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

[editor]

What this country needs is this: (from my Argentinians friends FB)

¡ HERMOSO! ¡COMANDANTE SUPREMO!

Just a bit more of this would be a good start.

Bevan’s 1949 Housing Act removed the statutory restriction of public housing to the “working classes” – council housing was to become available to all, so its occupants could create “a living tapestry of mixed communities” of people from all backgrounds.

For a short time, council housing was a genuine alternative to private renting or ownership, and was built in large quantities. Almost a million homes were built by local authorities in Britain between 1945 and 1951; 54,000 in Wales. More council houses were built in Wales in those six years than have been built since 1975.

Bevan’s contribution to the quality of council housing is less well recognised. He ended the construction of pre-fabs claiming they were sub-standard “rabbit hutches”, and he insisted on good design, increased space standards and the provision of an upstairs and downstairs toilet – all revolutionary at a time when two-thirds of houses in the Rhondda valleys did not have an indoor loo.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/n...lows-millions-to-live-without-91466-30352997/

 

[cuppa tee]

FFS

This should be resisted. Half the reason for a % of affordable housing is to have mixed communities.

If its in the Labour Administration propaganda mag then they are seriously thinking about doing this. Plus the supportive comments from local residents. Who look so happy to be run by Lambeth Labour.

What is the date of that issue of Lambeth Pravda? As I cant find it on Lambeth website.

It was in the issue dated April 2013. It's funny you mention the supportive comments from local residents because at the end of the piece it is explained the quotes are not from real people but the pov " reflects recent conversations with local residents and businesses ", and IMHO you are correct about the negative outcome of such an idea because obviously developers would cherry pick desirable locations for the more exclusive builds to maximise profits.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What this country needs is this: (from my Argentinians friends FB)

¡ HERMOSO! ¡COMANDANTE SUPREMO!

It works for me!

 

[CH1]

It was in the issue dated April 2013. It's funny you mention the supportive comments from local residents because at the end of the piece it is explained the quotes are not from real people but the pov " reflects recent conversations with local residents and businesses ", and IMHO you are correct about the negative outcome of such an idea because obviously developers would cherry pick desirable locations for the more exclusive builds to maximise profits.

Surely this (and worse) happens already. There was controversy recently about a development at One Blackfriars Road where no social housing to be built - but a contribution to be made for Souhwark Council to arrange social housing elsewhere.
Meanwhile the leader of Southwark Coucil tweeted:

I seem to recall back in the 1990s that when Lambeth approved the luxurious "Parliament View" block on Lambeth Bridge south side (home to Lord Prescott) - the Council got funds to double glaze several council estates but no social housing at all.

 

[Tom_B]

FFS

This should be resisted. Half the reason for a % of affordable housing is to have mixed communities.

If its in the Labour Administration propaganda mag then they are seriously thinking about doing this. Plus the supportive comments from local residents. Who look so happy to be run by Lambeth Labour.

What is the date of that issue of Lambeth Pravda? As I cant find it on Lambeth website.

This is good. Why should private buyers be forced to live in the same development as council tenants?

 

[Tom_B]

Fucking hell. A one bedroom flat in the shonky Viaduct development next to BS is nearly £16k a year.

That's more than I earn.

That isn't a high rent for London. You just have a low income. Maybe London isn't the right place for you?

 

[Mrs Magpie]

You've outlasted me! I give up on this debate about the size of the state / economic policy.

But your sockpuppet lives on!

This is good. Why should private buyers be forced to live in the same development as council tenants?

 

[Mrs Magpie]

That isn't a high rent for London. You just have a low income. Maybe London isn't the right place for you?

Maybe your two identities each earn in their own right.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

So is that what you do TonyH82 / Tom_B ? When someone trounces your argument with verifiable facts you just re-register in a knuckle-dragging troll form?

 

[Mrs Magpie]

You are dishonest, but IP addresses tell the truth

 

[TruXta]

Why do people bother with that shit?

