Working Group - Meeting - Monday 3rd April 2000 - with Lewisham Officer
and HYDE HA held at the 1A Eddystone Tower Meeting Room, 7.00pm.
PRESENT :
Tenants and residents
Patrica Devito Barfleur House Repreeenting Barfleur
Lewisham officiers
Gordon Sandifer Neighbourhood manager
Minutes taken by Hyde representative, Noble.
These notes taken by : Malcolm Cadman
1.1 Malcolm Cadman raised a point of order - the minutes provided from
the meeting on 13th March 2000 were not truly representative of that meetings
discussion.
2. In response to a question by Simon Greening concerning Aragon Tower.
Ron Tedman referred to point 2.5 in Lewishams minutes of the 13th march
meeting. Hyde were considering a number of proposals. Hyde plans to
re-habilitate Aragon Tower to social housing. The top 2 floors will have
a different option for there occupation.
3. Malcolm spoke about the 'right to return' for tenants who wanted to.
Briefly outlined the case, again.
3.1 Mark Nottingham replied with the 'best endeavours' of Lewisham to
meet tenants needs. Although he went on to support the idea of a general
'right to return', although it could not be promised to be returned to
exactly the same place or 'like for 'like'.
3.2 Gordon had raised the issue with a management committee - cannot do
more than 'best endeavours'.
3.3 Mark suggested that if that was the case the tenants and residents
would have no option but to either go to the law or to the media to present
their case.
3.4 Dave Flemming stated that the 'right to return' had already been minuted
at previous meetings with Lewisham, yet later it had been changed.
3.5 Gordon re-stated that the purpose of this meeting was to discuss the
'new building proposals'.
3.6 Dave replied that he had initially not been able to understand why
such a meeting had been held, given the present situation.
3.7 Sharon Jeffrey asked why we cannot move back ? Is there someone else
who is going to move in ?
3.8 Mark suggested that moving existing people out, and then introducing
others to come in, could work out as a 'cheaper' option for the council.
3.9 Malcolm replied that any suggestion of 'cheapness' was a disgusting
thing to suggest in this context.
3.10 Dave put forward the idea that, as had been done elsewhere, this
should be negotiated. Not a single place on the Estate to anyone else
before those who already live here.
3.11 Dave also challenged the view expressed by Mark that it was 'too
late for a change'.
3.12 Mark asked for the minutes and consultation notes from the council
of its own meetings, as a matter of urgency.
3.13 Return to the area would not be a difficult thing to do.
3.14 Richard stated that the people who voted to leave the estate are
not the one's who are now facing having to fight for their right to return.
3.15 Mark asked for a flexible and imaginative approach to be taken.
3.16 Malcolm gave the analogy of a new plan for a Docklands Light Railway
station being proposed to be built on the land of owner occupiers in the
Borough. Obviously there is a social need for good transport links to
benefit everyone. Yet those concerned by being moved away and properties
demolished would be upset and seeking compensation.
This is what is happening to us. Other people have expressed a wish in
a survey to see our homes demolished and a change of landlord to a HA.
Yet they are not facing the consequence themselves. In fact the number
wishing to return to the same area would be manageable.
3.17 Mark suggested a figure of around 10% based on previous experience
of decanting.
3.18 Malcolm replied that on Pepys the current indications were more like
40% to 50% would want to return if they really had the opportunity to
do so. Pepys has its unique features of open park and river views for
all tenants and residents. As well as an established community.
The Governments policy is for social inclusion, and Pepys could be a good
example of this.
3.19 Sharon said that she and many others would expect to have 'better'
than they have got now when returning to the same area on the estate.
3.20 Gordon suggested that he could draught up a simple questionnaire
listing a number of options.
3.22 Gordon indicated that for legal reasons he was unable to do anything
else than what had already been indicated.
3.23 Simon stated that there was no point in continuing with this meeting.
There had also been no mention of Aragon in the specific discussions.
