1

Notes: Westbury Steering Group Meeting

24 March 2015 6pm, TRA Room, Amesbury Tower

Attended by:

25 residents signed in, 10 more attended and did not sign in

Cllr Linda Bray, Julian Hart (Lambeth Council), Jonny McKeena (Metropolitan Workshop), Faraz Hassan (Social Life), Saskia Baard (Social Life)

Agenda:

1. Update on exhibition feedback. Social Life to share summary of feedback and reactions from exhibition.

2. Update from Lambeth.

3. Developing working principles for future development

4. Review of next steps. To include what the next points of input will be, and dates for drop-ins, events, and key decisions.

1. Update on Exhibition Feedback

• Faraz went through the feedback from the exhibition • Residents feel that people don’t realise the gravity of the situation, want scenarios to go

through everyone’s doors • Resident comment: Many people haven’t seen the exhibition materials

o They will be revised for second exhibition

2. Update from Lambeth

• Julian confirms the household needs survey went out to everyone, residents confirm receiving notice of this. Goal is to identify existing needs of people on the estate, and isn’t binding for residents.

• Julian speak about the leaseholder and tenant offer documents • Julian informs the group about the 3 planned drop-in sessions – one for all Ilsley residents, one

for tenants, and one for leaseholders • Currently we need to see what is possible and we have to present this in the cabinet paper in

July. o In July we do not need a commitment to a scenario, but we do need a sense of the

numbers in order to see what is financially feasible. o There is a commitment to involve residents in choosing the organisation who will do the

masterplanning in the following 6 months. o Only by late 2016 you might see some building work.

2

o There is a lump of section 106 money to fund some development here. •

3. Developing working principles for future development

• Not discussed

4. Review of next steps

• Three drop-ins • Residents ask for revised / new scenarios with reduced numbers of new homes, that take

current residents into account more.

5. Other questions / issues / comments

• When will residents get legally binding documents (e.g. not a draft offer, but final offer)? Language in offers is aspirational, not binding

o Julian: Should be set in May, when a paper goes to cabinet • Is it certain that there will there be change on the estate? Will Ilsley definitely come down?

o Julian: The council is looking at key opportunities, and in this context Westbury is low density with the potential for new housing, particularly Ilsley Court

• Is it necessary that the number of homes be doubled? This feels completely disrespectful to current residents.

• Can we look at “minimum disruption” options? Options with no displacement, for example building around the edges and see how many homes we can fit in these spaces?

• Is it necessary to knock down 82 flats in order to build 300 new – does this make sense? • Do we have options? Can we oppose plans we do not agree with? How do we fund this? Will the

council support us in funding independent advice? o Julian: The council can look into independent legal advice, but can’t fund or find

someone to ‘fight against’ the council. • Residents: Infill is a ridiculous idea, as proposed, these are not infill areas, these are not open

or unused spaces. There is no problems with circulation or parking, you are making them problems (when speaking about ‘good urban design principles’)

o Jonny: Our brief is to come up with a brief for the masterplan o Residents: The problem is the brief. What is an acceptable level of homes in terms of

planning. • Residents: Estate needs a solution for social housing, we need more social housing, but people

live here. • You can’t sacrifice the people on this estate for other people. • Why does every plan take out so much green space? • The proposed density is too high. • Has there been a policy decision across Lambeth?

o Julian: There is no formal decision, no decision has been taken, but there is a strong prerogative to build new homes here.

3

o Residents: People need improvement / new homes, but, is it necessary to build 20% (of 1000 new homes) on Westbury?

• Can the council make a commitment not to displace people, including leaseholders? Will leaseholders own 100% of their new homes?

o Julian: No. Explains shared equity as set out in leaseholder offer. • Why Westbury?

o Julian: The council looked at existing estates, they don’t have tracks of open land. Looked at existing estates and effective use of land. Westbury (specifically certain parts of it) is very low density.

o Residents: yes, but the proposed new density is too high for us. o Julian: We can look at the numbers and see if it is possible to do some tempering. o Residents: You need to slash them. Do we need to take the burden?

• Jonny: We can look at clarifying the visualisations • Residents: The problem is that the green space will be lost – you are infilling so much you will

create an imprisonment, the heights is problematic. • Residents: Lambeth is sacrificing current residents. • Concerns about problems that come with increase in numbers. Regardless of if it’s trying to fit

them around existing blocks. • Streets and lanes proposed are far too narrow • Request to consider building around the edges of the estate. • Question about leaseholders and shared equity and council’s first right of refusal. • Residents want to a. know if there will be demolition or not, and b. see new scenarios. • Residents: We don’t want to be a building site for 5 years. The number is too high. Maybe 60,

maybe a 100 homes. But current proposal is too high. • Scenario 3 is unthinkable, no one wants it. • Everyone should see the scenarios, otherwise we can’t proceed fairly. • Residents want the opportunity to challenge or appeal decisions. They want unbiased legal

advice. They want someone to fight for them. • Need to have a decision made on a 4th scenario. • The problem is that residents don’t trust Lambeth. • Julian: it is inevitable that there will be change, drastic change. We want you to have

confidence that what we propose can be as good. • Resident: Residents should look to their networks and contacts, bring people in to provide what

Lambeth cannot. To find what is reasonable, and what will cause residents the least amount of heartache.

• Who makes the decision about support for challenging the council and legal costs? o Julian: Not sure, probably legal department? o The council can give independent advice but not legal advice

• Will there be an assessment of how it will impact people’s lives? People feel strongly, this is their jobs / homes / schools/

• The council needs to work with people’s lives, the way it is currently approached is just arrogant.

• The councillor is not here to support the council, they are here to represent us. • Is it possible to get a list of all places considered for regeneration and the number /

percentage of the 1000 homes to be built on each? o Julian: No

4

• Will our right to buy remain? o Julian: No

• If there are 200 new homes, how can you not give parking? This will cause problems. This might cause tension between old (with parking) and new (without parking) residents.

o Julian: This is now almost standard practice, people will know when they move in that there is no parking.

• The big question is density. Is there opportunity for reduced numbers? Can we design these solutions? Don’t enclose us, don’t overload us. 100 is maybe a sensible number, even perhaps 8 floors on the park side. Build on Ilsley, but not on the other low rises: this will only displace / disrupt 26 households, not 82.

• Ilsley court residents: We have received nothing from Lambeth or the Councillors about demolition. Why is the only choice demolition? Why is the default for all the options to demolish Isley?

o Julian: to make best use of land, get higher number of homes.

6. Actions

• Better communication & sharing of all documents (specifically offline through letterboxes) • Residents asked that 3 scenarios go through doors next week (week of 30 March) – Julian

agreed • Resident offers to go through doors next week (week of 30 March) • Timeline to be distributed through doors • Lambeth to go back and review numbers proposed • Metwork to produce alternative scenarios that take the current residents into account more • Next steering group meeting: end of April – to confirm with steering group (possibly 28 April)

with presentation of new improved scenarios • Next steering group meeting needs visuals so that people can see and discuss