Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Gramsci said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good point but I might avoid mentioning 2 yrs a) because it's v unlikely and b) because in a negotiation sense it sets the bar low
 
Manter said:
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
Click to expand...

Imagine he was probably talking about the work Paul Hickman's doing for DWP on Universal Credit /housing benefit payments, but I might be wrong. Anyway, sorry a bit of a diversion.
 
editor said:
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'!
Click to expand...

Also change the sentence starting "Whilst a social rent would be fixed" to;

"Whilst a social rent would be fixed, an "affordable" rent means the tenant would pay roughly 55% of the Open Market Rent for the local area. Which is liable to go up over time. "

The following sentence about increasing cost of living in central Brixton ( gentrification) makes more sense then. The issue about so called "affordable" rent is that its linked to rent of area. How I do not know. There are some posting up here who know more. Anyone know how its calculated?
 
Gramsci said:
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.
Click to expand...

you put it much better than i managed, thanks :)
 
The last thing I thought of that could go into the U75/ BB/ B buzz statement is that the provider of the rented units should be an RSL as it states in the original Section 106 and the Section 106 should not to be changed to widen the RSL definition to include Affordable Housing Providers. Which is in effect private for profit landlords.
 
Gramsci said:
The last thing I thought of that could go into the U75/ BB/ B buzz statement is that the provider of the rented units should be an RSL as it states in the original Section 106 and the Section 106 should not to be changed to widen the RSL definition to include Affordable Housing Providers. Which is in effect private for profit landlords.
Click to expand...
This is crucial - it's not just about the 13 units as described in Ed's original statement, as I understand it. It's about watering down all the elements of social/affordable housing in the development. Mentioning "13 units" makes it sound like a minor problem - I think that reference to "13" should be removed.

It might also be worth making the following points:
- The original s106 agreement doesn't appear to be available anywhere on the web - how can we compare the variation with the original if the application is incomplete? It's almost as if they're trying to sneak this through without anyone noticing.

- It's a bloody cheek the developer is claiming the development might not be viable without these changes. They're either really bad at maths (unlikely) or they're trying to extract max profit by watering down their statutory commitments. Wealthy developers are sitting on huge swathes of unused land around the country - the reason they aren't building much at the moment is because they're waiting for prices to rise. It's all about profit for them - hence trying to water down social housing provision, which is less profitable for them.

Crispy said:
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.
Click to expand...
And massive taxes on empty land which is being sat upon by developers (and supermarkets.)
 
And to reiterate, if you want to object, click here and log in to make a comment:

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

case reference: 12/03393/S106

As Gramsci described earlier, you don't need to go into massive detail - just click on the button saying that you object and describe your reasons (e.g. watering down the social housing provision, making it more expensive, making tenancies shorter and less secure, question why should a retrospective change be allowed etc.)
 
Hi all,

Comments combined into a version below. If OK, I will publish on the site by 3pm this afternoon (is that an OK deadline?) and also will start up an e-petition (NB. This will count as one objection to a planning application). I will also link to Section 106 explanation, since lots of people won't know what that is :) Thanks to Brixton Hatter, Gramsci, Dan U, niplsa, beeboo, editor (and anyone else I've missed out) for making it a lot better.

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 with a secure lifetime tenancy, an ‘affordable’ rent means the tenant would pay roughly 55% of the open market rent for the local area, which is liable to go up over time. 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. Affordable tenancies are also likely to mean fixed term contracts, after which the rent can be put up again. It is therefore extra important to conserve social rented properties at the heart of Brixton.

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.

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

We also urge the council to ensure that the provider of the rented units is a registered social landlord, as is stated in the original Section 106. The Section 106 agreement should not be changed to widen this to include affordable housing providers, which are in effect private, for-profit landlords.

The original Section 106 agreement does not appear to be available anywhere on the web – we call for transparency on this point as it is necessary to see exactly what variation on the original agreement Barratt Homes wishes to make.

Developers like Barratt Homes claim that developments are less financially viable with social rented units included. Unlike developers, however, we are concerned more for our community than big profits, and we hope this is the case with Lambeth’s planners too.

