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

[Southlondon]

Two councils under investigation by ombudsman for complaint procedure failures

A trusted source of up-to-date news for social housing professionals – the only place to get comprehensive coverage of all the big topics.

www.insidehousing.co.uk

Lambeth is under investigation by the Housing Ombudsman for failing to comply with the watchdog’s new complaint-handling failure orders.

Another demonstration of the indifference to democratic scrutiny of the unaccountable one-party state that is Lambeth Council.

They are not unaccountable, they face the electorate for election and each time they are voted back in with huge majority of councillors. It’s the electorate that make it a one party state when more crosses are put against Labour Party candidates than are put against the opposition parties. Estate demolition was pushed as an issue by opposition parties at last election for example but more people wanted the Labour Party candidates than other ones. That’s how our system of democracy works. It’s hardly the fault of the Labour Party if the opposition can only manage to fill a fraction of the seats. This is why the committee system wouldn’t work so well in Lambeth because the opposition would struggle to meet all the commitments with so few councillors even if the greens worked comfortably with the tories as they do in other places. My mum was on the old Bexley council many years ago as one of only 2 Labour Party opposition councillors, and I remember her telling me how it was impossible to shadbush all the different committees as well as fulfilling other duties. All this criticism of the local Labour Party (much of Which I agree with,) but it’s the opposition party’s that are failing to win elections that are the cause of the ineffectual opposition not the Labour Party.

 

[editor]

Fantastic news Cressingham Gardens: Judge gives green light for Judicial Review #3

 

[DiSkid.22]

"Risk of failure - major"!!! Time to bow out gracefully? Come on Lambeth, stand up and be counted!! Drop the Demolition Plans!!!

 

[editor]

Excellent stuff. How much has Lambeth wasted on this folly?

Lambeth Council has quashed the planning permission it gave to one of its controversial estate regeneration schemes, instead of fighting a legal challenge from residents
In February, Lambeth’s planning committee approved plans by Homes for Lambeth, the local authority’s wholly-owned housing company, to demolish 12 homes on the Cressingham Gardens estate.

Last week it was announced that residents had been granted a judicial review of the scheme, which would have been the third legal challenge over the Ted Hollamby-designed estate’s regeneration.
Residents had launched a crowdfunding campaign to raise money for the challenge but yesterday (21 July) the council took the surprise decision to cancel planning permission for the scheme, instead of spending more taxpayers’ money in court.

Lambeth quashes its own consent for demolition on Hollamby estate

Lambeth Council has quashed the planning permission it gave to one of its controversial estate regeneration schemes, instead of fighting a legal challenge from residents

www.architectsjournal.co.uk

 

[Gramsci]

Excellent stuff. How much has Lambeth wasted on this folly?

Lambeth quashes its own consent for demolition on Hollamby estate

Lambeth Council has quashed the planning permission it gave to one of its controversial estate regeneration schemes, instead of fighting a legal challenge from residents

www.architectsjournal.co.uk

Not just the money also the stress its caused to the residents.

Yet another example of how poorly Lambeth consults residents.

The threat of a JR is only reason that Council have taken this move.

 

[DiSkid.22]

Not just the money also the stress its caused to the residents.

Yet another example of how poorly Lambeth consults residents.

The threat of a JR is only reason that Council have taken this move.

Hopefully, the beginning of the end. There has to be a change of heart somewhere along the line and some time very soon!! The times they are a' changing. And the first step towards change is NOW!!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Hopefully, the beginning of the end. There has to be a change of heart somewhere along the line and some time very soon!! The times they are a' changing. And the first step towards change is NOW!!

It would be nice, but all it really means - & I'm well-acquainted with the person who was bringing the JR, as editor knows - is that Lambeth realised that their extremely shonky Planning Application Committee hearing, & the quality of their "evidence", when measured against Cressingham's, would have been laughed out of court, so they've slunk away in order to reapply at a later date.

There's also news that Lambeth Council/HfL are re-applying for GLA funding, which SHOULD mean ballots, but I bet their salami-slicing will put the kybosh on that...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sooooooo, the people at HfL have re-submitted the planning application to demolish Ropers Walk, with a "heritage report" added. Here's hoping they used their senior conservation officer to write it, because the man is a muppet!
Paperwork for the application hasn't come up on the portal yet, & any submissions have to be made by 15 October, so yet again we're given less than 3 weeks to do the necessary.
editor, so about a fundraising event, any ideas? Looks like we're going to have to dig deep into our reserves, maybe even have to borrow, if we go all the way to JR.

