Southwark to demolish Aylesbury estate

[Mrs Magpie]

I didn't get to know any of these fabled social networks, so can't comment on them

A lot of my first husband's family live on the Aylesbury. They were moved there after the slum clearances in Waterloo/Elephant. These social networks do exist and I'm worried that they will be blown asunder....they only survived after the slum clearances because people were re-housed in the same place (The Aylesbury).

 

[William of Walworth]

2759 council housing flats on the aylesbury to be replaced with 2200 Housing associations flats and 2700 shared or private ownership flats. this means less and not so good social housing and displacement of communities.

Is this information in Southwark News? Will get a copy tomorrow morning ....

Looks like Stock Transfer is a done deal and that no-one will have any option to stay with the Council -- not surprising, but still outrageous!

'Choice' my arse!

 

[William of Walworth]

I lived on the Aylesbury for a brief ( some months) and very unpleasant while in the early 90s. Though I didn't get to know any of these fabled social networks, so can't comment on them, my impression was it was an unmitigated shithole and the sooner it got knocked down the better. Piss everywhere, broken lifts (and glass, and light fittings), wrecked cars and furniture, barricaded shops selling rip-off, out of date, semi poisonous food, and plenty of fighting all around. Inside the flats were indeed bright and spacious (not hard when you're 12 storeys up) but many had damp, mould, and window / plumbing problems. And this was BEFORE crack & guns even really took off.

AS LONG AS it does NOT mean the mass deportation of poorer Londoners - to somewhere even further out & more benighted - I truly can't see anything wrong, in itself, with getting rid of this hideous complex of monuments to architects' egos. It didn't work. full stop. protect the tenants, for sure. but those things were some of the ugliest buildings on the face of the earth and getting rid of them is no crime.

Can I invite you to read the rest of the thread a bit more carefully? Cheers.

<edit to add> I'm pretty confident that late 80s/early 90s were the nadir of the estate's fortunes, and that conditions have improved somewhat through most of the estate since then. Not claiming it's paradise at all, just that it may not NOW be as bad as you dismissively assert on out of date experience.

I think you're making assumptions about crack and guns. They're pretty likely to exist there, but the way you talk (with no direct or current knowledge!) makes it sound like the place is infested with them, which the South London Press and Southwark News would be making much more noise about than they are, if either were a really major problem.

I also think that ranting about the crap architecture while paying no more than secondary attention to the central issue -- what's going to happen to the tenants, under what conditions are they going to be rehoused -- is playing the Government and the Council's game for them.

 

[William of Walworth]

The Aylesbury is not the only estate due to be demolished in London. The huge Woodberry Downs estate in Hackney (perhaps the largest council estate in the UK) is to be demolished and replaced by a far larger number of housing units. First stage of the demolition is to commence (I believe) in November.


BarryB

I was under the impression that the Aylesbury was about the largest. In yesterday's Guardian it said well over 7000 residents

Do you know more about what's happening in Hackney? I'm presuming (given the climate of the times ) that the replacement flats will be Housing Association, not Council

 

[newbie]

I wonder what proportion of Aylesbury tenants are on transfer lists?


Decanting that many people will take a long time, so a lot of flats will be empty for months or years, which is very, very bad news for remaining tenants. Damp, stench, rats, fires, crackhouses... Southwark will, of course, try to wreck & close the flats. So tenants will wake up to the sound of sledgehammers and breaking glass, possibly with police everywhere, as the lectrics and plumbing are smashed and concrete poured down the loo. Anything to stop people squatting.

An organised squatters group ought to be able to pursuade at least some tenants to hand their keys over prior to departure- it's no skin off their nose, they're off anyway, and a good squatted community wil benefit their (ex-)neighbours immensely.

Least, that was our experience in Lambeth, years ago. Piers will know about this.... picture the scene, a terrace of small houses, tenants and removal men taking stuff to a van surrounded by police protecting the Lambeth wrecking crew from a fairly large bunch of squatters. As the removals finish, and the pushing & shoving starts in earnest, an upstairs window opens and out pokes Piers' head, complete with clenched fist

 

[guinnessdrinker]

yes they do.
shared ownership housing isn't just a london thing, mind, but it's big business in london now. all new housing in london over a certain number of units (can't remember exactly off the top of my head - think it's 14) has to be 40% social housing but that can be shared ownership, housing association, whatever.

having fought a planning application against turning a pub into housing, I found the number to be 15. they were planning to build only 14 flats because of that....

