Changing of the 'guard'
Since the diversion from the Pepys Estate Action ( 1992-2001 ) was first mooted, around 1997/98 there has been a considerable changeover in Council Officers, and local Councillors, some of these are listed here.
The people who are effected living on the estate have remained the same.
All of these have left - Mike England, Lynn Clements, Peter Walker, Joe Montgomery, Emma Peters, Ashley Hook, Gillie Smithers, Helen Dobbs, Cllr Mee Ling, Cllr Mark Nottingham, leader of Council and Mayor Dave Sullivan.
Background to Pepys Estate Action
The Pepys estate was developed on the site of the former Royal Naval Victualling Yard at Deptford, and together with other land was a site for an extensive residential build from 1966 to 1973 by the GLC with lead architect being Ted Hollandby. Interestingly he lived at the Red House, Bexley, built for William Morris.
The Pepys estate occupies a major part of the only element of river frontage in Lewisham. It includes the 18th Century Grade 2 listed buildings of The Foreshore, The Colonnade and The Terrace - all from the Royal Naval heritage - which were converted into social housing living accommodation, at great expense.
The principal built form was 3 x 24 storey tower blocks, 10 x 8 storey blocks - all with a scissor or crossover layout of maisonettes - and several other 4 storey blocks. Amongst the latter on the Thames side of the estate Albemarle, Barfleur, Dolben and Limberg were 'stilt' blocks raised above ground level. Another notable feature is an extensive park setting, with most properties having a view, both front and rear, to open park land or a river view. It won a Civic Trust design award.
When completed it was a prestigious move forward in social housing provision and was a very popular place to move in to. The heritage of this is that many tenants has subsequently remained on the estate, and it is not at all uncommon to find that people have lived on the estate for 20 years, 30 years, or more. So there is firm evidence of a settled community to be found on Pepys.
The EA programme for Pepys began in 1992 and was planned to run for 7 years until 1999. In the event it was extended a further 2 years until 2001. At the outset It utilised a new and radical 'Planning for Real' format developed by Dr Tony Gibson where the people themselves from the whole estate, Council officers, architects and planners were all as equally involved. in thinking through the planning proposal. The proposal eventually put forward involved very little demolition.
This was so unusual for an EA programme that the then Government Minister, John Gummer, made a personal visit to the estate to see the scheme for himself.
The master document is the Pepys Estate - Lewisham Council - Form B Estate Action Submission, authored by Hazle, McCormack, Young, Chartered Architects, July 1992. ( Copy available ).
After the detailed consultation the option that was put forward was for Option 4b.
The budget was costed at 42.9m ( after submission this was fixed at 39m ), with 28m being the EA portion.
The other contributions being 2.1m from Deptford City Challenge, 2.3m from Community Refurbishment Scheme ( CRS ), and further 10.5m of private sector finance ( Ref. P.64 HMYC report ).
In terms of housing the proposal only involved the demolition of one block of flats - Merrick House of 44 flats, located in the central area of the estate. The proposed replacement was indicated as new social housing of 14 x 3 bed houses and 4 x 4 bed houses. The existing Community Centre and existing shops were to be demolished, and a new Community Centre and ground level shops built. Further new housing of 4 x 4 bed houses and 8 x 3 bed houses, and 6 x 2 bed flats. Together with a potential for further 8 x 1 bed and 4 bedsit units were also identified elsewhere as 'infill' to some of the stilt construction flats - Barfleur and Albemarle.
The schedule for the EA was set as being in 3 Phases - 1992/95, 1995/97, and 1997/99. Works to Barfleur, Dolben and Limberg were scheduled in Phase1, Albemarle in Phase 2, and Marlowe and Millard in Phase 3.
Although some works were done under EA to Dolben and Limberg - principally new double-glazing - none were done to Barfleur. Albemarle was fully refurbished in 2000. Marlowe and Millard were still awaiting their turn in Phase 3. The EA refurbished an identical 8 blocks, for example, Bembridge, Lanyard and Argosy were completed in Phase 1. Aragon Tower and Barfleur were also indicated as Phase 3.
