# Brixton Somerleyton Road development, Ovalhouse and Brixton Green - funding, proposed rents etc



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2013)

Bermp!

I see that the latest edition of the _Bogle_ has the grinning phizzog of Brad Carroll, "Brixton Green" (who they?) mainstay and allround "we're only hear to help you" kind-of-guy in it, bigging up their involvement in the Somerleyton Rd redevelopment and basically doing some mutual back-patting/masturbation with the council.


----------



## editor (Dec 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Bermp!
> 
> I see that the latest edition of the _Bogle_ has the grinning phizzog of Brad Carroll, "Brixton Green" (who they?) mainstay and allround "we're only hear to help you" kind-of-guy in it, bigging up their involvement in the Somerleyton Rd redevelopment and basically doing some mutual back-patting/masturbation with the council.


Was there any critical analysis included in the article?


----------



## leanderman (Dec 11, 2013)

Just had a chat with Brad. He's very upbeat about the project. Sees it as a model for delivering social housing at sites all across Brixton.


----------



## editor (Dec 11, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Just had a chat with Brad. He's very upbeat about the project. Sees it as a model for delivering social housing at sites all across Brixton.


What kind of 'social housing'?  Perhaps you could ask him to post up here with some details because finding out actual answers about Brixton Green's plans has historically been a near impossible task.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 11, 2013)

editor said:


> What kind of 'social housing'?  Perhaps you could ask him to post up here with some details because finding out actual answers about Brixton Green's plans has historically been a near impossible task.


You don't have to ask BG, the details are all over this thread: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ovalhouse-theatre-to-move-to-the-site.305546/


----------



## editor (Dec 11, 2013)

Crispy said:


> You don't have to ask BG, the details are all over this thread: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ovalhouse-theatre-to-move-to-the-site.305546/


I was rather hoping for a direct answer rather than an invitation to trawl through a 200+ post thread, which asks as many questions as it gives answers.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 11, 2013)

dunno - think the idea is that whatever happens at somerleyton rd would happen on other sites.

as for posting here, i suspect he would advise coming to these upcoming information sessions.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 11, 2013)

editor said:


> I was rather hoping for a direct answer rather than an invitation to trawl through a 200+ post thread, which asks as many questions as it gives answers.


Ok, well the last page has decent details. The current plan is for minimum 40% of the housing on the site to be at target council rent, with the rest "affordable". It's still not fully decided, and the next [public meeting is on the 18th.


----------



## editor (Dec 11, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Ok, well the last page has decent details. The current plan is for minimum 40% of the housing on the site to be at target council rent, with the rest "affordable". It's still not fully decided, and the next [public meeting is on the 18th.


It's the details of Brixton Green's actual involvement with the council and their future plans that interest me most.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Dec 11, 2013)

Anyone a "stakeholder"? I think they mean local people.

There's a Stakeholder Party coming up...


----------



## editor (Dec 11, 2013)

Tricky Skills said:


> Anyone a "stakeholder"? I think they mean local people.
> 
> There's a Stakeholder Party coming up...


That's just the problem. What the fuck is a stakeholder or indeed a 'Stakeholder event and Christmas Social*'*. Normal people don't use such words, so why use them?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2013)

editor said:


> Was there any critical analysis included in the article?



Not really. The article just kind of stated that Brad had been disapproving of the "snail's pace" of the council, but was a recent convert as they appeared to have pulled their fingers out on Somerleyton.
What that *actually* means, for us or for Brad and Brixton green, I wouldn't like to guess.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2013)

leanderman said:


> dunno - think the idea is that whatever happens at somerleyton rd would happen on other sites.
> 
> as for posting here, i suspect he would advise coming to these upcoming information sessions.



He's quite good at encouraging people to meet him on *his* terms.


----------



## Corax (Dec 11, 2013)

EastEnder said:


> I remember when this was an anarchists board.... the baby eating days are but a distant memory...





el-ahrairah said:


> these days it's mostly Baby-Having Anarchists.





ViolentPanda said:


> Bermp!


Didn't initially realise this was a bumped thread, and was a bit  reading a post using 'gay' as a generic pejorative, and it going unchallenged.  I think that'd be pulled up now, and I think fewer people would do it in the first place.  So maybe there's less angry anarchism, but maybe some things have actually improved along the way as well?  Has the tone of the boards become less radical, but perhaps more (for want of a better word) 'aware'?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2013)

Here's a transcript of the _Bogle_ article:

*Next step for £50 M Somerleyton plans*  By Zoe Jewell.

Lambeth council's decision to take on the development of Somerleyton Road itself, instead of contracting it out to a developer, was in respnse to demands from the community, according to a senior council officer.
	 Neil Vokes, regeneration project manager at Lambeth, told The Brixton Bugle that the decision "completely changes the dynamic" of the project to redevelop Somerleyton Road into a housing and community "hub".
	 "The decision...was really to acknowledge the messages we'd been getting from the community that people didn't us selling the site.
	 Bill Linksey, chair of The Brixton Society, said the decision "is very welcome. it would be good if they adopted the same policy for all the land they own in Brixton".
	 Lambeth plans to take out what is essentially a giant mortgage to pay for Somerleyton, a loan either with a pension scheme or the government's Public Works Loan Board. "We're looking to borrow about £50 million and take about 35-40 years to pay it back", said Vokes.
	 This means Lambeth can now start to pin down the details of the financing of the project and most importantly how much of the housing will be socially rented.
	 In consultations many locals stressed the importance if having social rented flats, rather than high private rents.
	 Councillor Pete Robbins, cabinet member for regeneration said: "We've made a commitment that there is a minimum of 40% of homes that will be let out at council rent levels - which are about 40% of market rates - as our initial financial study suggests that can be supported.
	 "If it looks like a higher proportion can be supported then of course we're keen to explore that - but it may be that local people would prefer to explore introducing some intermediate rents instead. We don't want to prejudge decisions like this until we have explored them with the community.
	 However Lambeth Housing Activists have called for 100% council housing and say that the council needs to borrow over a longer period of time.
	 The council is working on Somerleyton with community group Brixton Green and the Oval House Theatre, both of whom have a vote in all final decisions.
	 Brad Carroll, director of Brixton Green, said: "When I first started this I used to get really, really frustrated with how the council dealt with it. After where we've come from, I think it's phenomenal. We've got transparency in the financial model - if we see the numbers, then we can make really informed decisions.
	 "Obviously we've got a lot of different types of developments going up in Brixton at the moment, but on this "Somerleyton) I think they're very much doing a real partnership."
	 Robbins said: "I think that this project shows that it is possible to carry out positive development and regeneration hand in hand with the community - but that it takes time, effort and commitment."
	 However, others were not so enamoured of the council. One person who attended the consultations earlier in the year said: "The council says only 40% will be at council target rents. Which is about the same as to be expected from a private developement. The length of the loan is an issue.  I do not understand why it has to be 30 years.  Some councils are doing it for a longer time."
	 Brad Carroll also said that the timeframe to get planning permission - the council is aiming to do it by late 2014 - was a challenge: "I think the opportunity is enormous and the timeframe is very small. It's like the door has suddenly opened and then you start to see all the other possibilities." Councillor Robbins, however, insisted that there is "a clear timetable."
	 The council has now asked for tenders for contracts to design and build Somerleyton and a "bidders day" for all those interested will take place on December 4.
	 The residents of Carlton Mansions, which will be retained on the new Somerleyton development, are still under threat of eviction by the council.


----------



## Dan U (Dec 11, 2013)

Genuine question, would it be possible for the council to borrow money over a long period than that? 40 years is already a very long payback in anyone's book. Commercial partners would want more like 10 - 15 and a normal mortgage is obv more like 20 - 25 years. 

I support it being all council housing btw, just wonder how realistic the borrowing demand would practically be.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 11, 2013)

Dan U said:


> Genuine question, would it be possible for the council to borrow money over a long period than that? 40 years is already a very long payback in anyone's book. Commercial partners would want more like 10 - 15 and a normal mortgage is obv more like 20 - 25 years.
> 
> I support it being all council housing btw, just wonder how realistic the borrowing demand would practically be.



Depends what their revenue stream, I guess.

Which depends on what level of rent is charged.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2013)

Dan U said:


> Genuine question, would it be possible for the council to borrow money over a long period than that? 40 years is already a very long payback in anyone's book. Commercial partners would want more like 10 - 15 and a normal mortgage is obv more like 20 - 25 years.
> 
> I support it being all council housing btw, just wonder how realistic the borrowing demand would practically be.



The usual repayment period for most council properties built between 1920 and 1980 was 50 years, although all such loans were from the central government, as they had access to lower interest rates than financial institutuions. What generally happened was that local authorities tened to settle the (low interest) debt quicker than the terms allowed, so I can't see 40 or even 50 years being a significant issue unless the council try to make it an issue, IYSWIM.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 12, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The usual repayment period for most council properties built between 1920 and 1980 was 50 years, although all such loans were from the central government, as they had access to lower interest rates than financial institutuions. What generally happened was that local authorities tened to settle the (low interest) debt quicker than the terms allowed, so I can't see 40 or even 50 years being a significant issue unless the council try to make it an issue, IYSWIM.



The higher your repayment the shorter your loan, and the less you repay in total.

Which is why Lambeth may not want to offer all the Somerleyton properties at 'low' rent.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2013)

leanderman said:


> The higher your repayment the shorter your loan, and the less you repay in total.



Well duh!!!  
Kind of also depends on the eventual interest rate, though.  Historically, local authorities were able to borrow at below the minimum lending rate, although I'm sure that isn't the case now, as that might provide too much encouragement to local authorities to build.



> Which is why Lambeth may not want to offer all the Somerleyton properties at 'low' rent.



That was pretty obvious in Robbins' shilly-shallying about "exploring" the wishes of the community


----------



## Rushy (Dec 12, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well duh!!!
> Kind of also depends on the eventual interest rate, though.  Historically, local authorities were able to borrow at below the minimum lending rate,


What is a _minimum lending rate_ in this context?


----------



## leanderman (Dec 12, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well duh!!!
> Kind of also depends on the eventual interest rate, though.  Historically, local authorities were able to borrow at below the minimum lending rate, although I'm sure that isn't the case now, as that might provide too much encouragement to local authorities to build.
> 
> 
> ...




The ratio of 'low' rent to 'high' rent homes is the crux of the matter. Going to be interesting. 

If they have unlimited borrowing then it would be right to keep rents as low as possible.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2013)

Rushy said:


> What is a _minimum lending rate_ in this context?


 Form what I recall from last time I researched post-war social housing policy, below the bank rate/base rate set by the B of E.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2013)

leanderman said:


> The ratio of 'low' rent to 'high' rent homes is the crux of the matter. Going to be interesting.
> 
> If they have unlimited borrowing then it would be right to keep rents as low as possible.



It's not "unlimited" (would that it were! Lambeth still owns enough developable land to deal with a significant majority of its' waiting list if they had access to unlimited borrowing!), but the terms under which they can borrow from the govt's Loans Board are flexible. The council coul, if they were minded, borrow over the longer rather than the shorter term, without affecting the interest rate (the loans are unlike a mortgage, in that repayments spread over a longer period don't (currently, anyway, from what I've read) trigger a difference in interest charged.
I think this is about the council trying to have their cake and eat it - to appeal to the mostly Labour-voting (if they vote at all) people in social housing, while still showing their non-core support how "prudent" and absolutely _au fait_ with neoliberal practice they are.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 12, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not "unlimited" (would that it were! Lambeth still owns enough developable land to deal with a significant majority of its' waiting list if they had access to unlimited borrowing!), but the terms under which they can borrow from the govt's Loans Board are flexible. The council coul, if they were minded, borrow over the longer rather than the shorter term, without affecting the interest rate (the loans are unlike a mortgage, in that repayments spread over a longer period don't (currently, anyway, from what I've read) trigger a difference in interest charged.
> I think this is about the council trying to have their cake and eat it - to appeal to the mostly Labour-voting (if they vote at all) people in social housing, while still showing their non-core support how "prudent" and absolutely _au fait_ with neoliberal practice they are.



Since the funds are limited, the level of the rents influences how many homes they can build. 

Lower rent: fewer built. 

Unless of course they can borrow sufficient to match their land bank.


----------



## editor (Dec 12, 2013)

I'm going to spin off the funding part of the discussion into a separate thread as i think it's going to get lost here.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 12, 2013)

editor said:


> I'm going to spin off the funding part of the discussion into a separate thread as i think it's going to get lost here.



There is already a thread about this.

As Crispy pointed out.

What is this thread for exactly?

Can the last posts be merged onto the original thread please.

Having two threads on same topic is confusing.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 12, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Just had a chat with Brad. He's very upbeat about the project. Sees it as a model for delivering social housing at sites all across Brixton.



The model is not Brixton Greens it comes from officers who looked at what other boroughs have been doing. As I have repeatedly stated this is Council scheme not Brixton Green development. It was Council officers who are experimenting with this model. I was told by one officer that if this scheme worked the Council may use the finished model on other sites.


Councils can now borrow to build schemes.

See thread on Somerleyton where I have put up details.


----------



## editor (Dec 16, 2013)

I got my invite to the event and responded by asking them to explain what a "stakeholder" is and how they differ from, say, a local resident please?"

I want to make sure I'm eligible.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 16, 2013)

A stakeholder is someone who has an interest in, or will be affected by, the development.

This includes local residents, but not all stakeholders are local residents.

It's a fairly common term these days; surprised you are unfamiliar with it.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 16, 2013)

teuchter said:


> A stakeholder is someone who has an interest in, or will be affected by, the development.
> 
> This includes local residents, but not all stakeholders are local residents.
> 
> It's a fairly common term these days; surprised you are unfamiliar with it.



ghastly word though


----------



## boohoo (Dec 16, 2013)

Stakeholders - are they vampire slayers?


----------



## TruXta (Dec 16, 2013)

boohoo said:


> Stakeholders - are they vampire slayers?


Maybe ed thought it was steakholders - him being a veggie and all.


----------



## editor (Dec 17, 2013)

teuchter said:


> A stakeholder is someone who has an interest in, or will be affected by, the development.
> 
> This includes local residents, but not all stakeholders are local residents.
> 
> It's a fairly common term these days; surprised you are unfamiliar with it.


To be honest, I've never been entirely sure what the word means, but even you must be aware of the fact that it's a relatively newfangled biz-speak word that I would imagine some of the older generation and less corporate-savy may find less easy to understand than, say, "local resident."

Notably, the careers service has seen fit to post up something to help people understand what it means:


> Have you ever been confused by the words in job ads, job descriptions and person specifications? With all the talk of 'stakeholders' and 'proactive self-starters' it can seem like recruiters are talking in a different language
> https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/advice/getajob/howtofindajob/Pages/jobads.aspx


----------



## ChrisSouth (Dec 17, 2013)

editor said:


> To be honest, I've never been entirely sure what the word means, but even you must be aware of the fact that it's a relatively newfangled biz-speak word that I would imagine some of the older generation and less corporate-savy may find less easy to understand than, say, "local resident."
> 
> Notably, the careers service has seen fit to post up something to help people understand what it means:


 

It's been in use in management-speak since circa 1984. It's not that newlyfangled.


----------



## editor (Dec 17, 2013)

ChrisSouth said:


> It's been in use in management-speak since circa 1984. It's not that newlyfangled.


I used the phrase "_relatively_ new fangled" and it is. Most people don't move in management-speak circles and many are unlikely to come across it very often. Either way it's a unnecessarily confusing word to use if you're trying to reach out to a diverse community, IMO.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 17, 2013)

Who cares about the word? You're a local resident and they want to hear from you, so go to the meeting


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Dec 17, 2013)

teuchter said:


> A stakeholder is someone who has an interest in, or will be affected by, the development.
> 
> This includes local residents, but not all stakeholders are local residents.
> 
> It's a fairly common term these days; surprised you are unfamiliar with it.



I'm familiar with the word, I've heard it for years.
But until you just spelt it out, I'd generally assumed it meant someone with a financial stake in a project. Unless there was some qualifier like 'emotional stakeholder' (sorry bit of a daft example but the best I can come up this morning). 
So I agree it's a confusing word which could lead local residents to assume it didn't include them.

That's leaving aside the point that if people keep using words like 'stakeholder' then I tend to assume that if I turn up, the place will be full of people using words that I'm familiar with to speak in sentences that make no sense to me. Personally, I try to keep that feeling in check & turn up anyway but it really does put a lot of people off (even if it's an unfair assumption that they've made).


----------



## TruXta (Dec 17, 2013)

I think while _stakeholder _has been in use in business circles for years, it was really only in the late 90s when the craze for public consultations on policy started ramping up that the word became more widely used IME.

Anyway - nowadays it pretty much means anyone who has (or should have) an opinion on stuff that might touch their lives. I.e. not very much.


----------



## editor (Dec 17, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Who cares about the word? You're a local resident and they want to hear from you, so go to the meeting


I care because it's important that a self styled community project uses language that the aforementioned community can understand and relate to.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 17, 2013)

editor said:


> I care because it's important that a self styled community project uses language that the aforementioned community can understand and relate to.



I kind of agree. I hate the word. 

Neighbours would be better

'Local residents' is tautologous!


----------



## editor (Dec 17, 2013)

leanderman said:


> I kind of agree. I hate the word.
> 
> Neighbours would be better
> 
> 'Local residents' is tautologous!


Maybe it is but I suspect it still makes a lot more sense to the target audience than 'stakeholders'.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 17, 2013)

The word _locals_ would work.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 17, 2013)

"Local community" is similarly superfluous.


----------



## editor (Dec 17, 2013)

teuchter said:


> "Local community" is similarly superfluous.


Perhaps it is but, again, I imagine most of the target audience would be more likely to think that such a description included them rather than "stakeholders."


----------



## TruXta (Dec 17, 2013)

editor said:


> Perhaps it is but, again, I imagine most of the target audience would be more likely to think that such a description included them rather than "stakeholders."


The use of the word says a lot about the real audience of this missive they've put out - not the locals, but the local authorities, i.e. the council and other people with political and financial clout.


----------



## editor (Dec 17, 2013)

I got a response from Lambeth: 


> Thanks for raising it. You’re right of course and it is an uphill struggle to use plain language but will try harder…


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2013)

teuchter said:


> "Local community" is similarly superfluous.



Not really.  In a situation where more than one community exists, it usually makes sense to define *which* community or sub-community you're talking about.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2013)

editor said:


> Perhaps it is but, again, I imagine most of the target audience would be more likely to think that such a description included them rather than "stakeholders."



All "stakeholder" tends to mean to me is:
a) A member of a really crap govt-sponsored pension scheme, or
b) A characterisation of a participant in society by Anthony fucking Giddens.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 17, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not really.  In a situation where more than one community exists, it usually makes sense to define *which* community or sub-community you're talking about.


It conveys no further information than just saying "locals".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2013)

teuchter said:


> It conveys no further information than just saying "locals".



Are locals _per se_ a cohesive community?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 17, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Are locals _per se_ a cohesive community?


Well, we were talking about appropriate wording for inviting people to the "stakeholders" event. For that purpose "locals" does just as well as "local community".

No, locals are not per se a cohesive community. Which is why I would question the use of "local community" in other contexts, because sometimes it's a loaded term used to imply they are, and that they are all part of the community the person using the word feels part of, or wants to co-opt for their own ends.

Tescos are always "supporting the local community" and on the other hand posters on here will express their concern for the wishes of the "local community" to justify their views on one thing or the other.


----------



## editor (Jan 22, 2014)

Graffiti by Somerleyton Passage:







http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/01/no-more-high-rises-on-somerleyton-road-brixton-graffiti/


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2014)

Update from Gramsci: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/01/...meeting-discusses-the-redevelopment-finances/


----------



## leanderman (Jan 27, 2014)

editor said:


> Update from Gramsci: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/01/...meeting-discusses-the-redevelopment-finances/




Good work Gramsci, as usual

This strikes me as the main issue and one I think I pointed out earlier: 

'The less properties rented at market rent the longer it would take to pay off the loan.'


----------



## leanderman (Jan 27, 2014)

editor said:


> Update from Gramsci: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/01/...meeting-discusses-the-redevelopment-finances/



Worst case scenario is the properties going to right-to-buy, then buy-to-letted and then rented back by the council through housing benefit payments to the landlord.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 27, 2014)

will they be right-to-buyable?


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Jan 27, 2014)

leanderman said:


> will they be right-to-buyable?


 
 No.
Retaining the equity, and keeping the houses for rent is one of the key objectives in pursuing this council-led development model.

More on the finances:

Grant Thornton have generated a vast tool (keep back Manter, that is not a euphemism either!) which enables you to look at the effect of changing any one of about 30 factors - and each factor has about 30 worksheets. So you can see at which number of flats adding Passivhaus* standards of insulation starts to tip the scheme into the red, for example. There are contingencies for all sorts of things - the build cost, for example is £150 extra per Sqm (I think) because of the tunnels underneath.

The plan is for members of the group (and that means anyone interested and turns up) to go on field trips and look at what you can get for different prices, and how far people think the cost:number of target rent flats ratio can be stretched.

*Passivhaus is a German concept, where buildings attract and retain maximum sun / cooling from the natural environment, and are then insulated to a level where they need almost no heating http://www.passivhaustrust.org.uk/what_is_passivhaus.php . In this development it is estimated hat Passivhaus would add £15k to the build cost of each home. Is this a priority? How would it be paid for? By fewer target rent homes? By charging more in rent (because the occupants would enjoy massive savings n energy bills) - this is exactly the sort of thing the group will be invited to advise on.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 28, 2014)

OvalhouseDB said:


> There are contingencies for all sorts of things - the build cost, for example is £150 extra per Sqm (I think) because of the tunnels underneath.
> 
> The plan is for members of the group (and that means anyone interested and turns up) to go on field trips and look at what you can get for different prices, and how far people think the cost:number of target rent flats ratio can be stretched.



At meeting it was said that the build cost was higher at the north end of site and less at southern end of site due to tunnels.

I did notice that the build cost of the Theatre is assumed to be six and a half million. The Oval site ( part of deal is that the Council will get Oval site in exchange for Theatre coming to Somerleyton) is assumed to be worth £3, 100 000. Where is the rest going to come from? The Theatre is one of the risk factors in the scheme. 

In the end it will be up to Council what proportion will be at Target rent. 

As I said before if residents choices are limited due to financial constraints of the Council then this has to be made clear and noted. 

I’ve done consultation before and am wary of being seen as wholeheartedly supporting a Council scheme. Critical support yes but I do not want to see Council press releases saying this is all agreed with local residents and everyone is 100% happy with outcome. How wonderful the Cooperative Council is etc.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 28, 2014)

OvalhouseDB said:


> The plan is for members of the group (and that means anyone interested and turns up) to go on field trips and look at what you can get for different prices, and how far people think the cost:number of target rent flats ratio can be stretched.
> 
> *Passivhaus is a German concept, where buildings attract and retain maximum sun / cooling from the natural environment, and are then insulated to a level where they need almost no heating http://www.passivhaustrust.org.uk/what_is_passivhaus.php . In this development it is estimated hat Passivhaus would add £15k to the build cost of each home. Is this a priority? How would it be paid for? By fewer target rent homes? By charging more in rent (because the occupants would enjoy massive savings n energy bills) - this is exactly the sort of thing the group will be invited to advise on.



Passivhaus has been used by Camden Council. I did hear it was about 15% more cost to build this way. 

The proposed Code for Sustainable Homes for the Somerleyton road scheme is level 4.

This article says that Camden Council got Passivhaus development built at same price as building to level 4.

Worth a field trip? Or asking Camden Council how they did this?





> Passivhaus implemented for free
> 
> Yet Willmott Dixon was awarded the contract to build the project after submitting a proposal that made no extra charges for Passivhaus principles.
> 
> ...


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Jan 28, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> I did notice that the build cost of the Theatre is assumed to be six and a half million. The Oval site ( part of deal is that the Council will get Oval site in exchange for Theatre coming to Somerleyton) is assumed to be worth £3, 100 000. Where is the rest going to come from? The Theatre is one of the risk factors in the scheme.
> 
> In the end it will be up to Council what proportion will be at Target rent.
> 
> ...



It was in Neil Vokes' introduction that the remainder of the funding for the theatre build will come from the Arts Council (bid pending - fingers crossed) and from our other fundraising - they didn't show the various income sheets specifying that. We have trigger dates set into our draft Heads of Terms to demonstrate fundraising progress. Grant Thornton have modelled the scheme with and without Ovalhouse - in fact that sheet was left up on the screen while we were all talking for far too long for my liking 

I think it does need to be made clear what the constraints are, and that if residents consultation says '100% target rent across all 286 (?) homes' and the financial reality is that the cost of the build plus the cost of borrowing the money for the build is more than the income from the rents then that is a constraint. Consultation is about what is possible within the constraints - although consultation has actually led to some good ideas about how constraints can be worked around. 

As a matter of policy Pete Robbins also explained that LBL favoured a mix of housing on the site and if there was a capacity in the council to provide more target rent properties then they would like to make these available in other areas of the borough as well as in Coldharbour Ward. And that the council are looking at this scheme as a pilot for developing other sites in the same way across Lambeth to achieve more target rent homes.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Jan 28, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Passivhaus has been used by Camden Council. I did hear it was about 15% more cost to build this way.
> 
> The proposed Code for Sustainable Homes for the Somerleyton road scheme is level 4.
> 
> ...



Personally I think that's a great idea and well worth pursuing.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 28, 2014)

If you design for it from the beginning, rather than carry on "as normal" and then try and cram "sustainability" in at the end (as my boss is wont to do), then it's not neccesarily any more expensive. It's just a matter of priorities and careful design.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jan 28, 2014)

Here's the Future Brixton reporting of the meeting.

“Grant Thornton modelled the development using 60% of the homes at private rent levels and 40% of the homes at Council target rent levels (e.g. £94 per week for a one-bed flat. They then showed that if 100% of the new homes are Council target rent, the rent levels are not high enough to pay back the borrowing and the scheme has a financial hole of £21m.”

Note the negative approach for trying to brush aside a positive aspiration.

Still - that 40% target really should be noted and referred back to over the months and years to come.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 28, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> At meeting it was said that the build cost was higher at the north end of site and less at southern end of site due to tunnels.
> 
> I did notice that the build cost of the Theatre is assumed to be six and a half million. The Oval site ( part of deal is that the Council will get Oval site in exchange for Theatre coming to Somerleyton) is assumed to be worth £3, 100 000. Where is the rest going to come from? The Theatre is one of the risk factors in the scheme.
> 
> ...



b


Tricky Skills said:


> Here's the Future Brixton reporting of the meeting.
> 
> “Grant Thornton modelled the development using 60% of the homes at private rent levels and 40% of the homes at Council target rent levels (e.g. £94 per week for a one-bed flat. They then showed that if 100% of the new homes are Council target rent, the rent levels are not high enough to pay back the borrowing and the scheme has a financial hole of £21m.”
> 
> ...



£94 a week sounds pretty good for those lucky enough to get a flat


----------



## editor (Jan 28, 2014)

leanderman said:


> £94 a week sounds pretty good for those lucky enough to get a flat


It's better than the rip off landlords, but an awful lot of people I know would still struggle to pay a monthly rent of nearly £400.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 28, 2014)

editor said:


> It's better than the rip off landlords, but an awful lot of people I know would still struggle to pay a monthly rent of nearly £400.



Even 'middle-class' teachers are relying on housing benefit. Something is very wrong.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 2, 2014)

Council report on Somerleyton road finance meeting.

Link here to summary of financial models for site.

(Scroll down to Somerleyton road to find the three summaries.)


Somerleyton Road Financial Model – Developer Scenario with Private Sales
Somerleyton Road Financial Model – Council 100% Rental Scenario funded by PWLB
Somerleyton Road Financial Model – Council 100% Rental Scenario funded by Institutonal Funding

Just had a look at they are taken out of main report without explanation for layperson.

First model is the traditional developer led one. Council does a deal with a developer to build out whole site. In exchange the developer gets a % of housing to sell on open market.

Second and Third are where the Council retains ownership of site and borrows money to build out the site. The loan being paid back by rental income. Some housing will be rented at market rent some at target ( affordable) rent.

PWLB is Public Works Loan Board. Borrowing from government. Cheapest way for Council to borrow.

Institutional investor is for example a Pension Fund who want a long term guaranteed return. Second cheapest way to borrow after PWLB.

This is not the full report. The full report is promised. 

Did hope that Grant Thornton would produce a written summary that is more explanatory.


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Council report on Somerleyton road finance meeting...
> Did hope that Grant Thornton would produce a written summary that is more explanatory.


The council should be _obligated_ to release an easy to understand summary of these options.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 3, 2014)

leanderman said:


> b
> 
> 
> £94 a week sounds pretty good for those lucky enough to get a flat



Stack about another £10 a week on that for the ancillary charges, though.


----------



## Gniewosz (Mar 4, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> Council report on Somerleyton road finance meeting.
> 
> Link here to summary of financial models for site.
> 
> ...



Interesting set of financial numbers.... "Surpluses arising to council" varying from £7.7m up to £133m, ie pure profit to the council to be used how they like (letting and maintenance costs already covered elsewhere in the financial model).  Just based on this, I think the council will be pushing the PWLB funded option.


----------



## Gniewosz (Aug 28, 2014)

Has anyone else noted that it is no longer 40% council rent, but rather 40% affordable with a 65% blend?:
http://futurebrixton.org/somerleyto...-road-issues/somerleyton-road-issues-housing/

After a bit of rough backwards calculation, it now looks like only ~12% council rent in the Somerleyton Rd proposal.... no better than any private development.


----------



## editor (Aug 28, 2014)

Gniewosz said:


> Has anyone else noted that it is no longer 40% council rent, but rather 40% affordable with a 65% blend?:
> http://futurebrixton.org/somerleyto...-road-issues/somerleyton-road-issues-housing/
> 
> After a bit of rough backwards calculation, it now looks like only ~12% council rent in the Somerleyton Rd proposal.... no better than any private development.


That fucking sucks.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 28, 2014)

Gniewosz said:


> Has anyone else noted that it is no longer 40% council rent, but rather 40% affordable with a 65% blend?:
> http://futurebrixton.org/somerleyto...-road-issues/somerleyton-road-issues-housing/
> 
> After a bit of rough backwards calculation, it now looks like only ~12% council rent in the Somerleyton Rd proposal.... no better than any private development.



You are right. It has been brought up at consultation meetings. The blended rate is supposed to be for family size homes and be near Council target rent. 

What I do object to is that one and two beds are likely to be up to 80% of market rent for the area. 



> 3) Affordable housing
> 
> 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.



I think you are correct to say that this is little better than a Developer would do on a large site. The main difference is that the Council will retain control/ ownership of the housing. 

There is or should be more discussion on this issue. As its the most important aspect of the scheme. Repeatedly when local consultations take place about Brixton the thing that comes up is that people want more affordable housing.


----------



## Gniewosz (Aug 29, 2014)

Gramsci said:


> You are right. It has been brought up at consultation meetings. The blended rate is supposed to be for family size homes and be near Council target rent.
> 
> What I do object to is that one and two beds are likely to be up to 80% of market rent for the area.
> 
> ...



But even the premise that Council remains in control appears also to be on its way out if you read further down the page:


> 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.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Aug 29, 2014)

This (12% target rent) doesn't sound familiar to me!

Is the webpage you are looking at the one that is 6 months out of date? (I'll stir up the need to update it with the project team).

The council and steering group are still very much looking at achieving at least 40% at target rent and maximising affordable (rather than 'affordable') housing.

Metropolitan Workshop, appointed by Igloo to do the Urban Planning, are working on a potential site layout to make this work (no problems flagged up about it!), and my understanding is that once that is completed it will be shared for feedback. I was in an operations team meeting on Wednesday and the discussion was very much at least 40% target rent.

The website refers to the council policy position, not the aims of the Somerleyton Rd project - which is why it is the standard 12%.

The publication of updates is clearly lagging way behind, this needs to be sorted.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 30, 2014)

OvalhouseDB said:


> This (12% target rent) doesn't sound familiar to me!
> 
> The council and steering group are still very much looking at achieving at least 40% at target rent and maximising affordable (rather than 'affordable') housing.
> 
> ...



I would like an update. As from what I can remember the Council policy position is the one that was the one that I first heard about. 

The rationale is that the larger family sized homes would be at equivalent of target rent. 

The issue is how the loan is paid back. Target rent for all 40% would reduce income coming in so make it longer to pay back loan. 

The financial model was going to be used to test out different options.


----------



## Gniewosz (Sep 1, 2014)

OvalhouseDB said:


> This (12% target rent) doesn't sound familiar to me!
> 
> Is the webpage you are looking at the one that is 6 months out of date? (I'll stir up the need to update it with the project team).
> 
> ...



It would be very useful to get clarified.  When I was at Lambeth's New Town Hall tent at the Country Show, the lady that was there to explain things didn't know there was a difference between affordable housing and council target rent housing.  She seemed quite shocked when I explained the difference.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 5, 2015)

The community consultation continues - a drop-in design workshop for this Monday. It just so happens to coincide with the Cabinet meeting that will rubber stamp the regeneration rather than repair of Cressingham 

BBuzz piece.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 5, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> The community consultation continues - a drop-in design workshop for this Monday. It just so happens to coincide with the Cabinet meeting that will rubber stamp the regeneration rather than repair of Cressingham
> 
> BBuzz piece.



During the court case to evict Carlton Mansions HC the Council insisted that the start date for commencement of building works was summer 2015.

It was one of the reasons that Carlton Mansions lost as it was Councils argument to the Judge that it was reasonable of them to seek empty possession of a property when they needed it for redevelopment.

I have had no satisfactory explanation why design work is dragging on for so long.

It could be argued that the Council knew full well that empty possession of Carlton Mansions was not needed for that date. That they only used that timescale for works until they had evicted the long term residents.

I noticed shortly after the court case ended the Council changed the timescale for the project.

I may be cynical here but this is all to convenient for the Council.

To add I do not blame the lead officer on the Somerleyton road project for this. The eviction of Carlton Mansions was taken from the top.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2015)

I'm struggling to think why local residents would want to meet the architects of Future Brixton.


----------



## Tricky Skills (May 1, 2015)

An update on Somerleyton Road - Cllr Hopkins has an 'aspiration' for 50% affordable housing. Plus also talk of a housing co-op.

I still don't see why the existing housing co-op at Carlton Mansions had to be smashed up to help enable this scheme.


----------



## editor (May 1, 2015)

The role of Brixton Green in all this is a mystery which I fear even the great detective Sherlock Holmes would fail to unlock.


----------



## CH1 (May 1, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> An update on Somerleyton Road - Cllr Hopkins has an 'aspiration' for 50% affordable housing. Plus also talk of a housing co-op.


You are on more familiar terms than me with Councillor Hopkins - but I reckon this housing co-op is going to be the sort of co-op that a Co-op Council sets up as a quango to keep the keep the property ownership separate from the council to avoid issues of Right to Buy etc.

Here is some legal guidance from Trowers and Hamlins (http://www.trowers.com/uploads/File...dable_housing_-_opportunities_for_council.pdf)

"However, there are incentives for exploring alternative models using a special purpose vehicle (SPV). Development outside the HRA In particular, an SPV structure could enable new properties to be developed outside of the HRA, provided Communities and Local Government (CLG) consents (through either a specific or general consent), and therefore any SPV borrowing would have no effect on the HRA borrowing cap. This could leave any existing HRA borrowing headroom free to be spent on the council's existing stock.
*The Right to Buy*
A further consideration is the right to buy (RTB). Some councils may not be adverse to (and some may indeed welcome) allowing tenants of new build social housing the RTB. However, most councils regard it as important to avoid the loss of social housing in this way and so an SPV which takes ownership into an entity at one remove from the council (even if the SPV is wholly owned by the council) may be attractive. This is likely to be even more relevant since the increase in the maximum right to buy discount to £75,000 came into force on 2 April 2012, although it is of course worth bearing in mind the potential application of the right to acquire if the landlord is an RP or the properties have been built with HCA grant funding.
*Wholly-owned council SPVs*
Some councils are looking at small-scale new build programmes and if there is sufficient borrowing 'headroom' (within the council's general fund) identified
by the council's section 151 officer, a wholly-owned council subsidiary may be attractive as the properties could be labelled as 'council housing'. Any borrowing
by a wholly-owned SPV would be 'on balance sheet' but, for small-scale developments, the financial requirement may be modest, particularly if prudential borrowing is available (secured against the assured rental stream available to the SPV).


----------



## Gramsci (May 2, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> An update on Somerleyton Road - Cllr Hopkins has an 'aspiration' for 50% affordable housing. Plus also talk of a housing co-op.
> 
> I still don't see why the existing housing co-op at Carlton Mansions had to be smashed up to help enable this scheme.



Cllr Hopkins blog post makes no mention of the community the Council evicted from the site. In court, when the Council were having problems making the fire risk argument stick, they said that they would be pursuing the case for eviction in any case as they needed the vacant possession for a redevelopment scheme. This they said was due to start in summer 2015. So they told the judge that it was not unreasonable to get vacant possession at that point. 

As an ex Coop member said to me recently in court the Council treated us like riff raff to be got rid of.

From Hopkins blog:



> At a time of uncertainty for many, the Council and its community partners are delivering on our commitments to *put local people in the driving seat for their futures* in this part of the ambitious regeneration of Brixton. We are walking the walk, not just talking it – and I hope that more people will want to get involved, grabbing the opportunities which are out there.





> *Everything which is being developed on Somerleyton came from the community* and at every stage we have been clear that the communities’ ownership of the elements is vital to making sure it is a success.



I do not see it that way from my experience.



> *There is a feeling from many people who I speak to that the* *forces influencing where they live*, the businesses that can exist and the houses they can afford to live in, *are out of their hands*. But on Somerleyton Road the Council is ensuring that the changes are driven by and for our existing communities, so they get to share in a changing Brixton, and that the community can genuinely feed in to whatever further changes happen in their neighbourhood.



Its more than a feeling. One thing I learned from all this is that was out of my hands.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (May 5, 2015)

Just to point out that the 50% affordable includes the 40% of homes that are offered at council target rent (40% of the homes overall - not 40% of the 50%!). This is way, way in advance of the policy demanded of developers which merely refers to 'affordable'.

And CH1 is correct - there will be no Right To Buy on the scheme.

The community in Carlton Mansions didn't need to be broken up in that way to enable the Somerleyton rd Development. The Somerleyton Rd Development was really benefitting from the input of CM residents, who had come to the earliest meetings and were generous, in particular, of their support for the idea of the theatre on the site. The co-op had voted to agree to the development, knowing that it would mean being re-housed. We were all sure that we didn't want the Mansions empty, for all sorts of reasons. 

Once the Fire Inspection had taken place the Somerleyton Rd Team found that it was out of their hands, too. It was a housing issue.... 

In truth, as an individual, I ask myself if as a council tax payer I want my local council to take rent and council tax for accommodation which has been declared a fire risk, and the answer is no. I don't want any landlord to be taking money for housing that is declared a risk(and I know the co-op took their own advice and increased fire prevention measures, and there will always be two views on the level of risk, but I would guess the council, any council, would take a conservative view given their liability),  but I saw some of the immense upset caused by the eviction which was so much sooner than the agreed vacating of the building that had  been discussed, and it was all a big mess. The co-op members lost their homes and the site lost the continuity with the only residents ON the site, who could have been the foundation of the new community.

The project is progressing steadily - once Igloo started work it became clear that ground issues and other matters would need more time and attention. (Tunnels, trees, the fact that the original terraces were simply demolished into their basements leaving 3m deep rubble all the way down the frontage of the W side of Somerleyton and on Coldharbour...there could be some very interesting archaeology once that is all dug out).

Over 100 people came to the 'Meet the Architects' event - it was really lively.


----------



## editor (May 5, 2015)

I predict all those empty flats in Carlton Mansions will remain empty for a very long time yet.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (May 5, 2015)

Planning Permission submitted by the end of summer this year...that could take 3 months...then work beginning in 2016. Igloo are trying to ensure that work begins on CM as soon as possible in the scheme, with the Ovalhouse building a close second. But it will be an 18 month building / re-furbing process.

The architects looking after Carlton Mansions are trying to see if there can be temporary non-resi uses at the front on the ground floor.... but again, to an extent, that is our of our hands. But should be possible.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 5, 2015)

OvalhouseDB said:


> Just to point out that the 50% affordable includes the 40% of homes that are offered at council target rent (40% of the homes overall - not 40% of the 50%!). This is way, way in advance of the policy demanded of developers which merely refers to 'affordable'.
> 
> And CH1 is correct - there will be no Right To Buy on the scheme.



"No RtB" is pretty much the _sine qua non_ for any co-development between local authorities and private money. We've already been told that when Cressingham Gardens is re-developed (yes, as usual Lambeth are arrogantly sure of themselves!), residents will lose RtB and that their secure tenancies will be amended to "assured lifetime tenancies". 

I suspect that the tenancies on offer for the "council rent" properties will also be "assured lifetime tenancies", and will only have any meaning while the council still retains a financial interest in the development (something that isn't assured if they use an SPV to generate the finance).


----------



## OvalhouseDB (May 5, 2015)

There isn't any private money in Somerleyton Rd, though - it isn't a LBL - private co-development.


----------



## Gramsci (May 5, 2015)

OvalhouseDB said:


> The community in Carlton Mansions didn't need to be broken up in that way to enable the Somerleyton rd Development. The Somerleyton Rd Development was really benefitting from the input of CM residents, who had come to the earliest meetings and were generous, in particular, of their support for the idea of the theatre on the site. The co-op had voted to agree to the development, knowing that it would mean being re-housed. We were all sure that we didn't want the Mansions empty, for all sorts of reasons.
> 
> Once the Fire Inspection had taken place the Somerleyton Rd Team found that it was out of their hands, too. It was a housing issue....
> 
> In truth, as an individual, I ask myself if as a council tax payer I want my local council to take rent and council tax for accommodation which has been declared a fire risk, and the answer is no. I don't want any landlord to be taking money for housing that is declared a risk(and I know the co-op took their own advice and increased fire prevention measures, and there will always be two views on the level of risk, but I would guess the council, any council, would take a conservative view given their liability),  but I saw some of the immense upset caused by the eviction which was so much sooner than the agreed vacating of the building that had  been discussed, and it was all a big mess. The co-op members lost their homes and the site lost the continuity with the only residents ON the site, who could have been the foundation of the new community.



I get tired of going over the same arguments.

The Coop proposed measures to lower risk.

The Council refused point blank to even countenance them.

Finally falling back on argument that works would start on site summer 2015. So, as they said in court, a Council would be seeking vacant possession at that time anyway. So it was never all about fire risk. We could not find a way around it as it was on Council Future Brixton website for example. Once Council had got us out the dates changed. This was a cynical move by Council. It was what finally did it for our case. Council knew what it was doing. Once the court action had started they were going to get us out one way or another.

I find this line of argument that it was all an unfortunate big mess annoying. Its the line the Council want to use.

Fact of the matter is some elements in the Council in the short life section and in Regen ( not Neil) always wanted to see the back of us. It was always playing cat and mouse with the Council. Finally they found reason to start legal action.

And btw there was no need for an injunction without notice. That was just nasty. Our lawyers said that the Council had pursued this in an unusually aggressive way. It was a civil dispute - the Council refused the offer to mediate. They also refused the offer we made in court not to contest the right to possession but only the date.

To add. I asked the Council to at least drop the pursuit of an injunction in court. They refused. Even our Barrister was appalled at this. It was a misuse of an injunction and an infringement of human rights. It showed the Council mentality.

The whole experience has made me have to start to rethink my whole approach. I used to think one could engage in a constructive way with a Labour Council. My advice to the Coop was always to negotiate not just have a go at Council. I was in end proved wrong. The Council is an arm of the State. You do not realise the power and resources they have until they are turned on your community. Council is not there to support communities or people. It has it own dynamic and is separate from civil society. This is easy to forget.

I bumped into former Coop member today in West End. He said to me that Brixton is all about big money coming now. We were just one lot who were pushed out. Arches are next. Council are not really going to oppose it. They want it. That the Council wanted us out so they could do with the Mansions whatever they want. Its easier with us out.


----------



## Gramsci (May 6, 2015)

editor said:


> I predict all those empty flats in Carlton Mansions will remain empty for a very long time yet.



I still find it difficult to walk past seeing it empty in Lambeths hands now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 6, 2015)

OvalhouseDB said:


> There isn't any private money in Somerleyton Rd, though - it isn't a LBL - private co-development.



No, I know.
IIRC it's being funded through an SPV *or* through a Public Works loan, I believe.
If it's the former, it doesn't matter that no private money went in - Lambeth will have the ability to sell on part or all of their interest in the SPV at a profit, _a la_ PFI, and once they do that, all tenure security for residents is "up in the air", as there's not really much precedent for enforcing rent limits that isn't 30-50 years old.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (May 6, 2015)

Gramsci - I'm not surprised, your difficulty walking past.

And I can't and don't argue against all your points. All I'm saying is that it wasn't necessary, for the Somerleyton Rd Development process, for people to move from the Mansions until site work began. And from the team that I am part of it was a big unexpected mess that was out of our team's hands, and was a loss.

ViolentPanda: the extensive legal work for the terms between the SPV and the OCB (the management structure for the developed project - managing the housing co-ops and the other uses)  and the housing co-ops currently in progress will detail the terms of the leases over the life of the project. Tenure security is important and essential to the aim to build a strong community in the new homes. There will be resident and community places on the OCB. The structure protects against the sell off of target rent and other homes to buy to let landlords etc (which people have felt strongly about at consultation)  - but I agree this needs not to be at the expense of tenure security.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 6, 2015)

OvalhouseDB said:


> Gramsci - I'm not surprised, your difficulty walking past.
> 
> And I can't and don't argue against all your points. All I'm saying is that it wasn't necessary, for the Somerleyton Rd Development process, for people to move from the Mansions until site work began. And from the team that I am part of it was a big unexpected mess that was out of our team's hands, and was a loss.
> 
> ViolentPanda: the extensive legal work for the terms between the SPV and the OCB (the management structure for the developed project - managing the housing co-ops and the other uses)  and the housing co-ops currently in progress will detail the terms of the leases over the life of the project. Tenure security is important and essential to the aim to build a strong community in the new homes. There will be resident and community places on the OCB. The structure protects against the sell off of target rent and other homes to buy to let landlords etc (which people have felt strongly about at consultation)  - but I agree this needs not to be at the expense of tenure security.



Thanks for that. I think the glaring gap in the SPV model isn't so much an ability to sell off to B-t-L landlords, it's rather the possibility that the SPV has no block on selling on part or all of the vehicle to - for example - a private equity fund, who'd then plead the commercial imperative to maximise returns from their investment. Lambeth either don't appear to have their eyes open, or possibly don't care what might happen 5-10 years down the road.


----------



## editor (May 27, 2015)

And so it goes on: Brixton Green condemned as local volunteers locked out of community project in Brixton


----------



## editor (Jun 15, 2015)

And so it continues: Brixton Green instructed someone to take over the office of one of the volunteers today without giving any written notice whatsoever. The police were called.


----------



## editor (Jun 15, 2015)

I've added Brixton Green to the thread title seeing as they seem to be all over this. For a "community" organisation they sure to seem to be doing an admirable job of pissing off locals.



Oh, and here's a related news story: *Yet more consultants join the mysterious Brixton Green in Somerleyton Road regeneration project*


----------



## editor (Jun 15, 2015)

Brixton Green's mission statement sure seems at odds with what they're actually doing: 



> Brixton Green is about Brixton people working together to be at the forefront of the redevelopment of Somerleyton Road, in the heart of Brixton, London



It seems that they've handed over the centre to the Green Man Skills Zone. 



> The people behind the Green Man Skills Zone at Loughborough Junction have taken over running the community space at Six Brixton on behalf of Brixton Green. Six Brixton is the former meals on wheels kitchen that the council has made available on a ‘meanwhile’ basis until construction starts for the Somerleyton Road project – currently expected in November this year.
> 
> Over the next few days they’ll be undertaking some maintenance and redecorating work and will be ready to re-open next week for local bookings and some exciting projects for the months remaining. Michael Groce from the Green Man talks about their plans:
> 
> ...



Was anyone consulted about these changes?


----------



## editor (Jun 15, 2015)

Here's what "I won't post up on urban again because they ask too many questions" Brad thinks: 





> Brad Carroll – Director, Brixton Green says: “The Green Man Skills Zone has been fantastic at nurturing local enterprises and supporting local people into employment. We want to help make sure the Somerleyton Road Project provides jobs for local people. Having Green Man Skills managing Six Brixton will help ensure this happens.”


----------



## editor (Jun 15, 2015)

Hmmm.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 15, 2015)

Mysterious! 

The BB article which mentions the financial accounts is a bit misleading though - the note on Page 5 explains the apparent operating at a deficit - by saying that the GLA funding for the previous financial year had been released (albeit after the year end) which is pretty common practice for the GLA and means that many organisations like this appear to be running a deficit, when it's a cash flow issue being foisted on them by a funder. Structured as an IP (Industrial and Provident Society), BG are held by the same financial and reporting requirements as a co-operative, credit union etc. details on that are here

Press release on what the GLA funded seems to be here, which took about 4 clicks.  

If you want to ask the funder about the £9k of arts funded activity you're free to contact them via www.awardsforall.org and they'll more than happily answer. 

Have you tried calling Tessa Jowell about them? She's their patron - her office number's easily available?


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 15, 2015)

And I'm guessing Jason has already tried: info@brixtongreen.org from their donate page? Perhaps an email to that and then cc'ing in Tessa might prompt a response? 

Their registered and postal address is still obviously the Opus one too. It's all over their website.


----------



## editor (Jun 15, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> And I'm guessing Jason has already tried: info@brixtongreen.org from their donate page? Perhaps an email to that and then cc'ing in Tessa might prompt a response?
> 
> Their registered and postal address is still obviously the Opus one too. It's all over their website.


You'd think a community based organisation would ensure that it would be extra easy for the aforementioned community to actually reach them. Apparently not.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 15, 2015)

Yes I've read that - have you tried their phone number, dropped in to see them at Opus, written to the email address, written them a letter, asked Tessa? 

I assume so?


----------



## editor (Jun 15, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> Yes I've read that - have you tried their phone number, dropped in to see them at Opus, written to the email address, written them a letter, asked Tessa?
> 
> I assume so?


I wasn't trying to get in touch with them in this instance, but they've certainly never answered any of my emails in the past and we all know what happened when people asked them questions on here.

And why should people be expected to write a bloody letter (and pay for the postage) or go walkabout up Acre Lane or go through a third party just to talk to someone who claims to represent them?

Besides, the video footage above and today's surprise eviction would appear to confirm their exceedingly poor communication skills.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 15, 2015)

Their answer machine is still working. I've just left a message.


----------



## editor (Jun 15, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> Their answer machine is still working. I've just left a message.


That's jolly nice. Does that make it OK for them to ignore emails and tweets then? And evict people without notice?


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 15, 2015)

Easy tiger, no need to snap. You might have noticed I tried to help the accuracy of your article and provide some info on the questions it asked. I've better things to be doing, in fact the pizza next to me is in danger of going cold. If BG call me back tomorrow I'll let you know - and then you'll have a number you know is working to pursue you inquiries, or at least know that you're being screened.  

Aside from that, you're moving the goalposts; 

At what point have I ever supported them 'evicting people', or ignoring attempts to communicate with people? It's terrible practice. I've just asked you whether you've exhausted ways of communicating with them and suggested alternatives that will force them to reply in front of some one more senior and with publicly agreed correspondence times + an office phone number she can't hide behind. 

I don't know how many people BG employ, or who has access to their twitter or email accounts. I don't know the content or tone of your communication with them. I don't know anything other than the picture you posted about in post #97 as that's all the article includes - a photo and a line about what's purported to be happening.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 15, 2015)

editor said:


> And so it continues: Brixton Green instructed someone to take over the office of one of the volunteers today without giving any written notice whatsoever. The police were called.
> 
> View attachment 72760



Thats Maria who has done a lot at number 6. She is an active member of the Latin American community in Brixton.

She organised the "Brixton Come Together Festival". Which Brixton Green praised her for on there website:



> This weekend the St Matthew’s Peace Gardens were taken over by a fantastic community festival organized by Maria Santos. The festival is called Brixton Come Together and is an inclusive event for all parts of the Brixton community.
> Brixton Green were very proud to be part of this festival and happy to see so many of our members contributing. Other great Brixton community organizations attended the event including Colombiage.
> Dennis Gyamfi, a trustee and founding member of Brixton Green, gave a great speech explaining the importance of Brixton people uniting particularly at this time.



And now they kick her out of Number 6.

If BG are going to be given the finished development to manage this is hardly a good sign.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 15, 2015)

As a side note - how can Dennis Gyamfi be a trustee of BG? They only list Brad on their accounts. Unless DG is a co-opted Trustee with no powers? 

Is there multiple bodies for it - I&P and then something else? I don't have a trade account to any of the co-directors registration sites to check. CH1 any ideas?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 15, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> At what point have I ever supported them 'evicting people', or ignoring attempts to communicate with people? It's terrible practice. I've just asked you whether you've exhausted ways of communicating with them and suggested alternatives that will force them to reply in front of some one more senior and with publicly agreed correspondence times + an office phone number she can't hide behind.



Tricky Skills has been trying to contact them as well from what he has posted elsewhere. He has not got replies from them either.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 15, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> As a side note - how can Dennis Gyamfi be a trustee of BG? They only list Brad on their accounts. Unless DG is a co-opted Trustee with no powers?
> 
> Is there multiple bodies for it - I&P and then something else? I don't have a trade account to any of the co-directors registration sites to check. CH1 any ideas?



I think the webpage I linked up is quite old. I cannot see a date on it. He may have stood down. 

Might be idea to get screenshot of that page.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 15, 2015)

Yes, but even so - they don't seem to have a structure that ever allowed that - I'll take a hunt tomorrow. He's still traceable through some of the director website listing orgs, but never quite trust the free ones. BG could have had a wider director / trustee board and then later voted to reduce it. That rings bells with me from something posted on here.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jun 15, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Tricky Skills has been trying to contact them as well from what he has posted elsewhere. He has not got replies from them either.



I've tried to contact Brixton Green via emails on the website, emails to Brad's personal account, polite Twitter requests and yes, leaving messages on the phone number.

Everything so far has been ignored.


----------



## reubeness (Jun 16, 2015)

editor said:


> And so it goes on: Brixton Green condemned as local volunteers locked out of community project in Brixton



Sorry for confusing everyone, this is the story I was talking about last week, i misquoted small world urban


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 16, 2015)

Sorry I forgot to post this earlier. 

I had a missed call from BG's land line today. Don't have vmail activated on my phone, so they didn't leave a message.


----------



## editor (Jun 16, 2015)

Here's a follow up piece that includes a look at BG's finances: 
Brixton Green take back seat role at Somerleyton Road as yet another organisation moves in to manage ‘community’ site

The reader comment speaks volumes about the chaos going on at the site.


----------



## editor (Jun 16, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> Sorry I forgot to post this earlier.
> 
> I had a missed call from BG's land line today. Don't have vmail activated on my phone, so they didn't leave a message.


Have we reached a point that Brixton Green _actually returning a call_ is deemed worthy of a post? 

These people claim to represent the local community, yet their reluctance and/or refusal to engage with the local community is already widely documented - and their recent antics of locking out long-term volunteers without notice and booting out a community organiser  unannounced really leaves them with zero credibility.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 16, 2015)

Sorry dear, I was just doing what I said I was going to do last night. Had I not updated it, I'd be doing the same bad things re. communication that BG appear to be doing. 

So, I'm sorry that taking perhaps 15 seconds of my time to post an update of something that I said I would do last night offends you. 

Again, at no point in my posting history here have I ever defended BG.


----------



## editor (Jun 16, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> Sorry dear, I was just doing what I said I was going to do last night. Had I not updated it, I'd be doing the same bad things re. communication that BG appear to be doing.
> 
> So, I'm sorry that taking perhaps 15 seconds of my time to post an update of something that I said I would do last night offends you.
> 
> Again, at no point in my posting history here have I ever defended BG.


I truly wasn't offended, so you're OK "dear"


----------



## CH1 (Jun 16, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> As a side note - how can Dennis Gyamfi be a trustee of BG? They only list Brad on their accounts. Unless DG is a co-opted Trustee with no powers?
> Is there multiple bodies for it - I&P and then something else? I don't have a trade account to any of the co-directors registration sites to check. CH1 any ideas?


I can't remember all the ins and outs of Brixton Green - maybe a lot is earlier in this thread.

TRUST or CHARITY?

BG is not a charity in the sense of a charity registered with the charity commission. Charity Commissions rules/conventions may not apply therefore. 

Trustees would be selected according to the applicable constitution or trust deed. May not be expected to have full knowledge of the finances. I don't know, or know anything about Dennis Gyamfi so not sure what issue you are raising here.

ACCOUNTS
I am not sure that all trustees need to be listed on accounts if the organisation is an Industrial/Provident society charity (which is what Brixton Green is).
Do I take it that one has paid £12 to download the accounts?
Looks like the people who control the rules on reporting accounts and if necessary trutees are in this case the FCA and ultimately the Bank of England.

Unless we have any chartered accountants used to dealing with Housing Associations or Credit Unions on board. (They would be under similar rules)


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 16, 2015)

editor said:


> Here's a follow up piece that includes a look at BG's finances:
> Brixton Green take back seat role at Somerleyton Road as yet another organisation moves in to manage ‘community’ site
> 
> The comment speaks volumes about the chaos going on at the site.



..............so the Green Man Skillzone is involved



> The Green Man Skills Zone is a flagship project of the *Lambeth Working* campaign. The campaign helps residents who are out of work to get a job or improve their skills by raising awareness of the services that are available  in the borough to support them.



ref........ http://www.singleparents.org.uk/organisation/green-man-employment-skills-zone-lambeth

and the people behind the Green Man set up are part of the council....


http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/brl-lib-peck-business-rate-letter.pdf



> Our brokerage service ‘Lambeth Working’ links local people with local jobs and has recently helped Tesco, Park Plaza and Arriva to recruit local talent. {/quote]


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 16, 2015)

editor said:


> Here's a follow up piece that includes a look at BG's finances:
> Brixton Green take back seat role at Somerleyton Road as yet another organisation moves in to manage ‘community’ site
> 
> The reader comment speaks volumes about the chaos going on at the site.



I had a chat with Maria on the way home tonight.

She said Michael Groce head of Green Man turned up and tried to chuck her out of Number 6. Then he called police. They turned up and she showed them her paperwork giving her the right to have a office there. BG have not given her official notice to terminate this. The police told Groce its a civil matter. ie its not a dispute they can get involved in. Police said its a matter for the owner of the land in the end- Lambeth Council. Groce was most upset about this. He got angry about it.

