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

[teuchter]

There are quite a few comments like this in the report

In terms of affordability, the Council has carried out an assessment of the
affordability of the Affordable Rent Model, comparing different proportions of
market rent for different postcodes within Lambeth; identifying incomes which
would be required to afford different rents; and considering the impact of the
benefit cap when it is introduced. This information is contained within the
Council’s Tenancy Strategy which also sets out that Affordable Rent levels
should not be above the Local Housing Allowance level. The blended rate is one
which takes account of the both the service charge and the rent payable. The
Affordable Rent levels on the scheme, including service charges, are within the
weekly Local Housing Allowance rates for the area and produce a blended rate
of less than 65% of the cost of renting on the open market. This complies with
the Council’s Tenancy Strategy and as such officers consider that the
affordability of the units would be acceptable in the context of local
circumstances.

Somehow it doesn't seem quite right to me that planning officers are making judgements about what is "affordable" and effectively deciding what people should pay for social housing. It doesn't seem like it's really in their remit.

If the changes are something which is being forced on them from government/wider policy, then it doesn't make sense for them to be making comments like the one above because it's outwith their control.

 

[leanderman]

Particularly irritating was the man from Barratts who said that Barratts wanted to get on and build homes for local people. When I now full well the sales people having been pushing buy to let.

Yes, the poster Bim, who is buying there, said it was mainly BTL, I think.

 

[editor]

Yes, the poster Bim, who is buying there, said it was mainly BTL, I think.

Their marketing day was apparently all about catering to the BTL crowd, with assistants happy to offer information about the 'rent yield' of properties.

 

[secateurz]

Why is it 'us' who have to bear the cost of someone else's 'sums not working'.
.

We live in a world where the taxpayer has to bear the cost of people not working, why act suprised when this happens?

 

[quimcunx]

I'm not the tiniest bit surprised.

 

[cuppa tee]

We live in a world where the taxpayer has to bear the cost of people not working, why act suprised when this happens?

I was under the illusion that one reason a lot more people arent working was down to a relatively small group of people in certain professions "getting their sums wrong........"

 

[Greebo]

We live in a world where the taxpayer has to bear the cost of people not working, why act suprised when this happens?

<derail + whinge alert>We live in a world where unpaid and (mostly) untrained carers subsidise the lack of government-funded provision from the NHS and social services, thereby depriving those carers of the ability to sustain full time paid work as well as what they do. I win, now fuck off back to reading the Daily Mail and the Telegraph. And spare a thought for carers when you've finished work for the day and they're still on call, or worse. </derail>

 

[TonyH82]

In fairness, the council has done a decent job in extracting value from the developer.

The affordable rents sounds pretty good value for money, and as noted earlier in the thread, the rents cannot be jacked up to 80% of market value and must move in-line with inflation. It should also be noted that the rents are within the benefits cap and below the housing benefit limits.

All that achieved without having to raid council funds (which are probably fairly scarce at the moment).

 

[teuchter]

In fairness, the council has done a decent job in extracting value from the developer.

The affordable rents sounds pretty good value for money, and as noted earlier in the thread, the rents cannot be jacked up to 80% of market value and must move in-line with inflation. It should also be noted that the rents are within the benefits cap and below the housing benefit limits.

All that achieved without having to raid council funds (which are probably fairly scarce at the moment).

In what was does it extract better value than the original unamended agreement?

 

[editor]

Anyone know why Barratts were able to bring forward the building line a few yards?

 

[TonyH82]

In what was does it extract better value than the original unamended agreement?

it doesn't. but still a good result given the planning policies they have to act within.

do you think the rent levels are fair and affordable?

 

[secateurz]

<derail + whinge alert>We live in a world where unpaid and (mostly) untrained carers subsidise the lack of government-funded provision from the NHS and social services, thereby depriving those carers of the ability to sustain full time paid work as well as what they do. I win, now fuck off back to reading the Daily Mail and the Telegraph. And spare a thought for carers when you've finished work for the day and they're still on call, or worse. </derail>

does this one example make my point wrong? no it doesnt, its just picked to garner sympathy (and rightly so). I bet you call it a "bedroom tax" dont you.

 

[Greebo]

does this one example make my point wrong?<snip>

Yes, it does. I suggest that you try to generate one original thought before you post again.

 

[secateurz]

a nerve has been touched it seems. Do you take more than you give from the state then? You might think jumping down another posters throat will scare them off, but it wont work I am afraid. I dont want to get into the arguments of leeches taking advantage of the wonderful social safety net we have in this country, but my original point stands.
for all other (relevant) points, see Tony's posts.

 

[TruXta]

a nerve has been touched it seems. Do you take more than you give from the state then? You might think jumping down another posters throat will scare them off, but it wont work I am afraid. I dont want to get into the arguments of leeches taking advantage of the wonderful social safety net we have in this country, but my original point stands.
for all other (relevant) points, see Tony's posts.