Looking back to an original schedule - Marlowe and Millard and the adjacent riverside properties were in Phase 1. Yet this appears to have been reversed to accommodate the demolition of Merrick and the old shops, and the redevelopment of the centre of the estate first.
Note : Of the 4 unique 4 storey stilt construction properties only Albemarle now remains - 12 flats ( 6 x 1 bed and 6 x 3 bed ) - so this should now be treasured and listed as a 1960's building.
Hyde redevelopment, Phase 1 - 2002/04, has demolished Barfleur and Dolben ( some EA works completed ).
Hyde redevelopment, Phase 2 - 2004/06, has demolished Limberg ( some EA works completed ).
List of points :
People were promised 'houses and gardens' as a benefit both from Estate
Action, and any diversion from EA. One of the reasons for the formation of the Steering Committee - Tenants Action Group. Was that this promise had not been fulfilled, and that people had waited so long, many years, for anything to happen in Phase 3.
TAG has been well supported by families who had lived on the estate for over 20 years, or more.
Pepys is a well settled and vibrant community. With good tenant structures and communications amongst people.
Pepys has always had strong representation in the North of Borough.
This project has not given the 'right to return', and breaks up a community
evidently settled over many years.
In practice the 'right to return' would have meant 20% to 30% of people
remaining ( evidenced by other similar schemes like the Evelyn estate in Lewisham and other large estates elsewhere in London ).
This was never given. A special 'one-off' right to return to the Pepys area was given to Aragon Tower residents, although this came long after decanting had started for the tower block residents.
A 'wish to return' as indication was all that was approved. Which is so vague.
The decision to appoint Hyde HA as the Housing Association had no input from tenants or their representatives.
The decision to appoint BPTW as the architects had no input from tenants or their representatives - initial ideas from 2 other architects were preferred the many people who took the time to view them, as they once again showed the aspiration of houses and gardens could be readily accomodated on the site.
The former 2 points were so unlike the ground breaking 'Planning for Real' consultation of the early 1990's.
TAG raised independent funding from SELF and the National Lottery in 2001 to present an alternative Community Masterplan - at the vision stage. This showed that the houses and gardens promised earlier in the 1998 EA Diversion were still an aspiration and desire of tenants. Recalling that Pepys was essentially all flats. This fresh somewhat echoed the earlier 1990s consultation as it utilised a 'hands-on planning' approach facilitated by community architects working together with people.
The 'independent' Survey that the Council commissioned had also led people to believe that houses and gardens were on the agenda from EA diversion in 1998. Which was clearly evidenced in the long questionnaire used.
The proposed plan that finally emerged from Hyde / BPTW - only has 7 new houses, all the rest are flats - and even these houses have no line of sight to any open park or riverside views.
Front and back face flats - which is a design fault - given the location of Pepys estate as extensive open park space ( provided by the 1960's architects led by Ted Hollandby ) and adjacent to the river Thames.
Aragon Tower for private sale - now to be 100% expensive riverside apartments, from 240K lowest and upwards.
Dealt with separately by Council at Executive Committee / Mayor and Cabinet, and at Planning.
Yet presented to the Secretary of State as 'one whole scheme'.
Demolition of 5 low-rise blocks - Barfleur, Dolben, Limberg, Marlowe, Millard - 222 units
Refurbishment of Aragon Tower - 144 units
Overall loss of affordable social housing as 100% council tenancies 366 units in total
The funding requirement for the Hyde redevelopment scheme is massive compared to the EA funding diverted from, where 6m would have completed the scheme in its entirity.
Phase 1 - Barfleur House and Dolben Court - 8,777,302 Housing Corporation ADP
Phase 2 - Limberg House - 4,195,348 Thames Gateway Communities Plan
Phase 3 - Marlowe House and Millard House - 8,899,821 Thames Gateway Communities Plan
Total 21,872,471
13m Capital Receipt from sale of Aragon Tower, refurbishment cost to Berkeley Homes a further 20m to 30m.
5m further Capital Receipt from sale of low rise blocks, giving around 18m Capital Receipt in total.
