Southwark Council approve Elephant redevelopment

[William of Walworth]

Massive revamp for the Elephant-- BBC story here

It isn't made obvious in the article that big plans have been in the pipeline for the Elephant and Caste for quite a few years now.

Most people will look at the prospective revamp from the point of view of 'disgusting architecture, knock it down, great!' which is understandable, I especially like the traffic rerouting ideas to make those roundabouts less of a vehicle Bedlam, and thus make the area friendlier to pedestrians. I also like the mention of trams!

And there will be more trees.

From a local perspective though I can see some downsides.

1. Ten years of heavy, noisy building work and a long term building site where the Shopping Centre is now.

2. Once you get inside the present Shopping Centre, the range of shops is excellent -- independent record shop, Clarks factory shoes outlet, second hand book shop, Columbian cafe well liked by the local Latins and others, many of the shops now in the Centre are inexpensive, and importantly, many are independent. The new Centre, despite talk of adjoining markets, etc., will inevitably be more dominated by homogenous, bland chain stores, more Surrey Quays and bluewater style ...

3. Now we can all agree that the Heygate Estate (huge Southwark Council housing East Berlin style slab blocks between the tops of New Kent and Walworth Road) are brutal and horrible. But a large number of tenants (about 2000 I think ) will be compulsorily displaced into being Housing Association tenants, in which capcity they are likely to pay more rent and have less security of tenure than with the Council -- there is a thread by Guinnessdrinker on the London forum about Southwark altering the tenancy agreement to the detriment of prior rights to be rehoused by the Council when major building works are going on-- these rights will now be removed from the agreement, which will help redevelopers of the Estate no end ...

4. So I'm a tad suspicious of the poll in the BBC story suggesting strong local approval fr the changes. Not sure where the poll came from, also I am aware from my dad's peripheral involvement with local forums responding to the proposed Elephant redevelopments, that in fact the Heygate Tenants and Residents Association have lots of reservations and concerns about th whole scheme.

5. The private housing which will be the moneymaking side for a developer of rebuildng the Estate, will I expect change the social demographic of the area, and may well lead to Brixton style debnates about yuppification/effect of increased property values on local shops, pubs, the community. Currently Walworth Road still has the feel of a strong, inexpensive, shopping area with lots of independent shops, second hand shops, cheap shops to add colour and interest to the my main High Street ... how much of all this will survive?

I'm not by any means all against the Elephant redevelopment, but I am suggesting some strong caveats and attempted to point out some possible disadvantages.

So let discussion begin .. it's a huge redevelopment scheme and vastly significant for all around it.

What do you all think, Elephant residents or not?

Please post links to other websites coverig this, too ....

 

[guinnessdrinker]

william, I clicked on the link but all I could get was an image and no text

that said, the heygate may be an eyesore from the bullying school of architecture (I vaguely remember somebody posting something about it being brutalistic architecture) and absolutely hated by me, but what matters most is the right of tenants on the heygate to have a choice on their future. the libdem controlled council is opposing any tenant referendum on the issue, unlike the previous labour administration on the issue of the aylesbury estate.
there was however a byelection in the ward covering the heygate, unfortunately the council housing floggers lib dems won .

 

[Stig]

W of W posting

I didn't know that the Lib Dems had won that bye-election.... if not, not very new Labour (in this area) would have had won it instead, and the Council would have become hung, with the possibility of a little bit more (?) voice for disgruntled tenants ...

W of W

 

[hatboy]

The Heygate flats are nice inside: Big windows, two levels with varnished wood stairs. A mate of mine who is a painter used to live there and the flat was great for him because it was very light.

Agree with all that you say really William. I think you should send that post to everybody relevant. Maybe start with Fred Manson - Southwark's Director of Regeneration and Environment. You're lucky with him you know William. He's much more adventurous than whoever his Lambeth equivalent is. We've got almost no truly inovative new architecture in Brixton. Southwark has the Peckham Library for instance.

