Substantial Reshaping of Brixton

[Gramsci]

IIRC ServiceTeam (the original private sector partner in Team Lambeth) bought the site next door to the former Lambeth depot from British Telecom (i) to consolidate their Lambeth activities onto fewer sites, and (ii) as a HQ for all of their south London operations (that had previously been run from Lewisham?).

Report from 2000 found on Lambeth website

This document implies that Lambeth was supposed to be negotiating an option to purchase the depot in the event of a change of contractor - so why did it pass to Cleanaway?

Interesting example of residents direct action-to get the depot moved from the Rommany site-including acts on vandalism by local residents

 

[Gramsci]

What exactly is going on here? I suspect getting rid of the Rec and making a smaller one is something to do with releasing valueable central Brixton land for sale to developers, with the fob-off of a little social housing and the "new" improved, but in actual fact much smaller, Rec. Why can't they do up the existing Rec?

On the other hand this could be some great leap of imagination. Which is more likely from the council do you think?

Ive downloaded the "development of strategic sites" proposals linked by Pooka to read.I think some of the rationale behind it is sales.Ill have to read the document fully.Ive talked to a couple of people about this.Two points were made:

1)That officers must have been working on this strategy for a while.This is the first time residents have heard of it.

2)The Rec was built with public money as is still publicly owned.What happens if its moved?Their is a good chance it will end up as one of those PPP projects to provide services.The feeling I got was that whilst the Rec is not perfect any move to close it/relocate it will be treated with suspicion.

Also I went to the Town Hall to get paper copies of some of the docs linked here and they wouldnt let me have them.I though for Council meetings open to the public they should if requested.

 

[Gramsci]

Their is a Brixton Forum meeting on Wednesday 6th October at the Assembly Rooms,Town Hall,7-9pm

The meeting was going to discuss the "Central Square" proposals.This has now been put back for some reason.Instead the main discussion will be the new "strategy" for Brixton.Cllr Truesdale and other Councillors will be attending.

Ill be going to see what happens.If I can cope with Councillors waffling

 

[lang rabbie]

Tonight

The Council's executive meets to discuss all this tonight
at 7.00pm in Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW

Full agenda

Don't know how long it will be before they get to the "crunchy" issues about the recommendations for school locations.

Have now worked out by a process of elimination that the one document no one has yet posted a link to is on the future of the leisure centres.

Delivery of Leisure in Lambeth

It is full of numbers, but basically recommends a rebuild of Brixton because the maintenance and refurbishment costs are so horrific.

There are inconsistencies with the other papers on the agenda, as this one seems to suggest that a new Brixton Leisure Centre should be on the same site as the new Academy, but the schools paper is now looking at a Leisure Centre on the corner of Somerleyton Road and school on Shakespeare Road.

Couldn't let my 1000th post go by without at least one delve into the Lambeth website

 

[Gramsci]

Ive heard that the Executive voted through the proposals on the 28th.The School campaigners arent happy as the Shakespeare Rd site is going to be smaller than they hoped as some of the Depot is staying.

 

[Gramsci]

Gotan emaill from SSCIL and they are not happy with what was decided at the Executive on the 28th.The new school and "development of strategic sites" in Brixton were agreed.However only part of the Shakespeare Rd site will be used for a school instead of the whole site.The rest of the site will remain a depot.

The SSCIL will be holding a public meeting on the 14th October 7pm at the Town Hall Assembly Rooms.

As the new school is part of the whole strategy to improve "quality of life" etc in Brixton its important its not squashed onto a small site.

Quotes from SSCIL(Secondary School Campaign in Lambeth):

"Last Tuesday the Executive voted unanimously and without debate that the children of Brixton and Herne Hill deserve the absolute minimum for their new schools:2.3 acres on Shakespeare Rd next to 185 rubbish trucks for one school,and the playground from Glenbrook Primary for the other.

Stealing the playground from a primary school to find land for a secondary school?Putting rubbish truck parking before the needs of secondary children?Why ask people to be "realistic and positive" about proposals like this?

One of the children who addressed the Council on SSCILs behalf..said "I dont think the man(Council Leader Peter Truesdale) liked my speech,and I dont think he liked me."The child felt hostility coming from Councillors and make no mistake their is hostility...we have to ..support the principle that every child deserves an excellant local school..insist that the message local children receive from society is that they are important and valued."

