# Guinness Trust plans for Loughborough Park Estate



## lang rabbie (May 27, 2006)

​
It looks as though Lambeth's planners are recommending to councillors that the plans to completely demolish the estate should be turned down - and that Lambeth should contest any appeal by Guinness Trust.

(Can't find earlier thread about the scheme which would be 50% for sale.)

It is going to the Planning Applications Committee on Tuesday 30th May
Link to report on Lambeth web site

Will the New Labour councillors hold their nerve against lobbying by a big social landlord.

And does this have any implications for "grand plans" for replannining the wider area include the proposed Shakespeare Academy site


----------



## lang rabbie (May 27, 2006)

From the conclusions to the 37 page report...



> 7.3 Officers consider that development in the manner proposed cannot be
> accommodated satisfactorily on the site. In particular it is considered that
> the height, scale, massing, and general design of the development is not
> commensurate with its surroundings and detracts from the general
> ...


----------



## Bob (May 29, 2006)

So it looks as if the Guiness trust want to replace an ugly group of buildings with an uglier one.


----------



## Gramsci (May 29, 2006)

I did have a thread on this a while back.Nice photo LR .Ive just received a letter saying that Guiness Trust are lodging an appeal.I however didnt get told about this meeting .I assume GT appealed when the officers said it should be refused.I believe the Labour councillors know about this.I did email them.I think the Guiness Trust residents group did as well.I think its the reduction in affordable housing that will be the issue.Its not just that theres less but that much less rented as shared ownership counts as affordable.

 Another issue is that this is an historic estate.The picture is of the residents hall which will be demolished.Something that the residents dont want.If the estate does need to be demolished rather than rehabbed there is IMO no reason why the hall could not be kept as an intersting piece of architecture.


----------



## paminbrixton (Jun 8, 2006)

*Guiness Trust Estate Under Threat*

This is from a friend who lives in the area.

Is this in any other campaign part of the site?

With thanks
Pam

I just received a note through my door about what Guinness Trust are planning to do to the estate at the end of Somerleyton Road and I am horrified! We have until 15th June - that's next week - to object, and i am going away on Sunday, so please please tell as many local residents as you can - can someone put this on Urban75 for me, if it isn't already? They want to demolish the existing estate of 400 social homes - including the art deco residents' hall, which is used by the local community, esp. families, and will not be replaced - and build a massive tower block comprising 256 affordable homes and 244 "private" - ie for sale - flats. Moorlands Esate (my home) will be overshadowed by a huge ugly tower block which the Guiness residents don't want to have to live in; their "social housing" will be segregated from the "private" flats, creating a two-tier community. All the trees and  green space on the estate will be lost. To object, 3 copies of your objections in writing must be sent to Mr Alexander O'Doherty, Planning Inspectorate, Room 4/04, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN, quoting Planning Appeal no. APP/N5660/A/06/2010285/NWF. Plans can be viewed by contacting Chris Duckett on 020 7926 4056


----------



## longdog (Jun 8, 2006)

There is a cider and tractors forum for the west country.

You might get a better response there.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=44


----------



## ddraig (Jun 9, 2006)

longdog said:
			
		

> There is a cider and tractors forum for the west country.
> 
> You might get a better response there.
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=44


it's in Brixton mate!


----------



## dogmatique (Jun 9, 2006)

Somerleyton Road's moving to the west country?  Lucky buggers. I always miss out.

Where's my chuffing cider?


----------



## aurora green (Jun 9, 2006)

This sounds really dreadful. I thought the days of squeezing people in social housing into tower blocks were over....

But what really springs to mind is, what's going to happen to the shortfall? 400-256 leaves 144 families without homes....


----------



## gaijingirl (Jun 9, 2006)

Bloody hell that all sounds a bit drastic...


----------



## gaijingirl (Jun 9, 2006)

paminbrixton said:
			
		

> their "social housing" will be segregated from the "private" flats, creating a two-tier community.



This bit, in particular, sounds very strange... what are they thinking?  Is this for real?


----------



## Tank Girl (Jun 9, 2006)

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=164271

the thread didn't live long, but might be of interest.


----------



## lighterthief (Jun 9, 2006)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> This bit, in particular, sounds very strange... what are they thinking?  Is this for real?


Social housing is often separated from private flats (and shared ownership flats) because, funnily enough, people buying privately don't want to live next to people in social housing.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jun 9, 2006)

lighterthief said:
			
		

> Social housing is often separated from private flats (and shared ownership flats) because, funnily enough, people buying privately don't want to live next to people in social housing.



Yes I can see why it might be the case, but I just think it's so so wrong - on so many levels.  I naively thought that that sort of thing wouldn't happen any more.   What loads of people don't realise in nice private housing is they may well be living next to someone in social housing anyway... it's not all tower blocks and estates.  My family lived for 3 years in emergency housing on a very nice private road of terraced houses, all privately owned - they didn't know we were "council"...   

*bee buzzes in bonnet*


----------



## lighterthief (Jun 9, 2006)

gaijingirl said:
			
		

> Yes I can see why it might be the case, but I just think it's so so wrong - on so many levels.  I naively thought that that sort of thing wouldn't happen any more.   What loads of people don't realise in nice private housing is they may well be living next to someone in social housing anyway... it's not all tower blocks and estates.  My family lived for 3 years in emergency housing on a very nice private road of terraced houses, all privately owned - they didn't know we were "council"...
> 
> *bee buzzes in bonnet*


Indeed.  Housing associations have tried in the past to 'pepperpot' tenancies (ie place private tenants next to social housing tenants next to shared ownership tenants etc) and some still do, but unfortunately what tends to happen is that a minority of social housing tenants (sorry, but this is the way it works in the real world) make lives miserable for everyone else, whether it be through noise, anti-social behaviour or whatever.  As housing associations are businesses they often can't afford to take financial punts on whether a particular mix of tenancies will work; hence separation.


----------



## brix (Jun 9, 2006)

I live in a block which is partly shared-ownership (the lower floors) and partly privately owned (higher up).  It actually works the other way where I live, in that those of us who have bought the shared ownership flats are really committed to the block and to creating some kind of a community.  The flats that are privately owned have often been bought as 'investment' properties and have been rented out.  The people that are renting them aren't commited to the block, or to creating any kind of community there, and are, consequently, much worse neighbours (loud parties, etc).


----------



## lighterthief (Jun 9, 2006)

brix said:
			
		

> I live in a block which is partly shared-ownership (the lower floors) and partly privately owned (higher up).  It actually works the other way where I live, in that those of us who have bought the shared ownership flats are really committed to the block and to creating some kind of a community.  The flats that are privately owned have often been bought as 'investment' properties and have been rented out.  The people that are renting them aren't commited to the block, or to creating any kind of community there, and are, consequently, much worse neighbours (loud parties, etc).


Yup, I can definitely see how that could happen too - good point.

ETA: it's these people entering the buy-to-let market, isn't it?  A pox on them all!


----------



## PacificOcean (Jun 9, 2006)

I always thought the Guinness Trust were one of the best HA to get on the books of?

Mixing private and social housing can work.  Here in Enfield Island Village it's mainly a private development but obviously as part of the planning agreement some is social housing given to a HA.  Everyone takes a pride in the area and it's a very quite, well kept area.


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 9, 2006)

that does sound pretty ghastly to be honest.

i have to make it clear that in this day and age social housing is pretty much funded by the selling off of chunks of estates to private ownership or leasehold in order to pay for maintenance.

it could well be that this is the only way guinness can afford to maintain their estate.  the HA i work for has received flack for similar projects, but in the absence of central funding sometimes this is the only way.


----------



## brix (Jun 9, 2006)

lighterthief said:
			
		

> ETA: it's these people entering the buy-to-let market, isn't it?  A pox on them all!




Indeed!


----------



## PacificOcean (Jun 9, 2006)

lighterthief said:
			
		

> ETA: it's these people entering the buy-to-let market, isn't it?  A pox on them all!



Some of us need somewhere to rent.  We can't all be social tennants.


----------



## lighterthief (Jun 9, 2006)

PacificOcean said:
			
		

> Some of us need somewhere to rent.  We can't all be social tennants.


Oh, I accept that.  It's just that as was pointed out above, some people in short tenancies in flats they rent can cause trouble for longer-term residents, as there may be less incentive for them to modify their behaviour for the benefit of others.


----------



## calno4 (Jun 10, 2006)

I'm in Spain reading this, my mum lives there and I'm gonna call her right now. First I've heard of it.


----------



## netbob (Jun 11, 2006)

paminbrixton said:
			
		

> To object, 3 copies of your objections in writing must be sent to Mr Alexander O'Doherty, Planning Inspectorate, Room 4/04, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN, quoting Planning Appeal no. APP/N5660/A/06/2010285/NWF. Plans can be viewed by contacting Chris Duckett on 020 7926 4056




You could get a standard objection letter together and get as many people as posiable to sign it? If you get anything near a group of people who are opposed to it together set up a miling list on google groups to get yourselves organsied.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 17, 2006)

Guiness trust residents association are opposing the Trusts plans.The Planning Officers turned down the Trusts plans which is why its going to appeal.So much for Housings Association listening to the local community.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 9, 2010)

*Film of Guiness Trust residents as estate is under threat*

www.youtube.com/watch?v=C65GHh2Kmlw

I was sent this short film about Guiness Trust estate at the end of Somerleyton road


----------



## editor (Nov 9, 2010)

That's a really interesting video - I know the chair too! I think there's going to be a lot more residents getting together as this government rolls out its cuts. 

Let me merge the older threads.

Edit: I've posted a piece on my blog as well, so hopefully more people will get to hear about what's going down:
http://www.urban75.org/blog/guinness-trust-somerleyton-rd-brixton-fights-the-landlords/


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Nov 10, 2010)

Biggest problem I see here is the fact that since the first application the trust has only taken new tenants on short life tenancies, some of them have been here in excess of 5 years now but have no guarantee of being rehoused after redevelopment.

9 stories is only 1 more than Southwyck House.

Lifts man LIFTS!!!

Draught-proof windows.

Secure bicycle storage (at least it's what they say).

All in all I'm for it rather than against.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 13, 2010)

I cant find the planning application on the lambeth website. I have put in Ref 10/03653/OUT also tried address 
Guinness Trust Buildings
Loughborough Park, London SW9 8NL
01494 535823

Also tried the map on website. I can find the estate but it will not identify it.

Can anyone help out here as i would like to look at application


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 13, 2010)

http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/publ...lication_detailview.aspx?caseno=LAJ4OPBO0IZ00

Managed to get it to come up after some time on the internet


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 13, 2010)

As the film says many of the people in the Estate are "short life". I notice that in the "Housing and Phasing statement" in the supporting docs it say that,


Non-secure tenancies
3.14 Households with non-secure tenancies, will throughout all the above Phases,
be referred to London Borough of Lambeth to assess their housing need,
and then be acted upon accordingly.

This means in practise that most are not likely to be rehoused.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 13, 2010)

lang rabbie said:


> ​
> From the plans it looks like this building will be demolished. I rather like it and I think I will oppose its loss in these new plans.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 15, 2010)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> Biggest problem I see here is the fact that since the first application the trust has only taken new tenants on short life tenancies, some of them have been here in excess of 5 years now but have no guarantee of being rehoused after redevelopment.
> 
> 9 stories is only 1 more than Southwyck House.
> 
> ...





Ive emailed the Chair of the residents association to say the Short life people should get legal advice . I really object to the way Landlords increasingly make people take insecure tenancies. Its all for the interest of the Landlord not the local community. It is also a way of breaking up any real oppositons/ genuine consultation of plans for an estate. As people on S/L may not see themselves as having a long term future on the estate.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 15, 2010)

my comments to planning

--------Submission Type: Customer objects to the Planning Application. Comments:

 1) I was not informed of this application even though I live a few minutes from the estate. I only knew about it from residents of the estate. So my comments are rushed. 

2) I notice that in the "Housing and Phasing statement" in the supporting docs it say that,  

"Non-secure tenancies3.14 Households with non-secure tenancies, will throughout all the above Phases,be referred to London Borough of Lambeth to assess their housing need,and then be acted upon accordingly."

 This means in practise that most are not likely to be rehoused. I object to this. Many of these residents have lived there on insecure tenancies for many years and are now part of the local community.  As part of this application Guiness Trust should be obliged to rehouse these people who it has given "Short Life " tenancies. It has served GTs interest to have tenants who dont have the same rights as permanent tenants. 

3) This estate is a fine example of early social housing. In particular the community hall / entrance building with the clock on the front. At least some of the estate , like the original community hall ,should be preserved. This application should be sent back to GT to incorparate some of the historice heritage into any new estate.

 4) The proposed height of the new buildings means they will overlook the terraced street on the other side of the railway line. 

5) The online docs do not include PDF on consultation as the site says it is to big to put online. A shortened version could have been put up. I am not able to comment on how GT say they have consulted people on the estate. I therefore oppose this application. It needs to have more public consultation. The needs of all residents need to be taken into account - whatever tenancies they have. The historic nature of the estate is not taken into account in this application. At least some of it should be preserved in any new developments.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Nov 16, 2010)

There was something in the SLPs last edition and an article today about the 9 stories video as well.
I'll put a scan of the other one a bit later.


----------



## Ms T (Nov 17, 2010)

The residents of Mayall Road are a bit concerned about how tall this proposed new building will be, and the possible effect on them.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 18, 2010)

They need to but in objections to planning application as soon as possible. Otherwise there concerns will not be noted.

Also I know Brixton Society have raised this issue , among others, about this application.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 27, 2011)

Guiness Trust plans are going to committee next Wednesday. There was a site visit last Saturday. Some residents arent happy so will be attending committee

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=442&MId=7163

Its item 4 on agenda


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 27, 2011)

Some bullet points on the officers report to the meeting:





                I have read most of officers report. Here are issues I think are relevant for Planning Committee Cllrs

"flexible" Section 106 sought. Officers and GT want "review mechanism" for Section 106. This will potentially lead to same problems as Tescos with there Section 106.

no rehousing rights for insecure tenants

not green enough development according to planning guidelines due to budgetary restraints on scheme. PV cells could be located on roof. But GT say its to expensive. CO2 proposed reduction falls short of London plan of 20%

design issues . Conservation officers not happy with design. No overall coherent design aesthetic for whole devolopment

full plans only for phase one. Next phases no design plans or guarentees on affordable housing.

Apart from Phase one , for which full planning permission is sought, the rest of the application is for outline permission. Does this mean that if given the rest of the development will not need full scrutiny by Planning Committee? Does it mean that officers are given power to continue planning with GT without further referance to Cllrs on Planning Committee?

underground car park will cause problems. CCTV will be expensive to moniter the underground car park.

car parking above ground . Some officers not happy as this will encourage ASB near some of the housing.

poor consultation by Guiness Trust. Local amenity groups like Brixton Society not consulted in pre application stage

figures for loss/ gain of affordable housing not clear. Oficers say that 233 are secure social housing and 157 AST insecure. GT say 42 vacant , 217 secure and 131 AST insecure.

there is loss of affordable housing not gain as officers and GT claim. This is due to way that they count affordable housing in original estate. They do not count short life tenants as affordable housing. Even though whole estate was originally built as affordable housing.

tenure split differs from London plan and Lambeth Council targets.

original community hall which is fine example of early social architecture should be retained. Officers and GT argue that estate is not protected.

height of buildings leads to loss of light to nearby residential buildings. GT and officers contest this.

there are various comments by GT that the estates social housing is not protected by an existing Section 106. Therefore its within there rights to rent out flats at market value or sell land on open market if no solution found. I read this as saying that if this application does not go through then they will possibly do this.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Mar 1, 2011)

Well, second attempt, this saga has now dragged on for ages, and probably cost a fair bit.
Lots of flats have been empty for ages now as GT has not been taking any new tenants for a long time, out of my window I can see 3 two edrooms and 2 one bedromms so 42 sounds about right..
Some sort of guarantee for insecure tenants would be nice but I think that D.C. is planning on doing away with secure tenancies all round anyway.


