Southwark to demolish Aylesbury estate

[kea]

i would imagine that right now, camden are climbing all over this agreement, looking for any possible way in which they could adapt it to their situation (which is pretty screwed, and it's a case of who blinks first, them or central government - meanwhile, tenants suffer from lack of funding!). i can't see how they'd be able to use this, since the sell-off rests crucially on the structural issues and it's unlikely camden will be able to get their stock collectively declared structurally unsound it might give them some ideas, tho ...

 

[guinnessdrinker]

I have to disagree with you William.

There is an estate on the Wandsworth Road which was really rank and Lambeth transfered it over to HA. They done it up and you wouldn't recongnise it now.

I know they are transfered from being council tenants to HA, but as long as you aren't anti-social you still have a place for life.

we're not talking refurbishment, here. but complete demolition. now if you've ever been inside the flats themselves (I have done so several times). they are spacious and quiet. compare that with new built HA flats which are built under completely different building regulations and are often noisier and poky in size. also remember, you cannot lobby elected councillors to deal with problems/improvements/etc. you're on your own. also, there is the infamous ground 8 of the 1988 Housing Act which say that if you owe 2 months rent arrears, regardless of the cause (housing benefit cock ups being common is no excuse), they can get a possession order against you and there is nothing the judge can do for you. he has no discretion on the matter, regardless of his sympathy towards your case. you will then be deemed to have made yourself intentionally homeless and just try to get rehoused then.

the decision is officially to be made on tuesday the 27th (tuesday coming) and there will be a lobby outside the town hall from 6pm. please all come along.

 

[PacificOcean]

To William:

I don't know the details and you are right, their rent could have shot up etc.

Could the reason for many no votes, be an instant distrust of anything "free" from the council or Goverment, without really knowing the terms of what's being offered?

 

[William of Walworth]

i would imagine that right now, camden are climbing all over this agreement, looking for any possible way in which they could adapt it to their situation (which is pretty screwed, and it's a case of who blinks first, them or central government - meanwhile, tenants suffer from lack of funding!). i can't see how they'd be able to use this, since the sell-off rests crucially on the structural issues and it's unlikely camden will be able to get their stock collectively declared structurally unsound it might give them some ideas, tho ...

Kea, do you have any useful links on that Camden vote and aftermath?

 

[William of Walworth]

To William:

I don't know the details and you are right, their rent could have shot up etc.

Could the reason for many no votes, be an instant distrust of anything "free" from the council or Goverment, without really knowing the terms of what's being offered?

Justified distrust, without proper detail being offered (I don't disagree with your central point though).

And in any case, I think the objections, in many cases, are more specific. Heygate residents were intially in favour, generally, of their estate and the Shopping Centre being replaced. The resistance started to grow when it became clear that there would be no vote allowed re stock transfer, and no guarentees that all tenants would be rehoused socially and locally, suspicion that private interests were out to make a mint at their expense and that they (the tenants) would be marginalised from any decision making, and most of all --sorry to harp on about the key issue -- no guaentees on rent levals and security of tenure.

No doubt some of the fears were exaggerated. But the Council and Government, had plenty of opportunity to offer meaningful reassurances. None were forthcoming, and I bet they won't be around the Aylesbury, either.

 

[kea]

there is the infamous ground 8 of the 1988 Housing Act which say that if you owe 2 months rent arrears, regardless of the cause (housing benefit cock ups being common is no excuse), they can get a possession order against you and there is nothing the judge can do for you. he has no discretion on the matter, regardless of his sympathy towards your case.

there's an appeal going through the courts involving peabody which looks like it's going to overturn that iirc. will have to check with our reporter who's covering it and get back to you tho.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

I anticipate, without much positivity, the coverage in tomorow's South London Press, and in the Southwark News (out next Tuesday I think).

Southwark news is thursday (today)

 

[guinnessdrinker]

there's an appeal going through the courts involving peabody which looks like it's going to overturn that iirc. will have to check with our reporter who's covering it and get back to you tho.

interesting stuff!

 

[kea]

Kea, do you have any useful links on that Camden vote and aftermath?

well, there's tons on www.insidehousing.co.uk if you search the archive

here's one interesting story -

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/defa...fe96e2-a785-455e-ae2a-5c130d5014c7&id=1446679

Authorities struggling to achieve the decent homes standard could use money generated by the social Homebuy scheme to bring their properties up to scratch.

