Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

The generation that feels utterly locked out of housing certainly doesn't feel that way - hence the discourse about "boomers" and how they ruined everything (which is broadly true).

On the housing front it was Thatcher who started the ruin of housing.

By the 70s almost half of housing was social housing.

Thatcher removed rent controls for private renters, brought in RTB.

On economic side it was with Thatcher that market decides everything started.

Your buying into this ideology.

Given you say market should decide don't you think possibly that Thatcher reforms of private renters rights in favour of landlords show that deregulation of housing didn't work in long term?

After all the point of getting rid of private renters rights was that was like restrictive practise holding back market forces.
 
In the Gordon Grove APG thread nonya posted article as showing rent controls don't work.

Rent Control’s Winners and Losers

What the article is actually saying is that instead of rent controls benefits for private renters should be brought in to pay rents. So landlords can charge high rents which are indirectly subsidised by benefits that renters get.

In this country there is cap on housing benefit. I know couple of people who have problems with housing due to this cap.

So nonya I take it you would be in favour of scrapping the Tory housing benefit cap?
 
Last edited:
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.
check out the Peoples Plan - the cressingham residents own plan to mostly renovate and add housing to the estate - without having to 'decant' all the residents.

I would enthusiastically back any plan to build truely affordable housing. but am fed up with 'luxury homes' that are merely for the mega rich.
 
To reduce property prices for a start I suggest:

Cap on rental prices (exploitive landlords would leave the market) Effectively putting a cap on housing benefit is all wrong. The govt is effective paying the income of many private landlords.

a ban on landbanking - were developers leave land idle for years for in the hope of the price of land rising. Planning permissions should be time restricted to stop developers idling and keeping property vacant.

The percentage of 'affordable housing' in new builds should be increased and enforced - too many developers can argue its uneconomic to stick to their original plan. No 'poor doors'

Introduce residency laws so billionaire foreign nationals cant park their money in buying property that no one will get to live in (just look at how many of those glittering luxury towers in Vauxhall are actually occupied.) If this luxury market was reduced there would be more land and opportunity for actual homes for people to live in.

Bring in tough restrictions on companies buying homes to stop money laundering there is toomuch being trading through muliple off shore shell companies to clean their dirty money. If there were fewer companies with endless wealth competing in the market prices could fall.

Restrict or ban holiday lets / Airb&b on whole properties - would release more rooms for ordinary rental or sale.

Ban the sale of council houses at such huge discounts and alter rules that restrict councils from reinvesting sales money in new housing.

There are lots of empty properties (including those in public ownership) there was supposed to be meassures to end this - but I see little evidence of this. The average void in council property is years when it could be weeks.

I want to see more co op housing and community projects.

I want to see squatting made legal again - and I suggest all those empty luxury blocks would loose some of their appeal to foreign investors.
 
So may questions nonya
  • Has housing policy of the last two decades worked out well?
Very broadly: Yes, for those with capital, no for many more. In the 1970s a third of the UK population lived in Social Housing. Today that percentage is around 17%.
  • If not, what changes can we make that might make a difference.
Scrap Right to Buy and Right to Aquire, or at least ring-fence the proceeds into truly social rent homes. Requistion some of the 288,539 empty homes in the UK for social rent - as I said its not the supply that's the issue it's the distribution. Introduce rent caps and truly secure tenancies for private tenancies. Proper governance and accountability of community levy on private house builders to replace s.106.
  • Directionally, should building new housing be easier or more difficult (in order to achieve our common goal of less expensive housing)?
Question is a red herring. What kind of housing? For whom? Where? What type of housing? Too many variables to comment.
  • Are you participating in making housing easier to build, or harder to build?
Ditto -too many variables. I'll continue to oppose poor applications and support good ones. "Housing" comes in many many forms, please specify.
 
On the housing front it was Thatcher who started the ruin of housing.

By the 70s almost half of housing was social housing.

Thatcher removed rent controls for private renters, brought in RTB.

On economic side it was with Thatcher that market decides everything started.

Your buying into this ideology.

Given you say market should decide don't you think possibly that Thatcher reforms of private renters rights in favour of landlords show that deregulation of housing didn't work in long term?

After all the point of getting rid of private renters rights was that was like restrictive practise holding back market forces.
yes, Thatcher is to blame for most things. The private market has never provided decent homes for everyone.
 
A reminder that Lambeth's Planning Committee is deciding tonight on HfL's application for the Ropers Walk redevelopment - the permission, granted in February, which Lambeth had to quash after the Judicial Review in July. I'll be at the meeting in person, representing the Brixton Society, the Friends of Brockwell Park and the Herne Hill Society - all of whom have objected to the application. After a year and a half of Covid restrictions, objectors who have applied to speak are allowed into the committee room. You can view the meeting via a link on Lambeth's website. Wish me well!
 
