# Myatts Fields North massive £150m regeneration project



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 1, 2010)

I don't know how I missed this, but a massive £150m regeneration project for Myatts Fields North was announced earlier this year. The council have been thinking about it for a while (there was a consultation back in 2006/07) and there was some sort of planning exhibition last month - which I missed because we didn't have any communication about it 



> * build 305 new homes to replace properties that are currently in a very bad condition
> * modernise and refurbish 172 existing homes
> * provide 146 new affordable homes
> * build 357 new homes for sale
> ...



It's gonna take 6 years!

And be paid for with PFI credits 







There's some more pictures here (PDF doc)

I havent seen any proper plans yet but the area could do with a bit of love - there's a great open space in Mostyn Gardens but it's pretty unattractive and rarely used. And some of the housing definitely needs updating. It looks like they want to open up some of the streets (which might be related to the proposed closing of some footpaths) but it does look from the plans that lots of green space is going to be built on. It also looks like Akerman Road might be diverted slightly with a redesigned green space coming right up to where the 'Camberwell Submarine' is.

(In a separate but I think related development, I've found out that the chimneys of the Camberwell submarine are to be extended by 4 meters! )

So anyone heard anything about this plan?


----------



## se5 (Apr 3, 2010)

The local Labour Party were on about it on their website http://www.vassallview.com/2010/02/myatts-north-regeneration-to-start.html in February - I think its just a basic reporting of the council press release. 

Potentially could be very good for the area because as you say areas like Mostyn Gardens could be so good. 

Also I think it will be a good idea that its a mix of homes to rent and to buy as walking through Myatts North of South currently they both feel like poor peoples 'ghetto' areas in a way that the surrounding streets which are a mixture of owned and rented housing dont. And hopefully they will be a bit more connected with proper streets so that people will be passing through in the course of their normal business - you have to make a special effort to go onto either Myatts South or North now and so they feell different and apart whereas to my mind social/ council housing (whatever you want to call it) shouldnt look different or be located any differently to other housing.

Not sure about PFI but if its the only way of getting the money I guess Lambeth dont have much choice


----------



## agricola (Apr 4, 2010)

TBH a £114 million PFI deal for the Myatts should set everyones alarm bells ringing, the catch must either be everyone there gets kicked out in favour for rich people, or (or more likely "and") that they have Lambeth Council (and therefore we taxpayers) over the barrel for a very, very long time.


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 4, 2010)

The thing to watch out for is the long term funding to keep things running after the initial regeneration. That's the problem here on Angell Town. Because a lot of money was spent on doing the estate up the attitude of a lot of council officers is that we've had our share, and we should now be screwed into the ground until the estate is a complete mess again. New development is fine, but not a lot of use without the resources to look after it.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 4, 2010)

agricola said:


> TBH a £114 million PFI deal for the Myatts should set everyones alarm bells ringing, the catch must either be everyone there gets kicked out in favour for rich people, or (or more likely "and") that they have Lambeth Council (and therefore we taxpayers) over the barrel for a very, very long time.



Its got New Labour all over it.This is led by Regenter ,who according to there website are set up purely to lead PFI schemes.

http://www.regenter.com/

I cant work out whether there will be a loss in affordable homes on the site. How many will be affordable rented and how many shared ownership (Shared ownership counts as affordable).

Also looks like the percentage of affordable isnt that much different from a private developers.

Also its important to note that what counts as "affordable" housing is a broad definition.

On large developments a certain amount of the housing has to be "affordable". However one development near me the affordable element is those flats let at 20% less than the flats for private rent on the development.

Also its normal for developments to have separate blocks for the "affordable" housing. Instead of "pepperpotting" affordable and private housing. That is putting houses and flats next to each other which are identical. One for private rent/ sale the other "Affordable".

So will the people being consulted on the estate remain Council tenants?With the rights of Council tenants? Will rents really be "affordable" in the long run?


----------



## Laughing Toad (Apr 4, 2010)

(I'm glad you put the quotation marks around "affordable". As I see it anything which people can purchase without assistance is affordable, and anything which they need a subsidy to purchase is unaffordable. It's confusing to call unaffordable housing affordable. We should call all subsidised housing, 'Subsidised Housing'.)


----------



## agricola (Apr 4, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> So will the people being consulted on the estate remain Council tenants?With the rights of Council tenants? Will rents really be "affordable" in the long run?



Nope - from the Regenter article on the Myatts:



> The project involves a full masterplanning solution to regenerate the Myatts Field North housing estate in Lambeth, London, comprising the demolition and re-provision of 305 council properties, the refurbishment of 172 council properties, a new community centre and sports facilities, new and enhanced public open spaces, refurbishment of eight small retail units, and construction of a new retail unit. In addition, the project will provide 503 new homes split between 357 open market sale properties, 41 intermediate affordable properties and 105 social rented properties.



So it looks like about 40% of the estate will be council (assuming of course that the 305 council homes arent "re-provisioned" into something other than council homes), 30% will be new homes for sale, and the rest will be social housing (either part-rent / part buy, or rented) run by Notting Hill.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 5, 2010)

Regenter say that,

"The project involves a full masterplanning solution to regenerate the Myatts Field North housing estate in Lambeth, London, comprising the demolition and re-provision of 305 council properties, the refurbishment of 172 council properties, a new community centre and sports facilities, new and enhanced public open spaces, refurbishment of eight small retail units, and construction of a new retail unit. In addition, the project will provide 503 new homes split between 357 open market sale properties, 41 intermediate affordable properties and 105 social rented properties."

Not sure how to read this. Seems to me that the first two figure ( 305 and 172) are the old estate which will be demolished or refurbished.

Then Regenter say they will provide community facilities. The "in addition" means in addition to the community facilities they will build. 

Therefore the 503 number of homes is the actual figure that there will be in the new estate.

This seems to correlate with another scheme i looked at a while back by a RSL. They were going to demolish the old estate and replace it with proportions similar to this. 

The private sales would subsidise the rest of the project. I assume. 

I notice Notting Hill Housing Trust are going to pre buy the affordable housing units. 

I not sure how this PFI scheme works in practise. Where does the money from the private sales go?

If Notting Hill Housing Trust are buying the affordable housing what is the point of a PFI scheme?

The Council could have got an RSL and private builder in to demolish and rebuild the estate wihtout a PFI scheme i would thought.

The sale of land to a developer plus Section16 could have funded the new community facilities. The rest of the land could have been sold to an RSL at a discount to provide affordable housing.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 6, 2010)

Yes, the "affordable" housing question has been discussed on here plenty before and you have to worry that the scheme is a way of building loads of new private housing for profit, under the guise of a public building programme. I guess this is inevitable these days, but you certainly dont want to see an overall reduction in the amount of council housing. Also, the part-ownership schemes are really expensive too and rarely a good deal overall for the 'owners'. The reason consortiums like Regenter get involved in developments like this is they can make huge profits in the long run.



Gramsci said:


> I not sure how this PFI scheme works in practise. Where does the money from the private sales go?


Under a PFI scheme, the private sector (Regenter, in this case) puts up the money for the development and own the new development. They then lease it back to Lambeth Council over a long period of time - typically 25 or 30 years - at which time ownership reverts to the council/public sector again. 

I don't know the exact figures but I know PFI is extremely expensive - so if the scheme costs £150m, Lambeth might pay (for example) £10m a year over 30 years - £300m in total. So it's very expensive for the public sector and very profitable for the private sector. The advantage is that Lambeth don't have to shell out all the money up front but still get new 'stuff'....though it is expensive in the long term. And there's an ongoing saga of stories relating to PFI schemes - which get ever more expensive due to various cock ups, poor service etc. Just have a look at any back issues of Private Eye, or a quick search on google, to find some PFI stories which will make your eyes water.

PFI schemes are also "off book" in Government accounting, meaning that PFI debts dont show up in public deficits. (This is one of the reasons nu Labour loves PFI so much.)

In terms of where the money from the private sales go, my educated guess would be it goes direct to the developer.


What do people think of the 'plans'? I've struggled from the pictures to work out exactly what is being built where....perhaps they havent decided yet.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 6, 2010)

ericjarvis said:


> The thing to watch out for is the long term funding to keep things running after the initial regeneration. That's the problem here on Angell Town. Because a lot of money was spent on doing the estate up the attitude of a lot of council officers is that we've had our share, and we should now be screwed into the ground until the estate is a complete mess again. New development is fine, but not a lot of use without the resources to look after it.


Angell Town looks pretty good these days - esp since the play area etc has been refurbished - and I've even seen people (who I guess are officers from the council) showing visitors around at the weekends and remarking what a clean, modern housing estate it is. 

What sort of problems have you had there since the refurb?


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 6, 2010)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Angell Town looks pretty good these days - esp since the play area etc has been refurbished - and I've even seen people (who I guess are officers from the council) showing visitors around at the weekends and remarking what a clean, modern housing estate it is.
> 
> What sort of problems have you had there since the refurb?



There's a load of work needs doing on streetlights that there's no budget for. There are a couple of blocks with solar panel roofs, and there is no budget for  maintaining them. Two of the blocks are developing a damp problem that there's no budget to sort out. There is no community centre of any kind on the estate. Currently Lambeth is trying to find a way of selling off the building that is earmarked to be a community centre (if we ever actually get the funding).

There's an agreed programme of a million quid of further work that's on hold because Lambeth withdrew the funding when we took the argument over allowances into arbitration (on the record they claim there is no connection, off the record we were threatened with the money being withdrawn and then it was). In the last three years the allowances for the estate have been reduced from £900,000pa to £600,000pa. Were we to actually spend within those limits the estate would be cleaned even less effectively than the Loughborough is, there would be no money to pay for gardening in the public areas, there wouldn't be enough money to renovate and relet voids, we'd probably also have to pretty much give up on anything other than urgent structural repairs.

The estate is mentioned as part of just about every course on urban regeneration in the world. It's used by the council as their ideal example of estate refurbishment, of tenant's involvement, and of sustainability. Meanwhile other parts of the council are doing their level best to deprive the estate of as much funding as possible seemingly on the grounds that we've had some money from central government so we should be screwed as hard as possible by Lambeth to make up for it.

Angry? You don't know the half of it. I'm being very calm and reasonable here. You should hear some of the firebrands on the estate getting upset.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 6, 2010)

Thanks for that informativer post Brixton Hatter. Ive read Private Eye on this. I cant believe the Council are doing this and making such a song and dance about it. If the Government impose it on them as the only way to get funding fair enough. But the Labout Council seem to be true believers when it comes down to schemes like this. Despite the evidence to contrary.

 Interesting post from  ericjarvis. Ive been hearing that allowances have been cut for TMOs. 

 Does these cuts in allowances have anything to do with the fiasco of the ALMO? I have heard that is the reason.


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 6, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> Thanks for that informativer post Brixton Hatter. Ive read Private Eye on this. I cant believe the Council are doing this and making such a song and dance about it. If the Government impose it on them as the only way to get funding fair enough. But the Labout Council seem to be true believers when it comes down to schemes like this. Despite the evidence to contrary.
> 
> Interesting post from  ericjarvis. Ive been hearing that allowances have been cut for TMOs.
> 
> Does these cuts in allowances have anything to do with the fiasco of the ALMO? I have heard that is the reason.



