Myatts Fields North massive £150m regeneration project

[cuppa tee]

I suspect larger bins discourage recycling.

heres one of the communal recycling bins in question
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54064561@N07/8784194073/lightbox/

 

[jeremyclyne]

Reading lots of stuff about unhappy council leaseholders and tenants at Myatts North…with the developers failing to do repairs etc




Anyone know any more?

Gniewosz

Questions from me and the residents to Lambeth Council Corporate (i.e. audit) Committee about the Myatts North PFI Contract now published on the Council website:
http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s64887/03 PNQs Corporate Cttee 051213.pdf
Serious issues have been raised about how the Council has monitored this huge contract, and the impacts on tenants and leaseholders

 

[CH1]

Questions from me and the residents to Lambeth Council Corporate (i.e. audit) Committee about the Myatts North PFI Contract now published on the Council website:
http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s64887/03 PNQs Corporate Cttee 051213.pdf
Serious issues have been raised about how the Council has monitored this huge contract, and the impacts on tenants and leaseholders

Intrigued to know if the Ackerman Health Centre is also part of this PFI.
The Ackerman had the effect of eliminating the only Doctor's surgery in Coldharbour Ward (Iveagh House surgery was compelled to move into Ackerman, where I understand you have 3 for the price of one - 2 NHS surgeries and one private surgery).
I am not the only one on here to note that Dr Konzon, founder of Iveagh House surgery was very unhappy about being forced to move.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Questions from me and the residents to Lambeth Council Corporate (i.e. audit) Committee about the Myatts North PFI Contract now published on the Council website:
http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s64887/03 PNQs Corporate Cttee 051213.pdf
Serious issues have been raised about how the Council has monitored this huge contract, and the impacts on tenants and leaseholders

Jesus. That's fucking awful, and worse than I ever expected.

Although it seems modus operandi these days for Labour Councils to socially cleanse communities and sell off social housing and public land for the benefit of private developers.

CUNTS.

 

[jeremyclyne]

I've put down a public notice question for the next Lambeth Council Corporate Committee (i.e. audit committee), as have the residents. The issues go a lot further than repairs and bins. Will post the full text of the questions shortly. The meeting is on April 2.

The Council's response. Full text of the answers to the public notice questions tabled by myself and the residents plus the Council's answers now published on the council web site
http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/doc...02-Apr-2014 19.00 Corporate Committee.pdf?T=9

To be discussed at next week's meeting in public of Lambeth Council Corporate (i.e. Audit) committee. 7pm April 2.

 

[CH1]

Looks as though Right to Buy leaseholders feel kicked around. Though not as kicked around as those on the Heygate perhaps?

 

[Gramsci]

The Council's response. Full text of the answers to the public notice questions tabled by myself and the residents plus the Council's answers now published on the council web site
http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/b14341/Public Notice Questions with responses Wednesday 02-Apr-2014 19.00 Corporate Committee.pdf?T=9

To be discussed at next week's meeting in public of Lambeth Council Corporate (i.e. Audit) committee. 7pm April 2.

Good questions from you and the residents.

In short there are serious issues about what is happening the the existing leaseholders, the standard of completed works and the difficulties the Residents group are having in overseeing the PFI contract.

Also looks to me, as has happened with other PFI contracts, the sanctions that the Council use for poor works/ not fulfilling the obligations on the developer are toothless. Or the Council does not want to get involved in protracted arguments with developer.

PFI schemes are legacy of the last government. The one for the Underground was a disaster and had to be taken in house.

PFI is not only building but the developer is supposed to maintain properties for next 25 years. So for residents there is going to be 25 years of this.

The leaseholder issue is serious for them. Looks like financial assumptions were made before the economic crisis. It seems the assumption was the existing leaseholder could swap old property for a new one. In the words of the answer "port" there mortgage to new property. Report says that due to "credit crunch" some residents are having difficulty in doing this. I do not understand all this. Was it that they would be taking on extra mortgage as the new build would be worth more? And now banks are not keen on that?

Looks to me that whilst housing prices are going up in London and banks are being bailed out by government the banks are unwilling to lend.

Also report says that if leaseholder instead sells back there house it goes to the developer. So its in the developers interest for this to happen. Certainly looks like leaseholders are getting rail roaded into taking low valuations.

 

[CH1]

The leaseholder issue is serious for them. Looks like financial assumptions were made before the economic crisis. It seems the assumption was the existing leaseholder could swap old property for a new one. In the words of the answer "port" there mortgage to new property. Report says that due to "credit crunch" some residents are having difficulty in doing this. I do not understand all this. Was it that they would be taking on extra mortgage as the new build would be worth more? And now banks are not keen on that?