 

[Gramsci]

The Council's executive meets to discuss all this tonight
at 7.00pm in Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW

Full agenda

Don't know how long it will be before they get to the "crunchy" issues about the recommendations for school locations.

Have now worked out by a process of elimination that the one document no one has yet posted a link to is on the future of the leisure centres.

Delivery of Leisure in Lambeth

It is full of numbers, but basically recommends a rebuild of Brixton because the maintenance and refurbishment costs are so horrific.

There are inconsistencies with the other papers on the agenda, as this one seems to suggest that a new Brixton Leisure Centre should be on the same site as the new Academy, but the schools paper is now looking at a Leisure Centre on the corner of Somerleyton Road and school on Shakespeare Road.

Couldn't let my 1000th post go by without at least one delve into the Lambeth website

I take it that Lambeth is looking at PPP schemes as the way forward for "leisure services" as it is with other services.Option 3 provides for a PPP to build another to run the new leisure centre.

The original Rec in Brixton was built with public money( though its managed from outside).I take it the general financial/economic model is Gordon Browns one of handing publicly owned assets to private "partners" run.With them supposedly taking on board the "risk".

I have talked with some people who arent happy at the Rec(still a publicly owned) institution being flogged off.It might not be that attractive building but it was not built that long ago.

 

[Gramsci]

Reading the "development of strategic sites in Lambeth" document(linked at first post of thread) it seems to be based on realising asset values.

The Council argument is that the backlog in maintenance on its offices/leisure centres etc is so high that the only way forward is to move staff to a modern high tech office and dispose of some land/buildings in central Brixton,Clapham etc.

For example the Popes Rd car park/Brixton Rec site will be sold to a supposedly suitable private "partner".The money gained will be used (in theory) to build a new Rec on say Somerleyton Rd.

Their are a few points:

1)The officers financial model is based on cost savings over 25 years rather than keeping the status quo and refurbishing the existing buildings.What if they have got their figures wrong?

2)The strategy seems to depend a lot on PPP and PFIs.As has been seen
in for example building new hospitals this does not necessarily save money in
the long term.Also if the projects go wrong or a big unforseen cost comes up the Government/Council often has to cough up extra money.The transfer of "risk" is not real.

3)If leisure centres are to be run and maintained privately they could end up charging a lot for people to use them.

4)These documents and strategies have been agreed and discussed at Executive level before consulting the local community.The docs say a lot about consulting people etc but in reality the big decisions will be made by the Council/Executive.Therefore the consultation could end up being just about the paint scheme etc.The Council argue they have already taken account of residents views as the "strategy" takes account of the "Community Plan" for Brixton.Seems to me though that the Community Plan is about peoples aspirations/needs for the area.For the Council to argue that a Developmet Strategy like this has already been consulted on does not make logical sense to me.They should first ask if people think this development strategy answers what they wanted from the Community Plan-not assume this meets it and expect people to be "realistic".

Tell me Im wrong as this is some of what I get from reading this stuff.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Tell me Im wrong as this is some of what I get from reading this stuff.

I think you're right in many ways - it's good to highlight these things. For example:

As the new school is part of the whole strategy to improve "quality of life" etc in Brixton its important its not squashed onto a small site.

Exactly. And what might the effects be of loads of kids leaving school when huge dustbin lorries are trying to turn into the depot right next to the school gates? If there's ever an accident..... And the smell from the Depot! I used to be a dustman, and although you get used to the smell, it can be pretty offensive to others. Will this effect the school? What about the hot summer when you have to have all the windows open but then get that lovely, creamy, decomposing rubbish smell?

Anyway, how many people of Brixton will be able (or willing...) to pick through all these council documents to find out what is really going on? I can only just grasp some of it. We've got a load of planning experts and politically interested people on here - and we still have trouble trying to get to the bottom of things! How is Joe Bloggs in the street going to understand?

As for the "consultation", I agree Gramsci - and I reckon the council executive will do whatever they want over the next few years, whilst peddling the "we've done a full consultation" line. I think the only "full consultation" that would be worth anything would be writing individually to all Lambeth addresses with a series of simple two page questionnaires on the different issues. None of this "go to the library on a wednesday between 2pm and 2.10pm to look at the proposals" - that's not a consultation. The council needs to proactively go out and talk to people.