Let's put it this way. The Housing Revenue Account has to be split between the TMOs and the ALMO. So what Lambeth have done is split it on the basis of what was budgeted, and then ignored the fact that Lambeth Living overspent by several million quid. Meanwhile they have been coming down heavily on TMOs to prevent them overspending. That way they can make the ALMO appear less of a mess, and blame all the problems elsewhere on the TMOs.

It's not only a complete farce. It's bordering on serious misconduct. There doesn't appear to be any understanding in either Lambeth Living or Lambeth Council about how the two organisations should operate separately. That's led to a number of situations where Lambeth Living staff have taken on roles relating to TMOs that are legally solely the preserve of the council. There's a serious problem that may well blow up in a few people's faces over the next few months as it starts getting tested legally.

It's not an ALMO. It's barely a Finger's Breadth Management Organisation.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 7, 2010)

What a mess. I take it that the ALMO only is supposed to cover stock that is not part of TMO. The TMO managed stock is separate from the ALMO?

 Why do the Labour Council do this. I find it strange that New Labour mantra was to move away from being ideological to doing what works. Now they have been in power in Councils and Westminster its almost that ALMOs,PFI and PPP are ideological commitments by "loyal" Labour Councils. You show your loyalty to the cause by promoting them even when your core ote never asked for this.

It wasnt as if Council tenants were clamouring for an ALMO.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 14, 2010)

Have managed to find plans on the Lambeth planning database. It looks like most of the new flats will be built right on top of Mostyn Gardens, resulting in a huge loss of green space. 

PDF here - (quite a big file 5mb)


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Dec 8, 2010)

This development has now been approved - which means Mostyn Gardens will be built upon with massive four-storey blocks of flats. The locals who live around the area aren't happy, especially because there was no consultation beyond those currently living in the Myatts North Estate (who were IMO bought off with pictures of shiny new flats and exhibitions showing how great their new kitchens would look.) Councillors on the planning committee even commented on the lack of consultation but approved the development anyway 

Now the developer (Higgins Construction - who are building the new flats around Robsart Steet / Slade Gardens) are applying for permission to vary the section 106 agreement. I'm not quite sure what this means but it says "the change would allow up to 105 of the additional social rented units to be transferred to intermediate tenure." It sounds to me like some of the proposed social housing will in fact end up being sold privately, thereby increasing the profits for the developer. Hardly surprising...and exactly as I predicted previously. Happy to be corrected though - does anyone know what this means?


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 8, 2010)

Sounds the same trick that Tescos are pulling over the Streathem development. Agree one Section 106 and then go back to Council some time later. Say its unaffordable in present economic climate and demand the Section 106 is changed. Or u will pull out of scheme.

Developers are past masters at this kind of thing.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Dec 8, 2010)

I will be really really sad to see that green space built on. Sticking _another_ block of flats there is not a good idea, IMO.
Does it make clear how many if the flats will be suitable for families? I seem to remember people were unhappy because the majority were one and two bedroom flats with not very much provision for families (there are many many families and four primary schools within five minutes walk of the site)


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Dec 14, 2010)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> I will be really really sad to see that green space built on. Sticking _another_ block of flats there is not a good idea, IMO.
> Does it make clear how many if the flats will be suitable for families? I seem to remember people were unhappy because the majority were one and two bedroom flats with not very much provision for families (there are many many families and four primary schools within five minutes walk of the site)


 
There are a mixture of sizes of dwelling (if I remember correctly) from 1 to 3 bedrooms. Many of the new homes will be for sale on the private market or 'affordable housing' (sic) which of course will be beyond the reach of many families. It's pretty clear from the pictures on the developers' website who they expect to be moving in:






# build 305 new homes to replace properties that are currently in a very bad condition
# modernise and refurbish 172 existing homes
# provide 146 new affordable homes (which the developers now want to be able to sell privately)
# build 357 new homes for sale


----------



## editor (Feb 10, 2011)

*Huge new development planned for Myatt's Field, Lambeth, SW9/SE5*






It talks the talk.. but does it walk the walk?



> Myatt's Field will provide a new neighbourhood that is fully integrated into the surrounding area based on traditional street patterns and a hierarchy of public open spaces that are well overlooked, attractive and safe, including a range of housing within a sustainable environment.
> 
> The major focus of the project is on the public realm and new open spaces. The creation of a new central park is at the heart of the regeneration proposals. Creating a new streetscape hierarchy, an ecological, art and play strategy will further enhance the sustainable design.


http://www.prparchitects.co.uk/our-services/landscape/projects/uk/myatts-field-lambeth.html

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/HousingPlanning/MyattsFieldNorthRedevelopment.htm


----------



## Dheffo (Feb 10, 2011)

Bit of a shame to see more green space being gobbled up :/


----------



## miss minnie (Feb 10, 2011)

I daresay there will be room for a few more Tescos.


----------



## boohoo (Feb 10, 2011)

yuck - looks soul less..  146 new 'affordable housing' and 357 new homes for sale... well that should change the area!


----------



## lordnoise (Feb 11, 2011)

I can see an office complex of some sort. Where are the homes please ?


----------



## Onket (Feb 11, 2011)

Looks terrible. What a surprise.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Feb 11, 2011)

I'm not clear? Are they building this on top of Mostyn Gardens or on top of Myatt's Field Park -  I thought MFP was protected as part of a conservation area?


----------



## editor (Feb 11, 2011)

Impossible to work out from the truly vile website: http://www.regenter.com/


----------



## Thimble Queen (Feb 11, 2011)

They better not get rid of the submarine


----------



## mrkikiet (Feb 11, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> I daresay there will be room for a few more Tescos.


 
Two Metro's minimum in a complex of that size, possibly a Tesco nursery as well.

This is what the consortium will provide



> refurbish commercial units and create a new local store


----------



## wtfftw (Feb 11, 2011)

It's only the estate side of the submarine surely? So mostyn gardens. (((my hill)))


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Feb 11, 2011)

I'm pretty sure it's Mostyn Gardens, the health centre on Patmos road is being relocated so it might extend as far up as that but I doubt they'll do owt to the submarine, it's not still functional is it?
I'm pleased they are leaving some of the green space, as it is it's neglected and underused, it could be a nice local green spot with some planting and seating and some of it is just wasted. 
The plans could be better but it could be a hell of a lot worse


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 11, 2011)

Low-rise enough to not have lifts?


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 11, 2011)

btw, trippy trees. They should try and patent those.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 15, 2011)

http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/dch/dch_PFI.cfm

The Myatts field development is a PFI scheme. 

There is info on PFI on Defend Council Housing website with a bit on link about Myatts field. 

The Myatts field scheme is all very New Labour. How it will pan out now there is a recession is yet to be seen.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 17, 2011)

I started a thread on this last year - might be worth merging them together?  (**ed: threads merged)

Most of this development will be built right on top of Mostyn Gardens, a large open green space with a football pitch. Despite being used by the local kids, youth groups, footballers etc, the park has been criminally neglected by the council for at least the past 5 years and looks pretty sorry now. (Part of me thinks maybe the council did this on purpose - to reduce usage of the area and make it easier to build on. But that's not the main point.) 

The planning application for this was put forward in spring 2010. The developers very cleverly failed to properly consult the local residents living around the area, so few people knew about the proposed development until the very last minute. The correct drawings and plans weren't even available to inspect at the library, as they should have been. The developers DID consult people living on the fairly small Myatts North estate (which is immediately next to Mostyn Gardens) and impressed them with glossy leaflets, exhibitions and beautifully drawn architects plans showing them what their newly rebuilt homes might look like. Despite objections, and despite the planning committee even acknowledging the failure to consult properly (which I believe is required by law), the application was approved. I think a lot of the locals were pretty shocked when they realised this green space would be built upon, with views across the park replaced by huge 5 storey buildings.

To be fair, the plans do include a new 'green space', but it's much much smaller than the existing one and wont be visible from the road. It's kind of triangular shaped and will be surrounded on 3 sides by high blocks of flats. Basically, its a grudging concession added by the developers who I'm sure would have preferred to have built more flats there. 

I'm not against rebuilding Myatts North - some of it is a bit run down and there's a desperate shortage of social housing in the area - but the developers have taken the easiest and cheapest route by sticking most of the new build on a park which should be retained for community use. It's fucking sad and unfortunately many local people found out about it too late to build a real campaign of objection. And now it's too late as (outline) permission has been granted. Also, most of the new 'units' will be 'affordable' housing - which is NOT the same thing as social housing. Going on experience of previous similar developments, most of the flats will probably be £200k+ and snapped by young professionals and buy-to-let landlords.

There's something fishy about it IMO...at the very least it'll certainly be an expensive long term endeavour for the council with some massive profits to be taken by the developer.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 17, 2011)

By the way, IIRC the 'submarine' is being retained but the road around it being narrowed and re-routed so some more flats can be built along Akerman Road by the back of the Charles Edward Brookes school.


----------



## stevebradley (Feb 25, 2011)

Brixton Hatter said:


> By the way, IIRC the 'submarine' is being retained but the road around it being narrowed and re-routed so some more flats can be built along Akerman Road by the back of the Charles Edward Brookes school.


 
Not only is the submarine being retained, it's chimneys are being increased in height by a further 4 metres each because the capacity of the boilers underneath is being increased.

The developers ditched their earlier commitment to building a new carbon-neutral bio-fuel powered Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant on the estate in favour of the cheaper option of turning the existing boiler into a gas-fired CHP plant. Then they pretended they had never planned to do anything else when it was raised at Planning Committee.

I'm no fan of bio-fuels, but this decision has left the residents of Myatts North estate at the whim of the volatile international gas markets for the next 25yrs. A poor decision.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 29, 2012)

All the trees along Akerman Road and alongside Mostyn Gardens have been chopped down in preparation for the development  

The place looks naked.


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 1, 2012)

Well, looks like things are underway, a crew has chopped down and removed all the trees from the green space with industrial efficiency so I guess it's just a matter of time before the hoardings go up. Living close by this development has been looming for some time and now the reality of the situation is dawning. A rough count suggests 30-ish new buildings in the area most a minimum of 4 storeys. Really looking forward to five years of noise dust and traffic, and the eventual transformation of this area to a truly urban bland and planned environment, soon it'll be time to plug the earphones into my smartphone so i don't look like weirdo...........


----------



## editor (Mar 1, 2012)

It's a horrible development.


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 1, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I started a thread on this last year - might be worth merging them together? (**ed: threads merged)
> 
> Most of this development will be built right on top of Mostyn Gardens, a large open green space with a football pitch. Despite being used by the local kids, youth groups, footballers etc, the park has been criminally neglected by the council for at least the past 5 years and looks pretty sorry now. (Part of me thinks maybe the council did this on purpose - to reduce usage of the area and make it easier to build on. But that's not the main point.)
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for this post, I thought it was just me........


----------



## Sweetpea (Mar 4, 2012)

cuppa tee said:


> Thanks for this post, I thought it was just me........


No, not just you. We live there and the 'consultation' was a joke. It's a horrible development and something that will seriously effect my commitment to continue to live there. Never mind.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 4, 2012)

I've never even heard of the Myatts Field North Massive.    So many gangs...


sorry....