I expect the leaseholders are being asked to top up their deposits. The banks now have rules about "loan to value" - which is why the government introduced the help to buy scheme. Maybe these leaseholders should be given access to that scheme?

 

[Gramsci]

I expect the leaseholders are being asked to top up their deposits. The banks now have rules about "loan to value" - which is why the government introduced the help to buy scheme. Maybe these leaseholders should be given access to that scheme?

That would explain it. Those who exercised RTB might be able to pay mortgage but not able to raise higher deposit.

Help to Buy is not that great a scheme. Basically means one is mortgaged to the hilt. The government underwrites mortgage and takes most of the hit if it all goes wrong.

 

[CH1]

Help to Buy is not that great a scheme. Basically means one is mortgaged to the hilt. The government underwrites mortgage and takes most of the hit if it all goes wrong.

I agree basically - but it does seem to be different out of London. In places like Northampton this Help to Buy is putting things back to how they used to be pre crisis with a 5% deposit, and it does seem to have brought some life back to a stagnant market.

In London the conditions are so bizarre Help to Buy is pouring petrol on the flames - but there again there are always many people anxious to "get on the ladder". I was just listening to R4 on the economist Minsky (2nd time of listening). Minsky thought stability bred instability. Not sure how that fits the London housing market, except that it certainly has the air of a Ponzi scheme. I remain convinced that London property WILL top out at some point fairly soon.

 

[Gramsci]

I was just listening to R4 on the economist Minsky (2nd time of listening). Minsky thought stability bred instability. Not sure how that fits the London housing market, except that it certainly has the air of a Ponzi scheme. I remain convinced that London property WILL top out at some point fairly soon.

I heard that as well.

He was ignored during his lifetime. To the point that he was not even in standard university text books.

They did not go into what he thought of Marx. Who also thought that capitalism had recurrent crisis as part of the way it worked.

 

[Gniewosz]

I expect the leaseholders are being asked to top up their deposits. The banks now have rules about "loan to value" - which is why the government introduced the help to buy scheme. Maybe these leaseholders should be given access to that scheme?

Even in new upcoming regeneration programs, leaseholders will still have the same nightmares (and already admitted by Council at public meetings at Cressingham Gardens):
(i) Under new mortgage rules that came in about 3-4 years, many current mortgage holders will no longer qualify for a mortgage
(ii) A "Market Value Gap" always exist between what the council/developer will offer for the original homes and what they will charge for the new homes. Consequently, just to stay on, most leaseholders will need to find extra funding in excess of £100k. Few will have sufficient salaries for such an uplift in mortgage, and if you have retired or are close to retirement, this will be close to impossible.
(iii) The other solution is to give up a % of the ownership in your property, and the council/developer will part own your home (A very rude awakening to many that they essentially no longer can own 100% of their homes). There can also be some nasty fine print in such deals, e.g. the upside return is capped for the leaseholder and the developer takes all the extra increase when the property subsequently sold - meaning that the owner is screwed again, because they will be priced out of the market when they try to move.
(iv) Have also read elsewhere (but still need to confirm), that often there is a minimum level that you need to be able to port the value of the current property across to a new property. E.g. "market value" of the old property has to be more than 70% of the "market value" of the new property, otherwise you have insufficient equity to transfer across.

 

[CH1]

Even in new upcoming regeneration programs, leaseholders will still have the same nightmares (and already admitted by Council at public meetings at Cressingham Gardens):
(i) Under new mortgage rules that came in about 3-4 years, many current mortgage holders will no longer qualify for a mortgage
(ii) A "Market Value Gap" always exist between what the council/developer will offer for the original homes and what they will charge for the new homes. Consequently, just to stay on, most leaseholders will need to find extra funding in excess of £100k. Few will have sufficient salaries for such an uplift in mortgage, and if you have retired or are close to retirement, this will be close to impossible.
(iii) The other solution is to give up a % of the ownership in your property, and the council/developer will part own your home (A very rude awakening to many that they essentially no longer can own 100% of their homes). There can also be some nasty fine print in such deals, e.g. the upside return is capped for the leaseholder and the developer takes all the extra increase when the property subsequently sold - meaning that the owner is screwed again, because they will be priced out of the market when they try to move.
(iv) Have also read elsewhere (but still need to confirm), that often there is a minimum level that you need to be able to port the value of the current property across to a new property. E.g. "market value" of the old property has to be more than 70% of the "market value" of the new property, otherwise you have insufficient equity to transfer across.