 

[marty21]

Massive revamp for the Elephant-- BBC story here



3. Now we can all agree that the Heygate Estate (huge Southwark Council housing East Berlin style slab blocks between the tops of New Kent and Walworth Road) are brutal and horrible. But a large number of tenants (about 2000 I think ) will be compulsorily displaced into being Housing Association tenants, in which capcity they are likely to pay more rent and have less security of tenure than with the Council -- there is a thread by Guinnessdrinker on the London forum about Southwark altering the tenancy agreement to the detriment of prior rights to be rehoused by the Council when major building works are going on-- these rights will now be removed from the agreement, which will help redevelopers of the Estate no end ...

4. So I'm a tad suspicious of the poll in the BBC story suggesting strong local approval fr the changes. Not sure where the poll came from, also I am aware from my dad's peripheral involvement with local forums responding to the proposed Elephant redevelopments, that in fact the Heygate Tenants and Residents Association have lots of reservations and concerns about th whole scheme.


....

a minor point william, if the current tenants become housing association tenants, they will still have security of tenure, in all probability, they will transfer the right to buy as well (i know your feelings on rtb btw) and housing association tenancies are very similar to council tenancies, in fact in some circumstances they are better in terms of retaining social housing. Most properties owned by housing associations do not have rtb, they have a scheme called "right to acquire" with relatively small discounts, but that only applies to certain properties, those built after 1998 iirc, with certain funding.

i know council tenants have a certain fear of their rights being diminished in any stock transfer, but imho, they do maintain many of those rights, in the event of any stock transfer. Presumably however, southwark would put this to the vote anyway....

 

[guinnessdrinker]

a minor point william, if the current tenants become housing association tenants, they will still have security of tenure, in all probability, they will transfer the right to buy as well (i know your feelings on rtb btw) and housing association tenancies are very similar to council tenancies, in fact in some circumstances they are better in terms of retaining social housing. Most properties owned by housing associations do not have rtb, they have a scheme called "right to acquire" with relatively small discounts, but that only applies to certain properties, those built after 1998 iirc, with certain funding.

i know council tenants have a certain fear of their rights being diminished in any stock transfer, but imho, they do maintain many of those rights, in the event of any stock transfer. Presumably however, southwark would put this to the vote anyway....

the point is that southwark IS NOT putting it to the vote of tenants. southwark say that since tenants are "consulted", whatever that means, there is no need to put it to the means. cllr catherine bowman, who is head/chair (or whatever) of regeneration on the council has been quite strict on that (she also happens to be one of the local councillors for the ward).

it's not a normal stock transfer. it is wholescale demolition to be replaced with, private properties and housing association flats. apparently, in these circumstances, they are not bound to conduct a vote.

the problem with housing association flats is ground 8 of the 1988 housing act. if a tenant is two months in arrears (housing benefit problems, etc), a housing officer in a HA can go to court and seek eviction and there is no discretion for the judge to say no. as long as the officer says the right thing, it has to be rubberstamped. also, with the council, you elect your landlord and you can put pressure on your councillors to do things. you do not elect your HA.

 

[hatboy]

But ethical HAs would never evict a tenant if they could agree a payment plan or whatever. HAs can be excellent landlords you know. But that does tend to apply more to the small ones.

Anyone got any links to illustrations of the E & C plans. What will these houses and "landmark buildings" look like. The above is not clear.

 

[lang rabbie]

Somehow, Southwark has found alternative sites to construct homes within a reasonable distance of the Elephant for everyone on the Heygate who wants to stay local. There are rows about the density of some of these new buildings, particularly from neighbours who will lose views etc. and where trees will come down on sites vacant for so long that people have started to regard them as open space.

What was astonishing going through the area during the by-election campaign was how Labour's conversion to "tenant democracy" seems to have backfired. Most locals that I spoke seemed to want the scheme to start rather than being "consulted about consultation" again.

I don't think that it helps that the campaign to "Defend Council Housing" was seen by some tenants as the UNISON members in Southwark's Housing Offices arguing for no change.

 

[lang rabbie]

Maybe start with Fred Manson - Southwark's Director of Regeneration and Environment.

I think Fred's been gone from Southwark for two years now.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

But ethical HAs would never evict a tenant if they could agree a payment plan or whatever. HAs can be excellent landlords you know. But that does tend to apply more to the small ones.

Anyone got any links to illustrations of the E & C plans. What will these houses and "landmark buildings" look like. The above is not clear.

but they won't be small cuddly ones. your HA may be excellent (I think we may have had this argument before) but the larger ones may have management that might think different.

