Rushy
basically a scrotum
That's exactly what they did in order to build estates like St Matthews and possibly Cressingham in the first place.
Lambeth's plans to demolish Cressingham Gardens and other estates without the consent of residents
- Thread starter Brixton Hatter
- Start date
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Sorry to sound like a gramophone record, but in my view factors producing the housing crisis are
1. Right to buy - depleting social housing stock without replacement
2. Government imposed zero interest rates causing Weimar style house price inflation and a private housing panic.
3. Housing benefit support to private tenants being charged uneconomic rents (meaning rents too high for the market or the tenants to bear)
4. Reversal of the long standing government policy from 1945 - 1985 of dispersing work to the workless regions with ample cheap housing. Instead since Prescott we have government grants to knock down housing up north - and people being encouraged to move south especially to London for work.
5. Labour cock-up over European enlargement
No I don't see that taking amenity away from relatively green social housing should be the favored solution for a London regional problem.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Can't speak for Cressingham Gardens but I think St Matthews Estate was built on common land (Rush Common). Presumably a worthy enough use for common land?
Twattor
Well-Known Member
Re: your point 2 - I don't necessarily think that it is interest rate so much as availabilty of credit. Effective demand is a function of ability an willingness to pay - if you give people the opportunity to borrow higher income multiples then prices will rise. Interest rate rises may work to stabilise this a few years down the line, but don't control it directly. When you could only borrow 3x the family income (going back 20-30 years ago), things were much more stable irrespective of interest rates.
Given that our economy is based on house prices and banking, I have a horrible feeling that in a few years we'll see 7x income multiples and 40 year mortgages.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
You may be right. Another thing which I forgot to list was the Buy to Let/Contractor mortgages.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
And low interest rates (and low inflation) are not necessarily good news for homebuyers.
Our parents faced high rates but their mortgage amounts quickly fell in real terms because inflation and pay rises were correspondingly high.
Without inflation the debt goes away very slowly.
Ignoring repayments, a £200,000 loan in 20 years falls to £97,000 in today's money if inflation is 3.5%.
Yet, with inflation at 1%, the loan falls only to £162,000.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Pretty sure the new mortgage market rules are clamping down on the availability of credit and high multiples.
Your willingness to pay won't help now they are going through your bank statements line by line.
Twattor
Well-Known Member
Only until the economy needs another fillip, when they will conveniently relax that regulation
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
I don't think these last posts are, strictly speaking, about the prices of houses.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
They are all about the housing "market" then. ie interest rates mortgages etc etc. On a thread about social housing. It happens a lot. I find it tedious.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
You are right in the sense that the discussion has gone into housing stress generally.
The thread is about how to defend an environmentally well balanced estate - namely Cressingham Gardens - when there is pressure to rebuild using private developers and thus destroy the existing community, infrastructure and green space.
Effectively what Lambeth are allowing is a form of "top slicing" of the social housing stock - both council and housing association. This is why Guinness got the go ahead to interpose blocks of private flats AND blocks of "affordable rent" flats - at 50% higher than social rents into their Loughborough Park estate.
The developments in north Brixton - Stockwell Park Estate, New Albemarle, New Thrayle, Myatts Fields/Cowley/Oval Quarter all seem to involve PFI arrangements and large proportions of private sales - including sales targeted at the buy to let sector. I feel this is actually disastrous and a cull of the social sector.
So the issue is how to stop Cressingham Gardens becoming a new Oval Quarter - and now it seems also perhaps Central Hill Estate as well.
Crisis Question Time at Holy Trinity on 11th December may be interesting - certainly worth attending in my opinion.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
How about starting on under-developed supermarket sites e.g. Tescos Acre Lane?
Sainsburys Nine Elms is already underway - but Clapham Sainsburys could probably do with a revamp including housing.