----------



## temper_tantrum (May 8, 2012)

The PFI deal has closed:





> *REGENTER MYATTS FIELD NORTH CONSORTIUM ACHIEVES FINANCIAL CLOSE ON LAMBETH HOUSING PFI PROJECT*
> 
> *For release: *3 May 2012
> 
> ...


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 8, 2012)

"exciting, modern, vibrant, blah blah blah"

What the fuck is a "sustainable" community anyway?

Marketing-speak crap - just drop a load of words like "sustainable" into your press releases to keep the council planners happy.


----------



## temper_tantrum (May 8, 2012)

Absolutement. You could play jargon-word bingo with that press release and win pretty quickly. I particularly like 'more vibrant'.


----------



## Winot (May 8, 2012)

vibrant, vibranter, vibrantest


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 8, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> "exciting, modern, vibrant, blah blah blah"
> 
> What the fuck is a "sustainable" community anyway?
> 
> Marketing-speak crap - just drop a load of words like "sustainable" into your press releases to keep the council planners happy.


 
I'm just surprised that no cunt mentioned "empowerment" of the tenants.

Still, you can't empower people by reducing their amenities, can you?


----------



## boohoo (May 8, 2012)

I find affordable housing in the area I live isn't affordable to me or people on fairly low incomes.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (May 28, 2012)

And so it begins. The diggers are flattening the hills. I'm a bit sad about it to be honest, ShiftyJunior found his first bit of freedom toddling up those hills by himself


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 17, 2012)

The big tree that was destined for preservation is looking a bit sorry for itself behind the barricades, not well at all......anyway I was thinking about the "decanting" process for residents of the demolished properties. There is a 5 year deadline for completion so I'm thinking if that is accurate won't most people have got nicely settled into wherever they are decanted to ? and where do they get "decanted" to, is there a choice ? Also thinking if there are children involved won't moving schools be a little problematic and even disruptive, anyone who is 7 or over will be at secondary school and have a whole new load of friends. I really wonder how many of the previous occupiers will actually come back to the new improved estate..........i'm also confused by the fact that central govt is coughing up £150 million to fund this, I thought the whole reason that private housing was being built was because there wasnt enough public cash to renovate the estate, how come the corporate bodies have got their snouts in the trough if there is all that taxpayers money available, is it something to do with quantitive easing ?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 17, 2012)

cuppa tee said:


> The big tree that was destined for preservation is looking a bit sorry for itself behind the barricades, not well at all......anyway I was thinking about the "decanting" process for residents of the demolished properties. There is a 5 year deadline for completion so I'm thinking if that is accurate won't most people have got nicely settled into wherever they are decanted to ? and where do they get "decanted" to, is there a choice ? Also thinking if there are children involved won't moving schools be a little problematic and even disruptive, anyone who is 7 or over will be at secondary school and have a whole new load of friends. I really wonder how many of the previous occupiers will actually come back to the new improved estate..........i'm also confused by the fact that central govt is coughing up £150 million to fund this, I thought the whole reason that private housing was being built was because there wasnt enough public cash to renovate the estate, how come the corporate bodies have got their snouts in the trough if there is all that taxpayers money available, is it something to do with quantitive easing ?


 
Got it in one. Public money into private pockets. The overwhelming imperative of this lot of neoliberal shitehawks as well as the last lot of neoliberal shitehawks.

BTW, bet your tree ends up being pulled down because someone has "accidentally" sheared through part of the root network while digging nearby.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Got it in one. Public money into private pockets. The overwhelming imperative of this lot of neoliberal shitehawks as well as the last lot of neoliberal shitehawks.
> 
> BTW, bet your tree ends up being pulled down because someone has "accidentally" sheared through part of the root network while digging nearby.


 
................and the "decanting" no doubt is part of a fait accompli going by what you said on the the "Angel" thread............maybe I should be talking to Jerry Knight about the possibilities of an exclusive supper club at the newly Lexagonised Normandy Tavern


----------



## CH1 (Jun 18, 2012)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> the health centre on Patmos road is being relocated


So is Iveagh House Surgery.
Anyone care to recommend a good Doctor's in Loughborough Junction area?


----------



## CH1 (Jun 18, 2012)

temper_tantrum said:


> The PFI deal has closed:


This is disgusting. Does no-one ever consider the fate of their kids? It's all very well doing PFIs now to save capital spend - who is going to be able to afford the interest and service charges on the project if the economy carries on like this for another 10 or 20 years (as has already happened in Japan with its "stagflation")


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Jun 18, 2012)

CH1 said:


> So is Iveagh House Surgery.
> Anyone care to recommend a good Doctor's in Loughborough Junction area?


 
There's a good GP centre right at the top of Herne Hill Road  by Loughborough Junction Station (address is 1-3 Herne Hill Road) but you might be out of their catchment zone if you live nearer to Patmos Road. I moved about half a mile away & had to stop going there.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 18, 2012)

cuppa tee said:


> i'm also confused by the fact that central govt is coughing up £150 million to fund this, I thought the whole reason that private housing was being built was because there wasnt enough public cash to renovate the estate, how come the corporate bodies have got their snouts in the trough if there is all that taxpayers money available, is it something to do with quantitive easing ?


It's a PFI deal - Private Finance Initiative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_finance_initiative

Private business/banks/property developers etc put up the money (ie the £150m) to build the estate, and Lambeth Council leases it off them for 25 years, when it then reverts to council ownership. The level of annual rent is designed to ensure the developer gets WAY more than the £150m they initially shelled out. It's a very expensive way of funding public projects, but councils and the government like it because it means they get shiny new stuff without having to pay anything up front. Labour spunked £billions on PFI under Blair/Brown and got massively criticized by the tories for it. Now the tories are happy to carry on the scheme, given their mates are the beneficiaries of many of the deals.


----------



## Gniewosz (Sep 23, 2012)

The Council now want to do the same on Cressingham Gardens next to Brockwell Park, to the horror of the residents. All the estate needs is TLC and repairs, but instead the council want to demolish it so that they can raise cash by building even more flats on the same site :-(.  We have started a Facebook page and an online petition to stop the demolition and 'regeneration' of the estate.
Please 'like' the Facebook page and sign the petition to stop yet another bad decision by the council:
Facebook: www.facebook.com/SaveCressinghamGardens
Online petition: www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-cressingham-gardens-estate


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2012)

Gniewosz said:


> The Council now want to do the same on Cressingham Gardens next to Brockwell Park, to the horror of the residents. All the estate needs is TLC and repairs, but instead the council want to demolish it so that they can raise cash by building even more flats on the same site :-(. We have started a Facebook page and an online petition to stop the demolition and 'regeneration' of the estate.
> Please 'like' the Facebook page and sign the petition to stop yet another bad decision by the council:
> Facebook: www.facebook.com/SaveCressinghamGardens
> Online petition: www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-cressingham-gardens-estate


 
Cressingham Gardens, using a back-of-an-envelope calculation, covers about 4 hectares (of *prime* residential land).
At 2005 prices that's about £7 million-£8 million pounds-worth of land. Just the grassy bits of the estate are over a hectare (£2 million), so Lambeth circling like a bunch of money-hungry vultures, with developers in tow, isn't surprising. They'd love to knock this estate down, decant us all to the less salubrious locations, and reap the profits of turning the land into another Brockwell Gate-type monstrosity. I've heard similar worries expressed by people on other small estates like Thornton Gardens. They think it'll be easier to bamboozle the tenants and residents of smaller estates; that we'll put up less resistance than the residents of larger estates.


----------



## Onket (Sep 23, 2012)

I don't support this sort of thing at all. But as the Panda above says, it's hardly surprising.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 23, 2012)

When I first moved to the area and saw that some of the housing on the estate was sealed off and empty and how close it was to the park, I thought Lambeth must be running it down so they could flog it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2012)

nagapie said:


> When I first moved to the area and saw that some of the housing on the estate was sealed off and empty and how close it was to the park, I thought Lambeth must be running it down so they could flog it.


 
One of the reasons so many people on Clapham Park jumped at the regeneration project there was because Lambeth had pretty much stopped doing anything except "handyman" maintenance on about half the blocks on the estate. It's the way they (and a lot of other local authorities) learned to operate after the Tories put an end to LA borrowing cheap money, to rate rises (and to rates themselves), and started surcharging councillors if they exceeded the rates cap set by central government.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 24, 2012)

The Myatts Field project is making a complete mess of the area. Lorries, dust and rubbish everywhere, loads of traffic up Akerman Road, and I nearly got run over by a huge lorry which came out of the site without looking.

As far as I can see, they have started building flats on the greenfield bits of the site rather than the promised improvement/replacement of some of the existing dwellings for LA tenants. It's more important for them to sell new flats quickly to wealthy new buyers, rather than look after the interests of the existing residents. IMO this is the model which will be used in future developments in Lambeth.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 24, 2012)

In fact, today is the last day for comments on the Supplementary Planning Document, which will govern planning and development in Lambeth over the coming years. If you feel strongly about developments like this, you should say so by adding your comments to the Google doc here:

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/...tureLambeth/OnlineDraftingOfTheBrixtonSPD.htm


----------



## cuppa tee (May 16, 2013)

Passing the construction sites today I notice the development has been give a shiny new branding
courtesy of Oval Quarter......... http://www.ovalquarter.com/


----------



## editor (May 22, 2013)

Is there any social/affordable housing to be found in this 'quarter'?


----------



## cuppa tee (May 22, 2013)

editor said:


> Is there any social/affordable housing to be found in this 'quarter'?


Yes, as one would hope considering the scheme is supposed to constitute the regeneration of an estate..... curiously the private development has been launched in some far flung places though 
http://www.pinnacle-regen.com/news/oval-quarter-is-launched


----------



## editor (May 22, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> Yes, as one would hope considering the scheme is supposed to constitute the regeneration of an estate..... curiously the private development has been launched in some far flung places though
> http://www.pinnacle-regen.com/news/oval-quarter-is-launched


Well, it's important that our Far Eastern friends get the chance to get in early.


----------



## cuppa tee (May 22, 2013)

editor said:


> Well, it's important that our Far Eastern friends get the chance to get in early.


even if they are pension funds that are owned by parties who will probably never see the place let alone live in it ?


----------



## CH1 (May 24, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> even if they are pension funds that are owned by parties who will probably never see the place let alone live in it ?


Prices look cheaper than vibrant Brixton Square.


----------



## cuppa tee (May 31, 2013)

CH1 said:


> Prices look cheaper than vibrant Brixton Square.


Vibrancy is obviously something that commands a premium 
...... Anyway another more subversive rebranding has taken place now I see, someone has rearranged the the letters at one of the gates so what used to say 'oval quarter'  now reads 'OVAL SQUA_TER' 
Unfortunately I didn't have a camera so you'll have to take my word for it.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 2, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> Yes, as one would hope considering the scheme is supposed to constitute the regeneration of an estate..... curiously the private development has been launched in some far flung places though
> http://www.pinnacle-regen.com/news/oval-quarter-is-launched


 
This is common. They are looking to sell to those seeking an investment. It will be buy to let.


----------



## prunus (Jun 3, 2013)

Given that it's still a building site I can't help but feel that
'Oval Quarter is London’s most dynamic and desirable new community'
is deserving of major bullcrap call-out.
Arseholes.

