Update to Pepys Neighbourhood Committee on the position of the Steering Committee - 8 December 2000

Since the formation of the Steering Committee in January 2000 we have objected to Lewisham councils' application for approval for the decanting of Dolben Court and Barfleur, Limberg, Marlowe and Millard Houses on the Pepys Estate and for the repurchase of properties sold under the Right to Buy ( RTB ).

The application is on the ground 10A of Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1985.

This is because the application is to sell the land to a Housing Association - a Registered Social Landlord - prior to demolition of the existing housing blocks mentioned above, leading to a redevelopment scheme of mixed housing. As well as redevelopment of Aragon Tower - a 24 storey tower block, of 144 flats, for possible private sector development.

This will reduce the 100% social housing provision on Pepys Estate to a new unspecified number.

A decanting programme for Aragon Tower has already been in progress since the end of 1999, without the Secretary of States' approval, and is now being implemented for Barfleur, Dolben Court and Limberg.

The diversion from the Estate Action regeneration begun in 1992 has been vigorously objected to by tenants and their representatives over this 2 year period.

Estate Action was granted to Lewisham by Government in 1992 for 7 years to 1999.

Later extended by 2 years to April 2001. The initial sum granted, we believe, was 37m in total, less 9m for administration, leaving 28m to refurbish all the properties on Pepys Estate.

Work has gone ahead over the latter several years, which people living here have been very pleased with. That is, until the council diverted from the original programme using a survey of the whole estate to get a view. Pepys Neighbourhood Committee took a unanimous vote that only the people in the blocks concerned should determine their future - these flats did not have tenants associations and were therefore not represented on the Neighbourhood Committee at that time.

The estate itself is over a quarter of a mile wide, many tenants and residents do not know where other parts of the estate are. Therefore they may not have appreciated what they were actually being asked to give a view upon. It needs to be taken into account that their own properties had by this time benefited from the refurbishment programme, e.g, 2 tower blocks, and several low rise blocks of flats had been subject to the renewal of Estate Action works.

We challenge the results of the survey conducted on the estate for Lewisham council in 1998.

Only 799 households out of a total of 1445 - which is only 55% of the estate as a whole. From this Lewisham council have presented the figure in such a way that it appears to be 65% of the total for the whole estate - which is incorrect. Overall the actual percentage reduces to be only 35.7% ( as only 55% were interviewed ).

The report containing this misleading information came before the councils' own Executive Committee for approval on Wednesday 26th July 2000. In fact the figures from the survey show that only 39% of residents were in favour of the "current proposals", and 33% were in favour of 'no change", i.e, continue with the Estate Action refurbishment works. This despite the fact that 3 out of the 4 proposals were for 'selling off' or demolition of low-rise blocks, and only one option involved continuing with the Estate Action programme.

This is 75% to 25% 'slew' in the way the survey sought to obtain its results. A way that most favoured the councils' own thinking at that time. Despite this all this, a clear 1/3rd of tenants expressed the wish to see the programme continue. In our view, had the survey been both more balanced, and far less complex to understand, the outcome would have been very different. Many questions on a very long survey form, taking about 45 minutes or more to complete, were nothing to do with the proposed change of plan for Estate Action - the decision actually being sought by Lewisham - which also helped to confuse people's response.

We have conducted our own simple surveys in the blocks of flats directly effected, interviewing over 90% of the residents, to counter the mis-leading information from Lewisham's commissioned survey.

We simply asked whether people favoured the councils now declared view for selling off and demolition, or whether they wished to stay and see refurbishment through the Estate Action.
The results of our simple surveys have consistently shown that all the blocks effected have a majority in favour of staying - if they could do so; and in having the refurbishment of the Estate Action programme as enjoyed by the other low rise blocks and the two tower blocks. Despite the Councils survey having already been well known to the residents as producing a different result that favoured the selling off of the one tower block Aragon Tower, and the demolition of the five named low-rise blocks.

Limberg and Dolben had in fact, already had double-glazing fitted in the flats and entrances, as a part of the Estate Action programme. Barfleur was due for refurbishment as early as 1994/95 in the programme, yet then postponed, and has not been progressed since that date. This block remains the least maintained of any on the estate as a whole, having not even having any security entrance doors fitted, as elsewhere. Marlowe and Millard houses have similarly had nothing done, effectively a 'blight' has been placed on these properties for the past 7 years of the Estate Action programme. Tenants waited patiently for their turn to come around.

The result of this has been to divide the estate into two parts - those who have had Estate Action completed, and those who have not. The installation of the new CCTV cameras clearly illustrates this as the cameras all point in the direction of the completed Estate Action blocks, and away from those that have not been progressed. A clear 'demarcation line' into 'haves' and 'have nots'.

Since the councils decision to use the survey results from 1999, there should be around 6m of Estate Action money left - adequate to actually complete the programme.

This seems to have been diverted to the parts of the estate that have already received earlier refurbishment, to carry out further improvements like CCTV, dust chutes, new roofs, and environmental works. Money that would have been found from the HIP budget granted to councils by government. It seems that this decision was made as far back as 1994/5 to exclude Barfleur from Estate Action - which was not consulted on. This was a long time before the controversial survey by Lewisham was conducted.

