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

[teuchter]

What's being suggested here, though, as an alternative to capping HB?
a) rents are capped for places let to HB claimants,
b) rents are capped for everyone, everywhere?

I don't see how (a) would stop the rich people here/poor people there thing, and (b) would be a truly massive undertaking that I can't see happening, even if I would agree with it in principle.

 

[Winot]

Yes, but "something must be done".

 

[leanderman]

Exploitation happens everywhere. That people are reacting along the lines of "WTF are poor people doing, living in St. John's Wood?" (and we both know that St. John's Wood is interchangeable with any remotely-respectable locale) says a lot about how far government tropes about benefit claimants have penetrated the public consciousness.
As many say, cap rent, not housing benefit.

st john's wood is not interchangable, as any Stones fan would attest

 

[ViolentPanda]

st john's wood is not interchangable, as any Stones fan would attest

Stones fans = wankers.

 

[Gramsci]

What's being suggested here, though, as an alternative to capping HB?
a) rents are capped for places let to HB claimants,
b) rents are capped for everyone, everywhere?

I don't see how (a) would stop the rich people here/poor people there thing, and (b) would be a truly massive undertaking that I can't see happening, even if I would agree with it in principle.

Why would (b) be a massive undertaking?

Bring in rent controls across the country. Hb or not. This would also help those in work not claiming benefits. Only people who would complain are landlords.

 

[Gramsci]

Exploitation happens everywhere. That people are reacting along the lines of "WTF are poor people doing, living in St. John's Wood?" (and we both know that St. John's Wood is interchangeable with any remotely-respectable locale) says a lot about how far government tropes about benefit claimants have penetrated the public consciousness.
As many say, cap rent, not housing benefit.

And in the case I brought up in my post #411 the woman was not complaining about people on benefits. It was the fact that these people were living there at all that she was objecting to. Saying that HB is costing the Government to much has slid into questioning affordable housing in itself. I think this is the underlying long term aim of Tories.

As u correctly say the government going on about this does penetrate public consciousness. As Brixton Hatter posted its sets neighbours against each other.

 

[Gramsci]

To get peoples blood boiling again about Barratts and Foxtons here is Evening Standard article from todays Homes & Property section.

Now living near a market is fashionable. As long has it has been sanitized of the working class.

John Ennis, director of estate agent Foxtons, says: “Markets are really boosting property values. Years ago, there were only a few — Portobello, Covent Garden and Camden Lock — plus some rougher working-class street markets but London is now more like Paris, where neighbourhoods have a distinct character and identity.”

Having a Farmers Market is another boost to property prices.

London Farmers’ Markets runs more than 20 certified markets across the capital spanning areas as varied as Balham and Brixton, Parliament Hill and Parsons Green.

Brixton Village is a lively arcade-style market on Electric Avenue winning plaudits for its diverse range of high-quality food outlets. Bordering this is Brixton Square, a 107-home scheme being built by Barratt. Prices from £265,000. Call 020 7231 5258.

 

[teuchter]

Why would (b) be a massive undertaking?

Bring in rent controls across the country. Hb or not. This would also help those in work not claiming benefits. Only people who would complain are landlords.

Bringing in a cap would surely mean that it woud no longer make sense for lots of landlords to rent their place out. They would get a better return selling it off. In cases where the rental income would be lower than mortgage payments they'd have to do that. So there'd no longer be any rental properties in expensive areas. I don't really know exactly what the effects of that would be - maybe house prices would go down in the long run, and maybe that would be a good thing. Would wealthy folk who are currently happy renting decide they'd have to buy somewhere and what effect would that have? I'm sure there would be lots of effects good and bad but I can't see how it would be anything other than a major upheaval, and very unpopular with a lot of voters who for better or worse have money invested in property. So that's why I wonder how much of practical solution it is to offer as an alternative to capping housing benefit.

I would like to see housing costs go down, and I would like to see tenants having more security of tenure than they do at present. I'm not necessarily against the idea of caps on rental prices but I think you have to propose a realistic way of bringing it in. That's why i asked further up how it would work in practice. Would the cap be the same regardless of where the property is, for example? Would it be related to the size and quality of the property? How would you make sure that lots of rental places didn't just disappear because it no longer made sense for the landlord to let it out? Would people's income be taken into account when working out what they should pay? These are pretty crucial details to work out if it's not just going to be some pie-in-the-sky idea.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Bringing in a cap would surely mean that it woud no longer make sense for lots of landlords to rent their place out.

Yeah, some good points there, but the goal here is not to enrich wealthy landlords, but to provide people with decent homes to live in. This is essential.