So its not over yet. She said she does not want to go quietly. She is refusing to give in to intimidation. And intimidation is what it was.

Not sure how much I want to post up on open board. But what is happening at number 6 is not good.

As I have posted up and Maria told me again tonight BG were keen to use her now they want to get rid of her.

Yes it does sound like chaos. I am surprised by what she told me? Not really. This is down to BG in the end.I am not sure that the Council are fully aware of how BG have been behaving. I asked her if I could post this up. She said yes as it needs to be known.

As she says she did a lot to make Number 6 a nice place to be and know its ended up like this. Through no fault from her side.


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> I had a chat with Maria on the way home tonight.
> 
> She said Michael Groce head of Green Man turned up and tried to chuck her out of Number 6. Then he called police. They turned up and she showed them her paperwork giving her the right to have a office there. BG have not given her official notice to terminate this. The police told Groce its a civil matter. ie its not a dispute they can get involved in. Police said its a matter for the owner of the land in the end- Lambeth Council. Groce was most upset about this. He got angry about it.
> 
> ...


They called me and asked me to come down when it was happening. It was a disgraceful way to treat someone who has worked so hard for the local community. And good for her for standing her ground. Naturally BG didn't show their faces during al this.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 17, 2015)

editor said:


> They called me and asked me to come down when it was happening. It was a disgraceful way to treat someone who has worked so hard for the local community. And good for her for standing her ground. Naturally BG didn't show their faces during al this.
> 
> View attachment 72808



Good that you went down. BG were not there they as they were using Groce of Green Man to try to kick her out. From what she said he was quite aggressive. Throwing a chair across the room in his anger. When he did not get his way. Then locking her in the building. 

Michael Groce of Green Man gets good press on Future Brixton, the Councils propaganda website for all the wonderful ways it consulting us. 



> Our job is to make sure a wide variety of local people get to use the space at Six Brixton, as well as support those already doing so.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 17, 2015)

I really need to distance myself form Somerleyton after all that has happened to my community there. But when I hear Maria telling me of the way that BG have treated her it really annoys me.

My Coop were a reasonable bunch who were prepared to go when the Mansions was needed for redevelopment and take part in the consultations on the site.

But we got our community broken up. The Council would rather work with the kind of people who run Brixton Green. I really resent it. I would not mind so much if it was just the Council doing the whole project.

And Maria confirmed to me that BG objective number one , as I knew all along, was to get control of the site. People like her are used and discarded when no longer required. Yet this is the "community" group the Council has chosen to represent the communities interests in this development.


----------



## brixtonblade (Jun 17, 2015)

I am struggling to keep up 

Are the stated aims of the redevelopment (which I understand to be redevelopment and renewal with high proportion of social housing) being delivered in a cack handed way or is there a suggestion that there are other motivations? 

I seem to remember that there wasn't to be as much social housing as hoped / expected - is this turning into more commercial development?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jun 17, 2015)

brixtonblade said:


> I am struggling to keep up
> 
> I seem to remember that there wasn't to be as much social housing as hoped / expected - is this turning into more commercial development?



Phillipe Castaing of Brixton Green is also now heavily involved in Pop Brixton.

Coincidence?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 17, 2015)

brixtonblade said:


> I am struggling to keep up
> 
> Are the stated aims of the redevelopment (which I understand to be redevelopment and renewal with high proportion of social housing) being delivered in a cack handed way or is there a suggestion that there are other motivations?
> 
> I seem to remember that there wasn't to be as much social housing as hoped / expected - is this turning into more commercial development?



If only it was as simple as the Council building Council housing and Oval House building a theatre.I wish they would just do this and get on with it. 

No its the Nu Labour Council experimenting with new ways of doing things. A partnership between the community ( as represented by Brixton Green. Chosen by Council to represent community), Ovalhouse and the Council. An example of the Cooperative Council in action. Its why people like me get annoyed with it all.

The motivation of Brixton Green is to have control of the finished site once the Council have built it.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 17, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Phillipe Castaing of Brixton Green is also now heavily involved in Pop Brixton.
> 
> Coincidence?



They all know each other. Its all about networking and going to the right dinner parties. 

As several people told me I do not have the right networks.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 17, 2015)

brixtonblade said:


> I seem to remember that there wasn't to be as much social housing as hoped / expected - is this turning into more commercial development?



To answer this question.

It is a good one to ask. We keep getting promised social housing on the site but have had no real detail yet. Only aspirations. 

Like with Pop Brixton a lot of aspirations and promises are made but in the end people are disappointed.

Yes I think that is possible on this development in long term.


----------



## brixtonblade (Jun 17, 2015)

A possibly naive question then: is it possible to find out from the council why brixton green have been chosen and to get the councils opinion on them not responding to questions?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jun 18, 2015)

brixtonblade said:


> A possibly naive question then: is it possible to find out from the council why brixton green have been chosen and to get the councils opinion on them not responding to questions?



Good luck with that one.

Shifting responsibility and accountability from a democratically elected Cllr to a wishy washy Third Way group pretty much sums up what the Co-operative Council is all about.

If it was Lambeth Council directly managing Six Brixton then it would be easier to find a solution. The Co-operative Council has 'trusted' the likes of the mysterious Brixton Green to tinker around with a Nu Labour model, as well as walking away from any direct responsibility.

When it all goes wrong - as it clearly has - residents are unsure as to who to turn to.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 18, 2015)

The usual flurry of assumptions,  accusations, adverbs and adjectives here - with little to substantiate them.


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2015)

leanderman said:


> The usual flurry of assumptions,  accusations, adverbs and adjectives here - with little to substantiate them.


And surely the blame for any of that lies solely with Brixton Green's shocking inability to communicate and engage with the community they purport to represent?


----------



## CH1 (Jun 18, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Good luck with that one.
> 
> Shifting responsibility and accountability from a democratically elected Cllr to a wishy washy Third Way group pretty much sums up what the Co-operative Council is all about.
> 
> ...


I agree with you that poor, weak or indirect management makes a solution difficult.

I could cite a similar situation back in the 1990s where Lambeth were directly in control of a tenants hall and a weak and divided TA led to sub-letting , legal disputes and then dereliction. The whole thing took over 10 years to sort out. So Old Lambeth was not necessarily better.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 18, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> The motivation of Brixton Green is to have control of the finished site once the Council have built it.



And the sort of "control" that will probably mean BG taking a cut from management fees, even if they do fuck-all. As was said 2-3 years ago, this is about people cashing in, under the dubious premise of supposedly representing Brixton opinion and needs. IIRC they have about 200 members - a tiny amount of people who are highly unlikely to represent the entirety of Brixton opinion.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 18, 2015)

They claim 1000 members now - http://www.brixtongreen.org/qa/ or at least 1000 shareholders, which isn't the same as 1000 active participants. 

Given the situation with No 6. it's also particularly insensitive to have the picture on their front page: http://www.brixtongreen.org/


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> They claim 1000 members now - http://www.brixtongreen.org/qa/ or at least 1000 shareholders, which isn't the same as 1000 active participants.
> 
> Given the situation with No 6. it's also particularly insensitive to have the picture on their front page: http://www.brixtongreen.org/


Some of those shareholders are children, the no-longer living here, the idly curious and - from my own anecdotal evidence - seriously miffed off people who thought they were buying into something entirely different to what they got.

Although they're partial to suggesting that those 1,000 shareholders are all on-message with BG's ever-shifting and always-opaque plans, it's as credible as claiming that urban75's 40,000 signed up users are all speaking with one voice.

But at least we respond to emails.


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> They claim 1000 members now - http://www.brixtongreen.org/qa/ or at least 1000 shareholders, which isn't the same as 1000 active participants.
> 
> Given the situation with No 6. it's also particularly insensitive to have the picture on their front page: http://www.brixtongreen.org/


I see that the chef's school is still in the mix.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 19, 2015)

leanderman said:


> The usual flurry of assumptions,  accusations, adverbs and adjectives here - with little to substantiate them.[/QUOTE



Does that include my posts?


----------



## editor (Jun 21, 2015)

Pretty damning stuff here. It's great that this non-communicative  'community' group are taken to task for their actions:

Somerleyton Road street party poster defaced with allegations about how money for the project has been spent


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 21, 2015)

Tricky Skills hello there, can you clarify what you mean by this:

Brixton Buzz understands that the Big Lottery Fund is investigating the spending of a £9,486.42 grant handed out to Brixton Green.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 21, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> Tricky Skills hello there, can you clarify what you mean by this:
> 
> Brixton Buzz understands that the Big Lottery Fund is investigating the spending of a £9,486.42 grant handed out to Brixton Green.


Sorry to interject, but that sort of figure rings bells in my head as some some of funding from the Mayors Office re developing community led or community built housing. Can't see any reference on Brixton Green's website, but there might be stuff on the Urban 75 Can anybody tell me about Brixton Green? thread.

Of course the Big Lottery MAY have also given money to Brixton Green, but I'm wondering if this is a mistaken attribution?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jun 21, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> Tricky Skills hello there, can you clarify what you mean by this:
> 
> Brixton Buzz understands that the Big Lottery Fund is investigating the spending of a £9,486.42 grant handed out to Brixton Green.



Exactly this: The Big Lottery Fund is investigating what happened to the £9,486.42 it awarded to Brixton Green. The projects should have been completed by April of this year.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jun 21, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Sorry to interject, but that sort of figure rings bells in my head as some some of funding from the Mayors Office re developing community led or community built housing. Can't see any reference on Brixton Green's website, but there might be stuff on the Urban 75 Can anybody tell me about Brixton Green? thread.
> 
> Of course the Big Lottery MAY have also given money to Brixton Green, but I'm wondering if this is a mistaken attribution?



No.

 £9,486.42 was awarded by the Big Lottery Fund to Brixton Green. BG claimed that it could secure match funding. This never happened.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 21, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> Tricky Skills hello there, can you clarify what you mean by this:
> 
> Brixton Buzz understands that the Big Lottery Fund is investigating the spending of a £9,486.42 grant handed out to Brixton Green.



He may not be able to clarify, if the information was sourced from someone requiring confidentiality.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 21, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Sorry to interject, but that sort of figure rings bells in my head as some some of funding from the Mayors Office re developing community led or community built housing. Can't see any reference on Brixton Green's website, but there might be stuff on the Urban 75 Can anybody tell me about Brixton Green? thread.
> 
> Of course the Big Lottery MAY have also given money to Brixton Green, but I'm wondering if this is a mistaken attribution?



http://gotlottery.uk/big-lottery-fund-brixton-green-limited-6-436080


----------



## editor (Jun 21, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> http://gotlottery.uk/big-lottery-fund-brixton-green-limited-6-436080


Screengrabbed for reference:


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 21, 2015)

The details of the grant are in the public domain. 

But what is written in an application isn't necessarily what the grant delivers. The funder might change what delivery they will pay for defined in a contract, or the grant holder might agree a variation or be entitled to vary what they do against the agreed outputs within certain limits. 

for info the link above from gramsci isn't an official lottery site - it's a site which collates someone else's press releases & various lottery body published data - dcms in this case, but has miscoded it. One of the mistakes is that it's actually awards for all who have given that grant. blf gives awards for all the cash to distribute. Minor but crucial difference in the grant management. 

Unless it's a case of protecting sources, I still don't see any evidence of the grant being 'investigated'.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 21, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> for info the link above from gramsci isn't an official lottery site - it's a site which collates someone else's press releases & various lottery body published data - dcms in this case, but has miscoded it. One of the mistakes is that it's actually awards for all who have given that grant. blf gives awards for all the cash to distribute. Minor but crucial difference in the grant management.
> 
> Unless it's a case of protecting sources, I still don't see any evidence of the grant being 'investigated'.



Maybe Green Man are taking over the grant:



> We’re also working on two heritage projects and will be looking for people to get involved – so please watch this space.



I think its a side matter. BG will likely regard the Number 6 issue as a little local difficulty. Just the whingers on Brixton Buzz and U75. Or that is how they will play it.

BG are not to be underestimated in the skill they have in keeping in with leading politicians in Council.

The main issue is that BG are seeking to end up managing the site ( except for Oval House section of the site). Whatever the Council officers might say. That the way they are managing Number 6 leaves a lot to be desired. The Council should think carefully how it wants the finished development managed and by whom/ what kind of organisation. It should also think more about how it is consulting people about this development.

I am out of it now. But I get tired of having to explain to people I meet that its not a Brixton Green project. The architects and consultants (Igloo) are employed by the Council for example. Ovalhouse interest in the site predated the appearance of Brixton Green. BG give people impression its all down to them. 

It was one of the Councils better officers Neil Vokes who was in charge of the project as the lead officer. ( He has been promoted and a new officer has recently been put in place). My experience of dealing with Neil is that unlike Brixton Green - the "community partners" - he listened to people. He had is role as an officer working for the elected Cllrs but you knew where you were with him.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jun 21, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> Unless it's a case of protecting sources, I still don't see any evidence of the grant being 'investigated'.



The grant is being investigated


----------



## editor (Jun 22, 2015)




----------



## editor (Jun 23, 2015)

Here's that street party everyone's been waiting for. Short notice, eh?










> All welcome at the #Somerleyton Road Street Party on Saturday 27 June, 1 to 6pm.
> 
> So come along to:
> 
> ...




http://futurebrixton.org/somerleyton/somerleyton-street-party-2015/


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jun 23, 2015)

I'm still not sure what the occasion is for the 'party.' Is it celebrate Green Man now managing No.6 "on behalf" of Brixton Green? I see that the Brixton Green logo is still being associated with official Council promotional material, so there must be some involvement.

If the 'party' is simply another part of the consultation process, then why not call it that? Yeah, I'm being a kill joy, but a party for me is a piss up and a reason to celebrate something. I haven't seen any reason to celebrate anything at No. 6 over recent weeks.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 25, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> I'm still not sure what the occasion is for the 'party.' Is it celebrate Green Man now managing No.6 "on behalf" of Brixton Green? I see that the Brixton Green logo is still being associated with official Council promotional material, so there must be some involvement.
> 
> If the 'party' is simply another part of the consultation process, then why not call it that? Yeah, I'm being a kill joy, but a party for me is a piss up and a reason to celebrate something. I haven't seen any reason to celebrate anything at No. 6 over recent weeks.



I was trying to explain to some people yesterday the difference between all the different entities that are part of the Somerleyton Road project.

Also that this is a Council led project. Its not a Brixton Green project. Again. I keep having to do this. And this street party is not the Brixton Green street party.

I had a lot of puzzled faces. Asked if I could sit down and spend some time explaining it.

Made me think that something else the Council could do to get a grip on this project is to explain who is part of it, what there role is and how the decision making process works. Or should work. Its not been helped by BG trying to make out its all down to them what is happening on Somerleyton road.

Secondly I , who was kicked off the site , should not have to explain to locals how this project is organised. Not at this stage.

And I would like to know who decided on Green Man coming to Number 6. Was it Council that wanted Green Man or Brixton Green.

One of the things I said to the people i was trying to explain this all to is that the use of third parties to manage Council property and manage schemes like this causes a problem of who is accountable. ie who do you complain to?

Take Number 6. whatever the rights and wrongs of what has happened, there is no clear way for joe public to understand who is responsible for what and who to complain to.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 25, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> I'm still not sure what the occasion is for the 'party.' Is it celebrate Green Man now managing No.6 "on behalf" of Brixton Green? I see that the Brixton Green logo is still being associated with official Council promotional material, so there must be some involvement.
> 
> If the 'party' is simply another part of the consultation process, then why not call it that? Yeah, I'm being a kill joy, but a party for me is a piss up and a reason to celebrate something. I haven't seen any reason to celebrate anything at No. 6 over recent weeks.


Maybe it's by way of being an "update"? Seems things to do with the council and Igloo have to be wrapped in a way that makes them appealing to the locals. Maybe something as dry as a meeting addressed by a councillor and showing a few slides might be a bit dry - and empty?


----------



## editor (Jun 25, 2015)

It's almost like it's _designed_ to confuse and disengage the locals!


----------



## CH1 (Jun 25, 2015)

editor said:


> It's almost like it's _designed_ to confuse and disengage the locals!


Yeah well its a bit like how they used to have constant singing of "Doing the Lambeth Walk" in old peoples homes - when they had old people's homes. They give us what we are supposed to want I suppose.


----------



## editor (Jun 25, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Yeah well its a bit like how they used to have constant singing of "Doing the Lambeth Walk" in old peoples homes - when they had old people's homes. They give us what we are supposed to want I suppose.


So there's Lambeth. And then there's Brixton Green. And Igloo. And Streets Concept. And Green Man. And No 6. And Brixton Come Together. And Future Brixton. And the architects. And stakeholders. And Social Life (are they still around). Have I missed anyone?


----------



## editor (Jun 25, 2015)

Did these Brixton Green scratch cards ever materialise? 

Four years ago they said the were aiming to "recruit at least 5,000 new members" but their site still has the figure around 1,000 which suggest something of a catastrophic failure to engage.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2015)

editor said:


> So there's Lambeth. And then there's Brixton Green. And Igloo. And Streets Concept. And Green Man. And No 6. And Brixton Come Together. And Future Brixton. And the architects. And stakeholders. And Social Life (are they still around). Have I missed anyone?



B.I.D.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 25, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> B.I.D.



Is BID part of it? Please no.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 25, 2015)

editor said:


> So there's Lambeth. And then there's Brixton Green. And Igloo. And Streets Concept. And Green Man. And No 6. And Brixton Come Together. And Future Brixton. And the architects. And stakeholders. And Social Life (are they still around). Have I missed anyone?



Its the "Chefs School" that keeps popping up on the posters that really irritates me.

Does Brixton really need a chefs school? What with all the eateries catering to the well heeled I suppose yes. 

Might go down after Reclaim to see the architect for Mansions. 

Apparently the Council want it to be made clear this is not a Brixton Green event. From what I have heard.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 25, 2015)

Brixton green possibly falling out of favour with the council?


----------



## Brixton_Green (Jun 25, 2015)

In recent weeks there appears to have been a lot of misinformation about Brixton Green and the Somerleyton Road Project published in the Brixton Buzz, Urban 75 and the Brixton Come Together Facebook pages.

For the record, *Brixton Green is a community benefit society set up by Brixton residents so Brixton people can be at the forefront of the redevelopment of Somerleyton Road.* We are proud of the work we have done, we have nothing to hide, and welcome questions, challenge and scrutiny. The latter is one of the good things about Brixton and the Brixton Buzz does a great job in making Brixton an informed community. At the same time, the Brixton Buzz also has a responsibility to report facts. In recent weeks, it has reported a number of false statements about Brixton Green, which are potentially damaging for the success of this community-led project.

View full statement here


----------



## Brixton_Green (Jun 25, 2015)

*What is Brixton Green?*


*Registered community benefit society:* We started in 2008 and registered as a community benefit society in 2009.
*Non-profit & voluntary:* Brixton Green has no paid staff. Our director and trustees give their time to the project on a voluntary basis.
*Democratic & inclusive:* We set up as a community benefit society to ensure a proper, inclusive, democratic structure was in place.
*National community share pilot:* In 2009 we become one of the Department of Communities and Local Government and Cooperatives UK's ten national pilot schemes for community shares. They provided support and legal advice to help ensure we had a robust, democratic structure. The £1 community shares represent a stake-holding in Brixton Green, and are not a way of investing for a financial return.
*Owned by Brixton people:* Anyone over 16 years old who lives or works in one of the five wards of Brixton can become a member of Brixton Green (community benefit society) by buying a £1 share. One share per person. One vote per person.
*Board elected from the community:* Only members can be elected to the board. This ensures the trustees are accountable to the membership (who have to be local people) and ensures the trustees keep to their contract with the membership. The board can chose to co-opt a few trustees who have useful skills.
*Over 1,200 members of the Brixton community are members of Brixton Green*

Over the past seven years we have all worked hard on a voluntary basis to make sure a wide cross section of our community are aware of the project and able to become members. We have distributed over 60,000 leaflets, held many community events (some attended by over 1,000 people), held workshops in schools & community groups, run a series of deliberative workshops, held many consultation events dealing with all aspects of the project and carried out door to door discussions in the immediate area of the project. Over 1,200 members of the Brixton community have become shareholders, including one of the founding members of the Southwyck House Resident Association.

*Owned by Brixton people*

Brixton Green is owned by Brixton people. Brixton Green has achieved the rare success of keeping a wide cross section of the community involved in a long term project. Many community projects succeed in getting short term interest, but few can maintain democratic representation over the long term. Our view is that the democratic representation is essential and our rules set the high bar that at least 10% of our membership have to vote at our annual general meetings. We have achieved in excess of this at each of our AGM's since we started. Few community organisations (or local political groups) can boast such success - especially working on a voluntary basis and with such a large membership.

View full statement here


----------



## Brixton_Green (Jun 25, 2015)

*Somerleyton Road*

Somerleyton Road is important to the Brixton community. It divides our town. The only access to the 1,600 (approx) homes in the Moorlands Triangle is via Coldharbour Lane or Somerleyton Passage (an unwelcoming alley). Somerleyton Road sits in one of the most deprived wards in the UK. The aim of local people is for a development that helps connect our town, provides truly affordable homes, jobs, sustainable development and improves quality of life.

*7 years working hard to make this happen*

In 2013, after 5 years of campaigning, Brixton Green convinced Lambeth Council to develop the road in partnership with the community. This was a hard slog. There were dozens of meetings and a lot of lobbying and work to prove what the community wanted was viable. It was touch and go at times. But we succeeded. Early next year construction is due to start.

*Shaped by Brixton People*

This is a development shaped by Brixton people:


The project will pay its own way, and over its lifetime, and will not be a cost to Lambeth taxpayers
There will be no 'poor doors'. The social and market rent housing will be mixed throughout.
There will be over 300 new homes all for rent and all owned by a new housing cooperative.
At least 60 of the homes will be part of an extra care scheme for older people
40% of the homes will have genuine low cost rents, the kind of rents that the Council sets. 50% of all the homes will be Affordable Homes, as defined by the government.
The homes will be built to meet, and if possible exceed, the London Housing Design standards, with an aim for 100% of the homes to have dual aspect.
There is an ambition for a high level of environmental sustainability in the build and use of resources.
The layout of facilities and access to services is being structured to make it easier for people to look after each other.
The scheme includes real job opportunities for local people.
*Great organisations coming to Somerleyton Road*

We've convinced some great organisations to locate on Somerleyton Road.


The Ovalhouse Theatre will be moving to the Coldharbour Lane end, along with a creative hub for other Brixton creative and cultural organisations.
One of the best chef’s school in the UK will be opening a satellite school and training restaurant on the site (98% of their graduates go straight into work in all types of catering, and business management).
There will be an outside gym run by Blockworkout (a great business set up by some young entrepreneurial Brixton residents who were previously involved in gangs).
There will be a children's nursery, extra care housing for older people, hair training salon (a key community hub), and a community facility including café, rooms for health visitors and a flexible hall built in a way that its use can be maximised throughout the day.

The aim is to make sure that the maximum benefit is gained for the community from the development.

View full statement here


----------



## Brixton_Green (Jun 25, 2015)

*250 year lease to a new community body*


The whole development (apart from the theatre) will be leased to a new overarching community body for 250 years.
The board of this new body will be elected from the residents, wider community, non-residential occupiers (e.g. the chef’s school) and Lambeth Council. This structure makes sure this public asset continues to benefit the community throughout the 250 years and its management is publicly accountable.
The objectives of this new overarching community body are being developed from the community’s feedback during the many engagement events/workshops we’ve held and they will continue to be developed during the next few months.
*Brixton Green’s role:*


Brixton Green will not be the new overarching community body, and have never sought to be.
Brixton Green was set up to help make sure the community were at the forefront of the development. We've succeeded in doing that and continue to work to make sure the community remains at the forefront.
When the new overarching community body is up and running, Brixton Green will have completed its role for Somerleyton Road. The task of making sure the project meets the community objectives will be the responsibility of the new community body.
*The Somerleyton Road Project (No private developer)*


The Somerleyton Road Project has a steering group which includes Lambeth Council, Brixton Green and the Ovalhouse Theatre.
Rather than have a private developer deliver the project, Brixton Green encouraged Lambeth Council to develop the site directly themselves.
Lambeth is getting the funding for the project, and this will be repaid from the rents over time.
Lambeth have employed Igloo who provide their development experience, but receive a fee not a share of the profit.
Some great architects, who are each known for their specific expertise, are working on the project, including a local Brixton architect. It's looking fantastic - see below:
http://www.brixtongreen.org/wp-content/uploads/Brixton-Green-Meet-the-Architects-boards-1.pdf


None of the 1,200 members of Brixton Green can profit from their shares. We are a voluntary, non-profit community benefit society. Brixton Green is not a private developer.
*Jobs for local people*

We are committed to making sure local people get jobs and skills from the project. Building starts next year, but we are working now to make sure we get real skills for our young people, not just tick boxes. The Green Man Skills Zone taking over management of Number Six is part of this. We want to make sure we have a group of young people ready to benefit from the apprenticeships.

*Number Six (meanwhile space – a ‘pop-up’ space)*

Brixton Green is currently leasing Number Six from Lambeth Council, on a short-term basis, until the building is demolished to make way for the new development. Brixton Green agreed with Lambeth to turn the old kitchen building into a space which could be used constructively by the community during this period, until it is demolished. It has taken a lot of effort to turn this near-derelict building into a vibrant space. We have asked other organisations to manage the building on our behalf because, as a volunteer run organisation, we do not have the capacity to manage it. We recognise that there have been a number of changes in management since it opened which have perhaps been confusing for groups wanting to use the space.

View full statement here


----------



## Brixton_Green (Jun 25, 2015)

*Brixton Green is fighting against gentrification*

We have worked hard to find a viable solution where public land can be about people, not profit. Local authorities have a duty to get best value and there is the temptation for them to go with a private developer. It was a huge task to convince Lambeth Council to take a new approach from 2011 to 2013.

This project is not just important for Somerleyton Road, if we can prove a viable model it will be important for the whole of London. Public assets used to build homes for local people, provide jobs, empower local communities and improve their quality of life. Not sold off to developers.

There are plenty of private developers in London who are creating developments with 'poor doors' or no social housing. There are plenty of developments which cause all but the richer members of the community to move away from their family and friends. It is amazing that Mike Slocombe, Jason Cobb, Boyd Hill and Maria Santos are working so hard to discredit and spread rumours about a community project that aims to solve many of the challenging issues our community faces. They are spending their time and money attacking a community project rather than working to support the project and helping to make sure more of the community can be involved.

View full statement here


----------



## Brixton_Green (Jun 25, 2015)

*Responding to specific rumours and allegation appearing in social media, online and on posters* *made by the Brixton Buzz, Boyd Hill and Maria Santos, we set out the facts:*

*1. The community have not been locked out of No.6:*

1)  There has been community activity at Number Six throughout this period when they've made accusations that the building was locked, including continued activity from Boyd Hill, a volunteer of Small World Urbanism and Maria Santos.

2)  Brixton Green sent an email to the various members of Brixton Come Together to let them know that the building was still available for them to hire when the accusations were first made. Brixton Come Together had done some great work for the project and we wanted to ensure there continued to be a positive, supportive relationship.

3)  Maria Santos's initial frustration when she got back from spending the winter out of the country was that she wanted to use office space in the building, instead of hiring space.

4)  At the time, we spoke to Green Man Skills (the new management) and they were agreeable for Maria Santos to have an office.

However on the 15th June, Maria Santos and approx 20 other people including Mike Slocombe, caused a disturbance in the building. There was a community youth project at the building at the time. The young people had to be sent home for their own safety. Boyd Hill and Filip, one of the other volunteers of Small World Urbanism, have been aggressive to the Green Man Skills team making it impossible for them to keep their staff and attendees safe while working the building. All bookings have been postponed until this matter is resolved. Brixton Come Together and Small World Urbanism have now been informed they will not be permitted to hire the space following their recent behaviour.

We need to make sure this space is available for the whole community and ensure that it is not dominated by a small group who wish to exclude others. The cost of running the space needs to be shared fairly by all users.

View full statement here


----------



## Brixton_Green (Jun 25, 2015)

*2. Brixton Green’s trustees are always willing to answer questions, if information is not clear on our website:*

Brixton Green does not have an office, as we do not have the finances to rent one, so most of our communication is through meeting people face-to-face, emails and providing information on our website.

*Comments on Urban 75: *A few years back Brixton Green spent half a day on the Urban 75 forum answering all the questions regarding the project. When all questions had been answered and errors put to right Mike Slocombe, the editor of Urban 75, deleted our answers then posted comments asking ‘why won’t Brixton Green our answer questions’.

Other users of Urban 75 have gone further and have contacted politicians and organisations we work with in an attempt to discredit this community initiative.

View full statement here


----------



## Brixton_Green (Jun 25, 2015)

*3. Brixton Green’s Finances are transparent, and show how any money that is raised is then spent – these accounts are shared and approved at each AGM by the membership of Brixton Green: -*

No one from Brixton Green can take a profit from the development.

The accusations regarding Brixton Green's finances are also untrue.

1) *Jason Cobb* questioned why Brixton Green's accounts show a deficit for the year ending 2014. The only substantial funding Brixton Green has received was funding we raised from the GLA's Community Right To Build programme. This GLA funding programme was structured so that community organisations had to spend the money before the GLA would pay the funds. This is quite common with funding programmes. Therefore Brixton Green had to raise a loan from Big Issue Invest against the initial funding approval. The funding was not paid until the following financial year which is the reason for the deficit in the 2014 accounts. The funding helped provide the evidence which Brixton Green used to convince Lambeth Council to work in partnership with the community to develop the site. The funds were used for legal advice on the community trust, architects, planning & cost advice, community engagement (the deliberative workshops & consultation events) and marketing.

2) *Jason Cobb* has also made accusations that Brixton Green has been "pocketing" money from Lambeth Council. The only funds Brixton Green has received from Lambeth Council were to pay for the Blockworkout gym equipment, an upfront hire fee for use of Number Six and repayment of costs Brixton Green incurred for engagement and events we carried out on behalf of Lambeth Council.

3) *Boyd Hill* has made many accusations regarding the Awards for All funding for activity at Number Six. Again these are untrue. Brixton Green has been in touch with the Big Lottery to inform them of the nature of Boyd's accusations. The Big Lottery is not "investigating" Brixton Green. The programme period finishes on the 8th July. £5,000 was paid for a sessional project manager (Boyd Hill and Maria Santos saw the work that this project manager carried out and on occasions worked with her). The gardening project budget was paid to Small World Urbanism. The Brixton Stories and enterprise elements were to be led by Aculco but were not able to go ahead, so they are now being led by the Green Man Skills Zone. It was part of the Brixton Stories project that was disrupted by Maria Santos and Mike Slocombe last Monday when they stopped the young people in their workshop.

Our trustees are happy to meet anyone to discuss the Somerleyton Road project, but we will not engage in any online debate on Urban 75 or Brixton Buzz, because when we tried to do this in good faith, the information has been taken down or misrepresented.

Please feel free to contact us via our website, or speak to one of our trustees.

This statement is from the Board of Brixton Green, 24/06/2015

View full statement here


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 25, 2015)

How can you claim to engage with and work with the community Brixton_Green when you have just said you won't debate on urban?

How can the community engage with Brixton green when emails and phone calls trying to raise issues are ignored?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2015)

Brixton_Green 
Pity it's taken you,in some cases, more than 2 years to answer some fairly basic enquiries about what you are, and what you do.
Two issues (it would be more,as each of your posts are full of...well, the usual faecal stuff):
In post 174 you claim "Brixton Green spent half a day on the Urban 75 forum answering all the questions regarding the project.". If you're as fond of accuracy as you claim, then you'd have stated that *Brad Carroll*, not "Brixton Green", made a handful of posts one afternoon that answered *some* questions, and ignored others. 

In post 173 you claim that "Maria Santos and approx 20 other people including Mike Slocombe, caused a disturbance in the building". A "disturbance" so serious that police called by your stooge refused to get involved. 

What you've written are a series of press releases, unimpressive and laden with interpretations of events that favour your narrative. A sixth-form "Media Studies" student would find them callow.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> How can you claim to engage with and work with the community Brixton_Green when you have just said you won't debate on urban?
> 
> How can the community engage with Brixton green when emails and phone calls trying to raise issues are ignored?



Urban won't toe their line/isn't amenable to how they/Brad Carroll did/does business (Brad has historically preferred to _schmooze_ people privately than debate publicly), so we're "the enemy" as far as these leeches are concerned.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 25, 2015)

So why were their posts, a couple of years ago when they answered questions on U75, deleted?

I've seen enough of how the "moderation" works here to fully understand why they might want to stay away.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2015)

Brixton_Green said:


> In recent weeks there appears to have been a lot of misinformation about Brixton Green and the Somerleyton Road Project published in the Brixton Buzz, Urban 75 and the Brixton Come Together Facebook pages.
> 
> For the record, *Brixton Green is a community benefit society set up by Brixton residents so Brixton people can be at the forefront of the redevelopment of Somerleyton Road.* We are proud of the work we have done, we have nothing to hide, and welcome questions, challenge and scrutiny. The latter is one of the good things about Brixton and the Brixton Buzz does a great job in making Brixton an informed community. At the same time, the Brixton Buzz also has a responsibility to report facts. In recent weeks, it has reported a number of false statements about Brixton Green, which are potentially damaging for the success of this community-led project.
> 
> View full statement here



If the statements are provably false, then you could very cheaply bring action.
That you haven't indicates that either you have no resources to do so (unlikely), or that you've sought advice and been told that while the statements may be contentious, they're not provably false.
So, which is it? Are you skint, or are you bullshitting?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So why were their posts, a couple of years ago when they answered questions here, deleted?



Why don't you ask one of those with the power to delete,if you believe that's happened? You could even have done so privately, if you actually gave a fuck.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 25, 2015)

Brixton_Green said:


> We've convinced some great organisations to locate on Somerleyton Road.
> 
> 
> The Ovalhouse Theatre will be moving to the Coldharbour Lane end, along with a creative hub for other Brixton creative and cultural organisations.




This is wrong for a start. 

Ovalhouse were looking at the site before Brixton Green appeared on the scene. So how you can say you have convinced them to come here I dont know.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2015)

teuchter 
Do a proper search next time, before making claims about deletion. The contributions from "Brixton Green" (i.e. Brad Carroll) are on this thread, posted under the username "brad".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> This is wrong for a start.
> 
> Ovalhouse were looking at the site before Brixton Green appeared on the scene. So how you can say you have convinced them to come here I dont know.



They can say that because they're _masseurs_. They're massaging the reality to fit the narrative.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 25, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So why were their posts, a couple of years ago when they answered questions on U75, deleted?
> 
> I've seen enough of how the "moderation" works here to fully understand why they might want to stay away.



I would not take Brixton Greens word on this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Is BID part of it? Please no.



Think I saw their logo appended to some BG bumpf.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> I would not take Brixton Greens word on this.



As I've just explained to him, the posts weren't deleted. It's merely that he has the _search fu_ of a chihuahua with a head full of mezcal.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 25, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> How can you claim to engage with and work with the community Brixton_Green when you have just said you won't debate on urban?
> 
> How can the community engage with Brixton green when emails and phone calls trying to raise issues are ignored?



I just noticed that:



> but we will not engage in any online debate on Urban 75 or Brixton Buzz,



Nice. So someone from BG posts up but will not debate.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 25, 2015)

Brixton_Green said:


> At least 60 of the homes will be part of an extra care scheme for older people



The decision to relocate the older people from Fitch court was taken without any public consultation. It suddenly appeared on the plans more recently.

This was a decision taken by the Council. Whether its right or wrong is not the issue here.

Brixton Green had nothing to do with this.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 25, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> I just noticed that:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice. So someone from BG posts up but will not debate.


Aye, bit rich of them, considering everything.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 26, 2015)

Brixton_Green said:


> *Somerleyton Road*
> 
> Somerleyton Road is important to the Brixton community. It divides our town. The only access to the 1,600 (approx) homes in the Moorlands Triangle is via Coldharbour Lane or Somerleyton Passage (an unwelcoming alley). Somerleyton Road sits in one of the most deprived wards in the UK. The aim of local people is for a development that helps connect our town, provides truly affordable homes, jobs, sustainable development and improves quality of life.
> 
> ...



This is mixing up what the Council have been planning with BG.

Some in the Council were thinking of doing a Council led and funded scheme quite some time ago.

The thing is BG , whatever one might think of them, were unable to access funds to acquire the site and develop it. Only a Council has the ability to raise funds at a competitive rate over a long number of years.

Councils , not just Lambeth, were starting to think of new ways to build whilst retaining ownership of the land.

So its inaccurate of BG to say that they persuaded the Council to do this.

Its the Council taking the risk. As its the Council that will borrow the money to build the scheme.

As for the list of points about the development. Are BG saying here that all these points are down to them? Because they are not.

Some of the proposals for the Somerleyton Road project found there starting point in the Brixton Masterplan. The Brixton Masterplan was developed by the Council in consultation with local people. The Brixton Masterplan dealt with Somerleyton road in detail. I remember as I took part in that consultation process. 

What I am saying is that the idea of developing Somerleyton road has a history. Its not all down to BG.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 26, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> teuchter
> Do a proper search next time, before making claims about deletion. The contributions from "Brixton Green" (i.e. Brad Carroll) are on this thread, posted under the username "brad".


I wasn't making the claim, they were. I wanted to know the background. Thank you for pointing me to the relevant thread.

However, it is in the nature of deleted posts that they are...deleted. And not going to be there. So I can't determine what the truth is just from looking at the thread.

A skim reading of it confirms that they were met with the usual aggressive approach from the usual suspects. Which is fine. That's what happens here and I don't think it's always a bad thing. But I can understand why it might put them off engaging further, especially in the context of how the moderation (or lack thereof) is carried out here.

Seems like they could do with improving their communication strategies. And am aware that their version of events may be incomplete or even untrue. But I know how things go here and if they feel they have been misrepresented on here or Brixton Buzz then that seems 100% plausible to me.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 26, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I wasn't making the claim, they were. I wanted to know the background. Thank you for pointing me to the relevant thread.
> 
> However, it is in the nature of deleted posts that they are...deleted. And not going to be there. So I can't determine what the truth is just from looking at the thread.
> 
> ...



Usual aggressive approach? Had a look at that old thread. Does not look like that to me. Compared to some of the bunfights here.

In fact some interesting posts by people who live in the vicinity.

Does not look to me that that deleted posts are down to mods. The ones I saw on quick look.

Nor do I agree with your criticism of the mods. This site would have collapsed long ago if the moderators had not been doing a good job of it.

In my quick look at that old thread did not see any comments from others that were in need of moderation. In actual compared to some threads they are pretty polite.

Agree with you on improving there communication strategies.

Out of interest have you had to deal with BG at any time? I have.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 26, 2015)

Brixton_Green said:


> *Brixton Green is fighting against gentrification*
> 
> We have worked hard to find a viable solution where public land can be about people, not profit. Local authorities have a duty to get best value and there is the temptation for them to go with a private developer. It was a huge task to convince Lambeth Council to take a new approach from 2011 to 2013.
> 
> ...



This post is confusing what Lambeth Council decided to do on the site with BG.

In fact Council in other parts of London have been setting up schemes where they retain ownership. Lambeth Council came to it later than others. I know they were looking at what other Councils were doing.

Initially the Council were thinking of getting a developer as a partner. I do not remember BG opposing this at the time.

I therefore find the statement incorrect to say that the named individuals are damaging a community project.

No they are not. The project is a Council led project. BG were chosen by Council as one of the partners.

To criticise BG is not to undermine the whole project. It is to criticise one of the "partners". This is an important difference.

The project will go ahead with or without BG.

To say that taking a critical position to BG is undermining the possibility of new homes etc is ridiculous.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 26, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Usual aggressive approach? Had a look at that old thread. Does not look like that to me. Compared to some of the bunfights here.
> 
> In fact some interesting posts by people who live in the vicinity.
> 
> ...



No, I haven't dealt with them and don't know any of the people involved. I don't want to be automatically defending them.

With regard to the aggressive approach - well it's a kind of subjective thing of course, but just for example look at post no.100 on that thread onwards... pretty soon after Brad's first posts, a comment from him about Southwyck House "facing the wrong way" (the history of the proposed motorway etc being pretty well known locally) seems to be turned (within just a few posts) into an implication that he wants to knock it down! Clearly ludicrous and setting a stall out for a fight. 

I think our difference in opinion about the nature of the moderation on the Brixton Forum can probably be put down to the fact that one of us is usually in agreement with the only acting moderator, and the other one often isn't. So you maybe aren't so familiar with what it feels like to be on the other end of an u75 argument with someone who has power over what you can and can't say. For someone posting in a "professional" context (or on behalf of a group of people, rather than just themselves as an anonymous forum nutter) that's quite a risky situation to get involved with.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 26, 2015)

teuchter said:


> No, I haven't dealt with them and don't know any of the people involved. I don't want to be automatically defending them.
> 
> With regard to the aggressive approach - well it's a kind of subjective thing of course,



I have had to deal with BG in the past and its not been a pleasant experience. 

So in the context of my personal experience that why I say that old thread is restrained.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 26, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I think our difference in opinion about the nature of the moderation on the Brixton Forum can probably be put down to the fact that one of us is usually in agreement with the only acting moderator, and the other one often isn't. So you maybe aren't so familiar with what it feels like to be on the other end of an u75 argument with someone who has power over what you can and can't say. For someone posting in a "professional" context (or on behalf of a group of people, rather than just themselves as an anonymous forum nutter) that's quite a risky situation to get involved with.



fyi the Ed did once delete a post of mine. 

I just didn’t whinge about it.


----------



## editor (Jun 26, 2015)

Brixton_Green said:


> *Comments on Urban 75: *A few years back Brixton Green spent half a day on the Urban 75 forum answering all the questions regarding the project. When all questions had been answered and errors put to right Mike Slocombe, the editor of Urban 75, deleted our answers then posted comments asking ‘why won’t Brixton Green our answer questions’.


This is a downright lie. No posts were deleted. None.


----------



## editor (Jun 26, 2015)

teuchter said:


> A skim reading of it confirms that they were met with the usual aggressive approach from the usual suspects. Which is fine. That's what happens here and I don't think it's always a bad thing. But I can understand why it might put them off engaging further, especially in the context of how the moderation (or lack thereof) is carried out here.


Best get your facts straight before predictably steaming in. No posts of Brixton Green were deleted as described.


----------



## editor (Jun 26, 2015)

teuchter said:


> With regard to the aggressive approach - well it's a kind of subjective thing of course, but just for example look at post no.100 on that thread onwards... pretty soon after Brad's first posts, a comment from him about Southwyck House "facing the wrong way" (the history of the proposed motorway etc being pretty well known locally) seems to be turned (within just a few posts) into an implication that he wants to knock it down! Clearly ludicrous and setting a stall out for a fight.


Brixton Green were interviewed in an article from Feb 2012 called "Postcode en vogue: Is Brixton property worth investment?" That article contained a claim that Southwyck House was to be demolished alongside the regeneration of Somerleyton Road.

Given that it appeared to be part of the same plan that BG had "successfully lobbied the council for access to ", I wanted to know what their involvement was and when these plans were first suggested.

I believe that is an entirely reasonable request from someone who has just learned second hand - that their house may be demolished, so I wanted some reassurances from BG about these plans. Sadly Brad was not forthcoming.


> With the GLC planning a flyover in Brixton next to Somerleyton Road, Southwyck House was built to protect the street from noise and pollution. The project abandoned, Brixton’s flyover was never built, but Southwyck House remained.
> 
> The rather imposing, horse-shoe shape block of flats have since been dubbed the Barrier Block and have remained a thorn in Brixton’s side ever since.
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Jun 26, 2015)

Brixton_Green said:


> Other users of Urban 75 have gone further and have contacted politicians and organisations we work with in an attempt to discredit this community initiative.


I think you mean "other Brixton residents" there. How do you know they were urban users, by the way?


----------



## editor (Jun 26, 2015)

Brixton_Green said:


> Our trustees are happy to meet anyone to discuss the Somerleyton Road project, but we will not engage in any online debate on Urban 75 or Brixton Buzz, because when we tried to do this in good faith, the information has been taken down or misrepresented.


*No* material concerning Brixton Green has ever been taken down off Brixton Buzz, neither have any posts been removed from urban75. If you want any credibility here, please get your facts straight before throwing around groundless accusations.


----------



## editor (Jun 26, 2015)

Brixton_Green said:


> In recent weeks there appears to have been a lot of misinformation about Brixton Green and the Somerleyton Road Project published in the Brixton Buzz, Urban 75 and the Brixton Come Together Facebook pages.


For the record: if you'd asked, we would have been happy to have reposted your statement on Brixton Buzz.

I see that you've now spammed it all over multiple posts, so there's no point.


----------



## editor (Jun 26, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> teuchter
> Do a proper search next time, before making claims about deletion. The contributions from "Brixton Green" (i.e. Brad Carroll) are on this thread, posted under the username "brad".


That's correct. No posts were mass-deleted, as claimed.

For the record, if any mod did try to unilaterally delete a load of posts for no good reason (or on a personal whim), the following would have happened:
(a) several other mods would have demanded to know why, as randomly deleting posts is against our own rules.
(b) loads of posters would have noticed and demanded to know what had happened.

There is no record of this happening because it didn't  happen. Brixton Green are lying.

And just in case there's any doubt: I _want_ brad's posts to stay online because I think they're fairly damning of his organisation's attitude toward their engagement with the local community - and I want others to be able to read it too. It's of historical importance.


----------



## editor (Jun 26, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I think our difference in opinion about the nature of the moderation on the Brixton Forum can probably be put down to the fact that one of us is usually in agreement with the only acting moderator, and the other one often isn't. So you maybe aren't so familiar with what it feels like to be on the other end of an u75 argument with someone who has power over what you can and can't say. For someone posting in a "professional" context (or on behalf of a group of people, rather than just themselves as an anonymous forum nutter) that's quite a risky situation to get involved with.


Please take this disruptive, thinly veiled personal beef to the feedback forum.

And, to repeat, no posts of Brixton Green's were mass deleted. NONE.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 26, 2015)

editor said:


> Brixton Green were interviewed in an article from Feb 2012 called "Postcode en vogue: Is Brixton property worth investment?" That article contained a claim that Southwyck House was to be demolished alongside the regeneration of Somerleyton Road.
> 
> Given that it appeared to be part of the same plan that BG had "successfully lobbied the council for access to ", I wanted to know what their involvement was and when these plans were first suggested.
> 
> I believe that is an entirely reasonable request from someone who has just learned second hand - that their house may be demolished, so I wanted some reassurances from BG about these plans. Sadly Brad was not forthcoming.



Interesting that you wanted, in April 2011, to query the contents of an article from the future.


----------



## editor (Jun 26, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Interesting that you wanted, in April 2011, to query the contents of an article from the future.


Brad - and Brixton Green - were talking about "addressing the issue" of the street frontage of the Barrier Block in April 2011.

Oh, and it wasn't me bringing up the myth of the block being built the wrong way around.


----------



## editor (Jun 26, 2015)

For the record, it was brad himself who appears to have deleted the contents of several of his posts here:

From: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...-somerleyton-road.271475/page-4#post-10081461

I think the thread makes for interesting reading too. There's some very patient posters on there.


----------



## editor (Jun 26, 2015)

Brixton_Green said:


> *Over 1,200 members of the Brixton community are members of Brixton Green*
> Brixton Green is owned by Brixton people. Brixton Green has achieved the rare success of keeping a wide cross section of the community involved in a long term project. Many community projects succeed in getting short term interest, but few can maintain democratic representation over the long term.


Given that Brixton Green said that they were looking to recruit at least 5,000 new members way back in 2011 this slow growth  would suggest that they have singularly failed to maintain any interest in their scheme.

And how does this low take-up tally with their "target of recruiting 7,500 members and raising an initial £150,000 of share capital in 2010"?

Any thoughts on this, BG?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jun 26, 2015)

Brixton_Green said:


> we have nothing to hide, and welcome questions, challenge and scrutiny.



If this is the case then why have you ignored all attempts by me to contact you over the past month as part of the research for a Brixton Buzz story?



Brixton_Green said:


> In recent weeks, it has reported a number of false statements about Brixton Green.



What are these false statements?



Brixton_Green said:


> Brixton Green is owned by Brixton people.



How many residents do you claim to represent please? What mandate do you have to represent Brixton?



Brixton_Green said:


> Somerleyton Road is important to the Brixton community. It divides our town.



We are agreed on that one...



Brixton_Green said:


> There were dozens of meetings and a lot of lobbying and work to prove what the community wanted was viable



Can you please outline the viability of your model. Who is it viable for? The Council? The 'community' that you claim to represent? Brixton Green?



Brixton_Green said:


> There will be over 300 new homes all for rent and all owned by a new housing cooperative.



Does Brixton Green have ambitions to 'manage' this housing co-op?



Brixton_Green said:


> The Green Man Skills Zone taking over management of Number Six is part of this.



Who made the decision for Green Man to take over No. 6? Why is this happening at this particular point in time?



Brixton_Green said:


> It is amazing that Mike Slocombe, Jason Cobb, Boyd Hill and Maria Santos are working so hard to discredit and spread rumours about a community project that aims to solve many of the challenging issues our community faces. They are spending their time and money attacking a community project rather than working to support the project and helping to make sure more of the community can be involved.



Gosh.

Spending time is what it takes to research and write pieces for a community website. As for spending money - what money? Seriously - WHAT MONEY? Why does it always come down to money for you guys? I haven't spent a penny in writing the posts about Brixton Green. Please clarify what you mean.



Brixton_Green said:


> Brixton Green’s trustees are always willing to answer questions, if information is not clear on our website:



This clearly isn't true. Once again - you have completely ignored all my attempts at communication whilst researching stories for Brixton Buzz.



Brixton_Green said:


> Other users of Urban 75 have gone further and have contacted politicians and organisations we work with in an attempt to discredit this community initiative.



Isn't this called accountability?



Brixton_Green said:


> The accusations regarding Brixton Green's finances are also untrue.



This wasn't an 'accusation' - it was a genuine question about your accounts.



Brixton_Green said:


> *Jason Cobb* has also made accusations that Brixton Green has been "pocketing" money from Lambeth Council.



Complete nonsense. Where did I use the emotive word 'pocketing?'

Here's the wording that was used:

_"Lambeth Council spending data shows that Brixton Green was awarded £4,400 from the Council in April 2014, followed by two payments in May 2014 for £4,960 and £4,999. We wonder what were these payments were for?"_

Brixton Green introduced the term 'pocketing', not me.



Brixton_Green said:


> The programme period finishes on the 8th July.



This is not true. The requirements of the funding stated that it had to be delivered by April 2015.






For an organisation that like to put across the feeling of 'engagement', it would be good to know who has made many of the allegations above? Brad Carroll?

If so, please can you reply to the email that I sent to you on 1 June:

_"I am researching a news story for Brixton Buzz about some of the recent activities involving Brixton Green. I would appreciate if you could clarify some points please.

(i) Is Director Brad Carroll the same individual that was associated with Annie-Mail Ltd?

http://companycheck.co.uk/director/907099755

If so, can you confirm please that the company folded with £300,000 worth of debt?"_

By the way - you contact form STILL isn't working on your engaging community website. Seeing as though you have had the right of reply on both BBuzz and Urban, it would be decent to allow others to respond to your accusations on your site.

Please let me know how this can be achieved.

Thank you.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 26, 2015)

With a pedantic hat on @trickyskills your last point re. timeframe for delivery - you're quoting from the application form BG submitted. That's not the *contract *issued by Award for All as I've mentioned earlier to you earlier. At the time AfA was taking months longer than anticipated to assess and award grants - so it's highly feasible that they were awarded the grant, and then received the grant later than the stated project start date - at no fault of their own. BG can also negotiate project length periods. All perfectly acceptable in AfA conditions.  Afa projects need to be completed within 18 months of the date of the payment. So BG are within their agreed time limit with the funder. You've better things to be focussing on than this moot issue. 

(the rest are all valid to some degree or another - I'll try to find the time later to respond)


----------



## teuchter (Jun 26, 2015)

editor said:


> Brad - and Brixton Green - were talking about "addressing the issue" of the street frontage of the Barrier Block in April 2011.



Yes, that's exactly the passage of posts I linked to above when I was using the misinterpretation of their comments as an example of the seemingly aggressive response they recieved . Didn't you even bother look at what I'd linked to before replying to that post of mine?

And the whole point is that "addressing the issue of a street frontage" is not the same as suggesting that something is knocked down. 





editor said:


> Oh, and it wasn't me bringing up the myth of the block being built the wrong way around.



Again, .

I didn't say you had "brought up the myth of the block being built the wrong way around".

This is why it's so infuriating to try and discuss anything with you. It seems like you don't really read what people have actually written. It may not be your intent to misrepresent but this is why many people feel that's what's happening.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 26, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> If this is the case then why have you ignored all attempts by me to contact you over the past month as part of the research for a Brixton Buzz story?



For the record, while I think it's understandable and reaonable that BG have decided not to debate on u75, there's not really an excuse for ignoring attempts to contact them by the means they offer on their website. If true, then it significantly limits my sympathy for them and the situation they've got into here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> This post is confusing what Lambeth Council decided to do on the site with BG.
> 
> In fact Council in other parts of London have been setting up schemes where they retain ownership. Lambeth Council came to it later than others. I know they were looking at what other Councils were doing.
> 
> Initially the Council were thinking of getting a developer as a partner. I do not remember BG opposing this at the time.



They didn't.



> I therefore find the statement incorrect to say that the named individuals are damaging a community project.
> 
> No they are not. The project is a Council led project. BG were chosen by Council as one of the partners.
> 
> ...



But it's a tactic way too frequently used by businesses (and, as we're well aware, local authorities) to silence criticism. It's cheap, it's inaccurate, and it is quite telling - it's what you use when you've got fuck-all in your armoury except gobshitery.


----------



## editor (Jun 26, 2015)

teuchter said:


> This is why it's so infuriating to try and discuss anything with you. It seems like you don't really read what people have actually written. It may not be your intent to misrepresent but this is why many people feel that's what's happening.


It's clear that you're only interested in trying to score points and pursue your personal agenda here. This is disrupting the thread massively and serves no useful purpose.  If you continue these personal attacks you will be banned.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2015)

editor said:


> This is a downright lie. No posts were deleted. None.



They/Brad are claiming this because you can't prove that you *didn't* delete any posts. It's a smear tactic.


----------



## editor (Jun 26, 2015)

Brixton_Green said:


> However on the 15th June, Maria Santos and approx 20 other people including Mike Slocombe, caused a disturbance in the building.


This untrue and defamatory. You are doing your organisation no credit by posting up such lies. Kindly apologise immediately.


----------



## editor (Jun 26, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> They/Brad are claiming this because you can't prove that you *didn't* delete any posts. It's a smear tactic.


It's obvious we didn't because it's totally against mod policy, there is no record of any mass deletions happening in the mods forum, and no posters one mentioned what would have been really unusual mod conduct at the  time. 

I'm getting a bit fed up with their lies, to be honest.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2015)

editor said:


> That's correct. No posts were mass-deleted, as claimed.
> 
> For the record, if any mod did try to unilaterally delete a load of posts for no good reason (or on a personal whim), the following would have happened:
> (a) several other mods would have demanded to know why, as randomly deleting posts is against our own rules.
> ...



Or are too stupid to do a post search on the word "brad" in the Brixton forum. 



> And just in case there's any doubt: I _want_ brad's posts to stay online because I think they're fairly damning of his organisation's attitude toward their engagement with the local community - and I want others to be able to read it too. It's of historical importance.



Agreed.
It may also be worth "replying" to each Brixton Green post on this thread in order to preserve them for posterity, should their author decide to edit out some of the more egregious bullshit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2015)

editor said:


> It's obvious we didn't because it's totally against mod policy, there is no record of any mass deletions happening in the mods forum, and no posters one mentioned what would have been really unusual mod conduct at the  time.
> 
> I'm getting a bit fed up with their lies, to be honest.



Given how interested some Brixton forum posters (and Brixtonites,including members of Brixton Green) are in what Brixton Green are,and what they do, you'd have had several pages of being taken to task if anything had been deleted, and yet there was no such storm, and some of us were able to recall where Brad's comments could be found.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 26, 2015)

Wow, what a torrent of words! Claims and counter-claims, none of which seems particularly significant.

Or even interesting, except the allegation that the Editor is demanding an apology for.

Still:

1) Brixton Green's comms skills are indeed poor. This might be a large part of the problem.

2) The saga shows up the problems with the 'cooperative' council concept.

3) The debate follows the usual narrative here of a project being put forward and then being savaged by the same few individuals.

4) Adding spice is that BG has parked its tanks on the lawn of a couple of those individuals, Editor and Gramsci

5) The moderating here is fine if you think it's OK for a match to be refereed by the captain of one of the teams.

6) For example, this comment, which may help explain Brad's reluctance to engage, was 'liked' by the moderator

_'My 'shared vision' would be brad pinned to the nuclear dawn mural with a firework sticking out of his arse'_


----------



## editor (Jun 26, 2015)

leanderman said:


> 6) For example, this comment, which may help explain Brad's reluctance to engage, was 'liked' by the moderator
> 
> _'My 'shared vision' would be brad pinned to the nuclear dawn mural with a firework sticking out of his arse'_


I imagine the context for that joke which you've cherry picked out of thousands of posts might be the years of supremely frustrating and truly exasperating answer-evading from Brad. Those threads really are worth revisiting because I see him being given every chance to explain what BG are up to.

I STILL don't know exactly what it is they do. It seems to change like the wind.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 26, 2015)

editor said:


> I STILL don't know exactly what it is they do. It seems to change like the wind.



True


----------



## Maria Santos (Jun 26, 2015)

Brixton_Green said:


> *Responding to specific rumours and allegation appearing in social media, online and on posters* *made by the Brixton Buzz, Boyd Hill and Maria Santos, we set out the facts:*
> 
> *1. The community have not been locked out of No.6:*
> 
> ...


