Say hello to Barratt Homes' 'Brixton Square' on Coldharbour Lane (old Cooltan site)

[Greebo]

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 ?

Because premium housing isn't needed. As said before, genuinely affordable housing is; what part of this do you fail to understand? Local private landlords already charge whatever they damn well please; those places won't lower rents, they'll just give private landlords ideas.

 

[colacubes]

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 ?

Because the houses they are building are mostly for buyers and start at £262k. There's nothing wrong with them making money; they're a business after all. But what is desperately needed is in central Brixton is affordable housing. And by affordable that means actually affordable to those on low incomes, or benefits. And the whole point about the opposition to this is that they are trying to remove the s106 provision for social housing from the development. Which is a truly tiny proportion of the whole development.

I don't know if you live in the centre of Brixton (I do, and I own my place ftr), but what makes it a great place to live is the mix of people. Owners, renters (both upwardly mobile and those on low incomes) and squatters. And that mix rubs along brilliantly. Slowly but surely, a social-cleansing is happening. And it becomes a social homegenisation of people, whereby the only people who can afford here are wealthy enough. The reason it works here is because all those different groups live cheek by jowl and they get on. The points at which social problems happen is where you have people that feel they are being discriminated against and being pushed out of areas they've lived all their life.

And it's made me feel that I'm now part of the problem. I was 'lucky' enough to be able to afford to buy here nearly 10 years ago due to a death in the family. I wouldn't be able to afford to either buy or rent here now. And I feel more and more guilty about that decision as I see the community that I love being slowly eradicated around me

 

[potential]

Because premium housing isn't needed. As said before, genuinely affordable housing is; what part of this do you fail to understand? Local private landlords already charge whatever they damn well please; those places won't lower rents, they'll just give private landlords ideas.

premium housing isnt needed ? thats not true is it, walk into any estate agent i think you would change your thinking . everybody want affordable housing because its cheaper than the open market,
who is going to buy this land give it to the council then give them millions to build flats on it, wake up please this is a recession, the council hasnt got any money, its either left empty, or barratt builds homes, which creates jobs by building the homes, that people need and those people spend money in the area

 

[Manter]

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.

Don't mean to snarl, but....

Council tenants are not a bad thing and having more of them is not a mark of shame, it just means Lambeth is (was?) the only place left in central London
that was even remotely affordable and concerned about those not earning a fortune. And one of the major objections many (certainly I) have is that the planning permission was granted on one basis and through a series of manipulations is becoming something else. If they didn't want/ think it was economic/ think it was important to build social provision, then they shouldn't have bought a site where one of the fundamental bases on which it was granted was social provision. To buy it, pretend they wanted it, and then use a combination of arcane planning law and phased implementation to get it overturned is just dishonest

 

[Manter]

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 ?

Increased housing supply does not mean housing demand is met- cf coal, roads, consumer goods.... Its called the Jevons paradox- (OR 101)

 

[Manter]

Because the houses they are building are mostly for buyers and start at £262k. There's nothing wrong with them making money; they're a business after all. But what is desperately needed is in central Brixton is affordable housing. And by affordable that means actually affordable to those on low incomes, or benefits. And the whole point about the opposition to this is that they are trying to remove the s106 provision for social housing from the development. Which is a truly tiny proportion of the whole development.

I don't know if you live in the centre of Brixton (I do, and I own my place ftr), but what makes it a great place to live is the mix of people. Owners, renters (both upwardly mobile and those on low incomes) and squatters. And that mix rubs along brilliantly. Slowly but surely, a social-cleansing is happening. And it becomes a social homegenisation of people, whereby the only people who can afford here are wealthy enough. The reason it works here is because all those different groups live cheek by jowl and they get on. The points at which social problems happen is where you have people that feel they are being discriminated against and being pushed out of areas they've lived all their life.

