The housing domino effect…

The Sky City estate in the London borough of Haringey which is set for demolition

When we were checking through our news feed this morning, we came across this press release about yet another estate demolition in London being carried out by a Labour controlled council: Sky City, Wood Green – set for demolition (News release issued by Paul Burnham, Secretary, Haringey Defend Council Housing) The tenants of the Sky City estate have been told they have no right of return after demolition and re-construction and no access to the new homes that will replace the ones they currently live in. This is because the new homes are not intended for use as social housing – this is being done in the name of re-generation which is the polite term for social cleansing. Effectively, the Sky City tenants have been told they’ll be getting re-housed out of the borough.

Now we don’t have any specific information as to where the Sky City tenants will end up but we wouldn’t be surprised if some of them end up living in Thurrock. There are precedents for people being socially cleansed from London being rehoused in London – this story is from 2015: Thurrock Council angry at Westminster plans to move homeless families to Essex Basically what happens in these instances is that the London boroughs looking to offload people from their housing waiting list or tenants they’ve socially cleansed always seem to prevail over Thurrock Council when it comes to the bidding wars to secure tenancies with local landlords. With the amount of money coming into the coffers of London boroughs as they flog off their estates to private developers, they can afford to outbid Thurrock Council pretty much every time.

As you can imagine, this has a knock on effect: Thurrock UKIP claim homeless families may have to move as far away as Durham We’re not in the least bit surprised to read this… A little bit of clarification – it’s highly unlikely that the homeless families are being moved to Durham itself. Durham is a university city, posh and by the standards of the North East of England, pretty pricey when it comes to rents.

It’s most likely they’ll be moved to one of the former mining villages and towns scattered across County Durham. Places that are isolated and suffering from deprivation. Given the brutal logic of an economic system that views housing as a financial asset to be traded instead of a basic human right, even deprived former pit villages have a role to play as locations to warehouse people socially cleansed from more affluent areas of the country. The fact that they’ll be stranded hundreds of miles from friends, family and any support networks they might have seems to count for nothing to the authorities.

This is why we need to support housing struggles in London because what happens in London when tenants are socially cleansed out of the capital directly affects us here and has a domino effect right across the country. Their struggle is our struggle. Not just for decent affordable housing but for an end to a system that sees housing as a financial asset regardless of the consequences in human misery.

The type of former pit village in County Durham where homeless Thurrock families could well end up being re-housed

Air pollution in Thurrock – a missing piece of the jigsaw…

It has come to light that pollution levels around the Dartford Crossing have been excluded from government air quality assessments because for some bizarre, inexplicable reason, it was classified as a ‘rural’ road: Dartford Crossing excluded from pollution assessments The crossing consists of the Dartford Tunnel and the QEII Bridge and is designated as the A282 – this links the M25 north and south of the Thames. Given the the A282 runs from just north of the A2 outside Dartford to just below the junction with the A13 near Purfleet, how it ever became classified as a ‘rural’ road is baffling to say the least… The A282 can be described as a lot of things (often involving the use of profane language) but it definitely ain’t rural! It has now been re-classified…

Because the A282 was for many years classified as a ‘rural’ road, nitrogen dioxide levels were not reported to the EU. It was also excluded from the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) air quality modelling assessment. Now this inconvenient (for the road lobby) ‘anomaly’ has come to light, DEFRA has promised to include pollution data “in any future assessments reported to the EU”. Bear in mind that we’ll soon be starting the process of exiting the EU so how long this reporting will last is anyone’s guess.

This anomaly only came to light because Dartford Borough Council have been carrying out their own air quality measurements for the last 15 years and it was they who noticed this stretch of road was not included in the government’s National Air Quality plan. Public Health England estimate that Dartford has one of the highest percentage of deaths that can be attributed to long term exposure to particulate air pollution in Kent – Thurrock has the highest estimated percentage in the East of England.

How this revelation will affect the discussion about the preferred route for the Lower Thames River Crossing that appears to be going on behind closed doors is difficult to tell. Mind you, predicting anything to do with Highways England is difficult to say the least! We would like to think this discovery of the missing piece of the jigsaw when it comes to assessing the impact of air pollution in the region would prompt people to take a step back and start to do some serious thinking about the future.

