Tell me about BrixtonGreen - a "community led development" on Somerleyton Road

[brad]

Gramsci,

Your posts on this forum have given no indication that Brixton Green first contacted you in January 2009 and that we have had lengthy and detailed discussions regarding the proposal. Neither do your posts indicate that you refused to continue these discussions.

These emails were not private. In fact it was you who copied in Metropolitan Housing Trust and Lambeth. I am happy for you to go into the correspondence further as it shows our willingness to discuss your points in details. The correspondence also underlines the open and inclusive approach Brixton Green has had from the start.

This is a popular forum and it is important for readers to understand the context of your posts.

Brixton Masterplan
I am sure you are also aware of the substantial involvement Brixton Green had with the Future Brixton process.

Along with the Oval House Theatre we successfully lobbied for the Coldharbour Lane end of the site to be designated for cultural use. This was an essential and important success for the area. If the Oval House Theatre are brought to this part of Brixton it will extend Brixton town centre, drawing people through the market, strengthening the businesses in the market, supporting small traders and encouraging regeneration along the Loughborough corridor.

We also lobbied for there to be community activity near the alley at Somerleyton Way and for the plan to have high sustainability aspirations.

Metropolitan Housing Trust
It is important to note that the team at MHT and the other housing associations work hard to provide homes that are accessible to all. However, there are issues with how MHT, Guinness Trust and Places for People are working with their residents and the local community.

The Brixton Green approach is to encourage all the local organisations and the community to work together. By sharing knowledge and understanding each others challenges we will create better outcomes.

Over the next few months we will be working on a detailed brief for the proposal which we are encouraging all members of the community and local organisations to help shape.

CMHC workshop with Brixton Green?
As always I am happy to meet. Shall we have a workshop with CMHC?

 

[Fenian]

Like I explained, I'd rather the debate be public. That way, the discussion will be entirely open to the community - and searchable vias Google - and I can invite my residents association to read it later.

He's just not listening ed. That's not the way they work. Laughing Toad, with due respect these are two different positions being espoused - open debate vs. nobbling people on the quiet.

 

[brad]

Gramsci's comments & support for [...............................]
I think it is important for readers of this forum to understand the context of Gramsci's comments and his support for housing associations, [.....................]

Brixton Green contacted "Gramsci" in January 2009 and invited all of the [.................] to become involved with the Brixton Green proposal and to feed in their ideas of what the area needed and how best to achieve this.

We had some meetings with Gramsci during 2009 followed by some detailed email correspondence dealing with the issues he raised . During the emails we asked Gramsci to describe his aspirations for the area. We expected aspirations such as sustainability, improved housing or jobs. However we were surprised when he listed his aspirations as follows:
[.....................................private email.....................................................]

[.................................private email........................................................]

[.....................................private email...........................................................................................]

Gramsci then refused to continue the email discussion.

[...................................................................................................]

[....................................................................................................]


Gramsci's Posts
Since Gramsci refused to continue email discussions with Brixton Green he has made a number of negative posts on Urban 75 regarding Brixton Green. Some of the issues he raises on this forum are issues he's already discussed with Brixton Green. Gramsci knows that if he wished he could meet Brixton Green to discuss the issues or contribute to the proposal.

Gramsci made clear that he was consulting CHMC's members during our discussions. Therefore, the other members of CHMC will also have been:
• Aware of the Brixton Green proposal since January 2009.
• Aware of our invitation in 2009 for all the CHMC members to become involved and help shape the Brixton Green proposal.
• Aware of the offer [..........................] had made to [....]

Brixton Green's invitation to Gramsci and all the [......................................] remains open. The residents of [................] are all very welcome to meet with us to work through any issues and contribute their ideas.

Note from editor: brad: please note that I have edited your comments in line with gramsci's request. It is not permissible to post up personal information or the contents of private correspondence here without the consent of the other party.

The email was not private correspondence. It is essential for readers of this forum to understand the context of Gramsci's comments.

You are now censoring my contributions to this forum.

 

[TruXta]

The email was not private correspondence. It is essential for readers of this site to be understand the context of Gramsci's comments.

You are now censoring my contributions to this forum.

No he really isn't. You can't just post up private emails or personal info without the specific consent of the other parties. Not really that difficult to grok is it?

 

[miss minnie]

The email was not private correspondence.

Wikipedia definition of private correspondence:

"Private e-mails" are e-mails between individuals; postings to closed mailing lists that have no public archive, and where invitations to join the list are not freely available and are tightly controlled; or any other common sense interpretation of "private." Non-private e-mails include messages to mailing lists with public archives, or lists that can be subscribed to by anyone.