 

[Gramsci]

Anyway, how many people of Brixton will be able (or willing...) to pick through all these council documents to find out what is really going on? I can only just grasp some of it. We've got a load of planning experts and politically interested people on here - and we still have trouble trying to get to the bottom of things! How is Joe Bloggs in the street going to understand?

QUOTE]

The same with me.Ive now read two of the officers reports.Have yet to read the one on "Leisure" linked by LR yet.Well ill be at Forum meeting tommorrow(Wednesday at Assembly Rooms,Town Hall 7pm).So ill see of its possible to raise a few issues.

Im afraid people might get a lecture from the Councillors about how good this "strategy" is for Brixton and that people need to be positive and realistic.

I note that some of the financial modelling is not open to public scrutiny as tha Council have withheld it.They are allowed to do this if the info is deemed "financially sensitive".As with Brixton Hatter i find it hard to get my head around the figures.

Seems to me the 2 options(referred to by the officers as the "maintain the status quo" and "Development" approach) are not so clear cut as first appears.If ive read it correctly(and i could be wrong)the "status quo" option leads to a smaller shortfall over 25 years than the Councils preferred development option.

However the Council argue that the approx 30m difference is taken into account under "Best Value" by improvements in the Councils working "efficiency".Also the "status quo" option does not cost in overall replacement of buildings-it just bring the Council offices up to minimum standard.

Well im not so sure about this.As one of the docs says their is a "risk management" needed to be built into this.Three risks for example are decrease in land values,cost overruns and residents opposition to strategy.

It also depends on the Council finalising a watertight contract with the preferred "partner" that transfers "risk" etc.

Given this plan is supposed to work out over 25 years a lot could go wrong-to the detriment of Brixton.

I noticed that most of the costing are to do with the Councils assumed need for office space-"accomodation strategy".The Brixton Rec (and the car park-but its left out of the calculations sometimes) is lumped in with the "accomodation strategy".

To my mind the remaining Council land in central Brixton (Beixton station Rd,Somerleyton Rd,Shakespeare Rd depot(for school) should be dealt with separately from the Councils office "accomodation strategy".

In Major Sites development paper(Accomodation strategy review) the figure to refurbish the Rec is 2.6 million.I am not clear why knocking it down and building a new one will cost less over 25 years.That unless its smaller,has less facilities and is privately owned under a PPP scheme.Even then a PPP scheme might not cost less in the long run.

 

[Gramsci]

Went to the BAF meeting on Wednesday 6th October.This post ill just deal with the new Lib uberplan for Brixton.

Our esteemed Leader Truesdale spoke on regeneration for Brixton.Heres his view:

1)The background--The Council inherited financial problems,mismanagement and a history of underinvestment in services.The three main issues are secondary schools,leisure and Council office accomodation.He stressed that the Councils office accomodation is not up to standard and is bad for both staff and the general public.The Council is already using Government PFI schemes to try and deliver but this is not enough.

2)The Great Leap Forward ---Instead of doing things piecemeal its better to look at the Council owned property and see how an overarching strategy can deliver benefits across the board.That is :

a)New modern office space which will improve staff relations,productivity and public perception of services.

b)Large scale inward investment into Brixton.Due to lack of Government grants new "affordable housing" can only be supplied through onsite Section 106 agreements.Truesdale said this is the reality and we must "take it on the chin" even if we dont like it.The Great Leap Forward will also fulfill community needs as laid down in the "Community plan"(anyone got a link to that?)

c)Regeneration is about people.So its important to get "people on board"."Engage the community,Councillors and all three parties in the Council".To deliver a big scheme like this its important that their is "pre consultation".The BAF will be central to this and the Administration will be talking to the BAF over the next few weeks.(didnt say exactly who though)
The BAF will get extra resources.The Council is commisioning an officers report for December in how the "consultation" will be carried forward.

d)Look to see how to provide quality provision of services in inventive ways.Switch to attracting inward investment.