We can’t go on with an economic and political system that puts economic growth at any cost ahead of people’s health and well being. We can’t go on with a transport system fuelled by finite fossil fuels, many of which are sourced from volatile regions of the world such as the Middle East. We’re old enough to remember the energy crisis of 1973 when the Yom Kippur and the subsequent OPEC embargo on oil exports led to chaos in the UK – It would appear that the lessons of that crisis have not been absorbed by a younger generation of politicians and planners.

At some point, sooner rather than later, society has to start seriously thinking about how we plan our economy, agriculture, transport and urban settlements in a future where the supply of oil will not be at the levels we currently have and will be in decline. Also, there are issues of air pollution, CO2 levels and noise pollution to be considered. Not to mention quality of life issues in an area criss-crossed by motorways. Quality of life is a very subjective area and part of a wider debate about the kind of society we want to live in. To put it bluntly, we can’t go on like this…

Highways England in (yet another) display of sheer arrogance


Highways England are writing to residents in the parts of Thurrock likely to be affected by the proposed Lower Thames Crossing in what appears to be the next stage of the ‘consultation’ that will fix the final route. Highways England have done this without informing Thurrock Council and residents are getting these letters completely out of the blue. We can only imagine how alarmed anyone getting one of these letters landing on their doormat is going to feel. See here for the full story: New Thames Crossing: Outrage as Highways England write to Thurrock residents over survey work

Given the level of anger about the Lower Thames Crossing that was expressed during the ‘consultation’ process that took place this time last year, you would have thought that Highways England would have learnt some lessons about open and honest communication involving everyone affected by their proposals. That includes letting Thurrock Council know you’re initiating what appears to be another level of consultation on a road and crossing scheme that will have a major impact on anyone living near the route. Now it’s very rarely that we’ll express any sympathy for Thurrock Council but in this instance, we can understand why they’re angered by Highways England effectively going behind their backs.

The issue of the Lower Thames Crossing and the way Highways England have handled the ‘consultation’ so far is about the only one we can think of that has united people in Thurrock right across the political spectrum from us as anarchist inclined community activists all the way round to UKIP. Given the fractious and sometimes bitter nature of local politics, that is some achievement for Highways England! Well, if this latest high handed, arrogant action from them is anything to go by, it looks as though we’re in for another bout of holding their feet over the fire…

‘CONsultation’ on the proposed Port of Tilbury expansion


On March 6th, the Port of Tilbury will start a pre-planning community consultation into its plans to expand the port using land adjacent to the defunct power station: Port of Tilbury seek views on expansion As you can see from our treatment of the heading to this post, from our experience of the ‘consultation’ into the Lower Thames Crossing that was taking place this time last year, to say we’re cynical about the process is an understatement…

However, the consultation will be going ahead regardless so we would advise everyone to temporarily set aside their cynicism and take part, even if it is just for the experience of having your views about the process confirmed! Looking at the image above, the first question that springs to mind is how the heck will all of the goods and materials coming through the port be transported? Presumably as a bulk materials handling facility appears to be part of the expansion plans, a railhead will be part of the plans. However, it’s inevitable that a considerable chunk of what comes through the port will be transported by road.

As this site is to the east of Tilbury, a new road seems to be pretty much inevitable. That means more noise and air pollution, not to mention the loss of some wildlife habitat. So, if you’re taking part in the consultation, we would strongly advise asking some searching questions about transport links and what plans will be in place to reduce the impact of the extra noise and pollution that the new road links will bring.

This proposal needs to be put into the context of the high levels of air pollution that are affecting large areas of Thurrock: Stanford-le-Hope named as one of ten worst in UK in latest WHO pollution stats Are the economic ‘benefits’ supposedly promised by the proposed port expansion worth the price of worsening health for the residents of Thurrock living near to any of the major roads in the area?

Getting away from what can be the mind numbing details of a planning proposal, a more fundamental debate about priorities is needed. Are people really willing to pay the price of more traffic noise, more air pollution and the stress of living with these as well as habitat destruction on the marshes for the supposed economic ‘benefits’ of what will be a largely automated port sucking in imports? Let the debate begin…

Allotments going begging – get one while you can!


