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

[Gramsci]

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.

Yes that is something that I find hard to understand.

What I have been told is that Housing Associations and Council have to build to a higher standard? Is that correct? Are the building standards set higher for social housing? Or is it that they set themselves higher standards? That developers can just do a minimum standard. Which is why its cheaper for private developers?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes that is something that I find hard to understand.

What I have been told is that Housing Associations and Council have to build to a higher standard? Is that correct? Are the building standards set higher for social housing? Or is it that they set themselves higher standards? That developers can just do a minimum standard. Which is why its cheaper for private developers?

If I understand correctly, HAs and local authorities have to build to a minimum standard of fit, take account of accessibility for new housing etc, whereas the only "standard" private developers have to meet is what will sell, hence the weird design of some privately-developed housing, where the design is basically done with the aim of shoehorning "sales features" in.

 

[Rushy]

If I understand correctly, HAs and local authorities have to build to a minimum standard of fit, take account of accessibility for new housing etc, whereas the only "standard" private developers have to meet is what will sell, hence the weird design of some privately-developed housing, where the design is basically done with the aim of shoehorning "sales features" in.

To be fair that's a bit simplistic "private developers are shit, HAs and social have standards" and that kind of myth allows the council to continue being entirely inefficient.

The LA sets minimum room standards which have to be met in any development and from a metropolitan perspective they are not particularly tight. They also have the power to assess the shapes of rooms, circulation space and storage and won't approve developments with awkward layouts for no good reason.

Also, what is this minimum standard of fit? I've never seen an LA or HA development with an exceptional standard of fit. In fact, they are usually pretty bog standard utilitarian.Trying to shoe horn in more feature per square foot should cost more rather than less and I'm not quite sure what those features are? Developers have to compete on the open market for who moves into private accommodation so they will often go the extra mile to attract buyers - particularly when it comes to bathrooms, kitchens and windows.

The council uses enormous contractors to do its work. These have enormous overheads. They employ architectural advisors on, QSs, yadda yadda. Just the admin costs are horrendous. And those responsible for commissioning the works generally aren't all that commercially minded or motivated so the contractors get to trouser huge profits, despite being hugely inefficient.

Just as an example - my mate was living in an ex LA block where the LA was still the freeholder. His windows were falling apart so he got them replaced for about £2,500. A couple of years later the council replaced all the windows in the block (with identical glazing) and it cost more than double per household, despite the fact that they should be getting massive cost savings from efficiencies of scale and their negotiating power.

 

[ViolentPanda]

To be fair that's a bit simplistic "private developers are shit, HAs and social have standards" and that kind of myth allows the council to continue being entirely inefficient.

yes, that's what I said, isn't it?

The LA sets minimum room standards which have to be met in any development and from a metropolitan perspective they are not particularly tight. They also have the power to assess the shapes of rooms, circulation space and storage and won't approve developments with awkward layouts for no good reason.

Yes, they do have that power.
And yet I feel that your categorical statement that LAs won't approve awkward layouts for no good reason is naive, given that "good reason" is so easy to find, for the right consideration.

Also, what is this minimum standard of fit? I've never seen an LA or HA development with an exceptional standard of fit. In fact, they are usually pretty bog standard utilitarian.

Yes, that's the bloody point! You appear to think I'm claiming that the minimum standard is some kind of El Dorado of opulent fitments. I'm not! I'm saying there's a legislated minimum standard!

Trying to shoe horn in more feature per square foot should cost more rather than less and I'm not quite sure what those features are? Developers have to compete on the open market for who moves into private accommodation so they will often go the extra mile to attract buyers - particularly when it comes to bathrooms, kitchens and windows.

The council uses enormous contractors to do its work. These have enormous overheads. They employ architectural advisors on, QSs, yadda yadda. Just the admin costs are horrendous. And those responsible for commissioning the works generally aren't all that commercially minded or motivated so the contractors get to trouser huge profits, despite being hugely inefficient.

