Malcolm Cadman - May 2004

This part of the objection addresses the Statement of Reasons, the original numbering is followed.

1 - Brief Description of the Order Land

1.1 Agreed in approximate land site area.
Yet the parcel of land comprises a Phase 3 in a redevelopment scheme.
The funding for the overall scheme has changed since the then Secretary of State first granted approval in May 2002.
The funding was initially applied for from Housing Corporation Grant.
Subsequently an announcement has been made that it will be included as a "sub-region" of the Thames Gateway. On which there has been no public consultation or local involvement.

The sale of the land - to Hyde Housing Association will produce a Capital Receipt to LBL of :

�1,650,000 - estimated for Marlowe House - 100% usable by LBL,
�1,650,000 - estimated for Millard House - 100% usable by LBL.
Total Capital Receipt - �3.3m - for the parcel of land.

The sale of the land will lose LBL ownership.
After the first 5 years LBL will lose all control and nomination right for tenancies ( Assured ).
The site is well located with already well landscaped open park and river Thames view.

A concern is that in the short term - 3 to 5 years - many properties will be then re-purchased by others from the initial occupants ( both from new Assured tenancies and Shared Ownership ).

In the medium term - 5 to 15 years - all of the properties will be outside of the "affordable homes" meaning, as they will have become a part of the London housing property speculative market.

None of the homes will be for social housing. The purpose for which the Pepys estate was built. So that none of the new home will be for social housing - a massive loss to the local community.

1.2 Agreed in property numbers.
Yet all of the properties are 100% Secure Council tenancies - for social housing.
A loss of social housing stock, at affordable rents and Secure tenure that meet the high local demand for genuinely affordable social family housing.
The average income of Lewisham Council secure tenants is low at �8.5K
( Source - LBL Housing Investment Strategy 2004-2007 )

1.3 Agreed in general description of property type.
Yet Marlowe and Millard are 2 out of 10 identical property types on the estate. 8 of the 10 of this type were successfully refurbished under Pepys Estate Action 1990-2001, and are fully occupied by social housing tenants.
Marlowe and Millard were a part of this same scheme, yet in the last phase of the scheme.
Refurbishment works scheduled for 1999-2001 were diverted from.
The Deputy Mayor of Lewisham, and lead Member for Regeneration, recently stated that he had understood Marlowe and Millard Houses to be a of a different property type - which is clearly a wrong understanding.

The properties are structurally sound.
Refurbishment is much more environmentally friendly than demolition - which is an extreme reaction to housing provision - embodied energy is then preserved, and will greatly extend lifetime investment.
The properties are built to a much higher standard of interior spatial dimensions - Parker-Morris - than todays' "new build".
The new build is using exactly the same site, same footprint.
The Pepys scheme won a Design Award in the 1980's.

In physical terms, Marlowe and Millard are not properties where demolition would ever be contemplated. There are other policy decisions at work here, which don't make common sense.

The history of Local Authorities and planning decisions records many examples where properties of all ages have been lost to future use. Ironically, those that are preserved become sought after and re-occupied later by the middle classes, who may, in some case have abandoned them in the first place.

The Pepys estate is a large social housing estate, built for the benefit of Londoners.
It was formally opened by the late Lord Mountbatten for that purpose, the uncle to Prince Charles.
A piecemeal breaking up of this vision - by leading GLC architect Ted Hollandby - is now taking place.
Yet there is no brave "new vision" as a replacement for the 21st century.

1.4 Agreed.
Yet the Right to Buy notices under Section 122 of the Housing Act 1985 are known to been made in the earlier part of 2003. Some 16 months prior to CPO 2004.

1.5 Agreed in the first part.
Yet most tenants are unaware that their right to exercise Right to Buy is still unaffected by the redevelopment scheme proposal. They believe they have no rights, particularly as LBL have served a Notice of Seeking Possession Order, on Marlowe and Millard Houses, effective from November 2003.
The latter being the third such attempt, the previous two having contained technical errors.

1.6 Not agreed.
All of the properties fall under the Secure Council tenancy at controlled and affordable rents and tenure conditions, as outlined in the LBL Secure Tenants Agreement.
Out of the 106 properties it is estimated that over 80 were Secure tenants - as at mid-2003 when rehousing by agreement was implemented by LBL for Marlowe House, as well as the few leaseholders and RTB applications in progress.
( An earlier effort had been made for Millard House in late 2002, with little effective result ).
The remainder of the occupiers either do not have tenancy rights, for various reasons, or have a short-term lease of varying duration in place from LBL.

LBL hold accurate figures that they can disclose.

2 - Purpose of Acquisition and Statement of Case

2.1 Agreed in its very simplified generality.
Yet Pepys was an innovative scheme which was very revolutionary in its day.
It was very popular with the initial occupiers, many of whom have lived all or the greater part of their lives on Pepys. Thereby establishing a thriving community and mature one which exists to this today.