Dear Brixton green, ALL we asked, all we want, is for our centre to be OPEN, to be properly managed. For it to be a community hub for somerleyton rd residents before ANYTHING else. For WE the volunteers to be treated with a bit more respect and dignity. Brixton green, we have built the space you wanted, in your own words "the space for the community". Your  DUTY IS to manage it properly, embracing the old and the new. INSTEAD You have locked us out and barred us from  even the most basic amenities:  power, water and toilets.  This is very simple to fix. OPEN the centre, MANAGE  it properly and treat your volunteers with RESPECT. That should be more than enough to prove your point as being a community interest company. #YOUCANTLOCKOUTTHETRUT


----------



## teuchter (Jun 26, 2015)

Maria Santos said:


> Dear Brixton green, ALL we asked, all we want, is for our centre to be OPEN, to be properly managed. For it to be a community hub for somerleyton rd residents before ANYTHING else. For WE the volunteers to be treated with a bit more respect and dignity. Brixton green, we have built the space you wanted, in your own words "the space for the community". Your  DUTY IS to manage it properly, embracing the old and the new. INSTEAD You have locked us out and barred us from  even the most basic amenities:  power, water and toilets.  This is very simple to fix. OPEN the centre, MANAGE  it properly and treat your volunteers with RESPECT. That should be more than enough to prove your point as being a community interest company. #YOUCANTLOCKOUTTHETRUT


So I can try and understand this, which organisation do you represent? 

Are you part of "Brixton Come Together" or "Small World Urbanism"?


----------



## editor (Jun 26, 2015)

Brixton_Green said:


> However on the 15th June, Maria Santos and approx 20 other people including Mike Slocombe, caused a disturbance in the building.


This is untrue and defamatory. You are lying, just you liked you lied about the comments being deleted. Withdraw the comment immediately.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 26, 2015)

leanderman said:


> 3) The debate follows the usual narrative here of a project being put forward and then being savaged by the same few individuals.
> 
> 4) Adding spice is that BG has parked its tanks on the lawn of a couple of those individuals, Editor and Gramsci
> 
> _'_



What "project" is being savaged? BG have no "project". The project is run and led by the Council. Its the Council who are funding it. Its the Council who are hiring Igloo. Ovalhouse are raising funds themselves to move to the site. What exactly is BG project? This is part of my problem with BG - they try to make out what is happening on Somerleyton is down to them. When they get a chance to show us all how it will work in practise ( at Number 6) its a mess. Hardly inspires confidence.

My stance on this Council project is critically supportive of aspects of it.

I also support Ovalhouse coming to Brixton. I also hope OHT will manage the workshop units in Carlton Mansions.

Given BG management of Number 6 I am even more sure I do not want BG to get there hands on Carlton Mansions. This is not a joke for me.

In my posts in reply to the BG press statement I have tried to put the some of the facts right in BG statement.

As for parking a tank on my lawn. I represented a group who lived on the site. Who over the years got on with Cllrs and some officers. Who were willing to take a constructive engagement with Council plans for the site.

Yet we were evicted.

Those who are in charge of BG cannot even manage one building without causing arguments. Yet the Council give them a lot support.

Sometimes I listen to business programmes on radio. A big thing now in management of organisations is "soft skills" and what is termed "emotional intelligence". BG lack soft skills imo. Quite staggering for an organisation that wants to be an overarching organisation for Brixton people. If I had dealt with people in my (ex) Coop like BG  my Coop would have fallen apart ( this can happen).

How is it that Ovalhouse can deal with the local community and not BG?

So yes I am pissed off with this.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 26, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So I can try and understand this, which organisation do you represent?
> 
> Are you part of "Brixton Come Together" or "Small World Urbanism"?



Maria is "Brixton Come Together"

She is also active member of the Latin American community in Brixton.


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2015)

Useless  fucking clueless amateurs. It takes about a minute to install a web form and this one has been fucked for ages.

Anyone would think that they don't want people to be able to reach them.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 27, 2015)

editor said:


> Useless  fucking clueless amateurs. It takes about a minute to install a web form and this one has been fucked for ages.
> 
> Anyone would think that they don't want people to be able to reach them.
> 
> View attachment 73264


They certainly appear to be giving that impression.


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2015)

Comments from friends who went along today:



> Somerleyton Road development proposal 125 rental properties, 100 at 'market rent' 7 'affordable' and 18 'social' and varying amounts of prettification. Lambeth needs more than a tiny number of social housing - Even if all 125 were social housing it wouldn't be nearly enough - its was all put on display/for 'consultation' today under the guise of 'street party'





> And soooo loud nobody could discuss the issues with the architects


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jun 28, 2015)

It was a very odd street party.

The party end of the street was a consultation. The other end had a community centre that was locked up with local volunteers protesting about how the project has failed them so badly.

I tried to take part in the consultation, but as mentioned above, conversation was impossible. Instead I stuck a few dots on a Council consultation board.

I did manage a brief chat with a Council officer. I asked why Brixton Green is no longer involved. She said that they are. It seems that the Council has a legal commitment to honour the lease that it gave out for No. 6. I was told that the decision to hand over the management to Green Man was taken by Brixton Green.

I tried to find out a little more about the mysterious Brixton Green but there was no official representation. This was most odd, seeing as the Brixton Green logo was plastered all over the street party posters.

I did however manage to have an informal chat with a Brixton Green member. He said that he was "absolutely baffled" by the statement that has been put out by Brixton Green above.

A number of houses on the road had some street signs showing their feelings towards Brixton Green. Photos of these are below.

BBuzz piece.


----------



## Twattor (Jun 28, 2015)

editor said:


> Comments from friends who went along today:



Surely that can't be right.  Only recently we've been reliably informed straight from the horse's mouth:



Brixton_Green said:


> *Shaped by Brixton People*
> 
> This is a development shaped by Brixton people:
> 
> ...



BG are so open and transparent that i can't imagine that they'd ever misrepresent anything. 

Are your sources correct? Could they have been confused or over excited as a result of the street party?


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Jun 28, 2015)

It was loud!
(no criticism of King Tubby - I enjoyed my afternoon listening).
Thanks to everyone who came and spoke with us on the Ovalhouse table - for the interest and comments on the theatre, we had some good feedback, and for the interest on our Youth festival starting 13th July.

It's possible that the sound levels made following details difficult - it was harder than ideal to have in-depth conversations - but the housing levels and rent levels are as previously stated; around 300 homes in total, 50% at 'affordable' rents- but within this at least 70% of those will be at council target rent levels, and allocated from the LBL housing list. There is still some to-ing and fro-ing about the exact numbers of 1, 2 and 3 or 4 bed flats, according to most acute need, policy etc.

No compromise on length of tenure, no right to buy, no segregation- tenants on all rent levels on the same blocks, same flats.


----------



## leanderman (Jun 28, 2015)

OvalhouseDB said:


> The housing levels and rent levels are as previously stated; around 300 homes in total, 50% at 'affordable' rents- but within this at least 70% of those will be at council target rent levels, and allocated from the LBL housing list. There is still some to-ing and fro-ing about the exact numbers of 1, 2 and 3 or 4 bed flats, according to most acute need, policy etc.
> 
> No compromise on length of tenure, no right to buy, no segregation- tenants on all rent levels on the same blocks, same flats.



So, 50% completely unaffordable, 15% so-called affordable and 35% actually affordable?


----------



## Winot (Jun 28, 2015)

Could be worse.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 28, 2015)

Winot said:


> Could be worse.



It *is* worse.
"Council target rent levels" usually means that the tenure won't be a secure council tenancy as defined under the 1980 Housing Act, but a "secure lifetime tenancy" as defined under the 1985 Housing Act. They sound very similar,but the latter lacks some of the elements of the former, and makes basic tenure more conditional.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 28, 2015)

OvalhouseDB said:


> It was loud!
> (no criticism of King Tubby - I enjoyed my afternoon listening).
> Thanks to everyone who came and spoke with us on the Ovalhouse table - for the interest and comments on the theatre, we had some good feedback, and for the interest on our Youth festival starting 13th July.



It was good to see you.

To explain.

The site has been divided up between different architects. What used to by my end of site ( Carlton Mansions) has specialist architects designing the new build theatre and Zac Munro , a local architect, is doing the design work on the Mansions.

He had been trying to contact me before but after all the fight with Lambeth I had had enough of it. So had ex Coop members.

Finally relented and got in touch with Zac as he wanted to know more about the history of the Mansions.

Ended up having a long chat with him on Saturday and some of the other people who work in his practise. . He wants to incorporate some of the history of the Mansions into finished development. There is possibility some ex Coop members might be interested. As I met some today

He had some interesting ideas for Mansions so will try to follow this up. He is trying to keep a lot of the existing features.

Of course the Council have stuck there oar in are going on about the wooden staircases have to go. Fire risk. Yawn,The stairs have been there for over a hundred years with no problem. Like a lot of old buildings in London. Get the feeling some officers wouldn’t be sorry if the building was demolished and just the facade kept.

Zac initial design ideas look good to me.

The idea is a new build theatre with the Mansions next to it converted into workshops managed by Oval House.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 28, 2015)

The noticeable absence of Brixton Green on Saturday was rather pleasant. Normally they  around trying to push the BG shares and generally being irritating.


----------



## madolesance (Jun 28, 2015)

I got a feeling from the 'funded' by Lambeth 'Street Party' that 'Brixton Green' have been moved aside and a new group of consultants have been put in place.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2015)

madolesance said:


> I got a feeling from the 'funded' by Lambeth 'Street Party' that 'Brixton Green' have been moved aside and a new group of consultants have been put in place.


The whole thing is  a farce.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 28, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> What used to by my end of site ( Carlton Mansions) has specialist architects designing the new build theatre and Zac Munro , a local architect, is doing the design work on the Mansions.



Same guy as did the house next to Brockwell Park that was on Grand Designs.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 29, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Same guy as did the house next to Brockwell Park that was on Grand Designs.



Yes one of my ex Coop members said they saw him on that.


----------



## editor (Jun 29, 2015)

Is there a valid, working email address for BG, otherwise I'm going to have to contact their web host to ask them to remove their defamatory claim about me.


----------



## editor (Jun 29, 2015)

Sorry if I'm a bit late with this, but who are Fielden Clegg Bradley Studios and why are they calling the entire development Brixton Green?



http://fcbstudios.com/work/view/brixton-green


----------



## teuchter (Jun 29, 2015)

They are a long standing and fairly well known architectural practice.


----------



## editor (Jun 29, 2015)

teuchter said:


> They are a long standing and fairly well known architectural practice.


Hahaha. And the second, more relevant part of the question?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 29, 2015)

http://fcbstudios.com/contact


----------



## editor (Jun 29, 2015)

teuchter said:


> http://fcbstudios.com/contact


Stop this please.


----------



## Twattor (Jun 29, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> The noticeable absence of Brixton Green on Saturday was rather pleasant. Normally they  around trying to push the BG shares and generally being irritating.



Just met some in the pub. Really enthusiastic. BG may be Brixton's answer to scientology.


----------



## organicpanda (Jun 29, 2015)

editor said:


> Sorry if I'm a bit late with this, but who are Fielden Clegg Bradley Studios and why are they calling the entire development Brixton Green?
> 
> View attachment 73334
> 
> http://fcbstudios.com/work/view/brixton-green


they seem to have completely demolished Carlton Mansions in that pic 
eta just realised they've also knicked the tree from my garden!!!


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 29, 2015)

editor said:


> Sorry if I'm a bit late with this, but who are Fielden Clegg Bradley Studios and why are they calling the entire development Brixton Green?
> 
> View attachment 73334
> 
> http://fcbstudios.com/work/view/brixton-green



This is now out of date. I know its confusing. I have just tried to remember last Saturday and checked online. Its from a few years ago. Its when BG had the idea they would get whole site off Council to build there little empire. 

As I have said before the Somerleyton Road project is now a Council led project. With Brixton Greens role to wind people up and cause arguments. 

The architects appointed by the Council for the theatre are now Foster William William architects. Who have experience of designing public buildings. 

More info here on which architects are appointed

I did have a bit of a chat with them and OvalhouseDB 

The theatre will not just be a theatre. It will have rehearsal space. So Ovalhouse can do more of the work they do at Oval with young people etc. Most theatres in London do not have this. So if I get it correctly the new building will be partly public space and theatre. Ovalhouse reckon the new building will give them more space than at Oval. 

The only irritating thing is that there is now a new floor on top of theatre for our old friends "Livity"
The hip media agency who some posters may remember. 

At least one of BG pet projects the Chefs School will no longer be in the Mansions. Though its now planned to have building behind the theatre. Really need youth to be trained up to serve the needs of Nu Brixton eateries.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 29, 2015)

Twattor said:


> Just met some in the pub. Really enthusiastic. BG may be Brixton's answer to scientology.



New doc out on Scientology. 

Scarily there are parallels. 

I really hope the debacle over Number 6 will make the leading Cllrs think seriously about BG role in this project. 

Though as in Scientology BG are not to underestimated.


----------



## Twattor (Jun 29, 2015)

OK. So, the chap I met seemed like a lovely bloke - my sort of age, my sort of quantity of hair, quite easy going and affable.  He did tell me his name, but I'm hopeless with names so it could be anything; wasn't Phillipe or Brad or anything unusual.  He did say he had met someone from Buzz recently, had been harangued and didn't think they listened.

I'm really unclear about the purpose of BG; have wanted to ask here but didn't fancy being referred to pages 1-..., so took the opportunty to ask for it to be explained to me.

Am still none the wiser tbh.  I understand that Lambeth want to develop the site.  I know from experience that LBL don't have the expertise to do it themeselves. BG chap (let's call him Fred) told me that they have employed Igloo as consulltants on a fixed price, and they have then appointed their own architects. I'm guessing this is the Igloo which is essentially a fund which invests in urban regen, but i've never head of them providing solely consultation and design services. This makes me slightly suspicious, irrespective of "Fred's" exhortations to the contrary.

"Fred" told me that 1,800 local people had joined BG for a registration fee of £1 each.  For that princely sum he told me that they get occasional emails and are able to comment on plannig matters.  He seemed very excited about this, as if non-affiliate brixtonites don't have this ability. He told me that BG had no goal other than ensuring that there would be 40% affordable in Somerleyton (although seemed unaware of SPG, PPG, local plans and MoL), and that it wouldn't go along the lines of e.g.: Myatts.  He seemed to think that BG had no future designs after achieving these aims, and professed to having no knowledge of PC or BC's agenda, but didn't know what would happen to BG once their dreams were realised.

I still don't entierly understand how it all fits together, as i have still not found anyone to explain why the council would engage a pension fund and bunch of random locals to manage a regen; i don't understand where anyone has demonstrated the necessary expertise or commercial/construction acumen to be appointed to this role.  I don't understand the family tree of responsibilty and accountability, and i don't understand what is trying to be achieved.  If anyone can do me a simple picture i'd be most grateful.


----------



## editor (Jun 29, 2015)

Twattor said:


> I still don't entierly understand how it all fits together, as i have still not found anyone to explain why the council would engage a pension fund and bunch of random locals to manage a regen; i don't understand where anyone has demonstrated the necessary expertise or commercial/construction acumen to be appointed to this role.  I don't understand the family tree of responsibilty and accountability, and i don't understand what is trying to be achieved.  If anyone can do me a simple picture i'd be most grateful.


Thanks for posting this. It pretty much sums up my total confusion with BG, and I've been trying to work them out for years on end. 

Good luck trying to find someone who can make sense of it all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 29, 2015)

Twattor said:


> I still don't entierly understand how it all fits together, as i have still not found anyone to explain why the council would engage a pension fund and bunch of random locals to manage a regen; i don't understand where anyone has demonstrated the necessary expertise or commercial/construction acumen to be appointed to this role.  I don't understand the family tree of responsibilty and accountability, and i don't understand what is trying to be achieved.  If anyone can do me a simple picture i'd be most grateful.



In our brave new managerialist world, idiots the like of which populate the council's cabinet tend to believe that management skills are transferable - that if you can manage a sweetshop, you can manage a construction project, given the right staff. 
I think you'll find it difficult to find anyone who can do you "a simple picture", too. I'm not sure that even those on the inside of the project have a full grasp, let alone any "concerned citizens".


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 30, 2015)

Twattor said:


> I'm guessing this is the Igloo which is essentially a fund which invests in urban regen, but i've never head of them providing solely consultation and design services. This makes me slightly suspicious, irrespective of "Fred's" exhortations to the contrary.
> 
> I still don't entierly understand how it all fits together, as i have still not found anyone to explain why the council would engage a pension fund and bunch of random locals to manage a regen; i don't understand where anyone has demonstrated the necessary expertise or commercial/construction acumen to be appointed to this role.  *I don't understand the family tree of responsibilty and accountability, and i don't understand what is trying to be achieved.  If anyone can do me a simple picture i'd be most grateful.*



As I said previously I was asked before to explain how it all worked.

Its a good question. I really think the Council should do this. The Future Brixton website contains info mixed in with Council PR for the project. ( Not all of which I agree with with). So its an effort to disentangle the PR fluff to make a clear picture of what you are asking. Also there are so many pages of info you have to trawl through a lot of stuff. Some of which is now out of date.

The project has a steering group consisting of reps from Ovalhouse and Brixton Green along with Cabinet member for Housing (Bennett) and senior officers.

They are (supposedly) the top of the tree. They agree how the project will move forward in true Cooperative Council style. Whether this always works in practise is another matter. The Council - senior officers in Regen and top Cllrs have the most clout imo.

However despite the appearance that this is a "Cooperative" project run by the Steering group its not that simple.

Key decisions will be taken by Cabinet member for Housing along with Leader of the Council if necessary. Other key decisions will be taken by senior officers using authority delegated to them by Cllrs. This is because the Local Authority has powers and responsibilities it must keep to. The senior Cllrs have a duty to take responsibility for major decisions. As on Council owned Somerleyton road. They cannot just delegate or give away power to make certain decisions. Its their legal duty as elected representatives. Particularly in the case of this project as the Council will be raising the funds to build it. ( Ovalhouse are raising there own funds to build the theatre).

The Steering group will take all other decisions by vote. Each partner having one vote with the Council having two votes.

So in the end its a Council that takes the key decisions.

The Council in conjunction with the steering group choose Igloo as a development management team. Igloo will not be investing in the scheme. They are providing a team with the skills to manage the day to day work of design and development. Reporting back to the Steering Group. Councils no longer have inhouse development teams ( architects etc. ).

I also believe Igloo were chosen as they have experience of dealing with local communities. Igloo for example have hired Social Life to do a study of peoples views on the project so far.

( Makes me wonder in that case what is the point of BG in this project as Council have appointed Igloo. The Saturday event was run by Igloo for example. Also I know the some senior officers have been thinking of doing a Council led and funded scheme on the site for some years. This was separate from BG who give the impression it was all there idea.)

Accountability- its such a complicated structure that its hard to know who to complain to or ask questions about the scheme if you are just a local resident.

The Steering Group meetings for example are not open to public.

The debacle around Number 6 shows the shortcomings of the structure. Who does one ask for info when there is a dispute around use of centre? As Tricky Skills found its not that easy.

In the end the senior Cllrs are accountable.

This is first go at explaining this. Does this help? Any questions?


----------



## editor (Jun 30, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> This is first go at explaining this. Does this help? Any questions?


It seems a decent stab but I still can't work it out, and for an organisation that is supposed to be all about community engagement it seems horribly tangled and complex, and - I imagine - utterly unfathomable to most local residents.

Why would anyone have to pay a £1 to a third party group with vague aims just to have a say in community issues? It makes no sense.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 30, 2015)

Twattor 

Just realised have not answered your question about what is meant to be achieved. Thats another good question. A whole other debate.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 30, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Same guy as did the house next to Brockwell Park that was on Grand Designs.


I seem to recall he made a fuss about the craftsmanship of the simple 50s house and a big deal about preserving parts of it. And then knocked it all down.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 30, 2015)

editor said:


> It seems a decent stab but I still can't work it out, and for an organisation that is supposed to be all about community engagement it seems horribly tangled and complex, and - I imagine - utterly unfathomable to most local residents.
> 
> Why would anyone have to pay a £1 to a third party group with vague aims just to have a say in community issues? It makes no sense.




Yes it is tangled and complex. And also there is a difference between the structure and the informal influence of a group like BG who are politically well connected. The debacle around Number 6 has dented there political clout from what I heard on Saturday. Dented it for the moment.

What I am saying is that according to the structure BG role is limited (in theory).


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 30, 2015)

editor said:


> Why would anyone have to pay a £1 to a third party group with vague aims just to have a say in community issues? It makes no sense.



It does make no sense as Cllrs are elected to be accountable. You should not have to fork out a pound to have a say. 

This is part of the problem with the idea of a Coop Council.


----------



## editor (Jun 30, 2015)

Seen today:


----------



## Rushy (Jun 30, 2015)

Rushy said:


> I seem to recall he made a fuss about the craftsmanship of the simple 50s house and a big deal about preserving parts of it. And then knocked it all down.


I should add that, having inspected the property several times, I did not think it had any features of significant importance. Lack of quality aside, the design was also highly incongruous. I would have knocked it flat myself. (Which they effectively did after a lot of expensive farting about).


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jun 30, 2015)

The Brixton Green statement said:

"Boyd Hill has made many accusations regarding the Awards for All funding for activity at Number Six. Again these are untrue. Brixton Green has been in touch with the Big Lottery to inform them of the nature of Boyd’s accusations. The Big Lottery is not “investigating” Brixton Green."

An FoI [pdf] to the Big Lottery adds:

"We are currently reviewing information in respect of the project progress. Until that review has concluded we do not hold the information that you have requested."


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Jun 30, 2015)

Thank you, Gramsci, for your (as always) accurate account of the Somerleyton Rd Development structure.
The Steering group is chaired by Cllr Jack Hopkins, who took over from Cllr Pete Robbins.
So ward Cllrs, along with the relevant Cabinet members and the Steering group chair remain the ultimate accountable face for LBL for residents. At officer level Stuart Dixon has now taken over a lot of what Neil Vokes did at the beginning, and he is, in my opinion, very experienced, wise and of the same outlook as Neil. Some people may have met him on Saturday.

The management of SixBrixton is a separate agreement between LBL and BG - it was agreed at Steering Group that any 'meanwhile use' on the site would be a good thing, and BG, (with a lease from the council)  took on the refurbishment of the building, bringing in BlockWorkout etc. It is not part of the Steering Group or Igloo's management remit, but it has been a good base for consultation meetings - I would say the ward councillors are the best route wrt accountability.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 30, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> The Brixton Green statement said:
> 
> "Boyd Hill has made many accusations regarding the Awards for All funding for activity at Number Six. Again these are untrue. Brixton Green has been in touch with the Big Lottery to inform them of the nature of Boyd’s accusations. The Big Lottery is not “investigating” Brixton Green."
> 
> ...


I think the salary costs are the most interesting part. Why is this private?


----------



## editor (Jun 30, 2015)

I'm looking into taking legal action against BG. Their statement is peppered with lies and inaccuracies, but the suggestion that I caused a disturbance and endangered young people is seriously defamatory.


> However on the 15th June, Maria Santos and approx 20 other people including Mike Slocombe, caused a disturbance in the building. There was a community youth project at the building at the time. The young people had to be sent home for their own safety.





> It was part of the Brixton Stories project that was disrupted by Maria Santos and Mike Slocombe last Monday when they stopped the young people in their workshop.


I did not enter the building with "Maria Santos and approx 20 other people." I did not disrupt a youth project or endanger any young people *because I was not there when any of this happened.*

I popped in for about three minutes in my capacity as a journalist to take two photographs of the police talking to Ms Santos some time after this supposed "disturbance" had happened. I was there for about 4 minutes and left. The children had already been sent home. This was witnessed by several people - including the police - and the photo timestamps will back this up.

Has anyone an active, working email address for BG?


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 30, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> The Brixton Green statement said:
> 
> "Boyd Hill has made many accusations regarding the Awards for All funding for activity at Number Six. Again these are untrue. Brixton Green has been in touch with the Big Lottery to inform them of the nature of Boyd’s accusations. The Big Lottery is not “investigating” Brixton Green."
> 
> ...



So they're not "under investigation"


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jun 30, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> So they're not "under investigation"



Investigation / review...


----------



## editor (Jun 30, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> So they're not "under investigation"


Sounds like they're "under review." Some may say that it adds up to the same thing. Others may not. I guess it all depends how you want to read the phrase, but BG are proven liars.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 30, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Investigation / review...



But very different things in the world of AfA. An "investigation" is potentially an audit by their Fraud and Investigations staff, or a check of spend receipts and delivery. 

This is an awards officer looking through the file. Proportionality will be their approach.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jun 30, 2015)

The terms of reference [pdf] for the Somerleyton Steering Group states that the minutes will be made public.

The last set of minutes that I can find are dated October 2013.

I've asked for clarification.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 30, 2015)

OvalhouseDB said:


> Thank you, Gramsci, for your (as always) accurate account of the Somerleyton Rd Development structure.
> The Steering group is chaired by Cllr Jack Hopkins, who took over from Cllr Pete Robbins.
> So ward Cllrs, along with the relevant Cabinet members and the Steering group chair remain the ultimate accountable face for LBL for residents. At officer level Stuart Dixon has now taken over a lot of what Neil Vokes did at the beginning, and he is, in my opinion, very experienced, wise and of the same outlook as Neil. Some people may have met him on Saturday.
> 
> The management of SixBrixton is a separate agreement between LBL and BG - it was agreed at Steering Group that any 'meanwhile use' on the site would be a good thing, and BG, (with a lease from the council)  took on the refurbishment of the building, bringing in BlockWorkout etc. It is not part of the Steering Group or Igloo's management remit, but it has been a good base for consultation meetings - I would say the ward councillors are the best route wrt accountability.



Thanks for correcting me on Cllr who is Chair. Do you know why Cllr Hopkins is now Chair. As he is Cabinet member for Jobs and Growth not housing. 

As for Ward Cllrs being best route for accountability. They are briefed on what is happening by officers but from what I have seen they are not consulted. They for example did not know about Fitch Court residents being moved to the site until the decision had been taken. So imo they know as much about what is happening as ordinary resident. 

Is a Coldharbour Ward Cllr on the steering group? I think one Ward Cllr should be on it. They know the area and could be way to give a easy way to provide accountability- ie questions and queries from residents. 

I also think that the Council should put on the Future Brixton website an explanation of how this project is managed. 

Most people do not realise that key decisions are taken by senior Cllrs.

Interesting that the Number 6 meanwhile use is a separate agreement between Council and BG. This imo is a mistake. As shown by the recent debacle. 

What happens at Number 6 reflects on the scheme as a whole. If there had been more oversight of it by Steering Group rather than the Council just handing it to BG then some of the unpleasantness may have been avoided. 

Someone was told on Sat ( forget which post) the decision to turf out the existing groups and replace them by Green Man was a decision by BG alone. Which does surprise me. I would have thought that the Council at some level would have had to agree this. 

I would like the Council ie Cllr Hopkins to give the Council view on what has happened at Number 6. Ultimately its there building.


----------



## Twattor (Jun 30, 2015)

Gramsci you've had a good go at explaining things, and possibly i'm being really slow to comprehend but genuinely I still do not understand the organisational structure.

I can't believe it's beyond the wit of man to have a simple organisational structure chart, as most offices manage to have on their walls. I can't understand how a partnership embarking on a multi-million pound regeneration can't manage this, particularly as they are essentially funded from taxpayers' (our) money.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 1, 2015)

Twattor you are applying logic to a very illogical situation, it will hurt your head.

Joking aside,  you are right, there should be an organisation chart for clarity.


----------



## editor (Jul 1, 2015)

Naturally, they haven't responded to my request via email and Twitter that they take down the defamatory material. 
Has anyone got any means of contacting them via email/web? There's no point ringing them because I need to send them a legal message.

For a group that is supposed to be all about listening to the community, they are bizarrely hard to contact.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 1, 2015)

Recorded delivery post


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 1, 2015)

Ah - and as if by magic, the backlog of minutes from the Somerleyton Steering Group dating back to 2013 have suddenly been published.

Fancy that.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 1, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> What I am saying is that according to the structure BG role is limited (in theory).



That's the theory. A skim through the minutes for the Steering Group which have been mass uploaded this afternoon going back over the past two years tells a different picture. It seems that Brixton Green is involved right at the top level of the overall Somerleyton regeneration.

A few points from the minutes:

13 May 2015 [pdf]

Brixton Green has been developing the brief for the OCB business plan – will go out to tender by end of the week.

Several Meetings still left to take place with Bruce, Brad, Daniel Omisore and Leke (Grant Thornton). GT continue modelling overall scheme.

15 April 2015 [pdf]

Brad to circulate high-level principles for non-resi spaces.

Brixton Green to provide draft brief on housing co-op.

18 Feb 2015 [pdf]

OH doing business plan for theatre and Carlton Mansions. Bruce and Brad leading on others.

21 Jan 2015 [pdf]

Brixton Green to look at Housing Mix

Brixton Green, Council to respond to questions from R.K.’s paper.

Brixton Green to circulate brief for OCB and then send out to tender once agreed.

15 Oct 2014 [pdf]

Brixton Green to update on OCB business plan 

20 August 2014 [pdf]

D.R. outlined the business plan draft by Jess Steele developed with input from Brixton Green and Cllr Hopkins.

23 July 2014

Jess Steele met with Cllr Hopkins, council officers and Brixton Green trustees to develop a draft brief to tender for the new community body business plan.

--

So - can anyone explain now what is the exact involvement of Brixton Green at Somerleyton Road please?

Plus it also seems that ex-Greenwich & Woolwich MP Nick Raynsford was invited to advise the Somerleyton steering group.

11 June 2014 [pdf]

Cllr Hopkins to invite Cllr Nick Raynsford (MP for Greenwich and Woolwich) to meet/advise Steering Group.

I've no idea why. Has he any local connections? I know that Cllr Joanne Simpson of Prince's ward use to work for him.

Are there any other connections there relating to the Somerleyton Road Steering Group?


----------



## Winot (Jul 1, 2015)

Nick Raynsford is a housing expert iirc.  Was Director of Shelter.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2015)

It seems a bit like the way LJAG are involved with certain projects in Loughborough Junction - eg preparing the (previous) masterplan.

They work (unpaid as far as I know) in conjunction with council representatives and seem to be involved in decisions such as choosing consultants etc.

I've nothing against LJAG but it's always seemed vague where the accountability lies, and how an organisation gets itself into that position. Presumably you have to present yourselves as serious enough to the council and then you are potentially involved in council-funded projects possibly influencing decision making at a fairly high level. But these groups (LJAG or BG) don't seem to be selected in a particularly democratic way. They just have to exist and offer themselves up. And, as a local resident, if one of these groups is promoting an agenda that you don't agree with...well, you just have to make your representations to your local councillors I guess. But those groups can clearly have a strong influence regardless of whether they represent the views of the people in their area.

Of course, the fact that they are voluntary means that to be a meaningful part of one, you have to be able to afford to give a considerable amount of your time for free which is not an option open to everyone. I say considerable, partly based on those minutes which suggest that they are doing more than offering feedback etc...they seem to be preparing briefs and all sorts.

(None of this is necessarily an objection to either LJAG or BG or their intentions - rather, a possible objection to the structure we seem to have that allows this.)


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 1, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Ah - and as if by magic, the backlog of minutes from the Somerleyton Steering Group dating back to 2013 have suddenly been published.
> 
> Fancy that.



I have noticed that recently this thread has had a lot of people looking at it. I expect officers, BG and Cllrs are taking a look. 

So suddenly all the minutes go online. 

This is annoying to say the least.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2015)

Well, Tricky Skills also tweeted them asking where the minutes were.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 1, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> I have noticed that recently this thread has had a lot of people looking at it. I expect officers, BG and Cllrs are taking a look.
> 
> So suddenly all the minutes go online.
> 
> This is annoying to say the least.



The Terms of Reference for the Steering Group stated back in 2013 that the minutes would be published. After the first three meetings, this came to an end.

There is nothing suspicious here, just all round shoddy work. Why state that you will publish the minutes, and then go on a two year sabbatical? It's just another example of the lack of transparency in the whole project.


----------



## Twattor (Jul 1, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> Recorded delivery post



editor that.

As an entity they must have a registered address. Recorded delivery to a registered address is served.


----------



## editor (Jul 1, 2015)

Twattor said:


> editor that.
> 
> As an entity they must have a registered address. Recorded delivery to a registered address is served.


I finally got a reply to my email and have been told that my letter has been 'forwarded to their board for their response'.

I've already had some legal advice and it appears my case is a very good one indeed, so unless they immediately remove my name from their inaccurate statement and apologise for the defamatory remarks I shall take whatever action I see fit to remedy the situation.  

There are plenty of witnesses who can confirm that BG's version of events is wholly false - including the two police officers who were on the scene.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 1, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> That's the theory. A skim through the minutes for the Steering Group which have been mass uploaded this afternoon going back over the past two years tells a different picture. It seems that Brixton Green is involved right at the top level of the overall Somerleyton regeneration.
> 
> 
> So - can anyone explain now what is the exact involvement of Brixton Green at Somerleyton Road please?



Thanks Tricky for looking at this. This is the question that needs answering. From what you have posted up I am also afraid that whatever body is set up to manage the site will be run by the leading lights in BG.

To upload all the minutes now which go back several years and expect ordinary residents to be able to take it in and have a view on how the scheme has been developed is fucking annoying. 

I am livid. 

I lived on the site and was prepared to take part in consultations on the site. Now I find all this has been going on and I did not know anything about it. Fuck you Lambeth Council. 

The fluffy consultation exercises like on Saturday did not go into the real issues. Which only were discussed behind closed doors. The consultation exercises are not were the real decisions get made. 

FFS.


On Saturday I chatted to someone who had joined BG a while ago. Said he had not had much in the way of updates from BG. So I assume these minutes were not circulated to BG members either.

So when one is talking about BG its Brad and the other leading lights. The grass roots members know as much as I do about what is going on.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 1, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Well, Tricky Skills also tweeted them asking where the minutes were.



When I was living on the site and had some contact with officers I also asked about minutes. 

It should not be up to residents to do this. 

These officers get paid to do this.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 1, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> The Terms of Reference for the Steering Group stated back in 2013 that the minutes would be published. After the first three meetings, this came to an end.
> 
> There is nothing suspicious here, just all round shoddy work. Why state that you will publish the minutes, and then go on a two year sabbatical? It's just another example of the lack of transparency in the whole project.



One would have thought that BG, representing the community, would have been insisting that minutes go online.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 1, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> The Terms of Reference for the Steering Group stated back in 2013 that the minutes would be published. After the first three meetings, this came to an end.
> 
> There is nothing suspicious here, just all round shoddy work. Why state that you will publish the minutes, and then go on a two year sabbatical? It's just another example of the lack of transparency in the whole project.



Thats the generous view.

The other is that sections of the Council and BG leading lights are working together. BG is not an independent organisation. Its in fact part of the Labour administration. This is shown by the minutes you quote.

As I said about informal networks in previous post.

The history of BG is that it came out of the Brixton Business Forum. Members of that are still on the board.

They are close to the Labour administration.

Its why they loath Brixton Buzz, Urban75. I doubt if the minutes would have gone up without Tricky Skills and editor keeping the issue of Number 6 in the public eye.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 1, 2015)

teuchter said:


> (None of this is necessarily an objection to either LJAG or BG or their intentions - rather, a possible objection to the structure we seem to have that allows this.)



Good post. 

As I am up LJ way now I have met some of the leading lights in LJAG.

You will have to take my word for it but LJAG are nothing like BG.

The bullying tactics used by BG at Number6 is not something that LJAG would do. I have had to deal with BG when I lived on the site. What happened at Number 6 did not surprise me

The "meanwhile" space at LJ ( The Platform where the cider festival was) and the farm operate without the kind of heavy handed "management" that BG have form on.


----------



## editor (Jul 1, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Its why they loath Brixton Buzz, Urban75. I doubt if the minutes would have gone up without Tricky Skills and editor keeping the issue of Number 6 in the public eye.


I'm happy to be loathed if that's what it takes to get true accountability for this "community" project, although most of the credit has to go to Tricky Skills .

I'm also happy to use whatever tools I have at my disposal to fight inaccurate, damaging and defamatory comments being written about me.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 1, 2015)

I have had a hard day today. And come back to read all this. 

All credit to Tricky Skills for the work he has put in on this. 

Its infuriating as I feel powerless. Far from the "Cooperative" Council 
making one feel that ones contribution is important I feel the opposite.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 1, 2015)

Has anyone been able to work out the Brixton Green involvement over at Pop Brixton? BG founder Philippe Castaing put his name to the licence that was passed by Lambeth Council last week.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 1, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Has anyone been able to work out the Brixton Green involvement over at Pop Brixton? BG founder Philippe Castaing put his name to the licence that was passed by Lambeth Council last week.



Is it not just Philippe acting in his own right, and unrelated to BG?

(He no longer runs the restaurant)


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Good post.
> 
> As I am up LJ way now I have met some of the leading lights in LJAG.
> 
> ...


I also have met some of them. I think most of what they do is good.

But there are nonetheless people who feel they are pushing some kind of middle class gentrification agenda. For example, there is a certain amount of local objection to the pedestrianisation thing (as discussed on other threads). I'm sure some of those people may feel a bit about LJAG as some do about BG.

When I spoke to someone associated with that scheme, they expressed a certain amount of exasperation about the objections and the claims that the community have not been consulted properly. From their point of view they'd gone out of their way to try and get people's input but struggled to get a lot of people interested. Then suddenly there are petitions to the council etc.

It's very hard to work out what's actually going on in these situations. Are the "community" objectors just a very small but vocal contingent? Do groups like LJAG or BG sometimes get caught up in their own enthusiasm about a project so much that they can't objectively judge how much support there is for it? Very hard to tell especially when you're just reading about it on internet sites with their own agendas.

I'd note that LJAG stay away from U75 on the whole too. 

I'm not trying to say that LJAG and BG are equivalent or disbelieving your own personal experiences with BG. Just, the above is a bit of an explanation why I remain a bit sceptical about some of the allegations being made against BG. I think it's clear they have failed to communicate in various ways. Maybe they have been heavy handed in some things. Like I said before I don't want to automatically defend them. But although their role in everything is a bit hazy to say the least, some of the accusations being made against them are equally vague and most don't seem solidly substantiated at all.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> What happened at Number 6 did not surprise me



To me it's still very unclear exactly what did happen at Number 6.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 1, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I remain a bit sceptical about some of the allegations being made against BG. Some of the accusations being made against them are equally vague and most don't seem solidly substantiated at all.



The allegation that I have spent money to "discredit" them, plus the claim that I alleged they "pocketed" money are nothing but Brixton Green lies.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 1, 2015)

teuchter said:


> To me it's still very unclear exactly what did happen at Number 6.



I did talk to those involved. I have held back from posting up some of what I have heard. It all rings true. And was told to me by someone I do not know well.

I also have experience of dealing with BG. I get on with most people. I am not someone who goes out of there way to antagonize people.

Its not that BG are pursuing middle class gentrification agenda. Its worse. Its that they want to control the site and are not beyond lying and bullying to get there way. LJAG are fluffy in comparison to BG leading lights. 

Lying as in for example saying it was them that persuaded Oval house to come here. Its bollox.

What annoys me is when I talk to people as I did last Saturday (and at other times) there are those in Council and others who realise BG have an attitude problem to say the least. But as BG have so much political clout no one can say anything in public. Its frustrating.

I now want BG taken off the Steering Group. As someone said to me on Sat it says something when some like me would trust the Council to run the scheme without BG.


----------



## editor (Jul 1, 2015)

teuchter said:


> But although their role in everything is a bit hazy to say the least, some of the accusations being made against them are equally vague and most don't seem solidly substantiated at all.


I do hope you're not referring to the claims I'm making them against them. None of their posts have been deleted from here or Buzz. That was a lie, as was their rather more serious claim that I disrupted and endangered a class full of children.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 1, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I also have met some of them. I think most of what they do is good.


So that means you've met Stephen Jordan - seconded - chair and Dinah Roake - co-opted Vice chair?

They seem to function at a policy level on a par with Neil Vokes for example at LB Lambeth Housing & Regeneration.

Meanwhile Brixton Green keep throwing parties (consultations?) to keep the Moorland masses on board.

Not saying this is wrong - but it is not democracy is it? Like the early Roman Emperors, they try to keep the people involved and supportive with  "bread and circuses".

Tricky Skills does seem to be getting them to provide more information on their activities. It would be good if they were able to give us the truth about Somerleyton Road - instead of sounding off like an election pamphlet claiming all the credit.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2015)

CH1 I meant I have met some of the LJAG people, not the BG people.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 1, 2015)

teuchter said:


> CH1 I meant I have met some of the LJAG people, not the BG people.



That pleasure awaits you.

Twattor said its like Brixton has its own kind of branch of Scientology.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 1, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Not saying this is wrong - but it is not democracy is it? Like the early Roman Emperors, they try to keep the people involved and supportive with  "bread and circuses".



The thing about bread and circuses is that you actually got that. I have some time for the Romans. 

Now all we get is being told to get off our backsides and go to to the next consultation by Cllr Hopkins. 

That is the Cllr Hopkins who chairs the Steering Group for Somerleyton road project. The minutes of which Jacko has just decided us plebs can have a look at.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 1, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> The thing about bread and circuses is that you actually got that. I have some time for the Romans.
> 
> Now all we get is being told to get off our backsides and go to to the next consultation by Cllr Hopkins.
> 
> That is the Cllr Hopkins who chairs the Steering Group for Somerleyton road project. The minutes of which Jacko has just decided us plebs can have a look at.


He ought to ensure those minutes are published if he has any sense. How can you expect people to be happy if stuff is done behind the scenes?


----------



## editor (Jul 1, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Now all we get is being told to get off our backsides and go to to the next consultation by Cllr Hopkins.





> We have to work together to make sure that’s not the case. But we also need to shout about the good stuff happening now – like Block Workout and all at Number 6, Steadman Scott’s boxing at the Rec, Ovalhouse coming soon, grow:brixton, the list goes on.
> 
> My challenge to you is find out what’s going on, make sure your voice is heard or sit back and let it pass you by. It’s your future.


So obviously Hopkins has been posting on Brixton's most popular forum and keeping Brixton's most popular website updated to ensure that as many people can find out what's going on?

Oh, wait..


----------



## CH1 (Jul 2, 2015)

editor said:


> So obviously Hopkins has been posting on Brixton's most popular forum and keeping Brixton's most popular website updated to ensure that as many people can find out what's going on?
> Oh, wait..


He could - but councillors have had a mixed reception. I can only cite Steve Bradley and Jeremy Klein about that. For some reason I seem to recall Steve Bradley attracted a lot of flack just for being Steve Bradley. Maybe Jeremy Klein fitted in better.

Both those were opposition councillors. I think Cabinet Members trying to debate issues could easily come a cropper.

Talking of which remember the copper - Brian. He lost his job in Brixton over his postings as "The Commander" didn't he?
I think bulletin boards and public officials have issues with each other.


----------



## editor (Jul 2, 2015)

CH1 said:


> He could - but councillors have had a mixed reception. I can only cite Steve Bradley and Jeremy Klein about that. For some reason I seem to recall Steve Bradley attracted a lot of flack just for being Steve Bradley. Maybe Jeremy Klein fitted in better.
> 
> Both those were opposition councillors. I think Cabinet Members trying to debate issues could easily come a cropper.


They can always use the Brixton Noticeboard forum to post up any info up as there's no obligation to get into a discussion there. But if Hopkins is sincere in what he says then he should be using all available channels to reach out to locals, and be prepared to face dissenting and doubting voices too.


CH1 said:


> Talking of which remember the copper - Brian. He lost his job in Brixton over his postings as "The Commander" didn't he?


Not really, no, but it brought him to the attention of a wider audience. I thought he brought a lot to the boards.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 2, 2015)

editor said:


> They can always use the Brixton Noticeboard forum to post up any info up as there's no obligation to get into a discussion there. But if Hopkins is sincere in what he says then he should be using all available channels to reach out to locals, and be prepared to face dissenting and doubting voices too.
> Not really, no, but it brought him to the attention of a wider audience. I thought he brought a lot to the boards.


You are right - Cllr Jack Hopkins could use the noticeboard. I am wondering whether he has got involved with Somerleyton Road because of the aggro. He kept a close eye on the Police Consultative group when it fell within his remit. The CPCGL were always falling out (with each other rather than the Police).   

With respect to Brian Paddick he may have done a good thing airing his views on Urban 75, but the right wing press had a good go at damaging him - using in part what he said on Urban, plus stuff about his personal life they got elsewhere. And surely he was transferred from Brixton because of it.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 2, 2015)

editor said:


> They can always use the Brixton Noticeboard forum to post up any info up as there's no obligation to get into a discussion there. But if Hopkins is sincere in what he says then he should be using all available channels to reach out to locals, and be prepared to face dissenting and doubting voices too.



True, but perhaps consider that they probably have a comms policy which will put many layers of sign off in place & individual officers will be restricted from posting 'personal' opinions as they'll be acting under the name of Lambeth. That & their firewall.


----------



## editor (Jul 2, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> True, but perhaps consider that they probably have a comms policy which will put many layers of sign off in place & individual officers will be restricted from posting 'personal' opinions as they'll be acting under the name of Lambeth. That & their firewall.


Sure, but straightforward, non controversial and useful things like the dates of meetings, consultations, open days, press releases and hastily organised street parties etc could be posted up here without fear of breaking any comms policies.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 2, 2015)

CH1 said:


> For some reason I seem to recall Steve Bradley attracted a lot of flack just for being Steve Bradley.



Steve Bradley attracted an AWFUL lot of flack for just being Steve Reed, I seem to remember.

Mistaken identity...


----------



## editor (Jul 2, 2015)

Would you believe it! That statement with all the defamatory content has just vanished off Brixton Green's website!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 2, 2015)

CH1 said:


> He could - but councillors have had a mixed reception. I can only cite Steve Bradley and Jeremy Klein about that. For some reason I seem to recall Steve Bradley attracted a lot of flack just for being Steve Bradley. Maybe Jeremy Klein fitted in better.



Clyne. 
Steve Bradley got a lot of stick from Mrs. Magpie as she mistook him for Steve "smiling shark" Reed. She was suitably apologetic when she realised her error! 



> Both those were opposition councillors. I think Cabinet Members trying to debate issues could easily come a cropper.



And...?
It's no excuse for not engaging with the electorate.



> Talking of which remember the copper - Brian. He lost his job in Brixton over his postings as "The Commander" didn't he?
> I think bulletin boards and public officials have issues with each other.



The main issue being truth.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 2, 2015)

editor said:


> Would you believe it! That statement with all the defamatory content has just vanished off Brixton Green's website!



Bet you don't get an apology, and bet you've got plenty of screenshots!


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 2, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> bet you've got plenty of screenshots!



OH YES


----------



## CH1 (Jul 3, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's no excuse for not engaging with the electorate.


Call me old fashioned, but I think proper consultation would demand mutual respect, and I'm not sure this would happen on here.
It would be possible for politicos to take on views from Urban, but that could not be formal democracy as there are many constituents who don't/can't use Urban. Maybe if Urban 75 really wanted to try it it could be in a designated "democracy thread" where we agreed not to be abusive, profane, undermining etc etc.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> You are right - Cllr Jack Hopkins could use the noticeboard. I am wondering whether he has got involved with Somerleyton Road because of the aggro. He kept a close eye on the Police Consultative group when it fell within his remit. The CPCGL were always falling out (with each other rather than the Police).



I think he got to be Chair as it was political move. To put emphasis on jobs and growth, which is his remit as Cabinet member, on all the wonderful benefits this ground breaking scheme will bring to the surrounding area. Jacko is the man to do it. 

I doubt whether moving Green Man to Number 6 was Brixton Greens decision. Would not be surprised if Jack wanted Green Man Skills Zone onsite. And BG would be only to happy to oblige.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Call me old fashioned, but I think proper consultation would demand mutual respect, and I'm not sure this would happen on here.
> It would be possible for politicos to take on views from Urban, but that could not be formal democracy as there are many constituents who don't/can't use Urban. Maybe if Urban 75 really wanted to try it it could be in a designated "democracy thread" where we agreed not to be abusive, profane, undermining etc etc.



Urban is one avenue that can be used. A lot of people cannot make Council consultation meetings due to work ,  childcare commitments or disability.  The internet is important to them. 

Its also becoming increasingly used as a lot more people ( particularly younger) have smart phones. 

Mutual respect is unnecessary to consultation. Just a few ground rules on behaviour is all that is needed. I do not have to like Nu Labour Cllrs to be able to sit down and deal with them.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 3, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Urban is one avenue that can be used. A lot of people cannot make Council consultation meetings due to work ,  childcare commitments or disability.  The internet is important to them.
> 
> Its also becoming increasingly used as a lot more people ( particularly younger) have smart phones.
> 
> Mutual respect is unnecessary to consultation. Just a few ground rules on behaviour is all that is needed. I do not have to like Nu Labour Cllrs to be able to sit down and deal with them.


Talking of personal attacks - were you aware that Jim Dickson worked for a PR company with offices in London and "the Gulf"?
http://www.fourcommunications.com/who-we-are/our-people/jim-dickson

I amazed at how Lambeth Council has become riddled with PR and consultancy at all levels. How can we trust the judgement of cabinet on the big issues facing Lambeth when their agenda is set by international PR rather than the needs of residents?

The sort ot thread that would really appeal to me would be one asking councillors about their second jobs and how these add to "the Lambeth experience" - as well as doubling their salary (or more).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Call me old fashioned, but I think proper consultation would demand mutual respect, and I'm not sure this would happen on here.
> It would be possible for politicos to take on views from Urban, but that could not be formal democracy as there are many constituents who don't/can't use Urban. Maybe if Urban 75 really wanted to try it it could be in a designated "democracy thread" where we agreed not to be abusive, profane, undermining etc etc.



I'm not sure that what you propose would actually constitute "democracy" either, mate. I'd go along with agreeing not to be abusive, but profanity is a commonplace, and "undermining" is generally a matter of perspective. Restricting behaviour to that which might not offend the very people we elect *to represent us*, seems to me to set them on a pedestal that they've done little to deserve.
Again, I look back to the '80s and remember immensely "robust" arguments with councillors, with plenty of swearing and cussing taking place on both sides, and you know what? It got shit done.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 3, 2015)

Don't agree with this.

I think the way politics was practised in Lambeth from the late 1970s to the mid 1990s left a lot to be desired. And I am not sure it did get the job done. Stuff like the provision of social housing was largely done by the LCC then the GLC. I heard many tennants moaning how things had gone down the pan since Lambeth took over when I was involved in the Weir Estate/Clapham Park Estate area back in the 90s.

I guess if you considered using Urban 75 as a component of a range of democratic consultancy that is fine. But I do feel that it is not necessary or productive to be offensive.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Talking of personal attacks - were you aware that Jim Dickson worked for a PR company with offices in London and "the Gulf"?
> http://www.fourcommunications.com/who-we-are/our-people/jim-dickson



Actually, I did, yes. Because I looked him up recently to see who he was and what he did. He was very supportive of the objections to the Higgs scheme in LJ. He attended many meetings and spoke against it at the committee hearing. He also responded quite quickly to me emailing him about another local issue. So my impression is he does his job quite well. How much time he devotes to it compard to his other activities I don't know.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Actually, I did, yes. Because I looked him up recently to see who he was and what he did. He was very supportive of the objections to the Higgs scheme in LJ. He attended many meetings and spoke against it at the committee hearing. He also responded quite quickly to me emailing him about another local issue. So my impression is he does his job quite well. How much time he devotes to it compard to his other activities I don't know.


I'm not saying he is bad, inefficient or anything. Just that we don't know where he is coming from - and he has kept his cards close to his chest.
When he became Labour Group leader in late 1994/early 1995 following the Blue Badge scandal he was working for the Housing Corporation I believe. We all know what they did - support and provide funding for Housing Associations - a very Labour thing to do.

But what does Four Communications do? I would love to know.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Don't agree with this.
> 
> I think the way politics was practised in Lambeth from the late 1970s to the mid 1990s left a lot to be desired. And I am not sure it did get the job done. Stuff like the provision of social housing was largely done by the LCC then the GLC. I heard many tennants moaning how things had gone down the pan since Lambeth took over when I was involved in the Weir Estate/Clapham Park Estate area back in the 90s.
> 
> I guess if you considered using Urban 75 as a component of a range of democratic consultancy that is fine. But I do feel that it is not necessary or productive to be offensive.



Certain people here get off on being profuse with profanities or offensiveness. Who cares really; most people grow out of it and most also aren't really offended by it; it's mainly just tiresome attention seeking. 

I don't think it's the main reason people with public roles avoid discussion boards though. I think it's more to with the fact that they are there representing their real selves and in many cases organisations whose party lines they have to be careful to stay within. So they can't always say exactly what they want and they also open themselves to accusations that could have significant consequences in their personal or professional lives, regardless of whether they are true or not.

On the other hand those they are "debating" with can hide behind anonymity and are free to say all sorts of things (and be accused of things) with most likely zero consequence to them. 

Add to that a partisan management of the boards and it's no surprise most local politicians stay well clear.

I do think the structure of an internet forum is a good one for having discussions, though. Unlike real-life debates people can't bluff with selective facts because google is always at the ready, and everything is recorded so people can't pretend they have or haven't said something. Plus, it's accessible to many people and discussions can be spread over time rather than requiring folk to show up at certain locations and times in order to participate.

If there was a way to have some kind of discussion board for local issues, perhaps with a requirement for people to use their real identities, and with a suitably carefully structured moderation system, then I think that could be a very good way to give folk a way of properly questioning and engaging with those who are supposed to represent them. Whether or not people were allowed to use swearwords would be a minor issue.

I don't know if it would be possible to construct such a thing. Urban75 isn't it, anyway.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I'm not saying he is bad, inefficient or anything. Just that we don't know where he is coming from - and he has kept his cards close to his chest.


Fair enough.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 3, 2015)

The core business for Four Communications appears to be politcial lobbying. From what I understand, the company helps to smooth through planning applications for developers.

Better Elephant explains:

"After Labour lost to the Lib Dems in 2002, both the former Labour Council Leader, Southwark’s Councillor for Regeneration (Steve Lancashire) and Lambeth Labour’s Jim Dickson teamed up to found a consultancy offering developers “political support in the face of public opposition” to their planning proposals. The company they founded is called ‘Four Communications’ and has assisted developers on a large number of high-profile South Bank developments."

Some of the Lambeth and Southwark planning projects that Four Communications appear to be involved in include:

Elizabeth House

Valentine Place

Albert Embankment

Clapham Leisure Centre - note the email address at the foot of the document and

Vauxhall Bondway

Of course there is no suggestion that Cllr Dickson has worked on any of these projects. We have seen a similar situation with Helen Hayes MP. She has stated that even though the company that she was a Director of worked on policy such as the Brixton Arches, she decided not to take an active role in matters that might compromise her.

In fact she even went as far as telling Brixton Buzz that she wasn't aware that the company she is a Director of recommended to Lambeth Council that the Brixton arches be "improved."


----------



## teuchter (Jul 3, 2015)

Interesting.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 3, 2015)

I haven't got any links or pics, but apparently No. 6 Somerleyton and the mysterious Brixton Green have made the front page lead in the South London Press today.


----------



## editor (Jul 3, 2015)

One of Brixton's biggest property developers wrote to me yesterday to tell me that Brixton Greens defamatory claims about me "were all over town,"  adding that he believed that there was "no smoke without fire."

Given the untrue and damaging nature of the allegations -  and the amount of time they were left online before they vanished without explanation -  the onus is now very much on Brixton Green to make sufficient redress in this matter, and in a timely manner.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 3, 2015)

editor said:


> One of Brixton's biggest property developers wrote to me yesterday to tell me that Brixton Greens defamatory claims about me "were all over town,"



.....he must frequent different parts of town to me


----------



## CH1 (Jul 3, 2015)




----------



## Twattor (Jul 3, 2015)

editor said:


> One of Brixton's biggest property developers wrote to me yesterday to tell me that Brixton Greens defamatory claims about me "were all over town,"  adding that he believed that there was "no smoke without fire."
> 
> Given the untrue and damaging nature of the allegations -  and the amount of time they were left online before they vanished without explanation -  the onus is now very much on Brixton Green to make sufficient redress in this matter, and in a timely manner.



I sincerely hope you have the wherewithal to give them a proper shafting.

You should have plenty of evidence, and I don't approve of bullying.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 3, 2015)

So according to SLP the basic story is that these groups have been using the building for free and want to continue doing so, but BG say they should use it according to the official hire terms (whatever they are).

What are the hire terms?
Have they changed since the groups were first allowed to use the building?
In what way have they been infringed?

Would be good to have some journalists interested in getting to the basic facts of the situation rather than all these vague articles.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 3, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> The allegation that I have spent money to "discredit" them, plus the claim that I alleged they "pocketed" money are nothing but Brixton Green lies.


Having checked back through various BB articles I see that you did describe them as "trousering up funds". Perhaps that is what they were unhappy about?


----------



## CH1 (Jul 3, 2015)

Twattor said:


> I sincerely hope you have the wherewithal to give them a proper shafting.
> You should have plenty of evidence, and I don't approve of bullying.


The problem is if it gets legal. I was threatened with being sued for libel by the previous owners of the Dogstar many years ago, and had no alternative but to issue a grovelling apology and undertaking (not wishing to lose my house).

My advice would be to seek to resolve this situation amicably if at all possible. The complainant has apparently not threatened legal action here, but is applying psychological pressure by making allegations in revenge for their slight (as they perceive it). 

Cool it I think. People have to co-exist. Doesn't mean they have to agree with each other, or how they make their living. Making further counter allegations is going to simply escalate the situation. 

Excuse my passive aggressive sermon.


----------



## editor (Jul 3, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> .....he must frequent different parts of town to me


Maybe he does, but a LOT of people are aware of the dodgy claims they published. I've had no end of people ask me about it.


----------



## editor (Jul 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> The problem is if it gets legal. I was threatened with being sued for libel by the previous owners of the Dogstar many years ago, and had no alternative but to issue a grovelling apology and undertaking (not wishing to lose my house).
> 
> My advice would be to seek to resolve this situation amicably if at all possible. The complainant has apparently not threatened legal action here, but is applying psychological pressure by making allegations in revenge for their slight (as they perceive it).
> 
> ...


They made some quite serous allegations about me in an official statement, including the claim that I entered No 6 Somerleyton Road with a mob of people, caused a disturbance and disrupted a  community youth project, resulting in the young people having to be sent home "for their own safety".

Those allegations were wholly untrue and just removing them without explanation is not good enough. I want them to make it crystal clear that they made the story up.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 3, 2015)

editor said:


> They made some quite serous allegations about me in an official statement, including the claim that I entered No 6 Somerleyton Road with a mob of people, caused a disturbance and disrupted a  community youth project, resulting in the young people having to be sent home "for their own safety".
> 
> Those allegations were wholly untrue and just removing them without explanation is not good enough. I want them to make it crystal clear that they made the story up.


I reckon they could - and should - accept that their allegations are wholly untrue. Asking them to confess to lying might stick in their craw.


