Lambeth's plans to demolish Cressingham Gardens and other estates without the consent of residents
- Thread starter Brixton Hatter
- Start date
But what is even more worrying is the talk about the SPV ("Special Purpose Vehicles") to fund the regeneration.
I suspect Council doesn't have enough 'headroom' (i.e. ability to raise more debt) to finance the estate regenerations... e.g. the debt levels required for a partial demolition of Cressingham Gardens are over double that to refurbish the estate (and begs the question that if they can't afford 'Option 1' then how can they afford 'Option 4' partial demolition). Consequently, this is probably why they are looking at setting up new entities that can borrow.
But the worrying part is that I can foresee the following happening:
Council sells the 'wonderful' idea to residents that a way to fund the works would be to create a new entity, but which is wholly owned by the council. This entity can borrow new funds. Residents would have to agree to a stock transfer to this new entity (??), but because it is wholly owned by the council, council tenants feel reassured that their tenancies will be protected.
However, their landlord is technically no longer the council but a new entity that happens to have the council as its sole shareholder. And as the Cabinet report has already recognised: “The creation of a separate vehicle would give the Council flexibility to leverage in private sector finance by way of equity participation in future years, if desired.” Consequently, in 1-2 years time the council runs out of cash again and decides to sell some of its shares in the new entity to a private investment company and then a bit more and then a bit more until the council is no longer a shareholder and has no say over the homes.
Eventually the new shareholders look at the assets in the new entity and decide that they would rather charge top end rents in order to realise the full potential of their investment. The tenants are given then notice that rents will triple and if they don't like it they will have to leave (and we have "New Era" on Cressingham Gardens")
Based on all the council's actions and statements, can we actually trust the council to protect local housing for the local community?
I suspect Council doesn't have enough 'headroom' (i.e. ability to raise more debt) to finance the estate regenerations... e.g. the debt levels required for a partial demolition of Cressingham Gardens are over double that to refurbish the estate (and begs the question that if they can't afford 'Option 1' then how can they afford 'Option 4' partial demolition). Consequently, this is probably why they are looking at setting up new entities that can borrow.
But the worrying part is that I can foresee the following happening:
Council sells the 'wonderful' idea to residents that a way to fund the works would be to create a new entity, but which is wholly owned by the council. This entity can borrow new funds. Residents would have to agree to a stock transfer to this new entity (??), but because it is wholly owned by the council, council tenants feel reassured that their tenancies will be protected.
However, their landlord is technically no longer the council but a new entity that happens to have the council as its sole shareholder. And as the Cabinet report has already recognised: “The creation of a separate vehicle would give the Council flexibility to leverage in private sector finance by way of equity participation in future years, if desired.” Consequently, in 1-2 years time the council runs out of cash again and decides to sell some of its shares in the new entity to a private investment company and then a bit more and then a bit more until the council is no longer a shareholder and has no say over the homes.
Eventually the new shareholders look at the assets in the new entity and decide that they would rather charge top end rents in order to realise the full potential of their investment. The tenants are given then notice that rents will triple and if they don't like it they will have to leave (and we have "New Era" on Cressingham Gardens")
Based on all the council's actions and statements, can we actually trust the council to protect local housing for the local community?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Excellent hypothesising.
And no, we can't trust the council to protect local housing for the local community. We can't even trust them to do "regeneration" properly, going by Myatts' Fields and by Clapham Park estate, which is into at least its' 10th year of regeneration with pretty much bugger-all done.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Do not quite follow the graphs here.
It look like under partial demolition and build there will be more affordable rented than before.
The loss will be of those who exercised RTB on leases or freeholds?
I would not include RTB properties in any affordable categories. Every RTB is loss of social housing. RTB is just a way of getting rid of social housing gradually.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
One has to be suspicious at the very least of a graph titled: 'Why does Lambeth want to destroy affordable housing?' Although, if from Lambeth, it's what you would expect
Last edited:
"Affordable" is a highly abused word today. In the government's definition they include shared ownership schemes which require above average incomes for people to be eligible. On Cressingham the clear majority of the homeowners are actually marginal homeowners ... Many are now retired and elderly unable to get a new mortgage, or are families and workers who simply would no longer qualify for mortgages as a consequence of the changes in the past few years. At the moment they can 'afford' their homes. However, once the council forces them to sell at 'market values' insufficient to buy anything else in the area and triggers their mortgages, many of these residents will be forced to leave London or even in extreme cases made homeless. Simply google to find the dispersion maps of what happened to the residents on the Heygate. Also the 'market values' of the new build homes are typically £100k to £150k more than the old homes - known in the industry as the "value gap". I know of very few residents who could afford this. And it has a wider impact of driving up prices generally in the area. As a consequence private rentals also go up because they are a function of house prices.
So who wins in the end?
* 120 homes demolished and support networks destroyed - no one has yet valued the cost of the disappearing community support - who is going to help the elderly fight for their repairs, etc?
* Council might get extra 15 council homes (but this might disappear during the planning and building phases as seen in many cases in Lambeth), but delving further into the numbers shows that in fact it is only 16 extra council tenant bedrooms. They achieve this by not replacing 13 family sized homes (ie 3+ bed)... Very wierd when this is where there is the chronic shortage.
* 20+ households unlikely to be able to stay because they can't afford the value gap and they won't qualify for any of the other options that the council might pretend to put on the table.