The site was the former Royal Victoria Victualling Yard. Providing hundreds of local jobs. With many important historical buildings and references. The GLC architects - led by Ted Hollandby ( died 1999 ) - preserved the historical context at great expense financially to the public purse, e.g, the listed Georgian buildings, whilst innovating a radical new design concept of "scissors construction".
The innovation with latter gives most flats a maisonette construction of 2 or more floor levels. With clear views both front and rear to open park land or river, and that are not in themselves overlooked by neighbours.

Interiors are both very spacious and very well lit by natural daylight, as well as being well ventilated ( which in itself was a reaction to previous slum dwellings which had given rise to poor health conditions in the 10920's, 1930's, 1940's ).

In addition, after the Second World War, in the 1950's and the 1960's there was a feeling and optimism to build homes "fit for heroes". As the site is that of former British Naval history, and Deptford was heavily bombed during WW2, along with the East End of London and the Docks. It is not surprising that such an ambitious scheme was attempted and successfully completed.

The some of the innovative features of Pepys in brief are :

� Flats at a high density, yet compensation of a great deal of open green park and space, for everyone to enjoy. Particularly safe and overlooked spaces for children to play.
� Modern interior features - spacious, good views, well lit, airy, separate kitchens, bath and toilet, etc.
� Community facilities on site - Community Centre, Youth Centre, Resource Centre/Library, Shops.
� Cars separated from people. Walkways over local roads, ramp access for pedestrians.

References :
GLC Archives - historical site and planning records.
Hazle, McCormack, Young - Estate Action Report for LBL - 1992.

2.2 Agreed.- in the first part.
Marlowe and Millard were scheduled for refurbishment in Pepys Estate Action for 1997-1998.
Dolben Court was scheduled earlier, shortly after the beginning - 1993-1994 - and received some refurbishment, like new double-glazing.
Dolben Court has since been demolished under Phase 1 of the Hyde redevelopment scheme. Wasting this earlier investment, as well as the embodied energy and resources of the build.
No mention is made of Limberg House, which also received some refurbishment is 1993-1994, and has also now been demolished in Phase 2 of the Hyde scheme.
Again wasting earlier investment resources through public funding.
The Limberg House site is exceptionally well located.

The costs of the Estate Action scheme :

�28.6m plus �1.8m CRS, with Family Housing and Deptford City Challenge funding totalling �39m.

Audited accounts for this spending have never been produced. I wish to see them produced. LBL used EA funding to relocate its own Neighbourhood Office to Parker House, and then to refurbish new offices at the base of Eddystone Tower. Which was not a part of EA funding.

2.3 Not agreed in intention.

2.3.2 The then Pepys Neighbourhood Committee only understood the option to be to consider 100% affordable social housing to a Housing Association.
No private developer was ever agreed to by the community for Aragon Tower.
This has always been LbL's own intention, held back from the community.

2.3.3 LBL "consult but do not listen" is a common view amongst local people and community activists.

Consultation means nothing if no tenant was involved in the decision making.
Hyde were not known about as being involved by tenants in 1999 - who became the redevelopment partner. This was an internal decision by the Council in the face of evidence that tenants felt very differently about it.

There were no collective meetings with ALL tenants, or ALL the tenants from a particular tenanted block, e.g, Barfleur House, Dolben Court, Marlowe House,etc. As there was no final proposal to put to tenants.

To do it 'right', Lewisham should have used the model of neighbouring Southwark where they sent a 200 page proposal document to everyone of 2,700 households on the Aylesbury estate - Southwarks largest estate - for a ballot on a �234m regeneration scheme.
See report in South London Press, Tuesday, November 13, 2001, page 7.

2.4 Not agreed.
Managing and monitoring of EA funding was the issue of concern by tenant representatives - "money being spread too thinly" is an LBL phrase, not a tenant phrase; that seems to have been used over and over again. Yet no mention ever made of the spending by themselves on the new Neighbourhood Offices at the base of Eddystone Tower. What did this actually cost from EA funding ?

2.4.1 The estate is now popular, following Estate Action. Although there will always be difficulties. Aragon Tower had no works in the late 1990's, and from 1999 to 2004 was subject to tenants being rehoused by LBL, pending future redevelopment - so no investment made, and a low concern.
Eddystone Tower and Daubeny Tower - 2 identical 24 storey tower blocks - are fully occupied, and people like living there. Following the EA investment.
In addition many tenants of Aragon Tower have re-located to one of the other 2 tower blocks.
So, unpopularity is a weak argument. It depends on the quality of the facility and service provided.
People with families will always want to move on from a tower block if a housing opportunity arises, yet many people enjoy high-rise living.
When the standard is good they enjoy it even more - hence the privately re-furbished Aragon Tower will be fully let - not like point 2.4.1 - "low in popularity".
So, the argument against high-rise living is a false one. And obviously contradicted by the proposed private re-furbishment of Aragon Tower.
Currently being marketed as "Zed-Bed living for the 21st Century".