----------



## editor (Jul 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I reckon they could - and should - accept that their allegations are wholly untrue. Asking them to confess to lying might stick in their craw.


There's no other way to word it, I'm afraid. I was nowhere near the building when this supposed disturbance took place.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 3, 2015)

editor said:


> One of Brixton's biggest property developers wrote to me yesterday to tell me that Brixton Greens defamatory claims about me "were all over town,"  adding that he believed that there was "no smoke without fire."
> 
> Given the untrue and damaging nature of the allegations -  and the amount of time they were left online before they vanished without explanation -  the onus is now very much on Brixton Green to make sufficient redress in this matter, and in a timely manner.



Well, you know what "they" say about wealthy property developers...most of them live in their own little worlds, where they see themselves as public-spirited heroes, rather than as exploiters and gits.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Having checked back through various BB articles I see that you did describe them as "trousering up funds". Perhaps that is what they were unhappy about?



Here's the link:

"Castaing and Carroll wasted no time in trousering up funds to help support their new pet project. £9,486.42 was handed out by the Big Lottery Fund to help support the original aims. Match funding was stated as coming from the Walcott Foundation – an independent grant making foundation for people living in Lambeth."

Trousering up money from the Big Lottery Fund is true. They applied for funding and they got it.

Here's what the mysterious Brixton Green claim:

"Jason Cobb has also made accusations that Brixton Green has been "pocketing" money from Lambeth Council."

This is completely untrue.

Plus also the Brixton Green lie that I have been spending money to discredit them - something that Brixton Green has fabricated.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Having checked back through various BB articles I see that you did describe them as "trousering up funds". Perhaps that is what they were unhappy about?



It's entirely obvious that by "trousering up funds" the author means "acquiring funding". If BG were unhappy with that, then I'm sure a simple e-mail would have seen the wording changed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> The problem is if it gets legal. I was threatened with being sued for libel by the previous owners of the Dogstar many years ago, and had no alternative but to issue a grovelling apology and undertaking (not wishing to lose my house).
> 
> My advice would be to seek to resolve this situation amicably if at all possible. The complainant has apparently not threatened legal action here, but is applying psychological pressure by making allegations in revenge for their slight (as they perceive it).
> 
> ...



The complainant has a very poor understanding of psychology, if the above is the case.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 3, 2015)

editor said:


> There's no other way to word it, I'm afraid. I was nowhere near the building when this supposed disturbance took place.





Tricky Skills said:


> Here's what the mysterious Brixton Green claim:
> "Jason Cobb has also made accusations that Brixton Green has been "pocketing" money from Lambeth Council."
> This is completely untrue.
> Plus also the Brixton Green lie that I have been spending money to discredit them - something that Brixton Green has fabricated.


Was this on a page with a link like "Brixton Green's statement" on the RH side of their website?

If so I tried 2 different ways of retrieving that and the link is no longer available either for 1st July or 29th June.

Which suggests they have either realised, or been legally advised that they have been defamatory and it has been well and truly taken down.


----------



## SpamMisery (Jul 3, 2015)

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/trouser#Verb

To "trouser funds" has connotations of misappropriation to me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 3, 2015)

editor said:


> Maybe he does, but a LOT of people are aware of the dodgy claims they published. I've had no end of people ask me about it.



From what I've heard up this end of town, the conclusion is "Brixton Green are talking shite. What have *they* actually done for Brixton?".
I'd ask this publicly of Brad Carroll, too: "What substantive goals *have* your organisation achieved for the people of Brixton, Brad?"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 3, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/trouser#Verb
> 
> To "trouser funds" has connotations of misappropriation to me.



That's nice, dear.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I reckon they could - and should - accept that their allegations are wholly untrue. Asking them to confess to lying might stick in their craw.



They thought they had some leverage on Brixton Buzz/Urban that they didn't possess. This included the posts that they claimed were deleted, but which they were merely too witless to find. They've made their bed, and now they get to lie in it.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 3, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/trouser#Verb
> 
> To "trouser funds" has connotations of misappropriation to me.



Where have I said that Brixton Green has "pocketed" - or even trousered - money from Lambeth Council? This is the claim that has been made against me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 3, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Where have I said that Brixton Green has "pocketed" - or even trousered - money from Lambeth Council? This is the claim that has been made against me.



You haven't, however much some might wish otherwise.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Was this on a page with a link like "Brixton Green's statement" on the RH side of their website?
> 
> If so I tried 2 different ways of retrieving that and the link is no longer available either for 1st July or 29th June.
> 
> Which suggests they have either realised, or been legally advised that they have been defamatory and it has been well and truly taken down.



Here are the two passages that were mysteriously removed from the Brixton Green website last night with no explanation:


----------



## SpamMisery (Jul 3, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Where have I said that Brixton Green has "pocketed" - or even trousered - money from Lambeth Council? This is the claim that has been made against me.



Oh I see, Lambeth Council, not the lottery people. It's the same action, wrong body.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Add to that a partisan management of the boards and it's no surprise most local politicians stay well clear.
> 
> I don't know if it would be possible to construct such a thing. Urban75 isn't it, anyway.



Neither is Question time in House of Commons according to Joe public. 

What you forget is that the world is imperfect. 

If one goes back to 18th C Britain the kind of discourse that went of the in coffee bars of the time would not have been out of place here. 

Despite the partizan management you are still here. You are not banned.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> View attachment 73566
> View attachment 73567



Thanks for putting this up. Take it thats its in todays edition.

Interesting Jacko says that Council has "ongoing dialogue with those involved".. "and want to ensure tensions are resolved"

Thats a pretty damning statement.

Its saying that the Council have had to step in to sort out Brixton Green hamfisted way of dealing with the local community.

From what I heard it was one the the Councils better officers who has stepped in to try and sort out the mess BG created after seeing it here and on Brixton Buzz. (and Tricky Skills I know the people at Number 6 are grateful for your coverage.)

So BG who are supposed to be in touch at grass roots level with the community have made such a cock up of it that a Council officer is trying to deal with it.

And I am not blaming all of BG for this. Some of them are ok. Dinah who I have met. Who CH1 mentions in previous post.

Its Mr Brad Carroll who should resign from BG imo.

It also makes me question what is the point of having BG as a community partner on the scheme?

Mr Carroll talks about "Bigger picture". Thats not down to him that down to Council and also to some of the Councils better officers.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 3, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Thanks for putting this up. Take it thats its in todays edition.
> 
> Interesting Jacko says that Council has "ongoing dialogue with those involved".. "and want to ensure tensions are resolved"


In his previous cabinet portfolio Cllr Jack had to sort out stormy ructions at the Community/Police Consultative Group which he actually seemed to handle quite well. What a pity Boris then conceived the brilliant idea of abolishing police community consultation after 30 years in Lambeth (presumably it was inefficient and costly).


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> In his previous cabinet portfolio Cllr Jack had to sort out stormy ructions at the Community/Police Consultative Group which he actually seemed to handle quite well. What a pity Boris then conceived the brilliant idea of abolishing police community consultation after 30 years in Lambeth (presumably it was inefficient and costly).



Except in this case its a senior Council officer who has been trying to deal with the community tensions.

The SLP article does not go into all of it. So maybe I should not add to much. 

In the article Cllr Hopkons is being sympathetic

After all the Council have given BG a place on the Steering Group , Number 6 and some funds for which we do not what for. BG have been treated as a favoured group. This contrasts with the way my Coop was treated. All we asked was permission to stay until Carlton Mansions was needed for the project. 

The clowns who are main players in BG cannot manage one building. Really Jacko should start to question the set up of the Steering Group. 

I still think BG could ride this out and end up running the finished project.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Which suggests they have either realised, or been legally advised that they have been defamatory and it has been well and truly taken down.



As editor says after complaints from him it suddenly disappeared.

I guess the more sensible elements in BG saw the statement was a load of rather nasty bollox. Its got Brad all over it.

I wonder if everyone on the board of BG was even consulted about it. 

The way its written show ineptitude. A short to the point non personalized statement would have worked better in PR terms. Still its an amusing read in hindsight. Not so funny for the editor


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 3, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> .....he must frequent different parts of town to me



This thread has been getting a lot of hits. Its got around 500 in this day. 

So its getting a lot of attention.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 3, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> As editor says after complaints from him it suddenly disappeared.
> 
> I guess the more sensible elements in BG saw the statement was a load of rather nasty bollox. Its got Brad all over it.
> 
> ...


I managed to retrieve the original statement using Google cache. It seems pretty much the same as was posted up in 8 sections here in this thread on 25th June by a new user from Brixton Green apparently.

It seemed to me that what editor was complaining about was a local property developer compounding the agony by citing this information, or verbal rumour based on this, or from the same source.

I can't see how these issues are resolvable without a bit of compromise. Its all a bit complicated - and difficult.


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/trouser#Verb
> 
> To "trouser funds" has connotations of misappropriation to me.


Yet the first two definitions from that page are:


> To put money into one's trouser pocket; to pocket.
> To legally remove funds from an organization for personal use.


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I managed to retrieve the original statement using Google cache. It seems pretty much the same as was posted up in 8 sections here in this thread on 25th June by a new user from Brixton Green apparently.
> 
> It seemed to me that what editor was complaining about was a local property developer compounding the agony by citing this information, or verbal rumour based on this, or from the same source.
> 
> I can't see how these issues are resolvable without a bit of compromise. Its all a bit complicated - and difficult.


I was making the point that their lies were read by a lot of people and locals were discussing the fabricated allegations. The 'reach' of defamatory claims may prove an important factor later. I'm certainly not letting this one go because the suggestion that I endangered the safety of children is fucking outrageous.


----------



## SpamMisery (Jul 4, 2015)

editor said:


> Yet the first two definitions from that page are:



And the other definitions? My point was they can be used both ways so it is not unreasonable for a reader to assume you are implying something bad


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> And the other definitions? My point was they can be used both ways so it is not unreasonable for a reader to assume you are implying something bad


Only the _third one_ supports your assertion and that's from a P. G. Wodehouse book. I'd say that would make it very difficult indeed to make a credible case that anyone was being accused of misappropriating  money.


----------



## SpamMisery (Jul 4, 2015)

Thank you for accepting it is fact, that is all I was "asserting"


----------



## teuchter (Jul 4, 2015)

The Wiktionary link confirms that "trousering" has essentially the same meaning as "pocketing", anyway.

So it's up to readers of the Buzz article to decide for themselves whether the word was chosen to give a hint of misappropriation of funds. I guess BG took their cue from the general tone of the rest of the piece.

I'd say they are guilty of an emotive response to a sustained series of low-level proddings. Sounds familiar perhaps?


----------



## CH1 (Jul 4, 2015)

teuchter said:


> The Wiktionary link confirms that "trousering" has essentially the same meaning as "pocketing", anyway.
> 
> So it's up to readers of the Buzz article to decide for themselves whether the word was chosen to give a hint of misappropriation of funds. I guess BG took their cue from the general tone of the rest of the piece.
> 
> I'd say they are guilty of an emotive response to a sustained series of low-level proddings. Sounds familiar perhaps?


Private Eye always uses it in the context of barristers consultants chief executives MPs etc "trousering" outrageous fees, expenses etc.

THEY don't allege those trousering the money are not legally entitled to it - merely that the system is rigged in their favour. G & Ts all round!


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Private Eye always uses it in the context of barristers consultants chief executives MPs etc "trousering" outrageous fees, expenses etc.
> 
> THEY don't allege those trousering the money are not legally entitled to it - merely that the system is rigged in their favour. G & Ts all round!


Yep. Exactly. That's the common understanding of the meaning.


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I'd say they are guilty of an emotive response to a sustained series of low-level proddings. Sounds familiar perhaps?


You can dismiss them as 'proddings' if you like, but I'd call them entirely reasonable requests for clarification and openness myself. Thank fuck someone is questioning what's going on here.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 4, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Private Eye always uses it in the context of barristers consultants chief executives MPs etc "trousering" outrageous fees, expenses etc.
> 
> THEY don't allege those trousering the money are not legally entitled to it - merely that the system is rigged in their favour. G & Ts all round!



So you would interpret that buzz article as suggesting the two named members of BG were taking the money for themselves in fees/expenses, rather than passing it on to others to spend on the various community projects etc?

Or that they were using the money for projects which brought the two named individuals financial gain?


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So you would interpret that buzz article as suggesting the two named members of BG were taking the money for themselves in fees/expenses, rather than passing it on to others to spend on the various community projects etc?


Well, there's a loaded question right there.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 4, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So you would interpret that buzz article as suggesting the two named members of BG were taking the money for themselves in fees/expenses, rather than passing it on to others to spend on the various community projects etc?
> 
> Or that they were using the money for projects which brought the two named individuals financial gain?


Did you read what I wrote?

To go back towards first principles - since that is what you seem to want, Brixton Green in their response to the 16th June Brixton Buzz article said this: "*Jason Cobb* has also made accusations that Brixton Green has been “pocketing” money from Lambeth Council. The only funds Brixton Green has received from Lambeth Council were to pay for the Blockworkout gym equipment, an upfront hire fee for use of Number Six and repayment of costs Brixton Green incurred for engagement and events we carried out on behalf of Lambeth Council."

I can't actually find where Jason Cobb used the word "trousering" - can you help here?

Furthermore even Brixton Green are not alleging that Jason Cobb has said particular people are stealing money intended for the project - are they?

So what is you point sir?

I am approaching the time of life where I would rather debate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Can't you seek to emulate my example?


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2015)

The bit that's worth remembering is that what was posted up wasn't an opinion piece or a personal blog or an idle tweet: it was an _official statement_ from the Board Of Brixton Green, linked from the front page.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 5, 2015)

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/07/...t-moves-a-step-closer-to-agreeing-final-deal/

Read the report. Jason article brings out main points.

The development costs have double from first estimate. Whilst the Council say the scheme is still viable.

Makes much of how this scheme is co produced. With BG :



> Other conversations came about through Brixton Green’s ongoing community
> engagement



page 279 of (draft) Cabinet report

and:


> Extensive consultation is still taking place,for example at the community event which took place
> on Saturday 27th June 2015 when all the emerging designs were shown and generally supported by the local residents.This dialogue will remain a key aspect of what makes the Somlerleyton Road project unique and will continue until the project is fully complete.



As Jason points out they are referring to the street party. This party which had protest about the way BG was engaging with the community. No mention of that in the report.

So the report is the usual boring whitewash to be rubber stamped by Cabinet. No real discussion of community engagement. On how to improve it.


----------



## editor (Jul 5, 2015)

I'd like to see some figures to support the claim that the designs were "generally supported by the local residents".

How many residents? 5? 20 100?


----------



## Winot (Jul 5, 2015)

editor said:


> I'd like to see some figures to support the claim that the designs were "generally supported by the local residents".
> 
> How many residents? 5? 20 100?



Maybe they asked 2 residents and they generally supported it.


----------



## editor (Jul 6, 2015)

I wonder if futurebrixton noticed that the person they pictured on their website was holding a Reclaim Brixton leaflet and wearing a Brixton Fightback t-shirt? 






Their report adds: 



> It was clear that people were very supportive of the new outdoor spaces.  The community-growing garden was especially popular. You had some interesting ideas for this space including an edible garden, a seating area and opportunities for children to grow food.


Hmm. What happened the last time an Edible garden was proposed around Brixton?

I see that chef's school is still on the, err, menu. I winder how many local people said they wanted that?> And who's going to run it? 

http://futurebrixton.org/somerleyton/feedback-from-the-somerleyton-street-party/

http://futurebrixton.org/somerleyton-road/designing-somerleyton-road/


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 6, 2015)

editor said:


> Their report adds:
> 
> 
> Hmm. What happened the last time an Edible garden was proposed around Brixton?
> ...



A while back I put in long comment saying the site was in danger of being over developed. They were trying to cram to much into the site. This would have effect on those who lived on the new development and has this been taken into account. No answer to that so that probably just got shelved somewhere.

Thing is about a lot of this consultation is that its asking about things one is not going to oppose. Like do u think "A place to play" is a good idea. Well no I hate kids. .

The more controversial issues are decided by the Steering Group. Such as the amount of affordable housing, what kind etc etc. How and who will manage it. These discussions take place without broader community involvement.

The second comment I would make about the street party is that Igloo are doing there job which is to produce detailed plans that will be put into a planning application. Architects have been assigned to do design work. Igloo work for the Council.

So what is Brixton Green for exactly? Brad in the SLP article goes on about the "bigger picture" of this project to redevelop this large site and that BG have "worked hard to bring positive change". This is Council project with Igloo as the consultants to manage aspects of this large project. Not BG. The "bigger picture" is the one the Council is taking lead on.

BG were supposed to be the experts on "community engagement". It was telling that the Saturday event was an Igloo event not BG. Not an accident. I think some in Council know that BG brand is not universally liked.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 6, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> BG were supposed to be the experts on "community engagement". It was telling that the Saturday event was an Igloo event not BG. Not an accident. I think some in Council know that BG brand is not universally liked.



Brad was apparently "on holiday" when the street party took place. It was most weird having a street party without any BG representation.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 13, 2015)

Lambeth Labour/Jack Hopkins setting out their stall prior to tonight's report back at Cabinet http://lambethlabour-labourclp132.nationbuilder.com/somerleyton_redevelopment_takes_a_step_forward


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Lambeth Labour/Jack Hopkins setting out their stall prior to tonight's report back at Cabinet http://lambethlabour-labourclp132.nationbuilder.com/somerleyton_redevelopment_takes_a_step_forward





> he other distinctive thing about development is the genuinely collaborative approach to planning and design. Residents have been involved right from the start, providing ideas for what they and their neighbours need in this part of Brixton



I like the way Carlton Mansions HC has been written out of the narrative of how this project is being developed with residents.



> Even after the last brick has been laid at Somerleyton, residents will continue to be in control as the final development will be managed by local people through a new housing cooperative.



Someone asked me last weekend why I was not involved in this. Its because some officers and Bennett do not want me around. I know as I have been told this.

And no mention of the debacle around Number 6 managed by Brixton Green.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 15, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> And no mention of the debacle around Number 6 managed by Brixton Green.


Actually there was a mention of this in the cabinet item about Somerleyton Road.
Cllr Jack kind of glossed over it, saying words to the effect that there had been a problem and people had fallen out, but it was now all sorted.
I don't think Tricky Skills was around to record audio on Somerleyton - it was as if everyone evacuated at the end of the Cressingham item.


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Actually there was a mention of this in the cabinet item about Somerleyton Road.
> Cllr Jack kind of glossed over it, saying words to the effect that there had been a problem and people had fallen out, but it was now all sorted.


It's not even slighted sorted with most of the parties involved furious with Brixton Green. They've been an absolute disaster and it's going to get a lot worse for them.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> <snip> I don't think Tricky Skills was around to record audio on Somerleyton - it was as if everyone evacuated at the end of the Cressingham item.


Sorry about that.  I can only speak for myself, but it had been a very long day and some of us had only eaten once since breakfast in order to get there on time*.

*To clarify:  In order to get into the cabinet meeting, and attend the protest before it, I set off at 5.20ish, and was either waiting around, walking, or protesting every minute until 7pm.  The meeting began at 7pm and our segment took until (I think) 8pm, maybe later?  Sorry that Somerleyton people were let down.  I had a voice recorder with me, and switched on; I suggest that anyone who can attend such a meeting does likewise.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 15, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Sorry about that.  I can only speak for myself, but it had been a very long day and some of us had only eaten once since breakfast in order to get there on time*.
> 
> *To clarify:  In order to get into the cabinet meeting, and attend the protest before it, I set off at 5.20ish, and was either waiting around, walking, or protesting every minute until 7pm.  The meeting began at 7pm and our segment took until (I think) 8pm, maybe later?  Sorry that Somerleyton people were let down.  I had a voice recorder with me, and switched on; I suggest that anyone who can attend such a meeting does likewise.


I'm not criticising anybody at all - and the Somerleyton Road item was not for decision, but a report on progress to date.

Because of this the chairman of Brixton Green (Stephen Jordan), and Brad, and Deborah from Oval House were there to hear what was said. They were not sitting at the table and did not speak to the item.

I don't think any Somerleyton people (meaning those involved in the earlier issues) were actually there at the meeting.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 15, 2015)

editor said:


> It's not even slighted sorted with most of the parties involved furious with Brixton Green. They've been an absolute disaster and it's going to get a lot worse for them.


Looks like Councillor Jack feels his remit is to present an appearance of normality then. I guess people wanting to challenge this at councillor level would have to take it up with him, since he seems to have been given oversight of the project at the moment.


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Because of this the chairman of Brixton Green (Stephen Jordan),


The definitely not-local Jordan oversaw the Kings Cross development - a 'public space' which is in fact a private estate. A bit like Pop Brixton, if you will.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 15, 2015)

editor said:


> The definitely not-local Jordan oversaw the Kings Cross development - a 'public space' which is in fact a private estate. A bit like Pop Brixton, if you will.


Not much like Somerleyton Road is it?


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Not much like Somerleyton Road is it?


Who knows the secrets of Brixton Green's ever shifting plans. Who knew that Phillipe would become involved in Pop?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Actually there was a mention of this in the cabinet item about Somerleyton Road.
> Cllr Jack kind of glossed over it, saying words to the effect that there had been a problem and people had fallen out, but it was now all sorted.
> I don't think Tricky Skills was around to record audio on Somerleyton - it was as if everyone evacuated at the end of the Cressingham item.



I was around for Somerleyton, but I didn't record any audio. I was still slightly spooked after Brad decided to sit next to me for the Cressingham debate, and then attempted to enter into a WEIRD game of staring me out.

He freaked me out slightly, so I decided against recording any audio.

It was all incredibly odd.


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2015)

The bad news for Brixton Green is that there's now video evidence that proves without any doubt that I was not in the building and scaring children as they claimed. And then there's the matter of the multiple eye witnesses and the police who also know that I was not there. They'd better hurry up with that apology as things are going to get a whole load trickier for them soon.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Actually there was a mention of this in the cabinet item about Somerleyton Road.
> Cllr Jack kind of glossed over it, saying words to the effect that there had been a problem and people had fallen out, but it was now all sorted.



What annoys me about this is in the case of the residents who live on the site- at Carlton Mansions- we got the Council on our case like a ton of bricks. 

In the case of of Brixton Green they get treated with kid gloves. 

The fact of the matter is BG , supposedly representing the community interests, were given Number 6 to manage as a Meanwhile use. 

As in the case of Pop Brixton this was experiment to see how things would work.

Its turned out to be a disaster. The very time BG were given the opportunity to show us all how to do it they screwed it up. 

BG cannot blame anyone else for this. The Council gave it to them. Its not the Councils fault.

So instead of glossing it over Cllr Hopkins should take a serious look at BGs further involvement in the scheme. To look at other ways to involve the community.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 15, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> So instead of glossing it over Cllr Hopkins should take a serious look at BGs further involvement in the scheme. To look at other ways to involve the community.



Cllr Hopkins and Brad are pretty indistinguishable to me.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 15, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Cllr Hopkins and Brad are pretty indistinguishable to me.



Interesting the Cllr Hopkins said that the problem had been sorted.

Its not sorted out yet from what I have heard. Still ongoing. Its the Council who have had to step in to try and sort out mess caused by BG.


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2015)

Brixton Green really are a shambles.



Brixton Green stand accused in video for 6 Somerleyton Road community centre


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2015)

editor said:


> Brixton Green really are a shambles.
> 
> 
> 
> Brixton Green stand accused in video for 6 Somerlyton Road community centre



are you missing an e from somerleyton?


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> are you missing an e from somerleyton?


It was a momentary oversight.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2015)

editor said:


> It was a momentary oversight.


even homer nods


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2015)




----------



## Gramsci (Jul 17, 2015)

editor said:


> Brixton Green really are a shambles.
> 
> 
> 
> Brixton Green stand accused in video for 6 Somerleyton Road community centre




I was chatting to someone who was not unsympathetic to BG who said the situation at number 6 was "chaotic"




> Only this week at Cabinet, Cllr Jack Hopkins, the Cabinet member for Jobs and Growth described working with* Brixton Green as like working with a “family.*” The experience of many local people has led them to question if this is a dysfunctional family.



Did he mean like Italian mafia?


----------



## David Clapson (Jul 18, 2015)

To save me reading the whole thread, I wonder if someone could tell me who runs BG and what their goals are?


----------



## editor (Jul 18, 2015)

David Clapson said:


> To save me reading the whole thread, I wonder if someone could tell me who runs BG and what their goals are?


No one knows. That's the problem.


----------



## organicpanda (Jul 18, 2015)

editor said:


>


'Association of Pinnocchio with Brixton Green is defamatory. If you do not remove the artwork immediately you will be party to defamation.'
Brad Carroll
Director
Brixton Green

anyone else seen this quote on Facebook? had to share


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 18, 2015)

I was going to put this up as well organicpanda as also saw it on my FB

After seeing editor photo just had to go down to get my photo. Happened to turn up when the ex Number 6 were present. Appears BG ie Brad are emailing and phoning all and sundry. They are apoplectic with anger. 

I told the person who did it I thought it was great piece of street art. Instead of being just angry it used humour. In the best traditions of satire. Well impressed. It overlooks the main street for all to see.

Had a long chat with those who did this. Probably not best to repeat all that was said here. As the issue to still ongoing. Including legal issues.

My view is that Council should take BG off the steering group of the Somerleyton road project. Same goes for Green Man who after what has happened should be kept off the project until this has all been resolved. That is imo the number 6 should be kept empty for the while. Brixton Green contract with Council should be suspended until this is satisfactorily dealt with. I also think the Council should make a statement about how they are dealing with this situation.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 18, 2015)

David Clapson said:


> To save me reading the whole thread, I wonder if someone could tell me who runs BG and what their goals are?



Brad.

There goal is and always has been to get control of the site.

The Somerleyton road project is a Council run project. The Council have hired architects etc to produce plans for the project. The Council will borrow funds to build the project and will retain the freehold.

Oval house theatre will relocate to the site. They will raise funds to build a new theatre on the site. Which they will manage. The old Carlton Mansions building will be converted into workshops (hopefully) to be managed by OHT.

Brixton Green is run by local worthies. They hope that the Council will hand over site for them to manage under some kind of new managing body. Yet to be decided (publicly that is)

So the Council gave them Number 6 to manage as a Meanwhile use. As experiment so that BG could show how they can deal with local community and manage part of site.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 19, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> As experiment so that BG could show how they can deal with local community and manage part of site.



Because that worked out well.

It is this whole petri-dish style experimentation with the Co-op Council that is so infuriating. Try out new Third Way models, be innovative, collaborative, incubate bollocks.

These might sound sexy for an Officer writing a Council report, but they are bloody destructive when you try and 'implement' them in the real world where people need help and support.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 22, 2015)

On Sunday it was painted over:






And today I saw its back:


----------



## organicpanda (Jul 22, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> On Sunday it was painted over:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I hope whoever painted it over on Sunday either cleans up the paint or is charged for the cleaning up operation


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 22, 2015)

organicpanda said:


> I hope whoever painted it over on Sunday either cleans up the paint or is charged for the cleaning up operation



Yes they dripped the paint all over the Councils nice paving.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 22, 2015)

I wonder who did it? Looks like it was done by someone who was very very angry.


----------



## organicpanda (Jul 22, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> I wonder who did it? Looks like it was done by someone who was very very angry.


'strokes chin'


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 22, 2015)

Well this is most odd. The mysterious Brixton Green has re-published the statement to its website. Except it has been edited to delete out the lies that it has been telling about Brixton Buzz, editor and me. But absolutely no explanation as to why the edits have taken place, let alone a public apology.

And Lambeth Council somehow still feels fine to partner up with the organisation.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 22, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Well this is most odd. The mysterious Brixton Green has re-published the statement to its website. Except it has been edited to delete out the lies that it has been telling about Brixton Buzz, editor and me. But absolutely no explanation as to why the edits have taken place, let alone a public apology.
> 
> And Lambeth Council somehow still feels fine to partner up with the organisation.



Your link does not quite work. Statement here

I see it says Brixton Buzz have responsibility to report the facts.

Yet again in this edited version BG are taking credit for things that are not down to them.



> *Great organisations coming to Somerleyton Road*
> 
> We’ve convinced some great organisations to locate on Somerleyton Road.
> 
> ...



No they did not convince Ovalhouse to come to Brixton. As I said before OHT were looking at the site long before BG turned up.



> In 2013, after 5 years of campaigning, Brixton Green convinced Lambeth Council to develop the road in partnership with the community. This was a hard slog. There were dozens of meetings and a lot of lobbying and work to prove what the community wanted was viable. It was touch and go at times. But we succeeded. Early next year construction is due to start.



Incorrect. The Council had been looking at options for the site for a while. One of which was that the Council develop the site. Its something that other Councils in London have been doing. It was not down to BG that the Labour administration took the political decision to develop the site itself.

The BG statement still mixes up what the Council have decided with BG.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 28, 2015)

The June minutes [pdf] for the Somerleyton Road Steering Group have now been published after a little more prompting.



Street Party and Public Realm consultation event (27th June)

"Street Party / Public Realm engagement event discussed. Some nervousness expressed by architects due to local tensions, but all agreed to proceed following work behind the scenes by SD and Brixton Green to resolve."

No 6 is still locked. Some resolution.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2015)

I shall be making a statement on the defamatory lies that Brixton Green published about me shortly. I have given them ample opportunity to apologise, so instead it shall be on the front page of Brixton Buzz and tweeted out to 20k followers.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> No 6 is still locked. Some resolution.



As I understand it their line is that it is available to anyone that wants to hire it out. Which seems reasonable enough unless it was previously agreed that it was free to use and that it would be left unlocked.

Whether there's been a change in policy over its use is very unclear. Despite all the "news" reports none seem to have established what the actual deal was/is.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Whether there's been a change in policy over its use is very unclear. Despite all the "news" reports none seem to have established what the actual deal was/is.


Good luck getting any clear information out of Brixton Green.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2015)

It's a question that the groups who have been "locked out" ought to be able to answer.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2015)

teuchter said:


> It's a question that the groups who have been "locked out" ought to be able to answer.


Why don't you drop them a line? I'm sure they'd be happy to answer.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 28, 2015)

teuchter said:


> As I understand it their line is that it is available to anyone that wants to hire it out. Which seems reasonable enough unless it was previously agreed that it was free to use and that it would be left unlocked.
> 
> Whether there's been a change in policy over its use is very unclear. Despite all the "news" reports none seem to have established what the actual deal was/is.



What proof do you want?

It might be Brixton Green line that anyone can hire it. But that is just them saying it. Ru saying you take what BG say on face value?

I have dealt with BG in past. I have also talked to SWU and Brixton Come Together.

I suggest you do as you clearly do not believe what is posted here.

I do not just come on here and make stuff up.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 29, 2015)

I treat BG's statements and what I read on here with similar levels of scepticism. Not because I think anyone is lying as such, but because what ought to be fairly straightforward facts to establish remain remarkably murky. Statements such as "the community has been locked out" don't convey much information. Locked out in such a way as a previous agreement has been broken by BG, or locked out as in told that they must pay for the space like anyone else? Aside from who counts as "the community" and who doesn't. Similarly, the video that was going around a while ago failed to convey any information other than "we feel we do good stuff here and for some vague reason we are pissed off with BG".

I'd just like to understand the actual situation before forming an opinion - is there something wrong with that?

No, I haven't interviewed all parties concerned myself, or written them all emails demanding facts. I am not a journalist and don't have the time / am too lazy to do so. I'm commenting on what is presented here.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 29, 2015)

And, Maria Santos popped up on here - I asked some questions (which others answered) but then she disappeared after that one post. It would have been interesting to hear more direct from her.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 30, 2015)

teuchter - with your encyclopedic knowledge of trains, can you say what is going on at the Victoria line ventilation shaft/electricity sub station down Somerleyton Road a short distance from No 6?

It's got scaffolding and a canopy worthy of Pop Brixton!


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2015)

teuchter said:


> And, Maria Santos popped up on here - I asked some questions (which others answered) but then she disappeared after that one post. It would have been interesting to hear more direct from her.


Why not contact her directly rather than wait for her to return here, given that she clearly is not a regular contributor?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 30, 2015)

CH1 said:


> teuchter - with your encyclopedic knowledge of trains, can you say what is going on at the Victoria line ventilation shaft/electricity sub station down Somerleyton Road a short distance from No 6?
> 
> It's got scaffolding and a canopy worthy of Pop Brixton!


No idea I'm afraid.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 30, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I treat BG's statements and what I read on here with similar levels of scepticism. Not because I think anyone is lying as such, but because what ought to be fairly straightforward facts to establish remain remarkably murky. Statements such as "the community has been locked out" don't convey much information. Locked out in such a way as a previous agreement has been broken by BG, or locked out as in told that they must pay for the space like anyone else? Aside from who counts as "the community" and who doesn't. Similarly, the video that was going around a while ago failed to convey any information other than "we feel we do good stuff here and for some vague reason we are pissed off with BG".
> 
> I'd just like to understand the actual situation before forming an opinion - is there something wrong with that?
> 
> No, I haven't interviewed all parties concerned myself, or written them all emails demanding facts. I am not a journalist and don't have the time / am too lazy to do so. I'm commenting on what is presented here.



I was asking you what kind of proof you require before coming to an opinion.

From what I can see you what you want is called by historians would "primary sources". That is you want documentary proof in writing of agreements that were made or broken.

ie the written agreement between Lambeth Council and BG about granting the management of Number 6. What the responsibilities of both sides are/ were. What Number 6 was to be use for and what community use it would have.

The agreement between BG who managed the space and Brixton Come Together and Small World Urbanism. Was it written or verbal.

Unless you have these primary documentary sources you cannot have an opinion either way.

The issue of what a community group is second question once these conditions of proof have been met.

You could email BG and ask.

As for BG lying. They did put up a statement on there website making allegations against the editor . The statement was taken off the website then a new one went up without those allegations. Draw you own conclusions of BG truthfullness.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 30, 2015)

Of course primary sources are always the best ones if you can get at them. That takes a certain amount of effort - an amount I might be willing to expend if I was a journalist writing up the story, but not as a casually interested bystander.

Establishing which facts both sides agree on is a good starting point.

Unfortunately, no-one reporting on this story seems to have been very interested in getting those basics established. I aint saying that I have some kind of right to have such journalism delivered to me for free. Just, it's a shame the reporting on this has been a bit crap, and hence I find it hard to form much of an opinion.


----------



## editor (Jul 31, 2015)

But hard to get both sides of the story when one side refuses to directly answer emails and flounces off from discussions.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 31, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I aint saying that I have some kind of right to have such journalism delivered to me for free. Just, it's a shame the reporting on this has been a bit crap, and hence I find it hard to form much of an opinion.



When an organisation is telling lies about you, it is difficult to present this in an objective way.


----------



## editor (Jul 31, 2015)

When I get a moment I'l be posting up my thoughts about their recent statement and they'll be more than welcome to respond to the points that I'll be sending out to 20k Twitter followers. 

The title of my piece will be: The Lies Of Brixton Green. In Detail.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2015)

Ah, Looks like 'flood damage' has ended Brixton Green's lease at #6. 

Brixton Green ends contract with Lambeth Council for 6 Somerleyton Road due to ‘flood damage’

LOL.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 14, 2015)

editor said:


> Ah, Looks like 'flood damage' has ended Brixton Green's lease at #6.
> 
> Brixton Green ends contract with Lambeth Council for 6 Somerleyton Road due to ‘flood damage’
> 
> LOL.



What a shambles.

BGs chance to show how they can manage a development and it ends up like this.

The Council should think really hard who will manage the finished development and how it will be managed.

Its  however unfortunately likely that the leading lights in BG will not be affected by this in long term.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 14, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> What a shambles.
> 
> BGs chance to show how they can manage a development and it ends up like this.
> 
> ...



You say "leading lights", I say "cockwombling dim-bulbs".


----------



## Rushy (Sep 14, 2015)

Before being handed to Brixton Green it was let on a commercial lease to a market business (who sub key it to others for storage and prep). They also gave the site up because the site was constantly flooding and the cost of repairing the roof was uneconomical compared to the lease length.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 14, 2015)

Damn you and your pesky facts.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Sep 14, 2015)

Taken from the Service Level Agreement with Lambeth Council, here's what Brad has claimed he has done to No.6:

"Coordinated the clearing and refurbishment of the space, repair of the main roof."

Bloody facts.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 14, 2015)

Many of my repairs fail.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 14, 2015)

Yes. The previous occupants tried to repair it too. On a budget. It worked briefly. 

I understand that Lambeth contributed some cash toward the recent temporary repairs. It would be interesting to know how much and what repairs were specified.  And what contractors had to be/ were used. Etc... I'd be surprised if it weren't one of Lambeth's big contractors.

Certainly the quotes the commercial guys received to make it good were properly huge.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Sep 14, 2015)

Rushy said:


> It would be interesting to know how much and what repairs were specified. And what contractors had to be/ were used. Etc..."



That's a very good question. And what budget Brad used to pay for these repairs as well.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 14, 2015)

So are BG still suspected of financial misappropriation in connection with this?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Sep 14, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So are BG still suspected of financial misappropriation in connection with this?



Not by me. I would just like to know where the funding came from to repair the roof. I've asked Brad, but he's still ignoring me.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 14, 2015)

Brad was telling me a while back how he had sorted out the roof.

The leaking roof is just an excuse. Never came up as an issue when the so wonderful Green Man took it over on behalf of BG.

The "Meanwhile" management of the building by BG failed.

So BG threw in the towel and gave the building back to the Council. Or were prompted by the saner elements in the Council that it might be better for all concerned to end the debacle now.

Thats how I see it reading between the lines.

From what I’ve heard the saner Council officers had to step into this mess and deal with BGs ineptitude in dealing with different community groups.

Does wind me up that the BG muppets get so much time from the senior Cllrs like Cllr Hopkins. I do know that some of the Council officers are not so happy about BG. Or to be exact certain of the leading lights in BG.

Its where the Coop Council falls down. The Council ( or rather senior politicians) decide which group is to represent the community. And the Council officers and the rest of us have to just deal with it.


----------



## editor (Sep 14, 2015)

Brixton Green are a bunch of fucking liars.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 14, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Not by me. I would just like to know where the funding came from to repair the roof. I've asked Brad, but he's still ignoring me.



According to what Brad said to me he sorted out the roof economically to last the life of the building. He was quite insistent on that point. From what I saw it was all done above board.

Which is why I was surprised to read that was the reason BG gave to end the Meanwhile use in your article.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 14, 2015)

As I said its where the Coop Council falls down. BG are an independent entity. 

At least if it was purely Council development one can ask Ward Cllrs what is happening. They are in the dark as much as the average local resident. 

Secondly as Council have chosen BG as the community partner for the scheme it gets to the point were BG cannot be seen to fail in any way as that will put the Council judgement in question.

Personally I think the opposite is the case. If the Council got rid of BG the scheme would still go ahead. The theatre and housing would still be built.  They don’t need BG other than for political purposes of the Coop Council idea.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Does wind me up that the BG muppets get so much time from the senior Cllrs like Cllr Hopkins. I do know that some of the Council officers are not so happy about BG. Or to be exact certain of the leading lights in BG.
> 
> Its where the Coop Council falls down. The Council ( or rather senior politicians) decide which group is to represent the community. And the Council officers and the rest of us have to just deal with it.



TBF, we're most of us aware that "the co-operative council" is merely a convenient device for the likes of Hopkins, Edbrooke _et al_ to hive off costs and responsibilities to (vaguely) "third sector" bodies. The council itself has proven again and again that the true meaning of co-operation - i.e. between Lambeth's residents and the council - doesn't figure in their vocabulary.
"Social enterprises" like Brixton Green allow councils to do execute their hiving-off agenda more smoothly, and invariably create a network through which mutual back-patting and promotion takes place, giving a semblance of proper functioning to what sometimes appear to be costly exercises in wasting the money of Council Tax and rent payers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2015)

editor said:


> Brixton Green are a bunch of fucking liars.



Proveably a bunch of fucking liars too, I do believe.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 15, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> As I said its where the Coop Council falls down. BG are an independent entity.
> 
> At least if it was purely Council development one can ask Ward Cllrs what is happening. They are in the dark as much as the average local resident.
> 
> ...



Well quite, and if a project goes tits-up, Jacko Hopko and the other smug red Tory gits can lay the blame on BG, rather than having to suffer humiliation themselves.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 15, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well quite, and if a project goes tits-up, Jacko Hopko and the other smug red Tory gits can lay the blame on BG, rather than having to suffer humiliation themselves.



I think its worse than what you say.

As you post in #446 a network is being created.

The network of senior Cllrs like Jacko and the leading lights of BG is already in place. BG fit in with the Lambeth Labour "Progress" party thinking. Not surprising that BG leading light is involved in Pop. Which Cllr Jacko see as a great experiment in how to combine entrepreneurial vision with social good.

The Number 6 debacle is an example is where its gone tits up. The result?- face saving solution was found. BG are safe to transform themselves into some kind of management body for the finished development.

Ovalhouse will run the theatre and hopefully Carlton Mansions workshop units. Though BG would like to get there hands on the Mansions still I think.

But the danger for the Council is that several years down the line they may need to step in to take over the finished project. Given BG record in managing Number 6.

The argument from BG that they will have no role in finished project is semantics. The leading lights definitely want big role in whatever management body is set up to manage the finished scheme.

To add - I keep thinking Corbyn is in charge of Labour party now. Can this Nu Labour Lambeth just go away please. Its tedious having to deal with it. No wonder a lot of people I know around Brixton, who are Labour, wanted Corbyn. These experiments in different ways of doing things like Somerleyton and Pop just do not mean anything to a lot of people I know.


----------



## editor (Sep 25, 2015)

Look at the fucking size of this.












Yeah, that's just what local residents wanted, alright.

Still, I bet that chef school and training restaurant  will work out nicely for Phillipe. 

Future Brixton


----------



## Crispy (Sep 25, 2015)

Full planning application available here 

Design & Access Statement (250MB PDF)

Plenty to read, so I'll reserve comment for now.
120 social rented flats out of 300 is not to be sneezed at.

A planning consultation exhibition will be held at the BCA for Somerleyton Road on the following dates and times

Tues 13 Oct 5.30pm to 8pm
Wed 14 Oct 12pm to 2pm
Sat 17 Oct 12pm to 3pm


----------



## editor (Sep 25, 2015)

Is 'social rented' actual council flat rates or is it something as vague and as upwardly flexibile in pricing as 'affordable rents'?


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 25, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Full planning application available here
> 
> Plenty to read, so I'll reserve comment for now.
> 120 social rented flats out of 300 is not to be sneezed at.
> ...



A very helpful objection already lodged ￼


Ignoring that, 50% affordable units is pretty impressive


----------



## Crispy (Sep 25, 2015)

editor said:


> Is 'social rented' actual council flat rates or is it something as vague and as upwardly flexibile in pricing as 'affordable rents'?


Their words:



> We’ll build at least *121 homes at social (or council) rent levels* and around 31 homes at below market rent for families in low pay.


----------



## editor (Sep 25, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Their words:


That 'or' makes things wonderfully vague. 

And 'affordable' is already proved to be pretty much a nonsensical term.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Sep 25, 2015)

On the plus side - Nuclear Dawn is staying.

There are some very confused arguments though about Carlton Mansions in the documentation:

"The building is however, structurally sound and only needs cosmetic restoration work to revive it."

And then...

"Carlton Mansions was found to be unfit for habitation for emergency escape reasons."

BBuzz piece.


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 25, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> "The building is however, structurally sound and only needs cosmetic restoration work to revive it."
> 
> And then...
> 
> ...



Don't think they are confusing. A platform thirty feet up might be structurally sound, but you wouldn't live there without a safe way down.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 25, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Don't think they are confusing. A platform thirty feet up might be structurally sound, but you wouldn't live there without a safe way down.



Me and my community were perfectly happy there. 

I havent read all the Council stuff as it increasing my blood pressure.

To set facts right. I recently looked at old emails between our lawyer and Council lawyers the gung ho city firm of Devonshires. 

It was made perfectly clear that "fire risk" was an excuse. They and the Council officers involved said that if they could not get the risk to work then , as we were all in court , would pursue vacant possession on basis of the Somerleyton road project. 

To make it clear. Sections of the Council Regen dept and officers wanted an empty building. They wanted the existing community out of sight. 

For some officers in Regen they wanted a blank slate to work on. The existing long standing community on the site was for them a problem. They found a reason to get us out. Took them a year but they ground down an existing community.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 25, 2015)

As I take an interest in my area Im on the Future Brixton email list. Got this today. Thankfully Tricky Skills had warned me about the planning application. 

Got as far as reading this quote from Cllr Jacko:


> Cllr Jack Hopkins said, “Somerleyton Road is not just about a development providing homes and community facilities. It’s about making an investment in a community which will stand the test of time, come what may. Driven by communities for communities, I think it heralds a new way for local people, the Council and partners to work together – putting people above profit and keeping value in communities”



What can I say. Restraining myself here. What a wanker. 

Good to see my Ward Cllrs who supported my community not quoted. 

Jacko is a little jumped up Nu Labour politician on the make. How he can come out with this shite I dont know. Well I do it all this New Labour bollox. What Jacko forgets is that its Corbyn not Blairite Kendall who won leadership.


----------



## boohoo (Sep 25, 2015)

Gramsci

I think Jack Hopkins is failing to mention that it is a community they are shaping. They aren't helping the existing community - they are creating a new community carefully manufactured by the council (With huge disregard for what was already there)


----------



## Tricky Skills (Sep 25, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> For some officers in Regen they wanted a blank slate to work on. The existing long standing community on the site was for them a problem. They found a reason to get us out. Took them a year but they ground down an existing community.



Jacko referenced this during the July Cressingham Cabinet meeting. He mentioned his pet Somerleyton project and rather clumsily tried to link this in with Cressingham:

"It is a lot easier to do regeneration with a blank canvas like Somerleyton Road. The process hasn’t gone right. Recognising that you already have a strong community is important."

But Somerleyton was never a blank canvas. There was a housing co-op that the Co-operative Council wanted to remove, just so that it could "support sustainable communities."

It's all a load of bollocks, Jacko.

And bollocks to them all.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 25, 2015)

Masterplan:


----------



## boohoo (Sep 25, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Don't think they are confusing. A platform thirty feet up might be structurally sound, but you wouldn't live there without a safe way down.



Carlton mansions was fine to live in. It had three staircases all leading to the roof, alley ways on either side with windows that opened out onto them. One quarter of the flats were on the ground floor with the second quarter one storey up - so possible to jump from in case of emergency. 

The council wanted us out. We got a second official opinion on the fire risk and it was quite different from the council's man.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Sep 25, 2015)

Plus I'm still not sure why Jacko has his fingers all over Somerleyton. The Steering Group initially included Pete No Seat Robbins as the Cabinet representative, the then Portfolio Holder for Housing.

When Robbins was booted out by his Larkhall ward, you would expect Cllr Matthew Bennett, the new Housing Cabinet member to take over the role.

Is Somerleyton about housing or business?

Jacko's role at Cabinet is basically to push a fluffy Tory business agenda under the guise of Nu Labour.

Speaks volumes about what Somerleyton, Pop etc are really about.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Their words:



The phrase "social *or* council rent levels" is what I find worrying, for the following reason: During a "resident Q & A" at Cressingham, a council functionary defined "council rents" as arrived at via the council's current borough-wide scheme for establishing those rents (which includes repayment of building loans, development costs etc) , whereas "social rents" are arrived at as a percentage of local market rents for similarly-sized and appointed housing, as are so-called "affordable rents".
This leaves Somerleyton open to councillors being tempted by the payday rather than the opportunity to trim the housing list.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Sep 25, 2015)

btw - anyone spotted Brad venturing up towards Cressingham of late? Don't forget that the 'success' of the Somerleyton model has been mentioned as one to import over to the estate regeneration programme.

You poor, poor sods.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> As I take an interest in my area Im on the Future Brixton email list. Got this today. Thankfully Tricky Skills had warned me about the planning application.
> 
> Got as far as reading this quote from Cllr Jacko:
> 
> ...



Jacko is slipping. He could have shoe-horned at least another two mentions of community into that statement.
Not that he's got a clue what the word means.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 25, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Jacko referenced this during the July Cressingham Cabinet meeting. He mentioned his pet Somerleyton project and rather clumsily tried to link this in with Cressingham:
> 
> "It is a lot easier to do regeneration with a blank canvas like Somerleyton Road. The process hasn’t gone right. Recognising that you already have a strong community is important."
> 
> ...



The last years of the Coop were always difficult. As the Coop was "Short Life" it was periodically necessary to lobby my Ward Cllrs to get officers to back off. Or rather those officers in Regen who wanted us out and some of the Cllrs who hated S/L.

My Ward Cllrs - Rachel, Donatus and Matt - deserve credit for always arguing our corner in difficult, for them, circumstances. 

It was always playing cat and mouse with Council and finally the cat won.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 25, 2015)

What gets me at a so far limited look at this is the way the Carlton Mansions HC has been erased from the history of the Somerleyon road site.


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 25, 2015)

Gramsci boohoo, he said the two statements were confused; that one could not follow the other. They are not confused as they are not mutually exclusive. Whether or not the stated reason for the removal of the community is true is a different discussion. Perhaps I misunderstood his meaning.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 25, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> btw - anyone spotted Brad venturing up towards Cressingham of late? Don't forget that the 'success' of the Somerleyton model has been mentioned as one to import over to the estate regeneration programme.
> 
> You poor, poor sods.



Brad and Castaing ( over at Pop) the kind of  people that Nu Labour politicians can work with.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 25, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Gramsci boohoo, he said the two statements were confused; that one could not follow the other. They are not confused as they are not mutually exclusive. Whether or not the stated reason for the removal of the community is true is a different discussion. Perhaps I misunderstood his meaning.



What are you going on about.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2015)

boohoo said:


> Gramsci
> 
> I think Jack Hopkins is failing to mention that it is a community they are shaping. They aren't helping the existing community - they are creating a new community carefully manufactured by the council (With huge disregard for what was already there)



That disregard is absolutely essential to the model (regeneration) that they're pursuing, although they'll rarely openly state this. Paying regard to established communities would mean undermining that model and accepting the damage it has done, is doing and will continue to do.
By essentially redefining community as "something *we* create through housing policy", they circumvent messy arguments about the destruction their policies have wrought at Carlton; at St Agnes; at Rushcroft etc, and will wreak at Cressingham, Central Hill etc - the dismantling of actual existing communities. Communities aren't just people, Jacko. They're about people *and* place, and how they interact. Re-house people on "regenerated" estates, and there's absolutely no guarantee that those same people will re-cohere into the same community as before.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Sep 25, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Perhaps I misunderstood his meaning.



You choose to misunderstand many things around here. It's quite an art form. A very low form of art, mind.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> btw - anyone spotted Brad venturing up towards Cressingham of late? Don't forget that the 'success' of the Somerleyton model has been mentioned as one to import over to the estate regeneration programme.
> 
> You poor, poor sods.



If I do spot him, he'd better duck. "Whoops, sorry! That ball-bearing was aimed at the tree-rat!".


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 25, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> You choose to misunderstand many things around here. It's quite an art form. A very low form of art, mind.



Can we have less of these personal attacks please


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 25, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Plus I'm still not sure why Jacko has his fingers all over Somerleyton. The Steering Group initially included Pete No Seat Robbins as the Cabinet representative, the then Portfolio Holder for Housing.
> 
> When Robbins was booted out by his Larkhall ward, you would expect Cllr Matthew Bennett, the new Housing Cabinet member to take over the role.
> 
> ...



At the beginning of the Somerleyton road project it was a Coldharbour Ward Cllr who attended all the meetings.Either Rachel or Matt.

For some reason the Ward Cllrs were pushed out of it.

Never understood why. They didnt ( understandably given the nasty way one can get treated in the Labour group), ever explain why.

I got distinct feeling that the Ward Cllrs were not happy they had been sidelined. To the point that they knew as much about the project as jo blogs like me.I know they were not informed of decisions about the site until after they had been taken. They also found BG opaque. 

I think the Somerleyton road project became a flagship project for the Nu Labout revitalization of the third way.


----------



## boohoo (Sep 25, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Gramsci boohoo, he said the two statements were confused; that one could not follow the other. They are not confused as they are not mutually exclusive. Whether or not the stated reason for the removal of the community is true is a different discussion. Perhaps I misunderstood his meaning.



Hello Spammy *waves*.

I see what you are saying.  

But read it this way:

The building only needs some cosmetic repair.

So officer workers can be there from 7am til 9pm or later.... (it will be used for theatre people who keep different hours).

However this space wasn't suitable for people to live in because the emergency exits weren't suitable.

The community was removed because of the emergency exits/fire risk but people can now spend most of their day in the building and be safe thanks to a paint job. phew.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 25, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Can we have less of these personal attacks please



Tricky Skills is right. You choose to misunderstand things. Either you really dont get it or you are winding people up.

I think you are winding posters up then coming across as all innocence.


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 25, 2015)

boohoo said:


> Hello Spammy *waves*.
> 
> I see what you are saying.
> 
> ...



Do we know what the fire regulation differences are between day use and night use?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 25, 2015)

boohoo said:


> The building only needs some cosmetic repair.



And why does it only need cosmetic repair? Because the Coop kept the Mansions going by patching it up over the years.


----------



## boohoo (Sep 25, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Do we know what the fire regulation differences are between day use and night use?



No idea. It might be that if all the office workers burn, they are covered by insurance and it would be their fault whereas it might have been unclear where responsibility lay with the co-op. Who knows? It was a good place to live and I miss being part of that community.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 25, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Do we know what the fire regulation differences are between day use and night use?



Can u give it a rest?

We are talking about people like boohoo who were born in South London, were active in local community in positive way ( the mural society) and had wonderfull Lambeth Council evict them from there home and community against there will. Done btw in a particularly "un cooperative" nasty manner by hot shot city lawyers Devonshires.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 25, 2015)

boohoo said:


> It was a good place to live and I miss being part of that community.



And I still miss a lot of the Coop members like you.


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 25, 2015)

boohoo said:


> No idea. It might be that if all the office workers burn, they are covered by insurance and it would be their fault whereas it might have been unclear where responsibility lay with the co-op. Who knows? It was a good place to live and I miss being part of that community.



So did the council release the fire assessment? Presumably that would reference the relevant regulations and help explain their (right or wrong) justification for the decision


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 25, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Can u give it a rest?
> 
> We are talking about people like boohoo who were born in South London, were active in local community in positive way ( the mural society) and had wonderfull Lambeth Council evict them from there home and community against there will......



Will you shush. What on earth has being born in South London got to do with anything?!! One half of my family were born and raised in Brixton. So what?


----------



## Crispy (Sep 25, 2015)

The building regulations for fire are complex but flexible (and do differ between housing and office space). But with enough careful design, almost anything can be made to satisfy the requirements. The reasons given for evicting Carlton Mansions were spurious.

In a kick to the teeth, the "creative interventions" made by the coop over the years (ie painting, plastering, decorating) will be left in-situ to provide "character"


----------



## Crispy (Sep 25, 2015)

Carlton Mansions and Lambeth politics aside, the rest of the scheme is pretty well thought out, in my mind.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Sep 25, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Carlton Mansions and Lambeth politics aside, the rest of the scheme is pretty well thought out, in my mind.



I would reserve judgement until more details are given about the 'community management' of the project.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 25, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> I would reserve judgement until more details are given about the 'community management' of the project.


I mean purely from a physical layout POV. Big questions still remain over the politics.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 25, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Will you shush. What on earth has being born in South London got to do with anything?!! One half of my family were born and raised in Brixton. So what?



Just fuck off.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 25, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> A very helpful objection already lodged


Can't see how underground car parking can be accommodated (as per the supporting comment) unless they remove the Victoria Line.
Maybe the car backlash is here. George Wright - you are needed in Somerleyton Road!


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 26, 2015)

Crispy said:


> In a kick to the teeth, the "creative interventions" made by the coop over the years (ie painting, plastering, decorating) will be left in-situ to provide "character"



I haven't looked at the planning application yet but last time I talked to the architect the Council had decided there was an issue with the staircases. As they are wooden.

Will have to check this.Typical Council officer doing it all by the rule book. The wooden stairs are quite a feature and unusual. Its such bollox if they have to go. Im around Soho a lot and there are several office/ workshop buildings with original wooden staircases.

The thing about Mansions was that as it had never been modernised it still had a lot of original features intact.

To be fair to Zac the architect he did get in touch with me and I have talked to him.As he wanted to know the history of the Mansions.

However most people who are ex Coop members are understandably unwilling to talk as they feel that the Council may use the "creative interventions" and character we left behind to make the building interesting and quirky for the Councils benefit.

I also asked Zac to keep the old laundry at the back. The Mansions had its own laundry when originally built which most of remains.

One of the reasons it still intact is the way its built. Its got a lot of structural walls. Not sure why but structural engineer I showed around remarked on it. Maybe because its by a railway line. It does shake a bit at the top.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 26, 2015)

CH1 post on LJ thread about Lambeth Archives day tomorrow reminds me that Lambeth archives have finished cataloging the Coop and short life files and info I donated on behalf of Coop. Also including my small archive of S/L photos etc. 

I have to see the head Archivist in next few weeks and discuss with ex Coop members whether a few things will be left out because they are sensitive. 

Apart from that the Lambeth Archives will soon have on public access a lot of Short Life and Mansions material.


----------



## boohoo (Sep 26, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Will you shush. What on earth has being born in South London got to do with anything?!! One half of my family were born and raised in Brixton. So what?



Because I am the sort of community that Lambeth will use when it is convenient and screw over when it is convenient.

And stop stirring! I am sure i have the fire risk assessment if you want to work your way through it so that you can give us your wise opinion. I'm sure someone on here can give you answers to the difference in fire regulations for spaces used as homes or offices - I suggest you start a thread.


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 26, 2015)

For the last time, I'm not stirring.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 26, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> At the beginning of the Somerleyton road project it was a Coldharbour Ward Cllr who attended all the meetings.Either Rachel or Matt.
> 
> For some reason the Ward Cllrs were pushed out of it.
> 
> ...


I get the feeling that, in the case of _my_ 3 (Labour) Ward Cllrs, although they complain about being kept in the dark they find that it provides them with some very convenitent plausible deniability.  

I say this, because I know that when people living here repeatedly tried to tell them exactly what was going on with the so-called consultation process, (some of us mentioning what had happened in the working groups etc), the Ward Cllrs preferred to ignore us and believe whatever the council chose to tell them.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 26, 2015)

Greebo said:


> I get the feeling that, in the case of _my_ 3 (Labour) Ward Cllrs, although they complain about being kept in the dark they find that it provides them with some very convenitent plausible deniability.



Point taken. 

