# Carlton Mansions co-op, Coldharbour Lane, Brixton - history and news



## editor (Apr 25, 2013)

This may well provide a good test about just how committed the 'co-operative' Lambeth Council are to their pledge to help sustain 'resilient communities.' 

Read more here: http://www.urban75.org/blog/brixtons-carlton-mansions-housing-co-op-fights-for-its-future/

There'll be a feature in tomorrow's Bugle too.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Apr 25, 2013)

story in the SLP about somewhere similar last week - seems to be current policy


----------



## leanderman (Apr 25, 2013)

Puddy_Tat said:


> story in the SLP about somewhere similar last week - seems to be current policy


 
and, thanks to that story, I now know what 'short-life' means


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 25, 2013)

Brixton Bugle (the paper version of Brixton Blog is coming out Friday morning. They give it out early outside the Tube station.

Thanks editor for your piece.

I appreciate the help of Ed and Zoe. Zoe spent most of last Saturday with us. She has done profile and piece on the Mansions. Its going to be on front page.

I'm not a great one for publicity but Coops back is against the wall.


----------



## peterkro (Apr 25, 2013)

I wish them well but fear they'll end up like me and many,many other shortlifers and be scattered around Lambeth,if indeed they are offered suitable rehousing at all.


----------



## editor (Apr 25, 2013)

If they do go down, they may as well go down _fighting. _


----------



## Belushi (Apr 25, 2013)

FFS   Good luck with this Gramsci, and all the other residents.


----------



## nagapie (Apr 25, 2013)

God I hate Lambeth. Good luck, Gramsci. Let the boards know if there's anything the rest of us can do.


----------



## Fenian (Apr 25, 2013)

Ed has made a good point about the Council's opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to supporting resilient communities on this one.  Certainly all - all - residents of Carlton Mansions could be reassured their continued contrition to the Borough will be maintained, and that they will not be threatened with homelessness.


----------



## shifting gears (Apr 25, 2013)

Really sorry to hear this, Lambeth Council are total weasels 

Keep us all in the loop on this thread and if there are meetings etc to follow etc maybe we can help drum up numbers and support


----------



## BJM2012 (Apr 26, 2013)

Bear in mind that as a result of the 2011 Housing Commission report, one of the agreed recommendations was to do all it could to retain at least a dozen properties for exactly the type of thing the CM Coop already does.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 26, 2013)

Is there an electronic copy of this fire certificate? I'd be happy to take a semi-professional look at it and see howun/reasonable it is.


----------



## zenie (Apr 26, 2013)

Glad this is getting some coverage.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 26, 2013)

Brixton Bugle came out this morning. The pdf version can be accessed here. The Mansions is on front page. Inside is profile and editorial.

Zoe has put a lot of work into this at short notice.

Brixton Blog


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 26, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Is there an electronic copy of this fire certificate? I'd be happy to take a semi-professional look at it and see howun/reasonable it is.


 
Thanks Crispy will bear this in mind. We have had some advice on it to try and counter Councils argument that it means we should leave. 

To be clear this was initiated by officers without referring the issue to Cllrs first. The Cllrs knew about it the same time as the Mansions did.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 27, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Brixton Bugle came out this morning. The pdf version can be accessed here. The Mansions is on front page. Inside is profile and editorial.
> 
> Zoe has put a lot of work into this at short notice.
> 
> Brixton Blog


Everyone was reading the Bugle in Albert back garden last night and everyone was fuming about the situation. You have a lot of support out there.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 27, 2013)

good luck guys.  happy to help out if there is anything useful i can do.


----------



## shygirl (Apr 27, 2013)

Its sickening.  As posts above, happy to help out.  Btw, Gramsci, still got that print of Carlton Mansions for you.


----------



## leanderman (Apr 27, 2013)

It's bad news but is it temporary?


----------



## free spirit (Apr 27, 2013)

what exactly are the fire safety issues quoted?

my dad lectures fire safety law, I could get him to have a look at whatever they sent.


----------



## Vibrant-Hubb (Apr 27, 2013)

Regarding lack of "compartmentalisation".  Many converted properties have this problem and are not emptied of residents. Most converted houses have wooden floors and few, if any, fire doors. This problem is overcome by fire safety systems - smoke and heat detectors and alarms (all interconnected).  That way - despite the lack of "compartmentalisation" the bulding is still safe because a highly sensitised fire alarm system allows enough escape time.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Apr 27, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> good luck guys. happy to help out if there is anything useful i can do.


me too


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 28, 2013)

leanderman said:


> It's bad news but is it temporary?


 
No. Council want building emptied. Then left empty until the Somerleyton theatre scheme goes ahead. ie the Theatre. Which would be not for another two years.

Coop had told the Council they would not hold up the scheme and would agree to move when the building is needed for the new development on Somerleyton road.


----------



## nagapie (Apr 28, 2013)

Where's the petition, or are you waiting to confirm that they don't have a leg to stand on about this fire thing?


----------



## free spirit (Apr 28, 2013)

If this fire issue doesn't hold water, then this would surely be an illegal eviction wouldn't it?

obviously I've not seen the letter or the terms of your contract with the council, but assuming that is the case, then I'd expect you could take out some sort of legal holding action against the council eviction until the fire safety situation is resolved one way or the other.


----------



## leanderman (Apr 28, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> No. Council want building emptied. Then left empty until the Somerleyton theatre scheme goes ahead. ie the Theatre. Which would be not for another two years.
> 
> Coop had told the Council they would not hold up the scheme and would agree to move when the building is needed for the new development on Somerleyton road.


 
Why do they want it vacant two years early? Convenience and certainty I suppose.


----------



## Fenian (Apr 28, 2013)

Good to see all support


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Apr 28, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> No. Council want building emptied. Then left empty until the Somerleyton theatre scheme goes ahead. ie the Theatre. Which would be not for another two years.
> 
> Coop had told the Council they would not hold up the scheme and would agree to move when the building is needed for the new development on Somerleyton road.



Which is a situation that Ovalhouse found positive and helpful. 
Very upsetting position for the residents.
And no advantage to the progress of the development, but this has come from housing, not regen. 
I really hope something can be sorted out. 
Sorry, posting from my phone so brief.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 29, 2013)

I understand there is a court hearing tomorrow morning - I don't know any more details. Can't believe this is happening so quickly.

Good luck all.


----------



## boohoo (Apr 29, 2013)

Please can people write to their Councillors about this. We have received the request this afternoon to attend court tomorrow morning.  We have had no time to prepare and they have had a limited communication with us.


----------



## editor (Apr 29, 2013)

boohoo said:


> Please can people write to their Councillors about this. We have received the request this afternoon to attend court tomorrow morning. We have had no time to prepare and they have had a limited communication with us.


If you want to prep a template letter, I could stick it on BrixtonBuzz pronto.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 29, 2013)

editor said:


> If you want to prep a template letter, I could stick it on BrixtonBuzz pronto.


I'd be happy to send an email to councillors too if someone could make a boilerplate for us.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 29, 2013)

boohoo said:


> Please can people write to their Councillors about this. We have received the request this afternoon to attend court tomorrow morning. We have had no time to prepare and they have had a limited communication with us.


DONE.

Good luck tomorrow - if you need anything, just ask


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 29, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I'd be happy to send an email to councillors too if someone could make a boilerplate for us.


If anyone wants to write a letter, just say evicting people is unfair, you don't agree, the fire thing is bollocks, you won't vote for them etc etc....use your loaf


----------



## TruXta (Apr 29, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> If anyone wants to write a letter, just say evicting people is unfair, you don't agree, the fire thing is bollocks, you won't vote for them etc etc....use your loaf


Copied and pasted, thanks bruv.


----------



## nagapie (Apr 29, 2013)

I've emailed my three councillors. Last time I did this only Ruth Ling mailed back, and she was pretty aggressive in her defence of the council way. What a bunch of shitheads.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 29, 2013)

*probbins@lambeth.gov.uk*​ - Pete Robbins Cabinet member for housing

*rheywood@lambeth.gov.uk*​ - Rachel Heywood councillor for coldharbour ward
*mparr1@lambeth.gov.uk*​ - Matt Parr councillor for coldharbour ward
*DAnyanwu@lambeth.gov.uk*​ - Donatus Anyanwu councillor for coldharbour ward

more here http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/mgMemberIndex.aspx?bcr=1


----------



## TruXta (Apr 29, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> *probbins@lambeth.gov.uk*​
> - Pete Robbins Cabinet member for housing
> 
> *rheywood@lambeth.gov.uk*​
> ...


I retweeted a few of your missives, will have a go at an email to a few of these as well.


----------



## nagapie (Apr 29, 2013)

boohoo said:


> Please can people write to their Councillors about this. We have received the request this afternoon to attend court tomorrow morning. We have had no time to prepare and they have had a limited communication with us.


 
Do you think you can get a postponement due to the lack of notice from them?


----------



## editor (Apr 29, 2013)

boohoo How about this as a template?



> Dear [councillor]
> 
> It has come to my attention that the council intends to evict residents from the Carlton Mansions co-op on Coldharbour Lane, SW9 over a fire assessment which I understand they are disputing.
> 
> ...


----------



## shifting gears (Apr 29, 2013)

I've just emailed them, here's what i wrote:

Dear councillors, 

I'm writing to express my grave concerns about the ongoing situation with regard to the residents of the Carlton Mansions co-operative. 

As a local resident, I'm apalled to see Lambeth Council seemingly acting in an underhand way, while attempting to speed up the eviction of these tenants, who have already accepted that they will be moved on nearer the time of the development. The fire assessment certainly seems to have come at a convenient time for LC - are you prepared for the premises to be independently assessed? 

Increasingly it appears that LC are not taking the needs of long-term residents seriously enough - and resorting to bullying tactics where deemed necessary. 

By scheduling snap-meetings you are not allowing the tenants adequate time to prepare their case - which further reinforces my belief that you do not have their best interests at heart. 

I and many other local residents I know are increasingly disillusioned with the way LC conducts its affairs - it would appear it's business first, residents second - and that is no way for a council to conduct itself. 

Yours sincerely


----------



## Thimble Queen (Apr 29, 2013)

I've emailed the contacts listed above xx


----------



## editor (Apr 29, 2013)

I've posted both templates up on BrixtonBuzz, tweeted it via urban75 and BBuzz accounts, plus Facebook. I've also emailed the councillors and invited them to respond here.

boohoo Gramsci


----------



## Thimble Queen (Apr 29, 2013)

I've been round at Carlton this evening helping one of the residents pack up hr stuff in case the worst happens. Really hope they caj fight this


----------



## Fenian (Apr 29, 2013)

Carlton Mansions housing co-operative is a vibrant community, which has had no opportunity to get independent advice or to prepare a case.  It does indeed seem strange that a housing co-operative with an excellent safety record, that has played an active role in and with the local community for decades housing local people, is facing this summary guillotine.

In the days of the 1980s when Brixton was not seen as such a salubrious vicinity, and during the uprisings, it is telling that the building was never once touched; not being seen as an 'enemy' to the people of Brixton.

There is an irony to this.  The building used to have an extra door at one side, and at the other an emergency exit wide enough to allow a truck to pass through.  Why is access to this now denied?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 29, 2013)

nagapie said:


> Do you think you can get a postponement due to the lack of notice from them?


 
We are going to argue that tomorrow.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 29, 2013)

Its like being in a Kafka nightmare.

The Council is causing more distress by doing this than leaving us here until the building is needed for the Somerleyton project.

We have already told Council that we would leave when it was needed for the redevelopment of Somerleyton road.

The court papers do not acknowledge that we are a Coop. Nor do they acknowledge that Coop have history of participating in Council consultations over the years. ie Brixton Masterplan, Brixton SPD and recent consultation on the Somerleyton road project. Which the Council have been saying is being done in consultation with the community. As one of my Ward Cllrs said the Council is doing things differently in involving the local community in this project.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 29, 2013)

Fenian said:


> The building used to have an extra door at one side, and at the other an emergency exit wide enough to allow a truck to pass through. Why is access to this now denied?


blimey


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 29, 2013)

From the papers it seems that this is being done with the political support. Coop assumed that it was all being done by officers. (See my previous post). I was mistaken:



> The decision of the political leadership within LBL to proceed with this action was based upon the Cabinet member for Housing, Cllr Pete Robbins.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 29, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> I've just emailed them, here's what i wrote:
> 
> Dear councillors,
> 
> ...


excellent - I find it hard to be so articulate when I'm angry


----------



## JTG (Apr 29, 2013)

Absolutely appalled by this, have emailed the relevant councillors to protest, emphasising how this looks to someone who visits the borough frequently and spends money there etc.

Good luck boohoo, Gramsci and everyone else


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 29, 2013)

Also we were supposed to meet the Council again on Friday.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 29, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> From the papers it seems that this is being done with the political support. Coop assumed that it was all being done by officers. (See my previous post). I was mistaken:
> 
> 
> 
> > _The decision of the political leadership within LBL to proceed with this action was based upon the Cabinet member for Housing, Cllr Pete Robbins._


I suspected as much. Absolutely appalling action on behalf of the Labour group.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 29, 2013)

this looks to be a good guide to fire safety in HMOs including compartmentalisation rules

http://www.safelincs.co.uk/fire-safety-information-for-landlords/

looks like it really boils down to whether the building is interpreted as being a low risk household, larger property etc. which would be pretty subjective.

A long history of operation without any fire incidents ought to help to demonstrate that it should be classified as a relatively low risk property.

at a minimum I'd think you should have interlinked smoke and heat detecting fire alarm throughout the main risk areas of the building, and stair way, emergency lighting in the stairway, fire extinguishuers and blankets in stairwell etc. As long as the ceilings, walls etc are solidly plastered, and the doors to the main corridors are solid that should probably be ok for a low risk building.

If you've got an external fire escape out the back, then there should be no need for compartmentalisation IMO, asssuming each floor has fire exists onto the escape route, as you don't need a 30 minute fire rated corridor for people to escape through - they can get straight out to the fire escape.

that's my quick thoughts, not that I'm personally an expert, but have had to deal with fire safety law for using buildings for public events, so learnt about 30 minute fire corridors etc for that.

As I've said,I do have an expert on hand in the form of my dad, who's taught a good proportion of the fire safety officers and consultants in the country.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 29, 2013)

The Council in the court papers kind offer is that:



> The occupants will be permitted to remain involved with the Somerleyton Regeneration programme after their move from Carlton Mansions.


 
They will not acknowledge that its a Coop.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 29, 2013)

Brixton Blog have done an article with a few more details:

http://www.brixtonblog.com/lambeth-council-seeks-injunction-against-carlton-mansions/11961

Including this sick kick in the teeth:



> The Co-operative was also sent a leaflet for temporary hostel accommodation which would cost £268.53 a week plus an amenity charge of £18.25 for a room.


 
Arseholes.


----------



## wiskey (Apr 29, 2013)

Emailed. good luck.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 29, 2013)

Zoe has been a diamond and put this up on Brixton Blog tonight

Brixton Blog


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 29, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> The Council in the court papers kind offer is that:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"After we have evicted you from your home, we will kindly let you express your views (which we will probably ignore) on how we will redevelop your home in the future. In the meantime, we will leave your former home empty for two years, whilst you are charged nearly £300 a week for temporary accomodation."


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 29, 2013)

Thanks for all the support. It means a lot to me that people in Brixton care. Whatever happens Brixton, when the chips are down, shows that it is has real community spirit.


----------



## Brixton Blog (Apr 29, 2013)

Hi all, 
just for info, here the full response from the council (housing and regen department) last week on this (as obviously couldn't fit all in the Bugle)



Why is the council asking Carlton Mansions Housing Cooperative to leave the building it occupies?
Lambeth Living, the Councils housing management company, carried out a Fire Risk Assessment of 1 – 16 Carlton Mansions which has recommended that the building is evacuated as a priority.
Why was the fire risk assessment carried out by the health and safety department rather than by Hunters, who are contracted to do the council’s fire risk work?
Hunters carried out the survey on behalf of Lambeth Living.
Why was the assessor sent to the building someone who is reportedly not an expert in assessing historic buildings?
The age of any building or structure is not the issue. The assessor is an expert in Fire Safety and that was the purpose of the visit. The Council is obliged to ensure its buildings meet relevant health and safety regulations regardless of their age.
The officer sent to assess the building did not enter any of the flats – how can they make a proper assessment of whether there is correct compartmentalization and fire standards if that is the case?
Because the premises is in residential use, the assessment has been carried out on common parts of the building only. It is considered that flat entrance doors form part of the protection to the common escape route; as such the assessment considers the suitability of the door from a visual perspective only.
The fire risk assessment states that it is a ‘recommendation’ that the residents leave – what made the council decide it was necessary?
The Council has a duty of care to residents and we cannot ignore such a clear recommendation from a Fire Risk Assessment.
The Cooperative have offered to install fire doors and do as much work as they can to get the building up to standard – why is this not enough?
The Fire Risk Assessment makes a clear recommendation to vacate the building as a priority and therefore residents could not be allowed to remain in situ while the works are being done.
Installing fire doors would only rectify one of many issues identified with the building and their installation would not on its own make the risk level acceptable.
Where will cooperative members be housed if they are evicted from the site?
The residents will be offered temporary accommodation and from there they will have their housing need assessed and if eligible would be made a direct offer of a new home.
Will you serve the Housing Cooperative a possession order?
We will be taking whatever legal action is best suited to the circumstances. The Co-op will be formally advised of this in due course.
Are the standards for historic buildings different to those for newer buildings? Has the historic nature of the building been taken into account in this risk assessment?
The age of the building is not a consideration - this is about the safety of the occupants.
Does every other nineteenth and early 20th century building owned by Lambeth comply with the same standards? Do they all have correct ‘compartmentalisation’, for instance?
All buildings have to comply with Fire Risk Assessments. There is a rolling programme under which these are carried out. 
Why has Lambeth Council never done a fire risk assessment at Carlton Mansions before? Why has it previously not taken responsibility for the maintenance of the building and why has it decided to do so now?
It is not clear when the last Fire Risk Assessment was carried out in this instance. However, not doing this in the past is not a reason for failing to do this in the present. Responsibility for upkeep of the building was, indeed, partially the responsibility of the Carlton Mansions Housing Co-operative from the point the block became a short life property. The structural integrity and safety of the building is the responsibility of the freehold owner - the London Borough of Lambeth. We are taking this action now because Lambeth Living have brought this matter to our attention.   
Lambeth Council did a thorough survey of the building a few years ago - why was the fire risk not mentioned in that survey?
The survey you are referring to was not a Fire Risk Assessment.
What are you going to do to help the cooperative members in their current situation?
The residents will be offered temporary accommodation and from there they will have their housing needs assessed and if eligible would be made a direct offer of a new home
If the Housing Cooperative is evicted, what will happen to the Carlton Mansions building? Will you get a company like Camelot in and why/why not?
Once the building is vacated it will need to be secured. We will not be using live in guardians due to the recommendations of the Fire Risk Assessment.
Lambeth has been strongly criticised recently (e.g. by the likes of Private Eye) for its policy of ridding the borough of short life and the way it has approached this. The members of the Housing Cooperative also feel that they are not being giving the chance of a dialogue about this situation. How does this all fit into the cooperative council model? 
In terms of an ongoing dialogue with the residents, the Council has met and continues to meet representatives from Carlton Mansions to discuss this extremely sensitive issue and to provide support where it can.


----------



## Effrasurfer (Apr 29, 2013)

Tweeted @cllr_robbins, Good luck, hope sense prevails!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 30, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Thanks for all the support. It means a lot to me that people in Brixton care. Whatever happens Brixton, when the chips are down, shows that it is has real community spirit.


Is it worth getting people down to the court tomorrow at 10am to show support?

I'm supposed to be elsewhere, but I will be there to support if people think it's worth it....

Court House
Cleaver Street
Kennington Road
London
SE11 4DZ 

Near to Kennington tube station, just off Cleaver Square


----------



## shifting gears (Apr 30, 2013)

I can't get out of work in the morning but I wish you all the very best of luck


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 30, 2013)

Brixton Blog said:


> The Cooperative have offered to install fire doors and do as much work as they can to get the building up to standard – why is this not enough?
> The Fire Risk Assessment makes a clear recommendation to vacate the building as a priority and therefore residents could not be allowed to remain in situ while the works are being done.
> 
> Does every other nineteenth and early 20th century building owned by Lambeth comply with the same standards? Do they all have correct ‘compartmentalisation’, for instance?
> All buildings have to comply with Fire Risk Assessments. There is a rolling programme under which these are carried out.


 

I find these two quite interesting.

The first that the residents can't be in situ 'while the works are being done'. Do they mean if the co-op got the necessary work done they would have to move out while it was done, which is down to the co-op and the contractors surely? Or that they have to move out until the work is done and then they could move back in? Or that the council would do the necessary work and they could not stay while that was done? Because it seems that they are dismissing any work being done under any circumstance and evicting them permanently because the area will be developed in a couple of years and their lease would end then anyway.

'There is a rolling programme under which these are carried out' and it just so happened that it was Carlton mansions turn right now rather than other properties which might not be inspected for another 6 months? Year? Five years?

A redevelopment is planned for Somerleyton Road including the land that Carlton Mansions stands on. Carlton Mansions has been short life since the 70s (?) and it is understood that these sorts of tenancies are 'temporary'. And it is understood that when the land comes to be redeveloped in 2 year that the residents would move out and that there is no guarantee that the building will continue to exist. However there is the matter of the mural. There have been mumblings that of course the council want to keep the mural if possible. Oval house who will take possession of the adjacent land have said that they are happy to try to respect the mural in their own development (and I have no particular reason to disbelieve them). However I can imagine that it would be so much more convenient in the grand scheme of things if the mural was not there and if efforts to protect it were not being made. Properties like this one soon fall into a state of disrepair when left vacant and I can't help but think that listings for murals can be dismissed if a building is found to be unsafe and in need of demolition. Also that it might be a lot more lucrative* to be able to offer the land for a new block of flats to a developer. (Is this possible considering the plans for the area as a whole?)

Perhaps I'm just a very cynical soul. Maybe it's all just coincidence.

*for the private developers, the council are unlikely to get a good deal for us, only in comparison to having to keep the CM building.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 30, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> Perhaps I'm just a very cynical soul. Maybe it's all just coincidence.


No it's not coincidence...you're totally spot on.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 30, 2013)

Yeah I noticed that bit too:



> _The Cooperative have offered to install fire doors and do as much work as they can to get the building up to standard – why is this not enough?_
> _The Fire Risk Assessment makes a clear recommendation to vacate the building as a priority and therefore residents could not be allowed to remain in situ while the works are being done._


 
What are "the works"?


----------



## free spirit (Apr 30, 2013)

Brixton Blog said:


> Why was the assessor sent to the building someone who is reportedly not an expert in assessing historic buildings?
> The age of any building or structure is not the issue. The assessor is an expert in Fire Safety and that was the purpose of the visit. The Council is obliged to ensure its buildings meet relevant health and safety regulations regardless of their age.


hoisted by their own petard.

please do make sure you quote this bit in court tomorrow, then read out this paragraph from appendix C, Historic Buildings, fire safety risk assessment, sleeping accomodation.



> Fire risk assessments conducted for sleeping accommodation which is within a listed or historic building *will need to ensure that a **balance is struck between ensuring sufficient fire safety measures are in place for the safety of people, yet avoid extensive alterations and helping to maintain the character of the building*


 
also worth asking them for evidence that they're consulted English Heritage, or that their fire officer had sufficient training and experience in conducting fire risk assessments in historic buildings to justify him taking these decisions by himself without reference to anyone who actually knows what they're doing with historic buildings.



> The advice and/or consent of a building control body or any other relevant bodies (e.g. English Heritage) should form part of any fire risk assessment that impacts on the character of the building (e.g. replacement of doors, fittings, wooden panelling and decor) or material changes to existing escape routes. A


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 30, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Yeah I noticed that bit too:
> 
> 
> 
> What are "the works"?


 
I suspect they mean that until such time as the work* was completed the risk is intolerable and so requiring immediate eviction.

* the work being getting it up to standard.


----------



## editor (Apr 30, 2013)

Just got a reply from Rachel Heywood. It doesn't look good at all. I've asked her if it's OK to publish it as it explains how they're treating the matter.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 30, 2013)

Emailed. Best of luck to all. x x x


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 30, 2013)

free spirit said:


> hoisted by their own petard.
> 
> please do make sure you quote this bit in court tomorrow, then read out this paragraph from appendix C, Historic Buildings, fire safety risk assessment, sleeping accomodation.
> 
> ...


 
good work

Gramsci boohoo


----------



## free spirit (Apr 30, 2013)

This bit is also worth taking into court with you, from the housing fire safety steering group clarification document on their 2008 guidance



> However, in a low risk 3 storey shared house *where there is sound conventional construction and doors opening onto **the escape route which are of sound, solid construction, close fitting and self closing then 20 minutes fire resistance can often be achieved.*


 
I'd expect that the doors already in place will be of this type of construction, so will afford 20 minutes fire resistance protection, which is considered by the fire safety steering group to be sufficient for 3 storey buildings, yet this fire safety officer has determined that it's so dangerous a situation for a 4 storey building that it requires immediate evacuation.

I don't see that in a historic building that replacing 20 minute rated doors with 30 minute rated doors is even likely to be justifiable just because the building has a 4th storey, as long as other measures are in place - ie proper heat and smoke detector fire alarm system, emergency lighting in the stairwell to facilitate rapid escape, and fire extinguishers etc.

All of that should be pretty quick and simply to install IMO (as a qualified electrician - albeit a solar panel installer), and I don't see that there should be justification for ordering an immediate evacuation of a building that's been lived in safely for decades... unless maybe the interior walls and doors are utterly shagged with holes all over the place etc.


----------



## free spirit (Apr 30, 2013)

for reference, this is the recommendations to apply to low risk buildings




> In all buildings a fully protected escape route (staircase) offering 30 minutes fire resistance is the ideal solution and it will usually be appropriate for all bedsit-type accommodation.
> 
> However, in lower risk buildings (i.e. single household occupancy of up to four storeys and low risk shared houses), due to the lower risk and shorter travel distance to the final exit, this need not be insisted upon as long as all the following conditions are met:
> 
> ...


 
so assuming there is some form of automatic fire detection and alarm in place, and the rest applies, this is where what I talked about earlier about it being subjective as to whether it's classified as high risk, low risk, or really whether there ought to be some common sense medium ground applied to the situation and it be recognised that a 4 storey HMO isn't suddenly so much more risky than a 3 storey HMO that what would be judged as being safe in a 3 storey building should be used as grounds for immediate eviction on safety grounds in a 4 storey building.

ps it would be useful to know if the flats are bedsit type arrangements with their own kitchens, or all use one shared communal kitchen? That's a key factor in determining how high risk the building should be viewed as being.

eta from here http://www.cieh.org/uploadedFiles/C...ications/National_fire_safety_guidance_08.pdf


----------



## free spirit (Apr 30, 2013)

btw there are 3 documents linked to in those last 3 posts, I'd strongly recommend someone involved prints them out and takes them in to the court with them - they should be the 3 key guidance documents the council and their fire safety officer should be following I think.

I'd hope that someone arguing the points I've just made with reference to those guide would at least be able to convince a judge to order a halt to eviction procedings until a second opinion can be sought from someone who specialises in fire safety for older buildings.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 30, 2013)

they are all separate flats with own kitchen and bathroom as far as I know.  I've not been in all the flats, just one.


----------



## cesare (Apr 30, 2013)

I suggest you take sufficient photocopies of the evidence free spirit  has found for you for the court. I for the other side, one for the bench (or whatever it's called) and 1 for the witness stand so minimum of 3 extra and more if you can. Highlight the relevant passages so they're easy to refer to.

Good luck all.

Edit: oops, just seen free spirit's above post


----------



## free spirit (Apr 30, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> they are all separate flats with own kitchen and bathroom as far as I know. I've not been in all the flats, just one.


arse. That makes things worse.

however, this is the paragraph I was looking for, which allows for alternative methods to be used to reduce the risk level of a building to a point where it then becomes viewed as a low risk building again.



> 9.12 If there is a suitable second staircase or exit or if there are additional fire safety measures (an enhanced system of fire detection and warning, for example, or a water suppression system), the premises may be considered lower risk and the travel distances and levels of protection may be adjusted accordingly where this lower risk can be demonstrated


 
so that gives possible options that should be explored in an old building rather than just insisting on 30 minute fire rated doors etc.

looking at google earth, it looks like it's got exits onto the roof in 3 places, which I'd expect could easily be made into alternative escape routes - ie on to the roof, then down one of the other escape routes, in which case there'd only be a need to install a decent alarm system IMO. If they needed to keep the doors secure they could have a break glass key on the inside of the door that opened all the other doors from the outside. That should satisfy any credible fire officer as a suitable alternative escape route.


----------



## peterkro (Apr 30, 2013)

Hope court goes well later today.


----------



## critical1 (Apr 30, 2013)

A Co-Op closing down a Co-Op, welcome to the NEW and improved Lambeth council you friendly helpful co-operative council.

What is your local councillor doing to help you? have thay met with you to discus anything? or are they just making statement?

What will happen to the Nuclear Dawn mural.. will they demolish the building??

So many questions and so few...

Co-Operative critical
Critical1


----------



## Fenian (Apr 30, 2013)

free spirit said:


> looking at google earth, it looks like it's got exits onto the roof in 3 places, which I'd expect could easily be made into alternative escape routes - ie on to the roof, then down one of the other escape routes, in which case there'd only be a need to install a decent alarm system IMO. If they needed to keep the doors secure they could have a break glass key on the inside of the door that opened all the other doors from the outside. That should satisfy any credible fire officer as a suitable alternative escape route.


Someone looking at google earth - or just passing by - should also be able to note the emergency escape route next to Atlantic Road that has been sealed off.
​


----------



## eme (Apr 30, 2013)

boohoo said:


> Please can people write to their Councillors about this. We have received the request this afternoon to attend court tomorrow morning. We have had no time to prepare and they have had a limited communication with us.


done - hope not too late x


----------



## Thimble Queen (Apr 30, 2013)

Sending love and strength. Really hope Carlton residents can fight this bullshit x


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Apr 30, 2013)

Oh my god, only heard about this last evening, how awful  we have sent a letter to the councillors, but please let me now of there's any other way to help...


----------



## girasol (Apr 30, 2013)

This really is evil, health & safety being used as an eviction tool.  Sickening.  People live in much more hazardous conditions (fire wise), don't see councils taking measures to actually improve their safety.  It's so transparent that's an excuse it would be less disgusting if they just came out with the real motive.


----------



## Dan U (Apr 30, 2013)

Good luck all. What total cunts Lambeth are.


----------



## blossie33 (Apr 30, 2013)

I don't live in Brixton but good luck for today!
What a lovely building it looks - how sad if it has to be demolished


----------



## teuchter (Apr 30, 2013)

Good luck. As others have said Fire Risk Assessments are subjective to some extent and it seems completely out of order to try and evict the residents at such short notice without at least giving them the chance to get a second opinion and look into ways of rectifying things without everyone having to move out. Unless the assessment identified something exceptionally dangerous about the current situation.


----------



## EastEnder (Apr 30, 2013)

Have emailed the council stooges.

(((boohoo et al)))


----------



## Chilavert (Apr 30, 2013)

Good luck at the hearing today.

Fwiw I do a fair bit of work with London Fire brigade - if it would help for me to try and find someone to speak to about the risk assessments then let me know and I'll do what I can.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 30, 2013)

i've emailed them all and chuka.  not that he ever pays any attention.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 30, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> i've emailed them all and chuka. not that he ever pays any attention.


He's too busy representing the people of Brixton and policing their political expressions (as last witnessed at Maggie's croak-fest).


----------



## editor (Apr 30, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> i've emailed them all and chuka. not that he ever pays any attention.


Only Chuka knows what the people of Brixton think and want, and who is deemed a worthy representative of the town. Fact.


----------



## editor (Apr 30, 2013)

Here's the statement from Cllr Rachel Heywood. It looks like the court appearance is just a fait accompli for the immediate eviction.


> Dear [urban75 editor]
> 
> You are quite right in saying that the situation with Carlton Mansions has moved extremely rapidly and with less time for discussion and the exploration of alternative options that I, personally, would have wished for.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rushy (Apr 30, 2013)

Is "intolerable risk" a standard technical fire assessment term used n the report or is it the council members' conclusion after reading the report?

Has the coop carried out any safety assessments over the years?


----------



## Dan U (Apr 30, 2013)

i wonder if this is in the context of housing departments being extra twitchy over fire risks since the Lakanal House fire, which begs the question of how and why has this been allowed to be left in such a state an extreme option like this is required.


----------



## editor (Apr 30, 2013)

Dan U said:


> i wonder if this is in the context of housing departments being extra twitchy over fire risks since the Lakanal House fire, which begs the question of how and why has this been allowed to be left in such a state an extreme option like this is required.


Totally unrelated to all the new redevelopment in the area, obvs.


----------



## Dan U (Apr 30, 2013)

editor said:


> Totally unrelated to all the new redevelopment in the area, obvs.


 
well, yeah that as well.


----------



## BJM2012 (Apr 30, 2013)

Dan U said:


> i wonder if this is in the context of housing departments being extra twitchy over fire risks since the Lakanal House fire, which begs the question of how and why has this been allowed to be left in such a state an extreme option like this is required.


 
Councils are being twitchy about Lakanal - even if the coroners recommendations related solely to high rise developments. The scale of the criticism for Southwark means that local authorities are scrapping to ensure all multi-occupancy buildings have up to date assessments. Lambeth is no different in that regard. I would not be surprised if the council did try and use Lakanal as justification to some degree.


----------



## editor (Apr 30, 2013)

Here's how the place looked in the pre-gentrification era. Note the graffiti and the lovely open space (and the Barrier Block before the security entrance was built) 





(Pics courtesy of Gramsci's scrapbook!)


----------



## teuchter (Apr 30, 2013)

One question; what is the benefit to Lambeth of evicting everyone now instead of in a couple of years time (which the housing co-op have already agreed to, yes?) if we are assuming their motivations are not to do with a genuine concern about fire safety issues?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 30, 2013)

The Lakhanal House tragedy will be wheeled out as a convenient excuse to justify the council's actions in this and other cases...and already has been by Cllr Rachel Heywood. Which is dispicable imo.

It's a bit like how terrorism was used to justify more restrictive laws and extra police powers post 9/11 - very difficult to argue against.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 30, 2013)

teuchter Allow the building to fall into disrepair so they can demolish it, get rid of the mural, more cash from the developers?


----------



## editor (Apr 30, 2013)

Anyone got an answer from Chuka or is he too busy?


----------



## teuchter (Apr 30, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> teuchter Allow the building to fall into disrepair so they can demolish it, get rid of the mural, more cash from the developers?


 Maybe yes.

Not sure it's entirely fair to compare fire risk in multi occupancy buildings (which is a very real danger) with hyped-up fears about terrorism. I think it's right that the camberwell fire should provoke councils into taking things more seriously. I don' think we should criticise councils for identifying fire risks. It's what they do about it that needs to be scrutinised.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 30, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Maybe yes.
> 
> Not sure it's entirely fair to compare fire risk in multi occupancy buildings (which is a very real danger) with hyped-up fears about terrorism. I think it's right that the camberwell fire should provoke councils into taking things more seriously. I don' think we should criticise councils for identifying fire risks. It's what they do about it that needs to be scrutinised.


How does the set up work? Is the Coop in essence a sub-landlord? Does the coop have any H&S responsibilities?


----------



## shifting gears (Apr 30, 2013)

editor said:


> Anyone got an answer from Chuka or is he too busy?



I didn't copy him in but have received no reply from any of:

Heywood 
Robbins
Parr
Anyanwu

Cheers, councillors! Keep up the good work wrecking the communities you're supposed to serve!


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 30, 2013)

Spent 3 hours in court. Most of it waiting.

About six of us went at short notice.

Upshot was that we were called then everything stopped. The usher came out and said that the Judge was not happy about the procedure the Council were using. The use of an injunction in this way is not usual. An injunction is normally used against stalkers or about harassment.

So we are outside court. Judge gets the Lambeth lot in for private chat.

Lambeth legal team come plus the so called Short Life manager come out and say they will instead be seeking possession orders.

Then a lot of time whilst they get new date. It appears that a date had been set. We were never told about this despite the meetings we had with Council and Cllrs.

So court date brought forward to end of May.

From what I could get out of Lambeth Barrister the whole exercise this morning was a waste of everyones time. Except the legal team and officers who are all being paid for being there.

I asked Lambeths barrister whether there was a legal problem with using an injunction in this way. He was non committal.

So I reckon the Judge had told Lambeth legal lot that this was not the correct way to do things.

What a shambles.

This caused a great deal of distress to individual Coop members. Lambeth Barrister kept on coming down in the long period we waited to try and do individual deals with people. Offering them two weeks to leave rather on end of week ( which he had been instructed to get by Coop Council Lambeth).

imo the whole exercise was bullying. Lambeth are trying to kick people out of there homes with an offer of B&B ( at a cost to the individual) and then "assessment" of there needs.

Trying to use an injunction really scared a lot of people. Its hard to explain unless u have been on the receiving end of "justice".So the exercise worked to that extent.

The Council played on people vulnerabilities. Got one member who is now part time carer of elderly parent for example. Who did not want any trouble.

Im not particularly bolshie but as I feel I have nothing to lose I was saying to people be careful what you say to the Barrister. He appears friendly but is not on your side.

Got to go now.

Thanks for all the support form posters here.

If anyone wants they can email Cllrs about Lambeth Council wasting everyones time and money on ill advised legal action.


----------



## JTG (Apr 30, 2013)

What a load of shite

Anyway, no response from any of the councillors I've emailed. I made it clear I'm not a Lambeth resident so probably even less likely to get a response than anyone else


----------



## editor (Apr 30, 2013)

Thanks for the update. I'm so sorry that people are finding it so stressful - it must be horrible not knowing what's happening to your home.

The council have acted disgracefully and it's making an absolute farce of their claims to be a 'co-cooperative' council.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 30, 2013)

I don't actually know what to say to all that. I don't have the words. What a distressing waste of time.

Sorry you're all going through this unnecessary circus.


----------



## Mation (Apr 30, 2013)

Thanks for the update, Gramsci


----------



## colacubes (Apr 30, 2013)

Lambeth should be ashamed of themselves for the stress they're putting people through. Why can't they just be honest about what it is they actually want?


----------



## editor (Apr 30, 2013)

I'm off emailing again. This is causing distress for long term residents who should be protected by their own council, and ultimately costing all of us residents as we'll be footing the bill for this ill-thought out court fiasco.

*edit to add: maybe it's something Private Eye might take an interest in?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Apr 30, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> I don't actually know what to say to all that. I don't have the words. What a distressing waste of time.
> 
> Sorry you're all going through this unnecessary circus.



This. 

How frustrating and upsetting it must be for residents 

boohoo and Gramsci you have lots of support on here dont be shy in telling us how we can help x


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Apr 30, 2013)

I will email my councillors again:  I have just received a reply saying a very brief version of what you've just said and implying that he agreed with your view Gramsci

It sounds awful what you're going through


----------



## cesare (Apr 30, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> I don't actually know what to say to all that. I don't have the words. What a distressing waste of time.
> 
> Sorry you're all going through this unnecessary circus.


That pretty much sums it up. They shouldn't be able to get away with this.


