Grove Park squat being cleared

[almost peckham]

The large house on Grove Park that has been squatted on and off for the last couple of years is currently being cleared. Started about 8.30 this morning. About 50 ballifs and private security and another 30 or 40 police and community support officers. Seemed pretty disproportionate to me. Grove Park itself closed to traffic. Given the general shortage of visible policing in Camberwell and Peckham it seemed a bit galling that so many are able to turn up to oversee the needs of a private landlord. I know they are there to monitor the ballifs too but it seemed like a lot. By the property owner's admission the squatters only occupied the property when his maintenance team left the place unlocked. That huge area of mature woodland behind the house will, I guess, shortly be cleared for more 'luxury' housing.

[shelly2106]

Wondered why half the police force seem to be parked up in sainsburys this morning

[BrandNewGuy]

That's a real shame. I know a couple of people who've lived there ? the squatters are mostly artists and musicians and I know they've maintained the place well and been good neighbours. A haven for impoverished creative folk who have precious few places to live in London these days.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Police priorities

[Soylent Green]

Priti Patel priorities

[Sue]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> That's a real shame. I know a couple of people

> who've lived there ? the squatters are mostly

> artists and musicians and I know they've

> maintained the place well and been good

> neighbours. A haven for impoverished creative folk

> who have precious few places to live in London

> these days.

According to another thread, there are unoccupied houses on Dunstans Road.

Just saying :)

[BrandNewGuy]

:)

[applesandpears23]

I heard from a neighbour who knows owners that the property was completely trashed inside which is a shame, that a lot of the original features had been damaged and was not maintained at all. all the ivy growing in the garden had destroyed the trees that they said they were protecting. such a shame really as such a beautiful property. I walk past regularly and always wondered about it.

I cant imagine the building was left unlocked, squatters will do anything to get into properties these day, including lie unfortunately, which it sounds like they have done to some of the respondents here. would be mindful of it.

[Brulysses]

That is complete rubbbish, they did not 'trash' the place, and were under no obligation to do the 'gardening'. You say that the features were 'damaged' and it was not 'maintained', that is the fault of the owners who obviously just sat on the place for years and let it fall into disrepair. People are very quick to blame squatters for everything, when in fact alot of the time they are doing the owners a favour.

[applesandpears23]

its not about gardening, they say they were protesting for the trees not being cut down, but the trees were actually suffering because of the ivy and being overgrown so that seems hypocritical to me. I looked on southwark website at tree survey for that planning application. it doesn't look like so many trees are being removed and certainly not old ones - as well as lots of new trees being replanted? so this is misinformation. wish people could better inform themselves.

the neighbour showed me some photos from inside that were sent to her -it did indeed look trashed. according to her the owner of the property never abandoned the property ?! it had property guardians inside looking after it and used to be in much better condition.

[JennaAZ]

This is apparently the second time the owner has had to remove squatters. The fact that anyone defends the squatters or feels sorry for them is astounding to me. It's not their property, nor is it anyone elses but the property owner and as such, the owner can do with it as they wish - it is THEIRS - not the communities to demand what to have done with it - not the squatters to feel some sort of justification for living there - period.

[Brulysses]

well maybe the owners should actually do something with the property rather than sit on it and let it slowly rot. London has a massive deficit of affordable housing and many properties where the owners do nothing for years and years, it's just simple maths really...there was a time back in the 70's and 80's where alot of the properties in the area were lived in by squatters, especially along Camberwell Grove, so I say, as long as they are respectful and don't break the law then they should be allowed to squat empty properties where the landlord/owners seem to want to do nothing with it.

[stephensr]

Hi Brulysses, you really seem to think that the property was abandoned? Where did you get this information from? I know for a fact that the property has never been abandoned under its current ownership. They have always had guardians in the property which was housing around 12-15 people at affordable rental.

I completely understand your point about properties being left abandoned - that's shameful when the housing crisis is such a considerable issue. But this was not the case here.