EA costs for refurbishment - estimates at 2000/01 ( Ref: Appendix 5 - Pepys Estate Strategic Review )
Marlowe and Millard refurbishment 1.5m + demolish walkways, two new staircase towers 620K, Refuse 80K, Common parts 150K - Total of 2.35m. With adjustment for inflation this is approximately 1/5 the cost of the Hyde Phase 3 of nearly 20m.
Aragon Tower residents - no consultation done for over 2 years, concentrated on low rise blocks.
1998 Initial consultation - people led to believe that they had the 'right to return' and all to affordable social housing by a HA, no mention of any private developer. ( Ref : Pepys Estate Option 4 ).
The 'independent' Survey never mentioned a private sale of Aragon Tower, or any other private sales.
Had the latter been the case, part of the estate for private sale, known
about, then the feeling from people could have been very different. This is why the Survey undertaken is flawed.
Housing Urgency Sub-Committee of 29th April 2004 - only had 2 Councillors, who were not from the area.
When Statutory consultation did take place - for SoS, at the end of 2001 - only a very few people were then left in residence at Aragon Tower to then consult with. As 'one whole scheme'.
Timing of the SoS consultation itself was poor - over Christmas and New Year 2001/02.
The sites of Barfleur and Dolben sold for a Capital Receipt of less than 1m each.
Yet it is also believed to have employed a legal 'side-step' - as the 2 sites were not fully available as vacant possession as required under the 1985 Housing Act when contract for sale exchanged.
In addition no CPO invoked for Barfleur and Dolben.
Where did the Receipts for Barfleur and Dolben actually get spent ?
Did local people on Pepys actually receive any of the benefit from the spend ?
Disclosed much later that some of the Receipt spent on refurbishing The Mechanics Path, off Deptford High St, into Resolution Way business premises by Spacia.
Only a very small number of these are currently occupied, after being
available for some 18 months.
Crisis of London losing affordable social housing. This scheme has compacted the loss in Lewisham.
366 affordable social housing units - all at council rents 100% Loss Rent
184 affordable housing units at HA assured ( higher ) rents 44% - Gain Rent
77 shared-ownership sales 18% - Gain Sale S/O
154 expensive private market sales 37% - Gain Sale private
Total = 415
Overall 182 rental units lost and not replaced - Loss to Lewisham tenants
Overall 231 sale units have been created - Gain to Lewisham residents, others, speculators.
The scheme ( without the proposed revision of Phase 3 to 106 flats from
92 flats ) has produced overall only 44% for rental and yet 59% for sale.
From what was 100% secure council tenancies for rent ( and the very small number of RTB sales ).
Although it was never presented in this way to Councillors or Planning.
This is the actual outcome that will be achieved by the completion of the scheme as proposed.
Hyde have only disclosed - in the CPO documentation received in late December 2004 - what proportion of the revised extra 16 flats for Phase 3 will be for rent or for sale. This is to be 6 for rent and 10 for sale.
Revised figures for this will give :
190 affordable housing units HA assured ( higher ) rents 44% - Gain Rent
87 shared-ownership sales 20% - Gain Sale S/O
154 expensive private market sales 35% - Gain Sale private
( Assuming that Phase 1 remained at 261 units )
Total = 431
Overall 176 rental units lost and not replaced - Loss to Lewisham tenants
Overall 241 sale units have been created - Gain to Lewisham residents, others, speculators.
The scheme with the proposed revision of Phase 3 to 106 flats from 92 flats has produced overall only 44% for rental and yet 55% for sale.
From what was 100% secure council tenancies for rent ( and the very small number of RTB sales ).
The scheme will produce more housing with 431 units from 366 units - an 18% increase - and produce more for sale than for rent at a ratio of 6 : 4.
To take up a shared ownership a minimum income would be expected be 30K per annum.
A 2-bed is 180K - Source : Hyde 'The Pepys' new build 2004.
To take a private ownership in Aragon Tower a minimum income ( single or joint ) may be 60K per annum.
A 2-bed is from 240K - Aragon Tower refurbished 'Z-bed' apartments 2005/06.
The average council tenant in Lewisham has an income of 8.5K ( Ref : Lewisham Housing Strategy 2003 ).