I couldn't give a fuck if rent capping suddenly makes it less profitable for landlords - there's no god-given right for property to be a source of fat wedge for the already wealthy. Anyway, most landlord/owners are creaming it in at the moment cos rental prices are going through the roof and they are paying virtually no interest on (probably) interest-only loans.

However, all this is moot, because I can't see anyone, ever, bringing in rent capping. Even if the Labour Party was taken over in a left wing/socialist coup I couldn't see them bringing this in. Most Labour MPs own second homes and/or properties to rent out anyway (and even then, some are fiddling their expenses on second homes.)

and

 

[Badgers]

I couldn't give a fuck if rent capping suddenly makes it less profitable for landlords - there's no god-given right for property to be a source of fat wedge for the already wealthy. Anyway, most landlord/owners are creaming it in at the moment cos rental prices are going through the roof and they are paying virtually no interest on (probably) interest-only loans.

Yup ^

Landlord with 10 properties and mortgaged to the hilt would be fucked. A lot of them would be fucked because they (look at this cunt) almost all use finance to buy. If they could no longer cover the mortgage payments they would sell or have then repossessed. Either way they would have to be filled and that would cause a shift in the market.

How would you make sure that lots of rental places didn't just disappear because it no longer made sense for the landlord to let it out?

These places won't get knocked down ^

 

[teuchter]

These places won't get knocked down ^

Of course not, and I don't know exactly what would happen but I can see a scenario where a load of these properties go up for sale, maybe house prices go down a bit as a result, the upper end of the rental market will buy instead of rent, and the lower end will continue to live in the crappiest housing in the crappiest parts of town just like now.

Alternative scenarios accepted for consideration.

 

[teuchter]

I think we should start by giving renters better security of tenure - longer term contracts (5 years +) where the price is agreed at the beginning and can go up only by a certain amount per year. As in other European countries. This seems more feasible to me.

 

[Gramsci]

Bringing in a cap would surely mean that it woud no longer make sense for lots of landlords to rent their place out. They would get a better return selling it off. In cases where the rental income would be lower than mortgage payments they'd have to do that. So there'd no longer be any rental properties in expensive areas. I don't really know exactly what the effects of that would be - maybe house prices would go down in the long run, and maybe that would be a good thing. Would wealthy folk who are currently happy renting decide they'd have to buy somewhere and what effect would that have? I'm sure there would be lots of effects good and bad but I can't see how it would be anything other than a major upheaval, and very unpopular with a lot of voters who for better or worse have money invested in property. So that's why I wonder how much of practical solution it is to offer as an alternative to capping housing benefit.

I would like to see housing costs go down, and I would like to see tenants having more security of tenure than they do at present. I'm not necessarily against the idea of caps on rental prices but I think you have to propose a realistic way of bringing it in. That's why i asked further up how it would work in practice. Would the cap be the same regardless of where the property is, for example? Would it be related to the size and quality of the property? How would you make sure that lots of rental places didn't just disappear because it no longer made sense for the landlord to let it out? Would people's income be taken into account when working out what they should pay? These are pretty crucial details to work out if it's not just going to be some pie-in-the-sky idea.

The reason its "a pie in the sky" idea is seen in your post. The whole of this country revolves around the need of owners of property. Whether its the small "Buy to Let" operator to large developers. Who are increasingly seeing rental property as good investment.

Of course , in the present state of affairs, rent controls are not seen as a practical alternative to capping HB. Much easier politically to cause the least well off a load of problems. In combination with the other "reforms" to social housing coming in its a major upheaval for the less well off. But they do not count.

Of course those who have "invested" in property wont like it. And yes they are probably the middle income floating voters who both parties feel they have to keep happy.

If you think that rent controls are to difficult to bring why not just keep the system as it is. It works. It keeps people housed.It keeps the those voters who have buy to let properties happy.

I have never noticed landlords complaining about getting HB.

To make rents controls practical this would have to be combined with building new Council housing and HA housing with secure tenancies. With the money saved from HB costs.

 

[Gramsci]

[quote="Badgers, post: 11619442, member: 15917
A lot of them would be fucked because they (look at this cunt) almost all use finance to buy.
[/quote]


From the link how to "build a passive income for life through property".

Well that’s the constituency that neither political party want to upset.

 

[Gramsci]

I think we should start by giving renters better security of tenure - longer term contracts (5 years +) where the price is agreed at the beginning and can go up only by a certain amount per year. As in other European countries. This seems more feasible to me.

See this interesting article comparing Germany and UK housing market.

The contrast between the German and UK housing markets couldn’t be more stark.
Unlike Germany, the UK housing market is essentially a bubble factory. Wheras Germany’s highly responsive supply ensures that extra demand manifests itself in rising new home construction rather than increased prices, the opposite is the case under the UK’s restrictive land-use policies.

