Say hello to Barratt Homes' 'Brixton Square' on Coldharbour Lane (old Cooltan site)
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Reminds me of something my dad read me from his "local" paper a couple of years ago about a local Tory who offered North Norfolk Council about 16 acres of land to build social housing on, and pretty much got monstered by other local landowners for potentially lowering the tone (and prices) of the neighbourhood. Council couldn't afford to develop it anyway.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Show me a modern politician that isn't an authoritarian, and I'll show you that he's not a politician.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
How can you have "too much" social housing?
Would it be cynical to suggest Lambeth might like 'Brixton Square' because it delivers well-off residents presumed to pay full council tax and having little need of local services, such as schools?
On the other hand, since Lambeth's funding is determined by - and mostly comes from - central government it may make no difference to the council's coffers who lives in the borough.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
It could do as Council Tax benefits are being cut. So the less well off will not get all the rebate they used to. In theory its better for a Council to have well off people moving into an area as they are less likely to apply for Council Tax benefits. Makes life easier for cash strapped Councils.
Poor showing...
And if you look at the chart you can see that house prices (and in turn rents) really took off during the Blair/Brown years... All the worst excesses of 125%, interest only mortgages went completely unregulated...
Shame that Tony B was more focused on waging ill-advised wars with Bush II than looking after genuine domestic concerns...
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Although there's a fair argument to be made (much as I'm loath to defend most things new Labour did/were involved in) that house prices and "novel" mortgage products (such as self-certified mortgages for anyone who wanted them) were merely an evolutionary step on from the Major years and the "own your home or you're nothing" attitude promulgated by Thatcher and perpetuated by Major.
It was fairly obvious (at least to those of us who take party politics with a large pinch of salt) even before he became Prime Minister, that Blair was looking to make his mark on the world as a statesman, rather than on the UK as a good Prime Minister, just as it was fairly obvious given his political and ideological affiliations that he was a thoroughgoing Atlanticist who'd always bend the knee to the US (as were the majority of his cabinet appointments).
Agreed - Labour did a rubbish job when it came to controlling house price inflation / rent inflation. This has made life much more challenging for the younger generation. Don't even get me started on top-up fees! I just hope that the next Labour government makes a real effort to improve things.
Yeah - you're right. He had his eyes on the history books from day one...
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
They won't and they can't, without changing the ground on which their political game is played. Blair's acceptance of neoliberalism as the de facto economic status quo meant that the Labour party was from there on in stuck with conforming to a fairly narrow set of economic predicates while attempting to convince the electorate that the differences between their ideology and those of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats was anything more than a set of skin-deep tribal markings. Miliband can only manouvre within the ground that Blair, Brown and Cameron have already defined unless he breaks with neoliberalism, and he can't - the powers behind the throne won't let him. A Labour government will do the same as the last - it'll dress up the further destruction of the fruits of the post-war social democratic consensus as "progress" while taking us into a neo-Victorian world of work ultra-insecurity, but it'll make a few gestures/distribute a few sops, to make Labour seem different to their blue clones and their yellow clones.
Agent Sparrow
the age of slippers and migraines
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Thanks for flagging this up. I read the committee report just now. It cleverly mentions in one tabulated line that of 5 consultation letters sent there were 9 objections, but does not elaborate in any way.
I will see if I can go tomorrow. I presume that if you want to speak the normal rules apply: notification of the committee clerk by 12 noon?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Musing (slightly off-topic - but still next door)
At 360-366 Coldharbour Lane (now "The Viaduct" run by Lexadon Limited) - the planning history looks even more dubious.
The first big application in 2001 was by one A Thomas (Dogstar man??). Refused and only the decision notice is on the net.
Next application by Wakeworth Estates - 03/00200/FUL has some pretty drawings and was approved by Lambeth Planning - might have looked a whole lot nicer if this had gone through smoothly, but Wakeworth collapsed into administration.
The plans corresponding to the present building are available as 09/01222/FUL - and the officers report explains how "the buildings erected varied to the approved plans to such an extent that it was considered that the permission had not been implemented". One of those "only in Lambeth" moments.
