1 of 10

WESTBURY ESTATE PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES @ HEATHBROOK PRIMARY SCHOOL

6:30pm, 30th

June 2015

Key Council attendees: Councillors: Council Officers:

Cllr Matthew Bennett (Cabinet Member for Housing)

Julian Hart (Estate Regeneration and Housing Delivery Programme Manager)

Cllr Linda Bray (Ward Councillor for Clapham Town)

Dilan Alpasha (Housing and Regeneration Project Officer)

Cllr Christopher Wellbelove (Ward Councillor for Clapham Town)

Sarah Coyte (Capacity Building Officer)

Cllr Nigel Haselden (Ward Councillor for Clapham Town)

Council-appointed Architects:

Cllr Tim Briggs(Ward Councillor for Clapham Common)

Neil Deely (Metropolitan Workshop Architects and Urban Designers)

Number of residents and other attendees: 34

Meeting chaired by: Elaine Mander, Westbury resident, chair of Westbury TRA and Clapham

Leaseholder representative

1) Elaine provided a background/summary of events from Oct 2014 – May 2015 including:

Scenarios of how the estate could be regenerated were presented to residents by the

Council’s design team in several exhibitions. Many of these scenarios were challenged by

residents.

A public meeting was held in May with no Council representation

Residents asked for no decision to be made in July 2015

Council agreed to extend consultation to October 2015

Question: A resident asked who requested extending the engagement process to October as

some residents would have preferred a decision sooner rather than later.

Elaine responded that a group of the residents felt that, given the scale and potential

level of impact of the Council’s proposals, more time was needed for residents to

understand and digest what was being proposed and what it might mean for them.

- These minutes, issued on 16/07/15, have been amended from the original version, which were issued on 07/07/15, 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. The synopsis covers the Steering Group meeting on 15th

June and the Public Meeting on 30th June.

2 of 10

2) Introductions: Cabinet member for Housing, ward councillors and Council officers briefly

introduced themselves.

3) Cllr Bennett spoke about why the Council is carrying out the estate regeneration programme

and that it is being driven by the need to deliver more homes, particularly affordable homes

in Lambeth:

Last year’s election manifesto included a commitment to raise all public housing to the

Decent Homes Standard and to build 1,000 new Council homes.

There is a budget shortage for delivering improvements to homes. Funding for this

commitment can either be raised by getting more money from Central government,

which is unlikely, or improvements in new homes can be delivered by means of estate

regeneration.

The need for 1,000 extra homes: There are not enough homes in the borough. 21,000

households on the waiting list. Number of homeless families: 1,800 – vast majority of

these families have children. Many of those that do have homes are severely

overcrowded – often more than 2 bedrooms short.

Not enough homes are being built. If the Council isn’t building homes at social rent no

one else will do it. Number of housing association-built homes has gone down drastically.

The aim is to use as much Council land as possible to deliver new homes e.g. Your New

Town Hall and Somerleyton Road projects, but also building homes on estates where

densities are low. That is why Westbury has been chosen.

Residents want more time to be properly consulted. A decision on a preferred option

would now happen in October. A masterplanning team would then be appointed

Summer months will be spent looking in more detail at the implications of the various

potential scenarios for the future of the estate and selecting a masterplanning team.

Can address issues of overcrowded homes and allow leaseholders to remain on the

estate if they want to.

4) Carwash Petition: Owner of carwash in the arches adjacent to Westbury introduced himself

and explained that Network Rail want to close his carwash and change its use. He is passing

around a petition and encouraging people to sign it to support his case to keep his carwash

open.

5) Julian Hart – Some key points to keep in mind:

The message from residents is that they have been consulted ‘at’ not ‘with’ over the past

few months and this needs to change

Residents want more control of the consultation process.

Door knocking will help capture the broad spectrum of views.

We need to keep in mind that in October we will likely reach a decision that not everyone

agrees with.

6) Neil Deely talked through the proposed new approach to consultation that would take place

over the next 3 – 4 months:

3 of 10

The initial stage of consultation was useful for the design team to understand residents’

concerns and opinions.

However, putting the 5 options aside, the next few months will take a varied approach to

consultation.

Co-design workshops and training sessions will be held on various aspects of urban design

including forms of housing, housing mix, density, what makes good urban design and

what doesn’t.

Metropolitan Workshop has been involved in doing quite a bit of training work through

Urban Design London (UDL) mainly with councillors and local authority staff.

In addition to around the 3-4 evenings of training, there would be estate walkabouts and

site visits.

These would give residents better/fuller knowledge on key urban design issues and would

allow them to make more meaningful contributions to the design process.

7) Elaine stated that it is clear that regeneration will definitely happen, that ‘No regeneration’

is not an option. She requested that the Council cannot continue to give residents the

misconstrued impression that what residents say will be done.

