1

Minutes from Westbury Residents steering group meeting 21st April 2015 Present: 13 residents, Cllr Nigel Haselden, Nicola & Faraz (Social Life), Jonny McKenna (Metropolitan Workshop), Julian Hart & Dilan Alpasha (LB Lambeth) The meeting began with an introduction from Social Life about the purpose of the session. Residents questions about the development will be discussed, then there will be a presentation of updated ideas, and then a discussion about how residents will give feedback on the new proposals.

Lambeth then provided an overview of the process: • This process is a feasibility study, looking at the potential for Westbury

estate to help meet the borough’s housing need • Financial models are being worked up as part of this process • In July, a decision will be made on the scale of redevelopment • This will be followed by a masterplanning process, where the specifics of

design will be developed • Residents will be involved in masterplanning process, including helping

to pick architects • Earliest construction is likely to be at the end of 2016 at the earliest.

1 There was then a question and answer session. Residents asked whether the total number of new homes built can increase after construction starts. Lambeth responded that once planning permission is granted the number is fixed. Residents asked whether use can change. For example, if it is committed as social housing but then later changed to private. Lambeth responded that uses are fixed once planning permission is granted. Lambeth will only change the numbers to have more housing at council rents if finances allow. Residents asked whether Social Life / Metropolitan Workshop will present to the Lambeth Cabinet? Lambeth responded that the report will be presented by officers / politicians. Residents asked whether residents can present their own options alongside Council options to the Cabinet. Lambeth responded that this will be possible, the deadline for the paper is June. Work by Social Life and Metropolitan Workshop will be included. It cannot be guaranteed that residents will wholly agree with what the recommendations in the final paper to Cabinet will present, but there is opportunity to input. Residents can also attend Cabinet Meetings to make representations.

2

Cllr Haselden said that local councillors will put forward residents views and represent them. At this point, the role of Social Life and Metropolitan Workshop to represent the resident’s views within the process was reiterated. The report of residents’ feedback from the exhibition and other meetings and events will be shared with residents. Question from residents to Cllr Haselden to ask his views about demolition. Cllr Haselden responded that he is duty bound to consider housing demand, and that this point was personally inclined to favour full demolition, and that he was not convinced that ‘pepper-potting’ approach of infill will lead to a healthy community. Residents asked for clarification about the councillors’ role in the process. Cllrs confirmed that their role was to represent residents, Cllr Haselden clarified that he is a substitute on the planning committee, on the strategic sites panel, and a design champion for the borough. He stated that he did not consider this a conflict of interest. Residents asked whether decisions about Westbury had already been taken. Lambeth responded that a decision has been made to include Westbury on Lambeth’s regeneration programme, because it has the capacity to deliver new homes. The discussions now are about how this can be achieved. Residents asked whether demolition would start in January. Lambeth responded that construction will not start until end of 2016 at the earliest. Demolition would happen even later, as the construction at the end of 2016 would be for the first phase, on an empty site. Some residents stated that they did not want demolition or infill, but it seemed as if Lambeth are going to do this regardless. Question from residents: the language being used about the future of the towers appears to have changed, it now appears more uncertain. Social Life responded that the first leaflet they produced stated that there are no plans to do anything to the towers, and that the only thing that could change this is if structural problems are discovered. It was confirmed by Lambeth that this remains the case now. Residents said that 62 residents (from low-rises) have signed a petition saying that they are opposed to demolition. Residents asked why the materials from the first exhibition had not been put through resident’s doors? Social Life explained that the three proposals had not been sent since as they have been revised and have now become redundant. Their concern was that it would have caused confusion to circulate old designs at same time as new ones were emerging. Social Life apologised for the confusion and confirmed that they would make sure that

3

a copy of the boards from the forthcoming exhibition, and feedback forms, would be circulated to all the residents. Some residents said that they did not know what they are being asked for feedback against – and that the consultation is a sham / box ticking exercise. Residents asked why people are still being able to sell homes? And why the regeneration does not show up in searches. Lambeth responded that this would only happen after demolition notices were issued. One resident asked about when right to buy applications would need to be sent in by. Lambeth agreed to clarify. Questions were asked about change in tenancy to lifetime assured shorthold, Lambeth clarified this. 2 Jonny from Metropolitan Workshop presented the updated design scenarios. Residents asked about the two options that are not preferred by Lambeth. What would happen if residents get behind one of those options and it has majority of residents supporting it? Cllr Hazeldon replied that if residents said this is what they want, then this will be presented to Lambeth. Lambeth also responded that they wanted to discuss these options to demonstrate the implications. Officers have concerns that less demolition and more infill could create further long term issues, whereas rebuilding causes more short term problems but could be better in the long run. Residents asked whether they will see the document that reports on residents’ views. Lambeth answered that this would be shared. Residents asked how many of the 1,000 new homes at council rents would be built on the other estates that are included in the regeneration programme. Lambeth responded that not all the homes planned on the six estates will be completed by the time that the council have said they will deliver the 1,000 homes (ie 2019) so the total number of new homes at affordable rents that are planned on the six estates will need to be greater than 1,000. Residents requested more clarity from Lambeth on when the 1,000 new homes must be delivered by. Residents asked for clarification about the role of St. James and the 64 homes they are building. Lambeth responded that St James have agreed to build 64 homes on Westbury as part of their planning agreement to build new homes in the north of the borough. These 64 homes will be at council rents and will be built as part of the first stage of Westbury’s redevelopment.

