1 of 7

Westbury Regeneration Project Meeting – 15th June 2015, 6pm, at Westbury Estate, Amesbury Tower. Attending: Lambeth: Julian Hart (JH), Dilan Alpasha (DA) Metropolitan Workshop: Jonny McKenna (JM) Social Life: Faraz Hassan (FH) Residents: Elaine Mander (EM) -TRA Chair, Petra Abbam (PA), Steve (S), Lucy Windmill (LW), Shemi Leira (SL). Others: Tim Briggs (TB) - Cllr Clapham Common Meeting Objective:

To update on consultation pause Present revised proposal from Metropolitan Workshop / Social Life on

new collaborative process Hear residents’ views on continuing consultation process Review answers to questions from residents Agree on scope of public event on 30th June

Meeting:

1. JH gave background and context of process so far. The revised timeline is looking to confirm masterplan objectives for Westbury estate in October. Such masterplan objectives will confirm the number of homes to be demolished and approximately the number of new homes to be built, as well as setting out other objectives and aspirations for the future of the estate.

This extension has been provided in response to a request from residents to provide more time to consider future regeneration proposals for the estate.

- These minutes issued on 16/07/15 have been amended from the original version, which were issued on 26/06/15, to include additional comments/feedback received from attendees who have noted missing or incomplete items of discussion – the added commentary has been captured under “Additional Notes:”.

- These minutes are also accompanied by a synopsis of the meeting as recorded by Shemi Leira – Westbury resident, member of the steering group and Clapham Leaseholder representative.

2 of 7

The forthcoming Cabinet decision in July will summarise the work done so far and will seek authorisation to commence procurement of a masterplanning team for taking forwards a future masterplan for the estate.

This extension will also give residents an opportunity to take more control of the process of engagement.

2. Q: Have the other estates been extended also?

JH confirmed that the process has been extended for some other estates as well, albeit it is for different reasons for different estates, including not having completed the planned stock condition survey or complexity and size of the estate.

3. EM noted that consultation so far has raised a lot of questions, some have been answered, some have not. One big question has been whether residents views will be taken into account.

JH responded that a decision has already been taken to include Westbury within the Council’s estate regeneration programme.

Additional Note: A decision was made in December 2014 to carry out some level of regeneration at Westbury. The scale of that regeneration and what it will look like will be decided in October 2015. This was confirmed to Council officers by Cllr Matthew Bennett (Cabinet Member for Housing).

Given the Council’s wider objectives to deliver more homes, there will as a consequence be a significant number of additional new homes built at Westbury. The Council’s objective is to ensure that a high quality residential neighbourhood is achieved. This should lead to the answer on how many new homes could be accommodated.

Residents views will be taken into consideration in shaping the future of the estate. There is, however, a recognised tension between the Council’s desire to build more homes and residents’ desire to retain existing homes and keep the estate to a low density.

Additional Note: Residents complained that it was not communicated clearly to them at the end of last year that a decision was already taken to regenerate the estate. Comments were made about the fundamental nature of that decision. Furthermore, residents understood this period to be a pause for consultation not architectural work, hence the deputation on May 20th by Elaine at Cabinet.

Additional Note: JH acknowledged that the Council should’ve been more explicit in communicating the December 2014 decision to residents and that this would be ‘made right’ by sending out a clearly worded letter to all residents as soon as possible.

3 of 7

Additonal Note: In response to JH’s comment that The Council’s objective is to ensure that a high quality residential neighbourhood is achieved, some residents commented that many of them are happy with the quality of the estate as it is.

4. Q: Will Metworks be involved in the future masterplanning?

A: Metworks will likely be bidding to be part of a team for the masterplanning phase.

5. EM noted that residents felt their views were not being taken into account – she felt that Social Life did not record views impartially, did not accurately represent views of residents, and were not fully informed by Lambeth as to what was planned.

JH responded that he had interpreted that residents felt that they were not being consulted with, but consulted at, that they wanted more face to face with Lambeth, so this is the opportunity to change the process and for residents to take more control of the engagement process. Lambeth will decide with residents what events to do going forwards.

Additional Note: A question was raised regarding what would be the goal of the engagement work done between July and October. JH responded that it would be to develop masterplan objectives.

FH noted that in order for Social Life and Metropolitan Workshop to be able to effectively consult with residents and take project forward, a line of trust must exist between residents and consultants – else nothing can meaningfully be achieved, and asked residents on what they feel about this.

EM responded that trust is built. Switching consultants at this stage would be counterproductive as Metwork and Social Life are familiar in the estate. Also noted that other estates have faced similar problems, and they have all had different consultants, so feeling is that issue with process lies with Lambeth, who are common to each project. As such residents accepted continuing next phase with Metwork and Social Life.

6. JM (Metwork) presented a proposal for next stage of work. He discussed the creation of a smaller steering group focused around design questions, workshops where designs are drawn live / more hands on, and training for steering group on design principles: for example, clarifying what density and numbers mean, implications, best practice in terms of public spaces, etc.

PA noted that this process allowed for residents to get to understand process a lot better, which has been missing.

JM noted that it has been difficult to present or explain ideas and thinking previously, especially to large numbers of people in a short time. This

4 of 7

process will allow insight into reasons behind proposals, instead of residents feeling they have been ignored.

EM noted that while this process focuses on design, there is nothing here to address legality of process, nothing that looks at financial impact on residents or effects on tenancies. This process is looking at what is new, not at what is already there.