----------



## ebjackson (Mar 3, 2011)

any news from last night metting anyone please


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 5, 2011)

The Planning Application was agreed by committee with Cllr Palmer voting against. That is the LD Cllr ( who is of independant mind) voted against with the Labour Cllrs all voting for.

 A lot of people turned up from Guinness Trust. It was a lively meeting with plenty of heckling by GT residents of GT who were present. Most comments from GT residents were about GTs poor consultation and mge of estate. Even those residents who talked in favour of scheme were critical of GT. It is clear that GT have allowed the estate to run down over recent years. As Cllr Palmer said it was a very good estate years ago. 

Cllrs Rachel Heywood spoke in favour of scheme whilst saying there was problems with consultation. The other ward Cllr Matt Parr turned up but did not say anything.

The issue of the insecure tenants came up at meeting. What surprised me was that there was no real split in the residents. All were critical of GT and the secure tenants spoke in favour of the insecure tenants.

This is interesting case of how not to consult residents and gain there support for redevelopment. Seems to me that the people on the estate get on with each other and are potentially a community who want there estate improved. They just have not had much of a say. Whatever GT might say about there efforts at consultation. 

I took notes and will write them up when I have time.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Mar 6, 2011)

not directly related but most definitely relevant article about the heygate estate in elephant:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/mar/04/death-housing-ideal


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 6, 2011)

yes I saw this. Have not read it yet.


----------



## Gramsci (May 7, 2011)

my post 26 has part one of Guiness Trust estate short film . Ive just been sent Part 2. Part 2 is mostly interviews after the Planning Application Committee meeting where the was Guiness Trust application to demolish the estate was agreed. (see my post 42).



Spot yours truly in background of one shot.

At end of film it says decision has been referred to Council scrutiny committee.


----------



## Gramsci (May 7, 2011)

I did speak at that meeting to oppose the application. Also gave the residents a bit of advice on how a PAC works. I dont live there and have no "vested interest" in the estate. Do I get a Gold Star?


----------



## editor (May 7, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> my post 26 has part one of Guiness Trust estate short film . Ive just been sent Part 2. Part 2 is mostly interviews after the Planning Application Committee meeting where the was Guiness Trust application to demolish the estate was agreed. (see my post 42).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I bigged it up on the urban75 blog: http://www.urban75.org/blog/guinness-trust-estate-campaign-continues-in-brixton-video/


----------



## Gramsci (May 7, 2011)

Thanks Ed. I will let them know.

He is a good documentary maker imo.


----------



## tshax (May 8, 2011)

I've just moved to Loughborough Park on a short-term tenancy agreement - should I be worried about any of this?

Is there a known and realistic timetable if any of these plans are to go ahead?


----------



## Gramsci (May 9, 2011)

Yes you should. 

You need to talk to neighbours and get in touch with the residents association.

The timetable im not clear on. I dont actually live there.

I have told the Short Life residents to get legal advice on there status.

Short life is easy way for social landlords to fill up flats whilst they sit on property for years. Development may or may not happen sooner or later for various financial reasons. In the meantime people have no status. The way it works is that they try and word agreements in such a way as to get people out quickly with no obligation to house them elsewhere. Short life is often a misnomer as 

"Short lifers" often end up as long term members of the community. As is the case with many of the residents on the estate.

from minute of PAC meeting. An "informative" is something that the PAC wishes to happen but does not have the power to make happen.

  * Add informative that the Planning Applications Committee request that Lambeth’s Housing officers work with Guinness Trust to make best endeavours to ensure all AST residents in housing need are re-housed on the redeveloped Loughborough Park Estate. This request is to be communicated directly to Lambeth’s Housing officers by the Planning Division. 

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/mgAi.aspx?ID=13594


----------



## Gramsci (May 9, 2011)

minutes of the PAC where the GT proposal was agreed.

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/mgAi.aspx?ID=13594


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 29, 2011)

50 families to be evicted on Nov 20th


----------



## Greebo (Oct 29, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> 50 families to be evicted on Nov 20th


Oh great - where on earth are they supposed to go?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 29, 2011)

Your guess is as good as mine....as in, I haven't a clue


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 29, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> 50 families to be evicted on Nov 20th


shit - are they the short life tenants?

What's the ultimate plan for the GT estate - is it going to be completely redeveloped?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 29, 2011)

Brixton Hatter said:


> shit - are they the short life tenants?
> 
> What's the ultimate plan for the GT estate - is it going to be completely redeveloped?


Yes and I don't know exactly but most if not all will be demolished.


----------



## LizzieD (Oct 29, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> 50 families to be evicted on Nov 20th


Hello, I'm a local journalist and saw news about the evictions on Twitter. Now I can't find it anywhere else on the internet, how did you find out?
Many thanks,
Lizzie


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 29, 2011)

Yesterday's South London Press (hard copy)


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 29, 2011)

So despite this condition in the approval of the planning application:




			
				minutes from the Planning Applications Committee said:
			
		

> Add informative that the Planning Applications Committee request that Lambeth’s Housing officers work with Guinness Trust to make best endeavours to ensure all AST residents in housing need are re-housed on the redeveloped Loughborough Park Estate. This request is to be communicated directly to Lambeth’s Housing officers by the Planning Division.​



...they are still evicting AST people?

Cunts. ​


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 29, 2011)

...I would add that although those to be evicted are 'short life' tenants they've been there for donkey's years and many are really active in community groups and will be sorely missed.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 29, 2011)

LizzieD said:


> Hello, I'm a local journalist and saw news about the evictions on Twitter. Now I can't find it anywhere else on the internet, how did you find out?
> Many thanks,
> Lizzie


why dont you go down there and ask the residents face to face? Isn't that what journos are supposed to do?

(Or even read the local paper!)


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Oct 29, 2011)

Brixton Hatter said:


> shit - are they the short life tenants?
> 
> What's the ultimate plan for the GT estate - is it going to be completely redeveloped?


yes and yes.
Heard about the evictions a few weeks back, at this point it's ASTs from the really long building at the back of the estate, quite likely to be to rehouse AT currently living in the first building to be demolished and rebuilt.
Not that there isn't already a massive amount of empties on the estate (4 in my staircase out of 15 flats, and I think that's about the average proportion all around)


Mrs Magpie said:


> ...I would add that although those to be evicted are 'short life' tenants they've been there for donkey's years and many are really active in community groups and will be sorely missed.


Yep, my friend has been involved in the (unofficial) Tenant Association, I've told her she might want to try and get on the Lambeth Housing Waiting list, as this is totally out of her hands she might get rehoused reasonably quickly I would have hoped, then again this IS Lambeth...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 29, 2011)

25,000 on the waiting list right now  We were on the list for _*years*_ as medical priority one (that was probably a Lambeth fuck-up though)


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Oct 29, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> 25,000 on the waiting list right now  We were on the list for _*years*_ as medical priority one (that was probably a Lambeth fuck-up though)


No idea what it's like now, but sounds like hell.
I had a friend with medical priority who was in trouble with them for years before he got a place, and somehow he ended up in Croydon in the end.
I was lucky when I got this flat, some priority need via a social worker and the fact that the estate was hard to let at the time (I know several people who decided to wait longer rather than get a flat here in those days) but this has changed since the drug dealer gauntlet in somerleyton road is gone and all the entrance to the outer flats on the moorlands estate have been moved on to the road rather than inside the estate as they used to be.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 29, 2011)

When we were on the list we were begging for a place on Moorlands because we thought we'd get rehoused sooner.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Oct 29, 2011)

tbh, I rather liked the flats on the moorlands estate and in southwyck house when I used to squat there, I prefer their layout to the ones in the GT


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 29, 2011)

When we were on the waiting list no-one wanted to live there.


----------



## LizzieD (Nov 1, 2011)

Would anyone who lives on the estate be interested in talking me to about the issue? Their quotes would go in a news article about the evictions to be published on Thurday on www.swlondoner.co.uk/news.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 1, 2011)

Welcome to U75 Lizzie. I'll take you at face value because I am kind and fair person. However you'll remember the terms and conditions when you signed up, which include this:




			
				http://www.urban75.net/forums/help/terms said:
			
		

> Please note that these are discussion boards and not a free resource for journalists/students/market researchers.





LizzieD said:


> Would anyone who lives on the estate be interested in talking me to about the issue?


Ask them. Go on!


----------



## LizzieD (Nov 2, 2011)

Sorry, I took that condition to mean that we couldn't quote from the forum or use them as a basis for stories. I'll end my membership.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Nov 2, 2011)

LizzieD said:


> Sorry, I took that condition to mean that we couldn't quote from the forum or use them as a basis for stories. I'll end my membership.


a bit harsh on yourself there


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 2, 2011)

LizzieD said:


> Sorry, I took that condition to mean that we couldn't quote from the forum or use them as a basis for stories. I'll end my membership.


well that's a bit drastic! You'll get a lot out of urban75 if you contribute and get involved.

In the past, lazy journalists have often used this board as a basis for stories and have even quoted posters from here in their newspaper articles without referencing U75 or asking the permission of the individuals involved. I think a lot of journos think they can get away with doing entire stories without ever getting their arse off their chair. Maybe I'm a bit old fashioned but I think there's no substitute for speaking to someone face to face and looking in to their eyes. Actually visiting the estate and seeing it with your own eyes will most probably give you a better story, not to mention some decent descriptive stuff to work with and seeing people face to face. You certainly can't assume all the residents of GT are members here.

But far be it from me to tell you how to do your job...good luck because it's a story worth telling


----------



## jeremyclyne (Nov 2, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Yes you should.
> 
> You need to talk to neighbours and get in touch with the residents association.
> 
> ...


 
With regard to the Council acting on the "informative" about AST residents being rehoused on the estate I have attempted to submit a Scrutiny Committee question about this, but so far my efforts have been blocked.  I'll keep you posted.

Jeremy Clyne
Lib Dem councillor, Streatham Hill Ward


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2011)

jeremyclyne said:


> With regard to the Council acting on the "informative" about AST residents being rehoused on the estate I have attempted to submit a Scrutiny Committee question about this, but so far my efforts have been blocked. I'll keep you posted.
> 
> Jeremy Clyne
> Lib Dem councillor, Streatham Hill Ward


Good luck with this.


----------



## LizzieD (Nov 2, 2011)

Brixton Hatter said:


> well that's a bit drastic! You'll get a lot out of urban75 if you contribute and get involved.
> 
> In the past, lazy journalists have often used this board as a basis for stories and have even quoted posters from here in their newspaper articles without referencing U75 or asking the permission of the individuals involved. I think a lot of journos think they can get away with doing entire stories without ever getting their arse off their chair. Maybe I'm a bit old fashioned but I think there's no substitute for speaking to someone face to face and looking in to their eyes. Actually visiting the estate and seeing it with your own eyes will most probably give you a better story, not to mention some decent descriptive stuff to work with and seeing people face to face. You certainly can't assume all the residents of GT are members here.
> 
> But far be it from me to tell you how to do your job...good luck because it's a story worth telling



I'm still here! Yeah that was a bit drastic, I live in fear of being caught out by terms and conditions. I just thought it was a really useful way of getting in touch with people. Obviously members aren't all GT tenants but people obviously have an interest in the subject and I thought some might like the opportunity to comment publicly.

You should do those journalists for copyright by the way. On a seperate note about the industry, it's a sad fact that visiting places and talking to people on the street is becoming less feasible. Newspapers, particularly local ones, have downsized so much that the remaining journalists have to write so much copy that proper old-fashioned investigation isn't possible or sometimes permitted in a working day.

I'm studying full-time at the moment so haven't been able to get down to the estate. The article is due tomorrow so too late now, that's why I've been trying to set up some phone interviews but no such luck.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 2, 2011)

LizzieD said:


> You should do those journalists for copyright by the way.


To be honest I don't think the site owner (editor) has the time or the financial resources. This site is run on a wing, a prayer and elastic band plus the goodwill of a small band of volunteers and posters who contribute voluntarily to pay the server costs......

The worst rip-off I remember was a journalist who did a double page spread in the Evening Standard about 9 years ago whose vox-pop consisted entirely of quotes lifted wholesale from this site. Unfortunately he took humorous asides as serious comment which made him look somewhat stupid.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 2, 2011)

....on the other hand some really great news stories originated on this site, most notably this one which kept the nation amused for a week or two

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/can-squirrels-get-addicted-to-crack.62414/

....and also this one

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/brixton-movement-for-justice-march.1/


----------



## LizzieD (Nov 2, 2011)

True, at least he looked stupid! Amazing stories. I think the crack squirrels are a definite possibility. Come to think of it the Colliers Wood foxes look a bit dodgy as well...


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 2, 2011)

jeremyclyne said:


> With regard to the Council acting on the "informative" about AST residents being rehoused on the estate I have attempted to submit a Scrutiny Committee question about this, but so far my efforts have been blocked. I'll keep you posted.
> 
> Jeremy Clyne
> Lib Dem councillor, Streatham Hill Ward



Thanks for this. There was article in SLP about GT estate on Friday saying that the S/L residents are being told to leave before Xmas. Cant find it on SLP website.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 2, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> ....on the other hand some really great news stories originated on this site...


Not to mention the Brian Paddick "I've always been intrigued by the idea of anarchy" thread which led to a shitstorm in the national media (and Brian sadly eventually losing his job) and thousands of people joining U75 back in 2002 (myself included.)


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 2, 2011)

That was the second thread I put in that post.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 3, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> That was the second thread I put in that post.


oops! (Thought it was something else and didn't click link  )


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Nov 3, 2011)

LizzieD said:


> I'm still here! Yeah that was a bit drastic, I live in fear of being caught out by terms and conditions. I just thought it was a really useful way of getting in touch with people. Obviously members aren't all GT tenants but people obviously have an interest in the subject and I thought some might like the opportunity to comment publicly.
> 
> You should do those journalists for copyright by the way. On a seperate note about the industry, it's a sad fact that visiting places and talking to people on the street is becoming less feasible. Newspapers, particularly local ones, have downsized so much that the remaining journalists have to write so much copy that proper old-fashioned investigation isn't possible or sometimes permitted in a working day.
> 
> I'm studying full-time at the moment so haven't been able to get down to the estate. *The article is due tomorrow so too late now*, that's why I've been trying to set up some phone interviews but no such luck.


Too bad.
The unofficial Tenant Association (as in: not recognised by the Guinness trust) is organising a meeting on Saturday November 5th at 11am (the poster mentioned the meeting room but I'm a bit dubious due to their past experiences of having to actually meet outside in the cold instead)


Gramsci said:


> Thanks for this. There was article in SLP about GT estate on Friday saying that the S/L residents are being told to leave before Xmas. Cant find it on SLP website.


AFAIK a lot (50 families mentioned earlier in the thread) of AST have been sent eviction notices for November 20th (no idea what might have come after that as I am not directly concerned by this and haven't bumped into anyone since being told this)
One of the main mover in the tenant association is friend with a SLP journalist which is how it gets featured in there regularly I think.


----------



## jeremyclyne (Nov 10, 2011)

jeremyclyne said:


> With regard to the Council acting on the "informative" about AST residents being rehoused on the estate I have attempted to submit a Scrutiny Committee question about this, but so far my efforts have been blocked. I'll keep you posted.
> 
> Jeremy Clyne
> Lib Dem councillor, Streatham Hill Ward



I amended and resubmitted my Scrutiny Committee question, making clear some of the serious issues involved - it was rejected the first time because it was not deemed to be "strategic" enough.  Am waiting to hear if it is going  to be allowed to be heard.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Nov 10, 2011)

Latest Tenants Association poster states the evicted families will receive £5000 towards moving costs.
It does not solve the problem of them having to find new accommodation but I guess it helps a bit, still, private sector rent is going to be much higher than what they pay now.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 10, 2011)

Given that most private rentals now require a months rent in advance (let's say £1500 which seems to be curent average for a three bed flat), 6 weeks deposit (£2100), estate agency fees (about £200), inventory fees (£150) etc, not to mention moving costs etc, that's the best part of 4 grand gone already.

£5k looks like a decent bribe on behalf of GT...but bad news for families who lose reasonably priced accomodation and any semblance of security....