Lexadon's application - was approved in 2009 on the basis of 21 shared ownership units as the affordable housing element (out of 60 total). One wonders if this happened, as Lexadon normally rent out at comercial level rents rather than sell.
Incidentally my mate Alberich insists that the Viaduct office units in Valentia Place are now occupied by residential tenants. Judging by what I see through the gaps under the blinds, I think he's right. I wonder if Lexadon are defrauding Lambeth of council tax?
At 360-366 Coldharbour Lane (now "The Viaduct" run by Lexadon Limited) - the planning history looks even more dubious.
The first big application in 2001 was by one A Thomas (Dogstar man??). Refused and only the decision notice is on the net.
Next application by Wakeworth Estates - 03/00200/FUL has some pretty drawings and was approved by Lambeth Planning - might have looked a whole lot nicer if this had gone through smoothly, but Wakeworth collapsed into administration.
The plans corresponding to the present building are available as 09/01222/FUL - and the officers report explains how "the buildings erected varied to the approved plans to such an extent that it was considered that the permission had not been implemented". One of those "only in Lambeth" moments.
Lexadon's application - was approved in 2009 on the basis of 21 shared ownership units as the affordable housing element (out of 60 total). One wonders if this happened, as Lexadon normally rent out at comercial level rents rather than sell.
Incidentally my mate Alberich insists that the Viaduct office units in Valentia Place are now occupied by residential tenants. Judging by what I see through the gaps under the blinds, I think he's right. I wonder if Lexadon are defrauding Lambeth of council tax?
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
Donatus Anyanwu , Labour councillor, has been saying this for years and it pisses me right off....
edited to add his surname which I couldn't remember for the life of me last night.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
...and if you ask specific reasons why he thinks that...well, he's never answered properly and changes the subject 
I think it's just a line they've been told to parrot and they accept, unquestioningly
I think it's just a line they've been told to parrot and they accept, unquestioningly
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
...and if you ask specific reasons why he thinks that...well, he's never answered properly and changes the subject
What is the right amount: 25 per cent, 50 per cent, 75 per cent?
Should it vary by area? Or should it be the same percentage everywhere across inner London?
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
Well, that's something I've never been able to pin down when I've pressed for specific info, which is why I always thought it was just parroting a party line.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
up to 242 now BTW
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
...and if you ask specific reasons why he thinks that...well, he's never answered properly and changes the subject
It's definitely a party line, and it's one none of them can or will answer properly because what they actually mean is "there are too many social housing tenants in Lambeth, ruining our attempts to make the borough of Lambeth the new borough of Wandsworth".
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Yuk. Unless I can pay their rate of council tax.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
jeremyclyne
Member
Word of warning re this evening. According to the rules requests to speak have to be registered "by 12 noon on the last working day before the meeting".
All this is part of changes to the running of Planning Applications Committee, including the guillotining of discussions - the stated purpose "part of a number of measures to assist public involvement in Planning Applications Committee meetings. See page 31 http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov...Const Changes composite list final 280411.pdf
Opposition councillors have objected to the changes and tried raising questions as there have been concerns about the changes restricting public involvement and comment. See Question 26 http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s28321/05 Questionsandanswers.pdf
and amendment 5: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s28332/14b Constitution Amendments v1.pdf
I wanted to speak about another item on the agenda at Planning tonight but have been turned down because it was too late. Not unrelated to the matter of Brixton Square. In this case (Agenda item 9) Tesco are applying to reduce the amount of social rented housing on the Streatham Hub Site and substituting it with "affordable housing" - the application was submitted on February 27 and is being put through in less than two weeks.
shakespearegirl
just worked out taglines
If anyone does get to speak, wonder if its worth raising why these planning matters are being heard so quickly. Lambeth seems to have a massive backlog of planning cases, we lodged an objection to one in December and haven't heard a word, yet Tesco related ones are heard in less than two weeks...
Minnie_the_Minx
someinenhhanding menbag and me ah bollox
How very convenient for somebody who might find it in their interest to rubberstamp such things. </cynic>
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Nope. He is the same chap. He used to be a developer and bought that site years ago.
artyfarty
A shed on a ditch.
That makes sense, the going in and out of insolvency bit is true tho?