And it's made me feel that I'm now part of the problem. I was 'lucky' enough to be able to afford to buy here nearly 10 years ago due to a death in the family. I wouldn't be able to afford to either buy or rent here now. And I feel more and more guilty about that decision as I see the community that I love being slowly eradicated around me

Hear hear- agree with everything you say. Including feeling part of the problem. If I hadn't moved here 6 years ago, would it still be free of, well, people like me??!!

 

[Greebo]

premium housing isnt needed ? thats not true is it, walk into any estate agent i think you would change your thinking . everybody want affordable housing because its cheaper than the open market,
who is going to buy this land give it to the council then give them millions to build flats on it, wake up please this is a recession, the council hasnt got any money, its either left empty, or barratt builds homes, which creates jobs by building the homes, that people need and those people spend money in the area

Still trying to rest one injured wrist so 6 words: Fuck right off you profiteering apologist!

 

[potential]

Because the houses they are building are mostly for buyers and start at £262k. There's nothing wrong with them making money; they're a business after all. But what is desperately needed is in central Brixton is affordable housing. And by affordable that means actually affordable to those on low incomes, or benefits. And the whole point about the opposition to this is that they are trying to remove the s106 provision for social housing from the development. Which is a truly tiny proportion of the whole development.

I don't know if you live in the centre of Brixton (I do, and I own my place ftr), but what makes it a great place to live is the mix of people. Owners, renters (both upwardly mobile and those on low incomes) and squatters. And that mix rubs along brilliantly. Slowly but surely, a social-cleansing is happening. And it becomes a social homegenisation of people, whereby the only people who can afford here are wealthy enough. The reason it works here is because all those different groups live cheek by jowl and they get on. The points at which social problems happen is where you have people that feel they are being discriminated against and being pushed out of areas they've lived all their life.

And it's made me feel that I'm now part of the problem. I was 'lucky' enough to be able to afford to buy here nearly 10 years ago due to a death in the family. I wouldn't be able to afford to either buy or rent here now. And I feel more and more guilty about that decision as I see the community that I love being slowly eradicated around me

you should read my 1st post... lambeth has the highest amount of council houseing, whats wrong with owner occupiers moving in ? area's go through changes , why do you fear change ? the olympic site has been changed do you object to that or the buling programe in doncaster...

i own my own houe , i have lived in the area most of my life , was born in brixton hill, and i wouldnt be able to afford to buy my house now, but i do not object to people who can and do bring money into brixton

 

[colacubes]

you should read my 1st post... lambeth has the highest amount of council houseing, whats wrong with owner occupiers moving in ? area's go through changes , why do you fear change ? the olympic site has been changed do you object to that or the buling programe in doncaster...

i own my own houe , i have lived in the area most of my life , was born in brixton hill, and i wouldnt be able to afford to buy my house now, but i do not object to people who can and do bring money into brixton

I did read it. And you should read mine properly. Lambeth is the most densely populated borough in London. And yes, there is a lot of council housing in Lambeth. Is it all in the centre of Brixton? No. Do we need more in the centre of Brixton? Yes.

I don't fear change. What I fear is the destruction of what is largely a happy community by the rising of rents in the area. And the building of more and more wholly privately owned developments will do that as the rental stock becomes smaller. And a lot of people I know are being forced out of the area because of it. Teachers, care workers, charity workers, nurses, retail assistants and a lot of people who've lived here their whole lives.

'Affordable housing' doesn't mean actually affordable in the context that Barratts are trying to move it to.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

who is going to buy this land give it to the council then give them millions to build flats on it, wake up please this is a recession, the council hasnt got any money, its either left empty, or barratt builds homes, which creates jobs by building the homes, that people need and those people spend money in the area

You're missing the point a bit here tbh. What people are arguing for isn't a block of council houses (a lot of people would like that, but it's not what this is about right now), it's just for the developers to maintain the small number of social rent flats they originally promised as part of the larger development.