Just as an example - my mate was living in an ex LA block where the LA was still the freeholder. His windows were falling apart so he got them replaced for about £2,500. A couple of years later the council replaced all the windows in the block (with identical glazing) and it cost more than double per household, despite the fact that they should be getting massive cost savings from efficiencies of scale and their negotiating power.

Cool story, bro!
But...
Way to miss the point!
My point is that there's a legislated minimum standard enforced on HAs and LAs. There isn't one enforced on private developers except a couple that hygiene regs make necessary.

Good day to you, Sir!

 

[Rushy]

yes, that's what I said, isn't it?



Yes, they do have that power.
And yet I feel that your categorical statement that LAs won't approve awkward layouts for no good reason is naive, given that "good reason" is so easy to find, for the right consideration.



Yes, that's the bloody point! You appear to think I'm claiming that the minimum standard is some kind of El Dorado of opulent fitments. I'm not! I'm saying there's a legislated minimum standard!



Cool story, bro!
But...
Way to miss the point!
My point is that there's a legislated minimum standard enforced on HAs and LAs. There isn't one enforced on private developers except a couple that hygiene regs make necessary.

Good day to you, Sir!

Sorry VP but you appear to be all over the place on this one. I now have have no idea what point you were trying to make in your response to Gramsci. Hygiene regs - WTF? Hope you manage to calm down soon.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sorry VP but you appear to be all over the place on this one. I now have have no idea what point you were trying to make in your response to Gramsci.

You "now have no idea"? It's pretty obvious you either had no idea or grasped the wrong end of the stick from the off.

Hygiene regs - WTF? Hope you manage to calm down soon.

I'm perfectly calm, thanks. Try not to project.

 

[Rushy]

You "now have no idea"? It's pretty obvious you either had no idea or grasped the wrong end of the stick from the off.
I'm perfectly calm, thanks. Try not to project.

Glad you have managed to calm down - you seemed to be getting in a bit of a muddle for a moment.

Now let's see if you are able to explain to a simpleton like me how your responses answered the question of why refurbishment is so very much cheaper for private developers than it is for the council. And perhaps clarify the fascinating little interjections about those pesky hygiene regs and minimum standards of "fit". I really appreciate your patience.

 

[Gramsci]

I know that the newish block next to Brixton sq was built so poorly built that the Housing Association asked to manage the "affordable" section of the development turned it down. So private developers can be shit as well.

 

[Rushy]

I know that the newish block next to Brixton sq was built so poorly built that the Housing Association asked to manage the "affordable" section of the development turned it down. So private developers can be shit as well.

I didn't suggest they can't be poor - nothing is so black and white. I don't think private is necessarily better quality than public built - they are both built to a variety of standards. I visited a fantastic cedar shingle clad HA developemt off Clarence Avenue during open house weekend. Basic standard inside - lots of vinyl instead of tiles, etc.. but a lovely job. I can't remember the figures but seem to remember my jaw dropping when the architect told me what the build cost was (high rather than low!). The point we were discussing was why a project like Clifton Mansions was economical for a developer when it had been deemed so much more expensive to renovate (about 2.5 times the RICS build cost guide) by the council.

I'd be curious to know the extent of the problems in the case you refer to (is it the Viaduct?). That development was a bit of a mare from what I heard as it was being built when the crash happened - finance pulled, costs cut, developer bust, yadda yadda. HAs manage some pretty horrible places - many of which are horrible because they simply have not been properly converted and/or maintained by the HA. Often the worst projects are also the most expensive per sqft because of poor management - and vice versa.

 

[Gramsci]

I didn't suggest they can't be poor - nothing is so black and white. I don't think private is necessarily better quality than public built - they are both built to a variety of standards. I visited a fantastic cedar shingle clad HA developemt off Clarence Avenue during open house weekend. Basic standard inside - lots of vinyl instead of tiles, etc.. but a lovely job. I can't remember the figures but seem to remember my jaw dropping when the architect told me what the build cost was (high rather than low!). The point we were discussing was why a project like Clifton Mansions was economical for a developer when it had been deemed so much more expensive to renovate (about 2.5 times the RICS build cost guide) by the council.

