# Tell me about BrixtonGreen - a "community led development" on Somerleyton Road



## editor (Mar 25, 2011)

I'm seeing more flyers and posters around town for this lot but don't know anything about them or anyone involved. 

Here's what they're offering:


> BRIXTON GREEN is about local people leading the development of the neglected site along Somerleyton Road, central Brixton, London.
> No one knows what an area needs more than the people who live and work there.
> 
> BRIXTON GREEN IS:
> ...



Here's what they're proposing:


> It has 3 key elements:
> 
> Creative hub – bringing together three established Brixton arts organisations, a chefs school, post office/credit union and more.
> The visitors and activity this will attract will extend Brixton town centre, drawing vistors through the market and encouraging regeneration towards Loughborough Junction.
> ...



And here's their board of trustees:


> Landa Acevedo-Scott: Director of Colombiage, a festival of Colombian arts and culture.
> Pete Blake: Business consultant and communications specialist with*20 years experience in public and private sector.
> Philippe Castaing(Chair): Local business owner and London Leader for Sustainable Development.
> Phyllis Dunipace OBE: Previously Director of Children’s and Young People Services, London Borough of Lambeth
> ...


There was an older thread on here that posted up their plans but from what I've gathered these have changed. 
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/314389-Brixton-Green

Website: http://www.brixtongreen.org/


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 25, 2011)

Wasn't this the thing featured on BBC london news a few weeks back?

Can't read the links as I'm on mobile at the moment but will do later.

Not sure why residents of Vassall Ward can't buy shares - we're only a few mins from central Brixton and much closer than Tulse Hill!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 25, 2011)

Having read the links a little more closely I'd say this looks like a profit-making housing development dressed up as a green community initiative.

But I'm happy to be proved wrong.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 25, 2011)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Having read the links a little more closely I'd say this looks like a profit-making housing development dressed up as a green community initiative.
> 
> But I'm happy to be proved wrong.


 
I'm pretty certain that its aims are very genuine. Easiest person to speak to about it is probably Philippe Castaing (Chair). He's the chap who owns and is often about at Opus and Upstairs. I believe they have been promised the land by the council as well as a pretty huge development grant from central sources if they can raise a certain amount of cash to put in. I think they are pretty keen for community involvement so will welcome enquiries.


----------



## gaijingirl (Mar 25, 2011)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Not sure why residents of Vassall Ward can't buy shares - we're only a few mins from central Brixton and much closer than Tulse Hill!


 
I don't know why Vassall Ward can't buy.. but Tulse Hill Ward is not the same as Tulse Hill station (it doesn't even include TH station) - it does, however, include St Matthew's Church and all the area sandwiched between Brixton Hill and Effra Road/Tulse Hill (the road not the station), for example, so obviously lots of it is completely central.  (Looking at the Vassall Ward map it is considerably less central if you take the Town Hal as being the central point (which you might not I suppose) - I don't mean this as a criticism by the way - or a justification as to why it shouldn't be included.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 29, 2011)

It fits in with the Labour party Cooperative Council and the Tories Big Society.

As someone said to me it ticks all the right boxes for politicians and policy makers.

The Government could of course decide to fund Council housing and build it to house people in a way that is affordable. Neither the Tories and Labour will do this. Or put funding into affordable housing. The Big Society makes it seem like the ordinary person has a real say but in practise its offloading responsibility onto people who havent much anyway.

As someone said to me they are busy keeping there head above water economically. Realistically they havent the time or energy for a lot of time consuming meetings.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 29, 2011)

This article in Independant:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...er-regenerate-wasted-urban-space-2225102.html

From article:

"Brixton Green currently has a board of local people, aged 18 to 65, and is setting up a separate company – an "arms-length delivery vehicle", in investors' jargon – to work with funding companies and negotiate with developers"

What is ALDV needed for? 

"Instead Castaing, the chair of Brixton Green Community Land Trust, has persuaded Lambeth Council to release the plot, which has been vacant for more than 30 years, and is now selling community shares to residents and traders. "The revenue will be nothing like enough for the development but it will give local people a stake in what is happening and show large-scale private investors that we operate in a business-like fashion," he says"

Actually it has not been vacant for 30 years. It irritates me they keep saying this to press. People live in the site, its used by the Council refuse vehicle depot and a school/ educational building has been on the site for many years.

As far as I know the plot has not been released to BG. The Council are still deciding what to do with it.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 29, 2011)

A lot of the ideas for the Somerleyton road site come from the Council run Brixton Masterplanning consultation. Does not seem to be acknowledged on the BG website.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 29, 2011)

> The plans keep changing.



From what I can tell everything is in early stages - it is only natural that they will change or, put more positively, evolve - hopefully in order to make their realisation more feasible. 



> I have been following this and am skeptical. Though not against the idea in principle.  I have concerns. Looks good in principle. But the devil is in the detail.



Nothing wrong with a little healthy scepticism or concerns. I appreciate that you say you like the idea in principle but you do not say much positive about it. What do you like about it in principle?



> I have practical experience of Cooperative working (unlike the Board). I am concerned how it will work in practise rather than grand phrases about community involvement.



Although it has been around a while it still seems to be in pretty developmental stages. I for one don't really understand it. But the group seem to be crying out for involvement.  I wouldn't put too much weight on the info in a couple of Googled articles. If you feel that you have valuable practical experience and insight that the board do not - why not go along and speak to them? Traditional coop arrangements might not be considered appropriate by everyone for getting maximum use from the space at the start - or even managing it later on. But with your coop experience you might be able to educate the board about both the positives and the pitfalls of such a model.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 29, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> What is ALDV needed for?


 
Fair question.


----------



## editor (Mar 29, 2011)

Their site says:


> BRIXTON GREEN is about local people leading the development of the neglected site along Somerleyton Road, central Brixton, London.


I'm very 'local' and we've never spoken to anyone from Brixton Green, seen anyone from Brixton Green or even _heard_ from anyone from Brixton Green - and they've been going quite a few years now.

All I've ever seen is a poster in the market and without bigging up this site too much, you might think they would have made the effort to communicate here seeing as 'Somerleyton Road' is number #1, #2 and #4 in Google.

In fact, we're also #2 for 'BrixtonGreen' so they can hardly be unaware of the site.


----------



## Dan U (Mar 29, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Fair question.



I wonder if an ALDV would find it easier to access loans etc than a social enterprise.

I assume quite large sums are involved, it is possible its a legal measure?


----------



## Rushy (Mar 29, 2011)

editor said:


> Their site says:
> I'm very 'local' and we've never spoken to anyone from Brixton Green, seen anyone from Brixton Green or even _heard_ from anyone from Brixton Green - and they've been going quite a few years now.
> 
> All I've ever seen is a poster in the market and without bigging up this site too much, you might think they would have made the effort to communicate here seeing as 'Somerleyton Road' is number #1, #2 and #4 in Google.
> ...


 
I have been handed flyers a couple of times in the early evening outside your block. Both times I was in a rush so didn't stop to chat.


----------



## editor (Mar 29, 2011)

Rushy said:


> I have been handed flyers a couple of times in the early evening outside your block. Both times I was in a rush so didn't stop to chat.


I've never seen anyone and to my knowledge they certainly haven't flyered the residents of the block or even left flyers at the concierge at any point in the last five years. And, of course, they've never posted here or contacted me.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 29, 2011)

Dan U said:


> I wonder if an ALDV would find it easier to access loans etc than a social enterprise.
> 
> I assume quite large sums are involved, it is possible its a legal measure?


 
I imagine you are right. There just needs to be some clarity to reassure people that the ALDV is not a profit making vehicle (other than for the benefit of the project).


----------



## Rushy (Mar 29, 2011)

editor said:


> I've never seen anyone and to my knowledge they certainly haven't flyered the residents of the block or even left flyers at the concierge at any point in the last five years. And, of course, they've never posted here or contacted me.


 
Not everyone is aware of the joys of U75 or spends time checking their Google ranking. Why don't you pop them an email and invite them to post here? An invite might also help avoid an accusation often made of first time posters that they have not spent time interacting with the board and just 'using it'. Whilst people are entitled to that opinion I can equally understand why someone would look at the boards and think it is not really a constructive place to post on.


----------



## Dan U (Mar 29, 2011)

I think Ed sometimes assumes that the first point of contact for anyone doing anything in Brixton is some bloke who runs a night in The Albert and his website.

Having said that, if i was doing something like this in Brixton, this would be a first point of call for me. But then i know about this website.


----------



## editor (Mar 29, 2011)

Dan U said:


> I think Ed sometimes assumes that the first point of contact for anyone doing anything in Brixton is some bloke who runs a night in The Albert and his website.


No, I don't think that at all and it's annoying to see you post up such a gross misrepresentation, but I imagine most people's first port of call if they're doing something in an area is to research it fully, and that would clearly involve Google.

And, as I explained, not only does the road they're basing their business on come up with an urban75 result THREE times in the top four results, but the site comes up second if they _search for their own company name_.

It's not my job to chase up local businesses to ask them to comment here, but I'm certainly a little disappointed as a local resident.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 29, 2011)

editor said:


> It's not my job to chase up local businesses to ask them to comment here, but I'm certainly a little disappointed as a local resident.


 
I may have misunderstood you but it seems that you have aspirations for U75 to be a primary resource for dissemination of information and constructive debating of local issues but you don't want to put in the effort to promote it as a credible place for organisations to do so?


----------



## editor (Mar 29, 2011)

Rushy said:


> I may have misunderstood you but it seems that you have aspirations for U75 to be a primary resource for dissemination of information and constructive debating of local issues but you don't want to put in the effort to promote it as a credible place for organisations to do so?


urban75 is here for those who _wish to interact with it_ and I'm not going to start chasing after local businesses, if that's what you're suggesting.

This is a hobby, not a job, in case you've forgotten, and if BrixtonGreen aren't interested in explaining what they're up to the community here, then that's up to them. I find it hard to believe that they're not aware of the site though.

You are, of course, welcome to chase them up yourself and post up your thoughts here.


----------



## Dan U (Mar 29, 2011)

editor said:


> No, I don't think that at all and it's annoying to see you post up such a gross misrepresentation, but I imagine most people's first port of call if they're doing something in an area is to research it fully, and that would clearly involve Google.
> 
> And, as I explained, not only does the road they're basing their business on come up with an urban75 result THREE times in the top four results, but the site comes up second if they _search for their own company name_.It's not my job to chase up local businesses to ask them to comment here, but I'm certainly a little disappointed as a local



I wasn't intentionally misrepresenting you, just interpreting this, perhaps incorrectly - 



editor said:


> And, of course, they've never posted here or contacted me.



i read that as you being a bit affronted that someone doing something in Brixton hadn't searched out your website

anyway, not after a fight so if i was wrong, then sorry


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 29, 2011)

Rushy said:


> From what I can tell everything is in early stages - it is only natural that they will change or, put more positively, evolve - hopefully in order to make their realisation more feasible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Im not happy with getting into this on the boards in detail. As it goes into one of my other roles where I represent other people . But I have spoken to them. I have been following it.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 29, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Not everyone is aware of the joys of U75 or spends time checking their Google ranking. Why don't you pop them an email and invite them to post here? An invite might also help avoid an accusation often made of first time posters that they have not spent time interacting with the board and just 'using it'. Whilst people are entitled to that opinion I can equally understand why someone would look at the boards and think it is not really a constructive place to post on.



Really get tired of people posting up here then slagging the site off. 

I have found this site very useful.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 29, 2011)

editor said:


> Their site says:
> I'm very 'local' and we've never spoken to anyone from Brixton Green, seen anyone from Brixton Green or even _heard_ from anyone from Brixton Green - and they've been going quite a few years now.
> 
> All I've ever seen is a poster in the market and without bigging up this site too much, you might think they would have made the effort to communicate here seeing as 'Somerleyton Road' is number #1, #2 and #4 in Google.
> ...



I agree with this.


----------



## editor (Mar 29, 2011)

Dan U said:


> i read that as you being a bit affronted that someone doing something in Brixton hadn't searched out your website


I wasn't "affronted" just surprised that a venture whose entire business model involves encouraging locals to get involved (they're trying flog 5,000 community shares) doesn't appear to have been very pro active in that aim. 

Forget about the online stuff: I live less than 100m from the site and I've never seen or heard anything in the five years they've been going. Apart from on here, of course.

Gramsci: can you PM me your info?


----------



## OpalFruit (Mar 29, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> A lot of the ideas for the Somerleyton road site come from the Council run Brixton Masterplanning consultation. Does not seem to be acknowledged on the BG website.



To be fair, Brixton Green were (if my memory of that process serves me right) active in responding to the Re-Vitalise and then Future Brixton endless masterplanning excercise, and were feeding in ideas for that site, which were refelcted in the planning. I saw them at open consultation meetings. But I seem to remember community greenhouses being part of it. No longer talked of - and replaced by other things that do sound good.

Brixton Green have also been represented at various community and council forums. I have come across them, and heard their plans at Brixton Town Forum / Business Forum meetings, I think.

If it comes off, if it is not-for-profit, if there is 'affordable' housing in the mix it sounds good to me. Something needs to happen to make that stretch more residential-friendly.


----------



## Dan U (Mar 29, 2011)

editor said:


> Forget about the online stuff: I live less than 100m from the site and I've never seen or heard anything in the five years they've been going. Apart from on here, of course.



yeah that does seem a bit odd. you'd think they could raise their 5,000 £1's almost on your estate alone (that might be a slight exageration)


----------



## OpalFruit (Mar 29, 2011)

Ed - if you've seen a poster - contact them!


----------



## Rushy (Mar 29, 2011)

editor said:


> urban75 is here for those who _wish to interact with it_ and I'm not going to start chasing after local businesses, if that's what you're suggesting.
> 
> This is a hobby, not a job, in case you've forgotten, and if BrixtonGreen aren't interested in explaining what they're up to the community here, then that's up to them. I find it hard to believe that they're not aware of the site though.
> 
> You are, of course, welcome to chase them up yourself and post up your thoughts here.



If it is just your hobby and you are not prepared to forge links yourself then why are you so offended when organisations don't take U75 seriously enough to want to interact with it? If they valued it as a tool surely they would. No one is asking you to chase them but it seems to be you who wants them and not the other way around.


----------



## editor (Mar 29, 2011)

Rushy said:


> If it is just your hobby and you are not prepared to forge links yourself then why are you so offended when organisations don't take U75 seriously enough to want to interact with it? If they valued it as a tool surely they would. No one is asking you to chase them but it seems to be you who wants them and not the other way around.


This is a community site. That means it's not up to me to chase after companies and spoon-feed users information about local ventures. 

And I'm neither "offended" nor "affronted" by the fact that they've elected to ignore this site and not reached out to me as a local resident. 

Like I've repeatedly said, I'm just rather surprised seeing as their entire business model and stated aims seem to be reliant on interacting with the local community.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 29, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Not everyone is aware of the joys of U75 or spends time checking their Google ranking. Why don't you pop them an email and invite them to post here? An invite might also help avoid an accusation often made of first time posters that they have not spent time interacting with the board and just 'using it'. Whilst people are entitled to that opinion I can equally understand why someone would look at the boards and think it is not really a constructive place to post on.


 


Gramsci said:


> Really get tired of people posting up here then slagging the site off.
> 
> I have found this site very useful.


 
How is that slagging it off?

It is you who is publicly raising doubts about a community project, apparently without offering any substance and positive criticism. Sorry if I underestimated your knowledge of and involvement with the project but you have certainly made no effort to clarify it.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 29, 2011)

This is the flyer I was handed on the junction of CHL and Somerleyton Road (excuse the doodles).


----------



## editor (Mar 29, 2011)

I guess it's a complicated thing to describe, but from reading that (nicely scribbled!) flyer I can see why a lot of local people may not feel motivated to start investing in the venture. I can't say I actually understand what it's all about. What's a "social return"?

Perhaps they should take time out to explain a bit more more about what they're up to and how the scheme actually works.  One way to do that (for free) would be to take a few minutes to post up on a popular local site. 

Oh, hang on...


----------



## Rushy (Mar 29, 2011)

editor said:


> > I guess it's a complicated thing to describe, but from reading that (nicely scribbled!) flyer
> 
> 
> Nothing on my desk escapes the doodle.
> ...


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 29, 2011)

Rushy said:


> How is that slagging it off?
> 
> It is you who is publicly raising doubts about a community project, apparently without offering any substance and positive criticism. Sorry if I underestimated your knowledge of and involvement with the project but you have certainly made no effort to clarify it.


 
Your post made a general criticism of the boards "I can equally understand why someone would look at the boards and think it is not a constructive place to post on". That was what I was criticising.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 29, 2011)

editor said:


> I guess it's a complicated thing to describe, but from reading that (nicely scribbled!) flyer I can see why a lot of local people may not feel motivated to start investing in the venture. I can't say I actually understand what it's all about. What's a "social return"?
> 
> Perhaps they should take time out to explain a bit more more about what they're up to and how the scheme actually works.  One way to do that (for free) would be to take a few minutes to post up on a popular local site.
> 
> ...




A social return means you do not get get a share of profits. If you join the Coop ( the shops) you get a share of profits you can use to get money off other goods from the Coop or give to Coop for them to distribute to good causes. In this case a share gives you a right to vote but no dividend. What you get is a social return. That is its good for the local community.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 29, 2011)

Rushy said:


> How is that slagging it off?
> 
> It is you who is publicly raising doubts about a community project, apparently without offering any substance and positive criticism. Sorry if I underestimated your knowledge of and involvement with the project but you have certainly made no effort to clarify it.



ok fair enough. I have gone back and edited my post to keep it to points I feel I can make here.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 29, 2011)

Personally one way to follow BG is to buy a share. Then I assume you will get more info. If u then dont like it you can always return your share.


----------



## editor (Mar 29, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Don't be shy, Ed. Reach out.
> 
> Dear [Brixton Green*],


Why don't _*you*_ write to them if you're that bothered because - as I've already told you several times - I've no inclination to start chasing after local businesses who aren't interested/can't be bothered to post here and/or contact local residents. 

And that really is the end of the matter as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 29, 2011)

Sorry Ed. Just thought you were whining about the fact that people actually got on with shit in Brixton without automatically knowing they had to consult U75 to validate their efforts. Like you said - it's the end of the matter.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 29, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Your post made a general criticism of the boards "I can equally understand why someone would look at the boards and think it is not a constructive place to post on". That was what I was criticising.



You left out half the statement. Put together I still think it is fair. Do you really think that everyone who looks at this site for the first time would immediately think it is a cauldron of constructive ideas in which they wish to become immersed? The effort required to carry a small number of people can be quite disproportionate to the result.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 29, 2011)

Sorry. Repeated post.


----------



## editor (Mar 30, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Sorry Ed. Just thought you were whining about the fact that people actually got on with shit in Brixton without automatically knowing they had to consult U75 to validate their efforts. Like you said - it's the end of the matter.


Please stop trying to misrepresent me as it's becoming rather an unedifying spectacle. 

At no point have I "whined," felt "offended" or "affronted" - the only emotions I've expressed are disappointment and surprise. 

For absolutely the last time, here's what I actually said :


> And I'm neither "offended" nor "affronted" by the fact that they've elected to ignore this site and not reached out to me as a local resident.
> 
> Like I've repeatedly said, I'm just rather surprised seeing as their entire business model and stated aims seem to be reliant on interacting with the local community.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 30, 2011)

editor said:


> Please stop trying to misrepresent me as it's becoming rather an unedifying spectacle.



Here's what you actually said prior to that:



> ... you might think they would have made the effort to communicate here seeing as 'Somerleyton Road' is number #1, #2 and #4 in Google. In fact, we're also #2 for 'BrixtonGreen' so they can hardly be unaware of the site.


 


editor said:


> And, of course, they've never posted here or contacted me.


 


> if BrixtonGreen aren't interested in explaining what they're up to the community here, then that's up to them. I find it hard to believe that they're not aware of the site though.



All I and others have said is that u75 might not be as widely recognised or valued in the local business community as you like to believe it is. It would be easy to fix that but of course you do not have to. It is your site. You are the boss. But when your only public comment about a hardworking group like Brixton Green is to question their efforts based on no more than the fact that they have "never posted here or contacted me" then that certainly is unfair. 

Your argument that





> I've no inclination to start chasing after local businesses who aren't interested/can't be bothered to post here and/or contact local residents


 just seems unfortunately petulant because they clearly are trying to reach out to local residents and even you have admitted to having seen their posters inviting contact and participation.

If you think U75 would help their cause - offer your assistance. Or don't. But don't put them down simply because you find it hard to believe that they either have never heard of or do not recognise the value of your hobby site (your description).

Even Mohammed eventually went to the mountain. 

'nuff said.


----------



## editor (Mar 30, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Here's what you actually said prior to that:
> 
> Your argument that just seems unfortunately petulant because they clearly are trying to reach out to local residents and even you have admitted to having seen their posters inviting contact and participation.


For all the words you're trying to dishonestly stuff in my mouth, all I'm saying is that I find it a little surprising that an organisation whose entire _raison d'etre_ is community involvement doesn't seem to have been making a very good job of it. 

I live just 100m from the site and have never seen or heard anything from them in five years, and the only poster I've ever seen was in Brixton Village. These are simple facts. 

Although urban75 is in the top rankings for both their company name and Somerleyton Road (and 'Brixton' too, for that matter), it's entirely up to them if they wish to post here or not, although as anyone with any knowledge of marketing will tell you: ignore top-rated related Google results at your peril.

A reminder: the thread title reads: _"Tell me about BrixtonGreen - a "community led development" on Somerleyton Road"_ which means that I'm asking the community here what they think of the business, and not asking how to contact them. 

You are, of course, welcome to drop them a line yourself though.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 30, 2011)

editor said:


> For all the words you're trying to dishonestly stuff in my mouth,


 
They were all your quotes. Apologies if I have misinterpreted what you meant by them.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 30, 2011)

I honestly don't see how you fail to get Ed's point Rushy? He stated very reasonably that for a group that is supposed to be all about community participation, they could do worse than posting on here, seeing as Google points here. And it being a local forum and such. And you take that to mean that he's moaning they haven't bothered? In-fucking-credible.

FWIW I'd never heard of BrixtonGreen before seeing this thread.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 30, 2011)

....I'd heard of them (I help run a community group in the Somerleyton Road area) but not directly from them. I think I heard about them on these boards. I think it's true to say that they haven't engaged with the community.


----------



## editor (Mar 30, 2011)

Rushy said:


> They were all your quotes. Apologies if I have misinterpreted what you meant by them.


Indeed they were - but _none of them_ add up to what you've (rather bizarrely) spun them into here.  


TruXta said:


> I honestly don't see how you fail to get Ed's point Rushy? He stated very reasonably that for a group that is supposed to be all about community participation, they could do worse than posting on here, seeing as Google points here. And it being a local forum and such. And you take that to mean that he's moaning they haven't bothered? In-fucking-credible.
> 
> FWIW I'd never heard of BrixtonGreen before seeing this thread.


Yep. 


Mrs Magpie said:


> I think it's true to say that they haven't engaged with the community.


Agreed.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 30, 2011)

TruXta said:


> FWIW I'd never heard of BrixtonGreen before seeing this thread.





Mrs Magpie said:


> I think it's true to say that they haven't engaged with the community.


 
And I'd never heard of them either, before reading about them on here. And I do go out of my way to get involved in local things, watch out for what's going on at the council, attend meetings etc. But I'd never seen any posters, leaflets or anything.


----------



## OpalFruit (Mar 31, 2011)

But they have put up a poster inviting local residents to take part / contact them - so if you are a local resident, as well as a member or editor of a bulletin board, you could simply take up their invitation? If interested in the proposal.
Initiatives have to start somewhere!
I haven't heard anything from ABC, either, _except_ on these boards. And seeing them in the early days of the Masterplanning consultation. But no public profile that I have been aware of, or invitatation for engagement or consultation. But it takes a lot of sustained effort and  investent to reach a level where everyone knows who you are and what you are up to, not all initiatives have that PR capacity.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 31, 2011)

A poster? As in one lone poster? Or do you mean they've printed up x number of one particular poster?

I appreciate that PR and such is time-consuming and sometimes seemingly not worth the effort, but you just cannot expect people to show up on your doorstep armed with 15 inches of enthusiasm for something like this. Especially when the focus is squarely on community participation and ownership. They should make more of an effort, whether it's on the street or online.


----------



## RaverDrew (Mar 31, 2011)

I know someone who is working with them, I'll mention posting on here when I next see them.


----------



## editor (Mar 31, 2011)

OpalFruit said:


> But they have put up a poster inviting local residents to take part / contact them - so if you are a local resident, as well as a member or editor of a bulletin board, you could simply take up their invitation?


_One_ poster. In five years! LOL.

By comparison, Lambeth launched a sexual health website yesterday and wrote a polite note to me explaining what it was all about and asking if I could mention it somewhere. 

Within half an hour, I'd started a thread which now comes up #1 in Google if people search for 'Lambeth sexual health online'  and #10 for 'Lambeth sexual health.' 

The thread was automatically Tweeted from urban, and the link from here will also help boost the site's search rankings. 

I imagine it took less time for them to write that email than it did to go the market to put up that one poster and I dare say it's reached an awful lot more people.  Cheaper too.

See? It's really not that hard to do!

Edit: cheers Drew!


----------



## tshax (Mar 31, 2011)

About 2 weeks ago, I was in the Ritzy buying a coffee. The guy standing next to me turned to me and asked me if I had heard of Brixton Green. He then got out a small poster, and a folded A4 pamphlet, and explained that he was one of the people behind the scheme. He gave a bit of background information, and encouraged me to 'get involved'.

I took a look at the website later that day, and as he had told me, I sent him an email asking him for some more info. Heard nothing since.


----------



## Fenian (Apr 1, 2011)

I looked into Brixton Green's model about a year ago - a lot has occurred since then and I don't claim to remember it all but I was caused deep concern.  They seemed to like using the language of involvement without, er, involving people in real decisions - just looking for supporters and signatories who will acclaim.  They are quite a tight knit bunch at the top headed by the character Castaing.  

Their model is predicated on people paying *different* rent charges though they may be in the *same* housing conditions.

Another model is of course to go down the road of council or housing association housing of good quality.  That gets my vote.


----------



## editor (Apr 1, 2011)

I found this article from Oct 2010:


> This organisation is planning a £60m redevelopment of council-owned land in the centre of Brixton, a multi-cultural inner-city area of London. It wants to see the site developed for a mix of residential and community uses to high environmental standards.
> 
> Brixton Green faces a community building task if it is to achieve its ambitions for a £60m mixed-use development in the centre of Brixton. It recognises that only a small proportion of this capital can be raised through a community share offer, but believes that community ownership and investment will be the key to unlocking
> public support for their plans. It has set itself the target of recruiting 7,500 members and raising an initial £150,000 of share capital in 2010.
> ...


And this:


> Brixton Green is using a scratch card to promote its membership offer next month. The society aims to recruit at least 5,000 new members who either live or work in the five central Brixton wards nearest to its development site. The scratch cards, costing £1, the price of one share in Brixton Green, will be available through local retailers. The scratch panel reveals a unique code, which provides proof of purchase and acts a receipt. Purchasers complete their contact details on the back of the scratch card and deposit it in a secure drop box, which means they don’t have to give their personal details to the retailer.
> http://www.uk.coop/blog/jimbrownbakerbrowncouk/2010-10-08/brixton-green-launch-scratch-card-share


I've never heard of this scratch card before. Has anyone seen one?

The article above got this one response:





> Brixton Green as participants in the action learning programme for Community Shares benefited from a matched incentive fund administered by Key Fund http://www.keyfundyorks.org.uk/ which will match pound for pound what Brixton Green raise. This is part of wider thinking to promote engaged investment and "engaged" business models. time we kept closer track of how our savings are being used!


----------



## tshax (Apr 1, 2011)

The scratchcards are sold in the Opus cafe, and a couple of other places I think. I bought one out of interest, and was asked to write some details down just confirming that I am a Brixton resident etc. 