 

[Carvaged]

Yet another example of how poorly Lambeth consults residents.

Unfortunately councils can consult residents until they run out of space to store all the records, but it doesn't mean anything if the findings fail to provide the justifications to go ahead with the social cleansing they've already planned or when they have no intention of listening in the first place.

We fought pretty hard for Heygate up in Southwark, but look what that got us in the end lol. Fuck Southwark and fuck Lend-Lease.

 

[VivLewis]

Just to say that the Brixton Society has submitted a response which looks at the issues raised at the Judicial Review in July. Main conclusion are that 1) Lambeth should not deal with this application until the consultation on the Brockwell Park Conservation Area boundaries is completed - to do otherwise would compromise the review, and 2) that the Ropers Walk application should be shelved unit the Cressingham masterplan has been published and consulted on. Comments don't yet appear on the Lambeth planning webioste but can be downloaded from our website - link here. https://www.brixtonsociety.org.uk/t...ads/2021/10/Ropers-Walk-SW2-20-022406-RG3.pdf

 

[Gramsci]

Just to say that the Brixton Society has submitted a response which looks at the issues raised at the Judicial Review in July. Main conclusion are that 1) Lambeth should not deal with this application until the consultation on the Brockwell Park Conservation Area boundaries is completed - to do otherwise would compromise the review, and 2) that the Ropers Walk application should be shelved unit the Cressingham masterplan has been published and consulted on. Comments don't yet appear on the Lambeth planning webioste but can be downloaded from our website - link here. https://www.brixtonsociety.org.uk/t...ads/2021/10/Ropers-Walk-SW2-20-022406-RG3.pdf

Thanks for this. The comprehensive response by Brixton Society is indicative of the way some of us who have dealt with New Labour Lambeth are well aware.

Basically Lambeth want to tear down the estate and build higher blocks next to Conservation Area.

They know they wouldn't be able get away with this in a grand scheme so are trying to do it incrementally.

One higher rise block at a time. Gradually damaging the estate and the Brockwell park Conservation Area. So that in future they can push forward a bigger so called regeneration scheme. Wringing their hands about Brockwell park. But saying previous incremental changes had already affected the CA.

Its imo misuse of planning by a local authority owned entity.

I find it hard not to see collusion between officers and the HfL in working out how to get this application through.

Swearing blind they have nothing decided. But as those of us who have dealt with Lambeth know the we haven't decided this line is standard tactic. Informal discussions would have taken place. Possibly justified as so called pre application meetings.

Worse still is that they have brushed under the carpet Heritage England recommendation that the estate should be included in the Brockwell Park Conservation Area. This is despicable.

 

[brixtonpete]

I have discovered that Lambeth Council's latest planning application for demolition at Cressingham Gardens is in breach of several policies of their new Local Plan 2020-2035, which was published on 22nd September 2021, so I have submitted an objection based on that development. The new local plan includes some excellent policies on climate change, energy efficiency and low carbon circular economy so if the council were to proceed with the applied for plan for Ropers Walk demolition it would mean that council policies are pure greenwash.

The local plan says the council wants to 'encourage' developers to follow the Passivhaus standard but the proposal at Ropers Walk falls far short of that so how can it expect others to build to the Passivhaus standard, or refurbish to the Passivhaus EnerPHit standard, if they won't do it for their own built estate?

For instance the following policy points towards favouring retention and refurbishment over demolition - or at least carrying out a full whole life carbon cycle study to compare the two options:

Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035, Section 3.9 (D.7:
“Supporting a low carbon circular economy/circular economy principles that improves resource efficiency and innovation to keep products and materials at their highest use for as long as possible.”

Also, the Mayor's London Plan March 2021, which Lambeth Council is supposed to follow, includes the following two policies:

1. 3.3.12 Figure 3.2 shows a hierarchy for building approaches which maximises use of existing materials. Diminishing returns are gained by moving through the hierarchy outwards, working through refurbishment and re-use through to the least preferable option of recycling materials produced by the building or demolition process. The best use of the land needs to be taken into consideration when deciding whether to retain existing buildings in a development.