 

[boohoo]

you should read my 1st post... lambeth has the highest amount of council houseing, whats wrong with owner occupiers moving in ? area's go through changes , why do you fear change ? the olympic site has been changed do you object to that or the buling programe in doncaster...

i own my own houe , i have lived in the area most of my life , was born in brixton hill, and i wouldnt be able to afford to buy my house now, but i do not object to people who can and do bring money into brixton

There are lots of owner occupiers in Lambeth - wealthy people in the nice houses. I too grew up around here. I'm quite happy for new developments as a long as they offer places at a range of different prices whether council housing, RSL housing, Shared ownership and private properties. But when it shift to only being available to those who are earning a high wage and have some spare cash then it will make the area unrecognisable and the poorer people who are stuck here resentful.

The incomers are not bring money into the Brixton than we know. They don't want ten halal butchers, a collection of nail bars, some jerk chicken shops and a couple of poundshops. You can sit back and watch all the odds and sods of Brixton disappear and the place turned into an identikit high street.

 

[potential]

You're missing the point a bit here tbh. What people are arguing for isn't a block of council houses (a lot of people would like that, but it's not what this is about right now), it's just for the developers to maintain the small number of social rent flats they originally promised as part of the larger development.

if they go planning permission because they promised to provide a small number of social rent flats, they shouldnt be allowed to this...
but i was posting about the fact that people here think as they put it suits should stick to their own areas, bias

 

[colacubes]

if they go planning permission because they promised to provide a small number of social rent flats, they shouldnt be allowed to this...
but i was posting about the fact that people here think as they put it suits should stick to their own areas, bias

You know where you said I should read your post. Maybe you should take your own advice and read the whole thread. Ta.

 

[Gramsci]

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.

Would "suits" really bring in "much needed cash"?

I find it insulting that the less wealth off get dismissed as unimportant when it comes to the local economy.

In actual fact Keynesian economists like Stiglitz argue that raising benefits levels and no wage cuts for less well off have a greater effect on demand in the economy during a recession than favouring the rich. There is a greater "multiplier effect". (That is when the government puts money into the economy the GDP increases by X amount.)

The less well off are more likely to spend in a local economy. Its not true to say that the well off are needed in Brixton to put cash into the economy.

The present Government economic policies ( opposed by Keynesians) has cut the spending power of the less well off. That is the problem not a lack of "suits"

 

[Gramsci]

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 ?

Read the thread and u will see.

#11 #16

and saw this informative article when I googled the BS on its planning history

http://www.brixtonsociety.org.uk/2012/05/15/brixton-square-barratt-homes/

Barrats only bought the site earlier in the year and got on site quickly. The planning permission went with the land.

Places for People , I heard, bought the land at to high a price and could never get the finance together to make it a feasible scheme. PforP were a not for profit organisation and were supposed to be building a scheme with a large affordable element. Part of the reason why they got the permission in the first place.

 

[leanderman]

Barratt Homes should be kept to its word.

It would be hard to think of an area of London that does not need affordable housing.

Even Brixton, which has a high proportion of socially-owned homes.

 

[Gramsci]

Increased housing supply does not mean housing demand is met- cf coal, roads, consumer goods.... Its called the Jevons paradox- (OR 101)

But does the paradox apply to housing? I can see how it can apply to coal use or energy efficiency. But building houses is not a technological change that makes a resource easier to use.

Houses are infrastructure. Whilst "potential" is winding people up there is a point that the lack of supply of housing is what makes developers happy.

There is an argument for a mass building of Council Housing. This would add greatly to affordable rental stock and push down prices of private rented stock.

 

[leanderman]

There is an argument for a mass building of Council Housing. This would add greatly to affordable rental stock and push down prices of private rented stock.

Yes, ideally.

But part of the problem is that everyone wants to live in London. Or needs to. And both in my case.

In other parts of the country, they are almost giving homes away.

 

[Gramsci]

Yes, ideally.

But part of the problem is that everyone wants to live in London. Or needs to. And both in my case.

In other parts of the country, they are almost giving homes away.

Take your point. Also needs as well in that case the "rebalancing of the economy" politicians keep telling people about.

Though Im not that keen on living up North.