Was only allowed two minutes to speak - then told to stop by the chair (though no guillotine applied to Lambeth officers acting as PR advisors for HFL). Outcome was a 6 - 0 vote in favour. I couldn't find the video link on Lambeth's website either - maybe someone could post it here? - but there's a decent write up in the Buzz.
 
Just seen the video of the meeting. Seems to be yet another example of Lambeth senior officers misleading councillors - this time claiming that the impact on Brockwell Park was nothing to worry about. All the views from the park in the committee report were from Brockwell house on the top of the ridge - I think the view I showed tonight - which is included in the second supplementary agenda for the meeting. The image I showed - part off the evidence to the JR in July - is a view from the very well used path which skirts the south west boundary of the park. Was there on Sunday taking photos and struck by how many people walked past while I was there - joggers, dog walkers, buggy pushers, mobile phone users and just families enjoying the park. This development will put a four storey building close to the park boundary and people using this bit of the park will definitely notice the difference. So, we lost this one. Not giving up just yet - but keep a look out for applications from HfL for more bits of Cressingham Gardens.
 
Just seen the video of the meeting. Seems to be yet another example of Lambeth senior officers misleading councillors - this time claiming that the impact on Brockwell Park was nothing to worry about. All the views from the park in the committee report were from Brockwell house on the top of the ridge - I think the view I showed tonight - which is included in the second supplementary agenda for the meeting. The image I showed - part off the evidence to the JR in July - is a view from the very well used path which skirts the south west boundary of the park. Was there on Sunday taking photos and struck by how many people walked past while I was there - joggers, dog walkers, buggy pushers, mobile phone users and just families enjoying the park. This development will put a four storey building close to the park boundary and people using this bit of the park will definitely notice the difference. So, we lost this one. Not giving up just yet - but keep a look out for applications from HfL for more bits of Cressingham Gardens.

Officers taking partisan view of a planning application is not new. Same thing happened with the Hondo application.

What disturbs me is feeling that senior officers and senior Cllrs decide informally what can go through and what can't.

Metaphorm towers for LJ were turned down by officers. Hondo application for Brixton was supported.

Can't prove it but seems to me it arguable that contentious planning applications are discussed informally between senior Cllrs and Senior officers.

Metaphorm towers were potential vote loser for Herne Hill Cllrs. They can now say they played role in stopping them so don't vote Green at next election.

International House ongoing plans look like its going to be decided by senior officers and whoever Council choose as developer.
 
What I'm finding increasingly making me feel my time is up for involvement in community issues is the powerlessness I feel.

These senior officers and senior Cllrs are on big salaries and allowances. At meetings they back each other up. As resident I find it dispiriting to try to deal with.

Any comment or questioning of services or consultation and one comes up against the collusion of senior officers and senior Cllrs.

Consultation is particularly poor in One Party State Lambeth. Instead of vigorous debate the Lambeth establishment push what they want through.

This sometimes works in local residents favour sometimes not.

It can cause divisions between residents.

What it does lead to is democratic deficit. Where the losers rightly don't feel they have had there say.

This leads imo to cynicism and erosion of faith local democracy.
 
Just look at the state of the block they just approved:

Ropers-Walk-720x380.jpg
 
I was one of the three objectors who got to speak at the meeting – in my case on behalf of the Brixton Society, the friends of Brockwell Park and the Herne Hill Society. Agree that the result was disappointing – I thought there was an outside chance the application would be refused (instead of being rubber stamped 6 to zero). That said, I think it wasn’t all doom and gloom – and there were some rays of hope for those of us who want to save the estate from demolition. First off there were lots of hints from the report to PAC and the Q and A session at the meeting that LBL have conceded that the boundaries of the Brockwell Park Conservation Area are going to be extended to include Cressingham Gardens. This is what all the references to the “non designated heritage asset” were about. If the estate becomes part of the BPCA, then wholesale demolitions more or less off the agenda. Second point was about impact on views of the Park Conservation Area – planning officers, including our friend Doug Black head of conservation in LBL’s planning team – only got away with their claim that the impact on the park would be negligible by arguing that Ropers Walk is a small area on the edge of the estate and demolition/replacement and so wouldn’t have the same impact as demolition/rebuilding of blocks in the middle of the estate and nearer the park boundary. If we can hold them to their words, then this should kibosh HfL schemes for developing the rest of the estate. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic here, but I'm beginning to sense clues from HfL/LBLambeth that they are planning to ditch plans for the wholesale regeneration of Cressingham Gardens and going instead for piecemeal development of small sites instead. if that's the plan, I don't have a problem - but why didn't they start with that terrace in Crosby Walk which has been vacant since 1998? (and identified as a potential site in the Cressingham Peoples Plan).
 
On the housing front it was Thatcher who started the ruin of housing.

By the 70s almost half of housing was social housing.

Thatcher removed rent controls for private renters, brought in RTB.

On economic side it was with Thatcher that market decides everything started.

Your buying into this ideology.

Given you say market should decide don't you think possibly that Thatcher reforms of private renters rights in favour of landlords show that deregulation of housing didn't work in long term?

