# Heygate Estate redevelopment: just 79 social rented units out of a total 2,535 new homes



## editor (Feb 4, 2013)

This is fucking outrageous.

Thanks to a council cock up, details of Southwark Council's secret deal with Lend Lease over the Elephant and Castle regeneration project has cone to light, with the proposal seeing just _79_ social rented units being built out of a total 2,535 new homes.

*speechless

http://www.urban75.org/blog/elephan...35-new-homes-and-just-79-social-rented-units/


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

could have been a nice little bump. http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ate-elephant-and-castle.270319/#post-10037271


----------



## editor (Feb 4, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> could have been a nice little bump. http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ate-elephant-and-castle.270319/#post-10037271


Great, a wannabe pogofish. 

I'm of the opinion that this recent development and its potential political ramifications is big enough to be worthy of a new thread, but thank you anyway for linking to a relevant thread which does, to be fair, include that rather lovely picture of the copper sulphate crystals artwork.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

tbh there are a load of developments, eg in haggerston and round the colville estate in hackney, as well as the heygate which i would suggest ought to have a big single thread rather than having one for every estate which is knocked down and then replaced just without more than a few token social housing flats.


----------



## editor (Feb 4, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh there are a load of developments, eg in haggerston and round the colville estate in hackney, as well as the heygate which i would suggest ought to have a big single thread rather than having one for every estate which is knocked down and then replaced just without more than a few token social housing flats.


Feel free to start any thread you like, but I'm happy to see this development being discussed right there, thanks.

It's too important to be buried in one monster thread full of unrelated redevelopments in different boroughs, IMO.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

editor said:


> Feel free to start any thread you like, but I'm happy to see this development being discussed right there, thanks.
> 
> It's too important to be buried in one monster thread full of unrelated redevelopments in different boroughs, IMO.


so what do you think this development's potential political ramifications are?


----------



## editor (Feb 4, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> so what do you think this development's potential political ramifications are?


That's what I'm hoping to learn something about.

Have you read the article and the links contained therein? Lots to take in there.

Perhaps you could discuss some of that rather than offer your opinion about how and where I should post here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

editor said:


> That's what I'm hoping to learn something about.
> 
> Have you read the article and the links contained therein? Lots to take in there.
> 
> Perhaps you could discuss some of that rather than offer your opinion about how and where I should post here.


let's start off with the potential involvement of the district auditor who might be interested in why southwark flogged off the land below its market value.


----------



## toblerone3 (Feb 4, 2013)

Sounds like somebody's palm somewhere has been crossed with silver. Surely this will face legal challenge.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 4, 2013)

Can this decision be appealed in any way? It sounds extremely dodgy to say the least.


----------



## toblerone3 (Feb 4, 2013)

I wonder what marty21 thinks?


----------



## Favelado (Feb 4, 2013)

I spent time in Walworth in 2011 and got to know some of the people involved in the Heygate gardening project and met one of the guys holding out to get a decent price for his flat. The whole thing has just stunk of the worst kind of gerrymandering possible. It's abysmal.


----------



## spanglechick (Feb 4, 2013)

just those sheer numbers make me feel physically sick.  talk about social cleansing...  what's happening in brixton seems sometimes debatable, too many small cuts.

this is just... monstrous.  


two and a half thousand new homes for wealthy londoners...  a tiny, tiny fraction of them for the people who have traditionally lived in the area.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 4, 2013)

Disgusting


----------



## Frances Lengel (Feb 4, 2013)

Favelado said:


> I spent time in Walworth in 2011 and got to know some of the people involved in the Heygate gardening project and met one of the guys holding out to get a decent price for his flat. The whole thing has just stunk of the worst kind of gerrymandering possible. It's abysmal.


 
Is this the gardening thing?

Some nice pics of Heygate here, starting about halfway down the page.

www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=501265&page=123


----------



## Favelado (Feb 4, 2013)

I also got told that the big Phillishave penis thing in Elephant has all the social housing at the bottom and the higher levels for everyone else. There are separate lifts too - the bottom floors are served by one and then from the 10th floor upwards it's a different one. This is allegedly so that the yuppies don't have to mix with the unwashed.


----------



## Favelado (Feb 4, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Is this the gardening thing?View attachment 28565
> 
> Some nice pics of Heygate here, starting about halfway down the page.
> 
> www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=501265&page=123


 

Yeah. I was there a little bit. I failed at gardening but I have followed the Heygate story closely. If you look at the history of the equally giant and very well-known Cabrini Green project in Chicago, you can see that the same stunts are pulled on social tenants worldwide.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Feb 4, 2013)

Words fail me. I've left the area now, but my in-laws and their whole family grew up in Walworth and Elephant & Castle. Generations of community up in smoke. Just so Selena and Jasper feel safe when they're braying in their luxury apartments.

Fucking angry just about sums it up.


----------



## marty21 (Feb 4, 2013)

toblerone3 said:


> I wonder what marty21 thinks?


Boris seems to have stopped bothering about Section 106 - Ken had his flaws, but he was well into the Social Housing element of new developments


----------



## toblerone3 (Feb 4, 2013)

marty21 said:


> Boris seems to have stopped bothering about Section 106 - Ken had his flaws, but he was well into the Social Housing element of new developments


 
Still plenty of Section 106 money being agreed as part of new development agreements as least judging by what is happening in Hackney.  Surely S 106 is a borough-level thing. So its to do with Southwark Council rather than Boris Johnson. But what is happening is some of the agreements are being negotiated at Chief Executive level rather than with the planning departments and they are somewhat opaque. Have heard some stuff about Woodberry Down estate as well.


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 4, 2013)

> How the Heygate was sold(out)
> 
> The Planning Application was for what was the Heygate Estate an area of 1,100 council homes built in late seventies at the Elephant.
> 
> ...


 
from occupy london's facebook page.


----------



## tbtommyb (Feb 4, 2013)

wankers.


----------



## agricola (Feb 4, 2013)

toblerone3 said:


> Sounds like somebody's palm somewhere has been crossed with silver. Surely this will face legal challenge.


 
Emphatically this.  From the ed's blog post:



> The document reveals that having spent £44m[4] on emptying the Heygate Estate, Southwark Council is set to receive just £50m[5] in return for the 22 acre site. The agreement does give the Council a share of overage (profit left after the developer has taken a 20% priority slice), but a report from the District Valuer[6] shows a viability gap such that there is actually unlikely to be any overage.


 
Its hard to imagine anyone who is competent and honest agreeing to such a deal.


----------



## Favelado (Feb 4, 2013)

Elephant will be the next or one of the next Dalstons won't it? Edgy, gritty-looking but on the edge of zone one and amazing transport links - it will be perfect for housing the next load of trust-funders and cock-wipes.


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 4, 2013)

£50m for 22 acres of zone 1. Right. That leasehold or freehold? Of course once you sell an asset you no longer have that asset. This is a major issue. Future councils can't re-own what previous councils have sold off.  And council land is OUR land.


----------



## Reno (Feb 4, 2013)

Sad to say, I'm not even surprised.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 5, 2013)

> _Southwark’s cabinet member for regeneration, Cllr Fiona Colley response to these claims was that land value payments had been reduced in favour of a guarantee of 25% *affordable* housing, itself a breach of Southwark’s policy of a minimum 35% for developments in the Elephant & Castle Opportunity Area.[3]_




They still use this language then?
Using words with antonyms that catagorise the majority of the development as unaffordable or anti-social!


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 5, 2013)

we'll give you a discount on the land if you promise us less 'social' housing than we demand in our policy, and then let you not bother giving us even that much?   Good deal.


----------



## editor (Feb 5, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> just those sheer numbers make me feel physically sick. talk about social cleansing... what's happening in brixton seems sometimes debatable, too many small cuts.


The scale may not be as large in Brixton, but it adds up to the same thing once you've lost your home.

Something like a third of the Guinness Trust residents at the back of the Moorlands Estate were made homeless not so long ago by another of these 'partnership' deals, and there's more to come, no doubt.


----------



## Mapped (Feb 5, 2013)

toblerone3 said:


> Sounds like somebody's palm somewhere has been crossed with silver. Surely this will face legal challenge.


 
LB Southwark for one

They've had funding after funding for this development for over a decade. Section 31 money given on the basis that there would be no loss in social housing, but no actual enforceable conditions on the money.


----------



## salem (Feb 5, 2013)

Utterly speechless. I'd think it were malicious but the cock up with the PDF suggests Southwark are just plain incompetent. Someone must have an explanation for this. Even if palms were crossed with Silver they would have bothered thinking up a cover story. It was never going to go unquestioned. Are they that arrogant?


----------



## boohoo (Feb 5, 2013)

editor said:


> The scale may not be as large in Brixton, but it adds up to the same thing once you've lost your home.
> 
> Something like a third of the Guinness Trust residents at the back of the Moorlands Estate were made homeless not so long ago by another of these 'partnership' deals, and there's more to come, no doubt.


 
The council say this in the mentioned report:

“The new development will make a significant contribution to the future of Brixton,”

>sort of standard paragraph sentence I hate. (translated it means a shiny new mostly private estate will attract well off people whose demands of the area will be very different from the current bunch who live there )


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 5, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> from occupy london's facebook page.


Well what you need to do now is join Labour and help the LRC overthrow the rest of the party.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2013)

editor said:


> This is fucking outrageous.
> 
> Thanks to a council cock up, details of Southwark Council's secret deal with Lend Lease over the Elephant and Castle regeneration project has cone to light, with the proposal seeing just _79_ social rented units being built out of a total 2,535 new homes.
> 
> ...


 
Blamed on a "cock-up", sure. *Caused* by a cock-up, though? I'm not so sure.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> just those sheer numbers make me feel physically sick. talk about social cleansing... what's happening in brixton seems sometimes debatable, too many small cuts.
> 
> this is just... monstrous.
> 
> ...


 
Talking to my folks about this on sunday. They were evicted from a 2-room flat in Deacon Street, Elephant & Castle, to make way for what became the Heygate (Deacon Way, the internal access road, being built partly on the site of the former Deacon St). They were at a loss as to why Southwark would do this, given the amount of CPOs they apparently issued in the late '60s to clear the ground for the Heygate. I then explained to them exactly who benefits from this clusterfuck (including private landlords renting to former council tenants), and both of them reckoned the new situation is a return to the post-war years, more or less: Private landlords being able to take advantage of the massive imbalance of demand over supply, and complaisant councils doing fuck-all to support their tenants beyond the absolute minimum.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2013)

editor said:


> The scale may not be as large in Brixton, but it adds up to the same thing once you've lost your home.
> 
> Something like a third of the Guinness Trust residents at the back of the Moorlands Estate were made homeless not so long ago by another of these 'partnership' deals, and there's more to come, no doubt.


 
Cressingham Gardens on Tulse Hill is at the start of a year-long "consultation exercise" (for which read "extended propaganda exercise") to convince us to allow one of these partnership deals. Fortunately, sentiment is currently strongly against it, but after the propaganda...?
And Lambeth have a history of "carry on regardless" of tenant's wishes too, so I'm not setting a great deal of store by consultation, or any promises they make.


----------



## pros (Feb 5, 2013)

if you get a chance, read the 'heygate is worth how much?' piece too (we've included links to a number of other people's articles too, as collectively, we've all brought up all sorts of issues (sorry, that's on peoples republic of southwark website)


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 5, 2013)

pros said:


> if you get a chance, read the 'heygate is worth how much?' piece too (we've included links to a number of other people's articles too, as collectively, we've all brought up all sorts of issues (sorry, that's on peoples republic of southwark website)


Could you post a link please?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 5, 2013)

This is outrageous, but the outcome has been predictable, right from about 10/12 years ago when the first plans to 'regenerate' E&C were published. I was born in the Heygate in 1977 and it fucking breaks my heart that these flats - high quality, well appointed, decent sized rooms, central heating, designed to last for 40-50 years - are now lying empty ready to be destroyed. People could still be living there now. Demolition isn't even going to start until 2015 at the earliest. Southwark Council have been fleeced. It shouldn't even be legal to offer such a low provision of social/affordable housing.

We should reoccupy the estate.


----------



## editor (Feb 5, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Could you post a link please?


It's here:
http://www.peoplesrepublicofsouthwark.co.uk/hold-news/news/2744-heygate-is-worth-how-much


----------



## el-ahrairah (Feb 5, 2013)

is there anything anyone can do?

cos i am fucking raging about this.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 5, 2013)

editor said:


> It's here:
> http://www.peoplesrepublicofsouthwark.co.uk/hold-news/news/2744-heygate-is-worth-how-much


Cheers - it's a good article pros


----------



## salem (Feb 5, 2013)

I live directly opposite it, what they've left there is an absolute blight and the derogation will only speed up as the increasing number of broken windows are left unchecked. A few flats on our street have been burgled recently. Regardless of what future plans are (and it's not going to be to let people back in) they should just bulldoze the lot.

How they got to this stage without actually having a plan of what to do. They seem to be making it up as they go along. A lot of people suffered distress being moved out and to then leave the buildings there borded up to rot for years is offensive.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Feb 5, 2013)

Where's the money coming from for this, btw? It's not £1.5bn of public money being used to reduce social housing stock by a couple of thousand, is it?!!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 5, 2013)

editor said:


> It's here:
> http://www.peoplesrepublicofsouthwark.co.uk/hold-news/news/2744-heygate-is-worth-how-much


One of the most depressing points in that, is this:



> For the last year and a half alone, hundreds of Southwark residents spent an inordinate amount of time attending various 'consultation' meetings and events and meetings with the council and councillors, too often pleading for basic policy compliance, providing their professional expert knowledge and the unique knowledge and experience of the area for free in return for, as it turns out, absolutely nothing.


----------



## editor (Feb 5, 2013)

The 'consultation' in action:




> Residents and objectors refused entry to the Heygate masterplan planning application hearing. The largest planning application ever submitted in Southwark was heard in a room with total capacity for just 100 people. Members of the public waited for 3 hours to try and get into this supposedly public meeting, where they were told they would be admitted on a one-in, one-out basis.