Also - 'Oval Quarter' = 'Definitely not that Myatts Fields you've heard about on the news oh dearie me no, not at all'.
Arseholes.


----------



## SymWanderer (Jul 6, 2013)

Someone has replied to the hoarding around the building site.


----------



## editor (Jul 6, 2013)

I approve.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2013)

SymWanderer said:


> Someone has replied to the hoarding around the building site.


 
Can't say I disagree with either sentiment.


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 2, 2013)

First wave of private housing sold out......... Marketing suite doesn't open for another two weeks ..........


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 2, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> First wave of private housing sold out.........


Mainly to overseas buy-to-let landlords I expect:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/property-club/10048856/london-buy-to-let.html

One bed flats starting at £259,950 



> ...Thomas McAlister, manager of international property at Colliers International, thinks it’s a low-stress option. “The process is transparent and you know the quality of what you are buying and what the property will rent out for,” says McAlister, who cites London’s Oval Quarter – where one-bed flats start at £259,950 – as a project that attracts overseas landlords.



Bravo Lambeth for improving the supply of affordable housing for the benefot of local people!

Not.

Back to a land of Lords and serfs....


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 3, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Mainly to overseas buy-to-let landlords I expect:
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/property-club/10048856/london-buy-to-let.html
> 
> One bed flats starting at £259,950



I wouldnt be surprised if you were right even though the publicity machine for oval quarter tells us its mostly young professionals striving to get on the property ladder.
if i was a cynic i could almost believe the two examples on the builders website were the creation of a copywriter so similar are their accounts.............
http://www.higginshomes.co.uk/news/First Time Buys Find An Affordable Alternative at Oval Quarter
http://higginshomesblog.co.uk/2013/08/20/first-time-buyer-puts-down-roots-at-oval-quarter/
anyway anyone fancying one of the bargain flats at £259k will be disappointed as the next lot start at £299k probably because of the prestigious location just off Brixton Road as opposed to the other side of the old park, thus making those forays into the vibrant hinterland that bit easier.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 3, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> if i was a cynic i could almost believe the two examples on the builders website were the creation of a copywriter so similar are their accounts.............
> http://www.higginshomes.co.uk/news/First Time Buys Find An Affordable Alternative at Oval Quarter
> http://higginshomesblog.co.uk/2013/08/20/first-time-buyer-puts-down-roots-at-oval-quarter/


Yep...total PR puff 



> Phil continues “...Oval Quarter offered a much more affordable option and, with the opportunity to buy a new build home off plan, we didn’t want to miss our chance.”
> 
> One key attraction for the couple was the build quality at Oval Quarter. Phil comments: “The development was still in its foundation phase so all we had to go on were floorplans and CGI’s. We were instantly impressed with the quality of the apartments for the price you pay; not only do they offer a considerable amount of square footage but the specifications are extremely high.


How do you know what the build quality is like by looking at CGI drawings and buying off plan??

Mate of mine who moved into a new 'luxury flat' in the Quadrant in Brixton/Stockwell found the build quality was actually quite shit when she moved in, with a massive snag list.


----------



## cuppa tee (Nov 12, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Yep...total PR puff
> How do you know what the build quality is like by looking at CGI drawings and buying off plan?.



Dunno, but the first phase of buildings has now sold out according to the Oval Quarter website with most of it still looking very much unfinished.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 12, 2014)

Reading lots of stuff about unhappy council leaseholders and tenants at Myatts North…with the developers failing to do repairs etc




Anyone know any more?

Gniewosz


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 12, 2014)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Reading lots of stuff about unhappy council leaseholders and tenants at Myatts North…with the developers failing to do repairs etc Anyone know any more?


I have been noticing that the bins for domestic waste seem to be struggling and piles of tesco carriers full of rubbish are piling up around them.....


----------



## leanderman (Mar 12, 2014)

cuppa tee said:


> I have been noticing that the bins for domestic waste seem to be struggling and piles of tesco carriers full of rubbish are piling up around them.....



same everywhere. laziness


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 12, 2014)

leanderman said:


> same everywhere. laziness


in this case I think the bins just aren't big enough, they are smaller than a wheely bin but they are meant to serve several households, very nice brushed metal finish though


----------



## leanderman (Mar 12, 2014)

cuppa tee said:


> in this case I think the bins just aren't big enough, they are smaller than a wheely bin but they are meant to serve several households, very nice brushed metal finish though



I was thinking they were more like our re-sized bins up here, which are big enough - if you bother to recycle


----------



## jeremyclyne (Mar 14, 2014)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Reading lots of stuff about unhappy council leaseholders and tenants at Myatts North…with the developers failing to do repairs etc
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I've put down a public notice question for the next Lambeth Council Corporate Committee (i.e. audit committee), as have the residents.  The issues go a lot further than repairs and bins.  Will post the full text of the questions shortly.  The meeting is on April 2.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Mar 15, 2014)

cuppa tee said:


> in this case I think the bins just aren't big enough, they are smaller than a wheely bin but they are meant to serve several households, *very nice brushed metal finish though *



A brushed metal finish works for me as well.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Mar 15, 2014)

I'm too drunk to read this thread which i'm not familiar with. I'm not sure what the issue is with the bins. We all need to put our rubbish out, most of it supurflicious  (not even close with spell checker, i'll leave it as it is lol) capitalist packaging that we ought not to be responsible for preprocessing nor made guilty for as consumers when they burn the planet on an industrial scale for profit.

Just make the bins bigger, the packaging smaller, tax the corporates for excess packaging, come and collect the rubbish regularly, pay the refuse collectors a decent wage that we all pay for via local government according to our means.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 15, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> I'm too drunk to read this thread which i'm not familiar with. I'm not sure what the issue is with the bins. We all need to put our rubbish out, most of it supurflicious  (not even close with spell checker, i'll leave it as it is lol) capitalist packaging that we ought not to be responsible for preprocessing nor made guilty for as consumers when they burn the planet on an industrial scale for profit.
> 
> Just make the bins bigger, the packaging smaller, tax the corporates for excess packaging, come and collect the rubbish regularly, pay the refuse collectors a decent wage that we all pay for via local government according to our means.



Exactly right about packaging. 

However, I suspect larger bins discourage recycling.


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 15, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I suspect larger bins discourage recycling.


heres one of the communal recycling bins in question
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54064561@N07/8784194073/lightbox/


----------



## jeremyclyne (Mar 25, 2014)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Reading lots of stuff about unhappy council leaseholders and tenants at Myatts North…with the developers failing to do repairs etc
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Questions from me and the residents to Lambeth Council Corporate (i.e. audit) Committee about the Myatts North PFI Contract now published on the Council website:
http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s64887/03 PNQs Corporate Cttee 051213.pdf
Serious issues have been raised about how the Council has monitored this huge contract, and the impacts on tenants and leaseholders


----------



## CH1 (Mar 26, 2014)

jeremyclyne said:


> Questions from me and the residents to Lambeth Council Corporate (i.e. audit) Committee about the Myatts North PFI Contract now published on the Council website:
> http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s64887/03 PNQs Corporate Cttee 051213.pdf
> Serious issues have been raised about how the Council has monitored this huge contract, and the impacts on tenants and leaseholders


Intrigued to know if the Ackerman Health Centre is also part of this PFI.
The Ackerman had the effect of eliminating the only Doctor's surgery in Coldharbour Ward (Iveagh House surgery was compelled to move into Ackerman, where I understand you have 3 for the price of one - 2 NHS surgeries and one private surgery).
I am not the only one on here to note that Dr Konzon, founder of Iveagh House surgery was very unhappy about being forced to move.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 26, 2014)

jeremyclyne said:


> Questions from me and the residents to Lambeth Council Corporate (i.e. audit) Committee about the Myatts North PFI Contract now published on the Council website:
> http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s64887/03 PNQs Corporate Cttee 051213.pdf
> Serious issues have been raised about how the Council has monitored this huge contract, and the impacts on tenants and leaseholders


Jesus. That's fucking awful, and worse than I ever expected. 

Although it seems modus operandi these days for Labour Councils to socially cleanse communities and sell off social housing and public land for the benefit of private developers. 

CUNTS.


----------



## jeremyclyne (Mar 27, 2014)

jeremyclyne said:


> I've put down a public notice question for the next Lambeth Council Corporate Committee (i.e. audit committee), as have the residents.  The issues go a lot further than repairs and bins.  Will post the full text of the questions shortly.  The meeting is on April 2.


The Council's response. Full text of the answers to the public notice questions tabled by myself and the residents plus the Council's answers  now published on the council web site
http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/doc...02-Apr-2014 19.00 Corporate Committee.pdf?T=9

To be discussed at next week's meeting in public of Lambeth Council Corporate (i.e. Audit) committee. 7pm April 2.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 27, 2014)

Looks as though Right to Buy leaseholders feel kicked around. Though not as kicked around as those on the Heygate perhaps?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 30, 2014)

jeremyclyne said:


> The Council's response. Full text of the answers to the public notice questions tabled by myself and the residents plus the Council's answers  now published on the council web site
> http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/b14341/Public Notice Questions with responses Wednesday 02-Apr-2014 19.00 Corporate Committee.pdf?T=9
> 
> To be discussed at next week's meeting in public of Lambeth Council Corporate (i.e. Audit) committee. 7pm April 2.



Good questions from you and the residents.

In short there are serious issues about what is happening the the existing leaseholders, the standard of completed works and the difficulties the Residents group are having in overseeing the PFI contract.

Also looks to me, as has happened with other PFI contracts, the sanctions that the Council use for poor works/ not fulfilling the obligations on the developer are toothless. Or the Council does not want to get involved in protracted arguments with developer.

PFI schemes are legacy of the last government. The one for the Underground was a disaster and had to be taken in house.

PFI is not only building but the developer is supposed to maintain properties for next 25 years. So for residents there is going to be 25 years of this.

The leaseholder issue is serious for them. Looks like financial assumptions were made before the economic crisis. It seems the assumption was the existing leaseholder could swap old property for a new one. In the words of the answer "port" there mortgage to new property. Report says that due to "credit crunch" some residents are having difficulty in doing this. I do not understand all this. Was it that they would be taking on extra mortgage as the new build would be worth more? And now banks are not keen on that? 

Looks to me that whilst housing prices are going up in London and banks are being bailed out by government the banks are unwilling to lend.

Also report says that if leaseholder instead sells back there house it goes to the developer. So its in the developers interest for this to happen. Certainly looks like leaseholders are getting rail roaded into taking low valuations.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 30, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> The leaseholder issue is serious for them. Looks like financial assumptions were made before the economic crisis. It seems the assumption was the existing leaseholder could swap old property for a new one. In the words of the answer "port" there mortgage to new property. Report says that due to "credit crunch" some residents are having difficulty in doing this. I do not understand all this. Was it that they would be taking on extra mortgage as the new build would be worth more? And now banks are not keen on that?


I expect the leaseholders are being asked to top up their deposits. The banks now have rules about "loan to value" - which is why the government introduced the help to buy scheme. Maybe these leaseholders should be given access to that scheme?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 30, 2014)

CH1 said:


> I expect the leaseholders are being asked to top up their deposits. The banks now have rules about "loan to value" - which is why the government introduced the help to buy scheme. Maybe these leaseholders should be given access to that scheme?



