New council house development in Long Lane

boroughpaul wrote:

My point is that in my experience on some estates the overwhelming majority of tenants are on housing benefit and are therefore a cost to council tax payers. These estates can become a focus for crime and anti-social behaviour. If the plan is for a mix of rented and shared ownership you will produce a social mix that is more representative of the borough (and London) as a whole and be a moree pleasant and safe place to live. The concentration of the poorest into defined areas was one of the biggest mistakes of post war planning in UK cities...in my opinion

A lot of tenants on housing benefit are working full time in one or two low paid jobs.

Maybe all this housing development will lead to a medium-sized grocery store being opened in the Empire Square/Long Lane area -- that's what's really needed...

orione wrote:

Rambling Phil wrote:

Orione - I'm not sure where your evidence for the 'growing number of council blocks' is. Over the last few years, I believe many have transferred to TMOs and Housing Associations, hugely reducing the number of council managed blocks. Additionally, we've lost a lot of council provision at the E&C to be replaced by private and non-council run estates there.

Ok.I am just quoting the article. 600 houses already built and one thousand more on top of the ones already existing.

Which is quite impressive. Most London central boroughs are reducing the number, Southwark that has the highest number, is increasing it.

So I am concerned about quality of the management. Once you have them you need to manage them well. I think.

Your clearly confusing the terms "social housing" with council housing,the difference being we can vote against any coucillor deemed to not be addressing our needs,we do not however have much of a say in the actions of the quaaaangos (has to be said impersonating Livingstone so fingers on nostrils) that run housing associations.

boroughonian wrote:

orione wrote:

Rambling Phil wrote:

Orione - I'm not sure where your evidence for the 'growing number of council blocks' is. Over the last few years, I believe many have transferred to TMOs and Housing Associations, hugely reducing the number of council managed blocks. Additionally, we've lost a lot of council provision at the E&C to be replaced by private and non-council run estates there.

Ok.I am just quoting the article. 600 houses already built and one thousand more on top of the ones already existing.

Which is quite impressive. Most London central boroughs are reducing the number, Southwark that has the highest number, is increasing it.

So I am concerned about quality of the management. Once you have them you need to manage them well. I think.

Your clearly confusing the terms "social housing" with council housing,the difference being we can vote against any coucillor deemed to not be addressing our needs,we do not however have much of a say in the actions of the quaaaangos (has to be said impersonating Livingstone so fingers on nostrils) that run housing associations.

I know the difference between council housing and housing associations, but is there a negative perception of the latter?

eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:

boroughonian wrote:

orione wrote:

Rambling Phil wrote:

Orione - I'm not sure where your evidence for the 'growing number of council blocks' is. Over the last few years, I believe many have transferred to TMOs and Housing Associations, hugely reducing the number of council managed blocks. Additionally, we've lost a lot of council provision at the E&C to be replaced by private and non-council run estates there.

Ok.I am just quoting the article. 600 houses already built and one thousand more on top of the ones already existing.

Which is quite impressive. Most London central boroughs are reducing the number, Southwark that has the highest number, is increasing it.

So I am concerned about quality of the management. Once you have them you need to manage them well. I think.

Your clearly confusing the terms "social housing" with council housing,the difference being we can vote against any coucillor deemed to not be addressing our needs,we do not however have much of a say in the actions of the quaaaangos (has to be said impersonating Livingstone so fingers on nostrils) that run housing associations.

I know the difference between council housing and housing associations, but is there a negative perception of the latter?

I was answering Orione,but to answer your question,yes of course,certainly from my perspective anyway,like I said,I cannot vote out the governers of a housing trust but I can those of a council estate that's local democracy for me at least.I live in a housing association estate,I am not happy with so many aspects of their management,but who wants to know?
Who's accountable and to whom?

Boroughonian is right and it's a common criticism of housing association's, many seem quite far removed from their original ethos. For all the critics of Southwark, residents have consistently chosen to stay with them rather than transfer to an HA. I think this is because most of us think it's better than the alternative.

I think it's great that Southwark is building council housing, well done Cllr John.

To answer Orione's point, the funding to build housing is quite different from that which could be used to help poorer families struggling to pay bills. The current administration have also introduced things like free school meals, so I'm not sure it would be fair to say they don't care about this. Orione appears to be saying that he doesn't want an influx of social housing tenant's as they will be poor. I'm pretty sure that Orione doesn't actually mean that and I think most of us would disagree. We need a better Balance in the North of the borough, there are too few opportunities for ordinary families.

Zoe wrote:

We need a better Balance in the North of the borough, there are too few opportunities for ordinary families.

I welcome the building of Council Housing anywhere in the borough, but what social housing there is in Southwark is already biased towards the middle and north of the borough.

I'm not sure that calling for an unspecified 'balance' is a good idea. According to the Council's housing strategy, at 45% the proportion of social housing in the borough is three times the national average and the highest in London. An attempt to 'balance' by norm reversion would indicate that what we need is more privately owned accomodation and less social housing (which I don't think is what is meant).

One of the reasons for the lack of opportunities for families in the North of the borough is the mix of new (by which I mean post-1990) development, which has been massively biased towards one- and two- bedroom flats, with hardly any family sized flats being built that anyone other than the super-rich can afford.

Private developers refuse to develop (ie go on strike) if they're not allowed to develop the more lucrative smaller properties, so only the social sector seems to be able to provide them.

OK then, let's just keep packing more people into the area. 20,000 people are on the waiting list, bring them all in. But public transport and local services like doctors and schools are struggling. You already sometimes wait a week or more for an appointment at Decima street, adding 3 or 4 thousand new people in Long Lane isn't going to help. Or waiting at Bricklayers Arms while 4 or 5 packed buses sail past, not stopping. Relentlessly adding homes but not services seems irresponsible to me

lucysalisbury wrote:

OK then, let's just keep packing more people into the area. 20,000 people are on the waiting list, bring them all in. But public transport and local services like doctors and schools are struggling. You already sometimes wait a week or more for an appointment at Decima street, adding 3 or 4 thousand new people in Long Lane isn't going to help. Or waiting at Bricklayers Arms while 4 or 5 packed buses sail past, not stopping. Relentlessly adding homes but not services seems irresponsible to me

Very true, Infrastructure, which is not only groceries, should grow with the population.


Regarding managements: TI believe the point where most housing management fails is at managing antisocial behavior, which often is in their contracts.

Not to speak about the poor jobs that contractors appointed usually do and get away with, after we have paid our service charges for nothing.
So why not spending these money to make better what is not good enough? Can we not regulate these things. Than we can have more social housing. (I understand they are two separate matters).

Zoe wrote:

Orione appears to be saying that he doesn't want an influx of social housing tenant's as they will be poor. I'm pretty sure that Orione doesn't actually mean that and I think most of us would disagree.

Zoe, my god. It must be my English but I couldn't be more far from this concept. As I say, I LIVE in a council estate. And I am not rich or have a super stable job. When I can I lend some money to whom need them, sometimes I need to tight the belt. But I am fed up of seeing more important problems being left to the residents's patience and sensibility to resolve rather than seeing the house management taking care of. Not only taking my service charge.

In London Bridge there is a massive divide between who have and who have not, and in my view is not going to get better. So before building more houses why not tackling these issues. Is it more clear? Please let me know. Thank you