Elephant & Castle regeneration

[nonamenopackdrill]

I think Elephant and Castle is a bit of a shit-hole, but I still go there to go bowling (shit hole but nearby, getting worse!) with my mate who lives in one of those massive new-built flats near Lambeth North.

We are always disappointed with food nearby ever since the bloody noodle bar on Walworth Road was closed. Last time we went to the nastiest all you can eat Chinese I've ever known.

When I was a student, I used to while away the hours playing snooker in Rileys as well - since closed

And the sniffer dogs were onto me last time I was there as well, despite me not having carried drugs of any sort for over 10 years.

You can call me 'sneering' but I'd welcome it being done up. Significantly.

 

[Errol's son]

I actually like some of the shops in the shopping centre and don't have a problem with the area other than the roads and subway are appallingly badly planned, the shopping centre is an architectural eyesore and the tube/train interchange is pretty fucking shite too.

As London grows, I can't see how the Elephant can continue as it is. Where else can be developed in Zone 1?

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

I actually like some of the shops in the shopping centre and don't have a problem with the area other than the roads and subway are appallingly badly planned, the shopping centre is an architectural eyesore and the tube/train interchange is pretty fucking shite too.

As London grows, I can't see how the Elephant can continue as it is. Where else can be developed in Zone 1?

You don't have a problem with the area except for all of it then!

 

[Giles]

And the sniffer dogs were onto me last time I was there as well, despite me not having carried drugs of any sort for over 10 years.

May be you need to wash your clothes more often then!?

Giles..

 

[oryx]

They can only do this to people who live in accommodation owned by the state.

Never heard of compulsory purchase orders?

 

[Giles]

Never heard of compulsory purchase orders?

Of course I have. But how often have you heard of CPOs being used against a whole area of well-off private housing?

Not very bloody often.

Giles..

 

[PacificOcean]

Is the ex-DSS block on the roundabout to be knocked down too?

It's posh serviced flats in there (I saw it on Relocation, Relocation).

 

[guinnessdrinker]

And contemptuous Elephant-sneerers can fuck off ... )

indeed! anybody who diss my elephant is a troll and should be treated accordingly people have suffered badly for far less !

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Is the ex-DSS block on the roundabout to be knocked down too?

It's posh serviced flats in there (I saw it on Relocation, Relocation).

where the wetherspoon is? no.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Of course I have. But how often have you heard of CPOs being used against a whole area of well-off private housing?

Not very bloody often.

Giles..

indeed. see my post above...

 

[PacificOcean]

So those in the anti camp.

Would you rather there was no redevelopment at all or just some?

 

[guinnessdrinker]

When I was a student, I used to while away the hours playing snooker in Rileys as well - since closed

And the sniffer dogs were onto me last time I was there as well, despite me not having carried drugs of any sort for over 10 years.

if that's where I think it was (near castello pizzeria?) the building is to be demolished for a skyscrper of private flats and possibly an hotel too.

as for the sniffer dogs, apparently most if not all notes in the UK have traces of cocaine on them. how much cash in bank notes did you have on you....

 

[fudgefactorfive]

So those in the anti camp.

Would you rather there was no redevelopment at all or just some?

i'm not opposed to redevelopment as such - can't say I will shed a tear about losing the shopping centre for example - but I seriously question who the development will benefit most.

I find it odd - no doubt due to my ignorance - that the Heygate and Aylesbury and Portland estates have applied for regeneration grants year after year and been refused, but when suddenly there is a corporate sponsorship deal and the opportunity to hand over land to private interest and upwardly mobile citizens, suddenly it's bulldozer time.

It's important - I've read that the Aylesbury is the largest housing estate in northern Europe (however "northern Europe" is defined). This is a serious concentration of people here. It's also the strongest community I've ever lived in.

 

[oryx]

Of course I have. But how often have you heard of CPOs being used against a whole area of well-off private housing?

Not very bloody often.

Giles..

But your words were 'They can only do this to people who live in accommodation owned by the state.' which is not the case.

I agree you don't see whole tracts of houses/flats owned by the well-off being CPO'ed, however.

ETA - I like the Elephant as it is on the whole. It has character, something gradually being eroded in many areas of London.

 

[Monkeynuts]

But your words were 'They can only do this to people who live in accommodation owned by the state.' which is not the case.

I agree you don't see whole tracts of houses/flats owned by the well-off being CPO'ed, however.

ETA - I like the Elephant as it is on the whole. It has character, something gradually being eroded in many areas of London.

I think we need to go with the spirit of the post... Fact is that areas of affluent private housing tend not to get CPO'ed very often.