It used to be the case that there would be a long waiting list for an allotment – well, in Thurrock it appears they’re there for the taking if you want one: Gardening fans encouraged to get an allotment Before we proceed, we’d like to apologise for linking to an article with a picture of a Tory councillor on it – it has to be done because there’s a serious issue at stake here…

We’re very keen on the development of neighbourhood resilience… One of the important aspects of a resilient neighbourhood is having a community garden as a source of fresh food – this also helps in bringing people together and building solidarity. Okay, an allotment isn’t quite the same as a neighbourhood community garden but it’s still a source of fresh food. Why is a source of fresh food in the form of a community garden or allotment important? Obviously, there are the health benefits in that you know what’s been put on the vegetables and other produce that you’ve been growing, the physical exercise and the psychological benefits of being out in the fresh air. As well as this, it’s a source of fresh food that you and your neighbours are in control of…

Any observer of the political, economic and social landscape will understand that we are entering a turbulent and unpredictable period. A combination of sterling being clobbered by Brexit and possible labour shortages in the agricultural sector will lead to food prices going up. Post what will most likely be a hard Brexit with tariffs going on food imports, prices will soar: The Cost Of Food After ‘Brexit’ Now we don’t want to fall into the trap of promoting a patriotic ‘dig for victory’ drive because as anarchists, that’s not our style. What we do want to promote is neighbourhoods and communities doing what they can to protect themselves from the shite that’s coming. Growing your own food is a part of that as it helps reduce dependence on a supply system that will have no choice but to pass on increasing costs, screwing us all in a period of stagnant and declining pay.

Being prepared for what’s coming will help us get through it and leave enough energy to concentrate on what really matters – fighting for a more just, sane and sustainable society. We’re pretty upfront about the need to look and plan ahead rather than panic when the shite does start to hit the fan as it inevitably will. So, it may only seem like a small thing but if a potential source of fresh food under your control in the form of an allotment is going begging, do yourself a favour and get one!

Is this the start of the gentrification of Tilbury?


Gentrification? In Tilbury?! We never thought we’d be mentioning these two words in the same sentence – what’s going on with the proposed Gloriana Thurrock Ltd. development on St. Chads Road in Tilbury means we are now doing just that… These stories in the local media provide some background: Tilbury housing project Gloriana returns to the planning committee and: UKIP anger over council proposal to hike rents for new Tilbury housing up to £1400 a month

At a planning committee meeting held on December 15th, Gloriana applied for an amendment to the s106 legal agreement for planning permission to delete the obligation for the provision of on-site affordable housing. This was refused with Labour and UKIP councillors expressing deep reservations about the proposed amendment.

Gloriana have submitted a new application to be discussed at the planning committee meeting on Thursday, February 23rd. The options they’re putting on the table read as follows:

“Gloriana has re-assessed its financial model and although the return from the housing development will be lower, the company will offer to provide:

• 20% (26 units) of affordable housing and £640,000 financial contributions – based on some of the affordable housing being shared ownership; or
• 22% (28 units) of affordable housing and £300,000 financial contributions – based on some of the affordable housing being shared ownership.

“The preference being the first option (i.e. 20% affordable housing and a £640,000 financial contribution).”

Basically, with this grudging concession, Gloriana are trying to get away providing as little in the way of genuinely affordable housing as they can get away with. Which for a housing provider wholly owned by the council is as far as we’re concerned, a massive abrogation of their duty. Gloriana Thurrock Ltd. was set up towards the end of 2013 by the then Labour administration on Thurrock Council with the aim of building homes on land that commercial developers ‘wouldn’t touch’: Is Thurrock a model council house-builder? Given what’s going on, the answer to the question posed in the title of the Guardian piece has to be a resounding no!