 

[lang rabbie]

Full link for BBC news story

See also article from independent [url]www.london-se1.co.uk website with additional images[/URL]

The official project website is at http://www.elephantandcastle.org.uk/ - few downloads at the moment, but you can request the development framework on CD as a freebie.

 

[Gramsci]

Also remember that their was some "Eco Tower" design.Found it on google.I dont know or its going ahead or just an architects proposals

http://www.trhamzahyeang.com/project/skyscrapers/elephant-tower01.html

It actually looks really good.The issue is whether this will be another development for Londons "loft living" yuppies working in advertising, PR or the City.Could solve the problem by shooting them like partridges .

Societys "low achievers" may get pushed off somewhere else as they make the new place look scruffy.

 

[Gramsci]

As im one of those Brixtonites I would be very afraid of the long term implications of this project.Their is a good chance it will just end with all the small retailers going to be replaced by brand names etc(as in Covent Garden).

The social housing could be less than now and the project will be used to get rid of Council tenancies.In effect a from of stock transfer without calling it that.

The trouble with stock transfer votes is that the Government/Council say in effect that if you dont vote for it you wont get any money.

Camden Council just lost a vote on a transfer to an ALMO.Possibly partly due to the cock up at Westminsters ALMO.

 

[lang rabbie]

Also remember that their was some "Eco Tower" design.Found it on google.I dont know or its going ahead or just an architects proposals

http://www.trhamzahyeang.com/project/skyscrapers/elephant-tower01.html

I think that's the design team that contributed to the previous masterplan promoted by Southwark's then "development partner". In the current scheme, the twin towers sited where the current shopping centre is have some green atria.

 

[lang rabbie]

It looks like no change in central Government policy on money for improvements where tenants vote against transfers to Housing Associations or ALMOs (arms-length management organisations).

Article in this weeks Public Finance on failure to meet Decent Homes standard due to the policy

'Keith Hill - Matey Minister' - interview with Streatham MP and Housing Minister

But he was forced to take a firm line over the decision of tenants in the London Borough of Camden to reject an arm’s-length management organisation for housing. Hill continues to stress there will be no ‘fourth way’ for councils not meeting the decent homes standard through an Almo, stock transfer or the PFI.
...
‘National government has taken responsibility for the provision of resources. We are making the offer,’ he adds. ‘Frankly, it’s up to local authorities and tenants to make a decision on the matter.’

 

[marty21]

the point is that southwark IS NOT putting it to the vote of tenants. southwark say that since tenants are "consulted", whatever that means, there is no need to put it to the means. cllr catherine bowman, who is head/chair (or whatever) of regeneration on the council has been quite strict on that (she also happens to be one of the local councillors for the ward).

it's not a normal stock transfer. it is wholescale demolition to be replaced with, private properties and housing association flats. apparently, in these circumstances, they are not bound to conduct a vote.

the problem with housing association flats is ground 8 of the 1988 housing act. if a tenant is two months in arrears (housing benefit problems, etc), a housing officer in a HA can go to court and seek eviction and there is no discretion for the judge to say no. as long as the officer says the right thing, it has to be rubberstamped. also, with the council, you elect your landlord and you can put pressure on your councillors to do things. you do not elect your HA.

council housing officers can also apply to court for possession orders after 8 weeks, 4 weeks arrears serve a notice of seeking possession, and 4 weeks later apply to court. In practice, Housing Associations and councils usually get suspended possession orders, giving tenants time to repay the arrears at an amount agreed in court....

i agree with you about councillors having more influence on council housing departments than on housing associations, but councillors do write to housing associations and their views are listened to, and they are responded to

i don't know enough about southwark housing and the consultation process to comment, but this is a long term development, and the sort of thing that will arouse local passions, and the perfect vehicle for a one issue candidates in any local elections which would send a message to the councillors (if enough people voted for them), didn't the bristol party gather a respectable amount of votes in the last round of local elections?