I'd be curious to know the extent of the problems in the case you refer to (is it the Viaduct?). That development was a bit of a mare from what I heard as it was being built when the crash happened - finance pulled, costs cut, developer bust, yadda yadda. HAs manage some pretty horrible places - many of which are horrible because they simply have not been properly converted and/or maintained by the HA. Often the worst projects are also the most expensive per sqft because of poor management - and vice versa.

Given recent experiences I have had with Council it does cross my mind that the estimates they gave for Clifton Mansions were high as in fact they wanted to flog it off anyway. It was an excuse. If they had set there minds to it they could have kept the flats. Or got a HA to refurbish flats. Did surprise me to see that a private developer having no problem refurbishing the flats. Council always gave me impression the building was almost beyond repair.

The Council say this about a lot of the houses they own in streets. Ideal for families. Someone from Tenants Council told me that Council really want to get rid of all street properties and old mansion blocks. Leaving the large estates only as Council stock. So a lot of the hand wringing from Council about high costs is to be viewed sceptically.

The Viaduct was started by some dodgy developer then taken over by Lexadon who had to do a lot of remedial works to get the building liveable and keeping to the original planning permission.

Some private developers can do a good job. Take for example the Black Cat building ( the old cigarette factory now offices )at the top of Hampstead road. A building that had been hacked about for years then restored by private developer with the two Black Cats back in place.

Some HA conversion jobs are pretty basic. Converting a building to flats can be done well. I have seen it in upmarket areas. But it costs. HA new builds are often better. I think a lot more thought goes into them.

Some of the best building Ive seen is when architects design and have there own homes built. Then everything is done right.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Glad you have managed to calm down - you seemed to be getting in a bit of a muddle for a moment.

Now let's see if you are able to explain to a simpleton like me...

"Many a true word...." and all that.

....how your responses answered the question of why refurbishment is so very much cheaper for private developers than it is for the council. And perhaps clarify the fascinating little interjections about those pesky hygiene regs and minimum standards of "fit". I really appreciate your patience.

I wasn't talking about refurbishment. You were, as an aside ("just as an example") at the end of post #1143. I was talking about new build in post #1142, where I replied to Gramsci's post #1141, where he too talked about new build..

So please take your clumping, quotidian attempts at sarcasm, and deposit them where they'll irritate your haemorrhoids.

Thanks awfully.

 

[MillwallShoes]

"Many a true word...." and all that.



I wasn't talking about refurbishment. You were, as an aside ("just as an example") at the end of post #1143. I was talking about new build in post #1142, where I replied to Gramsci's post #1141, where he too talked about new build..

So please take your clumping, quotidian attempts at sarcasm, and deposit them where they'll irritate your haemorrhoids.

Thanks awfully.

 

[Gniewosz]

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?

Here is the latest newsletter published by the Cressingham TRA for the residents:
http://www.cressinghamgardens.org.uk/content/regeneration-newsletter-april-2013

Check out the document "2012.08.08 ESTIMATE Structural Works" that was obtained through a Freedom of Information request. Council's own estimates are that it will only cost £365k to fix the structural issues on Cressingham, including £263k for the full rennovation of the 6 boarded up flats:
http://www.cressinghamgardens.org.uk/content/regeneration

 

[teuchter]

If I understand correctly, HAs and local authorities have to build to a minimum standard of fit, take account of accessibility for new housing etc, whereas the only "standard" private developers have to meet is what will sell, hence the weird design of some privately-developed housing, where the design is basically done with the aim of shoehorning "sales features" in.

That's not correct. Private developers have to meet the standards set by building regulations which very certainly include requirements for accessibility, as well as insulation, soundproofing, ventilation, fire safety and so on.

What they don't have to meet are the standards set for social housing which (unless my knowledge is out of date) include space standards, ie. minimum room sizes and so on.

In theory LAs can impose things like space standards on private developers via planning permissions but like you say there's no reason to assume they will.

