# Lambeth's plans to demolish Cressingham Gardens and other estates without the consent of residents



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 4, 2014)

The latest element in Lambeth Council's plan to socially cleanse the Brixton area has been revealed: demolish the Cressingham Gardens estate and build a huge development of luxury flats for the rich around Brockwell Park:







Clearly Lambeth Labour have a 20 year strategic plan to get rid of the poor and ensure only the rich remain. They are about 7 years into the plan…they are doing pretty well with it so far.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2014)

Have you got a link for this? Tricky Skills will be all over this!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 4, 2014)

It's from the Save Cressingham Facebook page - there was a meeting for residents at the weekend. 

https://www.facebook.com/SaveCressinghamGardens

Also some stuff on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SaveCressingham 

Can't find any official stuff on the proposals from the council yet….


----------



## el-ahrairah (Aug 4, 2014)

fucking lambeth really are scum.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 4, 2014)

I find Cressingham Gardens an immensely depressing estate. Many (but not all) of the people who live there love it to bits, but I can't see the appeal - besides being right on the edge of the park


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 4, 2014)

I think the last mock up I saw of what was proposed was far shorter than that image. Mission creep or what?! Most of the trees have disappeared too; does that suggest this is a mock up by the residents not the developer?


----------



## nagapie (Aug 4, 2014)

Do you work for Lambeth, SpamMisery? You really do come across as that sort of arsehole in all of your posts. 

Just in case you don't know, places where you live are made more by the people/community who live there than the actual buildings. But Cressingham Gardens is not at all depressing and actually  really well designed. I'm sure Greebo can post that amazing short film about the estate and the architect who designed it; although I have the feeling that  really you're not interested.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 4, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> I find Cressingham Gardens an immensely depressing estate. <snip> I can't see the appeal - besides being right on the edge of the park


Compare and contrast with the style-but-no-substance built Brockwell Gate (not even available to council tenants), the large, carcentric, and difficult to navigate Tulse Hill Estate, the Deronda Estate, or St Martins Estate.  Then pick one.  

There's the light, the high ceilings (at least at one end), the way that you can keep an eye out for deliveries while in the kitchen, the way that the flats are clustered.  But if you don't get it, you don't get it.  Frankly, I wouldn't want your sort for a neighbour anyway, sweetie.  Enjoy Brockwell Gate or wherever else.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 4, 2014)

nagapie said:


> <snip> places where you live are made more by the people/community who live there than the actual buildings. But Cressingham Gardens is not at all depressing and actually  really well designed. I'm sure Greebo can post that amazing short film about the estate and the architect who designed it; although I have the feeling that  really you're not interested.


I don't remember where the clip is, as I don't have fast enough broadband to view it - only saw it at the tenants' & resident's meeting.

OTOH Manter was told by the police that this estate has a very low crime rate, compared to the bigger and more intensively built estates along the same main road.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 4, 2014)

Brixton Hatter said:


> It's from the Save Cressingham Facebook page - there was a meeting for residents at the weekend.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/SaveCressinghamGardens
> 
> ...


That's the most intensively built option - there are others where the profile and layout of the estate will be kept a lot closer to what it is now.  Seeing as the scanner's in the bedroom near his computer, I'll see if I can get ViolentPanda to scan and post the the colour coded layouts of the other options as well as that one.

Nothing is set in stone yet, and the option shown above will only happen over my dead body.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 4, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> I find Cressingham Gardens an immensely depressing estate.


Have you actually ever been there?

I've not lived there but I lived just across the road for many years and walked/cycled through it daily - also various friends lived there (as well as two of the most illustrious urbanites  ) - it's a good, safe, quiet place to live. "Good architecture, done with modest means and lots of skill."

Parts of it have been criminally neglected by the council in the past 10+ years though...


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 4, 2014)

I think this is the film referred to above - about 20 mins, well worth a watch.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Aug 4, 2014)

nagapie said:


> Do you work for Lambeth, SpamMisery? You really do come across as that sort of arsehole in all of your posts.
> 
> Just in case you don't know, places where you live are made more by the people/community who live there than the actual buildings. But Cressingham Gardens is not at all depressing and actually  really well designed. I'm sure Greebo can post that amazing short film about the estate and the architect who designed it; although I have the feeling that  really you're not interested.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 4, 2014)

I visit the estate frequently and have watched the many videos on YouTube. I do this because I follow the proposed redevelopment quite closely because I have some close friends who live on the estate. I fully understand why some of the residents like it so much, I simply don't see it the same way.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 4, 2014)

What's a good estate? What is a nice place to live?


----------



## Greebo (Aug 4, 2014)

FWIW the bits near Tesco, which were blocked up with breeze blocks for several years, will almost certainly be demolished and then new blocks will be put in that area.

SpamMisery where do you live then?  I don't want your address, but let's hear what you misguidedly think is so great to live in.  Style of building?  Age of building?  State of repair?  Local demographic?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 4, 2014)

The simple truth is: Lambeth's Labour council and their developer mates want as many rich people as possible to move in so they can flog all our _public_ assets and trouser lots of cash.

Brockwell Park could be partially surrounded by tower blocks. I predicted this many years ago when they stole a corner of the park to add an extra traffic lane at Herne Hill. Slippery slope….


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 4, 2014)

Greebo was there any info from the council on projected numbers of new/refurbished/social housing homes? Is there anything online yet?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 4, 2014)

whether the design of the estate is good or whether people like living there or not isn't the issue here. Lambeth are selling off publicly owed homes / buildings and allowing them to be replaced with high cost private housing. 

When Lambeth is all luxury flats - where will the cleaners/ nurses/ carers/ firemen and everyone everyone else live?


----------



## boohoo (Aug 4, 2014)

Everyone will be in the suburbs awaiting the call from the inner city rich residents.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 4, 2014)

SpamMisery Am also very intrigued to what sort of space you live in and why it is so great.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 4, 2014)

Is there any chance that the combined might of the residents and the Friends of Brockwell Park can fight them off?


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 4, 2014)

Sorry guys, didn't realise I had to share your architectural views. I have now amended mine and will look to move to Cressingham Gardens sharpish


----------



## Greebo (Aug 4, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Sorry guys, didn't realise I had to share your architectural views. I have now amended mine and will look to move to Cressingham Gardens sharpish


Where do you live?  Do me the courtesy of answering my question if it's such a lovely place.


----------



## buscador (Aug 4, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Sorry guys, didn't realise I had to share your architectural views. I have now amended mine and will look to move to Cressingham Gardens sharpish



Are you actually suggesting that it is perfectly acceptable, desirable even, to tear down Cressingham Gardens, disperse the community and replace it with private housing because you don't like the architecture?


----------



## Greebo (Aug 4, 2014)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Greebo was there any info from the council on projected numbers of new/refurbished/social housing homes? Is there anything online yet?


There's information in the leaflet - no idea if it's online - low data allowance - y'know?

Have just about got VP started scanning the bloody leaflet of options, not easy.  For my next trick, I'll persuade the Thames to make a reverse waterfall up one side of the Southbank Centre - no engineering required.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 4, 2014)

Brixton Hatter according to the bloke who had a hand in regenerating an estate in Enfield, all the places done up, let alone built on this estate, will be "affordable - I mean social rent - I mean existing council tenants already on the estate have nothing to worry about". He seemed to have me down as a stroppy ungrateful cow who wouldn't just take what he said as gospel.

BUT he also said that all the flats built would be put on water meters AND would probably go up by at least one council tax band - only an extra £20 (per week/month/year?  Didn't say).


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 4, 2014)

buscador said:


> Are you actually suggesting that it is perfectly acceptable, desirable even, to tear down Cressingham Gardens, disperse the community and replace it with private housing because you don't like the architecture?



I didn't say or suggest anything remotely like that, but hey... details, whatever.

Wait, what I meant to say was, "why would someone who wants to move there hold such an abhorrent view?!!"


----------



## Greebo (Aug 4, 2014)

SpamMisery
Where do you live?
Where do you live? 
Where do you live?
Where do you live? 
Where do you live?
Where do you live? 
Where do you live?
Where do you live?


----------



## Greebo (Aug 4, 2014)

nagapie said:


> Is there any chance that the combined might of the residents and the Friends of Brockwell Park can fight them off?


Dubious but any help is welcome.  As it is, the Telly Tubby mounds are safe as they're part of the Brockwell Park Conservation Area.  Small victories.  Crosby Walk and that side are probably going to be sacrificed.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 4, 2014)

BTW the leaflet lists (in small print) how many flats will be demolished and how many "new homes" will be built.  Allegedly anyone overcrowded won't have to worry about that, but I don't see it, unless rooms are going to be smaller and ceilings a lot lower.  

There will also allegedly be a lot more M class flats with either ground floor entry or lift access.  Call me a cynic, but I don't really trust lift maintenance in Lambeth.  And if that puts up the service charge, that's not covered by housing benefit.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 4, 2014)

Brixton Hatter said:


> The simple truth is: Lambeth's Labour council and their developer mates want as many rich people as possible to move in so they can flog all our _public_ assets and trouser lots of cash.
> 
> Brockwell Park could be partially surrounded by tower blocks. I predicted this many years ago when they stole a corner of the park to add an extra traffic lane at Herne Hill. Slippery slope….



I think the redevelopment of that corner is something of a success.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 4, 2014)

Brixton Hatter said:


> The simple truth is: Lambeth's Labour council and their developer mates want as many rich people as possible to move in so they can flog all our _public_ assets and trouser lots of cash.
> 
> Brockwell Park could be partially surrounded by tower blocks. I predicted this many years ago when they stole a corner of the park to add an extra traffic lane at Herne Hill. Slippery slope….



The simple truth is that your original post may not be the simple truth!


----------



## Manter (Aug 4, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Dubious but any help is welcome.  As it is, the Telly Tubby mounds are safe as they're part of the Brockwell Park Conservation Area.  Small victories.  Crosby Walk and that side are probably going to be sacrificed.


Which bit is Crosby walk? Right hand side of the rotunda as you look at the park?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2014)

Scans of the relevant proposals.  Sorry they're big, but they're the smallest I could get them without losing detail. If a mod such as Lazy Llama has a way to trim them without losing detail, please do!

Page one






I'll post one scan per post.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2014)

Page two


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2014)

Page three


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2014)

Page four


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2014)

Page five


----------



## Greebo (Aug 4, 2014)

Manter said:


> Which bit is Crosby walk? Right hand side of the rotunda as you look at the park?


It's one of the rows on the part of the estate (as well as which is along one side of crap tesco, and tucked behind that lowrise block on it's own which isn't part of the estate.   Left of the Rotunda, if you're walking towards the park, from the main road.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2014)

Page six


----------



## Manter (Aug 4, 2014)

Greebo said:


> It's one of the rows on the part of the estate (as well as which is along one side of crap tesco, and tucked behind that lowrise block on it's own which isn't part of the estate.   Left of the Rotunda, if you're walking towards the park, from the main road.


I think I know where you mean. Thx


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2014)

Page seven


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2014)

Page eight


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2014)

There we go, that's all the proposals.
You can guess which one Lambeth will plump for!


----------



## Manter (Aug 4, 2014)

Thanks ViolentPanda that's really interesting. Will read properly later


----------



## Greebo (Aug 4, 2014)

NB: Any tenant who is moved out for the duration of building work, will not be moved back into their original home afterwards.  

There will be a "one move" operation.  One new block A built; existing tenants from B which will be worked on moved into A; B rebuilt, tenants from C moved into B, repeat ad nauseam.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> I find Cressingham Gardens an immensely depressing estate. Many (but not all) of the people who live there love it to bits, but I can't see the appeal - besides being right on the edge of the park



Fortunately, your opinion of our estate is meaningless.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2014)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Greebo was there any info from the council on projected numbers of new/refurbished/social housing homes? Is there anything online yet?



It's all listed on the pages I posted up, although one of the options doesn't mention that if Crosby Walk is demolished, the estate will gain an extra ten homes on top of the developer's figure, because that's how many are bricked up and unusable.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 4, 2014)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2014)

Option one (refurbishment), option two (partial redevelopment and infill, 19 homes demolished, 38 new homes built) and option 3 (partial redevelopment and infill, 31 homes demolished, 51 new homes built) are all stomachable to me, but options 4 and 5, which call for a lot more demolition, and will be more favourable to Lambeth, because they'll mean Lambeth has to invest less, are pretty much abominations.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 4, 2014)

SpamMisery where do you live and what sort of building do you prefer?  Seriously, I'm quite interested in architechture.  I could probably bore you to tears on form following function, or how it often fails to do so.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 5, 2014)

In short Greebo, I like old buildings.

I prefer late medieval architecture extending to Tudor. I'm not a fan of mock Tudor, however I think some examples are quite nice (but those that I do like tend to be on the traditional Victorian side rather than the more modern examples). I also like early Medieval, but not to live in (like I could afford it anyway). I also like Gothic revival too (and of course Gothic - I'm a sucker for fan vaults) but a lot of non European examples are terrible and I don't know if that many residential examples exist besides one fantastic block in Wandsworth. Georgian, of course, makes me weak at the knees and Victorian generally is beautiful but South London massively looses out to a north London on this front besides the oddity that is Kennington - although I'm probably being swayed by the abundance of pre Victorian.

Modern architecture for me isn't appealing and don't even get me started on Brutalism. Basically, post WWI, residential buildings have been ok at best; except some of the really recent stuff, but that may well be a passing phase.

Where I live and what I like are not the same. And yes, I realise community is not the same as construction; but I would rather live in a home I love beyond compare and not know my neighbours than live in Cressingham Gardens with great neighbours. It's nothing personal, it's just my own preference.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 5, 2014)

Thank you for your opinion SpamMisery  
I'm a sucker for fan vaulting too!

I use to hate tower blocks but then I lived in one for a while and I loved the space and light inside. And the ones I lived in stood out on the landscape in a row like a set of ancient standing stones. I actually appreciate some of the shapes they make in the sky more than most of the incredibly dull new builds going up. I've come to appreciate the styles of building like Cressingham Gardens - some of those little estate are green and open and I imagine the living spaces are of a decent size too. Stockwell Park estate has elements that show it is of the same era but I find it dark and dingy even with the lovely lake in the middle. 

However, the ins and outs of aesthetics aside (and btw - have you checked around Crystal Palace for some splendid huge detached Victorian villas?), having a community who you interact with can really add some much value to a place you live. I lived in Carlton Mansions - what a wonderful building  - the giant sash windows, high ceilings and remnants of the late Victorian fittings, the space up on the roof, the chimneys, the staircases - beautiful and full of character but what I really really really miss is bumping into the people that lived there and having a cup of tea with them or a glass of wine or evenings on the roof watching fireworks.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 5, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Stockwell Park estate has elements that show it is of the same era but I find it dark and dingy even with the lovely lake in the middle.


really? a lake?  My sister-out-law used to live in the middle of the estate in the 80s, and I thought it was horrible.  I know they have been doing a lot of work around the estate, but I can't imagine a lake there.


----------



## boohoo (Aug 5, 2014)

friendofdorothy said:


> really? a lake?  My sister-out-law used to live in the middle of the estate in the 80s, and I thought it was horrible.  I know they have been doing a lot of work around the estate, but I can't imagine a lake there.



Largish pond is perhaps a better descriptions!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 5, 2014)

Depressing stuff.


----------



## Manter (Aug 6, 2014)

Greebo I think your and my first discussion on this site was a disagreement on Cressingham gardens as I said it wasn't very pretty 

Externally, I don't like the 50s-70s (usually council) blocks, but having lived in one, the flats are big, and light, and well thought through and designed.  And not liking them much externally isn't a good reason to sell them off and build nasty little boxes and displace communities…..  

I've also warmed to Cressingham living near it- it is very green, and an interesting layout, and very friendly and safe feeling (and that isn't just because I know it and people that live there now).  But if you only see it from the road on the way past, you just see another brick and concrete maze with a patch of green in front of it- it doesn't turn its best face to passersby, its best face is to the park.  It takes a while to realise there is a different view to it, and community spaces, and then you realise it doesn't loom like the other estates nearby, its windows are bigger, there isn't rubbish on balconies and other signs of overcrowding.  I can see why people like SpamMisery say they don't like it. I happen to disagree, but I've only come to disagree over time. I really hope as much of it as possible can be protected as it is low, and unusual, and visually unobtrusive.  

If there is anywhere that really offends me its Jemma Knowles Close- it looks like they took the cheapest, meanest ingredients and put them together into an abomination designed by a computer.  Ugly, badly laid out, the flats are small and cramped and illogically laid out with no balconies, bugger all light, no storage- absolutely dreadful.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 6, 2014)

Yes, but are all the residents going to be turfed out - with the land used for luxury apartments for the rich? Or not?


----------



## Greebo (Aug 6, 2014)

You find it depressing?  That's the most beautiful piece of understatement ever.


Spoiler



The kitchen has been in the early stages of being redone for about 9 years, the replacement worktop's propped up in the living room, ditto the new unit doors, the sink's in the boiler room, and it's hard even deciding whether to continue with it.  The woodwork could do with repainting, I should do something about the stuff on the balcony, there are carpet tiles stacked in the hall and wetroom to go down in the kitchen (if the lino ever comes up) and the planters need replanting, but's what's the bloody point?



And breathe - this isn't just about me, or just this flat.  Even if this place remains intact, there are other people of the estate having similar thoughts and feelings, who may have to go through far worse.  Even if decanted into a newbuild on the same estate, it will be more expensive, they won't have the same neighbours, the ceilings will be low, flat, and boring, the light will be less, and the rooms will probably be smaller - no need to waste money on light, air, and space for plebs, povs, and crips (a lot of people here are disabled or live with longterm illnesses).

The estate will look even worse from the main road than it does right now - that patch of grass in front of the Rotunda?  There'll be a lowish rise block covering part of that, more of less tacked onto the beginning of Hardel Walk.  The brickwork here has had 40 or so years to weather and mellow.  New bricks, even in the same colours, will jar horribly.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 6, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Yes, but are all the residents going to be turfed out - with the land used for luxury apartments for the rich? Or not?


As I said in post 47:  Any tenant who is moved out for the duration of building work, will not be moved back into their original home afterwards. 

There will be a "one move" operation. One new block A built; existing tenants from B which will be worked on moved into A; B rebuilt, tenants from C moved into B, repeat ad nauseam.
...................................................
Most of the unbuilt land at the back can't be touched. A more cynical person might suggest that any move to intensively build on the rest of the estate is as much motivated by spite as greed.  OTOH the sides, middle, and front of the estate can be built up.
....................................................
Newly built flats are projected to go up by at least one CT band.  This 1976 1 bed flat (not huge for 2 adults, one of whom is housebound) is band B, it'd be band C.  All new builds will be on water meters instead of water rates - this will hit hard as few flats here are underoccupied, and many have somebody who needs extra water for their health or for pain relief.  Unless all the M class flats (there will be several built) are on the ground floor, they will need lifts.  Lifts mean higher service charges.  Service charges are not covered by Housing Benefit or Local Housing Allowance.

Rents are projected to go up by £20, maybe more for existing tenants - the regeneration guy seemed unwilling to admit what level it would rise to and his first reply was "affordable rent".  You know how affordable that could be.
.............................

Anyone moving onto the estate, after the building, will not get the same tenancy conditions and protection as those already here might just about be able to keep hold of.  Their rents etc will be higher, as the council won't have the same responsibility towards them.

leanderman sorry about the indirect answer - it's complicated.  People won't be forced off so much as nudged off by degrees.


----------



## Winot (Aug 6, 2014)

Sounds very disruptive Greebo and I'm not belittling the effect on existing tenants, but doesn't sound quite like



Brixton Hatter said:


> luxury flats for the rich



as originally claimed.  Do you have any more information about that Brixton Hatter?


----------



## Gniewosz (Aug 6, 2014)

The scary situation is for the home owners (leaseholders and freeholders).  There will be a "market value gap" between the price that the council will pay for their old homes and the price of the new homes.  In all other regeneration programs this gap is usually more than £100k.  Even if they can get a mortgage under the new rules, not many will have the income level to support the extra mortgage.  "Shared ownership" is often bandied around as an alternative, but if anyone has looked into what the eligibility criteria are, they will see that typically a household needs a minimum of approx £39k income just for a 1 bed flat.  For a 3 bed flat, income levels often need to be over £60k.  Consequently, around 30% of the community is at risk of having to leave London entirely in order to afford a home, even if they have lived in the area for 30+ years


----------



## leanderman (Aug 6, 2014)

Gniewosz said:


> The scary situation is for the home owners (leaseholders and freeholders).  There will be a "market value gap" between the price that the council will pay for their old homes and the price of the new homes.  In all other regeneration programs this gap is usually more than £100k.  Even if they can get a mortgage under the new rules, not many will have the income level to support the extra mortgage.  "Shared ownership" is often bandied around as an alternative, but if anyone has looked into what the eligibility criteria are, they will see that typically a household needs a minimum of approx £39k income just for a 1 bed flat.  For a 3 bed flat, income levels often need to be over £60k.  Consequently, around 30% of the community is at risk of having to leave London entirely in order to afford a home, even if they have lived in the area for 30+ years



Some are freeholders?


----------



## Rushy (Aug 6, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Some are freeholders?


the houses are.

This one was sold ages ago but seems to have fallen through and come back on (at a higher price). Can't imagine the threat of CP is a great selling point. It's also the house I mentioned in an earlier thread with a jungle of Japanese knotweed in the neighbour's garden.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 6, 2014)

Greebo ViolentPanda 

I am really sorry that the Council are attempting to break up your community and your estate. 

I have been to the Rotunda and seen the estate. I like it. It has plenty of green space and trees. I know the residents there have resisted Lambeth "Coop" Council threats to your estate. 

I have read the articles in Brixton Blog about residents there and it sounds a great community to live in. 

I know how you must be feeling.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 7, 2014)

Thanks Gramsci - at the moment I just get the nagging suspicion that people on this estate are being softened up.  Tell us that the worst case is inevitable so that we'll let almost anything else through.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 7, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's all listed on the pages I posted up, although one of the options doesn't mention that if Crosby Walk is demolished, the estate will gain an extra ten homes on top of the developer's figure, because that's how many are bricked up and unusable.



The amount of extra housing is listed for each option. But not the % of affordable. 

I guess they are already ruling out option one on cost grounds. Though given size of estate it does not seem to high.

Option 5 gives maximum increase in units.

I am guessing that Council want to get a "development" partner. They build new estate and sell % on open market as payment?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 7, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> The amount of extra housing is listed for each option. But not the % of affordable.
> 
> I guess they are already ruling out option one on cost grounds. Though given size of estate it does not seem to high.
> 
> ...



Yep, which means that "the co-operative council" will almost certainly punt more heavily for option 4 or option 5, than for 1, 2 or 3.  Less cost to the council, greatest publicity benefit to the council, highest return to the "development partner, and fuck the residents and tenants.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 7, 2014)

Used to score decent pills off a guy on Cressingham bitd. For that I will always like it.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

In depth update from Mr Cobb:

Cressingham residents fear homes being left to rot ahead of possible Lambeth Council regeneration


----------



## Greebo (Aug 27, 2014)

Those ones (Crosby Walk) have been blocked up for a few years now, and it's a tiny part of the entire estate, maybe 10 flats at most.   Still ridiculous mismanagement, given the desperate need for social housing in Lambeth.


editor said:


> <snip>


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Those ones (Crosby Walk) have been blocked up for a few years now, and it's a tiny part of the entire estate, maybe 10 flats at most.   Still ridiculous mismanagement, given the desperate need for social housing in Lambeth.


It still upsets me to see them empty.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 27, 2014)

editor said:


> It still upsets me to see them empty.


Rightly so - those are good size flats in a good location (transport and schools v nearby), and it would've been cheaper to fix them than for the tenants to move into HA or privately rented accommodation and then need far more HB.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 27, 2014)

Not seen them before. Seems barking not to use them as some form of temporary housing even if the council's plan is to demolish


----------



## Greebo (Aug 27, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Not seen them before. Seems barking not to use them as some form of temporary housing even if the council's plan is to demolish


And yet you claim to know this estate and have visited it frequently.  Perhaps you should spend a few hours walking around and getting to know it properly.  Crosby Walk, before being emptied and breezeblocked up, would have been quite picturesque to live in.

It's in one of the more woodland areas of the estate.  In a corner, near the hideously newbuilt block of flats just downhill from Tesco.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 27, 2014)

Greebo said:


> And yet you claim to know this estate and have visited it frequently.



You're joking right? And, to correct you, I never said I 'know' the estate. I simply said I had visited frequently.

I've also not been on the London Eye yet I "claim" to live in London - what a fraudster!


----------



## Manter (Aug 27, 2014)

Greebo said:


> And yet you claim to know this estate and have visited it frequently.  Perhaps you should spend a few hours walking around and getting to know it properly.  Crosby Walk, before being emptied and breezeblocked up, would have been quite picturesque to live in.
> 
> It's in one of the more woodland areas of the estate.  In a corner, near the hideously newbuilt block of flats just downhill from Tesco.


I don't think those flats are that bad. A hell of a lot better than Brockwell gate.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2014)

Manter said:


> A hell of a lot better than Brockwell gate.


^^^
Damning with faint praise!


----------



## Greebo (Aug 27, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> You're joking right? And, to correct you, I never said I 'know' the estate. I simply said I had visited frequently. <snip>


You implied sufficient knowledge of the estate to be able to form an opinion of what it must be like to live here.  Would you like some gravy to go with that foot in your mouth?


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 27, 2014)

Greebo said:


> You implied sufficient knowledge of the estate to be able to form an opinion of what it must be like to live here.  Would you like some gravy to go with that foot in your mouth?



No I didn't; you inferred it - an entirely different thing. I never formed (or explicitly stated) an opinion of what it was like to live there. I simply said:



SpamMisery said:


> I find Cressingham Gardens an immensely depressing estate. Many (but not all) of the people who live there love it to bits, but I can't see the appeal - besides being right on the edge of the park



To which you took great offence; but, again, as I've already said:



SpamMisery said:


> It's nothing personal, it's just my own preference.



I'm sorry it annoys you but I'm sure there are lots of places you dislike. There are lots of places we all dislike. It's a fact of life.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 27, 2014)

Because you can't see it in person, here's a gif of me doing my victory dance


----------



## editor (Aug 28, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Because you can't see it in person, here's a gif of me doing my victory dance


Stop this disruptive nonsense please. People are trying to have a grown up discussion about people's homes.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 28, 2014)

editor said:


> In depth update from Mr Cobb:
> 
> Cressingham residents fear homes being left to rot ahead of possible Lambeth Council regeneration



I particularly like this bit of Jasons piece:



> We are reminded here of the blog piece penned by Cllr Jack Hopkins, the Lambeth Council Cabinet member for Jobs and Growth.
> 
> You may remember how Jacko banged on about the importance of residents stepping forward to have their say, else they risk on losing out when the developers come sniffing around and asking Lambeth Council for help during the gentrification of our area.
> 
> We trust that Jacko and his pals will be true to their word when the residents of Cressingham Gardens step forward to put forward their views.



I never did get a reply to the email I sent to Hopkins about his blog piece. 

From article and when I have met residents sounds to me like they want option one- repair existing estate. 

I wonder how the Council will get around that?


----------



## editor (Aug 28, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> From article and when I have met residents sounds to me like they want option one- repair existing estate.
> 
> I wonder how the Council will get around that?


I know a few residents there and they all say the same: they want to stay there and they just want their properties fixed.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 28, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I particularly like this bit of Jasons piece:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not the most balanced article I have read.


----------



## editor (Aug 28, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Not the most balanced article I have read.


Nothing wrong with having a view and an opinion on a topic as emotive as housing. Given the politics, I imagine it would be pretty hard to present a truly balanced view without rattling on for pages. And that would be boring.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 28, 2014)

editor said:


> Nothing wrong with having a view and an opinion on a topic as emotive as housing.



Truth is the first casualty of journalism!


----------



## editor (Aug 28, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Truth is the first casualty of journalism!


Indeed it is. And when you're starting from a position of a seriously skewed powerbase (e.g. coming up against the slick PR of councils and developers) then writers are often less inclined to present a far-reaching view 'for balance' given that things are already way out of balance.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 28, 2014)

editor said:


> Indeed it is. And when you're starting from a position of a seriously skewed powerbase (e.g. coming up against the slick PR of councils and developers) then writers are often less inclined to present a far-reaching view 'for balance' given that things are already way out of balance.



Fair enough - balance is over-rated (see global warming).


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 28, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Not the most balanced article I have read.



What is wrong with it?

Its part straightforward news and part comment.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 28, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> What is wrong with it?
> 
> Its part straightforward news and part comment.



Did I miss the comment from the council? Or   an explanation of their rationale?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 28, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Did I miss the comment from the council? Or   an explanation of their rationale?



The explanation of their rationale is all in the drawing etc in the article. The outline development options have a link on the piece.

The one question that Jason could have asked Council is what they will do if the preferred option of the residents is option one. Will the Council keep to its "Coop Council" / "Co production and do option one?


----------



## editor (Aug 28, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Did I miss the comment from the council? Or   an explanation of their rationale?


I thought he laid out what the council is proposing here, with a link taking readers to their own document:


> Lambeth Council has been ‘engaging’ the residents since 2012. Five ‘outline redevelopment options’ [pdf] have been presented by architects Karthaus Design Ltd as part of the next stage of the consultation.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 28, 2014)

Proposal and rationale are obviously not the same thing.

Out of interest, how would people feel about pursuing full development option 5 if all the new properties were to be social housing?


----------



## Rushy (Aug 28, 2014)

This is an interesting commons debate about compulsory purchase (not the rights and wrongs but the way it was being handled) from the mid seventies which contains some figures. Lambeth was making four or five compulsory orders a year in the late 60s early 70s - averaging 25 acres/ year. In 1973 it increased to 200 acres. People were forming into residents groups to fight it.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1973/feb/16/compulsory-purchase-orders


----------



## editor (Aug 28, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Out of interest, how would people feel about pursuing full development option 5 if all the new properties were to be social housing?


That's never, ever going to happen is it? It needs private investment to fund it.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 28, 2014)

editor said:


> That's never, ever going to happen is it? It needs private investment to fund it.


But if it were feasible?


----------



## editor (Aug 28, 2014)

Rushy said:


> But if it were feasible?


Sorry, but my imagination can't run as far enough as to conceive of a large council house development being built in such an area without it being peppered with luxury flats. Either way, it's hard to form an opinion based on those vague, blocky diagrams.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 28, 2014)

Rushy said:


> But if it were feasible?


It's not feasible, but let's play:  In my arrogant opinion, option 5 is hideous.  Quite apart from all of those newbuilds being more expensive to live in (higher council tax bands, "affordable rent, rather than social rent, all on water meters), the part of the estate nearest the park would have its upper floors level with the treetops along that side of Brockwell Park.  Less natural light for people wanting to catch a bit of sun without going too far into the park.

Less light beween and around the blocks, less privacy, fewer natural meeting points, less of a neighbourhood feel, less of a chance for noise to dissipate between blocks (more hard surfaces).  To me, option 5 looks like the type of barrack-style council housing around Trott Street in Battersea, but worse;  it lacks soul.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 28, 2014)

Greebo said:


> It's not feasible, but let's play:  In my arrogant opinion, option 5 is hideous.  Quite apart from all of those newbuilds being more expensive to live in (higher council tax bands, "affordable rent, rather than social rent, all on water meters), the part of the estate nearest the park would have its upper floors level with the treetops along that side of Brockwell Park.  Less natural light for people wanting to catch a bit of sun without going too far into the park.
> 
> Less light between and around the blocks, less privacy, fewer natural meeting points, less of a neighbourhood feel, less of a chance for noise to dissipate between blocks (more hard surfaces).  To me, option 5 looks like the type of barrack-style council housing around Trott Street in Battersea, but worse;  it lacks soul.



Thanks for playing Geebo! I agree it's not feasible but I'm considering the principles behind the opinions more than the reality. I'm not sure why you think your opinion is arrogant? I like Cressingham a lot and would be hugely protective over it - apart form a couple of the taller blocks which I think lack the design integrity of the smaller units and dominate them. The three bed houses are a particularly great design. When my old Mum started looking at returning to the UK I thought that would be an ideal place for her to live. But, realistically, I'm also aware that one of the reasons I like it so much is that it is a large space which is not as intensively occupied as much of the surrounding area. I can see why having it replaced with "luxury" flats - or largely "luxury" flats - would feel / be like a slap in the face.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 28, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Truth is the first casualty of journalism!



Or so its claimed.
Fact is, truth is often entirely irrelevant and actively antithetical to journalism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 28, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Proposal and rationale are obviously not the same thing.
> 
> Out of interest, how would people feel about pursuing full development option 5 if all the new properties were to be social housing?



You mean, even though it's already been stated that they *won't* be, so we're basically indulging in fantasising?

*If* option 5 were to be developed entirely as *local authority social housing*, not RSL or any other type of social housing, I would, as a tenant, swallow it, though not easily or quietly.
Option 5 will, however, be (at best) "mixed" tenure with mixed ownership, so...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 28, 2014)

editor said:


> Sorry, but my imagination can't run as far enough as to conceive of a large council house development being built in such an area without it being peppered with luxury flats. Either way, it's hard to form an opinion based on those vague, blocky diagrams.



As Greebo and I were walking through Brockwell Pk down to Water Lane yesterday, I did a bit of "back-of-an-envelope" estimating, with regard to the projected heights (allowing the standard eight and a half feet per storey) of the 4 storey blocks.  They'd pretty much overshadow the majority of the trees that currently border the park's estate-side fence by about a storey.  It'd also mean that the majority of trees on the estate, apart from those in the Brockwell Park Conservation Area, would be felled, so one of the features that best integrates the estate into the surrounding landscape would be sacrificed in order to milk as much profit as possible.


----------



## Gniewosz (Sep 5, 2014)

Not to mention the new internal roads & parking that would probably need to be built.  Most of the "green spaces" on Cressingham would normally be covered in streets and carparking if it were a standard style development.  
And if anyone has tried to get a bus in the morning at peak hour, it is only going to get worse.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Sep 10, 2014)

Nice bit of Cressingham Gardens history here...
https://municipaldreams.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/cressingham-gardens-lambeth/


----------



## boohoo (Sep 10, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Nice bit of Cressingham Gardens history here...
> https://municipaldreams.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/cressingham-gardens-lambeth/



Interesting article. I didn't realise George finch built Lambeth towers - it's a nice looking block.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 10, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Nice bit of Cressingham Gardens history here...
> https://municipaldreams.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/cressingham-gardens-lambeth/



A fascinating read.

Makes Lambeths "Coop Council" look paltry in comparison with the post war vision of the Labour party and committed socially aware architects like Hollamby. 



> In 1962, he was appointed Chief Architect for the Borough of Lambeth.  Interviewed in the Council Chamber with half the councillors present and appointed there and then, Hollamby describes the process as ‘inspiring’ – he was ‘amazed that there were such interesting and progressive views that were being put out by the councillors’.





> I’m sorry if all this seems to have taken us some away from the focus of this post, Cressingham Gardens, but it seems important to establish this context and remember an era when local government had the power to innovate and held still to a vision of transforming the lives of our people.  In this project, it attracted some of the most idealistic and able individuals in the country; not all were ‘big names’, of course, though we have focused on those here.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 10, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Interesting article. I didn't realise George finch built Lambeth towers - it's a nice looking block.





> designed by George Finch and completed in around 1970, was a flagship Lambeth scheme – a group of eleven-storey blocks which included a medical practice, old people’s club, post office and shops: ‘a microcosm of the 1960s Welfare State’ according to one source. (5)



The Labour party then would be regarded as far left  by the kind of people in Labour party now.


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 10, 2014)

Labour will be fucked if Scotland departs. They'll have to move right of centre. I wonder if they'll change their name


----------



## leanderman (Sep 10, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Labour will be fucked if Scotland departs. They'll have to move right of centre. I wonder if they'll change their name



Exactly. Nervous times


----------



## Frances Lengel (Sep 17, 2014)

Bit more municipal dreaming about the design of the estate and the campaign to keep it. I love municipal dreams, me.
https://municipaldreams.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/cressingham-gardens-lambeth-2/

I hope it doesn't get knocked down.


----------



## buscador (Sep 17, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Bit more municipal dreaming about the design of the estate and the campaign to keep it. I love municipal dreams, me.
> https://municipaldreams.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/cressingham-gardens-lambeth-2/
> 
> I hope it doesn't get knocked down.



That's a great blog. Cheers.


----------



## Gniewosz (Sep 19, 2014)

Cressingham Gardens is open again this weekend for Open House London.  Exhibition, tours, plus a bit of local community flair.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 21, 2014)

Gniewosz said:


> Cressingham Gardens is open again this weekend for Open House London.  Exhibition, tours, plus a bit of local community flair.
> View attachment 61254 View attachment 61255



We've seen an excellent throughput of visitors yesterday and today, and it all helps keep Cressingham Gdns "as is" in the public mind, and hopefully will generate a bit of anti-drastic redevelopment sentiment too, which Lambeth will hate.


----------



## Manter (Sep 21, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> We've seen an excellent throughput of visitors yesterday and today, and it all helps keep Cressingham Gdns "as is" in the public mind, and hopefully will generate a bit of anti-drastic redevelopment sentiment too, which Lambeth will hate.


Oula was telling me how much she enjoyed the tour. As did Z


----------



## Greebo (Sep 21, 2014)

Manter said:


> Oula was telling me how much she enjoyed the tour. As did Z


Two of the groups touring it today seemed larger, younger, and less timid than yesterday.  They seemed fascinated by the view of through the walkway of the mounds.  

Yesterday it seemed to be mostly middle aged people looking nervous about walking around a council estate in broad daylight.  Mind you, one of them was enthusiatic enough that he kept lagging behind while taking photos.


----------



## Oula (Sep 23, 2014)

Yes, I really enjoyed the tour. If any of you are the lady (Australian with glasses) who did our tour it was great. I was amazed at how long my 3 year old son lasted. He loved the bed up the ladder and the opportunity to run up and down all the stairs in the estate. Really very interesting and great to see.


----------



## gaijingirl (Sep 23, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Some are freeholders?



we very nearly bought a house on the estate some years ago - it was about 2 doors away from the park entrance behind Tescos.  Moving up in the world from a flat on the Tulse Hill estate...


----------



## Gniewosz (Sep 26, 2014)

Oula said:


> Yes, I really enjoyed the tour. If any of you are the lady (Australian with glasses) who did our tour it was great. I was amazed at how long my 3 year old son lasted. He loved the bed up the ladder and the opportunity to run up and down all the stairs in the estate. Really very interesting and great to see.



Glad you enjoyed it   It was a great couple of days...


----------



## editor (Oct 12, 2014)

There's a march on the town hall planned for Saturday 18th Oct - meet at the estate at 11am. 












http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/10/...march-on-lambeth-town-hall-saturday-18th-oct/


----------



## editor (Oct 17, 2014)

*Reminder of the march tomorrow morning. It looks like I won't be able to make it. Can anyone take pics for B Buzz if they're going?


----------



## Greebo (Oct 17, 2014)

editor said:


> *Reminder of the march tomorrow morning. It looks like I won't be able to make it. Can anyone take pics for B Buzz if they're going?


Not making any promises, but I'll see what I can do.


----------



## editor (Oct 18, 2014)

More photos: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/10/...-bring-the-fight-to-lambeth-town-hall-photos/


----------



## Greebo (Oct 18, 2014)

Back.  The children who came with the rest of us were remarkably well behaved, in spite of the long walk and the hanging around.  

Maybe trying to get more signatures on the petition while standing outside Brixton tube on a Saturday (along with the street preachers and near the chuggers) wasn't the best idea in the world.  Still, it didn't go too badly. 

Same time, more or less same place next week.  Any support within reason (on Saturday or just spreading the word etc) welcome.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 18, 2014)

While I think of it editor where do you want the pictures sent?


----------



## editor (Oct 18, 2014)

Greebo said:


> While I think of it editor where do you want the pictures sent?


Mail them to brixtonbuzz at gmail com please!


----------



## Greebo (Oct 18, 2014)

On ITV Regional news (1st item of prog) now!

Should be able to see it again on ITV+1 at 5 past 7 tonight.


----------



## editor (Oct 19, 2014)

More pics: 






http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/10/save-cressingham-gardens-the-march-to-the-town-hall-in-photos/


----------



## nagapie (Oct 19, 2014)

Somebody has written 'These plans don't exist' on the poster asking people to sign the petition to save Cressingham Gardens in the Brockwell Park Cafe.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 19, 2014)

nagapie said:


> Somebody has written 'These plans don't exist' on the poster asking people to sign the petition to save Cressingham Gardens in the Brockwell Park Cafe.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 20, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Back.  The children who came with the rest of us were remarkably well behaved, in spite of the long walk and the hanging around.
> 
> Maybe trying to get more signatures on the petition while standing outside Brixton tube on a Saturday (along with the street preachers and near the chuggers) wasn't the best idea in the world.  Still, it didn't go too badly.
> 
> Same time, more or less same place next week.  Any support within reason (on Saturday or just spreading the word etc) welcome.



Ru going to be outside the Tube next Saturday or the Town Hall?  Will try to come and say hello. 

I like the T shirts. Are they for sale?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 20, 2014)

nagapie said:


> Somebody has written 'These plans don't exist' on the poster asking people to sign the petition to save Cressingham Gardens in the Brockwell Park Cafe.


Wow, those 6 pages from the "Consultation document" that I scanned in and posted on here must have been a figment of my imagination. Either that, or the twat who wrote that on the poster is a clueless fuckwit.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 20, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Ru going to be outside the Tube next Saturday or the Town Hall?<snip>


Yes.  Probably Town Hall first, then the tube.  One of the other tenants on the estate printed off a load, a fiver each,  XL  only, there may be a child size too.  Haven't got her contact details (we're a bit disorganised), but if she brings more to the start of the march again, I'll get hold of one and you can pick it up from me or I'll get it to you.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 20, 2014)

The resident adviser was going to be at the Rotunda tonight between 7 and 8 pm.  

So kind of him to not send the email to that effect before 4.50pm today.  

I missed it, as I don't usually check my email between midafternoon and midevening, what with having more urgent things to see to.


----------



## oryx (Oct 20, 2014)

Greebo said:


> The resident adviser was going to be at the Rotunda tonight between 7 and 8 pm.
> 
> So kind of him to not send the email to that effect before 4.50pm today.



I have a reasonable handle on that type of work, though not done it myself, and two hours' ten minutes' notice is REALLY unacceptable - no wonder you're pissed off.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 20, 2014)

oryx said:


> I have a reasonable handle on that type of work, though not done it myself, and two hours' ten minutes' notice is REALLY unacceptable - no wonder you're pissed off.


I'm trying hard not to smell a rat, but this, combine with somebody from the council cancelling a meeting on the estate at the last moment last week...


----------



## Greebo (Oct 21, 2014)

Update:  Had an aggrieved reply this morning.  The sender of the email is only the voluntary chap, and only sent that email because the so-called professional resident adviser hadn't bothered to do so at all.  

How many facepalms?


----------



## editor (Oct 21, 2014)

I've been told that this march is taking place every week now.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 21, 2014)

editor said:


> I've been told that this march is taking place every week now.


Same place same time suggested, and nobody who made it to the first one said "no" to the idea.

The trouble is that the estate has a large number of people who are disabled, elderly, or have small children.  How many of us manage to turn up as the weather gets worse will be anyone's guess.


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2014)

Second march is taking this place this Saturday. 
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/10/...mpaigners-to-march-again-on-sat-25th-october/


----------



## CH1 (Oct 24, 2014)

Presumably this would fit in in the afternoon - same sort of issues


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2014)

Fabulous set of photos from the first march here: 
















http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/10/...-march-second-march-is-tomorrow-25th-october/


----------



## Gniewosz (Oct 24, 2014)

Love the enthusiasm of all the residents to fight for their community.  Actually incredible... and constantly building as people start to believe that they don't just have to accept what the council says.  This is what a 'co-operative' is supposed to be about.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2014)

Mentioned in this Friday's SLP too.


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2014)

Photos from yesterday's march: 
















More: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/10/...mbeth-town-hall-for-the-second-week-in-a-row/


----------



## editor (Nov 1, 2014)

I was there today. Next march is Saturday, 11.30am. They really could use a bit more support from the community. 
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/11/...mbeth-town-hall-for-the-third-time-in-photos/


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 1, 2014)

I went today.

Greebo


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 1, 2014)

A few more photos:


----------



## Greebo (Nov 1, 2014)

If anyone rembers waving hand conductor man (old skool Brixton eccentric), he stood with us for a bit, having a whale of a time trying to conduct the drums.  

Edited to add:  Lambeth's second best showed a touching concern for our safety and ability to locate the Town Hall.  Two PCSOs turned up outside the rotunda and were exceptionally keen to escort us down the road and watch over us outside the Town Hall.

So keen that they even posed for photos with one of the organisers.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 1, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Edited to add:  Lambeth's second best showed a touching concern for our safety and ability to locate the Town Hall.  Two PCSOs turned up outside the rotunda and were exceptionally keen to escort us down the road and watch over us outside the Town Hall.
> 
> So keen that they even posed for photos with one of the organisers.



Where's that pic then?


----------



## Greebo (Nov 1, 2014)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Where's that pic then?


I didn't take that one.  Something to do with being a bit hindered by a drum.  And being sort of in the middle row.

Here's one taken soon after that photo op.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 2, 2014)

editor said:


> I was there today. Next march is Saturday, 11.30am. They really could use a bit more support from the community.
> http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/11/...mbeth-town-hall-for-the-third-time-in-photos/





> The Tenants and Residents Association (TRA) carried out a survey of over 100 households with around 80% saying they wanted to have repairs carried out in order that they could stay on the estate. The council also employed an independent company, Social Life, who carried out their own survey of residents with around 109 respondents, and their results confirmed the TRA findings. The attitude in summary of the majority of residents is regeneration is not needed or wanted.
> 
> Lambeth council claim the regeneration project will ease pressure on the waiting list but no new social housing is promised while leasehold properties would be replaced with private housing. Lambeth, calling themselves a co-operative council, originally stating they were prepared to listen to residents are now threatening a shotgun consultation with four “workshops” open to residents in the space of two and a half weeks.



This "Cooperative Council" idea is a load of bollox. Its also sad to see the TRA is getting no support from Cllrs. Lambeth is now run as a one party state.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Nov 5, 2014)

The Council is currently in negotiations to buy four of the properties at Cressingham. Ownership would of course make it easier for Option 5 to be implemented.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> This "Cooperative Council" idea is a load of bollox. Its also sad to see the TRA is getting no support from Cllrs. Lambeth is now run as a one party state.



Expecting councillors to give a fuck nowadays is pretty much pointless. It's a career stepping-stone for too many of them, that's all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2014)

Tricky Skills said:


> The Council is currently in negotiations to buy four of the properties at Cressingham. Ownership would of course make it easier for Option 5 to be implemented.



Nice catch!


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Nov 19, 2014)

Just got back from the protest outside tonight's town hall meeting, about 40 people there. The cold weather is making it harder for a lot of the older residents to attend, so please show some support if you can.


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2014)

DietCokeGirl said:


> Just got back from the protest outside tonight's town hall meeting, about 40 people there. The cold weather is making it harder for a lot of the older residents to attend, so please show some support if you can.


Shit, I forgot about tonight's meeting. Did you get any pics I could use?


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Nov 19, 2014)

Couple of crappy phone shots:


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2014)

DietCokeGirl said:


> Couple of crappy phone shots:
> 
> View attachment 63959 View attachment 63960


They're fine! Could you maybe just put together a paragraph or two - it would be good to keep this issue in the news.

I was talking to them a while back about maybe trying to sort out some ideas for some more publicity too - I could maybe sort out a benefit gig, and we've already discussed a tie-in with Hamlet.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 19, 2014)

FWIW you might come across a few newbies signing up with urban and trying to find this thread in the next few months - I was referring anyone here (and to Brixton Buzz) who said they don't do facebook.


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Nov 19, 2014)

editor said:


> They're fine! Could you maybe just put together a paragraph or two - it would be good to keep this issue in the news.
> 
> I was talking to them a while back about maybe trying to sort out some ideas for some more publicity too - I could maybe sort out a benefit gig, and we've already discussed a tie-in with Hamlet.



Sure, will do this evening. There was a positive response generally from people passing by, but I agree, more publicity would be great. Prerhaps getting posters up in local shops, businesses, public spaces would be a good start?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 19, 2014)

There was a deputation from Cressingham Gardens at full council. The points were well made, and the petition handed in - despite the Mayor calling time.

Cllr Matthew Bennett (cabinet member for housing) in responding ignored the fact that the majority of residents have twice elected for option 1 (repairs to bring the stock up to standard with no extra development).

Cllr Bennett really let rip though when Cllr Scott Ainslie (St Leonards - Green) asked about the same issue in a formal councillor's tabled question.

Cllr Bennett's response: "Oh you've come in from Oxford have you?" (I assume this means that Ainslie is either living or working in Oxford and Labour are using this to needle him)

Cllr Ainslie was a bit rattled - understandably since he is new to the job. He rather indignantly insisted on a a proper answer to his question, to which Cllr Bennett replied: "You're a Streatham councillor. Ask me a question about your ward in Streatham".

Cllr Ainslie then walked out. Job done - congratulations Cllr Bennett!

Seems to me Cllr Matthew Bennett is a clone of Tom Franklin. Cllr Franklin was the right-wing new Labour councillor who went from Chair of Housing to Lambeth Council leader in a coup in 2000, only to lose the subsequent election to the Lib Dems in 2002. Tom Franklin also had a reputation for not suffering fools gladly.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Nov 20, 2014)

As well as his £38,000 Cabinet role, Cllr Bennett's day job is as 'Head of Office' for Steve Reed (remember him?) the MP for Croydon North / Lambeth South.

Which might tell you where Cllr Bennett is coming from...

The level of political debate is sometimes cringeworthy.

If the Comrades want to reduce it to playground tittle tattle and take the piss out of a Cllr for having the job of an actor, they could always look towards their own Cabinet Deputy Leader (who is also a very decent local Cllr btw...)

Here's a couple of our Labour Cllrs exchanging some ideas last night from within the Chamber.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 20, 2014)

Tricky Skills said:


> As well as his £38,000 Cabinet role, Cllr Bennett's day job is as 'Head of Office' for Steve Reed (remember him?) the MP for Croydon North / Lambeth South.
> 
> Which might tell you where Cllr Bennett is coming from...
> 
> ...



Actually I was disgusted - it was like they thought they were doing "PMQs".
The other pathetic thing is how the Labour councillors ask planted questions of the Tory opposition - again like PMQs.

The part of the full council meeting agenda for striking poses is "Motions" right at the end.


----------



## dotdotdot (Nov 20, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Seems to me Cllr Matthew Bennett is a clone of Tom Franklin. Cllr Franklin was the right-wing new Labour councillor who went from Chair of Housing to Lambeth Council leader in a coup in 2000, only to lose the subsequent election to the Lib Dems in 2002. Tom Franklin also had a reputation for not suffering fools gladly.



Tom Franklin fought to keep Lambeth's Shortlife Housing Co-ops in the face of Tory/LibDem plans to get rid of us. 
Bennett is (currently) determined to exterminate every last co-op. The Tories and LibDems (currently) support our fight.

Life as one of Lambeth's political footballs is proving rather stressful.


----------



## Kutuzov (Nov 20, 2014)

dotdotdot said:


> Tom Franklin fought to keep Lambeth's Shortlife Housing Co-ops in the face of Tory/LibDem plans to get rid of us.
> Bennett is (currently) determined to exterminate every last co-op. The Tories and LibDems (currently) support our fight.
> 
> Life as one of Lambeth's political footballs is proving rather stressful.


Probably the most shameful and spineless behaviour has been from Clapham Town Labour councillors Wellbelove (former mayor) and Haselden who promised to stick by their shortlife co-op constituents up to the 2010 election, and once that was out of the way deserted them, falling into line with Messrs Reed and Peck.
A longer account of this at http://www.lambethunitedhousingco-op.org.uk/?page_id=925


----------



## Greebo (Nov 20, 2014)

Kutuzov said:


> Probably the most shameful and spineless behaviour has been from Clapham Town Labour councillors Wellbelove (former mayor) and Haselden who promised to stick by their shortlife co-op constituents up to the 2010 election, and once that was out of the way deserted them <snip>


Thanks for the link


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 29, 2014)

I was up at Cressinghan Gardens distributing Lambeth Housing Activist newsletter ( ran out so did half the estate) and notice of Unite Community meeting to all flats.

Had a chat to resident. He had moved into Cressingham when he was a kid. One of the first families to move into the estate when it was first finished.

He had lived there for 38 years. Knew all his neighbours. Liked the estate and did not see why something that worked should be demolished.

He said , originally, the one person flats were for the elderly. That when he was young they used to help the old people out.

Greebo

So the original design was a mixture of ages and household sizes.

Going around the estate this evening the layout means short sections of different sized houses and flats are made around a "walk". Encouraging a feeling of community rather than large blocks of flats and houses.

It really is a good design.

I noticed that loads of flats had "Option 1" posters in there windows. ( Option 1 is keeping and refurbishing the existing estate. )


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 30, 2014)




----------



## Tricky Skills (Nov 30, 2014)

CH1 said:


> There was a deputation from Cressingham Gardens at full council. The points were well made, and the petition handed in - despite the Mayor calling time.
> 
> Cllr Matthew Bennett (cabinet member for housing) in responding ignored the fact that the majority of residents have twice elected for option 1 (repairs to bring the stock up to standard with no extra development).
> 
> ...



The Minutes for Full Council have now been published. Theres not one mention of this childish attack by Cllr Bennett.


----------



## RubyToogood (Nov 30, 2014)

Residents of the Central Hill Estate in Gipsy Hill have been getting invitations to meetings about redeveloping the estate... http://lambeth.gov.uk/events/central-hill-estate-regeneration-workshop-area-1


----------



## CH1 (Nov 30, 2014)

Tricky Skills said:


> The Minutes for Full Council have now been published. Theres not one mention of this childish attack by Cllr Bennett.


Taxi driver tactics may be called for!


----------



## CH1 (Nov 30, 2014)

RubyToogood said:


> Residents of the Central Hill Estate in Gipsy Hill have been getting invitations to meetings about redeveloping the estate... http://lambeth.gov.uk/events/central-hill-estate-regeneration-workshop-area-1


What's the story there then? Is this another Guinness Trust/Cressingham situation (in other words increase density and create private accommodation to pay for it)?


----------



## leanderman (Nov 30, 2014)

CH1 said:


> What's the story there then? Is this another Guinness Trust/Cressingham situation (in other words increase density and create private accommodation to pay for it)?



Is density a bad thing? 

Or do we have enough vacant land to build the required (vast) number of homes?


----------



## Greebo (Nov 30, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Is density a bad thing?  Or do we have enough vacant land to build the required (vast) number of homes?


Do we want estates, which work by dint of being low density, being built on until what makes them work (as fit places to live) no longer exists?


----------



## leanderman (Nov 30, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Do we want estates, which work by dint of being low density, being built on until what makes them work (as fit places to live) no longer exists?



I wouldn't think so - and knocking down Cressingham seems especially dumb if the buildings can be fixed economically.

But, more generally, low density and green beltery has helped get us into this housing shortage/price frenzy.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 30, 2014)

leanderman said:


> <snip> low density and green beltery has helped get us into this housing shortage/price frenzy.


So has allowing developers to  wriggle out of the obligation to include social housing (or any for an affordable rent) if they don't build more than 15 dwellings on a plot.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 30, 2014)

Greebo said:


> So has allowing developers to  wriggle out of the obligation to include social housing (or any for an affordable rent) if they don't build more than 15 dwellings on a plot.



Sure. But that is a separate issue.

I was more interested in the new-to-me idea of (estate) density, introduced by CH1.

In theory, Lambeth could CPO the bits of Leander Road they don't own and build upward, a la Cressingham.


----------



## Effrasurfer (Nov 30, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Sure. But that is a separate issue.
> 
> I was more interested in the new-to-me idea of (estate) density, introduced by CH1.
> 
> In theory, Lambeth could CPO the bits of Leander Road they don't own and build upward, a la Cressingham.



Exactly. And that would be a much better idea than ripping up Cressingham because Leander Road doesn't have any of that "community" nonsense


----------



## Rushy (Nov 30, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Sure. But that is a separate issue.
> 
> I was more interested in the new-to-me idea of (estate) density, introduced by CH1.
> 
> In theory, Lambeth could CPO the bits of Leander Road they don't own and build upward, a la Cressingham.


That's exactly what they did in order to build estates like St Matthews and possibly Cressingham in the first place.


----------



## editor (Nov 30, 2014)

It's getting hard to imagine a time when council's CPOd land to build truly affordable, high quality social housing. Sigh.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 30, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I wouldn't think so - and knocking down Cressingham seems especially dumb if the buildings can be fixed economically.
> But, more generally, low density and green beltery has helped get us into this housing shortage/price frenzy.


Sorry to sound like a gramophone record, but in my view factors producing the housing crisis are 
1. Right to buy - depleting social housing stock without replacement
2. Government imposed zero interest rates causing Weimar style house price inflation and a private housing panic.
3. Housing benefit support to private tenants being charged uneconomic rents (meaning rents too high for the market or the tenants to bear)
4. Reversal of the long standing government policy from 1945 - 1985 of dispersing work to the workless regions with ample cheap housing. Instead since Prescott we have government grants to knock down housing up north - and people being encouraged to move south especially to London for work.
5. Labour cock-up over European enlargement

No I don't see that taking amenity away from relatively green social housing should be the favored solution for a London regional problem.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 30, 2014)

Rushy said:


> That's exactly what they did in order to build estates like St Matthews and possibly Cressingham in the first place.


Can't speak for Cressingham Gardens but I think St Matthews Estate was built on common land (Rush Common). Presumably a worthy enough use for common land?


----------



## Twattor (Nov 30, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Sorry to sound like a gramophone record, but in my view factors producing the housing crisis are
> 1. Right to buy - depleting social housing stock without replacement
> 2. Government imposed zero interest rates causing Weimar style house price inflation and a private housing panic.
> 3. Housing benefit support to private tenants being charged uneconomic rents (meaning rents too high for the market or the tenants to bear)
> ...



Re: your point 2 - I don't necessarily think that it is interest rate so much as availabilty of credit.  Effective demand is a function of ability an willingness to pay - if you give people the opportunity to borrow higher income multiples then prices will rise. Interest rate rises may work to stabilise this a few years down the line, but don't control it directly.  When you could only borrow 3x the family income (going back 20-30 years ago), things were much more stable irrespective of interest rates.

Given that our economy is based on house prices and banking, I have a horrible feeling that in a few years we'll see 7x income multiples and 40 year mortgages.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 30, 2014)

Twattor said:


> Re: your point 2 - I don't necessarily think that it is interest rate so much as availabilty of credit.  Effective demand is a function of ability an willingness to pay - if you give people the opportunity to borrow higher income multiples then prices will rise. Interest rate rises may work to stabilise this a few years down the line, but don't control it directly.  When you could only borrow 3x the family income (going back 20-30 years ago), things were much more stable irrespective of interest rates.
> 
> Given that our economy is based on house prices and banking, I have a horrible feeling that in a few years we'll see 7x income multiples and 40 year mortgages.


You may be right. Another thing which I forgot to list was the Buy to Let/Contractor mortgages.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 30, 2014)

Twattor said:


> Given that our economy is based on house prices and banking, I have a horrible feeling that in a few years we'll see 7x income multiples and 40 year mortgages.



And low interest rates (and low inflation) are not necessarily good news for homebuyers.

Our parents faced high rates but their mortgage amounts quickly fell in real terms because inflation and pay rises were correspondingly high.

Without inflation the debt goes away very slowly.

Ignoring repayments, a £200,000 loan in 20 years falls to £97,000 in today's money if inflation is 3.5%.

Yet, with inflation at 1%, the loan falls only to £162,000.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 30, 2014)

Twattor said:


> Re: your point 2 - I don't necessarily think that it is interest rate so much as availabilty of credit.  Effective demand is a function of ability an willingness to pay - if you give people the opportunity to borrow higher income multiples then prices will rise.



Pretty sure the new mortgage market rules are clamping down on the availability of credit and high multiples. 

Your willingness to pay won't help now they are going through your bank statements line by line.


----------



## Twattor (Nov 30, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Pretty sure the new mortgage market rules are clamping down on the availability of credit and high multiples.
> 
> Your willingness to pay won't help now they are going through your bank statements line by line.



Only until the economy needs another fillip, when they will conveniently relax that regulation


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 30, 2014)

How is it any thread on social housing ends up with posts about house prices.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 30, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> How is it any thread on social housing ends up with posts about house prices.



I don't think these last posts are, strictly speaking, about the prices of houses.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 30, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I don't think these last posts are, strictly speaking, about the prices of houses.



They are all about the housing "market" then. ie interest rates mortgages etc etc. On a thread about social housing. It happens a lot. I find it tedious.


----------



## CH1 (Dec 1, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> They are all about the housing "market" then. ie interest rates mortgages etc etc. On a thread about social housing. It happens a lot. I find it tedious.


You are right in the sense that the discussion has gone into housing stress generally.
The thread is about how to defend an environmentally well balanced estate - namely Cressingham Gardens - when there is pressure to rebuild using private developers and thus destroy the existing community, infrastructure and green space.

Effectively what Lambeth are allowing is a form of "top slicing" of the social housing stock - both council and housing association. This is why Guinness got the go ahead to interpose blocks of private flats AND blocks of "affordable rent" flats - at 50% higher than social rents into their Loughborough Park estate.

The developments in north Brixton - Stockwell Park Estate, New Albemarle, New Thrayle, Myatts Fields/Cowley/Oval Quarter all seem to involve PFI arrangements and large proportions of private sales - including sales targeted at the buy to let sector. I feel this is actually disastrous and a cull of the social sector.

So the issue is how to stop Cressingham Gardens becoming a new Oval Quarter - and now it seems also perhaps Central Hill Estate as well.

Crisis Question Time at Holy Trinity on 11th December may be interesting - certainly worth attending in my opinion.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 1, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Effectively what Lambeth are allowing is a form of "top slicing" of the social housing stock - both council and housing association. This is why Guinness got the go ahead to interpose blocks of private flats AND blocks of "affordable rent" flats - at 50% higher than social rents into their Loughborough Park estate.



What non-destructive options does Lambeth have to create more housing?


----------



## CH1 (Dec 1, 2014)

leanderman said:


> What non-destructive options does Lambeth have to create more housing?


How about starting on under-developed supermarket sites e.g. Tescos Acre Lane?
Sainsburys Nine Elms is already underway - but Clapham Sainsburys could probably do with a revamp including housing.
Maybe Lidl Acre Lane too - look at how the new Stockwell Lidl has housing. (I expect Lidl are tenants - though Sainsburys & Tesco probably own their freeholds. But you would know that better than me)


----------



## leanderman (Dec 1, 2014)

CH1 said:


> How about starting on under-developed supermarket sites e.g. Tescos Acre Lane?
> Sainsburys Nine Elms is already underway - but Clapham Sainsburys could probably do with a revamp including housing.
> Maybe Lidl Acre Lane too - look at how the new Stockwell Lidl has housing. (I expect Lidl are tenants - though Sainsburys & Tesco probably own their freeholds. But you would know that better than me)



Dunno. Good ideas though. I guess it's easier when Lambeth, or a housing association, owns the land.


----------



## CH1 (Dec 1, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Dunno. Good ideas though. I guess it's easier when Lambeth, or a housing association, owns the land.


Well if they brought Tescos into the "Your New Town Hall" thing they would provide more housing - and maybe at a lower level (thinking of the current 14 storey residential tower replacing Hambrook House which will loom over the Town Hall clock).

Seems that Lambeth think they can push their tenants about - but are afraid to be assertive with Tescos.


----------



## Rushy (Dec 1, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Can't speak for Cressingham Gardens but I think St Matthews Estate was built on common land (Rush Common).


No. The common land was enclosed in 1806. The terraced houses were CPOd and bulldozed in the 1960s and 70s.


----------



## CH1 (Dec 1, 2014)

Rushy said:


> No. The common land was enclosed in 1806. The terraced houses were CPOd and bulldozed in the 1960s and 70s.


So were these subsequently bulldozed terraced houses mean dwellings rented out to poor people who were happy to upgrade into council housing where they were no longer intimidated by Rackman type landlords?

Or was it a situation were perfectly worthy solicitors and bank mangers were "socially  cleansed" so the indigent poor could live a life on benefit street in council housing built on their stolen (CPO'd) properties?

Photos (of the cleared CPO'd dwellings) would be most helpful!

Back to the main point - there is clearly a conspiracy between the so-called Co-op Labour coucil and the developers to pinch the land assets of council estates, overcrowd them, and if possible force some or all of the original tenants to relocate.


----------



## Rushy (Dec 1, 2014)

CH1 said:


> So were these subsequently bulldozed terraced houses mean dwellings rented out to poor people who were happy to upgrade into council housing where they were no longer intimidated by Rackman type landlords?
> 
> Or was it a situation were perfectly worthy solicitors and bank mangers were "socially  cleansed" so the indigent poor could live a life on benefit street in council housing built on their stolen (CPO'd) properties?
> 
> ...


Not sure what point you are making.
I posted a link some months ago to points raised in house of commons regarding CPOs in Lambeth and community action against it.

The only images I have ever seen of St Matthews area pre demolition were in a video posted by boohoo.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 1, 2014)

Saw this on twitter. Rather good I thought.


----------



## CH1 (Dec 2, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Not sure what point you are making.
> I posted a link some months ago to points raised in house of commons regarding CPOs in Lambeth and community action against it.
> 
> The only images I have ever seen of St Matthews area pre demolition were in a video posted by boohoo.


I recall seeing your CPO/Hansard post - but have forgotten the gist of it. Don't remember boohoo's video. I obviously need to check these out.

I still maintain that the St Matthews Estate project (which was originally much less dense than now) was designed to  provide modern living for social tenants, and did not result in worse conditions for existing residents, who would have been rehoused into better accommodation. on the St Matthews Estate or elsewhere.

By contrast the Cressingham Gardens schemes favoured by the council mean existing tenants sacrificing their amenity space in order to accommodate private flats. There is also the possibility of fewer social housing units being available in Cressingham Gardens.

Therefore the Cressingham Gardens development proposed by Lambeth Council is the opposite of what happened in St Matthews Road in my view.


----------



## Rushy (Dec 2, 2014)

There are a few too many subjective assumptions and inventions in that post for me CH1! Was there something in my original post that you disagreed with?


----------



## CH1 (Dec 2, 2014)

Rushy said:


> There are a few too many subjective assumptions and inventions in that post for me CH1! Was there something in my original post that you disagreed with?


Back to first principles - you said "That's exactly what they did in order to build estates like St Matthews and possibly Cressingham in the first place." (#181)

So what did you mean there? 

I was responding to what I thought you meant if you see what I mean!


----------



## Rushy (Dec 2, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Back to first principles - you said "That's exactly what they did in order to build estates like St Matthews and possibly Cressingham in the first place." (#181)
> 
> So what did you mean there?
> 
> I was responding to what I thought you meant if you see what I mean!


I responded to Leanderman's suggestion that the council could_ in theory _CPO parts of Leander Road and build upward by saying that was exactly what they _had_ done in the past.


----------



## editor (Dec 2, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Saw this on twitter. Rather good I thought.


That is good. So long as none of their candidates slip back into 9/11 loonery they may get my vote in the absence of anyone else with any actual opinions.


----------



## CH1 (Dec 2, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I responded to Leanderman's suggestion that the council could_ in theory _CPO parts of Leander Road and build upward by saying that was exactly what they _had_ done in the past.


Clearly I got hold of the wrong end of the stick.
The perils of not taking into account all parties to a conversation.
My (Mellorite) apologies sir.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I wouldn't think so - and knocking down Cressingham seems especially dumb if the buildings can be fixed economically.
> 
> But, more generally, low density and green beltery has helped get us into this housing shortage/price frenzy.



The over-emphasis on developing "greenfield" sites hasn't helped.


----------



## Gniewosz (Dec 3, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Is density a bad thing?
> 
> Or do we have enough vacant land to build the required (vast) number of homes?



Ironically Cressingham Gardens is not actually low density. It is simply an illusion created by good architectural design and layout. What would normally be streets have been made into green areas. Most of the car parking is undercover on the edge of the estate. Pedestrianised walkways save space, as well helping to foster the community feel.  The density of the estate already meets GLA planning targets (plus Brockwell Park conservation area constraints) hence why there is limited increase in density possible, which makes the 'financial viability' questionable ... Latest numbers showing net loss of 'affordable' homes (defined by  residents as homes that can be afforded by the local community)


----------



## Tricky Skills (Dec 3, 2014)

Lambeth Council is proposing to remove the Right to Buy for residents at Cressingham. This detail is included in the Cabinet report Building the Homes we Need to House the People of Lambeth, which will be voted on by Cabinet on 8 December.

Five other estates in the borough will also be subject to this move which is being carried out under the Housing Act of 1985: Fenwick Estate at Clapham North, South Lambeth and Westbury Estates in Stockwell, Knights Walk Estate in Princes ward and Central Hill in Norwood.

The Cabinet paper states that the reason for doing this is to:

"_Firm up and formalise the rehousing offer to residents_."

My reading is that it will make it easier to move tenants on 

Brixton Buzz piece.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 3, 2014)

Tricky Skills said:


> Lambeth Council is proposing to remove the Right to Buy for residents at Cressingham. This detail is included in the Cabinet report Building the Homes we Need to House the People of Lambeth, which will be voted on by Cabinet on 8 December.
> 
> Five other estates in the borough will also be subject to this move which is being carried out under the Housing Act of 1985: Fenwick Estate at Clapham North, South Lambeth and Westbury Estates in Stockwell, Knights Walk Estate in Princes ward and Central Hill in Norwood.<snip>


----------



## Gniewosz (Dec 3, 2014)

But what is even more worrying is the talk about the SPV ("Special Purpose Vehicles") to fund the regeneration.

I suspect Council doesn't have enough 'headroom' (i.e. ability to raise more debt) to finance the estate regenerations... e.g. the debt levels required for a partial demolition of Cressingham Gardens are over double that to refurbish the estate (and begs the question that if they can't afford 'Option 1' then how can they afford 'Option 4' partial demolition).  Consequently, this is probably why they are looking at setting up new entities that can borrow.

But the worrying part is that I can foresee the following happening:

_Council sells the 'wonderful' idea to residents that a way to fund the works would be to create a new entity, but which is wholly owned by the council.  This entity can borrow new funds.  Residents would have to agree to a stock transfer to this new entity (??), but because it is wholly owned by the council, council tenants feel reassured that their tenancies will be protected.  

However, their landlord is technically no longer the council but a new entity that happens to have the council as its sole shareholder.	And as the Cabinet report has already recognised: “The creation of a separate vehicle would give the Council flexibility to leverage in private sector finance by way of equity participation in future years, if desired.”  Consequently, in 1-2 years time the council runs out of cash again and decides to sell some of its shares in the new entity to a private investment company and then a bit more and then a bit more until the council is no longer a shareholder and has no say over the homes.  

Eventually the new shareholders look at the assets in the new entity and decide that they would rather charge top end rents in order to realise the full potential of their investment.  The tenants are given then notice that rents will triple and if they don't like it they will have to leave (and we have "New Era" on Cressingham Gardens")
_
Based on all the council's actions and statements, can we actually trust the council to protect local housing for the local community?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2014)

Gniewosz said:


> But what is even more worrying is the talk about the SPV ("Special Purpose Vehicles") to fund the regeneration.
> 
> I suspect Council doesn't have enough 'headroom' (i.e. ability to raise more debt) to finance the estate regenerations... e.g. the debt levels required for a partial demolition of Cressingham Gardens are over double that to refurbish the estate (and begs the question that if they can't afford 'Option 1' then how can they afford 'Option 4' partial demolition).  Consequently, this is probably why they are looking at setting up new entities that can borrow.
> 
> ...



Excellent hypothesising.

And no, we *can't* trust the council to protect local housing for the local community. We can't even trust them to do "regeneration" properly, going by Myatts' Fields and by Clapham Park estate, which is into at least its' 10th year of regeneration with pretty much bugger-all done.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 3, 2014)

Gniewosz said:


> Ironically Cressingham Gardens is not actually low density. It is simply an illusion created by good architectural design and layout. What would normally be streets have been made into green areas. Most of the car parking is undercover on the edge of the estate. Pedestrianised walkways save space, as well helping to foster the community feel.  The density of the estate already meets GLA planning targets (plus Brockwell Park conservation area constraints) hence why there is limited increase in density possible, which makes the 'financial viability' questionable ... Latest numbers showing net loss of 'affordable' homes (defined by  residents as homes that can be afforded by the local community)
> 
> View attachment 64518



Do not quite follow the graphs here. 

It look like under partial demolition and build there will be more affordable rented than before.

The loss will be of those who exercised RTB on leases or freeholds?

I would not include RTB properties in any affordable categories. Every RTB is loss of social housing. RTB is just a way of getting rid of social housing gradually.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 4, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Do not quite follow the graphs here.



One has to be suspicious at the very least of a graph titled: 'Why does Lambeth want to destroy affordable housing?' Although, if from Lambeth, it's what you would expect


----------



## Gniewosz (Dec 4, 2014)

leanderman said:


> One has to be suspicious at the very least of a graph titled: 'Why does Lambeth want to destroy affordable housing?' Although, if from Lambeth, it's what you would expect



"Affordable" is a highly abused word today. In the government's definition they include shared ownership schemes which require above average incomes for people to be eligible.  On Cressingham the clear majority of the homeowners are actually marginal homeowners ... Many are now retired and elderly unable to get a new mortgage, or are families and workers who simply would no longer qualify for mortgages as a consequence of the changes in the past few years. At the moment they can 'afford' their homes. However, once the council forces them to sell at 'market values' insufficient to buy anything else in the area and triggers their mortgages, many of these residents will be forced to leave London or even in extreme cases made homeless.  Simply google to find the dispersion maps of what happened to the residents on the Heygate. Also the 'market values' of the new build homes are typically £100k to £150k more than the old homes - known in the industry as the "value gap". I know of very few residents who could afford this. And it has a wider impact of driving up prices generally in the area. As a consequence private rentals also go up because they are a function of house prices.

So who wins in the end?
* 120 homes demolished and support networks destroyed - no one has yet valued the cost of the disappearing community support - who is going to help the elderly fight for their repairs, etc?
* Council might get extra 15 council homes (but this might disappear during the planning and building phases as seen in many cases in Lambeth), but delving further into the numbers shows that in fact it is only 16 extra council tenant bedrooms. They achieve this by not replacing 13 family sized homes (ie 3+ bed)... Very wierd when this is where there is the chronic shortage.
* 20+ households unlikely to be able to stay because they can't afford the value gap and they won't qualify for any of the other options that the council might pretend to put on the table.
* 85 new properties for private sale at 'market prices'. If I recall corectly, in the new block next to the Tescos 1 bed flats were selling for £350k and that was a year ago.  And they could end up in the hands of overseas investors and possibly stand empty because they are investments not homes.
* And at the end the council is in even more debt than if they were to simply refurbish and keep the community together, let alone the extra costs for more support and social care that will be required and the cost for this regeneration consultation (alone which could have probably funded 75-100 new kitchens)
No one wins out of the current proposed demolition of Cressingham Gardens except maybe the people employed by the council who get to keep their well paid jobs and the various developers and contractors hired.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 4, 2014)

Gniewosz, I'm not sure whether it'll be much more than temporary consolation, but at the wellbeing working group last night, the residents on it were more or less in agreement in wanting refurb instead of regeneration. 

That was for all kinds of reasons, including people losing their informal networks of who takes parcels in etc.

BTW it's also possible to put a cold hard monetary value on a lot of the good aspects of the estate as it is, and most of us in the area know how Lambeth council tends to listen to money.


----------



## Gniewosz (Dec 4, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Gniewosz, I'm not sure whether it'll be much more than temporary consolation, but at the wellbeing working group last night, the residents on it were more or less in agreement in wanting refurb instead of regeneration.
> 
> That was for all kinds of reasons, including people losing their informal networks of who takes parcels in etc.
> 
> BTW it's also possible to put a cold hard monetary value on a lot of the good aspects of the estate as it is, and most of us in the area know how Lambeth council tends to listen to money.



Great to hear.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 4, 2014)

Gniewosz said:


> "Affordable" is a highly abused word today. In the government's definition they include shared ownership schemes which require above average incomes for people to be eligible.  On Cressingham the clear majority of the homeowners are actually marginal homeowners ... Many are now retired and elderly unable to get a new mortgage, or are families and workers who simply would no longer qualify for mortgages as a consequence of the changes in the past few years. At the moment they can 'afford' their homes. However, once the council forces them to sell at 'market values' insufficient to buy anything else in the area and triggers their mortgages, many of these residents will be forced to leave London or even in extreme cases made homeless.  Simply google to find the dispersion maps of what happened to the residents on the Heygate. Also the 'market values' of the new build homes are typically £100k to £150k more than the old homes - known in the industry as the "value gap". I know of very few residents who could afford this. And it has a wider impact of driving up prices generally in the area. As a consequence private rentals also go up because they are a function of house prices.
> 
> So who wins in the end?
> * 120 homes demolished and support networks destroyed - no one has yet valued the cost of the disappearing community support - who is going to help the elderly fight for their repairs, etc?
> ...



Excellent piece. 

To what extent is this mad destruction 'proposed'? Or is just one option?

And I suppose Lambeth is duty bound to consider all options, however mad.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 4, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Excellent piece.
> 
> To what extent is this mad destruction 'proposed'?<snip>


I refer m'learned urb to higher up this thread, posts 34 to 42


----------



## Gniewosz (Dec 4, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Excellent piece.
> 
> To what extent is this mad destruction 'proposed'? Or is just one option?
> 
> And I suppose Lambeth is duty bound to consider all options, however mad.



These numbers are from the council's clearly preferred option - "Option 4 Partial Demolition".  On numerous occasions council has said that all the other options from their perspective are not viable.  But we have been able to show that "Option 1 Refurbishment" is viable - and definitely more viable than Option 4.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 4, 2014)

Gniewosz said:


> These numbers are from the council's clearly preferred option - "Option 4 Partial Demolition".  On numerous occasions council has said that all the other options from their perspective are not viable.  But we have been able to show that "Option 1 Refurbishment" is viable - and definitely more viable than Option 4.



Is their stated preference - and, more importantly, the arguments why it is the only viable option - available online anywhere?


----------



## Greebo (Dec 4, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Is their stated preference - and, more importantly, the arguments why it is the only viable option - available online anywhere?


Not yet.  In fact, it's not even official that option 5 is recognised as non-viable.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 5, 2014)

Yet another march tomorrow, roughly half eleven from the Rotunda, finishing outside the Town Hall at noon.


----------



## editor (Dec 5, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Yet another march tomorrow, roughly half eleven from the Rotunda, finishing outside the Town Hall at noon.


I'm away in Brighton - do you reckon you could grab some snaps for the Buzz, please? Or anyone else?


----------



## Greebo (Dec 5, 2014)

editor said:


> I'm away in Brighton - do you reckon you could grab some snaps for the Buzz, please? Or anyone else?


I'll try, seeing as I'll be there anyway.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 12, 2014)

Twittered coverage of the housing and regeneration Question Time here http://www.singleaspect.org.uk/?p=16735


----------



## Gniewosz (Dec 12, 2014)

If you cut & paste all mentions of Cllr Marcia Cameron's comments last night from SingleAspect's live blog, it is really telling about not just lack of support from local ward councillors, but possibly even going against residents wishes ...



> Marcia Cameron admits she was one of the initiators of the regen’ plans!  So she’d been to see some of the residents with roofs blown off. She had access to some regen’ money and asked residents to come forward and tell here what they wanted to happen.





> Marcia Cameron asking for trouble from the audience by arguing in favour of tenants who complained about damaged roofs and lack of repairs. Very foolish comment from her resulting in uproar from audience who shouted “repair them then!”.





> Personally speaking I am less than impressed with Marcia Cameron’s objectivity in the council’s approach to regeneration considering how they have failed with roof and window repairs – (run it down then claim it needs demolishing etc – Ed.)





> Emotional resident having a right go at Marcia about why she won’t support the residents and about old people on CG “you are killing people on the estate”.





> Marcia digging herself a deeper hole. Only needs a bigger shovel. Quoting roofs, poor quality dwellings, (getting shouted down inevitably) no decision has been made, we set up a group of tenants and leaseholders.





> Marcia wants a green village “eco friendly” (it already is, how can it get any greener? – Ed.)





> Marcia has her shovel out again, “fighting for repairs to be done” “at the top of my priority” “finance doesn’t come into it when there are people suffering”.





> Melika asks why the six voids haven’t been put back into use in 16 years. Marcia Cameron reply to this. When she asked why she was told they didn’t have enough money to do them up.





> Marcia “and also some of the repairs have been because of design problems”. (copout?)





> Marcia talking about the split again (tenants vs leaseholders), denied by shouts from audience. Marcia is least favourite panellist here tonight. Trowel still out.


----------



## Single Aspect (Dec 12, 2014)

Audio file now available at this link http://www.singleaspect.org.uk/aud/ best to Right click and Save As to download rather than just click the link. Filename HousingQT.mp4


----------



## leanderman (Dec 12, 2014)

Is there a report on the meeting anywhere?


----------



## Single Aspect (Dec 12, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Is there a report on the meeting anywhere?


Look up Single Aspect blog.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 12, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Is there a report on the meeting anywhere?


If you look on that blog, it's twittered in reverse order.  

Nobody took notes as such, but it was filmed by Spectacle.


----------



## editor (Dec 12, 2014)

In-depth report here.
Labour in the Hot Seat at Cressingham Gardens Question Time


----------



## leanderman (Dec 12, 2014)

editor said:


> In-depth report here.
> Labour in the Hot Seat at Cressingham Gardens Question Time



Very good piece. 

Remarkable how often Lambeth will propose to destroy buildings - Rec, Olive Morris - however recently built.


----------



## editor (Dec 12, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Very good piece.
> 
> Remarkable how often Lambeth will propose to destroy buildings - Rec, Olive Morris - however recently built.


Andrea is a really good addition to the B Buzz team - expect more in depth articles on similar topics soon!


----------



## leanderman (Dec 12, 2014)

editor said:


> Andrea is a really good addition to the B Buzz team - expect more in depth articles on similar topics soon!



Proper in-depth reporting with real local knowledge - her passion for the subject excuses the odd bit of editorialising!


----------



## editor (Dec 12, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Proper in-depth reporting with real local knowledge - her passion for the subject excuses the odd bit of editorialising!


I reckon Brixton needs a bit of passion and editorialising myself. Having strong opinions is good!


----------



## Twattor (Dec 12, 2014)

Feel free to RTFT me if this has been done already, but has anyone considered approaching English Heritage about listing?  Hollamby has a good reputation,and this is arguably one of his better developments and apparently pretty much untouched.  There is a lot of merit to it.

The folks in Excalibur estate in Catford managed to get a couple of their prefabs listed (uninsulated and fabricated entirely of asbestos and bitumen and therefore banned on so many levels under current legislation).  Granted it was only two units, but it put a spoke in the wheel of the developer.  With judicious selection of relatively original units then the same tactic could possibly be applied here.  With the right tactics then that sort of thing can really affect viability.

Any architects or planning consultants on the boards that might be interested in having a crack at putting a proposal together?


----------



## Single Aspect (Dec 12, 2014)

Twattor said:


> Feel free to RTFT me if this has been done already, but has anyone considered approaching English Heritage about listing?  Hollamby has a good reputation,and this is arguably one of his better developments and apparently pretty much untouched.  There is a lot of merit to it.
> 
> The folks in Excalibur estate in Catford managed to get a couple of their prefabs listed (uninsulated and fabricated entirely of asbestos and bitumen and therefore banned on so many levels under current legislation).  Granted it was only two units, but it put a spoke in the wheel of the developer.  With judicious selection of relatively original units then the same tactic could possibly be applied here.  With the right tactics then that sort of thing can really affect viability.
> 
> Any architects or planning consultants on the boards that might be interested in having a crack at putting a proposal together?



“We have commissioned additional research to ensure an understanding of where Cressingham Gardens sits in the body of Lambeth’s housing output of the 1960s and 70s and have also carefully considered the merits of this particular scheme. As our advice sets out we believe that there are some very good qualities about Cressingham Gardens but also some shortcomings such that overall it cannot be recommended for listing given the necessarily high bar for post-war buildings. We do recognise its local significance, however, and conservation area status is suggested as a means of reflecting its overall character. “

http://www.singleaspect.org.uk/?p=15635#prologue


----------



## CH1 (Dec 13, 2014)

I was at the meeting. The Brixton Buzz article is a fair account of the proceedings.
I am not directly involved and went out of interest.
My feelings on the event were that is was actually the best organised public debate I had attended for years, and I was also surprised by the beautifully maintained interior of the church, which I had never seen before.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 13, 2014)

I took notes. But have not written them up yet. A few comments.

Agree with Gniewosz and Single Aspect that Cllr Marcia Cameron did not do well. She was defensive and irritable. I looked to see if she has post in the ruling group. She is not in Cabinet but is:



> *Customer service and engagement: Councillor Marcia Cameron* - Putting the customer at the heart of council services and improving standards of customer care; increasing public participation in council decision-making, local democracy and reaching out to different communities across the borough



 What can I say. Maybe she just had a bad day?

The only thing I disagree with in Andreas piece is this:



> She was the only woman on the panel, and the only person who wasn’t white. I think a little more thought should have been taken on that, and I wanted to be supportive but she made it really hard. When asked why she supported the regeneration of Cressingham Garden she was open about having initiated it.



Really did not get the feeling in the audience that race or gender was an issue.

I did notice that the speakers from Cressingham Gardens did show diversity in action. A real wide section of people live on that estate. And they support each other. Despite the rather unpleasant insinuations from Cllr Cameron of splits on the estate re regeneration. The leaseholders and Council tenants said several times at the meeting that they were all residents together.

I did notice that Cllr Bennett did not come to Marcia aid in the debate. He somehow did not get the flack that she did. He had a good grasp of facts and figures. He managed to deal with the attacks from the Green party member on the panel.