I have evidence that the squatters in this particular property did not look after it, sadly.

[seenbeen]

Problem is -EVERYONE wants to live in London.

[Spartacus]

seenbeen Wrote:

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

> Problem is -EVERYONE wants to live in London.

I'm sure that's not quite true

There's a lady way up North called Nicola who I'm pretty convinced doesn't want anything to do with London. 😂

[Brulysses]

and one in Canada called Meghan

[Sue]

applesandpears23 Wrote:

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

all

> the ivy growing in the garden had destroyed the

> trees that they said they were protecting.

How exactly had the ivy "destroyed" the trees?

[Penguin68]

How exactly had the ivy "destroyed" the trees?

Whilst ivy does not take nourishment from trees (it isn't, in that way, a parasite) it can damage trees in two ways - (1) it can compete with the tree's own leaves for sunlight - hence reducing nourishment and long-term tree health and (2) it can over-weigh trees such that they become unstable and may be brought down or damaged by winds. For deciduous trees, which might otherwise weather winter storms, such a weight of evergreen leaves may be sufficient to topple them entirely.

Ivy just on the stems (trunks) of trees and cut away from the branches (and kept away) isn't a problem. The ivy flowers and berries are a useful source of food for insects and birds.

[carlafindle]

Glad that's cleared up then.

[Sue]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> How exactly had the ivy "destroyed" the trees?

>

> Whilst ivy does not take nourishment from trees

> (it isn't, in that way, a parasite) it can damage

> trees in two ways - (1) it can compete with the

> tree's own leaves for sunlight - hence reducing

> nourishment and long-term tree health and (2) it

> can over-weigh trees such that they become

> unstable and may be brought down or damaged by

> winds. For deciduous trees, which might otherwise

> weather winter storms, such a weight of evergreen

> leaves may be sufficient to topple them entirely.

>

> Ivy just on the stems (trunks) of trees and cut

> away from the branches (and kept away) isn't a

> problem. The ivy flowers and berries are a useful

> source of food for insects and birds.

I accept all that.

I'm just wondering how these particular trees had been "destroyed".

[seenbeen]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> seenbeen Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Problem is -EVERYONE wants to live in London.

>

>

> I'm sure that's not quite true

>

> There's a lady way up North called Nicola who I'm

> pretty convinced doesn't want anything to do with

> London. 😂

200,000 of her compatriots are here! ( I didn't know the gorgeous Gerrard Butler was a Scot)

https://www.londonstranger.com/multi-cultural-london/scottish-in-london

[fishbiscuits]

As always it's never a binary situation... empty properties in London are a real problem, and in some circumstances squatting does reflect a genuine need for housing.

But at the same time, the "woke" middle class liberal narrative on squatters tend to be rather naive. Struggling creatives, victims of a dysfunctional housing market, passionate about respecting and maintaining period properties...

[Sue]

fishbiscuits Wrote:

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

>

> But at the same time, the "woke" middle class

> liberal narrative on squatters tend to be rather

> naive. Struggling creatives, victims of a

> dysfunctional housing market, passionate about

> respecting and maintaining period properties...

Surely, as with everything (or most things) you can't lump everybody together.

Some squatters will look after the property. Some won't. Some would otherwise be homeless. Some won't. Some will be "creatives" (terrible word), struggling or otherwise. Some won't.

You can't lump all "'woke' middle class liberals" together, either :)

[carlafindle]

Imagine what it's like in Woking?

[fishbiscuits]

Sue Wrote:

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

> Surely, as with everything (or most things) you

> can't lump everybody together.

My personal hunch is that while squatting can of course be morally justifiable, it's also often a lifestyle choice.. and the numbers are probably skewed towards the latter. I have no evidence - so don't ask for it!

And of course while some will respect the property more than others, the way some people talk, you'd think that they were all budding Sarah Beenys.