That would explain it. Those who exercised RTB might be able to pay mortgage but not able to raise higher deposit. 

Help to Buy is not that great a scheme. Basically means one is mortgaged to the hilt. The government underwrites mortgage and takes most of the hit if it all goes wrong.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 30, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Help to Buy is not that great a scheme. Basically means one is mortgaged to the hilt. The government underwrites mortgage and takes most of the hit if it all goes wrong.


I agree basically - but it does seem to be different out of London. In places like Northampton this Help to Buy is putting things back to how they used to be pre crisis with a 5% deposit, and it does seem to have brought some life back to a stagnant market.

In London the conditions are so bizarre Help to Buy is pouring petrol on the flames - but there again there are always many people anxious to "get on the ladder".  I was just listening to R4 on the economist Minsky (2nd time of listening). Minsky thought stability bred instability. Not sure how that fits the London housing market, except that it certainly has the air of a Ponzi scheme. I remain convinced that London property WILL top out at some point fairly soon.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 30, 2014)

CH1 said:


> I was just listening to R4 on the economist Minsky (2nd time of listening). Minsky thought stability bred instability. Not sure how that fits the London housing market, except that it certainly has the air of a Ponzi scheme. I remain convinced that London property WILL top out at some point fairly soon.



I heard that as well. 

He was ignored during his lifetime. To the point that he was not even in standard university text books. 

They did not go into what he thought of Marx. Who also thought that capitalism had recurrent crisis as part of the way it worked.


----------



## Gniewosz (Apr 3, 2014)

CH1 said:


> I expect the leaseholders are being asked to top up their deposits. The banks now have rules about "loan to value" - which is why the government introduced the help to buy scheme. Maybe these leaseholders should be given access to that scheme?



Even in new upcoming regeneration programs, leaseholders will still have the same nightmares (and already admitted by Council at public meetings at Cressingham Gardens):
(i) Under new mortgage rules that came in about 3-4 years, many current mortgage holders will no longer qualify for a mortgage
(ii) A "Market Value Gap" always exist between what the council/developer will offer for the original homes and what they will charge for the new homes.  Consequently, just to stay on, most leaseholders will need to find extra funding in excess of £100k.  Few will have sufficient salaries for such an uplift in mortgage, and if you have retired or are close to retirement, this will be close to impossible.
(iii) The other solution is to give up a % of the ownership in your property, and the council/developer will part own your home (A very rude awakening to many that they  essentially no longer can own 100% of their homes).  There can also be some nasty fine print in such deals, e.g. the upside return is capped for the leaseholder and the developer takes all the extra increase when the property subsequently sold - meaning that the owner is screwed again, because they will be priced out of the market when they try to move.
(iv) Have also read elsewhere (but still need to confirm), that often there is a minimum level that you need to be able to port the value of the current property across to a new property.  E.g. "market value" of the old property has to be more than 70% of the "market value" of the new property, otherwise you have insufficient equity to transfer across.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 4, 2014)

Gniewosz said:


> Even in new upcoming regeneration programs, leaseholders will still have the same nightmares (and already admitted by Council at public meetings at Cressingham Gardens):
> (i) Under new mortgage rules that came in about 3-4 years, many current mortgage holders will no longer qualify for a mortgage
> (ii) A "Market Value Gap" always exist between what the council/developer will offer for the original homes and what they will charge for the new homes.  Consequently, just to stay on, most leaseholders will need to find extra funding in excess of £100k.  Few will have sufficient salaries for such an uplift in mortgage, and if you have retired or are close to retirement, this will be close to impossible.
> (iii) The other solution is to give up a % of the ownership in your property, and the council/developer will part own your home (A very rude awakening to many that they  essentially no longer can own 100% of their homes).  There can also be some nasty fine print in such deals, e.g. the upside return is capped for the leaseholder and the developer takes all the extra increase when the property subsequently sold - meaning that the owner is screwed again, because they will be priced out of the market when they try to move.
> (iv) Have also read elsewhere (but still need to confirm), that often there is a minimum level that you need to be able to port the value of the current property across to a new property.  E.g. "market value" of the old property has to be more than 70% of the "market value" of the new property, otherwise you have insufficient equity to transfer across.


You have very clearly set out the problems.  Issue (iv) looks particularly ominous - the market value of existing properties is likely to be rather depressed compared to the deemed market value of the new one - since that is being compared directly with market value property in the same scheme.


----------



## editor (Jun 22, 2014)

Has anyone got a summary about the amount (or non-amount) of social/affordable housing contained in this uber-development?


----------



## Badgers (Jun 22, 2014)

editor said:
			
		

> Has anyone got a summary about the amount (or non-amount) of social/affordable housing contained in this uber-development?



Will dig it out (or someone will) for you Ed. Sad to say it is virtually fuck all and their already lots of occupiers in them. 

Soulless and ugly development


----------



## editor (Jun 22, 2014)

Badgers said:


> Will dig it out (or someone will) for you Ed. Sad to say it is virtually fuck all and their already lots of occupiers in them.
> 
> Soulless and ugly development


This is how despicable the whole thing is. It's like they're rubbing it in the faces of those who haven't got piles of 'smart money'.



(I'm going to do a ranty piece on BBuzz about this soon, so I'll appreciate all input!)


----------



## Badgers (Jun 23, 2014)

I don't have many details Ed but used to live across in Myatts Fields South. The flats were pretty poor quality but bearable, the heating and water were appalling. Spoke to past neighbours who were hoping to be rehoused but did not get a look in. 

Ugly overpriced new estate


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 24, 2014)

editor said:


> Has anyone got a summary about the amount (or non-amount) of social/affordable housing contained in this uber-development?


It's in my OP:

* build 305 new homes to replace properties that are currently in a very bad condition
* modernise and refurbish 172 existing homes
* provide 146 new affordable homes
* build 357 new homes for sale

…but that doesn't fully answer the question. I think there's some details on the old council website somewhere - maybe in the planning docs. I remember reading them at the time.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 25, 2014)

We've had to live with this massive project for years and I just want it to be over, 
a builder I was talking to the other day said that phase one is due to be handed over on July 15th but that doesnt look likely
after that phase 2 kicks in.... the social housing maths is  complicated because the estate that oval quarter is replacing was all social
500 new properties are not social unless you count "affordable"  
I have also heard that some residents of the old Myatts North did not get a look in
and also that the ones who did are not too happy with the new build.
another thing we are yet to see is how many of the "prestige" blocks actually end up with anyone in them
since the rumour mill suggests that a lot were snapped up before they were built by overseas speculators


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 23, 2014)

Thought there was a Myatts Fields thread. Put this up on the housing thread as well. From Defend Council Housing:


> Residents living on the Myatts Field North PFI 'regeneration' scheme , situated between Brixton and the Oval and now branded 'Oval Quarter ' by estate agents and developers , are planning to protest against intolerable living conditions on the demolition site on Friday , July 25th , meeting at Bramah Green Community Centre on the estate at 10am.
> 
> The protest is organised by the Myatts Field North Residents Association and Monitoring Board (RAMB) which represents council tenants and leaseholders living on the estate, and is supported by Defend Council Housing , Lambeth Housing Activists, Unite Community  Fuel Poverty Action and Housing Action Southwark and Lambeth.
> 
> ...


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 26, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Thought there was a Myatts Fields thread. Put this up on the housing thread as well. From Defend Council Housing:



I met up with this demo and spoke with a few of the protestors. the demo was quite small but vocal, and was accompanied by a few members of the constabulary who's aim seem to be stopping the group getting to close to the offices o the pfi partners. I noticed the contrast between their hand written banners and the corporate branding of oval quarter itself......on top of the concerns mentioned in Gramsci 's post there are also rumours of a new gated development in the middle of the former Myatts North as part of phase two. one guy told me the build qualities of the new blocks was quite shit and the old houses that are being demolished  were better to live in.......


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 11, 2014)

some more details on alleged shortcomings courtesy of "_Construction News_"

http://www.cnplus.co.uk/news/sector...eged-on-150m-pfi/8666839.article#.U-jt_Gt5mK0


----------



## brixtonblade (Aug 11, 2014)

A bit off topic so apologies...  was walking past Myatts Fields today and there's a big building that looks like a school and also looks like it's not in use and was wondering what it was.  It faces on to the park but it also seems to back on to some of these new oval quarter building works (that's my tangental reason for posting here).  Does anyone know what it is/was?


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Aug 11, 2014)

It used to be a school but is now a block of flats I believe


----------



## brixtonblade (Aug 12, 2014)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> It used to be a school but is now a block of flats I believe



Thanks - thats what it looked like but I couldnt see an  obvious way in so I wasn't sure.  It looks like a very grand building so was interested.  Any idea when it stopped being a school?


----------



## Nopostcodeenvy (Aug 16, 2014)

The whole redevelopment is a joke!!  I would suggest no private buyer invests in one of these new properties, they are flimsy and very poorly constructed in my opinion.
It would seem the social housing tenants are not treated well and it saddens me that as always people who rent from the council are treated in such a shoddy manner.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 16, 2014)

brixtonblade said:


> A bit off topic so apologies...  was walking past Myatts Fields today and there's a big building that looks like a school and also looks like it's not in use and was wondering what it was.  It faces on to the park but it also seems to back on to some of these new oval quarter building works (that's my tangental reason for posting here).  Does anyone know what it is/was?



It's still a school but it's only partially in use, it's future is uncertain. It'll probably be flats in the future.


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 7, 2014)

The Oval Quarter is now almost fully open and its possible to walk thru a large section of it
the builders prtakabins have been removed so the "city square" just off Brixton Road could soon be a reality
interesting to see a notice on a lamppost by the marketing suite telling us that there is some form of asbo in force for the whole development
which will give police and pco's the power to disperse groups of more than two young people
who pose a perceived threat to residents.................


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2015)

Bumping this as it's relevant in terms of what is happening at Cressingham, 'cos I'm scratching my head at how Lambeth will finance "1000 new social rent homes" without using a PFI, which seems to have done so very much for those in social housing at Myatts.


----------



## gabi (Mar 1, 2015)

nagapie said:


> It's still a school but it's only partially in use, it's future is uncertain. It'll probably be flats in the future.



I think its St Gabriel's house. I'm moving in there on Friday. It's listed so they can't fuck with it too much.

It used to be a seminary, then a school, now its flats. Each flat is a different layout which is kinda cool tho im not looking forward to the heating bill. Massive high ceilings, no gas, and the landlord says she can't put in double glazing due to its listed status tho i suspect thats bollocks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2015)

gabi said:


> I think its St Gabriel's house. I'm moving in there on Friday. It's listed so they can't fuck with it too much.
> 
> It used to be a seminary, then a school, now its flats. Each flat is a different layout which is kinda cool tho im not looking forward to the heating bill. Massive high ceilings, no gas, and the landlord says she can't put in double glazing due to its listed status tho i suspect thats bollocks.



Any idea what the listing status is - grade 1, grade 2 or whatever? If it's grade 2 (no star), then she could at least request permission.


----------



## gabi (Mar 1, 2015)

Its Grade II. I've just read the details. It was a war hospital during WW2. It's a beautiful building with most of the original features still in there. Looking forward to living there.