* 85 new properties for private sale at 'market prices'. If I recall corectly, in the new block next to the Tescos 1 bed flats were selling for £350k and that was a year ago. And they could end up in the hands of overseas investors and possibly stand empty because they are investments not homes.
* And at the end the council is in even more debt than if they were to simply refurbish and keep the community together, let alone the extra costs for more support and social care that will be required and the cost for this regeneration consultation (alone which could have probably funded 75-100 new kitchens)
No one wins out of the current proposed demolition of Cressingham Gardens except maybe the people employed by the council who get to keep their well paid jobs and the various developers and contractors hired.
Last edited:
Gniewosz, I'm not sure whether it'll be much more than temporary consolation, but at the wellbeing working group last night, the residents on it were more or less in agreement in wanting refurb instead of regeneration.
That was for all kinds of reasons, including people losing their informal networks of who takes parcels in etc.
BTW it's also possible to put a cold hard monetary value on a lot of the good aspects of the estate as it is, and most of us in the area know how Lambeth council tends to listen to money.
That was for all kinds of reasons, including people losing their informal networks of who takes parcels in etc.
BTW it's also possible to put a cold hard monetary value on a lot of the good aspects of the estate as it is, and most of us in the area know how Lambeth council tends to listen to money.
Great to hear.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Excellent piece.
To what extent is this mad destruction 'proposed'? Or is just one option?
And I suppose Lambeth is duty bound to consider all options, however mad.
I refer m'learned urb to higher up this thread, posts 34 to 42
These numbers are from the council's clearly preferred option - "Option 4 Partial Demolition". On numerous occasions council has said that all the other options from their perspective are not viable. But we have been able to show that "Option 1 Refurbishment" is viable - and definitely more viable than Option 4.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Is their stated preference - and, more importantly, the arguments why it is the only viable option - available online anywhere?
Not yet. In fact, it's not even official that option 5 is recognised as non-viable.
editor
hiraethified
I'm away in Brighton - do you reckon you could grab some snaps for the Buzz, please? Or anyone else?
I'll try, seeing as I'll be there anyway.
Twittered coverage of the housing and regeneration Question Time here http://www.singleaspect.org.uk/?p=16735
Single Aspect
Member
Audio file now available at this link http://www.singleaspect.org.uk/aud/ best to Right click and Save As to download rather than just click the link. Filename HousingQT.mp4
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Is there a report on the meeting anywhere?
Single Aspect
Member
Look up Single Aspect blog.
If you look on that blog, it's twittered in reverse order.
Nobody took notes as such, but it was filmed by Spectacle.
editor
hiraethified
In-depth report here.
Labour in the Hot Seat at Cressingham Gardens Question Time
Labour in the Hot Seat at Cressingham Gardens Question Time
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Very good piece.
Remarkable how often Lambeth will propose to destroy buildings - Rec, Olive Morris - however recently built.
editor
hiraethified
Andrea is a really good addition to the B Buzz team - expect more in depth articles on similar topics soon!
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Proper in-depth reporting with real local knowledge - her passion for the subject excuses the odd bit of editorialising!
editor
hiraethified
I reckon Brixton needs a bit of passion and editorialising myself. Having strong opinions is good!
Twattor
Well-Known Member
Feel free to RTFT me if this has been done already, but has anyone considered approaching English Heritage about listing? Hollamby has a good reputation,and this is arguably one of his better developments and apparently pretty much untouched. There is a lot of merit to it.
The folks in Excalibur estate in Catford managed to get a couple of their prefabs listed (uninsulated and fabricated entirely of asbestos and bitumen and therefore banned on so many levels under current legislation). Granted it was only two units, but it put a spoke in the wheel of the developer. With judicious selection of relatively original units then the same tactic could possibly be applied here. With the right tactics then that sort of thing can really affect viability.
Any architects or planning consultants on the boards that might be interested in having a crack at putting a proposal together?
The folks in Excalibur estate in Catford managed to get a couple of their prefabs listed (uninsulated and fabricated entirely of asbestos and bitumen and therefore banned on so many levels under current legislation). Granted it was only two units, but it put a spoke in the wheel of the developer. With judicious selection of relatively original units then the same tactic could possibly be applied here. With the right tactics then that sort of thing can really affect viability.
Any architects or planning consultants on the boards that might be interested in having a crack at putting a proposal together?
Single Aspect
Member
“We have commissioned additional research to ensure an understanding of where Cressingham Gardens sits in the body of Lambeth’s housing output of the 1960s and 70s and have also carefully considered the merits of this particular scheme. As our advice sets out we believe that there are some very good qualities about Cressingham Gardens but also some shortcomings such that overall it cannot be recommended for listing given the necessarily high bar for post-war buildings. We do recognise its local significance, however, and conservation area status is suggested as a means of reflecting its overall character. “
http://www.singleaspect.org.uk/?p=15635#prologue
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I was at the meeting. The Brixton Buzz article is a fair account of the proceedings.
I am not directly involved and went out of interest.
My feelings on the event were that is was actually the best organised public debate I had attended for years, and I was also surprised by the beautifully maintained interior of the church, which I had never seen before.
I am not directly involved and went out of interest.
My feelings on the event were that is was actually the best organised public debate I had attended for years, and I was also surprised by the beautifully maintained interior of the church, which I had never seen before.