I thought it was so called "affordable" housing only, I did not know it could include social housing. I promise I will read more.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

officially, any development over 15 flats has to have "affordable housing", but I was reading today (I'll have to refresh my memory by rereading the article in the Southwark News) about a monster tower block for plush housing and top class hotel (65 storeys ) proposed for Blackfriars bridge, on the south side of the bridge. it did mention something about "affordable" or "social" housing as part of the development. only it would be built in the suburbs...

and they claim it's perfectly okay....

but as I said I will check the article.

I've reread the article. it actually say that they're happy to go with the Mayor's policy (just as well since they have too, anyway...) and will include "low cost" family housing (I wonder how much will that be...), unlike, apparently, a standard practice of building the cheap part of the development in the suburbs. sounds like spin to me.

 

[William of Walworth]

I wonder what proportion of Aylesbury tenants are on transfer lists?


Decanting that many people will take a long time, so a lot of flats will be empty for months or years, which is very, very bad news for remaining tenants. Damp, stench, rats, fires, crackhouses... Southwark will, of course, try to wreck & close the flats. So tenants will wake up to the sound of sledgehammers and breaking glass, possibly with police everywhere, as the lectrics and plumbing are smashed and concrete poured down the loo. Anything to stop people squatting.

An organised squatters group ought to be able to pursuade at least some tenants to hand their keys over prior to departure- it's no skin off their nose, they're off anyway, and a good squatted community wil benefit their (ex-)neighbours immensely.

Least, that was our experience in Lambeth, years ago. Piers will know about this.... picture the scene, a terrace of small houses, tenants and removal men taking stuff to a van surrounded by police protecting the Lambeth wrecking crew from a fairly large bunch of squatters. As the removals finish, and the pushing & shoving starts in earnest, an upstairs window opens and out pokes Piers' head, complete with clenched fist

That WAS years ago, wasn't it?

I wonder whether Councils have wised up their tactics in terms of combatting squatters nowadays, compared to the heyday of squatter activism and mass squats. It may not be so easy ...

There was mention in the Guardian article of temporary prefab accomodation, near the Aylesbury, for some of the tenants while demolition/rebuild happened, but I doubt that would be the answer for more than a small proportion of them. I expect most will end up being decanted further afield.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

I lived on the Aylesbury for a brief ( some months) and very unpleasant while in the early 90s. Though I didn't get to know any of these fabled social networks, so can't comment on them, my impression was it was an unmitigated shithole and the sooner it got knocked down the better. Piss everywhere, broken lifts (and glass, and light fittings), wrecked cars and furniture, barricaded shops selling rip-off, out of date, semi poisonous food, and plenty of fighting all around. Inside the flats were indeed bright and spacious (not hard when you're 12 storeys up) but many had damp, mould, and window / plumbing problems. And this was BEFORE crack & guns even really took off.

AS LONG AS it does NOT mean the mass deportation of poorer Londoners - to somewhere even further out & more benighted - I truly can't see anything wrong, in itself, with getting rid of this hideous complex of monuments to architects' egos. It didn't work. full stop. protect the tenants, for sure. but those things were some of the ugliest buildings on the face of the earth and getting rid of them is no crime.

the aylesbury has been neglected for years, so it's quite normal for plumbing problems and what have you to happen. all it needs is maintenance. crack and guns are not exactly confined to the Aylesbury, please. it's everywhere. it's not "mass deportation of Londoners", it's creeping deportation all over the place. read Mrs Magpie's post about the social networks on the Aylesbury.

the central argument, as far as I am concerned is the overall loss of social housing, turning over these flats to housing associations (a back door to privatisation) rather than replacing with at the very least the same number of council flats, and the lack of a democratic process about it (no vote unlike in 2001, when residents overwhemingly voted against transfer). think about it, if they voted against it at the time, the Aylesbury can't have been that bad.

 

[newbie]

'fraid so.