But our area of mutual interest is not this but whether the Elephant will be improved for those who live there. I've not been in any of the flats on the Heygate and don't know anyone there so can't really add anything here.

It could certainly do with a bit of investment but I'm not surprised people are wary of what form this will take and who exactly it is intended to benefit.

It would be a bit perverse to oppose it being made a bit more pedestrian friendly and seeing something done with yer big red shopping centre though! As for its character - traffic, some particular problems with crime, some 60s commercial building needing a bit of an overhaul? Camberwell has character worth preserving, as does Peckham... with Elephant the first impression I get is that it could do with a bit of work. That's not to offend Guiness Drinker by dissing the area, I just think it appears to have been a bit neglected and could do with a bit of love

 

[lintin]

E&C ? What a ghastly place...

 

[guinnessdrinker]

I think we need to go with the spirit of the post... Fact is that areas of affluent private housing tend not to get CPO'ed very often.

But our area of mutual interest is not this but whether the Elephant will be improved for those who live there. I've not been in any of the flats on the Heygate and don't know anyone there so can't really add anything here.

It could certainly do with a bit of investment but I'm not surprised people are wary of what form this will take and who exactly it is intended to benefit.

It would be a bit perverse to oppose it being made a bit more pedestrian friendly and seeing something done with yer big red shopping centre though! As for its character - traffic, some particular problems with crime, some 60s commercial building needing a bit of an overhaul? Camberwell has character worth preserving, as does Peckham... with Elephant the first impression I get is that it could do with a bit of work. That's not to offend Guiness Drinker by dissing the area, I just think it appears to have been a bit neglected and could do with a bit of love

one of the problems is that the new flats will not have secure tenancies (what you get with council flats), but assured tenancies (what you get since 1989 with housing associations). there is a real difference. another problem is the standard of housing. there were housing standards that were abolished under thatcher in 1983 (I can never remember the name associated with it) and were never reestablished afterwards. and there is all the spin about "quality", "regeneration", etc. it's a massive money scam. that's all.

I bring my elephant a bit of love regularly.

as for all these talks about doing it up "significantly" or whatever, what about a bit of spring cleaning? do you need to demolish thousands of homes and a shopping centre to sort out the "crime problem", the subways", etc?

Up my Elephant!

 

[Monkeynuts]

as for all these talks about doing it up "significantly" or whatever, what about a bit of spring cleaning? do you need to demolish thousands of homes and a shopping centre to sort out the "crime problem", the subways", etc?

Yes, that's what I was aiming at.

The Heygate does look a bit forbidding and is not really to my taste architecture-wise but whether that should mean wholesale clearance of the area is hardly for me to say, but for the residents.

The concern about housing standards is very valid as the GLC used to have minimum room sizes etc... no more.

On the positive side, requirements for thermal and acoustic insulation have tightened up, in theory meaning lower bills and less noise from neighbours. Some housing associations can be quite demanding - I was involved with a big development of flats where the developer had to put in a large number of "affordable" flats and it was really quite heartwarming to see the developer seeth as the HA flats had to be bigger and have better storage etc, and the council forced him to put them on the side of the development with the nice views!

So fingers crossed it might work out on that front - what are the implications of the tenancy change though, GD?

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Yes, that's what I was aiming at.

The Heygate does look a bit forbidding and is not really to my taste architecture-wise but whether that should mean wholesale clearance of the area is hardly for me to say, but for the residents.

The concern about housing standards is very valid as the GLC used to have minimum room sizes etc... no more.

On the positive side, requirements for thermal and acoustic insulation have tightened up, in theory meaning lower bills and less noise from neighbours. Some housing associations can be quite demanding - I was involved with a big development of flats where the developer had to put in a large number of "affordable" flats and it was really quite heartwarming to see the developer seeth as the HA flats had to be bigger and have better storage etc, and the council forced him to put them on the side of the development with the nice views!