My take on this is that I have seen how residents can be ground down. This happened on the Guiness Trust estate in Brixton. As one of the academics Paul Watts said these regen schemes go on for years and take a toll on people.

Paul Watts from Birbeck was very good. It was the two academics on the panel who both put the human needs first. Who see it from what Lambeth call the "customers" point of view. Residents are not "customers" ffs.

Secondly Cllr Cameron. She is low level Cllr. Not full Cabinet member. The way the Labour Group operates is top down. Back bench Cllrs like her are under pressure. You would have thought they would have more freedom of manoeuvre. In public they do not. If they want to stay selected for a seat or have chance of promotion.

She did say that putting forward that estate for regen was her idea. I do not think it would have been. Officers have been looking at estates to "regenerate". Cressingham Gardens is one where they think they could build more housing than there is now. Her task would have been to get the residents on board with the idea of "regeneration".

Bennett is one of those really irritating New Labour types who look incredibly young. Probably because they are. A slick operator. Went to Cambridge and works for ex Lambeth Council leader Steve Reed MP. A bit like the last Cabinet member for housing. Whose name escapes me. He went to US.

There is a political class. Comprising of Oxford/ Cambridge graduates who went straight from the ivory towers into a political career. Someone has just lent me Owen Jones new book "The Establishment" which covers this. ( "Chavs the demonisation of the working class" by him is a must read). They just irritate me.

I heard Ken Livingstone talking about democracy recently. He said back in his day at Lambeth a lot of the Cllrs were ordinary people. He said they might not have had degrees or much in the way of qualifications but they were good Cllrs.

One of the academics said that the whole political class had let London down on the housing issue. I think part of the problem is that know politics is now a career option (Oxford or Cambridge degree helps). Its part of the establishment.

Bennett incensed me with his attack on Short Life housing.  He was replying to question from someone from Lambeth United who are S/L group. With Marcia agreeing with him. Using the house with a tree in it again. Implying we were all low lives. The Council are really going to town on that one. It was on his twitter next day

I was not going to speak at the meeting as I wanted to her what Cressingham Gardens had to say.  But I was not having that from him. Nor am I in Lambeth United . Do not lose my temper that often. But insisted I get right to reply. Fair play to the chair Dave Hill that he let me speak. I was pretty angry.

Told him that I had donated the Coop archives and my stuff on Short Life housing to Lambeth archives. That there was a history of "Short Life" bringing back into use buildings that would otherwise have been left empty to rot. Which was an honourable history. On one of there flagship (Cooperative Council ) schemes they had evicted a community and left the building empty. The academics had said breaking up existing communities damages peoples well being. That it had bad affect on me. That I found his comments on S/L an insult.

He did not have an answer to that. Seemed to go down well with the audience.

Probably easier for me to say what I think now the Coop is gone. I do not have to bear in mind that I am representing other people.

Reminds me that I need to get in touch with Lambeth Archives to see if the stuff we donated is catalogued yet. So can be for public view.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 13, 2014)

CH1 said:


> I was at the meeting. The Brixton Buzz article is a fair account of the proceedings.
> I am not directly involved and went out of interest.
> My feelings on the event were that is was actually the best organised public debate I had attended for years, and I was also surprised by the beautifully maintained interior of the church, which I had never seen before.



Yes it was a great space. The acoustics were good as well.

It was well chaired by Dave Hill. Not an easy meeting to chair. With people who were very upset and pissed off with what was happening to them. Dave kept order without being over bearing. He also kept the meeting moving onto next question rather than getting bogged down one one issue. Only lapsed when he had a go at Green party member on panel a few times. Dave does not seem to think Green party have credible alternative to (New) Labour. 

All credit to Cressingham gardens for getting such a good panel. I was particularly impressed by the two academics.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 13, 2014)

Looking up Cllr Bennett. Found this. Bennett talking about another estate in Lambeth:



> Matthew Bennett, Lambeth cabinet member for housing, said: “The driving force for estate regeneration schemes like the one at Central Hill is to improve the conditions for existing residents and explore opportunities for new homes so the next generation of Lambeth tenants and residents have somewhere they can afford to live.”



So its clear that Lambeth are looking at there estates to build more houses on them than before.

At the debate it was questioned how much in reality Lambeth could increase its stock in this way. Not by that much in reality.

One of the academics said that knocking down all or parts of existing estates was not a green way to do things. Buildings contain embodied energy that is used in making them. This is not taken into account in regen schemes.

So knocking down an existing estate should be a last option. If all else fails.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 13, 2014)

Twattor said:


> Feel free to RTFT me if this has been done already, but has anyone considered approaching English Heritage about listing?  Hollamby has a good reputation,and this is arguably one of his better developments and apparently pretty much untouched.  There is a lot of merit to it. <snip>


The open bits of land at the back of the estate (including the mounds) are part of the Brockwell conservation area, therefore can't be built on.  

OTOH  because most of the estate now has UPVC framed windows and doors (double glazed) and they don't follow the original design or shape closely enough, (hence the wide strips of white plastic) the estate missed the listing criteria.  This is what happens when you get the job done cheaply instead of well.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 13, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> <snip> One of the academics said that knocking down all or parts of existing estates was not a green way to do things. Buildings contain embodied energy that is used in making them. This is not taken into account in regen schemes.
> 
> So knocking down an existing estate should be a last option. If all else fails.


Not only that, carbon offsetting (as done with holiday flights) could also be used to partly fund estate repairs if insulation was improved at the same time.  There is plenty of funding out there for building with various levels of ecofriendliness - not just one or two obscure schemes.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 13, 2014)

I can't be bothered to read the whole thread so apologies if it's already been posted but there was a good piece on Ted Hollamby and Cressingham Gardens on the always excellent Municipal Dreams blog a couple of months ago http://municipaldreams.wordpress.com//?s=Cressingham&search=Go


----------



## Single Aspect (Dec 13, 2014)

Belushi said:


> I can't be bothered to read the whole thread so apologies if it's already been posted but there was a good piece on Ted Hollamby and Cressingham Gardens on the always excellent Municipal Dreams blog a couple of months ago http://municipaldreams.wordpress.com//?s=Cressingham&search=Go


Both Municipal Dreams and Single Aspect have written about the estate in great detail. Anybody who can be bothered to read both articles will be well informed about Cressingham Gardens.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 13, 2014)

Great blog Single Aspect as someone who lives in a dual aspect flat I can't agree with you enough about it's importance :thumbs :


----------



## Single Aspect (Dec 13, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Great blog Single Aspect as someone who lives in a dual aspect flat I can't agree with you enough about it's importance :thumbs :


Which development please? Or is it simply a street house? I'm not asking for personal details just in general.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 13, 2014)

Single Aspect said:


> Which development please? Or is it simply a street house? I'm not asking for personal details just in general.



I'll pm you


----------



## CH1 (Dec 13, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Looking up Cllr Bennett. Found this. Bennett talking about another estate in Lambeth:
> 
> So its clear that Lambeth are looking at there estates to build more houses on them than before.
> 
> ...



In my opinion by constantly seeking schemes in conjunction with private developers, funded by the sale of private housing on the council's land the Labour Party really are transforming the population of the borough - making it more middle class or wealthy if you like.

If that is not social cleansing, what is?


----------



## Greebo (Dec 13, 2014)

FWIW I've spoken to Marcia Cameron during at least one workshop run on the estate.  In my arrogant opinion she was just as dismissive and patronising then (towards anyone who didn't agree that the entire estate needs demolishing and rebuilding) as she was at the Question Time event.  The same goes for Matthew Bennett. 

Were I to give Cameron an easier time because of skin colour or genitals, _that would be insulting her.  _I expect her to have got where she is because of ability and competence, if she fails, she gets as hard a time as any other councillor or politician.

When she actually listens to people living here (instead of a chosen few who say what she wants to hear in order to further her agenda) I'll be only too happy to praise her.  Not holding my breath though...


----------



## Single Aspect (Dec 13, 2014)

RubyToogood said:


> Residents of the Central Hill Estate in Gipsy Hill have been getting invitations to meetings about redeveloping the estate... http://lambeth.gov.uk/events/central-hill-estate-regeneration-workshop-area-1


That linked page is a useful as a chocolate teapot I'm afraid. Do you have a link for their TRA please?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Bennett is one of those really irritating New Labour types who look incredibly young. Probably because they are. A slick operator. Went to Cambridge and works for ex Lambeth Council leader Steve Reed MP. A bit like the last Cabinet member for housing. Whose name escapes me. He went to US.



Ah, you mean Pete Robbins, of ill repute and memory.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I took notes. But have not written them up yet. A few comments.
> 
> Agree with Gniewosz and Single Aspect that Cllr Marcia Cameron did not do well. She was defensive and irritable. I looked to see if she has post in the ruling group. She is not in Cabinet but is:
> 
> ...



It's not necessary, unfortunately, for the audience to have made an issue, for Marcia to *make it* an issue if she wanted. This is not to say that she would, but blaming prejudice for her poor performance would get her off the hook with her councillor colleagues.



> I did notice that the speakers from Cressingham Gardens did show diversity in action. A real wide section of people live on that estate. And they support each other. Despite the rather unpleasant insinuations from Cllr Cameron of splits on the estate re regeneration. The leaseholders and Council tenants said several times at the meeting that they were all residents together.



If Cameron had been talking about the mid '90s, when I moved here, then I'd have said "yes, there's a little bit of friction between leaseholders and tenants, but it's the usual stuff that's actually just friction between people living on the same street/close - complaints about pets, and resentment that leaseholders end up paying for repairs that tenants don't".
We have a common cause - we like living here (some of us would say "love living here"), and we've no wish to see what are actually quite excellent homes demolished just so that the council can pocket some ready cash from developers. We're only in the delapidation situation that we're in because the council has spent around the last 10 years avoiding doing basic maintenance, and has pretty much only addressed "priority" repairs such as busted heating and plumbing. Back when I first moved here, gutters were cleared 2-4 times while the leaves were falling. In the last ten years, some years they've not been cleared at all, and most of the rest of the time, just once a year.  Lambeth council have made (as is usual for Lambeth) a rod for their own back with regard to maintenance on Cressingham Gardens, just like they did in the '80s on another Lambeth estate I lived on - Clapham Park - where simple problems (blown pointing, warped metal window frames and failed damp course being the main issues) were left until they'd resulted in thoroughgoing water penetration, draftiness and insoluble damp, which (you guessed it!) ended up being some of the reasons regen was pushed at Clapham Park in the late '90s with the Single European Regen Grant money.
While I'm aware that there are excuses the council can deploy for appalling maintenance, not least that being compelled to shift from directly-employed labour to Compulsory Competitive Tendering took a bite out of the budget of every department it affected, often between 10 and 15%, that's still no excuse for the rather pathetic state of maintenance across the entire borough.  Even the greenest councillor knows that if you leave a minor maintenance problem, it *will* become a major problem.



> I did notice that Cllr Bennett did not come to Marcia aid in the debate. He somehow did not get the flack that she did. He had a good grasp of facts and figures. He managed to deal with the attacks from the Green party member on the panel.
> 
> My take on this is that I have seen how residents can be ground down. This happened on the Guiness Trust estate in Brixton. As one of the academics Paul Watts said these regen schemes go on for years and take a toll on people.
> 
> ...



It should be borne in mind that the estates "targeted" for regeneration (Myatts Fields, us and the seven others recently named) share a common trait - they all have several acres of undeveloped land per site. Cameron was probably "hooked" by the previous "cabinet member for housing" by him talking up how regeneration would play out for her politically - without of course mentioning that any residents might be awkward cusses!



> Bennett is one of those really irritating New Labour types who look incredibly young. Probably because they are. A slick operator. Went to Cambridge and works for ex Lambeth Council leader Steve Reed MP. A bit like the last Cabinet member for housing. Whose name escapes me. He went to US.
> 
> There is a political class. Comprising of Oxford/ Cambridge graduates who went straight from the ivory towers into a political career. Someone has just lent me Owen Jones new book "The Establishment" which covers this. ( "Chavs the demonisation of the working class" by him is a must read). They just irritate me.
> 
> I heard Ken Livingstone talking about democracy recently. He said back in his day at Lambeth a lot of the Cllrs were ordinary people. He said they might not have had degrees or much in the way of qualifications but they were good Cllrs.



As you're aware, I've said before that at least back in the '70s and '80s, when Lambeth's Labour councillors were being reviled as "loony lefties", they actually got stuff done, and quite often because they were in the same boat as us, and from the same class. I was saying to Greebo the other day about how Linda Bellos, Ted Knight _et al_ , back then, wouldn't have even *tried* this "development partner" shit on people, because they would have expected their constituents to see it for what it was - the giving away of public assets for the benefit of private pockets.



> One of the academics said that the whole political class had let London down on the housing issue. I think part of the problem is that know politics is now a career option (Oxford or Cambridge degree helps). Its part of the establishment.
> 
> Bennett incensed me with his attack on Short Life housing.  He was replying to question from someone from Lambeth United who are S/L group. With Marcia agreeing with him. Using the house with a tree in it again. Implying we were all low lives. The Council are really going to town on that one. It was on his twitter next day



They've settled on a party line, and one that they won't and can't break for fear of showing themselves up as the dishonest, disingenuous grovellers-to-finance that they actually are.



> I was not going to speak at the meeting as I wanted to her what Cressingham Gardens had to say.  But I was not having that from him. Nor am I in Lambeth United . Do not lose my temper that often. But insisted I get right to reply. Fair play to the chair Dave Hill that he let me speak. I was pretty angry.
> 
> Told him that I had donated the Coop archives and my stuff on Short Life housing to Lambeth archives. That there was a history of "Short Life" bringing back into use buildings that would otherwise have been left empty to rot. Which was an honourable history. On one of there flagship (Cooperative Council ) schemes they had evicted a community and left the building empty. The academics had said breaking up existing communities damages peoples well being. That it had bad affect on me. That I found his comments on S/L an insult.
> 
> ...



I used to walk around Brixton and Stockwell a fair bit in the '80s. I remember just how delapidated some of the houses this end of Brixton, on Acre Lane, Landor Rd and other areas were, let alone places like St. Agnes. Without short-life and squatting whole streets would have been lost. As it is, it's an *incredible* testament to Lambeth's housing co-ops, squatters and short-lifers that so many of those streets that looked like they'd have fallen down by the late '80s/early '90s are still there for the council to shamefully steal back from the people living there - and "steal" isn't too strong a word, because Lambeth blithely broke many verbal agreements in order to repossess those properties.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2014)

CH1 said:


> In my opinion by constantly seeking schemes in conjunction with private developers, funded by the sale of private housing on the council's land the Labour Party really are transforming the population of the borough - making it more middle class or wealthy if you like.
> 
> If that is not social cleansing, what is?



Well, Donatus did say that there's too much social housing in Lambeth, and by very obvious implication, too many social housing tenants!


----------



## Single Aspect (Dec 13, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Looking up Cllr Bennett. Found this. Bennett talking about another estate in Lambeth:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That was Michael Edwards from UCL. He's a knowledgable guy.


----------



## RubyToogood (Dec 15, 2014)

Single Aspect said:


> That linked page is a useful as a chocolate teapot I'm afraid. Do you have a link for their TRA please?


No I don't, sorry.


----------



## superfly101 (Dec 22, 2014)

Just been a piece on BBC London News about 15 mins in.

Not sure you'll be happy with it though!


----------



## Greebo (Dec 22, 2014)

superfly101 said:


> Just been a piece on BBC London News about 15 mins in. <snip>


Thanks, here's hoping they repeat it later this evening.


----------



## Single Aspect (Dec 22, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Thanks, here's hoping they repeat it later this evening.


No need to wait. It's here http://t.co/3u9xZkNwGu


----------



## Greebo (Dec 22, 2014)

Consulted my arse.

People living here have only been listened to when they've said what various councillors want to hear.


----------



## Gniewosz (Dec 22, 2014)

More that they are on record, greater the fall later... Still spouting that they can't afford Option 1.  If they can't afford Option 1 then they can't afford any of the other options according to even their numbers.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 22, 2014)

Gniewosz said:


> <snip>  If they can't afford Option 1 then they can't afford any of the other options according to even their numbers.


Agreed.


----------



## Single Aspect (Dec 23, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Agreed.


Evening news clip in this folder to keep http://www.singleaspect.org.uk/cg/


----------



## Greebo (Jan 7, 2015)

Excuse any typos, I seem to be on the dge of a migraine.  Nothing, of course, to do with last night.  

Okay, the test of opinion is due some time later this month, or in February.

So far, only one person per household will be asked.

The rsults of that will go back to the council.  They do not have to abide by any views expressed at all.

They do not have to even mention the results of it when it goes to Cabinet.

What's the bloody point, except to go down fighting?


----------



## editor (Jan 7, 2015)

Piece in the Socialist Worker 

http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/39...Gardens+are+fighting+back+to+save+their+homes


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2015)

I've written a letter to the SLP mentioning that if the test of opinion isn't binding, then "consultation" with "The Co-operative Council" is a sham, but that as a long-time Lambeth resident I'm not really surprised about it, given Lambeth "new" Labour's history.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 19, 2015)

My letter got printed in Friday's _South London Press_:

Lambeth's consultation of Cressingham Gardens residents is a sham ("Repair or regenerate?" SLP December 19).
At the recent consultation of Cressingham Gardens residents about the five regeneration options being offered by Lambeth for the estate,it was made clear that any "test of opinion" (Lambeth's term) made of estate residents will be non-binding on any Lambeth cabinet decision regarding the estate's redevelopment.
So much for the "co-operative council" and all the fine words from (former leader) Steve Reed and now Lib Peck (leader) about engagement and co-operation.
From my perspective as a tenant on Cressingham, this is the same sort of "we'll only listen if your views coincide with ours" top-down,non community-led bulldozing that Lambeth council has always engaged in.
_Plus ça change..._


----------



## Greebo (Jan 19, 2015)

Well, IMHO that was a wasted evening.  Potemkin villages spring to mind.  And I'm as guilty as the next participant in this farce.

What else should one have expected as a Lambeth resident?


----------



## leanderman (Jan 20, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Well, IMHO that was a wasted evening.  Pushkin villages spring to mind.  And I'm as guilty as the next participant in this farce.
> 
> What else should one have expected as a Lambeth resident?



Potemkin!


----------



## Greebo (Jan 20, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Potemkin!


Thanks, edited accordingly.  

Either way, I never want to see so much arse covering again.


----------



## Greebo (Jan 20, 2015)

Those of you who perhaps remember saying earlier in the thread "if there's anything I/we can do..." please think hard about what you might be able to do and any media contacts.  I've no longer any doubt at all that Lambeth will do what they want to do, but there's no need to make it easier.

It's probably better to do this by PM.


----------



## Single Aspect (Jan 22, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Potemkin!


What on earth is going on with you two? Is it an in joke? Greebo wrote Potemkin and you misquoted her saying Pushkin. Then she "corrected" it when it was never wrong in the first place. Bizarre.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 22, 2015)

Single Aspect said:


> What on earth is going on with you two? Is it an in joke? Greebo wrote Potemkin and you misquoted her saying Pushkin. Then she "corrected" it when it was never wrong in the first place. Bizarre.



See post 272


----------



## Greebo (Jan 22, 2015)

Single Aspect said:


> What on earth is going on with you two? Is it an in joke? Greebo wrote Potemkin and you misquoted her saying Pushkin. Then she "corrected" it when it was never wrong in the first place. Bizarre.


It was wrong in the first place, and it got edited within the 48 hours as that was possible.  I knew the name was Russian and it began with a P and ended with "kin", though.


----------



## Single Aspect (Jan 22, 2015)

Greebo said:


> It was wrong in the first place, and it got edited within the 48 hours as that was possible.  I knew the name was Russian and it began with a P and ended with "kin", though.


Oh thanks, that makes more sense now.


----------



## Manter (Jan 22, 2015)

Greebo said:


> It was wrong in the first place, and it got edited within the 48 hours as that was possible.  I knew the name was Russian and it began with a P and ended with "kin", though.


You should have left it mysterious. They'd have thought it was a code


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jan 23, 2015)

This is slightly curious. Lambeth Living is about to start a 30 week repair campaign to 'weather proof' 78 properties at Cressingham.

You wouldn't have thought that this type of investment would be made if complete regeneration and Option 5 was to go ahead.

_Would you? _

BBuzz piece.


----------



## snowy_again (Jan 23, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> This is slightly curious. Lambeth Living is about to start a 30 week repair campaign to 'weather proof' 78 properties at Cressingham.



End of financial year spend?


----------



## Manter (Jan 23, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> End of financial year spend?


Reducing likelihood of judicial review?


----------



## Gniewosz (Jan 23, 2015)

The council is currently facing a massive criminal liability.  It is a criminal offense for a tenant to have mould/damp in their homes (see legal actions won by Anthony Gold).
But in the council's own words:
"There is a real need for this work and failure to proceed may lead to multiple/class disrepair action with aggregated damages and legal costs potentially exceeding the capital sums being requested."

They also write:
"Furthermore, sensitivity on the estate is causing such disrepair issues to become widely advertised."
... Are they admitting that there is a policy where it is ok to have disrepair so long as doesn't become PR problem?

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/234236/response/583727/attach/html/8/IR87070 ressingham Weathertight Project CWG Update 29 09 2014 3 3 FOI redacted 1.docx.html


----------



## Rushy (Jan 23, 2015)

Does this mean that it is legally worth their while doing the work even if it is to be pulled down shortly afterwards?


----------



## Rushy (Jan 23, 2015)

I was wandering through Glanville Road other day and wondering whether the estate there might come up against a similar issue to yours in the near future?


----------



## snowy_again (Jan 23, 2015)

Rushy said:


> Does this mean that it is legally worth their while doing the work even if it is to be pulled down shortly afterwards?


 Potentially 

A) spends currently unused capital grants subsidy before the financial year end
B) reduces the likelihood of litigation under lapsed duty of care and Human Rights act (I'm pondering which charter other than the catch all- "the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate ... housing"? and;
C) if they spin it well can argue that they're investing for current residents

There's probably a SWOT and cost / benefit analysis being reviewed right now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> This is slightly curious. Lambeth Living is about to start a 30 week repair campaign to 'weather proof' 78 properties at Cressingham.
> 
> You wouldn't have thought that this type of investment would be made if complete regeneration and Option 5 was to go ahead.
> 
> ...



It's Lambeth. The sort of shambolic management the council are capable of doesn't just make the repair of buildings soon to be demolished possible,it makes it *LIKELY*!!!


----------



## Gniewosz (Jan 24, 2015)

The council collects £1.2m each year from their tenants on Cressingham Gardens.  They are legally required to undertake repairs and maintain homes at a decent standard.  Anything less is illegal.  For a landlord to collect rents and not to do repairs is wrong. Ironically, the council is the prosecuting authority in such matters.... they are not setting a very good role model example for private landlords.  Council tenants should probably demand a refund of their rents for such a bad service from the council.


----------



## Greebo (Jan 24, 2015)

I agree that tenants should, but you try doing that when your housing benefit is paid directly to the council* by a separate arm of the council administering housing benefit (and then claimed back off the DWP).

*This is the default for council tenants if they qualify for housing benefit.  The fact that it makes a rent strike difficult is neither here nor there - honest.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2015)

Gniewosz said:


> The council collects £1.2m each year from their tenants on Cressingham Gardens.  They are legally required to undertake repairs and maintain homes at a decent standard.  Anything less is illegal.  For a landlord to collect rents and not to do repairs is wrong. Ironically, the council is the prosecuting authority in such matters.... they are not setting a very good role model example for private landlords.  Council tenants should probably demand a refund of their rents for such a bad service from the council.



Unfortunately, the majority of local authorities are pretty awful at enforcement on private landlords unless the landlord's behaviour is particularly egregious, so taking that as a base for their own behaviour is entirely unsurprising to me. When I lived on Clapham Park in the '80s there were issues with black mould and damp. As of December 2014 they hadn't been resolved.  I think that they're so used to getting away with doing nothing that they see nothing wrong in such behaviour, and seem to be under the impression that fulfilling their statutory obligations is actually doing people a big favour!


----------



## Greebo (Jan 25, 2015)

7.30pm Monday 26th Jan - Public meeting on housing at the Karibu Centre, Gresham Rd, Brixton. http://housingactivists.co.uk/newsletters/public-meeting-a-tale-of-two-cities/

Wednesday 28th Jan - Full council meeting where the Save Cressingham petition is going to be presented a 2nd time, because the council has failed to acknowledge the petition handed over by the resident delegation in December. Please all come for at least the photo shoot on the steps of the council. (6.45pm at TownHall)

Saturday 31st Jan - March for Housing - London wide march which will include Cressingham residents.


----------



## Greebo (Jan 25, 2015)

http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/doc...ay 15-Jan-2015 19.00 Tenants Council.pdf?T=10
Summary from the tenants council 15th Jan '15 tldr - the TC has refused to accept the regeneration charter as applied to tenants.


----------



## editor (Jan 25, 2015)

Greebo said:


> 7.30pm Monday 26th Jan - Public meeting on housing at the Karibu Centre, Gresham Rd, Brixton. http://housingactivists.co.uk/newsletters/public-meeting-a-tale-of-two-cities/
> 
> Wednesday 28th Jan - Full council meeting where the Save Cressingham petition is going to be presented a 2nd time, because the council has failed to acknowledge the petition handed over by the resident delegation in December. Please all come for at least the photo shoot on the steps of the council. (6.45pm at TownHall)
> 
> Saturday 31st Jan - March for Housing - London wide march which will include Cressingham residents.


I'll give this a plug on Buzz, but if you're going could you write something up after?  Be good to keep spreading the word.


----------



## Greebo (Jan 25, 2015)

editor said:


> I'll give this a plug on Buzz, but if you're going could you write something up after?  Be good to keep spreading the word.


Thanks for the offer.  I'll try, but no promises.


----------



## Greebo (Jan 26, 2015)

Petition being handed into the council _*for the second time as it was refused the first time*_ (late last year) at the Town Hall on Wednesday evening.  

Be there for about 6.40.  Anyone who's in the area at the time wants to show a bit of solidarity will be welcome.


----------



## Manter (Jan 26, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Petition being handed into the council _*for the second time as it was refused the first time*_ (late last year) at the Town Hall on Wednesday evening.
> 
> Be there for about 6.40.  Anyone who's in the area at the time wants to show a bit of solidarity will be welcome.


why on earth did they refuse it? Are they even allowed to?


----------



## Greebo (Jan 27, 2015)

Manter said:


> why on earth did they refuse it? Are they even allowed to?


No idea.

I suspect not, but hey, this is Lambeth. It appears that they can even ignore their own planning regulations and get away with it.


----------



## Greebo (Jan 28, 2015)

Eris, Athena, and Ares, I've had it up to here with how shambolic this is.  

Yet another meeting's date confirmed at less than 2 hours' notice.

Am I going?  Like hell - I've already comitted to watching while the petition is handed over tonight and can't be in two places at once.  FFS the Guide Association is better organised and more efficient than this, even at grassroots level.


----------



## Greebo (Jan 28, 2015)

Also the final workshop for all residents, which would have been this Saturday, has been cancelled at very short notice.  

Inefficient, inept, inconsiderate, , disorganised, disrespectful, and not likely to inspire any confidence in the process.

*and relax*


----------



## CH1 (Jan 28, 2015)

Manter said:


> why on earth did they refuse it? Are they even allowed to?


The only possible reason I can think of is lack of notice.
(It has to be on the order paper I think)


----------



## CH1 (Jan 28, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Also the final workshop for all residents, which would have been this Saturday, has been cancelled at very short notice.
> Inefficient, inept, inconsiderate, , disorganised, disrespectful, and not likely to inspire any confidence in the process.
> *and relax*


Those vigorous feeling people can pop on the 415 and do the March on Boris!


----------



## Greebo (Jan 28, 2015)

CH1 said:


> The only possible reason I can think of is lack of notice.
> (It has to be on the order paper I think)


Well, it was accepted tonight, with 3,874 signatures, including Marcia Cameron. 

Small victories.


----------



## CH1 (Jan 28, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Well, it was accepted tonight, with 3,874 signatures, including Marcia Cameron.
> Small victories.


I would have thought if Marcia Cameron signed that indicated a bit of a climb down or at least a desire to consider all aspects of the situation.

Did a councillor present the petition, or did you do it yourselves?

I turned up at 6.50 expecting a normal meeting, only to find that there was this extra item - a sort of "debate" about economic development of Lambeth, to be fronted up by Cllr Jack Hopkins before the main business. 

Did you hear that debate. Was it any good/enlightening?

I had arranged previously a trip to the West End (he says guiltily) and went ahead with that. So any feedback from the council chamber would be most welcome!


----------



## Greebo (Jan 28, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I would have thought if Marcia Cameron signed that indicated a bit of a climb down or at least a desire to consider all aspects of the situation.
> 
> Did a councillor present the petition, or did you do it yourselves?
> 
> ...


As I say, small victories, no point getting too complacent but it's a glimmer at least.    A councillor presented it, after a photo op outside with one of our lot handing it over to them.

Heard it, have some scrappy notes, it was quite interesting.  In a nutshell:
The council need to have 5 and 10 year plans instead of lurching from one pilot scheme to another.

More communication and cooperation between young people (and others looking for work), educators, training providers and employers, so that placements are there when needed, and people have a chance of getting ready in time to take up the work.

More needs to be done to encourage and nurture local businesses, including considering them for things like the cleaning contracts.

London Liviing Wage to be brought in as the standard minimum to be paid to anyone working for Lambeth or for any of their contractors.  Zero hours contracts to be got rid of.

More fruit and veg needs to be grown locally, even if it's edible bus stops (or maybe lettuces on the roof of the new Town Hall).

Most of the cooperative council's claimed victories and achievements have bugger all to do with it (so said Tim Briggs).  Same councillor apologised after some hefty prompting for getting his figures wrong misinterpreted at the previous meeting.

Comments about Matthew Bennet reminding Tim Briggs of a young goodlooking but not v upright citizen (whose name escapes me).

Social entrepreneurs if given the right support (including free/cheap pop up space for sessions of training or work) may well be able to provide a lot of long term sustainable employment in the area, without costing the council a lot.

Repeated comments about things should be made more local and/or brought back in house - to save money and keep things efficient.

CBA to do the rest right now.

Edited to add: I'll put the bit about jobs and increasing Lambeths's wealth in the Brixton bit, with a bit more detail


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jan 29, 2015)

Greebo said:


> More fruit and veg needs to be grown locally, even if it's edible bus stops (or maybe lettuces on the roof of the new Town Hall).



Odd then that Pope's Road has now been allowed to change from Grow:Brixton to Pop:Brixton. Enterprise has taken over the growing agenda.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 4, 2015)

WTAF?  The handing in of the petition at the council meeting last week has not been included in the minutes.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 4, 2015)

Greebo said:


> WTAF?  The handing in of the petition at the council meeting last week has not been included in the minutes.


Shouldn't you complain to Democratic Services? They have to produce an accurate record. Or the councillor who handed it in could do so.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 4, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Shouldn't you complain to Democratic Services? <snip>


How on earth would I know, and how do I contact them?  I realise this probably sounds as if I'm asking to be spoonfed, but this sort of thing is generally not found out until you need to know it.  

I think Councillor Ainslie handed it in.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 4, 2015)

Greebo said:


> How on earth would I know, and how do I contact them?  I realise this probably sounds as if I'm asking to be spoonfed, but this sort of thing is generally not found out until you need to know it.
> I think Councillor Ainslie handed it in.


According to the website arasmussen@lambeth.gov.uk (Anne Rasmussen, Tel: 020 7926 0028) is the appropriate contact - both for full council and for petitions. 

If you can't get through you could simply ring 926 1000 and ask for the committee section.

There are no minutes up on the website yet BTW.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 4, 2015)

CH1 said:


> According to the website arasmussen@lambeth.gov.uk (Anne Rasmussen, Tel: 020 7926 0028) is the appropriate contact - both for full council and for petitions.
> 
> If you can't get through you could simply ring 926 1000 and ask for the committee section. <snip>


Okay, thanks for that.  *makes note for next time*


----------



## Gniewosz (Feb 5, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Shouldn't you complain to Democratic Services? They have to produce an accurate record. Or the councillor who handed it in could do so.



Some residents did officially complain over the December minutes that they didn't accurately reflect what was said by the delegation of residents and that the petition wasn't mentioned.... but complaints essentially ignored by council.  Hence the second attempt at submitting the petition this time via a councillor.  Will see when the minutes come out if they have recorded it this time.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Feb 5, 2015)

After a little digging I managed to find the Cressingham Tenant Offer - a document that Lambeth Council has claimed doesn't exist.

Of interest is the difference between the Council's Draft Principle's for Estate Regeneration and how Cressingham is being singled out as a separate case.

Essentially the Council can't guarantee that it will be in control of the rents, should any new homes be built. These might be shipped out to a housing association, a coop or a 'Special Purpose Vehicle.'

BBuzz piece.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 5, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> After a little digging I managed to find the Cressingham Tenant Offer - a document that Lambeth Council has claimed doesn't exist. <snip>
> 
> BBuzz piece.


Thank you


----------



## Tricky Skills (Feb 5, 2015)

The petition is in the draft minutes for January's Full Council [pdf].


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 11, 2015)




----------



## Greebo (Feb 14, 2015)

The Mayor's showing up at 2pm, sans regalia, to be given a large postcard, before he attends another engagement in Croydon.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Feb 14, 2015)

Greebo said:


> The Mayor's showing up at 2pm, sans regalia, to be given *a large postcard*, before he attends another engagement in Croydon.



I wonder where he is going to put that?


----------



## Greebo (Feb 14, 2015)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> I wonder where he is going to put that?


He handed it back after the photo op.  Don't be giving me ideas about where it could be stuck.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 16, 2015)

A bit of shameless photobombing from the day.  Those who got there enjoyed it, and it really was just intended as a bit of fun after a year of one bit of bad news after another.

Thanks to everyone (including the 49ers) who made the day possible, helped out with it, or turned up - the general vibe of the day was great.  Even if I don't remember all of your names, I do remember your work and your good attitude.


----------



## Gniewosz (Feb 16, 2015)

Greebo said:


> A bit of shameless photobombing from the day.  Those who got there enjoyed it, and it really was just intended as a bit of fun after a year of one bit of bad news after another.
> 
> Thanks to everyone (including the 49ers) who made the day possible, helped out with it, or turned up - the general vibe of the day was great.  Even if I don't remember all of your names, I do remember your work and your good attitude.



Really enjoyed the event... just what was needed to soothe the soul  But ate way too much sugar with all the yummy home made cakes :-(


----------



## Greebo (Feb 16, 2015)

Nice coverage here http://www.brixtonblog.com/we-love-cressingham-residents-hold-event-to-show/28179
also a bit more on the save cressingham FB page


----------



## Gniewosz (Feb 18, 2015)

Have others seen Cllr Matt Bennett's tweets on council tenant rights on Cressingham Gardens?... basically they will have to give up their secure tenancies to stay if council demolishes.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Feb 24, 2015)

Here's an FoI worth following.

Cllr Cameron you might recall has taken claim as being the person responsible for 'initiating' the Cressingham regeneration / gentrification.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 24, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Here's an FoI worth following.
> 
> Cllr Cameron you might recall has taken claim as being the person responsible for 'initiating' the Cressingham regeneration / gentrification.


Oh yes, I remember _her_ well.    Insufferable IMHO.

And that's quite an achievement, my memory for names and faces is usually appalling.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 24, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Nice coverage here http://www.brixtonblog.com/we-love-cressingham-residents-hold-event-to-show/28179
> also a bit more on the save cressingham FB page



I would have come up on that Sat but got sidetracked into helping out at Guinness Trust.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 24, 2015)

Gniewosz said:


> Have others seen Cllr Matt Bennett's tweets on council tenant rights on Cressingham Gardens?... basically they will have to give up their secure tenancies to stay if council demolishes.
> 
> View attachment 67848



So they want to set up a Special Purpose Vehicle for the "regeneration" of the estate? This means they could exclude RTB?

I do not understand how they can do this. If , for example, and estate is transferred to an RSL its normal that existing Council Tenants retain the RTB on transfer.

Also looks to me that they are thinking of using the model that they are working up for the Somerleyton road project.

Effectively what Bennett is saying is that if you want to keep a Council tenancy then you have to bid to get another property elsewhere.

The ease of doing that of course depends on the Category you have when bidding.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 24, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> I would have come up on that Sat but got sidetracked into helping out at Guinness Trust.


The Guinness Trust Tenants's need was greater, anyway.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 25, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> So they want to set up a Special Purpose Vehicle for the "regeneration" of the estate? This means they could exclude RTB?
> 
> I do not understand how they can do this. If , for example, and estate is transferred to an RSL its normal that existing Council Tenants retain the RTB on transfer.
> 
> ...


1) Yes
2) This is Lambeth - duh!  You can't expect legal niceties to matter.
3) Yes 
4) But it's been repeatedly also been stated that every tenant will be offered a decant to somewhere on the estate (which will be a lot more expensive if it's a newbuild and still in council hands), therefore any bid for somewhere off the estate is (by implication) self-inflicted...

Lambeth council working with tenants, my flabby white arse!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 27, 2015)

Tricky Skills editor Gniewosz 
We had a circular from Lambeth delivered this morning. As you're no doubt aware, in December 2014, the council took the decision that Cressingham and 5 other estates would bear the brunt of development of the council's ambition to put another 1000 council homes in the borough.
They claim to have "now undertaken the necessary financial analysis on the refurbishment options (Options 1 to 3). We have worked with residents on these costings,and even using a best-case scenario the lowest cost for refurbishment of the whole estate is still three times what the council can afford, and it would not be right to continue to consult with residents about an option that is simply unaffordable and cannot happen ".
So, as we were cynically aware, the consultation is a sham. It looks like an FoI on the "financial analysis" is required, to make sure they're not still using their hoary and inaccurate £14-16 million figure, which the residents' independent survey established to be inflated by 7-8 million. Tricky, if I send a scan of the doc to you, could you do the FoI/use the doc as a basis for a bit more investigative journalism?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Feb 27, 2015)

ViolentPanda Happy to. Thanks for the heads up. The whole estate regeneration has been a sham. And that's putting it mildly. Feel free to send anything on.

Thanks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 27, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> ViolentPanda Happy to. Thanks for the heads up. The whole estate regeneration has been a sham. And that's putting it mildly. Feel free to send anything on.
> 
> Thanks.



Sent.
Over the weekend I'm going to try to put together a chronology of the twists and turns, but from here it's a stitch-up.
I really do hope they've been stupid enough to use their own costings for this!


----------



## Single Aspect (Feb 27, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Sent.
> Over the weekend I'm going to try to put together a chronology of the twists and turns, but from here it's a stitch-up.
> I really do hope they've been stupid enough to use their own costings for this!


I'd be interested to see it if you're allowed to post it to public webspace Flickr etc. Thanks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 27, 2015)

Single Aspect said:


> I'd be interested to see it if you're allowed to post it to public webspace Flickr etc. Thanks.



Sorry, I don't have a Flickr account or similar. If you send me a private message/start a "conversation" (mouse over the "inbox" tab at the top right of the page, then click on "start a new conversation" at the bottom of the drop-down menu) containing an e-mail address, I can send them to you.


----------



## Single Aspect (Feb 27, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Sorry, I don't have a Flickr account or similar. If you send me a private message/start a "conversation" (mouse over the "inbox" tab at the top right of the page, then click on "start a new conversation" at the bottom of the drop-down menu) containing an e-mail address, I can send them to you.



Oh there's nothing secret about my email address it's blog [at] singleaspect [dot] org [dot] uk thanks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 27, 2015)

Single Aspect said:


> Oh there's nothing secret about my email address it's blog [at] singleaspect [dot] org [dot] uk thanks.



Sent!


----------



## Single Aspect (Feb 28, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Sent!


"We’ve worked with residents on the costings of refurbishment and even on the most conservative and optimistic forecast it would cost three times what the council can afford just to refurbish existing homes."
This is the lie that needs to be challenged and is the line that jumps out from both the leaflet and the almost identical posting here http://lambethlabour-labourclp132.nationbuilder.com/why_we_re_rebuilding_cressingham_gardens


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Feb 28, 2015)

Single Aspect said:


> "We’ve worked with residents on the costings of refurbishment and even on the most conservative and optimistic forecast it would cost three times what the council can afford just to refurbish existing homes."
> This is the lie that needs to be challenged and is the line that jumps out from both the leaflet and the almost identical posting here http://lambethlabour-labourclp132.nationbuilder.com/why_we_re_rebuilding_cressingham_gardens



I think it's clear from the last paragraph that they want to demolish.

_"We have the opportunity at Cressingham Gardens to build a new estate, fit for its time, giving families who are badly housed today the same chance at a new home as the couple I met on the estate last autumn did some thirty years ago. Given the scale of the housing crisis we face, it’s an opportunity that we must take."_


----------



## Single Aspect (Feb 28, 2015)

_


Dexter Deadwood said:



			fit for its time
		
Click to expand...

_
Those four words are so rude and dismissive of the existing architecture when its entirely possible, and indeed likely, that the first plans put forward will consist of a majority of single aspect flats facing the park with their backs to the street. That will have to be challenged by the GLA and a second proposal put forward before anything like decent design is achieved on the land, and this in spite of the fact that what stands is already more than fit for purpose.  The whole thing is deeply depressing, and unnecessary.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 28, 2015)

Single Aspect said:


> "We’ve worked with residents on the costings of refurbishment and even on the most conservative and optimistic forecast it would cost three times what the council can afford just to refurbish existing homes."
> This is the lie that needs to be challenged and is the line that jumps out from both the leaflet and the almost identical posting here http://lambethlabour-labourclp132.nationbuilder.com/why_we_re_rebuilding_cressingham_gardens



Just dropped the following comment on that site (I bet it gets moderated away into the ether!):

"I'm disgusted but unsurprised at the spin that Cllr Bennett is putting on the Cressingham Gardens story (I live on the estate).  Lambeth Council have been constructing a narrative about this since 2012 - a narrative that presents the council as having done its' best for the people on Cressingham, when in reality what we've had are ineptness, evasions, elisions and downright incompetence. To name but a few recent instances: 

We've had Cllr Marcia Cameron claiming at Housing Question Time (an event held in a church on Trinity Rise) that she'd spoken to tenants on the estate, which gave her the idea that the estate needed to be regenerated - no tenant has acknowledged speaking with Cllr Cameron.
we've had a farcical "households needs" survey conducted in mid to late February that couldn't even set out its questions clearly - a survey that's the subject of a complaint to the council and the polling company.
We've had the council representing the cost of refurbishment as "£14 million-plus" - Our own independent survey found the cost to be £7-9 million at worst.
We've had 6 flats empty and bricked up for 15 years, without any attempt at remedial work, based on  a single survey that found subsidence/slip - the flats are still here 15 years later, and are eminently repairable, according to building specialists.  

I could carry on, but frankly I'm not convinced that Cllr Bennett and his associates care about what those currently living on Cressingham Gardens think, except where the councillor can use a resident's personal story as the basis of a bit of spin for his puerile apologia for his having decided (while we're still supposedly in the consultation phase) to go with regeneration rather than refurbishment. And yes, I know how many people are technically-homeless in Lambeth.  That's not a justification for tearing up the green spaces on half a dozen estates for a PROJECTED net gain, especially given Lambeth's past supine incompetence with regard to social and affordable housing gain on private developments."


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 28, 2015)

It's crystal-clear from Bennett's apologia that it's option 5 (full redevelopment - see page two of this thread for details) that's on the cards - the only option, coincidentally, that means that residents lose the Rotunda Community Centre. Great thinking, Lambeth-erase a series of communities and replace them with...fuck all.
Also, just to make clear, Cressingham isn't the only target, here (a projected 150+ new homes, although how Lambeth will finance this without losing 2/3rds to the private sector, I'm unsure about - projected cost of regeneration is around £70 million). Central Hill and four other estates are in the front line for this, and Central Hill are already being told by Lambeth that there's no refurbishment option for them, only regeneration.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 28, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I
> Also, just to make clear, Cressingham isn't the only target, here (a projected 150+ new homes, although how Lambeth will finance this without losing 2/3rds to the private sector, I'm unsure about - projected cost of regeneration is around £70 million). Central Hill and four other estates are in the front line for this, and Central Hill are already being told by Lambeth that there's no refurbishment option for them, only regeneration.


The other thing to bear in mind is, that even if Lambeth council completely knock down this estate and build on it, the current options would generate (at most) 15 extra flats.

I repeat:  Several years of upheaval, disruption, mess, noise etc to knock down and rebuild this entire estate of 300+ households, for just 15 extra dwellings.  At most.  Clearly we, who live here, are ungrateful selfish nimbies.

Edtited to add:  Correction, option 5 would maybe provide an extra 50 flats.  I still believe that the disruption, expense, and negative impact on the rest of us isn't worth it.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Feb 28, 2015)

Here's the BBuzz piece.

I'm not going to FoI this one. The data is already included in the Cabinet report [pdf] for March.

To be fair it offers a comparison between the three survery quotes: the Council commissioned quote, the Lambeth Living quote and the survey commissioned by the residents.

It is slightly confusing as quotes for three different levels of repair were sourced. You can't accurately compare them.

Unless I have missed something?


----------



## CH1 (Feb 28, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Here's the BBuzz piece.
> 
> I'm not going to FoI this one. The data is already included in the Cabinet report [pdf] for March.
> 
> ...


Had you studied the offer document appended to Neil Vokes report for cabinet? (as you have highlighted above)
What does this mean?  "4. Where a tenant chooses to remain on the estate, the new tenancy will be an assured lifetime tenancy. Where a tenant chooses to move away from the estate they will have the opportunity to bid for a secure tenancy or an assured tenancy elsewhere in the Borough."

I'm not well up in housing terminology, but to me it sounds as though they are strongly steering people who are insisting on their rights into moving out.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Feb 28, 2015)

CH1 - yes, I tried to make sense of all the add ons to the report. I confess to getting confused and so left them out.

These are certainly part of the story, but not the main story for this blog post. I'd be happy to perhaps try and get my head around the details and write something further.


----------



## Single Aspect (Feb 28, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Had you studied the offer document appended to Neil Vokes report for cabinet? (as you have highlighted above)
> What does this mean?  "4. Where a tenant chooses to remain on the estate, the new tenancy will be an assured lifetime tenancy. Where a tenant chooses to move away from the estate they will have the opportunity to bid for a secure tenancy or an assured tenancy elsewhere in the Borough."
> 
> I'm not well up in housing terminology, but to me it sounds as though they are strongly steering people who are insisting on their rights into moving out.



Read the Expert Post at the bottom of this page, it's very informative about secure and assured tenancies.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/what...tween-a-secure-and-assured-tenancy/351.thread


----------



## CH1 (Feb 28, 2015)

Single Aspect said:


> Read the Expert Post at the bottom of this page, it's very informative about secure and assured tenancies.
> http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/what...tween-a-secure-and-assured-tenancy/351.thread


Thanks.
There is also a detailed guide to the differences in the appendix to the report Tricky Skills quoted.

The glaring difference is that assured tenants do not have right to buy.
I had originally wondered if it was about rent levels, but on reflection it seems more about not doing up properties only to have them subsequently lost to the housing stock through RTB.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 28, 2015)

Okay guys, the gloves are well and truly off now.  If the council can change the rules, so can people in this area.  If they want to remove the 3 options we found the most palatable from the board, we can add something.

Emergency meeting today, followed by more to come.  I'm not saying we'll definitely win this, but we can at least make the council think twice about treating council estate residents (ie everybody here, regardless of what type of tenure)  like this.

We're going to need publicity, help fundraising, ideas, you name it.  

But it can be done.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 28, 2015)

Single Aspect said:


> http://lambethlabour-labourclp132.nationbuilder.com/why_we_re_rebuilding_cressingham_gardens





> That’s why we stood for election last year on an ambitious pledge to build 1000 extra homes for council rent in the borough. *This is more than have been built in a generation*. If the government and the mayor of London won’t build, we won’t stand on the side-lines and watch the housing crisis get worse.



My emphasis. The "generation" also covers a considerable time when Labour party was in power.

What did the last Labour governments do for Council housing? New Labour was hostile to Council housing. Encouraging Councils to set up ALMOs and coerce tenants into transferring to RSLs.

It was only at the very tail end of Labour party rule that moves were made (under Gordon Brown) to make it easier for Councils to borrow to build new Council housing.

What Cllr Bennet does not say is that the lack of housing cannot be solely blamed on the Tories/ LDs.

It was only when New Labour realised that it was taking its core vote on Council estates for granted that it changed its tune.



> We’re looking at every available scrap of council land in the borough. On Somerleyton Road in Brixton we’re working with local residents to establish a housing co-op to manage over 300 new homes, with a mix of council, intermediate and private rented properties,  building a sustainable mixed community in an area rapidly becoming unaffordable. But there is very little spare land in a borough like Lambeth. Instead we have to look to our estates, many of which were built at a time when London’s population was much lower than it is today and was continuing to fall. Many estates are built to a low-density and we know we could increase the number of homes for council rent and help more families escape the grip of the housing crisis.



They have been selling off land and housing. Ex Short life that could have been used.

On Somerleyton road they evicted a community that was willing to work with the Council to leave a block of flats empty. Refusing any compromise.

Also on Somerleyton road ( which I still try to keep up on) several times Bennett has gone on about the plans for a Coop and different types of housing. I have yet to see any practical detail how this will work. Nor has the local community to my knowledge. In actual fact the affordable element of the scheme will be 40% of the total housing. Which is the same as a private developer is supposed to build. In the case of Somerleyton road the Council took decision to retain the freehold. I doubt that the housing will be Council housing. Some may be at Council level rents. That is not something that there has been clarity on from Council/ Brixton Green.

The estates are not imo built to low density. They were built to provide humane places to live with light and greenery. I have noticed Lambeth keep saying low density is an issue but as I cycle around Lambeth I see estates. The space between buildings is there for a reason. Its part of the design.

There is an unpleasant edge to Bennetts post that if you oppose this "regeneration" you are being selfish. The lack of housing is not the fault of existing Council tenants. Bennett would be better to criticise the foreign super rich who buy up houses in London and then do not use them most of the year.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 28, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Here's the BBuzz piece.






> The whole consultation process has been a sham. You invite residents to have their say, and then when they tell you something that you don’t want to hear then the original question is changed.
> 
> This doesn’t bode well for the Culture Consultation.



Good point and I agree.


----------



## Gniewosz (Feb 28, 2015)

Single Aspect said:


> "We’ve worked with residents on the costings of refurbishment and even on the most conservative and optimistic forecast it would cost three times what the council can afford just to refurbish existing homes."
> This is the lie that needs to be challenged and is the line that jumps out from both the leaflet and the almost identical posting here http://lambethlabour-labourclp132.nationbuilder.com/why_we_re_rebuilding_cressingham_gardens



Key question is around the budget allocation to Cressingham of £3.4m… another interesting story that we haven’t gotten to the bottom of. What is the right level of allocation? Well in a recent FoI, Lambeth Living provided a whole lot of LHS Updates for each Ward (look like PR brochures). In it it states “In 2013/14 – the first full year of the LHS – we invested £91m in over 3,000 homes”… By my rough calculations this is ~£30k per home they are spending. Using £30k per home as the average across the borough, then just for the council tenants’ homes, the budget allocated to Cressingham ought to be around £6m, and if they are assuming also that £30k is averaged over the leaseholder properties as well, then we should be seeing a budget of £9m (approx 300 homes x £30k) for Cressingham Gardens. All they are essentially saying is that they ****ed up their original budgeting across the entire borough... waiting for the real numbers to come out and there will be a guaranteed scandal


----------



## Gniewosz (Feb 28, 2015)

Greebo said:


> The other thing to bear in mind is, that even if Lambeth council completely knock down this estate and build on it, the current options would generate (at most) 15 extra flats.
> 
> I repeat:  Several years of upheaval, disruption, mess, noise etc to knock down and rebuild this entire estate of 300+ households, for just 15 extra dwellings.  At most.  Clearly we, who live here, are ungrateful selfish nimbies.
> 
> Edtited to add:  Correction, option 5 would maybe provide an extra 50 flats.  I still believe that the disruption, expense, and negative impact on the rest of us isn't worth it.



They are still using the old numbers that they issued last year in July and haven't bothered to update anything.  Their Option 5 only produces an extra 63 "affordable homes"... But they still haven't added back any replacement 4 bed homes, which is apparently where the real shortage is in Lambeth.

Also the NPV (Net Present Value) of Option 5 when calculated is a whopping negative £26m, i.e. in today's money, the net cost to the council to build is £26m, or equivalent to £415k to build each new council/affordable home.  Note, this is after the private sales and all the council rents ... really poor financial management.


----------



## Single Aspect (Feb 28, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> New Labour was hostile to Council housing. Encouraging Councils to set up ALMOs and coerce tenants into transferring to RSLs.



Entirely true, Polly Toynbee wrote about this when she lived for a while on I think Clapham Park Estate and John Prescott (remember him) got into a lot of trouble for blackmailing tenants and withholding maintenance unless they voted for transfer. Guardian article linked here:-

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/sep/27/labour2004.politics



Gramsci said:


> There is an unpleasant edge to Bennetts post that if you oppose this "regeneration" you are being selfish. The lack of housing is not the fault of existing Council tenants. Bennett would be better to criticise the foreign super rich who buy up houses in London and then do not use them most of the year.



I couldn't agree more.  The underlying tone of the whole piece is that "we need to do this for Lambeth and you are standing in our way".  Very poor approach.


----------



## Single Aspect (Mar 1, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Had you studied the offer document appended to Neil Vokes report for cabinet? (as you have highlighted above)
> What does this mean?  "4. Where a tenant chooses to remain on the estate, the new tenancy will be an assured lifetime tenancy. Where a tenant chooses to move away from the estate they will have the opportunity to bid for a secure tenancy or an assured tenancy elsewhere in the Borough."
> 
> I'm not well up in housing terminology, but to me it sounds as though they are strongly steering people who are insisting on their rights into moving out.


It simply means that since a rebuilt CG will not be under the council any longer that the tenancies will automatically become assured rather than secure. This is explained very well in the document I linked to elsewhere from Inside Housing, indeed that's where I learned about it yesterday.  At least that's how I understand it. If you're a council tenant on a council owned and run estate you have a secure tenancy including RTB but if the estate passes to a HA or other body such as under an SPV then the tenancy becomes an assured lifetime tenancy.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 1, 2015)

BTW some of you who don't live on the estate have asked what you can do:  There are 2 things at least this week, involving time rather than money, and one on Monday week (9th March).  

PM for details if interested, I'll get back to you when possible.  Busy at the moment letting others in this block know what happened at yesterday's emergency meeting and what's planned for the next 9 days.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2015)

Single Aspect said:


> Entirely true, Polly Toynbee wrote about this when she lived for a while on I think Clapham Park Estate and John Prescott (remember him) got into a lot of trouble for blackmailing tenants and withholding maintenance unless they voted for transfer. Guardian article linked here:-
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/sep/27/labour2004.politics
> 
> ...



The sad thing is, he may claim that "we need to do this for Lambeth", but he can't see beyond how it'll look on his CV (and that of his fellow MP-wannabes) - he and his fellow councillors will be dismantling existing communities, and while they'll claim "well, almost everyone will still be living on their estate", that doesn't mean that the community itself will be preserved. Community cohesion can be very fragile.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 2, 2015)

I'd forgotten all about the Lambeth Living 30 week programme of repairs that was due to start on 15 February. Any sign of this yet? It seems odd to be investing in the repairs when we now know what the intention was all along.


----------



## Single Aspect (Mar 2, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> I'd forgotten all about the Lambeth Living 30 week programme of repairs that was due to start on 15 February. Any sign of this yet? It seems odd to be investing in the repairs when we now know what the intention was all along.


There was a clue in the phrase "meanwhile works" as I understand it. Heard from Gniewosz.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 2, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> I'd forgotten all about the Lambeth Living 30 week programme of repairs that was due to start on 15 February. Any sign of this yet? <snip>


A small amount of scaffolding has gone up (not enough for even one small block), and there's been work on the crocodile plates at the main drivers' entrance but apart from that?  Nothing that I've seen.


----------



## Gniewosz (Mar 2, 2015)

Greebo said:


> A small amount of scaffolding has gone up (not enough for even one small block), and there's been work on the crocodile plates at the main drivers' entrance but apart from that?  Nothing that I've seen.



Probably still 2 months off starting... They are apparently still dealing with the nominations for contractors and then have to issue the second s20 notice for comment.  They really dragged their feet last year.


----------



## High Definition (Mar 3, 2015)

Have just been reading through the report to Cabinet on 9th March.  Agree 100% with the criticisms made by others in the last week (Lambeth's repair figures don't stack up, why do they think it's okay to ignore the views of the 70 - 80% of residents who want Option One? etc, etc), so won't repeat them here.  

The report has another big failure, however, which doesn't seem to have been picked up by objectors so far.   

This is the total absence of any reference to the damaging impact Options Two to Five will have on the green and tranquil south west corner of Brockwell Park and the way it will diminish the enjoyment that users have of the park.

See below for some shots of low rise buildings on the boundary between the estate and the park and a sketch of how these compare with the four storey block of flats that would replace them under Option Two.  Options Three to Five involve even more demolition and rebuild so would be far worse.

Why is there no reference to this in the report?  It's not as if Lambeth officers aren't aware that the redevelopment of the estate is likely to damage the Brockwell Park Conservation area. 

Only last month the Council's Conservation and Urban Design team told the Brixton Society that "this office works closely with colleagues in Housing Regeneration and we have briefed them on the heritage issues around Cressingham Gardens".  

This, presumably, includes briefing them on the recommendation from English Heritage (issued in December 2013) that Lambeth consider extending the boundaries of the Brockwell Park Conservation Area to include the Cressingham Gardens Estate and explaining why Lambeth officers have chosen to ignore the recommendation.

Seems to me it's totally outrageous for a report to come to Cabinet which could result in decisions being taken which will have a major impact on the Brockwell Park Conservation Area without any consideration of the Council's duties to protect our parks and open spaces.


----------



## Twattor (Mar 3, 2015)

Yeah. Bugger that.

Having had a look at the cabinet report posted by Tricky Skills it is pretty obvious that Lambeth never had any intention of refurbishing the estate, and that any semblance of consultation was merely a cynical attempt to make it appear that the wishes of the residents had been considered, when in reality it is more likely that a decision was made the moment Ian Sayer’s budget came back.  The introductory table where the options are set out sums this up – option 1: too expensive; options 2-4: not interested; option 5: how do we swing this politically?

Despite their assertions to the contrary, I don’t see how this can be anything other than a PPP or joint venture in the vein of Myatt’s Field.  They talk of 464 units to replace the existing 306 units.  Basic back-of-a-fag-packet calcs assuming an equal split of 1,2,3, bed units (conservative for social housing) and Boris's space standards you'd be looking at ballpark £60m.  If they can’t find £9m to refurbish, where is this £60m going to come from?  How many private sales units will have to be built to generate this much profit for a private developer to agree to a joint venture?

There'll be some architecturally rubbish and cheap to build proposal (viz Myatts or Junction) pushed through that no private developer would stand a chance of getting planning for, simply because it has council support.  This will be followed by an application to vary the permission because the proportion of affordable damages the viability (now a material consideration for planning).

Next stop 200 social units, 800 private sale and fuck off.


----------



## High Definition (Mar 4, 2015)

Greebo said:


> BTW some of you who don't live on the estate have asked what you can do:  There are 2 things at least this week, involving time rather than money, and one on Monday week (9th March).
> 
> PM for details if interested, I'll get back to you when possible.  Busy at the moment letting others in this block know what happened at yesterday's emergency meeting and what's planned for the next 9 days.



Is there going to be a deputation to the Cabinet meeting on 9th March?   I've just checked out the rules for this on Lambeth's website.  I expect others know all this already but was a surprise to me that Lambeth now expect you to fill in a form, providing the names and addresses of 19 supporters (each of whom has to sign the form).  Has to be submitted two full working days in advance of the meeting - in this case by pm on Thursday.

Here's a link to the page on the Lambeth website - includes a link to the request form.


----------



## editor (Mar 4, 2015)

Please PM anything that needs publicity and action and I'll slap it on the Buzz website.


----------



## High Definition (Mar 4, 2015)

High Definition said:


> Is there going to be a deputation to the Cabinet meeting on 9th March?   I've just checked out the rules for this on Lambeth's website.  I expect others know all this already but was a surprise to me that Lambeth now expect you to fill in a form, providing the names and addresses of 19 supporters (each of whom has to sign the form).  Has to be submitted two full working days in advance of the meeting - in this case by pm on Thursday.
> 
> Here's a link to the page on the Lambeth website - includes a link to the request form.


Forgot to include the link - here it is
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/elections...ak-at-a-council-or-scrutiny-committee-meeting


----------



## editor (Mar 4, 2015)

I've posted up Twattor's comments here:
Council consultation whitewash? Lambeth ‘never had any intention’ of refurbishing Cressingham Gardens


----------



## Greebo (Mar 4, 2015)

editor said:


> Please PM anything that needs publicity and action and I'll slap it on the Buzz website.


ViolentPanda and Gniewosz I'd really appreciate it if you did this (or get others to) as I'm just not up to it right now.

Right, back to bed.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 5, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Here's the BBuzz piece.
> 
> I'm not going to FoI this one. The data is already included in the Cabinet report [pdf] for March.



Looking at the PDF Cabinet report. Its clear that refurbishing and keeping the estate was never an option the Council would support. So why did they put the residents of the estate through all this time wasting consultation?




> The Council also does not consider any pure refurbishment option to be in accordance with the Council policy to review its estates and identify locations for delivering more homes
> at Council rent levels. Cressingham Gardens has been included in the estates regeneration
> programme, as set out in the Cabinet Paper of December 2014, because there is an
> opportunity to deliver new homes.



page 12 of report

This is despite the consultants hired by Council "Social Life" to see what residents wanted finding that majority wanted refurbishment of existing estate. (page 18 of report)

Interesting the report looks at "risks" (pages 18 and 19)

That is risks to Council not residents.

Report says a project team is in place and a "risk register" will be kept. Sounds more like wartime planning.

"risks" are:


residents do not engage and oppose plans
residents do not validate ( agree with) data on regeneration. demolition and new build are based
residents take legal action to stop demolition options, refuse to vacate homes

All sound like good ideas to me

The "Risk Register" to be kept as this project is forced on people just goes to show that the Council know the decision to "regenerate" the estate is unpopular.

Its also confrontational of Council to do this. Its not the residents that are the problem here. Despite what the Council "Risk Register" says. 

It sound Orwellian to me. Like something out of 1984.


----------



## editor (Mar 5, 2015)

I've set the wheels in motion - let's hope we get a great response: 
Brixton bands, artists and businesses: the people of Cressingham Gardens need your support NOW

Please share/retweet at will, and if you know any well known acts/performers/comedians who may want to get involved, please forward the article to them.


----------



## technical (Mar 6, 2015)

I've had a look back right through this thread, but can't find any link to the council's proposals themselves. Nor can I find them on Lambeth's website. 

Can anybody point me in the right direction please?


----------



## Single Aspect (Mar 6, 2015)

technical said:


> I've had a look back right through this thread, but can't find any link to the council's proposals themselves. Nor can I find them on Lambeth's website.
> 
> Can anybody point me in the right direction please?


It's more a question of what's been ruled out at the moment. Of the original so called Options, 1 to 3 have been ruled out which means the cabinet will decide on 4 or 5 (partial or complete demolition) later in the year.  That is my understanding as a non-resident following events.


----------



## technical (Mar 6, 2015)

Single Aspect said:


> It's more a question of what's been ruled out at the moment. Of the original so called Options, 1 to 3 have been ruled out which means the cabinet will decide on 4 or 5 (partial or complete demolition) later in the year.  That is my understanding as a non-resident following events.



Thanks. But are either of these options available to look at anywhere online (or even physically)?


----------



## Single Aspect (Mar 6, 2015)

technical said:


> Thanks. But are either of these options available to look at anywhere online (or even physically)?


They are on page two. All the five options with clear graphics. Articles #43 and #44.


----------



## technical (Mar 6, 2015)

For some reason i can't see them on this pc. Just a blank comment box. Thanks though - will try on another machine later.


----------



## Single Aspect (Mar 6, 2015)

technical said:


> For some reason i can't see them on this pc. Just a blank comment box. Thanks though - will try on another machine later.



Option 4 http://www.singleaspect.org.uk/cg/p7.jpg

Option 5  http://www.singleaspect.org.uk/cg/p8.jpg


----------



## technical (Mar 7, 2015)

Thank you - appreciated.


----------



## Single Aspect (Mar 7, 2015)

technical said:


> Thank you - appreciated.



5.5 Looking forwards, a Cabinet paper will be presented in May 2015, which sets out the detailed business case and strategy for taking forwards regeneration of Cressingham Gardens. In the intervening period, the Council plans to present to residents the conclusions set out in this Cabinet paper and then to seek a test of opinion from residents concerning their personal views of the prospects for regeneration and their personal aspirations for the outcome of regeneration, as well as testing their views on the offers made to them (as per those attached to this Cabinet paper).

http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/doc...ack Monday 09-Mar-2015 19.00 Cabinet.pdf?T=10

CABINET Date: Monday 9 March 2015 Time: 7.00 pm Venue: Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW


----------



## High Definition (Mar 7, 2015)

Single Aspect said:


> 5.5 Looking forwards, a Cabinet paper will be presented in May 2015, which sets out the detailed business case and strategy for taking forwards regeneration of Cressingham Gardens. In the intervening period, the Council plans to present to residents the conclusions set out in this Cabinet paper and then to seek a test of opinion from residents concerning their personal views of the prospects for regeneration and their personal aspirations for the outcome of regeneration, as well as testing their views on the offers made to them (as per those attached to this Cabinet paper).
> 
> http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/g8963/Public reports pack Monday 09-Mar-2015 19.00 Cabinet.pdf?T=10
> 
> CABINET Date: Monday 9 March 2015 Time: 7.00 pm Venue: Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW


Has anyone else noticed that the Cabinet report is strangely shy about the number of the new homes that will be "let at Council rent levels"?  

One of the arguments used to justify Options Four and Five is that they will provide new affordable homes to meet housing need in the borough - this is in the introduction to the report.  

However, when you go to the paragraphs in the main body of the report on Options Four and Five, these only give figures for the total number of new homes that will be provided - but nothing on the break down between affordable rented and market housing

I can't see anything in the report that would rule out most of the new homes being sold as market housing.  

Take Option Five.   The report says there will be 464 "new homes" (replacing 306).  Lambeth have said existing Council tenants have the right to move to another rented home on the estate.  As there are 185 Council tenants now that means 185 homes for rent at Council rent levels.  But what about the other 279?

Most of these could end up as market housing for sale - no doubt justified in terms of "viability".

So much for the argument that Cressingham has to be demolished to help meet housing need in Lambeth.  Could be a useful point to argue with local Councillors.


----------



## Single Aspect (Mar 7, 2015)

High Definition said:


> Has anyone else noticed that the Cabinet report is strangely shy about the number of the new homes that will be "let at Council rent levels"?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



From 5 | Full redevelopment
"The Council believes there are opportunities to increase the number of new homes through good design and that this increase will improve
the viability of the option which in turn means more additional, new homes at Council rent levels."

I read that to mean 'there is scope to sell as many new houses as we like to bring us out of debt'.

Therefore I agree with your assessment of the council's intentions.


----------



## Gniewosz (Mar 7, 2015)

editor said:


> I've set the wheels in motion - let's hope we get a great response:
> Brixton bands, artists and businesses: the people of Cressingham Gardens need your support NOW
> 
> Please share/retweet at will, and if you know any well known acts/performers/comedians who may want to get involved, please forward the article to them.



Funding collection page up and running... and first early donations in...  http://www.gofundme.com/savecressingham   
Incredible to be getting support from the wider community! thankyou !!!


----------



## Greebo (Mar 7, 2015)

Gniewosz said:


> <snip>Incredible to be getting support from the wider community! thankyou !!!


It's easy to forget how many people support social housing as a principle, and would prefer more estates to be on a relatively human scale like this one.

Well done getting that site up and running, I know that you and others have been extremely busy this week.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 8, 2015)

Banner making, noon in (or outside?) the Rotunda today.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 8, 2015)

Single Aspect said:


> From 5 | Full redevelopment
> "The Council believes there are opportunities to increase the number of new homes through good design and that this increase will improve
> the viability of the option which in turn means more additional, new homes at Council rent levels."
> 
> ...



It has just occurred to me that, given the council's proposals for phased construction and decant, they'll be able to efficiently segregate council tenants from home-buyers purely by virtue of the phasing.


----------



## Manter (Mar 8, 2015)

Good banners on the railings! May be worth putting some A4 quick summaries of situation and what people can do next to them as I saw lots of people stopping and looking, and reading notice boards about flower meadows to try and figure out what was going on


----------



## High Definition (Mar 8, 2015)

Manter said:


> Good banners on the railings! May be worth putting some A4 quick summaries of situation and what people can do next to them as I saw lots of people stopping and looking, and reading notice boards about flower meadows to try and figure out what was going on[/QUOTE
> 
> Good idea.  I don't live on the estate, only found out about the Council's plans when I noticed the banner on the side of one of the blocks but was difficult to find out more.  I think would be good to make some A4 posters of Option Five to give the joggers and the dog walkers an idea of what the Council wants to do.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 8, 2015)

Manter said:


> Good banners on the railings! May be worth putting some A4 quick summaries of situation and what people can do next to them as I saw lots of people stopping and looking, and reading notice boards about flower meadows to try and figure out what was going on


I'll try to pass that on - thanks for the feedback.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 9, 2015)

Interesting questions raised by the mysterious Inside Lambeth.


----------



## editor (Mar 9, 2015)

I'm still beavering away at the benefit. I'm looking for a date in April and we may be doing two shows - a band/DJ one and a comedy show. I'll post up more as soon as the bill formulates.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Mar 9, 2015)

editor said:


> I'm still beavering away at the benefit. I'm looking for a date in April and we may be doing two shows - a band/DJ one and a comedy show. I'll post up more as soon as the bill formulates.



A bit of comedy would be great especially if it was topical & political.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 9, 2015)

Manter said:


> Good banners on the railings! May be worth putting some A4 quick summaries of situation and what people can do next to them as I saw lots of people stopping and looking, and reading notice boards about flower meadows to try and figure out what was going on



I've just ordered 100 A4 lamination pouches and a hot laminator, so that exactly that can be done. 

Interestingly, some industrious worker from the local housing office has (very poorly) attached notices to the railings about "Garages for rent on Cressingham Gardens". I'm going to ask my comrades-in-arms whether perhaps a bit of "subvertising" is in order.


----------



## Gniewosz (Mar 9, 2015)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> A bit of comedy would be great especially if it was topical & political.



We can provide tons of comedy inspiration from our dealings with Lambeth... including a 75 min attempt at Green Leaf to get an appointment to review the accounts ;-)


----------



## Greebo (Mar 9, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> <snip> I'm going to ask my comrades-in-arms whether perhaps a bit of "subvertising" is in order.


Good idea - they're mostly bored, bright, creative, and competitive.  Few things can get the ideas going better than this rabble.


----------



## editor (Mar 10, 2015)

Update here: 
The fight for homes: Cressingham Gardens residents urge Lambeth Council to avoid ‘regeneration mess’


----------



## 299 old timer (Mar 10, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've just ordered 100 A4 lamination pouches and a hot laminator, so that exactly that can be done.
> 
> Interestingly, some industrious worker from the local housing office has (very poorly) attached notices to the railings about "Garages for rent on Cressingham Gardens". I'm going to ask my comrades-in-arms whether perhaps a bit of "subvertising" is in order.



Those notices to the railings about "Garages for rent on Cressingham Gardens" had been up for months. Have you noticed that they have now appeared down the Hill, - "Garages for rent on Deronda Estate"?
Is Lambeth eyeing up Deronda Estate too?


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Mar 10, 2015)

Another  for the banners on the railings, saw them as a ran past today.


----------



## editor (Mar 10, 2015)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Another  for the banners on the railings, saw them as a ran past today.


Can someone grab some pics?


----------



## Greebo (Mar 10, 2015)

299 old timer said:


> Those notices to the railings about "Garages for rent on Cressingham Gardens" had been up for months. Have you noticed that they have now appeared down the Hill, - "Garages for rent on Deronda Estate"? <snip>


Maximising every last ounce of earning potential innit.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Mar 10, 2015)

editor said:


> Can someone grab some pics?



I'll take my camera with me on my run tomorrow.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 10, 2015)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> I'll take my camera with me on my run tomorrow.


Thanks, those railings are a bit too far (and I'd have to spend far too long outdoors) for me to attempt yet.

Enjoy your run.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2015)

299 old timer said:


> Those notices to the railings about "Garages for rent on Cressingham Gardens" had been up for months. Have you noticed that they have now appeared down the Hill, - "Garages for rent on Deronda Estate"?
> Is Lambeth eyeing up Deronda Estate too?



I think they're just eyeing up some ready cash from commuters who otherwise block the fuck out of roads throughout...well, anywhere with a train or tube station.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 11, 2015)

VP's going to get pictures of the bannner on the roadside of the estate later.


----------



## editor (Mar 11, 2015)

Greebo said:


> VP's going to get pictures of the bannner on the roadside of the estate later.


Please do and I'll stuck 'em up on Buzz. I think we've run something like 30 articles on Cressingham already and we're going to keep going!


----------



## Greebo (Mar 11, 2015)

editor said:


> Please do and I'll stuck 'em up on Buzz. I think we've run something like 30 articles on Cressingham already and we're going to keep going!


Great.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Mar 11, 2015)

View attachment 68678      

More here in larger files;
https://dexterdeadwood.wordpress.com/2015/03/11/cressingham-gardens-lambeth/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2015)

Tulse Hill banner.


----------



## High Definition (Mar 11, 2015)

Was in the audience at Monday's Cabinet meeting and noticed how some of the Cabinet members who spoke (Edbrooke, Meldrum) were banging on about the number of homeless families, the number of people desperately overcrowded, the size of Lambeth's housing register, etc.   Will be interesting to see if the report to Cabinet in May  includes any figures for the percentage of the new homes that will be affordable and the percentage that will sold on the market.  On the basis of what we know about other "regeneration" schemes in the borough, e.g. Somerleyton Road, I doubt the number of genuinely affordable new homes built at Cressingham will be much more than there is on the estate now.  

I've been looking at what Lambeth's planning policies say about affordable housing.  Seem to be two relevant policies

1.  Percentage of affordable homes that have to be provide in new development

Lambeth's target for affordable homes provided (figure is in the 2011 Core Strategy and the draft Lambeth Local Plan issued in 2013) is 40% affordable/60% market where no subsidy is provided.  Lambeth seem to have decided that the 40/60 ratio applies to their own regeneration schemes e.g. at Somerleyton Road where we were told last August that the target was 40% of new homes to be affordable and 60% let at market rents. 

2.   Developments which replace existing affordable homes

This is covered by Policy H3 of the draft Local Lambeth Plan.  This says that the new developments should provide at least the same number of affordable homes as existing and the floor space should be no less.  However, Lambeth have given themselves a get-out card for Council regeneration schemes because Policy H3 says that "Exceptionally, the loss of affordable housing may be acceptable where this arises from the managed replacement of housing through estate regeneration" and where the development among other things will "create new units of higher quality and design standard".

Apply both of these tests to Option 5  - 40% affordable and no reduction in the number of affordable homes compared with existing - and it comes 185 or 6 affordable homes, less under the other Options.

Here's the calculation.  The Cabinet report says Option 5 will provide 464 new homes.  If 40% are affordable and the rest market, that works out at 186 affordable rented homes.  Policy H3 requires that the existing affordable rented homes should be replaced - so that's 185 affordable rented. Not sure if this is a coincidence, but it's same number each time.  The report also says that Council tenants on the estate will have right to move to another home on the estate.  If they all take up that choice, this means Option 5 will provide just one new affordable home to meet other housing needs in Lambeth.

We'll find out that the actual number when the May Cabinet report is published.  I suspect that the new affordable homes argument has been used to persuade housing  Lambeth councillors to toe the line on Cressingham.   If it turns out that the Council's preferred option isn't going to provide any additional affordable housing (or maybe a tiny handful of new flats), then this will be powerful argument to use with local councillors.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 11, 2015)

Went to a lecture by Paul Watt of Birkbeck College this afternoon. He was on the panel of the Cressingham Gardens Question Time event last November.

Theme was local government led regeneration/gentrification.
Cressingham Gardens got several mentions, but what struck me was an earlier scheme he described which is already coming to fruition in Barnett - the West Hendon Estate where the same "no money for repairs" situation led to a council deal with Barratt to create "Hendon Waterside"

The situation is analogous in this respect: the spare land in Cressingham could provide some high rise blocks overlooking Brockwell Park - sort of "Brockwell Heights" as it were.

This reinforces the urgency of what High Definition has been saying about the interplay between the Cressingham Gardens Estate and Brockwell Park.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 11, 2015)

The Leader of Lambeth Council has written in support of the redevelopment of the estate.

Shows how contentious a decision it was if she writes a piece to support it.

She is saying the same as Cllr Bennett. What she is doing is backing her Cabinet member. Its saying that this decision comes from the top.

She also says:



> The Estate Regeneration programme, of which this is a part, presents a golden opportunity to act in the face of the crisis.



So the decision had been made some time ago to demolish or partially demolish the estate. If that was the case why did not Bennett answer the Green party member on the panel at the Housing Question Time when he asked several times if Bennett was ruling out Option One? ( keeping existing estate) Now the argument has moved from it being allegedly to expensive to refurb the existing estate to one that the Council says it can build more housing on the land than is there now. That there is a housing crisis and this is the only way to combat it.

This is a completely different argument. I feel that the residents of Cressingham were misled by Council consultation process that if they put forward a good argument then Option One would be considered. It now reads to me that Option One was in actual practise not an option. 


This is not how to do consultation. Its Kafkaesque consultation. 

Interestingly she cites Dave Hill as support. He writes for Guardian about London issues around housing. He also chaired the Cressingham Gardens "Housing Question Time".

Its worth reading the comments from Cressingham Gardens residents at end of his article.

Dave Hills references to the Housing Question Time leave out one of the academic saying that the Council as a landlord should have been keeping these properties in good repair over the years.

Dave is way to sympathetic to Council view that this is underused land that could contain more housing.

The fact is the Council has been selling of land and housing- ex "Short Life" which it could have kept for social housing. To argue that land is scarce and the only way to build is on existing estates in therefore contradicted by the Councils policy of auctioning off other land and properties.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 11, 2015)

To say again the housing crisis did not start with this government. New Labour under Tony did nothing for housing.

Peck says:



> Nobody needs reminding that we are in the grip of a housing crisis. The numbers speak for themselves. The Tory-led Government has presided over the lowest level of housebuilding since the 1920s and cut the budget for affordable homes by 60%.


----------



## editor (Mar 12, 2015)

I've added a piece on Buzz here - thanks to all for for the photos and contributions. 
Cressingham Gardens protest banners go up as residents fight to save their homes


----------



## Single Aspect (Mar 12, 2015)

editor said:


> I've added a piece on Buzz here - thanks to all for for the photos and contributions.
> Cressingham Gardens protest banners go up as residents fight to save their homes


My reply to the DB comment

@Dumb’s Bumb

I used to agree with your sentiments until I went there and met them, and spoke to them and got to know them. Not one of the people I met is the original tenant therefore none benefitted from the discount but paid market on purchase. All understand very well the disbenefits of RTB and to the best of my knowledge would argue against it.

Furthermore it is the leaseholders on the estate who are organising the campaign with the undoubted support of the council tenants but there it is. The magnificent speech on Monday at LTH was made by a leaseholder.

Most importantly of all the campaign led by the leaseholders at CG are adamant that this campaign is to benefit ALL on the estate and by no means just the leaseholders.

Your post is unjust and before you write more I strongly suggest you go and meet them and talk to them and find out the truth.

Unless you dare not or will not but why not?


----------



## Greebo (Mar 13, 2015)

Final official stage of consultation in the Rotunda tomorrow from about 11am.

Silent protest by residents, supported by anyone who wishes to turn up and has an interest in the matter, outside the Rotunda from roughly the same time.  I can't be more precise than that, nor am I in anything like a fit state to take part.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 14, 2015)

Update:  Part of the protest is being set up, and there will (hopefully) be people protesting outside the Rotunda from 11am until 3pm when the so-called consultation ends.

If anyone were to turn up and stand with them for a while, or take photos, it might embarrass Lambeth council, so let's not spare their blushes.


----------



## High Definition (Mar 14, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Tulse Hill banner.


Terrific banners.  I went along this morning to take photos of the banners on the railings facing the park, and noticed lots of people stopping to look, take photos with their camera phones and read the text next to the Cressingham entrance to the park.  I spoke to around half a dozen people who all said they'd have signed the petition if there'd been copies there to sign/take away.  I for one would be up for volunteering to stand around by the posters for a couple of hours next weekend  asking passers-by the sign the petition and generally spread the word.  Anyone else interested?  I have 4 clipboards I can bring along + a folding table with a handle.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 14, 2015)

High Definition said:


> <snip> I spoke to around half a dozen people who all said they'd have signed the petition if there'd been copies there to sign/take away.  I for one would be up for volunteering to stand around by the posters for a couple of hours next weekend  asking passers-by the sign the petition and generally spread the word.  Anyone else interested?  I have 4 clipboards I can bring along + a folding table with a handle.


Thank you - you have no idea how good it feels to be able to make some of this somebody else's problem, or maybe you do.  

I know that Gniewosz is out of ink at the moment, but VP can get several copies printed off by next weekend.  One of the advantages of him having been a disabled student is a subsidised monochrome laser printer.


----------



## High Definition (Mar 14, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Thank you - you have no idea how good it feels to be able to make some of this somebody else's problem, or maybe you do.
> 
> I know that Gniewosz is out of ink at the moment, but VP can get several copies printed off by next weekend.  One of the advantages of him having been a disabled student is a subsidised monochrome laser printer.


I'd print off copies of the petition if I could find a print version on one of the websites.  Would be good if someone could post a link.  BTW I have a colour printer that can print up to A3+.  Would have suggested petitioning tomorrow, but the forecast is showers/rain all day, so probably won't be that many people going past.  Next weekend looks better.  I can do Saturday or Sunday afternoon, say from 1 pm.   Don't mind going out on my own, but would be more impact if there are 3 or 4 of use.


----------



## Gniewosz (Mar 14, 2015)

High Definition said:


> I'd print off copies of the petition if I could find a print version on one of the websites.  Would be good if someone could post a link.  BTW I have a colour printer that can print up to A3+.  Would have suggested petitioning tomorrow, but the forecast is showers/rain all day, so probably won't be that many people going past.  Next weekend looks better.  I can do Saturday or Sunday afternoon, say from 1 pm.   Don't mind going out on my own, but would be more impact if there are 3 or 4 of use.



If you can PM your email address, I'll send an electronic copy across.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 14, 2015)

High Definition said:


> I'd print off copies of the petition if I could find a print version on one of the websites. <snip>


VP can get several pages printed off, but somebody will probably need to collect them from the flat.  Can also supply black biros.


----------



## High Definition (Mar 15, 2015)

Greebo said:


> VP can get several pages printed off, but somebody will probably need to collect them from the flat.  Can also supply black biros.


I think I'm sorted for next weekend.  I've got the petition on my computer and I can print off copies now and bring along.  BTW I can print up to A3+  (19 inches by 13 inches) and will make copies of the Option 5 and As Existing site plans and fix these to the railings next weekend.


----------



## buscador (Mar 15, 2015)

Cllr Dixon currently at the front door, squirming as FoD is giving him pelters.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 15, 2015)

buscador said:


> Cllr Dixon currently at the front door, squirming as FoD is giving him pelters.


Good woman - I really wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that.  OTOH he truly deserves it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2015)

buscador said:


> Cllr Dixon currently at the front door, squirming as FoD is giving him pelters.



Jim Dickson is well oleaginous at the best of times, so he's probably not doing himself any favours!


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 16, 2015)

Photos of outside of Rotunda this Saturday. Where Lambeth were holding a drop in "consultation" event. Cressingham Garden resident did there drawings outside the Rotunda. Also residents were outside as giving out info on there proposals/ alternatives.

Interesting to talk to the residents as they went in. None who came out were happy. The whole "consultation" process is causing a lot of anxiety and worry to people. And a lot of anger.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 16, 2015)




----------



## Gramsci (Mar 16, 2015)

The alternatives put forward by Cressingham Gardens residents.

Further detail on the residents options here.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 16, 2015)

Interesting post on Cressingham Gardens webpage:

 
What was the motivation for regeneration? Money or council homes?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Interesting post on Cressingham Gardens webpage:
> 
> 
> What was the motivation for regeneration? Money or council homes?



Reading that, it occurs to me that a sort of Westminster gerrymander in reverse might be taking place - focusing "affordable"/social rent (whatever Lambeth are planning that to actually mean) housing on estates where the estate (and the wider) electorate already support Labour, as Lambeth Labour *must* be aware that a demographic change toward "the gentrifying classes" has historically meant a lessening of Labour majorities and in some cases a loss of Labour wards.
Maybe I'm being terrifically-cynical, but I could see how it *could* be a PARTIAL justification for this wilful stupidity.


----------



## editor (Mar 16, 2015)

Update on Buzz: Cressingham Gardens residents stage silent protest outside Lambeth council consultation Cheers for the photos Gramsci

I'm adding these links to the bottom of all Cressingham articles - is there anything missing?



> Find out about Cressingham Gardens here.
> Facebook page: www.facebook.com/SaveCressinghamGardens
> Save Cressingham Gardens petition
> Save Cressingham Gardens crowdfunding
> ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 17, 2015)

'nother photo of the Tulse Hill banner, with added explanations.


----------



## Manter (Mar 17, 2015)

Was being heatedly discussed at the craignair road bus stop this morning at 6.15am. Consensus was higher and higher density, plus breaking up the community was an invitation for increased crime


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Mar 17, 2015)

Manter said:


> Was being heatedly discussed at the craignair road bus stop this morning at 6.15am. Consensus was higher and higher density, plus breaking up the community was an invitation for increased crime



A heated discussion on a cold morning has to be commended although i'm not entirely convinced by the higher density leading to higher crime argument; although in abstract terms this is undoubtedly true
The real issue is housing, it's the only issue and it's burning holes in everything else.