The Chartered Institute of Housing is recommending that the government looks seriously at the idea’s potential after it was revealed that a substantial number of English councils are still to have their options appraisals signed off (Inside Housing, 5 August).

camden has lots of stock which would be popular as sell-offs. of course, one minor problem with the government's "asset ownership" drive is that it will take 2 or 3 properties to be sold off to generate the money to build one new place - ie. the overall amount of social housing will decrease. hence if camden go down this route it means an overall loss of stock to pay for the refurbishment of the remainder of their stock.
edit: tho litherland does say in that story that he doesn't reckon there'd be the demand in camden to bring in the amount of money they need.

 

[William of Walworth]

Cheers for that kea

Meanwhile :

Text-content not yet on line, but I will buy a copy soon ...

 

[William of Walworth]

I know rengeration is usually a bad thing, but Elephant really is the worst place in London. A ex-pink now red shopping centre (with about two shops actually open) loads of really grim looking estates and a giant roundabout (with the only cool thing about the Elephant - That silver thing)

Knock it down and start again, I say.

These comments hacked me off too actually!

Are you local Pacific Ocean? Are you just reacting unsympathetically, kneejerkly, to somethig you don't really know much detail about?

'Horrid architecture' types rarely consider the wider social implications.

Old thread on the Elephant redevelopment bumped here -- feel free to add comments to that thread! But read some of the older comments first ...

 

[Divisive Cotton]

Some excellent posts on this thread and particularly from William.

Council housing is the most secure form of housing available - more so than Housing Association, mortgage and paricularly private renting.

On the whole, those who are council tenants are at the bottom of the social ladder - the sort of people who need this form of security.

The first reaction is oh it's a shit hole - good riddance, but when you look at the other options and the methods and reasons behind these sorts of decisions then it puts this into perspective.

Council housing, together with the NHS and free education used to be a staple of British civil society.

Council housing has been deemed to be expendable - this is because, unlike the NHS and education, it is something that exclusively effects the poor.

And the poor, as has time and time again been the subject in the politics forum, just ain't organised to be able to defend their own interests... let alone anything more...

This government has the worse housing policy of any other government since before the Second World War - all aspects of housing - both building new social and private housing - and its plans for existing housing, re: stock transfer.

This is a social bomb that will effect not just us - as it is doing - but also future generations.

 

[kea]

you're not a professor called peter malpass are you, divisive cotton?! he says much the same thing.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/sites/inside_housing/downloads/features/IH.050819.020-022.pdf

(note: that's a PDF)

Housing policy is being used to reconstruct the foundations of the welfare state. That’s the startling conclusion of a new book by respected academic Professor Peter Malpass.

Professor Malpass, who is the head of the school of housing and urban studies at the University of the West of England, is deeply concerned about the direction of the government’s housing policy.
‘What the government is suggesting is that individuals deal with their own pension, education, healthcare costs and needs by utilising their housing wealth,’ he says. ‘Housing is leading us towards a new sort of welfare state based on private provision, individual responsibility and a minimal role for the state.’

This analysis is set out in his new book Housing and the Welfare State, which traces the history of social housing and its role in the wider welfare system. Although many people now view housing as less of an integral part of that system than health and education, Professor Malpass argues that housing is being used to pioneer changes that will, he predicts, be applied to other areas.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

you're not a professor called peter malpass are you, divisive cotton?! he says much the same thing.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/sites/inside_housing/downloads/features/IH.050819.020-022.pdf

(note: that's a PDF)

Naw it's just that great minds think alike!

 

[guinnessdrinker]

The Aylesbury is the grimmest looking estate in London and I thought crime was horrendous there too. I would have thought people would have jumped to get out of there.

I know rengeration is usually a bad thing, but Elephant really is the worst place in London. A ex-pink now red shopping centre (with about two shops actually open) loads of really grim looking estates and a giant roundabout (with the only cool thing about the Elephant - That silver thing)

Knock it down and start again, I say.

you're talking bollocks. the elephant is thriving and all the shops are open and doing business. there are plenty of south american business there, they must find it good. maybe they are not as sniffy as you seem to be about the elephant. "regeneration" will kill all that with its emphasis on bigger businesses and higher rents.

also, the number of social housing flats (minus a few leaseholders) on the aylesbury will decrease from 2759 to 2200. there can't be that many leaseholders, so where will some of the tenants go? the rest will be 2700 shared or private ownership homes. there is a technical terms for that, it's called gentrification. which other estates in the area will be next? they claim that at least £100 000 has to spent per flats for refurbishment. well, they will have to spend an awful lot of that, anyway, if only to fix the lifts and the central heating that has long been neglected ( wilfully in my view), because it's going to take a long time to rehouse all these people along with the heygate (decant yet to start) and the coopers estate on the old kent road (very slow decant, but no opposition).

