deals by property developers with individual tenants (yes, that still goes on, and estates still get flyered by Foxtons et al regularly).

 

[Celyn]

I'm a Lambeth tennant and love my home, but if they were to rebuild my estate and rebuild with extra homes, and an increase in the homes value to protect from people buying the leaSe and depriving future tennants of a home, then I would be up for it.

Please Southlondon, think again. And read what have you have written again.

an increase in the homes value to protect from people buying the leaSe and depriving future tennants of a home, then I would be up for it.

How does that work.?

 

[Southlondon]

Please Southlondon, think again. And read what have you have written again.
Unfortunately like the majority of folk I dont have time to read or the ability to absorb 100 page plus page reports, so as I stated, I might have missed something. As with many people I spent years and years on the housing list, and so let's not diminish In AnywaY the impact of being housed into a family Home even on an assured tenancy will have on those 23 families, compared to overcrowding or emergency accommodation etc- it'll be life changing as it was for me. I'd rather see the whole estate replaced with social housing on secure tenancies, and no lease hold or private homes or affordable 80% etc, but it's always going to be thwarted by a need for the redevelopment to self finance due to restrictions on borrowing to build council homes, and I guess I'm thinking how the Govt plans to force councils to sell off the most valuable houses works out if these are kept as traditional council homes, as opposed to looking at some sort of way to protect the new builds from being sold off from council stock
As Schmuck caller and yourself suggest I shall hook back to the beginning of the thread and give it a bit more attention, but i would be prepared to move out of my home, if it meant a worthwhile net gain in properties available to ordinary people who, as pointed out, will never be able to buy a home however it is discounted

How does that work.?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Unfortunately like the majority of folk I dont have time to read or the ability to absorb 100 page plus page reports, so as I stated, I might have missed something. As with many people I spent years and years on the housing list, and so let's not diminish In AnywaY the impact of being housed into a family Home even on an assured tenancy will have on those 23 families...

It'll be great for the 23 families, perhaps not so great for the other 20,977 families on the 21,000 waiting list.

Of course, when I say "great", the greatness is relative. As a council tenant I can't be evicted except for breaching specific rules set out in contract between me and the council. As an assured tenant, then the only statutory rights I have regarding tenancy, is that my landlord has to give me 2 months notice.

...compared to overcrowding or emergency accommodation etc- it'll be life changing as it was for me. I'd rather see the whole estate replaced with social housing on secure tenancies, and no lease hold or private homes or affordable 80% etc, but it's always going to be thwarted by a need for the redevelopment to self finance

The one thing the redevelopment isn't, is self-financing. The fact is that the unique regeneration model Lambeth is adopting (every other council has binned similar models because they're a) impractical, and b) risky for both the council and the tenants) is shit. That's not just my grass-roots opinion, it's the opinion of housing experts and academics.

...due to restrictions on borrowing to build council homes, and I guess I'm thinking how the Govt plans to force councils to sell off the most valuable houses works out if these are kept as traditional council homes, as opposed to looking at some sort of way to protect the new builds from being sold off from council stock

The only restriction to building new council homes in Lambeth, is the Housing Revenue Account. The usual excuse of no headroom for borrowing, no longer pertains. Every year for the next 7, the headroom will be over £50,000,000 per annum. There's money to build, but because the council wants to establish a permanent income stream far larger than what it takes in council rents, the people of Lambeth will have to accept insecure tenure.

As for protecting new builds from Right to Buy, the inflation in housing prices has been doing that for at least the last 6 years. We'd have to see prices drop to what they were in the early '90s to see locals able to afford to decimate council stock.

As Schmuck caller and yourself suggest I shall hook back to the beginning of the thread and give it a bit more attention, but i would be prepared to move out of my home, if it meant a worthwhile net gain in properties available to ordinary people who, as pointed out, will never be able to buy a home however it is discounted

If you don't want to be called a schmuck, don't talk like one.

 

[Southlondon]

It'll be great for the 23 families, perhaps not so great for the other 20,977 families on the 21,000 waiting list.

Of course, when I say "great", the greatness is relative. As a council tenant I can't be evicted except for breaching specific rules set out in contract between me and the council. As an assured tenant, then the only statutory rights I have regarding tenancy, is that my landlord has to give me 2 months notice.



The one thing the redevelopment isn't, is self-financing. The fact is that the unique regeneration model Lambeth is adopting (every other council has binned similar models because they're a) impractical, and b) risky for both the council and the tenants) is shit. That's not just my grass-roots opinion, it's the opinion of housing experts and academics.



The only restriction to building new council homes in Lambeth, is the Housing Revenue Account. The usual excuse of no headroom for borrowing, no longer pertains. Every year for the next 7, the headroom will be over £50,000,000 per annum. There's money to build, but because the council wants to establish a permanent income stream far larger than what it takes in council rents, the people of Lambeth will have to accept insecure tenure.

As for protecting new builds from Right to Buy, the inflation in housing prices has been doing that for at least the last 6 years. We'd have to see prices drop to what they were in the early '90s to see locals able to afford to decimate council stock.



If you don't want to be called a schmuck, don't talk like one.

I started my comment, " I might have missed something ", because as you might see from my previous posts on other boards, I am a new member here, and that was the first time I had checked out the

 

[Southlondon]

I started my comment, " I might have missed something ", because as you might see from my previous posts on other boards, I am a new member here, and that was the first time I had checked out the Brixton board - as if to prove a point i just posted by mistake before finishing- maybe as you seem to spend huge amounts of time posting across these boards, and seem to be up to speed on many of the threads, calling someone a Schmuck ( contemptible, obnoxious, detestable) - I had to look up the definition, is a little harsh, and not the most comradely introduction. As I said, I will read through the thread, but I still retain my base principle, that I don't have too much sympathy for leaseholders, as they took advantage of a crap policy that began the weakening of our social housing. I had the option of buying many years ago when I was a tenant In another borough before the price boom but would never have done so on principle. maybe you deem that detestable of me, so be it, but I will read up on how it impacts the tennants specifically, and I will take note in future not to post until I've read up more on the background first.
Lesson learnt

 

[SpamMisery]

Unfortunately, "mistakes" will be pounced upon. It seems to be the U75 way of welcoming new members (and quite frankly dealing with established posters too)

 

[ViolentPanda]

Unfortunately, "mistakes" will be pounced upon. It seems to be the U75 way of welcoming new members (and quite frankly dealing with established posters too)

People pounce on you because you're an arse who says arsey things, you poor little victim, you.

 

[SpamMisery]

People pounce on you because you're an arse who says arsey things, you poor little victim, you.

Merry Christmas ViolentPanda