----------



## Robert Langtry (Mar 18, 2015)

Do you remember the 'good old days' - 1985/1986 when the Audit Commission surcharged and banned from Office 32 Lambeth Councillors? Then there was Dame Shirley Porter Leader of Westminster Council who eventually settled with the Commission in 2004 paying back £12.3 million to Westminster Council. See Wiki.
Unfortunately the Audit Commission will close at the end of this month. Check www.audit-commission.gov.uk and follow the link to find out the new powers, workings etc. on whistleblowing, "value of money of services delivered by the local government sector" and so on.
Gerlinde this stuff is way beyond my understanding. If it's useful I hope there is someone out there who can run with this or assist you.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 18, 2015)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> A heated discussion on a cold morning has to be commended although i'm not entirely convinced by the higher density leading to higher crime argument; although in abstract terms this is undoubtedly true <snip>


This estate has consistently far lower crime rates than any other council estate along Tulse Hill.  Good sightlines (including being able to see from the kitchen window who's coming to your front door), clusters of housing, and natural stopping/socialising points have gone a long way to designing out the type of crime usually expected on a housing estate.

People living here are no more virtuous by nature than elsewhere, so what else can explain the lower rate?


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Mar 18, 2015)

Greebo said:


> *This estate has consistently far lower crime rates than any other council estate along Tulse Hill. * Good sightlines (including being able to see from the kitchen window who's coming to your front door), clusters of housing, and natural stopping/socialising points have gone a long way to designing out the type of crime usually expected on a housing estate.
> 
> People living here are no more virtuous by nature than elsewhere, so what else can explain the lower rate?



I'm more convinced now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2015)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> A heated discussion on a cold morning has to be commended although i'm not entirely convinced by the higher density leading to higher crime argument; although in abstract terms this is undoubtedly true
> The real issue is housing, it's the only issue and it's burning holes in everything else.



I did quite a bit of research into what's called "situational crime prevention" in the built environment, and the way Hollamby put this place together certainly avoided a lot of the problems that cursed other high and low-rise developments. There are lots of straight sightlines from most points on the estate, which makes street theft much harder. There are also very few choke-points for foot traffic, and few blindspots.

Now, so-called "best practice" in current design and construction *should* include avoiding all the old problems, but sometimes includes new ones. Something as simple as making blocks only accessible through lobbies (or estates accessible through gates, FFS!  ), can often cause a choke-point that can be exploited by street thieves.

As for higher density _per se_ meaning more crime, that's a function of the type of construction of much higher density housing - the old problems of subterranean car parks, elevated walkways etc, and while you can take measures - removing the walkways; making the car parks permitted-access only - you can't really do more than minimise issues. Even the old GLC estates we talked about have design problems that facilitate crime, even though most of them have electronic locks on outer access. Any place is only as secure as the laziest wanker living there wants it to be, sadly.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 20, 2015)

It would seem that this was so embarrassing to somebody that a no mark decided to tear down all the roadside banners (except the "not for sale" one) and the laminated captions.  It was deliberate, and not done by the people who put them up - the cable ties were left intact.  I haven't checked the parkside yet, but it's to be hoped that they're intact.

Not that it really matters, more will go up.  And will keep going up.


ViolentPanda said:


> 'nother photo of the Tulse Hill banner, with added explanations.


----------



## Gniewosz (Mar 20, 2015)

Robert Langtry said:


> Do you remember the 'good old days' - 1985/1986 when the Audit Commission surcharged and banned from Office 32 Lambeth Councillors? Then there was Dame Shirley Porter Leader of Westminster Council who eventually settled with the Commission in 2004 paying back £12.3 million to Westminster Council. See Wiki.
> Unfortunately the Audit Commission will close at the end of this month. Check www.audit-commission.gov.uk and follow the link to find out the new powers, workings etc. on whistleblowing, "value of money of services delivered by the local government sector" and so on.
> Gerlinde this stuff is way beyond my understanding. If it's useful I hope there is someone out there who can run with this or assist you.



A "Formal Objection" sent into the external auditors has been accepted... will have to wait and see if they take the council to court.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Mar 21, 2015)

Article by Jack Griffith in Thursday's SLP;
Residents vent fury on town hall's estate consultation.
http://www.southlondon-today.co.uk/news.cfm?id=28143&headline='IT'S A SHAM'


----------



## Greebo (Mar 21, 2015)

High Definition said:


> <snip> I can do Saturday or Sunday afternoon, say from 1 pm. <snip>


RIght, I'm now well enough to do this as long as I wrap up, so hope to see you this afternoon or tomorrow afternoon.

Captions are back up on the road side of the estate.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 21, 2015)

Lambeth Living Chief Exec has stated that the regeneration programme is behind schedule, and extra money may need to be spent on basic repairs, BEFORE the regeneration work can begin 

BBuzz piece.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 21, 2015)

Back in the warm now, thank fuck.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 21, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Lambeth Living Chief Exec has stated that the regeneration programme is behind schedule, and extra money may need to be spent on basic repairs, BEFORE the regeneration work can begin
> 
> BBuzz piece.



Good work, young man!


----------



## High Definition (Mar 21, 2015)

Greebo said:


> RIght, I'm now well enough to do this as long as I wrap up, so hope to see you this afternoon or tomorrow afternoon.
> 
> Captions are back up on the road side of the estate.


Glad the banners are back.  I'm aiming to be standing next to the Cressingham Gardens gate (on the park side) from 1 pm tomorrow (Sunday) with copies of the petition and clipboards.  Didn't go today as I was at the Lambeth consultation event on the future of funding for parks in the Karibou Centre.  Hoping it won't be quite so cold tomorrow - forecast is sunny intervals.  If it is, will hang around until 2.30 to 3.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 21, 2015)

High Definition said:


> Glad the banners are back.  I'm aiming to be standing next to the Cressingham Gardens gate (on the park side) from 1 pm tomorrow (Sunday) with copies of the petition and clipboards.  Didn't go today as I was at the Lambeth consultation event on the future of funding for parks in the Karibou Centre.  Hoping it won't be quite so cold tomorrow - forecast is sunny intervals.  If it is, will hang around until 2.30 to 3.


That'd be great.  Good on you for getting to the event at the Karibu centre, couldn't get there, but I got a couple of pages of signatures.


----------



## Manter (Mar 21, 2015)

Greebo said:


> That'd be great.  Good on you for getting to the event at the Karibu centre, couldn't get there, but I got a couple of pages of signatures.


Nice to see you


----------



## Greebo (Mar 21, 2015)

Manter said:


> Nice to see you


Likewise, and the northerner, and Mantito who was nowhere near as snotty as you claimed.


----------



## Manter (Mar 21, 2015)

He'd wiped most of it in my hair


----------



## Robert Langtry (Mar 21, 2015)

Gniewosz ref. audit-commission, I'm sure you were onto this a long time before it came to my mind. Preparing and presenting a case is a lot of digging and data mining. Well done


----------



## Greebo (Mar 22, 2015)

Parkside banners down.  Okay, if that's how you want to play it. *shrug*


----------



## High Definition (Mar 22, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Parkside banners down.  Okay, if that's how you want to play it. *shrug*


Was planning to do some petitioning on the park side this pm, but not sure about this now if the banners are down (so passers by won't be stopping and looking and so easier to approach).  Could someone let me know when the banners are back up?  BTW I have a collection of cable ties which I can bring along.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 22, 2015)

High Definition said:


> Was planning to do some petitioning on the park side this pm, but not sure about this now if the banners are down (so passers by won't be stopping and looking and so easier to approach). <snip>


If you don't turn up, fair enough.  If you (or anyone else ) are there, even better.  

Personally, I have far more enjoyable things to do with my weekend, and should still be resting and staying warm, but needs must.  I'd rather physically wreck myself than worry myself sick at what might be done but isn't.

I will be out there for another few hours.  And the laminated stuff will be going back up today.  Have pavement chalk too.

BTW yes I'm fucking angry, but these things happen.  Help or do not help, your choice.  I'm even angrier at the those who are happy enough to use this estate as a shortcut to the park but don't care that it's in danger of first becoming a building site and later unsafe to walk through.  <and breathe>


----------



## High Definition (Mar 22, 2015)

Greebo said:


> If you don't turn up, fair enough.  If you (or anyone else ) are there, even better.
> 
> Personally I have far more enjoyable things to do with my weekend, and should still be resting and staying warm, but needs must.  I'd rather physically wreck myself than worry myself sick at what might be done but isn't.
> 
> I will be out there for another few hours.  And the laminated stuff will be going back up today.


Good.  I'm just about to set out with a clipboard, petitions (coming out of the printer now) and some spare cable ties.  I'm a 20 minute walk away, so should be by the gate around 1 pm


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 22, 2015)

Manter said:


> He'd wiped most of it in my hair



Good lad!


----------



## Greebo (Mar 22, 2015)

Well that's several pages more of signatures got.  

Thanks to High Definintion's way with people, several more will also be inclined to spread the word.

Realisation seems to be dawning that this thing on the edge of the park will affect park users, whether they live in the immediate area or not.  Very heartening to find so many willing to stop, listen, and sign.

Okay, maybe this is still going to be steamrollered over by the council, but I'd rather go down fighting than wonder if there was something I could have done.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 22, 2015)

Left by the fairies, or not.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 26, 2015)

A BBuzz update following the recent Council communication. CPO's a possibility


----------



## Greebo (Mar 26, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> A BBuzz update following the recent Council communication. CPO's a possibility


Not exactly news to the leaseholders and freeholders.   

Not I'm one of them, but people who've deliberately chosen to live here (rather than trying to make the best of what they were offered by the council) do tend to have a stabilising effect on the estate.


----------



## High Definition (Mar 26, 2015)

I've just been looking through the 8 page brochure issued by Lambeth to residents earlier this month under the title Cressingham Gardens: to refurbish or regenerate?  There's no date on the document but it refers to the Cabinet decision on 9th March so I'm assuming it was issued after that.  

I picked out 3 things that were new to me at least

1.  Page two says that Options One to Three are unaffordable and will not be pursued.  The report to the Cabinet meeting on 9th March implied this but didn't actually say that Options Two and Three had been ruled out.

2. If the May meeting of Cabinet agrees an approved option "a new masterplanning team will be commissioned to work up, in collaboration with residents, a detailed masterplan for the regeneration of Cressingham Gardens".  This confirms some news I picked up earlier this week that the architects Karthaus are off the job and the plans and 3-dimensional massing designs they produced last summer have been jettisoned.  

3.  The dates on page 8 ("Next Steps") confirm that the programme has slipped yet again.  If Cabinet agrees a preferred option in May, then there will be yet more "master planning"  (from May to December 2015) with the planning application not scheduled for submission until September 2016.  

So - a long campaign ahead for all of us!


----------



## Greebo (Mar 26, 2015)

High Definition said:


> I've just been looking through the 8 page brochure issued by Lambeth to residents earlier this month under the title Cressingham Gardens: to refurbish or regenerate?  There's no date on the document but it refers to the Cabinet decision on 9th March so I'm assuming it was issued after that. <snip>
> 
> So - a long campaign ahead for all of us!


That brochure arrived within the last two weeks.

You think what lies ahead is long?   People on the estate have already had two years of being 'consulted and worked with' aka softened up, worn down, threatened, misinformed, and lied to.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 26, 2015)

Lovely!  Was sent the draft version of the official Test Of Opinion this afternoon.  The only viable options given to vote on are 4 and 5.  

Not that I'll even have that chance, only one person per household gets a voice at all.  That, if you please, on an estate where a majority of dwellings contain more than one adult over the age of majority.  How very feudal.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 27, 2015)

The Save Cressingham campaign made it to national TV on Thursday evening. Ed Miliband was questioned about Lambeth Labour's policy during the Battle for Number 10 TV debate.

BBuzz piece.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 27, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> The Save Cressingham campaign made it to national TV on Thursday evening. Ed Miliband was questioned about Lambeth Labour's policy during the Battle for Number 10 TV debate.
> 
> BBuzz piece.



Bartley the Green party candidate made a fair point:



> “While Miliband is presenting Labour as a changed party from the Blair-Brown years, what Lambeth Labour are proposing for Cressingham Gardens is indicative of a lingering, old-fashioned New Labour strain of politics which remains powerful in the party.”



People like Rashid natural home should be the Labour party. I have also met ex Labour party members who are now in Left Unity. 

A lot of long standing rank and file members of the Labour party left over Iraq and Blair increasingly right wing New Labour project. 

I met an ex Labour party member who was glad the Ed had won the leadership. This was in her eyes hopefully the end of New Labour. Eds problem has been that the Labour party he leads has areas like Lambeth Labour which are totally under the control of the New Labour element. Brooking no independent minded Cllrs who will not toe the line.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 27, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> The Save Cressingham campaign made it to national TV on Thursday evening. Ed Miliband was questioned about Lambeth Labour's policy during the Battle for Number 10 TV debate.
> 
> BBuzz piece.


Meanwhile, I was at the launch of the local Labour party's campaign with our beloved Labour MP and somebody or other (candidate for Croydon), hosted by the party faithful.  So damn faithful that in spite of my waiting my turn and then some before asking any questions, I was almost immediately given a hard time by the rest of the audience.  To his credit, he did give me a few minutes later on to talk about the estate's situation, and might call me back next week, but he seems so far in Matthew Bennett's pocket (according to CU, he doesn't want to destroy the estate - funny way of showing it) that I doubt he can see out.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 28, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Meanwhile, I was at the launch of the local Labour party's campaign with our beloved Labour MP and somebody or other (candidate for Croydon), hosted by the party faithful.  So damn faithful that in spite of my waiting my turn and then some before asking any questions, I was almost immediately given a hard time by the rest of the audience.  To his credit, he did give me a few minutes later on to talk about the estate's situation, and might call me back next week, but he seems so far in Matthew Bennett's pocket (according to CU, he doesn't want to destroy the estate - funny way of showing it) that I doubt he can see out.



Bennett doesn't want to destroy the estate _per se_, he wants to "regenerate" it, which means he's more than happy to destroy the community, regardless of the woo about people not being moved away. 
So, it's easy for beardie Bennett to say "hey Chuck, I don't wanna destroy Cressingham/Knight's Walk/Central Hill etc". It's a meaningless reassurance.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 28, 2015)

New banners  - great teamwork and a lot of fun.  And that was just putting them up.  *gets coat*
    
 

And the backview of most of them.   More can go up and will, if need be.


----------



## High Definition (Mar 29, 2015)

Loved the new banners.  Yesterday they were attracting lots of attention from people walking in the park.  Got another page of signatures on the petition.  It was cold and windy, so weren't many people out and about, but 90% of the people I approached agreed to sign the petition.  Planning to get and do more petitioning in the park (outside Cressingham Gate) next Saturday pm.   Here are two more photos - a shot of the banners being made outside the Rotunda and another shot of Save Brockwell's Skyline.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 30, 2015)

Some surplus nomark of a fuckwit misguided human being decided to cut down laminated pages, including contact details, and tear and cut at most of the fixture points on one of the banners (including all the ones on the lower edge).    And breathe.

So guess what I've spent a couple of hours repairing, refixing, and organising the remaking of?  Got it in one.

Don't tell me it was the wind, that doesn't use scissors, nor does it tear off gaffer tape and then crumple it on the grass.  I know how the eyelets were made and the tearing pattern on the banner should not have been possible.

FAO any local Labour faithful (of whom I was one until very recently) reading this:  If you object to the nature of that particular banner*, how about supporting residents on this estate and listening to us, instead of ignoring us, lying about us, deceiving us and trying to silence us?

*"Friends and neghbours abandoned by Labour" - the three ward councillors are Labour, as is Matthew Bennett and the local MP Chukka Umunna.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 31, 2015)

And today some rancid scumfuck(s) removed most (but not all) of the banners both parkside and roadside.
E2A: They'll be replaced!
Anyone would think that someone felt threatened by the evil militant residents!


----------



## editor (Mar 31, 2015)

Just an update: I'm still working on the benefit and it's still looking encouraging. 
*fingers crossed

If the Big One doesn't work out, I'll still sort out some smaller gigs so hang in there!


----------



## Robert Langtry (Apr 1, 2015)

re. banners and Park. The Park still has a Manager and a few Staff, and there was a very strong NW wind over the weekend. Maybe if the banners were placed on the inside of the railings they might be more secure. Good luck


----------



## Greebo (Apr 1, 2015)

Robert Langtry said:


> re. banners and Park. The Park still has a Manager and a few Staff, and there was a very strong NW wind over the weekend. <snip>


I can assure you, the banners were *not* blown loose.  They were up before the park was unlocked on Teusday, and shortly afterwards they weren't.  Looking at the remnants on the railings, they needed a knife or scissors to remove them.  But thanks for the tip.


----------



## Gniewosz (Apr 1, 2015)

Greebo said:


> I can assure you, the banners were *not* blown loose.  They were up before the park was unlocked on Teusday, and shortly afterwards they weren't.  Looking at the remnants on the railings, they needed a knife or scissors to remove them.  But thanks for the tip.



I asked a couple of the park staff on my way across the park this morning, and they said they didn't know anything about them being taken down.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 1, 2015)

I'm not accusing any particular person.  I don't care who did it, and there are probably wrong uns around who'd be happy to do it for free.  I'm more interested in why.


----------



## High Definition (Apr 3, 2015)

High Definition said:


> Loved the new banners.  Yesterday they were attracting lots of attention from people walking in the park.  Got another page of signatures on the petition.  It was cold and windy, so weren't many people out and about, but 90% of the people I approached agreed to sign the petition.  Planning to get and do more petitioning in the park (outside Cressingham Gate) next Saturday pm.   Here are two more photos - a shot of the banners being made outside the Rotunda and another shot of Save Brockwell's Skyline.View attachment 69399View attachment 69400


I'm up for more petitioning on the park side of Cressingham Gate as, so far, it's been a good way of making contact with users of the park and other local groups.  Had been planning to turn up for another session tomorrow (4th April) but decided against in the light of the latest weather forecast (overcast with chance of showers).  Judging by last weekend, weather like this is likely to put off all but the most determined joggers and dog walkers.   I'm tied up on other days this Easter weekend, but planning to turn out the following Sunday if the weather improves.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 3, 2015)

High Definition said:


> I'm up for more petitioning on the park side of Cressingham Gate as, so far, it's been a good way of making contact with users of the park and other local groups.  <snip> I'm tied up on other days this Easter weekend, but planning to turn out the following Sunday if the weather improves.


Fair enough, I hope you have a good weekend, here's hoping that next weekend's weather will be better.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 3, 2015)

Incidentally, I've checked the cost of readymade freestanding poles which usually support tarpaulins.  A pair, not even including guylines or pegs, would be £15.  So those are out.

A pioneered equivalent can be made and rigged for a lot less; who knew that paramilitary* youthgroups would teach something so useful for nonviolent purposes?  


*according to some.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 4, 2015)

Something I ought to have said yesterday, but was a bit too busy and then shattered to think of it:  Chukka Umunna, who said he'd call me this Thursday afternoon about the situation with the estate, didn't phone me. 

I could say something sexist here, but being scathing about politicians in general would probably be a fairer comment.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Apr 4, 2015)

Fuck Chukka, chuck Chukka.
These politicians are not interested in the working class. He is a posh boy educated at a fee paying school, he thinks people who go to nightclubs are "trash", he took a £20,000 "gift" from the betting industry and supports all these betting shops bleeding the life out of our community.
He is very pro business and anti interventionist. This is a millionaire who strolls around in £1,000 suits and doesn't pay his student assistants.
He is a Tory in disguise.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 4, 2015)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Fuck Chukka, chuck Chukka.
> These politicians are not interested in the working class. He is a posh boy educated at a fee paying school, he thinks people who go to nightclubs are "trash", he took a £20,000 "gift" from the betting industry and supports all these betting shops bleeding the life out of our community.
> He is very pro business and anti interventionist. This is a millionaire who strolls around in £1,000 suits and doesn't pay his student assistants.
> He is a Tory in disguise.


Dexter I think you need to get the line right.

Last time there was any discussion of Chuka and discos he was supposed to have done DJing in Ibiza where he had family property. There was also some talk of the name "Harrison" in this high life connection.

You've missed out if wanted to see what a Streatham Tory could be like.

The late Duncan Sandys (MP for Streatham 23 February 1950 – 23 February 1974) was so Tory it is surreal:
Minister of Defence 14 January 1957 – 14 October 1959
Secretary of State for the Colonies 13 July 1962 – 16 October 1964
Shadow Secretary of State for the Colonies 16 October 1964 – 13 April 1966
amongst other posts

Sandys was not employed by Ted Heath - apparently because Duncan Sandys strongly supported Ian Smith's UDI in Rhodesia.

Of Sandys business interests, Wikipedia says: His business activities included a Directorship of the Ashanti Goldfields Corporation, which was later part of Lonrho of which he became Chairman. He was therefore caught up in the scandal in which Lonrho was revealed to have bribed several African countries and broken international sanctions against Rhodesia, as well as the "unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism" episode involving 8 Directors being sacked by Tiny Rowland.

I am not trying to have a love-in with Chukka here, but really without doubt Chukka is more in the world of the common people than Duncan Sandys (who was incidentally also son in law to Winston Churchill).


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Apr 4, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I am not trying to have a love-in with Chukka here, but really *without doubt Chukka is more in the world of the common people *than Duncan Sandys (who was incidentally also son in law to Winston Churchill).




He came to Streatham he had a thirst for polytricks,
He was Head Boy at St Dunstan's College,
That's where power,
Caught his eye.
He told me that his Dad was loaded,
I said "In that case I'll have a rum and coca-cola."
He said "Fine."
And in thirty seconds time he said,

I want to live like common people,
I want to do whatever common people do,
I want to sleep with common people,
I want to sleep with common people,
Like you.


----------



## Robert Langtry (Apr 9, 2015)

Was looking at some old Lambeth Living letters, one from 30/04/08 and the other 28/03/11 and in both Lib Peck was the Cabinet Member for Housing if that is of intrest to anybody.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 9, 2015)

Robert Langtry said:


> Was looking at some old Lambeth Living letters, one from 30/04/08 and the other 28/03/11 and in both Lib Peck was the Cabinet Member for Housing if that is of intrest to anybody.


Thanks for digging that out.  Back at the time AFAIK there was an offer to do up the voids in a mutually advantageous way, for cost only (building trainees are desperate for practical placements), and the council turned it down? 

Does not surprise me.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 11, 2015)

Robert Langtry said:


> re. banners and Park. The Park still has a Manager and a few Staff, and there was a very strong NW wind over the weekend. Maybe if the banners were placed on the inside of the railings they might be more secure. Good luck


Morning Robert (very brave or naive using a real name here - I don't recommend it on the net).  Yesterday evening, banners were up, I know because I photographed them.

Early this morning, a very selective wind removed one (not party politlical) banner, leaving the masking tape stuck to itself.  Others, fixed no more securely, were still in place.  Two more had been torn and cut, which was not the work of the wind or an animal - it would have needed scissors or a knife.  If this isn't the work of the park staff, it's the work of somebody who'd be glad to see this estate flattened, at least doubled in density, and made a lot uglier.  

More will be made and more will go up.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 14, 2015)

A Save Cressingham FoI has finally been answered by Lambeth Council. It asked to see any involvement by Cllr Marcia Cameron about the whole repair / regeneration issue. Cllr Cameron has claimed herself that she initiated the regeneration work.

Lambeth Council tired at first not to make the information available in the public domain. Rather than publish online, it suggested sending a hard copy in the post.

Save Cressingham are a persistent lot 

What is surprising is that all of the internal emails have been included. This is highly unusual for Lambeth Council. It usually finds a way to wriggle out of this.

I've only been able to scan the six years worth of information. I'm sure that there are many other useful details in there.

What I have picked out though is that Cllr Cameron was pushing for the regeneration option as far back as July 2014. Plus also the Special Purpose Vehicle looks like the way of delivering the regeneration. This allows an organisation from outside the council to set the levels of rent.

BBuzz piece.

Full FoI.


----------



## eskdave (Apr 15, 2015)

Greebo said:


> As I say, small victories, no point getting too complacent but it's a glimmer at least.    A councillor presented it, after a photo op outside with one of our lot handing it over to them.
> 
> Heard it, have some scrappy notes, it was quite interesting.  In a nutshell:
> The council need to have 5 and 10 year plans instead of lurching from one pilot scheme to another.
> ...


I can assure you that I have been in some total fuck ups -but none more so-than this hyper-crap that we have the misfortune of experiencing.Where is the "Plan"-maybe we is missin summat Greeb.


----------



## eskdave (Apr 15, 2015)

eskdave said:


> I can assure you that I have been in some total fuck ups -but none more so-than this hyper-crap that we have the misfortune of experiencing.Where is the "Plan"-maybe we is missin summat Greeb.


Just jealous-lend us a tab then


----------



## Greebo (Apr 15, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> A Save Cressingham FoI has finally been answered by Lambeth Council. It asked to see any involvement by Cllr Marcia Cameron about the whole repair / regeneration issue. Cllr Cameron has claimed herself that she initiated the regeneration work.
> 
> <snip> What I have picked out though is that Cllr Cameron was pushing for the regeneration option as far back as July 2014. Plus also the Special Purpose Vehicle looks like the way of delivering the regeneration. This allows an organisation from outside the council to set the levels of rent.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your hard work, and that of anyone else who had a hand in it. 

Because of that article, some people on this estate have just about woken up to the full implications of SPV funding.  It's not that the information wasn't there before (it was mentioned during various workshops and working groups last year), IMHO it's more that they were so busy worrying that they didn't recognise this longterm threat.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Apr 15, 2015)

Cressingham was mentioned at the Streatham hustings last night. Chuka Umunna's words were "The council has not handled this well...." cue audience laughter. The conservative candidate was rightly booed for the HA sell off idea.

The Green candidate was the only one to raise the housing coop evictions.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 15, 2015)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Cressingham was mentioned at the Streatham hustings last night. Chuka Umunna's words were "The council has not handled this well...." cue audience laughter. The conservative candidate was rightly booed for the HA sell off idea.
> 
> The Green candidate was the only one to raise the housing coop evictions.


That's more or less what I expected would happen.  The only main party which has given any support at all to this estate's situation has been the Green party.

Incidentally, it's a little unfair to say that "the council has not handled this well"; Chukka has at least allowed himself to be misled, and he (together with Marcia Cameron, Mary Atkins, and our third Labour councillor [the one who's been Mayor] for this ward) have well and truly refused to take more than a superficial glance at what was going on and what they were told has been going on.  

I'm lost for words at their naive belief that "I didn't know anything about it" absolves them from guilt by association as well as all responsibility.  There was I thinking that part of being an adult is clearing up the mess and putting things right, even if you're not directly to blame.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 15, 2015)

ITV coverage tonight from 6pm will include something about the estate and some people living here.


----------



## Gniewosz (Apr 15, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> A Save Cressingham FoI has finally been answered by Lambeth Council. It asked to see any involvement by Cllr Marcia Cameron about the whole repair / regeneration issue. Cllr Cameron has claimed herself that she initiated the regeneration work.
> 
> Lambeth Council tired at first not to make the information available in the public domain. Rather than publish online, it suggested sending a hard copy in the post.
> 
> ...



It is interesting to see that the earliest email provided appears to be August 2012... Cressingham had already been earmarked for regen by that stage.  Where are the earlier emails?
Also, there seems to be a lot of emails where the councillors are cc'ed, but very little sent by them.  I wonder if this is not the complete set of emails?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 15, 2015)

I am beginning to think that the emails have been published for internal political reasons. It is extremely rare for Lambeth Council to release internal emails as part of an FoI. memespring will testify to this.

The ward Cllr's don't come out of this at all well. Others higher up meanwhile...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 15, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> I am beginning to think that the emails have been published for internal political reasons. It is extremely rare for Lambeth Council to release internal emails as part of an FoI. memespring will testify to this.
> 
> The ward Cllr's don't come out of this at all well. Others higher up meanwhile...



Hmm, so might be the former and the current leader and/or the current "member for housing" (what an apt tag!) doing some arse-covering.
Tangentially, I was thinking I was being conspira-tastic yesterday, saying to Greebo that the "1000 new social homes in Lambeth" [i[]schtick[/i] came across as a bit of a "5 year plan" announcement to garner glory for the council's political figures, rather than as a benefit to the borough.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 15, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Tangentially, I was thinking I was being conspira-tastic yesterday, saying to Greebo that the "1000 new social homes in Lambeth" [i[]schtick[/i] came across as a bit of a "5 year plan" announcement to garner glory for the council's political figures, rather than as a benefit to the borough.



All sorts of ODD thinks happen when policy is caught up in the middle of an election campaign...


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 15, 2015)

WEIRD.

A separate Cressingham FoI has now been refused because it includes 'internal emails.' Which didn't seem to apply to the earlier Foi that did the dirty on Cllr Cameron.

Hanging out to dry?

Much?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 15, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> I am beginning to think that the emails have been published for internal political reasons. It is extremely rare for Lambeth Council to release internal emails as part of an FoI. memespring will testify to this.
> 
> The ward Cllr's don't come out of this at all well. Others higher up meanwhile...



I did wonder why emails by Neil Vokes who is senior officer but nothing by Sue Foster

I would have thought some of the decisions and ideas like using an SPV would have come from high up officers.


----------



## Manter (Apr 15, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> WEIRD.
> 
> A separate Cressingham FoI has now been refused because it includes 'internal emails.' Which didn't seem to apply to the earlier Foi that did the dirty on Cllr Cameron.
> 
> ...


Internal emails aren't exempt from foi....


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 15, 2015)

Manter said:


> Internal emails aren't exempt from foi....



But there are ways around this. Lambeth usually find a way to wriggle out of including them.

It is also not unknown for ward Cllr's to use personal email addresses for Council business.

Crafty.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 15, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Because of that article, some people on this estate have just about woken up to the full implications of SPV funding.  It's not that the information wasn't there before (it was mentioned during various workshops and working groups last year), IMHO it's more that they were so busy worrying that they didn't recognise this longterm threat.



I did say this on previous post here after reading report that High Definition pointed to. 

The SPV model if rolled out on all the estates that Lambeth wants to "regenerate" will effectively get rid of Council housing as it is now.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 15, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> But there are ways around this. Lambeth usually find a way to wriggle out of including them.
> 
> It is also not unknown for ward Cllr's to use personal email addresses for Council business.
> 
> Crafty.



I also know that officers like to have un minuted "informal" meetings as this is supposed to be a more "Co operative" way of doing things. Also leaves little for an FOI to pick up on.


----------



## Manter (Apr 15, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> But there are ways around this. Lambeth usually find a way to wriggle out of including them.
> 
> It is also not unknown for ward Cllr's to use personal email addresses for Council business.
> 
> Crafty.


That is against policy- central government guidance is that private emails should not be used, auto forwarding is not allowed, personal/confidential/private/sensitive data on a personal email account is a disciplinary offence.....  Most councils have basically cut and pasted the wording into their IT policies. May be a worth an FOI to find out what Lambeth's policy says....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 15, 2015)

Manter said:


> That is against policy- *central government guidance is that private emails should not be used, auto forwarding is not allowed*, personal/confidential/private/sensitive data on a personal email account is a disciplinary offence.....  Most councils have basically cut and pasted the wording into their IT policies. May be a worth an FOI to find out what Lambeth's policy says....



Guidance rather than regulation, though, I believe.


----------



## Manter (Apr 16, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Guidance rather than regulation, though, I believe.


It is.... But most councils have cut and pasted and made it their own policy. Would be interesting to know whether Lambeth has


----------



## Greebo (Apr 16, 2015)

The Test of Opinion (which was supposed to happen in February, then this month) and the Cabinet decision about regenerating the hell out of this estate have been postponed yet again.  Fine by me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 17, 2015)

Greebo said:


> The Test of Opinion (which was supposed to happen in February, then this month) and the Cabinet decision about regenerating the hell out of this estate have been postponed yet again.  Fine by me.



It also raises an interesting question: Why?


----------



## editor (Apr 17, 2015)

Make a note: please keep the evening of Thursday June 11th free. More details soon.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 22, 2015)

While I think of it, a fighting fund has been set up.  http://www.gofundme.com/savecressingham

Others have donated (or are donating) time, materials, and various abilities.  Most of those who did have already been thanked one way or another, but thank you again.  All of it helps, even the small stuff.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 25, 2015)

Green party Leader Natalie Bennett is visiting Cressingham on Monday at midday. Of course this is politicising the cause - but at least it is something given the AWOL Chuka.

BBuzz piece.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 25, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Green party Leader Natalie Bennett is visiting Cressingham on Monday at midday. Of course this is politicising the cause - but at least it is something given the AWOL Chuka.
> 
> BBuzz piece.



Chuckles will be a-fulminatin' about Green subterfuge again!


----------



## Greebo (Apr 25, 2015)

FAO Chukka Umunna and party faithful:  you have repeatedly told people that support for Cressingham Gardens is part of a nasty smear campaign against you.  Well, seeing as you couldn't be bothered to ring me back (as promised) here are a few things you need to know:
1) If this estate had been properly supported by even 1 let alone all 3 of its local ward councillors, instead of being more or less abandoned by them, I'd be happy to sing their praises (and those of their party, which happens to be Labour) morning, noon, and night.

2) If you'd taken a proper interest in the matter instead of apparently believing everything which Matthew Bennet and Lib Peck seem to have fed you, Labour would have more than a fighting chance of still getting plenty of votes on this council estate.

3) Implying that the Save Cressingham Gardens campaign was set up to smear you and Labour is untrue.  I don't care which party the person who threatens my home (and those of my neighbours) is from, and I don't care who helps me save it.  Or do you mean that we council estate plebs are incapable of sustaining a protest without help from political chancers?  Go on, accuse TUSC and Left Unity while you're at it, they've done more or less as much as the Greens have, and a lot more than Labour.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 28, 2015)

Another Monday, another morning of finding banners removed.  No matter, more have gone up.  And more are due to go up in the next few days.

Frankly, the removal has long since become petty and childish, and will reflect very badly indeed on whoever's doing it, when they're found.  In a way though, the remover does this estate and its campaign a favour.  

You see, each time that somebody goes out to replace them, they get asked what they're doing and what's happening to the estate.  And the answer comes from an ordinary looking person.  Being London, doorstepping or just trying to stop people in the street could never work as effectively as this.


----------



## 299 old timer (Apr 28, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Another Monday, another morning of finding banners removed.  No matter, more have gone up.  And more are due to go up in the next few days.



Parkside? Nothing too amiss on Tulse Hill.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 28, 2015)

299 old timer said:


> Parkside? Nothing too amiss on Tulse Hill.


It happens every week or so.  The laminated pages get tampered with too (the fixing holes are cut, and pages removed).  Hence the use of cheap materials where possible - tarps and cotton are expensive to replace.

It's not the wind and/or rain; they can neither cut, nor read.  Nor can it be somebody who loves the park or this estate (or is paid to look after them), or the tape and cable ties would have been removed at the same time.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 28, 2015)

Another letter from Cllr Bennett to the residents, asking once again for their opinion. But that's only their opinion if it fits in with the ever-narrowing option of ideas that he is prepared to consider.

Plus the Lambeth Labour website is just BONKERS.

BBuzz piece.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 28, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Another letter from Cllr Bennett to the residents, asking once again for their opinion. But that's only their opinion if it fits in with the ever-narrowing option of ideas that he is prepared to consider.<snip>
> 
> BBuzz piece.


Wow, that was quick!  I haven't checked LL's website at all, I'll save that for my next teabreak.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 28, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Another letter from Cllr Bennett to the residents, asking once again for their opinion. But that's only their opinion if it fits in with the ever-narrowing option of ideas that he is prepared to consider.
> 
> Plus the Lambeth Labour website is just BONKERS.
> 
> BBuzz piece.



Nicely done!


----------



## Greebo (Apr 28, 2015)

LL's angle on Natalie Bennett not visiting the estate (although her deputy and other Green party members still visited here yesterday, and their party leader had a valid excuse - a lost voice).  Tricky Skills understated it, if anything:
""Posted by LAMBETH LABOUR 5pc on April 27, 2015
Lambeth Labour welcome Green Leader's housing u-turn

Leader of Lambeth Council, Cllr Lib Peck, has welcomed Natalie Bennett's decision to cancel today's planned visit to the Cressingham Gardens estate and called on the Green Party Leader to stop playing politics with the future of the estate.

Cllr Peck said the Green Party should acknowledge that Lambeth’s plans will lead to an increase in social housing on Cressingham and that nobody will be moved - all tenants and leaseholders will be given the right to stay. She also pointed out the estate will remain under council control and, despite Green rhetoric about "social cleansing", new homes would be offered to local people first. 

Cllr Peck said:

“I’m pleased Natalie Bennett has called off her visit to Cressingham Gardens. While she’s busy playing party politics, we’re getting on with more important job of delivering better and more social homes for people in Lambeth.

"Natalie Bennett uses offensive language like “social cleansing” to whip up fear, but we are building more social homes to make sure Lambeth keeps its mixed communities. We’re also guaranteeing all tenants and leaseholders the right to stay.""

"Residents need a voice who will make sure they can remain part of the community and live in modern, affordable housing. Yet Lambeth Greens consistently oppose all attempts to build new social housing in Lambeth."

NOTES

We are improving existing council homes with a £490m programme of investment to bring all council homes up to the Lambeth Housing Standard, despite a 60% reduction in government grant in 2010.
No one is being moved off the estate – all tenants and leaseholders will be able to stay.
All new homes will be offered to local people first.
The estate will remain under council control.
In Lambeth we are serious about building 1,000 new council homes over the next four years to address the housing crisis London faces. Currently Lambeth has 21,000 people on our waiting list for social housing.
That means using the land we own to build more homes and working with our council tenants and leaseholders to redesign estates such as Cressingham Gardens.
We want to improve existing council homes and to build more social rented properties.""


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 28, 2015)

Has everyone seen Chuka's Facebook post from yesterday?

"I have lived in Lambeth all my life and used to visit the Cressingham Gardens estate area to see childhood friends back in the day. I have visited the estate many times before and after being elected MP for the constituency.

It was whilst visiting the estate shortly before the last election that it became obvious to me just how poor a state some of the properties were in and that major work was unavoidable if we were to bring all properties up to a Decent Homes standard so they are comfortable, safe and warm. That work would undoubtedly cause stress and disruption to some residents.

Lambeth Council rightly aims to achieve that Decent Homes standard across the borough. With that in mind and given it has had its budget cut by more than half by the Tory/LibDem Coalition Government, the Labour run Council has sought to work out what to do.

A consultation was carried out last year and a range of options were presented to residents on the estate. There were a number of deficiencies with the consultation which I took up with the Council. One option presented to residents – of simply refurbishing and renovating existing homes on the estate - with hindsight was clearly not going achievable, nor would it have been an equitable use of social housing funds across the borough. But the Council's motivation - ensuring decent homes for people on the estate - is something I wholeheartedly support.

The Council also want to deliver extra council housing, given our need for new council housing is so acute. There are more than 20,000 households on Lambeth’s waiting list, and we need to build more housing not just protect existing stock. So the Council not only seeks to ensure there are the same number of council homes on the Cressingham Gardens estate after any redevelopment but it wants to build more council homes on the estate too.

One of the challenges the Council has is that Lambeth is very densely populated and there is little brownfield land to build more council homes on, so it has chosen to build more homes on existing estates – good for Lambeth as a whole but less welcome for some of the leaseholders who live on the estates affected .The Guardian’s Dave Hill gives a fair assessment of this and the varying points of view about this redevelopment on his excellently researched blog here: http://www.theguardian.com/…/a-time-for-trust-at-the-cressi….

There are a range of views on the proposed redevelopment of the estate - there is no consensus among residents. I have had some tell me that they want the whole estate to be knocked down and rebuilt, some support the partial redevelopment, others insist that all homes be refurbished/renovated. Many Leaseholders and landlords on the estate understandably want renovation but many tenants support partial or whole redevelopment of the estate. The Save Cressingham Gardens campaign, which speaks for some but does not speak for a significant number of residents - and has endorsed the Green Party (I will return to that below) in the General Election - wants the renovation/refurbishment of all homes.

For my own part, I oppose knocking down the whole estate and starting again, but I do not oppose redeveloping part of the estate. As the local MP, I have had intensive discussions and made many representations to the council both on the consultation process and the proposals themselves. I have held a coffee afternoon on the estate to take views on the issue and have had a lot of correspondence with residents on the estate on the proposed plans.

I subsequently set out four criteria to be met - they are my red lines. These are that: every single home on Cressingham Gardens must meet the Decent Home Standards; the estate must have the same number or a greater number of council homes (that means real council homes, not simply ‘affordable’ homes); tenants should be offered a new tenancy on a new or refurbished property on the estate; because leaseholders might view options such as shared ownership as a step back, they should be offered something more than this if they wish to remain on the estate; and, if any leaseholders choose to sell their properties rather than remain on the estate, they must be treated fairly.

Because the option of renovating homes on the estate without also redeveloping part of the estate cannot be delivered, some redevelopment will have to take place. This means new council housing can be built as part of Lambeth’s target to build 1000 extra council homes.

A plan that redevelops the estate following the above criteria will deliver better housing for council tenants, more council housing for people in our area who need it, and will be fair to leaseholders – around 14 of whom might be affected by partial redevelopment – who should be treated fairly. This is my clear view of the situation.
Last week, I spoke of the need for a Labour government at the Evening Standard’s London Hustings. I was opposed by Grant Shapps, Mark Reckless, Lynne Featherstone and Natalie Bennett, the leader of the Green Party. One of her supporters from the Save Cressingham Gardens campaign asked for the panel's views on social housing in London, referring to the situation on Cressingham.

Ms Bennett visited the estate last year as part of her party's election campaigning. I do not recall the Green Party expressing any interest in Cressingham Gardens until when the Save Cressingham Gardens campaign was established in the last two years. They were certainly nowhere to be seen on the estate at the last election and, yet, as the local elections in 2014 and General Election this year honed into view, they have taken an ever increasing interest in the estate. In so doing, they have shamelessly and disgracefully sought to use the future of an estate for party political purposes - they have used what should not be a party political matter to bash the Labour Council.

At the Evening Standard hustings,in her answer to the question her supporter put to us Ms Bennett even branded what the Council are doing on Cressingham as social "cleansing" . We have many survivors living in Lambeth who have fled cleansing around the world - they will take grave offence at the use of such language in a situation such as this given their own harrowing experiences of "cleansing". It is correct to say that there is a housing crisis in our area, but action is required from political parties to fix it, not throwing around irresponsible language and undeliverable promises in a General Election campaign.

Natalie Bennett’s party has opposed every single project that will increase council housing in our borough. The Green Party claims it wants to build more homes but, as Ms Bennett's recent interview on LBC illustrated, they have no idea how much their plans to build more homes will cost or where they will get the money from: http://www.lbc.co.uk/incredibly-awkward-interview-with-nata… .

And, even if their sums did add up, they have not said where they could be built in Lambeth. Instead all we have seen is grandstanding and party political point scoring of the highest order - causing even more worry and stress for people who live here - which will not deliver one extra council home in our area. 
It is also wholly unacceptable that some of those associating themselves with the Save Cressingham Gardens campaign - which now works closely with Lambeth Green Party - have made threats to a local councillor in the ward where Cressingham is located. This has been reported to and is now being investigated by the police.

There is clearly a lot of anti-politics sentiment that we all need to address and, yes, the failure of the political system to deliver more affordable homes understandably has helped fuel this. But the answer to anti-politics is grown up politics not cynical and irresponsible politics that seeks to take advantage of the very real and complex problems in one of the most deprived local council wards in the country. - C."

https://www.facebook.com/ChukaUmunnaMP/posts/10153259886394709


----------



## Greebo (Apr 28, 2015)

David Clapson said:


> Has everyone seen Chuka's Facebook post from yesterday? <snip>


WTAF?  Self-serving hot air.  BTW he still hasn't called me back.


----------



## Gniewosz (Apr 28, 2015)

David Clapson said:


> Has everyone seen Chuka's Facebook post from yesterday?
> 
> "I have lived in Lambeth all my life and used to visit the Cressingham Gardens estate area to see childhood friends back in the day. I have visited the estate many times before and after being elected MP for the constituency.
> 
> ...



Really quite a childish and immature response, let alone it showing up his lack of knowledge around the detail.


----------



## 299 old timer (Apr 28, 2015)

Dear Chuka,
If the council would have fulfilled its obligations regarding maintenance as landlord to a standard as required, then this discussion would not be taking place.
On another note, on a patch of land nearby, kindly recall for yourself the sordid details of the sell off of council land (Dick Shepherd School) to private interests for the purpose of building luxury flats. I believe the sum involved was around the £10m mark.
You'll most certainly not be getting my vote.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 28, 2015)

Greebo said:


> WTAF?  Self-serving hot air.  BTW he still hasn't called me back.



Just left a comment on his faceache page. Bet it gets scrubbed!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 28, 2015)

299 old timer said:


> Dear Chuka,
> If the council would have fulfilled its obligations regarding maintenance as landlord to a standard as required, then this discussion would not be taking place.
> On another note, on a patch of land nearby, kindly recall for yourself the sordid details of the sell off of council land (Dick Shepherd School) to private interests for the purpose of building luxury flats. I believe the sum involved was around the £10m mark.
> You'll most certainly not be getting my vote.



Although to be brutally fair, the Dick Shepherd farrago/misuse of public assets (remember the nearly half a million pounds intended to replace the youth program run out of Dick Shepherd that went "walkies" until public uproar got so loud that the council suddenly "found" the money again?) wasn't on Umunna's watch, it happened during Keith "the teeth" Hill's incumbency as Streatham MP.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 29, 2015)

The collective response to Chuka Umunna's FB statement:  It's quite long, includes graphs, and it'd be difficult to post here, so please use the link, it'll be worth it.  
https://savecressingham.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/open-letter-to-mp-chuka-umunna/


----------



## shifting gears (Apr 29, 2015)

Greebo said:


> The collective response to Chuka Umunna's FB statement:  It's quite long, includes graphs, and it'd be difficult to post here, so please use the link, it'll be worth it.
> https://savecressingham.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/open-letter-to-mp-chuka-umunna/



Fantastic - really compelling stuff.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 29, 2015)

Greebo said:


> The collective response to Chuka Umunna's FB statement:  It's quite long, includes graphs, and it'd be difficult to post here, so please use the link, it'll be worth it.
> https://savecressingham.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/open-letter-to-mp-chuka-umunna/



An excellent piece of writing.
I see that Chuck's facebook piece has had several "you can kiss my vote goodbye" messages left.


----------



## Gniewosz (Apr 29, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> An excellent piece of writing.
> I see that Chuck's facebook piece has had several "you can kiss my vote goodbye" messages left.


It seems like someone is scrubbing the comments from below his FB statement... obviously making him and/or his team uncomfortable


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 29, 2015)

Gniewosz said:


> It seems like someone is scrubbing the comments from below his FB statement... obviously making him and/or his team uncomfortable



Oh dear! We can't have that, can we?


----------



## Greebo (Apr 29, 2015)

Gniewosz said:


> It seems like someone is scrubbing the comments from below his FB statement... obviously making him and/or his team uncomfortable


If the poor lamb and his acolytes didn't want negative responses, perhaps he would have done well to think before smearing and insulting at least one entire housing estate.


----------



## Greebo (May 1, 2015)

"Wind" at it again.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2015)

Greebo said:


> "Wind" at it again.
> View attachment 70976 View attachment 70980 View attachment 70981



Whoever is doing that is either politically-motivated (so, any of our local councillors or their constituency Labour Party cronies), is acting out of some kind of perverse desire to propagate Lambeth Council's side of the "regeneration argument" or (given that the posters have been slashed away from the fastenings with a knife) has an unstoppable yen to carve up anything that offends their delicate sensibilities.
Whichever of the above they are, what they also are is an arsehole.


----------



## superfly101 (May 1, 2015)

Why not put them up on posts within your estate on your estates property? 

Couple of old broom handles or something longer should do? 

You are putting up things on public railings in an area which you might not be allowed to do. Some poor sod who might not like it is now tasked with removing them?

Parks have far far far different bye laws than the surrounding areas which are also enforced by different people.

You may be fighting the good fight but you also be causing somebody grief who has no option to do this!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2015)

superfly101 said:


> Why not put them up on posts within your estate on your estates property?
> 
> Couple of old broom handles or something longer should do?
> 
> ...



We know it's not the Park Wardens - they actually support us. We know it's not the estate cleaners - apparently "not our job". 
I can't find any park or local by-laws forbidding fastening posters to either the park's railings or the estate's railings either. I'm sure that if there *were* a by-law, then we'd have heard mutterings from the same specimen who chuntered on about Lambeth possibly bringing a suit against Cressingham Gardens residents for chalking comments on the estate's footpaths - vandalism apparently, despite the chalk being erasable with friction and some water (yes, that's the level of vindictiveness and pettiness we're faced with!).


----------



## Greebo (May 1, 2015)

superfly101 said:


> Why not put them up on posts within your estate on your estates property?
> 
> Couple of old broom handles or something longer should do?
> 
> <snip>You may be fighting the good fight but you also be causing somebody grief who has no option to do this!


FYI the ones (pictured here) at the front ARE on part of the estate.

Old broom handles, come off it, I've got a budget of whatever money I have left at the end of the fortnight, and nobody I know has old broom handles!

There's no point only putting them up where people on the estate can see - this estate is used (and crossed) as a right of way to reach the park and is passed by runners, dogwalkers, people with small children etc.  They will be affected by any noise or dust during demolition and building, they'll also be adversely affected by a disrupted estate with a doubled housing density, almost inevitably leading to a higher crime rate.

We, the people living on this estate, tried fighting this as just *our* battle for far too long; it's time to make people who don't live here aware that it's likely to become their problem too.


----------



## Greebo (May 2, 2015)

People will be walking form the rotunda to Streatham Odeon today, starting soon, then (hopefully)  petitioning near then, come and say hello, if you're free.  

Interesting chat with one woman  coming through the park - she used to live on the estate but moved off when she needed a bigger flat.   Apparently she'd been looking out for the banners (for several weeks) and wondering if she might make one and put it up, but had half persuaded herself to butt out of it as she no longer lives here.

What can I say?  If you have a connection to the estate or just want to save it from being regenerated, your help is more than welcome.


----------



## Greebo (May 6, 2015)

At long last, after a delay of a whole season (it was due in February at the very latest), the Test Of Opinion (TOP) has begun.

Don't kid yourself that this is just a high fallutin' word for survey, even if it's being carried out by Acuity.  This TOP will determine the future of the estate, as long as it coincides with whatever the council want to do here.  Me, cynical?  Come off it, the results don't legally bind the council to anything, so why would councillors heed it unless it's in line with what they want? 

There are two options to pick, 4 and 5; nothing else.  The lengthy survey is done on the doorstep.  No time to think, no time to get an interpreter unless you already have one with you, next to no allowances made for hearing impairment, fatigue, memory problems, or difficulty concentrating and/or thinking straight. 

No, you may not take a copy of the form and take as much time as you need to fill it in privately, just tell the nice man (and anyone within earshot) the answers and he'll write all of them down for you.  Everyone knows that council estate plebs deserve neither privacy nor trust.

No, you may not write down the answers for yourself; good grief, you'll be wanting a secret ballot for general and local elections next.


----------



## 299 old timer (May 7, 2015)

For veracity's sake you'll need to film them on each and every doorstep to ensure that they are filling out the form in accordance with what the householder said...


----------



## Greebo (May 7, 2015)

299 old timer said:


> For veracity's sake you'll need to film them on each and every doorstep to ensure that they are filling out the form in accordance with what the householder said...


True, but:
1) I haven't got time to follow, nor anything capable of filming the hapless Acuity bloke.  That's right, just one bloke to do 300+ households.
2) I'm sure he'd object, claiming breach of data protection or similar.

It's quite sickening, what some people have to do to earn a living.


----------



## editor (May 7, 2015)

Don't forget. Keep the evening of Thurs 11th June free. All will be revealed soon


----------



## Greebo (May 7, 2015)

editor said:


> Don't forget. Keep the evening of Thurs 11th June free. All will be revealed soon


It's always good to have something to look forward to.


----------



## felixgolightly (May 11, 2015)

_'There are two options to pick, 4 and 5; nothing else.'_

Don't know if this is relevant or useful, but.  Have some memory of a hydro electric dam in Tasmania where locals were given 2 options to vote for, Dam 1 or Dam 2.  There was a campaign to spoil the ballot paper with the words 'No Dam' and it had some success.  If the guy is asking option 4 or option 5 and you say option 1, surely he has to record that?


----------



## Greebo (May 11, 2015)

felixgolightly said:


> _<snip> _Don't know if this is relevant or useful, but.  Have some memory of a hydro electric dam in Tasmania where locals were given 2 options to vote for, Dam 1 or Dam 2.  There was a campaign to spoil the ballot paper with the words 'No Dam' and it had some success.  If the guy is asking option 4 or option 5 and you say option 1, surely he has to record that?


People here aren't being allowed to write directly on the paper themselves.  The Acuity bloke seems to be asking only the householder; he asked VP,  for his answers, while I was out and has neither left a form for me, nor returned to ask me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> I'd forgotten all about the Lambeth Living 30 week programme of repairs that was due to start on 15 February. Any sign of this yet? It seems odd to be investing in the repairs when we now know what the intention was all along.



Since you wrote this on 02/03/15, the sum total of "works" appear to be the (4 weeks and ongoing) snail-paced (sorry, snails. No insult meant!) re-paving, which is about 30-40% complete. Yes, it's actually very well-installed paving, a rather better effort than the "remove broken slab, chuck a spadeful of sand down, put new slab down" practices Lambeth's contractors have previously used, but at this pace I'm not convinced that the pavers will be home for Christmas this year!


----------



## 299 old timer (May 11, 2015)

I noticed yesterday (around 7.30 evening time) that all the postings on the Tulse Hill side had been very deliberately taken down. Whoever did it left all the the plastic ties on the street. It looked pretty coordinated, nothing was left.


----------



## Greebo (May 11, 2015)

299 old timer said:


> I noticed yesterday (around 7.30 evening time) that all the postings on the Tulse Hill side had been very deliberately taken down. <snip>


Thanks for letting me know.    AFAIK most of those were cut down and removed on Friday morning - just didn't have time to immediately replace them, and there was too much wind.

I'm fairly sure that it's not an estate worker (or similar), or they'd be in trouble for not sweeping up the ties after cutting them.  Anyway, more are up now.  More will be made, more will go up, and more will keep going up.


----------



## Gniewosz (May 12, 2015)

Heard from one resident that it is actually Lambeth Living directing the signs & banners to be cut down.  They saw the people and asked them.


----------



## Greebo (May 12, 2015)

Gniewosz said:


> Heard from one resident that it is actually Lambeth Living directing the signs & banners to be cut down. <snip>


Thank you.  In that case, more are going up whenever.  Wherever.  For as long as this situation lasts.

And I suggest that anyone who's able to make and fix even one banner (or who can find somebody to fix it for them) - no party politics, legally dodgy stuff, or hatemongering, please - does likewise for this campaign.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 12, 2015)

Gniewosz said:


> Heard from one resident that it is actually Lambeth Living directing the signs & banners to be cut down.  They saw the people and asked them.


Have just written to all 3 of our councillors about this, reminding them that there's no provision in either the parks byelaws (for the parkside posters) or the Tenant's Handbook under which they can remove stuff, and that if they're claiming that it's anti-social behaviour (i.e. vandalism), that they've been blithely sticking up "Garages for Rent" signs (not just fastened to railings with cable ties - some stapled or pinned onto trees, FFS!) on estates across the borough, including Cressingham Gardens. Vandalism indeed!


----------



## editor (May 18, 2015)

Here's a statement from Cressingham campaigners 







Brixton Fightback concert and the Save Cressingham Gardens campaign


----------



## 299 old timer (May 18, 2015)

Bumped into a good friend of my daughter over the weekend - her mum used to live on Cressingham, she said there are still many old people living there - raise the alarm and let everyone know what this evil council intends.

edit: I truly suspect that prime real estate Cressingham is the beginning, then others will follow - prove me wrong in 10 years time


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 18, 2015)

299 old timer said:


> Bumped into a good friend of my daughter over the weekend - her mum used to live on Cressingham, she said there are still many old people living there - raise the alarm and let everyone know what this evil council intends.
> 
> edit: I truly suspect that prime real estate Cressingham is the beginning, then others will follow - prove me wrong in 10 years time



Lambeth already have 5 other estates in the "regeneration" pipeline - Central Hill; Knights' Walk; Fenwick; South Lambeth and Westbury. All reasonably "prime" locations if the main idea for "regeneration" is slash and burn.
And yep, Cressingham has about 10% more elderly and 10% more disabled residents than the Lambeth average.

E2A: Thing is, out of the six, perhaps only the Fenwick isn't medium to high density, so how it's proposed to squeeze a thousand new homes out across the estates is puzzling. Cressingham and Central Hill *look* low density, but are actually illegally high-density by modern standards - good design means that they don't *look* high-density. Knights' Walk is physically small and the other two are low-rise and high-rise, so unless parking and green space are to be totally eliminated from both, I really don't get where "1,000 new homes" are coming from,except maybe from Cllr Matthew Bennett's arse.


----------



## leanderman (May 18, 2015)

Quite mad to try to squeeze new homes on to existing estates.

And the gains are minimal. 50 flats here or there.

What other (realistic) options are there for building council stock?


----------



## editor (May 18, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Quite mad to try to squeeze new homes on to existing estates.
> 
> And the gains are minimal. 50 flats here or there.
> 
> What other (realistic) options are there for building council stock?


The Pop Brixton site could have accommodated a handsome amount of council homes. Instead, we get hubs, bars, yet more restaurants and  NZ wine importers.


----------



## leanderman (May 18, 2015)

editor said:


> The Pop Brixton site could have accommodated a handsome amount of council homes. Instead, we get hubs, bars, yet more restaurants and  NZ wine importers.



It is scheduled as housing though.


----------



## editor (May 18, 2015)

leanderman said:


> It is scheduled as housing though.


And Pop Brixton was supposed to be Grow Brixton.


----------



## leanderman (May 18, 2015)

We've gone through this already.

I wanted to know what scope there was for building council homes in and around Brixton. 

(Under the existing system of rules and restraints)


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 18, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Quite mad to try to squeeze new homes on to existing estates.
> 
> And the gains are minimal. 50 flats here or there.



I've looked at the estates targeted. The density for the acreage pretty much doesn't even give "50 flats here or there" unless we're talking cramped-together ranks of barrack blocks on each estate. That sort of design won't appeal to the private buyers Lambeth want to target.



> What other (realistic) options are there for building council stock?



For Lambeth? Brownfield is about the only choice, given that most local authorities had to sell off their landbanks to private developers after Major's govt legislated yet another selling of public silver.
Of course, we could always expropriate some of those sites from their private owners, but I don't think that the state would take that very well.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 18, 2015)

leanderman said:


> It is scheduled as housing though.



Eventually, and as the old saw goes: "there's many a slip twixt cup and lip".


----------



## Gniewosz (May 18, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Quite mad to try to squeeze new homes on to existing estates.
> 
> And the gains are minimal. 50 flats here or there.
> 
> What other (realistic) options are there for building council stock?



Currys on top of Halfords, and then there is a large free car park that is not used very for much that can be used for building homes.
Allow for mansard conversions where there there are large attic areas (e.g. Tulse Hill estate).  This is a very favoured form of conversion in Berlin and homes much sort after.
Buy homes with large backyards and then convert.
Put major roads underground and then build on top (e.g. Barbican)


----------



## leanderman (May 18, 2015)

Gniewosz said:


> Currys on top of Halfords, and then there is a large free car park that is not used very for much that can be used for building homes.
> Allow for mansard conversions where there there are large attic areas (e.g. Tulse Hill estate).  This is a very favoured form of conversion in Berlin and homes much sort after.
> Buy homes with large backyards and then convert.
> Put major roads underground and then build on top (e.g. Barbican)




Tesco Acre Lane has to be a prime candidate.

Of course, with all this in-filling we'd also need to find sites for more schools and surgeries etc. 

And better transport links.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 18, 2015)

Gniewosz said:


> Put major roads underground and then build on top (e.g. Barbican)



Almost happened (partially) in central Brixton in the early '70s as part of the big "tower blocks, flyovers and subways" re-imagining.


----------



## RubyToogood (May 19, 2015)

Some photos of the Central Hill estate, showing the appalling living conditions of the tenants:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=oa.773391852774151&type=1


----------



## Greebo (May 19, 2015)

RubyToogood said:


> Some photos of the Central Hill estate, showing the appalling living conditions of the tenants:
> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=oa.773391852774151&type=1


Tldr; it looks like the type of place that most people would love to live longterm.

You have to sign into FB to see those photos.  For the benefit of those who can't or won't, the pictures who how dishonest the grounds for regeneration are; the estate looks pleasant, is adequately lit (or would be if the lighting's well maintained), has places for children to play, airy and light flats, plenty of green space which is open to all, great views, safe places to sit outside, the steps are safe enough...


----------



## leanderman (May 19, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Almost happened (partially) in central Brixton in the early '70s as part of the big "tower blocks, flyovers and subways" re-imagining.



Sounds expensive and unlikely.


----------



## High Definition (May 19, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Sounds expensive and unlikely.


There are quite a number of sites across Brixton where new housing is planned, including some sites owned by Lambeth and public bodies.  The real problem I think is that very little will be affordable for ordinary people.

Off the top of my head I can think of

Your Nu Town Hall (Hambrook House, Ivor House, Olive Morris House) - planning application in for 194 flats of which 55 (less than 30%) will be affordable rented.

Somerleyton Road - another Council development - can't remember the numbers but we're told 50% will be affordable

Brixton Central (International House, the ice rink site, Network Rail land in the middle) - will include housing as well as shops, but no numbers yet 

Thames Water land behind Brixton Windmill - very big site, no plans yet, but rumoured that Thames Water looking to develop for housing

Then there are all the Lambeth office buildings which will be vacated when staff move to the new Civic Building - including Phoenix House at Vauxhall which is Lambeth-owned - some of them might be developed for residential.


----------



## 299 old timer (May 19, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Tesco Acre Lane has to be a prime candidate.



Sainsbury's Brixton Water Lane. I still struggle to understand how this got planning permission when there is one just along the road on Brixton Hill, two within a stone's throw in Brixton itself, and another fair sized one up the top of Brixton Hill.


----------



## Winot (May 19, 2015)

High Definition said:


> Thames Water land behind Brixton Windmill - very big site, no plans yet, but rumoured that Thames Water looking to develop for housing



As some here will remember, there was a campaign to build a secondary school on that land a few years ago.  The school was opened at the top of Tulse Hill instead (City Heights).


----------



## Rushy (May 19, 2015)

299 old timer said:


> Sainsbury's Brixton Water Lane. I still struggle to understand how this got planning permission when there is one just along the road on Brixton Hill, two within a stone's throw in Brixton itself, and another fair sized one up the top of Brixton Hill.


It didn't need permission.
I use it a lot. Never use the "local" one on The Hill.


----------



## CH1 (May 19, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Tesco Acre Lane has to be a prime candidate.


Only if you arrange for us to have an Aldi somewhere in Brixton Central.


----------



## Crispy (May 19, 2015)

Winot said:


> As some here will remember, there was a campaign to build a secondary school on that land a few years ago.  The school was opened at the top of Tulse Hill instead (City Heights).


I thought the Windmill land was a covered-over reservoir (much like the one off Palace Road on top of the hill). Must be challenging to build on.


----------



## Winot (May 19, 2015)

Crispy said:


> I thought the Windmill land was a covered-over reservoir (much like the one off Palace Road on top of the hill). Must be challenging to build on.



Yes, some of it is reservoir, but there is quite a lot that isn't iirc.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 19, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Sounds expensive and unlikely.



It would have been expensive, but given the amount of housing that was CPOd at the time, the Brixton Redevelopment Plan (as was) could have happened in part or full, and although flyovers were favoured, underground roads were considered given local geology. Fortunately, Southwyck House and Brixton Rec were about all that got built.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 19, 2015)

299 old timer said:


> Sainsbury's Brixton Water Lane. I still struggle to understand how this got planning permission when there is one just along the road on Brixton Hill, two within a stone's throw in Brixton itself, and another fair sized one up the top of Brixton Hill.



I don't think it needed permission because it was already commercial premises (the carpet shop), so no change of use.


----------



## leanderman (May 19, 2015)

High Definition said:


> There are quite a number of sites across Brixton where new housing is planned



I doubt it is anywhere near enough.

Also, the funding rules would need to change to allow councils to allocate a proper share for low rent.

And there is often strong opposition to building high, which might be required.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (May 19, 2015)

Or we could just take the properties away from buy to let landlords at some kind of sub prime market rate, the value of your investment may go down as well as up, and make those properties a social good.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 20, 2015)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Or we could just take the properties away from buy to let landlords at some kind of sub prime market rate, the value of your investment may go down as well as up, and make those properties a social good.



Compulsory Purchase Order.
After all, it was good enough for the poor sods on the Heygate estate, and Lambeth think it's good enough for the freeholders and leaseholders on the various "regeneration" estates, so it *must* be good enough for exploitative buy-to-let fuckers!


----------



## leanderman (May 20, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Compulsory Purchase Order.
> After all, it was good enough for the poor sods on the Heygate estate, and Lambeth think it's good enough for the freeholders and leaseholders on the various "regeneration" estates, so it *must* be good enough for exploitative buy-to-let fuckers!



Sure. By the same token, Lambeth could CPO Leander Road and densify it rather than Cressingham.

But I was asking what Lambeth can do to build more, within its restricted parameters.


----------



## Crispy (May 20, 2015)

You could build a block of flats right down the middle of Josephine Avenue and still have room on either side for smaller roads....

Sorry, back to reality.


----------



## Gramsci (May 25, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Sure. By the same token, Lambeth could CPO Leander Road and densify it rather than Cressingham.
> 
> But I was asking what Lambeth can do to build more, within its restricted parameters.



cuppa tee posted this info up on the Brixton thread. Worth re posting here as it show Nu Labour and sections of Tory thinking.

IPPR have produced this report ( which I only glanced at).  

Conservative Home have this article on it.


----------



## Belushi (May 25, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Conservative Home have this article on it.





> building more “housing unit” (which, being built by the state wouldn’t be very good).



He knows fuck all about housing for starters.


----------



## oryx (May 25, 2015)

Belushi said:


> He knows fuck all about housing for starters.



Couldn't agree more. He does, however, know a bit more than the clown who wrote the first comment on the article!



> Hand the land over to developers.



etc.


----------



## Gniewosz (Jun 2, 2015)

Interesting report if you can suspend all logic to understand local authority accounting for their council housing ("Housing Revenue Account")... effectively argues that from 2017, any regeneration involving demolition and new build will essentially bankrupt the council's Housing Revenue Account, meaning that Lambeth will not be in a position to even afford basic repairs and maintenance on its housing stock anywhere in the borough...  
http://www.awics.co.uk/dynamicdata/...- valuations, depreciation and impairment.pdf


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 2, 2015)

Gniewosz said:


> Interesting report if you can suspend all logic to understand local authority accounting for their council housing ("Housing Revenue Account")... effectively argues that from 2017, any regeneration involving demolition and new build will essentially bankrupt the council's Housing Revenue Account, meaning that Lambeth will not be in a position to even afford basic repairs and maintenance on its housing stock anywhere in the borough...
> http://www.awics.co.uk/dynamicdata/data/docs/housing revenue account - valuations, depreciation and impairment.pdf



Wow. An interesting read. I can't see how Lambeth (or any other local authority, for that matter) can rebut this. It points up their clinging to the idea of an SPV as being a last desperate attempt to keep their projects on track, rather than a well-reasoned financial approach.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 2, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Wow. An interesting read. I can't see how Lambeth (or any other local authority, for that matter) can rebut this. It points up their clinging to the idea of an SPV as being a last desperate attempt to keep their projects on track, rather than a well-reasoned financial approach.


Surely the operative part is the final paragraph, namely:

"The Department for Communities & Local Government said that it does not want councils to be put off building new homes because of accountancy rules and has told sources it will publish a consultation to ensure housing revenue accounts do not take the hit for depreciation and impairment losses after 2017. This consultation is still awaited."

Surely a government capable of justifying QE would have no trouble altering these rules - unless you think that the government actually wants to bankrupt local councils building more housing.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 2, 2015)

Gniewosz said:


> Interesting report if you can suspend all logic to understand local authority accounting for their council housing ("Housing Revenue Account")... effectively argues that from 2017, any regeneration involving demolition and new build will essentially bankrupt the council's Housing Revenue Account, meaning that Lambeth will not be in a position to even afford basic repairs and maintenance on its housing stock anywhere in the borough...
> http://www.awics.co.uk/dynamicdata/data/docs/housing revenue account - valuations, depreciation and impairment.pdf



On Somerleyton road the Council say the project will be done outside of the HRA. The Council will borrow to build scheme. This will be separate from HRA.

Some kind of SPV will be set up.

Of course Somerleyton road will not include demolition and replacement of existing stock.

What I am not clear on from that article is the status of using an SPV on an existing estate like yours.

Will partial/ total demolition of existing housing affect the HRA? Even if the estate is transferred to a SPV.

The article does state that in this "transitional" period of the new "self financing" regime the accounting rules mean that no effect on HRA of estate regeneration and new build.

What the article is flagging up is potential problem in a few years time if the Government does not change the rules. The article is suggesting that these issues are well known and the government has done nothing so far to rectify them. The article implies the government wants to make things hard for Councils through technical measures like accounting rules.

If there is plan to demolish and do new build on Cressingham but transfer new build to a SPV this seems the relevant paragraph (page7)




> A unitary authority is planning to demolish and rebuild about 1,500 properties over a period of
> years and are seeking a strategic partner with whom to work.* When these properties are
> demolished they will be written out of the asset base incurring an impairment charge of about
> £50million (based on an average book value of £33,600)*. When the new homes are built at a
> ...



So am I correct to think that even if the Council set up an SPV and borrow outside the HRA to "regenerate" Cressingham Gardens they still may, if the accounting rules stay the same, have adverse effect on HRA? Due to loss of an asset?

As this demolition cost will affect the HRA?

Sorry accountancy is not my forte. The interesting thing about the article is the fact that these seemingly tedious rules are one place were politics take place.

It looks to me that the government is using this as way to stop Councils building Council housing. Whilst urging them in public to get on with it. Its just another way to get rid of social housing. Can make one understand why Councils are looking at unsuitable measures like SPVs.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 2, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Of course Somerleyton road will not include demolition and replacement of existing stock.
> What I am not clear on from that article is the status of using an SPV on an existing estate like yours.


I think you have pinpointed the issues.

Looks like for a definite answer we might have to invest £300 per head to attend the seminar in Novotel Waterloo!

Meanwhile I think Somerleyton Road looks safe as it is wholly outside the HRA, whereas Cressingham and any other regenerations of existing stock they will have to have lawyers as well as accountants crawling all over the contracts.


----------



## Gniewosz (Jun 3, 2015)

From what I can understand of the process, the council has to transfer the homes "vacant" to the SPV otherwise it would be subject to a stock transfer vote.  If the homes are "vacant" then they have lost all value because they no longer provide a service and would have to be written off and charged against the HRA.  The biggest issue will be the buy back of the homeowners' homes (not an issue on Somerleyton Road), particularly if done before the land is transferred to the SPV... Say £400k per home on average x 100 homeowners = £40m.  To put into context, Lambeth currently collects around £100m in rents and is pretty much spending it all.  If they have to make a further £40m write-off, they will have to find up to 40% cuts across the board - essentially stop all maintenance on everyone's homes... and this is not even considering the impact of the 5 other regeneration estates.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 3, 2015)

Gniewosz said:


> From what I can understand of the process, the council has to transfer the homes "vacant" to the SPV otherwise it would be subject to a stock transfer vote.  If the homes are "vacant" then they have lost all value because they no longer provide a service and would have to be written off and charged against the HRA.  The biggest issue will be the buy back of the homeowners' homes (not an issue on Somerleyton Road), particularly if done before the land is transferred to the SPV... Say £400k per home on average x 100 homeowners = £40m.  To put into context, Lambeth currently collects around £100m in rents and is pretty much spending it all.  If they have to make a further £40m write-off, they will have to find up to 40% cuts across the board - essentially stop all maintenance on everyone's homes... and this is not even considering the impact of the 5 other regeneration estates.


Have you checked recent buy back figures in Southwark? I think it was more like £100,000 - though obviously flats in the Heygate are not directly comparable to Cressingham Gardens.


----------



## Gniewosz (Jun 3, 2015)

I think Lambeth will struggle to do what Southwark is doing in terms of the "market valuations".  If they try, they will have a massive battle on their hands that will be very nasty and very long. Plus there is all the other costs on top that the council has to cover if they go down the compulsory purchase route, e.g. stamp duty and legal costs on a replacement homes etc.  All the extras could add up to 50% on top of the actual market value paid. It is not a cheap process, which is why the new build prices end up so high in the end.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 3, 2015)

Gniewosz said:


> I think Lambeth will struggle to do what Southwark is doing in terms of the "market valuations".  If they try, they will have a massive battle on their hands that will be very nasty and very long. Plus there is all the other costs on top that the council has to cover if they go down the compulsory purchase route, e.g. stamp duty and legal costs on a replacement homes etc.  All the extras could add up to 50% on top of the actual market value paid. It is not a cheap process, which is why the new build prices end up so high in the end.


You may be right about that. I am fascinated how Lambeth have pushed through massive regen schemes in Robsart Street, in Stockwell Park Estate and in Myatts North (i.e. Oval Quarter) with not much opposition.

Maybe in those cases most people got to keep their homes - though I do know of people from Myatts who ended up permanently decanted into (council) street properties. That seems a surprisingly retrograde step considering regeneration schemes are supposed to be updating people to state-of-the-art, if more expensive, municipal utopias.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Surely the operative part is the final paragraph, namely:
> 
> "The Department for Communities & Local Government said that it does not want councils to be put off building new homes because of accountancy rules and has told sources it will publish a consultation to ensure housing revenue accounts do not take the hit for depreciation and impairment losses after 2017. This consultation is still awaited."
> 
> Surely a government capable of justifying QE would have no trouble altering these rules - unless you think that the government actually wants to bankrupt local councils building more housing.



I wouldn't be surprised if a government whose idea of "localism" is to localise blame and centralise power were to do something like that.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I think you have pinpointed the issues.
> 
> Looks like for a definite answer we might have to invest £300 per head to attend the seminar in Novotel Waterloo!
> 
> Meanwhile I think Somerleyton Road looks safe as it is wholly outside the HRA, whereas Cressingham and any other regenerations of existing stock they will have to have lawyers as well as accountants crawling all over the contracts.



I did think this morning that the article has to be seen as also written to encourage people to pay up and go to his seminar.

So I would take this as possible bias. 

Not saying he is writing anything wrong. Its the emphasis he puts on that this. ie please come to my seminar to hear more.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 13, 2015)




----------



## brixtonblade (Jun 13, 2015)

Gramsci said:


>


Might wander up for this if rain holds off


----------



## brixtonblade (Jun 13, 2015)

Couldn't see anyone there so went round the park, whoever mentioned the walled garden recently was right, it's looking lovely 
Had an unguided look round Cressingham whilst I was up there and lots of the planting looks nice. Would have been nice to get the tour though so might go back tomorrow if anyone knows it's definitely on?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 13, 2015)

brixtonblade said:


> Couldn't see anyone there so went round the park, whoever mentioned the walled garden recently was right, it's looking lovely
> Had an unguided look round Cressingham whilst I was up there and lots of the planting looks nice. Would have been nice to get the tour though so might go back tomorrow if anyone knows it's definitely on?



Yes. You might want to go to the 3pm tour. 

I was up there today. ASH were there. Architects 4 Social Housing. Had an interesting chat with them.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 13, 2015)

Also had a chat with some of the Urbanites there. 

Legal action against Council has started. 



> A tenant of Lambeth Council has begun a High Court legal action today in her bid to challenge the council’s plans to redevelop the Cressingham Gardens estate in Lambeth, South London, where she has lived since 2009.
> 
> Eva Bokrosova is applying for the decision of the council, to redevelop the estate, to be judicially reviewed at the High Court. A judicial review application was served on the Council today (11 June 2015).
> 
> Since 2012 residents of the estate have campaigned for repairs to be made to the estate which was built in the 1960s and is a low rise, small scale estate which contains plenty of green space, and described by Lord Esher, past president of RIBA, as ‘one of the nicest small schemes in England'.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 14, 2015)

brixtonblade said:


> <snip> Would have been nice to get the tour though so might go back tomorrow if anyone knows it's definitely on?


It is.


----------



## brixtonblade (Jun 14, 2015)

Greebo said:


> It is.


Went at 3,only me there but I still got shown round by Nick.  Was really interesting to hear that the rain garden will help prevent flooding. Very sad to hear that someone has been pinching plants.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 14, 2015)

brixtonblade said:


> Went at 3,only me there but I still got shown round by Nick.  Was really interesting to hear that the rain garden will help prevent flooding. Very sad to hear that someone has been pinching plants.


I didn't make it myself - needed to catch up on my sleep.  

*shrug* These things (nicked plants and illicit cuttings) tend to happen anywhere that you have public space.  I'm not sure how much to believe about the pinched plants as it seems to be limited to a few areas and not very often either.

Some of it might even be a result of miscommunication - there were some trees recently planted near the Crosby Walk voids, and they'd been cleared for permission with Lambeth Council, but nothing had been said to residents - not via noticeboards, email, flyers or even notices tagged to the saplings themselves.  Because of that, some people on that side of the estate became scared that the trees were going to be a way of hiding regeneration, and pulled them up.  

OTOH it could have been wrong uns - about 10 years ago, the mounds were planted with daffodil bulbs, bought by the TRA.  Soon after they'd all come into bloom, all of them were dug up and taken away by men in fluorescent yellow waistcoats - whether they were council workers or thieves remains unkown.


----------



## High Definition (Jun 14, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Yes. You might want to go to the 3pm tour.
> 
> I was up there today. ASH were there. Architects 4 Social Housing. Had an interesting chat with them.



I met ASH at Knight's Walk this afternoon, which might explain why they weren't at Cressingham.  Knights Walk in Kennington is one of the other six Lambeth estates threatened with extinction.  There was a tour of the estate and a meeting with Kate Macintosh, architect and widow of George Finch who designed Knights Walk.  Very good turn out - 40 people I thought.  Good news from Kate which is that Leigham Court Road - another of the six estates on Lambeth's hit list - has been listed, which means its safe from demolition.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 18, 2015)

Save Cressingham T shirts (still available in S, M, L and XL) on sale on the Facebook page, and you might see one or two of them (as well as the Brixton Fightback ones) being worn on the Anti Austerity march on Saturday.  Sadly, it clashes with when some of us are on long since prebooked holidays or have other non-shiftable things on that day.   So, if you see somebody in a white and green T shirt, do come and say hello.

Money goes towards the fighting fund, which in turn helps pay for the solicitor who we've now got arguing that Lambeth council's consultation process left a lot to be desired.  Things went to judicial review last Thursday, that much I can tell you.


----------



## haushoch (Jun 21, 2015)

Great article on Kate Macintosh here: http://www.theguardian.com/artandde...ins-great-unsung-architects-of-social-housing


----------



## High Definition (Jun 27, 2015)

Excellent letter which the Brockwell Park Community Partners have just sent to Lambeth Council setting out their concern about the impact the Cressingham Gardens scheme could have on Brockwell Park.  Hard to see how Lambeth could come up with a scheme for Cressingham which would be acceptable to the Community Partners.  
http://brockwellparkcommunitypartne...ngham-gardens-estate-vista-must-be-preserved/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2015)

Fun at the lower end of the estate (Crosby Walk) today, talking about what could be done with the 6 void flats that Lambeth has had bricked up for the last 16 years. Quite a few queries from passers-by as to *why* they're bricked up, too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 27, 2015)

High Definition said:


> Excellent letter which the Brockwell Park Community Partners have just sent to Lambeth Council setting out their concern about the impact the Cressingham Gardens scheme could have on Brockwell Park.  Hard to see how Lambeth could come up with a scheme for Cressingham which would be acceptable to the Community Partners.
> http://brockwellparkcommunitypartne...ngham-gardens-estate-vista-must-be-preserved/



Matthew Bennett will be stamping his petulant feet at that.


----------



## High Definition (Jun 28, 2015)

Interesting story here from today's Observer, suggesting that local councils could be forced to sell of new homes created as part of estate regeneration schemes in order to finance the extension of the right to buy to housing association tenants.  Article picks up concerns from lB Islington that they could be forced to sell off new flats around Kings Cross.  Occurred to me that this could be the nail in the coffin for Lambeth's Cressingham Gardens regeneration scheme - if Government policies in relation to the right to buy mean that ALL the new homes at Cressingham have to be sold on the market, then this undermines one of the key arguments used by politicians to justify the scheme, i.e. that it will provide affordable homes.  


http://www.theguardian.com/society/...il-caledonian-road-speculators-sell-off#img-1


----------



## High Definition (Jun 29, 2015)

http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=40201&PlanId=594

Another big milestone coming up!   Picked this up from Lambeth's Forward Plan - Cressingham is scheduled to be on the agenda for the Cabinet meeting on 13th July.  Agenda will be published on 3rd July so we'll know what the recommendation is then.


----------



## High Definition (Jun 29, 2015)

High Definition said:


> http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=40201&PlanId=594
> 
> Another big milestone coming up!   Picked this up from Lambeth's Forward Plan - Cressingham is scheduled to be on the agenda for the Cabinet meeting on 13th July.  Agenda will be published on 3rd July so we'll know what the recommendation is then.



Meant to add that the Friends of Brockwell Park, the Brockwell Park Community Partners, the Herne Hill Society and the Brixton Society have got together  on the issue of Cressingham and its impact on the park, have prepared a joint statement highlighting their concerns and will be requesting a deputation to Cabinet on 13th July.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 29, 2015)

High Definition said:


> <snip> Agenda will be published on 3rd July so we'll know what the recommendation is then.


The consultation is still under judicial review, so AFAIK nothing is certain.


----------



## High Definition (Jun 29, 2015)

Greebo said:


> The consultation is still under judicial review, so AFAIK nothing is certain.


I spoke to David Rose, in Lambeth's committee services team, earlier this morning.  He said that the report on the six Lambeth estates (including Cressingham) is still scheduled to go to Cabinet on 13th July.  It could get pulled at the last moment, of course, but seems unlikely to me.  As I said in previous email, the agenda is due to be published on Lambeth's website on 3rd July, so we'll know then for certain.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 29, 2015)

High Definition said:


> I spoke to David Rose, in Lambeth's committee services team, earlier this morning.  He said that the report on the six Lambeth estates (including Cressingham) is still scheduled to go to Cabinet on 13th July.  It could get pulled at the last moment, of course, but seems unlikely to me.  As I said in previous email, the agenda is due to be published on Lambeth's website on 3rd July, so we'll know then for certain.


So the decision of the judicial review, querying the validity of the consultation, on which some of the findings are based, won't be taken into account?  Oh well, this is Lambeth.


----------



## High Definition (Jun 29, 2015)

Greebo said:


> So the decision of the judicial review, querying the validity of the consultation, on which some of the findings are based, won't be taken into account?  Oh well, this is Lambeth.


I'm no expert on these things.  However, if the judicial review is raising questions about the validity of the decision taken by Cabinet in March of this year, then I'd have thought Lambeth should be waiting for the outcome before they take any further decisions about Cressingham.  If that's right, then the report to Cabinet next month ought to be pulled.  Maybe Leigh Day, the solicitors acting for the resident taking out the JR, could be asked to advise on this?


----------



## Twattor (Jun 29, 2015)

High Definition said:


> Interesting story here from today's Observer, suggesting that local councils could be forced to sell of new homes created as part of estate regeneration schemes in order to finance the extension of the right to buy to housing association tenants.  Article picks up concerns from lB Islington that they could be forced to sell off new flats around Kings Cross.  Occurred to me that this could be the nail in the coffin for Lambeth's Cressingham Gardens regeneration scheme - if Government policies in relation to the right to buy mean that ALL the new homes at Cressingham have to be sold on the market, then this undermines one of the key arguments used by politicians to justify the scheme, i.e. that it will provide affordable homes.
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/society/...il-caledonian-road-speculators-sell-off#img-1



This surprises me a lot. In construction circles the "people's Republic of Islington" is legendary in the extent of its demands if you wish to build there.  Their design standards are beyond those recently abandoned to reduce build costs, and they seem to make it up as they go along.

Islington wheelchair units are large enough to turn a battleship, ceilings are high enough for a double decker, and they only recognise social rent (as opposed to affordable).

The difficulty comes as values there are so ludicrously high that even as a percentage of market rents ordinary people can't afford them.

Example: 1 bed shared ownership flats 600k; 25% share, £150k mortgage plus rent of 3% of remainder. You need £15k deposit plus the ability to service about £1,800/month plus service charge. Probably £2k/month. Not affordable in my world.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 3, 2015)

Jesus fucking Christ. Bennett, you're a shitcunt - a worthless piss-drip.
http://lambethlabour-labourclp132.nationbuilder.com/latest_on_cressingham_gardens

Tricky Skills editor


----------



## CH1 (Jul 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Jesus fucking Christ. Bennett, you're a shitcunt - a worthless piss-drip.
> http://lambethlabour-labourclp132.nationbuilder.com/latest_on_cressingham_gardens


This is very bad news. Almost like now the general election is over the council feel emboldened to do as they like.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 3, 2015)

At this point, people on the estate have nothing left to lose.  So we fight.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> This is very bad news. Almost like now the general election is over the council feel emboldened to do as they like.



Not to be arrogant, but they'll probably regret their triumphalism. The fight has barely begun,and we've got a few tasty weapons in the armoury even if we disregard the Judicial Review into the "consultation".


----------



## Greebo (Jul 5, 2015)

Hello Matthew Bennet and other members of Lambeth council.  I know that you or at least your minions read this forum and maybe this thread on a regular basis, so here's a short Sunday morning playlist:


Spoiler: something inside so strong









Spoiler: giving up giving in


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 5, 2015)

Is there a general fighting fund that people can contribute to?