 

[TruXta]

Editor only wants to discuss things on his website, where he can be in charge. You called his bluff, Brad, and he bottled it.

Just go away if you've nothing of substance to contribute will ya? Paranoid loon.

 

[editor]

You are now censoring my contributions to this forum.

That's simply not true. I have, however, removed private correspondence that you really had no right to be posting up here in the first place.

Our rules make this quite clear:

Please respect people's privacy and refrain from posting up any personal details without their permission.

This rule applies to all contributors and is there to protect their privacy, so it's not even slightly personal.

FYI: if anyone posted up the contents of your personal emails without your permission, they would also be removed at your request.

 

[Fenian]

Worrying tone developing

A slightly worrying tone has crept into the debate here. Brad if you don't know the difference between having an open debate and posting up private correspondence I would ask someone's advice on the matter. If any other poster had done the same I would apply the same advice to them too. I note however that no-one else has.

 

[brad]

You have clearly edited aspects of my post that were not quotes from the email correspondence.

I am unsure why Gramsci would not be willing to have his stated aspirations for the site made public.

Here is my post again without quotes from email correspondence:

Gramsci's comments & support for Metropolitan Housing Trust
I think it is important for readers of this forum to understand the context of Gramsci's comments and his support for housing associations, specifically the Metropolitan Housing Trust.

Brixton Green contacted "Gramsci" in January 2009 and invited all of the Carlton Mansions Housing Cooperative(CMHC) to become involved with the Brixton Green proposal and to feed in their ideas of what the area needed and how best to achieve this.

We had some meetings with Gramsci during 2009 followed by some detailed email correspondence dealing with the issues he raised . During the emails we asked Gramsci to describe his aspirations for the area. We expected aspirations such as sustainability, improved housing or jobs. However we were surprised when he listed his aspirations as follows:
• Carlton Mansions Housing Cooperative(CHMC) support Metropolitan Housing Trust(MHT) in their request to become the affordable housing provider for the site. This would necessitate MHT acquiring the freehold.
• CHMC would like Metropolitan Housing Trust's consultants(HTA) to be the consultants on the site.
• CMHC have told the Council they want MHT to be the affordable housing provider on the site.

I questioned why his cooperative's only aspirations for the site were for Metropolitan Housing Trust to develop it and even specifying that they wanted MHT's consultants to be used and for MHT to own the freehold. It was clear from their response that they had an arrangement with Metropolitan Housing Trust and I asked them to specify what that arrangement was. Gramsci stated that he would not discuss any arrangements that CHMC had with the Metropolitan Housing Trust without first asking MHT's New Business Manager.

Gramsci then refused to continue the email discussion.

Note to Editor: The section below is from a meeting which I attended and am free to discuss.

23/11/09:Metropolitan Housing Trust confirmed they made offer to Carlton Mansions Housing Cooperative.
On the 23/11/09 Lambeth Council held a meeting for all the organisations who had expressed an interest in the Somerleyton Road site.

At that meeting I asked Roger Tullet (Metropolitan Housing Trust's New Business Manager) to explain the offer MHT had made to Gramsci and the residents of Carlton Mansions.

Roger confirmed that Metropolitan Housing Trust had a made a verbal offer to provide those residents of Carlton Mansions Housing Cooperative who qualified flats if the Metropolitan Housing Trust was successful in obtaining the site.


Gramsci's Posts
Since Gramsci refused to continue email discussions with Brixton Green he has made a number of negative posts on Urban 75 regarding Brixton Green. Some of the issues he raises on this forum are issues he's already discussed with Brixton Green. Gramsci knows that if he wished he could meet Brixton Green to discuss the issues or contribute to the proposal.

Gramsci made clear that he was consulting CHMC's members during our discussions. Therefore, the other members of CHMC will also have been:
• Aware of the Brixton Green proposal since January 2009.
• Aware of our invitation in 2009 for all the CHMC members to become involved and help shape the Brixton Green proposal.
• Aware of the offer Metropolitan Housing Trust had made to CHMC.

Brixton Green's invitation to Gramsci and all the Carlton Mansions Housing Cooperative remains open. The residents of Carlton Mansions are all very welcome to meet with us to work through any issues and contribute their ideas.

 

[Dan U]

so what your saying is that Gramsci gets a nice new flat if one lot get this land, but doesn't if you do.

this is going really well so far.

 

[brad]

The Council will probably lead on how the homes are allocated.