----------



## cesare (Apr 30, 2013)

editor said:


> I'm off emailing again. This is causing distress for long term residents who should be protected by their own council, and ultimately costing all of us residents as we'll be footing the bill for this ill-thought out court fiasco.
> 
> *edit to add: maybe it's something Private Eye might take an interest in?


Yes, maybe grist for their Rotten Councils column.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 30, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Im not particularly bolshie but as I feel I have nothing to lose I was saying to people be careful what you say to the Barrister. He appears friendly but is not on your side.


 
Good advice.  I took Lambeth to court over what I considered an unfair abatement notice. Their solicitor/barrister cornered me outside and started to 'caringly' bully me - mostly threats about cripplingly huge legal costs if (he said _when_) I lost and lots of bullshit about just accepting the notice as I could infringe the notice without any major repercussions other than a small fine (he forgot to mention a criminal record!). Luckily I was not concerned about costs and have a degree in law so was able to see through his utter bullshit. He didn't know the case law, didn't know the guidance and didn't know the statutes. I had to ask him to leave me alone several times, my partner had to step in between us after I told him that he was no more trustworthy than a second hand car salesman and then he eventually went away after she left to complain to the court clerk.

I wrote to Lambeth describing the occasion and saying that it was unethical to attempt to mislead and bully residents, particularly if they are financially or otherwise vulnerable. They responded that he was just looking out for me!


----------



## Rushy (Apr 30, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Lambeth legal team come plus the so called Short Life manager come out and say they will instead be seeking possession orders.


You need to get your hands on that fire report and see if there is an economical way of getting the building to an "acceptable" standard for the short term.

The possession process is harder and a lot slower. You should look into how to best delay proceedings.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 30, 2013)

If people are going to discuss 'strategies' on here it might be worth doing a private conversation with relevant posters. 

Rushy it sounds like you have useful experience and knowledge.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 30, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> If people are going to discuss 'strategies' on here it might be worth doing a private conversation with relevant posters.
> 
> Rushy it sounds like you have useful experience and knowledge.


I don't really, I'm afraid. Degree was a long time ago and I have never practised. A friend gave me access to his firm's research library but he is now in-house with an ents company so not much use! The guys need proper advice.


----------



## Winot (Apr 30, 2013)

Rushy said:


> The guys need proper advice.


 
Yep.  Maybe we could have a whip round to fund it?  I'd be happy to put a bit in the pot.

Gramsci


----------



## cesare (Apr 30, 2013)

Maybe call the Shelter advice line for starters? Assuming that's not already been done.


----------



## editor (Apr 30, 2013)

Gramsci boohoo if you guys need to raise funds for a legal campaign I would be more than honoured to put together a fundraising show - and I'm sure I'd have no problem putting together a fucking great bill for such an important cause.

Just say the word and I'll get on it!


----------



## nagapie (Apr 30, 2013)

Disgusting behaviour from Lambeth. I think this incident needs to go back to Chukka and Heywood asking for a justification of the waste of Lambeth's residents' money. What a vile way to conduct themselves.

I'd support a fund. And I definitely think Public Eye would go for this, be good to shame Lambeth more publicly.


----------



## Vibrant-Hubb (Apr 30, 2013)

Just because Lambeth "seek possession", doesn't mean they'll get it. If the Carlton Mansions Co-op can come up with a proposal to quickly bring the building up to an acceptable safety standard then there is no grounds for eviction.


----------



## colacubes (Apr 30, 2013)

Can I just say at this point that I'm pretty sure Chuka ain't the relevant MP in this case so he won't respond. People should address their concerns to Tessa Jowell who I think is the relevant constituency MP. She's definitely mine and I think I'm in the same constituency as Carlton Mandions.


----------



## leanderman (Apr 30, 2013)

nagapie said:


> Disgusting behaviour from Lambeth. I think this incident needs to go back to Chukka and Heywood asking for a justification of the waste of Lambeth's residents' money. What a vile way to conduct themselves.
> 
> I'd support a fund. And I definitely think Public Eye would go for this, be good to shame Lambeth more publicly.


 
Although I don't dislike Lambeth as much as some, this is eye-openingly incompetent.


----------



## editor (Apr 30, 2013)

nipsla said:


> Can I just say at this point that I'm pretty sure Chuka ain't the relevant MP in this case so he won't respond.


He seemed to think himself very relevant when it came to local people democratically expressing their opinion about Thatcher's death in the same area.


----------



## colacubes (Apr 30, 2013)

editor said:


> He seemed to think himself very relevant when it came to local people democratically expressing their opinion about Thatcher's death in the same area.



Yep. That's politics


----------



## Vibrant-Hubb (Apr 30, 2013)

How would Rachel Heywood like to receive a notice seeking possesion? This is so upsetting. Where will people put all their things and furniture - the disruption of it could cause vulnerable people to commit suicide.  Do the authorities think people in social housing or "short-life" housing live out of a suitcase? They want a home, a proper home, the same as anyone wants. Also that lovely, atmospheric building, please don't tell me some idiot thinks that's not worth preserving. Looking at it from inside Granville Arcade across the road is beautiful. This story is just sickening. Lambeth don't give a shit for 30 years then get all paternal and concerned.  What about the choice of "I'd rather stay and take the risk" - the uprooting is more drastic than the chance of fire.


----------



## leanderman (Apr 30, 2013)

Vibrant-Hubb said:


> How would Rachel Heywood like to receive a notice seeking possesion? This is so upsetting. Where will people put all their things and furniture - the disruption of it could cause vulnerable people to commit suicide. Do the authorities think people in social housing or "short-life" housing live out of a suitcase? They want a home, a proper home, the same as anyone wants. Also that lovely, atmospheric building, please don't tell me some idiot thinks that's not worth preserving. Looking at it from inside Granville Arcade across the road is beautiful. This story is just sickening. Lambeth don't give a shit for 30 years then get all paternal and concerned. What about the choice of "I'd rather stay and take the risk" - the uprooting is more drastic than the chance of fire.


 
What, if any, is the plan for the building when the tenants leave in two years' time. Presumably it will no longer be residential?


----------



## editor (Apr 30, 2013)

leanderman said:


> What, if any, is the plan for the building when the tenants leave in two years' time. Presumably it will no longer be residential?


It'll be poshadential, probably.


----------



## colacubes (Apr 30, 2013)

I think the plan is for business units rather than residential.  At the moment.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 30, 2013)

TruXta said:


> He's too busy representing the people of Brixton and policing their political expressions (as last witnessed at Maggie's croak-fest).


 
Yep, still haven't had a reply from him w/r/t my letter asking him why he's making out he represents the people of Brixton, when he only represents a fraction of 'em (among other things).
He should be a bit more circumspect. Ambition is all well and good, but fuck your constituents over and you may just end up without a seat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 30, 2013)

Vibrant-Hubb said:


> How would Rachel Heywood like to receive a notice seeking possesion? This is so upsetting. Where will people put all their things and furniture - the disruption of it could cause vulnerable people to commit suicide. Do the authorities think people in social housing or "short-life" housing live out of a suitcase? They want a home, a proper home, the same as anyone wants. Also that lovely, atmospheric building, please don't tell me some idiot thinks that's not worth preserving. Looking at it from inside Granville Arcade across the road is beautiful. This story is just sickening. Lambeth don't give a shit for 30 years then get all paternal and concerned. What about the choice of "I'd rather stay and take the risk" - the uprooting is more drastic than the chance of fire.


 
To be fair, only if "paternal and concerned" means "realised they can make money out of it".

Bear in mind what is at stake for our Labour councillors under the Localism Act. These jokers will now do their very best to milk *all* their social assets, particularly housing, in order to keep the Council Tax down. *Why* would they be so intent on keeping the Council Tax down? Because it's something the middle-class incomers that Lambeth's Labour rulers wish to appeal to (remember that many of them believe that "Lambeth has too much social housing") are thought to care about.

Social engineering by the back door. Get rid of the people that make Brixton a place worth living, and replace them with identikit plastic people in an identikit plastic town, and do it by whatever means necessary.


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 30, 2013)

Can't the localism act be used against them? Pickles hates Lambeth Council, and this is an example of them using his localism act against its original purpose...


----------



## LambethWeeknder (Apr 30, 2013)

Hi, here's our latest article on Lambeth's short life housing evictions - it's happening all over the borough
http://weekenderlife.co.uk/2013/04/29/lambeth-short-life-housing-evictions-kick-in/


----------



## Thimble Queen (Apr 30, 2013)

LambethWeeknder said:


> Hi, here's our latest article on Lambeth's short life housing evictions - it's happening all over the borough
> http://weekenderlife.co.uk/2013/04/29/lambeth-short-life-housing-evictions-kick-in/



Thanks for sharing this. Not too sure about the anti squatter sentiment tho.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 30, 2013)

cesare said:


> Maybe call the Shelter advice line for starters? Assuming that's not already been done.


 
Been doing that. They are very busy at the moment.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 30, 2013)

nipsla said:


> I think the plan is for business units rather than residential. At the moment.


 
We were talking to Council and Ovalhouse about the Mansions. After pressure from us they were looking at keeping the top residential.

Thing is if we are got off site we will no longer be able to keep an eye and comment on the Somerleyton road project as it is developed.

 I was realistic that in the end its a Council project. But with us not there it gives the three main partners a free reign in how the project develops.

The three main parties being the Council (final say on what happens) , Ovalhouse ( on the north end of site) and Brixton Green.


----------



## leanderman (Apr 30, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> To be fair, only if "paternal and concerned" means "realised they can make money out of it".
> 
> Bear in mind what is at stake for our Labour councillors under the Localism Act. These jokers will now do their very best to milk *all* their social assets, particularly housing, in order to keep the Council Tax down. *Why* would they be so intent on keeping the Council Tax down? Because it's something the middle-class incomers that Lambeth's Labour rulers wish to appeal to (remember that many of them believe that "Lambeth has too much social housing") are thought to care about.
> 
> Social engineering by the back door. Get rid of the people that make Brixton a place worth living, and replace them with identikit plastic people in an identikit plastic town, and do it by whatever means necessary.


 
I'd quite like lower council tax!


----------



## leanderman (Apr 30, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> But with us not there it gives the three main partners a free rein in how the project develops.
> .


 
If it is a conspiracy - this is the likeliest explanation


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 30, 2013)

Vibrant-Hubb said:


> How would Rachel Heywood like to receive a notice seeking possesion? This is so upsetting. Where will people put all their things and furniture - the disruption of it could cause vulnerable people to commit suicide. Do the authorities think people in social housing or "short-life" housing live out of a suitcase? They want a home, a proper home, the same as anyone wants. Also that lovely, atmospheric building, please don't tell me some idiot thinks that's not worth preserving. Looking at it from inside Granville Arcade across the road is beautiful. This story is just sickening. Lambeth don't give a shit for 30 years then get all paternal and concerned. What about the choice of "I'd rather stay and take the risk" - the uprooting is more drastic than the chance of fire.


 
Could not agree more. 

I spent morning in court. Was getting more and more angry at the upset it was causing to Coop members.

Some people were so worried about the injunction that they moved some of the things last night. As no one knew how it would turn out.

An injunction is used to stop someone doing something. Normally a behaviour that is anti social.

So if granted it could take force immediately. The injunction being that to enter our homes would break the injunction.

The majority of the people in the Coop are fairly law abiding lot so this caused a lot of fear.

What also had me fuming was the slur by the "Short Life Housing Projects Manager" said that




> "The residents in terms of their social environmental and conditions are likely to carry out practises where fires could develop in the home."


 

This is just abuse.

Also reading the papers that the Council had submitted to court made me realise that my Cllrs probably knew more than they told me.

Also The Coop had been meeting the Council. In papers to the court the "residents" ( the court papers never say its a Coop) are accused of not talking to the Council. So this is the reason the court action is being taken.

Wrong. The Coop had been meeting the Council over this issue. Its clear to me that this legal action was already being planned whilst the Coop was meeting the Council.


----------



## crutherford (Apr 30, 2013)

You should definitely write to Private Eye. Use the email address strobes@private-eye.co.uk. They have been reporting for several weeks on Southwark Council and what looks like its cosy deals with Lend Lease who are developing the Heygate Estate at Elephant. They are good at investigating and reporting councils in their Rotten Boroughs section, and they have a wide readership. Everyone should know about Lambeth.


----------



## eme (Apr 30, 2013)

"_"The residents in terms of their social environmental and conditions are likely to carry out practises where fires could develop in the home."_" wtf?!?


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 30, 2013)

leanderman said:


> I'd quite like lower council tax!


 
I'd 'quite like' lower council tax but I'm actually pretty pissed off that they sent me my bill proudly announcing they'd frozen it at a time when they are cutting services.  Better to take a bit more from me than make people on benefits start paying/pay more.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 30, 2013)

Tim from Brixton Blog came to court. Here is his Brixton Blog article.

Brixton Blog

Good to have Tim there this morning.


----------



## shifting gears (Apr 30, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> I'd 'quite like' lower council tax but I'm actually pretty pissed off that they sent me my bill proudly announcing they'd frozen it at a time when they are cutting services.  Better to take a bit more from me than make people on benefits start paying/pay more.



Quite, and hoping the post you quoted was made firmly tongue-in-cheek.


----------



## shifting gears (Apr 30, 2013)

FFS , I'm just catching up on this thread now and my blood is fucking boiling

The slippery fucking wankers


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 30, 2013)

eme said:


> "_"The residents in terms of their social environmental and conditions are likely to carry out practises where fires could develop in the home."_" wtf?!?


 
It is laughable.

code for "Dirty bunch of layabouts partying all the time" etc

Thanks Lambeth Council.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 30, 2013)

Look at you going on carrying out your fire developing practises.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 30, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> Look at you going on carrying out your fire developing practises.


 


We are all safe in the hands of the caring Council. They are so concerned about our welfare.


----------



## indigolove (Apr 30, 2013)

Chilavert said:


> Good luck at the hearing today.
> 
> Fwiw I do a fair bit of work with London Fire brigade - if it would help for me to try and find someone to speak to about the risk assessments then let me know and I'll do what I can.


I would imagine that there's a lot of angry firemen at Clapham Fire Station - can they not advise you?
We need to be supporting one another -


----------



## leanderman (Apr 30, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> Quite, and hoping the post you quoted was made firmly tongue-in-cheek.



Why should I not quite like lower council taxes? 

As long as services are not compromised.


----------



## quimcunx (May 1, 2013)

I'm fairly certain service are being compromised at this time.


----------



## leanderman (May 1, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> I'm fairly certain service are being compromised at this time.


 

We'd better pay some more council tax then!


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 1, 2013)

eme said:


> "_"The residents in terms of their social environmental and conditions are likely to carry out practises where fires could develop in the home."_" wtf?!?



Does that mean 'some of them smoke'?


----------



## Thimble Queen (May 1, 2013)

Nah fire ritual satanists, blates.


----------



## Rushy (May 1, 2013)

Making the building a no-smoking zone would go some way to averting risk, presumably?


----------



## Rushy (May 1, 2013)

From reading the barrister's comments in the Brixton Blog article it looks like this is as much about the council being seen to have taken all available steps to warn the tenants of fire risk and avoid culpability. They've told the occupants about the risk, they've asked them to move out immediately, they have attempted an injunction. If someone gets subsequently gets hurt in a fire it would be much harder to argue that the council is to blame. 

What is the set up there? Is the co-op responsible for maintenance?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2013)

leanderman said:


> I'd quite like lower council tax!


 
I'm sure we all would, but the more sensible among us would *probably* attempt to weigh the costs of it being lowered. At least, I'd hope so!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2013)

eme said:


> "_"The residents in terms of their social environmental and conditions are likely to carry out practises where fires could develop in the home."_" wtf?!?


 
Trans: "The residents are squatters, and obviously that means they're all intravenous drug-users, and probably arsonists as well!". Classic bit of attempting to play on the presumed social prejudices of "the establishment".


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> I'd 'quite like' lower council tax but I'm actually pretty pissed off that they sent me my bill proudly announcing they'd frozen it at a time when they are cutting services. Better to take a bit more from me than make people on benefits start paying/pay more.


 
Thing is, rather than them presuming (or checking) that people like you (what I'd loosely call "people who've still got a social conscience")are prepared to pay an extra 5-10% on your Council Tax, they assume that people like you are the same as people like them: Grasping, venal and unprepared to act like social beings in a social environment.

Frankly, even if someone's thinking is entirely instrumental, it generally "pays" to suffer a rise in Council Tax in terms of stability or even improvement in services.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> FFS , I'm just catching up on this thread now and my blood is fucking boiling
> 
> The slippery fucking wankers


 
Lambeth Labour doing what they've done best since the "New Labour" days: Looking after themselves, their future political careers and their privileges.
Of course, *any* administration would do similar, given the legislation, but the whole issue of freezing CT when they have a mandate to raise it by at least inflation is pretty much a signal of where their concerns lie, and how they're going to play.

Saddens me when I think back to how hard Lambeth Labour used to struggle to be an example of municipal socialism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Why should I not quite like lower council taxes?
> 
> As long as services are not compromised.


 
Bit late for that. Services have arguably already been compromised by the decision to effectively "freeze" CT rates, rather than making legislatively-permissible inflationary rises over the last 3 years.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Does that mean 'some of them smoke'?


 
"Some of them cook up their smack over candle flames, milord. G-d's honest truth guv!".
Just in slightly more insinuatory language.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2013)

MrsDarlingsKiss said:


> Nah fire ritual satanists, blates.


 
Bloody Luciferians and their ritual flame jugglers and fire-breathers. What next? Satanic clowns?


----------



## leanderman (May 1, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Bit late for that. Services have arguably already been compromised by the decision to effectively "freeze" CT rates, rather than making legislatively-permissible inflationary rises over the last 3 years.



The council tax has been frozen but higher fees for parking permits, charges for bulk waste collection etc mean that, in effect, council tax payers are paying more.


----------



## critical1 (May 1, 2013)

Hohoho 

Has anyone complained as to the level of help received from the councillors in regard to this, and the bullying tactics (dirty tricks) of Lambeth Housing a department of the Co-Operative council.

Critical1


----------



## Thimble Queen (May 1, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Bloody Luciferians and their ritual flame jugglers and fire-breathers. What next? Satanic clowns?



As long as there's no fire poi involved everything will be OK.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2013)

MrsDarlingsKiss said:


> As long as there's no fire poi involved everything will be OK.


 
Or burning hackey-sacks! (((((burned knees)))))


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 1, 2013)

leanderman said:


> The council tax has been frozen but higher fees for parking permits, charges for bulk waste collection etc mean that, in effect, council tax payers are paying more.


 
Sure, but that's indirect taxation, as opposed to direct taxation. I'm talking about CT, and why (IMO) the administration doesn't want to/won't raise it.


----------



## Gramsci (May 1, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Trans: "The residents are squatters, and obviously that means they're all intravenous drug-users, and probably arsonists as well!". Classic bit of attempting to play on the presumed social prejudices of "the establishment".


 
Thats what I thought it meant as well. It is prejudice.


----------



## kittyP (May 1, 2013)

Got a reply from Councillor Rachel Heywood on behalf of loads of other Councillors.




> Thank you for contacting councillors about this situation. I am replying on behalf of Coldharbour ward councillors – Donatus Anyanwu, Matt Parr, and myself.  Our colleague Cllr Pete Robbins, Cabinet member for Housing and Regeneration, will be responding in more detail on the issues that you and others have raised about Carlton Mansions but Matt Donatus and I wanted to acknowledge the enquiries which have been sent to us in the meantime.
> 
> You will probably be aware that the outcome of the application to court yesterday morning was that the case has been deferred and will be heard on the 22nd May. This will allow us to continue to work with the coop to assess individual needs, to plan alternative accommodation where appropriate, and to ensure that they are receiving all the support to which they are entitled, including to benefits. We hope to start this work with individuals immediately so that as much as possible is resolved before the case returns to court, however we have been meeting regularly with representatives of .
> 
> ...


 
I am thinking I might reply with my feelings about how totally unnessecary it was to drag everyone in to court yesterday, what a waste of pubic money and stress to residents it was and how they have been total bastards, but more politely obviously. 

Anyone got any ideas of what to say?


----------



## Thimble Queen (May 1, 2013)

I got this response too. It makes it sound like the decision has already been made


----------



## JTG (May 1, 2013)

Same for me as well. Begs the question, if they did whatever work was deemed necessary, would the council reverse their stance? Or just find another reason to try and force them out?


----------



## Dairy (May 1, 2013)

I got the same email myself, I'm interested to hear what other people think about it before I send them a reply.


----------



## Fenian (May 1, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> It is laughable.
> 
> code for "Dirty bunch of layabouts partying all the time" etc
> 
> Thanks Lambeth Council.


CAN-NOT-FUCKING-BELIEVE-THIS.


----------



## gaijingirl (May 1, 2013)

Sorry if I have missed this, but out of interest, have the reasons why the building presents an "intolerable" level of risk been shared?


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 1, 2013)

Dairy said:


> I got the same email myself, I'm interested to hear what other people think about it before I send them a reply.


 
i think they're trying to make you think that everythings ok and that they will be fixing the problems.  but they're still determined to g to court and i bet you that no matter what the co-op offer the council will still push ahead with the eviction.


----------



## TopCat (May 1, 2013)

Emailing Councillors will achieve fuck all. It makes me want to weep and shout with frustration. Brixton has a long tradition of opposing evictions in a much more forceful manner.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 1, 2013)

It's just so blatant, they're selling off anything they can.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 1, 2013)

They hold surgeries on the weekend at Lambeth town hall, but you would probably be chucked out if you asked questions.


----------



## Gramsci (May 1, 2013)

kittyP said:


> Got a reply from Councillor Rachel Heywood on behalf of loads of other Councillors.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
To start I really appreciate posters like you here who have taken the trouble to email. I post up here. But other Coop members are watching this thread. They are touched at the support given here. 

We are also touched by the posts here. It makes us feel we are not going through this alone. Its a big morale post to see posts here on this thread. Thanks to all.

You can say:

Email is incorrect.

The case was not deferred.

The Judge said that Lambeth use of an injunction was procedurally wrong. That the Council should use a possession order.

So it was not a matter of deferring the case.

Lambeth should apologize to the Coop members for the distress caused by this failed draconian action. Which rightly the Judge would not hear.

The case was also not deferred as Lambeth ( not known by Coop) had already lined up proceeding for possession orders. The argument between the Judge and Lambeths legal team was to try and move the date forward. Which I think was said at the court to be June. It was brought forward to move to 22nd May.

The attempted use of an injunction in this way is unusual. It is not normal use of an injunction. I talked to Lawyer to today who told me he was not surprised the Judge would not hear it.

The attempted use of an injunction was draconian action. It caused a lot of distress. I have been talking to Coop members as several reported sleepless nights etc over this.

I have been told it might be worth putting in a complaint about the Council attempted use of this action.

People thought that if the action went against us potentially we could be barred from our homes same day. An injunction can take effect immediately its granted. The whole thing was designed to intimidate.

Half the Coop is female. We have always tried to house women. I am not saying that women are the weaker sex. However the thought of bailiffs kicking the door in frightened people. We are not a burly bunch of baby eating Anarchists just up for a fight for the sake of it.

Also you could raise with Rachel the unnecessary slur on Coop members in the Coop papers by the Council:



> "The residents in terms of their social environment and conditions are likely to carry out practises where fires could develop in the home"


 
Which several posters have rightly seen as a slur.

Also if you read the Cllrs email u can see that despite the fact that the Council are making people potentially homeless and ordering them out they are not offering any real alternatives. Just "plans" , "advice" and "support they are entitled to". This does not mean much. Its also vague.


----------



## quimcunx (May 2, 2013)

The comparison of potential risk of fire in the next 6 weeks (to original possession order court date?), or until such time as the necessary works* are carried out (don't know how long that would be) with the risk of suffering mental and physical health problems, financial problems and potentially ending up on the street which is a massive risk to one's physical safety and general well-being, over a much longer period than six weeks, seems entirely out of kilter.

*as for required works there must be a point between 'intolerable risk and you must move out immediately' and 'all recommendations excecuted' where sufficient measures have been put in place that eviction is no longer necessary, if indeed the official finding is that the fire risk is intolerable


----------



## Gramsci (May 2, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> i think they're trying to make you think that everythings ok and that they will be fixing the problems. but they're still determined to g to court and i bet you that no matter what the co-op offer the council will still push ahead with the eviction.


 
Sadly accurate post.

Also it was illuminating reading the papers the Council served on us this week for the (failed) injunction. It is clear from the papers that whilst the Coop thought it was in discussion with the Council/ Cllrs in fact they were getting there favourite lawyers
Devonshires onto the Coop . Described to me as being known to be "gung ho". Another example of how caring cuddly Lambeth Coop Council work.

And the Council had the cheek to argue in the court papers they were taking this action as the the "individual occupiers" ( as they insisted to use in court papers) had already shown unwillingness to leave "voluntarily" at meetings that had been held. So Council used the very fact that the Coop would meet Council in a civilized manner against it.

Coop had no idea (naively in hindsight) that the meetings would be used in this way.

I am starting to lose faith in my Coldharbour Ward Cllrs.


----------



## Gramsci (May 2, 2013)

I have contact from one of the Coop members who was in Mansions in the early days. She is now a writer who lives in Canada.

She kindly wrote this piece for Brixton Blog.

I also asked her to do it as an historical record. Its also an interesting read of the early days of the Coop warts and all.

As the Council are set to destroy a long lasting community its important to record it.

If you like it twitter/ FB it around.


----------



## Gramsci (May 2, 2013)

kittyP said:


> Got a reply from Councillor Rachel Heywood on behalf of loads of other Councillors.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You might point out the difference between what Cllr Rachel says of the recent Council court action and the Brixton Blog report. ( Tim from BB was at court with Coop members or "individual occupiers" as Council insisted on calling us.)

Brixton Blog report

Brixton Blog



> Judge Zimmer refused to hear the injunction application at Lambeth County Court, Kennington, yesterday, privately telling lawyers for the council he wasn’t happy to make injunctions “as back door possession orders”.


 
The BB account is the accurate one.


----------



## teuchter (May 2, 2013)

gaijingirl said:


> Sorry if I have missed this, but out of interest, have the reasons why the building presents an "intolerable" level of risk been shared?


I don't think so, but it would be useful to know.

Gramsci?

Also as others have asked, who's ultimately responsible for the upkeep of the building, Lambeth or the co-op?


----------



## gaijingirl (May 2, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I don't think so, but it would be useful to know.
> 
> Gramsci?
> 
> Also as others have asked, who's ultimately responsible for the upkeep of the building, Lambeth or the co-op?


 
well it's just that I would hope the the co-op members had been given this information.  Are they issues that would cost many tens of thousands to resolve?  It would be very interesting to know.


----------



## SocialLifeteam (May 2, 2013)

Hi - Social Life team here.

The summary of all the Action Planning Workshops we have been running about the future of Somerleyton Road is being displayed as part of Lambeth's display about this site in Windrush Square this afternoon, 4 to 8pm.

We've really appreciated all the support from the people who have come to our workshops, especially the people from Carlton Mansions, who've found time to speak to us while going through an incredibly difficult time. Thank you.

We are putting the full report of all our work out next week. 

Thanks again to everyone who took part and our best wishes to everyone in Carlton Mansions.


----------



## zora (May 2, 2013)

Just wanted to check in on this thread to send my support and best wishes to Coop members, boohoo and Gramsci and everyone there. 

Am truly horrified at the actions of lying, spinning and corrupt council with no regard for people's lives and livelihood. 

Thanks Gramsci for pointers upthread in response to kittyp as to what to say in a letter/e-mail to councillors/MP after the developments on Tuesday.


----------



## critical1 (May 2, 2013)

1st this on U75 then sometime later in the Brixton Blog

"This does not remove the urgency of the situation, and I hope that the coop will accept support to promptly move out of what has been judged to be a building which poses an ‘intolerable’ level of risk to those living in it. This is a judgement which we cannot ignore, and is the reason for the actions which have been taken. We understand that this is an extremely difficult situation for CMHC and for individuals but we believe there is no alternative solution in the immediate future."

Then this on the Brixton Blog several days later

"Cllr Rachel Heywood told the Brixton Blog and urban 75 site today: “The situation with Carlton mansions has moved extremely rapidly and with less time for discussion and the exploration of alternative options than I, personally, would have wished for.”

WTF. So it's spin time can you trust a Cllr who talks with forked tongue just another example of how committed Heywood is to her constituents. 

I am surprised  that given how intolerable Carlton Mansions is that the judge decided to give them till the middle of the month to present their case.

Critical1 being extremely critical
Critical1


----------



## editor (May 2, 2013)

Why has no one at the council expressed any interest in investigating ways that building may perhaps be swiftly brought up to the required safety standard, and the residents allowed to stay?

What appear to be several sound practical solutions have already been suggested here but the council only seems interested in hoofing out the residents as swiftly as they can.

All this falls rather short of a self-declared  'co-operative' council fulfilling their promise to do all they can to support 'resilient communities'.


----------



## TruXta (May 2, 2013)

editor said:


> Why has no one at the council expressed any interest in investigating ways that building may perhaps be swiftly brought up to the required safety standard, and the residents allowed to stay?
> 
> What appear to be several sound practical solutions have already been suggested here but the council only seems interested in hoofing out the residents as swiftly as they can.
> 
> All this falls rather short of a self-declared 'co-operative' council fulfilling their promise to do all they can to support 'resilient communities'.


Seems their model of cooperation is assisted suicide. Nothing's as resilient as death right?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 2, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's just so blatant, they're selling off anything they can.


 
Yup. As I said earlier, most of this is being done in order to keep the Council Tax frozen, either by using the money from asset sales to directly subsidise services, or by "banking" the money.
As with all asset sales, though, it's only viable as long as you have assets to sell. A small rise in the CT would mean being able to eke out assets over a much longer period.


----------



## JTG (May 2, 2013)

I realise that it's different councils etc but, having been considering holding my nose and voting Labour here, this bollocks in Lambeth helped remind me why I shouldn't. Just in case any Labour types are reading like


----------



## leanderman (May 2, 2013)

editor said:


> Why has no one at the council expressed any interest in investigating ways that building may perhaps be swiftly brought up to the required safety standard, and the residents allowed to stay?
> 
> What appear to be several sound practical solutions have already been suggested here but the council only seems interested in hoofing out the residents as swiftly as they can.
> 
> ...


 
Unbelievably shabby.


----------



## laptop (May 2, 2013)

> Judge Zimmer refused to hear the injunction application at Lambeth County Court, Kennington, yesterday, privately telling lawyers for the council he wasn’t happy to make injunctions “as back door possession orders”.


Well spotted that judge!


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 2, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yup. As I said earlier, most of this is being done in order to keep the Council Tax frozen, either by using the money from asset sales to directly subsidise services, or by "banking" the money.
> As with all asset sales, though, it's only viable as long as you have assets to sell. A small rise in the CT would mean being able to eke out assets over a much longer period.


I don't think it's purely CT, I reckon they are cosy with developers...


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 2, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> I don't think it's purely CT, I reckon they are cosy with developers...


 
I'm sure they are, but at least some of the cosiness is due to the various asset-stripping/sales wheezes that have been thought up to offset "austerity" cuts.
I'm just praying we don't see anything on the scale of Southwark and Lend-Lease.


----------



## editor (May 2, 2013)

Some may feel that with the sometimes-dissenting voices of Carlton Mansions swiftly written out of future consultation, Brixton Green may see it as a gilt-edged opportunity to try and grab more influence in the Somerleyton Road scheme.


----------



## shifting gears (May 2, 2013)

Got the same reply of cllr Heywood, just sent this. Livid. 

"Thanks, councillor, for the stock reply, which made no effort to tackle individual points and was clearly just engineered to appease any dissenting voices: a few points

1/ this building has been under your jurisdiction for decades, and only now, do you conveniently find it an 'intolerable risk'. As to my question about independent assessment? No reply. As to the option of the residents assisting in rapidly bringing the building up to standard? Nothing. 

2/ you have dragged these people to a court at short notice, where your solicitors have applied pressure in underhand ways to try and achieve your agenda. This is little short of harassment. On top of this the judge has determined improper use of an injunction - another example of how you think you can bully your way to a victory. 

3/ you may think that those of us that live in your wards are stupid and gullible, but plenty have seen the methods you are deploying in regards to this situation, as well as, for example, the Barrett Homes development, where I personally witnessed the labour councillors betray the community by acceding to Barrett's disgusting u-turn. 

4/ you can spout empty rhetoric about 'concern' and 'assistance' all you like, you are not fooling anyone. Indeed, it appears that while convincing the CM residents that you are working with and assisting them, you have in fact been plotting and subverting those discussions in tandem with your legal advisers. And then springing snap meetings on the residents, in order to gain the upper hand in the ensuing case.

Did I mention the word underhand yet?

Lambeth may well be safe Labour territory for the most part, but as far as I'm concerned, Lambeth council is an utter disgrace.

Yours disgustedly
SW9"


----------



## Gramsci (May 2, 2013)

editor said:


> Why has no one at the council expressed any interest in investigating ways that building may perhaps be swiftly brought up to the required safety standard, and the residents allowed to stay?
> 
> What appear to be several sound practical solutions have already been suggested here but the council only seems interested in hoofing out the residents as swiftly as they can.
> 
> All this falls rather short of a self-declared 'co-operative' council fulfilling their promise to do all they can to support 'resilient communities'.


 
Pretty well sums up the situation that teuchter gaijingirl bring up.


----------



## Gramsci (May 2, 2013)

laptop said:


> Well spotted that judge!


 


> Judge Zimmer refused to hear the injunction application at Lambeth County Court, Kennington, yesterday, privately telling lawyers for the council he wasn’t happy to make injunctions “as back door possession orders”.


 
I notice this has been on Brixton Blog a few days and the Council have not said its incorrect report of what Judge thought of the Council lawyers action.


----------



## Gramsci (May 2, 2013)

Sorry if some of my replies are a bit short. I have been spending some time talking to several Coop members today. The whole thing has caused great distress.


----------



## free spirit (May 2, 2013)

you could always sue the council for failing in their duty of care to you for 2 decades by failing to carry out an adequate fire risk assessment and ensuring the appropriate fire safety measures were in place.

that'd certainly put the cat among the pidgeons...


----------



## Gramsci (May 2, 2013)

critical1 said:


> 1st this on U75 then sometime later in the Brixton Blog
> 
> "This does not remove the urgency of the situation, and I hope that the coop will accept support to promptly move out of what has been judged to be a building which poses an ‘intolerable’ level of risk to those living in it. This is a judgement which we cannot ignore, and is the reason for the actions which have been taken. We understand that this is an extremely difficult situation for CMHC and for individuals but we believe there is no alternative solution in the immediate future."
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for that. Well spotted by you.


----------



## teuchter (May 2, 2013)

free spirit said:


> you could always sue the council for failing in their duty of care to you for 2 decades by failing to carry out an adequate fire risk assessment and ensuring the appropriate fire safety measures were in place.


That's exactly why the question of who's been responsible for the upkeep of the building is significant - is it the council or the co-op? No-one seems able to answer this.


----------



## snowy_again (May 2, 2013)

Given that people like Saffron at Social Life and Brixton Green probably have a defined mission statement (and in theory an ethical statement based around consultation and cooperative decision making) on what sort of organisation's they will work with/take money from, do they have any public response to Lambeth's approach? 

Having said that, if you knocked local authorities off your list of people not to work with due to their shady, conniving ways, there'd probably be no money in it for them. 

And Teutcher - it's normally the coop isn't it? Depends how they're constituted and whether they get grants from what was the Housing Corporation for rents, maintenance etc.


----------



## free spirit (May 2, 2013)

teuchter said:


> That's exactly why the question of who's been responsible for the upkeep of the building is significant - is it the council or the co-op? No-one seems able to answer this.


well, the council is obviously now asserting that it is ultimately responsible, by saying that it can't allow them to stay there any longer due to the fire risk, therefore they can't deny their responsibility for ensuring the fire safety of the building for the last few decades.

the only way they could get out of being sued would be to assert that it wasn't their responsibility, in which case they lose their grounds to chuck them out.


----------



## Vibrant-Hubb (May 2, 2013)

Could we know what exactly needs doing and how much it would cost? I don't see how they can chuck you out if work is started to bring the building up to standard. Please see my first post on this thread.


----------



## teuchter (May 2, 2013)

Co-op members, have you seen the fire risk assessment? Or is the council keeping the specific details from you? Is there some reason this information can't be made public?


----------



## critical1 (May 3, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> They hold surgeries on the weekend at Lambeth town hall, but you would probably be chucked out if you asked questions.


 
Thats probably why they have them in the Town Hall, are they only ones to do that!!! not everyone can make it there anyway.


----------



## Rushy (May 3, 2013)

free spirit said:


> well, the council is obviously now asserting that it is ultimately responsible, by saying that it can't allow them to stay there any longer due to the fire risk, therefore they can't deny their responsibility for ensuring the fire safety of the building for the last few decades.
> 
> the only way they could get out of being sued would be to assert that it wasn't their responsibility, in which case they lose their grounds to chuck them out.


I doubt it is that simple. It would be quite normal that the sublandlord (the coop) had, as well as the right to set and receive rent, responsibility for overall management including maintenance and safety beneath the council. However, if the coop were not properly engaging in their maintenance and safety obligations, the council would the be legally negligent if it did not step in and take control once they realised. It is of only limited significance that they left it a long time - they could say they had no reason to believe that the coop was acting irresponsibly but when they realised that the coop was in breach of their own duties towards the occupants they took action.

Judge Zimmerman said,
_



			“By making an application for injunctions the people who occupy the building now know the serious risk from the fire assessment, and they know how seriously the council takes that risk.”
		
Click to expand...

_ 
That is code for _The coop and the occupants have been warned about the dangers in the strongest possible terms and responsibility for not evacuating the building is now on their own collective shoulders. _That does not mean the council can sit back - they are now obliged to take reasonable steps to ensure safety - hence the upcoming possession hearing. If the "sublandlord" or coop is in breach of the agreement they are within their rights to do so by eviction.

If maintenance and safety were the coop's responsibility the council presumably could instead carry out all the required safety works and charge them to the coop and its members, including management charges on top. But as the buildings are due a full refurb or whatever in the next couple of years and it is unlikely that they would get the money back from the coop, I can't imagine they would chose to take this route.


Of course, it may be that in this particular set up the coop was not explicitly or impliedly responsible for management, maintenance and safety. In that case the only real difference is that the council was ultimately responsible throughout and is still legally justified in taking possession action if it is realistically proportional to the fire threat. If the coop is set up as a landlord, even if its tenants are also its members, then it has the same legal obligations towards its occupants as any other landlord, private or social.

As we don't know what the report says or who was responsible for what, this is, of course, all speculation.


----------



## Winot (May 3, 2013)

Thanks for that Rushy.  If there was a real fire safety issue and it was the responsibility of the coop, shouldn't they be given a chance to fix it before being evicted?  Has this ever been mentioned Gramsci?


----------



## Rushy (May 3, 2013)

Winot said:


> Thanks for that Rushy. If there was a real fire safety issue and it was the responsibility of the coop, shouldn't they be given a chance to fix it before being evicted? Has this ever been mentioned Gramsci?


I guess it depends on how serious the report says the danger is. If it is has been professionally found to be "intolerable" but the council chooses to tolerate it, I guess they would be legally negligent if anything happened. That does to mean to say that they could not evacuate it with a list of conditions upon which it could then be occupied again. It is hard to know what to think - no one is being very forthcoming about the set up or the report.