There is a number on the scratch card that is unique to each card, and supposedly you enter this number on the website in order to register your share. However, at last check, this facility did not exist on the website.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 1, 2011)

Fenian said:


> I looked into Brixton Green's model about a year ago - a lot has occurred since then and I don't claim to remember it all but I was caused deep concern.  They seemed to like using the language of involvement without, er, involving people in real decisions - just looking for supporters and signatories who will acclaim.  They are quite a tight knit bunch at the top headed by the character Castaing.



Exactly the problem I have found.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 1, 2011)

OpalFruit said:


> But they have put up a poster inviting local residents to take part / contact them - so if you are a local resident, as well as a member or editor of a bulletin board, you could simply take up their invitation? If interested in the proposal.
> Initiatives have to start somewhere!
> I haven't heard anything from ABC, either, _except_ on these boards. And seeing them in the early days of the Masterplanning consultation. But no public profile that I have been aware of, or invitatation for engagement or consultation. But it takes a lot of sustained effort and  investent to reach a level where everyone knows who you are and what you are up to, not all initiatives have that PR capacity.


 
I have discussed the proposal with the 2 founders of BG some time ago. What I found was that it was not up for negoitation. I am prepared to work with other groups but it has to be on the the basis of equal partnership. 

Also if the Council/Government want to do a Community Land Trust as an experiment ( see government funded community share initiative linked up by Ed) it is imo would have been best to canvass and explain to local people what Community share ownership is etc. See if that was people wanted then go ahead. 

This idea of a Community Land Trust / Community share ownership should have been part of the Brixton Masterplanning process. With Future Brixton consulting about it imo.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 1, 2011)

OpalFruit said:


> But they have put up a poster inviting local residents to take part / contact them - so if you are a local resident, as well as a member or editor of a bulletin board, you could simply take up their invitation? If interested in the proposal.
> Initiatives have to start somewhere!


Me, I'd read a cornflake packet if it was pinned up somewhere. Seen nothing on the estate notice boards, in the housing office or anywhere else and I live on the estate on the road that they're supposedly interested in. So their efforts to contact the community that live slap-bang on Somerleyton seem frankly ineffectual*




*posh-speak for piss-poor.


----------



## netbob (Apr 1, 2011)

My guess is this is faux community stuff that will give some academics a worthy project and act as cover for commercial housing being built on the temporary school site (note 'sustainably built housing').


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 1, 2011)

Rushy said:


> You left out half the statement. Put together I still think it is fair. Do you really think that everyone who looks at this site for the first time would immediately think it is a cauldron of constructive ideas in which they wish to become immersed? The effort required to carry a small number of people can be quite disproportionate to the result.


 
I think its a constructive site. Not everything here is serious all the time. In my experience of Coops and local issues u have to wade thru a lot of unconstructive behaviour. Thats how people are. I live with it. This site is more constructive and informative than reading Lambeth Life.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 1, 2011)

memespring said:


> My guess is this is faux community stuff that will give some academics a worthy project and act as cover for commercial housing being built on the temporary school site (note 'sustainably built housing').



The problem is that there has been no debate about Community Shares , Community ownership , Social Return. There is a lot on the web from Think Tanks, Academia and Government about it all. But little on the theory behind it. Its assumed if u use the word Community people will think its a great idea.

As Fenian pointed out what about building Council Housing? Its what Defend Council Housing say backed by detailed arguments.

Here is stab at ideas behind it all:

New Labour and Camerons Big Society overlap. Both think the top down post war Welfare State and Government intervention in the economy (Keynes) leads to dependancy culture. It disempowers people. We would all sit around with our feet up if the Government / Think tanks didnt dream up schemes to make us more "engaged".

Secondly both believe in a social market that puts together business values with Cooperation/ Association. This comes from the 80s Thatcher revolution. Both see that as to extreme but see indvidualist effort at asset building using business values as compatible with Cooperation.

"promoting enterprise, equity and engagement through community shares and bonds"

http://www.communityshares.org.uk/

See here for Red Tory Blonds view. At least he puts forward a theory and argument. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/02/new-conservatism-cameron

From article:

"Community share issuance offers the prospect of popularising local ownership; the melding of time banks with equity investment; the conversion of sweat equity into real wealth. All of the above offer the real opportunity to address the contemporary asset deficit and convert an ideology of ownership into a practised and fully participated reality."


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 1, 2011)

New Labour thinking on this goes back a long way. The early NL used Etzioni

Another source of New Labour thinking on community has been the moral communitarians in the United States. 'Communitarianism' has become a popular and influential way of describing political and ideological appeals to community and community values on both sides of the Atlantic. For proponents of communitarian ideas, these appeals rest on a rejection both of the market-led ideology of the new right and of paternalistic and centralised state approaches to welfare of the 'old left'. Thus communitarianism is viewed by its advocates as steering a path between unfettered markets and an overarching state. The most populist moral communitarian commentator of the 1990s was the American sociologist Amitai Etzioni. For Etzioni, societies like the US and Britain are faced with problems of 'demoralisation'--a decline in morality and the absence of a commitment to fulfilling obligations: 'Communitarians call to restore civic virtues, for people to live up to their responsibilities and not merely to focus on their entitlements, and to shore up the moral foundations of society'.9

For Etzioni, the key to the remoralisation of society is based upon the strengthening of morality in and through civil institutions such as the family, education system and voluntary associations; the assertion of public/community interest over special interests; and the reversal of the problem of 'too many rights, too few obligations'. Or, as Blair put it in an interview in the ever virtuous Sun in early 1998, Britons need to 'stop wringing their hands and start taking more responsibility for their own lives'.

from here:

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj85/lavalette.htm


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 1, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/14/david-cameron-big-society-conservatives

Here is good critique of Camerons Big Society by Hilary Wainwright and also can be applied to New Labours half hearted belief in "Mutualism"

But control over what? His idea of the "big society" is pitched at minimising the power of the state, while doing nothing to give people the power to control the private, "free" market and the inequalities it produces.

Without economic democracy, decentralisation of political power will reinforce inequality, shifting power not "from the state to working people" but to those who already have the money, social networks and time to make the system work for them. (See the work of the Equality Trust.)

Cameron says: give public employees the right to form co-ops and take over the department they work for. Why couldn't the government provide support for private-sector workers to form co-ops and take over the factory they work in? After all, surely the way power over the private sector is concentrated in a few hands at the top is utterly incompatible with a democratic society.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 2, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> I think its a constructive site. Not everything here is serious all the time. In my experience of Coops and local issues u have to wade thru a lot of unconstructive behaviour. Thats how people are. I live with it. This site is more constructive and informative than reading Lambeth Life.


 
Unless you believe the answer to my question is 'yes - everyone' then I don't think our points are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 4, 2011)

Excellent posts, thanks Gramsci, really useful. 

I understand Brixton Green have some 'open day' events coming up - I'll find out where/when etc.


----------



## editor (Apr 4, 2011)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I understand Brixton Green have some 'open day' events coming up - I'll find out where/when etc.


There's nothing on their website.



Oh, and I've emailed them inviting them to participate in this thread on the biggest local website.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 4, 2011)

Getting desperate Ed?


----------



## editor (Apr 4, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Getting desperate Ed?


Well, seeing I was already on their info-lite website and came across the form, I thought I'd give it a go. 
After all, I'm very local to the planned development and I want to know exactly what's being proposed for my neighbourhood.


----------



## Fenian (Apr 4, 2011)

(Drums fingers and looks at watch waiting for the bold Philippe)


----------



## Rushy (Apr 5, 2011)

editor said:


> Oh, and I've emailed them inviting them to participate in this thread on the biggest local website.


 
Super idea!


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 6, 2011)

Fenian said:


> (Drums fingers and looks at watch waiting for the bold Philippe)


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 6, 2011)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Excellent posts, thanks Gramsci, really useful.
> 
> I understand Brixton Green have some 'open day' events coming up - I'll find out where/when etc.


 
Thanks.

I am thinking aloud here. I just think there should be a proper debate on the pros and cons. CLTs have worked in the USA. But the US never had the kind of post war support for Council Housing and the Housing Association movement that there was here.

The Tory/LD government are in the process imo of cutting all State funding to affordable housing providers. HAs in particular whilst borrowing money on there existing asset base also depended on funding from central Government. They are going to be hit really hard. They have already been hit by the lack of long term cheap finance. Some have found the costs of there long term loans go up dramatically in the last few years. Almost driving some to the wall.

I cant see CLTs as working unless they have access to low interest long term finance at fixed rates. Whether that is from Government or the private sector. Im afraid handing power to the people will basically leave them with a lot of problems. Also CLTs that in the end have to become almost like private developers to survive.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 6, 2011)

Discovered they went to the local old people's club who by all accounts were totally underwhelmed. I don't think they sold a single share.


----------



## brad (Apr 8, 2011)

Would the person who wrote this comment like to get in contact with me via www.brixtongreen.org. I could then introduce them to some of the remarkable individuals involved in the elderly groups.  Many of these people have been doing fantastic work for the community in Brixton for decades, and for the past couple of years have been using their experience to help structure the Brixton Green proposal.

To make our proposal strong we need Brixton people to highlight their genuine concerns and suggest  improvements to the proposal and our approach. Quoting negative and untrue hearsay will not make our town a better place.

Brad Carroll, Director of Brixton Green


----------



## brad (Apr 8, 2011)

If you would like to meet and hear more about the Brixton Green proposal, we will be holding open meetings 7pm on the first Thursday of every month at Unit 45, Brixton Village starting 5th May.

Our new website will be going up early next week. Please visit it next week to find out more about the proposal so far and have your say. 

The more people who contribute their ideas, the stronger the proposal.

*What is Brixton Green?*
Brixton Green is a registered mutual set up so Brixton people can lead the development of the site along Somerleyton Road.

We're not for profit with an asset lock. This means all our assets have to be used for the benefit of the community.

Brixton Green is owned by local people. Anyone over 16 who lives or works in Brixton can become a shareholder:

	• To become a shareholder you have to either live or work within the five wards of central Brixton(Coldharbour, Ferndale, Tulse Hill, Herne Hill, Brixton Hill).
	• £1 per share. One share per person. 
	• Shareholders will not receive a financial return.
	• Shareholders can stand for election to the board.
	• Shareholder will have a vote at the AGM

*Points raised*
Press:
We really appreciate the press coverage we've received, however there are some inaccuracies:
	• We have never claimed that Lambeth have transferred or sold the site to us. 
	• We have never described the site as vacant or derelict.

Communication:
	We have limited resources, but with our local champions we are trying to ensure that all parts of the community have the opportunity to become shareholders and have their say.  Some of the local groups will be holding workshops around the proposal. These, along with our open events and improved website will hopefully help us to reach many of the communities within Brixton.

	If you are part of a local group/business who would like a presentation or workshop, please get in touch via our website www.brixtongreen.org.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 8, 2011)

Thanks for joining us, Brad. Err... that's all for the moment.


----------



## rover07 (Apr 8, 2011)

I dont live or work in Brixton but I wish you every success with this.


----------



## OpalFruit (Apr 8, 2011)

Hello to Brad 
In general I am very much in favour of increasing good 'affordable' housing for Brixton, improving community facilities and making sure that new developments enhance the local environment, not disadvantage it. Somerleyton Rd is tricky because Southwyck House was built 'facing the wrong way' (motorway ) and there is the railway line. What benefits does your scheme hold in all these respects?

How will residents in the new housing be chosen? Why is your scheme better than a simple HA development? And how do we know the profits won't end up with a commercial developer - or even you!


----------



## editor (Apr 8, 2011)

brad said:


> *Points raised*
> Press:
> We really appreciate the press coverage we've received, however there are some inaccuracies:
> • We have never claimed that Lambeth have transferred or sold the site to us.
> • We have never described the site as vacant or derelict.


That may comes from here:


> *Brixton Green residents develop derelict land
> *
> Residents in an area of Brixton are creating a community hub on a derelict piece of land with the backing of the government.
> 
> ...


----------



## OpalFruit (Apr 8, 2011)

Farm?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 9, 2011)

brad said:


> Press:
> We really appreciate the press coverage we've received, however there are some inaccuracies:
> • We have never claimed that Lambeth have transferred or sold the site to us.
> • We have never described the site as vacant or derelict.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/08/communities

Then he turned his attention to a long, narrow site that includes a temporary home for one of the government's flagship academies, alongside the ubiquitous derelict buildings and waste ground. 

and here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12355051

Brixton Green residents develop derelict land

and here

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...er-regenerate-wasted-urban-space-2225102.html

Brixton Green Community Land Trust, has persuaded Lambeth Council to release the plot, which has been vacant for more than 30 years, and is now selling community shares to residents and traders.

The key to the scheme is the release of currently unused land – in this case almost four acres of it, amid dense social housing close to Brixton Market and Electric Avenue – owned by Lambeth Council.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 9, 2011)

Hello Brad. What is this arms length vehicle?

Brixton Green currently has a board of local people, aged 18 to 65, and is setting up a separate company – an "arms-length delivery vehicle", in investors' jargon – to work with funding companies and negotiate with developers.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...er-regenerate-wasted-urban-space-2225102.html


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 9, 2011)

The thing is the community do own the site as its Council site. Which in the end is us.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 9, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Brixton Green Community Land Trust, has persuaded Lambeth Council to release the plot, which has been vacant for more than 30 years, and is now selling community shares to residents and traders


 That's just not true.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 9, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Brixton Green Community Land Trust, has persuaded Lambeth Council to release the plot, which has been vacant for more than 30 years, and is now selling community shares to residents and traders


 That's just not true. It's never been vacant.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 9, 2011)

Actually, the bit that used to be Community Industry was empty for a while, but that's just a tiny part of what's on Somerleyton.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 9, 2011)

I've lived here for 30 years and I do notice stuff.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 9, 2011)

The worst bit was when the training centre for people with learning disabilities got closed down. It was empty until the Olive School went there, but it was always earmarked for something else which is why the training centre got closed. It just took a long time for it to happen. I thought Lambeth handled that in its usual cack-handed manner.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 9, 2011)

I remember the training centre. Always wondered what happened to all the people who went there.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 9, 2011)

I knew a few of them as I worked with some of them when they were still at school. A lot were really traumatised when it got closed. I don't use the word traumatised loosely either.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 10, 2011)

Thats sad. I remember seeing them go there in mornings. They all looked happy to be going to the school.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 10, 2011)

...and I loved the garden they made too.


----------



## brad (Apr 17, 2011)

Thanks for the points raised above.  

*...how do we know the profits won't end up with a commercial developer - or even you! *
Brixton Green Limited is run for the benefit of the local community. It can only use its funds and assets for this purpose. Neither directors, board members or share holders can take a profit.

We will need to work with development partner(s). The best way for us to reduce the cost of these partnerships is to:
	• Clarify what we want to build.
	• Have a good understanding of the issues and costs involved. 
	• Reduce the risks.

We plan to do this as follows:
	1. Detailed brief - this will involve workshops with local groups and organisations. Throughout we will include feedback from a team of experts.
	2. Detailed feasibility study .
	3. Panel set up to select development partner(s).

The whole process needs to be transparent. 

If you are involved with a group or organisation who would like to have a Brixton Green workshop, please contact us through www.brixtongreen.org or call 020 7183 5838 


*Southwyck House was built 'facing the wrong way' (motorway*
) and there is the railway line. What benefits does your scheme hold in all these respects?*
Southwyck House, the railway and the unwelcoming alley at Somerleyton Way have the effect of discouraging access to this part of Coldharbour Lane and the Somerleyton triangle. This reduces economic activity and community safety.
Our proposal addresses this in three key ways:
	1. *Creative hub* at the junction of Coldhabour Lane and Somerleyton Road. 
	This will bring together three established Brixton arts organisations, a chefs school, post office/credit union and more. The visitors and activity this will attract will extend Brixton town centre,*drawing visitors through the market and encourage*regeneration towards Loughborough Junction. 
	2. *Community hub* at the entrance to the alley of Somerleyton Way. 
	Using community activity to make the alley a welcoming connection between Mayall Road and Somerleyton Road. This will include a*children’s’ nursery, health care/dentist, hair & beauty training salon, chemist/corner shop. 
	3. *Street facing homes.*
	Front gardens, family units on the ground floor, communal gardens and allotments at the rear.

*How will residents in the new housing be chosen? *
This will be decided during the detailed brief and feasibility work. 

*Why is your scheme better than a simple HA development?*
Central Brixton has some complicated regeneration issues that have not been properly resolved for 40 years.  This strip of land in particular is of strategic importance to the community in Brixton as it divides off central Brixton from the rest of Coldharbour Lane and the Somerleyton triangle. 
A proposal that is owned by Brixton people and driven by Brixton people will be better placed to galvanise the community and bring forward a holistic proposal on this site.

*...the land is already community owned. *
Lambeth Council owns the majority of the site. If it is to be developed, Lambeth Council will need to enter into an arrangement with a private developer, housing association or a community led initiative.

*Press inaccuracies*
As I mentioned before we have had some inaccuracies in how the press has covered Brixton Green. As we improve our online information we will hopefully reduce any errors.

*Independent article - "Land liberation society"*
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...er-regenerate-wasted-urban-space-2225102.html 

The Independent ran an excellent article featuring Brixton Green. I would like to clear up some of the points it made which were not accurate and have caused concern on this forum.

	• Brixton Green is not setting up and has never planned to set up an "_arms length delivery vehicle_".

	• Brixton Green has never claimed that Lambeth have transferred or sold the site to us.

	• Brixton Green has never described the site as vacant or derelict. 

	• Our organisation is Brixton Green Limited not _"Brixton Green Community Land Trus_t".

	• The article mentions _"Once complete, the scheme will be jointly managed by Lambeth Council, residents and local businesses._ " 
	The necessary management structure for the scheme will only be decided during the detailed brief/feasibility study. We have never discussed a structure that involved the scheme being "_jointly managed by Lambeth Council, residents and local businesses._"

	• The article mentions "_In addition to housing, the scheme will include small stores and workshops, including a cluster of high-quality Caribbean manicure and hairstyling boutique._"  
	This is inaccurate. The current proposal includes a hair and beauty training salon, not a cluster of boutiques. 
	Please come to our site to see the current proposal www.brixtongreen.org

	• The proposal does not rely on community shares for the funding of the project. We are selling 5,000 £1 shares to 5,000 individuals who live or work in Brixton. Their purpose is to ensure the ownership of our organisation is with people who live and work in the area, not to raise finance.


----------



## brad (Apr 18, 2011)

b


----------



## brad (Apr 18, 2011)

b


----------



## brad (Apr 18, 2011)

b


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2011)

brad said:


> *Southwyck House was built 'facing the wrong way' (motorway) and there is the railway line. What benefits does your scheme hold in all these respects?*
> Southwyck House, the railway and the unwelcoming alley at Somerleyton Way have the effect of discouraging access to this part of Coldharbour Lane and the Somerleyton triangle. This reduces economic activity and community safety.


You've lost me here. How does Southwyck House 'discourage access' to Somerleyton Road and Coldharbour Lane?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 18, 2011)

That is possibly the most bizarre statement I've seen this year!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 18, 2011)

I'm not surprised the broadsheets keep getting stuff wrong. It seems to me Brixton Green can't manage to construct sentences that are in any way meaningful!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 18, 2011)

Plus it's never been the Somerleyton Triangle. It's the Moorlands Triangle....and the last thing I want by my house is yet another hair & beauty place. We can't eat extensions. Maybe if they offered reasonable rent to Nour so we don't lose them I'd buy a share.


----------



## OpalFruit (Apr 18, 2011)

As the poster who raised the issue of Southwyck House facing away from Coldharbour Lane (as I understand it because of the proposed flyover), I think there is a way in which on-street activity is reduced for the length of Southwyck House on Coldharbour Lane. There is no friendly bustle, no-one looking out over balconies, no-one going in or out. The effect, for someone who doesn't live there, is that it seals Moorlands off. And it has ramifications for the 'natural survelliance' . I like the idea of street-facing houses along Somerleyton Rd - it isn't a vacant or derelict strip, but it is fairly bleak at night.

Is the Hair and Beauty thing an outlet as well as training? Do we know at which point the hair and beauty market will be saturated? Ttaining projects  sound good, though.

Brad - can you clarify, what are the shares for? What do you own a part of if you buy a share? What if the shareholders vote against certain ideas within your plans? Can there be a hostile takeover?


----------



## brad (Apr 18, 2011)

editor said:


> You've lost me here. How does Southwyck House 'discourage access' to Somerleyton Road and Coldharbour Lane?


 
The lack of street frontage discourages activity which reduces economic activity and community safety and so discourages access.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 18, 2011)

Oh please! What planet did you drop from?


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2011)

brad said:


> The lack of street frontage discourages activity which reduces economic activity and community safety and so discourages access.


So you'd like the building pulled down? Or perhaps the residents of Southwyck House like looking over the small park that faces Coldharbour Lane.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 18, 2011)

Oh dear, Brixton Green bod fails utterly with two local long time residents....








It must be hard walking round the area with your foot in your mouth.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 18, 2011)

Have you actually walked down Somerleyton since the Housing Association 'turned round' the houses so they face the street? It happened about a decade ago. A lot of the blight can be laid at Lambeth's door when they started moving community stuff out of the area. I'd have a lot more respect for you if the training centre for people with learning disabilities was put back on the agenda. They were very much part of the community. They weren't perhaps considered cool and vibrant enough for the vision of edgy young professionals. Also why is stuff like community transport, meals on wheels, the tropical fruit depot and so on being totally ignored? They're on Somerleyton. There is economic activity there. The more you post, Brad, the more I think you are confusing our area with somewhere else completely different.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 18, 2011)

Actually the more twaddle you post, the more furious I get. You're not good for my blood pressure. I'm not young any more.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 18, 2011)

I read out what you said before editing it all away to a local blind resident (again, he's been in Brixton for decades) and he said.
"There's loads of economic activity along there! I'm blind and I can pick up on all the bustle along there. He's either never walked along there or he's totally stupid."

When I read out the guff about Southwyck House discouraging access to Somerleyton & Coldharbour he just screwed up his face in utter confusion and then said "What a tosser!"


----------



## TruXta (Apr 18, 2011)

Class!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 18, 2011)

I must admit that more recently some economic activity driven by market forces has gone, but that was just crack dealers displaced temporarily from the town centre and thankfully they've gone.


----------



## brad (Apr 18, 2011)

I think it is important that Southwyck House is not knocked down, but that the issue with the street frontage is addressed. 

The hair and beauty training salon, along with the other ideas in the current proposal have come from the discussions with local residents so far. Please visit one of our open events to get a better understanding of how these proposals benefit the community and have a chance to contribute your ideas.

If you would like to continue the debate please visit www.brixtongreen.org or come to our open events on the 1st Thursday of every month starting 7pm Thursday 5th May at Unit 45, Brixton Village.


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2011)

brad said:


> I think it is important that Southwyck House is not knocked down, but that the issue with the street frontage is addressed.


So you'd like to get rid of the green space that runs for most of the length of Southwyck House and replace it with "economic activity"?  What exactly do you have in mind? 
Do you really think such a proposal might be popular with residents? Have you asked them? 



brad said:


> If you would like to continue the debate please visit www.brixtongreen.org


There is no opportunity to "continue the debate" on that site. That's why I invited you here to talk on Brixton's busiest forum.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 18, 2011)

brad said:


> come to our open events on the 1st Thursday of every month starting 7pm Thursday 5th May at Unit 45, Brixton Village.


Be careful what you wish for. I might just do that


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 18, 2011)

editor said:


> So you'd like to get rid of the green space that runs for most of the length of Southwyck House and replace it with "economic activity"?  What exactly do you have in mind?
> Do you really think such a proposal might be popular with residents? Have you asked them?


You know the woman  who lives opposite over one of the shops and walks her dogs on the green? You know ed, the one that's interacted with you. I think she'd be interested, don't you?


----------



## toblerone3 (Apr 18, 2011)

editor said:


> There is no opportunity to "continue the debate" on that site.



What about the section on the brixtongreen website entitled "what you think" - "Please let us know your ideas and thoughts on the proposal" Its on the right hand side. You can click on it and submit your ideas and thoughts.

Perhaps you feel that its not interactive enough, but there's no need to be so rude.


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2011)

toblerone3 said:


> What about the section on the brixtongreen website entitled "what you think" - "Please let us know your ideas and thoughts on the proposal" Its on the right hand side. You can click on it and submit your ideas and thoughts.


That's not "continuing the debate," that's sending a private email and I've already done that, thanks.

I'd like the discussion about this local community development to be public so everyone can see what's on offer and debate the proposals. 

And how was I being rude? There is no facility to debate anything on their site. That is simply a fact.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 18, 2011)

Also, I know a lot of people round here, this is slap bang on my doorstep, I'm really active in the community, have lived here for a long time and the only people I've come across that have had any interaction with these people are from the older people's club who as I said earlier were not very impressed. The only interaction I've had with them is on here. The old folk were spot on imo. 

brad seems to have as much of a grasp on what's actually happening round here in terms of the business, buildings and community as I have of the rules of etiquette in deepest Mongolia.


----------



## toblerone3 (Apr 19, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> brad seems to have as much of a grasp on what's actually happening round here in terms of the business, buildings and community as I have of the rules of etiquette in deepest Mongolia.



Perhaps you could help to consult and educate with Brad by actually talking to him. But no you just prefer to slag him off and his organisation.   Its almost as though you've pre-judged him as coming on this whole thing with a particular dodgy agenda. Do you?

Or do you just think he is naive ? In which case consult and educate why don't you?


----------



## toblerone3 (Apr 19, 2011)

editor said:


> That's not "continuing the debate," that's sending a private email and I've already done that, thanks.
> 
> I'd like the discussion about this local community development to be public so everyone can see what's on offer and debate the proposals.
> 
> And how was I being rude? There is no facility to debate anything on their site. That is simply a fact.


 
Maybe they are not as clever as you technically and socially.   Can you not be kind to them?


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2011)

toblerone3 said:


> Maybe they are not as clever as you technically and socially.


Actually, they seem to have been very media savvy thus far, garnering mainstream media coverage on the BBC, Guardian, Independent and elsewhere.

I think I've been polite from the start, but there is something rather frustrating to have this group talking about wanting to engage the community, but then seemingly only wanting to have that debate on _their_ terms.

This is my area and my estate, and when people rock up and start talking about changing things and commercialising my neighbourhood, I've every right to ask questions. Lots of them. And they're clearly necessary too, seeing as this thread has shown that a lot of locals are rather in the dark about Brixton Green's plans and motives.

I think that's something they should be looking at if they genuinely want the local community involved.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 19, 2011)

Also I have asked people all over the the estate if they've heard of them and apart from the Golden Age Club no one knows anything about them. There are large covered notice boards on the estate. They haven't availed themselves of those. I've looked in the Community Centre. Zilch. 

When I, or other tenants are alerting the estate to something we go around and put info through the letter boxes. It's called footwork (unfortunately we can't in Southwyck because you need security fobs and it's a different landlord). It's also clear from what brad posted here that he hasn't a clue about the area. 

The estate shop gets in *one* copy of the Guardian, only on Saturdays. It's for me. Most people on the estate, if they get a newspaper at all, read the Metro, Standard, Sun or Mirror so alerting the broadsheets isn't going to reach the tenants. Also someone clearly didn't give the broadsheets the correct info. The Guardian and the Independent aren't the Sport and just print stuff from the ether. They use the info given. OK, they make mistakes but the info Brad said they got wrong was very specific & came from somewhere and I strongly suspect it came from Brixton Green, who clearly don't know the area from the guff brad has said here. 

It is not the tenants job to act as detectives and go forth and seek out info from people who don't actually come and engage with us. That's not Community Consultation. Community Consultation involves going and knocking on every door because that's how it works on Estates, not sticking something in the Broadsheets, or waiting for the tenants to come to them. If they can't even be bothered to put something on the notice boards the tenants won't know.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 19, 2011)

toblerone3 said:


> Perhaps you could help to consult and educate with Brad by actually talking to him. But no you just prefer to slag him off and his organisation.   Its almost as though you've pre-judged him as coming on this whole thing with a particular dodgy agenda. Do you?
> 
> Or do you just think he is naive ? In which case consult and educate why don't you?



I think he's pre-judged where I live. Seriously. He's the one proposing to do something on a bit of land empty for thirty years. Except it isn't empty at all and wasn't and businesses already operate there. 