Someone else said to me a while back the same as what u have said here. They said that I am to understanding of my Ward Cllrs. That they now exactly what is going on.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Sep 26, 2015)

There will be an exhibition including a scale model of the whole development - I'll post up details as soon as I have them, and they will be on the Future Brixton site, of course.

Council rent / social housing rent definitely means that - not some weasly version of 'affordable' etc.

The question of preserving Carlton Mansions' features is an interesting one. It is an intention of Ovalhouse, Zac Monro Architects and the council team working on Somerleyton Rd that the history of Carlton Mansions - the fabric of the building, of it's residents and the social history - be told through and in the building and not obliterated. We have seen the preservation of as many original features as possible as part thrifty, part preserving the building as it is as far as possible, and in doing so keeping it's character, rather than being 'quirky' or gimmicky. But it can be a fine line.

The stair cores will be replaced.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Sep 26, 2015)

OvalhouseDB said:


> The question of preserving Carlton Mansions' features is an interesting one. It is an intention of Ovalhouse, Zac Monro Architects and the council team working on Somerleyton Rd that the history of Carlton Mansions - the fabric of the building, of it's residents and the social history - be told through and in the building and not obliterated.



I understand the good intentions here, but it sounds like the place where some people once called home is being turned into a museum exhibit.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Sep 26, 2015)

As I say: it can be a fine line.

As I think has been discussed on these boards before, between us, the architects and Ovalhouse are taking care of some old stones which were in one of the courtyards, on the advice of co-op member / former residents. We will bring them back and use them somewhere once they can be installed securely (they are not actually originally form Carlton Mansions but from another co-op). The laundry is being preserved. Where they still exist the fireplaces are staying - they document a interesting history as they were not installed in the typical way, best ones at the front, plainest at the back. The plaques on the front of the building will stay - why would anyone remove them? I don't think any of this constitutes a museum exhibit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 26, 2015)

OvalhouseDB said:


> The stair cores will be replaced.



Any idea what they're replacing (wood, brick or iron-work), and what with?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 27, 2015)

OvalhouseDB said:


> As I say: it can be a fine line.
> 
> As I think has been discussed on these boards before, between us, the architects and Ovalhouse are taking care of some old stones which were in one of the courtyards, on the advice of co-op member / former residents. We will bring them back and use them somewhere once they can be installed securely (they are not actually originally form Carlton Mansions but from another co-op). The laundry is being preserved. Where they still exist the fireplaces are staying - they document a interesting history as they were not installed in the typical way, best ones at the front, plainest at the back. The plaques on the front of the building will stay - why would anyone remove them? I don't think any of this constitutes a museum exhibit.



I think I can say no one in the Coop has any beef with you or Ovalhouse theatre.

I personally think Zac so are is trying to do a sensitive and imaginative reuse of the Mansions.

It s good to hear the plaques will stay. The Coop members are concerned that the Council is trying to write us out of the history of the site. Its not you they were worried about its the Stalinist elements of the Council bureaucracy who would not want a plaque up on front of Mansions. I still wouldn't put it past them to find a reason to remove them.

Its the same do it by the book officers ( not Neil) who decided the stairs have to go. Which I am not at all happy about. Good thing imo opinion Zac is the architect. If the Council desk jockeys had there way the whole inside of building would have been torn down with just the front and mural wall kept.

The issue of incorporating history of Coop in the Mansions is sensitive as Ex Coop members are so upset at what the Council did to them. They rightly see in the end this is a Council project. The Council regard this as a flagship innovative project of urban development. Its nauseating for me to read Cllr Jacko going on about community involvement in the scheme.

I think one of the best things I did ( along with another one of the last Coop members who drove the van)  was to get the Coop files and all the S/L stuff I kept to Lambeth Archives. In the last weeks it could have got lost. I now think its going to be the way the Coop is not erased from history.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Sep 27, 2015)

People make interesting points, and I'm thinking that another discussion with the Brixton Society is due.

But I probably shouldn't get involved in too much discussion at this stage, because the Planning process is important in it's own right, without me going 'yes but...' 

I am very happy to answer questions, where I can.

The stair cores are wooden, beautiful step-worn treads - I'll check about the replacements. I am sure I do know but will double check.


----------



## Gniewosz (Sep 27, 2015)

I thought it was going to be up to 11 stories, but I can't seem to find any pictures that show the true height of the development... maybe I have missed something.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 27, 2015)

OvalhouseDB said:


> People make interesting points, and I'm thinking that another discussion with the Brixton Society is due.
> 
> But I probably shouldn't get involved in too much discussion at this stage, because the Planning process is important in it's own right, without me going 'yes but...'
> 
> ...



Thanks. I suspect that the replacement/renewal will be to bring the stairs "up to code" for a building in commercial use, i.e. steel cores/frames with or without wood cladding.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 27, 2015)

The stairs are being entirely replaced. They're too narrow and steep for non-residential use.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Sep 29, 2015)

Details of the Planning Consultation Exhibition:
BCA
Tues 13 Oct 5.30pm to 8pm
Wed 14 Oct 12pm to 2pm
Sat 17 Oct 12pm to 3pm


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Oct 1, 2015)

Crispy said:


> The stairs are being entirely replaced. They're too narrow and steep for non-residential use.


The materials have not been fully decided - probably steel and wood. The new stairs are enclosed within a fire protective 'atrium',

The current / old stair treads will be re-used / upcycled - not trashed.

The date being given for comments to be received by is 23rd October - although comments can be submitted to the council right up until the planning meeting , mid - December.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 2, 2015)

OvalhouseDB said:


> The materials have not been fully decided - probably steel and wood. The new stairs are enclosed within a fire protective 'atrium',
> 
> The current / old stair treads will be re-used / upcycled - not trashed.
> 
> The date being given for comments to be received by is 23rd October - although comments can be submitted to the council right up until the planning meeting , mid - December.



I would like to get photographic record of the Mansions done before any works start. 

As it clear there will be more alterations than I thought.

I have local photographer who is interested.


----------



## editor (Oct 2, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> I would like to get photographic record of the Mansions done before any works start.
> 
> As it clear there will be more alterations than I thought.
> 
> I have local photographer who is interested.


I'll do  it!


----------



## Tricky Skills (Oct 9, 2015)

"Somerleyton Road is exciting, innovative and genuinely crafted through partnership."

Poor Jacko. He has morphed into the bullshit that his hero Mr Tony use to spout out.

Empty. Hollow. Means fuck all.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 9, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> "Somerleyton Road is exciting, innovative and genuinely crafted through partnership."
> 
> Poor Jacko. He has morphed into the bullshit that his hero Mr Tony use to spout out.
> 
> Empty. Hollow. Means fuck all.


This is the authorised version.
Since Brad is a lettings agent apparently (or maybe simply a landlord) is he hoping for some business here as a letting agent for the scheme? Just a thought.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 10, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> "Somerleyton Road is exciting, innovative and genuinely crafted through partnership."
> 
> Poor Jacko. He has morphed into the bullshit that his hero Mr Tony use to spout out.
> 
> Empty. Hollow. Means fuck all.



Interesting comment at the end of the Brixton Blog piece:



> Whereas this article gives a great sense of the strengths and potential of Somerleyton Rd Mr Carroll and / or Brixton Blog does the council a disservice in implying that Brixton Green have had to ‘fight’ for all the houses to be for rent. When I was first canvassed about this Brixton Green were planning a more traditional development model, albeit community led. At one of the workshop meetings I went to it was intimated that the council wanted to pilot a new model and keep the land themselves rather than sell it off.



This is accurate.

The idea that the Council retain ownership and rent/ lease all properties on site was Council idea not Brixton Green.

So were a lot of the ideas for the site. Brixton Green still push idea its all down to them.

At recent meeting I was at they kept referring to it as "there" project. When its not. Its Council project.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Oct 10, 2015)

It's saying something when Jacko and his Nu Labour pals are seen as the restraining force in this 'exciting' and 'innovative', and 'genuinely crafted partnership.'

What are Brad's property interests around Brixton?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 10, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> "Somerleyton Road is exciting, innovative and genuinely crafted through partnership."
> 
> Poor Jacko. He has morphed into the bullshit that his hero Mr Tony use to spout out.
> 
> Empty. Hollow. Means fuck all.



"Dear councillor Hopkins, could you please explain precisely who the 'partnership' you mention was between?"


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 10, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> It's saying something when Jacko and his Nu Labour pals are seen as the restraining force in this 'exciting' and 'innovative', and 'genuinely crafted partnership.'
> 
> What are Brad's property interests around Brixton?



From what Ive heard and seen its some of the better Council officers who have had to step in at times as a "restraining force". And yes that’s saying something.

Surprised the Brixton Blog article says Brad business is in property. Normally keeps quiet about it.

What is sad about this is that the idea is not all bad. Involve the local community etc.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Oct 11, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Surprised the Brixton Blog article says Brad business is in property. Normally keeps quiet about it.



Strangely Brixton Green Community Land is being shown as dissolved at Company Check.

Likewise for Bradley Carroll Consultancy Ltd.

Ditto for Annie-mail Ltd, a company that Brad was listed as being a Director of. There is a liability of £311,587.

Unless this is a different Brad Carroll? They are all listed on the same profile page though.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 11, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Strangely Brixton Green Community Land is being shown as dissolved at Company Check.
> Likewise for Bradley Carroll Consultancy Ltd.
> Ditto for Annie-mail Ltd, a company that Brad was listed as being a Director of. There is a liability of £311,587.
> Unless this is a different Brad Carroll? They are all listed on the same profile page though.


I was sniffing around Companies House website but had not twigged Bradley Joseph Carroll might be the very one. Had assumed not because there seemed to be an Irish connection - and the North West Powerhouse is quite closely linked to Ireland demographically.

However if you have turned up a company called Brixton Green Community Land Ltd that suggests this is Brad and that dissolved company was his. I think more searching is called for - though having a dissolved company with no assets is no big thing. If he turned out to be a director of Keating Estates for example that would be news - but I don't think he is actually a prolific director unlike Jerry Knight - or Julian Pycraft of 400 Coldharbour Lane (ex Granada minicabs and soon to be Rosies Thai Restaurant) .


----------



## teuchter (Oct 11, 2015)

Did the Brixton Buzz article setting out Brixton Green's alleged lies and demanding apologies ever actually happen in the end?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Oct 11, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Did the Brixton Buzz article setting out Brixton Green's alleged lies and demanding apologies ever actually happen in the end?



You mean this from back in July?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 11, 2015)

No, it was going to be entitled "The Lies of Brixton Green in Detail" or similar. Publication announced as imminent at the end of July. I can't link to the relevant post without contravening my gagging order.


----------



## editor (Oct 23, 2015)

They've stuck up a load of banners showing the proposed developement on the corner of Somerleyton Road. I stood and chatted to locals for a while and the reaction to the plans was overwhelmingly negative. One pointed out the lack of black people in the mock ups (a la Brixton Square) while several others expressed surprise and dismay at the sheer scale of the proposals.

"It's mainly for rich folks," seemed to be the consensus.


----------



## editor (Dec 16, 2015)

Lambeth have approved the scheme. 



> Our ambitions to build 304 new homes, a theatre and much more at Somerleyton Road were given the go ahead by the council’s planning committee last night. This means work could start on the £100 million scheme in Spring next year.
> 
> Over a number of years, the council, Brixton Green, Ovalhouse, local people and the design team have worked together to plan a ‘street for all ages’ – from the children’s nursery to the extra care homes.
> 
> ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 16, 2015)

editor said:


> Lambeth have approved the scheme.



I do wish someone would quantify what Brixton Green have actually done, besides acting like twats.


----------



## editor (Dec 16, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I do wish someone would quantify what Brixton Green have actually done, besides acting like twats.


And lied too.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 16, 2015)

Brixton Green seem to have a new website compared to when I last looked.

Q&A | Brixton Green

Although the strange URL makes me wonder if it's supposed to be live yet


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 16, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I do wish someone would quantify what Brixton Green have actually done, besides acting like twats.



At the moment they are working on how the finished scheme will be managed. From what I’ve been told the consultation for it is invite only (by Brixton Green).



> The development will be owned and managed by local people, businesses and the wider community.



( From Future Brixton)

No detail or how it will be managed. I wonder if nearby residents have been asked about this? ( maybe editor knows?)


----------



## editor (Dec 16, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> At the moment they are working on how the finished scheme will be managed. From what I’ve been told the consultation for it is invite only (by Brixton Green).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know nothing about it.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 16, 2015)

editor said:


> I know nothing about it.



I attended a recent meeting of the Brixton Neighbourhood Forum ( on behalf of BRUG). An offshoot of Brixton Society and normally a friendly gathering of different community groups.

The recent one I attended Brixton Green turned up to talk about "Their planning application" thats just been agreed. They have been going around telling people its a Brixton Green planning application.

Forgetting the fact that its not a Brixton Green planning application they managed to wind me up before meeting. ie asking why I attended Brixton meetings any more as I was out of the Mansions etc.

Anyway they went on at such a length without actually saying much detail that other groups did not have time to say what they were doing. Including the great work they had done at Number 6. Which I pointed out at meeting was not something that certain other community groups- Brixton Come Together- thought.

I asked about long term management as this was an issue that is important and there had been little detail on. Met with silence on this from BG. They were fuming about my questions.

Did get back up from others at meeting.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Brixton Green seem to have a new website compared to when I last looked.
> 
> Q&A | Brixton Green
> 
> Although the strange URL makes me wonder if it's supposed to be live yet



Thanks for this.

Well. Interesting read.



> *Who will own the completed development?*
> 
> Lambeth Council will retain the freehold providing 250 year leases to the Ovalhouse Theatre (for the theatre) and to a new community body for the remainder of the site.
> 
> ...



So the new "Community Body" will have a lease for 250 years. Thats how I read it.

My acquaintance already said to BG there are issues about a Coop were people will be on different tenancies and rent levels. Normally in permanent Coops everybody is the same. I agree I think this is an issue.

Also if the Coop is for the housing this implies that there will be a two tier body. The Housing Coop and the "community body".

So will the Coop come under the Council or will it be sub licensed to the "community body"? From what Ive heard it will come under the "community body".

All sounds very complicated to me. Is it adding to many layers of management that will add a lot ff cost to the completed Council project in long term?

And what does this mean in practise:



> 40% of the homes will have genuine low cost rents, the kind of rents that the Council sets.



How will this be guaranteed in the future? "Kind of" is to vague for me.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 16, 2015)

editor said:


> I know nothing about it.



And from a chat with one of my local Cllrs they are in the dark as well. Its Cllr Jackos project.


----------



## editor (Dec 16, 2015)

I still wonder what Lambeth are doing dealing with such a shifty, opaque, opinion-dividing, shambolic outfit who posted up an official statement from their board that was full of defamatory lies.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> At the moment they are working on how the finished scheme will be managed. From what I’ve been told the consultation for it is invite only (by Brixton Green).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I strongly suspect that the detail will be "managed by Brixton Green for fees", and that "managed by local people, businesses and the wider community" (a rather broad definition) will be manipulated to mean whatever Lambeth Council and Brixton Green want it to mean.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2015)

editor said:


> I still wonder what Lambeth are doing dealing with such a shifty, opaque, opinion-dividing, shambolic outfit who posted up an official statement from their board that was full of defamatory lies.



What are Lambeth doing?
Living down to their reputation.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 17, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I strongly suspect that the detail will be "managed by Brixton Green for fees",





> *Do Brixton Green get paid?*
> 
> No. Brixton Green has no paid staff. Our director, secretary and trustees give their time to the project on a voluntary basis.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2015)

What does the current organisation of Brixton Green have to do with any future management agreement they might conclude with Lambeth council?


----------



## snowy_again (Dec 17, 2015)

Because it would require a new constitution or an amendment to its existing one - which would fundamentally change the way it operates? 

Its current legal framework prevents 'office holders' eg. co. sec, chair, directors, trustees from remuneration under the Charities Act?

And as a membership body that would require ratification by its members?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 17, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> What does the current organisation of Brixton Green have to do with any future management agreement they might conclude with Lambeth council?


This is what they say about their future involvement



> *Will Brixton Green be the new community body?*
> 
> No. Brixton Green's role is to make sure the community are at the forefront of the redevelopment. When the new community body is up and running, the community will have succeeded and Brixton Green's job will be done.


----------



## editor (Dec 17, 2015)

From my hands-on experience of sitting in with meetings with Brixton Green related to this development, I can say that they seemed to have a very, very flexible approach to their involvement. 

So flexible in fact, it was nigh on impossible to work out what they were doing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2015)

teuchter said:


> This is what they say about their future involvement



That's nice, general and meaningless. They're making a promise that isn't really a promise - "Brixton Green" being an industrial and provident society whose "involvement" anywhere *should* be decided by the membership, not the board.
Even if Brixton Green as an entity is no longer involved in the "new community body", it's likely that some of the same names and faces will be.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 17, 2015)

So really you'd only be satisfied by Brixton Green to making a commitment now, as an organisation, that none of its current board members will be involved in the new community body.


----------



## editor (Dec 17, 2015)

Did I say that Brixton Green are a bunch of liars who posted up some seriously defamatory comments signed by all the board and then quietly and cowardly removed them when challenged? 

I did? Oh well. It's always worth bearing that in mind when discussing them. It tells you a lot about their credibility.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So really you'd only be satisfied by Brixton Green to making a commitment now, as an organisation, that none of its current board members will be involved in the new community body.



No, I'd be satisfied by the current board members making such a commitment.


----------



## snowy_again (Dec 18, 2015)

Which depends on general members votes - as you say it's a traditionI I & P - all of which they will have member records for.

We've *all* always questioned the boards representative role - now is your chance to question them again about that - given that we will be in a due diligence stage.

Fundamentally that will have a longer term impact than ed using u75s strong seo profile to reiterate his statement that the bg board (but not its members) lied or misrepresented an incident, and then tried to change their story after challenge.  No one of local or national govt influence will frankly give two hoots what's posted on here, despite Google rankings. But like Peter Andre (God bless his soul) if you're going to claim defamation - please pursue it, and win it.


----------



## editor (Dec 18, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> Fundamentally that will have a longer term impact than ed using u75s strong seo profile to reiterate his statement that the bg board (but not its members) lied or misrepresented an incident, and then tried to change their story after challenge.


Not 'misrepresented.' They posted up a defamatory account saying that I disrupted a meeting that I wasn't  anywhere near and there's video evidence to prove that. They're fucking liars. A post on Buzz might alert more people to that fact.


----------



## snowy_again (Dec 18, 2015)

Fair enough - I wasn't there so can't claim to know the details from either perspective. If it was defamation, what did a solicitor say to you about redressing it?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Dec 18, 2015)

There is some unfinished business from the events at 6 Somerleyton Road over the summer months being completed this morning.

Croydon Magistrates Court, 10am:

"Using threatening abusive behaviour with intent to provoke unlawful violence."

Answering the charge is someone who was involved in the management of No 6 at the time, but appears to have since changed their name.


----------



## editor (Dec 18, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> Fair enough - I wasn't there so can't claim to know the details from either perspective. If it was defamation, what did a solicitor say to you about redressing it?


Sadly, pursuing damages for defamation in the UK is famously expensive, vastly time consuming and rarely worth the bother. It's a rich man's pastime.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Dec 18, 2015)

Michael Groce of Green Man Skills Zone was found guilty this morning with the charge of using threatening abusive behaviour with intent to provoke unlawful violence outside No 6, whilst he was managing the space "on behalf" of Brixton Green.

He will be sentenced in the New Year.


----------



## snowy_again (Dec 18, 2015)

He's Cherry Groce's son?


----------



## editor (Dec 18, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Michael Groce of Green Man Skills Zone was found guilty this morning with the charge of using threatening abusive behaviour with intent to provoke unlawful violence outside No 6, whilst he was managing the space "on behalf" of Brixton Green.
> 
> He will be sentenced in the New Year.


That asks real questions about Brixton Green's judgement. Have they made a statement?


----------



## leanderman (Dec 18, 2015)

editor said:


> That asks real questions about Brixton Green's judgement. Have they made a statement?



Is there a report of this court case?


----------



## CH1 (Dec 18, 2015)

Tricky Skills said:


> Michael Groce of Green Man Skills Zone was found guilty this morning with the charge of using threatening abusive behaviour with intent to provoke unlawful violence outside No 6, whilst he was managing the space "on behalf" of Brixton Green.
> 
> He will be sentenced in the New Year.


No wonder I could never get a CV for myself out of the so-called Skill Zone.

As the Rap PR guy once said to Louis Theroux "Where's your danger?"

A career in engineering followed by charity accounting is clearly well wide of the mark for that lot.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 18, 2015)

If one looks for mention of Michael Groce on urban75, previous to this incident, the impression seems to be that he is firly well regarded as a community-minded good guy, albeit with a tricky past. And now this has happened and questions are being asked about Brixton Green's judgement in employing him to manage a community-oriented facility. Who knows the full story here - who provoked who and how and why. But it seems fair to say the situation with no. 6 probably wasn't quite as simple as some have been trying to portray it, in terms of who is to blame.


----------



## editor (Dec 18, 2015)

One thing is for sure: Brixton Green's statement about Number Six -  the one they hastily pulled down and then quietly republished while making no mention of the sections they'd removed - contained several malicious lies and untruths.

Posting up defamatory comments about locals and then acting in such a sneaky, underhand and frankly dishonest manner surely raises many questions about how fit they really are to represent the local community.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 18, 2015)

teuchter said:


> If one looks for mention of Michael Groce on urban75, previous to this incident, the impression seems to be that he is firly well regarded as a community-minded good guy, albeit with a tricky past. And now this has happened and questions are being asked about Brixton Green's judgement in employing him to manage a community-oriented facility. Who knows the full story here - who provoked who and how and why. But it seems fair to say the situation with no. 6 probably wasn't quite as simple as some have been trying to portray it, in terms of who is to blame.



Yep. Hard to judge without context.


----------



## SpamMisery (Dec 18, 2015)

Sounds like they were on the receiving end of some nasty behaviour - seeing as it ended in a prison sentence!


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 18, 2015)

teuchter said:


> If one looks for mention of Michael Groce on urban75, previous to this incident, the impression seems to be that he is firly well regarded as a community-minded good guy, albeit with a tricky past. And now this has happened and questions are being asked about Brixton Green's judgement in employing him to manage a community-oriented facility. *Who knows the full story here - who provoked who and how and why.* But it seems fair to say the situation with no. 6 probably wasn't quite as simple as some have been trying to portray it, in terms of who is to blame.



In what sense are you using the word "provoke"?

Having a disagreement with someone does not mean that one should be on the receiving end of abusive and violent behaviour. Or that one brought it on oneself by "provoking" them.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 18, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> He's Cherry Groce's son?



Yes.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 18, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> In what sense are you using the word "provoke"?
> 
> Having a disagreement with someone does not mean that one should be on the receiving end of abusive and violent behaviour. Or that one brought it on oneself by "provoking" them.


In the sense that it was used in the charge he apparently pleaded guilty to.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 18, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Even if Brixton Green as an entity is no longer involved in the "new community body", it's likely that some of the same names and faces will be.



That is likely.

Always been aim of leading lights of BG to be main players in finished scheme.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 18, 2015)

teuchter said:


> In the sense that it was used in the charge he apparently pleaded guilty to.



In that case I don’t understand your post.

The police arrived at the incident and he was charged.

The other party was not charged with the same behaviour.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 18, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> No one of local or national govt influence will frankly give two hoots what's posted on here, despite Google rankings. .



Local government officers do take notice of whats posted here.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 18, 2015)

My issue is that the long term management of the site should not be decided by Brixton Green. There are parallels with whats happened up at LJ. 

The Council decided to work through one group in LJ its LJAG and in Brixton its BG.

This is not how it should be done. 

If the Council want a "community body" to manage the site they- the Council- should be asking / consulting people on it. Not "outsourcing" it to BG.

What I do not really understand is what the Council appointed development manager for the project Igloo are doing. I thought it was part of there brief to work with local community:



> Lambeth Council has appointed igloo as their development manager to lead the delivery of a major mixed-use regeneration scheme at Somerleyton Road, Brixton.
> 
> Acting as retained development manager to Lambeth (as funder and client) and their community partners, igloo’s role will see the project through from initial concept stage to completion. We will lead development delivery activity including the selection, appointment and management of the project team (including Metropolitan Workshop as architects), the development and evolution of the project brief, community engagement, design management, development delivery vehicle creation, sustainability and energy strategy, planning processes, tender, contractor selection and construction.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> My issue is that the long term management of the site should not be decided by Brixton Green. There are parallels with whats happened up at LJ.
> 
> The Council decided to work through one group in LJ its LJAG and in Brixton its BG.
> 
> ...



Igloo are doing much the same job as the companies that tendered for the "masterplanning" project management brief at Cressingham recently. The "community engagement" boils down to (non-binding) consultation about design and public-use space - if you're really lucky it includes dedicated community space too - and that's about it.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 19, 2015)

Twice this week I have had to explain to people that the planning application for Somerleyton road is not the "Brixton Green planning application".

Its an application by Lambeth Council

BG have been doing a big push going around telling local groups and individuals that this is there planning application. Also I have seen them do this- at last meeting of the Brixton Neighbourhood Forum.

Fact is its not there application. This is misleading people.

Its most annoying that they are trying to get credit for it.

The Council are paying for the architects. Its Council officers with the Council appointed design team that have developed the planning application.  Oval House theatre are paying for there architects and seeking there own funding. The scheme is a Council led project.

The actual status of BG is they are the community partners that the Council decided to choose to represent community on the Somerleyton road steering group.

The reason imo they have been doing this is that the leading lights are positioning themselves to take major roles in the community body that runs the finished site.

After the debacle of Number 6, the chance that the the Council gave to BG to show that they can manage a community space and act as broker for other community groups,ended in failure I am not at all happy with what will happen in the future.

I do not want whatever the management body is to be given 250 year lease on the finished project. Which the brand new BG website implies.

I have no reason to support the Council given what happened to my community. But choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea I would rather the finished project was under the control of democratically elected Cllrs not "community" leaders.


----------



## SpamMisery (Dec 19, 2015)

Do you know what involvement they have had in the planning application? 

Do you know that they are not using the term in the collective sense?


----------



## leanderman (Dec 19, 2015)

If anyone has an exaggerated sense of the importance of BG's role it could be because of the weirdly exaggerated importance they are accorded in this thread. 

And then there is reporting like this on Buzz over a criminal court case that has an undetermined link to BG, and which ends: 

'Earlier this week Lambeth Council passed the planning application for the future regeneration of Somerleyton Road, with Brixton Green still working alongside the Council as a trusted partner.'


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 20, 2015)

leanderman said:


> If anyone has an exaggerated sense of the importance of BG's role it could be because of the weirdly exaggerated importance they are accorded in this thread.
> 
> And then there is reporting like this on Buzz over a criminal court case that has an undetermined link to BG, and which ends:
> 
> 'Earlier this week Lambeth Council passed the planning application for the future regeneration of Somerleyton Road, with Brixton Green still working alongside the Council as a trusted partner.'



An "undetermined link"? Only if you ignore the obvious.
Mr Groce was a contractee of Brixton Green, charged with managing the community asset that Brixton Green were responsible for - i.e. Number 6. The link is clear - contractee of Brixton Green engages in moody behaviour. 
That's not to say that Brixton Green are responsible for Mr Groce's actions, but there's no escaping that he acted as he did as someone paid to apply Brixton Green's policies and wishes regarding that community asset.


----------



## editor (Dec 20, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> An "undetermined link"? Only if you ignore the obvious.
> Mr Groce was a contractee of Brixton Green, charged with managing the community asset that Brixton Green were responsible for - i.e. Number 6. The link is clear - contractee of Brixton Green engages in moody behaviour.
> That's not to say that Brixton Green are responsible for Mr Groce's actions, but there's no escaping that he acted as he did as someone paid to apply Brixton Green's policies and wishes regarding that community asset.


Indeed. Which is why it is entirely reasonable to expect Brixton Green to make a statement to the community about the affair. Or perhaps they're only interested in posting up statements full of nasty lies and bullshit?


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 20, 2015)

leanderman said:


> If anyone has an exaggerated sense of the importance of BG's role it could be because of the weirdly exaggerated importance they are accorded in this thread.
> 
> '



Have you had dealings with BG? I have had to.

I have explained on previous post that they have been going around calling the planning application the "Brixton Green planning application". You can either believe me or not. 

Its not this thread or Urban75 that is giving "weirdly exaggerated importance" to BG. Its BG that have been going around exaggerating there importance. 

Also this weekend I had two locals ( who do not post here) complaining to me about BG.

Issues with BG are not confined to this thread.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 20, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Do you know what involvement they have had in the planning application?
> 
> Do you know that they are not using the term in the collective sense?



No they are not using it in the collective sense. 

The planning application, design work, hiring of Igloo has all been done by Lambeth Council. It is a planning application put together by Lambeth Councils officers and those hired by Council. 

Ovalhouse hired there own design team.

The involvement that BG would have in the planning application is as the appointed representatives of the community on the Steering Group. That is they would have been consulted about the planning application.


So for BG to go around the local community calling it the "Brixton Green planning application" is totally incorrect.


----------



## editor (Dec 21, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> No they are not using it in the collective sense.
> 
> The planning application, design work, hiring of Igloo has all been done by Lambeth Council. It is a planning application put together by Lambeth Councils officers and those hired by Council.
> 
> ...


Didn't Brixton Green once claim that it was thanks to them that Ovalhouse was onboard?


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 21, 2015)

editor said:


> Didn't Brixton Green once claim that it was thanks to them that Ovalhouse was onboard?



They still trot that one out. Have to regularly explain to people that OHT had looked at the site as an option before BG arrived and that OHT are going to have there own lease with the Council for the land the theatre is on.

I get tired of having to keep explaining this. Did it again in the last week. It annoys me that BG mislead people about the project.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 21, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> An "undetermined link"? Only if you ignore the obvious.
> Mr Groce was a contractee of Brixton Green, charged with managing the community asset that Brixton Green were responsible for - i.e. Number 6. The link is clear - contractee of Brixton Green engages in moody behaviour.
> That's not to say that Brixton Green are responsible for Mr Groce's actions, but there's no escaping that he acted as he did as someone paid to apply Brixton Green's policies and wishes regarding that community asset.



With only a partial account to go on, it seems undetermined to me.


----------



## editor (Dec 21, 2015)

leanderman said:


> With only a partial account to go on, it seems undetermined to me.


Did Brixton Green appoint Groce to run No6: YES/NO?
If they did then their judgement has to be called into question - even more so given the fucking chaos that surrounded the running of that place and the lies they posted up as a board statement about some of the people involved.

If they can't even handle running a small community building for a short time, I'd suggest that that they may not be fit to run any kind of community project. I certainly will never trust them after the lies they posted up about me.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 21, 2015)

It remains the case that no-one reporting on this story has managed to establish what exactly the disagreements were about, as far as no 6 was concerned. We know that some users of the space felt entitled to be there and it appears that BG were of the opinion that they weren't. 

Now we know that someone working for an organisation linked to BG got pretty angry about whatever the disagreement was, and behaved inappropriately as a result.

But an important bit of the story remains a mystery.


----------



## SpamMisery (Dec 21, 2015)

I don't think it calls anything into question other than your objectivity on the situation


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> I don't think it calls anything into question other than your objectivity on the situation



You're a fine one to prate about "objectivity".


----------



## SpamMisery (Dec 21, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're a fine one to prate about "objectivity".



How so?


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 21, 2015)

teuchter said:


> It remains the case that no-one reporting on this story has managed to establish what exactly the disagreements were about, as far as no 6 was concerned. We know that some users of the space felt entitled to be there and it appears that BG were of the opinion that they weren't.
> 
> Now we know that someone working for an organisation linked to BG got pretty angry about whatever the disagreement was, and behaved inappropriately as a result.
> 
> But an important bit of the story remains a mystery.



Basically Brixton Green were given the building to run as a "Meanwhile Space". The agreement was between the Council and BG. So the Steering Group for the project were not involved.

Brixton Green ( that is the leading lights) had no real experience of running a space like this and dealing with different sections of the community.

This requires a people skills and management skills. None of which BG have or would take advice on.

The upshot was it ended in failure.

I have talked to Small World Urbanism and Brixton Come Together. I have already posted previously on this. One of SWU who did the garden outside Number 6 still tended the garden outside. Groce turned up and took offence to this and turned violent.

The situation should never have been allowed to arise in the first place. Groce/ Green Man Skills should not have been near the place until the dispute between BG and Brixton Come Together was resolved.

The important part of the story is not Groce the inability of BG leading lights to deal with community. As they want to manage the site ( in a new community body) my opinion is that the Council should look seriously at how and who will manage the finished site.

I am off the site and know I will not play a role in future. But I do have knowledge of having to deal with BG and also the project overall.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 21, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> I don't think it calls anything into question other than your objectivity on the situation



If it had not been for the Ed and Tricky Skills none of the events at Number 6 would have made it into news. The Groce case and its link to Number 6 would have not been known about.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 21, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Basically Brixton Green were given the building to run as a "Meanwhile Space". The agreement was between the Council and BG. So the Steering Group for the project were not involved.
> 
> Brixton Green ( that is the leading lights) had no real experience of running a space like this and dealing with different sections of the community.
> 
> ...



We know that something went wrong. We know that BG failed to stop something going wrong. However we don't actually know what they were trying to deal with. It was suggested at some point that some groups were using the premises without proper permission or without paying, and that this meant that other groups weren't able to use them. No-one seems able to give any details on this. Without knowing what problem BG was trying and/or failing to resolve it's not really possible to know what they could or should have done differently and whether it was reasonable to expect them to foresee these problems and deal with them without any kind of confrontation. 

It seems they found that they were unable to resolve things and they were handed over to Green Man (under what kind of formal arrangement I don't know). As I posted earlier, if you look on urban75 for mentions of Michael Groce you get the impression that he is fairly well liked and embedded in the community. I'm not suggesting that a cursory search of urban75 is sufficient as a means of assessing someone's suitability for a job but it also doesn't seem so outlandish that Brixton Green (whose "leading lights" are portrayed here as wealthy business-owning types distant from the "real community") might have considered him, in the context of the organisation he seems to work for, to be someone who might be able to sort things out when they couldn't. 

It turned out that he couldn't. It makes me wonder why. It makes me feel pretty sure that there's a lot of backstory to all this that we aren't seeing here. On both sides of the disagreement we have groups who say they are acting for the benefit of the community. I expect that they all are basically well intentioned but I'm not sure why we don't seem to be considering that both sides might have made mistakes or behaved in ways that perhaps could have been better.

You've compared BG's position with that of LJAG. I agree with you that it's unhealthy for any group of that kind to have a special relationship with the council, or to become the de facto representatives of a local community. But I think that we could probably also agree that LJAG had a certain amount of mud slung at them in recent events that they didn't entirely deserve. Their response was largely not to get into online battles of words with their detractors which is not disimilar to BG's response here and I can understand why.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 22, 2015)

teuchter said:


> It seems they found that they were unable to resolve things and they were handed over to Green Man (under what kind of formal arrangement I don't know). As I posted earlier, if you look on urban75 for mentions of Michael Groce you get the impression that he is fairly well liked and embedded in the community. I'm not suggesting that a cursory search of urban75 is sufficient as a means of assessing someone's suitability for a job but it also doesn't seem so outlandish that Brixton Green (whose "leading lights" are portrayed here as wealthy business-owning types distant from the "real community") might have considered him, in the context of the organisation he seems to work for, to be someone who might be able to sort things out when they couldn't.
> 
> It turned out that he couldn't. It makes me wonder why. It makes me feel pretty sure that there's a lot of backstory to all this that we aren't seeing here. On both sides of the disagreement we have groups who say they are acting for the benefit of the community. I expect that they all are basically well intentioned but I'm not sure why we don't seem to be considering that both sides might have made mistakes or behaved in ways that perhaps could have been better.
> 
> You've compared BG's position with that of LJAG. I agree with you that it's unhealthy for any group of that kind to have a special relationship with the council, or to become the de facto representatives of a local community. But I think that we could probably also agree that LJAG had a certain amount of mud slung at them in recent events that they didn't entirely deserve. Their response was largely not to get into online battles of words with their detractors which is not disimilar to BG's response here and I can understand why.



There is more to the backstory. I have been posting up as much as I am able of it on a public forum.

I did compare BG and LJAG. As I said if LJAG really wanted to get control of LJ they would take a few lessons from BG. However BG could learn lesson on management from LJAG who appear to run the Platform with no problems.

Funnily enough some of the leading lights of LJAG  have an admiration for the leading light of BG. There is an aspect of community politics where one gets strong minded characters who think they know best who have utter inability in the people skills department.My past life in Coop I had to learn to deal with people. With the Coop either people worked together or it fell apart.

LJAG have finally come unstuck over road closures and BG may have on Number 6. Both lack in the "soft skills" area.I have to see if BG final goal of getting control of the finished project ( and they have said they want this in more unguarded moments) will still happen. Given BG political nouse Id say they are still on track.

I have had more dealings with BG as they wanted the Somerleyton road site. You will have to take my word for it they are a nightmare to deal with. And its not just me who thinks this. I know some officers/ Cllrs and others who find the same. But no one will say anything in public. Its frustrating for me as it would corroborate what is posted here.

It would not matter much except that the Somerleyton road project is important big project for the Council and local community. How its managed and by whom is what concerns me.

Yes and getting Groce in as he appeared  "to be someone who might be able to sort things out". Quite. One might entertain as a possibility that the way he did it may have been foreseeable by BG. Why he should not have been given the place until the other dispute was resolved. Thats a management issue. If there is an dispute going on I would not have dumped it onto some other community group to deal with.

I know some of the better Council officers tried to intervene in the dispute. They know what BG are like.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 22, 2015)

teuchter said:


> It makes me feel pretty sure that there's a lot of backstory to all this that we aren't seeing here. On both sides of the disagreement we have groups who say they are acting for the benefit of the community. I expect that they all are basically well intentioned but I'm not sure why we don't seem to be considering that both sides might have made mistakes or behaved in ways that perhaps could have been better.



Spot on. It's pretty obvious that the narrative is incomplete, to be as damaging as possible to BG, for whom I hold no candle.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 22, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> I have had more dealings with BG as they wanted the Somerleyton road site. You will have to take my word for it they are a nightmare to deal with. And its not just me who thinks this. I know some officers/ Cllrs and others who find the same. But no one will say anything in public. Its frustrating for me as it would corroborate what is posted here.



I'm happy to take your word that you've found BG a nightmare to deal with. But you have dealt with them in a certain context and in a certain role.

There might be people who would tell me that one or other of the groups that BG got into the dispute with are "a nightmare to deal with".

I can tell you for certain that a local prominent community member with a grudge against BG is "a nightmare to deal with". In my experience.

All this anecdote may be true and might not be irrelevant. But it doesn't tell us terribly much about the bigger picture and how fair it is for the entirety of the blame to be laid at the door of one group amongst those who managed to get tangled in this situation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> How so?



Because you lack it.


----------



## editor (Dec 22, 2015)

One thing is for sure. Brixton Green are liars.


----------



## SpamMisery (Dec 22, 2015)

Pics or stfu 

And by pics, I mean evidence


----------



## editor (Dec 23, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Spot on. It's pretty obvious that the narrative is incomplete, to be as damaging as possible to BG, for whom I hold no candle.


Why are you choosing to completely ignore the opinions of people - like Gramsci, for example - who have either had many hands-on dealings with Brixton Green or are knowledgeable about what took place and know the people involved? If you think the narrative is so 'incomplete' why don't you post up your reasons for such a claim?

I've sat in meetings with Brixton Green and seen them in action. I know many people who had dealings with them and their opinions are very much in line with what's been said here. I know quite a few of the people who were directly involved in No 6 and have spoken to them on the matter.

I have also found myself being defamed by the bullshit and lies that were published in a (hastily withdrawn) official statement supported by all the board. So that's partly what I'm basing my opinions on. Actual evidence. I've seen how they work first hand and it's not pretty.

So what supporting evidence have you got to back up your assertions that it is so "obvious" that people are offering an incomplete narrative to be 'as damaging as possible to BG'?

Have you spoken to any of the people who were involved in No 6, for example? In fact, have you spoken directly to _anyone_ involved?


----------



## leanderman (Dec 23, 2015)

Yes - I did bother to speak to people directly involved.

Their story is different.


----------



## editor (Dec 23, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Yes - I did bother to speak to people directly involved.
> 
> Their story is different.


Oh, be sure to tell us who you spoke to and what they said. No need to be coy here! Who did you talk to at No 6?

Did you ask BG about the defamatory claims they posted about Brixton Buzz and me too? Why do you think they took the statement down as soon as they were challenged and then quietly put it back with several paragraphs missing? What's your opinion about that?


----------



## leanderman (Dec 23, 2015)

editor said:


> Oh, be sure to tell us who you spoke to and what they said. No need to be coy here! Who did you talk to at No 6?
> 
> Did you ask BG about the defamatory claims they posted about Brixton Buzz and me too? Why do you think they took the statement down as soon as they were challenged and then quietly put it back with several paragraphs missing? What's your opinion about that?



I started posting their claim, but thought better of it. Because this would breach a confidence, be second-hand, be potentially defamatorily awkward etc. Besides it's their fight.

Putting aside what they said, I am afraid I am not prepared to take at face value what vociferous and long-term critics of BG say about a BG-related dispute. This should be obvious.

In the same way, my evidence for my 'assertions that it is so "obvious" that people are offering an incomplete narrative to be "as damaging as possible to BG"' is that there is little or no evidence of anything here from the perspective of BG, or its partners.

Having both sides of the story is a journalistic principle. BG et al have not put their side, thus it's incomplete.

The retraction of the defamatory claims was embarrassing.


----------



## editor (Dec 23, 2015)

leanderman said:


> I started posting their claim, but thought better of it. Because this would breach a confidence, be second-hand, be potentially defamatorily awkward etc. Besides it's their fight.
> 
> Putting aside what they said, I am afraid I am not prepared to take at face value what vociferous and long-term critics of BG say about a BG-related dispute. This should be obvious.
> 
> ...


They've had every opportunity to put forward their side of the story. They have full access to their website, Twitter, social media etc. They have a print budget.

They could post here (despite their defamatory claims to the contrary, there is no policy of removing their posts, nor has there ever been). Sure they may not get the warmest of welcomes from all members, but if you're setting yourself up to represent the community, then you should be prepared to engage with everyone - including those who don't agree with you.

They could - and _should_ - have been quick to make a statement about someone _they appointed_ being charged with provoking unlawful violence in a facility _they were responsible for_.

But instead: nothing. A community mouthpiece that remains strangely quiet when the spotlight turns on them and that posts up lies and bullshit and then cowardly vanishes it away when challenged.

And for that they should be rightly be judged. As far as I'm concerned, they only represent their own interests.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 23, 2015)

Agreed. Their silence is embarrassing.


----------



## editor (Dec 23, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Agreed. Their silence is embarrassing.


Almost as embarrassing as them having the brass neck to stick their fucking misleading banner outside my block declaring that "WE SUPPORT BRIXTON GREEN"  before they'd never even bothered to approach the Resident’s Association for their opinion on the matter. It's that kind of thing that fucks me off. 

They're only here to promote themselves and their own interests.


----------



## Rushy (Dec 23, 2015)

Self promoting feckers shamelessly banging on about selflessly representing The Community whilst single mindedly progressing their own personal interests and agendas. It seems such folk are everywhere these days.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 23, 2015)

leanderman said:


> I started posting their claim, but thought better of it. Because this would breach a confidence, be second-hand, be potentially defamatorily awkward etc. Besides it's their fight.
> 
> Putting aside what they said, I am afraid I am not prepared to take at face value what vociferous and long-term critics of BG say about a BG-related dispute. This should be obvious.
> 
> ...



If you are to be totally even handed then you should not take as you say" their claim" as the facts either.

In which case you should regard both sides as vociferous critics of each other and therefore not reliable sources on factual information.

Which logically leads to you should not be making any assertions either way with the lack of "incomplete narrative".

Then we come onto what is a complete narrative.

Listening to a historian on the radio an he said, in a way journalism is history. History of the present day. All history is incomplete and continually revised.

To be realistic historians and journalist have to make judgements based on the incomplete evidence they have.This can be revised as later date.

The idea that giving both sides a right to reply leads to more factual accuracy might not necessarily happen.

I also am restrained as some of this has been told to me in confidence. Which I know makes the narrative incomplete. Its also info thats second hand.

But in historical/ journalistic terms this is not unusual.

What is factual and done with witnesses is way recently Brixton Green have been going around talking to individuals and groups about "their planning application". This is totally factually incorrect. Whether one likes BG or not. And its annoying for me to listen to and have to correct. I know enough about the scheme to know thats incorrect. And the bringing a theatre to Brixton. Also factually incorrect.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 23, 2015)

Rushy said:


> Self promoting feckers shamelessly banging on about selflessly representing The Community whilst single mindedly progressing their own personal interests and agendas. It seems such folk are everywhere these days.



Some actually come through with real support though, including the person you don't have the guts to confront openly.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 23, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> If you are to be totally even handed then you should not take as you say" their claim" as the facts either.



I don't



Gramsci said:


> In which case you should regard both sides as vociferous critics of each other and therefore not reliable sources on factual information.



I do



Gramsci said:


> Which logically leads to you should not be making any assertions either way with the lack of "incomplete narrative".



I am asserting only that the narrative is incomplete.



Gramsci said:


> To be realistic historians and journalist have to make judgements based on the incomplete evidence they have.



Yep. And they are very wary of their sources!



Gramsci said:


> Brixton Green have been going around talking to individuals and groups about "their planning application". This is totally factually incorrect. And the bringing a theatre to Brixton. Also factually incorrect.



Fair enough


----------



## teuchter (Dec 24, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Some actually come through with real support though, including the person you don't have the guts to confront openly.


You may not be aware, or may have forgotten, that a number of posters have been banned, by that person, from confronting them openly. Assuming we are talking about the same person, who I'm not allowed to mention.


----------



## alcopop (Dec 24, 2015)

teuchter said:


> You may not be aware, or may have forgotten, that a number of posters have been banned, by that person, from confronting them openly. Assuming we are talking about the same person, who I'm not allowed to mention.



"You-Know-Who", "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" or "the Dark Lord".


----------



## editor (Dec 24, 2015)

alcopop said:


> "You-Know-Who", "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" or "the Dark Lord".


No one has even been banned for expressing an opinion I don't like, but when it's endless, thread trashing, off-topic nasty personal abuse purely designed to hurt and belittle, well they can get the fuck out, just like the rules state.

Mind you, it's always amusing when some individuals trot out the line that the beastly, despotic editor simply bans anyone he doesn't like: they seem oblivious to the fact that they're still happily posting away. 

But this thread is about Brixton Green. Not me. Let's keep it that way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2015)

teuchter said:


> You may not be aware, or may have forgotten, that a number of posters have been banned, by that person, from confronting them openly. Assuming we are talking about the same person, who I'm not allowed to mention.



And yet you still find a way to slide your snidey little jabs in, don't you?


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 24, 2015)

So what's the latest on proposed rent levels for this development? I'm interested cos Lewisham is doing a very similar project (Besson St) which will be all private rented, but 65% at market rent initially (rises capped at inflation) and 35% at a 'living rent' level devised by Lewisham. Given the assault on social housing I don't mind them doing a private rental scheme, but given they own the land, 65% at market rent strikes me as very high. I'm also interested to know of other similar projects and the mix of rent levels and tenures councils are offering.

cheers


----------



## teuchter (Dec 24, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> And yet you still find a way to slide your snidey little jabs in, don't you?


Statement of fact, unlike your post that I was replying to, which was definitely a snidey jab. Merry Christmas.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 24, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> So what's the latest on proposed rent levels for this development? I'm interested cos Lewisham is doing a very similar project (Besson St) which will be all private rented, but 65% at market rent initially (rises capped at inflation) and 35% at a 'living rent' level devised by Lewisham. Given the assault on social housing I don't mind them doing a private rental scheme, but given they own the land, 65% at market rent strikes me as very high. I'm also interested to know of other similar projects and the mix of rent levels and tenures councils are offering.
> 
> cheers



Good question. And as far as I can see no real detail on this. The idea , according to the Future Brixton page is:



> The development will be owned and managed by local people, businesses and the wider community. The new homes will all be for rent and managed through a new housing cooperative to make sure tenancies and rents are fair. Half of the new homes will be available at affordable rents and 121 of these will be at council rent levels.



And more here:



> *Homes at a fair rent for local people*
> We’re proposing to build a genuinely mixed and diverse community with more than 300 new homes available to rent. This means homes will be a mixture of sizes from one bedroom flats, extra care units providing affordable homes for older people, to larger family sized homes. It also means a mixture of rents that goes beyond the council’s policy for affordable homes. We’ll build at least 121 homes at social (or council) rent levels and around 31 homes at below market rent for families in low pay, as well as secure market rent tenancies for those unable to buy.
> 
> The letting policy for the new homes is still to be agreed, although a number of the extra care homes are earmarked for residents moving out of Fitch Court and the people moving into the social rent homes will be taken from the 21,000 on the council housing waiting list.



So out of the 300 units ( including the extra care units for ex Fitch Court residents- which imo are not "new homes" but replacement for loss of Fitch court homes) 121 will be a "social" or "Council" rent levels. Thats a bit vague for me.

The second quote says 31 will be at below market rent. I assume this is under the "affordable" rent levels. Which in other areas Council set at 65% of market rent.

From this I guess that the rent levels, tenancies have still to be finalised. Which means they are still working on the financial model for the whole scheme. This scheme will be separate financially from the rest of the Council owned housing. That is it will not be part of the HRA.

The money will be borrowed over a long period of time. Income ( from rents) will pay for loan. So I guess the rent levels still will not be finalised until later on. As we all know that could lead to slippage as if cost of project rises final rents may be higher.

Another point is that the idea of a Coop for the housing was to do with getting around RTB. As RTB will upset/ scupper the financial model. Now the Government is pushing ahead for giving RTB to housing associations ( this includes permanent Coops) not sure how this may affect the scheme.

In summary about whilst half the homes will be at "affordable" or similar to Council levels the other half will be at full market rent. 



Is this similar to scheme in Lewisham?


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 24, 2015)

Thanks Gramci. This looks better than the Besson St scheme in Lewisham tbh. Of the measly 35% at sub-market rent at Besson St, none of them will be set at target/social rent level. They've said they'll be offering them to people who have incomes too high to get a place on the housing list but who can't afford market rent.

The Besson St scheme is also planned to be a partnership with a private company. So however bad Brixton Green might look to you all as a partner, we are going to get a rapacious profit-making company who can provide 'expertise' in PRS schemes. Also, the council have admitted that not only will this private company make a profit from it, but Lewisham will also make a profit from the scheme. This will go to fund local services, as they put it. But it strikes me as odd priorities given the housing crisis - using council land to make profit from renters, even if it is money going to other council services.

The whole scheme seems a bit* off to me, but little local opposition so far.

*Well, more than a bit actually.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 24, 2015)

Oh, and also, the scheme will not be a co-op or a CLT or anything. It will just be Lewisham+Private partner as landlords.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 24, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> Oh, and also, the scheme will not be a co-op or a CLT or anything. It will just be Lewisham+Private partner as landlords.



As yet the has been little consultation on how the finished site will be managed. Its been discussed in the Steering Group for the project. But the minutes are brief so no detail.

Its really something that needs wider consultation and/ or more detail of what the internal Council led discussion on it is proposing. Its important as if the Council is serious on local community say in management of the finished project then this needs a lot more consultation and discussion with wider community.

The second issue is how much cost the proposed overall management body of the site will add to the rents.

In Lambeth the way it works is this - Lambeth sets Council rent for a Council flat/ house - then service charges are extra on top. So actual rents can vary. An old street property may have no service charges for example.

The danger is a high service charge will make the flats less affordable to some.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 24, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> Thanks Gramci. This looks better than the Besson St scheme in Lewisham tbh.



Had to edit my post as the two quotes I used agree with each about level of affordable housing. So its half. With 121 at rents similar to Council and about 30 at less than market rent but higher than Council rent. The other half being at market rent. 

My other question for Coop housing option is that looks like people will be on different rents and tenancies. So not clear how that will work in a Cooperative.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 28, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> My other question for Coop housing option is that looks like people will be on different rents and tenancies. So not clear how that will work in a Cooperative.


You can have different tenancy types in a co-op can't you? Are you saying it would be difficult to force a co-op to stick to the rent levels the council has mandated? Presumably the co-op would be renting from the council and that rental contract could specify tenancy types and min/max rent levels? The co-op would then lose a fair amount of autonomy I suppose, but at least they could run their own management affairs.

Does anyone know of other council private rental schemes in London? I'm eager to compare our local proposal to others. I feel it's a pretty poor deal for local people (it will be a gentrifying scheme in essence) but most people I've talked to have been fairly accepting of it. Would be useful to know if other councils are offering a better deal.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 28, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> You can have different tenancy types in a co-op can't you? Are you saying it would be difficult to force a co-op to stick to the rent levels the council has mandated? Presumably the co-op would be renting from the council and that rental contract could specify tenancy types and min/max rent levels? The co-op would then lose a fair amount of autonomy I suppose, but at least they could run their own management affairs.
> 
> Does anyone know of other council private rental schemes in London? I'm eager to compare our local proposal to others. I feel it's a pretty poor deal for local people (it will be a gentrifying scheme in essence) but most people I've talked to have been fairly accepting of it. Would be useful to know if other councils are offering a better deal.



I've been trying to read up on housing co-ops lately, so the following is my understanding of what I've read (blogs by housing co-ops, legislation, other officialese guff).
Co-ops can rent property from any supplier, private or public. They can also, if they have the assets and/or security, *buy* property for rental, although this tends to take the form of "taking into ownership" properties that they already administrate.
Co-ops can specify tenancy types, but only within a very limited band - basically "Lifetime Assured Tenancies" and limited tenancies (ASTs etc).
It's not really in the interest of a co-op (as opposed to, for example, a housing association) to set too high a rent, as "profit" beyond maintenance costs has to somehow be folded back into the existing housing stock.

IIRC Enfield have a council private rental scheme going, but as a result of taking over a street of properties from an RSL, rather than through deliberate development of private rental housing. A lot of LAs have plans in train though, although most are waiting to see how the latest housing bill turns out before committing themselves.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 28, 2015)

Thanks. Okay, I'd forgotten co-ops could be limited in the type of tenancies they can offer. Perhaps a CLT would be more appropriate for these types of schemes. The problem from the council point of view is that any increase in local democracy means they have less control....

It might be worth starting a thread on council PRS schemes at some point. We're waiting on Lewisham to release more on the finances of Besson St - might be enough to prompt me to start the thread.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 29, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> You can have different tenancy types in a co-op can't you?



You can but its not in spirit of cooperation imo. Views may differ now. 

A tenant management Coop I know has the Housing Association, who own the estate,  trying to make then use the new "affordable" and limited time tenancies on new lets. They are opposing this on basis it will create two tier Coop members. One with secure tenancies on social rent and those on the new time limited tenancies at "affordable" rent.

The view of there Coop is each member should be equal. Which I agree with.

Unfortunately the people devising the scheme for Somerleyton do not have actual experience of Coops. They might be experts on the legal and technical side of it but not the practical nature of it.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 29, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've been trying to read up on housing co-ops lately, so the following is my understanding of what I've read (blogs by housing co-ops, legislation, other officialese guff).



My old one was Fully Mutual. Which worked quite well. Basically a member was a tenant - both went together. The rules were fairly straightforward.

I was never that great on details. In then end its not the details its the ethos.

The thing about Coop housing is that either it works or its like a bunch of ferrets in a sack.

It takes time to build up a Coop as a working entity. Along the way people fall out, things go wrong and its always difficult to get active membership. If you are lucky one third will take posts and do the work ( rather than say they will do it), one third will support those who do the actual work and turn up to meetings and the last third are a mixture of people with various "issues" about life . Which they take out on Coop officers sometimes and  other Coop members.

Its worth talking to these people CDS

They may be of help if you are thinking of Coop.

They provide a mixture of service. Such as helping with management. But they are in Lambeth and I would recommend trying to talk to them directly about advice on setting up a Coop and training etc. They have a lot of experience.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> My old one was Fully Mutual. Which worked quite well. Basically a member was a tenant - both went together. The rules were fairly straightforward.
> 
> I was never that great on details. In then end its not the details its the ethos.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the link. As you may have guessed, we're considering a co-operative model if we exercise Right to Manage, so every new source of information gives us a firmer basis for any choice.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 29, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> You can have different tenancy types in a co-op can't you? Are you saying it would be difficult to force a co-op to stick to the rent levels the council has mandated? Presumably the co-op would be renting from the council and that rental contract could specify tenancy types and min/max rent levels? The co-op would then lose a fair amount of autonomy I suppose, but at least they could run their own management affairs.



These are all good questions about how the new management body that the Council / Brixton Green are developing will work in practise.

As this is being done with minimal consultation its hard to guess what they are working towards.

I have heard on the grapevine from someone lucky enough to be consulted that the overall management body for Somerleyton road will somehow sublease to a Housing Coop to run the housing side of things. So the Coop will be at two removes from Council.

The issue of sticking to rent levels and the proportions of social/ affordable housing and how the Council will ensure the new management bodies it has will keep to the them is interesting question. If something goes wrong with finances then will rents go up?

Also it appears from the limited info available that the new management body for Somerleyton road will get a lease on the site of 250 years. Which is a lot. How will this affect the democratic control through Cllrs of the site? Why is it necessary to lease it? Why cannot the management body be just that with the Council just making a management agreement with the new body. Better for democratic control I would argue.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 29, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Thanks for the link. As you may have guessed, we're considering a co-operative model if we exercise Right to Manage, so every new source of information gives us a firmer basis for any choice.



I did guess that. St Georges Residences in Railton road is a tenant management Coop. An early one. Was Short/Life coop ( a bit of a mad one). Got money post one of the riots to rehab plus new housing on next door.

Some ex Carlton Mansions HC went there over the years.

It might be worth a chat with them. It works up there as has a high percentage of ex short life Coopers.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 30, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> Thanks. Okay, I'd forgotten co-ops could be limited in the type of tenancies they can offer. Perhaps a CLT would be more appropriate for these types of schemes. The problem from the council point of view is that any increase in local democracy means they have less control....



The reason for a Coop for the housing was to stop RTB. If the Council had built Council Housing RTB would take effect. However the Government is attempting to push through parliament RTB to be extended to housing association tenants. Which would be a disaster imo for social housing. This would include permanent Coops.

IMO starting a Coop for a reason like that is not a good one. Coop is not an easy option. To do one on Somerleyton is going to require a lot of officer time and resources to support the setting up of it. As well as ongoing support in early stage until it can float without support. Its not a cheap option by any means.

