Heygate Estate - Southwark's Shame

[rendelharris]

No comment required: https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/every-flat-in-a-new-south-london-development-has-been-sold-to-foreign-investors

[Otta]

There was a Heygate thread a while back. Absolutely no surprises here. But shameful beyond belief.

http://35percent.org/

[alice]

sickening. and no law has been broken.

[rendelharris]

alice Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> sickening. and no law has been broken.

Well, that has yet been uncovered...

[JohnL]

It'll be OKR next.

[JoeLeg]

Lewisham is no better. Just behind the estate on Wood Vale there's a medium sized housing development. A clause in the contract says that a certain percentage must be social housing, but that if the build takes too long they don't have to honour that.

Yes, that's right. They can put the brakes on, have no social housing and no one can say a thing. Not as appalling as the Heygate debacle, but just goes to show how bad local government can be. I personally think people should be jailed over what happened at Heygate, but only because keel-hauling has gone out of fashion.

[Southeast Twenty Stu]

The whole thing is completely corrupt.

[Earl Aelfheah]

A number of former council officers involved in the negotiations with developer Lend Lease ended up as full-time employees of Lend Lease.

[Otta]

I've posted this article from 2013 before, but it's very good.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/11/look-heygate-estate-whats-wrong-londons-housing

[rendelharris]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've posted this article from 2013 before, but

> it's very good.

>

> http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/11/look-

> heygate-estate-whats-wrong-londons-housing

Thanks for that Otta, very good indeed. The figures there really don't lie, do they, not only have the poor Heygate residents been well and truly sh@t on, so have all Southwark taxpayers - ?55M gained for the site, ?65M lost to evict residents. Absolutely beggars belief.

[alice]

so what can be done?

[Otta]

alice Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> so what can be done?

Have a read of the 35percent site.

http://35percent.org/

But unfortunately probably not a lot. Southwark's attitude seems to be very much "fuck you".

[Blah Blah]

Sothwark completely messed up on the contract they negotiated - it's what happens when you put council employees up against hardened corporate contract negotiators and Lendlease fought tooth and nail to keep that contract secret (some of it was subsquently ruled to be published from court action). The whole thing is a disgrace from start to finish. And to think that some still serving council and cabinet members - like Fiona Colley, gave media interviews praising this whole development and the deal done with it - thinking far more about the increased level of council tax coming to the council coffers from these properties, along with the commercial business rates, than the wellbeing of ordinary borough residents that have been dsplaced.

This is why it matters greatly, that local people continue to challenge every aspect of planning applications for the remainder of the Elephant and Castle redevelopment area, along with the Aylesbury estate redevelopment and the coming Old Kent Road area redevelopment plan.

The worst thing about all of these redevelopments, is that they are creating stagnant ghost towns, where there is no community, no children playing, nothing - just bland investment flats and yet more shops. It's density and profit over meaningful architcture that actually improves peoples lives - and we've been there before.

[TE44]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A number of former council officers involved in

> the negotiations with developer Lend Lease ended

> up as full-time employees of Lend Lease.

Rahrahrah This behaviour is criminal,It has been

going on for years, if it was anyone else I

Expect they would be looking at a fraud charge. Southwark council have been known to sub contract

Ex employers back after being poached by private companies needing experienced staff. I know one case where Southwark council were paying much more to sub contract there ex emplyee than they paid whilst he was employed by them. Its disgusting.

I agree with the poster above, there should be criminal sentences handed out.Its organised

Crime.

[EPB]

Is the vote still a potent weapon?

[malumbu]

I just think it's sad that the place will be a great big high rise. Good that Sainsburys got in first I don't expect that the pub will reopen.

(Agree with all the sentiment above).

[uncleglen]

the vote is certainly a potent weapon for Labour councils who know they are guaranteed to get in year after year and just carry on taking the public for a big fat ride!

[malumbu]

Not sure what you are on about. It's like when I look at football fan websites talking about football, and somebody has to give their views on Brexit.

Returning to the subject, and sticking up for my Labour council (who I frequently have problems with, and are far from perfect).

The development next to Forest Hill Station was turned down as the lefty loony London (borought of) Lewisham (see I'm now at it) wanted three bedroom family apartments rather than the one or two bedroom places. The developers left it as a shell and got the decision overturned on appeal. So there are one/two bedroom apartments next to a station that could be sold off plan to Asia and elsewhere.

Let's now see what you have written about the Lefty Loony GLA/Mayor on the ULEZ thread.

[malumbu]

I've posted this on the Peckham consulation thread, but just as relevant here:

Interesting chat on Robert Elms about gentification, blink and it has happened. This film is coming out soon, about someone returning to Brizton to make a documentary film about the changes

www.amovingimagefilm.com/#in-the-press

The film maker talked about growing up in the Elephant and his disgust about the lack of affordable houses.

Thining about it, Southwark could have built houses and then acted as a landlord rather than the private sector assuming this role. Don't thnk that idea would ever catch on, local authorities providing housing....