He's going on about consulting with the community. Except from what I can tell he hasn't. 

He's the one saying we want a hair and beauty salon but all I can find out about that is someone on BGs board runs a hair and beauty salon. Funny, that. 

It's not my job to consult with him. I'm not interested in starting a business in front of his house, wherever it is. 

It's not my job to educate him about the area. It's his job, if he wants to do a business venture here, to do the research. I've got too much on my plate to do his research for him.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 19, 2011)

...and how can it be a 'community led development' when I can only find about 15 people (one of whom has since died) who've ever heard of BG when there are are over 525 houses and flats here (not even counting Southwyck).


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 19, 2011)

Right, quick proposal to Brixton Green. Instead of taking away the green space and trees in front of Southwyck and the businesses on the 'empty' space on Somerleyton Road (and especially not meals on wheels and community transport. Vulnerable people rely on those) why don't they develop the shops opposite Southwyck on the parade that are already empty, plus the boarded up units under the new flats and the empty space where the Labour Exchange was. Just a thought. These places are on Coldharbour Lane. It's a road that runs through Brixton, Loughborough Junction, past KCH and into Camberwell.


----------



## toblerone3 (Apr 19, 2011)

Fair points Editor and Mrs Magpie it does sound like totally inadequate consultation but the consultation is still going on, and its perfectly valid for you both to say your consultation methods need to improve before even beginning to talk about the substantive points of the proposal.  While 'community-led' clearly remains an aspiration rather than a reality, I am still not convinced that its not just general incompetence rather than some fully fledged scheme that the developers want to foist on the locals with minimal (aquiescence-like) consultation.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 19, 2011)

Oh, I have no illusions that it's anything other than sheer incompetence. GCSE Business Studies students could do better consultation.


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2011)

toblerone3 said:


> Fair points Editor and Mrs Magpie it does sound like totally inadequate consultation but the consultation is still going on...


That's the problem. I don't believe any real consultation is going on. I've only ever seen _one_ poster in all the years this outfit have been claiming to be heading up a 'community-led' project - and that was in the super-trendy part of Brixton Village, a place where I doubt most of the residents in my block choose to hang out. 

BrixtonGreen wants to bring about big changes to the lives of residents yet almost all of them remain blissfully unaware of what's being proposed under their name:


> BRIXTON GREEN is about local people leading the development of the neglected site along Somerleyton Road, central Brixton, London.
> 
> No one knows what an area needs more than the people who live and work there.



I'm a member of the residents association, so an open discussion here would have been most beneficial to their understanding of the project, but now it seems brad wants to keep the debate private via email. I find that a little odd, to be honest.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 19, 2011)

I'm sure they're well-meaning rather than rapacious, but this area is littered with well-meaning but failed initiatives. The road to hell and all that.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 19, 2011)

editor said:


> BrixtonGreen wants to bring about big changes to the lives of residents yet almost all of them remain blissfully unaware of what's being proposed under their name:


Well, I'm no longer unaware, and as brad has no doubt discovered, I'm not blissful right now. I'm a sweetie really, and slow to anger but, as editor can attest to, when someone really riles me, I am quite terrifying.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 19, 2011)

I would add, in case anyone gets hold of the wrong end of the stick, I was thinking of an incident in the Queens (long gone pub) where I was verbally laying into someone who had been winding me up all evening and suddenly editor was there smoothing things out and saying "Mrs M is very nice normally...."


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 19, 2011)

Like I said at the start of this thread, I think this is a profit-making property development disguised as a community initiative. I've not seen anything that has changed my mind on this since.

Having the "community stamp of approval" and good write ups in middle class newspapers will help ease planning applications and the transfer of this site from council ownership.

Brixton Green will probably not be interested in improving the shops on coldharbour lane because they can't build flats there and make a profit. Just remember that - according to the documents posted up by gramsci - Brad, as a director of Brixton Green, potentially stands to make some serious cash from this deal, whereas the buyers of the £1 shares won't get anything, aside from some vague promises about shops. Brad has been asked to answer the question about his own role and making money, but he has chosen not to respond to it.

I will be going to the open meeting on 5 may and I hope others will come too.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 19, 2011)

I have no idea whether you're right in that. I just assumed brad was just completely inept from the evidence on this thread. He didn't come over as a ruthless businessman at all, just a total plonker.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 19, 2011)

Is that a workable business strategy? Let everyone think you're an utterly hapless wanker, but really you're tough & hard-headed and ride roughshod over the disadvantaged?


----------



## Winot (Apr 19, 2011)

I don't know anything at all about Brixton Green, but I do know Philippe Castaing.  Not well, but as the owner of Opus/Upstairs cafe round the corner from us.  He's a decent bloke and I'd be very surprised indeed if he were (knowlingly) involved in a money grabbing nefarious venture.  

However, despite the fact that he has been talking about various Brixton Green projects for quite a few years, I have never really understood exactly what is involved.  He is rather - how can I put this - _hand-waving_ about the whole thing.  So my best guess on this very sketchy evidence is that this is ill-thought through and incompetently executed rather than being a clever ploy to make money.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 19, 2011)

brad said:


> The lack of street frontage discourages activity which reduces economic activity and community safety and so discourages access.


 
Absolutely. That bit of CHL is horribly bleak and that strip of grass never gets used for anything. Streets with actual frontages onto them are much better.


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Absolutely. That bit of CHL is horribly bleak and that strip of grass never gets used for anything. Streets with actual frontages onto them are much better.


That strip of grass is used for people to exercise their dogs, kids run around there and people often take in the sun there in the summer or enjoy an al fresco lunch break. More than that, it provides an attractive green view for residents and supports wildlife (walk past there in the early morning and you'll hear a loud chorus of birds).

I don't find anything 'horribly bleak' about a well maintained small park and I appreciate the grass and trees. However, what is bleak is the vast expanse of waste land opposite (where Cooltan used to be) and as MrsM pointed out, there's already a large strip of empty shop properties underneath the new block of flats, as well as several empty shops further along Coldharbour Lane. I don't see any overwhelming community need for more shops when so many are already lying empty.

I'm beginning to wonder if this development isn't more interested in engaging with the new trendy affluent Brixton that's sprung up in Brixton Village rather than the less fashionable Brixton formed of local, long term, poorer residents. That might explain why the only poster I've ever seen for Brixton Green was in the Village.


----------



## OpalFruit (Apr 19, 2011)

I'm not getting that the proposal is to develop 'commercial activity' on the green strip between S'ck House and CHL, but in an amongst new housing and creative hub along Somerleyton and overlooking the alley?

I know someone who works in quite a senior capacity at EGA and they said that they had had to organise escorts and sometimes even a suttle bus to transport staff from the temporary building to the new school because of a spate of assaults, and that the Head had observed constant daytime crack dealing outside his office window in the temporary building. I walk between Mayall Rd and CHL using the alley but avoid it at night, and think it would be great to have more activity and people facing out onto Somerleyton Rd from the 'tracks' side of the road, and to have more training and community projects between the school and CHL. 

But it needs to be community housing of some sort (HA or other social housing) or a large proportion needs to be, and it does seem odd to have started selling shares before the residents have been involved in real dialogue.

Edited to add I think BG have been formulating this since long before the new developments in the market so can't have been influenced by that.

But as someone who included Federation Coffee, Franca Manca and Bellantonis in my ideal day in Brixton, maybe I've been the 'wrong kind of resident' for these 25 years!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 19, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Absolutely. That bit of CHL is horribly bleak and that strip of grass never gets used for anything. Streets with actual frontages onto them are much better.


Yeah, but Crispy, I seem to remember you're the bloke who thought Somerleyton Road was a cul de sac.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 19, 2011)

I'll shut up now


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 19, 2011)

OpalFruit said:


> But as someone who included Federation Coffee, Franca Manca and Bellantonis in my ideal day in Brixton, maybe I've been the 'wrong kind of resident' for these 25 years!


It's OK. You didn't say Starbucks!


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2011)

Here's that "horribly bleak" view:


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 19, 2011)

I love all the crocus in Spring.


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I love all the crocus in Spring.


And the daffodils! It can smell lovely when they've just cut the grass too, and the dawn chorus can be deafening in the morning. Lambeth do a pretty good job of looking after this little park.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 19, 2011)

Hey editor, fancy a 'save the horribly bleak bit' picnic?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 19, 2011)

editor said:


> Lambeth do a pretty good job of looking after this little park.


Shame about the rest of the borough!


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2011)

OpalFruit said:


> ...I think there is a way in which on-street activity is reduced for the length of Southwyck House on Coldharbour Lane. There is no friendly bustle, no-one looking out over balconies, no-one going in or out. The effect, for someone who doesn't live there, is that it seals Moorlands off. And it has ramifications for the 'natural survelliance' ...


Actually, the green space and the perimeter wall at the eastern end of Southwyck House (by the old garage) are often _full_ of people sitting outside, enjoying a drink, chatting, playing with their kids, having a barbecue and the like. They've been there all day today in fact, and there's about 10-15 still sat out there now. 

Or are they the 'wrong' sort of people?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 19, 2011)

What about the bloke with (I think) Parkinsons who spends hours watching the world go by? It's the other side of the street that's blighted (plus it would be nice to grass over the old garage).


----------



## Crispy (Apr 19, 2011)

Enough of the witch hunt, please!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 19, 2011)

This isn't about you Crispy, we're talking about our endz


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 19, 2011)

Do you reckon Eme might be up for a bit of guerilla gardening there? This autumn we could put in bulbs for flowering the following spring. We could even write something in bulbs!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 19, 2011)

....or painting in bulbs....the possibilities are endless.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Apr 20, 2011)

And then you could write an article about it for the Guardian.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 20, 2011)

In my case it's more likely to be a Gardening mag.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 20, 2011)

Just been catching up on some of this interesting thread. Though I still need to read some of the posts in detail. What the various posts here make me think is that the Brixton Masterplan consultation should not just have ended when it was produced as a document for Cabinet approval. The Masterplan is the basis for the development of Brixton. 

Imo , as I have said before, Future Brixton should have involved people in the actual the implementation of the plan and further consultation on how that is to be done. The Brixton masterplan is supposed about developing existing communities.

I have asked the Council if they want a CLT on Somerleyton road site. (The Masterplan plan mentions CLT but more as an aspiration and does not say where it would go. )The answer I get is that the Council will treat any possible proposals for the site as they would any development proposals. In plain English they (officially) neither oppose or endorse BG. What I need to know from the Council is if they want a CLT on the Somerleyton road site. If thats the case it would imo be best that Future Brixton are involved in further consultation with local residents/ organisations on it and setting it up. Also to provide oversight to ensure community consultation and that its meeting existing communities needs. As an independant arbitrator.

As far as I know Officers are looking at possible Delivery Vehicles for the Brixton Masterplan. The Masterplan split Brixton up into different parcels of land. The Somerleyton road site is one of them. Its not up to Officers to decide who or what organisations (private, public or voluntary) further the plan. They can produce reports and advise. This will be Cllrs decision.

The present economic situation was not bad when the plan was first agreed. The Council is now under severe pressure ( and thats an understatement). I am not clear on how this will affect the aspirations of the plan.


----------



## Fenian (Apr 20, 2011)

The Council seem for some obscure reason to favour a non-consultative private sector-orientated route; I am in favour of a housing association route with space, metaphorically and physically, for Brixton's community old and new.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 23, 2011)

Well Fenian you are clearly not moving ahead with our changing times embracing new challenges 

from the Cooperative commission report:

Page 78

16.8 To support the community acting autonomously Lambeth Council should develop and extend Community Freshview, where local people act together to solve local environmental problems in their very local neighbourhood, across the borough. We also propose that the council work with Brixton Green to explore different ways of engaging with the local community. 

From the Coop commission report introduction:


1.1 Throughout England’s history the way in which public services are delivered has undergone constant change. The charity-led approach to delivering services, which was dominant in the 1800s, gradually gave way to a minimal welfare state in the early 1900s. This in turn was replaced by the introduction of the monolithic welfare state at the end of the Second World War. More recently England has seen the emergence of what has been called “the mixed economy of welfare” where the state, third sector and private sector organisations provide a range of public services. Each approach 
has provided its own benefits and has brought with it a number of challenges. 
1.2 In the early 21st century we have arguably reached another crossroads in our thinking about how public services should be provided. Increasingly we all recognise that public services are more responsive when power is shared, with citizens and the state co-operating with one another. Based on this recognition, Lambeth Council and its staff have been working with citizens, local organisations and a range of experts to develop a new approach to delivering public services. This approach, called  “the Co-operative Council”, aims to transform public service provision by handing 
power from the provider to the user. It seeks to do this by putting co-operation and mutualism at the heart of how Lambeth Council delivers its services. In practice this means the council working in partnership with citizens to design and deliver public services which meet their specific local needs, incentivising citizens to play a more active role in their local community and more co-operation with a wide range of service providers (be they social enterprises, co-operatives, public sector organisations, businesses, faith organisations and other third sector organisations) to 
deliver tailored services in different areas. 

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/...il/SharingPowerNewSettlementCitizensState.htm


----------



## editor (Apr 23, 2011)

So has Brad really fucked off from here because some members of the local community have expressed doubts and concerns about his "community-led" proposals?

I sincerely hope not because that would be, well, a bit pathetic.


----------



## OpalFruit (Apr 23, 2011)

editor said:


> Actually, the green space and the perimeter wall at the eastern end of Southwyck House (by the old garage) are often _full_ of people sitting outside, enjoying a drink, chatting, playing with their kids, having a barbecue and the like. They've been there all day today in fact, and there's about 10-15 still sat out there now.
> 
> Or are they the 'wrong' sort of people?


 
nah - probably more often the wrong sort of weather!

I agree with Gramsci re his observations on the process of the Brixton Masterplan.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 24, 2011)

Thanks.

I thought the questions u asked in previous posts were to the point.


----------



## editor (Apr 24, 2011)

They've just updated their website although I'm still none the wiser as to what the scheme actually_ is._

What is, for example, is this "high social return" promised for my £1.



> Will my share make me money?
> 
> No. Shareholders will receive a high social return but not a financial return.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 25, 2011)

brad said:


> Thanks for the points raised above.
> 
> *...how do we know the profits won't end up with a commercial developer - or even you! *
> Brixton Green Limited is run for the benefit of the local community. It can only use its funds and assets for this purpose. Neither directors, board members or share holders can take a profit.
> ...



Directors can be remunerated but not get profits. I am not clear about the difference between Board members and Directors.

The land is already owned by community as its Council owned. So why is BG control of it necessary? The Council already use the land , now or in the past, for educational purposes etc without the need of a CLT. Why is BG development better than say a HA and private developer working with the Council to develop the site in line with the Brixton Masterplan?

Sounds like a lot of the substance of the Independant article was incorrect. Not then an "excellant article" as its misleading. I am at a loss to see how the Independant got so many facts wrong in the article


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 25, 2011)

Maybe someone should ask the person that wrote the article in The Independent. He's got a website through which he can be contacted.

www.grahamnorwood.info


----------



## Ms T (Apr 25, 2011)

I agree with Opalfruit that the alleyway between Mayall Road and Somerleyton is to be avoided at night.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 25, 2011)

I don't avoid it. I don't exactly go "Whoopee! My favourite after-dark part of the journey home!" either though. I could walk the very long way round, but never do. It's a really handy shortcut.


----------



## Ms T (Apr 25, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I don't avoid it. I don't exactly go "Whoopee! My favourite after-dark part of the journey home!" either though. I could walk the very long way round, but never do. It's a really handy shortcut.


 
It is, but I don't feel safe there after dark so I do take the long way round if I'm on my own.


----------



## editor (Apr 25, 2011)

Ms T said:


> It is, but I don't feel safe there after dark so I do take the long way round if I'm on my own.


It's not my favourite route home at night either, although I'm not sure how BrixtonGreen intend to improve it. However you spin it, it remains a narrow alleyway that's traditionally provided a favoured getaway for ne'er do wells. Not sure how a chefs school and hairdressers will change that.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 25, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Maybe someone should ask the person that wrote the article in The Independent. He's got a website through which he can be contacted.
> 
> www.grahamnorwood.info


 
this book of his looks a must buy:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Profiting-P...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254467545&sr=1-1


----------



## editor (Apr 25, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> this book of his looks a must buy:
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Profiting-P...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254467545&sr=1-1


Nice. He sounds like a real charmer.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 25, 2011)

There is more info on CLTs on this website:

http://www.communitylandtrusts.org.uk/case-studies/urban-clts


from website:

Urban CLTs

The Context

Urban Community Land Trusts were piloted as part of the National CLT Demonstration Programme from 2006 - 2008. From this a practical toolkit was developed featuring 10 case studies of developing projects, advice and guidance on the legal and political challenges, and recommendations for future action.

Developing a CLT in an urban area obviously poses a different set of challenges for communities than in rural areas but it could also open different avenues of opportunity. This report on a Community Equity Trust model published in 2008 (written by Stephanie Saulter, Alison Masterman and Anna Eagar) outlines the model developed by Shoreditch Trust in a New Deal for Communities Area. The model discusses the design of a self-financing and sustainble vehicle for urban regeneration based around the renewal and revitalisation of inner city council housing estates.
Examples

Urban CLT development continues apace and features prominently in discussions over affordable housing solutions in London. The capital city of England can point to two prominent schemes which aim to help develop and embed the CLT concept into local thinking.

London CITIZENS are seeking to develop a Community Land Trust on the site of St Clement's Hospital in East London. Bringing this historic landmark back into use will help regenerate parts of East London and provide much needed family-sized affordable housing. The proposed scheme has received much support within the local community and you can view various resources including video campaigns and the background story at their website.

Brixton Green Community Land is currently developing plans to create a large-scale urban regeneration project. The aim is to create a community-owned mix of housing, employment, health and education to help create local wealth and benefit the Brixton community.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 25, 2011)

editor said:


> Nice. He sounds like a real charmer.


 


This book gives budding property developers and investors all they need to know to profit from property. The author offers a new twist on buy-to-let and shows how the market for renting to some groups is expanding even in these tough times. Overseas opportunities are examined too, identifying which countries offer the best opportunities to buy cheap, let and then sell. For investors willing to get their hands dirty there is also an explanation of exactly how to pursue a self-build or renovation project and sell at a profit - with advice on finding the right craftsmen, writing contracts and monitoring progress, plus selecting the best estate agent. This book also looks at how amateur investors can enter the complicated commercial sector of shops and offices, and touches upon property investment trusts for those with faith in the stock market. Getting a lodger as a good source of tax-free income is also demonstrated. * Details opportunities across property markets - helping readers decide how to get involved * Gives expert advice, warning notes and useful contacts - to help avoid the many pitfalls * Learn from case studies of peoples' real-life experience - to find out how it can be done.

http://www.angusrobertson.com.au/book/profiting-from-property-in-a-recession/6766540/


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 25, 2011)

editor said:


> It's not my favourite route home at night either, although I'm not sure how BrixtonGreen intend to improve it.


Toll gate?


----------



## Ms T (Apr 25, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Toll gate?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 25, 2011)

http://www.communitylandtrusts.org.uk/case-studies/urban-clts

Back to the CLT website. 

"Developing a CLT in an urban area obviously poses a different set of challenges for communities than in rural areas but it could also open different avenues of opportunity. This report on a Community Equity Trust model published in 2008 (written by Stephanie Saulter, Alison Masterman and Anna Eagar) outlines the model developed by Shoreditch Trust in a New Deal for Communities Area. The model discusses the design of a self-financing and sustainble vehicle for urban regeneration based around the renewal and revitalisation of inner city council housing estates."

Clicked on "This report" to look at Shoreditch Trusts proposed CLT or as they call it a Community Equity Trust. The first 23 pages are good summary of what they propose. Its also the best description of a CLT ive found. ( I have been looking around for a while. The explanations are usually how good the idea is rather than analysis.)

This report looks at the various models for regenerating Shoreditch- PPP, PFI, stock transfer, sales for capital receipts to fund doing up rest of estates.

The problem in Shoreditch is that its becoming a place for the very rich (property buyers) and very poor (on old estates). Its future is to be polarised. These social groups do not interact and lead separate lives. 

Shoreditch Trust comes out of New Deal for Communities. A  Government funded programme to help with deprived areas. The NDC laid emphasis on community engagement and the need for long lasting improvement rather short term piecemeal programmes.

ST realised that underlying a lot of the social problems in the area was lack of affordable housing for a wide range of people. In particular middle income groups.Those on £30k to £50k who cant get social housing but cant afford market prices.

ST also wanted a model that would bring in services ( banks , shops and small business employment etc) as well housing. As there was a lack of amenities. The rich went out of the area for services.

The looked at and developed there own model based on the USA CLT. This means that land and estates are transferred to CET from Council. The land is used to build commercial property for rent, housing for sale and rented housing.

ST also emphasised community engagement. They developed the model and discussed it with residents first. To see what they thought and whether it was what they wanted to try. As there were other models of development. ST think community engagement is paramount. 

The CET model they have developed means that the land is held by the CET. Therefore rent from commercial properties goes into the CLT. Unlike a private developer they do not have to price in a profit margin. So they can deliver more affordable homes. They have also developed a working model to show how many affordable homes they can build depending on financial outcomes. ST say a danger is that a CLT will end up building expensive houses over time if its not careful. As this is one way to make a CLT financially viable in the long term. As building/ development takes place over many years may happen to deal with changed financial circumstances.

To "lock in assets" and sustain community cohesion they propose that even housing for private sale ( lease as land is held by Trust) has 1% share owned by trust. This means that the CET can have some say over private housing. In return the owner gets a vote on the CET and same engagement as social rented properties.

Right to Buy is a problem. So ST have developed a model of one freehold for several houses. A bit complicated but in the piece they explain it as a way to stop RtB from diminishing the affordable housing.

So what they have developed is a model where everyone wins. The land is held in Trust with mechanisms to make sure profits go back into the community and also to provide a range of housing that is gaurenteed to stay.

It also should help community cohesion ( sorry I am sounding like a Council officer now ive got into the habit of using that phrase). As people have a vote in the CET , say in how it develops and more local services.

The thing about the ST is that it had paid staff to go out and investigate this model properly. They also seem to have an ethos of consulting people and asking them there opinion. The say there model might not be appropriate everywhere.

They also come up against officer resistance to the idea. Some for understandable reasons and others is that it is possibly risky as its untried.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 26, 2011)

From page 17 & 18 of Shoreditch Trust report saying how important community engagement is:

Assuming that they do stack up, we feel the next step must be intensive community engagement to explain the proposal and gauge resident response to it.  The initial impetus to investigate a CET may begin with anyone: a group of residents, the local authority, a regeneration agency.  But it can only legitimately be taken forward if a majority of local residents want it to happen.  The value of the preliminary financial work at this stage is clear  giving people an idea of what their regenerated community might be like, in terms of changes in density, demographics, tenures, land uses and so on, is crucial if they are to make informed judgements about whether or not to support the regeneration.   

The amount of time necessary for community advocacy and capacity building in order to facilitate this process should not be underestimated.  The Shoreditch NDC area has an advantage in this regard, as eight years of intensive engagement has already done much to build community capabilities around regeneration.  An area that has had less intervention may well require more time for this phase; experience would suggest that for a new project requiring the development of new relationships, it is unlikely to require less than two years.  However long it takes, the engagement work must be treated seriously and its outcome respected.  The community’s response to the CET proposal must be a deciding factor in whether to take it forward – or not.  A proposal based on the community ownership, development and management of assets cannot be successful without the support and commitment of the community.  

However residents are not the only members of a community.  If the CET proposal is to have a future, all stakeholders – including, crucially, the current holder of whatever public asset is the target of the regeneration – must understand and embrace the concept and be willing to work together to carry it forward.  The development of this model has been premised on the regeneration of council estates, so the presumptive public asset holder throughout this report is a local authority.  But there is no implicit reason why it could not be a primary care trust, an education authority, English Partnerships, the Ministry of Defence, or any other public sector body that owns public land and property. 

If the initial financial modelling is encouraging and all stakeholders are enthusiastic, the CET can be formed and the regeneration project launched.  This would require the formation of the trust itself; the formal commissioning of the design development and planning approval processes; serious negotiations with financiers and grant or gap funders; and, with these steps successfully concluded, the transfer of the public asset into the CET.  In project management terms, this transfer should not take place until it is known that the regeneration project will be able to proceed and all parties involved have agreed and committed to the terms under which it may do so.  However there must be a commitment on the part of the public asset holder that once those conditions are fulfilled the transfer will indeed take place....

However the so-called “soft” skills must not be compromised either.  The approach of the CET and its Board to community development and management must be based on a continuing ethos of community consultation, participation and representation.  The CET would also include in its articles a duty to consult with, and to seek participation from, members of the community with respect to its development, operational and other activities.  The CET’s activities will therefore be reflective of, and responsive to, the people it serves; and in so doing, continually encourage the building and maintenance of skills and capacity in the local community.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 26, 2011)

The "asset lock" p23 of Shoreditch report. Holding the asset base ( land transferred to CET from Council) means that the CET can keep the improvements and control there use for the communities benefit long term. Rather than developing a site to see it sold off at a later date and then it going out of local control.


The Community Equity Trust proposal is the most comprehensive and sustainable model for urban regeneration in the Shoreditch NDC area that the Housing Team has been able to identify.  The UK has many urban areas with similar characteristics and a similar range of problems, and the CET’s potential for generating widespread and longlasting positive change is proportionately great.  Its most unique feature is that the transformative generation of wealth is not privatised, but is regarded as a legitimate community function.  The resulting asset base is held in and managed by the community as a long-term investment.  However, unlike some more radical models of collectivism, the CET does not prevent or inhibit the generation of private wealth.  The distribution of newly created asset value between the communal and the personal is closely and transparently managed.  Given the vast sums of public money that continue to be spent on regeneration, but with few to no asset lock mechanisms or other safeguards to maintain the benefit of that spending for the target community, the utilisation of a methodology that does just that should be made a priority. 


p15

 Where there is neither an owner-occupier’s nor a landlord’s concern for the physical maintenance of an asset, nor a long-term resident’s concern for the cohesion and harmony of the community, there is little incentive for people to act in a co-ordinated manner for mutual benefit.  We felt that, if we were to create a neighbourhood that would be socially as well as physically and financially sustainable, we had to consider whether there were better options than selling homes on the open market. We instead proposed that the CET retain a portion of equity in all of the homes it develops – a so-called “golden share.”  In the case of what would otherwise be an open market sale, this share could be as small as contractually feasible – ten, five or even one per cent.  The CET would thus derive close to the maximum capital receipt for the property.  However by jointly owning the home with the occupant via a shared equity trust deed19, the CET could have the contractual right to enforce agreements regarding the use and maintenance of the property.  The owner-occupant would have voting rights in the CET – and be incentivised to use them, and to thereby remain involved in the community’s administration and governance.  It has been suggested that this structure might be unattractive to potential purchasers, affecting the overall viability of the scheme.  Our research leads us to believe that the opposite effect is more likely to result.  High quality homes in desirable areas with strong, accountable neighbourhood management tend to be very desirable, and to appreciate in value 
accordingly.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 26, 2011)

Ensuring a mix of housing in the scheme Shoreditch Trust developed this "matrix" p14 and 15 of Shoreditch Trust report. The debt / equity ratio and cashflow predictions in the financial modelling are to do with the fact that Shoreditch land prices are high. If the CET gets the land transferred to it by Council it can borrow off the asset ( land) to develop area. This debt is covered by cashflow from rents ( commercial and social) and sales. The danger is that its easier to develop high price properties to sell to cover the debt easily. This led them to develop this "matrix" to use as the project would have gone along to keep an eye on the range of affordable housing being developed.


Ensuring Affordable Housing Outputs 

If our primary purpose had been to come up with financially viable pro forma property developments, the toolkit at this point would have been more than adequate for the purpose. Tables 8a, 8b and 8c in Appendix 4 illustrate the key financial outputs of the debt-equity ratio, the cash flow with which to service development debt, and the value of retained equity as required by financial institutions as part of their risk assessment protocols.  However we felt that the aspect which was hardest to monitor was in many ways the most important – the achievement of affordability.  With different amounts of equity being sold in different proportions, and varying these amounts and proportions the most obvious way to ‘tweak’ a scheme to achieve viability, it was all too easy to lose track of  the range and ratio of household incomes that the scheme could eventually accommodate.  And yet, if we ended up with a scheme that was financially achievable only by providing for the poorest and the wealthiest, we would have done nothing to address income segregation and fill the missing middle.  We needed a way of monitoring the income profile of households in a proposed 
scheme.   