Look at "Cooperative" Parks. Even officers now say this took up a lot more officer time to set up a few. And the problem is as they are voluntary the Council can spend a lot of resources to set one up and then people stop doing it. As understandably they cannot work for free for ever.

I do not think the Council realise this is big project to set up an independent management body plus a Housing Coop from scratch. They appear to be relying on Brixton Green to do this. As we all know opinions on BG are mixed to say the least. BG do not have the resources to do it. Apart from the social skills required.BG have one person capable of devising models for Coop and management. But model building with limited consultation and making a model a reality is a different thing altogether. 

( That is if as BG website says this is all going to cooperatively and democratically run. With the wider community involved in all the great benefits this scheme will bring. And not just a management board elected once a year by a relatively passive membership. With "directors" of some management body being paid to do day to day management. Whilst the elected board has a role to oversee. ie something a bit like a social enterprise rather than a Coop)

So do not know if the model are betters are devising for Somerleyton road will undergo changes to try to attempt a way around this possible new RTB for HAs.

The schemes finances depend on a rental stream over X years to pay back the loan the Council borrow. As I understand RTB would put a coach and horses through any financial model. Making the scheme potentially unworkable.

CLT is what at one point BG were going on about. Always a non starter as the Council would have to sell the land to Brixton Green. BG had no way to raise it. Lambeth could not give the land away. Councils cannot just give public land away. Not how it works.

A CLT would put the site out of any wider democratic control. Whilst I support Coops the thought of being under BG was a nightmare scenario.

Lambeths idea for Somerleyton was/ is a good one. Councils like Governments can borrow money much more cheaply than smaller concerns like CLT or even private developers. They pay back over longer periods. And are considered a good risk by financial markets.

CLTs idea came from USA where there is little concept of such socialist idea as Council Housing as it developed here post war. They also depend on getting land cheap. The issue imo is to get rid of RTB and make sure the Labour party defend Council housing.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 30, 2015)

Yeah, I think setting up a co-op just to avoid RTB (which might not work anyway) is a silly reason to do it, and will result in it not being a proper co-op. Lewisham are perhaps being a bit brighter in acheiving that end, by ensuring there is technically no social housing in their rental development*. This doesn't mean the rent can't be cheap - though as I've said, in the case of Besson St it's not going to be as cheap as I think it should be.

CLT's aren't such a bad idea are they? They are meant to be democratic, much like a co-op but with a wider community membership, so in theory it would not be controlled by BG. Whether they could gerrymander the democratic process to have effective control I don't know.


*I just don't think there will be a return to the previous concept of social housing, unless Corbyn wins a general election, which seems unlikely right now. So I'm okay with councils offering other tenure types that aren't subject to central government meddling. It could be more durable than new council housing built right now...


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jan 16, 2016)

This is pretty hilarious - a series of emails have emerged showing how Brad contacted some of the leading Cllr's and Council Officers over the summer, continuing with his smears.

Writing to Cllr Jack Hopkins and Neil Vokes, the Director of Strategic Capital Programmes at Lambeth, Brad shows the lengths that he is prepared to take to smear those that ask questions about the mysterious Brixton Green.

editor and I apparently have a track record of "well organised anarchist activity." 

I can't speak for Ed, but I am a Labour party member 

Plus how is anarchist activity ever "well organised"?

Brad then asks a senior Cabinet member to "undermine" us and "show them for who they are."

We've been asking questions about Brixton Green, an organisation that itself is far from transparent.

Best of all is the misunderstanding (that's being polite) over the Save Cressingham fundraiser back in July. Brad reckons that it was a fundraiser for urban, and no doubt our "anarchist" activity.

Knob.


----------



## editor (Jan 16, 2016)

They're a bunch of cowardly liars and clearly not to be trusted. They still haven't apologised for posting up that defamatory bullshit about me, claiming I was disrupting a class of schoolkids when I wasn't anywhere near the building. There's even video footage available to prove that and they know it, the spineless shitehawks.

And yes, I'm still angry about this.


----------



## CH1 (Jan 16, 2016)

Tricky Skills said:


> This is pretty hilarious - a series of emails have emerged showing how Brad contacted some of the leading Cllr's and Council Officers over the summer, continuing with his smears.
> 
> Writing to Cllr Jack Hopkins and Neil Vokes, the Director of Strategic Capital Programmes at Lambeth, Brad shows the lengths that he is prepared to take to smear those that ask questions about the mysterious Brixton Green.
> 
> ...


Bang goes my credibility!


----------



## teuchter (Jan 16, 2016)

Tricky Skills said:


> Plus how is anarchist activity ever "well organised"?



Are you making the common mistake of confusing anarchism with anarchy?


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 17, 2016)

Tricky Skills said:


> This is pretty hilarious - a series of emails have emerged showing how Brad contacted some of the leading Cllr's and Council Officers over the summer, continuing with his smears.
> 
> Writing to Cllr Jack Hopkins and Neil Vokes, the Director of Strategic Capital Programmes at Lambeth, Brad shows the lengths that he is prepared to take to smear those that ask questions about the mysterious Brixton Green.



Neil is one of Lambeths better officers. He was in charge of the Somerleyton road project before being promoted. 

I always found him good to deal with. He listened and took account of what the Carlton Mansions HC members said and went out of his way to consult the Coop about the Somerleyton road project. He had no involvement in the eviction. 

Feel for him that he has to deal with Brad.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 17, 2016)

And saying that Ovalhouse was being attacked is bollox. 

Ovalhouse have been a lot better at dealing with the local community than Brixton Green.


----------



## CH1 (Jan 17, 2016)

Tricky Skills said:


> This is pretty hilarious - a series of emails have emerged showing how Brad contacted some of the leading Cllr's and Council Officers over the summer, continuing with his smears.
> 
> Writing to Cllr Jack Hopkins and Neil Vokes, the Director of Strategic Capital Programmes at Lambeth, Brad shows the lengths that he is prepared to take to smear those that ask questions about the mysterious Brixton Green.
> 
> ...


Stuart is the new officer in charge of the Somerleyton Project then?

Brad seems to be doing a "Sir" Lynton Crosby.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 22, 2016)

Tricky Skills said:


> Michael Groce of Green Man Skills Zone pleased guilty this morning with the charge of using threatening abusive behaviour with intent to provoke unlawful violence outside No 6, whilst he was managing the space "on behalf" of Brixton Green.
> 
> He will be sentenced in the New Year.



Groce received his sentence on December 22: Fine of £130.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jan 22, 2016)

leanderman said:


> Groce received his sentence on December 22: Fine of £130.



Not quite the full picture.

The defendant was fined £130.00 and  ordered to pay compensation of £50.00. He also has to pay a victim surcharge of £20.00 to victim support. Costs of £400.00 to the CPS and £500.00 criminal courts charge.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 22, 2016)

Thought you'd point that out!

Courts now make defendants pay. Though this struck me as high.


----------



## CH1 (Jan 22, 2016)

Tricky Skills said:


> Not quite the full picture.
> 
> The defendant was fined £130.00 and  ordered to pay compensation of £50.00. He also has to pay a victim surcharge of £20.00 to victim support. Costs of £400.00 to the CPS and £500.00 criminal courts charge.


That is £1,100 for losing your temper. I would think he is gutted.
Looks like Michael Gove's predecessor had been mixing his Hayek with his Owell and turned the whole caboodle into a new profit centre.

I hear Gove himself thinks things have gone too far.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 22, 2016)

CH1 said:


> That is £1,100 for losing your temper. I would think he is gutted.
> Looks like Michael Gove's predecessor had been mixing his Hayek with his Owell and turned the whole caboodle into a new profit centre.
> 
> I hear Gove himself thinks things have gone too far.



Yep. Like everything else, justice is being privatised.


----------



## editor (Feb 15, 2016)

This came up in Twitter:


----------



## CH1 (Feb 16, 2016)

editor said:


> This came up in Twitter:



Good idea- but there can't be many left who had been living in the old demolished bits which came down in around 1969-71 I think.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 16, 2016)

CH1 said:


> Good idea- but there can't be many left who had been living in the old demolished bits which came down in around 1969-71 I think.



Apparently there are. They are of course getting on a bit. Some historical research has been done about it.


----------



## editor (Feb 29, 2016)

I got sent this: 


> Clapham Film Unit is starting a project documenting the people who
> have lived on Somerleyton Rd from 1945 to 2014. We are looking at self
> organised solutions to various housing problems. We plan to train
> volunteers to do oral history recordings and archive research to
> ...


----------



## CH1 (Mar 9, 2016)

There seems to be a bit of confusion about this planning application:*
16-22 Somerleyton Road London Lambeth SW9 8ND 15/07308/FUL Coldharbour*
Mr, c/o agent United Kingdom Mr Rolfe Judd Planning Old Church Court, Claylan
Road London SW8 1NZ
Redevelopment to include demolition of existing buildings on site, provision for part 2, part 5, part 6 and part 8 storey mixe
use building to provide a residential-led, mixed use development comprising; 74 residential units, including 40% as
affordable housing, ground floor Children's Centre, Nursery and Flexible space (A1/A2/A3/B1/D1/D2) with associated
outdoor amenity and landscaping.
PROPOSAL
- Tunnel Safeguarding Line
- MDO05 - East Brixton Regeneration Arc
20 Ashmere Grove London Lambeth SW2 5UJ 15

Correspondence from Lambeth's partners would indicate that this is possibly an application nothing to do with the council's scheme for Somerleyton Road - in other words a "spoiler" designed to maximise the compensation payable on the fish cold store units, should Lambeth actually get it together to do a CPO.

Is this yet another Lambeth cock-up? Looks a bit like it to me. After all if Lambeth are proposing to give themselves planning permission for a similar development, won't they be hard put to it to turn down a virtually identical one from a private speculator??

No wonder Lambeth Council is always running out of funds.


----------



## boohoo (Mar 10, 2016)

Yucky article about Carlton Mansions development:

Future Brixton


----------



## editor (Mar 10, 2016)

boohoo said:


> Yucky article about Carlton Mansions development:
> 
> Future Brixton


WTF: 





> For as long as I’ve known it, for the last 25 years, it’s kind of been a dead space. The mural’s been iconic, but slightly tucked away and, although I went inside once or twice, it wasn’t a place for big happenings on the cultural scene


Did big happenings on the cultural scene happen in his house? The Mansions were fucking _home_ to loads of people and not a 'dead space.'


----------



## boohoo (Mar 10, 2016)

editor said:


> WTF: Did big happenings on the cultural scene happen in his house? The Mansions were fucking _home_ to loads of people and not a 'dead space.'



Lots of artists lived in the Carlton Mansions. What are "big happenings on the cultural scene" ? Brixton had a big alternative scene including the squatters, artists, musicians, and those living an alternative lifestyle (which I would include the short lifers).


----------



## teuchter (Mar 10, 2016)

Less selectively quoted



> although I went inside once or twice, it wasn’t a place for big happenings on the cultural scene. But it was significant for what it was – part of an alternative social and political movement. So what happens to Carlton Mansions, and that whole stretch of road, is hugely significant for Brixton.


----------



## boohoo (Mar 10, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Less selectively quoted





Can you define what "big happenings on the cultural scene" is then??


----------



## teuchter (Mar 10, 2016)

boohoo said:


> Can you define what "big happenings on the cultural scene" is then??



Anything where I'm present.


----------



## boohoo (Mar 10, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Anything where I'm present.



That's not an answer!!!


----------



## teuchter (Mar 10, 2016)

Well, can you name any big happenings on the cultural scene which took place in Carlton Mansions?

I agree it's a bit odd to describe it as a "dead space" though.

Also I have been looking at the Zac Monro website and it's a bit chirpy for my liking.


----------



## boohoo (Mar 10, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Well, can you name any big happenings on the cultural scene which took place in Carlton Mansions?
> 
> I agree it's a bit odd to describe it as a "dead space" though.
> 
> Also I have been looking at the Zac Monro website and it's a bit chirpy for my liking.



I've not investigated all those that lived at Carlton Mansions and what they did so I don't know.

We would have to define "cultural scene" and "big happening". And are we talking locally or London wide or nation wide when we talk about a cultural scene? Was any of Brixton having a big happening on the cultural scene? in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s?


----------



## leanderman (Mar 10, 2016)

boohoo said:


> I've not investigated all those that lived at Carlton Mansions and what they did so I don't know.
> 
> We would have to define "cultural scene" and "big happening". And are we talking locally or London wide or nation wide when we talk about a cultural scene? Was any of Brixton having a big happening on the cultural scene? in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s?



When I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun!


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 10, 2016)

editor said:


> I got sent this:






> Clapham Film Unit is starting a project documenting the people who
> have lived on Somerleyton Rd from 1945 to 2014. We are looking at self
> organised solutions to various housing problems. We plan to train
> volunteers to do oral history recordings and archive research to
> ...



I have been talking to the Clapham Film Unit about this. Its early days so will see how it goes.

It would be good imo to record the Mansions history as one part of the history of Somerleyton road. 

The Coop and my archives we got to Lambeth Archives just before we finally got kicked out have been catalogued.

Head archivist told me its important as its what archivists call complete. It goes from beginning of Coop to end. So its an example of Lambeths S/L community. Plus a lot of stuff about the Lambeth Federation of Coops and photos of other Short Life.


----------



## boohoo (Mar 10, 2016)

leanderman said:


> When I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun!


----------



## Gramsci (May 16, 2016)

Saw this on Brixton Buzz today:

Somerleyton Road site sees slight increase in number of units despite concerns from Brixton Society

Now I am confused. CH1 pointed out to me a while back that the Council did not own the whole site. I thought that the Council would be CPOing the privately owned section in order to consolidate ownership of the site and produce a scheme that was owned by the Council and managed by as yet to be decided organisation.

Now it appears a private developer is putting in plans to develop a section of the site separately with some homes for sale on private market and a % of affordable. ( As regular posters know developers are likely to come back later on to vary affordable element with a "viability" report. So any commitments to % of affordable housing and its form is to be taken with a pinch of salt.)

Seems to me that this undermines the whole scheme.

Officers say in the linked report to planning committee ( see Brixton Buzz ) that  the Council scheme will require "revisions" (page 17 summary of objections). The scheme was to be 100% Council owned with all flats to be let rather than sold. Some flat at market rent and some at affordable.

The whole financial basis of the original scheme was based on Council full ownership of the site.

Also the way the Council promoted the scheme and consulted on it was that they would retain ownership of the whole site.That this would guarantee social rents on some flats and market rents with proper long term tenancies on others.

So if this scheme goes forward it how will a management body operate?

How will it affect the financial modelling the Council had been doing for the Somerleyton road project?

Why did the Council not CPO that land before going ahead with all the consultation and planning of the scheme?

Whilst, as the planning officers say, this application is in planning terms compliant it undermines what the Council were planning for the site.


----------



## teuchter (May 16, 2016)

Brixton Buzz said:
			
		

> The number of housing units has increased from 70 to 74. There is also an increase in ‘affordable’ units from 20 to 30.
> 
> Twenty-two units will go on sale at the market rate, with only three at social rent, and three at intermediate level – a status for housing that aims to bridge the gap between renting and owning.



I think BB has got in a bit of a muddle as this doesn't match what's in the planning meeting agenda it links to.

Here's the relevant table:



The figures BB quotes are for 1-bedroom dwellings. The figure for all are in the far right column -

44 units at market rate (not 22)
19 units at social rent (not 3)
11 units at intermediate level (not 3)

But it does seem true that they have changed from market rent to private sale.


----------



## CH1 (May 16, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Saw this on Brixton Buzz today:
> 
> Somerleyton Road site sees slight increase in number of units despite concerns from Brixton Society
> 
> ...


It looks like the council have screwed up. They move Neil Vokes onto higher things and everything slips.

Where will the residents of Fitch Court be located? Where the nursery or whatever it was?

The implications go right back up the line. Hence the objection from the Brixton Society. Though technically it may not be a valid objection.
Not sure you can refuse a planning application just because the official proposals include the site owned by the applicant and they propose to develop - UNLESS the council have at least served notice of compulsory purchase.

Of course if the compulsory purchase procedure has been started, this could be a ruse to get more compensation.

We need a mole in the regeneration department - or a FOI request possibly.


----------



## CH1 (May 16, 2016)

teuchter said:


> I think BB has got in a bit of a muddle as this doesn't match what's in the planning meeting agenda it links to.
> 
> Here's the relevant table:
> 
> ...


Who is your applicant then? Lambeth, Brixton Green, a Lambeth Partner - or the owner of the Cold Store?


----------



## teuchter (May 16, 2016)

CH1 said:


> Who is your applicant then? Lambeth, Brixton Green, a Lambeth Partner - or the owner of the Cold Store?


The applicant is apparently "Milegate Ltd".


----------



## CH1 (May 17, 2016)

teuchter said:


> The applicant is apparently "Milegate Ltd".


Yes I see that: 15/07308/FUL	 |			  Redevelopment to include demolition of existing buildings on site, provision for part 2, part 5, part 6 and part 8 storey mixed-use building to provide a residential-led, mixed use development comprising 74 residential units, including 30 (40%) as affordable housing, ground floor Nursery (Use Class D1), Retail (Use Class A1), Gym Changing facilities (Use Class D2) and Flexible spaces (A1/A2/B1/D1) with associated outdoor amenity and landscaping.				  |																	  16-22 Somerleyton Road London Lambeth SW9 8ND

This does not appear to be part of the Lambeth overal scheme as repeatedly consulted on. I suppose it is possible that Lambeth decided to co-operate with the site owner and get them to build what the council would like - without going down the CPO route.

Very odd. I think that for all the consultations things are going on behind the the scenes.

I couldn't get the reports pack for Town Planning committee - is it recommended for approval?


----------



## CH1 (May 17, 2016)

Gramsci - how will it affect the financial modelling?

It will considerably reduce the borrowing required.
However it may also reduce the income to be expected from rent.

All in all it reduces the financial risk to the council.


----------



## teuchter (May 17, 2016)

CH1 said:


> I couldn't get the reports pack for Town Planning committee - is it recommended for approval?



https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/do...9.00 Planning Applications Committee.pdf?T=10


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 17, 2016)

CH1 said:


> It looks like the council have screwed up. They move Neil Vokes onto higher things and everything slips.



Given what "Blusher" Vokes has been up to recently -including going bright red every time he dissembled at the scrutiny committee last Monday - I'd contend that he may have been promoted, but has actually gone onto "lower things".


----------



## CH1 (May 17, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Given what "Blusher" Vokes has been up to recently -including going bright red every time he dissembled at the scrutiny committee last Monday - I'd contend that he may have been promoted, but has actually gone onto "lower things".


Do you recall the Peter Principle? Here is Wikipedia's very elaborate formulation:

"In an organizational structure, assessing an employee's potential for a promotion is often based on their performance in the current job. This eventually results in their being promoted to their highest level of competence and potentially then to a role in which they are not competent, referred to as their "level of incompetence". The employee has no chance of further promotion, thus reaching their career's ceiling in an organization."


----------



## CH1 (May 17, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Saw this on Brixton Buzz today:
> 
> Somerleyton Road site sees slight increase in number of units despite concerns from Brixton Society
> 
> ...


Resuming my thoughts in the clear light of day I must say this still looks a bit of a mess after all the planning and consultation and seeking partners etc.

There is another uncertainty which was not there at the beginning - the temporary use of the prefab buildings near Carlton Mansions by St John's School. The new St John's school in Angell Town is not yet ready- not sure of the timescale, but presumably this could have held up a starting date for the Oval House end of the site.

I wonder if OvalhouseDB has any information about that end of Somerleyton?

It seems to me there are now two plans - one (most likely) a private development on 16-20 Somerleyton plus a scaled down council-led scheme for the other parts. And Plan B - the old plan A to be implemented in the event of the applicant not agreeing to section 106 obligations.

I am planning to go to the planning meeting tonight to see what is said. Be interesting to see if the chair bumps Tintagel House up the agenda over Brixton. Somerleyton supposed to be first on the agenda (after the minutes) Meeting is at Karibu at 7 pm.

Of course there could be a Plan C - involving selling off other bits of the Somerleyton site. From the present and potential council tenants' point of view the popular mixed scheme originally proposed would then be seen as a Trojan horse. 

If there is a problem here with the old council/Brixton Green idea of Public Works Loan Board financing of Somerleyton this could impact on all the other regenerations -Cressingham Gardens, Central Hill and all the rest. They might have to become PFI partnership schemes led by Barretts, Taylor Wimpey etc. I'm sure that would go down at treat with the Conservative government. What about Sadiq?

Yet another complication is that the Public Works Loan Board is currently being abolished (see here) The functions will be taken over directly by the Treasury - presumably more closely controlled by government ministers.


----------



## editor (May 17, 2016)

One thing for sure: most people I know in the area have zero clue about what is going on, despite Brixton Green's claims to have adequately consulted the local community ("Just pay us a £1 to have your voice heard!").


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 17, 2016)

editor said:


> One thing for sure: most people I know in the area have zero clue about what is going on, despite Brixton Green's claims to have adequately consulted the local community ("Just pay us a £1 to have your voice heard!").



Perhaps they follow the Lambeth council definition of "consultation"?


----------



## CH1 (May 17, 2016)

Does anyone know about this by the way? What settlement did Lambeth achieve?

The paragraph below is taken from a Swindon Tenants blog that goes into great detail about government finance of social housing:

"When they carried out the calculations on this basis 136 authorities had to take on extra ‘debt’ whilst 34 received payments from the government to reduce theirs. Those that had to take on extra debt were given a ‘loan’ by the Public Works Loan Board (an executive agency of the Treasury) which Councils ‘paid’ to the government. It was of course a paper transaction between the PWLB and the Treasury. *The ‘debt settlement’ produced an £8 billion surplus which the Treasury pocketed*. This was in effect a subsidy to the Treasury taken from Council tenants’ rent. In addition Councils have to repay the ‘loan’ to the PWLB, together with annual interest charge. Rent used to pay off this ‘loan’ is money that cannot be spent on the upkeep of tenants’ homes".


----------



## CH1 (May 17, 2016)

teuchter said:


> The applicant is apparently "Milegate Ltd".


Milegate Limited seems a bit of a rum company.
If you look at trade directories it deals in specialist shell fish etc.
Others say it grows cereals and legumes.

The current address of the company is 20 Somerleyton Road, however the correspondence address for the company secretary is 1 Bishops Avenue N2 0AP. Seems a bit odd - Bishops Avenue is the mythical hangout of the super rich.


----------



## CH1 (May 17, 2016)

Don't want to bore everyone to death, but I did discover that Milegate has a mortgage secured on the Masons Arms in Edgware. So apart from trading in frozen fish etc. it also has at least one property investment.

The Masons Arms was apparently notorious in 2012/3 for a stabbing and a shooting incident. Whether this led to Milegate taking over cannot say, but I noted the pub now has the de rigeur Facebook page Clubul Romanesc Masons Arms

I am delighted to say after all the fuss about the advert for "a night" at Brixton Jamm the other day that the Masons Arms has it's own cultural spin:

In my delusion I thought it would be wonderful if a warren of Romanian bunnies arrived at the Town Planning meeting to assist the deliberations of the councillors.


----------



## CH1 (May 17, 2016)

Pressing on with investigating Milegate Ltd - there is an associated company recently formed and registered at 20 Somerleyton Road called Fishnet (London) Ltd, directors Mr Nouri Nourani (of Milegate) and David Nourani - going on age could be a son of the above.

Business stated as Food supply (other) so this is fortunately in the grocery trade, rather than strictly in the Fishnet trade.


----------



## gdubz (May 17, 2016)

CH1 said:


> Pressing on with investigating Milegate Ltd - there is an associated company recently formed and registered at 20 Somerleyton Road called Fishnet (London) Ltd, directors Mr Nouri Nourani (of Milegate) and David Nourani - going on age could be a son of the above.
> 
> Business stated as Food supply (other) so this is fortunately in the grocery trade, rather than strictly in the Fishnet trade.


Maybe fishnet supplies the tights for the bunnies. Get a bbc documentary crew in there


----------



## Gramsci (May 17, 2016)

CH1 said:


> The Masons Arms was apparently notorious in 2012/3 for a stabbing and a shooting incident. Whether this led to Milegate taking over cannot say, but I noted the pub now has the de rigeur Facebook page Clubul Romanesc Masons Arms
> 
> I am delighted to say after all the fuss about the advert for "a night" at Brixton Jamm the other day that the Masons Arms has it's own cultural spin:
> View attachment 87002
> In my delusion I thought it would be wonderful if a warren of Romanian bunnies arrived at the Town Planning meeting to assist the deliberations of the councillors.



The question is why advertise a Romanian club night with a photo of Japanese Cosplay girls?


----------



## CH1 (May 17, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> The question is why advertise a Romanian club night with a photo of Japanese Cosplay girls?


I see what you mean. I had just assumed they were Romanian. BTW nothing like that was evident at the Planning meeting!


----------



## teuchter (May 17, 2016)

CH1 said:


> I see what you mean. I had just assumed they were Romanian. BTW nothing like that was evident at the Planning meeting!


Did they approve it then?


----------



## Gramsci (May 17, 2016)

CH1 said:


> I see what you mean. I had just assumed they were Romanian. BTW nothing like that was evident at the Planning meeting!



Thats a pity. 

I’ve met Romanian women. Trouble is they all have big burly Romanian boyfriends from there village who they marry in two day weddings in Romania.

Why some people want to get out of EU I really don’t understand. Have had some misery guts going on about this country being flooded by East Europeans and a stop needs to be put to it recently. The more the merrier as far as I’m concerned. 

How did it go at the planning meeting?


----------



## CH1 (May 17, 2016)

*Planning Committee Report*
Things sure drag at Planning at the moment. New chair is improving, but still not up to the curt incisiveness of the previous chair Diane Morris.
We spent an hour on the minutiae of a basement excavation on an outbuilding behind 6-8 Larkhall Lane. Currently an artist studio and to be an expanded version of same (according to the applicant). After 3 speakers against, 3 in favour and much humming and haahing  the committee approved subject to extra conditions.

The the meat of the meeting. 16-22 Somerleyton Road.
Officer presentation  was more or less inaudible. Curious that since the councillors and senior officers seemed to have no difficulty with their microphones.

The gist of the argument was this is an application following on from a Lambeth application for a much bigger scheme. This scheme has to be evaluated on its own merits - and in fact there is no reason why theoretically the Lambeth scheme cannot be adjusted to achieve the same final result as the Masterplan had indicated.

There was an objector - Brixton Green. Two people from Brixton Green were there. Then speaker was a shaven headed man - definitely not Brad, or Zac Munro, unless he has changed his image. He was morally supported by a woman who looked to me like Dinah Roake, but I would not swear 100% to that either.

The gist of the objection was that this new proposal undermined the community control of the Somerleyton Scheme and also by depriving it of rental income would render it unfeasible. The speaker was clear and well timed.

The supporter was from the architects - he too was quite clear setting out how they had sought to accommodate the council's objectives as in the Masterplan.

Altogether presentations, questions from councillors and debate took an hour.

Councillor Mohammed Sadeet was quite blatant that he preferred the design of the applicaton compared to Lambeth's earlier one. I think he was probably right on that (sorry if anyone is offended).

The was a question about affordable vs market - and the answer was that the current application plus what would remain of the Lambeth scheme would produce more affordable housing than before - but some of this would be shared ownership rather than rental.

There was a lot of discussion about Somerleyton Passage. Assistant Director David Joyce had to clarify on this - the present application could only be charged 50% of the cost of doing up Somerleyton Passage as this was originally a cost on the whole Somerleyton Scheme.

Councillors raised the nursery issue - the applicant clarified that this was a preference for the orginal scheme, so they had applied for the various options required for these ground floor uses - A1/A2/D1.

The senior planning officer was surprisingly frank towards the end. Following a probing question he said it was understandable that a site owner might bring their own proposals forwards under threat of a Compulsory Purchase Order.

The end of this issue was the most surprising I have seen recently: the chair said she was unable to support the proposal as in her view it lacked the quality of the Lambeth application which had already been approved. Moreover she was not satisfied that issues such as the Somerleyton Passage had been properly dealt with - and she also thought this application would undermine the council's larger proposal.

She therefore asked for another councillor to propose the application be approved. Cllr Mohamed Sadeet was delighted to do so.
The vote was 3:3 tied.
At this point I expected the chair to cast her casting vote in favour of the officer's recommendation - which used to be the convention.
In fact David Joyce, Assistant Director, leaned over and gave the chair strong advice that her earlier reasons for voting against the application would not be defensible in a Planning Appeal and the council could therefore incur costs.
So Councillor Wilcox duly cast her chair's casting vote in favour of the application.

General impressions - Councillor Diana Morris is still the one on the committee who has a full grasp of the issues and the rules, though I suppose Councillor Wilcox deserved an honourable mention for demonstrating her views.

The Brixton Green objector walked out before the end - maybe sensing how things were going - maybe had an appointment.
Dinah Roake (if it was her) gets an honourable for shouting out that application would spoil the Lambeth scheme (against what officers were saying).


----------



## CH1 (May 17, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Did they approve it then?


see my report above


----------



## CH1 (May 17, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Thats a pity.
> I’ve met Romanian women. Trouble is they all have big burly Romanian boyfriends from there village who they marry in two day weddings in Romania.
> Why some people want to get out of EU I really don’t understand. Have had some misery guts going on about this country being flooded by East Europeans and a stop needs to be put to it recently. The more the merrier as far as I’m concerned.
> How did it go at the planning meeting?


I always had a weakness for the music of Enescu (as did Yehudi Menhuin)
Moreover the greatest ever Bruckner conductor is allegedly Sergiu Celibidache.
So don't do them down.
Account of the meeting above.


----------



## teuchter (May 17, 2016)

CH1 said:


> The senior planning officer was surprisingly frank towards the end. Following a probing question he said it was understandable that a site owner might bring their own proposals forwards under threat of a Compulsory Purchase Order.



I don't quite follow the background here. Was the original intention that Lambeth wouldl CPO this site, and if so why have they changed their mind? Or might they still CPO it and this application is to do with the owner building a case for its value or something?


----------



## Gramsci (May 17, 2016)

teuchter said:


> I don't quite follow the background here. Was the original intention that Lambeth wouldl CPO this site, and if so why have they changed their mind? Or might they still CPO it and this application is to do with the owner building a case for its value or something?



Before I was kicked off the site I did take part in the earlier consultations.

The assumption always was that the Council would consolidate the ownership of the whole site. The consultation on the site was on the basis it would be a Council owned scheme. And that they would retain ownership - renting not selling housing. Even the new theatre would be on a lease not a freehold.

So somewhere down the line something has happened.

Future Brixton

The Council planning application was agreed. No suggestion in the Future Brixton piece that one section would be done by private developer.


----------



## CH1 (May 17, 2016)

teuchter said:


> I don't quite follow the background here. Was the original intention that Lambeth wouldl CPO this site, and if so why have they changed their mind? Or might they still CPO it and this application is to do with the owner building a case for its value or something?


They always intended to - and were quite open about it AFAIK.
Seems they never got round to it or maybe they notified the applicant and didn't follow through.

I would have though the next step might be for the applicants to do the same as 86-88 Gresham Road and find a suitable building company like Taylor Wimpey to buy the site with planning permission.


----------



## Gramsci (May 17, 2016)

CH1 said:


> The the meat of the meeting. 16-22 Somerleyton Road.
> Officer presentation  was more or less inaudible. Curious that since the councillors and senior officers seemed to have no difficulty with their microphones.
> 
> The gist of the argument was this is an application following on from a Lambeth application for a much bigger scheme. This scheme has to be evaluated on its own merits - and in fact there is no reason why theoretically the Lambeth scheme cannot be adjusted to achieve the same final result as the Masterplan had indicated.
> ...



My issue with this is that the private developer would not have had a potentially lucrative scheme without the Council plans already consulted on to make this road mainly residential. So the private owner is piggy backing on a Council scheme.


----------



## CH1 (May 17, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Before I was kicked off the site I did take part in the earlier consultations.
> 
> The assumption always was that the Council would consolidate the ownership of the whole site. The consultation on the site was on the basis it would be a Council owned scheme. And that they would retain ownership - renting not selling housing. Even the new theatre would be on a lease not on at a freehold.
> 
> ...


The one time I went to a Brixton Green meeting - an AGM maybe 2013 - they had a chart with a "Timeline". Key dates were the council election 2014 and General Election 2015.  In fact the planning permission was on time I think, but after that everything slipped.

I think we need to call in OvalhouseDB to see if there is any slippage at that end.

This could be not malice or incompetence - but just having too many balls in the air.
The not long ago we were reading that Your New Town Hall had a problem.

Mastermind McGlone has only got a finite amount of brain cells.


----------



## Gramsci (May 17, 2016)

Reminds me of the academic who talked at a Cressingham Gardens meeting. He had looked at "regeneration" schemes across London. All the grand promises had been watered down by the time the schemes were finished.


----------



## CH1 (May 17, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> My issue with this is that the private developer would not have had a potentially lucrative scheme without the Council plans already consulted on to make this road mainly residential. So the private owner is piggy backing on a Council scheme.


Certainly is - including adapting the Masterplan to achieve his ends.

But if the original scheme had gone through as planned he would have been CPO'd 2 years ago. What happened?


----------



## Gramsci (May 17, 2016)

CH1 said:


> This could be not malice or incompetence - but just having too many balls in the air.
> The not long ago we were reading that Your New Town Hall had a problem.



The Somerleyton road project is a flagship project of this Nu Labour Council.



> Cllr Jack Hopkins, Cabinet Member for Jobs and Growth says “* Somerleyton Road is  genuinely ground breaking* and has been created through a partnership that brings together Ovalhouse theatre, the local community, Igloo and five outstanding architects.  Now we can see the shared ambition and creativity of everyone involved start to become reality and that’s really exciting.”



Future Brixton

So they should have made sure they were on top of it at all times.

If I was on one of the estates they have earmarked for "regeneration" I would be somewhat concerned that the Council have not kept on top of this scheme.


----------



## Gramsci (May 17, 2016)

> What local people wanted
> A different kind of regeneration
> People wanted any development of the area to be designed with and for existing residents with profits benefiting the local community rather than going to private developers.





> Cllr Jack Hopkins said, “Somerleyton Road is not just about a development providing homes and community facilities. It’s about making an investment in a community which will stand the test of time, come what may. Driven by communities for communities,* I think it heralds a new way for local people, the Council and partners to work together – putting people above profit and keeping value in communities”*




Future Brixton

For once I agree with Brixton Green on this. It probably was Dinah Roake at the planning meeting


----------



## Gramsci (May 18, 2016)

CH1 said:


> This could be not malice or incompetence - but just having too many balls in the air.



The problem I have is that when it came to getting Carlton Mansions residents out the Council were very competent and nasty about it. 

When it comes down to taking on a landowner and developer they roll over. 

If the New Labour Council want to put people above profit- a laudable aim- this means taking on the big boys. Something Im afraid Nu Labour talk the talk but don’t do when it comes down to it.


----------



## CH1 (May 18, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> The problem I have is that when it came to getting Carlton Mansions residents out the Council were very competent and nasty about it.
> 
> When it comes down to taking on a landowner and developer they roll over.
> 
> If the New Labour Council want to put people above profit- a laudable aim- this means taking on the big boys. Something Im afraid Nu Labour talk the talk but don’t do when it comes down to it.


There is a major difference. In the case of 16-22 Somerleyton Road the guy owned the property, not the council.

If the council had followed their own timeline this would not have happened. They have not rolled over - they have cocked up doing a compulsory purchase needed as part of their Flagship Scheme.

If this was a balanced council someone might have been forced to resign over this I would have thought.


----------



## teuchter (May 18, 2016)

CH1 said:


> They have not rolled over - they have cocked up doing a compulsory purchase needed as part of their Flagship Scheme.



Is there some kind of time limit on it? Is it now impossible/infeasible for them to do a CPO?


----------



## editor (May 18, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> The problem I have is that when it came to getting Carlton Mansions residents out the Council were very competent and nasty about it.
> 
> When it comes down to taking on a landowner and developer they roll over.


And don't we know it: Fight for social housing in Brixton: Town Hall,  March 12th – update – council caves in


----------



## CH1 (May 18, 2016)

teuchter said:


> Is there some kind of time limit on it? Is it now impossible/infeasible for them to do a CPO?


There is a deadline (12th July) by when the applicant must sign the council's section 106 agreement.

If this does not happen then the planning department has delegated powers to refuse permission - so in that sense the permission is currently conditional.

I expect you have better idea than me whether a CPO can still go through. Presumably if it did the applicant, Milegate, would argue for much higher compensation - and not just covering their architects fees!


----------



## OvalhouseDB (May 18, 2016)

Thanks @CH! Here I am!

Yes, there is slippage in the overall timescale, and this has been caused by a number of factors, one of which is dealing with the land assembly issues, and processes in the procurement of a contractor. However my understanding is that time may well be regained. Until the next Steering Group meeting on May 25th I am not able to offer much clarity on timescale, the recent complications over planning, etc. Sorry!


----------



## CH1 (May 18, 2016)

OvalhouseDB said:


> Thanks @CH! Here I am!
> 
> Yes, there is slippage in the overall timescale, and this has been caused by a number of factors, one of which is dealing with the land assembly issues, and processes in the procurement of a contractor. However my understanding is that time may well be regained. Until the next Steering Group meeting on May 25th I am not able to offer much clarity on timescale, the recent complications over planning, etc. Sorry!


Thanks. I think you could perhaps suggest the community is currently lacking in information - whereas in previous years we had updates and events on a regular basis.

My reading of the situation is that if the Milegate development is still on track after 12th July, that the scheme as a whole will need to be updated. Will there be any community input into this?

Seems St John's School will be moving back to Angell Town at the beginning of September - will this mean work will start at your end at that time?


----------



## editor (May 18, 2016)

I live just a few hundred metres away and I have no idea whatsoever abut what is going on. I suspect that I'm not alone. There's been no updates sent or posted up in the area.


----------



## Tricky Skills (May 18, 2016)

OvalhouseDB said:


> Thanks @CH! Here I am!
> 
> Yes, there is slippage in the overall timescale, and this has been caused by a number of factors, one of which is dealing with the land assembly issues, and processes in the procurement of a contractor. However my understanding is that time may well be regained. Until the next Steering Group meeting on May 25th I am not able to offer much clarity on timescale, the recent complications over planning, etc. Sorry!



Do you know what has happened to the Steering Group minutes please? They were supposed to be published each month:

http://futurebrixton.org/documents-information/

I had to FoI to get the last lot published. Since then - nothing.

Have you still been meeting since June 2015?


----------



## OvalhouseDB (May 18, 2016)

The last Steering Group Mtg was on 13th April, and the next one 25th May - there have been some gaps.
I will request that the minutes are posted straight away.

Since planning permission was granted the work has been in starting the procurement process, further work on the viability and financing of the scheme and on the proposed management model. The architects and other consultants have been stood down pending the start of Stage E design - with the idea being that the eventual contractor is involved alongside the design team at Stage E to advise on cost savings ('Value Engineering').

If there do need to be significant amendments then yes, the community will be involved.

I am waiting for an update on all these matters.

Meanwhile Ovalhouse is getting on with our fundraising. Lovely to see some familiar Brixton friends and faces at the fundraising performance of Diary of a Hounslow Girl, the Ovalhouse show written and developed by one of our former youth theatre members and now on tour: at Stratford Circus tomorrow until Saturday. We have also been inviting theatre and other performance artists to submit bids for our Brixton City commissions - details on BrixtonBuzz and our website, closing date MONDAY!

Sorry I can't be more informative about details at the moment - it is a frustrating stage of the development.


----------



## Gramsci (May 18, 2016)

OvalhouseDB said:


> If there do need to be significant amendments then yes, the community will be involved.
> 
> I am waiting for an update on all these matters.



Thanks for this. I do think the Council should give an explanation of why the private land was not CPOd earlier and what there position on the Milegate planning application is. That is are they going to not try for a CPO and how they are going to deal with a private development slap bang in the middle of a scheme that was supposed to end up under Council control. It splits the Council section in two halves. How will this work? If u can ask , along with the minutes of the board meetings, that Council do this.

After all all the consultation so far have assumed this would be a Council owned development. I just assumed it was all in hand. When the Council planning application went in Future Brixton made a big thing about it.

I have my differences with Brixton Green but they were right to oppose the Milegate planning application. Its not usual practise for them to publicly oppose the Council. So something must be going on behind the scenes the rest of us do not know about.


----------



## Gramsci (May 18, 2016)

The other problem is that  the planning application for the privately owned land is agreed but the owners do not have to start works at the same time as the rest of the Council development.  From memory they could sit on there planning application for several years. Or sell it on to another developer.

This is quite a mess.


----------



## CH1 (May 19, 2016)

OvalhouseDB said:


> Since planning permission was granted the work has been in starting the procurement process, further work on the viability and financing of the scheme


Thank you for reminding me of something.

Diane Morris - vice chair (and formerly chair) of planning committee made a good point on the 16-22 Somerleyton application at the meeting on Tuesday.
She demanded a clear statement as to whether we could expect a viability assessment on the scheme once planning permission was granted - and that the developer might come back seeking approval for fewer affordable and more market units on the basis of such a confidential viability report, which seemed to be customary lately.

The senior planning officer stated categorically that the section 106 will make this impossible in this case.

We will wait and see - as Herbert Asquith reportedly said.


----------



## editor (May 23, 2016)

I see Brixton Green are still winning over the community.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 23, 2016)

editor said:


> I see Brixton Green are still winning over the community.
> 
> View attachment 87449



I'm surprised that hasn't been vandalised/over-written, as mysteriously happened to that anti-Brixton Green street art a couple of years ago...


----------



## Gramsci (May 23, 2016)

CH1 said:


> Thank you for reminding me of something.
> 
> Diane Morris - vice chair (and formerly chair) of planning committee made a good point on the 16-22 Somerleyton application at the meeting on Tuesday.
> She demanded a clear statement as to whether we could expect a viability assessment on the scheme once planning permission was granted - and that the developer might come back seeking approval for fewer affordable and more market units on the basis of such a confidential viability report, which seemed to be customary lately.
> ...



I dont see how the officer can say that. 


> A further change to the town planning act last year has made Section 106 agreements renegotiable, allowing review and appeal of all existing obligations, in a misguided attempt to promote growth – which simply makes it easier for developers to wriggle out of their promises, as happened in Tottenham and elsewhere.



Not saying you heard wrong but this did sound odd to me that the officer can say Section106 will make it impossible.


----------



## CH1 (May 24, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> I dont see how the officer can say that.
> Not saying you heard wrong but this did sound odd to me that the officer can say Section106 will make it impossible.


I know I'm deaf, but I was sitting right behind him. I too am sceptical about the final out-turn. 

It's a pity no-one tape recorded the meeting because several things were said which indicated the planning officers wanted the thing to go through. The so-called quasi-judicial nature of the Planning Committee ultimately means no-one is held responsible if it all goes pear-shaped.

I would like to know what Councillor Hopkins thinks about all this. Is he happy that his officers ground to a halt on Somerleyton and thereby  allowed a private scheme to potentially capture 1/3 of the housing? And to introduce private housing for sale at market price into the equation? 

I was just checking a planning application for my brother in Norfolk. Breckland Council had the goodness to put a full (but redacted) Viability Assessment for the development on their website. I was amazed to see that in a development of 40 houses in rural Watton it was not viable to have any social housing or any other section 106 obligations.


----------



## Tricky Skills (May 24, 2016)

CH1 said:


> I know I'm deaf, but I was sitting right behind him. I too am sceptical about the final out-turn.
> 
> It's a pity no-one tape recorded the meeting because several things were said which indicated the planning officers wanted the thing to go through. The so-called quasi-judicial nature of the Planning Committee ultimately means no-one is held responsible if it all goes pear-shaped.
> 
> ...



Lambeth Council was recently involved in a court case about withholding Viability Assessment Reports from the public. The outcome of the case hasn't been made public yet 

Oh the irony.


----------



## Rushy (May 26, 2016)

CH1 said:


> I know I'm deaf, but I was sitting right behind him. I too am sceptical about the final out-turn.
> 
> It's a pity no-one tape recorded the meeting because several things were said which indicated the planning officers wanted the thing to go through. The so-called quasi-judicial nature of the Planning Committee ultimately means no-one is held responsible if it all goes pear-shaped.
> 
> ...



 I read that the 34 London Boroughs achieved an average of 22 per cent affordable housing, ( targets range from 30 per cent to 50 per cent). A BNP Paribas study put this largely down to rising value of land for commercial use, which has made developers abandon less profitable housing schemes and turn sites over to more profitable office buildings (which obviously have no "affordable" element).


----------



## CH1 (May 26, 2016)

Rushy said:


> I read that the 34 London Boroughs achieved an average of 22 per cent affordable housing, ( targets range from 30 per cent to 50 per cent). A BNP Paribas study put this largely down to rising value of land for commercial use, which has made developers abandon less profitable housing schemes and turn sites over to more profitable office buildings (which obviously have no "affordable" element).


....what?

Lambeth used to require 40% affordable housing. I think this might have been the London target too.

This would be 40% affordable housing out of 100% of housing developments - right?
I know the French are eccentric - but how did BNP Paribas manage to get offices into a calculation concerning housing?


----------



## Rushy (May 27, 2016)

CH1 said:


> ....what?
> 
> Lambeth used to require 40% affordable housing. I think this might have been the London target too.
> 
> ...


Simple. If the council insists on 40% affordable housing, the rising price of commercial means that it now makes more financial sense for the developer to build commercial instead, without any housing. To ensure resi developments go ahead, the council reduces the affordable demands.


----------



## Gramsci (May 27, 2016)

I was a the Brixton Neighbourhood Forum tonight and brought the issue of the planning application. Were the Council going to CPO the land or not.

Two Council officers were there from Regen and planning.

They did say they would get back on what is happening. One did say there had been a lack of communication on what the Councils intentions are.

On the CPO issue the officer said the valuation of the CPO would have assumed that the site would for housing. Even if done earlier on.

The impression I got is that the Council realises this is a bit of an embarrassment. Also looked to me that Brixton Green are in the dark on this as much as joe public like me.

Also got the impression that the Council is looking at ( possibly) acquiring the the land as is talking to the developer. But its all commercially confidential negotiations.

Also was said to me ( not by the officers) that Islington Council, unlike Lambeth , is much more willing to take on developers.


----------



## Gramsci (May 27, 2016)

On % of affordable housing. The planning officer talked of a case in Islington. The Council had opposed a "viability assessment" of a developer who was trying to reduce the affordable element. There argument was that the developer paid to much for the land knowing that he could use a viability assessment to reduce affordable element and thus loss of profits. 

Council lost the case. Appears to be an issue for all Councils and this was a test case. 

What appears to be happening is that land value is increased knowingly. As viability assessments can be used after buying.


----------



## CH1 (May 27, 2016)

Rushy said:


> Simple. If the council insists on 40% affordable housing, the rising price of commercial means that it now makes more financial sense for the developer to build commercial instead, without any housing. To ensure resi developments go ahead, the council reduces the affordable demands.


Notwithstanding what Gramsci posted above - in this particular case the developer was actually proposing residential almost copying the council's published plans - except that they have added in private accommodation.

Maybe you should visit Somerleyton Road Rushy and get a perspective on this particular site. It has been used as a cold store for frozen fish for the last 20 years and is almost falling down. I can't see Harry Hyams coming in with a proposal for Centrepoint II on this particular site. If someone wanted to develop the site for commercial use they could have done that anytime from when the council sold it off around 1995 - it has been zoned as commercial all that time.

What Gramsci is saying is actually correct - to ensure residential developments go ahead councils are forced to cave in to developers. The developers having paid property consultants to prepare a commercially confidential Viability Assessment supporting their client's case - which it now appears are accepted by the courts.


----------



## Rushy (May 27, 2016)

CH1 said:


> Notwithstanding what Gramsci posted above - in this particular case the developer was actually proposing residential almost copying the council's published plans - except that they have added in private accommodation.
> 
> Maybe you should visit Somerleyton Road Rushy and get a perspective on this particular site. It has been used as a cold store for frozen fish for the last 20 years and is almost falling down. I can't see Harry Hyams coming in with a proposal for Centrepoint II on this particular site. If someone wanted to develop the site for commercial use they could have done that anytime from when the council sold it off around 1995 - it has been zoned as commercial all that time.
> 
> What Gramsci is saying is actually correct - to ensure residential developments go ahead councils are forced to cave in to developers. The developers having paid property consultants to prepare a commercially confidential Viability Assessment supporting their client's case - which it now appears are accepted by the courts.


You expressed surprise at a viability study on another site. I referred to study of which I'd read a summary yesterday which quantified by how much targets were being missed and touched on a key reason for this. I made no suggestion that it explained either case. But it is nevertheless useful insight into how decisions in general are being reached. You are arguing with a point I haven't made.

With regard to developers producing expensive viability studies, the council has the power to require the developer to also pay for the council's own consultants to check the studies. The councils use the same big expensive firms. BNP Paribas is one which Lambeth use, I believe. I know of local cases where the council's consultants have approved the viability study so the council appoints yet another consultant. It's not quite the breeze that it's made out to be.

Of course, none of this stops informal negotiation behind the scenes.

I'm not convinced that developers deliberately pay higher prices for the land to ensure viability does not stack up. That does not make much sense to me. But they clearly speculate about what they will be allowed to do and this affects the price they pay. For viability studies to be at all meaningful they should really take into account the value of the land as it stood at the time of purchase, with existing planning permissions etc.. Developers should then be free to speculate and, if they get it wrong, suffer the loss, rather than be allowed a planning compromise on their site because they paid to much. I said the same in relation to the Barratt purchase.


----------



## CH1 (May 27, 2016)

Rushy said:


> You expressed surprise at a viability study on another site. .......


The senior planning officer in this case stated categorically to Councillor Diana Morris at Planning Committee that it would not be possible for a viability assessment to be used in this case. They would put on a section 106 to make sure it did not happen he said.
That is the context in which this became an issue in the last few posts here on this thread.

Gramsci was sceptical that the officer could have said that - but he did indeed say it.

Unfortunately "council minutes are not meant to be a verbatim record of the proceedings" (as we know from other cases) so there is wiggle-room available.

As for your point that Lambeth could force a developer to pay for their own experts to check the viability report - I hadn't heard of that. I bet Lambeth don't enforce it either. It would not surprise me in the least if us council tax payers were paying BNP Paribas as Lambeth planning and valuation consultants, alongside the myriad other consultants Lambeth constantly liaise with at public expense for all sorts of reasons.

Lambeth Council seem more concerned to push things through as soon as possible - regardless of the ethnic and social cleansing implications (so long as Lambeth isn't paying for it).


----------



## Gramsci (May 27, 2016)

At the Forum meeting the planning officer talked about the difficulty of getting affordable housing on private developments. 

He said viability assessments are a real problem. I do have some sympathy for Councils on this issue. 

Whoever in government thought this up did it in the interests of developers. It was a clever idea. 

Councils can set 40% and this deliberately undermines it. 

To call them viability assessments is a misnomer. They should be called maximising my profit assessment.


----------



## Gramsci (May 27, 2016)

The other problem is that now so called Starter Homes for sale count as affordable housing. This will reduce even further rented affordable housing.


----------



## editor (May 27, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> The other problem is that now so called Starter Homes for sale count as affordable housing.


FFS. Another wriggle.


----------



## Rushy (May 27, 2016)

CH1 said:


> As for your point that Lambeth could force a developer to pay for their own experts to check the viability report - I hadn't heard of that. I bet Lambeth don't enforce it either. It would not surprise me in the least if us council tax payers were paying BNP Paribas as Lambeth planning and valuation consultants, alongside the myriad other consultants Lambeth constantly liaise with at public expense for all sorts of reasons.


I share your obvious deep mistrust of Lambeth planning. I really do. But the only project I know of (due to my limited experience rather than because the practice is not wide spread) was here. And when Lambeth didn't get the answer they wanted from the second consultant, they insisted on a third. All paid for by the developer. However, this was a mid size developer. I could believe that they are much more cooperative with the big corporates who they cannot get away with bullying.

It's not just us public who have a bad impression of them. Pretty much any mention of Lambeth planning in professional and consultancy circles raises a groan from what I've heard and been told.


----------



## Twattor (May 27, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> On % of affordable housing. The planning officer talked of a case in Islington. The Council had opposed a "viability assessment" of a developer who was trying to reduce the affordable element. There argument was that the developer paid to much for the land knowing that he could use a viability assessment to reduce affordable element and thus loss of profits.
> 
> Council lost the case. Appears to be an issue for all Councils and this was a test case.
> 
> What appears to be happening is that land value is increased knowingly. As viability assessments can be used after buying.


This is a massive issues for all councils since viability became a material consideration.  LBI were always going to be at the sharp end as they have always been on the militant side, but there is a lot to be said for starting low and pushing up rather than starting high and having to re-build.


----------



## CH1 (May 27, 2016)

Rushy said:


> It's not just us public who have a bad impression of them. Pretty much any mention of Lambeth planning in professional and consultancy circles raises a groan from what I've heard and been told.


I think there were much better in the 1990s - and they had a lot more experienced staff who knew the areas.

The imposition of  a funding regime related to achieving housing targets (just housing - not affordable housing and definitely not social housing) means Lambeth Housing are also operating under politically imposed duress from central goverment.

The case you cite sounds somewhat sui generis if I might say so. Lambeth Planning seems currently keen to approve anything residential - which makes it all the more disappointing that the wheels have come off in Somerleyton Road as regards the council as developer.

I'm wondering if Lambeth Council still has the competencies to develop social housing. Seems as though without a partner development company like Higgs or Barratts they flounder, which is sad.


----------



## Gramsci (May 27, 2016)

CH1 said:


> The case you cite sounds somewhat sui generis if I might say so. Lambeth Planning seems currently keen to approve anything residential - which makes it all the more disappointing that the wheels have come off in Somerleyton Road as regards the council as developer.
> 
> I'm wondering if Lambeth Council still has the competencies to develop social housing. Seems as though without a partner development company like Higgs or Barratts they flounder, which is sad.



At the forum meeting the planning officer said that Lambeth has targets set by GLA/ mayor to achieve of residential housing to be built in Lambeth. ( Private or affordable). 

On Somerleyton road they have a team who can deliver. What is needed is the political will to push it through.


----------



## Gramsci (May 28, 2016)

Twattor said:


> This is a massive issues for all councils since viability became a material consideration.  LBI were always going to be at the sharp end as they have always been on the militant side, but there is a lot to be said for starting low and pushing up rather than starting high and having to re-build.



Been trying to find the Islington case that was mentioned at the Forum meeting.

Did find this Guardian piece. 



> “Developers and landowners have benefited at the expense of essential affordable housing thanks to a viability industry that has got out of control,” said James Murray, executive member for housing at Islington, the Labour council that said it would resist developers’ claims of commercial confidentiality about viability assessments.
> 
> “People are being conned out of affordable housing in some of the biggest developments in London. It has become such a murky process the pendulum has swung too far in favour of developers.”




Islington certainly are more militant. This is what people want. At the Brixton Neighbourhood Forum people were asking about affordable housing. Its depressing to hear a whole litany of reasons why it cant happen from senior officers. I don’t think its just down to how bad or not Lambeth Planning are. Labour Lambeth Council politically will not have a go at developers. Cllr Peck would rather go off and give talks to developers for example.  Reading the Guardian piece on Islington its different up there. I could feel in the meeting how it went flat after the officer spoke. Its just dis empowering for ordinary people.

Property developers are the enemy. Preferably they would be done away with. Until that happens Lambeth should take a leaf out of Islingtons book and tell it how it is.


----------



## Gramsci (May 28, 2016)

And from the Guardian piece so called viability assessments are all about profit margins.



> . It showed a developer considered 25% profit acceptable when the council scrutinising it said 15% was more normal. The difference on the scheme at the Elephant & Castle in south London equated to £100m.



Viability assessments aren’t there to protect poor hard pressed developers from going under. Its not about stopping nasty Councils putting developers out of business. Though that would be good.


----------



## CH1 (May 28, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Been trying to find the Islington case that was mentioned at the Forum meeting.
> Did find this Guardian piece.
> Islington certainly are more militant. This is what people want. At the Brixton Neighbourhood Forum people were asking about affordable housing. Its depressing to hear a whole litany of reasons why it cant happen from senior officers. I don’t think its just down to how bad or not Lambeth Planning are. Labour Lambeth Council politically will not have a go at developers. Cllr Peck would rather go off and give talks to developers for example.  Reading the Guardian piece on Islington its different up there. I could feel in the meeting how it went flat after the officer spoke. Its just dis empowering for ordinary people.
> 
> Property developers are the enemy. Preferably they would be done away with. Until that happens Lambeth should take a leaf out of Islingtons book and tell it how it is.


The Guardian article is quite interesting - as is the quote from Sadiq Khan. Since being elected he has already rowed back on the number of affordable homes to be built, so if he does introduce a London standard for viability assessments - as he had said he would in the article - it will be interesting to see whether it improves the current situation.

I think Lambeth Council's normal mode of operation is to choose a developer, point them in the general direction and then let them get on with it. This may explain their supine position. They don't want to pick fights with prospective "partners" needed for Cressingham Gardens, Central Hill, Knights Walk etc etc. After all look how successful the PFI "Oval Quarter" redevelopment of Myatts Field North has been - nearly all sold off-plan in Singapore!

The other thing that occurs to me is the amount of WASTE in all this. The government is always going on about cutting out red tape and bureaucratic waste. Then they set up an expensive planning negotiation system using countless surveyors, architects and other consultants designed to up a developer's profit - apparently typically from 15% to 25% (see Guardian article reference to Heygate above).

If this was going on in Nigeria we would be accusing them of corruption. Here it is just par for the course - and also adds enormously to a council's costs bureaucratically unless they just roll over and accept the millionaire corporations' special pleading.

And of course by accepting a much lower amount of affordable housing living costs are increased for the poorer end of society - and the the government seems oblivious  to the fact that tax payers may have to subsidise high rents through Housing Benefit because social rents are not available.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 28, 2016)

CH1 said:


> The Guardian article is quite interesting - as is the quote from Sadiq Khan. Since being elected he has already rowed back on the number of affordable homes to be built, so if he does introduce a London standard for viability assessments - as he had said he would in the article - it will be interesting to see whether it improves the current situation.
> 
> I think Lambeth Council's normal mode of operation is to choose a developer, point them in the general direction and then let them get on with it. This may explain their supine position. They don't want to pick fights with prospective "partners" needed for Cressingham Gardens, Central Hill, Knights Walk etc etc. After all look how successful the PFI "Oval Quarter" redevelopment of Myatts Field North has been - nearly all sold off-plan in Singapore!