(Times like these I wished I could win the lottery and give half my win away to fighting councils like Lambeth and the private money/property wankers).


----------



## Gniewosz (Jul 5, 2015)

Yes, there is a fighting fund set up here:
http://www.gofundme.com/savecressingham


----------



## Greebo (Jul 5, 2015)

stethoscope said:


> Is there a general fighting fund that people can contribute to?
> 
> (Times like these I wished I could win the lottery and give half my win away to fighting councils like Lambeth and the private money/property wankers).


Yes, thank you, and I wish I could win the lottery and do that too.  Because there are other places under threat as well, not just in this borough.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2015)

For anyone wanting to attend the "full cabinet meeting" on 13th July and speak (whether you're pro or anti regeneration), then contact the "Democratic Services" dept on 0207 926 2170 or e-mail: democracy@lambeth.gov.uk

Save Cressingham and other concerned individuals will be meeting outside the Town Hall at 6pm on the 13th for the 7pm cabinet meeting. Hopefully certain local protesters won't get the public gallery cleared this time, as that rather defeats the object of going there to give solidarity to our people, and the cold shoulder to the cabinet.


----------



## editor (Jul 6, 2015)

Buzz has given it a big plug:

Furious residents to protest against Lambeth’s decision to flatten Cressingham Gardens – Lambeth Town Hall, 6pm July 13th


----------



## kikiscrumbles (Jul 7, 2015)

Oh man - I was in Brixton Cycle Coop yesterday which remains as brilliant, reliable and friendly as ever. But all the lovely people there now seemed totally resigned to their fate of having to leave by September - with NO offer at all of a local alternative place to re-open. As with all the pubs that the b*stards can't be bothered to save from developers, this too will become luxury flats. The Coop strikes me as the very definition of 'community asset' - right next to the skate park where the kids all come and borrow tools to fix their bikes or skates - and learn all sorts of practical and life skills. It makes me so sad and angry - I signed the petition but still feel sad and angry, and defeated. Ach! Fuck those fuckers!


----------



## Greebo (Jul 7, 2015)

kikiscrumbles said:


> Oh man - I was in Brixton Cycle Coop yesterday which remains as brilliant, reliable and friendly as ever. But all the lovely people there now seemed totally resigned to their fate of having to leave by September <snip> the very definition of 'community asset' - right next to the skate park where the kids all come and borrow tools to fix their bikes or skates - and learn all sorts of practical and life skills. It makes me so sad and angry - I signed the petition but still feel sad and angry, and defeated. <snip>


You'll be glad to know that the council, as usual, will have a stall at the Lambeth Country Show.  Go over and make your displeasure politely known, if you can get there.


----------



## kikiscrumbles (Jul 7, 2015)

Greebo said:


> You'll be glad to know that the council, as usual, will have a stall at the Lambeth Country Show.  Go over and make your displeasure politely known, if you can get there.


Thanks Greebo, I will do just that. Tho I may not be overly polite...


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 7, 2015)

The same Cabinet meeting on 13th will also discuss Somerleyton road.

As Tricky Skills noticed the new body ( no detail on how it will work yet) may be used on other sites in Lambeth:



> Once the regeneration is complete, the scheme will be managed by a new community board. It is unclear at this stage who will take control of the community body, but it does seem like it could be an influential organisation that the Council might want to use to manage other projects in the borough:
> 
> “There is also a strong desire to create a new community body that will involve wide-ranging representation including the local community, residents and nonresidential occupiers from the new development, and the Council, with the holding of the residential portion in a housing cooperative.
> 
> The wholly owned Council company, may in the future also be used for other similar developments.”



Its increasingly looking like to me that the Somerleyton road project is now being used to test ideas that will be used on existing estates threatened with redevelopment. ie the type of tenancies , mix of housing types etc and funding.

As the proposal is now to demolish Cressingham it may be treated like Somerleyton road. Well its a guess.

If you are lucky Cressingham gardens may get input from Brixton Green.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 7, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> If you are lucky Cressingham gardens may get input from Brixton Green.



Funny you should mention that...


----------



## Greebo (Jul 7, 2015)

That proposal to demolish this estate is still not set yet - the consultation which led to it is *still *under judicial review. 

For any decision to demolish to be valid, that judical review must find in favour of the council.

The fat lady hasn't even begun warming up yet.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 7, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Funny you should mention that...



Please don't even joke about it, mate! 
I don't like head-butting people, but I reckon that anyone representing Brixton Green's "management" would deserve a nut!


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2015)

This is so important that it needs a thread of its own. Please come down and support Cressingham Gardens residents.



More info: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/07/...gham-gardens-lambeth-town-hall-6pm-july-13th/

*Protest details:*
Monday July 13th 6pm-7pm
Lambeth Town Hall
Brixton Hill
Brixton, London SW2 1RW

Facebook event for the July 13th protest






*More info: *
Find out about Cressingham Gardens here.
Facebook page: www.facebook.com/SaveCressinghamGardens
Save Cressingham Gardens petition
Save Cressingham Gardens crowdfunding

Read more and join in with the *in-depth discussion* on the urban75 forums (over 620 posts).

*Help the Save Cressingham Gardens campaign!*
Donate to their GoFundMe page
Buy their t shirts


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 8, 2015)

The weasel-featured shitbirds at Lambeth appearing to be enjoying being cunts.
Today we've been flyered with a missive inviting residents to a:

"Drop In session" on the "Cressingham Gardens Estate Regeneration Proposals"

"Thursday 9th July 2015 at 4pm to 8pm
Venue: Rotunda Community Hall, Cressingham Gardens Estate

Come in and find out what is being proposed for your estate"  

So, a whole day of notice. Fortunately, it won't take me very long to dig out my digital voice recorders, and my dslr and a tripod. I'm going to record the lot - because of my medically-documented memory problem, obviously!


----------



## Greebo (Jul 8, 2015)

BTW some of the flyer paper (for Monday etc, but obv not the demolition meeting) is courtesy of Puddy_Tat


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 9, 2015)

How was the meeting? ViolentPanda did you manage to make the recording in the end?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> How was the meeting? ViolentPanda did you manage to make the recording in the end?



Yep. For the hour and a half we were there, anyway. Got it on video and audio. Basically they were doubly-screwed, as I had the Equalities Act on my side, as well as last year's "Right to Report" legislation.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 10, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep. For the hour and a half we were there, anyway. Got it on video and audio. Basically they were doubly-screwed, as I had the Equalities Act on my side, as well as last year's "Right to Report" legislation.


Nice one


----------



## Greebo (Jul 10, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Nice one


Now the slightly bad news - the accoustics made audiosoup of anything not said at close range. So we didn't catch a word said at the other table (two tables quite a way apart).  Still, at least our having a legitimate reason to record wiped any smile off Lucia Deere's face.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Now the slightly bad news - the accoustics made audiosoup of anything not said at close range. So we didn't catch a word said at the other table (two tables quite a way apart).  Still, at least our having a legitimate reason to record wiped any smile off Lucia Deere's face.



She did look a bit like someone had put a ferret up her skirt, didn't she?


----------



## organicpanda (Jul 10, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> She did look a bit like someone had put a ferret up her skirt, didn't she? [/Q


----------



## Robert Langtry (Jul 10, 2015)

Promises Promises Promises. Profit, Power, and self-intrest will always rise to the top. The British sense of 'Fair Play' is an ideal, not a total reality.
In Councillor Bennetts article published by Lambeth Labour-nationbuilder.con etc., Bennett reassures that "every resident and homeowner will have the opportunity to stay on the Estate as part of the Cressingham Community." O.K. you can take that at face value, accept his word as an honourable young English Gentleman. Or Bennett could be gone in a year or two. Or maybe like some persuasive salesman / politicians we all know there is a self-delusional aspect to their character, who after destroying peoples lives say 'it's behind us, we must move on' 'learn the lessons' which of course they never do. And Bennett is not the only Lambeth Council person involved in this. Those left living on Cressingham could be piled up in a block hidden away in some dark corner cut off from the Park. What kind of Contract could be drawn up to safeguard against this?
Cressingham Gardens is an absolute prime piece of Real Estate with its own entrance to a beautiful Park overlooking Westminster and the City of London. The Park has a swimming pool with gym, BMX track, Tennis courts, and fantastic transport, especially the Railway but also Tube and Bus. There are private schools like Dulwich College an JAGS nearby. Then there's Dulwich Village, and Herne Hill with its Velodrome. Westminster Boating Base near Vauxhall Bridge is just up the road on a No 2 Bus if you fancy sending the kids Sailing and Kayaking. You can enjoy all this living on the Tulse Hill Estate or Brixton but as a potential 'High Class' development Cressingham is something special; probably the best piece of land in South London. Devolopers with big bucks would almost kill to get hold of it. I think I've read that Lambeth say they will be doing the rebuilding developement themselves. Would I accept their word? Not in a million years!
I can hear the excuses now as figures are fudged and deals done when trying to clear out as many Residents as they can. "We have to act in the best intrest of the Council Tax payers" "Central Government cuts" "Money desperately needed for essential services." And all their other backdoor miserable excuses.
Rule Britannia, Britannia weaves the rules. . . . Forty creamcrackers up your bum, bang, bang, bang.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2015)

Que?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2015)

Robert Langtry said:


> Promises Promises Promises. Profit, Power, and self-intrest will always rise to the top. The British sense of 'Fair Play' is an ideal, not a total reality.
> In Councillor Bennetts article published by Lambeth Labour-nationbuilder.con etc., Bennett reassures that "every resident and homeowner will have the opportunity to stay on the Estate as part of the Cressingham Community." O.K. you can take that at face value, accept his word as an honourable young English Gentleman. Or Bennett could be gone in a year or two. Or maybe like some persuasive salesman / politicians we all know there is a self-delusional aspect to their character, who after destroying peoples lives say 'it's behind us, we must move on' 'learn the lessons' which of course they never do. And Bennett is not the only Lambeth Council person involved in this. Those left living on Cressingham could be piled up in a block hidden away in some dark corner cut off from the Park. What kind of Contract could be drawn up to safeguard against this?



Given the intended construction modality - phased development - then it's a near certainty that some sort of divide between social/"affordable" housing and the housing for sale will be attempted, possibly along the same lines as used at Brockwell Gate, just down the road.
As for Bennett possibly being gone (he's ambitious about standing for Val Shawcross's GLA seat), as you say, it's not Bennett as an individual driving this, it's the ruling Labour clique of the last 10 years or so - the neoliberal careerists who aspire to become MPs and members of Progress - that are responsible for formulating these plans. They come and go, with some like Pete "fibber" Robbins leaving a big legacy, mostly of pain and despair to the borough's housing co--ops and Short Life tenants,and others leaving little legacy at all.



> Cressingham Gardens is an absolute prime piece of Real Estate with its own entrance to a beautiful Park overlooking Westminster and the City of London. The Park has a swimming pool with gym, BMX track, Tennis courts, and fantastic transport, especially the Railway but also Tube and Bus. There are private schools like Dulwich College an JAGS nearby. Then there's Dulwich Village, and Herne Hill with its Velodrome. Westminster Boating Base near Vauxhall Bridge is just up the road on a No 2 Bus if you fancy sending the kids Sailing and Kayaking.



The excellent transport infrastructure is somewhat of a cuckoo in the nest though, as a lot of it is already loaded or overloaded passenger-wise. Although there's *some* possibility of expanded capacity on rail (if/when other projects are completed on those lines), there's much less possibility of extra tube capacity, and buses running on the main drags through the borough are already stuffed during and either side of the rush hours, and are blocked into those same main drags by the volume of traffic.
More people (because on Cressingham alone they're looking at 150+ extra dwellings) means greater demand on public transport or on public roads, and there's not much room to satisfy that demand.



> You can enjoy all this living on the Tulse Hill Estate or Brixton but as a potential 'High Class' development Cressingham is something special; probably the best piece of land in South London. Devolopers with big bucks would almost kill to get hold of it. I think I've read that Lambeth say they will be doing the rebuilding developement themselves. Would I accept their word? Not in a million years!



Lambeth's "idea" of them doing the development is a rhetorical reality, but not an actual one. The plan appears to be that Lambeth will form a "Special Purpose Vehicle" - a company that will allow them to tout for funding outside or alongside of the usual sources such as the Public Works Loans Board. Potentially they will be getting into bed with the likes of hedge-funds as their "development partner", and paying through the nose for the privilege - IIRC from the fun "information session" I attended yesterday, the cost of borrowing could be akin to PFI levels. 



> I can hear the excuses now as figures are fudged and deals done when trying to clear out as many Residents as they can.



Well, the council already have a history of figure-fudging with regard to Cressingham, for instance their estimate for refurbishment of £14-16 million, which an independent surveyor priced as £7-9 million * at maximum*.
And yeah, we expect them to try and pick as many of us off as possible. One "advisor" was telling a tenant how if he didn't want to give up his secure tenancy - all council tenants on the estate will have to, to be replaced by an "assured lifetime tenancy" (which, it is claimed with no proof, is "exactly the same) - another council property elsewhere could be found.
That's right, they could find him somewhere else, even though there are 21,000 people on the housing list, and more than a 7th of them are in temp/emergency accommodation. Flannel, plain and simple.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 10, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> ... on Cressingham alone they're looking at 150+ extra dwellings...



I was under the impression this figure was much lower.

Would that be a 50 per cent increase in dwellings?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2015)

leanderman said:


> I was under the impression this figure was much lower.



Then your impression was very much mistaken. 



> Would that be a 50 per cent increase in dwellings?



Allow me to quote a circular stuffed through the door yesterday:

"A Cabinet report was published on the Council's website last Friday. This Report recommends redevelopment of the whole of the Cressingham Gardens Estate; that is demolition of all existing homes* and replacement with a *minimum*** of 464 new homes."
*That's 306 "existing homes".
** My emphasis.

So, a minimum 51% increase in dwellings.


----------



## 299 old timer (Jul 10, 2015)

50% is easily achieved if built higher, and surely that is the plan - £1.5 mil pad on xxx floor with views over London.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 10, 2015)

299 old timer said:


> 50% is easily achieved if built higher, and surely that is the plan - £1.5 mil pad on xxx floor with views over London.


Or they just build smaller flats but sell them for the same "per bedroom" price. That's the easiest thing.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 10, 2015)

High Definition said:


> Excellent letter which the Brockwell Park Community Partners have just sent to Lambeth Council setting out their concern about the impact the Cressingham Gardens scheme could have on Brockwell Park.  Hard to see how Lambeth could come up with a scheme for Cressingham which would be acceptable to the Community Partners.
> http://brockwellparkcommunitypartne...ngham-gardens-estate-vista-must-be-preserved/



I know that you have done a lot to inform local groups about affect on Brockwell park. All credit to you for organizing this.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 10, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> - IIRC from the fun "information session" I attended yesterday, the cost of borrowing could be akin to PFI levels



Thats interesting admission from the Council.

As going on what was said about the Somerlyton road scheme ( The model of which it looks like may be used on other Council led developments) was that the Council could borrow cheaply to build.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 11, 2015)

Reminders about Monday:

1) If you've got a Save Cressingham Gardens T shirt, please wear it. If you haven't got one, please get one. This isn't about fashion, this about being visible. If you don't know where to get one, please ask. If you've got a Brixton Fightback T shirt (available from A&C Continental or message me), that's another option. If you've got both, please just this once, wear the Save Cressingham one (available from A&C Continental or message me) .

2) Please bring a banner, placard, or other thing to hold up and show what we want and why we're protesting. Bear in mind that whatever you bring, you will be responsible for getting rid of or taking home afterwards. Don't expect somebody else to carry it home. Please keep your T shirts, banners etc handy. They can be used again around the Cressingham Gate on the Saturday of the Lambeth Country Show, around the Herne Hill market on that Sunday, or while just getting on with your normal life. 

3) If you haven't got a flag, banner, or placard yet, you've got the weekend and maybe an hour or so on Monday to make it. If you show up outside the Rotunda an hour or so before we set up, somebody might be able to give you a hand putting your banner together, but I can't afford to provide materials. The pound shops are open, so are the supermarkets and DIY places. Think big and bold where possible - you want it visible in the SLP's photos!  There are some premade, but not many, and the We Love Cressingham postcard might also make an appearance. Disposable tablecloths are roughly £3, a sheet of A2 card is about £3, a can of spray paint, bamboo poles or thin bits of wood to hold it with, duck tape and/or staples to fix it together are also needed. If it's too expensive for you to buy the lot, find somebody to split the cost with.

4) Please use whistles and horns only in the gaps between words - or you'll drown out your brothers and sisters in arms. Let's enjoy ourselves, get heard, get seen, make democracy (if it still exists) work, and let people know that we're saving our homes. If we win this, the chances of saving other estates also under threat are better. 

5) If you're going to speak at the cabinet meeting, good luck, speak from the heart, and let's get listened to.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Thats interesting admission from the Council.
> 
> As going on what was said about the Somerlyton road scheme ( The model of which it looks like may be used on other Council led developments) was that the Council could borrow cheaply to build.



They can borrow cheaply from some sources (Public Works Loans Board, for example) but are unlikely to be able to borrow all that they'll need to keep Somerleyton, Cressingham, Westbury, Central Hill etc all in the air, so they're going to have to "mortgage" their future income from the redevelopment. It's unavoidable given that they can't borrow normally due to the restrictions on the HRA etc. The big question is "how well can a council that's provably inept with regard to any sort of contracting of goods and services, ensure that they get a good deal when they mortgage that future income?", and the likely answer is "not very well".


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 11, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Reminders about Monday:
> 
> 1) If you've got a Save Cressingham Gardens T shirt, please wear it. If you haven't got one, please get one. This isn't about fashion, this about being visible. If you don't know where to get one, please ask. If you've got a Brixton Fightback T shirt (available from A&C Continental or message me), that's another option. If you've got both, please just this once, wear the Save Cressingham one (available from A&C Continental or message me) .
> 
> ...



Good stuff.

Plus to add - if you are in the Cabinet meeting then it is vital to stay respectful to the occasion, if not the individuals or the decision. The authoritarian Nu Labour lot are just gagging to stereotype the whole campaign as one of troublemakers, rather than a community.

Don't let them win by acting out the mob rule inside Cabinet. Take them on via their own terms. And win 

You can have respect for civic democracy, but still not hold it up to any deference.


----------



## 299 old timer (Jul 11, 2015)

Just spoke to Gniewosz who was canvassing locally for support. I can't find the bit on the link you mentioned, probably being a bit thick - can you point me to it please? Many thanks!


----------



## Gniewosz (Jul 11, 2015)

http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=29000#mgDocuments


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Good stuff.
> 
> Plus to add - if you are in the Cabinet meeting then it is vital to stay respectful to the occasion, if not the individuals or the decision. The authoritarian Nu Labour lot are just gagging to stereotype the whole campaign as one of troublemakers, rather than a community.
> 
> ...



Given the amount of hoo-hah that Lambeth Left Unity made at the last cabinet meeting (with the public gallery being cleared), let's hope they keep their gobs shut.


----------



## 299 old timer (Jul 11, 2015)

Gniewosz said:


> http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=29000#mgDocuments



Cheers! Hope the canvassing went well, there's a lot of support for the cause.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2015)

299 old timer said:


> 50% is easily achieved if built higher, and surely that is the plan - £1.5 mil pad on xxx floor with views over London.



Which spits in the eye of both the Brockwell Park Conservation Area (which covers part of the green space on the estate) and the expressed interests of Brockwell Park Community Partnership and various other public bodies.
One of the "features" of the current estate is that it doesn't dominate the skyline in the park. Hollamby deliberately designed it to blend into the horizon at the top of the park. 4-5 storey blocks (as featured on the "artist's impressions" of several council brochures) running parallel to (and within a couple of meters of) the park fence will *entirely* dominate the skyline from most of the park. Why should the pleasure of hundreds of thousands of people per year who enjoy the park be ruined so that Lambeth Council can milk the tit of capitalism for a few million?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Thats interesting admission from the Council.
> 
> As going on what was said about the Somerlyton road scheme ( The model of which it looks like may be used on other Council led developments) was that the Council could borrow cheaply to build.



Just looking at the viability document the council have put out regarding options 4 and 5. The various finance costs for different iterations of the basic "demolish and rebuild" scheme are wince-inducing, varying between £100 million and five-and-a-half times that.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Just looking at the viability document the council have put out regarding options 4 and 5. The various finance costs for different iterations of the basic "demolish and rebuild" scheme are wince-inducing, varying between £100 million and five-and-a-half times that.


I'd love to see the calculations and assumptions supporting those figures, because I bet there's a ton of errors.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Just looking at the viability document the council have put out regarding options 4 and 5. The various finance costs for different iterations of the basic "demolish and rebuild" scheme are wince-inducing, varying between £100 million and five-and-a-half times that.



Got any links for that that will go up here?

This is interesting.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 11, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Reminders about Monday:



I will be there.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 11, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Got any links for that that will go up here?
> 
> This is interesting.


http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s75754/Annex E - Viability Report.pdf


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2015)

Oh what a big smile I have on my face after reading this (warning, .pdf file!)


----------



## Maharani (Jul 13, 2015)

I will too.  6pm start outside the town hall?


----------



## Greebo (Jul 13, 2015)

Maharani said:


> <snip> 6pm start outside the town hall?


If the walk down from the Rotunda isn't possible or practical for you (start off 5.30pm from the Rotunda, show up earlier if banners need fettling), see you outside the Town Hall at 6pm or very soon afterwards.  

Some people from the estate (including VP, if he's even well enough to get as far as the Rotunda today) will have to take a bus or minicab - the walk would be far too much for them.  And commuters might end up having to come more or less straight from work.


----------



## Robert Langtry (Jul 13, 2015)

*Viva la Terroirist
*That is Terroirest as in Terroir . . . . a sense of place,  of the soil,  of a particular location,  belonging to to an area.
Good luck Cressingham.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 13, 2015)

Gniewosz said:


> http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=29000#mgDocuments


There seems a lot in there still "draft" (like the Information for Tenants and the Information for Homeowners booklets/leaflets)
Also the appendix A survey is supposed to be draft and confidential according to the watermark. Presumably there may be stuff there to unpick if people are speaking to the cabinet meeting.


----------



## editor (Jul 13, 2015)

Plugged again on Buzz and tweeted to 20k followers.







The fight for homes: Save Cressingham Gardens protest outside Town Hall TONIGHT, 13th July 6pm


----------



## SpamMisery (Jul 13, 2015)

Those posters (if currently being used) probably need some clarification. The way it reads at the moment is "they lied to us, they said there would be five options" then proceeds to confirm there were five options.


----------



## editor (Jul 13, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Those posters (if currently being used) probably need some clarification. The way it reads at the moment is "they lied to us, they said there would be five options" then proceeds to confirm there were five options.


That's just a detail from the scene. Presumably people interested in what was going on would take the time to read further.


----------



## SpamMisery (Jul 13, 2015)

Got it. That makes far more sense


----------



## editor (Jul 13, 2015)

Well done to everyone who came out to show their support today:




































More photos: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/07/...-protest-outside-lambeth-town-hall-in-photos/


----------



## editor (Jul 13, 2015)

This is why people should support this cause: 






Mary’s Story – how Lambeth’s plans for Cressingham Gardens will cause real hardship


----------



## Fingers (Jul 13, 2015)

Maharani We are in Brixton Buzz!


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 14, 2015)

editor covered this well. Some of my photos after meeting had started. It was ticketed. Think Tricky Skills went in.

Outside there was a party atmosphere with people staying on to make a presence. Glad I went. Saw a lot of people who do not live on estate come and give support. Which was heartwarming.

Jose from the Delicatessen in Atlantic road came down and lent his banner ( he is one of the shopkeepers under threat and does show a lot of support for other residents struggles.).


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 14, 2015)

We've got a very comprehensive Buzz piece appearing early in the morning


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 14, 2015)

Met a friend I had not seen for a while and we went to Beehive ( big mistake as special offers on ciders at £2.20 a pint)

On way down saw the PC plod was outside Foxtons. Just in case


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 14, 2015)

Few more of my shots:


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 14, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Maharani We are in Brixton Buzz!



Good turn out from Urbanites.


----------



## Fingers (Jul 14, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Good turn out from Urbanites.



I saw four or five that I recognised plus the one I went to the demo with. Saw you there but did not get chance to come over and say hello.  I would imagine there were a lot more but I did not know names to faces. 

We actually went to the planning meeting. It got a little bit feisty. Seems the councillors are not very interested in budging an inch.


----------



## Fingers (Jul 14, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Met a friend I had not seen for a while and we went to Beehive ( big mistake as special offers on ciders at £2.20 a pint)
> 
> On way down saw the PC plod was outside Foxtons. Just in case



There were two plod guarding Foxtons when I went to get drinks from the shop.


----------



## editor (Jul 14, 2015)

Fingers said:


> There were two plod guarding Foxtons when I went to get drinks from the shop.


Three when I went past.


----------



## Fingers (Jul 14, 2015)

editor said:


> Three when I went past.



There were a couple of plod stationed outside the door at the planning meeting as well


----------



## editor (Jul 14, 2015)

Fingers said:


> There were a couple of plod stationed outside the door at the planning meeting as well


A whole load came out later


----------



## Fingers (Jul 14, 2015)

Anyway, to sum up the planning meeting, there were some fantastically passionate speeches delivered by residents. One of them a 12 year old girl and also our very own fantastic Greebo

The resident (who is possibly Australian/Kiwi??) put in a fantastic defence as well and blasted way over her allocated three minutes.

There seems to be little likelihood that the councillors are going to shift their unanimous position which is the nuclear bulldozer option. There were also a lot of issues raised about transparency and the shambles that was the recent 'consultation'.

We had to leave fifteen mins or so before the end so don't know how it was concluded.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Anyway, to sum up the planning meeting, there were some fantastically passionate speeches delivered by residents. One of them a 12 year old girl and also our very own fantastic Greebo
> 
> The resident (who is possibly Australian/Kiwi??) put in a fantastic defence as well and blasted way over her allocated three minutes.



By that description alone,I know you're talking about another Urbanite Gniewosz . 



> There seems to be little likelihood that the councillors are going to shift their unanimous position which is the nuclear bulldozer option.



More importantly for them (the council, not us tenants and residents), demolition is the option that makes them some wonga. The fact that doing so mortgages the future by anything between £100 million and £550 million (repaid over 35-55 years) doesn't appear to matter to the dead-minded creeps.



> There were also a lot of issues raised about transparency and the shambles that was the recent 'consultation'.



Or con-sultation, as I like to think of it.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 14, 2015)

23 - just saying.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 14, 2015)

Everyone to lose their homes and their neighbours, not to mention the Rotunda, to live through several years (we could be talking over a decade) of dust, noise, and increased traffic (even onto the estate), and to face far higher bills, all for the sake of 23 new council flats.  That's a conservative figure - If Lambeth build even more intensively and extensively than so far admitted, it might be more.  25 if tenants behave themselves?  

So thank you, Marcia Cameron, for speaking (at last) against the demolition last night, but I wonder what work could be important that you had to skedaddle off, leaving the people you're supposed to represent in the lurch, before the Cabinet nodded this through?  At least Mary Atkins had the guts to stay 'til the end.  As for our third ward councilor, Adedamola Aminu, where was he?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 14, 2015)

Here's the Buzz piece. It's pretty much a quote for quote as to how to how the evening unfolded at Cabinet. The debate was passionate, but I can't but help think that there was no real debate. The decision had long since been made.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 14, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Here's the Buzz piece. It's pretty much a quote for quote as to how to how the evening unfolded at Cabinet. The debate was passionate, but I can't but help think that there was no real debate. The decision had long since been made.



Very good piece


----------



## Rushy (Jul 14, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Very good piece


And put out very quickly. Well done

Interested to hear about involvement of barrister at the end there. Is that the first such involvement? From the quote, it doesn't sound like he said much more than echo residents' concerns. Have specific legal grounds for taking it to the High Court been identified?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 14, 2015)

Rushy said:


> And put out very quickly. Well done
> 
> Interested to hear about involvement of barrister at the end there. Is that the first such involvement? From the quote, it doesn't sound like he said much more than echo residents' concerns. Have specific legal grounds for taking it to the High Court been identified?



Most of the piece is quotes. I just sat there at Cabinet and typed away 

I did want to live tweet it, but I couldn't get the Wifi password, and my phone had no bloody signal. I think it worked out best the way it was done. No silly twitter tit for tat, and it gave me the time to just type out the quotes.

The LambethLabour twitter feed was very active last night. This isn't usually the case for Cabinet meets. Looks like they tried to get in there to manage the agenda.

The High Court issue first came about last month. I think that it was all about waiting for the decision last night to be rubber stamped, and then press ahead with the High Court Review. The legal concerns are about the validity of the consultation.

This was one of the main themes last night - not so much the legal validity, but the acceptance from various Cabinet members that communication has been poor with residents.

Other figures that caught my attention - the 23 new council houses that currently are the aim for the entire project. One resident said there was already 23 vacant properties on the estate that are empty because of Council neglect. The point was why not just repairs these?

Plus it was pointed out that £1.4m has been spent on bringing the homes up to standard, just to now go ahead and demolish them.


----------



## Winot (Jul 14, 2015)

Rushy said:


> And put out very quickly. Well done
> 
> Interested to hear about involvement of barrister at the end there. Is that the first such involvement? From the quote, it doesn't sound like he said much more than echo residents' concerns. Have specific legal grounds for taking it to the High Court been identified?



They are running a judicial review iirc.  My understanding is that judicial review challenges the *process* by which the decision was reached, not the decision itself.  It can introduce delay and force the council to re-run the process, but can't of itself change the decision, i.e. Lambeth could rerun things properly and still come down in favour of demolition.

[Please would someone more au fait with this correct me if I've misunderstood]

Also to add my thanks to Tricky Skills for a very good report.

I am most struck by the lack of a proper vote at the end of it all.  It sounds like (some) councillors had concerns and yet here they are, in public, being asked by their leader to agree on a murmur.  They should at least have the balls to raise their hand.  Ideally it should be a secret ballot.


----------



## editor (Jul 14, 2015)

I'm happy to keep on fundraising for the fight against this until I'm blue in the face. Lambeth Council are acting disgracefully.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 14, 2015)

Winot said:


> I am most struck by the lack of a proper vote at the end of it all. It sounds like (some) councillors had concerns and yet here they are, in public, being asked by their leader to agree on a murmur. They should at least have the balls to raise their hand. Ideally it should be a secret ballot.



Cabinet 'decisions' are always taken on an "agreed' nodding of the heads. It is local government democracy at its very worst. The decisions have been already been made anyway behind closed doors. Cabinet is a charade so that democracy can be seen to take place - residents and what is left of any Opposition get to question the Cabinet, but it's not going to change a decision that they have already made in private.

The lively nature of the meeting last night made the "agreed" murmur really unfortunate. I wanted to see who agreed. You couldn't tell who was speaking. At least a raising of the hands would have given a physical way to see that all Cabinet members were towing the pre-agreed party line.

Here's the rambling closing of the agenda item.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 14, 2015)

editor said:


> I'm happy to keep on fundraising for the fight against this until I'm blue in the face. Lambeth Council are acting disgracefully.


Thank you.   

The judicial review continues.   So do the T shirt sales, and we'll be selling things this weekend too.

The amount of media coverage last night, and the turnout (considering that it's an awkward time, and during the working week) was a huge boost to morale.  I wish that I could claim last night as at least a small victory for democracy, but it was very far from that.


----------



## 299 old timer (Jul 14, 2015)

Very good report, thanks. Difficult to understand Lambeth Labour's arrogance in the face of the genuine and informed opposition. All the facts are stacked against them, and yet they persist, truly appalling.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jul 14, 2015)

editor said:


> I'm happy to keep on fundraising for the fight against this until I'm blue in the face. Lambeth Council are acting disgracefully.



Reading the Buzz report of the council meeting at least they've admitted that things haven't gone that well i.e. the consultation. None of this is any comfort given they've reached the wrong decision. I wonder what Chukka has got to say?


----------



## Rushy (Jul 14, 2015)

IMO the strongest argument for redeveloping a site such as this is to increase density and provide new homes. But 23 new units is close to negligible. I don't get it. Is the council's argument set out concisely anywhere?


----------



## editor (Jul 14, 2015)

This is Lambeth. This is Labour. Unforgivable.


----------



## editor (Jul 14, 2015)




----------



## leanderman (Jul 14, 2015)

Rushy said:


> IMO the strongest argument for redeveloping a site such as this is to increase density and provide new homes. But 23 new units is close to negligible. I don't get it. Is the council's argument set out concisely anywhere?



I think it's 150 extra homes on top of the existing 300. But, currently, only 23 of these would be social.

The council's argument being that they can't afford to refurbish so a developer rebuilds all the 300 homes and adds 23 more in return for being given a site for 130 homes.

That's my guess anyway.

Not sure where the existing third (?) of homes that are freehold-private fit into this maths.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 14, 2015)

If I am right, 300 households are paying a very high price to create just 23 more homes - and 130 unaffordable flats.

The other big problem is the carbon cost.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 14, 2015)

leanderman said:


> If I am right, 300 households are paying a very high price to create just 23 more homes - and 130 unaffordable flats. <snip>


We are.  



leanderman said:


> The other big problem is the carbon cost.


If you take into account the grants available, and the potential carbon tax offset (ie of neither needing to make new concrete, nor sending rubble into landfill etc), repair combined with green retrofit to passivhaus standard would come in at well under the cost of either regeneration or conventional refurbishment & repair.

The other thing is, if we opted to get everything done to that standard, nobody in the building chain would get paid a single penny until everything had been tested, checked, and signed off as reaching the required standard of work.  So, no shenanigans or botches possible, even in Lambeth.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2015)

Winot said:


> They are running a judicial review iirc.  My understanding is that judicial review challenges the *process* by which the decision was reached, not the decision itself.  It can introduce delay and force the council to re-run the process, but can't of itself change the decision, i.e. Lambeth could rerun things properly and still come down in favour of demolition.
> 
> [Please would someone more au fait with this correct me if I've misunderstood]



Yep, it's about process. Here the issue is that the consultation was poor (workshops on winter weekday nights, for example) and was loaded (surveys laden with very obviously loaded questions, for example). It's felt to many of us like Lambeth were treating this as a box-ticking exercise to satisfy Dept of Communities & Local Govt guidelines, rather than an exercise in finding out what we wanted (which was apparent "from the off").


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Cabinet 'decisions' are always taken on an "agreed' nodding of the heads. It is local government democracy at its very worst. The decisions have been already been made anyway behind closed doors. Cabinet is a charade so that democracy can be seen to take place - residents and what is left of any Opposition get to question the Cabinet, but it's not going to change a decision that they have already made in private.
> 
> The lively nature of the meeting last night made the "agreed" murmur really unfortunate. I wanted to see who agreed. You couldn't tell who was speaking. At least a raising of the hands would have given a physical way to see that all Cabinet members were towing the pre-agreed party line.
> 
> Here's the rambling closing of the agenda item.



Excellent report, mate. 

The only thing that casts a slight shadow is that the first "Anne" you mention, doesn't have an "e" at the end of her name, and is touchy about people assuming it does!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2015)

299 old timer said:


> Very good report, thanks. Difficult to understand Lambeth Labour's arrogance in the face of the genuine and informed opposition. All the facts are stacked against them, and yet they persist, truly appalling.



In the final analysis (well, my cynical version of it!), this is about two things - political careers and cold, hard cash.

The likes of "Bumfluff" Bennett and "Dimwit" Hopkins (and several others) see this sort of "radical" (in the "outside the normal range" sense of the word, rather than the political sense) action as a calling card to selection committees, and a nod and a wink to the Progress end of the Parliamentary party. They're effectively offering us up as a sacrifice on the altar of their careers. 
The "cold, hard cash" element is that destroying Cressingham and the other 5 targeted estates puts money in Lambeth's paws before the next election (sooner if they selloff-plan) - if they sell roughly the same proportion of the new-build on the other 5 estates as projected on Cressingham, i.e. 60%-ish percent, then they're looking at the low tens of millions which can be deployed subtly to shore up votes in some wards - the usual trick of new or refurbed facilities in those wards, rather than blatant corruption, I hasten to add!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2015)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Reading the Buzz report of the council meeting at least they've admitted that things haven't gone that well i.e. the consultation. None of this is any comfort given they've reached the wrong decision. I wonder what Chukka has got to say?



As usual, nothing that might possibly rebound on him at a later date.
Pity he's already fucked himself with the majority of voters on the estate after his facebook shenanigans!


----------



## Gniewosz (Jul 14, 2015)

I really resented one of the cabinet members comments at the end saying that if they spent the money on Cressingham Gardens to refurb it, they would have to take the money from another estate in the borough.  He failed to explain though what is happening to the £1.2m pa in council rent that Cressingham Gardens is already paying the council (less £200k for basic shoddy repairs) ... they are using Cressingham as a cash cow to fund other estates already...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2015)

leanderman said:


> I think it's 150 extra homes on top of the existing 300. But, currently, only 23 of these would be social.



A minimum of 158 new homes, of which 15% will be social, out of an overall minimum 464 homes constructed.



> The council's argument being that they can't afford to refurbish so a developer rebuilds all the 300 homes and adds 23 more in return for being given a site for 130 homes.
> 
> That's my guess anyway.



Bumfluff Bennett is currently touting the claim that all the housing will be "mixed", i.e. that homes for sale will not be located separately from housing for social rent.
Whether this claim survives the planning process seems unlikely given recent precedent in the capital.



> Not sure where the existing third (?) of homes that are freehold-private fit into this maths.



CPOs, plus the usual "+10%" bribe and the offer of using their equity to buy a share in a property on the "regenerated" estate. As if any freeholder or leaseholder will trust Lambeth on that score after the Myatts' Fields North farrago.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 14, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> In the final analysis (well, my cynical version of it!), this is about two things - political careers and cold, hard cash.
> 
> The likes of "Bumfluff" Bennett and "Dimwit" Hopkins (and several others) see this sort of "radical" (in the "outside the normal range" sense of the word, rather than the political sense) action as a calling card to selection committees, and a nod and a wink to the Progress end of the Parliamentary party. They're effectively offering us up as a sacrifice on the altar of their careers.
> The "cold, hard cash" element is that destroying Cressingham and the other 5 targeted estates puts money in Lambeth's paws before the next election (sooner if they selloff-plan) - if they sell roughly the same proportion of the new-build on the other 5 estates as projected on Cressingham, i.e. 60%-ish percent, then they're looking at the low tens of millions which can be deployed subtly to shore up votes in some wards - the usual trick of new or refurbed facilities in those wards, rather than blatant corruption, I hasten to add!



Yes. From Lambeth's point of view, they dodge a £10m+ repair bill as well get 23 new social homes.

There is a ruthless logic to it all ... if you don't live there.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Yes. From Lambeth's point of view, they dodge a £10m+ repair bill as well get 23 new social homes.
> 
> There is a ruthless logic to it all ... if you don't live there.



Unfortunately, the ruthless logic kicks the arse of future generations with regard to the projected finance cost. None of the spread of projections are particularly appetising, IMO.


----------



## Gniewosz (Jul 14, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Bumfluff Bennett is currently touting the claim that all the housing will be "mixed", i.e. that homes for sale will not be located separately from housing for social rent.


In the last set of financial models that I was allowed to review last year, there was already segregation incorporated into the model... Different levels of communal area and finishings.  Probably why they don't want me to see the latest models, because it will probably become evident that Cllr Matt Bennett is wrong yet again in his statements


----------



## leanderman (Jul 14, 2015)

I would be surprised if the sums add up even in the short term, let alone for future generations.

The madness is that, for example, a development site that would provide almost half the extra homes scheduled for Cressingham has lain derelict at the end of our road for 25 years.


----------



## Gniewosz (Jul 14, 2015)

Looking at the bigger it becomes even more ridiculous... 23 new council rent homes towards the 1000 target by 2020... that is only 2.3%.  At that rate, the council is going to have demolish 50 estates over the next 5 years.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 14, 2015)

Gniewosz said:


> Looking at the bigger it becomes even more ridiculous... 23 new council rent homes towards the 1000 target by 2020... that is only 2.3%.  At that rate, the council is going to have demolish 50 estates over the next 5 years.



This is what is so baffling. Or perhaps it shows how limited Lambeth's options are.

I suppose they might point to the value of creating 120 extra private homes at Cressingham, which will do something to meet the chronic undersupply of housing.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 14, 2015)

To be absolutely fair to the Cabinet, the view last night was that 23 was not enough. Cllr Peck stated that whatever plans are now drawn up, the development manager* should aim to work for a higher number than this.

But how higher? 100? 50? 25?

It's all about spreadsheet balancing, and not communities. Plus having 100 extra council houses will take you a step closer to that magical 1,000 figure, but at what sacrifice to the landscape of the Park?

Cabinet has picked the wrong fight with the wrong people at the wrong location.

I'm not sure who they should be fighting with actually, if anyone at all.

*Brixton Green had a presence at Cabinet last night.

Oh Lordy.


----------



## 299 old timer (Jul 14, 2015)

The maths are seriously flawed, as has been witnessed. Obviously they had already agreed behind closed doors the outcome - democracy in action by the cooperative council. 
Leanderman - I question if this is about the supply of housing.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 14, 2015)

299 old timer said:


> Leanderman - I question if this is about the supply of housing.



I'll leave the conspiracy theories to others!

There are no easy choices with a housing crisis like this. Except perhaps on a clear site like Somerleyton.

For example, the town hall development seems to have been scaled back after residents, unsurprisingly, complained about height.

Height also being a factor at Cressingham.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2015)

Gniewosz said:


> In the last set of financial models that I was allowed to review last year, there was already segregation incorporated into the model... Different levels of communal area and finishings.  Probably why they don't want me to see the latest models, because it will probably become evident that Cllr Matt Bennett is wrong yet again in his statements



You say "...is wrong again", I say "...is deliberately attempting to mislead again".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2015)

leanderman said:


> I would be surprised if the sums add up even in the short term, let alone for future generations.
> 
> The madness is that, for example, a development site that would provide almost half the extra homes scheduled for Cressingham has lain derelict at the end of our road for 25 years.



Yep. You've mentioned before.
The other thing is that on many of Lambeth's estates there's room for "infill" development. Half a dozen to a dozen new homes on 70 or 80 estates would go a long way - more cheaply and conveniently - to reducing the housing list than this cack-handed money-spinning scheme.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2015)

leanderman said:


> This is what is so baffling. Or perhaps it shows how limited Lambeth's options are.
> 
> I suppose they might point to the value of creating 120 extra private homes at Cressingham, which will do something to meet the chronic undersupply of housing.



The circuitous chain of logic that takes us from new private homes to easing the housing list is given an outing in one of the Annexes that were published. It's a lot of ifs and buts, and nothing much solid, in terms of *justifying* the demolition of existing social housing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> To be absolutely fair to the Cabinet, the view last night was that 23 was not enough. Cllr Peck stated that whatever plans are now drawn up, the development manager* should aim to work for a higher number than this.



Nope, sorry, if they want me to be "absolutely fair" to them, they should have noticed that 23 homes wasn't enough *before* their rubber-stamping meeting, not after. As it is, what they did looks very like a 6-yr-old muttering "sorry" when they're caught raiding the biscuit tin - they're only sorry about getting caught.



> But how higher? 100? 50? 25?
> 
> It's all about spreadsheet balancing, and not communities. Plus having 100 extra council houses will take you a step closer to that magical 1,000 figure, but at what sacrifice to the landscape of the Park?



Well quite!



> Cabinet has picked the wrong fight with the wrong people at the wrong location.



I suspect our local councillors are getting it in the neck from "the cabinet". If so,good. If they told 'em we'd be pushovers, they seriously misjudged us!



> I'm not sure who they should be fighting with actually, if anyone at all.



They should be serving their electorate, rather than fighting their core vote.



> *Brixton Green had a presence at Cabinet last night.
> 
> Oh Lordy.



I'd love Mr. Carroll to start his nonsense round here. I reckon we'd eat him alive, friends in high-(ish) places or not.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Jul 14, 2015)

I think Labour is vulnerable. Candidates for mayor are spouting off about housing and I think at some point the estates will need to help trip them up. Due to me opting to vote in the leadership election I'm getting loads of emails including those from mayoral candidates. Tessa Jowell has sent me an email to tell her our housing stories of poor landlords. Report lambeth here.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 14, 2015)

19sixtysix said:


> I think Labour is vulnerable. Candidates for mayor are spouting off about housing and I think at some point the estates will need to help trip them up. Due to me opting to vote in the leadership election I'm getting loads of emails including those from mayoral candidates. Tessa Jowell has sent me an email to tell her our housing stories of poor landlords. Report lambeth here.



Thing is her actual policies are vague and vacuous. Nothing much to frighten me if I was a property developer.

Nothing about Council housing for example.

And as with Lambeth Labour and Cressingham much talk about "mixed communities". Read : Council housing is a failure.

Tessa is banking on being the candidate who is "electable" due to her nods in the direction of social equity without scaring off the property owning middle classes.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 14, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> They should be serving their electorate, rather than fighting their core vote.
> 
> I'd love Mr. Carroll to start his nonsense round here. I reckon we'd eat him alive, friends in high-(ish) places or not.



Which is what saddens me about the demo last night. No sign of anyone in the Labour party present. Its like the core vote is an embarrassment. 


I do wonder if Cressingham residents will be asked about the Somerleyton road model that the Council is developing with the ever so helpful Brixton Green. As last Council report cited by Tricky Skills in Brixton Buzz says the model/ vehicle being developed in Somerleyton road may be used elsewhere in Lambeth.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 15, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Here's the Buzz piece. It's pretty much a quote for quote as to how to how the evening unfolded at Cabinet. The debate was passionate, but I can't but help think that there was no real debate. The decision had long since been made.



Starting reading this. Its very good. I stayed outside with the demo so didnt hear this.

Just read this.



> Meanwhile Cllr Jack Hopkins was keen to draw upon his experience of regeneration at Somerleyton Road:
> 
> “It is a lot easier to do regeneration with a *blank canvas* like Somerleyton Road. The process hasn’t gone right. Recognising that you already have a strong community is important.”



FFS Hopkins it wasnt a blank canvas.

There was a longstanding community there that the Council evicted.

And excuse me Hopkins I thought Somerleyton road project was supposed to be involving the community.

With the Cabinet agreeing to total demolition then its making Cressingham into a blank slate.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 15, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Here's the Buzz piece. It's pretty much a quote for quote as to how to how the evening unfolded at Cabinet. The debate was passionate, but I can't but help think that there was no real debate. The decision had long since been made.



Classic performance from the supreme leader Peck.

She is good at "listening" and urging officers to try harder.

The difference between her and some of the other Cllrs like Bennett is that she tries to make out she is responding to residents concerns. Its a way to defuse ( or try to) opposition.

Make no mistake she wants to push this scheme through. 

She is more clever than Bennett. She is playing the long game. She knows this scheme will take years to come to fruition. 

Expect more direct intervention from her in next months.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 15, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> <snip> Make no mistake she wants to push this scheme through.
> 
> She is more clever than Bennett. She is playing the long game. She knows this scheme will take years to come to fruition.
> 
> Expect more direct intervention from her in next months.


Warning appreciated.  I wondered how much of the chronic problem with communication (even the ward councillors were kept in the dark and fed shit eg not told that the Test Of Opinion wouldn't ask every adult on the estate) was manufactured and encouraged instead of being a bad case of lambethitis.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2015)

Gniewosz said:


> I really resented one of the cabinet members comments at the end saying that if they spent the money on Cressingham Gardens to refurb it, they would have to take the money from another estate in the borough.  He failed to explain though what is happening to the £1.2m pa in council rent that Cressingham Gardens is already paying the council (less £200k for basic shoddy repairs) ... they are using Cressingham as a cash cow to fund other estates already...



Apart from anything else, we could apply precisely the same logic to Lambeth's spending on bringing other estates up to standard. We know, for example, that Hurst Street had £14 million spent on it, yet we're not mithering that Hurst St has taken money from us.
As always, shoddy thinking from our councillors.
Think I might drop a line to the SLP's letter page.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Which is what saddens me about the demo last night. No sign of anyone in the Labour party present. Its like the core vote is an embarrassment.



Frankly, I'm unsurprised. Labour locally is so entirely captured by the careerists and the wiberal types, that they're utterly uninterested in their core vote except when they're after retaining a ward or six.   



> I do wonder if Cressingham residents will be asked about the Somerleyton road model that the Council is developing with the ever so helpful Brixton Green. As last Council report cited by Tricky Skills in Brixton Buzz says the model/ vehicle being developed in Somerleyton road may be used elsewhere in Lambeth.



Shudder.


----------



## Robert Langtry (Jul 15, 2015)

Ref. #721 by 19sixtysix. Tessa Jowell. report trouble with bad Landlords.
This is a good one! Remember Lambeth Living Ltd., was a Private Limited Company, registered at Companies House, with a Board of Directors, including Peck and Bennett at various times whose responsibilities and liabilities as Directors are still 'live' despite the Company being now disolved.
You're not trying to prove anything in court, all you are doing is telling Tessa Jowell that when it came to repairs and maintaining of their properties etc. what a incompetant company this Landlord was.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 15, 2015)

Robert Langtry said:


> You're not trying to prove anything in court, all you are doing is telling Tessa Jowell that when it came to repairs and maintaining of their properties etc. what a incompetant company this Landlord was.



And who is in charge of running Dame Tessa's campaign?

Ah, that will be Pete No Seat Robbins, the ex-Cabinet member that started the Cressingham ball rolling.

Tell Tessa about a dodgy landlord.

Hypocrites of the highest order.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 16, 2015)

Just in case anyone was neither there nor caught the news


Spoiler


----------



## Belushi (Jul 16, 2015)

Lots of urbanites in that clip :thumbs :

It's a really impressive campaign, I'm sure Lambeth weren't expecting this level of well organised opposition!


----------



## Greebo (Jul 16, 2015)

Belushi said:


> <snip> It's a really impressive campaign, I'm sure Lambeth weren't expecting this level of well organised opposition!


Well organised?  Glad it looked like that, but we really could do a lot better.    In an impressive show of solidarity, even people from Central Hill (another threatened estate) turned up, and they're a lot further out.

It helps that there's quite a wide range of skills and personality types, so what one person can't do, another can.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 17, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Well organised?  Glad it looked like that, but we really could do a lot better.    In an impressive show of solidarity, even people from Central Hill (another threatened estate) turned up, and they're a lot further out.
> 
> It helps that there's quite a wide range of skills and personality types, so what one person can't do, another can.



Agree with Belushi I was impressed on the day. It was well organised and you all worked together. 

Thats not easy to do when you are all under the pressure that Lambeth has put you. For officers they are paid to do this. Cllrs get allowances. 

All of you are doing this with in your spare time. Its not an equal battle.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 17, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Just in case anyone was neither there nor caught the news
> 
> 
> Spoiler




Thats a really good short film. Well edited. 

Yes and the bigger picture is that the idea of Council housing needs to be defended.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 17, 2015)

Greebo said:


> It helps that there's quite a wide range of skills and personality types, so what one person can't do, another can.



This is good point. 

Its a good idea imo to step back a little and see what works and what does not. 

Living in a Coop for years I realise that collective action works best when you can see what individuals strengths and weaknesses are. No one is perfect. Its a balancing act.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 17, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> <snip> Its a good idea imo to step back a little and see what works and what does not.
> 
> Living in a Coop for years I realise that collective action works best when you can see what individuals strengths and weaknesses are. No one is perfect. Its a balancing act.


Thanks for the tip.


----------



## beareis (Jul 17, 2015)

Piss taking? http://www.theguardian.com/housing-...thousands-homes-town-down-cressingham-gardens


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 17, 2015)

beareis said:


> Piss taking? http://www.theguardian.com/housing-...thousands-homes-town-down-cressingham-gardens



The article, or the behaviour of the council? 
I think the article is all over the place in trying to place the issue at Osborne's door, and that the behaviour of Lambeth Council is, as always, piss-taking, shoddy and short-termist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 17, 2015)

Page 5 of today's SLP.


----------



## Maharani (Jul 17, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/housing-...own-down-cressingham-gardens#comment-55887321


----------



## Maharani (Jul 17, 2015)

Couple of urbs in this:

 
Do you mind if I tag?


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2015)

Fucking insane:



> The residents now expect to lose their homes shortly after being forced to pay thousands of pounds to ensure they are in good enough condition to be knocked down by bulldozers and wrecking balls.
> http://www.theguardian.com/housing-...own-down-cressingham-gardens#comment-55887321


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2015)

And an excellent comment from an urb: 


> What is worse is that for all the acclaim that Lambeth (Labour) are doing this to reduce the housing waiting list, they are only proposing to build an extra 23 homes at council rent. The rest of the extra homes, plus the leaseholder replacement homes not acquired by the existing leaseholders, will be sold off or rented out at "luxury" market value prices.
> 
> Even in the Lambeth Cabinet report, it clearly admits that most of the new homes probably will only be affordable for buy-to-let landlords and people with either "higher capital assets or higher incomes."
> 
> ...


----------



## Fingers (Jul 17, 2015)

Maharani said:


> Couple of urbs in this:
> 
> View attachment 74138
> Do you mind if I tag?


Not at all, tag away


----------



## Greebo (Jul 17, 2015)

Maharani said:


> Couple of urbs in this: <snip> Do you mind if I tag?


I'd prefer not, as I try to keep the names I use on different bits of the internet separate, where possible.  Not that I'm doing anything illegal or immoral, it's just wanting to be able to be me on here.  Mostly a remnant of "don't ask, don't tell, first name only" times which are mostly (safely, I hope) in the past.


----------



## SpamMisery (Jul 17, 2015)

Greebo said:


> I'd prefer not, as I try to keep the names I use on different bits of the internet separate, where possible.  Not that I'm doing anything illegal or immoral, it's just wanting to be able to be me on here.  Mostly a remnant of "don't ask, don't tell, first name only" times which are mostly (safely, I hope) in the past.



By posting that, haven't you essentially just tagged yourself as being in the picture? I assumed that's what Maharani meant. Or were you saying something else?


----------



## Greebo (Jul 17, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> By posting that, haven't you essentially just tagged yourself as being in the picture? I assumed that's what Maharani meant. Or were you saying something else?


I thought she meant tagging for facebook or similar.


----------



## Maharani (Jul 17, 2015)

I meant on here. No worries, I'm glad I asked first. I am in the picture yes SpamMisery. You can play 'where's Maharani' if you like...


----------



## SpamMisery (Jul 17, 2015)

I'm gonna go with the one above the letter G


----------



## toggle (Jul 17, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> The article, or the behaviour of the council?
> I think the article is all over the place in trying to place the issue at Osborne's door, and that the behaviour of Lambeth Council is, as always, piss-taking, shoddy and short-termist.



not the best piece, but she comes across pretty sound and a potentially useful ally.


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2015)

High Court grants permission for a judicial review into Cressingham Gardens redevelopment plans


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 17, 2015)

beareis said:


> Piss taking? http://www.theguardian.com/housing-...thousands-homes-town-down-cressingham-gardens



I really do not like this article. It perpetuates the idea that being a home "owner" is being aspirational. Thatchers comment that



> there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.



Council tenants do own there homes. They do so collectively. The Council own the housing and are under democratic control through Cllrs.

The idea of basic human needs being a collectively owned resource that should be under democratic control is not to be sidelined.

I do not see why someone who supports social housing should be seen as not being "aspirational" in a different way.


----------



## SpamMisery (Jul 17, 2015)

It does seem a bit odd that the most efficient and effective method of informing him of a decision about something as critical as his housing situation (considering he was unable to make the council meeting himself) is something to be "extremely annoyed" about. He would rather wait a week for some headed paper whilst the rest of the world discussed it on social networks?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 17, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> I really do not like this article. It perpetuates the idea that being a home "owner" is being aspirational. Thatchers comment that
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think the article is well-meaning but the comments betray how this is going to be spun—leaseholders vs tenants. Tenants are portrayed as benefit scroungers who are going to get a free replacement home despite their fecklessness, and leaseholders are the poor hardworking families who are being done over by benefit scroungers. This is a narrative that needs to be nipped in the bud.


----------



## Maharani (Jul 17, 2015)

I would say the confused looking chick...


----------



## oryx (Jul 18, 2015)

I thought the article was a bit of a warning to people who may sometime in the future buy council/HA flats, especially if Right to Buy for housing association tenants goes ahead.

People who did so in the past may have considered the possibility of high maintenance charges as a deterrent, but now there is a whole new issue cropping up of leaseholders (many of whom may not have bought under Right to Buy) facing the possibility of so-called 'regeneration' which will mean major financial problems for many. This article concentrated particularly on leaseholders but the issue obviously affects tenants and I don't think the author was being negligent in not mentioning them - she was talking about the possibility of regeneration as it affects leaseholders in the context of RTB for HA tenants being a possibility, and home ownership (which is often leasehold) being heavily promoted.

I read a lot of the comments and people whinging about Osborne/ the Tory government not being a factor (because Lambeth is a Labour council) are wrong. The Tory government's promotion of home ownership within council/HA stock does not exist in a vacuum, miles apart from Lambeth's Labour council. It's part of the same thing. It's about home ownership being seen as some sort of aspirational holy grail by both parties, and both parties using people's homes as a political football and as a cash cow, which is disgraceful.

Neither party, at either national or local level, seems willing to put aspiration* (I'm sick of hearing about that term) to one side and concentrate on the real issue, which is people's homes, people's need to stay in them and the needs of future generations for *genuinely* affordable housing.

* ETA - not just aspiration, which is a superficial thing, but also development and financial issues.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 18, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> It does seem a bit odd that the most efficient and effective method of informing him of a decision about something as critical as his housing situation (considering he was unable to make the council meeting himself) is something to be "extremely annoyed" about. He would rather wait a week for some headed paper whilst the rest of the world discussed it on social networks?


Stop being a dick.


----------



## oryx (Jul 18, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> It does seem a bit odd that the most efficient and effective method of informing him of a decision about something as critical as his housing situation (considering he was unable to make the council meeting himself) is something to be "extremely annoyed" about. He would rather wait a week for some headed paper whilst the rest of the world discussed it on social networks?



You think that most people in the real world read their local cabinet member for housing's Twitter feed as their main source of information about their home and their future? Please tell me you're not serious.


----------



## toggle (Jul 18, 2015)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I think the article is well-meaning but the comments betray how this is going to be spun—leaseholders vs tenants. Tenants are portrayed as benefit scroungers who are going to get a free replacement home despite their fecklessness, and leaseholders are the poor hardworking families who are being done over by benefit scroungers. This is a narrative that needs to be nipped in the bud.



if the SCG lot think so, then it's probably worth approaching the journo. I think she will at least listen. 




oryx said:


> You think that most people in the real world read their local cabinet member for housing's Twitter feed as their main source of information about their home and their future? Please tell me you're not serious.



innit. how many people are you expected to follow on twitter to know what's happening. how much time do you spend wading through the local political bickering.


----------



## shifting gears (Jul 18, 2015)

At the risk of sounding like I endorse this, which I wholeheartedly don't, isn't Lambeth's next step to write off the proposed maintenance costs, while simultaneously holding their hands up, saying "we've written these costs off for the residents, we're soooooo co-operative " ?


----------



## Greebo (Jul 18, 2015)

oryx said:


> You think that most people in the real world read their local cabinet member for housing's Twitter feed as their main source of information about their home and their future? Please tell me you're not serious.


Spam Misery is just being his usual deeply unpleasant troll self because he looks down on people living on this estate, and find the architecture displeasing,  Huh, as if what replaces it will look any better, let alone be anything like as good to live in.  So far it looks unpromising, to say the least.

I wish he'd either stop posting, stay out of the Brixton section altogether (and off this thread in particular),  or do something banworthy, because his remarks ought to be confronted (therefore not put on ignore), and he's upsetting to read.

BTW I'm on the net a lot, compared with a lot of people on this estate (roughly half, perhaps more,  have no internet access at all) and I don't use Twitter because it's just too busy and confusing to get the hang of.

How many people would be sacked or get a final warning for tweeting something which their employer hadn't made public yet?  A decision aired on one branch of social media, half a week before it was officially taken and rubberstamped (not even voted on by show of hands).


----------



## SpamMisery (Jul 18, 2015)

I totally get that it's a bit insensitive - no arguments there. But the tweet linked to the Lambeth decision notice on their website from what I understand and I assume will be followed up by a letter. He probably thought "this is a bit important, I'll get it out via every channel".


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 18, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> I totally get that it's a bit insensitive - no arguments there. But the tweet linked to the Lambeth decision notice on their website from what I understand and I assume will be followed up by a letter. He probably thought "this is a bit important, I'll get it out via every channel".


And given how anyone with photoshop can knock up a decent looking fake, I'd wait for the official letter dropping through my letter box too, just to be sure.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> It does seem a bit odd that the most efficient and effective method of informing him of a decision about something as critical as his housing situation (considering he was unable to make the council meeting himself) is something to be "extremely annoyed" about. He would rather wait a week for some headed paper whilst the rest of the world discussed it on social networks?



It only seems odd if you're an idiot.You're not (quite) an idiot, so you're trolling.
It's an official communication. It has to be a physical copy, not a tweet.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2015)

oryx said:


> You think that most people in the real world read their local cabinet member for housing's Twitter feed as their main source of information about their home and their future? Please tell me you're not serious.



Apart from anything else, tweeting doesn't (yet) constitute the official issue of information. Official bodies still have to use hard copies for that, *and* make their "best efforts" to make sure the intended recipient receives it. That's why the wee fella delivering the "letters of doom" from the council to us on Thursday was punctiliously ticking off each delivery on a clipboard.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> I totally get that it's a bit insensitive - no arguments there. But the tweet linked to the Lambeth decision notice on their website from what I understand and I assume will be followed up by a letter. He probably thought "this is a bit important, I'll get it out via every channel".



No, the tweet linked to Bennett's blog. He also announced the decision on his blog more than a week before the matter went to council. He didn't think "better get this out through every channel", he thought it was fair play to tell the world (in this case "the world" being his Labour cronies) before he told the people his decision was affecting.
Continue making excuses for him though, by all means. All you're doing is painting a metaphorical "I'm a cunt" sign on your forehead.


----------



## SpamMisery (Jul 18, 2015)

Hope you're enjoying the country show. Hugs and kisses


----------



## 299 old timer (Jul 18, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, the tweet linked to Bennett's blog. He also announced the decision on his blog more than a week before the matter went to council. He didn't think "better get this out through every channel", he thought it was fair play to tell the world (in this case "the world" being his Labour cronies) before he told the people his decision was affecting.
> Continue making excuses for him though, by all means. All you're doing is painting a metaphorical "I'm a cunt" sign on your forehead.



At the end of the day the plain fact is that Lambeth has been a negligent landord. I'd politely remind folk of how they sold off Dick Shepherd down the road, a true scandal. Those purple shirted youngsters I spoke to in the tent were either feigning igornance or totally unaware of history - very frustrating.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2015)

299 old timer said:


> At the end of the day the plain fact is that Lambeth has been a negligent landord. I'd politely remind folk of how they sold off Dick Shepherd down the road, a true scandal.



Plus (as I've mentioned previously) the shenanigans with the half a million quid from the sale that was supposed to fund a youth club, and "went missing" for several years.



> Those purple shirted youngsters I spoke to in the tent were either feigning igornance or totally unaware of history - very frustrating.



More likely that they just don't give a fuck.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 19, 2015)

Went to see Save Cressingham Gardens at the Country Fair. They were at the Cressingham gate. A lot of interest from passers by. I bought some tasty home made cheese cakes and two more Brixton Fightbacl T shirts. 

If you want to get a T shirt on Sunday SCG will be at the Herne Hill Market ( outside Herne Hill Station)


----------



## Greebo (Jul 19, 2015)

Thanks for the photos Gramsci, and getting another T shirt.  Herne Hill market today - for one day only.

BTW the few people who refused to even take a card, saying "I'm fine" or I'm good", no, you're neither.   You weren't being asked for money on the spot, or the blood of your firstborn.  You weren't on the point of being mugged, or conned into joining a cult.

All you were being asked to do was take the website etc details so that you could check out for yourselves what's happened here and can happen here, without a lot more hard work.  I'd ask some of you to consider how you might react if told that somebody was "fine", "good" or had "heard enough" (in a negative way, not "I've heard enough, how can I help?") about your home being under threat.  </soapbox>


----------



## 299 old timer (Jul 19, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Thanks for the photos Gramsci, and getting another T shirt.  Herne Hill market today - for one day only.
> 
> BTW the few people who refused to even take a card, saying "I'm fine" or I'm good", no, you're neither.   You weren't being asked for money on the spot, or the blood of your firstborn.  You weren't on the point of being mugged, or conned into joining a cult.
> 
> All you were being asked to do was take the website etc details so that you could check out for yourselves what's happened here and can happen here, without a lot more hard work.  I'd ask some of you to consider how you might react if told that somebody was "fine", "good" or had "heard enough" (in a negative way, not "I've heard enough, how can I help?") about your home being under threat.  </soapbox>



Those young fellows I spoke to at the Lambeth stall appeared to be in complete denial. I presented a few historical facts to them to disprove their rhetoric (and it was rhetoric, in the worst possible sense) - it's important to call them out over and over again. I do wonder what PR guru thought that purple  is now the colour of choice.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 19, 2015)

More or less sold the last of the Brixton Fightback T shirts today, except the the few left in the continental deli in Brixton.

Some of the white Save Cressingham T shirts shifted too, and the bloke who owns the junk shop (his label, not mine) in Herne Hill has said he'll shift a few, as he's been asked about it when he was wearing his.  *Shrug* each to their own, but relieved that somebody likes them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2015)

As seen at Herne Hill Market, except with the word "crimes" changed for "sins".






According to a single ranty person it's sexist and ageist because..."boy" and "bumfluff".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 25, 2015)

So, Central Hill estate's future in front of the Lambeth "cabinet" on Monday, 7pm. People gathering outside from 6pm. They only found out at the beginning of this week.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 25, 2015)

Anyway, it's Central Hill estate's future in front of the Lambeth "cabinet" on Monday, 7pm. People gathering outside from 6pm. They only found out at the beginning of this week.


----------



## boohoo (Jul 25, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Anyway, it's Central Hill estate's future in front of the Lambeth "cabinet" on Monday, 7pm. People gathering outside from 6pm. They only found out at the beginning of this week.



Shit   I can see why they picked Central Hill and Cressingham - great marketable views.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2015)

boohoo said:


> Shit   I can see why they picked Central Hill and Cressingham - great marketable views.



In Cressingham's case at least, the marketability of the views is why FoBP, the Herne Hill Society, Brockwell Park Community Partnership etc are "strongly advising" Lambeth not to go ahead (as are Save Britain's Heritage, who are pushing English Heritage's recommendation for Conservation Area status). As I said to a chap from Reel News last week, people are waking up to the fact that if we're demolished, the currently-very amenable view of the top of the park from most other aspects in the park, is going to be ruined, and the whole park dominated by 4-6 storey low-rise blocks looming over the park.


----------



## boohoo (Jul 26, 2015)

ViolentPanda Have you seen the central hill estate? It sits around the corner from Gypsy hill and takes in a spectacular view of central London. It's right next to Crystal Palace. It is very green and leafy and not intrusive to the feel of the area. There is also a feeling of thoughtful design about the place. A new build could be an eyesore.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2015)

boohoo said:


> ViolentPanda Have you seen the central hill estate? It sits around the corner from Gypsy hill and takes in a spectacular view of central London. It's right next to Crystal Palace. It is very green and leafy and not intrusive to the feel of the area. There is also a feeling of thoughtful design about the place. A new build could be an eyesore.



I've seen it a couple of times, but not since '91. Totally agree about the view, and you can bet any new-build will be primarily about maximising the amount of housing units, not about thoughtful, landscape-friendly and holistic design.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 26, 2015)

boohoo said:


> <snip> Have you seen the central hill estate? It sits around the corner from Gypsy hill and takes in a spectacular view of central London. It's right next to Crystal Palace. It is very green and leafy and not intrusive to the feel of the area. There is also a feeling of thoughtful design about the place. <snip>


I've seen parts of it when going past on the bus, I think.  AFAIK VP hasn't been that way in a long time.  But you've only to look at the photos (on FB etc) of the way it's terraced against the hillside to see that it would be very difficult to come up with a more harmonious way of building the estate.

Anyway, I'll be outside the Town Hall between 6 and 7pm tomorrow at least, seeing as some people from there showed up for this estate and I owe them that much.


----------



## Black Halo (Jul 27, 2015)

Sorry if this was mentioned already but apparently they want the residents to cough up for repairs before they tear it all down:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...for-repairs-on-condemned-estate-10417920.html
That seems to be a severe "kick when down" policy.


----------



## High Definition (Jul 27, 2015)

Heard a couple of months ago that the 20th Century Society are trying to get the Central Hill estate listed.   I was there taking photos last month and agree with the 20CS that it's one of the best of the Hollamby era estates.  The report to Cabinet tonight includes an appendix on Central Hill which refers to this.  Here's a screen shot of the section of the relevant part of the report.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 27, 2015)

Black Halo said:


> Sorry if this was mentioned already but apparently they want the residents to cough up for repairs before they tear it all down:
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...for-repairs-on-condemned-estate-10417920.html
> That seems to be a severe "kick when down" policy.


Not only does the substandard seem to glean urban for news, that article (or words to that effect) was in the Guardian last week. Ho hum.

BTW there's no "apparently" about it - talk to any leaseholder or freeholder on this estate and they'll tell you the same (I'm a tenant, but I hear from people with other types of tenure).  The money is for "weathertight" repairs, which were the council's responsibility all along, and which it's neglected to the point where it'll be penalised under EU law if it doesn't get those repairs done asap.

This is on a par with the school bully taking your lunch money so that they can go and get an extra large takeaway while you do their long overdue homework as well as the work you're already doing for them.


----------



## agricola (Jul 27, 2015)

Greebo said:


> This is on a par with the school bully taking your lunch money so that they can go and get an extra large takeaway while you do their long overdue homework as well as the work you're already doing for them.



That at least is an example that Councillor Bennett can understand, one would imagine.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 27, 2015)

agricola said:


> That at least is an example that Councillor Bennett can understand, one would imagine.


Do try to call him by his proper name (for which my memory is abysmal) - isn't it "Twitter boy" or something similar?


----------



## Black Halo (Jul 27, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Not only does the substandard seem to glean urban for news, that article (or words to that effect) was in the Guardian last week. Ho hum.


Sorry knew it'd probably be on here already but must have missed it.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 27, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Anyway, it's Central Hill estate's future in front of the Lambeth "cabinet" on Monday, 7pm. People gathering outside from 6pm. They only found out at the beginning of this week.


Did they find out via twitter? or did Lambeth have the decency to write?

Are many Cressingham supporters planning to attend?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 27, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> Did they find out via twitter? or did Lambeth have the decency to write?



They got a letter.



> Are many Cressingham supporters planning to attend?



As many as can get there at short notice, I believe. Greebo intends to be there.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 27, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> <snip> Are many Cressingham supporters planning to attend?


I don't know how many planned on attending, but there was just me and another from this estate (plus at least one Friend of Brockwell Park, and somebody from ASH speaking for Central Hill), plus a handful (a very small handful at that) from each of the estates mentioned in tonight's cabinet meeting.  

Not that a bigger showing would have made much of a difference to what happened in there - the council had no intention of listening.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 28, 2015)

This was in the Standard yesterday: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...for-repairs-on-condemned-estate-10417920.html


----------



## Winot (Jul 28, 2015)

Euros is an interesting name for a child.  I hope they don't try to exchange him for something stronger.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 28, 2015)

Winot said:


> Euros is an interesting name for a child.  I hope they don't try to exchange him for something stronger.



It's not "interesting", it's Welsh. Means "golden", I believe.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 28, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not "interesting", it's Welsh. Means "golden", I believe.


Yep Euros Childs from Gorky's Zygotic Mynci is named after the kid from that Eddie Murphy film


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 28, 2015)

Greebo said:


> I don't know how many planned on attending, but there was just me and another from this estate (plus at least one Friend of Brockwell Park, and somebody from ASH speaking for Central Hill), plus a handful (a very small handful at that) from each of the estates mentioned in tonight's cabinet meeting.
> 
> Not that a bigger showing would have made much of a difference to what happened in there - the council had no intention of listening.


 I'm afraid I didn't make it this time - just too tired sorry. 
On the plus side, I have been handing out the CG cards to lots of people I know.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 28, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> I'm afraid I didn't make it this time - just too tired sorry. <snip>


It's okay - you're allowed to run out of energy, and time - I've done the square root of sweet FA today apart from catching up on sleep.  If it's any consolation, your handing out those cards is pretty useful.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jul 28, 2015)

Greebo said:


> It's okay - you're allowed to run out of energy, and time - I've done the square root of sweet FA today apart from catching up on sleep.  If it's any consolation, your handing out those cards is pretty useful.


You are so encouraging. Thanks.


----------



## Robert Langtry (Aug 1, 2015)

Great News on the 'Go fund me Save Cressingham' site. Date of Judicial Review hearing, 3rd-4th November. Amazing work to all involved. Well Done.
If you do manage to catch them by the throat - obey Nature's Law - squeeze harder.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 2, 2015)

Robert Langtry said:


> Great News on the 'Go fund me Save Cressingham' site. Date of Judicial Review hearing, 3rd-4th November. Amazing work to all involved. Well Done.
> If you do manage to catch them by the throat - obey Nature's Law - squeeze harder.



All we need do now is raise about another £5000 to cover the JR costs.
(Not being pessimistic, just facing the reality of the cost of a JR in a post-Legal Aid UK).


----------



## Greebo (Aug 2, 2015)

Robert Langtry said:


> <snip> If you do manage to catch them by the throat - obey Nature's Law - squeeze harder.


Thank you, and after that (if/when we win) we save the other threatened estates too, if possible (it should be).


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Aug 3, 2015)




----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 4, 2015)

sounds good!


----------



## Greebo (Aug 4, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> sounds good!


Agreed - shame it's going to be one of the last events ever held before the pub's demolished though.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 6, 2015)

more bad news for social housing, from todays Times - unfortunately article is all about architecture and not about the homes to be lost.


> *Architects fail to save brutal 1970s council estate from demolition *
> 
> Robin Hood Gardens in Poplar, east London
> 
> ...


----------



## Greebo (Aug 7, 2015)

Somewhat short notice for this, which is on the coming Tuesday (11th August):

The Cabinet decision from July 13th has been called in for scrutiny on 11th August 2015. People who were there will remember that there wasn't even a show of hands over the decision.

It'll be interesting to see if the councillors on the scrutiny committee will do a proper job and actually scrutinise. The demolition proposal which even the council says doesn't meet its expectations could do with looking at properly.

One councillor will definitely be fighting our corner this coming Tuesday. He doesn't have to, as he's not one of our ward councillors, he's Scott Ainslie.

I thought it would be a nice gesture if some of us turn up at the Town Hall and show support for him (as well as for Save Cressingham Gardens) between 6pm and 7pm. If you can be outside the Town Hall in your T shirt (or without it), please be there. If you prefer to walk down first, you'll need to be outside the Rotunda for 5.30 pm sharp, but that's optional - I won't ask anyone to walk down who'd be better off taking the bus, or a minicab, or coming straight from work etc.

There will be reminders about this for those not on the net. Brixton Buzz and the SLP will be contacted. Please spread the word. Thank you.


----------



## Fingers (Aug 7, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Somewhathort notice for this, which is on the coming Tuesday (11th August):
> 
> The Cabinet decision from July 13th has been called in for scrutiny on 11th August 2015. People who were there will remember that there wasn't even a show of hands over the decision.
> 
> ...



I can be there


----------



## Greebo (Aug 7, 2015)

Fingers said:


> I can be there


Thanks.


----------



## editor (Aug 7, 2015)

Plugged here:
Save Cressingham Gardens campaigners to protest outside Lambeth Town Hall, 11th Aug


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 7, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Somewhat short notice for this, which is on the coming Tuesday (11th August):
> 
> The Cabinet decision from July 13th has been called in for scrutiny on 11th August 2015. People who were there will remember that there wasn't even a show of hands over the decision.
> 
> ...


I'll be there too


----------



## Fingers (Aug 7, 2015)

Maharani


----------



## Maharani (Aug 7, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Maharani


I shall do my damndest but I'm not 100% sure I can make it yet.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 7, 2015)

Maharani said:


> I shall do my damndest but I'm not 100% sure I can make it yet.


That's good enough.


----------



## editor (Aug 12, 2015)

Any updates from last night?


----------



## editor (Aug 12, 2015)

A few pics. Well done to everyone who made the effort to turn up. 












http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/08/...s-protest-outside-lambeth-town-hall-11th-aug/


----------



## Maharani (Aug 12, 2015)

Sorry I couldn't make it, was travelling back from the North.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 12, 2015)

editor said:


> Any updates from last night?


Sorry, no.

I had a migraine from about 4 pm or a bit earlier (bad enough for one person to actually ask if I was okay and not take "yes" for an answer), woke up at 7pm, and wouldn't have been safe anywhere near anything noisy or requiring me to sound halfway sane before roughly 9pm.

Others from the estate also had very good resons why they couldn't get there, which I'm not prepared to mention on this publicly readable section of urban.  Let's just say that not making it there was nothing to do with apathy or antipathy.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Aug 12, 2015)

Lambeth Council statement:

"Lambeth Council will press ahead with proposals to redevelop the Cressingham Gardens estate, providing at least 464 new homes, after senior councillors rejected a call for the decision to be reconsidered.

Lambeth’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee last night [Tuesday, 11 August] decided that the Council’s Cabinet should not be asked to review its decision to opt for the redevelopment of the estate. However, Committee members made a number of recommendations for the Cabinet to consider – including comments on the “Test of Opinion” carried out among residents, and the financial analysis of the regeneration scheme.

Members of the Cabinet last month approved a report – “Investing in better neighbourhoods and building the homes we need to house the people of Lambeth” - proposing the replacement all the 306 homes, many of which are in a poor state of repair. The redevelopment will provide a minimum of 464 new homes – a net gain of 158 extra homes. The scheme, part of the Council’s estate regeneration programme, will contribute towards the commitment to build 1,000 extra homes at council rent levels.

The decision to authorise the Cressingham Gardens scheme was challenged by Green councillor Scott Ainslie, who questioned the validity of the test of residents’ opinion of the options available and the Council’s financial assessment of the options, and said the decision should be “reviewed on Historical/Heritage grounds”. In his official request for the decision to be “called in” by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Cllr Ainslie said:  “I believe the information in the report is inaccurate which therefore brings into question the validity of the cabinet’s decision.”

After a meeting in the Town Hall last night, the committee decided the decision should stand. Members raised a number of questions, including about the methodology used to carry out the test of opinion, and suggested that the financial analysis of the rebuilding project should be more transparent. Their comments will now go to Cabinet for consideration.

Cllr Matthew Bennett, Cabinet Member for Housing, said: “I am pleased that the decision to go ahead with the rebuilding of Cressingham Gardens has been endorsed, and am grateful for the committee’s further recommendations.

“We face a major housing crisis in Lambeth, but in Cressingham Gardens we have the opportunity to build a new, modern estate - for existing residents and for people who at the moment do not have a secure home by increasing the number of homes for council rent for local families. I hope we can now get on with this vital project."


----------



## Maharani (Aug 12, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Sorry, no.
> 
> I had a migraine from about 4 pm or a bit earlier (bad enough for one person to actually ask if I was okay and not take "yes" for an answer), woke up at 7pm, and wouldn't have been safe anywhere near anything noisy or requiring me to sound halfway sane before roughly 9pm.
> 
> Others from the estate also had very good resons why they couldn't get there, which I'm not prepared to mention on this publicly readable section of urban.  Let's just say that not making it there was nothing to do with apathy or antipathy.


Hope you're feeling better today Greebo.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 12, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> <snip> Cllr Matthew Bennett, Cabinet Member for Housing, said: “I am pleased that the decision to go ahead with the rebuilding of Cressingham Gardens has been endorsed, and am grateful for the committee’s further recommendations.
> 
> “We face a major housing crisis in Lambeth, but in Cressingham Gardens we have the opportunity to build a new, modern estate - for existing residents and for people who at the moment do not have a secure home by increasing the number of homes for council rent for local families. I hope we can now get on with this vital project."


*23  - Twenty sodding three more places for council rent will result from this, and even that's 'aspirational' - not definite.  *


----------



## Greebo (Aug 12, 2015)

Maharani said:


> Hope you're feeling better today Greebo.


Yes thanks - I'm just going to need a lot of chocolate and more sleep.  Back to proper normal tomorrow.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Lambeth Council statement:
> 
> "Lambeth Council will press ahead with proposals to redevelop the Cressingham Gardens estate, providing at least 464 new homes, after senior councillors rejected a call for the decision to be reconsidered.".



I see that Lambeth are getting their arses and elbows mixed up again. There *will not* be "at least 464 new homes". 306 will be *replacement* homes for those whose homes are demolished. Of the remainder,  60% will be for sale, 25% at "affordable" rent (i.e. 75-80% of market), and 15% (23 homes by Lambeth's current calculations) will be new social rent properties.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Greebo (Aug 12, 2015)

Can I just remind people about this?  

More people are added to the borough's homelessless list every week than are taken off it, and yet Lambeth council thinks that razing an entire medium density estate (in an area where the use of local public services, including buses, has become dangerously close to exceeding capacity), putting roughly 50% extra homes on it, but only 23 of them being a net addition to council housing stock is a credible solution to the problem.  

*23!*


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 12, 2015)

What happens next? what is the next step?


----------



## Greebo (Aug 12, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> What happens next? what is the next step?


Judicial review in early November (3rd or 4th) - those who are working on that can't really say much about it, but we really are still in with a chance.

The High Court doesn't let everything go to judicial review - you have to have a valid case, and we have.

Hence the fundraising.  *yawn*


----------



## Judy B (Aug 12, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> I find Cressingham Gardens an immensely depressing estate. Many (but not all) of the people who live there love it to bits, but I can't see the appeal - besides being right on the edge of the park


Whoever you are you evidently have no taste for aspirational social housing. Do you in fact make this judgement with ignorance? Do you know any thing about the design and the lovely community here? What depresses you? That we are working class? 

That  the council never mend any thing then put in paving no one asked for and charge  a staggering amount to leaseholders? That each flat whether it be a single or family has huge amount of light flowing in that it was designed to preserve the trees and not impinge on the views from the park.That a master bricklayer built it - the only estate Lambeths own direct work force ever built. Yes in an era where a building trade was a  craft.

Lambeth speak in true Starbucks style of PLACEMAKING - seeing Brixton and its housing as destinations not homes. Do you? And yes it will be big - 468 houses and non council.

So if you live in Craignair (Deputy Leader) or Athlone or Claverdale or Hillworth or use the 432 415 or 2 best get ready for huge upheaval and even greater amounts of dust for at lest 4 years 

And if you have a private flat - including the block in the middle of Cressingham (with the only remaining wall of a former mansion house and vestiges of  the orchards. Then FCUK you as compulsory purchase orders will be used. And where the average cost of a house in SW2 is now £500,000 yes half a million quid do not expect more than £200,000.

So get a grip take some happy pills and leave us alone.


----------



## Judy B (Aug 12, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Can I just remind people about this?
> 
> More people are added to the borough's homelessless list every week than are taken off it, and yet Lambeth council thinks that razing an entire medium density estate (in an area where the use of local public services, including buses, has become dangerously close to exceeding capacity), putting roughly 50% extra homes on it, but only 23 of them being a net addition to council housing stock is a credible solution to the problem.
> 
> ...


----------



## Greebo (Aug 12, 2015)

BTW  there are various fundraisers in the pipeline, including Nanker Phelge's final Time Tunnel at the Canterbury Arms (before it's demolished  ), Michael and Eileen's sponsored walk along part of the Thames (mentioned in Friday's SLP) and a few other things later on...

If you can spare the cash, you can either sponsor that walk, turn up at Time Tunnel, or make a donation via gofundme (it can be kept anonymous to everyone except the person who set it up) or paypal.  Just put "Save Cressingham" into google and the details will show up.

The T shirts are on sale at a junk shop in Herne Hill and A & C Continental in Brixton (Jose is a mensch and a half).


----------



## Greebo (Aug 12, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Lambeth Council statement <snip>


Thanks for that, in spite of it being unsurprisingly bad news.  

BTW the person who stepped in last night did a brilliant job at very little notice, and only partly briefed.


----------



## SpamMisery (Aug 12, 2015)

Judy B said:


> Whoever you are you evidently have no taste for aspirational social housing. Do you in fact make this judgement with ignorance? Do you know any thing about the design and the lovely community here? What depresses you? That we are working class?
> 
> That  the council never mend any thing then put in paving no one asked for and charge  a staggering amount to leaseholders? That each flat whether it be a single or family has huge amount of light flowing in that it was designed to preserve the trees and not impinge on the views from the park.That a master bricklayer built it - the only estate Lambeths own direct work force ever built. Yes in an era where a building trade was a  craft.
> 
> ...



Welcome to U75 Judy. Judging by your first post I think you're going to fit right in here


----------



## leanderman (Aug 12, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Can I just remind people about this?
> 
> More people are added to the borough's homelessless list every week than are taken off it, and yet Lambeth council thinks that razing an entire medium density estate (in an area where the use of local public services, including buses, has become dangerously close to exceeding capacity), putting roughly 50% extra homes on it, but only 23 of them being a net addition to council housing stock is a credible solution to the problem.
> 
> *23!*



It's bizarre. 23 is a joke figure. 

What is the solution?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Aug 12, 2015)

leanderman said:


> It's bizarre. 23 is a joke figure.
> 
> What is the solution?



If 23 council homes really is the aspiration, then repair the Cressingham homes that are currently empty and the aim is achieved.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 12, 2015)

leanderman said:


> It's bizarre. 23 is a joke figure.
> 
> What is the solution?


I refer m'learned urb to option 6, which would refurbish and repair to passivhaus standard.  The carbon tax saved, combined with the grants for green retrofit would make this a lot cheaper than standard refurb and repair.

In addition, the passivhaus style of work could first be done on the Crosby Walk voids (making them habitable after 16 years of being bricked up), giving building students some desperately needed placements.  Passivhaus build standard is higher than conventional standard, therefore if they get experience of this, they go to the front of the job queue.