Pretty sure it's your nerve that's been touched

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

does this one example make my point wrong? .

The fact that your 'point' was totally irrelevant made it wrong tbf.

 

[Greebo]

a nerve has been touched it seems. Do you take more than you give from the state then?<snip>

No. Either come up with a valid point, or hush while the grown ups talk, sweetie.

 

[Gramsci]

Were finances the only reason given?
Why do you think it would have been passed at appeal?

At the meeting and in the report for the meeting ( unless it was in the last minute additions that were presented on the day)no reasons were given for the change to the Section106.

Nor was there any mention of danger of appeal mentioned at the meeting.

It was only after questioning by the LDs on the committee that financial viability was given as reason by Barratts first I think. ie late into the actual meeting. No evidence was presented by officers or Barratts at the meeting to back this up. As Cllr Palmer said at meeting financial viability reports are often "smoke and mirrors".

I felt that the officers had put together report saying that the "affordability" % were in line with existing Council and National policy and that was the end of it.

 

[Gramsci]

In fairness, the council has done a decent job in extracting value from the developer.

The affordable rents sounds pretty good value for money, and as noted earlier in the thread, the rents cannot be jacked up to 80% of market value and must move in-line with inflation. It should also be noted that the rents are within the benefits cap and below the housing benefit limits.

All that achieved without having to raid council funds (which are probably fairly scarce at the moment).

I did not think so. As usual Council let developers change already agreed Section106.

 

[leanderman]

While I am doubtful as to whether central Brixton needs social housing construction more than elsewhere in London, Barratt Homes should not have been able to get away with this.

 

[TonyH82]

I did not think so. As usual Council let developers change already agreed Section106.

i can understand your frustration at the agreement being changed... but i don't know how anyone could think that numerous homes, at low rents, for no cost is anything other than a good deal...

 

[leanderman]

how will these homes be allocated?

 

[teuchter]

it doesn't. but still a good result given the planning policies they have to act within.

do you think the rent levels are fair and affordable?

To be honest I don't really know how these "affordable" rents compare with what the rents would have been under the terms of the original agreement. Maybe someone else can be more specific about this. However, if Barratts wanted the terms changed, it seems reasonable to asume that there must be a financial advantage for them in it, which means that somewhere, some Barratts money that previously would have gone into this housing has disappeared and its hard to see how that can result in a better deal for the people who will be living in it.

The obvious question is why would the council agree to this change? What's in it for them (and ultimately "us")? And this question doesn't seem to have been answered in the report, or explicitly at the hearing. There are mumblings about "financial viability" and the risk of an appeal, but I can't at the moment see any evidence anywhere to support the idea that these were valid reasons to change the agreement.

 

[TonyH82]

http://www.brixtonblog.com/lambove-...ble-rents-at-brixton-square-development/10650

Under the changes, a four bed flat will go from £166.39 to £202.70 per week, and a two-bed from £149.74 t0 £192.88. The decision was taken despite a joint campaign by Brixton-based news sites Brixton Blog, Brixton Buzz and Urban 75.

 

[secateurz]

£202/4 in a zone 2, well served by transport location is absolutely fine isnt it? given the crazyness of the last 3 years here and all

 

[TonyH82]

£202/4 in a zone 2, well served by transport location is absolutely fine isnt it? given the crazyness of the last 3 years here and all

it is a very good price.

it is well within the housing benefit cap too.

 

[editor]

it is a very good price.

it is well within the housing benefit cap too.

Not so great if you're struggling on a low wage though.

 

[ViolentPanda]

We live in a world where the taxpayer has to bear the cost of people not working, why act suprised when this happens?

What is a "taxpayer"?
In the broadest sense, even people who aren't in employment pay tax. If you specifically mean Income Tax, then some of us who aren't in employment and are disabled still pay Income Tax.
You should perhaps be more concerned with what the government does with taxes, insofar as welfare benefits minimise social harms (even the Romans understood the principle of "Bread and Circuses"), whilst other things the government spends money on (billions of pounds on failed IT projects; hundreds of millions of pounds annually on poor procurement procedures; an untold amount pissed away through ongoing pisspoor contracture of services through PPP and PFI schemes, would seem more worthy of opprobrium.

Still, some people never have the gumption to look beyond the obvious easy targets, because that might involve actually thinking.

 

[TonyH82]

Not so great if you're struggling on a low wage though.

but hardly social cleansing given it is within benefit levels... someone on a low wage with kids would get tax credits and other benefits and could afford that rent.

 

[ViolentPanda]

does this one example make my point wrong? no it doesnt, its just picked to garner sympathy (and rightly so). I bet you call it a "bedroom tax" dont you.

Your "point" is neither "right" nor "wrong", it's merely your interpretation, unsupported by anything that actually substantiates it. All you did was "blah blah blah" about the taxpayer.