----------



## Tricky Skills (May 3, 2013)

Carlton Mansions - the Facts ...has now been published on the Council website.

Mmmm.


----------



## editor (May 3, 2013)

Tricky Skills said:


> Carlton Mansions - the Facts ...has now been published on the Council website.
> 
> Mmmm.


Well spotted. Posted up on BrixtonBuzz with folks invited to post up their reaction here,
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/05/...ncil-defends-its-decision-to-evict-residents/


----------



## editor (May 3, 2013)




----------



## teuchter (May 3, 2013)

Tricky Skills said:


> Carlton Mansions - the Facts ...has now been published on the Council website.
> 
> Mmmm.


"Carlton Mansions - selected Facts and Unanswered Questions"


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 3, 2013)

> Basic security against arson from outside was unreasonable
> There had been no periodic inspection and testing of the electrical installations
> The building had no lightning protection system


----------



## free spirit (May 3, 2013)

> *2. The fire risk assessment was carried out by Gordon Mckay; GIFireE, tech IOSH on behalf of Lambeth Living on 13 March 2013*. The fire risk assessment found:
> 
> "that the present level of compartmentation provided by the walls ceilings and doors would not confine a fire to the room or floor of origin and would very quickly compromise the escape stairwell and render it untenable. The restricted access for fire fighting appliances compounds this problem."
> Basic security against arson from outside was unreasonable
> ...


that's it?

that is absolutely not grounds for immediate eviction IMO.


There had been no periodic inspection and testing of the electrical installations
A periodic inspection can be arranged inside a few days for a few hundred quid.

The building had no lightning protection system
I doubt it's needed, and I doubt the fire safety guy has expertise in that field anyway, so I'd get a report from an actual lightning protection expert, then get a system fitted if they recommend it, I'd expect it to be under a grand.

Basic security against arson from outside was unreasonable
wtf does this even mean? If someone wants to commit arson to burn a building down then they've find a way to do it. But if there's more detail about the concerns then this shouldn't be too hard to resolve.

"that the present level of compartmentation provided by the walls ceilings and doors would not confine a fire to the room or floor of origin and would very quickly compromise the escape stairwell and render it untenable. The restricted access for fire fighting appliances compounds this problem."
As long as the walls, doors and ceiling on the stairwell are in good condition, they should provide around 20 minute fire protection, as per guidance quoted earlier in the thread - if not in good repair, then a plasterer can sort that out in half a day for £100-150.

There would then be a variety of options to resolve these concerns, not just the 30 minute compartmentalisation standard - alternatives would be enhanced fire detection system, so heat sensors in each kitchen on a centrally linked fire alarm/detection system. Fire doors on different levels of the stairwell would also help to improve the situation in terms of compartmentalising the building.

Essentially they appear to be applying the letter of the regulations for new build, rather than finding suitable solutions to the problem as per the guidance for historic buildings, so they seem to be working in breach of the official government guidance as an alternative report from someone who specialises in historic buildings would no doubt confirm.



If someone sends me a copy of this report, I would be happy to draft a response to it over the weekend. pm me for my email addy, or upload the file to a filesharing site etc please.


----------



## Tricky Skills (May 3, 2013)

An FoI to keep an eye on.


----------



## editor (May 3, 2013)

Tricky Skills said:


> An FoI to keep an eye on.


Posted here for reference.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 3, 2013)

This all sounds really kinda shite, and my best wishes to all affected (I don't think I'm local enough or practical enough to offer much more at present.)

Just a thought, I don't have any connections with them or fully understand all their politics, but I'm aware that Lewisham People Before Profit have some experience in occupying and renovating council properties that Lewisham Council has been trying to get rid of.  More here

They might know friendly people in the building trade who may be able to assist.


----------



## teuchter (May 4, 2013)

free spirit said:


> that's it?
> 
> that is absolutely not grounds for immediate eviction IMO.
> 
> ...


Sounds about right to me, esp the compartmentation bit unless there are special rules about HMOs that I don't know about, or the compartmentation has been massively compromised by removed doors and walls or something like that.

Co-op people, take up free spirit's offer!


----------



## Gramsci (May 4, 2013)

Sorry not to have got back earlier.

I attended an extremely difficult meeting with the Cllrs and officers (Including the "Short Life" officer) yesterday.

I know have to be careful exactly what I say here. Devonshires the Councils lawyers are on the case in conjunction with the "Short Life" officer.The "Short Life" officer asked if the meeting was going to be "blogged" as it went on.

Also as we work as a Coop I have to discuss what to say in public. I have some leeway. Unlike the Council which works in a different way.

The Coop in the end decided to pay a company to produce an assessment for us.

(BTW the Council in legal terms regard the building as occupied by "individual occupiers" not a Coop. Papers for injunction were for each flat separately).

We told the Council on Friday at the fraught meeting.

It is confidential to us as we paid for it. Litigation has been started by the Council. As I said at meeting its not us who started litigation. Council said at the Friday meeting that they would pursue it now its started.So we are going to , from now on , to be extra careful on what is said.

I have Coop permission to say that our independently made report states in summary that the risk is "tolerable" to use the exact word in report.

At this time we are not showing it to the Council as we no longer trust them and they have taken an adversarial legal approach. I noticed at court on Tuesday the Council Barrister was coming down ( with the "Short Life" officer) fishing for titbits of info whilst everyone was waiting.

Brixton Blog


----------



## free spirit (May 4, 2013)

fair enough, but I'd definitely make sure you get an Electrical Installation Condition Report carried out (the actual current name for what were called periodic inspections) before you go back to court to show willing.

That's something that should be carried out on HMOs regularly anyway, regardless of anything else, so failure to do that won't play well in court for the co-op's ability to operate safely as a building management organisation for an HMO, and it's something that can be carried out relatively quickly... but get a decent co-op friendly electrician in for it - a proper time served apprentice trained spark, who will have seen it all and be aware of previous regs etc not someone who's just done a short course and got a part p accreditation, who might struggle with anything outside of the normal house situation. Otherwise you could end up with an unnecessary recommendation to rewire / change the board etc that would play into the council's hands.


----------



## Gramsci (May 4, 2013)

Also told the Council to stop there action for an injunction on Friday at meeting with Cllrs and officers.

The Coop asked the Council at the meeting to clarify what was happening to the injunction action. The Coop requested that the injunction action be stopped as it was inappropriate use of an injunction.

The Coop told Cllrs and officers present the great distress that the court action last Tuesday had caused its members. (See Tims Blog piece).

A Labour Council should not use an injunction against its residents in this way. Residents who reside peaceably in there homes. It is draconian use of an injunction that the Judge last Tuesday rightly in the Coop view refused to hear.

Also it was a waste of everyones time. The Council would have paid for a barrister and his two minions plus the ever present Council "Short Life" officer to be present.

We spent three hours at Lambeth County Court waiting.

The Council officer stated that the application for an injunction and the possession hearing will both be heard on the same day 22nd May at Lambeth County Court.

So a Labour Council is quite happy about this use of the law.

I also want to put in a good word for Tim of Brixton Blog who came down to court at short notice. His piece is the accurate report. Unlike the disinformation put out on Lambeths website.

Brixton Blog


----------



## quimcunx (May 4, 2013)

They are doing another injunction?


----------



## Gramsci (May 4, 2013)

snowy_again said:


> Given that people like Saffron at Social Life and Brixton Green probably have a defined mission statement (and in theory an ethical statement based around consultation and cooperative decision making) on what sort of organisation's they will work with/take money from, do they have any public response to Lambeth's approach?
> 
> Having said that, if you knocked local authorities off your list of people not to work with due to their shady, conniving ways, there'd probably be no money in it for them.


 
I do not have a clue what Brixton Green think.

Social Life have been supportive of us. They are working for free on the Somerleyton road project consultation. I have suggested they come to see us anyway whatever happens. They said they would to record us an example of a community group. Resilience and all that.

After meeting them at workshops etc I rate Social Life. I know there website is a put off but they are ok. I think they should do something to make there website language less off putting. Its full of the jargon Labour Councils/ Labour party "progressives" who read Prospect magazine use.

Also I would say the lead Council officer on the Somerleyton road project is ok. As I said at the meeting last Friday with the Cllrs/ officers he is one of the newer progressive officers. Unlike the "Short Life" officer. Who I told at the meeting could learn a few things about how to deal with people from the lead officer on the Somerleyton road project.

The Council is not monolithic. Some officer are ok some not. Unfortunately I am now up against the most repellent officers.

Saffron

SocialLifeteam


----------



## Gramsci (May 4, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> They are doing another injunction?


 
Yes its surprising how the Council can obstinately pursue an action when it wants.

The same injunction will be heard at the same time as the possession proceedings.

It is the same injunction. As the nice man from Devonshires told me at court it still potentially stands. It was that the Judge refused to hear it that day. As the Judge was not at all happy at this wheeze by Lambeths clever clogs lawyers. The nice men from Devonshires had taken the trouble to hand deliver the papers. They had put so much effort into it. It would be a pity to waste all the effort and Council expense.

Took me being persistent to get that clarified from officers at the recent meeting with officers/Cllrs. I think not all are happy with it.

Nor were they keen to say it front of Cllrs. Who were unaware of what it really meant.


----------



## editor (May 4, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I do not have a clue what Brixton Green think.


I still have no real idea what Brixton Green are actually all about.


----------



## tufty79 (May 4, 2013)

Sorry if this has been posted  already. Not sure how it would stand with the council viewing CM as individual tenants, or whether being a short life co-op changes anything,  or indeed if the info in the link's actually relevant, but might be worth getting in touch with friendly housing action - http://www.fhaction.org.uk/faq.html

good luck with everything x


----------



## DrRingDing (May 4, 2013)

The best of luck to you all. The callous characters responsible for this nefarious action will come unstuck sooner or later.....hopefully.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (May 4, 2013)

thank you Gramsci for taking the time to write up what's happening on here while you must be under a lot of pressure


----------



## Gramsci (May 5, 2013)

Miss-Shelf said:


> thank you Gramsci for taking the time to write up what's happening on here while you must be under a lot of pressure


 
Thanks for your support.

Also like to thank editor and mods for enabling hard pressed residents to have a place where people can have there say.

What is most pressing is legal advice for the court action on May 22nd. The Council with the go at it lawyers Devonshires are seeking to get an injunction and a possession order on each individual "occupier" as they put it for each flat.

The draconian injunction would stop us entering the flats. Doing so or remaining in flats would put an "occupier" in contempt of court. Or so the Devonshire Barrister told me.

Lambeth have a seemingly bottomless pit of money when it comes to taking residents on in court. So that makes it a David and Goliath struggle.


----------



## editor (May 5, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Lambeth have a seemingly bottomless pit of money when it comes to taking residents on in court. So that makes it a David and Goliath struggle.


If you need me to organise a fundraiser, just say the word. There's several local venues who I know would be happy to let us use their facilities for this.


----------



## Winot (May 5, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> What is most pressing is legal advice for the court action on May 22nd.



Do you have someone lined up and how much is it likely to cost? 

You should take up Ed's offer of a fundraiser. There are people on here willing to help.


----------



## tuscanrain (May 5, 2013)

The Advisory Service for Squatters might be able to help - contact details are at http://www.squatter.org.uk/about-ass/ and they have experience helping people prepare court papers. Obviously their expertise is squatting, but worth a go.


----------



## Crispy (May 5, 2013)

Indeed. My wallet is open and I'm fondling my money


----------



## Gramsci (May 5, 2013)

Winot said:


> Do you have someone lined up and how much is it likely to cost?
> 
> You should take up Ed's offer of a fundraiser. There are people on here willing to help.


 
Thanks. Seeing a lawyer on Wednesday. Will find out more then.

I am going to try Shelter.


----------



## free spirit (May 5, 2013)

before you go handing over all your cash to lawyers, please consider my advice about getting an electrical inspection carried out - it will carry far more weight in court than any fancy lawyer in terms of showing that you're taking your responsibilities seriously as a co-operative.

This is a legal requirement for the managers of HMO, and as you're asserting that the building should be treated as being managed by a co-operative management body, then this body is legally responsible for ensuring that proper electrical and gas safety tests are carried out regularly on the building.



> If you let property you must ensure that the electrical system and all appliances supplied are safe - failure to comply with the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994 and the The Consumer Protection Act 1987 is a criminal offence and may result in:
> 
> A fine of £5,000 per item not complying
> Six month's imprisonment
> ...


one last time - please get an electrician in as soon as possible or you will definitely be in breach of your legal responsibilities on that score*, which carries a maximum £5000 fine and 6 months in jail - maybe that will serve to focus your minds on the priorities here - no lawyer I know of can carry out a periodic inspection, so you will be walking into court guilty of not meeting this obligation if you don't get a spark in asap to sort this out for you regardless of how much you've given a lawyer to tell you what I've just told you for free.

Can't help feeling that I'm wasting my time on this thread though - fwiw, my NAPIT registration number is 13801, and I also run an energy & fire safety consultancy with 2 university professors that as part of it's remit covers 'Fire and Explosion Investigation, Fire and Safety Law, Fire and Explosion Mitigation' - these guys trained most of the HSE fire safety specialists for several decades. This is professional advise you are being given, please take it as such despite me not charging you for it.
*assuming the council are right about there being no up to date periodic inspection report in place.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 5, 2013)

Good stuff free spirit


----------



## laptop (May 5, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Thanks. Seeing a lawyer on Wednesday. Will find out more then.


 
Is this a lawyer who specialises in housing - esp. is it one recommended by Squatters' Advisory Service?



Gramsci said:


> I am going to try Shelter.


 
When I tried to interest Shelter in some policy pressure, they ran away as soon as they heard I was interested in single people having a right to housing. Just an alert about their priorities in these difficult times...


----------



## sparkybird (May 5, 2013)

free spirit said:


> before you go handing over all your cash to lawyers, please consider my advice about getting an electrical inspection carried out - it will carry far more weight in court than any fancy lawyer in terms of showing that you're taking your responsibilities seriously as a co-operative.
> 
> This is a legal requirement for the managers of HMO, and as you're asserting that the building should be treated as being managed by a co-operative management body, then this body is legally responsible for ensuring that proper electrical and gas safety tests are carried out regularly on the building.
> 
> ...


 
As another electrician I would strongly suggest you act on free spirit's advice asap- if you don't have and EICR (inspection) then you'll not be taken seriously. It might also flag up potentially dangerous issues which you will need to put right. A few hundred quid very well spent


----------



## Miss-Shelf (May 6, 2013)

and it may be something that people on here would be glad to help fund


----------



## Thimble Queen (May 6, 2013)

Yep for def x


----------



## dotdotdot (May 6, 2013)

http://www.lambethunitedhousingco-op.org.uk

http://comvox.wordpress.com


----------



## dotdotdot (May 8, 2013)

Protest sale of Lambeth Co-op housing & Lambeth's mistreatment of 'Shortlife'. Housing Scrutiny Sub-Com this Thurs 7pm: http://wp.me/p3uiFC-4d via @ComVoxLambeth


----------



## editor (May 8, 2013)

Good to see the Brixton Society getting behind this.
http://www.brixtonsociety.org.uk/2013/05/06/carlton-mansions/


----------



## Gramsci (May 9, 2013)

editor said:


> Good to see the Brixton Society getting behind this.
> http://www.brixtonsociety.org.uk/2013/05/06/carlton-mansions/


 
I saw this. Emailed them to thank them.

CH1


----------



## CH1 (May 9, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I saw this. Emailed them to thank them.
> 
> CH1


I hope something positive comes out of this for you and the Co-op. The council need a good shaking up in terms of common sense and decency.


----------



## CH1 (May 9, 2013)

These photos were taken for the London Records Office before the demolition of neighbouring houses. 
http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/collage/app?service=external/Item&sp=Zcoldharbour lane 1969&sp=89347&sp=X
http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/.../Item&sp=Zcoldharbour+lane+1969&sp=89346&sp=X


----------



## editor (May 9, 2013)

CH1 said:


> These photos were taken for the London Records Office before the demolition of neighbouring houses.
> http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/collage/app?service=external/Item&sp=Zcoldharbour lane 1969&sp=89347&sp=X
> http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/.../Item&sp=Zcoldharbour+lane+1969&sp=89346&sp=X


I'd love to be able to use those photos for the Brixton history part of the site, but their terms seem really prohibitive.


----------



## CH1 (May 9, 2013)

editor said:


> I'd love to be able to use those photos for the Brixton history part of the site, but their terms seem really prohibitive.


I was going to ask about that. Whatever happened to a fair use policy?


----------



## critical1 (May 9, 2013)

*Private fire assessment finds Carlton Mansions risk ‘tolerable’*
http://www.brixtonblog.com/carlton-mansions-own-fire-assessment-finds-risk-tolerable/12221
A fire assessment paid for by the residents at Carlton Mansions has found the risk in the building ‘tolerable’, putting them in a stronger position as they argue their case against eviction by the council.
The report, done by a private company and paid for by the Carlton Mansions Housing Co-operative, states under ‘risk level’ that “accordingly, it is considered that the risk to life from fire at these premises is Tolerable.”

Let us not forget Lambeth seems to have a bottomless pit of money to spend on very expensive lawyers, where does this money come from??
Who really pays for this? 
Who is Lambeth? 
Why are Cllrs spinning statements faster than a Dervish dancer on tea?....

Critical1


----------



## critical1 (May 9, 2013)

editor said:


> I'd love to be able to use those photos for the Brixton history part of the site, but their terms seem really prohibitive.


 
OMG I had forgotten how this looked back in the day, there was a really baaad barber at the bottom of Carlton mansions he terrified me as a child and hated dreads of any sort.. Arrgh bad memories.

Critical1


----------



## TruXta (May 9, 2013)

That's great news.


----------



## timothysutton1 (May 9, 2013)

What the council statement fails to address is what will happen to this building after the co-op has been evicted?

It appears to me that the council want the building and see the tenants as an inconvenience to be got rid of.


----------



## laptop (May 9, 2013)

editor said:


> I'd love to be able to use those photos for the Brixton history part of the site, but their terms seem really prohibitive.


 
http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/collage/app?service=page/ReproductionA

£15 for use on the Web for 4 years? Seems moderately balanced - most of that'll be the cost of manually processing the request and issuing the licence.

(TO BE continued in a photographers' thread, I strongly suggest.)


----------



## Casaubon (May 9, 2013)

Hi Gramsci
I've been away and only just heard of your situation. 
I feel your pain and rage.

FWIW, I'd advise you to get the best legal help possible. 
Devonshire's are really, really unpleasant and aggressive (which seems to be what makes them attractive to Lambeth), and they hire similar barristers to represent them in court.
But, they make mistakes and push their luck, and _can_ be beaten.

Let me know if there's anything I can do,

Casaubon


----------



## editor (May 9, 2013)

laptop said:


> £15 for use on the Web for 4 years? Seems moderately balanced - most of that'll be the cost of manually processing the request and issuing the licence.


Well out of my price range if i wanted to do in-depth local history features - and I'd only want relatively low res copies.


----------



## Manter (May 9, 2013)

Not really been in here- so only saw this from Brixton Society a few days ago. Unutterably shit, Lambeth really are quite vile. Am writing strongly worded email right now- good luck


----------



## TruXta (May 9, 2013)

Manter said:


> Not really been in here- so only saw this from Brixton Society a few days ago. Unutterably shit, Lambeth really are quite vile. Am writing strongly worded email right now- good luck


#waves


----------



## editor (May 9, 2013)

Eight and a half thousand page views for this thread alone would suggest that there is plenty of local interest in this issue. 

I think what's happening at Carlton Mansions is bigger than just the block itself. It seems to be the point where lines have to be drawn about what is happening to Brixton and a long hard look cast at Lambeth's involvement in the whole murky business. 

And while we're looking hard in this general direction, it wouldn't hurt to take a closer look at Brixton Green and what they're up to.


----------



## critical1 (May 9, 2013)

Well from what I have seen Lambeth the Co-Op council does support resilient communities, so they really should be right behind you, who is leading this assault on another co-op who's the top person dealing with this?? where does the buck stop??

Critical1


----------



## Vibrant-Hubb (May 9, 2013)

The people of Carlton Mansions and other Co-ops saved buildings the council had no interest in for thirty years. These people lived through riots and poverty and bad policing, literally on the "front-line" in Brixton and surrounding areas (a rather wonderful place to live if you were outside of majority culture - gay, runaway, artist, vulnerable, radical - but also tough and full of incident and some violence). Through this "resilient communities" were formed and now many of these long-termers are people with great local knowledge and social conscience who contribute in many ways to the local community.

These are people that Lambeth council owes a debt to, has a duty to support. Lambeth needs to wake up to this. Oval House doesn't want Carlton Mansions evicted. The building must be fixed up and these people allowed to live in peace in the homes they've fought for and clung to and pretty much built themselves out of wrecks of buildings.

In the 70s the authorites wanted to demolish everything. Now they want to keep the facades and ditch the people. Rachel Heywood and all of them, you should feel shame. Shame on you. Particularly as the new fire assessment concludes the risk at Carlton Mansions is "tolerable". It is in fact Lambeth Council that poses "Intolerable risk".


----------



## equationgirl (May 9, 2013)

Why were the houses next to the mansions demolished? Was it for some for of regeneration plan that never happened?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 9, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Why were the houses next to the mansions demolished? Was it for some for of regeneration plan that never happened?


 
A motorway through the centre of Brixton: http://www.urban75.org/brixton/features/barrier1.html

There have been "slum" clearances all over Lambeth - in fact all over London - since WW2 and especially in the 60s and 70s. Often these were not "slums" but actually decent housing....decent housing where the occupants were deemed to be living in "poverty" - hence the 'need' for redevelopment. There was quite a lot of stuff on this in that recent BBC2 documentary about how various streets in London have changed over the years (sorry can't remember the name.)


----------



## cesare (May 9, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> http://www.urban75.org/brixton/features/barrier1.html
> 
> There have been "slum" clearances all over Lambeth - in fact all over London - since WW2 and especially in the 60s and 70s. Often these were not "slums" but actually decent housing....decent housing where the occupants were deemed to be living in "poverty" - hence the 'need' for redevelopment. There was quite a lot of stuff on this in that recent BBC2 documentary about how various streets in London have changed over the years (sorry can't remember the name.)


The Secret History Of Our Streets


----------



## equationgirl (May 9, 2013)

Fourteen 50-storey skyscrapers??? What was the architect thinking???


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 9, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Fourteen 50-storey skyscrapers??? What was the architect thinking???


A knighthood perhaps?


----------



## Gramsci (May 9, 2013)

timothysutton1 said:


> What the council statement fails to address is what will happen to this building after the co-op has been evicted?
> 
> It appears to me that the council want the building and see the tenants as an inconvenience to be got rid of.


 
The building will be left empty for up to two years until the Somerleyton road project goes on site.

Council do not deny this but in public statements are coy about it.


----------



## Gramsci (May 9, 2013)

critical1 said:


> OMG I had forgotten how this looked back in the day, there was a really baaad barber at the bottom of Carlton mansions he terrified me as a child and hated dreads of any sort.. Arrgh bad memories.
> 
> Critical1


 
Its probably the same barber who was there for years. Someone in Coop took photos of him and his shop when he retired. He was one of the "Windrush" generation. Nice guy imo.


----------



## Gramsci (May 9, 2013)

Casaubon said:


> Hi Gramsci
> I've been away and only just heard of your situation.
> I feel your pain and rage.
> 
> ...


 
Legal help is in hand. Cannot say more here.

Devonshires do have a reputation. The use of an injunction was there idea as far as I now. The Council are still pursuing an injunction.

On May 22nd both a possession order and injunction is sought for each flat.


----------



## Gramsci (May 9, 2013)

Manter said:


> Not really been in here- so only saw this from Brixton Society a few days ago. Unutterably shit, Lambeth really are quite vile. Am writing strongly worded email right now- good luck


 
Thanks Manter.

Good to see you back on boards.


----------



## Gramsci (May 10, 2013)

The Council tested a new idea last Thursday to house Carlton Mansions "residents" in Windrush square in tents.


----------



## free spirit (May 10, 2013)

on a slightly more tongue in cheek tip than my previous posts..... if they're changing the use of the building from residential to commercial, does that not mean that it can then be squatted if empty without the new squatting laws being applied?


----------



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

> LJAG is pleased to announce that Lambeth council leader, Lib Peck,
> will be talking at:
> 
> our agm on Wednesday 15 May
> ...


 
Just in case anyone has a question or two they might like to ask.


----------



## editor (May 13, 2013)

Here's the full press release. This could be an interesting discussion 


> *Leader of Lambeth Council to speak at LJAG AGM*
> 
> We are delighted to announce that Lib Peck, Leader of Lambeth Council will be coming to LJAG’s AGM to talk to us about regeneration. This is your chance to question the new leader of Lambeth Council and discover her vision for the borough.
> 
> ...


http://www.loughboroughjunction.org/leader-of-lambeth-council-to-speak-at-ljag-agm


----------



## ChrisSouth (May 13, 2013)

CH1 said:


> I was going to ask about that. Whatever happened to a fair use policy?


 
There's not really such a thing as fair use policy. There is a nebulous concept of 'fair dealing', but it's neither fair, nor dealing. Also, it's never been tested in a court of law, so no one knows how it works. If in doubt, don't use any material created by anyone else, unless you have their express permission.


----------



## laptop (May 13, 2013)

ChrisSouth said:


> There's not really such a thing as fair use policy. There is a nebulous concept of 'fair dealing', but it's neither fair, nor dealing. Also, it's never been tested in a court of law, so no one knows how it works. If in doubt, don't use any material created by anyone else, unless you have their express permission.


 
As a matter of fact, "fair dealing" is:

a) extensively tested in the courts; and

b) much more clearly defined in statute law than is US "fair use" - it specifies the kinds of use that are permitted, whereas the US sets out some general principles and leaves it to the person whose work is nicked to go to court to find out whether they've been met.


----------



## Winot (May 13, 2013)

laptop said:


> As a matter of fact, "fair dealing" is:
> 
> a) extensively tested in the courts; and
> 
> b) much more clearly defined in statute law than is US "fair use" - it specifies the kinds of use that are permitted, whereas the US sets out some general principles and leaves it to the person whose work is nicked to go to court to find out whether they've been met.


 
Yep.  Here's the section.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 15, 2013)

> http://openhouse2013.com/
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/OpenHouseLDN
> 
> It's a friendly space, with events from mid afternoon until evening, dinner around 7pm, open every day this week, closing on Sunday. "Whether you’re a council tenant facing the bedroom tax or a squatter threatened with eviction, a private renter dealing with a dodgy landlord or *a member of housing co-op fighting to survive* – this space is for you. This affects all of us. The bedroom tax and housing benefit caps are starting to bite, squatting derelict buildings is being criminalised, the rents are rising exponentially, and many people are being forced from their homes by landlords, local councils, bailiffs and police. We can no longer afford for housing to be an individual problem. We need come together to organise around our collective housing needs, share stories and tactics. Together, we can build a movement of practical solidarity to resist social cleansing and gentrification, and reclaim housing and the city for the people who live in it. So come down to a skillshare on legal observing, a workshop on how to set up a housing co-op, a Q&A session on tenants’ rights, a talk on gentrification, a game of capture the flag, or just for a cup of tea and a chat." GET DOWN! See you there.


 
Have you guys been down to this?

You may get some support!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 16, 2013)

_http://openhouse2013.com/_ 

_https://www.facebook.com/OpenHouseLDN_

Gramsci boohoo


----------



## CH1 (May 18, 2013)

ChrisSouth said:


> There's not really such a thing as fair use policy. There is a nebulous concept of 'fair dealing', but it's neither fair, nor dealing. Also, it's never been tested in a court of law, so no one knows how it works. If in doubt, don't use any material created by anyone else, unless you have their express permission.


Take your point - but in the case of old GLC/LCC archive stuff taken for the public record it seems a bit draconian for the City of London to use a commercial contract and charge rates for a community use.


----------



## Gramsci (May 21, 2013)

Back in court on Wednesday.

Thanks to all who have given support here in there posts.

The whole thing has put a great deal of stress on the whole Coop and Coop members.

As one Coop member said we have been deluged with scary paperwork from Devonshires. Including Devonshires asking for costs etc. 

I have been talking to lawyer over last week to work out a defence.

Devonshires / Lambeth are going for an Injunction and Possession Order. The possession order concentrates on  Carlton Mansions being part of the "Short Life" stock up for  "recall" and "disposal". So Council argument is (I think) that they have right to empty the building whether there is fire risk or not.

Though latest paperwork from Devonshires ( been getting big bulging envelopes of it. I am starting to think its psychological tactic to scare people)  has qualified the statement about "disposal" saying that the building is earmarked for a regeneration scheme. So I assume they mean they have right to get possession orders to empty it for the scheme rather than disposal by auction like other "Short Life".

So no acknowledgement that Coop took part in Somerleyton road project consultations.

Inside Housing have a piece on the Mansions.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 21, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Back in court on Wednesday.


 


hope all goes well


----------



## free spirit (May 21, 2013)

so they want to redevelop the area by first cleansing it of the long term community at the heart of the area.

sounds about right for council regeneration.

However, have the actually finished the consultation process yet?

If not then they should not be prejudicing its results by kicking you out - what if after the consultation ends, it turns out that the best thing for the project would actually have been for you to have remained at the heart of the regeneration?

Pretty sure you can string them up on that point.


----------



## laptop (May 21, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Back in court on Wednesday.


 
Good luck!



Gramsci said:


> Devonshires / Lambeth are going for an Injunction and Possession Order. The possession order concentrates on Carlton Mansions being part of the "Short Life" stock up for "recall" and "disposal". So Council argument is (I think) that they have right to empty the building whether there is fire risk or not.


 
That would depend on what the court reckons the lease the co-op has from the council means - which _might_ not be what it originally said...



Gramsci said:


> Though latest paperwork from Devonshires ( been getting big bulging envelopes of it. I am starting to think its psychological tactic to scare people) has qualified the statement about "disposal" saying that the building is earmarked for a regeneration scheme. So I assume they mean they have right to get possession orders to empty it for the scheme rather than disposal by auction like other "Short Life".


 
Not sure how that would affect the demand for a possession order - except as mood music for the judge - it's not like they're needing a Compulsory Purchase Order thingy.


----------



## teuchter (May 22, 2013)

Regardless of whether or not Lambeth have the right to empty the property (for whatever reason) - as far as I can see, the whole way they have gone about it is rotten, shows no regard for the people who live in the building, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Good luck in the court hearing today.


----------



## quimcunx (May 22, 2013)

Good luck tomorrow!


----------



## peterkro (May 22, 2013)

Good luck to Gramsci and the residents.It may be possible to make a case under the European human rights act, something that may stay the position for months if not years.


----------



## editor (May 22, 2013)

Yes good luck from me as well. Lambeth should hang their heads in shame for the way they've gone about this.


----------



## dotdotdot (May 22, 2013)

Good luck tomorrow!

In case it's of any use, Lambeth told a lot of us Shortlife residents, at the beginning of the recall of our homes, that all our houses were going to go to Notting Hill Housing, and that Notting Hill needed vacant possession of all properties.
Turned out, when Kate Hoey contacted Notting Hill CEO, that vacant possession wasn't needed at all... Lambeth had made it up.
Even after we had this confirmed, Devonshires were still citing it in court as the reason for getting possession.
Beware of everything they say!

Formal request for the Co-operative Party to Suspend Lib Peck, Pete Robbins and Steve Reed wp.me/p3uiFC-5Y


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 22, 2013)

Good luck Gramsci boohoo and all at Carlton Mansions with the court case today.

I'm still fuming about this. Lambeth are a disgrace.

Pete Robbins, Rachel Heywood and every other bastard councillor and official involved in this: may you drink for all eternity from the putrid, stinking puddles of Electric Lane.


----------



## gaijingirl (May 22, 2013)

Good luck with the court case today.  Will be thinking of you.


----------



## Thimble Queen (May 22, 2013)

Best of luck for today xx


----------



## TruXta (May 22, 2013)

Good luck all of you.


----------



## blossie33 (May 22, 2013)

Good Luck!


----------



## colacubes (May 22, 2013)

Good luck all xx


----------



## newbie (May 22, 2013)

aye, all the best.

Lambeth have always been disgraceful in the way they've dealt with shortlife. They should all have been converted to proper tenancies decades ago.


----------



## indigolove (May 22, 2013)

peterkro said:


> Good luck to Gramsci and the residents.It may be possible to make a case under the European human rights act, something that may stay the position for months if not years.


Good Luck guys, your community is behind you


----------



## TruXta (May 22, 2013)

Brixton Blog reports that hearing has been adjourned until August. http://t.co/FBxsk0UlDh


----------



## critical1 (May 22, 2013)

_*Co-operatives work for the sustainable development of their communities through policies approved by their members.*_


----------



## Winot (May 22, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Brixton Blog reports that hearing has been adjourned until August. http://t.co/FBxsk0UlDh



Presumably this will give Lambeth time to fix whatever it is that is causing "intolerable risk".


----------



## TruXta (May 22, 2013)

Winot said:


> Presumably this will give Lambeth time to fix whatever it is that is causing "intolerable risk".


You mean the co-op tenants? Presumably that's what LC thinks causes "intolerable risk".


----------



## indigolove (May 22, 2013)

peterkro said:


> Good luck to Gramsci and the residents.It may be possible to make a case under the European human rights act, something that may stay the position for months if not years.


Great to hear you've been awarded a reprieve


----------



## editor (May 22, 2013)

Yep - adjourned until possession orders in the second week of August (at the same time as injunctions).

Great news.


----------



## Casaubon (May 22, 2013)

I wonder if Lambeth council will ever learn to work with their communities, instead of against them.


----------



## Gramsci (May 22, 2013)

It was adjourned but it was horrible experience.

Devonshires went all out to try to get the Judge to hear the injunction once the possession case was adjourned. It did not work but the injunction has not been dropped. It will be still heard with the possession order case.

It not unusual for a possession case to be adjourned.

The Council will keep at this.


----------



## nagapie (May 22, 2013)

Sorry to hear how awful it is.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 22, 2013)

Hopefully the joint fire inspection will be a bit more balanced.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 22, 2013)

Glad you can stay in your homes for now 

Can we do some sort of benefit gig to pay for legal fees or anything?


----------



## indigolove (May 22, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Glad you can stay in your homes for now
> 
> Can we do some sort of benefit gig to pay for legal fees or anything?


Lets do it rally round and get some support of every kind, throw a party and inform the community


----------



## shifting gears (May 22, 2013)

Whole thing sounds beyond stressful - keep the faith and don't let the bastards intimidate you

Lambeth councillors - we're watching you, you fucking lowlives 

I propose again someone starting a thread where we compile as much info on their individual and collective actions as possible (and restate I'd do it myself but posting from phone so copying their details/editing posts etc is troublesome)


----------



## Gramsci (May 23, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> Whole thing sounds beyond stressful - keep the faith and don't let the bastards intimidate you
> 
> Lambeth councillors - we're watching you, you fucking lowlives
> 
> I propose again someone starting a thread where we compile as much info on their individual and collective actions as possible (and restate I'd do it myself but posting from phone so copying their details/editing posts etc is troublesome)


 
As it happens I bumped into the Leader of the Council in Sainsburys on Monday and had a decent chat with her about it all.As I know her from when she Cabinet member of Housing and Regeneration.

For starters a Labour Council should not use injunctions in this way. It really is draconian. At court I asked our Barrister is this a usual use of an injunction. As I thought they were normally used for things like harrassment etc. He said its not usual.

I thought once the Judge had told them that possession order was adjourned they would give up on the injunction. Not a bit of it the Barrister then strenuously argued that they wanted to pursue it that day.

Secondly a Labour Council should not use an big city law firm that is known for its aggressive use of the law. I cannot blame Devonshires for doing what they do. Lambeth should not use them.

It was truly awful in court. Felt like I was on a criminal charge defending myself. Not a resident who does not bother other people. Its not like we are taking housing away from anyone else.

Council ( or rather this section of it including the Short Life Housing Project Manager who represented the Council at court. ) do not want to work out a compromise.

They are going to pursue this in the courts. Its there job. They get paid to go to court. They are not risking anything themselves.

The also seek off to get off me £9 780 to date. If there action is successful. Others are potentially in same boat. So they are scaring people to go.


----------



## TruXta (May 23, 2013)

10 grand off of you? WTF?


----------



## editor (May 23, 2013)

What's happening is a disgrace, and at the risk of repeating myself, if you need some legal funds or whatever, I'd be only too happy to put on a fucking incredible fund-raising gig.


----------



## Gramsci (May 23, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Glad you can stay in your homes for now
> 
> Can we do some sort of benefit gig to pay for legal fees or anything?


 
editor has kindly offered before. I have asked the Coop about this. They do not want money. We value all the moral support we have been getting here. Coop members are looking at this thread. Though not always keen to post up.So its left to me. 

However some kind of celebrate Carlton Mansions night with any proceeds going to the Mural Preservation Society for the restoration of the Nuclear Dawn mural is something the Coop thought might be idea.

Also someone in Coop said Carlton Mansion T shirts. With my pic of the Mansions that is on Brixton Blog. With a slogan on it. Cannot remember what she said. Any ideas? Proceeds to the mural again.



Do not know why.Urban has a reputation. Where is Manter? 

I do ask there advice on what to post up. As some of this strays into legal territory.

We have some Coop funds. We have sorted out for now a way to get legal advice and representation.


----------



## Gramsci (May 23, 2013)

TruXta said:


> 10 grand off of you? WTF?


 
No only  £9 780

Devonshire Barrister today helpfully gave me a copy of all the paperwork they have summarising my case.

All part of the service one gets off Lambeth- a Cooperative Council.


----------



## Gramsci (May 23, 2013)

editor said:


> What's happening is a disgrace, and at the risk of repeating myself, if you need some legal funds or whatever, I'd be only too happy to put on a fucking incredible fund-raising gig.


 
see my post #324


----------



## quimcunx (May 23, 2013)

So what did she say in their defence?


----------



## editor (May 23, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> However some kind of celebrate Carlton Mansions night with any proceeds going to the Mural Preservation Society for the restoration of the Nuclear Dawn mural is something the Coop thought might be idea.


Count me in!


----------



## Gramsci (May 23, 2013)

Casaubon said:


> I wonder if Lambeth council will ever learn to work with their communities, instead of against them.


 
The whole problem with the Cooperative Council is that the Council treat it as something they can turn on and off when they like. Its at there largesse.

On the surface you get the cuddly consultation on for example the Somerleyton Road project. But in the cellar the Council keep there attack dogs hidden for when they feel like using them.


----------



## Gramsci (May 23, 2013)

editor said:


> Count me in!


 
If you are up for putting on one of the U75 nights as a Carlton Mansions night that would be appreciated.


----------



## Gramsci (May 23, 2013)

quimcunx said:


> So what did she say in their defence?


 
The Council Leader?

I know her a bit from when she was Cabinet member for Regeneration and Housing. I used to see her at some consultation events.

Well she listened to what I had to say. She started off about the "intolerable risk" and she did not want it to happen. In the end had a quite long chat with her. She did not know all the detail of what was happening. So I filled her in. Or our assessment.

I did complain about the Council using injunctions in this way. Will keep raising this. Also about the Council hiring Devonshires.

I am not really into ranting at people. With some people its worth trying a bit harder.

