Does Tottenham need more social housing

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on February 19, 2012 at 17:39

Now you've really got me worried!

Permalink Reply by Gerry Platt on February 18, 2012 at 9:55

Tottenham & Wood Green Friends of the Earth just posted this on Facebook: It's not exactly 'on topic' but they do suggest an option of housing above the new Aldi:

When we rebuild Tottenham, let's make it greener.
Aldi's have put in planning application to rebuild the store that was burnt down in the riots. It incorporates a good energy feature - they will re-use the heat from the refrigeration plant to warm the building in winter. But we think they should go further. They are insisting on it remaining a one-storey building, so blocking the possibility of housing above. But if they are keeping a big flat roof, we reckon they should include solar panels - and/or a green roof. If Marks & Spencers in Muswell Hill can have solar panels, and Budgens in Crouch End can grow food on its roof, Tottenham shouldn't be left behind. Our demand was reported in the Journal this week.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Zena Brabazon on February 19, 2012 at 1:34

We need more social housing in this country. Increasing the housing supply so people can live somewhere decent and affordable is one of the obvious ways to deal with the housing crisis. And creating mixed communities is part of that. What is going on now is appalling and deeply damaging to ordinary families and people everywhere.

The lack of public housing means rents can rocket, with housing benefit (i.e public money) making landlords very wealthy. The cap on benefits won't lead to reductions in rent levels,(see today's Independent on Sunday). Instead more people are likely to end up in hostels and B and B accommodation. It's already happening and I'm sure you will not under-estimate the impact this will have on people's mental and physical well-being, their family life and damage to children's learning and development. Not to forget increased costs to the NHS and other services.

Housing policies over the years have led us to the point where thousands of council flats and houses have been sold, and are therefore in the private sector. Some people have rented their properties out, or sold them on to landlords who then rent them out at high market rents. And guess what - if a family on a low or modest income is living in one of these properties, housing benefit pays all or part of the rent. Think about it - a home which could have gone to families at a reasonable rent, bringing money back to the public sector which built the properties in the first place, is now 'an investment' to a landlord who can make a huge profit from public money - housing benefit.

It's worthy of a Kafka novel.

 

Zena Brabazon

Councillr, St. Ann's Ward

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Seema Chandwani on February 19, 2012 at 2:58

Thanks Zena

My concern with the Spurs Development was I always feel around the Northumberland Park area there is ample social housing, to build more in an already concentrated area could have counter-productive effects and add to the east/west inequality our borough is famous for.

I am not claiming all social housing tennants are burdensome, I too was a social housing tennant and still live on an estate (leaseholder). Im fairly lucky as my estate is... well nothing I know of happens here (that said its 2:50am and I cant sleep due to people shouting in the street!! :) But compared to estates/areas I have worked in both in Haringey and London, the issues on my estate are non existent.

However, people in social housing do have needs, or else they would not require the housing assistance and for me, I feel at this stage to build further social housing in areas already unable to cope with the needs of its current residents maybe unwise and areas like Bounds Green/Bowes Park/Crouch End could take some of the distribution

I totally agree with you regarding slum landlords, lack of council owned housing creating a market of expolitation by landlords, the ultimate payer is us etc. A landscape set to get worse as the cabinet agreed a 7.5% rent increase on council housing and the gov is capping benefits. In todays (Sat) guardian there is already discussions of Croydon council moving their temp accomdation cases to Hull as a cheaper option. In a housing magazine this week, there was an article about 1200 families from haringey will be hit by benefit cap & will become homeless

I just worry we build build build (and we have seen a lot of new builds in Haringey) yet the direlect remain empty & the housing problems are not impacted upon by these developments. A national problem I agree and one that needs thinking about before we get the concrete mixers out - will this really solve/impact on the problem?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on February 19, 2012 at 8:38

Seema, I take your point about concentrating social housing in the east of the borough but that's where the development land sits. Also, I think the problem is not just about massing, it's also about the quality of the housing and the surrounding infrastructure.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Seema Chandwani on February 19, 2012 at 12:34

Semi agree... there is parts of the borough in the west that could be considered, although I have concerns about the Hornsey depo as its close to Campsbourne and there is already social issues/mass concerntration.

I am still debating the idea in my head, but I do think we should explore disused buildings more.