 

[guinnessdrinker]

council housing officers can also apply to court for possession orders after 8 weeks, 4 weeks arrears serve a notice of seeking possession, and 4 weeks later apply to court. In practice, Housing Associations and councils usually get suspended possession orders, giving tenants time to repay the arrears at an amount agreed in court....

i agree with you about councillors having more influence on council housing departments than on housing associations, but councillors do write to housing associations and their views are listened to, and they are responded to

i don't know enough about southwark housing and the consultation process to comment, but this is a long term development, and the sort of thing that will arouse local passions, and the perfect vehicle for a one issue candidates in any local elections which would send a message to the councillors (if enough people voted for them), didn't the bristol party gather a respectable amount of votes in the last round of local elections?

ground 8 does not exist for council tenancies, only for HAs. Ground 8 was apparently not used very often, but they are increasingly being used. I have actually seen it being used in a very nasty way to get rid of a tenant they presumably did not like. the point about ground 8 is that the judge does not have any discretion whether to suspend the possession order or not.

 

[marty21]

ground 8 does not exist for council tenancies, only for HAs. Ground 8 was apparently not used very often, but they are increasingly being used. I have actually seen it being used in a very nasty way to get rid of a tenant they presumably did not like. the point about ground 8 is that the judge does not have any discretion whether to suspend the possession order or not.

fairy nuff....

it is one of the few differences then, and in 10 years of working for a housing association, i've never heard it being used, it's always policy to go for a suspended possession order, if it is being used i suspect it may be for reasons of abandonment...

 

[past caring]

Apologies if some of this appears condescending - but I do think some of the bigger picture is missing so far.....

The E&C redevelopment has been mooted for some years now. It's become so much accepted that thing is going to happen that the area has become more run down as businesses move out of the area in the expectation that their current premises are due for demolition (the huge block to the South of the two roundabouts - the same one that houses Castellos - is a case in point)...

The main reason why the thing has been delayed so far is the problem of attracting businesses into the new development. WoW is correct in stating that the Surrey Quays style development is one that planners want. The catch with that though is the area's current demographics - there simply aren't enough middle class/wealthier people to sustain the kind of shops/businesses that would make the new shopping centre a success (if it were to house the Surrey Quays style chains)....

The proposals for the Heygate (and beyond that, the Aylesbury) have to be seen in this context. Let's be clear - this isn't simply about stock transfer, the proposals also contain provision for homes to be let at market rent and homes to buy. When these provisions are taken into account, the net loss of social housing is even greater.

Two years ago the council lost a ballot of tenants on the Aylesbury over stock transfer. Despite, on the one hand, bombarding tenants with glossy brochures showing how wonderful the new flats would be, and on the other, effectively engaing in blackmail - there'll be no repairs unless you accept transfer, over 70% of tenats still voted to reject the proposals. Why? The simple realisation that not everyone could benefit - of 14,000 homes, only 10,500 were to be built under the new scheme. And like the Heygate, the true figure for social housing was even lower once "market rent" and "homes to buy" properties were factored in.

It's in this context that the council is refusing a ballot on the Heygate proposals....

giunessdrinker is right about the possession stuff - although I would argue that the picture is actually worse than the one he presents. Secure (council) and assured (HA) tenancies share grounds for possession - simple rent arrears. This can be any amount of money (it's ground 1 for secure tenancies and ground 10 for assured) - but crucially, with these grounds, the court has to be satisfied that it is reasonable for possession to be granted. So, in circumstances where your rent arrears are caused wholly or mainly by unpaid Housing Benefit, at worst the court will grant a suspended order.

Where ground 8 is used (two months or more arrears under assured tenancies) this is a mandatory ground - ie the court has no discretion. It must order outright possession, no matter what the cause of the arrears.

I'd argue that the situation with HB fuck ups is already bad enough in boroughs like Southwark and Lambeth. But it's set to get worse. The government has been "piloting" its new plans for HB - note that it's a pilot, not a trial - this stuff will happen. The new scheme will basically result in a "standard" or fixed amount of HB being paid to all claimants - it will vary between localities but not within localities. Further, HB will be paid direct to the claimant - the notion is that this will allow claimants to "negotiate" with their landlords - and any "excess" HB can be retained by the claimant as extra income.

As any fule kno, this will merely result in all landlords in a particular locality working out what the HB fugure is and charging that - HA landlords included. There's no way tenants are going to be able to negotiate.