With others I realise quite quickly its not worth the bother. Like the Short Life Housing Project Manager. What a job title for someone whose job it is to get rid off people. And likes the job.

As I said to her I do not enjoy dealing with the Council in this adversarial way. It is not the way I like to do things.

I must say it was a surprise to just bump into her. Literally we both turned around same time as saw each other.

I will follow it up.


----------



## editor (May 23, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> If you are up for putting on one of the U75 nights as a Carlton Mansions night that would be appreciated.


Be delighted to! I'll PM you.


----------



## critical1 (May 23, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> The Council Leader?
> 
> I know her a bit from when she was Cabinet member for Regeneration and Housing. I used to see her at some consultation events.
> 
> Well she listened to what I had to say. She started off about the "intolerable risk" and she did not want it to happen. In the end had a quite long chat with her. She did not know all the detail of what was happening. So I filled her in.


 
So next time there will be no excuse of not knowing anything about such a hot potato, Cllr Rachel Heywood surly should have briefed her, they all read URBAN75 I believe or at least the legal department do.

Why is our local MP Tessa Jowell not asking questions??? after all she is one of the _Co_-_Operative_ movements standard-bearer for Labour values. Hmmmm

CLick Me --- > https://www.google.com/search?q=Tessa Jowell, and the Co-op&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GBfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs

Extremly
Critical1


----------



## Gramsci (May 23, 2013)

critical1 said:


> So next time there will be no excuse of not knowing anything about such a hot potato, Cllr Rachel Heywood surly should have briefed her, they all read URBAN75 I believe or at least the legal department do.
> 
> Critical1


 
Yes I was a bit surprised thinking about it afterwards that she did not know more.

The high hits on this thread make me a bit careful what I say here. As you say Cllrs and officers lurk here.

Give officers something to do when they are hard at work at there desks. Hello Council officers..

Its partly why I do not go into to many details on here.


----------



## critical1 (May 23, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Yes I was a bit surprised thinking about it afterwards that she did not know more.
> 
> The high hits on this thread make me a bit careful what I say here. As you say Cllrs and officers lurk here.
> 
> ...


 
Yes it's a commonly used words  " I know nothing about it" "I not fully aware of the situation" " I'm working terribly hard" what are they paid for!!!

Well If you decide to go into detail here be aware the Lambeth Legal will write a nice letter threatening Libel!!! and you'll have to provide evidence. Nice of them to use or money so effectively. To start a Libel case costs apx £230,000 which more than enough to to bring Carlton Mansion up to scratch I should think or at least give it a good start.

Critical1


----------



## Gramsci (May 23, 2013)

critical1 said:


> Yes it's a commonly used words " I know nothing about it" "I not fully aware of the situation" " I'm working terribly hard" what are they paid for!!!
> 
> Well If you decide to go into detail here be aware the Lambeth Legal will write a nice letter threatening Libel!!! and you'll have to provide evidence. Nice of them to use or money so effectively. To start a Libel case costs apx £230,000 which more than enough to to bring Carlton Mansion up to scratch I should think or at least give it a good start.
> 
> Critical1


 
Precisely why I am a bit careful.

Also do not want to give Council ammunition they could try to use against us.

I wonder how much they are shelling out for legal fees? Must be quite a lot already on this imo unnecessary action. Money that could be spent elsewhere.
http://www.brixtonblog.com/12508/12508
Have u seen this? About the bedroom tax. Note the lukewarm support from the Labour Cllr. Other Councils have decided not to evict people because of this.




> The Loughborough Estate Tenants and Residents Association is urging the council to not make those tenants leave their homes who face eviction as a result of the changes.
> There was unanimous support for a motion urging the council to protect the 170 people on the Loughborough Estate facing a 14% cut in their housing benefit because they have a spare room.
> Grace Lally, chair of the association, told a packed meeting earlier this month: *“Lambeth is one of the most litigious councils in the country. It’s ridiculous how much the council spends on court actions, making people homeless, which doesn’t save the council money*.”


----------



## Gramsci (May 23, 2013)

Carlton Mansions squirrels

We have a lot of wildlife who live around the building.


----------



## Gramsci (May 23, 2013)

Carlton Mansions cat


----------



## critical1 (May 23, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I wonder how much they are shelling out for legal fees? Must be quite a lot already on this imo unnecessary action. Money that could be spent elsewhere.
> Have u seen this? About the bedroom tax. Note the lukewarm support from the Labour Cllr. Other Councils have decided not to evict people because of this.


 
Yes this is true if they had listened to the residents of Loughborough estate earlier they could have saved us all millions, instead they want to go all the way to court!!! or in our case litigation as they want to prove that we will back down!!! But we WILL NOT, as WE ARE RIGHT.
Lambeth is supposed to be Co-Op now but still behave and pursue the dictatorial approach to management with sham consultations( the Brixton Rec sham proves this) just wasting more of our money. The bedroom tax as Grace says is a major issue that our local Cllr Rachel Heywood has ignored and we are the only borough to be implementing such draconian measures to ensure we follow a conservative mandate! What has our MP and Cllr said about this apart from a few airy words.. Actions NONE.

I dont want to rant more here as it take away from Carltons issues. just look for Legal Not Loughborough in the forums for more.

Click here
The Juicy Bits, Lambeth the Co-Op council don't want you to see...
Nothing Libellous here!!!

Critically
Critical1


----------



## BBTim (May 23, 2013)

> I wonder how much they are shelling out for legal fees? Must be quite a lot already on this imo unnecessary action. Money that could be spent elsewhere.


 
I'm putting in a FOI request to Lambeth to try and find out how much they've spent on legal fees on CM and shortlife evictions so far. It must be an absolute fortune. Sadly, though, I fear they may wriggle out of having to answer it.

Mr Grundy's fees alone must be monumental.


----------



## Rushy (May 23, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> The also seek off to get off me £9 780 to date. If there action is successful. Others are potentially in same boat. So they are scaring people to go.


 
Glad to hear that you had a reprieve and time to sort things out.


What on earth is that £10K for? It presumably can't be legal fees relating to the eviction as that has not been decided yet?
And I guess that if it were unpaid rent they would be pursuing the coop for that - rather than individuals? You have mentioned that the council is taking action individually against occupants so, was it established in court exactly what the coop's status is in the tenancy arrangements?


----------



## Manter (May 23, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> No only  £9 780
> 
> Devonshire Barrister today helpfully gave me a copy of all the paperwork they have summarising my case.
> 
> All part of the service one gets off Lambeth- a Cooperative Council.


why the fuck to they want money off you?  That really is just insane fucking bullshit.  (not my most articulate comment but seriously....)


----------



## Manter (May 23, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Do not know why.Urban has a reputation. Where is Manter?


<<waves>> Sorry, @ViolentPanda's pitchforks haven't got me yet 

E2A- and for the avoidance of doubt, as well as not being a spy or in the police I don't (snort) work for the council


----------



## Winot (May 23, 2013)

Manter said:


> why the fuck to they want money off you?  That really is just insane fucking bullshit.  (not my most articulate comment but seriously....)



The general rule in a civil case is that the loser pays the winner's legal costs. They will be keeping a (generous) tally and using the threat of it increasing as a tactic to scare Gramsci et al. into giving in. Pretty standard litigation tactic.


----------



## teuchter (May 23, 2013)

Gramsci is everyone back in the building now then? I'd assumed you had to stay out until the court hearing.


----------



## Manter (May 23, 2013)

Winot said:


> The general rule in a civil case is that the loser pays the winner's legal costs. They will be keeping a (generous) tally and using the threat of it increasing as a tactic to scare Gramsci et al. into giving in. Pretty standard litigation tactic.


 ahha, get you, thx.  Seriously nasty behaviour


----------



## free spirit (May 23, 2013)

Winot said:


> The general rule in a civil case is that the loser pays the winner's legal costs. They will be keeping a (generous) tally and using the threat of it increasing as a tactic to scare Gramsci et al. into giving in. Pretty standard litigation tactic.


in that case...

Keep weekly timesheets of all time spent by all co-op members on this matter, including reading through all the legal paperwork the keep sending you, and send the council weekly invoices for your time.

Assuming you win, you ought to be entitled to having your time paid for by the council IMO - at the very least it would give a magistrate an idea of the disruption and time costs the councils actions have caused, and a starting point for working out what costs should be awarded against the council. This ought to apply particularly if you're carrying out your own defence.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 23, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Council ( or rather this section of it including the Short Life Housing Project Manager who represented the Council at court. ) do not want to work out a compromise.
> 
> They are going to pursue this in the courts. Its there job. They get paid to go to court. They are not risking anything themselves.
> 
> The also seek off to get off me £9 780 to date. If there action is successful. Others are potentially in same boat. So they are scaring people to go.


That's a disgrace, I'd like to hear someone from the council defending that.


----------



## free spirit (May 23, 2013)

Gramsci have you made an official complaint to the council yet about the Short Life Housing Project Manager, and the actions instigated / statement about not wanting to work out a compromise etc?

If not, please do so, as only once you've made a complaint via the council can you then make a complaint to the local government ombudsman, then once you've done that you can take it to judicial review if necessary.

It sounds like the council is abusing laws that are not intended for use in these situations, as well as abusing the agreement they have with the short life tenancies in these areas, and prejudicing the results of the consultation being carried out for the regeneration plan of which your co-op is an intrinsic part, so multiple grounds for judicial review.

I had a quote of around £10k for the legal costs of taking something to judicial review, as a guide, which IMO ought to be a figure that could be raised with the depth of support you obviously seem to have for this.

You don't need to take this lying down, and you don't need to allow them to dictate the terms of this fight - take the fight to them, put them on the defensive, and they may well decide that compromise is actually not such a bad idea... if not, then please do follow this through as either an ombudsman decision, or judicial review will stop the council's actions in its tracks, not just for you, but for all other short life co-ops etc that might be threatened in this way.

ps If the council officers, and lawyers are reading this - please take note of this post, these options are available, and can be used to stop you from overstepping your legal powers in the way that you clearly seem to be doing. It's not usually seen as a good career move to have an ombudsman or judicial review finding against you, so please take a step back from this and take the compromise agreement that is on offer from the Co-op. You've stirred up a hornets nest here, and a fighting fund can fairly easily be established to force you to stop your attempts to bully this long standing co-op into submission.

As someone who has been part of setting up and managing a £58 million community regeneration programme, I can only say that your approach to this is shockingly bad, and shows a huge amount of disrespect for a long established community who actually have helped to keep that area and prevent that building falling into decay for several decades, at their own expense. If you want to have your actions used as a case study of how not to do regeneration projects, you're going the right way about it at the moment from what I can see.

Obviously it's your call, but if you think about it, you know I'm right here - successful community regeneration programmes do not start by ripping the heart out of the area first.


----------



## dotdotdot (May 24, 2013)

Manter said:


> why the fuck to they want money off you? That really is just insane fucking bullshit. (not my most articulate comment but seriously....)


 
Over in Clapham and Stockwell 'Shortlife', Lambeth are threatening £300+ per week 'occupation charge' if we fight possession in court (backdated to the termination of the license in 2011), then court costs are to be claimed on top of that... it's simple intimidation. Fortunately I'm dirt poor...


----------



## Gramsci (May 24, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Glad to hear that you had a reprieve and time to sort things out.
> 
> 
> What on earth is that £10K for? It presumably can't be legal fees relating to the eviction as that has not been decided yet?
> And I guess that if it were unpaid rent they would be pursuing the coop for that - rather than individuals? You have mentioned that the council is taking action individually against occupants so, was it established in court exactly what the coop's status is in the tenancy arrangements?


 
The court was adjourned.

The issue of the tenancy status is one of the legal aspects of the case that is being argued in court. There was a bit of heated discussion of it in court. Then case was adjourned.

Its the longstanding "Short Life" legal issue of whether there is in fact secure tenancy with the Council.  

As dotdotdot says the Council have made up an "occupation charge" that they have backdated. On top of any costs.


----------



## Casaubon (May 24, 2013)

Lambeth’s behaviour in this case is just disgusting, but I’m not surprised.  They’re unable to deal with residents on anything but adversarial terms, with Devonshires’ shysters setting the agenda in the most unpleasant and aggressive way possible.

Devonshires may threaten you with potential legal costs, but remember it’s the court that decides these matters, not Devonshires. In my experience the courts haven’t been very sympathetic at all towards Lambeth/Devonshires on costs.

After my case (Rushcroft Rd) had been going on for a couple of years I was threatened with costs of £20K. I felt I had nothing to lose by this point, and accepted the possibility of bankruptcy, or whatever.
Subsequently, the threat lost its power. The case rumbled on, but increasing levels of potential costs didn’t worry me – I might as well be hanged for £50K as for £20K.

After 9 years both sides’ costs totalled more than £200K, if memory serves. The court made Lambeth pay the lot.

My case ended satisfactorily for me. But my blood still boils when I think of how Lambeth spent so much time and money persecuting and destroying our community.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (May 24, 2013)

Casaubon said:


> Lambeth’s behaviour in this case is just disgusting, but I’m not surprised. They’re unable to deal with residents on anything but adversarial terms, with Devonshires’ shysters setting the agenda in the most unpleasant and aggressive way possible.
> 
> Devonshires may threaten you with potential legal costs, but remember it’s the court that decides these matters, not Devonshires. In my experience the courts haven’t been very sympathetic at all towards Lambeth/Devonshires on costs.
> 
> ...


liked for the fact that Lambeth was made to pay all the costs. At least in your case it looks like the pressure put on last June seem to have abatted abit but the uncertainty certainly can't be any good for anyone living there.


----------



## zenie (May 24, 2013)

dotdotdot said:


> Over in Clapham and Stockwell 'Shortlife', Lambeth are threatening £300+ per week 'occupation charge' if we fight possession in court (backdated to the termination of the license in 2011), then court costs are to be claimed on top of that... it's simple intimidation. Fortunately I'm dirt poor...


 
They can't take what you haven't got


----------



## Gramsci (May 24, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Gramsci is everyone back in the building now then? I'd assumed you had to stay out until the court hearing.


 
The injunction was not heard at the first court hearing. As the Judge refused to hear. So it never came into force.


----------



## Winot (May 24, 2013)

This is why the freedom of information request about Lambeth's expediture is so powerful here. If it can be publicised widely just how much money Lambeth is wasting on lawyers, they will lose the sympathy of 'ordinary Lambeth folk', even those not normally disposed to be sympathetic to housing coops. 

I can't imagine Councillors would welcome a headline in the SLP along the lines of "Lambeth wastes your council tax on fat cat lawyers whilst school children go without books".


----------



## laptop (May 24, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> The injunction was not heard at the first court hearing. As the Judge refused to hear. So it never came into force.


 
Which is in itself a good sign with respect to the eventual position on costs. Judges in general really dislike over-clever moves like that injunction.


----------



## Manter (May 24, 2013)

dotdotdot said:


> Over in Clapham and Stockwell 'Shortlife', Lambeth are threatening £300+ per week 'occupation charge' if we fight possession in court (backdated to the termination of the license in 2011), then court costs are to be claimed on top of that... it's simple intimidation. Fortunately I'm dirt poor...


I just find that so unpleasant.  Threatening people with what is, in effect, years of hassle from debt collectors, bankruptcy etc is immoral.  I can just about see why you might do it in a high stakes libel case or international divorce (though I still think it's pretty low behaviour) but to do it to people who just want a home.... god, it makes my blood boil.


----------



## Manter (May 24, 2013)

Winot said:


> This is why the freedom of information request about Lambeth's expediture is so powerful here. If it can be publicised widely just how much money Lambeth is wasting on lawyers, they will lose the sympathy of 'ordinary Lambeth folk', even those not normally disposed to be sympathetic to housing coops.
> 
> I can't imagine Councillors would welcome a headline in the SLP along the lines of "Lambeth wastes your council tax on fat cat lawyers whilst school children go without books".


Guardian etc must be interested?  For a council that is making cuts and whines regularly about having no money (though the regular glossy magazine they put through our door makes me a bit suspicious of that at the best of times) to be pissing money away like this is pretty shabby


----------



## critical1 (May 24, 2013)

Manter said:


> I just find that so unpleasant. Threatening people with what is, in effect, years of hassle from debt collectors, bankruptcy etc is immoral. I can just about see why you might do it in a high stakes libel case or international divorce (though I still think it's pretty low behaviour) but to do it to people who just want a home.... god, it makes my blood boil.


 
Well DameTessa Jowell MP is very clear & silent... as is Cllr Rachel Heywood...
This is what they said at the CO-OPERATIVE PARTY ANNUAL CONFERENCE 2011

TJ-
"The formation of co-operative councils and our work as community organisers can rebuild those long-term relationships that will once again put us at the centre of our communities. Whether we organise days of local community action, like we did in my constituency, campaign around housing security as they have done in Enfield or campaign for a living wage – we have the power and the ideas to lead the rest of the country in once again bringing our party back to the centre of community life."

RH-
Talking about being a “Co-operative Borough”,"driving unprecedented change, quite transformative with fairness and accountability".

A new innovative way of working with communities...
Critical1


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2013)

Manter said:


> why the fuck to they want money off you? That really is just insane fucking bullshit. (not my most articulate comment but seriously....)


 
Could be one of several things:

1) Running tally per tenant of what Lambeth's action will cost each tenant if the co-op loses.
2) scare tactic utilising the above.
3) tactic telling each co-op member how much they'll be expected to "pay in" to court if they resist Lambeth and take their protestations forward.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2013)

Manter said:


> <<waves>> Sorry, @ViolentPanda's pitchforks haven't got me yet


 
Damn those useless peasants! You give them one simple task...


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2013)

Manter said:


> ahha, get you, thx. Seriously nasty behaviour


 
But also absolutely predictable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2013)

Casaubon said:


> My case ended satisfactorily for me. But my blood still boils when I think of how Lambeth spent so much time and money persecuting and destroying our community.


 
One of the things that annoy me about the whole ongoing saga w/r/t the mansion blocks is the strong whiff of ideologically-fueled action that comes off of the council (despite any claims they make that this is purely an issue of realising "best value" from assets). 20 and 30 years ago, the council got pilloried by the media for acting ideologically, but it seems that if your ideology matches that of the media, there's little comeback. You can shaft people left and right, as long as you're pursuing some version of neoliberalistic socio-economics.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 24, 2013)

Manter said:


> Guardian etc must be interested? For a council that is making cuts and whines regularly about having no money (though the regular glossy magazine they put through our door makes me a bit suspicious of that at the best of times) to be pissing money away like this is pretty shabby


 
Unfortunately, one of the "justifications" (more like "excuses" in my opinion) for this behaviour is that they're attempting to recover an asset that will enable them to put some money into council coffers against "austerity cuts". In reality, it probably (yes, I'm a cynic!) means money to keep Council Tax frozen at a more appealing rate to Nu-Brixtonites.


----------



## leanderman (May 24, 2013)

If the tenants are paying rent I can't see why the council wants them out now ahead of the agreed time,  and before there is any clear plan for the site.

It's irrational as well as inhuman


----------



## newbie (May 24, 2013)

I think inhuman may be a bit strong, but Lambeth has always been irrational. And incompetent. My detailed experience of their legal department is from a long time ago, around the time squats were first getting shortlife licenses and the co-ops were forming. Over the years they've come a cropper on a number of occasions because the licenses were badly drafted, or poorly administered, or just forgotten about. I'm pretty sure at least one house became owned by the longterm occupier because the license was such a mess. I have no reason to believe that either the councillors or the legal department is any more competent now.

So I'd suggest getting someone good to look forensically at every possible angle on the license. Look to see if it's actually granted tenancies, eg because it's not legally in force and money they've taken can only be rent under the terms of the act, or some other technical detail.

fwiw the key barrister in those days, who helped numerous squats and shortlifes against Lambeth, was David Watkinson. He must have a lot of files, and a lot of background understanding. A glance down his list of cases shows he may still have the passion?


----------



## Gramsci (May 24, 2013)

newbie said:


> So I'd suggest getting someone good to look forensically at every possible angle on the license. Look to see if it's actually granted tenancies, eg because it's not legally in force and money they've taken can only be rent under the terms of the act, or some other technical detail.


 
This issue is now part of the case.

Our case is now not just about alleged fire risk.

Another reason the Council/ Devonshires give for getting the "occupiers" out is that the building is part of a larger regeneration project. So is needed to be emptied out.

The constructive role the Coop has played in the Somerleyton road project is not acknowledged.

What gets me is that Barratts and Tescos are treated with kid gloves by Lambeth. ( Brixton square affordable housing and the market traders car park).


----------



## Gramsci (May 24, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Gramsci is everyone back in the building now then? I'd assumed you had to stay out until the court hearing.


 
At the first hearing the Judge would not hear the injunction. So it never took effect. The injunction would have residents barred from the building. Also it was done "ex parte". Devonshires sent out day before court the injunction papers. Ex parte means that you do not have to give defendants any notice. I do not know exactly what the Judge said but it appears he did not think this was proper procedure. Which should be to get possession order. Injunctions are held ex parte for cases like stalking and harrassment etc were it clearly is not good idea to have the defendant knowing about it.

Two Ward Cllrs after the first hearing were told about the attempt at an injunction. They were asked to get the Council to stop the injunction action. As a Labour Council should not imo use the law in this way.

Have had no feedback from Ward Cllrs.

Leaving everything else aside I am appalled at the way a Labour Cooperative Council thinks its fine to do this to people who are not harassing anyone.

I saw what this did to people. It strikes fear into people. The night before people were not sure whether the next day they would be barred , under penalty , from there homes.

Its appalling that residents have to rely on an unelected Judge to protect them.


----------



## Gramsci (May 24, 2013)

dotdotdot said:


> Over in Clapham and Stockwell 'Shortlife', Lambeth are threatening £300+ per week 'occupation charge' if we fight possession in court (backdated to the termination of the license in 2011), then court costs are to be claimed on top of that... it's simple intimidation. Fortunately I'm dirt poor...


 
I agree its all about intimidating people. The Council acting like a bully imo.


----------



## Casaubon (May 24, 2013)

newbie said:


> fwiw the key barrister in those days, who helped numerous squats and shortlifes against Lambeth, was David Watkinson. He must have a lot of files, and a lot of background understanding. A glance down his list of cases shows he may still have the passion?


 
David Watkinson was my barrister, and I can't speak highly enough of him.
His experience in this sort of situation is huge, and it was his quiet drive and determination that powered my case through some very sticky patches.
If he's still working in this field I'd say it would definitely be worth getting at least an opinion from him.


----------



## Gramsci (May 24, 2013)

critical1 said:


> Well DameTessa Jowell MP is very clear & silent... as is Cllr Rachel Heywood...
> This is what they said at the CO-OPERATIVE PARTY ANNUAL CONFERENCE 2011


 
Thanks critical1 . I have been following your other thread about URH.

Interesting quotes. Googled Tessa. Here she is on the community:





> Fifty years ago, the Labour movement was at the centre of community life – the local trade union, the Co-op shop, the worker’s education groups and the brass band. The change that we brought was not just embodied in what we talked about and stood for but also in what we did: the services we provided, the campaigns we fought and the gains that we made for our communities – not just when we were in power but also from opposition.
> The formation of co-operative councils and our work as community organisers can rebuild those long-term relationships that will once again put us at the centre of our communities.


 
I do not know how Devonshires fits into Lambeth Coop Council.

Nor do I see how what is happening to Carlton Mansions is putting the Labour Council at the centre of community life and rebuilding long term relationships putting the Labour party at the centre of the community.


----------



## dotdotdot (May 25, 2013)

Manter said:


> Guardian etc must be interested? For a council that is making cuts and whines regularly about having no money (though the regular glossy magazine they put through our door makes me a bit suspicious of that at the best of times) to be pissing money away like this is pretty shabby


 
unfortunately, the Guardian's approach has, so far, been 'give the co-op council a chance', as though destroying housing co-ops and evicting people is a small teething problem...


----------



## dotdotdot (May 25, 2013)

Casaubon said:


> David Watkinson was my barrister, and I can't speak highly enough of him.
> His experience in this sort of situation is huge, and it was his quiet drive and determination that powered my case through some very sticky patches.
> If he's still working in this field I'd say it would definitely be worth getting at least an opinion from him.


 
 I think David Watkinson recently retired.  Jan Luba is someone to look at though, same chambers, I think


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 25, 2013)

i just want to come on this thread to say that not a single cllr, nor MP, bothered to reply to any of my letters about this.


----------



## dotdotdot (May 25, 2013)

http://www.lgcplus.com/research/sen...e=Latest-Local-Government-News&contentID=2249

Lambeth attracts DCLG fury for defying senior pay rules

23 May, 2013 | By Kaye Wiggins

Lambeth LBC has defied Eric Pickles’ rule that salaries and payouts over £100,000 should be vetted by councillors from all parties.  


When Mr Pickles announced the move, he said it would make local authority pay “democracy-proof”.

But councillors at the Labour-run London borough have said it would bring “significant delay to the recruitment process” if full council had to approve the highest pay packets.

They have also said there would be a “delay in implementing redundancies in a timely fashion” if severance packages worth more than £100,000 had to be discussed at full council meetings.

Under guidance from the Department of Communities & Local Government, published in February, full council should be given the opportunity to vote before salaries or severance packages worth more than £100,000 are approved.

But Lambeth council papers say: “In light of the… limited discretion available to the council when setting senior pay it is recommended that [current] arrangements are sufficient so as to comply with the intention of [DCLG guidance] and should therefore continue unchanged.”

The paper was approved at a full council meeting on Wednesday.

Lambeth has 16 posts with salaries of more than £100,000.

UPDATE: Local government minister Brandon Lewis said in a statement: “The taxpayers of Lambeth should take note that the ruling councillors have failed to get a grip on the town hall rich list. The council should be held to account for giving the green light to greater secrecy and uncontrolled pay packets for top bosses.”


----------



## editor (May 25, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> i just want to come on this thread to say that not a single cllr, nor MP, bothered to reply to any of my letters about this.


 
Could you list their names here, for reference?


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 25, 2013)

all the ones that someone quoted earlier - i took the names and email addresses from this thread.


----------



## Gramsci (May 25, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> all the ones that someone quoted earlier - i took the names and email addresses from this thread.


 
Thats really bad. The Labour lot have gone silent on this.


----------



## shifting gears (May 25, 2013)

editor said:


> Could you list their names here, for reference?



I emailed: 

Councillor Rachel Heywood
Councillor Matt Parr
Councillor Pete Robbins
Councillor Donatus Anyanwu
Councillor Parmpreet Tatla

And got fuck all back, save the stock email posted earlier from Rachel Heywood, which, for the record, stated:

" Our colleague Cllr Pete Robbins, Cabinet member for Housing and Regeneration, will be responding in more detail on the issues that you and others have raised about Carlton Mansions but Matt Donatus and I wanted to acknowledge the enquiries which have been sent to us in the meantime."

Councillors, collectively you're liars, charlatans, and worthless, lazy, corrupt wasters of space. Your indifference speaks volumes, and I will spread the word on your gross incompetence as far as I can. 

I propose, again, someone starting a separate thread to monitor the councillors' behaviour, voting record, and general conduct with regard to their wards. 

They cannot be allowed to get away with this sort of wilful disregard for the community.


----------



## critical1 (May 26, 2013)

They cannot be allowed to get away with this sort of wilful disregard for the community.

*They all have to be held to account...*

Critical1


----------



## critical1 (May 26, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I agree its all about intimidating people. The Council acting like a bully imo.


 
*On the instruction of who.. Who do the officers take instructions from? Who does Lambeth Legal take instruction from?*
*follow the little rabbit and its trail of .... to find the *


Spoiler



*TRUTH*




Critical1


----------



## Gramsci (May 26, 2013)

dotdotdot said:


> http://www.lgcplus.com/research/sen...e=Latest-Local-Government-News&contentID=2249
> 
> Lambeth attracts DCLG fury for defying senior pay rules
> 
> ...


 
On a general note I observe that Labour Cllrs do not question officers enough.

There is the old question whether an administration is officer led or Cllr led.


----------



## critical1 (May 26, 2013)

All of this is the norm for Lambeth, no wonder they have ignored and bullied us relentlessly, they've got so used to the whole stinking way of behaving, they can't even smell the huge pile of shit they continually excrete, how sad this makes me, so underhand full of dirty tricks, pains me to say, at least the Tories face you directly when stabbing you to death!!!

Critically 
Critical1


----------



## leanderman (May 26, 2013)

critical1 said:


> They cannot be allowed to get away with this sort of wilful disregard for the community.
> 
> *They all have to be held to account...*
> 
> Critical1



Agreed, in this case. But one person's idea of 'community' is very different to another's. it's not a clear-cut concept. 

I'd be surprised if, in any one area, the whole 'community's ideas were aligned.


----------



## Gramsci (May 27, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Agreed, in this case. But one person's idea of 'community' is very different to another's. it's not a clear-cut concept.
> 
> I'd be surprised if, in any one area, the whole 'community's ideas were aligned.


 
Community was aligned on keeping the Market traders car park.

Community was aligned on keeping the Rec.

In both above cases the community was aligned despite the best efforts of the Council.

And when I say the community was aligned I mean that both of the above were supported by a cross section of the diverse communities in Brixton.


----------



## Winot (May 27, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Community was aligned on keeping the Market traders car park.



How do you know?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 28, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> i just want to come on this thread to say that not a single cllr, nor MP, bothered to reply to any of my letters about this.


Same here. Though one replied to say "Pete Robbins will reply" but he never did.

Fuck them all.


----------



## TopCat (May 28, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> I emailed:
> 
> Councillor Rachel Heywood
> Councillor Matt Parr
> ...


 

What are you proposing doing to hold them to account?


----------



## Gramsci (May 28, 2013)

Winot said:


> How do you know?


 
I took part in the campaign so saw that a wide range of people supported the market traders.


----------



## shifting gears (May 28, 2013)

TopCat said:


> What are you proposing doing to hold them to account?



Open to suggestions, but I think clearly documenting and publicising as widely as possible their individual and collective actions, voting record, neglect of ward duties etc would be a decent start.


----------



## editor (May 28, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> Open to suggestions, but I think clearly documenting and publicising as widely as possible their individual and collective actions, voting record, neglect of ward duties etc would be a decent start.


 
A thread here could be a start with posters just documenting their unanswered emails.


----------



## TopCat (May 28, 2013)

What about picketing their homes? Direct actions against their cars? Following them home and endlessly yelling abuse? Late night phone calls to discuss the issues?


----------



## TruXta (May 28, 2013)

TopCat said:


> What about picketing their homes? Direct actions against their cars? Following them home and endlessly yelling abuse? Late night phone calls to discuss the issues?


I vote for spiking their tea.


----------



## critical1 (May 28, 2013)

shifting gears said:


> neglect of ward duties etc would be a decent start.


 
I would concur with the above on Loughborough, I have it on good authority  that Loughborough went to the Local Cllr who sat on URH board and did not declare an interest until she was discovered sometime afterwards to be sitting on Loughborough's board and URH board...  Well Cllr Heywood was given privileged information and never once replied in fact was in collusion with URH begs one to question who she represents! who would you complain to  regarding NEGLECT of WARD DUTIES.

Just look at Guinness Trust Somerlayton Road same story there..

Critical1


----------



## Winot (May 28, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I took part in the campaign so saw that a wide range of people supported the market traders.



But what was the sample sIze of the people you came into contact with? Assessing public opinion is tricky - even professional opinion polls are flawed. I would be wary of anyone who saya that they know what the 'community' thinks.

(We are in agreement about Lambeth's failures though).


----------



## TruXta (May 28, 2013)

Winot said:


> But what was the sample sIze of the people you came into contact with? Assessing public opinion is tricky - even professional opinion polls are flawed. I would be wary of anyone who saya that they know what the 'community' thinks.
> 
> (We are in agreement about Lambeth's failures though).


What alternative procedure would you suggest for assessing the public opinion?


----------



## Winot (May 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> What alternative procedure would you suggest for assessing the public opinion?



I don't think there's an easy answer.


----------



## editor (May 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> What alternative procedure would you suggest for assessing the public opinion?


Ask Brixton Green. They know everything.


----------



## nagapie (May 28, 2013)

Ruth Ling is the only one who always gets back to me, the others = nothing. But tbh it's hardly worth it as she just spouts the party line.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 28, 2013)

TopCat said:


> What about picketing their homes? Direct actions against their cars? Following them home and endlessly yelling abuse? Late night phone calls to discuss the issues?


 
The idea of toting up the number of hours they put into official council business and then seeing if it is worth the comfortable "allowances" they pay themselves might be amusing. 

I mean, I'm sure councillors do a lot of council work for the local community "off the clock", so to speak, but that's not really a plausible reason for taking the wedge with such alacrity. Lots of people do a lot of work for their community for no recompense whatsoever. I believe it used to be called "being civic-minded" before these jokers started deciding they were worth 5 figures worth of public money each just for representing a ward.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 28, 2013)

nagapie said:


> Ruth Ling is the only one who always gets back to me, the others = nothing. But tbh it's hardly worth it as she just spouts the party line.


 
In the last 10 years or so, that's all I've ever seen or heard any of the Labour councillors do. They're so shit-scared to go "off  message" their arses squeak.


----------



## Gramsci (May 28, 2013)

Winot said:


> But what was the sample sIze of the people you came into contact with? Assessing public opinion is tricky - even professional opinion polls are flawed. I would be wary of anyone who saya that they know what the 'community' thinks.
> 
> (We are in agreement about Lambeth's failures though).


 
 Lambeth were never able to show that people wanted the market traders to lose their car park for a temporary ice rink.

What do you suggest should be a way to decide these planning issues?

Those who opposed it did the best they could with little resources. As against Lambeth who have a lot of resources.

To answer your question a pretty good sample. Including going out on the street and giving people the info on it so they could oppose it if they wanted. All I spoke to did not think Tescos should get there way at expense of the market traders car park.


----------



## leanderman (May 28, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> To answer your question a pretty good sample. Including going out on the street and giving people the info on it so they could oppose it if they wanted. All I spoke to did not think Tescos should get there way at expense of the market traders car park.



I am not sure this is an especially scientific approach!

I'd take another case, close to my street: the issue of the new Sainsbury in Water Lane.

Judged by the posts on Urban, on Brixtonblog, Twitter and the Chukka public meeting, you'd believe community feeling was near universally opposed.

Yet, a neutral email to everyone in my street revealed a small majority in favour. 

Which suggests that community opinion is not easy to pin down.


----------



## Gramsci (May 29, 2013)

leanderman said:


> I am not sure this is an especially scientific approach!
> 
> I'd take another case, close to my street: the issue of the new Sainsbury in Water Lane.
> 
> ...


 
Politics is not a science.

I suggest you get all those in favour to email Chuka to say they want it. So he can hear the silent majority.

If people attend or voice there opinions in 4 different forums against then they are exercising there right to be heard.


----------



## Winot (May 29, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Politics is not a science.
> 
> I suggest you get all those in favour to email Chuka to say they want it. So he can hear the silent majority.
> 
> If people attend or voice there opinions in 4 different forums against then they are exercising there right to be heard.



Perhaps the silent majority voted in local elections and have left these individual decisions to Councillors to decide.


----------



## Gramsci (May 29, 2013)

Winot said:


> Perhaps the silent majority voted in local elections and have left these individual decisions to Councillors to decide.


 
But Cllrs need to know what peoples opinions are on issues as they come along.

 People either vote or not. That they vote does not mean they are going to be silent the rest of the time.


----------



## Gramsci (May 30, 2013)

Just been looking up Devonshires solicitors (the ones used by Lambeth) on google.

They have amazingly good google pages. No criticism to be found. Someone told me that this is unusual on google.

They have plush offices in the City.

here is profile in Inside Housing




> Company Profile
> Devonshires is proud to sponsor the UKHA’s 2011 ‘Excellence in Housing Finance and Development’ Award as part of our ongoing commitment to the social housing sector.
> Devonshires is a leading provider of legal services with a successful track record of advising the social housing sector for over 30 years. Two thirds of our clients are made up of not-for profit organisations including local authorities, housing associations, and charities and we act for over 200 Registered Providers based throughout the UK.
> We use a down-to-earth approach to deliver practical advice and aim to build strong long lasting client relationships through a thorough understanding of your needs, speed of response, a high quality innovative service and value for money.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 2, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Just been looking up Devonshires solicitors (the ones used by Lambeth) on google. They have plush offices in the City.


Last year I had to go to Devonshires office in Finsbury Circus (next to First Bank of Nigeria). A good friend of mine was in an Employment Tribunal case & Devonshires were representing his employer (a housing association).
Devonshires were pissing about with not serving papers on time etc. (a bit like the CM case) - which is why my mate got me to take his papers to their office personally & get a receipt.
The receptionist made me a nice cup of coffee while I waited for their solicitor to appear & there was a choice of the Ft or the Estates Gazette to read as I recall.
Happy to report my friend was able to secure reasonable settlement.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 2, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Just been looking up Devonshires solicitors (the ones used by Lambeth) on google.
> 
> They have amazingly good google pages. No criticism to be found. Someone told me that this is unusual on google.
> 
> ...


 
Advising the social housing sector how to screw people over, more like.


----------



## Casaubon (Jun 3, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Advising the social housing sector how to screw people over, more like.


 

Devonshires don't just advise, they earn their money by acting as legal pitbulls for Lambeth and other 'social' landlords.
They pursue legal cases very aggressively, ruthlessly and heartlessly.
I'd love to post my whole opinion of Devonshires, but I fear that might cause problems for U75. 

Devonshires certainly don't command my respect, but I'd have to say that they frighten me. For all their unpleasantness, they are very good at what they do.
As we’ve seen, they can be imaginative in their choice of legal instrument, and their aggression has left me stunned on a few occasions.
To have any chance at all of beating Devonshires you need a legal team that’s expert in the area, and can stand up to their expert and overbearing barristers and QCs.
(And, when you think you’ve won a clear legal and moral victory, you only get a couple of weeks to relax before they come up with some new way of trying to throw you out of your home.)

Bunch of total, absolute ****s.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 4, 2013)

*adds Devonshires to the list CTR*


*removes secretary from the list for making nice coffee*


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jun 4, 2013)

Here are the principles of a Co-operative Council, as explained in a helpful FoI request.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 4, 2013)

Tricky Skills said:


> Here are the principles of a Co-operative Council, as explained in a helpful FoI request.


 
Started reading Lambeth's reply and became overcome with the urge to bang my head on the wall.


----------



## editor (Jun 4, 2013)

G





Tricky Skills said:


> Here are the principles of a Co-operative Council, as explained in a helpful FoI request.


Good find. I'll publish that on Brixton Buzz tomorrow so others can share Lambeth's 'vision'.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 4, 2013)

Casaubon said:


> Devonshires certainly don't command my respect, but I'd have to say that they frighten me. For all their unpleasantness, they are very good at what they do.


 
This is what everyone says about them.

They did really frighten people in the Coop.

But I blame the Labour Council for using them. The Cllrs have been told. So they cannot say they did not know.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 4, 2013)

Tricky Skills said:


> Here are the principles of a Co-operative Council, as explained in a helpful FoI request.


 
Thanks for this.



> (5)   The Cooperative Council is about changing the relationship the
> council has with local residents. This means that staff will need to learn
> and develop new ways of working with local people.
> 
> ...


 
How do Devonshires fit into this?

Is frightening people a "new way of working with local people"?

