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

[Gramsci]

Government reforms, unclear? wash your mouth out...

Yeah- is complete chaos, and will largely be settled by precedent. I believe one of the professors at Sheffield Hallam is doing some research into what it means in practice, and what <<actually>> happens across the country.

I have little confidence in Lambeth doing the right thing. Not through ill intent necessarily, but I am increasingly of the opinion their policy and housing people aren't that bright. With all due respect to any who post on here who I am sure are total geniuses, but my dealings with them have been pretty... depressing.

I notice in the Barratts agent letter he mentions one precedent in Lambeth already.

Big companies like Barratts imo opinion run rings around Lambeth. Some of us saw it when Tescos demanded an alteration to there agreement in Streatham.

 

[stuff_it]

The same thing in Spain by the way - just giving back the flat keys to the bank does NOT extinguish the mortgage.

Same in UK.

Yes, but in the UK and in Spain you can go bankrupt, which is eventually discharged so you can earn again.

 

[Manter]

Is this definitely correct. I ask because I live in an intermediate market rent tenancy and there is none of the capping you describe. The rent has gone up nearly a third in two years.

What a nightmare... but not surprised. My info comes from someone living in a similar house in North London- near Finsbury Park. She has not had capping either...though she will apparently now get capping for 2 years and then HUGE increases.

 

[Plumdaff]

What a nightmare... but not surprised. My info comes from someone living in a similar house in North London- near Finsbury Park. She has not had capping either...though she will apparently now get capping for 2 years and then HUGE increases.

It's shit, and your poor friend. 'Don't worry, we're letting the really terrible pain hang over your head for two years'. My HA reckons it's been caring as they only put the rent up by £70 quid a month this year when they could have put it up by more! We're at least both in decent employment but still looking at leaving the area - which has gradually turned into leaving London - but I know some of my neighbours are deeply struggling.

I'd definitely say that forum members should resist this form of 'social' housing. It's definitely a step above the private market, and I'm really pleased to have got to live in this place for nearly a decade, but it's no substitution for genuine housing provision and no solution for the most in need.

 

[Dan U]

This is so important that we're looking to do a joint urban75/Brixton Blog/Brixton Buzz onslaught on this. The Blog are going to have a go at drafting up a piece which will then be posted here for checking over and editing (if needed).

There seems to be several levels of dodginess going on, so I think we need to join forces and get busy!

you'd be as well going to the local press, the specialist housing press and/or private eye if you think there is any kind of actual dodginess here.

i went to private eye with something recently, presented them with a gift wrapped story and they ran it the next week.

nothing wrong with what you are doing but if it is just this tactic and the letters you run the risk of being easily dismissed as the usual suspects moaning on the internet to each other and not bringing wider pressure

just my tuppence worth

good luck anyway because this kind of stuff is shit.

 

[Manter]

We're at least both in decent employment but still looking at leaving the area - which has gradually turned into leaving London - but I know some of my neighbours are deeply struggling.

kind of off topic, but I do find it staggering that people on more than the national average wage struggle to live in London. I know the national average wage is spectacularly low, but lots of people earn it... we see to be pricing a professional generation out of the capital, let alone the low paid.

No idea what he answer is, and not much more than a despairing wail, but still....

 

[Crispy]

No idea what he answer is

Build more housing. Lots more. Council housing, private housing, mixed ownership, all of it. Medium density (like this development, actually) on every brownfield site we can find.

 

[Rushy]

i went to private eye with something recently, presented them with a gift wrapped story and they ran it the next week.

Good work!

 

[beeboo]

While Grant Shapps backtracked from saying social tenancies should be 2 years as standard, the revised guidance is that 5 years is the 'norm' but 2 years is 'acceptable'. These are described as 'flexible secure tenancies' (as I said, badly written b-s-) but basically mean the landlord has the absolute right to change rents to the same tenants in the same property after the (short) protected period ends. (The word in the advice is 'mandatory possession at the end of the assured fixed term').

So rents go up as market rates go up- while not quite as fast as in private renting where most contracts are 1 year, it still leaves your average low wage owner of benefits claimant in pretty serious trouble.

The guidance says 2 years should only be "exceptional" circumstances (although what constitutes exceptional isn't really defined) - in my experience so far people seem to be offering at least 5 years (but it's early days).

Agree that it's important though which is why I flagged it - it's not just the rents that are important, the tenure is as well.

 

[beeboo]

Is this definitely correct. I ask because I live in an intermediate market rent tenancy and there is none of the capping you describe. The rent has gone up nearly a third in two years.

