11th July 2000 - Copy to Joseph Montgomery, Lewisham Council.

Qu.1 Clarification on the amount allocated for Estate Action on Pepys - 28m, 26m being from GOL. We understood that EA was 37m less 9m for administration. Is this where your figure comes from ? The 2.6m for HRP that you mention as Lewishams' contribution - why is that there, as it was understood that this was suspended.

In addition explain the CRS funding as a breakdown. Together with how the new
Neighbourhood Office at Eddystone Tower was funded. No mention is made of the 'overcladding' for the Tower blocks refurbished, that was funded by Deptford City Challenge.

Qu.2 Environmental work was separate, as 1.7m, from work on the blocks.
Leaving 6m left to complete EA.

Qu.3 How much of the second phase was completed before this was stopped and the programme diverted ?

Qu.4 We understood that the original programme was for 5 years. We are only aware of one extension of 2 years, not 2 extensions. 9m had already been taken for administration, so why were inflation and staff costs not included in this. That is increased costing that should already be covered in the bid.

Qu.5 The turnover of people on the estate since EA invalidates this statement. It should only have concerned the blocks effected. Many of the questions on the survey were nothing to do with the proposals for decanting Aragon Tower and the proposed demolition of the low rise blocks.

Qu.6 The vote was not a true reflection of the 2,000 properties on the estate as 799 were actually asked their views anyway. The 65% was of this 799, which is less than 50% of the properties that could have voted.

Qu.7 Why only 2 out of 5 - Hyde and Hexagon involved, and how was Hyde then chosen ? Tenants did not have any input to this process at any stage.

Qu.8 See Qu.6 - a majority of tenants were not in favour in fact, the survey was flawed. The consultation was only partial, and many meetings were forced on the local office by the 'Save Our Homes' campaign that existed at that time. For example, public meetings were called by 'Save Our Homes' and Lewisham officers were invited to attend.

Qu.9 The decision by Lewisham to change its mind. Why was this done ? How can Aragon Tower go to the open market and remain as social housing ?

Qu.10 This is different to the recent history of rent agreements that have occurred on the estate. Which are fixed for 5 years, and then reviewed. What are the implications of the RPI in 2002/3 ?

Qu.11 The suggestion that different income level people can live side by side without segregation has been proved several times to be a false hope elsewhere, and only recently. The better off have all segregated themselves from the lower income properties, in practice.

Qu.12 The intention to hand over empty to whom ?

Qu.13 If it is to be social housing, why is it that all tenants who wish to return cannot simple do so ? This is simply pushing out all the existing tenants and bringing in a new lot. What is the reasoning behind breaking up the existing community ?

Qu.14 A person in Aragon who has lived there for 10 years, for example. The amount of discount which is allocated to them should be passed over to them wherever they are now living.

Qu.15 If EA had not been taking place, these items, e.g, roofs, dust chutes and environmental works, would have come out of the HRP budget. Which is allocated for every year by central government. Therefore they should not be coming out of EA funding now.