> Councillor Bukola tells objectors there is no room for them to enter the 'public' hearing, and that there are already 'a sufficient number of objectors in the room'...


----------



## jusali (Feb 5, 2013)

That's Capitalism folks!
Not even Politics can stop the corporate "need for greed" now.
Our kids and Grandkids are gonna cus us down so hard......


----------



## pros (Feb 5, 2013)

thanks, editor & equation girl. if any of you are around tonight, 7pm, join us at the southwark council offices, 160 tooley street? (i know it's terribly short notice), as tonight they'll be 'considering' the second part of the planning application for the heygate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2013)

salem said:


> I live directly opposite it, what they've left there is an absolute blight and the derogation will only speed up as the increasing number of broken windows are left unchecked. A few flats on our street have been burgled recently. Regardless of what future plans are (and it's not going to be to let people back in) they should just bulldoze the lot.
> 
> How they got to this stage without actually having a plan of what to do. They seem to be making it up as they go along. A lot of people suffered distress being moved out and to then leave the buildings there borded up to rot for years is offensive.


 
There have been plans aplenty. Originally the intention (whether or not either the council or the developers ever intended to stick to it) was to partially-decant, then demolish and re-build in stages. What actually happened seems to be being blamed on wicked developers and a spectacularly-inept council, but really, how can we be sure this wasn't a case of one hand washing the other?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> is there anything anyone can do?
> 
> cos i am fucking raging about this.


 
Frontier justice for the planning committee?


----------



## ddraig (Feb 5, 2013)

the clerk or whoever said "we weren't expecting to completely sell out" in that first vid in ed's link!


----------



## editor (Feb 5, 2013)

pros said:


> thanks, editor & equation girl. if any of you are around tonight, 7pm, join us at the southwark council offices, 160 tooley street? (i know it's terribly short notice), as tonight they'll be 'considering' the second part of the planning application for the heygate.


I can't make it but please come back and keep us updated.

I hope by posting it on my blog I've helped at least spread the word about this a tiny bit - the post has already been read over 5,000 times today.


----------



## cybertect (Feb 5, 2013)

I'd seen that the agreement had been leaked, but didn't know the details until I saw this thread.

WTF?!!!

The Oakmayne Plaza site next door sold for £40m on April 2011. 

The Heygate is 22 hectares, Oakmayne's site is a mere 1.5 ha.


----------



## smiler747 (Feb 5, 2013)

A lot of this was covered in The Standard recently: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...le-housing-8455168.html?origin=internalSearch

"The Heygate Estate was emptied in 2008 and the tenants were promised new homes. However, all but 15 have been rehoused in older properties...
Southwark MP and Lib-Dem deputy leader Simon Hughes was among about 200 people at the meeting, which ended in the early hours yesterday. Mr Hughes said he supported the regeneration of the estate but was against the plans because just 25 per cent of the homes will be affordable.
He added: “The council has a policy that 35 per cent of all housing should be affordable. They are breaking their own rules.” He also criticised planners for meeting in a room too small to hold all those who turned up.
Objectors’ spokesman Jerry Flynn said: “Over 850 social rented units will be lost, and the so-called affordable rents are way beyond what most people who live in Southwark can afford. Southwark has more than 17,000 people on its housing waiting list — but none of them will be living on the new Heygate.” 

There is no mention of the scandalously pitiful price the council sold the land.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 6, 2013)

wankers


----------



## editor (Feb 6, 2013)

There's a piece about this on the BBC's site (with a link to urban75) and on the New Stateman's site.

Here's what some of the new  development will look like:












http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/heygate-sold-for-£50m-council-blunder-reveals/5049823.article


----------



## jusali (Feb 6, 2013)

^^^^ Looks the cheapest they could build it ^^^^^

Cricket clap........


----------



## ash (Feb 6, 2013)

This is being covered later on Vanessa Feltz programme on Radio London. She said '1/4 of the homes on the Heygate will be affordable housing, doesn't sound like social cleansing to me'.  I suppose the confusion here is the difference between social and affordable housing.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 6, 2013)

ash said:


> This is being covered later on Vanessa Feltz programme on Radio London. She said '1/4 of the homes on the Heygate will be affordable housing, doesn't sound like social cleansing to me'. I suppose the confusion here is the difference between social and affordable housing.


 
'affordable' is bullshit these days. Affordable if you're on a £40,000 a year salary maybe.


----------



## pros (Feb 6, 2013)

affordable is possibly the biggest misnomer there is. everything that can be bought is 'affordable' to someone. from a £1 lighter to a £500,000 flat. with a £499,999 difference. when they're talking about affordable housing specifically, the 'affordability' is that of 80% market price.
this is what happened at last night's meeting http://www.peoplesrepublicofsouthwark.co.uk/hold-news/news/2748-please-refrain-from-laughing


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 6, 2013)

weepiper said:


> 'affordable' is bullshit these days. Affordable if you're on a £40,000 a year salary maybe.


 
Not even that in a lot of these places. If you're a couple both earning that then you might stretch to it.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 6, 2013)

pros said:


> this is what happened at last night's meeting http://www.peoplesrepublicofsouthwark.co.uk/hold-news/news/2748-please-refrain-from-laughing


 


> Meanwhile, the farce continued and hours later, three councillors voted for the application, two voted against, and two abstained.


 This is how corruption works in local Government. You only have to nobble a couple of councillors.

There was a bit in Private Eye this week about the bargain Lend Lease got for buying the land.


----------



## pros (Feb 6, 2013)

didn't know about private eye (will try and pick up a copy when i go out) thanks for letting me know.


----------



## ninorc (Feb 6, 2013)

Here's the New Statesman's coverage Highlights/extrapolation:
Southwark got only £55m for the 22-acre Heygate site, having already spent £43.5m on clearing the estate, and expects to spend £6.6m more before its demolition. Therefore, this huge site in the centre of the World's greatest city has been sold to a foreign developer at a loss to the taxpayer of £100,000.

For comparison, the neighbouring Oakmayne/Tribeca Square development site, which is only 1.5 acres, was sold in 2011 for £40m.

The initial estimate of the Elephant & Castle site's gross development value was £990m. Now, Lend Lease are predicted to make a profit of £194m.

There will be a total of 2,535 houses in the new development, of which only 79 will be available to Council tenants.

Southwark Council's leader, Peter John, had guaranteed that the plans would involve 25 per cent of affordable housing, which already was 10 per cent less than it should have been according to official Council policy. Mr John is under investigation because he failed to declare one of the two tickets for the Olympics opening ceremony, costing £1,600 each, that were given to him by Lend Lease.

The Australian company, which was contracted to build the Olympic Games Village, earlier this year agreed to pay fines of $56m for over-billing authorities on public contracts in New York. It is not known how much profit Lend Lease made from the Olympics, but its profits rose by 28 per cent in 2012. We do know that the project cost the UK taxpayer £275m.


----------



## zenie (Feb 6, 2013)

I keep reading, but I still can't make sense of it all. 

Speechless


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 6, 2013)

it's a fucking robbery.


----------



## toblerone3 (Feb 6, 2013)

Where is the link to Urban75?  Seems to have gone now. Only links to Lend Lease and Southwark Council.


----------



## editor (Feb 6, 2013)

toblerone3 said:


> Where is the link to Urban75? Seems to have gone now. Only links to Lend Lease and Southwark Council.


We were too 'out there' for them.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 6, 2013)

From the beeb link:



> Councillor Fiona Colley, the council's cabinet member for regeneration, said the authority has a 50/50 profit sharing agreement with the developer Land Lease.


So are the council getting half of the sale price?.  I guess there's not as much profit in social housing...


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Feb 6, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> From the beeb link:
> 
> 
> So are the council getting half of the sale price?. I guess there's not as much profit in social housing...


 
Profit rather than sale price, which will be a lot less. Especially after a lot of the work has been contracted out to their subsidiaries at great expense.


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 6, 2013)

And the 50/50 thing isn't right anyway is it?  The developers are getting some first portion then if there is more profit above that it's 50/50 I'm sure it said somewhere upthread.


----------



## pros (Feb 7, 2013)

in today's southwark news, council will allegedly 'receive a share of any profits after the developer has taken a 20%', although, and this is a quote now, 'councillor colley (member for regeneration) admitted that current viability tests suggested there was unlikely to be any profit.'
i don't think anything else needs to be said on top of this?!


----------



## editor (Feb 7, 2013)

It's a rip-off, wrapped in an arseshaft, inside a clusterfuck.


----------



## Favelado (Feb 8, 2013)

Well worth reading this article if you've never seen it. Adrian was the guy I met. I can't post the text because it's too long.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/mar/04/death-housing-ideal


----------



## Frances Lengel (Feb 8, 2013)

Favelado said:


> Well worth reading this article if you've never seen it. Adrian was the guy I met. I can't post the text because it's too long.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/mar/04/death-housing-ideal


 
Where did he end up?

Decent article - That GaryBaldie in the comments bit is a wanker though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Where did he end up?
> 
> Decent article - That GaryBaldie in the comments bit is a wanker though.


that's grauniad comments for you, frances


----------



## Favelado (Feb 8, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Where did he end up?
> 
> Decent article - That GaryBaldie in the comments bit is a wanker though.


 
I don't know. I left SE17 in September 2011 and although I've kept an eye out for Heygate stories, I don't have personal links to it. You'd think some of the people deeply involved in it have passed or will pass by this thread at some point. Maybe they can tell us.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Feb 8, 2013)

Favelado said:


> I don't know. I left SE17 in September 2011 and although I've kept an eye out for Heygate stories, I don't have personal links to it. You'd think some of the people deeply involved in it have passed or will pass by this thread at some point. Maybe they can tell us.


 
It'd be good if they did. Adrian seemed pretty clued up - Or at least, most of the things he said were things I've also thought. Looking at the Heygate, it seems to have been built out of the same kit as an estate called St Mary's in Oldham, which is where I had my first flat - There aren't any pics of St Mary's flats on the net AFAIK, but yeah, it looked quite similar.


----------



## Favelado (Feb 8, 2013)

The stuff about "self-fulfilling prophecy" is true. Police patrols were intentionally pulled on the Heygate. This inevitably lead to a rise in crime. Can you guess what happened next?

That's right. "Heygate Estate Crime Epidemic" style headlines in South London newspapers.


----------



## Favelado (Feb 8, 2013)

I took this one from the street where the BR station is. It's become a street of Colombian businesses. La Chatica is a great place to have a breakfast of cheesy pancakes (arepas con queso)if anyone wants to enjoy a decent cheap morning feed in a nicely kitted-out independent cafe.

This block is just huge.




Sadly. This won't be true for much longer.


----------



## pros (Feb 8, 2013)

adrian's still there, one of the last people standing, and has just spent 4 days at the public inquiry into the compulsory purchase orders the council issued to every single one of the leaseholders ('offering' to pay them out for really offensively small amount of money for which the people wouldn't be able to buy a shed, let alone a flat anywhere near and/or in london).
we've just incorporated all of the links into this article (as a few people have been tweeting/reporting from the public inquiry as well)


----------



## pros (Feb 8, 2013)

oh, flavelado, the elephant road park (hidden behind the blue monstrosities) used to be just joy to walk/tricycle past on weekends, when the latin american people would be spilling out from the local shops & cafes & playing football & just hanging out with families - the council allowed the developer to close it off before it was due (from what i remember), the developer went in, dug it all up and had not done anything since. argh.
what's really depressing is when you put the most recent insanities in the context of some 10 or more years the local campaigners have been trying to save their homes and neighbourhoods...


----------



## Favelado (Feb 8, 2013)

pros said:


> oh, flavelado, the elephant road park (hidden behind the blue monstrosities) used to be just joy to walk/tricycle past on weekends, when the latin american people would be spilling out from the local shops & cafes & playing football & just hanging out with families - the council allowed the developer to close it off before it was due (from what i remember), the developer went in, dug it all up and had not done anything since. argh.
> what's really depressing is when you put the most recent insanities in the context of some 10 or more years the local campaigners have been trying to save their homes and neighbourhoods...


 
The shops and cafes are still there aren't they? They are a brilliant example of a working class immigrant community making a real success story. That road had about 4 little Colombian businesses that were brand new or relatively new. On Sundays one of them attracted about 100 people as families went about their traditional weekly routine. There was food, music and people from 7 to 70 dancing in a space at the back of the one that's a shop/bar/dancehall. It gave new life to a street that had been a bit glum in my first time in the area in the late 90s.

I hope they're still there.


----------



## pros (Feb 8, 2013)

shops and cafes are still there, yes, thankfully, but nobody can tell for how long.


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 8, 2013)

that map of rent v minimum wage is instructive, pros, cheers for posting.


----------



## pros (Feb 8, 2013)

one of the things that came up today, at the cpo inquiry, was that the new heygate 50% 'affordable' homes will levy £195 per week rent. but local council tenants average weekly income is £175.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 8, 2013)

pros said:


> one of the things that came up today, at the cpo inquiry, was that the new heygate 50% 'affordable' homes will levy £195 per week rent. but local council tenants average weekly income is £175.


 
That's a joke. Or it would be if it was even slightly funny and not just horribly depressing and impossible to escape.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Feb 8, 2013)

weepiper said:


> That's a joke. Or it would be if it was even slightly funny and not just horribly depressing and impossible to escape.


 
It's a joke - With the punchline being the proles will be priced out of their own prole-holes. I can't wait to see the next jolly wheeze our paymasters are going to come up with next time they get together for a coke binge.


----------



## editor (Feb 9, 2013)

Why aren't people more angry about this? It's fucking outrageous.


----------



## Chz (Feb 9, 2013)

It's just that the anger is paired with resignation and not even one iota of surprise.


----------



## pros (Feb 9, 2013)

editor said:


> Why aren't people more angry about this? It's fucking outrageous.


i think some people think something could still be salvaged.
i've no idea how they can still think that, to be honest - i've personally, for a long time now (not strictly linked to the regeneration) thought that the 'democracy' in western countries was much along the lines of an abusive personal relationship, where you are told when/how/why you can do things and are 'trained' into feeling proud/content/happy when you, say, do something and your personal abuser is pleased with you. admittedly a bit simplified/generalised but that's how i'm seeing it a lot of the time. which is why i find the spin and the lies and the 'divide and rule' utterly intolerable.