 

[Rushy]

That's not correct. Private developers have to meet the standards set by building regulations which very certainly include requirements for accessibility, as well as insulation, soundproofing, ventilation, fire safety and so on.

What they don't have to meet are the standards set for social housing which (unless my knowledge is out of date) include space standards, ie. minimum room sizes and so on.

In theory LAs can impose things like space standards on private developers via planning permissions but like you say there's no reason to assume they will.

Lambeth applies minimum space standards for all new private developments and conversion as set out here. Includes overall sizes and individual room sizes. These are strictly applied by planning.

So long as it is built to plan, the internal space can later be reconfigured without planning permission so long as there are no external alterations - but this is unlikely to be done by a developer as it is expensive and could cause complications when it comes to sales.

 

[teuchter]

Lambeth applies minimum space standards for all new private developments and conversion as set out here. Includes overall sizes and individual room sizes. These are strictly applied by planning.

There is however a convenient get-out clause in there -

(v) In circumstances where proposals do not fully meet relevant guidance in the SPD,
on minimum floorspace for room sizes and overall floor areas, it will be for
developers to demonstrate through their design and access statements that their
proposals are of sufficiently high quality and design to meet the overall policy
objectives of ensuring acceptable standards of accommodation to justify the relevant
guidance being relaxed in the determination of the proposal.

And based on some things I've seen built in Lambeth I can't say that their idea of "high quality design" corresponds with mine.

 

[Rushy]

There is however a convenient get-out clause in there -



And based on some things I've seen built in Lambeth I can't say that their idea of "high quality design" corresponds with mine.

Are there any particular examples of these disagreeable developments which you've seen built in Lambeth which have avoided meeting space standards by relying on that clause?

 

[teuchter]

Are there any particular examples of these disagreeable developments which you've seen built in Lambeth which have avoided meeting space standards by relying on that clause?

No, I can't give you any examples or claim to have knowledge of how often it happens. My comment about the disagreeableness of developments in Lambeth relates mainly to external appearance. However, having been involved in many a planning application I do know that the "design and access statement" is often used to provide some negotiation room - ie. the LA can let an applicant contravene the strict letter of the planning guidance if they justify doing so by giving reasons in the DAS. Usually in London projects it involves comment on the restrictive nature of the site. So there are means by which the LA can avoid strictly enforcing things mentioned in planning policy.

Regarding the comparison between space standards in private developments vs social housing I've also for some time had it as "received knowledge" that minimum space standards are higher in SH developments although I can't give you figures to prove that right now and am willing to be corrected.

 

[Rushy]

No, I can't give you any examples or claim to have knowledge of how often it happens. My comment about the disagreeableness of developments in Lambeth relates mainly to external appearance. However, having been involved in many a planning application I do know that the "design and access statement" is often used to provide some negotiation room - ie. the LA can let an applicant contravene the strict letter of the planning guidance if they justify doing so by giving reasons in the DAS. Usually in London projects it involves comment on the restrictive nature of the site. So there are means by which the LA can avoid strictly enforcing things mentioned in planning policy.

Regarding the comparison between space standards in private developments vs social housing I've also for some time had it as "received knowledge" that minimum space standards are higher in SH developments although I can't give you figures to prove that right now and am willing to be corrected.

That may be so. The point I made is that Lambeth does have housing size standards for private developments (unlike much of the country) and that it applies them pretty strictly. You seemed to imply that the size standards are widely ignored by invoking the get-out clause referred to above resulting in crappier developments but I don't think that's generally the case and it's probably not what you meant anyway.

How they look on the outside is a different issue. I certainly wouldn't go to a planner for aesthetic advice.

 

[teuchter]

All I meant is that it's not a given that Lambeth applies them "strictly", just because they are mentioned in that planning guidance. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I don't know one way or another.