 

[Gramsci]

It appears to me to disingenous of Truesdale to argue as he did in the SLP this Friday that:

"we will spend significant amounts of timeseeking the views of local people..We can assure you all feedback to the proposals,including criticism,will be welcomed..previous administrations have begun consultation with a "take it or leave it "approach."

The Executive meeting on the 28th agreed the "Major development sites paper"(see Pookas first post for link).This detailed paper lays out the timetable etc for the sell off off central Brixton sites to Property developer(s).For example it agrees that the Day centre for people with learning difficulties should move off its Somerleyton Rd site.This is because that site is now earmaked for a new "Leisure centre".Thus freeing up the old Rec and car park for sale to a developer.

All this is has been agreed without consultation with residents.I was happy to see that the Labour Group put in some critical comments.Here is summary:

"The decisions being proposed at the Executive of 28th September include some far reaching proposals that have barely been consulted on at all.

Councillors cannot be expected to take decisions based on wishful thinking on the part of the Administration(the Administration is seeking all party support)We must have detailed and costed proposals that allow an informed debate and a proper consultation that engages the people of Lambeth.

Labour cannot agree with proposals to relocate office staff which depend on property speculation.

Labour calls on the administration to reconsider and make enough land available to support such a school(6th form entry on Shakespeare Rd)

We need reassurance that these new major projects now facing the Council can be properly managed."

When the Lib/Dems talk of getting up to 500 million in inward investment(see their press release)that means selling stuff to developers.Inward investment =Property Developers.

At the BAF meeting several people objected to the proposed closure of the Rec(including yours truly)Truesdales reply was that their is no plan to demolish the Recif people wanted it to stay.This seems to contradict what was agreed at Executive level.Page 16 of the minutes of the 28th Exec state;

(38)That consultation with the community and atakeholders is progressed on options for the redevelopment of sites and services in Brixton to ensure local needs are properly understood,bearing in mind the possible options set out in the papers on Major Development Sites and the Delivery of Leisure in Lambeth.

(40)The social services are instructed to bring forward proposals for the relocation of their services from Somerleyton Rd,following consultation by June 25th.

So consultation in fact will take place within the framework of the now agreed two documents.This means consultation of "stakeholders" will be minimal".

The only bright light is the fact that the Labour Group have criticised this strategy.Whether they will keep to that is another matter.One councilor at the BAF meeting picked up on the Rec.IMO its worth making the Rec an issue most people can agree on .That is it should stay in in Council ownership(as a community asset),be refurbished and the land not sold to a developer.

The Council docs on "Major sites" point out a "risk factor" is community resistance to the strategy.This IMO is why the Administration was making such a song and dance about "consultation" at the BAF meeting on Wednesday.They are now going to resource the BAF to do this"consultation".Expect "Community Renewal" Council officers to plague local residents

 

[pooka]

as laid down in the "Community plan"(anyone got a link to that?)

The Community Plan

(editor: please note that this is a link to a .doc file)

 

[cllr]

This IMO is why the Administration was making such a song and dance about "consultation" at the BAF meeting on Wednesday.They are now going to resource the BAF to do this"consultation".Expect "Community Renewal" Council officers to plague local residents

How do you think the consultation should be done?

 

[Brixton Hatter]

c)Regeneration is about people.So its important to get "people on board"."Engage the community,Councillors and all three parties in the Council".To deliver a big scheme like this its important that their is "pre consultation".The BAF will be central to this and the Administration will be talking to the BAF over the next few weeks.(didnt say exactly who though)
The BAF will get extra resources.The Council is commisioning an officers report for December in how the "consultation" will be carried forward.

That's interesting, seeing as BAF resources were CUT earlier in the year - leaving little administrative support from the Town Centre Office for all the various discussion forums.

 

[newbie]

How do you think the consultation should be done?

In advance of drawing up the plans.

Surely a sensible approach is to consult to find out what people actually want, then work out ways of implementing it.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

How do you think the consultation should be done?