That policy couldn't be clearer and throws into question Lambeth's plan to demolish so many of its estates. The following also points to material re-use:

1. 1.6.2 All cities must face up to the reality of climate change and the need to limit their future contribution to this major global problem. This London Plan will require developments to contribute towards London’s ambitious target to become zero-carbon by 2050 by increasing energy efficiency, including through the use of smart technologies, and utilising low carbon energy sources. Creating a low carbon circular economy, in which the greatest possible value is extracted from resources before they become waste, is not only socially and environmentally responsible, but will save money and limit the likelihood of environmental threats affecting London’s future.

I submitted my objection before I discovered the London Plan policies so if anyone wants to make a new objection and quote the above policies in the London Plan, that would be helpful. The 'final' date to submit objections may be this coming Tuesday 19th October. My objection is too long to paste as text into this post so I am attaching it as a PDF file. It includes a number of links as references.

 

[editor]

Benefit gig coming up Cressingham Gardens benefit gig in Herne Hill, Sat 27th Nov 2021

 

[editor]

The 'co-operative' council ignoring residents again 402 objections for the demolition of Roper’s Walk at Cressingham Gardens with only 2 in support

 

[nonya]

Is there a single new high density housing project of any kind that brixton buzz or organizations like the brixton society have ever supported?

 

[CH1]

Is there a single new high density housing project of any kind that brixton buzz or organizations like the brixton society have ever supported?

You have an odd idea if you think local media should campaign for high density housing schemes offering unaffordable housing.

 

[nonya]

You have an odd idea if you think local media should campaign for high density housing schemes offering unaffordable housing.

Its unaffordable precisely because nimbys make it incredibly difficult and expensive to build anything at all. High density housing is the only way that makes sense to build in any urban area, and you all have imposed such high costs on building that any affordable or middle income housing is rendered unprofitable.

I think local media should campaign for what's best for a place, and what's best for London at large and Brixton more specifically is to build so much housing that it's abundant and therefore affordable for everyone.

It's one thing if people were opposing some things but open to others, but all I've seen on this forum is people opposing literally every proposal of any kind of development.

Your access to local amenities does not supersede the rights of the younger generation to have stable and secure places to live.

But inevitably people who are privileged enough to already have access to housing invariably want to stop more housing being built, regardless of where on the political spectrum they might fall.

 

[editor]

Its unaffordable precisely because nimbys make it incredibly difficult and expensive to build anything at all. High density housing is the only way that makes sense to build in any urban area, and you all have imposed such high costs on building that any affordable or middle income housing is rendered unprofitable.

I think local media should campaign for what's best for a place, and what's best for London at large and Brixton more specifically is to build so much housing that it's abundant and therefore affordable for everyone.

It's one thing if people were opposing some things but open to others, but all I've seen on this forum is people opposing literally every proposal of any kind of development.

Your access to local amenities does not supersede the rights of the younger generation to have stable and secure places to live.

But inevitably people who are privileged enough to already have access to housing invariably want to stop more housing being built, regardless of where on the political spectrum they might fall.

Wait, you're blaming the lack of new affordable/social housing in Brixton on NIMBYs?

 

[editor]

Is there a single new high density housing project of any kind that brixton buzz or organizations like the brixton society have ever supported?

Meanwhile, in the real world, this is what happens:

Please sign this petition: Barratt Homes, Brixton Square and the fight to retain affordable housing in Brixton.

Although BrixtonBuzz is primarily about music, we’ve been part of the Brixton community for years and we’re growing increasingly unhappy seeing our friends being priced out of town as g…

www.brixtonbuzz.com

Barratt Homes, Brixton Square and the fight to retain affordable housing in Brixton. Please sign the petition. -

Urban 75, Brixton Buzz and Brixton Blog are partnering to protest against Barratt Homes’ application to water down the provision of social and affordable housing, including the conversion to ‘affordable rent’ tenure of 13 social rent flats, at its new development ‘Brixton Square’, on Coldharbour...

www.urban75.org

 

[friendofdorothy]

Is there a single new high density housing project of any kind that brixton buzz or organizations like the brixton society have ever supported?

yes - exactly the ones that have already been demolished like at elephant and castle or like the various eatates like Cressingham that Lambeth are planning to demolish.