We did this by developing a mathematical tool which we call the affordability matrix.  The affordability matrix calculates what the annual expenditure on housing must be for each type of household in the scheme.  It then adds an appropriate amount for non-housing expenditure, and thereby shows how much gross annual income each household must earn in order to sustainably inhabit a home of the size and tenure indicated.  Finally, it displays a range of income brackets and shows, both numerically and as a percentage, how many households the scheme can accommodate in each bracket.  We incorporated the affordability matrix into the toolkit at the granular level, showing income profiles for each block and building, as well as at the summary level, for the scheme as a whole.  It has become a key tool for us both in how we define and how we measure housing affordability.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 26, 2011)

I hope this makes some of what a Community Land Trust is a bit more clear. 

Its most unique feature is that the transformative generation of wealth is not privatised, but is regarded as a legitimate community function. The resulting asset base is held in and managed by the community as a long-term investment. However, unlike some more radical models of collectivism, the CET does not prevent or inhibit the generation of private wealth.

Though myself I dont see that with the political will more radical models are just as relevant. Even the Shoreditch Report (which I think is excellant explanation) uses that getting people up a rung on the housing ladder phrase. As though if u live in social housing u are at the bottom socially. I watched a History of Council recently. At one point a third of people in this country lived in Council housing. It was meant for all. (Including those that Shoreditch , correctly say, are being pushed out of Shoreditch- teachers etc. )People didnt see anything wrong with living in Council housing after WW2. They felt it was there right.

see here. But its not on i player anymore:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0109dvs


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 28, 2011)

If u put Brixton Green Community Land Trust into Google Urban comes out on top. If u put Brixton Green in it comes second. How does that happen?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 28, 2011)

I noticed CABE have a report of BG. I think CABE is now wound up. I found it on BG website. For those who were present at meeting see website. I took them off for to post up.

http://www.brixtongreen.org/cabe-review/


LAMBETH COUNCIL: BRIXTON GREEN 

CABE is very pleased to be involved in the discussion around the redevelopment of Brixton Green. We are grateful to the team for inviting us to participate and for briefing us so thoroughly on the proposal. Our walking tour around Brixton gave us a good understanding of the issues involved, which were then explored further in the open meeting with residents, local stakeholders and Lambeth Council. 

Summary 
Brixton Green is an ambitious community share ownership scheme which combines housing, business units and arts venues. We applaud the aspirations and encourage the project team, the architects, the local authority and community to continue working together on the proposal. Brixton Green is clearly a key project in the improvement of the neighbourhood. Its success depends on a wider masterplan for 
the area. Continued collaborative working between the stakeholders will help realise the project’s full potential. At this early stage, we have a few comments which we offer to assist in the design development of the project.  

A place in Brixton With its rich offer of culture, community activities and shops, Brixton Green is likely to become a vibrant destination in Brixton. However, the project alone cannot resolve the problems around Somerleyton Road, Loughborough Park and Coldharbour Lane; the site is small in relation to Brixton and one project alone cannot address the broader issues of the area. We suggest developing a larger strategy for the whole area and to identify measures that reach beyond the red line boundary of the site that 
 complement this specific project. We understand that Lambeth Council are intending to develop a masterplan that improves connections and routes through the area and helps understand the movements and destinations of people living there and visiting Brixton Green. Continued dialogue with residents in the neighbouring streets will allow everybody in the area benefit from the proposed development. 

Connecting the community 
Improved connections, particularly through the currently hostile Somerleyton Passage, will have a positive impact on safety and social cohesion in the neighbourhood. At present, the separating impact of the railway viaduct is reinforced by the row of large, forbidding industrial sheds and high fences along Somerleyton Road; the massive barrier of Southwyck House seems to block access from Coldharbour Lane. The new buildings should aim to create a penetrable, pleasant and well-defined street space that provides safe and welcoming pedestrian routes that connect, for example, the Evelyn Grace Academy to neighbouring estates. We 
recommend that in developing the proposal, the team considers the position of entrance doors and fronts and backs of houses as well as the potential to include some commercial facilities to make the street safer for the whole community. 

A vibrant place 
A mixed-use development with a rich variety of community activities, shops, work places and flats has the potential to create a vibrant streetscape. The variety of activities in the whole block will balance the potential over-dominance of residential units. An imaginative, adaptable new form of buildings could provide spaces for living and working and retail opportunities that could enliven Somerleyton Road. The existing residents on the other side of Somerleyton Road should be involved in the design process to ensure that the needs of the whole community are respected. 

A strong sign We understand why the tall building accommodating the theatre is in its current location and acknowledge the importance of a marker on Coldharbour Lane. However, we suggest that the team explores how more activities could animate Somerleyton Road and pull more people into the neighbourhood. A strong attractor close to the railway passage could become a new beacon for the area, comparable to the new Evelyn Grace Academy on the former depot site.  

Public space and local identity 
The treatment of green spaces, front gardens and the car parking arrangement will also have an impact on the quality of the streetscape. There are some mature trees along the street and it would be desirable to keep them. We also suggest exploring whether the railway viaduct could be used for some activities, and whether the existing Mansion Flats could perhaps be integrated into the proposal.  


An ambitious project 
The commitment and passion behind this project are inspiring. Clearly, Brixton Green cannot resolve all the issues in the area, but a clear vision for the site can give a real impetus and perhaps encourage other similar ideas elsewhere. A realistic phasing strategy, both in terms of financing and time, should be able to adapt to change and work on the assumption that some elements of the proposal take longer than anticipated or never happen at all. Splitting the site into several phases and developing them incrementally would be helpful. Small scale, short term results right from the beginning of the process are important to keep the momentum, particularly as some aspects of the project which are not fully defined at this early stage, for 
example the masterplan, could delay the progress. The project depends on the steady realisation of the mission and the core objectives to ensure ongoing community support. We look forward to seeing this project take form and to being involved as the scheme continues to evolve.  

Please keep CABE in touch with the progress of this scheme and let us know if we can be offer further assistance. If there is any point that requires clarification, please 



Public scheme 
As this scheme is in the public domain, we will publish our views on our website, www.cabe.org.uk

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CABE letter says local authority is working on this proposal. I am at a loss to understand what is going on.  

I didnt know about this CABE visit to the site.


----------



## editor (Apr 28, 2011)

Very vibrant, then.


> The existing residents on the other side of Somerleyton Road should be involved in the design process to ensure that the needs of the whole community are respected.


I'm on the resident's association and we've heard absolutely bugger all.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 28, 2011)

editor said:


> Very vibrant, then.
> I'm on the resident's association and we've heard absolutely bugger all.


 
It is a shame the resident's association has not been formally approached by BG. Given that some members of the residents' association are independently aware that the regular public meetings are scheduled to commence in May, would it be worth one of them attending the first meeting and advising that the association has concerns about the breadth of the consultation process to date and would like to engage if formally invited.


----------



## editor (Apr 28, 2011)

Rushy said:


> It is a shame the resident's association has not been formally approached by BG. Given that some members of the residents' association are independently aware that the regular public meetings are scheduled to commence in May, would it be worth one of them attending the first meeting and advising that the association has concerns about the breadth of the consultation process to date and would like to engage if formally invited.


BG have been going for, what, five years? And yet residents are supposed to go running off to their poorly advertised, irregular meetings to find out what "community-led" plans they have for OUR area? 

Seeing as Brad can't even be bothered to engage with local residents here, I'm not so sure they're even particularly interested in what 'off-message' locals think.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 28, 2011)

editor said:


> BG have been going for, what, five years? And yet residents are supposed to go running off to their poorly advertised, irregular meetings to find out what "community-led" plans they have for OUR area?
> 
> Seeing as Brad can't even be bothered to engage with local residents here, I'm not so sure they're even particularly interested in what 'off-message' locals think.



I'm not sure what you mean by "OUR area". Who does "OUR" refer to?

You have previously argued that when starting with a blank sheet of paper, rather engaging in too much up front public consultation, the best way to get a project off the ground is to get a tight and energetic group of people together to bash out a firm plan between them _before _presenting it to the community for comment and then, based on that feedback, either progressing, ammending or going back to the drawing board. These guys are doing just that and it is just coming up to the stage where you can feed back.

1st Thursday of every month starting in May seems pretty regular to me. Residents (of Brixton in general) are being invited to attend so that they can a) find out more b) express concerns c) contribute. Given your strength of feeling and local knowledge it would be a real pity if you were not there.

I appreciate your point that they could have advertised the meetings better but to be fair, as soon as you invited them on to U75 they responded by extending an open invite to all the readers of Brixton's busiest forum to attend the first (as well as future) meetings. I also appreciate that they didn't enter into the debate online in the way that you wanted them to but, after all the effort they must have put into this project to date, it is hardly a "big ask" to get you to come to the first public meeting where they say they will answer all your questions face to face in front of other interested people.


----------



## editor (Apr 28, 2011)

Rushy said:


> 1st Thursday of every month starting in May seems pretty regular to me. Residents (of Brixton in general) are being invited to attend so that they can a) find out more b) express concerns c) contribute. Given your strength of feeling and local knowledge it would be a real pity if you were not there.


They've been claiming that they're a "community-led" project for several years, yet in all that time have made no discernible effort to communicate with the locals and now they've apparently declined - after being personally invited - to discuss any of their plans with the local residents who post here. 

And this isn't some obscure site - it's the biggest Brixton site that comes up #1 and #2 in Google for their company and #1 for the street they want to develop. A site where they've been told members of the residents group post.

So it seems that they want it _entirely on their own terms_: residents have to go to their poorly advertised meetings (there's still not a single poster or flyer to be seen in Southwyck House or anywhere in the adjacent area) *or get no say at all.* 

I dare say the vast majority of residents haven't the faintest idea that this meeting is going on, and even if they did, not everyone can afford the time to go traipsing off to meetings. 

Does this sound like a 'community-led' project to you? It sure as hell doesn't to me.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 28, 2011)

editor said:


> And this isn't some obscure site - it's the biggest Brixton site that comes up #1 and #2 in Google for their company and #1 for the street they want to develop. A site where they've been told members of the residents group post.


 
I wasn't being facetious about U75. I'm saying that (amongst other methods) they have advertised their open meetings on here and in so doing have given the meetings much more coverage to a lot of local people including - as you rightly say - members of the resident's group . Word of mouth will also play a part. No doubt at the first of the meetings they will start identifying more groups to connect with. (By the way - if I Google Brixton Green their site comes up #1,2,3.)

They seem to be taking the route of coming up with what they think is a good framework and then presenting it to the community for feedback over a series of face to face meetings. You have previously suggested that this is a good way (in fact your preferred way) to get projects going - rather than going straight to consultation with a blank sheet. On that basis "Community led" surely can mean that the interests of the community are at the projects heart, they think they have got a good basis for a plan and they want to see if the community thinks they are on the right track. Much of the work done to date will have been involved with the practicalities of establishing whether there is an opportunity for this council owned land to be transferred to a community owned trust. The specifics including exactly what is offered on that site seem pretty fluid and open to change.

Still not sure what you meant by 'OUR area'.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 28, 2011)

Rushy said:


> It is a shame the resident's association has not been formally approached by BG. Given that some members of the residents' association are independently aware that the regular public meetings are scheduled to commence in May, would it be worth one of them attending the first meeting and advising that the association has concerns about the breadth of the consultation process to date and would like to engage if formally invited.



1) The consultation process was started by the Council ( Future Brixton). My view is that if the Council want a CLT on the site they should consult with residents. I looked at the Shoreditch proposed CLT ( see my previous posts) as I think there it was done in the right way. Not imposing it on people.

2) Why should people ask to be formally invited to engage? They live in area.It should be there right. Brixton Masterplan says communities should be engaged with. 

3) My problem with BG is that they seem to think if want to discuss this ur signing up to there vision. There is a difference at looking at a possible form of structure (CLT) and signing up to it. What happens if u think a CLT is not necessarily the only way to develop this site and another way is more appropriate?

4) I am concerned that its not clear from Council whether they see Brixton Green as leading development on that site or not. BG are a private organisation ( not for profit). 

5) My other problem is that what if you are prepared to discuss the development of the site with them but dont agree on certain elements of the scheme or the overall structure (CLT). Does that mean u effectually exclude yourself from proposals for this site? I really think the Council should step in here to provide some oversight. 

6) I think the best course of action for people here who have raised concerns is to email there Coldharbour ward Cllrs. The possible queries are. What is the status of BG in the Council? Does the Council recognise BG as the body to lead consultation and development on this site? Does the Council want to see a CLT on this site? What is the role of Future Brixton in furthering the aims of the Masterplan and consulting residents on this site?

7) Im a bit concerned that the proposed meetings are about persuading people to sign up and buy shares rather than discuss the fundamentals.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 28, 2011)

editor said:


> BG have been going for, what, five years? And yet residents are supposed to go running off to their poorly advertised, irregular meetings to find out what "community-led" plans they have for OUR area?
> 
> Seeing as Brad can't even be bothered to engage with local residents here, I'm not so sure they're even particularly interested in what 'off-message' locals think.



BG have been going for a while. They however started out as a business orientated group. Fair enough that is what the 2 founders are. They gained some recognition in the Council and GLA for sustainable/ green business support and guidance. There interest in CLT came later. I think they assumed that Somerleyton road was neglected site. But it has a history. See here:

http://www.londonsdc.org/londonleaders/profile.aspx?ID=1

Brad background is property management. See here:


Brixton Green is the creation of two social entrepreneurs, Philippe Castaing and Bradley Carroll. Castaing moved to Brixton from France some years ago and established a local restaurant business: Opus/Brixton Upstairs. Carroll is involved in property management and his family has long resided in the Brixton 
area. They met as parents at a local school and found that they shared a number of interests: local business, the environment and, above all, a passion for Brixton. 
They set up a Community Land Trust	–BrixtonGreen	–with	the	idea	 to create a blueprint for green urban regeneration that brings together social, economic and environmental goals in an ideal urban environment. Unused and underused land will be utilised for the benefit of the whole community. The intention is to empower residents and give them a sense of ownership by promoting individual shareholdings in local enterprise. The essence of Brixton Green is that quality 
of life is improved when residents participate in entrepreneurship. Castaing believes it is important that Brixton Green delivers a community that is open to everyone, rather than a ‘gated’ community, closed off and separate. Ultimately, the aim is to create a situation where local people can achieve their ambitions without having to move away. The vision is recognised at a pan- London level. Castaing has been made a London Leader by the London Sustainable Development Commission to help him to inspire others. He believes that their business experience is directly relevant. 

from South London Business issue 14 March/ April 2009 page 26


 Though I take issue with the concept of London Leaders. I like to have a say in who is leading.

I also feel that community development is different from running a business.

Nor do I follow the argument that residents lives are improved by "entrepreneurship". Not sure what that means exactly. Peoples lives are improved when they have access to good services, secure jobs with good conditions of work ( not the "precariat" the workforce is becoming in this country) and free time to do other things.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 28, 2011)

editor said:


> BG have been going for, what, five years? And yet residents are supposed to go running off to their poorly advertised, irregular meetings to find out what "community-led" plans they have for OUR area?
> 
> Seeing as Brad can't even be bothered to engage with local residents here, I'm not so sure they're even particularly interested in what 'off-message' locals think.


 
BG do however have political support from Tessa Jowell, Chuka and Reed the leader of the Council. They are skilled at going to the top to get support. They are not to be underestimated.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 28, 2011)

Rushy said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "OUR area". Who does "OUR" refer to?



The area we live in as residents. Which is the Somerleyton road site and the housing around it-Barrier Block , Moorlands estate and Guinness Trust estate. Me, Mrs Magpie and ED all live either on the site or right next to it. Unlike the 2 founding Directors of BG.

I took part ( representing the group i belong to) in the Brixton and specifically the Somerleyton road site masterplanning with Future Brixton.


----------



## Fenian (Apr 29, 2011)

Oh you mean there are actual people who 'live' in Brixton's (gulp) 'derelict area' (shudder) who have opinions?  Well I'll be.  Obviously these should be first in line for Brixton Green's re-education agenda against nasty collectivism (boo, hiss) and into the joys of social entrepeneurship and market rents.


----------



## editor (Apr 29, 2011)

It's a community led enterprise that has shown virtually zero interest in actually talking to the local community!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 30, 2011)

What worries me most is they haven't done their research properly either. They make pronouncements about the area that are *totally wrong*. I'm not calling them liars, just that they are utterly mistaken. I live here, they don't.


----------



## brad (May 2, 2011)

Gramsci's comments & support for [...............................]
I think it is important for readers of this forum to understand the context of Gramsci's comments and his support for housing associations, [.....................]

Brixton Green contacted "Gramsci" in January 2009 and invited all of the [.................] to become involved with the Brixton Green proposal and to feed in their ideas of what the area needed and how best to achieve this.

We had some meetings with Gramsci during 2009 followed by some detailed email correspondence dealing with the issues he raised . During the emails we asked Gramsci to describe his aspirations for the area. We expected aspirations such as sustainability, improved housing or jobs. However we were surprised when he listed his aspirations as follows:
[.....................................private email.....................................................]

[.................................private email........................................................]

[.....................................private email...........................................................................................]

Gramsci then refused to continue the email discussion.

[...................................................................................................]

[....................................................................................................]


Gramsci's Posts
Since Gramsci refused to continue email discussions with Brixton Green he has made a number of negative posts on Urban 75 regarding Brixton Green. Some of the issues he raises on this forum are issues he's already discussed with Brixton Green. Gramsci knows that if he wished he could meet Brixton Green to discuss the issues or contribute to the proposal.

Gramsci made clear that he was consulting CHMC's members during our discussions. Therefore, the other members of CHMC will also have been:
• Aware of the Brixton Green proposal since January 2009.
• Aware of our invitation in 2009 for all the CHMC members to become involved and help shape the Brixton Green proposal.
• Aware of the offer [..........................] had made to [....]

Brixton Green's invitation to Gramsci and all the [......................................] remains open. The residents of [................] are all very welcome to meet with us to work through any issues and contribute their ideas.

*Note from editor: brad: please note that I have edited your comments in line with gramsci's request. It is not permissible to post up personal information or the contents of private correspondence here without the consent of the other party.*


----------



## brad (May 2, 2011)

*Editor & Mrs Magpie*
Both of these people have been writing some very negative posts about Brixton Green.

Brixton Green first attempted to contact the editor in 2009 on Gramsci's recommendation.  At the beginning of April , I on behalf of Brixton Green, again invited the editor to meet  to discuss the Brixton Green proposal.  We did not receive a response to either invitation.

On 8th April I asked Mrs Magpie if she would like me to introduce her to some of the elderly people involved in Brixton Green after her rather disparaging post about "local old peoples club". She also did not respond.

I would like to invite the editor, Mrs Magpie and any of the other people who have been negative about the Brixton Green proposal to meet me, walk the area and discuss the issues.  I would like to suggest we meet outside Carlton Mansions either tomorrow or Wednesday this week. Please let me know a time that is suitable for you.


----------



## brad (May 2, 2011)

*Knowledge of the area*
There have been comments on this forum from Mrs Magpie and a few others suggesting Brixton Green has little knowledge of the area. This is clearly not true. Brixton Green is run and owned by local people. We have over 300 members so far, many of whom live in Moorlands, Southwyck House, Guinness Trust Estate and Somerleyton Road. 

Our current members include people who run some of the most vital community groups and organisations in the area.  One of the key outcomes of the Brixton Green proposal to date is these groups are sharing knowledge and starting to work together. This is building a cross community/cross-organisation understanding of the area. By having a clearer understanding of the various challenges each of our communities/organisations face we are able to develop better and more sustainable solutions.  Our town faces some enormous challenges over the next few years. We need to work together.

This is just the beginning of our work. Over the next few months we will be publicising the project throughout Brixton encouraging more local groups, organisations and individuals to get involved. The workshops we've held so far are already highlighting some issues and solutions that could make a great difference to lives of people living in the area.

The land along Somerleyton Road is of strategic importance to the communities in Brixton.  We are inviting all the Brixton organisations and communities to help shape this community led proposal.

If you would like to arrange a workshop for your organisation please contact us on  020 7183 5838  or via our website brixtongreen.org. We will also be hosting an *open event 7pm Thursday evening at Unit 45, Brixton Village*.


----------



## brad (May 2, 2011)

*Community benefit*
There are a number of comments on this forum (again from the same small group of people) implying that Brixton Green may not be set up for community benefit. I would like to put this issue to rest:
	• Brixton Green is a registered mutual society set up for the benefit of the community in 2009. 
	• Brixton Green is owned by local people. Its shareholders are people who either live or work in one of the five central Brixton wards. The shares are priced at £1 to ensure all members of the community can buy a share. Each shareholder has one vote. All votes are equal.
	• Brixton Green can only use its funds or assets for the benefit of the community.
	• Neither shareholders, directors or trustees can take a profit from Brixton Green.

	• Brixton Green has the support of the leaders of the some of the key organisations in Brixton and nationally.  All of these leaders would withdraw their support if they thought Brixton Green was not a trustworthy organisation.
	• Brixton Green has over 300 local people as shareholders. These local people would withdraw their shares if they thought Brixton Green was not for the benefit of the community.


----------



## editor (May 2, 2011)

brad said:


> *Editor & Mrs Magpie*
> Both of these people have been writing some very negative posts about Brixton Green.
> 
> Brixton Green first attempted to contact the editor in 2009 on Gramsci's recommendation.  At the beginning of April , I on behalf of Brixton Green, again invited the editor to meet  to discuss the Brixton Green proposal.  We did not receive a response to either invitation.


I have checked my email records thoroughly. There is NO record of anyone from Brixton Green contacting me, neither is there any record of any email from your email address. I checked back to 2005. 

Of course you could have simply registered here instead, and I still can't quite work out why you never bothered to do so. Indeed, the only reason you're here now is because I went out of my way to invite you, and that strikes me as a little strange, to be honest.

After all, anyone typing 'BrixtonGreen' into Google since January 2010 would have been directed here, so it seems odd that you chose to ignore that discussion for so long. 

And the reason I've been less than positive thus far is because I find you to be frustratingly elusive and that's a bit annoying when you keep insisting that you're a "community-led" project. As this tread has proved, barely anyone in my real world community (and this online one) appears to have heard of you.


----------



## brad (May 2, 2011)

I replied directly to the email you sent to the Brixton Green website.

Are you available to meet tomorrow?


----------



## editor (May 2, 2011)

brad said:


> I replied directly to the email you sent to the Brixton Green website.
> 
> Are you available to meet tomorrow?


Err, that's quite different to your claim that I ignored your previous emails which is simply not true.

Oh, and sorry, no. I'm working tomorrow.


----------



## brad (May 2, 2011)

When are you available to meet?


----------



## editor (May 2, 2011)

brad said:


> When are you available to meet?


To be honest, I'm unlikely to find time for meetings and neighbourhood strolls at the moment, but why not share your plans here so everyone can join in and voice their opinions too? I'll be sure to report back to my resident's association your comments here too.


----------



## Fenian (May 3, 2011)

Can I believe this?  Brad makes a bogus claim, editor points out it's 'simply not true', then brad (post 203) blithely ignores the point and asks when editor is available to meet?  So he can claim to have had meetings with urban75 no doubt, implying they're 'on side'.  

So gramsci trusts a housing association more than Brixton Green.  And your point is?  you don't build a community base by flogging shares for a quid to people interested to know more and then implying they support you against people with a track record of investing time, energy and social capital in the community.  It is this policy of ignoring what has been achieved by members of the community in the hard years and making Brixton the vibrant community it is that riles.


----------



## Gramsci (May 3, 2011)

I see Brad has posted up private email correspondence that I have had with him. I could do the same. But I will not. As Brad knows there was a lot more in this correspondence which Im not going to go into here.

Any docs I have posted up here are in the public domain. I actually think its bad form to post up private correspondence. 

What I will say is that on behalf of my Coop members I discussed the future of the site with an RSL before BG came on the scene. I was not trying to compete with BG. This was ongoing for some time as the future development of the site has never been certain. Yes and my intention , as representing the Coop, was to find a permanent solution for the membership. Any discussions with a larger partner were necessarily tentative. It was the Coop who approached an RSL. They kindly agreed to hopefully include us in any development planning. There was no guarentee that this would lead to permanent housing. And yes the Coop felt that realistically an RSL had the experience and skills for development. 

As far as I know the RSL  are not pursuing any plans for the site.

I also attended the Brixton Masterplanning consultation for the area run by Future Brixton at which there was at the time no mention of BG unless I missed something.

In fact I have tried to balance out my posts with info on CLTs. The actual detail of how they could work. The Shoreditch proposed CLT report which I read.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 3, 2011)

brad said:


> I would like to suggest we meet outside Carlton Mansions either tomorrow or Wednesday this week. Please let me know a time that is suitable for you.





brad said:


> Are you available to meet tomorrow?


 


brad said:


> When are you available to meet?


 


editor said:


> To be honest, I'm unlikely to find time for meetings and neighbourhood strolls at the moment,



Editor only wants to discuss things on _his_ website, where _he_ can be in charge. You called his bluff, Brad, and he bottled it.


----------



## Crispy (May 3, 2011)

Take the olive branch ffs


----------



## editor (May 3, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Editor only wants to discuss things on _his_ website, where _he_ can be in charge. You called his bluff, Brad, and he bottled it.


How can I be "in charge" of an open debate? 

Believe it or not, I haven't got time for strolls around my estate right now and it's not reasonable to expect me to instantly drop everything just because brad suddenly asks me after years of silence and (non existent) emails.  

Like I explained, I'd rather the debate *be public*. That way, the discussion will be entirely open to the community - and searchable vias Google - and I can invite my residents association to read it later.

But if you're so keen, why don't you go and meet him and report what he says back here?


----------



## brad (May 3, 2011)

Editor,

We can keep the meeting quite short. It is very helpful to be at the proposed site when discussing the issues and potential solutions. 
There has been a certain amount of hostility towards the proposal on this forum which has been unhelpful for open debate. You clearly have a interest in your area. Often meeting people in person allows issues to be discussed in more detail and encourages a better understanding.

I may be quite busy at our open event, so if possible I would like to meet you beforehand.

*Brixton Green open event 7pm Thursday evening Unit 45, Brixton Village.*


----------



## brad (May 3, 2011)

Gramsci,

Your posts on this forum have given no indication that Brixton Green first contacted you in January 2009 and that we have had lengthy and detailed discussions regarding the proposal. Neither do your posts indicate that you refused to continue these discussions.

These emails were not private. In fact it was you who copied in Metropolitan Housing Trust and Lambeth. I am happy for you to go into the correspondence further as it shows our willingness to discuss your points in details. The correspondence also underlines the open and inclusive approach Brixton Green has had from the start.

This is a popular forum and it is important for readers to understand the context of your posts.

*Brixton Masterplan*
I am sure you are also aware of the substantial involvement Brixton Green had with the Future Brixton process.

Along with the Oval House Theatre we successfully lobbied for the Coldharbour Lane end of the site to be designated for cultural use. This was an essential and important success for the area. If the Oval House Theatre are brought to this part of Brixton it will extend Brixton town centre, drawing people through the market, strengthening the businesses in the market, supporting small traders and encouraging regeneration along the Loughborough corridor.

We also lobbied for there to be community activity near the alley at Somerleyton Way and for the plan to have high sustainability aspirations.

*Metropolitan Housing Trust*
It is important to note that the team at MHT and the other housing associations work hard to provide homes that are accessible to all. However, there are issues with how MHT, Guinness Trust and Places for People are working with their residents and the local community.

The Brixton Green approach is to encourage all the local organisations and the community to work together. By sharing knowledge and understanding each others challenges we will create better outcomes.

Over the next few months we will be working on a detailed brief for the proposal which we are encouraging all members of the community and local organisations to help shape.

*CMHC workshop with Brixton Green?*
As always I am happy to meet. Shall we have a workshop with CMHC?