After all the point of getting rid of private renters rights was that was like restrictive practise holding back market forces.
Thatcher boosted RTB but it was around before her , from around 74/75 , but it only got popular in the early 80s.
 
On the housing front it was Thatcher who started the ruin of housing.

By the 70s almost half of housing was social housing.

Thatcher removed rent controls for private renters, brought in RTB.

On economic side it was with Thatcher that market decides everything started.

Your buying into this ideology.

Given you say market should decide don't you think possibly that Thatcher reforms of private renters rights in favour of landlords show that deregulation of housing didn't work in long term?

After all the point of getting rid of private renters rights was that was like restrictive practise holding back market forces.
you may find this interesting...

 
The arguments they wheel out to destroy social housing estates today are not far removed from the same ones used to demolish the "slum" communities that preceded them. Ultimately it's a certain kind of middle-class elite attitude (of 'the other') vs disenfranchised poor and working-class groups own self-conceptions and the vast power disparities that exist between them.
 

Thanks for this.

A few points.

This shows that housing is political.

There are two ways of looking at housing policy. The " sensible grown up" policy way or seeing it expression of class war.

World War one and two played a big influence in UK housing policy. Basically war meant that normal functioning of the cut throat neo Liberal capitalism was curtailed in order to unite the nation against the common enemy.

So rent controls.

These for political reasons ended up going on after war years.

It was not until Thatcher that gradual move to housing being social issue not market issue was reversed.

Taking housing out of the market place was deemed necessary to unite nation to fight.

After decades with ascendence of populist right - Thatcher this was reversed.

So economics and politics of housing are intertwined imo.

Another observation from this briefing. Labour Party post World War Two were against private landlords and for socialising housing. Even if they were going about it in legalistic long term way. This was mainstream position. Not just position of the left of the party. Reformist move to municipalising/ socialising housing. Taking it out of market place.

To add this changed with Blair.
 
Last edited:
Gramsci you are spot on. its great to put it in historical perspective.

Landlords are massively overrepresented in most parties in this parliament:


Here is a good recap of trends over the last century, though be warned the analysis is right wing brookings institution tosh. We've lost 1/2 our social housing.

 
I was one of the three objectors who got to speak at the meeting – in my case on behalf of the Brixton Society, the friends of Brockwell Park and the Herne Hill Society. Agree that the result was disappointing – I thought there was an outside chance the application would be refused (instead of being rubber stamped 6 to zero). That said, I think it wasn’t all doom and gloom – and there were some rays of hope for those of us who want to save the estate from demolition. First off there were lots of hints from the report to PAC and the Q and A session at the meeting that LBL have conceded that the boundaries of the Brockwell Park Conservation Area are going to be extended to include Cressingham Gardens. This is what all the references to the “non designated heritage asset” were about. If the estate becomes part of the BPCA, then wholesale demolitions more or less off the agenda. Second point was about impact on views of the Park Conservation Area – planning officers, including our friend Doug Black head of conservation in LBL’s planning team – only got away with their claim that the impact on the park would be negligible by arguing that Ropers Walk is a small area on the edge of the estate and demolition/replacement and so wouldn’t have the same impact as demolition/rebuilding of blocks in the middle of the estate and nearer the park boundary. If we can hold them to their words, then this should kibosh HfL schemes for developing the rest of the estate. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic here, but I'm beginning to sense clues from HfL/LBLambeth that they are planning to ditch plans for the wholesale regeneration of Cressingham Gardens and going instead for piecemeal development of small sites instead. if that's the plan, I don't have a problem - but why didn't they start with that terrace in Crosby Walk which has been vacant since 1998? (and identified as a potential site in the Cressingham Peoples Plan).
I attended online the full council meeting the following day in which a Green motion proposed retrofit over demolition but the Labour group amended it to say exactly the opposite. I've just sent out the following tweet, which references my FoI request.
Lambeth Council, intent on unpopular estate demolitions, has just passed a motion in which they claim that thanks to Life Cycle Carbon Assessments new build homes can be demonstrated to deliver better long-term carbon impacts than retrofitted homes. True?? tinyurl.com/2x473uvu
Would welcome any comments from any architects out there.
 
Just look at the state of the block they just approved:

Ropers-Walk-720x380.jpg
Yes well this effectively destroys the character of the area in one small(ish) block - never mind what is does to Cressingham Gardens.

There is an organisation dedicated to working with the Mayor of London and local councils to promote this sort of thing Urban Design London
They even have a fully illustrated 23 page brochure crowing about it https://www.urbandesignlondon.com/documents/24/ANEWLONDONVERNACULAR_-_COMP.pdf

Wonder who funds this benevolent developer friendly quango?
 
‘The new london vernacular’ is vandalism on an industrial scale. These structures already look naff. What will they look like in 20 years when they are falling apart due to shoddy materials and building practices?
 
Back
Top Bottom