Say hello to Barratt Homes' 'Brixton Square' on Coldharbour Lane (old Cooltan site)
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
i love this line
that is still 5% of the full ticket price for a basic flat. I know a lot of the talk is (rightly) about the setting of social rents and length of tenancys but if low income people did want to buy, getting that kind of money together for a blinking one bed flat is bonkers and is certainly not worth of a 'from low as' and pretending like anyone is being done a favour.
that is still 5% of the full ticket price for a basic flat. I know a lot of the talk is (rightly) about the setting of social rents and length of tenancys but if low income people did want to buy, getting that kind of money together for a blinking one bed flat is bonkers and is certainly not worth of a 'from low as' and pretending like anyone is being done a favour.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
But my understanding is that Barratts bought the site with the planning application that Places for People obtained. It got passed onto them. This made the site more valuable. It also meant that Barratts could start building. The Section 106 went with the site.
It is not unusual for someone to sell on a site with the current planning permission.
They played no part in getting the planning permission but they benefit from it being in place when they acquired the site. It would have been reflected in the value of the site.
The ploughed ahead with building works then started moaning about the onerous Section 106. There problem as far as Im concerned.
It irrelevant whether they got the original permission.
And the other thing is that this is about what local people feel about the demise of Social rented housing with secure tenancies. The whole point of using Section 106 agreements was to make sure that social rented really affordable housing was available on large private developments. Its a political issue. There should be a social mix in local neighbourhoods. Cleaners should live next to City professionals.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
FFS it used to be that those selling in Brixton went for the media/ creatives/ advertising crowd. This is going for the City boys. They have more money that creatives. Especially as the industry has been bailed out by Government.
boohoo
No.
They only mention the recent delis and independent shops
Some of the older places like Rosies have been successful for a long time.(Next bit is a little off topic)
Here is my favourite, so far, RSL advertisement for places on Effra Road.
http://www.lqgroup.org.uk/_assets/files/Effra-Rd-Brochure-FNL.pdf
The front page pics on the Brochure are of McDonalds and the Underground because these are the most important things in Brixton! The next images are of a street in Shoreditch (because none of our possibly look any good) some fruit and veg, a random pond and the Brixton Academy (and when it was a Carling Academy which is awhile ago).
You can only apply if you live in Lambeth yet the brochure explains what Brixton is like...
The problem there isn't that they're asking for a 5% deposit, it's that it's 5% of a stupidly large sum of money, which reflects how insane house prices are in London.
Typical deposits for first time buyers are about 20%, which has been averaging out at something like £60,000 in London, which is just an unthinkable amount of money for pretty much anyone who is relying on saving from their income to build a deposit.
So yeah, it really is "from as low as...", nuts as it sounds. This NewBuy scheme is one of the only ways you can buy with a 5% deposit at moment, because ordinary 95% LTV mortgages are all but non-existant.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Actually this is useful background info to Barratts whinging about the viability of scheme.
Though I do not think Barratts are saying its not the private sales that are affected. My reading is that they do not think its possible to get a traditional RSL interested in acquiring 13 flats for social rent in the present economic climate.
What I am not clear on is whether Barratts would be obliged to sell the 13 flats to an RSL at a lower price than market price? I do not know how the system works on these Section 106 agreements.
As Brixton Hatter said the original Section 106 would be useful to see.
A lot of there argument is that the environment and funding for "affordable" housing providers has changed radically in since the original Section 106. So from Barratts point of view they are reasonably working with officers to find a solution that works. Otherwise the flats would be left empty.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Yes it something Barratts imply in there covering letter. They go in detail into the changing face of "affordable" housing providers.
I suppose what I really want is traditional RSL Housing Associations who build houses/ flats for a secure tenancy with a social rent not one linked to private rents for the area. . But they are increasingly behaving more like developers due to the financial system they work under now.
The increasing lack of a clear distinction is exactly what this ( and up to a point the last ) government have been moving towards.
Manter
Lunch Mob
City big cheeses will still live in Hampstead, and junior city types don't earn anything like what they are rumoured to. This is aimed squarely at the buy to let brigade- persuading them Brixton is a safe place for suits
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
You could be right. I noticed that Barratts say on the link that the flats would be good for buy to let use.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Of course, if you have the necessary deposit, it's cheaper to own than rent, apparently
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
by "you" you mean "your parents" of course
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
by "you" you mean "your parents" of course
Yep! In some cases those parents have done very well: free universities, free pensions, basically free houses etc etc
editor
hiraethified
I've posted the article on the blog:
Barratt Homes, Brixton Square and the fight to retain affordable housing in Brixton. Please sign the petition.
http://www.urban75.org/blog/barratt...-housing-in-brixton-please-sign-the-petition/
Here's the link to the petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-social-housing-in-barratt-homes-brixton/
Barratt Homes, Brixton Square and the fight to retain affordable housing in Brixton. Please sign the petition.
http://www.urban75.org/blog/barratt...-housing-in-brixton-please-sign-the-petition/
Here's the link to the petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-social-housing-in-barratt-homes-brixton/
I update a slightly scruffy housing campaigning blog housolidarity.wordpress.com. I'll copy details of the campaign across and try to keep it updated. I know that people at the heygate estate are fighting to keep the affordable housing element as high as possible on the new development there. They might be worth hooking up with via southwarknotes.wordpress.com
lambeth has the highest number of council tennants in inner london. These post's go on about diversity, and as soon as people not like you want to move into brixton , you complain... Whats so wrong with as you call them suits move in and bring some much needed cash into the local economy ? that cool tan site has been a dump for over a decade, and think much needed housing is good for the area.
Ol Nick
beer in Brixton
So what precisely prevented the owner from building housing on that site 10 years ago? If it was a dump it was because it suited someone that it was a dump.
Are we either in favour of robbing banks or speculating on property on these boards these days? Hmm. More thinking needed.
i think you should ask barratt homes or who owned the land before why its been empty ? probably been left like that because of planning permission, then the recession. why do you know why its been left empty ?
The housing which Barrat Homes want to put on that site won't fit local need, which is for genuinely affordable social housing.
Ol Nick
beer in Brixton
My point is that whether you believe we need social housing, penthouses or family accommodation, no-one can force Barratt's or anyone else to build. If it was left empty it was because it was more profitable left empty.The housing which Barrat Homes want to put on that site won't fit local need, which is for genuinely affordable social housing.
Thinking people have coming with the idea of a land tax or wealth tax to discourage this kind of non-use of valuable natural resources. I'm sure you could google it.
colacubes
Mr Hot Cookie
You don't realise how many courses etc were run for several years on the Cooltan site then? Nor how much benefit they were to locals? I'm sure you could google that, sweetie.
yes the recession , the directors of barratt homes are not a charity, they build homes to make a profit obviously, but the flats they build are still needed
Ol Nick
beer in Brixton
No no no
I think you misunderstand my point. In that case it *wasn't* empty. When I say "empty" I mean "unproductive", and it is often in the interests of a developer to leave a site "empty" for a while in order to make better profits later.
If Barratt's gave it back to a squatter or community group while they were waiting for property prices to rise then I admit I have underrated them.
more homes more competition , which should be better than less housing, less availability equals higher rents.... why cant a house builder build homes on an empty site ?The housing which Barrat Homes want to put on that site won't fit local need, which is for genuinely affordable social housing.
Similar threads
