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

[editor]

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.

Assuming that they get the flat in the first place, of course.

 

[Rushy]

Assuming that they get the flat in the first place, of course.

That's a different argument though - the decision hasn't reduced the number of reduced/affordable rent places.

 

[TonyH82]

Assuming that they get the flat in the first place, of course.

well, i'm glad you accept the level of the rents aren't going to lead to social cleansing!

 

[ViolentPanda]

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

So, a person is to be judged only on what they've contributed in taxes?
That's a rather narrow criterion on which to judge someone, given that fewer than half of the population will do so.
Perhaps we could take Greebo's point about carers and look into what that actually contributes, hmm?
In 2011, carers saved the government between £79 billion and £119 billion pounds (depending on whether you choose to believe figures based on government statistics or independently-researched statistics) by providing services for either "free", or for the minimal remuneration of "Carer's Allowance" of around £60 per week, plus NI contributions, where paid assistants providing the same care would have cost around £15,000 or £20,000 per year per head, averaged out.

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.

Your original point was nigh on content-free. It was as barren as most self-righteous posts about "the taxpayers" are.

for all other (relevant) points, see Tony's posts.

Tony, at least, manages to "see the other side", you on the other hand, appear to be firmly set in your not too well-informed ways.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

So in one case a roughly 25% difference, and in the other a roughly 31% difference. Looks like the "20%" may just be a somewhat misleading "averaging out" figure. In each case that's an extra £40 a week. Not exactly "affordable" to the likes of me.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

Not wishing to appear overly conspira-tastic, but such interpretations of section 106, that allow "affordability" to become whatever the officers say is fitting, runs the risk of appearing to be acting on certain councillors' opinions that "there's too much social housing in Lambeth".
I hope that I am being overly conspira-tastic, by the way, because I'd hate to think that our elected representatives were trying to gerrymander the local demographic.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

"Affordability" is relative, though. Most calculations about household costs (at least when I was in the Civil Service) were based around very mechanistic and spartan ideas of what an "average household" of a particular size might require, with factors like local weather conditions, cost-of-living differences, etc. If you live somewhere with a relatively high cost-of-living, your rent's "affordability" may be academic, and you may find yourself being "re-housed" away from your locale and your employment, as is already happening.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Assuming that they get the flat in the first place, of course.

Quite.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That's a different argument though - the decision hasn't reduced the number of reduced/affordable rent places.

You're right. This decision hasn't, but the precedent for reducing numbers of "affordable" homes has already been set by Boris, IIRC.

 

[secateurz]

the bulletin board is strong in this one, I dont have the time or inclincation to write such wordy and intelligent ripostes.

I am sorry £40 a week is a lot for you...but the rent of £202 is reasonble. its not anybody elses fault that you cant afford it. In fact it isnt anybody elses fault for a lot of things in this wonderful life.

 

[Crispy]

its not anybody elses fault that you cant afford it. In fact it isnt anybody elses fault for a lot of things in this wonderful life.

Responsibility for setting wages does not lie with the employee. Average wages are not increasing at the same rate as the economy as a whole, and nowhere near as fast as house/rent prices.

 

[Gramsci]

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.

Nothing to do with sympathy. Unpaid carers save the economy a lot of money.

 

[secateurz]

Responsibility for setting wages does not lie with the employee. Average wages are not increasing at the same rate as the economy as a whole, and nowhere near as fast as house/rent prices.

and public wages are rising faster than private. its a messed up environment at the moment. Thanks Labour.

 

[secateurz]

Nothing to do with sympathy. Unpaid carers save the economy a lot of money.

I agree.

 

[Crispy]

and public wages are rising faster than private. its a messed up environment at the moment. Thanks Labour.

The government of one country has almost nothing to do with it. The trend is long term and spans governments and countries.

EDIT: I can't find a UK version of this graph for the USA, but I know the trend is broadly the same:

 

[Gramsci]

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...

"No cost"? Where do you get that idea from?

Hardly numerous either.

Ken (and Lambeth) a few years ago were pushing for 50% affordable housing ( of different types shared ownership and social rent). That never reaslly happened.

 

[Gramsci]

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.

My question to officers and the Council is that if the new regime of affordability is how it works why did the officers not set the % at levels that would have put the rents equal to social rented properties?

Think I will ask that as my local Ward Cllr siad about putting a series of bullet points to officer about this.

 

[TonyH82]

"No cost"? Where do you get that idea from?

Hardly numerous either.