I don't know that much about the intermediate market - as I understand it a lot of intermediate rent was cooked up as a solution to deal with shared ownership properties that wouldn't sell and I don't think the tenancies you get have the same security you'd get under social rent (or even under affordable rent). There might be other forms of intermediate rent I'm not familiar with. But either way different rules apply here so it doesn't mean to say there aren't caps on affordable rent increases.

Just illustrates the ridiculous terminology again. "Intermediate" is different to "affordable" which is different to "social", but then "affordable" is sometimes used to describe any of the above. Oh and affordable rents could be more than intermediate but also could be less than social. Clear as mud.

 

[beeboo]

Yeah- is complete chaos, and will largely be settled by precedent. I believe one of the professors at Sheffield Hallam is doing some research into what it means in practice, and what <<actually>> happens across the country.

Not aware of this...would be v interested if this is the case. I know the Sheffield Hallam guys are doing work on related subjects but not on this issue (the new approach to rents/tenancies) specifically.

(I work in this field, if you hadn't deduced that already )

 

[Gramsci]

Went by Brixton Square this morning and the notice about the application has been taken down. Good thing I took a photo.

Will email planning. It says on notice that it should only be taken down after the 26th October.

 

[editor]

Here's a proposed joint statement, put together by the BB:

Urban 75, Brixton Buzz and Brixton Blog are partnering to protest against Barratt Homes’ application to allow the conversion to ‘affordable rent’ tenure of 13 social rent flats at its new development, ‘Brixton Square’, on Coldharbour Lane. While a social rent would be fixed, affordable rent means the tenant would pay roughly 55% of what a private tenant would pay. As gentrification continues apace in Brixton and property prices rise, this will make it increasingly difficult for low income tenants to live in the town centre and it is therefore extra important to conserve social rented properties at the heart of Brixton. Alongside new housing benefit caps and changes to benefit rules, Brixton is in danger of becoming a playground for those who can afford it alone. Barratt Homes got permission to build the so-called ‘Brixton Square’ on the basis of having socially rented housing – we have seen this before with Tesco in Streatham and we will not stand for Barratt dropping that deal now they have built the development.

The reference for this planning application is 12/03393/S106. Comments on the planning application can be made until October 4 - they should be your individual comments as that will have more power in the planners' eyes - and a link to our petition is here (LINK)

Please add your comments, edits and suggestions so we can firm this thing up and start a -publicisin'!

 

[colacubes]

Here's a proposed joint statement, put together by the BB:



Please add your comments, edits and suggestions so we can firm this thing up and start a -publicisin'!

I think it's good. I'd lose 'the so-called' in the last sentence of the first para, because you don't really need it and it sounds a bit sarcy. Which I know it is, but for a statement like this it's not going to help.

 

[Gramsci]

Here's a proposed joint statement, put together by the BB:



Please add your comments, edits and suggestions so we can firm this thing up and start a -publicisin'!

The date for comments is 26th October- see my photo of the notice in #152

 

[editor]

Went by Brixton Square this morning and the notice about the application has been taken down. Good thing I took a photo.

I went looking for it yesterday and it had already gone. Surely there's some legal obligation for it the notice to be visible for a certain length of time?

 

[Dan U]

my only issue with it would be this bit

Brixton is in danger of becoming a playground for those who can afford it alone

given that this is being co-authored by a website that advertises the playground (brixton buzz) and a website which carries advertising for some of the new eateries playing a part in changing the face of brixton (brixton blog)

you could be accused of wanting to have your cake and eat it/and just having the usual bitch about hipsters, albeit in coded language.

i would probably say something more like this 'Lambeth is in danger of restricting access to housing and changing the demographics of central brixton through subtle amendments to previously made planning agreements'

just imo

eta - although that is considerably less snappy

eta2 - to correct brixton blog for brixton buzz, sorry ed. honest mistake

 

[Winot]

Please add your comments, edits and suggestions so we can firm this thing up and start a -publicisin'!

I would amend the last bit to say:

Barratt Homes got permission to build the so-called ‘Brixton Square’ on the basis of having socially rented housing and should not be allowed to break that promise. Wwe have seen this before with Tesco in Streatham and we will not stand for Barratt dropping that their deal now they have built the development.

Was it the same thing in Streatham with Tesco's, i.e. social rent > affordable rent? If it wasn't exactly the same but was another s.106 variation then I'd say

Wwe have seen this agreements of this type broken before with by Tesco in Streatham and we will not stand for Barratt dropping that their deal now they have built the development.

 

[editor]

given that this is being co-authored by a website that advertises the playground (brixton buzz) and a website which carries advertising for some of the new eateries playing a part in changing the face of brixton (brixton buzz)

Brixton Buzz is a listings site, with most of the events being for long-serving local venues. In fact, we focus on the smaller, less well known venues, like the 414, Hand In Hand etc., and rarely - if ever - cover hipster jollies. To say we're only here to advertise the "playground" is something of a unpleasant misrepresentation. There's always been club nights and gigs in Brixton.