Oval Quarter apparently *still* has huge "snagging" issues coming to light. I could almost feel sorry for the investors, and *do* feel sorry for private renters.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jun 14, 2016)

The minutes of the steering group were supposed to be published each month. These failed to appear for a two year period, until an FoI prompted them to be published last summer. They have since stopped appearing once again.

It now seems [pdf] that they won't be published until commercial considerations have been completed - understandable, but frustrating, given the recent changes in the project.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 14, 2016)

Tricky Skills said:


> The minutes of the steering group were supposed to be published each month. These failed to appear for a two year period, until an FoI prompted them to be published last summer. They have since stopped appearing once again.
> 
> It now seems [pdf] that they won't be published until commercial considerations have been completed - understandable, but frustrating, given the recent changes in the project.



This is most unsatisfactory. They could put out redacted minutes at least.

Minutes will only go up once all decisions have been made behind closed doors.

I thought the whole thing about the Somerleyton road project was that it was done in consultation with the community.



> It would also potentially impact commercially on our partners -Ovalhouse and Brixton Green –both of whom are making funding bids; bids which the Council needs to be successful as
> part of the project’s financial viability.



Why do the funding bids have to be kept secret?Joe Public do not have to know the commercially sensitive financial details- this can be redacted. But the general info of what and why a funding application is being made should be made public.

I am curious what funding bid Brixton Green are going for. And what its for. I thought BG was to be dissolved once the project is finished and a new management body put in place to run the finished scheme.


> Disclosure would *discourage current stakeholders and elected politicians from discussing controversial or unpopular options when dealing with such matters in the future* and cause stress and upset to the people involved who have an expectation of safety and security in dialogue at this stage. In addition two key stakeholders are external to Lambeth and the release of the minutes
> would prejudice their ability to access grant funding. Disclosure could also potentially lead
> to challenge from the large commercial organisations with whom we are in dialogue



The two "stakeholders" being Ovalhouse and BG.

I wonder what the controversial or unpopular options are joe public is not allowed to know about.

BG were put on the steering group to represent the interests of the local community. Know we are told that the local community are not allowed to know about discussions which may effect what happens in there area. But BG are on the steering group to represent the local community. How does that work?

Nor is it good that it takes an FOI for the Council to explain why they stopped putting up the minutes. Which were promised as part of the Coop Council way of doing things. After all its the Council who put this forward as a ground breaking flagship project of the Coop Council.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jun 15, 2016)

Thanks Gramsci. I've requested an internal review.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 8, 2016)

Congratulations OvalhouseDB  on being named as part of the team awarded the New London Architecture prize for best new housing project (unbuilt).


----------



## CH1 (Jul 8, 2016)

Rushy said:


> Congratulations OvalhouseDB  on being named as part of the team awarded the New London Architecture prize for best new housing project (unbuilt).


The phrasing is a bit off-putting I thought:

*New London Awards 2016 - Winners Announced*
*
HOUSING*
_Sponsored by Turley_
*Unbuilt* *Winner*
*Somerleyton Road, Brixton, SW9* by Metropolitan Workshop, Haworth Tompkins, Mae, Foster Wilson and Zac Monro for LB Lambeth, Ovalhouse, Brixton Green and igloo regeneration
*Built* *Winner*
*Corner House, W1* by DSDHA for Derwent London
Commended
*Greenwich Housing *by Bell Philips Architects for RB Greenwich
*South Acton Phase 3.1, W3* by Stitch for Countryside Properties

in danger of sounding like it fell by the wayside.


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2016)

CH1 said:


> The phrasing is a bit off-putting I thought:
> 
> *New London Awards 2016 - Winners Announced*
> *
> ...


What the fuck has Brixton Green's architectural input been in all this?


----------



## CH1 (Jul 8, 2016)

editor said:


> What the fuck has Brixton Green's architectural input been in all this?


Dunno. Unfortunately the lunch has now passed - you could have maybe paid £288 for a seat and discreetly asked at the event?
http://www.newlondonarchitecture.org/docs/lunch_booking_form_2016_ef_f.pdf


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 9, 2016)

editor said:


> What the fuck has Brixton Green's architectural input been in all this?



None. The Council have appointed there own architects and Ovalhouse have there own. 

The architects did different aspects of the scheme. Zac did Carlton Mansions for example.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 9, 2016)

Its still not onsite.

I wonder what is happening. The award is for best unbuilt scheme. We still do not know what is happening with the planning application by the private owner of a section of the site and how this will affect the overall design thats just won an award.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 9, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Its still not onsite.
> 
> I wonder what is happening. The award is for best unbuilt scheme. We still do not know what is happening with the planning application by the private owner of a section of the site and how this will affect the overall design thats just one an award.


Presumably the next step will be for the fish trading  factory owner at 16-20 Somerleyton Road to try and get a developer on board. He managed to get the architect OK, but getting a developer will be more tricky, as they might have to abort if the council does go ahead and get a CPO and any profit might simply be the value-added to the site by the planning permissions granted so far.

The council's behaviour is quite extraordinary. They had a significant scheme here which was generally supported by local people and yet they are apparently paralysed and unable to progress it by doing the CPO before even the last general election - as per their proposed time-line.

Yet the buildings round the town hall - which scheme started AFTER Somerleyton Road - are now laying in rubble ready for the new Lambeth Admin Block to arise like a Phoenix and ruin the views round St Matthews Church.

Similarly they are ploughing ahead with their plans for highly contentious and unpopular regenerations at Cressingham Gardens, Central Hill, Fenwick Estate etc etc.

Lambeth's regeneration team live in a parallel universe. PFI developers such as MUSE hold the officers' feet to the fire and they get on with the job. Poor old Oval House and Brixton Green just don't have the same clout.


----------



## Brix69 (Jul 12, 2016)

CH1 said:


> Presumably the next step will be for the fish trading  factory owner at 16-20 Somerleyton Road to try and get a developer on board. He managed to get the architect OK, but getting a developer will be more tricky, as they might have to abort if the council does go ahead and get a CPO and any profit might simply be the value-added to the site by the planning permissions granted so far.
> 
> The council's behaviour is quite extraordinary. They had a significant scheme here which was generally supported by local people and yet they are apparently paralysed and unable to progress it by doing the CPO before even the last general election - as per their proposed time-line.
> 
> ...



I presume  Lambeth are deliberately over consulting on the Somerleyton Rd project to keep the people who care about Brixton, e.g. Brixton Society etc busy while they allow the rest of Brixton, with the Town Hall, Stockwell Rd, Brixton College CHL etc to be trashed. Once that's been done I imagine they will quietly ignore or shelve the Somerleyton Rd project a la Pop.


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2016)

Brix69 said:


> I presume  Lambeth are deliberately over consulting on the Somerleyton Rd project to keep the people who care about Brixton, e.g. Brixton Society etc busy while they allow the rest of Brixton, with the Town Hall, Stockwell Rd, Brixton College CHL etc to be trashed. Once that's been done I imagine they will quietly ignore or shelve the Somerleyton Rd project a la Pop.


They're not actually consulting though. Getting Brixton Green in to run the show is anything but consulting. They're there for their own interests, despite their self serving 'community' PR.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 12, 2016)

Brix69 said:


> I presume  Lambeth are deliberately over consulting on the Somerleyton Rd project to keep the people who care about Brixton, e.g. Brixton Society etc busy while they allow the rest of Brixton, with the Town Hall, Stockwell Rd, Brixton College CHL etc to be trashed. Once that's been done I imagine they will quietly ignore or shelve the Somerleyton Rd project a la Pop.


Your litany has missed one out:
(Cabinet decision for Fenwick Estate Regeneration)
*Cabinet decision for Fenwick Estate Regeneration*
Posted by Bashir Miah on July 12, 2016

Last night the Council’s Cabinet met to discuss the proposed redevelopment of the Fenwick Estate and it was resolved that full redevlopment will take place. This means that all the blocks on the estate (except for the odd-numbered homes on Willington Road) will be demolished in a phased basis to make way for the redevelopment of the Estate. The redevelopment will re-provide all the existing homes and deliver additional new homes.

*What happen’s now?
*
This decision means that the Council will start to work up detailed plans with residents on the estate for the redevelopment of the estate. We appreciate that this may be unwelcome news for some, especially those directly affected. However, going forward we will aim to provide you with as much certainty and information as possible.

As part of this we would like to invite you to our regular drop-in sessions. This is your chance to raise with the Council any issues or concerns you may have. These sessions will be held in the Fenwick Hall and take place on the following days:
Tuesday 19th July, 5pm to 7.30pm
Monday 15th August, 5pm to 7.30pm.

*It should be noted that five days after the report is published there is an opportunity for Councillors to ‘call in’ this decision for further consideration. Should this happen we will be in touch again.
*
Contacting Your Resident Advisors (RA)

You can also see and speak to your Resident Advisors, Strategic Urban Future. Their next upcoming events are:
Whole Estate Meeting. Monday 18th July ,6.30pm to 8.30pm, Fenwick Hall.
Resident Advisors' Advice Surgery, Thursday 21st July 2016, 4pm - 7pm, Fenwick Hall

The RA team can be contacted on the freephone number on 0800 169 8677 or you can call/email them on the details below:
Rob Lantsbury , m: 0796 1532761, email: rob.lantsbury@strategicurbanfutures.com
Christine Searle, m: 0776 4421981 , email: christine.searle@strategicurbanfutures.com 　

The Council’s Key Guarantees

As the Council's Cabinet has decided that Fenwick Estate is to re-developed the Council’s Key Guarantees will come into effect. These guarantees include:
for tenants, a guarantee that you will be offered a new home on the estate that meets your housing needs; and
for homeowners, a guarantee that there will be a variety of options which will enable you to remain living on the estate in a new home.

You can see all of guarantees on the link by clicking here.

What happens next?

There is still a lot of detailed planning to do before any work can take place on the site and we do not expect any demolition to start until sometime in Jan 2019 at the earliest.

The next step is to select a team which will develop detailed plans for the estate and we want you to be involved in selecting that team. The council has short-listed some development management teams who will present at an exhibition after the summer break, potentially in September. We will confirm the date and venue nearer to the time.

The exhibition will provide residents with the opportunity to meet the prospective development management teams and score them. The resident feedback will be used by the council as part of the evaluation process for selecting the successful development management team.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Jul 12, 2016)

Rushy said:


> Congratulations OvalhouseDB  on being named as part of the team awarded the New London Architecture prize for best new housing project (unbuilt).


Thank you! Not that this bit was much to do with me or Ovalhouse - except by being partners in the Steering Group. But the quality of the housing has been important to all of us and a lot of thought has gone into how the flats are designed and arranged. The award is for the scheme as a whole, and in the unbuilt category because it is , obviously, as yet unbuilt.

Things are progressing, U75 posters have correctly identified some of the issues being dealt with, and I can't give any detailed updates, again for reasons that posters have identified. I too watch the demolition on Brixton Hill and think 'I went to that public meeting about this in the Ritzy- a while after we had started on Somerleyton Rd'. We are getting on with our own fundraising, and getting Ovalhouse Brixton-ready as an organisation.

Watch out for our performances and events around the town centre in August. And if you have young people who would like to sign up for our summer schools look Rhyme and Reason Spoken Word Summer School | Events | Ovalhouse here for Rhyme and Reason Spoken Word for 16-25 yo, £10 for 4 days,  Innovate Drama Summer School | Events | Ovalhouse for a 3-week drama course for 12-16 yo - only £30 in total!, and here Ignite Dance Summer School | Events | Ovalhouse for 3 weeks of dance, same price, for 12-16 yo. Everyone welcome, but if places are oversubscribed priority goes to residents of Hyde, Metropolitan or L&Q Housing, as we have a partnership with them.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 23, 2016)

Brixton Green emailed me this morning. There are holding an open meeting/drop-in at the Impact Hub in Pop Brixton  6.30 - 9.30 pm Monday 3rd October

There is an attachment to the email - a schedule of proposed rents for the Somerleyton Road development, which they propose should be means tested.

Doesn't affect me, but I thought the proposition quite interesting:


----------



## editor (Sep 23, 2016)

'Affordable' is 40% of houshold income?



> UK families are among the worst off in Europe when it comes to housing costs, spending more than 40% of their household income on rent, mortgage payments and other living costs, according to the housing charity Shelter.
> 
> A report by the charity concludes that the failure of successive British governments to prioritise housing investment has led to one in six people being overburdened with rent, mortgage payments and costs such as utility bills, service charges and tax. The report used data from the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Standards to calculate the percentage of people living in a household where total housing costs (net of housing allowances) exceed 40% of a family's total disposable household income.
> 
> UK housing costs the third highest in Europe


Same there's no numbers for the amount of properties being offered at these rates.

I'm still not sure what the fuck Brixton Green are doing in all of this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2016)

editor said:


> 'Affordable' is 40% of houshold income?
> 
> 
> Same there's no numbers for the amount of properties being offered at these rates.
> ...



Note too that in the article, they're talking about "total housing costs", not just the rent. Brixton Green's plans would mean people spending 50% + on "total housing costs".


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 23, 2016)

CH1 said:


> Brixton Green emailed me this morning. There are holding an open meeting/drop-in at the Impact Hub in Pop Brixton  6.30 - 9.30 pm Monday 3rd October
> 
> There is an attachment to the email - a schedule of proposed rents for the Somerleyton Road development, which they propose should be means tested.
> 
> ...



Are Brixton Green an independent organisation who lobby the Council or are they in fact acting more like consultants for the Council? Devising schedules for rents.

Is this what Brixton people really want?Is Pop the best place to get locals to air there views? Cant say I know anyone on Moorlands who uses Pop.

Remember When first met Brad and Castiang they were going on about means testing people for a complicated form of shared ownership. Even then they were told thats not necessarily  what people want. They took no notice. 

Its quite intrusive. Its also not that far from this Tories policy on social housing. Where people do not have long term secure tenancies but short ones. Then re assessed.

Its all very interesting but its on the slippery slope away from post war social housing.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 23, 2016)

editor said:


> 'Affordable' is 40% of houshold income?
> 
> 
> *Same there's no numbers for the amount of properties being offered at these rates.*
> ...



Good point. Its been one of my concerns for a while.

Will the majority of the flats be let at equivalent of social rent? We do not know. Will the % vary over time reflecting the economic situation of the time?

As now up to 80% of so called market rent is classified as "affordable" under the rent regime proposed by Brixton Green the majority of the properties could be classified by the Council as social housing.

Even though the income levels are high.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 23, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Are Brixton Green an independent organisation who lobby the Council or are they in fact acting more like consultants for the Council? Devising schedules for rents.
> 
> Is this what Brixton people really want?Is Pop the best place to get locals to air there views? Cant say I know anyone on Moorlands who uses Pop.
> 
> ...


Maybe go to their meeting and ask Dina Roake (who allegedly cited or compiled that table)?
More importantly can they shine any light on whether the project is happening at all - or has it run into the buffers of Lambeth Regeneration being over-committed to  regenerating Fenwick Estate, Cressingham Gardens, Central Hill, Knight's Walk, etc etc??


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Are Brixton Green an independent organisation who lobby the Council or are they in fact acting more like consultants for the Council? Devising schedules for rents.
> 
> Is this what Brixton people really want?Is Pop the best place to get locals to air there views? Cant say I know anyone on Moorlands who uses Pop.
> 
> ...



If Brixton Green's vision of means-testing follows that of developers, then it isn't just about ability to pay - it also becomes a tool whereby you can filter prospective residents - by profession and professional tenure, for example - in order to manipulate local demography - homes in a development with a "good" ACORN rating will be able to demand higher prices (rental and purchase).


----------



## CH1 (Sep 24, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> If Brixton Green's vision of means-testing follows that of developers, then it isn't just about ability to pay - it also becomes a tool whereby you can filter prospective residents - by profession and professional tenure, for example - in order to manipulate local demography - homes in a development with a "good" ACORN rating will be able to demand higher prices (rental and purchase).


Actually there was guidance from City Am on how to get "affordable housing" if you are selling an existing property.
There was also an advert in the same affordable housing for stockbrokers section of City AM for Loughborough Park (Guinness Trust) - the desirable new development in SW9.

I'll post it up later if it will cause any consternation. I must admit I was taken aback at the time.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 24, 2016)

Just for comparison, Lewisham's Besson Street private rented sector scheme is planned to be 65% at market rent (with capped rises - I suspect these caps won't apply at change of tenant though that hasn't been made clear yet). 35% will be the 'affordable' rents, which will be 35% of _two _London living wages. Since many (most I suspect?) households don't have two full-time incomes this is kind of a meaningless benchmark and won't be affordable to most people who live in the New Cross area. The one thing I'd say in favour of Lambeth's scheme is that it's looking like it will be better than Lewisham's. But I admit that's a low bar to aim for.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 24, 2016)

For those with a geek interest in council PRS schemes, here is the latest report on Lewisham's Besson Street scheme: https://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s44566/Besson Street Re-development.pdf

Edit to add: if any planning wizards can tell me why the report goes on about compulsory purchase powers when there don't seem to be any compulsory purchases necessary, please let me know...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 24, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> For those with a geek interest in council PRS schemes, here is the latest report on Lewisham's Besson Street scheme: https://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s44566/Besson Street Re-development.pdf
> 
> Edit to add: if any planning wizards can tell me why the report goes on about compulsory purchase powers when there don't seem to be any compulsory purchases necessary, please let me know...



Because they often seek to "fold" adjacent properties into the development at a discounted rate. Same is being done regarding the "regeneration" of where I live, with Lambeth attempting to CP two adjacent blocks of housing (one of 18 properties, one of 8). It may be that the developer has there eyes on somewhere nearby.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 24, 2016)

Having had a pint of Tescos £1.99/2L cider (so far) I was struck by the rather paranoid thought that there might be  deal between Guinness Trust and London Borough of Lambeth that Somerleyton Road not be started until Guinness Trust is fully sold/let.

Unlikely as that may be the City AM piece puts the icing on the cake.

Advertising their Guinness Loughborough Park development in a publication aimed at stockbrokers and city traders - and furthermore having that publication clearly advise that already owning a property is no bar to a successful application.

Note that being a buy-to-let investor would not prevent you applying for shared ownership yourself provided your "business" was on a proper business basis and you could supply two years of accounts.

This absolute proof - if any were needed - that the Guinness Loughborough Park development is raw social and ethnic cleansing (in common with all other similar developments). The people who have been victimised are existing social tenants - in favour of all manner of potential incoming people who quite simply generate more profit for Guinness.


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 26, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because they often seek to "fold" adjacent properties into the development at a discounted rate. Same is being done regarding the "regeneration" of where I live, with Lambeth attempting to CP two adjacent blocks of housing (one of 18 properties, one of 8). It may be that the developer has there eyes on somewhere nearby.


They haven't announced any CPs yet but perhaps they are bearing it in mind for later. There's a black congregation church in a crappy building right next to the site that I can imagine being number one on the hit list if so.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 1, 2016)

Could be worth a bump - this from an email just sent out from Brixton Green:

Next monthly open meeting
Time & date: 6.30pm to 9.30pm Monday 7th November
Venue: Impact Hub, Pop Brixton 49 Brixton Station Rd, London SW9 8PQ (the Impact Hub is at the back of Pop Brixton on the ground level)
Brixton Green hold monthly open drop-in meetings on the first Monday of the month. Our next meeting will focus on how to make the sustainable ambitions happen.
Visit brixtongreen.org for more information

The most peculiar thing about the email is the artwork:

Is that supposed to be Somerleyton Road with modern flats and rennovated market barrows? I think we should be told.


----------



## madolesance (Nov 1, 2016)

CH1 said:


> Could be worth a bump - this from an email just sent out from Brixton Green:
> 
> Next monthly open meeting
> Time & date: 6.30pm to 9.30pm Monday 7th November
> ...



Where are the rennovated market barrows?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 1, 2016)

madolesance said:


> Where are the rennovated market barrows?


Sorry - it's my poor eyesight at least as regards cgi images. 
I think it's 2 bicycles and a planter with members of the community planting - as they do.


----------



## editor (Nov 1, 2016)

CH1 said:


> Could be worth a bump - this from an email just sent out from Brixton Green:
> 
> Next monthly open meeting
> Time & date: 6.30pm to 9.30pm Monday 7th November
> ...


Looks like a bland US university campus.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 1, 2016)

editor said:


> Looks like a bland US university campus.


Could they build it out of Lego?


----------



## Angellic (Nov 3, 2016)

editor said:


> Looks like a bland US university campus.



With more than a hint of Oval Quarter.


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2016)

Angellic said:


> With more than a hint of Oval Quarter.


Yep. One for the smart money fuckers.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 3, 2016)

editor said:


> Yep. One for the smart money fuckers.


Don't forget this is supposed to be a council development with 40% reserved at council rent. Isn't it?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 4, 2016)

According to BG website


----------



## CH1 (Nov 4, 2016)

teuchter said:


> According to BG website
> 
> View attachment 94893


Isn't that an abbreviated version of "Brixton Green" is attempting to set up a Community Land Trust vehicle to collect the freehold rent on the council-built properties to run a community centre once a week in Pop Brixton"?


----------



## editor (Nov 4, 2016)

CH1 said:


> Isn't that an abbreviated version of "Brixton Green" is attempting to set up a Community Land Trust vehicle to collect the freehold rent on the council-built properties to run a community centre once a week in Pop Brixton"?


Who knows what Brixton Green are up to. 'Slippery' is not the word.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 4, 2016)

This is what they say is the relationship between them and the trust:

 

I guess anyone genuinely interested in understanding how it all works will go along on Monday and ask them directly.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 12, 2016)

A report on Lewisham's private rented scheme at Besson St, New Cross - the report is mostly on a community consultation but has stuff on council PRS schemes in general A Better Besson Street - The Proper Consultation


----------



## Casaubon (Dec 14, 2016)

I received this A5 brochure from Brixton Green yesterday. I live off Brixton Hill, near the prison.

From what I’ve read of them I’m dubious of their motives and methods.
Maybe I’m just a bitter old cynic, but to me this sort of publicity campaign reeks of expensive bullshit, with its computer-rendered utopias and irrelevant photos of smiling families.

What’s their game, exactly?


----------



## editor (Dec 14, 2016)

Casaubon said:


> I received this A5 brochure from Brixton Green yesterday. I live off Brixton Hill, near the prison.
> 
> From what I’ve read of them I’m dubious of their motives and methods.
> Maybe I’m just a bitter old cynic, but to me this sort of publicity campaign reeks of expensive bullshit, with its computer-rendered utopias and irrelevant photos of smiling families.
> ...


Good luck trying to find that out. I don't trust them one fucking inch. Despite all this 'run by local people' bollocks, their chair has no connection with Brixton whatsoever. And the 'shareholders' stuff is utter bollocks too.


----------



## CH1 (Dec 14, 2016)

Casaubon said:


> I received this A5 brochure from Brixton Green yesterday. I live off Brixton Hill, near the prison.





editor said:


> Good luck trying to find that out. I don't trust them one fucking inch....'run by local people' bollocks..


There is a full page advertorial on page 15 of the Brixton Bugle on this topic.
The very last paragraph is an advertisement for a "Transition Director" no salary or job spec though.

The link below may explain what is going on. Rather than any immediate prospect of building work they have apparently been successful in getting a £231,000 grant from "Power to Change" whatever that is. Sounds like a Cameroonian organisation designed to pay consultants to help the poor people to me.

Brixton Green are awarded £231k from Power to Change (funded by the Big Lottery) | Brixton Green


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 14, 2016)

Casaubon said:


> I received this A5 brochure from Brixton Green yesterday. I live off Brixton Hill, near the prison.
> 
> From what I’ve read of them I’m dubious of their motives and methods.
> Maybe I’m just a bitter old cynic, but to me this sort of publicity campaign reeks of expensive bullshit, with its computer-rendered utopias and irrelevant photos of smiling families.
> ...



I see the start date is now 2017.

When we were in court the Council was saying it was much earlier than that. It was one of the reasons we lost.They said they needed vacant possession as works would start soon. 

We could not prove this was not the case. After all if the Council say something in court in front of a Judge it must be true.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 14, 2016)

CH1 said:


> There is a full page advertorial on page 15 of the Brixton Bugle on this topic.
> The very last paragraph is an advertisement for a "Transition Director" no salary or job spec though.
> 
> The link below may explain what is going on. Rather than any immediate prospect of building work they have apparently been successful in getting a £231,000 grant from "Power to Change" whatever that is. Sounds like a Cameroonian organisation designed to pay consultants to help the poor people to me.
> ...





> *Sophie Macken*, Programmes Manager at the independent trust Power to Change, said:
> _‘We are very proud to be funding Brixton Green at this crucial moment in its development. It takes a lot of work for community businesses to make their ideas into a reality, and this is another exciting step forward.  Brixton Green is precisely the sort of ambitious project, shaped and built by the local community, which will help the area thrive even with more tough times ahead.’_



This is a quote from one individual. Maybe they did not quite understand. I thought the BG line was that once the project is built there role would be finished. The quote suggests that this is not the case. That the grant is to facilitate BG onto its next stage.

Secondly this is a Council project not a Brixton Green project. The actual role of BG on the Somerleyton Road project steering group is to represent the community. The other two organisations on the steering group are the Council and Oval House theatre. Both the Council and OHT are taking the financial risk of the project. They are raising the funds.They are paying for the architects and consultants needed to get a large project like this off the ground.

So its not a Brixton Green project as the quote implies.


----------



## CH1 (Dec 14, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> This is a quote from one individual. Maybe they did not quite understand. I thought the BG line was that once the project is built there role would be finished. The quote suggests that this is not the case. That the grant is to facilitate BG onto its next stage.
> 
> Secondly this is a Council project not a Brixton Green project. The actual role of BG on the Somerleyton Road project steering group is to represent the community. The other two organisations on the steering group are the Council and Oval House theatre. Both the Council and OHT are taking the financial risk of the project. They are raising the funds.They are paying for the architects and consultants needed to get a large project like this off the ground.
> 
> So its not a Brixton Green project as the quote implies.


Sophie Macken seems to have spent more years at Directory of Social Change and Drug Science than anywhere else.

Directory of Social Change is an organisation which helps charities and social firms to apply for grants.

Drug Science is an organisation which gives out information about recreational drugs.

I am a bit surprised that she should be "proud to be funding Brixton Green" - but then this probably means that like LJAG, Brixton Green can put in a mean funding application form - well enough done that the funder is proud to fund them.


----------



## editor (Jan 2, 2017)

Really disappointed to see the Bugle running a full page piece on Brixton Green - that was written by Brixton Green. An advert that looks like an article. Terrible journalism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 2, 2017)

editor said:


> Really disappointed to see the Bugle running a full page piece on Brixton Green - that was written by Brixton Green. An advert that looks like an article. Terrible journalism.



I'm not *massively* surprised at the Bugle pimping PR puffs written by the puffers. It's where their model of journalism was always going to lead - if you take money from the council etc, you pedal hard to avoid offending them, and in some cases will actively go soft on some stories in order to keep them on board.


----------



## editor (Jan 2, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not *massively* surprised at the Bugle pimping PR puffs written by the puffers. It's where their model of journalism was always going to lead - if you take money from the council etc, you pedal hard to avoid offending them, and in some cases will actively go soft on some stories in order to keep them on board.


I can understand this but this is a whole page of uncritical propaganda for Brixton Green. It's quite shameful.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 3, 2017)

editor said:


> I can understand this but this is a whole page of uncritical propaganda for Brixton Green. It's quite shameful.



Isn't the current editor of the Bugle a mate of Brad Carroll's?


----------



## editor (Jan 3, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> Isn't the current editor of the Bugle a mate of Brad Carroll's?


I've no idea but omitting the word 'Advertorial' from the article leaves the paper with very little credibility as a independent news source.


----------



## CH1 (Jan 12, 2017)

Brixton Green have just put this invite out:

*2017 will be a big year for Brixton Green!*
This year construction is due to start & Lambeth Council will make the big decision on whether to lease the 304 homes to the new community trust!

*25th January Event: Film, Food & Housing workshop
Venue: Pop Brixton 49 Brixton Station Rd, Brixton SW9 8PQ
Time: 6.30pm to 9.30pm Wednesday 25th January*
To convince Lambeth to lease the development to the Trust, we must make it the best it can be. This workshop will help shape the details and help make this happen such as: Who will the homes be for? How will it be managed? How will it be run?
6.30pm Welcome and food
7pm Film: "Arc of Justice" The new award winning film of the first community land trust, set up in Georgia USA in 1969 by leaders of the African American Civil Rights Movement.
7.30pm - 9.30pm: Housing workshop

The film might be enlightening or uplifting, but as it concerns a community company setting up some sort of workers co-op in Atlanta for displaced share-croppers in 1969 - against opposition from white capitalists, I wonder how relevant this is to Somerleyton Road?

There is more:
*Dates for 2017:
Wednesday 25th January Event* (6.30pm to 9.30pm) : Film, food and housing workshop
*Thursday 2nd February*: Deadline for candidates to stand for election to be a Brixton Green trustee. Contact us for more details.
*Monday 6th February* (6.30pm to 9.30pm): Open Project Night @ the Impact Hub, Pop Brixton (Brixton Green attends the first Monday of each month to answer any questions on the project)
*Thursday 9th February* (7pm to 9pm): Follow up workshop for the 25th January event.
*Thursday 2nd March* (6.30pm): Election 2017, Annual General Meeting & event.
*Monday 6th March* (6.30pm to 9.30pm): Open Project Night @ the Impact Hub, Pop Brixton

Before someone takes a Pop at me (haha) I am relaying this for information purposes. I guess people who either know little of Brixton Green, or want to influence it could go to the meetings and pipe up.


----------



## editor (Jan 12, 2017)

CH1 said:


> Brixton Green have just put this invite out:
> 
> *2017 will be a big year for Brixton Green!*
> This year construction is due to start & Lambeth Council will make the big decision on whether to lease the 304 homes to the new community trust!
> ...


Yet not a flyer or a poster has been seen in the block adjacent to this development, neither have they added it to the Buzz listings or advertised anywhere else - if you hadn't posted it here, I'd had no idea. I doubt if that many local residents read this forum either. 

So much for their community engagement skills.

Not sure many of their nearest residents are regulars at Pop Brixton either and I'm not quite seeing their connection to what happened at Georgia in 1969.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 19, 2017)

CH1 said:


> Brixton Green have just put this invite out:
> 
> *2017 will be a big year for Brixton Green!*
> This year construction is due to start & Lambeth Council will make the big decision on whether to lease the 304 homes to the new community trust!
> ...




Got a leaflet about this today.

At least they refer to it as the somerleyton road project.

What did surprise me was this.

" The development is being developed in partnership with Lambeth Council. "

No mention of Ovalhouse Theatre. And well the project is being developed by Lambeth Council with a steering group that comprises Lambeth Council, Ovalhouse and BG ,who the Council appointed,to represent the community.


----------



## ricbake (Jan 23, 2017)

Brixton Green - Job opportunity | Brixton Green 

Job title: *TRANSITION DIRECTOR*

Working For: Brixton Green/ Somerleyton Trust

Salary: £55-60,000 pa, subject to experience.

*Job Details*

*The Organisation*

The Somerleyton Trust is an exciting and pioneering response to London’s housing problems which will provide locally accountable, 100% rented housing in the heart of Brixton. The project will be home to over 1,000 people of mixed incomes, at truly affordable rent levels suited to incomes, as well as providing new space for local businesses to thrive.

*The Role*

We’re looking for a strategic thinker, great manager and passionate candidate to become our Transition Director who will take the lead in shaping the future of the Somerleyton Trust.

The role is to ‘design’ and then implement a viable business plan for the Somerleyton Trust as a new community housing trust. It is expected that this is a 2-year process. The Transition Director will need to have vision, rigour and drive to establish the Trust as a well-governed and locally accountable landlord with responsibilities including:
.....


----------



## CH1 (Jan 23, 2017)

I feel one should alert Lee Japser to this opportunity to challenge racism, gentrification and rentier capitalism!


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 23, 2017)

ricbake said:


> Brixton Green - Job opportunity | Brixton Green
> 
> Job title: *TRANSITION DIRECTOR*
> 
> ...




Two year process. I do hope this will not delay the scheme. Which is already well behind schedule. 

Secondly it's up to the Council what the long term management will be. It's them and Ovalhouse who are doing the funding and building of the project. The job description is wrong to say the "Somerleyton Trust" is doing it. I don't understand that. The Trust does not exist.

What happens if the model that BG come up with is not one the Council wants? From there leaflet BG want a long lease. So it is more than a management model. The Council decided to retain ownership of the site to keep it under local democratic control.

I would rather the Council consulted on long term mge. Putting forward different options. The team they hired are capable of doing this.


----------



## CH1 (Jan 24, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Secondly it's up to the Council what the long term management will be. It's them and Ovalhouse who are doing the funding and building of the project. The job description is wrong to say the "Somerleyton Trust" is doing it. I don't understand that. The Trust does not exist.


There is a LORD AND LADY SOMERLEYTON'S CHARITABLE TRUST but this is in Suffolk.

Could it be that just as Brixton Green is on the Mutuals register apparently where you have to request information at £12 a page, they might have set up a Somerleyton Trust of similarly dubious transparency on the mutuals register?


----------



## CH1 (Mar 6, 2017)

Further to my December 14th post, I received this notification on 2nd March 2017:
*The Community Trust has been set up!!*​





Somerleyton Trust is now an official legal entity!
The Somerleyton Trust is now registered with Companies House.
This community trust has been set up to lease the site from Lambeth for 250 years.

Full time Director for the Trust
During the next two weeks, the Transition Director for the Trust will be appointed. Twenty-five impressive candidates have applied.


TONIGHT: AGM & Housing Debate
Venue: Pop Brixton, 49 Station Road, SW9 8PQ

6.30pm Annual General Meeting

7.30pm Housing Debate
Can community-led solutions help solve the housing crisis?

Panel:
Patrick Smith(Chair) Senior reporter @ BuzzFeed UK
Vidhya Alakeson, Chief Executive, Power to Change
Laura Gardiner, Resolution Foundation
Dinah Roake, Brixton Green

Our mailing address is:
Brixton Green Ltd
89 Acre Lane
London, Greater london SW2 5TN
United Kingdom​Sorry I can't reproduce he graphics. But just now I did check whether it was indeed true that the Somerleyton Trust is registered with Companies House.

Having checked I can reveal the following information:
SOMERLEYTON TRUST (reg 28/2/17)
Company number 10644154
1 officer / 0 resignations
ALCOCK, David
Correspondence address
134 Edmund Street, Birmingham, Uk, B3 2ES
Role Active Director 
Date of birth February 1969 
Appointed on 28 February 2017 
Nationality British 
Country of residence Uk 
Occupation Solicitor

I find this all a bit bizarre. Brixton Green is constantly going on about its local credentials, yet they are apparently still in the process of taking over a company from a company formations solicitor and have not yet registered any Brixton based director.

In retrospect I should have gone to the AGM - but there was no notice at all. I would have been interested to hear what the Resolution Foundation had to say about Brixton Green business model.
​


----------



## ricbake (Mar 7, 2017)

Still using Opus 89 Acre Lane as the mailing address but have dissolved the bit with "Community Land"...
Is that some sort of Freudian slip?

From Company House


----------



## editor (Mar 7, 2017)

ricbake said:


> Still using Opus 89 Acre Lane as the mailing address but have dissolved the bit with "Community Land"...
> Is that some sort of Freudian slip?
> 
> From Company House
> View attachment 101741


It comes over so fucking slapdash and dodgy.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 17, 2017)

*News of the Brixton Green AGM.
*
Resolution Foundation led a discussion about the situation regarding housing and unaffordability. The Resolution Foundation PowerPoint slides can be found here, though without context all I can say is it looks like standard middle of the road analysis. They do at least point out that with the collapse in interest rates, housing has become an income investment (buy-to-let) which is obviously true. 

*Sadly we see the departure of Brad Carroll (!?!)
*
With the employment of the Transition Director funded by Power to Change, Brad Carroll is stepping down as director of Brixton Green, a role he has carried out on a voluntary basis since 2008.

Brad said: "I am so proud to have been part of this amazing project. Our community has developed a solution which could provide over 50% affordable homes, an accountable landlord and support for public services. This could change how public land is developed in London. Over 1300 local people are now shareholders, we have a great transition director and an impressive board. I look forward to the day that Lambeth Council sign the lease, and even more, I look forward to seeing this wonderful project built!"

BG have not yet announced who the "Transition Director" is AFAIK.


----------



## editor (Mar 17, 2017)

CH1 said:


> *News of the Brixton Green AGM.
> *
> Resolution Foundation led a discussion about the situation regarding housing and unaffordability. The Resolution Foundation PowerPoint slides can be found here, though without context all I can say is it looks like standard middle of the road analysis. They do at least point out that with the collapse in interest rates, housing has become an income investment (buy-to-let) which is obviously true.
> 
> ...


The notable part (my bold and caps)

"Our community has developed a solution which *COULD* provide over 50% affordable homes, an accountable landlord and support for public services"

I have zero respect for Brixton Green.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 17, 2017)

CH1 said:


> *News of the Brixton Green AGM.
> *
> Resolution Foundation led a discussion about the situation regarding housing and unaffordability. The Resolution Foundation PowerPoint slides can be found here, though without context all I can say is it looks like standard middle of the road analysis. They do at least point out that with the collapse in interest rates, housing has become an income investment (buy-to-let) which is obviously true.
> 
> ...



I'm not one to support the Council. But this is bollox. The scheme to develop the site as a Council owned one with some attempt at affordable housing has nothing to do with Brixton Green.

Why the Council let BG get away with this is beyond me.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 18, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> I'm not one to support the Council. But this is bollox. The scheme to develop the site as a Council owned one with some attempt at affordable housing has nothing to do with Brixton Green.
> 
> Why the Council let BG get away with this is beyond me.


Presumably the fact there seems to be zero progress on the site it tied up with this.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 19, 2017)

CH1 said:


> Presumably the fact there seems to be zero progress on the site it tied up with this.



One thing that could be an issue is the Special Purpose Vehicle. A big reason for doing this is to stop RTB. If there is RTB the financial model will not work.

Looks now that this government regards that as a loophole exploited by Councils. So will change legislation to allow RTB in SPVs.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 21, 2017)

Interesting to see Brad Carroll stepping aside, wonder what pies he's now got his fingers in.


----------



## editor (Mar 23, 2017)

Brad out, planning permission in.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 23, 2017)

editor said:


> Brad out, planning permission in.
> View attachment 102779


But what does that mean? True the decision notice is issued today - 18 months after the original application.

But do you think that the Milegate application on 16-20 Somerleyton Road - approved on 5 August 2016 - will not now go ahead? And/or are the parties even now sorting out a "compromise agreement"? I think we should be told. 

NB The Lambeth housing planning application agent has an interesting address:

London Borough Of Lambeth
c/o Ms Hilary Satchwell
19 Maltings Place
169 Tower Bridge Road
London
SE1 3JB


----------



## CH1 (Mar 24, 2017)

Following my shock discovery this morning that the Angela Davis Trading Estate has now been completely demolished (in about 2 weeks work according to a local man I spoke to) I did some digging around.

Lambeth apparently considered a report about the Compulsory Purchase of 16-22 Somerleyton Road on 28th October 2016.

This put forward a revised schedule for the Somerleyton Road Flagship scheme:
*Planning application submitted December 2015
Planning committee December 2015
Planning permission issued November 2016
Start on site June 2017
CPO confirmed Autumn 2017
First units completed July 2018
Project completed December 2019
*
I guess the report must've been adopted/approved. There is a confidential part II report dealing with the financial aspects .This is not publicly available - unless we could persuade Wikileaks??

I guess whoever funded the Milegate planning application may well be collecting an enhanced fee for their trouble getting in an architect. And Lambeth of course losing out. Why did Lambeth not proceed with the CPO as soon as they realised it was needed? One possible explanation lies in section 3 (Finance) on page 7 of the report attached: the land acquisition costs were to be taken in phase II of the project - 2016 or after.

There is likely to be a pubic enquiry into the CPO,unless agreement is reached - timetable here:


----------



## CH1 (Jul 25, 2017)

Was just reading this obituary of the poet James Berry (b. 1924 Jamaica d. 20 June 2017)
James Berry lived for part of his life in Somerleyton Road, and in 1978 was writer in residence at Vauxhall Manor School.
Later moved to Brighton.
James Berry obituary

Just thought I'd post this up. Poetry came out of Somerleyton Road once before - and hopefully will again.

*Fantasy of an African Boy*
*by James Berry*
Such a peculiar lot
we are, we people
without money, in daylong
yearlong sunlight, knowing
money is somewhere, somewhere.

Everybody says it’s big
bigger brain bother now,
money. Such millions and millions
of us don’t manage at all
without it, like war going on.

And we can’t eat it. Yet
without it our heads alone
stay big, as lots and lots do,
coming from nowhere joyful,
going nowhere happy.

We can’t drink it up. Yet
without it we shrivel when small
and stop forever
where we stopped, as lots and lots do.

We can’t read money for books.
Yet without it we don’t
read, don’t write numbers,
don’t open gates in other countries,
as lots and lots never do.

We can’t use money to bandage
sores, can’t pound it
to powder for sick eyes
and sick bellies. Yet without
it, flesh melts from our bones.

Such walled-round gentlemen
overseas minding money! Such
bigtime gentlemen, body guarded
because of too much respect
and too many wishes on them:

too many wishes, everywhere,
wanting them to let go
magic of money, and let it fly
away, everywhere, day and night,
just like dropped leaves in wind!

James Berry
James Berry was a Jamaican poet who settled in England in the 1940s. He won the 1981 National Poetry Competition with his poem 'Fantasy of an African Boy'.


----------



## editor (Sep 8, 2017)

The ship is leaking 



> Lambeth Council’s regeneration of Somerleyton Road has a funding gap of £778,000. The Council expects to meet this shortfall through increased borrowing. The extra debt has come about after the Council failed to gain control of 16-22 Somerleyton Road.
> 
> Brixton Buzz reported in May 2016 how the owner of the site, Milegate, has submitted its own planning application to demolish the warehouse and build 74 new homes. Sensing a Compulsory Purchase Order was coming from the Council, the owner took a DIY approach.
> 
> ...



Somerleyton Road regeneration needs an extra £778K as Lambeth Council loses control of key site area


----------



## editor (Sep 8, 2017)

I liked this reader comment on Buzz:



> “Commercial confidentiality” in the game of FoI with Lambeth is the equivalent of a “hit” in the game of “Battleship”


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 8, 2017)

Read Jason's article in Brixton Buzz. Also read the officers report linked into Brixton Buzz article. It's written in technical language. So I may not have understood all of it.

So Ovalhouse and Carlton Mansions ( Blocks B and A in report) will be built first. No explanation given in report on why rest of scheme isn't starting at same time.

Ovalhouse will fund theatre on grant funding and from sale of the site they own in the Oval. What is missing is the section 106 money which was to be put towards Blocks A and B from building the rest of the site.

There is a lot in report about Ovalhouse. The theatre in Brixton will be new build. Unlike Carlton Mansions. Which will be working with old building. There is little in report on the Mansions. Somewhat concerning. I can't make it out from the report if the Mansions will be dealt with as a separate " risk" . Or if the whole Block A and B are being treated as one scheme.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 9, 2017)

editor said:


> The ship is leaking
> Somerleyton Road regeneration needs an extra £778K as Lambeth Council loses control of key site area


Looking on the Brixton Green link from Jason's Buzz article - hoping for news (of Somerleyton).
Quirky article relating to a talk by Dinah Roake at Pop Brixton about housing quality and equality at Pop Brixton.

Whilst this stuff has its heart it the right place, where was Brixton Green when the council fucked up on the warehouse units at 16-20 Somerleyton Road, and why aren't they asking Lambeth Council to release details of the current situation to public scrutiny?  

The fact that Brixton Green has no current news on its website indicates they are either not in the loop (highly likely) or they are party to information which is being withheld from the public (always a possibility).


----------



## editor (Sep 9, 2017)

CH1 said:


> Looking on the Brixton Green link from Jason's Buzz article - hoping for news (of Somerleyton).
> Quirky article relating to a talk by Dinah Roake at Pop Brixton about housing quality and equality at Pop Brixton.
> 
> Whilst this stuff has its heart it the right place, where was Brixton Green when the council fucked up on the warehouse units at 16-20 Somerleyton Road, and why aren't they asking Lambeth Council to release details of the current situation to public scrutiny?
> ...


Brixton Green represents little more than the interested of those people behind it.


----------



## Angellic (Sep 9, 2017)

editor said:


> I liked this reader comment on Buzz:




Can anyone explain the Clapham reference in the comments? Without it being libellous?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 11, 2017)

CH1 said:


> Looking on the Brixton Green link from Jason's Buzz article - hoping for news (of Somerleyton).
> Quirky article relating to a talk by Dinah Roake at Pop Brixton about housing quality and equality at Pop Brixton.
> 
> Whilst this stuff has its heart it the right place, where was Brixton Green when the council fucked up on the warehouse units at 16-20 Somerleyton Road, and why aren't they asking Lambeth Council to release details of the current situation to public scrutiny?
> ...



Imo they are party to information being withheld from the public. As Brixton Buzz article says the Steering Group minutes are being withheld due to "commercial confidentiality".

This despite in early days of this project that openness was important part of this supposedly community minded project.

As I've said before, as someone who lived on the site and took part in consultation on this site and Brixton, Brixton Green number one aim is to gain control of the site.

Fortunately they won't get there hands on Carlton Mansions. As that's going to Oval house. Who I trust. Why I'm a bit concerned by the recent report. I'm wondering if things may change.


----------



## editor (Sep 11, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Imo they are party to information being withheld from the public. As Brixton Buzz article says the Steering Group minutes are being withheld due to "commercial confidentiality".
> 
> This despite in early days of this project that openness was important part of this supposedly community minded project.
> 
> ...


Just to make sure I've got this straight: Brixton Green put themselves forward as representing the views of the local community, but then that community can't actually see the minutes of the meetings where they're there claiming to be representing their views?


----------



## ricbake (Sep 11, 2017)

"Commercially Sensitive" = we don't want you to know that we sold you down the Effra...


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 11, 2017)

editor said:


> Just to make sure I've got this straight: Brixton Green put themselves forward as representing the views of the local community, but then that community can't actually see the minutes of the meetings where they're there claiming to be representing their views?



That does appear how it is.


----------



## editor (Sep 11, 2017)

I see from their site that they're employing the rent structure that the Tories proposed for council homes: if you earn too much your rent goes up - and you have to show your landlord your payslips.

Best not take that promotion then, else your rent goes up...



> The Trust will calculate a household's income based on their average income over 3 years. Residents will be asked to provide their tax returns as proof of income.









A New Approach To Renting | Brixton Green


----------



## editor (Sep 11, 2017)

In their blurb, they claim to have put on several community events "attended by over 1,000 people." Any idea what these events were?

About Us | Brixton Green


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 11, 2017)

Had a look at Brixton Green website. Just to check. Since CH1 posted up new "press release" has just appeared.


Theatre’s move to Brixton steps closer | Brixton Green

The theatre did preceed Brixton Green interest in the site.

This is of interest:



> “This comes as our first Director starts work at the new Somerleyton Trust, which will represent future tenants, and give the community and tenants the tools needed to control the crucial decision-making processes



That's going to be interesting to see. First tool should be to make all Steering Group minutes past and present, not redacted unless with very good reason ,all public.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 11, 2017)

editor said:


> I see from their site that they're employing the rent structure that the Tories proposed for council homes: if you earn too much your rent goes up - and you have to show your landlord your payslips.
> 
> Best not take that promotion then, else your rent goes up...
> 
> ...



Yes I knew this. They had this approach from the very beginning. Which was one reason I was never that keen. This isn't traditional social housing. And it was at the very beginning they had this concept in one form or the other. Before asking community.

Imo what community want is Council housing on secure tenancies at social rent. Or Housing Association equivalent ( which is disappearing).

You are right to see this is what the Tories want.

It doesn't he!p to build a stable community having this kind of set up. And it's unlikely these will be secure tenancies like old Council tenancies are.

Setting up a model like this will help to undermine the future of social housing as we used to know it.

The person they have employed as director is from the housing association sector. He thinks this kind of model is the future.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 11, 2017)

God there website is annoying.

Take this quote:


> Rather than have a private developer deliver the project, Brixton Green encouraged Lambeth Council to develop the site directly themselves.



From this

No they didn't. When I was on the site I used to try and keep up with Councils possible ideas for the site.

Officers had been thinking of putting forward proposal for the Council to develop the site directly before Brixton Green appeared. Other Councils had already been doing this in London. So officers were thinking of it in Lambeth.


----------



## editor (Nov 28, 2017)

Join a walking PR tour: 



> A series of FREE Somerleyton Road walking tours are being run by the Transition Director at the Somerleyton Trust, Mark Slowikowski. Mark will explain the development project in more detail and answer any questions you might have about Brixton Green’s “funding and delivery” proposal to Lambeth Council.
> 
> The first walks are planned for Friday 1st December and will run at the following times:
> 
> ...


----------



## CH1 (Nov 28, 2017)

editor said:


> Join a walking PR tour:


Don't you think the Somerleyton situation is getting like Brexit?
[meaning Brixton Green plough on regardless hoping to con the people into believing they have somehow taken back control]

What is the difference between the Somerleyton Trust and this: https://mutuals.fsa.gov.uk/SocietyDetails.aspx?Number=30774&Suffix=R?

It would be nice to know why there has to be a trust behind a trust - if we are going to trust anything they say!


----------



## CH1 (Nov 28, 2017)

PS the officers of the Somerleyton Trust are here:
SOMERLEYTON TRUST - Officers (free information from Companies House)
I spot at least one familiar face.


----------



## editor (Nov 28, 2017)

CH1 said:


> PS the officers of the Somerleyton Trust are here:
> SOMERLEYTON TRUST - Officers (free information from Companies House)
> I spot at least one familiar face.


I see David Alcock is very local. If you live in Dudley.


----------



## Twattor (Nov 28, 2017)

editor said:


> I see David Alcock is very local. If you live in Dudley.


and controls over 75% of the voting rights, although from his bio it looks like he is an independent facilitator.

David Alcock - Anthony Collins Solicitors
David Alcock - Greenbelt


----------



## CH1 (Nov 28, 2017)

editor said:


> I see David Alcock is very local. If you live in Dudley.


He is probably the company formation guy - the company seems to have been set up in the Birmingham area for some reason. But Dinah Roake is a Clapham gal alright - and tended (up to now) be the mouthpiece of Brixton Green at council meetings.

I reckon Brixton Green/Somerleyton Trust might be strengthened by recent actvites in court regarding "Special Purpose Vehicles". Isn't it the case that some north London schemes which were wholly council owned were ruled illegal?


----------



## editor (Nov 28, 2017)

CH1 said:


> He is probably the company formation guy - the company seems to have been set up in the Birmingham area for some reason. But Dinah Roake is a Clapham gal alright - and tended (up to now) be the mouthpiece of Brixton Green at council meetings.
> 
> I reckon Brixton Green/Somerleyton Trust might be strengthened by recent actvites in court regarding "Special Purpose Vehicles". Isn't it the case that some north London schemes which were wholly council owned were ruled illegal?


"Brixton people know what Brixton needs," insists their website, so why doesn't he fuck off back to Birmingham and tell Birmingham people what they supposedly need?


----------



## editor (Nov 28, 2017)

Here's a barely-watched PR video. They even have the fucking audacity to show the free book store on Somerleyton Road.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 29, 2017)

editor said:


> Join a walking PR tour:



The organisations funding and delivering the Somerleyton road project are Lambeth Council and Oval house theatre.

Ovalhouse have obtained Arts Council grant as part of there fundraising for the new theatre. Lambeth Council are going to raise money for the rest of the project.

So I don't understand how Brixton Green can do these tours as though they are doing it all.


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 29, 2017)

Because they're partners?

The Road to Brixton! Ovalhouse on the move... | Ovalhouse


----------



## CH1 (Nov 29, 2017)

snowy_again said:


> Because they're partners?
> The Road to Brixton! Ovalhouse on the move... | Ovalhouse


Don't want to  be irreverent but people and organisations find their niche in many ways.

Look at the 7th Day Adventists doing mass blood pressure tests in Brockwell Park at Lambeth Country Show.
They are not a medical organisation - but by offering a medical service geared up to medical awareness they could be held to be doing a public good - as well as publicising their church. I suppose if the NHS locally declines any further the 7th Day Adventists might claim to be "official partners". 

Somerleyton Trust are giving everyone the impression that they are local and intimately concerned with the development - by popping up and having meetings and consultations and now guided tours from time to time.

As Gramsci seems to be saying, what have Brixton Green or Somerleyton Trust actually brought to the table?


----------



## editor (Nov 29, 2017)

CH1 said:


> Somerleyton Trust are giving everyone the impression that they are local and intimately concerned with the development - by popping up and having meetings and consultations and now guided tours from time to time.
> 
> As Gramsci seems to be saying, what have Brixton Green or Somerleyton Trust actually brought to the table?


I live next door and have had no meaningful interaction with them, although they thought it was OK to stick a banner outside my block saying that we all 'supported' them. They hadn't bothered asking the residents' association first.

And then there was that the matter of the fabricated allegations they published about me. Brixton Green withdraws allegations made against Brixton Buzz but offers up no explanation or apology.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 29, 2017)

I think the point is that Oval House seems to acknowledge BG as partners, isn't it?


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 29, 2017)

teuchter said:


> I think the point is that Oval House seems to acknowledge BG as partners, isn't it?



Not that I have heard. Brixton Green have nothing to do with the theatre. Oval house interest in locating to this site predated Brixton Green. I know as I was in Carlton Mansions then and talked to Oval house. 

Ovalhouse are dealing with the Council as this is Council land. They will get a lease from Council. Separate from any possible deal Brixton Green get to manage the housing. Ovalhouse will also manage Carlton Mansions. When Mansions is refurbished it will be as workspaces. 

I've heard that works on the Mansions and new build theatre are starting soon. This will be finished before rest of site. Ovalhouse managed to get Arts Council grant and it needs to be spent.

So Brixton Green input on this part of Somerleyton road site is nil. 

Ovalhouse is a charity in jts own right so isn't part of the proposed Somerleyton Trust.


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 29, 2017)

In 2012 Lambeth Council revived the Future Brixton plan and undertook public consultation, including specific questions about the possibility of a theatre and cultural facility on the corner of Coldharbour Lane and Somerleyton Rd. This site had long been a possibility in their minds, and was also the focus of a community organisation – Brixton Green, which has a vision for a community -led mixed-use housing development.

Working with Ovalhouse and Brixton Green, Lambeth Council is now supporting the development – almost 300 homes, community and health facilities, a shop, social enterprise and training opportunities for young people – and right on the street front opposite Brixton Village, a new Ovalhouse.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 29, 2017)

snowy_again said:


> In 2012 Lambeth Council revived the Future Brixton plan and undertook public consultation, including specific questions about the possibility of a theatre and cultural facility on the corner of Coldharbour Lane and Somerleyton Rd. This site had long been a possibility in their minds, and was also the focus of a community organisation – Brixton Green, which has a vision for a community -led mixed-use housing development.
> 
> Working with Ovalhouse and Brixton Green, Lambeth Council is now supporting the development – almost 300 homes, community and health facilities, a shop, social enterprise and training opportunities for young people – and right on the street front opposite Brixton Village, a new Ovalhouse.


What you say is a correct quote.

But it's a bit of a jump really from the traditional thing where people get together to set up a community centre - to the Brixton Green model where a group of business-minded bourgeoisie (plus a well-established well salaried education specialist) get together to form a social property venture securing (apparently) 99 years of rental income from flats to finance social ventures. At council expense by the way.

Was Brixton Green ever commissioned by the council? I think not - rather they have been campaigning like a political party, pushing the council to take action, but saying all the time they are a community group that should be managing the resulting housing in Somerleyton Road.

It is top down, not bottom up however.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 29, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Not that I have heard.



It's right there on Oval House's website, that snowy linked to.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 29, 2017)

teuchter said:


> It's right there on Oval House's website, that snowy linked to.



Im talking as someone who represented residents who lived on the site. With a long knowledge of the site directly. 

I'm surprised you take what is written on a website as the literal truth.

Frankly I find this annoying.

Whats the problem here?


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 30, 2017)

snowy_again said:


> In 2012 Lambeth Council revived the Future Brixton plan and undertook public consultation, including specific questions about the possibility of a theatre and cultural facility on the corner of Coldharbour Lane and Somerleyton Rd. This site had long been a possibility in their minds, and was also the focus of a community organisation – Brixton Green, which has a vision for a community -led mixed-use housing development.
> 
> Working with Ovalhouse and Brixton Green, Lambeth Council is now supporting the development – almost 300 homes, community and health facilities, a shop, social enterprise and training opportunities for young people – and right on the street front opposite Brixton Village, a new Ovalhouse.



Is this in response to my post above? Whats your point? RU saying I'm lying or making this up?


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 30, 2017)

snowy_again said:


> In 2012 Lambeth Council revived the Future Brixton plan and undertook public consultation, including specific questions about the possibility of a theatre and cultural facility on the corner of Coldharbour Lane and Somerleyton Rd. This site had long been a possibility in their minds, and was also the focus of a community organisation – Brixton Green, which has a vision for a community -led mixed-use housing development.
> 
> Working with Ovalhouse and Brixton Green, Lambeth Council is now supporting the development – almost 300 homes, community and health facilities, a shop, social enterprise and training opportunities for young people – and right on the street front opposite Brixton Village, a new Ovalhouse.



And by the way the years I spent representing residents I never got paid for. All the work I put into my Coop.


----------



## editor (Nov 30, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Im talking as someone who represented residents who lived on the site. With a long knowledge of the site directly.
> 
> I'm surprised you take what is written on a website as the literal truth.
> 
> ...


I was at a couple of those meetings and there wasn't many signs of Brixton Green and Ovalhouse being in some kind of cosy let's-all-work-together partnership. Or a lot of love, for that matter.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 30, 2017)

Gramsci said:


> Im talking as someone who represented residents who lived on the site. With a long knowledge of the site directly.
> 
> I'm surprised you take what is written on a website as the literal truth.
> 
> ...


You say that you have not heard that Oval House acknowledge BG as partners.

I'm just pointing out that on Oval House's own website, they seem to acknowledge BG as partners.

Maybe Oval House don't write what's on their own website themselves. Maybe BG stole their login.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 30, 2017)

snowy_again said:


> Because they're partners?
> 
> The Road to Brixton! Ovalhouse on the move... | Ovalhouse



Brixton Green does not get mentioned until quite late into this piece.