----------



## Fenian (May 3, 2011)

editor said:


> Like I explained, I'd rather the debate *be public*. That way, the discussion will be entirely open to the community - and searchable vias Google - and I can invite my residents association to read it later.


 
He's just not listening ed.  That's not the way they work.  Laughing Toad, with due respect these are two different positions being espoused - open debate vs. nobbling people on the quiet.


----------



## brad (May 3, 2011)

brad said:


> Gramsci's comments & support for [...............................]
> I think it is important for readers of this forum to understand the context of Gramsci's comments and his support for housing associations, [.....................]
> 
> Brixton Green contacted "Gramsci" in January 2009 and invited all of the [.................] to become involved with the Brixton Green proposal and to feed in their ideas of what the area needed and how best to achieve this.
> ...


 
The email was not private correspondence. It is essential for readers of this forum to understand the context of Gramsci's comments.

You are now censoring my contributions to this forum.


----------



## TruXta (May 3, 2011)

brad said:


> The email was not private correspondence. It is essential for readers of this site to be understand the context of Gramsci's comments.
> 
> You are now censoring my contributions to this forum.


 
No he really isn't. You can't just post up private emails or personal info without the specific consent of the other parties. Not really that difficult to grok is it?


----------



## miss minnie (May 3, 2011)

brad said:


> The email was not private correspondence.


Wikipedia definition of private correspondence:


> "Private e-mails" are e-mails between individuals; postings to closed mailing lists that have no public archive, and where invitations to join the list are not freely available and are tightly controlled; or any other common sense interpretation of "private." Non-private e-mails include messages to mailing lists with public archives, or lists that can be subscribed to by anyone.


----------



## TruXta (May 3, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Editor only wants to discuss things on _his_ website, where _he_ can be in charge. You called his bluff, Brad, and he bottled it.


 
Just go away if you've nothing of substance to contribute will ya? Paranoid loon.


----------



## editor (May 3, 2011)

brad said:


> You are now censoring my contributions to this forum.


That's simply not true. I have, however, removed _private correspondence_ that you really had no right to be posting up here in the first place.

Our rules make this quite clear:


> Please respect people's privacy and refrain from posting up any personal details without their permission.


This rule applies to all contributors and is there to protect their privacy, so it's not even slightly personal.

FYI: if anyone posted up the contents of your personal emails without your permission, they would also be removed at your request.


----------



## Fenian (May 3, 2011)

*Worrying tone developing*

A slightly worrying tone has crept into the debate here.  Brad if you don't know the difference between having an open debate and posting up private correspondence I would ask someone's advice on the matter.  If any other poster had done the same I would apply the same advice to them too.  I note however that no-one else has.


----------



## brad (May 3, 2011)

You have clearly edited aspects of my post that were not quotes from the email correspondence. 

I am unsure why Gramsci would not be willing to have his stated aspirations for the site made public. 

Here is my post again without quotes from email correspondence:

*Gramsci's comments & support for Metropolitan Housing Trust*
I think it is important for readers of this forum to understand the context of Gramsci's comments and his support for housing associations, specifically the Metropolitan Housing Trust.

Brixton Green contacted "Gramsci" in January 2009 and invited all of the Carlton Mansions Housing Cooperative(CMHC)  to become involved with the Brixton Green proposal and to feed in their ideas of what the area needed and how best to achieve this.

We had some meetings with Gramsci during 2009 followed by some detailed email correspondence dealing with the issues he raised . During the emails we asked Gramsci to describe his aspirations for the area. We expected aspirations such as sustainability, improved housing or jobs. However we were surprised when he listed his aspirations as follows:
	• Carlton Mansions Housing Cooperative(CHMC) support Metropolitan Housing Trust(MHT) in their request to become the affordable housing provider for the site. This would necessitate MHT acquiring the freehold.
	• CHMC would like Metropolitan Housing Trust's consultants(HTA) to be the consultants on the site.
	• CMHC have told the Council they want MHT to be the affordable housing provider on the site.

I questioned why his cooperative's only aspirations for the site were for Metropolitan Housing Trust to develop it and even specifying that they wanted MHT's consultants to be used and for MHT to own the freehold.  It was clear from their response that they had an arrangement with Metropolitan Housing Trust and I asked them to specify what that arrangement was. Gramsci  stated that he would not discuss any arrangements that CHMC had with the Metropolitan Housing Trust without first asking MHT's New Business Manager. 

Gramsci then refused to continue the email discussion.

Note to Editor: The section below is from a meeting which I attended and am free to discuss.

*23/11/09:Metropolitan Housing Trust confirmed they made offer to Carlton Mansions Housing Cooperative.*
On the 23/11/09 Lambeth Council held a meeting for all the organisations who had expressed an interest in the Somerleyton Road site.

At that meeting I asked Roger Tullet (Metropolitan Housing Trust's New Business Manager) to explain the offer MHT had made to Gramsci and the residents of Carlton Mansions.

Roger confirmed that Metropolitan Housing Trust had a made a verbal offer to provide those residents of Carlton Mansions Housing Cooperative who qualified flats if the Metropolitan Housing Trust was successful in obtaining the site.


*Gramsci's Posts*
Since Gramsci refused to continue email discussions with Brixton Green he has made a number of negative posts on Urban 75 regarding Brixton Green. Some of the issues he raises on this forum are issues he's already discussed with Brixton Green. Gramsci knows that if he wished he could meet Brixton Green to discuss the issues or contribute to the proposal.

Gramsci made clear that he was consulting CHMC's members during our discussions. Therefore, the other members of CHMC will also have been:
	• Aware of the Brixton Green proposal since January 2009.
	• Aware of our invitation in 2009 for all the CHMC members to become involved and help shape the Brixton Green proposal.
	• Aware of the offer Metropolitan Housing Trust had made to CHMC.

Brixton Green's invitation to Gramsci and all the Carlton Mansions Housing Cooperative remains open. The residents of Carlton Mansions are all very welcome to meet with us to work through any issues and contribute their ideas.


----------



## Dan U (May 3, 2011)

so what your saying is that Gramsci gets a nice new flat if one lot get this land, but doesn't if you do.

this is going really well so far.


----------



## brad (May 3, 2011)

The Council will probably lead on how the homes are allocated.


----------



## miss minnie (May 3, 2011)

Carlton Mansions is one of the many co-ops who have spent between 10-30 years negotiating with Lambeth Council for tenure.  I've been in that position with the co-op that I was in and completely understand where they are coming from.  It is really, really, REALLY, tedious and hard work to get to a position where you *might* have a possibility of doing a deal to get HA management that won't simply chuck you all out and break up your long-standing community.  Why would CMHC throw away all of that progress for a very new and untried organisation such as Brixton Green?  Gramsci works tirelessly for his co-op, has done for a very long time and with great integrity.  Good luck to CMHC with whatever deal they are working on, I hope it goes well for you.


----------



## miss minnie (May 3, 2011)

brad said:


> The Council will probably lead on how the homes are allocated.


Not in my experience.


----------



## brad (May 3, 2011)

I know that Gramsci works hard for his cooperative and we also recognise the importance of keeping communities together. As my post mentioned, it is important for readers of this forum to understand the context of Gramsci's posts.

We want to encourage all parties to work effectively together and to not view the issues in isolation.


----------



## Gramsci (May 3, 2011)

You have still used the contents of a private email corresspondence I had with you on the boards. As I said I could use quotes from that as well. But its bad form to do so. As is quoting in detail from meetings that are not public meetings.


----------



## Gramsci (May 3, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> Carlton Mansions is one of the many co-ops who have spent between 10-30 years negotiating with Lambeth Council for tenure.  I've been in that position with the co-op that I was in and completely understand where they are coming from.  It is really, really, REALLY, tedious and hard work to get to a position where you *might* have a possibility of doing a deal to get HA management that won't simply chuck you all out and break up your long-standing community.  Why would CMHC throw away all of that progress for a very new and untried organisation such as Brixton Green?  Gramsci works tirelessly for his co-op, has done for a very long time and with great integrity.  Good luck to CMHC with whatever deal they are working on, I hope it goes well for you.




Thanks for this post miss minnie.


----------



## Fenian (May 3, 2011)

brad said:


> We want to encourage all parties to work effectively together and to not view the issues in isolation.


 
That's what we've been doing in Brixton mate for about 30 years, and successfully.  That is why Brixton is not like anywhere else in south London for its sense of community. People of different callings and backgrounds have developed exciting ways to interact with each other, not least on this web-site.  This place could be a model of advanced urban development.

It's problematic of course when you get a (sadly) well-connected interloper who presumes to get people thinking beyond individual silos when _that is what we are so good at doing in Brixton_. 

When a new agency arrives in Brixton or anywhere else, they need nurturing and support, but you have to look at what they can bring to the table.  From Brixton Green, we've had a worrying disregard for due process with improper usage of documentation.  

Frankly, I had thought that by now even for cosmetic purposes Brad would have seen it as politic to apologise and call this an unintended gaffe.  

The fact that he has not to date done so leads me to assume that this kind of thing exemplifies his view of normal business practice.  Brad has not yet accepted editor's corrections as to events either.

Deeply worrying.


----------



## netbob (May 3, 2011)

This has all got the feel of Spacemakers all over again - claims to be a community led initiative / loads of people you would expect to have been involved have not been approached or have been politely ignored / uses open social events to broadcast plans on their terms rather than open meetings that genuinely set direction.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 3, 2011)

Fenian said:


> From Brixton Green, we've had a worrying disregard for due process with improper usage of documentation.
> 
> Frankly, I had thought that by now even for cosmetic purposes Brad would have seen it as politic to apologise and call this an unintended gaffe.
> 
> ...


What worries me most are the number of very misleading errors about where I live. He hasn't withdrawn or corrected any of that. Parts of the proposal is based on stuff that just ain't so.


----------



## brad (May 5, 2011)

Mrs Magpie, Fenian, Memespring, and the other people posting, please come and join us at Unit 45 Brixton Village at 7pm tonight.

Brad - Director, Brixton Green


----------



## TruXta (May 5, 2011)

Can't make that - how about you post some minutes on here later?


----------



## editor (May 5, 2011)

I have to work tonight, so I hope the urbanites will report back here.


----------



## gaijingirl (May 6, 2011)

so did anyone go?


----------



## Rushy (May 6, 2011)

> We had some meetings with Gramsci during 2009 followed by some detailed email correspondence dealing with the issues he raised . During the emails we asked Gramsci to describe his aspirations for the area. We expected aspirations such as sustainability, improved housing or jobs. However we were surprised when he listed his aspirations as follows:
> [.....................................private email.....................................................]
> 
> [.................................private email........................................................]
> ...



Gramsci, could you be a little more open about your aspirations for the land and exactly what you are lobbying for behind the scenes on behalf of your co-op?

Your criticisms of BG are all very well but it would be useful to allow readers to interpret them in the context of your and CMHC's vested interests.

This is one of a limited number of parcels of publicly owned land and CMHC is only one of the many groups (as well as unrepresented individuals) who would be able to benefit from the land. The back-room negotiations which appear to have been going on between the coops, Lambeth and a housing association don't seem to be very open and are essentially excluding the rest of our community. I've certainly have not been flyered about them or invited to any meetings. I was not even aware that the land was publicly owned or that development of any kind was under consideration until BG came along.

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with you negotiating hard on behalf of the group you represent and getting the best deal for them, nor with the fact that you would quite understandably prefer it to be an HA with particular sympathies to your group who develops the site rather than BG. But surely you accept that your and your group's vested interests need to be balanced with the interests of the wider community, many of whom are not as strongly represented and have no lobbying power. 

BG appears to be offering a way to do this openly and publicly. If you don't think so, how would you suggest other interest groups get a look-in?


----------



## Gramsci (May 6, 2011)

As I said before I would have liked Future Brixton to have continued with consulting over the furthering of the masterplan and the sites on it. The masterplanning process was public and open but stopped when the report was published.


----------



## Rushy (May 6, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> As I said before I would have liked Future Brixton to have continued with consulting over the furthering of the masterplan. The masterplanning process was open but stopped when the report was published.


 
That would have been nice. But it is not there anymore. That does not mean that groups such as yours do not continue to lobby behind the scenes for their own interests to be met. How do you suggest that other interest groups, perhaps not as well connected or strongly represented as yours, get a look-in at the moment?

BG appears to be offering a way to do this openly and publicly.


----------



## editor (May 6, 2011)

Rushy said:


> BG appears to be offering a way to do this openly and publicly.


They haven't been very 'open' to any of the local residents, the vast majority of which still haven't the faintest idea that they exist or what their plans are. And they_ still_ haven't approached anyone from the residents group or posted up posters or distributed flyers.

The only reason people knew about their meeting on this board was because I went out of my way to invite them here, and their reluctance to post anything of substance since here has been noted.


----------



## Rushy (May 6, 2011)

You say this, and yet it is clear that the doors were open to at least some of the residents groups such as CMHC through Gramsci over two years ago. Whilst their efforts might not have reached some key groups in the past, their efforts since to hold out an olive branch, make amends, listen to you and include you are being rejected in the most disappointingly tribal manner. It is you who is refusing to engage - not them.

From what I can understand from the above posts it seems that Gramsci had a good reason to see BG as a threat to his own group's private negotiations with the council. What concerns me is that BG is being villified on here despite chief criticisers not being absolutely open about their own aspirations and vested interests.


----------



## editor (May 6, 2011)

Rushy said:


> You say this, and yet it is clear that the doors were open to at least some of the residents groups such as CMHC through Gramsci over two years ago. Whilst their efforts might not have reached some key groups in the past, their efforts since to hold out an olive branch, make amends, listen to you and include you are being rejected in the most disappointingly tribal manner. It is you who is refusing to engage - not them.


How's that work then? I've been willing to engage in an open discussion from the start, even if that meant me having to personally invite them to post here. I'm very keen to have an open discussion so they can explain their plans.

I've already said that I'm on the resident's association and will be happy to report back the discussion, but all I got back was an instruction to "continue the discussion on their website" - a website that has no discussion forums, where all discussion is one way and none of what's been contributed gets posted up anyway. So, no discussion at all, then. 

I've probably done more to publicise BrixtonGreen than most, and have done them a service pointing out the deep failings in their publicity department and the serious lack of effort to engage local groups. Sadly, they don't seem too interested in any form of communication unless it's on their terms, which means attending their poorly advertised meetings which barely a soul knows about and not everyone has the time to attend. 

For a "community led" project, they sure don't seem to be that interested in trying to get the community involved.


----------



## Rushy (May 6, 2011)

editor said:


> I've already said that I'm on the resident's association and will be happy to report back the discussion, but all I got back was an instruction to "continue the discussion on their website" - a website that has no discussion forums, where all discussion is one way and none of what's been contributed gets posted up anyway. So, no discussion at all, then.


 
That doesn't quite correlate with my take on what I've read above. In my opinion you made a fair(ish) point, they made a respectable effort to step up to the mark and you put up a brick wall. I appreciate that you don't simply don't agree so, respectfully, I see no value in arguing that point further.

I'm not posting to try and win an argument with you. I simply feel that negativity and suspicion (which everyone who feels it is completely entitled to express) dominates this thread and I would quite like to maintain some presence which represents those who are _cautiously _optimisitic about the BG model and who feel that quite a lot of the informed criticism is from parties who are not being quite as open as they could be about their own plans and vested interests, however well intentioned.


----------



## snowy_again (May 6, 2011)

As an aside, holding a consultation event on an election night (that had sufficient advance warning) seems a little peculiar.


----------



## editor (May 6, 2011)

Rushy said:


> That doesn't quite correlate with my take on what I've read above. In my opinion you made a fair(ish) point, they made a respectable effort to step up to the mark and you put up a brick wall. I appreciate that you don't simply don't agree so, respectfully, I see no value in arguing that point further.


Is the "brick wall" I've supposedly put up boil down to my inability to immediately attend a short notice meeting?

In truth, I've given a lot of very useful and practical advice to BrixtonGreen on this thread, none of which has been acknowledged or acted upon. I feel I've been brushed off.

Along with several other posters we've been finding it frustratingly difficult to grasp exactly what it is they're offering, and when I asked brad questions here I was directed to continue the discussion in a format that was neither open or transparent. 

He's posted rather disturbing suggestions about how they want to build retail activity onto the green space outside the Barrier Block - without troubling themselves to make any contact with residents of that block, or indeed, even slap up a single poster. 

So, yes, I am getting a bit annoyed. I like that green space thanks very much, and I don't think there's any local clamour to have it taken away or for more shop units when there's so many already lying empty nearby.

The truth is that it's proving very difficult to actually work out exactly what it is they intend to do - and their website is a vague and frustrating back-slapping affair woefully short of information (e.g. clicking on the 'Click here to see the proposal so far' page brings up a 'page not found error.')

There. That's another bit of useful info I've given them.


----------



## Rushy (May 6, 2011)

Like I said, your opinion of the value of your own contribution on this matter does not correlate with my own. I accept that. I'm not trying to win the argument with you. 

I agree with you that BGs plans are not concrete. Where we differ is that I don't think they claim that they are anything but fluid at this stage. They clearly want to increase consultation in order to firm up those plans. I think it is a positive thing to see local people taking initiatives like this. I certainly would struggle to contribute the time required to get something of this magnitude off the ground.

I have signed up for my share so that if this does move forward I can hopefully be a part of it. I may be wrong but at this stage I certainly feel more included in BGs process than I do in any co-op's private negotiations with HAs and the council for the use of that publicly owned site.


----------



## editor (May 6, 2011)

Rushy said:


> I agree with you that BGs plans are not concrete. Where we differ is that I don't think they claim that they are anything but fluid at this stage. They clearly want to increase consultation in order to firm up those plans.


Yet when they start getting opinions from_ local people directly affected by their plans_ here, they decline to get involved, insisting that the discussion should be hidden in private emails.


----------



## Gramsci (May 6, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Gramsci, could you be a little more open about your aspirations for the land and exactly what you are lobbying for behind the scenes on behalf of your co-op?
> 
> Your criticisms of BG are all very well but it would be useful to allow readers to interpret them in the context of your and CMHC's vested interests.



I went to Brixton Masterplan meetings run by Future Brixton and talked to an HA. Not done behind the scenes. The discussions with HA were tentative and came to nothing in the end. If there had been further involvement of an HA in the site a feasibility study would have been done which would have included wider consultation with surrounding residents. Its old history as far as Im concerned. 

My initial meeting with BG I thought they were another group who wanted to have some involvement on the site. Not a problem. Not a threat .I did think that various groups would be involved in the site. Such as Oval House theatre who had expressed an interest. And who I felt would be an asset to the area. 

In the end its the Councils decision what happens on its land. With the Masterplan laying down the framework. 

As I represent a long standing community I do spend some of my time representing them to try and secure peoples future. Its not an easy task. If it seen as representing a vested interest group so be it. I do not feel that powerful. If my group is strongly represented then thats down to the hard work. Nor do I have endless time and energy. 

There is an overall problem in Brixton with residents groups and business groups being represented to the Council over a range of issues that affect Brixton as a whole. The Council run Brixton Stakeholders Meetings are now defunct since December. The Popes road car park issue did unite the various groups in Brixton to support the traders car park (including my group). There is talk of setting up a new Forum. But have to see if that comes to anything.

There is also a problem of peoples time and energy. Most people, including me, havent got endless time. U have to limit it to essentials. Though giving support to other groups like the market traders for there car park I did as I felt that was important for Brixton to support them on that issue.


----------



## free spirit (May 6, 2011)

Rushy said:


> , the best way to get a project off the ground is to get a tight and energetic group of people together to bash out a firm plan between them _before _presenting it to the community for comment and then, based on that feedback, either progressing, ammending or going back to the drawing board.


that method is a recipe for disaster in community development terms, it's absolutely not the way it should be done, particularly not by an organisation that wishes to portray itself as being community led.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 6, 2011)

I think it's analagous with well-meaning (but not always) groups of people who go to LEDCs and say, 
"Hey, poor people that we feel sorry for, we have a plan!" 
They smile patronisingly when the locals say 
"Eh? That's not what we want, actually, and moreover, you've got the wrong end of the stick about what our community is like. In fact you're in the wrong fucking forest. Go away please, we can work out what we want and need ourselves. If you really insist that you assist us, you could help us with 'this'." 
Whatever 'this' is, the well-meaning (but not always) group think we are too poor and stupid to understand what we need and pat us on the head and make soothing noises, telling us they will listen carefully to us. 
The well-meaning (but not always) group then impose something unsuitable that local people don't actually need or want and quite often makes things worse.


----------



## oryx (May 7, 2011)

From a non-local but professional perspective, they should definitely be offering to attend local residents' association meetings and speak openly about their plans, and listen to (and take on) the feedback and concerns.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 7, 2011)

No, apparently we have to go to them, at a time convenient to them.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 7, 2011)

Because, of course, they know what's best for us, so they call the shots. They're _professionals._


----------



## toblerone3 (May 7, 2011)

oryx said:


> From a non-local but professional perspective, they should definitely be offering to attend local residents' association meetings and speak openly about their plans, and listen to (and take on) the feedback and concerns.



But Editor as a community leader, you should also offer to go on a walking tour with them. Your insistence that they conduct their initial consultation on your website is arrogant.


----------



## oryx (May 7, 2011)

It should be very simple for them to come and talk about their plans at a resident association meeting. If they can't, or won't, it would make me wonder _why_.


----------



## colacubes (May 7, 2011)

toblerone3 said:


> But Editor as a community leader, you should also offer to go on a walking tour with them. Your insistence that they conduct their initial consultation on your website is arrogant.


 
1.  I think Ed would LOL his pants off at the idea of being a community leader.

2.  He doesn't need to go on a walking tour with them - the proposed development is on a massive piece of grass outside his block.  I could give you a walking tour of it 

3.  You're being a bit disingenuous - he hasn't said that.  What he's said is he's surprised they've chosen to not really engage on Urban.  They want the debate on their terms.

I see why people are conflicted about this.  But I have to say I don't understand what it's all about and I work in the wanky sort of 3rd sector world where I see these sort of things regularly.  And I know Ed and Mrs M very well and if they're concerned about it and unclear of the point of it, as people who live RIGHT ON TOP OF THIS SITE, I think it's reasonable to wait for Brixton Green to really show us what they are proposing and in the meantime be cynical about it.  In the 6 years I've lived in the same area I've seen loads of well-meaning but naive schemes come and go.  I'd be happy for it to be a good and positive thing but they need to prove it.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 7, 2011)

nipsla said:


> the proposed development is on a massive piece of grass outside his block.


Is it though? They also seem to be talking about the land alongside the railway line that runs along the side of Somerleyton (I think this is the bit they think has been empty for 30 years, which just is not the case at all). In fact I'm not totally sure what their plan for us is, as they don't seem to know or understand the area at all.


----------



## colacubes (May 7, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Is it though? They also seem to be talking about the land alongside the railway line that runs along the side of Somerleyton (I think this is the bit they think has been empty for 30 years, which just is not the case at all). In fact I'm not totally sure what their plan for us is, as they don't seem to know or understand the area at all.


 
And that is entirely the problem cos I've heard about 20 different versions of what/where/how etc. Some of which is factually very wrong as far as I know


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 7, 2011)

Exactamundo, nipsla.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 7, 2011)

In fact my Very Tall Lodger who has lived in Brixton for considerably less than a year has a far better handle on the area than BG seem to have.


----------



## Rushy (May 7, 2011)

free spirit said:


> that method is a recipe for disaster in community development terms, it's absolutely not the way it should be done, particularly not by an organisation that wishes to portray itself as being community led.


 
Just for the record, you have slightly misquoted me there. What I wrote was:



> *You have previously argued that when starting with a blank sheet of paper, rather engaging in too much up front public consultation, *the best way to get a project off the ground is to get a tight and energetic group of people together to bash out a firm plan between them before presenting it to the community for comment and then, based on that feedback, either progressing, ammending or going back to the drawing board.


----------



## Rushy (May 7, 2011)

oryx said:


> It should be very simple for them to come and talk about their plans at a resident association meeting. If they can't, or won't, it would make me wonder _why_.


 
Have they said to anyone at all that they can't or won't?


----------



## oryx (May 7, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Have they said to anyone at all that they can't or won't?


 
It sounded like it from what editor was saying, but I will let him answer that, if he wants to. 

Have they said to anyone that they can or will?


----------



## editor (May 7, 2011)

toblerone3 said:


> But Editor as a community leader, you should also offer to go on a walking tour with them. Your insistence that they conduct their initial consultation on your website is arrogant.


1. I'm not a "community leader." That's really a quite ridiculous suggestion.
2. I don't need or want to go on a "walking tour" of the area that I live in.
3. Their website should explain their plans - it doesn't. In fact, it's broken.
4. I'm not 'insisting' that they conduct their initial consultation here, but I fail to see why a "community led" business can't discuss their plans openly rather than insisting that all discussion is taken to private email.
5. I've told them repeatedly that I'm on the residents association yet they have never shown any interest in getting involved.


----------



## editor (May 7, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Is it though? They also seem to be talking about the land alongside the railway line that runs along the side of Somerleyton (I think this is the bit they think has been empty for 30 years, which just is not the case at all). In fact I'm not totally sure what their plan for us is, as they don't seem to know or understand the area at all.


Earlier in this thread, Brad seemed to be inferring that the grass area outside the Barrier Block would be better used for retail activity under their scheme but he refused to elaborate on that further. Which is, frankly, a bit weird. But there again, perhaps he didn't mean that, but unless he takes the trouble to explain his posts, locals are going to remain in the dark and rather suspicious.


----------



## miss minnie (May 7, 2011)

Do BG post the minutes of their meetings on their website?  It would seem like a really good, transparent and open thing to do.  It might encourage more people to attend.


----------



## toblerone3 (May 7, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> Do BG post the minutes of their meetings on their website?  It would seem like a really good, transparent and open thing to do.  It might encourage more people to attend.



Alternatively why not ask for a volunteer perhaps from this thread who can go and meet with Brad and ask all the right questions and record everything that is said and report back to this thread. Then there will be some really good material to discuss here more interesting material than isn't their website rubbish and how inadequate their consultation is et al. Brad will have done his walking tour chat and people here can argue the toss and everyone will be happy.


----------



## toblerone3 (May 7, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> Do BG post the minutes of their meetings on their website?  It would seem like a really good, transparent and open thing to do.  It might encourage more people to attend.



They really should do this though.


----------



## miss minnie (May 7, 2011)

toblerone3 said:


> Alternatively why not ask for a volunteer perhaps from this thread who can go and meet with Brad and ask all the right questions and record everything that is said and report back to this thread. Then there will be some really good material to discuss here more interesting material than isn't their website rubbish and how inadequate their consultation is et al. Brad will have done his walking tour chat and people here can argue the toss and everyone will be happy.


Surely there is more to Brixton Green than just *brad* though?  He is what, the chairperson?  Not sure what their rules are but in fair dinkum co-ops, management committees are elected every year.  Can brad be voted out?


----------



## Fenian (May 7, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> Surely there is more to Brixton Green than just *brad* though?  He is what, the chairperson?  Not sure what their rules are but in fair dinkum co-ops, management committees are elected every year.  Can brad be voted out?


 
According to their web-site the two staff members are Brad and Sandra Reid.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 7, 2011)

Interesting.


----------



## Fenian (May 7, 2011)

Deleted.


----------



## miss minnie (May 7, 2011)

Article in the Independent with images... 



> Brixton Green Community Land Trust founder Philippe Castaing (left) with fellow campaigners Sandra Reid and Bradley Carroll


----------



## miss minnie (May 7, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> Surely there is more to Brixton Green than just *brad* though?  He is what, the chairperson?  Not sure what their rules are but in fair dinkum co-ops, management committees are elected every year.  Can brad be voted out?


Ah, answers in the rules (pdf), presumably brad is appointed as a staff member by the board of trustees (of which his business partner is one).

Further information about Community Land Trusts at the CLT website.


----------



## editor (May 7, 2011)

miss minnie said:


> Article in the Independent with images...


Observe, if you will, the trees, grass and flowers behind which are, apparently, "discouraging activity which reduces economic activity and community safety and so discourages access."


----------



## editor (May 7, 2011)

Fenian said:


> According to their web-site....


I'm a little uncomfortable with you posting this kind of personal info up. Do you think it might be an idea to edit your post?


