18th September 2000
Attention : Ashley Hook, Acting Head of Housing
Copy to Committee members Lewisham Council and others.
Replying to the points as they were addressed the Executive Committee
Meeting of Lewsham Council - 26th July 2000.
To put it simply, we believe your decant of Aragon Tower, and proposed
decant of Barfleur from September 2000, has not been approved ! This
raises in our mind that it may be illegal.
Point 2.7 Your 1999 survey was to the whole of Pepys estate, and not individual
blocks. Home visits to Barfleur should have been not have been carried
out until they had been informed of their Right To Return as this would
influence their decision on the question of decanting.
How many Public meetings have you held for all the Barfleur tenants, for
example ?
Point 3.3(a) From the survey you conducted in 1999 - which was misleading
as over 80% of the questions were not linked to Form B - you used this
to divert from the original Form B proposal to complete Estate Action
for the whole of Pepys Estate. We need to see a copy of the new Form
B please send through. Can you also review your reasoning behind the
new Form B proposal ?
Point 3.3(c) Can you clarify as to exactly what the nature of the consultation
was ?
Point 4.1 When are the marketing proposals for Aragon Tower to be decided
? We believe the deadline was 28th July 2000 ?
Point 5.5 It is evident that Lewisham have not yet applied under Ground
10A. When is the application to be submitted ? What consultation with
tenants has to take place ?
Point 6.1 We have been informed that 1.3m has been allocated - out of
Estate Action - to pay for these properties. This would value them at
100K each. Yet we have been informed that there value is only around
37K each by Lewisham Council. So why is there such a large discrepancy
?
Point 7.2 We are referring to the 144 tenants of Aragon Tower who were
resident before decanting began in 1999. They should all be informed
of their Right To Return.
Point 7.4.4 The RTB is a right in law, each tenant should have been constantly
kept informed of ALL their rights regarding their home. People take up
the RTB owing to the allocated discounts, which is an incentive to make
them affordable relative to income. Exercising the RTB indicates a commitment
to live on Pepys estate for a long time. People can only exercise it
once in their lives.
Point 7.5 The choice of HA partner has not been an open, consultative,
one with tenants and their representatives.
Point 9.1 How can we believe you ! The Council have used the 65% figure
extensively in a misleading manner to indicate that they have a sound
basis for a majority in favour, knowing full well that this is not the
case.
Point 10.3 This is a strange way to achieve an overall 'balance', if tenants
on Pepys are not treated like other tenants on Evelyn and Silwood.
Our surveys indicate that the majority wish to stay in refurbished low
rise blocks. The homes in the low rise blocks are very good accommodation,
better than most council properties in Lewisham. and elsewhere. Also
better than most privately rented or purchased properties across the country.
How many properties enjoy an open view at both the front and rear - not
looking out on to a street with other properties opposite ?
The exterior space design and environmental layout of Pepys is unique,
and should be celebrated and preserved. The interiors provide large size
rooms and are well lit by natural light.
Inevitably some 'modernisation' is desirable, as has happened with the
approved Estate Action on the completed low rise and the 2 tower blocks.
Which tenants now appreciate. Your other comments about modernisation
should have all been carried out under the HIP budget - which is the norm.
Finally, how is the use of Estate Action money approved to 'buy back'
former council properties ? Why not from any Capital receipts ?
With new developments in Housing funding, would it now be possible to
raise funding to have the blocks refurbished ?
Point 2.6 Your decant policy is only your local policy for Lewisham.
You have gone ahead with the policy before obtaining Secretary of State
acceptance under Ground 10A of the 1985 Housing Act.
Point 2.8 Receiving newsletters, etc, is not consultation with tenants
from low rise blocks. You have approached tenants individually to divide
and rule, rather than meet with them collectively.
Point 10.1 What actions are Pepys Estate Action Team taking to give things
like stress counselling, independent housing advice, independent legal
advice, etc ?
Additional comments in brief :-