Especially if it's run by liberals.Bob said:
*Cough* Sorry. Carry on.
Brixton Prison to make way for luxury housing?
- Thread starter lang rabbie
- Start date
*Cough* Sorry. Carry on.Politics and Performance
I don't disagree that there must be political control of public services such as the police and prison service, but there must be clear parameters of where the boundary is. The issue of oversight of the organisations (i.e. checking there is no corruption, violence, etc.) is probably best done by an independent agency staffed by professionals rather than directly by politicians.
In my experience much of the dysfunction of public services is caused by micro-management of the service delivery by politicians rather than professionals or by the setting of inappropriate "performance indicators" (which are rarely anything to do with actual performance of the service!) which skew effort and resources.
As a for instance, as a Duty Officer at Brixton my team had a response time performance indicator. Not a problem there until you realised they had no "doing a decent job when you get there" indicator (probably 'cos it was too difficult). As a result everyone raced about at top speed, rushing from call-to-call to hit the response times ... and did very little in terms of investigating whatever it was they were called to. But the grief I got from senior management when I refocused the teams effort on actual delivering a good service and not just a fast one.
Gramsci said:
I don't disagree that there must be political control of public services such as the police and prison service, but there must be clear parameters of where the boundary is. The issue of oversight of the organisations (i.e. checking there is no corruption, violence, etc.) is probably best done by an independent agency staffed by professionals rather than directly by politicians.
In my experience much of the dysfunction of public services is caused by micro-management of the service delivery by politicians rather than professionals or by the setting of inappropriate "performance indicators" (which are rarely anything to do with actual performance of the service!) which skew effort and resources.
As a for instance, as a Duty Officer at Brixton my team had a response time performance indicator. Not a problem there until you realised they had no "doing a decent job when you get there" indicator (probably 'cos it was too difficult). As a result everyone raced about at top speed, rushing from call-to-call to hit the response times ... and did very little in terms of investigating whatever it was they were called to. But the grief I got from senior management when I refocused the teams effort on actual delivering a good service and not just a fast one.
From the Mayor's office:
Dear Mr B
Thank you for your letter to the Mayor on the issue of the disposal of Brixton Prison. All Government departments are now required to notify English Partnerships of land surplus to requirements so that options for disposing of the site for the purposes of housing provision, including provision of housing for key workers, can be considered. The Home Office has not as yet provided such a list to English Partnerships. The Government has already given consent to local authorities to dispose of surplus land for affordable housing on a discounted basis. The Mayor would support a similiar approach being adopted for Government Departments.
It is primarily for L B Lambeth, as local planning authority, to set a planning brief for the site. As set out in the London Plan, this should include a requirement that 50% of any housing provision should be affordable housing provision. The Mayor is working closely with English Partnerships and individual boroughs to ensure that the potential for affordable housing on appropriate sites, including surplus sites owned by Government Departments is maximised.
Yours Sincerely
Duncan Bowie
Principal Strategic Planner (Housing)
GLA
020 7983 4276
Dear Mr B
Thank you for your letter to the Mayor on the issue of the disposal of Brixton Prison. All Government departments are now required to notify English Partnerships of land surplus to requirements so that options for disposing of the site for the purposes of housing provision, including provision of housing for key workers, can be considered. The Home Office has not as yet provided such a list to English Partnerships. The Government has already given consent to local authorities to dispose of surplus land for affordable housing on a discounted basis. The Mayor would support a similiar approach being adopted for Government Departments.
It is primarily for L B Lambeth, as local planning authority, to set a planning brief for the site. As set out in the London Plan, this should include a requirement that 50% of any housing provision should be affordable housing provision. The Mayor is working closely with English Partnerships and individual boroughs to ensure that the potential for affordable housing on appropriate sites, including surplus sites owned by Government Departments is maximised.
Yours Sincerely
Duncan Bowie
Principal Strategic Planner (Housing)
GLA
020 7983 4276
Brixton Hatter
Home is south London mate
Hmm, that's interesting - I just received a reply on this too which basically says "sorry guv, not mine to deal with" !!!
***********
Thank you for your recent e-mail addressed to the Mayor of London. I have been asked to respond to you on his behalf.
I can understand your concern regarding the possible sale of Brixton Prison and its future use. However, the Mayor cannot intervene in this matter as it does not fall within his remit and is a matter for the Home Office and central
government at this stage.
The Mayor would only able to comment if the local authority involved referred a planning application to him. As this has not yet happened, we cannot offer any advice or comment at present.
You may wish to contact the London Development Agency as they have a greater remit in this area. Their web address is as follows:
www.lda.gov.uk
You may also wish to pursue the matter further with the Home Office and London Borough of Lambeth.