----------



## Fenian (May 7, 2011)

In fact I'd already done so ed.


----------



## editor (May 7, 2011)

Fenian said:


> In fact I'd already done so ed.


Ta!


----------



## free spirit (May 7, 2011)

Rushy said:


> Just for the record, you have slightly misquoted me there. What I wrote was:


ah ok, gotcha sorry.


----------



## Crispy (May 8, 2011)

editor said:


> Observe, if you will, the trees, grass and flowers behind which are, apparently, "discouraging activity which reduces economic activity and community safety and so discourages access."


That refers to the land adjacent to the railway, not the grass on the corner of coldharbour lane.


----------



## editor (May 8, 2011)

Crispy said:


> That refers to the land adjacent to the railway, not the grass on the corner of coldharbour lane.


Are you absolutely sure about that? His earlier comments were rather vague when he described *Southwyck House* as being one of the things that supposedly had  "the effect of discouraging access to this part of Coldharbour Lane and the Somerleyton triangle,"  and suggested that putting in "economic activity" would be a good thing.

Sadly, he didn't seem inclined to elaborate further when asked directly on this matter so it's not surprising there's confusion.


----------



## editor (May 8, 2011)

And Crispy: this is where you appeared to be agreeing with brad's notion that it would be best to get rid of the grass and replace it with economic activity:





Crispy said:


> Absolutely. That bit of CHL is horribly bleak and that strip of grass never gets used for anything. Streets with actual frontages onto them are much better.


You're quite wrong about that 'strip of grass' too. It's actually a lovely little park supporting a lot of wildlife. I doubt if any of the residents want to see it go.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 8, 2011)

Crispy said:


> That refers to the land adjacent to the railway, not the grass on the corner of coldharbour lane.


Which brad says has been out of use for 30 years which is just not true. I did think the old Community Industry building was out of use but I was wrong (it's hard to tell as you can't see through the windows). It's got light industry or stuff like Community transport & Meals on Wheels all the way along. I am beginning to wonder if they did their reccy at 4am.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 8, 2011)

editor said:


> It's actually a lovely little park supporting a lot of wildlife. I doubt if any of the residents want to see it go.


I saw a few people sitting there chatting and laughing in the sunshine last week on my way home from work.


----------



## Crispy (May 8, 2011)

*hands up*
ok, don't worry I won't post on the thread again.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 8, 2011)

You're free to add your pennorth, but you don't actually live in Brixton, and as far as I know haven't lived closer to here than the Brixton Road, so unless you are out and about day in day out during various times of the day I'm afraid you don't really know enough to say what somewhere is like.


----------



## editor (May 8, 2011)

For the record, no matter what plans Brixton Green have for the area - and some of them I may well end up supporting - any attempt to piss about with that lovely piece of green space will be met with the firmest resistance from me and, I imagine, many of the residents. 

With so many empty shops, vacant lots and undeveloped sites close by, there is nothing to justify taking away this precious stretch of greenery.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 8, 2011)

Alfie Howard told me there were riots on Rush Common in the 1920s when developers tried to build on that.

...for those of you who don't know about Alfie.
www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2003/nov/23/magazine.features7
www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/160014-Alfie-Howard-has-died-aged-93


----------



## TruXta (May 8, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Alfie Howard told me there were riots on Rush Common in the 1920s when developers tried to build on that.
> 
> ...for those of you who don't know about Alfie.
> www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2003/nov/23/magazine.features7
> www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/160014-Alfie-Howard-has-died-aged-93


 
This quote is ace!



> When I was young there was always fighting. Crowds used to gather outside pubs on a Sunday lunch time and two men used to fight bare fisted. You had to fight, otherwise you didn't exist.


----------



## RaverDrew (May 8, 2011)

TruXta said:


> This quote is ace!


 
Totally !!!

I wonder if there's a recording of him actually saying that in existence ? It would make a great sample for a dubstep track imo.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 8, 2011)

I think he's on tape for the Museum of London.


----------



## RaverDrew (May 8, 2011)

Ace 

Unfortunately their archive seems to be down atm.

http://archive.museumoflondon.org.uk/londonsvoices/default.asp


----------



## toblerone3 (May 8, 2011)

editor said:


> And Crispy: this is where you appeared to be agreeing with brad's notion that it would be best to get rid of the grass and replace it with economic activity:You're quite wrong about that 'strip of grass' too. It's actually a lovely little park supporting a lot of wildlife. I doubt if any of the residents want to see it go.



But isn't it just a a sticking plaster on what was, more broadly a huge planning mistake.   Surely there is a problem on Somerstown Road. To deny it is just silly.


----------



## editor (May 8, 2011)

toblerone3 said:


> But isn't it just a a sticking plaster on what was, more broadly a huge planning mistake.   Surely there is a problem on Somerstown Road. To deny it is just silly.


Do you actually know the area? Have you ever been there? You can't even get the name right, FFS.

There is_ nothing_ 'wrong' with the green park in front of the block but feel free to elaborate on  its supposed  failings.


----------



## toblerone3 (May 8, 2011)

Yes I've been there about one hundred times.


----------



## editor (May 8, 2011)

toblerone3 said:


> Yes I've been there about one hundred times.


Yet you can't even gets its name right. It's *Somerleyton* Road.



But feel free to enlighten me as why you think we'd all be better off if the green park outside the block was dug up and replaced by shops please.


----------



## toblerone3 (May 8, 2011)

toblerone3 said:


> Yes I've been there about one hundred times.



Actually maybe even double that.


----------



## editor (May 8, 2011)

toblerone3 said:


> Actually maybe even double that.


Are you talking about Somerstown Road in north London here?


----------



## toblerone3 (May 8, 2011)

editor said:


> But feel free to enlighten me as why you think we'd all be better off if the green park outside the block was dug up and replaced by shops please.



Sorry Editor I don't remember saying that. Are you trying to put words in my mouth. Where did I say that?


----------



## toblerone3 (May 8, 2011)

editor said:


> Are you talking about Somerstown Road in north London here?



Yes mix up on the name, but I know what road we are talking about well.


----------



## Rushy (May 8, 2011)

I keep meaning to ask - does the council own the recently(ish) re-fenced plot on Coldharbour in front of Southwyck House and opposite the Gresham Cafe? What is it used for and why the prison-like fencing? There never appears to be anything much going on in there.


----------



## editor (May 9, 2011)

toblerone3 said:


> Sorry Editor I don't remember saying that. Are you trying to put words in my mouth. Where did I say that?


So exactly what are you saying? What is the problem with the green area outside the Barrier Block (that is the post you commented on while insisting that there was a 'problem' on the road).


----------



## editor (May 9, 2011)

Rushy said:


> I keep meaning to ask - does the council own the recently(ish) re-fenced plot on Coldharbour in front of Southwyck House and opposite the Gresham Cafe? What is it used for and why the prison-like fencing? There never appears to be anything much going on in there.


It's a very long story! Here's how I understand things happened:

For a while no one could work out who actually owned the land, but then it was bought up while the new owners submitted various planning applications. 

While these were busy being rejected, they were happy to let the site remain as wasteland so it quickly descended into an ad hoc parking site/drug dealing spot/party hangout/stolen car hideout. 

The council stepped in a while ago to make the new owners clear up the shitty mess they'd left the place in, and secure the area (hence the fencing). While it was empty, entrepreneurial locals broke open the lock and started up their own car parking business, so eventually hefty concrete slabs were placed to stop the doors being forced.

The new owners are now building what should be a car wash business. Looks like they're making a decent job of it so far, although I can't say I'll be delighted by the view.


----------



## Rushy (May 9, 2011)

editor said:


> The new owners are now building what should be a car wash business. Looks like they're making a decent job of it so far, although I can't say I'll be delighted by the view.


 
It's certainly not the prettiest plot in Brixton at the moment.


----------



## editor (May 9, 2011)

Rushy said:


> It's certainly not the prettiest plot in Brixton at the moment.


In my dreams they would have extended the green space over the old Texaco garage to form a nice continuous park. Much as I love the look of the Barrier Block, I'd agree it wouldn't hurt to 'soften' its impact.


----------



## Laughing Toad (Mar 14, 2012)

This is London is reporting that the new Tulse Hill Academy, sponsored by E-ACT, will open next year from a temporary site Somerleyton Road.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 14, 2012)

Fucking academies.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 14, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Fucking academies.


It's where I got my diploma, baby


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 14, 2012)

At the fucking academy?  Go you! 

Actually the school I went to was called  *** Academy.  

It's not the name I object to.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 14, 2012)

Laughing Toad said:


> This is London is reporting that the new Tulse Hill Academy, sponsored by E-ACT, will open next year from a temporary site Somerleyton Road.


Nice that the residents knew nothing of this. It was a temp site for Evelyn Grace and I don't have a problem with temporary school siting there, it's just that various planning notices tagged on lamp posts don't mention anything about schools at all.


----------



## OpalFruit (Mar 14, 2012)

It's been talked of in various council missives and committee meetings, I think.

It makes no sense to me. As a temporary school for EGA it made sense because the permanent school was close by. This will be a temporary building for a school beyond the catchment of EGA, so the first year of potential applicants from it's permanent location will not be attracted to apply. The first year's cohort will be made up of peope who put the school last choice and may have little engagement, or relationship with the locality. Who knows what the effect on 'postcode wars' may be. Space isn't just space.


----------



## editor (May 10, 2012)

editor said:


> So you'd like the building pulled down? Or perhaps the residents of Southwyck House like looking over the small park that faces Coldharbour Lane.


----------



## Vibrant-Hubb (May 15, 2012)

Decanting estate residents to new builds is a way of forcing them to relinquish their secure tenancies, and for some, protected rents.


----------



## editor (May 15, 2012)

Vibrant-Hubb said:


> Decanting estate residents to new builds is a way of forcing them to relinquish their secure tenancies, and for some, protected rents.


Indeed. Witness what happened to the Guinness Trust redevelopment around the corner. 

http://www.urban75.org/blog/guinness-trust-estate-campaign-continues-in-brixton-video/


----------



## netbob (May 15, 2012)

I tried to give BG the benefit of the doubt and do some investigating after concerns were raised here and in other places last year. But I got a mildly agressive response in person from one of the organisers at a community event. Sadly that fixed my mind on their trustworthyness and I've seen nothing to change it since.


----------



## CH1 (May 17, 2012)

editor said:


> In my dreams they would have extended the green space over the old Texaco garage to form a nice continuous park. Much as I love the look of the Barrier Block, I'd agree it wouldn't hurt to 'soften' its impact.


The way Lambeth Council go on if they can't engineer a block of luxury flats on that site, they'll probably "Windrush it". After all trees and greenery encourage undesirable behaviour n'est ce pas? Remember how Heather Rabbatts claimed the tree planters and fountain in Brixton Oval encouraged gropers and muggers and drinkers?
Look how Brixton Oval has decayed from Edwardian splendour, through 60s utilitarianism to the Stalinist co-operative adjunct to a yuppy bar what we got now!


----------



## editor (May 17, 2012)

Has brad vanished again?

Brixton Green say that their project is 'community led', yet whenever some elements of the aforementioned community asks him an important and hugely relevent question related to his plans, he seems to go walkabout every time.

It's *deeply* frustrating and only adds to the feeling that he's not being honest or straightforward about Brixton Green's plans.

This thread has already been read over 9,200 times so it's already the highest profiled public discussion about Brixton Green's plans. I'll certainly be showing it to my Resident;s Association, so it would be _really_ useful to have brad answer the questions put to him.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 17, 2012)

editor said:


> Has brad vanished again?
> 
> Brixton Green say that their project is 'community led', yet whenever some elements of the aforementioned community asks him an important and hugely relevent question related to his plans, he seems to go walkabout every time.
> 
> ...


 
Of course, he's unlikely to give an answer "in print" beyond the vapid maundering he's already come out with. That'd leave a record, and then he he could be held to his "Promises". Much better to _schmooze _people and give individual reassurances along with a handshake and a smile. That gives a degree of "plausible deniability" if you renege on anything.


----------



## editor (May 17, 2012)

That's rather a shame. We have a Residents Association meeting tonight and it would have been very helpful if I'd been able to give a clear picture to residents about how BG's proposals may affect us. 

As it is, I can only report on my frustration trying to get a clear, unequivocal answer on the matter.


----------



## Crispy (May 17, 2012)

editor said:


> That's rather a shame. We have a Residents Association meeting tonight.


You should invite Brad to it.


----------



## editor (May 17, 2012)

Crispy said:


> You should invite Brad to it.


I intend to, but it's far better to have meetings when everyone is fully conversant with the facts beforehand, especially over such hugely important issues.

If we can't get a clear answer on even their basic plans, it doesn't bode too well for a productive meeting.


----------



## leanderman (May 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Of course, he's as likely to give an answer "in print" beyond the vapid maundering he's already come out with. That'd leave a record, and then he he could be held to his "Promises". Much better to _schmooze _people and give individual reassurances along with a handshake and a smile. That gives a degree of "plausible deniability" if you renege on anything.


 
Ha. I saw him 'schmoozing' two official-looking people outside town hall only yesterday!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 17, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Of course, he's as likely to give an answer "in print" beyond the vapid maundering he's already come out with. That'd leave a record, and then he he could be held to his "Promises". Much better to _schmooze _people and give individual reassurances along with a handshake and a smile. That gives a degree of "plausible deniability" if you renege on anything.


 He didn't do a good job on schmoozing memespring who is one of the gentlest politest men in Brixton. Maybe it's because memespring asked him a question. Brad doesn't respond at all well to being asked questions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 17, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> He didn't do a good job on schmoozing memespring who is one of the gentlest politest men in Brixton. Maybe it's because memespring asked him a question. Brad doesn't respond at all well to being asked questions.


 
Perhaps talking to Brad is like seducing a beautiful woman - you start off with eye contact, a smile, some general chit-chat, and *then* you get down to the nitty-gritty?







BTW, Mrs. M, as you don't "do" TV, that's Swiss Toni, north London Lothario and used-car salesman, who always starts sentences with a comparison of whatever he's doing (selling a car, buying a packet of fags) to seducing a beautiful woman.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 17, 2012)

Swiss Tony is enough part of the cultural landscape for me to get the reference


----------



## Belushi (May 17, 2012)

CH1 said:


> View attachment 19272


 
That tree is bloody enormous!


----------



## editor (May 15, 2013)

A year later and I'm still none the wiser to Brixton Green's long term plans.

I've met them a few times and it seems really hard to get straight answers to straight questions.

At the last meeting of the Future Brixton consultation about Somerleyton Road they seemed to be manoeuvring themselves into some commercial, long term 'stewardship' role for whatever gets built there. But how does such an operation fit in with their 'Brixton People Know What Brixton Want' stuff?

What several people have told me is that anyone criticising Brixton Green is immediately reminded that they have a 1,000 members - except as far as I know those people aren't regularly consulted or canvassed for their opinions. In fact, I know a couple of people who have membership who had almost forgotten about it.

But it seems that BG just assume that anyone signed up for their consultation process  people can automatically be assumed to fully support anything they suggest, even when those plans seem to be in a permanent state of flux.

I've got other unresolved questions too.

If BG do end up with a commercial contract as developers or 'stewards' will their shareholders be paid a share of the income?
Will the overall community also gain financially from BG's contracts?
What happens to these £1s they've been collecting?
Are any of the BG staff paying themselves, and if that is the case, where is the money coming from?
And how much are they paying themselves?


----------



## snowy_again (May 15, 2013)

Valid points. It also riles me that membership suddenly becomes unfailing support, when it actually might just be interest and looking for a bit of transparency.  Lots of your bulleted points are covered in their legal constitution.


----------



## editor (May 15, 2013)

snowy_again said:


> Valid points. It also riles me that membership suddenly becomes unfailing support, when it actually might just be interest and looking for a bit of transparency. Lots of your bulleted points are covered in their legal constitution.


I suspect that a lot of people have never heard of it, let alone seen it, or are able to make sense of it.

Oh look, the chef's school and the all-important hair salon is right back on the agenda. Or at least it is in this plan marked up on their home page.


----------



## Tricky Skills (May 15, 2013)

I read the: Base for Lambeth Local Labour... and my heart missed a beat. Could do with a better description.


----------



## editor (May 15, 2013)

Tricky Skills said:


> I read the: Base for Lambeth Local Labour... and my heart missed a beat. Could do with a better description.


What is it?


----------



## Gramsci (May 19, 2013)

Tricky Skills said:


> I read the: Base for Lambeth Local Labour... and my heart missed a beat. Could do with a better description.


 
It suddenly appeared at the last consultation event I went to about the Somerleyton road project.

I made it clear I did not support it.

This smacks of sucking up to the Labour Council by BG.

Instead I said affordable meeting place / resource centre for local groups. And local political groups of all persuasions.

Well perhaps not UKIP.. Though I reckon they would be as welcome in Brixton as they are in Scotland.


----------



## Gramsci (May 19, 2013)

editor said:


> I suspect that a lot of people have never heard of it, let alone seen it, or are able to make sense of it.
> 
> Oh look, the chef's school and the all-important hair salon is right back on the agenda. Or at least it is in this plan marked up on their home page.
> 
> View attachment 32640


 
I object to the headline "Community Priorities". Its BG priorities. Headline should read "Somerleyton Road Brixton Green priorities".

I am member of community ( Carlton Mansions for the moment. Have to see what happens on Wednesday in court).

As for Carlton Mansions. (building on top left hand corner) It has arrows for Ovalhouse, Chefs School and space for small business start ups.

To clarify:

The use/ alteration to building is /was still being consulted on.

I do not want "Chefs school".

I want to see some of it kept as residential (affordable).

I want lower floors to be used as affordable artists studios and creative industries.

Both the above will be in keeping with its historical use.

Also in keeping with the Brixton Masterplan. As Brixton Masterplan says this end of Brixton did have thriving artistic/ alternative scene. (Cooltan  etc . Many artists lived this end of Brixton).

For some reason "community priorities" does not include restoring and keeping the mural on the side of Carlton Mansions. Do not understand why it keeps being left off after people have said they want it kept.

Also if you look at the map there is no space for a small square in front of the mural. The theatre buts straight up against Carlton Mansions. If this was done it would cover the mural. Some explanation of this is required. Is it mistake on drawing?


----------



## Gramsci (May 19, 2013)

Number of housing units has increased a lot. Is this to high density for a narrow strip of land?

Also the diagram is vague on affordable housing.

Some of us at the consultations were calling for 50% affordable at "target rent" with secure tenancies rather than the new "affordable" category with time limited tenancies. The new affordable category ( as being used at Brixton Square) will not be affordable to a lot of people.

So just saying that community priority is for affordable housing leaves to much leeway for the Council.

And yes I will say it again this is a Council led development. It is not being done by Brixton Green. They are being consulted on it as representing the community on the Core Strategy Group.

The Core Strategy Group is Ovalhouse, Brixton Green and the Council.

Core Strategy Group meet regularly. These meetings are not open to other local groups. Nor is detail of what is discussed. I did manage to get Council to start putting out summaries of what is discussed. But not detail.

I think a lot of the most important discussions go on in Core Strategy Group. Some local residents groups/ residents are consulted every now and then. But they are not key decision makers. In end what happens is Council decision. Its Council led project on there land. They have final say.


----------



## Gramsci (May 19, 2013)

editor said:


> What several people have told me is that anyone criticising Brixton Green is immediately reminded that they have a 1,000 members - except as far as I know those people aren't regularly consulted or canvassed for their opinions. In fact, I know a couple of people who have membership who had almost forgotten about it.


 
They have said that to me.

I also now a couple of people who are members who had forgotten about it.

Size is not always a good idea. As I said at consultation Coops work better when they are smaller.

The bigger they are the more difficult to consult the membership.


----------



## Gramsci (May 19, 2013)

editor said:


> A year later and I'm still none the wiser to Brixton Green's long term plans.
> 
> At the last meeting of the Future Brixton consultation about Somerleyton Road they seemed to be manoeuvring themselves into some commercial, long term 'stewardship' role for whatever gets built there. But how does such an operation fit in with their 'Brixton People Know What Brixton Want' stuff?


 
There will not be a Community Land Trust called Brixton Green on the site. The Council are taking the lead on the development of the site. At moment the Council are thinking of keeping the freehold of site. Giving out long leases. To for example Ovalhouse. In this way the Council will retain some control long term on the site. Which in my opinion is a good thing.

Ovalhouse have clearly stated that they will not be part of any long term stewardship organisation on the site. They are a charity in there own right. They are responsible to there own charity. So cannot complicate matters by belonging to any other "stewardship" group.

The issue of long term stewardship came up at last Social Life event I attended. I did not have time to look into it further. As the Council are trying to evict me and the community I belong to off the site.

A stewardship organisation would not own the site but would be a kind of management organisation. So that will be up to Council to set the parameters of its powers and responsibilities.

There needs to be a full consultation and discussion of any stewardship of the site. Not just a few Social Life events. Also those who do not belong to BG but belong to other local groups need to be fully consulted on the idea. At moment I do not see that happening.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (May 19, 2013)

Just to say the scheme from BG is diagrammmatic, and the public space to ensure visibility for the mural seems to be represented by a bit of an indent obscured by what i think is a tree graphic - the actual plans most certainly include the public space in front of the mural, and the paper being drafted by the LBL project team, and supported by OH (and BG) has stated provision for the retention and refurbishment for the mural.

I have not seen the latest report drafted by Social Life after the deliberative workshops or the feedback given at the tent-event, but I think the intention is to share those findings with the group who were part of the Stakeholder sessions at the beginning of the year.

I have not seen a scheme, either, which shows the actual location of a proposed chef school - again the paper being prepared includes CM as artists workspaces and creative enterprises.

Our vision for OH has been developed to include flexible use space available to rent for community meetings, community training events, small scale conferences etc - all in fully accessible facilities.


----------



## Gramsci (May 25, 2013)

OvalhouseDB said:


> I have not seen the latest report drafted by Social Life after the deliberative workshops or the feedback given at the tent-event, but I think the intention is to share those findings with the group who were part of the Stakeholder sessions at the beginning of the year.
> 
> I have not seen a scheme, either, which shows the actual location of a proposed chef school - again the paper being prepared includes CM as artists workspaces and creative enterprises.
> 
> Our vision for OH has been developed to include flexible use space available to rent for community meetings, community training events, small scale conferences etc - all in fully accessible facilities.


 
BG keep going on about the Chefs school.

Its not clear at all who is saying what without a long close look at it. For the average person googling about the project its confusing.

It is , understandingly , confusing for people when different diagrams are floating around. People can mistake a BG diagram as representing the Core Groups view. Likewise people can confuse a Future Brixton Lambeth Council diagram with the Brixton Green project.

I have a problem with a Core Group getting all the details and then it being "shared" with the rest of us. I do not know what is left out.

This is not the Cooperative way of doing things.

Looking again at this has wound me up again.



> The Somerleyton Road Project will be one of the first to come forward as part of Future Brixton and will be developed in partnership with the local community.


 
Except that the community who live on the site are being evicted.

To make it clear this is not only due to alleged fire risk. In Devonshires summary of there case against Carlton Mansions it says among other reasons that the case for making a possession order is that:



> "The building is part of land in a regeneration scheme"


 
It is not explained what the "regeneration scheme" is. Only that they want to evict the Carlton Mansions "occupiers". This is how long term residents of Brixton are called by Lambeth--Occupiers

In the court papers I have yet to find any acknowledgement that Carlton Mansions "occupiers" took part in consultations on the site. "Occupiers" who gave up there free time to make the effort to have a constructive engagement with the scheme.

Devonshires are acting for Lambeth. So this is Lambeths view. Lambeth is the client of Devonshires. Devonshires take instructions off them.


----------



## editor (May 26, 2013)

Good points. And Brixton Green really should explain themselves openly and properly because several people have said to me that this chef's school really looks like croneyism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 27, 2013)

editor said:


> Good points. And Brixton Green really should explain themselves openly and properly because several people have said to me that this chef's school really looks like croneyism.


 
And that's the very reason they won't explain themselves - because the very model of "social enterprises" is based on what is effectively cronyism - on networks and the networking of a particular stratum of local authority bureaucrat, and looking for likely prospects.
Sure, there's the whole mutual _schtick_, but as has been said elsewhere, mutualisation of the social enterprise's local structure doesn't give local people, members of the mutual or not, any sway over how the social enterprise acts, or how it might benefit (and we're not talking cash here, we're talking social and political capital) people like Brad.


----------



## yippeee333 (Jun 2, 2013)

New to U75 but been following Brixton Green with suspicion for a while.

I went to one of the workshops run by Social Life and had a conversation with Brad about the possibility of the site being used for council housing/not sold off, in which he refused to say what the report they are preparing will say about this (it's meant to reflect what was said in the series of workshops , but no one who participated in them will see it until it is published on 12 June, despite the fact that he's been liaising with the council about it - so much for reflecting "the community's views").

I'm finding it difficult not to see Brixton Green as a cover for the council to the sell off of an increasingly valuable piece of land in which at least some of the people involved in BG are likely to benefit, and which is going to make it significantly more difficult to get housing which is actually affordable to people in Coldharbour ward in the long-term (think Barratt/Brixton Square all over again).

Has anyone been calling their bluff on this? Would be up for getting stuck in...


----------



## ddraig (Jun 2, 2013)

see attempts to get brad to discuss properly earlier in this thread


----------



## editor (Jun 2, 2013)

yippeee333 said:


> New to U75 but been following Brixton Green with suspicion for a while.
> 
> I went to one of the workshops run by Social Life and had a conversation with Brad about the possibility of the site being used for council housing/not sold off, in which he refused to say what the report they are preparing will say about this (it's meant to reflect what was said in the series of workshops , but no one who participated in them will see it until it is published on 12 June, despite the fact that he's been liaising with the council about it - so much for reflecting "the community's views").
> 
> ...


You could try writing to them here - http://www.brixtongreen.org/contact/ - and inviting them to answer your entirely reasonable points in this forum.

You would think that an organisation claiming to represent the wishes of the people of Brixton would fall over themselves to take advantage of such a hugely popular local website.

After all, they can reach far more people here than at a workshop and I would have thought it would be the perfect place for them to go into detail about their plans and engage with the community.

Sadly, Brad tends to run away whenever locals ask him questions he doesn't want to answer, and that makes me very suspicious indeed.


----------



## yippeee333 (Jun 2, 2013)

ddraig said:


> see attempts to get brad to discuss properly earlier in this thread


Sounds like they've not been very successful - or did I miss something? (It's quite a long thread...)


----------



## ddraig (Jun 2, 2013)

no it didn't appear to get far at all


----------



## Effrasurfer (Jun 2, 2013)




----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2013)

Loads more people use that green space now - it's needed even more now that Brixton Square is opening up.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2013)

yippeee333 said:


> New to U75 but been following Brixton Green with suspicion for a while.
> 
> I went to one of the workshops run by Social Life and had a conversation with Brad about the possibility of the site being used for council housing/not sold off, in which he refused to say what the report they are preparing will say about this (it's meant to reflect what was said in the series of workshops , but no one who participated in them will see it until it is published on 12 June, despite the fact that he's been liaising with the council about it - so much for reflecting "the community's views").
> 
> ...


 
note: I have ended up doing a long post. I have trawled my way all the plethora of webpages on different sites to try and make an understandable summary of the thinking on the scheme so far on affordable housing. It all needs to be commented on. People can comment here and here and here. Also here apparently. Though not sure about that one. Sorry about multiple comments - I think it would be easier with just one specific one for the scheme. I have also put social life Urban notification at bottom of this post. If you do that they will look at it (hopefully). If Saffron is there can u confirm?

I went to the first Social Life workshop on Housing and Communal space. I unfortunately missed the second one I was preoccupied with the Council trying to evict me from the site. I went to the last one which was more about the site in general.

My take on first workshop.

We were told by Social Life to "park" whatever organisation we might belong to and say our own opinions. Which I thought was a good idea.

People there voiced a lot of concerns about affordability. Many were concerned the recent housing "reforms" were leading to a situation where supposedly affordable housing was not in fact affordable. Also under the new "affordable" regime of housing people may not get secure long term tenancies. The secure tenancies that Lambeth Council tenants have at the moment. So concerns were raised about that as well.