----------



## Paulie (Feb 9, 2013)

I've just had the good fortune to be canvassed by Cllr Claire Hickson (I live in the neighbouring ward to the Heygate). Unfortunately she refused to have the exchange filmed even after she agreed she was an elected official answerable to her constituents. A little frustrated by her mealy mouthed politicking but will report her answers as best I can.

Me: The 1.5 hectare Oakmayne site was sold for £40m; the 22.5 hectare Heygate site was sold for £50m. How does this represent value for money?
CH: It was the best deal we could get. Do you think we should have left them empty? Do you think we should have left them empty? (she parroted this quite a few times.)

Me: They have been empty for some years now. Why decant the residents only to leave the blocks empty?
CH: There were complaints about the standard of accomodation.

Me: It cost £44m to decant but could have been refurbed for £30m.
CH: I'm not aware of the figures. There are many figures flying about - many of them wrong.

Me: Out of the 2535 residential units only 79 will be social.
CH: I'm not aware of the figures.

Me: Southwark's own policy of a minimum of 35% social/'affordable' was ignored with only 25% being allocated.
CH: Simon Hughes voted for 0%.

Me: Simon Hughes isn't a councillor.
CH: I'm not aware of the figures. There will be affordable housing.

Me: We know that London property values are inflated. 80% of market value makes it affordable to who? Not local people.
CH: There will be 80% market value and 50%.

Me: What about the promised right of return for Heygate residents?
CH: They are happy where they are.

At this point, her handlers/canvassers had disappeared and she was looking around in a nervous manner. She then made to leave accusing me of aggressive questioning.

Me: I'm sorry if you feel that. Many people feels the council has sold local people down the river. It's an issue with strong local feeling.
CH: I've knocked on a hundred doors today and no-one else has mentioned it. Cllr Colley is the cabinet member for Housing. Do you have her e-mail?

Me: I do thanks.

She then walked away at an impressive speed barely pausing to confirm her name. She can really motor when she has to.

I've endeavoured to make this as verbatim as I can recall - I've left out her views on the suitability of Lend Lease as her answer was unclear and unmemorable.

At the start of the exchange, one of the canvassers told me a I was a Lib-Dem voter in a tone which suggested I was prejudged as hostile. Quite how they drew this conclusion, I've no idea. My voting preferences do not get revealed to canvassers or those lurkers outside polling stations.

She may still be about the Newington/St Mary's ward. Keep a look out. She is quite a Minnie Driver lookylikey.


----------



## editor (Feb 9, 2013)

Paulie said:


> I've just had the good fortune to be canvassed by Cllr Claire Hickson (I live in the neighbouring ward to the Heygate). Unfortunately she refused to have the exchanged filmed even after she agreed she was an elected official answerable to her constituents. A little frustrated by her mealy mouthed politicking but will report her answers as best I can.


Well, there's _politics_ in action.


----------



## crappistmartin (Feb 9, 2013)

Yes, this is a perfect example of politics in action!

Cllr. Claire Hickson is former Director at Bellenden Communications, which is owned by fellow Labour Councillor Mark Glover. Bellenden Communications provides advice to companies on tendering for public sector contracts and to developers applying for planning permission. She has since started her own Communications company called 'Trio Policy', which has 'Swan Housing Group' amongst its clients. The Swan Group is owned by Southwark Council's former Director of Housing John Synnuck. It is now the 16th largest developer housing group and has been awarded numerous development contracts in Southwark. In August 2012 it was being investigated for falsifying HCA funding applications.
Read more here: http://heygate.herokuapp.com/network.html


----------



## Paulie (Feb 9, 2013)

Should have added that she's "VERY excited about the jobs..."  Whatever that may mean.  As good for local employment as the Olympics were perhaps.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Feb 9, 2013)

Jesus. Dripping with corruption. Absolutely shameless.


----------



## Paulie (Feb 9, 2013)

Thanks for that crappist. I'll admit that I didn't know who she was as she's not one of my own ward councillors. Wish I'd seen your link before.

Given her business interests, I'd have hoped she'd be better informed about housing issues than she appeared to be.

On a puerile note, I can't help but read 'Bellenden' missing off the 'en' at the end.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 9, 2013)

editor said:


> Why aren't people more angry about this? It's fucking outrageous.


 
Because they're either too busy worrying that they'll be next, or they're not council tenants and can't bring themselves to give a fuck in the face of their own high (private) rents.
The problem is that people see what's happening with The Heygate, and they think it's *only* The Heygate where this is happening. They don't realise that losses of social housing are occurring all the time not just through Right to Buy, but through fuckwitted "regeneration schemes" like Clapham Park and Myatts Fields (and probably both your estate and mine).


----------



## Favelado (Feb 9, 2013)

Not an honest-spirited answer given to any of the questions in Paulie's post. Disingenuous dogshit by the Cllr. there.


----------



## editor (Feb 9, 2013)

Cllr. Claire Hickson responded:


----------



## Paulie (Feb 9, 2013)

The purpose of their outing appeared to be a party-political exercise to tell us how shit Simon Hughes is.  As well as the disingenuous swerve about him voting for 0% social housing, her canvassers were keen to mention his "poor voting record" without context or expansion.  I guess their plan was to ask folk about 'issues' and tell us Labour would make it all lovely.

The stench of social cleansing around the Heygate makes me wonder about a change in demographic and consequent shift in voting pattern.  No-one dare mention 'gerrymandering' after Shirley Porter got caught.  At least in Westminster, it was the Labour group who blew the whistle on that scam.  No such luck here, I fear.

As she strolled around my 1959 estate, I wish I'd asked why a 1974 estate had to go.


----------



## pros (Feb 9, 2013)

southwark labour councillors tend to be too busy to be engaging in discussions with people who live in southwark (not on social media, even less in real life)


----------



## Paulie (Feb 9, 2013)

As I said, I endeavoured to report as verbatim as I could recall. It is not a full record of the entire conversation and is possibly not precisely in the order it came out. I'm not a stenographer. I do not believe that I misreported any of Cllr. Hickson's responses. The answers given were to the questions I did report. I would be keen to learn what inaccuracies she feels I have made. Perhaps agreeing to filming on my crappy old phone would have been better all round.

I'm not wild about the description of an 'interview'. I see it as a chance conversation with a local elected official. I certainly have no journalistic ambition and only wanted to film it to provide a better record for all those here with an obvious interest. I respected her wish to not be filmed but now wish I'd made a sound recording anyway.

Anyhow - here's hoping to hear her side.

ETA Just re-read my post.  I stand by it.


----------



## Paulie (Feb 9, 2013)

pros said:


> southwark labour councillors tend to be too busy to be engaging in discussions with people who live in southwark (not on social media, even less in real life)


 
Caroline Pidgeon used to be one of the cllrs for this ward.  I didn't see her often but did cross paths a few times and always had a more reasonable conversation than today's felt like.  She's now the leader of the LD group in the LA, I think.  I'm not a party-political type at all but sometimes think the LD cllrs were a bit better?


----------



## pros (Feb 9, 2013)

today, cllr fiona colley (regeneration) had her letter published in the independent, saying,
*Regeneration, not social cleansing*
The redevelopment of Heygate estate in Southwark is not "social cleansing", as you report (5 February); it is the regeneration of a run-down and tired estate into a place where people will genuinely want to live, work and visit.
Any change, even one that creates 5,000 new homes, 6,000 jobs, a new park, a new leisure centre, and vast improvements to transport and traffic, will face some opposition. I expect that, but I do not expect to have to constantly challenge lies that are spread about this essential work.
Elephant and Castle, when the regeneration is complete, will have at least 1,625 new affordable homes, many more than in the existing Heygate estate. They won't all be concentrated in one place, but spread across neighbouring streets to create a mixed community – something that is widely seen as a successful way of avoiding the problems that can occur in low-income monotenure estates.
I challenge anyone who questions the wisdom of our plans to come down to the Elephant & Castle. They should look at the sad housing blocks that film-makers choose to illustrate despair and decay, and then speak to many residents already enjoying new, warm, dry, modern affordable homes in the area.
The only cleansing that Southwark Council is interested in is the positive and inclusive transformation of Elephant & Castle into a sparkling, vibrant neighbourhood, where everyone is welcome.
_Cllr Fiona Colley_
_Cabinet Member for Regeneration at Southwark Council, London SE1_

if you feel like responding, send your comments to: letters@independent.co.uk
or southwark news (deadline: tuesday 12th feb)_ - _will conform correct email a bit later


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 10, 2013)

lies


----------



## weepiper (Feb 10, 2013)

pros said:


> Elephant and Castle, when the regeneration is complete, will have at least 1,625 new affordable homes, *many more* than in the existing Heygate estate.


 
because it'll have hundreds less social housing flats.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 10, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> lies


 
More like "disingenuous half-truths". That's the thing with our political representatives nowadays - they're all well-trained in the art of allusion, and in not making public commitments, so you get shit like "affordable housing" being mentioned, with no reference to the *criteria* for "affordable housing", for instance.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 10, 2013)

weepiper said:


> because it'll have hundreds less social housing flats.


 
About a thousand less.


----------



## agricola (Feb 10, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> More like "disingenuous half-truths". That's the thing with our political representatives nowadays - they're all well-trained in the art of allusion, and in not making public commitments, so you get shit like "affordable housing" being mentioned, with no reference to the *criteria* for "affordable housing", for instance.


 
If anything its that the standards of people who question politicians that have decreased, rather than political representatives are well trained - lets face it almost everyone knows what "_affordable housing_" usually means, and anyone with the slightest inclination to do some research (or even just to read this thread) could prove what it means in this context within about three minutes.


----------



## pros (Feb 10, 2013)

correct address for the southwark news letters page is letters@southwarknews.org
it's sickening and just reprehensible


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 10, 2013)

agricola said:


> If anything its that the standards of people who question politicians that have decreased, rather than political representatives are well trained - lets face it almost everyone knows what "_affordable housing_" usually means, and anyone with the slightest inclination to do some research (or even just to read this thread) could prove what it means in this context within about three minutes.


And any property where the rent alone costs £20 more than the total weekly income (as in this case) isn't going to meet those criteria for affordability.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 10, 2013)




----------



## Paulie (Feb 10, 2013)

This is affordable housing... http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/jun/22/affordable-home


----------



## starfish2000 (Feb 10, 2013)

Isnt this the problem with the private sector in general, every time they are given the opportunity to do the right thing....they don't


----------



## Paulie (Feb 10, 2013)

E-mails sent to Cllr. Colley asking for clarification of yesterday's letter in The Independent and to Cllr. Hickson encouraging a right-of-reply either here or by e-mail.  Let's see if I get anything back.  In fairness, I will only post their replies here if consent is given - I am, after all, a private citizen.*

To avoid turning into 'Outraged green ink of SE17', I'd love to hear from anyone active in this and what this Johnny-come-lately might be able to contribute. 

* I've seen on Medialens that some replies from journos get pulled as they weren't consenting to online posting.  Any opinions gratefully received.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 10, 2013)

Paulie said:


> This is affordable housing... http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/jun/22/affordable-home


How those HAs can promote those with a straight face is beyond me. Absolutely disgraceful.


----------



## editor (Feb 24, 2013)

Nice of Peter Tatchell to link to the urban75 article in this Guardian piece 



> When I warned about the rip-off redevelopment of the riverside I was called a scaremonger and liar, but my predictions later came true – most local working-class people lost out. This bourgeoisification at the expense of local people is continuing at the western end of the Bermondsey constituency where I still live, in the same one-bedroom council flat as in 1983. There are plans to redevelop the 22-acre Heygate Estate site at the Elephant and Castle. After forcing out 3,000 council tenants, of the 2,535 new homes only 79 will be available to rent as social housing. Helping reverse this social cleansing is the next big battle.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/22/defeat-in-bermondsey-defeat-for-left


----------



## Paulie (Feb 24, 2013)

Never did get a reply from Cllrs. Hickson or Colley.  I'm sure they're very busy engaging with their electorate elsewhere.


----------



## Favelado (Apr 22, 2013)

Heygate flats being marketed in Asia. What a fucking stitch-up this has been.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...ats-to-overseas-buyers-is-insult-8582422.html


----------



## editor (Apr 22, 2013)

Fucking outrageous.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 22, 2013)

Missed stuff originlly. Disgusting


----------



## agricola (Apr 22, 2013)

So they havent even agreed the plans for the "affordable" units with a developer yet?


----------



## editor (Apr 22, 2013)

agricola said:


> So they havent even agreed the plans for the "affordable" units with a developer yet?


It sickens me to the stomach what they've got away with here. Lend Lease are laughing all the way to the bank.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Apr 22, 2013)

grim.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 22, 2013)

I bet the 'affordable' units will be some shitty block hidden well away from the rest of the development.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Apr 22, 2013)

london is going to get totally beyond "normal" working peoples' reach soon. will be just a big play ground for nashing yuppies who arrive after uni and leave when kid comes


----------



## MillwallShoes (Apr 22, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Missed stuff originlly. Disgusting


 
bought by the sort of people who will no doubt when having "drinks" with their friends say that walworth road as a "bit scummy." but our flat is loooovveeellly.


----------



## Favelado (Apr 22, 2013)

MillwallShoes said:


> london is going to get totally beyond "normal" working peoples' reach soon. will be just a big play ground for nashing yuppies who arrive after uni and leave when kid comes


 
It's largely already true. Dalston and Elephant are posh, or on their way to being. They were two of the least posh places in the city, there's already not much left.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Apr 22, 2013)

yes fo sho


----------



## coley (Apr 23, 2013)

MillwallShoes said:


> yes fo sho



Never thought I would feel sorry for Londoners,but it seems you are being massively shafted, as VP advocates,some lamppost ornamentation would not go amiss, though it has to be asked,who elected these wankers in the first place.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Apr 23, 2013)

Favelado said:


> Heygate flats being marketed in Asia. What a fucking stitch-up this has been.
> 
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...ats-to-overseas-buyers-is-insult-8582422.html


 


Nice to know that even in this period of "austerity", and with an acute housing crisis, we can dig deep and provide accommodation to rich incomers. I mean, fuck it, the locals only live there, right?