"putting local people at the heart of all we do" Well they are putting there heart into getting me out.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 4, 2013)

Tricky Skills said:


> Here are the principles of a Co-operative Council, as explained in a helpful FoI request.


 



> This was followed by the Cooperative Council Commission, which engaged
> with a large number of local residents, businesses and stakeholders to
> develop an approach for making the change to a Cooperative Council. The
> Commission published its report with recommendations in 2011.


 
I put in a written submission to the Commission. Never found out what happened to it or whether it was read.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 4, 2013)

Tricky Skills said:


> Here are the principles of a Co-operative Council, as explained in a helpful FoI request.


 


> (13) The transition to Cooperative Council is core to the council’s aims,
> rather than a specific project, and therefore expenditure is embedded in
> all the council’s activities.


 
?

What does this mean? How does this work in practise?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 4, 2013)

Tricky Skills said:


> Here are the principles of a Co-operative Council, as explained in a helpful FoI request.


 




> (10) Openness, transparency and accountability are key principles of
> cooperative working. The council will endeavour to ensure that it is
> behaving in accordance with these principles, to ensure that local people
> have the information they need to help work out how to improve the
> borough.




One for Somerleyton road project and BG thread.


----------



## ddraig (Jun 4, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> ?
> 
> What does this mean? How does this work in practise?


 
presume they mean
'there's no specific budget obviously as is it all departments aim and wish to transition to cooperative working' bleurgh
as some kind of attempt to hide the massive cost and job cuts if they get where their going and no one dept chief can be blamed then either

and i'm guessing the way it works is coming out of already stretched budgets of all depts rather than top slicing or funding it properly


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 4, 2013)

it's massive horse-shit.  we should elect an urban75 councillor.  at least then we'd participate in the discussion even if we couldn't do anything about the outcome.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 4, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I put in a written submission to the Commission. Never found out what happened to it or whether it was read.


 
Can you put in an FOI regarding the process for acknowledging the receipt of and responding to written submissions made in this way?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 4, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Just been looking up Devonshires solicitors (the ones used by Lambeth) on google.
> 
> They have amazingly good google pages. No criticism to be found. Someone told me that this is unusual on google.


You can pay certain companies to clean that sort of stuff up for you...

Devonshires do sound like nasty pieces of work.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 5, 2013)

ddraig said:


> and i'm guessing the way it works is coming out of already stretched budgets of all depts rather than top slicing or funding it properly


 
Yes it does. I remember telling Cllrs that to do the Coop Council properly they would need to resource it.

Its not , initially at least, a cheap option.

That has met with no response.


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2013)

Update and statement here:
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/07/...on-mansions-housing-cooperative-under-threat/


----------



## free spirit (Jul 7, 2013)

sounds very reasonable, and very well put. Well done to whoever wrote it, I hope it achieves the desired ends.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 8, 2013)

Cllr Robbins - _who has been carrying the can for a lot of the Short Life policy_ - has been de-selected by the Larkhall ward of the Labour Party. He lost by one vote when candidates were chosen to contest the 2014 local elections.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 26, 2013)

We will be in court on September 4th and September 5th at Lambeth County Court, Cleaver street, Kennington. Time is 10.30am

Had two recent articles in SLP and also some support from MP Tessa Jowell. Who wrote on our behalf supporting our request for mediation. Which the Council/ Devonshires have refused.

Anthony Gold the solicitors appointed a experienced surveyor/ fire risk assessor to produce a report with costed works. This was because the Council/ Devonshires refused to look at the possibility of costed works to address fire risk issues.

Devonshires managed last Friday to stop the surveyor being an expert witness in court. Despite his being an experienced professional who the Council know full well would make a good expert for court.

Coop has done some works. Including re instating two extra exits, replacing some fire doors, plastering.

The preliminary report is costing works at around £16 800 plus vat. The biggest cost is an alarm system. Flats have smoke alarms but looks like an alarm system is advised.

So much cheaper to let us stay on site than trying to vacate and leave building empty.

The Ward Cllrs have been kept up to date on all this. But so far had little concrete support from them.

Personally I am disappointed in the lack of support from Labour Cllrs. We have been getting help and advice from a couple of former Labour Cllrs. All these years when I have gone to meetings etc engaging the Council in a constructive manner. Makes no difference.

Devonshires ,under direction of officers, have been pursuing the case aggressively.

Its not something I like. My stress levels are hard to cope with. Been feeling like giving up a few times as its to much to handle.

You cannot negotiate with these people. Cllrs should be questioning officers.

Darren Johnson (Green party) of the Chair of Housing committee on the GLA replied to Coop saying he is taking the issue up and supporting us.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 26, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Devonshires managed last Friday to stop the surveyor being an expert witness in court. Despite his being an experienced professional who the Council know full well would make a good expert for court.


 
How is this possible?


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 26, 2013)

All the best Gramsci.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 26, 2013)

nagapie said:


> How is this possible?


 
Since last court appearance there has been a protracted argument between both sides about a third inspection as directed by the last court.

In short Devonshires/ Council did not want a Fire Risk Assessor who is also a surveyor. A person who can assess fire risk and costs of works given the life of the building before the development of Somerleyton road project.

The last court directions say that both parties jointly instruct an expert. But the Council refused to budge on this.

Before last court appearance the defence solicitor offered two experts to do another FRA plus look at cost of works. Devonshires / Lambeth refused this offer. All along they have refused to countenance anything that might offer an alternative to eviction. .

Last time in court Devonshires/ Lambeth when they had the draconian injunction refused yet again demanded from the Judge a further FRA.The Judge agreed this. Giving Devonshires/ Council to provide a list of FRAs. With both sides to jointly instruct.

Even though Devonshires/ Council had turned down the offer put forward by the defence previous to this court appearance.

The solicitor for the defence , due to impasse , asked an expert known to the Council , to do another FRA with costed works. This is an independent person. Devonshires/ Council were even given opportunity to have one of there FRA to go along. They turned this down. On the day that the surveyor / FRA turned up without warning they sent there FRA. Devonshires/ Lambeth did not tell Coop or defence solicitor about this.

That is how Devonshires/ Lambeth have been behaving. Its needlessly unpleasant. Its also psychological. You never know what trick they will do next. This kind of thing really unnerves people. I am sure that’s why they do it.

To cut a long story short the Council FRA was let in and accompanied the one appointed by the defence solicitors around.

The defence solicitor applied to court for further directions on the third FRA. Devonshires argued against the Surveyor / FRA being an expert witness. The Judge agreed with this on a technicality.

The defence solicitor did not oppose that Devonshire/ Lambeth could have there own expert. He wanted the court to agree that the surveyor/ FRA should also be an expert witness.

Devonshires are directed by Lambeth officers. They did not have to argue/ insist on our side having no expert witness. That was there choice.

The law is not always what commonsense might dictate.

This is long post but its complicated issue. Lambeth have been telling journalists that the "occupiers" have been obstructing the court by not choosing an FRA that the Council put forward. I have also been named by one officer in a letter to our MP. Which we have replied to our MP about. Lambeth have been putting out mis information.

I think this is why Devonshire/ Lambeth sent there own FRA guy along without warning. They were trying to make out its the "occupiers" that are being "intransigent" ( as one officer recently said of Coop as we will not go quietly) not the Council.

This is not what happened. The court directions were between to the two legal teams. It was not for "occupiers" to choose. They legal team on the defence is representing one individual on legal aid. It was that legal team that were given the directions not the "occupiers".

Hope that makes it a bit clearer.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 27, 2013)

It's just crazy. I hope the courts see some sense in this all, good luck, I'm really sorry you are going through this.


----------



## Manter (Aug 27, 2013)

That's bonkers Gramsci. And horribly stressful. Hope the case goes well on 4th


----------



## ddraig (Aug 27, 2013)

sounds like you've done and are doing everything you can, all the best


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 27, 2013)

Disgraceful actions from the Council and Devonshires. Horrible bunch of cnuts.

Good luck Gramsci


----------



## Casaubon (Aug 27, 2013)

Yeah, disgraceful behaviour from the council, and their hatchet-men, Devonshires.
Good luck next week.


----------



## shifting gears (Aug 28, 2013)

Can only add a 'best of luck' , and concur with Lambeth and Devonshires being a devious and harassing shower of cunts


----------



## teuchter (Aug 28, 2013)

Good luck Gramsci


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 29, 2013)

Interesting piece in the Brixton Bugle about it today, with some promising news - the surveyor appointed by the residents judged the fire risk to be "substantial", one level lower than "intolerable". So if the court accepts that at the next hearing on Sept 4, the council's argument for eviction would be substantially weakened. Have I got that right Gramsci?  Would it strengthen your position to start work on some improvements before the hearing? If you appealed here and at freecycle for materials and tools I bet you'd get plenty of help.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 29, 2013)

if you read their post from a couple of days ago they have already done some work

from post 429


> Devonshires managed last Friday to stop the surveyor being an expert witness in court. Despite his being an experienced professional who the Council know full well would make a good expert for court.
> 
> Coop has done some works. Including re instating two extra exits, replacing some fire doors, plastering.
> 
> ...


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 29, 2013)

Fucking Devonshires. Many moons ago I was a lodger of one of their partners. A horrible, shallow waste of space.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 29, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Interesting piece in the Brixton Bugle about it today, with some promising news - the surveyor appointed by the residents judged the fire risk to be "substantial", one level lower than "intolerable". So if the court accepts that at the next hearing on Sept 4, the council's argument for eviction would be substantially weakened. Have I got that right Gramsci? Would it strengthen your position to start work on some improvements before the hearing? If you appealed here and at freecycle for materials and tools I bet you'd get plenty of help.


 
Have not seen the Bugle yet. Thought it was out on Friday. Will need to have a look. Had chat to Zoe on weekend about it.

Yes ur right and also the Council argument is also weakened as the surveyor/ FRA has done preliminary costings of works to make building safer. That was why someone who is both a surveyor and Fire Risk Assessor was chosen.

The cost of doing this is substantially less than evicting Coop and leaving the building empty. Cost of security would be substantial. Also the Council will not get Council Tax if building left empty.

The surveyor/FRA was appointed by Anthony Gold the soliciters. Coop provided access for the surveyor.

Coop have being doing some improvements. Put in extra exits, new fire doors and plastering. Extra exits make a big difference. Also Coop got 20 new fire extinguishers. Extra exits it makes leaving the building quickly more feasible in case of fire. Coop has rough costing for other works.

The Council/ Devonshires have been given the preliminary report. There has been no response as of now. The argument is that the decision to go for proceedings for eviction is not appropriate now that they have been given this report. I have also sent it to Ward Cllrs, Council leader and Cllr Robbins ( Cabinet member for housing and regen). Just to make sure that the Cllrs know what is going on. They cannot say officers did not tell them.

The surveyor that Anthony Gold appointed is one that is known as reputable experienced professional by the Council.


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 29, 2013)

Sounds like things are going pretty well.  Fingers crossed, and let us know if you need any help from the Brixton proletariat. Got any mates in the Fire Brigades Union?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 1, 2013)

The Coop has agreed that it will fund the estimated cost of the works to make the building safer. See post #429

This has now be told to Devonshires who are acting for the Council.

Have to see what they say. So far the Council/ Devonshires have refused anything that might mean residents can stay.

As a point of information the Council gave Camelot money to do works on Clifton Mansions. As well as paying them to secure the place with "guardians".


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 1, 2013)

The latest from Council/ Devonshires is that is appropriate and standard practise to start to get vacant possession on premises in a regeneration area 18 - 24 months before works start.

Getting residents out now is "appropriate".

So its not about alleged fire risk in the end. Its about getting rid of Carlton Mansions residents.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 1, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> The latest from Council/ Devonshires is that is appropriate and standard practise to start to get vacant possession on premises in a regeneration are 18 - 24 months before development starts.
> 
> So getting residents out now is "appropriate".
> 
> So its not about alleged fire risk in the end.


The whole fire risk thing was clearly slippery and horribly blunt. It made Lambeth look incompetent, untrustworthy and aggressive.

I think you said some way back, Gramsci, that you were all prepared to leave before the regen was due, anticipating that you may still have a  couple of years left there. I can understand why the council might not take the co-ops "word" that everyone would definitely vacate when the time came, but I'm sure they could have cooperated with you whilst ensuring they have done the requisite legal stuff in the background "just in case". Pretending they give a shit about the fire safety all of a sudden is wasting everyone's time and resources.


----------



## Vibrant-Hubb (Sep 2, 2013)

People reading this who are involved on the council side ought to question their behaviour and morality. These are people at Carlton Mansions, not figures on a spreadsheet. People with feelings and frailties. All that work by residents in response to fire safety concerns - all that worry - and now because Carlton Mansions residents have done a good job and the council have started to fear they may lose the case, the council say "oh by the way, it is about something else now, just so you know". Appalling.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 2, 2013)

Ben Morgan of the SLP has article in this Tuesdays South London Press about the Mansions.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 2, 2013)

Vibrant-Hubb said:


> People reading this who are involved on the council side ought to question their behaviour and morality. These are people at Carlton Mansions, not figures on a spreadsheet. People with feelings and frailties. All that work by residents in response to fire safety concerns - all that worry - and now because Carlton Mansions residents have done a good job and the council have started to fear they may lose the case, the council say "oh by the way, it is about something else now, just so you know". Appalling.


THIS^^^^ x 1000

I hope you're reading, Councillor Pete Robbins.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 2, 2013)

Vibrant-Hubb said:


> These are people at Carlton Mansions, not figures on a spreadsheet. People with feelings and frailties. .



Interesting you say this as part of defence will be Article 8 of Human Rights Acts.

HRA has been criticized but it means that ordinary people have some defence from public bodies like Councils who have a lot of power invested in them.

Council have ( or should) show that the decisions that they make which affect peoples lives are proportionate. They should assess there decisions if new information becomes available.

I am no expert in law but its interesting.


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 2, 2013)

Best of luck for the court case, Gramsci.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 3, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> THIS^^^^ x 1000
> 
> I hope you're reading, Councillor Pete Robbins.



Even if he is, Liar Pete will claim that he isn't.


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 3, 2013)

All the best for tomorrow Gramsci and all other co-op members !!!!


----------



## Manter (Sep 3, 2013)

yes, what he said ^^


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 3, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Even if he is, Liar Pete will claim that he isn't.


i tweeted him the link twice....when I knew he was using Twitter at the time...he must have read the thread.....but he ignored it. Again!

Coward.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 3, 2013)

Good luck, Gramsci and co-opers! Let us know any time you need someone from Lambeth spammed, picketted or egged.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 3, 2013)

Good luck.  Sock it to them. 

Fuckers.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 3, 2013)

all the best Gramsci - solidarity from your friends in Brixton


----------



## Belushi (Sep 3, 2013)

very best of luck to you all tomorrow!


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 3, 2013)

Hope all goes well tomorrow.


----------



## Gniewosz (Sep 3, 2013)

Good luck!


----------



## CH1 (Sep 4, 2013)

Best wishes to Gramsci and Carton Mansions Co-op members & residents at the hearing today and tomorrow.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 4, 2013)

Dear Urbanites.

Thanks for all the support you have given over the past few months. 

I am touched that so many people care.

Also thanks to editor for doing the Brixton Buzz articles.


----------



## magneze (Sep 4, 2013)

Best of luck.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Sep 4, 2013)

Decent piece in Private Eye's Rotten Boroughs this week on Carlton Mansions:

"More trouble for Lambeth's misleadingly named "short-life" housing co-operatives that sprung up to maintain the borough's older housing that was too crummy to be let in the normal way in the 70s and 80s but are now seen ripe for redevelopment...

Residents requested mediation with the council and a costed schedule of works to improve safety further, even though they had already agreed to leave in 2015 (but had expected to be rehoused) when the building becomes part of the much bigger "Brixton Master Plan" that has trumpeted its involvement of local residents...

The cost of securing the building is likely to run into tens of thousands (nearby music venue Bradys, also closed down by the council, cost Lambeth around £70,000 a year to secure) and eviction proceedings will likely to be hefty."


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 4, 2013)

Tricky Skills said:


> Decent piece in Private Eye's Rotten Boroughs this week on Carlton Mansions:
> 
> "More trouble for Lambeth's misleadingly named "short-life" housing co-operatives that sprung up to maintain the borough's older housing that was too crummy to be let in the normal way in the 70s and 80s but are now seen ripe for redevelopment...
> 
> ...



Heard today from the journalist who wrote this that its in today. Will get a copy tomorrow. Its not on Private Eyes website. (paywall I think. They need people to buy copies to keep going).

As its Private Eye the journalists name is not on it I guess. Good journalist.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 4, 2013)

In court all day today. At one point this morning it looked like the case might be adjourned. But that did not happen.

The Council side refused to accept the offer the Coop put forward of paying the estimated works of £16 800 plus vat.

They are still seeking possession. The injunction has been dropped.

An adjournment was asked for by defence. But Judge decided to go ahead. Two days has been set side for the trial.

Not sure how much I can say at the moment as back in court tomorrow. 

Its hard to tell what will happen. The is not jury trial. It depends on the judge. 

To there credit two of my Ward Cllrs turned up in afternoon.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 4, 2013)

Good to hear the injunction has been dropped.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 4, 2013)

So far no Coop members have been in the witness box. A relief. 

Need to read up on my witness statements tonight.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 4, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Good to hear the injunction has been dropped.



Its no longer "intolerable" risk. The recent FRA by Council said risk was "Substantial" not "Intolerable". The recent one was done by Council Fire Risk Assessor who Coop let in.

Substantial means works need to be done but if occupied then building does not need immediate evacuation. This appears to be accepted by Council side in principle. 

Possession is still being sought partly on basis that this building is part of Somerleyton road development in 18- 24 months. So vacant possession is needed.

Defence offered in court that Coop will agree to leave when Mansions is needed for the new development of Somerleyton road. 

So Coop has offered to pay the estimate for works and make an agreement to leave when Mansions is needed for the redevelopment building works.


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 4, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Possession is still being sought partly on basis that this building is part of Somerleyton road development in 18- 24 months. So vacant possession is needed.


Is that a rule that applies to every situation like this or just Carlton Mansions ? I know gramsci might be preoccupied with other things, maybe someone else knows.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 4, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> Is that a rule that applies to every situation like this or just Carlton Mansions ?



The Council are saying this is not unusual. 

The issue is that in court defence barrister said an agreement can be make to ensure vacant possession when building works need to go ahead. 

So its not really an issue anymore imo.


----------



## Frumious B. (Sep 4, 2013)

So the council has moved the goalposts, saying that they need you all out now so the building can be vacant for 18-24 months. What total fucking idiots. Hopefully the judge will tell them to stuff it.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 5, 2013)

Rollercoaster ride in court today. Did not go to well in morning.

In afternoon sitting a long discussion between the two Barristers and the Judge.

The Judge decided to adjourn the case and issue new directions.

Not sure how much I can say here on the details yet. Will need to check.

It was about the expert witness for the court.

It was a good result for us. 

The barrister and solicitor for defence did a really good job today up against Devonshires. 

Do not know yet the date for next court appearance. Two days will be set aside.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 5, 2013)

Keep the hope alive 
Fingers crossed for you all.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 5, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Keep the hope alive
> Fingers crossed for you all.



Thanks

Do feel like the cat with nine lives.

Thought it would be make or break today.

imo Council did not come out of this well today.


----------



## Frumious B. (Sep 5, 2013)

Who was there from Devomnshires?


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 5, 2013)

Glad to hear you got a good result Gramsci......



Gramsci said:


> Thanks
> Council did not come out of this well today.



I know the co-op members are the ones feeling most pressure but the council seem to be acting in a cavalier fashion with funds considering it is a time of belt-tightening and cutbacks ......Chucking money the way of expensive lawyers to pursue a case against a group who have promised vacant possession when required and no doubt having to pay contractors to secure the building while it sits empty for months Or years before the building even starts doesn't seem like a good deal for those on the receiving end of cuts or the people paying council tax out of shrinking incomes.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 5, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> Glad to hear you got a good result Gramsci......
> 
> 
> 
> I know the co-op members are the ones feeling most pressure but the council seem to be acting in a cavalier fashion with funds considering it is a time of belt-tightening and cutbacks ......Chucking money the way of expensive lawyers to pursue a case against a group who have promised vacant possession when required and no doubt having to pay contractors to secure the building while it sits empty for months before the building even starts doesn't seem like a good deal for those on the receiving end of cuts or the people paying council tax out of shrinking incomes.




It's bonkers. 

Until the redevelopment in 2015, it's much better to collect rent from the tenants than kick them out and pay a fortune to secure an empty property.


----------



## Frumious B. (Sep 5, 2013)

What I'd like to know is whether the council ever believed the fire risk to be 'intolerable'. Or did they choose to exaggerate it to get an injunction? Plus, do they have an ulterior motive for wanting the building to lie empty for 18 months?


----------



## leanderman (Sep 5, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> What I'd like to know is whether the council ever believed the fire risk to be 'intolerable'. Or did they choose to exaggerate it to get an injunction? Plus, do they have an ulterior motive for wanting the building to lie empty for 18 months?



It does look like a ruse.


----------



## agricola (Sep 5, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Until the redevelopment in 2015, it's much better to collect rent from the tenants than kick them out and pay a fortune to secure an empty property.



It isnt their fortune, though.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 5, 2013)

Maybe it's time to hit the counsellors with a barrage of emails again. As it has been established that the building is no longer an intolerable fire risk and Lambeth have said that they need to be out not because of that but because of the new development, why are our council taxes being spent on this costly exercise? Last time any responses were all about the fire risk so what will they have to say now?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 6, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Who was there from Devomnshires?



Well not sure if I really want to name Devonshires lot. 

I got the impression today that there heart was not in it. As it was before in last two court appearances.

They are being directed by certain officers in Council. Who want the Coop out. 

One officer said that possession orders for Carlton Mansions were going to be got sooner or later anyway.

The injunction proceedings , that were being justified by the "intolerable" fire risk, have been dropped. Its about getting possession orders now.

I have started to learn that a lot of what happens in court is a performance. Had a chat with the solicitor afterwards. Said this adversarial system is not my thing. Its not the way I like doing things. The barristers do not attack you personally. Its there job to give u hard time in witness box. They also act up for the Judge. 

It is fascinating to watch. In afternoon I was supposed to be first up as witness. Never happened as both the Barristers and Judge had long discussion amongst themselves. We were just onlookers. 

Barristers have different styles but its a different job to that of solicitor. 

But resolving issues like this in an adversarial system is not imo a very good way to do it. Not exactly Coop Council. 

The Council all along have refused any form of mediation.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Sep 6, 2013)

Brixton is being destroyed by corporate spivs.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 6, 2013)

nagapie said:


> Maybe it's time to hit the counsellors with a barrage of emails again. As it has been established that the building is no longer an intolerable fire risk and Lambeth have said that they need to be out not because of that but because of the new development, why are our council taxes being spent on this costly exercise? Last time any responses were all about the fire risk so what will they have to say now?



That would be welcome if people emailed Cllrs again.

What Cllrs need to be told is that the Council:

Agree to let works be done that have been estimated by surveyor.The Coop has offered to fund the estimate of £16 800 plus vat.

and secondly The Coop has already agreed in open court, as its put in legal jargon, to go when the new development needs to start on site. So this should make it clear to Cllrs that possession is not an issue.


In court they were arguing that the estimated works to bring risk down from "Substantial" to "Tolerable" were not the point. They have refused to continuance this as an alternative . Council say they will not pay for it nor will they let anyone else stump up the money to do it.

Judge took a different view. He wanted a new expert who could comment on costed works. Turned out today that the new one appointed is the one that the defence had put forward to the Devonshires/ Council some time ago. Which Devonshires/ Council turned down.

The Judge will look at the "proportionality" of the decision of the Council to evict. The interesting legal issue here is that the defence is arguing an Article 8 human rights defence. Judge wanted written "skeleton" argument about this. It is merging "Public law" and human rights. I do not understand all of it. Its pushing the envelope. But that is how law develops. Have asked solicitor to see if that can be explained more. 

The Council/ Devonshires are also trying to start to bring up issues that are not to do with the FRA. They are trying to move the goalposts.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 6, 2013)

I don't know much about how these things work but it seems to me that if the court case is about an injunction to get you out because of intolerable fire risk, and the council are no longer pursuing this injunction, then the case is over and they should stop wasting everyone's time, and go about getting possession by normal means.


----------



## Winot (Sep 6, 2013)

Have your side said anything about costs Gramsci? Because it sounds to me as if the other side is in danger of having to pay your legal costs on the fire issue.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 6, 2013)

Winot said:


> Have your side said anything about costs Gramsci? Because it sounds to me as if the other side is in danger of having to pay your legal costs on the fire issue.


 
Costs were not mentioned. Not an issue yet. It is something hanging over us defendents if Council win.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 6, 2013)

teuchter said:


> I don't know much about how these things work but it seems to me that if the court case is about an injunction to get you out because of intolerable fire risk, and the council are no longer pursuing this injunction, then the case is over and they should stop wasting everyone's time, and go about getting possession by normal means.


 
And a committment has been made to court that people would leave when the building works need to start on the new development. So possession is not an issue now.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 6, 2013)

EDIT: oops wrong thread


----------



## Casaubon (Sep 6, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Thanks
> 
> Do feel like the cat with nine lives.
> 
> ...



Well done Gramsci. 
In my experience the council never come out well from any court proceedings. Their incompetence and moral bankruptcy don't endear them to judges, who seem to give judgement in the council's favour only when all options have been eliminated, and the council's legal case is proven beyond doubt. 
I never thought I'd say this, but the (civil) justice system was pretty good to me, and others on Rushcroft Rd. Mind you, since then the current government has restricted access to 'justice' in many ways. 

Living with this sort of shit hanging over you is horribly stressful.  I hope you're all bearing up OK.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 9, 2013)

Casaubon said:


> Well done Gramsci.
> 
> Living with this sort of shit hanging over you is horribly stressful.  I hope you're all bearing up OK.



Thanks Casaubon.

It is horribly stressful. Chatting to another Coop member and she said that felt like crying over weekend. Its just the relief of getting through another gruelling two days in court. Only after its over do you realize how much it takes out of you. Felt very tired all this weekend. Its hard to think straight. 

This is supposed to be a "Co-operative Council".


----------



## Casaubon (Sep 9, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Thanks Casaubon.
> 
> This is supposed to be a "Co-operative Council".



Yeah, 'Co-operative Council'.
If you were being persecuted by a stereotypical 'evil property developer' it would be sort of understandable.
The council is meant to represent us, instead they're using huge amounts of our money to persecute a very long-standing group of residents who've formed a stable, constructive population through all the 'difficult' years. Now, your loyalty to the area is being repayed like this...............

I can't find words to express the contempt in which I hold the council,  its elected members, and officers.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 9, 2013)

The co-op members should be due some kind of compensation from the council, really, especially if the court decides in their favour.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 9, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> That would be welcome if people emailed Cllrs again.


Done 

Really pleased things seem to be moving in your direction.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 9, 2013)

teuchter said:


> The co-op members should be due some kind of compensation from the council, really, especially if the court decides in their favour.


 
What the Coop would like is for the Cllrs in charge to halt the aggressive legal action. So far the Council officers in charge of this have directed Devonshires to refuse any form of mediation or looking at any alternative to eviction and boarding the Mansions up.

What I now see is that Devonshires are being told to pursue this action aggressively by officers.


----------



## Gramsci (May 28, 2014)

Dear Urbanites,


At last court appearance the Council said they would be seeking vacant possession on basis of the Mansions being needed for redevelopment of the Somerleyton road project. This was separate from the fire risk which the Council first used to get vacant possession.

The Council confirmed date for the start of works is July 2015. Legal advice was that this reduced our chances considerably.

Once the legal process was started by the Council they were not going to let up. Every attempt at compromise was rejected.

The Council side were offered possession and date to leave at end of this year. Which seemed reasonable. This was rejected.

There has been legal discussions going on that I have not been able to post up about until now.

The Council side were also threatening people with costs which were becoming significant.

The eventual settlement made meant that costs would not be pursued by Council. It does mean that we could be out soon.

The last year has taken its toll on people. My health has suffered. Its been a lot of stress on Coop members.

I have seen over the last year the , so called , Coop Council break up my community.

Someone remarked to us recently that they were impressed that the Coop members had not fallen out with each other. The community kept together despite what was being done to it.

To make it clear not all the Council were trying their damn-est to get people out.  Some in Council wanted us to stay on.

The Coop had made it clear to Council that they would not hold up the Somerleyton road project. It was when Coop left and how that was the issue.

Despite all this the Coop has stayed involved in the Somerleyton road scheme consultations. The Council officers involved in the Somerleyton road project have always welcomed the Coops input. 

What saddens me is that over the years personally I have always tried to work with the Council. As has the Coop. I did not seek this confrontation with the Council.

The last year has been a culture shock. The Council, as an arm of the state, can throw a lot of resources and power against one if it decides. Our chances were always 50:50 at best.

I would like to mention that OvalhouseDB  have always put a word in for the Coop to stay on until the Mansions was needed for development. The Coop has also had support from Ward Cllrs.

I would like to thank all those who have given support over last year.


----------



## Belushi (May 28, 2014)

Really sorry to hear that mate, I know how much work you put in, for the co-op and the wider community.


----------



## colacubes (May 28, 2014)

I'm so sorry to hear this Gramsci - you personally and the coop as a whole deserve a hell of a lot better than this.  The council should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## teuchter (May 28, 2014)

Gramsci have you made any attempt to get this story picked up by a newspaper or anything? Things having been "settled" now, does that make doing that any easier? I think as many people as possible should know about what's happened here.


----------



## Gramsci (May 28, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Gramsci have you made any attempt to get this story picked up by a newspaper or anything? Things having been "settled" now, does that make doing that any easier? I think as many people as possible should know about what's happened here.



I have a journalist who is going to do a piece on this. Will not say where here as I know Council look at this site.

Unfortunately Ben Morgan who worked at SLP has now left. He was always good on Short Life.

The other problem is that some journalists want a dramatic story. ie one asked me when bailiffs are coming (like at Rushcroft Road). Its unlikely to come to that. At  the moment anyway.


----------



## buscador (May 28, 2014)

Sad news. And appalling that the council seem to have gone about their business in such a vindictive manner, making your lives so difficult.


----------



## Gramsci (May 28, 2014)

buscador said:


> Sad news. And appalling that the council seem to have gone about their business in such a vindictive manner, making your lives so difficult.



The way I see it now is that the Council has two sides. The cuddly consulting the community side and the hard nosed we have made our decision and that’s that side.

Being "Short Life" was always playing cat and mouse with the Council. Been under threat before.


----------



## nagapie (May 28, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> The cuddly consulting the community side



I've personally never found anything cuddly about their consultations, rather how meaningless they make the word by making all their consultations exercises in how to remove anyone else's voice or power.

Good luck, Gramsci, I hope you are able to stay in Brixton. After all I still don't know what you look like as I was standing behind you at the Effra Social


----------



## Gramsci (May 28, 2014)

One of the Coop members put this up on FB










> There are currently 3 cats living at Carlton Mansions. They don't know they're facing eviction. They didn't have to go to court 3 times like the humans. I wonder how they'll feel leaving their lovely urban woodland. It's a tragedy that we must all leave this place.


----------



## CH1 (May 29, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I have a journalist who is going to do a piece on this. Will not say where here as I know Council look at this site.
> 
> Unfortunately Ben Morgan who worked at SLP has now left. He was always good on Short Life.
> 
> The other problem is that some journalists want a dramatic story. ie one asked me when bailiffs are coming (like at Rushcroft Road). Its unlikely to come to that. At  the moment anyway.


Ben has moved to the Standard. He might still be interested.


----------



## Gramsci (May 29, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Ben has moved to the Standard. He might still be interested.



I have been in contact with him. He does not have so much say there in what is covered. 

What gets me about all this is that we have consistently said that we were not opposing the Councils right to possession. The Coop has been trying to stay long enough to finish the consultation for the Somerleyton road project. It would be much easier to do all the architectural surveys with us in situ. We have recently given access to the Council appointed architects to see the inside of the Mansions. Despite the other part of the Council trying to get Coop out.


----------



## blossie33 (May 29, 2014)

So sorry Gramski 
You did as much as you could have possibly done in the situation, it must be so utterly frustrating.


----------



## Gramsci (May 29, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Gramsci have you made any attempt to get this story picked up by a newspaper or anything? Things having been "settled" now, does that make doing that any easier? I think as many people as possible should know about what's happened here.



Another journalist contacted me today.


----------



## Gramsci (May 29, 2014)

Thanks to all Urbanites for the kind comments and likes. 

Much appreciated.


----------



## editor (May 29, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Another journalist contacted me today.


You're free to write whatever you like for Brixton Buzz, and be as direct and uncensored as you like!


----------



## equationgirl (May 30, 2014)

So sorry to hear about this Gramsci you have all been treated very shabbily by the council.


----------



## teuchter (May 30, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Another journalist contacted me today.


Good.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 1, 2014)

South London Press will have article on the Mansions next Tuesday.


----------



## editor (Jun 1, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> South London Press will have article on the Mansions next Tuesday.


The SLP are generally bloody good at supporting things like this. They gave us loads of support for the Brixton Buzz beer.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 2, 2014)

Piece in Brixton Blog


----------



## ddraig (Jun 2, 2014)

sorry if i've got it wrong
it doesn't mention that the fire safety stuff was sorted


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 2, 2014)

ddraig said:


> sorry if i've got it wrong
> it doesn't mention that the fire safety stuff was sorted



The level was reduced one level down to substantial rather than intolerable.


----------



## ddraig (Jun 2, 2014)

ah i see


----------



## CH1 (Jun 3, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> South London Press will have article on the Mansions next Tuesday.


It's on page 7. They seem to have got the facts right - the headline and first sentence of the article both start with the word tenants.
The SLP give the council a three paragraph right to reply - which is more than I would do after they moved their corporate information advertising to Weekender.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2014)

CH1 said:


> It's on page 7. They seem to have got the facts right - the headline and first sentence of the article both start with the word tenants.
> The SLP give the council a three paragraph right to reply - which is more than I would do after they moved their corporate information advertising to Weekender.



Page 6 is good as well. On the older peoples homes that are under threat. Liked they way that SLP put two communities, under threat from Lambeth the "Cooperative Council"  next to each other.

Its unfortunately not online.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 3, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Page 6 is good as well. On the older peoples homes that are under threat. Liked they way that SLP put two communities, under threat from Lambeth the "Cooperative Council"  next to each other.
> Its unfortunately not online.


It was reported elsewhere that Fitch Court in Effra Road is to be closed/redeveloped. Also council-owned elderly/sheltered accommodation, and only opened in the 1980s. Amazing to me.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2014)

CH1 said:


> It was reported elsewhere that Fitch Court in Effra Road is to be closed/redeveloped. Also council-owned elderly/sheltered accommodation, and only opened in the 1980s. Amazing to me.



I do not understand this. Without any "community" consultation the Somerleyton road project will have 60 units for older people. So Council are getting rid of homes that older people like and then building new ones on Somerleyton. Bonkers.

BTW this was decision taken by the Council. Not even my Ward Cllrs knew about it. So much for the Somerleyton road project being "Co produced"  I only knew because it was mentioned in passing at a recent consultation meeting. I did ask when this was decided as it was not consulted about. Also an older person at the meeting said that older people often prefer a smaller group of up to 30units.

I did point out this was a big change to the scheme. Not that I was necessarily against it. My problem was that I thought the project was being "Co-produced".

Its yet another example of how the Council really wield the power. "Co operative Council" and "Co production" are done when it suits them.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 3, 2014)

CH1 said:


> It was reported elsewhere that Fitch Court in Effra Road is to be closed/redeveloped. Also council-owned elderly/sheltered accommodation, and only opened in the 1980s. Amazing to me.



But Lambeth loves to knock down new buildings, even ones recently refurbished, such as Olive Morris, which was being geo-surveyed today.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 3, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I do not understand this. Without any "community" consultation the Somerleyton road project will have 60 units for older people. So Council are getting rid of homes that older people like and then building new ones on Somerleyton. Bonkers.
> 
> BTW this was decision taken by the Council. Not even my Ward Cllrs knew about it. So much for the Somerleyton road project being "Co produced"  I only knew because it was mentioned in passing at a recent consultation meeting. I did ask when this was decided as it was not consulted about. Also an older person at the meeting said that older people often prefer a smaller group of up to 30units.
> 
> ...


Maybe this ties in with the proposed day centre for Alzheimer's sufferers?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2014)

Just got an invite from "Future Brixton" inviting me to "Somerleyton Road Community Day"


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Maybe this ties in with the proposed day centre for Alzheimer's sufferers?



I do not know. The point is that this is top down decision by the higher ups in Council. Similar to the way the Mansions has been treated.

The way the Somerleyton road project is being decided is not "Co-production". Nor is it "Co-operative Council" whatever thats supposed to be.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 3, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I do not know. The point is that this is top down decision by the higher ups in Council. Similar to the way the Mansions has been treated.
> 
> The way the Somerleyton road project is being decided is not "Co-production". Nor is it "Co-operative Council" whatever thats supposed to be.



But then we get back to the problem of working out who the 'community' is.

Councils, in theory, strike a balance between competing interests.

While they may have got it wrong in this case, their loss of control in other areas, such as free schools, is disastrous.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2014)

leanderman said:


> But then we get back to the problem of working out who the 'community' is.
> 
> Councils, in theory, strike a balance between competing interests.
> 
> While they may have got it wrong in this case, their loss of control in other areas, such as free schools, is disastrous.



The Somerleyton road project was said by Council to be done with community consultation as an example of how the "Coop Council" will work.

The decision to put 60 units for older people was not consulted on. In the sense that the Council did not ask anyone there opinion on it. So the issue of what is the community is not the point here. I am not saying its a good or bad thing to have these sixty units. I’m just saying I was never asked as someone who lives on the site (until the Council evict me and finally break up my community).


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 4, 2014)

One of soon to be gone Coop members posted this up on the Brixton Blog article.



> It’s worth adding here that we ( I have lived in Carlton Mansions 30 years) had the support of our elected ward councillors who didn’t like the way the council officers went about this. They didn’t believe a “co-operative council” should be treating it’s constituents so harshly. And I can tell you a barrister working for the council looking you in the eye telling telling you you have 48hours to get out and appearing to enjoy it is no fun. The judge wouldn’t entertain that attempted injunction. We also had the support of the leader of the housing committee at the London assembly and countless local groups and individuals including the Brixton Society, Oval House Theatre who will establish on the site, some ex Labour councillors and our extraordinarily dedicated solicitor’s team and human rights barrister. It is a small handful of officers who seem in a hurry to execute their paperwork requiring our eradication. These are sad days and have taken a colossal toll on our community members and their dependents in unnecessarily nasty and presumably expensive (public money) litigation. We at CM are extremely grateful to all those who have supported us – Thank you



This brought tears to my eyes. Really going to miss her.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 4, 2014)

Who are these shameful council officers, are they petty jobsworths or higher ups? Although let's not forget they could not do it without the backing of the leaders of the council, there was plenty of time and opportunity to back down.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 4, 2014)

Should they not be congratulated for so losing control of their housing stock that people with little means were able to live there very cheaply for 30 years?


----------



## SpamMisery (Jun 4, 2014)

Am I right in thinking the contract was essentially 'you can live here very cheap but at some point we will want the building back'?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Am I right in thinking the contract was essentially 'you can live here very cheap but at some point we will want the building back'?