Several of us expressed opinion that there should be at least 50% affordable housing. Preferably Council housing with secure tenancies at "Target rent" . Not an unreasonable suggestion imo on a site that the Council own.

I missed the second workshop for above stated reason.

I have had a look at the somewhat confusing set out of info about the scheme and found this on BG website. Its a detailed summary of different options.

The average income in Council housing is, I have been told by Council tenants rep, £13 000. The averages in the above piece are 10% but I assume that is on basis of whole renters in Lambeth not only existing Council tenants.

Here on the Council website for Somerleyton road is the Council view at the moment. (I think. I do find it difficult to navigate through 3 different websites for one scheme- Social Life, BG and Council). Here below is initial Council position on affordable housing on the site:






> The aspiration is to have this as a policy compliant scheme for affordable housing and therefore we are aiming for 60 per cent private and 40 per cent affordable.
> The affordable housing will be in line with the Council’s policy i.e. 65 per cent blended rate of market value (incl. service charge). This means one and two bed homes would be up to 80 per cent of market rent and larger family sized homes would be at social rent. We will run a financial appraisal to see whether the scheme can afford to provide more units at target rent.


 
also:




> 5) Ownership and management of affordable housing
> Recent reforms allow the Council to borrow money to fund new council housing. Therefore, we will see whether it is feasible to retain the new affordable homes as council homes. If it is not feasible then either the new affordable homes will be managed by a Housing Association or by some alternative model yet to be discussed and agreed.


 


The Council "affordable" policy is one that some of opposed when Barratts applied to alter the affordable housing on the Brixton Square scheme.

At the planning committee meeting officers gave estimates of income required. Will see if I can find it. As , particularly for smaller households, it will not be really affordable.

So the answer to your question to Brad? According to the BG website there view is this:



> *Maximize the number of new genuinely affordable homes *…including looking at options like self-build to bring down costs.


 
The Social Life workshops report will feed into the discussions of the Core Group ( Ovalhouse, BG as community group and Council).

I am not clear at all how the affordable element of the scheme will be decided or who will decide it.

In the end it will be the Council as they are leading the project. However I am not clear how much they will take on board peoples comments.

My other worry is what happened at Elephant and Castle. After much consultation and promises the scheme affordable element has been watered down. The sorry tale can be seen here. Councils do not have good track record in standing up to developers.

The Council say it will get a "partner" (probably a developer) to actually build the scheme. They will take the risk. They will get to sell the private housing on the site.

A Problem I see is that as at Brixton Square and Elephant & Castle a developer may use a "viability" report to argue at a late stage they cannot do the scheme as promised.

So there is a whole host of issues here. That need to be discussed. I am afraid there will not be time for some of them.

I am not sure though. Here is thinking from Council view of progression of the scheme:





> The outline scheme will provide guidance as to what we would like to see happen on Somerleyton Road. It might specify building heights, numbers of new homes, the amount of open space as well as the location and use of particular buildings i.e. a new arts and cultural facility on the northern end of Somerleyton Road. The outline scheme will be signed off by the Council’s Cabinet, hopefully in July, and they will need assurances that what is being proposed is financially viable and deliverable. We will continue discussions with local people over the coming months to test the community’s ambitions presented here and to agree what is possible. We will let potential developers know what we want to see happen on Somerleyton Road as part of an ‘invitation to tender’, which is likely to be in the Autumn 2013. The scheme put forward by the successful bidder will need to get planning permission, which will mean further engagement and consultation with local people in advance of it going to the Planning Applications Committee. It is unlikely that any work will start on Somerleyton Road until 2015.


 
Outline scheme may not define affordable element in detail. Though I am not sure. As if outline scheme gives number of homes then it might.

It does say there will be further consultations. The questions are. Who will be consulted? Who will get detailed info outside of the "Core Group". How will consultation be feed into the scheme? Who will do the actual consultation? BG, Council or Social Life?

I cannot see how this all can be discussed in the timescale given.

Also as the scheme progresses there needs to be more info given to everyone of how it is going. So , as part of Coop Council, people can keep an eye on issues like affordable housing and comment/ lobby Cllrs etc.

Saffron


----------



## CH1 (Jun 13, 2013)

There is an odd aspect to the forthcoming Brixton Green AGM: 
Anyone who has bought a £1 share (as I did when Brad twisted my arm at the 7 Bridges Festival two years ago) will have received an email and link to a proxy voting form with the following curious option 3:
*3. Audit Exemption*
*We are requesting an audit exemption for both sets of accounts as the income is less than £90,000. 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 as unnecessary by the FSA. Please click here for further details.*

*I agree that Brixton Green can be exempt from an external audit.*
*Yes [tickbox]  No* *[tickbox]*

I would like to know what the FSA - abolished on 31st March 2013 - has got to do with Brixton Green.

The FSA's successor body - The FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) claims to be responsible for regulating Industrial and Provident Societies (which is what Brixton Green is supposed to be - along with Co-ops, Credit Unions and other similar bodies).  

When I was involved in local charity finance (some years ago) the understanding was that the Charity Commission did not require a formal audit from a charity with a turnover of less than £10,000 p.a.

I have perused the FCA website but find no reference to an audit being unnecessary.

P.S. Brad is the guest speaker at the Brixton Society AGM Thursday 13th June (Vida Walsh Centre, 2b Saltoun Road - facing Windrush Square).
I wonder if he can be asked to comment on the Carlton Mansions situation?


----------



## editor (Jun 13, 2013)

I'm baffled by the reference to the FSA too.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 13, 2013)

we used to get someone independent of the committee with a relevant background to audit / sign off the accounts for us, never cost us a penny, but maybe that was because we were a well respected community group that people in that community actually appreciated.

That statement looks pretty dodgy to me in the absence of any sort of independent sign off of the accounts.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 13, 2013)

FSA is needed as it's a share issue organisation - an I&P. 

And that affects the type of financial review the accounts need - the levels of scrutiny of an 'audit' - carried out by someone with a relevant level of financial qualification, is wildly different to an 'Independent Examination' of accounts (which can be carried out by literally anyone independent of you that you can drag off the street as long as they're willing to put their name to something). 

I _guess_ very little activity has taken place with the BG shares (other than selling them, and I assume, some people giving them back / dying) they're suggesting that the audit is overly onerous / expensive and disproportionate at this stage. 

Anyone know whether their income and expenditure statements are available? If there's no audit, you'd expect the I&E to be done in line with SORP/SOFA as they're acting as a voluntary organisation.

If they have any funders, they'll expect a certain level of financial transparency and scrutiny too.


----------



## editor (Jun 13, 2013)

If only Brixton Green would come back here and explain it all. Perhaps we're the wrong sort of 'Brixton People.'


----------



## Rushy (Jun 13, 2013)

I don't blame them not coming on here. Any good points being raised on the boards, and indeed answers, are lost in an ocean of personal insults and trivial nit picking. U75 opinions has been probably identified as a battle that will never be won but also one which probably does not matter much in the grand scheme of things. So why bother?


----------



## editor (Jun 13, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I don't blame them not coming on here. Any good points being raised on the boards, and indeed answers, are lost in an ocean of personal insults and trivial nit picking. U75 opinions has been probably identified as a battle that will never be won but also one which probably does not matter much in the grand scheme of things. So why bother?


I thought some very pertinent questions were being asked last time they were posting here. If you're going to go around claiming to represent what the community 'want,' then disagreements can only be expected.

I imagine most of the 'nit picking' came from _sheer frustration_ at the evasiveness of Brad. Some of their decisions may impact directly on the lives of people who live (and post) here, so they've every right to ask robust questions about the organisation purporting to represent their reviews.

I've been to meetings with them, I've read their blurb and I STILL don't know what they're about and getting a direct answer to a direct question remains near impossible. And that is very frustrating indeed. I don't like being fed bullshit either, like when he claimed that he'd approached the Southwyck House Resident's Association in the past. He hadn't.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 13, 2013)

editor said:


> *I thought some very pertinent questions were being asked last time they were posting here.* If you're going to go around claiming to represent what the community 'want,' then disagreements can only be expected.
> 
> I imagine most of the 'nit picking' came from _sheer frustration_ at the evasiveness of Brad. Some of their decisions may impact directly on the lives of people who live (and post) here, so they've every right to ask robust questions about the organisation purporting to represent their reviews.
> 
> I've been to meetings with them, I've read their blurb and I STILL don't know what they're about and getting a direct answer to a direct question remains near impossible. And that is very frustrating indeed. I don't like being fed bullshit either, like when he claimed that he'd approached the Southwyck House Resident's Association in the past. He hadn't.


 

Yes. I said that. But they were lost in the shit which there was a lot of, much of it personal and which went way beyond simple disagreement. It's an open board and people can say what they like but people will only post here if they think there is something in it for them and are comfortable with the terms of engagement. I can't see that there was anything in it for BG so I, whatever their motivations, I totally understand their deciding they were on a hiding to nothing and deciding not to waste their energy.


----------



## editor (Jun 13, 2013)

Rushy said:


> Yes. I said that. But they were lost in the shit which there was a lot of, much of it personal and which went way beyond simple disagreement. It's an open board and people can say what they like but people will only post here if they think there is something in it for them and are comfortable with the terms of engagement. I can't see that there was anything in it for BG so I, whatever their motivations, I totally understand their deciding they were on a hiding to nothing and deciding not to waste their energy.


I'd say you're getting it the wrong way round and blaming the wrong people. It only got personal because trying to deal with BG proved a thoroughly exasperating and frustrating experience.

I know a lot of people who remain _*very*_ suspicious of what they're up to, and the onus should be on _them_ to willingly and openly explain their policies, rather than driving posters up the wall with endless obfuscation and evasive answers.

In the end we were asked to continue all discussion on their own site, which doesn't have any sort of bulletin board or means to conduct a debate. Yeah, that's going to work.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 13, 2013)

Then there's perhaps a need for a 'Community Development' board on here then? Something with slightly more 'refined' rules on behaviour? I like that this place can turn into the occasional popcorn bunfight (e.g. the ongoing hipster debate of yesterday), but unless you are a bit more internet exposed, that's going to be off putting. 

Contrary to that BG should offer those methods of engagement themselves, but are also probably aware that if they host it, there's moderation duties to perform to maintain a certain amount of traffic (there's nothing worse than a community engagement site where the last post is 12 months ago) and to prevent it going off BG message. They haven't got the cash to manage that.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 13, 2013)

This ^^.


----------



## editor (Jun 13, 2013)

snowy_again said:


> Then there's perhaps a need for a 'Community Development' board on here then? Something with slightly more 'refined' rules on behaviour? I like that this place can turn into the occasional popcorn bunfight (e.g. the ongoing hipster debate of yesterday), but unless you are a bit more internet exposed, that's going to be off putting.
> 
> Contrary to that BG should offer those methods of engagement themselves, but are also probably aware that if they host it, there's moderation duties to perform to maintain a certain amount of traffic (there's nothing worse than a community engagement site where the last post is 12 months ago) and to prevent it going off BG message. They haven't got the cash to manage that.


 
I actually offered them a sub forum along those lines here ages ago, Brad said it was a great idea but then I never heard back.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 13, 2013)

Ah but it shouldn't just be BG who have the benefit of access to it - there's a need for a wider online consultation tool for Voluntary Organisations... little groups struggle to engage in broader ranges of people and vBulletin or microco.sm can be used to address that.


----------



## editor (Jun 13, 2013)

snowy_again said:


> Ah but it shouldn't just be BG who have the benefit of access to it - there's a need for a wider online consultation tool for Voluntary Organisations... little groups struggle to engage in broader ranges of people and vBulletin or microco.sm can be used to address that.


 
I'm be more than happy to host such a thing.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Jun 14, 2013)

editor said:


> I'm be more than happy to host such a thing.


I think that could be very popular and useful.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 16, 2013)

snowy_again said:


> Then there's perhaps a need for a 'Community Development' board on here then? Something with slightly more 'refined' rules on behaviour? I like that this place can turn into the occasional popcorn bunfight (e.g. the ongoing hipster debate of yesterday), but unless you are a bit more internet exposed, that's going to be off putting.


 
Both Ovalhouse and Social Life have used these boards well.

I notice that the Social Life workshop report uses comments from these boards. It does acknowledge U75 as a source. Social Life listened to people.

Open boards can be difficult to use as you cannot easily control how a conversation goes.

The recent thread on the Somerleyton road project on U75 were constructive. So main boards can be used as "community development"

They have died a death as the Council is trying to evict me and I am not getting info on the project now.

I think I will resurrect that thread for the Social Life report.

The recent Council and Social Life Somerleyton road consultations were structured.

The plus point of this is that you do not get "bunfights". The minus point is that a structured consultation can be guided in a way that does not give credence to views that are considered "unfeasible".

To there credit Social Life did put in the pros and cons of the "deliberative" consultation process they used for the recent workshops. Also the limitations of there report.

Saffron


----------



## Vibrant-Hubb (Jun 16, 2013)

I find it shocking and saddening that after Gramsci has been so engaged with so many council initiatives, his willingness to help and his intelligent and measured responses over many years are now being rewarded by Lambeth with enormous stress and an attempt to remove him from his home.  The first tenet of a "vision for Brixton" should be humane.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 16, 2013)

Vibrant-Hubb said:


> I find it shocking and saddening that after Gramsci has been so engaged with so many council initiatives, his willingness to help and his intelligent and measured responses over many years are now being rewarded by Lambeth with enormous stress and an attempt to remove him from his home. The first tenet of a "vision for Brixton" should be humane.


 
It should be, certainly, but the reality is that:

a) officers can claim to be constrained by law and by-law from acting other than in the manner they act, and
b) councillors of all stripes in Lambeth have a vision that tends toward the gentrification of the borough, not a humane tolerance of people who refuse to toe the council line.

Personally, I'd like to string many of the borough's councillors up, especially those whose main electorate are people in social housing, and yet whom are somewhat sniffy about social housing.  A "vision for Brixton" *should* be humane, just as it should be first and foremost considerate of the needs and wishes of the residents and tenants, not of the ambitions of councillors.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 16, 2013)

CH1 said:


> Brixton Green AGM:


Further to my earlier post about the audit exemption proposed for the BG accounts, I attended the AGM and picked a set of accounts up. Here they are as downloadable pdf files:
Cover Index Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8
The audit exemption was passed unopposed 24:0., and seems uncontentious given the relative small amounts involved.
The accounts are  prepared by an accounting firm, and the only unusual features are:
1. they are on a going-concern basis dependent on £49,000 of GLA funding confirmed after the year end.
2. there has been a gradual build-up of an accrued deficit - £15,058 as at March 31st 2013, but this seems reasonable for an organisation with low overheads but no explicit funding over the last 2 years.
3. The director seems to be running a (small) expenses tab to be reimbursed in future.

The picture provided by these accounts is historical, presumably if the plans get off the ground there might be higher income and also staffing and office accommodation costs.
This was not asked about or commented on at the meeting.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 16, 2013)

FYI here is the timeline for Brixton Green plans as presented at the AGM

Site visits 29th June - 1st July
Further Social Life workshops 16/18 July
Interim report to Lambeth Council cabinet July 2013
Key "fixes" set for developers bids October 2013 - January 2014
Contracts to be awarded February 2014
Feb 2014 - August 2014 Secretary of State to give approval
Pre planning application process May 2014 - November 2014
Planning Application Nov 2014 
Target for Town Planning decision May 2015
Work to begin on site (theatre end of Somerleyton Road) August 2015

I noted this down when Dinah Roake (trustee) gave the meeting a briefing on the proposed schedule for implementing Brixton Green's plans during the counting of the votes in the trustee election at the AGM. I hope I have noted it down accurately - and I don't think I'm duplicating anything in the various consultation reports.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 16, 2013)

CH1 said:


> FYI here is the timeline for Brixton Green plans as presented at the AGM
> 
> Site visits 29th June - 1st July
> Further Social Life workshops 16/18 July
> ...


 

This could take decades


----------



## CH1 (Jun 16, 2013)

leanderman said:


> This could take decades


They really were giving the impression that they are on track on that timetable.
If I've got it right there must a a council report coming up which would give more details.
Ms Roake stressed that after February 2014 things went dead on the council due to forthcoming council elections, so that is the reason for targeting the award of contracts by then.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 16, 2013)

CH1 said:


> FYI here is the timeline for Brixton Green plans as presented at the AGM
> 
> Site visits 29th June - 1st July
> Further Social Life workshops 16/18 July
> ...


 
Brixton Green plans? Was that the actual phrase used?

As its inaccurate. This is a Council led project. Brixton Green are not going to acquire the land and develop it. The Council are leading the project.

Ovalhouse in conjunction with the Council are developing plans for the theatre. They have there own architects. So that part of it is not Brixton Green plans.

There should be various times when those not in BG but in local area can have input. The interim report for Cabinet being one. The second in how a "development partner" will be chosen.

The choice of a "Development partner" will be crucial. The developer will take on the risk of building out the whole site. So a developer who is sensitive to the needs of the local community is needed ( wishful thinking). It will also depend on how well the Council officers negotiate and keep the developer to original plans. Lambeth do not have good track record on this. The contracts will be between Lambeth and the developer. Not between BG and developer.

Brixton Green are one of the community groups that the Council have consulted to develop plans. The finished plans will have input from Brixton Green but will not be there plans.

The Council gave them status of being on the "Core Group". Which consists of Council , Ovalhouse and Brixton Green (there to represent the community).

Wonder what the Site visits are about? ( first on list)


----------



## CH1 (Jun 16, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Brixton Green plans? Was that the actual phrase used?


"Brixton Green plans" and "Brixton Green's plans" is my imprecise reportage.
If you substitute "the development" for both those phrases you get a non-loaded alternative wording.

I was trying to convey information - not boost Brixton Green's status as such or put words in Dinah Roake's mouth.


----------



## Winot (Jun 16, 2013)

What is the GLA funding for?


----------



## CH1 (Jun 16, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Wonder what the Site visits are about? ( first on list)


I'm not sure - she may have said a few more words of explanation about this, but I didn't catch it.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 16, 2013)

Winot said:


> What is the GLA funding for?


Gramsci found a link on this here


----------



## Winot (Jun 16, 2013)

CH1 said:


> Gramsci found a link on this here



Sounds like a (potential) gravy train.

I am uncomfortable about Brixton Green being the voice of the community. Lambeth may use this as an excuse not to consult more widely.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 16, 2013)

Winot said:


> Sounds like a (potential) gravy train.
> I am uncomfortable about Brixton Green being the voice of the community. Lambeth may use this as an excuse not to consult more widely.


Lambeth do nothing BUT consult. They consulted so widely about a bit of art to be placed on the grass outside the Barrier Block corner of Somerleyton Road/CHL that they have failed to deliver the art!

As for being uncomfortable with Brixton Green - I am sure many people share your view. Brixton Green seems to be organised somewhat top-down.

However if it was a choice of Brixton Green or Barratts/Bellway Homes etc coming up with a scheme what then? We didn't get any say in the design of Brixton Square - and the council have allocated the section 106 money on their priorities (mainly education I think) without consulting the local community either AFAIK.


----------



## Winot (Jun 16, 2013)

Fair points. Perhaps it's the democratic "style" that grates.


----------



## editor (Jun 16, 2013)

Winot said:


> Sounds like a (potential) gravy train.
> 
> I am uncomfortable about Brixton Green being the voice of the community. Lambeth may use this as an excuse not to consult more widely.


I spoke to someone who had paid their £1 a year or so ago. She said she'd had no recent contact or updates from Brixton Green and so had no idea what their current planes are - yet I've been at meetings where they've been quick to remind people that they are representing the views of their 'shareholders'.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 16, 2013)

Winot said:


> What is the GLA funding for?


 
Also this is informative




> Part of the Localism Act that came into force last April, the CRB allows communities to grant planning permission for new buildings, sidestepping the normal planning application process.
> However, the proposals must be independently examined and receive the backing of more than 50 per cent of voters in a local referendum before they are approved.
> Applications to the fund are handled by housing and regeneration quango the Homes & Communities Agency (HCA) and the Greater London Authority (GLA), outside and inside the capital respectively. The HCA manages £17 million of the funding, with the GLA managing the remaining £3 million.
> Both organisations told Planning they have received only two applications each, though they would not reveal the identity of the four applicants or the bid values.


 



> Two groups bidding for the funding
> Brixton Green
> London-based Brixton Green, which registered as an industrial society in 2009, is understood to have submitted a bid to the Community Right to Build order fund. Its proposals include 250 homes and a creative hub for three arts organisations, as well as a children's nursery, training facilities for young parents and an integrated health centre. The organisation says it wants to develop a large neglected site near the town centre. A Brixton Green spokesman said: "I confirm that we have submitted our application to the GLA and we continue to be in active co-production with Lambeth Council."


 
As the scheme is now Council led I am not clear if BG are going to try to go all the way beyond these two milestones.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 16, 2013)

CH1 said:


> However if it was a choice of Brixton Green or Barratts/Bellway Homes etc coming up with a scheme what then? We didn't get any say in the design of Brixton Square - and the council have allocated the section 106 money on their priorities (mainly education I think) without consulting the local community either AFAIK.


 
Sorry if I am sounding pedantic here but the Council are coming up with a scheme. This is not BG development.

It is Council owned land unlike Barretts Brixton sq. Barretts acquired the land. So that limits what say local people have.

The Council have said they want to do this scheme differently to me. ie  not just get officers to draw up plans but consult people.

The builder of the Somerleyton road development will have to work to a brief. So a lot hinges on that. The design brief should consulted on as it develops imo.

There is an issue of Section 106 not being consulted on. I did say on this scheme the Council should ask people what Section 106 money should be spent on. If there is a section 106 that is.

The plans are based on previous Ovalhouse work on the theatre, the Brixton Masterplan and BG plans. A lot of Brixton Green ideas come from the Brixton Masterplan.

What is necessary is that the aspirations of the Brixton Masterplan are written into this scheme.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 16, 2013)

Winot said:


> What is the GLA funding for?


 
http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ADD17 BrixtonGreen - Milestones PDF.pdf


----------



## Winot (Jun 16, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ADD17 BrixtonGreen - Milestones PDF.pdf



Thanks - that's the first clear indication I've seen of what Brixton Green is for.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 16, 2013)

Winot said:


> What is the GLA funding for?


 
I cant find anything on the BG website about the funding.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 16, 2013)

Winot said:


> Thanks - that's the first clear indication I've seen of what Brixton Green is for.


 
And it took me rooting around on the internet for a bit to find this. Would have thought it was something that BG would have wanted to tell people about. Its hardly something to be afraid of telling people about.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 16, 2013)

Winot said:


> Sounds like a (potential) gravy train.
> 
> I am uncomfortable about Brixton Green being the voice of the community. Lambeth may use this as an excuse not to consult more widely.


 
Council are relying on BG to consult community. As Council reckon they do not have the resources to do it widely themselves. So yes BG are the voice when it comes down to dealing with key decision makers in the Council.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 16, 2013)

editor said:


> I spoke to someone who had paid their £1 a year or so ago. She said she'd had no recent contact or updates from Brixton Green and so had no idea what their current planes are - yet I've been at meetings where they've been quick to remind people that they are representing the views of their 'shareholders'.


 
I have heard the same.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 16, 2013)

editor said:


> I spoke to someone who had paid their £1 a year or so ago. She said she'd had no recent contact or updates from Brixton Green and so had no idea what their current planes are - yet I've been at meetings where they've been quick to remind people that they are representing the views of their 'shareholders'.


Did she register? I paid for one of the scratch-cards 2 years ago and only recently found it and registered on the internet. Since when I have had occasional emails. 
Obviously if you pay the £1 and don't register they can't get in touch.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 16, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Sorry if I am sounding pedantic here but the Council are coming up with a scheme. This is not BG development. It is Council owned land unlike Barretts Brixton sq. Barretts acquired the land. So that limits what say local people have.


At the AGM it was mentioned (by the chair) that there was a small part of the site which was privately owned, and they were trying to get the owner to co-operate in the scheme. Know anything about that and whether it is a done dealt, or a possible block?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 16, 2013)

CH1 said:


> At the AGM it was mentioned (by the chair) that there was a small part of the site which was privately owned, and they were trying to get the owner to co-operate in the scheme. Know anything about that and whether it is a done dealt, or a possible block?


 
The Council are aware of this. I think they are dealing with the owner. It is substation or connected with the underground. Cannot remember which.

I think they are going to build around it.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 16, 2013)

editor said:


> I spoke to someone who had paid their £1 a year or so ago. She said she'd had no recent contact or updates from Brixton Green and so had no idea what their current planes are - yet I've been at meetings where they've been quick to remind people that they are representing the views of their 'shareholders'.





Gramsci said:


> I have heard the same.


 
I purchased a share and receive email updates advising of meetings, etc..
I'm pretty sure the first email was junked so that I had to add it to a "safe senders" list.  Maybe the recipient's spam filters needs checking.


----------



## editor (Jun 16, 2013)

Rushy said:


> I purchased a share and receive email updates advising of meetings, etc..
> I'm pretty sure the first email was junked so that I had to add it to a "safe senders" list. Maybe the recipient's spam filters needs checking.


 
I've spoken to a few people who said they've had no updates - and, of course not everyone has email. When was the last update you received and did it mention their current/changing plans?


----------



## leanderman (Jun 16, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> The Council are aware of this. I think they are dealing with the owner. It is substation or connected with the underground. Cannot remember which.
> 
> I think they are going to build around it.


 

I think it has something to do with London Transport.

Pretty sure Brad told me that some kind of financial organisation had put up a £60million bond to back the project. 

But I was very drunk and can't remember the details. And, in fact, may have just dreamt this up.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 16, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ADD17 BrixtonGreen - Milestones PDF.pdf


So what exactly is the Milestone funding for?
Is it to pay for Brixton Green being a development partner?
The report wording seems to suggest this is a scheme whereby the community can force a Community Right To Build order through and then bypass the planning system.

This is not what was outlined at the BG AGM - it was clearly stated there that this would be done through planning.

Also any idea who is paying for these reports from Social Life etc - or is that likely to be paid now from the milestone money?  This is the sort of thing that could have been explained at the AGM - but it was more about getting the candidate trustees to give presentations on their experience etc.

How does this community orientation fit with the aspiring local trustee, who may or may not have been elected and who says he is currently Atkins director of architecture, London, and had worked on the Olympic games temporary buildings provision, and in the past with Lend Lease on the Heygate Estate scheme.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 16, 2013)

editor said:


> I've spoken to a few people who said they've had no updates - and, of course not everyone has email. When was the last update you received and did it mention their current/changing plans?


It was a week ago - an invite to the AGM received on 10th June.
Unfortunately I can't track back before that as the Windows partition on my PC crashed and I lost all my emails going back to 2003. Teach me not to switch to webmail won't it!


----------



## Rushy (Jun 16, 2013)

editor said:


> I've spoken to a few people who said they've had no updates - and, of course not everyone has email. When was the last update you received and did it mention their current/changing plans?


 
4 emails received since 2 May.

Last one linked to report on development workshops:


> *
> 
> *​*The Report & Elections*
> *AGM & online voting*If you are unable to make the AGM this Saturday please make sure you vote online.
> ...


----------



## CH1 (Jun 16, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I cant find anything on the BG website about the funding.


There isn't anything is there? If I hadn't grabbed the accounts, you wouldn't have have found that report at the Mayor's office either. Not as bad as a Liechtenstein anstalt, but hardly open and transparent.
Back in the early 1980s there was a fashion for operating on a "need to know" basis. Very nostalgic.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 16, 2013)

Rushy said:


> 4 emails received since 2 May.
> Last one linked to report on development workshops:


I got all those - but can't find anything earlier as previously explained.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 16, 2013)

I shudder to think of all the thousands of hours of talk, all the millions of documents, and, soon, the large fees that will go into this project.

And then there's the jargon and the byzantine bureaucracy: patrons! trustees!! advisors!!! professionals!!!! staff!!!!!.

Why does everything have to be so complicated - and costly?

It's just some homes and a theatre.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 16, 2013)

CH1 said:


> There isn't anything is there? If I hadn't grabbed the accounts, you wouldn't have have found that report at the Mayor's office either. Not as bad as a Liechtenstein anstalt, but hardly open and transparent.
> Back in the early 1980s there was a fashion for operating on a "need to know" basis. Very nostalgic.