4

Residents asked whether these homes could be built first on a vacant part of the estate, and then future options for development considered. Some leaseholders voiced concerns at having to pay rent if they opt for a new home on the estate. Lambeth clarified that under the shared equity option leaseholders would not pay any rent. The cost of their old home would go towards the price of the new home, with Lambeth paying the difference and regaining their percentage of equity when the leaseholder sells down the line. Residents asked about the percentage increase in rents. Lambeth responded that this will be slight and is being worked out. There should be more information in June, which will be an estimation based on property values at the time. The June update will also include a template lease for leaseholders. Residents asked why Lambeth can’t give new homes to leaseholders whose homes are being demolished. Lambeth replied that there is a law that means Lambeth are not allowed to do this called “Best consideration” – a legal limitation on the council. At Myatts Fields “like for like” homes were given but this was a PFI scheme and Lambeth cannot do the same on Westbury. Residents asked why Lambeth are taking away secure tenancies. Lambeth gave two reasons – Labour are against the right to buy. Right to buy has drastically reduced the number of council homes. Secondly, the lifetime assured tenancy (which is what is being offered in this programme) is the same as a secure tenancy but minus the right to buy. Residents asked about how 8-14 storey buildings will get planning permission. Lambeth answered that planners have seen proposals that have been shown to residents and haven’t flagged any concerns. It is possible that exact height could be revised. Reviewing and testing of proposals will be done as part of masterplanning process. Residents noted that if height is reduced, this increase the imperative to build more. Residents asked that tower block residents will be engaged soon talk to them about how they will be affected. Residents commented that people can still buy property on the estate without knowing what is about to happen, and that this is wrong.

5

Residents asked whether the furniture store been contacted. Lambeth confirmed that they had been approached, and that additional buildings may be issued with Compulsory Purchase Orders. Residents asked whether they would be able to get independent architectural advice on the proposal. Lambeth said not at this stage. But that residents will be involved in choosing the masterplanning architects. Social Life asked whether there would be independent resident advisors for the programme. Lambeth confirmed that they will be setting up a panel of advisors and that estates will be able to choose who advises each estate. Lambeth agreed to give more information about when Independent Residents Advisors will be appointed. Met Work responded that all architects would produce ideas similar to the ones that Metropolitan Workshop had produced as the brief would be the same. And that they had tried to show a no demolition option. Residents voiced concerns that the council will impose a number of new homes. That some residents have lived on the estate for many years, at a time when it was not such a thriving area, when transport was not so good. But that now the area has improved, this means that the estate will be changed and people will need to leave their homes. Lambeth responded that the development will be done in phases, and residents will not be required to leave the estate. Some said that they would like to move to the edges of the estate to stop being boxed in. Residents asked why Lambeth could build on the garages and the back of the greenspace first – then decide what to do. Lambeth responded that the level of uncertainty this would create would be undesirable. Residents asked whether a new Cabinet would change the decision that had been made. Lambeth answered that this is unlikely because of the level of investment already put in. Residents reported that leaseholders who do not live on the estate have not been informed – that tenants can ignore or do not always pass on the info that goes through letterboxes. Lambeth agreed to contact all the residents. 2 Feedback from the exhibition Social Life asked for feedback on the draft feedback forms. They were asked to include more detail about what each options means, to allow more than 3 responses to what matters most, to be more explicit

6

about numbers, to clarity that people moving to a new home would have different tenancy and rent levels. At this point, action points and matters of clarification were recorded:

1. Social Life to prepare and circulate updated timeline. 2. Lambeth agreed to try to contact absentee leaseholders. 3. List of rolling questions going to Lambeth that still need answering.

Questions that come out of exhibition/drop ins will be added to this. Lambeth to respond.

4. Social Life to update feedback forms to take account of residents’ issues.

5. Social Life to invite surrounding businesses to exhibition. 6. Social Life to keep the school informed and share exhibition boards

with them.