 

[editor]

yes - exactly the ones that have already been demolished like at elephant and castle or like the various eatates like Cressingham that Lambeth are planning to demolish.

And we don't just chat about it on the internet either!

Brixton Fightback concert raises £1.54k for the Save Cressingham Gardens campaign

Brixton Buzz is really, really pleased to announce that we managed to raise £1.54k from our Brixton Fightback show earlier this month. The money has now gone into the Save Cressingham Gardens GoFun…

www.brixtonbuzz.com

If a high density social housing project was announced, we'd be 100% behind it, as would almost all of the posters here. But fuck unaffordable luxury towers for the wealthy.

 

[Gramsci]

Its unaffordable precisely because nimbys make it incredibly difficult and expensive to build anything at all. High density housing is the only way that makes sense to build in any urban area, and you all have imposed such high costs on building that any affordable or middle income housing is rendered unprofitable.

I think local media should campaign for what's best for a place, and what's best for London at large and Brixton more specifically is to build so much housing that it's abundant and therefore affordable for everyone.

It's one thing if people were opposing some things but open to others, but all I've seen on this forum is people opposing literally every proposal of any kind of development.

Your access to local amenities does not supersede the rights of the younger generation to have stable and secure places to live.

But inevitably people who are privileged enough to already have access to housing invariably want to stop more housing being built, regardless of where on the political spectrum they might fall.

What are these high costs?

Local amenities are important part of having a community where people have good standard of life.

You saying that people who want communities with access to amenities are nimbys makes no sense to me.

 

[nonya]

Wait, you're blaming the lack of new affordable/social housing in Brixton on NIMBYs?

yes, shockingly, housing is expensive because too many people (usually people who already have a place to live) oppose the building of new housing.

Here's the argument in plain terms.

In the market for cars, we have both expensive cars and cheap cars. Why is that? Because it is profitable to produce cheap cars, so rich pricks can buy Mercedes and regular folk can buy Hyundais. I'd rather get rid of cars altogether and force people to use (and spend money on) the tube and busses, but there you go. It's a functioning market where both privileged and less privileged people are served, because it's profitable to manufacture cheap cars.

In the market for housing, we only have expensive houses because it is not profitable to build regular housing (that would be affordable for normal people). It is not profitable to build regular housing because it is inordinately difficult to get planning permission, it is impossible to get the support of local residents (who are the privileged ones who already have access to housing), and the process of getting to the stage where you can actually lay a brick costs millions. The barrier to entry of building new housing is so high, to recoup their costs, only massive developers can afford to go through this process, and they need to sell/rent whatever they've built at ludicrous cost because their barriers to entry in terms of cost and the built in uncertainty of the success of any given plan is so high.

The ONLY way to have housing not be stupidly expensive is if the market price of housing is affordable for a regular person. Any other solution means that reasonably priced housing is a lottery. That means drastically increasing the supply. Housing abundance is the goal.

Make it so easy to build that every segment of the market is served - cheap housing as well as expensive housing (just like cars). Flood the market with housing supply until the price gets to a point where its reasonable.

So yes, that probably means tall flats and cookie cutter apartments that block your precious views. I'm also sure many of the local residents will complain about a variety of other things that adversely affect their property values.

Local residents blocking absolutely any new plan of anybody building anything is exactly the reason why the only things that end up being built are luxury apartments for the wealthy.

You are one side of the vicious circle that's permanently locking out an entire generation from any hope of stable housing.

 

[sparkybird]

You make some interesting points but haven't addressed at all the impact that flooding a market with affordable housing would have on the infrastructure required to support those living in said housing. It's a bit more complicated than 'saving views'.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Local residents blocking absolutely any new plan of anybody building anything is exactly the reason why the only things that end up being built are luxury apartments for the wealthy.

I promise you that's not the reason.

 

[DietCokeGirl]

Its unaffordable precisely because nimbys make it incredibly difficult and expensive to build anything at all. High density housing is the only way that makes sense to build in any urban area, and you all have imposed such high costs on building that any affordable or middle income housing is rendered unprofitable.

I think local media should campaign for what's best for a place, and what's best for London at large and Brixton more specifically is to build so much housing that it's abundant and therefore affordable for everyone.