So fingers crossed it might work out on that front - what are the implications of the tenancy change though, GD?

the heygate does look very forbidding, indeed. but the most important thing to me is tenants rights (I'll get back on that after I have digested my liquid sunday lunch). I don't know about the GLC standards, it was the government of the day, back in 1983, that changed the law.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

what are the implications of the tenancy change though, GD?

the first implication is accountability. when you are with the council, you elect your landlord and a letter from your councillor can be extremely useful to epeed things up and resolve problems. housing association can do what they want and totally ignore you.
the second problem is the actual tenancy. council tenancies come under a 1980 act, while all new housing association tenancies since the 15th of January 1989 are assured tenancies which were established under the 1988 housing act. they're both roughly the same, just worded differently, apart from one important bit, ground 8 used for eviction for rent arrears by housing associations. all eviction for rent arrears have to be approved by the county court. the judge has discretion to refuse an eviction for secure tenancies and may take into account financial difficulties a tenant may have had. however, the 1988 act introduced ground 8 which removed judges' discretion where arrears were of more than 3 months rent. it became mandatory for them to rubberstamp the eviction. this 3 months period was subsequently shortened to 2 months under the 1996 housing act. you can see the problems that may arise where there are problems with housing benefit, or you've had problems with an ex employer not paying you, for instance. judges may be sympathetic, but there is nothing they can do to stop it. HAs have been known to use this ground to speed up housing benefit payments, and it isn't very amusing when you are a tenant in this situation. they have also used it to get rid of tenants they didn't like, for one reason or another.

 

[Monkeynuts]

Useful info, thanks.

Been looking at the Elephant site and whilst you certainly have to take these things with a pinch of salt, it sounds positive and like it could be alright:

"Called the Elephant and Castle framework for development, the masterplan was adopted as supplementary planning guidance in February 2004, following an extensive three-month public consultation, in which 80 per cent of local residents supported the proposals.

The council will now work in partnership with a commercial developer to regenerate the whole area, using the framework for development as planning guidance.

By setting the agenda in this way, Southwark Council has adopted an extremely radical approach. Major regeneration projects are rarely led by the public sector – schemes of a similar scale, for example the King’s Cross redevelopment, are more usually initiated by private developers. The fact that the council is also the major landowner in the area gives it an unprecedented level of control, real power to speak and act on behalf of its citizens

Key features of the Elephant and Castle framework for development include:

demolition of the shopping centre and Heygate Estate
rehousing of Heygate Estate residents into high quality social housing in the Elephant and Castle area
removal of the congested road system and rerouting of traffic out of the core area
creation of a new pedestrian-friendly town centre
development of 5, 300 new homes
creation of 75,000m2 of modern retail and leisure facilities
design of an improved transport interchange
creation of two new parks
addition of two extra schools, including a city academy
creation of over 4,000 new jobs as a result of these changes
adoption of a range of innovative measures to minimise energy consumption
quality design at the heart of the plans"
http://www.elephantandcastle.org.uk/regenerationprogramme/buildingsunderway/regenerationprogramme/

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Useful info, thanks.

Been looking at the Elephant site and whilst you certainly have to take these things with a pinch of salt, it sounds positive and like it could be alright:

"Called the Elephant and Castle framework for development, the masterplan was adopted as supplementary planning guidance in February 2004, following an extensive three-month public consultation, in which 80 per cent of local residents supported the proposals.

The council will now work in partnership with a commercial developer to regenerate the whole area, using the framework for development as planning guidance.

By setting the agenda in this way, Southwark Council has adopted an extremely radical approach. Major regeneration projects are rarely led by the public sector – schemes of a similar scale, for example the King’s Cross redevelopment, are more usually initiated by private developers. The fact that the council is also the major landowner in the area gives it an unprecedented level of control, real power to speak and act on behalf of its citizens

Key features of the Elephant and Castle framework for development include:

demolition of the shopping centre and Heygate Estate
rehousing of Heygate Estate residents into high quality social housing in the Elephant and Castle area
removal of the congested road system and rerouting of traffic out of the core area
creation of a new pedestrian-friendly town centre
development of 5, 300 new homes
creation of 75,000m2 of modern retail and leisure facilities
design of an improved transport interchange
creation of two new parks
addition of two extra schools, including a city academy
creation of over 4,000 new jobs as a result of these changes
adoption of a range of innovative measures to minimise energy consumption
quality design at the heart of the plans"
http://www.elephantandcastle.org.uk/regenerationprogramme/buildingsunderway/regenerationprogramme/

here we go again

look at my reply (post 27 to Kyser soze's post (post 26).

 

[PacificOcean]

the first implication is accountability. when you are with the council, you elect your landlord and a letter from your councillor can be extremely useful to epeed things up and resolve problems. housing association can do what they want and totally ignore you.
the second problem is the actual tenancy. council tenancies come under a 1980 act, while all new housing association tenancies since the 15th of January 1989 are assured tenancies which were established under the 1988 housing act. they're both roughly the same, just worded differently, apart from one important bit, ground 8 used for eviction for rent arrears by housing associations. all eviction for rent arrears have to be approved by the county court. the judge has discretion to refuse an eviction for secure tenancies and may take into account financial difficulties a tenant may have had. however, the 1988 act introduced ground 8 which removed judges' discretion where arrears were of more than 3 months rent. it became mandatory for them to rubberstamp the eviction. this 3 months period was subsequently shortened to 2 months under the 1996 housing act. you can see the problems that may arise where there are problems with housing benefit, or you've had problems with an ex employer not paying you, for instance. judges may be sympathetic, but there is nothing they can do to stop it. HAs have been known to use this ground to speed up housing benefit payments, and it isn't very amusing when you are a tenant in this situation. they have also used it to get rid of tenants they didn't like, for one reason or another.