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Nov 12, 2011)

I have no idea how the private rental works but that sounds bad, then again what I read about the French one makes this sound about right (you need to earn 3 times the amount of rent you need to pay to be in with a chance over there, and then, you probably need people to vouch for you too).

I think the "bribe" is something that the Guinness trust has to pay, rather than it being some sort of voluntary gesture from them, but that is what i think based on the fact that they have to pay this to the AT being displaced because of the work, whether it is a compulsory thing for them to do with AST I am not sure.


----------



## jeremyclyne (Jan 30, 2012)

jeremyclyne said:


> I amended and resubmitted my Scrutiny Committee question, making clear some of the serious issues involved - it was rejected the first time because it was not deemed to be "strategic" enough. Am waiting to hear if it is going to be allowed to be heard.



This question, originally submitted three months ago on November 1, is finally to be heard and answered, with the opportunity for supplementary questioning, at a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Thursday (Feb 2) at Lambeth Town Hall.  Rather late in the day given the threat of eviction facing tenants in the period before Christmas.  Four families are now facing possession orders.

Ironic that the question was turned down for not being strategic enough, and then when I rewrote it to make it more strategic in nature the officers only sought to address the particular case.

Text of the question and response  can be read at:
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=113&MId=76232

this includes an interesting question from my colleague Kita Ogden regarding the formation of a "Tulse Hill Forum" which because it has been set up on the basis of the Tulse Hill Ward, includes a large part of Brixton (as far as St Matthews Church) but does not include the centre of Tulse Hill itself, or parts of the area commonly considered to be Tulse Hill which find themselves in our Streatham Hill Ward.

Loughborough Park Question:

1 The Guinness Trust submitted by Councillor Jeremy Clyne

Planning permission was granted on March 2 to Guinness Trust for the
redevelopment of the Loughborough Park Estate subject to an informative
stating:
“the Planning Applications Committee request that Lambeth’s Housing officers
work with Guinness Trust to make best endeavours to ensure all AST residents
in housing need are re-housed on the redeveloped Loughborough Park Estate.
This request is to be communicated directly to Lambeth’s Housing officers by the
Planning Division.”
It has been reported that 50 families are to be evicted before Christmas.
What actions were undertaken by the council’s housing and planning officers in
accordance with this decision? Concerns have been discussed by this
committee in the past regarding the implementation of planning committee
decisions and the correct reporting of committee decisions.
After the committee last discussed these issues what action was taken to tighten
up on procedures?
The use of an informative in this case suggests that the Council has
no powers in this regard. Are planning officers using devices such as this to lead PAC
members to vote for officer recommendations. There have been a number of
recent cases giving rise to this concern.
What requests or approaches were made in this connection to Guinness Trust?
How effective and active is the Housing Department’s partnership working with
Housing Associations operating in the borough?

Response:

Before, during and after the planning application there were
regularly scheduled meetings with Lambeth (Housing, Regeneration and Environment) and Guinness
Trust and the HCA to discuss the progress of the scheme and the strategies for
bringing it forward. This included the need to provide support to the
tenants and Housing officers were already using their best endeavours to assist Guinness
Trust’s tenants. It was never planned by Guinness Trusts that these tenants
would be re-housed within the development. In both the committee report and on
the evening (see reported minutes), officers made it clear that the proposed
development would result in the termination of a number of assured shorthold
tenancies. This was not a planning issue and therefore regard could not be made
to this in coming to a decision on the planning application.
The Council’s Housing Options and Advice Service have been working with
residents since the summer when a number of surgeries took place to inform
tenants of their rights and move on options. Since October two housing advisers
have been allocated to exclusively work with the residents. Advice and support
has been offered to groups of residents and at one to one sessions including
numerous home visits. Guinness Trust offered all residents a home loss and
disturbance payment of approximately £5,000 and we have worked with tenants
to help them move into alternative rented accommodation. A number of families
have made homelessness applications and have been placed into temporary
accommodation.
Of the 53 households we contacted 27 are single and 26 are families. As of this
week:
28 households have moved on with our help:
• 8 have been placed in temporary accommodation and
• 5 have been rehoused via our Rent deposit Scheme
• 15 households have moved into private rented accommodation or made their
own arrangements
Of the remaining 25:
• 14 are not in Priority need and are still being case worked by the Housing
Options and Advice Service and eligible via our Home Finder Deposit
Guarantee scheme to assist them to more into alternative private rented
accommodation
• 3 have refused temporary accommodation preferring to try and make their
own arrangements
• 4 have refused to engage and Possession Orders have been granted and
• 4 have applied as homeless and we are in the process of assessing them

--


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 5, 2012)

jeremyclyne said:


> This question....


Thanks for the update. Any feedback from the meeting?


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 6, 2012)

I notice that the officers reply to Jeremys question did not mention the "informative" agreed at Planning Committee.

* Add informative that the Planning Applications Committee request that Lambeth’s Housing officers work with Guinness Trust to make best endeavours to ensure all AST residents in housing need are re-housed on the redeveloped Loughborough Park Estate. This request is to be communicated directly to Lambeth’s Housing officers by the Planning Division


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 6, 2012)

Some of the AST people have lived there for years. Guiness could have made more of an effort to rehouse them elsewhere.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Feb 6, 2012)

True.
Basically ever since their first redevelopment project (circa 2002/3 IIRC) they have not taken anyone on assured tenancies but only on short ones.
Maybe if Lambeth had been more forthcoming with the first attempt this wouldn't have dragged on for so long.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 8, 2012)

Lambeth were correct to reject GTs first planning application. It was done on for sound planning reasons. Also the GT residents opposed it.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Feb 9, 2012)

It's not so much the fact they rejected it but rather the way they didn't actually reject it but just told the GT they would fight their appeal after GT decided to appeal the fact that the application had been just ignored for years  rather than explicitly rejected, this added years to the project.

There definitely is a vocal opposition to the old (and the current project) whether this actually represent a majority or minority of the residents I have no idea though. GT has definitely avoided engaging with them for sure, and their attempt at creating "their" own tenant association failed miserably due to a "lack of participation" to elect a representative "crew" in charge, as I'm pretty sure everyone on the unofficial tenant group did participate in the vote and other people not in it did too this would indicate that the percentage of residents voicing their concern might not be in the majority but that apathy and disinterest or a "silent majority" in favour are the prevalent feelings towards this, obviously I could be wrong and short of a full survey of all residents there is no way to actually know this.


----------



## jeremyclyne (Feb 16, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Thanks for the update. Any feedback from the meeting?





Gramsci said:


> I notice that the officers reply to Jeremys question did not mention the "informative" agreed at Planning Committee.
> 
> * Add informative that the Planning Applications Committee request that Lambeth’s Housing officers work with Guinness Trust to make best endeavours to ensure all AST residents in housing need are re-housed on the redeveloped Loughborough Park Estate. This request is to be communicated directly to Lambeth’s Housing officers by the Planning Division


By way of an update, tenants now being evicted as the first blocks are
prepared for demolition.

On Saturday I spent several hours meeting tenants who are being thrown
out of their homes, in one case after being there for seven years on
an assured shorthold tenancy and on Monday I went to Lambeth County
Court  on behalf of another tenant, summonsed to appear that day, to plead for her  to be allowed a little more time before being forced out.

Assured shorthold tenants may have no legal rights to stay but we managed to get her
an extra 28 days rather than her being thrown out immediately.

As for the assurance given at the Planning Committee that Lambeth try
to ensure that all Loughborough Park AST residents in housing need  be
rehoused on the redeveloped estate this does not appear to have been
worth more than the paper it was written on.

As Gramsci noted, the response to my Scrutiny question about what action was taken to
carry out this decision did not cite any action taken.  There was lots
of stuff about what the Council claims to have done to help Loughborough Park
ASTs but nothing about getting them rehoused on the estate, and lots
about how Guinness had no duty towards them and never had any
intention to rehouse them on the estate.

As for the use of an “informative” being added to the planning
permission saying that planning officers would instruct Lambeth
housing officers to use their best endeavours with Guinness the legal
advice was that this was completely out of order, since informatives
are to be addressed to the Applicant, they are nothing to do with
action to be taken by the Council.

One cannot but conclude that it was all said to take the heat off
councillors who felt deeply uncomfortable faced with the people about to be made homeless. In fact one councillor at the scrutiny meeting, it is
minuted, “acknowledged that an informative had not been the correct
method but PAC members wanted something in the minutes to ensure that
members had sympathised with the residents.”

I’m sure residents like to know that Councillors  sympathise with them
– although that should be part of the job description - but it is
wrong to mislead people into thinking that something is going to be
done for them when it quite clearly isn’t.

Minutes can be read at:
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=113&MId=7623


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 16, 2012)

thanks for the update.

how lovely that the PAC members "sympathised with the residents".


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 16, 2012)

Thanks for this update and taking your time to assist the GT residents.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 16, 2012)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> this would indicate that the percentage of residents voicing their concern might not be in the majority but that apathy and disinterest or a "silent majority" in favour are the prevalent feelings towards this, obviously I could be wrong and short of a full survey of all residents there is no way to actually know this.


 
I think the residents got gradually ground down by it all.

Whilst "Tenants Participation" is supposedly encouraged this can run counter to the economic climate Housing Associations have to work under. Building affordable housing is getting increasingly difficult.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Feb 18, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> I think the residents got gradually ground down by it all.
> 
> Whilst "Tenants Participation" is supposedly encouraged this can run counter to the economic climate Housing Associations have to work under. Building affordable housing is getting increasingly difficult.


I think affordable housing is actually on its way out to be replaced by "affordable rents", a quick search told me that my rent would go up by over 100% if I had to pay this :/


----------



## Tom Sedek (Mar 26, 2012)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> I think affordable housing is actually on its way out to be replaced by "affordable rents", a quick search told me that my rent would go up by over 100% if I had to pay this :/


 
Can you please state source of this information??
TIA


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Mar 27, 2012)

Tom Sedek said:


> Can you please state source of this information??
> TIA


No source for that, it's just something I thought and it could well be wrong, I'll read more of their literature and get back with factual quotes instead.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Mar 30, 2012)

Tom Sedek said:


> Can you please state source of this information??
> TIA


Having carefully read their literature on the subject (and received a pre phase 2 survey visit this week) here is how I see/understand it now.
They won't change "social"tenancies to "affordable" ones unless the tenant of one of the former request a move to one of the latter properties.  So I guess my fears were unfounded, maybe, paranoid me still worries they might "try" a sneaky change in tenancy when we have to move due to the reconstruction but I'll be sure to get a close read of whatever new tenancy agreement they ask me to sign (legalese, I love it).

The survey about housing needs had questions about whether I wanted to part buy one of the new properties, so i guess they might try and push that.

There is a consultation about phase 2 open day event tomorrow morning from 11am to 2pm, I might finally be able to attend for a change.

The event is also open to resident of Mayall Road, Shakespeare road  Local Councillors and members of the brixton Societyif any are on here and want to attend.
It will take place in the Loughborugh (sic) Park Community Centre


----------



## RyanWilkinsonLW (May 23, 2012)

Hello everyone, would anybody be able to give me the detils of a Loughborough Park community leader or head of residents association? 
Many Thanks,

Ryan


----------



## Gramsci (May 23, 2012)

RyanWilkinsonLW said:


> Hello everyone, would anybody be able to give me the detils of a Loughborough Park community leader or head of residents association?
> Many Thanks,
> 
> Ryan


 
For what reason?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 23, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> I think the residents got gradually ground down by it all.


This, exactly. You need a really tenacious mindset to carry on staying involved in local grassroots stuff. The knock-backs just keep on coming. If life is already a struggle you just don't need that in your life.


----------



## RyanWilkinsonLW (May 24, 2012)

Gramsci said:


> For what reason?


Hi Gramsci, 
I am a journalist from a local publication.
Ryan


----------



## boohoo (May 24, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> This, exactly. You need a really tenacious mindset to carry on staying involved in local grassroots stuff. The knock-backs just keep on coming. If life is already a struggle you just don't need that in your life.


 
I was speaking to some people from Open Dalston recently who had been up against another big boring block being put up in the area - after years of watching things disappear or go up against their wishes - this block has actually been stopped for the time being! Still, it's a lot of energy and work. I can see Brixton heading the same way as Dalston.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 24, 2012)

RyanWilkinsonLW said:


> Hi Gramsci,
> I am a journalist from a local publication.
> Ryan


Which one?


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (May 24, 2012)

RyanWilkinsonLW said:


> Hello everyone, would anybody be able to give me the detils of a Loughborough Park community leader or head of residents association?
> Many Thanks,
> 
> Ryan


There isn't an "official" resident association as in: recognised by the guinness trust (now guinness south) but if you pm me your details I will pass them on to the head of the unofficial one who can decide to contact you or not.


RyanWilkinsonLW said:


> Hi Gramsci,
> I am a journalist from a local publication.
> Ryan


SLP?


----------



## Gramsci (May 24, 2012)

didnt know the demolition had started. Good photos.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (May 24, 2012)

I personally think they should just pull all the block except mine and evict everyone else 
IIRC actual construction is scheduled for June/July start; they've pretty much finished the crushing of the rubbles now, these were taken in March but i forgot to post them before.
Having (finally) attended the presentation event:
they have kept the buildings one floor less than the planning application allowed (since this was a major gripe for a lot of people)


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 25, 2012)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> There isn't an "official" resident association as in: recognised by the guinness trust (now guinness south) but if you pm me your details I will pass them on to the head of the unofficial one who can decide to contact you or not.
> SLP?
> 
> View attachment 19529
> ...


 
Christ, that's fucking sickening!!


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2015)

This video is worth watching. There's a protest on Monday (full details on Buzz tomorrow morning)


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 3, 2015)

Put this in the housing thread as well. Then saw ed had updated this old thread. No harm in publicising this twice.

I was there this morning at nine ( puncture disaster made me a bit late so not my photo)

From Lambeth Housing Activists FB page







These are some of the people who have lived on the estate for years without security of tenure plus members of Unite Community and Lambeth Housing Activist group.

The Guinness Trust AST "shortlife" are all under serious threat now of eviction. Saw one eviction notice that came in last few days.

They have lived on the estate for years in some cases but Guinness are refusing to rehouse them in the new flats that are replacing the old blocks of flats they are in at the moment. Lambeth are also not helping. They are likely to end up living in private accommodation outside Brixton. As its to costly in this area.

As can be seen from photo many have young children whose lives will be disrupted by changing schools and losing networks of friends.

As one mother said its hard to explain to her kids that the new housing on the estate will not be for them.

I do think that Guinness could keep these families onsite in the the new build. They are a part of the local community.

Petition here

Guinness Trust AST facebook page here

If you want u can "like it"


----------



## editor (Apr 20, 2015)

This is happening now. get along if you can - they need your support.

Brixton Guinness Trust residents set up blockade over proposed evictions


----------



## editor (Apr 21, 2015)

Useful background here (courtesy of the LHA): 
Brixton evictions and regeneration – the story of the Guinness Trust Estate in Loughborough Park, Brixton


----------



## Up the junction (Apr 21, 2015)

To make a factual point I wasn't aware of until recently. From what I understand the 'Guinness Trust' hasn't existed since 2012.

I think it was subsumed into the Guinness Partnership, so a different legal entity and a limited company - though still of charitable status.

I haven't really got on top of all the ramifications of that change but it was obv. done for reasons ....


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 21, 2015)

editor said:


> This is happening now. get along if you can - they need your support.
> 
> Brixton Guinness Trust residents set up blockade over proposed evictions



I was there on Monday morning when it started. They are under threat of eviction and as one can see a lot of them are parents with children.


----------



## editor (Apr 29, 2015)

Something is going on today and I imagine some of the residents are terrified. 
















Brixton Guinness Trust residents fenced in as security guards assemble outside their homes


----------



## xsunnysuex (Apr 29, 2015)

editor said:


> Something is going on today and I imagine some of the residents are terrified.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Blimey.  That don't look good.   I certainly would be scared if I were faced with that.  Hope nothing horrible happens.