Aragon Tower - all the original consultation and proposals to people were for a HA to take over, and to retain as affordable housing. Refer Pepys Neighbourhood Newsletter, as one example - Red Cover.
Section 32 of 1985 Housing Act.
None of the 'General Disposal' consents apply to a large scale disposal of vacant dwellings to a private purchaser.
Necessary to apply for a specific consent to SoS for Aragon Tower.
Allocated funds of 1.4m for Buy Backs of RTB. ( Ref : Lewisham Executive Committee minutes November 2001 ).
Took 959,000 from EA for Buy Backs, etc, up to 30th September 2001. ( Up dated actual costs not available ).
Surveys for TAG in 2001 of properties effected - Aragon Tower ( change of landlord ), 5 low rise blocks ( demolition )
- were in favour of staying on the estate, preferring Council to remain as the landlord and seeing refurbishment of properties. As took place in Albemarle House ( 12 flats ) in early 2000.
People given the impression that they will get something better than they have now.
General 'run down' happened in the blocks effected from 1998 onwards.
Reason for Estate Action in early 1990's to address problems by refurbishment.Marlowe and Millard wait for 15 years.
Tenants in this later Phase of EA were doubly-disadvantaged - not refurbished
for several years ( no benefit of EA ), neglected by Council in maintenance and repairs, and lose Council secure tenancy.
As well as then being invited to move away from the estate altogether by the later decanting policy.
In these unusual circumstances tenants should have been treated more generously with 'like for like', as far as possible - to compensate for the very long wait ( EA started in 1992 ) and the loss of existing home.
Council effectively 'tied itself up' with 5 major regeneration schemes being approved and active at the same time in Lewisham. Therefore no flexibility in rehousing as result of decanting 5 estates at the same time.
Tenants rehoused depress availability of housing stock to waiting list and homeless.
Waiting list and homelessness increases by other factors in Lewisham.
Pepys scheme loses housing stock to a HA and private sector, resulting in loss of 176 secure social rental units.
Many people on Pepys are locked into a 'poverty trap' of reliance on Benefits.
People in Hyde Phase 3 - Marlowe and Millard - who have moved into Hyde Phase 1 - Barfleur Lane / Foreshore - are even more locked into Benefits, with higher rent, service charge, individual electric and gas bills ( no communal services ).
People on average London wage - 15K to 25K - cannot afford to pay full rent, service charge, etc, from wages.
Very low number of RTB exercised on Pepys in the properties effected, only 10 to 15, out of 366 units.
Evelyn EA had an overspend. Ombudsman brought in, and Audit Commission.
Pepys EA - Daubeny Tower had an overspend of 1.2m.
HRA budget seems to have been suspended on Pepys. Taken from EA ?
June 2000 - Aragon Tower residents granted 'special one-off' right to return. Yet how was this implemented ?
Estimate that 6m of EA budget left at diversion in 1998. Enough to complete the scheme.
June 2000 - Joe Montgomery, Head of Regeneration, visited effected blocks of Barfleur and Limberg. Surprised by the good condition of the blocks and the way that tenants maintained their own flats, and their commitment to the estate. Despite Councils neglect of exterior fabric and communal areas.
Leeway new building on Pepys park.
Had a compensation by s106 planning agreement of 634,000 on new Community Centre ( CAC ).
Hyde part of redevelopment no s106, only a planning consent condition
for a 'toddlers play area'.
Which has not yet been provided for by the scheme.
Overspend of EA not documented by Council. Moving of Pepys Neighbourhood Office to Parker House during refurbishment of Eddystone Tower under EA. Also refurbished Offices to move back into - all taken from EA, yet not in budget agreed.
Addressed Executive Committee meeting of 26th July 2000 - item 8. The then local Councillor Mee Ling did not support our view. Unanimous vote to continue submission to SoS.
Council had originally consulted on Aragon Tower retained for affordable
housing, yet abandoned the principal - 'marketing exercise'. HA ( believed to be Hyde ) pulled out of bidding.
Marketing exercise done in secret. Not disclosed to the public.