2.4.2 Figures need to be produced for this statement, and the real reasons behind it. 12% of Pepys estate is always vacant, as it is a very large estate of varied properties meeting the varied needs of a dynamic population in London.

2.4.3 This is just a prejudiced statement - "blighted by vandalism and lack of ownership". Measures such as anti-graffiti paint, regular cleaning and maintenance, CCTV supervision, etc, are effective in managing any difficulties. Which is the landlord's responsibility.
Internal corridors have other features like providing warmth and additional security, and meeting with your neighbours in a secure space. That far outweigh these impressions.
"Ownership" is a partnership and social problem, as well as physical one.

2.4.4 What are LBL saying here ?
That they cannot manage "very high tech equipment" or provide for "sophisticated maintenance" ?
Clearly LBL do not want any on-going costs associated with management.
Yet they are happy to receive the rents, Council tax, etc, as income.
On Pepys they have received this income from 1979, when LBL inherited the estate, debt free.

2.4.5 The withdrawal of the concierge from the 3 tower blocks has reduced the service dramatically. Effecting the "welfare and safety of a large number of residents living in the tower blocks" ( 2.4.4 ).

2.4.6 Agreed - these works were not in the original EA bid.
Further funding is required, as always, for maintenance and repair over the long term. However, a great deal of this work has been carried out on parts of the estate under the Pepys Regeneration Forum, with the money diverted from the completion of Estate Action destined for Aragon Tower and the 5 low rise blocks. in effect many properties have had 2 sets of refurbishment works done to them; from the one EA budget.
So, the money has been "spread thickly in many areas on the estate".

2.4.7 Policies may change, yet important principles remain the same for tenants in social housing - a low rental cost for a decent home, well maintained, with a secure tenancy.
The UK is the fourth richest country in the world, everyone deserves to live in a decent home.

2.4.8 This may or may not be the case.
A sweeping statement with no factual documentation to back it up.
What is also hidden is that whole, settled, communities are being broken up for no good reason.
Clearly, LBL as making a high "Capital Receipt" from selling off social housing sites to others - Hyde Housing Association and Berkeley Homes.

2.4.9 Not agreed. There was adequate funding for this in the EA budget, yet wastage occurred. Which has not been accounted for in an Audit.

2.4.10 The very few underground car parks - in fact only 2 on the whole estate of 1400 homes - were not maintained and supervised, therefore they became neglected.
Community or private operators did bring these back in to use - e.g,the Pepys Enterprise Zone in Dolben Court, funded by European Social Fund, where arts and business were located, and were flourishing in that location.
These spaces were only "gloomy and unpleasant" because they were neglected from their original purpose, and not sufficiently encouraged for new purposes.

The small difficulties and problems with the pedestrian and road level at Barfleur and Dolben could easily have been addressed by relatively minor works and cost.

The garages at the rear of Marlowe and Millard Houses - under the Upper Pepys Park - were and are in use. Again the maintenance from water drainage / seepage from the park has not been addressed, allowing some garages only to fall into dis-repair. The landlord's responsibility.
The facility of having a garage is exceptional, amongst social housing, and it keeps car off the streets improving local security and reducing crime.
( It also seems not to be the policy to provide garages for affordable homes ).

The replacement Hyde redevelopment for Barfleur and Dolben - Phase 1 approved by LBL Planning - has no garages whatsoever - all open on street parking, with the accompanying fume, noise, visual pollution, as well as being open to crime.

The Richard Rogers Partnership proposal for the adjacent Convoys Wharf - 2003 - has all vehicles hidden from view in underground car parking.
( At least someone agrees with the 1960's planners, that this can be a part or a whole solution to parking management in densely populated urban areas ).

2.5 The consultation was not particularly extensive, nor was it meaningful. Tenants were regularly kept in the dark about LBL's true intentions - e.g, which Housing Association to be chosen, any private developer to be involved, etc.

The 4 Options in the PPCR survey. Local tenants representatives advised tenants not to take part in the survey, as they were suspicious of it, and had not been allowed to have an input in to its composition.

2.6 The interpretation of this survey has remained controversial ever since it was undertaken.
For tenants it is severely discredited.

2.7 The 29th April 1999 committee meeting was in fact LBL's Housing ( Urgent Routine or Minor Matters ) Sub-Committee - of which only 2 Councillors were present.
Yet very many people's lives were to be effected by any decision.
This low number was the poor practice under the LBL's procedures at the time.
Ms Jessica Leech, 53 Marlowe House, representing a "Save Our Homes" group on Pepys was unable to get to the meeting on time in order to raise an objection, owing to transport delays from her place of work.

2.7.1 The revised schedule of works was effectively enforced on residents, as it was LBL policy.
This was the second tranche of works to tenanted blocks that had already received EA refurbishment, and included such items as lift renewal, roofs, electrical re-wiring, etc. A thick spreading of money.