I will ask about the double glazing again as it looks out directly onto that fucking construction site, which aint exactly quiet altho they claim those guys only work 9-5.


----------



## nagapie (Mar 1, 2015)

The building I am talking about is definitely not flats, there is still controversy about who should be maintaining it - Lambeth or the Diocese - and it has fallen into disrepair. 

I was speaking to a teenager who lives in the new builds at Myatts Fields. She says the quality of the homes is very poor, they can hear every move their neighbours make and they couldn't' hear anything before. There are apparently already issues with the building work cropping up. She said more but it was a while ago so I cant remember it all.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Mar 2, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> interesting to see a notice on a lamppost by the marketing suite telling us that there is some form of asbo in force for the whole development
> which will give police and pco's the power to disperse groups of more than two young people
> who pose a perceived threat to residents.................


What the actual fuck? Not content with cleansing the area of it's long term residents they also want to alienate the young ones by making it difficult to make use of the space in their neighbourhood?
I don't know how they think they can get away with this shit.


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 2, 2015)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> What the actual fuck? Not content with cleansing the area of it's long term residents they also want to alienate the young ones by making it difficult to make use of the space in their neighbourhood?
> I don't know how they think they can get away with this shit.



Yes especially as the new community open spaces feature seating and outdooor table tennis tables............


----------



## editor (May 5, 2015)

One fuck up after another: 




> More people than ever are finding the costs of heating and lighting their homes are becoming unaffordable.
> 
> The simplest way to combat the problem is to switch energy tariff with experts reckoning those that have never switched could save up to £300 a year.
> 
> ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 5, 2015)

editor said:


> One fuck up after another:



Fucking outrageous!
Mind you, if the intermittent hot water is caused by an unbalanced circulation system, it's more likely to be a plant problem than a power problem.


----------



## Twattor (May 5, 2015)

^


----------



## cuppa tee (May 19, 2015)

Here is the academic critique of Myatts North regeneration.............it's a bit of a read
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/IJLBE-01-2014-0007
I think this is also interesting generally in terms of the process of gentrification
particularly the concept of  "dispossession" which gives focus to the idea of
who or what "reclaim brixton" is reclaiming Brixton from.........


----------



## Diamond (May 19, 2015)

editor said:


> One fuck up after another:


 
That should be actionable.


----------



## editor (May 19, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> Here is the academic critique of Myatts North regeneration.............it's a bit of a read
> http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/IJLBE-01-2014-0007
> I think this is also interesting generally in terms of the process of gentrification
> particularly the concept of  "dispossession" which gives focus to the idea of
> who or what "reclaim brixton" is reclaiming Brixton from.........


Interesting,, and damning...



> *Purpose*
> 
> – This paper aims to ground Harvey’s (2003) top-down theory of “accumulation by dispossession” in the everyday lives of people and places with specific focus on the role of law. It does this by drawing upon the lived experiences of residents on a public housing estate in England (UK) undergoing regeneration and gentrification through the Private Finance Initiative (PFI).
> *Design/methodology/approach*
> ...


----------



## Belushi (May 19, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> Here is the academic critique of Myatts North regeneration.............it's a bit of a read



But well worth the time! This is happening across London.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 19, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> Here is the academic critique of Myatts North regeneration.............it's a bit of a read
> http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/IJLBE-01-2014-0007
> I think this is also interesting generally in terms of the process of gentrification
> particularly the concept of  "dispossession" which gives focus to the idea of
> who or what "reclaim brixton" is reclaiming Brixton from.........



I read it last week. It's pretty damning for Lambeth's two preferred models for "regeneration": PFI or SPV, because both will generate the same sorts of shenanigans on the part of the developers, whether that be the council's SPV or a PFI "partner".


----------



## Belushi (May 19, 2015)

Anyway, lets not forget the real victims here http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-internet-access-or-phone-lines-10260717.html


----------



## Gramsci (May 19, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Anyway, lets not forget the real victims here http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-internet-access-or-phone-lines-10260717.html



Saw that today.

What is gobsmacking about it is that this "regeneration" project has been in the planning and construction for years. Yet the Council/ developers did not sort out the basic infrastructure in the planning- blaming it on BT instead.


----------



## Gramsci (May 19, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> Here is the academic critique of Myatts North regeneration.............it's a bit of a read
> http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/IJLBE-01-2014-0007
> I think this is also interesting generally in terms of the process of gentrification
> particularly the concept of  "dispossession" which gives focus to the idea of
> who or what "reclaim brixton" is reclaiming Brixton from.........



Started to read this last week. It was on Cressingham Gardens FB. Best analysis I have seen of this particular kind of gentrification (Council led).

"accumulation by dispossession" is Marxist concept. Harvey, whose idea it is, is a Marxist geographer.

Its influenced by Marx idea of "primitive accumulation" in Capital Volume one. Which if I remember correctly is how he answered the question of how Capital got started.

Later on ideology played more important role. ie convincing people that capitalism is the only way to run things. Primitive accumulation was depriving people of common land rights ( enclosures) and the Highland clearances. Both done with force not the more subtle use of ideology. Property "rights" are essential to Capitalism. Which is where the law comes in later after the "primitive" bit. 

And yes it does give focus to RB. Reclaim Brixton demo was for a few hours saying this is our common land.


----------



## Twattor (May 20, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Saw that today.
> 
> What is gobsmacking about it is that this "regeneration" project has been in the planning and construction for years. Yet the Council/ developers did not sort out the basic infrastructure in the planning- blaming it on BT instead.



Not something that either the council or the developer have any control over - BT and Openreach are a law unto themselves.  In these days where very few people still uses a land line, BT don't want the speculative expenditure and won't bring any infrastructure into a site until the first order is placed for a phone line.  On sites with flats that is usually a lift or possibly a door entry system, but for estates with houses they won't start the ball rolling until the first resident has moved in. The same applies on greenfield as well as brownfield sites.

Because you can't operate a lift without a designated emergency phone line, developers often get around this by ordering lines for the site cabins which they then switch over to the lifts at completion.  Increasingly, BT make it so difficult to get these that contractors don't bother with landlines at all and install lifts that run off a sim card. This enables the properties to meet building regs and therefore be occupied, but leaves the residents to pick up the headache of dealing with BT.


----------



## Rushy (May 20, 2015)

Twattor said:


> Not something that either the council or the developer have any control over - BT and Openreach are a law unto themselves.  In these days where very few people still uses a land line, BT don't want the speculative expenditure and won't bring any infrastructure into a site until the first order is placed for a phone line.  On sites with flats that is usually a lift or possibly a door entry system, but for estates with houses they won't start the ball rolling until the first resident has moved in. The same applies on greenfield as well as brownfield sites.
> 
> Because you can't operate a lift without a designated emergency phone line, developers often get around this by ordering lines for the site cabins which they then switch over to the lifts at completion.  Increasingly, BT make it so difficult to get these that contractors don't bother with landlines at all and install lifts that run off a sim card. This enables the properties to meet building regs and therefore be occupied, but leaves the residents to pick up the headache of dealing with BT.


And then, of course, all those cables which could have been easily hidden under ground end up being draped all over the street and buildings.


----------



## editor (May 21, 2015)

Got this email from a resident:



> Lambeth council and in particular Cllr Mathew Bennett wants everyone
> to believe his stamping down on rogue landlords (recent bbc and other
> news) but Lambeth are the biggest rogue landlords of them all. There
> are many problems on this development and the stories can go on for
> ...


----------



## cuppa tee (May 21, 2015)

another award for Oval Quarter.... 

http://www.higginshomes.co.uk/blog/2015/award-wins-for-oval-quarter-and-arboretum

meanwhile the whines about Internet issues seem to have had an effect as there are a whole
heap of BT vans in the manor ATM


----------



## Twattor (May 21, 2015)

editor said:


> Got this email from a resident:



I don't think there's a problem with the bin pods per se.  The concept itself is pretty good - no bin chutes that will block, no festering heaps above ground, no bin stores infested with rats as it is all kept underground supposedly out of sight and out of mind.  Plus, as there is no obvious bin store then there's nowhere obvious to leave piss stained mattresses, sofas etc.; the residents have a bit of pride in the area and the estates become self policing and better places to in which to live.

The problem here is in the implementation, and as opposed to the issues with BT this is a true example of a fundamental failing in planning and infrastructure - nobody considered beforehand how the refuse would actually be collected.  The outcome is that the contractors that won the tender for refuse collection in Lambeth turned out to have insufficient vehicles capable of collecting the refuse from these receptacles.

If you take a walk thorough Clapham Park you'll see that they have abandoned this, locked the pods and gone back to bulk bins in the car parks.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 9, 2015)

Myatts Field North today.............


----------



## CH1 (Jul 9, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> Myatts Field North today.............
> View attachment 73833


Are they knocking those house down? If so where have the residents been rehoused to?


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 9, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Are they knocking those house down? If so where have the residents been rehoused to?


Yes, those and a whole lot more.
Theoretically the residents were to be rehoused in the social element of Oval Quarter
but I hear many weren't for various reasons......


----------



## CH1 (Jul 9, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> Yes, those and a whole lot more.
> Theoretically the residents were to be rehoused in the social element of Oval Quarter
> but I hear many weren't for various reasons......


I know someone from there who ended up in a street property in Saltoun Road. He actually prefers that - but it's not the upgrade people were promised is it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> Yes, those and a whole lot more.
> Theoretically the residents were to be rehoused in the social element of Oval Quarter
> but I hear many weren't for various reasons......



From what I recall from the academic paper done on the PFI, that happened/is happening for both the social and "affordable" housing, with some former leaseholders and freeholders who'd chosen to go into "shared ownership" being rooked so badly on "Compulsory Purchase" that they couldn't raise mortgages to cover the difference between what they received and what the minimum percentage share cost.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I know someone from there who ended up in a street property in Saltoun Road. He actually prefers that - but it's not the upgrade people were promised is it?



We had a "what's happening to your estate" circus today at Cressingham Gardens. A resident asked a Lambeth functionary what happens if he refuses to swap his secure council tenancy for an "assured lifetime tenancy" when the estate is "regenerated". He was assured that Lambeth would do their best to move him somewhere were he would retain his secure tenancy. Many people round the table chuckled, as we're well-aware how thin street properties are on the ground,and that he'd probably have Hobson's Choice about his tenancy unless he wanted to end up in temporary accommodation fora decade or more.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 10, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> From what I recall from the academic paper done on the PFI, that happened/is happening for both the social and "affordable" housing, with some former leaseholders and freeholders who'd chosen to go into "shared ownership" being rooked so badly on "Compulsory Purchase" that they couldn't raise mortgages to cover the difference between what they received and what the minimum percentage share cost.


You are correct, I should said said "social/affordable" in my post


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 22, 2015)

Passing through by the demolition site again I notice progress is rather slow
I also notice a group of workers cleaning and  palleting up the yellow london stock bricks the old estate was built from
another guy was loading up a few red brick for his garden, I got into conversation with him and he told me the yellow bricks
are much sought after and will sell for £!.20 each, so I am now wondering how many bricks there are in the 300+ demolished
properties and who will be pocketing the dosh accruing from their sale................