Total. Fucking. Stitch Up.


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 23, 2013)

'Affordable' housing definitions should be based on a reasonable product of the local or national median wage.  It's bollocks as it is.

Even up here in the north near me, the council was providing a 25% subsidy on 2-bedroom flats in a converted mill development, using council-owned 'public benefit' billboard space to promote them for the developer at about £110,000 each.  Meanwhile, much more roomy two-bedroom Victorian terraces (with freehold) on nice streets 100 metres away sell for £75,000 - £95,000. What was the point?  I suppose it's just to snare the new-mini owning 'urban living' fuckwits, but I'd prefer that council money went to more deserving causes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 23, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> 'Affordable' housing definitions should be based on a reasonable product of the local or national median wage. It's bollocks as it is.
> 
> Even up here in the north near me, the council was providing a 25% subsidy on 2-bedroom flats in a converted mill development, using council-owned 'public benefit' billboard space to promote them for the developer at about £110,000 each. Meanwhile, much more roomy two-bedroom Victorian terraces (with freehold) on nice streets 100 metres away sell for £75,000 - £95,000. What was the point? I suppose it's just to snare the new-mini owning 'urban living' fuckwits, but I'd prefer that council money went to more deserving causes.


 
TBF, if you own a new Mini, you should really make sure your housing is accessible.

Because owning one of them puts you on the kneecapping list!!!


----------



## editor (Apr 23, 2013)

I posted a piece here but I think I was too angry to make as much sense as I'd like:
http://www.urban75.org/blog/southwa...ate-flats-are-flogged-off-to-overseas-buyers/


----------



## Dogsauce (Apr 23, 2013)

Oh, and have they let any developers do anything like 'offsetting' affordable homes by building them in other areas (or even other cities?)  I'm surprised the tories/new labour haven't come up with that policy yet.  They could clear London estates and require developers to build a thousand affordable homes in Hartlepool or something, so that people hit by the benefit cap in London could be shipped out there.  It's exactly the sort of shit they'd do, isn't it?


----------



## coley (Apr 23, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> Oh, and have they let any developers do anything like 'offsetting' affordable homes by building them in other areas (or even other cities?)  I'm surprised the tories/new labour haven't come up with that policy yet.  They could clear London estates and require developers to build a thousand affordable homes in Hartlepool or something, so that people hit by the benefit cap in London could be shipped out there.  It's exactly the sort of shit they'd do, isn't it?


It's coming, they already tried that a year or so ago didn't they, moving Londoners to the more "affordable regions"


----------



## DJWrongspeed (May 30, 2013)

*Call for drastic cuts to car park spaces at Heygate redevelopment*

Photo op details – *Jenny meets local objectors?*
Time: *10am*
Friday: *31st May 2013*
Location: *Heygate Estate – corner of Walworth Rd/Elephant Rd*

Despite local objections_ , the number of car park spaces at the Heygate Estate is set to more than double from 244[ii] parking spaces to 616 spaces under Southwark Council redevelopment plans. The Council justified this increase after accepting the developers Lend Lease argument that this it is ‘required for viability purposes’[iii]. The site is already located within an Air Quality Management Area[iv], exceeding legal pollution limits. The Mayor of London approved the outline planning application on 27 February 2013[v]._

_“Southwark Council appear to have disregarded their own local polices on car parking[vi] by caving into the developers demands for excessive spaces”_

_”It baffles me how the council can claim that there will be no further deterioration of air quality [vii] from more than doubling the number of car park spaces and the inevitable increase in traffic. Particularly as the area already suffers from illegal levels of vehicle pollutants that are harmful to human health”_

_“Replacing council homes with mostly extortionately priced flats with car park spaces for rich overseas buyers and landlord investors is disgraceful when so many local people are desperate for housing”_

_Mayor’s planning application Stage 2 report on Heygate Estate, lists the ‘high number of car parking spaces proposed’ as one of the objections raised by respondents at the public consultation. Para 72 lists  http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/planning_decisions-heygate_estate_masterplan_report.pdf_

_[ii] Southwark Council 1998 survey of Heygate Estate. Paragraph 4.6.3.1 ‘the parking provision is confirmed at 244 spaces’  http://halag.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/allot_max_survey_heygate_1998.pdf_

_[iii] Mayor’s planning application Stage 2 report on Heygate Estate planning application. The section on parking, para 59 says ‘The proposed level of parking (c.25% provision for residential units) exceeds local policy, but the Council has accepted the applicant’s argument that this is required for viability purposes.’  http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/planning_decisions-heygate_estate_masterplan_report.pdf_

_[iv]Under the Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) framework set by the Government under the Environment Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”), boroughs must regularly review and assess air quality within their boroughs and designate Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) where UK standards and objectives are currently not being met. The Heygate Estate is currently located in an Air Quality Management Area for both Particulate Matter PM10 and Nitrogen Dioxide No2 http://aqma.defra.gov.uk/aqma-details.php?aqma_id=132_

_[v] In response to the planning application stage 2 referral from Southwark Council, the Mayor of London (on 27th February 2013) decided that he is‘content to allow Southwark Council to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and do not therefore wish to direct refusal or to take over the applications for my own determination.’  http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/planning_decisions-heygate_estate_masterplan_final_decision.pdf. The application is for the demolition of all existing structures and bridges; and outline planning permission for redevelopment to provide a mixed use development of buildings comprising upto 2,469 residential units. The applicant is Lend Lease_

_[vi] Southwark Council Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on sustainable transport, paragraph 4.2.6 (Transport SPD – planning for sustainable transport) on Central Activity Zones (which the Heygate Estate is located) encourages limited or no car parking spaces in large scale developments  http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2208/sustainable_transport_spd_

_Mayor’s planning application Stage 2 report on Heygate Estate, lists the ‘high number of car parking spaces proposed’ as one of the objections raised by respondents at the public consultation. Para 72 lists  http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/planning_decisions-heygate_estate_masterplan_report.pdf_

_[vii] In respect to air quality, the South Plan states: para 9.28 ‘planning permission will not be granted for development that would lead to a reduction in air quality’  http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/224976_1.pdf_


----------



## ddraig (Jul 29, 2013)

quarter of the site as parking?!? 
http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2013/07/27/fatema-ahmed/southwarks-austerity-firesale/


> Southwark blames austerity and the repeated slashing of social housing subsidies for the lack of social rented units in the scheme. Central government cuts weren’t the reason the council started looking to release the ‘latent value locked up in the land beneath’ the Heygate in the late 1990s. But now there’s a £23 million hole in their 2014-15 budget, with a 10 per cent cut coming the year after. Money from developers around the borough – for public facilities, a few affordable homes, some training schemes – is the only new cash the council is going to get. In 2011-12 it reported £67 million from such agreements, up from £15.5 million the year before. The median income of the social housing tenants it already has is £9100 – not much council tax revenue to be had there.​​​Since signing the regeneration agreement with Lend Lease, the council has refused to say how much it was selling the land for. The figure came out by accident at the beginning of the year: £50 million. It has spent £44 million buying out leaseholders and rehousing tenants. The staggered nature of the development – due to be finished in 2025 – means that Lend Lease can build the most profitable sections first and put in the affordable homes when it wants. Or it could just sell the land, at a higher price, without building them at all.​​


​


----------



## Greebo (Jul 29, 2013)

ddraig said:


> quarter of the site as parking?!?
> http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2013/07/27/fatema-ahmed/southwarks-austerity-firesale/


Fuck me sideways with a piledriver!  Couldn't they have done subterranean or taller multistorey parking and kept more space for flats?


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 29, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Fuck me sideways with a piledriver! Couldn't they have done subterranean or taller multistorey parking and kept more space for flats?


 
If that's the case I'm surprised they haven't gone for that option.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Jul 29, 2013)

Venality, incompetence and capitalist roaders. All in a neat package.


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 3, 2013)

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...ate-forced-to-move-out-of-london-8743216.html


----------



## eatmorecheese (Aug 3, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...ate-forced-to-move-out-of-london-8743216.html


 
Fiona Colley, cabinet member for regeneration at Southwark council said: “We are in some difficult times economically and we are getting a great deal for Londoners.”

Utterly shameless.


----------



## agricola (Aug 3, 2013)

eatmorecheese said:


> Fiona Colley, cabinet member for regeneration at Southwark council said: “We are in some difficult times economically and we are getting a great deal for those Londoners who helped to negotiate this deal.”


 
quote fixed


----------



## salem (Aug 3, 2013)

eatmorecheese said:


> Fiona Colley, cabinet member for regeneration at Southwark council said: “We are in some difficult times economically and we are getting a great deal for Londoners.”


 
Those left maybe.


----------



## Gniewosz (Aug 6, 2013)

It will be interesting to see what council decides on Cressingham Gardens and how many council homes will be left


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 4, 2013)

Information Commissioners Office order Southwark to reveal confidential info about the Heygate deal to reduce affordable housing.....but Southwark refuse:



> Southwark Council is set to refuse to release confidential information about a development deal that saw them reduce the amount of affordable housing.
> 
> The borough will appeal the Information Commissioner’s Office decision that it should release the financial viability assessment used by Lend Lease to slash the affordable housing from 35 to 25 per cent in its £1.5 billion regeneration of the Heygate Estate in Elephant and Castle.



http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/deve...-demands-about-heygate-estate/6528392.article


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 4, 2013)

Favelado said:


> It's largely already true. Dalston and Elephant are posh, or on their way to being. They were two of the least posh places in the city, there's already not much left.


Is Elephant posh now?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 4, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> Is Elephant posh now?


Not really. There's been new flats built etc, but it remains a predominantly working class area with lots of social housing...though that is changing fast, as the old community is moved out and houses are renovated/rebuilt and re-let/sold at extortionate prices. Fair number of students in the area. Not much evidence of posh coffee bars and delis......yet.....


----------



## Favelado (Sep 5, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> Is Elephant posh now?



Not yet but....


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2013)

Interesting piece in the New Statesman:
Look to the Heygate Estate for what's wrong with London's housing

And look at these disgraceful stats:


> _Price paid by Lend Lease for 22-acre Heygate Estate site: _£55m
> _Price paid for nearby Oakmayne/Tribeca Square 1.5-acre site:_ £40m
> _Expected total cost to Southwark Council for evicting residents:_ £65.5m
> _Previous estimate of cost to refurbish Heygate Estate to modern standard:_£35m
> ...











> The Heygate Estate occupied a large site next to a major transport interchange in an inner London borough, and its residents had the temerity to remain poor while the land they lived on became more valuable. When people talk about the "social cleansing" of London, this is it. The classism and snobbery directed towards brutalism (but only when occupied by certain groups - see: the Barbican) compounded the Heygate Estate's fate. Read through the stories from former residents, archived on Heygate Was Home, for proof that it wasn't always considered a slum, or an eyesore, by the people who mattered.
> 
> We're losing London to the forces you can see at work at the Heygate. Regeneration schemes that push the existing community out to neo-banlieues and replacing them with white collar professionals and students living in inferior-quality buildings; councils pleased to turn a blind eye so they have higher rate payers within their boroughs; developers getting given land at a fraction of its true value on the promise of future profits that mysteriously never arrive; a revolving door between local authorities and regeneration consultancy and PR firms. The people affected by these phenomena are the last people to be given a say in, let alone be given control of, their lives. God forbid they should ever be given a way to choose how their city changes, too.


----------



## Favelado (Nov 7, 2013)

Bastards.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Nov 7, 2013)

Shafted.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 8, 2013)

When I lived in the area (for 17 years) the Heygate was supposedly a really 'bad' estate. But IME, neither the Heygate not even (!) the Aylesbury were anywhere near as crimeridden or squalid as they were popularly supposed to be by non-estate locals or by people from outside SE17. But them I was lucky enough to be a council tenant myself then, in a nearby (separate) estate, and I knew enough to have a more balanced perspective.

The Heygate and Aylesbury architecture definitely weren't pretty to say the least, and the communal areas were dirty and neglected for sure (the flats themselves, and I visited one or two, were mainly fine inside though).

But there was nothing wrong with them that some proper resident focussed investment/refurbishment wouldn't have sorted out.

That 35 percent blog, referenced by the NS article, is excellent and tells you a lot more about all this than I can.

The last resident, Adian Glasspool, was evicted on Wednesday -- the disgraceful story is the most recent on the above blog.


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2013)

This sickens me to my stomach (re: the new development replacing the Heygate):


> None of these 284 homes, currently priced between £350,000 and £1.1m, will be offered at a discount. Instead, Lend Lease has given Southwark £3.5m to spend on social housing elsewhere and will contribute to a new leisure centre.
> 
> A report by council officers said Lend Lease baulked at providing social units as this would require a second lobby and lift shaft to separate the two types of resident, adding: "Not doing so would have significant implications on the values of the private residential properties.”


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2013)

How about gates within gates for 'mixed' developments?
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/22/unsocial-housing-gates-within-gates


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 8, 2013)

Dividing gates and barriers : Echoes of the infamous Cutteslowe Wall, from 1930's Oxford


----------



## agricola (Nov 8, 2013)

editor said:


> This sickens me to my stomach (re: the new development replacing the Heygate):



Just think of all the people Southwark Council will be able to evict with that £3.5 million, though!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 11, 2013)

The New Statesman article was interesting, particularly because it had a good set of figures attached, demonstrating the absolute fuck up/rip off perpetuated by Southwark Council. 

Surely it is time to bring criminal charges against Southwark - blatant corruption here I reckon.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 11, 2013)

but it would have to be 'proved' and they'll use the usual 'we consulted with local residents....'

is it that blatant that there is a chance of holding named individuals to account?
not having a go or expecting you to name them here just wondering aloud


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 11, 2013)

I feel like I need to read the various blogs that have been linked to in the NS article and on here -- in detail. They would almost certainly back up Brixton Hatter's point a lot ...