The council was not interested in hearing about this, nor in option 7 (option 6 + light infill, still no demolition) nor in 8 (option 7 + various things to benefit the wider community).  All of these were deemed too expensive compared with the (far higher) cost of complete demolition funded by SPV.
..............................................

Option 2 called for 19 demolitions (basically the voids plus the rest of Crosby Walk) and would have replaced those 19 homes and added another 19 homes (i.e. 38 new homes constructed altogether.

Option 3 called for 31 demolitions (Crosby Walk and Papworth Way) and would have replaced those 31 homes and added another 20 homes (i.e. 51 new homes constructed altogther.

In other words, options 2 and 3, both of which were accepted by residents as allowable compromises to option 1, would have given almost the same number of net homes as The Great Cressingham Gardens Massacre. Ever get the feeling that Tweetie Pie is desperately trying to get one over on us?


----------



## Crispy (Aug 13, 2015)

I was walking through the estate yesterday and there's so many ways you could fit more houses on the site without demolishing anything or ruining anyone's view.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 13, 2015)

Crispy said:


> I was walking through the estate yesterday and there's so many ways you could fit more houses on the site without demolishing anything or ruining anyone's view.


Adding a small 2 storey block, just beside the spiral ramp at the start of Hardel is an obvious one.  It wouldn't even affect anyone's light or privacy.  Nor need it extend far enough towards the estate road to affect the sparrow colony in the bush at the front of that corner of Hardel (and the underground entrance to the garages).  Nor far enough to the side to impinge on the patch of grass in front of the Rotunda.

But *shrug* what do I know?  I'm just a nimby pleb, according to the likes of Matthew Bennett.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 13, 2015)

Theres been an empty building on Railton road for the past few years (former Railton Rd Clinic) I wonder how many flats they could fit in there? According to Lambeth's own figures they still have over 200 empty properties.

Seems mad to move 306 households and demolish popular buildings, just to gain 23 socially rented flats. Not a very efficient way of doing things. What business does any council have in building flats for private sale on publically owned land anyway?


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 13, 2015)

That's restricted for non residential use though. Saw x2 security guards the other day which reminded me that its been mothballed for so long.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 13, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Members of the Cabinet last month approved a report – “Investing in better neighbourhoods and building the homes we need to house the people of Lambeth” - proposing the replacement all the 306 homes, many of which are in a poor state of repair. The redevelopment will provide a minimum of 464 new homes – a net gain of 158 extra homes. The scheme, part of the Council’s estate regeneration programme, will contribute towards the commitment to build 1,000 extra homes at council rent levels.


 That is so misleading if only and extra 23 at 'council rent levels' will be gained. At that rate Lambeth will have to demolish every estate to achieve its 1000 extra new homes target. While meanwhile losing hundreds of homes for the period of rebuilding.

Presumably it means to build 135 homes at hideously expensive market rates or is that at 80% of hideously expensive. I wonder what the cost to the Lambeth tax payer will be? The cost of selling off regenerating the Heygate estate has been millions to the Southwark rate payers and that certainly has not been to the benefit of former residents or local people.

Lambeth Councillors are forgetting the people they answer to are the electorate of Lambeth. We won't forget that they are selling off OUR public property.

(PS I dont live on the estate or in Lambeth housing)


----------



## Tricky Skills (Aug 13, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> That is so misleading if only and extra 23 at 'council rent levels' will be gained. At that rate Lambeth will have to demolish every estate to achieve its 1000 extra new homes target. While meanwhile losing hundreds of homes for the period of rebuilding.



From a BBuzz comment:

"At the rate of delivery in the Cressingham Gardens proposal (demolish 300 homes for 23 extra council rent), the council will have to demolish 13,000 homes over the next 4 years just to achieve their target of 1,000 extra council rent homes – that is over 50% of Lambeth council’s entire housing stock needs to be demolished and converted to the SPV."


----------



## CH1 (Aug 13, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> That's restricted for non residential use though. Saw x2 security guards the other day which reminded me that its been mothballed for so long.


You reckon planning would refuse a change to residential when it's in a residential area? There must be some history to it - looks to me like it was a clinic relocated there as part of ad hoc post Brixton Riots rebuilding work.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 13, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> That is so misleading if only and extra 23 at 'council rent levels' will be gained. At that rate Lambeth will have to demolish every estate to achieve its 1000 extra new homes target. While meanwhile losing hundreds of homes for the period of rebuilding.


I think these targets of extra homes Lambeth is committed to are probably Mayor's Office targets which do not discriminate between social and non-social housing. Therefore councils like Lambeth find themselves inexorably drawn into the viability trap - unless they have some social conscience or political spine - qualities not very obvious in Lambeth right now.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 13, 2015)

CH1 said:


> You reckon planning would refuse a change to residential when it's in a residential area? There must be some history to it - looks to me like it was a clinic relocated there as part of ad hoc post Brixton Riots rebuilding work.



I seem to remember some restricted covenant - but it's later than immediate post riots rebuild.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2015)

Judy B said:


> Whoever you are you evidently have no taste for aspirational social housing.



It's blatantly obvious, isn't it? 
Welcome to Urban75, Judy, from a fellow Cressingham-er!



> Do you in fact make this judgement with ignorance? Do you know any thing about the design and the lovely community here? What depresses you? That we are working class?
> 
> That  the council never mend any thing then put in paving no one asked for and charge  a staggering amount to leaseholders?



Paving that was originally scheduled to take 6 weeks, and is now nearing 4 months, and *still* not completed! I HATE walking along Hambridge Way, it's almost like tank-traps for the mobility-impaired!
Still, it seems that the reason for the paving and so-called "weathertight" work (haven't seen much of that, frankly!) is because Lambeth realised that a solid case could be made for taking them to court for multiple and repeated violations (that is, making loads of different violations, and making each one many times) of residents' "right to repair" (which presents specific time-frames in which repairs and rectifications to faulty repairs need to be carried out). Fortunate for Lambeth that they "lose" so many records every year, or they'd have 10+ of my complaints about the paving on the estate embarrassing them.	



> That each flat whether it be a single or family has huge amount of light flowing in that it was designed to preserve the trees and not impinge on the views from the park.That a master bricklayer built it - the only estate Lambeths own direct work force ever built. Yes in an era where a building trade was a  craft.



Didn't the direct labour force start on another couple of estates, but got shafted when Thatcher introduced CCT (Compulsory Competitive Tendering) during her first government? Always thought that was ridiculous, because it virtually guaranteed poor-quality work.



> Lambeth speak in true Starbucks style of PLACEMAKING - seeing Brixton and its housing as destinations not homes. Do you? And yes it will be big - 468 houses and non council.
> 
> So if you live in Craignair (Deputy Leader) or Athlone or Claverdale or Hillworth or use the 432 415 or 2 best get ready for huge upheaval and even greater amounts of dust for at lest 4 years



Plus extra pressure on public transport, greater use of already-busy roads, packed classrooms in local primary schools, and rammed GP surgeries.



> And if you have a private flat - including the block in the middle of Cressingham (with the only remaining wall of a former mansion house and vestiges of  the orchards. Then FCUK you as compulsory purchase orders will be used. And where the average cost of a house in SW2 is now £500,000 yes half a million quid do not expect more than £200,000.
> 
> So get a grip take some happy pills and leave us alone.



Well said!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I think these targets of extra homes Lambeth is committed to are probably Mayor's Office targets which do not discriminate between social and non-social housing. Therefore councils like Lambeth find themselves inexorably drawn into the viability trap - unless they have some social conscience or political spine - qualities not very obvious in Lambeth right now.



I've said it before, and I'll say it again: This is also about the money-generating opportunities that "regeneration" will provide for the council, and I don't mean rental income, I mean profits from sales - present day profits that will effectively be mortgaged over the lifespan of the regeneration's finance cost.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 13, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: This is also about the money-generating opportunities that "regeneration" will provide for the council, and I don't mean rental income, I mean profits from sales - present day profits that will effectively be mortgaged over the lifespan of the regeneration's finance cost.


You mean like the council have become property speculators - surely not?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2015)

CH1 said:


> You mean like the council have become property speculators - surely not?



Sadly, they have.
I mean, they've always done so on a small, instrumental scale (badly, in Lambeth's case, more often than not), but using SPVs to "regenerate" estates allows them to tempt investors in with a share of the profits, with the remaining percentage going into council coffers to ease current difficulties. it's a pisspoor model, though. Rental, even acting as a private landlord, would provide a better income stream than sales, but the cash-flow isn't as immediate.
Yet again, local authorities are selling off the family silver, only this time Lambeth seem to be doing it all-to-willingly.


----------



## Manter (Aug 13, 2015)

What baffles me is that 23 homes goes no way towards addressing the housing problem, even slightly. So they need to be looking for much more radical solutions. They could build some huge blocks on some of the squares and parks round here, rebuild the barrier block without any parking and with less dead space, do compulsory purchases on a couple of semis with big gardens and build a tower block...not necessarily brilliant answers, and certainly contentious but if there are thousands of people needing homes then the odd flat here or there is pointless.

But if we are in a situation where every little helps, and 23 is significant- why let developers off the hook? Why are there not more 'affordable' flats in Brixton square, etc?

It just seems a disingenuous argument to say we need thousands of homes so we are building a few. Must be something else going on.


----------



## leanderman (Aug 13, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> If 23 council homes really is the aspiration, then repair the Cressingham homes that are currently empty and the aim is achieved.



That's not a solution to the lack of social housing. 

But it reveals one of the council's dubious motivations: avoiding a massive repair bill.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Aug 13, 2015)

leanderman said:


> That's not a solution to the lack of social housing.
> 
> But it reveals one of the council's dubious motivations: avoiding a massive repair bill.



The repair bill isn't that big when compared to the finances involved in building a new development.

£1.5m has been spent by the Council or repairs since the 'consultation' started. I'm not sure how to look at this - £1.5m as evidence of it being costly to manage the estate as it is, or £1.5m being thrown away on an estate that you knew you were going to bulldoze all along.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2015)

Manter said:


> What baffles me is that 23 homes goes no way towards addressing the housing problem, even slightly. So they need to be looking for much more radical solutions. They could build some huge blocks on some of the squares and parks round here, rebuild the barrier block without any parking and with less dead space, do compulsory purchases on a couple of semis with big gardens and build a tower block...not necessarily brilliant answers, and certainly contentious but if there are thousands of people needing homes then the odd flat here or there is pointless.
> 
> But if we are in a situation where every little helps, and 23 is significant- why let developers off the hook? Why are there not more 'affordable' flats in Brixton square, etc?
> 
> It just seems a disingenuous argument to say we need thousands of homes so we are building a few. Must be something else going on.



I'll say it again: The (minimum) additional social housing is a by-product. This is about "opening up" some fairly prime space to development. As boohoo has remarked, Cressingham and Central Hill both have fantastically-saleable views, and the other 4 estates primarily under threat are all in prime locations w/r/t access to public transport and infrastructure.
This is about the council making money from sales - one-off monies that will doubtless be spunked, and which will mortgage the future of Lambeth CT-payers. For any other context, including repayment of co-investors in the SPV, 60% of new-build for sale doesn't make sense, as far as I can see.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 13, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> <snip> I'm not sure how to look at this - £1.5m as evidence of it being costly to manage the estate as it is, or £1.5m being thrown away on an estate that you knew you were going to bulldoze all along.


The second - because the repairs (as far as I can tell, only living here, not being a surveyor and not walking the entire estate every day)  have been badly done, badly targetted, and wouldn't have been anything like as costly if maintenance had remained at an adequate level.  

Paving and weathertight repairs are being done now, but only because the threat of being fined by the EU for neglecting them is far far greater than the cost of getting them done (no matter how badly).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2015)

leanderman said:


> That's not a solution to the lack of social housing.
> 
> But it reveals one of the council's dubious motivations: avoiding a massive repair bill.



"Massive" is rather nebulous,and even if we doubled the council's original estimate of £14-16 million to refurbish Cressingham in case Lambeth missed something important (we are talking about Lambeth, after all), £28-32 million is still around £50 million lower than the lowest finance cost for the "regeneration" of the estate (and IIRC, that £50 million is *post* any money Lambeth makes from actual sales).
This leads me to ask "what's more important to Lambeth: Preserving existing communities, or erasing evidence of their poor care-taking while incidentally shifting the demographic of the area?".


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 13, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> The repair bill isn't that big when compared to the finances involved in building a new development.
> 
> £1.5m has been spent by the Council or repairs since the 'consultation' started. I'm not sure how to look at this - £1.5m as evidence of it being costly to manage the estate as it is, or £1.5m being thrown away on an estate that you knew you were going to bulldoze all along.



Which is the same sum spent on my estate to address fire safety concerns post camberwell fires + kitchen & bathroom refurbs. Approx 350 residents, but service charge doubled for the year.


----------



## Manter (Aug 13, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'll say it again: The (minimum) additional social housing is a by-product. This is about "opening up" some fairly prime space to development. As boohoo has remarked, Cressingham and Central Hill both have fantastically-saleable views, and the other 4 estates primarily under threat are all in prime locations w/r/t access to public transport and infrastructure.
> This is about the council making money from sales - one-off monies that will doubtless be spunked, and which will mortgage the future of Lambeth CT-payers. For any other context, including repayment of co-investors in the SPV, 60% of new-build for sale doesn't make sense, as far as I can see.


So Lambeth make money selling the land/70 odd private flats?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> The repair bill isn't that big when compared to the finances involved in building a new development.
> 
> £1.5m has been spent by the Council or repairs since the 'consultation' started. I'm not sure how to look at this - £1.5m as evidence of it being costly to manage the estate as it is, or £1.5m being thrown away on an estate that you knew you were going to bulldoze all along.



The paving repairs are not impressive. Where there are straightforward runs, the quality is okay, but anywhere there's a bit of complex geometry (and if you've been to Cressingham you'll have experienced our undulating pathways!), they're cocking up and going for cheap and dirty fixes - for instance: A shallow stairway at the top of the estate has several loose slabs, mostly because groundwater from the pavement has undermined the steps over time. The pavers "cured" the rocking slabs by laying new slabs on top of the old -result: Still rockin' after all these years! Toward the bottom of the estate they didn't put down enough sand and aggregate under the new paving one one of the Ways, with the result of cracked slabs, and of some slabs tilting up to about 30 degrees off horizontal when walked on. Even where they've paved around utilities covers etc, they've made a fuck-awful job of making sure the surrounding paving surface is reasonably flush to the hydrant covers etc. They're a tripping hazard for anyone, let alone the senior citizens and disabled people on the estate.The estate officer reckoned she has had at least one call a day about the shonky work since works started about 10 weeks ago.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 13, 2015)

Greebo said:


> The second - because the repairs (as far as I can tell, only living here, not being a surveyor and not walking the entire estate every day)  have been badly done, badly targetted, and wouldn't have been anything like as costly if maintenance had remained at an adequate level.
> 
> Paving and weathertight repairs are being done now, but only because the threat of being fined by the EU for neglecting them is far far greater than the cost of getting them done (no matter how badly).



Not to denigrate your position, but isn't that typical of Lambeth Living repair contracts all over? It's hardly a borough which doesn't have its own almost Hackney levels of fraud, corruption and misappropriation allegations relating to contracts for building and maintenance works. But I can see how wilful neglect  supports their financial argument - the same approach is being used at Dorchester Court by private landlords.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2015)

Manter said:


> So Lambeth make money selling the land/70 odd private flats?



More like 85-odd flats (if we take their 158 extra dwelling figure seriously - their most "extreme" plan was looking at 550-ish on the site). they appear to not be looking to sell the land _per se_ to a developer along with signing up to some profit-sharing agreement, but retaining freehold themselves, then selling on the right to build leasehold properties in some kind of profit-sharing exercise, as far as I could tell from the viability studies.  Of course, not being a conveyancer or a lawyer, I may have read the studies incorrectly.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 13, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> Not to denigrate your position, but isn't that typical of Lambeth Living repair contracts all over? <snip>



Not entirely - the neglect of maintenance which even a tiny bit of common sense would tell you was needed (gutter clearance on an estate with lots of trees) was happening long before Lambeth Living took over.


----------



## Manter (Aug 13, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> More like 85-odd flats (if we take their 158 extra dwelling figure seriously - their most "extreme" plan was looking at 550-ish on the site). they appear to not be looking to sell the land _per se_ to a developer along with signing up to some profit-sharing agreement, but retaining freehold themselves, then selling on the right to build leasehold properties in some kind of profit-sharing exercise, as far as I could tell from the viability studies.  Of course, not being a conveyancer or a lawyer, I may have read the studies incorrectly.


Ah, ok, understand. I've found most if the documents on it (as a non specialist) completely impenetrable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Not entirely - the neglect of maintenance which even a tiny bit of common sense would tell you was needed (gutter clearance on an estate with lots of trees) was happening long before Lambeth Living took over.



Yep, early to mid 2000s were when the basic maintenance started to go seriously downhill. Lambeth Living was foisted on us in '08, ostensibly because ALMOs had access to income streams (grants mostly, and some matched funding) that LAs couldn't access - income streams that disappeared when the banks took the economy into a tits-up position. result: Lambeth Living carried on Lambeth Council's unenviable record of doing the square root of fuck-all for Lambeth tenants.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2015)

Manter said:


> Ah, ok, understand. I've found most if the documents on it (as a non specialist) completely impenetrable.



Glad it's not just me. 
What annoys me is Lambeth "selling" the scheme to people (by which I don't mean residents, but rather the media and other "interested outsiders") on the basis of the results of the viability study with the lowest financial impact, so you get to hear "£80 million over 30 years, or £100 million over 50 years, and you think "wow,that's only £2-3 million a year". What doesn't happen is that the other extreme - the viability study with the highest finance cost - doesn't get mentioned, or the fact that we're talking about a minimum of 6 estates (one of which is admittedly tiny) have a similar spread of possible financial impact. Lambeth already has a half billion pound debt, and this will add much more, whether "off-book" or on.


----------



## RoyReed (Aug 14, 2015)

Cressingham Gardens is going to be part of Open House London again this year. I doubt Lambeth get the irony of this.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 18, 2015)

Eileen and Michael O Keefe will be walking along the Thames and aiming to cross at least three bridges - roughly 10 miles.  Money raised will go into the fighting fund (for the costs of the judicial review), and every penny raised by them will be pretty hard earnt.  Here's the link.

http://www.gofundme.com/rn5yn56k

BTW see some of you at Nanker Phelge's final Time Tunnel in the Canterbury Arms on Saturday.  Not sure if I should be happy about that, as the demolition of a successful family pub is nothing to smile about, even if his donating whatever he makes that night to the cause is very generous.


----------



## Robert Langtry (Aug 22, 2015)

Greebo, going back to your posting #481 on which you advised me that using my name on the net was not wise. I have always been meaning to Thank you but as I belong to a generation for whom typing is not a desirable skill and spelling a bit of a pain, it's always "I must do that - later". Anyway, for now 'Thank you' . . . Robert


----------



## Greebo (Aug 22, 2015)

Robert Langtry no problem.  

If or when you decide to change it here, send a message to one of the moderators, explaining why, what you want to change it to, and swearing on your mother's grave/children's lives etc that you'll stick with the new name.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 17, 2015)

Reminder.  This Saturday and Sunday are Open House Weekend.  People who live here will be showing some of (I hope) the visiting hordes around.  It's always interesting seeing the reaction of others to somewhere (or something) you take for granted.  

Any who can't make it this weekend, there'll be a guided sketching party on a Sunday afternoon in early October (maybe others to follow) to help raise money for the fighting fund (to pay for taking the council to court).  Check the Save Cressingham Gardens FB page for details.  If you prefer to avoid that place, please email directly to drawingthelineevents@gmail.com.

The people organising that day (one lives here, one's another urbanite, and one's very into art) have walked around the estate and they're aiming to make the 2 hours interesting and enjoyable.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 17, 2015)

Cressingham Gardens is included in the always excellent Municipal Dreams guide to Open House Weekend

Open House London: A Tour of the Capital’s Council Housing, Part Two


----------



## boohoo (Sep 25, 2015)

As Greebo mentioned, this is a fundraiser and awareness raising event, which will give people the opportunity to explore the estate, learn some local history, do some sketching and share their work. 

We don't have a fee for attending events - we just ask for a donation which will go towards Cressingham Gardens.

One second-class stamp and blank postcard per participant will be provided for the those with Craftivist inclinations - send a local councillor or an MP a picture of the homes along with your thoughts!

Please bring your own drawing supplies both traditional and non trad. We suggest: paper, rubber, clipboard or a hard backed sketch pad, biro, crayon, watercolour, charcoal, pencil, pastel, felt-tips, sharpies, finger paints, or whatever you have lying around indoors.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 26, 2015)

boohoo said:


> As Greebo mentioned, this is a fundraiser and awareness raising event, which will give people the opportunity to explore the estate, learn some local history, do some sketching and share their work.
> 
> We don't have a fee for attending events - we just ask for a donation which will go towards Cressingham Gardens.
> 
> ...



I made up a simple A5 "Drawing the Line" flyer for Open House day at Cressingham that we (Greebo and I) handed out about 70 of, over the 2 days, which will hopefully get you a couple of extra sketchers!


----------



## boohoo (Sep 27, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I made up a simple A5 "Drawing the Line" flyer for Open House day at Cressingham that we (Greebo and I) handed out about 70 of, over the 2 days, which will hopefully get you a couple of extra sketchers!


Good work! Thank you.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 1, 2015)

Is Hardel Walk part of the Cressingham demolition plan? I ask because Foxtons are marketing a three bed flat there for just shy of £600,000!


----------



## Manter (Oct 1, 2015)

Rushy said:


> Is Hardel Walk part of the Cressingham demolition plan? I ask because Foxtons are marketing a three bed flat there for just shy of £600,000!


Yup


----------



## editor (Oct 5, 2015)

New video from Reel News:



Lambeth’s shame: council press ahead for demolition of Cressingham Gardens against residents’ wishes – new video

PLEASE donate to the Save Cressingham Gardens crowdfunding appeal.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2015)

editor said:


> New video from Reel News:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Shaun from Reel News did us proud.


----------



## Robert Langtry (Oct 28, 2015)

Judicial Review Hearing 3rd and 4th November.
Does anyone know yet which location / building /part of the High Court the hearing is being heard?
Are the Public allowed to attend? Any idea of the times of day?
Have looked online, and the Court seems to only publish daily schedules of what and when on the day.
If Public spaces are limited and been allocated to Cressingham people and Journalists that's OK. We will hear about it later. As they say in England 'Go an break some Legs!'


----------



## Gniewosz (Oct 28, 2015)

It is happening at the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand.  I think it is starting 10am/10.30am.  Don't know yet which room. 
Public spaces are limited, but looks like there might be a protest gathering outside as well, so people will probably  take turns inside the court.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 30, 2015)

Gniewosz said:


> It is happening at the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand.  I think it is starting 10am/10.30am.  Don't know yet which room.
> Public spaces are limited, but looks like there might be a protest gathering outside as well, so people will probably  take turns inside the court.



Protest at what time on 3rd? If around 9 ish could take be around and take some photos. And say hello.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Oct 31, 2015)

With the judicial review about to take place are they still collecting donations? I'd like to donate but just want to clarify that the money is still needed.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 31, 2015)

DJWrongspeed said:


> With the judicial review about to take place are they still collecting donations? I'd like to donate but just want to clarify that the money is still needed.


Yes, we're still collecting, and yes it's still needed.  

We're getting closer, but not there yet.

BTW even if we win this judicial review, there may be further legal battles ahead.


----------



## brixtonblade (Oct 31, 2015)

Good luck. 

Do you find out the result on the 5th or do they take it away to think about?


----------



## Greebo (Oct 31, 2015)

brixtonblade said:


> Good luck.
> 
> Do you find out the result on the 5th or do they take it away to think about?


Thanks.  I don't know.  this is somebody else's field, not mine.


----------



## Gniewosz (Nov 2, 2015)

I suspect the judge will need to take it away and think about it...


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2015)

Press statement: Cressingham Gardens legal hearing against Lambeth Council starts tomorrow at the High Court


----------



## Robert Langtry (Nov 2, 2015)

Got it. It's Court 66 at 10:30am before Mrs Justice Elisabeth Laing. Bokrosova .v. London Borough of lambeth.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 5, 2015)

Any news?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 5, 2015)

Rushy said:


> Any news?


Their Facebook page says a decision in about 2 weeks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Their Facebook page says a decision in about 2 weeks.



Might be sooner. All depends on Justice Laing's take on things. We know she wasn't at all impressed with how Lambeth presented their side of things - apparently their barrister was NOT on top of his brief - but that doesn't necessarily mean that any decision she makes will favour us. She may tell Lambeth to re-consult as the consultation wasn't lawful, but she might rule that what's done is done, and while their behaviour was unlawful, it doesn't constitute an issue significant enough to force the council to re-consult.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 11, 2015)

Something which ought to be of concern to people living near the estate.

You won't have been invited to the Rotunda to see the boards about Regeneration plans which labelled a lowrise block at 115 Tulse Hill and the safe house on the corner of Trinity Rise, as well as a few of the semidetached houses on Trinity Rise near the safe house as a "land acquisition opportunity".


----------



## 299 old timer (Nov 11, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Something which ought to be of concern to people living near the estate.
> 
> You won't have been invited to the Rotunda to see the boards about Regeneration plans which labelled a lowrise block at 115 Tulse Hill and the safe house on the corner of Trinity Rise, as well as a few of the semidetached houses on Trinity Rise near the safe house as a "land acquisition opportunity".



Is that statement in an official document? If so can you point me toward it please Greebo, thanks.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 11, 2015)

299 old timer said:


> Is that statement in an official document? If so can you point me toward it please Greebo, thanks.


It was included in the content of the boards displayed by firms tendering for the regeneration contract.  These were recently displayed in the Rotunda, for residents of the estate to see, at very short notice and for a relatively short time.   

ViolentPanda can you put it up please?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 11, 2015)

Greebo said:


> It was included in the content of the boards displayed by firms tendering for the regeneration contract.  These were recently displayed in the Rotunda, for residents of the estate to see, at very short notice and for a relatively short time.
> 
> ViolentPanda can you put it up please?



Yep, no problem. Small correction, though. The "halfway house"/bail hostel isn't *directly* under threat in the same way as 115 Tulse Hill (Park View House) and 126-138 Trinity Rise are, because it's part of the Crown Estate, so it can't be CPO'd. That doesn't, however, mean that Lambeth can't come to a direct leasing arrangement with the Crown Estate, just that they'll have to pay market rate for it *if* Brenda wants to do business with them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 11, 2015)

299 old timer said:


> Is that statement in an official document? If so can you point me toward it please Greebo, thanks.



It's an official proposal based on data submitted to the company by Lambeth Council. I was scrupulous in asking the functionaries for the company where their data came from.


----------



## 299 old timer (Nov 11, 2015)

Thanks both very much.


----------



## Gniewosz (Nov 19, 2015)

One of the Cressingham residents that attended both days has started to publish an almost blow-by-blow account of the judicial review hearing: 
Court Report Part One: Judicial Review into "unfair and unlawful" Cressingham Gardens demolition consultation


----------



## Greebo (Nov 19, 2015)

Gniewosz said:


> One of the Cressingham residents that attended both days has started to publish an almost blow-by-blow account of the judicial review hearing:
> Court Report Part One: Judicial Review into "unfair and unlawful" Cressingham Gardens demolition consultation


Thanks for passing that on, and kudos to the person who took such detailed notes.  It's amazing the amount of barely tapped-into skills we have on this estate.


----------



## brixtonblade (Nov 19, 2015)

Gniewosz said:


> One of the Cressingham residents that attended both days has started to publish an almost blow-by-blow account of the judicial review hearing:
> Court Report Part One: Judicial Review into "unfair and unlawful" Cressingham Gardens demolition consultation


Thanks - excellent link.  Lambeth look incredibly shoddy.


----------



## 299 old timer (Nov 19, 2015)

Shoddy is being too kind.

_Nor had the elusive document been supplied to the court as part of the council’s supporting evidence, but Lambeth’s barrister Jon Holbrook, claimed it did exist. He said: “There are so many documents in this case, Mr Vokes has made an assertion and if I had to bring a document to support every assertion he makes, there would be a lot more documents than there are already. I can see it’s relevant and I can copy it and bring it to court.”
_
I swore out loud reading this part, luckily no one heard me. Truly incredible ineptitude.


----------



## brixtonblade (Nov 19, 2015)

So what is the best case outcome?  Judge agrees consultation was flawed and asks for it to be redone and that Financial models are produced/verified and show that refurb is viable?


----------



## Gniewosz (Nov 19, 2015)

Judge's ruling hasn't come back yet... still waiting...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2015)

brixtonblade said:


> So what is the best case outcome?  Judge agrees consultation was flawed and asks for it to be redone and that Financial models are produced/verified and show that refurb is viable?



That'd be nice.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 20, 2015)

If interested in what Lambeth has attempted on this estate (and is attempting on others), next Saturday's event might be of interest.
Another Lambeth is Possible/ Sat 28th Nov


----------



## Gniewosz (Nov 20, 2015)

Part 2 of judicial review write-up published today: 
Court Report Part Two: Judicial review hears Lambeth Council downplayed voice of opposition to demolition


----------



## Robert Langtry (Nov 20, 2015)

Greebo, tomorrow is Saturday the 21st. Your link is for the following Saturday.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 21, 2015)

Robert Langtry said:


> Greebo, tomorrow is Saturday the 21st. Your link is for the following Saturday.


  It's been one of those months.  Thanks for that.  *goes back and edits*

The date on the link is correct, I just got time a bit foreshortened.


----------



## editor (Nov 24, 2015)

Fantastic news!

Cressingham Gardens’ tenant wins High Court legal battle against Lambeth Council


----------



## Winot (Nov 24, 2015)

Very good news.  I hope (but doubt) that Lambeth will learn lessons from this.

Are they likely/able to appeal, does any one know?


----------



## editor (Nov 24, 2015)

Winot said:


> Very good news.  I hope (but doubt) that Lambeth will learn lessons from this.
> 
> Are they likely/able to appeal, does any one know?


Whichever way you look at it, it's a major fucking blow for their "_oooh look at us we're a touchy-feely co-op council_" propaganda.

I wouldn't be surprised if they do appeal though.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 24, 2015)

Good news, well done Cressingham residents!


----------



## Crispy (Nov 24, 2015)

Excellent news


----------



## teuchter (Nov 24, 2015)

Well done Cressingham people.


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 24, 2015)

Great news!


----------



## SpamMisery (Nov 24, 2015)

Good luck with the second round of consultations!


----------



## 299 old timer (Nov 24, 2015)

Excellent news!
Obvious to say, but keep up the good work and keep alert - this council is not to be trusted, as the arrogant and shoddy approach to the "regeneration" of Cressingham clearly illustrates.


----------



## buscador (Nov 24, 2015)

Brilliant news!


----------



## MrSki (Nov 24, 2015)

Court Report Part Three: "Show-stopping" memo was not promised financial analysis

Is this good news?


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 24, 2015)

> Residents are celebrating a victory against their local authority landlord after a judge quashed its unlawful decision to demolish up to 300 homes at the High Court.
> 
> Lambeth Council was said to have “nobbled” its own Cabinet committee by calling off a consultation on refurbishment of Cressingham Gardens Estate in Tulse Hill, without carrying out the proper financial analysis.
> 
> In court, the council admitted deliberately downplaying the voice of opposition to the redevelopment of the “congenial, low crime” 1970’s estate, in a town hall report summarising residents’ views. The local authority left out resident feedback including on proposed alternative funding strategies, which it claimed were “not pertinent”.



Breaking news: Lambeth demolition decision quashed


----------



## gaijingirl (Nov 24, 2015)

This is fantastic news.  So pleased for you all.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Nov 24, 2015)

That is brilliant news!


----------



## T & P (Nov 24, 2015)

Superb news! Congratulations to all residents.


----------



## editor (Nov 24, 2015)

I think I'm better merge threads here as it's going to get confusing


----------



## Brix69 (Nov 24, 2015)

MrSki said:


> Court Report Part Three: "Show-stopping" memo was not promised financial analysis
> 
> Is this good news?


Reading through this report makes clear the deception and downright bullsh*t of Lambeth's 'cooperative council' claim. The fact that councillors can act in this way without censure is totally wrong.
Congratulations to the people who stood up to the dishonesty and blight they've imposed on local residents.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 24, 2015)

Good work everyone involved with this!


----------



## shygirl (Nov 24, 2015)

Fantastic news, well done!  Good luck with the next stages.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 24, 2015)

299 old timer said:


> Excellent news!
> Obvious to say, but keep up the good work and keep alert - this council is not to be trusted, as the arrogant and shoddy approach to the "regeneration" of Cressingham clearly illustrates.



We're already circulating the "don't get complacent" message to the troops. Even if Lambeth don't appeal the judgement, we're going to have to keep a close eye on them with regard to re-consulting.


----------



## Tolpuddle (Nov 24, 2015)

Nice to see Lambeth being fucked


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 24, 2015)

Congrats! what ever lambeth do next this - throws a huge spanner in their works and will hopefully give you all a break in the meanwhile.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 24, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> Congrats! what ever lambeth do next this - throws a huge spanner in their works and will hopefully give you all a break in the meanwhile.


Hope for the other estates as well.  

BTW the need for fundraising isn't over.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 24, 2015)

Just seen CG on the BBC local news!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 24, 2015)

Great news.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 24, 2015)

Brix69 said:


> Reading through this report makes clear the deception and downright bullsh*t of Lambeth's 'cooperative council' claim. The fact that councillors can act in this way without censure is totally wrong.
> Congratulations to the people who stood up to the dishonesty and blight they've imposed on local residents.


Can they do this without censure? Can we complain about them generally in some way - as Lambeth residents/council tax payers?  I'm furious they seem to be able to do what they want in fucking over their own residents - at our expense - I'm sure others must be furious too. How do we complain?


----------



## Winot (Nov 24, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> Can they do this without censure? Can we complain about them generally in some way - as Lambeth residents/council tax payers?  I'm furious they seem to be able to do what they want in fucking over their own residents - at our expense - I'm sure others must be furious too. How do we complain?



This.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 24, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> Congrats! what ever lambeth do next this - throws a huge spanner in their works and will hopefully give you all a break in the meanwhile.



What they'll probably do next is appeal - not because they have much of a case, but because this humiliates them - followed by (when the appeal fails) trying to work out a way to either revisit consultation while still extracting the result they're after, or effectively ignoring Mrs Justice Laing's ruling and trying to carry on "as normal" - something we *won't* allow them to get away with. What Lambeth haven't yet come to appreciate is that we're *just getting started on them*.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 24, 2015)

Winot said:


> This.


me complaining on my own feels like whistling in the wind. We need to do it on mass.

Lambeth concillors were even smug about CG when they were asking for my vote in April.  They have got to fear for their seats if thousands of us complain. I don't even know where to begin with this - ideas anyone?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 24, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> Can they do this without censure? Can we complain about them generally in some way - as Lambeth residents/council tax payers?  I'm furious they seem to be able to do what they want in fucking over their own residents - at our expense - I'm sure others must be furious too. How do we complain?



It depends what we mean by censure. Censure by their conciliar peers "in chamber" is rare, even for *really* egregious violations of human decency. As individuals,and as communities, we can of course censure through the withholding of our votes - I'd suggest mass voting for minority parties such as the Greens or TUSC.
In terms of complaining, we already know that direct complaint is directly...ignored. I'm going to look into whether we can get the Local Government Ombudsman involved, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 24, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> me complaining on my own feels like whistling in the wind. We need to do it on mass.
> 
> Lambeth concillors were even smug about CG when they were asking for my vote in April.  They have got to fear for their seats if thousands of us complain. I don't even know where to begin with this - ideas anyone?



A few:
An official petition.
_En masse_ (silent, glowering) attendance at councillors' surgeries.
Letters/e-mails by people to their ward councillors advising of their decision to not vote for Labour at the next set of local elections.
The actual carrying-out of the above by voting in minority parties in as many seats as possible come 2018.   
Publicising your discontent as and when you feel like it - back when the Lib-Dems held the balance of power, there were 2 or 3 letters every week in the SLP regarding what a shoddy job the Tory/Lib-Dem coalition in Lambeth were doing, and it took its' toll.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 24, 2015)

I've found this on their website. No idea if councillors will hear of this but hey ho.  Perhaps if they receive hundreds of complaints from people all over Lambeth it might reach them

Make a complaint - guide | Lambeth Council

I said in my complaint against Lambeth Councillors


> I am pleased to see the residents of Cressingham Gardens won their appeal against Lambeth Council in the courts today. I am sickened that my elected representatives of my Co-operative council put its own residents through such a stressful and expensive process, while presumably wasting public/council tax payers money on doing so.





> I hope you abandon the idea of demolishing a popular and sucessful estate and now get on and do repairs to the estate that you are legally bound to do as freeholder and landlord.
> I hope you now go through the correct consultation process that you shough have adhered to in the first place. I hope you waste no further public money on dragging your own tenants through the courts at any future date.


----------



## Fingers (Nov 24, 2015)

The fight may not be over yet but this is fantastic news


----------



## Greebo (Nov 24, 2015)

Fingers said:


> The fight may not be over yet but this is fantastic news


I hope it'll at least give heart to some who've become so worn down that they were on the point of just accepting whatever they'll end up being shunted into if we lose.


----------



## Fingers (Nov 24, 2015)

I have Tweeted @cllrmattbennett politely asking for his resignation


----------



## editor (Nov 24, 2015)

Fingers said:


> I have Tweeted @cllrmattbennett politely asking for his resignation


I'm sure he'll get right back to you.


----------



## Fingers (Nov 24, 2015)

editor said:


> I'm sure he'll get right back to you.



It may slightly annoy him though. He has had a bad day in the office.


----------



## brixtonblade (Nov 24, 2015)

Fingers said:


> I have Tweeted @cllrmattbennett politely asking for his resignation



So I followed a couple of links from his twitter page that you've linked to and found this:
Save Our Library!

The Upper Norwood Library is an excellent example of how good local libraries can be, how well they can serve their communities. We need to find a way to put the library on a secure footing, out of the hands of politicians and in the hands of the community, so that it has (at least) another 111 years ahead of it.

Like turn it in to a leisure centre?


----------



## editor (Nov 24, 2015)

Tory boy Tim is looking to capitalise on the situation. Because the Tories REALLY cared about council housing. Oh wait. They're the fuckers that got us into this situation in the first place. 


> *FROM THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION, LAMBETH COUNCIL*: *Cllr. TIM BRIGGS, Conservative Group Leader, Clapham Common Ward*
> 
> *For Immediate Release: 24 Nov 2015*
> 
> ...


----------



## brixtonblade (Nov 24, 2015)

editor said:


> Tory boy Tim is looking to capitalise on the situation. Because the Tories REALLY cared about council housing. Oh wait. They're the fuckers that got us into this situation in the first place.





editor said:


> Tory boy Tim is looking to capitalise on the situation. Because the Tories REALLY cared about council housing. Oh wait. They're the fuckers that got us into this situation in the first place.


They dont give a shit about housing but he's right to call on them to resign.  They should.


----------



## Fingers (Nov 24, 2015)

Yeah, it is rare I agree with the sentiments of a Tory but.......


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Nov 24, 2015)




----------



## bimble (Nov 25, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> A few:
> An official petition.
> _En masse_ (silent, glowering) attendance at councillors' surgeries.
> Letters/e-mails by people to their ward councillors advising of their decision to not vote for Labour at the next set of local elections.
> ...



Not at all the same thing but just to say that the sort of methods VP lists above do seem to have worked here in Loughborough Junction (the issue Tim Briggs mentions at the start of his email). I  have to admit that our little victory surprised me but there you go - think the sheer volume of emails the relevant councillors were finding in their inboxes every morning had a cumulative force, maybe just the power of mass annoyingness.

Edit: Plus getting some embarrassing coverage from newspapers and radio etc. I think embarrassment plus annoyingness was the winning combo.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 25, 2015)

bimble said:


> Not at all the same thing but just to say that the sort of methods VP lists above do seem to have worked here in Loughborough Junction (the issue Tim Briggs mentions at the start of his email). I  have to admit that our little victory surprised me but there you go - think the sheer volume of emails the relevant councillors were finding in their inboxes every morning had a cumulative force, maybe just the power of mass annoyingness.



Our councillors absolutely hate being reminded that they need to preserve at least a semblance of democracy.


----------



## technical (Nov 25, 2015)

At the risk of attracting everybody's ire, I have a certain amount of sympathy for Lambeth here. 

Community consultation is often the first thing to go out of the window on a large regeneration project and Lambeth and its councillors shouldn't be excused for clearly attempting to rig the system to get the result they wanted - and for which they've rightly been pulled up. That the voice of the residents will now (hopefully) be heard and considered is a good thing. 

But on the other hand - what are they supposed to do? They have housing targets handed down from above to meet and national planning policy to comply with (as well as the emotional imperative of providing more houses for the community), and rapidly declining financial and human resources to be able to do so. 

I appreciate that their proposals would not have created many more social housing units - but in their position they clearly thought that getting into bed with developers on this scheme was their only option. The sad fact is that estates like Cressingham Gardens and Central Hill are far more attractive to developers than estates like Roupell Park or Tulse Hill nearby. 

The current situation is: land values in London are insane; we need to build more houses, otherwise the city will be polarised completely between the rich and the poor (with the middle shunted off to Croydon and beyond); local authorities have no money and increasingly only the remnants of their council housing estates to use as assets to finance/leverage large schemes. 

Something has to give.


----------



## uk benzo (Nov 25, 2015)

technical said:


> At the risk of attracting everybody's ire, I have a certain amount of sympathy for Lambeth here.
> 
> Community consultation is often the first thing to go out of the window on a large regeneration project and Lambeth and its councillors shouldn't be excused for clearly attempting to rig the system to get the result they wanted - and for which they've rightly been pulled up. That the voice of the residents will now (hopefully) be heard and considered is a good thing.
> 
> ...



Problem is, councils can't be trusted to even profit from their housing stock. Southwark sold the Heygate estate for peanuts. Some figures from a New Statesman article:


_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
_Expected profit from sales for Lend Lease: _£194m
_Expected profit from sales for Southwark Council:_ £0
_Average compensation given to leaseholders of one bedroom flat:_£95,480
_Average compensation given to leaseholders of four bedroom flats:_£177,421
_Lowest price unit in new development (one bedroom flat):_ £310,000
_Number of social-rented units in Heygate Estate: _1,200
_Number of social-rented units in new development:_ 79
ETA: I didn't realise the New Statesman article links to U75?!?


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 25, 2015)

technical said:


> At the risk of attracting everybody's ire, I have a certain amount of sympathy for Lambeth here.
> 
> Community consultation is often the first thing to go out of the window on a large regeneration project and Lambeth and its councillors shouldn't be excused for clearly attempting to rig the system to get the result they wanted - and for which they've rightly been pulled up. That the voice of the residents will now (hopefully) be heard and considered is a good thing.
> 
> ...


private developemnt can take care of itself - there is no shortage of very  expensive private housing.  There is a huge shortage of council, socially rented and otherwise low-cost housing and the CG scheme provided very little of that. If they were talking about doubling the number of council flats that would be different - but they were not.   Lambeth has a legal responsiblity to house some people - it has no business getting into bed with developers to produce luxury flats.  If they want to encourage private development it could do so via planning controls.

I've said it before but the councils own figures are there are over 200 empty properties that could be brought back into use. Thats just the one's they count.  There are empty properties all over the place with great big anti-squatting metal shutters on them so no one can even live in them in the mean time. In other area councils sell dilapidted properties at a low cost to people who want to live in them and can demonstrate they will do them up to a decent standard.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 25, 2015)

PS I have no sympathy for Lambeth council at all - co operative council my arse!  Not fulfilling their duties as landlord and freeholder, not applying their own processes legally. Then using our public money fighting an appeal against their own residents ffs!


----------



## Greebo (Nov 25, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> PS I have no sympathy for Lambeth council at all - co operative council my arse!  Not fulfilling their duties as landlord and freeholder, not applying their own processes legally. Then using our public money fighting an appeal against their own residents ffs!


Word!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 25, 2015)

technical said:


> At the risk of attracting everybody's ire, I have a certain amount of sympathy for Lambeth here.
> 
> Community consultation is often the first thing to go out of the window on a large regeneration project and Lambeth and its councillors shouldn't be excused for clearly attempting to rig the system to get the result they wanted - and for which they've rightly been pulled up. That the voice of the residents will now (hopefully) be heard and considered is a good thing.
> 
> But on the other hand - what are they supposed to do? They have housing targets handed down from above to meet and national planning policy to comply with (as well as the emotional imperative of providing more houses for the community), and rapidly declining financial and human resources to be able to do so.



They were already meeting their central government-set obligations. Part of the justification for regeneration is to meet their own locally-set promise of providing a thousand *extra* homes "for *social rent". A promise made for political rather than practical reasons.

*Debatable, as they already appear to be amending that to "1000 new homes, *some* forsocialrent" 



> I appreciate that their proposals would not have created many more social housing units - but in their position they clearly thought that getting into bed with developers on this scheme was their only option. The sad fact is that estates like Cressingham Gardens and Central Hill are far more attractive to developers than estates like Roupell Park or Tulse Hill nearby.



Sorry, but Lambeth were and are well-aware that doing a horizontal tango with private capital wasn't their only option, merely the most politically and economically-convenient. We know this not only from previous utterances, but from reading their recent "Homes for Lambeth" document* justifying the decision to form a Special Purpose Vehicle.



> The current situation is: land values in London are insane; we need to build more houses, otherwise the city will be polarised completely between the rich and the poor (with the middle shunted off to Croydon and beyond); local authorities have no money and increasingly only the remnants of their council housing estates to use as assets to finance/leverage large schemes.
> 
> Something has to give.



The polarisation is already a fact of life, as is apparent in the appalling contempt with which estate-dwellers have been and are being treated.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 25, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> private developemnt can take care of itself - there is no shortage of very  expensive private housing.  There is a huge shortage of council, socially rented and otherwise low-cost housing and the CG scheme provided very little of that. If they were talking about doubling the number of council flats that would be different - but they were not.   Lambeth has a legal responsiblity to house some people - it has no business getting into bed with developers to produce luxury flats.  If they want to encourage private development it could do so via planning controls.



Yep.
part of the original beauty of local authority development of social housing was that it helped point up what a racket private development was and is - most LA developments of the '50, '60s and '70s came in cheaper than their private sector contemporaries, even when Parker Morris standards were in force - so the fact that LAs are now seeking to justify using the private sector flies in the face of experience and of economic "best practice".



> I've said it before but the councils own figures are there are over 200 empty properties that could be brought back into use. Thats just the one's they count.  There are empty properties all over the place with great big anti-squatting metal shutters on them so no one can even live in them in the mean time. In other area councils sell dilapidted properties at a low cost to people who want to live in them and can demonstrate they will do them up to a decent standard.



Used to be called "homesteading", that, and councils would even give people who took on the properties grants, and loans of plant.


----------



## bimble (Nov 26, 2015)

Because I think technical is very brave: Found out recently that the Mayor's current target for new homes to be built in Lambeth over the next 10 years is 15,594. That's more than 1,500 each year, which is a lot of flats.
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2598_Redacted.pdf

Also though, the block currently being constructed up here in Loughborough Junction (a few footsteps from Brixton Station Rd) went to the trouble of painting over this little graffito the very next day after it appeared.


----------



## bimble (Nov 26, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> their recent "Homes for Lambeth" document* justifying the decision to form a Special Purpose Vehicle.


 Do you have a link to this please? (Googling hasn't worked)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 26, 2015)

bimble said:


> Do you have a link to this please? (Googling hasn't worked)



I can't remember where on the website it was, but I've got a copy on my hard drive, and I have your e-mail address, so I'll send you a copy via that route. I'd post it on Urban but I think it goes over the file size limit.

Sent!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 26, 2015)

bimble said:


> Because I think technical is very brave: Found out recently that the Mayor's current target for new homes to be built in Lambeth over the next 10 years is 15,594. That's more than 1,500 each year, which is a lot of flats.
> https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2598_Redacted.pdf
> 
> Also though, the block currently being constructed up here in Loughborough Junction (a few footsteps from Brixton Station Rd) went to the trouble of painting over this little graffito the very next day after it appeared.
> View attachment 80028



It *sounds* like a lot, until you work out that just to keep pace with London "Right to Buy" sales, we need about 2-3 times that built. Add in just "natural" expansion of London's population over supply, and the current build rate (almost 20,000 starts in 2013) doesn't satisfy that demand either, so what we have is a *continued* expansion of demand over supply. 
Perhaps Buy-to-Let taxation will put a brake on that demand, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## 299 old timer (Nov 26, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> so what we have is a *continued* expansion of demand over supply.



Yes. And that is just one of a number of reasons why property prices have spiralled out of control


----------



## technical (Nov 26, 2015)

Compared to historical build rates, there is no doubt it is a lot.  When you compare how many houses we need nationally to how many have been built annually in the past, we have very little hope of catching up in the short to medium term. 

The point I was trying to make is that while Lambeth are quite rightly getting stick for the way they've gone about this, they're also caught in the middle of much wider trends. Not least a Govt ideologically obsessed with increasing home ownership rather than increasing housing supply.


----------



## editor (Nov 26, 2015)

Wriggle, squirm and wriggle: 

“You’re not taking this very well, are you?” Cllr Bennett takes a Cressingham bruising on BBC London


----------



## nagapie (Nov 27, 2015)

I dropped Bennet a quick 'shame on you email', why not hey.


----------



## Fingers (Nov 27, 2015)

Is it worth putting a FOI request in re costs to make him squirm some more?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Nov 27, 2015)

Fingers said:


> Is it worth putting a FOI request in re costs to make him squirm some more?



Like this one?


----------



## Fingers (Nov 27, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Like this one?



On the ball. Nice one!


----------



## Tricky Skills (Nov 27, 2015)

What really needs to be considered is the total cost wasted on the first consultation that was deemed unlawful, the second consultation to come, and then the associated court costs spent in trying to defend an unlawful case.

Don't forget that Lambeth Council is broke and can't afford to repair homes, only regenerate six estates.

This is interesting reading for a Friday night - £2m - £4m available for an outside organisation just to run the consultation for the regeneration of the Fenwick and Central Hill estates.


----------



## bimble (Nov 28, 2015)

nagapie said:


> I dropped Bennet a quick 'shame on you email', why not hey.


Mr Bennet will be at Pop this afternoon, if you felt like a face to face chat. 
Another Lambeth is Possible


----------



## bimble (Nov 28, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> This is interesting reading for a Friday night - £2m - £4m available for an outside organisation just to run the consultation for the regeneration of the Fenwick and Central Hill estates.


Amazing amount of money that.. 
Especially notable the bit that says whoever gets the contract will need "to take responsibility for maintaining communication with residents". They really do not want to do their own dirty work.


----------



## nagapie (Nov 28, 2015)

bimble said:


> Mr Bennet will be at Pop this afternoon, if you felt like a face to face chat.
> Another Lambeth is Possible



I am sitting knee deep in an impossible pile of marking for Monday. But I hope some others will be down there to have a pop at him and report back.


----------



## Robert Langtry (Nov 28, 2015)

Tricky Skills, don't know how you dug that one out. Excellent work. Lets put together a team and bid for the Contract! We could really 'influnce' (not using the word I want to use) them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

A piece of ungracious crap from a piece of ungracious crap arrived by post today. 











Yep, that's me really cowed and put in my place!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2015)

Just FOI'd Lambeth asking for quantification of the "design flaws" mentioned, and for them to indicate which properties manifest these flaws.


----------



## brixtonblade (Nov 28, 2015)

Are they legally obliged to do work on the estate to meet the housing standard? Am wondering if delays will make them do work which would then reduce the incremental cost of any refurb.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 29, 2015)

brixtonblade said:


> Are they legally obliged to do work on the estate to meet the housing standard? Am wondering if delays will make them do work which would then reduce the incremental cost of any refurb.


They sort of are.  The paving and weathertight repairs fall under that, and they've been very grudgingly botched after long delays.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Nov 30, 2015)

Very decent piece in The Graun today.


----------



## bimble (Nov 30, 2015)

Not going to ask who here is called Joanne Parkes but


----------



## bimble (Nov 30, 2015)

Lambeth Council advertises £2m-£4m estate regeneration contract after unlawful Cressingham consultation farce

So "Third Way ‘urban regeneration’ company"..
That's a sector now? Like an industry where in house they do consultations which get the desired results and have legal advisors as well as surveyors and contacts in the construction industry in Singapore etc?
Google says yes but not in London : Urban Regeneration Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Crispy (Nov 30, 2015)

That article is misleading. The £2-4m contract is not just for consultation, it's for a full range of architectural and city planning services, through to planning permission. The winner of the contract will either carry out this work themselves, or novate the existing design teams as subcontractors. 

It's not an outrageous amount of money at all, given the scope of the job.

Whether the job is worth doing in the first place is a much more interesting question.


----------



## bimble (Nov 30, 2015)

Crispy said:


> That article is misleading. The £2-4m contract is not just for consultation, it's for a full range of architectural and city planning services, through to planning permission. The winner of the contract will either carry out this work themselves, or novate the existing design teams as subcontractors.
> 
> It's not an outrageous amount of money at all, given the scope of the job.
> 
> Whether the job is worth doing in the first place is a much more interesting question.



Not sure you're right.
2-4 million fee doesn't seem to include the actual design proposals, just the task of pushing them through the hoops (getting planning sorted, making sure the 'consultation' goes well)?

"It is proposed that either the existing design teams will be novated across to the appointed development managers or new design teams will be procured. If new design teams are to be procured then the intention is they would be procured as a sub-consultant to the development manager." The unclarity on this might explain why it's '2 to 4' million, quite a big gap of uncertainty for a skint council.

Publication


----------



## Crispy (Nov 30, 2015)

If the design work is subcontracted, the fee will cover that subcontract.


----------



## bimble (Nov 30, 2015)

Crispy said:


> If the design work is subcontracted, the fee will cover that subcontract.


Yes, up to 2 million quid I suppose? Bargain.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yes, up to 2 million quid I suppose? Bargain.



About right for a scheme of this size. RIBA pay scale ~5% of construction costs, which will probably be ~£100m given the size of the scheme. Depending on how far into detailed design they want to go and you get somewhere between half and 3/4 of that, eg £2.5-3.75m

Plenty of things to criticise Lambeth for when it comes to their housing strategy, but the fees offered for design & planning services are not one of them.


----------



## bimble (Nov 30, 2015)

ok I see.
How new is it that all this work (the design, the legal process, the consultation, sending letters to residents) are sold by a council as a parcel to a private commercial bidder who has all of these sorts of expertise to offer at a for profit fee?


----------



## Crispy (Nov 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> ok I see.
> How new is it that all this work (the design, the legal process, the consultation, sending letters to residents) are sold by a council as a parcel to a private bidder who has all of these sorts of expertise ?


That's something I'm less well informed about. No idea how common this is, but I bet it's been going on for decades, to some degree.

I suspect there are two factors at work:

1. With operational budgets squeezed tight, councils can't afford to maintain a dedicated staff (on nice public sector contracts) for such things. But if they can include them as part of a contract for a project that's projected to return a profit to the council, they can write off the cost.

2. It allows them to keep the pesky public and their inconvenient opinions at arms reach.


----------



## bimble (Nov 30, 2015)

Crispy said:


> With operational budgets squeezed tight, councils can't afford to maintain a dedicated staff (on nice public sector contracts) for such things.


In our recent adventure here in LJ we were told (as excuse / explanation) that lambeth no longer has such a thing as a 'communications department' due to recent cuts, it was just sacked.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> In our recent adventure here in LJ we were told (as excuse / explanation) that lambeth no longer has such a thing as a 'communications department' due to recent cuts, it was just sacked.


Doesn't surprise me. The cuts are deep and savage.


----------



## bimble (Nov 30, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Doesn't surprise me. The cuts are deep and savage.


"we’ve already saved £90m in the past three years, mainly by cutting a quarter of our staff .."
Lambeth's budget challenge | Lambeth Council


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> Not going to ask who here is called Joanne Parkes but



Don't think Jo posts here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> Not sure you're right.
> 2-4 million fee doesn't seem to include the actual design proposals, just the task of pushing them through the hoops (getting planning sorted, making sure the 'consultation' goes well)?
> 
> "It is proposed that either the existing design teams will be novated across to the appointed development managers or new design teams will be procured. If new design teams are to be procured then the intention is they would be procured as a sub-consultant to the development manager." The unclarity on this might explain why it's '2 to 4' million, quite a big gap of uncertainty for a skint council.
> ...



The whole gig is for "masterplanning". If the specs are the same as the masterplanning for Cressingham (we've had tenders submitted 4 big consortia), then it'll include the lot.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 30, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Don't think Jo posts here.


I'm fairly sure she doesn't and if she (or anyone else living on the estate) does but prefers it not to be known, I'm not going to out them.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 30, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Very decent piece in The Graun today.


Thanks for the heads up.

I rushed out to get that paper but it turned out that the article in question is only online - just as well you mentioned it, as VP's printed off a copy.


----------



## Fingers (Nov 30, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Thanks for the heads up.
> 
> I rushed out to get that paper but it turned out that the article in question is only online - just as well you mentioned it, as VP's printed off a copy.



The last march we did from CG to Brixton was only online which arsed me off as there was a picture of me looking defiant whilst holding up a No 2 bus or something.  The wider world should see that I feel.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 30, 2015)

Fingers said:


> The last march we did from CG to Brixton was only online which arsed me off as there was a picture of me looking defiant whilst holding up a No 2 bus or something.  The wider world should see that I feel.


oh I missed that - got a link?


----------



## Fingers (Nov 30, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> oh I missed that - got a link?



I appear to have fibbed a bit, it was a 192 bus 

It was in this article but the photo below seems to have been removed from the article 


The residents forced to pay up to £14,000 before their homes are torn down


----------



## Fingers (Nov 30, 2015)

it was this photo... two Urbs on there...


----------



## Fingers (Nov 30, 2015)

#fuckthe196


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 30, 2015)

Fingers said:


> #fuckthe196


you all look very defiant!


----------



## Greebo (Nov 30, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> you all look very defiant!


We felt pretty defiant - it was the final chance to get our voices heard through local democracy.

Except that, when things are decided by cabinet, there is no local democracy in Lambeth except in name.  It didn't stop us  thinking that maybe, just maybe, somebody might listen to us, somebody might realise how much it mattered, somebody might reconsider, even at that stage.  

The council's decision to demolish was nodded through, without even a show of hands .  

That's also why the finding of the recent Judicial Review makes such a difference.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 30, 2015)

Greebo said:


> We felt pretty defiant - it was the final chance to get our voices heard through local democracy.
> 
> Except that, when things are decided by cabinet, there is no local democracy in Lambeth except in name.  It didn't stop us  thinking that maybe, just maybe, somebody might listen to us, somebody might realise how much it mattered, somebody might reconsider, even at that stage.
> 
> ...


it was a really good turn out that demo. Maybe the councillors weren't listening then, but other people must have been.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 30, 2015)

Greebo said:


> We felt pretty defiant - it was the final chance to get our voices heard through local democracy.
> 
> Except that, when things are decided by cabinet, there is no local democracy in Lambeth except in name.  It didn't stop us  thinking that maybe, just maybe, somebody might listen to us, somebody might realise how much it mattered, somebody might reconsider, even at that stage.
> 
> ...



Edited to add:  You know what's been really weird this year?  Being interviewed, snapped, and recorded umpteen times this year, but hardly ever getting to see it because of being out on yet another march or protest!


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 30, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Edited to add:  You know what's been really weird this year?  Being interviewed, snapped, and recorded umpteen times this year, but hardly ever getting to see it because of being out on yet another march or protest!


good for you! Make em all listen


----------



## Greebo (Nov 30, 2015)

friendofdorothy said:


> it was a really good turn out that demo. Maybe the councillors weren't listening then, but other people must have been.


Wasn't it just!


----------



## bimble (Dec 1, 2015)

Another article in Guardian today - less defiance more sadness. 
I’m a tenant, a loser by today's standards. But I won't shut up


----------



## Winot (Dec 1, 2015)

The judgement from the judicial review is up on Bailii (via Brixton Blog) The judge's reasoning starts at para. 78 and the conclusion is set out in para. 98.


----------



## irf520 (Dec 1, 2015)

Paragraph 81 of that report seems to indicate that Lambeth would be perfectly at liberty to re-run the consultation and then come to the same conclusion anyway, regardless of whatever representations were received from residents.


----------



## Winot (Dec 1, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Paragraph 81 of that report seems to indicate that Lambeth would be perfectly at liberty to re-run the consultation and then come to the same conclusion anyway, regardless of whatever representations were received from residents.



I think that's true, yes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 5, 2015)

Winot said:


> I think that's true, yes.



it's accurate.

*HOWEVER*, if Lambeth do reach the same conclusion, they'll have to present data supporting their case - something they didn't do the first time round because they didn't bother to do simple stuff like Net Present Value calculations, proper estimates of repair costs etc. 
When they present that data, we've got people in place to analyse it, and see whether it stands up. If they don't present that data, then it'll be "rinse and repeat" for the Judicial Review procedure.


----------



## 299 old timer (Dec 5, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> it's accurate.
> 
> *HOWEVER*, if Lambeth do reach the same conclusion, they'll have to present data supporting their case - something they didn't do the first time round because they didn't bother to do simple stuff like Net Present Value calculations, proper estimates of repair costs etc.
> When they present that data, we've got people in place to analyse it, and see whether it stands up. If they don't present that data, then it'll be "rinse and repeat" for the Judicial Review procedure.



Is it me and just my imagination, or do I get the impression that Lambeth could do with a thorough audit of their accounts? Just to shine a light in some very murky corners, and to dispel any doubts about their integrity....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 5, 2015)

299 old timer said:


> Is it me and just my imagination, or do I get the impression that Lambeth could do with a thorough audit of their accounts? Just to shine a light in some very murky corners, and to dispel any doubts about their integrity....



As far as I can recall, although they've had their accounts signed off every year, it's been "with reservations" - i.e. specific pointers have been given by the district auditor about where they'd like stronger practices in place.
As a totally tangential (honest!) example, Lambeth's spend on the "Decent Homes"/Lambeth Housing Standard initiative (a mix of central government grant and permitted expenditure from Lambeth's Housing Revenue Account) is so badly-accounted that although Lambeth can tell the public the total spent on new kitchens borough-wide, they're unable to breakdown the expenditure area by area or estate by estate, so effectively there's no way to cross-check the total spend against actual installations.


----------



## bimble (Dec 13, 2015)

This is probably something all you well informed people have already read about but I just learnt that from now on there are no more lifetime social housing tenancies.
The dream of social housing is being chiselled away to nothing | Anne Perkins


----------



## Greebo (Dec 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> <snip> from now on there are no more lifetime social housing tenancies. <snip>


Useful to know, thanks for the heads up.


----------



## bimble (Dec 13, 2015)

Imagine that new rule will have some far reaching impact on how deeply people feel connected to their home and community, right? I mean if you always know that you are likely to be moved / chucked out in under 5 years.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> Imagine that new rule will have some far reaching impact on how deeply people feel connected to their home and community, right? I mean if you always know that you are likely to be moved / chucked out in under 5 years.


Yep.  Less of an incentive to keep on good terms with your neighbours, let alone try to get to know them...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> Imagine that new rule will have some far reaching impact on how deeply people feel connected to their home and community, right? I mean if you always know that you are likely to be moved / chucked out in under 5 years.



The Tories are counting on it to whittle away the solidarities council tenants might have with one another, just as the counted on the amended Right to Buy to do the same 30 years ago.


----------



## editor (Dec 18, 2015)

Good piece here:



> In housing, maintenance is more important than design: if this were more often acknowledged, then the lifespan of many social houses could be drastically extended.
> 
> But instead, their inadequacy and rapid dilapidation is typically blamed on poor design – either due to modernist architecture’s excessive social engineering, or due to the overreach of post-war local and national governments, racing to build more houses at an ever decreasing cost. To this way of thinking, post-war social housing was an unmitigated mistake and given the chance it should be replaced with something better.
> 
> ...


How poor maintenance of London's social housing created the conditions for its demolition


----------



## CH1 (Jan 12, 2016)

It seems the Regenerators are back after Christmas Consultation on the future of Cressingham Gardens

*Consultation on the future of Cressingham Gardens*
Posted by Abbas Raza on January 06, 2016
Come along to our up coming exhibition on the future of Cressingham Gardens Estate.

The details are:

*Where?*

The Rotunda Community Hall, Cressingham Gardens Estate

*When?*

Wednesday 20th January 2016

2pm to 8pm

At this exhibition you will be able to review information on all five of the previously discussed options. There will also be information relating to Green Retro fitting and Right to Manage (which we are aware that some residents are investigating) and you will be able to have your say on all five options at the exhibition.

This exhibition is the first in a number of events where you can have your say. Please see below the current timetable:

*What?* *When?* *Where?*
Options exhibition Wednesday, 20th January, 2pm to 8pm The Rotunda
Green retrofitting sub-group meeting Tuesday, 26th January, 7pm to 9pm The Rotunda
Viability sub-group meeting Thursday, 28th January , 7pm to 9pm The Rotunda
Green retrofitting sub-group meeting Tuesday, 16th February , 7pm to 9pm The Rotund
Viability sub-group meeting Thursday, 18th February , 7pm to 9pm The Rotunda
Options exhibition Thursday, 25th February from 2pm to 8pm The Rotunda

While the Council will make every effort to adhere to this, there maybe some changes. For the most up to date information please go to:

Cressingham Gardens


If your question is not answered there, then please get in touch with the Estate Regeneration team. You can use the details below:

Call: 0207 926 2452 / 0207 926 3607

E: cressinghamgardens@lambeth.gov.uk 

W: Cressingham Gardens


----------



## CH1 (Jan 12, 2016)

Maybe it might be necessary to demand separate video recording of proceedings at each "table"
We know how the consultant's composite tends to Orwellian Newspeak.


----------



## Greebo (Jan 12, 2016)

CH1 said:


> Maybe it might be necessary to demand separate video recording of proceedings at each "table"
> We know how the consultant's composite tends to Orwellian Newspeak.


Help me out here, please - who do we (people on the estate) ask?  Or must residents do it themselves?

Although somebody on the estate has videoed some previous events connected with the current situation, they won't be available for all of each session, and it'd be unfair to expect them to do all of it.


----------



## CH1 (Jan 12, 2016)

Greebo said:


> Help me out here, please - who do we (people on the estate) ask?  Or must residents do it themselves?
> 
> Although somebody on the estate has videoed some previous events connected with the current situation, they won't be available for all of each session, and it'd be unfair to expect them to do all of it.


Maybe send a friendly enquiry to the Member for Scrutiny? Pointing out there have been problems of misrepresentation and goal post shifting in the past?


----------



## Greebo (Jan 12, 2016)

CH1 said:


> Maybe send a friendly enquiry to the Member for Scrutiny? Pointing out there have been problems of misrepresentation and goal post shifting in the past?


Thank you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 12, 2016)

CH1 said:


> Maybe it might be necessary to demand separate video recording of proceedings at each "table"
> We know how the consultant's composite tends to Orwellian Newspeak.



Not just newspeak, outright lies too, and dissembling aplenty.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 12, 2016)

CH1 said:


> Maybe send a friendly enquiry to the Member for Scrutiny? Pointing out there have been problems of misrepresentation and goal post shifting in the past?



Do you mean the head of the overview and scrutiny committee? Is that still Ed Davie (can't really tell from Lambeth's bollocks of a website).


----------



## CH1 (Jan 13, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Do you mean the head of the overview and scrutiny committee? Is that still Ed Davie (can't really tell from Lambeth's bollocks of a website).


Yes it is - as I read the website.

The council officer is ecarter@lambeth.gov.uk [Elaine Carter, Lead Scrutiny Officer.]

I'm wondering if a kind of "Given that there have been problems with consultations recently - including complaints that people's opinion have been misrepresented or ignored, how can we make sure the process is properly recorded and minuted?" sort of thing.

Open question rather than a full frontal assault?

Regarding Ed Davie - he made a rousing speech to the MOPAC meeting at the Fridge re closing down the CPCGL. How do we complain about deaths in custody etc. Made me happy - considering he is in a manner of speaking my successor.

That said Davie can be tetchy. Suggest you tackle this diplomatically at least to start with.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 13, 2016)

CH1 said:


> Yes it is - as I read the website.
> 
> The council officer is ecarter@lambeth.gov.uk [Elaine Carter, Lead Scrutiny Officer.]
> 
> ...



Thanks.
I'll draft a letter (copies to Davie and Carter, to cover both fronts) and show it to the TRA tonight - as it'll probably be worth getting some other residents to write their own versions and send them.

And I'll have you know I'm *incredibly* diplomatic.

When I need to be!


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 16, 2016)

Is it worth pointing out that for equality reasons videoing is necessary (access to information for those unable to leave the house, for example) - although I suspect you have this covered already VP


----------



## Greebo (Jan 16, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> Is it worth pointing out that for equality reasons videoing is necessary (access to information for those unable to leave the house, for example) - although I suspect you have this covered already VP


He hasn't, so thanks for the reminder - equalities act + localism act 

Council etc have already tried to block that excuse by saying they do home visits  - as if that's a reasonable adjustment instead of likely to be an opportunity for subtle intimidation.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jan 16, 2016)

DCLG encourages [pdf] residents to record Council meetings - either video or audio. These consultations won't be official on the record meetings, but the spirit of the legislation should also hold here.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 17, 2016)

Greebo said:


> He hasn't, so thanks for the reminder - equalities act + localism act
> 
> Council etc have already tried to block that excuse by saying they do home visits  - as if that's a reasonable adjustment instead of likely to be an opportunity for subtle intimidation.


although some people may not want a small army of strangers in their home for whatever reason, and the council shouldn't be insisting on sending them for exactly that reason of intimidation. Videoing is of course preferable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 19, 2016)

Today we received a brochure from Lambeth Council entitled "Residents Consultation: The Future of Cressingham Gardens Estate - Your chance to have your say on the future of your estate". It's a retread of the five original options, no changes, and supplied is a "feedback form" that's four A5 sides - enough room if you write in a cramped hand, to get 2 or 3 sentences-worth of comment per option down. That's one form per household, by the way, so if you've more than a single adult, you're fucked.

So far so "normal for Lambeth", then.

Interestingly (for those of us who are interested in power-relations between public servants and the public), Lambeth apparently solicited feedback from resident representatives on a draft copy of the brochure - replete with mistakes, fantasy and downright bollocks (people who want the down-low detail-wise can find them on the Save Cressingham Gardens facebook page - warning: There's a lot of it!) - and have sent out what is basically the draft document, un-revised.
Speculation as to why they'd not utilise the feedback that is now posted on our facebook page ranges from "they've shot themselves in the foot with regard to time constraints" - Lambeth are racing against the clock to get the consultation exercise done, and the feedback collated before the cabinet meets again - to "they had this printed up before they even solicited the feedback" (possible given the feedback deadline was Friday 15th, and this came through our letterboxes - via Royal Mail - this morning). Whatever the true story, it's another council-led farce in a veritable blizzard of council-led farces with regard to Cressingham Gardens.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 19, 2016)

When does cabinet meet to sign off the 16/17 budget formally? 

Probably sometime in Feb. That may be driving timescales..


----------



## Greebo (Jan 20, 2016)

Dan U said:


> When does cabinet meet to sign off the 16/17 budget formally? <snip>That may be driving timescales..


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 22, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> So far so "normal for Lambeth", then.
> 
> Interestingly (for those of us who are interested in power-relations between public servants and the public), Lambeth apparently solicited feedback from resident representatives on a draft copy of the brochure - replete with mistakes, fantasy and downright bollocks (people who want the down-low detail-wise can find them on the Save Cressingham Gardens facebook page - warning: There's a lot of it!) - and have sent out what is basically the draft document, un-revised.



Well that was an interesting read. 

So I take it Lambeth is still trying to push ahead with the scheme it wants.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 22, 2016)

bimble said:


> This is probably something all you well informed people have already read about but I just learnt that from now on there are no more lifetime social housing tenancies.
> The dream of social housing is being chiselled away to nothing | Anne Perkins



Been posting up info about this on the social housing thread. There is a march against it on the 30th January.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 22, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Well that was an interesting read.
> 
> So I take it Lambeth is still trying to push ahead with the scheme it wants.



Remember the map pages I posted on this thread 30-odd pages ago, showing "the five options"? All they've done is punted that again, and they'll produce exactly the same excuses - NOT reasons! - as last time for why only option 5 is viable.
As we found out Wednesday night with their "exhibition" at the Rotunda, which boiled down to that green and white-covered brochure's pages blown up to A2 and stuck on easels, plus presence of about a dozen council functionaries - including Julian Hart, regeneration program manager and smug, arrogant and dismissive cock-stroker - supposedly answering questions, but actually dispensing propaganda.

What was quite amusing is that about 10 metres from the doors to the Rotunda, was our "Peoples' Plan" exhibition (yep, outside in the cold!  ), setting out what the residents (we've consulted with architects and surveyors, and costed everything - something the council has spent 3 years refusing to do) believe could be done - what we'd like done/would like to do ourselves if we take over management. If you want to see it, we'll be outside the Rotunda again on Saturday, 13.00 - 16.00 (probably best to come a bit after "kick-off"!).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 22, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Been posting up info about this on the social housing thread. There is a march against it on the 30th January.



You may be interested to know that (provisionally, subject to confirmation obviously!) we've got Lisa McKenzie (LSE researcher and Class War" member) and Simon Elmer (one of the founders of "ASH" - Architects for Social Housing) doing a talk on the Housing Bill, 15th February at the Rotunda.


----------



## 299 old timer (Jan 23, 2016)

A great pleasure to meet Greebo and Violent Panda today. I would urge everybody to get behind the Save Cressingham banner, because this, and the Arches, is the frontline. The Tory /  Labour assault (same face) is brutal and must be resisted.
Corbyn, looking at you


----------



## 299 old timer (Jan 23, 2016)

I'd further add that Corbyn, if you are for real, you would purge the party of all the fakester tory infiltrators who have made a mockery of what the Labour party stands for.


----------



## CH1 (Jan 24, 2016)

299 old timer said:


> I'd further add that Corbyn, if you are for real, you would purge the party of all the fakester tory infiltrators who have made a mockery of what the Labour party stands for.


The Labour party is like an oil tanker. It will take years to veer fully to the left - that is assuming the right don't retake control at the top.

Funnily enough when I was a student (mid 70s) Progress was a communist bookshop in Manchester. How times change.


----------



## 299 old timer (Jan 24, 2016)

CH1 said:


> The Labour party is like an oil tanker. It will take years to veer fully to the left - that is assuming the right don't retake control at the top.
> 
> Funnily enough when I was a student (mid 70s) Progress was a communist bookshop in Manchester. How times change.



True. I'd like Corbyn to get down to the basics that affect the majority of us - health, education, job security and housing - and push that message each and every time. Sadly at the moment I'm reminded of Orwell's Animal Farm.


----------



## CH1 (Jan 24, 2016)

299 old timer said:


> True. I'd like Corbyn to get down to the basics that affect the majority of us - health, education, job security and housing - and push that message each and every time. Sadly at the moment I'm reminded of Orwell's Animal Farm.


I'm a Liberal so possibly disqualified from comment but he seems to be doing OK so far. I would think if he started having purges he would be out by the summer for sure, but you may know better.

IMHO what is required is broad church majoring on compassion. 

Animal Farm - I'm lost there. Which pigs are sleeping in farmer Jones' bed then?


----------



## 299 old timer (Jan 30, 2016)

CH1 said:


> I'm a Liberal so possibly disqualified from comment but he seems to be doing OK so far. I would think if he started having purges he would be out by the summer for sure, but you may know better.
> 
> IMHO what is required is broad church majoring on compassion.
> 
> Animal Farm - I'm lost there. Which pigs are sleeping in farmer Jones' bed then?



I think all the pigs - you can't tell one pig from the other these days


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 30, 2016)

Cressingham Gardens at the march against the housing bill today:


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2016)

Tomorrow (Monday 15th) night (7-9pm) at the Rotunda Community Hall, Cressingham Gardens: 
A talk on the Housing Bill and Tenant Rights by Simon Elmer from ASH (Architects for Social Housing) and Jenny Evans from Anthony Gold Solicitors.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2016)

Tricky Skills said:


> DCLG encourages [pdf] residents to record Council meetings - either video or audio. These consultations won't be official on the record meetings, but the spirit of the legislation should also hold here.



I've bought a couple of fancy-dan memory cards for my cameras, so I can film stuff when necessary, too.


----------



## Single Aspect (Feb 14, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've bought a couple of fancy-dan memory cards for my cameras, so I can film stuff when necessary, too.


Even audio would be appreciated. It's a £35 round trip from Cambridge in the cold and listening to the audio later and free of charge is a bonus. So thank you to whosoever may record the evening's talk.


----------



## Single Aspect (Feb 14, 2016)

Single Aspect said:


> Even audio would be appreciated. It's a £35 round trip from Cambridge in the cold and listening to the audio later and free of charge is a bonus. So thank you to whosoever may record the evening's talk.


sendgb.com or myairbridge.com are your friends. You don't have to broadcast the link you can send it individually.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 14, 2016)

Small problem - the estate's landlines don't support proper broadband, so those of us with internet access are all on variants of mobile broadband and scrounged free wifi (from cafes etc).  Uploading 2+ hours of a talk is going to gobble up somebody's entire data allowance.  Burning onto disc is probably going to be a more viable option.


----------



## Winot (Feb 14, 2016)

Greebo said:


> Small problem - the estate's landlines don't support proper broadband, so those of us with internet access are all on variants of mobile broadband and scrounged free wifi (from cafes etc).  Uploading 2+ hours of a talk is going to gobble up somebody's entire data allowance.  Burning onto disc is probably going to be a more viable option.



You're welcome to use my internet if you need something large uploaded. Have got Virgin cable so it's pretty fast.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 14, 2016)

Winot said:


> You're welcome to use my internet if you need something large uploaded. Have got Virgin cable so it's pretty fast.


Thanks for that - you're a mensch!  

Will PM to arrange how & when etc once the recording's been done.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 15, 2016)

Winot said:


> You're welcome to use my internet if you need something large uploaded. Have got Virgin cable so it's pretty fast.



That's much-appreciated. Thank you.
I'm hoping to take footage with two cameras - a static one on the speakers, and a mobile one on the audience, so I'll probably rough-edit the footage first, and sync a separate audio recording to it - for some reason, built-in mics on cameras suck arse.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2016)

An interesting and entertaining talk, even though only one of the speakers turned up.
My camera failed (  ), but I did get a good audio recording, which I'll clean up, then post so that it can be downloaded.


----------



## Greebo (Feb 17, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> <snip> My camera failed (  ), but I did get a good audio recording, which I'll clean up, then post so that it can be downloaded.


What the very sunny natured VP didn't say is that the probable cause of camera failure was a late arrival bumbling into it.  C'est la vie.

Still, at least the audio seems usable.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 19, 2016)

Interested to see this -

Cressingham Gardens launches the People's Plan - Variant Office


----------



## leanderman (Feb 19, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Interested to see this -
> 
> Cressingham Gardens launches the People's Plan - Variant Office



I'm no expert, but it looks very promising.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 19, 2016)

leanderman said:


> I'm no expert, but it looks very promising.



The plan itself is well worth a read (15 pages, but not closely-spaced!) once it's published (next Tuesday). The case we set out is well-researched, and takes account of the council's stated aims and development criteria, as well as the wishes of our community and extant London and national development legislation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 20, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Interested to see this -
> 
> Cressingham Gardens launches the People's Plan - Variant Office



As the page says, people are welcome to come along to the Rotunda to check the Plan out.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 21, 2016)

Spotted this youth march for housing on March 6th.
Lambeth Town Hall to Cressingham Gardens
Apologoes if it's already reported:


----------



## High Definition (Feb 21, 2016)

I've been looking at the People's Plan. Agree that the Plan seems well-researched and includes lots of good ideas.  

However, I'm not happy about the plan to replace Crosby Walk  North (two storeys now) with a building rising from four storeys to five.  For me, as a friend of the Brockwell Park as well as a supporter of the Save Cressingham Campaign, this seems like a really bad idea - for four reasons. 

1.  One of the great things about the existing estate is that it respects views of the south west boundary of the park, with most building on the park boundary just one and two storeys high, so they aren't visible from high points in the park. The proposed four/five storey building would sit immediately next to the park boundary and would stick up like a sore thumb in views from the park.  

2.  It would mean that the tenants living in maisonettes at the end of the block - who told me last winter that they'd like to stay on the estate - would lose their homes and probably have to move off the estate. Why should they be sacrificed so that everyone else can stay?

3.   It would create very few additional homes.  The text says that the four/five storey option would provide 17 flats.  However, it would would involve the demolition of a block which contains around 12 flats and maisonettes now (some void and some still tenanted).  So that's an increase of just 5.   By the way, LB Lambeth's figures for net housing gain at Cressingham (464 new homes, less 306 demolished = 158 net additional, of which 15% at council rents = 23) included the voids in Crosby Walk in the figure for existing homes - so we have to the same if we're comparing like with like

4.  The void maisonettes in Crosby Walk have big cracks running from ground to roof level which appear to be the result of subsidence.  This needs to be checked out before we look at rebuilding on the same site.  

 I hope the architect who came up with the idea of a four/five storey block replacing Crosby Walk North can be persuaded to go away and have a rethink. 
it


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 21, 2016)

High Definition said:


> I've been looking at the People's Plan. Agree that the Plan seems well-researched and includes lots of good ideas.
> 
> However, I'm not happy about the plan to replace Crosby Walk  North (two storeys now) with a building rising from four storeys to five.  For me, as a friend of the Brockwell Park as well as a supporter of the Save Cressingham Campaign, this seems like a really bad idea - for four reasons.
> 
> ...



The block that would be demolished is 12 flats - 47-58 Crosby Walk - no maisonettes. The nearest maisonettes are further south, up the estate. 6 flats are long-term void. 2 of the remaining 6 have already been voluntarily decanted, sadly, by Lambeth.
Yep, Lambeth have given housing priority to any tenant wanting to move off of Cressingham. Sod if you've been on the list for years. Lambeth's potential profit from property speculation comes first!    



> 3.   It would create very few additional homes.  The text says that the four/five storey option would provide 17 flats.  However, it would would involve the demolition of a block which contains around 12 flats and maisonettes now (some void and some still tenanted).  So that's an increase of just 5.   By the way, LB Lambeth's figures for net housing gain at Cressingham (464 new homes, less 306 demolished = 158 net additional, of which 15% at council rents = 23) included the voids in Crosby Walk in the figure for existing homes - so we have to the same if we're comparing like with like



17 is the maximum. From the drawings, 14 looks better, and you're missing an important point (that's pointed out in the literature). That's 14-17 2-bed flats, replacing 12 1-bed flats. So, only 2-5 extra *homes*, but 14-17 extra bedrooms - important given current demographic demands. 



> 4.  The void maisonettes in Crosby Walk have big cracks running from ground to roof level which appear to be the result of subsidence.  This needs to be checked out before we look at rebuilding on the same site.



We'd never have thought of that!!! 
Sorry, but you just had me giggling like a loon after reading that! 
The cracks haven't grown or moved in the coming-up-to 17 years the 6 flats furthest from the park have been bricked up. As our surveyor and architect have both remarked, "subsidence" (as the council categorised it) is unlikely to cause a one-off, non-worsening issue. What seems more likely to have been the cause is the heave created when the old petrol station had new tanks fitted in the late '90s (and apparently left the old ones _in situ_ to degrade), as well as when Lambeth cleared a load of trees from the backs of road-adjacent properties at the same time - we've had to rely on old-timers recalling stuff to find this out, as Lambeth barely seem to keep records of current work, let alone of work from 2 decades ago.
Hope that goes some way to reassuring you that we've bothered to do our homework. 



> I hope the architect who came up with the idea of a four/five storey block replacing Crosby Walk North can be persuaded to go away and have a rethink.
> it



He (the architect) said "she's a bit fierce!". I corrected him and said "she's passionate".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 22, 2016)

High Definition , I should have added to the above that I'm pretty sure (I've just checked the latest illustrations) that the 4-5 storey building is actually 3 and a half storeys at the profile that will be presented to the park (apparently using Hollamby's principles  of higher further away from the boundary actually worksin terms of [in]visibility!). It will be no higher than Longford Walk, which also abuts the park. The new-build will also be designed to fit to the prevailing style of the estate.

Do please, if you can, come along tomorrow. I made sure that all interested local bodies got both organisational invites and - where we knew personal e-mail addies like your own - personal invites to some members of that organisation. We *want* critique. Nothing is set in stone!


----------



## Single Aspect (Feb 22, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> High Definition , I should have added to the above that I'm pretty sure (I've just checked the latest illustrations) that the 4-5 storey building is actually 3 and a half storeys at the profile that will be presented to the park (apparently using Hollamby's principles  of higher further away from the boundary actually worksin terms of [in]visibility!). It will be no higher than Longford Walk, which also abuts the park. The new-build will also be designed to fit to the prevailing style of the estate.
> 
> #FatherTed
> 
> ...


----------



## Greebo (Feb 22, 2016)

Yes, just so.    A bit like the way that the mounds mask a lot of the flats from the park.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 22, 2016)

I'll have you know that I haven't had a Dougal haircut for decades!


----------



## High Definition (Feb 23, 2016)

VIolent Panda:  thanks for comments and additional info about the Crosby Walk infill and what's there now.  

I'm still concerned about the height of the new block, however.  Yes, three and a half storeys on the park boundary is about the same as Longford Walk, also on the boundary.  However, the option with 14 flats includes a block which steps up to four storeys with a roof extension - which would make it taller than any of the existing buildings on Cressingham.  As this section of Crosby Walk contains 12 flats now, the net gain would be just two flats (accept your point that these will be larger flats).  

I think the idea of coming up with suggestions for new housing through infill is an excellent one and like the idea of flats in the unused ground floor level car parks.  As campaigners pointed out at Cabinet last year, Lambeth's preferred option for the estate will deliver just 23 additional flats at Council rents - so if we can show that additional homes can be produced without demolition, this will go a long way towards undermining Lambeth's arguments for their regeneration scheme.  The 25 new flats in the unused car parks could achieve this on their own - without the two extra flats in Crosby Walk.