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/YELLOW-RE...l-size-yellow-brick-1-30-bricks-/201379490441

E2A ........reclaimed roof slate can fetch a fair bit too


----------



## Twattor (Jul 22, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> Passing through by the demolition site again I notice progress is rather slow
> I also notice a group of workers cleaning and  palleting up the yellow london stock bricks the old estate was built from
> another guy was loading up a few red brick for his garden, I got into conversation with him and he told me the yellow bricks
> are much sought after and will sell for £!.20 each, so I am now wondering how many bricks there are in the 300+ demolished
> ...



Where viable it is usually a perk for the demolition contractors and factored into their price for the works.

However, it takes a lot of effort to demolish something in a way that doesn't damage the bricks, so it isn't usually cost effective unless you're dealing with Victorian (or older) lime mortar.

The ones you saw are more likely to be being cleaned for localised repairs.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 22, 2015)

Twattor said:


> Where viable it is usually a perk for the demolition contractors and factored into their price for the works.
> 
> However, it takes a lot of effort to demolish something in a way that doesn't damage the bricks, so it isn't usually cost effective unless you're dealing with Victorian (or older) lime mortar.
> 
> The ones you saw are more likely to be being cleaned for localised repairs.



thanks !!


----------



## Rushy (Jul 22, 2015)

Twattor said:


> Where viable it is usually a perk for the demolition contractors and factored into their price for the works.
> 
> However, it takes a lot of effort to demolish something in a way that doesn't damage the bricks, so it isn't usually cost effective unless you're dealing with Victorian (or older) lime mortar.
> 
> The ones you saw are more likely to be being cleaned for localised repairs.


The copies are becoming so good now that I'm surprised anyone bothers with reclaimed. Every pallet of old stock is riddled with unusable broken ones.


----------



## Ol Nick (Jul 22, 2015)

Rushy said:


> The copies are becoming so good now that I'm surprised anyone bothers with reclaimed. Every pallet of old stock is riddled with unusable broken ones.


I've heard of planning permission in conservation areas requiring the use of old bricks. That was about five years ago and the price was £1 a brick. Blame Brickston gentrification.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 22, 2015)

Ol Nick said:


> I've heard of planning permission in conservation areas requiring the use of old bricks. That was about five years ago and the price was £1 a brick. Blame Brickston gentrification.


It was sometimes a condition even in non conservation areas. I think it would be hard to argue against using good copies in most circumstances.


----------



## Ol Nick (Jul 22, 2015)

Rushy said:


> It was sometimes a condition even in non conservation areas. I think it would be hard to argue against using good copies in most circumstances.


I have this vision of houses being demolished and their bricks being used for a new development and that getting demolished and its bricks being required for the next development until developers are fighting each other on Coldharbour Lane for the brick that one of them bought off a bloke in the Albert and is probably just fake anyway but it's worth a try.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 22, 2015)

Ol Nick said:


> I have this vision of houses being demolished and their bricks being used for a new development and that getting demolished and its bricks being required for the next development until developers are fighting each other on Coldharbour Lane for the brick that one of them bought off a bloke in the Albert and is probably just fake anyway but it's worth a try.




Being unnecessarily serious for a moment, I can't imagine that that they will get reused again next time around because the modern mortar won't come of them. I have a useless stack in my garden from a fallen brick wall. The brick breaks before the mortar will cone of it.


----------



## Twattor (Jul 22, 2015)

Rushy said:


> Being unnecessarily serious for a moment, I can't imagine that that they will get reused again next time around because the modern mortar won't come of them. I have a useless stack in my garden from a fallen brick wall. The brick breaks before the mortar will cone of it.



Scutch hammer and soft backing like a cushion. Mind your thumbs.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 22, 2015)

Twattor said:


> Scutch hammer and soft backing like a cushion. Mind your thumbs.


You are welcome to relieve me of my pile!


----------



## Twattor (Jul 22, 2015)

Rushy said:


> You are welcome to relieve me of my pile!



I did my 10 years hard labour. Now going straight.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 1, 2015)

Looks like councillors failing to deal with overcrowding slum conditions etc.
Maybe they should design for the people coming to them with problems rather than Penang, Hong Kong buy-to-lets?


----------



## Twattor (Aug 1, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Looks like councillors failing to deal with overcrowding slum conditions etc.
> Maybe they should design for the people coming to them with problems rather than Penang, Hong Kong buy-to-lets?



To be fair it isn't a problem with an instant solution; you need to look a few years ahead in housing. 

Also, social housing is designed to be far, far better in the important ways than the private sector developments they promote.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 2, 2015)

Twattor said:


> To be fair it isn't a problem with an instant solution; you need to look a few years ahead in housing.
> Also, social housing is designed to be far, far better in the important ways than the private sector developments they promote.


So when were they planning Oval Quarter then? Surely 5 years ago (or more).

I know someone who was decanted into a street property - permanently - so they could knock down his block as part of the Oval Quarter  development.

Also what is this about social housing being better than private? The argument sounds contorted - are you really saying that Lambeth Council can't build social housing because the standards required are too high compared to private housing?


----------



## Twattor (Aug 5, 2015)

CH1 said:


> So when were they planning Oval Quarter then? Surely 5 years ago (or more).



Probably much longer than that.  they must have been on site three years now and before that they would have needed to get planning, finance, acquire the land, arrange decants.



> Also what is this about social housing being better than private? The argument sounds contorted - are you really saying that Lambeth Council can't build social housing because the standards required are too high compared to private housing?



Comparing social housing with housing for investor purchase is to compare apples and oranges.  You're comparing things with completely opposing design and performance requirements. 

For the former you're after a space that is big enough for long term residents with the chattels they've accumulated over time, it is likely to be over occupied so needs plenty of space; it needs to be constructed in a way that means it can be adapted if the needs of the occupiers change, so requires a technical build. It will be retained by the freeholder who will be responsible for all aspects of maintenance, so the materials need to be hard wearing and easy/cheap to maintain.  It needs to be super efficient to try to keep the bills down for occupiers on fixed incomes.  The key considerations are size, durability, and the quality of the actual construction.

For the latter, the only important factor is location and looking shiny.  The quality of the build can be rubbish as long as there are pretty tiles and a shiny kitchen.  The units can be tiny as the purchaser often doesn't bother even looking at them as long as a local estate agent tells them they'll be able to let them.

A 52m2 social housing unit with robust and functional fixtures and fitttings will cost more to build and require greater technical competancy to get right than a 37m2 shoebox for an overseas speculator.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 5, 2015)

Twattor said:


> Probably much longer than that.  they must have been on site three years now and before that they would have needed to get planning, finance, acquire the land, arrange decants.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm curious to see your evidence for this.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 6, 2015)

Twattor said:


> Comparing social housing with housing for investor purchase is to compare apples and oranges.  You're comparing things with completely opposing design and performance requirements.
> 
> For the former you're after a space that is big enough for long term residents with the chattels they've accumulated over time, it is likely to be over occupied so needs plenty of space; it needs to be constructed in a way that means it can be adapted if the needs of the occupiers change, so requires a technical build. It will be retained by the freeholder who will be responsible for all aspects of maintenance, so the materials need to be hard wearing and easy/cheap to maintain.  It needs to be super efficient to try to keep the bills down for occupiers on fixed incomes.  The key considerations are size, durability, and the quality of the actual construction.
> 
> ...


I agree with Rushy, unusually.

You seem to be advancing a cynical argument here - but one that forgets the important point politically.

The Land required for the Oval Quarter was publicly owned land, amassed and sat on by public authorities over the last 50 years.
You seem to be saying - "OK, let us privatise our publicly held hosuing land to achieve a house building target whereby high earners of a transient nature will be housed, financed by buy to let specualtors, either from UK or abroad."

Surely the political imperative here is to house Lambeth residents on Lambeth owned land.
And assuming these residents are in low paid-mid paid work (or unemployed) then the objective is to provide this accommodation at a price which those residents can afford.

Anything else is either assuming that the residents who cannot afford to live in private rented accommodation in Lambeth must move elsewhere, where they can afford the rent. Or that the state will top up the rent - thereby subsidising the landlords - either local or foreign.

To me your arguments about size and quality are secondary to the above issue. To re-quote Harold Macmillan:


----------



## editor (Oct 21, 2015)

FUCK OFF


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 21, 2015)

Myatts Field north is no more as the last block has fallen........


----------



## stethoscope (May 13, 2016)

editor said:


> FUCK OFF
> 
> View attachment 78354


This is from some of the marketing blurb back in 2014 but stumbled upon this earlier…

'Just 'bag' a new home'. Like you would the rest of your shopping. And only 20 minutes away from Selfridges! And cultural offerings! And the Albert!

The bit that really got me though was 'bringing a sense of identity and pride back to local residents'. Yeah, the community already there were obviously lacking that.

Top 10 Reasons to "Bag" a New Home at Oval Quarter | New Homes, New Flats, New Apartments, New Houses | Higgins Homes | London, Essex and Kent



			
				HigginsHome said:
			
		

> Recently smeared by a West End department store as a ‘risky’ postcode, award winning development, Oval Quarter, is set to completely transform the former Myatt’s Field North estate and the area that lies between Camberwell, Oval and Stockwell, bringing a sense of identity and pride back to local residents. Following a very successful launch of the first phase of homes last year, a variety of young professionals have since purchased one of the private sale apartments with the hope of owning a new home within this forever popular district of South London.
> 
> Already, local areas such as Oval and Brixton are proving popular places to live due the diversity of local amenities, transport connections and overall cultural offerings. Oval Quarter is just one example of a development where security is not an issue. In fact, there are multiple reasons why residents choose to live here:
> 
> ...



and so it goes on...


----------



## stethoscope (May 13, 2016)

And all of these 'regeneration' schemes are being done on PFI still too… it's all going to seriously go tits up at some point.


----------



## editor (May 13, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> This is from some of the marketing blurb back in 2014 but stumbled upon this earlier…
> 
> 'Just 'bag' a new home'. Like you would the rest of your shopping. And only 20 minutes away from Selfridges! And cultural offerings! And the Albert!
> 
> ...


Utterly vile.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (May 13, 2016)

Cheapest private sale on their website at the moment is £450K for a 1 bedroom flat


----------



## editor (May 13, 2016)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Cheapest private sale on their website at the moment is £450K for a 1 bedroom flat


Hateful exploitation and profiteering. May they rot in hell.


----------



## T & P (May 13, 2016)

That piece is cringeworthy 

I'd like to know why a department store would have the need to express an opinion on whether a postcode is 'risky'. Is said department store selling or renting properties, perhaps?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 13, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> And all of these 'regeneration' schemes are being done on PFI still too… it's all going to seriously go tits up at some point.



The council tenants who were decanted for the demolition and put back on the estate once it was rebuilt are absolutely fucking livid at their PFI, especially the part of it that locked them in to a 30 year contract with E.on as their sole energy supplier. E.on is basically turning the screws on them with regard to energy charges - some families are having to choose - and this is according to a councillor for Vassall ward, in which Myatts sits - between heat and light, or decent meals. Apparently the number of build problems (we're not talking snagging here, we're talking serious housing infrastructure fuck-ups) that are going un-addressed by Regenta are huge.