2.7.2 The tenants of Albemarle - 16 flats - themselves campaigned vigorously to have EA completed. They were supported by the Pepys Neighbourhood Committee ( PNC ) and the local Deptford MP, and opposed by LBL at that time.
Albemarle House is also physically connected to the listed Foreshore building.

2.7.3 Agreed that LBL's proposal for Aragon Tower - to the PNC - was for 100% affordable housing with a Housing Association.
Sale to the private sector was not agreed to.

2.8 The revised approval by Secretary of State in August 1999 was clouded by secrecy.
The diversion of funds gave rise to a "second spend" of works on already refurbished properties.

2.9 The appointment of Hyde Housing Association was clouded by secrecy.
Tenants did not get an open choice or participate in any selection procedure.Agreed that the funding was bid from Housing Corporation and ADP.

2.10 These "discussions" and bidding negotiations were all done in secrecy. Tenants were excluded, even though it was their homes and lives involved - life changing.

2.11 The 17th May 2000 LBL Executive Committee agreement to "undertake a full scale marketing exercise" for Aragon Tower was taken in secret, and not disclosed until much later.
The reasons for rejecting social housing provision have never been clearly given or argued in public.
" ... the belief that 144 2-bed homes in a 26 storey block were unlikely to make particularly valuable social housing even after comprehensive redevelopment ...", seems to belay the facts :

� Aragon Tower was purpose built for high density social housing in the 1960's along with 2 other, identical tower blocks on Pepys - Eddystone Tower and Daubeny Tower.
� A 40 year history of social housing use.
� Eddystone Tower and Daubeny Tower comprehensively redeveloped under EA in the mid-1990's.
� Eddystone Tower and Daubeny Tower each continue to this day to provide successfully provide 144 2-bed homes in a 26 storey block.
* Eddystone Tower and Daubeny Tower are identical to Aragon Tower.

"In addition the Committee was mindful of the uncertainties and hence financial risks inherent in refurbishing a block of the size and structural complexity of Aragon Tower ..."

Yet, 2 identical tower blocks - Eddystone ( the site for LBL Pepys Neighbourhood Office ), and Daubeny were refurbished. Proving not only the possibility but also the eventuality of success.
"... the major elements such as essential repairs, security, vandalism and environmental works which still remained to be addressed ..."
Yet these are subject to other regular budgets as well as other particular bids for works.
The landlords responsibility.

2.12 The Lewisham Housing Commission - 1999 - had no real tenant representatives on its panel, and yet the LBL Deputy Mayor and lead member for Regeneration was on the panel.

Achieving "building successful neighbourhoods" is perverse if has to mean in practice in Lewisham destroying existing well-developed and mature communities - with all that entails in both human and financial cost. And selling off social housing sites and stock.

There is no social science and urban renewal evidence that "mixed tenure housing developments" are likely to be more successful than "traditional projects of single tenure social housing".

The visiting Atlantic Fellow to Goldsmiths College, Professor Michael Stone, did not conclude or find in favour of the one against the other both in America and in England.

The problem - which has still largely to come to light, because so many of them are relatively recent - with "mixed tenure" is :
How long will it stay "mixed" tenure ? How long will it be before the "better off" take over ?

The 'social engineering' aspirations of "diversity of tenure to the area, helping to create a more balanced community" are disingenuous, when compared to the "significant capital receipt".
Not only for Aragon Tower, but also for the low rise blocks.
Which taken altogether approaches some �20m of capital receipt to LBL.

Why should a 100% social housing - Aragon Tower and the 5 low-rise blocks - be taken away from Lewisham residents at the time of London housing shortage and increased homelessness demand ?

Why, then later, should the Capital Receipt gained be "to help fund priority regeneration schemes in the borough", when it is admitted that there are still local priorities on Pepys still to be addressed ?

Why not, if the receipt is produced locally, is it not spent locally ? Especially as a loss of social housing has occurred. In addition - �3.2m - at that time, was promised to be spent locally on Pepys.

2.13 The interest in the "marketing exercise" has still not been publicly declared. The "community group" was Pepys Community Forum, who commissioned the Deptford Discovery Team to produce a bid for 36 Key Worker flats in Aragon Tower. This would both balance the impact of sale to the private sector, and produce and income to the Community Development Trust envisaged for the long term future of Pepys.

The "in principle" disposal to Berkeley Homes was done in secret - not publicly declared.

2.14 The "statutory consultation" begun on 7th December 2001 with the Aragon Tower residents was unfair, as by this time rehousing had been undertaken for 2 years resulting in only a handful of Aragon residents to "consult" with.

The documentation for Aragon Tower that went to the remaining tenants and leaseholders, consisted of just one poorly reproduced photocopy of a proposed private refurbishment.

The documentation for the 5 low-rise blocks, at least was more meaningful, as it consisted of outline planning proposals. That had gone to LBL Planning Committee, had been deferred after objections, before being approved, despite the community objections.