I love the idea of 'temporary' prefabs, as will the locals. The post-war prefabs in Dante Street have only gone in the last few years.

The only viable anti-squatter tactic if they're going to decant piecemeal is to not create voids- for Southwark themselves to license shortterm occupancy. Otherwise they have to wreck the flats. sufficiently that they can't be lived in.

 

[newbie]

think about it, if they voted against it at the time, the Aylesbury can't have been that bad.

I think you'd need to have solid evidence to say that. An alternative view might be that they thought they'd stand more chance of a transfer if they remained with the council.

Don't underestimate the sense of being trapped that accompanies those secure tenancies. Not for everyone by any means, but for people who want to move and can't it's very important.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

I think you'd need to have solid evidence to say that. An alternative view might be that they thought they'd stand more chance of a transfer if they remained with the council.

Don't underestimate the sense of being trapped that accompanies those secure tenancies. Not for everyone by any means, but for people who want to move and can't it's very important.

what I seem to remember (will have to check) is that it involved, just like now, large scale demolition with the new buildings transfered to HAs, so by definition, they would have been transfered with a possible right to return. but they were given the right to vote on the proposals under the previous administration, unlike this one.

 

[newbie]

I didn't realise demolition was part of it then.

From what I've seen over the years, removal with right to return means either somewhere on a sink estate or an identical, but newly refurbed place on the same estate. It doesn't mean opportunity to transfer to the home of your dreams. But this is speculation, I don't live there.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I work on the edge of the aylesbury estate, and the vast majority of our clients are from there - I feel really sad for them that their community is going to be broken up. I've never really worked or lived in places where I've really felt a sense of community, and also of being part of that community in a small way, but I really do feel it in SE17 and I see this affecting that area in a bad way.

Sad thing is that it was only a generation and a half ago that the previous communities in the area were smashed up to make way for the Aylesbury and its' satellites. My parents (who rented a one bedroom flat in the area) still reminisce about it.
Just goes to show that if you're poor/working class you've got no say and fuck all rights that can't be arbitrarily shat on by the local authority or central government.

 

[newbie]

Sad thing is that it was only a generation and a half ago that the previous communities in the area were smashed up to make way for the Aylesbury and its' satellites. My parents (who rented a one bedroom flat in the area) still reminisce about it.
Just goes to show that if you're poor/working class you've got no say and fuck all rights that can't be arbitrarily shat on by the local authority or central government.

ain't that the truth.

Not only the poorest though. I'd imagine all the homeowners in the immediate area are thinking about whether to sell before the blight really sets in.

Thing is their choice is limited by what they can afford, whereas the tenants 'choice' is determined by bureaucracy, unless they want to give up their tenancy.

They're in the process of being stuffed- fight to stay as they are, in the sure knowledge that their flats will only get into worse condition (and they'll have another fight in 5 years time), or have their community fractured and their own futures determined by a housing allocations policy which couldn't offer them proper individual choice, even if it had enough resources.

 

[William of Walworth]

what I seem to remember (will have to check) is that it involved, just like now, large scale demolition with the new buildings transfered to HAs, so by definition, they would have been transfered with a possible right to return. but they were given the right to vote on the proposals under the previous administration, unlike this one.

I'm now wondering whether my memory's at fault. I thought the 2001 vote was entirely to do with Stock Transfer and refurbishment, with the understanding that if they voted Yes to a HA, large scale refurbishment would happen. I don't remember demolition being proposed back then, or not for the vast majority of the blocks anyway ...

 

[lang rabbie]

I'm now wondering whether my memory's at fault. I thought the 2001 vote was entirely to do with Stock Transfer and refurbishment, with the understanding that if they voted Yes to a HA, large scale refurbishment would happen. I don't remember demolition being proposed back then, or not for the vast majority of the blocks anyway ...

I think your memory is going...

In 1999 the estate was awarded NDC status with an expectation that the Government funding of £52m over 10 years would lever in a further £400m as part of a stock transfer to a community based housing association and a comprehensive demolition/redevelopment programme for all the system built blocks. The decision to redevelop the majority of the estate was based upon a number of years of consultation and a detailed options appraisal which demonstrated that this approach offered the best value for money. ...