The real agenda is one of distinguishing between the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor - something hardly new to this government. Those who end up in rent arrears and who lose their homes because they spend the HB on other things - a proper diet for their kids, paying arrears of utilities bills - will be labeled "feckless" - they'll deserve to lose their homes.

marty says that ground 8 is rarely used - but it's becoming more so. And the truth is that, as a result of the above proposals, there are already HAs in East London who are refusing to accept HB claimants as tenants.

So I'm sorry, I see these proposals as offering nothing to Southwark tenants - it's simply more social cleansing - a process whose main protagonist in Southwark was hatboy's her, Fred Manson. This was the Fred Manson who had to be gagged by Nu Labour after being stupid enough to reveal the rationale of his regeneration plans. Basically, what he said was that more "mixed" (read yuppie/gentrifier) communities had to be created in Southwark in order to improve schools in the borough - the current, working class, communities were simply not "aspirational" enough, in his view. Basically, a long winded way of saying that Southwark schools are crap because too many poor, thick pupils attend them.

(Surprising stat for the nerds - Southwark is ranked 16th in the UK for those educated to degree level or above - nearly 35% of adults - link

 

[marty21]

marty says that ground 8 is rarely used - but it's becoming more so. And the truth is that, as a result of the above proposals, there are already HAs in East London who are refusing to accept HB claimants as tenants.

So - link

i didn't think that ha's could refuse tenants on those grounds, ha's have to give a high percentage of new voids to the local authority and don't usually refuse noms unless the property is unsuitable, ie a disabled person being offered a flat in the 3rd floor with no lift...

i'd be interested to hear what ha in east london is doing this....imho, they can't refuse a nom because someone is a hb claimant...

 

[guinnessdrinker]

I'd argue that the situation with HB fuck ups is already bad enough in boroughs like Southwark and Lambeth. But it's set to get worse. The government has been "piloting" its new plans for HB - note that it's a pilot, not a trial - this stuff will happen. The new scheme will basically result in a "standard" or fixed amount of HB being paid to all claimants - it will vary between localities but not within localities. Further, HB will be paid direct to the claimant - the notion is that this will allow claimants to "negotiate" with their landlords - and any "excess" HB can be retained by the claimant as extra income.

As any fule kno, this will merely result in all landlords in a particular locality working out what the HB fugure is and charging that - HA landlords included. There's no way tenants are going to be able to negotiate.

I believe lewisham is to be one of the pilot areas. I think it's only private landlords that are involved in the new plans but yes, the idea of the rent being given to the tenant rather than direct to the landlord is a disaster waiting to happen. the temptation to convert the rent into special brew is only too great.

 

[hatboy]

I can't say I know much about Fred Manson's or his successor's politics but the environmental and architectural improvement to E & C should be excellent. That counts alot for me. Ugly buildings are utterley depressing.

By the way "past caring" - socially mixed areas are what's needed. I don't approve of any ghetto - whether posh (Notting Hill?) or poor. The problems come when the different classes and types of people don't want or try to integrate. This could be being posh and hiding in a gated community or being poor and resenting all with more than you, whoever they might be.

Whether enough social housing is being provided at E&C is another thing.

But the place is a fucking dump and lots of people welcome and have been waiting a long time for improvement.

 

[past caring]

errrrrr "hatboy" (seeing as we're into that kind of silliness now, wtf? ) we may or may not agree that "socially mixed" areas are what is needed.

The question here is why established working class or poorer communities should be forced to make way for the more wealthy. Both the Heygate and Alylesbury schemes involve a net loss of housing (irrespective of the fact that a substantial amount of the remaining housing will not be social). And by a net loss, I'm not talking a couple of dozen - the figure is several thousand. Where are these people going to live?

Why should they be forced to move away from their community, their family, their friends? Why should they be forced to move further out from inner London - and into a longer and hence more expensive commute into what are, in all likelihood, already poorly paid jobs?

Would you feel quite so sanguine if such a move were forced on you?

 

[hatboy]

You're right. I agree. But I can't help getting worked up about the new architecture. It does look exciting and architecture and the built environment is a big interest of mine.

PS - You never did send that IWCA booklet as promised. I know you didn't otherwise I'd have it. I'm afraid that now makes me think you are not a man of your word.