It's one thing if people were opposing some things but open to others, but all I've seen on this forum is people opposing literally every proposal of any kind of development.

Your access to local amenities does not supersede the rights of the younger generation to have stable and secure places to live.

But inevitably people who are privileged enough to already have access to housing invariably want to stop more housing being built, regardless of where on the political spectrum they might fall.

There is an abundance of housing, its just owned by landlords who charge a fortune, or sitting empty as an investment.

 

[Gramsci]

yes, shockingly, housing is expensive because too many people (usually people who already have a place to live) oppose the building of new housing.

Here's the argument in plain terms.

In the market for cars, we have both expensive cars and cheap cars. Why is that? Because it is profitable to produce cheap cars, so rich pricks can buy Mercedes and regular folk can buy Hyundais. I'd rather get rid of cars altogether and force people to use (and spend money on) the tube and busses, but there you go. It's a functioning market where both privileged and less privileged people are served, because it's profitable to manufacture cheap cars.

In the market for housing, we only have expensive houses because it is not profitable to build regular housing (that would be affordable for normal people). It is not profitable to build regular housing because it is inordinately difficult to get planning permission, it is impossible to get the support of local residents (who are the privileged ones who already have access to housing), and the process of getting to the stage where you can actually lay a brick costs millions. The barrier to entry of building new housing is so high, to recoup their costs, only massive developers can afford to go through this process, and they need to sell/rent whatever they've built at ludicrous cost because their barriers to entry in terms of cost and the built in uncertainty of the success of any given plan is so high.

The ONLY way to have housing not be stupidly expensive is if the market price of housing is affordable for a regular person. Any other solution means that reasonably priced housing is a lottery. That means drastically increasing the supply. Housing abundance is the goal.

Make it so easy to build that every segment of the market is served - cheap housing as well as expensive housing (just like cars). Flood the market with housing supply until the price gets to a point where its reasonable.

So yes, that probably means tall flats and cookie cutter apartments that block your precious views. I'm also sure many of the local residents will complain about a variety of other things that adversely affect their property values.

Local residents blocking absolutely any new plan of anybody building anything is exactly the reason why the only things that end up being built are luxury apartments for the wealthy.

You are one side of the vicious circle that's permanently locking out an entire generation from any hope of stable housing.

The argument that getting planning permission is reason for high cost of housing is frankly rubbish.

 

[editor]

yes, shockingly, housing is expensive because too many people (usually people who already have a place to live) oppose the building of new housing.

Here's the argument in plain terms.

In the market for cars, we have both expensive cars and cheap cars. Why is that? Because it is profitable to produce cheap cars, so rich pricks can buy Mercedes and regular folk can buy Hyundais. I'd rather get rid of cars altogether and force people to use (and spend money on) the tube and busses, but there you go. It's a functioning market where both privileged and less privileged people are served, because it's profitable to manufacture cheap cars.

In the market for housing, we only have expensive houses because it is not profitable to build regular housing (that would be affordable for normal people). It is not profitable to build regular housing because it is inordinately difficult to get planning permission, it is impossible to get the support of local residents (who are the privileged ones who already have access to housing), and the process of getting to the stage where you can actually lay a brick costs millions. The barrier to entry of building new housing is so high, to recoup their costs, only massive developers can afford to go through this process, and they need to sell/rent whatever they've built at ludicrous cost because their barriers to entry in terms of cost and the built in uncertainty of the success of any given plan is so high.

The ONLY way to have housing not be stupidly expensive is if the market price of housing is affordable for a regular person. Any other solution means that reasonably priced housing is a lottery. That means drastically increasing the supply. Housing abundance is the goal.

Make it so easy to build that every segment of the market is served - cheap housing as well as expensive housing (just like cars). Flood the market with housing supply until the price gets to a point where its reasonable.

So yes, that probably means tall flats and cookie cutter apartments that block your precious views. I'm also sure many of the local residents will complain about a variety of other things that adversely affect their property values.

Local residents blocking absolutely any new plan of anybody building anything is exactly the reason why the only things that end up being built are luxury apartments for the wealthy.

You are one side of the vicious circle that's permanently locking out an entire generation from any hope of stable housing.

