re the year in isolation i pointed out on the post that the figure of 21 was in relation to 2006/07, and that the figure of 916 was for the year before (the most latest published figures, and also close to the 975 annual monitoring target)

I take your point for the three years in total however and it does paint a different picture as you say. However, adding on the numbers for 2006/07 (taking a roughish 975 as a total built, as per the annual monitoring report), gives a 4 year running total of 750 (729 + 21) affordable homes built out of a total of 2,690 (1715+975), giving a ratio of 28%, a long way off the overall 50% target in the london plan

anyway, the overall point of the original post was to highlight the shockingly low number of just 21 affordable homes provided in the last year. with large developments like the lewisham gateway set to only deliver 20% with a big probability that it will even be less and potentially zero, the overall position looks set to worsen even more

If you look at the Mayor’s Monitoring Report 3, particularly the data on pages 29-34, then the numbers look rather different to those presented here on your fair and balanced website.

The total is the same: 916 new completions in 2005/6, but the total affordable housing is 92. The three-year figure is 729 out of 1715, or 43%, which actually outperforms the borough’s own 35% target.

And far from being the 8th worst, the data shows that Lewisham is the 8th best over the three-year period.

So exactly who is “huffing and puffing” and who is pushing out “propaganda” … I think we should be told!

You’re right of course, but with the nosedive that property development is taking now I think that many of the more disturbing issues that we raised in our examination of the Gateway may still come to pass - issues such as the developers leaving a half finished job, or holding the Council over a barrel with further (inevitable) demands.

There was a funny quote being parroted - although delivered as serious - that there would be ‘parkland’ in the Gateway - if this is the case then anyone who has a back garden can call it ‘parkland’ in future.

However, for me, the most miserable example of the delivery of depressing ’social housing’ comes in the form of the Sundermead estate. How the Council, planners and architects can have conceived of such a dreadful scheme is completely beyond me. If they would have taken that tiny leap of creativity and combined the open space and the development into one concept then the estate would have been worth having. A tiny step for some, a giant leap for the Council.

However, get in touch with the Mercury reporters, one of them is called Keely something, I’m sure she would see there’s a good story in your facts, and its not an isolated story, but part of a degeneration of the Council that is ongoing.

good luck

mainly low level stuff been done so far, talking to locals, getting a feel for the main issues people feel need addressing in the community, putting out some leaflets about what’s going on, stickering etc…., i’ve been sending in letters to the mercury, south london press and newshopper over the last couple of months but none of them want to seem to touch the story from that angle (or they just don’t like my letters!)

i’ve no doubt that this development will go through unapposed with the usual splattering of guff about how the community was involved, how it is supportive, and how it suports & delivers on the community’s needs, you could automate the script for this kind of thing

the underlying issues however won’t go away

Good story, but why not do something about it? (If you aren’t already)

If you can prove your evidence (and I don’t doubt you can) then you could get a good story in a local paper at least - the Mercury is always open to a good story!

A written question for a council meeting perhaps.

Lots of possibilities!