----------



## Up the junction (Apr 29, 2015)

At that size they obv can't get the lorry on site.

No idea what they're shifting but maybe heavy machinery or those sales portacabins.


----------



## jimbarkanoodle (May 1, 2015)

im not sure how relevant this is, but I live in a guardianship scheme called Camelot, where you live in empty buildings etc, technically and supposedly acting as a "guardian" of the property whilst its fate is decided. One of the properties on offer (not mine) is a flat in the estate, with rent of around £300 a month.

http://uk.cameloteurope.com/?id=151&level=1&guard_man=558&args=&property_id=2734&wtlive=Brixton


----------



## editor (May 1, 2015)

You have to hand it to Camelot. They've managed to make money out of what is essentially squatting. Scum.

(Not that I blame anyone for living in their properties)


----------



## jimbarkanoodle (May 1, 2015)

they are bastards alright.


----------



## leanderman (May 1, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> At that size they obv can't get the lorry on site.
> 
> No idea what they're shifting but maybe heavy machinery or those sales portacabins.



Correct. The fencing and stuff was apparently for the (health and safety) purposes of moving an enormous crane.


----------



## editor (May 1, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Correct. The fencing and stuff was apparently for the (health and safety) purposes of moving an enormous crane.


And the dog was there to ward off any cats that came to look.


----------



## Gramsci (May 5, 2015)

I was asked by Lambeth Housing Activists to look in GT and planning. Here is what I have found so far. 

asked me to look into whether GT have planning permission for remaining works on the Loughborough Park Estate.

The short answer to the question do GT have planning permission for "Phase 3" ,the demolition of the remaining blocks and new build, is no.

There is "outline" planning permission for the whole scheme. 

However detailed planning permission is required for each stage. Phase 3 is the last one that needs full planning permission. 

The planning application for Phase 3 is in planning officer jargon "pending". It has been submitted and public comments can be made still. 

The comments against have been about the height of the blocks. Which will be higher than the nearby Barrier Block or recent proposals for the Somerleyton road project. So there is a planning issue around height. 

The application is on the Lambeth planning website. To make comments you have to log in. That requires to fill in online- email address etc. After that you can log into site and comment online. Its application number  15/01281/FUL- it also should be in the Tate Library.

As the application is still open to comments I would suggest that people could comment to say that the short life remaining in these blocks should be rehoused in the new development. Unfortunately this is not considered a planning issue. However it might be worth doing to make a political point. 

Also to ask for guarantees on the type of tenancies and level of affordable rent on phase 3. Which may be a planning issue.


The application has a lot of pdfs.

One that summarises the housing issues and history of the application is this pdf

Its of course written by Gt so presents there side. But its revealing about the history of the regeneration of the estate. It also has useful drawing showing the different phases. 

I have read it through and it looks to me that GT were persuaded to make more of an effort to build social housing. An issue that came up when the residents opposed the original application years back now. 

See page 3 point 2.7. Instead of half for outright sale now all units will be rented or shared ownership. Only first two phases are social rented. Phase 3 will be at "affordable" rent. Whatever that will mean. Its an issue for planning imo that can be raised. The rest will be shared ownership. So there will be according to GT net increase in social housing. Only if one includes shared ownership. The got extra funding or promises of it to do this.

Is the enough affordable housing to rehouse all the remaining Short Life in phase 3?

It looks like yes.

 ( The issues will be were do they live in meantime and what affordable rent will be. Looking at the drawings it appears that phase 3 will be done in two parts. As the temporary community centre will move twice. Therefore it will be possible to keep existing short life on site. At this time GT are using Camelot to replace existing insecure tenants. So I reckon that GT think it will take time to get full planning permission and start works.Phase 3 is largest phase. 


Page 2 point 2.2 of the pdf states that:

"The first phase is complete and the second phase is nearing completion. On completion of phase 2 all the existing resident will be rehouse in new homes."

Also says this on page 4 point 3.1

I do not know how many of the original resident on secure tenancies there are left. I know at least one family rehoused elsewhere.
It could be that in phase 2 there may be flats surplus to the number of secure residents that need to be rehoused on the estate.

page 6 point 3.3 states that those on insecure tenancies will be referred to Lambeth.

To add the "The Business Case pdf for phase 3 page one also say that over the remaining years of the scheme the financial viability as they put it will have to be reviewed. And that the scheme may change.

In that doc it says that its says phase one and two got funding. Phase 3 is seeking new bid for funding. So am not clear whether first funding was for 290 homes or not. The various pdfs say slightly different things imo.


----------



## Gramsci (May 5, 2015)

I also look at "Guinness Trust Investment strategy and business plan". pdf was to large to upload her but if you google the title it comes up.

Pages 16 and 17 cover the Loughborough Park Estate.

Interestingly GT have moved into building homes for sale and rent at market prices:




> In 2013 the Partnership took the bold step of committing to invest £120m over
> a 5 year period to build up a market rent portfolio of 1000 homes, the first 83 homes in this
> portfolio have been purchased at Sutton’s Wharf, London and we currently have a further
> 280 homes in construction for Market rent and Sale. Market rent is an important tenure for
> those priced out of home ownership and there is a growing need in some areas for a good well managed market rent product.



page 8

The structure of GT is complicated. They have set up different entities that are independent of each other. Guinness Development Ltd does building for outright sale. (page 15). Its a company not a charity.

So Guinness in practise is both a charitable social housing provider and a private developer.

page 16:


> Guinness Homes Limited
> GDL and Guinness Homes Limited (GHL) are the two legal entities that exist to support
> TGP’s development and investment activity. GHL was previously Encore Homes and was re-
> named to build on the strong Guinness brand, it is a non- charitable subsidiary which will hold
> ...




page 16 & 17 cover Loughborough Park Estate



> In March 2011 the London Borough of Lambeth granted planning permission for the
> redevelopment of the Loughborough Park estate to provide 525 new homes. Extensive
> liaison took place with residents, LB Lambeth, GLA and HCA and grant funding of £17.5m
> was secured under the Affordable Homes Programme 2011-15 to replace the 390 existing
> ...





> Phases 3, 4 and 5 have been included in the GLA 2015/18 bid although these will be nil grant
> homes. A dedicated team has been based at Loughborough Park able to deal with all
> aspects of the redevelopment and this has proved crucial to the successful progress of this
> major project.



I assume when it say phases 2 to 5 it now means just phase 3 the rest of the estate.

Doc show that GT got grant funding to replace the existing social housing.

What I do not understand is that it says it got a grant to replace the existing 390 homes but phase 3 will be nil grant homes. As phase one and two will account for only 211 social rented not the full 390.

Plus phase one, two and three will come up to 354 rented units ( social and affordable ) not 390. The rest being shared ownership.


----------



## Gramsci (May 5, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> To make a factual point I wasn't aware of until recently. From what I understand the 'Guinness Trust' hasn't existed since 2012.
> 
> I think it was subsumed into the Guinness Partnership, so a different legal entity and a limited company - though still of charitable status.
> 
> I haven't really got on top of all the ramifications of that change but it was obv. done for reasons ....



My post above goes into some of it.

Seems that charitable institutions can set up entities that are not charitable status that are controlled by them in practise. In legal terms they are separate and not covered by charitable society guidelines. I assume.

imo opinion it starts to make a charitable institution start to lose its real purpose. What is to stop GT running down its charitable side and becoming more and more like a straightforward property developer?


----------



## Gramsci (May 5, 2015)

If anyone can add to my post please do. The application is long and complicated. There are also issues of height in this redevelopment  CH1 High Definition 

My looking at it is to see if its possible for the remaining short life to be rehoused on the estate. 

Looks to me like that is feasible. 

 GT say the units in phase 3 will go to Lambeth for allocation. So it might be worth trying to get Lambeth to at least rehouse those short life with children on the estate.


----------



## Gramsci (May 5, 2015)

Thinking about the charitable status of Guinness Trust.

Do having non charitable "subsidiaries"  as part of GT contradict the core charitable purpose?

Even if in strict legal terms they are separate? But in practise not. The old legal argument. If it walks like a duck and quakes like a duck its a duck even if you call it something else.

GT also at one level call them subsidiaries at another separate entities.


----------



## Up the junction (May 5, 2015)

A bit more:


> In 2012 the housing properties and operations of The Guinness Trust were combined with those of the other main housing divisions in the Group to form a single charitable company operating nationwide, The Guinness Partnership Limited.



And then this:
http://www.guinnesspartnership.com/about-us/governance/legal-structures


It seems to mean the old Guinness Trust (and Board) is now a subsidiary of the Partnership - one of five subsidiary entities. The umbrella 'group' entity (the Partnership) is of charitable status - this is interesting as it means the profits its subsidiaries accrue (some from commercial activities) still belong to the charitable entity. Basically a charity with different sub companies making money for it.

So, alongside the Trust - which remains as it always has - the other four subsidiaries:

* Develop and sell at market rates (Guinness Developments Ltd)
* Offer properties at market rent (Guinness Homes Ltd)
* A care and support entity with its own sub companies
* A repairs and planned works entity

In terms of the future - and this is only my opinion - it is reasonable to worry about the ambitions at Group level (the Partnership), not least because it could presumably abandon its charitable status. But. The key word for Guinness tenants is if their landlord is the Guinness _Trust_ - you can't mess with that, and the terms of the Trust will be crucial.

It might also be the case that the landlord for new and new-ish tenants won't be Guinness Trust but Guinness Partnership, which means they don't have the same (Trust) protection of tenants pre 2012 - again imo.


----------



## CH1 (May 5, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> I was asked by Lambeth Housing Activists to look in GT and planning. Here is what I have found so far.
> asked me to look into whether GT have planning permission for remaining works on the Loughborough Park Estate.
> The short answer to the question do GT have planning permission for "Phase 3" ,the demolition of the remaining blocks and new build, is no.
> There is "outline" planning permission for the whole scheme.
> ...


My preliminary thoughts on this are:
WOW! Three pages of pdf files are listed - maybe a trip to the library would be better.
As I read it the official deadline for comments on the application was 1/2 April.
They hadn't gone out of their way to consult had they? No workshops at 6 Somerleyton Road attended by Tulse Hill ward councillors etc etc.

For reference I have tried to create an image of the planning approval from 2011 (by the planning committee) which does show that all this has already been approved in principle - and the current 2015 application is essentially the full set of drawings showing the buildings as they are proposed to be constructed.


----------



## CH1 (May 5, 2015)

Regarding both the original and current Guinness application I would like to mention the *transport assessment*. 

This was done (in terms of buses) by adding together all the buses on routes "near" to the Guinness Trust site = P4, P5, 322, 35,45,345.

Altogether they have calculated that there are 27 buses an hour each way serving the site. Therefore no extra capacity will be needed.

The original transport study is 88 pages and the supplement for the current application is 23 pages -neither seem to contain anything much useful - except to justify a consultancy fee.

One further point - the transport surveys were done before the Evelyn Grace Academy was built.


----------



## Twattor (May 5, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> A bit more:
> 
> 
> And then this:
> ...



This is the industry standard model now.  When central government funding started shrinking post-2008, it didn't take housing associations long to work out that they had a massive competitive advantage over private developers because they had a huge asset base and income stream to borrow against, and didn't have to partner with anyone to pick up the affordable elements in large developments.

They are still charitable bodies and essentially non-profit making so the private sales cross-subsidise the affordable, but effectively the drive is towards maximising revenue so they can develop more.  This is why you tend to see more "affordable rent" than "social rent" in the new developments.  I'm only aware of one RSL that is committed to providing only affordable and social with no private, and they aren't based in london.

Most tenancies these days are ASTs rather than protected.  Again, that is a fact of life as these entities are commercial and want to minimise maintenance and management costs, which are increased by disruptive or destructive tenants.


----------



## Gramsci (May 5, 2015)

CH1 said:


> My preliminary thoughts on this are:
> WOW! Three pages of pdf files are listed - maybe a trip to the library would be better.
> As I read it the official deadline for comments on the application was 1/2 April.
> They hadn't gone out of their way to consult had they? No workshops at 6 Somerleyton Road attended by Tulse Hill ward councillors etc etc.
> ...



Its still possible to comment online about the application. 

One issue is the height in this application is higher than the outline planning application.


----------



## Gramsci (May 9, 2015)

Blockade Friday morning. Supporters came from Aylesbury estate, Radical Housing network, Lambeth Housing activists and Housing Actions in Southwark and Lambeth. Its good to see so many groups offering solidarity.

Whilst GT have offered concessions to the remaining ASTs its still necessary to keep the pressure up.

The fences and security guards have gone. GT must have seen them as bad publicity.



















This was early morning. All credit to those who had an early start friday morning.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (May 9, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Blockade Friday morning. Supporters came from Aylesbury estate, Radical Housing network, Lambeth Housing activists and Housing Actions in Southwark and Lambeth. Its good to see so many groups offering solidarity.
> 
> Whilst GT have offered concessions to the remaining ASTs its still necessary to keep the pressure up.
> 
> ...



Saw some familiar faces on the Mayday march, had a chat with one or two but don't know them beyond that. I took this effort in the wind;


----------



## leanderman (May 9, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> The fences and security guards have gone. GT must have seen them as bad publicity.



I was told they were a temporary measure to allow for the movement of a giant crane.


----------



## Up the junction (May 9, 2015)

Indeed, it's not a detention camp.


----------



## editor (May 9, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Indeed, it's not a detention camp.


Imagine it may have felt that way to residents already threatened with eviction. How would you like it if 15 security guards and fencing suddenly encircled your home without warning or explanation?


----------



## Up the junction (May 9, 2015)

editor said:


> Imagine it may have felt that way to residents already threatened with eviction. How would you like it if 15 security guards and fencing suddenly encircled your home without warning or explanation?


I'd refer to my eviction correspondence, particularly from the County Court. And maybe even ask them what they were doing there.

Ftr, I wouldn't take a bunch of photos of an articulated lorry.


----------



## editor (May 9, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> I'd refer to my eviction correspondence, particularly from the County Court. And maybe even ask them what they were doing there.


Been evicted many times, have you? 


Up the junction said:


> Ftr, I wouldn't take a bunch of photos of an articulated lorry.


What?


----------



## Up the junction (May 9, 2015)

What?


----------



## editor (May 9, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> What?


1. This naivete you're showing that by suggesting that simply 'checking the eviction correspondence' would put a worried mother's mind completely to rest when suddenly faced with an army of security guards turning up unannounced. You're living in a fantasy world if you think that evictions always go by the book and that landlords never use intimidation or illegal tactics to boot out tenants.
2. What are you about: "Ftr, I wouldn't take a bunch of photos of an articulated lorry."


----------



## Up the junction (May 9, 2015)

editor said:


> 1. This naivete you're showing that by suggesting that simply 'checking the eviction correspondence' would put a worried mother's mind completely to rest when suddenly faced with an army of security guards turning up unannounced. You're living in a fantasy world if you think that evictions always go by the book and that landlords never use intimidation or illegal tactics to boot out tenants.


This tells us you know fuck all -and I mean FUCK ALL - about GT.

Are you sure you're not conflating tenants rights with squatters rights to build your *story*?


----------



## Up the junction (May 9, 2015)

LOL QED.


----------



## editor (May 9, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> This tells us you know fuck all -and I mean FUCK ALL - about GT.
> 
> Are you sure you're not conflating tenants rights with squatters rights to build your *story*?


So the tenants - you know, the people that actually live there - were all just being _silly billies_ for being so worried about what was going on? And as for desperately writing to people to ask them to come down when the security turned up announced - well, that's them just not knowing anything too, yes? What fright babies!



You may dismiss their concerns out of hand. I won't.


----------



## Up the junction (May 9, 2015)

You don't know the difference, do you. Pretty convenient.

Any more photos of non-tenant evictions to build your bogus narrative?


----------



## editor (May 9, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> You don't know the difference, do you. Pretty convenient.
> 
> Any more photos of non-tenant evictions to build your bogus narrative?


Why do you think the tenants were so worried? Any ideas? Are you able to empathise or understand _anything_?