So you actually believe that local residents (sorry NIMBYs according to you):

1. Are able to totally influence what housing developments get planning permission or not and
2. If they supported every proposed luxury development, this would magically create an abundance of social/affordable housing in their area?

So what happened at Elephant and Castle and Nine Elms then?

 

[Carvaged]

yes, shockingly, housing is expensive because too many people (usually people who already have a place to live) oppose the building of new housing.

Here's the argument in plain terms.

In the market for cars, we have both expensive cars and cheap cars. Why is that? Because it is profitable to produce cheap cars, so rich pricks can buy Mercedes and regular folk can buy Hyundais. I'd rather get rid of cars altogether and force people to use (and spend money on) the tube and busses, but there you go. It's a functioning market where both privileged and less privileged people are served, because it's profitable to manufacture cheap cars.

In the market for housing, we only have expensive houses because it is not profitable to build regular housing (that would be affordable for normal people). It is not profitable to build regular housing because it is inordinately difficult to get planning permission, it is impossible to get the support of local residents (who are the privileged ones who already have access to housing), and the process of getting to the stage where you can actually lay a brick costs millions. The barrier to entry of building new housing is so high, to recoup their costs, only massive developers can afford to go through this process, and they need to sell/rent whatever they've built at ludicrous cost because their barriers to entry in terms of cost and the built in uncertainty of the success of any given plan is so high.

The ONLY way to have housing not be stupidly expensive is if the market price of housing is affordable for a regular person. Any other solution means that reasonably priced housing is a lottery. That means drastically increasing the supply. Housing abundance is the goal.

Make it so easy to build that every segment of the market is served - cheap housing as well as expensive housing (just like cars). Flood the market with housing supply until the price gets to a point where its reasonable.

So yes, that probably means tall flats and cookie cutter apartments that block your precious views. I'm also sure many of the local residents will complain about a variety of other things that adversely affect their property values.

Local residents blocking absolutely any new plan of anybody building anything is exactly the reason why the only things that end up being built are luxury apartments for the wealthy.

You are one side of the vicious circle that's permanently locking out an entire generation from any hope of stable housing.

Oh dear. You don't understand how any of this works at all do you? Lol.

 

[nonya]

There is an abundance of housing, its just owned by landlords who charge a fortune, or sitting empty as an investment.

This is certainly also a problem - foreign investment + second homes should be taxed at a MUCH higher rate than homes owned by people living in them. Nobody should view buying a house as an 'investment', it should be a good that you use (much like a car).

The argument that getting planning permission is reason for high cost of housing is frankly rubbish.

All evidence to the contrary. San Francisco has ludicrous pricing because it is nearly impossible to build. In New York, prices are high but not as high as SF - that's because its slightly easier to build. Go further down to a place like Houston, where it is much easier to build, and housing is on the borderline of reasonably priced. Why? Because it's easy to build.

The harder you make it to make something, the more expensive that thing becomes. In the UK, it is very hard to make houses. Therefore housing is very expensive.

So you actually believe that local residents (sorry NIMBYs according to you):

1. Are able to totally influence what housing developments get planning permission or not and
2. If they supported every proposed luxury development, this would magically create an abundance of social/affordable housing in their area?

So what happened at Elephant and Castle and Nine Elms then?

Not all local residents are NIMBYs. The younger generations are coming to see that housing policy in this country (and in many places in the world) is completely broken - that the older generation have left us in the lurch by taking up available resources and then pulling the rug out from under us. They bought their houses when housing was abundant, then decided to make it extraordinarily difficult to build anything new ever again.

For those of you who believe you have good intentions, ask yourself this.

• Has housing policy of the last two decades worked out well?
• If not, what changes can we make that might make a difference?
• Directionally, should building new housing be easier or more difficult (in order to achieve our common goal of less expensive housing)?
• Are you participating in making housing easier to build, or harder to build?

Broadly supportive of Elephant and Castle, don't know much about Nine Elms. More housing being built is good. I wish there was a greater component of affordable units but 25% affordable homes is not awful.

As long as the population of London is growing, given only so much land that's near public transit hubs, the only option is to build denser housing (or try to stop people from moving to the city which I find abhorrent). Existing residents concerns are valid, but they should not (as a general rule) outweigh the right of everybody else to have a decent place to live at a non absurd price.