 

[ViolentPanda]

ain't that the truth.

Not only the poorest though. I'd imagine all the homeowners in the immediate area are thinking about whether to sell before the blight really sets in.

Thing is their choice is limited by what they can afford, whereas the tenants 'choice' is determined by bureaucracy, unless they want to give up their tenancy.

They're in the process of being stuffed- fight to stay as they are, in the sure knowledge that their flats will only get into worse condition (and they'll have another fight in 5 years time), or have their community fractured and their own futures determined by a housing allocations policy which couldn't offer them proper individual choice, even if it had enough resources.

Yep.

I've been pondering (dangerous, I know!) since I last posted, and it occurs to me that this redevelopment of what is in effect an entire locale (okay so it isn't unitary redevelopment, it's piecemeal) is a piece of social engineering beyond the scale of anything since the development boom in the opening post-WW2 years.
It looks as though Walworth/Central E & C is going to suffer a particularly swingeing part of the cycle of appropriation and disposal of property in inner London by the moneyed classes that has been going on for the last couple of centuries.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think your memory is going...

It's all that foliage in his beer affecting his mind!

 

[newbie]

Yep.

I've been pondering (dangerous, I know!) since I last posted, and it occurs to me that this redevelopment of what is in effect an entire locale (okay so it isn't unitary redevelopment, it's piecemeal) is a piece of social engineering beyond the scale of anything since the development boom in the opening post-WW2 years.
It looks as though Walworth/Central E & C is going to suffer a particularly swingeing part of the cycle of appropriation and disposal of property in inner London by the moneyed classes that has been going on for the last couple of centuries.

It's what was supposed to happen to Brixton in the 70s, it did happen to other areas of Lambeth (Mawbey Brough, Heath Road etc).

I'm personally almost always against large scale anything. It's obvious that if a whole area is clearfelled and a major development put in place, that the whole thing will decay fairly evenly, and a pattern of clearance/rebuild set up, potentially stretching far into the future (as I've said about the bit around Brixton Rec, where a number of discrete sites are being grouped into one big one).
Cities work best when they're piecemeal, refurbed or replaced on a small, case by case basis in different styles, with different scales of investment, so that expensive sits cheek by jowl with poor, modern with old, block next to terrace, etc.

The worst outcome of this particular scheme is something else huge & monolithic which will all have to be torn down together in a few decades. That will just set another generation up for similar future dislocation.

That says nothing about ownership, which is a different, if related, issue. The same mindset that wanted massive, fairly identical, structures also wanted to treat individuals as ciphers. Those still treated that way today have every right to demand something better, IMO.

 

[William of Walworth]

Calrification and expansion of Sutherland Square and Beehive points

It looks as though Walworth/Central E & C is going to suffer a particularly swingeing part of the cycle of appropriation and disposal of property in inner London by the moneyed classes that has been going on for the last couple of centuries.

I think my Elephant and Castle thread (recently bumped) is worth looking at for more discussion of all this.

Pockets of Walworth are already becoming moneyed. Sutherland Square (the other side of the Walworth Road) was very shabby back in 1991 (when I moved into the area) -- students, working people, even one or two squatters.

Now the square is posh and moneyed (virtually ALL the houses and flats have been done up with plenty of money spent), same as Fielding Street plus one or two other pockets of private housing -- one of the reasons the Beehive (SE17) has become ever yet more popular is that it caters for bottle of wine/expensive pub meals type of clientele as well as the traditional clientele of beer and lager drinking taxi drivers, council workers, retired folks, off duty plod (one or two, and not often, thankfully) and general uncategorisable mavericks who still still go there .... also known to be the best pub for NOT being unwelcome to minorities of all categories.

Where the Beehive started (and it's still the best pub in the area despite its partial-upmarketness), other pubs will follow. Shops too.

 

[William of Walworth]

I think your memory is going...

Originally Posted by para 2.3 of committee report
In 1999 the estate was awarded NDC status with an expectation that the Government funding of £52m over 10 years would lever in a further £400m as part of a stock transfer to a community based housing association and a comprehensive demolition/redevelopment programme for all the system built blocks. The decision to redevelop the majority of the estate was based upon a number of years of consultation and a detailed options appraisal which demonstrated that this approach offered the best value for money. ...