I am sorry that the Mayor is unable to assist you directly on this occasion,
although I hope the information I have provided is of use to you.
Thank you once again for taking the time to write to the Mayor.
Yours sincerely.
Chris John
Public Liaison Officer
***********************
I'm still waiting for replies from the DfES (re: Prison as a possible site for new school) and from John Prescott's Office (re: a site for social housing). A note to the LDA wouldn't do any harm I suppose. There's no email address but you can write to them via a form if you click here
***********
Thank you for your recent e-mail addressed to the Mayor of London. I have been asked to respond to you on his behalf.
I can understand your concern regarding the possible sale of Brixton Prison and its future use. However, the Mayor cannot intervene in this matter as it does not fall within his remit and is a matter for the Home Office and central
government at this stage.
The Mayor would only able to comment if the local authority involved referred a planning application to him. As this has not yet happened, we cannot offer any advice or comment at present.
You may wish to contact the London Development Agency as they have a greater remit in this area. Their web address is as follows:
www.lda.gov.uk
You may also wish to pursue the matter further with the Home Office and London Borough of Lambeth.
I am sorry that the Mayor is unable to assist you directly on this occasion,
although I hope the information I have provided is of use to you.
Thank you once again for taking the time to write to the Mayor.
Yours sincerely.
Chris John
Public Liaison Officer
***********************
I'm still waiting for replies from the DfES (re: Prison as a possible site for new school) and from John Prescott's Office (re: a site for social housing). A note to the LDA wouldn't do any harm I suppose. There's no email address but you can write to them via a form if you click here
Isn't he David's son???hatboy said:
I'm sure Zowie's real name was Duncan. Aquamarine
Well-Known Member
The Government has already given consent to local authorities to dispose of surplus land for affordable housing on a discounted basis.
Isnt it ironic that local authorities don’t require consent to dispose of their social housing stock. Ive jus t seen the GLA released figures that show the number of homeless families in Lambeth has actually been increasing recently. I suspect the situation in Lambeth is far worse than people think. The definition of ‘temporary accomodation’ is surprisingly wide and includes moblile homes. Lambeth is free to keep confidential the actual breakdown of where they are placing these families. Why?? Then there is a particularly saccharine write up in Mondays Standard about Lettings First, the ‘Lambeth solution’ to B&B use. – worthy of an airline in-flight magazine: all these grateful families being rehoused!
It is a real loss the Mayor has so little power wehre housing is concerned.
Isnt it ironic that local authorities don’t require consent to dispose of their social housing stock. Ive jus t seen the GLA released figures that show the number of homeless families in Lambeth has actually been increasing recently. I suspect the situation in Lambeth is far worse than people think. The definition of ‘temporary accomodation’ is surprisingly wide and includes moblile homes. Lambeth is free to keep confidential the actual breakdown of where they are placing these families. Why?? Then there is a particularly saccharine write up in Mondays Standard about Lettings First, the ‘Lambeth solution’ to B&B use. – worthy of an airline in-flight magazine: all these grateful families being rehoused!
It is a real loss the Mayor has so little power wehre housing is concerned.
It certainly is a great shame.Mutilatedpsyche said:
Ooh, Bob and his LD pals aren't going to like that.
Are these figures accessible online?
lang rabbie
Je ne regrette les gazebos
The GLA figures on homelessness by borough should be at:
Homelessness in London Bulletin
The latest edition on the website (called October!) includes data to the end of November -it appears that they have missed an issue?
This shows an increase from 2245 to 2285 households.
Lambeth had previously seen a trend of slowly reducing numbers - from a peak of 2769 households last March, whereas Southwark and Lewisham showed month on month increases after some improvements earlier in the year. Conclusion - never look at one month's change in isolation.
[Edited as I hadn't seen the November chart at the back]
Homelessness in London Bulletin
The latest edition on the website (called October!) includes data to the end of November -it appears that they have missed an issue?
This shows an increase from 2245 to 2285 households.
Lambeth had previously seen a trend of slowly reducing numbers - from a peak of 2769 households last March, whereas Southwark and Lewisham showed month on month increases after some improvements earlier in the year. Conclusion - never look at one month's change in isolation.
[Edited as I hadn't seen the November chart at the back]
Aquamarine
Well-Known Member
Looking more closely at those figures Id say it is’nt so much that there has been a downward trend but isolated incidents of movements of large numbers of people. What is significant is that the homelessness rate (the number of homeless families as a % of families in the borough) has almost doubled during the last quarter of 2003.