I may have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick, but are your grounds for the non-regeneration of E&C based on the fact that people who do not pay their rent have only two months? Millions would be spent on improving living conditons for the majority of others, which Southwark and Greenwich have already done in other parts with great success.

As someone who has been in the situation you describe (Lambeth dragging their heels on paying the rent on my new HA place) I can only say my housing officer was niceness itself and explained that I was in no threat and it was just used to speed the council up (which it did).

 

[guinnessdrinker]

I may have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick, but are your grounds for the non-regeneration of E&C based on the fact that people who do not pay their rent have only two months?

you definitely got hold of the wrong end of the stick. It is not "regeneration", but a property development, for a start.

Millions would be spent on improving living conditons for the majority of others, which Southwark and Greenwich have already done in other parts with great success.

new build housing association flats don't have the same housing standard as of 30 years ago.

As someone who has been in the situation you describe (Lambeth dragging their heels on paying the rent on my new HA place) I can only say my housing officer was niceness itself and explained that I was in no threat and it was just used to speed the council up (which it did).

nice for you to have a nice housing officer you can trust, it isn't always like that.

 

[PacificOcean]

nice for you to have a nice housing officer you can trust, it isn't always like that.

But my point stands.

Are you against the regeneration/development of E&C, which would benefit the majority, because of the minority who don't pay their rent?

 

[Monkeynuts]

here we go again

look at my reply (post 27 to Kyser soze's post (post 26).

Apologies for the repetition

Lame point from me: they have got some decent architects involved though...

 

[guinnessdrinker]

But my point stands.

Are you against the regeneration/development of E&C, which would benefit the majority, because of the minority who don't pay their rent?

I'll repeat it again. it is not "regeneration" but a property development. the housing standards that were in place when the heygate estate was built are no longer there. they were abolished under Thatcher in 1983. that means they can build smaller properties which are often noisier than council properties (the new build HAs on the elmington estate in camberwell come to mind). tenants who have paid their rents will have to move out and if they want to come back to the area, they will have an assured tenancy, meaning less rights than a council tenancy. at the end of the day, if you don't pay your rent, the judge will give the landlord possession of the property. it is just that he has discretion to do that for secure tenancies but hasn't for assured tenancies. I am most definitely not advocating not paying the rent!

the people who will benefit are the property developers involved in the project, the architects for their work portfolio, the council because they own the land and the people with money who want a central london pad, not the tenants.

why do you need to demolish the heygate estate to have a pedestrian friendly roundabout, for god's sake!

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Lame point from me: they have got some decent architects involved though...

the new build in Wansey St, by the reference library on the walworth road, meant to rehouse the tenants from the heygate, was apparently an "award winning" development. my arse! when people saw it, they immediately criticised it because it was, IIRC, impossible to escape from it if you were a child, in case of fire (southwark news 12 october 2006 IIRC). I spoke to an architect that day who thought the design was stupid. I have also heard tenants, generally pro council, from another estate, who thought these flats were too small.

these architects are obviously not going to live there.

 

[Monkeynuts]

the new build in Wansey St, by the reference library on the walworth road, meant to rehouse the tenants from the heygate, was apparently an "award winning" development. my arse! when people saw it, they immediately criticised it because it was, IIRC, impossible to escape from it if you were a child, in case of fire (southwark news 12 october 2006 IIRC). I spoke to an architect that day who thought the design was stupid. I have also heard tenants, generally pro council, from another estate, who thought these flats were too small.

these architects are obviously not going to live there.

Be interesting to know how they compare to private ones - stuff has got smaller. The fire escape thing is interesting - building control and the Brigade should really have picked this up. Couldn't find anything a Googling though.

They are good architects (socially aware and imaginative) and the building does look better than the Heygate, scale somewhat more human, but then I must admit that I'm not impartial on this as I do know the architects involved a bit. Not particularly well, but enough to disqualify me from impartial comment.

 

[zenie]

why do you need to demolish the heygate estate to have a pedestrian friendly roundabout, for god's sake!

*applauds*