The reference for this planning application is 12/03393/S106. Comments on the planning application can be made until October 26 - 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)
 
Many thanks, good stuff. I've suggested some amends in bold here. Feel free to use/change them as you wish :)

Brixton Blog said:
Urban 75, Brixton Buzz and Brixton Blog are partnering to protest against Barratt Homes’ application to water down the provision of social and affordable housing, including 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 with a secure lifetime tenancy, an ‘affordable’ rent means the tenant would pay roughly 55% of the open market rent for the local area, which is liable to go up over time. 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. Affordable tenancies are also likely to mean fixed term contracts (rather than longer-term security), after which the rent can be put up again. It is therefore extra important to conserve social rented properties at the heart of Brixton.

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.

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

We also urge the council to ensure that the provider of the rented units is a registered social landlord, as is stated in the original Section 106. The Section 106 agreement should not be changed to widen this to include affordable housing providers, which are in effect private, for-profit landlords.

The original Section 106 agreement does not appear to be available anywhere on the web – we call for transparency on this point as it is necessary to see exactly what variation on the original agreement Barratt Homes wishes to make.

Developers like Barratt Homes claim that developments are less financially viable with social rented units included. Unlike developers, however, we are concerned more for our community than big profits, and we hope this is the case with Lambeth’s planners too.

The reference for this planning application is 12/03393/S106. Comments on the planning application can be made until October 26 - 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)
Click to expand...
 
Just a question on details but did Barratt homes get the original permission? I may be wrong but thought planning was sought by Places for People and then sold on to Barratt last year? Applications as recent as Sep 2011 (and maybe later) are in the name Places for People. Regardless of whether it is right to have the s106 removed, Barratt are seeking changes to a planning application that they played no part in getting so the comparisons to Tesco in Streatham Hub don't seem quite right. It would be a shame if the protest could be dismissed as uninformed or alarmist on that technicality.
 
thanks Rushy - very good point - if so, it would be worth changing the angle/wording re: Tesco and focus more on protesting against the variation from s106.
 
I think that would be good. There is nothing wrong with challenging s106 agreements post or mid-construction per se - they are sometimes badly worded, impractical or have become obsolete. It is the nature of this particular s106 which is the issue.

Barratt's argument can be read here. Click on documents and then covering letter.

They seem to simply be arguing that the s106 makes the project unviable. Not a strong argument given they only purchased the site last year (any conditions should have been reflected in the transaction price) and they are steaming ahead with building.

There is reference to "decanting of Somerleyton".
 
Why not discuss it over canapés ?

Email from Barratt's:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come to the exclusive launch of Brixton Square on Thursday 4th October

Join us for canapés and refreshments between 4pm and 8pm at the exclusive launch of Brixton Square. This exciting new collection of bespoke apartments is situated adjacent to the fashionable Brixton Village and just a short walk from the wide range of shops and fantastic bars, clubs and restaurants in the heart of Brixton.

•1 and 2 bedroom apartments, most with balcony or terrace
•Duplex apartments with barrel vaulted ceilings
•Landscaped courtyard and roof gardens
•Just a five minute* walk to Brixton tube station (zone 2)
•Be in Oxford Circus in 13 minutes†
•Ready to move into summer 2013

Prices from £262,000
Coldharbour Lane, Brixton SW9 8PL

Visit our website or call 0845 539 0038 for further details.
 
I have taken out bit about Tesco and included info on Places for People:
Urban 75, Brixton Buzz and Brixton Blog are partnering to protest against Barratt Homes’ application to water down the provision of social and affordable housing, including 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 with a secure lifetime tenancy, an ‘affordable’ rent means the tenant would pay roughly 55% of the open market rent for the local area, which is liable to go up over time. 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. Affordable tenancies are also likely to mean fixed term contracts (rather than longer-term security), after which the rent can be put up again. It is therefore extra important to conserve social rented properties at the heart of Brixton.

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.

Permission was originally given to Places for People to build the ‘Brixton Square’ on the basis of having socially rented housing. Barratt Homes then bought the site in the knowledge of this and should not be allowed to break that promise.

We also urge the council to ensure that the provider of the rented units is a registered social landlord, as is stated in the original Section 106. The Section 106 agreement should not be changed to widen this to include affordable housing providers, which are in effect private, for-profit landlords.

Developers like Barratt Homes claim that developments are less financially viable with social rented units included. Unlike developers, however, we are concerned more for our community than big profits, and we hope this is the case with Lambeth’s planners too.