Thanks for the invite to the meeting this evening (which i got last week).  Will be there.


----------



## Dan U (Feb 23, 2016)

6 flats bricked up for 17 years?

dunno why but that really struck me for some reason. idiotic use of housing stock (or lack of use)

good luck to you all with the peoples plan and your consultation


----------



## Greebo (Feb 23, 2016)

Dan U said:


> 6 flats bricked up for 17 years?
> 
> dunno why but that really struck me for some reason. idiotic use of housing stock (or lack of use) <snip>


I know, isn't it amazing how quiet the council has kept that little bit of information?


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2016)

CH1 said:


> Spotted this youth march for housing on March 6th.
> Lambeth Town Hall to Cressingham Gardens
> Apologoes if it's already reported:



I've posted it on Buzz too: Children in Brixton to March for Housing, Windrush Square, 6th March


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 23, 2016)

High Definition said:


> VIolent Panda:  thanks for comments and additional info about the Crosby Walk infill and what's there now.
> 
> I'm still concerned about the height of the new block, however.  Yes, three and a half storeys on the park boundary is about the same as Longford Walk, also on the boundary.  However, the option with 14 flats includes a block which steps up to four storeys with a roof extension - which would make it taller than any of the existing buildings on Cressingham.



Nope. Sorry to gainsay you, and be pedantic, but *not* "taller than" Hardel Walk. Also,the stepping has been calculated, I believe, to not be "in your face"
We also have that disgusting brick oblong on Tulse Hill, directly west of Crosby Walk, which while tall and ugly, doesn't affect the view from the park,even if it does loom over Crosby Walk.



> As this section of Crosby Walk contains 12 flats now, the net gain would be just two flats (accept your point that these will be larger flats).



Again, apologies for being pedantic, but the net gain is 8 flats, given that 6 of them may exist as bricks and mortar, but haven't been used for a generation - they effectively don't exist as housing, just as a monument to Lambeth's stupidity.



> I think the idea of coming up with suggestions for new housing through infill is an excellent one and like the idea of flats in the unused ground floor level car parks.  As campaigners pointed out at Cabinet last year, Lambeth's preferred option for the estate will deliver just 23 additional flats at Council rents - so if we can show that additional homes can be produced without demolition, this will go a long way towards undermining Lambeth's arguments for their regeneration scheme.  The 25 new flats in the unused car parks could achieve this on their own - without the two extra flats in Crosby Walk.



I look at this from a different perspective to you, I suppose. I'm painfully aware - in the way that all our residents are - of the occupancy issues and pressures on the estate.  I see those "two extra flats" as a small price to pay for getting that space at the north of the estate back into full use *and* housing as many as 8 additional families, and in a way that's architecturally-sympathetic to the rest of the estate.



> Thanks for the invite to the meeting this evening (which i got last week).  Will be there.



Great!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 23, 2016)

Dan U said:


> 6 flats bricked up for 17 years?
> 
> dunno why but that really struck me for some reason. idiotic use of housing stock (or lack of use)
> 
> good luck to you all with the peoples plan and your consultation



All down to the *belief* (my emphasis) that there was subsidence, and that it'd be more expensive to remedy, than to take out of use.
Of course, it's *Lambeth* subsidence - a uniquely horrible type that causes a problem once, then never strikes again or worsens, lying in wait until someone is foolish enough to attempt remedial or building works...mwahahahaha! 

And thanks for the good wishes!


----------



## Greebo (Feb 23, 2016)

Well, that went rather well...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 25, 2016)

So...
...commensurate with their original decision to demolish, the outcome of Lambeth's "re-consultation" of Cressingham's residents is...demolish.
Oh well, time for the gloves to come off...


----------



## Dan U (Feb 25, 2016)

Liked for the gloves btw 

And fucks sake.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 2, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> An interesting and entertaining talk, even though only one of the speakers turned up.
> My camera failed (  ), but I did get a good audio recording, which I'll clean up, then post so that it can be downloaded.


As mentioned on this thread,
Housing Bill - mp3 of talk by Simon Elmer of Architects for Social Housing
VP managed to clean it up and reduce the size a lot as there was only one person speaking.  Big thanks to Winot anyway for the offer.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 11, 2016)

Council recommends 'total redevelopment' of Cressingham Gardens estate - Brixton Blog

(And I still don't get why it's cheaper to knock down 300 properties than fix them up)


----------



## boohoo (Mar 11, 2016)

Depressing news. Lambeth are really determined to make themselves unpopular.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 11, 2016)

leanderman said:


> Council recommends 'total redevelopment' of Cressingham Gardens estate - Brixton Blog
> 
> (And I still don't get why it's cheaper to knock down 300 properties than fix them up)


Surely you realise by now that reason, logic, and maths as they exist outside this borough become reasy-weasy, logy-wogicy, and mathy-wathy inside Lambeth.  The very air within this borough's borders seems to have the power to distort madness and incompetence until it appears (to the eyes of those with the most power and influence around here) to make perfect sense.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2016)

leanderman said:


> Council recommends 'total redevelopment' of Cressingham Gardens estate - Brixton Blog
> 
> (And I still don't get why it's cheaper to knock down 300 properties than fix them up)



It isn't, unless (as the "regeneration manager" and the "cabinet member for housing" appear to believe, going by the conversation I had with them) "cheaper" means "not having to pay for it immediately".
Arrogant sods also said how Lambeth residents of the future would be grateful for what they were doing to Cressingham and Central Hill.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2016)

boohoo said:


> Depressing news. Lambeth are really determined to make themselves unpopular.



I'll be happy to help 'em with that.


----------



## brixtonblade (Mar 12, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Arrogant sods also said how Lambeth residents of the future would be grateful for what they were doing to Cressingham and Central Hill.



Pricks

Is the cabinet decision final or have you got more ways to challenge it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2016)

brixtonblade said:


> Pricks



I was actually stunned for a moment, when that was said. Then I asked them what legitimacy making assumptions about future goodwill added to their argument.
They did impersonations of goldfish in reply. 



> Is the cabinet decision final or have you got more ways to challenge it?



*They* think it's final, but it's as porous as the last one. Finality is only available if we roll over for them.
Are we going to do that? Not while I'm still breathing!


----------



## Greebo (Mar 12, 2016)

brixtonblade said:


> <snip> Is the cabinet decision final or have you got more ways to challenge it?


It will be challenged, and for more  than one reason.

The council have their plans and we (on the estate) have ours.


----------



## boohoo (Mar 12, 2016)

Greebo said:


> It will be challenged, and for more  than one reason.
> 
> The council have their plans and we (on the estate) have ours.


Let us know how we can help.


----------



## editor (Mar 12, 2016)

Buzz'd - Brixton campaigners to join the National Demo Against The Housing Bill, Sunday 13th March


----------



## Greebo (Mar 12, 2016)

boohoo said:


> Let us know how we can help.


Thank you, that's appreciated more than you might think.  

VP and I will, it's just that some things have to be kept under wraps for now.


----------



## Dan U (Mar 12, 2016)

Fucks sake. Keep on keeping on, I know you will but it must be hard to keep your spirits up sometimes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2016)

Dan U said:


> Fucks sake. Keep on keeping on, I know you will but it must be hard to keep your spirits up sometimes.



I'm well beyond getting depressed, I just get more vengeful.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2016)

_Private Eye's_ "Rotten Boroughs" page has a couple of items about Lambeth - one about Lambeth Labour jumping on the anti-Housing Bill bandwagon by tweeting a set of pictures of housing activism, one of which was of a Cressingham Gardens resident holding a "save our homes!" banner and wearing a "Save Cressingham Gardens" t-shirt. Oh the ironing!!!

The other story is about the Goddard Inquiry, as it pertains to historic child abuse in the borough.


----------



## Robert Langtry (Mar 16, 2016)

ref: Lambeth poster using Cressingham picture - you may just have a friend in the Graphics / Press / Publicty / Office / Company. A secret Anarchist in the System. A Rebel with a cause !


----------



## editor (Mar 16, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> _Private Eye's_ "Rotten Boroughs" page has a couple of items about Lambeth - one about Lambeth Labour jumping on the anti-Housing Bill bandwagon by tweeting a set of pictures of housing activism, one of which was of a Cressingham Gardens resident holding a "save our homes!" banner and wearing a "Save Cressingham Gardens" t-shirt. Oh the ironing!!!


My photo, I do believe.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 16, 2016)

Robert Langtry said:


> ref: Lambeth poster using Cressingham picture - you may just have a friend in the Graphics / Press / Publicty / Office / Company. A secret Anarchist in the System. A Rebel with a cause !


If we do, they're not going to be outed on this thread.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2016)

editor said:


> My photo, I do believe.



I'm betting a dollar to a doughnut that whoever made and posted the photo-montage didn't bother to get permission from ANY of the photographers to use their work.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 16, 2016)

21st March (Monday) there will be a Cabinet meeting at Lillian Baylis, where we'll be asking the council to give serious consideration to the People's Plan.  Usual starting time of 7pm for the actual cabinet meeting, but hanging around outside from about 6pm.

If you want to speak, you'll get 3 minutes, if Lib Peck lets you, and you need to register as soon as possible via democratic services.

Residents and non residents are welcome to come and show their support on the night.  That includes standing around outside before those of us about to speak and those with tickets go in.  If you do get allowed in, please keep it quiet and well behaved so that the council don't have an excuse to chuck us out before giving us a fair hearing.  Thank you.  

The bus route which gets you nearest is the 196 to St Ann's church, Vauxhall, but the 2 will get you most of the way there, if you don't have difficulty walking.


----------



## tim (Mar 16, 2016)

Excellent to see your campaign make Private Eye today. Good luck!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2016)

Had a few business cards printed, to hand out at the cabinet meeting.

Front:






Card back:


----------



## editor (Mar 21, 2016)

Tonight's meeting: 
Lambeth Council agrees to bulldoze Cressingham Gardens as lively Cabinet meeting ends in absolute farce


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 21, 2016)

As expected, the sheep-like "Cabinet" nodded through the decision to demolish Cressingham Gardens.
We didn't expect any different, as it was obvious from as soon as the "consultation" was resumed, that the decision would be a re-run of the previous one.
The reason we bothered (several hundred people!) to attend, was to put objections on the record - no, I don't mean the council's minutes, as we're familiar with their ability to revise "as needed" - I mean the fair amount of local media and private citizens who recorded everything, including myself. I was lucky enough to get the opportunity to speak (while wearing my lucky Urban 75 t-shirt!), and I did so about the lack of substantive data about how the council intend to deal with the reality of a larger than average population of elderly and/or disabled people on the estate,given that their "equalities impact assessment" with regard to the demolition sets out no budget, and details no strategies. I also - along with many other speakers - requested that the council reply substantively to The People's Plan, and that their own "regeneration" financial calculations be audited.


----------



## brixtonblade (Mar 21, 2016)

They are unbelievable


----------



## brixtonblade (Mar 21, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> As expected, the sheep-like "Cabinet" nodded through the decision to demolish Cressingham Gardens.
> We didn't expect any different, as it was obvious from as soon as the "consultation" was resumed, that the decision would be a re-run of the previous one.
> The reason we bothered (several hundred people!) to attend, was to put objections on the record - no, I don't mean the council's minutes, as we're familiar with their ability to revise "as needed" - I mean the fair amount of local media and private citizens who recorded everything, including myself. I was lucky enough to get the opportunity to speak (while wearing my lucky Urban 75 t-shirt!), and I did so about the lack of substantive data about how the council intend to deal with the reality of a larger than average population of elderly and/or disabled people on the estate,given that their "equalities impact assessment" with regard to the demolition sets out no budget, and details no strategies. I also - along with many other speakers - requested that the council reply substantively to The People's Plan, and that their own "regeneration" financial calculations be audited.



The financial modeling point here strikes me as similar to the one around the alternative library (carnegie, possibly others) proposal - it seems the council seem able to reject proposals because of missing data even when their own ones have bigger holes


----------



## Greebo (Mar 21, 2016)

brixtonblade said:


> <snip> it seems the council seem able to reject proposals because of missing data even when their own ones have bigger holes


In two words - completely Lambeth.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 21, 2016)

brixtonblade said:


> The financial modeling point here strikes me as similar to the one around the alternative library (carnegie, possibly others) proposal - it seems the council seem able to reject proposals because of missing data even when their own ones have bigger holes



Yup. We're expected to take their models on in an uncritical manner - even when they're visibly flawed - but allow them to exaggerate flaws in our models or - as Lambeth have done regarding The People's Plan - manufacture spurious objections that have no actual basis in reality.


----------



## SpamMisery (Mar 21, 2016)

So what happens now? Is that a final decision from the councils perspective? There hasn't been much coverage of the second consultation (relative to the first round) - was there less consultation or less coverage?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 21, 2016)

SpamMisery said:


> So what happens now? Is that a final decision from the councils perspective? There hasn't been much coverage of the second consultation (relative to the first round) - was there less consultation or less coverage?



Less consultation. 4 workshops and 2 "exhibitions" over a 6 week period, that pretty much just reiterated the council's prior thinking. Attendance was very poor - we spent 2.5 years with the first round of consultation with the council making it VERY clear that they'd already decided what they wanted to do regardless of resident wishes - although some of us attended in order to assess what was being offered. The "resumed consultation" (as the council call it) was window dressing - an attempt to present themselves as being trustworthy - something the judge at the JR cast a fair amount of doubt on in her summing up.

What happens now? More protest, more legal action and perhaps a little bit of politics.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 21, 2016)

SpamMisery said:


> So what happens now? <snip>


We fight and we win.

Legal and peaceful options still remain and we will use them.  This is merely Save Cressingham Gardens stage two.


----------



## SpamMisery (Mar 21, 2016)

Certainly feels like a quick box ticking exercise


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 21, 2016)

Kudos to Tricky Skills for his report. Shame he got Tom Keene's surname wrong - I don't give a sod that he called Matthew Bennett "Mark", though!!

Another interesting development was that a resident of Park View House - a small private block on Tulse Hill between Longford Walk and Papworth Way - mentioned that Lambeth claimed to have consulted them over possible CPOs (compulsory purchase orders) but had actually done nothing of the kind beyond Julian Hart ("head of regeneration" and a git) phoning one resident and smarming him.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 21, 2016)

SpamMisery said:


> Certainly feels like a quick box ticking exercise



It was. Their "before" and"after" exhibitions - their proposals exhibition and decision exhibition - were almost identical. There was a difference of a single display board between them, which was the board detailing (I say "detailing",but there was no detail) their decision to go with demolition.


----------



## editor (Mar 26, 2016)

Is anyone signed up to this website? Here's the bullshit snippet:



> I'll be sad to see Hollamby estates go - but people must come first, says rebuild architect


I'll be sad to see Hollamby estates go - but people must come first, says rebuild architect


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 26, 2016)

editor said:


> Is anyone signed up to this website? Here's the bullshit snippet:
> 
> 
> I'll be sad to see Hollamby estates go - but people must come first, says rebuild architect



Text of article is:

"Lambeth’s Central Hill and Cressingham Gardens face demolition

The architect behind the redevelopment of the Central Hill estate in south-east London has spoken of his sadness that some of Lambeth’s finest post-war social housing is facing the bulldozer.

Brendan Kilpatrick, joint MD of housing specialist PRP, said many of the borough’s estates had “architectural merit”.

But he defended his firm’s plans, saying providing decent housing had to trump any other concerns.

“There is a cultural loss of housing of that nature, but the over-riding need to rehouse people living in substandard conditions has to outweigh the cultural value of keeping estates which are not listable,” he said. “For me that has to be the litmus test.”

To me, it’s the atmosphere of the place. The reflection of the sky and trees on the smoked balcony glass is wonderful.  When the wind blows on a summer’s evening and you look along the flats hugging the contours of the hill, it could be a modern Italian hill town.

Central Hill resident, interviewed by the Twentieth Century Society

Lambeth said it is still reviewing how much of Central Hill can be retained. But it is almost certain that most of it will be lost unless a bid by the Twentieth Century Society (C20) to list the whole 7ha estate is successful.

C20 director Catherine Croft described it as “one of the most important examples of social housing in London” and a “strong example of the important legacy of progressive public housing created by Lambeth council under Ted Hollamby”.

Its 450 low-rise homes of varying sizes were designed to nestle on the ridge of a hill above Crystal Palace by Rosemary Stjernstedt between 1967-74. It is celebrated for its views over London as well as its cleverly designed interiors and separation of cars and pedestrians.

A decision on the listing application is expected in the next month but Kilpatrick said it was unlikely to be approved because of years of alterations and deterioration.

He dubbed an alternative proposal by pressure group Architects for Social Housing (ASH) to increase density at Central Hill without any demolition as a “noble idea but not really practical”.

ASH has worked with residents to identify 14 possible infill sites and opportunities for adding storeys to the existing low-rise buildings which would add 250 homes.

Geraldine Dening, architect and ASH co-founder, said: “I believe our solution is genuinely the most economically viable and environmentally and socially sustainable.

“Far from demolishing the estate, ASH believes we should be exporting Central Hill as a model of council housing that can meet London’s housing needs.”

Lambeth said it was reviewing these proposals but Kilpatrick said any scheme had to generate enough income to pay for itself – and that ASH’s would not do that. He said PRP’s aim was to keep all the residents on the estate.

Kilpatrick’s comments came the week that Lambeth finally voted to bulldoze Cressingham Gardens, designed by Hollamby in 1967-78 and another C20 and ASH case.

The Tulse Hill estate was briefly reprieved when the High Court ruled that Lambeth’s consultation was unlawful and must be rerun."

Basically an ethics-free architect saying "it's okay to fuck people over, and ruin good architecture for profit".


----------



## T & P (Mar 26, 2016)

"This will hurt me more than it'll hurt you".


----------



## Greebo (Mar 26, 2016)

T & P said:


> "This will hurt me more than it'll hurt you".


It'll hurt them alright - I don't mean violence, I mean careerwise.  This is going to backfire.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 26, 2016)

T & P said:


> "This will hurt me more than it'll hurt you".



Basically, 'take one for the team'. 

There might be a lot more of this infilling as the population heads from 8.6million now to 10million within 14 years. Revealed: full extent of changes being made to London's road network

And 11million by 2039: Boris: My successor as Mayor will have to raise congestion charge


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 26, 2016)

leanderman said:


> Basically, 'take one for the team'.
> 
> There might be a lot more of this infilling as the population heads from 8.6million now to 10million within 14 years. Revealed: full extent of changes being made to London's road network
> 
> And 11million by 2039: Boris: My successor as Mayor will have to raise congestion charge



It's not infill that they're proposing doing here - residents let the council know over 2 years ago that they were okay with infill and minor redevelopment alongside refurbishment - it's demolition.
What Lambeth's estate residents - whatever their tenure - are starting to realise is that if Cressingham happens, *none* of them are safe from being "regenerated" against their will.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 26, 2016)

I am aware of that. 

The point is that of making more units from existing sites, however it is done. (And however badly).


----------



## 8115 (Mar 26, 2016)

leanderman said:


> I am aware of that.
> 
> The point is that of making more units from existing sites, however it is done.


Surely the point is transferring public goods into private hands?


----------



## Greebo (Mar 26, 2016)

8115 said:


> Surely the point is transferring public goods into private hands?


Yes, as long as the council can find a slightly plausible excuse, at least to its own ears.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 26, 2016)

8115 said:


> Surely the point is transferring public goods into private hands?



There are lots of points. 

The one I am making is that more of this stuff is likely, faced with such demand for housing.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 26, 2016)

leanderman said:


> There are lots of points.
> 
> The one I am making is that more of this stuff is likely, faced with such demand for housing.


Such demand for _affordable housing.  _However, most of the additional flats which the council wants to add to this estate will neither be affordable nor social housing.  There will be 23-27 more council flats, that's all, after making this estate half as dense again (with over 500 flats) as it is now.

Don't ask me how the extra people will fit on the buses, or the train, or in the schools, or doctors' surgeries;  public services and infrastructure in the area are already straining at the seams.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 26, 2016)

Greebo said:


> Such demand for _affordable housing.  _However, most of the additional flats which the council wants to add to this estate will neither be affordable nor social housing.  There will be 23-27 more council flats, that's all, after making this estate half as dense again (with over 500 flats) as it is now.
> 
> Don't ask me how the extra people will fit on the buses, or the train, or in the schools, or doctors' surgeries;  public services and infrastructure in the area are already straining at the seams.



Precisely. All this, for so little, especially in terms of affordability.


----------



## Greebo (Mar 28, 2016)

A petition which, if heeded, could stop "regeneration" being steamrollered through, not just in Lambeth, but in other parts of London too.

The Mayor of London: Require a 2/3 majority of its residents to approve the redevelopment of a council estate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 8, 2016)

299 old timer , did you catch any of the ruckus over Park View House? It looks increasingly as though Lambeth council are taking Compulsory Purchase of Park View and 126-138 Trinity Rise as read. There have also been rumbles that they've approached Crown Estates about a long lease on the land MacGregor House - the probation hostel - sits on.


----------



## High Definition (Apr 9, 2016)

Interesting story in the Camden New Journal about Camden Council's Community Investment Programme which includes link to a report to Camden's Cabinet next week which identifies a series of financial risks which could affect the viability of Camden's estate regeneration programme.  Relevant to Cressingham I'd have thought as all the risks identified in the Camden report  - rising costs in the construction industry, dangers posed by the Housing and Planning Bill, difficulty of retaining staff with appropriate skills in house, falling sale prices in the market sector - apply here in Lambeth too.
Camden's flagship house-building project facing "significant challenges" to hit homes target | Camden New Journal


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 9, 2016)

High Definition said:


> Interesting story in the Camden New Journal about Camden Council's Community Investment Programme which includes link to a report to Camden's Cabinet next week which identifies a series of financial risks which could affect the viability of Camden's estate regeneration programme.  Relevant to Cressingham I'd have thought as all the risks identified in the Camden report  - rising costs in the construction industry, dangers posed by the Housing and Planning Bill, difficulty of retaining staff with appropriate skills in house, falling sale prices in the market sector - apply here in Lambeth too.
> Camden's flagship house-building project facing "significant challenges" to hit homes target | Camden New Journal



Arguably, Lambeth are far worse than Camden in terms of not retaining skilled staff, if turnover in their planning department is anything to go by.
Thanks for the link! I'm going to have a read, and forward it to others.


----------



## BigMoaner (Apr 9, 2016)

What sort of areas will the people be rehoused? Within the borough?


----------



## Greebo (Apr 9, 2016)

BigMoaner said:


> What sort of areas will the people be rehoused? Within the borough?


I'm not sure that I understand your question.

Anyone 'choosing' to leave the estate (this includes the adult children of existing tenants, freeholders, and leaseholders) rather than take whatever they're allocated on the regenerated part of estate will just have to take their chances on the housing list - if they can even get on that.

Leaseholders and freeholders will be CPO'd, given a very low price, and therefore will probably be unable to afford anywhere with the same number of bedrooms within the borough (including on the regenerated estate).  Particularly as a lot of the freeholders and leaseholders are now getting too old to get a mortgage, or are self employed, or on fairly modest incomes for London and therefore screwed.

There will, if anything, be fewer newly built homes with 3 or more bedrooms than there are on the estate now, therefore those families who are currently just about adequately housed (or, indeed overcrowded) will have to bid against each other repeatedly.

Tenants will (by default) be single decanted - you move into a new build and that's it.  ie. Nobody gets to stay where they are now, every tenant (currently a council tenant on the estate) ends up on a water meter (most of us are on water rates), every tenant ends up with higher rent, service charge, and 2 bands higher council tax.

Nobody will be guaranteed a garden or a balcony if they have one now, even if they need it because of pets or children.  Nobody will have the option of being housed away from the building dust and noise.


----------



## 50yrsInBrixton (Apr 10, 2016)

Greebo you are indiscriminate with your likes but when "like" Tory posters like leanderman my support for Cressingham Gardens stops.


----------



## tim (Apr 10, 2016)

50yrsInBrixton said:


> Greebo you are indiscriminate with your likes but when "like" Tory posters like leanderman my support for Cressingham Gardens stops.



Did it ever really start?


----------



## Greebo (Apr 10, 2016)

50yrsInBrixton said:


> Greebo you are indiscriminate with your likes but when "like" Tory posters like leanderman my support for Cressingham Gardens stops.


Charming, holding over a thousand people hostage because of what one person says.  Support or don't, I'm done with living in fear.  My likes are given according to the validity or usefulness of what people post, not necessarily whether I approve of their politics.  YMMV

BTW if you are who I think you are, you have no idea how much your getting those cable ties last year meant.  I don't easily forget wrongs, but I always remember favours done.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 10, 2016)

Greebo said:


> I'm not sure that I understand your question.
> 
> Anyone 'choosing' to leave the estate (this includes the adult children of existing tenants, freeholders, and leaseholders) rather than take whatever they're allocated on the regenerated part of estate will just have to take their chances on the housing list - if they can even get on that.
> 
> ...


In a documentary I watched about Barnet (?) even tenants didn't all automatically have the right to a flat on the new estate. Those with secure tenancies did although they didn't get a flat equivalent to their old flat. But they had been running the estate down and giving new tenants different, less secure tenancies and these people had much fewer rights over their new accommodation. I don't know if the same thing has been happening where you are.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 10, 2016)

8115 said:


> In a documentary I watched about Barnet (?) <snip> they had been running the estate down and giving new tenants different, less secure tenancies and these people had much fewer rights over their new accommodation. I don't know if the same thing has been happening where you are.


Maintenance and repair has certainly been run down.  New tenancies and those of existing tenants once moved into the proposed new builds on the estate will be assured, not secure.

Current tenancy conditions can only be changed by the council going to parliament and getting their permission.  Assured tenancy conditions can be changed as much as the council likes more or less whenever it likes - better hope that our landlord (the council) doesn't wake up feeling vindictive.


----------



## Robert Langtry (Apr 14, 2016)

Good article by Journalist Rosamund Urwin, Evening Standard, Thursday 14/04/16, page 15 'Comment' regarding the attitude of Lambeth Councillors to People, Libraries, Cressingham, and the Traders of Network Rail Arches.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2016)

Robert Langtry said:


> Good article by Journalist Rosamund Urwin, Evening Standard, Thursday 14/04/16, page 15 'Comment' regarding the attitude of Lambeth Councillors to People, Libraries, Cressingham, and the Traders of Network Rail Arches.





> Is Lambeth council actively trying to alienate its electorate? First it angered the residents of Cressingham Gardens with plans to demolish up to 300 homes on the well-functioning estate. Then it failed to intervene as Network Rail booted out businesses in Brixton’s railway arches. And now — in the most baffling move yet — it has needlessly battered library provision in the borough.


Rosamund Urwin: Lambeth sees libraries as relics and a luxury


----------



## Fingers (Apr 19, 2016)

Protest against the Property Awards tonight

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – HOUSING CAMPAIGNERS TO TARGET TONIGHT’S PROPERTY AWARDS. | The Glass is Half Full


----------



## editor (May 10, 2016)

Latest update: Lambeth Council Scrutiny Committee ignores Cressingham concerns and votes not to send regeneration decision back to Cabinet


----------



## Greebo (May 10, 2016)

editor said:


> Latest update: Lambeth Council Scrutiny Committee ignores Cressingham concerns and votes not to send regeneration decision back to Cabinet


Quelle surprise.

The fight goes on.  Lambeth council have picked the wrong estate to regenerate and we might still be able to save some of the other estates under threat too.


----------



## stethoscope (May 11, 2016)

Do you still have a fighting fund Greebo? Supporting social housing campaigns and keeping a roof over peoples/your heads is frankly more important than spending £25 on the latest entrepreneur 'kitchen' start-up at Pop.

I'm guessing you're already done/have done this, but any alliances to be forged with the likes of Focus, Defend Council Housing, SHOUT, etc?


----------



## Greebo (May 11, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Do you still have a fighting fund Greebo? <snip>


www.gofundme/savecressingham
or you can go straight to paypal Online Payment, Merchant Account - PayPal

Got it in one, as regards allies, including some of the heritage societies and Friends of Brockwell Park plus the usual suspects.  Some of whom become tiny bit overenthusiastic at times.  The difficulty is keeping this small enough to avoid being diverted.

A lot of people on this estate can't march (because of disabilities, chronic illness, advanced old age, childcare, caring responsibilities, working hours etc) and yet one thing I hear time and again is "you should get more people out and marching more often".  Not realistic - people who live here have normal lives and are not activists by nature, nor do they need to be.  

Being ordinary has its advantages.  So we play to our individual strengths - some on the legal stuff, some with their grasp of numbers, some with art, some with press and/or media, some with fundraising, some with networking, some by just refusing to get worn down.


----------



## stethoscope (May 11, 2016)

This shit makes my blood boil, trying to turn people against a local campaign whilst the council never listens to residents in the first place and conducts itself in a shoddy fashion.



			
				BrixtonBuzz said:
			
		

> Labour Cllr Mary Atkins then attempted an ill-thought move to try and offer her ‘insider’ perspective. The Labour Cllr for Tulse Hill – _which covers Cressingham_ – was one of the early flag wavers that planted the seed for complete demolition of the community:
> 
> Atkins went as far as slandering her own residents on Monday evening:
> 
> ...



Utterly shameless.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> This shit makes my blood boil, trying to turn people against a local campaign whilst the council never listens to residents in the first place and conducts itself in a shoddy fashion.
> 
> 
> Utterly shameless.



Atkins doesn't like Save Cressingham because we're not interested in the lies she's punted for the last couple of years, and her ideas that being a councillor means she's some sort of font of patronage - go see Mary if your plumbing is fucked! She'll sort it out for you! - except she's all promises and no delivery.

As for her two ward colleagues (both Labour, naturally), we call Cllr Aminu "The Invisible Man", because we never see him, and Cllr Cameron "The Shadow", because she's always following Cllr Atkins around, one pace behind. Both are "chocolate fireguard" standard in terms of usefulness.

E2A: As for that "code of behaviour", she should have a word with her fellow councillors about that. We've had Claire Holland shrieking at us for cat-calling at the Cabinet committee meeting - and I mean red-faced, shrill, enraged shrieking - we've had Napoleon McGlone trying to do a Begbie on people, and most of the cabinet bang to rights lying. We've had councillors abandoning short-life tenants in their wards when it became politically-disadvantageous to them to continue supporting them. We've had one utter twat (Tricky Skills ' favourite councillor) getting people barred from Labour Party membership because they dare to express opinions that don't echo his Progressite programming.
Frankly, this bunch of cunts could give Porter-era Westminster councillors a run for their money in the mendacity and venality stakes.


----------



## editor (May 13, 2016)

All day music festival tomorrow!
Cressingham Gardens all-day music festival community fundraiser, Sat 14th May


----------



## Sue (May 13, 2016)

Greebo said:


> www.gofundme/savecressingham
> or you can go straight to paypal Online Payment, Merchant Account - PayPal


Greebo, can you check your links as they're not working for me. Ta.


----------



## stethoscope (May 13, 2016)

Sue said:


> Greebo, can you check your links as they're not working for me. Ta.



Try via here Sue - worked ok for me
Donate


----------



## Sue (May 13, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Try via here Sue - worked ok for me
> Donate


Thanks! That seems to work.


----------



## Greebo (May 13, 2016)

stethoscope said:


> Try via here Sue - worked ok for me
> Donate


Thanks  - I'll transfer those links to here and edit the other post.  

Click here to support Save Cressingham Gardens by Gerlinde Gniewosz

Bitly | URL Shortener and Link Management Platform


----------



## editor (May 14, 2016)

Is it time for me to put on another fundraiser? Happy to do so!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2016)

editor said:


> Is it time for me to put on another fundraiser? Happy to do so!



I'll have a word!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'll have a word!



editor , I've spoken with Gniewosz , and she says "YES!!!". Hopefully, this gives you a bit more notice than last time!


----------



## Greebo (May 14, 2016)

editor said:


> All day music festival tomorrow!
> Cressingham Gardens all-day music festival community fundraiser, Sat 14th May


There'll be another event like this in a couple of weeks.  VP came home from it a few hours ago - apparently the acts were a mixed bag, but good value.  BTW booze was on sale and the food was free - that's likely to be true next time too.

I haven't been to the one today (migraine) but really hope to be at the next one.  Just my luck to miss something more or less on the doorstep.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 16, 2016)

Greebo said:


> There'll be another event like this in a couple of weeks.  VP came home from it a few hours ago - apparently the acts were a mixed bag, but good value.  BTW booze was on sale and the food was free - that's likely to be true next time too.
> 
> I haven't been to the one today (migraine) but really hope to be at the next one.  Just my luck to miss something more or less on the doorstep.


Sorry I missed it - rarely read b buzz. Can someone post a link here when the next one is announced, please? Ta.


----------



## Greebo (May 16, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> Sorry I missed it - rarely read b buzz. Can someone post a link here when the next one is announced, please? Ta.


If the bloke gets his act together with the booking in time (he was more than a bit shambolic with this one, including the necessary red tape), I'll gladly post a link - to this thread, Brixton Buzz, and the Brixton noticeboard.


----------



## friendofdorothy (May 16, 2016)

Greebo said:


> If the bloke gets his act together with the booking (he was more than a bit shambolic with this one), I'll gladly post a link - to this thread, Brixton Buzz, and the Brixton noticeboard.


thanks.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 1, 2016)

Since then, the music bloke hasn't got his act together, but there are two events on the estate, and one off it, which might be of interest.  Apologies for the short notice...

The ones on the Estate are free, although donations will be welcome.

Sunday 5th June 7.30pm upstairs at the Ritzy (half an hour) - "Uprooted". In the middle of a rapidly changing London, a housing crisis rips through the capital eating up communities and council estates along the way. Two lives intertwine as they are forced to say goodbye to their memories at Myatt’s Field North estate in Brixton.  Residents from Myatts Field North and Cressingham Gardens will get priority for the seats, but standing will be allowed.


Spoiler: trailer







.................................
Tuesday 7th June and Thursday 9th June "The Smallness Inside The Bigness" (7.30-8.30pm - promenade play, please contact the organisers if you have difficulty with steps, walk slowly, or will need to sit down - arrangements will be made as far as possible).  Two young women have worked incredibly hard putting this together and some of the cast live on the estate.  You're asked to book in advance, to give everyone a chance of hearing and seeing what's going on.  

As part of London Festival of Architecture and AntiUniversity Now Festival, Degenerate Space present a Site-Specific performance event on Cressingham Gardens.  Designed by Ted Hollamby, municipal architect for Lambeth in the late 1960s, Cressingham Gardens is a visionary residential estate, which incorporates Hollamby’s radical ideas of community, design and urban living.   This ideology has been under threat since 2012, when Lambeth council voted to demolish the estate.  Through image, immersive theatre, and the recorded testimonies of residents, The Smallness Inside The Bigness explores the founding ideas of Cressingham Gardens, how these are played out in the present realities of the estate, and why they are under threat.
The Smallness Inside The Bigness: Changing Visions On Cressingham Gardens


----------



## Greebo (Jun 1, 2016)

And there's more... another one 17th June.  Free (suggested donation is AFAIK £3) Do bring your own cushions if you think you'll need one, the seats can be a bit hard..


----------



## Sue (Jun 1, 2016)

Saw the film when it was screened round here -- it's all about Rutita1's former estate. It's a really good watch.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 1, 2016)

Sue said:


> Saw the film when it was screened round here -- it's all about Rutita1's former estate. It's a really good watch.



Ha yes.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 1, 2016)

Sue said:


> Saw the film when it was screened round here -- it's all about Rutita1's former estate. It's a really good watch.


Thanks - I'll bear that in mind while grumbling to myself about it being a bit of a busman's holiday.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 1, 2016)

Greebo said:


> Thanks - I'll bear that in mind while grumbling to myself about it being a bit of a busman's holiday.



I'll buy you a half of cider if you spot me.  Work pays


----------



## Sue (Jun 1, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I'll buy you a half of cider if you spot me.  Work pays



(I wasn't sure whether to mention you're in it. )


----------



## Greebo (Jun 1, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I'll buy you a half of cider if you spot me.  Work pays


Thanks, I may need it to anaethetise my backside afterwards - I wasn't joking about the seats!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 1, 2016)

Sue said:


> (I wasn't sure whether to mention you're in it. )



No drama. It's no secret.  I mostly stayed out of the film and got on with community support and organising because that was my focus. This film is just one part of the many things we did and developed over time. Andrea was a neighbour and is a close friend. She was also responsible for the portrait installation (I am here) we had on the outside of the block.

No rewards of cider for being able to scroll and spot my pic though...must work harder!


----------



## editor (Jun 14, 2016)

Update: Local residents question role of ‘objective’ Lambeth Scrutiny Chair Cllr Ed Davie over Cressingham Gardens


----------



## Greebo (Jun 17, 2016)

Gave the film tonight a miss - I'd only been running around doing things for it the last two days or so.

Apparently there was a good turn out by the time the main bit started, and the discussion at the end became quite political.  Thanks to all who turned up and/or gave their time and energy to make this evening possible.


----------



## Robert Langtry (Jun 27, 2016)

The money business is mostly beyond my understanding, BUT! for Cressingham, I hope the 'Leave' result will mean Lambeth won't be going to the Money Markets where Investors are courting the Council with succulent deals in Lambeth's property portfolio, but where Lambeth is crawling like a begger to borrow money from people with conditions Auditors would not allow.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 27, 2016)

Robert Langtry said:


> The money business is mostly beyond my understanding, BUT! for Cressingham, I hope the 'Leave' result will mean Lambeth won't be going to the Money Markets where Investors are courting the Council with succulent deals in Lambeth's property portfolio, but where Lambeth is crawling like a begger to borrow money from people with conditions Auditors would not allow.


Theoretically the money markets are a better bet than a PFI - but time will definitely tell.

The Town Hall development is racing ahead - and when aked if this is  PFI they simply don't comment. £500 for changing a Town Hall light bulb anyone?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2016)

Robert Langtry said:


> The money business is mostly beyond my understanding, BUT! for Cressingham, I hope the 'Leave' result will mean Lambeth won't be going to the Money Markets where Investors are courting the Council with succulent deals in Lambeth's property portfolio, but where Lambeth is crawling like a begger to borrow money from people with conditions Auditors would not allow.



Unfortunately, we have little clue as to how Brexit will affect local authority borrowing and spending. What we *do* know, is that the coalition and now the Tory govt have turned down housing-related Euro-grant aid on a grand scale - basically on the premise that it would only benefit people who require social housing.

As for Cressingham, Lambeth will do whatever they need to, to finance regen, including selling the future to pay for the present. That much was obvious from the original costings for regen. Up to half a billion, repaid over 50 years, anyone?


----------



## CH1 (Jul 5, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unfortunately, we have little clue as to how Brexit will affect local authority borrowing and spending. What we *do* know, is that the coalition and now the Tory govt have turned down housing-related Euro-grant aid on a grand scale - basically on the premise that it would only benefit people who require social housing.
> 
> As for Cressingham, Lambeth will do whatever they need to, to finance regen, including selling the future to pay for the present. That much was obvious from the original costings for regen. Up to half a billion, repaid over 50 years, anyone?


A propos Brexit and regeneration the Log Lady tweeted regarding shared equity arrangements now being blocked for right to buy residents. This was originally noted  regarding Central Hill Estate proposals. If we are now in imminent Brexit can the implementation of this EU directive be challenged?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2016)

CH1 said:


> A propos Brexit and regeneration the Log Lady tweeted regarding shared equity arrangements now being blocked for right to buy residents. This was originally noted  regarding Central Hill Estate proposals. If we are now in imminent Brexit can the implementation of this EU directive be challenged?




Not, I'm led to understand, until we've actually exited, by which time as many as 700 leaseholders across the current six "regeneration" estates will have been kebabed.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 15, 2016)

Similar to last year, people from this estate and some of their friends will have a table near the Cressingham gate to Brockwell Park this Saturday.

Badges will be on sale as a trial run of two 25mm (one inch) button badge designs, they arrived this morning.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 16, 2016)

And here they are, fresh through the post.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 16, 2016)

Greebo said:


> And here they are, fresh through the post.
> View attachment 89638


I would have thought I [love] Ted Knight badges might also get takers these days.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 16, 2016)

CH1 said:


> I would have thought I [love] Ted Knight badges might also get takers these days.


Good idea, or so VP thinks.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 17, 2016)

There's a table at the Cressingham Gate again today so say hello, get your badges, check out the People's Plan etc if passing.  

I won't be there, this weekend is still not my problem (gut problem says "no").


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 25, 2016)

Another day, another Judicial Review hearing granted against Lambeth's demolition plans.

Story here.


----------



## editor (Aug 25, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Another day, another Judicial Review hearing granted against Lambeth's demolition plans.
> 
> Story here.


Would anyone from the campaign like to write a piece about this for Buzz? Be good to get it from their perspective (and spread the news!).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 25, 2016)

editor said:


> Would anyone from the campaign like to write a piece about this for Buzz? Be good to get it from their perspective (and spread the news!).



I'll pass the word on, but I'm sure that someone will write something for you.


----------



## editor (Aug 25, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'll pass the word on, but I'm sure that someone will write something for you.


It needs to go up soon, so I'll have a go myself if no one is around.

Edit: I posted this up: Cressingham Gardens residents granted permission for second judicial review against Lambeth Council

Such brilliant news. Should I start sorting out this next fundraiser?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 25, 2016)

editor said:


> It needs to go up soon, so I'll have a go myself if no one is around.
> 
> Edit: I posted this up: Cressingham Gardens residents granted permission for second judicial review against Lambeth Council
> 
> Such brilliant news. Should I start sorting out this next fundraiser?



Please!


----------



## aka (Aug 26, 2016)

"Tulse Hull" ?


----------



## editor (Aug 26, 2016)

aka said:


> "Tulse Hull" ?


Yes. A tiny typo, now fixed. It's quite hard finding the time to keep Buzz up to date.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 25, 2016)

The Lambeth's latest consultation is ostensibly for Fenwick Estate at Clapham North.
October 01, 2016 at 10:30am - 2:30pm
WHERE:
Fenwick Hall
128 Willington Rd
Fenwick Estate
London SW9 7ND

The odd thing is that on page 7 of the consultation document, the biographies of two of the "actors" in this little drama are headed:
"Relevance to Cressingham Lambeth".

Is there a sinister new organisation Cressingham Lambeth which is seeking to demolish and rebuild Lambeth Estates? (with the assistance of Conran and partners incidentally)

Or is this bad cutting and pasting on behalf of Lambeth Regeneration - or worse one of their "design partners" such as Conrans?

Is the photo of Cressingham Gardens or Fenwick Estate? Looks more Cressinghammy to me. Fenwick currently does not have too many blades of grass FWICR.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 25, 2016)

CH1 said:


> The Lambeth's latest consultation is ostensibly for Fenwick Estate at Clapham North.
> October 01, 2016 at 10:30am - 2:30pm<snip> Is the photo of Cressingham Gardens or Fenwick Estate? Looks more Cressinghammy to me. Fenwick currently does not have too many blades of grass FWICR.
> View attachment 93008


Not of Cressingham Gardens Estate as it is now.  The bricks are the wrong colour, the clearing is too flat, and the windows are the wrong style.  Probably an "artists impression" of what "new and improved" Fenwick might look like if the plebs keep quiet and are suitably grateful.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2016)

CH1 said:


> The Lambeth's latest consultation is ostensibly for Fenwick Estate at Clapham North.
> October 01, 2016 at 10:30am - 2:30pm
> WHERE:
> Fenwick Hall
> ...



They're tendering for Cressingham too, so this is probably yet another instance of some office donkey fucking up with the cut and paste.

It's all bollocks, though. The "choice" that residents get, isn't choice at all. Their views - and the views of their Resident Engagement Panel - constitute such a small percentage of the overall "scores" given to these design teams in order to rate their tenders, that the views make no significant difference, and merely give the appearance of choice, rather than the reality.  Managerialist _faux_-consultative rubbish.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2016)

Greebo said:


> Not of Cressingham Gardens Estate as it is now.  The bricks are the wrong colour, the clearing is too flat, and the windows are the wrong style.  Probably an "artists impression" of what "new and improved" Fenwick might look like if the plebs keep quiet and are suitably grateful.



Fuck being "suitably grateful"!!!


----------



## CH1 (Sep 25, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> They're tendering for Cressingham too, so this is probably yet another instance of some office donkey fucking up with the cut and paste.
> 
> It's all bollocks, though. The "choice" that residents get, isn't choice at all. Their views - and the views of their Resident Engagement Panel - constitute such a small percentage of the overall "scores" given to these design teams in order to rate their tenders, that the views make no significant difference, and merely give the appearance of choice, rather than the reality.  Managerialist _faux_-consultative rubbish.


It's not very equal is it? You've got Mr X and Ms Y working for various agencies and consultants - and they want to give you a snippet of their LindedIn entries and a resumé of their career so far in "Regeneration".

Meanwhile Mrs Z who has lived on an estate for 40 years and is worried to death what is going to happen to her - and the consultants don't want to know.


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2016)

Bloody fantastic news Cressingham Gardens Estate temporarily saved from demolition after successful second legal challenge


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2016)

Update from Lambeth. Lambeth Council clarify their timetable o’destruction for Cressingham Gardens Estate


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2016)

This response from a Buzz reader is worth reposting here: 


> Of the 6 estates originally rolled into Lambeth’s “regeneration” programme, Knight’s Walk resisted, but reached an accommodation (properties on one side of the – small – estate to be demolished, the rest left alone), South Lambeth estate is torn – an almost 50/50 split of opinion, but Fenwick, Westbury, Cressingham and Central Hill are all resisting strongly*.
> 
> *As is Hemans Estate, which was rolled into the regeneration programme recently.
> 
> ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2016)

editor said:


> Update from Lambeth. Lambeth Council clarify their timetable o’destruction for Cressingham Gardens Estate



Face-saving from Lambeth Council!!!


----------



## Sue (Oct 26, 2016)

Well done Greebo, ViolentPanda and all the other Cressingham Gardens residents/supporters who've been fighting this.


----------



## editor (Dec 21, 2016)

Bad news. 

Cressingham Gardens campaigners vow to fight on after high court decision defeat


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 21, 2016)




----------



## StoneRoad (Dec 21, 2016)

Oh Bollocks. Fight on required. Moral support from here.

Maybe I'm cynical, but I wonder how much that cost the developers ... ?
If anything, apart from their legal fees, of course ...
This is just a cynical speculation on my part, no evidence at all, as having seen several mills and warehouses "needing re-development", very conveniently, catch fire after spending years standing empty.


----------



## Winot (Dec 21, 2016)

StoneRoad - do you have any evidence for that? If not then I'd delete it, unless you are happy to fund any action for libel that Editor finds himself receiving.


----------



## StoneRoad (Dec 21, 2016)

Winot said:


> StoneRoad - do you have any evidence for that? If not then I'd delete it, unless you are happy to fund any action for libel that Editor finds himself receiving.


I've edited, to say that I was being cynical, opinion only, no evidence !
But there have been several, very convenient fires in mills and warehouses. I can think of at least a couple of examples on Tyneside ... and speculation, especially without evidence is a common pastime.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2016)

StoneRoad said:


> Oh Bollocks. Fight on required. Moral support from here.
> 
> Maybe I'm cynical, but I wonder how much that cost the developers ... ?
> If anything, apart from their legal fees, of course ...
> This is just a cynical speculation on my part, no evidence at all, as having seen several mills and warehouses "needing re-development", very conveniently, catch fire after spending years standing empty.



The developers are Lambeth Council. They're arseholes, but they're not arsonists - except with, for example, inconvenient social services records ( Winot they have form for archive records spontaneously combusting).


----------



## cuppa tee (Dec 21, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> The developers are Lambeth Council. They're arseholes, but they're not arsonists - except with, for example, inconvenient social services records ( Winot they have form for archive records spontaneously combusting).



.....and there was the wrecking ball that came loose down at the St Agnes place squats......


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2016)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


>



It's not really  , as (with any war) you don't expect to win every battle. There's loads more legitimate challenges in the pipeline, if residents want to take them forward - that's what Save Cressingham Gardens has always been about: What RESIDENTS want, not what the council wants.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 21, 2016)

Well fair play to you, if you still have the emotional strength for another battle


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2016)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Well fair play to you, if you still have the emotional strength for another battle



A certain someone gave me the strength. She said "carry on with the fight, right through to the end". I would have done anyway, but she gave me the courage (or bullheadedness  ) to fight another 1000 battles for a place and a community we both love(d).


----------



## colacubes (Dec 22, 2016)

Fight on mate   This is one battle not the war x


----------



## Rushy (Dec 22, 2016)

What's all the scaffold at Cressingham?


----------



## Southlondon (Dec 23, 2016)

I might have missed something here but if the rebuilt estatE will provide extra council housing, and one of th main complaints seems to be the extra cost to those who will want right to buy, why is this a bad thing?
I'm  a Lambeth tennant and love my home, but if they  were to rebuild my estate and rebuild with extra homes, and an increase in the homes value to protect from people buying the leaSe and depriving future tennants of a home, then I would be up for it. 
And talk of the council wasting money, how about the money wasted fighting futile legal challenges?


----------



## snowy_again (Dec 23, 2016)

I'd suggest you go back and read the full thread if that's your misinterpretation.


----------



## Southlondon (Dec 23, 2016)

snowy_again said:


> I'd suggest you go back and read the full thread if that's your misinterpretation.


It's 41 pages, so I prob won't read it all. I was initially in support of the residents on the basis there would not be extra council homes available, but it seems there will be. Is this true? 
I have no interest in people worried about not being able to buy the leases under right to buy, as that Thatcherite policy did enough damage to our stock


----------



## editor (Dec 23, 2016)

Southlondon said:


> It's 41 pages, so I prob won't read it all. I was initially in support of the residents on the basis there would not be extra council homes available, but it seems there will be. Is this true?


All those people kicked out of their homes (many residents are elderly and/or infirm), their lives turned upside down, a lovely estate flattened and a tight community ripped apart to make way for luxury flats and just 23 extra council flats.  And all against the wishes of the vast majority of tenants. I'd say there's loads to oppose here.

Lambeth Council Cabinet set to agree to demolish Cressingham Gardens with only 27 new council houses being built


----------



## friendofdorothy (Dec 23, 2016)

Southlondon said:


> It's 41 pages, so I prob won't read it all. I was initially in support of the residents on the basis there would not be extra council homes available, but it seems there will be. Is this true?
> I have no interest in people worried about not being able to buy the leases under right to buy, as that Thatcherite policy did enough damage to our stock


thats our council tax money they are spending fight their own tenants.

The residents presented an alternative plan 'The People Plan' to raise funds to renovate the estate (which needs renovating as Lambeth has neglected its duty to upkeep it) which involved very few homes being demolished yet still creating new homes. Lambeth has rejected this.

I agree that council homes shouldn't be sold - but as that is the law as we have and they houses have been already sold, often to long term older residents - the costs to those leaseholders is unacceptable. Lambeth want them to pay up for major repairs on the homes they intend to demolish. Then to compulsory purchase them for less than favourable price. Lambeth want to destroy an attractive and popular estate to provide very few extra council homes.

Demolishing existing council homes to build for rich new buyers, our labour run co-operative council have no right and no mandate to do this.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Dec 23, 2016)

I received this today - they need funds to carry on the fight.

Click here to support Save Cressingham Gardens by Gerlinde Gniewosz



> The ruling for the judicial review was handed down this week and sadly the judge refused to quash the most recent Lambeth cabinet decision to proceed with plans for full demolition of Cressingham Gardens. However, residents are not deterred by this set back and have already commenced work to appeal this decision. And at a minimum, the failings of Lambeth council have now been put on record, which will be beneficial for future actions.
> 
> Here is more on the ruling as well as a detail write-up of the proceedings themselves:
> Save Cressingham Gardens
> ...


 * edited due to wrong link


----------



## sealion (Dec 23, 2016)

Southlondon said:


> I'm a Lambeth tennant and love my home, but if they were to rebuild my estate and rebuild with extra homes, and an increase in the homes value to protect from people buying the leaSe and depriving future tennants of a home, then I would be up for it.


Would you be up for it if your rent was increased and your tenancy was no longer secure ?


----------



## oryx (Dec 23, 2016)

Sea Lion said:


> Would you be up for it if your rent was increased and your tenancy was no longer secure ?



...and you had to move at least twice?


----------



## oryx (Dec 23, 2016)

Wrong thread  @ self!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 23, 2016)

Rushy said:


> What's all the scaffold at Cressingham?



So-called "weathertight repairs" that are being done (4-5 years late) purely because otherwise the council would be in receipt of an estate-wide serious detriment complaint. So-called because some of the roofing and guttering repairs were Heath-fucking-Robinson in their bodgey complexity, and had to be ripped out and replaced. They were also going to rip off some damaged zinc roofs (which Lambeth's contractors had originally damaged by using roofing nails to fasten down panels that were lifting) and replace them with a heat-sealed membrane during the dampest part of winter, and were most put out when residents told the site agent that like had to be replaced with like, otherwise they'd be in breach of their contract (one clause that wasn't redacted from the contract we FoI'd, fortunately). The scaffold is mostly to put temp roofs over properties where they're having to replace like-for-like, although earlier in the year it was so they could line out the guttering with a sealing agent, and coat the capping with it too.

As usual, Lambeth paid peanuts and got monkeys for contractors.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 23, 2016)

Southlondon said:


> I might have missed something here but if the rebuilt estatE will provide extra council housing, and one of th main complaints seems to be the extra cost to those who will want right to buy, why is this a bad thing?
> I'm  a Lambeth tennant and love my home, but if they  were to rebuild my estate and rebuild with extra homes, and an increase in the homes value to protect from people buying the leaSe and depriving future tennants of a home, then I would be up for it.
> And talk of the council wasting money, how about the money wasted fighting futile legal challenges?



Here's some maths on what Lambeth proposes to do to Cressingham Gardens (and *ANY OTHER* estate they choose to "regenerate), if they demolish.

They'll build 158 new homes, plus build 306 to replace the original homes.

Of the 158, 47% (74 homes) will be rented out at 80% of market rent for similar properties in the area.
A further 17% (23 homes) will be for *council-*level* rent.

*Council-level rent merely means private housing pegged at council rent levels.

The rest will be rented out at full market rent.

So, the actual contribution to shrinking the housing waiting list is less than 2 dozen extra homes for social rent, and guess what? You don't get a secure tenancy like normal either, because Lambeth are forming their own Housing Association, which can only give assured tenancies.

People aren't worried that it'll put up "Right to Buy" costs - lots of tenants are ideologically-opposed to RtB anyway. What people are worried about is that Lambeth Council wisshes to derive them of longstanding rights without negotiation or compensation. How would you feel if the council turned round to you and said "we're rebuilding your estate, but when you return to your new home, you won't have a secure tenancy, you won't have any voting rights on what happens to the estate going forward, you'll lose your Right to Buy completely, and by the way, your council tax will increase by at least 1 band, and your rent will increase by 25%". You'd be pissed off, wouldn't you?

Futile legal challenges? What's your obviously well-informed assessment based on - the High Court result from Wednesday? If so, did you read the 100-page finding by the judge, or just what the local press printed - that Lambeth won?  No challenge is futile, and it hasn't cost Lambeth Council Tax payers a penny.

Do yourself a favour and don't gob off about something you've obviously little current understanding of. Thanks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 23, 2016)

editor said:


> All those people kicked out of their homes (many residents are elderly and/or infirm), their lives turned upside down, a lovely estate flattened and a tight community ripped apart to make way for luxury flats and just 23 extra council flats.  And all against the wishes of the vast majority of tenants. I'd say there's loads to oppose here.
> 
> Lambeth Council Cabinet set to agree to demolish Cressingham Gardens with only 27 new council houses being built



Not "new council houses", sadly. 23 new properties for "council-level rent", which is an entirely different thing, and gives the resident only an assured tenancy, i.e. none of the protections that a council secure tenancy gives.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 23, 2016)

colacubes said:


> Fight on mate   This is one battle not the war x



Absolutely. I still think that some people don't grasp the seriousness of the situation. If Lambeth get away with what they plan for Cressingham and the other "regeneration" estates, there will be *no* bar to them doing the same on every estate in the borough, socially-cleansing the entirety of Lambeth. They're - as far as we've been able to find out - the ONLY borough who expect tenants to cede their secure tenancies, throw away their rights for sweet fuck-all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 23, 2016)

oryx said:


> ...and you had to move at least twice?



Lambeth have been constantly pushing at residents the idea of "single decant" moves through phased construction. What they haven't done is explained that however you phase construction, *some* of the residents WILL have to move twice. They also haven't explained the degree of long-term infrastructure issues - especially to local roads - that a phased construction that may well last 7 years will cause. They certainly haven't explained to residents how our already-overloaded transport infrastructure will cope with almost 160 new households on Tulse Hill. Bus services on the hill are still reeling from Brockwell Gate opening a decade ago, so an already poor service will be rendered even worse.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 23, 2016)

friendofdorothy said:


> thats our council tax money they are spending fight their own tenants.



As Lambeth won this time, the claimant has had costs awarded against him, so they haven't had to spend the money this time, unless the claimant appeals and wins, in which case they'll be in the hole again, and will probably tell fibs about what it cost, like they did after the first judicial review (they claimed to have spent £30,000 - that was for their own legal representation, though. They didn't mention that the legal team of the first Cressingham resident to take them to JR rinsed Lambeth for more than that). 



> The residents presented an alternative plan 'The People Plan' to raise funds to renovate the estate (which needs renovating as Lambeth has neglected its duty to upkeep it) which involved very few homes being demolished yet still creating new homes. Lambeth has rejected this.
> 
> I agree that council homes shouldn't be sold - but as that is the law as we have and they houses have been already sold, often to long term older residents - the costs to those leaseholders is unacceptable. Lambeth want them to pay up for major repairs on the homes they intend to demolish. Then to compulsory purchase them for less than favourable price. Lambeth want to destroy an attractive and popular estate to provide very few extra council homes.
> 
> Demolishing existing council homes to build for rich new buyers, our labour run co-operative council have no right and no mandate to do this.



"Rich new buyers" or renters. They've sussed that becoming effectively a private landlord as well as a social landlord, could lead to a big income stream to replace the gaping holes in their finances.

As you say, they've no mandate to regenerate, just the supreme arrogance of the educated middle-classes ministering unto the poor.


----------



## madolesance (Dec 23, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> As Lambeth won this time, the claimant has had costs awarded against him, so they haven't had to spend the money this time, unless the claimant appeals and wins, in which case they'll be in the hole again, and will probably tell fibs about what it cost, like they did after the first judicial review (they claimed to have spent £30,000 - that was for their own legal representation, though. They didn't mention that the legal team of the first Cressingham resident to take them to JR rinsed Lambeth for more than that).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So where does that leave me? Someone who maybe middle class and has supported the campaign all along?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 23, 2016)

madolesance said:


> So where does that leave me? Someone who maybe middle class and has supported the campaign all along?



Do you minister unto the poor in a condescending manner? If not, then I'm not talking about you, am I?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Dec 23, 2016)

madolesance said:


> So where does that leave me? Someone who maybe middle class and has supported the campaign all along?



I dont understand the question?


----------



## Celyn (Dec 24, 2016)

Southlondon said:


> I might have missed something here but if the rebuilt estatE will provide extra council housing, ...



"*Extra council housing*" Whatever gave you that idea?  What is "extra" council housing, anyway?



> and one of th main complaints seems to be the extra cost to those who will want right to buy, why is this a bad thing?
> I'm  a Lambeth tennant and love my home, but if they  were to rebuild my estate and rebuild with extra homes, and an increase in the homes value to protect from people buying the leaSe and depriving future tennants of a home, then I would be up for it....



An increase in your home's value? I am finding that I can't quite understand your reasoning here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2016)

Celyn said:


> "*Extra council housing*" Whatever gave you that idea?  What is "extra" council housing, anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> An increase in your home's value? I am finding that I can't quite understand your reasoning here.



The _schmuck_ appears to think that a rise in the base value of the property would mean that even with a maximum discount, a mortgage would be unaffordable to someone on the median wage for the borough (currently about £30,000 per *household* in Lambeth).
What the _schmuck_ doesn't realise is that even at the current base value, Right to Buy is unaffordable for many council tenants, and that over the last 3-5 years a significant minority of RtB applications are deals by property developers with individual tenants (yes, that still goes on, and estates still get flyered by Foxtons _et al_ regularly).


----------



## Celyn (Dec 24, 2016)

Southlondon said:


> I'm  a Lambeth tennant and love my home, but if they  were to rebuild my estate and rebuild with extra homes, and an increase in the homes value to protect from people buying the leaSe and depriving future tennants of a home, then I would be up for it.



Please Southlondon, think again. And read what have you have written again.


> an increase in the homes value to protect from people buying the leaSe and depriving future tennants of a home, then I would be up for it.



How does that work.?


----------



## Southlondon (Dec 24, 2016)

Celyn said:


> Please Southlondon, think again. And read what have you have written again.
> Unfortunately like the majority of folk I dont have time to read or the ability to absorb 100 page plus page reports, so as I stated, I might have missed something. As with many people I spent years and years on the housing list, and so let's not diminish In AnywaY the impact of being housed into a family Home even on an assured tenancy will have on those 23 families, compared to overcrowding or emergency  accommodation etc- it'll be life changing as it was for me. I'd rather see the whole estate replaced with social housing on secure tenancies, and no lease hold or private  homes or affordable 80% etc, but it's always going to be thwarted by a need for the redevelopment to self finance due to restrictions on borrowing to build council homes, and I guess I'm thinking how the Govt plans to force councils to sell off the most valuable houses works out if these are kept as traditional council homes, as opposed to looking at some sort of way to protect the new builds from being sold off from council stock
> As Schmuck caller and yourself suggest I shall hook back to the beginning of the thread and give it a bit more attention, but i would be prepared to move out of my home, if it meant a worthwhile net gain in properties available to ordinary people who, as pointed out, will never be able to buy a home however it is discounted
> 
> How does that work.?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 25, 2016)

Southlondon said:


> Unfortunately like the majority of folk I dont have time to read or the ability to absorb 100 page plus page reports, so as I stated, I might have missed something. As with many people I spent years and years on the housing list, and so let's not diminish In AnywaY the impact of being housed into a family Home even on an assured tenancy will have on those 23 families...




It'll be great for the 23 families, perhaps not so great for the other 20,977 families on the 21,000 waiting list.

Of course, when I say "great", the greatness is relative. As a council tenant I can't be evicted except for breaching specific rules set out in contract between me and the council. As an assured tenant, then the only statutory rights I have regarding tenancy, is that my landlord has to give me 2 months notice.



> ...compared to overcrowding or emergency accommodation etc- it'll be life changing as it was for me. I'd rather see the whole estate replaced with social housing on secure tenancies, and no lease hold or private homes or affordable 80% etc, but it's always going to be thwarted by a need for the redevelopment to self finance



The one thing the redevelopment *isn't*, is self-financing. The fact is that the unique regeneration model Lambeth is adopting (every other council has binned similar models because they're a) impractical, and b) risky for both the council and the tenants) is shit. That's not just my grass-roots opinion, it's the opinion of housing experts and academics.



> ...due to restrictions on borrowing to build council homes, and I guess I'm thinking how the Govt plans to force councils to sell off the most valuable houses works out if these are kept as traditional council homes, as opposed to looking at some sort of way to protect the new builds from being sold off from council stock



The only restriction to building new council homes in Lambeth, is the Housing Revenue Account. The usual excuse of no headroom for borrowing, no longer pertains. Every year for the next 7, the headroom will be over £50,000,000 per annum. There's money to build, but because the council wants to establish a permanent income stream far larger than what it takes in council rents, the people of Lambeth will have to accept insecure tenure.

As for protecting new builds from Right to Buy, the inflation in housing prices has been doing that for at least the last 6 years. We'd have to see prices drop to what they were in the early '90s to see locals able to afford to decimate council stock.



> As Schmuck caller and yourself suggest I shall hook back to the beginning of the thread and give it a bit more attention, but i would be prepared to move out of my home, if it meant a worthwhile net gain in properties available to ordinary people who, as pointed out, will never be able to buy a home however it is discounted



If you don't want to be called a _schmuck_, don't talk like one.


----------



## Southlondon (Dec 25, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> It'll be great for the 23 families, perhaps not so great for the other 20,977 families on the 21,000 waiting list.
> 
> Of course, when I say "great", the greatness is relative. As a council tenant I can't be evicted except for breaching specific rules set out in contract between me and the council. As an assured tenant, then the only statutory rights I have regarding tenancy, is that my landlord has to give me 2 months notice.
> 
> ...


I started my comment, " I might have missed something ", because as you might see from my previous posts on other boards, I am a new member here, and that was the first time I had checked out the


----------



## Southlondon (Dec 25, 2016)

Southlondon said:


> I started my comment, " I might have missed something ", because as you might see from my previous posts on other boards, I am a new member here, and that was the first time I had checked out the Brixton board - as if to prove a point i just posted by mistake before finishing- maybe as you seem to spend huge amounts of time posting across these boards, and seem to be up to speed on many of the threads, calling someone a Schmuck ( contemptible, obnoxious, detestable) - I had to look up the definition, is a little harsh, and not the most comradely introduction. As I said, I will read through the thread, but I still retain my base principle, that I don't have too much sympathy for leaseholders, as they took advantage of a crap policy that began the weakening of our social housing. I had the option of buying many years ago when I was a tenant In another borough before the price boom but would never have done so on principle. maybe you deem that detestable of me, so be it, but I will read up on how it impacts the tennants specifically, and I will take note in future not to post until I've read up more on the background first.
> Lesson learnt


----------



## SpamMisery (Dec 26, 2016)

Unfortunately, "mistakes" will be pounced upon. It seems to be the U75 way of welcoming new members (and quite frankly dealing with established posters too)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2016)

SpamMisery said:


> Unfortunately, "mistakes" will be pounced upon. It seems to be the U75 way of welcoming new members (and quite frankly dealing with established posters too)



People pounce on you because you're an arse who says arsey things, you poor little victim, you.


----------



## SpamMisery (Dec 26, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> People pounce on you because you're an arse who says arsey things, you poor little victim, you.



Merry Christmas ViolentPanda


----------



## Ergo Proxy (Jan 17, 2017)

Not sure if you've seen this comment piece?

https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2016/12/right-without-rights/



> *A right without rights?*
> By Giles Peaker | Published 28/12/2016 4 Comments
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 17, 2017)

ViolentPanda


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 17, 2017)

We've seen it, analysed it, fed it to our lawyers for analysis, and used it as grist to the mill.


----------



## editor (Mar 9, 2017)

This was just posted by a Buzz reader in relation to this article. 


> Regarding Cressingham, apparently last week two of their Councillors were asked to leave a community meeting they weren’t invited to, after Cllr Mary Atkins turned up and tried to take over (the meeting was between residents and the housing services dept over repairs). Residents were massively offended that someone who doesn’t represent their interests, and who told lies about a “climate of fear” on the estate to the council’s “Oversight & Scrutiny Committee” last year, would try a cheap stunt that was obviously aimed at attempting to shore up her vote next year.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2017)

editor said:


> This was just posted by a Buzz reader in relation to this article.



Tis true. I was there, as was Gniewosz . Atkins sent out an e-mail the next day blaming "members of Save Cressingham Gardens", when actually almost all of the residents who attended were fucked off by her arrogance and bossiness. She's not well-liked here, but as the only people on the estate that she talks to regularly number about half a dozen, she's possibly not aware just how widespread the dislike for her is.


----------



## Jesterburger (Mar 13, 2017)

I see Atkins has just been re-selected to stand for Tulse Hill - now I'm a relatively new member of Labour so maybe I don't know how things work, but I live in her ward and wasn't invited to the selection meeting. How do they get away with that?


----------



## CH1 (Mar 13, 2017)

Jesterburger said:


> I see Atkins has just been re-selected to stand for Tulse Hill - now I'm a relatively new member of Labour so maybe I don't know how things work, but I live in her ward and wasn't invited to the selection meeting. How do they get away with that?



Possibly you are the "wrong kind of of Labour"

I find - as a non Labour Party member - I sometimes get briefed as to whether a Labour Person is Progress inclined or Momentum inclined. Possibly to avoid me causing offence in conversation?

If you've followed things on here in the past you will know that some people's membership applications are rejected. No doubt the ward party might have all sorts of arcane rules for inviting members to selection meetings. I recognise Mary Atkins and Marcia Cameron. But who is Ben Kind. What's his claim to fame?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2017)

Jesterburger said:


> I see Atkins has just been re-selected to stand for Tulse Hill - now I'm a relatively new member of Labour so maybe I don't know how things work, but I live in her ward and wasn't invited to the selection meeting. How do they get away with that?




From local party member "Atkins was sold to the branch as a 'least worst option' ".  Which is pretty fucked up, as both her and Cameron are known as lazy and uninterested in anything that doesn't glorify them.  Ben Kind I know nothing about, except that he's in bad odour currently in the north of the borough, for going against the Progress consensus on the Garden Bridge.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2017)

CH1 said:


> Possibly you are the "wrong kind of of Labour"
> 
> I find - as a non Labour Party member - I sometimes get briefed as to whether a Labour Person is Progress inclined or Momentum inclined. Possibly to avoid me causing offence in conversation?
> 
> If you've followed things on here in the past you will know that some people's membership applications are rejected. No doubt the ward party might have all sorts of arcane rules for inviting members to selection meetings. I recognise Mary Atkins and Marcia Cameron. But who is Ben Kind. What's his claim to fame?



Currently a Councillor at Vauxhall, not Progress or Momentum, upset some of the Progress people by being realistic about what a burden the Garden Bridge would be.


----------



## Jesterburger (Mar 14, 2017)

Turns out you need to be a member for a year to vote, which makes sense and sort of understandable (although weirdly you can vote for party leader straight away, which is rather inconsistent). Would have been nice to have been notified anyway. Still good to hear that Ben Kind at least has some independence of mind which should be a bit of an improvement.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2017)

Jesterburger said:


> Turns out you need to be a member for a year to vote, which makes sense and sort of understandable (although weirdly you can vote for party leader straight away, which is rather inconsistent). Would have been nice to have been notified anyway. Still good to hear that Ben Kind at least has some independence of mind which should be a bit of an improvement.



He may well be.  He'll have to "win his spurs" before he gets my votes, though.  Our current Councillors have a pretty poor record of actually getting shit done in this ward.  Tulse HIll, St Matthews, High Trees, Deronda estates have all been experiencing similar repairs and maintenance issues as Cressingham, and their residents are getting wise to the fact that while their Councillors talk a good fight, getting an individual problem sorted out here and there doesn't weigh very heavily against the fact that one of them (Marcia Cameron) takes credit for having put Cressingham into regeneration, that another of them (Adedamola Aminu) has pretty much minimalised any contact with constituents, and that the third (Mary Atkins) has a ward-wide reputation for being big on promises, but short on delivery.  It's not good enough to get someone's bog repaired, when the rest of their home is falling down around their ears, or where you're endorsing projects that'll *socially cleanse 600-800 members of your current electorate from the ward.  

*Social cleansing has become a bit of a theme in Lambeth, as in other boroughs.  About 5 years ago, a Coldharbour ward Cllr was heard publicly-airing the opinion that his ward had "much too much social housing. It really is very inconvenient".  What he meant was something along the lines that the volume of social housing meant that his surgeries took up more time than he'd like, and that he'd prefer not to have to spend quite so much time doing so.  I suppose that his assumption was and is that less social housing would mean fewer "problems" to deal with, and this idea that by sweeping away social housing, the life and workload of a Cllr - and of the council - would become simpler and more pleasant, seems to be fairly prevalent across our mostly _bourgeois_ Councillors, as well as being appealing to them.  There's also the promise of social uplift for the remnants of the w/c population - rarely realised - that allows them to convince themselves that social cleansing isn't so bad after all.  The problem there is that the social uplift promised by regeneration has historically amounted to a relative handful of low-grade and precarious service sector jobs, and occasional funding of community facilities.  Not enough for communities that you're intending to sell down the river.


----------



## CH1 (May 31, 2017)

Appreciate this is well off-topic geographically but this evening there was an item on the Radio4 PM news programme about regeneration in Moscow. Apparently a lot of social housing was sold off in a right to buy situation post the demise of the Soviet Union.

Now - just like Cressingham and all the other affected estates (maybe Heygate might be a more accurate like for like instance) - there is now a major move to repossess the owner-residents, demolish and rebuild.

One of the residents affected said that Marxism said property was theft - and now they were stealing their properties.

Sorry no clip available at the present time. Suspect it might pop up on BBC World News in due course.


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2017)

This all sounds horribly familiar 



> Southwark Council has consistently ignored its own reports. In 2003, Aylesbury residents were asked if they would prefer regeneration or refurbishment – from a high turnout, over 70 percent said they preferred refurbishment. Southwark promised them that "the funding required to bring maximum benefit to the whole estate can be realistically achieved".
> 
> Two years later, an independent tender through architects Levitt Bernstein produced glossy plans for refurbishment for Phase 1 of the development, priced at £33 million. Southwark Council instead stated that refurbishment – suddenly at £315 million-plus for the whole development – was too costly, and instead pursued a rebuild proposal with Notting Hill Housing with a net loss of at least 1,000 social housing homes. Southwark Council's own report in 2015, carried out by by the council's Principal Design and Technical officer Catherine Bates, said, "The condition of the buildings on the estate does not, itself, present a case for demolition and redevelopment."


The London Council Evicting Homeowners to Make Way for Luxury Flats


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 30, 2017)

Interesting reference here to Cressingham, from the letters page of The Times, Tues 20th June. It was following a general discussion of the problems with Grenfell tower and highrise blocks in general.



> Sir, Our cities are crowded and short of decent, affordable housing. We know that we cannot provide everyone with their own house and garden. There are circumstances in which tower blocks can best deliver the “health, happiness and hopefulness” that Clare Foges rightly suggests should be the objectives for residential architecture schemes.
> 
> Although low-rise high-density schemes of the 1970s such as Alexandra Road in Camden (listed Grade II*) and Lambeth’s excellent Cressingham Gardens and Central Hill estates (both crazily threatened with demolition) should be treasured and serve as exemplars of one way in which large numbers of people can live well on a small site, tower blocks can work too, for both rich and poor.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gniewosz (Aug 29, 2017)

The shenanigans of Lambeth council officers continues.  Public notice was only posted with less than 1 week deadline (and on the Summer Bank Holiday weekend) of the officers' attempts to have the permission for the 2 bedroom home that they have purloined for a glorified office for 1 day per week extended for 2 more years. I find this absolutely atrocious when we have whole families forced to live in a 1 bedroom flats in insecure temporary accommodation tenancies on the estate.  The home should be used to house a family not Lambeth officers. 
All comments can be made here: 
17/03250/RG3     |              Temporary change of use from a residential dwelling (use class C3) to a community engagement hub (sui generis) for a maximum of two years.                  |                                                                      8 Longford Walk London SW2 2NH
Just ignore the deadline of 28th August ... late comments should be accepted.


----------



## editor (Aug 29, 2017)

Gniewosz said:


> The shenanigans of Lambeth council officers continues.  Public notice was only posted with less than 1 week deadline (and on the Summer Bank Holiday weekend) of the officers' attempts to have the permission for the 2 bedroom home that they have purloined for a glorified office for 1 day per week extended for 2 more years. I find this absolutely atrocious when we have whole families forced to live in a 1 bedroom flats in insecure temporary accommodation tenancies on the estate.  The home should be used to house a family not Lambeth officers.
> All comments can be made here:
> 17/03250/RG3	 |			  Temporary change of use from a residential dwelling (use class C3) to a community engagement hub (sui generis) for a maximum of two years.				  |																	  8 Longford Walk London SW2 2NH
> Just ignore the deadline of 28th August ... late comments should be accepted.


Fancy writing an article about this for Buzz?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2017)

editor said:


> Fancy writing an article about this for Buzz?



If Gniewosz doesn't, I will.


----------



## editor (Aug 29, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> If Gniewosz doesn't, I will.


She's not online  now so if you fancy knocking something out, that would be ace.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2017)

editor said:


> She's not online  now so if you fancy knocking something out, that would be ace.



No problem.  E-mail it to the buzz addy?


----------



## editor (Aug 29, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> No problem.  E-mail it to the buzz addy?


Yes please!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2017)

editor said:


> She's not online  now so if you fancy knocking something out, that would be ace.



Have just sent the article to the brixtonbuzzatgmail.com address.


----------



## editor (Aug 29, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Have just sent the article to the brixtonbuzzatgmail.com address.


Posted here: Cressingham Gardens: Lambeth Council helps itself to a two bedroom house


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 29, 2017)

Gniewosz said:


> The shenanigans of Lambeth council officers continues.  Public notice was only posted with less than 1 week deadline (and on the Summer Bank Holiday weekend) of the officers' attempts to have the permission for the 2 bedroom home that they have purloined for a glorified office for 1 day per week extended for 2 more years. I find this absolutely atrocious when we have whole families forced to live in a 1 bedroom flats in insecure temporary accommodation tenancies on the estate.  The home should be used to house a family not Lambeth officers.
> All comments can be made here:
> 17/03250/RG3	 |			  Temporary change of use from a residential dwelling (use class C3) to a community engagement hub (sui generis) for a maximum of two years.				  |																	  8 Longford Walk London SW2 2NH
> Just ignore the deadline of 28th August ... late comments should be accepted.


objection done


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2017)

editor said:


> Posted here: Cressingham Gardens: Lambeth Council helps itself to a two bedroom house



Cheers! Could you put a link to the planning application in, too?


----------



## editor (Aug 29, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Cheers! Could you put a link to the planning application in, too?


Done!


----------



## editor (Sep 3, 2017)

Unbelievable. Here's a Labour Cllr's response to the flat being used for their purposes.


----------



## editor (Sep 19, 2017)

Some photos from the estate:



























Cressingham Gardens – a photographic walk around the threatened estate, south London


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 20, 2017)

editor said:


> Some photos from the estate:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is a really good piece.

Looking at photos I'm surprised the application to get it listed was turned down. It's a good example of post war social housing that actually works.

The Brixton Rec did get listed by Historic England

The Rec listing as well as the Cressingham Gardens application for listing was opposed by Labour party Lambeth Council.

The response of the Council to the Rec being listed was negative. Cressingham Gardens and the Rec don't fit into Nu Labour project.

You would think that a Labour Council would be glad that an example of socialist post war architecture like the Rec got listed status. But no.

It has already protected the Rec. It shouldn't be up to an unelected quango to help locals retain social assets against a Labour Council.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 20, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> This is a really good piece.
> 
> Looking at photos I'm surprised the application to get it listed was turned down. It's a good example of post war social housing that actually works.
> 
> ...



One of the reasons Cressingham was turned down, was because the original wooden single-glazed windows had been so badly maintained by Lambeth, that they were disintegrating, and were replaced with the cheapest crap uPVC framed double glazing Lambeth could get away with.  We've since learned that if the uPVC frames are replaced with sympathetic wooden-framed double glazing, that a new application would be looked on more kindly. Much the same reasons saw Central Hill's application refused, too.

As for the council's reaction to Cressingham being considered for listing, they went batshit, and threw more crap at the application, than howler monkeys throw at each other.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 21, 2017)

The point of listing a building is to protect it. So to me it doesn't make much sense to say that replacing the windows with more appropriate ones would make it more worthy of listing. If the basic fabric of the building is worthy of listing, and if its worthiness doesn't rely on the original windows still being in place, then the fact that they have been badly replaced isn't really relevant. If anything its an indication that the building's under threat - which should make a listing *more* urgent.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 21, 2017)

teuchter  I'm sure you are more well versed in the nuances of preservation and conservation that me, but it must be a more uphill struggle to get a listing if the local authority obstructs it, surely?

Meanwhile it is a truth universally acknowledged that Cressingham residents pushed the boat out in showing how their estate is and has been a very liveable example of a modern council development on a medium to small scale. Four residents allowed members of the public to glimpse their household interiors, which gave a brilliant illustration of how whilst the original designs were well thought out, the building design allowed the flexibility for later internal rearrangement.

Thanks to Cressingham residents for their contribution to Open House London!


----------



## technical (Sep 21, 2017)

Local authority has nothing to do with listing. 

The most appropriate thing in terms of heritage value for Cressingham would be designation as a conservation area. However, that is a local authority decision, and clearly not going to happen.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 21, 2017)

technical said:


> Local authority has nothing to do with listing.
> 
> The most appropriate thing in terms of heritage value for Cressingham would be designation as a conservation area. However, that is a local authority decision, and clearly not going to happen.



Why? 

I think Cressingham Gardens is worth listing. 

What I have heard is that Heritage England bear in mind the problems that a hard pressed local authority may have if a building it owns is listed.

In case of the Rec. I think that Heritage England saw it as a unique building. That had not been altered much. One reason why the Council officers opposed listing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 22, 2017)

teuchter said:


> The point of listing a building is to protect it. So to me it doesn't make much sense to say that replacing the windows with more appropriate ones would make it more worthy of listing. If the basic fabric of the building is worthy of listing, and if its worthiness doesn't rely on the original windows still being in place, then the fact that they have been badly replaced isn't really relevant. If anything its an indication that the building's under threat - which should make a listing *more* urgent.



Tell you what, go and tell Heritage England that they're wrong.  Most of the households on Cressingham will be eternally grateful if you set H.E. straight!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 22, 2017)

CH1 said:


> teuchter  I'm sure you are more well versed in the nuances of preservation and conservation that me, but it must be a more uphill struggle to get a listing if the local authority obstructs it, surely?
> 
> Meanwhile it is a truth universally acknowledged that Cressingham residents pushed the boat out in showing how their estate is and has been a very liveable example of a modern council development on a medium to small scale. Four residents allowed members of the public to glimpse their household interiors, which gave a brilliant illustration of how whilst the original designs were well thought out, the building design allowed the flexibility for later internal rearrangement.
> 
> Thanks to Cressingham residents for their contribution to Open House London!



Ah, if you were one of the visitors last weekend, you probably saw me sitting in my "Save Cressingham Gardens" tent. 

The internal rearrangement possibilities are a source of wonder, for some reason, to student architects who visit (we try to accommodate at least one tour a year from architecture schools).  For Hollamby they seem to have been a "no-brainer" for an estate where he wanted families to spend their entire life.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 22, 2017)

technical said:


> Local authority has nothing to do with listing.
> 
> The most appropriate thing in terms of heritage value for Cressingham would be designation as a conservation area. However, that is a local authority decision, and clearly not going to happen.



SAVE Britain's Heritage, Heritage England and the 20th Century Society have all recommended our inclusion in the Brockwell Park conservation area (which already penetrates part of the estate), but as you say, Lambeth will have no truck with that.  They've got the £ signs in their eyes, and that's all that matters to them.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 22, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> One of the reasons Cressingham was turned down, was because the original wooden single-glazed windows had been so badly maintained by Lambeth, that they were disintegrating, and were replaced with the cheapest crap uPVC framed double glazing Lambeth could get away with.  We've since learned that if the uPVC frames are replaced with sympathetic wooden-framed double glazing, that a new application would be looked on more kindly. Much the same reasons saw Central Hill's application refused, too.
> 
> As for the council's reaction to Cressingham being considered for listing, they went batshit, and threw more crap at the application, than howler monkeys throw at each other.


I wonder if those cheap PVC frames would pass fire regulations now? Replacement of windows was mentioned as a hazard in the Lakanal house report.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 22, 2017)

friendofdorothy said:


> I wonder if those cheap PVC frames would pass fire regulations now? Replacement of windows was mentioned as a hazard in the Lakanal house report.



Good point! I shall make a note to mention that at the next fire safety piece of arse-covering meeting I attend!


----------



## teuchter (Sep 22, 2017)

Not the same scenario as Lakanal (or Grenfell) - firstly they are at relatively low level (requirements are less stringent for low rise because it's much easier to get out of the building quickly) and they aren't in a rainscreen type facade or one with materials that are likely to present a fire spread risk (as far as I know).

PVC windows on interwar/postwar housing estates are a bit of a blight though. Partly aesthetically but also, the frames are usually so much chunkier than the originally intended windows that everyone loses a significant portion of their window openings that can actually let light in. Sometimes there seems to be more PVC frame than glass.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 22, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Tell you what, go and tell Heritage England that they're wrong.  Most of the households on Cressingham will be eternally grateful if you set H.E. straight!


If I had any power over HE's listing decisions I'd have also got them to list Robin Hood Gardens, now tragically in the process of demolition. In a couple of decades people will wonder how these decisions could have been made.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 22, 2017)

teuchter said:


> If I had any power over HE's listing decisions I'd have also got them to list Robin Hood Gardens, now tragically in the process of demolition. In a couple of decades people will wonder how these decisions could have been made.



Don't I know it. 
Every year, H.E.'s choices look more and more like they're deliberately acting to preserve their budget and not startle the (small c) conservative horses.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 22, 2017)

teuchter said:


> Not the same scenario as Lakanal (or Grenfell) - firstly they are at relatively low level (requirements are less stringent for low rise because it's much easier to get out of the building quickly) and they aren't in a rainscreen type facade or one with materials that are likely to present a fire spread risk (as far as I know).
> 
> PVC windows on interwar/postwar housing estates are a bit of a blight though. Partly aesthetically but also, the frames are usually so much chunkier than the originally intended windows that everyone loses a significant portion of their window openings that can actually let light in. Sometimes there seems to be more PVC frame than glass.



This was the case on the skylights they fitted on the estate, and slight impingement on most of the main windows.  Residents are just lucky Hollamby designed these places for sunlighting.


----------



## technical (Sep 26, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Why?
> 
> I think Cressingham Gardens is worth listing.
> 
> ...



I personally also think the estate is worthy of listing, but as Violent Panda has said the replacement of the windows counts against it. There are some large buildings/groups of buildings listed but post-war ones have a very high bar. This wouldn't be a factor in conservation area designation as that is about the wider character and architectural quality of the area. Given the way the estate sits on the edge of the park, it makes perfect sense to extend the Brockwell Park conservation area to encompass the estate - this would be a consideration in planning terms. But its up to the local authority to do it, not Historic England. 