----------



## ddraig (Nov 11, 2013)

no one is stopping you william, do as you feel
it would be great if you could uncover some direct links with what to do people with


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 11, 2013)

I doubt I or anyone would find enough to nail anyone specifically on corruption to be honest.  I more meant material to back up the case that Southwark Council have been hugely incompetent, have hugely fucked up, have hugely done over the locals more generally.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 11, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> I doubt I or anyone would find enough to nail anyone specifically on corruption to be honest.  I more meant material to back up the case that Southwark Council have been hugely incompetent, have hugely fucked up, have hugely done over the locals more generally.


that is obvious to us all and probably even them
that is why they have teams of lawyers etc
burden of proof
what does "they would almost certainly back up Brixton Hatter's point a lot..." actually mean then? the point we already know or that there is "blatant corruption" which you've just acknowledged would be difficult to prove in your very next post


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 11, 2013)

Can't be arsed with this. I've already conceded your point.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 11, 2013)

suit yourself!


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 13, 2013)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/12/heygate-pyramid-london-estate-evicted-condemn-artwork

There's a proposal to turn one of the blocks into a public artwork.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Dec 13, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/12/heygate-pyramid-london-estate-evicted-condemn-artwork
> 
> There's a proposal to turn one of the blocks into a public artwork.



Wow, a pyramid. They are taking the piss. Maybe it's a symbol marking the death of a community.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2013)

eatmorecheese said:


> Wow, a pyramid. They are taking the piss. Maybe it's a symbol marking the death of a community.



More likely a symbol marking the vainglory of Southwark fucking council, the shitcunts!


----------



## agricola (Dec 13, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> More likely a symbol marking the vainglory of Southwark fucking council, the shitcunts!



ziggurtwats, surely?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2013)

agricola said:


> ziggurtwats, surely?



Well done!


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 13, 2013)

Who the fuck do these councillors/planners actually serve? It's not the people who elect and pay them, is it?  This story is kind of symbolic of what's wrong with everything, one big stinking turd.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 13, 2013)

As a one-time resident and tenant of theirs, I actually remember the time when Southwark Council got away with just being mildly corrupt and incompetent. 

Because themadays, by contrast,  Lambeth Council looked infinitely worse on all grounds.

No such distinction these days -- and probably very little then, in reality.


----------



## ddraig (May 15, 2014)

*Judge orders release of Heygate figures*


> Judge Nicholas Warren has ordered Lend Lease and *Southwark Council* to publish confidential financial figures relating to the £1.5bn regeneration of the Heygate Estate at Elephant & Castle, London. The developer must now disclose all projected figures for sales to private buyers and social housing groups, casting new light on why the council agreed to drop its demand for 35% affordable housing on the 2,500-home estate down to 25%. Homes for sale to private buyers on the new estate start from £310,000 for a one-bed flat.
> 
> _Evening Standard, Page: 12_


no link sorry


----------



## editor (May 15, 2014)

This is great news. What has happened here is nothing short of criminal.


----------



## Favelado (May 15, 2014)

editor said:


> This is great news. What has happened here is nothing short of criminal.



It's the perfect allegory for what's happening to London as a whole.

I hope one day this turns out to be provably criminal. As Hillsborough shows, these things happen slowly but plug away and there's a chance that one of these cunts might be made to pay.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 15, 2014)

The reduction in 'social component' is happening everywhere - supposedly by renegotiating this it has allowed developers to recommence projects where the numbers wouldn't stack up due to falling property values.  Given values haven't dropped in London then there's no reason to grant this concession in the capital.  In some places developers have managed to agree no provision at all (Private Eye has highlighted several cases).

The redefining of 'affordable rent' to 80% of market rent is also a big pile of shit.  Boris voters have a lot to answer for.


----------



## editor (May 15, 2014)

Those slippery fuckers Barratt Homes managed to renegotiate their affordable housing commitment downwards on their Brixton Square development, which went on to make an absolute fucking mint for all concerned. G&Ts all round!


----------



## Paulie (May 18, 2014)

ddraig said:


> *Judge orders release of Heygate figures*
> 
> no link sorry


Seems now that nothing will be released before the election which could go either way between Lab and LD. As Southwark stated the viability documents were too complex to viewed by the public or even their own planning officers, what will be released?  Am glad the council are "broadly happy" with the decision they spent two years fighting against.

The electioneering round here is getting tiresome - more leaflets from Labour and the LDs (Tories have no hope) than Pizza flyers and all of them mired in negative campaigning which just reinforces the idea that they're all cunts.  All eyes now also on the Aylesbury 're-generation'...

At least the successful Heygate appeal creates a lovely precedent for all the other displacements happening in London.

Did the Brixton Square viability docs ever get a public airing?


----------



## cybertect (May 18, 2014)

ddraig said:


> *Judge orders release of Heygate figures*
> 
> no link sorry



The 35 Percent campaign covers the story, including a link to the tribunal decision notice [PDF].


----------



## Paulie (Jun 7, 2014)

35 Percent reports the Heygate developer is still stalling...

"Appealing the appeal?

What’s up with Southwark Council and Lend Lease? After Southwark ‘broadly welcoming’ the Tribunal’s decision on the Heygate viability assessment, and despite council leader Peter John saying that the assessment would show what a good deal 25% affordable housing was, Lend Lease has now asked the Tribunal for more time to respond, as well as more time to decide whether or not to appeal. The Tribunal has responded by giving Southwark and Lend Lease 14 more days until 20th June to come up with the viability assessment and the possibility of appeals still remains open."


----------



## agricola (Jul 24, 2014)

Bumped to point people towards the latest _Eye_ - which contains the not at all shocking news that Lend Lease generously donated £1250 to allow Peter John (Labour leader of Southwark Council) to attend a real estate show in Cannes, as well as giving him and his partner two opening ceremony tickets (£1600 each) for the 2012 games.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Sep 16, 2014)

http://www.change.org/p/heygate-est...&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=share_petition


----------



## editor (Sep 16, 2014)

SarfLondoner said:


> http://www.change.org/p/heygate-est...&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=share_petition


Signed and promoted.


----------



## salem (Sep 16, 2014)

I'm not really one for online petitions but it can't hurt to bring more attention to this.

There is something really depressing about this. Usually there is a counter argument but this is just so objectively a fuck up. 

It doesn't matter what colour your tie is, whether you support social housing or not. The financials are just so crazy and poor value for the tax payer in general that no one really seems to bother defending them and yet no one really cares.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Sep 17, 2014)

editor said:


> Signed and promoted.


Thankyou editor


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 17, 2014)

The continuing saga of what's going on at the Heygate just so fucking depresses me.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Sep 17, 2014)

stethoscope said:


> The continuing saga of what's going on at the Heygate just so fucking depresses me.


Sadly it will be the same for the residents on the Aylsebury estate once the developers get their way.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 17, 2014)

SarfLondoner said:


> Sadly it will be the same for the residents on the Aylsebury estate once the developers get way.


And the next one and the next one, until the bubble bursts of course, at which point I expect we'll get so much austerity due to our profligate spending that we'll be lucky to buy a packet of fags, let alone a house.

I don't think there's enough written about the poisonous effects of the property bubble, despite all the agonised "hipsters priced out of hackney" pieces in the Guardian . Resulting in unaffordable house prices and soaring rents is bad enough, but it actively encourages destruction of social resources - social housing, but also hospitals, playing fields, community centres etc, particularly when combined with deliberate funding changes.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Sep 17, 2014)

"hipsters priced out of hackney" pieces in the Guardian" . I don't see to many articles on who the "poor old hipsters" have priced out of areas that they feared a few years ago.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 17, 2014)

I've seen "OMG the Bank Of Mum And Dad isn't enough any more" recently too - of course it's okay if property ownership is restricted to those with well off parents.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 18, 2014)

stethoscope said:


> The continuing saga of what's going on at the Heygate just so fucking depresses me.


It's a great illustration of what happens when councillors and council officers have so little effective oversight that schemes that'd make T. Dan Smith weep with envy are passed.  How on earth have we come back to this situation where private money and public servants can collude so openly, and get away with it?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Sep 19, 2014)

T Dan Smith was framed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 19, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> T Dan Smith was framed.



The money was just resting in his account.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 19, 2014)

I don't understand why is there so little interest in the heygate in press or locally - it should be an national outrage.  How does a council give away zone 1 land at a loss?  I want to know is it simple incompetence or illegality?  Will questions ever be asked or anyone held to account?


----------



## SarfLondoner (Sep 19, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> I don't understand why is there so little interest in the heygate in press or locally - it should be an national outrage.  How does a council give away zone 1 land at a loss?  I want to know is it simple incompetence or illegality?  Will questions ever be asked or anyone held to account?


There is blatant collusion taking place,It's no coincidence that the people who arranged and oversaw the land sale now work for the people that bought it. I would imagine that a local Councillor on his way up the ladder is easier and cheaper to corrupt than a millionaire Mp.


----------



## oryx (Sep 19, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> I don't understand why is there so little interest in the heygate in press or locally - it should be an national outrage.  How does a council give away zone 1 land at a loss?  I want to know is it simple incompetence or illegality?  Will questions ever be asked or anyone held to account?



Because the people affected are only ex-, existing and future council/social housing tenants. The sort the media aren't interested in unless it's to demonise them. The sort who, you know, claim benefits and stuff and don't deserve to live in Zone 2 unlike all those shiny happy hardworking people who will be moving in to the area.

I was going to do the wink smiley but a smiley shoving its fingers down its throat would be more appropriate.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Sep 19, 2014)

Here is a press release from southwark refuting claims that the land was sold off to cheaply. Its states that future monies will be invested into the NEW community. Well that's fucking okay then for the rich incomers,Not so great for the displaced community scattered around England with fuck all but memories.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/ar...value_of_the_elephant_and_castle_regeneration


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 19, 2014)

SarfLondoner said:


> There is blatant collusion taking place,It's no coincidence that the people who arranged and oversaw the land sale now work for the people that bought it. I would imagine that a local Councillor on his way up the ladder is easier and cheaper to corrupt than a millionaire Mp.


Yes someone must have benefited from this.  What I don't undersatnd is why this hasn't been brought to light as a scandal, fraud or fuckup. Why aren't the press all over it? The hundreds of people who had to move must have complained, so I wonder what happened to their complaints.  It looks as if someone is getting away with something.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Sep 19, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> Yes someone must have benefited from this.  What I don't undersatnd is why this hasn't been brought to light as a scandal, fraud or fuckup. Why aren't the press all over it? The hundreds of people who had to move must have complained, so I wonder what happened to their complaints.  It looks as if someone is getting away with something.


Friends in high places and the media in bed with politicians, A vicious never ending circle of corruption and deceit right under your nose.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 19, 2014)

SarfLondoner said:


> Here is a press release from southwark refuting claims that the land was sold off to cheaply. Its states that future monies will be invested into the NEW community. Well that's fucking okay then for the rich incomers,Not so great for the displaced community scattered around England with fuck all but memories.
> 
> http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/ar...value_of_the_elephant_and_castle_regeneration


Sounds like social cleansing to me. What sort of organisation fails to make anything other than whooping profit on zone 1 land?



> "To the majority, this is an excellent deal for people living and working in the area, and those who will make Elephant and Castle and Walworth their home in future. We would challenge any suggestion that people’s best interests are not at the very heart of what the council does."


   I wonder which people the council has at heart here. Haven't most of the new units been sold in the far east? (Can't recall where I read that)

Corruption indeed.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 19, 2014)

Whole thing smells less 'council cock up', and more 'co-ordinated cleansing'.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Sep 19, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> Sounds like social cleansing to me. What sort of organisation fails to make anything other than whooping profit on zone 1 land?
> 
> I wonder which people the council has at heart here. Haven't most of the new units been sold in the far east? (Can't recall where I read that)
> 
> Corruption indeed.


The only people living and working in the "new" area will be rich and not part of the community,never have been and probably never will. Southwark are trying to imply that the new houses and luxury apartments will be for the current and long standing members of the community,there lies and bullshit is quite staggering. You are correct in saying that these units get sold abroad without been put on the market here.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 19, 2014)

It all makes me so mad!  makes me feel so powerless.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Sep 19, 2014)

www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1779/lend_lease_submits_detailed_planning_application_for_around_600_new_homes_at_elephant_park


----------



## SarfLondoner (Sep 19, 2014)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> I don't understand why is there so little interest in the heygate in press or locally - it should be an national outrage.  How does a council give away zone 1 land at a loss?  I want to know is it simple incompetence or illegality?  Will questions ever be asked or anyone held to account?



Only if people like us (i.e. Joe Public) keep on pushing. Otherwise, this'll just serve as yet another template for local authorities on how to stick a pineapple up the arse of the poor.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2014)

SarfLondoner said:


> There is blatant collusion taking place,It's no coincidence that the people who arranged and oversaw the land sale now work for the people that bought it. I would imagine that a local Councillor on his way up the ladder is easier and cheaper to corrupt than a millionaire Mp.



Not to come across like a conspiracy theorist, but I'm not convinced that it's as simple as a couple of bungs.  In my opinion, based on what we experience here in Lambeth, there are a lot of Labour councillors who see the inner London wards as too full of social housing and "the sort of people" who live there - an attitude I expect from Tories, which acts to confirm my prejudices about what "new" Labour members really are  - and who'd happily push through measures that reduces the volume of the poor in their wards.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2014)

oryx said:


> Because the people affected are only ex-, existing and future council/social housing tenants. The sort the media aren't interested in unless it's to demonise them. The sort who, you know, claim benefits and stuff and don't deserve to live in Zone 2 unlike all those shiny happy hardworking people who will be moving in to the area.



Shiny happy people who won't be so demanding on the time of councillors, and who won't react with "wtf?" when councillors vote themselves *another* allowance rise.



> I was going to do the wink smiley but a smiley shoving its fingers down its throat would be more appropriate.



