Discussion in 'Brixton' started by Brixton Hatter, Aug 4, 2014.
Fight on mate This is one battle not the war x
What's all the scaffold at Cressingham?
I might have missed something here but if the rebuilt estatE will provide extra council housing, and one of th main complaints seems to be the extra cost to those who will want right to buy, why is this a bad thing?
I'm a Lambeth tennant and love my home, but if they were to rebuild my estate and rebuild with extra homes, and an increase in the homes value to protect from people buying the leaSe and depriving future tennants of a home, then I would be up for it.
And talk of the council wasting money, how about the money wasted fighting futile legal challenges?
I'd suggest you go back and read the full thread if that's your misinterpretation.
It's 41 pages, so I prob won't read it all. I was initially in support of the residents on the basis there would not be extra council homes available, but it seems there will be. Is this true?
I have no interest in people worried about not being able to buy the leases under right to buy, as that Thatcherite policy did enough damage to our stock
All those people kicked out of their homes (many residents are elderly and/or infirm), their lives turned upside down, a lovely estate flattened and a tight community ripped apart to make way for luxury flats and just 23 extra council flats. And all against the wishes of the vast majority of tenants. I'd say there's loads to oppose here.
Lambeth Council Cabinet set to agree to demolish Cressingham Gardens with only 27 new council houses being built
thats our council tax money they are spending fight their own tenants.
The residents presented an alternative plan 'The People Plan' to raise funds to renovate the estate (which needs renovating as Lambeth has neglected its duty to upkeep it) which involved very few homes being demolished yet still creating new homes. Lambeth has rejected this.
I agree that council homes shouldn't be sold - but as that is the law as we have and they houses have been already sold, often to long term older residents - the costs to those leaseholders is unacceptable. Lambeth want them to pay up for major repairs on the homes they intend to demolish. Then to compulsory purchase them for less than favourable price. Lambeth want to destroy an attractive and popular estate to provide very few extra council homes.
Demolishing existing council homes to build for rich new buyers, our labour run co-operative council have no right and no mandate to do this.
I received this today - they need funds to carry on the fight.
Click here to support Save Cressingham Gardens by Gerlinde Gniewosz
* edited due to wrong link
Would you be up for it if your rent was increased and your tenancy was no longer secure ?
...and you had to move at least twice?
Wrong thread @ self!
So-called "weathertight repairs" that are being done (4-5 years late) purely because otherwise the council would be in receipt of an estate-wide serious detriment complaint. So-called because some of the roofing and guttering repairs were Heath-fucking-Robinson in their bodgey complexity, and had to be ripped out and replaced. They were also going to rip off some damaged zinc roofs (which Lambeth's contractors had originally damaged by using roofing nails to fasten down panels that were lifting) and replace them with a heat-sealed membrane during the dampest part of winter, and were most put out when residents told the site agent that like had to be replaced with like, otherwise they'd be in breach of their contract (one clause that wasn't redacted from the contract we FoI'd, fortunately). The scaffold is mostly to put temp roofs over properties where they're having to replace like-for-like, although earlier in the year it was so they could line out the guttering with a sealing agent, and coat the capping with it too.
As usual, Lambeth paid peanuts and got monkeys for contractors.
Here's some maths on what Lambeth proposes to do to Cressingham Gardens (and ANY OTHER estate they choose to "regenerate), if they demolish.
They'll build 158 new homes, plus build 306 to replace the original homes.
Of the 158, 47% (74 homes) will be rented out at 80% of market rent for similar properties in the area.
A further 17% (23 homes) will be for *council-level rent.
*Council-level rent merely means private housing pegged at council rent levels.
The rest will be rented out at full market rent.
So, the actual contribution to shrinking the housing waiting list is less than 2 dozen extra homes for social rent, and guess what? You don't get a secure tenancy like normal either, because Lambeth are forming their own Housing Association, which can only give assured tenancies.
People aren't worried that it'll put up "Right to Buy" costs - lots of tenants are ideologically-opposed to RtB anyway. What people are worried about is that Lambeth Council wisshes to derive them of longstanding rights without negotiation or compensation. How would you feel if the council turned round to you and said "we're rebuilding your estate, but when you return to your new home, you won't have a secure tenancy, you won't have any voting rights on what happens to the estate going forward, you'll lose your Right to Buy completely, and by the way, your council tax will increase by at least 1 band, and your rent will increase by 25%". You'd be pissed off, wouldn't you?