HE has a duty to consult owners on listing recommendations. Wider political issues aren't really supposed to play a part in recommendations, but as the final decision is actually taken by the Secretary of State at the DCMS it inevitably comes into it at times. Robin Hood gardens being a good example.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 26, 2017)

technical said:


> I personally also think the estate is worthy of listing, but as Violent Panda has said the replacement of the windows counts against it. There are some large buildings/groups of buildings listed but post-war ones have a very high bar. This wouldn't be a factor in conservation area designation as that is about the wider character and architectural quality of the area. Given the way the estate sits on the edge of the park, it makes perfect sense to extend the Brockwell Park conservation area to encompass the estate - this would be a consideration in planning terms. But its up to the local authority to do it, not Historic England.
> 
> HE has a duty to consult owners on listing recommendations. Wider political issues aren't really supposed to play a part in recommendations, but as the final decision is actually taken by the Secretary of State at the DCMS it inevitably comes into it at times. Robin Hood gardens being a good example.



I'm in mixed minds about listing of buildings.

Wider political issues aren't supposed to play a part but they do. One of the reasons the Rec was listed was that it is an example of post war socialist architecture. I actually was surprised how upfront Heritage England where in the listing of the Rec. The Rec represents all that Blairite Nu Labour dislike about post war socialism. Providing large facilities like this for the masses is in the view of Nu Labour fostering welfare dependency. ( Part of the idea of the Coop Council is that people should run services themselves and not expect a something for nothing handout.Going back to Labour tradition of self help not welfare "dependency". Well that's is how Nu Labour see things) The ethos behind Finch's design was correctly seen by HE as putting socialist (Labour party) ideas into practice. One form of socialism that is.

No surprise a Nu Labour Council oppose listing of Cressingham Gardens and the Rec.

Architecture is political. I'd rather have a political debate on why a building should be listed. What happens with listing is that people all know it's political but skate around it.

I went to a talk about Balfron Tower a while ago. The architects were talking of the aesthetics of the building. And whether the refurbishment would be to damage it's aesthetic quality. The fact that it was built as post war Council housing was considered by them to be separated from its design quality. I can't see how one can do this. To divorce aesthetics from politics is political in itself.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 26, 2017)

You can preserve a building as a record of the politics that created it, but that's different from somehow preserving or continuing those political ambitions.

About the Balfron tower - if one were to accept the premise that its form came out of the brief for social housing, rather than any other kind of housing, then if you are talking about preserving its essential form (and consequently its aesthetics) then you are talking about preserving that record of the politics that generated it. That could of course come into conflict with refurbishing it for continued use as social housing, because the requirements for social housing (or any kind of housing) are rather different now from what they were in the 1960s. So it could be that continuing a buildings' original use (and original political purpose, if you like) is incompatible with preserving it as a historical record. In that sense there are two issues that can be separated. The purpose of listing a building - at least as I understand it - is primarily to preserve it for historical record. And that is why dicussions relating to a building's listing could appear to ignore issues that might be seen as "political". Of course in reality, politics *does* come into listings when decisions end up getting referred to politicians, as in the case of Robin Hood Gardens.


----------



## technical (Sep 27, 2017)

From Jeremy Corbyn's speech this afternoon:

“Regeneration is a much abused word. Too often what it really means is forced gentrification and social cleansing, as private developers move in and tenants and leaseholders are moved out….So when councils come forward with proposals for regeneration, we will put down two markers based on one simple principle: Regeneration under a Labour government will be for the benefit of the local people, not private developers, not property speculators…. (And) councils will have to win a ballot of existing tenants and leaseholders before any redevelopment scheme can take place. Real regeneration, yes, but for the many not the few.”


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2017)

technical said:


> From Jeremy Corbyn's speech this afternoon:
> 
> “Regeneration is a much abused word. Too often what it really means is forced gentrification and social cleansing, as private developers move in and tenants and leaseholders are moved out….So when councils come forward with proposals for regeneration, we will put down two markers based on one simple principle: Regeneration under a Labour government will be for the benefit of the local people, not private developers, not property speculators…. (And) councils will have to win a ballot of existing tenants and leaseholders before any redevelopment scheme can take place. Real regeneration, yes, but for the many not the few.”


There's a good piece here on Buzz: 

Hope for Cressingham residents as Jeremy Corbyn states that Councils must conduct a tenant ballot ahead of “social cleansing”


----------



## Fingers (Sep 28, 2017)

Jeremy Corbyn has declared war on Labour councils over housing | Aditya Chakrabortty


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 28, 2017)

I see that Corbyn has taken sides.

I'm really glad he has criticised "regeneration". I agree he is criticising (new) Labour Councils. It's not just housing it's the way some Labour Councils approach "regeneration". The mentality behind his senior officers in Regen dept ( most of whom made there careers in Nu Labour Councils) and senior Cllrs is what Corbyn is criticising in his speech.

Its really good to see an important politician voice what people on the ground have been saying for years. In opposition to Nu Labour thinking like in Lambeth. I'm not a full time activist but I do take an interest in some issues in area. I'm tired of being told I'm not "sensible". Not being taken seriously when I read up on stuff and ask questions. Being made to feel I should not be there as I did at recent meeting.

I like Corbyn and wish him well. I do think he needs to start taking measures to get removed from the party the kind of people who forced Cllr Rachel out for just representing the real interest of the less well off in Brixton.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 28, 2017)

And it's not just New Labour Cllrs. The way the Council works officers end up being spokespersons of the ruling group. Nu Labour are entrenched in Councils like Lambeth for years. People who have made there careers in local government in Labour run Councils in London are basically Nu Labour. They have imbibed the whole ethos. Doing "partnership" with developers. Enthusiastically supporting private finance led regeneration of areas.

Now the Labour party is led by socialists it's going to be a struggle to deal with a bureaucracy whose loyality is to Nu Labour. These kind of people have a lot to lose. Good reasonably well paid jobs.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 28, 2017)

teuchter said:


> You can preserve a building as a record of the politics that created it, but that's different from somehow preserving or continuing those political ambitions.
> 
> About the Balfron tower - if one were to accept the premise that its form came out of the brief for social housing, rather than any other kind of housing, then if you are talking about preserving its essential form (and consequently its aesthetics) then you are talking about preserving that record of the politics that generated it. That could of course come into conflict with refurbishing it for continued use as social housing, because the requirements for social housing (or any kind of housing) are rather different now from what they were in the 1960s. So it could be that continuing a buildings' original use (and original political purpose, if you like) is incompatible with preserving it as a historical record. In that sense there are two issues that can be separated. The purpose of listing a building - at least as I understand it - is primarily to preserve it for historical record. And that is why dicussions relating to a building's listing could appear to ignore issues that might be seen as "political". Of course in reality, politics *does* come into listings when decisions end up getting referred to politicians, as in the case of Robin Hood Gardens.



My understanding of Balfron Tower was that it was to be refurbished as social housing. It's now to be private. For reasons other than listing.

Historic Englsnd give a series of reasons for Rec listing. One of which is it's present cultural importance.



> Cultural importance: since opening, the recreation centre has become a social centre for the community, much-valued in the locality;




Brixton Recreation Centre, Non Civil Parish - 1436440| Historic England

So I would say this listing isn't only about recording it's history. It is listing that sees the building in active use. The way I read the listing of the Rec is that the present use ( publicly owned leisure centre) and its design go together. The listing also states it's an example of the architect Finch socialist principles. Historic England came to see the building and talked to people there. 

Reading there reasons for listing they see Rec as a successful design that's still in use and means a lot to the local community.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 28, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> I see that Corbyn has taken sides.



and about bloody time too

only snag is whether he's actually going to purge the blairites with an iron broom have reasonable discussions with the councils in question and politely suggest they reconsider


----------



## Winot (Sep 28, 2017)

It’s an excellent move by Corbyn (and I am not a natural supporter). Hopefully it will help to turn the tide in the right direction in relation to social housing.


----------



## editor (Sep 29, 2017)

Nicely done: 
Jeremy Corbyn invited to Cressingham Gardens to meet residents being socially cleansed by Lambeth Council


----------



## Sue (Sep 29, 2017)

Mentioned in the Guardian.

Labour-run council says it opposes Corbyn's housing ballot proposal


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 29, 2017)

Sue said:


> Mentioned in the Guardian.
> 
> Labour-run council says it opposes Corbyn's housing ballot proposal



I see at end of article an anonymous person in a Council said that Corbyn would have to back up what he says with plans for funding.

Let's get this straight. It's not about funding.

The Myatts fields / Oval Quarter PFI regeneration scheme fiasco was brain child of Nu Labour thinking on "regeneration". I've posted up in detail on this in Myatts fields thread.

Corbyn was signalling a break with the Nu Labour orthodoxy on housing ( and acceptance of neo liberalism). During the time Nu Labour were in power they regarded Council estates as the past. Gradually semi privatising them through ALMOs etc was the norm. Council housing itself was regarded as a failure. Lord Adonis and others in the Nu Labour camp argued for move from "monolithic " Council estates to "mixed" communities. A proxy for the social cleansing of working class communities. Nu Labour project was a middle class one. Tony Blair saw the changes brought on by Thatcher , "globalisation" and the worship of "entrepreneurialism" as permanent givens. What Blair offered was middle class politics with a human face. Unlike Thatcher. But in effect Blair was continuation of Thatcher. The working class were supposed to lump it as they had no were else to go.


The best thing Nu Labour did for Corbyn was making him go for another leadership election and assuming he would be finished off by May. They thought with him destroyed by May they could get back control of the party.

Unfortunately the way politics works Nu Labour are in control of Lambeth Labour. I think Cressingham Gardens are right to ask him to support them.

In Jeremy's favour when he was pictured with Bennet his position was not so secure. It is now for time being.

What Corbyn did in last election was go over the heads of the po!itical e!ite in power in local Councils and Parliament. It is a strategy that worked.

The other thing that Corbyn and McDonnel have brought back is class. Nu Labour were hostile to class politics. Why in the end they alienated a good section of the core support. They thought the working class were finished.

So what I'm saying is that this is not about funding it's a sea change in the Labour party. Nu Labour Council like Lambeth are going to fight a rearguard battle to oppose the essence of what Corbyn represents. A return to class politics. There are irreconcilable ideological differences between the likes of Bennett and Corbyn.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 29, 2017)

editor said:


> Nicely done:
> Jeremy Corbyn invited to Cressingham Gardens to meet residents being socially cleansed by Lambeth Council



I think Chuka should stand down as an MP and get a job in the City. I'm sure he would get one straight away. The kind of people he would feel comfortable with.

He's still trying to undermine Corbyn. Despite fluffing his chance to stand against him.

He should go. He doesn't support residents. His attacks on Corbyn have been nasty and not proper political discussion. Ie going on about anti semitism. I notice he's given up on that one.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 29, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> The Myatts fields / Oval Quarter PFI regeneration scheme fiasco was brain child of Nu Labour thinking on "regeneration".


I think you should allow this was totally cross-party.

I downloaded a document about PFI regeneration schemes the other day - which listed the Regenter Myatts Field North PFI as 2004.
I happened to be wandering about the area with a fellow Liberal Democrat ex-councillor on Rocket no.9 's Music Hall stars walk last Sunday, and we were commenting on the improved look of the Oval Quarter since the corrugated iron came down. I mentioned to my former colleague (who had said the service charges were very high in these flats) that the Lib Dems must have signed the PFI deal off if it was 2004. "I don't remember it" they said.

PFI council regeneration seems to have been imposed by government, and councillors probably had little choice in it as a funding choice. Housing/Regeneration departments (and the mayor's office) no doubt did all the dirty work of liaising with developers and councillors simply signed on the dotted line. As they often do.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 30, 2017)

CH1 said:


> I think you should allow this was totally cross-party.
> 
> I downloaded a document about PFI regeneration schemes the other day - which listed the Regenter Myatts Field North PFI as 2004.
> I happened to be wandering about the area with a fellow Liberal Democrat ex-councillor on Rocket no.9 's Music Hall stars walk last Sunday, and we were commenting on the improved look of the Oval Quarter since the corrugated iron came down. I mentioned to my former colleague (who had said the service charges were very high in these flats) that the Lib Dems must have signed the PFI deal off if it was 2004. "I don't remember it" they said.
> ...



The Myatts field PFI took years to get off the drawing board. I don't get the impression it was forced on Lambeth Council. I remember chatting to a Labour Cllr years back. He was enthusiastic about PFI deals. Nu Labour did really think they could work. That Councils would be able to oversee these PFI projects. So no I don't think Cllrs just signed the dotted line.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 30, 2017)

The Labour Party Conference 2017: Housing Policy and Estate Regeneration


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 30, 2017)

CH1 said:


> I think you should allow this was totally cross-party.
> 
> I downloaded a document about PFI regeneration schemes the other day - which listed the Regenter Myatts Field North PFI as 2004.
> I happened to be wandering about the area with a fellow Liberal Democrat ex-councillor on Rocket no.9 's Music Hall stars walk last Sunday, and we were commenting on the improved look of the Oval Quarter since the corrugated iron came down. I mentioned to my former colleague (who had said the service charges were very high in these flats) that the Lib Dems must have signed the PFI deal off if it was 2004. "I don't remember it" they said.
> ...



As Gramsci made plain, PFI was the result of "nu Labour *thinking*" (my emphasis).  It's fair to say that the new Labour predicates on PFI were informed by neo-liberalism, just as were those of the Tories and the Lib-Dems - the whole T.I.N.A. mythology, for a start, that there was no alternative to "the market".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 30, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> I see at end of article an anonymous person in a Council said that Corbyn would have to back up what he says with plans for funding.
> 
> Let's get this straight. It's not about funding.
> 
> The Myatts fields / Oval Quarter PFI regeneration scheme fiasco was brain child of Nu Labour thinking on "regeneration". I've posted up in detail on this in Myatts fields thread.



It is and it isn't about funding. Funding will be necessary, but a Corbyn govt *could* push through primary legislation to allow local authorities to borrow either from the money markets, or from the Treasury for specific home-building projects.  This isn't controversial, indeed it's how things were done before Thatcher.



> Corbyn was signalling a break with the Nu Labour orthodoxy on housing ( and acceptance of neo liberalism). During the time Nu Labour were in power they regarded Council estates as the past. Gradually semi privatising them through ALMOs etc was the norm. Council housing itself was regarded as a failure. Lord Adonis and others in the Nu Labour camp argued for move from "monolithic " Council estates to "mixed" communities. A proxy for the social cleansing of working class communities. Nu Labour project was a middle class one. Tony Blair saw the changes brought on by Thatcher , "globalisation" and the worship of "entrepreneurialism" as permanent givens. What Blair offered was middle class politics with a human face. Unlike Thatcher. But in effect Blair was continuation of Thatcher. The working class were supposed to lump it as they had no were else to go.



And yet my estate, like every other local one I've visited, is more socially-mixed and tenure-mixed than anything developers have achieved, and are the richer for it. When scum like Adonis (was ever a man so mis-named?) talk about "mixed communities", what it boils down to at development level is mix of tenure, and - as shown repeatedly in "regeneration" schemes - that mix of tenure is usually loaded in favour of owner-occupation/private rental from owner and "affordable"/shared ownership, with social tenure being a minority pursuit, and often a stigmatised one, at that.

One of the sadly enduring legacies of new Labour is how taken-for-granted the working class *still* are as a source of Labour votes.  Here in Tulse Hill ward, the local electorate are quite _au fait_ with the Cressingham issue, and have been asking the ward councillors questions.  They're being told "oh, we (meaning the ward councillors) have got that cancelled".  This is a blatant lie, as a Cressingham resident questioned Lambeth's head of regeneration - Rachel Sharpe - about this earlier this month, and was told emphatically that the regeneration of Cressingham is proceeding.



> The best thing Nu Labour did for Corbyn was making him go for another leadership election and assuming he would be finished off by May. They thought with him destroyed by May they could get back control of the party.
> 
> Unfortunately the way politics works Nu Labour are in control of Lambeth Labour. I think Cressingham Gardens are right to ask him to support them.
> 
> In Jeremy's favour when he was pictured with Bennet his position was not so secure. It is now for time being.



What Mr Corbyn needs to bear in mind is how many Lambeth Labour councillors voted no confidence in him, in that Progress-inspired poll in 2016.



> What Corbyn did in last election was go over the heads of the po!itical e!ite in power in local Councils and Parliament. It is a strategy that worked.
> 
> The other thing that Corbyn and McDonnel have brought back is class. Nu Labour were hostile to class politics. Why in the end they alienated a good section of the core support. They thought the working class were finished.
> 
> So what I'm saying is that this is not about funding it's a sea change in the Labour party. Nu Labour Council like Lambeth are going to fight a rearguard battle to oppose the essence of what Corbyn represents. A return to class politics. There are irreconcilable ideological differences between the likes of Bennett and Corbyn.



Bennett is bureau-managerialist to the core.  His thought processes revolve around "managing" politics.  While managerialism has some utility, when applied to specifically-human problems such as housing, and the dynamics of demand, it's a reactive tool, not a proactive one, and becomes a hindrance.  Corbyn at least realises that 3 decades of taking the base of party support for granted has caused a fracture in that support, and that focusing on "marginals" may be a good tactic, but it's a very poor strategy if it progressively - as it has done - erodes your core support elsewhere, and turns other seats into marginals.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 30, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> The Myatts field PFI took years to get off the drawing board. I don't get the impression it was forced on Lambeth Council. I remember chatting to a Labour Cllr years back. He was enthusiastic about PFI deals. Nu Labour did really think they could work. That Councils would be able to oversee these PFI projects. So no I don't think Cllrs just signed the dotted line.



Councillors and council officers, even after the credit crunch and crash in 2007/8, believed that PFI made sense, and it *might* have, *IF* a), assumptions about growth had been correct, and growth had resumed as previously, and b) the govt - whichever govt - hadn't enforced a politics of economic austerity that not only limited, but curtailed growth. As a result of the crash, the costs for MFN rocketed, and what did Lambeth do?  They threw money at the problem, and convinced themselves - against evidence otherwise - that they were getting a good deal.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 30, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> It is and it isn't about funding. Funding will be necessary, but a Corbyn govt *could* push through primary legislation to allow local authorities to borrow either from the money markets, or from the Treasury for specific home-building projects.  This isn't controversial, indeed it's how things were done before Thatcher.
> 
> One of the sadly enduring legacies of new Labour is how taken-for-granted the working class *still* are as a source of Labour votes.  Here in Tulse Hill ward, the local electorate are quite _au fait_ with the Cressingham issue, and have been asking the ward councillors questions.  They're being told "oh, we (meaning the ward councillors) have got that cancelled".  This is a blatant lie, as a Cressingham resident questioned Lambeth's head of regeneration - Rachel Sharpe - about this earlier this month, and was told emphatically that the regeneration of Cressingham is proceeding.
> 
> ...



Rachel Sharpe and Sue Foster. It's why I think on a local level that Corbyn needs to take on a those who have made there lucrative careers in New Labour. Council .Sue Foster made her career under the Olympic site. Under Tessa Jowell. Jo Negrini is another one. Formerly town centre manager for Brixton. Now chief exec in Croydon. These people are are  on big salaries. Over 200 thousand a year. Imo these people should be sacked if Corbyn gets to power. Or before. Hopefully.

I remember Jo Negrini telling me years ago that supporting keeping the Brixton Rec was ridiculous. As that I was one of those people who did things on the "outside". Her regarding herself as a dynamic person who did things for the masses from the inside.

These neo liberal supporters of the New Labour project should lose these secure well paid jobs imo.


These New Labour supporting bereaucrats have way to much influence. More than some Cllrs.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 30, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> These neo liberal supporters of the New Labour project should lose these secure well paid jobs imo.


Slightly off-topic - but methinks media superstars such as the Dimbleby brothers and Andrew Marr who manufacture consent to the Neo-Liberal norms would sing a different tune if they were paid the average wage instead of hundreds of thousands of pounds.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 1, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Rachel Sharpe and Sue Foster. It's why I think on a local level that Corbyn needs to take on a those who have made there lucrative careers in New Labour. Council .Sue Foster made her career under the Olympic site. Under Tessa Jowell. Jo Negrini is another one. Formerly town centre manager for Brixton. Now chief exec in Croydon. These people are are  on big salaries. Over 200 thousand a year. Imo these people should be sacked if Corbyn gets to power. Or before. Hopefully.
> 
> I remember Jo Negrini telling me years ago that supporting keeping the Brixton Rec was ridiculous. As that I was one of those people who did things on the "outside". Her regarding herself as a dynamic person who did things for the masses from the inside.
> 
> ...



These senior council officers don't think of themselves as ideologically-committed.  They view themselves as neutral and pragmatic bureaucrats, who are not swayed by anything.  Sadly, that sort of arrogance leaves the door open for any old cunt to manipulate them, by convincing them that *their* vision for a development is the pragmatic one.  Scum like Foster make their living doing this.  Negrini, IMO, is a different kettle of fish.  She jumps on every bandwagon going that might give her a leg up to her next promotion.  She's done the whole left politics, identity politics, sexual politics thing, as well as office politics, to get where she is.  She's a triumph of networking over talent.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 1, 2017)

CH1 said:


> Slightly off-topic - but methinks media superstars such as the Dimbleby brothers and Andrew Marr who manufacture consent to the Neo-Liberal norms would sing a different tune if they were paid the average wage instead of hundreds of thousands of pounds.



In the case of the Dumbledore bros, perhaps being paid the wage they used to pay cubs on the papers they owned (about 2/3rds of the minimum wage) would be salutary.


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2017)

There's a march on Saturday, 2nd Dec. Please try and come. 







Cressingham Gardens residents march to Lambeth Town Hall to demand a ballot on their future, Sat 2nd Dec


----------



## brixtonblade (Nov 27, 2017)

editor said:


> There's a march on Saturday, 2nd Dec. Please try and come.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Going to my first football match of the season so won't be able to make it unfortunately. Hope there's a good turnout.


----------



## editor (Nov 27, 2017)

brixtonblade said:


> Going to my first football match of the season so won't be able to make it unfortunately. Hope there's a good turnout.


I was going to see Hamlet but this is more important for me, although I'll be miffed off missing the game. Still, I've seen plenty of games already this season!


----------



## editor (Nov 28, 2017)

This is very timely award for a great photo: 







Portrait of Cressingham Gardens resident wins National Open Art Competition


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 1, 2017)

editor said:


> This is very timely award for a great photo:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Such a beautiful picture.  I've already teased Phyllis (the subject) about it.


----------



## editor (Dec 2, 2017)

Good turn out today - great to see so many familiar faces and old friends on the march!





















In photos: Cressingham Gardens housing campaigners march to Lambeth Town Hall


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 2, 2017)

Good to see ViolentPanda and DietCokeGirl as well as editor at demo. Loved the hand made banners.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2017)

editor said:


> Good turn out today - great to see so many familiar faces and old friends on the march!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Two of the women on the march came down from Glasgow to show solidarity.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Good to see ViolentPanda and DietCokeGirl as well as editor at demo. Loved the hand made banners. View attachment 121962 View attachment 121963 View attachment 121964



The editor moves fast for an old geezer, doesn't he? 

Was good to see you both (and many other familiar faces) there.  Pity it was so cold.  A lot of people started drifting off at about 3.30pm because of that.  Can't say I blame them!


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Dec 4, 2017)

Equally good to see familiar faces on Saturday (sorry I didn't chat much Gramsci, was losing feeling in my fingers and toes from the cold!). Be nice to see a few more of you next time


----------



## editor (Dec 12, 2017)

100% facepalm


----------



## Sue (Dec 12, 2017)

editor said:


> 100% facepalm



Sure it's absolutely deliberate. People who've heard of the poposed demolition of Cressingham Gardens but haven't really been following the story will see that picture and conclude that Labour are there to save it. 

People that know the story likely won't vote for them anyway so nothing to lose really. 

Utterly cynical but I've seen them do this kind of thing elsewhere.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2017)

Sue said:


> Sure it's absolutely deliberate. People who've heard of the poposed demolition of Cressingham Gardens but haven't really been following the story will see that picture and conclude that Labour are there to save it.
> 
> People that know the story likely won't vote for them anyway so nothing to lose really.
> 
> Utterly cynical but I've seen them do this kind of thing elsewhere.



Atkins, our white-headed Cllr, is certainly cynical enough.  She was challenged recently about Labour canvassers in the ward telling people they door-stepped that Cressingham isn't being regenerated.  She apparently went a non-fetching shade of Bird's Custard, and muttered something that couldn't quite be heard, but which it was doubtful was an apology.

Frankly, if 95% of Cressingham residents had seen that bunch of twats gurning by the estate sign, they'd have offered them some harsh words.


----------



## editor (Dec 19, 2017)

Great video from Reel News  Video: Cressingham Gardens residents demand a ballot over demolition plans


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2017)

editor said:


> Great video from Reel News  Video: Cressingham Gardens residents demand a ballot over demolition plans



Reel News have done very good by Cressingham.


----------



## editor (Dec 21, 2017)

Our deceitful council in action Lambeth Council refuses to admit how many empty homes are on Cressingham Gardens estate


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2017)

editor said:


> Our deceitful council in action Lambeth Council refuses to admit how many empty homes are on Cressingham Gardens estate



They could, if they were NOT deceitful, simply give you the "total voids" figure they provide to the Cressingham Resident Engagement Panel every month.  Incidentally, they apparently count homes let as "temporary accommodation" as voids, the sick bastards.


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2018)

This is hopeful stuff

Vauxhall Labour Party calls on Lambeth Council to ballot residents ahead of estate regeneration plans


----------



## oryx (Jan 30, 2018)

editor said:


> This is hopeful stuff
> 
> Vauxhall Labour Party calls on Lambeth Council to ballot residents ahead of estate regeneration plans


Interesting that the motion ranks 'regeneration' along with cuts and austerity! 

I hope this goes on to create the same level of ripples it has in Haringey.


----------



## editor (Feb 13, 2018)

'Cooperative' Lambeth council refuse to let residents decide their own future Cressingham Gardens residents demand to be balloted in line with the Mayor’s new proposals


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 15, 2018)

One of the interesting things about this is how the leadership of the Labour party is taking the side of residents against (Nu) Labour Councils.

Evening standard has been running regular articles about how "moderates" in London Labour are starting to be given a hard time. Not before time. 

Take this from yesterday Standard.

PressReader.com - Connecting People Through News

It's good to see a Labour party leadership willing to criticize right wing Labour Councils.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2018)

Thanks, Sadiq Khan, for shafting residents of Cressingham Gardens and 34 other London estates, by denying us a ballot by secretly signing off project funding over the last couple of months, you despicable little prick.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 24, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> Thanks, Sadiq Khan, for shafting residents of Cressingham Gardens and 34 other London estates, by denying us a ballot by secretly signing off project funding over the last couple of months, you despicable little prick.


The veneer of social responsibility has well and truly come off, if it was ever there. What a cunt.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 24, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> Thanks, Sadiq Khan, for shafting residents of Cressingham Gardens and 34 other London estates, by denying us a ballot by secretly signing off project funding over the last couple of months, you despicable little prick.



Really sorry to hear this. 

He postured about ballots but has given in to New Labour councils. Politicking of the worst order.

You can bet that Peck has been in touch with Khan on a personal basis on this.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 25, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> Thanks, Sadiq Khan, for shafting residents of Cressingham Gardens and 34 other London estates, by denying us a ballot by secretly signing off project funding over the last couple of months, you despicable little prick.



Ah mate. Hadn't had time to fully digest Berry's investigative work when I posted in P&P about this yesterday. Yet more of this done deal sham


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 25, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> I visit the estate frequently and have watched the many videos on YouTube. I do this because I follow the proposed redevelopment quite closely because I have some close friends who live on the estate. I fully understand why some of the residents like it so much, I simply don't see it the same way.



What are your 'close friends who live on the estate' making of the situation and future of their homes as things develop?


----------



## SpamMisery (Mar 25, 2018)

Don't know. They've moved since I posted that in 2014.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 25, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> Don't know. They've moved since I posted that in 2014.



I see.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Really sorry to hear this.
> 
> He postured about ballots but has given in to New Labour councils. Politicking of the worst order.
> 
> You can bet that Peck has been in touch with Khan on a personal basis on this.



An FoI has been submitted to examine exactly that. If there's been communication, and it isn't redacted to hell and back, it could prove collusion.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Ah mate. Hadn't had time to fully digest Berry's investigative work when I posted in P&P about this yesterday. Yet more of this done deal sham



What boils my piss is that he's written off dozens of communities, thousands of households, and for what? For ideology's sake, by the look of it - the ideology of the market.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 25, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Ah mate. Hadn't had time to fully digest Berry's investigative work when I posted in P&P about this yesterday. Yet more of this done deal sham



Mayor quietly signs off funding for 34 estates, dodging new ballot rules - Sian Berry AM

Reading between the lines looks like Sadiq decided to drag out process of putting together a policy on estate ballots in order to sign off controversial schemes to keep Labour Councils like Lambeth happy.

Sian is implying that the policy on estate ballots could have been written up and implemented sooner. Mayor has had a year since consultation ended.

Sian comes across as really good Green party GLA member.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 28, 2018)

There's a good documentary on estate regeneration going out right now on Channel 5.
Maybe there is a channel 5+1?
Started with Aylesbury/Heygate, then Glasgow then 10 minutes or so on Cresingham - including Greebo manning the megaphone outside the Town Hall, and shots of Matthew Bennett assuring committee only demolition is good enough.
Social Housing, Social Cleansing - Channel 5


----------



## friendofdorothy (Mar 28, 2018)

CH1 said:


> There's a good documentary on estate regeneration going out right now on Channel 5.
> Maybe there is a channel 5+1?
> Started with Aylesbury/Heygate, then Glasgow then 10 minutes or so on Cresingham - including Greebo manning the megaphone outside the Town Hall, and shots of Matthew Bennett assuring committee only demolition is good enough.
> Social Housing, Social Cleansing - Channel 5


 Good documentary. Greebo was so eloquent. Lambeth really are a bunch of shits.

I hate how this country has become. Where does the govt want everyone to live? Its ridiculous.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 29, 2018)

friendofdorothy said:


> Good documentary. Greebo was so eloquent. Lambeth really are a bunch of shits.
> 
> I hate how this country has become. Where does the govt want everyone to live? Its ridiculous.


I believe Herne Hill Labour Party showed this last week at the Baptist Church in Half Moon Lane.

I am getting so confused with politics these days. We have remainers in the government forcing us to leave Europe, companies using Facebook to alter the referendum result AND causing tribal tensions in Kenya and Nigeria.

Yet the BBC acts like an agent of Brexit change - and Herne Hill Labour Party pretending they are defending Cressingham Gardens.

Is life getting too surreal - or is the Morrisons Green Ginger Wine cutting in?


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 29, 2018)

So much whatabouttery and concern trolling early on in this thread too. Usual suspects.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 29, 2018)

friendofdorothy said:


> Good documentary. Greebo was so eloquent. Lambeth really are a bunch of shits.



Makes me cry every time I see that. So much fierceness, so much life.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 29, 2018)

CH1 said:


> I believe Herne Hill Labour Party showed this last week at the Baptist Church in Half Moon Lane.
> 
> I am getting so confused with politics these days. We have remainers in the government forcing us to leave Europe, companies using Facebook to alter the referendum result AND causing tribal tensions in Kenya and Nigeria.
> 
> ...



Herne Hill Labour Party have sweet fuck all to do with Cressingham Gardens, and have done sweet fuck all to defend the estate. In fact at least one gobshite Herne Hill Labour councillor has shat on us from a great height. Take a bow, James "to the right of new Labour" Chatterton Dickson.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Mar 30, 2018)

That documentary didn't give me much hope. What can be done to save the estate now? are there any more options? 

what can we do?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 7, 2018)

friendofdorothy said:


> That documentary didn't give me much hope. What can be done to save the estate now? are there any more options?
> 
> what can we do?



Watch and wait. The doc was filmed in 2015 and 2016. Things have moved on a bit, and although the regeneration is progressing *on paper*, Lambeth still have to get planning permission (if the decision is at all hooky, we can force a planning enquiry), and then apply for Compulsory Purchase Orders for the home-owners on the estate, and get the Sec of State to sign them off. Aylesbury has shown that he's wary (politically ans morally, amazingly enough) about doing that for regen schemes. There's also the issue of ballots, and whether Khan can be maneuvered into rowing back on having signed off the Lambeth schemes and others. There's still plenty to play for, and Lambeth's "start demolition" timetable of 2019 is plain wishful thinking, and merely intended to put the shits up residents, and get them to move out. 

Also, if you can, vote Green. The Greens are opposed to estate demolition, both morally and practically. You've got some great candidates over your side of the park.

Of course, I'm not saying the Green candidates on the Tulse Hill side of the park aren't brilliant, because they are (although I am somewhat biased)!


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 8, 2018)

Thanks ViolentPanda that makes me feel far more hopeful.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2018)

friendofdorothy said:


> Thanks ViolentPanda that makes me feel far more hopeful.



Lots of good people here and at Central Hill, who are prepared to fight through till the end, and lots of well-wishers out there who've put their hands in their pockets to help build our fighting fund. 
Last year, I knew our campaign was still doing well when I went to Brum for a meeting, and people there from as far away as Glasgow told me how their housing campaigns had drawn on our experience, especially on the ideas of making sure there's a united front between tenants and leaseholders, and finding a housing lawyer to scrutinise whatever the council sends residents.


----------



## editor (Apr 10, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> Lots of good people here and at Central Hill, who are prepared to fight through till the end, and lots of well-wishers out there who've put their hands in their pockets to help build our fighting fund.
> Last year, I knew our campaign was still doing well when I went to Brum for a meeting, and people there from as far away as Glasgow told me how their housing campaigns had drawn on our experience, especially on the ideas of making sure there's a united front between tenants and leaseholders, and finding a housing lawyer to scrutinise whatever the council sends residents.


I'd be happy to put on another fundraiser for you guys, if needed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2018)

editor said:


> I'd be happy to put on another fundraiser for you guys, if needed.



I'll speak to the collective, and once again, thanks for everything you've already done.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 16, 2018)

Two Cressingham residents standing for the Green Party in Tulse Hill ward.


----------



## shakespearegirl (Apr 16, 2018)

Think I’ll be voting Greens for the first time ever then.


----------



## editor (Jul 27, 2018)

Stack 'em high: 

Presentation paper shows that 800 homes for Cressingham Gardens and 1,200 for Central Hill Estate have been considered by Lambeth Council


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2018)

Rally this Saturday
Cressingham Gardens residents to join Saturday’s ‘No Demolition Without Permission’ rally at City Hall, 3rd Nov, noon


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2018)

editor said:


> Rally this Saturday
> Cressingham Gardens residents to join Saturday’s ‘No Demolition Without Permission’ rally at City Hall, 3rd Nov, noon



This went well, despite the Swappies muscling in, and bringing their own PA so that they could filter who spoke. They prevented a member of Class War from speaking, probably because most of the speakers were Corbyn-worshippers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2018)

On Monday evening we found out that our estate-wide ballot to take control of repairs and maintenance on Cressingham has been successful - over 82% of tenants voted in favour (secure tenant votes are the ones that count, where Lambeth are concerned). With luck and a following wind, when we go live next year, we can start having an impact, including using local contractors as opposed to the ones that Lambeth use. This is the pay-off for 3 yrs of hard work, and means we can start to change the current "managed decline" of our homes.

This doesn't change the demolition, but it does mean that in the interim, our homes won't be left to rot. I can't tell you how much I admire the members of the Cressingham Gardens Resident Management Co-operative board (except the Chair). They're my heroines and heroes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 22, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Ah mate. Hadn't had time to fully digest Berry's investigative work when I posted in P&P about this yesterday. Yet more of this done deal sham



As a coda to this, on Tuesday afternoon, after a year of constant badgering from a resident, we got an appt. Not with Khan, but with the "deputy mayor for housing & blah blah blah. We asked questions and presented facts, and found out that in terms of the conditions for funding, there aren't any meaningful ones, except delivery within time-frame. The DM and his two assistants looked nonplussed when we asked what due diligence they'd done on our financially incompetent council. The political minds Sadiq has surrounded himself with, do not impress me.


----------



## editor (Apr 10, 2019)

Damning report on Lambeth's policies  Demolition – is your estate next? Local councillors, housing activists, researchers and journalists discuss Lambeth policy


----------



## BusLanes (Apr 10, 2019)

editor said:


> Damning report on Lambeth's policies  Demolition – is your estate next? Local councillors, housing activists, researchers and journalists discuss Lambeth policy



Wow. Must have been pretty intense, especially the bits about Thackeray and Dickenson


----------



## CH1 (Apr 10, 2019)

BusLanes said:


> Wow. Must have been pretty intense, especially the bits about Thackeray and Dickenson


Unusual when someone has been to a meeting to find their impression of event so roundly condemned.


----------



## BusLanes (Apr 10, 2019)

CH1 said:


> Unusual when someone has been to a meeting to find their impression of event so roundly condemned.



Hah just saw the comments. Well at least civil society is functioning?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 10, 2019)

CH1 said:


> Unusual when someone has been to a meeting to find their impression of event so roundly condemned.



I read some of the comments.

As much as I dislike what this New Labour Council is doing the opposition , as represented at the meeting, is just as dictatorial.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 10, 2019)

BusLanes said:


> Hah just saw the comments. Well at least civil society is functioning?



The comments are appaling.

I'm no friend of what this Council are doing to Council housing, particularly as I'm a Council tenant now, but the way someone who commented has been vilified on that Brixton Buzz piece is inexcusable.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 10, 2019)

BTW I have dealt with Cllr Thackeray and found her helpful.


----------



## BusLanes (Apr 10, 2019)

Oh I didn't realise that was CH (sorry, don't know real names here for most people). Apologies if I seemed dismissive


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 10, 2019)

editor said:


> Damning report on Lambeth's policies  Demolition – is your estate next? Local councillors, housing activists, researchers and journalists discuss Lambeth policy



Read this and the appaling comments. 

I feel stuck in a rock and a hard place. i agree that New Labour Lambeth is not to be trusted with supporting Council housing. I however think the way this meeting went was just a bad as New Labour. Its not exactly trying to find friends and influence people. Like me who is sympathetic.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 10, 2019)

BusLanes said:


> Oh I didn't realise that was CH (sorry, don't know real names here for most people). Apologies if I seemed dismissive



Not necessarily CH.

Its the way the comment was answered that annoyed me.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 10, 2019)

Surely if Cllr Thackray had prepared answers to the accusation she should have been allowed to give them.

I reckon that films like that about inappropriate redevelopment tactics by local councils in conjunction with developers are a positive force in arguing for a community based approach in the interests of tenants. But if a film showing then leads to a public row set up by one of more of the meeting organisers it is upsetting, to say the least to have to witness.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 10, 2019)

editor said:


> Damning report on Lambeth's policies  Demolition – is your estate next? Local councillors, housing activists, researchers and journalists discuss Lambeth policy



Plus the comments at end of the article by the organizers of the meeting , which I think are abusive, don't criticize the Tory Cllr. 

Revealed: Tory runs 'eviction specialist' firm in borough with 1,800 homeless

Cllr Thackeray gets roundly criticised but a Tory who is involved in eviction business gets no criticism. 

In fact he is invited to meeting. I'm not impressed.


----------



## editor (Apr 10, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> Plus the comments at end of the article by the organizers of the meeting , which I think are abusive, don't criticize the Tory Cllr.
> 
> Revealed: Tory runs 'eviction specialist' firm in borough with 1,800 homeless
> 
> ...


I remember that. Why on earth was he invited? And why didn't anyone bring up his filthy business?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 10, 2019)

editor said:


> I remember that. Why on earth was he invited? And why didn't anyone bring up his filthy business?



Particularly as at the meeting Cllr Thackeray was singled out for criticism. Yet Cllr Briggs no.

And Cllr Briggs was on the invited panel. He wasnt just someone who turned up to the meeting.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2019)

CH1 said:


> Unusual when someone has been to a meeting to find their impression of event so roundly condemned.



You mean your impressions? Possibly because you've entirely missed the context, and made assumptions about "ambush" etc?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> The comments are appaling.
> 
> I'm no friend of what this Council are doing to Council housing, particularly as I'm a Council tenant now, but the way someone who commented has been vilified on that Brixton Buzz piece is inexcusable.



You say "vilified", but if he hadn't spun his criticisms in the first place, perhaps the reaction wouldn't have been as vociferous?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> Particularly as at the meeting Cllr Thackeray was singled out for criticism. Yet Cllr Briggs no.
> 
> And Cllr Briggs was on the invited panel. He wasnt just someone who turned up to the meeting.



The theme was what municipal landlords are doing. Cllr Briggs has a record for resisting regen. Cllr Thackray has no such record, and indeed resisted regen being mentioned on her ward's election leaflets last year.


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> The theme was what municipal landlords are doing. Cllr Briggs has a record for resisting regen. Cllr Thackray has no such record, and indeed resisted regen being mentioned on her ward's election leaflets last year.


That's as maybe, but the Tories have a proud and long standing record of completely destroying communities and stamping on their faces forever. Briggs may be the nicest guy around with a wonderful record of resisting regen but he's signed up to - and a fully fledged member of -  a party whose policies are the fucking _worst_ when it comes to housing.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 11, 2019)

Things get complicated when you start trying to decide who's really to blame on various housing issues...is it Labour councils being forced by Conservative funding cuts? It's not quite as simple as that; it seems that Labour councils are rather more actively pushing these schemes than they really have to. Evidently this was a theme at the Cressingham meeting discussed above. Probably most people following this thread already know about the Architects For Social Housing Blog - following their articles helps me try and get a better picture of everything that's going on. In particular they are pretty critical of Labour's housing policy - both the reality of the Corbyn-led 'official' policy and Sadiq Khan's implementation of policy in London.

Homes for Londoners? Sadiq Khan’s Record on Housing - architectsforsocialhousing

Rebuilding Britain: Housing at the Labour Party Conference 2018 - architectsforsocialhousing


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2019)

editor said:


> That's as maybe, but the Tories have a proud and long standing record of completely destroying communities and stamping on their faces forever. Briggs may be the nicest guy around with a wonderful record of resisting regen but he's signed up to - and a fully fledged member of -  a party whose policies are the fucking _worst_ when it comes to housing.



As do Labour, at a local level, as you're very well aware. Labour as a party currently have some good housing policies (although not strong enough to even begin to reverse the damage of the last 40 yrs of neoliberalism in housing, Tory and Labour), but down here on the ground, they're often just as despicable and ravening as the Tories are at a national level.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 11, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> You say "vilified", but if he hadn't spun his criticisms in the first place, perhaps the reaction wouldn't have been as vociferous?



Its the reaction it got.Ive been looking again at the comments at end of the piece.

Im against what the Council are doing to Cressingham.

But if this is how people are treated Im put off.

This isn't how to get support.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> Its the reaction it got.Ive been looking again at the comments at end of the piece.



The comments in reply to David by Hurst and Meath are entirely understandable, and accurate from the writer's perspective. I've been "in the thick" of this situation since the Thackray issue started. I was asked to attend meetings between the RA and the Cllrs as a kind of "neutral observer" at first. When it became clear that Cllrs were attempting to disrupt the RA, I took a side. I will ALWAYS support a community over those in power, especially when those in power hold secret meetings about residents that aren't minuted.



> Im against what the Council are doing to Cressingham.



I know. This has nothing to do with Cressingham, it's "Stand Up to Lambeth", which was founded by two wonderful women from Central Hill estate, and attended by people from across the political spectrum - including our own brixtonblade .



> But if this is how people are treated Im put off.
> 
> This isn't how to get support.



My problem is that when we're nice, and "play the game", we don't get support, and while I wouldn't have gone for Cllr Thackray in quite those terms, what was said was accurate. What she did was - by her own admission - to attempt to set up a TRA that excluded the democratically-elected Chair of the existing TRA, on spurious grounds. Rather than mediating, as requested, Cllrs Thackray and Dickson instead decided to help facilitate a coup. Personally, I can see why the Chair of  H & MRA was angry, and as someone who was there when he was excluded from the council meeting - again, undemocratically - I'm angry too. There's too much of a democratic deficit in Lambeth already, without Cllrs adding to it, and without people saying "no, you can't have a go at these people, or expose their perfidy if they happen to turn up at an event where you were already going to criticise them".


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 11, 2019)

Just to repost the council run 'TRA' meeting - although not the actual TRA of Hurst Street, Meath House, Park View and Herne Hill House as Doreen decided that she was going to boot off members that didn't agree with her; hence lots of the 'you're not invited' and 'this is for local residents' comments she makes; despite me being able to recognise my neighbours amongst others who are attempting to join their own TRA meeting.


----------



## brixtonblade (Apr 11, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> The comments in reply to David by Hurst and Meath are entirely understandable, and accurate from the writer's perspective. I've been "in the thick" of this situation since the Thackray issue started. I was asked to attend meetings between the RA and the Cllrs as a kind of "neutral observer" at first. When it became clear that Cllrs were attempting to disrupt the RA, I took a side. I will ALWAYS support a community over those in power, especially when those in power hold secret meetings about residents that aren't minuted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





ViolentPanda said:


> The comments in reply to David by Hurst and Meath are entirely understandable, and accurate from the writer's perspective. I've been "in the thick" of this situation since the Thackray issue started. I was asked to attend meetings between the RA and the Cllrs as a kind of "neutral observer" at first. When it became clear that Cllrs were attempting to disrupt the RA, I took a side. I will ALWAYS support a community over those in power, especially when those in power hold secret meetings about residents that aren't minuted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I really like what Stand Up To Lambeth stand for and are trying to achieve.  I like that they're open to talking to anyone that offers a genuine help.  And that they dont take shit from people who dont.

There's lots of places where people get quite insular in terms of who they work with so I thought it was refreshing that the event had different groups involved.  I thought it was excellent - I missed the film but the discussion was good and it's important in the context of the discussion about Cllr Thackeray to note that one of the recurring themes of the discussion was the importance of TRAs.

I was a little uncofortable with the argument at the event - tbh that's because I find conflict pretty tricky.  I understand why emotions run high in this instance - CllR Thackeray decided to attend and should have been prepared to defend her actions re the TRA but I thought she gave a pretty weak explanation.  I understnad why the H&MRA reacted.  Again - I don't like conflict and shouting but it's an important issue and it's a very raw and personal one for him.  I think that context is very important and is context that most of the room had.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 11, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> The comments in reply to David by Hurst and Meath are entirely understandable, and accurate from the writer's perspective. I've been "in the thick" of this situation since the Thackray issue started. I was asked to attend meetings between the RA and the Cllrs as a kind of "neutral observer" at first. When it became clear that Cllrs were attempting to disrupt the RA, I took a side. I will ALWAYS support a community over those in power, especially when those in power hold secret meetings about residents that aren't minuted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is interesting but its not the point I was making.

When my friend who atttedend the meeting posted up on the comment section of the Brixton Buzz article he was attacked and vilified.

Accused of being corrupt. The same as Labour Cllrs. 

The thrust of it was that it you aren't for us your against us.

When I come in to defend my mate, who has track record of supporting the community, I get questioned. I say I'm a Council tenant. So get asked what kind.

I haven't got the energy to deal with this.

I'm apparently under suspicion for being the wrong kind of Council tenant.

I've seen this before in community issues. Council are supposed to be the main enemy. But if one doesn't tow the line one is treated by community activists in just the same way as Council treat dissenters.

I'm not happy or gloating about this. Reading the comments at end of the Brixton Buzz piece its classic case of how committed community activists can end up treating dissenting individuals in the same way as Council. 

I can take it from that Tory Briggs. Tories are cunts. So that is whats expected. 

Demolition – is your estate next? Local councillors, housing activists, researchers and journalists discuss Lambeth policy


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 11, 2019)

The Tory accused me of :

"ideologically driven assumptions"


----------



## brixtonblade (Apr 11, 2019)

I've just read the latest comments on that page - tried to comment too but not sure it submitted properly.  A couple of the comments definitely overstep the mark and the "Maudsley" one is bang out of line.  Urban looks positively easy going in comparison.


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2019)

brixtonblade said:


> I've just read the latest comments on that page - tried to comment too but not sure it submitted properly.  A couple of the comments definitely overstep the mark and the "Maudsley" one is bang out of line.  Urban looks positively easy going in comparison.


I just approved the second, longer comment of yours. And you're right.


----------



## brixtonblade (Apr 11, 2019)

editor said:


> I just approved the second, longer comment of yours. And you're right.


ah - didnt realise it was moderated.  ta.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 11, 2019)

brixtonblade said:


> I've just read the latest comments on that page - tried to comment too but not sure it submitted properly.  A couple of the comments definitely overstep the mark and the "Maudsley" one is bang out of line.  Urban looks positively easy going in comparison.



You can comment. But its not part of the boards. So have to register. I use same email and my name here.

Once done the Brixton Buzz appears to recognise one automatically.

When it asks for name please not real name.  Big mistake otherwise. Should really warn one. Criticism of that Brixton Buzz comment section imo that it doesn't warn people. editor


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 11, 2019)

editor said:


> I just approved the second, longer comment of yours. And you're right.



TBF the latest comment does overstep the mark. 

It backs up my post 1372 here. 

Someone who has track record of supporting community gets vilified. 

Id say its abuse. On issue of mental health.

I have had mental health issues myself. 

I'm going to have a go at the the unpleasant bigot who has had a go at my mate. 

This is imo prejudice against people with mental health issues. 

The troll is Biter of Thorpe.


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> Criticism of that Brixton Buzz comment section imo that it doesn't warn people. editor


I don't think I have any control over that, sorry.



brixtonblade said:


> ah - didnt realise it was moderated.  ta.


Yes, a necessary evil given the amount of spam that comes in every fucking day ->



...and ...



> *482,755*
> Blocked malicious login attempts


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 11, 2019)

editor said:


> I don't think I have any control over that, sorry.
> 
> 
> Yes, a necessary evil given the amount of spam that comes in every fucking day ->
> ...



Its ok. I know the amount of work you and More put in. 

Personally Id rather the comments at end of the Brixton Buzz piece be kept in. 

People are really showing themselves up. 

Confirming what I have previously said.


----------



## editor (Apr 11, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> Its ok. I know the amount of work you and More put in.
> 
> Personally Id rather the comments at end of the Brixton Buzz piece be kept in.


I don't think I've ever removed any comments from Buzz so they're not going anywhere!


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 11, 2019)

Thanks. The latest comment on the dissenter is full of prejudice against people with mental health issues.

As someone who has had mental health issues I think this is bigoted and nasty. 

I've just posted up about the recent post.

It just confirms what I posted up previously in post 1372.

Stand Up to Lambeth aren't coming well out of this.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 11, 2019)

So Stand Up to Lambeth = prejudice against people with mental health issues. 

And Lambeth Council are supposed to be the worst. 

I give up.


----------



## brixtonblade (Apr 11, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> *So Stand Up to Lambeth = prejudice against people with mental health issues. *
> 
> And Lambeth Council are supposed to be the worst.
> 
> I give up.


I don't think that's fair...  SUTL have done lots of good work and it's not fair to categorise them like that because of that comment


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 11, 2019)

brixtonblade said:


> I don't think that's fair...  SUTL have done lots of good work and it's not fair to categorise them like that because of that comment



I await them to comment on the article to disown the recent comments in that case.

I've been following the post article discussion. its unpleasant and nasty.

I've been attacked. Its why I've left it alone. I haven't got the energy for it.

I'm sympathetic but losing that in the way they have behaved out the Buzz comment section.

I've been questioned. Like why should I have to justify myself? Stand Up to Lambeth have no idea of what I've been through. And I don't feel like justifiying myself to them.

And I don't think the intervention on mental health was an accident.

Its shit.

I stick up for my friends. And I think my friend has been treated very badly by so called community organisation.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 11, 2019)

This is really making me angry.


----------



## brixtonblade (Apr 11, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I await them to comment on the article to disown the recent comments in that case.
> 
> I've been following the post article discussion. its unpleasant and nasty.
> 
> ...


The point I'm making is that 2 or 3 people in that comment thread don't represent SUTL

The event was very informative and had a really useful discussion

SUTL have organised and supported demos and campaigns on lots of really important local issues

People getting pissy on the internet shouldnt undermine that


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 11, 2019)

brixtonblade said:


> The point I'm making is that 2 or 3 people in that comment thread don't represent SUTL
> 
> The event was very informative and had a really useful discussion
> 
> ...



I beg to differ.

The people posting up made clear they are leading lights in SUTL.

A lot of people like me who can't make meeitings due to work depend on internet. 

That is the norm now. 

When I engage with SUTL on the article I get load of shit. Like my mate, a commited community activist. Apparently the wrong kind.

Once he gets criticised they get there mates in to have a go. 

Using mental health is hate speech. IMO

We live our lives on the internet more now. Its not to be dismissed as just pissy.


----------



## brixtonblade (Apr 11, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I beg to differ.
> 
> The people posting up made clear they are leading lights in SUTL.
> 
> ...


That's all fair

I don't think that thread is a fair representation of what SUTL are about but I understand why you've drawn your conclusion if it's all you've seen of them (or at least people posting in their favour)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 13, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> This is interesting but its not the point I was making.
> 
> When my friend who atttedend the meeting posted up on the comment section of the Brixton Buzz article he was attacked and vilified.
> 
> ...



The thrust of it was that David was the person who launched the first attack, with what was a rather skewed interpretation of what happened at the event. He then doubled down on his fantasy version, and pretty much ignored what happened, and was recorded to have happened. 



> When I come in to defend my mate, who has track record of supporting the community, I get questioned.



Track records are meaningless, except how they mark your friend out to you. Most of our awesomely-awful Labour twats have supported their wards. That doesn't vaccinate them against criticism for acting like an arse.  
I'd also say that you're being a hypocrite. You're supporting one person with a track record for supporting his local community, and vilifying another on the basis of the party he's a member of, not on the basis of his track record of supporting his local community.




> I say I'm a Council tenant. So get asked what kind.
> 
> I haven't got the energy to deal with this.
> 
> ...



David didn't dissent, he chucked out an interpretation of events that didn't accord with reality.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 13, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> The Tory accused me of :
> 
> "ideologically driven assumptions"



You judged his work as a cllr via his membership of a political party, so I can see where he's coming from. As far as he's concerned, you're just another leftie accusing him of being a reincarnation of Thatcher. 
As I've stated elsewhere, while he's a Tory, he's also been helpful to anti-regen campaigners. He's put himself out when he didn't have to, and we - SUtL - wanted him on the panel because his perspective differs from ours, same as the Lib Dem panellist. We wanted a broad spread of opinion, not a "Lambeth Housing Activists" echo-chamber. As it is, we got some good information from Briggs about the HfL "business plan" that I was able to feed in to a meeting with Lambeth council officers the week after.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 13, 2019)

brixtonblade said:


> I've just read the latest comments on that page - tried to comment too but not sure it submitted properly.  A couple of the comments definitely overstep the mark and the "Maudsley" one is bang out of line.  Urban looks positively easy going in comparison.



I haven't got a clue who the person who made the Maudsley comment is, but - as someone who's used their services recently - I just took it as a more sniffy version of "fuck off, you nutter". Unpleasant, but nothing people haven't heard before.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 13, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> So Stand Up to Lambeth = prejudice against people with mental health issues.



Frankly, fuck off with tarring an entire group with the same brush, and your crass assumption that none of us have, or have had mental health issues. I person who isn't connected with SUtL makes a comment you don't agree with, and all of a sudden we're all cunts?

Do one.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 13, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I beg to differ.
> 
> The people posting up made clear they are leading lights in SUTL.
> 
> ...



"Leading lights"? SUtL is a collective. brixtonblade is a member, as am I, as is Hurst&Meath. There are no leaders, because it makes it easier to control power-plays by people like the Momentum and LHA people who attended meetings and tried to make OUR thing - standing up to Lambeth Council - into their thing - supporting Jeremy Corbyn and/or the Labour Party.

Hate speech - hate speech depends, in the legal sense, on me calling you in a derogatory manner a "nutter" because I know you're a "nutter", weaponising my knowledge of your mental health status. Telling someone you *don't know* (as presumably H&M doesn't personally know CH1) to go to the local psych ward and get their meds checked isn't hate speech, it's an insult - hurtful/unkind/plain nasty to be sure, but not "hate speech", even by the perverse standards the police and CPS impose.

I shouldn't have to be saying this stuff to you. You usually think things through.


----------



## editor (Apr 13, 2019)

To be honest, I don't think many people are coming out too well from that Buzz discussion, which is a shame because you're all - more or less - on the same side.


----------



## brixtonblade (Apr 13, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Leading lights"? SUtL is a collective. brixtonblade is a member, as am I, as is Hurst&Meath. There are no leaders, because it makes it easier to control power-plays by people like the Momentum and LHA people who attended meetings and tried to make OUR thing - standing up to Lambeth Council - into their thing - supporting Jeremy Corbyn and/or the Labour Party.
> 
> Hate speech - hate speech depends, in the legal sense, on me calling you in a derogatory manner a "nutter" because I know you're a "nutter", weaponising my knowledge of your mental health status. Telling someone you *don't know* (as presumably H&M doesn't personally know CH1) to go to the local psych ward and get their meds checked isn't hate speech, it's an insult - hurtful/unkind/plain nasty to be sure, but not "hate speech", even by the perverse standards the police and CPS impose.
> 
> I shouldn't have to be saying this stuff to you. You usually think things through.


I think you're being too lenient.  I now there's loads of bullshit all over the internet but that doesnt mean that "go to the maudsley" is any kind of acceptable comment for someone purporting to be fighting on behalf of the Lambeth community.  The think I like about SUTL is that its got a wide range of voices and that it's about making a difference... it is diminshed by "with us or against us" posts like on that thread and even more so when they start making unpleasant coments about mental health.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 13, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Leading lights"? SUtL is a collective. brixtonblade is a member, as am I, as is Hurst&Meath. There are no leaders, because it makes it easier to control power-plays by people like the Momentum and LHA people who attended meetings and tried to make OUR thing - standing up to Lambeth Council - into their thing - supporting Jeremy Corbyn and/or the Labour Party.
> 
> Hate speech - hate speech depends, in the legal sense, on me calling you in a derogatory manner a "nutter" because I know you're a "nutter", weaponising my knowledge of your mental health status. Telling someone you *don't know* (as presumably H&M doesn't personally know CH1) to go to the local psych ward and get their meds checked isn't hate speech, it's an insult - hurtful/unkind/plain nasty to be sure, but not "hate speech", even by the perverse standards the police and CPS impose.
> 
> I shouldn't have to be saying this stuff to you. You usually think things through.



Without going into details the remark about going to Maudsley was weaponised.

It was to obviously done by someone who knows that person's background.

So under your definition it was weaponised.

Totally unacceptable imo way to argue.

And If insults are directed at a person like saying go to Maudsley to have meds checked are actually directed at a person who has had mental health issues the defence that one didn't know doesn't apply.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 13, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> Without going into details the remark about going to Maudsley was weaponised.
> 
> It was to obviously done by someone who knows that person's background.



Except that I'm stating categorically that it wasn't. I'm aware that the person knows *of* David, but only insofar as he's a person known around Brixton as a character and a former Lib Dem councillor.



> So under your definition it was weaponised.
> 
> I was clear reference to the person's circumstances.The circumstances Im aware of.



You've decided that it was a clear reference, so that's that, isn't it? You're not going to listen to anyone contradicting what you've decided to be holy writ.



> Totally unacceptable imo way to argue.



Maybe, but is blindly supporting a mate any better?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 13, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> Except that I'm stating categorically that it wasn't. I'm aware that the person knows *of* David, but only insofar as he's a person known around Brixton as a character and a former Lib Dem councillor.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It was obvious to me by the way the comment was written that it was a clear reference.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 13, 2019)

brixtonblade said:


> I think you're being too lenient.  I now there's loads of bullshit all over the internet but that doesnt mean that "go to the maudsley" is any kind of acceptable comment for someone purporting to be fighting on behalf of the Lambeth community. The think I like about SUTL is that its got a wide range of voices and that it's about making a difference... it is diminshed by "with us or against us" posts like on that thread and even more so when they start making unpleasant coments about mental health.



Someone came along and spouted a version of events that's contrary to what happened (see the allegations about Lisa McKenzie, for example). That was the trigger for all of it - a version that didn't accord with the recorded footage of the event, but did accord to David Warner's preferences and prejudices. I can see why that was taken as provocation, because frankly - as I stated straight away on that Buzz comment section - I thought they must have been at a different event than me. I explained in a reasonable manner what had actually happened, but got no explanation from him as to why his version differed from what I witnessed. In such a case, I can see why someone might take a "with us or against us" position, especially given SUtL's previous experience with members of Momentum, Unite etc trying to rubbish us after we cunted them off.

As for the mental health comment, I've explained my position. I can't speak for whoever this Thorpe character is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 13, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> It was obvious to me by the way the comment was written that it was a clear reference.



Like I said - although I shouldn't have bothered - you've already decided it is. Nothing is going to convince you otherwise, so of course it's "obvious" to you.


----------



## brixtonblade (Apr 13, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> Someone came along and spouted a version of events that's contrary to what happened (see the allegations about Lisa McKenzie, for example). That was the trigger for all of it - a version that didn't accord with the recorded footage of the event, but did accord to David Warner's preferences and prejudices. I can see why that was taken as provocation, because frankly - as I stated straight away on that Buzz comment section - I thought they must have been at a different event than me. I explained in a reasonable manner what had actually happened, but got no explanation from him as to why his version differed from what I witnessed. In such a case, I can see why someone might take a "with us or against us" position, especially given SUtL's previous experience with members of Momentum, Unite etc trying to rubbish us after we cunted them off.
> 
> As for the mental health comment, I've explained my position. I can't speak for whoever this Thorpe character is.


Actually you're right... "with us or against us" isn't the problem here, its the shitty mental health comments which I find offensive with or without any reference to any given individuals MH situation


----------



## brixtonblade (Apr 13, 2019)

brixtonblade said:


> Actually you're right... "with us or against us" isn't the problem here, its the shitty mental health comments which I find offensive with or without any reference to any given individuals MH situation


Dbl post


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 14, 2019)

Ive just seen the abusive comment by Lisa McKenzie, who is a leading academic. Surprised that an academic can refer to someone as a "Bitch".

To make it clear I myself have been up against it with Council officers in Regen and Labour Cllrs. So am well aware what can happen if one goes against them.

I also support Council housing. I think the New Labour project was anti Council housing.

I don't need an academic to tell me this. I don't have a PhD or lecture in prestigious intstitutions. So can't refer to people as "bitches" and tell them to refer to me as "Dr"

I think this New Labour Council so called Regeneration plans for Council housing should be halted.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 15, 2019)

Is there a video yet of what actually happened at this event, so folk can judge for themselves? 

While I don't agree with Gramsci that someone should be shut out of helping a group's aims just because they are a tory - I agree with him about the vindictive and unnecessary comments on that buzz thread. If I was a member of a residents association I wouldn't be happy with someone saying that stuff in my name. I guess the comments there aren't moderated as there's a whole load of what's clearly personal abuse which supposedly isn't even acceptable on U75.


----------



## bunnyr (Apr 15, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Is there a video yet of what actually happened at this event, so folk can judge for themselves?
> 
> While I don't agree with Gramsci that someone should be shut out of helping a group's aims just because they are a tory - I agree with him about the vindictive and unnecessary comments on that buzz thread. If I was a member of a residents association I wouldn't be happy with someone saying that stuff in my name. I guess the comments there aren't moderated as there's a whole load of what's clearly personal abuse which supposedly isn't even acceptable on U75.


----------



## bunnyr (Apr 15, 2019)

Errrrr, just one moment. I note the fake 'Selective Outrage' here, have you all failed to see the endless abuse from David Warner, or does that not matter?

David Warner went on the attack immediately and was very personal indeed, even going as far to accuse me (Daniel  Fitzgerald) of racism just because I challenged a councillor along with many others, who happens to be black about her vile pro demolition position on Central Hill. I note that NONE of you here or on the Buzz thread commented on this outrage except violentpanda.

David Warner who remained silent throughout event then took to his keyboard after the event and went on the attack. 

He also argues that councillors Jim Dickson, Becca Thackray, Jennifer Braithwaite deserve respect ffs! 

This man is danger to council residents and is no more than a Lambeth Council Brown Shirt doing all their filth for them. 

As always those who should be offering support don't. Interesting that after a bit of digging many of the above wingers are home owners and are not council residents like us on the receiving end of years of Lambeth council, Lambeth councilors abuse who bully and gaslight. 

Even the wonderful Buzz in the past year has seemingly lost its sting and its free thinking non partisan position, going soft on Corbyn and especially the Greens. 

The point is this,  if you want to get personal & worse to openly lie and smear, then you are in No Position to play Cry Bully when some shit is thrown back at you. 

The video of the entire event filmed by three of us no less, is vast. I'm chasing up it will be posted in its entirety. Watch this space.


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2019)

bunnyr said:


> Even the wonderful Buzz in the past year has seemingly lost its sting and its free thinking non partisan position, going soft on Corbyn and especially the Greens.


I/we haven't got the resources to send people to cover many meetings so the account was sent in and reproduced in good faith, and to at least keep the topic in the news. You - like anyone else - are of course welcome to send in your own articles.

I can't say I've been happy with the tone of the comments in the Buzz piece, but I don't think it's my place to start censoring people or to take sides.

 I'm not sure where you're getting the 'going soft' stuff. I don't think  we've published a single article about Corbyn and the last time we posted anything about the Green Party was in December last year - and I'm quite happy to stand by the content in that piece
Green Party slams Lambeth Council transport plan for lack of ambition

Oh and I was sent the video but it was of such poor quality, I decided not to include it (although I'm happy to add a link).


----------



## bunnyr (Apr 15, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> So Stand Up to Lambeth = prejudice against people with mental health issues.
> 
> And Lambeth Council are supposed to be the worst.
> 
> I give up.


----------



## bunnyr (Apr 15, 2019)

Oh grow up & change the record, you're not the only one with mental health issues all those battling with Lambeth & our corrupt politicians are going through hell, myself included, stress levels are incredibly high. Though I have no desire to hang my dirty laundry out in public,  I like to keep some privacy.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 15, 2019)

bunnyr said:


> Errrrr, just one moment. I note the fake 'Selective Outrage' here, have you all failed to see the endless abuse from David Warner, or does that not matter?
> 
> David Warner went on the attack immediately and was very personal indeed, even going as far to accuse me (Daniel  Fitzgerald) of racism just because I challenged a councillor along with many others, who happens to be black about her vile pro demolition position on Central Hill. I note that NONE of you here or on the Buzz thread commented on this outrage except violentpanda.
> 
> ...


If I was a member of a residents' association, I wouldn't want this kind of thing written in my name. Regardless of what the person who it was aimed at might have said or done. And it would likely make me steer well clear of ever engaging with you whether or not I supported your cause. Many people reading that comments section will simply be put off getting involved with supporting Cressingham gardens, people who might have something useful to offer.


----------



## bunnyr (Apr 15, 2019)

teuchter said:


> If I was a member of a residents' association, I wouldn't want this kind of thing written in my name. Regardless of what the person who it was aimed at might have said or done. And it would likely make me steer well clear of ever engaging with you whether or not I supported your cause. Many people reading that comments section will simply be put off getting involved with supporting Cressingham gardens, people who might have something useful to offer.
> 
> View attachment 167777


----------



## bunnyr (Apr 15, 2019)

Like I said,  selective outrage, David Warner was a Cllr after all who likes to attack council residents. 

Please leave your responsibility politics at home.


----------



## bunnyr (Apr 15, 2019)

editor said:


> I/we haven't got the resources to send people to cover many meetings so the account was sent in and reproduced in good faith, and to at least keep the topic in the news. You - like anyone else - are of course welcome to send in your own articles.
> 
> I can't say I've been happy with the tone of the comments in the Buzz piece, but I don't think it's my place to start censoring people or to take sides.
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2019)

bunnyr said:


> -empty post-


Hi. You need to type a response rather than just quoting another post. You add your comments after the [ /QUOTE ] bit.


----------



## bunnyr (Apr 15, 2019)

Hi.....which video? The short video of Cllr Thackray attempt to sabotage our TRA is on YouTube in HQ,  just Google her name &/or 'in bed with the opposition'

If you mean the entire event then I'm chasing all three people who filmed it,  so far as its almost 2 1/2 hours long they are having some difficulty downloading. 

Yes I appreciate how bogged down you must be. On a personal level I'm bored with nit picking and criticism by many on this thread. 

As far as Cllrs are concerned we're fucked,  Rachel Heywood got booted out, all 58 Labour Cllrs are to the right of most Tories, the Greens interestingly bollocked Thackray after our event especially about her closeness to Dickson. But of course put on a united front in public as Cllr Elliott did at our event. 

As for working with Tim Briggs, all the key Housing Activists friends from Cressingham and Central Hill, no fools as you know, like him and so do I. Our relationship with him is strictly around Regen and he has been absolutely great. I was suprised too when I first met him 3 years ago.  

But this is surely more of a reflection on the dire state of politics in Lambeth that a lone Tory is to the left socially of our entire 58 strong Lambeth Labour cabinet & MPs?

I'm chasing video evidence and happy to send directly to you. It should be HQ too.


----------



## editor (Apr 15, 2019)

Rachel Heywood is very much missed. She stood up for the residents and got crushed by Labour. Shame on them.


----------



## bunnyr (Apr 15, 2019)

editor said:


> Rachel Heywood is very much missed. She stood up for the residents and got crushed by Labour. Shame on them.



Yep...Rachel is very missed.


----------



## bunnyr (Apr 15, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I beg to differ.
> 
> The people posting up made clear they are leading lights in SUTL.
> 
> ...


----------



## bunnyr (Apr 15, 2019)

Nonsense, this not about you or your awful friend, it's about both of your actions. 

Yes defend your friends by all means but NOT WHEN THEY MANIPULATE & LIE.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 15, 2019)

bunnyr said:


> Nonsense, this not about you or your awful friend, it's about both of your actions.
> 
> Yes defend your friends by all means but NOT WHEN THEY MANIPULATE & LIE.



You aren't doing yourself any favours here.

I'm one who has followed the Cressingham Gardens issue. Including turning up to the demo a while back and buying the T shirt.

I'm against the Council plans for Cressingham Gardens. I have , as I have posted before , been up against it with Council officers. I also knew Rachel well and campaigned to get her re elected as an Independent. I could go on.

The way you've been going on here and on the comments section of the Brixton Buzz piece isnt helping your cause.

I still oppose the Council plans for Cressingham, despite what you say about me personally, but I have reservations about you. The way you are going on is potentially alienating people who are sympathetic.


----------



## bunnyr (Apr 16, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> You aren't doing yourself any favours here.
> 
> I'm one who has followed the Cressingham Gardens issue. Including turning up to the demo a while back and buying the T shirt.
> 
> ...


----------



## bunnyr (Apr 16, 2019)

Your irrelevant, frankly our cause doesn't need blinkered self pitting, overly sensitive, swollen egos such as yours especially when you defend the indefensible. What use could you possibly be? You're a direct threat to our wellbeing.

Who gives a fuck that you think Thackray is nice when video evidence proves she is equal to the worst Progress Labour parasites. She is a malevolent monster and you should be challenging her too not defending her ffs.

Whilst Tories in government are a disaster it's LABOUR who run Lambeth and 2/3 of London boroughs,  22 London boroughs in total out of 33 are under Labour control. It is LABOUR who are Socially Cleaning the poor out of London way more than Tories. As on our posters 195 council estates either demolished or about to be demolished under Labour vrs  37 under Tories and 5 under Lib Dem. Yet you winge on about Cllr Briggs being invited defend Cllr Thackray & ignore the 58 Progress Labour Lambeth pricks and cunts (Cllrs) entirely. What world are you living in, it's certainly not the same one that I inhabit!!!

Your Selective Outrage regarding 'Dodgy Dave' Warner, a man with no balls who only opens his big gob (from the safety of his keyboard & a nice house he owns) to lie & slander those at the mercy of Lambeth council as their landlord, renders you no better than him.

Lastly, and I shouldn't have to spell this out, but it's obvious I need to, every person I know fighting Regen in Lambeth including myself, battle at various  times with high stress, deep depression, exhaustion and despair. I count myself luckier than many because as far as I know my estate is not yet on the Regen list, but who knows that could change at any time. However most of us prefer to keep our personal wows private and not flaunt them in public, it's very undignified.

Frankly at this rate I'll be checking myself into the bleeding Maudsley for a long stay & if I do I'll be dragging your mate along with me.


----------



## brixtonblade (Apr 16, 2019)

bunnyr said:


> Your irrelevant, frankly our cause doesn't need blinkered self pitting, overly sensitive, swollen egos such as yours especially when you defend the indefensible. What use could you possibly be? You're a direct threat to our wellbeing.
> 
> Who gives a fuck that you think Thackray is nice when video evidence proves she is equal to the worst Progress Labour parasites. She is a malevolent monster and you should be challenging her too not defending her ffs.
> 
> ...


Daniel, I think you're going after the wrong guys here.  Or at least you're going too hard + too soon on folks that I think are sympathetic to what you're trying to achieve and who would be supporters.

(And I'm pretty sure you'll think I'm wrong...  I don't want an argument, I just think really strongly that we need to build a broad base of support to fight against the council.  And FWIW - and as I think you know - I totally object to Cllr Thackray re the TRA and her excuses about it)


----------



## bunnyr (Apr 16, 2019)

brixtonblade said:


> Daniel, I think you're going after the wrong guys here.  Or at least you're going too hard + too soon on folks that I think are sympathetic to what you're trying to achieve and who would be supporters.
> 
> (And I'm pretty sure you'll think I'm wrong...  I don't want an argument, I just think really strongly that we need to build a broad base of support to fight against the council.  And FWIW - and as I think you know - I totally object to Cllr Thackray re the TRA and her excuses about it)


----------



## bunnyr (Apr 16, 2019)

I appreciate your latter comments however Gransci & partner in crime Dodgy Dave Warner are traitors and no more than Lambeth Council Brown Shirts doing their dirty work for them. They deserve bollocking.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 17, 2019)

bunnyr said:


> I appreciate your latter comments however Gransci & partner in crime Dodgy Dave Warner are traitors and no more than Lambeth Council Brown Shirts doing their dirty work for them. They deserve bollocking.



To be labelled a fascist is beyond what I regard as legitimate argument.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 17, 2019)

bunnyr said:


> I appreciate your latter comments however Gransci & partner in crime Dodgy Dave Warner are traitors and no more than Lambeth Council Brown Shirts doing their dirty work for them. They deserve bollocking.



I have said that I don't support Lambeth Council on its plans to "regenerate" its Council estates. 

Your just being grossly abusive.


----------



## editor (Apr 17, 2019)

This unpleasant, needlessly personal and bitter spat almost makes me want to give up on supporting the campaign.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 17, 2019)

bunnyr said:


> Your irrelevant, frankly our cause doesn't need blinkered self pitting, overly sensitive, swollen egos such as yours especially when you defend the indefensible. What use could you possibly be? You're a direct threat to our wellbeing.
> 
> Who gives a fuck that you think Thackray is nice when video evidence proves she is equal to the worst Progress Labour parasites. She is a malevolent monster and you should be challenging her too not defending her ffs.
> 
> ...



I don't follow your argument.

I have never said I think Thackery is nice.

You also say I ignore the Progress Cllrs.

I don't understand this. I've already said I think New Labour were not sympathetic to Council Housing.

I also actively supported ex Cllr Rachel when she tried to get re elected. Going out leafleting for her. Because I felt the Progress led Labour Group was pushing out a hard-working recent Labour Cllr who stood up for residents. So how you can say I ignore the 58 Progress Cllrs is beyond me.


----------



## editor (Apr 17, 2019)

bunnyr said:


> I appreciate your latter comments however Gransci & partner in crime Dodgy Dave Warner are traitors and no more than Lambeth Council Brown Shirts doing their dirty work for them. They deserve bollocking.


Brown shirts? As in fascists? You are REALLY out of line here. If you've anything to do with the campaign to save council housing I hope you get nowhere near a journalist. This is a terrible, totally unaccceptable libel 



> The SA — Sturmabteilung, meaning ‘assault division’ — also known as the Brownshirts or Storm Troopers, was a violent paramilitary group attached to the Nazi Party in pre-World War Two Germany.


----------



## bunnyr (Apr 17, 2019)

editor said:


> Brown shirts? As in fascists? You are REALLY out of line here. If you've anything to do with the campaign to save council housing I hope you get nowhere near a journalist. This is a terrible, totally unaccceptable libel


----------



## bunnyr (Apr 17, 2019)

Save your outrage Mike. I stand by my words.


----------



## tim (Jul 13, 2019)

I've followed this thread in solidarity more than in hope over the past years but this, regardless of the source seems positive





Kate Hoey
@KateHoeyMP
·
10m

Just heard this great news. Well done all who have campaigned
Quote Tweet






Tom Keene

anthillsocial
· Jul 11
BIG NEWS. The first stage of Cressingham's Right to Transfer application has been approved by the secretary of state!! Next steps involve a Ballot to confirm resident approval, development of a business plan, and more! The gov decision is here: (link: Right to transfer determination: Cressingham Gardens Estate) gov.uk/government/pub…
Show this thread

...

Is this as good as it seems?


----------



## editor (Jul 14, 2019)

More here 
Cressingham Gardens residents win right to transfer


----------



## technical (Jul 18, 2019)

In theory this is a very good outcome for the residents - the big issue now is raising the finance (or finding suitable partners) to be able to buy the estate from the Council.


----------



## editor (Jul 22, 2019)

This weekend Lambeth Estate Regeneration – Mini-Conference at Cressingham Gardens, Sat 27th July


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 22, 2020)

technical said:


> In theory this is a very good outcome for the residents - the big issue now is raising the finance (or finding suitable partners) to be able to buy the estate from the Council.



The big issue is the feasibility study. 

Because we had talks with various financial institutions when we proposed our People's Plan for the estate, we know there's money out there at affordable interest, and that what we'd need to borrow is affordable given the estate's rental and service charge income.


----------



## organicpanda (Apr 2, 2020)

great pics on the walls overlooking the park, is there a story behind them?


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2020)

organicpanda said:


> great pics on the walls overlooking the park, is there a story behind them?








Here you go: 








						Portrait of Cressingham Gardens resident wins National Open Art Competition
					

A stunning portrait of a resident living in the threatened Cressingham Gardens estate in south London has won first prize in the Photography section of this year’s National Open Art Competiti…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## organicpanda (Apr 2, 2020)

editor said:


> Here you go:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


oh yeah, I did know about this but strangely didn't make the connection when seeing it (in other times I'd have a word with myself about getting out more)


----------



## editor (Apr 8, 2020)

Lambeth update Green councillors call for halt to Lambeth council demolition decision made using ‘coronavirus crisis as smokescreen’


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2020)

A very troubling piece  -  Lambeth Council, Homes for Lambeth and the murky world of lobbyists


----------



## oryx (Apr 14, 2020)

editor said:


> A very troubling piece  -  Lambeth Council, Homes for Lambeth and the murky world of lobbyists


I cannot believe they are doing a consultation a) while the coronavirus crisis is going on and b) when it's blatantly obvious that an online consultation is exclusionary.

It goes against all good practice in this area of work.

Well, it's Lambeth, so maybe I can.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 14, 2020)

Read the article.

On Planning Committee. The Cllrs on planning committee are supposed to be independent. Its not supposed to under influence of the Council leader.


----------



## editor (Apr 28, 2020)

Lambeth update:



> The council announced at the start of the outbreak of Covid 19 that it would suspend evictions.
> 
> One of the ironies of this decision is that it seems that the council were reliant on evicting people in order to free up accommodation for other homeless households.
> 
> The logic of evicting a homeless household, who the council are then obliged to house somewhere else is completely baffling.











						Empty properties on Lambeth regeneration estates to be used to house homeless households
					

As a result of the Covid 19 pandemic, Lambeth council is now in Gold command mode. This means the normal democratic process can be by-passed and that the chief executive, Andrew Travers is able to …



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## editor (May 19, 2020)

Update - Lambeth move closer to demolishing Central Hill Estate despite continuing opposition from residents


----------



## friendofdorothy (Aug 10, 2020)

I've written to my local councillors telling them that  'I will NEVER vote for any councillor who supports this awful destruction, demolition or decanting residents out of their homes. '

I've got this from Mr Dickson - I've not yet replied and could do with some urb help in knowing what to write to him 





> Thanks for your message. The council will be continuing with plans to provide new homes and increase the size of the housing stock on Cressingham Gardens. The only alternative would be the rejected option (still proposed by a diminishing minority) that refurbishment financed by diverting money from repairs programmed on other estates in the borough should take place. At a time when the LHS budget is at least £85m short this is not something that the council could ever commit to. The council is pressing ahead with:
> 
> _A rebuilt estate where all existing council tenants get a new home that meets their needs, at council rent levels, with a lifetime tenancy – meaning no loss of social housing.      _
> _A rebuilt estate where all existing homeowners have a range of options for a new affordable home on the estate, keeping the community together.      _
> ...



As expected  Becca Thackray was very supportive 





> I entirely agree.   You summarise it perfectly. E   cologically, architecturally or economically, it does not stand up to scrutiny.
> 
> Neglected basic maintenance like clearing leaves from gutters let to a need for improvements. Residents wanted to see repairs but not their homes pulled down. There are properties which have now been empty for years on the estate, whilst the Council has a policy to provide more homes.
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Sep 16, 2020)

Lambeth's unwanted plans are going awry Lambeth left looking for new Cressingham ‘regeneration’ funding after Sadiq Khan withdraws money with Council refusing to ballot residents


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 16, 2020)

editor said:


> Lambeth's unwanted plans are going awry Lambeth left looking for new Cressingham ‘regeneration’ funding after Sadiq Khan withdraws money with Council refusing to ballot residents



This surprised me. I thought that Khan had agreed to let the Council go ahead with its plans. 

So wonder where that leaves the other estates that the Council has earmarked for "redevelopment"?


----------



## editor (Sep 16, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> This surprised me. I thought that Khan had agreed to let the Council go ahead with its plans.
> 
> So wonder where that leaves the other estates that the Council has earmarked for "redevelopment"?


Read Buzz tomorrow!


----------



## editor (Sep 17, 2020)

It's really not working out so well for Lambeth and their estate demolition plans 









						Lambeth estate ‘regeneration’ in doubt after Sadiq Khan pulls funding on four projects because Council refuses to ballot tenants
					

Lambeth Council’s estate ‘regeneration’ has been delivered another blow with Sadiq Khan stopping funding on all but two of the projects.



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## editor (Oct 1, 2020)

More Lambeth residents trying to save their homes from demolition Petition launched to save Truslove House from Lambeth’s demolition plans


----------



## editor (Oct 7, 2020)

Lambeth just loves to demolish estates against the residents wishes. 









						Homes for Lambeth looking at funding estate ‘regeneration’ using money from the sale of council houses
					

Lambeth Council is looking at using money from the private sale of council houses to… build new council houses.



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## StoneRoad (Oct 7, 2020)

Coverage (of a sort) in Current Archaeology. Issue 368 - November 2020 - which landed on our doormat yesterday.

Mentioned in "Sherds" as part of "It ain't Easy" on p65 - reviewing a free, downloadable pdf from UCL Press called Community-Led Regeneration : a tool-kit for residents and planners , compliled by Pablo Sendra and Daniel Fitzpatrick (UCL's Bartlett School of Planning). 
One of the seven case-studies covers Cressingham Gardens, with complimentary remarks about the Resident's Campaign and Alternative Plans.


----------



## editor (Oct 13, 2020)

Update
Gipsy Hill Greens oppose plans to demolish Truslove House on the Central Hill Estate


----------



## editor (Oct 14, 2020)

Approved: First Phase of Central Hill Estate rebuilding programme approved by Lambeth Council


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 19, 2020)

Just saw We the people documentary again - there was free screening online via the Museum of London tonight. The section that was shot in Cressingham with residents talking about fighting the council is really good. Documentary Film | We The People Brixton | London 

Theres another online showing coming up soon as part of a womens film festival, costs £3  We The People


----------



## editor (Dec 8, 2020)

Lambeth protest camp 




















						Campaigners set up camp to stop Lambeth demolishing Truslove House on the Central Hill Estate –  photos
					

On 5th December 2020, campaigners established a camp at 2 Roman Rise, SE19 1JG, to halt the felling of trees and demolition of Truslove House which is part of the Central Hill Estate. The aim is al…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2020)

Update Greens back resident campaign to stop demolition on Lambeth’s Central Hill Estate


----------



## editor (Dec 11, 2020)

Stay classy, Lambeth 









						Cressingham demolition plan relaunched for Christmas as residents struggle to get their voices heard
					

Campaigners are warning that plans to demolish 12 homes on Cressingham Gardens Estate is just the “thin end of the wedge” for the destruction of all 300 homes. Plans to redevelop Roper’s Walk, by L…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## editor (Dec 12, 2020)

Fucking Lambeth Lambeth crush the festive spirit for residents of Cressingham Gardens with untimely Christmas consultations


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 12, 2020)

editor said:


> Fucking Lambeth Lambeth crush the festive spirit for residents of Cressingham Gardens with untimely Christmas consultations



I see Vivienne from the Brixton Society has put comments at the end of the article saying how to object to the planning application.

On the extension of the Brockwell Park Conservation Area more info and how to support Cressingham Gardens being included is here:









						Support the inclusion of Cressingham Gardens into the Brockwell Park Conservation Area
					

We are urging Lambeth Council to include the entire estate in the Brockwell Park Conservation Area (BPCA) as part of a review open to public consultation. Organisations and Lambeth residents, inclu…




					savecressingham.wordpress.com


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2020)

friendofdorothy said:


> I've written to my local councillors telling them that  'I will NEVER vote for any councillor who supports this awful destruction, demolition or decanting residents out of their homes. '
> 
> I've got this from Mr Dickson - I've not yet replied and could do with some urb help in knowing what to write to him



Sorry for the VERY late reply.

Cllr Dickson was, as usual, not being entirely honest.