----------



## Up the junction (May 9, 2015)

This is the law - you might want to help your friends instead of wringing your hands and avoiding their actual rights:

https://www.gov.uk/evicting-tenants/overview

Sorry, but there's no photo journalism for your to rush out to 'report'.


----------



## editor (May 9, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> This is the law - you might want to help your friends instead of wringing your hands and avoiding their actual rights:


I note you've still failed to answer the question. Sigh.

And if you think every eviction always follows those legal guidelines and there's never any intimidation or force, you truly are living in a fantasy world.


----------



## Up the junction (May 9, 2015)

editor said:


> Why do you think the tenants were so worried? Any ideas? Are you able to empathise or understand _anything_?


Don't talk to me about "empahty". You're the cunt trying to conflate tenants rights with squatters rights - by doing that you're exploiting these poor people. Get a grip.

Or just fuck off because you are really - really - not helping.


----------



## editor (May 9, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Don't talk to me about "empahty". You're the cunt trying to conflate tenants rights with squatters rights - by doing that you're exploiting these poor people. Get a grip.


Why do you think the tenants were so worried that they started ringing around for people to come down? Why did they want the local media to come over? Why can't you answer that simple question?

Oh and cut out the gobby language.


----------



## Up the junction (May 9, 2015)

editor said:


> Why do you think the tenants were so worried that they started ringing around for people to come down? Why did they want the local media to come over? Why can't you answer that simple question?


For the last time, you personally build hysteria by conflating two sets of rights. And then you talk about 'empathy. Do me a favour.

Have you exploited these people for your own 'photo-journalism' ends?


----------



## editor (May 9, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> For the last time, you personally build hysteria by conflating two sets of rights. And then you talk about 'empathy. Do me a favour.


So you won't answer the question then?


Up the junction said:


> Have you exploited these people for your own 'photo-journalism' ends?


I can see you think you're delivering some _devastating_ point here, but I was ASKED by the tenants to come down and take the pictures. Why do you think that might be? Any idea?  
And where have I built up "hysteria" ? The only person I see losing it here is you.


----------



## Up the junction (May 9, 2015)

editor said:


> The only person I see losing it here is you.


You can only take so much bullshit. And you posting up photos of 24-hour squatter evictions was it. And then talking about empathy.

Sharpen up. You're not looking clever.


----------



## shifting gears (May 9, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Sharpen up. You're not looking clever.



Oh the fucking irony.


----------



## Up the junction (May 9, 2015)

Oh good, the hive appears. That'll help.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (May 9, 2015)




----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> You don't know the difference, do you. Pretty convenient.
> 
> Any more photos of non-tenant evictions to build your bogus narrative?



You're really quite pitiable.
Or you would be if I had compassion for the likes of you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Oh good, the hive appears. That'll help.



That's right, it's a conspiracy by a monothought clique to shut you up, and nothing at all to do with disparate posters all independently concluding that you're a worthless sack of pus. 
Keep telling yourself that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Don't talk to me about "empahty". You're the cunt trying to conflate tenants rights with squatters rights - by doing that you're exploiting these poor people. Get a grip.



Rather than just farting out a whine, why not make a case for what you're claiming? It shouldn't be hard for you to do, if it's as obvious as you imply.


----------



## leanderman (May 9, 2015)

These tenants apparently signed time-limited contracts in the knowledge that they would be asked to leave.


----------



## Up the junction (May 9, 2015)

That's classy; conflating squatter and tenant rights < insert wrong photo here > to put the GT tenants in panic, and then also reporting half the story so the public are ill-informed. All about the *story* right.

And we're supposed to trust this shower with reporting on Pop Brixton and other local political issues ... Read all about it in the BrixtonLolz


----------



## editor (May 9, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> That's classy; conflating squatter and tenant rights < insert wrong photo here > to put the GT tenants in panic


Which tenants were 'put in a panic'? Oh, that's right: none whatsoever. 
It's just you losing touch with reality again in a pitiful attempt to score internet points. MegaLOLz etc.


----------



## Up the junction (May 9, 2015)

Mr Empathy with his exploitational 'reporting'. Read all about it in the BrixtonLolz.


----------



## shifting gears (May 9, 2015)

Anyone else suspect this clown might be a returning ban-ee with an axe to grind?


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (May 10, 2015)

shifting gears said:


> Anyone else suspect this clown might be a returning ban-ee with an axe to grind?



Always had it down as a sock puppet, there are a few of them floating about.


----------



## editor (May 10, 2015)

He's been banned for 24 hours after accruing multiple warnings via the warnings system.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

shifting gears said:


> Anyone else suspect this clown might be a returning ban-ee with an axe to grind?



Could be flimsier during one of his sane phases, or could just be some no-mark demented self-righteous shitcunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Always had it down as a sock puppet, there are a few of them floating about.



Like sock-shaped turds.


----------



## SpamMisery (May 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Could be flimsier during one of his sane phases, or could just be some no-mark demented self-righteous shitcunt.



As editor said to another user who dropped the C bomb:



editor said:


> ....cut out the gobby language.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> As editor said to another user who dropped the C bomb:



Except he wasn't referring to someone saying "cunt", was he?
And "the C-Bomb"? Are you ten fucking years old?
You absolute fucking plum.


----------



## Gramsci (May 11, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Have you exploited these people for your own 'photo-journalism' ends?



I was rung up early in morning when the fences and security guards first arrived asking to get in contact with Brixton Buzz to see if they could come down to photograph it. I phoned Editor to ask him to come down. I also went down as well.

The tenants under threat of eviction asked for coverage.

editor came down straight away to his credit. 

This was not about exploiting people. It was about supporting people who have been put under pressure by GT for months.

Pretty clear after the successful blockades in last few weeks Gt decided to get in security for a few days.


----------



## Gramsci (May 11, 2015)

leanderman said:


> These tenants apparently signed time-limited contracts in the knowledge that they would be asked to leave.



In the real world people have limited choices. Its not a level playing field between landlords and tenants. If the tenants had not signed up then GT could have got someone else. 

Secondly the "regeneration" of the estate took so long that the AST ended up with there children growing up here and going to local schools. It ended up as not being in practise short term.


----------



## leanderman (May 11, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> In the real world people have limited choices. Its not a level playing field between landlords and tenants. If the tenants had not signed up then GT could have got someone else.
> 
> Secondly the "regeneration" of the estate took so long that the AST ended up with there children growing up here and going to local schools. It ended up as not being in practise short term.



In the real world, a deal is a deal and people move all the time, with and without children, often keeping them at schools two or three miles away.

And you seem to be suggesting that the security was in response to blockades - the blockades that my friend on the estate claims have delayed completion work and infuriated residents.


----------



## shifting gears (May 11, 2015)

leanderman said:


> In the real world, a deal is a deal and people move all the time, with and without children, often keeping them at schools two or three miles away.



Aka "I'm alright Jack"

Your lack of empathy says it all


----------



## SpamMisery (May 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Except he wasn't referring to someone saying "cunt", was he?
> And "the C-Bomb"? Are you ten fucking years old?
> You absolute fucking plum.



You're so cool. I bet you smoke and everything


----------



## Gramsci (May 11, 2015)

leanderman said:


> In the real world, a deal is a deal and people move all the time, with and without children, often keeping them at schools two or three miles away.
> 
> And you seem to be suggesting that the security was in response to blockades - the blockades that my friend on the estate claims have delayed completion work and infuriated residents.



I know secure residents who support the ASTs. As I have said before.

Do you think people like having to move on all time? Surely the point here is that should be changed. Small struggles like this are part of that.

The real world is pretty crap.

And I was suggesting that the security was a response to the blockades.


----------



## Gramsci (May 11, 2015)

Jesus this thread is getting depressing. The Brixton people I talk to do not go on like some posters here.


----------



## leanderman (May 12, 2015)

shifting gears said:


> Aka "I'm alright Jack"
> 
> Your lack of empathy says it all



I empathise. But it does not change the facts.


----------



## leanderman (May 12, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Do you think people like having to move on all time? Surely the point here is that should be changed. Small struggles like this are part of that.
> 
> The real world is pretty crap.



True. But, among the multitude of housing injustices, I don't think this a particularly good case.


----------



## editor (May 12, 2015)

shifting gears said:


> Aka "I'm alright Jack"
> 
> Your lack of empathy says it all


The lack of empathy for those at the bottom struggling with insecure tenancies seems to be an increasingly common theme from those people fortunate enough to own a property (or two). 

Maybe - for some - it gets easy to forget what it feels like to not have any kind of security at all when you're sitting nice and comfortably in your 'hard earned' home.


----------



## editor (May 12, 2015)

leanderman said:


> True. But, among the multitude of housing injustices, I don't think this a particularly good case.


Perhaps if you were one of the residents facing eviction from a tightly knit community that you've been part of for over a decade you might think it a "particularly" better case. 

Any case of long term residents being booted out is a good case to fight in my book.


----------



## Gramsci (May 12, 2015)

leanderman said:


> I empathise. But it does not change the facts.



? 

You do not empathise in that case.


----------



## leanderman (May 12, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> ?
> 
> You do not empathise in that case.



I do. But it does not change my view that this is a weak case when compared with, for example, Dorchester Court or Cressingham.


----------



## Gramsci (May 12, 2015)

leanderman said:


> I do. But it does not change my view that this is a weak case when compared with, for example, Dorchester Court or Cressingham.



Why?

Dorchester Court signed agreements that mean there landlord can up the rent to whatever they want and also many at Dorchestor Court do not have long tenancy agreements. According to your logic they signed up to that freely. Thats the deal. 

If do not support GT ASTs then you do not empathise with them in my book.


----------



## editor (May 12, 2015)

leanderman said:


> I do. But it does not change my view that this is a weak case when compared with, for example, Dorchester Court or Cressingham.


So a poor and desperate person being booted out with their family after ten years in the community - for whatever reason -  appears as a 'weak case' to you?  I guess you must have felt the same about Carlton Mansions as well, yes? And Rushcroft Road?


----------



## editor (May 12, 2015)

I think the lack of general empathy may also spring from the way that Brixton has changed and split into a two tier community, with the 'haves' holding all the power and influence. Whereas, say 10 years ago, the majority of people living nearby would have naturally expressed sympathy and empathy for those losing their homes/squats/co-ops, there's a new generation who have paid a fortune to live here and don't like the idea of anyone getting it "easy."


----------



## Up the junction (May 12, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> I was rung up early in morning when the fences and security guards first arrived asking to get in contact with Brixton Buzz to see if they could come down to photograph it. I phoned Editor to ask him to come down. I also went down as well.
> 
> The tenants under threat of eviction asked for coverage.
> 
> ...


I know you're well-intentioned.

What I don't understand about some people on here - you might even say the *culture* on here - is to conflate different issues to make a disingenuous and wholly bogus point.

In this thread and in the case of Editor it's to confuse squatters rights with tenancy contracts. He even goes so far as to post up a photo of squatters being evicted - and has the bollocks to ask other people where their "empathy" is. And then he wringing his hands at what *might* be imminent eviction when the law plainly states several weeks notice is required and GT is a responsible provider of social housing. It's *all *intended to feed his 'story', and fuck the threatened residents themselves.




And now Editor is on about "empathy" again. This time it's for another poster pointing out, perish the thought,  facts - like legal facts. Empathy is helping vulnerable people, empathy is not knowingly conflating legal rights and posting up images intended to create entirely false uncertainty that only feeds a bogus narrative in BrixtonLolz.

These people need legal facts not some two bob photo-journalist rushing round to take images of a lorry removing a crane.


----------



## Up the junction (May 12, 2015)

editor said:


> So a poor and desperate person being booted out with their family after ten years in the community - for whatever reason -  appears as a 'weak case' to you?  I guess you must have felt the same about Carlton Mansions as well, yes? And Rushcroft Road?


Classic case of conflating completely different rights and situations. This is after it's been pointed out time and time again.

< Insert another photo of squatters being evicted 24 hours after moving in >

And Mr Empathy is helping residents by doing that, right?


----------



## Greebo (May 12, 2015)

leanderman said:


> I do. But it does not change my view that this is a weak case when compared with, for example, Dorchester Court or Cressingham.


Because those places look nicer, or are less far down the road?

Help me out here please, I'm struggling.

What's being done by the Guinness Trust could be got away with elsewhere, so you need to either support all or support none.

BTW I'd love to stay and split hairs with you but, after a profiteering arsehole was snooping around here last night, and having had a night to think about it, there are some emails I need to get out.


----------



## Manter (May 12, 2015)

Greebo said:


> What's being done by the Guinness Trust could be got away with elsewhere, so you need to either support all or support none
> out.


//snip
I don't think this is true. It's not buy one protest get one free. (To borrow Winot's phrase). All of us can make our own decisions on what we support and what we don't- what we are against and what we aren't. 

I don't believe we should smash capitalism or eat the rich, and I don't think the middle classes are scum. I do believe that everyone should have a secure and decent standard place to live. If I get involved in campaigning for the latter, do I have to sign up for the former? I don't think so.


----------



## leanderman (May 12, 2015)

editor said:


> So a poor and desperate person being booted out with their family after ten years in the community - for whatever reason -  appears as a 'weak case' to you?  I guess you must have felt the same about Carlton Mansions as well, yes? And Rushcroft Road?



I have repeatedly said that short-life properties should have been converted into proper council tenancies.


----------



## leanderman (May 12, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Why?
> 
> Dorchester Court signed agreements that mean there landlord can up the rent to whatever they want and also many at Dorchestor Court do not have long tenancy agreements. According to your logic they signed up to that freely. Thats the deal.
> 
> If do not support GT ASTs then you do not empathise with them in my book.



Dorchester is a case of private landlord greed. Without justification and completely different.


----------



## leanderman (May 12, 2015)

editor said:


> I think the lack of general empathy may also spring from the way that Brixton has changed and split into a two tier community, with the 'haves' holding all the power and influence. Whereas, say 10 years ago, the majority of people living nearby would have naturally expressed sympathy and empathy for those losing their homes/squats/co-ops, there's a new generation who have paid a fortune to live here and don't like the idea of anyone getting it "easy."



I wish I had some 'power and influence'. And was not such a bad person.


----------



## Belushi (May 12, 2015)

This is as good a thread as any to put this http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/may/12/800m-shortfall-social-housing-london


----------



## leanderman (May 12, 2015)

Belushi said:


> This is as good a thread as any to put this http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/may/12/800m-shortfall-social-housing-london



They should put a percentage levy on every newbuild. And use that cash to build council homes. 

The current system allows developers to take the piss.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 12, 2015)

leanderman said:


> In the real world, a deal is a deal...



...and can be unilaterally broken by the party with the most power with few consequences.



> ...and people move all the time, with and without children, often keeping them at schools two or three miles away.



And other people don't.
You appear to be living in a parallel dimension where everyone has equal access to opportunities and assets.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 12, 2015)

shifting gears said:


> Aka "I'm alright Jack"
> 
> Your lack of empathy says it all



Too many people nowadays find no percentage in "wasting" empathy on those less fortunate than themselves. It was always thus. Just note their name, mark a discreet "x" on their door, and wait for fate to take its' course...


----------



## editor (May 12, 2015)

leanderman said:


> I wish I had some 'power and influence'. And was not such a bad person.


You appear to be comfortably off and - AFAIK - you own a house so have a secure tenure. That gives you considerably more power and influence over those who have neither.


----------



## editor (May 12, 2015)

leanderman said:


> I have repeatedly said that short-life properties should have been converted into proper council tenancies.


Instead of telling me this here, why not go down and put your beliefs into action and try to help the residents? Get to know them, talk to them, see what they want and if you can help in any way. It's not hard.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 12, 2015)

leanderman said:


> True. But, among the multitude of housing injustices, I don't think this a particularly good case.


It's a fundamental case, because it involves a fundamental need.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 12, 2015)

editor said:


> The lack of empathy for those at the bottom struggling with insecure tenancies seems to be an increasingly common theme from those people fortunate enough to own a property (or two).
> 
> Maybe - for some - it gets easy to forget what it feels like to not have any kind of security at all when you're sitting nice and comfortably in your 'hard earned' home.