Hello Councillor. You'll see this in my previous comments up the page:

- Genuine consultation with the residents/users of Brixton, with plans changed according to residents concerns/wishes
- Widespread communication of the consultation for a generous period of time: this isn't something you can sort out over a few weeks
- Genuine involvement of Brixton Area Forum, residents groups etc

Here's some simple detail on how I think a genuine consultation should be done (repeated from another thread.) Every single household in Lambeth should be sent a series of simple two page questionnaires (e.g. like the ones used for the recent licensing consultation, or for CPZs) dealing with each major issue in turn. One page of background info and one page of questons to send back to the council. They need set out the issues clearly, be easy to understand and easy to respond to. E.g. "Do you agree with the Council's plans to relocate the Rec?" "Do you agree with the Council's plans to sell the resulting land to developers" "Do you agree with the Council's plans to knock down Popes Road car park" etc

People need to be given more than a week or two to respond. And the council should be proactive - get out on the streets and ask people shopping etc what they actually want. Hold lots of public meetings in residents halls and community centres. Put posters up at bus stops. Give out leaflets at the tube. There's no point sticking all the documents in the library and expecting people to go and look at them.

The Council needs to be committed to adhering to the residents' wishes, even if they are at odds with the council's "grand vision." Otherwise it's not a real consultation and there's no point running it. Hatboy made a comment on this a while back that really made me laugh - something like "They gather all your views at the same....... so they can ignore you all at the same time"

Hope that's not the case - over to you Cllr.

 

[newbie]

In the community plan linked above the very first strategic objective, E1 is

"Promote environmental awareness and responsibility, minimise Lambeth’s impact on global environmental change."

Is there currently any form of environmental impact assessment for the vast amount of building planned? In particular for knocking down rather than maintaining the 30 year old rec.

 

[editor]

Surely a sensible approach is to consult to find out what people actually want, then work out ways of implementing it.

Some kind of supplemental online interaction wouldn't be a bad idea either, so long as it was implemented correctly.

Paddick certainly knew how to make use of the web, successfully reaching out to elements of the community who would have been unlikely to turn up to meetings.

 

[cllr]

Every single household in Lambeth should be sent a series of simple two page questionnaires (e.g. like the ones used for the recent licensing consultation, or for CPZs) dealing with each major issue in turn. [...] "Do you agree with the Council's plans to relocate the Rec?" "Do you agree with the Council's plans to sell the resulting land to developers" "Do you agree with the Council's plans to knock down Popes Road car park" etc

People need to be given more than a week or two to respond. And the council should be proactive - get out on the streets and ask people shopping etc what they actually want. Hold lots of public meetings in residents halls and community centres. Put posters up at bus stops. Give out leaflets at the tube. There's no point sticking all the documents in the library and expecting people to go and look at them.

Things from the first paragraph are all planned to happen (including bus shelter advertising and detailed questionnaires) - though they'll need to work out how much can be afforded. There'll be lots on this coming to the Exec in December. The consultation won't take place in 2 weeks - more like about a year's worth. What would be good is to hold enough dialogue to distinguish between the council's "red lines" (and challenge them where needed) and the areas where the Council has no view either way.

I'm curious though as to the type of questions. Generally if the council asks "do you agree with the council's proposal to do something yes/no" people complain and say it was all decided in advance. So asking "Do you agree that the council should knock down the Pope's Road Car Park?" is not as preferred as "What car-parking should be available in Brixton?". I suppose the difference is asking people about needs and services or asking about buildlings and development. How do we get a balance of both, I wonder...

 

[cllr]

Some kind of supplemental online interaction wouldn't be a bad idea either, so long as it was implemented correctly.

Paddick certainly knew how to make use of the web, successfully reaching out to elements of the community who would have been unlikely to turn up to meetings.

A council mini-site is being considered - though I don't know if it could or should support discussion forum - but on-line surveys are now easily produced.

 

[Bob]

In advance of drawing up the plans.

Surely a sensible approach is to consult to find out what people actually want, then work out ways of implementing it.

Perfectly sensible in theory but a bugger to do in practice. Most consultations of that sort produce long wish lists... which are completely unaffordable. I think a sensible route for the council to go down would be to offer two or three options to consult on, each of which cost the council about the same amount, so that people can decide, for instance, which facilities are most needed in which part of the centre.

 

[newbie]

So asking "Do you agree that the council should knock down the Pope's Road Car Park?" is not as preferred as "What car-parking should be available in Brixton?".