You have very clearly set out the problems. Issue (iv) looks particularly ominous - the market value of existing properties is likely to be rather depressed compared to the deemed market value of the new one - since that is being compared directly with market value property in the same scheme.

 

[editor]

Has anyone got a summary about the amount (or non-amount) of social/affordable housing contained in this uber-development?

 

[Badgers]

Has anyone got a summary about the amount (or non-amount) of social/affordable housing contained in this uber-development?

Will dig it out (or someone will) for you Ed. Sad to say it is virtually fuck all and their already lots of occupiers in them.

Soulless and ugly development

 

[editor]

Will dig it out (or someone will) for you Ed. Sad to say it is virtually fuck all and their already lots of occupiers in them.

Soulless and ugly development

This is how despicable the whole thing is. It's like they're rubbing it in the faces of those who haven't got piles of 'smart money'.



(I'm going to do a ranty piece on BBuzz about this soon, so I'll appreciate all input!)

 

[Badgers]

I don't have many details Ed but used to live across in Myatts Fields South. The flats were pretty poor quality but bearable, the heating and water were appalling. Spoke to past neighbours who were hoping to be rehoused but did not get a look in.

Ugly overpriced new estate

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Has anyone got a summary about the amount (or non-amount) of social/affordable housing contained in this uber-development?

It's in my OP:

* build 305 new homes to replace properties that are currently in a very bad condition
* modernise and refurbish 172 existing homes
* provide 146 new affordable homes
* build 357 new homes for sale

…but that doesn't fully answer the question. I think there's some details on the old council website somewhere - maybe in the planning docs. I remember reading them at the time.

 

[cuppa tee]

We've had to live with this massive project for years and I just want it to be over,
a builder I was talking to the other day said that phase one is due to be handed over on July 15th but that doesnt look likely
after that phase 2 kicks in.... the social housing maths is complicated because the estate that oval quarter is replacing was all social
500 new properties are not social unless you count "affordable"
I have also heard that some residents of the old Myatts North did not get a look in
and also that the ones who did are not too happy with the new build.
another thing we are yet to see is how many of the "prestige" blocks actually end up with anyone in them
since the rumour mill suggests that a lot were snapped up before they were built by overseas speculators

 

[Gramsci]

Thought there was a Myatts Fields thread. Put this up on the housing thread as well. From Defend Council Housing:

Residents living on the Myatts Field North PFI 'regeneration' scheme , situated between Brixton and the Oval and now branded 'Oval Quarter ' by estate agents and developers , are planning to protest against intolerable living conditions on the demolition site on Friday , July 25th , meeting at Bramah Green Community Centre on the estate at 10am.

The protest is organised by the Myatts Field North Residents Association and Monitoring Board (RAMB) which represents council tenants and leaseholders living on the estate, and is supported by Defend Council Housing , Lambeth Housing Activists, Unite Community Fuel Poverty Action and Housing Action Southwark and Lambeth.

What is termed 'regeneration ' by Lambeth Council and the PFI developers has become an intolerable situation for many residents who fear for their health, mental well being and safety living on the demolition site.

Some leaseholders , having lived In the area for generations, have been forced out of the redevelopment because they can't afford the new homes, and tenants moving to new build housing face rent and council tax hikes which put even the new council homes beyond what they can afford.

Many tenants have left the area to be re- housed elsewhere - sometimes in inferior accommodation, away from family , friends or school connections.
Many of those who have opted to stay are increasingly angry with the poor standard of services they get from the PFI consortium.

The £150m PFI project was branded as a life changing opportunity for the residents.

By building higher density housing the developers have squeezed 980 homes onto a site which previously contained just 477 council homes, while providing a new community centre and claiming to retain the same amount of public space.

The additional homes on the site - 357 for private sale and 146 shared ownership - are selling at prices consistent with the bubble in London ( over £500m for a 3 bedroom home ) - a different world from the majority of people in the Vassall ward, which Is one of the most deprived wards in the borough of Lambeth.

One former leaseholder who had lived on the estate for 22 years and has now told by the council to go on the homelessness register and apply for temporary accommodation was told she needed an income of £63,000 p.a. to apply for a shared ownership home.

And while some council tenants are relieved to be living in new homes after years of living on a badly maintained estate, many have had to give up cherished gardens and homes that they loved.

Many residents feel that they are not treated well during the process of moving home. To a developer watching its profit margins and costs, residents still living on the site are just in the way. One leaseholder was evicted from her home while her children were in the house, and was only returned to her property after a protest by neighbours.

And many tenants who are remaining in their homes during the construction process - including elderly and vulnerable tenants with disabilities - are finding the noise , dust and contractor traffic intolerable, but say that the council never listens when they ask for help.