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Why do people bother with that shit?

.......because they aren't the sharpest knife in the cutlery drawer.

 

[Gramsci]

It was in the issue dated April 2013. It's funny you mention the supportive comments from local residents because at the end of the piece it is explained the quotes are not from real people but the pov " reflects recent conversations with local residents and businesses ", and IMHO you are correct about the negative outcome of such an idea because obviously developers would cherry pick desirable locations for the more exclusive builds to maximise profits.

Thanks for the info. Managed to pick up a copy at the Rec.

 

[Gramsci]

Why do people bother with that shit?

Tom_B joined today. Some kind of April fool joke?

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Tom_B joined today. Some kind of April fool joke?

No, after being out-debated by someone more intelligent and far more well-informed before, he thought that just coming back in another guise wouldn't be noticed.

 

[ViolentPanda]

This is good. Why should private buyers be forced to live in the same development as council tenants?

Why not? What are you afraid of, that the council tenants might catch something from you, like selfishness, or scabies?

 

[ViolentPanda]

That isn't a high rent for London. You just have a low income. Maybe London isn't the right place for you?

Maybe it's just the right place for someone with your attitude. The right place for you to be taken down a peg or two, anyway.

 

[ViolentPanda]

But your sockpuppet lives on!

Wow, that's rather pathetic. Had all his media-derived arguments rebutted, so he opens another account to post from, where he can let go with his less socially-acceptable beliefs.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Well, it just shows him up as someone who is fundamentally dishonest.

 

[Gramsci]

No, after being out-debated by someone more intelligent and far more well-informed before, he thought that just coming back in another guise wouldn't be noticed.

The new guise was well spotted by you.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

It was well spotted by you.

To be honest, I don't have to do much. Plus when a new poster with shit for brains turns up and spouts shit from the word go, it does mean scrutiny. Also it relieves the tedium of correcting misspelled thread titles.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

The application to dilute the social housing element of Brixton Square has been permitted by Lambeth planning

http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=MAA4WOBO0GL00

 

[editor]

Shameful stuff:

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Lambeth planning don't give a fuck about the community. Despite hundreds of objections, they stick rigidly to the planning guidelines, which essentially let developers do whatever they want. Hundreds of people objected to the new flats opposite the Grosvenor, but they ignored it. Hundreds of people objected to the change in social housing at Brixton Square, but they ignored it. Hundreds objected to Tesco at the George IV, but they still recommend granting permission. The new development at Myatts Fields North was sneaked through without a proper consultation with local residents and the Planning Committee rubberstamped it, despite objections from Kingsley Abrams and others.

Dodgy handshakes.

Lambeth Planning, Lambeth Planning Committee councillors - if you're reading this: FUCK YOU.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Lambeth planning don't give a fuck about the community. Despite hundreds of objections, they stick rigidly to the planning guidelines, which essentially let developers do whatever they want. Hundreds of people objected to the new flats opposite the Grosvenor, but they ignored it. Hundreds of people objected to the change in social housing at Brixton Square, but they ignored it. Hundreds objected to Tesco at the George IV, but they still recommend granting permission. The new development at Myatts Fields North was sneaked through without a proper consultation with local residents and the Planning Committee rubberstamped it, despite objections from Kingsley Abrams and others.

Thats why the TRA at Cressingham Gardens is keeping a very close watch on them, cultivating the media and rooting out and exposing Lambeth's misinformation, plus generally preparing for a dirty fight.

Lambeth Planning, Lambeth Planning Committee councillors - if you're reading this: FUCK YOU.

Don't forget Pete "liar" Robbins, too!

 

[Rushy]

Thats why the TRA at Cressingham Gardens is keeping a very close watch on them, cultivating the media and rooting out and exposing Lambeth's misinformation, plus generally preparing for a dirty fight.

What's the latest on Cressingham?