I hold no animus against anyone who has housing security. I do have animus against those people who see their housing security as marking their superiority to those who are insecure, because their position is as fatuous as someone lording it over you because they inherited a title - their actions signify nothing except their own small-mindedness.
I'm *not* talking about leanderman here, btw, but about those who*do* seem to be an "increasing" blight in our communities.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 12, 2015)

editor said:


> Perhaps if you were one of the residents facing eviction from a tightly knit community that you've been part of for over a decade you might think it a "particularly" better case.
> 
> Any case of long term residents being booted out is a good case to fight in my book.



So often the human side of the stories of such residents gets ignored in favour of the "legal" side. Yet it's the human side of us that makes those "tightly knit communities" that our town is rightly famous for. If people forget that, in favour of only caring about their own corner of Brixton, then they deserve what they'll eventually get - a bland monocultural Brixton peopled by identikit gits.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 12, 2015)

leanderman said:


> I do. But it does not change my view that this is a weak case when compared with, for example, Dorchester Court or Cressingham.



It's not a "weaker" case, it's a different case. All three are very different, but Dorchester Court tenants could be said (by someone making a similar argument to yours early) to have a "weak case" because they freely chose their fate by signing up to ASTs, and Cressingham residents could be said to have a weak case due to resisting the requirements of their lawful landlord/freeholder.
It's all about perspective, and whether you believe that some people are more equal than others.


----------



## Greebo (May 12, 2015)

[ QUOTE="Manter, post: 13889632, member: 51952"]<snip>I don't believe we should smash capitalism or eat the rich, and I don't think the middle classes are scum.<snip> [/QUOTE]
I don't know where that came from, and I'd really rather not know.  

The right to a roof over your head is a human right, as defined by the UN.  Eroded housing rights for one person eventually leads to eroded housing rights for all, no matter what your worldview etc is.

In case you haven't noticed, there's a 5 year problem in Westminster right now, and it's a more deserving and dangerous enemy than the most obnoxious urbanite troll.  Now can all of us (including me) please stop fighting each other when there are far more important targets outside?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 12, 2015)

Manter said:


> //snip
> I don't think this is true. It's not buy one protest get one free. (To borrow Winot's phrase). All of us can make our own decisions on what we support and what we don't- what we are against and what we aren't.
> 
> I don't believe we should smash capitalism or eat the rich, and I don't think the middle classes are scum. I do believe that everyone should have a secure and decent standard place to live. If I get involved in campaigning for the latter, do I have to sign up for the former? I don't think so.



No-one's asking you to sign on to the burning pitchfork brigade, are they? 
I support the idea that "everyone should have a secure and decent place to live", and because I do, I support all lawful iterations of the struggle for that - even those iterations I find distasteful - because a "united front" against the exploiters of housing is IMO necessary.
So "you need to either support all or support none" seems rational to me, insofar as trying to pick and choose whether a housing struggle fits preconceived internal criteria actively detracts from the important issue - the housing struggle.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 12, 2015)

Belushi said:


> This is as good a thread as any to put this http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2015/may/12/800m-shortfall-social-housing-london



Entirely unsurprising.


----------



## Manter (May 12, 2015)

Greebo said:


> I don't know where that came from, and I'd really rather not know.
> 
> The right to a roof over your head is a human right, as defined by the UN.  Eroded housing rights for one person eventually leads to eroded housing rights for all, no matter what your worldview etc is.
> 
> In case you haven't noticed, there's a 5 year problem in Westminster right now, and it's a more deserving and dangerous enemy than the most obnoxious urbanite troll.  Now can all of us (including me) please stop fighting each other when there are far more important targets outside?


The first was from a banner shown earlier in this thread, used at theGuinness Trust blockade; the second is a trope of the class struggle (though I have seen it more often in the US than here) and the latter has been said on these boards- most recently in the arches thread iirc.


----------



## Greebo (May 12, 2015)

Manter said:


> The first was from a banner shown earlier in this thread, used at theGuinness Trust blockade; the second is a trope of the class struggle (though I have seen it more often in the US than here) and the latter has been said on these boards- most recently in the arches thread iirc.


You tar one protest with what you see as the faults belonging to another protest?


----------



## Manter (May 12, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> No-one's asking you to sign on to the burning pitchfork brigade, are they?
> I support the idea that "everyone should have a secure and decent place to live", and because I do, I support all lawful iterations of the struggle for that - even those iterations I find distasteful - because a "united front" against the exploiters of housing is IMO necessary.
> So "you need to either support all or support none" seems rational to me, insofar as trying to pick and choose whether a housing struggle fits preconceived internal criteria actively detracts from the important issue - the housing struggle.


I can see your logic. But.... (There is always a but) that would only hold if housing struggle was confined to housing. So people went to a housing protest and only spoke about housing- not race, or class, or Tories, or immigration. But we all know that doesn't happen.  Nor perhaps should it- if I believe that the housing crisis is caused by capitalism and it needs to be structurally dismantled from the ground up I should be free to say that. Whereas if I think that the issue is not capitalism but the free spending oligarchs who are given tax breaks: or the influx of Eastern Europeans only coming here for benefits: or the scum middle classes taking place in social cleansing- I should be able to say that. 

And also accept that my saying that has consequences: that some of the people listening may disagree or even choose not to engage with a particular protest or action because they are uncomfortable. That doesn't make either side bad people.


----------



## Manter (May 12, 2015)

Greebo said:


> You tar one protest with what you see as the faults belonging to another protest?


Eh?

You said that if you support one you have to support all the others.

I said no, there are some parts of some protests that make me (and others) uncomfortable and we are not honour-bound to sign up to them wholesale. And provided examples, all pertaining to the housing crisis in London, one from a few posts ago that make me, personally, uncomfortable and that I do not want to be associated with.

The fact I don't want to stand behind a banner saying smash capitalism on the Guinness estate doesn't make me less of a supported of Cressigham.


----------



## editor (May 12, 2015)

Manter said:


> Eh?
> 
> You said that if you support one you have to support all the others.
> 
> ...


We all live in a system where we often find ourselves juxtaposed next to things we don't like. For example, I fucking hate the power and the greed of the big corporates and the banking system, but I often end up using their products and services.

To not come out and support those in most need because an individual is waving a banner you don't agree with seems a bit trite by comparison.


----------



## Greebo (May 12, 2015)

Manter said:


> I can see your logic. But.... (There is always a but) that would only hold if housing struggle was confined to housing. So people went to a housing protest and only spoke about housing- not race, or class, or Tories, or immigration. <snip>


That was attempted with some of the early ones for Cressingham Gardens.  It didn't draw much attention or help.   

FWIW I've even tried to keep all of those things out of the banners, certainly any which I may have had a hand in.  There is no racist, xenophobic, classist,  sexist, homophobic, hatemongering, or party political banner which I've ever made.  What happens elsewhere is something for others to square with themselves, but very frightened and angry people sometimes do unwise things.

Please bear in mind that protest is not regimented and centrally controlled; it's often fragmented, organic, disorganised.  You can't ask people to donate their own time, plus their own materials, and then expect a veto on what they make.  I don't condone divisiveness or infighting - it does the enemy's job for them.


----------



## Greebo (May 12, 2015)

Manter said:


> <snip> The fact I don't want to stand behind a banner saying smash capitalism on the Guinness estate doesn't make me less of a supported of Cressigham.


You know what?  I didn't want to be outside the Town Hall with Left Unity last winter - but if they turn up and almost nobody else does (others were far more ill than I was), am I supposed to tell them to fuck off, or give up and go home in disgust, but at least with clean hands?

I didn't want to have my voice hijacked to develop and support the travesty which has become  the so-called Test of Opinion on this estate, and yet it's happened.  Should I kill myself for trusting an offical and then doing something which can't be undone?


----------



## Manter (May 12, 2015)

Completely agree Greebo- well said. (To post I liked!)


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 12, 2015)

Manter said:


> I can see your logic. But.... (There is always a but) that would only hold if housing struggle was confined to housing. So people went to a housing protest and only spoke about housing- not race, or class, or Tories, or immigration. But we all know that doesn't happen.  Nor perhaps should it- if I believe that the housing crisis is caused by capitalism and it needs to be structurally dismantled from the ground up I should be free to say that. Whereas if I think that the issue is not capitalism but the free spending oligarchs who are given tax breaks: or the influx of Eastern Europeans only coming here for benefits: or the scum middle classes taking place in social cleansing- I should be able to say that.



Sure, but everyone brings their own individual stew of political views to each facet of their beliefs - it's inescapable, hence my point of still trying to maintain a "united front", even with those whose "stew" I find foul-tasting. 
Too often I've found that If we pick and choose too much, we do the work of those we're opposing for them.


> And also accept that my saying that has consequences: that some of the people listening may disagree or even choose not to engage with a particular protest or action because they are uncomfortable. That doesn't make either side bad people.



Of course not.


----------



## Greebo (May 12, 2015)

Manter said:


> Completely agree Greebo- well said. (To post I liked!)


May you never have to make that choice yourself.

I think you missed my point that this estate's earlier independant and completely non-divisive protests attracted very little attention and bugger all support or help.


----------



## leanderman (May 12, 2015)

Interesting debate, points noted and I'm happy to be able to disagree, without unpleasantness.


----------



## Up the junction (May 12, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not a "weaker" case, it's a different case. All three are very different, but Dorchester Court tenants could be said (by someone making a similar argument to yours early) to have a "weak case" because they freely chose their fate by signing up to ASTs, and Cressingham residents could be said to have a weak case due to resisting the requirements of their lawful landlord/freeholder.


Well at least that is finally acknowledged in this thread.

The situation of the residents is fundamentally different and the goals of the landlord/developer are also different (providers of social housing vs. private developers). Residents either have contracts (tenancy agreements) or not - statutory and contractual rights and obligations vary enormously.

So please, no more photos of squatter evictions to 'illustrate' the legal termination of long-standing social housing contracts. And no more conflating of the two to sell a story.


----------



## editor (May 12, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> So please, no more photos of squatter evictions to 'illustrate' the legal termination of long-standing social housing contracts. And no more conflating of the two to sell a story.


Any chance of you letting go of your weird and ultra tedious obsession anytime soon? Oh, and for the clarity of users, have you ever posted here under a different name?


----------



## Up the junction (May 12, 2015)

I can see how accuracy would be tedious for you. tbh, I only signed up to comment on the Loughborough Rd proposed closure so no. But you just see much is out of whack with reality on here it kind of sucks you in: How could so many people be so emphatic in their acceptance of  polling data for so long, and be so ardent in their views based on that  ... thousands of messages on that alone. It's a fascinating culture of confirmation bias.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 12, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Well at least that is finally acknowledged in this thread.



Finally?
If you hadn't been so busy with your monotonous tirade, you might have noticed that the debate has always been a bit more nuanced than you imply.  



> The situation of the residents is fundamentally different and the goals of the landlord/developer are also different (providers of social housing vs. private developers). Residents either have contracts (tenancy agreements) or not - statutory and contractual rights and obligations vary enormously.
> 
> So please, no more photos of squatter evictions to 'illustrate' the legal termination of long-standing social housing contracts. And no more conflating of the two to sell a story.



As ever, your use of language is informative, as a correctly-formulated description would be "former tenants currently squatting their former homes". Of course, that doesn't have quite the same negative impact as just vomiting out "squatter" as if the majority of occupiers are dreadhead crusty agitators.

How long have you worked for Guinness Trust?


----------



## Up the junction (May 12, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> How long have you worked for Guinness Trust?


This is one of the funniest things about the mindset on here.  It's like sixth form Paxman. Not only do you bark up every wrong tree but you can't even bark. How's the election polling thread coming along?


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (May 12, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> This is one of the funniest things *about the mindset on here.*  It's like sixth form Paxman. Not only do you bark up every wrong tree but you can't even bark. How's the election polling thread coming along?



How would you know so much?


----------



## Up the junction (May 12, 2015)

Well Dexter, I have been experiencing it for a couple for months and its not exactly difficult to observe *like*


----------



## shifting gears (May 12, 2015)

Ignore this cunt - nailed on he's a returnee.

What shouldn't be ignored is the handwringing, the 'oh but it's the LAW', the comparing GT to other estates, or the simple inferences that those living there have nothing to protest about and should ship up and get out.

Well FUCK THAT. The law stinks, and if oppressed and disadvantaged people had stuck to the poxy fucking law then there'd still be apartheid, segregation, no gay rights.... The list is fucking endless.

So, you're either for the GT residents, or against them. Pick your side. And if you're against, fuck off out the thread to your comfy owned homes, and let those of us who give a shit, or face similar circumstances, support them and try and work out how to change things for the better.


----------



## SpamMisery (May 12, 2015)

Why does everything have to be so binary? For or against... rich or poor. There are always shades of grey. Fifty of them my wife tells me


----------



## shifting gears (May 12, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Why does everything have to be so binary? For or against... rich or poor. There are always shades of grey. Fifty of them my wife tells me



Nah, it's time for binary. In case you hadn't notice the most vulnerable and disadvantaged are getting shafted more than ever. There's no more time for nuance with cases like this - you're either for the developers, or the people. Just like today's proposed anti-trade union legislation offers a binary choice - pro-unions, or against the unions.

Knowing your online persona, I suspect I know which side you'll fall into line with.


----------



## Up the junction (May 12, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Why does everything have to be so binary? For or against... rich or poor.


it seems so on this message board. The other poster has just demonstrated the way to build internet status on their chosen forum.

Most of them have thousands of posts on here and can't find the time to look up basic legal distinctions. But that's okay cos were, like anarchists, maaaan.

Anarchists: the only group to poll lower than the Monster Raving Looney Party. Maaaan.


----------



## leanderman (May 12, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Why does everything have to be so binary? For or against... rich or poor. There are always shades of grey. Fifty of them my wife tells me



Marginalising moderates is a political tactic.

And it must be quite satisfying to classify oneself as good and others as bad.


----------



## shifting gears (May 12, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> it seems so on this message board. The other poster has just demonstrated the way to build internet status on their chosen forum.
> 
> .



If I'm the "other poster", it's interesting that you'd conflate 'building status' with 'actually giving a fuck, not wanting to see people forced from their homes' and empathising, because not other things, I'm in a precarious position, housing wise, myself.

So for someone banging on about conflating, give yourself a good star in.... Yep, conflating.

Knobs like you just can't get it through your head can you - concepts of solidarity, of fighting for justice,  of community action, of taking the side of the oppressed and victimised; because you're so enslaved to 'the law' and outmoded justifications like 'that's just the way the world works' . 

You're a no mark twat, and I'm pretty sure I've picked your old persona too.


----------



## shifting gears (May 12, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Marginalising moderates is a political tactic.
> 
> And it must be quite satisfying to classify oneself as good and others as bad.



I've done a million shitty things in my life - but I know a just cause when I see one.

You... I doubt it.


----------



## Gramsci (May 12, 2015)

Manter said:


> //snip
> I don't think this is true. It's not buy one protest get one free. (To borrow Winot's phrase). All of us can make our own decisions on what we support and what we don't- what we are against and what we aren't.
> 
> I don't believe we should smash capitalism or eat the rich, and I don't think the middle classes are scum. I do believe that everyone should have a secure and decent standard place to live. If I get involved in campaigning for the latter, do I have to sign up for the former? I don't think so.



This Inside Housing analysis of the the new housing struggles is worth reading.



> Alex Hilton, director of Generation Rent, agrees: ‘A lot of these organisations used to be radical left. It’s amazing to see how these organisations have now sucked in more mainstream support. People who wouldn’t even see themselves as left wing are joining. It’s normal people – not just traditional activists. It’s people being put in harm’sway by the housing crisis.’



The recent housing protests have been supported by far left groups like RCG.  IMO the protests have seen far left and more moderate people working together. Surprisingly harmoniously. Same thing goes for Reclaim Brixton. No one is saying that one has to sign up to the politics of groups like the RCG to campaign for secure decent ( truly affordable) housing. I don’t - though I have an open mind on the matter. My main issue with this is expecting people to be committed full time activists. Which is not how it should be.