8) Shemi (Westbury resident, member of Steering Group and Clapham Leaseholder

representative) stated that the decision was already made back in Dec 2014 before

consulting residents, so what is the point of the October 2015 decision.

9) Cllr Bennett responded:

December 2014: We need to build more homes. So the decision was made to have

regeneration of some kind on a number of estates including Westbury. Homes will be

built – there will be some level of intervention.

October 2015: This decision will relate to the scale of intervention on the estate and what

that intervention will look like.

Additional Notes:

10) A resident indicated quite vehemently that he had been told by the owners of the second-

hand furniture shop, that no discussion had taken place with Council regarding involving

their property as part of the Council’s plans to regenerate Westbury

11) Julian Hart responded that the owner of the second hand furniture shop and his 2 sons had

in fact come to Council offices to discuss what could be done with involving their property in

the regeneration plans.

12) Elaine asked why regeneration could not have taken the form of improvements to the

decent home standards and how much money has the Council wasted to raise houses to

these standards?

13) Cllr Bennett responded that the Council would confirm level of investment in Westbury

Estate in recent years. He also re-iterated that there are 1,800 homeless families; that has

gone up from 1300 last year; the level of need is enormous.

4 of 10

Action – to identify home improvement works costs at Westbury Estate in last 5 years.

14) Resident question: This decision has been imposed on residents. We take on board the

reasons for regeneration; however, we need to acknowledge that there are problems with

turning a small estate into a big estate. Why can’t the Council use smaller plots of land or

obtain private land to create smaller estates rather than transforming Westbury into a large

estate.

15) Cllr Bennett responded that we need to consider how we can spend money most effectively.

Building on private land can be very costly. It is more effective to use the land that we

already own.

16) Resident Question: There seems to be a major focus on addressing overcrowding – what

about the need for one bedroom properties?

17) Cllr Bennett responded that there are not enough 1, 2, 3 or 4 bedroom homes. There is a

need for all types of homes. However, many people attend councillor surgeries to complain

about severely overcrowded conditions.

18) Resident Question: What about the many void homes? Can’t they be repaired more quickly

and put into use?

19) Cllr Bennett responded that there are only a small number of voids, not as many as there

used to be. If a property becomes vacant it will take up to one month to be patched up and

then used for rehousing.

20) Resident Question: I’m a leaseholder and a single mum currently on an affordable mortgage.

How do I afford a new one bedroom if my home gets demolished?

21) Cllr Bennett responded that as per the Key Guarantees for homeowners, homeowners will

have the opportunity to acquire a shared equity deal on a new property on the estate where

no rent is payable on the equity share owned by the homeowner. Mortgages can be ported

across to the new home.

22) Elaine: You might have the same no. of rooms but you could lose your garden, and have less

space on the whole estate as a result of the regeneration.

23) Shemi: You made a life changing decision without consulting the people that will be

impacted by this.

24) Cllr Bennett responded that communicating this message was probably not done clearly

enough. There have been several meetings and letters over the past few months to relay

this message but we are sorry if this was not made clear enough.

25) Elaine: Regeneration doesn’t mean demolition has to take place.

5 of 10

26) Cllr Bennett responded that the language within the Council when referring to regeneration

quite often means demolition is involved but not always.

27) Cllr Tim Briggs challenged whether consultation on the estate had been done properly. He

had obtained legal advice that suggested not.

Additional Note: Cllr Briggs highlighted the fact that NOT to regenerate should be/ have

been part of the options during consultation – please refer to Additional notes on pgs. 8 and

9 which include details on Cllr Briggs’ statements at the meeting based on his email dated

12/07/2015 describing the legal advice he had sought.

28) Resident question: Do we have proper pictures/visuals of what the regen and new homes

would look like?

29) Cllr Wellbelove stated that residents want to be able to visualise what the regeneration

might look like. It is also important to focus on how the estate can be designed to be safer

and discourage anti-social behaviour through Designing Out Crime.

30) Ron Hollis (V-Chair, Clapham Area Housing Forum) made a statement that the basic,

underlying issue is the lack of trust residents have with the Council.

Poor communications, copy of minutes takes ages to come out – this is a question of

competence.

Lambeth Living may be lowering the number of voids but the conditions of repairs is

abysmal.

31) Elaine: Difficult to regain trust and confidence when Council is not giving us clear

information. The Council did not announce to the Steering Group that council officers were

going to door-knock on the estate. It was not agreed to visit individual homes. This is a

community matter.

Additional Note: Some residents stated that not all residents had been visited/spoken to by

officers. A show of hands of those present only showed three or four. One lady stated that

she had been at home all day and no one knocked on her door.