 
No I would not have found the report without your info.

Cannot see why getting that funding was not on the website. Its not like there is anything wrong with the funding.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 16, 2013)

CH1 said:


> So what exactly is the Milestone funding for?
> Is it to pay for Brixton Green being a development partner?
> The report wording seems to suggest this is a scheme whereby the community can force a Community Right To Build order through and then bypass the planning system.
> 
> ...


 
As far as I know Social Life were working for free as its such an exciting project.

The GLA must have been satisfied that the funding was spent appropriately. The "milestones" are like hurdles to get over before the next stage. The end result is a local referendum on the scheme.

I think the idea is that BG put in a bid for "right to build" at end of the "milestones" . But they would have to get it past a local referendum. Which is a big hurdle. Not sure how that is supposed to work.

It would bypass the traditional planning system. Its all part of the Tories "localism" agenda. There is a whole debate to to be had about that.

I am not clear if BG will go ahead with this as now the Council have taken the lead role in the scheme. I certainly do not remember it coming up at any of the meetings about the site I went to.

Probably why the funding was given in stages. So that if the scheme does not go ahead not to much money is given out in grants.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 17, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> As far as I know Social Life were working for free as its such an exciting project.
> The GLA must have been satisfied that the funding was spent appropriately. The "milestones" are like hurdles to get over before the next stage. The end result is a local referendum on the scheme.
> I think the idea is that BG put in a bid for "right to build" at end of the "milestones" . But they would have to get it past a local referendum. Which is a big hurdle. Not sure how that is supposed to work.
> It would bypass the traditional planning system. Its all part of the Tories "localism" agenda. There is a whole debate to to be had about that.
> ...


 
So is the Social Life report the "feasibility study" facilitating the release of the the money for Milestone 2?

Para 2.5 of the GLA report says this:
2.5 "Achievement of milestone 2 has been evidenced through submission of details of the expertise, and pro-bono work that has already been undertaken on behalf of the project. This includes the
approach to design, to creating apprenticeships, securing the land for the development and
feasibility. These costs have been assessed as eligible under the community right to build funding."

Para 2.6 then refers to milestone 3:
2.6 "Brixton Green are currently engaging with the local community and local businesses with a view to developing detailed proposals through a series of workshops taking place in March and April 2013.
They are working towards the achievement of milestone 3 by September 2013 and submitting a
community right to build order soon afterwards."

No amount is given for milestone 3 that I can see, however in paragraph 4.3 is is stated:
4.3 "Paragaphs 1 and 2 above indicate that the contribution of £49K to Brixton Green Limited amounts to the provision of grant funding and not payment for works/supplies/services."

The £49,000 is a grant, not reimbursement for work, materials and services.  It's like output related funding paid when A4E get a "jobseeker" into a placement it seems.

If the project is going through normal planning procedures, how will they claim Milestone 3? Nothing was said about a Community Right to Build order or a local referendum at the AGM as far as I recall.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 17, 2013)

CH1 said:


> If the project is going through normal planning procedures, how will they claim Milestone 3? Nothing was said about a Community Right to Build order or a local referendum at the AGM as far as I recall.


 
I assumed they were not going to go ahead with it as its Council led project. But I am confused now as looked at their twitter and found this recent article which suggests otherwise. 

So really not sure what is going on. 

I did not know about Community Right to Build. I knew about Neighbourhood plan. Which is for a whole area. Community Right to Build is similar but for specific sites.


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I assumed they were not going to go ahead with it as its Council led project. But I am confused now as looked at their twitter and found this recent article which suggests otherwise.
> 
> So really not sure what is going on.
> 
> I did not know about Community Right to Build. I knew about Neighbourhood plan. Which is for a whole area. Community Right to Build is similar but for specific sites.


Is it mentioned in any of their original blurb? Or is just something new they've picked up on?


----------



## CH1 (Jun 17, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I assumed they were not going to go ahead with it as its Council led project. But I am confused now as looked at their twitter and found this recent article which suggests otherwise.
> I did not know about Community Right to Build. I knew about Neighbourhood plan. Which is for a whole area. Community Right to Build is similar but for specific sites.


Interesting snippet in the article. Didn't realise Brixton Green was set up in 2007 though. Though it was much more recent.

I was thinking about this earlier. Maybe they ARE planning to use this Community Right to Build order.
"Feb 2014 - August 2014 Secretary of State to give approval" in the proposed sequence of events could be that. Grant Shapps came to the Moorlands last year didn't he - what was that all about?
If BG adhere to their timetable, the local referendum could be conducted as part of the 2014 council election. The timing would fit very well.
Not sure why they would then devote 6 months to a "pre planning process" and a planning application - though it would be a bit of a test-case as there seems to be only one other such proposal in the UK at present - a small-scale one in Hulcote and Salford Parish council area Bedfordshire (MP Nadine Dories).

Planning Resource article from February 2013: Only four bids for Community Right to Build fund


----------



## CH1 (Jun 18, 2013)

Re Grant Shapps visit, BG have a photo on their website here
The flamboyant Shapps (now ex-Housing Minister of course) makes any controversy about Brixton Green seem mundane, as his Wikipedia entry shows: Grant Shapps - Wikipedia
From Twitter:
_*Jonn Elledge*_
_*@jonnelledge *_
_*Grant Shapps is basically a Foxtons estate agent who's somehow escaped into the wild. *_


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 18, 2013)

CH1 said:


> Re Grant Shapps visit, BG have a photo on their website here
> The flamboyant Shapps (now ex-Housing Minister of course) makes any controversy about Brixton Green seem mundane, as his Wikipedia entry shows: Grant Shapps - Wikipedia



I am struck by the wiki section on his use of multiple identities, a proper shady character.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 18, 2013)

CH1 said:


> Re Grant Shapps visit, BG have a photo on their website here
> The flamboyant Shapps (now ex-Housing Minister of course) makes any controversy about Brixton Green seem mundane, as his Wikipedia entry shows: Grant Shapps - Wikipedia
> From Twitter:
> _*Jonn Elledge*_
> ...



Let's not forget Shapps is a cousin of Mick Jones who went to school at the end of this road.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 19, 2013)

editor said:


> Is it mentioned in any of their original blurb? Or is just something new they've picked up on?


 
Its new. Its part of the this governments "localism agenda".

Still cannot find anything on the BG website about it.

CH1 post 402 could be possible scenario. I wonder what the Labour Groups view on the Tories Community right to build is?

I cannot see it happening unless BG get backers for funding to acquire site.

My knowledge of the scheme is that the Council wish to retain the freehold of the site. Selling long leases on sections of it. Ovalhouse for example.

I think it is however likely that BG want to do a hybrid scheme. The Council arrange to have the site developed. Then BG manage it.


----------



## editor (Jun 19, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I think it is however likely that BG want to do a hybrid scheme. The Council arrange to have the site developed. Then BG manage it.


 
I don't want BG managing it (and I know they were hawking for this at one of the meetings)

Seeing as that's not been mentioned in any of their blurb, I wonder if such a change in direction would be constitutionally possible by the terms of their set up.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 19, 2013)

editor said:


> I don't want BG managing it (and I know they were hawking for this at one of the meetings)
> 
> Seeing as that's not been mentioned in any of their blurb, I wonder if such a change in direction would be constitutionally possible by the terms of their set up.


 
It is looking like they are arguing for a new organisation to run it. "Stewardship". It came up at the Social Life meetings.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 19, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> It is looking like they are arguing for a new organisation to run it. "Stewardship". It came up at the Social Life meetings.


You think this bit of the Social Life report will work?
"The Community Development Trust should have an asset base so it can be financially
independent and generate its own income. If Lambeth Council wish to retain the freehold
of the Somerleyton Road site they could allow the Community Development Trust to hold
the head-lease of the land. This would allow the Community Development Trust to
generate rental income from community and commercial buildings and also from delivering
contracts (eg housing management or upkeep of public spaces).

"Housing Minister Grant Shapps MP visits Brixton Green and discusses the issues involved in creating urban community land trusts."

This was supposed to be what Brad and Grant Shapps were discussing according the legend on the photo linked to my post 403


----------



## CH1 (Jun 19, 2013)

editor said:


> I don't want BG managing it (and I know they were hawking for this at one of the meetings)
> 
> Seeing as that's not been mentioned in any of their blurb, I wonder if such a change in direction would be constitutionally possible by the terms of their set up.


I imagine that the constitution is what they refer to as their rules.
It contains a lot of detail about the shares - how many can you have (not more than £20,000 unless you are another Industrial and Provident Society), can you sell or transfer the shares (no).
It also stipulates a quorum of two for board meetings. The chair has a casting vote. Members must declare interests - if so they are not counted towards the quorum and cannot vote.

The bit of the rules called "Powers" seems quite wide ranging:
*33 Powers*
33.1 To carry out the society‘s objects, the society may:
33.1.1 Acquire assets and property which, in the trustees‘ opinion, may benefit the society‘s objects;
33.1.2 set up subsidiary companies, societies and other organisations;
33.1.3 take and hold shares, memberships, stock, debentures and other interests in other companies, societies and other organisations for the society and others;
33.1.4 buy, lease, hire, rent and own any real or personal property (tangible and intangible) of any description which, in the trustees‘ opinion, is appropriate for the needs of the society‘s objects;
33.1.5 make arrangements with any government or authority (local, municipal, national or international) that, in the trustees‘ opinion, is appropriate for the society‘s objects;
33.1.6 invest the society‘s funds in such property and investments as the trustees may consider appropriate, and subject to any applicable legal restrictions;
33.1.7 carry on any other activity which, in the trustees‘ opinion, may benefit the society‘s objects;
33.1.8 lend, deposit and advance money and give credit or procure others to do the same to or with partnerships, companies other businesses, undertakings and concerns of all kinds;
33.1.9 act as agent;
33.1.10 act as trustee;
33.1.11 give or procure guarantees and indemnities for the payment of money or for the performance of obligations by any person (even where the society receives no direct or indirect financial benefit);
33.1.12 make or procure grants, gifts, donations and investments of a social nature;
33.1.13 take mortgages, charges, liens and other security to secure obligations of others to the society;
33.1.14 borrow money and accept credit and grant mortgages, charges, liens and other security to secure the society‘s obligations, but
33.1.14.1 the society may not carry on a deposit taking business (within the meaning of the Banking Act 1987; and
33.1.14.2 where:
33.1.14.2.1 the loan is unsecured, and
33.1.14.2.2 the lender is not itself authorised under the Banking Act 1987,
33.1.14.3 the society will not pay a rate of interest that is higher than the society needs to fund its activities; in setting the rate, the trustees will take particular account of the society‘s intention to provide an opportunity for other public-spirited people and organisations to contribute financially to the community, with the expectation of a social dividend, rather than personal financial reward;
33.1.15 provide and procure services such as giving advice in relation to financial and non-financial facilities for people, undertakings and businesses of all kinds.
33.1.16 Create, make, draw, accept, endorse, execute, issue, discount, buy, sell, negotiate and deal in bills, notes, bills of lading, warrants, coupons, debentures and other negotiable or transferable instruments;
33.1.17 Do such other things that the trustees regard as incidental or conducive to the pursuit of the society‘s objects and the exercise of the society‘s express and implied powers.
33.1.18 Registration of a society or its rules under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 does not give any permission for a society to carry on financial services as regulated by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ("FSMA"). Any society which wishes to carry on such activities must seek advice and make an authorisation application to the FSA under Part IV of FSMA. Carrying on such activities without authorisation from the FSA under FSMA may lead to prosecution.
33.2 The society‘s borrowing limit is £10,000,000.
33.3 Rules 2 and 33 should be interpreted in the broadest way possible and not to limit or restrict the society‘s objects. Each object should be read as an independent main object.

Full document


----------



## editor (Jun 21, 2013)

Wish they'd clear up the mess they'd sellotaped to a tree outside my blog. 
But don't worry BG: I know what Brixton people want too, so I'll rip it down for you.


----------



## editor (Jul 14, 2013)

I've just looked at their candidate listings for six trustee positions. It seems that everyone just nominates each other. Is that how these things work?

http://www.brixtongreen.org/candidates2013/


----------



## lang rabbie (Jul 15, 2013)

editor said:


> I've just looked at their candidate listings for six trustee positions. *It seems that everyone just nominates each other. Is that how these things work?*
> 
> http://www.brixtongreen.org/candidates2013/


 
*Yes. *  (Unless your organisation is enmeshed in a bitter sectarian battle)


----------



## editor (Jul 18, 2013)

They've royally pissed me off today.







http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/07/...-as-brixton-green-unilaterally-claim-support/


----------



## Winot (Jul 18, 2013)

editor said:


> They've royally pissed me off today.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*scissors*


----------



## editor (Jul 18, 2013)

There's also a banjo player strumming away to no-one just out of shot. 

He's lucky that they didn't set up at the other end of the block as there was a bottle fight going on just before.


----------



## editor (Jul 18, 2013)

Anyone got any idea what "block workout training" is and why it should be associated with a 'walk and talk' event?


----------



## Ms T (Jul 18, 2013)

They were camped outside the railway tunnel today and collared me as I came through. The block workout training is some kind of equipment for people to exercise with. I asked about funding and social housing and they were very vague.


----------



## editor (Jul 18, 2013)

Ms T said:


> I asked about funding and social housing and they were very vague.


That's the way they like to work!


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 19, 2013)

The Council lot were outside the school.

Had a decent chat with them about the scheme.

Including discussion on affordable housing and the green elements of the scheme. Green not in the sense of Brixton Green.

Officers are looking at how to build housing on site with target rents not the "affordable" ones.

About 78 units I think.

I did say that officers should put some of there ideas about the green elements of the scheme and the housing online as papers that people can comment on. As at moment there is great distrust in this Council actually getting new affordable housing built on site.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 20, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> The Council lot were outside the school. Had a decent chat with them about the scheme. Including discussion on affordable housing and the green elements of the scheme. Green not in the sense of Brixton Green. Officers are looking at how to build housing on site with target rents not the "affordable" ones. About 78 units I think. I did say that officers should put some of there ideas about the green elements of the scheme and the housing online as papers that people can comment on. As at moment there is great distrust in this Council actually getting new affordable housing built on site.


 
NV said 79 on the first walk-round: I asked him do you mean 35% target rent, 65% full market rent [approx]? He agreed that was about what it was.
NV was clear the scheme is proposed to be a Lambeth housing scheme for rent plus the Oval House, catering training and other trimmings.
The core of it though is the Lambeth owned rental housing - which NV said Lambeth would be borrowing to finance. Borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board and unnamed as yet pension funds seeking an income stream secured on the rents. The special feature of this Somerleyton Scheme was that the council will retain control - and retain the freehold of the properties to be rented, unlike a conventional scheme where a property developer is given permission to build houses/flats for sale with a proportion set aside for social rent [now changed by the government to affordable].
I would like to see how the sums are worked out. If the council is able to specify everything about the scheme why can't they have 100% "target rent"? With interest rates at record lows, I would have thought that spread over many years it should be possible.
I am rather uneasy with a situation where council controlled housing becomes priced by class like travelling on the Paris Metro used to be - maybe still is [the Paris Metro has first class carriages - and also used to have free seats reserved for war invalids in the 2e Cl carriages].
I would like a briefing on how this is actually going to work - and I think the politicians should be pressing to get a proper 100% social housing scheme using the proposed funding method - not simply accepting the housing split normally done by the private sector.
What is the point of having 65% of a council housing scheme let at full open market rent? Is there a serious shortage of full market rent flats in Brixton?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 21, 2013)

CH1 said:


> I would like a briefing on how this is actually going to work - and I think the politicians should be pressing to get a proper 100% social housing scheme using the proposed funding method - not simply accepting the housing split normally done by the private sector.
> What is the point of having 65% of a council housing scheme let at full open market rent? Is there a serious shortage of full market rent flats in Brixton?


 
I also said there should be a briefing paper. This was all new to me.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Aug 15, 2013)

Feedback has now be published on the Future Brixton website regarding the recent Somerleyton Road walkabout organised by Brixton Green. It appears at the very bottom of the page in the format of a Word file titled: Feedback from SomerleytonRd_Walk_and_Talk_event

As with most consultations, the phrasing of the questions leads to a positive response:

"Use the Somerleyton Road development as a catalyst for a different approach to regenerating Brixton."

A negative answer is unlikely.

"Maximize [URGH] the number of new genuinely affordable homes."

That will be a full show of hands then.

"Create good quality, long-term jobs and training and support local businesses."

ANYONE against this?

Consultation done. Job's a good 'un.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 16, 2013)

Tricky Skills said:


> Feedback has now be published on the Future Brixton website regarding the recent Somerleyton Road walkabout organised by Brixton Green. It appears at the very bottom of the page in the format of a Word file titled: Feedback from SomerleytonRd_Walk_and_Talk_event
> 
> As with most consultations, the phrasing of the questions leads to a positive response:
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Its all very vague.

What is needed is detailed proposals from Council to comment on.

I am still concerned that there are not regular updates of what the "Core Group" of Ovalhouse, Brixton Green and Council are discussing.

I got an email from Council called "Future Regen enewsletter" saying they are now looking for a "development partner". I know this.


What I need to know:

How will development partner be chosen?

Who will choose?

Will local residents have a say?

What will be brief for development partner?

If Council is thinking of building Council housing ( see CH1 recent post on walk and talk event) what is a development partner for?

What is Brixton Greens involvement? Will they take over management once scheme is finished?


----------



## CH1 (Aug 17, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> How will development partner be chosen?
> Who will choose?


 
I think at some point mention has been made of an EU compliant tendering process. Maybe at Brixton Green's AGM. Presumably local residents had their say and that is what the feedback is about. Also presumably the choice of development partner would have to be ratified by councillors eg cabinet meeting.
It would seem to be reasonable to ask for the development brief to be made public - but in these days of commercial confidentiality I doubt the bids would be.
More yellow paper items for a cabinet meeting I guess.
If we could see the development brief them your final question might be answered.


----------



## Gniewosz (Sep 3, 2013)

CH1 said:


> NV said 79 on the first walk-round: I asked him do you mean 35% target rent, 65% full market rent [approx]? He agreed that was about what it was.
> NV was clear the scheme is proposed to be a Lambeth housing scheme for rent plus the Oval House, catering training and other trimmings.
> The core of it though is the Lambeth owned rental housing - which NV said Lambeth would be borrowing to finance. Borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board and unnamed as yet pension funds seeking an income stream secured on the rents. The special feature of this Somerleyton Scheme was that the council will retain control - and retain the freehold of the properties to be rented, unlike a conventional scheme where a property developer is given permission to build houses/flats for sale with a proportion set aside for social rent [now changed by the government to affordable].
> I would like to see how the sums are worked out. If the council is able to specify everything about the scheme why can't they have 100% "target rent"? With interest rates at record lows, I would have thought that spread over many years it should be possible.
> ...



If based on experience, I would definitely suggest you quiz NV on his numbers.  At Cressingham Gardens we have often had to resort to Freedom of Information requests just to get the truth out of the council regarding numbers and what they mean.  In most cases, the truth is the opposite to what the council was trying to argue. 

Also, having sat through many council meetings now, even though Lambeth says it has a target of 40%/50% affordable housing in any new development, I am not aware of any recent new development that has achieved this based on what has been tabled at council meetings open to the public. The most seems to be 30% affordable, the definition of which includes share equity schemes requiring above average income levels (the L&Q shared equity scheme on Effra Road needed a minimum income of £35,700 for a single bed flat).  This means that there has been a max of ~20% council homes in any new development if you are lucky.  It seems that all new developments have a get out clause regarding "financial viability"... affordable housing is only provided up to the extent that it is financially viable for the developer to deliver it. 

If you want to try back of the envelop calculations... in the buy-to-let mortgage market, the banks usually require that the rent is 125% of the actual mortgage payments as a rule of thumb.

So hypothetical rough calcs:
Let's assume it costs £50,000 to build a 1 bed flat and the council can borrow 100% of the cost, ie the full £50,000.  Then, if they have to pay 5% interest on the loan, the monthly payments to pay off the debt over 25 years is £295.  
Also, they have to repair & maintain the flat if they are renting it out.  Lambeth's average annual maintenance cost per dwelling is currently £850pa... so let's say over the 25 years, there is £100 allowance per month to cover repairs & maintenance, and any another incidental costs like new kitchens, bathrooms, communal cleaning etc... and don't forget Lambeth Living's management fee ;-)  
Add the two monthly amounts together £295 for debt repayment and £100 for repairs & maintenance, this gives £395 per month that it will cost the council.  If the rent that they collect is less than £395 per month for the 1 bed flat that cost £50,000 to build, then it is loss making.  So the rent for this hypothetical flat will have to be at least £395 per month.   Or, if they want to charge less rent for this flat, then they will have to charge more on the other flats to make up for the loss... the actual ratio of flats at low vs high rents will be based on how many high rent flats are needed to make up for any losses on the low rent flats.

I hope this helps.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 4, 2013)

Gniewosz said:


> So the rent for this hypothetical flat will have to be at least £395 per month.   Or, if they want to charge less rent for this flat, then they will have to charge more on the other flats to make up for the loss... the actual ratio of flats at low vs high rents will be based on how many high rent flats are needed to make up for any losses on the low rent flats.



I suspect many Brixton house sharers - 'young professionals' pay more than £395 a month. Quite a bit more  in some cases.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 4, 2013)

Boris Johnson's 'affordable rent' plan for London has been approved, despite a vote against it. The plan allows London "affordable" rents to be set at up to 80% of market value - which in Brixton means rent for a two bed flat could be up to £1300 per month (more even) - which is well out of the reach of most people.



> Affordable rents in London can be set at up to 80% of the market value after the mayor's plans were approved.
> 
> Boris Johnson set the amount in the London Plan, his blueprint for the city for the next 20 years.
> 
> ...



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23954176

Cllr Pete Robbins (housing) of Lambeth was complaining about it on Twitter - despite the irony of his own Council making it increasingly difficult to get affordable homes to live in in Brixton/Lambeth. Hypocrite.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 4, 2013)

Gniewosz said:


> .
> 
> Add the two monthly amounts together £295 for debt repayment and £100 for repairs & maintenance, this gives £395 per month that it will cost the council.  If the rent that they collect is less than £395 per month for the 1 bed flat that cost £50,000 to build, then it is loss making.  So the rent for this hypothetical flat will have to be at least £395 per month.   Or, if they want to charge less rent for this flat, then they will have to charge more on the other flats to make up for the loss... the actual ratio of flats at low vs high rents will be based on how many high rent flats are needed to make up for any losses on the low rent flats.
> 
> I hope this helps.



The other thing that could have been done is using the Quantitative Easing to have built affordable housing. 

"Quantitative Easing" all went to rebuild banks.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 10, 2013)

? Brixton Green related activity this morning by Somerleyton Passage. Tripod & video camera & Monsieur Castaing expounding in front of the informal mural there. No further details - just accidentally passing through.


----------



## editor (Oct 10, 2013)

CH1 said:


> ? Brixton Green related activity this morning by Somerleyton Passage. Tripod & video camera & Monsieur Castaing expounding in front of the informal mural there. No further details - just accidentally passing through.


I hope he doesn't try to put that fucking 'We Love Brixton Green' banner anywhere near my end of the block because I'll tear it down.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 10, 2013)

Brixton Green should've been the name of a weed cultivar really.


----------



## editor (Oct 22, 2013)

Well that was an interesting meeting at the Town Hall today. The discussion was about various developer groups who were in the habit of misrepresenting the community.

So I asked the head bloke at Brixton Green by what right he thought they had to stick up a big 'We Love Brixton Green' banner right in front of Southwyck House when they _still_ haven't made any effort to contact the residents' association.

His response was to just to arrogantly shake his head and laugh away my objection. That told me all I needed to know about him and his stinking "community led" development.


----------



## editor (Oct 25, 2013)

From Future Brixton


> 'Somerleyton Road Next Steps' community briefing
> On Wednesday 30 October at the Town Hall (room 8) from 6.30pm to 7.30pm. Chaired by Cllr Pete Robbins.
> 
> Your chance to discuss the next steps and the report that the council's Cabinet will be considering on Monday 4 November.
> ...


I wish I knew what this *actually meant: "*It also means the council keeps ownership of the land, the new homes and the commercial buildings, but will work with Brixton Green to look at options for a community development trust and/or cooperative(s) to own or manage these."

Some questions of many:

Why is the Future Brixton home page photo an advert for Brixton Green?
When will they finally consult directly with the Southwyck House Resident's Group?
Is Brad being paid a wage, and by who?
Will those involved in Brixton Green be taking any kind of financial role in the development, whether under the BG name or in some other capacity?
Why do they say they're made up from the local community when their chair has no involvement with Brixton at all?
And why do so few people seem to trust BG?

http://futurebrixton.org/somerleyton-road-project/


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 25, 2013)

editor said:


> From Future Brixton
> I wish I knew what this *actually meant: "*It also means the council keeps ownership of the land, the new homes and the commercial buildings, but will work with Brixton Green to look at options for a community development trust and/or cooperative(s) to own or manage these."
> 
> 
> ...





> The report proposes that the council acts as its own developer for the site, employing specialists to manage the design and build. This means more control of what we build and the proposal is for most of the new homes to be for rent, aiming for at least 40% at council rent.



This concerns me. 40% is no big deal. It is what is expected from a privately developed site.

Also says "aiming" at 40% Council rent. So that implies could be less.

What does this mean in practise?

Will there be actual Council Housing as its understood? Secure tenancies at Target Rent.

Why only 40%? Council own the site. So land cost is not an issue.


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 25, 2013)

On your 4th bullet - will there not be some sort of asset transfer at some point? 

LB Lambeth would be stupid to sell the land (freehold) but would 'sell' off its management to someone else to admin it, for a up front lump sum - borrowed via social investment by the purchaser, against future rental / ground rent income - or through more straight forward management charges?


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2013)

snowy_again said:


> On your 4th bullet - will there not be some sort of asset transfer at some point?
> 
> LB Lambeth would be stupid to sell the land (freehold) but would 'sell' off its management to someone else to admin it, for a up front lump sum - borrowed via social investment by the purchaser, against future rental / ground rent income - or through more straight forward management charges?


Good question. I wish I knew the answer and I wish this was being openly discussed by our 'co-operative' council.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 26, 2013)

snowy_again said:


> On your 4th bullet - will there not be some sort of asset transfer at some point?
> 
> LB Lambeth would be stupid to sell the land (freehold) but would 'sell' off its management to someone else to admin it, for a up front lump sum - borrowed via social investment by the purchaser, against future rental / ground rent income - or through more straight forward management charges?




Yes good question. I have not read the whole officers report. From what I have read Brixton Green will be producing proposals for management. 

From what I have read the future management is still up for discussion. 

What I have heard is that Ovalhouse will be probably managing the work units. 

From officers report:



> The preferred option would allow Lambeth to retain ownership of the land, the new homes and the new community and commercial buildings as well as provide a significant proportion (40%) of new affordable homes at Council rent levels. The further analysis on the funding options and the ownership structures is intended to include work that will support the long term aspiration
> of Brixton Green to put in place either a Community Development Trust or a Housing Cooperative(s) to own and / or manage the development.
> 
> The Council recognises that there is an opportunity to do things differently at Somerleyton Road and to deliver a flagship project cooperatively. The approach outlined in this report will be shaped by local people, be unique to Brixton and give us the best chance of meeting people’s aspirations.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 10, 2014)

I saw between ten and fifteen people coming down Moorlands Road today all wearing dark blue t-shirts with what looked like a corporate logo on the front
a few of them got close enough for me  to make out the logo [ I was on the top deck of a 35 bus ] and I thought it said *Brixton Green Ltd*
Has anyone else seen this ?


----------



## editor (Jul 10, 2014)

cuppa tee said:


> I saw between ten and fifteen people coming down Moorlands Road today all wearing dark blue t-shirts with what looked like a corporate logo on the front
> a few of them got close enough for me  to make out the logo [ I was on the top deck of a 35 bus ] and I thought it said *Brixton Green Ltd*
> Has anyone else seen this ?


Didn't see it, but it sounds like the kind of caper they'd pull.


----------