 

[teuchter]

But part of the problem is that everyone wants to live in London.

I dare you to say that outside of the Brixton/London section of U75

 

[g force]

Take your point. Also needs as well in that case the "rebalancing of the economy" politicians keep telling people about.

Though Im not that keen on living up North.

Well that's part of the argument for the HS2 line - If I could commute in 45 minutes from Birmingham i'd be sorely tempted to (if only to be nearer family etc).

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Whats so wrong with as you call them suits move in and bring some much needed cash into the local economy ?

When the "suits" move in I reckon they're more likely to give their money to property developers/speculators, estate agents, buy-to-let landlords, Sainburys and Tesco than the local economy.

Petition signed, btw

 

[Dan U]

signed, nice to see you have already exceeded your first target

 

[leanderman]

Spoke to a playgroup mum this morning with three girls aged 5, 4 and 3.

With her husband, they share a two-bed council flat on Hayter Rd.

She has given up applying - 'bidding' - for a larger council flat because 400 or so Lambeth families are deemed in greater need.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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 ?

If you'd bothered reading the thread, you'd know that planning permission was given almost a decade ago, so your "probably" is pretty threadbare.

Try again.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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

Planning permission pre-existed the 2008 crisis by about half a decade.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Spoke to a playgroup mum this morning with three girls aged 5, 4 and 3.

With her husband, they share a two-bed council flat on Hayter Rd.

She has given up applying - 'bidding' - for a larger council flat because 400 or so Lambeth families are deemed in greater need.

She's also screwed by the fact that all her children are the same gender, unfortunately.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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 ?

If you're going to advocate a market-based system, at least make sure you understand it properly.
More homes does not necessarily equate to more competition when the supply side of the supply/demand equation is so thin. 100,000 new homes a year doesn't scratch the surface of demand, nor does 200,000 or 300,000. They barely keep pace with additional demand, so until supply starts eroding existing demand, it introduces NO competition.

 

[ViolentPanda]

premium housing isnt needed ? thats not true is it, walk into any estate agent i think you would change your thinking . everybody want affordable housing because its cheaper than the open market,

You really are utterly ignorant of the baisc economics and terminology of housing issues, aren't you?

Your claim that "everyone" wants affordable housing flies in the face of your claim that premium housing is needed, surely? Your claim that affordable housing is "cheaper than the open market" contradicts the fact that affordable RSL housing is sometimes more expensive than the local market, and an estate agency isn't exactly a location whre you'll form a balanced picture of need.

who is going to buy this land give it to the council then give them millions to build flats on it, wake up please this is a recession, the council hasnt got any money, its either left empty, or barratt builds homes, which creates jobs by building the homes, that people need and those people spend money in the area

Except that your claim that development equates to jobs and local spending has been disproven over and over again in just about every "gentrified" area. What it more generally equates to is the death of local businesses and local industry, and a shift to the servicing of the needs of the "gentrifiers".

 

[ViolentPanda]

you should read my 1st post... lambeth has the highest amount of council houseing...

And I bet you don't even know why, you just assume council tenants = homogeneous mass.
A pity, becaue if you understood why Lambeth has such a high density of social housing, you might have a clue about why rapid demographic change in Lambeth is (and will continue to be) problematic.

whats wrong with owner occupiers moving in ? area's go through changes , why do you fear change ? the olympic site has been changed do you object to that or the buling programe in doncaster...

Who objects to owner/occupiers? What people are objecting to is the concentration on owner/occupiers to the exclusion of others, in seeming contravention of planning statute.

i own my own houe , i have lived in the area most of my life , was born in brixton hill, and i wouldnt be able to afford to buy my house now, but i do not object to people who can and do bring money into brixton

Bully for you owning your own house!
Lets take a broader look at what, say, the last 20 years has brought to Brixton by way of money - an ever-changing parade of restaurants and clubs that benefit a minority of Brixtonians, and..?
Not a lot else.

Brixton is more than a nightlife location for a lot of us.