32) Julian Hart responded that this is a community as well as an individual issue. Every

household has specific circumstances that can only be understood with one-to-one

conversations. It is important to meet residents in both group and individual circumstances.

33) Resident Question: Would the Council consider resetting the consultation process,

acknowledge they made a mistake, get everyone on board, be honest, open and genuinely

take on residents’ views.

6 of 10

34) Cllr Bennett responded that the Council will not reset the consultation process, that a robust

process was taking place and that this has been extended. The Council needs to build more

homes. Something will to happen on Westbury; it is a matter for the residents to become

involved to shape the future of the place that they live in.

35) Elaine: If the Council wants to build say 100 homes then we can build on open space without

building on people’s gardens or demolishing homes. What is the number of new homes that

the Council wishes to build at Westbury.

36) Neil Deely responded that at the moment there isn’t a fixed number of homes proposed to

be built. The brief to the architects is to develop plans for the creation of a high quality

residential neighbourhood, considering both retention and demolition of properties and to

explore these different scenarios with residents.

37) Resident Question: I understand that the homes being built on Westbury may not directly

contribute to the target of 1,000 new homes in the next 3 to 4 years. There needs to be an

upper limit on the number of new homes being built or is the sky the limit?

38) Julian Hart responded that the sky is not the limit. The aim is to create a good quality

neighbourhood within planning constraints, keeping in mind security/safety issues,

accessibility to public transports and location in London. These are the objectives given to

the architects. There are many constraints that will ultimately determine the limit to the

number of new homes accommodated on the estate. The purpose of on-going feasibility

work and consultation is to explore this further with residents.

39) Resident Comment: The Council has created a difficult situation. The Council is imposing

something on us and then approaching residents to consult with them. This creates a

dynamic that indicates you are not respecting people. You needed to take on board people’s

views from the beginning. If so you would probably have less opposition.

40) Elaine: No records of previous meetings and no empirical information has been circulated to

the residents.

Action – Council to communicate back to residents the outcome of earlier consultation and

engagement work.

41) Resident Comment: What about the Housing Needs Survey. It Feels like people’s

contributions are being side-lined. No deadline is given on information the Council has to

provide. Information on Costs/Rents needs to be communicated.

Action – Council to release output of Household Needs Survey to residents.

42) Shemi: Complaint about length of time taken to produce minutes of meetings.

7 of 10

Action – Council to ensure that future events are written up faster and fed back to

residents in a timely manner.

43) Cllr Wellbelove: What if people say they only want infill? Can we make sure that this process

is managed properly? Can we get your assurances?

44) Cllr Bennett responded that he gave his assurance that this process will be managed

properly. We will work with residents to ensure that it is a collaborative effort and residents’

views will a play decisive part in the decisions being made.

45) Elaine: How do we form this focused co-design steering group for the next phase?

46) Julian Hart responded that a letter will be sent to all residents allowing them to nominate

themselves to the co-design group. Residents can also nominate themselves today.

Action – Council to produce letter seeking nominations for membership of Resident

Steering Group

47) Resident Comment: We need 5-6 bullet points as a quick summary of the way forward.

Action – Bullet points can be sent out outlining what will happen next, what will the

consultation and communication process be including a timetable of engagement

activities.

48) Neil Deely: Anyone is welcome to come to the training. However, we need some consistency

so it is important to have some of the same core people attending all the

training/workshops.

Also, CABE (The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment) have 250 build

environment experts and can provide independent, separate architectural/design advice to

residents.

49) Elaine: Whoever is part of the residents steering group hasn’t been voted in, and so this

group doesn’t represent all residents. So I strongly encourage everyone to get involved.

50) Shemi: When will independent advisors start?

51) Julian Hart responded that several companies have shown interest and that the Council is

currently putting together a panel and will provide details of this to residents over the next

couple of months.

52) Shemi: Who will pay for the independent architect?

53) Julian Hart responded that the CABE advisor will be paid for by the Council.

8 of 10

Additional Note: The Independent advisor to be paid for by Lambeth will be chosen by

residents NOT Lambeth

Action – Council to approach CABE and make arrangements for independent architects

54) Shemi: What will be discussed at this meeting if a decision has already been made?

55) Cllr Bennett responded that, as mentioned earlier, a decision on if additional homes will be

built has been taken; however, the scale and what it will look like will be decided in October.

56) Additional Notes: More detailed records of the issues raised by Cllr Tim Briggs are set out

below as per his emails dated 08/07/2015 and 12/07/2015:

Taken from Cllr Briggs email dated 08/07/2015:

“There were 3 issues that I mentioned towards the end of the meeting that have been

excluded, and without which the minutes are not an accurate or helpful representation of

the issues discussed.