I totally agree with quality, boxes with a bit of wood cladding to add design is hardly brilliant and definately explore infrastructure, again my concern with Hornsey depo

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on February 19, 2012 at 12:49

"Mass concentration". Would you like to make this more explicit, Seema? Exactly who or what is being concentrated?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Seema Chandwani on February 19, 2012 at 15:18

There is a mass concentration (in my opinion) of social housing in the Northumberland Park ward.Themo maps of deprivation/crime/low educational attainment are strongly collerated with areas that have a "mass concentration" of social housing a fact no more illustrated in Campsbourne.

It appears you feel I am being somewhat snobbish towards those in social housing, a point I have already tackled previously but will do so again. I live in a social housing estate, anyone who knows me is fully aware of my past and the social issues I faced. I am in 100% support of social housing, if it did not exist I would most likely not be here or be here in the capacity I am.

However, knowing how much I "needed" from the services of Tottenham, how I was unable to contribute fully to the community/economy etc. The return on investment for Haringey in my case is probably balancing itself out, thanks to Haringey I got my degree and a job that enables me to have a disposable income to contribute back. The concept of social housing and social mobility worked perfectly for me. But the services to enable social mobility are being cut making the likelihood of such outcomes less likely

But, if the council do not fully plan how it distributes the needs of its population and what the population returns back to the community. In my opinion the divide between East and West is greatly contributed by council decisions of where it places its investment. I feel that Tottenham, specifically Northumberland Park/surrounding wards have more than its fairshare of social housing in comparison to the rest of the borough. In my opinion we need a mixed economic population and the East/West divide is engineered by the same council who keep saying they wish to tackle it.

Other decisions by the council are equally damaging, moving all of the council offices from North Tottenham to Wood Green, an area already attracting financial investment. Lammy suggesting a move of a Gov dept to Tottenham had some sense, if it was not hypocritical by the fact the council removed 3 council offices it self that would give Lammy similar outcomes.

I hope that is more explicit

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on February 19, 2012 at 15:35

Interesting points Seema. The divide in concentrations of social housing seems to be more or less the old Tottenham and Hornsey council boundaries.

Some councils did make a conscious effort to make social housing more integrated. For instance in Camden social housing was deliberately built in areas like Hampstead, Swiss Cottage and Primrose Hill. Sadly, with the right to buy, these were snapped up with huge discounts and taken out of circulation for social renting tenants.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pamish on February 19, 2012 at 15:43

Similarly LB Islington bought up lots of single houses around the borough in the 80s and before, to be used as council houses. They will have gone back into private/BTL hands by now I guess.

Mixes are best. My road is a mix of owner-occupy and housing association, street level housing, by some accident of history or maybe earlier policy. But all the houses sold since I've been here have gone to BTL landlords who split (small) houses into two flats. Some of the stability is lost, direct result. Can HA's still buy single houses to add to their stock?  

Permalink Reply by Seema Chandwani on February 19, 2012 at 16:41

@Pamish & Michael

This is the wider issue I hope the council is considering, local solutions against a national backdrop of policies is making efforts feel like a treadmill. The RTB is (from somewhere I read) being enhanced by this Gov, that said many in Crouch End couldnt afford to buy their RTB as even with the discount it was beyond their means.

I did buy under RTB, to be honest it was a rushed decision as I applied to get in before the discount was reduced, at the time I was on £26k pa and wouldnt have been able to purchase privately even in Tottenham where prices are still seen as "reasonable" (in comparison). I contemplated moving two years ago, but even with a higher salary, I was stuck... again wanting to stay in Tottenham. If I was still a tennant, I would still be here so the transition from social housing to private ownership is like a river without a bridge.

I really respect the position the council are in, they too are stuck as they have 'omlettes to make without eggs' and central gov funding is dictating the direction of the solution, but they are embracing this rather than I feel looking at longer term impact.

 

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on February 19, 2012 at 17:37

That's very clear, Seema. And please let me also be clear that I wasn't implying you are snobbish or anything similar. What comes across from your comments is genuine concern, plus openness to discussion and to differing ideas. (Not always a feature of HoL contributors :-D )

I think though, that you may be very much overestimating the present (or even recent) powers of local councils to engineer or re-engineer a particular social mix. Just as the last Government grossly overestimated the capacity of the private market as a mechanism which would meet people's housing needs.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page