Quite.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2014)

stethoscope said:


> Whole thing smells less 'council cock up', and more 'co-ordinated cleansing'.



While not on the scale of Southwark's Heygate, what Lambeth have done with the Myatts Field estate "regeneration" appears to be "the shape of things to come", and we can expect the conditions to which decanted/rehoused tenants are subject to get harsher and harsher - certainly their new tenancies are nowhere near as encompassingly-secure as their old tenancies.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2014)

SarfLondoner said:


> The only people living and working in the "new" area will be rich and not part of the community,never have been and probably never will. Southwark are trying to imply that the new houses and luxury apartments will be for the current and long standing members of the community,there lies and bullshit is quite staggering. You are correct in saying that these units get sold abroad without been put on the market here.



I'm personally surprised that fewer Southwark tenants caught on to the way Southwark was heading (i.e. interested in gentrification at any price) as far back as the beginning of the '90s, when they pretty much bulldozed swathes of LA housing on the side roads of off the Old Kent Road using the old "slum clearance" _schtick_ (something that IMO would have been better deployed on the North Peckham estate).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2014)

SarfLondoner said:


> The only people living and working in the "new" area will be rich and not part of the community,never have been and probably never will. Southwark are trying to imply that the new houses and luxury apartments will be for the current and long standing members of the community,there lies and bullshit is quite staggering. You are correct in saying that these units get sold abroad without been put on the market here.



We can only hope that when (not if, *when*) the same trick is tried with The Aylesbury, that more tenants remember how people on The Heygate got shafted, and organise a more effective resistance to being socially-cleansed.


----------



## oryx (Sep 20, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm personally surprised that fewer Southwark tenants caught on to the way Southwark was heading (i.e. interested in gentrification at any price) as far back as the beginning of the '90s, when they pretty much bulldozed swathes of LA housing on the side roads of off the Old Kent Road using the old "slum clearance" _schtick_ (something that IMO would have been better deployed on the North Peckham estate).



Do you know what they became VP? I used to have quite a few friends including an ex- I stayed very friendly with who lived round there and who all lived on those estates. Have lost touch with them now. Some of the flats were very basic hard-to-lets (gas fires, immersions, really old kitchens) but it was a good place to live - friendly, good for transport and shopping & right next to the market.

I think the context of the 90s was different - people were less aware of gentrification and were less cynical about the so-called 'slum clearance' aspect. There were much higher grant rates for social housing and it was less reliant on the market to subsidise it.


----------



## oryx (Sep 20, 2014)

SarfLondoner said:


> www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1779/lend_lease_submits_detailed_planning_application_for_around_600_new_homes_at_elephant_park



That article is gentrification bingo!

'artisan'....'vibrant'......'sustainable'.....'organic'........

A one-bed flat is £550,000.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 20, 2014)

oryx said:


> <snip> A one-bed flat is £550,000.


How much???????


----------



## oryx (Sep 20, 2014)

Greebo said:


> How much???????



The three-bed, two-bathroom one is over a million!


----------



## eatmorecheese (Sep 20, 2014)

I have a fantasy involving these new developments and an organic, artisan, sustainable molotov cocktail shower


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 20, 2014)

eatmorecheese said:


> I have a fantasy involving these new developments and an organic, artisan, sustainable molotov cocktail shower


You forgot handcrafted...


----------



## Favelado (Sep 20, 2014)

Whenever I feel miserable I like to come to this thread just to wallow in it all a bit more. It's so brazen and they've got away with it. Have Private Eye kept plugging away at it? Someone somewhere can go to prison if anyone digs around enough, it's utter filth and someone's filled their boots.


----------



## Flavour (Sep 20, 2014)

has the estate actually been demolished yet? is there any way it could be occupied to stop its destruction?


----------



## SarfLondoner (Sep 21, 2014)

Flavour said:


> has the estate actually been demolished yet? is there any way it could be occupied to stop its destruction?


All that remains is a half demolished block,the rest is rubble.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 21, 2014)

oryx said:


> Do you know what they became VP?



Some HA new-build, more private new-build, and a fair whack of retail sheds.



> I used to have quite a few friends including an ex- I stayed very friendly with who lived round there and who all lived on those estates. Have lost touch with them now. Some of the flats were very basic hard-to-lets (gas fires, immersions, really old kitchens) but it was a good place to live - friendly, good for transport and shopping & right next to the market.
> 
> I think the context of the 90s was different - people were less aware of gentrification and were less cynical about the so-called 'slum clearance' aspect. There were much higher grant rates for social housing and it was less reliant on the market to subsidise it.



The problem with what we might call "traditional" gentrification back then, was it affected the bigger private housing first, hence people like Sir Geoffrey Howe buying _pied a terre_ off of the OKR (just after he kebabed Thatcher) for a song (and getting taxpayer assistance to do it up  ), which in turn caused both the local authority and speculators to take a look at their holdings, and how they could benefit.  
Of course, few of the locals who got "decanted" from the old street properties and the older estates (many of which were former LCC/GLC low rises), got to live in the new HA properties that were built on clearance sites, most of them got decanted far and wide across the borough - sometimes to places no better than the "slum" they'd been shifted from.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 21, 2014)

eatmorecheese said:


> I have a fantasy involving these new developments and an organic, artisan, sustainable molotov cocktail shower



Why waste decent organic artisan alcohol on them, when paraffin is so much cheaper, and so much more insulting?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 21, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Whenever I feel miserable I like to come to this thread just to wallow in it all a bit more. It's so brazen and they've got away with it. Have Private Eye kept plugging away at it? Someone somewhere can go to prison if anyone digs around enough, it's utter filth and someone's filled their boots.



Yep, _Private Eye_ keep prodding the hornets' nest, and occasionally turning up another fact or two that indicates the utter wrongness of what has happened with Heygate.
Not that revealing the truth will help those who lost their homes, but it might help those people on the Aylesbury who are being subjected to similar forces, and it does alert the wider social housing populace to what local authorities feel to be an acceptable way to treat social housing tenants.


----------



## Favelado (Sep 21, 2014)

"Decanted". I love the fact they thought that such a dehumanising word was preferable to the word "moved". Telling really.


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 21, 2014)

Favelado said:


> "Decanted". I love the fact they thought that such a dehumanising word was preferable to the word "moved". Telling really.


It's more than 'moved' though, because there's an element of compulsion on behalf of the local authority and it's involuntary on the part of tenants. Decanted is a much better word in these circumstances in my opinion because it does capture the inhuman aspect as well as the others.


----------



## Favelado (Sep 21, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> It's more than 'moved' though, because there's an element of compulsion on behalf of the local authority and it's involuntary on the part of tenants. Decanted is a much better word in these circumstances in my opinion because it does capture the inhuman aspect as well as the others.



I think _they_ think it's less loaded though. So it shows what a bunch of dunces they are to employ it as a supposedly less controversial term.


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 21, 2014)

Favelado said:


> I think _they_ think it's less loaded though. So it shows what a bunch of dunces they are to employ it as a supposedly less controversial term.


It does show what dunces they are - anyone can see straight through their 'rationale'.


----------



## William of Walworth (Sep 21, 2014)

I was walking around the Walworth Road and Heygate areas last weekend, when I had a bit of spare time from my own flat clearance work.

I have absolutely nothing positive to report from what I saw, whatsoever


----------



## oryx (Sep 22, 2014)

FWIW 'decanting' is total housing jargon. It should be kept to the confines of lettings teams in council/HA offices and is really not one for the media. I don't mean that in a horrible secretive underhand way, it really is just a term for people moving, perhaps twice (to a temporary property then back again to their old home) due to work to or demolition of houses or flats, as opposed to a 'transfer' or 'new let' (again housing jargon).

I really don't want to sound like I'm defending shark-like property developers etc. but it's a term that's been in use for at least thirty years.


----------



## pros (Sep 22, 2014)

There's a petition calling for an investigation into the Heygate scandal, please sign/spread the word etc? Thanks! x (sorry if it's been posted elsewhere, been away from the forum for a while)


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 22, 2014)

pros said:


> There's a petition calling for an investigation into the Heygate scandal, please sign/spread the word etc? Thanks! x (sorry if it's been posted elsewhere, been away from the forum for a while)


Already signed - but good to post it again. I don't think we can say it too often.


----------



## salem (Sep 22, 2014)

SarfLondoner said:


> Here is a press release from southwark refuting claims that the land was sold off to cheaply. Its states that future monies will be invested into the NEW community. Well that's fucking okay then for the rich incomers,Not so great for the displaced community scattered around England with fuck all but memories.
> 
> http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/ar...value_of_the_elephant_and_castle_regeneration


Interesting - assuming this was put out in response to the petition?

In summary, there is more money to come. No one seems to have an idea how much or by when. And the specifics of how the deal is structured seems to be shroweded in secrecy.

It may be that Southwark have played a blinder here but it appears we won't know until a time when anyone accountable is out of office.

The lack of transparency is astounding. I understand that sometimes for commercial reasons some details may need to remain confidential. However as the vendor Southwark holds all the cards in the contract negotiation. The buyer may have threatened to pull out meaning the sale to another party instead on less favorable terms in which case there is a cost that would have come with transparancy. I can't imagine it was *that* important to the buyer that they'd pull put of such a big deal. I would have thought it more useful to those acting on behalf of Southwark who didn't have any financial stake of their own on the line.


----------



## Camberwell (Sep 26, 2014)

Southwark council sold the Heygate Estate for £55m to private developer Lend lease. The cost of evicting tenants from the Heygate is set to be in the region of £65m - meaning the sale (on our behalf) of a 22 acre site, has actually led to around a £10m loss. 

Lend Lease meanwhile, are expected to make around £194m profit from the deal, whilst hundreds of families lose their homes.

A number of former council officers involved in the negotiations with developer Lend Lease and are now full-time employees of Lend Lease. 

Please join (and share) the campaign for an investigation into allegations of governance failure, poor financial management and potential fraud at the London Borough of Southwark: [www.change.org]


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 26, 2014)

Camberwell said:


> Southwark council sold the Heygate Estate for £55m to private developer Lend lease. The cost of evicting tenants from the Heygate is set to be in the region of £65m - meaning the sale (on our behalf) of a 22 acre site, has actually led to around a £10m loss.
> 
> Lend Lease meanwhile, are expected to make around £194m profit from the deal, whilst hundreds of families lose their homes.
> 
> ...


You'll probably get stick for spamming your petition with your first post but it's a worthy cause. Sounds like naked corruption. Disgusting.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Sep 26, 2014)

Welcome Camberwell

Here y'are...

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...-units-out-of-a-total-2-535-new-homes.305922/

I'm sickened too.


----------



## coley (Sep 26, 2014)

Signed,,thieving corrupt bastards


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 26, 2014)

Camberwell said:


> Southwark council sold the Heygate Estate for £55m to private developer Lend lease. The cost of evicting tenants from the Heygate is set to be in the region of £65m - meaning the sale (on our behalf) of a 22 acre site, has actually led to around a £10m loss.
> 
> Lend Lease meanwhile, are expected to make around £194m profit from the deal, whilst hundreds of families lose their homes.
> 
> ...


Yeah, cunts. They actually sold it for £45m. 

There's quite a few threads and posts about this on here - have a search around. 

It breaks my heart. I was born there. A community destroyed.


----------



## coley (Sep 26, 2014)

http://betterelephant.org/blog/2013/04/09/report-uncovers-corruption-at-the-elephant/
Can't believe this lot aren't already in custody and I bet they all got generous redundancy packages, utter bastards


----------



## coley (Sep 26, 2014)

Where's the other replies gone?
ETA, they've reappeared 
The council 'officers' involved should be, at least looking at charges of 'misconduct while in public office'
How come panorama etc aren't piling into this?
And the mayors office?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 7, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...neration-urban-renewal-social-cleansing-fears

Article on Southwark housing policy, including lots of weaselly crap from the leader of the council. The 'affordable' line features heavily.

They are planning to build some council houses though. By 2043 (!).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 7, 2014)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/society/...neration-urban-renewal-social-cleansing-fears
> 
> Article on Southwark housing policy, including lots of weaselly crap from the leader of the council. The 'affordable' line features heavily.
> 
> They are planning to build some council houses though. By 2043 (!).



Or "servants' quarters/tied housing" as they're otherwise known.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 7, 2014)

I read that Dave Hill article as well, was going to post the link here. He was far too soft on the Council and Peter John (Southwark leader) I thought.

I'd like to know more about that 'more council housing' thing too, -- I'm very sceptical, especially given that they seem to plan to meet a chunky proportion of the cost from more sales of the Council's own property (nothing stated about what proportion of that would be from actual housing, but still).

But there's a mention of making the new council properties legally sale-proof -- if true, that sounds to me like they're borrowing from Enfield's current ideas.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Oct 17, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> .... borrowing from Enfield's current ideas.


 That is the most positive thing I've read about social housing in ages. I hope all other london boroughs follow the example. 
Still its a only a piss in the ocean of housing problems.


----------



## editor (Oct 18, 2014)

There HAS to be criminal charges brought to bear over this:



> A local council has spent more on emptying an estate than it made by selling it.
> 
> In early 2013 Southwark Council accidentally disclosed the ‘Heygate Regeneration Agreement’, signed with Australian developer Lend Lease. The Agreement shows that the Heygate Estate was sold for a mere £50m, after Southwark spent £65.4m on evictions of tenants. Worse still, the estimate for the estates refurbishment was almost half of this: £35m. The scandal (or “Heygate-gate”) is a paradigm of the fate of council housing in London. 3,000 tenants and leaseholders were evicted from a structurally sound and well-loved estate, to be replaced with 2,500 luxury flats with only 73 units for social rent. Displaced tenants were promised new homes that will now never materialise.
> 
> ...