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_housing/documents/page/odpm_house_604177.hcsp
There is clearly an opportunity in Lambeth to make better use of existing resources to help meet this growing social housing need. To do this the Council must be pressured to re-introduce the moratorium on sales of publicly owned property. Given the mismatch between social housing supply and housing need in Lambeth, it is absolutely right I agree that the private sector be made to make a more effective contribution to meeting housing needs and provides a supply of good quality, secure and affordable social housing to supplement the existing supply of social housing. I believe these issues are part of the wider objectives.of some emerging local campaigning groups.
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_housing/documents/page/odpm_house_604177.hcsp
There is clearly an opportunity in Lambeth to make better use of existing resources to help meet this growing social housing need. To do this the Council must be pressured to re-introduce the moratorium on sales of publicly owned property. Given the mismatch between social housing supply and housing need in Lambeth, it is absolutely right I agree that the private sector be made to make a more effective contribution to meeting housing needs and provides a supply of good quality, secure and affordable social housing to supplement the existing supply of social housing. I believe these issues are part of the wider objectives.of some emerging local campaigning groups.
Brixton Hatter
Home is south London mate
New school? Social housing? No, just piss off please
A reply from the Prison Service basically saying they've taken no decision on whether to sell the prison or not - surprise surprise. Maybe if they keep sending replies like this we'll all piss off and stop making a fuss.
Why can't they ever, EVER give you a straight answer? Why can't they say "Mr Blunkett agrees that Lambeth desperately needs a site for a new school/social housing and will be pushing the Treasury to agree blah blah etc etc...." But no, that would be too simple wouldn't it.
A reply from the Prison Service basically saying they've taken no decision on whether to sell the prison or not - surprise surprise. Maybe if they keep sending replies like this we'll all piss off and stop making a fuss.
Why can't they ever, EVER give you a straight answer? Why can't they say "Mr Blunkett agrees that Lambeth desperately needs a site for a new school/social housing and will be pushing the Treasury to agree blah blah etc etc...." But no, that would be too simple wouldn't it.
Minnie_the_Minx
someinenhhanding menbag and me ah bollox
about time they let us residents have a say in the matter
It could be that they really haven't made a decision yet - the prison service after all is rethinking prisons as a whole - apparently the design of older prisons like Brixton means it's virtually impossible for them to be used for good rehabilitation programmes etc. so even if it's kept as a prison (there are good reasons for keeping prisons small - most obviously so prisoners are kept closer to their families) it could well be demolished and rebuilt.
In any case the council has virtually no say in this since the prisons is run by central government. The councillors (not the council since as somebody pointed out this isn't whipped) would only be able to reject planning permission - and I guess it would be difficult to find grounds when most buildings are more attractive than prisons....
Minnie - love your smilie...
In any case the council has virtually no say in this since the prisons is run by central government. The councillors (not the council since as somebody pointed out this isn't whipped) would only be able to reject planning permission - and I guess it would be difficult to find grounds when most buildings are more attractive than prisons....
Minnie - love your smilie...
Brixton Hatter
Home is south London mate
Yes, fair enough. But they could have said "Yes, we agree that having, say, a school on the site, *could* be a good idea and we will feed this idea into our thinking.Bob said:
Yes again - but central Government should be thinking strategically and in a joined up manner. If the various departments can help each other with mutually achieving their aims (ie - Home Office=decent prisons, DfES=decent schools) surely even the Labour Party could see that?
lang rabbie
Je ne regrette les gazebos
There are two planning applications in with Lambeth, which might suggest that the Prison Service is staying for the time-being:
They are both "Approval under Circular 18/84 Crown Land" i.e. Lambeth can only make recommendations to the Government, rather than take the decision.
04/02984/GOV Application received 27/09/2004
Observations in accordance with circular 18/84 on a development proposal by H M Prison Service, involving the demolition of the grade II listed Octagon building within Brixton Prison.
04/03447/GOV Application received 16/11/2004
Erection to the existing perimiter wall, installation of new security fence and a new Health Care centre building.
The demolition of the octagon building would be the loss of an important bit of penal history - it was the centre of the treadmills. However, better health facilities at the prison are clearly a priority.
They are both "Approval under Circular 18/84 Crown Land" i.e. Lambeth can only make recommendations to the Government, rather than take the decision.
04/02984/GOV Application received 27/09/2004
Observations in accordance with circular 18/84 on a development proposal by H M Prison Service, involving the demolition of the grade II listed Octagon building within Brixton Prison.
04/03447/GOV Application received 16/11/2004
Erection to the existing perimiter wall, installation of new security fence and a new Health Care centre building.
The demolition of the octagon building would be the loss of an important bit of penal history - it was the centre of the treadmills. However, better health facilities at the prison are clearly a priority.
