28th April 2002



Attention : Mr Kenneth Livingstone, Elected Mayor of London, Greater London Authority
: Ms Nicky Gavron, Executive Member for Environment.


via : D. Considine, Strategic Planning Officer.
: Scott Bailey, Strategic Planner/Urban Design.



Dear Strategic Planning Officer, GLA,


Thank you for your detailed reply to our representations of the 12th March 2002. However, It is evident that you have received only the bare facts from the submission proposal by Lewisham Council. Which is far from the whole picture. We reiterate that the existing properties are in good condition and structurally sound.


We believe the the underlying reason for the application lays in Lewisham Council overspending on the first stage of Estate Action on Pepys estate between 1992-8. Had this not occurred the full completion would have continued for refurbishment, as in other identical properties consisting of over 80% of the estate.


What has consistently concerned people who live here is the lack of maintenance and the tackling of major repairs - see also this highlighted in the CPP report previously submitted.


Local people are now worried that by the approval of this application more demolition of good properties can also happen in the future - that is Lewisham Council can keep coming back with further proposals for demolition to what they have spent 10 years refurbishing in the 1990's. Under the pretext of "upgrading affordable housing".


Is the new policy to continuously fail to maintain properties, allowing disrepair, then applying for Government funding to demolish, and then later go through the whole cycle again ? It seems that a 'lifetime' building standard in todays' terms is only for 20 to 30 years.


We as people who live on Pepys, and wish to continue to do so, have not known of anyone who has come to stay as a visitor to our present flats who is not amazed by the interior quality and spaciousness.


Your reply only addresses the 222 properties for demolition with an increase to 261 units - which is all replacement flats for flats, with only 2% houses. What about Aragon Tower - 144 flats of secure Council tenancies, being potentially sold private ?



You also fail to perceive that the new proposal includes shared ownership of over 70 properties, beyond the means of many of the existing tenants. Representing around 30% of the new build. This has the effect of very considerably reducing the allocations available for Council nominees in the first 5 years of a Housing Association development. Overall we believe that a considerable number - over 222 properties ( 78 + 144 ) - are being taken away from social housing by this scheme. The Council and the HA - Hyde - has cleverly 'hoodwinked' those with the responsibility to monitor their actions. This upsets many local people, who feel powerless to do anything about it.


It will not be a mixed community, as promised, as many existing poor people are being forced to move away from the whole area. As they have not been given the Right to Return.


The proposals for parking provision are less than current Government guidelines of 80% - being only 60%. Also the figures quoted leave out the existing unused underground car parking spaces - again a lack of maintenance issue. In fact fully utilised, the existing spaces would create ample or indeed a surplus of spaces.


The open spaces of landscaping and park lands - a dynamic vision put in place by te GLC architects in the 1960's and '70's - are being infringed upon. For example, Admiralty Square has proposed refuse bins to be placed around its perimeter, as well as a vehicular route with parking spaces.


The cycle routes are already well established - mainly by the existing tenants strong voice on this issue over recent years. They will only be effectively re-established.


The few number of houses to be built - 7 - will be stuck in an enclosed courtyard with views dominated by much higher built blocks of flats. Whereas the vision of the GLC architects throughout the whole of Pepys estate gave every block of flats/masionettes a clear unobstructed view to open space, parks, or a river view; most often both. By careful building and planning. Has design gone backwards in the 21st Century ?


Vehicular circulation is likely to increase the numbers of vehicles parking on the pathways by the roadside, as there will be reduced parking spaces.


The forecast construction techniques indicate that the 'lifetime' will only be 20 to 30 years.


You also need to note the following abstract from the Seager redevelopment report : Reg No. 00/47922A. Prepared by Lewisham Council, 13th March 2002.


Page 45 - "Ecology assessment prepared by Dusty Gedge who states that he has been a consultant ornithologist for the Creekside cleaning and greening project for the last five years.


The Assessment considers the likely impact on and the likely opportunities for ecology and bio-diversity within, the planned development ( Creekside, Deptford ). It also takes into account and considers the area directly adjacent to the new development icluding specifically the River Ravensbourne and the open land at Broadway Fields."


Page 46 ... "The report notes that Deptford is of national importance for black redstarts and the latest data that ( of only 15 confirmed and 35 probable breeding pairs in the UK in 1999 ) at least two breeding pairs were in the Deptford area."


So, clearly what we have from Lewisham Councils' own report on another scheme in Deptford is that there are only "two breeding pairs ... in the Deptford area", and that these are located in the Creekside area, and not on Pepys estate. Clearly the Council have engaged in a 'stretching of the truth' when they have included Pepys estate as an important area for this very rare bird species. Why would they want to do that ? The GLA needs to investigate both the intent and the detail of the information that it receives from local Councils. They are relying on the fact that you will not 'check it out'.


In simple terms it is very unlikely that the black redstart species is located on the Pepys estate, as the breeding site seems to be elsewhere in Deptford, as documented above.


To close, thank you for your information on Aragon Tower not being included as a part of the proposal that you have seen. From our viewpoint this is disturbing, as is was passed by both Lewisham's Executive Committee and Lewishams Planning Committee as one full proposal. Which means that Lewisham Council can use it in the future for any development involving Arsgon Tower. This is the first proposal to sell off a social houing tower block for private development. Nevertheless we believe this is poor practice.


Yours sincerely,



Mr S Greening - Chair Mr M Cadman - Secretary



On the behalf of Steering Committee for Pepys Estate Action,
TAG - the Tenants Action Group


Mr S Greening - Aragon, Mr M Cadman - Marlowe, Mr D Fleming - Daubeny,
Mr L Brooks - Aragon, Ms S Jeffrey - Limberg, Ms T Lane - Limberg,
Ms M Sanh - Marlowe, Ms Perez - Aragon, Ms J Leech - Marlowe.


Previous Committee members now decanted tenants from Barfleur House
Ms P Devito, Ms M Dunn, Mr D Kenrick.


Previous Committee members now decanted tenant from Limberg House - Ms K Clark.


Supported by the Pepys Neighbourhood Committee.


Supported by Pepys Community Forum.