In addition the consultation happened at a holiday period of Christmas time and New Year, which disadvantaged peoples' ability to respond. Even if they 'trusted' the process by then.

2.15 This agreement to proceed was opposed. Yet it went ahead.

2.16 The letters mentioned have not been disclosed to the public.
LBL can make these available.

2.17 Each of these 3 events took place in secret away from the public.

2.18 Agreed that the overall density will increase.
Although LBL always presented their arguments as 2 separate items - Aragon Tower separate from the 5 low-rise blocks.

222 secure council tenancies will be lost from the 5 low-rise blocks.

144 secure council tenancies will be lost from the sale of Aragon Tower to the private sector.

366 secure council tenancies in all.

2.19 Agreed.
Yet this assumes no change in the Berkeley Homes proposal for refurbishment of Aragon Tower.

2.20 Agreed.
Yet the low number of 3-bed - at 50 - and 4-bed - at 7 - ( the latter only 4 for social rent ), shows the paucity of the vision. Only 7 houses with a small garden
In a London borough where the demand is for 3-bed and 4-bed family housing, to meet social need.

2.21 The quality of the "new build" is debatable.
Wood frame factory produced construction assembled on site, with an anticipated lifetime of 25 years.
The density of housing will increase.
The future will show whether the environment, modern standards, and a more balanced community ensue from this development. A younger age group will pre-dominate as occupiers, with young children and youth in the majority. The Evelyn Ward, of which this development is a part, already has an exceptionally high child / youth population. With a low provision of facilities.

2.22 Sustainable communities policies were surely not drawn up and intended to "demolish" existing mature communities ? Or is that the intention ?

Aragon Tower may be sold as 158 separate properties, yet this does not mean "at least 158 owner occupiers or private sector tenants".
Companies and individual speculators may purchase more than one property, for example.
Many new owners will not occupy the properties themselves - they will rent out and sub-let.
Many owners will not themselves be resident in the UK.

How many of the new 184 Assured tenancies in the Hyde redevelopment will stay in the hands of the initial occupiers - over 3 to 5 years, over 5 to 15 years ... ? The likelihood is very very few.
LBL only have nomination rights for the first 5 years for any Housing Association new build.

How many of the 77 Shared Ownership are "affordable" by local people?
2-bed flats are being marketed at 180K.
4-bed houses are being marketed at 230K.
The average social housing income of tenants in Lewisham is 8.5K.
Single income people and families even in the 26K to 30K salary income cannot "afford" to live there.

2.23 All properties in England "have a number of problems in terms of design and condition" - maintenance and modernisation address the majority of these.

The "older" nearby estate of Trinity, is now being re-furbished under the Decent Homes Standard - which has a number of problems in terms of design and condition.

2.23.1 The underground garages of Barfleur and Dolben were "let go" in to disuse and ill-repair. Community use or private letting would have made either use or income, resulting in maintenance.
The Greenwich Millennium site been built with extensive underground garages.
The proposed RRP scheme for Convoys Wharf will have underground garages, entirely for new homes proposed.
So, only largely private schemes can have garages ?

The Pepys Enterprise Centre was flourishing with community arts - beneath Dolben Court.
Cor Blimey Arts was relocated by LBL to another site in Deptford High Street, it still flourishes.

Innovative solutions were been proposed as long ago as 1992 in the HMCY report for Estate Action.

2.23.2 Any "confusion" was resolvable - if the will had been there to tackle it. The original concept made sense and worked well in some parts - separating pedestrians, wheelchairs, prams, cycles, from other vehicular traffic.
Both Barfleur House and Dolben Court had spectacular vistas to the riverside, from the undercover walkways, and all dry and undercover from the elements.
The initial tenants have always commented on how they had easy supervision of their children.

2.23.3 The number accessing is not particularly relevant - most public buildings or places of work have far more accessing their entrances.
The issue is maintenance, not ownership. Good quality provision and security.

2.24.4 Long internal corridors are not "at best, oppressive and alienating" - this is an overtly negative view. They provide dry, protected, secure access, and an opportunity to meet with neighbours.
They are not "blighted by vandalism and lack of ownership", which is giving up to the few who will cause damage to most of our public environment - whether it be public buildings, transport, etc.
EA works on other blocks have only concentrated on limited solutions - basic re-decoration and installation of some CCTV cameras.
Wider measures like anti-graffiti paints with textured surfaces, polished or tiled surfaces to reflect speculated light better, etc, together with regular high quality cleaning and maintenance. All need to be implemented.