We don't carry any advertising.

*edit to add: if you want to argue the toss on this, please start a new thread because it would be unfair to disrupt this one.

 

[Dan U]

Brixton Buzz is a listings site, with most of the events being for long-serving local venues. In fact, we focus on the smaller, less well known venues, like the 414, Hand In Hand etc., and rarely - if ever - cover hipster jollies. To say we're only here to advertise the "playground" is something of a unpleasant misrepresentation. There's always been club nights and gigs in Brixton.

We don't carry any advertising.

i didn't say you carried advertising and i didn't say you only advertise the 'playground'.

so no misrepresentation at all then.

anyway, it was just a view. other views are available.

 

[editor]

i didn't say you carried advertising and i didn't say you only advertise the 'playground'.

so no misrepresentation at all then.

Um, you said....

given that this is being co-authored by a website that advertises the playground (brixton buzz) and a website which carries advertising for some of the new eateries playing a part in changing the face of brixton (brixton buzz)

 

[Dan U]

i have been hoist by own petard, the last bit re advertising was meant to be Brixton Blog.

I will go back and re-edit

and i wasn't implying you only advertise hipster stuff, because you don't but for a website called 'brixton buzz' which carries a lot of listings to be complaining about the conversion of brixton to a 'playground' could seem a bit odd.

it's just my opinion on one part of your message, thats all. i'm not criticising what you are trying to achieve.

 

[editor]

and i wasn't implying you only advertise hipster stuff, because you don't but for a website called 'brixton buzz' which carries a lot of listings to be complaining about the conversion of brixton to a 'playground' could seem a bit odd.

I think you need to take a look at what listings Brixton Buzz actually carries.

Anyway, please start another thread if you wish to pursue this supposed 'oddness'.

 

[Brixton Blog]

Hi all, thanks for these changes -- I'll make them tonight (and any more that come in) and send them onto Ed again. @Gramsci > thanks for correction on dates for comments. Zx

 

[Manter]

Not aware of this...would be v interested if this is the case. I know the Sheffield Hallam guys are doing work on related subjects but not on this issue (the new approach to rents/tenancies) specifically.

(I work in this field, if you hadn't deduced that already )

I will try and find his name- it was mentioned to me by a very leftie arts professor last week. But I wasn't really listening as he had managed to mention dialectical materialism twice and I was trying not to either yawn or laugh

 

[Manter]

The guidance says 2 years should only be "exceptional" circumstances (although what constitutes exceptional isn't really defined) - in my experience so far people seem to be offering at least 5 years (but it's early days).

Agree that it's important though which is why I flagged it - it's not just the rents that are important, the tenure is as well.

London is by definition exceptional

 

[Dan U]

I think you need to take a look at what listings Brixton Buzz actually carries.

Anyway, please start another thread if you wish to pursue this supposed 'oddness'.

why would i start another thread? it is solely relevant to this topic

anyway. point is made. will sign your petition when you get it up

 

[Gramsci]

I went looking for it yesterday and it had already gone. Surely there's some legal obligation for it the notice to be visible for a certain length of time?

I am going to email planning about it this evening. It should stay up until the date for comments has passed.

Its a bit strange it dissappeared. Normally they just get left up.

 

[Gramsci]

i would probably say something more like this 'Lambeth is in danger of restricting access to housing and changing the demographics of central brixton through subtle amendments to previously made planning agreements'

Leaving Dan U other comments aside I think this sounds better than saying "playground for those who can afford it alone". I do not think anyone can argue with the above. It is the nub of the issue. And if they do they are going to have to argue the case. Saying playground for those who can afford would allow the argument to be derailed as it almost was on this thread.

Id say this:

"Lambeth , if it allows this variation , will set a precedent for other large schemes in central Brixton in the future. Lambeth Council is in danger of allowing the demographics of central Brixton to be changed by allowing a definition of affordability in Section 106 agreements that is not in fact affordable when compared to social rented property."

The reason I put in the wording about other large schemes is because in the Brixton Masterplan there will be large schemes coming up in the future.

 

[Gramsci]

Here's a proposed joint statement, put together by the BB:



Please add your comments, edits and suggestions so we can firm this thing up and start a -publicisin'!

Id also say a social rent with a secure lifetime tenancy. Unlike as has been pointed out fixed term tenancies that appear to go with these new reforms. Also put in comment about the fact that the new "affordable" regime also is likely to mean fixed term tenancies of 2 to 5 years. After which the rent can be put up dramatically again.