Recent Lambeth Council housing decisions are evidence of a tendency to concentrate 'affordable' housing in the outer part of the borough.
This seems, regrettably, to support a city-wide process whereby the private rented sector has priced Housing Support/Benefit recipients out of central London, which in turn is part of a general process of 'peripheralisation' of low-income communities, ie, displacement from the inner parts of the city to the outer areas, without consideration low local ties or family history of local occupation.
Watch this space, but the indications are that the super-rich are hoping to the re-create the Parisian 'banlieu' model of housing, where poor communities are effectively ghettoised in suburbs, woth long and expensive journeys to and from work.
It is with much regret that I have to completely agree with you. To me it is an appalling indictment of both our national and locally elected 'representatives' that a success in housing policy is claimed when any new 'affordable housing' is provided ,usually without so much as a mention of the overwhelming demand for low cost housing in London. Over here in Southwark the leader of the council has recently been vocal in claiming such a success by promising the building of 10,000 low cost homes .. sounds great until you dig deeper and discover it will take 30 years to build, there is currently a list of over 20,000 seeking housing and they're committing to building 1000 by 2020. The peripheralisation of low income communities is exactly what is going on.. witness the disbursement of established communities at elephant and castle, the encroachment of the real estate seekers around the London Bridge/Bermondsey Street super state into areas further south .. and all the time our elected representatives stand idly by failing to protect the interests of the vast majority for whom low cost housing is a necessity not a luxury
Thanks for your message, and regrettably, what we are discussing appears to be a tendency followed by a number of boroughs with central London portions in their estate, such as Southwark, which you refer to.
I was staggered that the prior owner-occupiers on the Heygate Estate were compensated for their enforced removal by the local authority, and not the property development company in question, particularly when such unholy alliances with the commercial sector are routinely posited by local authorities as necessary in terms of asset accumulation for the development of housing elsewhere.
Figures of CAB use in Enfield, for example, which provide a relatively reliable proxy for poverty, have rocketed over the last few years, suggesting a significant displacement of lower-income families from the centre to the periphery, and it is highly likely also that the completion of Crossrail will continue this pattern of converting central London into a live/play/workspace for the well off.
The removal, and indeed designation, of what had been low- income housing units to 'affordable' units in the development plans of a South-Western riverside private estate to Vauxhall, discussed recently on this forum, appeared to carry more than a suggestion that the rich 'deserve' to live in desirable areas with good views, while the poor can be kettled in areas of long-standing 'inland' poverty. Or am I imagining this?