 

[guinnessdrinker]

and I should also add: a few months ago, (february, I think) I attended a general meeting of the NDC, which covers the Aylesbury. several leading members of the NDC emphasised the need to have as many council flats (ie not Housing Associations) as of now, should the Aylesbury be demolished ( see post above as to what happened to that). now Harriett Harman, the local MP and Solicitor general, attended the public meeting and agreed with the position taken on the number of council flats to be built, if necessary, and said that she would have a little chat with "Tony". I was a witness to this public statement, being in the same room at the time. now where is she? does she have anything to say? she appears to be silent so far.... what happened between now and then?

 

[William of Walworth]

I suspect she may at the time have been too stupid to quite realise the full implications of what she was coming out with.

And she is far from at the forefront with brain -- she's proved it many times in her 22 years as MP.

(kea knows me well enough to know that this is in no way a 'sexist' point that I'm making -- it's just simple fact, in her specific case, honestly. I'd say exactly the same if she was an equally stupid male MP -- and frequently do, about other stupid politicians).

Still, worth writing to her very soon gd, to try and nail her down on that point ... best not quote what I said in this post though

 

[guinnessdrinker]

I suspect she may at the time have been too stupid to quite realise the full implications of what she was coming out with.

And she is far from at the forefront with brain -- she's proved it many times in her 22 years as MP.

(kea knows me well enough to know that this is in no way a 'sexist' point that I'm making -- it's just simple fact, in her specific case, honestly. I'd say exactly the same if she was an equally stupid male MP -- and frequently do, about other stupid politicians).

Still, worth writing to her very soon gd, to try and nail her down on that point ... best not quote what I said in this post though

and you could also contact paul bates, one of the labour councillors for the ward, who came up with the idea of a " nuclear option"(!) for the Aylesbury. looks like a libdem/labour stitch up....

hopefully see you outside the town hall on Tuesday where are our friend will be rallying the masses.

for those who don't know where southwark town hall is, it's in peckham road between peckham and camberwell. come and have fun....

 

[PacificOcean]

These comments hacked me off too actually!

Are you local Pacific Ocean? Are you just reacting unsympathetically, kneejerkly, to somethig you don't really know much detail about?

'Horrid architecture' types rarely consider the wider social implications.

Old thread on the Elephant redevelopment bumped here -- feel free to add comments to that thread! But read some of the older comments first ...

I lived off Coldharbour Lane, so not exactly local no. And to answer your question honestly - Yes I am. I don't know any of the details and I have never been inside the estate, so I am just going from what I have seen from the outside.

And to Guinness - I didn't realise the shopping centre had a lot of businesses, I must admit it has been about a year since I was in there and it just seemed that everywhere was shut.

Sorry if I have come over as a bit of twat on this one.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

I lived off Coldharbour Lane, so not exactly local no. And to answer your question honestly - Yes I am. I don't know any of the details and I have never been inside the estate, so I am just going from what I have seen on the outside.

if you'd been inside the flats themselves, you might have had a different view. but the point is not what you as an outsider who does not live there thinks, it's the people who live there as secure tenants that matter. it's their home. and they may have different ideas concerning the level of crime, the walkways (not everybody is against them) etc. would you like it if I turned up in your neck of the wood and decided that what is a cosy home for you was an eyesore and a slum without me ever attempting to live there and supporting demolition?

as for the shopping centre, there were a lot of shops open last year, and their lease were renewed for another 5 years, a few months ago, I believe.

but thanks to listening to our arguments, unlike some.

 

[zenie]

and you could also contact paul bates, one of the labour councillors for the ward, who came up with the idea of a " nuclear option"(!) for the Aylesbury. looks like a libdem/labour stitch up....

hopefully see you outside the town hall on Tuesday where are our friend will be rallying the masses.

for those who don't know where southwark town hall is, it's in peckham high st between peckham and camberwell. come and have fun....

Isn't it Peckham Road opposite the registry office?

(not being pedantic I promise)

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Isn't it Peckham Road opposite the registry office?