A recent report produced jointly by residents and Professor Hodkinson of the University of Leeds has highlighted serious health and safety breaches on the PFI site. Lambeth Council have yet to respond to these latest revelations, which used testimony from a 'whistle blower ' who worked for one of the PFI contractors.

Prior to this , residents working with Professor Stuart Hodkinson compiled a survey showing very poor standards of refurbishments in the retained council homes. As a result of this, Lambeth Council have now been prompted to do their own survey of the refurbishment.

Residents are now so fed up we are taking to the streets in an attempt to get our grievances heard.

Having been ignored by the developers and council for so long , we are welcoming other estates, community groups and trade unions to the protest. We want council housing built for the needs of the 27,000 on Lambeth's waiting list , not fake 'regenerations' which do little or nothing to address the borough's housing need, but reap rich rewards for the PFI corporations and banks.


Our Health , Our Lives , Our Homes protest 10am July 25th Bramah Green Community Centre , Myatts Field North SW9

Meeting for residents - other estate groups and the general public are welcomeJuly 23rd at 7pm Bramah Green Community Centre , Myatts Field North SW9 7RG

The Bramah Green Community Centre, SW9, is on Fairburn Green, about five minutes walk from the bus stops at the corner of Brixton Road and Vassall Road buses 3,159, 109 133
15 minutes walk from Oval, Stockwell and Brixton Tube stations

 

[cuppa tee]

Thought there was a Myatts Fields thread. Put this up on the housing thread as well. From Defend Council Housing:

I met up with this demo and spoke with a few of the protestors. the demo was quite small but vocal, and was accompanied by a few members of the constabulary who's aim seem to be stopping the group getting to close to the offices o the pfi partners. I noticed the contrast between their hand written banners and the corporate branding of oval quarter itself......on top of the concerns mentioned in Gramsci 's post there are also rumours of a new gated development in the middle of the former Myatts North as part of phase two. one guy told me the build qualities of the new blocks was quite shit and the old houses that are being demolished were better to live in.......

 

[cuppa tee]

some more details on alleged shortcomings courtesy of "Construction News"

http://www.cnplus.co.uk/news/sector...eged-on-150m-pfi/8666839.article#.U-jt_Gt5mK0

 

[brixtonblade]

A bit off topic so apologies... was walking past Myatts Fields today and there's a big building that looks like a school and also looks like it's not in use and was wondering what it was. It faces on to the park but it also seems to back on to some of these new oval quarter building works (that's my tangental reason for posting here). Does anyone know what it is/was?

 

[ShiftyBagLady]

It used to be a school but is now a block of flats I believe

 

[brixtonblade]

It used to be a school but is now a block of flats I believe

Thanks - thats what it looked like but I couldnt see an obvious way in so I wasn't sure. It looks like a very grand building so was interested. Any idea when it stopped being a school?

 

[Nopostcodeenvy]

The whole redevelopment is a joke!! I would suggest no private buyer invests in one of these new properties, they are flimsy and very poorly constructed in my opinion.
It would seem the social housing tenants are not treated well and it saddens me that as always people who rent from the council are treated in such a shoddy manner.

 

[nagapie]

A bit off topic so apologies... was walking past Myatts Fields today and there's a big building that looks like a school and also looks like it's not in use and was wondering what it was. It faces on to the park but it also seems to back on to some of these new oval quarter building works (that's my tangental reason for posting here). Does anyone know what it is/was?

It's still a school but it's only partially in use, it's future is uncertain. It'll probably be flats in the future.

 

[cuppa tee]

The Oval Quarter is now almost fully open and its possible to walk thru a large section of it
the builders prtakabins have been removed so the "city square" just off Brixton Road could soon be a reality
interesting to see a notice on a lamppost by the marketing suite telling us that there is some form of asbo in force for the whole development
which will give police and pco's the power to disperse groups of more than two young people
who pose a perceived threat to residents.................

 

[ViolentPanda]

Bumping this as it's relevant in terms of what is happening at Cressingham, 'cos I'm scratching my head at how Lambeth will finance "1000 new social rent homes" without using a PFI, which seems to have done so very much for those in social housing at Myatts.

 

[gabi]

It's still a school but it's only partially in use, it's future is uncertain. It'll probably be flats in the future.

I think its St Gabriel's house. I'm moving in there on Friday. It's listed so they can't fuck with it too much.

It used to be a seminary, then a school, now its flats. Each flat is a different layout which is kinda cool tho im not looking forward to the heating bill. Massive high ceilings, no gas, and the landlord says she can't put in double glazing due to its listed status tho i suspect thats bollocks.