I don't think anyone's arguing about the principle that the building would be taken back by the council eventually. It's the way they have gone about it which seems to have been done in a more agressive way than necessary and which has shown a disregard for the welfare of the people living there.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 4, 2014)

teuchter said:


> I don't think anyone's arguing about the principle that the building would be taken back by the council eventually. It's the way they have gone about it which seems to have been done in a more agressive way than necessary and which has shown a disregard for the welfare of the people living there.



True, still, overall, a decent deal.


----------



## peterkro (Jun 4, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Am I right in thinking the contract was essentially 'you can live here very cheap but at some point we will want the building back'?


Villa road is a case in point.The council wanted to knock them down and moved everyone out ( not so ideal a lot of those people were elderly and had lived there for decades more than a few died soon after they were shifted) in decades of negotiations most of the surviving north side became housing association,since the cooperative council took over some of the remaining houses were sold on the open market (my house went for £905,000 at auction).
None of those houses would have been there if they weren't squatted and kept in good working order for those 35 years.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 4, 2014)

teuchter said:


> I don't think anyone's arguing about the principle that the building would be taken back by the council eventually. It's the way they have gone about it which seems to have been done in a more agressive way than necessary and which has shown a disregard for the welfare of the people living there.


Agreed - although the council has had repeated problems with getting people to voluntarily leave other sites. I think what it has failed to do is recognise that it is dealing with, from what I have understood, a more cohesive group at Carlton who are organised/well lead enough to negotiate as a group.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 4, 2014)

peterkro said:


> Villa road is a case in point.The council wanted to knock them down and moved everyone out ( not so ideal a lot of those people were elderly and had lived there for decades more than a few died soon after they were shifted) in decades of negotiations most of the surviving north side became housing association,since the cooperative council took over some of the remaining houses were sold on the open market (my house went for £905,000 at auction).
> None of those houses would have been there if they weren't squatted and kept in good working order for those 35 years.


I viewed that house. Good working order is obviously highly subjective but in my professional opinion it was way beyond a general refurbishment project and essentially required a rebuild behind a restored façade.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 4, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I do not understand this. Without any "community" consultation the Somerleyton road project will have 60 units for older people. So Council are getting rid of homes that older people like and then building new ones on Somerleyton. Bonkers.



makes me wonder what the differential between developable land on Effra Rd, and on Somerleyton Rd is.

Relocating the poor to a lower-cost area is hardly a new thing, after all.



> BTW this was decision taken by the Council. Not even my Ward Cllrs knew about it. So much for the Somerleyton road project being "Co produced"  I only knew because it was mentioned in passing at a recent consultation meeting. I did ask when this was decided as it was not consulted about. Also an older person at the meeting said that older people often prefer a smaller group of up to 30units.
> 
> I did point out this was a big change to the scheme. Not that I was necessarily against it. My problem was that I thought the project was being "Co-produced".
> 
> Its yet another example of how the Council really wield the power. "Co operative Council" and "Co production" are done when it suits them.



It's basically PR puff.


----------



## peterkro (Jun 4, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I viewed that house. Good working order is obviously highly subjective but in my professional opinion it was way beyond a general refurbishment project and essentially required a rebuild behind a restored façade.


It was in far worse condition than other houses in the street which went for £705-£720,000 only twelve months previously.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 4, 2014)

peterkro said:


> It was in far worse condition than other houses in the street which went for £705-£720,000 only twelve months previously.



12 months is a decade in the current housing market


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 4, 2014)

Have arranged to donate Coop files and my archive of "Short Life" photos/ books etc to Lambeth Archives. Want them somewhere safe now.

They are very interested as they have little on "Short Life" and "Self Help" housing. Which played a big role in Brixton / Lambeth from late 70s onwards.

Of particular interest is a series of photos I saved from being binned. Which cover the early S/L in Lambeth. I do not know who took them. They were commissioned to show S/L in Lambeth.

Also some books I have kept/ saved on squatting and S/L which are out of print.

Lambeth Archives have little on this period. A lot of it has been lost as people have moved etc.

Its an important history to document.


----------



## SpamMisery (Jun 4, 2014)

teuchter said:


> I don't think anyone's arguing about the principle that the building would be taken back by the council eventually. It's the way they have gone about it which seems to have been done in a more agressive way than necessary and which has shown a disregard for the welfare of the people living there.



I realise there are reasons people find it upsetting, I simply wanted to check my understanding was correct


----------



## editor (Jun 5, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Have arranged to donate Coop files and my archive of "Short Life" photos/ books etc to Lambeth Archives. Want them somewhere safe now.
> 
> They are very interested as they have little on "Short Life" and "Self Help" housing. Which played a big role in Brixton / Lambeth from late 70s onwards.
> 
> ...


Happy to post the photos up on B Buzz too!


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2014)

Blossom has come out in front courtyard:


----------



## Jangleballix (Jun 9, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Have arranged to donate Coop files and my archive of "Short Life" photos/ books etc to Lambeth Archives. Want them somewhere safe now.
> 
> They are very interested as they have little on "Short Life" and "Self Help" housing. Which played a big role in Brixton / Lambeth from late 70s onwards.
> 
> ...


The photographs may have been taken by Julian Quan. He certainly did a fair bit of recording Short Life for the Fed.in the early 80's.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 10, 2014)

I went through all the old stuff I had kept on Sunday and we took it down to Lambeth Archives on Monday.

The archivist was very pleased to get this donation. He reckons it will be an important archive. Lambeth Archives have little on Short Life/ Self Help housing.

When I looked through all the old stuff ( ended up being three large crates plus some smaller cases of docs) it includes a lot of that is about the general history of "Short Life" in Lambeth not just the Mansions.

I also donated my old Urban75 T shirts editor  and one produced by Rushcroft Road Action group. Its all part of Brixtons history. Archivist was pleased to have them.

The archivist will now go through the donation and catalogue it. This will take some time. It will not be publicly available until that is done.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 10, 2014)

Jangleballix said:


> The photographs may have been taken by Julian Quan. He certainly did a fair bit of recording Short Life for the Fed.in the early 80's.



The name was on the photos. Cannot remember what is was. It was done as exhibition of photos of Self Help/ Short Life housing.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 10, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I went through all the old stuff I had kept on Sunday and we took it down to Lambeth Archives on Monday.
> 
> The archivist was very pleased to get this donation. He reckons it will be an important archive. Lambeth Archives have little on Short Life/ Self Help housing.
> 
> ...


That's really good of you to donate that stuff to the archive, too many people assume it's worthless and skip everything.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 10, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> That's really good of you to donate that stuff to the archive, too many people assume it's worthless and skip everything.



I think things get lost gradually. People move and clear out every now and again.

Some of the donations go back 30 years ago. 

I have old correspondence from Solon about the Self Help Coops. Also donated a Self Help housing repairs book by a Solon architect. 

Solon was originally set up as a Worker Coop. Everyone had same pay including the cleaner. There were radical architects in 70s who supported more smaller scale housing. 70s is often remembered as time of big top down projects. Councils used to have there own architects departments to produce large scale urban developments. At least they used to build Council housing. 

Solon architects were influenced by people like Colin Ward ( Anarchist) and John Turner. Turner looked at Third World ( that was the name then) shanty towns. He argued for the people living in the shanty towns to be able to improve there own housing ( Self Help) rather than large State run slum clearance. The shanty towns were usually on land that was squatted. There are still arguments about this in housing sector. The Marxist Mike Davis "Planet of Slums" is highly critical of Turner. 

Originally Carlton Mansions was part of a larger Coop. "Arcological Housing Coop" which comprised the Mansions as well as houses in Lilford road and Lingham street.

Also some houses on Railton Road. These were demolished after riots by Council. Its where the open space is now on Railton road. A lot of the "Self Help" works done were to replace things smashed by Council. Council used to smash up insides of properties to deter squatting. 

The photo exhibition I donated contains photos of Lingham street. 

Arcological was the name as the guy who started it believed industrial civilization would not survive. Out of the ruins people would re use the remains to live and house themselves. Hence "Arcology".
It has to be remembered that late 60s early 70s ideas of over population, the 70s OPEC oil price shock etc had led to new interest in Green type issues and rejection of the social norms of the 50s. 

Then (late 70s) the Mansions was communal. Different flats for different purposes.

The alternative society partly came out of a rejection of post war society. Marcuse ( One Dimensional Man was a cult book) predicted the rise of an "administered society" a merging of State Communism and Capitalism. People would lose there individualism. They would become administered subjects. 

So living communally and experimenting with different relationships was encouraged ( or required). From what I was told it was very much male dominated. This changed when the Mansions broke away from rest of Arcology. Feminist critique of hippy men was part of reason it split off. Mansions always from that time aimed for 50% female membership. 

Was talking to someone who might record the history. All the above came up. Made me realize that as a community its history mirrored the social changes in society. 

As I looked through the stuff I had saved I also found a lot architects studies of the S/L housing. Plans to make it permanent. These are now records of the now disappeared Coops.

The donation also therefore is of interest to architects and those doing urban studies of a different way of doing housing. That is now lost. I think a lot of it is still relevant.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 10, 2014)

Example of "Self Help" ingenious reuse of old sewing machine table:


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 10, 2014)

This old stone head in courtyard is thought to come from St Agnes place. Was thinking of donating it to Ovalhouse as they may incorporate it into their new theatre. I do not want Council vandals just chucking this in skip. 

OvalhouseDB


----------



## boohoo (Jun 10, 2014)

Reflections in the courtyard on a spring day last year.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 10, 2014)

Great photo boohoo 

I have got shot of the ivy. Will try and find it and put it up. Doubtless Council vandals will remove all that.


----------



## boohoo (Jun 10, 2014)

Gramsci I imagine it'll all be sanitised. I have pics that I'll sort out for the archives. 

Here's one my sister took - snow on the roof


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 10, 2014)

Here is ivy seen in reflection in boohoo photo:


----------



## boohoo (Jun 10, 2014)

Gramsci It's really grown! Looks very healthy!


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 10, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Gramsci It's really grown! Looks very healthy!



It grew fast once it got up to upper floors. Gets more sun.

Does not damage the pointing.

Squirrels like it. 

The archives would welcome photos. 

I have a lot on FB and also really old ones pre digital of Coop members working on the Mansions. Have not donated them yet as need to ask people in them whether thats ok. Though I need to get them somewhere safe.


----------



## SpamMisery (Jun 10, 2014)

We had to remove the ivy from our house. Was a real shame but it was totally fucking the wall and roof plus removing it revealed some nice (until then hidden) carvings


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 11, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> We had to remove the ivy from our house. Was a real shame but it was totally fucking the wall and roof plus removing it revealed some nice (until then hidden) carvings



I think it depends what kind it is.


----------



## SpamMisery (Jun 11, 2014)

Very true. We replaced it with (non invasive I think the term was) climbing roses which were great for the five minutes each year they were in bloom but it was never the same


----------



## leanderman (Jun 11, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Very true. We replaced it with (non invasive I think the term was) climbing roses which were great for the five minutes each year they were in bloom but it was never the same



Just ripped ours out. Will try bamboo


----------



## Rushy (Jun 11, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Just ripped ours out. Will try bamboo



This stuff has lovely red stems.
Easy to grow and you can pick up cuttings literally anywhere.






I think someone told me it comes from Japan?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 11, 2014)

Rushy 

That looks like Japanese knotweed. It is a weed that is a nightmare to get rid of.


----------



## SpamMisery (Jun 11, 2014)

Lol

[edited!]


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Jun 11, 2014)

Norty Rushy.

It does grow all the way along that railway line - I lived in Mayall Rd and it was on the railway line behind, but it never came down into our yard.


----------



## Manter (Jun 11, 2014)

Isn't it the type of mortar that means whether ivy damages buildings or not? Lime mortar it destroys, but modern mortar it doesn't? Or something...


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 12, 2014)

Blossom on the tree at rear of Mansions.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 12, 2014)

I have never quite believed the hype about knotweed - that it's destroying London house by house, street by street


----------



## Rushy (Jun 12, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I have never quite believed the hype about knotweed - that it's destroying London house by house, street by street


Amazing just how much of it there is about. I was looking at a house in Cressigham Gardens and the neighbour's lawn was covered in it. Apparently they'd planted it there themselves and liked the way it had spread. The vendor looked horrified when I told them what it was.

It's not too hard to get rid of as long as you use the right products (gyphosate to kill its roots) and keep up the treatment.


----------



## Manter (Jun 12, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I have never quite believed the hype about knotweed - that it's destroying London house by house, street by street


its being discussed on you and yours now (i know, I know)- a woman lost her mortgage because of it


----------



## Rushy (Jun 12, 2014)

Manter said:


> its being discussed on you and yours now (i know, I know)- a woman lost her mortgage because of it


And you had a go at me!

Yep - I have seen sales fall through because of knotweed.


----------



## buscador (Jun 12, 2014)

Manter said:


> its being discussed on you and yours now (i know, I know)- a woman lost her mortgage because of it



I was going to post that too.*

*Using the "It was on in another room" defence.


----------



## Manter (Jun 12, 2014)

Rushy said:


> And you had a go at me!
> 
> Yep - I have seen sales fall through because of knotweed.


I have no defence.  I was even in the same room.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 12, 2014)

Jesus: knotweed, medivacs ... Anything else I should worry about?


----------



## SpamMisery (Jun 12, 2014)

I wouldn't worry about Jesus


----------



## Manter (Jun 13, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Jesus: knotweed, medivacs ... Anything else I should worry about?


Sunstroke
Slugs
Syria
Sea levels
Skin cancer

I'll do the other letters later.


----------



## gaijingirl (Jun 13, 2014)

I know a woman in Streatham who had her sale fall through because her garden had Japanese Knotweed.  She thought she just might never be able to move.  I heard in the end she did sort it out though but it was a lot of angst and expense by the sounds of it.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 13, 2014)

gaijingirl said:


> I know a woman in Streatham who had her sale fall through because her garden had Japanese Knotweed.  She thought she just might never be able to move.  I heard in the end she did sort it out though but it was a lot of angst and expense by the sounds of it.



Still think it's an urban myth


----------



## Boudicca (Jun 14, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Still think it's an urban myth


I'm selling my house at the moment and there is a specific question about Japanese Knotweed on the pre sale enquiries form.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 14, 2014)

Boudicca said:


> I'm selling my house at the moment and there is a specific question about Japanese Knotweed on the pre sale enquiries form.
> View attachment 55711



What idiot would tick 'yes'?

Bit of weeding, job temporarily done. 

Reminds me of the flooded homeowners this year who were assured by the people they bought from that the properties had not flooded in a century.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 14, 2014)

leanderman said:


> What idiot would tick 'yes'?
> 
> Bit of weeding, job temporarily done.
> 
> Reminds me of the flooded homeowners this year who were assured by the people they bought from that the properties had not flooded in a century.



Not the same thing really, though.  You *know, *sure as shit, that the trimmed knotweed will spring up again, _toute suite_, whereas flooding, by it's nature (unless you live on a floodplain) is unpredictable.


----------



## Manter (Jun 14, 2014)

leanderman said:


> What idiot would tick 'yes'?
> 
> Bit of weeding, job temporarily done.
> 
> Reminds me of the flooded homeowners this year who were assured by the people they bought from that the properties had not flooded in a century.


Aren't you in serious legal shit if you pull stunts like that?


----------



## leanderman (Jun 15, 2014)

In theory. But in practice it would be difficult to prove you lied about flooding years before or neighbour disputes etc.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 16, 2014)

Back to photos. At back of Carlton Mansion is the old wash house. When the Mansions was first built it had this as place where the residents ( or occupants in Council officer speak) washed their clothes. Its intact only the roof has gone years ago. Water was heated by fireplaces built into it with metal bowls above the fires also built in. They are now used for plants. Its rare to see one intact like this.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 16, 2014)

I was asked about the cat sculptures. Here they are:


----------



## Vibrant-Hubb (Jun 17, 2014)

Tremendous spirit of place Gramsci. Will the wash house be preserved?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 18, 2014)

Vibrant-Hubb said:


> Tremendous spirit of place Gramsci. Will the wash house be preserved?



Thanks my photos are trying to record the spirit of the Mansions.

Will the spirit be preserved? I doubt it once the Council jackboots are back in possession of the Mansions. 

However I have suggested that aspects of the Mansions are preserved in some form. The washhouse could be kept as some kind of outdoor garden space. One of the Coop members did a lot to look after the plants in the old wash house and back yard.

Some of the Coop members are concerned that the Mansions is architecturally important building that should not just be gutted. But restored with sensitivity to what is originally was and its later history. Keeping some of its imposing features. 

Its not just the outside ( the front is locally listed) but the size of the Mansions and how it fits on the site that is important architecturally. My photos do not show how big the building is. I have been thinking how to do this. People remark on the size as it looks lot smaller from the street.

What my photos do show is a building that has grown old gracefully. It has not changed much since it was first built. Never been modernized. Still has the original wooden staircases and chimneys on the roof.


----------



## Dan U (Jun 18, 2014)

Thanks for the pictures and general commentary Gramsci

It sounds trite but I commend your spirit and resolve for keeping us updated etc. 

Best of luck to you all once this shite is over


----------



## Gniewosz (Jun 22, 2014)

Really sorry to hear the news. 



Gramsci said:


> Dear Urbanites,
> 
> 
> At last court appearance the Council said they would be seeking vacant possession on basis of the Mansions being needed for redevelopment of the Somerleyton road project. This was separate from the fire risk which the Council first used to get vacant possession.
> ...


----------



## editor (Jun 22, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Thanks my photos are trying to record the spirit of the Mansions.
> 
> Will the spirit be preserved? I doubt it once the Council jackboots are back in possession of the Mansions.
> 
> ...


if you want me to come in and record a lot of what's there, I'd be happy to do so!


----------



## SpamMisery (Jun 22, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Still has the original wooden staircases and chimneys on the roof.



Funny place for a staircase


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 23, 2014)

SpamMisery said:


> Funny place for a staircase



How else are you supposed to get up and down to the roof?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 24, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> What my photos do show is a building that has grown old gracefully. It has not changed much since it was first built. Never been modernized. Still has the original wooden staircases and chimneys on the roof.



I did notice the other day walking past though, that the front facade at least is in need of some proper maintenance and repairs.


----------



## boohoo (Jun 25, 2014)

teuchter said:


> I did notice the other day walking past though, that the front facade at least is in need of some proper maintenance and repairs.



Yes definitely.

Gramsci has put some lovely pics of the place so I'll add a few more with people in because at the end of the day for many, it was a home. The picture below show the entrance of one of the flats. This little hallway has a small window behind the mirror and you can see into the flat.


----------



## High Definition (Jul 28, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Back to photos. At back of Carlton Mansion is the old wash house. When the Mansions was first built it had this as place where the residents ( or occupants in Council officer speak) washed their clothes. Its intact only the roof has gone years ago. Water was heated by fireplaces built into it with metal bowls above the fires also built in. They are now used for plants. Its rare to see one intact like this.


----------



## High Definition (Jul 28, 2014)

Took a few photos yesterday at Carlton Mansions.  Thanks v. much to Gramsci for showing me round.  It's a very special place and I tried to capture this in the photos I took.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2014)

High Definition said:


> Took a few photos yesterday at Carlton Mansions.  Thanks v. much to Gramsci for showing me round.  It's a very special place and I tried to capture this in the photos I took.


Have you got enough pics for a B Buzz feature?


----------



## CH1 (Jul 30, 2014)

I did these several weeks ago - and the majority are of view FROM the Carlton Mansions roof top -  which I found alarmingly high. The views up there are very good, hopefully some of these might give some indication.

First the internals:
View from back garden, looking up at the building


A wrens nest in the passage


My view of the roof of Carlton Mansions


View from CM roof down Coldharbour lane towards McDonalds


Lambeth Town Hall clock tower over the "Metroland" Vining Street development roofs. This must be the ugliest urban design in Brixton, notwithstanding Brixton Square.


Connaught Mansions roof terrace - a communal "solution" somewhat more sociable that the latest "Juliet Balconies" favoured in Brixton Square and Oval Quarter.


Walton Lodge Laundry and Brixton Square seen from Carlton Mansions roof


Brixton Rec, International House and a crane at "The Junction" from CM roof


Another view of Brixton Square, the laundry, International House and the top of Granville Arcade/Brixton Village


The Villaage


Many thanks to Gramsci for inviting me to have a look.
I reckon it would be good to have a pro in there to document things inside - like the flats. Carlton Mansions really is a period piece and I can't see how Lambeth think they are doing anyone a favour by removing the residents and turning the building into some sort of light industrial/training scheme.


----------



## High Definition (Aug 1, 2014)

editor said:


> Have you got enough pics for a B Buzz feature?


Think so.  I took around 20 shots last weekend.  I will try and upload some more.  

Would welcome some advice on image size.  I have a nikon D800 and the image files are very large (individual photos are 65 x 40 cm, around 30 megapixels).  I reduced the image size in Photoshop but was still getting warning messages (file size too large) when I tried to load onto U75.  Even tried the Save for Web command in Photoshop (which reduces to 72 pip) but still having problems 

Would be good if you could let me know what the maximum image size is for uploading onto U75.
my camera.

Thanks


----------



## editor (Aug 1, 2014)

High Definition said:


> Think so.  I took around 20 shots last weekend.  I will try and upload some more.
> 
> Would welcome some advice on image size.  I have a nikon D800 and the image files are very large (individual photos are 65 x 40 cm, around 30 megapixels).  I reduced the image size in Photoshop but was still getting warning messages (file size too large) when I tried to load onto U75.  Even tried the Save for Web command in Photoshop (which reduces to 72 pip) but still having problems
> 
> ...


For Brixton buzz, they need to be 620 pixels wide. Cheers!


----------



## High Definition (Aug 1, 2014)

Okay, that's useful.  Should be able to process and post the files tomorrow.


----------



## High Definition (Aug 2, 2014)

High Definition said:


> Okay, that's useful.  Should be able to process and post the files tomorrow.


I've made a selection of 16 of the shots I took last weekend.  These are mostly internal shots, as CH1 has already posted images of the local area taken from the roof.  Just had a message that I can only upload 10 files at a time.  Will load this for now and upload the other 6 in a few minutes.  HD


----------



## High Definition (Aug 2, 2014)

High Definition said:


> I've made a selection of 16 of the shots I took last weekend.  These are mostly internal shots, as CH1 has already posted images of the local area taken from the roof.  Just had a message that I can only upload 10 files at a time.  Will load this for now and upload the other 6 in a few minutes.  HD
> 
> View attachment 58788 View attachment 58789 View attachment 58791 View attachment 58790 View attachment 58792 View attachment 58793 View attachment 58784View attachment 58785


Here are the other 5 images.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 15, 2014)

Ex Coop member emailed me this. She was listening to BBC London with Will Self. He mentions the Mansions as one of his favourites and one of great beauty. She emailed in to the programme and her email was read it. Will did give his view. Its still online to listen. My computer will not do it. 

Link here. She said its in first hour of programme.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 15, 2014)

Next thing is the "Cooperative" Council has issued a Notice of Eviction for the 30th September. 

People have gone or in process and I was trying to do handover to Council in a civilized way.Thats not how the Council do things. They persist in being confrontational. Its not me that started this. 

I have been doing my best to keep the Mansions secure and also last week gave access to Council surveyors for the Somerleyton Road project access to the Mansions. 

However I try to seek accommodation with Council they insist on wanting to show who is boss.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 15, 2014)

Sorry they have treated you so shoddily, Gramsci.  It's a lovely building.  Looking at the photos I miss visiting there. Shame they don't have the same respect for you as you have had for the building.  I hope you're sorted out with accommodation soon.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 15, 2014)

To add the lead officer on Somerleyton road project is not to be blamed for what has happened to us. Always listened to ordinary people and tried his best. Officers like him are a minority in the "Cooperative Council."

Nor are my Ward Cllrs to blame. They have done their best to help.

The decision to get rid of us came from the top. Lambeth the "Cooperative Council" is in reality run top down. Anyone lower down the food chain who says anything about the leaderships decisions is liable to be disciplined.

Cllr Lib Peck the leader and  ex Cllr Pete Robbins who was Cabinet member for housing and regeneration at the time are the ones I blame.

Also Sue Foster OBE, one of the head people in Regeneration also wrote to my MP naming me personally as a problem. She is on about £150 000 a year. I am sick of having to deal with these people. The word she used in her letter to Tessa to refer to Coop members was that were "intransigent". If defending your community gets you singled out by the likes of people like her its a compliment.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 15, 2014)

quimcunx said:


> Sorry they have treated you so shoddily, Gramsci.  It's a lovely building.  Looking at the photos I miss visiting there. Shame they don't have the same respect for you as you have had for the building.  I hope you're sorted out with accommodation soon.



Thanks. Much appreciated. They are sorting out accomodation. Not for all though. Which is still issue in one case.

I am concerned about what will happen to Mansions. What I was doing was trying to talking to the reasonable officer about how to preserve and secure the Mansions whilst its empty. Really concerned it could deteriorate quickly if empty and also be vandalised. I was offering to work with officer to check on Mansions regularly. I know the maintenance issues with the Mansions. The Council do not have a clue how to do this imo.

Nor do I want the Council wreckers to come in and trash the place then board it up.

I have not posted much up recently as its been difficult time. To the end the Coop, depleted as it is now , has not ended in chaos.  We have kept the Mansions secure.


----------



## dbs1fan (Sep 16, 2014)

I really hope you all get sorted with suitable accommodation. You are a Brixton hero who deserves recognition.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Sep 18, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> This old stone head in courtyard is thought to come from St Agnes place. Was thinking of donating it to Ovalhouse as they may incorporate it into their new theatre. I do not want Council vandals just chucking this in skip.
> 
> OvalhouseDB


 This fine stone now installed in a foster home at Ovalhouse, to be brought back to Brixton in due course.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Sep 18, 2014)

If anyone has any historical information about these stones - there are two, matching - and can verify whether they came from St Agnes Place, or has any other information, it would be helpful. It would be nice to be able to tell their story. I have just been looking at pictures of St Agnes place and to my inexpert eye they don't look typical of the Victorian terrace house architecture? So maybe someone took them to St Agnes Place from elsewhere?


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 18, 2014)

OvalhouseDB said:


> If anyone has any historical information about these stones - there are two, matching - and can verify whether they came from St Agnes Place, or has any other information, it would be helpful. It would be nice to be able to tell their story. I have just been looking at pictures of St Agnes place and to my inexpert eye they don't look typical of the Victorian terrace house architecture? So maybe someone took them to St Agnes Place from elsewhere?


iirc st Agnes place was constructed to house servants who worked in royal palaces so the architecture may have reflected this....


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 26, 2014)

Article by Zoe in Brixton Blog

I am still trying to sort out a way to do a civilized handover on Tuesday.

Still not sure how its going to go at the moment. As one section of the Council is insisting on being confrontational about this.


----------



## editor (Sep 26, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Article by Zoe in Brixton Blog
> 
> I am still trying to sort out a way to do a civilized handover on Tuesday.
> 
> Still not sure how its going to go at the moment.


Well, I'm here if you need someone to make up the numbers.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 26, 2014)

Matthew Bennett seems needlessly harsh in his press statement. Its too bad we have a council where frequently council officers and councillors are defensive and inhumane rather than open and trusting.


----------



## newbie (Sep 27, 2014)

OvalhouseDB said:


> If anyone has any historical information about these stones - there are two, matching - and can verify whether they came from St Agnes Place, or has any other information, it would be helpful. It would be nice to be able to tell their story. I have just been looking at pictures of St Agnes place and to my inexpert eye they don't look typical of the Victorian terrace house architecture? So maybe someone took them to St Agnes Place from elsewhere?


The gargoyles were a prominent feature of that street.  From memory they featured marginally in the court/planning battle when the council sent in a wrecking ball in the 70s.  

I'm surprised at how few photos the web seems to have, but there's a couple in this rather fine flickr set.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/44938436@N02/4131958896/in/photostream/

best wishes Gramsci


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2014)

Just been around the block now to take photos with Gramsci, much to the chagrin of the council bods.

It's so desperately sad seeing all those empty rooms and all those lives uprooted.


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2014)

Here's a series of photos showing the evicted homes. 































Really sad day. Take care Gramsci 

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/09/...ed-housing-co-op-in-coldharbour-lane-brixton/


----------



## Dan U (Sep 30, 2014)

yeah all the best to Gramsci and co

what a beautiful building, really interesting to see inside editor, although it looks a bit chilly! such a shame it couldn't be (if the people who lived there wanted it, of course) modernised and they got given secure tenancies.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 30, 2014)

Dan U said:


> yeah all the best to Gramsci and co
> 
> what a beautiful building, really interesting to see inside editor, although it looks a bit chilly! such a shame it couldn't be (if the people who lived there wanted it, of course) modernised and they got given secure tenancies.



Yes. This is what should have happened with all the short-life places, rather than the short-term sell-off.


----------



## billythefish (Sep 30, 2014)

Sorry to hear this has finally happened Gramsci. Hope you are properly looked after and thanks for showing me around earlier this year. I hope this goes down in history to show the greater population just how corrupt, hypocritical and selfish Lambeth have become. There are some individuals within that council that really need to be brought to account.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 30, 2014)

Not much to add but wishing you strength today, Gramsci.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 30, 2014)

Thanks to editor for the photos. We went around the flats this morning as I was handing over the Mansions to the Council. 

The photos capture the spirit of the Mansions on its last day. Its sad to see the Mansions on its own without people. Its housed people for over a hundred years. 

The Eds photos show how some of its features are still there after all these years.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 30, 2014)

Thanks for everyone's kind posts.

I stayed at Mansions last night. It was eerily quiet as it was just me. 

Council turned up in morning as arranged to do handover. I had keys to flats. 

I did want to show that until the end we controlled the Mansions. It has been getting emptier over last few months but we have kept the Mansions secure. 

I did not want it to end in chaos. The Mansions was handed back to Council in one piece. The Coop has left with dignity. 

Only problem was when the bailiffs arrived whilst we were in process of handover. I said I was not going to go around with them. They can wait until I handed Mansions back to Council officers. Took a while but they backed off. Bailiffs really attract tossers to do that job.


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 30, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Thanks for everyone's kind posts.
> 
> I stayed at Mansions last night. It was eerily quiet as it was just me.
> 
> ...



respect due gramsci, dignity is short supply in these money grabbing times.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 30, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> The Coop has left with dignity.


You did a fine job fella. You kept to your side of the bargain at all times in spite of being treated with constant suspicion and disrespect. Well done.


----------



## editor (Oct 1, 2014)

So fucking sad to walk past tonight and see all the lights off. Nice one, Lambeth. You really showed your true colours on this one and it has been noted.


----------



## editor (Oct 1, 2014)

I don't know why, but I find this the most heartbreaking scene of all.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 1, 2014)

editor said:


> So fucking sad to walk past tonight and see all the lights off. Nice one, Lambeth. You really showed your true colours on this one and it has been noted.
> 
> View attachment 61876


 
I have not been able to bring myself to go by the Mansions since Tuesday.


----------



## editor (Oct 1, 2014)

I was so fucking angry when I passed the place with all the lights out for the first time last night.

I just had a futile last rant here:

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/10/...ions-thanks-to-lambeths-co-operative-council/


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 1, 2014)

editor said:


> I don't know why, but I find this the most heartbreaking scene of all.


 
I have been sending your Brixton Buzz article on the last day of the Mansions to ex Coop members. ( they are now spread over London and other parts of the country) They all like your photos a lot.

One emailed me back:

"The photos look very beautiful and very sad - what a waste."


----------



## dbs1fan (Oct 1, 2014)

Ooops wrong header- should be CARLTON Mansions...


----------



## editor (Oct 1, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I have been sending your Brixton Buzz article on the last day of the Mansions to ex Coop members. ( they are now spread over London and other parts of the country) They all like your photos a lot.
> 
> One emailed me back:
> 
> "The photos look very beautiful and very sad - what a waste."


I had a bloke from mailing from a Lambeth Council address telling me how wonderful he thought the photos were. Which was a bit odd.


----------



## editor (Oct 1, 2014)

dbs1fan said:


> Ooops wrong header- should be CARLTON Mansions...


Just fixed that. I was just looking at the similar scenes from when that got evicted 











http://www.urban75.org/brixton/features/clifton-mansions-squat-party-2011.html


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 1, 2014)

editor said:


> I had a bloke from mailing from a Lambeth Council address telling me how wonderful he thought the photos were. Which was a bit odd.


 
Does not surprise me. I think some people who work for Lambeth were not happy about it either.


----------



## nagapie (Oct 2, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Does not surprise me. I think some people who work for Lambeth were not happy about it either.



So sorry about this. Hope you have found somewhere local to live. 

Now that it's all over, is there any way to share this story publicly in a more mainstream publication?


----------



## editor (Oct 2, 2014)

I've had such a positive response to those photos that I'm thinking of approaching a gallery and seeing if they could form the basis of an exhibition - perhaps with photos from other evictions/closing events etc. I think it might be a great way to get more coverage and remind people about what has gone on here.

If I do get the thing sorted, I'd probably want to give away a share of any print sales to Shelter.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 3, 2014)

nagapie said:


> So sorry about this. Hope you have found somewhere local to live.
> 
> Now that it's all over, is there any way to share this story publicly in a more mainstream publication?



I have not checked yet but there I think there may be something in the Brixton SLP and Brixton Bugle.

I have been so stressed last couple of months that I have not been that in touch with media. I do not like being in the public eye that much. 

A follow up piece in another magazine would be a good idea. 

Part of the trouble is that some journos want a dramatic story. 

Local press are interested in following up on stories and are more reliable imo.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 5, 2014)

Article on Brixton Blog here

Its also on front page of Brixton edition of SLP (not online)


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 5, 2014)

I have emailed Cllr Matthew Bennett ( Cabinet member for housing) re the use of bailiffs on Tuesday 30th:





> I was handing over the flats one by one to Council officer. A quarter of the way through this three bailiffs turned up. I told them I was handing over the flats. Their response was "You should not be here". I told Council officers I was not prepared to go around with bailiffs and that they should wait outside whilst I did the handover. The bailiffs then ( and they were aggressive and confrontational) told me again I should not be here. That I had 5 minutes to get out. There was a stand off.
> 
> This is just typical the way the Council has pursued my community over the last year. From the start its been aggressive and confrontational. Its not me that started this.
> 
> I want to know who said bailiffs should attend and why. I would have thought you would have been emailed about what was happening to the Mansions.


----------



## editor (Oct 16, 2014)

Here's the airbrushed view from Lambeth: 


> Carlton Mansions
> 
> We were grateful for the cooperation from ex-residents of Carlton Mansions for helping the council’s repossession of the building go ahead without incident last week. The council has made it a priority to find alternative homes for those who are eligible for rehousing and have already offered six of these somewhere else to live.
> 
> ...


"the entire community"


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 19, 2014)

editor said:


> Here's the airbrushed view from Lambeth:
> "the entire community"



I did find it annoying for several reasons:


I was harassed by bailiffs on the day. My email to Cllr Bennett cc to Cllr Lib Peck about this has not been answered. An incident that was caused by the Council.

The Council have consistently refused to say that it was a Coop.

The idea for an interim use was my idea. I talked to relevant officer about it a few months ago. It was not idea from Council. I realized they were clueless about how to safeguard Mansions.

The "entire community" was particularly aggravating comment to make by Lambeth. Who writes this stuff? The Coop had always told the Council that when they needed the Mansions for redevelopment we would go without fuss. No need for the Council to use phrases like that. Typical Council tactic.

It now appears the the Mansions is liable to be left empty for a longer period than the Council said. The date for works to start was Summer next year. This meant that our defence in court was weakened. Possession could have been granted due to the Council saying in court that development starts next year- which they did. This was separate from any fire risk. Now it looks like the Council knew all along that there was no way that works would start on the time they said in court. This airbrushed view from Lambeth confirms this. Before court case ended they were careful not to say anything that might imply that the Mansions would be left empty for some considerable time.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 19, 2014)

BTW the other thing that the Council said would happen was that the shopkeeper would also go. They were asked about this. As the Council were saying that the whole building was a fire risk and it had to be completely empty. 

The shopkeeper has not gone. Nor do I think the Council have done anything about the shop. 

I do not particularly want the shopkeeper to go. I am using it as example of the selective way that Lambeth have pursued this over last year.


----------



## madolesance (Oct 19, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I did find it annoying for several reasons:
> 
> 
> I was harassed by bailiffs on the day. My email to Cllr Bennett cc to Cllr Lib Peck about this has not been answered. An incident that was caused by the Council.
> ...



I saw two people coming out of the Mansions today.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 20, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> BTW the other thing that the Council said would happen was that the shopkeeper would also go. They were asked about this. As the Council were saying that the whole building was a fire risk and it had to be completely empty.
> 
> The shopkeeper has not gone. Nor do I think the Council have done anything about the shop.
> 
> I do not particularly want the shopkeeper to go. I am using it as example of the selective way that Lambeth have pursued this over last year.


I wouldn't spend too much time thinking about that. Fire safety is largely about preventing spread and having protected escape routes - fire doors, fireproof linings to stairs, smoke seals, alternative exits, etc, etc.. - which give you time to escape or be rescued if the fire is on or below the level you are on. It's different for a ground floor unit because - subject to max travel criteria and location of any high risk things like a kitchen - you can just run out the front door.

Hope you are settled into your new place.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 20, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I wouldn't spend too much time thinking about that. Fire safety is largely about preventing spread and having protected escape routes [...]



Surely the point here is that the council made a big hullabaloo about the issue, and explicitly said that the whole building would have to be emptied, at the same time, for reasons of fire safety. 

And then having decanted the co-op members, the council then unilaterally decided not to vacate the ground level commercial unit, despite having previously said that it too must be empty for reasons of safety.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 20, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Surely the point here is that the council made a big hullabaloo about the issue, and explicitly said that the whole building would have to be emptied, at the same time, for reasons of fire safety.
> 
> And then having decanted the co-op members, the council then unilaterally decided not to vacate the ground level commercial unit, despite having previously said that it too must be empty for reasons of safety.


I have not seen the report and was not party to the discussions. I'm simply saying that it is perfectly possible that due to its ground floor position the commercial unit is not a risk in the same way as the residential areas which rely on a protected communal staircase. 

If the report says the commercial space is also a similar level of fire hazard and its occupants are at similar risk yet they let them stay in then that's probably a different matter. Is that the case?


----------



## editor (Oct 20, 2014)

The whole thing stinks. All those homes. All those people. All those years. And all that Lambeth bullshit.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 20, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I have not seen the report and was not party to the discussions. I'm simply saying that it is perfectly possible that due to its ground floor position the commercial unit is not a risk in the same way as the residential areas which rely on a protected communal staircase.
> 
> If the report says the commercial space is also a similar level of fire hazard and its occupants are at similar risk yet they let them stay in then that's probably a different matter. Is that the case?



The shopkeeper might pay rent.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 20, 2014)

Is that the unit with the sign saying "brixton bizness centre" or similar?


----------



## editor (Oct 20, 2014)

teuchter said:


> Is that the unit with the sign saying "brixton bizness centre" or similar?


Yes. And I imagine the wording annoys you as much as it does me. 

They've also got some tacky stuff about claiming PPI refunds.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 20, 2014)

Rushy said:


> I have not seen the report and was not party to the discussions. I'm simply saying that it is perfectly possible that due to its ground floor position the commercial unit is not a risk in the same way as the residential areas which rely on a protected communal staircase.
> 
> If the report says the commercial space is also a similar level of fire hazard and its occupants are at similar risk yet they let them stay in then that's probably a different matter. Is that the case?