(not being pedantic I promise)

the registry office is ON Peckham Road, not opposite (pedantic answer)

 

[salaryman]

after reading the comments here, it definitely sounds like an injustice is being done for the residents of the aylesbury estate, with regards to southwark's HA decision.

aside from what i've read in the press (make of that what you will) i don't know much about the estate, despite living in walworth. having wandered past a few times, it's not exactly what i'd call welcoming or friendly, especially after dark.

is it really as bad as the press/council say? are the flats damp and crumbling? (i think it probably is, given how these places were built - i.e. on the cheap). are there high-levels of crime and unemployment? what percentage are pensioners/kids?

if these 'facts' are true, how would people on here suggest that these issues are resolved, aside from overthrowing the government

 

[William of Walworth]

and you could also contact paul bates, one of the labour councillors for the ward, who came up with the idea of a " nuclear option"(!) for the Aylesbury. looks like a libdem/labour stitch up....

hopefully see you outside the town hall on Tuesday where are our friend will be rallying the masses.

for those who don't know where southwark town hall is, it's in peckham road between peckham and camberwell. come and have fun....

Will try and make it next Tuesday, but I fear there maybe another commitment interfering then -- will check.

I can write to Paul Bates no problem though.

I also think Piers Corbyn (sometime of WATT, Walworth Against Tenant Transfers, and in the mists of the seventies a squatters' activist!) should be contacted, will dig out an email address for him soon.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Will try and make it next Tuesday, but I fear there maybe another commitment interfering then -- will check.

I can write to Paul Bates no problem though.

I also think Piers Corbyn (sometime of WATT, Walworth Against Tenant Transfers, and in the mists of the seventies a squatters' activist!) should be contacted, will dig out an email address for him soon.

piers Corbyn is, of course, organising the demo! that's how I got to know about it in the first place. bring stig along and anybody else you can think off.

paul bates generally disagree with piers on almost everything, but we don't care about that.

 

[William of Walworth]

Sorry if I have come over as a bit of twat on this one.

Nah, you're alright .... nice to encounter someone who admits he may be wrong on something. We feel strongly about all this for reasons already stated ...

Worth reading the other thread concerning the Elephant, anyway

 

[zenie]

the registry office is ON Peckham Road, not opposite (pedantic answer)

Apologies lack of punctuation meant this was misunderstood

__________

Anyways : Has anyone seen any plans of the proposed building works or has it not made it that far yet?

 

[William of Walworth]

aside from what i've read in the press (make of that what you will) i don't know much about the estate, despite living in walworth. having wandered past a few times, it's not exactly what i'd call welcoming or friendly, especially after dark.

is it really as bad as the press/council say? are the flats damp and crumbling? (i think it probably is, given how these places were built - i.e. on the cheap). are there high-levels of crime and unemployment? what percentage are pensioners/kids?

Can't answer these questions, except to say in general terms that yes, the estate does have a bad rep among locals, by no means altogether unjustifiably. My own estate (nearby) is very small and quiet by comparison.

Equally, the extent/degree of crime/fear etc. is exaggerated by some, and as is clear from posts in this thread, some politicians have a vested interest in stressing how awful it is, to 'justify' their nefarious plans.

I'm suspicious about the extent of unhabilitability. I wasn't party to what questions were asked -- I'd like to know more about the accuracy or not of the survey, and what proportion of residents were interviewed andwhat proportion of flats were surveyed, and exactly what standards were applied. Not impossible AT ALL that the survey was deliberately designed to give the 'right' answer from the Council's point of view.

how would people on here suggest that these issues are resolved, aside from overthrowing the government

Demolish/rebuild with at least the same number (or more) of full, protected Council tenancies -- or at least, offer tenants a genuine choice as to what landlord (or altenative such as tenant management co-op?) they end up with. Not a rigged poll excluding the Council option, or, worse, some 'survey' -- see above -- or 'focus group'. In any case, issue dependable guarentees on rent level protection and security of tenure.

Before that, or do a full and proper condition of homes survey (not a politically rigged one), whose results can be trusted, to see whether comprehensive refurbishment is an option -- again consult the tenants properly on whether they want repair or rebuild.

You'll get honest answers if you ask honest questions, with genuinely open options.

 

[kea]

Anyways : Has anyone seen any plans of the proposed building works or has it not made it that far yet?

it's nowhere near that far gone yet.
i've just seen some correspondence from miliband to harman tho which leaves me in no doubt that he personally has been in on this for a while.

btw - guinnessdrinker - think we're sending a reporter and photographer to the meeting

 

[Divisive Cotton]

it's nowhere near that far gone yet.
i've just seen some correspondence from miliband to harman tho which leaves me in no doubt that he personally has been in on this for a while.

btw - guinnessdrinker - think we're sending a reporter and photographer to the meeting

Our fucking paper should be covering a story like this... if it was any good... I might do some unpaid overtime then... when and where is the meeting/protest?