Further comments on report, and reply from 24th October 2001
Introduction - "Self-styled". We require an apology for the derogatory
inference of this phrase.
The group was formed at a public meeting in January 2000, taking the advice of a FELTRA worker, and the recommendation was to use the title 'Steering Committee'. The reason for its formation was the dissatisfaction that tenants felt about their voice in housing issues, and repairs / maintenance, etc. None of the individual blocks had a direct representative organisation. This was in the context of Pepys estate action. Hence the long form.
In October 2000 The Steering Committee applied for funding as a recognised
Tenants and Residents Association to the Lewisham Tenants Fund, and was
successful. It also has a Constitution, and a Chair, Secretary and Treasurer.
It has a bank account in its own name. From April 2000 The Steering
Committee was co-opted on to the Pepys Neighbourhood Committee with voting
rights, and the Pepys Regeneration Forum. The abbreviation - The Action Group, TAG - was put forward by an original female committee member, now decanted from Barfleur House.
TAG has had frequent dealings with the Pepys Neighbourhood Office over
everyday repairs and maintenance, as well as more major issues like security
and decoration. It is through TAG's initiative that anti-graphitti paint is now being used on entrances to some blocks, which has been very successful in deterring this anti-social crime.
This is what will happen if Aragon Tower is sold to a private developer. The new residents will both demand it and make sure it is done. They will have a private, secured entrance, not accessible to local people. They will take over land for car parking around the base of the tower, and into Aragon Gardens.
We thank you for removing the abusive term " ... a move away from monolithic
developments of social housing", and substituting "large single tenure ...". Although we do not agree with the underlying premise of contempt.
Where is Cllr Gavin Moores' local experience of North Lewisham and Pepys
estate ?
2 Council tenants - what part of the Borough and representing whom ? Are these 2 councillors ?
In his recent statutory public consultation with Londoners, the Mayor
of London, Ken Livingstone, indicated that he favoured a change in planning law to allow councils to build council houses. He quoted 50,000 homes being built a year prior to 'Thatcherism', now there are virtually none.
2.3 The point is that there has been no collective meetings with ALL tenants,
or ALL the tenants from a particular block, e.g, Barfleur House, Dolben Court. As there was no final proposal to put to tenants.
To do it 'right', Lewisham should use the model of neighbouring Southwark
where they have just 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 The capital receipt for Aragon Tower of Pepys NC of 3.2m was stated
by a Lewisham Officer at a minuted Neighbourhood Committee meeting, Ward Councillors were present. To be spent on the estate to cover the electrical wiring replacement in all the blocks to bring them up to date with safety requirements.
3 We ask you - Executive Committee - to defer any agreement as the advice
presented remains seriously flawed, and an unsound basis on which to proceed.
We have funding to commission a community-led proposal for Aragon Tower
and the five low rise blocks. We now ask for the time to complete the initial outline proposal, and, although unduly pressured we could do this within 3 to 4 weeks. Executive Committee deserves the opportunity to view our alternative
proposal.
We will need to be informed of any land sale, as this will effect our
proposal.
We will ensure our proposal is a cost effective use of funding.
We have taken our own legal advice regarding Ground 10A of Schedule 2
of the Housing Act 1985. All original tenants of Aragon Tower and the 5 low rise blocks should have been consulted, jointly and individually, on their view of the overall development scheme being put
to Secretary of State.
4.1 The phasing of the Pepys Estate Action programme has meant that Aragon
Tower and the 5 low rise blocks have been at the end of the queue. Having to face higher heating bills, for example, and suffer the psychological effects of depression through poor repairs or maintenance. Seriously effecting the lives of these tenants compared to elsewhere on the estate,
in identical properties.
All tenants 'decanted' should still be in residence, paying their rent
and Council tax; and then be consulted on the full proposal.