TB noted that the concern around getting lots of people onto the site as a starting point means you cannot get to what might be the best project for the area.

EM noted that if you drive in more homes, its already an existing community – doubling the people will change the estate.

EM noted that residents are still lacking clear advice on legality of process.

7. Q: Can we have a similar process to that suggested for design, but focused around what happens for existing residents around tenancies, finances, and offers to existing residents?

JH noted that the significant uplift in the number of homes is a key imperative, which needs to be balanced against creating a good quality residential neighbourhood.

JH also noted that in terms of offers and impacts on existing residents, Lambeth can offer information, drop-ins, or whatever necessary that residents need in parallel to design process.

8. EM stated that no understanding or analysis of existing community has been presented.

JM responded that analysis of this nature was done and presented at exhibition. He noted that there hasn't been enough opportunity to present this in detail.

JH noted that the Household Survey data had come in this week and was being reviewed and would be made available to residents.

9. Q: Question around degree of professional independence of Metropolitan Workshops was raised.

JM responded that they are professionally independent in terms of what they suggest, but they already have professional know-how of what is likely to be accepted by planners (in this case Lambeth) and so must design according to this.

JH noted there are also a number of policy standards, which also guide this process.

5 of 7

10. Q: Residents noted that they want to know what brief Lambeth are giving to the Architects.

JH responded that the brief was to identify ways to provide a high quality residential neighbourhood at Westbury, considering various scenarios including retention of properties through to complete redevelopment (excepting the towers). It is this that would identify the potential number of new homes that could be delivered. The Council did not start with a target number of new homes beyond stating that there is a prerogative to seek to meet demand and this requires exploring what the maximum acceptable number of new homes on the estate might be.

11. Q: If masterplanning process shows the numbers need to be lower to achieve a good quality environment, is it possible for them to be reduced?

JH commented that the target is to deliver a good quality residential neighbourhood, given its location and accessibility, etc.

12. Q: Would the number of new homes confirmed in October be a final decision?

JH answered that it would be an approximation. It would only increase on that number if there was very good reason to do so and this would be fully explored with residents during the masterplanning process. It may marginally increase, if the detailed design suggested that this could be done whilst keeping to the other elements of the masterplan objectives.

13. Q: Residents then noted that whatever their views, regeneration is going ahead.

It was clarified by JH and others that the delay in the decision was with regards to how the regeneration is carried forward and to allow for more informed discussion around what happens, rather than if something happens. Residents commented that for them a major issue was that consultation didn't seem to happen for the original decision to regenerate Westbury in the first place.

DA clarified that at the initial meeting in November 2014 with residents, it was stated clearly that the intention was to regenerate the estate.

EM noted that intention to regenerate is not the same as the decision having been made.

Residents noted that they do not want to be used in process, but don't want to be ignored either.

ACTION: Residents want a written statement from Lambeth to all residents - noting very clearly that the decision to regenerate has been made, as well as what is happening next. To be distributed before June 30th event.

6 of 7

Drafted by Lambeth officers, to be shown to steering group.

14. Further discussion followed, regarding the decision that had taken place in December.

15. Lambeth reiterated that the question was not with regards to 'if' development will go ahead, but 'what' – and residents are being asked to shape 'what' will happen.

ACTION: TB volunteered to get opinion from Council solicitor on legality of process.

16. Residents felt legal advice would likely not come before June 30th event, and would only be an opinion at this stage.

17. Q: When will draft offer docs be finalised?

JH noted that these will become fixed in October.

18. Q: Can we submit questions/comments on draft of offer?

Lambeth officers JH and DA noted that they can be contacted with any queries.

Action: Residents requested that documents and materials be sent more promptly before meetings.

19. A discussion followed on how the event on 30th June should be run.

Action: Mention in Lambeth's letter that a smaller selected group will be formed.

20. JM: What if we get more people wanting to join? Process?

EM noted it will be important to inform people about what is involved as part of this group. It was felt that not too many people will come forward so should be ok.

JH noted that more tenants must be engaged in process too as only leaseholders had turned up at the meeting tonight.

21. EM requested that invite to June 30th event be extended to Ron Hollis, Ross Mudane, Clapham Housing Forum, etc.

Action: Lambeth to invite others to event

22. JH posed to residents whether 10 selected committee members will be representative of all residents. Should they be elected?

Residents discussed this and there was a number of questions around what it would mean to be representative and the difficulty of this. It was

7 of 7

agreed that there needs to be some kind of formalisation process such as voting in due course, but that this was not necessary now.

JH accepted that it would be difficult to get elected steering group right now, but would be good to get to this point eventually, as this will be important for other processes down the line.

Residents noted that steering group members would need to be as accessible as possible. Steering group should also include some non-residents, such as chair of tenants, Ron Holis, or impartial people like TB.

JH noted that an independent resident advisor is being recruited for, and the residents will be involved in interviewing candidates. This should happen sometime around July.

Summary of Actions:

1. Letter to be issued to whole estate regarding 30th June. 2. Residents requested that documents and materials be sent more

promptly before meetings. (Lambeth) 3. Residents requested for these minutes and others to be sent promptly.

(Social Life) 4. We need posters, leaflets to all residents, inform the school and

surrounding stakeholders, and bring a PA system to the meeting. EM requested that all ward councillors be invited also. (Lambeth)

5. TB volunteered to get opinion from Solicitor on legality of process. (Tim Briggs)