Maybe Lidl Acre Lane too - look at how the new Stockwell Lidl has housing. (I expect Lidl are tenants - though Sainsburys & Tesco probably own their freeholds. But you would know that better than me)
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Well if they brought Tescos into the "Your New Town Hall" thing they would provide more housing - and maybe at a lower level (thinking of the current 14 storey residential tower replacing Hambrook House which will loom over the Town Hall clock).
Seems that Lambeth think they can push their tenants about - but are afraid to be assertive with Tescos.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
So were these subsequently bulldozed terraced houses mean dwellings rented out to poor people who were happy to upgrade into council housing where they were no longer intimidated by Rackman type landlords?
Or was it a situation were perfectly worthy solicitors and bank mangers were "socially cleansed" so the indigent poor could live a life on benefit street in council housing built on their stolen (CPO'd) properties?
Photos (of the cleared CPO'd dwellings) would be most helpful!
Back to the main point - there is clearly a conspiracy between the so-called Co-op Labour coucil and the developers to pinch the land assets of council estates, overcrowd them, and if possible force some or all of the original tenants to relocate.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I recall seeing your CPO/Hansard post - but have forgotten the gist of it. Don't remember boohoo's video. I obviously need to check these out.
I still maintain that the St Matthews Estate project (which was originally much less dense than now) was designed to provide modern living for social tenants, and did not result in worse conditions for existing residents, who would have been rehoused into better accommodation. on the St Matthews Estate or elsewhere.
By contrast the Cressingham Gardens schemes favoured by the council mean existing tenants sacrificing their amenity space in order to accommodate private flats. There is also the possibility of fewer social housing units being available in Cressingham Gardens.
Therefore the Cressingham Gardens development proposed by Lambeth Council is the opposite of what happened in St Matthews Road in my view.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Back to first principles - you said "That's exactly what they did in order to build estates like St Matthews and possibly Cressingham in the first place." (#181)
So what did you mean there?
I was responding to what I thought you meant if you see what I mean!
editor
hiraethified
That is good. So long as none of their candidates slip back into 9/11 loonery they may get my vote in the absence of anyone else with any actual opinions.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Clearly I got hold of the wrong end of the stick.
The perils of not taking into account all parties to a conversation.
My (Mellorite) apologies sir.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
The over-emphasis on developing "greenfield" sites hasn't helped.
Ironically Cressingham Gardens is not actually low density. It is simply an illusion created by good architectural design and layout. What would normally be streets have been made into green areas. Most of the car parking is undercover on the edge of the estate. Pedestrianised walkways save space, as well helping to foster the community feel. The density of the estate already meets GLA planning targets (plus Brockwell Park conservation area constraints) hence why there is limited increase in density possible, which makes the 'financial viability' questionable ... Latest numbers showing net loss of 'affordable' homes (defined by residents as homes that can be afforded by the local community)
Attachments
Tricky Skills
Well-Known Member
Lambeth Council is proposing to remove the Right to Buy for residents at Cressingham. This detail is included in the Cabinet report Building the Homes we Need to House the People of Lambeth, which will be voted on by Cabinet on 8 December.
Five other estates in the borough will also be subject to this move which is being carried out under the Housing Act of 1985: Fenwick Estate at Clapham North, South Lambeth and Westbury Estates in Stockwell, Knights Walk Estate in Princes ward and Central Hill in Norwood.
The Cabinet paper states that the reason for doing this is to:
"Firm up and formalise the rehousing offer to residents."
My reading is that it will make it easier to move tenants on
Brixton Buzz piece.
Five other estates in the borough will also be subject to this move which is being carried out under the Housing Act of 1985: Fenwick Estate at Clapham North, South Lambeth and Westbury Estates in Stockwell, Knights Walk Estate in Princes ward and Central Hill in Norwood.
The Cabinet paper states that the reason for doing this is to:
"Firm up and formalise the rehousing offer to residents."
My reading is that it will make it easier to move tenants on
Brixton Buzz piece.