Its an interesting phenomenon. Why has it happened? The mainstream parties like Labour party have long ago given up on taking up issues like this. So there is a political vacuum that is filled by some on hard/ far left. The only more mainstream reformist party that supports these issues is Green Party.

When a call out for support goes out its often groups like this who come forward. To their credit. They are often well organised and committed. I wish the Labour party would do this.

The other more mainstream group that supports recent housing struggles in Unite union. Who have realised that supporting communities is an important addition to there work.

The positive thing about all this is that its not about blaming immigrants or "dole scroungers". It show there are a lot of ordinary people out there who see where the real problem is.

Capitalism is the underlying problem. The difference is those who want to overthrow it and reformists who want to reform it.

Since the recession caused by City/ Wall street the people who have born the brunt of the mess they caused have been the less well off. Reminds me a poster here who I was chatting to recently who said its class war when you fight back. When the worst of it has been done by them.


----------



## leanderman (May 13, 2015)

shifting gears said:


> I've done a million shitty things in my life - but I know a just cause when I see one.
> 
> You... I doubt it.



Again, with the judgements.


----------



## shifting gears (May 13, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Again, with the judgements.



What, like how you're implying I think I'm good where others are bad?

Keep digging.


----------



## leanderman (May 13, 2015)

shifting gears said:


> What, like how you're implying I think I'm good where others are bad?



The implication is all yours - ad nauseam - in your posts above.


----------



## shifting gears (May 13, 2015)

leanderman said:


> The implication is all yours - ad nauseam - in your posts above.



Y'know what - one thing I did get right about you:

"I'm alright Jack"

So get stuffed.


----------



## shifting gears (May 13, 2015)

Oh yeah - and moderate? Yeah right. 

Moderate Tory, perhaps.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 13, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> This is one of the funniest things about the mindset on here.  It's like sixth form Paxman. Not only do you bark up every wrong tree but you can't even bark. How's the election polling thread coming along?



Again interesting. My point having been that you should be charging Guinness Trust/Partnership for acting as their advocate. Sorry if the nuance confused you!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 13, 2015)

shifting gears said:


> If I'm the "other poster", it's interesting that you'd conflate 'building status' with 'actually giving a fuck, not wanting to see people forced from their homes' and empathising, because not other things, I'm in a precarious position, housing wise, myself.
> 
> So for someone banging on about conflating, give yourself a good star in.... Yep, conflating.
> 
> Knobs like you just can't get it through your head can you - concepts of solidarity, of fighting for justice,  of community action, of taking the side of the oppressed and victimised; because you're so enslaved to 'the law' and outmoded justifications like 'that's just the way the world works' .



I disagree.
Most of them aren't "enslaved". That implies that they're compelled/coerced into such opinions. What they actually do is actively choose to hold such opinions.
Which is why they are "knobs".



> You're a no mark twat, and I'm pretty sure I've picked your old persona too.



flimsier? He was definitely a no-mark twat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 13, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Marginalising moderates is a political tactic.
> And it must be quite satisfying to classify oneself as good and others as bad.



Marginalisation is a political tactic "full stop". It affects the entire spectrum of discourse, not merely moderate discourse.
As a journo you made a living by taking (or pretending to take) sides (because no journo is a neutral reporter of fact, however fondly they imagine themselves to be) and doing exactly what you're now decrying.


----------



## leanderman (May 13, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> As a journo you made a living by taking (or pretending to take) sides (because no journo is a neutral reporter of fact, however fondly they imagine themselves to be) and doing exactly what you're now decrying.



That's a weak argument. My (presumed) work practices have no relevance here


----------



## shifting gears (May 13, 2015)

leanderman said:


> That's a weak argument



Agreed.


----------



## shifting gears (May 13, 2015)

In terms of your bullshit handwringing nonsense, that is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 13, 2015)

leanderman said:


> That's a weak argument. My (presumed) work practices have no relevance here



You've admitting having worked as a journalist, therefore you're aware that what I say is accurate. That makes your "presumed work practices" relevant, insofar as they involve the practice of a form of hypocrisy ("x is good, y is bad") that you decry above in others.


----------



## leanderman (May 13, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You've admitting having worked as a journalist, therefore you're aware that what I say is accurate. That makes your "presumed work practices" relevant, insofar as they involve the practice of a form of hypocrisy ("x is good, y is bad") that you decry above in others.



Not at all. I am interested only in the facts of the case.

You, on the other hand, want to keep the focus on my character, occupation, property status etc.

I guess that's another political tactic.


----------



## editor (May 18, 2015)

Update: 
Urgent appeal as mother and two children face eviction from Brixton Guinness Trust


----------



## Up the junction (May 20, 2015)

"some of the information coming out hasn’t been entirely accurate, so we’ve decided to remove the story for now."


Amen. About friggin time BrixtonBuzz showed some perspective and sense - you let yourself be used, properly taken advantage of.

If lessons have been learned all is good and move on.


----------



## editor (May 20, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> If lessons have been learned all is good and move on.


You've absolutely no idea what you're talking about as usual, not that I give a fuck. Buzz is nowhere near perfect and even paid news outlets screw up with what they thought were reliable sources sometimes. We took it down the second any doubt was cast on the source and have now set up a way to verify any further updates on the topic. All pretty responsible, I'd say.

I don't care much for your nasty sniping because the work the site puts in for free is widely respected by many people and it's already done more for the community than a pointless keyboard troll like you could ever achieve.


----------



## shifting gears (May 20, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> "some of the information coming out hasn’t been entirely accurate, so we’ve decided to remove the story for now."
> 
> 
> Amen. About friggin time BrixtonBuzz showed some perspective and sense - you let yourself be used, properly taken advantage of.
> ...



Prick.


----------



## Up the junction (May 21, 2015)

editor said:


> I don't care much for your nasty sniping because the work the site puts in for free is widely respected by many people and it's already done more for the community than a pointless keyboard troll like you could ever achieve.


But at least "pointless keyboard troll" explained to you no one was fooled by you posting up images of sqautter evictions to illustrate what was [NOT] happening or going to happen at Guinness Trust. No one believed your conflation of legal rights and you made a fool of yourself.

People won't tell you this because they like you and you're friends, but you have undermined the credibility of BrixtonBuzz with faux reporting. Half the things you put up on there belong on U75 and not a publication seeking a place of respectability in the community.

In  doing that you undermine the friends you work with and other contributors to BrixtonBuzz who make a huge effort to make their reporting fair, and judgement free.

You are dragging it down. 'editor' on a message board does not a journalist make.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (May 21, 2015)

The clue is in the name, fuck this sock puppet.


----------



## editor (May 21, 2015)

Update from Gramsci : 
Brixton Guinness Trust second occupation: keeping the pressure up


----------



## SpamMisery (May 21, 2015)

Banned for "personal attacks" is a bit of a stretch isn't it? A few posts back shiftinggears called a user a "cunt" then later a "prick". No other content, just "prick". And you 'liked' it. I'm not saying ban shiftinggears (far from it), it's just we don't all appear to be playing by the same rules here, it's just not cricket.

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...hat-january-2015.330747/page-31#post-13683178


----------



## editor (May 21, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Banned for "personal attacks" is a bit of a stretch isn't it? A few posts back shiftinggears called a user a "cunt" then later a "prick". No other content, just "prick". And you 'liked' it. I'm not saying ban shiftinggears (far from it), it's just we don't all appear to be playing by the same rules here, it's just not cricket.
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...hat-january-2015.330747/page-31#post-13683178


Hi. Please use the feedback forum for any issues related to site modding rather than assist the now banned poster in his quest to continually disrupt this thread which is about people losing their homes. FYI, the FAQ is pretty clear on this:


> ...endless personal attacks and needlessly disruptive conduct is not permitted and posters who continue such behaviour after being asked to stop will be banned





> The admin team run this site in their own time and for no profit, so unprovoked or sustained personal attacks may result in a ban...


----------



## Rushy (May 21, 2015)

It's all a bit confusing now. To get the thread back on track, perhaps we could have a summary of which reports were factually correct and which were based on understandable misunderstandings.

I don't intend to get into the debate about whether up the junction was banned for unprovoked personal attacks on the management or because of his determined attempts to draw attention to inaccuracies but, for those who wish to, I agree that this is not the thread in which to hold that debate.


----------



## editor (May 21, 2015)

I was sent an urgent request to publicise what appeared to be the imminent eviction of one of the residents. This came from someone who lived on the estate and who knew the person being evicted very well. The person who thought that she was about to lose her home was scared and deeply concerned about her welfare. She has two children. The exact words of the piece were confirmed with the source before they were published.

However, it turned out that another option for housing was made available and so the original point of the piece was no longer valid, so on the advice of other activists, it was removed. Given the apparent urgency of the case and the confusion surrounding the goings-on at Guinness, I think it is understandable that wires might get crossed.

However, I am happy to say that the site proved instrumental in sorting out transport for the person who had to move out.

It would appear that to some people, all this just provides a backdrop for point scoring online 'sport', but I'd ask for a little more respect to be shown.


----------



## teuchter (May 21, 2015)

http://www.trust.org/item/?map=the-importance-of-fact-checking-for-journalists/

I am sure that the intentions were and are good but accuracy and credibility are important for Brixton Buzz to best serve local causes.


----------



## Gramsci (May 21, 2015)

editor said:


> However, I am happy to say that the site proved instrumental in sorting out transport for the person who had to move out.
> 
> It would appear that to some people, all this just provides a backdrop for point scoring online 'sport', but I'd ask for a little more respect to be shown.



And having talked to those concerned there is no criticism of Brixton Buzz from them. The opposite in fact.

The lull in tedious point scoring directed at Ed has now finished I see. It was nice while it lasted.


----------



## Gramsci (May 21, 2015)

editor said:


> Update from Gramsci :
> Brixton Guinness Trust second occupation: keeping the pressure up



Thanks for putting up the report. 

Another photo of banner made by one of the occupiers. As said in the update they would welcome people to come down to the occupation. More details in the report.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 22, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> And having talked to those concerned there is no criticism of Brixton Buzz from them. The opposite in fact.



Not a surprise.



> The lull in tedious point scoring directed at Ed has now finished I see. It was nice while it lasted.



Wankers will be wankers, unfortunately.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (May 23, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> And having talked to those concerned there is no criticism of Brixton Buzz from them. The opposite in fact.
> 
> *The lull in tedious point scoring directed at Ed has now finished I see. *It was nice while it lasted.



It never stopped and what they do extends beyond their primary focus, which you have correctly identified, to others and by the nature of this Board those ripples are felt on a personal level.
When people who would ordinarily say hello turn their back on you, worse still, the backstabbers who greet you as some kind of friendly acquaintance but are so dishonest as they look you in the eye that they are frankly laughably weak, when stuff gets leaked as alliances alter, one sees a broader picture and how it can impact on an individual's mental health.

All of that is of little or no concern to the main protagonists, it's mostly about ego and ownership, people who get in their way are fair game in their mind but it's not a fair game; it's an accident waiting to happen.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 23, 2015)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> It never stopped and what they do extends beyond their primary focus, which you have correctly identified, to others and by the nature of this Board those ripples are felt on a personal level.
> When people who would ordinarily say hello turn their back on you, worse still, the backstabbers who greet you as some kind of friendly acquaintance but are so dishonest as they look you in the eye that they are frankly laughably weak, when stuff gets leaked as alliances alter, one sees a broader picture and how it can impact on an individual's mental health.
> 
> All of that is of little or no concern to the main protagonists, it's mostly about ego and ownership, people who get in their way are fair game in their mind but it's not a fair game; it's an accident waiting to happen.



What most of these rectums don't realise is that when they mark the cards of others, they mark their own, too. Now that's fine if you don't give a fuck about your reputation, but many of the rectums do give a fuck about their "standing", so you'd think they'd be a little more sensible about acting like cunts. Perhaps they're not as sharp as they think they are?  After all, you'd have to be a bit damaged, cowardly or plain despicable to continually chivvy those with less power than you, rather than going after the J. Knight Esqs of this world - or maybe they have more in common with such people than they like to admit?


----------



## Gramsci (May 25, 2015)

Another blockade tomorrow:

Unfortunately I will not be able to be at this one.



> *BLOCKADE This Tuesday Morning!*
> 
> In recent times we have found the blockades to have been very successful, so we’re back at it again!
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (May 25, 2015)

Buzzed; 
Brixton Guinness Trust campaigners plan another blockade: Tues 26th May 8.30am

I can't make it either but if anyone is going and can take some pics please drop me a line.


----------



## shifting gears (May 25, 2015)

Gonna try and make this, fucked after working about 7 days straight, but doubt phone pics would cut the mustard.... Nonetheless I'll try and take some in case anyone else can't.


----------



## editor (May 25, 2015)

shifting gears said:


> Gonna try and make this, fucked after working about 7 days straight, but doubt phone pics would cut the mustard.... Nonetheless I'll try and take some in case anyone else can't.


Phone pics are usually OK! It's just good to have some kind of record to share and show people that resistance is happening and help is needed.


----------



## shifting gears (May 25, 2015)

*sets alarm 

(Plural)


----------



## shifting gears (May 26, 2015)

Blockade in place. One decorators truck blocked, though they've unloaded all their paint and materials at the entrance and been allowed to take them in to the site. One of said decorators exchanged a few choice words with some residents and then rather charmingly stuck his middle finger up.

2 security came over first thing pulling the 'we're nice guys really and respect your right to protest.' However they then qualified by saying if protestors physically tried to physically block lorries then they'd 'we'll have to move you on' , but 'asking the lorry drivers not to cross is acceptable'.

Standard shite.

In other news the sun is shining.


----------



## editor (May 27, 2015)

Photos here, courtesy of shifting gears 













http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/05/...-on-the-blockade-photos-from-26th-may-action/


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (May 27, 2015)

Good work shifting gears


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 22, 2015)

Update. The occupation is being taken to court on Tuesday 22nd by Guinness Trust :



> We are being taken to court by The Guinness Partnership Limited (Guinness Trust) tomorrow (22 June) for a Possession Order for 82 and 84 Elveden House. We will be in the County Court at Lambeth (Cleaver St, Kennington Road, SE11 4DZ) at 2pm. If you’d like to come, then we’d love the support, but more important than any court judgement is the fight in the streets. A Possession Order is not undertaken by the police, but rather by bailiffs and thus can be can be legally resisted. Resistance can take many forms, from barricading inside the flats, to blockading entrances, to supporting from outside the building. We can all play a role in resisting our oppression, the violence of evictions, and the gentrification of Brixton.
> 
> We may not know when the eviction will happen, so watch our twitter.
> 
> See you soon, friends!


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2015)

Update: Brixton’s Guinness Trust: the last estate tenants tell their story


----------



## editor (May 10, 2016)

Here's the sad sight today: 











In photos: Brixton’s Guinness Trust buildings flattened as regeneration/gentrification marches on


----------



## stethoscope (May 11, 2016)

I didn't realise this estate was falling to the wrecking ball too. FFS.



			
				BrixtonBuzz said:
			
		

> The Loughborough Park estate was built in the 1930s and provided 390 social rented flats. Under the Guinness regeneration programme, a total of 487 new-build apartments will be created, with the provision of social rented flats falling to just 211.
> 
> Guinness Trust maintain that a percentage of the new flats will be offered at “affordable” rents, which will be pegged at 80% of the market value.



This is the problem with all this 'regeneration' stuff. Yes, there's an overall increase in the number of dwellings, but the actual number of socialaffordable ones falls on every single one of the developments - I've seen it all over London, including mates in East London.

And as soon as any private partnerships are involved in once purely local authority owned housing, it won't be long before the 'make-up' of this development will eventually favour private rents and RTB and the social housing pool dwindles even further.


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2016)

I saw this a couple of weeks ago, half-demolished and it's a sad sight indeed. 

Were all of those original 390 social rented flats still social rented prior to "regeneration"? If not how many were?