 

[miss minnie]

Carlton Mansions is one of the many co-ops who have spent between 10-30 years negotiating with Lambeth Council for tenure. I've been in that position with the co-op that I was in and completely understand where they are coming from. It is really, really, REALLY, tedious and hard work to get to a position where you *might* have a possibility of doing a deal to get HA management that won't simply chuck you all out and break up your long-standing community. Why would CMHC throw away all of that progress for a very new and untried organisation such as Brixton Green? Gramsci works tirelessly for his co-op, has done for a very long time and with great integrity. Good luck to CMHC with whatever deal they are working on, I hope it goes well for you.

 

[miss minnie]

The Council will probably lead on how the homes are allocated.

Not in my experience.

 

[brad]

I know that Gramsci works hard for his cooperative and we also recognise the importance of keeping communities together. As my post mentioned, it is important for readers of this forum to understand the context of Gramsci's posts.

We want to encourage all parties to work effectively together and to not view the issues in isolation.

 

[Gramsci]

You have still used the contents of a private email corresspondence I had with you on the boards. As I said I could use quotes from that as well. But its bad form to do so. As is quoting in detail from meetings that are not public meetings.

 

[Gramsci]

Carlton Mansions is one of the many co-ops who have spent between 10-30 years negotiating with Lambeth Council for tenure. I've been in that position with the co-op that I was in and completely understand where they are coming from. It is really, really, REALLY, tedious and hard work to get to a position where you *might* have a possibility of doing a deal to get HA management that won't simply chuck you all out and break up your long-standing community. Why would CMHC throw away all of that progress for a very new and untried organisation such as Brixton Green? Gramsci works tirelessly for his co-op, has done for a very long time and with great integrity. Good luck to CMHC with whatever deal they are working on, I hope it goes well for you.

Thanks for this post miss minnie.

 

[Fenian]

We want to encourage all parties to work effectively together and to not view the issues in isolation.

That's what we've been doing in Brixton mate for about 30 years, and successfully. That is why Brixton is not like anywhere else in south London for its sense of community. People of different callings and backgrounds have developed exciting ways to interact with each other, not least on this web-site. This place could be a model of advanced urban development.

It's problematic of course when you get a (sadly) well-connected interloper who presumes to get people thinking beyond individual silos when that is what we are so good at doing in Brixton.

When a new agency arrives in Brixton or anywhere else, they need nurturing and support, but you have to look at what they can bring to the table. From Brixton Green, we've had a worrying disregard for due process with improper usage of documentation.

Frankly, I had thought that by now even for cosmetic purposes Brad would have seen it as politic to apologise and call this an unintended gaffe.

The fact that he has not to date done so leads me to assume that this kind of thing exemplifies his view of normal business practice. Brad has not yet accepted editor's corrections as to events either.

Deeply worrying.

 

[netbob]

This has all got the feel of Spacemakers all over again - claims to be a community led initiative / loads of people you would expect to have been involved have not been approached or have been politely ignored / uses open social events to broadcast plans on their terms rather than open meetings that genuinely set direction.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

From Brixton Green, we've had a worrying disregard for due process with improper usage of documentation.

Frankly, I had thought that by now even for cosmetic purposes Brad would have seen it as politic to apologise and call this an unintended gaffe.

The fact that he has not to date done so leads me to assume that this kind of thing exemplifies his view of normal business practice. Brad has not yet accepted editor's corrections as to events either.

Deeply worrying.

What worries me most are the number of very misleading errors about where I live. He hasn't withdrawn or corrected any of that. Parts of the proposal is based on stuff that just ain't so.

 

[brad]

Mrs Magpie, Fenian, Memespring, and the other people posting, please come and join us at Unit 45 Brixton Village at 7pm tonight.

Brad - Director, Brixton Green

 

[TruXta]

Can't make that - how about you post some minutes on here later?

 

[editor]

I have to work tonight, so I hope the urbanites will report back here.

 

[gaijingirl]

so did anyone go?

 

[Rushy]

We had some meetings with Gramsci during 2009 followed by some detailed email correspondence dealing with the issues he raised . During the emails we asked Gramsci to describe his aspirations for the area. We expected aspirations such as sustainability, improved housing or jobs. However we were surprised when he listed his aspirations as follows:
[.....................................private email.....................................................]

[.................................private email........................................................]

[.....................................private email...........................................................................................]

Gramsci, could you be a little more open about your aspirations for the land and exactly what you are lobbying for behind the scenes on behalf of your co-op?