In 1998 the Council set up a Review Group for Estate Action, which had one meeting only. As all tenants representatives voted against these proposals going ahead, it was not reconvened.

Since that time it has consistently been opposed at Pepys Neighbourhood Committee and the Regeneration Forum ( a Forum specifically set up to monitor regeneration to the tenants interest ).

Reluctantly the diversion to sell Aragon Tower to a Housing Association was accepted provided that it remained principally for social housing. However, the HA involved, Hyde Housing subsequently pulled out of the negotiations, and Lewisham have been engaged upon a 'marketing exercise' to sell Aragon Tower to the private sector.

Throughout this process it has been very difficult to get accurate information about the real intentions of Lewisham council in their planning decisions for the area.

Consultation as been reactive to many rumours, and on occasions even forced upon them. There has from the outset been no Right To Return for tenants and residents, and their RTB has not been promoted. Pressure from TAG and through Neighbourhood Committee over a period of 4 months in early 2000, resulted in Lewisham agreeing to a 'special one-off' right to return for Aragon Tower only - this taken after around 90 tenants had already been decanted.

The tenants in the named blocks are still left with no such assurance - unlike a similar situation on the Evelyn Estate, also in Lewisham. Where the Right To Return was assured at an early stage. It seems that on Pepys the Right to Return is denied so that 'new' people can come in and live here. Most likely this will 'gentrify' the area, and move social housing into the interior of Lewisham, away from the riverside site of Pepys.

When Estate Action first began on Pepys in 1993 the plans included no demolition

Only one of the low-rise block of flats, Merrick House, where new shops have now been built - because the housing stock is in such good condition. The Secretary of State at that time queried the decision, as it was so unusual for an Estate Action to have so little demolition involved. This attests to the quality of the 1960's build.

The whole of the Pepys Estate, as a part of the original Deptford Naval Dockyards site, is of both historical significance, and is in the red alert area for flooding. The Thames Barrier was built subsequent to the Estate being completed, yet the Barrier is not designed to withstand the expected surges anticipated in the Twenty-First Century from the North Sea.

As a Steering Committee we have not been convinced that the low rise blocks under threat of demolition deserve that fate. If they were in such a bad condition then tenants themselves would be leading the way to have them demolished - as on the Silwood Estate. Yet this is not the case.

The odd thing about this too, is that the property will no longer be a council property, but under a new landlord. This will separate this part of the estate from the remaining council properties.

No one could ever object to progress in housing development and the condition of property maintenance. Yet none of this has ever been taken as a 'clean sheet' on which tenants could work with the council or a new landlord. It has continually been a presentation of an agreed position by Lewisham from 'behind closed doors' to which tenants have subsequently been asked to subscribe - within proscribed limitations, i.e, always along the lines of 'this is what we want you to agree to'. Tenants have never been trusted as equal partners.

For example :-

survey content not agreed with tenants and biased towards a decanting and demolition outcome,
consultation process breakdown with tenants representatives,
chosen RSL by Lewisham done in secret,
3 architect bidders chosen in secret by Lewisham,
open day for 3 architects' plans with only 5 days notice,
chosen architect appointment done in secret.

Despite all of this the Steering Committee has persisted in presenting a view of those who care about living on Pepys Estate. We, as a Committee, have not attended the 'Focus Group' set up by Lewisham, Hyde and the 'chosen' architects - because the choice has been limited to the one architect. Which is also the one least liked by anyone viewing even the 3 sets of plans presented. It too, is the one with the most density of occupation for new build. Odd that the Silwood Estate will have a lower density when it is regenerated.

However, we have an open mind on the possibility of some new development. To this end we are currently arranging with Hyde HA to view for ourselves new properties that they have recently built elsewhere, to better judge whether there is any improvement to actually be gained - despite no guarantee of the Right To Return.

If any new build were to occur, we want to see the highest quality - not the minimum standard. The blocks of Limberg, Dolben and Barfleur are of a unique constructional type - being built on stilts which offers many advantages such as :-

protection from flooding in a geographical flood plain area,
view through to landscape for the benefit of others,
allowing light through, so that blocks do not 'block off' and create cast shadows,
allow a sheltered walk through, etc.

The 'city wall' of Marlowe and Millard are not as unique in appearance. Yet they remain a part of a unique overall development that is the whole of Pepys Estate, having very generous and ingenious interior spaces. Both front and rear of all the properties enjoy either a river view and/or a park land/open space view.

On the behalf of Steering Committee - The Action Group.

Mr S Greening - Aragon, Mr M Cadman - Marlowe, Ms P Devito - Barfleur, Ms M Dunn - Barfleur,
Mr L Brooks - Aragon, Ms S Jeffrey - Limberg, Mr A Djourdem - Millard, Ms T Lane - Limberg,
Mr D Kenrick - Barfleur - Ms M Sanh - Marlowe, Ms K Clark - Limberg, Ms N Nyaulingo - Aragon.