At the start of this last year the Council was asked about the shop. Council officer response was that the whole building had to be emptied.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 20, 2014)

leanderman said:


> The shopkeeper might pay rent.



The shop unit is Council owned on a commercial lease.

To reiterate I have no wish for the shopkeeper to lose his shop like we lost our homes.

Its the different way the Coop got treated I am bringing up.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 20, 2014)

I had sort of assumed it was run by the housing co-op.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 20, 2014)

teuchter said:


> I had sort of assumed it was run by the housing co-op.



The shop? 

No it was never part of the Coop. It was always leased out separately by the Council as a shop. 

Used to be a barbers years ago. One (ex) Coop member took photos of his old shop when the barber retired.


----------



## editor (Oct 20, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Used to be a barbers years ago. One (ex) Coop member took photos of his old shop when the barber retired.


Ooh, are they around? be great to share those.


----------



## editor (Oct 21, 2014)

A final series of photos: A walk across the rooftops: views from the evicted Carlton Mansions, Brixton


----------



## editor (Nov 4, 2014)

Happier times:







Brixton archive photo – Carlton Mansions, Brixton, November 2000


----------



## Tricky Skills (Nov 18, 2014)

A similar H & S line that was used for Carlton Mansions is now being used over in Clapham Old Town. Form the bottom of this Lambeth Council press release:

"In a separate incident, Lambeth council has warned of the potentially fatal dangers of stealing electricity after taking possession of a number of ‘short life’ properties in the Clapham area where power had been supplied illegally. An electrician contracted by the council to make the properties safe said unsecured cables and unsafe connections made it the most dangerous site he’d seen in 35 years and it was a miracle that no one had been electrocuted."


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 19, 2014)

Tricky Skills said:


> A similar H & S line that was used for Carlton Mansions is now being used over in Clapham Old Town. Form the bottom of this Lambeth Council press release:
> 
> "In a separate incident, Lambeth council has warned of the potentially fatal dangers of stealing electricity after taking possession of a number of ‘short life’ properties in the Clapham area where power had been supplied illegally. An electrician contracted by the council to make the properties safe said unsecured cables and unsafe connections made it the most dangerous site he’d seen in 35 years and it was a miracle that no one had been electrocuted."



Do need to point out that CM electricity supply was legally supplied.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 29, 2014)

Tricky Skills said:


> A similar H & S line that was used for Carlton Mansions is now being used over in Clapham Old Town. Form the bottom of this Lambeth Council press release:
> 
> "In a separate incident, Lambeth council has warned of the potentially fatal dangers of stealing electricity after taking possession of a number of ‘short life’ properties in the Clapham area where power had been supplied illegally. An electrician contracted by the council to make the properties safe said unsecured cables and unsafe connections made it the most dangerous site he’d seen in 35 years and it was a miracle that no one had been electrocuted."



To be fair, they may have been right about the dangers of electrocution: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-TREE-poking-one-rooms-route-electricity.html


----------



## editor (Nov 29, 2014)

leanderman said:


> To be fair, they may have been right about the dangers of electrocution: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-TREE-poking-one-rooms-route-electricity.html
> 
> View attachment 64341


That's really not a "filthy toilet" is it? Looks pretty spotless to me.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 29, 2014)

Neither filthy, nor spotless. Could use a loo seat though.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 29, 2014)

I don’t think this was all that uncommon. When I lived in Tunstall Road in the 90s I understood that a nearby resident was letting out two houses adjacent to them. Recently I discovered they were all shortlife when the residents were evicted and Lambeth sold the buildings. They were in a miserable state.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 29, 2014)

editor said:


> That's really not a "filthy toilet" is it? Looks pretty spotless to me.


Indeed. That was exactly my take home from the article too.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Nov 29, 2014)

Here's the full press release pimped out by Lambeth Council. It's clear that a campaign is in place against the co-operative housing:

********
Up to eight people were housed in “appalling” conditions in a former ‘shortlife’ property that had been illegally converted into flats, Lambeth Council has discovered.

Council officers who took back possession of the property, in Rectory Gardens, Clapham, found that it had been transformed from a three-bedroomed home to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO), with eight rooms – pulling in an estimated £40,000 a year in rent.

A large branch from a nearby tree was growing into one of the rooms – and the occupants were using electricity from a cable passed through a hole drilled in the branch. _(see attached pictures)_

The house did not have clear and suitable emergency exits. All eight occupants had to share a single bath and toilet.

Council experts estimate that, at a market rate of £100 a week per room, the “landlord” could have made £40,000 a year from the property, which actually belongs to Lambeth Council.

The terraced house was a “shortlife” property, one of 1,200 licensed to housing associations and cooperatives on a short-term basis in the 1970s, on the clear understanding that they would be returned to the Council.

The discovery comes a week after Lambeth Council warned of the potentially fatal dangers of stealing electricity after taking possession of another shortlife property in the Clapham area, from which power had been supplied illegally to a number of houses.

An electrician contracted by the council to make the property safe said unsecured cables and unsafe connections made it the most dangerous site he’d seen in 35 years and it was a miracle that no one had been electrocuted.

Cllr Matthew Bennett, Cabinet member for Housing said: “The conditions the people in this illegal HMO were living in were truly appalling, and represented a genuine danger to life and limb.

“It is shocking that someone can make money exploiting people by illegally renting out such dangerous accommodation with no regard for the safety of the people living there.

“We have 21,000 people on our housing waiting list, 1,800 families in temporary accommodation, and 1,300 families who are severely overcrowded.

“With this housing need, it would be irresponsible to spend our money refurbishing shortlife properties which are in a very poor state of disrepair – particularly when they are being misused for these exploitative and illegal purposes.”


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 29, 2014)

editor said:


> That's really not a "filthy toilet" is it? Looks pretty spotless to me.



no worse than Nu-urban towers was i reckon.


----------



## boohoo (Nov 29, 2014)

I like the way the mail article says the property slipped through Lambeth's hands - like Lambeth can't catch. And that the properties fell into wrong hands -letting the council off any responsibility for these properties in the first place. 

These photos are of places abandoned so no-one tends to leave and give it a good spring clean and takes with them the items that they won't be able to fit in their new home. Things start rotting and get covered with dust.

It's a bit like posting this pic below and saying "baby change facilities at West Park hospital were filthy"


----------



## Rushy (Nov 29, 2014)

boohoo said:


> I like the way the mail article says the property slipped through Lambeth's hands - like Lambeth can't catch. And that the properties fell into wrong hands -letting the council off any responsibility for these properties in the first place.
> 
> These photos are of places abandoned so no-one tends to leave and give it a good spring clean and takes with them the items that they won't be able to fit in their new home. Things start rotting and get covered with dust.
> 
> It's a bit like posting this pic below and saying "baby change facilities at West Park hospital were filthy"


The tree could have grown really quickly too.


----------



## boohoo (Nov 29, 2014)

Rushy said:


> The tree could have grown really quickly too.


 
Have you not read Jack and the Beanstalk???


----------



## Rushy (Nov 29, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Have you not read Jack and the Beanstalk???


Is that the one in which the protagonist dodgily sublets a tree house he doesn't own?


----------



## boohoo (Nov 29, 2014)

Rushy said:


> Is that the one in which the protagonist dodgily sublets a tree house he doesn't own?



no -that's the follow up Jack and the beanstalk house.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 29, 2014)

boohoo said:


> no -that's the follow up Jack and the beanstalk house.


Oh yeah.The one in which he climbs up the property ladder?


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 29, 2014)

Can this be separated off onto a different thread? Its about an issue in Clapham not Carlton Mansions.

editor


----------



## boohoo (Dec 17, 2014)

Rushy leanderman 
Interesting read on Clapham house with tree:

http://www.spectacle.co.uk/spectacl...ew-bennetts-rectory-gardens-slurs-and-errors/

(Sorry slight de-rail from Carlton Mansions but does give back ground to short life)


----------



## leanderman (Dec 17, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Rushy leanderman
> Interesting read on Clapham house with tree:
> 
> http://www.spectacle.co.uk/spectacl...ew-bennetts-rectory-gardens-slurs-and-errors/
> ...



Can't get this link to work. Nor by going to their website


----------



## boohoo (Dec 17, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Can't get this link to work. Nor by going to their website


It's working for me.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 17, 2014)

Got it.

The occupiers should have been put on proper tenancies with standard council rents ages ago.

Turfing people out and selling the properties was costly and short term. ETA: and unfair.


----------



## Rushy (Dec 17, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Rushy leanderman
> Interesting read on Clapham house with tree:
> 
> http://www.spectacle.co.uk/spectacl...ew-bennetts-rectory-gardens-slurs-and-errors/
> ...


It's a well enough written piece but it didn't read to me as a balanced synopsis. And the council spin is blatantly heavily biased too. The best anyone can do is pick through available info and make their own mind up based on their own experience and observations.

As regards Rectory Grove, in that piece he does not appear to argue against the facts presented about the tree house - that it was a short life being rented out in dangerous condition by one time occupants for profit - he just argues that it was not part of a particular co-op which he says it was being used to discredit. Which, if true, was not a connection I recall having heard mentioned.

Overall this is about as dreadful a case of prolonged council mismanagement as you can imagine. Where I disagree with the gist of the board is the extent to which the occupiers were doing everyone a favour by "maintaining" buildings and what rights should have accrued to people who had occupied the housing.


----------



## editor (Dec 17, 2014)

Rushy said:


> . Where I disagree with the gist of the board is the extent to which the occupiers were doing everyone a favour by "maintaining" buildings and what rights should have accrued to people who had occupied the housing.


Why kind of state do you think Carlton Mansions would have been in if it had been left abandoned for decades?


----------



## boohoo (Dec 17, 2014)

Rushy said:


> It's a well enough written piece but it didn't read to me as a balanced synopsis. And the council spin is blatantly heavily biased too. The best anyone can do is pick through available info and make their own mind up based on their own experience and observations.
> 
> As regards Rectory Grove, in that piece he does not appear to argue against the facts presented about the tree house - that it was a short life being rented out in dangerous condition by one time occupants for profit - he just argues that it was not part of a particular co-op which he says it was being used to discredit. Which, if true, was not a connection I recall having heard mentioned.
> 
> Overall this is about as dreadful a case of prolonged council mismanagement as you can imagine. Where I disagree with the gist of the board is the extent to which the occupiers were doing everyone a favour by "maintaining" buildings and what rights should have accrued to people who had occupied the housing.



Rushy I think the tree story is just used to generally discredit short life tenants - that's the gist I get.

I'm not sure how you'd get a balanced view ever really - it's a general problem with history. 

From recent interviews that I undertook with muralists, one woman talked about hard to lets on a Brixton estate and how these were then given to those on the waiting list as short life tenants. From what I know of short life, tenants have looked after the houses in a constant state of uncertainty - never really knowing when someone can step in and take it off them but having to maintain them enough to make them liveable and comfortable. From my experience of empty houses, I reckon most of those buildings would have fallen down - my old flat in Carlton mansion is showing signs of rot from non-occupation - it's actually upsetting to see a home fall apart. 

I'm not sure that the occupiers 'were doing everyone a favour' but the council benefited from these houses not falling apart and their inability to turn them into useful social housing stock or support the established communities into turning them into co-ops supported by RSLs. The sensible thing for the council to have done is to have supported the co-ops and help them become legitimate protect social housing spaces. 

Having worked in big government housing policy, i am not at all surprised that this money might be going into a Lambeth council penny jar and not directly into housing. 

It seems that alot of this comes down to housing envy and the value of a space being seen as purely financial.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 17, 2014)

The council might have gained a bit from properties not falling down - tho lambeth likes to build new and should, in any case, simply have got a grip. 

But weren't the biggest winners from this extraordinary situation the occupiers who lived rent-free (minus co-op fees or improvements) - even for decades?

Was any council tax paid?


----------



## editor (Dec 17, 2014)

leanderman said:


> But weren't the biggest winners from this extraordinary situation the occupiers who lived rent-free (minus co-op fees or improvements) - even for decades?


Would you view "winning" as  living in a run-down property where you have no secure tenancy and can be lobbed out at any time at short notice?


----------



## boohoo (Dec 17, 2014)

leanderman said:


> The council might have gained a bit from properties not falling down - tho lambeth likes to build new and should, in any case, simply have got a grip.
> 
> But weren't the biggest winners from this extraordinary situation the occupiers who lived rent-free (minus co-op fees or improvements) - even for decades?
> 
> Was any council tax paid?



The council gained from the current inflated housing market and the fact that many of these properties are nice old things in good locations worth lots of money. In other cases the properties got squatted because the council wasn't looking after them. The late 1970s and 1980s are a very different time in London's history. 

I agree that the occupiers got a good deal living rent free but if they had been given a council property (these were people on the waiting list), then they would have been in a better position as secure tenants who would have had the problems of the building fixed by the council.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 17, 2014)

Agreed.


----------



## Winot (Dec 17, 2014)

boohoo said:


> I agree that the occupiers got a good deal living rent free but if they had been given a council property (these were people on the waiting list), then they would have been in a better position as secure tenants who would have had the problems of the building fixed by the council.



Did they come of the waiting list or did some eventually move into council property?


----------



## boohoo (Dec 18, 2014)

Winot said:


> Did they come of the waiting list or did some eventually move into council property?



I don't know all the ins and outs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 18, 2014)

editor said:


> Why kind of state do you think Carlton Mansions would have been in if it had been left abandoned for decades?



For Rushy, in a "developable" state.


----------



## 299 old timer (Dec 18, 2014)

I'm a cynic now Lambeth has shown its true face, and I expect Carlton Mansions to be demolished. Who owns the land to the left?


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Dec 18, 2014)

Carlton Mansions certainly will not be demolished!
<<chains self to railings>>

299OldTimer - bring yourself intonew times and read the Somerleyton Rd / Ovalhouse thread!


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 18, 2014)

boohoo said:


> Rushy leanderman
> Interesting read on Clapham house with tree:
> 
> http://www.spectacle.co.uk/spectacl...ew-bennetts-rectory-gardens-slurs-and-errors/
> ...



It is a thread derail. Rectory Gardens situation and history is different to Mansions. 

The underlying argument was between the Labour administration and Lambeth United. Its a political and propaganda war. Some of it is between Lambeth Green party and Lambeth Labour party. I am not saying its wrong. The spectacle blog article is pretty fair. They have asked Bennett the right questions. 

The Mansions was never part of Lambeth United. 

Carlton Mansions was not squatted and then licensed. It was early example of S/L of a property through Mini HAG to being properties into use that would otherwise be left empty. 

I had a run in with Bennett at the Cressingham Gardens Housing question time. Labour group have gone back to slagging off shortlife. They used to do tell Council tenants this stuff. After a while it no longer worked. Council tenants realised that the Labour party had given up on Council housing and was using the S/L issue as a distraction. Trying to stir up resentment against S/L people when the real issue was that the Labour party in power did not support Council housing. Realistically a few S/L people in Lambeth were not standing in the way of the Labour party building Council housing. 

The tree issue. From what I have heard the tree was part of the wacky S/L design originally. 

However I know for years there has been a war of attrition between the Council and different S/L groups. (ie Rushcroft Road Action Group RAG). Gradually the legal action or on off threat of it wore people down. RAG success was to get the Council to concede that there was an issue about the tenancy status. The compromise being that Council would rehouse what it called "legitimate" S/L. 

People might not like it but in this country people do have rights. (Some) Judges have treated S/L people as human beings. The fact that they may be living in houses in Clapham worth millions ( as Bennett complains about) is not the issue in law. The much maligned Human Rights Act was very useful. So was the law around housing/ tenancies.  For all its faults the law is not just about criminalizing certain actions. Its plays an important role in protecting individuals and there families from the State. 

The "war of attrition" over last ten years or so meant that a lot of S/L people left to be replaced by squatters. Nothing wrong with that as such. But it meant that some S/L groups last control of some of the housing. 

I do find it irritating that Bennett refers to property as S/L when in court the Council is adamant that it has not been S/L for some years as the license were terminated. Thus in court the Council would term people the "unauthorized occupiers".


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 18, 2014)

299 old timer said:


> I'm a cynic now Lambeth has shown its true face, and I expect Carlton Mansions to be demolished. Who owns the land to the left?



The Council own most of Somerleyton road. The land to the left is planned to go to new theatre. But Council will retain ownership of the land. But who knows what may happen in next year with Councils getting another load of Government imposed cuts?

I paid a visit to Mansions a few days ago with Council officers and Brixton Society to see how its bearing up being empty for first time in over hundred years. A sad sight to see. Its likely to deteriorate quickly now its empty. I am trying to persuade Council to consult Brixton Society as plans for the Mansions are developed. As now the Coop is gone. 

There are no plans to demolish. The front and mural are locally listed. The plan at moment is to turn it into workshop space - hopefully affordable.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 18, 2014)

Winot said:


> Did they come of the waiting list or did some eventually move into council property?



At one point the Coop came to arrangement with Council to take people off waiting list.  Also used single person referral agency- Threshold I think. 

Council referrals stopped when Council decided to "withdraw" from S/L. 

Some ex Coop members when they had children did apply and get into permanent Coops.


----------



## 299 old timer (Dec 19, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> The Council own most of Somerleyton road. The land to the left is planned to go to new theatre. But Council will retain ownership of the land. But who knows what may happen in next year with Councils getting another load of Government imposed cuts?
> 
> I paid a visit to Mansions a few days ago with Council officers and Brixton Society to see how its bearing up being empty for first time in over hundred years. A sad sight to see. Its likely to deteriorate quickly now its empty. I am trying to persuade Council to consult Brixton Society as plans for the Mansions are developed. As now the Coop is gone.
> 
> There are no plans to demolish. The front and mural are locally listed. The plan at moment is to turn it into workshop space - hopefully affordable.



Thanks for the reply Gramsci. Cynic that I am, and having seen it before as a council tactic, is not the vacant space and likely deterioration a cue for demolishment?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2014)

299 old timer said:


> Thanks for the reply Gramsci. Cynic that I am, and having seen it before as a council tactic, is not the vacant space and likely deterioration a cue for demolishment?



Given the (sound) condition Carlton Mansions was left in, while surface deterioration will occur quickly (plasterwork, exposed woodwork etc) the fabric will take longer, and a demolition order would rely on the property being nigh-on unsalvageable. As a gauge, Battersea Power Station's fabric was left open to the elements for over a decade, and didn't deteriorate at anywhere near the rate that the developers were hoping for!
Of course, Carlton Mansions could go the way of so many places with inconvenient listings, with someone accidentally dropping a bottle full of meths and a lit fag on one of the wooden floors...


----------



## editor (Dec 19, 2014)

I wouldn't put money on the block still being there in five years time.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Given the (sound) condition Carlton Mansions was left in, while surface deterioration will occur quickly (plasterwork, exposed woodwork etc) the fabric will take longer, and a demolition order would rely on the property being nigh-on unsalvageable. As a gauge, Battersea Power Station's fabric was left open to the elements for over a decade, and didn't deteriorate at anywhere near the rate that the developers were hoping for!


In what way is Battersea power station a meaningful "gauge"?

And when you say that Carlton Mansions was left in a "sound condition" - what's that based on?

It's a very real risk that deterioration will accelerate now that the building is unoccupied - even just as a result of it not being heated.


----------



## CH1 (Dec 19, 2014)

teuchter said:


> It's a very real risk that deterioration will accelerate now that the building is unoccupied - even just as a result of it not being heated.


Not to mention Sitex-type porous honeycombed metal security shutters mounted in formerly closed windows and doors to stairwells allowing access to the elements.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 20, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Not to mention Sitex-type porous honeycombed metal security shutters mounted in formerly closed windows and doors to stairwells allowing access to the elements.



That was a most depressing sight to see. There is something so "Council" about Sitex security shutters. Its like a dog marking its territory.


----------



## billythefish (Dec 20, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Given the (sound) condition Carlton Mansions was left in, while surface deterioration will occur quickly (plasterwork, exposed woodwork etc) the fabric will take longer, and a demolition order would rely on the property being nigh-on unsalvageable. As a gauge, Battersea Power Station's fabric was left open to the elements for over a decade, and didn't deteriorate at anywhere near the rate that the developers were hoping for!
> Of course, Carlton Mansions could go the way of so many places with inconvenient listings, with someone accidentally dropping a bottle full of meths and a lit fag on one of the wooden floors...


Battersea Power Station is an industrial building. Most of its interiors were ruined decades ago - the main survivors being its brickwork and chimneys. Even the latter are now being replaced due to neglect (I still have a 1980s AtoZ promising completion of the theme park in 1989!). 
Carlton mansions is a residential building. It was still intact until a few weeks ago - plaster still on the walls - joinery still in place - its envelope still intact. It may have looked scruffy around the edges, but it was still in use as it had been designed for. It would have taken minimal intervention to maintain it as such, but internal finishes perish extremely quickly when neglected. There is no day to day life there now, and it is only a matter of time before windows are broken, roofs degrade and the fabric will decay. It will happen extremely quickly without the regular attention that its previous occupants attended to it.
There are carefully and democratically thought through processes in place to protect buildings like this, yet they appear to have been pissed on from a large height in Lambeth.

(Grrrrr.)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 20, 2014)

teuchter said:


> In what way is Battersea power station a meaningful "gauge"?



They're both double and triple course brick, using a similar bond (I could also have used Wandsworth Prison as a comparator).



> And when you say that Carlton Mansions was left in a "sound condition" - what's that based on?



Do you think that Carlton (or Clifton, or Rushcroft etc etc etc) would have been targeted if their dilapidation was so advanced that developers couldn't score a quick buck? Do you not believe that the council would have used a state of dilapidation (as opposed to the ludicrous "fire safety certificate" scam) if the place hadn't been structurally sound? :



> It's a very real risk that deterioration will accelerate now that the building is unoccupied - even just as a result of it not being heated.



Have I said that it won't deteriorate? Nope. I've said that if developers are hoping for the building to fall into dilapidation, it'll take longer than they might assume.

Carry on nit-picking, though.  It's always good to see you showing yourself up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 20, 2014)

billythefish said:


> Battersea Power Station is an industrial building. Most of its interiors were ruined decades ago - the main survivors being its brickwork and chimneys. Even the latter are now being replaced due to neglect (I still have a 1980s AtoZ promising completion of the theme park in 1989!).
> Carlton mansions is a residential building. It was still intact until a few weeks ago - plaster still on the walls - joinery still in place - its envelope still intact. It may have looked scruffy around the edges, but it was still in use as it had been designed for. It would have taken minimal intervention to maintain it as such, but internal finishes perish extremely quickly when neglected. There is no day to day life there now, and it is only a matter of time before windows are broken, roofs degrade and the fabric will decay. It will happen extremely quickly without the regular attention that its previous occupants attended to it.



I agree with the above. All I've said is that the plasterwork and woodwork will go first (if no-one from the council decides to "help things along"), before the structural fabric does, and that full dilapidation (at which point the building will become unsalvageable) will take longer.



> There are carefully and democratically thought through processes in place to protect buildings like this, yet they appear to have been pissed on from a large height in Lambeth.
> 
> (Grrrrr.)



And for as long as I've been alive, local authorities have found ways to circumvent those processes, for buildings "great and small". Not just in Lambeth, but everywhere. If you were a cynic, you might almost believe that there are deliberate loopholes left in such processes, so that they can be circumvented (if you have the money and/or the connections)...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 20, 2014)

editor said:


> I wouldn't put money on the block still being there in five years time.



Or, if "Carlton Mansions" is still there, it'll be the (listed) facade and mural, with a brand-new set of rabbit-hutch "luxury apartments" with _faux_-period touches behind the venerable frontage. It's not unknown for developers to gut, sadly.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 20, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> They're both double and triple course brick, using a similar bond (I could also have used Wandsworth Prison as a comparator).


So you're basically sayoing they are both built from brick.

Are the mortars similar, despite them being built 30-50 years apart during the time of transition from lime based to cement based mortars? Are the bricks themselves similar? And even if they had been built at the same time is it in any way plausible that the construction types and specifications for a 4 storey residential building would be similar to those used in a giant power station and the biggest brick structure in Europe? Does Battersea Power station have timber structural elements that are embedded in the walls, that have survived through its state of disrepair? 

All this of course ignoring the basic point that it's a nonsense anyway to suggest Battersea Power Station is somehow evidence of the potential of building stock to survive neglect - it's in a terrible state. As billythefish says above.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 20, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Do you think that Carlton (or Clifton, or Rushcroft etc etc etc) would have been targeted if their dilapidation was so advanced that developers couldn't score a quick buck? Do you not believe that the council would have used a state of dilapidation (as opposed to the ludicrous "fire safety certificate" scam) if the place hadn't been structurally sound? :



They have been judged to be worth salvaging in the context of an inflated London property market. The buildings' value is based on their location rather than the soundness of their fabric. I don't know how structurally sound they were at the point of reposession, but I wouldn't be drawing many conclusions from the fact that they've been judged worth redeveloping.


----------



## editor (Jan 22, 2015)

Squatters evicted today







http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/01/...t-squatters-from-carlton-mansions-in-brixton/


----------



## CH1 (Jan 22, 2015)

Just goes to show the council would have been better off leaving Co-op members in occupation since they had agreed to hand over as and when required.

Instead of which Housing have chosen to "dis" the people who have guaranteed to co-operate and created a situation.


----------



## editor (Jan 22, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Just goes to show the council would have been better off leaving Co-op members in occupation since they had agreed to hand over as and when required.
> 
> Instead of which Housing have chosen to "dis" the people who have guaranteed to co-operate and created a situation.


I bet all those workmen and metal doors don't come cheap either.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 22, 2015)

editor said:


> Squatters evicted today
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I just heard about this. 

The Council were told they would not be able to secure the building. 

Did they listen? No.


----------



## laptop (Jan 23, 2015)

editor said:


> I bet all those workmen and metal doors don't come cheap either.



Sitex security screens cost a fucking fortune per week. I've forgotten exactly how much... and oddly all the websites I find say "email us for a quote".


----------



## editor (Jun 30, 2015)

I like this very much indeed. 






http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/06/...ng-co-op-commemorated-with-unofficial-plaque/


----------



## ibilly99 (Jul 5, 2015)

"Local authority and housing association tenants in England who earn more than £30,000 - or £40,000 in London will have to pay 'market rents'. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33399650


----------



## CH1 (Jul 5, 2015)

ibilly99 said:


> "Local authority and housing association tenants in England who earn more than £30,000 - or £40,000 in London will have to pay 'market rents'.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33399650


I can see the logic from a Tory government point of view - but given the HRA is normally ring fenced, what is the practical effect?


----------



## ibilly99 (Jul 5, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I can see the logic from a Tory government point of view - but given the HRA is normally ring fenced, what is the practical effect?



According to the Indepenent ...

The Treasury will recoup the additional rental income that local authorities receive, which will be used to reduce the deficit and generate extra income for housing associations to reinvest in affordable housing.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ncome-earners-in-social-housing-10366555.html


----------



## CH1 (Jul 5, 2015)

ibilly99 said:


> According to the Indepenent ...
> 
> The Treasury will recoup the additional rental income that local authorities receive, which will be used to reduce the deficit and generate extra income for housing associations to reinvest in affordable housing.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ncome-earners-in-social-housing-10366555.html


Looks like Thatcher had Housing Revenue accounts ring fenced so councils couldn't subsidise housing.
Now Osborne is unringfencing them so the government can use rent as a form of taxation!


----------



## SpamMisery (Jul 5, 2015)

Earning £40k and receiving taxpayer subsidised rent seems unfair given their are bucketloads of people earning far less whilst paying market value rent in the private sector and bucketloads earning virtually nothing who are desperate for somewhere to live.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 5, 2015)

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-social-cleansing-of-social-housing.336344


----------



## boohoo (Jul 5, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Earning £40k and receiving taxpayer subsidised rent seems unfair given their are bucketloads of people earning far less whilst paying market value rent in the private sector and bucketloads earning virtually nothing who are desperate for somewhere to live.



Have a look at the other thread. These changes are never just about providing more housing opportunities for those who are less fortunate.

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-social-cleansing-of-social-housing.336344


----------



## Norwoodité (Jul 5, 2015)

edit: took it to the other thread.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Earning £40k and receiving taxpayer subsidised rent seems unfair given their are bucketloads of people earning far less whilst paying market value rent in the private sector and bucketloads earning virtually nothing who are desperate for somewhere to live.



So you're another of those dismal mugs who can't do the maths involved in showing that the majority of council and housing association tenants *don't* have "taxpayer subsidised rent".
How very unsurprising.


----------



## laptop (Jul 5, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> So you're another of those dismal mugs who can't do the maths involved in showing that the majority of council and housing association tenants *don't* have "taxpayer subsidised rent".
> How very unsurprising.



Doesn't council housing still make a net contribution to the Treasury?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2015)

laptop said:


> Doesn't council housing still make a net contribution to the Treasury?



It does, despite supposedly being "subsidised".
What these "subsidy" fools don't/won't "get" is that a body choosing not to set a market rent for their owned assets (and about 85% of local authority social housing is bought and paid for) isn't taking a subsidy to do so, it's merely exercising the same rights over its' property as any landlord, albeit to provide housing at an affordable, rather than an exploitative rent.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 5, 2015)

ibilly99 said:


> "Local authority and housing association tenants in England who earn more than £30,000 - or £40,000 in London will have to pay 'market rents'.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33399650



This is a subject for a separate thread.


----------



## SpamMisery (Jul 5, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> So you're another of those dismal mugs who can't do the maths involved in showing that the majority of council and housing association tenants *don't* have "taxpayer subsidised rent".
> How very unsurprising.



No need to be rude. I already understand the majority don't have subsidised rent. And neither did it require maths to work that out


----------



## editor (Jul 5, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Earning £40k and receiving taxpayer subsidised rent seems unfair given their are bucketloads of people earning far less whilst paying market value rent in the private sector and bucketloads earning virtually nothing who are desperate for somewhere to live.


Wrong.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> No need to be rude. I already understand the majority don't have subsidised rent. And neither did it require maths to work that out



If you already understood, then why the carping in the post I replied to?


----------



## SpamMisery (Jul 5, 2015)

editor said:


> Wrong.



Crikey, I never thought about it from that perspective. Feel a bit silly now. Have you ever thought about a career in education?


----------



## boohoo (Jul 5, 2015)

.


----------



## boohoo (Jul 5, 2015)

.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jul 5, 2015)

and then there's the question of whether the daily mail definition of "fairness" - as in "everyone - except the very rich of course - should be shat upon equally" is genuine fairness, or whether it would be better to think about the tories creating an artificial shortage of social housing (and new labour doing bugger all to change that) rather than scapegoating those who have got social tenancies...


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 5, 2015)

boohoo said:


> Sometimes people say stupid things (and Spammy can be quite good at this! )



He knows what he is doing. He is far from stupid. His posts are deliberate windups.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 5, 2015)

boohoo said:


> You have to stop making the assumption that people who post on urban have been schooled in lefty politics and the ins and outs and of housing. Clearly state your case, explain, link to articles that examine the subject.
> 
> And be a little nicer (did you not get some cider last night????)



He is not making assumptions. VP has gone into this often here. As regular posters will know.

I am not sure what u mean by being "schooled in lefty politics". If that means one reads and thinks a bit I think your phrase is somewhat dismissive.


----------



## boohoo (Jul 5, 2015)

.


----------



## boohoo (Jul 5, 2015)

.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 5, 2015)

boohoo said:


> I am interested in lefty politics but at times I am quite ignorant on various different things that people talk about on here - especially some of the heavy weight political stuff.  There are some very knowledgeable people on here and I am out of my depth!
> 
> I think if I followed VP around on the boards then I might have a better grip on his interests and what he is trying to say. and what he has said. But I only get a glimpse into his conversations because I don't read everything he writes.



VP posting style is the opposite of mine. However he cannot be accused of writing his posts using a lot of obscure marxist jargon. He is always to be point and readable. Dont see what the problem is to be honest.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 5, 2015)

boohoo said:


> You have to stop making the assumption that people who post on urban have been schooled in lefty politics and the ins and outs and of housing. Clearly state your case, explain, link to articles that examine the subject.
> 
> And be a little nicer (did you not get some cider last night????)


can you give that advice to the justifiers nit pickers too please?


----------



## boohoo (Jul 5, 2015)

.


----------



## boohoo (Jul 5, 2015)

.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 5, 2015)

boohoo said:


> you nit pick too - I've seen you.
> 
> I have said things to people on either sides  of the urban divide.


yes in response to the nit picking

not seen you tell Rushy, Spammy or others to be nice publicly, defend them yes


----------



## boohoo (Jul 5, 2015)

.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 5, 2015)

lol teehee, groan
you claimed you were fair and balanced and i questioned it


----------



## ddraig (Jul 5, 2015)

such larks the haves taking the piss out of the have nots! great game, so amusing


----------



## boohoo (Jul 5, 2015)

ddraig said:


> lol teehee, groan
> you claimed you were fair and balanced and i questioned it



And my answer is that I have said things to people on both sides. If it makes you feel better, I'll pm VP next time or any of the others. They are all welcome over to mine for a cup of tea.


----------



## boohoo (Jul 5, 2015)

.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 5, 2015)

boohoo said:


> But you are super brainy about various subjects. And what might be clear to you isn't always clear to others.



Now ur annoying me.


----------



## boohoo (Jul 5, 2015)

.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 5, 2015)

boohoo said:


> But you are super brainy about various subjects. And what might be clear to you isn't always clear to others.



I normally do what you told VP to do. Be polite and use links to back up posts.

So if one does that one is guilty of being "super brainy"?

This isn’t going well is it.


----------



## boohoo (Jul 5, 2015)

.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 5, 2015)

boohoo said:


> Do you want me too? Would that make you feel better?
> 
> teuchter SpamMisery Rushy  Behave or else I bore you about one of my interests!!


I'm a bit out of touch with this thread. What are you on about? What have I done this time?!!


----------



## boohoo (Jul 5, 2015)

.


----------



## boohoo (Jul 5, 2015)

Anyway - if someone who like to remove these time wasting posts off here, please do. I would prefer this thread to be focussed on the issue of Carlton Mansion.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 5, 2015)

boohoo said:


> Nothing at the mo. Ddriag wants me to tell off people fairly so I need to tell you off.  Hope that clears things up.


Oh. Ok. I consider myself well and truly chastised. I hope he/she feels better now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> He is not making assumptions. VP has gone into this often here. As regular posters will know.
> 
> I am not sure what u mean by being "schooled in lefty politics". If that means one reads and thinks a bit I think your phrase is somewhat dismissive.



I have to say, the "schooled in lefty politics" was quite hurtful, but not because it's dismissive - because I'm not a lefty: I'm an autonomist anarchist, and have very little time for "lefties"!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> VP posting style is the opposite of mine. However he  cannot be accused of writing his posts using a lot of obscure marxist jargon. He is always to be point and readable. Dont see what the problem is to be honest.



TBF, I don't believe it's even *possible* to convey much to do with modern politics in Marxist jargon (obscure or not) anymore. That'd be like trying to explain Marxism-informed political theory by referencing the language and thought of Ricardo or another dead white economist from the preceding generation to Marx!


----------



## CH1 (Jul 14, 2016)

According to Lambeth Heritage Festival booklet - which I was just given, then is a showing of a film called For What We are about to Lose Part one: Carlton Mansions at the Ritzy on 29th September at 6 pm
Price FREE
The booking sire however says sales finished (all taken presumably)
For What we are about to Lose

Anyone know anything about this?

Maybe if the Ritzy put it in Screen 5 and it is indeed booked out the festival organisers should consider another performance or a bigger venue?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 17, 2016)

CH1 said:


> According to Lambeth Heritage Festival booklet - which I was just given, then is a showing of a film called For What We are about to Lose Part one: Carlton Mansions at the Ritzy on 29th September at 6 pm
> Price FREE
> The booking sire however says sales finished (all taken presumably)
> For What we are about to Lose
> ...



I didn't know a date was set. I will ask the documentary film maker about this. 

The doc is being edited at the moment. I took part in it and persuaded other ex Coop members to take part. It has members from when the Coop was first set up. Also got permission to film in the Mansions. Did two days filming in Mansions. 

I wasn't keen at first. Neither were most of the ex Coop members. After how it ended didn't want to go over it. I was also concerned about media. 

It's Heritage lottery funded so major part is to have permanent oral history record. Which will be in the Archives. The film will use excerpts from the interviews. 

boohoo


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 17, 2016)

CH1 said:


> According to Lambeth Heritage Festival booklet - which I was just given, then is a showing of a film called For What We are about to Lose Part one: Carlton Mansions at the Ritzy on 29th September at 6 pm
> Price FREE
> The booking sire however says sales finished (all taken presumably)
> For What we are about to Lose
> ...



Ive emailed the documentary film maker about the showing and tickets. 

Personally I wanted to make sure the history of Short Life housing was recorded. These along with the Coop and my archives of S/L should make a comprehensive historical record. 

I wanted to make sure that how S/L worked to use buildings that would otherwise be left empty is recorded. 

Its still relevant now. Instead its private companies doing it now- "so called Guardians".  Making a profit out of it.


----------



## boohoo (Jul 17, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> I didn't know a date was set. I will ask the documentary film maker about this.
> 
> The doc is being edited at the moment. I took part in it and persuaded other ex Coop members to take part. It has members from when the Coop was first set up. Also got permission to film in the Mansions. Did two days filming in Mansions.
> 
> ...



I  was recently aware that it was going in the programme. And I was just about to email the film maker about making sure that we all get to see it before it is made public (this is really important as it took a lot to gain people's trust).

I am slightly concerned that this is quite a short period for any changes.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 18, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> I didn't know a date was set. I will ask the documentary film maker about this.
> boohoo


I think it's possible Eventbrite might now be taking bookings. Said 80 seats available just now on my portable device.
I will try again in the morning on the PC (so I can print a ticket - if available)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 18, 2016)

boohoo said:


> I  was recently aware that it was going in the programme. And I was just about to email the film maker about making sure that we all get to see it before it is made public (this is really important as it took a lot to gain people's trust).
> 
> I am slightly concerned that this is quite a short period for any changes.



TBF, digital editing means that changes that used to require a lot of mucking about with razors and splicers, take minutes.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 18, 2016)

CH1 said:


> I think it's possible Eventbrite might now be taking bookings. Said 80 seats available just now on my portable device.
> I will try again in the morning on the PC (so I can print a ticket - if available)



The problem was that the cut off date for booking had been set wrong. So it's been reset. 

It's free event. 

I have not seen the rough cut yet. 

It should be interesting as it was nearly all filmed in the Mansions. 

With people from the early days through to the end. 

Little of S/L has been recorded to this extent. 

There is also a lady from the pre Coop days who was there in the 1950s.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 18, 2016)

boohoo said:


> I  was recently aware that it was going in the programme. And I was just about to email the film maker about making sure that we all get to see it before it is made public (this is really important as it took a lot to gain people's trust).
> 
> I am slightly concerned that this is quite a short period for any changes.


I am as well. I was very wary of it. Still a bit concerned about final outcome. 

The really important bit was getting the oral history recorded. 

What interpretation a film maker will put on the source material is there personal one.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 20, 2016)

CH1 said:


> I think it's possible Eventbrite might now be taking bookings. Said 80 seats available just now on my portable device.
> I will try again in the morning on the PC (so I can print a ticket - if available)



Did you book a ticket? I have had a few people I know asking me about it and it looks like all the tickets are gone now.