1) What Dickson terms a "diminishing minority", is in fact a majority. We polled 76% of residents, 84% of whom voted for refurb. Even given diminishing numbers of secure tenants, the majority still holds.
2) We presented Lambeth with several options to pay for refurb. They only refer to using HRA receipts, because it's the only one that supports their own plans.
3) LHS (Lambeth Housing Standard) is £85 million down because the council squandered government "Decent Housing Standard" grant money, with very few checks & balances on pricing, poor quality control of works, & accounting that fails to show expenditure per estate, let alone per property.
4) There aren't 28,000 households on the housing waiting list that are in "priority need" (the local authority criteria for qualifying for housing). 75% of that number, are people who want to transfer/upsize/downsize.
5) "Family-sized homes". There are no 4-bed properties proposed for Cressingham. At present there are more than 40.
6) The "Lifetime" tenancy is an assured tenancy, not the gold-standard Secure Tenancy council tenants are used to.

Dickson's day job in Public Relations seem to lead him to believe that people will believe any old crap he trots out.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2020)

editor said:


> Lambeth's unwanted plans are going awry Lambeth left looking for new Cressingham ‘regeneration’ funding after Sadiq Khan withdraws money with Council refusing to ballot residents



Half a dozen Cressingham residents went to see "Deputy Mayor for Housing" James Murray last year, regarding the failure to ballot, & Lambeth's non-fulfillment of development milestones set when the money was given.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2020)

editor said:


> Stay classy, Lambeth
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hard to stay classy, when they've never been classy! Then again, the council's "lead for planning", one Cllr Matthew Bennett, is so oleaginous, that classiness is impossible.


----------



## editor (Dec 19, 2020)

Lambeth getting all moist for another unwanted demolition   









						Fighting Ropers Walk/Trinity Rise development proposals in Lambeth- you have until Sunday to object
					

With Lambeth deciding to push through the planning application for the demolition of Ropers Walk right before Christmas, there are real concerns that residents have not had sufficient time to be pr…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2020)

editor said:


> Lambeth getting all moist for another unwanted demolition
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks, mate!
It's so fucking irritating that I'm a stickler for going through the documentation. It means I keep getting wound up by the absolute bollocks that is, for example, their "ecological walkover report"; their "transport assessment"; their various environmental assessments, etc. 
Some of these assessments contain completely incongruous references, which give the appearance of having been cut & pasted from another planning document without care for editing!

The "cabinet lead for planning" should get off of his arse, & make sure council officers understand that allowing applications that are so shoddily assembled, is not on. Of course, as this is a Homes for Lambeth development (or "Bennett's Folly" as HfL keeps getting called on Twitter), nothing will be done.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 20, 2020)

editor said:


> Lambeth getting all moist for another unwanted demolition
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Objection put in.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 27, 2020)

*Con*sultation extended to 5th January.


----------



## VivLewis (Jan 4, 2021)

Noticed that the Lambeth planning website no longer posts objections, last objections posted on the site were in mid December.  The Brixton Society sent in an objection on 21st December - still not on Lambeth's planning website - but you can read it on our website.  http://www.brixtonsociety.org.uk/te.../2021/01/Ropers-Walk-SW2-2QN-20-02406-RG3.pdf


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2021)

VivLewis said:


> Noticed that the Lambeth planning website no longer posts objections, last objections posted on the site were in mid December.  The Brixton Society sent in an objection on 21st December - still not on Lambeth's planning website - but you can read it on our website.  http://www.brixtonsociety.org.uk/te.../2021/01/Ropers-Walk-SW2-2QN-20-02406-RG3.pdf



Yeah, I noticed the lack when posting objections for residents without internet. When I submitted it did confirm receipt, but the number of objections hasn't changed since 21st Dec.


----------



## VivLewis (Jan 5, 2021)

Someone in Lambeth's planning team has been busy as there are now 324 comments on the site - 321 objections, two in support (guessing one of those is from Matthew Bennett's mum) and one neutral.


----------



## editor (Jan 19, 2021)

Cressingham Gardens update Cressingham Gardens: SAVE Britain’s Heritage and 20th Century Society add their support


----------



## editor (Jan 22, 2021)

More objections to Lambeth's sneaky plans 









						Herne Hill Society joins objectors to Lambeth’s proposal to exclude Cressingham Gardens from Brockwell Park Conservation Area
					

Earlier this week, we reported that SAVE Britain’s Heritage, the Twentieth Century Society and the Save Cressingham Gardens Campaign had teamed up to ask Lambeth Council to include the award-winnin…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## wtfftw (Jan 28, 2021)

Ianvisits article 








						The campaign to save a modernist housing block in South London - ianVisits
					

A pioneering housing estate in Lambeth is under threat of demolition by the local council.Read more ›



					www.ianvisits.co.uk


----------



## editor (Jan 29, 2021)

This is what a co-operative council looks like then


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2021)

Latest Lambeth news









						Opinion piece: South London Estate trashed by Homes For Lambeth
					

Vulnerable residents on the South Lambeth Estate are experiencing what they’ve described as the “chaos, stress and misery” that comes with being on the ‘Homes for Lambeth’ hit lis…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com
				












						Lambeth Planning Committee set to vote on first phase of Cressingham Gardens regeneration with premature scheme ahead of masterplan
					

Lambeth’s Planning Committee will decide next week on the first phase of the ‘regeneration’ of Cressingham Gardens in Tulse Hill.



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## VivLewis (Feb 3, 2021)

Since when did it become the job of Lambeth planning officers to provide information that the developers army of paid consultants failed to provide?  A good example of this is in the section of the officer's report which looks at the issue of views from the park and whether this would cause damage to the park's setting.  The heritage and conservation report submitted by Homes for Lambeth hardly mentions this, and the only images supplied are about the impact on terraced housing in Trinity Rise (part of the park conservation area).  Since then its clear that Lambeth planners received a large number of objections, from local amenity groups (the Friends of Brockwell Park, the Brixton Society, the Herne Hill Society) and from national bodies (the Twentieth Century Society, Save) arguing that the development would impact on views from Brockwell Park towards its larger unspoilt and sylvan north west boundary.  It might have been a reasonable expectation that Lambeth planning officers would respond to this by deciding that the application fails to comply with Lambeth's local plan in relation to policies on heritage assets.  No surprise to anyone reading this blog that they didn't.  But not only that - the officers report to next week's meeting includes some "visualisations" which they claim back up the claim that the impact on the park would be minimal.  If you're a developer, why bother to pay good money to planning consultants if Lambeth officers are willing to make up their deficiencies and work for free?


----------



## VivLewis (Feb 8, 2021)

Just heard that the MP for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro Addy) which includes Cressingham, has applied to Lambeth's committee services team to speak agains the Ropers Walk application at the planning committee meeting on 9 Feb. Not sure how much difference this will make - Helen Hayes spoke out against the Hondo tower and PAC members voted it through anyway - but at least it's a change to see our local MP supporting local communities.


----------



## editor (Feb 9, 2021)

VivLewis said:


> Just heard that the MP for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro Addy) which includes Cressingham, has applied to Lambeth's committee services team to speak agains the Ropers Walk application at the planning committee meeting on 9 Feb. Not sure how much difference this will make - Helen Hayes spoke out against the Hondo tower and PAC members voted it through anyway - but at least it's a change to see our local MP supporting local communities.


Bell Ribeiro Addy has been excellent on many issues.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 9, 2021)

VivLewis said:


> Since when did it become the job of Lambeth planning officers to provide information that the developers army of paid consultants failed to provide?  A good example of this is in the section of the officer's report which looks at the issue of views from the park and whether this would cause damage to the park's setting.  The heritage and conservation report submitted by Homes for Lambeth hardly mentions this, and the only images supplied are about the impact on terraced housing in Trinity Rise (part of the park conservation area).  Since then its clear that Lambeth planners received a large number of objections, from local amenity groups (the Friends of Brockwell Park, the Brixton Society, the Herne Hill Society) and from national bodies (the Twentieth Century Society, Save) arguing that the development would impact on views from Brockwell Park towards its larger unspoilt and sylvan north west boundary.  It might have been a reasonable expectation that Lambeth planning officers would respond to this by deciding that the application fails to comply with Lambeth's local plan in relation to policies on heritage assets.  No surprise to anyone reading this blog that they didn't.  But not only that - the officers report to next week's meeting includes some "visualisations" which they claim back up the claim that the impact on the park would be minimal.  If you're a developer, why bother to pay good money to planning consultants if Lambeth officers are willing to make up their deficiencies and work for free?




This appears to be the norm for planning officers now. Happened with Hondo.

After Hondo I wrote to my ward Cllrs to say I was concerned at how the planning department operate.

Instead of being neutral at planning committee meetings they take the side of the developer. I saw them do this with Hondo and Hero of Switzerland.

Imo planning officers job should be to present to committee the pros and cons of an application and aid Cllr in making a decision. Not presenting a one sided case which takes a determined Cllr like Ben Kind to oppose.

None of my Ward Cllrs took this seriously.

I think they are all scared of criticising how the system the run works.

Which is a it rubbish imo..


----------



## editor (Feb 9, 2021)

Disgusting


----------



## VivLewis (Feb 10, 2021)

Agree it was a depressing meeting, with paid Lambeth officers acting as PR consultants for the developer and members of the committee failing to challenge officers when they provided obviously misleading information.  Most blatant example of this was the statement by Lambeth's conservation officer that you wouldn't notice the new building from the park boundary as it would only be two metres higher than the existing one - as the rear section of the new block will be four storeys high and replaces one two storeys high must have been obvious that this couldn't be true (I went back and checked the elevation plans after the meeting and the rear of the block will actually be six metres higher than what's there now).

Only small ray of hope I thought was that three of the councillors wanted it to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting that they were "disappointed" that an application for a small section of the estate was being submitted in behalf of the Masterplan.  The chair seemed to agree with them and said something along the lines that she was concerned they were only seeing "a small part of the jigsaw puzzle".  If all this IS reflected in the official minutes of the meeting, then it might make it more difficult for Homes for Lambeth to get away with more applications like this one before they publish and consult on the Masterplan.


----------



## editor (Feb 10, 2021)

It's almost like they're gloating in their press release



> *Plans for 20 new affordable homes at Trinity Rise approved by Lambeth Council
> *
> Homes for Lambeth – Lambeth Council’s wholly owned housing delivery company – achieves another planning success, with 20 new affordable homes on Ropers Walk, Trinity Rise approved by Lambeth’s Planning Committee.
> 
> ...


----------



## teuchter (Feb 10, 2021)

VivLewis said:


> members of the committee failing to challenge officers when they provided obviously misleading information.



This is consistently the case - I didn't watch this meeting, but have sat in on others. They fail to do their job. Even when things are laid out on a plate for them by objectors - they are given all the info they need to ask the significant questions, but they don't do anything with it. Instead they waste all the time asking stupid questions about minor aspects of the proposals. Very often, their questions demonstrate that they simply haven't understood important things about the application and/or have not spent any time looking at it in any detail.


----------



## BusLanes (Feb 10, 2021)

Looks like XR Lambeth have got involved with Central Hill


----------



## editor (Feb 10, 2021)

Lambeth just can't get enough of flattening people's houses and cutting down trees















						Activists set to face off demolition workers at Truslove House on the Central Hill Estate
					

Early this morning, demolition workers arrived outside Truslove House on the Central Hill Estate, where Lambeth has pushed through plans to flatten the existing residential building and tear down s…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## editor (Feb 10, 2021)

It's really hard not to get really angry reading this:









						Lambeth Planning Committee vote along party lines for ‘demolition through the backdoor’ on first phase of Cressingham Gardens estate regeneration
					

The Planning Applications Committee voted 6-1 along party political lines on Tuesday evening to approve the demolition of part of the Cressingham Gardens estate in Tulse Hill.



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## editor (Feb 11, 2021)

This is what our 'co operative' council is doing to people:









						Truslove House latest: chair of the Central Hill residents association is locked on to the gates in sub-zero conditions
					

The chair of the residents association on Central Hill is currently  locked on to the gates at Truslove House to try to prevent the destruction of trees and homes as part of Lambeth’s unpopul…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## editor (Feb 18, 2021)

Opinion piece: Opinion: Lambeth’s doublethink over the controversial redevelopments at Ropers Walk/Trinity Rise and Cressingham Gardens Estate


----------



## editor (Mar 10, 2021)

More dodgy crap from estate-flattening Lambeth Lambeth set to loan Homes for Lambeth a further £5.5M for estate ‘regeneration’ – despite lack of resident support rated as ‘likely’


----------



## editor (Mar 16, 2021)

Lambeth continue to trample over people's homes Lambeth Cabinet head nods through extra £5.5M for Homes for Lambeth with lack of resident support rated as ‘likely’


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2021)

Please support! Campaigners look to get Central Hill Estate listed by Heritage England and saved from demolition


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2021)

This is astonishing bullshit from Lambeth.

There is also the claim from the Committee that: 


> _“Resident satisfaction was at 76%, and a review of the approach to resident satisfaction would be undertaken within the next 12 months.”_


The minutes clarify that these figures are:



> _“Based on number of contact points with residents, not number of residents responding.”_


No data is given explaining how many ‘contact points’ HfL has had with residents.










						Lambeth confirms no masterplan for Cressingham Gardens plus a broad claim of 76% resident satisfaction with estate regeneration
					

The minutes for the Lambeth Ownership and Stewardship Committee show that masterplanning has yet to start for the estate ‘regeneration’ at Cressingham Gardens.



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## editor (May 5, 2021)

Cressingham news Cressingham Gardens feature on C20 Society’s Top 10 Buildings at Risk List


----------



## urbanspaceman (May 14, 2021)

Two councils under investigation by ombudsman for complaint procedure failures
					

Inside Housing, news, analysis, and comment about the social housing sector in the UK.




					www.insidehousing.co.uk
				




Lambeth is under investigation by the Housing Ombudsman for failing to comply with the watchdog’s new complaint-handling failure orders.

Another demonstration of the indifference to democratic scrutiny of the unaccountable one-party state that is Lambeth Council.


----------



## editor (May 21, 2021)

Next Friday Stop Estate Demolitions – protest outside Lambeth Town Hall, Fri 4th June 2021


----------



## editor (Jun 5, 2021)

Photos:






Refurbish! Don’t Demolish! Central Hill Estate campaigners protest outside Lambeth Town Hall


----------



## friendofdorothy (Jun 9, 2021)

up date today:


> Thank you all for your support!
> As a consequence, we have been able to submit an application to the courts for a judicial review of the recent planning permission for the demolition of the Ropers Walk block on Cressingham Gardens.  Now it is a period of waiting to see if a judge grants permission for the case to be heard in court.


 Save Cressingham Gardens  , organized by Gerlinde Gniewosz


----------



## Southlondon (Jun 11, 2021)

urbanspaceman said:


> Two councils under investigation by ombudsman for complaint procedure failures
> 
> 
> Inside Housing, news, analysis, and comment about the social housing sector in the UK.
> ...


They are not unaccountable, they face the electorate for election and each time they are voted back in with huge majority of councillors. It’s the electorate that make it a one party state when more crosses are put against Labour Party candidates than are put against the opposition parties. Estate demolition was pushed as an issue by opposition parties at last election for example but more people wanted the Labour Party candidates than other ones. That’s how our system of democracy works. It’s hardly the fault of the Labour Party if the opposition can only manage to fill a fraction of the seats. This is why the committee system wouldn’t work so well in Lambeth because the opposition would struggle to meet all the commitments with so few councillors even if the greens worked comfortably with the tories as they do in other places. My mum was on the old Bexley council many years ago as one of only 2 Labour Party opposition councillors, and I remember her telling me how it was impossible to shadbush all the different committees as well as fulfilling other duties.  All this criticism of the local Labour Party (much of Which I agree with,) but it’s the opposition party’s that are failing to win elections that are the cause of the ineffectual opposition not the Labour Party.


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2021)

Fantastic news Cressingham Gardens:  Judge gives green light for Judicial Review #3


----------



## DiSkid.22 (Jul 22, 2021)

"Risk of failure - major"!!! Time to bow out gracefully? Come on Lambeth, stand up and be counted!! Drop the Demolition Plans!!!


----------



## editor (Jul 22, 2021)

Excellent stuff. How much has Lambeth wasted on this folly?



> Lambeth Council has quashed the planning permission it gave to one of its controversial estate regeneration schemes, instead of fighting a legal challenge from residents
> In February, Lambeth’s planning committee approved plans by Homes for Lambeth, the local authority’s wholly-owned housing company, to demolish 12 homes on the Cressingham Gardens estate.
> 
> Last week it was announced that residents had been granted a judicial review of the scheme, which would have been the third legal challenge over the Ted Hollamby-designed estate’s regeneration.
> Residents had launched a crowdfunding campaign to raise money for the challenge but yesterday (21 July) the council took the surprise decision to cancel planning permission for the scheme, instead of spending more taxpayers’ money in court.











						Lambeth quashes its own consent for demolition on Hollamby estate
					

Lambeth Council has quashed the planning permission it gave to one of its controversial estate regeneration schemes, instead of fighting a legal challenge from residents




					www.architectsjournal.co.uk


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 23, 2021)

editor said:


> Excellent stuff. How much has Lambeth wasted on this folly?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not  just the money also the stress its caused to the residents. 

Yet another example of how poorly Lambeth consults residents. 

The threat of a JR is only reason that Council have taken this move.


----------



## DiSkid.22 (Jul 23, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Not  just the money also the stress its caused to the residents.
> 
> Yet another example of how poorly Lambeth consults residents.
> 
> The threat of a JR is only reason that Council have taken this move.


Hopefully, the beginning of the end. There has to be a change of heart somewhere along the line and some time very soon!! The times they are a' changing. And the first step towards change is NOW!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 27, 2021)

DiSkid.22 said:


> Hopefully, the beginning of the end. There has to be a change of heart somewhere along the line and some time very soon!! The times they are a' changing. And the first step towards change is NOW!!



It would be nice, but all it really means - & I'm well-acquainted with the person who was bringing the JR, as editor knows - is that Lambeth realised that their extremely shonky Planning Application Committee hearing, & the quality of their "evidence", when measured against Cressingham's, would have been laughed out of court, so they've slunk away in order to reapply at a later date.

There's also news that Lambeth Council/HfL are re-applying for GLA funding, which SHOULD mean ballots, but I bet their salami-slicing will put the kybosh on that...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 27, 2021)

Sooooooo, the people at HfL have re-submitted the planning application to demolish Ropers Walk, with a "heritage report" added.  Here's hoping they used their senior conservation officer to write it, because the man is a muppet!
Paperwork for the application hasn't come up on the portal yet, & any submissions have to be made by 15 October, so yet again we're given less than 3 weeks to do the necessary.
editor, so about a fundraising event, any ideas? Looks like we're going to have to dig deep into our reserves, maybe even have to borrow, if we go all the way to JR.


----------



## Carvaged (Oct 2, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Yet another example of how poorly Lambeth consults residents.



Unfortunately councils can consult residents until they run out of space to store all the records, but it doesn't mean anything if the findings fail to provide the justifications to go ahead with the social cleansing they've already planned or when they have no intention of listening in the first place.

We fought pretty hard for Heygate up in Southwark, but look what that got us in the end lol. Fuck Southwark and fuck Lend-Lease.


----------



## VivLewis (Oct 11, 2021)

Just to say that the Brixton Society has submitted a response which looks at the issues raised at the Judicial Review in July.  Main conclusion are that 1) Lambeth should not deal with this application until the consultation on the Brockwell Park Conservation Area boundaries is completed - to do otherwise would compromise the review, and 2) that the Ropers Walk application should be shelved unit the Cressingham masterplan has been published and consulted on.  Comments don't yet appear on the Lambeth planning webioste but can be downloaded from our website - link here. https://www.brixtonsociety.org.uk/t...ads/2021/10/Ropers-Walk-SW2-20-022406-RG3.pdf


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 11, 2021)

VivLewis said:


> Just to say that the Brixton Society has submitted a response which looks at the issues raised at the Judicial Review in July.  Main conclusion are that 1) Lambeth should not deal with this application until the consultation on the Brockwell Park Conservation Area boundaries is completed - to do otherwise would compromise the review, and 2) that the Ropers Walk application should be shelved unit the Cressingham masterplan has been published and consulted on.  Comments don't yet appear on the Lambeth planning webioste but can be downloaded from our website - link here. https://www.brixtonsociety.org.uk/t...ads/2021/10/Ropers-Walk-SW2-20-022406-RG3.pdf



Thanks for this. The comprehensive response by Brixton Society is indicative of the way some of us who have dealt with New Labour Lambeth are well aware.

Basically Lambeth want to tear down the estate and build higher blocks next to Conservation Area.

They know they wouldn't be able get away with this in a grand scheme so are trying to do it incrementally.

One higher rise block at a time. Gradually damaging the estate and the Brockwell park Conservation Area. So that in future they can push forward a bigger so called regeneration scheme. Wringing their hands about Brockwell park. But saying previous incremental changes had already affected the CA.

Its imo misuse of planning by a local authority owned entity.

I find it hard not to see collusion between officers and the HfL in working out how to get this application through.

Swearing blind they have nothing decided. But as those of us who have dealt with Lambeth know the we haven't decided this line is standard tactic. Informal discussions would have taken place. Possibly justified as so called pre application meetings. 

Worse still is that they have brushed under the carpet Heritage England recommendation that the estate should be included in the Brockwell Park Conservation Area. This is despicable.


----------



## brixtonpete (Oct 16, 2021)

I have discovered that Lambeth Council's latest planning application for demolition at Cressingham Gardens is in breach of several policies of their new Local Plan 2020-2035, which was published on 22nd September 2021, so I have submitted an objection based on that development. The new local plan includes some excellent policies on climate change, energy efficiency and low carbon circular economy so if the council were to proceed with the applied for plan for Ropers Walk demolition it would mean that council policies are pure greenwash.

The local plan says the council wants to 'encourage' developers to follow the Passivhaus standard but the proposal at Ropers Walk falls far short of that so how can it expect others to build to the Passivhaus standard, or refurbish to the Passivhaus EnerPHit standard, if they won't do it for their own built estate? 

For instance the following policy points towards favouring retention and refurbishment over demolition - or at least carrying out a full whole life carbon cycle study to compare the two options:

Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035, Section 3.9 (D.7:
“Supporting a low carbon circular economy/circular economy principles that improves resource efficiency and innovation to keep products and materials at their highest use for as long as possible.”

Also, the Mayor's London Plan March 2021, which Lambeth Council is supposed to follow, includes the following two policies:

3.3.12  Figure 3.2 shows a hierarchy for building approaches which maximises use of existing materials. Diminishing returns are gained by moving through the hierarchy outwards, working through refurbishment and re-use through to the least preferable option of recycling materials produced by the building or demolition process. The best use of the land needs to be taken into consideration when deciding whether to retain existing buildings in a development. 
That policy couldn't be clearer and throws into question Lambeth's plan to demolish so many of its estates. The following also points to material re-use:

1.6.2  All cities must face up to the reality of climate change and the need to limit their future contribution to this major global problem. This London Plan will require developments to contribute towards London’s ambitious target to become zero-carbon by 2050 by increasing energy efficiency, including through the use of smart technologies, and utilising low carbon energy sources. Creating a low carbon circular economy, in which the greatest possible value is extracted from resources before they become waste, is not only socially and environmentally responsible, but will save money and limit the likelihood of environmental threats affecting London’s future.
I submitted my objection before I discovered the London Plan policies so if anyone wants to make a new objection and quote the above policies in the London Plan, that would be helpful. The 'final' date to submit objections may be this coming Tuesday 19th October. My objection is too long to paste as text into this post so I am attaching it as a PDF file. It includes a number of links as references.


----------



## editor (Oct 16, 2021)

Benefit gig coming up Cressingham Gardens benefit gig in Herne Hill, Sat 27th Nov 2021


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2021)

The 'co-operative' council ignoring residents again 402 objections for the demolition of Roper’s Walk at Cressingham Gardens with only 2 in support


----------



## nonya (Nov 15, 2021)

Is there a single new high density housing project of any kind that brixton buzz or organizations like the brixton society have ever supported?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 16, 2021)

nonya said:


> Is there a single new high density housing project of any kind that brixton buzz or organizations like the brixton society have ever supported?


You have an odd idea if you think local media should campaign for high density housing schemes offering unaffordable housing.


----------



## nonya (Nov 16, 2021)

CH1 said:


> You have an odd idea if you think local media should campaign for high density housing schemes offering unaffordable housing.


Its unaffordable precisely because nimbys make it incredibly difficult and expensive to build anything at all. High density housing is _the only way_ that makes sense to build in any urban area, and you all have imposed such high costs on building that any affordable or middle income housing is rendered unprofitable.

I think local media should campaign for what's best for a place, and what's best for London at large and Brixton more specifically is to build so much housing that it's abundant and therefore affordable for everyone.

It's one thing if people were opposing _some_ things but open to others, but all I've seen on this forum is people opposing literally every proposal of any kind of development.

Your access to local amenities does not supersede the rights of the younger generation to have stable and secure places to live. 

But inevitably people who are privileged enough to already have access to housing invariably want to stop more housing being built, regardless of where on the political spectrum they might fall.


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2021)

nonya said:


> Its unaffordable precisely because nimbys make it incredibly difficult and expensive to build anything at all. High density housing is _the only way_ that makes sense to build in any urban area, and you all have imposed such high costs on building that any affordable or middle income housing is rendered unprofitable.
> 
> I think local media should campaign for what's best for a place, and what's best for London at large and Brixton more specifically is to build so much housing that it's abundant and therefore affordable for everyone.
> 
> ...


Wait, you're blaming the lack of new affordable/social housing in Brixton on NIMBYs?


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2021)

nonya said:


> Is there a single new high density housing project of any kind that brixton buzz or organizations like the brixton society have ever supported?


Meanwhile, in the real world, this is what happens:









						Please sign this petition: Barratt Homes, Brixton Square and the fight to retain affordable housing in Brixton.
					

Although BrixtonBuzz is primarily about music, we’ve been part of the Brixton community for years and we’re growing increasingly unhappy seeing our friends being priced out of town as g…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com
				









						Barratt Homes, Brixton Square and the fight to retain affordable housing in Brixton. Please sign the petition. - urban75: art, photos, walks
					

Urban 75, Brixton Buzz and Brixton Blog are partnering to protest against Barratt Homes’ application to water down the provision of social and affordable housing, including the conversion to ‘affordable rent’ tenure of 13 social rent flats, at its new development ‘Brixton Square’, on Coldharbour...




					www.urban75.org


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 16, 2021)

nonya said:


> Is there a single new high density housing project of any kind that brixton buzz or organizations like the brixton society have ever supported?


yes - exactly the ones that have already been demolished like at elephant and castle or like the various eatates like Cressingham that Lambeth are planning to demolish.


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2021)

friendofdorothy said:


> yes - exactly the ones that have already been demolished like at elephant and castle or like the various eatates like Cressingham that Lambeth are planning to demolish.


And we don't just chat about it on the internet either!









						Brixton Fightback concert raises £1.54k for the Save Cressingham Gardens campaign
					

Brixton Buzz is really, really pleased to announce that we managed to raise £1.54k from our Brixton Fightback show earlier this month. The money has now gone into the Save Cressingham Gardens GoFun…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com
				




If a high density social housing project was announced, we'd be 100% behind it, as would almost all of the posters here. But fuck unaffordable luxury towers for the wealthy.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 16, 2021)

nonya said:


> Its unaffordable precisely because nimbys make it incredibly difficult and expensive to build anything at all. High density housing is _the only way_ that makes sense to build in any urban area, and you all have imposed such high costs on building that any affordable or middle income housing is rendered unprofitable.
> 
> I think local media should campaign for what's best for a place, and what's best for London at large and Brixton more specifically is to build so much housing that it's abundant and therefore affordable for everyone.
> 
> ...



What are these high costs? 

Local amenities are important part of having a community where people have good standard of life. 

You saying that people who want communities with access to amenities are nimbys makes no sense to me.


----------



## nonya (Nov 17, 2021)

editor said:


> Wait, you're blaming the lack of new affordable/social housing in Brixton on NIMBYs?


yes, shockingly, housing is expensive because too many people (usually people who already have a place to live) oppose the building of new housing. 

Here's the argument in plain terms.

In the market for cars, we have both expensive cars and cheap cars. Why is that? Because it is profitable to produce cheap cars, so rich pricks can buy Mercedes and regular folk can buy Hyundais. I'd rather get rid of cars altogether and force people to use (and spend money on) the tube and busses, but there you go. It's a functioning market where both privileged and less privileged people are served, because it's profitable to manufacture cheap cars.

In the market for housing, we only have expensive houses because it is _not_ profitable to build regular housing (that would be affordable for normal people). It is not profitable to build regular housing because it is inordinately difficult to get planning permission, it is impossible to get the support of local residents (who are the privileged ones who already have access to housing), and the process of getting to the stage where you can actually lay a brick costs millions. The barrier to entry of building new housing is so high, to recoup their costs, only massive developers can afford to go through this process, and they need to sell/rent whatever they've built at ludicrous cost because their barriers to entry in terms of cost and the built in uncertainty of the success of any given plan is so high.

The ONLY way to have housing not be stupidly expensive is if *the market price of housing is affordable for a regular person*. Any other solution means that reasonably priced housing *is a lottery*. That means drastically increasing the supply. Housing abundance is the goal.

Make it so easy to build that every segment of the market is served - cheap housing as well as expensive housing (just like cars). Flood the market with housing supply until the price gets to a point where its reasonable.

So yes, that probably means tall flats and cookie cutter apartments that block your precious views. I'm also sure many of the local residents will complain about a variety of other things that adversely affect their property values.

*Local residents blocking absolutely any new plan of anybody building anything is exactly the reason why the only things that end up being built are luxury apartments for the wealthy.

You are one side of the vicious circle that's permanently locking out an entire generation from any hope of stable housing.*


----------



## sparkybird (Nov 17, 2021)

You make some interesting points but haven't addressed at all the impact that flooding a market with affordable housing would have on the infrastructure required to support those living in said housing. It's a bit more complicated than 'saving views'.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 17, 2021)

nonya said:


> *Local residents blocking absolutely any new plan of anybody building anything is exactly the reason why the only things that end up being built are luxury apartments for the wealthy.*



I promise you that's not the reason.


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Nov 17, 2021)

nonya said:


> Its unaffordable precisely because nimbys make it incredibly difficult and expensive to build anything at all. High density housing is _the only way_ that makes sense to build in any urban area, and you all have imposed such high costs on building that any affordable or middle income housing is rendered unprofitable.
> 
> I think local media should campaign for what's best for a place, and what's best for London at large and Brixton more specifically is to build so much housing that it's abundant and therefore affordable for everyone.
> 
> ...


There is an abundance of housing, its just owned by landlords who charge a fortune, or sitting empty as an investment.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 17, 2021)

nonya said:


> yes, shockingly, housing is expensive because too many people (usually people who already have a place to live) oppose the building of new housing.
> 
> Here's the argument in plain terms.
> 
> ...



The argument that getting planning permission is reason for high cost of housing is frankly rubbish.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2021)

nonya said:


> yes, shockingly, housing is expensive because too many people (usually people who already have a place to live) oppose the building of new housing.
> 
> Here's the argument in plain terms.
> 
> ...


So you actually believe that local residents (sorry _NIMBY_s according to you):

1. Are able to totally influence what housing developments get planning permission or not and
2. If they supported every proposed luxury development, this would magically create an abundance of social/affordable housing in their area?

So what happened at Elephant and Castle and Nine Elms then?


----------



## Carvaged (Nov 17, 2021)

nonya said:


> yes, shockingly, housing is expensive because too many people (usually people who already have a place to live) oppose the building of new housing.
> 
> Here's the argument in plain terms.
> 
> ...



Oh dear. You don't understand how any of this works _at all_ do you? Lol.


----------



## nonya (Nov 17, 2021)

DietCokeGirl said:


> There is an abundance of housing, its just owned by landlords who charge a fortune, or sitting empty as an investment.


This is certainly also a problem - foreign investment + second homes should be taxed at a MUCH higher rate than homes owned by people living in them. Nobody should view buying a house as an 'investment', it should be a good that you use (much like a car). 



Gramsci said:


> The argument that getting planning permission is reason for high cost of housing is frankly rubbish.


All evidence to the contrary. San Francisco has ludicrous pricing because it is nearly impossible to build. In New York, prices are high but not as high as SF - that's because its slightly easier to build. Go further down to a place like Houston, where it is _much_ easier to build, and housing is on the borderline of reasonably priced. Why? Because it's easy to build. 

The harder you make it to make something, the more expensive that thing becomes. In the UK, it is very hard to make houses. Therefore housing is very expensive.


editor said:


> So you actually believe that local residents (sorry _NIMBY_s according to you):
> 
> 1. Are able to totally influence what housing developments get planning permission or not and
> 2. If they supported every proposed luxury development, this would magically create an abundance of social/affordable housing in their area?
> ...


Not all local residents are NIMBYs. The younger generations are coming to see that housing policy in this country (and in many places in the world) is completely broken - that the older generation have left us in the lurch by taking up available resources and then pulling the rug out from under us. They bought their houses when housing was abundant, then decided to make it extraordinarily difficult to build anything new ever again.

For those of you who believe you have good intentions, ask yourself this. 

Has housing policy of the last two decades worked out well? 
If not, what changes can we make that might make a difference? 
Directionally, should building new housing be easier or more difficult (in order to achieve our common goal of less expensive housing)?
Are you participating in making housing easier to build, or harder to build?
Broadly supportive of Elephant and Castle, don't know much about Nine Elms. More housing being built is good. I wish there was a greater component of affordable units but 25% affordable homes is not awful.

As long as the population of London is growing, given only so much land that's near public transit hubs, the only option is to build denser housing (or try to stop people from moving to the city which I find abhorrent). Existing residents concerns are valid, but they should not (as a general rule) outweigh the right of everybody else to have a decent place to live at a non absurd price.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2021)

nonya said:


> This is certainly also a problem - foreign investment + second homes should be taxed at a MUCH higher rate than homes owned by people living in them. Nobody should view buying a house as an 'investment', it should be a good that you use (much like a car).
> 
> 
> All evidence to the contrary. San Francisco has ludicrous pricing because it is nearly impossible to build. In New York, prices are high but not as high as SF - that's because its slightly easier to build. Go further down to a place like Houston, where it is _much_ easier to build, and housing is on the borderline of reasonably priced. Why? Because it's easy to build.
> ...


Why do you keep blaming 'existing residents' for the lack of social/affordable housing? 

And why did you support the disaster at Heygate which saw thousands of council flats torn down and replaced by a handful of social rents.









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

Is Elephant posh now?  Not yet but....




					www.urban75.net


----------



## nonya (Nov 17, 2021)

editor said:


> Why do you keep blaming 'existing residents' for the lack of social/affordable housing?
> 
> And why did you support the disaster at Heygate which saw thousands of council flats torn down and replaced by a handful of social rents.
> 
> ...


Because the unwarranted scorn that that new statesmen article has for 'white collar professionals and students' is exactly the kind of generational privilege that nimby's don't understand that they have.

Yea, screw those damn students and other young people who want an affordable city to live in!

I'm not fully familiar with Heygate specifically, I was rather young at the time. It looks like it was reasonably dense. I say let's tear down all the terrace houses in the city and build lots of those until everybody has an affordable flat to live in.


----------



## Carvaged (Nov 17, 2021)

nonya said:


> the older generation have left us in the lurch by taking up available resources and then pulling the rug out from under us



The older generation have nothing to do with the fact that most land earmarked for housebuilding is owned by large corporate housebuilders who will not build - even though they can - because restricting the market pushes up prices of housing and also increases the value of their land assets.

You evidently know very little about the housing market, and are just parroting painfully lazy and superficial talking points with all the verve of a dunning-kruger expert.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2021)

nonya said:


> I'm not fully familiar with Heygate specifically, I was rather young at the time. It looks like it was reasonably dense.


Seeing as you claimed to be broadly in support of what happened there, perhaps you should do your basic research first?


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 17, 2021)

nonya said:


> This is certainly also a problem - foreign investment + second homes should be taxed at a MUCH higher rate than homes owned by people living in them. Nobody should view buying a house as an 'investment', it should be a good that you use (much like a car).
> 
> 
> All evidence to the contrary. San Francisco has ludicrous pricing because it is nearly impossible to build. In New York, prices are high but not as high as SF - that's because its slightly easier to build. Go further down to a place like Houston, where it is _much_ easier to build, and housing is on the borderline of reasonably priced. Why? Because it's easy to build.
> ...



You keep saying this.

I have not opposed all new developments.

Planning process does not stop new developments. Which is what your arguing.

Existing residents views don't stop new developments that go through the planning process.

Planning is part of the democratic process. 

So I really don't understand why you keep going on about this.



On the other thread you take view that protecting a kids playground is nimby.

Your also against rent control. Which I find bizarre.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 17, 2021)

nonya said:


> This is certainly also a problem - foreign investment + second homes should be taxed at a MUCH higher rate than homes owned by people living in them. Nobody should view buying a house as an 'investment', it should be a good that you use (much like a car).
> 
> 
> All evidence to the contrary. San Francisco has ludicrous pricing because it is nearly impossible to build. In New York, prices are high but not as high as SF - that's because its slightly easier to build. Go further down to a place like Houston, where it is _much_ easier to build, and housing is on the borderline of reasonably priced. Why? Because it's easy to build.
> ...



Your broadly supportive of Elephant and Castle development? 

That does surprise me. Before it was redeveloped it was high density Council housing. Affordable housing that I thought you wanted. End result of Southwark Council so called regeneration is markedly less affordable housing on this site.


----------



## nonya (Nov 17, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Your broadly supportive of Elephant and Castle development?
> 
> That does surprise me. Before it was redeveloped it was high density Council housing. Affordable housing that I thought you wanted. End result of Southwark Council so called regeneration is markedly less affordable housing on this site.


the goal is affordable housing *at market rates*. We need to build as much as we can until we get there.

Subsidizing the housing costs for individuals is an acceptable short term solution, but in the long run de facto privileges old people and locks out younger generations.

So yes, I wish that there were more units earmarked for subsidies of various kinds, but broadly more units overall is better than less units overall.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2021)

nonya said:


> the goal is affordable housing *at market rates*. We need to build as much as we can until we get there.
> 
> Subsidizing the housing costs for individuals is an acceptable short term solution, but in the long run de facto privileges old people and locks out younger generations.
> 
> So yes, I wish that there were more units earmarked for subsidies of various kinds, but broadly more units overall is better than less units overall.


But an influx of high end developers *wildly inflate market rates* so they become totally unaffordable to the vast majority of residents, young and old.

And you still haven't explained why you were 'broadly supportive' of what happened in the Heygate estate, because what happened there is exactly the kind of thing that happens when councils hand over large regeneration projects to big developers (see also Brixton Square, which I've already linked to):


> Here we document using a timeline, how original promises to Heygate tenants of 500 new social housing units on the redeveloped estate, were reduced over the years to just 82.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## nonya (Nov 17, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> You keep saying this.
> 
> I have not opposed all new developments.
> 
> ...


I think we need major reforms that introduce zoning laws - such that in certain areas, higher density housing can be built (without needing to go through planning permission). The process is so long and expensive that only developers with the deepest pockets can get through it.

I quote myself

"Here's the argument in plain terms.

In the market for cars, we have both expensive cars and cheap cars. Why is that? Because it is profitable to produce cheap cars, so rich pricks can buy Mercedes and regular folk can buy Hyundais. I'd rather get rid of cars altogether and force people to use (and spend money on) the tube and busses, but there you go. It's a functioning market where both privileged and less privileged people are served, because it's profitable to manufacture cheap cars.

In the market for housing, we only have expensive houses because it is _not_ profitable to build regular housing (that would be affordable for normal people). It is not profitable to build regular housing because it is inordinately difficult to get planning permission, it is impossible to get the support of local residents (who are the privileged ones who already have access to housing), and the process of getting to the stage where you can actually lay a brick costs millions. The barrier to entry of building new housing is so high, to recoup their costs, only massive developers can afford to go through this process, and they need to sell/rent whatever they've built at ludicrous cost because their barriers to entry in terms of cost and the built in uncertainty of the success of any given plan is so high."

Anybody who has studied rent control understands that it is merely a wealth transfer from privileged people who already have secure housing away from less privileged people who have less access to housing. At best it is a stop gap solution that does absolutely nothing for future generations because ultimately there are 5 houses available and ten people who need housing.




Carvaged said:


> The older generation have nothing to do with the fact that most land earmarked for housebuilding is owned by large corporate housebuilders who will not build - even though they can - because restricting the market pushes up prices of housing and also increases the value of their land assets.
> 
> You evidently know very little about the housing market, and are just parroting painfully lazy and superficial talking points with all the verve of a dunning-kruger expert.



Older generation opposing literally new building have everything to do it with it. Interestingly, the world runs these experiments where we can see in real time that places where older generation nimbys are more powerful (like San Francisco and London) have much more expensive housing (relative to average income) and far less high density housing available than places where nimbys have less power like Houston (where there is a general preference for less regulation overall) or Singapore (where the collective good is seen as more important than the individual good and the government has more centralized power).

Higher barriers to get to the point where you can actually build anything = more expensive = only the richest, greediest developers get to build anything = only luxury apartments.

You are part of the vicious cycle that's depriving an entire generation of housing.

The only way to get enough housing is to build more housing. 

We are in a situation where there are 5 houses and 10 people who need housing.

The right says "The other 5 are lazy and don't deserve housing, and we can't build more because we need high property values"

The left says "Let's lower the cost of housing by freezing the rents, but lets not build anything new because these new houses will only end up housing the rich"

Neither side actually does what is needed, which is to build five more houses.


----------



## nonya (Nov 17, 2021)

editor said:


> But an influx of high end developers *wildly inflate market rates* so they become totally unaffordable to the vast majority of residents, young and old.
> 
> And you still haven't explained why you were 'broadly supportive' of what happened in the Heygate estate, because what happened there is exactly the kind of thing that happens when councils hand over large regeneration projects to big developers (see also Brixton Square, which I've already linked to):


My broad view is that more units and taller blocks is generally better.

There were probably less dense areas that should have been prioritized, but ultimately the goal is to flood the entire market with so much supply that housing prices and rental prices go down overall, and more units is helpful to that goal.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2021)

nonya said:


> My broad view is that more units and taller blocks is generally better.
> 
> There were probably less dense areas that should have been prioritized, but ultimately the goal is to flood the entire market with so much supply that housing prices and rental prices go down overall, and more units is helpful to that goal.


To save the town we had to destroy it


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2021)

nonya said:


> My broad view is that more units and taller blocks is generally better.
> 
> There were probably less dense areas that should have been prioritized, but ultimately the goal is to flood the entire market with so much supply that housing prices and rental prices go down overall, and more units is helpful to that goal.


So how has, say, the Nine Elms development helped that goal in any way at all?

And how do you account for the impact of foreign investors, some of whom who are happy to keep properties empty?  In fact, many of these new high rise developments that you love so much are directly targeted at foreign investors, who will buy them up and rent them out at the highest price they can get away with (once they've finished sitting on them and waiting for the rentable value to rise).


----------



## nonya (Nov 17, 2021)

editor said:


> So how has, say, the Nine Elms development helped that goal in any way at all?


I don't know much about nine elms so I will refrain from commenting specifically.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2021)

nonya said:


> I don't know much about nine elms so I will refrain from commenting specifically.


Before posting any further, perhaps you should do some really, really basic research into the things you claim to know so much about?

You don't know about Heygate. You don't know about Nine Elms. What do you know about?


----------



## nonya (Nov 17, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> To save the town we had to destroy it


This is unironically true if the town in question is constantly growing at a rate far beyond the rate that new housing is being built and the town only has a certain amount of land.

You either stop the influx of people (which I disagree with vehemently) or you build more houses, which sometimes requires you to knock down old houses.

I know the older generation loves the old houses and pristine views of the park but as someone who will never get to enjoy either of those things, I'd knock that old house down and take an affordable shoebox over what we have available now.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2021)

nonya said:


> I know the older generation loves the old houses and pristine views of the park but as someone who will never get to enjoy either of those things, I'd knock that old house down and take an affordable shoebox over what we have available now.


So you're all for the total demolition of the Cressingham Gardens estate, the dispersal of its long term community and its replacement with high rise, unaffordable luxury flats then?


----------



## nonya (Nov 17, 2021)

editor said:


> Before posting any further, perhaps you should do some really, really basic research into the things you claim to know so much about?
> 
> You don't know about Heygate. You don't know about Nine Elms. What do you know about?


I will continue to express my views on this public forum as long as I remain unbanned.

I have the honesty to say when there are things that I don't know that much about. When was the last time you did so?

Specifically the thing that outraged me was the universal opposition to this proposal. 









						402 objections for the demolition of Roper’s Walk at Cressingham Gardens with only 2 in support
					

A re-submitted planning application to demolish Roper’s Walk at Cressingham Gardens has received 402 objections and only two letters of support.



					www.brixtonbuzz.com
				




One of the comments, from the "Friends of Brockwell Park"

"Proposal will result in harm to Brockwell Park: visual amenity will suffer, with negative impacts on the views / sightlines from the park."

Visual amenities. Literally people saying that their right to a view from a park supersedes the rights of others to access housing.

This proposal is made up entirely of below market (aka more affordable) units.

“14 low cost rented units and 6 intermediate units (shared ownership). The tenure split would be 70 per cent social rent and 30 per cent intermediate by unit.”

But of course it's "NO NO NO" from the build-nothing-because-it-would-obstruct-my-park-views generation who already have their housing locked in and secure.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2021)

nonya said:


> This is unironically true if the town in question is constantly growing at a rate far beyond the rate that new housing is being built and the town only has a certain amount of land.
> 
> You either stop the influx of people (which I disagree with vehemently) or you build more houses, which sometimes requires you to knock down old houses.
> 
> I know the older generation loves the old houses and pristine views of the park but as someone who will never get to enjoy either of those things, I'd knock that old house down and take an affordable shoebox over what we have available now.


The affordable shoebox with a planned life of twenty years. The affordable shoebox built with concrete using the sand from some beach. Why not expropriate the flats bought as investments instead of building more poor quality flats? And all the other properties sitting empty. There's a vast ton of housing out there not being used and that's a crime. Oh and expropriate all houses with vast new basements and divide them up into flats too. The original owners can lead a troglodyte existence in their subterranean caverns.


----------



## nonya (Nov 17, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> The affordable shoebox with a planned life of twenty years. The affordable shoebox built with concrete using the sand from some beach. Why not expropriate the flats bought as investments instead of building more poor quality flats? And all the other properties sitting empty. There's a vast ton of housing out there not being used and that's a crime. Oh and expropriate all houses with vast new basements and divide them up into flats too. The original owners can lead a troglodyte existence in their subterranean caverns.


I would support this without a question, this is absolutely a crime. It won't solve the problem but would help for sure. But we'd still be in a situation where there are more people than housing units available.



editor said:


> So you're all for the total demolition of the Cressingham Gardens estate, the dispersal of its long term community and its replacement with high rise, unaffordable luxury flats then?


14 low cost rented units and intermediate shared ownership units is not "luxury" housing.


----------



## nonya (Nov 17, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> The affordable shoebox with a planned life of twenty years. The affordable shoebox built with concrete using the sand from some beach. Why not expropriate the flats bought as investments instead of building more poor quality flats? And all the other properties sitting empty. There's a vast ton of housing out there not being used and that's a crime. Oh and expropriate all houses with vast new basements and divide them up into flats too. The original owners can lead a troglodyte existence in their subterranean caverns.


along with the need to build much much more housing, we need to ban or severely restrict (tax of 100% the cost of the property or more) foreign investment in housing.

Housing should not be seen as an investment, it should be seen as a good that you buy in order to use, and controls over who can buy it and how much of it you are allowed to buy are totally fair game in the interest of the collective good.

But in my situation right now, it's breaking my back to pay market rate rent for a shoebox, or having a more affordable shoebox, so I'll take the shoebox.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2021)

nonya said:


> I would support this without a question, this is absolutely a crime. It won't solve the problem but would help for sure. But we'd still be in a situation where there are more people than housing units available.


I hate to break it to you but very many people live with others,with friends, partners, parents, children. There have always been more people than housing units available


----------



## oryx (Nov 17, 2021)

Just an observation on the rather silly and divisive generational argument being put forward here: where I live, not Lambeth but also in S London, there seems to be plenty of young people able to afford £700,000 houses.

It's not about age, it's about class and poverty/wealth/inequality.


----------



## Carvaged (Nov 17, 2021)

nonya said:


> The left says "Let's lower the cost of housing by freezing the rents, but lets not build anything new because these new houses will only end up housing the rich"



No, the left says, quite rightly, that unless you break up the distortions to a free housing market caused by the near monopolisation of land banks by a handful of large corporate housebuilders who happen to enjoy rather profitable direct and indirect links to major Tory politicians and donate handsomely to that party, then it's mostly just tinkering around the edges of the problem. Blaming the shortage of affordable housing on 'old people' is such a bizarrely feeble and hollow right-wing misdirection that it really doesn't deserve a response from anyone.


----------



## nonya (Nov 17, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> I hate to break it to you but very many people live with others,with friends, partners, parents, children. There have always been more people than housing units available


I don't literally mean 1 person per house, it's a simple example that everyone can understand, don't be obtuse.


----------



## nonya (Nov 17, 2021)

oryx said:


> Just an observation on the rather silly and divisive generational argument being put forward here: where I live, not Lambeth but also in S London, there seems to be plenty of young people able to afford £700,000 houses.
> 
> It's not about age, it's about class and poverty/wealth/inequality.


The generation that feels utterly locked out of housing certainly doesn't feel that way - hence the discourse about "boomers" and how they ruined everything (which is broadly true).


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2021)

nonya said:


> I don't literally mean 1 person per house, it's a simple example that everyone can understand, don't be obtuse.


You seem to be obtuse here. Building new tower blocks is really really stupid. When they suffer from subsidence each block will make dozens of families - not to mention single person households - homeless. It's not like it's a great secret that in the foreseeable future there'll be more subsidence in london, it's been reported - see eg Climate crisis to put millions of British homes at risk of subsiding so running up a load of shoddily built tower blocks that'll then need to be torn down doesn't strike me as a good way forwards.


----------



## oryx (Nov 17, 2021)

nonya said:


> The generation that feels utterly locked out of housing certainly doesn't feel that way - hence the discourse about "boomers" and how they ruined everything (which is broadly true).


You're not making any sense. 

You sound like a spoilt child to be honest. 'Wah, I can't buy a house, older people have ruined EVERYTHING, wah!'

So explain to me how so many young people (I'm talking about people in their twenties and thirties) are buying houses for £700,000 (and probably quite a bit more in Lambeth) if they're *all *utterly locked out of housing?

Of course, I appreciate a lot are struggling with high rents and insecure tenure. That goes for people of all ages. Many of the opportunities of the 80s and 90s such as squatting, short life, fair rents and hard-to-let council flats are no longer there. The same with longer term tenancies. But that's the fault of governments, the right to buy and the rise of landlordism being major factors. And you have rightly pointed out the need to eliminate the absentee landlords who buy up new developments in swathes (one housing scheme near me was being marketed abroad and aimed at investors, rather than locals).

What do you mean by being 'locked out of housing', by the way? Do you mean it's hard to buy a place in your twenties?


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2021)

nonya said:


> I would support this without a question, this is absolutely a crime. It won't solve the problem but would help for sure. But we'd still be in a situation where there are more people than housing units available.
> 
> 
> 14 low cost rented units and intermediate shared ownership units is not "luxury" housing.


Oh for fuck's sake.  Read up on Cressingham Gardens before posting any more vacuous nonsense. Lambeth want to demolish the_ entire estate.
_








						Search Results for “cressingham” – Brixton Buzz
					





					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 17, 2021)

nonya said:


> the goal is affordable housing *at market rates*. We need to build as much as we can until we get there.
> 
> Subsidizing the housing costs for individuals is an acceptable short term solution, but in the long run de facto privileges old people and locks out younger generations.
> 
> So yes, I wish that there were more units earmarked for subsidies of various kinds, but broadly more units overall is better than less units overall.



Post war Council housing was in general a success in housing the population in decent accommodation at affordable rent.

It took the profit motive out of housing.

Your fixating on market rates. One of the reasons Council housing and other forms of social housing developed was that the so called market failed to house large sections of society properly.

Its the "market" that is the problem.

Nor did social housing lock young people out in the past. I know Londoners who grew up on a Council estate. Once adult got a flat. Once married got a Council house. That is how it worked before Thatcher.

What is needed is more social housing not market housing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Post war Council housing was in general a success in housing the population in decent accommodation at affordable rent.
> 
> It took the profit motive out of housing.
> 
> ...


Also much council housing built to a good standard - there's housing being used that's more than a hundred years auld built by the London county council or the metropolitan boroughs


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 17, 2021)

nonya said:


> The generation that feels utterly locked out of housing certainly doesn't feel that way - hence the discourse about "boomers" and how they ruined everything (which is broadly true).



On the housing front it was Thatcher who started the ruin of housing.

By the 70s almost half of housing was social housing.

Thatcher removed rent controls for private renters, brought in RTB.

On economic side it was with Thatcher that market decides everything started.

Your buying into this ideology.

Given you say market should decide don't you think possibly that Thatcher reforms of private renters rights in favour of landlords show that deregulation of housing didn't work in long term?

After all the point of getting rid of private renters rights was that was like restrictive practise holding back market forces.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 17, 2021)

nonya said:


> The left says "Let's lower the cost of housing by freezing the rents, but lets not build anything new because these new houses will only end up housing the rich"



No. I've never heard anyone on left say this.

Im starting to wonder if your a wind up troll.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 17, 2021)

In the Gordon Grove APG thread nonya posted article as showing rent controls don't work.

Rent Control’s Winners and Losers

What the article is actually saying is that instead of rent controls benefits for private renters should be brought in to pay rents. So landlords can charge high rents which are indirectly subsidised by benefits that renters get. 

In this country there is cap on housing benefit. I know couple of people who have problems with housing due to this cap.

So nonya I take it you would be in favour of scrapping the Tory housing benefit cap?


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 17, 2021)

Rent Control’s Winners and Losers
					






					www.gsb.stanford.edu
				




Also the article is example of limited rent controls. It didn't apply to new build but to already existing housing. I would say rent controls should apply to any rented housing new or not.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 17, 2021)

nonya said:


> yes, shockingly, housing is expensive because too many people (usually people who already have a place to live) oppose the building of new housing.
> 
> Here's the argument in plain terms.
> 
> ...


check out the Peoples Plan - the cressingham residents own plan to mostly renovate and add housing to the estate - without having to 'decant' all the residents.

I would enthusiastically back any plan to build truely affordable housing. but am fed up with 'luxury homes' that are merely for the mega rich.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 17, 2021)

To reduce property prices for a start I suggest:

Cap on rental prices (exploitive landlords would leave the market) Effectively putting a cap on housing benefit is all wrong. The govt is effective paying the income of many private landlords.

a ban on landbanking - were developers leave land idle for years for in the hope of the price of land rising. Planning permissions should be time restricted to stop developers idling and keeping property vacant.

The percentage of 'affordable housing' in new builds should be increased and enforced - too many developers can argue its uneconomic to stick to their original plan. No 'poor doors'

Introduce residency laws so billionaire foreign nationals cant park their money in buying property that no one will get to live in (just look at how many of those glittering luxury towers in Vauxhall are actually occupied.) If this luxury market was reduced there would be more land and opportunity for actual homes for people to live in.

Bring in tough restrictions on companies buying homes to stop  money laundering there is toomuch being trading through muliple off shore shell companies to clean their dirty money. If there were fewer companies with endless wealth competing in the market prices could fall.

Restrict or ban holiday lets / Airb&b on whole properties - would release more rooms for ordinary rental or sale. 

Ban the sale of council houses at such huge discounts and alter rules that restrict councils from reinvesting sales money in new housing.

There are lots of empty properties (including those in public ownership) there was supposed to be meassures to end this - but I see little evidence of this. The average void in council property is years when it could be weeks.

I want to see more co op housing and community projects. 

I want to see squatting made legal again - and I suggest all those empty luxury blocks would loose some of their appeal to foreign investors.


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Nov 17, 2021)

So may questions nonya 

Has housing policy of the last two decades worked out well?
Very broadly: Yes, for those with capital, no for many more.  In the 1970s a third of the UK population lived in Social Housing. Today that percentage is around 17%. 

If not, what changes can we make that might make a difference. 
Scrap Right to Buy and Right to Aquire, or at least ring-fence the proceeds into truly social rent homes. Requistion some of the 288,539 empty homes in the UK for social rent - as I said its not the supply that's the issue  it's the distribution.  Introduce rent caps and truly secure tenancies for private tenancies. Proper governance and accountability of community levy on private house builders to replace s.106. 

Directionally, should building new housing be easier or more difficult (in order to achieve our common goal of less expensive housing)?
Question is a red herring. What kind of housing? For whom? Where? What type of housing? Too many variables to comment. 

Are you participating in making housing easier to build, or harder to build?
Ditto -too many variables. I'll continue to oppose poor applications and support good ones. "Housing" comes in many many forms, please specify.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Nov 17, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> On the housing front it was Thatcher who started the ruin of housing.
> 
> By the 70s almost half of housing was social housing.
> 
> ...


yes, Thatcher is to blame for most things. The private market has never provided decent homes for everyone.


----------



## VivLewis (Nov 23, 2021)

A reminder that Lambeth's Planning Committee is deciding tonight on HfL's application for the Ropers Walk redevelopment - the permission, granted in February, which Lambeth had to quash after the Judicial Review in July.  I'll be at the meeting in person, representing the Brixton Society, the Friends of Brockwell Park and the Herne Hill Society - all of whom have objected to the application.  After a year and a half of Covid restrictions, objectors who have applied to speak are allowed into the committee room.   You can view the meeting via a link on Lambeth's website.  Wish me well!


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Nov 23, 2021)

Good luck VivLewis !!


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Nov 23, 2021)

Anyone got the link to the meeting? Unable to find it on Lambeth's poorly designed maze of a website .


----------



## VivLewis (Nov 23, 2021)

Was only allowed two minutes to speak - then told to stop by the chair (though no guillotine applied to Lambeth officers acting as PR advisors for HFL).  Outcome was a 6 - 0 vote in favour.  I couldn't find the video link on Lambeth's website either - maybe someone could post it here? - but there's a decent write up in the Buzz.


----------



## VivLewis (Nov 23, 2021)

Just seen the video of the meeting.  Seems to be yet another example of Lambeth senior officers misleading councillors - this time claiming that the impact on Brockwell Park was nothing to worry about.  All the views from the park in the committee report were from Brockwell house on the top of the ridge - I think the view I showed tonight - which is included in the second supplementary agenda for the meeting.  The image I showed - part off the evidence to the JR in July - is a view from the very well used path which skirts the south west boundary of the park.  Was there on Sunday taking photos and struck by how many people walked past while I was there - joggers, dog walkers, buggy pushers, mobile phone users and just families enjoying the park.  This development will put a four storey building close to the park boundary and people using this bit of the park will definitely notice the difference.  So, we lost this one.  Not giving up just yet - but keep a look out for applications from HfL for more bits of Cressingham Gardens.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 23, 2021)

VivLewis said:


> Just seen the video of the meeting.  Seems to be yet another example of Lambeth senior officers misleading councillors - this time claiming that the impact on Brockwell Park was nothing to worry about.  All the views from the park in the committee report were from Brockwell house on the top of the ridge - I think the view I showed tonight - which is included in the second supplementary agenda for the meeting.  The image I showed - part off the evidence to the JR in July - is a view from the very well used path which skirts the south west boundary of the park.  Was there on Sunday taking photos and struck by how many people walked past while I was there - joggers, dog walkers, buggy pushers, mobile phone users and just families enjoying the park.  This development will put a four storey building close to the park boundary and people using this bit of the park will definitely notice the difference.  So, we lost this one.  Not giving up just yet - but keep a look out for applications from HfL for more bits of Cressingham Gardens.



Officers taking partisan view of a planning application is not new. Same thing happened with the Hondo application.

What disturbs me is feeling that senior officers and senior Cllrs decide informally what can go through and what can't.

Metaphorm towers for LJ were turned down by officers. Hondo application for Brixton was supported.

Can't prove it but seems to me it arguable that contentious planning applications are discussed informally between senior Cllrs and Senior officers.

Metaphorm towers were potential vote loser for Herne Hill Cllrs. They can now say they played role in stopping them so don't vote Green at next election. 

International House ongoing plans look like its going to be decided by senior officers and whoever Council choose as developer.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 23, 2021)

What I'm finding increasingly making me feel my time is up for involvement in community issues is the powerlessness I feel.

These senior officers and senior Cllrs are on big salaries and allowances. At meetings they back each other up. As resident I find it dispiriting to try to deal with.

Any comment or questioning of services or consultation and one comes up against the collusion of senior officers and senior Cllrs.

Consultation is particularly poor in One Party State Lambeth. Instead of vigorous debate the Lambeth establishment push what they want through.

This sometimes works in local residents favour sometimes not.

It can cause divisions between residents. 

What it does lead to is democratic deficit. Where the losers rightly don't feel they have had there say.

This leads imo to cynicism and erosion of faith local democracy.


----------



## editor (Nov 24, 2021)

Fantastic coverage here : LIVE BLOG: Lambeth Planning Committee decides on Roper’s Walk, Cressingham Gardens – follow the developments


----------



## editor (Nov 24, 2021)

Just look at the state of the block they just approved:


----------



## VivLewis (Nov 24, 2021)

I was one of the three objectors who got to speak at the meeting – in my case on behalf of the Brixton Society, the friends of Brockwell Park and the Herne Hill Society. Agree that the result was disappointing – I thought there was an outside chance the application would be refused (instead of being rubber stamped 6 to zero). That said, I think it wasn’t all doom and gloom – and there were some rays of hope for those of us who want to save the estate from demolition. First off there were lots of hints from the report to PAC and the Q and A session at the meeting that LBL have conceded that the boundaries of the Brockwell Park Conservation Area are going to be extended to include Cressingham Gardens. This is what all the references to the “non designated heritage asset” were about. If the estate becomes part of the BPCA, then wholesale demolitions more or less off the agenda. Second point was about impact on views of the Park Conservation Area – planning officers, including our friend Doug Black head of conservation in LBL’s planning team – only got away with their claim that the impact on the park would be negligible by arguing that Ropers Walk is a small area on the edge of the estate and demolition/replacement and so wouldn’t have the same impact as demolition/rebuilding of blocks in the middle of the estate and nearer the park boundary. If we can hold them to their words, then this should kibosh HfL schemes for developing the rest of the estate.  Maybe I'm being overly optimistic here, but I'm beginning to sense clues from HfL/LBLambeth that they are planning to ditch plans for the wholesale regeneration of Cressingham Gardens and going instead for piecemeal development of small sites instead.  if that's the plan, I don't have a problem - but why didn't they start with that terrace in Crosby Walk which has been vacant since 1998? (and identified as a potential site in the Cressingham Peoples Plan).


----------



## marty21 (Nov 24, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> On the housing front it was Thatcher who started the ruin of housing.
> 
> By the 70s almost half of housing was social housing.
> 
> ...


Thatcher boosted RTB but it was around before her , from around 74/75 , but it only got popular in the early 80s.


----------



## DaphneM (Nov 25, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> On the housing front it was Thatcher who started the ruin of housing.
> 
> By the 70s almost half of housing was social housing.
> 
> ...


you may find this interesting...



			https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06747/SN06747.pdf


----------



## Carvaged (Nov 25, 2021)

The arguments they wheel out to destroy social housing estates today are not far removed from the same ones used to demolish the "slum" communities that preceded them. Ultimately it's a certain kind of middle-class elite attitude (of 'the other') vs disenfranchised poor and working-class groups own self-conceptions and the vast power disparities that exist between them.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 27, 2021)

DaphneM said:


> you may find this interesting...
> 
> 
> 
> https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06747/SN06747.pdf



Thanks for this.

A few points.

This shows that housing is political.

There are two ways of looking at housing policy. The " sensible grown up" policy way or seeing it expression of class war.

World War one and two played a big influence in UK housing policy. Basically war meant that normal functioning of the cut throat neo Liberal capitalism was curtailed in order to unite the nation against the common enemy.

So rent controls.

These for political reasons ended up going on after war years.

It was not until Thatcher that gradual move to housing being social issue not market issue was reversed.

Taking housing out of the market place was deemed necessary to unite nation to fight.

After decades with ascendence of populist right - Thatcher this was reversed.

So economics and politics of housing are intertwined imo.

Another observation from this briefing. Labour Party post World War Two were against private landlords and for socialising housing. Even if they were going about it in legalistic long term way. This was mainstream position. Not just position of the left of the party. Reformist move to municipalising/ socialising housing. Taking it out of market place.

To add this changed with Blair.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Nov 28, 2021)

Gramsci you are spot on. its great to put it in historical perspective.  

Landlords are massively overrepresented in most parties in this parliament:









						A quarter of Tory MPs are private landlords
					

Exclusive: ‘Clear conflict of interests’ as 115 MPs earn thousands of pounds by renting out property




					www.opendemocracy.net
				




Here is a good recap of trends over the last century, though be warned the analysis is right wing brookings institution tosh. We've lost 1/2 our social housing.









						In the United Kingdom, homeownership has fallen while renting is on the rise
					

Researchers who study France, Germany, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States summarize key features of rental housing markets in those countries.



					www.brookings.edu


----------



## brixtonpete (Dec 1, 2021)

VivLewis said:


> I was one of the three objectors who got to speak at the meeting – in my case on behalf of the Brixton Society, the friends of Brockwell Park and the Herne Hill Society. Agree that the result was disappointing – I thought there was an outside chance the application would be refused (instead of being rubber stamped 6 to zero). That said, I think it wasn’t all doom and gloom – and there were some rays of hope for those of us who want to save the estate from demolition. First off there were lots of hints from the report to PAC and the Q and A session at the meeting that LBL have conceded that the boundaries of the Brockwell Park Conservation Area are going to be extended to include Cressingham Gardens. This is what all the references to the “non designated heritage asset” were about. If the estate becomes part of the BPCA, then wholesale demolitions more or less off the agenda. Second point was about impact on views of the Park Conservation Area – planning officers, including our friend Doug Black head of conservation in LBL’s planning team – only got away with their claim that the impact on the park would be negligible by arguing that Ropers Walk is a small area on the edge of the estate and demolition/replacement and so wouldn’t have the same impact as demolition/rebuilding of blocks in the middle of the estate and nearer the park boundary. If we can hold them to their words, then this should kibosh HfL schemes for developing the rest of the estate.  Maybe I'm being overly optimistic here, but I'm beginning to sense clues from HfL/LBLambeth that they are planning to ditch plans for the wholesale regeneration of Cressingham Gardens and going instead for piecemeal development of small sites instead.  if that's the plan, I don't have a problem - but why didn't they start with that terrace in Crosby Walk which has been vacant since 1998? (and identified as a potential site in the Cressingham Peoples Plan).


I attended online the full council meeting the following day in which a Green motion proposed retrofit over demolition but the Labour group amended it to say exactly the opposite. I've just sent out the following tweet, which references my FoI request.
Lambeth Council, intent on unpopular estate demolitions, has just passed a motion in which they claim that thanks to Life Cycle Carbon Assessments new build homes can be demonstrated to deliver better long-term carbon impacts than retrofitted homes. True?? tinyurl.com/2x473uvu
Would welcome any comments from any architects out there.


----------



## editor (Dec 6, 2021)

Cressingham Gardens fundraising: Buy festive gifts to help the Save Cressingham Gardens campaign


----------



## editor (Jan 7, 2022)

Protest on Saturday Protest against ‘Savills Destroying social housing’ – Sat 15th Jan 2022


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 25, 2022)

Has it been passed?. I’ve got an email.


----------



## CH1 (Jan 28, 2022)

editor said:


> Just look at the state of the block they just approved:


Yes well this effectively destroys the character of the area in one small(ish) block - never mind what is does to Cressingham Gardens.

There is an organisation dedicated to working with the Mayor of London and  local councils to promote this sort of thing Urban Design London
They even have a fully illustrated 23 page brochure crowing about it https://www.urbandesignlondon.com/documents/24/ANEWLONDONVERNACULAR_-_COMP.pdf

Wonder who funds this benevolent developer friendly quango?


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Feb 5, 2022)

‘The new london vernacular’ is vandalism on an industrial scale. These structures already look naff. What will they look like in 20 years when they are falling apart due to shoddy materials and building practices?


----------



## editor (Feb 18, 2022)

Here's how the estate looks today












						In photos: Roofs ripped off Cressingham Gardens estate as Storm Eunice hits south London
					

Several roofs on the Cressingham Gardens housing estate in south London were completely ripped off today as Storm Eunice wreaked havoc across south east England.



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## nagapie (Feb 18, 2022)

Criminal negligence?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 20, 2022)

editor said:


> Here's how the estate looks today
> 
> View attachment 310860
> 
> ...



Yep. 19 roofs off on Friday (including mine), with others unsafe. The one in your pic was put back on this morning by Fahey Roofing. It came tumbling down again at about 4pm These idiots just screwed the metal roof down onto the joists. They should have removed the roof, and deployed tarps & sandbags, which would have prevented the wind getting under the lip of the roof. It's not like Fahey Roofing have any skill in working on metal roofs. They're just cowboys with friends in the Town Hall.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 20, 2022)

nagapie said:


> Criminal negligence?


Back when Steve Reed was council leader, a decision was made to discontinue cyclical maintenance on our roofs - before then they were inspected & maintained once a year, plus whenever a roof was damaged - and to go over to a "responsive repairs" modality. Before this, we had no major roof failures, even in 1987. After this decision, we've had roof failures in 2013, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2021 & 2022. This isn't a materials failure because, as you can see from the ed's photo, the zinc panels have stayed "stitched" together.
We'll probably also see the council trying to fob us off with the cheapest permanent solution, which is GRP (Glass Reinforced Plastic). Where they used it elsewhere on Cressingham in 2018, it's already failing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 22, 2022)

The "weathertight" repairs that Fahey Roofing did on Sunday - essentially they NAILED DOWN some tarpaulins - were as much use a chocolate teapot, as they didn't stretch the tarps taut. If they'd done that then sandbagged them, it might have worked. As it was, I got water pissing in thru my light sockets Sunday evening & night, so they don't work (the wiring has shorted in the bedroom) and there's no point getting it fixed while the roof - such as it is - is made watertight.
Lambeth Council & Fahey Roofing. A marriage made in the 9th circle of Hell.


----------



## Sue (Feb 22, 2022)

Ffs ViolentPanda 😡


----------



## editor (Mar 18, 2022)

Protest yesterday



















						In photos: protest in Windrush Square against Lambeth’s estate demolition policies
					

Yesterday, protesters gathered in Windrush Square to voice their opposition to Lambeth’s unpopular programme of estate demolition. See more photos below and read more about the action here.



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## editor (May 16, 2022)

Excellent piece here



> Health impacts aren’t the only thing not being priced into regeneration. Currently, there is no regulation of the “embodied carbon” created during the construction of a new building – the emissions that come from transportation and manufacturing of materials.
> 
> “When you demolish a building, you’re wasting all the resources used to make it originally – and wasting the carbon emissions that were created,” says Joe Giddings, of the Architects Climate Action Network (ACAN).
> 
> “Then, the construction of a new building creates more carbon emissions. That could all have been avoided if you upgraded the existing building,” he adds.











						'It can't be sustainable': The hidden costs of demolishing council housing estates - The Big Issue
					

Council estate "regeneration" promises more sustainable housing for the masses - but the outcomes for people and the planet rarely match up to expectations



					bigissue.com


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2022)

Update: Residents of Cressingham Gardens granted judicial review to challenge Lambeth’s proposed demolition of Ropers Walk


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 3, 2022)

editor said:


> Update: Residents of Cressingham Gardens granted judicial review to challenge Lambeth’s proposed demolition of Ropers Walk



One of the things about "Coop" Council Lambeth is that residents using Judicial Reviews is the only way to try and get them to consult residents properly. Rather than steam rolling through the plans they have.


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2022)

Latest:






Freedom of Information response shows Lambeth’s plans for 9 storey prison style blocks at Cressingham Gardens estate


----------



## CH1 (Sep 6, 2022)

Time Out have an article on this issue - London-wide listed borough by borough








						These 122 council estates in London might be demolished
					

Thousands of homes could be knocked down for redevelopment



					www.timeout.com


----------



## CH1 (Sep 11, 2022)

Interesting goings on next door in the Labour borough of Wandsworth








						Plug pulled on Wandsworth estate regeneration as ‘simply not enough’ social housing
					

Wandsworth council’s new Labour administration said the number of council homes previously proposed for the Alton Estate in Roehampton is “simply not enough”.




					londonnewsonline.co.uk


----------



## Tricky Skills (Sep 12, 2022)

As expected, the estate regeneration poster boy Matthew Bennett now fancies himself as the next MP for... Colchester.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 15, 2022)

Tricky Skills said:


> As expected, the estate regeneration poster boy Matthew Bennett now fancies himself as the next MP for... Colchester.



I notice the local Council is a coalition of greens , Liberals and labour.

Given Bennett is ideological supporter of New Labour I am wonder what his view is on coalition government?


----------



## BusLanes (Sep 16, 2022)

Suspect from the results local Labour may be thinking there's a good opportunity to push the local Libs out.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Sep 16, 2022)

BusLanes said:


> Suspect from the results local Labour may be thinking there's a good opportunity to push the local Libs out.



The Colchester constituency is a target seat for Labour at any GE. The national party ploughed money into the local campaign in May with a view to raising the profile on the ground ahead of the next GE. It didn't get them very far. The LibDems are very strong at a borough level, but not so now when it comes to GE's. Bennett knows there is an opportunity in causing an upset if he gets selected as the candidate. He is after all, nothing but an opportunist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2022)

Tricky Skills said:


> As expected, the estate regeneration poster boy Matthew Bennett now fancies himself as the next MP for... Colchester.


I thought I caught his mephitic odour as I passed thru Essex recently...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2022)

editor said:


> Latest:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cressingham SuperMax!!!
So, 9 storeys facing onto Tulse Hill, 5-6 facing onto the park, but an artistic attempt to imply that they won't build as close to the park borders as possible. Bullshit! They'll leave maybe a 2 metre pathway.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2022)

Tricky Skills said:


> The Colchester constituency is a target seat for Labour at any GE. The national party ploughed money into the local campaign in May with a view to raising the profile on the ground ahead of the next GE. It didn't get them very far. The LibDems are very strong at a borough level, but not so now when it comes to GE's. Bennett knows there is an opportunity in causing an upset if he gets selected as the candidate. He is after all, nothing but an opportunist.


If he stands, I'm willing to visit the constituency at GE time, in order to expound on what the creepy little fucker is really like. I believe I still have a recording of him telling me he had no ambition to stand as an *MP!

*The context was that he was swanning around the developer exhibition held at Cressingham Gardens community hall, & I challenged him on the fact that he was divorced from the consequences of what he was putting in train. I told him that his actions were a transparent attempt to mark his name with "glory" "at any cost" so that when he stood as an MP, like his ex-employer Steve Reed did, he'd be able to refer back to his "triumph" in Lambeth. I think I may have mentioned Sydney Sporle, too.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 7, 2022)

Not stictly relevant (within 300 miles/kM) but I spotted this social housing development in  ‘s-Hertogenbosch which looked quite green and elegant in a Space1999 sort of way. I saw it in the FT, but this Twitter thread gives perhaps a better idea


Edit: Google say 300 miles:


----------



## Tricky Skills (Nov 25, 2022)

HfL is dead. Long live... HfL. The Kerslake Report has recommended that Lambeth's private property company be taken back in-house. Plus a 'reset' (!) on resident engagement at Cressingham, Central Hill and Fenwick. It's only taken almost ten years of failure and millions of public funds wasted to reach this conclusion.


----------



## nagapie (Nov 25, 2022)

Tricky Skills said:


> HfL is dead. Long live... HfL. The Kerslake Report has recommended that Lambeth's private property company be taken back in-house. Plus a 'reset' (!) on resident engagement at Cressingham, Central Hill and Fenwick. It's only taken almost ten years of failure and millions of public funds wasted to reach this conclusion.


Will Lambeth do as they're told though?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Nov 25, 2022)

nagapie said:


> Will Lambeth do as they're told though?



The Cabinet report for Monday recommends taking HfL back in house. Painful reading.


----------



## nagapie (Nov 25, 2022)

Shame on them.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 26, 2022)

Tricky Skills said:


> HfL is dead. Long live... HfL. The Kerslake Report has recommended that Lambeth's private property company be taken back in-house. Plus a 'reset' (!) on resident engagement at Cressingham, Central Hill and Fenwick. It's only taken almost ten years of failure and millions of public funds wasted to reach this conclusion.



Jesus this is hard hitting report. Started looking at the introduction.

HFL is a failure. The estates program is producing few extra homes and consultation has been piss poor. Leading to very low levels of trust in Council.

So campaigners on Cressingham and other estates have been proved correct.

Kerslake has gone out and talked to local residents. And taken their views seriously.

It says something about the culture of this long standing right wing Labour council that it takes a outside expert report before the views of the residents who vote for these Cllrs get taken seriously.

This has been going on for years. In case of Cressingham almost ten years. 

I'm so glad for once these right wing Cllrs have been proved wrong. The general level of arrogant entitlement of senior Cllrs has been getting me down. Any form of questioning of what they and senior officers do is met with resentment.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 26, 2022)

This made me laugh. Lambeth never give up. I see  Kerslake resisted the Council attempt to choose who it consulted. Impressed by how Kerslake has gone about this,

The review panel held several meetings with different groups of residents living across the
Council’s six estates earmarked for demolition and in temporary accommodation.* In terms 
of selecting residents, the review panel was supported by the council's housing
management team to identify an initial group of residents to participate in consultation 
meetings to help gather evidence for the review. I*n selecting potential residents, we advised
the LBL team that we were eager to hear from a range residents represented across the six
main estates subject to renewal. *The review panel also identified residents independently
from the Council that expressed an interest in sharing views with the review panel. All
residents that contacted the review team expressing an interest to participate in the review
were invited to attend a resident meeting.*


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 26, 2022)

So the attempt by. Council to stop the "usual suspects" from giving their views failed


----------



## editor (Nov 28, 2022)

Great write up of the report here



> Bennett was the chief cheer-leader for estate regeneration and the Blairite HFL venture. His ego wouldn’t accept the fact that HFL has been a complete failure.
> 
> Even more difficult for him to take will be the realisation that his political reputation lies in tatters as a result of being humbled by a bunch of determined council tenants who resisted his plans for demolition of their homes



Kerslake:


> “We acknowledge the frustrations and deep pain that many residents have felt during the renewal programme……
> 
> 
> The Council should also acknowledge the significant shortcomings of its approach to engaging with residents across the estates in the past, in recognition of a number of residents that we spoke to who reported to us physical and mental health impacts that they felt aspects of the Council’s engagement has had on residents.”




Kerslake review sinks Homes for Lambeth and recommends ballots for estate regeneration


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2022)

Tricky Skills said:


> HfL is dead. Long live... HfL. The Kerslake Report has recommended that Lambeth's private property company be taken back in-house. Plus a 'reset' (!) on resident engagement at Cressingham, Central Hill and Fenwick. It's only taken almost ten years of failure and millions of public funds wasted to reach this conclusion.


"Resident engagement" on Cressingham was comprised of an "independent advisor" who knew who was paying his wages, & always took the council's side, & a "Resident Engagement Panel" chaired by the pustulent Mary Atkins, who was in favour of "regeneration" - so much so that she lied to the Overview & Scrutiny Committee", claiming that Save Cressingham Gardens campaigners had caused a "climate of fear" on the estate.
Oddly, people always answered the door when SCG knocked. The same can't be said for Mary Atkins - she was almost universally loathed here!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2022)

Gramsci said:


> This made me laugh. Lambeth never give up. I see  Kerslake resisted the Council attempt to choose who it consulted. Impressed by how Kerslake has gone about this,
> 
> The review panel held several meetings with different groups of residents living across the
> Council’s six estates earmarked for demolition and in temporary accommodation.* In terms
> ...


Yep. Fortunately, Kerslake's team went back through regeneration-related cabinet & scrutiny meetings, & approached some who spoke out at them, which was taken badly by senior housing officers.


----------



## Sue (Dec 10, 2022)

So ViolentPanda (good to see you!) what does this mean? Is it all over now or are there other avenues they can try and pursue?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2022)

Sue said:


> So ViolentPanda (good to see you!) what does this mean? Is it all over now or are there other avenues they can try and pursue?


It's far from over. We still have the issue of Ropers Walk, which the cabinet meeting made clear is still on the table. We also have to play "wait and see" in order to find out what form these ballots take. Me, I won't be satisfied by anything less than independent balloting run by Electoral Reform Services or similar, & not some shoddy mob run by ex-Labour cllrs!


----------



## Sue (Dec 10, 2022)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's far from over. We still have the issue of Ropers Walk, which the cabinet meeting made clear is still on the table. We also have to play "wait and see" in order to find out what form these ballots take. Me, I won't be satisfied by anything less than independent balloting run by Electoral Reform Services or similar, & not some shoddy mob run by ex-Labour cllrs!


Thought it was probably too good to be true to think it was.  

Good luck with it as ever. Fuckers.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 10, 2022)

Sue said:


> So ViolentPanda (good to see you!) what does this mean? Is it all over now or are there other avenues they can try and pursue?



Kerslake says this in report. Council have said they will follow all recommendations of the report. That remains to be seen.

I've posted more on the Kerslake report on the Coop Council thread on Brixton forum. As it's a very good report that covers whole of Lambeth. Shows how poor this Coop Council is at consulting residents.



> 4.26.For Cressingham Gardens, the Council should re-engage genuinely with residents on their ideas for the future of the estate. We recognise ‘The People’s Plan’ as an example of one such resident contribution, but it will not be the only one.Resumption of genuine collaborative working with residents to work through the future of the estate would be a helpful way to rebuild trust with residents and to minimiselosing the estate from council ownership via Right to Transfer mechanisms.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 10, 2022)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's far from over. We still have the issue of Ropers Walk, which the cabinet meeting made clear is still on the table. We also have to play "wait and see" in order to find out what form these ballots take. Me, I won't be satisfied by anything less than independent balloting run by Electoral Reform Services or similar, & not some shoddy mob run by ex-Labour cllrs!



Personally if the Council had taken the Kerslake report findings seriously they would have halted Ropers walk. And gone back to the drawing board.

Instead of a proper master plan they decided to "chip away" at the estate piecemeal. Having a master plan would have shown what there intentions really were. That's how I understand it. Is this correct?


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 10, 2022)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's far from over. We still have the issue of Ropers Walk, which the cabinet meeting made clear is still on the table. We also have to play "wait and see" in order to find out what form these ballots take. Me, I won't be satisfied by anything less than independent balloting run by Electoral Reform Services or similar, & not some shoddy mob run by ex-Labour cllrs!



Btw all the hard work you and other Cressingham residents have done has paid off.

I don't think I could have handled all the years of stress the Council put the residents on the estate through.

You successfully slowed down Lambeth plans for the estate to extent that Lord Kerslake ( unlike three other estates) can say that has this has not progressed that far it should be re consulted on and HfL should not pursue this so called redevelopment of your estate. 

So all respect to you for and others in your community for keeping up the struggle over the years.

What Kerslake does not go into is way you were let down by your local Labour Cllrs. Not in his brief.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2022)

Gramsci said:


> Personally if the Council had taken the Kerslake report findings seriously they would have halted Ropers walk. And gone back to the drawing board.


[/QUOTE]
Pretty much our take on it, too. They're giving lip service to Kerslake, promising to "change the culture", but within half an hour of saying this to His Lordship, they - in the form of Tom Branton (head of regeneration, & former Southwark Council & then Lendlease employee) went right back to their arrogant denial of what residents want. 



Gramsci said:


> Instead of a proper master plan they decided to "chip away" at the estate piecemeal. Having a master plan would have shown what there intentions really were. That's how I understand it. Is this correct?


A masterplan (as promised for Cressingham for what will be 10 yrs next year) is always "on the way", but never arrives, & CAN'T arrive because it would point up - couldn't help but point up - that Lambeth Council/HfL have done exactly what they claim they haven't: That is, they've been salami-slicing development in order to establish "beachheads" on regen estates.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2022)

Gramsci said:


> Btw all the hard work you and other Cressingham residents have done has paid off.


Not yet, but hopefully at some time soon. We've still got a war on our hands, though. We still have to protect Mrs Dotimas (the 85 year old freeholder LBL/HfL have been harassing for almost 3 years) & the rest of our community. 


Gramsci said:


> I don't think I could have handled all the years of stress the Council put the residents on the estate through.


Thing is, you handle it because the only other option is to give up. Most of us refuse to give up because this place is in our hearts. I won't leave here except in a box. Most of my life with Greebo is etched into this estate.


Gramsci said:


> You successfully slowed down Lambeth plans for the estate to extent that Lord Kerslake ( unlike three other estates) can say that has this has not progressed that far it should be re consulted on and HfL should not pursue this so called redevelopment of your estate.
> 
> So all respect to you for and others in your community for keeping up the struggle over the years.


Thank you. You can bet - & I've heard some of the noises coming out of the cabinet - that they're mad as hell that Bayo Dosonmu commissioned this review, & that Kerslake made the findings that he did. You can also bet that senior officers & cabinet members will do their best to sabotage the ballot they have to give residents on Fenwick, Central Hill & Cressingham. We - the regen estates - are already emphasising that any ballots need to be run by a politically independent operation such as Electoral Reform Services, not by some polling or "comms" form with Labour affiliations. It's "keep on fighting till we've won". We can't rest on our laurels.


Gramsci said:


> What Kerslake does not go into is way you were let down by your local Labour Cllrs. Not in his brief.


Did you catch how Cameron was all "what about the residents!"? It's like she forgot that she was the person who offered our estate up to Pete "Liar" Robbins for regeneration. She's as dishonest as the day is long. As for Mary Atkins, glad she's gone. The only 1 who's done any good for residents on Cressingham is Ben Kind, who has at least pursued the housing dept about repairs - something Atkins & Cameron never did.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Dec 11, 2022)

I think the stress of the threat of demolishion for over a decade is outrageous. How dare they.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 30, 2022)

friendofdorothy said:


> I think the stress of the threat of demolishion for over a decade is outrageous. How dare they.


It's harmed people's health, that much is obvious. We've had 2 suicides where we - the residents - KNOW that despair about the future was a factor, but as neither left notes, it's not something that can be proven.


----------