Futile legal challenges? What's your obviously well-informed assessment based on - the High Court result from Wednesday? If so, did you read the 100-page finding by the judge, or just what the local press printed - that Lambeth won? No challenge is futile, and it hasn't cost Lambeth Council Tax payers a penny.
Do yourself a favour and don't gob off about something you've obviously little current understanding of. Thanks.
Not "new council houses", sadly. 23 new properties for "council-level rent", which is an entirely different thing, and gives the resident only an assured tenancy, i.e. none of the protections that a council secure tenancy gives.
Absolutely. I still think that some people don't grasp the seriousness of the situation. If Lambeth get away with what they plan for Cressingham and the other "regeneration" estates, there will be no bar to them doing the same on every estate in the borough, socially-cleansing the entirety of Lambeth. They're - as far as we've been able to find out - the ONLY borough who expect tenants to cede their secure tenancies, throw away their rights for sweet fuck-all.
Lambeth have been constantly pushing at residents the idea of "single decant" moves through phased construction. What they haven't done is explained that however you phase construction, some of the residents WILL have to move twice. They also haven't explained the degree of long-term infrastructure issues - especially to local roads - that a phased construction that may well last 7 years will cause. They certainly haven't explained to residents how our already-overloaded transport infrastructure will cope with almost 160 new households on Tulse Hill. Bus services on the hill are still reeling from Brockwell Gate opening a decade ago, so an already poor service will be rendered even worse.
As Lambeth won this time, the claimant has had costs awarded against him, so they haven't had to spend the money this time, unless the claimant appeals and wins, in which case they'll be in the hole again, and will probably tell fibs about what it cost, like they did after the first judicial review (they claimed to have spent £30,000 - that was for their own legal representation, though. They didn't mention that the legal team of the first Cressingham resident to take them to JR rinsed Lambeth for more than that).
"Rich new buyers" or renters. They've sussed that becoming effectively a private landlord as well as a social landlord, could lead to a big income stream to replace the gaping holes in their finances.
As you say, they've no mandate to regenerate, just the supreme arrogance of the educated middle-classes ministering unto the poor.
So where does that leave me? Someone who maybe middle class and has supported the campaign all along?
Do you minister unto the poor in a condescending manner? If not, then I'm not talking about you, am I?
I dont understand the question?
"Extra council housing" Whatever gave you that idea? What is "extra" council housing, anyway?
An increase in your home's value? I am finding that I can't quite understand your reasoning here.
The schmuck appears to think that a rise in the base value of the property would mean that even with a maximum discount, a mortgage would be unaffordable to someone on the median wage for the borough (currently about £30,000 per household in Lambeth).
What the schmuck doesn't realise is that even at the current base value, Right to Buy is unaffordable for many council tenants, and that over the last 3-5 years a significant minority of RtB applications are deals by property developers with individual tenants (yes, that still goes on, and estates still get flyered by Foxtons et al regularly).
Please Southlondon, think again. And read what have you have written again.
How does that work.?
It'll be great for the 23 families, perhaps not so great for the other 20,977 families on the 21,000 waiting list.
Of course, when I say "great", the greatness is relative. As a council tenant I can't be evicted except for breaching specific rules set out in contract between me and the council. As an assured tenant, then the only statutory rights I have regarding tenancy, is that my landlord has to give me 2 months notice.
The one thing the redevelopment isn't, is self-financing. The fact is that the unique regeneration model Lambeth is adopting (every other council has binned similar models because they're a) impractical, and b) risky for both the council and the tenants) is shit. That's not just my grass-roots opinion, it's the opinion of housing experts and academics.
The only restriction to building new council homes in Lambeth, is the Housing Revenue Account. The usual excuse of no headroom for borrowing, no longer pertains. Every year for the next 7, the headroom will be over £50,000,000 per annum. There's money to build, but because the council wants to establish a permanent income stream far larger than what it takes in council rents, the people of Lambeth will have to accept insecure tenure.
As for protecting new builds from Right to Buy, the inflation in housing prices has been doing that for at least the last 6 years. We'd have to see prices drop to what they were in the early '90s to see locals able to afford to decimate council stock.
If you don't want to be called a schmuck, don't talk like one.
I started my comment, " I might have missed something ", because as you might see from my previous posts on other boards, I am a new member here, and that was the first time I had checked out the
Unfortunately, "mistakes" will be pounced upon. It seems to be the U75 way of welcoming new members (and quite frankly dealing with established posters too)
People pounce on you because you're an arse who says arsey things, you poor little victim, you.
Merry Christmas ViolentPanda
Separate names with a comma.