The way I read this piece is that the Council is working with Ovalhouse and Brixton Green. Not that Ovalhouse is in partnership with Brixton Green.

A lot of the article is about the outreach and involvement with local community that Ovalhouse is undertaking. Not about working with Brixton Green. ( imo its made a much better job of this than top down Brixton Green) .

The partnership that Ovalhouse talk about in first paragraph is between Council and Ovalhouse.

Its why the building work on new theatre and Carlton Mansions will start soon. It will not come under Brixton Green when finished. Or rather there proposed Somerleyton Trust.


----------



## editor (Jan 26, 2018)

Does anyone know any local resident anywhere who has reacted with 'fury' over the frankly pleasing news that those lying bastards Brixton Green have been elbowed off the Somerleyton Road project? 

The Blog piece reads like it's been dictated by Brixton Green.


----------



## CH1 (Jan 26, 2018)

editor said:


> Does anyone know any local resident anywhere who has reacted with 'fury' over the frankly pleasing news that those lying bastards Brixton Green have been elbowed off the Somerleyton Road project?
> The Blog piece reads like it's been dictated by Brixton Green.
> View attachment 126177


What I find a bit odd is the article is not signed.

Recent "splashes" have been by Alan Slingsby - who seems to have done his research well (thinking of the purchase of the Popes Road site by Sports Direct, and the boutique hotel plans for Superdrug & Dorell Place)

This article about Brixton Green and Lambeth Homes seems shouty if not hysterical. Is it Alan Slingsby's article - or a reformulation of a press release from the Brixton Green crew?


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 26, 2018)

CH1 said:


> What I find a bit odd is the article is not signed.
> 
> Recent "splashes" have been by Alan Slingsby - who seems to have done his research well (thinking of the purchase of the Popes Road site by Sports Direct, and the boutique hotel plans for Superdrug & Dorell Place)
> 
> This article about Brixton Green and Lambeth Homes seems shouty if not hysterical. Is it Alan Slingsby's article - or a reformulation of a press release from the Brixton Green crew?



Brixton Bugle is good for some news but for certain groups it's got a soft spot. It's regularly given over pages for Brixton Green. Uncritically.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 26, 2018)

editor said:


> Does anyone know any local resident anywhere who has reacted with 'fury' over the frankly pleasing news that those lying bastards Brixton Green have been elbowed off the Somerleyton Road project?
> 
> The Blog piece reads like it's been dictated by Brixton Green.
> 
> View attachment 126177



I can find the open letter on Brixton Green website.

Will have to look at Bugle tomorrow.

I'm curious that Brixton Green mention Places for People. That's news to me. Not something I've heard them go on about.

Not sure if mentioning Places for People is such a good idea.

Those with long memories will remember that Places for People acquired what is now the Barret's built Brixton Square. They got planned permission partly on promise of being a "social" housing provider. They then sold it on to Barretts with the lucrative planning permission. Barretts who then wriggled out of a lot of the affordable housing.

Not a good track record in Brixton for Places for People.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 26, 2018)

"Local residents have reacted with fury" according to Bugle article.

I'm not. 

I think the Council should have done this ages ago.

Brixton Green , from the start, were saying their plans were financially viable. When pressed they would get irritated. They never had the finances to do a scheme like this.

I remember, years ago, one of the better Council officers telling me that Brixton Green annoy locals. I agreed. For local residents reps like me and Council officers Brixton Green were a headache we didn't need.

The Council should have done this years ago. 

Another thing that gets to me is that real community engagement on the site was sidelined. The Council made Brixton Green the "community partner". People like me gave up on it.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 27, 2018)

Some parallels with the Grow Brixton story...Lambeth sets out on a project with a group offering a community focused scheme then rejects their proposals as financially infeasible.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jan 27, 2018)

The Bugle story states:

"Brixton Green proposed to buy the lease of the Somerleyton Road site, working with the council, and to build 234 homes.

Brixton Green believes it can build homes on Somerleyton Road faster than Lambeth council and says it could be ready to start in a year."

This seems a little at odds with this statement that has now been deleted from the Brixton Green website.


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2018)




----------



## Gramsci (Jan 27, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Some parallels with the Grow Brixton story...Lambeth sets out on a project with a group offering a community focused scheme then rejects their proposals as financially infeasible.



There is a difference.

As I lived on the site I know.

Council officers were thinking of a Council scheme on Somerleyton road before Brixton Green appeared. Oval House were also looking at the site.

This was all previous to Brixton Green appearing on the scene.

Oval House , Carlton Mansions HC and some Council officers/ Cllrs were all getting on fine.

Then Castaing ( the visionary from Turner's Pop Brixton if you see my post there ) and Brad turned up .

So no it's not comparable with Grow Brixton.

Brixton Green are more comparable to Turner's Pop. Not Grow Brixton. Like for example the unfeasible economic model.

In case of Pop this is temporary scheme. So for "reputational damage" purposes the Council can take a hit financially. In the short term.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 27, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> The Bugle story states:
> 
> "Brixton Green proposed to buy the lease of the Somerleyton Road site, working with the council, and to build 234 homes.
> 
> ...



Actually the Brixton Green statement is still on the BG website.

Which makes the report of what they said to Bugle more puzzling.

Also found this in the Q&A page of BG website:

Q&A | Brixton Green



> Is there a private developer involved?
> 
> No. Rather than have a private developer deliver the project, *Brixton Green encouraged Lambeth Council to develop the site directly themselves. *Lambeth have employed Igloo who provide their development experience, but receive a fee not a share of the profit.



In light of what Bugle report BG now saying I'm perplexed.

My reading of the Bugle piece is that BG had rival plans to the Council's officers to work with Places for People ( whose track record in Brixton isn't that great) to build and finance it themselves.

I can't find anything on BG website about BG relationship with Places for People.


I'm not criticising Bugle reporting.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 27, 2018)

Been trying to see what BG proposed partner Places for People are now.


Places for People | News | Latest news | Strong results lay the foundations for investment in new homes and communities

They are not for profit company that specialises in housing management, leisure centre building/management and placemaking.

They don't have charitable status.

The website talks of " diversification". More build for sale at market levels etc is how I read this. Standard procedure in the not for profit housing sector. With some  "affordable" housing.

I don't see that much difference between the Council's proposed Homes for Lambeth vehicle and Places for People in his they will work.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 27, 2018)

I thought that BG thought that Lambeth and Oval House would finance and build the site.

Then transfer the housing to a kind of estate management board. That BG role was to work with Council to set up how this would work. Then BG would dissolve itself.

Oval House as a charity in its own right, raising its own funds to build a new theatre would enter into a long term lease with the Council and manage that section of the Somerleyton road site themselves. Including managing the work units in the refurbished Carlton Mansions.

As the BG website says BG didn't at some point have a problem with the Council developing the site.

So what happened?


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I'm not criticising Bugle reporting.


I am. To suggest there is widespread 'fury' among local residents is simply bullshit.


----------



## David Clapson (Feb 28, 2018)

So who's the idiot in the room? I don't know anything about BG except what I've read in the Bugle and Editor's views. I only know McGlone from attending two meetings of the licensing committee. Each time he just stared into space and only opened his mouth to ask an off-licence owner "what is the ethos of your business?" Maybe that's his default question to justify attendance fees and expenses and such. I came away with the impression that he is a redundant airhead with no appetite for public service. I would be interested to know exactly what he's contributing to the many multi-million pound property projects he makes statements about. He's been a councillor for 20 years so I hope he's doing something right. Maybe he's just one of those complacent Labour councillors who get re-elected every year without having to lift a finger. Once you are an official Labour candidate in Lambeth it must be difficult to lose an election. You toe the party line and the voters don't worry about your name, they just want to put a cross in the Labour box. On the other hand, if you don't toe the party line because you want to stand up for your constituents, the party slings you out. Cf Rachel Heywood.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Feb 28, 2018)

David Clapson said:


> So who's the idiot in the room?



The proven liar Brad Carroll.

Although it appears that he has done a runner after flying a little too close to the white heat of his Nu Labour pals in Cabinet, and then being burnt.

If you sleep with dogs...


----------



## David Clapson (Feb 28, 2018)

Why is the Bugle so uncritical of BG?


----------



## editor (Feb 28, 2018)

David Clapson said:


> Why is the Bugle so uncritical of BG?


That's a good question.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 1, 2018)

Got this through my letterbox today.


----------



## editor (Mar 1, 2018)

Their head bloke is not local at all so the first lie is stinking bullshit. 

I'm a local resident and I don't trust Brixton Green to be in control of a Monopoly set, let alone an actual estate. 

They're a bunch of charlatans and proven liars.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 2, 2018)

What irritates me about the leaflets I got through my door is that Brixton Green now say they want to join forces with other community groups re community assets.

When they were in favour with the Council they never had opinion on issues like Cressingham Gardens estate "regeneration". Unless I missed something ViolentPanda

Now the Council won't give them the site they are suddenly becoming campaigning group to protect publicly owned assets.

The leaflets is misleading. The Council, as far as I know , aren't planning to sell this land. They are thinking of building it with the Homes for Lambeth development vehicle they are setting up. I don't really understand the difference between what Brixton Green are proposing and Lambeth proposal. Why giving it to Brixton Green is better I don't see. Brixton Green leaflets are small on details.

It needs to be remembered that at one point Brixton Green were Lambeth Labour Council pet community group. Including , as Tricky Skills  has found the Council paying them for work. When it was all going well Brixton Green saw themselves as the future for social housing. Part of the New Labour Coop  Council way forward  for "affordable" housing. Which was the "mixed sustainable communities" approach.  Didn't want to have much to do with Council tenants opposing Council "regeneration" schemes.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 2, 2018)

I thought the whole point of Brixton Green was to 'engage' the community with the plans that the Council had for the whole Somerleyton project? They were the PR people on the ground - albeit being extremely shit at this.

The Council tested out the competence of Brad by letting him manage No. 6. He fucked this up spectacularly, leading to a court case and a guilty verdict against an individual that Brixton Green brought in to 'manage' the community space.

I can't see why Brixton Green is now talking as though it has had the development taken away from them. It was never theirs to lay territorial claim to in the first place. In fact Brad even went as far to state on the record that he didn't want to manage the new development, but to hand it over to the community.

It seems that even the Progress mob in Cabinet have finally been awoken as to what a bunch of lying amateurs Brixton Green are.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 2, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> What irritates me about the leaflets I got through my door is that Brixton Green now say they want to join forces with other community groups re community assets.
> 
> When they were in favour with the Council they never had opinion on issues like Cressingham Gardens estate "regeneration". Unless I missed something ViolentPanda



Nope, they wanted nothing to do with any regeneration issues except their own



> Now the Council won't give them the site they are suddenly becoming campaigning group to protect publicly owned assets.
> 
> The leaflets is misleading. The Council, as far as I know , aren't planning to sell this land. They are thinking of building it with the Homes for Lambeth development vehicle they are setting up. I don't really understand the difference between what Brixton Green are proposing and Lambeth proposal. Why giving it to Brixton Green is better I don't see. Brixton Green leaflets are small on details.



The difference is that with the original project, Brixton Green had a chance of managing the homes, and therefore achieving a satisfactory income from it. With HfL now in line to develop and manage, Brixton Green's hopes have been dashed.



> It needs to be remembered that at one point Brixton Green were Lambeth Labour Council pet community group. Including , as Tricky Skills  has found the Council paying them for work. When it was all going well Brixton Green saw themselves as the future for social housing. Part of the New Labour Coop  Council way forward  for "affordable" housing. Which was the "mixed sustainable communities" approach.  Didn't want to have much to do with Council tenants opposing Council "regeneration" schemes.



They didn't want *anything* to do with us, in case we tainted their "brand".  Frankly, fuck 'em.


----------



## editor (Mar 2, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope, they wanted nothing to do with any regeneration issues except their own
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Perhaps it might be worth letting that fact be more broadly known (tweet/facebook etc). It's important people know what lying frauds Brixton Green are.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 3, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I don't really understand the difference between what Brixton Green are proposing and Lambeth proposal.


Surely this is a hangover from the Cameroonian days - essentially Brixton Green were trying to persuade everyone including government agencies that Brixton Green was a suitable vehicle to vest ownership of social housing in - prior to the days of council owned Development Vehicles.

If you care to delve into Brixton Greens picture archive you ought to be able to see photos of Grant Shapps visiting Brad Carol on Somerleyton Road.

It was all a long time ago!


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 3, 2018)

CH1 said:


> Surely this is a hangover from the Cameroonian days - essentially Brixton Green were trying to persuade everyone including government agencies that Brixton Green was a suitable vehicle to vest ownership of social housing in - prior to the days of council owned Development Vehicles.
> 
> If you care to delve into Brixton Greens picture archive you ought to be able to see photos of Grant Shapps visiting Brad Carol on Somerleyton Road.
> 
> It was all a long time ago!


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 6, 2018)

"Brixton Green said that many points made by the council were false."



Oh the irony.

Why would even Lambeth Council believe a single word that the proven liars Brixton Green come out with?

The Bugle is sure warming that bed with Brixton Green and their own particular version of local history.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 6, 2018)

CH1 said:


> essentially Brixton Green were trying to persuade everyone including government agencies that Brixton Green was a suitable vehicle to vest ownership of social housing in -



I thought their proposals never involved them owning any of it.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 6, 2018)

teuchter said:


> I thought their proposals never involved them owning any of it.


You tell me. How would they get rent to spend on community proposals then?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 6, 2018)

CH1 said:


> You tell me. How would they get rent to spend on community proposals then?


What do you mean by "community proposals"? Stuff after it's built? My understanding was that they would be involved in the delivery of it, then hand it over to another body for management etc.

And the council would have 100% ownership (edit - of the freehold) - that was the whole point wasn't it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 6, 2018)

teuchter said:


> What do you mean by "community proposals"? Stuff after it's built? My understanding was that they would be involved in the delivery of it, then hand it over to another body for management etc.
> 
> And the council would have 100% ownership - that was the whole point wasn't it?


answering a question with a question suggests you've nary a clue, my sweet


----------



## teuchter (Mar 6, 2018)

> *Who will own the completed development?*
> 
> Lambeth Council will retain the freehold providing 250 year leases to the Ovalhouse Theatre (for the theatre). The ambition is for there to also be a 250 year lease to a new community body for the remainder of the site.
> 
> ...



Q&A | Brixton Green


----------



## CH1 (Mar 6, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Q&A | Brixton Green


Their specification shifts like quicksand. Vote for trustees of a ginger group which has nothing at all to do with development of Somerleyton Road!

And if its all for the local community I find it odd that their proposed trustees are not Coldharbour Ward based - although one was a governor of the school.

In any case there are three candidates for three vacancies. What is the need to vote then? 
It would be interesting to see what the turnout is of this election.

To be quite honest there is nothing at all that Brixton Green does which could not have been done by the local councillors working with officers (if they could have "found the time").


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 6, 2018)

CH1 said:


> To be quite honest there is nothing at all that Brixton Green does which could not have been done by the local councillors working with officers (if they could have "found the time").



And the local Cllr's would have at least been accountable for any actions. Plus they have a mandate, unlike Brixton Green.


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2018)

CH1 said:


> Their specification shifts like quicksand. Vote for trustees of a ginger group which has nothing at all to do with development of Somerleyton Road!
> 
> And if its all for the local community I find it odd that their proposed trustees are not Coldharbour Ward based - although one was a governor of the school.
> 
> ...


I've attended meetings with them and their agenda literally changes in front of your eyes. Slippery, unrepresentative and dishonest. Brixton is well rid of them.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 6, 2018)

CH1 said:


> To be quite honest there is nothing at all that Brixton Green does which could not have been done by the local councillors working with officers (if they could have "found the time").



That's the thing though, "finding the time", isn't it? Now the setup is for councils to outsource as much of their work as they can get away with to local volunteers working for free. I don't like it, because of the lack of accountability, and the fact that it means only certain kinds of people can ever get themselves into those potentially influential roles. But whatever issues folk have with Brixton Green I don't see evidence that they are in this as some kind of sinister money making attempt.


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2018)

I'll always remember being at a meeting and hearing Brixton Green suggesting that their proposals were backed by their 1,000 members, which was as blatant a piece of misrepresentation as you could get. Apart from the fact that their proposals seemed to be constantly shifting, it was completely dishonest of them to assume that anyone buying one of their stupid £1 shares was automatically backing whatever their latest angle on their project was - and the fact that their own promo pics showed young children waving their shares around made it all the more ridiculous.

It would be like me claiming that my latest opinion was backed by all 53,000 members on urban.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 6, 2018)

Well I think its like they did a survey "How would you like the west side of Somerleyton Road given over to housing? We would make sure there was some social housing there."  

Obviously many people agreed with the proposition on that level, without breaking it down. Then there are the exhibitions at 6 Somerleyton Road and various workshops and "tables" whereby the people are said to endorse the designs.

Essentially this is similar to any other Lambeth planning Masterplan situation and it seemed to be Lambeth and Neil Vokes in charge. Neil Vokes was then sent off to sort out Cressingham - and has now escaped to become Director of Development (whatever that is) at Camden

Everything has ground to a standstill and now Brixton Green are saying "If you don't want to s**t, get off the pot". Brixton Green actually don't have a financial stake, nor much in depth popular support, how can they progress the scheme either?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 6, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Q&A | Brixton Green



I think the this Q&A is out of date.




> Is there a private developer involved?
> 
> No. Rather than have a private developer deliver the project, Brixton Green encouraged Lambeth Council to develop the site directly themselves. Lambeth have employed Igloo who provide their development experience, but receive a fee not a share of the profit



The recent news reports in Bugle give me impression that Brixton Green want to develop the site now. They don't want the Council to develop the site directly themselves.

The Bugle article leaves me somewhat at a loss to know what exactly has been going on. The Council still say they want to work with Brixton Green. But the Council is going to build out the site. Which was , from Brixton Green Q&A , what I thought BG wanted. The Q&A states that it was BG who encouraged the Council to go this route. Rather than the more traditional one of partnering with a private developer.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 6, 2018)

editor said:


> I'll always remember being at a meeting and hearing Brixton Green suggesting that their proposals were backed by their 1,000 members, which was as blatant a piece of misrepresentation as you could get. Apart from the fact that their proposals seemed to be constantly shifting, it was completely dishonest of them to assume that anyone buying one of their stupid £1 shares was automatically backing whatever their latest angle on their project was - and the fact that their own promo pics showed young children waving their shares around made it all the more ridiculous.
> 
> It would be like me claiming that my latest opinion was backed by all 53,000 members on urban.



They were all over the place. Picked then dropped one idea after another.

From what I remember. An urban farm on site, a recycling plant to produce energy, self build housing, student housing, Carlton Mansions as a hotel, a hairdresser school. There are probably more. 

The housing tenure they envisaged changed over time. I was never clear about it. 

The fact is, and I know as I attended early meetings with Council, that it was the Council who put the plans together for the site. They have hired Igloo and others to do it. They also were looking seriously at a financial model for the site. I don't remember BG complaining about that.


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> They were all over the place. Picked then dropped one idea after another.
> 
> From what I remember. An urban farm on site, a recycling plant to produce energy, self build housing, student housing, Carlton Mansions as a hotel, a hairdresser school. There are probably more.


And the chef school which was of course completely unrelated to the business interests of one of their head guys who ran a restaurant.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 6, 2018)

On the Somerleyton road scheme I think the Council made two mistakes.

Council officers interest in the Council developing the site pre dated arrival of Brixton Green. The Brixton Master plan envisaged building a new community there. This was all before Brixton Green.

The Ovalhouse theatre were looking at the site before BG turned up.

I know some Lambeth officers were looking at what other boroughs were already doing. The Council becoming a builder again.

Over the years Councils capacity to design and build has withered away.

Getting Neil Vokes in to manage the development was good decision of Council. He was able. He had ability, that BG lacked, to work with community. He was also , in my experience, straight forward. Unlike BG. The Council should have kept him on this scheme. Instead, as he is very able, they shunted him off to Cressingham. Big mistake.

Secondly the Council, through no fault of its own, lacks capacity to design and build sites. The Council should have concentrated the limited number of officers and resources they have to finish the Somerleyton road project first. Before starting plans , that are resented by residents, to redevelop existing estates.

Somerleyton road project could have been a win win situation. It's basically empty undeveloped site. Council could have used it to develop capacity to do other sites. Such as the Brixton Central site. Where pop is now.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 6, 2018)

Third mistake of Council was to make Brixton Green the "community partners". I actually felt sorry for some officers having to deal with them.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 6, 2018)

Brixton Green is claiming that the Council stopped attending the Steering Group meetings, if we are to believe what The Bugle printed.

This whole timeline could have some more clarity if Lambeth Council kept to its original pledge of publishing the minutes from the Steering Group. This is something that residents were told would happen when the project first started.

The last time they were published was way back in September 2014. An awful lot has taken place since then.

We put in an FOI at Buzz to see the minutes. Brixton Green were after all a community organisation that were supposedly representing locals.

The FOI was refused.

Complete jokers - Brixton Green and the Progress Cabinet.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 8, 2018)

Any news of the Brixton Green AGM?

I spent 4 hours today at meetings connected with Lambeth CCG (the people who determine what services you won't get from your GP, and which surgery to close down next) so I was too fagged out to got to the two meetings at the Department Store.


----------



## editor (Mar 8, 2018)

CH1 said:


> Any news of the Brixton Green AGM?
> 
> I spent 4 hours today at meetings connected with Lambeth CCG (the people who determine what services you won't get from your GP, and which surgery to close down next) so I was too fagged out to got to the two meetings at the Department Store.


They'll probably publish the minutes sometime in June 2025.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 11, 2018)

A photo has emerged on the Twittersphere


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 11, 2018)

CH1 said:


> A photo has emerged on the Twittersphere




Thing is Rachel wasn't always happy with BG. But didn't say anything when she was in Cabinet. BG as a "community group" had favoured status with the Progress/ New Labour Lambeth Labour party. As BG fitted in with New Labour thinking.

It's more than annoying to see BG now try and position themselves as victims of this New Labour administration.

The Council Somerleyton road project isn't about taking away anything from people/ community. As in the library issue, parks or "regenerating" existing Council estates.

Now it looks like the Council won't hand over the finished project ( built with Council and Ovalhouse money) to BG. They are now trying to align themselves with groups actually defending publicly owned services and land. It's annoying.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 11, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Thing is Rachel wasn't always happy with BG. But didn't say anything when she was in Cabinet. BG as a "community group" had favoured status with the Progress/ New Labour Lambeth Labour party. As BG fitted in with New Labour thinking.
> 
> It's more than annoying to see BG now try and position themselves as victims of this New Labour administration.
> 
> ...


I'm a bit concerned that nothing is going to happen for ages anyway.

Obviously council affairs are on hold from the councillor point of view for the next six months (allowing for elections, new appointments/reshuffling, summer holidays).

Also I went past the Oval House last week and there is a "For Sale" sign on the roof, which suggests there is no actual buyer lined up in a long-term deal as yet.  
One wonders whether the old annoying crew at Brixton Green are still in command? Maybe Rachel has some idea on that. Philippe is managing Pop Brixton at the moment. Is he poised for a Brixton Green comeback as soon as council cash flows? Brad - AWOL? No mention of him lately.

Dinah Roake, who was chair in 2017 seems the most knowledgeable - is she still around?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 11, 2018)

Heart bleeds for the Brixton Green liars.

Oh look - there's Brad!


----------



## CH1 (Apr 11, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> Heart bleeds for the Brixton Green liars.
> Oh look - there's Brad!


Does this mean that you need a councillor to be your Champion to get on in life?
Good job people like Lend Lease are well connected!


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 12, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> Heart bleeds for the Brixton Green liars.
> 
> Oh look - there's Brad!



I'm totally lost here.

One of the main complaints from some posters here is that poster like me said the BG wanted the site all along. On BG website it said that BG didn't want the site. That they were working with Council to set up a management organisation and then there work would be done.

So now it appears that BG did want the site. And are now pissed off because Lambeth won't give it to them.



In interview the reps from BG say they don't have a "champion" in the Council. They did have Lambeth Labour group support in the beginning. Remember Rachel telling me so. BG went for the decision makers Including Tessa MP as a "champion". As I was told at the time when they first arrived on the scene. "They ticked" all the New Labour "boxes" .I was told I didn't go to the New Labour dinner parties like they did.

That is how they got to be on the Somerleyton road steering group at the beginning. Unlike Carlton Mansions HC. Until Neil Vokes arrived on the scene. A Council officer who tried to consult the community. For BG to criticize officers is rubbish. Neil Vokes did more to listen to local community than the likes of wind  up merchant Brad. When things were going well for them due to there contacts in New Labour political circles they were quite happy.

So why did BG lose all this political influence? There astounding ability to wind up locals, the debacle over there running the number six on Somerleyton road for example. As one senior officer who tried to sort out that mess said to me they annoy people. I agreed with him.

They managed to keep there hold on the site due to there political links. But this faded gradually. 

Another thing. This model they talk about in interview. It's never been on public view. What happened to the steering group minutes?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 12, 2018)

The Future Brixton website said that the Steering Group minutes would be published each month. These last appeared way back in May 2015 - more or less the same time that Brad messed up at No 6 and was shown to be way out of his depth on this project.

We've tried to see the minutes from June 2015 onwards at Brixton Buzz. Brixton Green is the 'public representative' at Somerleyton. It would be useful to see how they have been using this gifted mandate.

A Freedom of Information request was submitted. This was refused. We appealed against this. Once again we were not allowed to see the minutes involving an organisation that speaks on behalf of residents.

Brixton Green = dodgy as fuck.


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> The Future Brixton website said that the Steering Group minutes would be published each month. These last appeared way back in May 2015 - more or less the same time that Brad messed up at No 6 and was shown to be way out of his depth on this project.
> 
> We've tried to see the minutes from June 2015 onwards at Brixton Buzz. Brixton Green is the 'public representative' at Somerleyton. It would be useful to see how they have been using this gifted mandate.
> 
> ...


Fancy putting all that together into a Buzz article? Be good to remind locals about just how fucking dodgy Brixton Green are seeing as they're attempting a PR offensive (that no one is interested in).


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 12, 2018)

editor said:


> Fancy putting all that together into a Buzz article? Be good to remind locals about just how fucking dodgy Brixton Green are seeing as they're attempting a PR offensive (that no one is interested in).



That would be useful. I know someone who bought one of the BG shares. She honestly believes that BG were the mainstay of Somerleyton road project and its the Council who are the problem.

Had to explain to her this was not a BG project. Council had paid for architects etc to produce plans and Oval House have nothing to do with BG.

It's really frustrating. BG have managed to give impression this is all down to them.

I've not got no reason to support Lambeth council. But it really annoys me that this bunch hoodwink locals.

What is even more aggravating is that BG are playing the victim card. Like there plight is the same as Cressingham gardens and the libraries. Which it isn't. They had plenty of "champions" in the Council. They squandered that political advantage.

Also I have distinct feeling that BG thought that there model of "intermediate" housing could be blueprint for Council estate "regeneration" at one point. BG leading lights were all for "modernisation" of social housing.

I still don't get why BG think they will supply more affordable housing onsite. Why they would supply more than Council.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 18, 2018)

Blimey. Lambeth has released limited minutes from the Steering Group following an FOI.

The July 2015 minutes state:


NV: Urgently need meeting to discuss 6 Brixton. Issue becoming a risk to the project. Greenman to come onboard – Anna to speak to Michael.  
...cos we all know that ended well.

Odd that this non-Buzz FOI was successful. We asked the exact same question and were turned down.

Lambeth Council is very odd.

Brixton Green are still a bunch of bloody liars.


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2018)

Interesting study from Sept 2015 here (which cites this thread): 

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/urbanlab/docs/case-study-5-lambeth-council


----------



## CH1 (Apr 19, 2018)

editor said:


> Interesting study from Sept 2015 here (which cites this thread):
> https://www.ucl.ac.uk/urbanlab/docs/case-study-5-lambeth-council


Haven't read this in full yet - but I did notice the references cease around 2014 - so this seems to be a study of the project as it was envisaged at the time of the last council election 4 years ago (I assume and you imply).


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 30, 2018)

I see that the mysterious Brixton Green is still playing the victim game.


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2018)

They're still taking credit for the theatre, I see.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 30, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> I see that the mysterious Brixton Green is still playing the victim game.




I don't quite no what to make of this.

I find it hard to believe its official Brixton Green PR?

The video is accusing Lambeth council of ethnic cleansing. 

From video

" Lambeth Council has done ethnic cleansing. If people don't fit a certain criteria for new look of Brixton they are moved out"

So Brixton Green are now accusing Council of racist policy to remove people from Brixton. 

Pretty strong accusations here.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 30, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> I see that the mysterious Brixton Green is still playing the victim game.




Ur right after looking at video they have hyped the victim hood up a notch. Lambeth Council are now institutionally racist. 

I find this rather aggravating. When BG were in close relationship with Council they saw themselves as part of the New Labour project for Lambeth. 

An interesting comment in video is that " officers call the shots not leaders".  Which sounds like someone from BG put this in.

BG had close relationship with leading lights in Nu Labour circles. As someone said to me years back I didn't get invited to the right dinner parties. 

I think there antics over the years have possibly led to leaders distancing themselves.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 30, 2018)

This new approach from the mysterious Brixton Green is definitely not from the same page as Brad the Bullshitter.

Whatever happened to him and his inability to stop telling lies to everyone around Brixton?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 30, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> This new approach from the mysterious Brixton Green is definitely not from the same page as Brad the Bullshitter.
> 
> Whatever happened to him and his inability to stop telling lies to everyone around Brixton?


Fairly clear from looking at the youtube channel that this has not been produced by BG themselves, is it not?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 30, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Fairly clear from looking at the youtube channel that this has not been produced by BG themselves, is it not?



I wondered when you would start.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 30, 2018)

Clearly I got this video wrong. I haven't seen direct written evidence that it was signed off by Brixton Green trustees. Preferably on paper and in triplicate.

I must apologize for my thoughtless posts above.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 30, 2018)

Here's the organisation which appears to have produced the video.

www.werise.org.uk - Our team


aha - it does say here

www.werise.org.uk

that Brixton Greem 'commissioned' the film.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 30, 2018)

> Campaign Film for Brixton Green
> 
> Shortage of secure, affordable housing is a huge issue for young people growing up in Brixton. Brixton Green commissioned this film as part of their campaign for community led housing on Somerleyton Road. Young people on the Moorlands Estate speak powerfully about growing up in Brixton and how they feel about the future.



www.werise.org.uk

So BG are saying Lambeth Council are pursuing ethnic cleansing of Brixton.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 30, 2018)

More accurately, some young people on the Moorlands estate are saying Lambeth Council are pursuing the ethnic cleansing of Brixton, in a film commissioned by Brixton Green.

As "werise" list Lambeth as a 'client' it does seem that this could cause some awkwardness.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 30, 2018)

Its a campaign film for Brixton Green. The film talks about Brixton Green. 

To see it accurately.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 30, 2018)

teuchter said:


> More accurately, some young people on the Moorlands estate are saying Lambeth Council are pursuing the ethnic cleansing of Brixton, in a film commissioned by Brixton Green.
> 
> As "werise" list Lambeth as a 'client' it does seem that this could cause some awkwardness.



The line from the young people was  "officers calling the shots not leaders" caught my attention. I can't see this as coming directly from the young people. 

This film was commissioned by BG. Its on public view. I can't see how it got onto YouTube without agreement with BG. 

So you saying "more accurately" is distortion.

"More accurately" this is, as your link shows, is film commissioned by BG to further there cause.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 30, 2018)

teuchter said:


> More accurately, some young people on the Moorlands estate are saying Lambeth Council are pursuing the ethnic cleansing of Brixton, in a film commissioned by Brixton Green.
> 
> As "werise" list Lambeth as a 'client' it does seem that this could cause some awkwardness.



I don't follow your argument. The young people are talking about Brixton Green.

The ethnic cleansing bit is integral to what they are saying.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 30, 2018)

Jesus a film commissioned by Brixton Green and I am getting into minutiae of who said what.

Its a film commissioned by BG. FFS.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Jul 30, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Jesus a film commissioned by Brixton Green and I am getting into minutiae of who said what.
> 
> Its a film commissioned by BG. FFS.



NOTHING has ever been straight forward with the lying bastards of Brixton Green.


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Jesus a film commissioned by Brixton Green and I am getting into minutiae of who said what.
> 
> Its a film commissioned by BG. FFS.


They're a bunch of proven liars. Fuck them.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 30, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I don't follow your argument. The young people are talking about Brixton Green.
> 
> The ethnic cleansing bit is interval to what they are saying.



What we don't know is whether the 'ethnic cleansing' bit is a line fed to the young people in the film, or something that is their own opinion. 

Implying that they are just saying what they've been told to say could come across as a bit patronising, or it could be an accurate assessment of the deviousness of the people at BG.

Maybe their opinion is informed by what they read on U75


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 30, 2018)

teuchter said:


> What we don't know is whether the 'ethnic cleansing' bit is a line fed to the young people in the film, or something that is their own opinion.
> 
> Implying that they are just saying what they've been told to say could come across as a bit patronising, or it could be an accurate assessment of the deviousness of the people at BG.
> 
> Maybe their opinion is informed by what they read on U75



This is really tedious. With the inevitable dig at Urban. And implying I'm patronising of young people. All posted up to sound reasonable. 

I will make things straight forward.

This is film commissioned by BG as part of its campaign. Its for public view. The views in it are therefore views of BG.


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> This is really tedious. With the inevitable dig at Urban. And implying I'm patronising of young people. All posted up to sound reasonable.
> 
> I will make things straight forward.
> 
> This is film commissioned by BG as part of its campaign. Its for public view. The views in it are therefore views of BG.


Anyone who has had actual, real life dealings with BG will know how fucking dodgy they are. I don't trust them or the films they commission. Because they're spineless proven liars.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 30, 2018)

Im really getting to point of thinking to stop posting on urban. People in Brixton / LJ I know in real life don't go on like this. This isn't what I first came on Urban for. After a hard day I don't need this. It makes me feel worse.


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Im really getting to point of thinking to stop posting on urban. People in Brixton / LJ I know in real life don't go on like this. This isn't what I first came on Urban for. After a hard day I don't need this. It makes me feel worse.


May I recommend the use of the 'ignore' function? it works for me and you're far too valuable a poster to be driven out by the idiots and the trolls and the Thatcher boys.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 30, 2018)

editor said:


> Anyone who has had actual, real life dealings with BG will know how fucking dodgy they are. I don't trust them or the films they commission. Because they're spineless proven liars.



You and I have had to deal with them in real life. So are well aware of how they operate. But that counts for nothing here.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 30, 2018)

editor said:


> May I recommend the use of the 'ignore' function? it works for me and you're far too valuable a poster to be driven out by the idiots and the trolls and the Thatcher boys.





I was thinking of that few weeks back. Im loath to do it but needs must I suppose. 

Or should take Nanker Phelge advice and not rise to it.


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> You and I have had to deal with them in real life. So are well aware of how they operate. But that counts for nothing here.


Don't make the mistake of thinking that the opinions of a tiny but incessant minority of right wing/troll/beef-laden posters here even come close to representing the opinions of the majority of posters here. Stick them on ignore and let's keep on keeping BG to account!


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I was thinking of that few weeks back. Im loath to do it but needs must I suppose.
> 
> Or should take Nanker Phelge advice and not rise to it.


It's the only way I could keep on doing this site. Some people would rather the forum be destroyed in their quest for point-scoring and one-upmanship. But now they're fucking impotent.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 31, 2018)

Did anyone on here notice that "Milegate" the company that controls the Fish Depository 16-20 Somerleyton Road have been tweaking their (accepted) planning application for housing on their site?

Note that Lambeth's planning website say it is currently unable to display objections. What a 1984 world we live in. There can't be any objections - we can't see them! 

Anyway for those brave enought to check out a pdf file, here is an analysis of Milegate's revised proposals - which include dropping the Nursery and the Children's Centre - "because we understand these are no longer required".


----------



## teuchter (Jul 31, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Im really getting to point of thinking to stop posting on urban. People in Brixton / LJ I know in real life don't go on like this. This isn't what I first came on Urban for. After a hard day I don't need this. It makes me feel worse.



When something like this video appears I want to understand who exactly has produced it and how. This is why I went and looked up the company behind the youtube channel and found that yes it appears to have been commissioned by BG. None of this information was presented in Tricky Skills post where the video was first posted. To me there is a significant difference between something produced directly by an organisation which states that organisation's views, something commissioned by an organisation which presents views that the organisation itself might not necessarily fully agree with, and something produced by a third party about an organisation that had no say in the making of the piece. 

If me wanting to look into those kind of details is somehow distressing for you then I'm sorry but I thought that's what we do here, look at things in detail rather than taking everything at face value.


----------



## SpamMisery (Jul 31, 2018)

teuchter said:


> If me wanting to look into those kind of details is somehow distressing for you then I'm sorry but I thought that's what we do here, look at things in detail rather than taking everything at face value.



Ha! Chance would be a fine thing.


----------



## editor (Jul 31, 2018)

SpamMisery said:


> Ha! Chance would be a fine thing.


And you're banned from this thread too. You're only interested in personal digs and disruption and I've had enough.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 31, 2018)

teuchter said:


> When something like this video appears I want to understand who exactly has produced it and how. This is why I went and looked up the company behind the youtube channel and found that yes it appears to have been commissioned by BG. None of this information was presented in Tricky Skills post where the video was first posted. To me there is a significant difference between something produced directly by an organisation which states that organisation's views, something commissioned by an organisation which presents views that the organisation itself might not necessarily fully agree with, and something produced by a third party about an organisation that had no say in the making of the piece.
> 
> If me wanting to look into those kind of details is somehow distressing for you then I'm sorry but I thought that's what we do here, look at things in detail rather than taking everything at face value.



Its a BG commisioned film. Not a doc about them. 

Therefore it represents there views.

I may have got you wrong but you dont appear to think that is the case.


----------



## editor (Jul 31, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Its a BG commisioned film. Not a doc about them.
> 
> Therefore it represents there views.
> 
> I may have got you wrong but you dont appear to think that is the case.


The film is made by 'We Rise Brixton.' This is founded by Abigail Melville, who is a Brixton Green trustee. So there is nothing remotely independent about the video. It's just smoke and mirrors PR for Brixton Green. You'd have to be a bit stupid to think otherwise, as this information takes seconds to unearth.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 31, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Its a BG commisioned film. Not a doc about them.
> 
> Therefore it represents there views.
> 
> I may have got you wrong but you dont appear to think that is the case.


They commissioned a film in which some local young people are invited to share their views. The bit about 'ethnic cleansing' is presented as the view of the young person in the film. It is not presented as the view of BG the organisation. It may be the view of the organisation, and maybe the whole film is scripted. That however is not how it is presented. I agree that it's unlikely BG the organisation let this film go out without first seeing its content, and from that we can conclude that they don't seem uncomfortable with the accusation of Lambeth pursuing 'ethnic cleansing' being associated with them, which I have to say I find a bit surprising.

But BG could say 'we do not accuse Lambeth of ethnic cleansing, although we are aware that some people in the area do feel this is the case'. And that statement would not be inconsistent with the existence of this video.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 31, 2018)

teuchter said:


> They commissioned a film in which some local young people are invited to share their views. The bit about 'ethnic cleansing' is presented as the view of the young person in the film. It is not presented as the view of BG the organisation. It may be the view of the organisation, and maybe the whole film is scripted. That however is not how it is presented. I agree that it's unlikely BG the organisation let this film go out without first seeing its content, and from that we can conclude that they don't seem uncomfortable with the accusation of Lambeth pursuing 'ethnic cleansing' being associated with them, which I have to say I find a bit surprising.
> 
> But BG could say 'we do not accuse Lambeth of ethnic cleansing, although we are aware that some people in the area do feel this is the case'. And that statement would not be inconsistent with the existence of this video.



Don't agree. BG commissioned this film as part of there campaign. They must have seen it before it went public. Therefore , as there is no addition to the film to say the views presented weren't there views  so imo they agree with them. If they try to use what you say it is at best pretty lame. At worst its putting blame on the young people involved. These young people took part in campaign film to support BG. The least BG could do is back then up. Otherwise it comes across as using them.

I don't know if I can do a close textual analysis of the film in limited time I have.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 31, 2018)

I've done my own digging around. It turns out that the founder and managing director of werise is also trustee of Brixton Green.

Our trustees & patron | Brixton Green

www.werise.org.uk - Our team


	 from BG website



> Abigail Melville (Community Trustee): Abigail is a local resident, former lambeth Councillor and parent. She has worked in local government management, policy development and public affairs. She helped found the New Local Government Network, led the RSA’s work for the Cooperative Councils Innovation Network and trained as a teacher of Citizenship and politics. She is currently developing a social enterprise to connect young people to work through project based work experience. She is a Member of Impact Hub Brixton and a Director of the Elmgreen Parent Promoters Foundation.




From werise website:




> Abigail Melville, Founder and Managing Director
> 
> After 25 years experience working across public, commercial and non-profit organisations. Abigail founded We Rise to make an impact in the community where she grew up and still lives. She is a qualified teacher of Citizenship and PHSE with two years teaching 11-18 in outstanding London Academy. She is a qualified project manager with experience of programme management and delivering IT projects. She has a policy background with expertise in community and economic development including leading policy commission on inclusive growth for Cooperative Councils. She has a PGCE from the Institute of Education, an MA(Distinction) in Public Policy from University of York and a BA in Politics, Philosophy and Economics from the University of Oxford. She also did a Fine Art Access Course at Lambeth College.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 31, 2018)

So there is close relationship between BG , who commissioned the film, and WeRise the organisation that made the film. That is the head of WeRise is BG trustee.

I can't see how this film was made unless its content was ok with BG.

Im assuming that when BG decided to make film it went out in a tendering process that WeRise got.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 1, 2018)

teuchter said:


> When something like this video appears I want to understand who exactly has produced it and how. This is why I went and looked up the company behind the youtube channel and found that yes it appears to have been commissioned by BG. None of this information was presented in Tricky Skills post where the video was first posted*. To me there is a significant difference between something produced directly by an organisation which states that organisation's views, something commissioned by an organisation which presents views that the organisation itself might not necessarily fully agree with,* and something produced by a third party about an organisation that had no say in the making of the piece.
> 
> If me wanting to look into those kind of details is somehow distressing for you then I'm sorry but I thought that's what we do here, look at things in detail rather than taking everything at face value.



I've looked at more detail. Head of the organisation that made the film is also trustee of BG. This rather muddies the waters don't you think?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 1, 2018)

teuchter said:


> They commissioned a film in which some local young people are invited to share their views. The bit about 'ethnic cleansing' is presented as the view of the young person in the film. It is not presented as the view of BG the organisation. It may be the view of the organisation, and maybe the whole film is scripted. That however is not how it is presented. I agree that it's unlikely BG the organisation let this film go out without first seeing its content, and from that we can conclude that they don't seem uncomfortable with the accusation of Lambeth pursuing 'ethnic cleansing' being associated with them, which I have to say I find a bit surprising.
> 
> But BG could say 'we do not accuse Lambeth of ethnic cleansing, although we are aware that some people in the area do feel this is the case'. And that statement would not be inconsistent with the existence of this video.



I've looked at beginning of film again tonight. It starts with them saying BG was set up by locals to make sure *we* were at forefront of development of Somerleyton. Then rest of film follows on from that.

If I was watching this as someone who didn't know the area I would assume what they were saying was what BG as an organisation think.

The way the film is constructed is introducing BG, small description of area and issues, criticism of Council, ends with asking people to sign petition.

I can't see how the views of BG and what the two are saying can be separated. It all goes together.


----------



## editor (Aug 1, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> So there is close relationship between BG , who commissioned the film, and WeRise the organisation that made the film. That is the head of WeRise is BG trustee.
> 
> I can't see how this film was made unless its content was ok with BG.
> 
> Im assuming that when BG decided to make film it went out in a tendering process that WeRise got.


Seeing as the managing director of the film company is also deeply entrenched with Brixton Green it's fucking obvious that the film was made to promote their agenda. But barely anyone has watched it anyway so it doesn't matter. Brixton Green are a bunch of fucking liars, I've never met anyone on my estate who has a good word to say about them and the quicker they fuck off from whence they came the better for all concerned. They can bleat all they like, but barely anyone cares and most people have no idea who they are or what they're supposed to represent (least of all themselves, given their ever changing agenda).

And what happened to the big cheese who was with them? The one who did awful public/private things at Kings Cross?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Aug 11, 2018)

Finally, finally some movement on this massively behind schedule scheme: it seems that Oval House should make it to the September Cabinet agenda.


----------



## editor (Sep 17, 2018)

Latest update 
Lambeth Council Cabinet set to appoint developer for first stage of delayed Somerleyton Road scheme


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2018)

So if agreed tonight the building of the theatre and refurbishment of Carlton mansions will start.

The rest of scheme to start at later date to be agreed by Cabinet.

This will be relief for Ovalhouse that they can finally start.

Good news in report is that Brixton Green won't get their hands on Carlton mansions. This will come under Ovalhouse.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2018)

Interesting to note, as Brixton buzz piece does, that Brixton Green appear to be back in the scheme. Unfortunately. I wondered why they had gone all quiet. Now they are back with the movers and shakers community action is no longer required. Its back to meetings with Council ,which as Brixton buzz report says , public have no access to the minutes. Meetings that are taking decisions for the local community. Despite promise that these minutes will be available to public.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2018)

Reading through the Council report , linked in Brixton buzz article, its clear that the scheme is being funded by Lambeth council and Ovalhouse. Brixton Green aren't raising any of the funds.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2018)

This on page 62 caught my eye.



> 5 Consultation and co-production
> 4.1 Local residents and Ward Councillors have been consulted on this scheme and will continue to
> be engaged during the construction stage. Stakeholder engagement was a criteria measured in
> the procurement process, with contractors asked to set out their methodologies for good engagement.



What local residents? How will stakeholder engagement work?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2018)

Page 59/ 60



> 1.8 The Council has worked with and facilitated Brixton Green in the development of a number of
> proposals for community-led housing models. The Council has provided resources, skills and
> expertise from within the Council and also from construction, housing development, legal and
> financial sectors, with the purpose of achieving a viable and sustainable community-led scheme
> ...



So what this is saying is what I knew anyway. The Council have put in a lot of officer time and resources to help Brixton Green.

The narrative BG present is that its been them doing this. Not the case.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2018)

So all the talk from BG about how they were thwarted by Council officers isn't the whole story.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2018)

If I was Council officer trying to work out finance for large scheme which the Council will take the risk for and have the jokers from Brixton Green telling me to give it to them I might after a while get sick of it.

Plus the lack of Brixton Greens ability to deal with local community. Which was why they were made the Council's "community partners".

All in all a headache for officers.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 21, 2019)

Seems like Brixton Green have given up on involvement with Somerleyton Road. They sent out a press release this morning:

Brixton Green calls Time on Lambeth Council
After more than a decade, the 1,300+ strong community-led development campaign Brixton Green has decided to pull out of any further work with Lambeth Council.
The Board of Trustees want to explain the decision, taken at its January meeting:
“We have worked incredibly hard to place a shared vision of community led housing at the forefront of the Somerleyton Road development. We are proud of the impact our members have had on the mixed uses, housing standards, and the design, which has planning permission, and in putting together a strong body of work on how the housing can be 100% rented, be managed by the community and developed at no cost to the Council. (see notes 3 and 4)
Our members wanted a true partnership with community led decision making. Unfortunately Lambeth Council’s actions have shown us that it has neither the appetite nor the capacity to work with the community on this development. Since May 2018, the council has not acted collaboratively, and the pledge signed by Lambeth Labour before the election has been broken. (see note 1)
We cannot in good conscience be associated with their proposal in the January 2019 Cabinet paper, to join a steering group which smacks more of placation than real partnership (see note 2).
Should the position change and Lambeth show a genuine desire to share decision-making with the community we stand ready to assist.
In the meantime we are considering the future of Brixton Green - what role it might take in Lambeth and in promoting our model elsewhere.”
Ends.

The notes are very long but available on here: Brixton Green calls Time on Lambeth Council - Staying True to the shared vision for Somerleyton Road


----------



## editor (Feb 21, 2019)

CH1 said:


> Seems like Brixton Green have given up on involvement with Somerleyton Road. They sent out a press release this morning:
> 
> Brixton Green calls Time on Lambeth Council
> After more than a decade, the 1,300+ strong community-led development campaign Brixton Green has decided to pull out of any further work with Lambeth Council.
> ...


Good fucking riddance to that bunch of dodgy chancers. And liars.


----------



## editor (Feb 21, 2019)

"1,300+ strong community-led development "

Such utter bollocks.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 21, 2019)

They turned up at last Brixton Neighborhood Forum. Which I was not expecting.

They just rub me up the wrong way.

They were giving the we are victims of terrible New Labour Council line.

It gets them support.

I was in minority in meeting when I asked them what actually was the proportion of housing at social rents ( that is Council level rents) they were going to do on their scheme.

I got a load of waffle. In their scheme rents would be means tested. Fifty percent of development would be market rent. Rest would be based on means testing of income.

This really never did sound that wonderful.

And btw this was not gaurenteed.

BG made much of saying they had lenders who would fund there scheme. 

As I was there at the beginning BG knew full well that this was Council scheme. Council were going to build it. Ovalhouse were going to fund and build the theatre.

Council can be criticised for not getting on with Somerleyton but BG were never going to deliver imo.

Unless the Council have them the land for free it would never have worked.

And do I want BG to have the land? No.

I think the BG resentment at Ovalhouse is that they are getting deal to lease the land from Council for long lease.


----------



## editor (Mar 19, 2019)

Just spotted this:


----------



## CH1 (Mar 22, 2019)

Don't know if anyone is interested in this Evening Standard article.

"Woolwich Creative District" seems like an up-scaled version of what people have been trying to do in Somerleyton Road and other parts of central Brixton.

The bottom line is that in Woolwich the "genuinely affordable" homes have been knocked back from the originally planned 35% to a mere 8%.

The creative part sounds very interesting but even Greenwich Council, traditionally left of Lambeth or Southwark, have had to sacrifice the needs of ordinary people on the altar of developer-led regeneration.


----------



## editor (Mar 26, 2019)

Meanwhile, Somerleyton Passage remains a total shithole 












The miserable Somerleyton Passage pedestrian subway in Brixton – and the many failed proposals for its improvement


----------



## brixtonblade (Mar 26, 2019)

editor said:


> Meanwhile, Somerleyton Passage remains a total shithole
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I had no idea about all those proposals to improve it...  would be nice if something was implemented as it is pretty grim at the moment


----------



## teuchter (Mar 28, 2019)

Marka17 said:


> Can someone help clarify something for me? I've read the Cabinet Report (Jan 2019) and it references multiple blocks, A to F.
> I wanted to see what these would look like, where retail space etc would be, and found some drawings on Brixton Green website. The Development | Brixton Green
> But now they're no longer a part of this process anymore are these details null and void or is that unrelated?
> 
> ...



This I think is the planning application (ref 15/05282/RG3) and you should be able to find the drawings in there under associated documents. There have been various amendments to it since then; I'm not up to date on what they are or how significant they are.

15/05282/RG3     |              Demolition of existing buildings on-site (with the exception of Carlton Mansions which is retained and refurbished) and redevelopment to provide a residential-led, mixed use development comprising 304 new dwellings (50% affordable) and approximately 8,000 sq.m (GIA) of non-residential uses including a theatre (Sui Generis) and employment, retail and community uses (Use class B1/D1/A1/A2) with associated parking, landscaping and ancillary works.                  |                                                                      Land Bound By Somerleyton Road, Coldharbour Lane And Railway Line London SW9


----------



## editor (Apr 24, 2019)

A photo update: 


























In photos: A Loughborough Park and Somerleyton Road stroll as redevelopment slowly grinds on, Brixton, April 2019


----------



## editor (May 13, 2019)

This is rather interesting: Brixton Ovalhouse Theatre goes ahead. But where is the money coming from?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (May 20, 2019)

editor said:


> This is rather interesting: Brixton Ovalhouse Theatre goes ahead. But where is the money coming from?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (May 20, 2019)

be up and running in a blink of an eye, and I’ll have to park a mile away but hey ho


----------



## CH1 (May 20, 2019)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> be up and running in a blink of an eye, and I’ll have to park a mile away but hey ho


I thought people living in Brixton Square were not supposed to require parking. Has BS been redesignated as social housing?


----------



## CH1 (May 22, 2019)

Marka17 said:


> The big bit of land at the other end of road is up for rent if anyones interested! Somewhere to park your car maybe


Is that the Angela Davis car park?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (May 22, 2019)

CH1 said:


> I thought people living in Brixton Square were not supposed to require parking. Has BS been redesignated as social housing?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (May 22, 2019)

Nope, but we do need guidance on how to use a balcony.


----------



## editor (May 22, 2019)

Mr Bim of Bar said:


> Nope, but we do need guidance on how to use a balcony.


Haven't you all got cleaners to sort out your mess?


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (May 22, 2019)

editor said:


> Haven't you all got cleaners to sort out your mess?


Ha ha ha there seems to be an abundance of cleaners here but personally I pick up other peoples cigarette butts.


----------



## CH1 (May 22, 2019)

When I lived in Effra Court it was all about not hanging your washing out. Considering the vintage of the building c 1935 I guess they worried in case one's bloomers were on display. My aunt said this was too risqué.


----------



## Gramsci (May 22, 2019)

Quote didn't work.


----------



## Gramsci (May 22, 2019)

Mr Bim of Bar 

FFS I thought the whole point of owning your own property, being on the mortgage treadmill, was that you got away from this officious nanny state bollox.


This is just as bad as Lambeth council.


----------



## editor (Oct 21, 2019)

The building seems to be shooting up


----------



## editor (Oct 22, 2019)

Interesting developments here... Lambeth Council looking to pimp out Ovalhouse basement


----------



## Crispy (Oct 22, 2019)

Interesting. Not a part of the original planning application (it was all marked as stores). >1000m² is a big space for a single tenant.


----------



## editor (Oct 22, 2019)

Comment from a friend on FB:



> All that corporate Newspeak is grotesque in the highest degree. At 10% it's painfully obvious the value they place in 'Experience and expertise in delivering similar projects'. Which could be helpful in promoting individuals and groups who would normally be excluded from such projects, but which in reality allows them to do business with what they see as the right type of people but with the wrong type of experience. And thus the world rolls on.


----------



## editor (Mar 2, 2020)

Ovalhourse update: Topping out ceremony held for new Ovalhouse theatre development on Coldharbour Lane, Brixton


----------



## Mr Bim of Bar (Mar 2, 2020)

Well they were spot on about securing your outdoor furniture in high winds, I watched as the wind picked up garden furniture and threw it against the patio door smashing the glass , thank God no one was underneath as all the glass came crashing down from the 5th floor.


----------



## OvalhouseDB (Mar 2, 2020)

Thanks for the link - as times have moved on since this thread was started shall I start another one about the theatre?


----------



## editor (Mar 2, 2020)

OvalhouseDB said:


> Thanks for the link - as times have moved on since this thread was started shall I start another one about the theatre?


Feel free!


----------



## editor (Apr 23, 2020)

Here's how it looks today






























						In photos: Somerleyton Road, Somerleyton Passage, Book Shop Brixton, street art and run-down buildings
					

While most of Brixton accelerates into hyper-gentrification, Somerleyton Road and Somerleyton Passage remain stuck in limbo, as various redevelopment plans have stalled.



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## CH1 (Apr 24, 2020)

editor said:


> Here's how it looks today
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What's all this about the new development by Milegate/DN Capiital then?
There is a large sign on the frozen fish place - though you haven't shown it.

I notice that Mr David Nourani - a mere whippersnapper at 36 - has a nest of companies registered at 20 Somerleyton Road





						David NOURANI personal appointments - Find and update company information - GOV.UK
					

Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity




					beta.companieshouse.gov.uk
				




DN Capital Property Ltd, which is supposed to be developing the site, has capital of only a hundred pounds.

I pointed out in an earlier post that Milegate had been involved in the site Jerry Knight developed as Brewdog etc. It could still be that Lambeth's favourite developer gets to do Somerleyton Road. Mr Nourari clealry will find his hundred pounds won't go far.
His LinkedIn is interesting. A mathematician turned fish merchant. Can't be many of those around. https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-nourani-09227775/?originalSubdomain=uk


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 25, 2020)

CH1 said:


> What's all this about the new development by Milegate/DN Capiital then?
> There is a large sign on the frozen fish place - though you haven't shown it.
> 
> I notice that Mr David Nourani - a mere whippersnapper at 36 - has a nest of companies registered at 20 Somerleyton Road
> ...


Capital might be share capital, so not necessarily a useful piece of information. You need to look at the accounts to see what they have access to, if anything.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 25, 2020)

equationgirl said:


> Capital might be share capital, so not necessarily a useful piece of information. You need to look at the accounts to see what they have access to, if anything.


Indeed. Company incorporated July last year. No accounts filed so far - obviously.





						DN PROPERTY LONDON LIMITED filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK
					

DN PROPERTY LONDON LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity




					beta.companieshouse.gov.uk
				




The very odd thing is that the company;s registered address is next  to Bishops Avenue - Millionaires Row. All very odd. A fish wholesalers turned property developer with share capital of one hundred pounds and an official address next to Millionaires Row.

Further the director of Milegate and DN Capital has a B.Sc from University College London, and an M.Sc from Oxford - and is running his enterprise from Somerleyton Road, Brixton. Is Brixton going up in the world or is something fishy going on?,


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 26, 2020)

CH1 said:


> Indeed. Company incorporated July last year. No accounts filed so far - obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think there's currently enough information to say whether this is dubious or not, but certainly curious and worth keeping an eye on.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 26, 2020)

I was so fascinated by this topic I've got a photo now. 16 Somerleyton Road used to be a chocolate factory of some kind in the 1970s. Supplied own brand stuff to people like Harrods apparently.
I got to roam around in that building a lot in the mid 1990s. No 20 was squatted by an artisan Dutchman who make furniture and stuff - woodwork. No 18 was squatted by a Pocomania Church run by Bishop Jack Jones of Talma Road - who subsequently died of AIDS. He was prone to heavy drinking, and I remember him threatening "I will run you outa Brixton!" - in the Angell Pub in Coldharbour Lane (now Mama Dough). Not sure what I said to him - maybe I didn't stand my round!


Footnote: Pocomania - I'm sure a lot of people won't be familiar. Even a visit to the religious section of the Horniman Museum just gives a static display.
Here is a Youtube video from Jamaica, which is exactly like what Bishop Jones and his affiliate Bishop McGilveray from Harlsden used to do in 18 Somerleyton Road - and St Vincent's Hall in Talma Road too.


----------