 

[CH1]

Now "Catford Dogs" gets the Barratts effect: the £117m redevelopment will bring 589 new homes to the publicly owned 4.7 hectare site in south London under a deal between the Mayor and Barratt London.
The scheme will include 113 affordable rent properties which will be managed by Gallions Housing Association, 60 shared ownership properties and 416 properties for private ownership.
Barratt London is among 25 developers announced last week to sit on the Mayor’s land procurement group, the London Development Panel.
http://www.building.co.uk/news/sect...0-home-revamp-of-catford-dogs/5054306.article

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Here is the latest newsletter published by the Cressingham TRA for the residents:
http://www.cressinghamgardens.org.uk/content/regeneration-newsletter-april-2013

Check out the document "2012.08.08 ESTIMATE Structural Works" that was obtained through a Freedom of Information request. Council's own estimates are that it will only cost £365k to fix the structural issues on Cressingham, including £263k for the full rennovation of the 6 boarded up flats:
http://www.cressinghamgardens.org.uk/content/regeneration

That newsletter is very illuminating - excellent work. £3.4m "missing" for repairs at Cressingham. And the statement that:

...the Council has admitted that its headline claim of ‘44% of tenanted properties are non-decent’, was actually based on a sample of merely 10% of properties. They are unable at present to list exactly what is needed to make each of the tenants’ homes decent.

Lambeth's modus operandi with regard to housing is dodgy as fuck: make unfounded claims, lie to residents, misrepresent statistics etc. Totally appalling.

Greebo ViolentPanda

 

[editor]

The gates are up and Brixton has just acquired two new place names, Milles Square and Carney Place.

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/05/...es-square-and-carney-place-in-brixton-square/

 

[Mr Bim of Bar]

The gates are up and Brixton has just acquired two new place names, Milles Square and Carney Place.

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/05/...es-square-and-carney-place-in-brixton-square/

Yipeeee not long before we move in, come on folks work through the night and get this development finished.

 

[Belushi]

When's the housewarming Mr Bim?

Thats an ugly bloody entrance.

 

[Mr Bim of Bar]

When's the housewarming Mr Bim?

Thats an ugly bloody entrance.

Lol, I move in in November now, and I agree the gates and entrance look bloody ugly, but the courtyard looks great once inside, also has a great communal area raised up on the first floor. House warming update to follow ok .

 

[Mr Bim of Bar]

I had to quote this, as this really is a major and increasingly commonplace issue, and one I find myself discussing with other locals on a regular basis nowadays.

The long and the short of it is we're fucked. Those of us on lower incomes, who have lived in the area for many years (approaching 10 in my own case), face the imminent prospect of having to relocate. And Brixton is my home, my stomping ground, call it what you will. I love it here. And frankly, I don't want to live anywhere else, and it deeply fucking troubles me that I'm eventually going to be uprooted, and have to start again. Hence why, I have to say, these petty squabbles such as 'what constitutes a gated community?' piss me right off - I mean the Barrier Block, for fucks sake? Jesus Christ. It's an ominous (no offence to anyone that lives there - and personally I'd kill for a flat there!) building that the the influx of moneyed 'professionals' wouldn't set foot in if you paid them. It seems a safe bet that the Brixton Square Henry's won't be making much of an effort to get to know the older Caribbean set who perenially hang around outside the BB either. Though maybe Bim of Bar will prove me wrong. But I doubt it as he sounds a right plum.

Lol lol lol Oh my God. I was on another link and it switched me to this page, I am often floor laughing, can't wait for my girlfriend to get home so I show her what a plum I am ( I kinda like that tag) x

 

[equationgirl]

You are incredibly unfunny, Mr Bim. Better not hope the mortgage rates go up or you split from your partner, eh?

 

[shifting gears]

Lol lol lol Oh my God. I was on another link and it switched me to this page, I am often floor laughing, can't wait for my girlfriend to get home so I show her what a plum I am ( I kinda like that tag) x

If there's any justice in the world you'll be beaten to death within days.

 

[editor]

Lol lol lol Oh my God. I was on another link and it switched me to this page, I am often floor laughing, can't wait for my girlfriend to get home so I show her what a plum I am ( I kinda like that tag) x

Did you find all the stuff about locals being priced out of their own community hilarious too?