Your criticisms of BG are all very well but it would be useful to allow readers to interpret them in the context of your and CMHC's vested interests.

This is one of a limited number of parcels of publicly owned land and CMHC is only one of the many groups (as well as unrepresented individuals) who would be able to benefit from the land. The back-room negotiations which appear to have been going on between the coops, Lambeth and a housing association don't seem to be very open and are essentially excluding the rest of our community. I've certainly have not been flyered about them or invited to any meetings. I was not even aware that the land was publicly owned or that development of any kind was under consideration until BG came along.

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with you negotiating hard on behalf of the group you represent and getting the best deal for them, nor with the fact that you would quite understandably prefer it to be an HA with particular sympathies to your group who develops the site rather than BG. But surely you accept that your and your group's vested interests need to be balanced with the interests of the wider community, many of whom are not as strongly represented and have no lobbying power.

BG appears to be offering a way to do this openly and publicly. If you don't think so, how would you suggest other interest groups get a look-in?

 

[Gramsci]

As I said before I would have liked Future Brixton to have continued with consulting over the furthering of the masterplan and the sites on it. The masterplanning process was public and open but stopped when the report was published.

 

[Rushy]

As I said before I would have liked Future Brixton to have continued with consulting over the furthering of the masterplan. The masterplanning process was open but stopped when the report was published.

That would have been nice. But it is not there anymore. That does not mean that groups such as yours do not continue to lobby behind the scenes for their own interests to be met. How do you suggest that other interest groups, perhaps not as well connected or strongly represented as yours, get a look-in at the moment?

BG appears to be offering a way to do this openly and publicly.

 

[editor]

BG appears to be offering a way to do this openly and publicly.

They haven't been very 'open' to any of the local residents, the vast majority of which still haven't the faintest idea that they exist or what their plans are. And they still haven't approached anyone from the residents group or posted up posters or distributed flyers.

The only reason people knew about their meeting on this board was because I went out of my way to invite them here, and their reluctance to post anything of substance since here has been noted.

 

[Rushy]

You say this, and yet it is clear that the doors were open to at least some of the residents groups such as CMHC through Gramsci over two years ago. Whilst their efforts might not have reached some key groups in the past, their efforts since to hold out an olive branch, make amends, listen to you and include you are being rejected in the most disappointingly tribal manner. It is you who is refusing to engage - not them.

From what I can understand from the above posts it seems that Gramsci had a good reason to see BG as a threat to his own group's private negotiations with the council. What concerns me is that BG is being villified on here despite chief criticisers not being absolutely open about their own aspirations and vested interests.

 

[editor]

You say this, and yet it is clear that the doors were open to at least some of the residents groups such as CMHC through Gramsci over two years ago. Whilst their efforts might not have reached some key groups in the past, their efforts since to hold out an olive branch, make amends, listen to you and include you are being rejected in the most disappointingly tribal manner. It is you who is refusing to engage - not them.

How's that work then? I've been willing to engage in an open discussion from the start, even if that meant me having to personally invite them to post here. I'm very keen to have an open discussion so they can explain their plans.

I've already said that I'm on the resident's association and will be happy to report back the discussion, but all I got back was an instruction to "continue the discussion on their website" - a website that has no discussion forums, where all discussion is one way and none of what's been contributed gets posted up anyway. So, no discussion at all, then.

I've probably done more to publicise BrixtonGreen than most, and have done them a service pointing out the deep failings in their publicity department and the serious lack of effort to engage local groups. Sadly, they don't seem too interested in any form of communication unless it's on their terms, which means attending their poorly advertised meetings which barely a soul knows about and not everyone has the time to attend.

For a "community led" project, they sure don't seem to be that interested in trying to get the community involved.

 

[Rushy]

I've already said that I'm on the resident's association and will be happy to report back the discussion, but all I got back was an instruction to "continue the discussion on their website" - a website that has no discussion forums, where all discussion is one way and none of what's been contributed gets posted up anyway. So, no discussion at all, then.

That doesn't quite correlate with my take on what I've read above. In my opinion you made a fair(ish) point, they made a respectable effort to step up to the mark and you put up a brick wall. I appreciate that you don't simply don't agree so, respectfully, I see no value in arguing that point further.

I'm not posting to try and win an argument with you. I simply feel that negativity and suspicion (which everyone who feels it is completely entitled to express) dominates this thread and I would quite like to maintain some presence which represents those who are cautiously optimisitic about the BG model and who feel that quite a lot of the informed criticism is from parties who are not being quite as open as they could be about their own plans and vested interests, however well intentioned.