Southwark building infill housing on estates

[legalalien]

Was just looking at the agenda for next week?s Cabinet meeting: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7042.

One of the Lib Dem councillors has tabled a motion calling on the Council to rethink its current policy of addressing the housing shortage in the borough by building on green spaces in existing estates, and that these green spaces be protected: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s99857/Report%20Motions.pdf

I haven?t seen much discussion of the issue on here even though there?s a fair bit about it in local newspapers and social media so thought I?d flag for general awareness, I?m not quite sure where I think the balance between the conflicting policy goals lies - my instinct is to favour protecting the green spaces but I?m not sure I know enough of the background detail to be sure about particular developments.

Some background articles

https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/campaigners-protest-against-plans-to-build-on-a-much-loved-green-space-in-peckham/

https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/peckham-green-protesters-feel-new-hope-after-southwark-council-cancels-nearby-developments/

[taper]

There's a lot of conflation in the campaign with infilling on estates (which it seems to me is problematic unless residents are on board and compensated) and other developments. So I absolutely get why eg Brenchley residents were up in arms. But then the some of the same campaigners (eg XR Southwark) also seem to be campaigning against building anywhere else, including on what seems to me to be a brown field site near Burgess Park. There are other areas such as "Peckham Green" where the choice is between keeping a seldom used grassed over area which once contained lots of housing, and building around 100 council homes. There is potential there for a new small park, which people would no doubt use. But then in the middle of a severe housing crisis the goal of around 100 new council homes is perhaps more needed. Lots of bad faith on all sides. And the Leo Pollak incident undermined trust in Southwark horribly.

[kiera]

My understanding of the background is:- When Southwark sold the land they owned near the River, they justified not using it themselves to build housing, on the grounds that they could get a high price for their land in the North of the borough, so would use the proceeds to build their own new housing on land they already owned in the south of the borough, where the land has less value.

[alice]

socialrent %total builds

built

tower hamlets 1204 14%

lewisham 508 11%

greenwich 861 15%

Southwark 84 1%

Southwarks social rent building is abysmal [ this is 2014/17]

something like 4000 empty homes

anyone got more recent data.

[hammerman]

Glad you've brought this to the fore legalalien.

Back in February my very vulnerable family member was posted lots of glossy leaflets by Southwark Council about how they are looking to build more social homes on top of blocks of flats in the area i.e. the Denmark Hill Estate.

Family member is on the fourth floor with no lift. The plans are for lifts to be built and new flats to be plonked on top of the fourth, fifth, sixth etc. floors where these blocks of flats go to.

Where there are any green spaces or garage spaces the Council wants that too for development.

[JohnL]

Flat owners have building on top of current flats.

The problem for both issues is it won't be done tastefully with nice looking buildings that don't damage the neighbouring buildings - it'll be cheap tat that may catch fire or flood or cause noise issues.

[JohnL]

I haven't got a link but I saw recently an article by a former top floor owner flat now built on top of talking of all the issues to drainage and leaks and noise caused by the build. They didn't seem to consider the existing residents in their plans.

[legalalien]

For those who followed the Leo Pollak incident, the external solicitors?s report into whether his behaviour breached the Code of Conduct is now on the website

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7252.

The draft report apparently found that all of the anonymous tweeting activity was outside the scope of the Code, the final one concludes that the tweets relating to specific housing projects that the councillor was involved with were within scope, but the content of the tweets was such that there was no breach, but operating anonymously in that specific context was problematic.

Interesting discussion of the law relating to freedom of speech in this context. And also worth noting that sometimes a political remedy (public outcry leading to resignation) is more effective than a legal one.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

"Complainant states that...the use of the word "nimbyism" was offensive".

He was obviously being provocative and rude, but it's stretching it to claim that being called a NIMBY is offensive. It's hardly an epithet or swearword.

[legalalien]

I agree.

More info in this article https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/do-the-honourable-thing-campaigners-call-for-former-southwark-housing-chief-pollak-to-resign-from-council/ (including some of the details redacted in the report).