2.24.5 Marlowe and Millard Houses have good security - electronic key fob access to strong steel exterior doors, internal corridor strong steel doors with key fob access, own front door with London plate and double mortise locks. All installed or improved upon in the latter 10 years.
Very much safer than most street properties with just have the one front door.
Most communal areas are in regular use or have some overlooking.
Cleaning and maintenance by the landlord are the principal issues - where LBL have failed.
Noise transmission is generally reasonable, as the walls are solid, and the arrangement of rooms with the "scissors style" means that living and sleeping rooms are not usually in conflict.
If there is any external noise at one side of the building, it less obtrusive at the other side.
With the installation of electric overnight storage central heating in the 1990's, the interior is warm, in addition to all the well lit rooms from sunlight during the day. One side of the buildings is always in sunlight in Marlowe and Millard owing to the orientation of the buildings.
Condensation and dampness is not prevalent, although it may occur with individual properties depending on where they are relative to others,maintenance issues, and individual approach to use.

2.24.6 Very little is proposed to "vehicular circulation". The changes may even mean easier egress by car or supply vehicles. Parking provision is all external, adjacent to road or buildings - no garages are to be provided, and the large number already in existence will be lost.
The estate was very cleverly designed in a pioneering way to be friendly to pedestrians and cyclists, and safe for children to play in overlooked open and park spaces.
The "home-zone approach" proposed is not "home-zone", and should not be confused as being such.
Ref : Home Zone Design Guidance - Institute of Highway Incorporated Engineers - June 2002

2.24.7 The "pre-fabrication" quality of the "wood-frame" materials used in Phase 1 was poor. This construction technique has been abandoned by the contract builders - Rydon - for Phase 2, in favour of concrete poured on site.
The existing foundations from the 1960's have been used, as they are substantial on reclaimed land.
Original proposals did not stick to the original "footprint". Tenants argued that they should.

2.25 This is deliberately mis-leadingly phrased - "seven new blocks of apartments and two terraces of large three storey houses" - there will only be 7 new houses built in the whole scheme.
All of these will be completed in Phase 1.
The entire remainder of the re-development scheme is for flats, at a higher density than previous. None of the new build will be for social housing - it will be "affordable" and "shared ownership".
"Although there is often a presumption in favour of houses rather than flats ..."
There is no "presumption", just a large demand in Lewisham for 3-bed and 4-bed houses.

The Tenants Action Group alternative proposal put to Lewisham Planning by Architects Campion, Pearce and Powell, did include a good balance of houses with gardens, new flats, and refurbished blocks of flats.

"The Council takes the view that this riverside site requires buildings of a larger scale" - this contradicts the Lewisham UDP. Yet it is interesting that LBL has never argued this point before.

The scheme will not "contribute towards housing need in the borough", as 222 social housing units will be lost in the low-rise element of the scheme, and 144 social housing units in the refurbished
Aragon Tower.
"Affordable housing", "Shared Ownership", "Private sale, and new penthouse flats", are not a replacement for the loss.
The ordinary housing applicant in Lewisham, or the homeless, are no better off, in fact they are clearly worse off. As they has been "cleared away", to live somewhere else in many cases, in order to make a substantial "Capital Receipt".

2.26 Agreed. Yet this is only for the first 5 years.
The Shared Ownership properties being offered first to "residents of the estate" has to be shown to be proven by fact.
The average social housing income of 8.5K is well below the cost of the Shared Ownership.
Hyde have already marketed the Shared Ownership elsewhere in Lewisham as "The Pepys"
LBL need to disclose the clear numbers that they have contacted.

Of course, this ignores the rented part of the development, which is the majority in the Hyde scheme.

2.27 Agreed in current planning approval.
The existing properties do have ground floor dwellings with gardens.
They also have garages on the ground floor.
The new build will have no garages.

Expecting a "Secured by Design Award", is not the same as actually achieving it.

The whole 1960's scheme for the Pepys estate won a Design Award over 1400 homes.

2.28 This is a conjecture - "the regenerative effects of having better quality homes ... that are expected to flow from greater diversity of tenure". The fact that has to be faced up to is an entirely new type of community, pre-dominantly from elsewhere, with a high proportion of young occupiers, who will be of child baring age, leading to more young children, more youth. The Evelyn Ward is already unusual in having a very high proportion of child / youth, and a lack of balance of middle and elderly people.

Another conjecture could be that there will be an increase in problems associated with children / youth in the future, especially as they will be so predominant. And the provision of additional facilities for the young is so poor.

This redevelopment scheme has made no provision for children / youth in any of its facilities.
There has been no compensatory Section 106 Agreement from Hyde Housing Association.

The "training and employment opportunities for local people" are transitory only during the re-build phases. No permanent training or permanent employment, will be produced.
Hyde and LBL will be able to provide the figures of the number of local people given training and employment, as well as any qualifications obtained.
They will also be able to give the figures for the number of external contractors and personell employed, and the figures fo the contacts themselves.
Rydon are based in Sussex.
One sub-contractor is known to have brought in its own employees from Brighton, on the South coast, to the site on a weekly basis.