Some of us ex Coop members are not happy (boohoo ) with the end result. Despite talks with the documentary film maker over past weeks she is not going to re edit any of it before the showing.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 22, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Did you book a ticket? I have had a few people I know asking me about it and it looks like all the tickets are gone now.
> 
> Some of us ex Coop members are not happy (boohoo ) with the end result. Despite talks with the documentary film maker over past weeks she is not going to re edit any of it before the showing.


I got a ticket OK - ordered back in July. So waiting to see what the end result actually is.


----------



## editor (Jan 23, 2017)

The building is shamefully still empty and haemorrhaging gallons of water every day into the street:






Lambeth’s shame: Carlton Mansions continues to rot away, over two years after its tenants were evicted


----------



## cuppa tee (Jan 23, 2017)

Lambeth don't give a shit


----------



## editor (Jan 23, 2017)

cuppa tee said:


> Lambeth don't give a shit


The water has been flowing out of the building for months and it's going to be dangerous when it freezes over. How can they not have noticed?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 23, 2017)

This is so sad.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jan 23, 2017)

editor said:


> The water has been flowing out of the building for months and it's going to be dangerous when it freezes over. How can they not have noticed?



noticing and doing something about it are not the same thing, I take no pleasure from saying it but I suspect this all points to demolition by stealth.


----------



## T & P (Jan 23, 2017)

If the water is coming from inside it does not bode well for the building...


----------



## editor (Jan 23, 2017)

T & P said:


> If the water is coming from inside it does not bode well for the building...


It may be the stop cock on the ground floor, but if it's anywhere upstairs, the building is going to be fucked. It's been going on for months and months too. They can't have not noticed it either as it's been creating a mini-river in the street for 50 metres or so and I've seen workmen around that area several times (but not attending to this).


----------



## sparkybird (Jan 23, 2017)

You can report a leak to Thames Water
Report a leak or burst pipe - Bursts and leaks - Thames Water

I realize that the leak might NOT be from the Thames Water side, but I guess reporting it might make them take a look?
I've reported several over the last 12 months and am pleasantly surpised at the speed they get fixed


----------



## teuchter (Jan 23, 2017)

Looks to me like the water is coming from the clearway between the building and the railway viaduct, rather than through the building. If the butchers(?) that occupy that railway arch have access to the bit at the back then surely they should be the first stop to find out where it's coming from.


----------



## madolesance (Jan 23, 2017)

sparkybird said:


> You can report a leak to Thames Water
> Report a leak or burst pipe - Bursts and leaks - Thames Water
> 
> I realize that the leak might NOT be from the Thames Water side, but I guess reporting it might make them take a look?
> I've reported several over the last 12 months and am pleasantly surpised at the speed they get fixed



Worth reporting.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 23, 2017)

The water is coming from Carlton Mansions. I had a look through the gates.

I did offer to help the Council keep an eye on the Mansions after we left and it was empty. I know the building. Elements in the Council didn't want me anywhere near the Mansions once they had got vacant possession. Neil Vokes was keen- he was lead officer then. But it was not up to him.

The leak is coming from the building so is not responsibility of Thames Water.

I am concerned for the building. The longer it's left empty and not looked after the more it will deteriorate.


----------



## madolesance (Jan 23, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> The water is coming from Carlton Mansions. I had a look through the gates.
> 
> I did offer to help the Council keep an eye on the Mansions after we left and it was empty. I know the building. Elements in the Council didn't want me anywhere near the Mansions once they had got vacant possession. Neil Vokes was keen- he was lead officer then. But it was not up to him.
> 
> ...



You mention 'it's not the responsibility of Thames Water', but it is as no one is paying for the supply. They have the means to turn of the supply off as it's no longer needed, as the building is no longer occupied.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 24, 2017)

Has anyone rung Thames Water this morning?


----------



## editor (Jan 24, 2017)

Thimble Queen said:


> Has anyone rung Thames Water this morning?


I've already reported it (at least tried to - their site is shit), and sent photos although I really fucking resented having to add all my own personal details on their form. Of course it shouldn't be members of the public having to do this: Lambeth are supposed to be looking after this building. The Nuclear Dawn mural is falling to pieces and unprotected, water is running out of the place for months and people could have still been living there for the last 2 and a half years.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 24, 2017)

editor said:


> I've already reported it (at least tried to - their site is shit), and sent photos although I really fucking resented having to add all my own personal details on their form. Of course it shouldn't be members of the public having to do this: Lambeth are supposed to be looking after this building. The Nuclear Dawn mural is falling to pieces and unprotected, water is running out of the place for months and people could have still been living there for the last 2 and a half years.



Since is still going on, might be worth lots of people doing this and reporting it to the council as well. Would it come under environmental health?


----------



## editor (Jan 24, 2017)

Thimble Queen said:


> Since is still going on, might be worth lots of people doing this and reporting it to the council as well. Would it come under environmental health?


If all their workers and management have somehow managed to miss the water pouring down the road every day, I'm pretty sure some they would have seen the piece on Buzz by now. Quite a few members of our beloved council are avid readers.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 24, 2017)

editor said:


> If all their workers and management have somehow managed to miss the water pouring down the road every day, I'm pretty sure some they would have seen the piece on Buzz by now. Quite a few members of our beloved council are avid readers.



I'm not suggesting that they've missed it. However, if people put pressure on something might be done.


----------



## editor (Jan 24, 2017)

Thimble Queen said:


> I'm not suggesting that they've missed it. However, if people put pressure on something might be done.


Well, I've done my bit.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 24, 2017)

.


----------



## Rushy (Jan 24, 2017)

Thimble Queen said:


> Has anyone rung Thames Water this morning?


You can actually just tweet them. I've done this a couple of times in response to big leaks and both times they responded very quickly.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 24, 2017)

Rushy said:


> You can actually just tweet them. I've done this a couple of times in response to big leaks and both times they responded very quickly.



Thanks. I'll do that. I'm not in the country so ringing them up isn't feasible for me.


----------



## sparkybird (Jan 24, 2017)

Based on the picture editor posted,  I've just repoerted it using the online form.


----------



## sparkybird (Jan 24, 2017)

I think last time I reported one, I got a text to tell me it was fixed!


----------



## Rushy (Jan 24, 2017)

They were really good at tweeting updates regarding repairs to the ruptured mains on Brixton Road last weekend. I knew a few people who had no water as a result.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 24, 2017)

sparkybird said:


> Based on the picture editor posted,  I've just repoerted it using the online form.



I've tweeted them with the picture. Its was a good idea to use the picture to illustrate the problem


----------



## editor (Jan 24, 2017)

Thimble Queen said:


> I've tweeted them with the picture. Its was a good idea to use the picture to illustrate the problem


I sent them pictures with my original mail so I guess they'll be seeing a lot of them now


----------



## teuchter (Jan 24, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> The water is coming from Carlton Mansions. I had a look through the gates.



I had a look through earlier. It looks like it's rising out of the ground near the bottom of one of the downpipes/stacks, but outside the wall of the building itself.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Jan 24, 2017)

Not good.

I have asked our current project manager who should look into this and get it sorted.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Jan 24, 2017)

The project manager has replied.

LBL have looked into this - not fully resolved (as the ongoing water shows, obv) - but LBL are treating it as a priority and following it up with Thames Water. I don't know more details than that at the moment.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 24, 2017)

teuchter said:


> I had a look through earlier. It looks like it's rising out of the ground near the bottom of one of the downpipes/stacks, but outside the wall of the building itself.




Yes that's what I saw.

In the alleyway there are four rising mains. Each has a stopcock in alleyway. Either the pipe has burst further up or the stop cock has failed outside. I did try to explain to Council on last day were the stopcocks were but they they didn't listen. To full of themselves at having got there building back. We did put extra stopcocks on inside as the ones in alleyway were so old they didn't work that well.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 24, 2017)

Thames Water have said they are working with 'the owner' to resolve it and that it's a private matter. I asked why they can turn the supply off. They've said it's Lambeth's responsibility to sort it out. Lambeth have said they are looking in to it urgently


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Jan 24, 2017)

Thanks for the stopcock info Gramsci - I'll pass that on if it hasn't already been noted.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 25, 2017)

Is the water still flowing today?


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Jan 25, 2017)

Thimble Queen said:


> Is the water still flowing today?


If no one has an update on this before I leave work later this evening I'll stop and check on my way home.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Jan 25, 2017)

Thimble Queen said:


> Is the water still flowing today?



It was when I walked past at around noon.


----------



## editor (Jan 25, 2017)

It's still flowing freely now. If anything, there seems to be more water coming out now.


----------



## T & P (Jan 25, 2017)

As well as the likely damage being caused to the building and the shameful waste of water, I'd imagine on very cold nights like this passers-by might get a surprise free ice skating experience if the water is reaching the pavement.


----------



## editor (Jan 25, 2017)

T & P said:


> As well as the likely damage being caused to the building and the shameful waste of water, I'd imagine on very cold nights like this passers-by might get a surprise free ice skating experience if the water is reaching the pavement.


I'm not surprised that a team of no-win no-fee accident lawyers haven't set up camp there. The water was still flowing at 8pm, with the puddle stretching all the way to Somerleyton Road. The water goes right across the pavement so it's going to be particularly dangerous when the temperature goes below 0.


----------



## CH1 (Jan 25, 2017)

editor said:


> I'm not surprised that a team of no-win no-fee accident lawyers haven't set up camp there. The water was still flowing at 8pm, with the puddle stretching all the way to Somerleyton Road. The water goes right across the pavement so it's going to be particularly dangerous when the temperature goes below 0.


I reported a leak on Barrington Road/corner with CHL yesterday.
Someone had already reported it on Monday, according to the phonebank person - who also said it had been allocated to be attended to in 24 hours.
This evening its getting to be a bit of a gusher, and no sign of Thames Water or their contractors.

I'm not surprised nothing is happening at the mansions. Thames Water are not as expedient as some think - unless there is a sewer collapse or a sink hole perhaps!


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 25, 2017)

I've contacted the council and thames water again... not holding my breath.


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2017)

Still flowing last night at 2am. I nearly slipped on the icy edges as I passed.
I've had a bit of a rant: Lambeth fails to fix the dangerous water leak from Carlton Mansions, as the pavement ices over


----------



## CH1 (Jan 27, 2017)

editor said:


> Still flowing last night at 2am. I nearly slipped on the icy edges as I passed.
> I've had a bit of a rant: Lambeth fails to fix the dangerous water leak from Carlton Mansions, as the pavement ices over


Maybe you could Tweet your rant to TW? Might possibly disturb their turpitude.

Would not guarantee a result. I tweeted to St Pauls Cathedral complaining they were in effect charging £8 to view the AIDS  quilt on World Aids day. They immediately tweeted back saying they were looking at how to get round the charge. As far as I know they are still looking.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Jan 27, 2017)

OK, I have been in touch with a member of the Somerleyton Project team again - LBL are awaiting a thorough investigation by Thames Water.
Also the development company (Igloo) have been alerted, and they are not currently concerned that this is a long term risk to the Mansions. (which is not to say it doesn't want sorting, of course).

There is water coming out of the ground all over the place. Leander Rd this week / last week, too.


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2017)

OvalhouseDB said:


> Also the development company (Igloo) have been alerted, and they are not currently concerned that this is a long term risk to the Mansions.


Have they inspected it then?

I would have thought that three months of flowing water around a structure can't be something to be ignored. It's dangerous for the public too.

As Gramsci  has suggested, surely going in and just fixing the stopcock is a task that Lambeth could do themselves in minutes.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Jan 27, 2017)

I don't know what degree of inspection they have carried out. I have passed  on the stopcock info.... but I don't know if that had already been tried.

Will keep reporting / asking.


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2017)

OvalhouseDB said:


> I don't know what degree of inspection they have carried out. I have passed  on the stopcock info.... but I don't know if that had already been tried.


it just seems a weird thing for them to say when there's been water flowing out of the building for three months. Do you know if they carry out regular checks of the building? Would seem very odd if they didn't given that it's been empty for so long.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Jan 27, 2017)

To be perfectly truthful,  I am not quite sure who has responsibility for the actual building at the moment - whether it is Property, or whatever. There was a period where lots of people were going into the Mansions regularly - surveys etc - but at the moment I don't know if maintenance checks are being done, or who by. But the project team alerted the development company.


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2017)

OvalhouseDB said:


> To be perfectly truthful,  I am not quite sure who has responsibility for the actual building at the moment - whether it is Property, or whatever. There was a period where lots of people were going into the Mansions regularly - surveys etc - but at the moment I don't know if maintenance checks are being done, or who by. But the project team alerted the development company.


It does seem a bit of a fuck up. It's an old building which - according to Lambeth - was needed so urgently that all its occupants had to be evicted, yet over two years later the place is still vacant, no one seems to be taking care of the building and no one can be arsed to fix a fairly substantial water leak.

The evictions led to this problem going unfixed and it royally pisses me off that no one seems prepared to look after the place. And then there's the mural slowly rotting away....


----------



## madolesance (Jan 29, 2017)

Got this response from Thames Water- 

'Hello, it's Debbie from the Planning Team. Following our technician's attendance we have determined a repair is required. We will be planning in a date for these works and I will contact you again once this has been confirmed. If you wish to provide any additional information in the meantime, please call 08000093960 and quote ref: 30844737'.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Jan 29, 2017)

Different responses depending on who you talk to at Thames Water, it seems. Last week, they said that it's a leak due to a problem with the supply pipe and this is the owners responsibility to fix. Lambeth then said they were looking into it urgently. It's a bloody joke.


----------



## sparkybird (Jan 29, 2017)

I know, but our pester power seems to have made things get moving!


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2017)

...and still the 'Carlton River' runs down Coldharbour Lane.


----------



## organicpanda (Feb 7, 2017)

as of midday today the river was still flowing, have reported it to Thames water (just to add to the chorus) and sent an email to Matt Parr. Hopefully they will get bored and stop passing it from one department to another


----------



## organicpanda (Feb 8, 2017)

email back from Matt Parr saying that Helen Hayes is due to have a meeting with Thames water, do M.P's still install the fear of God into businesses like they used to?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 11, 2017)

organicpanda said:


> email back from Matt Parr saying that Helen Hayes is due to have a meeting with Thames water, do M.P's still install the fear of God into businesses like they used to?



Nope, they usually bend over for them nowadays.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 12, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope, they usually bend over for them nowadays.


According to one of the spin-offs of the Daily Mail - link below- Thames Water was controlled by McQuarie -an Australian bank/infrastructure company notorious for asset stripping.
Vampire Kangaroo bank Macquarie to offload Thames Water stake | This is Money

1. Do you know if they managed sell Thames Water off? (there is no reference on Googling)

2. How sad and pathetic that the so-called privatisation of the water industry by Mrs Thatcher (of an asset which was actually already publicly owned - like Abbey National, Bradford and Bingley and many others) has merely facilitated it being taken over by foreign asset strippers (cf Santander!!)


----------



## editor (Feb 12, 2017)

Four fucking months that water has been flowing.


----------



## editor (Feb 12, 2017)

It's a bit of an angry rant. Sorry. 







FFS Lambeth. Fix the water leak from Carlton Mansions. It’s been FOUR months now


----------



## sparkybird (Feb 13, 2017)

Drove past today and this reminded me to report it again - which I've done.
One the interactive map there is work showing on Coldharbour Lane (in fact work was being carried out today). I guess it's possible this is linked?
At the exact spot of Carlton Mansions, there is a symbol on the map of a house! Have no idea what this means as it's not in the key.....


----------



## editor (Feb 13, 2017)

sparkybird said:


> Drove past today and this reminded me to report it again - which I've done.
> One the interactive map there is work showing on Coldharbour Lane (in fact work was being carried out today). I guess it's possible this is linked?


No, that's for a water leak further up the road.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 13, 2017)

sparkybird said:


> Drove past today and this reminded me to report it again - which I've done.
> One the interactive map there is work showing on Coldharbour Lane (in fact work was being carried out today). I guess it's possible this is linked?
> At the exact spot of Carlton Mansions, there is a symbol on the map of a house! Have no idea what this means as it's not in the key.....


I think the little house just shows the location of whatever you used for your search.


----------



## sparkybird (Feb 13, 2017)

teuchter said:


> I think the little house just shows the location of whatever you used for your search.



Oops, SM there...


----------



## sparkybird (Feb 14, 2017)

Had a text today from 'Debra' of Thames Water's planning team, telling me that she's going to be my case manager. Apparently she will call me and update me after a technician has attended...
Watch this space....


----------



## editor (Feb 14, 2017)

sparkybird said:


> Had a text today from 'Debra' of Thames Water's planning team, telling me that she's going to be my case manager. Apparently she will call me and update me after a technician has attended...
> Watch this space....


----------



## Rushy (Feb 14, 2017)

There seems to be water popping up all over the place at the moment. A veritable fountain on CHL outside the Prince of Wales earlier!


----------



## editor (Feb 14, 2017)

I wonder what volume of water has leaked out of Carlton Mansions by now. It must be in the thousands, if not tens of thousands of gallons.


----------



## newbie (Feb 14, 2017)

editor said:


>



try this version


----------



## newbie (Feb 14, 2017)

one more, just because


----------



## discobastard (Feb 17, 2017)

editor said:


> I wonder what volume of water has leaked out of Carlton Mansions by now. It must be in the thousands, if not tens of thousands of gallons.


In a lot of cases, fixing a leak is more expensive than the value of the water being lost, even if it runs into the thousands of gallons. And the drinkable water is not wasted because it ends up back in the system anyway. The cost is to re-sterilise it. 

So, people make noise about leaks because they are very visible and symbolic. (Lots of leaks occur underground and where they can't be seen). 

The private sector inherited a nationalised water infrastructure that had seen woeful underinvestment and in Londons case have replaced and repaired thousands of miles worth of pipes. In fact they have reduced leakage far beyond the economic benefit of doing so. 

And it may be that they have lost literally tens of thousands of gallons from the Carlton leak, but that is actually fuck all in the grand scheme of how much water that is made drinkable and pumped out through London (and don't forget they take all the shit away too). On a fucking MASSIVE scale. So I can see why this leak isn't really a huge priority. 

That said I don't condone them doing nothing and the health and safety aspect when it freezes isn't great. But you need to have some perspective on this.  People look at little leaks in front of them rather than the colossal job that Thames Water does for let's face it, about £1 per household per day. I think that's pretty good.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Feb 17, 2017)

discobastard said:


> In a lot of cases, fixing a leak is more expensive than the value of the water being lost, even if it runs into the thousands of gallons. And the drinkable water is not wasted because it ends up back in the system anyway. The cost is to re-sterilise it.
> 
> So, people make noise about leaks because they are very visible. (Lots of leaks occur underground and where they can't be seen).
> 
> ...


does it cause damage to other structures? 

ps do you work for Thames Water PR?


----------



## editor (Feb 21, 2017)

Pleased to report that the Great Carlton River is being put under some control. The Fire Brigade had been called for what was rather wildly described as a "burst water main."

I was chatting to them and explained that the water had been flowing freely for four months. They decided to take a look so broke the lock on the gate and discovered that the water was coming up at ground level right next to the brickwork, so they weren't sure if it was coming from below or higher up in the building. The thought that either way it might have caused some damage to the building. 

As I left they were sandbagging the leak so the waste water will now go into a drain rather than along Coldharbour Lane.


----------



## boohoo (Feb 21, 2017)

editor said:


> As I left they were sandbagging the leak so the waste water will now go into a drain rather than along Coldharbour Lane.



back to feed the river Effra (which would have crossed Coldharbour lane a little further down the way)


----------



## T & P (Feb 21, 2017)

editor said:


> Pleased to report that the Great Carlton River is being put under some control. The Fire Brigade had been called for what was rather wildly described as a "burst water main."
> 
> I was chatting to them and explained that the water had been flowing freely for four months. They decided to take a look so broke the lock on the gate and discovered that the water was coming up at ground level right next to the brickwork, so they weren't sure if it was coming from below or higher up in the building. The thought that either way it might have caused some damage to the building.
> 
> As I left they were sandbagging the leak so the waste water will now go into a drain rather than along Coldharbour Lane.


This whole saga almost wants one to just call the police and report seeing someone burying a body under the floor in the house, so they come in, dig the place up and cause the owner/ council/ Thames Water to tidy up afterwards and have to fix the leak in the process.


----------



## cuppa tee (Feb 21, 2017)

T & P said:


> This whole saga almost wants one to just call the police and report seeing someone burying a body under the floor in the house, so they come in, dig the place up and cause the owner/ council/ Thames Water to tidy up afterwards and have to fix the leak in the process.


probably not a great idea considering what happened to the Rastafarian temple on St Agnes place....


----------



## editor (Feb 22, 2017)

Should any squatters be interested, the side gate at Carlton Mansions is very much open. It's fucking criminal that the building has been left empty for over 2 years.


----------



## boohoo (Feb 22, 2017)

editor said:


> Should any squatters be interested, the side gate at Carlton Mansions is very much open. It's fucking criminal that the building has been left empty for over 2 years.



I think most of the flats have part of the ceiling taken down making them incredibly dusty.


----------



## editor (Feb 22, 2017)

boohoo said:


> I think most of the flats have part of the ceiling taken down making them incredibly dusty.


Desperate people can take a bit of dust.


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2017)

I took a look around












Carlton Mansions water leak gets bodged up as Lambeth continue to ignore the problem


----------



## CH1 (Feb 23, 2017)

editor said:


> I took a look around
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Surely if this goes on there is the danger that it will go the way of the Walton Lodge Laundry or Eurolink Centre. In other words there may be pressure to demolish the building, but retain the facade. 

Anyone heard any more about Somerleyton Road (apart from Brixton Green consultation meetings)? They had a time line for development once. They must be about 3 years behind by now.

Why?


----------



## boohoo (Feb 23, 2017)

editor said:


> Desperate people can take a bit of dust.



In several of the flats, it's not a tiny amount of dust (I thought I might have done myself some damage having spent a small amount of time in one of the flats).


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2017)

CH1 said:


> Surely if this goes on there is the danger that it will go the way of the Walton Lodge Laundry or Eurolink Centre. In other words there may be pressure to demolish the building, but retain the facade.
> 
> Anyone heard any more about Somerleyton Road (apart from Brixton Green consultation meetings)? They had a time line for development once. They must be about 3 years behind by now.
> 
> Why?


Because Brixton Green probably. Worst self styled 'community group' ever.


----------



## snowy_again (Feb 23, 2017)

here's your chance:

AGM Brixton Green Thursday 6.30pm Pop Brixton


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2017)

snowy_again said:


> here's your chance:
> 
> AGM Brixton Green Thursday 6.30pm Pop Brixton


I'm not a shareholder and I won't attend any event advertised with such a hideous typeface.



> Exemption of Brixton Green from an external audit:
> Industrial provident societies are allowed to opt out of an audit if their turnover is below £90,000 and their members agree. The audit would cost approx £2,000 and is deemed unnecessary by the FCA. Click here for more details.


----------



## snowy_again (Feb 23, 2017)

Well firstly, that's the hyper local Effra blog's website, so nothing to do with BG, but I'm sure you know that. 

The EA stuff is common nowadays - the level of scrutiny / independent examination for smaller orgs is being lowered.


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2017)

snowy_again said:


> Well firstly, that's the hyper local Effra blog's website, so nothing to do with BG, but I'm sure you know that.
> 
> The EA stuff is common nowadays - the level of scrutiny / independent examination for smaller orgs is being lowered.


Thing is, to have any say with Brixton Green you have to buy one of their shares - and doing so gifts them the opportunity to go around claiming that they have 1,000 members _who support whatever their latest scheme is_. I've seen them make this claim, despite the fact that they have no justification whatsoever for assuming that every member supports their ever shifting agenda.


----------



## snowy_again (Feb 23, 2017)

Yup, I can understand those concerns. 

Proposed elected officials are:

Brixton Green Election 2017 | Brixton Green


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2017)

snowy_again said:


> Yup, I can understand those concerns.
> 
> Proposed elected officials are:
> 
> Brixton Green Election 2017 | Brixton Green


This one sounds thoroughly brainwashed:


> I welcome Brixton Green and want to see it thrive, as I think it’s members, ideas and workers are one of the best chances to fixing the housing crisis.
> 
> The crisis in London has reached a severe level and something must be done. I see Brixton Green’s vision as a credible and sustainable way forward and that is why I was keen to get involved. I also believe that those who are politically active can best serve the community by working with local partners and people.


Brad's definitely going to fix the housing crisis


----------



## CH1 (Feb 23, 2017)

snowy_again said:


> here's your chance:
> 
> AGM Brixton Green Thursday 6.30pm Pop Brixton


I got an email today about that.

The annual report is a bit weird isn't it?
The scanning on the P & L seems faulty, and the companies assets appear to be over £10,000 negative.
And they are seeking permission from the members not to appoint an auditor (as not legally required they say).

There really isn't enough information there for a company auditor to say this is a going concern.

Still if they had community and council backing there might be scope for a revival.

My doubt is actually about the council. I think since the departure of Neil Vokes to Estate Regeneration the council have taken their eye off the ball - and as Brixton Green are riding on the council's coat tails they are currently up the creek without a paddle.


----------



## sparkybird (Feb 25, 2017)

Re the leak. I called TW yesterday to see how things were progressing as they had given me a reference number. Apparently they have established that the leak is on the customer side and it has been passed over to another team. I was given a new number to call and a reference, but after being on hold for 10 mins gave up.


----------



## T & P (Feb 25, 2017)

sparkybird said:


> Re the leak. I called TW yesterday to see how things were progressing as they had given me a reference number. Apparently they have established that the leak is on the customer side and it has been passed over to another team. I was given a new number to call and a reference, but after being on hold for 10 mins gave up.


In other words, nothing likely to happen for another six months at the least.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Mar 1, 2017)

I have been in touch with one of the Lambeth project team who have actually been dealing with this. They have a clear communication trail with Thames Water from since before Christmas, and have been down on site with the TW technical officer in early January, but LBL are still no nearer knowing when TW will be able to do the work.  'It's in the pipeline' doesn't seem quite the right expression....


----------



## editor (Mar 1, 2017)

OvalhouseDB said:


> I have been in touch with one of the Lambeth project team who have actually been dealing with this. They have a clear communication trail with Thames Water from since before Christmas, and have been down on site with the TW technical officer in early January, but LBL are still no nearer knowing when TW will be able to do the work.  'It's in the pipeline' doesn't seem quite the right expression....


Perhaps they'll be happy when the building gets condemned from five months relentless water damage. Then they won't have to bother ensuring that sightlines have to be established for that troublesome mural, and they can put up whatever suits them best.

If they were on the site in January as they claimed, why didn't they do what the fire brigade staff did and just stick a couple of sandbags to stop the water flow going into the street? It's all bullshit or laziness or incompetence. Or all three.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 1, 2017)

editor said:


> Perhaps they'll be happy when the building gets condemned and they can put up whatever suits them best.


This policy is know (in the OED) as "benign neglect".

In the NHS they call it "watchful waiting"


----------



## nick (Mar 2, 2017)

It's a slightly less aggressive tactic than the northern tradition of unwanted, but protected, structures "going on fire"


----------



## T & P (Mar 2, 2017)

nick said:


> It's a slightly less aggressive tactic that the northern tradition of unwanted, but protected, structures "going on fire"


Oh it happens down South as well. See the West Pier in Brighton.


----------



## boohoo (Mar 2, 2017)

See this thread:

The Destruction of Empty Buildings Betting Game

Although it would be interesting if Carlton Mansions went up in flame - it was meant to be a fire hazard!!


----------



## editor (Mar 2, 2017)

boohoo said:


> See this thread:
> 
> The Destruction of Empty Buildings Betting Game
> 
> Although it would be interesting if Carlton Mansions went up in flame - it was meant to be a fire hazard!!


Given that the West Pier managed to go up in flames when it was physically disconnected from the mainland and had no electricity supply, don't rule anything out here!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2017)

nick said:


> It's a slightly less aggressive tactic than the northern tradition of unwanted, but protected, structures "going on fire"



Not just a northern tradition, sadly.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 3, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not just a northern tradition, sadly.


Didn't Dennis Wheatley's old house in Christchurch Road go up in flames - to make way for a bijou development of little boxes?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2017)

CH1 said:


> Didn't Dennis Wheatley's old house in Christchurch Road go up in flames - to make way for a bijou development of little boxes?



Yup.


----------



## editor (Apr 4, 2017)

This has just opened: 






For What We Are About To Lose – Clapham Film Unit hosts an exhibition on Carlton Mansions at Brixton Tate Library this month


----------



## editor (Apr 4, 2017)

Video:


----------



## CH1 (May 12, 2017)

Afraid I missed the exhibition last month, though I did see the Clapham Film unit film last year.

The "book of the film" is still available free upstairs in the Brixton Library. Although not indexed "for what we are about to lose" is about 50 printed pages - mainly reminiscences of former Carlton Mansions residents and a bit about the barrier block.


----------



## Gramsci (May 22, 2017)

The water feature was back on weekend.


----------



## Gramsci (May 22, 2017)




----------



## Gramsci (May 22, 2017)




----------



## editor (May 25, 2017)

I'll post something on Buzz tomorrow as it's still flowing.


----------



## T & P (May 25, 2017)

I went past the building about 10 days ago and although there was a hint of dampness on the road, there was definitely no flowing water at all. I therefore assumed they had recently fixed it. Clearly not.

Is it a case of them (whoever 'them' might be) not doing a very good job of the fix, or that nobody has done anything at all and the leak simply fluctuates? If the latter, I can't think what could cause a leak go increase and decrease by itself. Either way, completely unacceptable situation.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 19, 2017)

I expect people will be reassured, that despite leaks and a £8.6 million fine (the maximum permitted)  for not fixing the leaks, the Chief executive of Thames Water managed to secure a £2.1 million pay package.

Not only that - but the joint owners of the business paid themselves a £100 million dividend last year. [The Evening Standard candidly says they "took £100 million out of the business"] (14th June 17 ES)


----------



## organicpanda (Jun 19, 2017)

and the leak is back


----------



## editor (Jun 19, 2017)

organicpanda said:


> and the leak is back


It has been for several weeks.


----------



## Bruce Emery (Jul 20, 2017)

I've been on to Thames water since October and now Lambeth too since may they now blame the other ,I had no idea of this site and that so many people had reported it 10 months of water spewing on to the street it's disgusting the waste , all the time I've spent with phone calls and have been fobbed off with promised repair dates


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 20, 2017)

Hi Bruce Emery 
I've not been down that way for ages. Is the leak still there? Last 2 times I reported it to Thames water, I got messages back after a week or so to say it had been fixed.
If that's not the case, I'll report and follow up again
Thanks
SB


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2017)

sparkybird said:


> Hi Bruce Emery
> I've not been down that way for ages. Is the leak still there? Last 2 times I reported it to Thames water, I got messages back after a week or so to say it had been fixed.
> If that's not the case, I'll report and follow up again
> Thanks
> SB


Yep, it's still there.


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 20, 2017)

thanks, I'll report it AGAIN!


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2017)

I just passed now and although the big puddle alongside the road was there, I didn't notice any water coming out. Will double check on my return!


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 20, 2017)

Cool thanks. Would be appreciated. I reported it as a puddle, which I guess could just be the rain!!


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 1, 2017)

Please join us at Lambeth Archives on Thursday 10th August at 18.00 for the opening of an installation by Alex Talbott.


Alex has been working at Lambeth Archives for the last three months with the recently-deposited archive of the Carlton Mansions Short-Life Housing Coop as part of her collaborative MA dissertation. Part of this work has been to create an installation around the process of cataloguing the collection.


I've been talking to Alexandra on this. She has done a really good job on cataloguing. The exhibition looks very interesting. It's partly about the philosophy behind archiving. Will be in for a while.


----------



## editor (Dec 14, 2017)

I liked this 







A poet leaves his mark on Carlton Mansions, Coldharbour Lane, Brixton


----------



## CH1 (Jan 29, 2018)

There was a Lambeth Council van clearing stuff out the side between the block and the arches this morning.

More importantly I noticed a huge hole in one of the windows (2nd floor). Facade looking in a sorry state now. Didn't have camera.


----------



## GarveyLives (Jan 29, 2018)

> I've been on to *Thames water* since October and now Lambeth too since may they now blame the other ,I had no idea of this site and that so many people had reported it 10 months of water spewing on to the street it's disgusting the waste , all the time I've spent with phone calls and *have been fobbed off with promised repair dates*


Go straight to the top:

steve.robertson@thameswater.co.uk


----------



## editor (Jan 29, 2018)

The place looks like a total shithole now.


----------



## blossie33 (Jan 30, 2018)

Very sad


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Feb 5, 2018)

First floor window temporarily patched up...


----------



## editor (Feb 5, 2018)

It surely can't be long before someone starts seeding the idea that perhaps the building is so damaged it will work out cheaper to flatten the place. 

It's clear it's not being cared for and no one in charge of the building gives much of a fuck it it goes or not.


----------



## editor (Mar 26, 2018)

Work is apparently starting soon. Finally. 

Work begins on Brixton’s Ovalhouse Theatre and Carlton Mansions workspace


----------



## CH1 (Mar 26, 2018)

editor said:


> Work is apparently starting soon. Finally. Work begins on Brixton’s Ovalhouse Theatre and Carlton Mansions workspace


There seemed to be a guided tour outside the Mansions this afternoon - was this connected to the above?


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Mar 28, 2018)

CH1 said:


> There seemed to be a guided tour outside the Mansions this afternoon - was this connected to the above?


No, nothing to do with us - unless it was a contractors site visit of some sort, but I think you'd be able to tell. 
The work has largely been 'enabling works' - dealing with services, clearing asbestos that was in small amounts in parts of the Mansions,preserving timbers, surveying, etc. Additionally the Lambeth team have been liaising with the people who were living in abandoned cars in the car park and have found accommodation for them. It will still be at the end of the summer before we see excavation start for the foundations for the theatre building. It is great having the contractors on board though. Still busy at the Oval - we have loads of Lambeth schools in for Random Selfies, our show for 7-13 year olds that was written based on work with kids from Reay school. See the BSL trailer - by top interpreter  Streatham-Based Jacqui Beckford Random Selfies | Ovalhouse . Followed by Coconut Coconut | Ovalhouse and Whatever Happened to Vandal Raptor Whatever Happened to Vandal Raptor | Ovalhouse


----------



## editor (Mar 28, 2018)

OvalhouseDB said:


> No, nothing to do with us - unless it was a contractors site visit of some sort, but I think you'd be able to tell.
> The work has largely been 'enabling works' - dealing with services, clearing asbestos that was in small amounts in parts of the Mansions,preserving timbers, surveying, etc. Additionally the Lambeth team have been liaising with the people who were living in abandoned cars in the car park and have found accommodation for them. It will still be at the end of the summer before we see excavation start for the foundations for the theatre building. It is great having the contractors on board though. Still busy at the Oval - we have loads of Lambeth schools in for Random Selfies, our show for 7-13 year olds that was written based on work with kids from Reay school. See the BSL trailer - by top interpreter  Streatham-Based Jacqui Beckford Random Selfies | Ovalhouse . Followed by Coconut Coconut | Ovalhouse and Whatever Happened to Vandal Raptor Whatever Happened to Vandal Raptor | Ovalhouse


It was pleasing to see a compete absence of the words 'Brixton Green' in that last press release, by the way


----------



## editor (Apr 25, 2018)

The battle with the wanker taggers continues. If the had any balls they'd be sticking their 'art' on the huge canvas hoardings provided by multi millionaires Lexadon opposite rather than spraying all over a cultural icon


----------



## CH1 (Apr 26, 2018)

editor said:


> The battle with the wanker taggers continues. If the had any balls they'd be sticking their 'art' on the huge canvas hoardings provided by multi millionaires Lexadon opposite rather than spraying all over a cultural icon
> View attachment 133647


I know you will probably have apoplexy, but IMHO if Lexadon had taken over Carlton Mansions it might well have been fully occupied with mural intact instead of suffering years of council neglect and dilapidation.


----------



## editor (Apr 26, 2018)

CH1 said:


> I know you will probably have apoplexy, but IMHO if Lexadon had taken over Carlton Mansions it might well have been fully occupied with mural intact instead of suffering years of council neglect and dilapidation.


It would also have zero social housing, the absolutely bare minimum of (guffaw) affordable homes, ad come with some hideous mansard roof on the top to generate even more revenue for the greedy pockets of Mr "I give nothing back to Brixton" Knight & Co.

I'm sure there's no end of more socially minded charities/developers who could do a far better, more community-minded job.

Mind you, he's been working on the old laundry down the road for years now.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 26, 2018)

editor said:


> Mind you, he's been working on the old laundry down the road for years now.


Have you seen inside? Looks like he's creating nuclear bunker in there.


----------



## editor (Apr 26, 2018)

CH1 said:


> Have you seen inside? Looks like he's creating nuclear bunker in there.


I've seen it as I've passed by and it looks like's mining for coal or something. I hope this latest non-affordable housing venture of his proves to be a total financial disaster.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 30, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> View attachment 107420


Just to note


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2018)

Saw this yesterday but the crane thing was gone today. Were they checking the artwork or the building?


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Jul 27, 2018)

editor said:


> Saw this yesterday but the crane thing was gone today. Were they checking the artwork or the building?
> 
> View attachment 141659



They were checking the condition of the wall, render and artwork. And although I have not read the detailed report yet, the condition of the render is much better than was thought / feared. I have spoken with the artist and with Lambeth and the plan is to re-paint the mural during the refurbishment, once all the structural work has been done. I can't give a detailed timescale for that at the moment, but the current ambition is to get started on the refurb this autumn.


----------



## editor (Nov 29, 2018)

So some squatters managed to get in recently. Good. The real crime is keeping that building empty.


----------



## editor (Dec 6, 2018)

I see it's all fenced off now. Anyone know what is happening?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 18, 2018)

I see a load of trees have now been cut down on the site.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 18, 2018)

All the big trees next to Carlton Mansions (by Somerleyton Road) have just been cut down


----------



## teuchter (Dec 18, 2018)

Crispy said:


> All the big trees next to Carlton Mansions (by Somerleyton Road) have just been cut down


Ah. Such threads are not made visible to those of us living under the forced-ignore regime.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 27, 2020)

A friend is currently making a scale model of Carlton Mansions:


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 27, 2020)

Fozzie Bear said:


> A friend is currently making a scale model of Carlton Mansions:




That is amazing.

He has got a lot of accurate detail. 

The doorbells. And good to see the original barber.


----------



## editor (Dec 28, 2020)

Fozzie Bear said:


> A friend is currently making a scale model of Carlton Mansions:



Have you got a contact email? I'd love to feature this on Buzz.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 28, 2020)

editor said:


> Have you got a contact email? I'd love to feature this on Buzz.



Will DM.


----------



## editor (Dec 30, 2020)

More about that wonderful model









						Brixton’s Carlton Mansions housing co-op remembered in video and wonderful scale model
					

Nigel Ayers has created a wonderful scale model of the legendary Carlton Mansions housing co-op in Brixton, and added a fascinating video retelling the building’s history.



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## editor (Apr 8, 2021)

The wraps are coming off the building


----------



## Leighsw2 (Apr 8, 2021)

Damn, I was down there a couple of hours ago and forgot to take a look. Pleased it's finally coming back into the open.


----------