Gulp! This is somewhat embarassing. I was doing some low level leafletting (not canvassing, fortunately) round the Aylesbury for the 'No to stock transfer' vote back in 2001, and I was definitely now I think about it under the impression then that only some of the blocks were actually up for demolition ... I think I thought the minority ...

But the above may help to explain why the no vote was as high as 73% -- people fearing displacement/decanting while the redevelopment took place, as well as the more obvious fears concerning rent levels and future (in)security of tenure.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

I'm now wondering whether my memory's at fault. I thought the 2001 vote was entirely to do with Stock Transfer and refurbishment, with the understanding that if they voted Yes to a HA, large scale refurbishment would happen. I don't remember demolition being proposed back then, or not for the vast majority of the blocks anyway ...

beer is good for the memory, funny baccy perhaps not so good, drink more beer to remember

 

[William of Walworth]

Heads for Beehive

(before long, anyway )

 

[BarryB]

I was under the impression that the Aylesbury was about the largest. In yesterday's Guardian it said well over 7000 residents

Do you know more about what's happening in Hackney? I'm presuming (given the climate of the times ) that the replacement flats will be Housing Association, not Council

I could be wrong about Woodberry Down being the largest. Perhaps it was until the Aylesbury was built. Afraid I dont know any real details of the new development. But the council have issued a booklet on the proposals. You may find details of how to get the booklet on the Council website.

BarryB

 

[guinnessdrinker]

just timely reminder about lobbying councillors and demo outside Southwark town hall (peckham road) from 6 pm tonight (council meeting at 7).

 

[William of Walworth]

just timely reminder about lobbying councillors and demo outside Southwark town hall (peckham road) from 6 pm tonight (council meeting at 7).

Sorry, couldn't make this. Was there an outcome??

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Sorry, couldn't make this. Was there an outcome??

yes there was . I was trying to come back on that yesterday, but the internet cafe kept on logging me out . briefly, they, after dutifully going throught the motions and officially listening to the delegations, the lib dem executive made the decision which they had already made in private a long time ago. the only labour councillor that I could see about, paul bates(at least he represented his ward, faraday, where the Aylesbury is situated, where were the two other labour councillors for the ward, lorraine lauder and abdul mohammed? do they not care?) mumbled something about the need to cross party argument about the need to fight council housing, but that in the current governmental climate, it wasn't "bloody likely" (his very words) to succeed. so, clearly, he hasn't the courage to fight for his opinions, unlike those MPs fighting for the fourth option (money for council housing). when it came for question from the floor, our corner was of course ignored while stupid questions ("can you give us a date?") were answered dutifully.

another frightening development, (unrelated to the Aylesbury) is that the peabody trust appear, according to some campaigners and their leaflet, to be selling empty flats or renting them at market value. those flats are around Southwark st, funny enough very close to the city.... just as well that Tabard TMO escaped the clutch of the peabody trust and managed to go back to the council...

incidentally, the report in the Southwark News, lost in the middle of today's paper is totally biaised towards the decision. not worth getting out of bed for that!

 

[William of Walworth]

yes there was . I was trying to come back on that yesterday, but the internet cafe kept on logging me out . briefly, they, after dutifully going throught the motions and officially listening to the delegations, the lib dem executive made the decision which they had already made in private a long time ago.

This is depressing, but hardly at all surprising.

the only labour councillor that I could see about, paul bates(at least he represented his ward, faraday, where the Aylesbury is situated, where were the two other labour councillors for the ward, lorraine lauder and abdul mohammed? do they not care?)

You suggested in an earlier post that Paul Bates might be implicated in liaising between the Government and the Council (you also mentioned that Harriet Harman might be implicated in this) in such a way as to push the demolition decision forward. Have you any concrete evidence for that?

If that's true (of Bates) it's very likely that Lorraine Lauder and Abdul Mohammed know (partly, at least). It's also possible (I speculate) that they are very well aware how potentially unpopular the whole demolition/decanting/redevelopment/stock transfer process will end up being. Maybe they're trying to distance themselves from the decision in advance (politically). Do you know whether Labour councillors were whipped by the Labour Group leaders -- in the interests of so called 'cross parrty co-operation' perhaps -- to support the redevelopment? If so, absenting themselves may have been the only way Lorraine Lauder and Abdul Mohammed could (in effect) 'vote against' without breaking/losing the whip.