2.29 None of these dates are those that have been quoted in the past. They are all revisions.

2.30 Many tenants and leaseholders were unhappy with the scheme going ahead.
They have now lost their former homes.
The figures for 2.26 - "residents who have temporarily decanted off the Estate but who have indicated that they would like to return" - can be produced by LBL.

It is believed that Hyde paid - �1,040,000 for Barfleur House - 87% usable by LBL.
It is believed that Hyde paid - �800,800 for Dolben Court - 100% usable by LBL.

The 2nd May 2002 completion was at the end of an agreement entered into in late 2001.

These Capital Receipts were gained in secret from the public, and the figures quoted above were not obtained until October 2003.

2.31 Many tenants and leaseholders were unhappy with the scheme going ahead.
They have now lost their former homes.
The figures for 2.26 - "residents who have temporarily decanted off the Estate but who have indicated that they would like to return" - can be produced by LBL.

It is believed that Hyde paid - �1,400,000 for Limberg House - 100% usable by LBL ( Estimated ).

The 19th December 2003 and 22nd December 2003 are new disclosures to the public.

2.32 Not agreed. Negotiations "by agreement" began earlier in 2002 for Millard House.

My Right to Buy application was commenced on 11th February 2003.

It is believed that Hyde will pay - �1,650,000 for Marlowe House - 100% usable by LBL ( Estimated ).
It is believed that Hyde will pay - �1,650,000 for Millard House - 100% usable by LBL ( Estimated ).

The agreement has not been disclosed to the public.

2.33 The commencement in 1999, and completion in 2004 - 5 years - shows how contentious the handling of this part of the redevelopment has been.
In fact Planning approval was only obtained separately in November 2003, four years later.

It is believed that Berkeley Homes paid, Part 1 - �1,050,000 deposit for Aragon Tower
- 100% usable by LBL. In July 2001.

Part 2 - �3,150,000 - 100% usable by LBL ( 2003/04 ).

Part 3 - �6,740,000 - 100% usable by LBL ( 2004/05 ).

2.34 LBL commenced an Order for Possession against my property - 47 Marlowe House - on 19th December 2003. I am defending the Order, and I have a Defence Counter-Claim.

The case is in process at Woolwich County Court.

The CPO 2004 issued by LBL arrived by recorded delivery on the morning of the 28th April 2004.
A date on which a Case Management Conference for Possession of my flat was held.
The Court has determined to hear my Right to Buy counter-claim, equally,at a future date in July 2004. As a salaried person I am funding my own Defence.

3. Outline of Proposals for the Site

3.1 Agreed. Yet all the land subject of the Order in already in use for social housing.
The proposed replacement is for "affordable housing" and "Shared Ownership".

The rented tenancies will change from Secure Council lets to Assured Housing Association.

3.2 Agreed. Although this again lost existing social housing, for "affordable housing" and "Shared Ownership". The Phase has still not been completed for first occupation. Although it has used new "fast build" "pre-fabricated" wood frame construction manufactured off site.
The site of one new "apartment block" was half complete, when the supplier went broke. It was then taken down and another supplier contracted. One existing new build "apartment block" was built with the materials of the former supplier.
Building guarantees need to be produced to verify the quality of the structure, and build lifetime, for this block, and all of the new blocks built by this untried technique.

The "fast build" new fabrication technique employed has taken over 2 years to complete. Longer than a conventional "bricks and mortar" construction technique.

3.3 Agreed. The contractor - Rydon - has abandoned the new "fast build" "pre-fabricated" wood frame construction manufactured off site; for a more conventional concrete poured construction.
The height of the proposed new buildings will use the existing foundations of the former Limberg House, yet they will be of an increased height.

3.4 This is objected to throughout this part.

3.5 This was done in secret - July 2001 and 25th October 2002.
Planning permission was not obtained until 13th November 2003. Decanting of tenants began in 1999.
All of the refurbished tower block will be for private sale. Far beyond the means of local tenants and residents.
The "additional 14 homes" will all be penthouses, commencing at prices from �1/2m to �2m.
An estimated sale value of between �15m to �20m, for this "addition" in height to the tower block alone..

3.6 A proposed scheme already exists - which is objected to.

4. Need for the provision of further housing accommodation in the Council's area.

These figures are now out of date, as the Council has admitted itself.
A new Housing Stock Survey is currently being undertaken, and these later figures should be used.
The 66% is an over exaggerated figure. Still being used here for its "dramatic effect".

If, on the other hand LBL still accept this figure as being true - then they will not be able to successfully meet the Governments' Decent Homes Standard between 2005 and 2010. Which, of course, defeats their own intentions.

The use of the phrase - "seven new blocks of apartments and two terraces of large three story houses" is deliberately being used, once again, to give a more than favourable gloss to the redevelopment scheme. c.f - real figures for the property type, mix and location.

This whole paragraph has been shown to be "economical" - c.f - 2.25.

The second paragraph is similarly "economical" - c.f - 3.5.