The first was about the price being offered to owners of properties on the estate as being

10% above market value. I questioned at what time the valuation of the property would be

made, as a valuation made just before the estate was demolished might be 15% lower than

the 10% being offered, meaning that property owners still lost money. Cllr Bennett did not

answer the question but stated that Lambeth would pay for an independent evaluation if

property owners asked for it.

The second issue was about security of tenure, and why that security was being taken away

from tenants, who after the demolition would have assured tenancies. Cllr Bennett said it

did not matter and the difference between a secure and an assured tenancy was minimal. I

asked why the change was being made if it did not matter. Cllr Bennett's reply was that rents

would be the same.

The third issue was questioning why Right to Buy was being removed from residents, given

that different tenures with different people from different backgrounds and different

incomes created a glorious mix of people on estates in the Borough. Cllr Bennett started

blaming central government for cutting its grant. I said that Lambeth had been given £100m

by central government for the Decent Homes Programme, which was way more than any

other Borough in the whole country. The council then added some money and repackaged

the Decent Homes Programme as the Lambeth Decent Homes programme so it could

pretend that it was being treated unfairly by central government, rather than addressing its

own failings in the way it had managed its housing stock.”

Taken from Cllr Briggs’ email dated 12/07/2015:

“Re: Further detail for the minutes of the meeting on 30th June 2015

9 of 10

I explained at the meeting that I had taken informal legal advice and, solely based on the

facts of the matter as I understood and explained them to the solicitor, these were the

observations made:

- The proposer must give sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit any intelligent

consideration and response. This had not happened as no reasons had been given as

to why not demolishing the estate had not been provided as an option.

- The product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account in finalising

any proposals. This had clearly not happened.

- The target audience should be considered, ie. Fairness demands more information

will need to be given to consultees who are likely to have least understanding of the

issues. Clearly a complete failure to provide any information in relation to a decision

to demolish that had already been made by the council falls foul of this requirement.

- Fairness demands alternative but discarded options are referenced in order for the

consultees to express a meaningful view. No discarded options have ever been

referenced.

- Careful consideration should be given to the wording of a consultation to ensure you

do not give the impression there are no alternatives, or that an assumption has been

made. Clearly there are no alternatives being put forward except demolition and

regeneration, and an assumption has been made by the council.

As a result the lawyer’s provisional view, based on the facts as I presented them to him, was

that the consultation had fallen short of the common law test that would be applied, and

would be vulnerable to a challenge by way of Judicial Review.

However, I stated that I did not think that a court case would necessarily be worthwhile,

since even if the residents were successful in court, the matter would simply be reset, and

the council had the right to start the process again with a view to the same outcome.

I suggested therefore that a better option would be simply to suggest that the consultation

had not only been inadequate so far as far as residents were concerned, but probably illegal,

and that a reset to start from the beginning and allow a consultation to be carried out

properly would allow both sides to start from a position of mutual respect and

understanding.”

Post-meeting note responding to Cllr Briggs comments in his email dated 12/07/2015: Cllr

Briggs raised this issue in a Members’ enquiry to the Cabinet Member for Housing and asked

that the Council acknowledge and apologise for a failure to consult residents properly.

The official response on this enquiry is stated below:

10 of 10

“Council officers have not conceded any deficiency in the approach taken to consulting

residents on the Westbury Estate regarding the future of the estate.

The Council is under a legal obligation to consult, where Parliament has limited this duty to

requiring Lambeth to (emphasis added):

'maintain such arrangements as it considers appropriate to enable those of its residents

a) to be informed of the authority's proposals in respect of the matter, and

b) to make their views known to the authority within a specified period;

and the authority shall, before making any decision on the matter, consider any

representations made to it in accordance with those arrangements.'

This duty can be summarised as having three elements, which can be summed up with the

words: inform, respond & consider.

Across the entire estate regeneration programme, the Council is going beyond these

minimum obligations by engaging with residents on how their estate may be regenerated

and to develop with residents an understanding about what is important for them on their

estates, so that these factors can be incorporated into any future regeneration of the

estates.” End of Response

End of minutes

Summary of Actions:

1. Action – to identify home improvement works costs at Westbury Estate in last 5 years.

2. Action – Council to communicate back to residents the outcome of earlier consultation

and engagement work.

3. Action – Council to release output of Household Needs Survey to residents.

4. Action – Council to ensure that future events are written up faster and fed back to

residents in a timely manner.

5. Action – Council to produce letter seeking nominations for membership of Resident

Steering Group.

6. Action – Bullet points to be sent out outlining what will happen next, what will the

consultation and communication process be including a timetable of engagement

activities.

7. Action – Council to approach CABE and make arrangements for independent architects.

8. Additional Note: Action - The council is to release to residents the results of the

valuations carried out on the market values of the current homes and the market values

of the proposed new builds.