4.2 An audited account of Estate Action needs to be produced fo scrutiny. As there is serious concern over the financial overspend by 1998 which caused this problem to occur, i.e, the Eddystone Tower Neighbourhood Office, the temporary move to Parker House, new lifts, and many other items. Not originally under EA funding. At this time 6m was available, sufficient to complete all EA works on Aragon Tower and the 5 low rise blocks. The Councils' diversion was
intended to spend EA funding rather than HIP funding.
4.3 The survey was of such sociological depth that it is one of the sources
of the Baseline Report commissioned by Pepys Community Forum from the Centre for Urban Research, Goldsmiths College.
It would simply have been better process to have been commissioned as
a separate survey - a point make at neighbourhood Committee - and to the individual blocks effected.
It was also proposed at a public meeting by Cllr Mee Ling, that any block
voting as a majority against demolition, would be refurbished. Clearly, for example, Limberg House did just that, voting by a majority against demolition and for refurbishment.
The Housing Committee of 29th April 1999 only had 2 members present when
the item arose. For such a significant decision this was poor process - undemocratic.
Your current Standing Orders have a minimum of 3 for a quorate vote.
4.4 Why does this exclude effected tenants themselves ?
4.5 This is poor process - refer to 2.4 - Neighbourhood Committee voted
for 100% social housing.
4.6 The Council have 'engineered' circumstances to reduce the number of tenants to consult with - refer to 4.1. Why do it this way ? If the scheme was so obviously beneficial to everyone. Do Lewisham have something to hide ?
5.1 The indicators are that a specific brief was set for this 'competition',
that 2 architects met, and one did not. The one who did not was selected by Lewisham and Hyde, with no tenant involvement.
5.2 Tenants had no trust in the process taking place at this time, and
subsequently. As evidenced in local newspaper reports, Neighbourhood Committee and Regeneration Forum meetings, etc. See minutes of these meetings.
5.3 Tenants were not involved in the choice. BPTW were the least preferred - for various reasons. The increase in density was a major concern, as the other two options both kept to the same density of 222 units.
5.4 Tenants were confronted with an option they didn't like, and had not chosen. The Council and tenants were in opposition, which is poor practice, as Estate Action was formed in the early 1990's as the result of very good practice - with a 'Planning For Real' process, where Officers, Councillors, experts and tenants worked together closely and produced a good scheme. The
then Secretary of State, John Gummer, was surprised that the scheme involved so little demolition, and therefore came to the estate to see for himself. He was impressed with what he saw, and the scheme was approved in full.
You now agree that it was the Council and Hyde who chose BPTW. Tenants did not know that the responses were 'inconclusive'.
5.5 This confirms that the proposal in 5.3 was completely unacceptable
and should never have been put forward by Hyde and BPTW.
5.6 This omits a deferment at the March 2001 Planning meeting, after objections
from Pepys' tenants. An estate visit was made with the Planning Committee ( 5 ), Lewisham Officers, and tenants. At the April 2001 meeting more councillors were brought forward ( 9 in all ), an Gavin Moore, Deputy Mayor, addressed the Committee under Standing Orders. An 'unheard of' occurrence. TAG has
subsequently complained about planning procedures, and fairness to the public attending.
Throughout the process 'shared ownership' was not mentioned. Councillors
need to be aware that 30% of a 30m scheme will result in Hyde gaining an instant 'profit' of 9m, as the money would be paid to them by a Finance House. They would not have to wait for the income to accrue over a period of time - as in rents. This also reveals why Pepys has been 'decanted' as there are not enough properties being built to replace those proposed to be demolished. For example, 30% of 261 is 78 units, leaving only 173 for social housing ( HA managed ); replacing 222 social housing ( Council managed ).
By 'profit' we indicate a large receipt of money, although HA's have no shareholders to distribute to, they benefit by increased funds to invest or spend. Therefore they grow larger.
Shared ownership is not available to those earning less than 20K per year.
5.7 We agree with nomination rights ... yet the first call should be to
Pepys 'decants', not 'urgent decant cases' which in this case equals Silwood tenants. Pepys should not come 2nd or 3rd as the sale to private landlord and demolition and rebuild by a HA is happening on Pepys.