Indeed, and it's worth recognising that it's not easy for people to formulate or express their views on general 'what sort of provision would you like' questions.

But I'm curious what the question was that generated the answer "We really, really want a giant 'piazza' empty public space to complement the giant 'Central Square' empty public space planned for the other end of the High St".

 

[editor]

A council mini-site is being considered - though I don't know if it could or should support discussion forum - but on-line surveys are now easily produced.

Yes, but there's good sites and utterly crap sites. The vast majority of government/council sites I've seen are a totally shambles, deservedly shunned by the public.

Who's doing the council site?

 

[newbie]

Perfectly sensible in theory but a bugger to do in practice. Most consultations of that sort produce long wish lists... which are completely unaffordable.

I accept that, except that as I pointed out above the "value of outputs" of the proposals is a cool billion quid. There's a lot of local demands for a new school (to a chorus of 'told you so' from those who opposed the closure of Tulse Hill, Dick Sheppard and Ashby Mill), but I've heard little demand for massive domino style development on the scale proposed. Putting forward two or three options presupposes we actually want the town centre to be an enormous building site come developers honeypot for the next decade.

 

[cllr]

Indeed, and it's worth recognising that it's not easy for people to formulate or express their views on general 'what sort of provision would you like' questions.

But I'm curious what the question was that generated the answer "We really, really want a giant 'piazza' empty public space to complement the giant 'Central Square' empty public space planned for the other end of the High St".

Interesting point. The council hasn't any particular need to create a piazza (though some ward councillors are keen). However the council can't go on closing down floors of the Popes Road as they become dangerous and is going to have to do something! So that's the difference between a red line and an open option. There does have to be some space between the buildings and it really ought to be safer than the current layout of streets.

 

[cllr]

Yes, but there's good sites and utterly crap sites. The vast majority of government/council sites I've seen are a totally shambles, deservedly shunned by the public.

Who's doing the council site?

It'll be a council site - so be realistic about what can be achieved.

 

[editor]

It'll be a council site - so be realistic about what can be achieved.

That rather begs the question: why waste taxpayer's cash to produce something that won't do its job effectively?

A poor site is actually worse than no site at all.

 

[Bob]

That rather begs the question: why waste taxpayer's cash to produce something that won't do its job effectively?

A poor site is actually worse than no site at all.

Half defending the council here - they do face a dilemma politically. It's very rare for a council to get slated in the press for a rubbish website (it happens, but rarely). On the other hand it's quite common for government organisations to get slated for expensive websites/ spending on consultants & outside experts. So if the council go for something snazzy they take the risk that rather than being attacked for one they'll be attacked for both.

And internet access & use in the UK may be spreading but the sort of really engaged use that people like users of the Brixton forum & other local sites do is mainly down to a minority of people who have broadband. Some of these are representative of particular sections of the community in Brixton at present, but there are many sections of the community who I'd suspect would not reached this way. I suspect cheap traditional ways of reaching the community (renting tenant's halls and sending along council employees & councillors) are probably a more effective way of reaching the high proportion of Brixton's population who don't have much or any internet access.

 

[editor]

And internet access & use in the UK may be spreading but the sort of really engaged use that people like users of the Brixton forum & other local sites do is mainly down to a minority of people who have broadband.

Actually, it's a lot more than you think:

There are now 26.8 million internet users in Great Britain, that’s 58% of the population now online. Four out of ten of these internet users connect via broadband
http://tinyurl.com/6tj2a

I'm not so sure if I buy your argument that the web doesn't represent good value for reaching out and engaging elements of the community.

Obviously, I'm not advocating that the web replaces leafleting/public meetings, but it has advantages in some areas and can prove a useful additional resource: e.g. material and resources can be archived for future use and a website can potentially reach a huge audience for a comparatively small outlay.

Moreover, those who have no interest in attending dreary meetings (or are physically unable to do so) have a means of finding out what's going on and interacting with the process. As it is, if you don;t go to the meeting you're not going to know what's going on - I've certainly never been canvassed about any planning decisin in 11 years of living in Brixton (I've never seen or heard from my councillor or MP either, but that's a different story).

And now I know why I'm getting a feeling of Deja vu - I wrote something about this for New Statesman four years ago!
http://www.urban75.com/Action/news133.html