Even now the revealed agenda item from Mayor and Cabinet concerning private interest in Aragon sale makes no mention of eventual purchaser Berkeley Homes. Yet an agreement was signed as early as July 2002.
Right to return. Head of Housing sympathetic, and Hyde HA gave indication
that could consider it separately.
Yet Council denied any progress on this.
Higher density - 366 units to 431 ( earlier figures ) - achieved by the redevelopment scheme.
Evelyn Ward in the 88 most deprived LA districts, index of multiple deprivation.
Mayor and Cabinet minutes 17th September 2003, extracts :
5.1 - "Council working to provide minimum of 11,178 dwellings in Lewisham - 1997 to 2016, 35% affordable.
5.4 - "Housing need in the borough is acute. The Lewisham Housing Needs Survey carried out in 2002 revealed that 9.3% of all households ... are living in unsuitable housing ... 91.6% of households living in unsuitable housing ... cannot afford market housing."
5.5 - "The social housing sector represents the most affordable housing within Lewisham, and therefore demand is extremely high. On 1st April 2003 there were 15,341 households on the Council's housing waiting list, and a further 6000 tenants on the transfer list."
5.6 - "Homelessness applications are also increasing. In 2002/03 2,590 applications ....."
5.7 - "This is set against a backdrop of a steadily declining number of Lewisham housing lets ... social lets have fallen over six years from 3,800 to 1,900 per annum."
8.4 - " Estimated Housing Stock April 2004 - 26,212 - 15,465 non-decent homes standard, 59%."
No one on Pepys particularly happy with diversion from EA.
1999 Survey was to the whole estate, to get a view, which was inconclusive.
PNC's view was that only those blocks directly effected should be surveyed. When actual results fo the Survey were seen, some considerable time later,
Barfleur and Limberg ( Phase 1 ) showed a clear majority in favour of staying. Yet only Albemarle was refurbished after the EA diversion. Marlowe and Millard showed mixed results around an even split.
Not fair to residents that the proposal for Aragon Tower was linked to the 5 low rise blocks.
Marlowe and Millard only included at a late stage. Yet 8 identical blocks had already been refurbished under EA.
Barfleur and Dolben had underground garages - Council failed to deal with adequately.
Dolben had European Enterprise Centre built into part of underground garages.
Provided a large space used by Cor Blimey Arts group and others like a musicians rehearsal and recording studio. Council threatened withdrawal of funding, and moved the organisation to Deptford High St site.
Mayor and Cabinet minutes - 11th December 2002 - Item 9
4.4 - "The majority of Lewisham's need for ongoing investment remains with its 5 major regeneration schemes. These schemes at Pepys, Silwood, Sundermead, Kender and Honor Oak will play a big part in helping the Council to meet its decency standard targets. The many sub-standard homes will be demolished to make way for new, high quality, energy efficient homes. Much of the original housing would be extremely expensive, or impossible, to refurbish to meet decency standard. The regeneration schemes also create sites for which the Council priority schemes. Finally, the schemes give the opportunity to create some shared ownership or housing for outright sale, in areas previously dominated by social rented housing."
Consultation in mid-2004 on 3 possible sites for affordable housing in Pepys vicinity. Prepared in secret, 3 sites involved two open parkland spaces and one local shopping area.
No one happy about method and nature of this consultation.
Revealed 4.1m available for affordable housing.
Yet Capital Receipt alone from Aragon Tower is some 13m, rising to 18m with low rises blocks.
Receipt only 100% usable by Council if for a regeneration scheme, else 75% taken by Government towards housing debt.
Recently revealed that HA's have received 25 billion in public grant since 1980's.
Decent Homes Standard. Lewisham is quoting a 60% need of homes not meeting the standard, and as a consquence a need for 266m based on 26,000 homes needing 10,000 spent on them.
DHS could easily be applied to Marlowe and Millard. Have already waited 15 years for refurbishment.
Request
Deny Lewisham CPO2004 for an full inquiry into the consultation and financial procedures pursued by Council on Pepys from 1998 Estate Action Diversion.
Marlowe and Millard are ideal for refurbishment and DHS owing to the sound structural condition of the buildings.