----------



## SarfLondoner (Oct 19, 2014)

More stuff here,, http://www.theguardian.com/society/...neration-urban-renewal-social-cleansing-fears


----------



## treelover (Oct 19, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Whenever I feel miserable I like to come to this thread just to wallow in it all a bit more. It's so brazen and they've got away with it. Have Private Eye kept plugging away at it? Someone somewhere can go to prison if anyone digs around enough, it's utter filth and someone's filled their boots.



its only something and I'm not a supporter, but didn't Class War have some sort of protest about housing yesterday that was well attended, I used to come on here to find out about such things but there is nothing about it.


----------



## ddraig (Oct 19, 2014)

treelover said:


> its only something and I'm not a supporter, but didn't Class War have some sort of protest about housing yesterday that was well attended, I used to come on here to find out about such things but there is nothing about it.


oh dear! aren't posters providing you with enough information for you to post elsewhere? 

it's called the poor doors protest and there is stuff on here


----------



## editor (Oct 19, 2014)

treelover said:


> its only something and I'm not a supporter, but didn't Class War have some sort of protest about housing yesterday that was well attended, I used to come on here to find out about such things but there is nothing about it.


Not sure about the "well attended" line. 
http://www.demotix.com/news/6014544...ors-protests-despite-heavy-rain#media-6014505


----------



## treelover (Oct 19, 2014)

> *Southwark council cooperates with housing developers because we need to*
> We work with the private sector because that’s where the money and expertise is. And it will stay that way until government funding is reinstated
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...g-developers-private-sector-goverment-funding




Ok,

btw, Southwark Council responds here to earlier Guardian article and other 'attacks'


----------



## cybertect (Oct 21, 2014)

Perhaps not directly related to the topic of this thread, but nevertheless relevant (and shocking) I think

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...t-and-destroying-his-possessions-9796994.html



> Judge blasts Southwark Council for evicting Sudanese tenant and destroying all of his possessions
> 
> High Court judge rules that housing officers entered a conspiracy to 'harm' refugee
> 
> ...


----------



## cybertect (Oct 21, 2014)

Full judgement in the case above.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/500.html

It's a long read, but Southwark's behaviour is breathtaking


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 21, 2014)

No surprise I know and reported by the London Evening Fascist

http://www.standardevening.co.uk/st...es-money-in-sale-of-well-loved-housing-estate


----------



## editor (Oct 22, 2014)

cybertect said:


> Perhaps not directly related to the topic of this thread, but nevertheless relevant (and shocking) I think
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...t-and-destroying-his-possessions-9796994.html


Scum. Heads should roll for what's gone on here.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 22, 2014)

cybertect said:


> Perhaps not directly related to the topic of this thread, but nevertheless relevant (and shocking) I think
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...t-and-destroying-his-possessions-9796994.html



Fucking hell


----------



## Greebo (Oct 22, 2014)

cybertect said:


> <snip>It's a long read, but Southwark's behaviour is breathtaking


Yep - even destroying his passport.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 22, 2014)

As posted on the other thread:

No surprise I know and reported by the London Evening Fascist

*London council LOSES money in sale of well-loved housing estate*

http://www.standardevening.co.uk/st...es-money-in-sale-of-well-loved-housing-estate


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 22, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> As posted on the other thread:
> 
> No surprise I know and reported by the London Evening Fascist
> 
> ...



That site isn't the Evading Standards btw


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 22, 2014)

stethoscope said:


> That site isn't the Evading Standards btw



Kin ell, so it isn't


----------



## cybertect (Oct 22, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> No surprise I know and reported by the London Evening Fascist
> 
> http://www.standardevening.co.uk/st...es-money-in-sale-of-well-loved-housing-estate



As mentioned on the other thread, that's not really The Standard web site


----------



## porp (Oct 22, 2014)

This needs a Pickles-led Tower Hamlets-style investigation - oh hold on, same corruption, wrong party, wrong ethnic group. Go figure.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 24, 2015)

> Concrete Heart Land
> ‘A cinematic drift through the destruction of the Heygate Estate’
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> ...


----------



## Paulie (Jan 24, 2015)

The saga of the Heygate viability document release drags on.  Despite Southwark being ordered to release it (bar a few sections  mainly relating to commercial rent levels) in May 2014, they haven't.  After much heel-dragging, they were ordered back to the Information Tribunal this week.  It was a closed session so no news as yet.

A history of this sorry tale :  http://35percent.org/heygate-foi-eir-tribunal/


----------



## editor (Jan 24, 2015)

I'm hoping criminal charges will be brought to bear over this outrage.


----------



## Paulie (Jan 24, 2015)

editor said:


> I'm hoping criminal charges will be brought to bear over this outrage.



At the very least, this should set a legal precedent for public versus commercial interests in the murky world of Sect.106 obligations.

The whole thing was started under a LibDem council and continued under the current Labour council.  The ex LD Council Leader and Deputy Leader set up their own Property PR/Consultancies after losing. The Dep's company now 'advising' the owners of Elephant Shopping Centre.  Lords knows where you'd point a charge... it's all so cosy.

Check out the Ex Dep. Leader's shiny new enterprise.  Be warned, the website is nauseating from the off; "Once in a while something unique is born..."

http://carvil-ventures.co.uk/


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 24, 2015)

I was a tenant of Southwark for 17 years. I used to think they were a better landlord than Lambeth ....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> I was a tenant of Southwark for 17 years. I used to think they were a better landlord than Lambeth ....



Part of the problem is that so-called "austerity" budgeting has pretty much licenced local authorities to sell off the family silver in order to fund services, and that has left the door open for a lot of local pols and council officers to feather their nests, if they're so inclined (and some of them are). I'm not talking about bribery, by the way, but about little _quid pro quo_ arrangements that often amount to "a favour" somewhere down the line.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 25, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Part of the problem is that so-called "austerity" budgeting has pretty much licenced local authorities to sell off the family silver in order to fund services, and that has left the door open for a lot of local pols and council officers to feather their nests, if they're so inclined (and some of them are). I'm not talking about bribery, by the way, but about little _quid pro quo_ arrangements that often amount to "a favour" somewhere down the line.


Thing is, a little quid pro quo starts off as favours and ends up as bribery and corruption.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 25, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Thing is, a little quid pro quo starts off as favours and ends up as bribery and corruption.



Yeah.
What I meant is that it's not *blatant* bribery of the "here's ten grand and a nice new BMW 5 series" kind, it's more insidious and less easy to spot than that - patronage and similar shit that may take years to pay off,but eventually does for the corrupt person and their corruptor.


----------



## Paulie (Jan 25, 2015)

A few examples of Southwark officials and patronage...

http://betterelephant.org/blog/2013/04/09/report-uncovers-corruption-at-the-elephant/


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jan 27, 2015)

I went past there for the first time since it was demolished - its such a waste.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> I went past there for the first time since it was demolished - its such a waste.



Greebo and I did the same last October, on the way to Liverpool St. station, to visit my parents in Norfolk. It was a shock. The irony of the situation(forme) has been that my parents and their (at that time) 2 young children were evicted from a 2 room "flat" in Deacon Street because the street had been CPO'd in order to demolish the houses to make way for The Heygate.
There was no good reason to demolish The Heygate. The flats weren't in a slum, they were built on one. They were structurally-sound where the Gerry-built terraces they replaced (already manky before WW2 according to local history) weren't. This was all about money,and some councillors and officers of Southwark council fucking over Southwark residents in order to feather their nests and their CVs.


----------



## Belushi (Jun 25, 2015)

The Guardian has seen a copy of the developers financial viability assessment

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...social-housing-regeneration-oliver-wainwright


----------



## cantsin (Jun 25, 2015)

Paulie said:


> A few examples of Southwark officials and patronage...
> 
> http://betterelephant.org/blog/2013/04/09/report-uncovers-corruption-at-the-elephant/



that makes for some grim reading there, just so brazen - am guessing it' always been like this , it's just now we get to track the movements of key personnel through the revolving doors - that fact doesn't make it any easier to deal with though.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 25, 2015)

It often seems that all manner of ropey calculations are used in planning applications yet there doesn't appear to be a mechanism for councils to question them or even ask for more information on them. Planning law needs to be overhauled to prevent a complete loss of social housing.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 26, 2015)

It's just the blatantness of the piss-taking, which is backed up by the Mayor who has over-ruled local authorities when they've kicked up a fuss and denied permission.  London is being trampled over by the super-rich, and they're laughing about it.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 26, 2015)

Belushi said:


> The Guardian has seen a copy of the developers financial viability assessment
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...social-housing-regeneration-oliver-wainwright


its shocking.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 26, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> its shocking.


Aye. It's so shocking I thought it must be criminal,  then I was horrified to find out it wasn't.


----------



## toblerone3 (Jun 26, 2015)

Belushi said:


> The Guardian has seen a copy of the developers financial viability assessment
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...social-housing-regeneration-oliver-wainwright



more than 7000 words the article is long cat


----------



## toblerone3 (Jun 26, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Aye. It's so shocking I thought it must be criminal,  then I was horrified to find out it wasn't.




It does show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the system of viability assessments is broken.  It exposes some of the tricks that developers are using.  And they are dirty tricks


----------



## DJWrongspeed (May 16, 2016)

Update,

No profit / 'Overage' for Southwark Council in their big Heygate rebuild scheme. Surprise Surpise. It's so fucked up I don't know whether to laugh or cry


----------



## cantsin (May 16, 2016)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Update,
> 
> No profit / 'Overage' for Southwark Council in their big Heygate rebuild scheme. Surprise Surpise. It's so fucked up I don't know whether to laugh or cry



unbelievable....so obviously, predictably corrupt / wrong


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2016)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Update,
> 
> No profit / 'Overage' for Southwark Council in their big Heygate rebuild scheme. Surprise Surpise. It's so fucked up I don't know whether to laugh or cry


that's fucking appalling, even for a shitty local authority.

am sat here equally puzzled as to whether hilarity or melancholy the correct response.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (May 16, 2016)

Lend Lease are big and clever  (well in their eyes perhaps). Lot's of internal companies moving £££ around with each other and hey presto no profit !

It made into this week's Private Eye.


----------



## Crispy (May 16, 2016)

The incompetence/corruption/greed (underline/strike out as applicable) is just stunning.


----------



## editor (May 16, 2016)

*threads merged


----------



## editor (May 16, 2016)

I still await criminal charges because this is, as Crispy says, incompetence/corruption/greed on a breathtakingly large scale.


----------



## Crispy (May 16, 2016)

It'll need a clever lawyer to find the actual *illegal* thing that anyone did though.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2016)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Lend Lease are big and clever  (well in their eyes perhaps). Lot's of internal companies moving £££ around with each other and hey presto no profit !
> 
> It made into this week's Private Eye.


That 'follow the money' series recently on bbc4 featured a company doing just the same thing


----------



## Favelado (May 16, 2016)

Oh my god. A perfect story of how normal people get laughed in their faces even before this...but now. This needs to trigger a bigger campaign against Lend Lease. They can't be allowed to get away with this.


----------



## salem (May 16, 2016)

Stunningly brazen. Lend Lease have mugged us. Literally screwed us over without any pretense of shame. Just straight cunted us off.

Now I really reckon it's 50/50 on whether it's collusion or incompetence. I'm not sure which would be worse. In any case it wasn't "Southwark" who fucked up, it was the people who worked for them (well for themselves mostly it seems)

I mean the brilliant 'revolving door' blog piece becomes even more angering.

Take *Tom Branton*.






*Tom Branton*
Tom Branton was Southwark’s lead officer responsible for the procurement of Lend Lease as regeneration partner and who authored the report to cabinet recommending the signing of the regeneration agreement in July 2010.

Tom subsequently left the Council in 2011 to start work directly for Lend Lease, where he is now Development Manager for the Elephant & Castle project.

I mean this man* has simply fucked us. His head should be adorning a spike on the railway bridge at the top of the Walworth Road.

However according to LinkedIn he has been shipped off to work as a 'Senior Development Manager' for Lend Lease in Malaysia. Too much heat back home? Seems like he has gotten away with it.

* and others too, but lets start with him


----------



## equationgirl (May 16, 2016)

I just don't have the words to describe how fucking corrupt this all is. No overage at all? There is no way that's right,  not in this housing market. There must be an enquiry on this.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 16, 2016)

still don't understand why this isn't a huge public scandal.


----------



## Favelado (May 16, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> still don't understand why this isn't a huge public scandal.



No Kardashians involved?


----------



## treelover (May 16, 2016)

Very British Corruption.


----------



## stethoscope (May 16, 2016)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Update,
> 
> No profit / 'Overage' for Southwark Council in their big Heygate rebuild scheme. Surprise Surpise. It's so fucked up I don't know whether to laugh or cry



Great campaign/site - if utterly rage inducing stuff on there. Amongst so many 'redevelopment' schemes going on around London at the moment totally shafting social housing, their tenants and communities, Heygate really is the biggest scandal of them all and the corruption seems to be getting more glaring all the time. I seem to think Lend Lease were one of those involved in blacklisting too.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 16, 2016)

will someone refresh my memory as to how much this destruction of public housing, has cost the Southwark council tax payer so far?


----------



## salem (May 16, 2016)

The interesting thing about this one is it's objectively a clusterfuck. I mean a lot of the other redevelopment scandals come down to ideological issues, supporting social housing, should people have a 'right' to live in a certain area etc.

However here you have a black and white case of the tax payer getting screwed over. You've got a clear case of people by their own admission switching sides and clear conflicts of interest. It's all there and they haven't even bothered to try and cover it up. I'm sure people from all areas of the political spectrum are going to be angered by this.

But then what? The damage has been done and the people don't really care. I mean I've done nothing but whinge about it on here and share an article on facebook so I'm not saying that they're wrong but what can we do?

I feel like those people involved should be shamed. Shamed in front of their neighbours, they should be shamed in front of the other parents at the school gates, they should be shamed in front of their own families.