Only Silwood have a large demand for urgent 'decants'.
Southwark tenants have voted to have their part of Silwood refurbished,
not demolished.
6.1 At present the proposal will increase from 367 units to 403 units,
and increase of 36 in density. At present there are 24 properties which are 4 bedroom in size.
Tenants need good time to view any proposals and raise any objections.
6.2 Tenants have not yet seen any proposals for the style and size of
Aragon Tower. It should not be out of context with the recently refurbished Eddystone and Daubeny Towers, as they are all identical.
6.3 We commend to members that you defer this decision, and undertake
to properly consult and work with tenants.
We are now commissioning our own alternative bid for Aragon Tower and
the 5 low rise blocks.
7.1 The decanting and pressure to Aragon Tower tenants is unfair, given
also that the full proposal has not been put forward.
7.2 The decanting should not have taken place, and should be halted until
proper consultation has been done. Individual tenants have been 'misled' in to accepting th proposition that they only have 2 offers, before compulsory eviction from their current home.
7.3 This pressure on tenants should not be taking place.
7.4 Again this pressure on tenants should not be taking place, especially
as individuals.
7.5 Again this pressure on tenants should not be taking place, especially
as individuals.
At present there are no negotiations with other leaseholders.
8.1 We agree with this. Our legal advice has concluded that this is the
proper way to proceed. However, Lewisham should not be going down this road as the tenants are NOT in agreement or being consulted about the full scheme taking place.
8.2 We acknowledge your agreement that the existing properties are in good condition and are structurally very sound, and your withdrawal of the 'monolith' description.
"Long internal corridors with no windows" can be overcome with features,
as many hotels and offices testify; as well as dwellings.
As you say our example figures are "wide of the mark", we would welcome your comparative figures on a block by block basis.
We will address the 5 bullet points in our own commissioned brief.
8.3 Building flats for flats is not a qualitative gain. The existing
flats are built to a far higher specification than anything being proposed today - Parker Morris. All flats are carefully planned in layout and facilities, the 'scissors style' cleverly accommodates increased density
over floor by floor building, they are well lit with good views, they benefit from solar gain all day, they are not overlooked by adjacent buildings, etc.
There is some 'sleight of hand' in the floor space indicated in the new
proposals, as there is very little cupboard or storage area, despite the gain of having less corridor access space.
The proposals put to tenants were for 'houses with gardens' - see Appendix
tables of PRP architects.
The 'phasing' of the proposal into 1, 2 and 3 offers no community benefit gain, apart from a possible community square; which was a TAG suggestion; not a BPTW one.
Can you define "Lifetime Home standards". The existing buildings have already been in existence for a 'lifetime', and will last many more than 'lifetimes' than the proposed replacements - if allowed to do so. The 'structure' of the new buildings are still a mystery.
The indicative interior design of the proposed new flats shows living rooms and/or kitchens backing on to bedrooms of adjacent properties - poor design leading to neighbour conflicts around lifestyle.
The architects of the proposed new buildings have always expressed 'contempt'
for the existing 1960's GLC scheme, so why should they "relate well to the existing buildings" ?
We anticipate there being further 'phases' e.g, phase 4, which will threaten
increased density once again, as well as open space and children‘s play areas. Resulting in a loss to the community
8.4 We will oppose any special plea to Secretary of State, for Aragon
Tower, given the circumstances in which it has occurred.
8.5 We oppose the process throughout.
9.1 We need an audited report to determine a view, to be able to put to
the Ombudsman. As we perceive that 2.18m has been taken from Estate Action funding when it should come from Capital Receipts.
9.2 We estimate the 'retention' as 400K.
9.3 We do not understand how the Council can forfeit rental income over
such a long period, as their public responsibility.
10 The GLC scheme has a proven lifetime, already, of over 40 years. Refurbishment will contribute further to this.
11 We need to see the budget to see whether Equality issues are in context.
12 Our commission will address these points.
Conversion is not the same as a specified number of disabled access units.