That's *partly* why Lambeth are pursuing the idea of an SPV to finance Cressingham's "regeneration", rather than a PFI. Seeing as they're still having to pay the PFI developer at MFN around £1 million a month, they're wary of being caught out on the contracts again.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 13, 2016)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Cheapest private sale on their website at the moment is £450K for a 1 bedroom flat



It's the prospect of such large sums - or their equivalent as rental income - that's arguably fuelled the current wave of "regeneration" that Lambeth has unleashed on us. Their quasi-justification is that "Tory cuts" have driven them to this. There's no acceptance that their own politics, or their financial ineptitude and unwillingness to employ legal and contracts stuff who know what the fuck they're doing, has contributed to this neoliberal nightmare.


----------



## CH1 (May 13, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> This is from some of the marketing blurb back in 2014 but stumbled upon this earlier…
> 'Just 'bag' a new home'. Like you would the rest of your shopping. And only 20 minutes away from Selfridges! And cultural offerings! And the Albert!
> The bit that really got me though was 'bringing a sense of identity and pride back to local residents'. Yeah, the community already there were obviously lacking that.
> Top 10 Reasons to "Bag" a New Home at Oval Quarter | New Homes, New Flats, New Apartments, New Houses | Higgins Homes | London, Essex and Kent
> and so it goes on...


Apart from all that, consider this enticing bilge showing how a banker can now get a subsidised no-interest government loan for 40% of the purchase price to help him "up the housing ladder" Help to Buy secures dream home   |  News  |  Oval Quarter

Higgs have now got a big push on to sell the prestige Parkside part of the development. Wonder how that makes purchasers of the now non-prestige part feel?

And finally maybe now Councillor Heywood has woken up to reality on Libraries she will also remember that this bloody PFI development robbed Coldharbour Ward of its only GP surgery!


----------



## stethoscope (May 13, 2016)

CH1 said:


> Apart from all that, consider this enticing bilge showing how a banker can now get a subsidised no-interest government loan for 40% of the purchase price to help him "up the housing ladder" Help to Buy secures dream home   |  News  |  Oval Quarter



Good grief.


----------



## aka (May 14, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> The ...snip.


Sadly LBL tend not to have anyone on their side of the table with 'smarts'. They are out-negotiated time after time. I've grilled them on this and the standard response is 'we can't afford it'. FFS.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2016)

aka said:


> Sadly LBL tend not to have anyone on their side of the table with 'smarts'. They are out-negotiated time after time. I've grilled them on this and the standard response is 'we can't afford it'. FFS.



The standard response in full is usually "we can't afford it, but we hire in consultants on an 'as needed' basis".
Because paying someone as much for a month's work as you'd pay in six months to a retained staff member of equivalent skills saves money, doesn't it?


----------



## CH1 (Sep 9, 2016)

One bed apartments from £440,000
Two bed, one bath apartments from £570,000
Two bed, two bath apartments from £590,000

No doubt they'll be queueing round the block at Higgins Homes plc Penang, Singapore and Hong Kong.


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 9, 2016)

CH1 said:


> View attachment 92294
> One bed apartments from £440,000
> Two bed, one bath apartments from £570,000
> Two bed, two bath apartments from £590,000
> ...



those are pretty fucking steep prices aren't they, mind you those new blocks are the furthest from any pre-existing social housing, have views across the park and the white top floor has a very penthouse like feel. not sure about the oriental sales though, the people I see coming and going are 99% white European. the other day I noticed the developers are after planning permission to erect a " high art work" in the new park so that might be interesting. in other news the sterilisation of the public spaces continues apace following the threat of dispersal for "intimidating" youths in groups of more than one there is now a ban on dogs and war is being waged on the pigeons, maybe if you pay £400 grand plus for a flat with a balcony you don't want pesky birds shitting on it........come to think of it maybe they are trying to make it like Singapore after all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 9, 2016)

I'm afraid that "don't feed the pigeons" poster would just have me buying half a dozen loaves a day to go strew around the park at 5.30 in the morning.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 9, 2016)

cuppa tee said:


> those are pretty fucking steep prices aren't they, mind you those new blocks are the furthest from any pre-existing social housing, have views across the park and the white top floor has a very penthouse like feel. not sure about the oriental sales though, the people I see coming and going are 99% white European. the other day I noticed the developers are after planning permission to erect a " high art work" in the new park so that might be interesting. in other news the sterilisation of the public spaces continues apace following the threat of dispersal for "intimidating" youths in groups of more than one there is now a ban on dogs and war is being waged on the pigeons, maybe if you pay £400 grand plus for a flat with a balcony you don't want pesky birds shitting on it........come to think of it maybe they are trying to make it like Singapore after all.
> View attachment 92305


I think the original scheme has been marketed in those places but this was a couple of years ago.
You might find this article gives you food for thought Expats see the future in London's buy-to-let market


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 12, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm afraid that "don't feed the pigeons" poster would just have me buying half a dozen loaves a day to go strew around the park at 5.30 in the morning.


that would be a visible show of support for the our feathered friends but a nice big bag of seed would be better for them and more discrete.....


----------



## lefteri (Jul 21, 2017)

Lengthy and damning report by Zoe Williams: The real cost of regeneration


----------



## Winot (Jul 21, 2017)

lefteri said:


> Lengthy and damning report by Zoe Williams: The real cost of regeneration



Absolutely shameful.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Jul 21, 2017)

Isn't it?


----------



## editor (Jul 21, 2017)

Winot said:


> Absolutely shameful.














Top 10 Reasons to "Bag" a New Home at Oval Quarter | New Homes, New Flats, New Apartments, New Houses | Higgins Homes | London, Essex and Kent

Fucking obscene.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2017)

editor said:


> Top 10 Reasons to "Bag" a New Home at Oval Quarter | New Homes, New Flats, New Apartments, New Houses | Higgins Homes | London, Essex and Kent
> 
> Fucking obscene.



And apparently as poorly built as the replacement homes for MFN residents.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 25, 2017)

lefteri said:


> Lengthy and damning report by Zoe Williams: The real cost of regeneration



PFI was a major part of the New Labour ideology. Supported by Brown and Blair. It was more than a pragmatic policy. It was about a new partnership between the State and free enterprise.

Recently read Tony Blair's article arguing for "centre" politics against "populists" of left ( Corbyn) and right. He argues that it's the centre which can ride to the challenge of modern globalised capitalism.




> In this time of accelerating change, we are offered two different types of conservativism, one of the right and one of the left.
> 
> The election was fought like one from the 1980s, but with two competing visions of the 1960s


.
Brexit and the Centre

This article by Zoe is a good reminder that when it comes down to how the centre works in practice it failed people.

Also from Blair's article:


> The infrastructure of Britain has to be built anew to link up the regions of the country and take advantage of our assets – geography, history, language and a culture which, despite everything, the world still admires.
> 
> We need an ambitious affordable housing programme.



Tony and Gordon centre ground housing program is a failure. Yet Blair is blind to that.


----------



## editor (May 28, 2020)

Definitely not my favourite Lambeth park!
























						In photos: the prairie like fields of Eythorne Park, Myatt’s Field North, south London
					

The centrepiece of the controversial Myatt’s Fields North development, Eythorne Park is a fairly featureless expanse of flat grassland and sports facilities in north Brixton, with the triangu…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## cuppa tee (May 28, 2020)

editor said:


> Definitely not my favourite Lambeth park!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



im not gonna dispute the general tone of this article in fact the criticism is quite moderate but this bit is wrong....


> Unfathomably, there’s a path that leads right up to the grassed roof of the centre. A local told us that it’s been fenced off since the building was completed.


in fact the path has been open until recentlly when the grass roof was fenced off along with the basketball court because the cops had to break up gatherings during lockdown. shortly after it was opened up to joe public barriers were placed at the bottom of the path both sides to stop kids sliding off the metal roof structure and dropping to the ground someone was gonna get hurt, not a great design , they also put large rocks at the bottom of the path to stop peeeps using the path as skate ramp and for stunt bike antics. The roof has been otherwise open and notably the venue for impromptu nye celebrations with fireworks and champagne and generally inclusive and free. Could say quite a bit more about this park but gotta horrible migraine atm


----------



## editor (May 28, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> im not gonna dispute the general tone of this article in fact the criticism is quite moderate but this bit is wrong....
> 
> in fact the path has been open until recentlly when the grass roof was fenced off along with the basketball court because the cops had to break up gatherings during lockdown. shortly after it was opened up to joe public barriers were placed at the bottom of the path both sides to stop kids sliding off the metal roof structure and dropping to the ground someone was gonna get hurt, not a great design , they also put large rocks at the bottom of the path to stop peeeps using the path as skate ramp and for stunt bike antics. The roof has been otherwise open and notably the venue for impromptu nye celebrations with fireworks and champagne and generally inclusive and free. Could say quite a bit more about this park but gotta horrible migraine atm


I'll take that bit out but that what i was told that by a local I chatted to and she loved right in front of it!

Someone added this on FB: 



> the permanent presence of heras fencing around the edge of the community centre because the designer failed to take building regulations into consideration when extending the park over the centre’s roof just sums it up really



It seems a terrible design decision either way.


----------



## editor (May 28, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> im not gonna dispute the general tone of this article in fact the criticism is quite moderate but this bit is wrong....
> 
> in fact the path has been open until recentlly when the grass roof was fenced off along with the basketball court because the cops had to break up gatherings during lockdown. shortly after it was opened up to joe public barriers were placed at the bottom of the path both sides to stop kids sliding off the metal roof structure and dropping to the ground someone was gonna get hurt, not a great design , they also put large rocks at the bottom of the path to stop peeeps using the path as skate ramp and for stunt bike antics. The roof has been otherwise open and notably the venue for impromptu nye celebrations with fireworks and champagne and generally inclusive and free. Could say quite a bit more about this park but gotta horrible migraine atm


This better? 



> Unfathomably, there's a path that leads right up to the grassed roof of the centre which immediately proved attractive to skateboarders and stunt cyclists, and there were reports of kids sliding off the top.  What was the designer thinking?


----------



## cuppa tee (May 28, 2020)

editor said:


> This better?



not sure it was popular with skaters and stunt cyclists, more a case of an accident waiting to happen if someone decided to tank it down the slope and collided with someone using the footpath that crosses the park....😳

e2a the Facebook comment may well be accurate, but I saw kids doing the slide thing with my own eyes, they were also digging up the gravel path edges to chuck at one another 🤪


----------



## cuppa tee (May 28, 2020)

editor did you notice the public art and the orange tree that inspired it ?


----------



## editor (May 28, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> editor did you notice the public art and the orange tree that inspired it ?


I managed to miss that. I really didn't like the park to be honest - with all those bland blocks overlooking it, I didn't fancy hanging about for long.


----------



## cuppa tee (May 29, 2020)

editor said:


> I managed to miss that. I really didn't like the park to be honest - with all those bland blocks overlooking it, I didn't fancy hanging about for long.


yeah I mostly only pass thru , might stop if the dog needs to turn one out 😩
the orange tree grew in the garden of one the houses on Myatts North that was demolished to make way for the
“oval quarter 🤢” legend has it that was cultivated from a pip by the occupant, it is in a dip of about 2ft lower than the surrounding prairie. Nearby is column with a depiction of the orange tree in mosaic, moments in local history represented in the roots and  branches....


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 9, 2020)

Hi editor, just to let you the community centre roof path and the basketball court have reopened.


----------