----------



## stethoscope (May 11, 2016)

The Guinness site doesn't make it abundantly clear:
http://www.guinnesspartnership.com/about-us/press-and-media/loughborough-park-redevelopment

But in this piece from Brixton Blog in 2013, it suggests so (that comma placement is a bit confusing):



			
				BrixtonBlog said:
			
		

> The housing association is working alongside the local authority and private contractors to carry out a £75m transformation of the estate. The plan will see the demolition of the existing buildings, with 390 social housing flats and 525 new mixed-tenure apartments being put up in their place. The seven-year project is due for completion in 2018.
> 
> In August last year, one vulnerable resident of the estate, Steve Simpson, was found dead in his flat just months after a draining court battle with Guinness Trust that led to him being evicted from his home.
> 
> ...



Also worth noting back then that 525 new homes were supposed to be appearing in their place. Not sure what has changed/what that entails.


----------



## editor (Feb 16, 2017)

FFS. This is so cruel. 






Brixton single mother faces eviction after Guinness Partnership increases her rent by 240 per cent

Please share and sign the petition (just 215 signatures now so loads more needed)
The Guinnness Partnership: Stop Rent Exploitation


----------



## nick (Feb 16, 2017)

Signed


----------



## editor (Feb 16, 2017)

The article has been seen on Buzz over 700 times and another 64 signatures added to the petition, but it would be great if people could keep sharing this.


----------



## editor (Feb 16, 2017)

Got this email from Guinness: 



> Ms Mehari was an assured shorthold tenant. While we had no obligation
> to rehouse her, we felt it was the correct thing to do in the
> circumstances, however, government policy meant that we had to offer
> the new tenancy at affordable rent.
> ...


----------



## sealion (Feb 16, 2017)

Signed and shared.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2017)

editor said:


> FFS. This is so cruel.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



She's a lovely, genuine person. I met her last year, when she came to the Stand Up to Lambeth banner-making workshop, and the march the week after. I've heard the odd twat saying "ah, another feckless single mum", and have been unable to resist putting them right that she's a hard-working single mum whose landlord is basically making life unliveable for her.  Sadly, the closure of the local Adventure Playground holiday schemes also fucked her over so that she couldn't work during school holidays. If Lambeth Council had any compassion, they'd rehouse her, but they have none.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 16, 2017)

editor said:


> Got this email from Guinness:



So called "affordable rent" is government policy. However it's up to Housing Associations whether they apply it or not. HAs can still give housing at social rent if that's what they want to do.

So for Guiness to say it's government policy does not mean legal obligation.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 16, 2017)

Instead of sticking up for social housing and actively opposing the government the Housing Association movement has just given in. It's forgotten what it was meant to do.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 16, 2017)

The same goes with tenancies that HAs give. The government may like them to give time limited ones. It's up to individual HAs what kind of tenancies they use.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 16, 2017)

And linking social housing rents to market rent is crap. In this country the private landlords can charge what they want. There are no rent controls. Rights of private tenants have been eroded over the years.

What's needed is big programme of social house building. Plus bringing back rent controls for private tenants.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 16, 2017)

Article here on how high housing costs are affecting people.

There are now two distinct classes in Britain: Those who own property and those who are getting poorer


----------



## editor (Feb 17, 2017)

A comment on the Buzz article summed it up for me: 



> Be a charity…. But a greedy profit making machine with no morals. Come on Guinness Trust… You’re better than this.



Also: 


> ASH RESPONSE TO ‘GUINNESS RESPONDS’
> 
> 1) Beti’s tenancy status wasn’t an act of God. Like a hundred other tenants on Loughborough Park Estate, Beti, despite living there for ten years, was kept on an assured shorthold tenancy by the Guinness Partnership for precisely this reason: that when the time came to demolish her home she, like the others, would have no rights.
> 
> ...


architectsforsocialhousing.wordpress.com


----------



## editor (Feb 17, 2017)

I'm posting this just so Guinness know: nearly 2,000 people have now read that post about Beti on Buzz in the last 18 hours and many, many more people have shared it or retweeted it.
People are watching. People care about this and people will judge Guinness by their actions.  This won't go away. Do the right thing, FFS.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2017)

Been in touch with Beteil. editor -she says thanks a million for the Brixton Buzz piece.


----------



## alex_ (Feb 17, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Instead of sticking up for social housing and actively opposing the government the Housing Association movement has just given in. It's forgotten what it was meant to do.



 It's ok they have a new agenda Inside Housing chief executive salary survey 2015 | Analysis | Inside Housing

Alex


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 17, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> The same goes with tenancies that HAs give. The government may like them to give time limited ones. It's up to individual HAs what kind of tenancies they use.



Within a narrow field, though. All HA tenancies are "Assured" tenancies (as defined by the 1988 Housing Act), and differ from secure tenancies (as defined by the 1985 Housing Act) in that if you get into arrears, the court has no discretion with regard to evicting you - if you owe 8 weeks of rent or more, you stand to be evicted. With a secure tenancy, the court can look at the facts behind the arrears, and act accordingly, so that a tenant is not evicted, and a reasonable compromise on the arrears is sought.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2017)

alex_ said:


> It's ok they have a new agenda Inside Housing chief executive salary survey 2015 | Analysis | Inside Housing
> 
> Alex



The link is a firewall.

Social housing chief executives’ enormous pay packets are indefensible

This Guardian article is bit old but raises the issues. I have no problem with people being well paid. It's that when it comes down to standing up to the government they they forget what they should be doing.

"The reason is this: though housing associations are tasked with one of the most difficult jobs in the country, they are also have a social purpose. They don’t just provide housing, they act as the voice of the voiceless, they create opportunities for those who have none, they are lobbyists for a fairer and more just society. In meeting these wider objectives they have a duty to reduce the income ratio between the highest and lowest paid – in their organisations, in society, between the top earners in housing and the incomes of the tenants that they serve when cuts are hitting benefit claimants hard."

Last week bumped into someone I know who works for a Council . He was asking about the Carlton Mansions piece on Brixton  Buzz. editor Council officers read Buzz. Says stuff they cannot go on about. He said he didn't get into social housing to end up working on schemes that are destroying social housing. I think a lot of people who work further down the food chain feel really uncomfortable about what they are doing now.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Within a narrow field, though. All HA tenancies are "Assured" tenancies (as defined by the 1988 Housing Act), and differ from secure tenancies (as defined by the 1985 Housing Act) in that if you get into arrears, the court has no discretion with regard to evicting you - if you owe 8 weeks of rent or more, you stand to be evicted. With a secure tenancy, the court can look at the facts behind the arrears, and act accordingly, so that a tenant is not evicted, and a reasonable compromise on the arrears is sought.



It depends on how the HAs apply it.

Back in 70s HAs were quite radical. More so than Councils. Solon for example. Or the Soho Housing who saved the social housing in Soho. They were small scale and staffed by new lefties. Most of them didn't survive being swallowed up by the more ruthless empire builders in Thatcherite Britian. It's getting to the point where HAs are little different from property developers. Which of course is what the Thatcherite Tories wanted.


----------



## brixtonblade (Feb 20, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Article here on how high housing costs are affecting people.
> 
> There are now two distinct classes in Britain: Those who own property and those who are getting poorer



The last 2 graphs in that article are incredible - hadn't seen them before:


----------



## editor (Feb 20, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Article here on how high housing costs are affecting people.
> 
> There are now two distinct classes in Britain: Those who own property and those who are getting poorer


There also seems to be a growing gulf of understanding and empathy from those who own property towards those who rent (*based entirely on wholly unscientific personal observations and the hardening attitudes of some - but most definitely not all - home owning posters here).


----------



## CH1 (Feb 20, 2017)

editor said:


> There also seems to be a growing gulf of understanding and empathy from those who own property towards those who rent (*based entirely on wholly unscientific personal observations and the hardening attitudes of some - but most definitely not all - home owning posters here).


Not sure I would agree that about this particular thread - but possibly across the Brixton threads in general.

Seems to me that what you have here is a 100 year political cycle from post WW I where it was accepted that the rightful role of councils and certain housing charities - Guinness and Peabody to name but two - was to provide good quality housing for people who might otherwise be exploited by the private sector or go homeless altogether.

Obviously we know there are people posting on Urban75 who are connected with property development and estate agency. How compassionate they are I can't say. But even if they gave up their businesses and joined the Cyrenians it is doubtful it would have much effect on Guinness Trust.

What would have affected Guinness is if government/London Mayor/GLA/Lambeth had made funding available for them to provide social housing at social rents. This is the ball-breaker and I can't see how it is that we have got into a state over taking back control from Europe when we can't even take control back for our own housing stock.


----------



## editor (Feb 20, 2017)

CH1 said:


> Not sure I would agree that about this particular thread - but possibly across the Brixton threads in general.


I was referring to the Brixton forum in general - sorry if I didn't make that clear. The sheer lack of support and solidarity both here and in the community when it comes to people fighting for their homes is fucking depressing. But I don't want to derail this thread any further: it was just a general observation in response to Gramscii's post.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 20, 2017)

CH1 said:


> Not sure I would agree that about this particular thread - but possibly across the Brixton threads in general.
> 
> Seems to me that what you have here is a 100 year political cycle from post WW I where it was accepted that the rightful role of councils and certain housing charities - Guinness and Peabody to name but two - was to provide good quality housing for people who might otherwise be exploited by the private sector or go homeless altogether.
> 
> ...



Depends on who the "we" is.

The Tories are doing a great job. It's class war. They are making sure social housing is to be got rid of. They are sticking up for there side.

Tories force all councils to become private landlords in white paper

Of course Tories like May and Cameron make all the right noises about being socially concerned.


----------



## cuppa tee (Feb 20, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> tories like May and Cameron make all the right noises about being socially concerned.



same can be said about a lot of the Labour Party tbf


----------



## CH1 (Feb 20, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Tories force all councils to become private landlords in white paper


I haven't read any of the background, or the bill, but this is madness if only because it also implies a permanent commitment to benefit support for excessive rents.

If Mrs May is really under the impression she is now a populist she had better wake up, or surely there will be new people in Labour who can galvanise the electorate behind the demand for fair jobs and fair housing.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 6, 2017)

editor said:


> FFS. This is so cruel.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bump this thread as demo is tomorrow morning. I will be there.

After Brixton Buzz article many more signed petition. It is now over a thousand.


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Bump this thread as demo is tomorrow morning. I will be there.
> 
> After Brixton Buzz article many more signed petition. It is now over a thousand.


Just retweeted and FB'd the article again. Nearly 8,000 people read the Buzz piece so I'm pleased the story was seen by a lot of people. I can't make it tomorrow but please report back - and give my best to Beti!


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 7, 2017)




----------



## Gramsci (Mar 7, 2017)




----------



## Gramsci (Mar 7, 2017)

Beteil with Cllr who had been helping her.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 7, 2017)




----------



## Gramsci (Mar 7, 2017)

Piers Corbyn


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 7, 2017)

Member of ASH Architects For Social Housing speaking


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 7, 2017)




----------



## Gramsci (Mar 7, 2017)

Green Cllr Scott Ainslie


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 7, 2017)




----------



## Gramsci (Mar 7, 2017)




----------



## Gramsci (Mar 7, 2017)

Member of Revolutionary Communist Group speaking

[ATTAC


----------



## SpamMisery (Mar 7, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Piers Corbyn View attachment 101678



Looks a bit like he's auditioning for the part of Doctor Who


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 7, 2017)

It is victory for Beteil. Judge has ordered Guiness Trust to pay costs.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 7, 2017)




----------



## Gramsci (Mar 7, 2017)




----------



## Gramsci (Mar 7, 2017)




----------



## Gramsci (Mar 7, 2017)




----------



## brixtonblade (Mar 7, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> It is victory for Beteil. Judge has ordered Guiness Trust to pay costs.


Excellent news

Thanks for the update and the photos


----------



## CH1 (Mar 7, 2017)

These photo are inspiring actually. 
Interested to know the whole outcome and the judge's reasoning.
Hope Beti ends up in a better place (in terms of suitable accommodation at a fair/social rent).
Meanwhile Guinness have transformed a small 1930s estate with period charm into a mixed tenure bland campus very much London early 21st century vernacular.


----------



## editor (Mar 7, 2017)

Bloody great news. I've Buzzed a report and included Gramsci 's excellent pics.

Victory for Beti as Guinness Partnership’s case is thrown out of court


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 9, 2017)

In the Morning Star:

Victory for single mum facing eviction


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 9, 2017)

SpamMisery said:


> Looks a bit like he's auditioning for the part of Doctor Who



What is your view on this defeat for Guiness Trust?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 9, 2017)

There were speeches from ASH and Piers Corbyn. 

ASH said so called social housing providers were now charging rents that are in practice unaffordable for people on low incomes. The people who do the service jobs that keep London going.

Piers said that the estate "regenerations" taking place across London are replacing secure social housing with insecure unaffordable in practice housing. That the demand is for housing at cost. Not this 80% of market rent so called affordable housing.


----------



## brixtonblade (Mar 9, 2017)

This is an interesting article - posted here as it references Betiel and the thread is "live"

The deregulation/letting market forces rip in housing seems to be going unchallenged - I hope that cases like Betiel's raise awareness and support for some more structural change



> *Why residents will be denied the right to vote about the demolition of their homes*
> Sadiq Khan’s manifesto promised that social housing estates shouldn’t be demolished without ‘_resident support_,’ but his draft guidance _discourages_ councils and housing associations from holding ‘approval’ ballots; ignoring recommendations by the Estate Regeneration National Strategy; the Joseph Rowntree Trust; community group coalition Just Space; experienced architects; Respublica, and Labour Party members.



Sadiq ‘Demolition’ Khan’s estate ‘regeneration’ consultation: a sham?


----------



## SpamMisery (Mar 9, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> What is your view on this defeat for Guiness Trust?



I like that you always ask my views on local matters; I feel that the natural order of things has been established. But, alas, I have no opinion on this one as I haven't followed the story.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 9, 2017)

SpamMisery said:


> I like that you always ask my views on local matters; I feel that the natural order of things has been established. But, alas, I have no opinion on this one as I haven't followed the story.


I think it's fair enough to ask your opinion on a matter which is the subject of the thread you posted on. And it's also fair enough to wonder what the relevance of someone's appearance is. It's not an abstract duscussion this one, it's one about someone getting kicked out of their housing.

That said, Piers Corbyn has some strange ideas.


----------



## SpamMisery (Mar 9, 2017)

I dont disagree, but gramsci has a habit of asking my opinion when he feels confident we don't share one, despite any evidence to support that view.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 10, 2017)

teuchter said:


> I think it's fair enough to ask your opinion on a matter which is the subject of the thread you posted on. And it's also fair enough to wonder what the relevance of someone's appearance is. It's not an abstract duscussion this one, it's one about someone getting kicked out of their housing.
> 
> That said, Piers Corbyn has some strange ideas.



He is sound on housing matters. But on climate change he is off the wall imo. A denier.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 10, 2017)

SpamMisery said:


> I dont disagree, but gramsci has a habit of asking my opinion when he feels confident we don't share one, despite any evidence to support that view.



Well Spam Im giving you the opportunity of presenting your view. Rather than assuming what your view is. You posted on this thread. 

You post here and read these threads. I take the trouble sometimes to report on local issues.

I feel I've given enough info for you to come to an opinion.  

I haven't assumed what your view is.


----------



## editor (May 9, 2017)

Behold! The Electric Quarter!







Brixton’s regenerated Guinness Trust becomes the trendy Electric Quarter for private owners


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 10, 2017)

editor said:


> Behold! The Electric Quarter!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Please sir, why doesn't Electric Quarter have any street lights?


----------



## editor (Aug 15, 2021)

A former tenant has asked me if Guinness partnership is now selling off properties on the old estate. Does any one know?


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Aug 15, 2021)

editor said:


> A former tenant has asked me if Guinness partnership is now selling off properties on the old estate. Does any one know?


Some of the extra properties were for part ownership and some for outright sale to pay for the redevellopment costs.

It seems to me that sales have stopped due to (I think) new fire regulations coming into force since grenfell and the modifications to be made needing to be ratified by all leaseholders some of which have apparently not replied.


----------