The UK’s deregulated rental market and lack of tenure has also ensured that renting is a second rate option, thereby encouraging residents to strive (and borrow big) for owner occupancy. And of course the UK’s lax financial system has been only too happy to oblige, providing households with no deposit mortgages during the boom followed by rationed credit during the bust.

When all these factors are combined, is there any wonder why Germany’s home prices have remained stable and affordable, and free of the speculative behaviour, ’panic buying’ , and price volatility inherent in the UK system?

​

​

The German rental system is another key factor contributing to the stability and affordability of the housing market. While the majority of rental dwellings in Germany are private, rents are regulated and prices are prevented from increasing sharply. Tenants also have security of tenure as long as they pay the rent and behave well, except on the rare occassion when a member of the landlord’s family needs the accomodation or when the building is going to be replaced.

Further, because renting is the dominant housing choice in Germany, the political system is highly sensitive to tenants’ rights and perecived threats to the status quo typically receives prominant media attention and political responses.

Since home prices are relatively stable (owing to liberal supply) and renters enjoy secure tenure, Germans have little incentive to rush into owner occupation. As such, Germany doesn’t suffer from the ‘panic buying’ and speculation often present in bubble housing markets.

In comparison, the UK rental system could not be more different. According to the RICS European Housing Review:

The UK now has probably the most liberalised housing sector in Europe since the 1989 abolition for new tenancies of previous controls. There is only limited security of tenure for the first six months of a tenancy in the most common types of rental contract and rents are freely negotiable…
The typical rental property is a terraced house in an outer or inner suburb of a town or city. The property will rarely be new: only 13% are post-1985, and almost two-thirds are pre-1945, although most will have been recently modernised.​

​

​

​

 

[editor]

In case anyone missed this - please sign!
Barratt Homes, Brixton Square and the fight to retain affordable housing in Brixton. Please sign the petition.

 

[Gramsci]

Ive been in touch with Brixton Society and they are putting into an objection to the application.

I have also sent the U75/BB statement to the Ward Cllrs and asked if they will comment on the application. Had no response on that yet.

 

[Gramsci]

In case anyone missed this - please sign!
Barratt Homes, Brixton Square and the fight to retain affordable housing in Brixton. Please sign the petition.

The petition can still be signed after the date for comments on the application have finished.

Maybe also put the joint statement up on Brixton Noticeboard or start separate thread on this application? As it will slowly grind on through the planning process.

I have asked planning to extend comments period as the notice went "missing" from outside the Brixton Square soon after it was put up. Also emailed them again has they have not answered what they are doing about missing sign. All they did was acknowledge my first email a while back telling them it had gone.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

They've also not written back to us following a request for the original s106 agreement, which is needed in order to compare to the proposed agreement.

 

[quimcunx]

Hmm. Not very helpful. I'll happily object if I know what to object about.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Hmm. Not very helpful. I'll happily object if I know what to object about.

Read this page from earlier in the thread and there are several links and also the text of an email which Crispy sent

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...-old-cooltan-site.293394/page-6#post-11550261

 

[quimcunx]

Are they correct? I remember that brixton blog were looking into things as it was all a bit complex and unclear. Not helped by the original not being available etc.

I'll have a look, cheers.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Are they correct? I remember that brixton blog were looking into things as it was all a bit complex and unclear. Not helped by the original not being available etc.

I'll have a look, cheers.

Yes you're right - it's hard to make an objection without all the proper details. What I did was write a general statement saying there shouldn't be any dilution of the original social housing commitments.

 

[quimcunx]

Fair enough. I can go with that. I'll ask to see a copy of the original too.

 

[Gramsci]

Hmm. Not very helpful. I'll happily object if I know what to object about.

This is what I said. Thing is u are allowed to seek an alteration to a Section106. My objection is that I want the original Section 106 for the affordable housing element to stay as it is. Officers and Barratts can argue there case. And given the recent government "reforms" to housing they probably can make a strong case. So in the end I am saying I do not like the government "reforms" either. Officers will probably argue that given recent changes by government to the category of "affordability" , tenancies and who can be provider they have come up with the best solution possible. As a resident Im making my feelings known. I think the most feasible result that can happen is that the application can be knocked back. But officers will argue that Barratts could appeal with a result that is worse.

I object to this variation for the following reasons.

• That Barratts have already started building the flats and are only now seeking a variation. The permission to build the flats and the existing Section 106 was known by Barratts when they acquired the site. I object to the fact that they are seeking a variation now. They should be kept to there existing variation.

• The variation could possibly allow a less secure tenancy than if it was Social Rented Housing tenancy. The variation applied for does not detail what sort of tenancies would be given if the variation was allowed. Its likely to be time limited tenancies instead of secure Social Rented ones. If variation is allowed there should also be a definition of the tenancies to be granted. These should be secure not time limited.