Let’s take a step back for a minute and look at the area where this proposed development is going to be sited. We’re talking about Tilbury, probably the most solidly working class town in the region. One where those people who are working are mainly on low incomes. Although there are some massive new warehouse developments going up to the west of Tilbury, it’s likely that a lot of the jobs there will be low income with a fair number quite possibly being on zero hours contracts. Given all of this, any rational person would have thought that a priority would be the provision of homes with genuinely affordable rents that locals on low incomes can pay without having to skimp on food, heating, clothing and other essentials. It would appear that these are not Gloriana’s priorities…

So, what’s going on here? The only conclusion we can come to is that this development is aimed at commuters. It’s aimed at people who are probably on fairly reasonable incomes but cannot afford to live in London because house prices and rents are obscenely high – this is a direct consequence of the project of making the capital a welcome home for the global super rich. One of the consequences of this is a ripple effect which is being felt way beyond London as commuters struggle to find somewhere they can afford to live. Hence, we have Gloriana pitching a new development on the fringes of Tilbury at this demographic where they can see themselves making a hefty wedge of dosh while ignoring the locals on low incomes who are desperate for any kind of secure roof over their head.

The logic of the market has deemed that Tilbury is now ripe for gentrification which is just the polite term for social cleansing. This is what happens when housing is seen as a financial asset class instead of what it should be in an ideal world – a basic human right. Do we roll over and accept this situation or do we start to challenge this perverted view of what housing is and fight back against the system that perpetuates it?

Building the slums of the future


The Orchard Village estate in South Hornchurch, built to replace the Mardyke estate which allegedly had acquired a certain degree of notoriety, was supposed to be a flagship example of regeneration. It’s anything but, with residents experiencing numerous problems due to sloppy construction. Here are just two out of many articles focusing on the problems on the estate and how the residents feel betrayed: Leaking sewage and rotten floorboards: life on a ‘flagship’ housing estate and: Ultimatum for Circle Housing to fix host of problems at Orchard Village, Rainham


For a complex variety of reasons, the Mardyke estate which was built in the 1960s to house workers at the nearby Ford car plant, was allowed to slide into a dilapidated condition which was used as justification for its demolition and replacement with Orchard Village. The new development was built by the Circle Housing Group which is now part of the Clarion Housing Group, the largest housing association in the UK: Clarion Group formed as mega-merger completes A few decades back, housing associations were seen as community based alternatives to what were then perceived as faceless and impersonal councils. Encouraged by government deregulation, they have grown and morphed beyond recognition into powerful players in the provision of ‘affordable’ housing.

This growth of housing associations into ‘mega associations’ has led to a situation where they have forgotten the people they are meant to serve. The proof of this is the long list of complaints from residents at Orchard Village ranging from a lack of insulation in walls and ceilings and mould on the walls through to an erratic heating system and issues with sewage. These are the kind of complaints that used to be made about some of the council estates that were thrown up in the 1960s and which experienced problems pretty much from the off as a result of shoddy construction methods. Fifty years on and it would appear that lessons have not been learned and that Orchard Village is destined to be a slum of the (near) future because of slipshod, cheapskate construction. Sure, the exterior appearance of the buildings on Orchard Village may look considerably sleeker than its clunky predecessor, the Mardyke estate but what use is a sleek exterior when the insides are already starting to drastically fail? Failing to the extent that while some residents are lobbying for effective repairs and compensation, others are saying the only solution is to knock the place down and start again.

What’s happened at Orchard Village are basic procedural failures in the construction process that in the 21st century should have been consigned to history. Seriously, how is it possible to leave out insulation in the walls and ceilings? Mould on walls? There has to be a wealth of literature dealing with the issue of mould on walls in public housing with conclusions on how to deal with it and construction standards laid down to avoid the problem happening in new buildings? So why, in a supposedly advanced society in the 21st century are housing associations throwing up building that experience issues with mould pretty much from the outset? When a resident says that the “whole story is a ticking time-bomb”, it’s pretty clear that the only viable solution is to knock the estate down and start again. Take a deep breath – we’re agreeing with one of the local UKIP councillors, Philip Martin who put this proposal to Havering’s housing chiefs: “Residents’ lives have been blighted by the substandard building work that has taken place. The only solution is its demolition and complete reconstruction.”

Seriously, the situation at Orchard Village is a fucking disgrace and heads need to start rolling pretty damn soon. What this shows is that the model for delivering housing, particularly ‘affordable’ housing is broken and beyond any form of redemption if the result is the slums of the (near) future that have been thrown up at Orchard Village. Until residents are fully involved in the development of new housing, we’re going to see this crap happening time and time again. Full resident involvement in their housing provision is only going to happen after some considerable social and political upheaval. Given that housing is a basic necessity, perhaps it’s time we started to bring that upheaval about…