Ken (and Lambeth) a few years ago were pushing for 50% affordable housing ( of different types shared ownership and social rent). That never reaslly happened.

no cash paid out for construction...

 

[TonyH82]

My question to officers and the Council is that if the new regime of affordability is how it works why did the officers not set the % at levels that would have put the rents equal to social rented properties?

Think I will ask that as my local Ward Cllr siad about putting a series of bullet points to officer about this.

shared ownership is still going... think there is some in Brixton Square...

 

[secateurz]

sorry Labour are not escaping the blame here.
Their economic incompetence really put a spanner in this country

 

[Crispy]

The current lot are just as bad.

 

[leanderman]

But how are the homes allocated?

 

[secateurz]

I agree they are bad....but at least the deficit is closing. Small mercies.

 

[CH1]

The document before the Committee is here: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s54136/04 Coldharbour Lane.pdf

If you read the document you will see that the decision is not as dire as much of the previous discussion would suggest. And faced with the clear officer recommendation to approve, I assume the Committee decided that it would be a waste to spend Council resources on fighting an appeal.

This thing is not as simple as you are saying. The Barratts spokesperson had a side-kick who had to be introduced as a former employee of Lambeth Planning (now working for BPTW partnership - planning consultants). Quite off-putting in my view - close working relationship - beneficial to all parties. No wonder the correspondence on the matter is on first name terms.
The Barratts chap was not a smoothie at all - he was quite ruffled, and made two allegations:
1. the previous site owner [Places for People] had had no intention of "building out" the scheme. Implication: the section 106 was agreed so Places for People could realise a profit by selling on the site with planning permission. Of course this allegation fits in with Barratts claim that the project was not viable as it stood - and references were made to a viability study, especially by the Committee chair. The viability study is not in the public domain.
2. Barratts were "working with Lambeth" to produce the scheme without public subsidy, and had started work on the basis that the planning situation would be sorted out before completion. Hence the issues raised by Councillor Palmer and Bradley.
No Labour Committee councillor commented on whether Lambeth encouraged Barratts to jump-start the scheme, or issues to do with Housing subsidy in principle.
Because of questions from Cllr Mat Parr (Coldharbour Ward - Labour, but not on the committee), following on from Gramsci's very clear presentation - the figures for the actual rents proposed were revealled, giving the comparisons between the notional social rents and affordable rents. The chair then said that a further document had been tabled to the effect that the "Affordable" rents would be linked to RPI based on the given starting figures, and not allowed to rise to 80% of open market rent.
It all seemed as though the information had been coming out by drip feed. If Gramsci and Cllr Parr had not spoken and raised the issues we would not have been informed - and quite likely there would have been no assurances that the affordable rents would not be allowed to rise to the 80% level.
That is my take on the meeting. Let us see what is in the published minutes on 20th March.

 

[Gramsci]

no cash paid out for construction...

Reference please. As I think the RSL will have to pay towards these flats.

 

[Gramsci]

sorry Labour are not escaping the blame here.
Their economic incompetence really put a spanner in this country

It was the Banks that caused crisis.

 

[Gramsci]

shared ownership is still going... think there is some in Brixton Square...

That was not the issue.

 

[Rushy]

This thing is not as simple as you are saying. The Barratts spokesperson had a side-kick who had to be introduced as a former employee of Lambeth Planning (now working for BPTW partnership - planning consultants). Quite off-putting in my view - close working relationship - beneficial to all parties. No wonder the correspondence on the matter is on first name terms.
The Barratts chap was not a smoothie at all - he was quite ruffled, and made two allegations:
1. the previous site owner [Places for People] had had no intention of "building out" the scheme. Implication: the section 106 was agreed so Places for People could realise a profit by selling on the site with planning permission. Of course this allegation fits in with Barratts claim that the project was not viable as it stood - and references were made to a viability study, especially by the Committee chair. The viability study is not in the public domain.
2. Barratts were "working with Lambeth" to produce the scheme without public subsidy, and had started work on the basis that the planning situation would be sorted out before completion. Hence the issues raised by Councillor Palmer and Bradley.
No Labour Committee councillor commented on whether Lambeth encouraged Barratts to jump-start the scheme, or issues to do with Housing subsidy in principle.
Because of questions from Cllr Mat Parr (Coldharbour Ward - Labour, but not on the committee), following on from Gramsci's very clear presentation - the figures for the actual rents proposed were revealled, giving the comparisons between the notional social rents and affordable rents. The chair then said that a further document had been tabled to the effect that the "Affordable" rents would be linked to RPI based on the given starting figures, and not allowed to rise to 80% of open market rent.
It all seemed as though the information had been coming out by drip feed. If Gramsci and Cllr Parr had not spoken and raised the issues we would not have been informed - and quite likely there would have been no assurances that the affordable rents would not be allowed to rise to the 80% level.
That is my take on the meeting. Let us see what is in the published minutes on 20th March.

