Draft for press article to The Mercury - October 2000
Headline - Pepys Estate DOES have a great deal going for it !
The Steering Committee of the affected buildings facing demolition/disposal on Pepys Estate would like to react to Cllr Gavin Moore's article in the Mercury of 25 October 2000 re: Pepys Estate has a great deal going for it.
Whilst we welcome Lewisham Council's Regeneration of Pepys Estate to make it one of the most popular places in Lewisham to live, work and study. We oppose any diversion from the Estate Action plan. The Council began the diversion in 1998, at their instigation, which has now led to the proposed demolition of Barfleur, Dolben, Limberg, Marlowe and Millard Houses. Also the proposal to dispose of Aragon Tower which we note was not even mentioned by the Deputy Mayor in his article. Cllr Moore stated at a Special Neighbourhood Committee meeting that no decision would be taken on Aragon Tower until a market testing exercise is completed by November 2000 and agreed to stop the decanting process in the effected buildings.
It is now November 2000 and all has gone quiet on Aragon Tower.
What is the outcome of the market testing exercise ?
We are interested to know and I believe the Pepys Neighbourhood Committee would like to know as well. We would all like to visit the 'show flat' in Aragon Tower that we know the council have had constructed. Oh yes, the decanting. That has continued to take place ...
On the issue of the Right To Return, we welcome Cllr Moore's clear decision to grant the people effected the Right To Return to their homes and the promise that there will be new homes for everyone who wants one. However, his officers have a completely different interpretation of what this means in practice.
There are still a few issues to be resolved on the Estate Action before any meaningful integration of the Regeneration schemes can be realised. These include the financial aspects of the projects.
Our understanding of the financial situation is as follows:
1. The permission to borrow from the then Department of Environment an amount of £37m, from 1992.
2. We accepted the figure of £8m presented by the Council as amount spent on Administration including architects fees, given that £29m were to be spent on works.
3. We believe that up until 1998, there was £6m of the overall sum remaining in the Estate Action budget; enough to complete the original programme of works proposed for the whole Estate Action over the period to April 2001.
If Lewisham believe that there was not enough to complete the project, then this was caused by Lewisham diverting funds to items like the renewal of lifts and creating their own Eddystone Tower Neighbourhood Office. The usual HIP budget given to Councils' to maintain their stock was suspended at the beginning of EA. Giving rise to EA being spent on items that would normally have been funded in this way.
To justify the diversion in 1998 via Form B to the Secretary of State, Lewisham commissioned an independent survey by PPCR Associates, which reported in April 1999. Controversationally Lewisham subsequently used a figure of 65% response rate as being the same as a majority in favour of a change of plans that could involve change of landlord and demolition - which was the result that they really wanted to have, yet did not receive enough support for through this survey. This figure remained the only figure from the survey used in the report to Lewishams' own Executive Committee in July 2000 - to gain approval. Yet the true figure from the report shows that only 39% showed any support for what we always knew was Lewisham's preferred view.
The survey only had 799 interviews which were successfully completed out of 1,314 homes ( which exclude Asylum Seekers ), hence the figure of 65% was only the response rate. The interview itself was a long one to undertake, lasting 45 minutes or more, as it included a complex socio-economic aspect, and was not purely concerned with the housing issue.
We note that the results of this survey were not mentioned at all in the
article - whereas, up until now, it has always been used by Lewisham ( in this selective manner ) to justify their position. Having just obtained a copy of the survey for the first time in October 2000, we can now quote for ourselves the many interesting results that it contains.
For example, the actual results were analysed by a total of 33 subgroups
covering economic status and Pepys properties. It reveals that 30% of residents have lived on Pepys for over 10 years, and when asked about their satisfaction level with the estate, of all residents, 8% were very satisfied, 43% quite satisfied, with a further 20% believing it to be OK. Giving a total of 71% taking a positive view of the estate, only 17% were dissatisfied, and a further 4% very dissatisfied. This attests to the success of the Estate Action regeneration through refurbishment.