Lorraine Lauder has an excellent record over the last 20 years or so of working with community campaigns (particularly for pensioners) around the Portland Estate and the Nelson Estate behind East Street, but she has no real track record (AFAIK) of working with Aylesbury tenants. Abdul Mohammed I don't know much about -- he's new, maybe as NuLaybore as Paul Bates seems to be, maybe not ...

[Bates] mumbled something about the need to cross party argument about the need to fight council housing, but that in the current governmental climate, it wasn't "bloody likely" (his very words) to succeed. so, clearly, he hasn't the courage to fight for his opinions, unlike those MPs fighting for the fourth option (money for council housing)

That 'fight council housing' bit (interesting slip there -- presumably he said fight for ) sounds to me as if it was merely tokenism on his part. He's almost certainly quite right that any campaign to preserve the Estate (or redevelop it) as Council Housing is indeed bloody unlikely to succeed. But I also seriously doubt that he has any wish at all to keep the Estate Council.

Time to email all three Councillors (individually, seperately!) and try to pin them down a bit. I can dress it up in the guise of a question about whether my own estate is similarly threatened (which it probably isn't, but it's a good pretext to ask them about the whole issue).

Watch this space ...

. when it came for question from the floor, our corner was of course ignored while stupid questions ("can you give us a date?") were answered dutifully.

Time only to let in Tenants who have proven their ability to properly understand the issues ... <JOKE!!!> but fucking hell!! Translation of 'Can you give us a date' : 'Can you give us a date for our own ejection?' -- 'Can you give us a date for our own decanting?' -- 'Can you give us a date for the removal of our own protected tenancies and security of tenure?' they might as well have asked ...

another frightening development, (unrelated to the Aylesbury) is that the peabody trust appear, according to some campaigners and their leaflet, to be selling empty flats or renting them at market value. those flats are around Southwark St, funny enough very close to the city.... just as well that Tabard TMO escaped the clutch of the peabody trust and managed to go back to the council

Do you know anything about the circumstances of how they managed that? And when it happened??

incidentally, the report in the Southwark News, lost in the middle of today's paper is totally biaised towards the decision. not worth getting out of bed for that!

They've been 'got at' by Councillors, Council Officers, and their lobbyists/press office perhaps?

At least with last week's issue, and with last week's South London Press, Piers Corbyn managed to get some fairly forthright anti-redevelopment and pro-tenant quotes in. He now seems to be heading a revamped campaign called Aylesbury Tenants First, renamed from the old Walworth Against Tenant Transfer under which he stood for the Council, in 2004, took enough votes from the Lib Dems to let the three present ineffectual Labour Councillors in.

The SLP leader even said that it stuck in the throat for a clear vote against stock transfer in 2001 to be reversed now. Wonder whether they'll have changed their tune this week?

 

[William of Walworth]

When this thread was first started, I emailed the Defend Council Housing website with details/news of all this, and linls to all the press releases, Guardian stories, etc.

The site has not been updated with any Aylesbury-specific news but I suppose i can forgive them that because they've been very busy persuading TU leaders and MPs to support their campaign at the Labour Party Conference.


But this letter appeared in the Guardian the other day :

The scandal of the Aylesbury estate

Wednesday September 28, 2005
The Guardian

The proposal to pull down the Aylesbury estate (Report, September 22), home to 2,700 households, is a political scandal and, in view of the personal commitments made by Tony Blair, one that should rest at his own doorstep.
The government dogmatically continues to try to privatise council housing - despite overwhelming opposition from tenants, councillors, trade unions and MPs; 92 authorities that we know of have opted for "stock retention" - rejecting the three privatisation options.

Twenty motions have been submitted for debate at the Labour conference, most supporting the "fourth option" - direct investment - and calling for the 8:1 vote at last year's conference to be respected. Some 2.5 million council tenants and all those needing decent, affordable and accountable council housing are demanding a change. Will they be listened to?
Alan Walter
Chair
Defend Council Housing