From what I have read above, I'm not sure that the argument about profitability was relevant to the decision in the end and I think the discussion is perhaps a bit of a red herring. But if Barratt was prepared to pay over what they believed the site to be worth because they hoped they could sort something out, that is speculation. Speculation carries risk. Speculators should be allowed to lose money or go bust.

I am pretty sure that the developers of the building next door went bust before it was completed. They were then bought out by another developer, Lexadon, who finished it off. The building still got built.

 

[Gramsci]

This thing is not as simple as you are saying. The Barratts spokesperson had a side-kick who had to be introduced as a former employee of Lambeth Planning (now working for BPTW partnership - planning consultants). Quite off-putting in my view - close working relationship - beneficial to all parties. No wonder the correspondence on the matter is on first name terms.
The Barratts chap was not a smoothie at all - he was quite ruffled, and made two allegations:
1. the previous site owner [Places for People] had had no intention of "building out" the scheme. Implication: the section 106 was agreed so Places for People could realise a profit by selling on the site with planning permission. Of course this allegation fits in with Barratts claim that the project was not viable as it stood - and references were made to a viability study, especially by the Committee chair. The viability study is not in the public domain.
2. Barratts were "working with Lambeth" to produce the scheme without public subsidy, and had started work on the basis that the planning situation would be sorted out before completion. Hence the issues raised by Councillor Palmer and Bradley.
No Labour Committee councillor commented on whether Lambeth encouraged Barratts to jump-start the scheme, or issues to do with Housing subsidy in principle.
Because of questions from Cllr Mat Parr (Coldharbour Ward - Labour, but not on the committee), following on from Gramsci's very clear presentation - the figures for the actual rents proposed were revealled, giving the comparisons between the notional social rents and affordable rents. The chair then said that a further document had been tabled to the effect that the "Affordable" rents would be linked to RPI based on the given starting figures, and not allowed to rise to 80% of open market rent.
It all seemed as though the information had been coming out by drip feed. If Gramsci and Cllr Parr had not spoken and raised the issues we would not have been informed - and quite likely there would have been no assurances that the affordable rents would not be allowed to rise to the 80% level.
That is my take on the meeting. Let us see what is in the published minutes on 20th March.

Also my ward Cllr Matt Parr had emailed the officer a series of questions about this application. Which is also why I thought the officers came up with this last minute information.

As you say we will have to wait for the minutes. They need to be checked. The officers changed the proviso that I queried that the RSL who had the flats could alter the % later on up to 80% of market rate to one linked to RPI. This was last minute ( on day of meeting) and I did not see this worded in writing.

Ur are spot on it was drip feed. The officers report imo was poor. Cut and paste history of site and then outline of changes to section106.

Nor was the "viability doc" there or discussed at the planning committee meeting. At the very least officers should have presented a summary of it a meeting. As Barratts and officers both said it was the rational behind the need for a change to the section106.

Nor am I happy about the cozy working relationships that officers and developers can have. Both Barratts and officers had clearly thought that this should have gone through with no fuss. Like the one for Streatham hub. That is why the guy from Barratts was upset I think. From his point of view Barratts had worked constructively with officers and had come to a compromise. Then these pseky residents turn up complaining and get Cllrs asking questions. It was all running so smoothly before that.

I still do not understand why social rented units as per the original Section106 where not "viable". This was never explained.

 

[Gramsci]

From what I have read above, I'm not sure that the argument about profitability was relevant to the decision in the end and I think the discussion is perhaps a bit of a red herring. But if Barratt was prepared to pay over what they believed the site to be worth because they hoped they could sort something out, that is speculation. Speculation carries risk. Speculators should be allowed to lose money or go bust.

I am pretty sure that the developers of the building next door went bust before it was completed. They were then bought out by another developer, Lexadon, who finished it off. The building still got built.

Barratts and officers argued at meeting , when LD Cllrs asked queastions, that it would have made the scheme unviable.

The new developer next door also went back to committee to get the affordable element reduced. As they said it made the scheme they bought not viable.