Just the cold hard facts of the case brought to the immediate attention of those closest to them. People who they've ultimately helped steal from. It's public, they're bragging about it on linkedin after all. The people should around them should understand what they mean when they say they 'work for the council' or 'in property'


----------



## Favelado (May 16, 2016)

Maybe with everyone working together on urban we can organise something. I'm not in London but i'll help in any way that 8 can long distance. There's a lot of us feeling angry about this.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 16, 2016)

salem said:


> The interesting thing about this one is it's objectively a clusterfuck. I mean a lot of the other redevelopment scandals come down to ideological issues, supporting social housing, should people have a 'right' to live in a certain area etc.
> 
> However here you have a black and white case of the tax payer getting screwed over. You've got a clear case of people by their own admission switching sides and clear conflicts of interest. It's all there and they haven't even bothered to try and cover it up. I'm sure people from all areas of the political spectrum are going to be angered by this.
> 
> ...


 No I don't know what to do other than keeping talking, whinging and publicising it. 

What has got to be done for someone to face criminal charges / serious misconduit / gerrymandering or some other charges?  Why is this not a matter for some authority - the police, serious fraud, councillors, public auditor, Mayor, London Assembly or our govt? If its not illegal it should be.

In the mean time I'll 'whinge' on about it to anyone who will listen, in the local, at work, in the street - anywhere. Its attracted so little publicity most london and even in southwark people know nothing about it. Conveniently a lot of the people displaced by the demolition are no longer in the borough.

I fear the councillors in Lambeth have looked at this as inspiration for redevelopment in this borough - perhaps they have in your borough too.


----------



## sealion (May 16, 2016)

The sad thing for me is that i'm not shocked or surprised by this fuckery anymore.To many corrupt people in high places getting richer, safe with the knowledge that they are, in with and above the law. This quote from  architectural critic Rowan Moore, taken from the Heygate chapter of his recent book ‘Slow Burn City’ :sums it up for me,,,,,,,,,,_“ Southwark Council has been played by developers. It has had its tummy tickled, arm twisted and arse kicked. It has got a poor deal in return for its considerable assets, multiple promises have been broken and violence done to the lives of many who lived there.”_


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 16, 2016)

Sea Lion said:


> The sad thing for me is that i'm not shocked or surprised by this fuckery anymore.To many corrupt people in high places getting richer, safe with the knowledge that they are, in with and above the law. This quote sums it up for me,,,,,,,,,,_“ Southwark Council has been played by developers. It has had its tummy tickled, arm twisted and arse kicked. It has got a poor deal in return for its considerable assets, multiple promises have been broken and violence done to the lives of many who lived there.”_


who are you quoting?


----------



## sealion (May 16, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> who are you quoting?


Sorry should have put that in.Will edit that post.

architectural critic Rowan Moore, taken from the Heygate chapter of his recent book ‘Slow Burn City’ :


----------



## salem (Dec 19, 2016)

Yet more bollocks from Southwark. They haven't actually been monitoring whether developers are delivering on their obligations to include social housing and surprise surprise there seems to be many examples of developers taking advantage of this by shaving quite a few units off here and there. In the ombudsman's words Southwark "did not have a systematic supervision procedure to check compliance. It relied on developers’ voluntary compliance" which is either  or  depending on how charitable you're feeling towards the staff at Southwark.

_Lots more interesting stuff here - http://35percent.org/2016-12-12-ombudsman-slams-southwark-for-no-s106-monitoring/._

That link is well worth a click, has clear examples. They reckon at least 43 developments are short on their allocation.

They've really done some fantastic investigation. I think (hope) this story has some legs. I wonder how many of the other boroughs are also failing to check up on these things. Might be worth some FOI requests.


----------



## alex_ (Dec 19, 2016)

salem said:


> Yet more bollocks from Southwark. They haven't actually been monitoring whether developers are delivering on their obligations to include social housing and surprise surprise there seems to be many examples of developers taking advantage of this by shaving quite a few units off here and there. In the ombudsman's words Southwark "did not have a systematic supervision procedure to check compliance. It relied on developers’ voluntary compliance" which is either  or  depending on how charitable you're feeling towards the staff at Southwark.
> 
> _Lots more interesting stuff here - http://35percent.org/2016-12-12-ombudsman-slams-southwark-for-no-s106-monitoring/._
> 
> ...



Can't help but think this leaves Southwark
In a very powerful position over these developers, I wonder how they'll fuck this one up.

Alex


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 19, 2016)

alex_ said:


> Can't help but think this leaves Southwark
> In a very powerful position over these developers (...)



Not really, if they're too hard on the developers they'll not be able to follow former colleagues in getting a well remunerated job with the same developers after they quit working for the council.


----------



## editor (Apr 13, 2017)

You absolute fucking cunts, Southwark.  May every shitbag responsible for this fucking farce get their come-uppance one way or another. Fuck it. I'm too angry to write anymore

Every Flat in a New South London Development Has Been Sold to Foreign Investors



> Eventually, Southwark Council decided it would tear the estate down and start again. In 2002, the council – which sold the land for just £50 million, yet spent almost as much on forcing through the development itself – announced that the new site of around 2,530 homes would host 500 social housing units. Yet by the time successful bidder, Lendlease, unveiled its final plans, just 82 were put aside for the people they'd turfed out.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 13, 2017)

scum


----------



## brogdale (Apr 13, 2017)

editor said:


> You absolute fucking cunts, Southwark.  May every shitbag responsible for this fucking farce get their come-uppance one way or another. Fuck it. I'm too angry to write anymore
> 
> Every Flat in a New South London Development Has Been Sold to Foreign Investors


----------



## brogdale (Apr 13, 2017)




----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 13, 2017)

editor said:


> You absolute fucking cunts, Southwark.  May every shitbag responsible for this fucking farce get their come-uppance one way or another. Fuck it. I'm too angry to write anymore
> 
> Every Flat in a New South London Development Has Been Sold to Foreign Investors


those councillors should be surcharged, bankrupted and forced from office. and then the punishment could start


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 13, 2017)

Kneecapped, tarred and feathered and left on the street for the foxes to gnaw. It makes me utterly fucking furious when I see how this has unfolded and how easily people can be bought off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 13, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Kneecapped, tarred and feathered and left on the street for the foxes to gnaw. It makes me utterly fucking furious when I see how this has unfolded and how easily people can be bought off.


not to mention how ludicrously cheaply


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 13, 2017)

...


----------



## Chilli.s (Apr 13, 2017)

Fuckin shocking corruption.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 13, 2017)

This is a scandal.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 14, 2017)

> According to Land Registry searches, many properties have been bought – three at a time – by international investors, exclusively using the same solicitor, Riseam Sharples, who appear to have been given exclusive use for all sales. From their own website, Riseam Sharples help offshore buyers purchase "off-plan properties in the course of construction including multi-unit acquisitions and the sale of contracts prior to completion… with many of our clients based offshore".
> 
> Not only are all of the buyers of the new South Gardens foreign investors; from the 51 bought so far, many appear to be offshore – untraceable and untaxable. Every single one of the 51 purchases made is listed as "care of 2 Tower Street, WC2H 9NP". Helpfully, that's Riseam Sharples' office address.



Would be interesting to know how this one law firm got themselves in the lucrative position of being the only broker for these properties.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 14, 2017)

Places like Shanghai and HK are full of people hawking LOndon bullion in the sky investments to FE victims - the regulations  in the PRC changed recelty to curtail the outlow of capital from the wealthy as it was seen to be undermining the economy. There was probabaly a significant blip in purchases in the run up to this change.


----------



## sealion (Jul 27, 2017)

Apols if this has been posted previously.

Revolving Doors


----------



## agricola (Jul 27, 2017)

sealion said:


> Apols if this has been posted previously.
> 
> Revolving Doors



There is so much _nothing to see_ there that the article should really come with a Golden Retriever and a white stick.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 30, 2017)

sealion said:


> Apols if this has been posted previously.
> 
> Revolving Doors


That is very revealing.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 30, 2017)

I found this bit of that site interesting - Redefining social rent


----------



## sealion (Jul 30, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> I found this bit of that site interesting - Redefining social rent


None of it surprises me anymore, It's the norm and it can't be stopped because it's the people in power facilitating it all.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 31, 2017)

sealion said:


> None of it surprises me anymore, It's the norm and it can't be stopped because it's the people in power facilitating it all.


it isn't normal or acceptable. Of course its people in power facilitating it, but that doesn't mean we have to roll over and to accept it.

We can to tell ordinary people who don't know it is happening what is going on - what their ellected representative have being doing with their public property and public money.

We could support those who are fighting it. We can oppsoe others in other authorities seeking to do the same.


----------



## sealion (Jul 31, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> it isn't normal or acceptable


I choose the wrong word. I know it's not normal but it seems to be standard practice now. Absolutley it's not acceptable and yes people will fight on but nothing seems to change. 


friendofdorothy said:


> We can to tell ordinary people who don't know it is happening what is going on - what their ellected representative have being doing with their public property and public money.


It's all over certain media, all the dirty details in public view but what has this changed ? 


friendofdorothy said:


> We could support those who are fighting it. We can oppsoe others in other authorities seeking to do the same.


I have and still do, but fuck it gets you down sometimes.


----------



## sealion (Oct 7, 2017)

Former Heygate residents interview and regeneration chat
BBC World Service - World Update, What's the Cost of London's Regeneration?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 7, 2017)

marty21 said:


> Boris seems to have stopped bothering about Section 106 - Ken had his flaws, but he was well into the Social Housing element of new developments



It will be interesting to see what the new mayor does. Most of the councils shafting their residents are Labour. (In name at least.)


----------



## agricola (Oct 7, 2017)

Sasaferrato said:


> It will be interesting to see what the new mayor does. Most of the councils shafting their residents are Labour. (In name at least.)



After more than a year in office we really should know now what he is doing on this front.  That we don't suggests that, on this at least, he isn't that different to Boris.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 8, 2017)

Khan's strategy is to annoy as few people as possible so he's in the running for Labour leader next time it comes up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 9, 2017)

Sasaferrato said:


> It will be interesting to see what the new mayor does. Most of the councils shafting their residents are Labour. (In name at least.)



The new mayor has decided to do fuck-all.  Not a surprise to those of us who knew how deep in the pockets of property developers both he and Goldsmith were and are.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 9, 2017)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Khan's strategy is to annoy as few people as possible so he's in the running for Labour leader next time it comes up.



Yep, he's ambitious as fuck.  Sadly, he's not talented.


----------



## Chz (Oct 9, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep, he's ambitious as fuck.  Sadly, he's not talented.


In another era, I'd agree that he's of middling competence. But versus the shower of bastards (in all parties) that we have now, he looks brilliant.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 9, 2017)

Chz said:


> In another era, I'd agree that he's of middling competence. But versus the shower of bastards (in all parties) that we have now, he looks brilliant.



Sadly true.  They're all "machine politicians", but he is, as you say, somewhat competent.  Measure that against some of the moral and intellectual vacuums in the Parliamentary Labour Party, and Khan is a fucking giant among men!


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 9, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Sadly true.  They're all "machine politicians", but he is, as you say, somewhat competent.  Measure that against some of the moral and intellectual vacuums in the Parliamentary Labour Party, and Khan is a fucking giant among men!


  Dent Coad is certainly amongst the thickest, if not the thickest.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Oct 9, 2017)

item on radio today about people being rehoused miles away from where they live, with hundreds of londons being housed all over the place as far away as Glasgow.
Southwark had the highest number - with over 1100 households rehoused outside the borough.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 9, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> item on radio today about people being rehoused miles away from where they live, with hundreds of londons being housed all over the place as far away as Glasgow.
> Southwark had the highest number - with over 1100 households rehoused outside the borough.



We've had over-crowded people on Cressingham "offered" much larger properties in Brum, Leeds and Rotherham.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Oct 10, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> We've had over-crowded people on Cressingham "offered" much larger properties in Brum, Leeds and Rotherham.


shit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 10, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> shit.



Yep, it is, isn't it? 

We've heard the same from people in Southwark, Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea, Haringey, Hammersmith and Fulham, Sutton and Merton too. People offered places as far north as Cumbernauld and Sunderland.

Of course, when I say "offered", I mean that they either accept, or get dropped from the housing list, so basically "Hobson's Choice".


----------



## sealion (Oct 2, 2018)

A recent piece on the gentrifiction process at the Heygate.
Southwark Notes - whose regeneration?


----------



## editor (Oct 3, 2018)

sealion said:


> A recent piece on the gentrifiction process at the Heygate.
> Southwark Notes - whose regeneration?


Fuck's sake. That's so depressing.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 3, 2018)

The New build flats are currently being heavily marketed in metro  China - business rags have sycophantic articles on how great the area is for investment. Discounts of Something like 15-20% to list  being offered to cash buyers. It’s a fucking  goldmine


----------



## hash tag (Oct 3, 2018)

Sorry, but did anyone expect any different?
If you look at all the artist mock ups for new developments in Wandsworth, they all show affluent, white middle class type people.
There is no room for anyone else; the elderly, non-whites, the disabled, the less well off.....
Yes it stinks, yes it's shit and sad...............The RAM Quarter | Welcome


----------



## sealion (Oct 3, 2018)

hash tag said:


> Sorry, but did anyone expect any different?


No, i think it's important to log what these cunts are up to, hence my post


----------



## sealion (Oct 3, 2018)

The article isn't just about whitewashing either!


----------



## friendofdorothy (Oct 4, 2018)

sealion said:


> A recent piece on the gentrifiction process at the Heygate.
> Southwark Notes - whose regeneration?


if its a video to promote the area to the far east cash buyer - then they probably want to show what the chinese expect 'English' people to look like. I wonder if the average chinese millionaire investor thinks about diversity?


----------



## sealion (Oct 4, 2018)

friendofdorothy said:


> I wonder if the average chinese millionaire investor thinks about diversity?


I doubt it when a lot of these properties are bought and flipped before the construction is completed. I would imagine proximity to zone 1 and the city is more a factor for them.


----------



## agricola (Nov 25, 2018)

Something to wind people up of a morning:



Is there a more contemptible political faction than Progress?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 25, 2018)

agricola said:


> Something to wind people up of a morning:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a more contemptible political faction than Progress?




No.


----------



## Favelado (Nov 25, 2018)

Hang on. Tory boroughs are doing a better job than the Labour ones at providing social housing? Why did I ever vote for them?


----------