 

[lang rabbie]

Both the Heygate and Alylesbury schemes involve a net loss of housing (irrespective of the fact that a substantial amount of the remaining housing will not be social). And by a net loss, I'm not talking a couple of dozen - the figure is several thousand. Where are these people going to live?

Err.. I'm not sure how many flats there currently are on the Heygate, but I'm pretty sure that it is has to be less than the "5,300 new and replacement homes" included in the latest Elephant and Castle masterplan.

What numbers are you working on?

 

[Brixton Hatter]

well it's great the plans have finally got approval and they can get going with it.

However, having been born on the Heygate (my mum got an NHS flat there in the 70s with her job as a midwife) there is a twinge of sadness that it's going. The flats were ok and you were close to the centre of town, the tube, the river etc. I lived back in the Elephant as a student and despite the whole area's general grottiness, it did have *something* that appealed to me - maybe the fact that everyone else hated it! As someone already said, the shops in the shopping centre are an interesting mixture and I regularly used the record shop, the caffs, the tobacco shop etc. I even won a few quid in the bingo hall once with Rollem (we were the youngest people in there). The local shopkeepers and businesses were friendly - will that still survive after a massive redevelopment? As Hatboy said, perhaps it depends upon whether the new people are willing to engage with the community, rather than spend all the time on their tenth floor flat with nice views of the river.

The new market square etc sounds like a good idea - I think well thought-out communal space always is. And the road re-routing is obviously sensible. Not quite as sure about the housing for the reasons already stated - there will undoubtedly be an influx which will make property prices rise in the area - which will be good for a few and devastating for others. I remember from a thread here previously the reasons Southwark gave for not replacing the flats with the same number of new homes - they apparently did a survey and claimed that out of the Xthousand (might have been 2,500) on the Heygate, only (something like) 1500 wanted to stay, with the others planning either to get their own accomodation or move away from the borough. Would be interesting to find that info again.

Past Caring wrote

the area has become more run down as businesses move out of the area in the expectation that their current premises are due for demolition (the huge block to the South of the two roundabouts - the same one that houses Castellos - is a case in point)...

Yes - the University, the Noodle Bar, the Yoru bar that stayed open late, that acquarium place were all there - they've all been gone for at least a few years now. It does look bad. The purple paint that was used on the shopping centre a few years back is fcuked now - so fairplay that they're finally getting on with the whole plan.

The one thing I hope above all is that no-one currently living on the Heygate ends up without a secure place to live due to these plans.

 

[bruise]

I feel torn about this, but tend to agree with Past Caring on the whole.

The current is a mess. Granted. And the plans include pretty pictures (love the 'station with a view', the roundabout park and stuff like that). But some of the captions suggest the kind of social change being forced on the area as well. Aparently the market will have a couple of 'character' areas - ie Londoners get pushed into being 'colour' for home counties and city types.

They just can't ignore this windfall so close into central London and so ripe for the picking...

 

[kea]

i've been invited to the official launch of the plans - it's at a property conference in cannes. the bumpf has the usual 'london regeneration scheme' blurb about its history and diversity, its proximity to the city and the west end, transport links, blah blah - definitely sounds aimed at yuppies to me.

 

[bruise]

the official launch of the plans - at a property conference in cannes.

somehow that is quite revealing in itself

 

[guinnessdrinker]

I can't say I know much about Fred Manson's or his successor's politics but the environmental and architectural improvement to E & C should be excellent. That counts alot for me. Ugly buildings are utterley depressing.

By the way "past caring" - socially mixed areas are what's needed. I don't approve of any ghetto - whether posh (Notting Hill?) or poor. The problems come when the different classes and types of people don't want or try to integrate. This could be being posh and hiding in a gated community or being poor and resenting all with more than you, whoever they might be.

Whether enough social housing is being provided at E&C is another thing.

But the place is a fucking dump and lots of people welcome and have been waiting a long time for improvement.

if it so wonderful and the place such a dump that people are said to welcome the change (who are they, anyway, tenants?), why is the council steadfastly refusing a vote? are they afraid to lose, like on the aylesbury?

But I can't help getting worked up about the new architecture. It does look exciting and architecture and the built environment is a big interest of mine.

I have lots of dreams, but I don't impose them on other people without their consents .