The reference for this planning application is 12/03393/S106. Comments on the planning application can be made until October 26 - 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)
 
Gramsci said:
The last thing I thought of that could go into the U75/ BB/ B buzz statement is that the provider of the rented units should be an RSL as it states in the original Section 106 and the Section 106 should not to be changed to widen the RSL definition to include Affordable Housing Providers. Which is in effect private for profit landlords.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that simple. They're trying to widen the scope from the original which defined RSL as being registered with the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA). However, these days you can be registered with the HCA and still be a private for-profit landlord (there was a rumour that a supermarket was registering with the HCA). And you can be unregistered and not-for-profit. So it's not a clear distinction between profit/non-profit.

I think the variation might be something to do with the fact the HCA's powers in London have recently been passed to the GLA, so theoretically providers in London might not need to be HCA registered. I think this might just be a technicality but admittedly this isn't exactly my area of expertise.
 
I've only really skim read their application and it seems to be arguing that the economic climate has affected project viability. I would say something like this:

Permission was originally given to Places for People to build the ‘Brixton Square’ on the basis of having socially rented housing. Barratt Homes then bought the site in the knowledge of this and should not be allowed to break that promise.

Barratt's application to remove the s106 points out that the original discussions for the site (by original developers People for Places) date back to 2005 since when the financial environment has changed. They also cite deflated private housing markets as an obstacle to development viability. Whilst parts of the economy are undoubtedly struggling in a way that was not forseeable in 2005 it is worth highlighting the fact that, according to the Land Registry House Price Index, average flat / maisonette prices In Lambeth for 08/2012 are currently indexing 143 against 08/2005. Notwithstanding, Barratt only purchased the site from the original developer last year and would have been well aware of the moribund financial climate when calculating the site value. Despite the prevailing economic gloom, the same Land Registry figures show that flat / maisonette prices are currently 8% higher than they were at this time last year when the deal was negotiated as well as 8% higher than they were at the peak of the market in August 2007. Furthermore the latest Findaproperty.com rental price index is showing inflation of 9.3% year on year Q1 2012. ​
 
Hi all, will wait until a bit more info on this cleared up and go for Monday, as best to be accurate.Though we will try to write a small news story on it over the w/e.

The following press release was sent to me today:
SITUATED in Brixton, a thriving area of South West London within Zone 2, Barratt’s Brixton Square is within quick and easy reach of central London. This development of 107 one and two-bedroom apartments with balconies is a five minute walk from both Brixton underground and overground stations. With prices starting at £265,000, homes at Brixton Square are expected to be very popular.

Thanks to the government-backed NewBuy scheme, those qualifying can purchase a one-bedroom flat with a deposit as low as £13,250.

Off plan sales at the development will launch at the end of September, with first completions scheduled from June 2013.

Brixton Square, a brand new development on the site of a former warehouse, borders Brixton Village, a vibrant indoor market that offers fresh market produce as well as high quality restaurants, bars and shops. Some of the popular names in food that have flagship restaurants within the market are Honest Burger and Mama Lan, the latter of which appeared in Channel 4’s Gok cooks Chinese. There is also a wide selection of independent shops and delis such as Cannon & Cannon, the British cheese and charcuterie and Market Row Wines. Entertainment in the area includes the popular Ritzy cinema and Brixton o2 Academy.

Connections to Victoria via the Victoria line are within seven minutes and The City can be reached in under twenty minutes.


Gary Patrick, regional sales director, comments:

“Brixton Square is very convenient for young professionals working in the City, with a commute of under twenty minutes by underground. And Brixton Village, an excellent place for meeting friends and shopping, is on the doorstep.

“And living at Brixton Square is affordable thanks to NewBuy, offering a real opportunity for those renting in the area to step onto the property ladder.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
The depressing growth of people with substance dependency on the streets of Brixton
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
Rushy
Rushy
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Tulster218
T
M
Vision Homes Council Housing Takeover - please sign the petition
Replies
7
Views
425
madshadow
M
Rushy
Petition to make busy Effra Road / Brixton Water Lane junction safer for pedestrians
Replies
18
Views
1K
Zapp Brannigan
Zapp Brannigan
story
Palestine support action in Brixton
Replies
23
Views
1K
8ball
8ball
Back
Top Bottom