The promise made to people on Pepys was for "houses with gardens", not "flats for flats" - see other architects proposal for the 'competition'.
PRP proposed over 80 gardens, around a half being 'back to back'.
These 2 architects only had the 'one shot' at working up there proposals
- for the 'competition' alone.
PRP proposed the following mix - which meets the promise of houses with
gardens :
Dwelling mix. Proposed Existing Difference Proposed Type
Bedsit 0 28 N/A N/A
Total 164 222 -58 52% of 3/4 bed Houses
BPTW propose the following mix - which clearly does NOT meet the promise
of houses with gardens :
Dwelling mix. Proposed Existing Difference Proposed Type
Bedsit 0 28 N/A N/A
Total 259 222 +8 ? % of 3/4 bed houses
In circumstances where the demand for housing is greatest from Lewisham
people who need more Three Beds and Four Beds properties, and whilst there is already a surfeit of One Beds and Two Beds.
Current distribution :
Barfleur Dolben Limberg Marlowe Millard
Bedsit 0 28 0 0 0
Total 32 52 32 53 53 222
On the behalf of Steering Committee for Pepys Estate Action, TAG - The
Action Group
Mr S Greening - Aragon, Mr M Cadman - Marlowe, Mr D Fleming - Daubeny,
Now decanted tenants from Barfleur House - Ms P Devito, Ms M Dunn, Mr D Kenrick.
Supported by the Pepys Neighbourhood Committee.
2.1 The point is that the consultation means nothing if no tenant was
involved in the decision making. Hyde were not known about as being involved by tenants in 1999. This was an internal decision by the Council in the face of evidence that tenants felt very differently about it.
2.2 We note that you have not answered the outline of the report on BBC
Panorama which took 8 different estates and showed that mixed communities do not work if you segregate one block, for the very well off, from the others. On every one of them they have had a brick wall built around themselves. separating them from the local community.
The Housing Committee of 29th April 1999 only had two councillors present.
The Council needs to do a cost analysis of refurbishment as opposed to
demolition and rebuild. For example, a 3 bedroom flat in Marlowe House has been valued by RTB at 84K. Taking an 'average' of 60K per flat this would value Marlowe at 3.12m. To refurbish would cost only 600,000. To demolish would cost 1.2m, and then to rebuild at a cost of 80K per unit for 60 flats on the site would be 4.8m. So in total Marlowe alone would 'lose' a value of 3.12m and cost a further 6m to re-establish. Hydes' total budget from Housing Corporation is 30m, year on year funding.
This proposal heavily increases the numbers of One Beds and Two Beds
provision.
"Embodied energy" will be lost for no "qualitative gain".
Therefore Pepys has lost the benefit of this money for EA.
Appendix Only 7 houses with gardens in the whole scheme is a poor outcome
for all the disruption and cost.
Shaw-Sprunt proposed up to 80 garden spaces, around a half being 'back
to back', and some having a small front as well as a back garden.
There solution(s) are very close in result, indicating a set brief.
One beds 27 52 -25 Flats
Two beds 53 34 +19 Flats
Three beds 53 100 -37 Houses
Four beds 31 8 +23 Houses
One beds 89 52 +37 Flats
Two beds 103 34 +69 Flats
Three beds 60 100 -40 Flats ... No of Houses ( ? )
Four beds 7 8 -1 Houses ?
From the above figures the only gain is in One Beds at +37, and Two Beds
at +69 ( 107 in all ). The others represent a loss over what already exists of -40 Three Beds and -1 Four Beds.
One beds 16 12 16 4 4
Two beds 0 0 0 17 17
Three beds 16 12 16 28 28
Four beds 0 0 0 4 4
Mr L Brooks - Aragon, Ms S Jeffrey - Limberg, Mr A Djourdem - Millard,
Ms T Lane - Limberg,
Ms M Sanh - Marlowe, Ms N Nyaulingo - Aragon.
Now decanted tenant from Limberg House - Ms K Clark.
Supported by Pepys Community Forum - www.pepyscommunityforum.org