Discussion in 'Brixton' started by Brixton Hatter, Aug 4, 2014.
Not sure if you've seen this comment piece?
We've seen it, analysed it, fed it to our lawyers for analysis, and used it as grist to the mill.
This was just posted by a Buzz reader in relation to this article.
Tis true. I was there, as was Gniewosz . Atkins sent out an e-mail the next day blaming "members of Save Cressingham Gardens", when actually almost all of the residents who attended were fucked off by her arrogance and bossiness. She's not well-liked here, but as the only people on the estate that she talks to regularly number about half a dozen, she's possibly not aware just how widespread the dislike for her is.
I see Atkins has just been re-selected to stand for Tulse Hill - now I'm a relatively new member of Labour so maybe I don't know how things work, but I live in her ward and wasn't invited to the selection meeting. How do they get away with that?
Possibly you are the "wrong kind of of Labour"
I find - as a non Labour Party member - I sometimes get briefed as to whether a Labour Person is Progress inclined or Momentum inclined. Possibly to avoid me causing offence in conversation?
If you've followed things on here in the past you will know that some people's membership applications are rejected. No doubt the ward party might have all sorts of arcane rules for inviting members to selection meetings. I recognise Mary Atkins and Marcia Cameron. But who is Ben Kind. What's his claim to fame?
From local party member "Atkins was sold to the branch as a 'least worst option' ". Which is pretty fucked up, as both her and Cameron are known as lazy and uninterested in anything that doesn't glorify them. Ben Kind I know nothing about, except that he's in bad odour currently in the north of the borough, for going against the Progress consensus on the Garden Bridge.
Currently a Councillor at Vauxhall, not Progress or Momentum, upset some of the Progress people by being realistic about what a burden the Garden Bridge would be.
Turns out you need to be a member for a year to vote, which makes sense and sort of understandable (although weirdly you can vote for party leader straight away, which is rather inconsistent). Would have been nice to have been notified anyway. Still good to hear that Ben Kind at least has some independence of mind which should be a bit of an improvement.
He may well be. He'll have to "win his spurs" before he gets my votes, though. Our current Councillors have a pretty poor record of actually getting shit done in this ward. Tulse HIll, St Matthews, High Trees, Deronda estates have all been experiencing similar repairs and maintenance issues as Cressingham, and their residents are getting wise to the fact that while their Councillors talk a good fight, getting an individual problem sorted out here and there doesn't weigh very heavily against the fact that one of them (Marcia Cameron) takes credit for having put Cressingham into regeneration, that another of them (Adedamola Aminu) has pretty much minimalised any contact with constituents, and that the third (Mary Atkins) has a ward-wide reputation for being big on promises, but short on delivery. It's not good enough to get someone's bog repaired, when the rest of their home is falling down around their ears, or where you're endorsing projects that'll *socially cleanse 600-800 members of your current electorate from the ward.
*Social cleansing has become a bit of a theme in Lambeth, as in other boroughs. About 5 years ago, a Coldharbour ward Cllr was heard publicly-airing the opinion that his ward had "much too much social housing. It really is very inconvenient". What he meant was something along the lines that the volume of social housing meant that his surgeries took up more time than he'd like, and that he'd prefer not to have to spend quite so much time doing so. I suppose that his assumption was and is that less social housing would mean fewer "problems" to deal with, and this idea that by sweeping away social housing, the life and workload of a Cllr - and of the council - would become simpler and more pleasant, seems to be fairly prevalent across our mostly bourgeois Councillors, as well as being appealing to them. There's also the promise of social uplift for the remnants of the w/c population - rarely realised - that allows them to convince themselves that social cleansing isn't so bad after all. The problem there is that the social uplift promised by regeneration has historically amounted to a relative handful of low-grade and precarious service sector jobs, and occasional funding of community facilities. Not enough for communities that you're intending to sell down the river.
Appreciate this is well off-topic geographically but this evening there was an item on the Radio4 PM news programme about regeneration in Moscow. Apparently a lot of social housing was sold off in a right to buy situation post the demise of the Soviet Union.
Now - just like Cressingham and all the other affected estates (maybe Heygate might be a more accurate like for like instance) - there is now a major move to repossess the owner-residents, demolish and rebuild.
One of the residents affected said that Marxism said property was theft - and now they were stealing their properties.
Sorry no clip available at the present time. Suspect it might pop up on BBC World News in due course.
This all sounds horribly familiar
The London Council Evicting Homeowners to Make Way for Luxury Flats
Interesting reference here to Cressingham, from the letters page of The Times, Tues 20th June. It was following a general discussion of the problems with Grenfell tower and highrise blocks in general.
The shenanigans of Lambeth council officers continues. Public notice was only posted with less than 1 week deadline (and on the Summer Bank Holiday weekend) of the officers' attempts to have the permission for the 2 bedroom home that they have purloined for a glorified office for 1 day per week extended for 2 more years. I find this absolutely atrocious when we have whole families forced to live in a 1 bedroom flats in insecure temporary accommodation tenancies on the estate. The home should be used to house a family not Lambeth officers.
All comments can be made here:
17/03250/RG3 | Temporary change of use from a residential dwelling (use class C3) to a community engagement hub (sui generis) for a maximum of two years. | 8 Longford Walk London SW2 2NH
Just ignore the deadline of 28th August ... late comments should be accepted.
Fancy writing an article about this for Buzz?
If Gniewosz doesn't, I will.
She's not online now so if you fancy knocking something out, that would be ace.
No problem. E-mail it to the buzz addy?
Have just sent the article to the brixtonbuzzatgmail.com address.
Posted here: Cressingham Gardens: Lambeth Council helps itself to a two bedroom house
Cheers! Could you put a link to the planning application in, too?
Unbelievable. Here's a Labour Cllr's response to the flat being used for their purposes.
Some photos from the estate:
Cressingham Gardens – a photographic walk around the threatened estate, south London
This is a really good piece.
Looking at photos I'm surprised the application to get it listed was turned down. It's a good example of post war social housing that actually works.
The Brixton Rec did get listed by Historic England
The Rec listing as well as the Cressingham Gardens application for listing was opposed by Labour party Lambeth Council.
The response of the Council to the Rec being listed was negative. Cressingham Gardens and the Rec don't fit into Nu Labour project.
You would think that a Labour Council would be glad that an example of socialist post war architecture like the Rec got listed status. But no.
It has already protected the Rec. It shouldn't be up to an unelected quango to help locals retain social assets against a Labour Council.
One of the reasons Cressingham was turned down, was because the original wooden single-glazed windows had been so badly maintained by Lambeth, that they were disintegrating, and were replaced with the cheapest crap uPVC framed double glazing Lambeth could get away with. We've since learned that if the uPVC frames are replaced with sympathetic wooden-framed double glazing, that a new application would be looked on more kindly. Much the same reasons saw Central Hill's application refused, too.
As for the council's reaction to Cressingham being considered for listing, they went batshit, and threw more crap at the application, than howler monkeys throw at each other.
The point of listing a building is to protect it. So to me it doesn't make much sense to say that replacing the windows with more appropriate ones would make it more worthy of listing. If the basic fabric of the building is worthy of listing, and if its worthiness doesn't rely on the original windows still being in place, then the fact that they have been badly replaced isn't really relevant. If anything its an indication that the building's under threat - which should make a listing *more* urgent.
Separate names with a comma.