I hadn't been in there for a while and took a wander around with the dog t'other day. The single storey and houses are fantastic. Are the concrete blocked up ones (close to Brockwell Gate end) the ones with the structural problems Lambeth referred to?

 

[ViolentPanda]

What's the latest on Cressingham?

Council are still in full-on "charm offensive" (well, Lambeth's idea of what a charm offensive might be, anyway!) mode, while simulataneously still pulling figures out of their arses with regard to repair costs . It turns out there are a lot of estates, 17 IIRC, that are more expensive per annum, per household to maintain than this one. They'd compared us to Tulse Hill estate, which just happened to cost less, while forgetting the ones that cost significantly more.

I hadn't been in there for a while and took a wander around with the dog t'other day. The single storey and houses are fantastic. Are the concrete blocked up ones (close to Brockwell Gate end) the ones with the structural problems Lambeth referred to?

Yep, and they're the worst by far structurally. A combination of subsidence/movement, heavy water penetration and dereliction.
There are some problems with rain ingress on the big block at the front of the estate (apparently the access walkway for the upper bloc of maisonettes is permeable and leaks into the dwellings below, but is entirely remediable), and the same moisture penetration problems in ground floor properties that the estate has apparently always had, plus issues related to age, such as movement, root penetration from trees etc. Lambeth got very coy when it was suggested that their skimping on tree control has played a part. When Greebo and I moved here in the mid '90s the trees got a thorough once-over, and at minimum a prune, once a year in the appropriate season. Now it's on a triennial basis, and on their last showing, they're happy to prune in November.

 

[Gramsci]

This is good. Why should private buyers be forced to live in the same development as council tenants?

Noticed you have not been back.

I do not want your kind in Brixton.

Prejudiced is what you are.

 

[Gramsci]

Council are still in full-on "charm offensive" (well, Lambeth's idea of what a charm offensive might be, anyway!) mode, while simulataneously still pulling figures out of their arses with regard to repair costs . It turns out there are a lot of estates, 17 IIRC, that are more expensive per annum, per household to maintain than this one. They'd compared us to Tulse Hill estate, which just happened to cost less, while forgetting the ones that cost significantly more.



Yep, and they're the worst by far structurally. A combination of subsidence/movement, heavy water penetration and dereliction.
There are some problems with rain ingress on the big block at the front of the estate (apparently the access walkway for the upper bloc of maisonettes is permeable and leaks into the dwellings below, but is entirely remediable), and the same moisture penetration problems in ground floor properties that the estate has apparently always had, plus issues related to age, such as movement, root penetration from trees etc. Lambeth got very coy when it was suggested that their skimping on tree control has played a part. When Greebo and I moved here in the mid '90s the trees got a thorough once-over, and at minimum a prune, once a year in the appropriate season. Now it's on a triennial basis, and on their last showing, they're happy to prune in November.

I get the impression that Lambeth do hardly any surveys of there stock to find faults that could be remedied year by year gradually. What they do is leave buildings for years. Then come and inspect them. Then go on how unfortunate it all is but the whole estate needs to be knocked down.

The issue at Cressingham Gardens is the same as at the proposed Somerleyton road development. The Council will probably try to get away with less rented secure housing at target rents.

At Somerleyton road ( mainly Council owned land) looks like its only going to get 40% "affordable".

 

[Rushy]

I get the impression that Lambeth do hardly any surveys of there stock to find faults that could be remedied year by year gradually. What they do is leave buildings for years. Then come and inspect them. Then go on how unfortunate it all is but the whole estate needs to be knocked down.

The other problem is that the council seems to be inexcusably inefficient cost-wise when it comes to refurbishment. Someone on here was talking about the costs quoted by Lambeth to refurb Clifton to a decent standard which rendered it uneconomical (I think it was around 170k a flat). Developers get the work done a lot more cheaply (I reckon Clifton will have been done on a third of that) and often do a better job.