• I object to the changing of the definition of provider being widened. These flats should be rented from a RSL Housing Association

• Barratts are a large company. Having a few of the flats let as Social Rented on secure tenancies is not going to undermine the viability of the scheme.

• This could set a precedent for future developments in Brixton area. As the Brixton Masterplan is developed new housing will be built. If this definition of affordable housing is allowed it would lead to lack of affordable housing with a Social Rent and secure tenancies on developments. If this variation is allowed it could set a precedent for other large schemes in Brixton Masterplan area. This is one of the few ways to get Social Rented flats built at the present moment.

• This is a policy issue. Officers should not be allowed to decide policy ad hoc in discussions with developers. Issues of affordable housing as part of planning gain in large developments should be decided with the consultation of the local community and there representatives- Cllrs. If this variation is allowed its will set a precedent for other large schemes. Therefore I object on the grounds that this is a policy issue that should not be decided in this way. At the moment the SPD for the Brixton Masterplan area is being consulted on. This sets out the planning guidance for the area. This issue of planning gain should be consulted on there.

• I also object as if these flats are not let as RSL Housing Association flats on a Social Rent then I see a possibility of another provider (or Barratts) later on putting in another variation asking for a higher percentage of market rent on these flats.

• I emailed planning that the sign outside the development about this application disappeared. I am concerned that someone took the notice down. The Council had put it up securely. It went soon after local people started expressing there concerns about this issue. I do not think officers took it down.

 

[Gramsci]

Are they correct? I remember that brixton blog were looking into things as it was all a bit complex and unclear. Not helped by the original not being available etc.

I'll have a look, cheers.

The thing I have realised about planning is that lots of it is complex and unclear. As was the case with the Ice rink on the markets car park. Brixton Society put in good objection using all the planning guidelines. Officers did the same and came to opposite conclusion.

So in the end , within reason, one can voice an opinion even if it might lose in planning terms. Planning is about people having a say on what they want in there area. Its a way to let the Cllrs know the feeling of people in local community. Otherwise its just developers and officers deciding matters.

Cllrs need to look at Section 106 ( to be replaced by Community Infrastructure Levy) and what gains for local area they can get from large developments. I see this application as a retrograde step potentially.

 

[Ol Nick]

The thing I have realised about planning is that lots of it is complex and unclear. As was the case with the Ice rink on the markets car park. Brixton Society put in good objection using all the planning guidelines. Officers did the same and came to opposite conclusion.

Tricky one, because how do you compare the value of customer parking for the market with having ice skating on your doorstep for a couple of years?

(The rink and the Redskins are pretty cool, I have to say.)

 

[Gramsci]

Tricky one, because how do you compare the value of customer parking for the market with having ice skating on your doorstep for a couple of years?

(The rink and the Redskins are pretty cool, I have to say.)

You dont. Tescos were supposed to keep the ice rink in Streatham working until the new one was built. That agreement should have been kept to.

As was said at the time Tescos could have offered there car park in Acre Lane for a temporary ice rink. Of course that was never going to happen.

Its not about value. Its about the needs of the local economy. The market traders need parking. As Tescos need there car park in Acre lane.

The argument of the officers was that this is temporary so does not go against planning guidelines for the market area. Value for residents never really came into it.

 

[Gramsci]

I have just read this article on the governments new "affordable" housing policy

The programme, billed as a "new more flexible form of social housing", has provided cover for the government to slash the affordable house-building budget by 60% by enabling new or re-let social housing to be charged at rents up to a maximum of 80% of average market rent. The problem is that the supposedly social homes provided under Affordable Rent will be unaffordable for low-income households across large swaths of urban England.
Figures show that for many parts of the country the gross annual income needed to afford new housing built under this programme is far in excess of the current average gross median annual income of social housing households in England, before receipt of housing benefit, of £13,000 a year. Take Leeds, for example, where a one-bedroom property charging 80% of median market rents will require earnings of £16,971 a year. Or Birmingham, where a two-bedroom property charging 80% of median market rents will require an annual household income of £18,857.
The government's retort is that under the Affordable Rent programme, rents can be up to 80% of market rate and in many cases they will actually be lower. This is true. In London the average looks set to be 64.5%. Yet even in this best-case scenario the programme still prices out many low-income households, especially in London and the south east. In the City of Westminster in London, households will need a staggering gross income of £58,800 to afford a two-bed property charging 60% market rents (4.5% below the predicted London average) and things aren't much better even in London's most deprived boroughs.

The spreadsheet of figures for salaries required for 80% and 60% market value is here

 

[Greebo]

<snip>spreadsheet of figures for salaries required for 80% and 60% market value is here

What the unholy fuck was whoever dreamt up those figures taking?