In Aragon Tower only 28% were dissatisfied, before they were decanted from their homes from late 1999. However, the main reasons for their dissatisfaction were given as the poor condition of the windows, doors, heating and maintenance. All due to them being left until last for EA refurbishment.
The majority of respondents ( 67 % ) perceived the general condition of the blocks where they live to be satisfactory. The following reasons were given for liking the estate - location, community spirit and amenities.
With the 4 options that Lewisham presented on the housing issue :
Option A : Estate Action programme continues without change
Option B : Disposal of Aragon Tower
Option C : Disposal of Aragon Tower, demolition of Albemarle, Dolben, Limberg and Barfleur
Option D : Disposal of Aragon Tower, demolition of Albemarle, Dolben, Limberg, Barfleur, Marlowe and Millard
Option D was the option that Lewisham promoted to the estate. The survey also showed that only a small number ( 11% ) would consider transferring to another landlord. In addition if they had to move most favoured moving to elsewhere on the estate or to another council property locally in Lewisham.
Lewishams current method of consultation has been proved to be one where
decisions have been taken first 'behind closed doors' before being presented as a Lewisham policy to tenants. For example the choice for a change to EA has ignored tenants real views - as the real survey results clearly reveals. Next a Housing Association has been introduced without any selection input by tenants, and then a group of architects emerged from a 'competition' of three architectural groups without tenants approval of the final choice. Therefore the statement that this "was chosen as the best way forward to complete the renewal programme" was all done by Lewisham and is simply not in accordance with tenants wishes.
Again - "Tenants are now being asked to help decide what form the new homes will take". Yet the Steering Committee is refusing to attend these meetings as the actual tenants directly effected have been given no stake in the community, as they have no Right To Return. So, rather than have "the chance of a lifetime to help in the design of new homes on the estate", they are being forced out of their existing homes, for no good reason. The present homes already have good views of the riverside and look out on to open green spaces. What they do need is the refurbishment already completed on the rest of the estate.
We do agree that "Pepys estate has a great deal going for it in an attractive
riverside location in the heart of historic Deptford and an established
community". We have said this repeatedly to the Council over the last two years. Why are the Council now so determined to break up this "established
community" ?
We also welcome Councillor Gavin Moore's unambiguous statement - "If I live in one of the blocks that are to be demolished will I be able to return ? Yes. There will be new homes on the estate for everyone who has said that they want to return". Which clearly gives the Right To Return to everyone. Thank you, Gavin ! Please now issue a letter to every tenant effected giving them the Right To Return, including those already decanted.
The chosen architects by Lewisham, did not follow the brief, evident in the submissions by the other two architects, as they propose to increase the density of the properties up to around 260. From the existing 224. They also propose to ignore the existing "footprint", destroying the context of the open green spaces that is such a unique feature of Pepys estate. At the same time the proposed new properties would have much less view on to the riverside, as the existing sight lines are to be abandoned in the search to pack in more properties.
The historical buildings of the Foreshore are being ignored in architectural
and cultural significance by having a 12-storey tower block built either side, one in the existing Aragon Square, and the other in the childrens play area. Another aspect of the plan is to remove our proposed wildlife area in favour of more buildings, which in its turn would also block the view of others. These architects have also not taken in to account that the site is located in a red warning flood area. The flood plain extends from the existing riverside to New Cross Gate station. Hence many properties intended for demolition that are built close to the riverbank in Deptford are built on stilts, specifically for this reason. It will cost far more to demolish and rebuild new properties of this construction than it will to refurbish them owing to the 'in situ' build of the existing buildings, like need for very deep foundations at about 60 foot being required.
Lewisham simply got the whole thing completely wrong from the beginning. Now they need to stop what they are doing and talk to those people who know best - the people who live on Pepys.
29th October - Copy to Pat Greenwood, reporter for The Mercury.
Has Aragon Tower been sold to a private buyer ?
31% Ranking this as 1 ( out of a ranking 1 to 5 )
14% Ranking this as 1
11% Ranking this as 1
39% Ranking this as 1 - yet another 38% ranked it lower