Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by JoJo on July 18, 2018 at 10:11

There were a number of reasons for campaigning against The Denizen. For many the most important was that 110 social housing units that provided homes for key workers are being replaced by 99 luxury flats that won't be lived in. The Denizen is being marketed in places like Hong Kong to property investors. Such investors see London's overheated housing market as generating them a profit if they simply buy flats and leave them empty. If they have business in London or want to come here shopping they might spend a few days a year in their flat but most of the time it will be empty. In Westminster the figure is 40% of housing is empty most of the time - and we have a similar situation in EC1 with all the new builds on City Road etc. Islington council did a survey of their part of EC1 in 2014 showing many new flats in places like Dance Square (Central Street) and TP Bennett's Bezier apartments (on Old Street roundabout) aren't occupied. They are ghost home investments. There is no on site social or affordable housing in The Denizen.

Among other things the campaign against The Denizen was a campaign for housing that would provide homes for local people precisely because we didn't want more empty ghost flats in the area. That said the loss of light is not insignificant and will effect not just council tenants on Golden Lane but also the children who go to school on the Golden Lane campus and also all those who use the park. Once The Denizen is built there will be no afternoon sunlight in Fortune Street Park from September to March, and a lot less than there is now the rest of the year. The Denizen will provide homes to far fewer people than Bernard Morgan House did but is much taller and will  have a very negative effect on local people (particularly children) in terms of loss of light and increased heating bills (the flats on Golden Lane Estate were among the first in London to be designed for solar gain and losing sunlight means they will need more heating and some tenants will be thrown into fuel poverty). A different design or the refurbishment of the now demolished building could have actually given us much needed homes for local families. The Denizen is aimed at investors and is designed to be empty ghost homes. Sorry to hear about the empty flat next to you. I agree a family ought to have use of it, but sadly investors don't care about families.

Tracy Batten said:

But why should it be stopped? Unfortunately I didn’t want to see BMH demolished, but I think the CoLC would have been better utilising it as social housing, but given the choice I’d rather see it as an improved building, than left to decay and have It vandalised. 

with the planning of new social housing to be implemented on the Richard Cloudsley site, I think is very much needed.  I have never agreed with social housing being bought, this drains much needed housing stock, and think it abhorrent that greedy lease holders want to charge extortionate rent, for a dwelling that was built for social housing.  When people decide to buy a property on GLE, they buy with they’re eyes wide open, obviously do the ground work, and seek information on up and coming work.  

Next door to me, there is a 3 bedroom flat privately owned,  which has been empty for the past 18 months, I don’t know why, and when trying to find out, I’m stonewalled.  It’s a crying shame this property could be a much needed family home.  

I have no sympathy for anyone that’s worried about they’re daylight being hindered, or an obscured view.  I’d be more concerned about someone being denied a safe comfortable home, because someone blocked planning permission!! NIMBYs certainly do spring to mind.

• ▶ Reply