5. Planning Position

Planning permission for the Hyde part of the scheme was obtained well in advance of the Berkeley Homes part of the scheme. Even though decanting of Aragon Tower had commenced in 1999, and the 2 parts were submitted for approval together as "one whole redevelopment scheme" to Secretary of State in early 2002.

LBL found a "way around" something that should not have done in this way. Linking an "affordable housing" demolition and re-build to a separate private sale, with a penthouse extension for the very rich.
Aragon Tower only had a handful of tenants and leaseholders in residence when they consulted on the "one whole redevelopment scheme", and this was only one poorly reproduced photocopy of a proposed extension in height to the tower block.

6. Special Considerations

The properties are in the most prominent part of the estate, close by the river Thames, and adjacent to the nearby Convoys Wharf - the "best part of the estate". In estate agent jargon - location, location, location.

They are the amongst the most interesting buildings in design and style by the GLC Architects led by Ted Hollandby.
The scheme won a Design Award.

English Heritage were approached in 2001 for a potential listing of the GLC scheme, yet were dissuaded by the changes made to he estate in the 1980's and 1990's, particularly the overcladding of 2 of the tower blocks.
Support was received from Docomoco - a group who value 1960's buildings as an important part of our national heritage.

The properties are all for social housing - which will be lost in this location. Affordable and shared ownership are not a replacement - they are a different "type of tenure", that the applicant argues for, with some zeal.

The site is essentially reclaimed from marshland and river bed. The ground level of the site is some 18 feet ( 6 metres ) below that of the nearby river Thames at high tide. The whole area is in a flood plain.

7. Other Statutory Consents Required for the Proposals

7.1 The Capital Receipts are given in 2.32, as "estimated".
LBL can provide the actual expected Capital Receipt - a principal motivation by themselves to dispose of 106 Secure Council tenants and a few leaseholders and RTB applications ( only 4 in this CPO 2204 ).

7.2 The Secretary of State was perhaps unaware of all the circumstances - as the 2 constituent parts were very cleverly put together to not make it clear what was really being approved :
- 5 low rise blocks for demolition and re-build, by a housing association;
and 1 tower block for refurbishment, entirely by the private sector.
Clearly the latter is not for "rental", it is entirely for private sale, 144 refurbished flats to the private market, with the addition of 14 penthouse flats for the very rich sitting on top.

( 7.3 is missing )

7.4 Clearly the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in granting its consent under sections 32-34 of the Housing Act 1985, knew that the sale of Aragon Tower was for 100% private ownership.
Thereby producing a large Capital Receipt for LBL ...

This contradicts 7.2 ( above ), as there is now no "rental" element claim being made.

This suggests that it is OK to move out Secure Council tenants and the few leaseholders of a 144 flat tower block - at a time of housing shortage, in what is now termed as the Thames Gateway,
Lewisham Sub-region.
Because the well-off want to have private flats by the river Thames, and the very rich want the luxury of penthouses, for their exclusive use.

8. Any Views Expressed by a Government Department

8.1 Paragraph 7.3 is missing.

8.2 With an inherent contradiction - see reply to 7.4 above.

8.3 Agreed that the funding for Phase 1 came from Housing Corporation.
The change in funding was not disclosed to tenants.
The announcement was made in the local press by the Deputy Mayor of Lewisham that the Thames Gateway was funding the redevelopment via a "dog-leg" Sub-region to the centre of Lewisham.

9. Other information

9.1 Any application of this policy in my case is still subject to my RTB completion.
Any "offer" should not significantly depreciate the standard of living of the Leaseholder.

9.2 I will be significantly effected by this policy. It is life changing.

10. Human Rights Act 1998

10.1 Agreed.
The date is after the date of 9.2 - although the Human Rights Act was known and consulted on before this date. So the Act applies to CPO 2004.

10.2 Agreed.

10.3 Agreed.

10.4 My objection is that there is not a "compelling case" for the Order.
The site and property could easily be refurbished at a much lower cost to the public purse.
I will additionally suffer detriment in home type - a 3-bed maisonette style flat - by a "Decant Policy".
I will lose a desirable location to live.

11. List of Documents to be Referred to at a Public Inquiry, if Held.

The document list is incomplete :

From the Council :

It needs to include ALL of the former Councils ( Urgency ) Sub-Committee minutes.
Including those not disclosed to the public.

ALL of the former Executive Committee minutes.
Including those not disclosed to the public.

ALL of the Mayor and Cabinet minutes.
Including those not disclosed to the public.

ANY other documents and minutes relevant at Housing, Regeneration, etc.

ALL Council Policy documents.

ALL Council publicity material used since 1997 regarding the Pepys redevelopment scheme.

ANY other documents, etc, of relevance to be made available.

From the Community :

Pepys Neighbourhood Committee minutes and papers.
Pepys Regeneration Forum minutes and papers.
Tenants Action Group, information and objections to the redevelopment. And any other documents or relevance.