3.24 Malcolm agreed that the meeting should close at this point as the
right to return needed to be clearly written down and 'guaranteed' before
any further progress could be made.
The purpose of meeting with Lewisham and Hyde was to establish some working
relationship on which to proceed. Clearly this could not go forward at
present. Apologised to Hyde for not proceeding with any other agenda
items, as they had indicated a willingness to work with people.
3.25 Mark suggested that a way forward for the Estate action Steering
Committee would be to obtain its own funding. Inquire of the SRB. The
right to return needs to be determined.
4. Liz questioned the effects of the proposed new developments would have
on the existing properties at Foreshore.
4.1 Mark suggested that we should talk with tenants and residents on Evelyn,
who had gone through a similar experience.
4.2 Mark Leader ( Hyde HA ) stated that he had worked on the Evelyn development.
Problems had been resolved by the approach taken there. Cannot progress
the situation here, until issues discussed were resolved.
4.3 Gordon stated that he was 'up against time'. Wanted to work with tenants
to find a solution.
5. Dave inquired about asylum seekers and refugees. Are they here for
the 'short term' only ?
5.1 Gordon replied that some refugees, e.g, from Poland had a right to
come here, yet they had to return after 8 months. Yet there were a special
set of circumstances at present.
5.2 Mark Nottingham indicated that in his experience of tenants and residents
making choices of where to live in the Borough, Deptford was less popular
as a destination. Advised us to 'do it ourselves'. Run our own campaign.
6. Gordon indicated that he would write to all tenants and residents effected.
Time was moving on. Would also mention the appeal to come to a 'working
group' on the new build.
Handed out a draft letter of 3 A4 sides advising tenants and residents
on the decanting procedures that Lewisham were proposing. Comments requested
back to Gordon.
7.Ron Tedman agreed to leave the drawings of the 'new build' draught proposals
at the Eddystone Office for anyone to look at in the interim period.
First meeting of tenants and residents representing the blocks effected
by Lewisham Councils' Estate Action plans for the Pepys Estate, Deptford,
SE8 :- 2 people from each of Aragon Tower, Millard, Marlowe, Barfleur,
Limberg and Dolben House. Together with other tenants and residents from
the Pepys Estate.
Together with officiers from Lewisham Council Housing Office and representatives
from HYDE Housing Association.
SUBJECTS : Purpose dialogue with Lewisham and Hyde, 'working group'
on new build proposals.
DATE : 3rd April 2000. DISTRIBUTION : To all Estate Action Steering Committe
members.
Maureen Dunn Barfleur House
Malcolm Cadman Marlowe House Representing Marlowe
Steve Rumney Marlowe House
Teresa Lane Limberg House Representing Limberg
Chris Lane Limberg House
Sharon Jeffrey Limberg House
Simon Greening Aragon Tower Representing Aragon
Dave Flemming Daubeny Tower Tenants Association Representative
Richard Waite Foreshore
Liz Cooke Foreshore Tenants Association Representative
Ron Tedman HYDE Housing Association
Mark Leader Development officer
Mark Nottingham Evelyn Ward Councillor
CHAIR for the meeting : Gordon Sandifer
1. Opening remarks by Gordon Sandifer.
Distribution of minutes from March 13th meeting to those present who
had not received them.
Began with the purpose of the meeting being a 'working group' to look
at the new build proposals from the commission by Hyde Housing Association
of plans from three architects.
Submitted a copy of notes taken by Malcolm at the meeting for distribution
as a 'balance' against those provided by Lewisham.
This was accepted. A break in proceedings whilst these were photocopied.
A 'double move' for some tenants following this wish to return may be
necessary.
Ridiculous situation could develop where the council was lined up against
the tenants.
The Single Regeneration Budget already obtained for the Pepys Estate
and other adjacent areas meant that the decanting and demolition were
in opposition to each other.
He had recently visited Aragon Tower, along with another councillor Mee
Ling. Had found a whole 'raft' of individual cases.
3.21 Steve Rumney queried what this would actually produce as a valid
outcome.